Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 6329-6416 [2014-00409]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 79
Monday,
No. 22
February 3, 2014
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New
Residential Masonry Heaters; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6330
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734; FRL–9904–05–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AP93
Standards of Performance for New
Residential Wood Heaters, New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and
Forced-Air Furnaces, and New
Residential Masonry Heaters
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is proposing to
amend the Standards of Performance for
New Residential Wood Heaters and to
add two new subparts: Standards of
Performance for New Residential
Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air
Furnaces and Standards of Performance
for New Residential Masonry Heaters.
This proposal is aimed at achieving
several objectives for new residential
wood heaters and other wood-burning
appliances, including applying updated
emission limits that reflect the current
best systems of emission reduction;
eliminating exemptions over a broad
suite of residential wood combustion
devices; strengthening test methods as
appropriate; and streamlining the
certification process. This proposal does
not include any requirements for heaters
solely fired by gas, oil or coal. In
addition, it does not include any
requirements associated with appliances
that are already in use. The EPA
continues to encourage state, local,
tribal, and consumer efforts to
changeout (replace) older heaters with
newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters,
but that is not part of this federal
rulemaking.
Particulate pollution from wood
heaters is a significant national air
pollution problem and human health
issue. Health benefits associated with
these proposed regulations are valued to
be much greater than the cost to
manufacture cleaner, lower emitting
appliances. These proposed regulations
would significantly reduce particulate
matter (PM) emissions and many other
pollutants from these appliances,
including carbon monoxide (CO),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), and
hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
Emissions from wood stoves occur near
ground level in residential communities
across the country, and setting these
new requirements for cleaner stoves into
the future will result in substantial
reductions in exposure and improved
public health.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
Comments must be received on
or before May 5, 2014. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on
the information collection provisions
are best assured of having full effect if
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before March 5, 2014.
Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a
public hearing on this proposed rule on
February 26, 2014, in Boston,
Massachusetts. The hearing will be at
the following location: EPA New
England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Leighton Hall,
Boston, MA. For directions and public
transportation, visit: https://www.epa.
gov/region1/directions/. Please note that
5 Post Office Square is a federal
building, and proper identification is
required for entry.
The public hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views or arguments
concerning the proposed rule. The EPA
may ask clarifying questions during the
oral presentations, but will not respond
to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information
submitted during the comment period
will be considered with the same weight
as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public
hearing. Written comments must be
postmarked by the last day of the 90-day
comment period.
If you would like to present oral
testimony at the hearing, please register
on-line (preferred method for
registering) at https://www2.epa.gov/
residential-wood-heaters no later than
February 19, 2014, to request a general
time slot for you to speak and any
special equipment. If this method is not
available to you, please notify Mr. David
Cole no later than February 19, 2014, by
email: cole.david@epa.gov); or by
telephone: (919) 541–5565. The EPA
will make every effort to follow the
schedule as closely as possible on the
day of the hearing. The public hearing
will begin each day at 9 a.m. (local time)
and continue into the evening until 7
p.m. (local time). The EPA will make
every effort to accommodate all other
speakers who arrive and register before
7 p.m. (local time) on the day of the
hearing. The EPA is scheduling lunch
breaks from 12:30 until 2 p.m. (local
time).
Testimony will be limited to five (5)
minutes for each commenter to address
the proposal. We will not be providing
equipment for commenters to show
overhead slides or make computerized
slide presentations unless we receive
special requests in advance. The EPA
encourages commenters to provide
written versions of their oral testimonies
DATES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
either electronically on computer disk
or CD–ROM or in paper copy.
The hearing schedule, including lists
of speakers, will be posted on the EPA’s
Web page for the proposal at: https://
www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters
prior to the hearing. Verbatim transcript
of the hearing and written statements
will be included in the rulemaking
docket.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0734, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0734.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0734.
• Mail: United States (U.S.) Postal
Service, send comments to EPA Docket
Center, EPA West (Air Docket),
Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0734, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Please include a
total of two copies. In addition, please
mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 735
17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0734. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI, or otherwise
protected, through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any
form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional
information about the EPA’s public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm. For additional instructions
on submitting comments, go to section
I.D.2 of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: The EPA has established a
docket for this rulemaking under Docket
ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this proposed action,
contact Mr. Gil Wood, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards,
Outreach and Information Division,
Community and Tribal Programs Group
(C304–03), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–5272; fax number:
(919) 541–0242; email address:
wood.gil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
D. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for the EPA?
II. Background
A. What is the NSPS program?
B. Why was the original residential wood
heaters NSPS developed?
C. What are the requirements of the current
1988 NSPS?
D. What are the major developments since
the original NSPS was published?
E. Why is residential wood smoke a
concern?
F. What are the major issues that drove the
review process?
III. Summary of Proposed Residential Wood
Heater Appliance Amendments
A. Room Heaters
B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters and
Forced-Air Furnaces
C. Masonry Heaters
IV. Summary of Environmental, Cost,
Economic, and Non-Air Health and
Energy Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the benefits?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the non-air quality health and
energy impacts?
V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments
A. Why are we proposing to expand the
scope of appliances subject to the NSPS?
B. How did we determine BSER and the
proposed emission standards?
C. How did we establish the proposed
compliance timelines?
D. How are we proposing to streamline the
requirements for certification, quality
assurance and laboratory accreditation?
E. What changes and additions to the
allowed test methods are we proposing?
F. What other changes and additions to the
administrative requirements are we
proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6331
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The purpose of this action is to
propose amendments to the Standards
of Performance for New Residential
Wood Heaters (40 CFR part 60, subpart
AAA) and to add two new subparts:
Standards of Performance for New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and
Forced-Air Furnaces and Standards of
Performance for New Residential
Masonry Heaters (40 CFR part 60,
subparts QQQQ and RRRR). This
proposal was developed following a
Clean Air Act (CAA) section
111(b)(1)(B) periodic review of the
current residential wood heaters new
source performance standards (NSPS).
We concur with numerous stakeholders
that the current body of evidence
justifies revision of the current
residential wood heaters NSPS to
capture the improvements in
performance of such units and to
expand the applicability of this NSPS to
include additional wood-burning
residential heating devices that are in
the market. The proposed changes are
aimed at achieving several objectives,
including applying updated emission
limits that reflect the current best
systems of emission reduction (BSER);
eliminating exemptions over a broad
suite of residential wood combustion
devices; strengthening test methods as
appropriate; and streamlining the
certification process. This proposal does
not include any requirements for heaters
solely fired by gas, oil or coal. In
addition, it does not include any
requirements associated with wood
heaters or other wood-burning
appliances that are already in use. The
EPA continues to encourage state, local,
tribal, and consumer efforts to
changeout (replace) older heaters with
newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters,
but that is not part of this federal
rulemaking.
These revisions will help reduce the
health impacts of fine particle pollution,
of which wood smoke is a contributing
factor in many areas. Residential wood
smoke contains fine particles with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5
micrometers or less (PM2.5), CO, toxic
air pollutants (e.g., benzene and
formaldehyde), and climate-forcing
emissions (e.g., methane and black
carbon). Residential wood smoke can
increase PM2.5 to levels that cause
significant health concerns. Populations
that are at greater risk for experiencing
health effects related to fine particle
exposures include older adults, children
and individuals with pre-existing heart
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6332
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
or lung disease. Each year, smoke from
wood heaters contributes hundreds of
thousands of tons of fine particles
throughout the country—mostly during
the winter months. Nationally,
residential wood combustion accounts
for 44 percent of total stationary and
mobile polycyclic organic matter (POM)
emissions, nearly 25 percent of all area
source air toxics cancer risks and 15
percent of noncancer respiratory
effects.1 Residential wood smoke causes
many counties in the U.S. to either
exceed the EPA’s health-based national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for fine particles or places them on the
cusp of exceeding those standards.2 To
the degree that older, higher emitting,
less efficient wood heaters are replaced
by newer heaters that meet the
requirements of this rule, or better, the
emissions would be reduced, the
efficiencies would be increased and
fewer health impacts should occur.
This action is conducted under the
authority of section 111 of the CAA,
‘‘Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,’’ under which the
EPA establishes federal standards of
performance for new sources within
source categories that cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution,
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
Consistent with section 111(h), if it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce a
standard of performance, the
Administrator may instead promulgate a
design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof, that reflects the best system of
continuous emission reduction, which
(taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and
any non-air quality, health, and
environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately
demonstrated.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of
This Proposed Regulatory Action
In response to the results of the NSPS
review, we are proposing to amend 40
CFR part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of
Performance for New Residential Wood
Heaters. The current regulation applies
to affected appliances manufactured
after 1988. The current emission limits
would remain in effect for the heaters
1 Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood
Smoke. EPA–456/B–13–001, March 2013. Prepared
by Outreach and Information Division, Air Quality
Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. pp. 4–
5.
2 Air Quality and Emissions Data; Supporting
Information for the Residential Wood Heater New
Source Performance Standard, August 14, 2013.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
and model lines manufactured before
the effective date of this rule until their
current EPA certification expires
(maximum of 5 years) or is revoked.
After the certification expires or is
revoked, these heaters and other new
heaters would have to meet updated
emission standards. We propose to
broaden the applicability of the
regulation beyond adjustable burn rate
wood heaters (the focus of the original
regulation), to specifically include all
single burn rate wood heaters/stoves
and pellet heaters/stoves. (Some pellet
heaters/stoves were not affected by the
1988 regulation.) Note that this
preamble uses the following terms
interchangeably: heaters, stoves and
heaters/stoves. Heaters/stoves and
model lines manufactured after the
effective date of the rule would be
required to meet PM standards.
As with the 1988 regulation, the
source category covered by this NSPS is
fundamentally different from the typical
NSPS source category in several ways.
For example, most NSPS source
categories focus on industrial or
commercial facilities, and typically
these heaters are installed and operated
in residences, not industrial or
commercial facilities. Also, residential
wood heaters, hydronic heaters, forcedair furnaces, and most masonry heaters
are mass-produced consumer items,
rather than industrial processes
typically regulated by NSPS. Therefore,
as in 1988, we are proposing that
manufacturers participate in a
certification program that tests a
representative heater per model line
rather than requiring testing each heater.
If the representative heater meets the
applicable emission limits, the entire
model line may be certified and the
manufacturer would not be required to
test every heater. Individual heaters
within the model line would still be
subject to all other requirements,
including labeling and operational
requirements. Manufacturers would be
required to have quality assurance
programs to ensure that all heaters
within the model line conform to the
certified design and meet the applicable
emission limits. The EPA would
continue to have the authority to
conduct audits to ensure compliance.
We ask for comments on all aspects of
this approach, especially whether more
than one representative heater should be
tested prior to certification of the model
line.
The 1988 regulation also addressed
some of the specific characteristics of
this source category by developing a
two-step compliance approach that
provided a reasonable, phased
implementation of emission limits for
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
manufacturers. We believe such an
approach is prudent this time also to
allow manufacturers lead time to
develop, test, field evaluate and certify
current technologies across their
consumer product lines. In 1988, there
were ‘‘logjam’’ concerns about the
capacity of accredited laboratories to
conduct certifications tests and time for
the EPA to review the tests and
adequately assure compliance if all the
NSPS requirements were to be
immediate. Those concerns have been
expressed this time also. Thus, upon the
effective date of this rule, new heaters/
stoves would be required to meet Step
1. Five years later, new heaters/stoves
would be required to meet Step 2. The
rule also would require that each unit be
equipped with a permanent NSPS label.
The two-step approach would apply to
all the heater types addressed in this
rulemaking except for masonry heaters.
For masonry heaters, we are not
proposing a second more stringent
emission limit.
Additional requirements would apply
to entities other than the manufacturer.
The wood heater test laboratory would
be subject to quality assurance
requirements. The rule would continue
to require the proper burn practices that
currently apply to the owner or operator
of a wood heating appliance. In
addition, new pellet heater/stove
owners and operators would be required
to use only the grade of licensed pellet
fuels that are included in the heater/
stove certification tests, or better. We are
proposing to streamline the current
enforcement and audit provisions of the
current subpart to reflect changes in
industry practices and development of
new tools and procedures. We are
proposing improvements to the previous
test methods as well as new test
methods.
We are also proposing new subpart
QQQQ, which would apply to new
wood-fired residential hydronic heaters
and forced-air furnaces, and new
subpart RRRR, which would apply to
new residential masonry heaters. These
new subparts are being proposed to
address the remaining heater appliance
types in the 1987 residential wood
heater source category listing that were
not regulated by the 1988 NSPS. Both
subparts are designed using principles
similar to those in subpart AAA, i.e.,
certification testing of a representative
unit in a model line, label requirements,
associated quality assurance
requirements and phased
implementation. Subpart RRRR has
some additional features to address very
small volume manufacturers, including
a proposed compliance extension and
the ability to use a software certification
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6333
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
approach rather than a laboratory
emission test.
The proposed PM standards for
subparts QQQQ and RRRR would be
implemented in two steps. For subpart
QQQQ, upon the effective date of the
rule, hydronic heaters would be
required to meet a Step 1 PM limit of
0.32 pound per million British thermal
unit (lb/MMBtu) output and forced-air
furnaces would be required to meet a
Step 1 PM limit of 0.93 lb/MMBtu heat
output. Five years after the effective
date of the rule, both hydronic heaters
and forced-air furnaces would be
required to meet a Step 2 PM limit of
0.06 lb/MMBtu heat output. For subpart
RRRR (masonry heaters), upon the
effective date of the rule, large
manufacturers (defined as
manufacturers constructing greater than
or equal to 15 masonry heaters per year)
would be required to meet a PM limit
of 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output. Five
years after the effective date of the rule,
small volume masonry heater
manufacturers (defined as
manufacturers constructing less than 15
masonry heaters per year) would be
required to meet the 0.32 lb/MMBtu
heat output PM limit.
3. Costs and Benefits
Consistent with Executive Order
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ we have estimated
the cost and benefits of the proposed
rule. The estimated net benefits of our
proposed rule at a 3 percent discount
rate are $1.8 billion to $4.1 billion or
$1.7 billion to $3.7 billion at a 7 percent
discount rate. The non-monetized
benefits include 33,000 tons of CO
reductions; 3,200 tons of VOC
reductions; reduced exposure to HAP,
including formaldehyde, benzene, and
POM; reduced climate effects due to
reduced black carbon emissions;
reduced ecosystem effects; and reduced
visibility impairments. Table 1 is a
summary of the results of the analysis
per type of residential wood heater. We
have provided estimates reflecting
average annual impacts for the 2014 to
2022 timeframe, which are the
implementation years for the options
analyzed in the RIA for this proposal.
Monetized benefits are not currently
available for masonry heaters. We ask
for emission and projected sales data
per model that would help us prepare
emission reduction estimates and
corresponding monetized benefits
estimates for masonry heaters.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS, MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND MONETIZED NET BENEFITS (2010 DOLLARS) BY
TYPE OF HEATER IN THE 2014–2022 TIME FRAME FOR THE PROPOSED RULE
Total annualized
costs
($ millions)
Type of heater
Wood stoves ................................................................................................
Single burn rate stoves ................................................................................
Pellet stoves ................................................................................................
Forced-air furnaces ......................................................................................
Masonry heaters ..........................................................................................
Hydronic heating systems ...........................................................................
$4.2
0.9
3.5
2.3
0.3
4.5
Monetized benefits
($ millions) a b
$62 to $140 ...............
$290 to $650 .............
$19 to $43 .................
$1,000 to $2,200 .......
N/A c ..........................
$480 to $1,100 ..........
Monetized net
benefits
($ millions)
$62 to $140.
$290 to $650.
$19 to $43.
$1,000 to $2,200.
N/A.
$480 to $1,100.
a All estimates are for the time frame from 2014 to 2022 inclusive. These results include units anticipated to come online and the lowest cost
disposal assumption. Total annualized costs are estimated at a 7 percent interest rate.
b Total monetized benefits are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include
many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Krewski et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al.
(2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality
because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were
generated using benefit-per-ton estimates, we do not break down the total monetized benefits into specific components.
c The monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not available because we do not have national estimates of the potential emission
reductions.
B. Does this action apply to me?
The potentially regulated sources that
are the subject of this proposal are listed
in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action. This standard, and any
changes considered in this rulemaking,
would be directly applicable to sources
as a federal program. Thus, federal,
state, local and tribal government
entities are not affected by this proposed
action.
TABLE 2—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES
NAICS a Code
Examples of regulated entities
Residential Wood Heating ...
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Category
333414—Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing.
Manufacturers, owners and operators of wood heaters,
pellet heaters/stoves, hydronic heaters, and masonry
heaters.
Manufacturers, owners and operators of forced-air furnaces.
333415—Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing.
238140—Masonry Contractors .......................................
Testing Laboratories ............
a North
541380—Testing Laboratories (except Medical, Veterinary).
Manufacturers, owners, operators and testers of masonry heaters.
Testers of wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves,
hydronic heaters and masonry heaters.
American Industry Classification System.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6334
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
In addition to being available in the
illustrate your concerns and suggest
docket, an electronic copy of this
alternatives.
proposal, following signature by the
• Explain your views as clearly as
EPA Administrator, will be posted at the possible, avoiding the use of profanity
following address: https://
or personal threats or character
www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters. assassination.
• Make sure to submit your
D. What should I consider as I prepare
comments by the comment period
my comments for the EPA?
deadline.
1. Submitting CBI
II. Background
Do not submit information containing
A. What is the NSPS program?
CBI to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Instead,
Under section 111 of the CAA,
clearly mark the part or all of the
‘‘Standards of Performance for New
information that you claim to be CBI
Stationary Sources,’’ the EPA lists
and send or deliver only to the
categories of sources that, in the EPA’s
following address: Roberto Morales,
judgment, cause or contribute
OAQPS Document Control Officer
significantly to air pollution, which may
(C404–02), Office of Air Quality
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
Planning and Standards, U.S.
public health or welfare pursuant to
Environmental Protection Agency,
section 111(b)(1)(A), and then
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
promulgates federal standards of
27711, Attention Docket ID Number
performance for new sources within
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734. For CBI
such categories under section
information on a disk or CD–ROM that
111(b)(1)(B). At the time the EPA
you mail to the EPA, mark the outside
proposes and establishes standards for
of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
certain pollutants for a source category,
identify electronically within the disk or the EPA prepares an analysis of the
CD–ROM the specific information that
potential costs and benefits associated
you claim as CBI. In addition to one
with the NSPS, which includes the
complete version of the comment that
benefits from reductions in pollutants
includes information claimed as CBI,
for which the standards do not set
you must submit a copy of the comment limits. For example, emission
that does not contain the information
reductions associated with the
claimed as CBI for inclusion in the
requirements of this proposed rule will
public docket. If you submit a disk or
generate health benefits by reducing
CD–ROM that does not contain CBI,
emissions of PM2.5, other criteria
mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM pollutants, such as CO, and non-criteria
clearly that it does not contain CBI.
HAP. Consistent with section 111(h), if
Information not marked as CBI will be
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce
included in the public docket and the
a standard of performance, the
EPA’s electronic public docket without
Administrator may instead promulgate a
prior notice. Information marked as CBI design, equipment, work practice, or
will not be disclosed except in
operational standard, or combination
accordance with procedures set forth in thereof, which reflects the best system
40 CFR part 2.
of continuous emission reduction which
(taking into consideration the cost of
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
achieving such emission reduction, and
When submitting comments,
any non-air quality, health, and
remember to:
environmental impact and energy
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
requirements) the Administrator
number and other identifying
determines has been adequately
information (subject heading, Federal
demonstrated. The NSPS do not
Register date and page number).
establish standards of performance for
• Follow directions. Respond to
existing sources. However, numerous
specific questions and organize
states have acted independent of this
comments by a section number.
rule to address new and existing sources
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
as part of state implementation plan
suggest alternatives and substitute
(SIP) measures necessary to ensure
language for your requested changes.
attainment and maintenance of the
• Describe any assumptions and
NAAQS. Several examples are
provide any technical information and/
discussed in section II.E of this
or data that you used.
preamble.
• If you estimate potential costs or
The level of control prescribed by
burdens, explain how you arrived at
section 111 of the CAA historically has
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
been referred to as ‘‘Best Demonstrated
Technology’’ or BDT. To better reflect
that section 111 was amended in 1990
to clarify that ‘‘best systems’’ may or
may not be ‘‘technology,’’ the EPA is
now using the term ‘‘best systems of
emission reduction’’ or BSER. As was
done previously in analyzing BDT, the
EPA uses available information and
considers the emissions reductions and
incremental costs for different systems
available at reasonable cost. The
residential wood heaters source category
is different from most NSPS source
categories in that it is for mass-produced
residential consumer products. Thus,
important elements in determining that
BSER include the significant costs and
environmental impacts of delaying
production while models with those
systems are being designed, tested, field
evaluated and certified. As noted earlier
and discussed more fully later in this
preamble, the 2-step approach that the
EPA is proposing considers these
factors. That is, for this rulemaking, the
EPA has determined the appropriate
emission limits and compliance
deadlines that together are
representative of BSER. Details of the
BSER determinations are included in
section V.B. of this preamble.
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires the EPA to periodically (every
8 years) review an NSPS unless it
determines ‘‘that such review is not
appropriate in light of readily available
information on the efficacy of such
standard.’’ If needed, the EPA must
revise the standards of performance to
reflect improvements in methods for
reducing emissions, including
consideration of what emissions
limitation is achieved in practice.
Numerous stakeholders have suggested
that the current body of evidence
justifies the revision of the current
residential wood heaters NSPS to
capture the improvements in
performance of such units and to
expand the applicability of this NSPS to
include additional residential woodburning heating devices that are
available today. The states of New York,
Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, as
well as the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency, have filed in U.S. District Court
in Washington, DC, to ask the court to
order the EPA to promptly review,
propose and adopt necessary updates to
the NSPS for residential wood heaters.
Likewise, the American Lung
Association, the Environmental Defense
Fund, the Clean Air Council, and
Environment and Human Health, Inc.,
have filed a similar request. Also, some
stakeholders have suggested that the
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
EPA develop additional NSPS to
regulate residential heating devices that
burn fuels other than or in addition to
wood, e.g., coal, corn or grass. This
proposal does not include any
requirements for heaters that solely burn
fuels other than wood.
B. Why was the original residential
wood heaters NSPS developed?
The development of the residential
wood heater regulations began in the
mid-1980s in response to the growing
concern that wood smoke contributes to
ambient air quality-related health
problems. Several state and local
governments developed their own
regulations for wood heaters. Then, in
response to a lawsuit filed by New York
State and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), the EPA agreed to
initiate a residential wood heaters NSPS
rulemaking, with a schedule calling for
final action by January 31, 1988. The
original standard was developed using a
regulatory negotiation process with the
key stakeholders (the wood heating
industry, state governments, and
environmental and consumer groups)
under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA).
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(A),
the EPA listed the residential wood
heater source category based on its
determination that residential wood
heaters cause, or contribute significantly
to, air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare (52 FR 5065, February 18,
1987). The EPA also proposed
regulations for residential wood heaters
(52 FR 4994, February 18, 1987). The
final standards were published on
February 26, 1988 (53 FR 5860). At the
time the original NSPS was proposed,
the EPA estimated that a typical preNSPS conventional wood heater emits
about 60 to 70 g/hr of PM and that a
wood heater complying with the NSPS
would emit 75 to 86 percent less than
conventional wood heaters.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What are the requirements of the
current 1988 NSPS?
The current subpart AAA defines a
wood heater as an enclosed, woodburning appliance capable of and
intended for space heating or domestic
water heating that meets all of the
following criteria:
1. An air-to-fuel ratio (ratio of the
mass of combustion air introduced into
the firebox to the mass of dry fuel
consumed) in the combustion chamber
averaging less than 35-to-1 as
determined by the test procedure
prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534 performed
at an accredited laboratory;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
2. A usable firebox volume of less
than 0.57 cubic meters (20 cubic feet);
3. A minimum burn rate (weight of
dry test fuel consumed per hour) of less
than 5 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (11
pounds per hour (lb/hr)) as determined
by the test procedure prescribed in 40
CFR 60.534 performed at an accredited
laboratory; and
4. A maximum weight of 800 kg
(1,760 lb), excluding fixtures and
devices that are normally sold
separately, such as flue pipe, chimney,
and masonry components that are not
an integral part of the appliance or heat
distribution ducting.
In the 1988 rulemaking, the EPA
identified several types of residential
wood combustion appliances that are
not subject to the current 1988 NSPS:
• Open masonry fireplaces
constructed on site
• Boilers/Heaters
• Furnaces
• Cook Stoves
In addition, the current 1988 NSPS
exempts the following from the
emission limits:
• Wood heaters used solely for
research and development (R&D)
purposes
• Wood heaters manufactured for
export
• Coal-only heaters
As noted earlier, because of the
specific characteristics of this source
category (e.g., it applies to massproduced residential consumer items),
the residential wood heaters NSPS (also
sometimes informally referred to as the
wood stove NSPS) allows compliance
for model lines to be certified ‘‘pre-sale’’
by the manufacturers. A typical NSPS
source category approach that imposes
emission standards and then requires a
unit-specific compliance demonstration
would have been very costly and
impractical. Therefore, the 1988 NSPS
was designed to allow manufacturers of
wood heaters to use a certification
program to test representative wood
heaters on a model line basis. Once a
model line is certified, all of the
individual units within the model line
are subject to labeling, operational and
other requirements. Manufacturers are
then required to conduct a quality
assurance program to ensure that
appliances produced within a model
line conform to the certified design and
meet the applicable emission limits.
There are also provisions for the EPA to
conduct audits to ensure compliance.
As discussed in the 1988 rulemaking,
the standards limiting PM emissions
from wood heaters in the current 1988
NSPS were phased in for this source
category because of the need to consider
the costs of delayed production while
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6335
new models were being developed and
certified. Advanced technology heaters/
stoves including both catalytic and
noncatalytic systems were considered to
be BDT (now called BSER), because the
net emissions of both systems over time
were estimated to be similar (even
though the initial certification test
results were lower for catalytic models)
due to possible degradation and lack of
catalyst replacement. The EPA
considered requiring catalyst
replacement on a regular schedule but
determined that enforcement of such a
requirement would be difficult or
impractical. The EPA did require
manufacturers to provide 2-year
unconditional warranties on the
catalysts and prohibited the operation of
catalytic heaters/stoves without a
catalyst. Principally because of these
concerns, the EPA wanted to ensure that
both catalytic and noncatalytic
technology would continue to be
options for manufacturers to use and
further develop. The Subpart AAA
Phase I standards issued in 1988 were
very similar to the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality standards that
had been in existence for a few years.
The Subpart AAA Phase II standards,
issued in 1988 and which are still in
effect, are more stringent and had to be
met within 2 years of publication of the
final rule, i.e., by 1990. Models
equipped with a catalytic combustor
cannot emit more than a weighted
average of 4.1 g of PM per hour. Models
that are not equipped with a catalytic
combustor cannot emit more than a
weighted average of 7.5 g of PM per
hour. The lower initial emission limit
for the catalytic combustor-equipped
models incorporates an expected
deterioration rate for the catalysts such
that after 5 years the emissions from
those models were expected to be
similar to the emissions from
noncatalytic models.
D. What are the major developments
since the original NSPS was published?
New systems for residential wood
heating devices are commercially
available in the U.S. that perform at
significantly lower g/hr emission rates
than required under the current 1988
NSPS. Furthermore, even greater
performance potentially can be achieved
by greater deployment of the best U.S.
systems and the typical systems already
widely employed in Europe, especially
for outdoor and indoor hydronic
heaters. The EPA has conducted a
research project ‘‘Environmental
Characterization of Outdoor Wood-fired
Hydronic Heaters’’ through a
cooperative R&D agreement with the
New York State Energy Research and
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6336
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Development Authority (NYSERDA)
that evaluated four types of technology
ranging from a common outdoor wood
boiler/heater to a state-of-the-art, highefficiency pellet boiler/heater from
Austria. The study showed considerable
emission reduction due to a 2-stage
combustion technology that includes
gasification of the fuel and more
complete combustion.3
Many stakeholders have expressed
concern to the EPA about a broad range
of residential wood heating appliances
that do not have emission standards in
the current 1988 NSPS. These include
single burn rate wood heaters; pellet
heaters/stoves that are not subject to the
current standard via the NSPS air-tofuel ratio; wood ‘‘boilers’’ (hydronic
heaters); forced-air furnaces; and
masonry heaters. Some stakeholders
have also expressed an interest in
regulating non-‘‘heater’’ devices, such as
indoor and outdoor fireplaces, fire pits,
cook stoves and pizza ovens.
One category of wood heating
appliances that has undergone
significant growth is wood heaters/
boilers or ‘‘hydronic heaters.’’ (Note that
these units are technically called heaters
rather than boilers because many are not
pressurized and do not boil the liquid.)
Hydronic heaters are typically located
outside the buildings they heat in small
sheds with short smokestacks. These
appliances burn wood to heat a liquid
(water or a water-antifreeze mixture)
that is piped to provide heat and hot
water to occupied buildings, such as
homes. Often, in addition to supplying
heat for homes, the same unit is used to
provide heat for barns and greenhouses
and to provide warm water for
swimming pools. Hydronic heaters may
also be located indoors and may use
other biomass (such as corn or wood
pellets) or coal or a combination for
fuel.
Studies have shown that PM2.5
concentrations in proximity to a typical
outdoor hydronic heater (aka outdoor
wood boiler) can exceed the 24-hour
NAAQS.4 Thus, the EPA developed a
hydronic heater voluntary partnership
program in order to encourage
manufacturers to reduce impacts on air
quality and health through developing
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3 Environmental,
Energy Market, And Health
Characterization Of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater
Technologies. Prepared by U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development, et al., prepared for
NYSERDA. June 2012.
4 For more information on wood smoke health
effects, see: ‘‘Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor
Wood Boilers in New York State,’’ prepared by
Judith Schrieber, Ph.D., et al., for the Office of the
Attorney General of New York. August 2005. See
also: ‘‘Assessment of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers,’’
prepared by NESCAUM, March 2006 (revised June
2006).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
and distributing cleaner hydronic
heaters for those locations where local
jurisdictions allow hydronic heaters. We
developed the voluntary partnership
program with the goal of bringing
cleaner models to market faster than the
traditional federal regulatory process.
Properly operated Phase 1 5 emission
level (0.60 lb/MMBtu heat input)
qualifying 6 units are approximately 70
percent cleaner than typical unqualified
units. After March 31, 2010, units that
only meet the Phase 1 emission level are
no longer considered ‘‘qualified
models’’ under the voluntary
partnership program. Properly operated
Phase 2 emission level (0.32 lb/MMBtu
heat output) qualifying units are
estimated to be approximately 90
percent cleaner than typical unqualified
units. Typically, qualified models have
improved insulation, secondary
combustion, separation of the firebox
from the water jacket, and the addition
of improved heat exchangers.
In addition to the voluntary
partnership program, the EPA provided
technical and financial support for the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management (NESCAUM) to
develop a model rule that several states
have adopted to regulate hydronic
heaters. The model rule is a starting
point for local regulatory authorities to
consider, and additional actions may be
needed due to site-specific concerns,
e.g., local terrain, meteorology,
proximity of neighbors and other
exposed individuals. Thus, some
regulatory authorities have instituted
additional requirements, such as limits
on proximity to neighbors, limits on
visible emissions and limits on use in
non-heating seasons. Some authorities
have banned hydronic heaters entirely
in some areas.
The EPA also developed a similar
voluntary partnership program for low
mass fireplaces (engineered, prefabricated fireplaces) and site-built
masonry fireplaces. Fireplaces were not
included in the 1988 NSPS for
residential wood heaters because typical
fireplaces are not considered to be
effective ‘‘heaters.’’ Most of the heat
content from the wood burned in a
5 ‘‘Phase 1’’ and ‘‘Phase 2’’ emission levels refer
to levels established in EPA voluntary partnership
programs. The earlier use of the term ‘‘Phase II’’
(with a Roman numeral) standard refers to
standards established in the current subpart AAA
for residential wood heaters.
6 The terms ‘‘qualified’’ and ‘‘unqualified,’’ or
other similar terms, refer to models that meet or
have not been shown to meet the voluntary
partnership program performance levels. Later use
of the terms ‘‘certified’’ and ‘‘uncertified,’’ or other
similar terms, refers to models that are deemed to
be in compliance or noncompliance with the NSPS
emission limits.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
typical fireplace is lost out the chimney
rather than heating a room. The
voluntary program began in February
2009, and pertained only to low mass
fireplaces at that time. In July 2009, the
program was expanded to masonry
fireplaces. Under this program, cleaner
burning fireplaces are ones that qualify
for the Phase 1 emissions level of 7.3
grams of particles emitted per kilogram
(g/kg) of fuel burned (approximately 57
percent cleaner than unqualified
models) or the Phase 2 emissions level
of 5.1 g/kg (approximately 70 percent
cleaner than unqualified models). So
far, 36 models (of hundreds of models
on the market) have qualified under this
voluntary partnership program at the
Phase 2 level. Typically, qualified
models have improved insulation and
added secondary combustion and/or a
catalyst to reduce emissions. Some
manufacturers have added doors to
reduce the excess air and thus improve
combustion. The Phase 2 emission level
in the voluntary fireplace program has
been considered as a starting point for
some local regulatory authorities, and
additional actions have also been
considered due to site-specific concerns,
e.g., local terrain, meteorology,
proximity of neighbors and other
exposed individuals, and magnitude of
other emissions in the airshed. Thus,
some regulatory authorities have
instituted additional requirements (e.g.,
‘‘no burn’’ days on which the fireplaces
cannot be operated) and some have
banned new wood-burning fireplaces in
some areas.
The current 1988 NSPS in subpart
AAA have been in effect for over 25
years and manufacturers and test
laboratories have gained considerable
experience in complying with the
requirements of the program. As a
result, many manufacturers and test
laboratories have suggested changes to
the certification process to better
implement the program, such as
developing an electronic system for
submittals and approval. Many
manufacturers and test laboratories have
also questioned the effectiveness of
some of the current audit procedures. In
addition, they have participated in the
development of new test methods and
test method improvements as part of the
efforts of ASTM International (formerly
known as the American Society of
Testing and Materials). The 1988 NSPS
left a placeholder for development of an
efficiency test method for use in subpart
AAA. On June 1, 2007, the EPA
approved the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) stack loss method in
B415 as an alternative for wood heater
efficiency testing in subpart AAA
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
provided that the tests use the same
burn rate categories specified in the EPA
Reference Method 28. We are now
proposing that the current version of
this method be used for efficiency
testing (CSA B415.1–10). We are also
proposing EPA Method 28 WHH (woodfired hydronic heaters) that has been
used for qualification testing of
hydronic heaters in the EPA voluntary
partnership program and numerous
state regulations. Other issues that have
been identified over the years regarding
test methods and emissions calculations
include emissions averaging, burn rate
weightings, hot start versus cold start,
emission caps per burn rate, and
catalyst degradation. Another issue is
whether to change current requirements
to conduct certification tests with ‘‘crib’’
wood to ‘‘cord’’ wood. ‘‘Crib wood’’ is
a specified configuration and quality of
dimensional lumber and spacers, which
was intended to improve the
repeatability of the test method in 1988.
‘‘Cord wood’’ is a different specified
configuration and quality of wood that
more closely resembles what a typical
homeowner would use. We address all
these issues as part of this proposal.
E. Why is residential wood smoke a
concern?
1. Health and air quality concerns.
There is increasing recognition of the
health impacts of particle pollution, to
which wood smoke is a contributing
factor in many areas. Wood smoke
contains a mixture of gases and fine
particles that can cause immediate
effects, including burning eyes, runny
nose and bronchitis. Exposure to fine
particles has been associated with a
range of health effects, including
aggravation of heart or respiratory
problems (as indicated by increased
hospital admissions and emergency
department visits), changes in lung
function and increased respiratory
symptoms, as well as premature death.
Populations at greater risk for
experiencing health effects related to
fine particle exposures include older
adults, children and individuals with
pre-existing heart or lung disease.7
Residential wood smoke contains fine
particles and toxic air pollutants (e.g.,
benzene and formaldehyde). Each year,
smoke from wood heaters contributes
hundreds of thousands of tons of fine
particles throughout the country—
mostly during the winter months.
Nationally, residential wood
combustion accounts for 44 percent of
total stationary and mobile POM
emissions, nearly 25 percent of all area
7 EPA Burn Wise (Consumer—Health Effects),
https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/healtheffects.html.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
source air toxics cancer risks, and 15
percent of noncancer respiratory
effects.8
In a number of communities,
residential wood smoke increases
particle pollution to levels that cause
significant health concerns. Several
areas with wood smoke problems either
exceed the EPA’s health-based NAAQS
for fine particles or are on the cusp of
exceeding those standards. For example,
in places such as Keene, New
Hampshire; Sacramento, California;
Tacoma, Washington; and Fairbanks,
Alaska; wood combustion can
contribute over 50 percent of daily
wintertime fine particle emissions.9
In December 2012, the EPA issued
revised NAAQS for PM to provide
increased protection of public health
and welfare. The 2012 NAAQS for PM
strengthened the annual NAAQS for
fine particles to 12 micrograms per
cubic meter (mg/m3) from the 1997
standard of 15 mg/m3 and retained the
existing 24-hour fine particle standard
of 35 mg/m3 issued in 2006. The 2012
NAAQS for PM also retains the current
24-hour PM10 standards for health and
environmental effects at a level of 150
mg/m3 to continue to provide protection
against effects associated with exposure
to thoracic coarse particles. Areas that
do not meet the standards must take
steps to reduce PM emissions. The
National Association of Clean Air
Agencies (NACAA), the Environmental
Council of States (ECOS), NESCAUM,
the Western States Air Resources
Council (WESTAR), and the Lake
Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO) have argued that more
stringent standards for new wood
heating devices would provide a much
needed tool for states and local
communities to use in addressing the
growth of pollution from these
sources.10 11 Recent health studies
considered in the review of the PM
NAAQS confirm the impacts on public
health. The latest information on the PM
NAAQS reviews is at https://
www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.
8 Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood
Smoke. EPA–456/B–13–001, March 2013. Prepared
by Outreach and Information Division, Air Quality
Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. pp. 4–
5.
9 Memorandum dated April 4, 2013, from David
Cole, EPA, to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0734.
10 Arthur Marin, Executive Director of NESCAUM
and Dan Johnson, Executive Director of WESTAR,
to Steve Page, Director OAQPS/EPA. April 28, 2008.
11 Arthur Marin, Executive Director of
NESCAUM, to Gina McCarthy, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation/EPA. January
14, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6337
There is also concern about the health
effects of other pollutants found in
wood smoke. In addition to PM, wood
smoke contains harmful chemical
substances such as CO, formaldehyde
and other organic gases, and nitrogen
oxides (NOX).
Health effects from CO include:
• Interference with the blood’s ability
to carry oxygen to the brain, which
impairs thinking and reflexes
• Heart pain
• Lower birth weights and increased
deaths in newborns
• Death
Health effects from formaldehyde and
other organic gases include:
• Irritation of eyes, nose, and throat
• Inflammation of mucous
membranes, irritation of the throat and
sinuses
• Interference with lung function
• Allergic reactions
• Nose and throat cancer in animals
and cancer in humans
Nitrogen oxide can irritate the eyes
and respiratory system, may damage the
immune system by impairing the body’s
ability to fight respiratory infection and
can affect lung function.12
Residential wood combustion
emissions contain potentially
carcinogenic compounds including
formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, and
dioxin, which are toxic air pollutants,
but their effects on human health via
exposure to wood smoke have not been
studied as extensively.13
2. Concerns about existing sources.
Many areas of the country are struggling
with reducing PM emissions due to
residential wood smoke from existing
wood-burning appliances. Existing
wood heaters will not be affected by this
rule. In addition, due to the long life
span of wood-burning appliances and
slow turnover, it may be many years
before the full benefits of these
regulations on new appliances will be
shown. However, there are strategies to
reduce wood smoke that states, counties
and townships can take to reduce wood
smoke independent of this rule.14 Some
states have direct legislative authority,
and all states have authority to address
new and existing sources as SIP
measures necessary to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. For examples, the State of
12 Department of Ecology, State of Washington,
Brochure on Wood Smoke and Your Health.
September 2008, https://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/
91br023.pdf.
13 EPA Burn Wise (Health Effects of Breathing
Wood Smoke), https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/
woodsmoke_health_effects_jan07.pdf.
14 ‘‘Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood
Smoke,’’ EPA–456/B–13–001. March 2013.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6338
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Oregon, Washoe County (NV), and
Township of Mammoth Lakes (CA) have
required that, when a home is sold,
existing wood heaters that have not
been certified to meet the NSPS be
removed and destroyed and not resold.
As additional SIP strategies, some states
and local authorities have banned wood
burning during certain high PM events,
restricted the amount of burning, and
regulated the type of materials being
burned. Non-regulatory programs, such
as education programs to teach the
public how to use their wood-burning
appliances in ways that minimize
emissions, have also been implemented.
The EPA has also implemented
programs that encourage good burning
practices, which can have a significant
impact on emissions. The EPA, some
state and local agencies, and other
stakeholders, including the Hearth,
Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA),
have been active in promoting wood
heater/stove changeout programs to
replace older, higher-emitting heaters/
stoves with lower-emitting EPAcertified heaters/stoves, pellet heaters/
stoves, or other cleaner burning
appliances.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. What are the major issues that drove
the review process?
We received several requests to
conduct a review of the residential
wood heaters NSPS, including a joint
letter from WESTAR and NESCAUM
that urged us to update and develop
regulations relating to a variety of wood
combustion devices. The authors cited
concerns that many communities are
measuring ambient conditions above or
very close to the PM2.5 NAAQS and that,
in many instances, emissions from
wood smoke are a large contributor to
those high PM2.5 levels. In addition,
wood heater technology has greatly
improved since the last revision of the
NSPS. The standards we are proposing
today recognize the cleaner, more
efficient technologies developed in
recent years. Other states,
environmental groups, and HPBA have
also recommended several changes to
the NSPS. The HPBA Outdoor Woodfired Hydronic Heater (OWHH)
Manufacturers Caucus wrote the EPA to
express their unanimous support for the
EPA to develop a federal regulation for
OWHH.15
Specific requests from stakeholders
include:
• Tightening emission standards
based on current performance data
15 HPBA OWHH Caucus letter to Greg Green,
Director, Outreach and Information Division, EPA.
September 27, 2007.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
• Addressing other pollutants of
concern
• Reviewing the format of the
standards, including adding
requirements to document the tested
efficiency of the unit
• Reevaluating exemptions, such as
those based on air-to-fuel ratios and size
and weight
• Adding other wood heating devices
such as pellet heaters/stoves, hydronic
heaters, and masonry heaters to the
NSPS
• Regulating fireplaces and other
‘‘non-heater’’ devices (e.g., cook stoves)
• Regulating heating devices that
burn fuel other than wood (e.g., other
solid biomass and coal)
• Updating test methods
• Streamlining the certification
process to use electronic data
submittals/reviews
• Considering use of International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)accredited labs and ISO-accredited
certifying bodies
• Improving compliance assurance/
enforceability and quality assurance/
quality control
• Making the rule more consumer
friendly by making more information
readily available on-line
III. Summary of Proposed Residential
Wood Heater Appliance Amendments
We are proposing to amend 40 CFR
part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of
Performance for New Residential Wood
Heaters. We are also proposing two new
subparts to address additional types of
residential wood heating appliances.
Specifically, we are proposing subpart
QQQQ, Standards of Performance for
New Residential Hydronic Heaters and
Forced-Air Furnaces, and subpart RRRR,
Standards of Performance for New
Residential Masonry Heaters. The
following sections describe the major
provisions of each subpart. This
proposal does not include any
requirements that would apply to
heaters that are fueled solely by gas, oil
or coal. In addition, this proposal does
not include any requirements associated
with wood heaters or other woodburning appliances that are already in
use. The EPA continues to encourage
state, local, tribal, and consumer efforts
to changeout (replace) older heaters
with newer, cleaner, more efficient
heaters, but that is not part of this
federal rulemaking.
A. Room Heaters
The current 1988 regulation (subpart
AAA) applies to affected appliances
manufactured since 1988. The current
emission limits would remain in effect
for the heaters and model lines
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
manufactured before the effective date
of this rule until their current EPA
certification expires (maximum of 5
years) or is revoked. After the
certification expires or is revoked, these
heaters and other new heaters would
have to meet updated emission
standards. We propose to broaden the
applicability of the wood heaters
regulation beyond adjustable burn rate
wood heaters (the focus of the original
regulation) to specifically also include
single burn rate wood heaters/stoves,
pellet heaters/stoves, and any other
affected appliance as defined in the
proposed subpart AAA as a ‘‘room
heater.’’ The proposed subpart AAA
does not apply to new residential
hydronic heaters, new residential
forced-air furnaces and new residential
masonry heaters because they would be
subject to their own subparts. Like the
1988 current subpart AAA, the
proposed subpart AAA does not apply
to fireplaces. This proposal tightens the
definition for ‘‘cook stoves’’ and adds
definitions for ‘‘camp stoves’’ and
‘‘traditional Native American bake
ovens’’ to clarify that they would not be
subject to the standard other than
appropriate labeling for cook stoves and
camp stoves. Finally, the proposed
subpart AAA clarifies that the emission
limits would only apply to woodburning devices (i.e., not to devices that
only burn fuels other than wood, e.g.,
gas, oil or coal).
As discussed in section II, NSPS
determinations of BSER must consider
costs. The fact that this source category
is for consumer products manufactured
for residential sale results in cost
considerations that are different from
those for industrial process source
categories that are typical for most
NSPS. Specifically, if production and
sales were to be suspended while
designing, testing, field evaluating and
certifying cleaner models, the cost of
potential lost revenues would be
significant, which necessitates
reasonable lead times for compliance
with proposed emission limitations.
This was true in 1988, and is still true
today. Thus, we propose to allow a
transition period so that heaters/stoves
with EPA certification currently in
effect can continue to be manufactured
and sold until the current certification
expires (5 years from date of
certification) or is revoked by the
Administrator, whichever date is earlier.
We would not allow renewal of these
certifications. That is, in the near term,
we are proposing to retain the current
Phase II PM emission limits (issued in
the current 1988 standards for
compliance in 1990) for adjustable burn
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/
stoves with a current EPA certification
issued prior to the effective date of this
rule. While our top priorities are to
ensure that emission reductions occur
in a timely manner and that there is no
backsliding from the improvements that
many manufacturers have already made,
it is also important to avoid
unreasonable economic impacts on
those manufacturers (mostly small
businesses) who need additional time to
develop a full range of cleaner models.
The compliance schedule should also
help avoid potential ‘‘logjams’’ at
laboratories conducting certification
testing. We ask for specific comments
on the length of this proposed transition
and the degree to which there would be
any critical economic impacts on
manufacturers who have heaters with
current certifications if we were to not
allow up to the full 5-year certification
period for units manufactured after the
effective date of the final rule. We also
ask for specific comments on allowing
grandfathering of Step 1 models that are
tested in good faith according to the
proposed test methods and the proposed
emission limits, even though the final
test methods may differ from this
proposal, and if so, for how long.
We are proposing a two-step
compliance approach (referred to herein
as the ‘‘Proposed Approach’’) that
would apply to all new adjustable burn
rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood
heaters and pellet heaters/stoves. Under
this Proposed Approach, the Proposed
Step 1 emission limits for these sources
would apply to each source (a)
manufactured on or after the effective
date of the final rule or (b) sold at retail
on or after the date 6 months from the
effective date of the final rule. Proposed
Step 2 emission limits for these sources
would apply to each adjustable rate
wood heater, single burn rate wood
heater and pellet heater/stove
manufactured or sold on or after the
date 5 years after the effective date of
the final rule. We ask for specific
comments on the Proposed Approach
and the degree to which these dates
could be sooner.
We are also asking for comments on
a three-step compliance approach
(referred to herein as the ‘‘Alternative
Approach’’) for all adjustable rate wood
heaters, single burn rate wood heaters
and pellet heaters/stoves. Under this
Alternative Approach, the Alternative
Step 1 emission limits would apply to
each source: (a) manufactured on or
after the effective date of the final rule,
or (b) sold at retail on or after the date
6 months from the effective date of the
final rule. (Step 1 under the Alternative
6339
Approach is the same as Step 1 under
the Proposed Approach.) The
Alternative Step 2 emission limits
would apply to each source
manufactured or sold on or after the
date 3 years after the effective date of
the final rule. The Alternative Step 3
emission limits would apply to each
source manufactured or sold on or after
the date 8 years following the effective
date of the final rule (thus providing 5
years between the Alternative Step 2
and Alternative Step 3). We ask for
specific comments on this Alternative
Approach, including data and potential
environmental and economic impacts
on this alternative, and the degree to
which the Alternative Approach
emission levels and dates could be
considered BSER. Our current
preference is the Proposed Approach,
but we intend to finalize a single
compliance approach after fully
considering the comments received
during the public comment period on
this proposed rulemaking.
Table 3 summarizes the PM emissions
standards that would apply to each
wood heater appliance under this
Proposed Approach at each step. Table
4 summarizes the PM emissions
standards that would apply to each
wood heater appliance under each step
of the Alternative Approach.
TABLE 3—PROPOSED APPROACH SUBPART AAA PM EMISSIONS LIMITS
Appliance
Phases/steps
PM emissions limit
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/
Stoves 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).
Step 1: upon the effective date of final rule ...........
Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final
rule.
4.1 g/hr for catalytic heaters/stoves
and 7.5 g/hr for noncatalytic heaters/stoves.
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters, Single
Burn Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/
Stoves (includes currently certified heaters after
the certification expires, catalytic and noncatalytic).
4.5 g/hr.
1.3 g/hr.
TABLE 4—ALTERNATIVE APPROACH SUBPART AAA PM EMISSIONS LIMITS
Phases/steps
PM emissions limit
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/
Stoves with Current EPA Certification Issued
Prior to the effective date of Final Rule.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Appliance
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).
Step 1: upon the effective date of final rule ...........
Step 2: 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule.
Step 3: 8 years after the effective date of the final
rule.
4.1 g/hr for catalytic heaters/stoves
and 7.5 g/hr for noncatalytic heaters/stoves.
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters, Single
Burn Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/
Stoves (includes currently certified heaters after
the certification expires, catalytic and noncatalytic).
Although the 1988 promulgated
subpart AAA (53 FR 5860, February 26,
1988) included an additional 1-year
compliance extension for low-volume
manufacturers, i.e., companies that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
manufacture (or export to the U.S.)
fewer than 2,000 heaters per year, this
proposal does not include a similar
compliance extension. We are not
proposing a delay for adjustable burn
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4.5 g/hr.
2.5 g/hr.
1.3 g/hr.
rate wood heaters or pellet heaters/
stoves because the majority of these
appliances already comply with the
proposed Step 1 emission levels. See
section V.C. of this preamble for more
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6340
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
discussion of this topic. However, we
are requesting comments on the possible
need for such a compliance extension
for single burn rate wood heaters, which
are not subject to the current subpart
AAA requirements.
We are proposing to make a single
determination of BSER for both catalytic
and noncatalytic heater systems. The
EPA considered requiring catalyst
replacement on a regular schedule but
determined that federal enforcement of
such a requirement would be difficult.
As in the current 1988 rule, we are
proposing to require manufacturers to
provide warranties on the catalysts and
prohibit the operation of catalytic
heaters/stoves without a catalyst. In
addition, we are proposing to require
warranties for noncatalytic heaters/
stoves. Though we are not proposing
efficiency standards at this time, we are
proposing to require testing and
reporting of these data; however, we are
requesting specific comment on the
need to propose efficiency standards
and any data to support the basis for
these standards.
We are also proposing to require
emission testing and reporting based on
both crib wood and cord wood for the
proposed Step 1 compliance, and
allowing manufacturers to choose
whether to certify with crib wood or
cord wood for the proposed Step 1 upon
the effective date of the final rule. For
the proposed Step 2 compliance 5 years
after the effective date of the final rule,
we would require certifying with cord
wood only. As discussed earlier in this
preamble, ‘‘crib wood’’ is a specified
configuration and quality of
dimensional lumber and spacers that
was intended to improve the
repeatability of the test method in 1988.
‘‘Cord wood’’ is a different specified
configuration and quality of wood that
more closely resembles what a typical
homeowner would use. We ask for
comments and test data to compare
heater performance with crib wood and
cord wood.
Although we lack sufficient data to
propose a separate CO emissions
standard at this time, we propose to
require that the manufacturer determine
CO emissions during the compliance
test and report those results to the EPA.
We specifically request emission and
cost data for systems that reduce CO
emissions. If those systems warrant
inclusion in the final rule, we would
consider doing so. In addition, we ask
for specific comments on whether the
final rule should explicitly require
indoor CO monitors as a critical safety
component for heaters installed in
occupied buildings or other buildings or
enclosures in which the operator would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
enter to add fuel to the heater or
conduct other normal operation and
maintenance of the heater. Numerous
stakeholders have indicated that an
explicit requirement is needed.
Like the current 1988 subpart, the
EPA is using its authority under section
114 of the CAA to require each
manufacturer to submit certifications of
compliance with this rule for all models
and all units. As in the 1988 rule,
provided that the certifications are
timely, complete, and accurate, the EPA
is proposing to allow certification to be
determined based on testing of a
representative unit within the model
line. As in 1988, the cost of testing each
unit would be an order of magnitude
greater than the cost of a wood heater/
stove and would be economically
prohibitive. In addition, as in 1988, the
testing of each unit could create a
potential ‘‘logjam’’ that would stymie
the certification of cleaner model lines.
However, as discussed earlier, we are
asking for specific comments on
whether we should require testing of
more than one representative unit prior
to certification of a model line. The
proposed subpart revises the definition
of ‘‘Accredited Test Laboratory,’’ from
only EPA-accredited laboratories to
laboratories approved by the EPA after
being accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting body to perform
testing for each of the test methods
specified in this NSPS under ISO–IEC 16
Standard 17025, to conduct the
certification testing. The laboratories
would have to register their credentials
with the EPA and be approved by the
EPA prior to conducting any
certification testing or related work used
as a basis for compliance with this rule.
Also, they would be required to report
any changes in their accreditation and
any deficiencies found under ISO
17025, and the EPA may revoke the
approval if appropriate. Our proposal is
this laboratory definition revision be
effective upon the effective date of the
final rule. However, we request specific
comments on whether we should allow
a transition period.
The proposal would require a
‘‘Certifying-Body-Based Certification
Process,’’ upon the effective date of the
final rule. Under this process, after
testing is complete, a certification of
conformity with the PM emissions
standards must be issued by a certifying
body with whom the manufacturer has
entered into contract for certification
services. The certification body would
16 The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) prepare and
publish international standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
have to be accredited under ISO–IEC
Standard 17065 and register their
credentials with the EPA and receive
EPA approval prior to conducting any
certifications or related work used as a
basis for compliance with this rule and
report any changes in their accreditation
and any deficiencies found under ISO
17065. We believe any certifying body
that is approved by the EPA and is ISOaccredited should be expected to act in
such a way that will not create a conflict
of interest. The EPA would oversee the
certification body’s work and retain the
right to revoke the approval if
appropriate. Upon review of the test
report and quality control plan
submitted by the manufacturer, the
certifying body may certify compliance
and submit the required documentation
to the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance for review,
approval and listing of the certified
appliance. Our preference is to require
the new expanded certification process
(i.e., inclusion of ISO-accredited and
EPA-approved certifying bodies) for
certifications that occur after the
effective date of the final rule. However,
we request specific comments on
whether we should allow a transition
period; that is, whether we should
retain the current ‘‘Administrator
Approval Process’’ to review the
certification application, including test
results, for the first year following the
effective date of the final rule. Note that
models certified prior to the effective
date of the final rule would not have to
be re-tested until the certification
expires or is revoked.
As in the current 1988 NSPS, each
affected unit would be required to have
an applicable permanent label and have
an owner’s manual that contains
specified information. We are proposing
that permanent labels would be required
for each affected unit on the effective
date of the final rule. We propose to
clarify that the permanent label must be
installed so that it is readily visible both
before and after the unit is installed.
This clarification is needed to document
the use of complying heaters that may
be required by state and local rules and/
or to determine the unit’s applicability
to any future changeout programs. We
also request specific comments on how
to best assure that manufacturers and
retailers and online marketers of wood
heaters only use valid certification test
data and not exaggerated claims.
In the current (1988) NSPS, temporary
labels (aka, hangtags) were required for
wood heaters that are subject to the
standards and also for ones that are not
(e.g., coal heaters/stoves). These
temporary labels were intended
primarily to contain information useful
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
to consumers and prospective heater
purchasers to be able to compare
different appliance models and to
inform the consumer about the
importance of proper operation and
maintenance. These temporary labels
included the wood heater’s compliance
status, comparative emission and
efficiency performance data, and heat
output rates and explicitly stated that
the appliance will achieve low smoke
output and high efficiency only if
properly operated and maintained. The
EPA no longer believes these temporary
labels are necessary for all certified
heaters because we have developed and
are continuing to improve our education
and outreach program for consumers on
selecting the cleanest certified
appliances and wood fuel with
appropriate moisture content and on the
effective use and operation of these
appliances. Consequently, we are
proposing to remove the requirement for
temporary labels on certified heaters.
Consumers can get additional
information that would normally be
contained on the temporary labels at
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/
monitoring/programs/caa/
woodheaters.html. We request comment
on the potential impact that deleting
this requirement might have on a
consumer’s ability to select wood
heaters that meet the proposed
standards and are the cleanest and
whether we should consider developing
a voluntary labeling program for the
cleanest of the clean. As discussed
elsewhere, we also ask for specific
comments on language that we should
require manufacturers and retailers to
provide to consumers to help explain
the relative benefits of high-performing
heaters versus lower-performing heaters
and how to reduce exaggerated claims.
In addition to the PM emissions
standards, we are proposing to continue
to require the proper burn practices that
already apply to the owner or operator
of a wood heating appliance. That is, the
current 1988 standards already include
the requirement that the owner or
operator must operate the heater
consistent with the owner’s manual and
not burn improper fuels and
manufacturers typically void their
warranties in cases of improper
operation. Numerous states have
expressed their support for the
continuation of these requirements.
Some states and local jurisdictions have
enforced similar requirements, and this
proposal would allow potential
delegation of enforcement authority of
these NSPS requirements upon the EPA
approval of state requests.
The proposed revision clarifies that
the current requirement to operate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
according to the owner’s manual
continues to include a list of prohibited
fuel types that create poor or even
hazardous combustion conditions and
includes operation of pellet fuel
appliances only with the grades of pellet
fuels that are included in the
certification tests, or better. We propose
that pellets for the certification tests be
only those that have been produced
under a licensing agreement with the
Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI), or equivalent
(after request and subsequent approval
by the EPA), to meet certain minimum
requirements and procedures for a
quality assurance process. Details of the
PFI program are available at https://
pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/pfistandards-program/. We are not aware
of any other U.S. organization that has
a pellet fuel quality assurance program
similar in quality to the PFI program.
However, we request specific comments
on whether another high quality
program exists. Manufacturers’ data
show that pellet fuel quality assurance
is necessary to ensure that the
appliances operate properly such that
emissions are reduced as intended. We
ask for specific comments on how to
determine equivalency for fuel pellets,
and whether we should include other
requirements of best burn practices or
adjustments to help ensure proper
operation, e.g., chimney height and draft
specifications, moisture content of wood
and limits on visible emissions.
The proposed subpart AAA still
contains the crucial quality assurance
provisions in the current 1988 NSPS. A
comprehensive discussion of the
rationale is included in the 1988
preamble. For example, a model line
must be recertified whenever any
change is made in the original design
that could affect the emissions rate for
that model line or when any of several
specified tolerances of key components
are changed. The 1988 requirements for
manufacturer quality assurance
programs would be superseded by a
Certifying-Body-Based Quality
Assurance program. (As noted earlier in
this preamble, we would not require
retesting for models that are certified
prior to the effective date of the final
rule until the certification expires or is
revoked.) The certifying body would
conduct regular, unannounced audits to
ensure that the manufacturer’s quality
control plan is being implemented
properly.
The EPA audit testing programs of the
1988 NSPS will be maintained under
the proposed changes, although they
will be streamlined and simplified to
better ensure compliance and to clarify
that audits can be based on any
information the EPA has available and
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6341
do not have to be statistically random.
Also, we clarify that the EPA and states
are allowed to be present during the
audits and that states (and other entities,
including the public) may provide the
EPA with information that may
ultimately be used in the EPA
enforcement and compliance assurance
efforts.
As discussed earlier, the EPA
developed Method 28 in 1987 and 1988
as part of our efforts on the 1988 NSPS.
We received input at that time from
manufacturers, laboratories, and some
states. Oregon Method 7 was the starting
point for Method 28 and, thus, Method
28 has many aspects similar to Oregon
Method 7. The details on the history
and development of Method 28 are
contained in the February 18, 1987,
proposal in the Federal Register (52 FR
5003) and the February 26, 1988, final
rule in the Federal Register (53 FR
5866).
The manufacturers, laboratories,
states and the EPA have more than 25
years of experience with Method 28,
and it has been very useful for certifying
hundreds of model lines of wood
heaters/stoves. We asked the
manufacturers, EPA-accredited
laboratories and states for their insights
on Method 28. Many stakeholders agree
that changes should be made to improve
the reproducibility and repeatability of
the test procedures and to address
concerns about how to best ensure
protection across the entire U.S. when
various operating scenarios are used and
various wood species and densities are
used. For example, to address some of
these concerns, ASTM has used a
‘‘consensus-based’’ process to develop
E2515–10 ‘‘Standard Method for
Determination of Particulate Matter
Emissions in a Dilution Tunnel.’’ The
EPA is proposing that this sampling and
analysis method be used for all of the
appliances in this rulemaking. As with
all test methods, there are opportunities
for continual improvement, and the EPA
requests specific comments and
supporting data for additional potential
improvements to E2515–10.
A number of states have expressed
concern about ASTM’s Intellectual
Property Policy which requires all
participants to give their intellectual
property rights to ASTM so that, in turn,
ASTM can control distribution of the
drafts and final test methods and sell
the final test methods to potential users.
Attorneys General for several states have
indicated that state employees in their
states cannot give to ASTM the property
rights for property that their states paid
for via the employee salaries and other
expenditures and thus cannot
participate in ASTM’s ‘‘consensus-
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6342
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
based’’ process. For this rulemaking,
ASTM is allowing public review, for no
charge, of the ASTM test methods and
draft work products relevant to this
proposed rule at www.astm.org/epa. The
EPA requests specific comments and
supporting data on the substance of all
of the test methods relevant to this
rulemaking and specific comments on
the ASTM process and ways to
ameliorate the process concerns.
The ASTM methods E2779–10
‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Emissions from Pellet
Heaters’’ and E2780–10 ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining Particulate
Emissions from Wood Heaters’’ are
being considered for potentially
replacing the wood heater fueling and
operation requirements in Method 28
for pellet heaters and wood heaters,
respectively. Note that ASTM intends to
use the same E2515–10 for the sampling
and analysis portion for all the
appliances and then separate methods
per appliance types for the fueling and
operation portions of these methods.
The EPA believes E2525–10 is a sound
method for sampling and analysis and
we are proposing its use. The EPA also
believes that E2779–10 is a sound
method for measuring emissions from
pellet heaters/stoves and includes
reasonable measures to reduce testing
costs for continuously-fed appliances,
and we are proposing its use. However,
because, as noted earlier, some states
were not able to participate in the
ASTM method development process, we
specifically request comments and
supporting data of all aspects of not
only these test methods but also all the
proposed methods as part of the
comments on this proposed rule.
Similarly, the EPA believes that
ASTM Method E2780–10 includes
improvements for testing adjustable and
single burn rate wood heaters, and we
are proposing many of the
improvements today. For example, we
are proposing the use of the E2780–10
appendix for testing single burn rate
appliances. However, we, and some
states, do not agree with all the changes
that ASTM has made for adjustable burn
rate wood heaters, and some provisions
are not as protective as we, and some
states, now believe they need to be. As
noted above, several states are
concerned about how to best ensure that
the methods are protective for the entire
U.S., considering differences in wood
species, density, and homeowner
operation. The EPA and the states are
particularly concerned about scenarios
in which heaters/stoves will have higher
emissions in home use than the
emissions measured in the laboratories.
For example, the states and the EPA are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
concerned about the ASTM changes on
burn rate categories, i.e., easing or
eliminating the lowest burn rates that
often occur in home operations and are
typically the highest emitting and least
efficient. The EPA is asking for specific
comments on these issues and
recommendations and supporting data
for other changes. The following
paragraphs discuss some of the key test
method provisions we are proposing
and not proposing. Additional
information on the methods is at
https://www2.epa.gov/residential-woodheaters and at www.astm.org/epa.
1. We do not agree with the ASTM
changes to the burn rate categories, low
burn rate requirement, and weightings
in Method 28. Several states are very
concerned that easing these items would
create the potential for backsliding.
Also, we are aware of several design
changes being considered by a number
of manufacturers that are relatively
inexpensive (i.e., less than $20 dollars)
and will reduce the emissions during
periods when operated at low burn
rates. We instead propose that the
original provisions in Method 28 be
retained for the burn rate categories and
low burn rate requirement. We
considered the weightings and believe
that if weightings are to be used, they
should be the same as the original
requirements in Method 28. We are also
proposing that the burn rates not be
weighted at all for the Step 2 standards
but rather that the emission limits be
separate for Burn Rate Category 1
(lowest burn rate category) and Burn
Rate Category 4 (maximum burn rate
category) and that compliance for each
be shown separately.
2. We propose to not allow 5 minutes
for startup before closing the doors
because startup is often the highest
emitting part of the wood heater
operation, and manufacturers need to
ensure that startup emissions are also
reduced. Again, relatively inexpensive
means exist to reduce these emissions.
3. We are not proposing to use the
new ASTM equation for converting the
emission test values between the EPA
Reference Method 5G ‘‘Determination of
Particulate Emissions From Wood
Heaters From a Dilution Tunnel
Sampling Location’’ and the EPA
Reference Method 5H ‘‘Determination of
Particulate Emissions From Wood
Heaters From a Stack Location’’
currently allowed in the NSPS. Rather,
we are proposing that Method 5G(3) test
values be reported as tested for heaters
that have valid certifications prior to the
effective date of this rule and ASTM
E2515–10 for all other heaters and that
Method 5H not be used for testing for
certifications after the effective date of
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this rule. We request data to help inform
our decision for the final rulemaking.
4. We are not proposing to allow
manufacturers to specify a smaller
volume of the firebox for testing because
of our concerns about how to ensure
that homeowners do not circumvent
such a specification during operation,
thereby increasing emissions beyond the
levels that are measured during testing.
5. We are proposing several tighter
specifications on the test fuel moisture
content, fuel load and coal bed depth in
order to improve the reproducibility and
repeatability of the certification tests.
This part of the proposal is based on
recommendations from one of the
original EPA-accredited laboratories. We
specifically request comments and
supporting data regarding the following
proposed tighter specifications for the
laboratory test: (a) tightening fuel load
dry-basis moisture content tightened
from the Method 28-allowed 6
percentage-point range from 19 percent
to 25 percent to a reduced range of 22.5
percent +/¥1 percent; (b) tightening the
Method 28-allowed range for fuel load
weight from 7.0 lb/ft 3 +/¥10 percent of
the fuel load weight (or 7 lb/ft 3 +/¥0.7
lb/ft 3) to 7 lb/ft 3 +/¥1 percent (or 7 lb
+/¥0.07 lb) of the fuel load weight,
calculated in accordance with Method
28; and (c) tightening the Method-28allowed range for the test-initiation
coal-bed weight from 20 percent to 25
percent of the fuel load weight to 22
percent +/¥1 percent of the fuel load
weight.
6. We propose to require efficiency
testing according to CSA B415.1–1017
using the stack loss method. That is,
during each test run, data must be
obtained and presented for the purpose
of calculation of overall efficiency as
specified in CSA B415.1–10. This would
include CO and carbon dioxide (CO2),
flue gas temperature and appliance
mass. CSA B415.1–10 was developed by
a ‘‘consensus’’ process, but no states
were part of the process. Thus, we
specifically request comments on our
proposal to require use of this method.
7. We propose that electronic test
report submittals include the locked
spreadsheets so the formulas used and
relevant calculations can be evaluated
in detail. We request comments on this
specific proposal.
8. We propose that the test report
include a narrative detailing specifics
about test conditions and operations,
such as how the test was run, operating
conditions, issues and special
procedures.
17 ‘‘CSA B415.1–10: Performance testing of solidfuel-burning heating appliances,’’ Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada. 2010.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
9. We propose that each individual
moisture content reading must be in the
range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry basis
and the average moisture content of
each piece of test fuel must be in the
range of 19 to 25 percent. Also, we
propose the following procedure for the
moisture measurements: ‘‘Using a fuel
moisture meter as specified, determine
the fuel moisture for each test fuel piece
used for the test fuel load by averaging
at least five fuel moisture meter
readings, one from each of three sides,
measured parallel to the wood grain.
Penetration of the moisture meter
insulated electrodes shall be 1⁄4 (onefourth) the thickness of the fuel piece or
19 millimeters (mm) (3/4 in.),
whichever is less, for 3 of the
measurements made at approximately 3
inches from each end and the center.
Two additional measurements at
approximately one-third the thickness
shall be made centered between the
other three locations.’’
10. We also propose this alternate
procedure developed by Brookhaven
National Laboratory: 18 ‘‘Select three
pieces of cord wood from the same
batch of wood as the test fuel and the
same weight as the average weight of the
pieces in the test load ± 1.0 lb. From
each of these three pieces, cut three
slices. Each slice shall be 1⁄2″ to 3⁄4″
thick. One slice shall be cut across the
center of the length of the piece. The
other two slices shall be cut half way
between the center and the end.
Immediately measure the mass of each
piece in pounds. Dry each slice in an
oven at 220 °F for 24 hours or until no
further weight change occurs. The slices
shall be arranged in the oven so as to
provide separation between faces.
Remove from the oven and measure the
mass of each piece again as soon as
practical in pounds. The moisture
content of each slice, on a dry basis,
shall be calculated as:
MCslice = 100 · (WSliceWet¥WSliceDry)/
WSliceDry
Where: WSliceWet = weight of the slice
before drying in pounds; WSliceDry =
weight of the slice after drying in
pounds; [and] MCSlice = moisture
content of the slice in % dry basis.’’
11. We propose to require two Step 1
tests, one using crib wood and one using
cord wood and reasonable additional
non-binding tests with a range of fuels
for which the appliance is designed for
warranted and/or advertized operation.
These tests are needed to show how
emissions and efficiency vary according
to test methods, operating scenarios,
wood species and density and other
variables such as cord wood versus crib
wood. We believe that such testing
would help assure consumers,
neighbors and other stakeholders that
the appliances perform as well on all
manufacturer-listed fuels and operating
scenarios as they do for the EPA
laboratory test scenarios. Proposed Step
2 tests will use cord wood and not crib
wood. The EPA, industry and states
believe that moving to cord wood
testing will help address concerns about
actual emissions from heaters/stoves in
home use versus test laboratories. We
are working with states and industry on
a cord wood test method and evaluating
potential revisions to the current
version of the ASTM E2780–10 cord
wood test method. Industry is
conducting tests now using the cord
wood test method, and we will consider
the results of that testing when it
becomes available during the public
comment period of this rulemaking.
18 ‘‘A Test Method for Certification of Cord WoodFired Hydronic Heating Appliances with Partial
Thermal Storage: Measurement of Particulate Matter
(PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions and
Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating
Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage.’’ Prepared
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters
and Forced-Air Furnaces
The proposed subpart QQQQ would
apply to new wood-fired residential
hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces
and any other affected appliance as
defined in subpart QQQQ as a ‘‘central
heater.’’ We believe this new ‘‘central
heater’’ categorization will better ensure
that all appliances potentially affected
under new proposed subpart QQQQ are
included in this proposed action. The
provisions of subpart QQQQ would
apply to each affected unit that is
manufactured or sold on or after April
4, 2014. This proposal does not include
any requirements for heaters that are
fueled solely by gas, oil or coal. In
addition, this proposal does not include
any requirements associated with
appliances that are already in use. The
EPA continues to encourage state, local,
tribal and consumer efforts to changeout
(replace) older heaters with newer,
cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that
is not part of this federal rulemaking.
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
subpart QQQQ affects a source category
of mass-produced residential consumer
products rather than typical industrial
processes. Thus, this proposed NSPS
has many aspects that are similar to
those in Subpart AAA, e.g., certification
of model lines and phased
implementation. This Proposed
Approach would apply to all new
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6343
residential hydronic heaters and forcedair furnaces. Under the Proposed
Approach, the Proposed Step 1 emission
limit for residential hydronic heaters
and forced air heaters would apply
upon the effective date of the final rule.
The Proposed Step 2 emission limit for
residential hydronic heaters and forced
air heaters would apply 5 years after the
effective date of the final rule. We ask
for specific comments on the Proposed
Approach and the degree to which these
dates could be sooner.
We also considered an alternative
three-step approach (Alternative
Approach) for residential hydronic
heaters and forced air heaters. Under
this Alternative Approach, as in the
Proposed Approach, the Alternative
Step 1 emission limits for residential
hydronic heaters and forced air heaters
would apply upon the effective date of
the final rule. The Proposed Step 1
emission limits and the Alternative
Approach Step 1 emission limits are
identical. The Alternative Step 2
emission limit for residential hydronic
heaters and forced air heaters would
apply 3 years after the effective date of
the final rule. The Alternative Step 3
emission limit for residential hydronic
heaters and forced air heaters would
apply 8 years after the effective date of
the final rule (thus providing 5 years
between the Alternative Step 2 and the
Alternative Step 3). The Proposed Step
2 emission limits and the Alternative
Approach Step 3 emission limits are
identical. We ask for specific comments
on this Alternative Approach and the
degree to which these dates could be
sooner.
Table 5 summarizes the proposed PM
emissions standards that would apply
under this Proposed Approach at each
step. Table 6 summarizes the PM
emissions standards that would apply
under each step of the Alternative
Approach. Similar to the proposed
requirements for subpart AAA, we are
not proposing a standard for CO or
efficiency, but we are proposing to
require manufacturers to collect and
report CO emissions and efficiency data
during certification tests. Some
regulatory authorities have instituted
additional requirements such as limits
on visible emissions and limits on use
in non-heating seasons and we ask for
specific comments on the
appropriateness of such limits and other
requirements in this NSPS.
for NYSERDA by Brookhaven National Laboratory,
February 15, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6344
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—PROPOSED APPROACH SUBPART QQQQ PM EMISSIONS STANDARDS
Appliance
Steps
Particulate matter emissions limits
Residential Hydronic Heater ...........
Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule ...................................
Forced-Air Furnace .........................
Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of final rule ..............................
Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule ...................................
Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of final rule ..............................
0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output and a
cap of 7.5 g/hr for individual test
runs.
0.06 lb/MMBtu.
0.93 lb/MMBtu.
0.06 lb/MMBtu.
TABLE 6—ALTERNATIVE APPROACH SUBPART QQQQ PM EMISSIONS STANDARDS
Steps
Particulate matter emissions limits
Residential Hydronic Heater ...........
Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule ...................................
Forced-Air Furnace .........................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Appliance
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output and a
cap of 7.5 g/hr for individual test
runs.
0.15 lb/MMBtu.
0.06 lb/MMBtu.
0.93 lb/MMBtu.
0.15 lb/MMBtu.
0.06 lb/MMBtu.
2:
3:
1:
2:
3:
3 years after the effective date of final rule ..............................
8 years after the effective date of the final rule .......................
Upon the effective date of the final rule ...................................
3 years after the effective date of final rule ..............................
8 years after the effective date of final rule ..............................
Unlike the 1988 subpart AAA
requirements, the subpart QQQQ
requirements would not provide an
additional time period for the sale of
unsold units manufactured before the
compliance date. No additional time is
prudent because cleaner EPA-qualified
Phase 2 hydronic heaters systems have
already been readily available for
several years, the older systems have
caused numerous complaints
nationwide, and this proposal
publication is ample notice for the
remaining old high-emitting units. For
the same reasons, the subpart QQQQ
requirements would not include a small
volume manufacturer compliance
extension. See section V.C. of this
preamble for more discussion of this
topic. We ask for comments on the
timing for implementation.
As in the current subpart AAA for
wood heaters/stoves, we are proposing a
list of prohibited fuels because their use
would cause poor combustion or even
hazardous conditions. We request
comment on these requirements and
data to support additional requirements,
if warranted. Also, as in the current
subpart AAA for wood heaters/stoves,
we are proposing that the owner or
operator must not operate the hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace in a manner
that is inconsistent with the owner’s
manual. For pellet-fueled appliances,
this proposal makes it clear that
operation according to the owner’s
manual includes operation only with
pellet fuels that have been used in the
certification test and have been graded
and marked under a licensing agreement
with the PFI, or equivalent (after request
and subsequent approval by the EPA), to
meet certain minimum requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
and procedures for a quality assurance
process. Details of the PFI program are
available at https://pelletheat.org/pfistandards/pfi-standards-program/. Data
show that quality assurance provisions
are necessary to ensure that the
appliances operate properly such that
emissions are reduced as intended. We
ask for specific comments on the use of
the PFI program and the PFI
specifications, especially the degree to
which the PFI program will adequately
ensure the absence of construction and
demolition waste (and associated toxic
contaminants) in the pellets. (No other
organization has volunteered to develop
such a quality program.)
The proposed labeling requirements
and owner’s manual requirements are
similar to the guidelines in the EPA’s
current voluntary hydronic heater
program with some improvements. We
request specific comments on ways to
improve the delivery of information on
the permanent label and in the owner’s
manual and whether different
information might be useful to the
consumer and to the regulatory
authorities.
The structure of the rest of the
proposed subpart QQQQ is similar to
the proposed subpart AAA certification
and quality assurance process. We
request specific comments on changes
or improvements to that process that
might be needed to address any special
concerns related to the certification of
hydronic heaters and forced-air
furnaces.
As discussed earlier, the EPA
developed Method 28 OWHH, in 2006,
as part of our efforts for voluntary
qualification of cleaner hydronic
heaters. We received input at that time
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
from manufacturers, laboratories, and
some states in order to quickly develop
a mostly consensus-based method that
we incorporated into the program
partnership agreements. We used
Method 28 for wood heaters/stoves as
the foundation. Thus, Method 28
OWHH has many aspects similar to
Method 28. Three significant differences
are: (1) Method 28 OWHH uses larger
cribs because hydronic heater fireboxes
are typically much larger than wood
heater fireboxes; (2) Method 28 OWHH
uses red oak instead of Douglas fir
because red oak is the more common
fuel in the U.S.; and (3) Method 28
OWHH includes procedures for
determining 8-hour heat output and
efficiency. The manufacturers,
laboratories, states and the EPA have
now had over 7 years of experience with
Method 28 OWHH and its successor
Method 28 WHH (improved and
expanded to include indoor heaters, not
just outdoor heaters).
All the stakeholders that have
provided input on the test methods
agree that the methods should be
thoroughly vetted and changed as
necessary to improve the method’s
accuracy and precision and to address
concerns about how to best ensure
protection across the entire U.S. when
various operating scenarios and wood
species and densities are used. ASTM
has developed E2618–13 to address
some of these concerns, and the EPA
believes that E2618–13 does include
some improvements. However, as with
the wood heater/stove methods, we and
some states do not agree with all the
changes that ASTM has made. For
example, the states of Washington and
Oregon are very concerned that Method
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
28 WHH and ASTM E2618–13 do not
specify fueling with Douglas Fir, which
is used in EPA Method 28 for wood
heaters/stoves and which these states
require in their regulations for
residential wood heaters, including
hydronic heaters. They are concerned
that hydronic heaters tested with red
oak will have higher emissions when
fueled with Douglas Fir and other less
dense species typical in their states and
have provided test data that shows
higher emissions. Thus, they require
testing with Douglas Fir in their states.
Also, a number of states and the EPA are
concerned about the ASTM changes to
the burn rate categories, i.e., easing or
eliminating testing at the lowest burn
rates, which often occur in home
operations and are typically the highestemitting and least efficient. For several
years, we have been communicating
with European certification laboratories
to learn how they conduct their tests
under EN 303–5 and to consider if
incorporating some of their testing
procedures might improve our test
methods.
More recently, because of initial
concerns about some surprisingly high
laboratory test efficiencies for a couple
of the EPA voluntary partnership
program Phase 2 qualified partial heat
storage models, the EPA, the Northeast
states that regulate hydronic heaters,
laboratories (including EPA-accredited
laboratories and Brookhaven National
Laboratory) and manufacturers have
conducted a review of voluntary
partnership program qualifying test
reports. All of the stakeholders that
provided input on the test methods
agree that we need a change in the test
method for testing of non-integral
partial heat storage models (i.e., models
that have separate heat storage but the
storage does not have the capacity to
safely handle all the heat generated by
a full load of fuel). ASTM has been
leading an effort to develop an
Appendix X2 to the test method for
such models but has not completed that
effort as of this proposal. Brookhaven
National Laboratory recommended a
method to the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) and NYSDEC is
requiring that method be used for
certification of such models in their
states. We are proposing that method be
used for certification of the NSPS for
hydronic heaters equipped with a
partial heat storage unit.19
Further, we are proposing revisions to
Method 28 WHH that would require that
all affected non-pellet hydronic heaters,
subject to new subpart QQQQ, conduct
19 See
footnote 18.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
certification compliance testing using
both crib wood and cord wood for the
Step 1 emission limits upon the
effective date of the final rule and solely
cord wood for the Step 2 emission limits
5 years after the effective date of the
final rule.
We are asking for specific comments
on whether the EPA should use: (1) One
or more of the draft versions of
Appendix X2 being considered as part
of ASTM work product WK26581; (2)
the European Union test method
EN303–05 as the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection approved for
certification of hydronic heaters in their
state as equivalent to the EPA Method
28 WHH; (3) the partial thermal storage
test method developed by Brookhaven
National Laboratory; and/or (4) some
other test method(s). For use of any of
the test methods, the EPA would require
that the amount of heat storage for the
actual sale and installation of the
hydronic heaters be no less than the
amount used for the certification tests.
Because EN303–05 does not currently
use heat storage during the certification
test, if the EPA were to use EN303–05
test results, the EPA would require the
installed heater to have heat storage that
can safely handle at least 60 percent of
the maximum heat output of the heater
or a greater level if the manufacturer
specifies a greater level. The EPA is
asking for specific comments on the
appropriateness of this heat storage
level or other levels. The EPA will
consider any or all of these options as
the preferred reference test methods or
as acceptable emission testing
alternatives. (ASTM previously
developed an Appendix X1 for testing of
models that have ‘‘full’’ heat storage that
can safely accept the heat from the full
load of fuel.) We request comments on
all aspects of heater testing and are
especially interested in emission test
data that compare the results for testing
by these different methods.
Also, the review discussed above
found a number of areas in the methods
to improve the quality of the data and
reduce anomalies. In June 2011, the
voluntary partnership program
stakeholders agreed to a number of
changes to Method 28 OWHH, and we
are proposing the revised method as
EPA Reference Method 28 WHH. The
EPA is asking for specific comments on
this method and recommendations and
supporting data for other changes or
acceptable alternatives. The following
paragraphs discuss some of the changes
we are proposing for comment.
Additional information on the EPA
methods is available at https://
www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters.
The ASTM methods and draft work
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6345
products are available at www.astm.org/
epa.
1. Heater (aka Boiler) Temperature
Range
We propose that for all tests, the
return water temperature to the heater
must be 120 °F or greater. We
additionally propose that if the
manufacturer specifies a thermal control
valve or other arrangement to be
installed and set to control the return
temperature at 120 °F or higher, the
valve must be installed and set per the
manufacturer’s written instructions.
2. Efficiency Calculations
We propose to require the use of
thermopiles to measure the temperature
change ‘‘delta T’’ and verify accuracy of
the load side flow meter. The accuracy
of the flow meter is determined
separately by direct weighing of timed
water collection. Thermocouples must
measure water temperature at the inlet
and outlet of the load side heat
exchanger. We propose to delete the
requirement for supply side flow
measurements and require one load side
reading with thermopiles (using a
commercial system or a homemade
system). Efficiency would be measured
on the output (load) side of the heat
exchanger. The flow meter would be
calibrated before and after each test run
within the flow range used for the test.
3. Time Period for Recording
Temperatures
We propose that all water
temperatures, differential water
temperatures and water flow rates must
be recorded at time intervals of 1 minute
or less. This data file must be submitted
with the test report. For determination
of heat output, the data for these
parameters must be measured in equal
time intervals no greater than 10
minutes or at a frequency that results in
a minimum of 50 equal intervals per test
run, whichever is greater.
4. Test Fuel Moisture Content
We propose that each individual test
fuel moisture content reading must be in
the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry
basis and the average moisture content
of each piece of test fuel must be in the
range of 19 to 25 percent.
We also propose the following
moisture measurement procedure: Using
a fuel moisture meter as specified in the
test method, determine the fuel
moisture for each test fuel piece used for
the test fuel load by averaging at least
five fuel moisture meter readings, one
from each of three sides, measured
parallel to the wood grain. Penetration
of the moisture meter insulated
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6346
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
electrodes must be one-fourth the
thickness of the fuel piece or 19 mm (3/
4 in.), whichever is less for 3 of the
measurements made at approximately 3
inches from each end and the center.
Two additional measurements at
approximately one-third the thickness
shall be made centered between the
other three locations. We request
specific comments on the moisture
content limits and the procedures for
determining the moisture content and
the typical variances due to the
measurement procedures.
We also request specific comments on
the following approach for determining
moisture content. ‘‘Select three pieces of
cord wood from the same batch of wood
as the test fuel and the same weight as
the average weight of the pieces in the
test load ± 1.0 lb. From each of these
three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice
shall be 1⁄2″ to 3⁄4″ thick. One slice shall
be cut across the center of the length of
the piece. The other two slices shall be
cut half way between the center and the
end. Immediately measure the mass of
each piece in pounds. Dry each slice in
an oven at 220 °F for 24 hours or until
no further weight change occurs. The
slices shall be arranged in the oven so
as to provide separation between faces.
Remove from the oven and measure the
mass of each piece again as soon as
practical in pounds. The moisture
content of each slice, on a dry basis
shall be calculated as:
MCslice = 100 · (WSliceWet ¥WSliceDry) /
WSliceDry
Where: WSliceWet = weight of the slice
before drying in pounds; WSliceDry =
weight of the slice after drying in
pounds; [and] MCSlice = moisture
content of the slice in % dry
basis.’’ 20
Also, we propose that moisture must
not be added to previously dried fuel
pieces except by storage under high
humidity conditions and temperature
up to 100 °F. Fuel moisture must be
measured no more than 4 hours before
using the fuel for a test. The test report
must describe the source and storage
history of the test fuel.
5. Water Density
a. We propose that the measured
volumetric flow from the flow meter be
converted to mass basis by using the
water density based on water
temperature. The same method must be
used on both the load and supply side
if the optional supply side meter is
used.
b. We propose that the water density
be calculated using the water
temperature measured at the flow meter.
20 See
footnote 19.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
6. Calculations
a. We propose that the electronic test
reports submittals include all data
within the locked spreadsheets so the
formulas used and relevant calculations
can be reviewed in detail.
b. To ensure common application, we
propose to require averages to be
calculated on each 10-minute reading
rather than averaging over the entire test
run.
7. Overall Efficiency (CSA B415.1–10
Stack Loss Method)
We propose that during each test run,
data must be obtained and presented for
the purpose of calculation of overall
efficiency as specified in the stack loss
method in CSA B415.1–10. This
includes CO and CO2, flue gas
temperature, and appliance mass
(remaining fuel weight). Overall
efficiency for each run must be
determined as per CSA B415.1–10 and
reported. Whenever the CSA B415.1–10
overall efficiency is found to be lower
than the overall efficiency based on the
load side measurements, as determined
by this method, the report must include
a discussion of the reasons for this
result.
8. Wood Loading
Test fuel loads would be determined
by multiplying the firebox volume by
4.54 kg (10 lb) of wood (as used, wet
weight) per cubic foot, or a higher load
density as recommended by the
manufacturer’s operating instructions.
As discussed earlier, the EPA will
require separate tests in the proposed
Step 1 using cribs and using cord wood.
In the proposed Step 2, the tests would
all be using cord wood. There are
ongoing discussions on how to improve
both types of tests. We are working with
states and industry on a cord wood test
method and evaluating making revisions
to the current version of the ASTM cord
wood test method and states’ ideas on
cord wood testing. Also, we are
reviewing European experiences with
cord wood testing.
9. Drawing of Test Apparatus
The test report would be required to
contain a drawing of the test apparatus,
including thermocouples, piping
arrangements including any
recirculation loops, the thermopile and
flow meter(s).
10. Aquastat Settings
Aquastat or other heater output
control device settings that are
adjustable would be set using
manufacturer specifications, either as
factory set or in accordance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
owner’s manual, and must remain the
same for all burn categories.
11. Narrative
The test report would be required to
include a statement that the test was
conducted according to the method
specified. If there are any deviations
from the test procedure requirements,
the test report would need to include a
section identifying those deviations, the
reasons for those deviations, and an
evaluation of the data quality
implications, if any, of such deviations
on the test results.
12. The test report would include a
standard summary page as a quick
check for the reviewer that results are
within method specifications.
13. We propose to require testing with
a range of all fuels for which the
appliance is designed, per the
manufacturer’s warranty and owner’s
manual, to show how emissions and
efficiency vary according to species and
density and cord wood versus crib
wood.
In addition, ASTM has developed a
draft test method that uses cord wood
rather than crib wood to better represent
real world conditions. All stakeholders
agree that a test method that better
represents real world conditions would
be a significant improvement and help
ameliorate concerns that some heaters
do not perform as well in home use as
they do in laboratories. We are also
interested in real-time emission test
methods that measure cold or warm
startup emissions and emission peaks/
durations. We are also interested in field
test methods and less expensive test
methods that regulators and neighbor
can use to better quantify impacts in the
real world. The EPA is asking for
specific comments and data on all these
potential methods, issues and
recommendations.
The EPA is proposing to rely on the
test method that has been developed by
the CSA for forced-air furnaces. All CSA
standards are developed through a
consensus development process
approved by the Standards Council of
Canada. This process brings together
volunteers representing varied
viewpoints and interests to achieve
consensus and develop a standard. CSA
worked for years on development of this
test method that has its roots in earlier
U.S. efforts on wood heaters/stoves. The
current version of CSA B415.1–10 was
published in March 2010, and it
includes not only the forced-air furnace
test method but also new Canadian
emission performance specifications for
indoor and outdoor central heating
appliances.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Although the CSA B415.1–10
technical committee included numerous
U.S. manufacturers and laboratories, it
did not include any states or
environmental groups, and the EPA
participation was minimal during the
development. Now that we have
reviewed this method in substantively,
we are satisfied that it warrants proposal
for this rulemaking. We request specific
comments and supporting data. We ask
for specific comments on the
appropriateness of using the CSA test
method in its entirety, including the use
of cord wood instead of crib wood that
are used in current versions of Method
28 and Method 28 WHH. To review the
CSA test method, please go to
www.csa.ca.
C. Masonry Heaters
The proposed subpart RRRR would
apply to new residential masonry
heaters. The provisions apply to each
affected unit that is manufactured on or
after April 4, 2014. We are proposing
that, as of the effective date of the final
rule, no person would manufacture or
sell a residential masonry heater that
does not meet the proposed emission
limit of 0.32 lb of PM per MMBtu heat
output. We are also proposing a 5-year
small volume manufacturer compliance
extension that would apply to
companies that construct fewer than 15
masonry heaters per year. See section
V.C. of this preamble for more
discussion of compliance date related
issues. We request specific comments
on the degree to which these dates can
be sooner. As in the case of subpart
AAA and subpart QQQQ, we are
proposing requirements that would
apply to the operator of the masonry
heater, including a provision to operate
the unit in compliance with the owner’s
manual; a prohibition on use of certain
fuels; and a requirement to use licensed
wood pellets or equivalent, if
applicable. We are not proposing
efficiency or CO standards for new
residential masonry heaters at this time
because sufficient data are not yet
available to support the basis for such
standards.
The EPA is proposing to rely on
ASTM method E2817–11 for masonry
heaters. The laboratories, some states
and the masonry heater industry worked
for years on drafts of this method that
has its roots in earlier regulatory efforts
in Colorado. The EPA has participated
in the discussions from time to time
over the years and has provided
comments and suggestions. The current
ASTM methods are ASTM E2817–11
‘‘Standard Test Method for Test Fueling
Masonry Heaters’’ and the draft work
product ASTM WK26558 ‘‘Specification
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
for Calculation Method for Custom
Designed, Site-built Masonry Heaters.’’
(https://www.astm.org/
DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/
WK26558.htm.) We propose that they be
used for this rulemaking. We request
specific comments on these methods
and any changes that should be
considered and supporting data for
those changes. We request specific
comments and supporting emission test
data on the use of ‘‘Annex A1.
Cordwood Fuel’’ and ‘‘Annex A2.
Cribwood Fueling.’’ ASTM is allowing
public review, for no charge, of the
ASTM test methods and draft work
products relevant to this rule at
www.astm.org/epa.
As an alternative to testing, we are
proposing that manufacturers of
masonry heaters may choose to submit
a computer model simulation program,
such as ASTM WK 26558 noted above,
for the EPA’s review and approval.
Masonry heater manufacturers and
laboratories developed computer
simulations as a way to encourage good
designs without having to conduct
emission tests for slight variations,
especially because there are so few
masonry heaters built every year per
manufacturer. Since these units are built
on-site, it is not easy to test each of
them. These units are typically cleaner
than pre-NSPS certified wood stoves.
Considering all of these factors, we
believe a simple computer simulation
showing how new models would
perform may be all that is necessary for
many of these models.
The structure of the rest of the
proposed new subpart RRRR is similar
to the proposed subpart AAA
certification and quality assurance
process and contains similar
requirements for labels, owner’s
manual, etc. One difference, however, is
that for small custom unit
manufacturers, we are requiring less
stringent quality control (QC)
procedures. Specifically, we are
proposing that the initial certification
for these custom units is sufficient and
that no further QC is necessary since
each unit is a unique model and subject
to certification. We request comment on
changes or improvements that might be
needed to address special concerns
related to certification of masonry
heaters.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Cost,
Economic, and Non-Air Health and
Energy Impacts
The EPA estimates the proposed
NSPS’s total annualized average
nationwide costs would be $15.7
million ($2010) over the 2014 through
2022 period. The economic impacts for
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6347
industries affected by this proposed rule
over this same period range from 4.3
percent for manufacture of wood heater/
stove models to 6.4 percent compliance
cost-to-sales estimate for manufacture of
single burn rate wood heater models.
These impacts do not presume any passthrough of impacts to consumers. With
pass-through to consumers, these
impact estimates to manufacturers will
decline proportionate to the degree of
pass-through.
A. What are the air quality impacts?
To determine the air quality impacts,
we developed emission factors for each
appliance type and then applied those
emission factors to shipment data for
each of the appliance types subject to
the proposed NSPS.21 We developed the
emission factors using the EPA
Residential Wood Combustion (RWC)
emission estimation tool,22 which is a
Microsoft Access database that compiles
nationwide RWC emissions using
county-level, process-specific data and
calculations. The compilation of such
data is a large, important, continually
improving effort by the EPA and the
states to ensure that we and the states
have access to the best information
available. We summed the estimated
nationwide number of appliances and
the estimated total tons of wood burned
for each of the relevant product
categories in the inventory and then
made some adjustments/assumptions to
the baseline RWC inventory to reflect
emission characteristics specific to new
units.
We used the resulting subset of the
RWC database to calculate an average
emission rate per appliance for each
category, as follows. First, we
multiplied the total tons of wood
burned by devices within the category
by the category emission factor to
calculate the total tons of emissions for
each of the pollutants PM2.5, VOC and
CO emissions for that category. Then we
divided these values by the number of
appliances in the category to calculate
the average emissions of PM2.5, VOC and
CO per individual appliance. We then
developed adjusted emission factors to
reflect the NSPS options and then used
the adjusted factors to calculate average
tons of emissions of each of these three
pollutants per appliance for each
category.
21 Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc.
Estimated Emissions from Wood Heaters. February
15, 2013.
22 rwc_2008_tToolv4.1_feb09_2010.zip available
in the docket.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6348
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
We used data in the Frost & Sullivan
Market (F&S) report 23 on 2008
shipments by product category and F&S
revenue forecasts, which incorporated
the weak economy in years 2009 and
2010, to calculate the reduced number
of shipments in years 2009 and 2010.
We adjusted these data to include
appliances not covered in the F&S
report (e.g., forced-air furnaces). For
years 2011 through 2038, we estimated
shipments based on a forecasted
revenue growth rate of 2.0 percent, in
keeping with the average annual growth
in real gross domestic product (GDP)
predicted by the U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis.24 Historically wood
heater shipments have most closely
corresponded to GDP, housing starts,
and price of wood relative to gas. We
think the overall trend in the projection
is reasonable in the absence of
additional specific shipment
projections. We did not change the
relative percentages of one type of
residential wood heater versus other
types of residential wood heaters over
this time period. We ask for comments
and data that would support improved
projections.
The next step was to calculate the
total emissions per appliance category.
First, we multiplied the emission factor
for each category by the inventory value
of total tons of wood burned by all
appliances within that category, and
then divided by the number of
appliances in the inventory population.
The appliance value was then
multiplied by the number of units
shipped to calculate total emissions
from each category per year using the
baseline conditions emission factors
(i.e., in the absence of a revised NSPS).
Using the same procedure, category
emissions were then calculated using
the emission factors for the proposed
NSPS.
Table 7 is a summary of the average
emissions reductions over years 2014
through 2022 resulting from
implementing the proposed NSPS
compared to baseline conditions (for the
years analyzed in the RIA). Note that we
do not have national emission impacts
from masonry heaters because they are
not included in the RWC emission
estimation tool. Because of the relatively
high cost of emission testing versus the
current small number of masonry
heaters sold per manufacturer, and in
total, there are few emission test data
from masonry heater manufacturers and
laboratories. Based on the limited data
we have, we believe that nationwide
emissions from masonry heaters are
relatively low, given the low number of
sales. Thus, we also believe that the
total emission reductions from masonry
heaters will be relatively low. However,
the limited data we have do show that
the emission reductions could be
significant for some models that do not
follow current best designs, perhaps as
high as 70 percent for some designs. We
do not know how many of these
typically custom-made heaters already
use best practice designs versus other
designs and thus we do not have
nationwide estimates of baseline
emissions. We ask for comments and
data to help us prepare emission
estimates.
TABLE 7—ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE (2014–2022) AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 25
PM2.5 (tons)
Appliance
type
Wood
Heaters
Single Burn
Rate
Heaters
Pellet
Heaters/
Stoves ...
Furnace:
Indoor,
Cord
Wood ....
Hydronic
Heating
Systems
Total ..
Baseline
Revised
NSPS
VOC (tons)
Emission reduction
Revised
NSPS
Baseline
CO (tons)
Emission reduction
Baseline
Revised
NSPS
Emission reduction
548
385
163
781
551
230
7,857
5,448
2,409
932
178
754
1,614
244
1,370
7,029
2,860
4,169
199
150
49
3
2
1
1,035
778
257
3,044
434
2,610
1,290
184
1,106
20,294
2,896
17,398
1,332
84
1,249
565
35
530
8,883
557
8,326
6,055
1,230
4,825
4,253
1,016
3,237
45,098
12,538
32,559
Note: This table only includes the emissions during the first year of the life of each wood heater. That is, this table does not include the emissions that continue for the duration of the lifetime of each appliance’s use, typically greater than 20 years.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. What are the benefits?
Emission reductions associated with
the requirements of this rule will
generate health benefits by reducing
emissions of PM2.5, HAP, as well as
criteria pollutants and their precursors,
including CO and VOC. VOC are
precursors to PM2.5 and ozone. For this
rule, we were only able to quantify the
23 Market Research and Report on North
American Residential Wood Heaters, Fireplaces,
and Hearth Heating Products Market. Prepared by
Frost & Sullivan. April 26, 2010, pp. 31–32.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:21 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
health co-benefits associated with
reduced exposure to PM2.5 from directly
emitted PM2.5. Our benefits reflect the
average of annual PM2.5 emission
reductions occurring between 2014 and
2022 (inclusive). We estimate the
monetized PM2.5-related health benefits
of the proposed residential wood
heaters NSPS in the 2014–2022
timeframe to be $1,800 million to $4,100
24 2013 Global Outlook projections prepared by
the Conference Board in November 2012; https://
www.conference-board.org/data/globaloutlook.cfm.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent
discount rate and $1,700 million to
$3,700 million (2010 dollars) at a 7percent discount rate. Using alternate
relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by
25 See
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
footnote 24.
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
experts, higher and lower benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between
these two estimates.26 A summary of the
emission reduction and monetized
benefits estimates for this rule at
discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent is in Table 8 of this preamble,
except for masonry heaters. As
requested earlier in this preamble, we
6349
ask for emission and sales data per
model that would help us prepare
emission reduction estimates and
corresponding monetized health
benefits for masonry heaters.
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED PM2.5-RELATED HEALTH BENEFITS FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL WOOD HEATERS
NSPS IN 2014–2022 TIMEFRAME
[millions of 2010 dollars] a, b, c
Estimated
emission
reductions
(tpy)
Pollutant
Directly emitted PM2.5 ..............................
4,825
Total monetized benefits
(3% discount rate)
Total monetized benefits
(7% discount rate)
$1,800 to $4,200 .....................................
$1,700 to $3,700.
PM2.5Precursors
VOC .........................................................
3,250
— .............................................................
—
a
All estimates are for the 2014–2022 timeframe (inclusive) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows.
The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX, and directly emitted PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, VOC, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment.
b PM benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow
differentiation of effects estimates by particle type.
c The emission reductions and monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not included in this summary.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
These benefits estimates represent the
monetized human health benefits for
populations exposed to less PM2.5 from
emission limits established to reduce air
pollutants in order to meet this rule.
Due to analytical limitations, it was not
possible to conduct air quality modeling
for this rule. Instead, we used a
‘‘benefit-per-ton’’ approach to estimate
the benefits of this rulemaking. To
create the benefit-per-ton estimates, this
approach uses a model to convert
emissions of PM2.5 precursors into
changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and
another model to estimate the changes
in human health associated with that
change in air quality, which are then
divided by the emissions in specific
sectors. These benefit-per-ton estimates
were derived using the approach
published in Fann et al. (2012),27 but
they have since been updated to reflect
these studies and population data in the
2012 p.m. NAAQS RIA.28 Specifically,
we multiplied the benefit-per-ton
estimates from the ‘‘Residential Wood
Heaters’’ category by the corresponding
emission reductions.29 All national-
average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect
the geographic distribution of the
modeled emissions, which may not
exactly match the emission reductions
in this rulemaking, and thus they may
not reflect the local variability in
population density, meteorology,
exposure, baseline health incidence
rates, or other local factors for any
specific location. More information
regarding the derivation of the benefitper-ton estimates for this category is
available in the technical support
document, which is referenced in the
footnote below and is available in the
docket.
These models assume that all fine
particles, regardless of their chemical
composition, are equally potent in
causing premature mortality because the
scientific evidence is not yet sufficient
to allow differentiation of effects
estimates by particle type. Even though
we assume that all fine particles have
equivalent health effects, the benefitper-ton estimates vary between
precursors depending on the location
and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5
levels, which drive population
exposure.
It is important to note that the
magnitude of the PM2.5 benefits is
largely driven by the concentration
response function for premature
mortality. We cite two key empirical
studies, one based on the American
Cancer Society cohort study 30 and the
extended Six Cities cohort study.31 In
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
this rule, which is available in the
docket, we also include benefits
estimates derived from expert
judgments (Roman et al, 2008) as a
characterization of uncertainty
regarding the PM2.5-mortality
relationship.
Considering a substantial body of
published scientific literature, reflecting
thousands of epidemiology, toxicology,
and clinical studies, the EPA’s
Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter 32 documents the
association between elevated PM2.5
concentrations and adverse health
effects, including increased premature
mortality. This assessment, which was
26 Roman, et al, 2008. ‘‘Expert Judgment
Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in
Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.,’’
Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274.
27 Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012.
‘‘Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of
emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and
mobile emission sectors across the U.S.’’
Environment International 49 41–151.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA–452/R–12–
003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division.
December 2012. Available at https://www.epa.gov/
pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Technical support document: Estimating the benefit
per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from 17
sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2013.
30 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E.
Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002.
‘‘Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and
Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
Pollution.’’ Journal of the American Medical
Association 287:1132–1141.
31 Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J
2012. ‘‘Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and
Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard
Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.’’ Environ
Health Perspect. Jul;120(7):965–70.
32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08–
139F. National Center for Environmental
Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available on
the Internet at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:21 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6350
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
reviewed twice by the EPA’s
independent Science Advisory Board,
concluded that the scientific literature
consistently finds that a no-threshold
model most adequately portrays the PMmortality concentration-response
relationship. Therefore, in this analysis,
the EPA assumes that the health impact
function for fine particles is without a
threshold.
In general, we are more confident in
the magnitude of the risks we estimate
from simulated PM2.5 concentrations
that coincide with the bulk of the
observed PM concentrations in the
epidemiological studies that are used to
estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are
less confident in the risk we estimate
from simulated PM2.5 concentrations
that fall below the bulk of the observed
data in these studies. Concentration
benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest
measured level [LML] or one standard
deviation below the mean of the air
quality data in the study) allow readers
to determine the portion of population
exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at
or above different concentrations, which
provides some insight into the level of
uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5
mortality benefits. There are
uncertainties inherent in identifying any
particular point at which our confidence
in reported associations becomes
appreciably less, and the scientific
evidence provides no clear dividing
line. However, the EPA does not view
these concentration benchmarks as a
concentration threshold below which
we would not quantify health benefits of
air quality improvements.
For this analysis, policy-specific air
quality data are not available. Thus, we
are unable to estimate the percentage of
premature mortality associated with this
specific rule’s emission reductions at
each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure
of mortality impacts, we provide the
percentage of the population exposed at
each PM2.5 level using the source
apportionment modeling used to
calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates
for this sector. Using the Krewski, et al,
(2009) study, 93 percent of the
population is exposed to annual mean
PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8
mg/m3. Using the Lepeule, et al, (2012)
study, 67 percent of the population is
exposed above the LML of 8 mg/m3. It
is important to note that baseline
exposure is only one parameter in the
health impact function, along with
baseline incidence rates, population,
and change in air quality. Therefore,
caution is warranted when interpreting
the LML assessment for this rule
because these results are not consistent
with results from rules that had air
quality modeling.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
Every benefit analysis examining the
potential effects of a change in
environmental protection requirements
is limited, to some extent, by data gaps,
model capabilities (such as geographic
coverage) and uncertainties in the
underlying scientific and economic
studies used to configure the benefit and
cost models. Despite these uncertainties,
we believe the benefit analysis for this
rule provides a reasonable indication of
the expected health benefits of the
rulemaking under a set of reasonable
assumptions. In addition, we have not
conducted air quality modeling for this
rule, and using a benefit-per-ton
approach adds another important source
of uncertainty to the benefits estimates.
The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits
analysis provides an indication of the
sensitivity of our results to various
assumptions.
One should note that the monetized
benefits estimates provided above do
not include benefits from several
important benefit categories, including
exposure to HAP, VOC and ozone
exposure, as well as ecosystem effects
and visibility impairment. Although we
do not have sufficient information or
modeling available to provide
monetized estimates for these benefits
in this rule, we include a qualitative
assessment of these unquantified
benefits in the RIA 33 for this proposal.
For more information on the benefits
analysis, please refer to the RIA for this
rule, which is available in the docket.
C. What are the cost impacts?
In analyzing the potential cost
impacts of the proposed NSPS, we
considered two types of impacts. The
first was the impact to the manufacturer
to comply with the proposed standards.
The second was the increase in price of
the affected unit. In both of these cases,
we considered the same input variables:
R&D cost to develop and certify
complying model lines, certification
costs (where these are separate from
R&D), reporting and recordkeeping
costs, numbers of shipments of each
appliance category (modified, from
Frost & Sullivan report), number of
manufacturers, and number of models
per manufacturer. This section of the
preamble contains a summary of these
costs. For more detailed information,
see the manufacturer cost impact
33 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
Residential Wood Heaters NSPS. [INSERT DATE
RULE IS SIGNED].
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
memo 34 and unit cost memo 35 in the
docket. Unless otherwise specified, all
costs are in 2010 dollars.
To develop average R&D costs, we
reviewed information provided by
manufacturers. Based on this
information, we estimated 36 average
costs to develop a new model line,
including testing, of 356,250 for
certified wood heaters and pellet
heaters/stoves. We also assumed
356,250 for single burn rate wood
heaters, which may be high if currently
available units can meet the standards
without significant modifications as
some manufacturers have suggested. We
also assumed development costs for
forced-air furnaces and hydronic heaters
of 356,250. Finally, we also assumed
development costs of 356,250 for the
masonry heaters. The estimates of the
cost of R&D are crucial to our estimates
of overall costs and economic impacts
and greatly influence our decisions on
BSER, implementation lead times and
small volume provisions. Thus, we
request specific comments on these
estimates, including whether they
should be reduced and thus allow
greater emission reductions sooner.
We annualized the R&D costs over 6
years, applied the NSPS implementation
assumptions, and estimated the average
manufacturing cost per model line per
manufacturer. Under the proposed
rules, pellet heaters/stoves will only
face certification (testing) costs (no R&D
should be required), so we estimated
certification costs of 10,000 per model
line. Similarly, many masonry heater
model lines that would comply with the
proposed standards have already been
developed. These manufacturers would
also face certification costs of 10,000 per
model line. We estimated post R&D
period certification costs for hydronic
heaters and forced-air furnaces at 20,000
per model line.
The masonry heater compliance costs
included implementation of a software
package based on a European masonry
heater design standard. This software
has been verified in the laboratory and
under field conditions to produce
masonry heaters that would meet the
proposed NSPS emission limits. The
cost of this software to the user is
approximately $1,500 for the package
with an approximately $450 annual fee
34 Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc.
Residential Heater Manufacturer Cost Impacts.
February 22, 2013.
35 Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc.
Unit Cost Estimates of Residential Wood Heating
Appliances. February 21, 2013.
36 In developing average R&D costs, the EPA used
the highest industry R&D estimates supplied, in
order to avoid under-estimating potential costs per
model line and to avoid understating the number
of model lines that would undergo R&D nationwide.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
that commences in the second year
following purchase. In addition, we
believe that some manufacturers will
use this approach to demonstrate that
‘‘similar’’ model designs meet the
proposed emissions standards.
The estimate of the number of model
types was derived from information
provided by HPBA, individual
manufacturers, and Internet searches of
product offerings. For numbers of
manufacturers, we started with HPBA
data and modified the dataset based on
Internet searches of manufacturers of
the major appliance types. Table 9 is a
summary of the nationwide average
annual NSPS-related cost increases to
manufacturers. The average annual cost
increases are presented over the 2014 to
2022 period consistent with the years
6351
analyzed in the RIA,37 as well as over
the 2013 to 2038 period. The 2013 to
2038 period encompasses the first year
of estimated NSPS-related costs (2013
since some companies have already
started in anticipation of the NSPS)
through the life span of models
designed to meet the NSPS, as
explained further below and in our
background analyses.38
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE AVERAGE ANNUAL COST INCREASES
[2010$]
2014–2022
Period
Appliance Type
2013–2038
Period
$4,212,303
901,732
3,460,489
2,252,284
4,554,152
307,511
$1,749,726
456,316
1,702,796
1,171,222
2,221,551
228,896
Total Average Annual Cost ..............................................................................................................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Wood Heaters ..........................................................................................................................................................
Single Burn Rate Heaters ........................................................................................................................................
Pellet Heaters/Stoves ..............................................................................................................................................
Forced-Air Furnaces ................................................................................................................................................
Hydronic Heating Systems ......................................................................................................................................
Masonry Heaters .....................................................................................................................................................
15,688,471
7,530,507
To develop estimates of potential unit
cost increases, we used major variables
including the estimated number of units
shipped per year, the costs to develop
new models, baseline costs of models,
and the schedule by which the proposed
revised NSPS would be implemented.
Both the number of shipped units and
the baseline costs of models were based
on data from the Frost & Sullivan report
with modifications to address additional
appliances or subsets of appliances. The
20-year model design life span and 20year use/emitting appliance life span are
based on actual historical design
certification and heater use data. That
is, the data show that many models
developed for the current 1988 NSPS
are still being sold (after 25 years), many
‘‘new’’ models still have the same
internal working parts with merely
exterior cosmetic changes, and most
residential wood heaters in consumer
homes emit for at least 20 years and
often much longer. Therefore, our
analysis tracks shipments and costs
through year 2038 (i.e., 19 years after a
model designed to meet the NSPS Step
2 emission limits expected to be
implemented in 2020 has completed
development and is shipped). Finally,
we also estimated the potential
additional manufacturing costs to make
NSPS complying models. These
expenses result from the use of more
37 See
footnote 36.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
expensive structural materials,
components to enhance good
combustion, etc. We estimated the
following additional manufacturer price
increases per unit based on appliance
type:
• Certified wood heaters and pellet
heaters/stoves represent a welldeveloped technology, and we could not
identify price differences between
models due solely to lower emission
levels compared to models with higher
emission levels. Rather, price
differences are more closely related to
cosmetic differences and output.
Therefore, we have assumed no
additional manufacturing costs.
• One manufacturer estimated that it
will cost an average of 100 more to
manufacture a lower emitting single
burn rate product.
• We have seen a range of estimates
for additional price increases for
manufacture of a cleaner hydronic
heater, with an average being
approximately 3,000 (as compared to a
typical pre-regulation sales price of
7,500).
• We estimate that the additional
price increases to manufacture a
certified forced-air furnace will be
comparable to the price increases for
manufacturing certified hydronic
heaters, i.e., $3,000 (as compared to a
typical pre-regulation price of $900).
Our next step was to develop the
following incremental cost formula:
Cost of R&D multiplied by number of
units shipped per year divided by
number of models multiplied by model
life equals the incremental cost of
developing a new unit, spread over the
number of units expected to be sold
during the model life. In developing this
calculation, we included the concept
that the R&D costs per model line are
recovered in the sales price of future
models, which means that the more
units that are sold or the longer the
model life, the lower the incremental
cost per unit. For our unit cost analysis,
we assumed a flat growth rate in
shipments—that is, we assumed future
shipments over the 20 years of model
design life would be equal to the
shipments estimated in the first NSPS
compliance year. We did not assume
lower sales due to market competition
with other wood heaters or non-wood
heaters. We did not assume lower
projected sales for increased prices
because of the uncertainty of other
demand factors. Where there are
additional manufacturing costs as
discussed above, we added these to the
unit cost number. Table 10 is a
summary of the baseline unit costs,
NSPS unit costs, and incremental cost
increase.
38 Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc.
Residential Heater Cost Effectiveness Analysis.
February 26, 2013.
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6352
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF UNIT COST IMPACTS
[2010$]
Appliance type
Baseline
Certified Wood Heaters ...................................................................................................
Single Burn Rate Heaters ................................................................................................
Pellet Heaters/Stoves ......................................................................................................
Forced-Air Furnaces ........................................................................................................
Masonry Heaters .............................................................................................................
Hydronic Heating Systems ..............................................................................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
We request specific comments on
these estimates, which significantly
affect the estimates of costs per model
lines and per unit sold and potential
changes in sales and, thus, affect
decisions on the affordability of
candidate BSER. For example, if the
number of model lines was less and the
number of heaters per model line was
greater, then the cost per unit sold
would be less and more stringent
options for BSER could potentially be
implemented sooner.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impacts of the
proposed rule are estimated using
industry-level estimates of annualized
compliance cost to value of shipments
(receipts) for affected industries. In this
case, cost-to-receipts ratios approximate
the maximum price increase needed for
a producer to fully recover the
annualized compliance costs associated
with a regulation. Essentially, the
revenues to producers will likely fully
cover the annualized compliance cost
incurred by producers at this maximum
price increase. Any price increase above
the cost-to-receipts ratio provides
revenues that exceed the compliance
costs. These industry level cost-toreceipts ratios can be interpreted as an
average impact on potentially affected
firms in these industries. Cost-toreceipts ratios for the affected product
types range from 2.3 percent for pellet
heaters/stoves up to 6.4 percent for
single burn rate wood heaters for the
proposed option. More information on
how these impacts are estimated can be
found in Chapters 5 and 6 of the RIA.
In estimating the net benefits of
regulation, the appropriate cost measure
is ‘‘social costs.’’ Social costs represent
the welfare costs of the rule to society.
We believe that the social costs are best
approximated by the compliance costs
estimated for this rule. Thus, the
annualized social costs for this proposal
are best estimated to be $15.7 million
for the proposed option, based on the
estimate of costs to manufacturers for
the proposal and assuming no cost passthrough to consumers. More information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
on how these social costs are estimated
can be found in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
E. What are the non-air quality health
and energy impacts?
These proposed NSPS are anticipated
to have no impacts or only negligible
impacts on water quality or quantity,
waste disposal, radiation or noise. To
the extent new NSPS models are more
efficient, that would lead to reduced
wood consumption, thereby saving
timber and preserving woodlands and
vegetation for aesthetics, erosion
control, carbon sequestration, and
ecological needs.
It is difficult to determine the precise
energy impacts that might result from
this proposed rule. On the one hand, to
the extent that the NSPS wood-fueled
appliance is more efficient, energy
outputs per mass of wood fuel
consumed will rise. However, woodfueled appliances compete with other
biomass forms as well as more
traditional oil, electricity, and natural
gas. We have not determined the
potential for consumers to choose other
types of fuels and their associated
appliances if the consumer costs of
wood-fueled appliances increase and at
what level that increase would drive
consumer choice. Similarly, we have
not determined the degree to which
better information on the energy
efficiency of the NSPS appliances will
encourage consumers to choose new
wood-fueled appliances over other new
appliances.
V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments
A. Why are we proposing to expand the
scope of appliances subject to the
NSPS?
As described in section II, the EPA
has had ongoing discussions with many
stakeholders regarding the need to
expand the scope of the current
residential wood heater regulation.
Stakeholders described adverse health
and environmental impacts arising from
the increasing use of some appliances,
actions taken at the state and local
levels to address such concerns, and
growth in types and numbers of
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Post-NSPS
$859
253
1,295
912
9,157
7,528
$883
479
1,319
4,174
9,245–9,997
13,986
Incremental increase
$24
226
24
3,262
88–840
6,458
appliances that are currently on the
market. Numerous states (e.g., Vermont,
New York, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota)
have indicated to us that individuals’
concerns about smoke from residential
wood burning, particularly by hydronic
heaters, are the top source of
environmental complaints. In the case
of masonry heaters, we believe EPA
certification of these typically cleaner
devices, would allow them to be
excellent emission reduction
alternatives to replace pre-NSPS wood
heaters and be a good consumer
alternative in parts of the country that
currently ban uncertified appliances
(contingent upon approval by the local
jurisdiction). We also saw a need to
address the residential heating market
in a way that recognizes that some
heaters and fuels are substitutes for each
other. Regulating only one type of heater
may result in unintended incentives for
consumers to favor purchase and use of
unregulated and potentially higher
emitting devices. We felt a
comprehensive assessment was needed.
Therefore, as part of the NSPS review
process, we evaluated a wide range of
residential biomass heating devices and
non-heating devices (such as cook
stoves and fireplaces) to determine what
expansions in scope might be needed.39
The residential wood heaters NSPS is
a ‘‘standard of performance’’ as defined
by section 111(a) of the CAA. The term
‘‘standard of performance’’ means a
‘‘standard for emissions of air pollutants
which reflects the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of
emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such
reduction and any non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy
requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately
demonstrated.’’ As discussed earlier, the
level of control prescribed by section
111 historically has been commonly
referred to as ‘‘Best Demonstrated
39 Subpart AAA—Standards of Performance for
New Residential Wood Heaters: Revised Draft
Review Document. Prepared for EPA by EC/R
Incorporated. December 30, 2009.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Technology’’ or BDT. To better reflect
that section 111 was amended in 1990
to clarify that ‘‘best systems’’ may or
may not be ‘‘technology,’’ the EPA is
now using the term ‘‘best systems of
emission reduction’’ or BSER. As
previously with BDT, in determining
BSER, the EPA uses available
information and considers the emissions
reductions and incremental costs for
different systems available at reasonable
cost. The residential wood heaters
source category is mass-produced
residential consumer products,
fundamentally different from the typical
NSPS source category that regulated
industrial processes. Thus, for the
residential wood heaters source category
important elements in determining
BSER include the significant costs and
environmental impacts of delaying
production and sales while models with
those systems are being designed,
tested, field evaluated, and certified.
The EPA determines the appropriate
emission limits representative of BSER.
After the emission limits are
established, in general, the source may
use whatever systems meet the emission
limits. In developing the proposed rule,
we evaluated possible systems both at
baseline conditions (conditions in the
absence of additional regulation) and
under other scenarios. In most cases,
candidate BSER for residential wood
heaters is based on improved
combustion techniques, primarily
improvements in model-specific
combinations of time, temperature, and
turbulence. That is, the improved
combustion models have greater airflow
residence time, better insulation to
increase temperatures, and passageways
and directed flows to improve mixing
and turbulence. In addition, some
heaters also use catalytic combustors to
reduce emissions. Each manufacturer
has a potential myriad of combinations
of specific designs that could
incorporate these key aspects. Many
systems reduce emissions significantly,
increase efficiency, and provide good
operator flexibility. The key differences
tend to be confidential business
information as to the specifics of the
combination that the manufacturer uses
and does not share with other
manufacturers but rather holds as
proprietary. Similarly, the industry
trade association cannot facilitate
exchange of such information because of
antitrust regulations. Because each
appliance type has a potentially unique
emissions profile, market niche, and
manufacturer profile, we made BSER
determinations for each heater type, as
described below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
For certain types of devices,
information is lacking. For example, we
have no information or very limited
information on emissions and emission
reduction techniques for cook stoves,
pizza ovens, chimineas, coal stoves and
biomass (other than wood or wood
pellet) stoves/furnaces (e.g., fueled with
grass, corn, cherry pits). We are
interested in receiving data for
contributions to air quality,
endangerment of public health and
welfare, emissions, potential emission
reductions, costs, prices, and sales of
coal stoves and biomass stoves because
we believe we do not have sufficient
information at this time to list these
sources under section 111(b) and
develop proposed standards. For
example, usage rates of some of these
appliances are limited both in numbers
of new units and in the number of
markets they occupy. Also, some
stakeholders have stated that use of coal
stoves is more common in some coal
mining regions, where the consumer
may have access to free or cheap coal,
but such stoves are not typically used in
other areas. We request data on any of
these appliances that might help us
potentially develop national programs
or standards for these devices in the
future.
We are also deferring any regulatory
action addressing emissions from woodburning fireplaces at this time.
Fireplaces typically are not designed to
be ‘‘wood heaters’’ and thus are not
within the current scope of the
‘‘residential wood heater’’ source
category listed on February 18, 1987,
pursuant to the authority of section
111(b). (Fireplaces are typically used for
ambience and most of the heat content
of the wood is lost out the chimney with
the relatively large amounts of excess
combustion air rather than heating the
room. For effective heating, some
homeowners have inserted a new EPA
certified wood stove into an otherwise
open masonry fireplace. In those cases,
new wood heaters/stoves are regulated
under the current 1988 rule and would
be regulated by this proposal. Also,
some fireplaces have restricted excess
combustion air to less than 35:1 air-tofuel ratio and are certified under the
current 1988 NSPS.) Fireplaces are
addressed in the current EPA voluntary
partnership program that encourages the
development and sale of lower-emitting
wood-burning fireplaces over the sale of
higher-emitting fireplaces. The EPA’s
fireplace program covers new masonry
and prefabricated (low-mass) fireplaces
and retrofit devices for existing
fireplaces. See the voluntary partnership
program Web site for more information:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6353
www.epa.gov/burnwise/
participation.html#fireplace. We request
comments and additional data on
contributions to air quality,
endangerment of public health and
welfare, emissions, potential emission
reductions, costs, prices, and sales of
fireplaces. We request data that might
help us potentially develop new or
revised national programs or a source
category listing and standards under
section 111(b) for these devices in the
future. We are especially interested in
data on current and projected sales of
new wood-burning fireplaces versus
gas-fired fireplaces, current and
projected usage patterns for new
fireplaces versus existing fireplaces,
current and projected quantities of
wood burned per existing and new
fireplaces, current and projected best
systems of emission reduction for new
fireplaces versus existing fireplaces and
costs of current and projected best
systems versus current costs of
fireplaces. Also, we are interested in
national data and how these data vary
by state and local areas.
B. How did we determine BSER and the
proposed emission standards?
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
the proposed subparts AAA, QQQQ,
and RRRR recognize that the sources
covered by these subparts are
fundamentally different from the typical
NSPS source category in that residential
wood heaters are mass-produced
residential consumer products whereas
most NSPS regulate industrial
processes. Discussions in sections V.B.1
through V.B.4 of this preamble focus on
the analysis of PM emission reductions
under our proposed two-step phased-in
standards for each appliance type
affected by this proposal. In general, for
this rulemaking, we have determined
that the proposed first step represents
the emission levels that almost all
models can readily achieve now using
today’s designs and technology. Further,
we have determined that the proposed
second step represents stronger
emission levels achievable for all
appliance types at reasonable cost, but
allows appropriate lead times for
manufacturers to redesign their model
lines to accommodate the improved
technology across multiple model lines
and test, field evaluate, and certify the
new model lines. See section V.B.5 for
a discussion of the Alternative
Approach we considered to reduce PM
emissions based on three-step phased-in
standards, under which the strongest
emission standard would be 8 years
after the effective date of the final rule
rather than the proposed 5 years.
Section V.B.6 discusses other provisions
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6354
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
we considered and for which we request
additional data and information from
commenters.
For these source categories, our BSER
determination rests on: (1) the
achievability of the proposed emission
levels (i.e., the fact that top-performing
models for each appliance type are
already achieving the proposed
emission levels); and (2) the cost
effectiveness of the proposed standards
when considering the design life span
and the emitting life span of the
appliances in residences. The net
monetized benefits of the proposal far
exceed the costs for all options
considered. Realistic model design and
appliance emitting life span
assumptions are essential components
for a meaningful cost effectiveness
analysis. As explained above in section
IV.C. and in our background
documentation,40 a model design life
span of 20 years is supported by the
historical data that show that the noncosmetic aspects of wood heaters
designed to meet the 1988 NSPS are still
being used today in some model lines.
While some manufacturers may choose
to make more frequent cosmetic changes
to their models, the internal design
changes a manufacturer must make to a
wood heater model line to comply with
the NSPS are longer lasting.
Furthermore, once installed in
consumer homes, wood heaters emit for
at least 20 years and many are operated
in residences for much longer time
periods (a key fact motivating wood
heater/stove changeout programs). Once
purchased, consumers tend to only
replace appliances when they no longer
serve their functional purpose. Wood
heaters tend to serve the basic function
of producing heat for well over 20 years.
Table 11 presents our estimated
cumulative costs, PM2.5 emission
reductions, and associated cost per ton
for our proposed limits, based on a
model design life span of 20 years and
an appliance emitting life span of 20
years.
For all of the standards proposed in
this Federal Register notice, the EPA
invites specific comments on the data
and analyses on which we base the
proposed standards. Moreover, the EPA
invites specific comments that provide
additional data and analyses that would
support a different standard. Interested
persons should note that the EPA will
consider promulgating a more stringent
or less stringent standard than what we
are proposing for any of these
categories, if the record contains data or
analyses that support a different
standard.
TABLE 11—COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PM2.5 EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS AND EMISSION COREDUCTIONS BASED ON CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
[2013–2057] 41
PM2.5 reductions
Appliance type
Nationwide
cumulative
cost
(2010$)
Cumulative
emission
reduction
(tons)
VOC Co-Reductions
Cost per ton
(2010$)
Cumulative
emission
reduction
(tons)
CO Co-Reductions
Cost per ton
(2010$)
Cumulative
emission
reduction
(tons)
Cost per ton
(2010$)
Cord Wood Stoves .......
Single Burn Rate
Stoves .......................
Pellet Stoves ................
Furnaces ......................
Hydronic Heaters .........
$45,492,874
96,523
$471
136,293
$334
1,426,240
$32
11,864,204
44,272,694
30,451,763
57,760,316
236,254
29,269
823,770
360,587
50
1,513
37
160
416,828
392
349,207
152,858
28
112,894
87
378
1,602,218
152,082
5,491,797
2,403,916
7
291
6
24
Total * ....................
189,841,851
1,546,403
123
1,055,578
180
11,076,253
17
* NOTE: Masonry Heaters are not included in this analysis because representative emission tons per appliance could not be determined.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Room Heaters
The current subpart AAA definition
of ‘‘wood heater’’ specifies certain
conditions, including that affected
sources are those that have an air-to-fuel
ratio of less than 35:1. As part of the
regulatory negotiation for the current
1988 NSPS, the EPA included the air-tofuel criterion in the rule primarily to
exclude typical fireplaces from the
affected source definition. An
unintended side effect, however, is that
it also resulted in the exclusion of the
majority of pellet heaters/stoves. Also
included in the current 1988 NSPS
definition of ‘‘wood heater’’ is an
exclusion of heaters that have a
minimum burn rate of greater than 5 kg/
40 See
footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
period assumes that manufacturers
will incur R&D costs beginning in 2013, in
anticipation of final rule. Analysis is 2013 through
2057, based on assumption that the internal
41 Analysis
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:21 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
hr. The definition and test methods had
the effect of excluding a large number of
single burn rate wood heaters. As
described below, we are proposing to
change the applicability of subpart AAA
to include all three types of ‘‘room
heater’’ appliances: adjustable burn rate
wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves and
single burn rate wood heaters. Our
intent is that this rule will be stated in
broad enough terms to regulate any
future room heater appliances that may
come into the U.S. market and function
as room heaters.
a. Adjustable Burn Rate Wood Heaters
Adjustable burn rate wood heaters
include freestanding heaters and heaters
modified to fit within a firebox
emission-related components of a model designed
to meet the proposed Step 2 emission limit will be
manufactured/shipped for 20 years, and shipped
models will emit in residences for another 20 years.
See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. PM2.5, VOC and CO
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(sometimes called fireplace inserts).
These units were the primary focus of
the 1988 NSPS and are subject to
current NSPS limits of 7.5 g/hr for
noncatalytic heaters and 4.1 g/hr for
catalytic heaters. As discussed in the
February 26, 1988, final rule (53 FR
5865) and earlier in this preamble, the
EPA considered the performance of
catalytic heaters and noncatalytic
heaters co-BDT (now called BSER)
because the net emissions over time
were estimated to be similar (even
though the initial certification test
results are typically lower for catalytic
models) assuming possible degradation
of the catalyst and lack of catalyst
replacement by the operator. The EPA
considered requiring catalyst
costs per ton are calculated independently for
illustrative purposes, even though VOC and CO
reductions would actually occur with no additional
cost as the PM2.5 reductions are achieved.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
replacement on a regular schedule, but
determined that enforcement of such a
requirement would be difficult. The
EPA did require manufacturers to
provide 2-year unconditional warranties
on the catalysts and prohibited the
operation of catalytic heaters/stoves
without a catalyst. Additionally,
because of these concerns, the EPA
wanted to ensure that further
development of both noncatalytic and
catalytic technology would continue.
Since the 1988 NSPS was developed,
the state of Washington issued
standards in 1995 imposing limits of 4.5
g/hr for noncatalytic heaters and 2.5 g/
hr for catalytic heaters. In developing
the proposed revisions to the NSPS, we
evaluated and identified these
‘‘improved’’ catalytic and noncatalytic
systems and associated emission levels
as the proposed Step 1. This analysis
showed that the state of Washington
level of 4.5 g/hr is achieved by 107 out
of 121 (88 percent) of the EPA-certified
adjustable burn rate wood heater models
in production and sold in the U.S. today
(noncatalytic and catalytic models
combined). This statistic includes 92 of
the 106 certified noncatalytic wood
heater models (87 percent) and 15 of the
15 certified catalytic models (100
percent). The median certification value
for noncatalytic models was 3.2 g/hr
and for all certified models was 3.4 g/
hr. Details of the analysis are in the
docket.42
For the proposed Step 2 (5 years after
the effective date of the final standard),
we considered ‘‘state-of-the-art’’ systems
that achieve a certification value of 1.3
g/hr (using crib wood as the test fuel as
specified in Method 28 as required by
the 1988 NSPS). This is approximately
50 percent less than the 1995 state of
Washington standard for catalytic
models (2.5 g/hr). The EPA certification
test data show that a level of 1.3 g/hr is
achieved by 27 adjustable burn rate
wood heater models as of December
2013. This includes 11 certified
noncatalytic wood heater models and 16
certified catalytic models. There were
no apparent break points other than the
current state of Washington initial
certification level of 4.5 g/hr for
noncatalytic heaters. That is, the
distribution of certification values was
relatively linear with no step functions
other than at the state of Washington
level of 4.5 g/hr. We ask for comments
and emission test data using cord wood
to help us determine if the proposed
emission levels should be adjusted for
42 Attachment
A of Residential Wood Heaters
Manufacturer Cost Memorandum to Gil Wood,
USEPA, from EC/R Inc. February 22, 2013.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
any differences between crib wood and
cord wood.
This source category is fundamentally
different from the typical NSPS source
category composed of industrial
processes. This source category involves
the manufacture and sale of massproduced residential consumer products
that are significantly affected by
production and sales volumes and
timing of testing and certification. Thus,
we are proposing implementing the
proposed Step 2 BSER emission limit 5
years after the effective date of the final
standard to allow for longer lead times
for redesign, testing, field evaluation
and certification. This also spreads the
costs over a longer time and a larger
number of units. The intent behind the
proposed Step 2 BSER emission limit is
to recognize that current state-of-the-art
level of performance appears to be
significantly better than the state of
Washington limit of 4.5 g/hr met by over
85 percent of the heaters sold today on
a sales-weighted basis (i.e., 92 out of 106
noncatalytic models and 15 out of 15
catalytic models), and furthermore
better than the state of Washington
catalytic limit of 2.5 g/hr for over 25
percent of the adjustable burn rate wood
heaters sold in the U.S. today (i.e., 20
out of 106 or approximately 19 percent
of noncatalytic models and 13 out of 15
or approximately 87 percent of catalytic
models). As noted earlier and discussed
more fully in the paragraphs below, our
decisions on BSER for this source
category have fully considered not only
the emission performance but also the
cost and economic impacts, including
the costs to accommodate the best
systems in additional model lines. The
net monetized benefits far exceed the
costs of all options considered.
The cost impacts of the proposed Step
1 are very small. This is because,
despite being a limit that was originally
developed for only one state, over 85
percent of currently EPA-certified noncatalytic and catalytic heaters that are in
active production already meet the state
of Washington initial certification test
values. We also believe production of
any certified heaters that do not meet
the proposed Step 1 standard would be
discontinued, as manufacturers would
likely focus on models that already
comply with the proposed standard in
the short term. While implementing the
proposed Step 1 standard would not
impose any significant additional costs
on most of the manufacturers, it also
would not achieve a large amount of
new emissions reductions for most of
the models. However, implementing an
emission standard associated with the
proposed Step 1 would have the benefit
of ensuring consistent nationwide
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6355
standards and ensuring that the
remaining 15 percent of non-complying
adjustable burn rate wood heater models
could no longer be sold. It would also
ensure that wood heater/stove
changeout programs aimed at reducing
emissions from old, pre-NSPS or prestate of Washington heaters/stoves
would result in replacement models that
meet the state of Washington levels or
better.
The proposed Step 1 limit eliminates
the distinction between catalytic and
non-catalytic heater models, which we
view as progress. It is important to
remember that the lower emission level
catalytic standards were initially
instituted because of concerns that the
early generation catalysts would
degrade over time, resulting in eventual
real world emission levels comparable
to non-catalytic units. After 25 years of
catalyst heater development experience,
manufacturers have demonstrated that
the performance of these heaters
typically remains consistently good over
the course of proper operation because
of changes manufacturers have made to
improve heater design to protect the
catalysts from flame impingement and
other factors that previously caused
catalysts to degrade significantly. For
example, one recent study of four
catalytic combustors from the two
selected heaters/stoves showed that the
combustors maintained substrate
integrity without substantial PM
emissions performance reduction.43
Therefore, establishing a separate limit
to accommodate ‘‘degradation’’ seems to
create a distinction where none exists
and adds unnecessary confusion to the
overall regulation.
We recognize that there may be
concern that a single limit based on the
Washington State non-catalytic limit
could result in ‘‘backsliding’’ of current
catalytic heater models. We think that
the likelihood of actual backsliding is
extremely low because of other factors
driving the wood heater market. Given
the pending implementation of the
proposed Step 2 limits described below
and that some manufacturers have
heaters that already achieve Step 2, all
manufacturers would have market
incentives to improve performance as
soon as possible rather than degrade
performance. Also, with consumer
education regarding the impacts of PM
emission levels, we believe that
consumer pressure will favor better
performing units that in general are
more energy efficient and lower
43 The Interim Wood Stove Catalytic Combustor
Longevity Study, Prepared for the Catalytic Hearth
Coalition by L. Pitzman et al, OMNI Environmental
Services. January 4, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6356
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emitting at reasonable cost, especially as
they compare wood heaters and gas
heaters. However, we are requesting
comments on whether we should
maintain a separate, lower limit for
catalytic heater models for the proposed
Step 1 emission limits, based on the
current state of Washington catalytic
standard of 2.5 g/hr.
The proposed Step 2 state-of-the-art
BSER cost and economic impacts would
be significant, but our analysis shows a
very reasonable cost per ton of emission
reduction when considering the typical
design and appliance life spans.44 Our
data show that at the proposed Step 2
BSER emission level of 1.3 g/hr, about
20 percent of catalytic models and 5
percent of noncatalytic models currently
manufactured would already comply
with the proposed Step 2 standard.
Thus, manufacturers would need to
either modify noncomplying lines or
develop new ones to continue
production for approximately 95
percent of the current market. Some
unknown fraction of manufacturers may
be able to switch some of their
production from noncomplying models
to complying models. Because we do
not know this fraction, because the total
of complying units is only 6 percent
(combined catalytic and non-catalytic
models) at this time, and because many
manufacturers have no complying
models at this time, we have assumed
this fraction to be zero for our analysis.
Historically, those manufacturers that
chose to comply with the 1988 NSPS
did so for a full range of models. Thus,
our analysis shows the potential
emission and cost impacts for the
approximately 95 percent of adjustable
burn rate wood heater models projected
to undertake R&D needed to develop the
heater-specific combinations of time,
temperature, and turbulence to achieve
higher efficiencies and lower (proposed
Step 2 compliant) emissions. That is,
although the manufacturers know the
factors that are important for good
combustion and low emissions, they
still need to develop and test the
laboratory-specific combinations that
can be incorporated into the design of
specific model lines. Alternatively,
some manufacturers might convert
noncatalytic models to catalytic models
or hybrids as ways to reduce emissions.
We estimated the resulting
nationwide costs based on the cost
assumptions explained in section IV.C.
The average annual cost increase to
manufacturers of adjustable burn rate
wood heaters during the 2014 through
2022 period analyzed in the RIA is
approximately $4.2 million. Estimated
44 See
footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
nationwide annual PM2.5 emissions,
averaged over this same period (2014–
2022), are projected to be 548 tons/year
under baseline conditions versus 385
tons/year under the proposed two-step
BSER, an average reduction of 163 tons/
year, considering only the first year of
emissions for each new heater sold.
Given that limited snapshot for these
cost and emission estimates, the average
cost of reducing each new ton of PM2.5
emissions during the 2014–2022 period
would be approximately $26,000 per ton
annually. As explained in section IV.C,
the cost-to-sales ratio, which is an
indicator of the ability of the
manufacturer to successfully absorb the
regulatory impacts, is high at 4.3
percent. However, when considering the
total costs and cumulative emission
reductions over the more representative
full model design life span and
appliance emitting life span of 20 years;
the overall cost effectiveness is
approximately $500 per ton (shown
above in Table 11).45
Given the reasonable cost
effectiveness of imposing the two-step
BSER when considering total costs and
cumulative emission reductions, and
given the 6-year lead time (from the date
of these proposed standards) until
models must meet the proposed Step 2
emission limit, we determined that the
two-step phased-in emission limits
represent BSER for these residential
consumer product appliances at this
time. Thus, we are proposing a two-step
standard for adjustable burn rate wood
heaters, in which Proposed Step 1 is
required upon the effective date of the
final rule and Proposed Step 2 is
required 5 years after the effective date
of the final rule. Section V.B.5 discusses
a three-step alternative approach that
we also considered for adjustable burn
rate wood heaters, and on which we are
seeking comment.
We note that there have been some
technical questions associated with
measuring the emission levels
associated with the proposed Step 2,
which we are addressing in this
proposed rule. That is, the currently
available laboratory proficiency test
results cast some doubt on the
reproducibility of test results at lower
levels of the standard for the current
EPA Test Method 28. An HPBA
analysis 46 found that the repeatability
and reproducibility of the current test
method for wood heater emissions, as
demonstrated by the EPA-accredited
45 See
footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
Report: EPA Wood Heater Emission Test
Method Comparison Study. Prepared by Robert
Ferguson, Ferguson, Andors & Company for the
Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association. December
1, 2010.
46 Final
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
laboratory proficiency test data, may be
poor based on the scope of their
analysis. Their analysis stated:
• ‘‘At the 95-percent confidence level,
repeatability for the EPA weighted
average emission rate is at best ±2.9 g/
hr and ranged as high as ±5.4 g/hr.’’
• ‘‘The reproducibility was no better
than ±4.5 g/hr and ranged as high as
±6.4 g/hr.’’
We believe some mitigating factors are
not accounted for in their analysis, such
as the lack of regulatory requirements or
incentives for the test laboratories to
achieve highly reproducible results in
proficiency testing (i.e., the laboratories
are not required to meet a certain
proficiency level; they are not paid for
the proficiency tests, but rather they
absorb the costs as part of their
overhead; and, in some cases, they
intentionally staged the test to
demonstrate that variability was
possible within the current protocol).
Also, these factors do not reflect the
proposed changes to improve the
repeatability and reproducibility of the
test method. Consequently, we believe
the previous results merit consideration
of concerns about implementing a lower
emission standard, but they do not
mean that lower emission standards
cannot be measured accurately. For
example, the State of Washington
Department of Ecology has successfully
used lower emission levels in their
regulations since 1995, and the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
has used lower levels for tax credits for
low-emitting pellet heaters/stoves.
As noted earlier in this section, we
ask for comments and emission test data
using cord wood to help us determine
if the proposed emission levels should
be adjusted for any differences between
crib wood and cord wood.
b. Pellet Heaters/Stoves
Several certified pellet heaters/stoves
are subject to current subpart AAA.
However, most models currently offered
for sale are exempt due to air-to-fuel
ratios greater than 35:1. We considered
candidate options similar to those
discussed earlier for wood heaters/
stoves, i.e., improved catalytic and
improved noncatalytic systems and
state-of-the-art systems. Our data set for
currently manufactured U.S. pellet
heaters/stoves, for which we have
reproducible emissions data, contains
24 models, of which 23 would meet the
4.5 g/hr proposed Step 1 BSER emission
limit. We also compared the listings of
certified pellet heaters/stoves for both
the EPA and the state of Washington. Of
the 224 pellet heater/stove models from
both lists, 221 models produced by 35
manufacturers would meet the state of
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Washington emission standard. Only
three models produced by three
manufacturers would not meet the
standard. Assuming that the rest of the
pellet heater/stove market has
comparable performance, we would
expect to see only a small cost impact
of requiring the proposed Step 1 BSER
emission levels of 4.5 g/hr for
noncatalytic and catalytic pellet heaters
in terms of having to redesign units to
meet the proposed Step 1 BSER.
Even though additional R&D would
not be required to meet the proposed
Step 1 BSER, manufacturers would need
to test and certify their heaters/stoves to
sell them after the effective data of the
final rule, which we expect to occur in
2015. Some manufacturers of pellet
heaters/stoves have started incurring
costs in anticipation of the final rule.
They would also incur ongoing
recertification costs for the fraction of
heaters/stoves with expiring
certifications.
Some stakeholders have argued that
pellet heaters/stoves are relatively
cleaner burning than other wood heaters
and that regulation is not needed. Other
stakeholders have argued that pellet
heater/stove standards should be tighter
to show how clean they are and
encourage consumers to purchase pellet
heaters/stoves instead of cord wood
heaters/stoves. Considering both
positions, and because pellet heaters/
stoves are cleaner burning in general,
we think there is environmental value
in ensuring they have an EPA
certification so they can be sold in
jurisdictions that require such
certification of any wood-burning
appliance (contingent upon approval by
the local jurisdiction). This would help
avoid a competitive imbalance regarding
wood heaters. Also, we believe there is
environmental value in having thirdparty accredited laboratory test results
available in all areas so that consumers
can make informed choices among
competing residential heaters.
We are also proposing
implementation of a Step 2 state-of-theart BSER 5 years after the effective date
of the final rule. We estimate that at
least 30 percent of current U.S. pellet
heater/stove models already meet the
proposed Step 2 emission level. We
assume that manufacturers will either
modify the remaining models or invest
in developing new model lines that can
meet the proposed Step 2 emission
level. This assumption may somewhat
overstate the potential cost and
economic impacts of requiring a
proposed Step 2 BSER, because some
noncomplying models will be dropped
and manufacturers may consolidate
their model lines in the short term.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
However, we do not know how many
models will be dropped. This industry
has a history of manufacturing a wide
range of choices of models for the
marketplace.
The nationwide annualized total costs
are significant based on our cost
assumptions explained in section IV.C
and in our background
documentation.47 The average annual
cost increase to manufacturers of pellet
heaters/stoves during the 2014 through
2022 period analyzed in the RIA is
approximately $3.5 million. Estimated
nationwide annual PM2.5 emissions,
averaged over this same period (2014–
2022), are projected to be 199 tons/year
under baseline conditions versus 150
tons/year under the proposed two-step
BSER, an average reduction of 49 tons/
year, considering only the first year of
emissions for each new heater sold.
Given this limited snapshot for these
cost and emission estimates, the average
cost of reducing each new ton of PM2.5
emissions during the 2014–2022 period
is approximately $71,000 per ton
annually as compared to the monetized
health benefits of $360,000 per ton to
$810,000 per ton of reducing direct
PM2.5. The annualized cost-to-sales ratio
is 2.3 percent. However, when
considering the total costs and
cumulative emission reductions over
the more representative full model
design life span and appliance emitting
life span of pellet heaters/stoves, the
overall cost effectiveness is
approximately $1,500 per ton (shown
above in Table 11).48
Given the reasonable cost
effectiveness of imposing the proposed
two-step BSER when considering total
costs and cumulative emission
reductions, and given the 6-year lead
time (from the date of these proposed
standards) until model lines must come
into compliance with the proposed Step
2 limit, we determined that the two-step
phased-in limits represent BSER for
these residential consumer appliances at
this time. Thus, we are proposing a twostep standard for pellet heaters/stoves,
in which Proposed Step 1 is required
upon the effective date of the final rule,
and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years
after the effective date of the final rule.
Section V.B.5 discusses a three-step
alternative approach that we also
considered for pellet heater/stoves, and
on which we are seeking comment.
c. Single Burn Rate Wood Heaters
Single burn rate wood heaters
represent a huge regulatory exemption
in the current residential wood heater
47 See
48 See
PO 00000
footnotes 36 and 38.
footnotes 24, 36, and 38.
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6357
market. We estimate that over 40,000 of
these units are sold per year. We
evaluated all of the available emission
data and discussed the state of R&D
with manufacturers of single burn rate
wood heaters. The data show that the
BSER for single burn rate wood heaters
based on improved combustion could
achieve the same emission levels for one
individual burn rate category as
adjustable burn rate category wood
heaters do for the weighted average of
four burn rates. To compare single burn
rate emissions to adjustable burn rate
emissions, however, one must
remember that single burn rate wood
heaters are by definition incapable of
operating at the lowest burn rates, and
that these low burn rates result in the
greatest level of emissions in an
adjustable burn rate wood heater. Thus,
the certification test method for single
burn rate wood heaters must be
modified to take the single burn rate
into account (instead of the multiple
burn rates for the adjustable rate
heaters). For example a rate of 3.0 g/hr
could be considered to be equivalent to
the state of Washington standards (of 4.5
g/hr for adjustable burn rate wood
heaters) adjusted to the single burn rate.
Considering that single burn rate
wood heaters will not be expected to
operate at the typically higher-emitting
burn rates, we expect the majority of
single burn rate wood heaters to meet
the proposed Step 1 BSER limit of 4.5
g/hr for adjustable burn rate wood
heaters, if the design is focused on one
optimal single burn rate. However, some
models would require modifications to
ensure that they consistently pass the
test and to add tamper-proof settings to
ensure that operators do not circumvent
the intent of the NSPS. For our analyses,
we assumed that all existing models
would need to be modified through
R&D, resulting in significant emission
reductions to achieve the proposed Step
1 BSER. We request specific data and
comments regarding these assumptions.
Since 2009, single burn rate wood
heater designs have been undergoing
R&D in anticipation of the proposed
NSPS, and the information that we have
from industry is that cleaner designs are
nearly market-ready.49 Nonetheless,
because these devices were previously
unregulated and may need to transfer
technology from adjustable burn rate
wood heaters, our cost analysis assumed
that R&D efforts would intensify in
order to meet the proposed Step 1
standard while also beginning R&D to
develop models to meet the more
stringent proposed Step 2 BSER limit.
Specifically, for single burn rate wood
49 See
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
footnote 36.
03FEP2
6358
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
heaters, we doubled our R&D estimate of
$356,250 per model for other appliances
in these early years.
The nationwide annualized total costs
are based on the cost assumptions
explained in section IV.B and in the
background documentation.50 The
average annual cost increase to
manufacturers of single burn rate
heaters during the 2014 through 2022
period analyzed in the RIA is
approximately $902,000. Estimated
nationwide annual PM2.5 emissions,
averaged over this same period (2014–
2022), are projected to be 932 tons/year
under the baseline (unregulated)
condition versus 178 tons/year under
the proposed two-step BSER, an average
reduction of 754 tons/year, considering
only the first year of emissions for each
new heater sold. Given this limited
snapshot for these cost and emission
estimates, the average cost of reducing
each new ton of PM2.5 emissions during
the 2014–2022 period is approximately
$1,200 per ton annually as compared to
the monetized health benefits of
$360,000 per ton to $810,000 per ton of
reducing direct PM2.5. The cost-to-sales
ratio is 6.4 percent and is calculated
based on only the initial 5-year period.
However, when considering the total
costs and cumulative emission
reductions over the more representative
full model design life span and
appliance emitting life span, the overall
cost effectiveness is approximately $50
per ton (shown above in Table 11).51
Given the reasonable cost
effectiveness of imposing the two-step
BSER when considering total costs and
cumulative emission reductions, and
given the 6-year lead time (from the date
of these proposed standards) until new
model lines must meet the proposed
Step 2 emission limit, we determined
that the two-step phased-in limits
represent BSER for these residential
consumer appliances at this time. Thus,
we are proposing a two-step standard
for single burn rate wood heaters, in
which Proposed Step 1 is required upon
the effective date of the final rule and
Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after
the effective date of the final rule.
Section V.B.5 discusses a three-step
alternative approach that we also
considered for single burn rate wood
heaters, and on which we are seeking
comment.
2. Central Heaters
We are proposing subpart QQQQ for
wood-burning appliances that function
as ‘‘central heaters’’ with the purpose of
heating the entire residence, including
50 See
51 See
footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
current new residential hydronic
heaters and forced-air furnaces. Our
intent is that this rule will be stated in
broad enough terms to regulate any
future central heater wood-burning
appliances that may come into the U.S.
market and function as central heaters.
In this section, we describe our rationale
for determining BSER and the
associated proposed emission standards
for both hydronic heating systems
(‘‘hydronic heaters’’) and forced-air
furnaces. As discussed earlier in this
preamble, the source categories to be
regulated by proposed subparts AAA,
QQQQ, and RRRR are fundamentally
different from the typical NSPS source
category that includes industrial
processes whereas subparts AAA,
QQQQ, and RRRR include massproduced residential consumer
products. Thus, additional factors are
included in the analyses presented
today. Section V.B.2.a. below discusses
hydronic heaters. Section V.B.2.b.
discusses forced-air furnaces.
a. Hydronic Heaters
As described in section II.D, hydronic
heaters (commonly known as ‘‘outdoor
wood boilers’’ although there are indoor
units as well) are the subject of an EPA
voluntary partnership program, started
in January 2007. The EPA’s voluntary
partnership program provided criteria in
2007 for qualification of units to be
approximately 70 percent cleaner than
unqualified models (Phase 1, ‘‘orange
hangtag’’). In October 2008, the program
evolved to Phase 2, and EPA-qualified
Phase 2 (‘‘white hangtag’’) units are
approximately 90 percent cleaner than
older, pre-program unqualified units.
Under the Phase 2 voluntary
partnership program, new qualified
models must emit no more than 0.32 lb/
MMBtu of heat output and have a cap
of 18 g/hr on any individual test run
conducted during the qualifying test.
(As noted in the hydronic heaters test
method discussion in this preamble, the
EPA, the manufacturers, the
laboratories, and key states conducted
an additional review of the test reports
to support these qualifications and
made some changes to the test methods
to improve the reliability and
reproducibility of the test results.)
The proposed Step 1 emission limit
for hydronic heaters is the Phase 2
qualifying level of the hydronic heater
voluntary partnership program, 0.32 lb/
MMBtu. There are currently 36 models
(27 cord wood and 9 pellet models)
built by 17 U.S. manufacturers that have
been qualified to meet the 2008 Phase
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2 level of 0.32 lb/MM BTU.52 In almost
all cases, the manufacturers developed
models that rely upon improved
combustion techniques, primarily
improvements in time, temperature, and
turbulence. That is, the improved
combustion models have greater
residence time, separation of the firebox
and the water jacket and the addition of
better heat exchangers and better
insulation to increase temperatures, and
passageways and directed flows to
improve mixing and turbulence. In
some cases, manufacturers are also
using catalyst technology. Each
manufacturer has developed their own
confidential business combinations of
specific designs that incorporate these
key aspects and some other techniques.
In addition to the voluntary
partnership program, the EPA provided
technical and financial support for
NESCAUM to develop a model rule for
outdoor hydronic heaters, which several
states have adopted or plan to adopt to
regulate those units in their
jurisdictions. The model rule Phase 2
emission limits and the voluntary
partnership program Phase 2 emission
levels/caps are identical, and are the
same as our proposed Step 1 limit. In
several states, the Phase 2 emission
levels have become regulatory
requirements for new units. Based on
our experience with the hydronic heater
market through the voluntary
partnership program, we understand
that it is dominated by a few
manufacturers in terms of the bulk of
sales, and each of these manufacturers
has at least one qualifying model
already.
For these reasons, we consider the
Phase 2 voluntary partnership program
level the appropriate emission level for
the NSPS proposed Step 1 BSER,
effective upon the effective date of the
final rule. As noted above, there are
currently 36 models (27 cord wood and
9 pellet models) built by 17 U.S.
manufacturers that have already been
qualified to meet the Phase 2 voluntary
partnership program level of 0.32 lb/
MM BTU.
The EPA believes the proposed Step
2 limit for hydronic heaters is
achievable for some manufacturers now
and would be achievable for all
manufacturers 5 years after the effective
date of the final rule. We consider this
compliance period a reasonable amount
of time for manufacturers to complete
development across model lines and
complete testing, field evaluation, and
52 A list of cleaner hydronic heaters participating
in the EPA’s voluntary partnership program is
located at https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/
owhhlist.html.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
certification so that sufficient models
are ready for sale. We reviewed all the
hydronic heater emission data available,
and we found our proposed Step 2
emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu is
already met by 4 hydronic heater
models (2 cord wood and 2 pellet
models) built by 2 U.S. manufacturers
(using crib wood as specified in Method
28 WHH in the voluntary partnership
program),53 as well as over 50 European
models per test method EN 303–05
(which uses cord wood).54 We ask for
comments and emission test data using
cord wood and different test methods to
help us determine if the proposed
emission levels should be adjusted for
any differences in test methods and test
fuels, e.g., between crib wood and cord
wood.
Our review of the available data also
showed a break point at the emission
level of 0.15 lb/MMBtu heat output. We
considered this break point as a
candidate for interim Step 2 in the
three-step Alternative Approach, as
discussed in section III above. Several
years ago, we discussed the 0.15 lb/
MMBtu level with the voluntary
program stakeholders, including states
and manufacturers, as a potential future
‘‘Phase 3’’ interim target in the
voluntary partnership program to
reduce emissions to approximately onehalf of the Phase 2 voluntary
partnership program level. Some of the
manufacturers responded quickly to this
informal target and now 11 of the 36
models (6 cord wood and 5 pellet
models) that currently qualify under the
Phase 2 voluntary partnership program
already qualify at an emission level of
0.15 lb/MMBtu or better.
The proposed BSER levels include
both outdoor hydronic heaters and
indoor hydronic heaters. The initial
manufacturers who actively participated
in the voluntary partnership program
were primarily manufacturers of
outdoor units, due to the very large
concern about the health effects of
emissions from the outdoor units and
the fact that over 90 percent of hydronic
heater sales were and still are for
outdoor models. When we moved to
Phase 2 of the voluntary partnership
program in October 2008, we explicitly
included indoor units to more strongly
encourage cleaner indoor units and to
provide another tool for the states and
53 See
footnote 54.
Wood-Heating Technology Survey:
An Overview of Combustion Principles and the
Energy and Emissions Performance Characteristics
of Commercially Available Systems in Austria,
Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; Final
Report; Prepared for the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority; NYSERDA
Report 10–01; April 2010.
54 European
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
local jurisdictions, especially since
some states were concerned that some
high-emitting indoor units were
avoiding rules that only specified
outdoor units. Indoor and outdoor
models compete in the marketplace and
having standards on only outdoor units
would provide a market advantage to
indoor models. Indoor and outdoor
models both can use currently available
improved combustion and improved
heat transfer techniques to achieve
similar emission levels. Given the
number of years the voluntary
partnership program has already been in
existence, we believe our proposed Step
1 limit upon the effective date of the
final rule and the proposed Step 2 limit
5 years after the effective date of the
final standard provide reasonable lead
time to incorporate BSER in both
outdoor and indoor residential
consumer models. We ask for specific
comments and data on this
determination and the degree to which
other options would be appropriate.
We estimate that there are 30
manufacturers producing approximately
120 hydronic heater models for sale in
the U.S. On a sales-weighted basis, less
than 25 percent of the models currently
sold would need to undertake R&D to
meet the proposed Step 1 BSER limit,
with a higher percentage that would
need to undertake R&D to meet the
proposed Step 2 BSER limit. We
assumed that any manufacturer
undertaking R&D to develop a new
model would aim to meet the proposed
Step 2 limit to maximize the lifetime of
the resulting product, while shifting
production to models that already meet
the proposed Step 1 limit. For our cost
analysis, we assumed that 100 percent
of the 120 hydronic heater models
would incur NSPS-related R&D costs to
achieve the proposed Step 2 BSER limit.
Considering typical R&D lead times, and
even the different starting dates for
outdoor versus indoor manufactures, we
concluded that 5 years after the effective
date of the final standard is an
achievable compliance deadline for both
outdoor and indoor models, even if they
were just starting their R&D now. As
discussed earlier in this preamble, most
manufacturers have known of the
hydronic heater emission concerns for
over 7 years already.
We also investigated the performance
of European models in considering
BSER options. Several European
countries have already established
emission limits, and they are
considering more stringent limits in the
near future. This has encouraged the
European industry to develop more
energy efficient and lower emitting
technologies. Most of these state-of-the-
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6359
art models use multiple-stage
combustion and some use oxygen
sensors and CO sensors and automated
feedback controls to help optimize
combustion conditions. A concern in
comparing the emission performance of
European models with North American
models is the difference in test methods.
All European models are tested on cord
wood fuel in Europe by European
laboratories to meet European
standards. Few have been imported to
the U.S. (by U.S. companies) and very
few have been tested in the U.S.
according to U.S. testing requirements.
However, a recent report 55 included an
effort to compare the performance of the
European models to U.S. type
performance standards. Although a
perfect comparison is not possible due
to differences in duty-cycle (i.e.,
proportion of time the unit is operating)
to be evaluated in the test and the
emissions sampling and analysis
protocols, the analysis indicates that the
top 20 percent performing European
wood boilers (i.e., hydronic heaters) in
the size range of 120,000–170,000 Btu
would meet an output-based emission
rate of 0.06 lb/MMBtu using the
European test methods. The underlying
test data and limited comparative
testing show that over 50 European
models would likely be considered
state-of-the-art BSER and be capable of
meeting the proposed Step 2 BSER
associated emission level of 0.06 lb/
MMBtu heat output, using EN 303–05,
which specifies cord wood as the test
fuel. We ask for comments and emission
test data using different test methods
and cord wood to help us determine if
the proposed emission levels should be
adjusted for any differences in test
methods and between fuels, e.g., crib
wood and cord wood.
The nationwide annualized total costs
are based on the cost assumptions
explained in section IV.C and in the
background documentation.56 The
average annual cost increase to
manufacturers of hydronic heaters
during the 2014 through 2022 period
anlayzed in the RIA is approximately
$4.6 million. Estimated nationwide
annual PM2.5 emissions, averaged over
this same period (2014–2022), are
projected to be 1,332 tons/year under
the baseline (unregulated) condition
versus 84 tons/year under the proposed
two-step BSER, an average reduction of
1,249 tons/year, considering only the
first year of emissions for each new
heater sold. Given this limited snapshot
for these cost and emission estimates,
the average cost of reducing each new
55 See
56 See
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
footnotes 36 and 38.
03FEP2
6360
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ton of PM2.5 emissions during the 2014–
2022 period is approximately $3,600 per
ton annually. The annualized cost-tosales ratio is 3.3 percent for hydronic
heater models. However, when
considering the total costs and
cumulative emission reductions over
the more representative full model
design life span and appliance emitting
life span, the overall cost effectiveness
is approximately $160 per ton (shown
above in Table 11).57
Given the reasonable cost
effectiveness of imposing the two-step
BSER, and given the 6-year lead time
(from the date of these proposed
standards) until model lines must come
into compliance with the proposed Step
2 limit, we determined that the two-step
phased-in limits represent BSER for
these residential consumer appliances at
this time. Thus, we are proposing a twostep standard for hydronic heaters, in
which Proposed Step 1 is required upon
the effective date of the final rule, and
Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after
publication of the final rule. Section
V.B.5 discusses a three-step alternative
approach that we also considered for
hydronic heaters, and on which we are
seeking comment.
b. Forced-air Furnaces
Emissions from wood-fired, forced-air
furnaces have not previously received
much attention in the U.S. However,
industry information suggests that there
are three times more sales of wood-fired,
forced-air furnaces each year compared
to wood-fired hydronic heaters. These
units are relatively easy to retrofit into
existing structures, and their sales price
is substantially less than hydronic
heaters but greater than gas or oil
furnaces. Because they are whole-house
heating systems, they have the capacity
to generate large amounts of emissions.
Also, they compete with wood-fired
hydronic heaters, which we propose to
regulate. Not regulating wood-fired,
forced-air furnaces could create an
adverse competitive imbalance with the
wood-fired hydronic heater market
segment of the residential wood heater
source category. Both forced-air
furnaces and hydronic heaters compete
with oil and gas furnaces. Consumer
choices vary with consideration of
upfront sales price, financing costs, and
operating costs, e.g., the cost of
obtaining seasoned wood versus oil or
gas.
Wood-fired, forced-air furnaces are
not currently regulated in the U.S. (with
the exceptions of broader bans or use
limits on wood-burning appliances), but
they are beginning to be regulated in
57 See
footnotes 36 and 38.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
Canada. The main regulatory
mechanisms are local and provincial
regulations requiring listing per CSA
B415.1–10, which is the CSA
specification for emission performance
of solid-fuel-burning heating
appliances.58 All CSA standards are
developed through a consensus
standards development process
approved by the Standards Council of
Canada. This process brings together
stakeholder volunteers representing
varied viewpoints and interests to
achieve consensus and develop a
standard. The most recent B415.1–10
Committee consisted of manufacturers,
Environment Canada,59 provincial
agency staff, test laboratories and the
EPA. The current version of B415.1–10
was published in March 2010, and it
includes new requirements for indoor
and outdoor central heating appliances,
including wood-fired forced-air
furnaces. In addition to establishing
performance test requirements, B415.1–
10 also includes emissions requirements
for PM. Section 4.2.1(c) of the CSA
standard establishes an average
particulate emission rate of less than or
equal to 0.40 g/MJ, which is equivalent
to 0.93 lb/MMBtu. Manufacturers
anticipate that CSA Standard B415.1–10
will effectively establish the minimum
requirements for future units sold in
Canada. For example, the province of
British Columbia has enacted
regulations limiting the sale of woodburning appliances to those that comply
with B415.1–10 (or the U.S. NSPS when
the EPA issues such a standard), and
other provinces and municipalities in
Canada are in the process of amending
their regulations to apply to central
heating systems, including forced-air
furnaces.
In developing the B415.1–10
emissions limit of 0.40 g/MJ (0.93 lb/
MMBtu) for solid-fuel central heating
systems, the CSA committee thoroughly
reviewed the best systems available,
developed a test method for such
systems and supported emission testing
of candidate best systems. A B415.1–10
validation-testing program performed by
Intertek in Middleton, Wisconsin,
included both a high-tech furnace and a
conventional furnace. The high-tech
furnace achieved average particulate
emissions of 0.46 g/MJ output (1.067 lb/
58 CSA B415.1–10: Performance testing of solidfuel-burning heating appliances, Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada. March 2010.
59 Environment Canada was created in 1971, and
has the responsibility to implement the Government
of Canada’s environmental agenda including, but
not limited to, Canada’s environmental and wildlife
legislation, enforcement activities and other efforts
to protect, conserve and enhance the environment.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
MMBtu). The conventional furnace
achieved average particulate emissions
of 1.65 g/MJ (3.828 lb/MMBtu) output.
Thus, the CSA limit of 0.40 g/MJ (0.93
lb/MMBtu) output corresponds to a 75
percent reduction in emissions when
using the average particulate emissions
of the conventional furnace tested by
Intertek as part of the CSA B415.1–10
validation program.
We also investigated the performance
of European production forced-air
furnace models to determine whether
their performance might be better than
what CSA found in North America.
However, forced-air furnaces are not
commonly used in Europe because they
are considered to be an inferior
technology for home heating in Europe;
thus we had no European candidate
BSER to consider.
Manufacturers are actively conducting
R&D in response to both the current
CSA standard and the anticipated NSPS
we are proposing. For example, one
company has recently had an EPAcertified laboratory test two of their
newest models. These tests, using the
test method in CSA B415.1–10, show
particle emissions below 0.1 lb/MMBtu
heat output. Considering all of the
above, we believe that BSER for forcedair furnaces may be demonstrated at the
same emission levels as for hydronic
heaters. We have considered proposing
standards for forced-air furnaces that
match the Step 1 and Step 2 standards
we are proposing for hydronic heaters,
that is, a proposed Step 1 BSER of 0.32
lb/MMBtu heat output and a cap of 18
g/hr as determined by the test methods
and procedures in CSA B415.1–10 upon
the effective date of the final standard
and a proposed Step 2 BSER of 0.06 lb/
MMBtu heat output as determined by
the test methods and procedures in CSA
B415.1–10, 5 years after the effective
date of the final standard. However, we
have concerns that only one U.S.
manufacturer currently has models that
have been tested by CSA B415.1–10 and
shown to achieve these levels, and,
thus, we are proposing that the Step 1
BSER for forced-air furnaces match the
current CSA B415.1–10 level of 0.93 lb/
MMBtu heat output. We are also
proposing, however, that by 5 years after
the effective date of the final standard,
forced-air furnaces be subject to the
same standards as hydronic heaters and
be required to meet the proposed Step
2 BSER of 0.06 lb/MMBtu that hydronic
heaters must meet then under this
proposal.
Given that the largest U.S. forced-air
furnace manufacturer already has a
catalytic model meeting 0.06 lb/MMBtu,
we think the 6 years of lead time is
sufficient time in which to conduct R&D
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
to produce comparably lower emitting
model lines, although we are seeking
comment on an alternative 3-step
approach with a longer lead time. Since
there are limited emissions data
available for forced-air furnaces that
reflect hydronic heater proposed Step 1
and proposed Step 2 BSER, we request
specific comments and data on the
proposed emission levels and
compliance deadlines, as well as the
environmental impacts and market
implications for setting emission limits
that match what we are proposing for
hydronic heaters.
The nationwide annualized total costs
are based on the cost assumptions
explained in section IV.C and in the
background documentation.60 The
average annual cost increase to
manufacturers of forced air furnaces
during the 2014 through 2022 period
analyzed in the RIA is approximately
$2.3 million. Estimated nationwide
annual PM2.5 emissions, averaged over
this same period (2014–2022), are
projected to be 3,044 tons/year under
the baseline (unregulated) condition
versus 434 tons/year under the
proposed two-step BSER, an average
reduction of 2,610 tons/year,
considering only the first year of
emissions for each new heater sold.
Given this limited snapshot for these
cost and emission estimates, the average
cost of reducing each ton of PM2.5
emissions during the 2014–2022 period
is approximately $860 per ton annually,
as compared to the monetized health
benefits of $360,000 per ton to $810,000
per ton of reducing direct PM2.5. The
cost-to-sales ratio is 2.4 percent.
However, when considering the total
costs and cumulative emission
reductions over the more representative
full model design life span and
appliance emitting life span, the overall
cost effectiveness is approximately $40
per ton (shown above in Table 11).61
Given the reasonable cost
effectiveness of imposing the two-step
BSER, and given the 6-year lead time
(from the date of these proposed
standards) until new model lines must
come into compliance with the
proposed Step 2 limit, we determined
that the two-step phased-in limits
represent BSER for these residential
consumer appliances at this time. Thus,
we are proposing a two-step standard
for forced air furnaces, in which
Proposed Step 1 is required upon the
effective date of the final rule and
Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after
the effective date of the final rule.
Section V.B.5 discusses the three-step
60 See
61 See
footnotes 37 and 38.
footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
alternative approach that we also
considered for forced air furnaces, and
on which we are seeking comment.
3. Masonry Heaters
We are proposing subpart RRRR for
new masonry heaters. With a few
exceptions, masonry heater emissions
are not subject to specific PM emission
limits in North America or Europe.
Some states and local areas do not allow
any residential wood heaters that are
not certified to meet the current
residential wood heater NSPS. The
states of Colorado and Washington have
set 6 grams of particles emitted per
kilogram of wood burned (g/kg) and 7.3
g/kg limits, respectively (each of which
is based on different test methods), and
a small number of appliances have been
tested and certified for those states. (The
BSER level we are proposing below uses
a different format but is commonly
accepted to be only slightly more
stringent than the Colorado and
Washington limits.) We considered
various forms for a masonry heater
standard, and we believe that an
appropriate format could be a daily
average g/hr limit for the heating cycle
coupled with a limit for emissions per
heat output (lb/MMBtu output). The
daily average over the heating cycle
format seems to be well adapted to the
nature of the technology of masonry
heater operation, which involves one or
two short high burn rate cycles where
hot gases are generated during
combustion of a fuel load in the firebox
and then pass through the channels,
saturating the masonry mass with heat.
The masonry mass then radiates heat
into the area around the masonry heater
for 12 to 24 hours. Unfortunately, we
lack sufficient data to set the level of a
daily average data approach, so we are
proposing instead a heat output format.
The heat output format has the
advantage of providing a good metric for
consumers and regulatory agencies to
compare emissions of competing
residential heating appliances for an
equivalent heat output. We ask for
specific comments on whether a g/kg
format would be better.
We had numerous discussions with
states, masonry heater manufacturers,
and laboratories on heater designs, test
methods and heater emissions and
performance. The best performing
improved combustion technology
masonry heaters have well-engineered
designs with long channels to maximize
complete combustion and heat transfer.
The manufacturers provided all
available current emissions data. For
example, one manufacturer provided an
archive of available data. The data set
included results from 31 tests
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6361
(measuring emissions per heat output)
that ranged from 0.07 g/MJ to 0.51 g/MJ
(∼0.17 to 1.22 lb/MMBtu), with an
average rate of 0.26 g/MJ (0.621 lb/
MMBtu). As we discussed earlier in this
preamble, we do not have good
information on how many heaters emit
at each of these levels and thus have not
developed a good estimate of baseline
emissions and we ask for data that
would help inform us. However, looking
at this data set in more detail, we can
see that the best ‘‘improved
combustion’’ systems have an emission
level of 0.13 g/MJ (0.32 lb/MMBtu) heat
output. We note that this level is
consistent with the proposed Step 1
BSER for hydronic heaters.
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
the source categories to be regulated by
the proposed subparts AAA, QQQQ,
and RRRR are fundamentally different
from the typical NSPS source category
in that most NSPS regulate industrial
processes whereas the source categories
in subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR
include mass-produced residential
consumer products. Thus, additional
factors are included in the analyses
presented today as compared to typical
NSPS. For example, we considered
whether we should allow longer lead
time over which small manufacturers/
builders could spread their R&D costs in
order to stay in business. The Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act
Panel strongly recommended that we
consider allowing more time. See
section V.C of this preamble for
discussion of this topic.
We estimated proposed Step 1
improved combustion BSER emissions
and cost and economic impacts based
on four groups of costs. The first group
of costs consisted of the two large
manufacturers that we know have
already developed potentially
complying models and would only face
the costs of certification tests. For the
second group of costs, we estimated the
costs incurred by an additional two
large manufacturers that conduct R&D to
develop a total of four new model lines.
For the third group of costs, we
estimated the cost of one of the
manufacturers using the computer
simulation approach to certify
additional model lines. Finally, for the
fourth group of costs, we estimated the
cost for all of the small, custom-built
manufacturers using the computer
simulation approach to certify their
model lines. We do not anticipate a
large nationwide emission reduction
resulting from requiring the proposed
Step 1 BSER versus what most
manufacturers would have done in the
absence of a rule; however we believe
there are some masonry heaters that do
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6362
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
not use current best designs and for
those heaters there can be an emission
reduction of 70 percent or more. We
believe it is important to ensure that all
new models achieve the BSER emission
levels and avoid backsliding.
The nationwide annualized total costs
are based on the cost assumptions
explained in section IV.C and in the
background documentation.62 The
average annual cost increase to
manufacturers of masonry heaters
during the 2014 through 2022 period
analyzed in the RIA is approximately
$294,000. The estimated cost-to-sales
ratio is 4.8 percent. If one were to
spread the costs over the much longer
typical lifetimes of masonry heaters
(over 40 years), the average annual costs
would be much lower. We concluded
that the proposed Step 1 BSER level of
0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output is
appropriate for these appliances.
For masonry heaters, we are
proposing that large manufacturers of
masonry heaters (defined as those
manufacturers constructing 15 or more
masonry heaters per year) would be
required to comply with these standards
upon the effective date of the final rule.
We are proposing that small
manufacturers (defined as those
manufacturers of less than 15 masonry
heaters per year) would be required to
comply with these standards 5 years
after the effective date of the final rule.
We are requesting specific comments on
the proposed BSER option and data that
might support alternative findings and
enhance our impact analyses. For
example, if we were to develop a g/hr
average format in addition to the lb/
MMBtu heat output format, are there
products that might meet a daily average
over the heating period versus the
averaging only over the combustion
period, and if so, how would this affect
levels of performance and impacts on
the environment? Further, we are
seeking comment on the degree to
which these dates could be sooner.
4. Alternative Approach for Comment
As noted in section III, in addition to
the proposed two-step standards
described above for appliances
regulated as ‘‘room heaters’’ under
subpart AAA (currently catalytic and
noncatalytic adjustable burn rate wood
heaters, single burn rate wood heaters,
and pellet heaters/stoves) and for
appliances regulated as ‘‘central
heaters’’ under subpart QQQQ
(currently hydronic heaters and forcedair furnaces), we also considered a
different approach, an ‘‘alternative
three-step approach’’ for subparts AAA
and QQQQ. We seek comments on
whether the final rule should be our
(preferred) proposed two-step approach
or whether the final rule should be this
alternative three-step approach. We do
not intend for the final rule to allow a
choice between the two approaches. We
did not develop a three-step approach
for masonry heaters under subpart
RRRR, since it is a one-emission-level
standard, but we are seeking comments
on our proposed 5-year compliance
extension for small volume masonry
heater manufacturers.
We compared unit cost increases,63
nationwide manufacturer cost
estimates,64 emission reductions,65 and
overall cost effectiveness of the two-step
proposal to the three-step alternative
approach considered.66 Table 12
compares the unit cost increase,
nationwide average cost to
manufacturers and the annual
particulate emission reductions, during
the 2014 through 2022 period analyzed
in the RIA, for appliances currently
affected by this proposal, considering
only the first year of emissions for each
new heater sold. Based on the cost and
emission reduction estimates presented
in this table, the overall cost
effectiveness for this proposal over the
2014–2022 period is $3,250 per ton, but
$5,800 per ton for the alternative
approach considered (assuming no
emission reductions for masonry
heaters, for the sake of this analysis).
Additional information on the impacts
is included in the RIA in the docket.
TABLE 12—COMPARISON OF PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH (2014–2022)
Unit cost increase from
baseline
(2010$)
Appliance type
Nationwide average cost increase from baseline
(2010$)
Alternative
Certified Wood Heaters .....................................
Single Burn Rate Heaters .................................
Pellet Heaters/Stoves ........................................
Forced-Air Furnaces ..........................................
Hydronic Heating Systems ................................
Masonry Heaters ...............................................
24 ................
226 ..............
24 ................
3,262 ...........
6,458 ...........
300 (ave.) ....
48 ................
337 ..............
47 ................
4,891 ...........
9,672 ...........
300 (ave.) ....
4,212,303
901,732
3,460,489
2,252,284
4,554,152
307,511
8,090,026
1,540,600
6,255,536
3,813,898
8,302,026
293,776
163 ..............
754 ..............
49 ................
2,610 ...........
1,249 ...........
Not estimated
136
756
24
2,712
1,250
Not estimated.
Total ............................................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposal
10,294 .........
15,295 .........
15,688,471
28,295,862
4,825 ...........
4,878
We are seeking comment and
information on potential justifications
for implementing such a three-step
standard, instead of our proposed twostep standard for each of the appliances
affected by this proposed rule, to
provide additional flexibility for
manufacturers that have different
capabilities and resources to ultimately
reach the most stringent BSER. The
proposed two-step standards rely on the
62 See
63 See
footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
footnote 38.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
assumption that the proposed Step 2
BSER, already demonstrated by various
models in each appliance category
affected by the proposed rule, is
achievable within 5 years of the
proposed Step 1 BSER. There is a
significant emission reduction achieved
by the proposed Step 2 BSER compared
to the proposed Step 1 BSER in each
appliance category discussed above in
section V, but there are no proposed
64 See
65 See
Jkt 232001
Proposal
PO 00000
footnote 24, 36 and 38.
footnote 24.
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Alternative
Emission reduction from
baseline
(tons)
Proposal
Alternative
interim emission limits imposed during
the transition from the proposed Step 1
to the proposed Step 2. In the
alternative approach considered, there
is a longer transition period of 8 years
between Step 1 and Step 3 (with the
same significant emission reduction
achieved between our proposed Step 1
and proposed Step 2), but there is an
interim Step 2 limit which
manufacturers must meet 3 years after
66 See
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
footnote 24, 36 and 38.
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the proposed Step 1. If we were to give
a longer timeframe to redesign across
model lines to accommodate the best
systems, test, field evaluate, and certify
a wide range of model lines, we believe
there would be benefit to establishing
required interim limits to codify
progress in reducing emissions and to
focus positive attention on early
achievers as they show compliance in
the period between 2015 and 2023.
We expect that the manufacturers that
do not already meet the strongest
emission limits would like the longer
time to meet the Alternative Approach
Step 3 but would prefer to not have an
interim Step 2 requirement. However,
we do not currently see adequate
justification for allowing extra time
without also requiring satisfactory
progress, especially because numerous
models already achieve the strongest
emission levels. We also have concerns
about the complexity of a 3-step
approach and whether it would be
harder for the EPA to enforce. Thus, we
seek comment, including data and
potential environmental and economic
justifications, on whether the described
Alternative Approach Step 2 emission
limits represent BSER within 3 years of
the effective date of the final rule. We
also seek comment on whether an
additional 5 years would be necessary to
transition from the Alternative
Approach Step 2 to the Alternative
Approach Step 3 limit, or whether such
a transition could be made in a shorter
time period. Finally, for single burn rate
wood heaters and forced-air furnaces,
we are seeking comment on whether the
alternative Step 1 limit should become
effective upon the effective date of the
final rule or after a 1-year ‘‘adjustment’’
period. The EPA seeks to encourage
national achievement of the (proposed
Step 2) BSER for each appliance
category as soon as possible and as
efficiently as possible, which is why we
prefer the proposal over the alternative
approach we considered. However, we
also seek to balance industry’s R&D
needs with timely and efficient
standards, and so we are seeking
comment on the alternative approach
outlined immediately above and in
section III.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5. Other Proposed Emissions Testing
and Reporting
a. Efficiency Testing and Reporting
While the CAA gives the EPA
authority to set standards for emissions,
and we have issued final rules that have
used a variety of formats for such
standards, including efficiency, we lack
sufficient data to propose efficiency
standards for residential wood heaters at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
this time. We are proposing only to
require testing and reporting but not a
minimum efficiency standard. Current
data and other information from
manufacturers and testing laboratories
and the NYSERDA ‘‘European WoodHeating Technology Survey’’ discussed
earlier in this preamble show that, in
general, the same types of improved
combustion BSER designs that tend to
reduce PM2.5 emissions also tend to
increase combustion efficiency, reduce
CO emissions and improve efficiency.
Current subpart AAA allows sources to
either measure efficiency or report a
default efficiency value. We believe
these proposed subparts are an excellent
opportunity to standardize the
collection and reporting of such data.
Most industry members support the
collection and reporting of tested
efficiency values, but some do not
necessarily support an efficiency
standard because they have concerns
that efficiency standards would
encourage a ‘‘ratings race’’ and worry
that some manufacturers would sacrifice
operational viability in the field for a
higher efficiency rating. We agree that
some heat loss is necessary to ensure
adequate draft out the chimney/stack
and not backdrafting into living areas.
However, we do not expect
manufacturers to jeopardize their
reputation or operator safety for a higher
rating, and we believe that competition
among manufacturers to increase their
heaters/stoves’ efficiencies is good for
consumers and the environment. We
request specific comments and
supporting data that would help inform
the need for and level of a possible
efficiency standard. Also, we ask for
specific comments on how, in the
meantime, to best ensure consumers
have access to the best information on
efficiency performance, e.g., labels,
owner’s manual, Burn Wise Web site
and/or other means.
b. CO Testing and Reporting
We considered developing CO
emission limits for all new residential
wood heaters. However, our current
data for CO emissions performance and
methods of control are not sufficiently
robust to support strong CO emission
limits, and it would delay the NSPS if
we were to seek additional data
elsewhere at this time to support strong
CO emission limits. We expect the CO
emissions to be reduced as a result of
the control of PM, because meeting the
PM standards will be achieved
primarily by BSER based on good
combustion (and in some cases catalysts
and hybrids) which will also result in
good CO reductions without additional
standards for CO. However, we are
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6363
proposing that manufacturers measure
and report CO. We believe this
information will be useful to consumers
and state and local regulators. Requiring
manufacturers to measure and report CO
emissions would also result in the
collection of data that could be used in
the future to establish a CO emissions
limit. We are requesting specific
comments and supporting data on the
need for and level of a possible CO
emissions standard. Also, we ask for
comments on whether we should
require CO monitors to help ensure
proper operation of the heater and to
reduce health and safety concerns for
appliances that are installed in occupied
areas.
c. Pellet Fuel Requirements
A wide variety of pellet fuels is
available for purchase. However, in
some cases, quality claims on the pellet
fuel bag do not necessarily reflect what
is in the bag and there can be variable
performance. Manufacturers’ data show
that some fuel qualities have worse
burning characteristics and operational
characteristics than others, which
results not only in heater performance
problems but also increased emissions
of PM. The PFI, an industry trade
organization, has had pellet fuel quality
standards in place since 1995, with
updated standards issued in 2005, and
again, most recently in 2011 (https://
pelletheat.org/wp-content/uploads/
2011/11/PFI-Standard-SpecificationNovember-2011.pdf), in response to the
EPA’s planned revisions to the
residential wood heaters NSPS. We have
reviewed the PFI program and believe it
is a good program that obviates the need
for the EPA to develop our own program
at this time. Under the proposed NSPS,
pellet burning appliances would be
tested using PFI (or, upon request to the
EPA Administrator, an equivalent
organization’s) graded pellet fuel(s).
Once certified, pellet burning
appliances would only be allowed to
burn the grade of fuel that the appliance
manufacturer chose for the appliance
certification test and the manufacturer
specifies in their owner’s manual for the
operator to use. As discussed above, use
of inferior grades would cause heater
operational problems and increase
emissions. The overall intent of the
certification process is to increase the
consistency and quality of pelletized
fuel throughout the industry, and, thus,
reducing appliance operational
problems and helping certified
appliances perform at the emission
levels to which they are certified. Heater
manufacturers have indicated to us that
market competition will compel them to
specify the widest range of grades for
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6364
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
which their heaters will properly
perform.
The PFI is also implementing a
quality assurance program to ensure that
manufacturers reliably produce graded
fuels. We propose to require adherence
to this program (or equivalent) as a
condition of producing graded pellet
fuels to be used in obtaining
certification under the NSPS. Similar to
the NSPS quality assurance program,
the PFI quality assurance program relies
on use of accreditation and auditing
bodies that:
• Accredit auditing agencies and testing
laboratories
• Implement and enforce the program,
including testing that the pellet fuels
meet the grading specifications
• Maintain the enforcement regulations
• Administer a laboratory proficiency
program
• Pursue product complaints
In addition, accredited auditing
agencies perform the following tasks:
• Certify the production of densified
fuel manufacturers
• Authorize production facilities to use
PFI’s ‘‘grading mark’’
• Conduct regular audits and extracts
samples for third party verification
• Revoke authority to use the PFI mark,
if necessary
Accredited testing laboratories
perform the following activities:
• Provide QA/QC testing for fuel
producers—‘‘as needed’’
• Provide testing for samples collected
by auditing agencies
• Participate in the accreditation body’s
proficiency testing program
Finally, the densified fuel producers
perform the following activities:
• Develop an in-house QA/QC program
based on the PFI QA/QC handbook
and the PFI standard specification
• Select an auditing agency and test lab
• Demonstrate compliance with grading
system component
• Maintain compliance through
periodic audits, inspection and testing
As noted earlier, we have reviewed
the PFI program and believe it is a good
program that obviates the need for the
EPA to develop our own program at this
time. We ask for specific comments on
this decision and the PFI program.
d. Prohibited Fuel Types
As regulated in the current 1988
subpart AAA standards for residential
wood heaters/stoves, operation
according to the owner’s manual
requires operation with the appropriate
fuels because the choice of fuels to burn
in any appliance can have a major
impact on emissions and efficient
operation of the appliance. For clarity,
we are proposing a list of prohibited
fuel types (e.g., trash, plastics, yard
waste) to emphasize the responsibility
of owners and operators to use
appropriate fuels that will result in the
performance of the unit as certified, to
avoid the creation of possibly hazardous
fumes from burning inappropriate
materials, and to ensure that appliance
continues to operate as designed. Even
with burning clean wood, one of the key
factors affecting emissions is the
moisture content. Some advocates have
suggested that we only allow use of
wood certified to a certain moisture
level and that we include visible
emission limits as a tool to help with
practical enforceability of the
requirements for proper operation and
maintenance. Manufacturers typically
include in their owner’s manuals
information on proper maintenance and
operation and state that the wood must
be properly seasoned so that the
moisture content is not too high for
proper operation. Some manufacturers
include moisture meters for the
operators. We are proposing to require
commercial owners (direct distribution
manufacturers and retailers) to provide
a moisture meter with the wood heater
at the time of sale, along with the
owner’s manual and a copy of the
warranty. We request specific comments
on whether we should include more
specific requirements on proper
operations, such as the moisture content
of the wood and visible emission
limitations.
C. How did we establish the proposed
compliance timelines?
The following table summarizes the
proposed compliance timelines for the
appliances covered by the three
subparts.
TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COMPLIANCE DATES
Appliance type
Compliance date
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/Stoves with Current
EPA Certification Issued Prior to the Effective Date of the Final Rule.
1988 requirements remain in effect for these heaters/stoves through
the later of the effective date of the final revised rule or expiration of
current certification (maximum of 5 years after certification and no renewal).
Step 1: upon the effective date of the final rule.
Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.
Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule.
Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.
Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule.
Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.
Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule.
Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.
Large manufacturers: Upon the effective date of the final rule for large
manufacturers.
Small manufacturers: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/Stoves (includes currently certified heaters after the certification expires).
Single Burn Rate Heaters ........................................................................
Hydronic Heaters ......................................................................................
Forced-Air Furnaces .................................................................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Masonry Heaters ......................................................................................
The proposed compliance dates are
tied to the effective date of the final
standards. As stated earlier, an element
of the BSER determination includes
reasonable lead time for R&D to develop
and certify cleaner units. We think
limited or no R&D is needed to comply
with the proposed Step 1 BSER
standards. This allows manufacturers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
approximately 1 year between the date
of this proposal and the date of the final
rule to meet proposed compliance
standards and limits. This 1-year period
is in addition to the time that
manufacturers have had leading up to
this proposed rule.
We allowed small producers of
masonry heaters that do not have a
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
history of federal or extensive state
regulation, or experience with voluntary
partnership programs, 5 years after the
effective date of the final rule to come
into compliance with the same emission
standards as larger masonry heater
manufacturers in order to ensure a
reasonable lead-time.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Finally, we think our proposal for a 6year lead time before the Step 2 BSER
limits (i.e., 5 years after the effective
date of the final rule) would allow
manufacturers a reasonable time to
develop complying models, access the
necessary capital to develop them, and
complete the certification process.
We are proposing a 6-month ‘‘sold at
retail’’ provision for adjustable burn rate
wood heaters, single burn rate heaters/
stoves, and pellet heaters/stoves that
were manufactured prior to the effective
date of the final rule, but not yet sold.
This ‘‘sold at retail’’ provision is similar
to that provided in the current subpart
AAA, and provides a reasonable
transition for manufacturers to recoup
their investment in their stock on hand.
We believe this provision would have a
nominal impact on air quality, because
the majority of these appliances are
already expected to achieve the Step 1
emission limits. For small producers of
masonry heaters, we are proposing an
additional 5-year lead-time. We are not
proposing to apply these extensions to
other sources regulated by this proposal.
We do not believe that an additional
‘‘sold at retail’’ provision is needed for
outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters
and forced-air furnaces. In the case of
hydronic heaters, we believe that any
delay of the compliance deadline for
sales would also result in the sale and
long-term use of non-complying units,
with a potentially adverse quality
impact. We request specific comments
on whether there are other factors we
should consider regarding this ‘‘sold at
retail’’ window and what length of time
might be considered appropriate in
specific circumstances.
While the original subpart AAA
created a 1-year compliance extension
for wood heater manufacturers
producing less than 2,000 heaters per
year, this proposed rule does not
include a compliance extension
provision for single burn rate heaters.
The purpose of the original NSPS
compliance date extension was to
reduce the potential for a testing logjam
and to provide small manufacturers
additional time to conduct R&D, obtain
financing, or purchase complying
designs likely to meet the proposed
standards. We believe that
manufacturers and testing facilities have
now had sufficient time and have
gained the expertise necessary to meet
these standards as proposed and that
meeting the proposed compliance dates
will impose no undue imposition on
manufacturers or testing facilities. We
request comment on the need for such
a compliance extension and the number
of models that might qualify as a small
single burn rate heater manufacturer.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
As stated above, we are proposing a
5-year compliance date extension for
masonry heater manufacturers that sell
fewer than 15 units per year. We also
seek comments on whether we should
have a cap on the total units sold in the
5 years, perhaps 50 units. Most of these
manufacturers are very small
companies. There are only a few major
producers. According to one
manufacturer, the Finnish firm,
Tulikivi, manufactures and supplies
about one-half of the U.S. masonry
heater units installed yearly through its
network of installing distributors. The
second largest producer is a Canadian
firm, Temp-Cast, which manufactures
and exports a large percentage of the
remainder as internal core components
only to U.S. dealer/installers and
homeowners. This manufacturer states
that the remainder of the industry is
dozens of small producers and installers
who produce only a few units, most of
which are custom and individually
designed. This manufacturer also stated
that over 80 percent of U.S. masonry
heater installations use manufactured
core product installation and are not
custom site built (brick-by-brick).
Because of the resources required to
develop, test, and certify masonry
heaters (estimated by industry to be
approximately $250,000 per model,
although our cost analysis used a larger
estimate), we have concluded that a
manufacturer of a small number of
custom site-built model(s) of masonry
heaters would likely be unable to
recover the total cost of R&D and
certification testing costs in a reasonable
timeframe. Similarly, a company that
makes core components or sells design
kits would be unable to recover total
costs if only a few such components or
kits are sold per year. We estimated that
the annualized cost for developing,
testing and certifying a single model is
approximately $60,000, most of which
is the cost of R&D. If a seller makes
$5,000 of profit on each model sold, he
or she would need to sell 12 units per
year to break even. The masonry heater
industry recognized concerns about
these costs, and it has developed an
alternative compliance method based on
computer simulations. The industry
expects that this alternative will allow
sharing licensing of cleaner designs
such that the initial software purchase
would cost approximately $1,500 but
ongoing annual licensing cost will be
approximately $450 per manufacturer.
We believe the 5-year compliance date
extension discussed above for masonry
heater manufacturers that sell fewer
than 15 units per year will allow
sufficient time for manufacturers to
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6365
become comfortable with this
alternative, and use it to demonstrate
compliance.
We considered proposing a
compliance exemption for small
manufacturers of masonry heaters
because of the overall small size of the
market. However, we were concerned
that this might encourage installation of
cheaper, low-performing models, which
would place complying models at a
potential disadvantage. We request
comment on the need for either a
compliance date extension or a
compliance date exemption for masonry
heaters and the length of time that we
should allow.
We are not proposing any extensions
or exemptions for small manufacturers
of adjustable burn rate wood heaters or
pellet heaters/stoves. Adjustable burn
rate wood heaters are already subject to
the NSPS, and we have estimated that
they should not face any R&D expenses
to comply with the Step 1 standards. To
reduce unnecessary certification costs,
we are proposing to allow a one-time
waiver from performance testing for the
first certification period for any
manufacturer that has previously
conducted a valid certification test that
demonstrates the wood heaters in the
model line meet the proposed
standards. We also believe that pellet
heaters/stoves would not face any R&D
costs to comply with the proposed Step
1 standards, and we estimate that
certification costs will only pose a
minor impact. We request comment on
whether there are other factors we
should consider regarding a small
manufacturer compliance extension for
these appliances.
We also are not proposing a small
manufacturer compliance extension for
the Step 1 standards for new residential
hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces.
There are currently 36 hydronic heater
models built by 17 U.S. manufacturers
that have already been qualified to meet
the Phase 2 voluntary partnership
program level of 0.32 lb/MM BTU.
Manufacturers of hydronic heaters and
forced-air furnaces have known for
several years that we were drafting this
proposal and that the states have been
very concerned about emissions from
the models that may not meet the
proposed standards; and we do not want
to perpetuate sales and use of models
unless they demonstrate they do meet
the standards. Once again, we request
comment on whether there are other
factors we should consider regarding a
small manufacturer compliance
extension for these appliances and what
number of appliances sold would
constitute a small volume manufacturer.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6366
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
As discussed above, we recognize
there is some concern, as there was with
the initial NSPS compliance dates, that
testing laboratories capacity may not be
able to meet the demand for certification
tests in the first few years. However, we
believe that the steps we have already
proposed, the availability of additional
ISO-accredited labs, the advance notice
that industry has had concerning the
NSPS prior to this proposal, and the
time between this proposal and the
proposed compliance date of the final
rule, should ensure that adequate
compliance certification resources are
available. The logjam provisions of the
current 1988 NSPS were never invoked,
and we do not think they are needed at
this time. However, we are taking
comment on this issue. We also request
comment on whether these compliance
timelines strike the right balance
between avoiding undue economic
burdens and the need to get better
performing models on the market as
soon as possible to reduce emissions,
and whether other compliance dates
would be appropriate.
D. How are we proposing to streamline
the requirements for certification,
quality assurance and laboratory
accreditation?
As part of the NSPS review process,
several stakeholders stated the need to
improve the current certification and
quality assurance requirements. For
example, some pellet heaters/stove
manufacturers said one reason they
avoid certifying their heaters/stoves is
because they are concerned that the
current process is a barrier to rapid
product development and making
changes to respond to market demand.
Many manufacturers were also
concerned that, as the scope of the
NSPS program expands to include
multiple appliance types, the
certification program would act as a
logjam. Some states are concerned,
however, that moving away from the
EPA certification might result in less
effective oversight. At the EPA, we are
also looking for ways to use our
enforcement resources more effectively.
We believe that the proposed changes,
described in section III.A regarding a
third-party certification program by an
ISO-accredited certifying body and
testing at ISO-accredited labs, will
facilitate the development of improved
designs by providing a faster approval
process and reducing redundancies in
quality assurance for emissions testing
and safety testing, and will improve
enforcement by providing for more
frequent on-site inspections of
manufacturing facilities and
laboratories. For example, safety
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
certification audits take place quarterly
and include the random inspection of
manufactured units for compliance with
design and safety factors. The
experience of the voluntary partnership
programs’ ISO process has shown that
the third-party approach can work.
We also reviewed the list of design
changes (the ‘‘k’’ list; See 40 CFR,
subpart AAA, § 60.633(k)) that would
result in a need to recertify a model line
when certain tolerances are exceeded.
We reviewed this list based on the
experience we have to date on the types
of changes that are significant and
knowledge about current manufacturing
processes that help prevent these
changes from occurring. The resulting
list focuses on the following key
tolerances:
• Firebox dimensions
• Air introduction systems
• Dimensions and locations of the
baffle, catalyst, refractory/insulation,
flue gas exit, and the outer shielding
and covering
• Dimensions and fit of the gaskets for
the door and catalyst bypass
• Fuel feed system
• Forced air combustion system
We believe these changes will focus
resources on the significant changes that
could affect emissions performance of
the model in question. We ask for
specific comments on this list and the
level of appropriate tolerances.
We propose to revise the requirement
for manufacturers to conduct quality
assurance emission tests once a
specified number of units are sold.
Instead, we propose to replace this
numerical trigger with a requirement to
retest when manufacturer-specific
quality assurance criteria (e.g., multiple
errors in safety tests) are exceeded. We
believe that development of a
manufacturer-specific quality assurance
plan with specific criteria and approval
by an ISO-accredited certifying body (or
EPA-approved equivalent) and required
follow-up by that certifying body is a
more direct measure of possible
performance issues, but we request
comment on the exact event(s) that
should be used as the trigger(s) to retest
and whether the triggering event(s)
should vary by appliance type.
We are proposing to retain final EPA
approval of the certification, and we
also propose to require the manufacturer
to submit with the application for
certification a statement signed by a
responsible official that the
manufacturer has complied with all
requirements of the subpart and that the
manufacturer understands that he or she
remains responsible for compliance
regardless of noncompliance by the
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
certifying body. We believe this
combination of requirements would
provide meaningful EPA oversight,
assign clear lines of responsibility, and
free up resources to do more on-site
inspections and other quality assurance
activities, such as addressing issues of
counterfeit certificates or absence of
certificates.
The current random compliance audit
testing of the certification testing
program is considered underused by
many. The EPA recognized this and has
recently initiated such testing.
A key element of the current 1988
NSPS laboratory audit program is the
‘‘round robin’’ test program. In this
program, the EPA purchases a wood
heater and sends it to each of the
accredited laboratories to conduct
emissions tests (two runs at each burn
rate for a total of eight runs). The EPA
then compares the results to determine
inter-laboratory performance. The EPA
recognizes that we have not given this
program as much attention as was
envisioned in 1988. Thus, we propose to
strengthen this program by specifying
that every laboratory conducting
certification tests under the NSPS must
participate in the round robin tests
every other year. If a lab’s results are not
within ±10 percent of the value at which
the heater was certified, then the lab
must conduct another 8 runs. Also, we
will remind the manufacturers that, as
always, the EPA may potentially use
this information to help determine the
need for manufacturer audits and
potential enforcement actions. We think
that these requirements and reminders,
combined with the proposed changes in
test methods (described in greater detail
in the test methods discussion in this
preamble) and implementation of the
ISO process will help improve interlaboratory repeatability and
reproducibility.
E. What changes and additions to the
allowed test methods are we proposing?
As described earlier in this preamble,
we are proposing changes to the test
methods required by subpart AAA. We
are also proposing test methods for the
new subparts QQQQ and RRRR (as
described earlier). In addition, we are
proposing new requirements for testing
and ultimately certifying using cord
wood, which is what the consumer
burns. All affected devices required to
be tested using Method 28 or Method 28
WHH would now be required to
conduct such tests using crib wood and
cord wood. Under Proposed Step 1,
manufacturers would have the option of
selecting which of these test results to
use to show compliance with the
emissions standards. In other words, we
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
are proposing to require manufacturers
to conduct two separate tests, one with
crib wood and one with cord wood. We
are also proposing that manufacturers be
required to report the results of both
tests to the EPA, but manufacturers can
choose to certify with either crib or cord
wood under Proposed Step 1. Under
Proposed Step 2, manufacturers would
be required to show compliance testing
with cord wood.
We are also proposing to revise the
test methods to require the addition of
1-hour filters for each test run to gather
data regarding startup and anticipated
peaks. Further, we are proposing new
compliance requirements for Step 2
with emissions limits at the lowest burn
rate (Category 1) and the maximum burn
rate (Category 4), not a weighted average
of the four burn rates, as in the current
1988 NSPS.
Based on the extensive consensus
development process, history of the
subpart AAA NSPS and hydronic heater
voluntary partnership program emission
test experience, and review of similar
international standards, we believe the
proposed methods reflect state-of-the-art
test methods. However, we request
specific comment on test method related
issues and any data supporting such
issues or concerns.
F. What other changes and additions to
the administrative requirements are we
proposing?
Consistent with Executive Order
13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Relief, we reviewed the
entire current subpart AAA to identify
information that is no longer relevant or
useful and removed associated reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. For
example, because of the changes in the
audit procedures, we do not believe it
is necessary for manufacturers to keep
records of the number of affected
appliances that are sold each year, by
certified model lines, for purposes of
these subparts.
The prohibitions section in each of
the proposed subparts (§ § 60.538,
60.5480, 60.5492) is based substantially
on the current prohibitions section in
subpart AAA. Similarly, the delegation
section in each proposed subpart
(§ § 60.539a, 60.5482, 60.5494) is based
primarily on the current delegation
section in subpart AAA. In general, we
believe these delegations have worked
well and are still appropriate with some
clarifications and additions. The intent
of the prohibitions section is to clarify
the responsibility of owners and
operators and manufacturers to comply
with the proposed subparts. Key
provisions for owners and operators
emphasize that appliances must be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
operated in accordance with the owner’s
manual and the appliances must not be
altered in any way to circumvent the
design and operation of a certified
appliance. Key provisions for
manufacturers emphasize the
importance of complying with the label
requirements and the need to maintain
current certification for all heaters that
are offered for sale. The intent of the
delegation section is to clarify the
regulatory provisions for which the EPA
has retained sole enforcement authority
(definitions, compliance and
certification, test methods and
procedures, laboratory accreditation,
reporting and recordkeeping, revocation
of certification, and hearings and
appeals procedures). However, we have
proposed to include the ability to
delegate provisions to state, local or
tribal agencies where local enforcement
is essential, such as enforcement of
permanent labels and owner’s manual
content, and presentation of false or
misleading information. Note that when
the EPA ‘‘delegates’’ enforcement
authority, we retain our authority to
enforce while allowing the delegatees
also to be able to enforce the delegated
provisions. Also note that the
delegations are upon request, not a
requirement by the EPA.
We are proposing to replace the
current subpart AAA hearing and
appeal procedures with a streamlined
Petition for Review process and also use
this process in subparts QQQQ and
RRRR. This process would allow
accredited laboratories and
manufacturers to contest audit test
findings, laboratory accreditations,
certification denials, and certification
revocations by submitting a written
request and supporting documentation
to the EPA. This process would allow
for expedited review and resolution. We
request specific comments on this
proposed process and other ways to
improve or streamline procedures while
preserving the integrity of the program.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), this action is an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ because it
is likely to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6367
state, local, or tribal governments or
communities. The $100 million
threshold can be triggered by either
costs or benefits, or a combination of
them. Accordingly, the EPA submitted
this action to OMB for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any
changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
In addition, the EPA prepared an
analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action.
This analysis is contained in the RIA for
this proposed rule. A copy of the
analysis is available in the docket for
this action.
A summary of the monetized benefits
and net benefits for the proposed rule at
discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent is in Table 8 of this preamble,
and a more detailed discussion of the
benefits is found in section IV.B of this
preamble. For more information on the
benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA
for this rulemaking, which is available
in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Information
Collection Request (ICR) documents
have been prepared for each proposed
subpart. The subpart AAA ICR has been
assigned the EPA ICR number 1176.10,
which is a revision of the currently
approved ICR number 1176.09. The
subpart QQQQ ICR is a new collection,
which has been assigned the EPA ICR
number 2442.01. The subpart RRRR ICR
also is a new collection, which has been
assigned the EPA ICR number 2443.01.
The new information collection
requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
The proposed rules would require
manufacturers of new residential wood
heating devices to submit applications
for certification of model lines, to
submit results of emissions tests
conducted to demonstrate that the
model lines would comply with the
standards and produce certified units
according to a quality control plan
approved by an independent certifying
body. Manufacturers must submit a
notification of the initial test and
biennial reports that each certified
model line remains unchanged. They
must also maintain records of all
certification data, maintain results of
quality assurance program inspections
and emissions test data, and seal and
store the tested appliance.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6368
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Consistent with the current ICR for
subpart AAA, we have included costs to
manufacture and apply permanent
labels (for all models) on each
applicable unit prior to sale. These
labels provide important compliance
information to enforcement officials.
Test laboratories that want to conduct
NSPS certification testing would need to
apply for accreditation, conduct initial
and biennial proficiency testing and
report the results of all such testing.
Accredited test laboratories would also
be required to participate in an audit
compliance program. Finally, the
accredited laboratories must maintain
records of all certification tests,
proficiency tests and compliance audit
test data.
The required notifications are used to
inform the agency when a new model
line is expected to be tested. The EPA
may then observe the testing operation,
if desired. Emissions test reports are
needed as these are the agency’s record
of a model line’s initial capability to
comply with the emission standard, and
serve as a record of the operating
conditions under which compliance
was achieved.
Adequate recordkeeping and
reporting are necessary to ensure
compliance with these standards as
required by the CAA. The information
collected from recordkeeping and
reporting requirements is also used for
targeting inspections and is of sufficient
quality to be used as evidence in court.
As discussed earlier, we have reviewed
all the current requirements and are
proposing to remove the portions of the
recordkeeping that are not necessary.
The estimated burden for proposed
subpart AAA is based on an estimated
72 respondents (66 manufacturers and 6
testing laboratories) that would be
subject to the rule. The number of total
annual responses for subpart AAA is
estimated at 265. The annual burden for
this information collection averaged
over the first 3 years of this ICR is
estimated to be a total of 6,489 labor
hours per year at a total labor cost of
$516,188 per year. The ICR estimates
that capital and the associated operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs for these
systems would be $1,452,177 per year.
The average annual labor burden per
response is 24 hours.
The estimated burden for proposed
subpart QQQQ is based on an estimated
41 respondents (37 manufacturers and 4
testing laboratories) that would be
subject to the rule. The number of total
annual responses for subpart QQQQ is
estimated at 67. The annual burden for
this information collection averaged
over the first 3 years of this ICR is
estimated to be a total of 2,134 labor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
hours per year at a total labor cost of
$169,745 per year. The ICR estimates
that capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs would be
$715,796 per year. The average annual
labor burden per response is 32 hours.
The estimated burden for proposed
subpart RRRR is based on an estimated
48 respondents (45 manufacturers and 3
testing laboratories) that would be
subject to the rule. The number of total
annual responses for subpart RRRR is
estimated at 108. The annual burden for
this information collection averaged
over the first 3 years of this ICR is
estimated to be a total of 2,044 labor
hours per year at a total labor cost of
$162,589 per year. The ICR estimates
that capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs would be
$89,037 per year. The average annual
labor burden per response is 19 hours.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, the EPA has
established a public docket for this rule,
which includes this ICR, under Docket
ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734.
Submit any comments related to the ICR
to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice
for where to submit comments to the
EPA. Send ICR-related comments to
OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after February 3, 2014, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by March 5,
2014. The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
include small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business that is primarily engaged in
manufacturing heating equipment
(except electric and warm air furnaces),
such as heating boilers (heaters), heating
stoves, floor and wall furnaces, and wall
and baseboard heating units, as defined
by NAICS code 333414 with fewer than
500 employees, or is primarily engaged
in manufacturing air-conditioning and
warm air heating equipment as defined
by NAICS code 333415 with fewer than
750 employees, or is primarily engaged
in masonry contracting, as defined by
NAICS code 238140 with annual
receipts less than 14 million dollars
(based on Small Business
Administration size standards); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA,
the EPA prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines
the impact of the proposed rule on small
entities along with regulatory
alternatives that could reduce that
impact. The IRFA contained within the
RIA for this proposed rule is available
for review in the docket and is
summarized below:
• Reason Why Action Is Being
Considered. As discussed earlier in this
preamble, this proposal was developed
following CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
review of the existing residential wood
heater NSPS.
• Statement of Objectives and Legal
Basis of Proposed Rule. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, the EPA is
proposing to amend Standards of
Performance for New Residential Wood
Heaters and to add two new subparts:
Standards of Performance for New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and
Forced-Air Furnaces and Standards of
Performance for New Residential
Masonry Heaters. This proposal would
achieve several objectives, including
applying updated emission limits that
reflect BSER; improving coverage of the
broad suite of residential wood heaters;
improving the test methods; and
streamlining the certification process.
This proposal does not include any
requirements on heaters that are solely
fired by gas or oil. This proposal does
not affect existing heaters. This proposal
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
was developed under the authority of
CAA section 111.
• Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, small entities
that the EPA anticipates being affected
by this proposal would include almost
all manufacturers of residential wood
heaters. We estimate that roughly 250–
300 U.S. companies manufacture
residential wood heaters. We believe
that approximately 90 percent of these
manufacturers meet the SBA smallentity definition of having fewer than
500 employees.
• Description of reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements. The reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are
described in the section immediately
above (B. Paperwork Reduction Act). As
discussed there, the information
collection requirements (ICR), including
reporting and recordkeeping, in this
proposed rule have been submitted for
approval to OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
For subpart AAA, we estimated the
potential annual burden averaged over
the first 3 years of the ICR to be a total
of 6,489 labor hours per year at a total
labor cost of $516,188 per year and an
average annual labor burden per
response of 24 hours. For subpart
QQQQ, we estimated 2,134 labor hours
per year at a total labor cost of $169,745
per year and an average annual labor
burden per response of 32 hours. For
subpart RRRR, we estimated 2,044 labor
hours per year at a total labor cost of
$162,589 per year and an average
annual labor burden per response of 19
hours.
• Description of other compliance
requirements. As described earlier in
this preamble, this proposal would
apply updated emission limits that
reflect the current best systems of
emission reduction and improve the
coverage of the expanded variety of
types of residential wood heaters. We
estimate the proposed NSPS’s total
annualized average nationwide costs
would be $15.7 million (2010$) over the
2014 through 2022 period. The
economic impacts for industries affected
by this proposed rule over this same
period range from 4.3 percent for
manufacture of wood heater/stove
models to as much as an 6.4 percent
compliance cost-to-sales estimate for
manufacture of single burn rate wood
heater models. These impacts do not
presume any pass-through of impacts to
consumers. With pass-through to
consumers, these impact estimates to
manufacturers will decline
proportionate to the degree of passthrough. We estimate that small entities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
will have annualized costs of greater
than 1 percent of their sales in all
industries except NAICS 332510,
333414 and 423720 with fewer than 20
employees, and NAICS 236115, 238140
and 442299 with receipts less than $10
million. Those establishments in NAICS
332510, 333414 and 423720 with costto-receipt ratios higher than 1 percent
account for 80 percent of small entities
affected in these industries.
Establishments in NAICS 236115,
238140 and 442299 with cost-to-receipt
ratios higher than 1 percent account for
99 percent of small entities affected in
these industries.
• Relevant federal rules that may
overlap or conflict with this proposal.
There are no other relevant federal
rules.
• Significant alternatives. The
significant alternatives to this proposal,
especially those that might minimize
potential impacts on small entities, are
presented in the remainder of this
section.
As required by section 609(b) of the
RFA, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), the EPA also convened a
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
(Panel) to obtain advice and
recommendations of representatives of
the small entities that potentially would
be subject to the rule’s requirements.
The following paragraphs describe the
process, the type of small entity
representatives, the outreach efforts and
the Panel members.
Well before beginning the formal
SBREFA process, the EPA actively
engaged in outreach with HPBA, the
Masonry Heater Association (MHA) and
PFI and many of their member
companies to discuss the rule under
development and to provide these
contacts with an early opportunity to
ask questions and discuss their
concerns.67 The EPA provided each
small business with general information
on the SBREFA process and background
information on the NSPS rulemaking
process and current schedule.
Based on consultations with the Small
Business Administration, and resulting
from solicited self-nominations, we
prepared a list of 30 potential Small
Entity Representatives (SERs), from
residential wood heating appliance
manufacturers (wood heaters, pellet
heaters/stoves, hydronic heaters, forcedair furnaces and masonry heaters), other
67 Also, as noted in this preamble in the
discussion of development of the hydronic heater
emission limits, the EPA worked with the hydronic
heater industry in 2006 to develop a voluntary
partnership program to encourage manufacture of
cleaner models, www.epa.gov/burnwise/
participation.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6369
wood-burning appliance manufacturers
(fireplaces, cook stoves), equipment
suppliers, chimney sweeps, test
laboratories, masons and trade
associations. Once the official pre-Panel
process began and potential SERs were
identified, the EPA held an outreach
meeting with the potential SERs and
invited representatives from the Office
of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (OA/SBA) and the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs within the Office of Management
and Budget (OIRA/OMB) on June 29,
2010, to solicit their feedback on the
upcoming proposed rulemaking.
Representatives from 26 of the 30
companies and organizations that we
selected as potential SERs for this
SBREFA process participated in the
meeting (in person and by phone). At
that meeting, the EPA solicited written
comments from the potential SERs,
which were later summarized and
shared with the Panel as part of the
convening document.
The SBAR Panel convened on August
4, 2010. The Panel consisted of
representatives of the EPA, OA/SBA and
OIRA/OMB. The Panel held a formal
outreach meeting/teleconference with
the SERs on August 25, 2010. To help
the SERs prepare for this meeting, on
August 11, 2010, the Panel sent a list of
questions, preliminary cost information
and other materials to each of the SERs
via email. Additional materials were
emailed to the SERs on August 19, 2010.
The Panel provided the opportunity for
questions and comment during the
meeting on various aspects of the
proposal being developed, including the
expanded scope of the rule, changes to
the current requirements under
consideration, preliminary cost
information and follow up from the June
29, 2010, meeting on the SERs’ ideas for
regulatory flexibility. During the August
25 meeting, SERs voiced general
support for the planned proposed rule
and shared specific concerns with the
Panel members. As a result of this
meeting, the EPA received many useful
verbal comments, and the EPA received
many helpful written comments by
September 10, 2010.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA
requirements, the Panel evaluated the
assembled materials and small-entity
comments on issues related to elements
of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel final
full report is included in the docket for
this proposed rule. We invite comments
on the report. A summary of the Panel
recommendations is presented below.
We have attempted to follow the Panel’s
recommendations to the degree we can
while also ensuring that the options are
practicable, enforceable,
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6370
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
environmentally sound and consistent
with the CAA. For those
recommendations not adopted by the
EPA, we have included an explanation
for why we rejected them.
Many of the SERs and the Panel had
concerns about the breadth of this
rulemaking and the challenges the EPA
faces in conducting rulemaking for all of
these source categories at one time and
the challenges that the small businesses
will face in having to comply with
standards for all of these source
categories at one time. The Panel
recommended that the EPA should
consider focusing efforts first on
emissions sources that have the greatest
potential to impact public health
through the magnitude of emissions and
population exposure. We have focused
our efforts. The Panel noted the adverse
effects of the 1988 NSPS on numerous
wood heater/stove manufacturers, and
the need to carefully develop a rule that
will minimize business closures, while
still achieving significant emission
reductions. All Panel members believed
that the EPA had adequate information
to move forward with developing
revisions that apply to the residential
wood heater categories that are already
regulated by the 1988 NSPS. However,
two Panel members recommended that
the EPA Administrator consider taking
more time to collect additional
information to better determine BSER
for the certified wood heater category.
They concluded that the EPA did
present to the Panel enough information
to justify regulation of this subcategory,
but the EPA did not adequately inform
the SERs about the other categories.
These two Panel members believed it
was unclear whether adoption of a more
stringent standard for new sources
would slow the adoption of new,
cleaner burning heaters, potentially
delaying improvements in air quality.
The two Panel members further
believed, based on the information
available from the EPA and the SERs at
that time, that they could not conclude
that a nationwide NSPS limit on the
other categories would be the preferred
approach for reducing wood heater
emissions.
Following the Panel’s convening on
August 4, 2010, the EPA collected
additional information, and we refined
the economic and technical analyses
based, in part, on input from the SERs
as the basis for this proposal. The Panel
recommended that the EPA
Administrator consider assessing the
availability of data to better characterize
each source category prior to
considering proposal of standards. In
particular, the Panel recommended that
the EPA consider characterizing the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
emissions per unit, operating hours per
year, and the distribution of emissions
across the unit types within each
category under discussion at that time to
better understand the magnitude of
emissions reductions that may or may
not be reduced through alternative
regulatory and non-regulatory
mechanisms. As discussed earlier, the
EPA has considered such
characterizations and alternatives.
The following is a list of Panel
recommendations and how we
incorporated them into this proposal:
• The Panel recommended that the
EPA should consider focusing efforts
first on emissions sources that have the
greatest potential to impact public
health through the magnitude of
emissions and population exposure.
This proposal focuses on those sources.
• The Panel encouraged the EPA to
consider flexibilities that will most
directly minimize the small business
burdens, for example delayed
compliance dates for low volume
production. The delayed compliance
approach was predicated on the concept
that it will take a number of years for
manufacturers to recover the costs of the
R&D investment in order to achieve
compliance. This proposal has
incorporated a stepped approach for
emission limits and asks for comments
on other alternative approaches.
• The Panel recommended that the
EPA consider the availability and
feasibility of certification, testing labs,
testing standards and other
requirements. In particular, the Panel
recommended that the EPA consider
ways to streamline compliance
certification, identifying flexible
approaches and procedures that will
reduce the burden and time for
manufacturers to complete the
application, testing and approval
process for new model lines. For
example, the Panel recommended that
the EPA consider allowing the use of
International Standards Organization
(ISO)-accredited laboratories and
certifying bodies to expand the number
of facilities that would be required for
testing and certification of the new
residential solid biomass combustion
appliances. Additionally, the Panel
recommended that the EPA consider
different compliance time frames for
different product categories to reduce
the potential for logjams at test labs and
the overall impact on companies that
manufacture multiple categories. This
proposal includes stepped emission
limits for different categories and adds
ISO-accredited laboratories and ISOaccredited certifying bodies to increase
the availability of laboratories and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
certifiers. Further, this proposal asks for
specific comments on the schedules.
• The Panel recommended that the
EPA continue to allow manufacturers to
test a representative unit for a model
line rather than testing and reporting
results for each individual unit. This
proposal continues to allow that.
• The Panel recommended that the
EPA consider emphasizing that the
NSPS will address only new units. This
proposal emphasizes that it does not
affect existing units.
• In the Panel Report, SBA and OMB
recommended that the EPA not move
forward with proposed emission limits
for pellet stoves, indoor hydronic
heaters, biomass pellet stoves, masonry
heaters, masonry fireplace kits, site-built
masonry fireplaces, coal stoves, cook
stoves, bake ovens (including Native
American Traditional Bake Ovens),
camp stoves, outdoor fireplaces and
chimineas. This proposal establishes
emission limits for pellet stoves/heaters,
which compete with adjustable burn
rate wood stoves/heaters in the ‘‘room
heaters’’ consumer marketplace. There
is confusion in the marketplace as to
why some pellet stoves are regulated
and why some are not. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, the potential
exclusion of pellet stoves with greater
than 35-to-1 air-to-fuel ratio is an
unintended consequence of the 1988
actual intention of not setting emission
limits for open fireplaces with high
excess combustion air that do not
operate as effective heaters. We believe
that not moving forward on pellet stoves
now would contribute to further
confusion and an uneven playing field
in the marketplace. Further, the
emission levels we are proposing for
pellet stoves/heaters are at the same
level as the proposed wood stove/heater
standards and are already achieved by
most pellet stove/heater models and
thus do not impose substantial
compliance costs. Similarly, masonry
heaters compete in the residential wood
heaters consumer marketplace and
there is confusion as to why they are
regulated by some states, but not the
EPA, and are even banned by some air
districts because masonry heaters are
not EPA-certified. Most masonry heaters
are effective heaters and relatively clean
and efficient, especially compared to
pre-NSPS wood stoves. Requiring valid
certification testing and reporting and
providing that information to regulators
and consumers and the public will help
inform all as they strive to make
appropriate choices on wood heating
and air quality. That is, the masonry
heaters can be an excellent emission
reduction choice for replacing higher
emission pre-NSPS wood stoves and
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
should be encouraged over old wood
stoves in most air sheds. Further, the
emission levels we are proposing are
already achieved by most masonry
heater designs and we allow extra time
for small manufacturers. This proposal
addresses indoor hydronic heaters
because they compete with outdoor
hydronic heaters and forced-air
furnaces in the ‘‘central heaters’’
consumer marketplace and there
already is confusion as to why some are
regulated by some states and some are
not. Further, the magnitude of their
emissions is of great concern and BSER
controls are highly justified on costbenefit grounds. The remainder of the
appliances listed above are not included
in this proposal.
• In the Panel report, SBA and OMB
recommended that ‘‘where EPA
estimates that the nationwide emissions
are less than 300 tons per year (or some
other value) . . . the EPA Administrator
should consider options of not issuing
an NSPS but rather consider allowing
Regions and States to control such
sources and consider other efforts,
including voluntary standards to lower
emissions.’’ We considered this
recommendation but we could not find
a legal or policy justification for an
arbitrary cutoff and it is not included in
this proposal. Also, we note that many
states are prohibited from setting
control requirements more stringent
than the EPA requirements and all
states have concerns about the lack of
resources necessary to develop and
adopt and implement state standards or
voluntary programs, especially when
most believe it is the EPA’s
responsibility, and some have sued the
EPA for failure to review and
promulgate national standards on time
as statutorily required. Further, the EPA
does not agree with this
recommendation, especially considering
the strong recommendations by many
states that the EPA regulate all
residential wood heaters as soon as
possible to provide another tool to help
them with their efforts to reduce wood
smoke emissions. As stated elsewhere in
this proposal, the EPA is not proposing
standards at this time for biomass pellet
heater/stoves that are designed to only
combust biomass other than wood, bake
ovens, fireplaces, coal-only stoves,
chimineas, ceremonial fires and
commercial pizza ovens.
• Two Panel members recommended
that if the EPA decides to later pursue
regulation of categories other than
certified wood heaters, the EPA should
convene another Panel to address those
subcategories at the appropriate time.
The EPA does not agree with this
recommendation for residential wood
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
heaters because the EPA believes that
the SERs already have had multiple
opportunities to address those
subcategories. Furthermore, the EPA has
conducted numerous meetings after the
Panel process was completed to provide
much additional information (e.g.,
technical discussions of refined
alternatives) and updates to
stakeholders including the SERs and
other small businesses and other
interested parties. We emphasize that
this proposal is not a final rule but
rather it is a proposal for public review
and comment. We welcome comments
and data on all aspects of this proposal
that will help us prepare the final
rulemaking.
As noted earlier, a copy of the Panel
final full report is included in the
docket for this proposed rule. We invite
comments on the report and on all
aspects of the proposal and its impacts
on small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule contains no
federal mandates under the provisions
of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538 that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for state, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector in
any 1 year. This proposed action
imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments. The
nationwide annualized average
compliance cost of this proposed rule
for directly affected appliances is $15.7
million/yr in the 2014–2022 timeframe
(2010$). Therefore, this proposed rule
would not be subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
the UMRA.
This proposed rule would also not be
subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The proposed rule would
not apply to such governments and
would impose no obligations upon
them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) requires the EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ are
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6371
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It would not
have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The proposed
rule would not impose any
requirements on state and local
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this proposed
rule. Although section 6 of Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed action, the EPA did consult
with representatives of state and local
governments in developing this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132
and consistent with the EPA policy to
promote communications between the
EPA and state and local governments,
the EPA specifically solicits comment
on this proposed rule from state and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed action does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This proposed rule
would not impose any requirements on
tribal governments; thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action. Although Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action, we
recognize that the air quality and public
health benefits to be achieved by this
rule would benefit tribes, and we
conducted outreach to tribal
environmental staff and consulted with
representatives of tribal officials in
developing this action.
During the development of this
proposed rulemaking, the EPA
conducted outreach with numerous
tribal representatives to provide
opportunities for input prior to
development of the proposed rule. We
provided information at the July 2010,
National Tribal Forum/National Tribal
Air Association (NTAA) meeting in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the
November 2010, EPA Region 10 Tribal
Leaders Summit in Juneau, Alaska. We
also presented information on this
proposed rulemaking in the April 2010,
issue of Tribal Air News and during the
EPA/NTAA tribal workgroup conference
calls (April 2010, July 2010, August
2010, and May 2013). Specifically, we
received input from the EPA/NTAA
tribal workgroup members on culturally
relevant exclusions from the proposed
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6372
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
standards. We agreed with their input,
clarified that we do not intend to
regulate ceremonial fires, and added a
definition to the rule to exclude
traditional Native American bake ovens.
On February 18, 2011, the EPA mailed
letters to about 600 elected tribal leaders
in the U.S. offering an opportunity for
consultation on this proposal. We
received requests from six tribes. These
tribes agreed to discuss this proposal
with us in a conference call held on
March 22, 2011. The tribes were very
supportive of this proposal and
provided some helpful clarifications of
definitions (e.g., Native American bake
ovens) that we have incorporated in this
proposal.
We plan to continue to provide
updates on the rule on the EPA/NTAA
conference calls and to offer
opportunities to tribal leaders for
consultation. The EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this
proposed action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant,’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
the EPA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the EPA must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because the agency does
not believe the environmental health
risks or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The report, ‘‘Analysis of
Exposure to Residential Wood
Combustion Emissions for Different
Socio-Economic Groups,’’ 68 shows that
on a nationwide basis, cancer risks due
to residential wood smoke emissions
among disadvantaged population groups
generally are lower than the risks for the
68 ‘‘Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood
Combustion Emissions for Different SocioEconomic Groups, Revised Draft Report.’’ Prepared
for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC. Prepared by EC/R Inc., EPA Contract No. EP–
D–05–085, Work Assignment No. 4–3. April 22,
2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
general population due to residential
wood smoke emissions. One of the
demographic variables examined for
this report was that of children 18 years
and younger.
This proposed rule is expected to
reduce environmental impacts for
everyone, including children. This
action proposes emissions limits at the
levels based on BSER, as required by the
CAA. Based on our analysis, we believe
this rule would not have a
disproportionate impact on children,
and, in fact, will result in improvements
to children’s health.
The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure to smoke from
residential wood heaters.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, we have concluded that
this rule is not likely to have any
significant adverse energy effects. In
general, we expect the NSPS to improve
technology, including energy efficiency.
Reducing emissions and increasing
efficiency might increase the use of
wood fuel, which would relieve
pressure on traditional coal or
petroleum based energy sources.
However, as described in section IV.E,
it is difficult to determine the precise
energy impacts that might result from
this rule. This is because wood-fueled
appliances compete with other biomass
forms as well as more traditional oil,
electricity and natural gas. We have not
determined the potential conversion to
other types of fuels and their associated
appliances if the consumer costs of
wood-fueled appliances increase and at
what level that increase would drive
consumer choice.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves
technical standards. The EPA proposes
to use several VCS test methods, in full
or in part, including the following
methods available for review at the
ASTM Web site www.astm.org/EPAreview: E2515–10 ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determination of Particulate
Matter Emissions Collected by a
Dilution Tunnel’’ (See also ASTM
WK20442 proposed revision and ASTM
WK31433 proposed revision); E2779–10
‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions from Pellet
Heaters;’’ E2780–10 ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining Particulate
Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters;’’
E2618–13 ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Particulate Matter
Emissions and Heating Efficiency of
Outdoor Solid Fuel-Fired Hydronic
Heating Appliances;’’ ASTM E2817–11
‘‘Standard Test Method for Test Fueling
Masonry Heaters;’’ ASTM WK26558
‘‘Specification for Calculation Method
for Custom Designed, Site Built
Masonry Heaters.’’ Also, we propose to
use, in part, the following test method
available for review at the CSA Web site
https://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/fuelburning-equipment/b4151-10/invt/
27013322010/: CSA B415.1–10
‘‘Performance Testing of Solid-fuelburning Heating Appliances.’’ Finally,
we propose to use, in part, the following
test method prepared by the European
Union: EN 303–5 ‘‘Heating boilers for
solid fuels, hand and automatically
stoked nominal heat output of up to
1025 MBtu—Terminology,
requirements, testing, and marketing.’’
We believe that all the methods listed
above have some positive aspects that
can help stakeholders determine
emissions under various operation
conditions. For more details on each
method, please refer to the discussions
in Section III of this preamble.
In addition, we determined that the
VCS ASTM E871–82 (2006), ‘‘Standard
Test Method for Moisture Analysis of
Particulate Wood Fuels’’ is acceptable as
an alternative to Methods 5H and 28.
The search identified five other VCS
that were potentially applicable for this
rule in lieu of the EPA reference
methods. However, the EPA determined
that the five candidate VCS would not
be practical due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, validation data and
other important technical and policy
considerations. The five VCS and other
information and conclusion, including
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the search and review results, are in the
docket for this proposed rule. The EPA
welcomes comments on this aspect of
the proposed rulemaking. Specifically,
we invite the public to identify
potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why
such standards, in whole or in part,
should or should not be used in this
regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the U.S. The EPA defines
‘‘Environmental Justice’’ to include
meaning involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin
or income with respect to the
development, implementation and
enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.
As discussed earlier, the report,
‘‘Analysis of Exposure to Residential
Wood Combustion Emissions for
Different Socio-Economic Groups,’’
shows that on a nationwide basis,
cancer risks due to residential wood
smoke emissions among disadvantaged
population groups generally are lower
than the risks for the general population
due to residential wood smoke
emissions. Thus, we have determined
that this proposed rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all
affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority low-income or indigenous
population.69 This proposed rule
establishes national standards that
would reduce primarily PM emissions
69 ‘‘Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood
Combustion Emissions for Different SocioEconomic Groups, Revised Draft Report.’’ Prepared
for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC. Prepared by EC/R Inc., EPA Contract No. EP–
D–05–085, Work Assignment No. 4–3. April 22,
2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
from new residential wood heaters and,
thus, would decrease the amount of
these emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 3, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart A—GENERAL PROVISIONS
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(109) through
(a)(115); and
■ b. Adding paragraph (p) to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 60.17
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(109) ASTM E871–82 (2006),
Standard Test Methods for Moisture
Analysis of Particulate Wood Fuels, IBR
approved for appendix A: Method 5H
and Method 28.
(110) ASTM E2515–10, Standard Test
Method for Determination of Particulate
Matter Emissions Collected by a
Dilution Tunnel, IBR approved for
§ 60.534(c), § 60.5476(b) and
§ 60.5488(b).
(111) ASTM E2779–10, Standard Test
Method for Determining Particulate
Matter Emissions from Pellet Heaters,
IBR approved for § 60.534(a)(2).
(112) ASTM E2618–13 Standard Test
Method for Measurement of Particulate
Matter Emissions and Heating Efficiency
of Outdoor Solid Fuel-Fired Hydronic
Heating Appliances, IBR approved for
§ 60.5476(a)(2).
(113) ASTM E2780–10, Standard Test
Method for Determining Particulate
Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters,
IBR approved for § 60.534(a)(2).
(114) ASTM E2817–11, Standard Test
Method for Test Fueling Masonry
Heaters, IBR approved for § 60.5488(a).
(115) ASTM WK26558, New
Specification for Calculation Method for
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6373
Custom Designed, Site Built Masonry
Heaters, IBR approved for
§ 60.5488(c)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
(p) This material is available for
purchase from the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) at https://shop.csa.ca/
en/canada/fuel-burning-equipment/
b4151-10/invt/27013322010/.
(1) CSA B415.1–10, Performance
Testing of Solid-fuel-burning Heating
Appliances, IBR approved for
§ 60.534(d) and § 60.5476(c) and (d).
(2) [Reserved]
■ 3. Revise subpart AAA to read as
follows:
Subpart AAA—Standards of Performance
for New Residential Wood Heaters
Sec.
60.530 Am I subject to this subpart?
60.531 What definitions must I know?
60.532 What standards and associated
requirements must I meet and by when?
60.533 What compliance and certification
requirements must I meet and by when?
60.534 What test methods and procedures
must I use to determine compliance with
the standards and requirements for
certification?
60.535 What procedures must I use for
laboratory accreditation or certifying
body accreditation?
60.536 What requirements must I meet for
permanent labels and owner’s manuals?
60.537 What records must I keep and what
reports must I submit?
60.538 What activities are prohibited under
this subpart?
60.539 What Petition for Review procedures
apply to me?
60.539a Who implements and enforces this
subpart?
60.539b What parts of the General
Provisions do not apply?
Subpart AAA—Standards of
Performance for New Residential
Wood Heaters
§ 60.530
Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if
you operate, manufacture, sell, offer for
sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to
distribute, introduce, or deliver for
introduction, into commerce in the
United States, an affected wood heater
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of
this section:
(1) Each adjustable burn rate wood
heater with a current EPA certificate of
compliance, single burn rate wood
heaters with a current EPA certificate of
compliance, and each pellet stove with
a current EPA certificate of compliance
issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] according to the
certification procedures in effect in this
subpart at the time of certification that
are manufactured on or after July 1,
1988 are affected wood heaters.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6374
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(2) All other residential wood heaters
under this subpart manufactured or sold
on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] are affected wood heaters.
(b) Each affected wood heater must
comply with the provisions of this
subpart unless exempted under
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this
section.
(1) Affected wood heaters
manufactured in the United States for
export are exempt from the applicable
emission limits of § 60.532 and the
requirements of § 60.533.
(2) Affected wood heaters used for
research and development purposes that
are never offered for sale or sold and
that are not used for the purpose of
providing heat are exempt from the
applicable emission limits of § 60.532
and the requirements of § 60.533. No
more than 50 wood heaters
manufactured per model line can be
exempted for this purpose.
(3) Appliances that do not burn wood
or wood pellets (such as coal-only
heaters that meet the definition in
§ 60.531 or corn-only pellet stoves) are
exempt from the applicable emission
limits of § 60.532 and the requirements
of § 60.533.
(4) Cook stoves that meet the
definition in § 60.531 are exempt from
the applicable emission limits of
§ 60.532 and the requirements of
§ 60.533.
(5) Camp stoves that meet the
definition in § 60.531 are exempt from
the applicable emission limits of
§ 60.532 and the requirements of
§ 60.533.
(6) Modification or reconstruction, as
defined in § 60.14 and § 60.15 of
Subpart A will not, by itself, make a
wood heater an affected facility under
this subpart.
(c) The following are not affected
wood heaters and are not subject to this
subpart:
(1) Residential hydronic heaters and
residential forced-air furnaces subject to
subpart QQQQ of this part.
(2) Residential masonry heaters
subject to subpart RRRR of this part.
(3) Appliances that are not residential
heating devices (for example,
manufactured or site-built masonry
fireplaces).
(4) Traditional Native American bake
ovens that meet the definition in
§ 60.531.
§ 60.531
What definitions must I know?
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act and subpart
A of this part.
Adjustable burn rate wood heater
means an enclosed, wood-burning
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
appliance capable of and intended for
residential space heating or domestic
water heating that is equipped with or
installed with a damper or other
mechanism to allow the operator to vary
burn rate conditions, regardless of
whether it is internal or external to the
appliance. This definition does not
distinguish between heaters that are free
standing or fireplace inserts.
Accredited test laboratory means a
test laboratory that is accredited for
wood heater certification testing under
§ 60.535 or is an independent thirdparty test laboratory that is accredited
by a nationally recognized accrediting
entity under ISO–IEC Standard 17025 to
perform testing using the test methods
specified in § 60.534 and approved by
the EPA for conducting testing under
this subpart.
At retail means the sale by a
commercial owner of a wood heater to
the ultimate purchaser.
Camp stove (sometimes also called
cylinder stove or wall tent stove) means
a portable stove equipped with a pipe or
chimney exhaust capable of burning
wood or coal intended for use in a tent
or other temporary structure used for
hunting, camping, fishing, or other
outdoor recreation. The primary
purpose of the stove is to provide space
heating, although cooking and heating
water may be additional functions.
Catalytic combustor means a device
coated with a noble metal used in a
wood heater to lower the temperature
required for combustion.
Certifying entity means an
independent third party that is
accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting entity under ISO–IEC
Standard 17020 to perform
certifications, inspections and audits
under ISO–IEC Guide 17065 and
approved by the EPA for conducting
certifications, inspections and audits
under this subpart.
Coal-only heater means an enclosed,
coal-burning appliance capable of space
heating, or domestic water heating,
which has all of the following
characteristics:
(1) An opening for emptying ash that
is located near the bottom or the side of
the appliance;
(2) A system that admits air primarily
up and through the fuel bed;
(3) A grate or other similar device for
shaking or disturbing the fuel bed or
power-driven mechanical stoker;
(4) Installation instructions that state
that the use of wood in the stove, except
for coal ignition purposes, is prohibited
by law; and
(5) The model is listed by a nationally
recognized safety-testing laboratory for
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
use of coal only, except for coal ignition
purposes.
Commercial owner means any person
who owns or controls a wood heater in
the course of the business of the
manufacture, importation, distribution
(including shipping and storage), or sale
of the wood heater.
Cookstove means a wood-fired
appliance that is designed primarily for
cooking food and that has the following
characteristics:
(1) An oven, with volume of 0.028
cubic meters (1 cubic foot) or greater,
and an oven rack;
(2) A device for measuring oven
temperatures;
(3) A flame path that is routed around
the oven;
(4) An ash pan;
(5) An ash clean-out door below the
oven;
(6) The absence of a fan or heat
channels to dissipate heat from the
appliance;
(7) A cooking surface measured in
square inches or square feet that is 1.5
times greater than the firebox, which is
measured in cubic inches or cubic feet.
Example: A firebox of 2 cubic feet
would have a cooking surface of at least
3 square feet;
(8) A portion of at least four sides of
the oven is exposed to the flame path
during the heating cycle of the oven. A
flue gas bypass may exist for
temperature control.
Manufactured means completed and
ready for shipment (whether or not
packaged).
Manufacturer means any person who
constructs or imports into the United
States a wood heater.
Model line means all wood heaters
offered for sale by a single manufacturer
that are similar in all material respects.
Particulate matter (PM) means total
particulate matter including coarse PM
(PM10) and fine PM (PM2.5).
Pellet stove means an enclosed, solid
fuel burning device capable of and
intended for residential space heating or
domestic water heating that is designed
specifically to burn wood pellet fuel
that incorporates induced air flow, is
installed with an automatic pellet
feeder, and is a free standing room
heater or fireplace insert.
Representative affected wood heater
means an individual wood heater that is
similar in all material respects to other
wood heaters within the model line it
represents.
Room heater means an enclosed,
wood-burning appliance capable of and
intended for residential space heating.
Unless otherwise specified, these
devices include adjustable burn rate
wood heaters, single burn rate wood
heaters and pellet stoves.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Sale means the transfer of ownership
or control, except that a transfer of
control of an affected wood heater for
research and development purposes
within the scope of § 60.530(b)(2) is not
a sale.
Seasoned wood means wood with a
moisture content of 20 percent or less.
Similar in all material respects means
that the construction materials, exhaust
and inlet air system, and other design
features are within the allowed
tolerances for components identified in
§ 60.533(k).
Single burn rate wood heater means
an enclosed, wood-burning appliance
capable of and intended for residential
space heating or domestic water heating
that is not equipped with or installed
with a damper to allow the operator to
vary burn rate conditions.
Traditional Native American bake
oven means a wood or other solid fuel
burning appliance that is designed
primarily for use by Native Americans
for food preparation, cooking, warming,
or for instructional, recreational,
cultural or ceremonial purposes.
Valid certification test means a test
that meets the following criteria:
(1) The Administrator was notified
about the test in accordance with
§ 60.534(f);
(2) The test was conducted by an
accredited test laboratory;
(3) The test was conducted on a wood
heater similar in all material respects to
other wood heaters of the model line
that is to be certified; and
(4) The test was conducted in
accordance with the test methods and
procedures specified in § 60.534.
Wood heater means an enclosed,
wood burning-appliance capable of and
intended for residential space heating or
domestic water heating. Unless
otherwise specified, these devices
include adjustable burn rate wood
heaters, single burn rate wood heaters
and pellet stoves.
Wood pellet fuel means refined and
densified wood shaped into small
pellets or briquettes that are uniform in
size, shape, moisture, density and
energy content.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 60.532 What standards and associated
requirements must I meet and by when?
(a) 1990 Particulate Matter Standards.
Unless exempted under § 60.530, each
adjustable burn rate wood heater and
pellet stove with a current EPA
certification issued prior to [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], according to
the certification procedures in effect in
this subpart at the time of certification,
must comply with the following
particulate matter emission limits as
determined by the applicable test
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
methods and procedures in § 60.534(a)
through (c) until the current
certification expires as specified in
§ 60.533(h)(1), or it is revoked by the
Administrator as specified in
§ 60.533(l), whichever is first. After the
certificate expires or is revoked,
individual wood heaters in that model
line can no longer be manufactured or
sold unless the manufacturer receives a
new certificate of compliance from the
Administrator.
(1) An affected wood heater equipped
with a catalytic combustor must not
discharge into the atmosphere any gases
that contain particulate matter in excess
of a weighted average of 4.1 g/hr (0.009
lb/hr) as specified in the applicable test
method. Particulate matter emissions
during any test run at any burn rate that
is required to be used in the weighted
average as specified in the applicable
test method must not exceed the value
calculated for ‘‘C’’ (rounded to 2
significant figures) calculated using the
following equation:
(i) At burn rates less than or equal to
2.82 kg/hr (6.2 lb/hr),
C=K1BR+K2
Where:
BR = Burn rate in kg/hr (lb/hr)
C = Actual particulate matter emission rate
in g/hr (lb/hr) per burn rate in a given
test run
K1= 3.55 g/kg (0.00355 lb/lb)
K2= 4.98 g/hr (0.0.011 lb/hr)
(ii) At burn rates greater than 2.82 kg/
hr (6.2 lb/hr), C = 15 g/hr (0.033 lb/hr).
(2) An affected wood heater not
equipped with a catalytic combustor
must not discharge into the atmosphere
any gases that contain particulate matter
in excess of a weighted average of 7.5
g/hr (0.017 lb/hr) as specified in the
applicable test method. Particulate
matter emissions must not exceed 15 g/
hr (0.033 lb/hr) during any test run at
a burn rate less than or equal to 1.5 kg/
hr (3.3 lb/hr) that is required to be used
in the weighted average as specified in
the applicable test method and
particulate matter emissions must not
exceed 18 g/hr (0.040 lb/hr) during any
test run at a burn rate greater than 1.5
kg/hr (3.3 lb/hr) that is required to be
used in the weighted average as
specified in the applicable test method.
(3) As an alternative, an affected wood
heater subject to paragraph (a) of this
section may elect to comply with the
requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) 2015 Particulate Matter Standards.
Unless exempted under § 60.530 or
subject to the standards specified in
paragraph (a) of this section, each
adjustable burn rate wood heater or
pellet stove manufactured on or after
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6375
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or
sold at retail for use in the United States
on or after [6 MONTHS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
must comply with the emission limits
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of
this section, as applicable. Unless
exempted under § 60.530, each single
burn rate wood heater manufactured on
or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE] or sold at retail on or after [6
MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] must comply with the
emission limit specified in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. Compliance for all
sources must be determined by the test
methods and procedures in § 60.534.
(1) An adjustable burn rate wood
heater or pellet stove that is an affected
wood heater equipped with a catalytic
combustor must not discharge into the
atmosphere any gases that contain
particulate matter in excess of a
weighted average of 4.5 g/hr (0.01 lb/hr).
(2) An adjustable burn rate wood
heater or pellet stove that is an affected
wood heater not equipped with a
catalytic combustor and capable of
making burn rate adjustments must not
discharge into the atmosphere any gases
that contain particulate matter in excess
of a weighted average of 4.5 g/hr (0.01
lb/hr).
(3) A single burn rate wood heater
that is an affected wood heater must not
discharge into the atmosphere any gases
that contain particulate matter in excess
of 4.5 g/hr (0.01 lb/hr).
(c) 2020 Particulate Matter Standards.
Unless exempted under § 60.530 or
subject to the standards specified in
paragraph (a) of this section, each
adjustable burn rate wood heater, pellet
stove or single burn rate wood heater
manufactured or sold at retail for use in
the United States on or after [5 YEARS
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE] must not discharge into the
atmosphere any gases that contain
particulate matter in excess of 1.3 g/hr
(0.003 lb/hr) for any burn rate.
Compliance for all sources must be
determined by the test methods and
procedures in § 60.534.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Pellet Fuel Requirements.
Operators of wood heaters that are
certified to burn pellet fuels may only
burn pellets that have been produced
under a licensing agreement with the
Pellet Fuels Institute or an equivalent
organization approved by the EPA. The
pellet fuel must meet the following
minimum requirements:
(1) Density: consistent hardness and
energy content with a minimum density
of 38 pounds/cubic foot;
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6376
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(2) Dimensions: maximum length of
1.5 inches and diameter between 0.230
and 0.285 inches;
(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal
to 1 percent;
(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300
parts per million by weight;
(5) Ash content: no more than 2
percent; and
(6) A quality assurance process
licensed by the Pellet Fuels Institute or
equivalent organization approved by
EPA.
(f) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person
is permitted to burn any of the following
materials in an affected wood heater:
(1) Residential or commercial garbage;
(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste;
(3) Materials containing rubber,
including tires;
(4) Materials containing plastic;
(5) Waste petroleum products, paints
or paint thinners, or asphalt products;
(6) Materials containing asbestos;
(7) Construction or demolition debris;
(8) Paper products, cardboard,
plywood, or particleboard. The
prohibition against burning these
materials does not prohibit the use of
fire starters made from paper,
cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar
substances for the purpose of starting a
fire in an affected wood heater;
(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated
wood;
(10) Manure or animal remains; or
(11) Salt water driftwood or other
previously salt water saturated
materials.
(g) Owner’s Manual. A person must
not operate an affected residential wood
heater in a manner inconsistent with the
owner’s manual. The owner’s manual
must clearly specify that operation in a
manner inconsistent with the owner’s
manual would violate the warranty.
(h) Temperature Sensor Requirement.
An affected wood heater equipped with
a catalytic combustor must be equipped
with a temperature sensor that can
monitor combustor gas stream
temperatures within or immediately
downstream [within 2.54 centimeters (1
inch)] of the catalytic combustor
surface.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 60.533 What compliance and certification
requirements must I meet and by when?
(a) Certification Requirement. Each
affected wood heater must be certified
to bein compliance with the applicable
emission standards and other
requirements of this subpart. For each
model line manufactured or sold by a
single entity, e.g., company or
manufacturer, compliance with
applicable emission standards of
§ 60.532 may be determined based on
testing of representative affected wood
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
heaters within the model line. If one
entity, licenses a model line to another
entity, each entity’s model line must be
certified. If an entity changes the name
of the entity or the name of the model,
the manufacturer must apply for a new
certification.
(1) Prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], the manufacturer must
submit to the EPA the information
required in paragraph (b) of this section
and follow either the certification
process in paragraphs (b) through (e) of
this section or the certifying entity
based application process specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], the manufacturer must
submit the information required in
paragraph (b) of this section and follow
the certifying entity based application
process specified in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(b) Application for Certificate of
Compliance. Any manufacturer of an
affected wood heater must apply to the
Administrator for a certificate of
compliance for each model line. The
application must be submitted to: Wood
Heater NSPS Compliance Program at
www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_
Compliance_Program. The application
must be signed by a responsible
representative of the manufacturer or an
authorized representative and must
contain the following:
(1) The model name and/or design
number and responsible contact
information for the manufacturer and all
authorized representatives, including
name, affiliation, physical address,
telephone number, and email address.
(2) Engineering drawings and
specifications of components that may
affect emissions (including
specifications for each component listed
in paragraph (k) of this section).
Manufacturers may use complete
assembly or design drawings that have
been prepared for other purposes, but
must designate on the drawings the
dimensions of each component listed in
paragraph (k) of this section.
Manufacturers must identify tolerances
of components of the tested unit listed
in paragraph (k)(2) of this section that
are different from those specified in that
paragraph, and show that such
tolerances may not reasonably be
anticipated to cause wood heaters in the
model line to exceed the applicable
emission limits. The drawings must
identify how the emission critical parts,
such as air tubes and catalyst, can be
readily inspected and replaced. The
drawings may be submitted either in
hard copy or electronic format.
(3) A statement whether the firebox or
any firebox component (including the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
materials listed in paragraph (k)(3) of
this section) will be composed of
material different from the material used
for the firebox or firebox component in
the wood heater on which certification
testing was performed and a description
of any such differences.
(4) Clear identification of any
confidential business information.
Submit such information under separate
cover to the EPA CBI Office; Attn:
Residential Wood Heater Compliance
Program. Note that emissions data,
including information necessary to
determine emission rates in the format
of the standard, cannot be claimed as
confidential business information.
(5) All documentation pertaining to a
valid certification test, including the
complete test report and, for all test
runs: raw data sheets, laboratory
technician notes, calculations, and test
results. Documentation must include
the items specified in the applicable test
methods. The test report must include a
summary table that clearly presents the
individual and overall emission rates,
efficiencies, and heat output range.
Submit the test report and all associated
required information according to the
procedures for electronic reporting
specified in § 60.537(f).
(6) A copy of the warranties for the
model line, including a statement that
the warranties are void if the unit is
used to burn materials for which the
unit is not certified by the EPA.
(7) A statement that the manufacturer
or certifying entity will conduct a
quality assurance program for the model
line that satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (m) of this section.
(8) A statement describing how the
tested unit was sealed by the laboratory
after the completion of certification
testing and that such unit will be stored
by the manufacturer in the sealed state
until 1 year after the certification
expires.
(9) Statements that the wood heaters
manufactured under this certificate will
be—
(i) Similar in all material respects as
defined in this subpart to the wood
heater submitted for certification
testing, and
(ii) Labeled as prescribed in § 60.536.
(iii) Accompanied by an owner’s
manual that meets the requirements in
§ 60.536. In addition, a copy of the
owner’s manual must be submitted to
the EPA and be available on the
manufacturer’s Web site.
(10) A statement that the
manufacturer has entered into a contract
with an accredited laboratory that
satisfies the requirements of paragraph
(e) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(11) A statement that the accredited
certifying body is allowed to submit
information on behalf of the
manufacturer.
(c)(1) Administrator Approval
Process. The Administrator will
electronically issue a certificate of
compliance for a model line if the
Administrator determines, based on all
information submitted by the applicant
and any other relevant information
available, that:
(i) A valid certification test
demonstrates that the representative
affected wood heater complies with the
applicable emission standards in
§ 60.532,
(ii) Any tolerances for components
listed in paragraph (k)(2) of this section
that are different from those specified in
those paragraphs may not reasonably be
anticipated to cause wood heaters in the
model line to exceed the applicable
emission limits; and
(iii) The requirements of paragraph (b)
of this section have been met.
(2) The Administrator will deny
certification if the Administrator
determines that the criteria in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section have not been
satisfied. Upon denying certification
under this paragraph, the Administrator
will give written notice to the
manufacturer setting forth the basis for
this determination.
(d) Prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE], the Administrator
will issue the certificate for the most
stringent particulate matter emission
standard that the unit meets under
§ 60.532(a) or (b), as applicable.
(e) To receive EPA certification, a
manufacturer must enter into a contract
with the accredited laboratory that
performed the certification test, under
which the laboratory will:
(1) Conduct the compliance audit test
at no additional cost to the
manufacturer if the EPA selects that
laboratory to conduct the test; or
(2) Pay the manufacturer the cost of a
compliance audit test (as determined by
the EPA) if the EPA selects any other
laboratory to conduct the test.
(f) Certifying Entity-Based Application
Process.
(1) Any manufacturer of an affected
wood heater must apply to the
Administrator for a certificate of
compliance for each model line. The
manufacturer must meet the following
requirements:
(i) The manufacturer must contract
with a certifying entity for certification
services.
(ii) The manufacturer must submit the
materials specified in paragraph (b) of
this section and a quality control plan
that meets the requirements of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
paragraph (m)(4) of this section to the
certifying entity. The quality control
plan must ensure that units within a
model line accurately reflect emissioncritical components of the model line
design, and it must include design
drawings for the model line.
(iii) The manufacturer must apply to
the certifying entity for a certification of
conformity with the applicable
requirements of this subpart for the
model line.
(A) After testing by an accredited test
laboratory is complete, certification of
conformity with the emission standards
in § 60.532 must be performed by the
manufacturer’s contracted certifying
entity.
(B) The certifying entity can certify
conformity if the emission tests have
been conducted per the appropriate
guidelines and the test report is
complete and accurate and the
instrumentation is properly calibrated
and the test report shows that the
representative affected wood heater
meets the applicable emission limits
specified in § 60.532 and the quality
control plan is adequate to ensure that
units within the model line will be
similar in all material respects to the
wood heater submitted for certification
testing.
(iv) The manufacturer must then
request that the certifying entity
electronically submit, on behalf of the
manufacturer, an application for EPA
certification that includes the
certification of conformity, quality
control plan, test report and supporting
documentation.
(v) The submission must include a
statement signed by a responsible
official of the manufacturer that the
manufacturer has complied with all
requirements of this subpart and that
the manufacturer remains responsible
for compliance regardless of any error
by the certifying entity.
(2) The Administrator will
electronically issue to the manufacturer
a certificate of compliance for a model
line if it is determined, based on all of
the information submitted in the
application for certification and any
other relevant information, that:
(i) A valid certification of conformity
has demonstrated that the representative
affected wood heater complies with the
applicable emission standards in
§ 60.532; and
(ii) Any tolerances or materials for
components listed in paragraph (k)(2) or
(3) of this section that are different from
those specified in those paragraphs may
not be reasonably anticipated to cause
wood heaters in the model line to
exceed the applicable emission limits.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6377
(iii) The requirements of paragraphs
(b) of this section have been met.
(iv) A valid certificate of conformity
for the model line has been prepared
and submitted.
(3) The Administrator will deny
certification if the Administrator
determines that the criteria in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section have not been
satisfied. Upon denying certification
under this paragraph, the Administrator
will give written notice to the
manufacturer setting forth the basis for
the determination.
(g) Waiver from Submitting Test
Results. An applicant for certification
may apply for a potential waiver of the
requirement to submit the results of a
certification test pursuant to paragraph
(b)(3) of this section, if the wood heater
meets either of the following conditions:
(1) The wood heaters of the model
line are similar in all material respects,
as defined in this subpart, to another
model line that has already been issued
a certificate of compliance. A
manufacturer that seeks a waiver of
certification testing must identify the
model line that has been certified, and
must submit a copy of an agreement
with the owner of the design permitting
the applicant to produce wood heaters
of that design.
(2) The manufacturer has previously
conducted a valid certification test to
demonstrate that the wood heaters of
the model line meet the applicable
standard specified in § 60.532(a), and
that test also demonstrates that the
wood heaters of the model line meet the
applicable standard specified in
§ 60.532(b). This option is only
potentially available a maximum of one
time per model line.
(h) Certification Period. Unless
revoked sooner by the Administrator, a
certificate of compliance will be valid
for the following periods as applicable:
(1) For a model line certified as
meeting the emission standards in
§ 60.532(a), a certificate of compliance
will be valid for 5 years from the date
of issuance.
(2) For a model line certified as
meeting emission standards in
§ 60.532(b), a certificate of compliance
will be valid for 5 years from the date
of issuance.
(3) For a model line certified as
meeting emission standards in
§ 60.532(c), a certificate of compliance
will be valid for 5 years from the date
of issuance.
(i) Renewal of Certification.
(1) The certificate must be recertified
or renewed every 5 years or the
manufacture may choose to no longer
manufacture or sell that model. If the
manufacturer chooses to no longer
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6378
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
manufacture or sell that model, then the
manufacturer must submit a statement
to EPA for that model. A manufacturer
of an affected wood heater may apply to
the Administrator for potential renewal
of their certificate by submitting the
material specified in § 60.533(b) and
following the procedures specified in
§ 60.533(f) or by affirming in writing
that the wood heater has been subject to
no changes that would impact emissions
and requesting a potential waiver from
certification testing.
(2) If the Administrator grants a
renewal of certification, the
Administrator will give written notice to
the manufacturer setting forth the basis
for the determination and issue a
certification renewal.
(3) If the Administrator denies the
request for a renewal of certification, the
Administrator will give written notice to
the manufacturer setting forth the basis
for the determination.
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Recertification.
(1) The manufacturer must recertify a
model line whenever any change is
made in the design submitted pursuant
to paragraph (b)(2) of this section that is
presumed to affect the particulate matter
emission rate for that model line. The
manufacturer of an affected wood heater
must apply to the Administrator for
potential recertification by submitting
the material specified in § 60.533(b) and
following the procedures specified in
§ 60.533(f) or by affirming in writing
that the wood heater has been subject to
no changes that would impact emissions
and requesting a potential waiver from
certification testing. The Administrator
may potentially waive this requirement
upon written request by the
manufacturer, if it is determined that
the change may not reasonably be
anticipated to cause wood heaters in the
model line to exceed the applicable
emission limits. The granting of such a
waiver does not relieve the
manufacturer of any compliance
obligations under this subpart.
(2) Any change in the design
tolerances of any of the following
components (where such components
are applicable) is presumed to affect
particulate matter and carbon monoxide
emissions and efficiency if that change
exceeds ±0.64 cm (±1⁄4 inch) for any
linear dimension and ±5 percent for any
cross-sectional area relating to air
introduction systems and catalyst
bypass gaps unless other dimensions
and cross-sectional areas are previously
approved by the Administrator under
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section:
(i) Firebox: Dimensions;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
(ii) Air introduction systems: Crosssectional area of restrictive air inlets and
outlets, location and method of control;
(iii) Baffles: Dimensions and
locations;
(iv) Refractory/insulation: Dimensions
and location;
(v) Catalyst: Dimensions and location;
(vi) Catalyst bypass mechanism and
catalyst bypass gap tolerances (when
bypass mechanism is in closed
position): Dimensions, cross-sectional
area, and location;
(vii) Flue gas exit: Dimensions and
location;
(viii) Door and catalyst bypass
gaskets: Dimensions and fit;
(ix) Outer shielding and coverings:
Dimensions and location;
(x) Fuel feed system: For wood
heaters that are designed primarily to
burn wood pellets and other wood
heaters equipped with a fuel feed
system, the fuel feed rate, auger motor
design and power rating, and the angle
of the auger to the firebox; and
(xi) Forced air combustion system:
For wood heaters so equipped, the
location and horsepower of blower
motors and the fan blade size.
(3) Any change in the materials used
for the following components is
presumed to affect particulate matter
emissions and efficiency:
(i) Refractory/insulation; or
(ii) Door and catalyst bypass gaskets.
(4) A change in the make, model, or
composition of a catalyst is presumed to
affect particulate matter and carbon
monoxide emissions and efficiency,
unless the change has been approved in
advance by the Administrator, based on
test data in the same model stove that
demonstrate that the replacement
catalyst is equivalent to or better than
the original catalyst in terms of
particulate matter emission reduction.
(l) Criteria for Revocation of
Certification.
(1) The Administrator may revoke
certification if it is determined that the
wood heaters being manufactured or
sold in that model line do not comply
with the requirements of this subpart.
Such a determination will be based on
all available evidence, including but not
limited to:
(i) Test data from a retesting of the
original unit on which the certification
test was conducted or a similar unit;
(ii) A finding that the certification test
was not valid. (iii) A finding that the
labeling of the wood heater model line
or the owner’s manual or marketing
information does not comply with the
requirements of § 60.536;
(iii) Failure by the manufacturer to
comply with reporting and
recordkeeping requirements under
§ 60.537;
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iv) Physical examination showing
that a significant percentage (as defined
in the quality assurance plan, but no
larger than 1 percent) of production
units inspected is not similar in all
material respects to the representative
affected wood heater submitted for
testing; or
(v) Failure of the manufacturer to
conduct a quality assurance program in
conformity with paragraph (m) of this
section.
(2) Revocation of certification under
this paragraph will not take effect until
the manufacturer concerned has been
given written notice by the
Administrator setting forth the basis for
the proposed determination and an
opportunity to request a review under
§ 60.539.
(m) Quality Assurance Program.
(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for each certified model
line, the manufacturer must conduct a
quality assurance program that satisfies
the requirements of this section The
quality assurance program requirements
of this section supersede the quality
assurance plan requirements specified
in § 60.533(o) of the 1988 rule. By [60
DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for model lines that had
a valid EPA certification on [60 DAYS
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], manufacturers must submit the
quality assurance plan to the EPA
Administrator for review and approval.
(i) The manufacturer must prepare
and operate according to a quality
assurance plan for each certified model
line that has specific inspection and
testing requirements for ensuring that
units within a model line accurately
reflect emission-critical components of
the model line design and meet the
emissions standards in § 60.532.
(ii) The quality assurance plan must
be approved within 30 days by the
certifying entity as part of the
certification of conformity process
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(iii) Within 30 days after approval by
the certifying entity, the quality control
plan must also be submitted to EPA for
review and approval.
(iv) The certifying entity must
conduct quarterly unannounced audits
under ISO–IEC Guide 17065 and ISO–
EC Standard 17020 to ensure that the
manufacturer’s quality control plan is
being implemented.
(v) The certifying entity must prepare
a report for each audit under ISO–IEC
Guide 17065 and ISO–EC Standard
17020 that fully documents the results
of the audit, and the manufacturer must
include in their contract with the
certifying entity the authorization and
requirement to submit all such reports
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
to the EPA within 30 days. In the audit
report, the certifying entity must
identify deviations from the
manufacturer’s quality control plan and
specify the corrective actions that need
to be taken to address each identified
deficiency.
(vi) The manufacturer must report
within 30 days to the certifying entity
and to the EPA its responses to any
deficiencies identified in an audit
report.
(n) EPA Compliance Audit Testing.
(1)(i) The Administrator may select by
written notice wood heaters for
compliance audit testing to determine
compliance with the emission standards
in § 60.532.
(ii) The written notification shall be
forwarded to the manufacturer by the
Administrator and shall include the
name and address of the laboratory
selected to perform the audit test and
the model name and serial number of
the wood heater(s) selected to undergo
audit testing.
(2)(i) The Administrator may test, or
direct the manufacturer to have tested,
the wood heater(s) selected under
paragraph (n)(1)(i) of this section in a
laboratory accredited under § 60.535
that is selected pursuant to paragraph
(n)(3) of this section.
(ii) The expense of the compliance
audit test is the responsibility of the
wood heater manufacturer. A
manufacturer may require the laboratory
that performed the certification test to
bear the expense of an audit test by
means of the contract required under
paragraph (e) of this section. The
manufacturer will bear the cost of audit
testing if the laboratory with which the
manufacturer had a contract has ceased
business or is otherwise legally unable
to honor the contract. The manufacturer
will also bear the cost of audit testing if
the manufacturer has not entered into
contract with an accredited test
laboratory to perform audit testing.
(iii) The test must be conducted using
the same test method and procedure
used to obtain certification or a new test
method approved by the EPA
Administrator. If the certification test
consisted of more than one particulate
matter sampling test method, the
Administrator may direct the test
laboratory as to which of these methods
to use for the purpose of audit testing.
The Administrator will notify the
manufacturer at least 1 week prior to
any test under this paragraph, and allow
the manufacturer and/or his authorized
representatives to observe the test.
(3) The Administrator may select any
accredited test laboratory or federal
laboratory for audit testing.
(4) Revocation of Certification.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
(i) If emissions from a wood heater
tested under paragraph (n)(2) of this
section exceed the certification emission
values limit by more than 50 percent,
the Administrator will notify the
manufacturer that certification for that
model line is suspended effective 72
hours from the receipt of the notice,
unless the suspension notice is
withdrawn by the Administrator. The
suspension will remain in effect until
withdrawn by the Administrator, or 30
days from its effective date (if a
revocation notice under paragraph
(n)(5)(ii) of this section is not issued
within that period), or the date of final
agency action on revocation, whichever
occurs earlier.
(ii)(A) If emissions from a wood
heater tested under paragraph (n)(2) of
this section exceed the applicable
emission limit, the Administrator will
notify the manufacturer that
certification is revoked for that model
line.
(B) A suspension under paragraph
(n)(4)(i) or a revocation notice under
paragraph (n)(4)(ii)(A) of this section
will become final and effective 60 days
after receipt by the manufacturer, unless
it is withdrawn, a supplemental review
is requested under § 60.539, or the
deadline for requesting a supplemental
review is extended.
(C) The Administrator may extend the
deadline for requesting a supplemental
review for up to 60 days for good cause.
(D) A manufacturer may extend the
deadline for requesting a supplemental
review for up to 6 months, by agreeing
to a voluntary suspension of
certification.
(iii) Any notification under paragraph
(n)(4)(i) or (n)(4)(ii) of this section will
include a copy of a preliminary test
report from the accredited test
laboratory or federal test laboratory. The
test laboratory must provide a
preliminary test report to the
Administrator within 10 days of the
completion of testing, if a wood heater
exceeds the applicable emission limit in
§ 60.532. The test laboratory must
provide the Administrator and the
manufacturer, within 30 days of the
completion of testing, all documentation
pertaining to the test, including the
complete test report and raw data
sheets, laboratory technician notes, and
test results for all test runs.
(iv) Upon receiving notification of a
test failure under paragraph (n)(4)(ii) of
this section, the manufacturer may
request up to four additional wood
heaters from the same model line be
selected under paragraph (n)(1) of this
section for testing at the manufacturer’s
expense, at the test laboratory that
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6379
performed the emissions test for the
Administrator.
(v) Whether or not the manufacturer
proceeds under paragraph (n)(4)(iv) of
this section, the manufacturer may
submit any relevant information to the
Administrator, including any other test
data generated pursuant to this subpart.
The manufacturer must pay the expense
of any additional testing.
(vi) The Administrator will withdraw
any notice issued under paragraph
(n)(4)(ii) of this section if tests under
paragraph (n)(4)(iv) of this section show
either—
(A) That all wood heaters tested for
the manufacturer met the applicable
emission limits; or
(B) That the second and third wood
heaters selected met the applicable
emission limits and the average of all
three (including the original audit test)
was below the applicable emission
limits.
(C) The Administrator will revise the
certification values based on the test
data and other relevant information and
the manufacturer must revise the labels
and marketing information accordingly.
(vii) The Administrator may withdraw
any proposed revocation, if the
Administrator finds that an audit test
failure has been rebutted by information
submitted by the manufacturer under
paragraph (n)(4)(iv) of this section and/
or (n)(4)(v) of this section or by any
other relevant information available to
the Administrator.
§ 60.534 What test methods and
procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and
requirements for certification?
Test methods and procedures
specified in this section or in
appendices of this part, except as
provided under § 60.8(b), must be used
to determine compliance with the
standards and requirements for
certification under § § 60.532 and 60.533
as follows:
(a)(1) Method 28 of appendix A–8 of
this part must be used to establish the
certification test conditions and the
particulate matter emission values for
affected wood heaters subject to the
1990 particulate matter standards
specified in § 60.532(a).
(2) For affected wood heaters subject
to the 2015 particulate matter standards
specified in § 60.532(b), you must
conduct testing according to paragraphs
§ 60.534(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section
and submit the full test reports. You
have the option of submitting the test
results of either (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this
section to the Administrator as specified
under § 60.537 for certification
compliance.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6380
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(i) Conduct testing with crib wood
using EPA Method 28R of appendix A–
8 of this part to establish the
certification test conditions and the
particulate matter emission values.
(ii) Conduct testing with cord wood
using EPA Method 28R of appendix A–
8 of this part to establish the
certification test conditions and the
particulate matter emission values.
(3) For affected wood heaters subject
to the 2020 particulate matter standards
specified in § 60.532(c), you must
conduct testing with cord wood using
EPA Method 28R of appendix A–8 of
this part to establish the certification
test conditions, except that you should
first test Burn Rate Categories 1 and 4
and then test 2 more times for
whichever burn rate category is worse
and then report the results separately
per burn rate category.
(b) For affected wood heaters subject
to the 1990 particulate matter standards
specified in § 60.532(a), emission
concentrations must be measured with
Method 5G of appendix A–3 of this part,
i.e., using a dilution tunnel sampling
location. Method 5H is no longer
allowed for certification testing.
(c) For affected wood heaters subject
to the 2015 and 2020 particulate matter
standards specified in § 60.532(b) and
(c), emission concentrations must be
measured with ASTM E2515–10.
(d) Canadian Standards
Administration Method B415.1–10,
section 13.7, must be used to measure
the efficiency and carbon monoxide
output of the tested appliance.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) The manufacturer of an affected
wood heater must notify the
Administrator of the date that
certification testing is scheduled to
begin by email to Wood Heater NSPS
Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/
Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_
Program. This notice must be received
by the EPA at least 30 days before the
start of testing. The notification of
testing must include the manufacturer’s
name and physical and email addresses,
the accredited test laboratory’s name
and physical and email addresses,
certifying entity name, the model name
and number (or, if unavailable, some
other way to distinguish between
models), and the dates of testing.
(g) The accredited test laboratory must
allow the manufacturer, the EPA and
delegated states to observe certification
testing. However, manufacturers must
not involve themselves in the conduct
of the test after the pretest burn has
begun. Communications between the
manufacturer and laboratory or
certifying entity personnel regarding
operation of the wood heater must be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
limited to written communications
transmitted prior to the first pretest burn
of the certification series. Written
communications between the
manufacturer and laboratory personnel
may be exchanged during the
certification test only if deviations from
the test procedures are observed that
constitute improper conduct of the test.
All communications must be included
in the test documentation required to be
submitted pursuant to § 60.533(b)(3) and
must be consistent with instructions
provided in the owner’s manual
required under § 60.536(f), except to the
extent that they address details of the
certification tests that would not be
relevant to owners or regulators.
§ 60.535 What procedures must I use for
laboratory accreditation or certifying body
accreditation?
(a)(1) A laboratory must apply to the
Administrator for accreditation as an
EPA accredited test laboratory by
submitting documentation that the
laboratory is accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting entity under
ISO–IEC Standard 17025 to perform
testing using the test methods specified
under § 60.534.
(2) As part of the application, the test
laboratory must:
(i) Agree to enter into a contract as
described in § 60.533(e) with each wood
heater manufacturer for whom a
certification test has been performed;
(ii) Agree to participate biennially in
a proficiency testing program conducted
by the Administrator;
(iii) Agree to allow the Administrator
and delegated states and certifying
bodies access to observe certification
testing;
(iv) Agree to comply with reporting
and recordkeeping requirements that
affect testing laboratories; and
(v) Agree to perform a compliance
audit test (as determined by the
Administrator) at the cost normally
charged to manufacturers if it is selected
to conduct the compliance audit test of
a model line originally tested for
certification at another laboratory.
(vi) Have no conflict of interest and
receive no financial benefit from the
outcome of certification testing
conducted pursuant to § 60.533.
(vii) Agree to not perform initial
certification tests on any models
manufactured by a manufacturer for
which the laboratory has conducted
research and development tests within
the last 5 years.
(3) If the EPA approves the
accreditation, the Administrator will
provide the test laboratory with a
certificate of accreditation. If the EPA
denies the accreditation, the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Administrator will give written notice to
the laboratory setting forth the basis for
the determination.
(b)(1) The Administrator may revoke
the EPA laboratory accreditation if it is
determined that the laboratory:
(i) Is no longer is accredited by the
nationally recognized ISO certifying
entity;
(ii) Does not follow required
procedures or practices;
(iii) Has falsified data or otherwise
misrepresented emission data;
(iv) Failed to participate in a
proficiency testing program, in
accordance with its commitment under
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section; or
(v) Failed to seal the wood heater in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(2) Revocation of accreditation under
this paragraph will not take effect until
the laboratory concerned has been given
written notice by the Administrator
setting forth the basis for the proposed
determination and an opportunity for a
Petition for Supplemental Review under
§ 60.539. However, if revocation is
ultimately upheld, all tests conducted
by the laboratory after written notice
was given will, at the discretion of the
Administrator, be declared invalid.
(c)(1) With the exception of
laboratories meeting the provisions of
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and
unless revoked sooner, a certificate of
accreditation as an accredited test
laboratory granted by the Administrator
is valid for 5 years from the date of
issuance.
(2) Laboratories accredited by the EPA
by February 3, 2014 under the
provisions of § 60.535 in effect prior to
that date may continue to be accredited
until [1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], at which time
the accreditation ends unless the
laboratory has obtained accreditation
under § 60.535 as in effect beginning on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(d) A laboratory accredited by the
Administrator must seal any wood
heater on which it performed
certification tests, immediately upon
completion or suspension of
certification testing, by using a
laboratory-specific seal. For any tests
that are suspended, the laboratory must
email the EPA immediately with the
date suspended, the reason(s) why, and
the projected date for re-starting. The
laboratory must submit the operation
and test data obtained, even if the test
is not completed.
(e)(1) A Certifying Entity may apply to
the Administrator for approval to be an
EPA-approved certifying entity by
submitting credentials demonstrating
that they have been accredited by a
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
nationally recognized accrediting entity
to perform certifications and inspections
under ISO–17025, ISO–IEC Standard
17065 and ISO–IEC Standard 10720.
(2) As part of the application, the
certifying entity must:
(i) Agree to enter into a contract as
described in § 60.533(e) with each wood
heater manufacturer for whom a
certification test has been performed
and a test report has been received and
reviewed;
(ii) Agree to periodically conduct
audits as described in § 60.534 and
manufacturer’s QA/QC Plan;
(iii) Agree to participate biennially in
a proficiency testing program conducted
by the Administrator;
(iv) Agree to comply with reporting
and recordkeeping requirements that
affect accredited wood heater testing
laboratories and certifying entities;
(v) Have no conflict of interest and
receive no financial benefit from the
outcome of certification testing
conducted pursuant to § 60.533;
(vi) Agree to make available to the
EPA supporting documentation for each
wood heater certification and audit; and
(vii) Agree to not perform initial
certification reviews on any models
manufactured by a manufacturer for
which the certifying entity has
conducted research and development
within the last 5 years.
(3) If approved, the Administrator will
provide the certifying entity with a
certificate of accreditation. The
accreditation will expire 5 years after
being issued unless renewed by the
certifying entity. If the EPA denies the
accreditation, the Administrator will
give written notice to the certifying
entity for the basis for the
determination.
(f)(1) The Administrator will revoke
the EPA certifying entity accreditation if
it is determined that the certifying
entity;
(i) Is no longer accredited by the
nationally recognized ISO certifying
entity
(ii) Does not follow required
procedures or practices;
(iii) Has falsified certification data or
otherwise misrepresented emission
data; or
(iv) Failed to participate in the EPA
proficiency testing program.
(2) Revocation of accreditation under
this paragraph will not take effect until
the certifying entity concerned is given
written notice by the Administrator
setting forth the basis for the proposed
determination and an opportunity for a
Petition for Supplemental Review under
§ 60.539. However, if revocation is
upheld, all tests reviewed by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
certifying entity will, at the discretion of
the Administrator, be declared invalid.
§ 60.536 What requirements must I meet
for permanent labels and owner’s manuals?
(a) Permanent Label Requirements. (1)
Each affected wood heater
manufactured on or after the date the
applicable standards come into effect as
specified in § 60.532, must have a
permanent label affixed to it that meets
the requirements of this section.
(2) Except for wood heaters subject to
§ 60.530(b)(1) through (b)(5), the
permanent label must contain the
following information:
(i) Month and year of manufacture of
the individual unit;
(ii) Model name or number; and
(iii) Serial number.
(3) The permanent label must:
(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or
accessible location in such a manner
that it can be easily viewed before and
after the appliance is installed;
(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm
wide (31⁄2 inches long and 2 inches
wide);
(iii) Be made of a material expected to
last the lifetime of the wood heater;
(iv) Present required information in a
manner so that it is likely to remain
legible for the lifetime of the wood
heater; and
(v) Be affixed in such a manner that
it cannot be removed from the appliance
without damage to the label.
(4) The permanent label may be
combined with any other label, as long
as the required information is displayed,
the integrity of the permanent label is
not compromised, and the permanent
label still meets the requirements in
§ 60.536(a)(3).
(5) Any label statement under
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section
constitutes a representation by the
manufacturer as to any wood heater that
bears it:
(i) That certification of compliance
was in effect at the time the wood heater
left the possession of the manufacturer;
(ii) That the manufacturer was, at the
time the label was affixed, conducting a
quality assurance program in conformity
with § 60.533(o); and
(iii) That any wood heater
individually tested for emissions by the
manufacturer under § 60.533(o)(2) or
(o)(4) met the applicable emissions
limits.
(b) If the adjustable burn rate wood
heater or pellet stove belongs to a model
line certified under § 60.533, and it has
been found to meet the applicable
emission limits or tolerances through
quality assurance testing, one of the
following statements, as appropriate,
must appear on the permanent label:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6381
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Certified to comply with
1990 particulate emission standards.
Not approved for sale or operation
after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Certified to comply with
2015 particulate emission standards.
Not approved for sale or operation
after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Certified to comply with
2020 particulate emission standards.
(c) If the single burn rate wood heater
belongs to a model line certified under
§ 60.533, and it has been found to meet
the applicable emission limits or
tolerances through quality assurance
testing, the following statements must
appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Certified to comply with
2015 particulate emission standards.
Not approved for sale or operation
after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Certified to comply with
2020 particulate emission standards.
(d)(1) If an affected wood heater is
manufactured in the United States for
export as provided in § 60.530(b)(1), the
following statement must appear on the
permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Export stove. May not be
sold or operated within the United
States.
(2) If an affected wood heater is
manufactured for use for research and
development purposes as provided in
§ 60.530(b)(2), the following statement
must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Not certified. Research
Stove. Not approved for sale or for
operation other than research.
(3) If an affected wood heater is
exclusively a non wood-burning heater
as provided § 60.530(b)(3) the following
statement must appear on the
permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY This heater is not certified
for wood burning. Use of any wood
fuel is a violation of federal law.
(4) If an affected wood heater is a
cookstove that meets the applicable
definition in § 60.531, the following
statement must appear on the
permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY This unit is not a certified
residential wood heater. The primary
use for this unit is for cooking or
baking.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6382
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(5) If an affected wood heater is a
camp stove that meets the applicable
definition in § 60.531, the following
statement must appear on the
permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY This unit is not a certified
residential wood heater. For portable
and temporary use only.
(e) The permanent label for all
certified wood heaters must also contain
the following statement:
‘‘This wood heater needs periodic
inspection and repair for proper
operation. Consult owner’s manual for
further information. It is against the law
to operate this wood heater in a manner
inconsistent with operating instructions
in the owner’s manual.’’
(f) Owner’s Manual.
(1) Each affected wood heater offered
for sale by a commercial owner must be
accompanied by an owner’s manual that
must contain the information listed in
paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this
section. Such information must be
adequate to enable consumers to
achieve optimal emissions performance.
Such information must be consistent
with the operating instructions provided
by the manufacturer to the accredited
test laboratory for operating the wood
heater during certification testing,
except for details of the certification test
that would not be relevant to the
ultimate purchaser. The commercial
owner must also make current and
historical owner’s manuals available on
the company Web site and upon request
to the EPA.
(2) Installation information:
Requirements for achieving proper draft.
(3) Operation and maintenance
information:
(i) Fuel loading procedures,
recommendations on fuel selection, and
warnings on what fuels not to use, such
as treated wood, colored paper,
cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage.
(ii) Fire starting procedures
(iii) Proper use of air controls
(iv) Ash removal procedures
(v) Instructions for replacement of
gaskets, air tubes and other parts that
are critical to the emissions performance
of the unit and other maintenance and
repair instructions
(vi) For catalytic models, information
on the following pertaining to the
catalytic combustor: Procedures for
achieving and maintaining catalyst
activity, maintenance procedures,
procedures for determining
deterioration or failure, procedures for
replacement, and information on how to
exercise warranty rights
(vii) For catalytic models, the
following statement:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
‘‘This wood heater contains a catalytic
combustor, which needs periodic
inspection and replacement for proper
operation. It is against federal law to
operate this wood heater in a manner
inconsistent with operating instructions
in this manual, or if the catalytic
element is deactivated or removed.’’
(viii) For noncatalytic models, the
following statement:
‘‘This wood heater needs periodic
inspection and repair for proper
operation. It is against federal law to
operate this wood heater in a manner
inconsistent with operating instructions
in this manual.’’
(4) Any manufacturer using the EPArecommended language contained in
appendix I of this part to satisfy any
requirement of this paragraph (f) will be
considered to be in compliance with
that requirement, provided that the
particular language is printed in full,
with only such changes as are necessary
to ensure accuracy for the particular
wood heater model line.
(5) Wood heaters that are affected by
this subpart, but that have been owned
and operated by a noncommercial
owner, are not subject to paragraphs (f)
of this section when offered for resale.
§ 60.537 What records must I keep and
what reports must I submit?
(a)(1) Each manufacturer who holds a
certificate of compliance under
§ 60.533(c) or (f) for a model line must
maintain records containing the
information required by paragraph (a) of
this section with respect to that model
line.
(2) All documentation pertaining to
the certification test used to obtain
certification, including the full test
report and raw data sheets, laboratory
technician notes, calculations, and the
test results for all test runs.
(3) Results of the quality assurance
program inspections required by
§ 60.533(m).
(4) For emissions tests conducted
pursuant to the quality assurance
program required by § 60.533(o), all test
reports, data sheets, laboratory
technician notes, calculations, and test
results for all test runs, the remedial
actions taken, if any, and any follow-up
actions such as additional testing.
(b) Each accredited test laboratory and
certifying entity must maintain records
consisting of all documentation
pertaining to each certification test, QA/
QC inspection and audit test, including
the full test report and raw data sheets,
technician notes, calculations, and the
test results for all test runs. Each
accredited test laboratory must submit
initial and biennial proficiency test
results to the Administrator. Each
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
certifying entity must submit each
certification test, QA/QC inspection
report and ISO IEC accreditation
credentials to the Administrator.
(c) Each manufacturer must retain
each wood heater upon which
certification tests were performed based
upon which certification was granted
under § 60.533(c) or (f) at the
manufacturer’s facility for as long as the
model line in question is manufactured.
Each heater or furnace must remain
sealed and unaltered. Any such wood
heater must be made available to the
Administrator upon request for
inspection and testing.
(d) Each manufacturer of an affected
wood heater certified under § 60.533(c)
or (f) must submit a report to the
Administrator every 2 years following
issuance of a certificate of compliance
for each model line. This report must
include the sales for each model by state
and certify that no changes in the design
or manufacture of this model line have
been made that require recertification
under § 60.533(k).
(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all
records required under this section must
be maintained by the manufacturer,
commercial owner of the affected wood
heater, accredited test laboratory or
certifying entity for a period of no less
than 5 years.
(2) Unless otherwise specified, all
reports to the Administrator required
under this subpart must be made to:
Wood Heater NSPS Compliance
Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_
NSPS_Compliance_Program.
(f) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, each
manufacturer or accredited test
laboratory or certifying entity must
submit performance test data
electronically to the EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) (https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/).
Only data collected using test methods
compatible with ERT are subject to this
requirement to be submitted
electronically to the EPA’s CDX.
Manufacturers may submit compliance
reports to the EPA via regular mail at
the address listed below if the test
methods they use are not compatible
with ERT or if ERT is not available to
accept reports at the time the final rule
is published. Owners or operators who
claim that some of the information being
submitted for performance tests is
confidential business information (CBI)
must submit a completed ERT file,
including information claimed to be CBI
on a compact disk or other commonly
used electronic storage media
(including, but not limited to, flash
drives), to the EPA, and the same ERT
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
file, with the CBI omitted, to the EPA
via CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph. The compact disk must be
clearly marked as CBI and mailed to
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD
C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham,
NC 27703. Emission data, including all
information necessary to determine
compliance, except sensitive
engineering drawings and sensitive
detailed material specifications, may not
be claimed as CBI.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 60.538 What activities are prohibited
under this subpart?
(a) No person is permitted to operate
an affected wood heater that does not
have affixed to it a permanent label
pursuant to § 60.536 (b), (c), or (d)(2)
through (d)(5).
(b) No commercial owner is permitted
to advertise for sale, offer for sale, or sell
an affected wood heater labeled under
§ 60.536(d)(1) except for export.
(c)(1) No commercial owner is
permitted to advertise for sale, offer for
sale or sell an affected wood heater
permanently labeled under § 60.536 (b)
or (c) unless:
(i) The affected wood heater has been
certified to comply with 2020
particulate emission standards. This
prohibition does not apply to wood
heaters affected by this subpart that
have been previously owned and
operated by a noncommercial owner;
and
(ii) The commercial owner provides
any purchaser or transferee with an
owner’s manual that meets the
requirements of § 60.536(f), a copy of
the warranty and a moisture meter.
(2) No commercial owner is permitted
to advertise for sale, offer for sale, or sell
an affected wood heater permanently
labeled under § 60.536(d)(3), unless the
affected wood heater has been certified
to comply with 2020 particulate
emission. This prohibition does not
apply to wood heaters affected by this
subpart that have been previously
owned and operated by a
noncommercial owner.
(3) A commercial owner other than a
manufacturer complies with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this
section if the commercial owner:
(i) Receives the required
documentation from the manufacturer
or a previous commercial owner; and
(ii) Provides that documentation
unaltered to any person to whom the
wood heater that it covers is sold or
transferred.
(d)(1) In any case in which the
Administrator revokes a certificate of
compliance either for the knowing
submission of false or inaccurate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
information or other fraudulent acts, or
based on a finding under
§ 60.533(l)(1)(ii) that the certification
test was not valid, the Administrator
may give notice of that revocation and
the grounds for it to all commercial
owners.
(2) On and after the date of receipt of
the notice given under paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, no commercial owner is
permitted to sell any wood heater
covered by the revoked certificate (other
than to the manufacturer) unless the
model line has been recertified in
accordance with this subpart.
(e) No person is permitted to install or
operate an affected wood heater except
in a manner consistent with the
instructions on its permanent label and
in the owner’s manual pursuant to
§ 60.536(f).
(f) No person is permitted to operate
an affected wood heater that was
originally equipped with a catalytic
combustor if the catalytic element is
deactivated or removed.
(g) No person is permitted to operate
an affected wood heater that has been
physically altered to exceed the
tolerance limits of its certificate of
compliance.
(h) No person is permitted to alter,
deface, or remove any permanent label
required to be affixed pursuant to
§ 60.536.
(i) No certifying entity is permitted to
certify its own certification test report.
§ 60.539 What Petition for Review
procedures apply to me?
(a)(1) In any case where the
Administrator—
(i) Denies an application under
§ 60.530(c) or § 60.533(f);
(ii) Issues a notice of revocation of
certification under § 60.533(l);
(iii) Denies an application for
laboratory accreditation under
§ 60.535(a); or
(iv) Issues a notice of revocation of
laboratory accreditation under
§ 60.535(b), the manufacturer or
laboratory affected may submit to the
EPA, a Petition for Review request
under this section within 30 days
following receipt of the required
notification of the action in question.
(2) In any case where the
Administrator issues a notice of
revocation under § 60.533(p), the
manufacturer may submit to the EPA a
Petition for Review request under this
section with the time limits set out in
§ 60.533(p)(4).
(b) Any Petition for Review request
must be in writing, must be signed by
an authorized representative of the
petitioning manufacturer or laboratory,
and must include a statement and
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6383
supporting documentation setting forth
with particularity the petitioner’s
objection to the Administrator’s
determination or proposed
determination.
(c) Upon receipt of a Petition for
Review under paragraph (a) of this
section, the Administrator shall provide
a written response within 45 days.
§ 60.539a Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
(a) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority to a state under
section 111(c) of the Act, the authorities
contained in paragraph (b) of this
section must be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a
state.
(b) Authorities that must not be
delegated to states:
(1) Section 60.531, Definitions;
(2) Section 60.533, Compliance and
certification;
(3) Section 60.534, Test methods and
procedures; and
(4) Section 60.535, Laboratory
accreditation.
§ 60.539b What parts of the General
Provisions do not apply to me?
The following provisions of subpart A
of part 60 do not apply to this subpart:
(a) Section 60.7;
(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and
(g); and
(c) Section 60.15(d).
■ 4. Add subpart QQQQ to read as
follows:
Subpart QQQQ—Standards of Performance
for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and
Forced-Air Furnaces
Sec.
60.5472 Am I subject to this subpart?
60.5473 What definitions must I know?
60.5474 What standards and requirements
must I meet and by when?
60.5475 What compliance and certification
requirements must I meet and by when?
60.5476 What test methods and procedures
must I use to determine compliance with
the standards and requirements for
certification?
60.5477 What procedures must I use for
laboratory accreditation?
60.5478 What requirements must I meet for
permanent labels and owner’s manuals?
60.5479 What records must I keep and what
reports must I submit?
60.5480 What activities are prohibited
under this subpart?
60.5481 What Petition for Review
procedures apply to me?
60.5482 Who implements and enforces this
subpart?
60.5483 What parts of the General
Provisions do not apply to me?
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6384
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Subpart QQQQ—Standards of
Performance for New Residential
Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air
Furnaces
§ 60.5472
Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if
you operate, manufacture, sell, offer for
sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to
distribute, introduce, or deliver for
introduction, into commerce in the
United States, residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace
manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(b) Each residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace must comply with the
provisions of this subpart unless
exempted under paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(3) of this section.
(1) Affected residential hydronic
heaters or forced-air furnaces
manufactured in the United States for
export are exempt from the applicable
emission limits of § 60.5474 and the
requirements of § 60.5475.
(2) Affected residential hydronic
heaters or forced-air furnaces used for
research and development purposes that
are never offered for sale or sold and
that are not used to provide heat are
exempt from the applicable emission
limits of § 60.5474 and the requirements
of § 60.5475. No more than 12 affected
residential hydronic heaters or forcedair furnaces manufactured per model
line may be exempted for this purpose.
(3) Appliances that do not burn wood
or wood pellets (such as coal-only
hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces
that meet the definition in § 60.5473 or
corn-only hydronic heaters or forced-air
furnaces) are exempt from the
applicable emission limits of § 60.5474
and the requirements of § 60.5475.
(c) The following are not affected
residential hydronic heaters or forcedair furnaces and are not subject to this
subpart:
(1) Residential wood heaters subject
to subpart AAA of this part.
(2) Residential masonry heaters
subject to subpart RRRR of this part.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 60.5473
What definitions must I know?
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein have the same meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act and
subpart A of this part.
Accredited test laboratory means a
test laboratory that is accredited for
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace certification testing under
§ 60.5477 and is an independent thirdparty test laboratory that is accredited
by a nationally recognized accrediting
entity under ISO–IEC Standard 17025 to
perform testing using the test methods
specified in § 60.5476 and approved by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
the EPA for conducting certification
tests under this subpart.
At retail means the sale by a
commercial owner of a residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace to
the ultimate purchaser.
Central heater means a fuel-burning
device designed to burn wood or wood
pellet fuel that warms spaces other than
the space where the device is located,
by the distribution of air heated by the
furnace through ducts or liquid heated
in the device and distributed typically
through pipes. Unless otherwise
specified, these devices include
residential forced-air furnaces and
residential hydronic heaters.
Certifying entity means an
independent third party that is
accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting entity under ISO–IEC
Standard 17020 to perform
certifications, inspections and audits
under ISO–IEC Guide 17065 and
approved by the EPA for conducting
certifications, inspections and audits
under this subpart.
Coal-only hydronic heater or forcedair furnace means an enclosed, coalburning appliance capable of space
heating or domestic water heating that
has all of the following characteristics:
(1) Installation instructions that state
that the use of wood in the appliance,
except for coal ignition purposes, is
prohibited by law; and
(2) The model is listed by a nationally
recognized safety-testing laboratory for
coal use only, except for coal ignition
purposes.
Commercial owner means any person
who owns or controls a residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace in
the course of the business of the
manufacture, importation, distribution,
or sale of the unit.
Manufactured means completed and
ready for shipment (whether or not
packaged) for purposes of determining
the date of manufacture.
Manufacturer means any person who
constructs or imports into the United
States a residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace.
Model line means all residential
hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces
offered for sale by a single manufacturer
that are similar in all material respects
as defined in this section.
Particulate matter (PM) means total
particulate matter including PM10 and
PM2.5.
Pellet fuel means refined and
densified solid wood shaped into small
pellets or briquettes that are uniform in
size, shape, moisture, density and
energy content.
Representative residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace means an
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
individual residential hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace that is similar in all
material respects as defined in this
section to other residential hydronic
heaters or forced-air furnaces within the
model line it represents.
Residential forced-air furnace means
a fuel burning device designed to burn
wood or wood pellet fuel that warms
spaces other than the space where the
furnace is located, by the distribution of
air heated by the furnace through ducts.
Residential hydronic heater means a
fuel burning device designed to burn
wood or wood pellet fuel for the
purpose of heating building space and/
or water through the distribution,
typically through pipes, of a fluid
heated in the device, typically water or
a water and antifreeze mixture.
Sale means the transfer of ownership
or control, except that a transfer of
control of an affected residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace for
research and development purposes
within the scope of § 60.5472(b)(2) is
not a sale.
Seasoned wood means wood with a
moisture content of 20 percent or less.
Similar in all material respects means
that the construction materials, exhaust
and inlet air system, and other design
features are within the allowed
tolerances for components identified in
§ 60.533(k).
Valid certification test means a test
that meets the following criteria:
(1) The Administrator was notified
about the test in accordance with
§ 60.5476(f);
(2) The test was conducted by an
accredited test laboratory as defined in
this section;
(3) The test was conducted on a
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace similar in all material respects
as defined in this section to other
residential hydronic heaters or forcedair furnaces of the model line that is to
be certified; and
(4) The test was conducted in
accordance with the test methods and
procedures specified in § 60.5476.
§ 60.5474 What standards and
requirements must I meet and by when?
(a) Particulate Matter Standards.
Unless exempted under § 60.5472, no
person is permitted to:
(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], manufacture or sell at
retail a residential hydronic heater
unless it has been certified to meet the
2015 particulate matter emission limits
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(2) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
manufacture or sell at retail a residential
hydronic heater unless it has been
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
certified to meet the 2020 particulate
matter emission limit in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(3) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], manufacture or sell at
retail a residential forced-air furnace
unless it has been certified to meet the
2015 particulate matter emission limits
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(4) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
manufacture or sell at retail a residential
forced-air furnace unless it has been
certified to meet the 2020 particulate
matter emission limit in paragraph (b)(4)
of this section.
(b)(1) 2015 residential hydronic heater
particulate matter emission limit: 0.32
lb/million Btu (0.137 g/megajoule) heat
output and 7.5 g/hr (0.017 lb/hr) as
determined by the test methods and
procedures in § 60.5476.
(2) 2020 residential hydronic heater
particulate matter emission limit: 0.06
lb/million Btu (0.026 g/megajoule) heat
output as determined by the test
methods and procedures in § 60.5476.
(3) 2015 forced-air furnace particulate
matter emission limit: 0.93 lb/million
Btu (0.40 g/megajoule) heat output and
7.5 g/hr (0.017 lb/hr) as determined by
the test methods and procedures in
§ 60.5476.
(4) 2020 forced-air furnace particulate
matter emission limit: 0.06 lb/million
Btu (0.026 g/megajoule) heat output as
determined by the test methods and
procedures in § 60.5476.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Pellet Fuel Requirements.
Operators of outdoor residential
hydronic heaters, indoor residential
hydronic heaters, or residential forcedair furnaces that are certified to burn
pellet fuels may only burn pellets that
have been produced under a licensing
agreement with the Pellet Fuels Institute
or an equivalent organization approved
by the EPA. The pellet fuel must meet
the following minimum requirements:
(1) Density: consistent hardness and
energy content with a minimum density
of 38 pounds/cubic foot;
(2) Dimensions: maximum length of
1.5 inches and diameter between 0.230
and 0.285 inches;
(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal
to 1 percent;
(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300
parts per million by weight; and
(5) Ash content: no more than 2
percent.
(6) A quality assurance process
licensed by the Pellet Fuel Institute or
equivalent organization approved by
EPA.
(f) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person
is permitted to burn any of the following
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
materials in an outdoor residential
hydronic heater, indoor residential
hydronic heater, or residential forced-air
furnace:
(1) Residential or commercial garbage;
(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste;
(3) Materials containing rubber,
including tires;
(4) Materials containing plastic;
(5) Waste petroleum products, paints
or paint thinners, or asphalt products;
(6) Materials containing asbestos;
(7) Construction or demolition debris;
(8) Paper products; cardboard,
plywood or particleboard. The
prohibition against burning these
materials does not prohibit the use of
fire starters made from paper,
cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar
substances for the purpose of starting a
fire in an affected residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace;
(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated
lumber;
(10) Manure or animal remains;
(11) Salt water driftwood or other or
other previously salt water saturated
materials;
(12) Unseasoned wood; or
(13) Any materials that were not
included in the certification tests for the
subject heater or furnace.
(g) Owner’s Manual. A person must
not operate an outdoor residential
hydronic heater, indoor residential
hydronic heater, or residential forced-air
furnace in a manner inconsistent with
the owner’s manual. The owner’s
manual must clearly specify that
operation in a manner inconsistent with
the owner’s manual would violate the
warranty.
§ 60.5475 What compliance and
certification requirements must I meet and
by when?
(a)(1) Certification Requirement. Each
affected residential hydronic heater and
forced-air furnace must be certified to be
in compliance with the applicable
emission standards and other
requirements of this subpart. For each
model line manufactured or sold by a
single entity, e.g., company or
manufacturer, compliance with
applicable emission standards of
§ 60.5474(b) must be determined based
on testing of representative affected
residential hydronic heaters and forcedair furnaces within the model line. If
one entity licenses a model line to
another entity, each entity’s model line
must be certified. If a entity changes the
name of the entity or the name of the
model, the manufacturer must apply for
a new certification.
(2) The manufacturer of each model
line must submit the information
required in § 60.533(b) and follow the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6385
certification procedure specified in
§ 60.533(f) except that, for the purposes
of this paragraph, the references in
§ 60.533(f) to the ‘‘emission standards’’
in § 60.532 must be understood to refer
to the emission limits in § 60.5474(b).
(b) Waiver from Submitting Test
Results. An applicant for certification
may apply for a potential waiver of the
requirements to submit the results of a
certification test pursuant to the
certification procedures specified in
§ 60.533(f) according to the procedure
specified in § 60.533(g)(1).
(c) Certification Period. Unless
revoked sooner by the Administrator, a
certificate of compliance will be valid 5
years from the date of issuance.
(d) Renewal of Certification. (1) Any
manufacturer of an affected residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
may apply to the Administrator for
potential renewal of a certificate of
compliance by submitting the material
specified in § 60.533(b) and following
the procedures specified in § 60.533(f).
(2) The certificate must be recertified
or renewed every 5 years or the
manufacture may choose to no longer
manufacture or sell that model. If the
manufacturer chooses to no longer
manufacture or sell that model, then the
manufacturer must submit a statement
to the EPA for that model. A
manufacturer may apply for potential
renewal of their certificate by
submitting certification information in
accordance with § 60.533(b) or by
affirming in writing that the wood
heater has been subject to no changes
that would impact emissions and
request a potential waiver from
certification testing.
(3) If the Administrator grants or
waives certification testing under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the
Administrator will give written notice to
the manufacturer setting forth the basis
for the determination and issue a
certification renewal.
(4) If the Administrator denies the
request for a renewal of certification, the
Administrator will give written notice to
the manufacturer setting forth the basis
for the determination.
(e) Recertification. The procedure
specified in § 60.533(k) must be used to
determine when a product line must be
recertified.
(f) Criteria for Revocation of
Certification. (1) The Administrator may
revoke certification of a product line if
it is determined that the residential
hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces
being manufactured or sold in that
model line do not comply with the
requirements of this subpart. Such a
determination will be based on all
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6386
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
available evidence, including but not
limited to:
(i) Test data from retesting of the
original unit on which the certification
was conducted or a similar unit;
(ii) A finding that the certification test
was not valid. The finding will be based
on problems or irregularities with the
certification test or its documentation,
but may be supplemented by other
information;
(iii) A finding that the labeling of the
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace model line or the owner’s
manual or marketing information does
not comply with the requirements of
§ 60.5478;
(iv) Failure by the manufacturer to
comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of
§ 60.5479;
(v) Physical examination showing that
a significant percentage (as defined in
the quality assurance plan, but no larger
than 1 percent) of production units
inspected is not similar in all material
respects as defined in this subpart to the
representative affected hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace submitted for
testing; or
(vi) Failure of the manufacturer to
conduct a quality assurance program in
conformity with paragraph (g) of this
section.
(2) Revocation of certification under
this paragraph will not take effect until
the manufacturer concerned has been
given written notice by the
Administrator setting forth the basis for
the proposed determination and an
opportunity to request a review under
§ 60.5481.
(g) Quality Assurance Program. For
each certified model line, the
manufacturer must conduct a quality
assurance program according to the
requirements of § 60.533(m).
(h) EPA Compliance Audit Testing.
The Administrator will conduct
compliance audit testing according to
the requirements of § 60.533(n). For the
purposes of this paragraph, references in
§ 60.533(n) to § § 60.532 through 60.535
must be understood to refer to the
comparable paragraphs in §§ 60.5474
through 60.5477 and the associated test
methods specified in this subpart.
§ 60.5476 What test methods and
procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and
requirements for certification?
Test methods and procedures
specified in this section or in appendix
A of this part, except as provided under
§ 60.8(b), must be used to determine
compliance with the standards and
requirements for certification under
§§ 60.5474 and 60.5475 as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
(a)(1) Method 28 WHH must be used
to measure the heat output (million Btu/
hr) of outdoor and indoor residential
hydronic heaters.
(2) If the model is subject to the 2015
particulate matter standards specified in
§ 60.5474(a)(1) and is equipped with an
external heat storage unit, you must
conduct testing according to paragraph
§ 60.5476(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
You have the option of submitting the
test results of either (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of
this section to the Administrator as
specified under § 60.5479 for
certification compliance.
(i) Conduct testing using crib wood as
specified in Method 28 WHH. The heat
input and heat output measurements
must be performed according to ASTM
method E2618–13 entitled ‘‘Standard
Test Method for Determining Particulate
Matter Emissions and Heating of
Outdoor Solid Fuel-fired Hydronic
Heating Appliances.’’ Testing conducted
with continuously fed biomass as the
fuel(s) must be conducted according to
the relevant section of the ASTM
method.
(ii) Conduct testing using cord wood
as specified in ‘‘A Test Method for
Certification of Cord Wood-Fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances with
Partial Thermal Storage: Measurement
of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Emissions and Heating
Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic
Heating Appliances with Partial
Thermal Storage.’’
(3) If the model is subject to the 2020
particulate matter standards specified in
§ 60.5474(a)(2) and is equipped with an
external partial heat storage unit, you
must conduct cord wood testing
according to the test methods and
procedures of ‘‘A Test Method for
Certification of Cord Wood-Fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances with
Partial Thermal Storage: Measurement
of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Emissions and Heating
Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic
Heating Appliances with Partial
Thermal Storage.’’
(b) Method 28 WHH in conjunction
with ASTM E2515–10 must be used to
measure the particulate matter emission
rate (lb/million Btu heat output) of
outdoor and indoor residential hydronic
heaters, except that for the 2020
standards, you should first test Burn
Rate Categories 1 and 4 and then test 2
more times for whichever burn rate
category is worse on a lb/million BTU
heat output basis and report the results
separately per burn rate category.
(c) Canadian Standards
Administration (CSA) Method B415.1–
10 must be used to measure the heat
output (million Btu/hr) and particulate
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
matter emission rate (lb/million Btu
heat output) of forced-air furnaces,
except that for the 2020 standards, you
should first test Burn Rate Categories 1
and 4 and then test 2 more times for
whichever burn rate category is worse
on a lb/million BTU heat output basis
and report the results separately per
burn rate category.
(d) CSA Method B415.1–10, section
13.7, must be used to measure the
thermal efficiency of outdoor and
indoor residential hydronic heaters.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) The manufacturer of an affected
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace must notify the Administrator of
the date that certification testing is to
begin, by email, to Wood Heater NSPS
Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/
Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_
Program. This notice must be at least 30
days before the start of testing. The
notification of testing must include the
manufacturer’s name and address, the
accredited test laboratory’s name and
address, certifying entity name, the
model name and number (or, if
unavailable, some other way to
distinguish between models), and the
dates of testing.
(g) The accredited test laboratory must
allow the manufacturer, the EPA and
delegated states to observe certification
testing. However, manufacturers must
not involve themselves in the conduct
of the test after the pretest burn (as
defined by EPA Method 28 WHH) has
begun. Communications between the
manufacturer and laboratory or
certifying entity personnel regarding
operation of the hydronic heater must
be limited to written communications
transmitted prior to the first pretest burn
of the certification series. Written
communications between the
manufacturer and laboratory personnel
may be exchanged during the
certification test only if deviations from
the test procedures are observed that
constitute improper conduct of the test.
All communications must be included
in the test documentation required to be
submitted pursuant to § 60.533(b)(3) and
must be consistent with instructions
provided in the owner’s manual
required under § 60.5478(f), except to
the extent that they address details of
the certification tests that would not be
relevant to owners.
§ 60.5477 What procedures must I use for
laboratory accreditation?
The accreditation procedure specified
in § 60.535 must be used to certify test
laboratories under this subpart.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 60.5478 What requirements must I meet
for permanent labels and owner’s manuals?
(a) Permanent Label Requirements.
(1) Each affected residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace
manufactured or sold on or after the
date the applicable standards come into
effect as specified in § 60.5474, must
have a permanent label affixed to it that
meets the requirements of this section.
(2) The permanent label must contain
the following information:
(i) Month and year of manufacture of
the individual unit;
(ii) Model name or number; and
(iii) Serial number.
(3) The permanent label must:
(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or
accessible location in such a manner
that it can be easily viewed before and
after the appliance is installed;
(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm
wide (3 1/2 inches long and 2 inches
wide);
(iii) Be made of a material expected to
last the lifetime of the residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace;
(iv) Present required information in a
manner so that it is likely to remain
legible for the lifetime of the residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace;
and
(v) Be affixed in such a manner that
it cannot be removed without damage to
the label.
(4) The permanent label may be
combined with any other label, as long
as the required information is displayed,
the integrity of the permanent label is
not compromised, and the requirements
of § 60.5478(a)(3) are still met.
(b) If the residential hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace belongs to a model
line certified under § 60.5475, and it has
been found to meet the applicable
emission limits or tolerances through
quality assurance testing, one of the
following statements, as appropriate,
must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Certified to comply with
2015 particulate emission standards.
or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Certified to comply with
2020 particulate emission standards.
(c) The label under paragraph (b) of
this section must also contain the
following statement on the permanent
label:
‘‘This appliance needs periodic
inspection and repair for proper
operation. Consult owner’s manual for
further information. It is against the law
to operate this appliance in a manner
inconsistent with operating instructions
in the owner’s manual.’’
(d) Any label statement under
paragraph (b) of this section constitutes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
a representation by the manufacturer as
to any residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace that bears it:
(1) That the certification of
compliance was in effect at the time the
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace left the possession of the
manufacturer;
(2) That the manufacturer was, at the
time the label was affixed, conducting a
quality assurance program in conformity
with the manufacturer’s quality
assurance program; and
(3) That as to any residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace individually
tested for emissions by the manufacturer
under § 60.5475(f), it met the applicable
emission limit.
(e)(1) If an affected residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace is
manufactured in the United States for
export as provided in § 60.5472(b)(1),
the following statement must appear on
the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Export appliance. May not
be operated in the United States.
(2) If an affected residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace is
manufactured for use for research and
development purposes as provided in
§ 60.5472(b)(2), the following statement
must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Not certified. Research
Appliance. Not approved for sale.
(3) If an affected residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace is a non
wood-burning hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace exclusively as
provided in § 60.5472(b)(3) the
following statement must appear on the
permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY This appliance is not
certified for wood burning. Use of any
wood fuel is a violation of federal law.
(f) Owner’s Manual. (1) Each affected
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace offered for sale by a commercial
owner must be accompanied by an
owner’s manual that must contain the
information listed in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section (pertaining to installation),
and paragraph (f)(3) of this section
(pertaining to operation and
maintenance). Such information must
be adequate to enable consumers to
achieve optimal emissions performance.
Such information must be consistent
with the operating instructions provided
by the manufacturer to the accredited
test laboratory for operating the
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace during certification testing,
except for details of the certification test
that would not be relevant to the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6387
ultimate purchaser. The commercial
owner must also make current and
historical owner’s manuals available on
the company Web site.
(2) Installation information:
Requirements for achieving proper draft.
(3) Operation and maintenance
information:
(i) Fuel loading procedures,
recommendations on fuel selection, and
warnings on what fuels not to use, such
as treated wood, colored paper,
cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage.
(ii) Fire starting procedures
(iii) Proper use of air controls
(iv) Ash removal procedures
(v) Instructions for replacement of
gaskets and other parts that are critical
to the emissions performance of the unit
and other maintenance and repair
instructions
(vi) The following statement: ‘‘This
wood heating appliance needs periodic
inspection and repair for proper
operation. It is against federal law to
operate this wood heating appliance in
a manner inconsistent with operating
instructions in the manual.’’
(4) Any manufacturer using the EPA
model language contained in appendix
I of this part to satisfy any requirement
of this paragraph (f) will be considered
to be in compliance with that
requirement, provided that the
particular model language is printed in
full, with only such changes as are
necessary to ensure accuracy for the
particular model line.
(5) Residential hydronic heaters and
forced-air furnaces that are affected by
this subpart but have been operated by
a noncommercial owner are not subject
to paragraph (f) of this section when
offered for resale.
§ 60.5479 What records must I keep and
what reports must I submit?
(a) Each manufacturer who holds a
certificate of compliance pursuant to
§ 60.5475(a)(2) for a model line must
maintain records containing the
following information with respect to
that model line.
(1) All documentation pertaining to
the certification test used to obtain
certification, including the full test
report and raw data sheets, laboratory
technician notes, calculations, and the
test results for all test runs.
(2) Results of the quality assurance
program inspections required pursuant
to § 60.5475(g).
(3) For emissions tests conducted
pursuant to the quality assurance
program required by § 60.5475(g), all
test reports, data sheets, laboratory
technician notes, calculations, and test
results for all test runs, the corrective
actions taken, if any, and any follow-up
actions such as additional testing.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6388
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(b) Each accredited test laboratory
must maintain records consisting of all
documentation pertaining to each
certification test and audit test,
including the full test report and raw
data sheets, laboratory technician notes,
calculations, and the test results for all
test runs. Each accredited test laboratory
must submit initial and biennial
proficiency test results to the
Administrator.
(c) Each manufacturer must retain
each residential hydronic heater and
forced-air furnace upon which
certification tests were performed and
certification granted under
§ 60.5475(a)(2) at the manufacturer’s
facility for as long as the model line is
manufactured. Each heater or furnace
must remain sealed and unaltered. Any
such residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace must be made
available upon request to the
Administrator for inspection and
testing.
(d) Each manufacturer of an affected
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace certified pursuant to
§ 60.5475(a)(2) must submit a report to
the Administrator every 2 years
following issuance of a certificate of
compliance for each model line. This
report must include the sales for each
model by state and certify that no
changes in the design or manufacture of
the model line have been made that
require recertification pursuant to
§ 60.5475(e).
(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all
records required under this section must
be maintained by the manufacturer,
commercial owner of the affected
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace, accredited test laboratory or
certifying entity for a period of no less
than 5 years.
(2) Unless otherwise specified, all
reports to the Administrator required
under this subpart must be made to:
Wood Heater NSPS Compliance
Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_
NSPS_Compliance_Program.
(f) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, each
manufacturer or accredited test
laboratory or certifying entity must
submit performance test data
electronically to the EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) (https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/).
Only data collected using test methods
compatible with ERT are subject to this
requirement to be submitted
electronically to EPA’s CDX.
Manufacturers may submit compliance
reports to the EPA via regular mail at
the address listed below if the test
methods they use are not compatible
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
with ERT or if ERT is not available to
accept reports at the time the final rule
is published. Owners or operators who
claim that some of the information being
submitted for performance tests is
confidential business information (CBI)
must submit a completed ERT file,
including information claimed to be CBI
on a compact disk or other commonly
used electronic storage media
(including, but not limited to, flash
drives), to the EPA and the same ERT
file, with the CBI omitted, to the EPA
via CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph. The compact disk must be
clearly marked as CBI and mailed to
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD
C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham,
NC 27703. Emission data and all
information necessary to determine
compliance, except sensitive
engineering drawings and sensitive
detailed material specifications, may not
be claimed as CBI.
§ 60.5480 What activities are prohibited
under this subpart?
(a) No person is permitted to operate
an affected residential hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace that does not have
affixed to it a permanent label pursuant
to § 60.5478(b) or (c).
(b)(1) No commercial owner is
permitted to advertise for sale, offer for
sale, or sell an affected residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
that does not have affixed to it a
permanent label pursuant to
§ 60.5478(b) or (e)(3).
(2) No commercial owner is permitted
to advertise for sale, offer for sale, or sell
an affected residential hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace labeled under
§ 60.5478(e)(1) except for export.
(c)(1) No commercial owner is
permitted to advertise for sale, offer for
sale, or sell an affected residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
permanently labeled under § 60.5478(b)
or (e)(3) unless:
(i) The affected appliance has been
certified to comply with 2020
particulate emission standards. This
prohibition does not apply to affected
residential hydronic heaters or forcedair furnaces regulated under this subpart
that have been previously owned and
operated by a noncommercial owner;
and
(ii) The commercial owner provides
any purchaser or transferee with an
owner’s manual that meets the
requirements of § 60.5478(f), a copy of
the warranty and a moisture meter.
(2) A commercial owner other than a
manufacturer complies with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this
section if the commercial owner:
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) Receives the required
documentation from the manufacturer
or a previous commercial owner; and
(ii) Provides that documentation
unaltered to any person to whom the
residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace that it covers is sold or
transferred.
(d)(1) In any case in which the
Administrator revokes a certificate of
compliance either for the knowing
submission of false or inaccurate
information or other fraudulent acts, or
based on a finding under
§ 60.5475(e)(1)(ii) that the certification
test was not valid, the Administrator
may give notice of that revocation and
the grounds for it to all commercial
owners.
(2) On and after the date of receipt of
the notice given under paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, no commercial owner is
permitted to sell any residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
covered by the revoked certificate (other
than to the manufacturer) unless the
model line has been recertified in
accordance with this subpart.
(e) No person is permitted to install or
operate an affected residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace except in a
manner consistent with the instructions
on its permanent label and in the
owner’s manual pursuant to
§ 60.5478(f), including only using fuels
for which the unit is certified.
(f) No person is permitted to operate
an affected residential hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace that has been
physically altered to exceed the
tolerance limits of its certificate of
compliance.
(g) No person is permitted to alter,
deface, or remove any permanent label
required to be affixed pursuant to
§ 60.5478.
(h) No certifying entity is permitted to
certify its own certification test report.
§ 60.5481 What Petition for Review
procedures apply to me?
(a) In any case where the
Administrator:
(1) Denies an application under
§ 60.5475(a)(2);
(2) Issues a notice of revocation of
certification pursuant to § 60.5475(e);
(3) Denies an application for
laboratory accreditation pursuant to
§ 60.5477; or
(4) Issues a notice of revocation of
laboratory accreditation pursuant to
§ 60.5477, the manufacturer or
laboratory affected may submit to the
EPA a request for review under this
section pursuant to the procedures
specified in § 60.539 within 30 days
following receipt of the required
notification of the action in question.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(b) In any case where the
Administrator issues a notice of
revocation pursuant to § 60.5475(g), the
manufacturer may submit to the EPA a
Petition for Review request under this
section with the time limits set out in
§ 60.533(p)(4).
§ 60.5482 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
(a) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority to a state under
section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, the
authorities contained in paragraph (b) of
this section must be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a
state.
(b) Authorities that must not be
delegated to states:
(1) Section 60.5473, Definitions;
(2) Section 60.5475, Compliance and
certification;
(3) Section 60.5476, Test methods and
procedures; and
(4) Section 60.5477, Laboratory
accreditation.
§ 60.5483 What parts of the General
Provisions do not apply to me?
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The following provisions of subpart A
of part 60 do not apply to this subpart:
(a) Section 60.7;
(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and
(g); and
(c) Section 60.15(d).
■ 5. Add subpart RRRR to read as
follows:
Subpart RRRR—Standards of Performance
for New Residential Masonry Heaters
Sec.
60.5484 Am I subject to this subpart?
60.5485 What definitions must I know?
60.5486 What standards and requirements
must I meet and by when?
60.5487 What compliance and certification
requirements must I meet and by when?
60.5488 What test methods and procedures
must I use to determine compliance with
the standards and requirements for
certification?
60.5489 What procedures must I use for
laboratory accreditation?
60.5490 What requirements must I meet for
permanent labels and owner’s manuals?
60.5491 What records must I keep and what
reports must I submit?
60.5492 What activities are prohibited
under this subpart?
60.5493 What Petition for Review
procedures apply to me?
60.5494 Who implements and enforces this
subpart?
60.5495 What parts of the General
Provisions do not apply to me?
Subpart RRRR—Standards of
Performance for New Residential
Masonry Heaters
§ 60.5484
Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if
you operate, manufacture, sell, offer for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to
distribute, introduce, or deliver for
introduction, into commerce in the
United States, a residential masonry
heater manufactured on or after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(b) Each affected masonry heater must
comply with the provisions of this
subpart unless exempted under
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this
section.
(1) Affected masonry heaters
manufactured in the United States for
export are exempt from the applicable
emission limits of § 60.5486 and the
requirements of § 60.5487.
(2) Affected masonry heaters used for
research and development purposes that
are never offered for sale or sold and
that are not used to provide heat are
exempt from the applicable emission
limits of § 60.5486 and the requirements
of § 60.5487. No more than six affected
masonry heaters manufactured per
model line may be exempted for this
purpose.
(3) Affected masonry heaters that do
not burn wood or wood pellets (such as
coal-only heaters that meet the
definition in § 60.5485 or corn-only
heaters) are exempt from the applicable
emission limits of § 60.5486 and the
requirements of § 60.5487.
(c) The following are not affected
masonry heaters and are not subject to
this subpart:
(1) Residential wood heaters subject
to subpart AAA of this part.
(2) Residential hydronic heaters and
forced-air furnaces subject to subpart
QQQQ of this part.
§ 60.5485
What definitions must I know?
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein have the same meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act and
subpart A of this part.
Accredited test laboratory means a
test laboratory that is accredited for
masonry heater certification testing
under § 60.5489 or is an independent
third party test laboratory that is
accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting entity under ISO–IEC
Standard 17025 to perform testing using
the test methods specified in § 60.5488
and approved by the EPA for
conducting certification tests under this
subpart.
At retail means the sale by a
commercial owner of a residential
masonry heater to the ultimate
purchaser.
Certifying entity means an
independent third party that is
accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting entity under ISO–IEC
Standard 17020 to perform certifications
and inspections under ISO–IEC Guide
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6389
17065 and approved by the EPA for
conducting certifications, inspections
and audits under this subpart.
Coal-only heater means an enclosed,
coal-burning appliance capable of space
heating or domestic water heating
which has all of the following
characteristics:
(1) Installation instructions that state
that the use of wood in the heater,
except for coal ignition purposes, is
prohibited by law; and
(2) The model is listed by a nationally
recognized safety-testing laboratory for
coal use only, except for coal ignition
purposes.
Commercial owner means any person
who owns or controls a residential
masonry heater in the course of the
business of the manufacture,
importation, distribution, or sale of the
unit.
Manufactured means completed and
ready for shipment (whether or not
packaged) or installed in a residence in
the case of custom-built masonry
heaters for purposes of determining the
date of manufacture.
Manufacturer means any person who
constructs or imports into the United
States a residential masonry heater.
Model line means all residential
masonry heaters offered for sale by a
single manufacturer that are similar in
all material respects as defined in this
section.
Particulate matter (PM) means total
particulate matter including PM10 and
PM2.5.
Pellet fuel means refined and
densified wood shaped into small
pellets or briquettes that are uniform in
size, shape, moisture, density and
energy content.
Representative affected masonry
heater means an individual residential
masonry heater that is similar in all
material respects as defined in this
section to other residential masonry
heaters within the model line it
represents.
Residential masonry heater means a
factory-built or site-built wood-burning
device that has the following
characteristics:
(1) The device has a core constructed
primarily of manufacturer-built,
supplied, or specified masonry
materials (such as stone, cemented
aggregate, clay, tile, or other noncombustible, non-metallic solid
materials) that weighs at least 1700
pounds;
(2) The firebox effluent of the
masonry heater travels horizontally and/
or downward through one or more heat
absorbing masonry duct(s) for a distance
at least the length of the largest single
internal firebox dimension before
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6390
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
leaving the masonry heater. These
parameters are determined as follows:
(i) Horizontal or downward travel
distance is defined as the net horizontal
and/or downward internal duct length,
measured from the top of the uppermost
firebox door opening(s) to the exit of the
masonry heater as traveled by any
effluent on a single pathway through
duct channel(s) within the heater (or
average of net internal duct lengths for
multiple pathways of different lengths,
if applicable). Net internal duct length
is measured from the center of the
internal side or top surface of a duct,
horizontally or vertically to the center of
the opposite side or the bottom surface
of the same duct, and summed for
multiple ducts or directions on a single
pathway, if applicable. For duct
channel(s) traversing horizontal angles
of less than ninety degrees from vertical,
only the net actual horizontal distance
traveled is included in the total duct
length; and
(ii) The largest single internal firebox
dimensions is defined as the longest of
either the length or the width of the
firebox hearth and the height of the
firebox, measured from the hearth to the
top of the uppermost firebox door
opening(s);
(3) The device has one or more aircontrolling doors for fuel-loading that
are designed to be closed during the
combustion of fuel loads, and that
control the entry of combustion air
(beyond simple spark arresting screens)
to one or more inlets as prescribed by
the masonry heater manufacturer; and
(4) The device is assembled in
conformance with Underwriters
Laboratories’ and/or manufacturer’s
specifications for its assembly and, if
the core is constructed with a
substantial portion of materials not
supplied by the manufacturer, is
certified by a representative of the
manufacturer to be substantially in
conformance with those specifications.
Sale means the transfer of ownership
or control, except that a transfer of
control of an affected heater for research
and development purposes within the
scope of § 60.5484(b)(2) is not a sale.
Seasoned wood means wood with a
moisture content of 20 percent or less.
Similar in all material respects means
that the construction materials, exhaust
and inlet air system, and other design
features are within the allowed
tolerances for components identified in
§ 60.533(k).
Valid certification test means a test
that meets the following criteria:
(1) The Administrator was notified
about the test in accordance with
§ 60.5488(d)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
(2) The test was conducted by an
accredited test laboratory as defined in
this section;
(3) The test was conducted on a
residential masonry heater similar in all
material respects as defined in this
section to other residential masonry
heaters of the model line that is to be
certified; and
(4) The test was conducted in
accordance with the test methods and
procedures specified in § 60.5488.
§ 60.5486 What standards and
requirements must I meet and by when?
(a) Particulate Matter Standard.
Unless exempted under § 60.5484:
(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], no person is permitted to
manufacture and, on or after [6
MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], no person is permitted to
sell at retail a residential masonry heater
unless the heater has been certified to
meet the particulate matter emission
limit in paragraph (b) of this section or
the manufacturer is a small
manufacturer as defined in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(2) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], no
small manufacturer is permitted to
manufacture a residential masonry
heater unless it has been certified to
meet the particulate matter emission
limit in paragraph (b) of this section. For
the purposes of this subpart, a small
manufacturer is defined as a
manufacturer that constructs less than
15 residential masonry heaters per year.
A small manufacturer may elect to
comply with the emission limit in
paragraph (b) of this section earlier than
specified in this paragraph.
(b) Residential masonry heater
particulate matter emission limit: 0.32
lb/million Btu (0.137 g/megajoule) heat
output as determined by the test
methods and procedures in § 60.5488.
(c) Pellet Fuel Requirements.
Operators of masonry heaters that are
certified to burn pellet fuels may only
burn pellets that have been produced
under a licensing agreement with the
Pellet Fuel Institute or an equivalent
organization approved by EPA. The
pellet fuel must meet the following
minimum requirements:
(1) Density: consistent hardness and
energy content with a minimum density
of 38 pounds/cubic foot;
(2) Dimensions: maximum length of
1.5 inches and diameter between 0.230
and 0.285 inches;
(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal
to 1 percent;
(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300
parts per million by weight; and
(5) Ash content: no more than 2
percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(6) A quality assurance process
licensed by the Pellet Fuel Institute or
equivalent organization approved by the
EPA.
(d) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person
is permitted to burn any of the following
materials in a residential masonry
heater:
(1) Residential or commercial garbage;
(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste;
(3) Materials containing rubber,
including tires;
(4) Materials containing plastic;
(5) Waste petroleum products, paints
or paint thinners, or asphalt products;
(6) Materials containing asbestos;
(7) Construction or demolition debris;
(8) Paper products, cardboard,
plywood, or particleboard. The
prohibition against burning these
materials does not prohibit the use of
fire starters made from paper,
cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar
substances for the purpose of starting a
fire in an affected masonry heater;
(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated
wood;
(10) Manure or animal remains; or
(11) Salt water driftwood or other
previously salt water saturated
materials.
(e) Owner’s Manual. A person must
not operate a residential masonry heater
in a manner inconsistent with the
owner’s manual. The owner’s manual
must clearly specify that operation in a
manner inconsistent with the owner’s
manual would violate the warranty.
§ 60.5487 What compliance and
certification requirements must I meet and
by when?
(a)(1) Certification Requirement. Each
affected residential masonry heater must
be certified to be in compliance with the
applicable emission standards and other
requirements of this subpart. For each
model line manufactured or sold by a
single entity, e.g., company or
manufacturer, compliance with
applicable emission standards of
§ 60.5486(b) must be determined based
on testing of representative affected
appliances within the model line. If one
entity licenses a model line to another
entity, each entity’s model line must be
certified. If an entity changes the name
of the entity or the name of the model,
the manufacturer must apply for a new
certification.
(2) The manufacturer of each model
line must submit to the EPA the
information required in paragraph (b) of
this section and follow the certification
procedure specified in § 60.533(f) except
that, for the purposes of this paragraph,
the reference in § 60.533(f) to the
emission limits in § 60.532 must be
understood to refer to the emission
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
limits in § 60.5486(b) and the associated
test methods are those specified in this
subpart.
(3) As an alternative to the
certification process described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an
applicant may choose to submit a
computer model simulation program for
review and certification by the
certifying entity and subsequent review
and approval by the Administrator for
use as a surrogate for emissions testing.
The Administrator will post the
certified model on the EPA Burnwise
Web site.
(b) Waiver from Submitting Test
Results.
(1) An applicant for certification may
apply for a potential waiver of the
requirements to submit the results of a
certification test pursuant to the
certification procedures specified in
§ 60.533(f) according to the procedure
specified in § 60.533(g)(1).
(2) Alternatively, an applicant may
submit results using a validated
computer model simulation program
that demonstrates the masonry heater
design meets the emission limit in
§ 60.5486(b).
(c) Certification Period.
(1) Unless revoked sooner by the
Administrator, a certificate of
compliance will be valid for 5 years
from the date of issuance.
(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a
small manufacturer as defined in
§ 60.5486(a)(2) and the model was
certified using the procedure defined in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
certificate of compliance will be valid
for the life of the model line unless it
is revoked by the Administrator.
(d) Renewal of Certification.
(1) Any manufacturer of an affected
masonry heater may apply to the
Administrator for potential renewal of a
certificate of compliance by submitting
the material specified in § 60.533(b) and
following the process specified in
§ 60.533(f).
(2) A certificate issued pursuant to
paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be
recertified or renewed every 5 years or
the manufacture may choose to no
longer manufacture or sell that model. If
the manufacturer chooses to no longer
manufacture or sell that model, then the
manufacturer must submit a statement
to EPA for that model. A manufacturer
may apply to the Administrator for
potential renewal of their certificate by
submitting certification information in
accordance with § 60.533(b) or by
affirming in writing that the wood
heater has been subject to no changes
that would impact emissions and
request a potential waiver from
certification testing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
(3) If the Administrator waives
certification testing under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, the Administrator
will give written notice to the
manufacturer setting forth the basis for
the determination and issue a
certification.
(4) If the Administrator denies the
request, the Administrator will give
written notice to the manufacturer
setting forth the basis for the
determination.
(e) Recertification.
(1) The procedure specified in
§ 60.533(k) must be used to determine
when a model line must be recertified.
(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a
small manufacturer as defined in
§ 60.5486(a)(2) and the model line was
certified using the procedure defined in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
recertification provisions of paragraph
(e)(1) of this section do not apply.
(f) Criteria for Revocation of
Certification.
(1) The Administrator may revoke
certification of a model line if it is
determined that the residential masonry
heaters produced in that model line do
not comply with the requirements of
this subpart. Such a determination will
be based on all available evidence,
including but not limited to:
(i) Test data from retesting of the
original unit on which the certification
was conducted or a similar unit;
(ii) A finding that the certification test
or model simulation was not valid;
(iii) A finding that the labeling of the
residential masonry heater model line or
the associated owner’s manual or
marketing information does not comply
with the requirements of § 60.5490;
(iv) Failure by the manufacturer to
comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of
§ 60.5491;
(v) Physical examination showing that
an inspected production unit is not
similar in all material respects as
defined in this subpart to the
representative affected masonry heater
submitted for testing; or
(vi) Failure of the manufacturer to
conduct a quality assurance program in
conformity with paragraph (f) of this
section.
(2) Revocation of certification under
this paragraph will not take effect until
the manufacturer concerned has been
given written notice by the
Administrator setting forth the basis for
the proposed determination and an
opportunity to request a Petition for
Review under § 60.5493.
(g) Quality Assurance Program. For
each certified model line, except for any
model line at small manufacturers as
defined in § 60.5486(a)(2) and where the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6391
model line was certified using the
procedure defined in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section, the manufacturer must
conduct a quality assurance program
according to the requirements of
§ 60.533(m).
(h) EPA Compliance Audit Testing.
The Administrator may conduct
compliance audit testing according to
the requirements of § 60.533(n). For the
purposes of this paragraph, references in
§ 60.533(p) to § § 60.532 through 60.535
must be understood to refer to the
comparable paragraphs in § § 60.5486
through 60.5489, respectively. The
requirements of this paragraph do not
apply to small manufacturers as defined
in § 60.5486(a)(2) and where the model
line was certified using the procedure
defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
§ 60.5488 What test methods and
procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and
requirements for certification?
Test methods and procedures
specified in this section or in appendix
A of this part, except as provided under
§ 60.8(b), must be used to determine
compliance with the standards and
requirements for certification under
§ § 60.5486 and 60.5487 as follows:
(a) ASTM E2817–11, Standard Test
Method for Test Fueling Masonry
Heaters, must be used to measure the
heat output (million Btu/hr) of
residential masonry heaters.
(b) ASTM E2515–10 must be used in
conjunction with ASTM E2817–11 to
measure the particulate emission rate
(lb/million BTU heat output) of
residential masonry heaters.
(c)(1) ASTM WK26558, New
Specification for Calculation Method for
Custom Designed, Site Built Masonry
Heaters may be used as an alternative to
certification testing as specified in
paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of this
section.
(2) If the Administrator approves an
alternative computer model simulation
program pursuant to § 60.5487(a)(3), the
approved simulation program also may
be used as an alternative to certification
testing as specified in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
(d) Method 10 in appendix A–4 of this
part must be used to measure CO
emissions of residential masonry
heaters.
(e) The manufacturer of an affected
masonry heater must notify the
Administrator of the date that
certification testing is to begin, by email,
to Wood Heater NSPS Compliance
Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_
NSPS_Compliance_Program. This
notice must be received at least 30 days
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6392
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
before the start of testing. The
notification of testing must include the
manufacturer’s name and address, the
accredited test laboratory’s name and
address, certifying entity name, the
model name and number (or, if
unavailable, some other way to
distinguish between models), and the
dates of testing.
(f) The accredited test laboratory must
allow the manufacturer, the EPA and
delegated states to observe certification
testing. However, manufacturers must
not involve themselves in the conduct
of the test after the pretest burn (as
defined by ASTM E2817–11) has begun.
Communications between the
manufacturer and laboratory or
certifying entity personnel regarding
operation of the masonry heater must be
limited to written communications
transmitted prior to the first pretest burn
of the certification series. Written
communications between the
manufacturer and laboratory personnel
may be exchanged during the
certification test only if deviations from
the test procedures are observed that
constitute improper conduct of the test.
All communications must be included
in the test documentation required to be
submitted pursuant to § 60.533(b)(3) and
must be consistent with instructions
provided in the owner’s manual
required under § 60.5490(g), except to
the extent that they address details of
the certification tests that would not be
relevant to owners.
§ 60.5489 What procedures must I use for
laboratory accreditation?
The accreditation procedure specified
in § 60.535 must be used to certify test
laboratories under this subpart.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 60.5490 What requirements must I meet
for permanent labels and owner’s manuals?
(a) Permanent Label Requirements.
(1) Each affected masonry heater
manufactured on or after the date the
applicable standards come into effect as
specified in § 60.5486, must have a
permanent label affixed to it that meets
the requirements of this section.
(2) The permanent label must contain
the following information:
(i) Month and year of manufacture of
the individual unit;
(ii) Model name or number; and
(iii) Serial number.
(3) The permanent label must:
(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or
accessible location in such a manner
that it can be easily viewed before and
after the appliance is installed;
(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm
wide (3 1/2 inches long and 2 inches
wide);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
(iii) Be made of a material expected to
last the lifetime of the residential
masonry heater;
(iv) Present required information in a
manner so that it is likely to remain
legible for the lifetime of the residential
masonry heater; and
(v) Be affixed in such a manner that
it cannot be removed without damage to
the label.
(4) The permanent label may be
combined with any other label, as long
as the required information is displayed,
the integrity of the permanent label is
not compromised, and the requirements
of § 60.5490(3) are still met.
(b)(1) If the residential masonry heater
belongs to a model line certified under
§ 60.5487, and it has been found to meet
the applicable emission limits or
tolerances through quality assurance
testing, the following statement must
appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Certified to comply with
2015 particulate emissions standards.
(2) If the masonry heater belongs to a
model line owned by a manufacturer
that qualifies for the small volume
manufacturer delay as specified in
§ 60.5486(a)(2), the following statement
must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY This masonry heater was
produced by a small volume
manufacturer that manufactures or
exports to the United States fewer
than 15 masonry heaters per year.
This appliance cannot be sold after [5
YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(c) The label under paragraph (b) of
this section must also contain the
following statement on the permanent
label: ‘‘This appliance needs periodic
inspection and repair for proper
operation. Consult owner’s manual for
further information. It is against the law
to operate this appliance in a manner
inconsistent with operating instructions
in the owner’s manual.’’
(d) Any label statement under
paragraph (b) of this section constitutes
a representation by the manufacturer as
to any residential masonry heater that
bears it:
(1) That the certification was in effect
at the time the residential masonry
heater left the possession of the
manufacturer;
(2) That the manufacturer was, at the
time the label was affixed, conducting a
quality assurance program in conformity
with the manufacturer’s quality
assurance program; and
(3) That as to any residential masonry
heater individually tested for emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
by the manufacturer under § 60.5487(f),
it met the applicable emission limit.
(e)(1) If an affected masonry heater is
manufactured in the United States for
export as provide in § 60.5484(b)(1), the
following statement must appear on the
permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Export unit. May not be
operated in the United States.
(2) If an affected masonry heater is
manufactured for research and
development purposes as provided in
§ 60.5484(b)(2), the following statement
must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Not certified. Research unit.
Not approved for sale.
(3) If an affected masonry heater is a
non wood-burning masonry heater
exclusively as provided § 60.5484(b)(3)
the following statement must appear on
the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY This appliance is not
certified for wood burning. Use of any
wood fuel is a violation of federal law.
(f) Owner’s Manual.
(1) Each affected masonry heater
offered for sale by a commercial owner
must be accompanied by an owner’s
manual that must contain the
information listed in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section (pertaining to installation),
and paragraph (f)(3) of this section
(pertaining to operation and
maintenance). Such information must
be adequate to enable consumers to
achieve optimal emissions performance.
Such information must be consistent
with the operating instructions provided
by the manufacturer to the accredited
test laboratory for operating the
residential masonry heater, except for
details of the certification test that
would not be relevant to the ultimate
purchaser. The commercial owner must
also make current and historical owner’s
manuals available on the company Web
site.
(2) Installation information:
Requirements for achieving proper draft.
(3) Operation and maintenance
information:
(i) Fuel loading procedures,
recommendations on fuel selection, and
warnings on what fuels not to use, such
as treated wood, colored paper,
cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage.
(ii) Fire starting procedures
(iii) Proper use of air controls
(iv) Ash removal procedures
(v) Instructions for replacement of
gasket and other parts that are critical to
the emissions performance of the unit
and other maintenance and repair
instructions
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(vi) The following statement: ‘‘This
wood heating appliance needs periodic
inspection and repair for proper
operation. It is against federal law to
operate this wood heating appliance in
a manner inconsistent with operating
instructions in the manual.’’
(4) Any manufacturer using the EPA
model language contained in appendix
I of this part to satisfy any requirement
of this paragraph (f) will be considered
to be in compliance with that
requirement, provided that the
particular model language is printed in
full, with only such changes as are
necessary to ensure accuracy for the
particular model line.
(5) Residential masonry heaters that
are affected by this subpart but have
been operated by a noncommercial
owner are not subject to paragraph (f) of
this section when offered for resale.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 60.5491 What records must I keep and
what reports must I submit?
(a) Each manufacturer who holds a
certificate of compliance pursuant to
§ 60.5487(a)(2) for a model line must
maintain records containing the
information required by this paragraph
(a) with respect to that model line.
(1) All documentation pertaining to
the certification test or computer
simulation used to obtain certification.
(i) For certification tests, this includes
the full test report and raw data sheets,
laboratory technician notes,
calculations, and the test results for all
test runs.
(ii) For computer simulations, this
includes all data input into the
simulation program and all computergenerated output.
(2) Results of the quality assurance
program inspections required pursuant
to § 60.5487(f).
(3) For emissions tests conducted
pursuant to the quality assurance
program required by § 60.5487(f), all test
reports, data sheets, laboratory
technician notes, calculations, and test
results for all test runs, the remedial
actions taken, if any, and any follow-up
actions such as additional testing.
(4) If a masonry heater manufacturer
qualifies as a small volume
manufacturer as specified in
§ 60.5486(a)(2) and elects to defer
compliance as allowed by that
paragraph, records of the number of
masonry heaters produced or
constructed per year during the deferral
period.
(b) Each accredited test laboratory
must maintain records consisting of all
documentation pertaining to each
certification test, audit test, or computer
simulation, including the full test report
and raw data sheets, laboratory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
technician notes, calculations, and the
test results for all test runs. Each
accredited test laboratory must submit
initial and biennial proficiency test
results to the Administrator.
(c) Each manufacturer must retain
each residential masonry heater upon
which certification tests were performed
and certification granted pursuant to
§ 60.5487(a)(2) at the manufacturer’s
facility for as long as the model line is
manufactured. Each masonry heater
must remain sealed and unaltered. Any
such residential masonry heater must be
made available upon request to the
Administrator for inspection and
testing.
(d)(1) Each manufacturer of an
affected masonry heater certified
pursuant to § 60.5487 must submit a
report to the Administrator every 2
years following issuance of a certificate
of compliance for each model line. This
report must include the sales for each
model by state and certify that no
changes in the design or manufacture of
the model line have been made that
require recertification pursuant to
§ 60.5487(d).
(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a
small manufacturer as defined in
§ 60.5486(b)(2) and the model line was
certified using the procedure defined in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
reporting provision of paragraph (d)(1)
of this section does not apply.
(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all
records required under this section must
be maintained by the manufacturer,
commercial owner of the affected
masonry heater, accredited test
laboratory or certifying entity for a
period of no less than 5 years.
(2) Unless otherwise specified, all
reports to the Administrator required
under this subpart must be made to:
Wood Heater NSPS Compliance
Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_
NSPS_Compliance_Program.
(f) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, each
manufacturer or accredited test
laboratory or certifying entity must
submit performance test data, except
opacity data, electronically to the EPA’s
Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using
the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
(https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/
index.html). Only data collected using
test methods compatible with ERT are
subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically to the EPA’s
CDX. Manufacturers may submit
compliance reports to the EPA via
regular mail at the address listed below
if the test methods they use are not
compatible with ERT or if ERT is not
available to accept reports at the time
the final rule is published. Owners or
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6393
operators who claim that some of the
information being submitted for
performance tests is confidential
business information (CBI) must submit
a completed ERT file, including
information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disk or other commonly used
electronic storage media (including, but
not limited to, flash drives), to the EPA,
and the same ERT file, with the CBI
omitted, to the EPA via CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph. The
compact disk must be clearly marked as
CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. Emission
data and all information necessary to
determine compliance, except sensitive
engineering drawings and sensitive
detailed material specifications, may not
be claimed as CBI.
§ 60.5492 What activities are prohibited
under this subpart?
(a) No person is permitted to operate
an affected masonry heater
manufactured after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail after
[6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE] that does not have
affixed to it a permanent label pursuant
to § 60.5490.
(b)(1) No manufacturer or commercial
owner is permitted to advertise for sale,
offer for sale, or sell an affected masonry
heater manufactured after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail
after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] that does not
have affixed to it a permanent label
pursuant to § 60.5490.
(2) No manufacturer or commercial
owner is permitted to advertise for sale,
offer for sale, or sell an affected masonry
heater manufactured after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail
after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] labeled under
§ 60.5490(d)(1) except for export.
(c)(1) No commercial owner is
permitted to advertise for sale, offer for
sale or sell an affected masonry heater
permanently labeled under § 60.5490(b)
unless:
(i) The affected appliance regulated
under this subpart was previously
owned and operated by a
noncommercial owner;
(ii) The commercial owner provides
any purchaser or transferee with an
owner’s manual that meets the
requirements of § 60.5490(g), a copy of
the warranty and a moisture meter.
(2) A commercial owner other than a
manufacturer complies with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section if the commercial owner:
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6394
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(i) Receives the required
documentation from the manufacturer
or a previous commercial owner; and
(ii) Provides that documentation
unaltered to any person to whom the
residential masonry heater that it covers
is sold or transferred.
(d)(1) In any case in which the
Administrator revokes a certificate of
compliance either for the knowing
submission of false or inaccurate
information or other fraudulent acts, or
based on a finding under
§ 60.5487(e)(1)(ii) that the certification
test was not valid, the Administrator
may give notice of that revocation and
the grounds for it to all commercial
owners.
(2) On and after the date of receipt of
the notice given under paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, no commercial owner is
permitted to sell any residential
masonry heater covered by the revoked
certificate (other than to the
manufacturer) unless the model line has
been recertified in accordance with this
subpart.
(e) No person is permitted to install or
operate an affected masonry heater
except in a manner consistent with the
instructions on its permanent label and
in the owner’s manual pursuant to
§ 60.5490(g), including only using fuels
for which the unit is certified.
(f) No person is permitted to operate
an affected masonry heater that has been
physically altered to exceed the
tolerance limits of its certificate of
compliance.
(g) No person is permitted to alter,
deface, or remove any permanent label
required to be affixed pursuant to
§ 60.5490.
(h) No certifying entity is permitted to
certify its own certification test report.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 60.5493 What Petition for Review
procedures apply to me?
(a) In any case where the
Administrator:
(1) Denies an application under
§ 60.5487(a)(2);
(2) Issues a notice of revocation of
certification under § 60.5487(e);
(3) Denies an application for
laboratory accreditation pursuant to
§ 60.5489; or
(4) Issues a notice of revocation of
laboratory accreditation pursuant to
§ 60.5489, the manufacturer or
laboratory affected may submit to the
EPA a Petition for Review request under
this section pursuant to the procedures
specified in § 60.593 within 30 days
following receipt of the required
notification of the action in question.
(b) In any case where the
Administrator issues a notice of
revocation under § 60.5487(e), the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
manufacturer may submit to the EPA a
Petition for Review request under this
section pursuant to the procedures
specified in § 60.5493 with the time
limits set out in § 60.533(p)(4).
§ 60.5494 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
(a) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority to a state under
section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, the
authorities contained in paragraph (b) of
this section must be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a
state.
(b) Authorities that must not be
delegated to states:
(1) Section 60.5473, Definitions;
(2) Section 60.5475, Compliance and
certification;
(3) Section 60.5476, Test methods and
procedures; and
(4) Section 60.5477, Laboratory
accreditation.
§ 60.5495 What parts of the General
Provisions do not apply to me?
The following provisions of subpart A
of part 60 do not apply to this subpart:
(a) Section 60.7;
(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f);
and
(c) Section 60.15(d).
6. Part 60 Appendix A–8 is amended
by adding Methods 28R, 28WHH, and
28WHH–PTS to follow Method 28A to
read as follows:
Appendix A–8 to Part 60—Test
Methods 26 through 30B
*
*
*
*
*
Test Method 28R for Certification and
Auditing of Wood Heaters
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 This test method applies to certification
and auditing of wood-fired room heaters and
fireplace inserts.
1.2 The test method covers the fueling and
operating protocol for measuring particulate
emissions, as well as determining burn rates,
heat output and efficiency.
1.3 Particulate emissions are measured by
the dilution tunnel method as specified in
ASTM E2515–10 Standard Test Method for
Determination of Particulate Matter
Emissions Collected in a Dilution Tunnel.
2.0 Procedures
2.1 This method incorporates the
provisions of ASTM E2780–10 except as
follows:
2.1.1 The burn rate categories, low burn
rate requirement, and weightings in Method
28 shall be used.
2.1.2 The startup procedures shall be the
same as in Method 28.
2.1.3 The equation for converting the
emission test values between the EPA
Reference Method 5G ‘‘Determination of
Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters
From a Dilution Tunnel Sampling Location’’
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and EPA Reference Method 5H
‘‘Determination of Particulate Emissions
From Wood Heaters From a Stack Location’’
shall be the same as in Method 28.
2.1.4 Manufacturers shall not specify a
smaller volume of the firebox for testing than
the full usable firebox.
2.1.5 The test fuel moisture content, fuel
load, and coal bed depth shall be as follows:
(a) The fuel load dry-basis moisture
content shall be within a range of 22.5
percent +/¥ 1 percent;
(b) The fuel load weight shall be 7 lb/ft3
+/¥ 1 percent (or 7 lb +/¥0.07 lb) of the fuel
load weight, calculated in accordance with
Method 28; and
(c) The range for the test-initiation coal-bed
weight shall be 22 percent +/¥ 1 percent of
the fuel load weight.
Test Method 28 WHH for Measurement of
Particulate Emissions and Heating Efficiency
of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances
1.0
Scope and Application
1.1 This test method applies to wood-fired
hydronic heating appliances. The units
typically transfer heat through circulation of
a liquid heat exchange media such as water
or a water-antifreeze mixture.
1.2 The test method measures particulate
emissions and delivered heating efficiency at
specified heat output rates based on the
appliance’s rated heating capacity.
1.3 Particulate emissions are measured by
the dilution tunnel method as specified in
ASTM E2515–10 Standard Test Method for
Determination of Particulate Matter
Emissions Collected in a Dilution Tunnel.
Delivered Efficiency is measured by
determining the heat output through
measurement of the flow rate and
temperature change of water circulated
through a heat exchanger external to the
appliance and determining the input from
the mass of dry wood fuel and its higher
heating value. Delivered efficiency does not
attempt to account for pipeline loss.
1.4 Products covered by this test method
include both pressurized and nonpressurized heating appliances intended to
be fired with wood. These products are
wood-fired hydronic heating appliances that
the manufacturer specifies for indoor or
outdoor installation. They are often
connected to a heat exchanger by insulated
pipes and normally include a pump to
circulate heated liquid. They are used to heat
structures such as homes, barns and
greenhouses and can heat domestic hot
water, spas or swimming pools.
1.5 Distinguishing features of products
covered by this standard include:
1.5.1 Manufacturer specifies for indoor or
outdoor installation.
1.5.2 A firebox with an access door for
hand loading of fuel.
1.5.3 Typically an aquastat that controls
combustion air supply to maintain the liquid
in the appliance within a predetermined
temperature range provided sufficient fuel is
available in the firebox.
1.5.4 A chimney or vent that exhausts
combustion products from the appliance.
1.6 The values stated are to be regarded as
the standard whether in I–P or SI units. The
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
values given in parentheses are for
information only.
2.0 Summary of Method and References
2.1 Particulate matter emissions are
measured from a wood-fired hydronic
heating appliance burning a prepared test
fuel crib in a test facility maintained at a set
of prescribed conditions. Procedures for
determining burn rates, and particulate
emissions rates and for reducing data are
provided.
2.2 Referenced Documents
2.2.1 EPA Standards
2.2.1.1 Method 28 Certification and
Auditing of Wood Heaters
2.2.2 Other Standards
2.2.2.1 ASTM E2515–10 Standard Test
Method for Determination of Particulate
Matter Emissions Collected in a Dilution
Tunnel.
2.2.2.2 CAN/CSA–B415.1–2010
Performance Testing of Solid-Fuel-Burning
Heating Appliances.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3.0
Terminology
3.1 Definitions
3.1.1 Hydronic Heating—A heating
system in which a heat source supplies
energy to a liquid heat exchange media such
as water that is circulated to a heating load
and returned to the heat source through
pipes.
3.1.2 Aquastat—A control device that
opens or closes a circuit to control the rate
of fuel consumption in response to the
temperature of the heating media in the
heating appliance.
3.1.3 Delivered Efficiency—The
percentage of heat available in a test fuel
charge that is delivered to a simulated
heating load as specified in this test method.
3.1.4 Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output
Capacity—The value in BTU/hr (MJ/hr) that
the manufacturer specifies that a particular
model of hydronic heating appliance is
capable of supplying at its design capacity as
verified by testing, in accordance with
Section 13.
3.1.5 Burn rate—The rate at which test
fuel is consumed in an appliance. Measured
in pounds (lbs) of wood (dry basis) per hour
(kg/hr).
3.1.6 Firebox—The chamber in the
appliance in which the test fuel charge is
placed and combusted.
3.1.7 Test fuel charge—The collection of
Test Fuel layers placed in the appliance at
the start of the emission test run.
3.1.8 Test Fuel Layer—Horizontal
arrangement of Test Fuel Units.
3.1.9 Test Fuel Unit—One or more Test
Fuel Pieces with 3⁄4 inch (19 mm) spacers
attached to the bottom and to one side. If
composed of multiple Test Fuel Pieces, the
bottom spacer may be one continuous piece.
3.1.10 Test Fuel Piece—A single 4 x 4 (4
± 0.25 inches by 4 ± 0.25 inches)[100 ± 6 mm
by 100 ± 6 mm] white or red oak wood piece
cut to the length required.
3.1.11 Test Run—An individual emission
test that encompasses the time required to
consume the mass of the test fuel charge.
3.1.12 Overall Efficiency (SLM)—The
efficiency for each test run as determined
using the CSA B415.1–2010 Stack Loss
Method.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
3.1.13 Thermopile—A device consisting
of a number of thermocouples connected in
series, used for measuring differential
temperature.
4.0 Summary of Test Method
4.1 Dilution Tunnel. Emissions are
determined using the ‘‘dilution tunnel’’
method specified in ASTM E2515 Standard
Test Method for Determination of Particulate
Matter Emissions Collected in a Dilution
Tunnel. The flow rate in the dilution tunnel
is maintained at a constant level throughout
the test cycle and accurately measured.
Samples of the dilution tunnel flow stream
are extracted at a constant flow rate and
drawn through high efficiency filters. The
filters are dried and weighed before and after
the test to determine the emissions catch and
this value is multiplied by the ratio of tunnel
flow to filter flow to determine the total
particulate emissions produced in the test
cycle.
4.2 Efficiency. The efficiency test
procedure takes advantage of the fact that
this type of appliance delivers heat through
circulation of the heated liquid (water) from
the appliance to a remote heat exchanger and
back to the appliance. Measurements of the
water temperature difference as it enters and
exits the heat exchanger along with the
measured flow rate allow for an accurate
determination of the useful heat output of the
appliance. The input is determined by weight
of the test fuel charge, adjusted for moisture
content, multiplied by the Higher Heating
Value. Additional measurements of the
appliance weight and temperature at the
beginning and end of a test cycle are used to
correct for heat stored in the appliance.
Overall Efficiency (SLM) is determined using
the CSA B415.1–2010 stack loss method for
data quality assurance purposes.
4.3 Operation. Appliance operation is
conducted on a hot-to-hot test cycle meaning
that the appliance is brought to operating
temperature and a coal bed is established
prior to the addition of the test fuel charge
and measurements are made for each test fuel
charge cycle. The measurements are made
under constant heat draw conditions within
predetermined ranges. No attempt is made to
modulate the heat demand to simulate an
indoor thermostat cycling on and off in
response to changes in the indoor
environment. Four test categories are used.
These are:
4.3.1 Category I: A heat output of 15
percent or less of Manufacturer’s Rated Heat
Output Capacity.
4.3.2 Category II: A heat output of 16
percent to 24 percent of Manufacturer’s Rated
Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.3 Category III: A heat output of 25
percent to 50 percent of Manufacturer’s Rated
Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.4 Category IV: Manufacturer’s Rated
Heat Output Capacity.
5.0 Significance and Use
5.1 The measurement of particulate
matter emission rates is an important test
method widely used in the practice of air
pollution control.
5.1.1 These measurements, when
approved by state or federal agencies, are
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6395
often required for the purpose of determining
compliance with regulations and statutes.
5.1.2 The measurements made before and
after design modifications are necessary to
demonstrate the effectiveness of design
changes in reducing emissions and make this
standard an important tool in manufacturers’
research and development programs.
5.2 Measurement of heating efficiency
provides a uniform basis for comparison of
product performance that is useful to the
consumer. It is also required to relate
emissions produced to the useful heat
production.
5.3 This is a laboratory method and is not
intended to be fully representative of all
actual field use. It is recognized that users of
hand-fired, wood-burning equipment have a
great deal of influence over the performance
of any wood-burning appliance. Some
compromises in realism have been made in
the interest of providing a reliable and
repeatable test method.
6.0 Test Equipment
6.1 Scale. A platform scale capable of
weighing the appliance under test and
associated parts and accessories when
completely filled with water to an accuracy
of ±1.0 pound (±0.5 kg).
6.2 Heat exchanger. A water-to-water heat
exchanger capable of dissipating the
expected heat output from the system under
test.
6.3 Water Temperature Difference
Measurement. A Type–T ‘special limits’
thermopile with a minimum of 5 pairs of
junctions shall be used to measure the
temperature difference in water entering and
leaving the heat exchanger. The temperature
difference measurement uncertainty of this
type of thermopile is equal to or less than ±
0.05 °F (± 0.25 °C). Other temperature
measurement methods may be used if the
temperature difference measurement
uncertainty is equal to or less than. ± 0.50 °F
(± 0.25 °C).
6.4 Water flow meter. A water flow meter
shall be installed in the inlet to the load side
of the heat exchanger. The flow meter shall
have an accuracy of ± 1 percent of measured
flow.
6.4.1 Optional—Appliance side water
flow meter. A water flow meter with an
accuracy of ± 1 percent of the flow rate is
recommended to monitor supply side water
flow rate.
6.5 Optional Recirculation Pump.
Circulating pump used during test to prevent
stratification of liquid being heated.
6.6 Water Temperature Measurement—
Thermocouples or other temperature sensors
to measure the water temperature at the inlet
and outlet of the load side of the heat
exchanger. Must meet the calibration
requirements specified in 10.1.
6.7 Wood Moisture Meter—Calibrated
electrical resistance meter capable of
measuring test fuel moisture to within 1
percent moisture content. Must meet the
calibration requirements specified in 10.4.
6.8 Flue Gas Temperature
Measurement—Must meet the requirements
of CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.2.2.
6.9 Test Room Temperature
Measurement—Must meet the requirements
of CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.2.1.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6396
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
6.10 Flue Gas Composition
Measurement—Must meet the requirements
of CSA B415.1–2010, Clauses 6.3.1 through
6.3.3.
7.0 Safety
7.1 These tests involve combustion of
wood fuel and substantial release of heat and
products of combustion. The heating system
also produces large quantities of very hot
water and the potential for steam production
and system pressurization. Appropriate
precautions must be taken to protect
personnel from burn hazards and respiration
of products of combustion.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8.0 Sampling, Test Specimens and Test
Appliances
8.1 Test specimens shall be supplied as
complete appliances including all controls
and accessories necessary for installation in
the test facility. A full set of specifications
and design and assembly drawings shall be
provided when the product is to be placed
under certification of a third-party agency.
The manufacturer’s written installation and
operating instructions are to be used as a
guide in the set-up and testing of the
appliance.
9.0 Preparation of Test Equipment
9.1 The appliance is to be placed on a
scale capable of weighing the appliance fully
loaded with a resolution of ± 1.0 lb (0.5 kg).
9.2 The appliance shall be fitted with the
type of chimney recommended or provided
by the manufacturer and extending to 15 ±
0.5 feet (4.6 ± 0.15 m) from the upper surface
of the scale. If no flue or chimney system is
recommended or provided by the
manufacturer, connect the appliance to a flue
of a diameter equal to the flue outlet of the
appliance. The flue section from the
appliance flue collar to 8 ± 0.5 feet above the
scale shall be single wall stove pipe and the
remainder of the flue shall be double wall
insulated class A chimney.
9.3 Optional Equipment Use
9.3.1 A recirculation pump may be
installed between connections at the top and
bottom of the appliance to minimize thermal
stratification if specified by the
manufacturer. The pump shall not be
installed in such a way as to change or affect
the flow rate between the appliance and the
heat exchanger.
9.3.2 If the manufacturer specifies that a
thermal control valve or other device be
installed and set to control the return water
temperature to a specific set point, the valve
or other device shall be installed and set per
the manufacturer’s written instructions.
9.4 Prior to filling the tank, weigh and
record the appliance mass.
9.5 Heat Exchanger
9.5.1 Plumb the unit to a water-to-water
heat exchanger with sufficient capacity to
draw off heat at the maximum rate
anticipated. Route hoses, electrical cables,
and instrument wires in a manner that does
not influence the weighing accuracy of the
scale as indicated by placing dead weights on
the platform and verifying the scale’s
accuracy.
9.5.2 Locate thermocouples to measure
the water temperature at the inlet and outlet
of the load side of the heat exchanger.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
9.5.3 Install a thermopile meeting the
requirements of 6.3 to measure the water
temperature difference between the inlet and
outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.4 Install a calibrated water flow meter
in the heat exchanger load side supply line.
The water flow meter is to be installed on the
cooling water inlet side of the heat exchanger
so that it will operate at the temperature at
which it is calibrated.
9.5.5 Place the heat exchanger in a box
with 2 in. (50 mm) of expanded polystyrene
(EPS) foam insulation surrounding it to
minimize heat losses from the heat
exchanger.
9.5.6 The reported efficiency and heat
output rate shall be based on measurements
made on the load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.7 Temperature instrumentation per
6.6 shall be installed in the appliance outlet
and return lines. The average of the outlet
and return water temperature on the supply
side of the system shall be considered the
average appliance temperature for calculation
of heat storage in the appliance (TFavg and
TIavg). Installation of a water flow meter in
the supply side of the system is optional.
9.6 Fill the system with water. Determine
the total weight of the water in the appliance
when the water is circulating. Verify that the
scale indicates a stable weight under
operating conditions. Make sure air is purged
properly.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
10.1 Water Temperature Sensors.
Temperature measuring equipment shall be
calibrated before initial use and at least semiannually thereafter. Calibrations shall be in
compliance with National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
Monograph 175, Standard Limits of
Error.10.2 Heat Exchanger Load Side Water
Flow Meter.
10.2.1 The heat exchanger load side water
flow meter shall be calibrated within the flow
range used for the test run using NIST
Traceable methods. Verify the calibration of
the water flow meter before and after each
test run and at least once during each test run
by comparing the water flow rate indicated
by the flow meter to the mass of water
collected from the outlet of the heat
exchanger over a timed interval. Volume of
the collected water shall be determined based
on the water density calculated from section
13, Eq. 8, using the water temperature
measured at the flow meter. The uncertainty
in the verification procedure used shall be 1
percent or less. The water flow rate
determined by the collection and weighing
method shall be within 1 percent of the flow
rate indicated by the water flow meter.
10.3 Scales. The scales used to weigh the
appliance and test fuel charge shall be
calibrated using NIST Traceable methods at
least once every 6 months.
10.4 Moisture Meter. The moisture meter
shall be calibrated per the manufacturer’s
instructions and checked before each use.
10.5 Flue Gas Analyzers—In accordance
with CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.8.
11.0 Conditioning
11.1 Prior to testing, the noncatalytic
appliance is to be operated for a minimum
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of 10 hours using a medium heat draw rate.
Catalytic units shall be operated for a
minimum of 50 hours using a medium heat
draw rate. The pre-burn for the first test can
be included as part of the conditioning
requirement. If conditioning is included in
pre-burn, then the appliance shall be aged
with fuel meeting the specifications outlined
in sections 12.2 with a moisture content
between 19 and 25 percent on a dry basis.
Operate the appliance at a medium burn rate
(Category II or III) for at least 10 hours for
noncatalytic appliances and 50 hours for
catalytic appliances. Record and report
hourly flue gas exit temperature data and the
hours of operation. The aging procedure shall
be conducted and documented by a testing
laboratory.
12.0 Procedure
12.1 Appliance Installation. Assemble the
appliance and parts in conformance with the
manufacturer’s written installation
instructions. Clean the flue with an
appropriately sized, wire chimney brush
before each certification test series.
12.2 Fuel. Test fuel charge fuel shall be
red (Quercus ruba L.) or white (Quercus alba)
oak 19 to 25 percent moisture content on a
dry basis. Piece length shall be 80 percent of
the firebox depth rounded down to the
nearest 1 inch (25mm) increment. For
example, if the firebox depth is 46 inches
(1168mm) the 4 × 4 piece length would be
36 inches (46 inches × 0.8 = 36.8 inches
round down to 36 inches). Pieces are to be
placed in the firebox parallel to the longest
firebox dimension. For fireboxes with sloped
surfaces that create a non-uniform firebox
length, the piece length shall be adjusted for
each layer based on 80 percent of the length
at the level where the layer is placed. Pieces
are to be spaced 3⁄4 inches (19 mm) apart on
all faces. The first fuel layer may be
assembled using fuel units consisting of
multiple 4 × 4s consisting of single pieces
with bottom and side spacers of 3 or more
pieces if needed for a stable layer. The
second layer may consist of fuel units
consisting of no more than two pieces with
spacers attached on the bottom and side. The
top two layers of the fuel charge must consist
of single pieces unless the fuel charge is only
three layers. In that instance only the top
layer must consist of single units. Threequarter inch (19 mm) by 1.5 inch (38 mm)
spacers shall be attached to the bottom of
piece to maintain a 3⁄4 inch (19 mm)
separation. When a layer consists of two or
more units of 4 × 4s an additional 3⁄4 inch
(19 mm) thick by 1.5 inch (38 mm) wide
spacer shall be attached to the vertical face
of each end of one 4 × 4, such that the 3⁄4
inch (19 mm) space will be maintained when
two 4 × 4 units or pieces are loaded side by
side. In cases where a layer contains an odd
number of 4 × 4s one piece shall not be
attached, but shall have spacers attached in
a manner that will provide for the 3⁄4 inch (19
mm) space to be maintained. (See Figure 1).
Spacers shall be attached perpendicular to
the length of the 4 × 4s such that the edge
of the spacer is 1 ± 0.25 inch from the end
of the 4 × 4s in the previous layers. Spacers
shall be red or white oak and will be attached
with either nails (non-galvanized), brads or
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
oak dowels. The use of kiln-dried wood is
not allowed.
12.2.1 Using a fuel moisture meter as
specified in 6.7 of the test method, determine
the fuel moisture for each test fuel piece used
for the test fuel load by averaging at least five
fuel moisture meter readings measured
parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of the
moisture meter insulated electrodes for all
readings shall be 1⁄4 the thickness of the fuel
piece or 19 mm (3⁄4 in.), whichever is lesser.
One measurement from each of three sides
shall be made at approximately 3 inches from
each end and the center. Two additional
measurements shall be made centered
between the other three locations. Each
individual moisture content reading shall be
in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry
basis. The average moisture content of each
piece of test fuel shall be in the range of 19
to 25 percent. It is not required to measure
the moisture content of the spacers. Moisture
shall not be added to previously dried fuel
pieces except by storage under high humidity
conditions and temperature up to 100 °F.
Fuel moisture shall be measured within four
hours of using the fuel for a test.
12.2.2 Firebox Volume. Determine the
firebox volume in cubic feet. Firebox volume
shall include all areas accessible through the
fuel loading door where firewood could
reasonably be placed up to the horizontal
plane defined by the top of the loading door.
A drawing of the firebox showing front, side
and plan views or an isometric view with
interior dimensions shall be provided by the
manufacturer and verified by the laboratory.
Calculations for firebox volume from
computer aided design (CAD) software
programs are acceptable and shall be
included in the test report if used. If the
firebox volume is calculated by the
laboratory the firebox drawings and
calculations shall be included in the test
report.
12.2.3 Test Fuel charge. Test fuel charges
shall be determined by multiplying the
firebox volume by 10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft 3
(28L), or a higher load density as
recommended by the manufacturer’s printed
operating instructions, of wood (as used wet
weight). Select the number of pieces of
standard fuel that most nearly match this
target weight. This is the standard fuel charge
for all tests. For example, if the firebox
loading area volume is 10 ft 3 (280L) and the
firebox depth is 46 inches (1168 mm), test
fuel charge target is 100 lbs (45 kg) minimum
and the piece length is 36 inches (914 mm).
If 8–4 × 4s, 36 inches long weigh 105 lbs (48
kg), use 8 pieces for each test fuel charge. All
test fuel charges will be of the same
configuration.
12.3 Sampling Equipment. Prepare the
particulate emission sampling equipment as
defined by ASTM E2515–10 ‘‘Standard Test
Method For Determination of Particulate
Matter Emissions Collected In a Dilution
Tunnel.’’
12.4 Appliance Startup. The appliance
shall be fired with wood fuel of any species,
size and moisture content at the laboratories
discretion to bring it up to operating
temperature. Operate the appliance until the
water is heated to the upper operating control
limit and has cycled at least two times. Then
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
remove all unburned fuel, zero the scale and
verify the scales accuracy using dead
weights.
12.4.1 Pre-Test Burn Cycle. Reload
appliance with oak wood and allow it to burn
down to the specified coal bed weight. The
Pre-Test burn cycle fuel charge weight shall
be within ±10 percent of the test fuel charge
weight. Piece size and length shall be
selected such that charcoalization is achieved
by the time the fuel charge has burned down
to the required coal bed weight. Pieces with
a maximum thickness of approximately 2
inches have been found to be suitable.
Charcoalization is a general condition of the
test fuel bed evidenced by an absence of large
pieces of burning wood in the coal bed and
the remaining fuel pieces being brittle
enough to be broken into smaller charcoal
pieces with a metal poker. Manipulations to
the fuel bed prior to the start of the test run
are to be done to achieve charcoalization
while maintaining the desired heat output
rate. During the pre-test burn cycle and at
least one hour prior to starting the test run,
adjust water flow to the heat exchanger to
establish the target heat draw for the test. For
the first test run the heat draw rate shall be
equal to the manufacturer’s rated heat output
capacity.
12.4.1.1 Allowable Adjustments. Fuel
addition or subtractions, and coal bed raking
shall be kept to a minimum but are allowed
up to 15 minutes prior to the start of the test
run. For the purposes of this method, coal
bed raking is the use of a metal tool (poker)
to stir coals, break burning fuel into smaller
pieces, dislodge fuel pieces from positions of
poor combustion, and check for the condition
of charcoalization. Record all adjustments to
and additions or subtractions of fuel, and any
other changes to the appliance operations
that occur during pretest ignition period.
During the 15-minute period prior to the start
of the test run, the wood heater loading door
shall not be open more than a total of 1
minute. Coal bed raking is the only
adjustment allowed during this period.
12.4.2 Coal Bed Weight. The appliance is
to be loaded with the test fuel charge when
the coal bed weight is between 10 percent
and 20 percent of the test fuel charge weight.
Coals may be raked as necessary to level the
coal bed but may only be raked and stirred
once between 15 to 20 minutes prior to the
addition of the test fuel charge.
12.5 Test Runs. For all test runs, the
return water temperature to the hydronic
heater must be equal to or greater than
120 °F. Aquastat or other heater output
control device settings that are adjustable
shall be set using manufacturer
specifications, either as factory set or in
accordance with the owner’s manual, and
shall remain the same for all burn categories.
Complete a test run in each heat output
rate category, as follows:
12.5.1 Test Run Start. Once the appliance
is operating normally and the pretest coal
bed weight has reached the target value per
12.4.2, tare the scale and load the full test
charge into the appliance. Time for loading
shall not exceed 5 minutes. The actual
weight of the test fuel charge shall be
measured and recorded within 30 minutes
prior to loading. Start all sampling systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6397
12.5.1.1 Record all water temperatures,
differential water temperatures and water
flow rates at time intervals of one minute or
less.
12.5.1.2 Record particulate emissions
data per the requirements of ASTM E2515.
12.5.1.3 Record data needed to determine
Overall Efficiency (SLM) per the
requirements of CSA B415.1–2010 Clauses
6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3, 8.5.7, 10.4.3(a), 10.4.3(f), and
13.7.9.3.
12.5.1.3.1 Measure and record the test
room air temperature in accordance with the
requirements of Clauses 6.2.1, 8.5.7 and
10.4.3(g).
12.5.1.3.2 Measure and record the flue
gas temperature in accordance with the
requirements of Clauses 6.2.2, 8.5.7 and
10.4.3(f).
12.5.1.3.3 Determine and record the
Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) concentrations in the flue gas in
accordance with Clauses 6.3, 8.5.7 and
10.4.3(i) and (j).
12.5.1.3.4 Measure and record the test
fuel weight per the requirements of Clauses
8.5.7 and 10.4.3(h).
12.5.1.3.5 Record the test run time per the
requirements of Clause 10.4.3(a).
12.5.1.4 Monitor the average heat output
rate on the load side of the heat exchanger.
If the heat output rate gets close to the upper
or lower limit of the target range (±5 percent)
adjust the water flow through the heat
exchanger to compensate. Make changes as
infrequently as possible while maintaining
the target heat output rate. The first test run
shall be conducted at the category IV heat
output rate to validate that the appliance is
capable of producing the manufacturer’s
rated heat output capacity.
12.5.2 Test Fuel Charge Adjustment. It is
acceptable to adjust the test fuel charge (i.e.,
reposition) once during a test run if more
than 60 percent of the initial test fuel charge
weight has been consumed and more than 10
minutes have elapsed without a measurable
(1 lb or 0. 5 kg) weight change while the
operating control is in the demand mode.
The time used to make this adjustment shall
be less than 60 seconds.
12.5.3 Test Run Completion. The test run
is completed when the remaining weight of
the test fuel charge is 0.0 lb (0.0 kg). End the
test run when the scale has indicated a test
fuel charge weight of 0.0 lb (0.0 kg) or less
for 30 seconds.
12.5.3.1 At the end of the test run, stop
the particulate sampling train and Overall
Efficiency (SLM) measurements, and record
the run time, and all final measurement
values.
12.5.4 Heat Output Capacity Validation.
The first test run must produce a heat output
rate that is within 10 percent of the
manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity
(Category IV) throughout the test run and an
average heat output rate within 5 percent of
the manufacturer’s rated heat output
capacity. If the appliance is not capable of
producing a heat output within these limits,
the manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity
is considered not validated and testing is to
be terminated. In such cases, the tests may
be restarted using a lower heat output
capacity if requested by the manufacturer.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6398
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
12.5.7 Appliance Overheating.
Appliances shall be capable of operating in
all heat output categories without
overheating to be rated by this test method.
Appliance overheating occurs when the rate
of heat withdrawal from the appliance is
lower than the rate of heat production when
the unit control is in the idle mode. This
condition results in the water in the
appliance continuing to increase in
temperature well above the upper limit
setting of the operating control. Evidence of
overheating includes: 1 Hour or more of
appliance water temperature increase above
the upper temperature set-point of the
operating control, exceeding the temperature
limit of a safety control device (independent
from the operating control), boiling water in
a non-pressurized system or activation of a
pressure or temperature relief valve in a
pressurized system.
12.6 Additional Test Runs. The testing
laboratory may conduct more than one test
run in each of the heat output categories
specified in section 4.4.1. If more than one
test run is conducted at a specified heat
output rate, the results from at least twothirds of the test runs in that heat output rate
category shall be used in calculating the
weighted average emission rate (See section
15.1.14). The measurement data and results
of all test runs shall be reported regardless of
which values are used in calculating the
weighted average emission rate.
MC—Fuel moisture content in percent dry
basis.
MCi—Average moisture content of
individual 4 × 4 fuel pieces in percent dry
basis.
MCsp—Moisture content of spacers
assumed to be 10 percent dry basis.
s—Density of water in pounds per gallon.
Cp—Specific Heat of Water in Btu/lb °¥F.
Csteel—Specific Heat of Steel (0.1 Btu/
lb¥°F).
Wfuel—Fuel charge weight in pounds (kg).
Wi—Weight of individual fuel 4 × 4 pieces
in pounds (kg).
Wsp—Weight of all spacers used in a fuel
load in pounds (kg).
Wapp—Weight of empty appliance in
pounds.
13.0
Calculation of Results
Wwat— Weight of water in supply side of
the system in pounds.
13.2 After the test is completed,
determine the particulate emissions ET in
accordance with ASTM E2515.
13.3 Determine Average Fuel Load Moisture
Content
EP03FE14.010</GPH>
13.1 Nomenclature
ET —Total particulate emissions for the full
test run as determined per ASTM E2515 in
grams.
Eg/MJ—Emissions rate in grams per mega
joule of heat output.
Elb/mmBtu output—Emissions rate in pounds
per million Btu’s of heat output.
Eg/kg—Emissions factor in grams per
kilogram of dry fuel burned.
Eg/hr—Emissions factor in grams per hour.
HHV—Higher Heating Value of fuel = 8600
Btu/lb (19.990 MJ/kg).
LHV—Lower Heating Value of fuel = 7988
Btu/lb (18.567 MJ/kg).
DT—Temperature difference between water
entering and exiting the heat exchanger.
Qout—Total heat output in BTU’s (mega
joules).
Qin—Total heat input available in test fuel
charge in BTU’s (mega joules).
M—Mass flow rate of water in lb/min (kg/
min).
Vi—Volume of water indicated by a
totalizing flow meter at the ith reading in
gallons (liters).
Vf—Volumetric Flow rate of water in heat
exchange system in gallons per minute
(liters/min).
Q—Total length of test run in hours
ti—Data sampling interval in minutes.
hdel—Delivered heating efficiency in
percent.
Fi—Weighting factor for heat output
category i. (See Tables 2A and 2B)
T1—Temperature of water at the inlet on
the supply side of the heat exchanger.
T2—Temperature of the water at the outlet
on the supply side of the heat exchanger.
T3–Temperature of water at the inlet to the
load side of the heat exchanger.
TIavg—Average temperature of the
appliance and water at start of the test.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.009</GPH>
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12.5.5 Additional Test Runs. Using the
Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output Capacity
as a basis, conduct a test for additional heat
output categories as specified in 4.3. It is not
required to run these tests in any particular
order.
12.5.6 Alternative Heat Output Rate for
Category I. If an appliance cannot be operated
in the category I heat output range due to
stopped combustion, two test runs shall be
conducted at heat output rates within
Category II. When this is the case, the
weightings for the weighted averages
indicated in Table 2 shall be the average of
the category I and II weightings and shall be
applied to both category II results.
Appliances that are not capable of operation
within Category II (<25 percent of maximum)
cannot be evaluated by this test method.
12.5.6.1 Stopped Fuel Combustion.
Evidence that an appliance cannot be
operated at a category I heat output rate due
to stopped fuel combustion shall include
documentation of two or more attempts to
operate the appliance in burn rate Category
I and fuel combustion has stopped prior to
complete consumption of the test fuel charge.
Stopped fuel combustion is evidenced when
an elapsed time of 60 minutes or more has
occurred without a measurable (1 lb or 0.5
kg) weight change in the test fuel charge
while the appliance operating control is in
the demand mode. Report the evidence and
the reasoning used to determine that a test in
burn rate Category I cannot be achieved. For
example, two unsuccessful attempts to
operate at an output rate of 10 percent of the
rated output capacity are not sufficient
evidence that burn rate Category I cannot be
achieved.
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Qout = S [Heat output determined for each
sampling time interval]+ Change in heat
stored in the appliance.
13.5 Determine heat output and
efficiency.
13.5.1 Determine heat output as:
= lL: (Cpi • /).7; • kf; • tJJ+ O¥app • CSteel + CpaWwatcl')· (TFavg -
Qout
6399
TIavg) ,BTU Eq.6
Note: The subscript (i) indicates the parameter value for sampling time interval ti.
Mi = Mass flow rate = gal/min x Density of Water (lb/gal) = lb/min
Mi=Vfi'
C;i,
lb/min
Eq.7
Li
(62.56 + ( -.0003413 x T3d + ( -.00006225
Cp
1.0014 + ( -.000003485
X
Eq. 9
T3i) Btu/lb-OF
X
T3i2)) 0.1337, lbs/galEq. 8
Csteel
0.1 Btu/lb-oF
Cpa
1.0014 + (-.000003485 X (TIavg +TFavg)/2) ,Btu/lb-oF Eq. 10
Vfi
(Vi-Vi-l)/(ti-ti-l), gal/min
Eq. 11
Note: Vi is the total water volume at the end of interval i and Vi-l is the total water volume
at the beginning of the time interval. This calculation is necessary when a totalizing type
water meter is used.
13.5.2 Determine Heat output rate as:
Heat Output Rate
Qout/E>, BTUlhr
Eq.12
13.5.3 Determine Emission Rates and Emission Factors as:
EgIMJ= ET/(Qoutx 0.001055), g/MJ
Eq.13
ElblMMBTUoutput= (ET/453.59)/(QoutputX 10-6), Ib/MMBtu Out
Eg/kg= ET/(Wfuel/(l+MC/lOO)), g/dry kg
ET/E> ,g/hr
Eq, 15
Eq. 16
13.5.4 Determine delivered efficiency as:
lldelLHV
VerDate Mar<15>2010
X
100, %
(QouJQinLHV)
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
X
Eq. 17
100, %
PO 00000
Frm 00071
EP03FE14.012</GPH>
lldel= (QouJQin)
Eq. 18
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.011</GPH>
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Eglhr=
Eq.14
6400
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the individual tests in the specified heat
output categories. The weighting factors (Fi)
are derived from an analysis of ASHRAE Bin
Data which provides details of normal
building heating requirements in terms of
percent of design capacity and time in a
particular capacity range—or ‘‘bin’’—over the
course of a heating season. The values used
in this method represent an average of data
from several cities located in the northern
United States.
13.7 Average Heat Output (Qout-8hr) and
Efficiency ((havg-8hr) for 8 hour burn time.
13.7.1 Units tested under this standard
typically require infrequent fuelling, 8 to 12
hours intervals being typical. Rating unit’s
based on an Average Output sustainable over
an 8 hour duration will assist consumers in
appropriately sizing units to match the
theoretical heat demand of their application.
13.7.2 Calculations:
Where:
Y1 = Test Duration just above 8 hrs
Y2 = Test Duration just below 8 hrs
X1 = Actual Load for duration Y1
X2 = Actual Load for duration Y2
Category 3 Duration is just below 8
hours, therefore: X2 = 50,000 BTU/hr,
hdel2 = 80.1% and Y2 = 6.4 Hrs
Qout-8hr = 26,000 + {(8—8.4) ×
[(50,000—26,000)/(6.4—8.4)]}
= 30,800 BTU/hr
havg-8hr = 75.5 + {(8—8.4) × [(80.1—
75.5)/(6.4—8.4)]} = 76.4%
14.1.9 Data and drawings indicating
the fire box size and location of the fuel
charge.
14.1.10 Drawings and calculations
used to determine firebox volume.
14.1.11 Information for each test run
fuel charge including piece size,
moisture content, and weight.
14.1.12 All required data for each
test run shall be provided in
spreadsheet format. Formulae used for
all calculations shall be accessible for
review.
14.1.13 Test run duration for each
test.
14.1.14 Calculated results for
delivered efficiency at each burn rate
and the weighted average Emissions
reported as total emissions in grams,
pounds per million Btu of delivered
heat, grams per mega-joule of delivered
heat, grams per kilogram of dry fuel and
grams per hour. Results shall be
reported for each heat output category
and the weighted average.
14.1.15 Tables 1A, 1B, 1C and 2
must be used for presentation of results
in test reports.
14.1.16 A statement of the estimated
uncertainty of measurement of the
emissions and efficiency test results.
14.1.17 Raw data, calibration
records, and other relevant
documentation shall be retained by the
laboratory for a minimum of 7 years.
hdel1 = Average Delivered Efficiency
for duration Y1
hdel2 = Average Delivered Efficiency
for duration Y2
13.7.2.1 Determine the Test
Durations and Actual Load for each
Category as recorded in Table 1A.
13.7.2.2 Determine the data point
that has the nearest duration greater
than 8 hrs. X1 = Actual Load,
Y1 = Test Duration and
hdel1 = Average Delivered Efficiency
for this data point.
13.7.2.3 Determine the data point
that has the nearest duration less than
8 hrs.
X2 = Actual Load,
Y2 = Test Duration and
hdel2 = Average Delivered Efficiency
for this data point.
13.7.2.4 Example:
CATEGORY ACTUAL LOAD DURATION
[Category Actual Load Duration hdel]
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(Btu/Hr)
1
2
3
4
15,000 .........................
26,000 .........................
50,000 .........................
100,000 .......................
(Hr)
(%)
10.2
8.4
6.4
4.7
70.0
75.5
80.1
80.9
Category 2 Duration is just above 8
hours, therefore: X1 = 26,000 BTU/hr,
hdel1 = 75.5% and Y1 = 8.4 Hrs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
14.0
Report
14.1.1 The report shall include the
following.
14.1.2 Name and location of the
laboratory conducting the test.
14.1.3 A description of the
appliance tested and its condition, date
of receipt and dates of tests.
14.1.4 A statement that the test
results apply only to the specific
appliance tested.
14.1.5 A statement that the test
report shall not be reproduced except in
full, without the written approval of the
laboratory.
14.1.6 A description of the test
procedures and test equipment
including a schematic or other drawing
showing the location of all required test
equipment. Also, a description of test
fuel sourcing, handling and storage
practices shall be included.
14.1.7 Details of deviations from,
additions to or exclusions from the test
method, and their data quality
implications on the test results (if any),
as well as information on specific test
conditions, such as environmental
conditions.
14.1.8 A list of participants and
observers present for the tests.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15.0
Precision and Bias
15.1 Precision—It is not possible to
specify the precision of the procedure in
Draft Test because the appliance
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.014</GPH>
13.5.5.1 Whenever the CSA B415.1–2010
overall efficiency is found to be lower than
the overall efficiency based on load side
measurements, as determined by Eq. 16 of
this method, section 14.1.7 of the test report
must include a discussion of the reasons for
this result.
13.6 Weighted Average Emissions and
Efficiency
13.6.1 Determine the weighted average
emission rate and delivered efficiency from
EP03FE14.013</GPH>
13.5.5 Determine hSLM—Overall
Efficiency (SLM) using Stack Loss For
determination of the average overall thermal
efficiency (hSLM) for the test run, use the data
collected over the full test run and the
calculations in accordance with CSA B415.1–
2010, Clause 13.7 except for 13.7.2 (e), (f), (g),
and (h), use the following average fuel
properties for oak: percent C = 50.0, percent
H = 6.6, percent O = 43.2, percent Ash = 0.2
percent.
6401
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
operation and fueling protocols and the
appliances themselves produce variable
amounts of emissions and cannot be
used to determine reproducibility or
repeatability of this measurement
method.
15.2 Bias—No definitive information
can be presented on the bias of the
procedure in Draft Test Method 28
WHH for measuring solid fuel burning
hydronic heater emissions because no
material having an accepted reference
value is available.
16.0
Keywords
16.1 Solid fuel, hydronic heating
appliances, wood-burning hydronic
heaters.
Table lA. Data Summary Part A
e
Calegory
Load %
Capacity Target Load Actual load
Run No
BTUlhr
..'
I
Meave
Q;o
QOU!
Test
Duration
WoodWt
Wood
Moisture
% of max
BTUlhr
hrs
~{b.
Ib
Heal Input
Heat Output
DB
BTU
BTU
< 15% of
max
11
Act load
VII!liel
of max
16-24%
25-50%
Ifl
of max
Max
Icapacity
IV
Table lB. Data Summary Part B
T2Min
Cateqory
Run No
'"
.....
Load %
Capacity
Er
E
E
Eglhf
EgIkg
11",,1
I1SLM
Min Return
Water Temp
Total Pf.1
Emissions
PM Output
Based
PM Output
Based
PM Rate
PM Factor
Delivered
Efficiency
Slack Loss
Efficienc'l
9
IbMMBTlioul
g/MJ
g/hr
g/l\g
~/D
%
<
OF
< 15'l't. of
max
16-24%
of max
25-50%
of max
Max
capacity
I
fI
m
IV
EP03FE14.001</GPH>
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.000</GPH>
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Table 1C: Hangtag Information
6402
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Table 2. Year Round Use Weighting
1.
Fuel Piece
Test Fuel ~pl!leE~r
Test Fuel Units
2, 3
EP03FE14.003</GPH>
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.002</GPH>
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Test Fuel
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Method 28WHH–PTS A Test Method for
Certification of Cord Wood-Fired Hydronic
Heating Appliances With Partial Thermal
Storage: Measurement of Particulate Matter
(PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions
and Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances With Partial
Thermal Storage
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 This test method applies to woodfired hydronic heating appliances with heat
storage external to the appliance. The units
typically transfer heat through circulation of
a liquid heat exchange media such as water
or a water-antifreeze mixture. Throughout
this document, the term ‘‘water’’ will be used
to denote any of the heat transfer liquids
approved for use by the manufacturer.
1.2 The test method measures PM and CO
emissions and delivered heating efficiency at
specified heat output rates referenced against
the appliance’s rated heating capacity as
specified by the manufacturer and verified
under this test method.
1.3 PM emissions are measured by the
dilution tunnel method as specified in the
EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards
referenced therein with the exceptions noted
in Section 12.5.9. Delivered Efficiency is
measured by determining the fuel energy
input and appliance output. Heat output is
determined through measurement of the flow
rate and temperature change of water
circulated through a heat exchanger external
to the appliance and the increase in energy
of the external storage. Heat input is
determined from the mass of dry wood fuel
and its higher heating value (HHV). Delivered
efficiency does not attempt to account for
pipeline loss.
1.4 Products covered by this test method
include both pressurized and nonpressurized hydronic heating appliances
intended to be fired with wood and for which
the manufacturer specifies for indoor or
outdoor installation. The system, which
includes the heating appliance and external
storage, is commonly connected to a heat
exchanger by insulated pipes and normally
includes a pump to circulate heated liquid.
These systems are used to heat structures
such as homes, barns and greenhouses. They
also provide heat for domestic hot water,
spas and swimming pools.
1.5 Distinguishing features of products
covered by this standard include:
1.5.1 The manufacturer specifies the
application for either indoor or outdoor
installation.
1.5.2 A firebox with an access door for
hand loading of fuel.
1.5.3 Typically an aquastat mounted as
part of the appliance that controls
combustion air supply to maintain the liquid
in the appliance within a predetermined
temperature range provided sufficient fuel is
available in the firebox. The appliance may
be equipped with other devices to control
combustion.
1.5.4 A chimney or vent that exhausts
combustion products from the appliance.
1.5.5 A liquid storage system, typically
water, which is not large enough to accept all
of the heat produced when a full load of
wood is burned and the storage system starts
a burn cycle at 125 °F.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
1.5.6 The heating appliances require
external thermal storage and these units will
only be installed as part of a system which
includes thermal storage. The manufacturer
specifies the minimum amount of thermal
storage required. However, the storage system
shall be large enough to ensure that the boiler
(heater) does not cycle, slumber, or go into
an off-mode when operated in a Category III
load condition (See section 4.3).
1.6 The values stated are to be regarded
as the standard whether in I–P or SI units.
The values given in parentheses are for
information only.
2.0
Summary of Method and References
2.1 PM and CO emissions are measured
from a wood–fired hydronic heating
appliance burning a prepared test fuel charge
in a test facility maintained at a set of
prescribed conditions. Procedures for
determining heat output rates, PM and CO
emissions, and efficiency and for reducing
data are provided.
2.2
Referenced Documents
2.2.1 EPA Standards
2.2.1.1 Method 28 Certification and
Auditing of Wood Heaters
2.2.1.2 Method 28 WHH Measurement of
Particulate Emissions and Heating Efficiency
of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances
and the standards referenced therein.
2.2.2 Other Standards
2.2.2.1 CAN/CSA–B415.1–2010
Performance Testing of Solid-Fuel-Burning
Heating Appliances
3.0
Terminology
3.1
Definitions
3.1.1 Hydronic Heating—A heating
system in which a heat source supplies
energy to a liquid heat exchange media such
as water that is circulated to a heating load
and returned to the heat source through
pipes.
3.1.2 Aquastat—A control device that
opens or closes a circuit to control the rate
of fuel consumption in response to the
temperature of the heating media in the
heating appliance.
3.1.3 Delivered Efficiency—The
percentage of heat available in a test fuel
charge that is delivered to a simulated
heating load or the storage system as
specified in this test method.
3.1.4 Emission factor—the emission of a
pollutant expressed in mass per unit of
energy (typically) output from the boiler/
heater
3.1.5 Emission index—the emission of a
pollutant expressed in mass per unit mass of
fuel used
3.1.6 Emission rate—the emission of a
pollutant expressed in mass per unit time
3.1.7 Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output
Capacity ¥The value in Btu/hr (MJ/hr) that
the manufacturer specifies that a particular
model of hydronic heating appliance is
capable of supplying at its design capacity as
verified by testing, in accordance with
section 12.5.4.
3.1.8 Heat output rate—The average rate
of energy output from the appliance during
a specific test period in Btu/hr (MJ/hr)
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6403
3.1.9 Firebox—The chamber in the
appliance in which the test fuel charge is
placed and combusted.
3.1.10 NIST—National Institute of
Standards and Technology
3.1.11 Test fuel charge—The collection of
test fuel placed in the appliance at the start
of the emission test run.
3.1.12 Test Run—An individual emission
test which encompasses the time required to
consume the mass of the test fuel charge. The
time of the test run also considers the time
for the energy to be drawn from the thermal
storage.
3.1.13 Test Run Under ‘‘Cold-to-Cold’’
Condition—under this test condition the test
fuel is added into an empty chamber along
with kindling and ignition materials (paper).
The boiler/heater at the start of this test is
typically 125° to 130° F.
3.1.14 Test Run Under ‘‘Hot-to-Hot’’
Condition—under this test condition the test
fuel is added onto a still-burning bed of
charcoals produced in a pre-burn period. The
boiler/heater water is near its operating
control limit at the start of the test.
3.1.15 Overall Efficiency, also known as
Stack Loss Efficiency—The efficiency for
each test run as determined using the CSA
B415.1–2010 Stack Loss Method (SLM).
3.1.16 Phases of a Burn Cycle. The
‘‘startup phase’’ is defined as the period from
the start of the test until 15 percent of the test
fuel charge is consumed. The ‘‘steady state
phase’’ is defined as the period from the end
of the startup phase to a point at which 80
percent of the test fuel charge is consumed.
The ‘‘end phase’’ is defined as the time from
the end of the steady state period to the end
of the test.
3.1.17 Thermopile—A device consisting
of a number of thermocouples connected in
series, used for measuring differential
temperature.
3.1.18 Slumber Mode—This is a mode in
which the temperature of the water in the
boiler/heater has exceeded the operating
control limit and the control has changed the
boiler/heater fan speed, dampers, and/or
other operating parameters to minimize the
heat output of the boiler/heater.
4.0 Summary of Test Method
4.1 Dilution Tunnel. Emissions are
determined using the ‘‘dilution tunnel’’
method specified in EPA Method 28 WHH
and the standards referenced therein. The
flow rate in the dilution tunnel is maintained
at a constant level throughout the test cycle
and accurately measured. Samples of the
dilution tunnel flow stream are extracted at
a constant flow rate and drawn through high
efficiency filters. The filters are dried and
weighed before and after the test to
determine the emissions collected and this
value is multiplied by the ratio of tunnel flow
to filter flow to determine the total
particulate emissions produced in the test
cycle.
4.2 Efficiency. The efficiency test
procedure takes advantage of the fact that
this type of system delivers heat through
circulation of the heated liquid (water) from
the system to a remote heat exchanger (e.g.
baseboard radiators in a room) and back to
the system. Measurements of the cooling
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6404
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
water temperature difference as it enters and
exits the test system heat exchanger along
with the measured flow rate allow for an
accurate determination of the useful heat
output of the appliance. Also included in the
heat output is the change in the energy
content in the storage system during a test
run. Energy input to the appliance during the
test run is determined by weight of the test
fuel charge, adjusted for moisture content,
multiplied by the Higher Heating Value.
Additional measurements of the appliance
weight and temperature at the beginning and
end of a test cycle are used to correct for heat
stored in the appliance. Overall Efficiency
(SLM) is determined using the CSA B415.1–
2010 stack loss method for data quality
assurance purposes.
4.3 Operation. Four test categories are
defined for use in this method. These are:
4.3.1 Category I: A heat output of 15
percent or less of Manufacturer’s Rated Heat
Output Capacity.
4.3.2 Category II: A heat output of 16
percent to 24 percent of Manufacturer’s Rated
Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.3 Category III: A heat output of 25
percent to 50 percent of Manufacturer’s Rated
Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.4 Category IV: Manufacturer’s Rated
Heat Output Capacity. These heat output
categories refer to the output from the system
by way of the load heat exchanger installed
for the test. The output from just the boiler/
heater part of the system may be higher for
all or part of a test, as part of this boiler/
heater output goes to storage.
For the Category III and IV runs, appliance
operation is conducted on a hot-to-hot test
cycle meaning that the appliance is brought
to operating temperature and a coal bed is
established prior to the addition of the test
fuel charge and measurements are made for
each test fuel charge cycle. The
measurements are made under constant heat
draw conditions within pre-determined
ranges. No attempt is made to modulate the
heat demand to simulate an indoor
thermostat cycling on and off in response to
changes in the indoor environment.
For the Category I and II runs, the unit is
tested with a ‘‘cold start.’’ At the
manufacturer’s option, the Category II and III
runs may be waived and it may be assumed
that the particulate emission values and
efficiency values determined in the startup,
steady-state, and end phases of Category I are
applicable in Categories II and III for the
purpose of determining the annual averages
in lb/MMBtu and g/MJ (See section 13). For
the annual average in g/hr, the length of time
for stored heat to be drawn from thermal
storage shall be determined for the test load
requirements of the respective Category.
All test operations and measurements shall
be conducted by personnel of the laboratory
responsible for the submission of the test
report.
5.0 Significance and Use
5.1 The measurement of particulate
matter emission and CO rates is an important
test method widely used in the practice of air
pollution control.
5.1.1 These measurements, when
approved by state or federal agencies, are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
often required for the purpose of determining
compliance with regulations and statutes.
5.1.2 The measurements made before and
after design modifications are necessary to
demonstrate the effectiveness of design
changes in reducing emissions and make this
standard an important tool in manufacturer’s
research and development programs.
5.2 Measurement of heating efficiency
provides a uniform basis for comparison of
product performance that is useful to the
consumer. It is also required to relate
emissions produced to the useful heat
production.
5.3 This is a laboratory method and is not
intended to be fully representative of all
actual field use. It is recognized that users of
hand-fired, wood-burning equipment have a
great deal of influence over the performance
of any wood-burning appliance. Some
compromises in realism have been made in
the interest of providing a reliable and
repeatable test method.
6.0 Test Equipment
6.1 Scale. A platform scale capable of
weighing the boiler/heater under test and
associated parts and accessories when
completely filled with water to an accuracy
of ± 1.0 pound (± 0.5 kg) and a readout
resolution of ± 0.2 pound (± 0.1 kg).
6.2 Heat Exchanger. A water-to-water
heat exchanger capable of dissipating the
expected heat output from the system under
test.
6.3 Water Temperature Difference
Measurement. A Type–T ‘special limits’
thermopile with a minimum of 5 pairs of
junctions shall be used to measure the
temperature difference in water entering and
leaving the heat exchanger. The temperature
difference measurement uncertainty of this
type of thermopile is equal to or less than ±
0.50 °F (± 0.25 °C). Other temperature
measurement methods may be used if the
temperature difference measurement
uncertainty is equal to or less than
± 0.50 °F (± 0.25 °C). This measurement
uncertainty shall include the temperature
sensor, sensor well arrangement, piping
arrangements, lead wire, and measurement/
recording system. The response time of the
temperature measurement system shall be
less than half of the time interval at which
temperature measurements are recorded.
6.4 Water Flow Meter. A water flow
meter shall be installed in the inlet to the
load side of the heat exchanger. The flow
meter shall have an accuracy of ± 1 percent
of measured flow.
6.4.1 Optional—Appliance side water
flow meter. A water flow meter with an
accuracy of ± 1 percent of the flow rate is
recommended to monitor supply side water
flow rate.
6.5 Optional Recirculation Pump.
Circulating pump used during test to prevent
stratification, in the boiler/heater, of liquid
being heated.
6.6 Water Temperature Measurement—
Thermocouples or other temperature sensors
to measure the water temperature at the inlet
and outlet of the load side of the heat
exchanger must meet the calibration
requirements specified in 10.1 of this
method.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6.7 Lab Scale—For measuring the
moisture content of wood slices as part of the
overall wood moisture determination.
Accuracy of ± 0.01 pounds.
6.8 Flue Gas Temperature
Measurement—Must meet the requirements
of CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.2.2.
6.9 Test Room Temperature
Measurement—Must meet the requirements
of CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.2.1.
6.10 Flue Gas Composition
Measurement—Must meet the requirements
of CSA B415.1–2010, Clauses 6.3.1 through
6.3.3.
6.11 Dilution Tunnel CO Measurement—
In parallel with the flue gas composition
measurements, the CO concentration in the
dilution tunnel shall also be measured and
reported at time intervals not to exceed one
minute. This analyzer shall meet the zero and
span drift requirements of CSA B415.1–2012.
In addition the measurement repeatability
shall be better than ±15 ppm over the range
of CO levels observed in the dilution tunnel.
7.0 Safety
7.1 These tests involve combustion of
wood fuel and substantial release of heat and
products of combustion. The heating system
also produces large quantities of very hot
water and the potential for steam production
and system pressurization. Appropriate
precautions must be taken to protect
personnel from burn hazards and respiration
of products of combustion.
8.0 Sampling, Test Specimens and Test
Appliances
8.1 Test specimens shall be supplied as
complete appliances, as described in
marketing materials, including all controls
and accessories necessary for installation in
the test facility. A full set of specifications,
installation and operating instructions, and
design and assembly drawings shall be
provided when the product is to be placed
under certification of a third-party agency.
The manufacturer’s written installation and
operating instructions are to be used as a
guide in the set-up and testing of the
appliance and shall be part of the test record.
8.2 The size, connection arrangement,
and control arrangement for the thermal
storage shall be as specified in the
manufacturer’s documentation. It is not
necessary to use the specific storage system
that the boiler/heater will be marketed with.
However, the capacity of the system used in
the test cannot be greater than that specified
as the minimum allowable for the boiler/
heater.
8.3 All system control settings shall be
the as-shipped, default settings. These
default settings shall be the same as those
communicated in a document to the installer
or end user. These control settings and the
documentation of the control settings as to be
provided to the installer or end user shall be
part of the test record.
8.4 Where the manufacturer defines
several alternatives for the connection and
loading arrangement, one shall be defined in
the appliance documentation as the default
or standard installation. It is expected that
this will be the configuration for use with a
simple baseboard heating system. This is the
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
configuration to be followed for these tests.
The manufacturer’s documentation shall
define the other arrangements as optional or
alternative arrangements.
9.0 Preparation of Test Equipment
9.1 The appliance is to be placed on a
scale capable of weighing the appliance fully
loaded with a resolution of ± 0.2 lb (0.1 kg).
9.2 The appliance shall be fitted with the
type of chimney recommended or provided
by the manufacturer and extending to 15 ±
0.5 feet (4.6 ± 0.15 m) from the upper surface
of the scale. If no flue or chimney system is
recommended or provided by the
manufacturer, connect the appliance to a flue
of a diameter equal to the flue outlet of the
appliance. The flue section from the
appliance flue collar to 8 ± 0.5 feet above the
scale shall be single wall stove pipe and the
remainder of the flue shall be double wall
insulated class A chimney.
9.3 Optional Equipment Use
9.3.1 A recirculation pump may be
installed between connections at the top and
bottom of the appliance to minimize thermal
stratification if specified by the
manufacturer. The pump shall not be
installed in such a way as to change or affect
the flow rate between the appliance and the
heat exchanger.
9.3.2 If the manufacturer specifies that a
thermal control valve or other device be
installed and set to control the return water
temperature to a specific set point, the valve
or other device shall be installed and set per
the manufacturer’s written instructions.
9.4 Prior to filling the boiler/heater with
water, weigh and record the appliance mass.
9.5 Heat Exchanger
9.5.1 Plumb the unit to a water-to-water
heat exchanger with sufficient capacity to
draw off heat at the maximum rate
anticipated. Route hoses and electrical cables
and instrument wires in a manner that does
not influence the weighing accuracy of the
scale as indicated by placing dead weights on
the platform and verifying the scale’s
accuracy.
9.5.2 Locate thermocouples to measure
the water temperature at the inlet and outlet
of the load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.3 Install a thermopile (or equivalent
instrumentation) meeting the requirements of
section 6.3 to measure the water temperature
difference between the inlet and outlet of the
load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.4 Install a calibrated water flow meter
in the heat exchanger load side supply line.
The water flow meter is to be installed on the
cooling water inlet side of the heat exchanger
so that it will operate at the temperature at
which it is calibrated.
9.5.5 Place the heat exchanger in a box
with 2 in. (50 mm) of expanded polystyrene
(EPS) foam insulation surrounding it to
minimize heat losses from the heat
exchanger.
9.5.6 The reported efficiency and heat
output rate shall be based on measurements
made on the load side of the heat exchanger.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
9.5.7 Temperature instrumentation per
section 6.6 shall be installed in the appliance
outlet and return lines. The average of the
outlet and return water temperature on the
supply side of the system shall be considered
the average appliance temperature for
calculation of heat storage in the appliance
(TFavg and TIavg). Installation of a water flow
meter in the supply side of the system is
optional.
9.6 Storage Tank. The storage tank shall
include a destratification pump as illustrated
in Figure 1. The pump will draw from the
bottom of the tank and return to the top as
illustrated. Temperature sensors (TS1 and
TS2 in Figure 1) shall be included to measure
the temperature in the recirculation loop.
The valve plan in Figure 1 allows the tank
recirculation loop to operate and the boiler/
heater-to-heat exchanger loop to operate at
the same time but in isolation. This would
typically be done before the start of a test or
following completion of a test to determine
the end of test average tank temperature. The
nominal flow rate in the storage tank
recirculation loop can be estimated based on
pump manufacturer’s performance curves
and any significant restriction in the
recirculation loop.
9.7 Fill the system with water. Determine
the total weight of the water in the appliance
when the water is circulating. Verify that the
scale indicates a stable weight under
operating conditions. Make sure air is purged
properly.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
10.1 Water Temperature Sensors.
Temperature measuring equipment shall be
calibrated before initial use and at least semiannually thereafter. Calibrations shall be in
compliance with National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
Monograph 175, Standard Limits of Error.
10.2 Heat Exchanger Load Side Water
Flow Meter.
10.2.1 The heat exchanger load side water
flow meter shall be calibrated within the flow
range used for the test run using NISTtraceable methods. Verify the calibration of
the water flow meter before and after each
test run and at least once during each test run
by comparing the water flow rate indicated
by the flow meter to the mass of water
collected from the outlet of the heat
exchanger over a timed interval. Volume of
the collected water shall be determined based
on the water density calculated from section
13, Eq. 12, using the water temperature
measured at the flow meter. The uncertainty
in the verification procedure used shall be 1
percent or less. The water flow rate
determined by the collection and weighing
method shall be within 1 percent of the flow
rate indicated by the water flow meter.
10.3 Scales. The scales used to weigh the
appliance and test fuel charge shall be
calibrated using NIST-traceable methods at
least once every 6 months.
10.4 Flue Gas Analyzers—In accordance
with CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.8.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
11.0
6405
Conditioning
11.1 Prior to testing, a non-catalytic
appliance is to be operated for a minimum
of 10 hours using a medium heat draw rate.
Catalytic units shall be operated for a
minimum of 50 hours using a medium heat
draw rate. The pre-burn for the first test can
be included as part of the conditioning
requirement. If conditioning is included in
pre-burn, then the appliance shall be aged
with fuel meeting the specifications outlined
in section 12.2 with a moisture content
between 19 and 25 percent on a dry basis.
Operate the appliance at a medium heat
output rate (Category II or III) for at least 10
hours for non-catalytic appliances and 50
hours for catalytic appliances. Record and
report hourly flue gas exit temperature data
and the hours of operation. The aging
procedure shall be conducted and
documented by a testing laboratory.
12.0
Procedure
12.1 Appliance Installation. Assemble the
appliance and parts in conformance with the
manufacturer’s written installation
instructions. Clean the flue with an
appropriately sized, wire chimney brush
before each certification test series.
12.2 Fuel. Test fuel charge fuel shall be
red (Quercus ruba L.) or white (Quercus
Alba) oak 19 to 25 percent moisture content
on a dry basis. Piece length shall be 80
percent of the firebox depth rounded down
to the nearest 1 inch (25mm) increment. For
example, if the firebox depth is 46 inches
(1168mm) the piece length would be 36
inches (46 inches x 0.8 = 36.8 inches round
down to 36 inches). Pieces are to be placed
in the firebox parallel to the longest firebox
dimension. For fireboxes with sloped
surfaces that create a non-uniform firebox
length, the piece length shall be adjusted for
each layer based on 80 percent of the length
at the level where the layer is placed. The
test fuel shall be cord wood with cross
section dimensions and weight limits as
defined in CSA B415.1–2010, section 8.3,
Table 4. The use of dimensional lumber is
not allowed.
12.2.1 Select three pieces of cord wood
from the same batch of wood as the test fuel
and the same weight as the average weight
of the pieces in the test load ± 1.0 lb. From
each of these three pieces, cut three slices.
Each slice shall be 1⁄2 inch to 3⁄4 inch thick.
One slice shall be cut across the center of the
length of the piece. The other two slices shall
be cut half way between the center and the
end. Immediately measure the mass of each
piece in pounds. Dry each slice in an oven
at 220 °F for 24 hours or until no further
weight change occurs. The slices shall be
arranged in the oven so as to provide
separation between faces. Remove from the
oven and measure the mass of each piece
again as soon as practical in pounds.
The moisture content of each slice, on a
dry basis shall be calculated as:
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Where:
WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying
in pounds
WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in
pounds
MCSlice = moisture content of the slice in %
dry basis
The average moisture content of the entire
test load (MC) shall be determined using Eq.
6. Each individual slice shall have a moisture
content in the range of 18 percent to 28
percent on a dry basis. The average moisture
content for the test fuel load shall be in the
range of 19 percent to 25 percent. Moisture
shall not be added to previously dried fuel
pieces except by storage under high humidity
conditions and temperature up to 100 °F.
Fuel moisture measurement shall begin
within four hours of using the fuel batch for
a test. Use of a pin-type meter to estimate the
moisture content prior to a test is
recommended.
12.2.2 Firebox Volume. Determine the
firebox volume in cubic feet. Firebox volume
shall include all areas accessible through the
fuel loading door where firewood could
reasonably be placed up to the horizontal
plane defined by the top of the loading door.
A drawing of the firebox showing front, side
and plan views or an isometric view with
interior dimensions shall be provided by the
manufacturer and verified by the laboratory.
Calculations for firebox volume from
computer aided design (CAD) software
programs are acceptable and shall be
included in the test report if used. If the
firebox volume is calculated by the
laboratory the firebox drawings and
calculations shall be included in the test
report.
12.2.3 Test Fuel charge. Test fuel charges
shall be determined by multiplying the
firebox volume by 10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft3
(28L), or a higher load density as
recommended by the manufacturer’s printed
operating instructions, of wood (as used wet
weight). Select the number of pieces of cord
wood that most nearly match this target
weight. However, the test fuel charge cannot
be less than the target of 10 pounds (4.54 kg)
per ft3 (28L).
12.3 Sampling Equipment. Prepare the
particulate emission sampling equipment as
defined by EPA Method 28 WHH and the
standards referenced therein.
12.4 Appliance Startup. The appliance
shall be fired with wood fuel of any species,
size and moisture content at the laboratories
discretion to bring it up to operating
temperature. Operate the appliance until the
water is heated to the upper operating control
limit and has cycled at least two times. Then
remove all unburned fuel, zero the scale and
verify the scales accuracy using dead
weights.
12.4.1 Startup Procedure for Category III
and IV Test Runs, ‘‘Hot-to-Hot’’
12.4.1.1 Pre-Test Burn Cycle. Following
appliance startup (section 12.4), reload
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
appliance with oak cord wood and allow it
to burn down to the specified coal bed
weight. The pre-test burn cycle fuel charge
weight shall be within ±10 percent of the test
fuel charge weight. Piece size and length
shall be selected such that charcoalization is
achieved by the time the fuel charge has
burned down to the required coal bed weight.
Pieces with a maximum thickness of
approximately 2 inches have been found to
be suitable. Charcoalization is a general
condition of the test fuel bed evidenced by
an absence of large pieces of burning wood
in the coal bed and the remaining fuel pieces
being brittle enough to be broken into smaller
charcoal pieces with a metal poker.
Manipulations to the fuel bed prior to the
start of the test run are to be done to achieve
charcoalization while maintaining the
desired heat output rate. During the pre-test
burn cycle and at least one hour prior to
starting the test run, adjust water flow to the
heat exchanger to establish the target heat
draw for the test. For the first test run the
heat draw rate shall be equal to the
manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity.
12.4.1.2 Allowable Adjustments. Fuel
addition or subtractions, and coal bed raking
shall be kept to a minimum but are allowed
up to 15 minutes prior to the start of the test
run. For the purposes of this method, coal
bed raking is the use of a metal tool (poker)
to stir coals, break burning fuel into smaller
pieces, dislodge fuel pieces from positions of
poor combustion, and check for the condition
of charcoalization. Record all adjustments to
and additions or subtractions of fuel, and any
other changes to the appliance operations
that occur during pretest ignition period.
During the 15-minute period prior to the start
of the test run, the wood heater loading door
shall not be open more than a total of 1
minute. Coal bed raking is the only
adjustment allowed during this period.
12.4.1.3 Coal Bed Weight. The appliance
is to be loaded with the test fuel charge when
the coal bed weight is between 10 percent
and 20 percent of the test fuel charge weight.
Coals may be raked as necessary to level the
coal bed but may only be raked and stirred
once between 15 to 20 minutes prior to the
addition of the test fuel charge.
12.4.1.4 Storage. The Category III and IV
test runs may be done either with or without
the thermal storage. If thermal storage is used
the initial temperature of the storage must be
125 °F or greater at the start of the test. The
storage may be heated during the pre-test
burn cycle or it may be heated by external
means. If thermal storage is used, prior to the
start of the test run, the storage tank
destratification pump, shown in Figure 1,
shall be operated until the total volume
pumped exceeds 1.5 times the tank volume
and the difference between the temperature
at the top and bottom of the storage tank (TS1
and TS2) is less than 1 °F. These two
temperatures shall then be recorded to
determine the starting average tank
temperature. The total volume pumped may
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
be based on the nominal flow rate of the
destratification pump (See section 9.6). If the
Category III and IV runs are done with
storage, it is recognized that during the last
hour of the pre-burn cycle the storage tank
must be mixed to achieve a uniform starting
temperature and cannot receive heat from the
boiler/heater during this time. During this
time period the boiler/heater might cycle or
go into a steady reduced output mode.
(Note—this would happen, for example, in a
Category IV run if the actual maximum
output of the boiler/heater exceed the
manufacturer’s rated output.) A second
storage tank may be used temporarily to
enable the boiler/heater to operate during
this last hour of the pre-burn period as it will
during the test period. The temperature of
this second storage tank is not used in the
calculations but the return water to the
boiler/heater (after mixing device if used)
must be 125 °F or greater.
12.4.2 Startup Procedure for Category I
and II test runs, ‘‘cold-to-cold.’’
12.4.2.1 Initial Temperatures. This test
shall be started with both the boiler/heater
and the storage at a minimum temperature of
125 °F. The boiler/heater maximum
temperature at the start of this test shall be
135 °F. The boiler/heater and storage may be
heated through a pre-burn or it may be
heated by external means.
12.4.2.2 Firebox Condition at Test Start.
Prior to the start of this test remove all ash
and charcoal from the combustion
chamber(s). The loading of the test fuel and
kindling should follow the manufacturer’s
recommendations, subject to the following
constraints: Up to 10 percent kindling and
paper may be used which is in addition to
the fuel load. Further, up to 10 percent of the
fuel load (i.e., included in the 10 lb/ft3) may
be smaller than the main fuel. This startup
fuel shall still be larger than 2 inches.
12.4.2.3 Storage. The Category I and II
test runs shall be done with thermal storage.
The initial temperature of the storage must be
125 °F or greater at the start of the test. The
storage may be heated during the pre-test
burn cycle or it may be heated by external
means. Prior to the start of the test run, the
storage tank destratification pump, shown in
Figure 1, shall be operated until the total
volume pumped exceeds 1.5 times the tank
volume and the difference between the
temperature at the top and bottom of the
storage tank (TS1 and TS2) is less than 1 °F.
These two temperatures shall then be
recorded to determine the starting average
tank temperature. The total volume pumped
may be based on the nominal flow rate of the
destratification pump (See section 9.6).
12.5 Test Runs. For all test runs, the
return water temperature to the hydronic
heater must be equal to or greater than 120 °F
(this is lower than the initial tank
temperature to allow for any pipeline losses).
Where the storage system is used, flow of
water from the boiler/heater shall be divided
between the storage tank and the heat
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.004</GPH>
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6406
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
exchanger such that the temperature change
of the circulating water across the heat
exchanger shall be 30 ± 5 °F, averaged over
the entire test run. This is typically adjusted
using the system valves.
Complete a test run in each heat output
rate category, as follows:
12.5.1 Test Run Start. For Category III and
IV runs: once the appliance is operating
normally and the pretest coal bed weight has
reached the target value per 12.4.1, tare the
scale and load the full test charge into the
appliance. Time for loading shall not exceed
5 minutes. The actual weight of the test fuel
charge shall be measured and recorded
within 30 minutes prior to loading. Start all
sampling systems.
For Category I and II runs: once the
appliance has reached the starting
temperature, tare the scale and load the full
test charge, including kindling into the
appliance. The actual weight of the test fuel
charge shall be measured and recorded
within 30 minutes prior to loading. Light the
fire following the manufacturer’s written
normal startup procedure. Start all sampling
systems.
12.5.1.1 Record all water temperatures,
differential water temperatures and water
flow rates at time intervals of one minute or
less.
12.5.1.2 Record particulate emissions
data per the requirements of EPA Method 28
WHH and the standards referenced therein.
12.5.1.3 Record data needed to determine
Overall Efficiency (SLM) per the
requirements of CSA B415.1–2010 Clauses
6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3, 8.5.7, 10.4.3 (a), 10.4.3(f),
and 13.7.9.3
12.5.1.3.1 Measure and record the test
room air temperature in accordance with the
requirements of Clauses 6.2.1, 8.5.7 and
10.4.3 (g).
12.5.1.3.2 Measure and record the flue
gas temperature in accordance with the
requirements of Clauses 6.2.2, 8.5.7 and
10.4.3 (f).
12.5.1.3.3 Determine and record the
Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) concentrations in the flue gas in
accordance with Clauses 6.3, 8.5.7 and 10.4.3
(i) and (j).
12.5.1.3.4 Measure and record the test
fuel weight per the requirements of Clauses
8.5.7 and 10.4.3 (h).
12.5.1.3.5 Record the test run time per the
requirements of Clause 10.4.3 (a).
12.5.1.3.6 Record and document all
settings and adjustments, if any, made to the
boiler/heater as recommended/required by
manufacturer’s instruction manual for
different combustion conditions or heat
loads. These may include temperature
setpoints, under and over-fire air adjustment,
or other adjustments that could be made by
an operator to optimize or alter combustion.
All such settings shall be included in the
report for each test run.
12.5.1.4 Monitor the average heat output
rate on the load side of the heat exchanger
based on water temperatures and flow. If the
heat output rate over a 10 minute averaging
period gets close to the upper or lower limit
of the target range (± 5 percent), adjust the
water flow through the heat exchanger to
compensate. Make changes as infrequently as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
possible while maintaining the target heat
output rate. The first test run shall be
conducted at the category IV heat output rate
to validate that the appliance is capable of
producing the manufacturer’s rated heat
output capacity.
12.5.2 Test Fuel Charge Adjustment. It is
acceptable to adjust the test fuel charge (i.e.,
reposition) once during a test run if more
than 60 percent of the initial test fuel charge
weight has been consumed and more than 10
minutes have elapsed without a measurable
(1 lb or 0.5 kg) weight change while the
operating control is in the demand mode.
The time used to make this adjustment shall
be less than 60 seconds.
12.5.3 Test Run Completion. For the
Category III and IV, ‘‘hot-to-hot’’ test runs,
the test run is completed when the remaining
weight of the test fuel charge is 0.0 lb (0.0
kg). (WFuelBurned = Wfuel) End the test run when
the scale has indicated a test fuel charge
weight of 0.0 lb (0.0 kg) or less for 30
seconds.
For the Category I and II ‘‘cold-to-cold’’ test
runs, the test run is completed; and the end
of a test is defined at the first occurrence of
any one of the following:
(a) The remaining weight of the test fuel
charge is less than 1 percent of the total test
fuel weight (WFuelBurned > 0.99 · Wfuel);
(b) The automatic control system on the
boiler/heater switches to an off mode. In this
case the boiler/heater fan (if used) is typically
stopped, and all air flow dampers are closed
by the control system. Note that this off mode
cannot be an ‘‘overheat’’ or emergency
shutdown which typically requires a manual
reset; or
(c) If the boiler/heater does not have an
automatic off mode: After 90 percent of the
fuel load has been consumed and the scale
has indicated a rate of change of the test fuel
charge of less than 1.0 lb/hr for a period of
10 minutes or longer. Note—this is not
considered ‘‘stopped fuel combustion,’’ See
section 12.5.6.1.
12.5.3.1 At the end of the test run, stop
the particulate sampling train and Overall
Efficiency (SLM) measurements, and record
the run time, and all final measurement
values.
12.5.3.2 At the end of the test run,
continue to operate the storage tank
destratification pump until the total volume
pumped exceeds 1.5 times the tank volume.
The maximum average of the top and bottom
temperatures measured after this time may be
taken as the average tank temperature at the
end of the tests (TFSavg, See section 13.1).
The total volume pumped may be based on
the nominal flow rate of the destratification
pump (See section 9.6).
12.5.3.3 For the Category I and II test
runs, there is a need to determine the energy
content of the unburned fuel remaining in
the chamber if the remaining mass in the
chamber is greater than 1 percent of the test
fuel weight. Following the completion of the
test, as soon as safely practical, this
remaining fuel is removed from the chamber,
separated from the remaining ash and
weighed. This separation could be
implemented with a slotted ‘‘scoop’’ or
similar tool. A 1⁄4 inch opening size in the
separation tool shall be used to separate the
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6407
ash and charcoal. This separated char is
assigned a heating value of 12,500 Btu/lb.
12.5.4 Heat Output Capacity Validation.
The first test run must produce a heat output
rate that is within 10 percent of the
manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity
(Category IV) throughout the test run and an
average heat output rate within 5 percent of
the manufacturer’s rated heat output
capacity. If the appliance is not capable of
producing a heat output within these limits,
the manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity
is considered not validated and testing is to
be terminated. In such cases, the tests may
be restarted using a lower heat output
capacity if requested by the manufacturer.
Alternatively, during the Category IV run, if
the rated output cannot be maintained for a
15 minute interval, the manufacturer may
elect to reduce the rated output to match the
test and complete the Category IV run on this
basis. The target outputs for Cat I, II, and III
shall then be recalculated based on this
change in rated output capacity.
12.5.5 Additional Test Runs. Using the
Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output Capacity
as a basis, conduct a test for additional heat
output categories as specified in 4.3. It is not
required to run these tests in any particular
order.
12.5.6 Alternative Heat Output Rate for
Category I. If an appliance cannot be operated
in the Category I heat output range due to
stopped combustion, two test runs shall be
conducted at heat output rates within
Category II. When this is the case, the
weightings for the weighted averages
indicated in section 15.1.14 shall be the
average of the Category I and II weighting’s
and shall be applied to both Category II
results. Appliances that are not capable of
operation within Category II (<25 percent of
maximum) cannot be evaluated by this test
method.
12.5.6.1 Stopped Fuel Combustion.
Evidence that an appliance cannot be
operated at a Category I heat output rate due
to stopped fuel combustion shall include
documentation of two or more attempts to
operate the appliance in heat output rate
Category I and fuel combustion has stopped
prior to complete consumption of the test
fuel charge. Stopped fuel combustion is
evidenced when an elapsed time of 60
minutes or more has occurred without a
measurable (1 lb or 0.5 kg) weight change in
the test fuel charge while the appliance
operating control is in the demand mode.
Report the evidence and the reasoning used
to determine that a test in heat output rate
Category I cannot be achieved. For example,
two unsuccessful attempts to operate at an
output rate of 10 percent of the rated output
capacity are not sufficient evidence that heat
output rate Category I cannot be achieved.
12.5.7 Appliance Overheating.
Appliances with their associated thermal
storage shall be capable of operating in all
heat output categories without overheating to
be rated by this test method. Appliance
overheating occurs when the rate of heat
withdrawal from the appliance is lower than
the rate of heat production when the unit
control is in the idle mode. This condition
results in the water in the appliance
continuing to increase in temperature well
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6408
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
above the upper limit setting of the operating
control. Evidence of overheating includes: 1
hour or more of appliance water temperature
increase above the upper temperature setpoint of the operating control, exceeding the
temperature limit of a safety control device
(independent from the operating control—
typically requires manual reset), boiling
water in a non-pressurized system or
activation of a pressure or temperature relief
valve in a pressurized system.
12.5.8 Option to Eliminate Tests in
Category II and III. Following successful
completion of a test run in Category I, the
manufacturer may eliminate the Cat II and III
tests. For the purpose of calculating the
annual averages for particulates and
efficiency, the values obtained in the
Category I run shall be assumed to apply also
to Category II and Category III. It is
envisioned that this option would be
applicable to systems which have sufficient
thermal storage such that the fuel load in the
Cat I test can be completely consumed
without the system reaching its upper
operating temperature limit. In this case the
boiler/heater would likely be operating at
maximum thermal output during the entire
test and this output rate may be higher than
the Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output
Capacity. The Category II and III runs would
then be the same as the Category I run. It may
be assumed that the particulate emission
values and efficiency values determined in
the startup, steady-state, and end phases of
Category I are applicable in Categories II and
III, for the purpose of determining the annual
averages in lb/MMBtu and g/MJ (See section
13). For the annual average in g/hr, the length
of time for stored heat to be drawn from
thermal storage shall be determined for the
test load requirements of the respective
Category.
12.5.9 Modification to Measurement
Procedure in EPA Method 28 WHH to
Determine Emissions Separately During the
Startup, Steady-State and End Phases. With
one of the two particulate sampling trains
used, filter changes shall be made at the end
of the startup phase and the steady state
phase (See section 3.0). This shall be done to
determine the particulate emission rate and
particulate emission index for the startup,
steady state, and end phases individually.
For this one train, the particulates measured
during each of these three phases shall be
added together to also determine the
particulate emissions for the whole run.
12.5.10 Modification to Measurement
Procedure in EPA Method 28 WHH and the
standards referenced therein on Averaging
Period for Determination of Efficiency by the
Stack Loss Method. The methods currently
defined in Method 28 WHH allow averaging
over 10 minute time periods for flue gas
temperature, flue gas CO2, and flue gas CO
for the determination of the efficiency with
the Stack Loss Method. However, under some
cycling conditions the ‘‘on’’ period may be
short relative to this 10 minute period. For
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
this reason, during cycling operation the
averaging period for these parameters may
not be longer than the burner on period
divided by 10. The averaging period need not
be shorter than one minute. During the off
period, under cycling operation, averaging
periods as specified in EPA Method 28 WHH
and the standards referenced therein may be
used. Where short averaging times are used,
however, the averaging period for fuel
consumption may still be at 10 minutes. This
average wood consumption rate shall be
applied to all of the smaller time intervals
included.
12.6 Additional Test Runs. The testing
laboratory may conduct more than one test
run in each of the heat output categories
specified in section 4.3. If more than one test
run is conducted at a specified heat output
rate, the results from at least two-thirds of the
test runs in that heat output rate category
shall be used in calculating the weighted
average emission rate. The measurement data
and results of all test runs shall be reported
regardless of which values are used in
calculating the weighted average emission
rate.
13.0 Calculation of Results
13.1 Nomenclature.
COs—Carbon monoxide measured in the
dilution tunnel at arbitrary time in ppm
dry basis.
COg/min—Carbon monoxide emission rate in
g/min.
COT—Total carbon monoxide emission for
the full test run in grams.
CO_1—Startup period carbon monoxide
emissions in grams.
CO_2—Steady-state period carbon monoxide
emission in grams.
CO_3—End period carbon monoxide
emission in grams.
ET—Total particulate emissions for the full
test run as determined per EPA Method
28 WHH and the standards referenced
therein in grams.
E1 = Startup period particulate emissions in
grams.
E2 = Steady-state period particulate
emissions in grams.
E3 = End period particulate emissions in
grams.
E1_g/kg = Startup period particulate emission
index in grams per kg fuel.
E2_g/kg = Steady-state period particulate
emission index in grams per kg fuel.
E3_g/kg = End period particulate emission
index in grams per kg fuel.
E1_g/hr = Startup period particulate emission
rate in grams per hour.
E2_g/hr = Steady-state period particulate
emission rate in grams per hour.
E3_g/hr = End period particulate emission rate
in grams per hour.
Eg/MJ—Emission rate in grams per MJ of heat
output.
Elb/mmBtu output—Emissions rate in pounds per
million Btu’s of heat output.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Eg/kg—Emissions factor in grams per kilogram
of dry fuel burned.
Eg/hr—Emission factor in grams per hour.
HHV—Higher Heating Value of fuel = 8600
Btu/lb (19.990 MJ/kg).
LHV—Lower Heating Value of fuel = 7988
Btu/lb (18.567 MJ/kg).
DT—Temperature difference between cooling
water entering and exiting the heat
exchanger.
Qout ¥ Total heat output in Btu’s (MJ).
Qin ¥ Total heat input available in test fuel
charge in Btu’s (MJ).
Qstd—Volumetric flow rate in dilution tunnel
in dscfm.
M—Mass flow rate of water in lb/min (kg/
min).
Vi—Volume of water indicated by a totalizing
flow meter at the ith reading in gallons
(liters).
Vf—Volumetric flow rate of water in heat
exchange system in gallons per minute
(liters/min).
Q—Total length of burn period in hours (Q1
+ Q2 + Q3).
Q1—Length of time of the startup period in
hours.
Q2—Length of time of the steady state period
in hours.
Q3—Length of time of the end period in
hours.
Q4—Length of time for stored heat to be used
following a burn period in hours.
ti—Data sampling interval in minutes.
hdel—Delivered heating efficiency in percent.
Fi—Weighting factor for heat output category
i. See Table 2.
T1—Temperature of water at the inlet on the
supply side of the heat exchanger, °F.
T2—Temperature of the water at the outlet
on the supply side of the heat exchanger,
°F.
T3—Temperature of cooling water at the inlet
to the load side of the heat exchanger, °F.
T4—Temperature of cooling water at the
outlet of the load side of the heat
exchanger, °F.
T5—Temperature of the hot water supply as
it leaves the boiler/heater, °F.
T6—Temperature of return water as it enters
the boiler/heater, °F.
T7—Temperature in the boiler/heater
optional destratification loop at the top
of the boiler/heater, °F.
T8—Temperature in the boiler/heater
optional destratification loop at the
bottom of the boiler/heater, °F.
TIavg—Average temperature of the appliance
and water at start of the test.
TIS1—Temperature at the inlet to the storage
system at the start of the test.
TIS2—Temperature at the outlet from the
storage system at the start of the test.
TFS1—Temperature at the inlet to the storage
system at the end of the test.
TFS2—Temperature at the outlet from the
storage system at the end of the test.
TISavg—Average temperature of the storage
system at the start of the test.
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
WScale—Reading of the weight scale at
arbitrary time during the test run in
pounds (kg).
WStorageTank—Weight of the storage tank
empty in pounds (kg).
WWaterStorage—Weight of the water in the
storage tank at TISavg in pounds (kg).
13.2 After the test is completed,
determine the particulate emissions ET in
accordance with EPA Method 28 WHH and
the standards referenced therein.
13.3 Determination of the weight of fuel
that has been burned at arbitrary time
For the purpose of tracking the
consumption of the test fuel load during a
test run the following may be used to
calculate the weight of fuel that burned since
the start of the test:
EP03FE14.016</GPH>
EP03FE14.017</GPH>
Wfuel_3—Fuel consumed during the end
period in pounds (kg).
WFuelBurned—Weight of fuel that has been
burned from the start of the test to an
arbitrary time, including the needed
correction for the change in density and
weight of the water in the boiler/heater
system on the scale in pounds (kg).
WRemainingFuel—weight of unburned fuel
separated from the ash at the end of a
test. Useful only for Cat I and Cat II tests.
Wapp—Weight of empty appliance in pounds
(kg).
Wwat—Weight of water in supply side of the
system in pounds (kg).
WScaleInitial—weight reading on the scale at the
start of the test, just after the test load
has been added in pounds (kg).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.015</GPH>
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
MC—Fuel moisture content in percent dry
basis.
s—Density of water in pounds per gallon.
sInitial—Density of water in the boiler/heater
system at the start of the test in pounds
per gallons.
sboiler/heater—Density of water in the boiler/
heater system at arbitrary time during the
test in pounds per gallon.
Cp—Specific heat of water in Btu/lb ¥°F.
Csteel—Specific heat of steel (0.1 Btu/lb ¥°F).
Vboiler/heater—total volume of water in the
boiler/heater system on the weight scale
in gallons.
Wfuel—Fuel charge weight, as-fired or ‘‘wet’’,
in pounds (kg).
Wfuel_1—Fuel consumed during the startup
period in pounds (kg).
Wfuel_2—Fuel consumed during the steady
state period in pounds (kg).
6409
6410
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Mi = Mass flow rate = gal/min × Density
of Water (lb/gal) = lb/min.
E2_g/kg = E2/(Wfuel_2/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg
E3_g/kg = E3/(Wfuel_3/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg
E1_g/hr = E1/Q1, g/hr
13.6.5 Determine hSLM—Overall
Efficiency, also known as Stack Loss
Efficiency, using Stack Loss Method (SLM).
For determination of the average overall
thermal efficiency (hSLM) for the test run, use
the data collected over the full test run and
the calculations in accordance with CSA
B415.1–2010, Clause 13.7 except for 13.7.2
(e), (f), (g), and (h), use the following average
fuel properties for oak: %C = 50.0, %H = 6.6,
%O = 43.2, %Ash = 0.2.
13.6.5.1 Whenever the CSA B415.1–2010
overall efficiency is found to be lower than
the overall efficiency based on load side
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E2_g/hr = E2/Q2, g/hr
E3_g/hr = E3/Q3, g/hr
13.6.4 Determine delivered efficiency as:
measurements, as determined by Eq. 22 of
this method, section 14.1.7 of the test report
must include a discussion of the reasons for
this result. For a test where the CSA B415.1–
2010 overall efficiency SLM is less than 2
percentage points lower than the overall
efficiency based on load side measurements,
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.021</GPH>
If thermal storage is not used in a Category
III or IV run, then Q4 = 0
E1_g/kg = E1/(Wfuel_1/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg
13.6.2 Determine Heat Output Rate Over
Burn Period (Q1+ Q2+ Q3) as:
EP03FE14.020</GPH>
This calculation is necessary when a
totalizing type water meter is used.
EP03FE14.019</GPH>
Note: Vi is the total water volume at the
end of interval i and Vi-1 is the total water
volume at the beginning of the time interval.
stored in the appliance + Change in heat
in storage tank.
EP03FE14.018</GPH>
Qout = S [Heat output determined for each
sampling time interval] + Change in heat
Note: The subscript (i) indicates the
parameter value for sampling time interval ti.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13.6 Determine heat output, efficiency,
and emissions
13.6.1 Determine heat output as:
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
6411
the efficiency based on load side
measurements shall be considered invalid.
[Note on the rationale for the 2 percentage
points limit. The SLM method does not
include boiler/heater jacket losses and, for
this reason, should provide an efficiency
which is actually higher than the efficiency
based on the energy input and output
measurements or ‘‘delivered efficiency.’’ A
delivered efficiency that is higher than the
efficiency based on the SLM could be
considered suspect. A delivered efficiency
greater than 2 percentage points higher than
the efficiency based on the SLM, then, clearly
indicates a measurement error.]
13.6.6 Carbon Monoxide Emissions
For each minute of the test period, the
carbon monoxide emission rate shall be
calculated as:
Total CO emissions for each of the three
test periods (CO_1, CO_2, CO_3) shall be
calculated as the sum of the emission rates
for each of the 1 minute intervals. Total CO
emission for the test run, COT, shall be
calculated as the sum of CO_1, CO_2, and
CO_3.
13.7 Weighted Average Emissions and
Efficiency.
13.7.1 Determine the weighted average
emission rate and delivered efficiency from
the individual tests in the specified heat
output categories. The weighting factors (Fi)
are derived from an analysis of ASHRAE Bin
Data which provides details of normal
building heating requirements in terms of
percent of design capacity and time in a
particular capacity range—or ‘‘bin’’—over the
course of a heating season. The values used
in this method represent an average of data
from several cities located in the northern
United States.
If, as discussed in section 12.5.8, the
option to eliminate tests in Category II and
III is elected, the values of efficiency and
particulate emission rate as measured in
Category I, shall be assigned also to Category
II and III for the purpose of determining the
annual averages.
method, and their data quality implications
on the test results (if any), as well as
information on specific test conditions, such
as environmental conditions.
14.1.9 A list of participants and their
roles and observers present for the tests.
14.1.10 Data and drawings indicating the
fire box size and location of the fuel charge.
14.1.11 Drawings and calculations used
to determine firebox volume.
14.1.12 Information for each test run fuel
charge including piece size, moisture content
and weight.
14.1.13 All required data and applicable
blanks for each test run shall be provided in
spreadsheet format both in the printed report
and in a computer file such that the data can
be easily analyzed and calculations easily
verified. Formulas used for all calculations
shall be accessible for review.
14.1.14 For each test run, Q1,Q2, Q3, the
total CO and particulate emission for each of
these three periods, and Q4.
14.1.15 Calculated results for delivered
efficiency at each heat output rate and the
weighted average emissions reported as total
emissions in grams, pounds per million Btu
of delivered heat, grams per MJ of delivered
heat, grams per kilogram of dry fuel and
grams per hour. Results shall be reported for
each heat output category and the weighted
average.
14.1.16 Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 2
must be used for presentation of results in
test reports.
14.1.17 A statement of the estimated
uncertainty of measurement of the emissions
and efficiency test results.
14.1.18 A plot of CO emission rate in
grams/minute vs. time, based on 1 minute
averages, for the entire test period, for each
run.
14.1.19 A plot of estimated boiler/heater
energy release rate in Btu/hr based on 10
minute averages, for the entire test period, for
each run. This will be calculated from the
fuel used, the wood heating value and
moisture content, and the SLM efficiency
during each 10 minute period.
14.1.20 Raw data, calibration records, and
other relevant documentation shall be
retained by the laboratory for a minimum of
7 years.
15.0
Precision and Bias
15.1 Precision—It is not possible to
specify the precision of the procedure in this
test method because the appliance operation
and fueling protocols and the appliances
themselves produce variable amounts of
emissions and cannot be used to determine
reproducibility or repeatability of this test
method.
15.2 Bias—No definitive information can
be presented on the bias of the procedure in
this test method for measuring solid fuel
burning hydronic heater emissions because
no material having an accepted reference
value is available.
16.0
Keywords
EP03FE14.023</GPH>
16.1 Solid fuel, hydronic heating
appliances, wood-burning hydronic heaters,
partial thermal storage.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.022</GPH>
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14.0 Report
14.1.1 The report shall include the
following:
14.1.2 Name and location of the
laboratory conducting the test.
14.1.3 A description of the appliance
tested and its condition, date of receipt and
dates of tests.
14.1.4 A description of the minimum
amount of external thermal storage that is
required for use with this system. This shall
be specified both in terms of volume in
gallons and stored energy content in Btu with
a storage temperature ranging from 125 °F to
the manufacturer’s specified setpoint
temperature.
14.1.5 A statement that the test results
apply only to the specific appliance tested.
14.1.6 A statement that the test report
shall not be reproduced except in full,
without the written approval of the
laboratory.
14.1.7 A description of the test
procedures and test equipment including a
schematic or other drawing showing the
location of all required test equipment. Also,
a description of test fuel sourcing, handling
and storage practices shall be included.
14.1.8 Details of deviations from,
additions to or exclusions from the test
6412
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1A—DATA SUMMARY PART A
Q
Category
Run No.
I ..................
II .................
..................
..................
III ................
..................
IV ................
..................
Load %
capacity
Btu/hr
Actual load
% of max
Actual load
hrs
MCave
Qin
Wood
weight asfired
Wood moisture
Heat input
lb
Target load
Btu/hr
Wfuel
Test duration
Btu
Btu
%DB
Qout
Heat input
<15% of max
16–24% of
max.
25–50% of
max.
Max capacity ..
TABLE 1B—DATA SUMMARY PART B
T2 Min
Run No.
I ..................
II .................
..................
..................
III ................
..................
IV ................
..................
Load %
capacity
E
E
Eg/hr
Eg/kg
hdel
HSLM
Total PM
emissions
PM output
based
PM output
based
PM rate
PM factor
Delivered efficiency
Stack loss
efficiency
°F
Category
ET
Min return
water temp.
g
lb/MMBtu
Out
g/MJ
g/hr
g/kg
%
%
<15% of max
16–24% of
max.
25–50% of
max.
Max capacity ..
TABLE 1C—DATA SUMMARY PART C
Q1
I ..................
II .................
III ................
IV ................
..................
..................
..................
..................
CO_1
CO_2
CO_3
COT
Startup time.
Load %
capacity
Run No.
Q3
Steady state
time
End time
Startup CO
emission
Steady state
CO emission
End CO
emission
Total CO
emission
min
Category
Q2
min
min
g
g
g
g
<15% of max ..........................
16–24% of max ......................
25–50% of max ......................
Max capacity ..........................
TABLE 1D—DATA SUMMARY PART D
E1
E2_g/kg
E3_g/kg
Steady
state PM
End PM
Startup PM
emission
index
End PM
emission
index
g
g
Steady
state PM
emission
index
g/kg fuel
g/kg fuel
g/kg fuel
Load %
capacity
Run No.
................
................
................
................
E1_g/kg
g
I ................
II ...............
III ..............
IV .............
E3
Startup PM
Category
E2
<15% of max ......................................
16–24% of max ..................................
25–50% of max ..................................
Max capacity ......................................
TABLE 1E—LABEL SUMMARY INFORMATION
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
MANUFACTURER:
MODEL NUMBER:
ANNUAL EFFICIENCY RATING: ..............................
PARTICLE EMISSIONS: ...........................................
havg ...................
Eavg ...................
...........................
...........................
(Using higher heating value).
GRAMS/HR (average).
LBS/MILLION Btu/hr OUTPUT.
TABLE 2—ANNUAL WEIGHTING
Weighting factor (Fi)
Category
I ........................................................
II .......................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
hdel,i x Fi
Eg/MJ,i x Fi
Eg/kg,i x Fi
Elb/MMBtu
0.437
0.238
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
Out,i
x Fi
Eg/hr,i x Fi
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
6413
TABLE 2—ANNUAL WEIGHTING—Continued
Weighting factor (Fi)
Category
hdel,i x Fi
III ......................................................
IV ......................................................
Eg/kg,i x Fi
Elb/MMBtu
Out,i
x Fi
Eg/hr,i x Fi
0.275
0.050
Totals ........................................
Eg/MJ,i x Fi
1.000
Figure 1. Schematic of Equipment Test Setup
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.007</GPH>
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
7. Revise Appendix I to Part 60 to read
as follows:
■
Appendix I to Part 60—Owner’s
Manuals for Wood-Burning Heaters
Subject to Subparts AAA, QQQQ, and
RRRR of Part 60
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Introduction
The purpose of this appendix is to provide
specific instructions to manufacturers for
compliance with the owner’s manual
provisions of subparts AAA, QQQQ, and
RRRR of this part.
2. Instructions for Preparation of Wood
Heater Owner’s Manuals
2.1 Introduction
Although the owner’s manuals do not
require premarket approval, EPA will
monitor the contents to ensure that sufficient
information is included to provide heater
operation and maintenance information
affecting emissions to consumers. The
purpose of this section is to provide
instructions to manufacturers for compliance
with the owner’s manual provisions of
§ 60.536(f) of subpart AAA that applies to
wood heaters, § 60.5478(f) of subpart QQQQ
that applies to hydronic heaters and forcedair furnaces, and § 60.5490(g) of subpart
RRRR that applies to masonry heaters. A
checklist of topics and illustrative language
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
is provided as instructions. Owner’s manuals
should be tailored to specific wood heater
models, as appropriate.
2.2 Topics Required To Be Addressed in
Owner’s Manual
(a) Wood heater description and
compliance status;
(b) Tamper warning;
(c) Catalyst information and warranty (if
catalyst equipped);
(d) Fuel selection;
(e) Achieving and maintaining catalyst
light-off (if catalyst equipped);
(f) Catalyst monitoring (if catalyst
equipped);
(g) Troubleshooting catalytic equipped
heaters (if catalyst equipped);
(h) Catalyst replacement (if catalyst
equipped);
(i) Wood heater operation and
maintenance; and
(j) Wood heater installation: achieving
proper draft.
2.3 Sample Text/Descriptions
(a) The following are example texts and/or
further descriptions illustrating the topics
identified above. Although the regulation
requires manufacturers to address (where
applicable) the ten topics identified above,
the exact language is not specified. Manuals
should be written specific to the model and
design of the wood heater. The following
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
instructions are composed of generic
descriptions and texts.
(b) If manufacturers choose to use the
language provided in the example, the
portion in italics should be revised as
appropriate. Any manufacturer electing to
use the EPA example language will be
considered to be in compliance with owner’s
manual requirements provided that the
particular language is printed in full with
only such changes as are necessary to ensure
accuracy.
Example language is not provided for
certain topics, since these areas are generally
heater specific. For these topics,
manufacturers should develop text that is
specific to the operation and maintenance of
their particular products.
2.3.1 Wood Heater Description and
Compliance Status
Owner’s Manuals must include:
(a) Manufacturer and model;
(b) Compliance status (exempt, 1990 std.,
2015 std., etc.); and
(c) Heat output range.
Exhibit 1—Example Text covering (a), (b),
and (c) above:
‘‘This manual describes the installation
and operation of the Brand X, Model 0
catalytic equipped wood heater. This heater
meets the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s emission limits for wood heaters
sold after January 1, 2015. Under specific test
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
EP03FE14.008</GPH>
6414
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(c) Achieving catalyst light-off when
refueling.
2.3.5.1 No example text is supplied for
describing operation of catalyst bypass
2.3.2 Tamper Warning
mechanisms (Item (a) above) since these are
The following statement must be included
typically stove-specific. Manufacturers must
in the owner’s manual for catalyst-equipped
provide instructions specific to their model
units:
describing:
‘‘This wood heater contains a catalytic
(1) Bypass position during startup;
combustor, which needs periodic inspection
(2) Bypass position during normal
and replacement for proper operation. It is
operation; and
against the law to operate this wood heater
(3) Bypass position during reloading.
in a manner inconsistent with operating
Exhibit 4—Example Text for Item (b):
instructions in this manual, or if the catalytic
‘‘The temperature in the stove and the
element is deactivated or removed.’’
gases entering the combustor must be raised
to between 500° to 700°F for catalytic activity
2.3.3 Catalyst Information
to be initiated. During the startup of a cold
The following information must be
included with or supplied in the owner’s and stove, a medium to high firing rate must be
maintained for about 20 minutes. This
warranty manuals:
ensures that the stove, catalyst, and fuel are
(a) Catalyst manufacturer and model;
all stabilized at proper operating
(b) Catalyst warranty details; and
temperatures. Even though it is possible to
(c) Instructions for warranty claims.
have gas temperatures reach 600°F within 2
Exhibit 2—Example Text covering (a), (b),
to 3 minutes after a fire is started, if the fire
and (c):
is allowed to die down immediately it may
‘‘The combustor supplied with this heater
go out or the combustor may stop working.
is a Brand Z, Long Life Combustor. Consult
Once the combustor starts working, heat
the catalytic combustor warranty also
generated in it by burning the smoke will
supplied with this wood heater. Warranty
keep it working.’’
claims should be addressed to:
Exhibit 5—Example Text for Item (c):
Stove or Catalyst Manufacturer llllll
‘‘REFUELING: During the refueling and
Address
llllllllllllllll
Phone # lllllllllllllllll rekindling of a cool fire, or a fire that has
burned down to the charcoal phase, operate
2.3.3.1 This section should also provide
the stove at a medium to high firing rate for
clear instructions on how to exercise the
about 10 minutes to ensure that the catalyst
warranty (how to package for return
reaches approximately 600 °F.’’
shipment, etc.).
2.3.6 Catalyst Monitoring
2.3.4 Fuel Selection
Owner’s manuals must include:
Owner’s manuals must include:
(a) Recommendation to visually inspect
(a) Instructions on acceptable fuels; and
combustor at least three times during the
(b) Warning against inappropriate fuels.
heating season;
Exhibit 3—Example Text covering (a) and
(b) Discussion on expected combustor
(b):
temperatures for monitor-equipped units;
‘‘This heater is designed to burn natural
and
wood only. Higher efficiencies and lower
(c) Suggested monitoring and inspection
emissions generally result when burning air
techniques.
dried seasoned hardwoods, as compared to
Exhibit 6—Example Text covering (a), (b)
softwoods or to green or freshly cut
and (c):
hardwoods.
‘‘It is important to periodically monitor the
DO NOT BURN:
operation of the catalytic combustor to
ensure that it is functioning properly and to
• Treated Wood
determine when it needs to be replaced. A
• Coal
non-functioning combustor will result in a
• Garbage
loss of heating efficiency, and an increase in
• Cardboard
creosote and emissions. Following is a list of
• Solvents
items that should be checked on a periodic
• Colored Paper
basis:
• Trash
• Combustors should be visually inspected
Burning treated wood, garbage, solvents,
at least three times during the heating season
colored paper or trash may result in release
to determine if physical degradation has
of toxic fumes and may poison or render
occurred. Actual removal of the combustor is
ineffective the catalytic combustor. Burning
not recommended unless more detailed
coal, cardboard, or loose paper can produce
soot, or large flakes of char or fly ash that can inspection is warranted because of decreased
performance. If any of these conditions
coat the combustor, causing smoke spillage
exists, refer to Catalyst Troubleshooting
into the room, and rendering the combustor
section of this owner’s manual.
ineffective.’’
• This catalytic heater is equipped with a
2.3.5 Achieving and Maintaining Catalyst
temperature probe to monitor catalyst
Light-Off
operation. Properly functioning combustors
typically maintain temperatures in excess of
Owner’s manuals must describe in detail
500 °F, and often reach temperatures in
proper procedures for:
excess of 1,000 °F. If catalyst temperatures
(a) Operation of catalyst bypass (stove
are not in excess of 500 °F, refer to Catalyst
specific),
Troubleshooting section of this owner’s
(b) Achieving catalyst light-off from a cold
manual.
start, and
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
conditions this heater has been shown to
deliver heat at rates ranging from 8,000 to
35,000 Btu/hr.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6415
• You can get an indication of whether the
catalyst is working by comparing the amount
of smoke leaving the chimney when the
smoke is going through the combustor and
catalyst light-off has been achieved, to the
amount of smoke leaving the chimney when
the smoke is not routed through the
combustor (bypass mode).
Step 1—Light stove in accordance with
instructions in 3.3.5.
Step 2—With smoke routed through the
catalyst, go outside and observe the
emissions leaving the chimney.
Step 3—Engage the bypass mechanism and
again observe the emissions leaving the
chimney.
Significantly more smoke should be seen
when the exhaust is not routed through the
combustor (bypass mode). Be careful not to
confuse smoke with steam from wet wood.’’
2.3.7 Catalyst Troubleshooting
The owner’s manual must provide clear
descriptions of symptoms and remedies to
common combustor problems. It is
recommended that photographs of catalyst
peeling, plugging, thermal cracking,
mechanical cracking, and masking be
included in the manual to aid the consumer
in identifying problems and to provide
direction for corrective action.
2.3.8 Catalyst Replacement
The owner’s manual must provide clear
step-by-step instructions on how to remove
and replace the catalytic combustor. The
section should include diagrams and/or
photographs.
2.3.9 Wood Heater Operation and
Maintenance
Owner’s manual must include:
(a) Recommendations about building and
maintaining a fire;
(b) Instruction on proper use of air
controls;
(c) Ash removal and disposal;
(d) Instruction on gasket replacement; and
(e) Warning against overfiring.
2.3.9.1 No example text is supplied for
(a), (b), and (d) since these items are model
specific. Manufacturers should provide
detailed instructions on building and
maintaining a fire including selection of fuel
pieces, fuel quantity, and stacking
arrangement. Manufacturers should also
provide instruction on proper air settings
(both primary and secondary) for attaining
minimum and maximum heat outputs and
any special instructions for operating
thermostatic controls. Step-by-step
instructions on inspection and replacement
of gaskets should also be included.
Manufacturers should provide diagrams and/
or photographs to assist the consumer. Gasket
type and size should be specified.
Exhibit 7—Example Text for Item (c):
‘‘Whenever ashes get 3 to 4 inches deep in
your firebox or ash pan, and when the fire
has burned down and cooled, remove excess
ashes. Leave an ash bed approximately 1 inch
deep on the firebox bottom to help maintain
a hot charcoal bed.’’
‘‘Ashes should be placed in a metal
container with a tight-fitting lid. The closed
container of ashes should be placed on a
noncombustible floor or on the ground, away
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
6416
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
from all combustible materials, pending final
disposal. The ashes should be retained in the
closed container until all cinders have
thoroughly cooled.’’
Exhibit 8—Example Text covering Item (e):
‘‘DO NOT OVERFIRE THIS HEATER’’
‘‘Attempts to achieve heat output rates that
exceed heater design specifications can result
in permanent damage to the heater and to the
catalytic combustor if so equipped.’’
2.3.10 Wood Heater Installation:
Achieving Proper Draft
Owner’s manual must include:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:15 Jan 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
(a) Importance of proper draft;
(b) Conditions indicating inadequate draft;
and
(c) Conditions indicating excessive draft.
Exhibit 9—Example Text for Item (a):
‘‘Draft is the force which moves air from
the appliance up through the chimney. The
amount of draft in your chimney depends on
the length of the chimney, local geography,
nearby obstructions, and other factors. Too
much draft may cause excessive temperatures
in the appliance and may damage the
catalytic combustor. Inadequate draft may
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
cause backpuffing into the room and
‘plugging’ of the chimney or the catalyst.’’
Exhibit 10—Example Text for Item (b):
‘‘Inadequate draft will cause the appliance
to leak smoke into the room through
appliance and chimney connector joints.’’
Exhibit 11—Example Text for Item (c):
‘‘An uncontrollable burn or a glowing red
stove part or chimney connector indicates
excessive draft.’’
[FR Doc. 2014–00409 Filed 1–31–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM
03FEP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6329-6416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00409]
[[Page 6329]]
Vol. 79
Monday,
No. 22
February 3, 2014
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New
Residential Masonry Heaters; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 6330]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734; FRL-9904-05-OAR]
RIN 2060-AP93
Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New
Residential Masonry Heaters
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to amend the Standards of Performance for
New Residential Wood Heaters and to add two new subparts: Standards of
Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air
Furnaces and Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry
Heaters. This proposal is aimed at achieving several objectives for new
residential wood heaters and other wood-burning appliances, including
applying updated emission limits that reflect the current best systems
of emission reduction; eliminating exemptions over a broad suite of
residential wood combustion devices; strengthening test methods as
appropriate; and streamlining the certification process. This proposal
does not include any requirements for heaters solely fired by gas, oil
or coal. In addition, it does not include any requirements associated
with appliances that are already in use. The EPA continues to encourage
state, local, tribal, and consumer efforts to changeout (replace) older
heaters with newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that is not
part of this federal rulemaking.
Particulate pollution from wood heaters is a significant national
air pollution problem and human health issue. Health benefits
associated with these proposed regulations are valued to be much
greater than the cost to manufacture cleaner, lower emitting
appliances. These proposed regulations would significantly reduce
particulate matter (PM) emissions and many other pollutants from these
appliances, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Emissions from wood stoves
occur near ground level in residential communities across the country,
and setting these new requirements for cleaner stoves into the future
will result in substantial reductions in exposure and improved public
health.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2014. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before March 5, 2014.
Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed
rule on February 26, 2014, in Boston, Massachusetts. The hearing will
be at the following location: EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Leighton Hall, Boston, MA. For directions and
public transportation, visit: https://www.epa.gov/region1/directions/.
Please note that 5 Post Office Square is a federal building, and proper
identification is required for entry.
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity
to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed rule. The
EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but
will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements
and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearing. Written comments must be
postmarked by the last day of the 90-day comment period.
If you would like to present oral testimony at the hearing, please
register on-line (preferred method for registering) at https://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters no later than February 19, 2014,
to request a general time slot for you to speak and any special
equipment. If this method is not available to you, please notify Mr.
David Cole no later than February 19, 2014, by email:
cole.david@epa.gov); or by telephone: (919) 541-5565. The EPA will make
every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day
of the hearing. The public hearing will begin each day at 9 a.m. (local
time) and continue into the evening until 7 p.m. (local time). The EPA
will make every effort to accommodate all other speakers who arrive and
register before 7 p.m. (local time) on the day of the hearing. The EPA
is scheduling lunch breaks from 12:30 until 2 p.m. (local time).
Testimony will be limited to five (5) minutes for each commenter to
address the proposal. We will not be providing equipment for commenters
to show overhead slides or make computerized slide presentations unless
we receive special requests in advance. The EPA encourages commenters
to provide written versions of their oral testimonies either
electronically on computer disk or CD-ROM or in paper copy.
The hearing schedule, including lists of speakers, will be posted
on the EPA's Web page for the proposal at: https://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters prior to the hearing. Verbatim transcript of
the hearing and written statements will be included in the rulemaking
docket.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0734, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0734.
Mail: United States (U.S.) Postal Service, send comments
to EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Please include
a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments
on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 735 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket),
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, Attention
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0734. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of
[[Page 6331]]
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to section I.D.2 of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Gil Wood, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Outreach and Information Division, Community and Tribal
Programs Group (C304-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5272; fax number: (919) 541-0242; email address: wood.gil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
A. What is the NSPS program?
B. Why was the original residential wood heaters NSPS developed?
C. What are the requirements of the current 1988 NSPS?
D. What are the major developments since the original NSPS was
published?
E. Why is residential wood smoke a concern?
F. What are the major issues that drove the review process?
III. Summary of Proposed Residential Wood Heater Appliance
Amendments
A. Room Heaters
B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
C. Masonry Heaters
IV. Summary of Environmental, Cost, Economic, and Non-Air Health and
Energy Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the benefits?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the non-air quality health and energy impacts?
V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments
A. Why are we proposing to expand the scope of appliances
subject to the NSPS?
B. How did we determine BSER and the proposed emission
standards?
C. How did we establish the proposed compliance timelines?
D. How are we proposing to streamline the requirements for
certification, quality assurance and laboratory accreditation?
E. What changes and additions to the allowed test methods are we
proposing?
F. What other changes and additions to the administrative
requirements are we proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to the
Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters (40 CFR part
60, subpart AAA) and to add two new subparts: Standards of Performance
for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces and
Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry Heaters (40 CFR
part 60, subparts QQQQ and RRRR). This proposal was developed following
a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(b)(1)(B) periodic review of the
current residential wood heaters new source performance standards
(NSPS). We concur with numerous stakeholders that the current body of
evidence justifies revision of the current residential wood heaters
NSPS to capture the improvements in performance of such units and to
expand the applicability of this NSPS to include additional wood-
burning residential heating devices that are in the market. The
proposed changes are aimed at achieving several objectives, including
applying updated emission limits that reflect the current best systems
of emission reduction (BSER); eliminating exemptions over a broad suite
of residential wood combustion devices; strengthening test methods as
appropriate; and streamlining the certification process. This proposal
does not include any requirements for heaters solely fired by gas, oil
or coal. In addition, it does not include any requirements associated
with wood heaters or other wood-burning appliances that are already in
use. The EPA continues to encourage state, local, tribal, and consumer
efforts to changeout (replace) older heaters with newer, cleaner, more
efficient heaters, but that is not part of this federal rulemaking.
These revisions will help reduce the health impacts of fine
particle pollution, of which wood smoke is a contributing factor in
many areas. Residential wood smoke contains fine particles with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), CO,
toxic air pollutants (e.g., benzene and formaldehyde), and climate-
forcing emissions (e.g., methane and black carbon). Residential wood
smoke can increase PM2.5 to levels that cause significant
health concerns. Populations that are at greater risk for experiencing
health effects related to fine particle exposures include older adults,
children and individuals with pre-existing heart
[[Page 6332]]
or lung disease. Each year, smoke from wood heaters contributes
hundreds of thousands of tons of fine particles throughout the
country--mostly during the winter months. Nationally, residential wood
combustion accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile
polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions, nearly 25 percent of all
area source air toxics cancer risks and 15 percent of noncancer
respiratory effects.\1\ Residential wood smoke causes many counties in
the U.S. to either exceed the EPA's health-based national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles or places them on the cusp
of exceeding those standards.\2\ To the degree that older, higher
emitting, less efficient wood heaters are replaced by newer heaters
that meet the requirements of this rule, or better, the emissions would
be reduced, the efficiencies would be increased and fewer health
impacts should occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke. EPA-456/B-
13-001, March 2013. Prepared by Outreach and Information Division,
Air Quality Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. pp. 4-5.
\2\ Air Quality and Emissions Data; Supporting Information for
the Residential Wood Heater New Source Performance Standard, August
14, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is conducted under the authority of section 111 of the
CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,'' under
which the EPA establishes federal standards of performance for new
sources within source categories that cause or contribute significantly
to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. Consistent with section 111(h), if it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, the
Administrator may instead promulgate a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that
reflects the best system of continuous emission reduction, which
(taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission
reduction, and any non-air quality, health, and environmental impact
and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Proposed Regulatory Action
In response to the results of the NSPS review, we are proposing to
amend 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New
Residential Wood Heaters. The current regulation applies to affected
appliances manufactured after 1988. The current emission limits would
remain in effect for the heaters and model lines manufactured before
the effective date of this rule until their current EPA certification
expires (maximum of 5 years) or is revoked. After the certification
expires or is revoked, these heaters and other new heaters would have
to meet updated emission standards. We propose to broaden the
applicability of the regulation beyond adjustable burn rate wood
heaters (the focus of the original regulation), to specifically include
all single burn rate wood heaters/stoves and pellet heaters/stoves.
(Some pellet heaters/stoves were not affected by the 1988 regulation.)
Note that this preamble uses the following terms interchangeably:
heaters, stoves and heaters/stoves. Heaters/stoves and model lines
manufactured after the effective date of the rule would be required to
meet PM standards.
As with the 1988 regulation, the source category covered by this
NSPS is fundamentally different from the typical NSPS source category
in several ways. For example, most NSPS source categories focus on
industrial or commercial facilities, and typically these heaters are
installed and operated in residences, not industrial or commercial
facilities. Also, residential wood heaters, hydronic heaters, forced-
air furnaces, and most masonry heaters are mass-produced consumer
items, rather than industrial processes typically regulated by NSPS.
Therefore, as in 1988, we are proposing that manufacturers participate
in a certification program that tests a representative heater per model
line rather than requiring testing each heater. If the representative
heater meets the applicable emission limits, the entire model line may
be certified and the manufacturer would not be required to test every
heater. Individual heaters within the model line would still be subject
to all other requirements, including labeling and operational
requirements. Manufacturers would be required to have quality assurance
programs to ensure that all heaters within the model line conform to
the certified design and meet the applicable emission limits. The EPA
would continue to have the authority to conduct audits to ensure
compliance. We ask for comments on all aspects of this approach,
especially whether more than one representative heater should be tested
prior to certification of the model line.
The 1988 regulation also addressed some of the specific
characteristics of this source category by developing a two-step
compliance approach that provided a reasonable, phased implementation
of emission limits for manufacturers. We believe such an approach is
prudent this time also to allow manufacturers lead time to develop,
test, field evaluate and certify current technologies across their
consumer product lines. In 1988, there were ``logjam'' concerns about
the capacity of accredited laboratories to conduct certifications tests
and time for the EPA to review the tests and adequately assure
compliance if all the NSPS requirements were to be immediate. Those
concerns have been expressed this time also. Thus, upon the effective
date of this rule, new heaters/stoves would be required to meet Step 1.
Five years later, new heaters/stoves would be required to meet Step 2.
The rule also would require that each unit be equipped with a permanent
NSPS label. The two-step approach would apply to all the heater types
addressed in this rulemaking except for masonry heaters. For masonry
heaters, we are not proposing a second more stringent emission limit.
Additional requirements would apply to entities other than the
manufacturer. The wood heater test laboratory would be subject to
quality assurance requirements. The rule would continue to require the
proper burn practices that currently apply to the owner or operator of
a wood heating appliance. In addition, new pellet heater/stove owners
and operators would be required to use only the grade of licensed
pellet fuels that are included in the heater/stove certification tests,
or better. We are proposing to streamline the current enforcement and
audit provisions of the current subpart to reflect changes in industry
practices and development of new tools and procedures. We are proposing
improvements to the previous test methods as well as new test methods.
We are also proposing new subpart QQQQ, which would apply to new
wood-fired residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces, and
new subpart RRRR, which would apply to new residential masonry heaters.
These new subparts are being proposed to address the remaining heater
appliance types in the 1987 residential wood heater source category
listing that were not regulated by the 1988 NSPS. Both subparts are
designed using principles similar to those in subpart AAA, i.e.,
certification testing of a representative unit in a model line, label
requirements, associated quality assurance requirements and phased
implementation. Subpart RRRR has some additional features to address
very small volume manufacturers, including a proposed compliance
extension and the ability to use a software certification
[[Page 6333]]
approach rather than a laboratory emission test.
The proposed PM standards for subparts QQQQ and RRRR would be
implemented in two steps. For subpart QQQQ, upon the effective date of
the rule, hydronic heaters would be required to meet a Step 1 PM limit
of 0.32 pound per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) output and
forced-air furnaces would be required to meet a Step 1 PM limit of 0.93
lb/MMBtu heat output. Five years after the effective date of the rule,
both hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces would be required to meet
a Step 2 PM limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu heat output. For subpart RRRR
(masonry heaters), upon the effective date of the rule, large
manufacturers (defined as manufacturers constructing greater than or
equal to 15 masonry heaters per year) would be required to meet a PM
limit of 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output. Five years after the effective date
of the rule, small volume masonry heater manufacturers (defined as
manufacturers constructing less than 15 masonry heaters per year) would
be required to meet the 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output PM limit.
3. Costs and Benefits
Consistent with Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' we have estimated the cost and benefits of the
proposed rule. The estimated net benefits of our proposed rule at a 3
percent discount rate are $1.8 billion to $4.1 billion or $1.7 billion
to $3.7 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. The non-monetized
benefits include 33,000 tons of CO reductions; 3,200 tons of VOC
reductions; reduced exposure to HAP, including formaldehyde, benzene,
and POM; reduced climate effects due to reduced black carbon emissions;
reduced ecosystem effects; and reduced visibility impairments. Table 1
is a summary of the results of the analysis per type of residential
wood heater. We have provided estimates reflecting average annual
impacts for the 2014 to 2022 timeframe, which are the implementation
years for the options analyzed in the RIA for this proposal. Monetized
benefits are not currently available for masonry heaters. We ask for
emission and projected sales data per model that would help us prepare
emission reduction estimates and corresponding monetized benefits
estimates for masonry heaters.
Table 1--Summary of Compliance Costs, Monetized Benefits, and Monetized Net Benefits (2010 Dollars) by Type of
Heater in the 2014-2022 Time Frame for the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized Monetized benefits ($ Monetized net benefits ($
Type of heater costs ($ millions) millions) a b millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood stoves.................... $4.2 $62 to $140.................. $62 to $140.
Single burn rate stoves........ 0.9 $290 to $650................. $290 to $650.
Pellet stoves.................. 3.5 $19 to $43................... $19 to $43.
Forced-air furnaces............ 2.3 $1,000 to $2,200............. $1,000 to $2,200.
Masonry heaters................ 0.3 N/A \c\...................... N/A.
Hydronic heating systems....... 4.5 $480 to $1,100............... $480 to $1,100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the time frame from 2014 to 2022 inclusive. These results include units anticipated to
come online and the lowest cost disposal assumption. Total annualized costs are estimated at a 7 percent
interest rate.
\b\ Total monetized benefits are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The total monetized benefits reflect
the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted
PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated
with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Krewski et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012). These
models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing
premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect
estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were generated using benefit-per-ton estimates, we do not
break down the total monetized benefits into specific components.
\c\ The monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not available because we do not have national estimates of
the potential emission reductions.
B. Does this action apply to me?
The potentially regulated sources that are the subject of this
proposal are listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers
regarding entities likely to be affected by this proposed action. This
standard, and any changes considered in this rulemaking, would be
directly applicable to sources as a federal program. Thus, federal,
state, local and tribal government entities are not affected by this
proposed action.
Table 2--Potentially Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS \a\ Code regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Wood Heating.... 333414--Heating Manufacturers,
Equipment (except owners and
Warm Air Furnaces) operators of wood
Manufacturing. heaters, pellet
heaters/stoves,
hydronic heaters,
and masonry
heaters.
333415--Air- Manufacturers,
Conditioning and owners and
Warm Air Heating operators of forced-
Equipment and air furnaces.
Commercial and
Industrial
Refrigeration
Equipment
Manufacturing.
238140--Masonry Manufacturers,
Contractors. owners, operators
and testers of
masonry heaters.
Testing Laboratories........ 541380--Testing Testers of wood
Laboratories heaters, pellet
(except Medical, heaters/stoves,
Veterinary). hydronic heaters
and masonry
heaters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
[[Page 6334]]
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal, following signature by the EPA Administrator, will be
posted at the following address: https://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters.
D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Instead, clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI and send or deliver only to
the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer
(C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. For CBI
information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that you claim as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the
public docket. If you submit a disk or CD-ROM that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not
contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions. Respond to specific questions and
organize comments by a section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats or character assassination.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline.
II. Background
A. What is the NSPS program?
Under section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' the EPA lists categories of sources that, in the
EPA's judgment, cause or contribute significantly to air pollution,
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(A), and then promulgates federal
standards of performance for new sources within such categories under
section 111(b)(1)(B). At the time the EPA proposes and establishes
standards for certain pollutants for a source category, the EPA
prepares an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated
with the NSPS, which includes the benefits from reductions in
pollutants for which the standards do not set limits. For example,
emission reductions associated with the requirements of this proposed
rule will generate health benefits by reducing emissions of
PM2.5, other criteria pollutants, such as CO, and non-
criteria HAP. Consistent with section 111(h), if it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, the Administrator may
instead promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof, which reflects the best system of
continuous emission reduction which (taking into consideration the cost
of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality, health,
and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated. The NSPS do not establish
standards of performance for existing sources. However, numerous states
have acted independent of this rule to address new and existing sources
as part of state implementation plan (SIP) measures necessary to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Several examples are discussed
in section II.E of this preamble.
The level of control prescribed by section 111 of the CAA
historically has been referred to as ``Best Demonstrated Technology''
or BDT. To better reflect that section 111 was amended in 1990 to
clarify that ``best systems'' may or may not be ``technology,'' the EPA
is now using the term ``best systems of emission reduction'' or BSER.
As was done previously in analyzing BDT, the EPA uses available
information and considers the emissions reductions and incremental
costs for different systems available at reasonable cost. The
residential wood heaters source category is different from most NSPS
source categories in that it is for mass-produced residential consumer
products. Thus, important elements in determining that BSER include the
significant costs and environmental impacts of delaying production
while models with those systems are being designed, tested, field
evaluated and certified. As noted earlier and discussed more fully
later in this preamble, the 2-step approach that the EPA is proposing
considers these factors. That is, for this rulemaking, the EPA has
determined the appropriate emission limits and compliance deadlines
that together are representative of BSER. Details of the BSER
determinations are included in section V.B. of this preamble.
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to periodically
(every 8 years) review an NSPS unless it determines ``that such review
is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the
efficacy of such standard.'' If needed, the EPA must revise the
standards of performance to reflect improvements in methods for
reducing emissions, including consideration of what emissions
limitation is achieved in practice. Numerous stakeholders have
suggested that the current body of evidence justifies the revision of
the current residential wood heaters NSPS to capture the improvements
in performance of such units and to expand the applicability of this
NSPS to include additional residential wood-burning heating devices
that are available today. The states of New York, Connecticut,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, as well as
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, have filed in U.S. District Court in
Washington, DC, to ask the court to order the EPA to promptly review,
propose and adopt necessary updates to the NSPS for residential wood
heaters. Likewise, the American Lung Association, the Environmental
Defense Fund, the Clean Air Council, and Environment and Human Health,
Inc., have filed a similar request. Also, some stakeholders have
suggested that the
[[Page 6335]]
EPA develop additional NSPS to regulate residential heating devices
that burn fuels other than or in addition to wood, e.g., coal, corn or
grass. This proposal does not include any requirements for heaters that
solely burn fuels other than wood.
B. Why was the original residential wood heaters NSPS developed?
The development of the residential wood heater regulations began in
the mid-1980s in response to the growing concern that wood smoke
contributes to ambient air quality-related health problems. Several
state and local governments developed their own regulations for wood
heaters. Then, in response to a lawsuit filed by New York State and the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the EPA agreed to initiate a
residential wood heaters NSPS rulemaking, with a schedule calling for
final action by January 31, 1988. The original standard was developed
using a regulatory negotiation process with the key stakeholders (the
wood heating industry, state governments, and environmental and
consumer groups) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA listed the
residential wood heater source category based on its determination that
residential wood heaters cause, or contribute significantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare (52 FR 5065, February 18, 1987). The EPA also proposed
regulations for residential wood heaters (52 FR 4994, February 18,
1987). The final standards were published on February 26, 1988 (53 FR
5860). At the time the original NSPS was proposed, the EPA estimated
that a typical pre-NSPS conventional wood heater emits about 60 to 70
g/hr of PM and that a wood heater complying with the NSPS would emit 75
to 86 percent less than conventional wood heaters.
C. What are the requirements of the current 1988 NSPS?
The current subpart AAA defines a wood heater as an enclosed, wood-
burning appliance capable of and intended for space heating or domestic
water heating that meets all of the following criteria:
1. An air-to-fuel ratio (ratio of the mass of combustion air
introduced into the firebox to the mass of dry fuel consumed) in the
combustion chamber averaging less than 35-to-1 as determined by the
test procedure prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534 performed at an accredited
laboratory;
2. A usable firebox volume of less than 0.57 cubic meters (20 cubic
feet);
3. A minimum burn rate (weight of dry test fuel consumed per hour)
of less than 5 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (11 pounds per hour (lb/hr))
as determined by the test procedure prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534
performed at an accredited laboratory; and
4. A maximum weight of 800 kg (1,760 lb), excluding fixtures and
devices that are normally sold separately, such as flue pipe, chimney,
and masonry components that are not an integral part of the appliance
or heat distribution ducting.
In the 1988 rulemaking, the EPA identified several types of
residential wood combustion appliances that are not subject to the
current 1988 NSPS:
Open masonry fireplaces constructed on site
Boilers/Heaters
Furnaces
Cook Stoves
In addition, the current 1988 NSPS exempts the following from the
emission limits:
Wood heaters used solely for research and development
(R&D) purposes
Wood heaters manufactured for export
Coal-only heaters
As noted earlier, because of the specific characteristics of this
source category (e.g., it applies to mass-produced residential consumer
items), the residential wood heaters NSPS (also sometimes informally
referred to as the wood stove NSPS) allows compliance for model lines
to be certified ``pre-sale'' by the manufacturers. A typical NSPS
source category approach that imposes emission standards and then
requires a unit-specific compliance demonstration would have been very
costly and impractical. Therefore, the 1988 NSPS was designed to allow
manufacturers of wood heaters to use a certification program to test
representative wood heaters on a model line basis. Once a model line is
certified, all of the individual units within the model line are
subject to labeling, operational and other requirements. Manufacturers
are then required to conduct a quality assurance program to ensure that
appliances produced within a model line conform to the certified design
and meet the applicable emission limits. There are also provisions for
the EPA to conduct audits to ensure compliance.
As discussed in the 1988 rulemaking, the standards limiting PM
emissions from wood heaters in the current 1988 NSPS were phased in for
this source category because of the need to consider the costs of
delayed production while new models were being developed and certified.
Advanced technology heaters/stoves including both catalytic and
noncatalytic systems were considered to be BDT (now called BSER),
because the net emissions of both systems over time were estimated to
be similar (even though the initial certification test results were
lower for catalytic models) due to possible degradation and lack of
catalyst replacement. The EPA considered requiring catalyst replacement
on a regular schedule but determined that enforcement of such a
requirement would be difficult or impractical. The EPA did require
manufacturers to provide 2-year unconditional warranties on the
catalysts and prohibited the operation of catalytic heaters/stoves
without a catalyst. Principally because of these concerns, the EPA
wanted to ensure that both catalytic and noncatalytic technology would
continue to be options for manufacturers to use and further develop.
The Subpart AAA Phase I standards issued in 1988 were very similar to
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality standards that had been
in existence for a few years. The Subpart AAA Phase II standards,
issued in 1988 and which are still in effect, are more stringent and
had to be met within 2 years of publication of the final rule, i.e., by
1990. Models equipped with a catalytic combustor cannot emit more than
a weighted average of 4.1 g of PM per hour. Models that are not
equipped with a catalytic combustor cannot emit more than a weighted
average of 7.5 g of PM per hour. The lower initial emission limit for
the catalytic combustor-equipped models incorporates an expected
deterioration rate for the catalysts such that after 5 years the
emissions from those models were expected to be similar to the
emissions from noncatalytic models.
D. What are the major developments since the original NSPS was
published?
New systems for residential wood heating devices are commercially
available in the U.S. that perform at significantly lower g/hr emission
rates than required under the current 1988 NSPS. Furthermore, even
greater performance potentially can be achieved by greater deployment
of the best U.S. systems and the typical systems already widely
employed in Europe, especially for outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters.
The EPA has conducted a research project ``Environmental
Characterization of Outdoor Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters'' through a
cooperative R&D agreement with the New York State Energy Research and
[[Page 6336]]
Development Authority (NYSERDA) that evaluated four types of technology
ranging from a common outdoor wood boiler/heater to a state-of-the-art,
high-efficiency pellet boiler/heater from Austria. The study showed
considerable emission reduction due to a 2-stage combustion technology
that includes gasification of the fuel and more complete combustion.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Environmental, Energy Market, And Health Characterization Of
Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies. Prepared by U.S. EPA Office
of Research and Development, et al., prepared for NYSERDA. June
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many stakeholders have expressed concern to the EPA about a broad
range of residential wood heating appliances that do not have emission
standards in the current 1988 NSPS. These include single burn rate wood
heaters; pellet heaters/stoves that are not subject to the current
standard via the NSPS air-to-fuel ratio; wood ``boilers'' (hydronic
heaters); forced-air furnaces; and masonry heaters. Some stakeholders
have also expressed an interest in regulating non-``heater'' devices,
such as indoor and outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, cook stoves and pizza
ovens.
One category of wood heating appliances that has undergone
significant growth is wood heaters/boilers or ``hydronic heaters.''
(Note that these units are technically called heaters rather than
boilers because many are not pressurized and do not boil the liquid.)
Hydronic heaters are typically located outside the buildings they heat
in small sheds with short smokestacks. These appliances burn wood to
heat a liquid (water or a water-antifreeze mixture) that is piped to
provide heat and hot water to occupied buildings, such as homes. Often,
in addition to supplying heat for homes, the same unit is used to
provide heat for barns and greenhouses and to provide warm water for
swimming pools. Hydronic heaters may also be located indoors and may
use other biomass (such as corn or wood pellets) or coal or a
combination for fuel.
Studies have shown that PM2.5 concentrations in
proximity to a typical outdoor hydronic heater (aka outdoor wood
boiler) can exceed the 24-hour NAAQS.\4\ Thus, the EPA developed a
hydronic heater voluntary partnership program in order to encourage
manufacturers to reduce impacts on air quality and health through
developing and distributing cleaner hydronic heaters for those
locations where local jurisdictions allow hydronic heaters. We
developed the voluntary partnership program with the goal of bringing
cleaner models to market faster than the traditional federal regulatory
process. Properly operated Phase 1 \5\ emission level (0.60 lb/MMBtu
heat input) qualifying \6\ units are approximately 70 percent cleaner
than typical unqualified units. After March 31, 2010, units that only
meet the Phase 1 emission level are no longer considered ``qualified
models'' under the voluntary partnership program. Properly operated
Phase 2 emission level (0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output) qualifying units are
estimated to be approximately 90 percent cleaner than typical
unqualified units. Typically, qualified models have improved
insulation, secondary combustion, separation of the firebox from the
water jacket, and the addition of improved heat exchangers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For more information on wood smoke health effects, see:
``Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York
State,'' prepared by Judith Schrieber, Ph.D., et al., for the Office
of the Attorney General of New York. August 2005. See also:
``Assessment of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers,'' prepared by NESCAUM,
March 2006 (revised June 2006).
\5\ ``Phase 1'' and ``Phase 2'' emission levels refer to levels
established in EPA voluntary partnership programs. The earlier use
of the term ``Phase II'' (with a Roman numeral) standard refers to
standards established in the current subpart AAA for residential
wood heaters.
\6\ The terms ``qualified'' and ``unqualified,'' or other
similar terms, refer to models that meet or have not been shown to
meet the voluntary partnership program performance levels. Later use
of the terms ``certified'' and ``uncertified,'' or other similar
terms, refers to models that are deemed to be in compliance or
noncompliance with the NSPS emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the voluntary partnership program, the EPA provided
technical and financial support for the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop a model rule that
several states have adopted to regulate hydronic heaters. The model
rule is a starting point for local regulatory authorities to consider,
and additional actions may be needed due to site-specific concerns,
e.g., local terrain, meteorology, proximity of neighbors and other
exposed individuals. Thus, some regulatory authorities have instituted
additional requirements, such as limits on proximity to neighbors,
limits on visible emissions and limits on use in non-heating seasons.
Some authorities have banned hydronic heaters entirely in some areas.
The EPA also developed a similar voluntary partnership program for
low mass fireplaces (engineered, pre-fabricated fireplaces) and site-
built masonry fireplaces. Fireplaces were not included in the 1988 NSPS
for residential wood heaters because typical fireplaces are not
considered to be effective ``heaters.'' Most of the heat content from
the wood burned in a typical fireplace is lost out the chimney rather
than heating a room. The voluntary program began in February 2009, and
pertained only to low mass fireplaces at that time. In July 2009, the
program was expanded to masonry fireplaces. Under this program, cleaner
burning fireplaces are ones that qualify for the Phase 1 emissions
level of 7.3 grams of particles emitted per kilogram (g/kg) of fuel
burned (approximately 57 percent cleaner than unqualified models) or
the Phase 2 emissions level of 5.1 g/kg (approximately 70 percent
cleaner than unqualified models). So far, 36 models (of hundreds of
models on the market) have qualified under this voluntary partnership
program at the Phase 2 level. Typically, qualified models have improved
insulation and added secondary combustion and/or a catalyst to reduce
emissions. Some manufacturers have added doors to reduce the excess air
and thus improve combustion. The Phase 2 emission level in the
voluntary fireplace program has been considered as a starting point for
some local regulatory authorities, and additional actions have also
been considered due to site-specific concerns, e.g., local terrain,
meteorology, proximity of neighbors and other exposed individuals, and
magnitude of other emissions in the airshed. Thus, some regulatory
authorities have instituted additional requirements (e.g., ``no burn''
days on which the fireplaces cannot be operated) and some have banned
new wood-burning fireplaces in some areas.
The current 1988 NSPS in subpart AAA have been in effect for over
25 years and manufacturers and test laboratories have gained
considerable experience in complying with the requirements of the
program. As a result, many manufacturers and test laboratories have
suggested changes to the certification process to better implement the
program, such as developing an electronic system for submittals and
approval. Many manufacturers and test laboratories have also questioned
the effectiveness of some of the current audit procedures. In addition,
they have participated in the development of new test methods and test
method improvements as part of the efforts of ASTM International
(formerly known as the American Society of Testing and Materials). The
1988 NSPS left a placeholder for development of an efficiency test
method for use in subpart AAA. On June 1, 2007, the EPA approved the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) stack loss method in B415 as an
alternative for wood heater efficiency testing in subpart AAA
[[Page 6337]]
provided that the tests use the same burn rate categories specified in
the EPA Reference Method 28. We are now proposing that the current
version of this method be used for efficiency testing (CSA B415.1-10).
We are also proposing EPA Method 28 WHH (wood-fired hydronic heaters)
that has been used for qualification testing of hydronic heaters in the
EPA voluntary partnership program and numerous state regulations. Other
issues that have been identified over the years regarding test methods
and emissions calculations include emissions averaging, burn rate
weightings, hot start versus cold start, emission caps per burn rate,
and catalyst degradation. Another issue is whether to change current
requirements to conduct certification tests with ``crib'' wood to
``cord'' wood. ``Crib wood'' is a specified configuration and quality
of dimensional lumber and spacers, which was intended to improve the
repeatability of the test method in 1988. ``Cord wood'' is a different
specified configuration and quality of wood that more closely resembles
what a typical homeowner would use. We address all these issues as part
of this proposal.
E. Why is residential wood smoke a concern?
1. Health and air quality concerns. There is increasing recognition
of the health impacts of particle pollution, to which wood smoke is a
contributing factor in many areas. Wood smoke contains a mixture of
gases and fine particles that can cause immediate effects, including
burning eyes, runny nose and bronchitis. Exposure to fine particles has
been associated with a range of health effects, including aggravation
of heart or respiratory problems (as indicated by increased hospital
admissions and emergency department visits), changes in lung function
and increased respiratory symptoms, as well as premature death.
Populations at greater risk for experiencing health effects related to
fine particle exposures include older adults, children and individuals
with pre-existing heart or lung disease.\7\ Residential wood smoke
contains fine particles and toxic air pollutants (e.g., benzene and
formaldehyde). Each year, smoke from wood heaters contributes hundreds
of thousands of tons of fine particles throughout the country--mostly
during the winter months. Nationally, residential wood combustion
accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile POM emissions,
nearly 25 percent of all area source air toxics cancer risks, and 15
percent of noncancer respiratory effects.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA Burn Wise (Consumer--Health Effects), https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/healtheffects.html.
\8\ Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke. EPA-456/B-
13-001, March 2013. Prepared by Outreach and Information Division,
Air Quality Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. pp. 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a number of communities, residential wood smoke increases
particle pollution to levels that cause significant health concerns.
Several areas with wood smoke problems either exceed the EPA's health-
based NAAQS for fine particles or are on the cusp of exceeding those
standards. For example, in places such as Keene, New Hampshire;
Sacramento, California; Tacoma, Washington; and Fairbanks, Alaska; wood
combustion can contribute over 50 percent of daily wintertime fine
particle emissions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Memorandum dated April 4, 2013, from David Cole, EPA, to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2012, the EPA issued revised NAAQS for PM to provide
increased protection of public health and welfare. The 2012 NAAQS for
PM strengthened the annual NAAQS for fine particles to 12 micrograms
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) from the 1997 standard of 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ and retained the existing 24-hour fine particle standard of 35
[micro]g/m\3\ issued in 2006. The 2012 NAAQS for PM also retains the
current 24-hour PM10 standards for health and environmental
effects at a level of 150 [micro]g/m\3\ to continue to provide
protection against effects associated with exposure to thoracic coarse
particles. Areas that do not meet the standards must take steps to
reduce PM emissions. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(NACAA), the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), NESCAUM, the
Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR), and the Lake Michigan
Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) have argued that more stringent
standards for new wood heating devices would provide a much needed tool
for states and local communities to use in addressing the growth of
pollution from these sources.10 11 Recent health studies
considered in the review of the PM NAAQS confirm the impacts on public
health. The latest information on the PM NAAQS reviews is at https://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Arthur Marin, Executive Director of NESCAUM and Dan
Johnson, Executive Director of WESTAR, to Steve Page, Director
OAQPS/EPA. April 28, 2008.
\11\ Arthur Marin, Executive Director of NESCAUM, to Gina
McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation/EPA. January
14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also concern about the health effects of other pollutants
found in wood smoke. In addition to PM, wood smoke contains harmful
chemical substances such as CO, formaldehyde and other organic gases,
and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
Health effects from CO include:
Interference with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to
the brain, which impairs thinking and reflexes
Heart pain
Lower birth weights and increased deaths in newborns
Death
Health effects from formaldehyde and other organic gases include:
Irritation of eyes, nose, and throat
Inflammation of mucous membranes, irritation of the throat
and sinuses
Interference with lung function
Allergic reactions
Nose and throat cancer in animals and cancer in humans
Nitrogen oxide can irritate the eyes and respiratory system, may
damage the immune system by impairing the body's ability to fight
respiratory infection and can affect lung function.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Department of Ecology, State of Washington, Brochure on
Wood Smoke and Your Health. September 2008, https://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/91br023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential wood combustion emissions contain potentially
carcinogenic compounds including formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, and dioxin, which are toxic air
pollutants, but their effects on human health via exposure to wood
smoke have not been studied as extensively.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EPA Burn Wise (Health Effects of Breathing Wood Smoke),
https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/woodsmoke_health_effects_jan07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Concerns about existing sources. Many areas of the country are
struggling with reducing PM emissions due to residential wood smoke
from existing wood-burning appliances. Existing wood heaters will not
be affected by this rule. In addition, due to the long life span of
wood-burning appliances and slow turnover, it may be many years before
the full benefits of these regulations on new appliances will be shown.
However, there are strategies to reduce wood smoke that states,
counties and townships can take to reduce wood smoke independent of
this rule.\14\ Some states have direct legislative authority, and all
states have authority to address new and existing sources as SIP
measures necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
For examples, the State of
[[Page 6338]]
Oregon, Washoe County (NV), and Township of Mammoth Lakes (CA) have
required that, when a home is sold, existing wood heaters that have not
been certified to meet the NSPS be removed and destroyed and not
resold. As additional SIP strategies, some states and local authorities
have banned wood burning during certain high PM events, restricted the
amount of burning, and regulated the type of materials being burned.
Non-regulatory programs, such as education programs to teach the public
how to use their wood-burning appliances in ways that minimize
emissions, have also been implemented. The EPA has also implemented
programs that encourage good burning practices, which can have a
significant impact on emissions. The EPA, some state and local
agencies, and other stakeholders, including the Hearth, Patio and
Barbecue Association (HPBA), have been active in promoting wood heater/
stove changeout programs to replace older, higher-emitting heaters/
stoves with lower-emitting EPA-certified heaters/stoves, pellet
heaters/stoves, or other cleaner burning appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke,'' EPA-
456/B-13-001. March 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. What are the major issues that drove the review process?
We received several requests to conduct a review of the residential
wood heaters NSPS, including a joint letter from WESTAR and NESCAUM
that urged us to update and develop regulations relating to a variety
of wood combustion devices. The authors cited concerns that many
communities are measuring ambient conditions above or very close to the
PM2.5 NAAQS and that, in many instances, emissions from wood
smoke are a large contributor to those high PM2.5 levels. In
addition, wood heater technology has greatly improved since the last
revision of the NSPS. The standards we are proposing today recognize
the cleaner, more efficient technologies developed in recent years.
Other states, environmental groups, and HPBA have also recommended
several changes to the NSPS. The HPBA Outdoor Wood-fired Hydronic
Heater (OWHH) Manufacturers Caucus wrote the EPA to express their
unanimous support for the EPA to develop a federal regulation for
OWHH.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ HPBA OWHH Caucus letter to Greg Green, Director, Outreach
and Information Division, EPA. September 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific requests from stakeholders include:
Tightening emission standards based on current performance
data
Addressing other pollutants of concern
Reviewing the format of the standards, including adding
requirements to document the tested efficiency of the unit
Reevaluating exemptions, such as those based on air-to-
fuel ratios and size and weight
Adding other wood heating devices such as pellet heaters/
stoves, hydronic heaters, and masonry heaters to the NSPS
Regulating fireplaces and other ``non-heater'' devices
(e.g., cook stoves)
Regulating heating devices that burn fuel other than wood
(e.g., other solid biomass and coal)
Updating test methods
Streamlining the certification process to use electronic
data submittals/reviews
Considering use of International Organization for
Standardization (ISO)-accredited labs and ISO-accredited certifying
bodies
Improving compliance assurance/enforceability and quality
assurance/quality control
Making the rule more consumer friendly by making more
information readily available on-line
III. Summary of Proposed Residential Wood Heater Appliance Amendments
We are proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of
Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. We are also proposing two
new subparts to address additional types of residential wood heating
appliances. Specifically, we are proposing subpart QQQQ, Standards of
Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air
Furnaces, and subpart RRRR, Standards of Performance for New
Residential Masonry Heaters. The following sections describe the major
provisions of each subpart. This proposal does not include any
requirements that would apply to heaters that are fueled solely by gas,
oil or coal. In addition, this proposal does not include any
requirements associated with wood heaters or other wood-burning
appliances that are already in use. The EPA continues to encourage
state, local, tribal, and consumer efforts to changeout (replace) older
heaters with newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that is not
part of this federal rulemaking.
A. Room Heaters
The current 1988 regulation (subpart AAA) applies to affected
appliances manufactured since 1988. The current emission limits would
remain in effect for the heaters and model lines manufactured before
the effective date of this rule until their current EPA certification
expires (maximum of 5 years) or is revoked. After the certification
expires or is revoked, these heaters and other new heaters would have
to meet updated emission standards. We propose to broaden the
applicability of the wood heaters regulation beyond adjustable burn
rate wood heaters (the focus of the original regulation) to
specifically also include single burn rate wood heaters/stoves, pellet
heaters/stoves, and any other affected appliance as defined in the
proposed subpart AAA as a ``room heater.'' The proposed subpart AAA
does not apply to new residential hydronic heaters, new residential
forced-air furnaces and new residential masonry heaters because they
would be subject to their own subparts. Like the 1988 current subpart
AAA, the proposed subpart AAA does not apply to fireplaces. This
proposal tightens the definition for ``cook stoves'' and adds
definitions for ``camp stoves'' and ``traditional Native American bake
ovens'' to clarify that they would not be subject to the standard other
than appropriate labeling for cook stoves and camp stoves. Finally, the
proposed subpart AAA clarifies that the emission limits would only
apply to wood-burning devices (i.e., not to devices that only burn
fuels other than wood, e.g., gas, oil or coal).
As discussed in section II, NSPS determinations of BSER must
consider costs. The fact that this source category is for consumer
products manufactured for residential sale results in cost
considerations that are different from those for industrial process
source categories that are typical for most NSPS. Specifically, if
production and sales were to be suspended while designing, testing,
field evaluating and certifying cleaner models, the cost of potential
lost revenues would be significant, which necessitates reasonable lead
times for compliance with proposed emission limitations. This was true
in 1988, and is still true today. Thus, we propose to allow a
transition period so that heaters/stoves with EPA certification
currently in effect can continue to be manufactured and sold until the
current certification expires (5 years from date of certification) or
is revoked by the Administrator, whichever date is earlier. We would
not allow renewal of these certifications. That is, in the near term,
we are proposing to retain the current Phase II PM emission limits
(issued in the current 1988 standards for compliance in 1990) for
adjustable burn
[[Page 6339]]
rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/stoves with a current EPA
certification issued prior to the effective date of this rule. While
our top priorities are to ensure that emission reductions occur in a
timely manner and that there is no backsliding from the improvements
that many manufacturers have already made, it is also important to
avoid unreasonable economic impacts on those manufacturers (mostly
small businesses) who need additional time to develop a full range of
cleaner models. The compliance schedule should also help avoid
potential ``logjams'' at laboratories conducting certification testing.
We ask for specific comments on the length of this proposed transition
and the degree to which there would be any critical economic impacts on
manufacturers who have heaters with current certifications if we were
to not allow up to the full 5-year certification period for units
manufactured after the effective date of the final rule. We also ask
for specific comments on allowing grandfathering of Step 1 models that
are tested in good faith according to the proposed test methods and the
proposed emission limits, even though the final test methods may differ
from this proposal, and if so, for how long.
We are proposing a two-step compliance approach (referred to herein
as the ``Proposed Approach'') that would apply to all new adjustable
burn rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters and pellet
heaters/stoves. Under this Proposed Approach, the Proposed Step 1
emission limits for these sources would apply to each source (a)
manufactured on or after the effective date of the final rule or (b)
sold at retail on or after the date 6 months from the effective date of
the final rule. Proposed Step 2 emission limits for these sources would
apply to each adjustable rate wood heater, single burn rate wood heater
and pellet heater/stove manufactured or sold on or after the date 5
years after the effective date of the final rule. We ask for specific
comments on the Proposed Approach and the degree to which these dates
could be sooner.
We are also asking for comments on a three-step compliance approach
(referred to herein as the ``Alternative Approach'') for all adjustable
rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/
stoves. Under this Alternative Approach, the Alternative Step 1
emission limits would apply to each source: (a) manufactured on or
after the effective date of the final rule, or (b) sold at retail on or
after the date 6 months from the effective date of the final rule.
(Step 1 under the Alternative Approach is the same as Step 1 under the
Proposed Approach.) The Alternative Step 2 emission limits would apply
to each source manufactured or sold on or after the date 3 years after
the effective date of the final rule. The Alternative Step 3 emission
limits would apply to each source manufactured or sold on or after the
date 8 years following the effective date of the final rule (thus
providing 5 years between the Alternative Step 2 and Alternative Step
3). We ask for specific comments on this Alternative Approach,
including data and potential environmental and economic impacts on this
alternative, and the degree to which the Alternative Approach emission
levels and dates could be considered BSER. Our current preference is
the Proposed Approach, but we intend to finalize a single compliance
approach after fully considering the comments received during the
public comment period on this proposed rulemaking.
Table 3 summarizes the PM emissions standards that would apply to
each wood heater appliance under this Proposed Approach at each step.
Table 4 summarizes the PM emissions standards that would apply to each
wood heater appliance under each step of the Alternative Approach.
Table 3--Proposed Approach Subpart AAA PM Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM emissions
Appliance Phases/steps limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters Transition period from 4.1 g/hr for
or Pellet Heaters/Stoves with 1988 rule through the catalytic
current EPA certification later of the heaters/stoves
issued prior to the effective effective date of the and 7.5 g/hr
date of the Final Rule. final revised rule or for
expiration of current noncatalytic
certification heaters/stoves.
(maximum of 5 years
certification and no
renewal).
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Step 1: upon the 4.5 g/hr.
Heaters, Single Burn Rate effective date of 1.3 g/hr.
Wood Heaters or Pellet final rule.
Heaters/Stoves (includes Step 2: 5 years after
currently certified heaters the effective date of
after the certification the final rule.
expires, catalytic and
noncatalytic).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Alternative Approach Subpart AAA PM Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM emissions
Appliance Phases/steps limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters Transition period from 4.1 g/hr for
or Pellet Heaters/Stoves with 1988 rule through the catalytic
Current EPA Certification later of the heaters/stoves
Issued Prior to the effective effective date of the and 7.5 g/hr
date of Final Rule. final revised rule or for
expiration of current noncatalytic
certification heaters/stoves.
(maximum of 5 years
certification and no
renewal).
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Step 1: upon the 4.5 g/hr.
Heaters, Single Burn Rate effective date of 2.5 g/hr.
Wood Heaters or Pellet final rule. 1.3 g/hr.
Heaters/Stoves (includes Step 2: 3 years after
currently certified heaters the effective date of
after the certification the final rule.
expires, catalytic and Step 3: 8 years after
noncatalytic). the effective date of
the final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the 1988 promulgated subpart AAA (53 FR 5860, February 26,
1988) included an additional 1-year compliance extension for low-volume
manufacturers, i.e., companies that manufacture (or export to the U.S.)
fewer than 2,000 heaters per year, this proposal does not include a
similar compliance extension. We are not proposing a delay for
adjustable burn rate wood heaters or pellet heaters/stoves because the
majority of these appliances already comply with the proposed Step 1
emission levels. See section V.C. of this preamble for more
[[Page 6340]]
discussion of this topic. However, we are requesting comments on the
possible need for such a compliance extension for single burn rate wood
heaters, which are not subject to the current subpart AAA requirements.
We are proposing to make a single determination of BSER for both
catalytic and noncatalytic heater systems. The EPA considered requiring
catalyst replacement on a regular schedule but determined that federal
enforcement of such a requirement would be difficult. As in the current
1988 rule, we are proposing to require manufacturers to provide
warranties on the catalysts and prohibit the operation of catalytic
heaters/stoves without a catalyst. In addition, we are proposing to
require warranties for noncatalytic heaters/stoves. Though we are not
proposing efficiency standards at this time, we are proposing to
require testing and reporting of these data; however, we are requesting
specific comment on the need to propose efficiency standards and any
data to support the basis for these standards.
We are also proposing to require emission testing and reporting
based on both crib wood and cord wood for the proposed Step 1
compliance, and allowing manufacturers to choose whether to certify
with crib wood or cord wood for the proposed Step 1 upon the effective
date of the final rule. For the proposed Step 2 compliance 5 years
after the effective date of the final rule, we would require certifying
with cord wood only. As discussed earlier in this preamble, ``crib
wood'' is a specified configuration and quality of dimensional lumber
and spacers that was intended to improve the repeatability of the test
method in 1988. ``Cord wood'' is a different specified configuration
and quality of wood that more closely resembles what a typical
homeowner would use. We ask for comments and test data to compare
heater performance with crib wood and cord wood.
Although we lack sufficient data to propose a separate CO emissions
standard at this time, we propose to require that the manufacturer
determine CO emissions during the compliance test and report those
results to the EPA. We specifically request emission and cost data for
systems that reduce CO emissions. If those systems warrant inclusion in
the final rule, we would consider doing so. In addition, we ask for
specific comments on whether the final rule should explicitly require
indoor CO monitors as a critical safety component for heaters installed
in occupied buildings or other buildings or enclosures in which the
operator would enter to add fuel to the heater or conduct other normal
operation and maintenance of the heater. Numerous stakeholders have
indicated that an explicit requirement is needed.
Like the current 1988 subpart, the EPA is using its authority under
section 114 of the CAA to require each manufacturer to submit
certifications of compliance with this rule for all models and all
units. As in the 1988 rule, provided that the certifications are
timely, complete, and accurate, the EPA is proposing to allow
certification to be determined based on testing of a representative
unit within the model line. As in 1988, the cost of testing each unit
would be an order of magnitude greater than the cost of a wood heater/
stove and would be economically prohibitive. In addition, as in 1988,
the testing of each unit could create a potential ``logjam'' that would
stymie the certification of cleaner model lines. However, as discussed
earlier, we are asking for specific comments on whether we should
require testing of more than one representative unit prior to
certification of a model line. The proposed subpart revises the
definition of ``Accredited Test Laboratory,'' from only EPA-accredited
laboratories to laboratories approved by the EPA after being accredited
by a nationally recognized accrediting body to perform testing for each
of the test methods specified in this NSPS under ISO-IEC \16\ Standard
17025, to conduct the certification testing. The laboratories would
have to register their credentials with the EPA and be approved by the
EPA prior to conducting any certification testing or related work used
as a basis for compliance with this rule. Also, they would be required
to report any changes in their accreditation and any deficiencies found
under ISO 17025, and the EPA may revoke the approval if appropriate.
Our proposal is this laboratory definition revision be effective upon
the effective date of the final rule. However, we request specific
comments on whether we should allow a transition period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) prepare and
publish international standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal would require a ``Certifying-Body-Based Certification
Process,'' upon the effective date of the final rule. Under this
process, after testing is complete, a certification of conformity with
the PM emissions standards must be issued by a certifying body with
whom the manufacturer has entered into contract for certification
services. The certification body would have to be accredited under ISO-
IEC Standard 17065 and register their credentials with the EPA and
receive EPA approval prior to conducting any certifications or related
work used as a basis for compliance with this rule and report any
changes in their accreditation and any deficiencies found under ISO
17065. We believe any certifying body that is approved by the EPA and
is ISO-accredited should be expected to act in such a way that will not
create a conflict of interest. The EPA would oversee the certification
body's work and retain the right to revoke the approval if appropriate.
Upon review of the test report and quality control plan submitted by
the manufacturer, the certifying body may certify compliance and submit
the required documentation to the EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance for review, approval and listing of the certified
appliance. Our preference is to require the new expanded certification
process (i.e., inclusion of ISO-accredited and EPA-approved certifying
bodies) for certifications that occur after the effective date of the
final rule. However, we request specific comments on whether we should
allow a transition period; that is, whether we should retain the
current ``Administrator Approval Process'' to review the certification
application, including test results, for the first year following the
effective date of the final rule. Note that models certified prior to
the effective date of the final rule would not have to be re-tested
until the certification expires or is revoked.
As in the current 1988 NSPS, each affected unit would be required
to have an applicable permanent label and have an owner's manual that
contains specified information. We are proposing that permanent labels
would be required for each affected unit on the effective date of the
final rule. We propose to clarify that the permanent label must be
installed so that it is readily visible both before and after the unit
is installed. This clarification is needed to document the use of
complying heaters that may be required by state and local rules and/or
to determine the unit's applicability to any future changeout programs.
We also request specific comments on how to best assure that
manufacturers and retailers and online marketers of wood heaters only
use valid certification test data and not exaggerated claims.
In the current (1988) NSPS, temporary labels (aka, hangtags) were
required for wood heaters that are subject to the standards and also
for ones that are not (e.g., coal heaters/stoves). These temporary
labels were intended primarily to contain information useful
[[Page 6341]]
to consumers and prospective heater purchasers to be able to compare
different appliance models and to inform the consumer about the
importance of proper operation and maintenance. These temporary labels
included the wood heater's compliance status, comparative emission and
efficiency performance data, and heat output rates and explicitly
stated that the appliance will achieve low smoke output and high
efficiency only if properly operated and maintained. The EPA no longer
believes these temporary labels are necessary for all certified heaters
because we have developed and are continuing to improve our education
and outreach program for consumers on selecting the cleanest certified
appliances and wood fuel with appropriate moisture content and on the
effective use and operation of these appliances. Consequently, we are
proposing to remove the requirement for temporary labels on certified
heaters. Consumers can get additional information that would normally
be contained on the temporary labels at https://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/woodheaters.html. We request comment on the
potential impact that deleting this requirement might have on a
consumer's ability to select wood heaters that meet the proposed
standards and are the cleanest and whether we should consider
developing a voluntary labeling program for the cleanest of the clean.
As discussed elsewhere, we also ask for specific comments on language
that we should require manufacturers and retailers to provide to
consumers to help explain the relative benefits of high-performing
heaters versus lower-performing heaters and how to reduce exaggerated
claims.
In addition to the PM emissions standards, we are proposing to
continue to require the proper burn practices that already apply to the
owner or operator of a wood heating appliance. That is, the current
1988 standards already include the requirement that the owner or
operator must operate the heater consistent with the owner's manual and
not burn improper fuels and manufacturers typically void their
warranties in cases of improper operation. Numerous states have
expressed their support for the continuation of these requirements.
Some states and local jurisdictions have enforced similar requirements,
and this proposal would allow potential delegation of enforcement
authority of these NSPS requirements upon the EPA approval of state
requests.
The proposed revision clarifies that the current requirement to
operate according to the owner's manual continues to include a list of
prohibited fuel types that create poor or even hazardous combustion
conditions and includes operation of pellet fuel appliances only with
the grades of pellet fuels that are included in the certification
tests, or better. We propose that pellets for the certification tests
be only those that have been produced under a licensing agreement with
the Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI), or equivalent (after request and
subsequent approval by the EPA), to meet certain minimum requirements
and procedures for a quality assurance process. Details of the PFI
program are available at https://pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/pfi-standards-program/. We are not aware of any other U.S. organization
that has a pellet fuel quality assurance program similar in quality to
the PFI program. However, we request specific comments on whether
another high quality program exists. Manufacturers' data show that
pellet fuel quality assurance is necessary to ensure that the
appliances operate properly such that emissions are reduced as
intended. We ask for specific comments on how to determine equivalency
for fuel pellets, and whether we should include other requirements of
best burn practices or adjustments to help ensure proper operation,
e.g., chimney height and draft specifications, moisture content of wood
and limits on visible emissions.
The proposed subpart AAA still contains the crucial quality
assurance provisions in the current 1988 NSPS. A comprehensive
discussion of the rationale is included in the 1988 preamble. For
example, a model line must be recertified whenever any change is made
in the original design that could affect the emissions rate for that
model line or when any of several specified tolerances of key
components are changed. The 1988 requirements for manufacturer quality
assurance programs would be superseded by a Certifying-Body-Based
Quality Assurance program. (As noted earlier in this preamble, we would
not require retesting for models that are certified prior to the
effective date of the final rule until the certification expires or is
revoked.) The certifying body would conduct regular, unannounced audits
to ensure that the manufacturer's quality control plan is being
implemented properly.
The EPA audit testing programs of the 1988 NSPS will be maintained
under the proposed changes, although they will be streamlined and
simplified to better ensure compliance and to clarify that audits can
be based on any information the EPA has available and do not have to be
statistically random. Also, we clarify that the EPA and states are
allowed to be present during the audits and that states (and other
entities, including the public) may provide the EPA with information
that may ultimately be used in the EPA enforcement and compliance
assurance efforts.
As discussed earlier, the EPA developed Method 28 in 1987 and 1988
as part of our efforts on the 1988 NSPS. We received input at that time
from manufacturers, laboratories, and some states. Oregon Method 7 was
the starting point for Method 28 and, thus, Method 28 has many aspects
similar to Oregon Method 7. The details on the history and development
of Method 28 are contained in the February 18, 1987, proposal in the
Federal Register (52 FR 5003) and the February 26, 1988, final rule in
the Federal Register (53 FR 5866).
The manufacturers, laboratories, states and the EPA have more than
25 years of experience with Method 28, and it has been very useful for
certifying hundreds of model lines of wood heaters/stoves. We asked the
manufacturers, EPA-accredited laboratories and states for their
insights on Method 28. Many stakeholders agree that changes should be
made to improve the reproducibility and repeatability of the test
procedures and to address concerns about how to best ensure protection
across the entire U.S. when various operating scenarios are used and
various wood species and densities are used. For example, to address
some of these concerns, ASTM has used a ``consensus-based'' process to
develop E2515-10 ``Standard Method for Determination of Particulate
Matter Emissions in a Dilution Tunnel.'' The EPA is proposing that this
sampling and analysis method be used for all of the appliances in this
rulemaking. As with all test methods, there are opportunities for
continual improvement, and the EPA requests specific comments and
supporting data for additional potential improvements to E2515-10.
A number of states have expressed concern about ASTM's Intellectual
Property Policy which requires all participants to give their
intellectual property rights to ASTM so that, in turn, ASTM can control
distribution of the drafts and final test methods and sell the final
test methods to potential users. Attorneys General for several states
have indicated that state employees in their states cannot give to ASTM
the property rights for property that their states paid for via the
employee salaries and other expenditures and thus cannot participate in
ASTM's ``consensus-
[[Page 6342]]
based'' process. For this rulemaking, ASTM is allowing public review,
for no charge, of the ASTM test methods and draft work products
relevant to this proposed rule at www.astm.org/epa. The EPA requests
specific comments and supporting data on the substance of all of the
test methods relevant to this rulemaking and specific comments on the
ASTM process and ways to ameliorate the process concerns.
The ASTM methods E2779-10 ``Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Emissions from Pellet Heaters'' and E2780-10 ``Standard
Test Method for Determining Particulate Emissions from Wood Heaters''
are being considered for potentially replacing the wood heater fueling
and operation requirements in Method 28 for pellet heaters and wood
heaters, respectively. Note that ASTM intends to use the same E2515-10
for the sampling and analysis portion for all the appliances and then
separate methods per appliance types for the fueling and operation
portions of these methods. The EPA believes E2525-10 is a sound method
for sampling and analysis and we are proposing its use. The EPA also
believes that E2779-10 is a sound method for measuring emissions from
pellet heaters/stoves and includes reasonable measures to reduce
testing costs for continuously-fed appliances, and we are proposing its
use. However, because, as noted earlier, some states were not able to
participate in the ASTM method development process, we specifically
request comments and supporting data of all aspects of not only these
test methods but also all the proposed methods as part of the comments
on this proposed rule.
Similarly, the EPA believes that ASTM Method E2780-10 includes
improvements for testing adjustable and single burn rate wood heaters,
and we are proposing many of the improvements today. For example, we
are proposing the use of the E2780-10 appendix for testing single burn
rate appliances. However, we, and some states, do not agree with all
the changes that ASTM has made for adjustable burn rate wood heaters,
and some provisions are not as protective as we, and some states, now
believe they need to be. As noted above, several states are concerned
about how to best ensure that the methods are protective for the entire
U.S., considering differences in wood species, density, and homeowner
operation. The EPA and the states are particularly concerned about
scenarios in which heaters/stoves will have higher emissions in home
use than the emissions measured in the laboratories. For example, the
states and the EPA are concerned about the ASTM changes on burn rate
categories, i.e., easing or eliminating the lowest burn rates that
often occur in home operations and are typically the highest emitting
and least efficient. The EPA is asking for specific comments on these
issues and recommendations and supporting data for other changes. The
following paragraphs discuss some of the key test method provisions we
are proposing and not proposing. Additional information on the methods
is at https://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters and at www.astm.org/epa.
1. We do not agree with the ASTM changes to the burn rate
categories, low burn rate requirement, and weightings in Method 28.
Several states are very concerned that easing these items would create
the potential for backsliding. Also, we are aware of several design
changes being considered by a number of manufacturers that are
relatively inexpensive (i.e., less than $20 dollars) and will reduce
the emissions during periods when operated at low burn rates. We
instead propose that the original provisions in Method 28 be retained
for the burn rate categories and low burn rate requirement. We
considered the weightings and believe that if weightings are to be
used, they should be the same as the original requirements in Method
28. We are also proposing that the burn rates not be weighted at all
for the Step 2 standards but rather that the emission limits be
separate for Burn Rate Category 1 (lowest burn rate category) and Burn
Rate Category 4 (maximum burn rate category) and that compliance for
each be shown separately.
2. We propose to not allow 5 minutes for startup before closing the
doors because startup is often the highest emitting part of the wood
heater operation, and manufacturers need to ensure that startup
emissions are also reduced. Again, relatively inexpensive means exist
to reduce these emissions.
3. We are not proposing to use the new ASTM equation for converting
the emission test values between the EPA Reference Method 5G
``Determination of Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a
Dilution Tunnel Sampling Location'' and the EPA Reference Method 5H
``Determination of Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a Stack
Location'' currently allowed in the NSPS. Rather, we are proposing that
Method 5G(3) test values be reported as tested for heaters that have
valid certifications prior to the effective date of this rule and ASTM
E2515-10 for all other heaters and that Method 5H not be used for
testing for certifications after the effective date of this rule. We
request data to help inform our decision for the final rulemaking.
4. We are not proposing to allow manufacturers to specify a smaller
volume of the firebox for testing because of our concerns about how to
ensure that homeowners do not circumvent such a specification during
operation, thereby increasing emissions beyond the levels that are
measured during testing.
5. We are proposing several tighter specifications on the test fuel
moisture content, fuel load and coal bed depth in order to improve the
reproducibility and repeatability of the certification tests. This part
of the proposal is based on recommendations from one of the original
EPA-accredited laboratories. We specifically request comments and
supporting data regarding the following proposed tighter specifications
for the laboratory test: (a) tightening fuel load dry-basis moisture
content tightened from the Method 28-allowed 6 percentage-point range
from 19 percent to 25 percent to a reduced range of 22.5 percent +/-1
percent; (b) tightening the Method 28-allowed range for fuel load
weight from 7.0 lb/ft \3\ +/-10 percent of the fuel load weight (or 7
lb/ft \3\ +/-0.7 lb/ft \3\) to 7 lb/ft \3\ +/-1 percent (or 7 lb +/-
0.07 lb) of the fuel load weight, calculated in accordance with Method
28; and (c) tightening the Method-28-allowed range for the test-
initiation coal-bed weight from 20 percent to 25 percent of the fuel
load weight to 22 percent +/-1 percent of the fuel load weight.
6. We propose to require efficiency testing according to CSA
B415.1-10\17\ using the stack loss method. That is, during each test
run, data must be obtained and presented for the purpose of calculation
of overall efficiency as specified in CSA B415.1-10. This would include
CO and carbon dioxide (CO2), flue gas temperature and
appliance mass. CSA B415.1-10 was developed by a ``consensus'' process,
but no states were part of the process. Thus, we specifically request
comments on our proposal to require use of this method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``CSA B415.1-10: Performance testing of solid-fuel-burning
heating appliances,'' Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. We propose that electronic test report submittals include the
locked spreadsheets so the formulas used and relevant calculations can
be evaluated in detail. We request comments on this specific proposal.
8. We propose that the test report include a narrative detailing
specifics about test conditions and operations, such as how the test
was run, operating conditions, issues and special procedures.
[[Page 6343]]
9. We propose that each individual moisture content reading must be
in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry basis and the average
moisture content of each piece of test fuel must be in the range of 19
to 25 percent. Also, we propose the following procedure for the
moisture measurements: ``Using a fuel moisture meter as specified,
determine the fuel moisture for each test fuel piece used for the test
fuel load by averaging at least five fuel moisture meter readings, one
from each of three sides, measured parallel to the wood grain.
Penetration of the moisture meter insulated electrodes shall be \1/4\
(one-fourth) the thickness of the fuel piece or 19 millimeters (mm) (3/
4 in.), whichever is less, for 3 of the measurements made at
approximately 3 inches from each end and the center. Two additional
measurements at approximately one-third the thickness shall be made
centered between the other three locations.''
10. We also propose this alternate procedure developed by
Brookhaven National Laboratory: \18\ ``Select three pieces of cord wood
from the same batch of wood as the test fuel and the same weight as the
average weight of the pieces in the test load 1.0 lb. From
each of these three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice shall be \1/
2\ to \3/4\ thick. One slice shall be cut across
the center of the length of the piece. The other two slices shall be
cut half way between the center and the end. Immediately measure the
mass of each piece in pounds. Dry each slice in an oven at 220 [deg]F
for 24 hours or until no further weight change occurs. The slices shall
be arranged in the oven so as to provide separation between faces.
Remove from the oven and measure the mass of each piece again as soon
as practical in pounds. The moisture content of each slice, on a dry
basis, shall be calculated as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``A Test Method for Certification of Cord Wood-Fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage:
Measurement of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating
Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage.'' Prepared for NYSERDA by
Brookhaven National Laboratory, February 15, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCslice = 100 [middot] (WSliceWet-WSliceDry)/WSliceDry
Where: WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds;
WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds;
[and] MCSlice = moisture content of the slice in % dry
basis.''
11. We propose to require two Step 1 tests, one using crib wood and
one using cord wood and reasonable additional non-binding tests with a
range of fuels for which the appliance is designed for warranted and/or
advertized operation. These tests are needed to show how emissions and
efficiency vary according to test methods, operating scenarios, wood
species and density and other variables such as cord wood versus crib
wood. We believe that such testing would help assure consumers,
neighbors and other stakeholders that the appliances perform as well on
all manufacturer-listed fuels and operating scenarios as they do for
the EPA laboratory test scenarios. Proposed Step 2 tests will use cord
wood and not crib wood. The EPA, industry and states believe that
moving to cord wood testing will help address concerns about actual
emissions from heaters/stoves in home use versus test laboratories. We
are working with states and industry on a cord wood test method and
evaluating potential revisions to the current version of the ASTM
E2780-10 cord wood test method. Industry is conducting tests now using
the cord wood test method, and we will consider the results of that
testing when it becomes available during the public comment period of
this rulemaking.
B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
The proposed subpart QQQQ would apply to new wood-fired residential
hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces and any other affected
appliance as defined in subpart QQQQ as a ``central heater.'' We
believe this new ``central heater'' categorization will better ensure
that all appliances potentially affected under new proposed subpart
QQQQ are included in this proposed action. The provisions of subpart
QQQQ would apply to each affected unit that is manufactured or sold on
or after April 4, 2014. This proposal does not include any requirements
for heaters that are fueled solely by gas, oil or coal. In addition,
this proposal does not include any requirements associated with
appliances that are already in use. The EPA continues to encourage
state, local, tribal and consumer efforts to changeout (replace) older
heaters with newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that is not
part of this federal rulemaking.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, subpart QQQQ affects a
source category of mass-produced residential consumer products rather
than typical industrial processes. Thus, this proposed NSPS has many
aspects that are similar to those in Subpart AAA, e.g., certification
of model lines and phased implementation. This Proposed Approach would
apply to all new residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces.
Under the Proposed Approach, the Proposed Step 1 emission limit for
residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply upon
the effective date of the final rule. The Proposed Step 2 emission
limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would
apply 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. We ask for
specific comments on the Proposed Approach and the degree to which
these dates could be sooner.
We also considered an alternative three-step approach (Alternative
Approach) for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters.
Under this Alternative Approach, as in the Proposed Approach, the
Alternative Step 1 emission limits for residential hydronic heaters and
forced air heaters would apply upon the effective date of the final
rule. The Proposed Step 1 emission limits and the Alternative Approach
Step 1 emission limits are identical. The Alternative Step 2 emission
limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would
apply 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The
Alternative Step 3 emission limit for residential hydronic heaters and
forced air heaters would apply 8 years after the effective date of the
final rule (thus providing 5 years between the Alternative Step 2 and
the Alternative Step 3). The Proposed Step 2 emission limits and the
Alternative Approach Step 3 emission limits are identical. We ask for
specific comments on this Alternative Approach and the degree to which
these dates could be sooner.
Table 5 summarizes the proposed PM emissions standards that would
apply under this Proposed Approach at each step. Table 6 summarizes the
PM emissions standards that would apply under each step of the
Alternative Approach. Similar to the proposed requirements for subpart
AAA, we are not proposing a standard for CO or efficiency, but we are
proposing to require manufacturers to collect and report CO emissions
and efficiency data during certification tests. Some regulatory
authorities have instituted additional requirements such as limits on
visible emissions and limits on use in non-heating seasons and we ask
for specific comments on the appropriateness of such limits and other
requirements in this NSPS.
[[Page 6344]]
Table 5--Proposed Approach Subpart QQQQ PM Emissions Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate
Appliance Steps matter emissions
limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Hydronic Heater... Step 1: Upon the 0.32 lb/MMBtu
effective date of the heat output and
final rule. a cap of 7.5 g/
hr for
individual test
runs.
Step 2: 5 years after 0.06 lb/MMBtu.
the effective date of
final rule.
Forced-Air Furnace............ Step 1: Upon the 0.93 lb/MMBtu.
effective date of the
final rule.
Step 2: 5 years after 0.06 lb/MMBtu.
the effective date of
final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Alternative Approach Subpart QQQQ PM Emissions Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate
Appliance Steps matter emissions
limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Hydronic Heater... Step 1: Upon the 0.32 lb/MMBtu
effective date of the heat output and
final rule. a cap of 7.5 g/
hr for
individual test
runs.
Step 2: 3 years after 0.15 lb/MMBtu.
the effective date of
final rule.
Step 3: 8 years after 0.06 lb/MMBtu.
the effective date of
the final rule.
Forced-Air Furnace............ Step 1: Upon the 0.93 lb/MMBtu.
effective date of the
final rule.
Step 2: 3 years after 0.15 lb/MMBtu.
the effective date of
final rule.
Step 3: 8 years after 0.06 lb/MMBtu.
the effective date of
final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the 1988 subpart AAA requirements, the subpart QQQQ
requirements would not provide an additional time period for the sale
of unsold units manufactured before the compliance date. No additional
time is prudent because cleaner EPA-qualified Phase 2 hydronic heaters
systems have already been readily available for several years, the
older systems have caused numerous complaints nationwide, and this
proposal publication is ample notice for the remaining old high-
emitting units. For the same reasons, the subpart QQQQ requirements
would not include a small volume manufacturer compliance extension. See
section V.C. of this preamble for more discussion of this topic. We ask
for comments on the timing for implementation.
As in the current subpart AAA for wood heaters/stoves, we are
proposing a list of prohibited fuels because their use would cause poor
combustion or even hazardous conditions. We request comment on these
requirements and data to support additional requirements, if warranted.
Also, as in the current subpart AAA for wood heaters/stoves, we are
proposing that the owner or operator must not operate the hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace in a manner that is inconsistent with the
owner's manual. For pellet-fueled appliances, this proposal makes it
clear that operation according to the owner's manual includes operation
only with pellet fuels that have been used in the certification test
and have been graded and marked under a licensing agreement with the
PFI, or equivalent (after request and subsequent approval by the EPA),
to meet certain minimum requirements and procedures for a quality
assurance process. Details of the PFI program are available at https://pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/pfi-standards-program/. Data show that
quality assurance provisions are necessary to ensure that the
appliances operate properly such that emissions are reduced as
intended. We ask for specific comments on the use of the PFI program
and the PFI specifications, especially the degree to which the PFI
program will adequately ensure the absence of construction and
demolition waste (and associated toxic contaminants) in the pellets.
(No other organization has volunteered to develop such a quality
program.)
The proposed labeling requirements and owner's manual requirements
are similar to the guidelines in the EPA's current voluntary hydronic
heater program with some improvements. We request specific comments on
ways to improve the delivery of information on the permanent label and
in the owner's manual and whether different information might be useful
to the consumer and to the regulatory authorities.
The structure of the rest of the proposed subpart QQQQ is similar
to the proposed subpart AAA certification and quality assurance
process. We request specific comments on changes or improvements to
that process that might be needed to address any special concerns
related to the certification of hydronic heaters and forced-air
furnaces.
As discussed earlier, the EPA developed Method 28 OWHH, in 2006, as
part of our efforts for voluntary qualification of cleaner hydronic
heaters. We received input at that time from manufacturers,
laboratories, and some states in order to quickly develop a mostly
consensus-based method that we incorporated into the program
partnership agreements. We used Method 28 for wood heaters/stoves as
the foundation. Thus, Method 28 OWHH has many aspects similar to Method
28. Three significant differences are: (1) Method 28 OWHH uses larger
cribs because hydronic heater fireboxes are typically much larger than
wood heater fireboxes; (2) Method 28 OWHH uses red oak instead of
Douglas fir because red oak is the more common fuel in the U.S.; and
(3) Method 28 OWHH includes procedures for determining 8-hour heat
output and efficiency. The manufacturers, laboratories, states and the
EPA have now had over 7 years of experience with Method 28 OWHH and its
successor Method 28 WHH (improved and expanded to include indoor
heaters, not just outdoor heaters).
All the stakeholders that have provided input on the test methods
agree that the methods should be thoroughly vetted and changed as
necessary to improve the method's accuracy and precision and to address
concerns about how to best ensure protection across the entire U.S.
when various operating scenarios and wood species and densities are
used. ASTM has developed E2618-13 to address some of these concerns,
and the EPA believes that E2618-13 does include some improvements.
However, as with the wood heater/stove methods, we and some states do
not agree with all the changes that ASTM has made. For example, the
states of Washington and Oregon are very concerned that Method
[[Page 6345]]
28 WHH and ASTM E2618-13 do not specify fueling with Douglas Fir, which
is used in EPA Method 28 for wood heaters/stoves and which these states
require in their regulations for residential wood heaters, including
hydronic heaters. They are concerned that hydronic heaters tested with
red oak will have higher emissions when fueled with Douglas Fir and
other less dense species typical in their states and have provided test
data that shows higher emissions. Thus, they require testing with
Douglas Fir in their states. Also, a number of states and the EPA are
concerned about the ASTM changes to the burn rate categories, i.e.,
easing or eliminating testing at the lowest burn rates, which often
occur in home operations and are typically the highest-emitting and
least efficient. For several years, we have been communicating with
European certification laboratories to learn how they conduct their
tests under EN 303-5 and to consider if incorporating some of their
testing procedures might improve our test methods.
More recently, because of initial concerns about some surprisingly
high laboratory test efficiencies for a couple of the EPA voluntary
partnership program Phase 2 qualified partial heat storage models, the
EPA, the Northeast states that regulate hydronic heaters, laboratories
(including EPA-accredited laboratories and Brookhaven National
Laboratory) and manufacturers have conducted a review of voluntary
partnership program qualifying test reports. All of the stakeholders
that provided input on the test methods agree that we need a change in
the test method for testing of non-integral partial heat storage models
(i.e., models that have separate heat storage but the storage does not
have the capacity to safely handle all the heat generated by a full
load of fuel). ASTM has been leading an effort to develop an Appendix
X2 to the test method for such models but has not completed that effort
as of this proposal. Brookhaven National Laboratory recommended a
method to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and NYSDEC is requiring that method be used for certification
of such models in their states. We are proposing that method be used
for certification of the NSPS for hydronic heaters equipped with a
partial heat storage unit.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See footnote 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, we are proposing revisions to Method 28 WHH that would
require that all affected non-pellet hydronic heaters, subject to new
subpart QQQQ, conduct certification compliance testing using both crib
wood and cord wood for the Step 1 emission limits upon the effective
date of the final rule and solely cord wood for the Step 2 emission
limits 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.
We are asking for specific comments on whether the EPA should use:
(1) One or more of the draft versions of Appendix X2 being considered
as part of ASTM work product WK26581; (2) the European Union test
method EN303-05 as the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
approved for certification of hydronic heaters in their state as
equivalent to the EPA Method 28 WHH; (3) the partial thermal storage
test method developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory; and/or (4)
some other test method(s). For use of any of the test methods, the EPA
would require that the amount of heat storage for the actual sale and
installation of the hydronic heaters be no less than the amount used
for the certification tests. Because EN303-05 does not currently use
heat storage during the certification test, if the EPA were to use
EN303-05 test results, the EPA would require the installed heater to
have heat storage that can safely handle at least 60 percent of the
maximum heat output of the heater or a greater level if the
manufacturer specifies a greater level. The EPA is asking for specific
comments on the appropriateness of this heat storage level or other
levels. The EPA will consider any or all of these options as the
preferred reference test methods or as acceptable emission testing
alternatives. (ASTM previously developed an Appendix X1 for testing of
models that have ``full'' heat storage that can safely accept the heat
from the full load of fuel.) We request comments on all aspects of
heater testing and are especially interested in emission test data that
compare the results for testing by these different methods.
Also, the review discussed above found a number of areas in the
methods to improve the quality of the data and reduce anomalies. In
June 2011, the voluntary partnership program stakeholders agreed to a
number of changes to Method 28 OWHH, and we are proposing the revised
method as EPA Reference Method 28 WHH. The EPA is asking for specific
comments on this method and recommendations and supporting data for
other changes or acceptable alternatives. The following paragraphs
discuss some of the changes we are proposing for comment. Additional
information on the EPA methods is available at https://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters. The ASTM methods and draft work products are
available at www.astm.org/epa.
1. Heater (aka Boiler) Temperature Range
We propose that for all tests, the return water temperature to the
heater must be 120 [deg]F or greater. We additionally propose that if
the manufacturer specifies a thermal control valve or other arrangement
to be installed and set to control the return temperature at 120 [deg]F
or higher, the valve must be installed and set per the manufacturer's
written instructions.
2. Efficiency Calculations
We propose to require the use of thermopiles to measure the
temperature change ``delta T'' and verify accuracy of the load side
flow meter. The accuracy of the flow meter is determined separately by
direct weighing of timed water collection. Thermocouples must measure
water temperature at the inlet and outlet of the load side heat
exchanger. We propose to delete the requirement for supply side flow
measurements and require one load side reading with thermopiles (using
a commercial system or a homemade system). Efficiency would be measured
on the output (load) side of the heat exchanger. The flow meter would
be calibrated before and after each test run within the flow range used
for the test.
3. Time Period for Recording Temperatures
We propose that all water temperatures, differential water
temperatures and water flow rates must be recorded at time intervals of
1 minute or less. This data file must be submitted with the test
report. For determination of heat output, the data for these parameters
must be measured in equal time intervals no greater than 10 minutes or
at a frequency that results in a minimum of 50 equal intervals per test
run, whichever is greater.
4. Test Fuel Moisture Content
We propose that each individual test fuel moisture content reading
must be in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry basis and the average
moisture content of each piece of test fuel must be in the range of 19
to 25 percent.
We also propose the following moisture measurement procedure: Using
a fuel moisture meter as specified in the test method, determine the
fuel moisture for each test fuel piece used for the test fuel load by
averaging at least five fuel moisture meter readings, one from each of
three sides, measured parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of the
moisture meter insulated
[[Page 6346]]
electrodes must be one-fourth the thickness of the fuel piece or 19 mm
(3/4 in.), whichever is less for 3 of the measurements made at
approximately 3 inches from each end and the center. Two additional
measurements at approximately one-third the thickness shall be made
centered between the other three locations. We request specific
comments on the moisture content limits and the procedures for
determining the moisture content and the typical variances due to the
measurement procedures.
We also request specific comments on the following approach for
determining moisture content. ``Select three pieces of cord wood from
the same batch of wood as the test fuel and the same weight as the
average weight of the pieces in the test load 1.0 lb. From
each of these three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice shall be \1/
2\'' to \3/4\'' thick. One slice shall be cut across the center of the
length of the piece. The other two slices shall be cut half way between
the center and the end. Immediately measure the mass of each piece in
pounds. Dry each slice in an oven at 220 [deg]F for 24 hours or until
no further weight change occurs. The slices shall be arranged in the
oven so as to provide separation between faces. Remove from the oven
and measure the mass of each piece again as soon as practical in
pounds. The moisture content of each slice, on a dry basis shall be
calculated as:
MCslice = 100 [middot] (WSliceWet -WSliceDry) / WSliceDry
Where: WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds;
WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds; [and] MCSlice =
moisture content of the slice in % dry basis.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See footnote 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, we propose that moisture must not be added to previously
dried fuel pieces except by storage under high humidity conditions and
temperature up to 100 [deg]F. Fuel moisture must be measured no more
than 4 hours before using the fuel for a test. The test report must
describe the source and storage history of the test fuel.
5. Water Density
a. We propose that the measured volumetric flow from the flow meter
be converted to mass basis by using the water density based on water
temperature. The same method must be used on both the load and supply
side if the optional supply side meter is used.
b. We propose that the water density be calculated using the water
temperature measured at the flow meter.
6. Calculations
a. We propose that the electronic test reports submittals include
all data within the locked spreadsheets so the formulas used and
relevant calculations can be reviewed in detail.
b. To ensure common application, we propose to require averages to
be calculated on each 10-minute reading rather than averaging over the
entire test run.
7. Overall Efficiency (CSA B415.1-10 Stack Loss Method)
We propose that during each test run, data must be obtained and
presented for the purpose of calculation of overall efficiency as
specified in the stack loss method in CSA B415.1-10. This includes CO
and CO2, flue gas temperature, and appliance mass (remaining
fuel weight). Overall efficiency for each run must be determined as per
CSA B415.1-10 and reported. Whenever the CSA B415.1-10 overall
efficiency is found to be lower than the overall efficiency based on
the load side measurements, as determined by this method, the report
must include a discussion of the reasons for this result.
8. Wood Loading
Test fuel loads would be determined by multiplying the firebox
volume by 4.54 kg (10 lb) of wood (as used, wet weight) per cubic foot,
or a higher load density as recommended by the manufacturer's operating
instructions. As discussed earlier, the EPA will require separate tests
in the proposed Step 1 using cribs and using cord wood. In the proposed
Step 2, the tests would all be using cord wood. There are ongoing
discussions on how to improve both types of tests. We are working with
states and industry on a cord wood test method and evaluating making
revisions to the current version of the ASTM cord wood test method and
states' ideas on cord wood testing. Also, we are reviewing European
experiences with cord wood testing.
9. Drawing of Test Apparatus
The test report would be required to contain a drawing of the test
apparatus, including thermocouples, piping arrangements including any
recirculation loops, the thermopile and flow meter(s).
10. Aquastat Settings
Aquastat or other heater output control device settings that are
adjustable would be set using manufacturer specifications, either as
factory set or in accordance with the owner's manual, and must remain
the same for all burn categories.
11. Narrative
The test report would be required to include a statement that the
test was conducted according to the method specified. If there are any
deviations from the test procedure requirements, the test report would
need to include a section identifying those deviations, the reasons for
those deviations, and an evaluation of the data quality implications,
if any, of such deviations on the test results.
12. The test report would include a standard summary page as a
quick check for the reviewer that results are within method
specifications.
13. We propose to require testing with a range of all fuels for
which the appliance is designed, per the manufacturer's warranty and
owner's manual, to show how emissions and efficiency vary according to
species and density and cord wood versus crib wood.
In addition, ASTM has developed a draft test method that uses cord
wood rather than crib wood to better represent real world conditions.
All stakeholders agree that a test method that better represents real
world conditions would be a significant improvement and help ameliorate
concerns that some heaters do not perform as well in home use as they
do in laboratories. We are also interested in real-time emission test
methods that measure cold or warm startup emissions and emission peaks/
durations. We are also interested in field test methods and less
expensive test methods that regulators and neighbor can use to better
quantify impacts in the real world. The EPA is asking for specific
comments and data on all these potential methods, issues and
recommendations.
The EPA is proposing to rely on the test method that has been
developed by the CSA for forced-air furnaces. All CSA standards are
developed through a consensus development process approved by the
Standards Council of Canada. This process brings together volunteers
representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus and
develop a standard. CSA worked for years on development of this test
method that has its roots in earlier U.S. efforts on wood heaters/
stoves. The current version of CSA B415.1-10 was published in March
2010, and it includes not only the forced-air furnace test method but
also new Canadian emission performance specifications for indoor and
outdoor central heating appliances.
[[Page 6347]]
Although the CSA B415.1-10 technical committee included numerous
U.S. manufacturers and laboratories, it did not include any states or
environmental groups, and the EPA participation was minimal during the
development. Now that we have reviewed this method in substantively, we
are satisfied that it warrants proposal for this rulemaking. We request
specific comments and supporting data. We ask for specific comments on
the appropriateness of using the CSA test method in its entirety,
including the use of cord wood instead of crib wood that are used in
current versions of Method 28 and Method 28 WHH. To review the CSA test
method, please go to www.csa.ca.
C. Masonry Heaters
The proposed subpart RRRR would apply to new residential masonry
heaters. The provisions apply to each affected unit that is
manufactured on or after April 4, 2014. We are proposing that, as of
the effective date of the final rule, no person would manufacture or
sell a residential masonry heater that does not meet the proposed
emission limit of 0.32 lb of PM per MMBtu heat output. We are also
proposing a 5-year small volume manufacturer compliance extension that
would apply to companies that construct fewer than 15 masonry heaters
per year. See section V.C. of this preamble for more discussion of
compliance date related issues. We request specific comments on the
degree to which these dates can be sooner. As in the case of subpart
AAA and subpart QQQQ, we are proposing requirements that would apply to
the operator of the masonry heater, including a provision to operate
the unit in compliance with the owner's manual; a prohibition on use of
certain fuels; and a requirement to use licensed wood pellets or
equivalent, if applicable. We are not proposing efficiency or CO
standards for new residential masonry heaters at this time because
sufficient data are not yet available to support the basis for such
standards.
The EPA is proposing to rely on ASTM method E2817-11 for masonry
heaters. The laboratories, some states and the masonry heater industry
worked for years on drafts of this method that has its roots in earlier
regulatory efforts in Colorado. The EPA has participated in the
discussions from time to time over the years and has provided comments
and suggestions. The current ASTM methods are ASTM E2817-11 ``Standard
Test Method for Test Fueling Masonry Heaters'' and the draft work
product ASTM WK26558 ``Specification for Calculation Method for Custom
Designed, Site-built Masonry Heaters.'' (https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK26558.htm.) We propose that they be used for
this rulemaking. We request specific comments on these methods and any
changes that should be considered and supporting data for those
changes. We request specific comments and supporting emission test data
on the use of ``Annex A1. Cordwood Fuel'' and ``Annex A2. Cribwood
Fueling.'' ASTM is allowing public review, for no charge, of the ASTM
test methods and draft work products relevant to this rule at
www.astm.org/epa.
As an alternative to testing, we are proposing that manufacturers
of masonry heaters may choose to submit a computer model simulation
program, such as ASTM WK 26558 noted above, for the EPA's review and
approval. Masonry heater manufacturers and laboratories developed
computer simulations as a way to encourage good designs without having
to conduct emission tests for slight variations, especially because
there are so few masonry heaters built every year per manufacturer.
Since these units are built on-site, it is not easy to test each of
them. These units are typically cleaner than pre-NSPS certified wood
stoves. Considering all of these factors, we believe a simple computer
simulation showing how new models would perform may be all that is
necessary for many of these models.
The structure of the rest of the proposed new subpart RRRR is
similar to the proposed subpart AAA certification and quality assurance
process and contains similar requirements for labels, owner's manual,
etc. One difference, however, is that for small custom unit
manufacturers, we are requiring less stringent quality control (QC)
procedures. Specifically, we are proposing that the initial
certification for these custom units is sufficient and that no further
QC is necessary since each unit is a unique model and subject to
certification. We request comment on changes or improvements that might
be needed to address special concerns related to certification of
masonry heaters.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Cost, Economic, and Non-Air Health and
Energy Impacts
The EPA estimates the proposed NSPS's total annualized average
nationwide costs would be $15.7 million ($2010) over the 2014 through
2022 period. The economic impacts for industries affected by this
proposed rule over this same period range from 4.3 percent for
manufacture of wood heater/stove models to 6.4 percent compliance cost-
to-sales estimate for manufacture of single burn rate wood heater
models. These impacts do not presume any pass-through of impacts to
consumers. With pass-through to consumers, these impact estimates to
manufacturers will decline proportionate to the degree of pass-through.
A. What are the air quality impacts?
To determine the air quality impacts, we developed emission factors
for each appliance type and then applied those emission factors to
shipment data for each of the appliance types subject to the proposed
NSPS.\21\ We developed the emission factors using the EPA Residential
Wood Combustion (RWC) emission estimation tool,\22\ which is a
Microsoft Access database that compiles nationwide RWC emissions using
county-level, process-specific data and calculations. The compilation
of such data is a large, important, continually improving effort by the
EPA and the states to ensure that we and the states have access to the
best information available. We summed the estimated nationwide number
of appliances and the estimated total tons of wood burned for each of
the relevant product categories in the inventory and then made some
adjustments/assumptions to the baseline RWC inventory to reflect
emission characteristics specific to new units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. Estimated
Emissions from Wood Heaters. February 15, 2013.
\22\ rwc--2008--tToolv4.1--feb09--2010.zip available in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used the resulting subset of the RWC database to calculate an
average emission rate per appliance for each category, as follows.
First, we multiplied the total tons of wood burned by devices within
the category by the category emission factor to calculate the total
tons of emissions for each of the pollutants PM2.5, VOC and
CO emissions for that category. Then we divided these values by the
number of appliances in the category to calculate the average emissions
of PM2.5, VOC and CO per individual appliance. We then
developed adjusted emission factors to reflect the NSPS options and
then used the adjusted factors to calculate average tons of emissions
of each of these three pollutants per appliance for each category.
[[Page 6348]]
We used data in the Frost & Sullivan Market (F&S) report \23\ on
2008 shipments by product category and F&S revenue forecasts, which
incorporated the weak economy in years 2009 and 2010, to calculate the
reduced number of shipments in years 2009 and 2010. We adjusted these
data to include appliances not covered in the F&S report (e.g., forced-
air furnaces). For years 2011 through 2038, we estimated shipments
based on a forecasted revenue growth rate of 2.0 percent, in keeping
with the average annual growth in real gross domestic product (GDP)
predicted by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.\24\ Historically
wood heater shipments have most closely corresponded to GDP, housing
starts, and price of wood relative to gas. We think the overall trend
in the projection is reasonable in the absence of additional specific
shipment projections. We did not change the relative percentages of one
type of residential wood heater versus other types of residential wood
heaters over this time period. We ask for comments and data that would
support improved projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Market Research and Report on North American Residential
Wood Heaters, Fireplaces, and Hearth Heating Products Market.
Prepared by Frost & Sullivan. April 26, 2010, pp. 31-32.
\24\ 2013 Global Outlook projections prepared by the Conference
Board in November 2012; https://www.conference-board.org/data/globaloutlook.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next step was to calculate the total emissions per appliance
category. First, we multiplied the emission factor for each category by
the inventory value of total tons of wood burned by all appliances
within that category, and then divided by the number of appliances in
the inventory population. The appliance value was then multiplied by
the number of units shipped to calculate total emissions from each
category per year using the baseline conditions emission factors (i.e.,
in the absence of a revised NSPS). Using the same procedure, category
emissions were then calculated using the emission factors for the
proposed NSPS.
Table 7 is a summary of the average emissions reductions over years
2014 through 2022 resulting from implementing the proposed NSPS
compared to baseline conditions (for the years analyzed in the RIA).
Note that we do not have national emission impacts from masonry heaters
because they are not included in the RWC emission estimation tool.
Because of the relatively high cost of emission testing versus the
current small number of masonry heaters sold per manufacturer, and in
total, there are few emission test data from masonry heater
manufacturers and laboratories. Based on the limited data we have, we
believe that nationwide emissions from masonry heaters are relatively
low, given the low number of sales. Thus, we also believe that the
total emission reductions from masonry heaters will be relatively low.
However, the limited data we have do show that the emission reductions
could be significant for some models that do not follow current best
designs, perhaps as high as 70 percent for some designs. We do not know
how many of these typically custom-made heaters already use best
practice designs versus other designs and thus we do not have
nationwide estimates of baseline emissions. We ask for comments and
data to help us prepare emission estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See footnote 24.
Table 7--Estimated Annual Average (2014-2022) Air Quality Impacts \25\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (tons) VOC (tons) CO (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance type Revised Emission Revised Emission Revised Emission
Baseline NSPS reduction Baseline NSPS reduction Baseline NSPS reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Heaters....................... 548 385 163 781 551 230 7,857 5,448 2,409
Single Burn Rate Heaters........... 932 178 754 1,614 244 1,370 7,029 2,860 4,169
Pellet Heaters/Stoves.............. 199 150 49 3 2 1 1,035 778 257
Furnace: Indoor, Cord Wood......... 3,044 434 2,610 1,290 184 1,106 20,294 2,896 17,398
Hydronic Heating Systems........... 1,332 84 1,249 565 35 530 8,883 557 8,326
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 6,055 1,230 4,825 4,253 1,016 3,237 45,098 12,538 32,559
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table only includes the emissions during the first year of the life of each wood heater. That is, this table does not include the emissions
that continue for the duration of the lifetime of each appliance's use, typically greater than 20 years.
B. What are the benefits?
Emission reductions associated with the requirements of this rule
will generate health benefits by reducing emissions of
PM2.5, HAP, as well as criteria pollutants and their
precursors, including CO and VOC. VOC are precursors to
PM2.5 and ozone. For this rule, we were only able to
quantify the health co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to
PM2.5 from directly emitted PM2.5. Our benefits
reflect the average of annual PM2.5 emission reductions
occurring between 2014 and 2022 (inclusive). We estimate the monetized
PM2.5-related health benefits of the proposed residential
wood heaters NSPS in the 2014-2022 timeframe to be $1,800 million to
$4,100 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $1,700
million to $3,700 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate.
Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature
mortality supplied by
[[Page 6349]]
experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of
the expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates.\26\ A
summary of the emission reduction and monetized benefits estimates for
this rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 8 of
this preamble, except for masonry heaters. As requested earlier in this
preamble, we ask for emission and sales data per model that would help
us prepare emission reduction estimates and corresponding monetized
health benefits for masonry heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Roman, et al, 2008. ``Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S.,'' Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.
Table 8--Summary of Monetized PM2.5-Related Health Benefits for Proposed Residential Wood Heaters NSPS in 2014-
2022 Timeframe
[millions of 2010 dollars] \a, b, c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
emission Total monetized benefits Total monetized benefits
Pollutant reductions (3% discount rate) (7% discount rate)
(tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly emitted PM2.5.................. 4,825 $1,800 to $4,200.......... $1,700 to $3,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5Precursors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..................................... 3,250 --........................ --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the 2014-2022 timeframe (inclusive) and are rounded to two significant figures so
numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated
with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX, and directly emitted
PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure
to HAP, direct exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, VOC, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment.
\b\ PM benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume
that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature
mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates
by particle type.
\c\ The emission reductions and monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not included in this summary.
These benefits estimates represent the monetized human health
benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from emission
limits established to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this rule.
Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air
quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a ``benefit-per-ton''
approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the
benefit-per-ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert
emissions of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient
PM2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in
human health associated with that change in air quality, which are then
divided by the emissions in specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton
estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann et al.
(2012),\27\ but they have since been updated to reflect these studies
and population data in the 2012 p.m. NAAQS RIA.\28\ Specifically, we
multiplied the benefit-per-ton estimates from the ``Residential Wood
Heaters'' category by the corresponding emission reductions.\29\ All
national-average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the geographic
distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the
emission reductions in this rulemaking, and thus they may not reflect
the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure,
baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for any
specific location. More information regarding the derivation of the
benefit-per-ton estimates for this category is available in the
technical support document, which is referenced in the footnote below
and is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012.
``Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of
emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission
sectors across the U.S.'' Environment International 49 41-151.
\28\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-003. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division. December 2012. Available at https://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
\29\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical support
document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing
PM2.5 precursors from 17 sectors. Research Triangle Park,
NC. January 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their
chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality
because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow
differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we
assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the
location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels,
which drive population exposure.
It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for
premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based on
the American Cancer Society cohort study \30\ and the extended Six
Cities cohort study.\31\ In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
this rule, which is available in the docket, we also include benefits
estimates derived from expert judgments (Roman et al, 2008) as a
characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5-
mortality relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D.
Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. ``Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical
Association 287:1132-1141.
\31\ Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. ``Chronic
Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of
the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.'' Environ Health
Perspect. Jul;120(7):965-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature,
reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical studies,
the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter \32\
documents the association between elevated PM2.5
concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased
premature mortality. This assessment, which was
[[Page 6350]]
reviewed twice by the EPA's independent Science Advisory Board,
concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-
threshold model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality
concentration-response relationship. Therefore, in this analysis, the
EPA assumes that the health impact function for fine particles is
without a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP
Division. December. Available on the Internet at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we
estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide
with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological
studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less
confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5
concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these
studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level
[LML] or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data
in the study) allow readers to determine the portion of population
exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above different
concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of
uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There
are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which
our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less, and
the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the
EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration
threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air
quality improvements.
For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not
available. Thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature
mortality associated with this specific rule's emission reductions at
each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality
impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each
PM2.5 level using the source apportionment modeling used to
calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. Using the
Krewski, et al, (2009) study, 93 percent of the population is exposed
to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8
[micro]g/m\3\. Using the Lepeule, et al, (2012) study, 67 percent of
the population is exposed above the LML of 8 [micro]g/m\3\. It is
important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the
health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates,
population, and change in air quality. Therefore, caution is warranted
when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule because these
results are not consistent with results from rules that had air quality
modeling.
Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change
in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by
data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage) and
uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to
configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we
believe the benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable
indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a
set of reasonable assumptions. In addition, we have not conducted air
quality modeling for this rule, and using a benefit-per-ton approach
adds another important source of uncertainty to the benefits estimates.
The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis provides an
indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assumptions.
One should note that the monetized benefits estimates provided
above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including exposure to HAP, VOC and ozone exposure, as well
as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. Although we do not have
sufficient information or modeling available to provide monetized
estimates for these benefits in this rule, we include a qualitative
assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA \33\ for this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Residential Wood
Heaters NSPS. [INSERT DATE RULE IS SIGNED].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rule, which is available in the docket.
C. What are the cost impacts?
In analyzing the potential cost impacts of the proposed NSPS, we
considered two types of impacts. The first was the impact to the
manufacturer to comply with the proposed standards. The second was the
increase in price of the affected unit. In both of these cases, we
considered the same input variables: R&D cost to develop and certify
complying model lines, certification costs (where these are separate
from R&D), reporting and recordkeeping costs, numbers of shipments of
each appliance category (modified, from Frost & Sullivan report),
number of manufacturers, and number of models per manufacturer. This
section of the preamble contains a summary of these costs. For more
detailed information, see the manufacturer cost impact memo \34\ and
unit cost memo \35\ in the docket. Unless otherwise specified, all
costs are in 2010 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. Residential Heater
Manufacturer Cost Impacts. February 22, 2013.
\35\ Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. Unit Cost
Estimates of Residential Wood Heating Appliances. February 21, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop average R&D costs, we reviewed information provided by
manufacturers. Based on this information, we estimated \36\ average
costs to develop a new model line, including testing, of 356,250 for
certified wood heaters and pellet heaters/stoves. We also assumed
356,250 for single burn rate wood heaters, which may be high if
currently available units can meet the standards without significant
modifications as some manufacturers have suggested. We also assumed
development costs for forced-air furnaces and hydronic heaters of
356,250. Finally, we also assumed development costs of 356,250 for the
masonry heaters. The estimates of the cost of R&D are crucial to our
estimates of overall costs and economic impacts and greatly influence
our decisions on BSER, implementation lead times and small volume
provisions. Thus, we request specific comments on these estimates,
including whether they should be reduced and thus allow greater
emission reductions sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ In developing average R&D costs, the EPA used the highest
industry R&D estimates supplied, in order to avoid under-estimating
potential costs per model line and to avoid understating the number
of model lines that would undergo R&D nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We annualized the R&D costs over 6 years, applied the NSPS
implementation assumptions, and estimated the average manufacturing
cost per model line per manufacturer. Under the proposed rules, pellet
heaters/stoves will only face certification (testing) costs (no R&D
should be required), so we estimated certification costs of 10,000 per
model line. Similarly, many masonry heater model lines that would
comply with the proposed standards have already been developed. These
manufacturers would also face certification costs of 10,000 per model
line. We estimated post R&D period certification costs for hydronic
heaters and forced-air furnaces at 20,000 per model line.
The masonry heater compliance costs included implementation of a
software package based on a European masonry heater design standard.
This software has been verified in the laboratory and under field
conditions to produce masonry heaters that would meet the proposed NSPS
emission limits. The cost of this software to the user is approximately
$1,500 for the package with an approximately $450 annual fee
[[Page 6351]]
that commences in the second year following purchase. In addition, we
believe that some manufacturers will use this approach to demonstrate
that ``similar'' model designs meet the proposed emissions standards.
The estimate of the number of model types was derived from
information provided by HPBA, individual manufacturers, and Internet
searches of product offerings. For numbers of manufacturers, we started
with HPBA data and modified the dataset based on Internet searches of
manufacturers of the major appliance types. Table 9 is a summary of the
nationwide average annual NSPS-related cost increases to manufacturers.
The average annual cost increases are presented over the 2014 to 2022
period consistent with the years analyzed in the RIA,\37\ as well as
over the 2013 to 2038 period. The 2013 to 2038 period encompasses the
first year of estimated NSPS-related costs (2013 since some companies
have already started in anticipation of the NSPS) through the life span
of models designed to meet the NSPS, as explained further below and in
our background analyses.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See footnote 36.
\38\ Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. Residential Heater
Cost Effectiveness Analysis. February 26, 2013.
Table 9--Summary of Nationwide Average Annual Cost Increases
[2010$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2022 2013-2038
Appliance Type Period Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Heaters............................ $4,212,303 $1,749,726
Single Burn Rate Heaters................ 901,732 456,316
Pellet Heaters/Stoves................... 3,460,489 1,702,796
Forced-Air Furnaces..................... 2,252,284 1,171,222
Hydronic Heating Systems................ 4,554,152 2,221,551
Masonry Heaters......................... 307,511 228,896
-------------------------------
Total Average Annual Cost........... 15,688,471 7,530,507
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop estimates of potential unit cost increases, we used
major variables including the estimated number of units shipped per
year, the costs to develop new models, baseline costs of models, and
the schedule by which the proposed revised NSPS would be implemented.
Both the number of shipped units and the baseline costs of models were
based on data from the Frost & Sullivan report with modifications to
address additional appliances or subsets of appliances. The 20-year
model design life span and 20-year use/emitting appliance life span are
based on actual historical design certification and heater use data.
That is, the data show that many models developed for the current 1988
NSPS are still being sold (after 25 years), many ``new'' models still
have the same internal working parts with merely exterior cosmetic
changes, and most residential wood heaters in consumer homes emit for
at least 20 years and often much longer. Therefore, our analysis tracks
shipments and costs through year 2038 (i.e., 19 years after a model
designed to meet the NSPS Step 2 emission limits expected to be
implemented in 2020 has completed development and is shipped). Finally,
we also estimated the potential additional manufacturing costs to make
NSPS complying models. These expenses result from the use of more
expensive structural materials, components to enhance good combustion,
etc. We estimated the following additional manufacturer price increases
per unit based on appliance type:
Certified wood heaters and pellet heaters/stoves represent
a well-developed technology, and we could not identify price
differences between models due solely to lower emission levels compared
to models with higher emission levels. Rather, price differences are
more closely related to cosmetic differences and output. Therefore, we
have assumed no additional manufacturing costs.
One manufacturer estimated that it will cost an average of
100 more to manufacture a lower emitting single burn rate product.
We have seen a range of estimates for additional price
increases for manufacture of a cleaner hydronic heater, with an average
being approximately 3,000 (as compared to a typical pre-regulation
sales price of 7,500).
We estimate that the additional price increases to
manufacture a certified forced-air furnace will be comparable to the
price increases for manufacturing certified hydronic heaters, i.e.,
$3,000 (as compared to a typical pre-regulation price of $900).
Our next step was to develop the following incremental cost
formula: Cost of R&D multiplied by number of units shipped per year
divided by number of models multiplied by model life equals the
incremental cost of developing a new unit, spread over the number of
units expected to be sold during the model life. In developing this
calculation, we included the concept that the R&D costs per model line
are recovered in the sales price of future models, which means that the
more units that are sold or the longer the model life, the lower the
incremental cost per unit. For our unit cost analysis, we assumed a
flat growth rate in shipments--that is, we assumed future shipments
over the 20 years of model design life would be equal to the shipments
estimated in the first NSPS compliance year. We did not assume lower
sales due to market competition with other wood heaters or non-wood
heaters. We did not assume lower projected sales for increased prices
because of the uncertainty of other demand factors. Where there are
additional manufacturing costs as discussed above, we added these to
the unit cost number. Table 10 is a summary of the baseline unit costs,
NSPS unit costs, and incremental cost increase.
[[Page 6352]]
Table 10--Summary of Unit Cost Impacts
[2010$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Appliance type Baseline Post-NSPS increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified Wood Heaters.................................... $859 $883 $24
Single Burn Rate Heaters.................................. 253 479 226
Pellet Heaters/Stoves..................................... 1,295 1,319 24
Forced-Air Furnaces....................................... 912 4,174 3,262
Masonry Heaters........................................... 9,157 9,245-9,997 88-840
Hydronic Heating Systems.................................. 7,528 13,986 6,458
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request specific comments on these estimates, which
significantly affect the estimates of costs per model lines and per
unit sold and potential changes in sales and, thus, affect decisions on
the affordability of candidate BSER. For example, if the number of
model lines was less and the number of heaters per model line was
greater, then the cost per unit sold would be less and more stringent
options for BSER could potentially be implemented sooner.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impacts of the proposed rule are estimated using
industry-level estimates of annualized compliance cost to value of
shipments (receipts) for affected industries. In this case, cost-to-
receipts ratios approximate the maximum price increase needed for a
producer to fully recover the annualized compliance costs associated
with a regulation. Essentially, the revenues to producers will likely
fully cover the annualized compliance cost incurred by producers at
this maximum price increase. Any price increase above the cost-to-
receipts ratio provides revenues that exceed the compliance costs.
These industry level cost-to-receipts ratios can be interpreted as an
average impact on potentially affected firms in these industries. Cost-
to-receipts ratios for the affected product types range from 2.3
percent for pellet heaters/stoves up to 6.4 percent for single burn
rate wood heaters for the proposed option. More information on how
these impacts are estimated can be found in Chapters 5 and 6 of the
RIA. In estimating the net benefits of regulation, the appropriate cost
measure is ``social costs.'' Social costs represent the welfare costs
of the rule to society. We believe that the social costs are best
approximated by the compliance costs estimated for this rule. Thus, the
annualized social costs for this proposal are best estimated to be
$15.7 million for the proposed option, based on the estimate of costs
to manufacturers for the proposal and assuming no cost pass-through to
consumers. More information on how these social costs are estimated can
be found in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
E. What are the non-air quality health and energy impacts?
These proposed NSPS are anticipated to have no impacts or only
negligible impacts on water quality or quantity, waste disposal,
radiation or noise. To the extent new NSPS models are more efficient,
that would lead to reduced wood consumption, thereby saving timber and
preserving woodlands and vegetation for aesthetics, erosion control,
carbon sequestration, and ecological needs.
It is difficult to determine the precise energy impacts that might
result from this proposed rule. On the one hand, to the extent that the
NSPS wood-fueled appliance is more efficient, energy outputs per mass
of wood fuel consumed will rise. However, wood-fueled appliances
compete with other biomass forms as well as more traditional oil,
electricity, and natural gas. We have not determined the potential for
consumers to choose other types of fuels and their associated
appliances if the consumer costs of wood-fueled appliances increase and
at what level that increase would drive consumer choice. Similarly, we
have not determined the degree to which better information on the
energy efficiency of the NSPS appliances will encourage consumers to
choose new wood-fueled appliances over other new appliances.
V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments
A. Why are we proposing to expand the scope of appliances subject to
the NSPS?
As described in section II, the EPA has had ongoing discussions
with many stakeholders regarding the need to expand the scope of the
current residential wood heater regulation. Stakeholders described
adverse health and environmental impacts arising from the increasing
use of some appliances, actions taken at the state and local levels to
address such concerns, and growth in types and numbers of appliances
that are currently on the market. Numerous states (e.g., Vermont, New
York, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota) have indicated to us that
individuals' concerns about smoke from residential wood burning,
particularly by hydronic heaters, are the top source of environmental
complaints. In the case of masonry heaters, we believe EPA
certification of these typically cleaner devices, would allow them to
be excellent emission reduction alternatives to replace pre-NSPS wood
heaters and be a good consumer alternative in parts of the country that
currently ban uncertified appliances (contingent upon approval by the
local jurisdiction). We also saw a need to address the residential
heating market in a way that recognizes that some heaters and fuels are
substitutes for each other. Regulating only one type of heater may
result in unintended incentives for consumers to favor purchase and use
of unregulated and potentially higher emitting devices. We felt a
comprehensive assessment was needed. Therefore, as part of the NSPS
review process, we evaluated a wide range of residential biomass
heating devices and non-heating devices (such as cook stoves and
fireplaces) to determine what expansions in scope might be needed.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Subpart AAA--Standards of Performance for New Residential
Wood Heaters: Revised Draft Review Document. Prepared for EPA by EC/
R Incorporated. December 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The residential wood heaters NSPS is a ``standard of performance''
as defined by section 111(a) of the CAA. The term ``standard of
performance'' means a ``standard for emissions of air pollutants which
reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' As
discussed earlier, the level of control prescribed by section 111
historically has been commonly referred to as ``Best Demonstrated
[[Page 6353]]
Technology'' or BDT. To better reflect that section 111 was amended in
1990 to clarify that ``best systems'' may or may not be ``technology,''
the EPA is now using the term ``best systems of emission reduction'' or
BSER. As previously with BDT, in determining BSER, the EPA uses
available information and considers the emissions reductions and
incremental costs for different systems available at reasonable cost.
The residential wood heaters source category is mass-produced
residential consumer products, fundamentally different from the typical
NSPS source category that regulated industrial processes. Thus, for the
residential wood heaters source category important elements in
determining BSER include the significant costs and environmental
impacts of delaying production and sales while models with those
systems are being designed, tested, field evaluated, and certified. The
EPA determines the appropriate emission limits representative of BSER.
After the emission limits are established, in general, the source may
use whatever systems meet the emission limits. In developing the
proposed rule, we evaluated possible systems both at baseline
conditions (conditions in the absence of additional regulation) and
under other scenarios. In most cases, candidate BSER for residential
wood heaters is based on improved combustion techniques, primarily
improvements in model-specific combinations of time, temperature, and
turbulence. That is, the improved combustion models have greater
airflow residence time, better insulation to increase temperatures, and
passageways and directed flows to improve mixing and turbulence. In
addition, some heaters also use catalytic combustors to reduce
emissions. Each manufacturer has a potential myriad of combinations of
specific designs that could incorporate these key aspects. Many systems
reduce emissions significantly, increase efficiency, and provide good
operator flexibility. The key differences tend to be confidential
business information as to the specifics of the combination that the
manufacturer uses and does not share with other manufacturers but
rather holds as proprietary. Similarly, the industry trade association
cannot facilitate exchange of such information because of antitrust
regulations. Because each appliance type has a potentially unique
emissions profile, market niche, and manufacturer profile, we made BSER
determinations for each heater type, as described below.
For certain types of devices, information is lacking. For example,
we have no information or very limited information on emissions and
emission reduction techniques for cook stoves, pizza ovens, chimineas,
coal stoves and biomass (other than wood or wood pellet) stoves/
furnaces (e.g., fueled with grass, corn, cherry pits). We are
interested in receiving data for contributions to air quality,
endangerment of public health and welfare, emissions, potential
emission reductions, costs, prices, and sales of coal stoves and
biomass stoves because we believe we do not have sufficient information
at this time to list these sources under section 111(b) and develop
proposed standards. For example, usage rates of some of these
appliances are limited both in numbers of new units and in the number
of markets they occupy. Also, some stakeholders have stated that use of
coal stoves is more common in some coal mining regions, where the
consumer may have access to free or cheap coal, but such stoves are not
typically used in other areas. We request data on any of these
appliances that might help us potentially develop national programs or
standards for these devices in the future.
We are also deferring any regulatory action addressing emissions
from wood-burning fireplaces at this time. Fireplaces typically are not
designed to be ``wood heaters'' and thus are not within the current
scope of the ``residential wood heater'' source category listed on
February 18, 1987, pursuant to the authority of section 111(b).
(Fireplaces are typically used for ambience and most of the heat
content of the wood is lost out the chimney with the relatively large
amounts of excess combustion air rather than heating the room. For
effective heating, some homeowners have inserted a new EPA certified
wood stove into an otherwise open masonry fireplace. In those cases,
new wood heaters/stoves are regulated under the current 1988 rule and
would be regulated by this proposal. Also, some fireplaces have
restricted excess combustion air to less than 35:1 air-to-fuel ratio
and are certified under the current 1988 NSPS.) Fireplaces are
addressed in the current EPA voluntary partnership program that
encourages the development and sale of lower-emitting wood-burning
fireplaces over the sale of higher-emitting fireplaces. The EPA's
fireplace program covers new masonry and prefabricated (low-mass)
fireplaces and retrofit devices for existing fireplaces. See the
voluntary partnership program Web site for more information:
www.epa.gov/burnwise/participation.html#fireplace. We request comments
and additional data on contributions to air quality, endangerment of
public health and welfare, emissions, potential emission reductions,
costs, prices, and sales of fireplaces. We request data that might help
us potentially develop new or revised national programs or a source
category listing and standards under section 111(b) for these devices
in the future. We are especially interested in data on current and
projected sales of new wood-burning fireplaces versus gas-fired
fireplaces, current and projected usage patterns for new fireplaces
versus existing fireplaces, current and projected quantities of wood
burned per existing and new fireplaces, current and projected best
systems of emission reduction for new fireplaces versus existing
fireplaces and costs of current and projected best systems versus
current costs of fireplaces. Also, we are interested in national data
and how these data vary by state and local areas.
B. How did we determine BSER and the proposed emission standards?
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the proposed subparts AAA,
QQQQ, and RRRR recognize that the sources covered by these subparts are
fundamentally different from the typical NSPS source category in that
residential wood heaters are mass-produced residential consumer
products whereas most NSPS regulate industrial processes. Discussions
in sections V.B.1 through V.B.4 of this preamble focus on the analysis
of PM emission reductions under our proposed two-step phased-in
standards for each appliance type affected by this proposal. In
general, for this rulemaking, we have determined that the proposed
first step represents the emission levels that almost all models can
readily achieve now using today's designs and technology. Further, we
have determined that the proposed second step represents stronger
emission levels achievable for all appliance types at reasonable cost,
but allows appropriate lead times for manufacturers to redesign their
model lines to accommodate the improved technology across multiple
model lines and test, field evaluate, and certify the new model lines.
See section V.B.5 for a discussion of the Alternative Approach we
considered to reduce PM emissions based on three-step phased-in
standards, under which the strongest emission standard would be 8 years
after the effective date of the final rule rather than the proposed 5
years. Section V.B.6 discusses other provisions
[[Page 6354]]
we considered and for which we request additional data and information
from commenters.
For these source categories, our BSER determination rests on: (1)
the achievability of the proposed emission levels (i.e., the fact that
top-performing models for each appliance type are already achieving the
proposed emission levels); and (2) the cost effectiveness of the
proposed standards when considering the design life span and the
emitting life span of the appliances in residences. The net monetized
benefits of the proposal far exceed the costs for all options
considered. Realistic model design and appliance emitting life span
assumptions are essential components for a meaningful cost
effectiveness analysis. As explained above in section IV.C. and in our
background documentation,\40\ a model design life span of 20 years is
supported by the historical data that show that the non-cosmetic
aspects of wood heaters designed to meet the 1988 NSPS are still being
used today in some model lines. While some manufacturers may choose to
make more frequent cosmetic changes to their models, the internal
design changes a manufacturer must make to a wood heater model line to
comply with the NSPS are longer lasting. Furthermore, once installed in
consumer homes, wood heaters emit for at least 20 years and many are
operated in residences for much longer time periods (a key fact
motivating wood heater/stove changeout programs). Once purchased,
consumers tend to only replace appliances when they no longer serve
their functional purpose. Wood heaters tend to serve the basic function
of producing heat for well over 20 years. Table 11 presents our
estimated cumulative costs, PM2.5 emission reductions, and
associated cost per ton for our proposed limits, based on a model
design life span of 20 years and an appliance emitting life span of 20
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of the standards proposed in this Federal Register notice,
the EPA invites specific comments on the data and analyses on which we
base the proposed standards. Moreover, the EPA invites specific
comments that provide additional data and analyses that would support a
different standard. Interested persons should note that the EPA will
consider promulgating a more stringent or less stringent standard than
what we are proposing for any of these categories, if the record
contains data or analyses that support a different standard.
Table 11--Cost Effectiveness of PM2.5 Emission Reductions of Proposed Standards and Emission Co-Reductions Based on Cumulative Analysis
[2013-2057] \41\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 reductions VOC Co-Reductions CO Co-Reductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
Appliance type cumulative emission Cost per ton emission Cost per ton emission Cost per ton
cost (2010$) reduction (2010$) reduction (2010$) reduction (2010$)
(tons) (tons) (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cord Wood Stoves........................ $45,492,874 96,523 $471 136,293 $334 1,426,240 $32
Single Burn Rate Stoves................. 11,864,204 236,254 50 416,828 28 1,602,218 7
Pellet Stoves........................... 44,272,694 29,269 1,513 392 112,894 152,082 291
Furnaces................................ 30,451,763 823,770 37 349,207 87 5,491,797 6
Hydronic Heaters........................ 57,760,316 360,587 160 152,858 378 2,403,916 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total *............................. 189,841,851 1,546,403 123 1,055,578 180 11,076,253 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NOTE: Masonry Heaters are not included in this analysis because representative emission tons per appliance could not be determined.
1. Room Heaters
The current subpart AAA definition of ``wood heater'' specifies
certain conditions, including that affected sources are those that have
an air-to-fuel ratio of less than 35:1. As part of the regulatory
negotiation for the current 1988 NSPS, the EPA included the air-to-fuel
criterion in the rule primarily to exclude typical fireplaces from the
affected source definition. An unintended side effect, however, is that
it also resulted in the exclusion of the majority of pellet heaters/
stoves. Also included in the current 1988 NSPS definition of ``wood
heater'' is an exclusion of heaters that have a minimum burn rate of
greater than 5 kg/hr. The definition and test methods had the effect of
excluding a large number of single burn rate wood heaters. As described
below, we are proposing to change the applicability of subpart AAA to
include all three types of ``room heater'' appliances: adjustable burn
rate wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves and single burn rate wood
heaters. Our intent is that this rule will be stated in broad enough
terms to regulate any future room heater appliances that may come into
the U.S. market and function as room heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Analysis period assumes that manufacturers will incur R&D
costs beginning in 2013, in anticipation of final rule. Analysis is
2013 through 2057, based on assumption that the internal emission-
related components of a model designed to meet the proposed Step 2
emission limit will be manufactured/shipped for 20 years, and
shipped models will emit in residences for another 20 years. See
footnotes 24, 36 and 38. PM2.5, VOC and CO costs per ton
are calculated independently for illustrative purposes, even though
VOC and CO reductions would actually occur with no additional cost
as the PM2.5 reductions are achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Adjustable Burn Rate Wood Heaters
Adjustable burn rate wood heaters include freestanding heaters and
heaters modified to fit within a firebox (sometimes called fireplace
inserts). These units were the primary focus of the 1988 NSPS and are
subject to current NSPS limits of 7.5 g/hr for noncatalytic heaters and
4.1 g/hr for catalytic heaters. As discussed in the February 26, 1988,
final rule (53 FR 5865) and earlier in this preamble, the EPA
considered the performance of catalytic heaters and noncatalytic
heaters co-BDT (now called BSER) because the net emissions over time
were estimated to be similar (even though the initial certification
test results are typically lower for catalytic models) assuming
possible degradation of the catalyst and lack of catalyst replacement
by the operator. The EPA considered requiring catalyst
[[Page 6355]]
replacement on a regular schedule, but determined that enforcement of
such a requirement would be difficult. The EPA did require
manufacturers to provide 2-year unconditional warranties on the
catalysts and prohibited the operation of catalytic heaters/stoves
without a catalyst. Additionally, because of these concerns, the EPA
wanted to ensure that further development of both noncatalytic and
catalytic technology would continue.
Since the 1988 NSPS was developed, the state of Washington issued
standards in 1995 imposing limits of 4.5 g/hr for noncatalytic heaters
and 2.5 g/hr for catalytic heaters. In developing the proposed
revisions to the NSPS, we evaluated and identified these ``improved''
catalytic and noncatalytic systems and associated emission levels as
the proposed Step 1. This analysis showed that the state of Washington
level of 4.5 g/hr is achieved by 107 out of 121 (88 percent) of the
EPA-certified adjustable burn rate wood heater models in production and
sold in the U.S. today (noncatalytic and catalytic models combined).
This statistic includes 92 of the 106 certified noncatalytic wood
heater models (87 percent) and 15 of the 15 certified catalytic models
(100 percent). The median certification value for noncatalytic models
was 3.2 g/hr and for all certified models was 3.4 g/hr. Details of the
analysis are in the docket.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Attachment A of Residential Wood Heaters Manufacturer Cost
Memorandum to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R Inc. February 22, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the proposed Step 2 (5 years after the effective date of the
final standard), we considered ``state-of-the-art'' systems that
achieve a certification value of 1.3 g/hr (using crib wood as the test
fuel as specified in Method 28 as required by the 1988 NSPS). This is
approximately 50 percent less than the 1995 state of Washington
standard for catalytic models (2.5 g/hr). The EPA certification test
data show that a level of 1.3 g/hr is achieved by 27 adjustable burn
rate wood heater models as of December 2013. This includes 11 certified
noncatalytic wood heater models and 16 certified catalytic models.
There were no apparent break points other than the current state of
Washington initial certification level of 4.5 g/hr for noncatalytic
heaters. That is, the distribution of certification values was
relatively linear with no step functions other than at the state of
Washington level of 4.5 g/hr. We ask for comments and emission test
data using cord wood to help us determine if the proposed emission
levels should be adjusted for any differences between crib wood and
cord wood.
This source category is fundamentally different from the typical
NSPS source category composed of industrial processes. This source
category involves the manufacture and sale of mass-produced residential
consumer products that are significantly affected by production and
sales volumes and timing of testing and certification. Thus, we are
proposing implementing the proposed Step 2 BSER emission limit 5 years
after the effective date of the final standard to allow for longer lead
times for redesign, testing, field evaluation and certification. This
also spreads the costs over a longer time and a larger number of units.
The intent behind the proposed Step 2 BSER emission limit is to
recognize that current state-of-the-art level of performance appears to
be significantly better than the state of Washington limit of 4.5 g/hr
met by over 85 percent of the heaters sold today on a sales-weighted
basis (i.e., 92 out of 106 noncatalytic models and 15 out of 15
catalytic models), and furthermore better than the state of Washington
catalytic limit of 2.5 g/hr for over 25 percent of the adjustable burn
rate wood heaters sold in the U.S. today (i.e., 20 out of 106 or
approximately 19 percent of noncatalytic models and 13 out of 15 or
approximately 87 percent of catalytic models). As noted earlier and
discussed more fully in the paragraphs below, our decisions on BSER for
this source category have fully considered not only the emission
performance but also the cost and economic impacts, including the costs
to accommodate the best systems in additional model lines. The net
monetized benefits far exceed the costs of all options considered.
The cost impacts of the proposed Step 1 are very small. This is
because, despite being a limit that was originally developed for only
one state, over 85 percent of currently EPA-certified non-catalytic and
catalytic heaters that are in active production already meet the state
of Washington initial certification test values. We also believe
production of any certified heaters that do not meet the proposed Step
1 standard would be discontinued, as manufacturers would likely focus
on models that already comply with the proposed standard in the short
term. While implementing the proposed Step 1 standard would not impose
any significant additional costs on most of the manufacturers, it also
would not achieve a large amount of new emissions reductions for most
of the models. However, implementing an emission standard associated
with the proposed Step 1 would have the benefit of ensuring consistent
nationwide standards and ensuring that the remaining 15 percent of non-
complying adjustable burn rate wood heater models could no longer be
sold. It would also ensure that wood heater/stove changeout programs
aimed at reducing emissions from old, pre-NSPS or pre-state of
Washington heaters/stoves would result in replacement models that meet
the state of Washington levels or better.
The proposed Step 1 limit eliminates the distinction between
catalytic and non-catalytic heater models, which we view as progress.
It is important to remember that the lower emission level catalytic
standards were initially instituted because of concerns that the early
generation catalysts would degrade over time, resulting in eventual
real world emission levels comparable to non-catalytic units. After 25
years of catalyst heater development experience, manufacturers have
demonstrated that the performance of these heaters typically remains
consistently good over the course of proper operation because of
changes manufacturers have made to improve heater design to protect the
catalysts from flame impingement and other factors that previously
caused catalysts to degrade significantly. For example, one recent
study of four catalytic combustors from the two selected heaters/stoves
showed that the combustors maintained substrate integrity without
substantial PM emissions performance reduction.\43\ Therefore,
establishing a separate limit to accommodate ``degradation'' seems to
create a distinction where none exists and adds unnecessary confusion
to the overall regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The Interim Wood Stove Catalytic Combustor Longevity Study,
Prepared for the Catalytic Hearth Coalition by L. Pitzman et al,
OMNI Environmental Services. January 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that there may be concern that a single limit based on
the Washington State non-catalytic limit could result in
``backsliding'' of current catalytic heater models. We think that the
likelihood of actual backsliding is extremely low because of other
factors driving the wood heater market. Given the pending
implementation of the proposed Step 2 limits described below and that
some manufacturers have heaters that already achieve Step 2, all
manufacturers would have market incentives to improve performance as
soon as possible rather than degrade performance. Also, with consumer
education regarding the impacts of PM emission levels, we believe that
consumer pressure will favor better performing units that in general
are more energy efficient and lower
[[Page 6356]]
emitting at reasonable cost, especially as they compare wood heaters
and gas heaters. However, we are requesting comments on whether we
should maintain a separate, lower limit for catalytic heater models for
the proposed Step 1 emission limits, based on the current state of
Washington catalytic standard of 2.5 g/hr.
The proposed Step 2 state-of-the-art BSER cost and economic impacts
would be significant, but our analysis shows a very reasonable cost per
ton of emission reduction when considering the typical design and
appliance life spans.\44\ Our data show that at the proposed Step 2
BSER emission level of 1.3 g/hr, about 20 percent of catalytic models
and 5 percent of noncatalytic models currently manufactured would
already comply with the proposed Step 2 standard. Thus, manufacturers
would need to either modify noncomplying lines or develop new ones to
continue production for approximately 95 percent of the current market.
Some unknown fraction of manufacturers may be able to switch some of
their production from noncomplying models to complying models. Because
we do not know this fraction, because the total of complying units is
only 6 percent (combined catalytic and non-catalytic models) at this
time, and because many manufacturers have no complying models at this
time, we have assumed this fraction to be zero for our analysis.
Historically, those manufacturers that chose to comply with the 1988
NSPS did so for a full range of models. Thus, our analysis shows the
potential emission and cost impacts for the approximately 95 percent of
adjustable burn rate wood heater models projected to undertake R&D
needed to develop the heater-specific combinations of time,
temperature, and turbulence to achieve higher efficiencies and lower
(proposed Step 2 compliant) emissions. That is, although the
manufacturers know the factors that are important for good combustion
and low emissions, they still need to develop and test the laboratory-
specific combinations that can be incorporated into the design of
specific model lines. Alternatively, some manufacturers might convert
noncatalytic models to catalytic models or hybrids as ways to reduce
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimated the resulting nationwide costs based on the cost
assumptions explained in section IV.C. The average annual cost increase
to manufacturers of adjustable burn rate wood heaters during the 2014
through 2022 period analyzed in the RIA is approximately $4.2 million.
Estimated nationwide annual PM2.5 emissions, averaged over
this same period (2014-2022), are projected to be 548 tons/year under
baseline conditions versus 385 tons/year under the proposed two-step
BSER, an average reduction of 163 tons/year, considering only the first
year of emissions for each new heater sold. Given that limited snapshot
for these cost and emission estimates, the average cost of reducing
each new ton of PM2.5 emissions during the 2014-2022 period
would be approximately $26,000 per ton annually. As explained in
section IV.C, the cost-to-sales ratio, which is an indicator of the
ability of the manufacturer to successfully absorb the regulatory
impacts, is high at 4.3 percent. However, when considering the total
costs and cumulative emission reductions over the more representative
full model design life span and appliance emitting life span of 20
years; the overall cost effectiveness is approximately $500 per ton
(shown above in Table 11).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the two-step
BSER when considering total costs and cumulative emission reductions,
and given the 6-year lead time (from the date of these proposed
standards) until models must meet the proposed Step 2 emission limit,
we determined that the two-step phased-in emission limits represent
BSER for these residential consumer product appliances at this time.
Thus, we are proposing a two-step standard for adjustable burn rate
wood heaters, in which Proposed Step 1 is required upon the effective
date of the final rule and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after
the effective date of the final rule. Section V.B.5 discusses a three-
step alternative approach that we also considered for adjustable burn
rate wood heaters, and on which we are seeking comment.
We note that there have been some technical questions associated
with measuring the emission levels associated with the proposed Step 2,
which we are addressing in this proposed rule. That is, the currently
available laboratory proficiency test results cast some doubt on the
reproducibility of test results at lower levels of the standard for the
current EPA Test Method 28. An HPBA analysis \46\ found that the
repeatability and reproducibility of the current test method for wood
heater emissions, as demonstrated by the EPA-accredited laboratory
proficiency test data, may be poor based on the scope of their
analysis. Their analysis stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Final Report: EPA Wood Heater Emission Test Method
Comparison Study. Prepared by Robert Ferguson, Ferguson, Andors &
Company for the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association. December 1,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``At the 95-percent confidence level, repeatability for
the EPA weighted average emission rate is at best 2.9 g/hr
and ranged as high as 5.4 g/hr.''
``The reproducibility was no better than 4.5
g/hr and ranged as high as 6.4 g/hr.''
We believe some mitigating factors are not accounted for in their
analysis, such as the lack of regulatory requirements or incentives for
the test laboratories to achieve highly reproducible results in
proficiency testing (i.e., the laboratories are not required to meet a
certain proficiency level; they are not paid for the proficiency tests,
but rather they absorb the costs as part of their overhead; and, in
some cases, they intentionally staged the test to demonstrate that
variability was possible within the current protocol). Also, these
factors do not reflect the proposed changes to improve the
repeatability and reproducibility of the test method. Consequently, we
believe the previous results merit consideration of concerns about
implementing a lower emission standard, but they do not mean that lower
emission standards cannot be measured accurately. For example, the
State of Washington Department of Ecology has successfully used lower
emission levels in their regulations since 1995, and the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality has used lower levels for tax
credits for low-emitting pellet heaters/stoves.
As noted earlier in this section, we ask for comments and emission
test data using cord wood to help us determine if the proposed emission
levels should be adjusted for any differences between crib wood and
cord wood.
b. Pellet Heaters/Stoves
Several certified pellet heaters/stoves are subject to current
subpart AAA. However, most models currently offered for sale are exempt
due to air-to-fuel ratios greater than 35:1. We considered candidate
options similar to those discussed earlier for wood heaters/stoves,
i.e., improved catalytic and improved noncatalytic systems and state-
of-the-art systems. Our data set for currently manufactured U.S. pellet
heaters/stoves, for which we have reproducible emissions data, contains
24 models, of which 23 would meet the 4.5 g/hr proposed Step 1 BSER
emission limit. We also compared the listings of certified pellet
heaters/stoves for both the EPA and the state of Washington. Of the 224
pellet heater/stove models from both lists, 221 models produced by 35
manufacturers would meet the state of
[[Page 6357]]
Washington emission standard. Only three models produced by three
manufacturers would not meet the standard. Assuming that the rest of
the pellet heater/stove market has comparable performance, we would
expect to see only a small cost impact of requiring the proposed Step 1
BSER emission levels of 4.5 g/hr for noncatalytic and catalytic pellet
heaters in terms of having to redesign units to meet the proposed Step
1 BSER.
Even though additional R&D would not be required to meet the
proposed Step 1 BSER, manufacturers would need to test and certify
their heaters/stoves to sell them after the effective data of the final
rule, which we expect to occur in 2015. Some manufacturers of pellet
heaters/stoves have started incurring costs in anticipation of the
final rule. They would also incur ongoing recertification costs for the
fraction of heaters/stoves with expiring certifications.
Some stakeholders have argued that pellet heaters/stoves are
relatively cleaner burning than other wood heaters and that regulation
is not needed. Other stakeholders have argued that pellet heater/stove
standards should be tighter to show how clean they are and encourage
consumers to purchase pellet heaters/stoves instead of cord wood
heaters/stoves. Considering both positions, and because pellet heaters/
stoves are cleaner burning in general, we think there is environmental
value in ensuring they have an EPA certification so they can be sold in
jurisdictions that require such certification of any wood-burning
appliance (contingent upon approval by the local jurisdiction). This
would help avoid a competitive imbalance regarding wood heaters. Also,
we believe there is environmental value in having third-party
accredited laboratory test results available in all areas so that
consumers can make informed choices among competing residential
heaters.
We are also proposing implementation of a Step 2 state-of-the-art
BSER 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. We estimate
that at least 30 percent of current U.S. pellet heater/stove models
already meet the proposed Step 2 emission level. We assume that
manufacturers will either modify the remaining models or invest in
developing new model lines that can meet the proposed Step 2 emission
level. This assumption may somewhat overstate the potential cost and
economic impacts of requiring a proposed Step 2 BSER, because some
noncomplying models will be dropped and manufacturers may consolidate
their model lines in the short term. However, we do not know how many
models will be dropped. This industry has a history of manufacturing a
wide range of choices of models for the marketplace.
The nationwide annualized total costs are significant based on our
cost assumptions explained in section IV.C and in our background
documentation.\47\ The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of
pellet heaters/stoves during the 2014 through 2022 period analyzed in
the RIA is approximately $3.5 million. Estimated nationwide annual
PM2.5 emissions, averaged over this same period (2014-2022),
are projected to be 199 tons/year under baseline conditions versus 150
tons/year under the proposed two-step BSER, an average reduction of 49
tons/year, considering only the first year of emissions for each new
heater sold. Given this limited snapshot for these cost and emission
estimates, the average cost of reducing each new ton of
PM2.5 emissions during the 2014-2022 period is approximately
$71,000 per ton annually as compared to the monetized health benefits
of $360,000 per ton to $810,000 per ton of reducing direct
PM2.5. The annualized cost-to-sales ratio is 2.3 percent.
However, when considering the total costs and cumulative emission
reductions over the more representative full model design life span and
appliance emitting life span of pellet heaters/stoves, the overall cost
effectiveness is approximately $1,500 per ton (shown above in Table
11).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See footnotes 36 and 38.
\48\ See footnotes 24, 36, and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the proposed
two-step BSER when considering total costs and cumulative emission
reductions, and given the 6-year lead time (from the date of these
proposed standards) until model lines must come into compliance with
the proposed Step 2 limit, we determined that the two-step phased-in
limits represent BSER for these residential consumer appliances at this
time. Thus, we are proposing a two-step standard for pellet heaters/
stoves, in which Proposed Step 1 is required upon the effective date of
the final rule, and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after the
effective date of the final rule. Section V.B.5 discusses a three-step
alternative approach that we also considered for pellet heater/stoves,
and on which we are seeking comment.
c. Single Burn Rate Wood Heaters
Single burn rate wood heaters represent a huge regulatory exemption
in the current residential wood heater market. We estimate that over
40,000 of these units are sold per year. We evaluated all of the
available emission data and discussed the state of R&D with
manufacturers of single burn rate wood heaters. The data show that the
BSER for single burn rate wood heaters based on improved combustion
could achieve the same emission levels for one individual burn rate
category as adjustable burn rate category wood heaters do for the
weighted average of four burn rates. To compare single burn rate
emissions to adjustable burn rate emissions, however, one must remember
that single burn rate wood heaters are by definition incapable of
operating at the lowest burn rates, and that these low burn rates
result in the greatest level of emissions in an adjustable burn rate
wood heater. Thus, the certification test method for single burn rate
wood heaters must be modified to take the single burn rate into account
(instead of the multiple burn rates for the adjustable rate heaters).
For example a rate of 3.0 g/hr could be considered to be equivalent to
the state of Washington standards (of 4.5 g/hr for adjustable burn rate
wood heaters) adjusted to the single burn rate.
Considering that single burn rate wood heaters will not be expected
to operate at the typically higher-emitting burn rates, we expect the
majority of single burn rate wood heaters to meet the proposed Step 1
BSER limit of 4.5 g/hr for adjustable burn rate wood heaters, if the
design is focused on one optimal single burn rate. However, some models
would require modifications to ensure that they consistently pass the
test and to add tamper-proof settings to ensure that operators do not
circumvent the intent of the NSPS. For our analyses, we assumed that
all existing models would need to be modified through R&D, resulting in
significant emission reductions to achieve the proposed Step 1 BSER. We
request specific data and comments regarding these assumptions. Since
2009, single burn rate wood heater designs have been undergoing R&D in
anticipation of the proposed NSPS, and the information that we have
from industry is that cleaner designs are nearly market-ready.\49\
Nonetheless, because these devices were previously unregulated and may
need to transfer technology from adjustable burn rate wood heaters, our
cost analysis assumed that R&D efforts would intensify in order to meet
the proposed Step 1 standard while also beginning R&D to develop models
to meet the more stringent proposed Step 2 BSER limit. Specifically,
for single burn rate wood
[[Page 6358]]
heaters, we doubled our R&D estimate of $356,250 per model for other
appliances in these early years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See footnote 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nationwide annualized total costs are based on the cost
assumptions explained in section IV.B and in the background
documentation.\50\ The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of
single burn rate heaters during the 2014 through 2022 period analyzed
in the RIA is approximately $902,000. Estimated nationwide annual
PM2.5 emissions, averaged over this same period (2014-2022),
are projected to be 932 tons/year under the baseline (unregulated)
condition versus 178 tons/year under the proposed two-step BSER, an
average reduction of 754 tons/year, considering only the first year of
emissions for each new heater sold. Given this limited snapshot for
these cost and emission estimates, the average cost of reducing each
new ton of PM2.5 emissions during the 2014-2022 period is
approximately $1,200 per ton annually as compared to the monetized
health benefits of $360,000 per ton to $810,000 per ton of reducing
direct PM2.5. The cost-to-sales ratio is 6.4 percent and is
calculated based on only the initial 5-year period. However, when
considering the total costs and cumulative emission reductions over the
more representative full model design life span and appliance emitting
life span, the overall cost effectiveness is approximately $50 per ton
(shown above in Table 11).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
\51\ See footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the two-step
BSER when considering total costs and cumulative emission reductions,
and given the 6-year lead time (from the date of these proposed
standards) until new model lines must meet the proposed Step 2 emission
limit, we determined that the two-step phased-in limits represent BSER
for these residential consumer appliances at this time. Thus, we are
proposing a two-step standard for single burn rate wood heaters, in
which Proposed Step 1 is required upon the effective date of the final
rule and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after the effective date
of the final rule. Section V.B.5 discusses a three-step alternative
approach that we also considered for single burn rate wood heaters, and
on which we are seeking comment.
2. Central Heaters
We are proposing subpart QQQQ for wood-burning appliances that
function as ``central heaters'' with the purpose of heating the entire
residence, including current new residential hydronic heaters and
forced-air furnaces. Our intent is that this rule will be stated in
broad enough terms to regulate any future central heater wood-burning
appliances that may come into the U.S. market and function as central
heaters. In this section, we describe our rationale for determining
BSER and the associated proposed emission standards for both hydronic
heating systems (``hydronic heaters'') and forced-air furnaces. As
discussed earlier in this preamble, the source categories to be
regulated by proposed subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR are fundamentally
different from the typical NSPS source category that includes
industrial processes whereas subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR include mass-
produced residential consumer products. Thus, additional factors are
included in the analyses presented today. Section V.B.2.a. below
discusses hydronic heaters. Section V.B.2.b. discusses forced-air
furnaces.
a. Hydronic Heaters
As described in section II.D, hydronic heaters (commonly known as
``outdoor wood boilers'' although there are indoor units as well) are
the subject of an EPA voluntary partnership program, started in January
2007. The EPA's voluntary partnership program provided criteria in 2007
for qualification of units to be approximately 70 percent cleaner than
unqualified models (Phase 1, ``orange hangtag''). In October 2008, the
program evolved to Phase 2, and EPA-qualified Phase 2 (``white
hangtag'') units are approximately 90 percent cleaner than older, pre-
program unqualified units. Under the Phase 2 voluntary partnership
program, new qualified models must emit no more than 0.32 lb/MMBtu of
heat output and have a cap of 18 g/hr on any individual test run
conducted during the qualifying test. (As noted in the hydronic heaters
test method discussion in this preamble, the EPA, the manufacturers,
the laboratories, and key states conducted an additional review of the
test reports to support these qualifications and made some changes to
the test methods to improve the reliability and reproducibility of the
test results.)
The proposed Step 1 emission limit for hydronic heaters is the
Phase 2 qualifying level of the hydronic heater voluntary partnership
program, 0.32 lb/MMBtu. There are currently 36 models (27 cord wood and
9 pellet models) built by 17 U.S. manufacturers that have been
qualified to meet the 2008 Phase 2 level of 0.32 lb/MM BTU.\52\ In
almost all cases, the manufacturers developed models that rely upon
improved combustion techniques, primarily improvements in time,
temperature, and turbulence. That is, the improved combustion models
have greater residence time, separation of the firebox and the water
jacket and the addition of better heat exchangers and better insulation
to increase temperatures, and passageways and directed flows to improve
mixing and turbulence. In some cases, manufacturers are also using
catalyst technology. Each manufacturer has developed their own
confidential business combinations of specific designs that incorporate
these key aspects and some other techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ A list of cleaner hydronic heaters participating in the
EPA's voluntary partnership program is located at https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the voluntary partnership program, the EPA provided
technical and financial support for NESCAUM to develop a model rule for
outdoor hydronic heaters, which several states have adopted or plan to
adopt to regulate those units in their jurisdictions. The model rule
Phase 2 emission limits and the voluntary partnership program Phase 2
emission levels/caps are identical, and are the same as our proposed
Step 1 limit. In several states, the Phase 2 emission levels have
become regulatory requirements for new units. Based on our experience
with the hydronic heater market through the voluntary partnership
program, we understand that it is dominated by a few manufacturers in
terms of the bulk of sales, and each of these manufacturers has at
least one qualifying model already.
For these reasons, we consider the Phase 2 voluntary partnership
program level the appropriate emission level for the NSPS proposed Step
1 BSER, effective upon the effective date of the final rule. As noted
above, there are currently 36 models (27 cord wood and 9 pellet models)
built by 17 U.S. manufacturers that have already been qualified to meet
the Phase 2 voluntary partnership program level of 0.32 lb/MM BTU.
The EPA believes the proposed Step 2 limit for hydronic heaters is
achievable for some manufacturers now and would be achievable for all
manufacturers 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. We
consider this compliance period a reasonable amount of time for
manufacturers to complete development across model lines and complete
testing, field evaluation, and
[[Page 6359]]
certification so that sufficient models are ready for sale. We reviewed
all the hydronic heater emission data available, and we found our
proposed Step 2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu is already met by 4
hydronic heater models (2 cord wood and 2 pellet models) built by 2
U.S. manufacturers (using crib wood as specified in Method 28 WHH in
the voluntary partnership program),\53\ as well as over 50 European
models per test method EN 303-05 (which uses cord wood).\54\ We ask for
comments and emission test data using cord wood and different test
methods to help us determine if the proposed emission levels should be
adjusted for any differences in test methods and test fuels, e.g.,
between crib wood and cord wood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See footnote 54.
\54\ European Wood-Heating Technology Survey: An Overview of
Combustion Principles and the Energy and Emissions Performance
Characteristics of Commercially Available Systems in Austria,
Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; Final Report; Prepared for the
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; NYSERDA
Report 10-01; April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the available data also showed a break point at the
emission level of 0.15 lb/MMBtu heat output. We considered this break
point as a candidate for interim Step 2 in the three-step Alternative
Approach, as discussed in section III above. Several years ago, we
discussed the 0.15 lb/MMBtu level with the voluntary program
stakeholders, including states and manufacturers, as a potential future
``Phase 3'' interim target in the voluntary partnership program to
reduce emissions to approximately one-half of the Phase 2 voluntary
partnership program level. Some of the manufacturers responded quickly
to this informal target and now 11 of the 36 models (6 cord wood and 5
pellet models) that currently qualify under the Phase 2 voluntary
partnership program already qualify at an emission level of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu or better.
The proposed BSER levels include both outdoor hydronic heaters and
indoor hydronic heaters. The initial manufacturers who actively
participated in the voluntary partnership program were primarily
manufacturers of outdoor units, due to the very large concern about the
health effects of emissions from the outdoor units and the fact that
over 90 percent of hydronic heater sales were and still are for outdoor
models. When we moved to Phase 2 of the voluntary partnership program
in October 2008, we explicitly included indoor units to more strongly
encourage cleaner indoor units and to provide another tool for the
states and local jurisdictions, especially since some states were
concerned that some high-emitting indoor units were avoiding rules that
only specified outdoor units. Indoor and outdoor models compete in the
marketplace and having standards on only outdoor units would provide a
market advantage to indoor models. Indoor and outdoor models both can
use currently available improved combustion and improved heat transfer
techniques to achieve similar emission levels. Given the number of
years the voluntary partnership program has already been in existence,
we believe our proposed Step 1 limit upon the effective date of the
final rule and the proposed Step 2 limit 5 years after the effective
date of the final standard provide reasonable lead time to incorporate
BSER in both outdoor and indoor residential consumer models. We ask for
specific comments and data on this determination and the degree to
which other options would be appropriate.
We estimate that there are 30 manufacturers producing approximately
120 hydronic heater models for sale in the U.S. On a sales-weighted
basis, less than 25 percent of the models currently sold would need to
undertake R&D to meet the proposed Step 1 BSER limit, with a higher
percentage that would need to undertake R&D to meet the proposed Step 2
BSER limit. We assumed that any manufacturer undertaking R&D to develop
a new model would aim to meet the proposed Step 2 limit to maximize the
lifetime of the resulting product, while shifting production to models
that already meet the proposed Step 1 limit. For our cost analysis, we
assumed that 100 percent of the 120 hydronic heater models would incur
NSPS-related R&D costs to achieve the proposed Step 2 BSER limit.
Considering typical R&D lead times, and even the different starting
dates for outdoor versus indoor manufactures, we concluded that 5 years
after the effective date of the final standard is an achievable
compliance deadline for both outdoor and indoor models, even if they
were just starting their R&D now. As discussed earlier in this
preamble, most manufacturers have known of the hydronic heater emission
concerns for over 7 years already.
We also investigated the performance of European models in
considering BSER options. Several European countries have already
established emission limits, and they are considering more stringent
limits in the near future. This has encouraged the European industry to
develop more energy efficient and lower emitting technologies. Most of
these state-of-the-art models use multiple-stage combustion and some
use oxygen sensors and CO sensors and automated feedback controls to
help optimize combustion conditions. A concern in comparing the
emission performance of European models with North American models is
the difference in test methods. All European models are tested on cord
wood fuel in Europe by European laboratories to meet European
standards. Few have been imported to the U.S. (by U.S. companies) and
very few have been tested in the U.S. according to U.S. testing
requirements. However, a recent report \55\ included an effort to
compare the performance of the European models to U.S. type performance
standards. Although a perfect comparison is not possible due to
differences in duty-cycle (i.e., proportion of time the unit is
operating) to be evaluated in the test and the emissions sampling and
analysis protocols, the analysis indicates that the top 20 percent
performing European wood boilers (i.e., hydronic heaters) in the size
range of 120,000-170,000 Btu would meet an output-based emission rate
of 0.06 lb/MMBtu using the European test methods. The underlying test
data and limited comparative testing show that over 50 European models
would likely be considered state-of-the-art BSER and be capable of
meeting the proposed Step 2 BSER associated emission level of 0.06 lb/
MMBtu heat output, using EN 303-05, which specifies cord wood as the
test fuel. We ask for comments and emission test data using different
test methods and cord wood to help us determine if the proposed
emission levels should be adjusted for any differences in test methods
and between fuels, e.g., crib wood and cord wood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nationwide annualized total costs are based on the cost
assumptions explained in section IV.C and in the background
documentation.\56\ The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of
hydronic heaters during the 2014 through 2022 period anlayzed in the
RIA is approximately $4.6 million. Estimated nationwide annual
PM2.5 emissions, averaged over this same period (2014-2022),
are projected to be 1,332 tons/year under the baseline (unregulated)
condition versus 84 tons/year under the proposed two-step BSER, an
average reduction of 1,249 tons/year, considering only the first year
of emissions for each new heater sold. Given this limited snapshot for
these cost and emission estimates, the average cost of reducing each
new
[[Page 6360]]
ton of PM2.5 emissions during the 2014-2022 period is
approximately $3,600 per ton annually. The annualized cost-to-sales
ratio is 3.3 percent for hydronic heater models. However, when
considering the total costs and cumulative emission reductions over the
more representative full model design life span and appliance emitting
life span, the overall cost effectiveness is approximately $160 per ton
(shown above in Table 11).\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See footnotes 36 and 38.
\57\ See footnotes 36 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the two-step
BSER, and given the 6-year lead time (from the date of these proposed
standards) until model lines must come into compliance with the
proposed Step 2 limit, we determined that the two-step phased-in limits
represent BSER for these residential consumer appliances at this time.
Thus, we are proposing a two-step standard for hydronic heaters, in
which Proposed Step 1 is required upon the effective date of the final
rule, and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after publication of the
final rule. Section V.B.5 discusses a three-step alternative approach
that we also considered for hydronic heaters, and on which we are
seeking comment.
b. Forced-air Furnaces
Emissions from wood-fired, forced-air furnaces have not previously
received much attention in the U.S. However, industry information
suggests that there are three times more sales of wood-fired, forced-
air furnaces each year compared to wood-fired hydronic heaters. These
units are relatively easy to retrofit into existing structures, and
their sales price is substantially less than hydronic heaters but
greater than gas or oil furnaces. Because they are whole-house heating
systems, they have the capacity to generate large amounts of emissions.
Also, they compete with wood-fired hydronic heaters, which we propose
to regulate. Not regulating wood-fired, forced-air furnaces could
create an adverse competitive imbalance with the wood-fired hydronic
heater market segment of the residential wood heater source category.
Both forced-air furnaces and hydronic heaters compete with oil and gas
furnaces. Consumer choices vary with consideration of upfront sales
price, financing costs, and operating costs, e.g., the cost of
obtaining seasoned wood versus oil or gas.
Wood-fired, forced-air furnaces are not currently regulated in the
U.S. (with the exceptions of broader bans or use limits on wood-burning
appliances), but they are beginning to be regulated in Canada. The main
regulatory mechanisms are local and provincial regulations requiring
listing per CSA B415.1-10, which is the CSA specification for emission
performance of solid-fuel-burning heating appliances.\58\ All CSA
standards are developed through a consensus standards development
process approved by the Standards Council of Canada. This process
brings together stakeholder volunteers representing varied viewpoints
and interests to achieve consensus and develop a standard. The most
recent B415.1-10 Committee consisted of manufacturers, Environment
Canada,\59\ provincial agency staff, test laboratories and the EPA. The
current version of B415.1-10 was published in March 2010, and it
includes new requirements for indoor and outdoor central heating
appliances, including wood-fired forced-air furnaces. In addition to
establishing performance test requirements, B415.1-10 also includes
emissions requirements for PM. Section 4.2.1(c) of the CSA standard
establishes an average particulate emission rate of less than or equal
to 0.40 g/MJ, which is equivalent to 0.93 lb/MMBtu. Manufacturers
anticipate that CSA Standard B415.1-10 will effectively establish the
minimum requirements for future units sold in Canada. For example, the
province of British Columbia has enacted regulations limiting the sale
of wood-burning appliances to those that comply with B415.1-10 (or the
U.S. NSPS when the EPA issues such a standard), and other provinces and
municipalities in Canada are in the process of amending their
regulations to apply to central heating systems, including forced-air
furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ CSA B415.1-10: Performance testing of solid-fuel-burning
heating appliances, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada. March 2010.
\59\ Environment Canada was created in 1971, and has the
responsibility to implement the Government of Canada's environmental
agenda including, but not limited to, Canada's environmental and
wildlife legislation, enforcement activities and other efforts to
protect, conserve and enhance the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the B415.1-10 emissions limit of 0.40 g/MJ (0.93 lb/
MMBtu) for solid-fuel central heating systems, the CSA committee
thoroughly reviewed the best systems available, developed a test method
for such systems and supported emission testing of candidate best
systems. A B415.1-10 validation-testing program performed by Intertek
in Middleton, Wisconsin, included both a high-tech furnace and a
conventional furnace. The high-tech furnace achieved average
particulate emissions of 0.46 g/MJ output (1.067 lb/MMBtu). The
conventional furnace achieved average particulate emissions of 1.65 g/
MJ (3.828 lb/MMBtu) output. Thus, the CSA limit of 0.40 g/MJ (0.93 lb/
MMBtu) output corresponds to a 75 percent reduction in emissions when
using the average particulate emissions of the conventional furnace
tested by Intertek as part of the CSA B415.1-10 validation program.
We also investigated the performance of European production forced-
air furnace models to determine whether their performance might be
better than what CSA found in North America. However, forced-air
furnaces are not commonly used in Europe because they are considered to
be an inferior technology for home heating in Europe; thus we had no
European candidate BSER to consider.
Manufacturers are actively conducting R&D in response to both the
current CSA standard and the anticipated NSPS we are proposing. For
example, one company has recently had an EPA-certified laboratory test
two of their newest models. These tests, using the test method in CSA
B415.1-10, show particle emissions below 0.1 lb/MMBtu heat output.
Considering all of the above, we believe that BSER for forced-air
furnaces may be demonstrated at the same emission levels as for
hydronic heaters. We have considered proposing standards for forced-air
furnaces that match the Step 1 and Step 2 standards we are proposing
for hydronic heaters, that is, a proposed Step 1 BSER of 0.32 lb/MMBtu
heat output and a cap of 18 g/hr as determined by the test methods and
procedures in CSA B415.1-10 upon the effective date of the final
standard and a proposed Step 2 BSER of 0.06 lb/MMBtu heat output as
determined by the test methods and procedures in CSA B415.1-10, 5 years
after the effective date of the final standard. However, we have
concerns that only one U.S. manufacturer currently has models that have
been tested by CSA B415.1-10 and shown to achieve these levels, and,
thus, we are proposing that the Step 1 BSER for forced-air furnaces
match the current CSA B415.1-10 level of 0.93 lb/MMBtu heat output. We
are also proposing, however, that by 5 years after the effective date
of the final standard, forced-air furnaces be subject to the same
standards as hydronic heaters and be required to meet the proposed Step
2 BSER of 0.06 lb/MMBtu that hydronic heaters must meet then under this
proposal.
Given that the largest U.S. forced-air furnace manufacturer already
has a catalytic model meeting 0.06 lb/MMBtu, we think the 6 years of
lead time is sufficient time in which to conduct R&D
[[Page 6361]]
to produce comparably lower emitting model lines, although we are
seeking comment on an alternative 3-step approach with a longer lead
time. Since there are limited emissions data available for forced-air
furnaces that reflect hydronic heater proposed Step 1 and proposed Step
2 BSER, we request specific comments and data on the proposed emission
levels and compliance deadlines, as well as the environmental impacts
and market implications for setting emission limits that match what we
are proposing for hydronic heaters.
The nationwide annualized total costs are based on the cost
assumptions explained in section IV.C and in the background
documentation.\60\ The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of
forced air furnaces during the 2014 through 2022 period analyzed in the
RIA is approximately $2.3 million. Estimated nationwide annual
PM2.5 emissions, averaged over this same period (2014-2022),
are projected to be 3,044 tons/year under the baseline (unregulated)
condition versus 434 tons/year under the proposed two-step BSER, an
average reduction of 2,610 tons/year, considering only the first year
of emissions for each new heater sold. Given this limited snapshot for
these cost and emission estimates, the average cost of reducing each
ton of PM2.5 emissions during the 2014-2022 period is
approximately $860 per ton annually, as compared to the monetized
health benefits of $360,000 per ton to $810,000 per ton of reducing
direct PM2.5. The cost-to-sales ratio is 2.4 percent.
However, when considering the total costs and cumulative emission
reductions over the more representative full model design life span and
appliance emitting life span, the overall cost effectiveness is
approximately $40 per ton (shown above in Table 11).\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See footnotes 37 and 38.
\61\ See footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the two-step
BSER, and given the 6-year lead time (from the date of these proposed
standards) until new model lines must come into compliance with the
proposed Step 2 limit, we determined that the two-step phased-in limits
represent BSER for these residential consumer appliances at this time.
Thus, we are proposing a two-step standard for forced air furnaces, in
which Proposed Step 1 is required upon the effective date of the final
rule and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after the effective date
of the final rule. Section V.B.5 discusses the three-step alternative
approach that we also considered for forced air furnaces, and on which
we are seeking comment.
3. Masonry Heaters
We are proposing subpart RRRR for new masonry heaters. With a few
exceptions, masonry heater emissions are not subject to specific PM
emission limits in North America or Europe. Some states and local areas
do not allow any residential wood heaters that are not certified to
meet the current residential wood heater NSPS. The states of Colorado
and Washington have set 6 grams of particles emitted per kilogram of
wood burned (g/kg) and 7.3 g/kg limits, respectively (each of which is
based on different test methods), and a small number of appliances have
been tested and certified for those states. (The BSER level we are
proposing below uses a different format but is commonly accepted to be
only slightly more stringent than the Colorado and Washington limits.)
We considered various forms for a masonry heater standard, and we
believe that an appropriate format could be a daily average g/hr limit
for the heating cycle coupled with a limit for emissions per heat
output (lb/MMBtu output). The daily average over the heating cycle
format seems to be well adapted to the nature of the technology of
masonry heater operation, which involves one or two short high burn
rate cycles where hot gases are generated during combustion of a fuel
load in the firebox and then pass through the channels, saturating the
masonry mass with heat. The masonry mass then radiates heat into the
area around the masonry heater for 12 to 24 hours. Unfortunately, we
lack sufficient data to set the level of a daily average data approach,
so we are proposing instead a heat output format. The heat output
format has the advantage of providing a good metric for consumers and
regulatory agencies to compare emissions of competing residential
heating appliances for an equivalent heat output. We ask for specific
comments on whether a g/kg format would be better.
We had numerous discussions with states, masonry heater
manufacturers, and laboratories on heater designs, test methods and
heater emissions and performance. The best performing improved
combustion technology masonry heaters have well-engineered designs with
long channels to maximize complete combustion and heat transfer. The
manufacturers provided all available current emissions data. For
example, one manufacturer provided an archive of available data. The
data set included results from 31 tests (measuring emissions per heat
output) that ranged from 0.07 g/MJ to 0.51 g/MJ (~0.17 to 1.22 lb/
MMBtu), with an average rate of 0.26 g/MJ (0.621 lb/MMBtu). As we
discussed earlier in this preamble, we do not have good information on
how many heaters emit at each of these levels and thus have not
developed a good estimate of baseline emissions and we ask for data
that would help inform us. However, looking at this data set in more
detail, we can see that the best ``improved combustion'' systems have
an emission level of 0.13 g/MJ (0.32 lb/MMBtu) heat output. We note
that this level is consistent with the proposed Step 1 BSER for
hydronic heaters.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the source categories to be
regulated by the proposed subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR are
fundamentally different from the typical NSPS source category in that
most NSPS regulate industrial processes whereas the source categories
in subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR include mass-produced residential
consumer products. Thus, additional factors are included in the
analyses presented today as compared to typical NSPS. For example, we
considered whether we should allow longer lead time over which small
manufacturers/builders could spread their R&D costs in order to stay in
business. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act Panel strongly
recommended that we consider allowing more time. See section V.C of
this preamble for discussion of this topic.
We estimated proposed Step 1 improved combustion BSER emissions and
cost and economic impacts based on four groups of costs. The first
group of costs consisted of the two large manufacturers that we know
have already developed potentially complying models and would only face
the costs of certification tests. For the second group of costs, we
estimated the costs incurred by an additional two large manufacturers
that conduct R&D to develop a total of four new model lines. For the
third group of costs, we estimated the cost of one of the manufacturers
using the computer simulation approach to certify additional model
lines. Finally, for the fourth group of costs, we estimated the cost
for all of the small, custom-built manufacturers using the computer
simulation approach to certify their model lines. We do not anticipate
a large nationwide emission reduction resulting from requiring the
proposed Step 1 BSER versus what most manufacturers would have done in
the absence of a rule; however we believe there are some masonry
heaters that do
[[Page 6362]]
not use current best designs and for those heaters there can be an
emission reduction of 70 percent or more. We believe it is important to
ensure that all new models achieve the BSER emission levels and avoid
backsliding.
The nationwide annualized total costs are based on the cost
assumptions explained in section IV.C and in the background
documentation.\62\ The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of
masonry heaters during the 2014 through 2022 period analyzed in the RIA
is approximately $294,000. The estimated cost-to-sales ratio is 4.8
percent. If one were to spread the costs over the much longer typical
lifetimes of masonry heaters (over 40 years), the average annual costs
would be much lower. We concluded that the proposed Step 1 BSER level
of 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output is appropriate for these appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See footnotes 24, 36 and 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For masonry heaters, we are proposing that large manufacturers of
masonry heaters (defined as those manufacturers constructing 15 or more
masonry heaters per year) would be required to comply with these
standards upon the effective date of the final rule. We are proposing
that small manufacturers (defined as those manufacturers of less than
15 masonry heaters per year) would be required to comply with these
standards 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. We are
requesting specific comments on the proposed BSER option and data that
might support alternative findings and enhance our impact analyses. For
example, if we were to develop a g/hr average format in addition to the
lb/MMBtu heat output format, are there products that might meet a daily
average over the heating period versus the averaging only over the
combustion period, and if so, how would this affect levels of
performance and impacts on the environment? Further, we are seeking
comment on the degree to which these dates could be sooner.
4. Alternative Approach for Comment
As noted in section III, in addition to the proposed two-step
standards described above for appliances regulated as ``room heaters''
under subpart AAA (currently catalytic and noncatalytic adjustable burn
rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters, and pellet heaters/
stoves) and for appliances regulated as ``central heaters'' under
subpart QQQQ (currently hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces), we
also considered a different approach, an ``alternative three-step
approach'' for subparts AAA and QQQQ. We seek comments on whether the
final rule should be our (preferred) proposed two-step approach or
whether the final rule should be this alternative three-step approach.
We do not intend for the final rule to allow a choice between the two
approaches. We did not develop a three-step approach for masonry
heaters under subpart RRRR, since it is a one-emission-level standard,
but we are seeking comments on our proposed 5-year compliance extension
for small volume masonry heater manufacturers.
We compared unit cost increases,\63\ nationwide manufacturer cost
estimates,\64\ emission reductions,\65\ and overall cost effectiveness
of the two-step proposal to the three-step alternative approach
considered.\66\ Table 12 compares the unit cost increase, nationwide
average cost to manufacturers and the annual particulate emission
reductions, during the 2014 through 2022 period analyzed in the RIA,
for appliances currently affected by this proposal, considering only
the first year of emissions for each new heater sold. Based on the cost
and emission reduction estimates presented in this table, the overall
cost effectiveness for this proposal over the 2014-2022 period is
$3,250 per ton, but $5,800 per ton for the alternative approach
considered (assuming no emission reductions for masonry heaters, for
the sake of this analysis). Additional information on the impacts is
included in the RIA in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See footnote 38.
\64\ See footnote 24, 36 and 38.
\65\ See footnote 24.
\66\ See footnote 24, 36 and 38.
Table 12--Comparison of Proposal and Alternative Approach (2014-2022)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit cost increase from baseline (2010$) Nationwide average cost Emission reduction from baseline (tons)
-------------------------------------------- increase from baseline (2010$) -------------------------------------------
Appliance type --------------------------------
Proposal Alternative Proposal Alternative Proposal Alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified Wood Heaters.......... 24.................. 48.................. 4,212,303 8,090,026 163................. 136
Single Burn Rate Heaters........ 226................. 337................. 901,732 1,540,600 754................. 756
Pellet Heaters/Stoves........... 24.................. 47.................. 3,460,489 6,255,536 49.................. 24
Forced-Air Furnaces............. 3,262............... 4,891............... 2,252,284 3,813,898 2,610............... 2,712
Hydronic Heating Systems........ 6,458............... 9,672............... 4,554,152 8,302,026 1,249............... 1,250
Masonry Heaters................. 300 (ave.).......... 300 (ave.).......... 307,511 293,776 Not estimated Not estimated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 10,294.............. 15,295.............. 15,688,471 28,295,862 4,825............... 4,878
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are seeking comment and information on potential justifications
for implementing such a three-step standard, instead of our proposed
two-step standard for each of the appliances affected by this proposed
rule, to provide additional flexibility for manufacturers that have
different capabilities and resources to ultimately reach the most
stringent BSER. The proposed two-step standards rely on the assumption
that the proposed Step 2 BSER, already demonstrated by various models
in each appliance category affected by the proposed rule, is achievable
within 5 years of the proposed Step 1 BSER. There is a significant
emission reduction achieved by the proposed Step 2 BSER compared to the
proposed Step 1 BSER in each appliance category discussed above in
section V, but there are no proposed interim emission limits imposed
during the transition from the proposed Step 1 to the proposed Step 2.
In the alternative approach considered, there is a longer transition
period of 8 years between Step 1 and Step 3 (with the same significant
emission reduction achieved between our proposed Step 1 and proposed
Step 2), but there is an interim Step 2 limit which manufacturers must
meet 3 years after
[[Page 6363]]
the proposed Step 1. If we were to give a longer timeframe to redesign
across model lines to accommodate the best systems, test, field
evaluate, and certify a wide range of model lines, we believe there
would be benefit to establishing required interim limits to codify
progress in reducing emissions and to focus positive attention on early
achievers as they show compliance in the period between 2015 and 2023.
We expect that the manufacturers that do not already meet the
strongest emission limits would like the longer time to meet the
Alternative Approach Step 3 but would prefer to not have an interim
Step 2 requirement. However, we do not currently see adequate
justification for allowing extra time without also requiring
satisfactory progress, especially because numerous models already
achieve the strongest emission levels. We also have concerns about the
complexity of a 3-step approach and whether it would be harder for the
EPA to enforce. Thus, we seek comment, including data and potential
environmental and economic justifications, on whether the described
Alternative Approach Step 2 emission limits represent BSER within 3
years of the effective date of the final rule. We also seek comment on
whether an additional 5 years would be necessary to transition from the
Alternative Approach Step 2 to the Alternative Approach Step 3 limit,
or whether such a transition could be made in a shorter time period.
Finally, for single burn rate wood heaters and forced-air furnaces, we
are seeking comment on whether the alternative Step 1 limit should
become effective upon the effective date of the final rule or after a
1-year ``adjustment'' period. The EPA seeks to encourage national
achievement of the (proposed Step 2) BSER for each appliance category
as soon as possible and as efficiently as possible, which is why we
prefer the proposal over the alternative approach we considered.
However, we also seek to balance industry's R&D needs with timely and
efficient standards, and so we are seeking comment on the alternative
approach outlined immediately above and in section III.
5. Other Proposed Emissions Testing and Reporting
a. Efficiency Testing and Reporting
While the CAA gives the EPA authority to set standards for
emissions, and we have issued final rules that have used a variety of
formats for such standards, including efficiency, we lack sufficient
data to propose efficiency standards for residential wood heaters at
this time. We are proposing only to require testing and reporting but
not a minimum efficiency standard. Current data and other information
from manufacturers and testing laboratories and the NYSERDA ``European
Wood-Heating Technology Survey'' discussed earlier in this preamble
show that, in general, the same types of improved combustion BSER
designs that tend to reduce PM2.5 emissions also tend to
increase combustion efficiency, reduce CO emissions and improve
efficiency. Current subpart AAA allows sources to either measure
efficiency or report a default efficiency value. We believe these
proposed subparts are an excellent opportunity to standardize the
collection and reporting of such data.
Most industry members support the collection and reporting of
tested efficiency values, but some do not necessarily support an
efficiency standard because they have concerns that efficiency
standards would encourage a ``ratings race'' and worry that some
manufacturers would sacrifice operational viability in the field for a
higher efficiency rating. We agree that some heat loss is necessary to
ensure adequate draft out the chimney/stack and not backdrafting into
living areas. However, we do not expect manufacturers to jeopardize
their reputation or operator safety for a higher rating, and we believe
that competition among manufacturers to increase their heaters/stoves'
efficiencies is good for consumers and the environment. We request
specific comments and supporting data that would help inform the need
for and level of a possible efficiency standard. Also, we ask for
specific comments on how, in the meantime, to best ensure consumers
have access to the best information on efficiency performance, e.g.,
labels, owner's manual, Burn Wise Web site and/or other means.
b. CO Testing and Reporting
We considered developing CO emission limits for all new residential
wood heaters. However, our current data for CO emissions performance
and methods of control are not sufficiently robust to support strong CO
emission limits, and it would delay the NSPS if we were to seek
additional data elsewhere at this time to support strong CO emission
limits. We expect the CO emissions to be reduced as a result of the
control of PM, because meeting the PM standards will be achieved
primarily by BSER based on good combustion (and in some cases catalysts
and hybrids) which will also result in good CO reductions without
additional standards for CO. However, we are proposing that
manufacturers measure and report CO. We believe this information will
be useful to consumers and state and local regulators. Requiring
manufacturers to measure and report CO emissions would also result in
the collection of data that could be used in the future to establish a
CO emissions limit. We are requesting specific comments and supporting
data on the need for and level of a possible CO emissions standard.
Also, we ask for comments on whether we should require CO monitors to
help ensure proper operation of the heater and to reduce health and
safety concerns for appliances that are installed in occupied areas.
c. Pellet Fuel Requirements
A wide variety of pellet fuels is available for purchase. However,
in some cases, quality claims on the pellet fuel bag do not necessarily
reflect what is in the bag and there can be variable performance.
Manufacturers' data show that some fuel qualities have worse burning
characteristics and operational characteristics than others, which
results not only in heater performance problems but also increased
emissions of PM. The PFI, an industry trade organization, has had
pellet fuel quality standards in place since 1995, with updated
standards issued in 2005, and again, most recently in 2011 (https://pelletheat.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/PFI-Standard-Specification-November-2011.pdf), in response to the EPA's planned revisions to the
residential wood heaters NSPS. We have reviewed the PFI program and
believe it is a good program that obviates the need for the EPA to
develop our own program at this time. Under the proposed NSPS, pellet
burning appliances would be tested using PFI (or, upon request to the
EPA Administrator, an equivalent organization's) graded pellet fuel(s).
Once certified, pellet burning appliances would only be allowed to burn
the grade of fuel that the appliance manufacturer chose for the
appliance certification test and the manufacturer specifies in their
owner's manual for the operator to use. As discussed above, use of
inferior grades would cause heater operational problems and increase
emissions. The overall intent of the certification process is to
increase the consistency and quality of pelletized fuel throughout the
industry, and, thus, reducing appliance operational problems and
helping certified appliances perform at the emission levels to which
they are certified. Heater manufacturers have indicated to us that
market competition will compel them to specify the widest range of
grades for
[[Page 6364]]
which their heaters will properly perform.
The PFI is also implementing a quality assurance program to ensure
that manufacturers reliably produce graded fuels. We propose to require
adherence to this program (or equivalent) as a condition of producing
graded pellet fuels to be used in obtaining certification under the
NSPS. Similar to the NSPS quality assurance program, the PFI quality
assurance program relies on use of accreditation and auditing bodies
that:
Accredit auditing agencies and testing laboratories
Implement and enforce the program, including testing that the
pellet fuels meet the grading specifications
Maintain the enforcement regulations
Administer a laboratory proficiency program
Pursue product complaints
In addition, accredited auditing agencies perform the following
tasks:
Certify the production of densified fuel manufacturers
Authorize production facilities to use PFI's ``grading mark''
Conduct regular audits and extracts samples for third party
verification
Revoke authority to use the PFI mark, if necessary
Accredited testing laboratories perform the following activities:
Provide QA/QC testing for fuel producers--``as needed''
Provide testing for samples collected by auditing agencies
Participate in the accreditation body's proficiency testing
program
Finally, the densified fuel producers perform the following
activities:
Develop an in[hyphen]house QA/QC program based on the PFI QA/
QC handbook and the PFI standard specification
Select an auditing agency and test lab
Demonstrate compliance with grading system component
Maintain compliance through periodic audits, inspection and
testing
As noted earlier, we have reviewed the PFI program and believe it
is a good program that obviates the need for the EPA to develop our own
program at this time. We ask for specific comments on this decision and
the PFI program.
d. Prohibited Fuel Types
As regulated in the current 1988 subpart AAA standards for
residential wood heaters/stoves, operation according to the owner's
manual requires operation with the appropriate fuels because the choice
of fuels to burn in any appliance can have a major impact on emissions
and efficient operation of the appliance. For clarity, we are proposing
a list of prohibited fuel types (e.g., trash, plastics, yard waste) to
emphasize the responsibility of owners and operators to use appropriate
fuels that will result in the performance of the unit as certified, to
avoid the creation of possibly hazardous fumes from burning
inappropriate materials, and to ensure that appliance continues to
operate as designed. Even with burning clean wood, one of the key
factors affecting emissions is the moisture content. Some advocates
have suggested that we only allow use of wood certified to a certain
moisture level and that we include visible emission limits as a tool to
help with practical enforceability of the requirements for proper
operation and maintenance. Manufacturers typically include in their
owner's manuals information on proper maintenance and operation and
state that the wood must be properly seasoned so that the moisture
content is not too high for proper operation. Some manufacturers
include moisture meters for the operators. We are proposing to require
commercial owners (direct distribution manufacturers and retailers) to
provide a moisture meter with the wood heater at the time of sale,
along with the owner's manual and a copy of the warranty. We request
specific comments on whether we should include more specific
requirements on proper operations, such as the moisture content of the
wood and visible emission limitations.
C. How did we establish the proposed compliance timelines?
The following table summarizes the proposed compliance timelines
for the appliances covered by the three subparts.
Table 13--Summary of Proposed Compliance Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance type Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet 1988 requirements remain in
Heaters/Stoves with Current EPA effect for these heaters/
Certification Issued Prior to the stoves through the later of
Effective Date of the Final Rule. the effective date of the
final revised rule or
expiration of current
certification (maximum of 5
years after certification and
no renewal).
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters Step 1: upon the effective date
or Pellet Heaters/Stoves (includes of the final rule.
currently certified heaters after the Step 2: 5 years after the
certification expires). effective date of the final
rule.
Single Burn Rate Heaters............... Step 1: Upon the effective date
of the final rule.
Step 2: 5 years after the
effective date of the final
rule.
Hydronic Heaters....................... Step 1: Upon the effective date
of the final rule.
Step 2: 5 years after the
effective date of the final
rule.
Forced-Air Furnaces.................... Step 1: Upon the effective date
of the final rule.
Step 2: 5 years after the
effective date of the final
rule.
Masonry Heaters........................ Large manufacturers: Upon the
effective date of the final
rule for large manufacturers.
Small manufacturers: 5 years
after the effective date of
the final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed compliance dates are tied to the effective date of the
final standards. As stated earlier, an element of the BSER
determination includes reasonable lead time for R&D to develop and
certify cleaner units. We think limited or no R&D is needed to comply
with the proposed Step 1 BSER standards. This allows manufacturers
approximately 1 year between the date of this proposal and the date of
the final rule to meet proposed compliance standards and limits. This
1-year period is in addition to the time that manufacturers have had
leading up to this proposed rule.
We allowed small producers of masonry heaters that do not have a
history of federal or extensive state regulation, or experience with
voluntary partnership programs, 5 years after the effective date of the
final rule to come into compliance with the same emission standards as
larger masonry heater manufacturers in order to ensure a reasonable
lead-time.
[[Page 6365]]
Finally, we think our proposal for a 6-year lead time before the
Step 2 BSER limits (i.e., 5 years after the effective date of the final
rule) would allow manufacturers a reasonable time to develop complying
models, access the necessary capital to develop them, and complete the
certification process.
We are proposing a 6-month ``sold at retail'' provision for
adjustable burn rate wood heaters, single burn rate heaters/stoves, and
pellet heaters/stoves that were manufactured prior to the effective
date of the final rule, but not yet sold. This ``sold at retail''
provision is similar to that provided in the current subpart AAA, and
provides a reasonable transition for manufacturers to recoup their
investment in their stock on hand. We believe this provision would have
a nominal impact on air quality, because the majority of these
appliances are already expected to achieve the Step 1 emission limits.
For small producers of masonry heaters, we are proposing an additional
5-year lead-time. We are not proposing to apply these extensions to
other sources regulated by this proposal. We do not believe that an
additional ``sold at retail'' provision is needed for outdoor and
indoor hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces. In the case of
hydronic heaters, we believe that any delay of the compliance deadline
for sales would also result in the sale and long-term use of non-
complying units, with a potentially adverse quality impact. We request
specific comments on whether there are other factors we should consider
regarding this ``sold at retail'' window and what length of time might
be considered appropriate in specific circumstances.
While the original subpart AAA created a 1-year compliance
extension for wood heater manufacturers producing less than 2,000
heaters per year, this proposed rule does not include a compliance
extension provision for single burn rate heaters. The purpose of the
original NSPS compliance date extension was to reduce the potential for
a testing logjam and to provide small manufacturers additional time to
conduct R&D, obtain financing, or purchase complying designs likely to
meet the proposed standards. We believe that manufacturers and testing
facilities have now had sufficient time and have gained the expertise
necessary to meet these standards as proposed and that meeting the
proposed compliance dates will impose no undue imposition on
manufacturers or testing facilities. We request comment on the need for
such a compliance extension and the number of models that might qualify
as a small single burn rate heater manufacturer.
As stated above, we are proposing a 5-year compliance date
extension for masonry heater manufacturers that sell fewer than 15
units per year. We also seek comments on whether we should have a cap
on the total units sold in the 5 years, perhaps 50 units. Most of these
manufacturers are very small companies. There are only a few major
producers. According to one manufacturer, the Finnish firm, Tulikivi,
manufactures and supplies about one-half of the U.S. masonry heater
units installed yearly through its network of installing distributors.
The second largest producer is a Canadian firm, Temp-Cast, which
manufactures and exports a large percentage of the remainder as
internal core components only to U.S. dealer/installers and homeowners.
This manufacturer states that the remainder of the industry is dozens
of small producers and installers who produce only a few units, most of
which are custom and individually designed. This manufacturer also
stated that over 80 percent of U.S. masonry heater installations use
manufactured core product installation and are not custom site built
(brick-by-brick).
Because of the resources required to develop, test, and certify
masonry heaters (estimated by industry to be approximately $250,000 per
model, although our cost analysis used a larger estimate), we have
concluded that a manufacturer of a small number of custom site-built
model(s) of masonry heaters would likely be unable to recover the total
cost of R&D and certification testing costs in a reasonable timeframe.
Similarly, a company that makes core components or sells design kits
would be unable to recover total costs if only a few such components or
kits are sold per year. We estimated that the annualized cost for
developing, testing and certifying a single model is approximately
$60,000, most of which is the cost of R&D. If a seller makes $5,000 of
profit on each model sold, he or she would need to sell 12 units per
year to break even. The masonry heater industry recognized concerns
about these costs, and it has developed an alternative compliance
method based on computer simulations. The industry expects that this
alternative will allow sharing licensing of cleaner designs such that
the initial software purchase would cost approximately $1,500 but
ongoing annual licensing cost will be approximately $450 per
manufacturer. We believe the 5-year compliance date extension discussed
above for masonry heater manufacturers that sell fewer than 15 units
per year will allow sufficient time for manufacturers to become
comfortable with this alternative, and use it to demonstrate
compliance.
We considered proposing a compliance exemption for small
manufacturers of masonry heaters because of the overall small size of
the market. However, we were concerned that this might encourage
installation of cheaper, low-performing models, which would place
complying models at a potential disadvantage. We request comment on the
need for either a compliance date extension or a compliance date
exemption for masonry heaters and the length of time that we should
allow.
We are not proposing any extensions or exemptions for small
manufacturers of adjustable burn rate wood heaters or pellet heaters/
stoves. Adjustable burn rate wood heaters are already subject to the
NSPS, and we have estimated that they should not face any R&D expenses
to comply with the Step 1 standards. To reduce unnecessary
certification costs, we are proposing to allow a one-time waiver from
performance testing for the first certification period for any
manufacturer that has previously conducted a valid certification test
that demonstrates the wood heaters in the model line meet the proposed
standards. We also believe that pellet heaters/stoves would not face
any R&D costs to comply with the proposed Step 1 standards, and we
estimate that certification costs will only pose a minor impact. We
request comment on whether there are other factors we should consider
regarding a small manufacturer compliance extension for these
appliances.
We also are not proposing a small manufacturer compliance extension
for the Step 1 standards for new residential hydronic heaters or
forced-air furnaces. There are currently 36 hydronic heater models
built by 17 U.S. manufacturers that have already been qualified to meet
the Phase 2 voluntary partnership program level of 0.32 lb/MM BTU.
Manufacturers of hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces have known
for several years that we were drafting this proposal and that the
states have been very concerned about emissions from the models that
may not meet the proposed standards; and we do not want to perpetuate
sales and use of models unless they demonstrate they do meet the
standards. Once again, we request comment on whether there are other
factors we should consider regarding a small manufacturer compliance
extension for these appliances and what number of appliances sold would
constitute a small volume manufacturer.
[[Page 6366]]
As discussed above, we recognize there is some concern, as there
was with the initial NSPS compliance dates, that testing laboratories
capacity may not be able to meet the demand for certification tests in
the first few years. However, we believe that the steps we have already
proposed, the availability of additional ISO-accredited labs, the
advance notice that industry has had concerning the NSPS prior to this
proposal, and the time between this proposal and the proposed
compliance date of the final rule, should ensure that adequate
compliance certification resources are available. The logjam provisions
of the current 1988 NSPS were never invoked, and we do not think they
are needed at this time. However, we are taking comment on this issue.
We also request comment on whether these compliance timelines strike
the right balance between avoiding undue economic burdens and the need
to get better performing models on the market as soon as possible to
reduce emissions, and whether other compliance dates would be
appropriate.
D. How are we proposing to streamline the requirements for
certification, quality assurance and laboratory accreditation?
As part of the NSPS review process, several stakeholders stated the
need to improve the current certification and quality assurance
requirements. For example, some pellet heaters/stove manufacturers said
one reason they avoid certifying their heaters/stoves is because they
are concerned that the current process is a barrier to rapid product
development and making changes to respond to market demand. Many
manufacturers were also concerned that, as the scope of the NSPS
program expands to include multiple appliance types, the certification
program would act as a logjam. Some states are concerned, however, that
moving away from the EPA certification might result in less effective
oversight. At the EPA, we are also looking for ways to use our
enforcement resources more effectively.
We believe that the proposed changes, described in section III.A
regarding a third-party certification program by an ISO-accredited
certifying body and testing at ISO-accredited labs, will facilitate the
development of improved designs by providing a faster approval process
and reducing redundancies in quality assurance for emissions testing
and safety testing, and will improve enforcement by providing for more
frequent on-site inspections of manufacturing facilities and
laboratories. For example, safety certification audits take place
quarterly and include the random inspection of manufactured units for
compliance with design and safety factors. The experience of the
voluntary partnership programs' ISO process has shown that the third-
party approach can work.
We also reviewed the list of design changes (the ``k'' list; See 40
CFR, subpart AAA, Sec. 60.633(k)) that would result in a need to
recertify a model line when certain tolerances are exceeded. We
reviewed this list based on the experience we have to date on the types
of changes that are significant and knowledge about current
manufacturing processes that help prevent these changes from occurring.
The resulting list focuses on the following key tolerances:
Firebox dimensions
Air introduction systems
Dimensions and locations of the baffle, catalyst, refractory/
insulation, flue gas exit, and the outer shielding and covering
Dimensions and fit of the gaskets for the door and catalyst
bypass
Fuel feed system
Forced air combustion system
We believe these changes will focus resources on the significant
changes that could affect emissions performance of the model in
question. We ask for specific comments on this list and the level of
appropriate tolerances.
We propose to revise the requirement for manufacturers to conduct
quality assurance emission tests once a specified number of units are
sold. Instead, we propose to replace this numerical trigger with a
requirement to retest when manufacturer-specific quality assurance
criteria (e.g., multiple errors in safety tests) are exceeded. We
believe that development of a manufacturer-specific quality assurance
plan with specific criteria and approval by an ISO-accredited
certifying body (or EPA-approved equivalent) and required follow-up by
that certifying body is a more direct measure of possible performance
issues, but we request comment on the exact event(s) that should be
used as the trigger(s) to retest and whether the triggering event(s)
should vary by appliance type.
We are proposing to retain final EPA approval of the certification,
and we also propose to require the manufacturer to submit with the
application for certification a statement signed by a responsible
official that the manufacturer has complied with all requirements of
the subpart and that the manufacturer understands that he or she
remains responsible for compliance regardless of noncompliance by the
certifying body. We believe this combination of requirements would
provide meaningful EPA oversight, assign clear lines of responsibility,
and free up resources to do more on-site inspections and other quality
assurance activities, such as addressing issues of counterfeit
certificates or absence of certificates.
The current random compliance audit testing of the certification
testing program is considered underused by many. The EPA recognized
this and has recently initiated such testing.
A key element of the current 1988 NSPS laboratory audit program is
the ``round robin'' test program. In this program, the EPA purchases a
wood heater and sends it to each of the accredited laboratories to
conduct emissions tests (two runs at each burn rate for a total of
eight runs). The EPA then compares the results to determine inter-
laboratory performance. The EPA recognizes that we have not given this
program as much attention as was envisioned in 1988. Thus, we propose
to strengthen this program by specifying that every laboratory
conducting certification tests under the NSPS must participate in the
round robin tests every other year. If a lab's results are not within
10 percent of the value at which the heater was certified,
then the lab must conduct another 8 runs. Also, we will remind the
manufacturers that, as always, the EPA may potentially use this
information to help determine the need for manufacturer audits and
potential enforcement actions. We think that these requirements and
reminders, combined with the proposed changes in test methods
(described in greater detail in the test methods discussion in this
preamble) and implementation of the ISO process will help improve
inter-laboratory repeatability and reproducibility.
E. What changes and additions to the allowed test methods are we
proposing?
As described earlier in this preamble, we are proposing changes to
the test methods required by subpart AAA. We are also proposing test
methods for the new subparts QQQQ and RRRR (as described earlier). In
addition, we are proposing new requirements for testing and ultimately
certifying using cord wood, which is what the consumer burns. All
affected devices required to be tested using Method 28 or Method 28 WHH
would now be required to conduct such tests using crib wood and cord
wood. Under Proposed Step 1, manufacturers would have the option of
selecting which of these test results to use to show compliance with
the emissions standards. In other words, we
[[Page 6367]]
are proposing to require manufacturers to conduct two separate tests,
one with crib wood and one with cord wood. We are also proposing that
manufacturers be required to report the results of both tests to the
EPA, but manufacturers can choose to certify with either crib or cord
wood under Proposed Step 1. Under Proposed Step 2, manufacturers would
be required to show compliance testing with cord wood.
We are also proposing to revise the test methods to require the
addition of 1-hour filters for each test run to gather data regarding
startup and anticipated peaks. Further, we are proposing new compliance
requirements for Step 2 with emissions limits at the lowest burn rate
(Category 1) and the maximum burn rate (Category 4), not a weighted
average of the four burn rates, as in the current 1988 NSPS.
Based on the extensive consensus development process, history of
the subpart AAA NSPS and hydronic heater voluntary partnership program
emission test experience, and review of similar international
standards, we believe the proposed methods reflect state-of-the-art
test methods. However, we request specific comment on test method
related issues and any data supporting such issues or concerns.
F. What other changes and additions to the administrative requirements
are we proposing?
Consistent with Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Relief, we reviewed the entire current subpart AAA to
identify information that is no longer relevant or useful and removed
associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For example,
because of the changes in the audit procedures, we do not believe it is
necessary for manufacturers to keep records of the number of affected
appliances that are sold each year, by certified model lines, for
purposes of these subparts.
The prohibitions section in each of the proposed subparts (Sec.
Sec. 60.538, 60.5480, 60.5492) is based substantially on the current
prohibitions section in subpart AAA. Similarly, the delegation section
in each proposed subpart (Sec. Sec. 60.539a, 60.5482, 60.5494) is
based primarily on the current delegation section in subpart AAA. In
general, we believe these delegations have worked well and are still
appropriate with some clarifications and additions. The intent of the
prohibitions section is to clarify the responsibility of owners and
operators and manufacturers to comply with the proposed subparts. Key
provisions for owners and operators emphasize that appliances must be
operated in accordance with the owner's manual and the appliances must
not be altered in any way to circumvent the design and operation of a
certified appliance. Key provisions for manufacturers emphasize the
importance of complying with the label requirements and the need to
maintain current certification for all heaters that are offered for
sale. The intent of the delegation section is to clarify the regulatory
provisions for which the EPA has retained sole enforcement authority
(definitions, compliance and certification, test methods and
procedures, laboratory accreditation, reporting and recordkeeping,
revocation of certification, and hearings and appeals procedures).
However, we have proposed to include the ability to delegate provisions
to state, local or tribal agencies where local enforcement is
essential, such as enforcement of permanent labels and owner's manual
content, and presentation of false or misleading information. Note that
when the EPA ``delegates'' enforcement authority, we retain our
authority to enforce while allowing the delegatees also to be able to
enforce the delegated provisions. Also note that the delegations are
upon request, not a requirement by the EPA.
We are proposing to replace the current subpart AAA hearing and
appeal procedures with a streamlined Petition for Review process and
also use this process in subparts QQQQ and RRRR. This process would
allow accredited laboratories and manufacturers to contest audit test
findings, laboratory accreditations, certification denials, and
certification revocations by submitting a written request and
supporting documentation to the EPA. This process would allow for
expedited review and resolution. We request specific comments on this
proposed process and other ways to improve or streamline procedures
while preserving the integrity of the program.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or
tribal governments or communities. The $100 million threshold can be
triggered by either costs or benefits, or a combination of them.
Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.
In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
the RIA for this proposed rule. A copy of the analysis is available in
the docket for this action.
A summary of the monetized benefits and net benefits for the
proposed rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table
8 of this preamble, and a more detailed discussion of the benefits is
found in section IV.B of this preamble. For more information on the
benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rulemaking, which
is available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Information Collection Request (ICR) documents
have been prepared for each proposed subpart. The subpart AAA ICR has
been assigned the EPA ICR number 1176.10, which is a revision of the
currently approved ICR number 1176.09. The subpart QQQQ ICR is a new
collection, which has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2442.01. The
subpart RRRR ICR also is a new collection, which has been assigned the
EPA ICR number 2443.01. The new information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The proposed rules would require manufacturers of new residential
wood heating devices to submit applications for certification of model
lines, to submit results of emissions tests conducted to demonstrate
that the model lines would comply with the standards and produce
certified units according to a quality control plan approved by an
independent certifying body. Manufacturers must submit a notification
of the initial test and biennial reports that each certified model line
remains unchanged. They must also maintain records of all certification
data, maintain results of quality assurance program inspections and
emissions test data, and seal and store the tested appliance.
[[Page 6368]]
Consistent with the current ICR for subpart AAA, we have included
costs to manufacture and apply permanent labels (for all models) on
each applicable unit prior to sale. These labels provide important
compliance information to enforcement officials.
Test laboratories that want to conduct NSPS certification testing
would need to apply for accreditation, conduct initial and biennial
proficiency testing and report the results of all such testing.
Accredited test laboratories would also be required to participate in
an audit compliance program. Finally, the accredited laboratories must
maintain records of all certification tests, proficiency tests and
compliance audit test data.
The required notifications are used to inform the agency when a new
model line is expected to be tested. The EPA may then observe the
testing operation, if desired. Emissions test reports are needed as
these are the agency's record of a model line's initial capability to
comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the
operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.
Adequate recordkeeping and reporting are necessary to ensure
compliance with these standards as required by the CAA. The information
collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used
for targeting inspections and is of sufficient quality to be used as
evidence in court. As discussed earlier, we have reviewed all the
current requirements and are proposing to remove the portions of the
recordkeeping that are not necessary.
The estimated burden for proposed subpart AAA is based on an
estimated 72 respondents (66 manufacturers and 6 testing laboratories)
that would be subject to the rule. The number of total annual responses
for subpart AAA is estimated at 265. The annual burden for this
information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is
estimated to be a total of 6,489 labor hours per year at a total labor
cost of $516,188 per year. The ICR estimates that capital and the
associated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for these systems
would be $1,452,177 per year. The average annual labor burden per
response is 24 hours.
The estimated burden for proposed subpart QQQQ is based on an
estimated 41 respondents (37 manufacturers and 4 testing laboratories)
that would be subject to the rule. The number of total annual responses
for subpart QQQQ is estimated at 67. The annual burden for this
information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is
estimated to be a total of 2,134 labor hours per year at a total labor
cost of $169,745 per year. The ICR estimates that capital and operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs would be $715,796 per year. The average
annual labor burden per response is 32 hours.
The estimated burden for proposed subpart RRRR is based on an
estimated 48 respondents (45 manufacturers and 3 testing laboratories)
that would be subject to the rule. The number of total annual responses
for subpart RRRR is estimated at 108. The annual burden for this
information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is
estimated to be a total of 2,044 labor hours per year at a total labor
cost of $162,589 per year. The ICR estimates that capital and operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs would be $89,037 per year. The average
annual labor burden per response is 19 hours. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0734. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and
OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to the EPA. Send ICR-related comments to OMB at the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after February 3, 2014, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by March 5,
2014. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is primarily engaged in manufacturing heating equipment (except
electric and warm air furnaces), such as heating boilers (heaters),
heating stoves, floor and wall furnaces, and wall and baseboard heating
units, as defined by NAICS code 333414 with fewer than 500 employees,
or is primarily engaged in manufacturing air-conditioning and warm air
heating equipment as defined by NAICS code 333415 with fewer than 750
employees, or is primarily engaged in masonry contracting, as defined
by NAICS code 238140 with annual receipts less than 14 million dollars
(based on Small Business Administration size standards); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could reduce that impact. The IRFA contained within the RIA for this
proposed rule is available for review in the docket and is summarized
below:
Reason Why Action Is Being Considered. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, this proposal was developed following CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B) review of the existing residential wood heater
NSPS.
Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis of Proposed Rule.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the EPA is proposing to amend
Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters and to add
two new subparts: Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic
Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces and Standards of Performance for New
Residential Masonry Heaters. This proposal would achieve several
objectives, including applying updated emission limits that reflect
BSER; improving coverage of the broad suite of residential wood
heaters; improving the test methods; and streamlining the certification
process. This proposal does not include any requirements on heaters
that are solely fired by gas or oil. This proposal does not affect
existing heaters. This proposal
[[Page 6369]]
was developed under the authority of CAA section 111.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, small entities that the EPA
anticipates being affected by this proposal would include almost all
manufacturers of residential wood heaters. We estimate that roughly
250-300 U.S. companies manufacture residential wood heaters. We believe
that approximately 90 percent of these manufacturers meet the SBA
small-entity definition of having fewer than 500 employees.
Description of reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements
are described in the section immediately above (B. Paperwork Reduction
Act). As discussed there, the information collection requirements
(ICR), including reporting and recordkeeping, in this proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. For subpart AAA, we estimated the potential
annual burden averaged over the first 3 years of the ICR to be a total
of 6,489 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $516,188 per
year and an average annual labor burden per response of 24 hours. For
subpart QQQQ, we estimated 2,134 labor hours per year at a total labor
cost of $169,745 per year and an average annual labor burden per
response of 32 hours. For subpart RRRR, we estimated 2,044 labor hours
per year at a total labor cost of $162,589 per year and an average
annual labor burden per response of 19 hours.
Description of other compliance requirements. As described
earlier in this preamble, this proposal would apply updated emission
limits that reflect the current best systems of emission reduction and
improve the coverage of the expanded variety of types of residential
wood heaters. We estimate the proposed NSPS's total annualized average
nationwide costs would be $15.7 million (2010$) over the 2014 through
2022 period. The economic impacts for industries affected by this
proposed rule over this same period range from 4.3 percent for
manufacture of wood heater/stove models to as much as an 6.4 percent
compliance cost-to-sales estimate for manufacture of single burn rate
wood heater models. These impacts do not presume any pass-through of
impacts to consumers. With pass-through to consumers, these impact
estimates to manufacturers will decline proportionate to the degree of
pass-through. We estimate that small entities will have annualized
costs of greater than 1 percent of their sales in all industries except
NAICS 332510, 333414 and 423720 with fewer than 20 employees, and NAICS
236115, 238140 and 442299 with receipts less than $10 million. Those
establishments in NAICS 332510, 333414 and 423720 with cost-to-receipt
ratios higher than 1 percent account for 80 percent of small entities
affected in these industries. Establishments in NAICS 236115, 238140
and 442299 with cost-to-receipt ratios higher than 1 percent account
for 99 percent of small entities affected in these industries.
Relevant federal rules that may overlap or conflict with
this proposal. There are no other relevant federal rules.
Significant alternatives. The significant alternatives to
this proposal, especially those that might minimize potential impacts
on small entities, are presented in the remainder of this section.
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the EPA also
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (Panel) to obtain
advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities
that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. The
following paragraphs describe the process, the type of small entity
representatives, the outreach efforts and the Panel members.
Well before beginning the formal SBREFA process, the EPA actively
engaged in outreach with HPBA, the Masonry Heater Association (MHA) and
PFI and many of their member companies to discuss the rule under
development and to provide these contacts with an early opportunity to
ask questions and discuss their concerns.\67\ The EPA provided each
small business with general information on the SBREFA process and
background information on the NSPS rulemaking process and current
schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Also, as noted in this preamble in the discussion of
development of the hydronic heater emission limits, the EPA worked
with the hydronic heater industry in 2006 to develop a voluntary
partnership program to encourage manufacture of cleaner models,
www.epa.gov/burnwise/participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on consultations with the Small Business Administration, and
resulting from solicited self-nominations, we prepared a list of 30
potential Small Entity Representatives (SERs), from residential wood
heating appliance manufacturers (wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves,
hydronic heaters, forced-air furnaces and masonry heaters), other wood-
burning appliance manufacturers (fireplaces, cook stoves), equipment
suppliers, chimney sweeps, test laboratories, masons and trade
associations. Once the official pre-Panel process began and potential
SERs were identified, the EPA held an outreach meeting with the
potential SERs and invited representatives from the Office of Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration (OA/SBA) and the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and
Budget (OIRA/OMB) on June 29, 2010, to solicit their feedback on the
upcoming proposed rulemaking. Representatives from 26 of the 30
companies and organizations that we selected as potential SERs for this
SBREFA process participated in the meeting (in person and by phone). At
that meeting, the EPA solicited written comments from the potential
SERs, which were later summarized and shared with the Panel as part of
the convening document.
The SBAR Panel convened on August 4, 2010. The Panel consisted of
representatives of the EPA, OA/SBA and OIRA/OMB. The Panel held a
formal outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs on August 25,
2010. To help the SERs prepare for this meeting, on August 11, 2010,
the Panel sent a list of questions, preliminary cost information and
other materials to each of the SERs via email. Additional materials
were emailed to the SERs on August 19, 2010. The Panel provided the
opportunity for questions and comment during the meeting on various
aspects of the proposal being developed, including the expanded scope
of the rule, changes to the current requirements under consideration,
preliminary cost information and follow up from the June 29, 2010,
meeting on the SERs' ideas for regulatory flexibility. During the
August 25 meeting, SERs voiced general support for the planned proposed
rule and shared specific concerns with the Panel members. As a result
of this meeting, the EPA received many useful verbal comments, and the
EPA received many helpful written comments by September 10, 2010.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel final full report is included
in the docket for this proposed rule. We invite comments on the report.
A summary of the Panel recommendations is presented below. We have
attempted to follow the Panel's recommendations to the degree we can
while also ensuring that the options are practicable, enforceable,
[[Page 6370]]
environmentally sound and consistent with the CAA. For those
recommendations not adopted by the EPA, we have included an explanation
for why we rejected them.
Many of the SERs and the Panel had concerns about the breadth of
this rulemaking and the challenges the EPA faces in conducting
rulemaking for all of these source categories at one time and the
challenges that the small businesses will face in having to comply with
standards for all of these source categories at one time. The Panel
recommended that the EPA should consider focusing efforts first on
emissions sources that have the greatest potential to impact public
health through the magnitude of emissions and population exposure. We
have focused our efforts. The Panel noted the adverse effects of the
1988 NSPS on numerous wood heater/stove manufacturers, and the need to
carefully develop a rule that will minimize business closures, while
still achieving significant emission reductions. All Panel members
believed that the EPA had adequate information to move forward with
developing revisions that apply to the residential wood heater
categories that are already regulated by the 1988 NSPS. However, two
Panel members recommended that the EPA Administrator consider taking
more time to collect additional information to better determine BSER
for the certified wood heater category. They concluded that the EPA did
present to the Panel enough information to justify regulation of this
subcategory, but the EPA did not adequately inform the SERs about the
other categories. These two Panel members believed it was unclear
whether adoption of a more stringent standard for new sources would
slow the adoption of new, cleaner burning heaters, potentially delaying
improvements in air quality. The two Panel members further believed,
based on the information available from the EPA and the SERs at that
time, that they could not conclude that a nationwide NSPS limit on the
other categories would be the preferred approach for reducing wood
heater emissions.
Following the Panel's convening on August 4, 2010, the EPA
collected additional information, and we refined the economic and
technical analyses based, in part, on input from the SERs as the basis
for this proposal. The Panel recommended that the EPA Administrator
consider assessing the availability of data to better characterize each
source category prior to considering proposal of standards. In
particular, the Panel recommended that the EPA consider characterizing
the emissions per unit, operating hours per year, and the distribution
of emissions across the unit types within each category under
discussion at that time to better understand the magnitude of emissions
reductions that may or may not be reduced through alternative
regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms. As discussed earlier, the EPA
has considered such characterizations and alternatives.
The following is a list of Panel recommendations and how we
incorporated them into this proposal:
The Panel recommended that the EPA should consider
focusing efforts first on emissions sources that have the greatest
potential to impact public health through the magnitude of emissions
and population exposure. This proposal focuses on those sources.
The Panel encouraged the EPA to consider flexibilities
that will most directly minimize the small business burdens, for
example delayed compliance dates for low volume production. The delayed
compliance approach was predicated on the concept that it will take a
number of years for manufacturers to recover the costs of the R&D
investment in order to achieve compliance. This proposal has
incorporated a stepped approach for emission limits and asks for
comments on other alternative approaches.
The Panel recommended that the EPA consider the
availability and feasibility of certification, testing labs, testing
standards and other requirements. In particular, the Panel recommended
that the EPA consider ways to streamline compliance certification,
identifying flexible approaches and procedures that will reduce the
burden and time for manufacturers to complete the application, testing
and approval process for new model lines. For example, the Panel
recommended that the EPA consider allowing the use of International
Standards Organization (ISO)-accredited laboratories and certifying
bodies to expand the number of facilities that would be required for
testing and certification of the new residential solid biomass
combustion appliances. Additionally, the Panel recommended that the EPA
consider different compliance time frames for different product
categories to reduce the potential for logjams at test labs and the
overall impact on companies that manufacture multiple categories. This
proposal includes stepped emission limits for different categories and
adds ISO-accredited laboratories and ISO-accredited certifying bodies
to increase the availability of laboratories and certifiers. Further,
this proposal asks for specific comments on the schedules.
The Panel recommended that the EPA continue to allow
manufacturers to test a representative unit for a model line rather
than testing and reporting results for each individual unit. This
proposal continues to allow that.
The Panel recommended that the EPA consider emphasizing
that the NSPS will address only new units. This proposal emphasizes
that it does not affect existing units.
In the Panel Report, SBA and OMB recommended that the EPA
not move forward with proposed emission limits for pellet stoves,
indoor hydronic heaters, biomass pellet stoves, masonry heaters,
masonry fireplace kits, site-built masonry fireplaces, coal stoves,
cook stoves, bake ovens (including Native American Traditional Bake
Ovens), camp stoves, outdoor fireplaces and chimineas. This proposal
establishes emission limits for pellet stoves/heaters, which compete
with adjustable burn rate wood stoves/heaters in the ``room heaters''
consumer marketplace. There is confusion in the marketplace as to why
some pellet stoves are regulated and why some are not. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, the potential exclusion of pellet stoves with
greater than 35-to-1 air-to-fuel ratio is an unintended consequence of
the 1988 actual intention of not setting emission limits for open
fireplaces with high excess combustion air that do not operate as
effective heaters. We believe that not moving forward on pellet stoves
now would contribute to further confusion and an uneven playing field
in the marketplace. Further, the emission levels we are proposing for
pellet stoves/heaters are at the same level as the proposed wood stove/
heater standards and are already achieved by most pellet stove/heater
models and thus do not impose substantial compliance costs. Similarly,
masonry heaters compete in the residential wood heaters consumer
marketplace and there is confusion as to why they are regulated by some
states, but not the EPA, and are even banned by some air districts
because masonry heaters are not EPA-certified. Most masonry heaters are
effective heaters and relatively clean and efficient, especially
compared to pre-NSPS wood stoves. Requiring valid certification testing
and reporting and providing that information to regulators and
consumers and the public will help inform all as they strive to make
appropriate choices on wood heating and air quality. That is, the
masonry heaters can be an excellent emission reduction choice for
replacing higher emission pre-NSPS wood stoves and
[[Page 6371]]
should be encouraged over old wood stoves in most air sheds. Further,
the emission levels we are proposing are already achieved by most
masonry heater designs and we allow extra time for small manufacturers.
This proposal addresses indoor hydronic heaters because they compete
with outdoor hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces in the ``central
heaters'' consumer marketplace and there already is confusion as to why
some are regulated by some states and some are not. Further, the
magnitude of their emissions is of great concern and BSER controls are
highly justified on cost-benefit grounds. The remainder of the
appliances listed above are not included in this proposal.
In the Panel report, SBA and OMB recommended that ``where
EPA estimates that the nationwide emissions are less than 300 tons per
year (or some other value) . . . the EPA Administrator should consider
options of not issuing an NSPS but rather consider allowing Regions and
States to control such sources and consider other efforts, including
voluntary standards to lower emissions.'' We considered this
recommendation but we could not find a legal or policy justification
for an arbitrary cutoff and it is not included in this proposal. Also,
we note that many states are prohibited from setting control
requirements more stringent than the EPA requirements and all states
have concerns about the lack of resources necessary to develop and
adopt and implement state standards or voluntary programs, especially
when most believe it is the EPA's responsibility, and some have sued
the EPA for failure to review and promulgate national standards on time
as statutorily required. Further, the EPA does not agree with this
recommendation, especially considering the strong recommendations by
many states that the EPA regulate all residential wood heaters as soon
as possible to provide another tool to help them with their efforts to
reduce wood smoke emissions. As stated elsewhere in this proposal, the
EPA is not proposing standards at this time for biomass pellet heater/
stoves that are designed to only combust biomass other than wood, bake
ovens, fireplaces, coal-only stoves, chimineas, ceremonial fires and
commercial pizza ovens.
Two Panel members recommended that if the EPA decides to
later pursue regulation of categories other than certified wood
heaters, the EPA should convene another Panel to address those
subcategories at the appropriate time. The EPA does not agree with this
recommendation for residential wood heaters because the EPA believes
that the SERs already have had multiple opportunities to address those
subcategories. Furthermore, the EPA has conducted numerous meetings
after the Panel process was completed to provide much additional
information (e.g., technical discussions of refined alternatives) and
updates to stakeholders including the SERs and other small businesses
and other interested parties. We emphasize that this proposal is not a
final rule but rather it is a proposal for public review and comment.
We welcome comments and data on all aspects of this proposal that will
help us prepare the final rulemaking.
As noted earlier, a copy of the Panel final full report is included
in the docket for this proposed rule. We invite comments on the report
and on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule contains no federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for state, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. This proposed action
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments.
The nationwide annualized average compliance cost of this proposed rule
for directly affected appliances is $15.7 million/yr in the 2014-2022
timeframe (2010$). Therefore, this proposed rule would not be subject
to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This proposed rule would also not be subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed
rule would not apply to such governments and would impose no
obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires the
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule would not
impose any requirements on state and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. Although section 6 of
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed action, the EPA
did consult with representatives of state and local governments in
developing this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and
consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the
EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits
comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This proposed rule would not impose any requirements on tribal
governments; thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, we
recognize that the air quality and public health benefits to be
achieved by this rule would benefit tribes, and we conducted outreach
to tribal environmental staff and consulted with representatives of
tribal officials in developing this action.
During the development of this proposed rulemaking, the EPA
conducted outreach with numerous tribal representatives to provide
opportunities for input prior to development of the proposed rule. We
provided information at the July 2010, National Tribal Forum/National
Tribal Air Association (NTAA) meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and
the November 2010, EPA Region 10 Tribal Leaders Summit in Juneau,
Alaska. We also presented information on this proposed rulemaking in
the April 2010, issue of Tribal Air News and during the EPA/NTAA tribal
workgroup conference calls (April 2010, July 2010, August 2010, and May
2013). Specifically, we received input from the EPA/NTAA tribal
workgroup members on culturally relevant exclusions from the proposed
[[Page 6372]]
standards. We agreed with their input, clarified that we do not intend
to regulate ceremonial fires, and added a definition to the rule to
exclude traditional Native American bake ovens.
On February 18, 2011, the EPA mailed letters to about 600 elected
tribal leaders in the U.S. offering an opportunity for consultation on
this proposal. We received requests from six tribes. These tribes
agreed to discuss this proposal with us in a conference call held on
March 22, 2011. The tribes were very supportive of this proposal and
provided some helpful clarifications of definitions (e.g., Native
American bake ovens) that we have incorporated in this proposal.
We plan to continue to provide updates on the rule on the EPA/NTAA
conference calls and to offer opportunities to tribal leaders for
consultation. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this
proposed action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,''
as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because the agency does not believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. The report, ``Analysis of
Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion Emissions for Different Socio-
Economic Groups,'' \68\ shows that on a nationwide basis, cancer risks
due to residential wood smoke emissions among disadvantaged population
groups generally are lower than the risks for the general population
due to residential wood smoke emissions. One of the demographic
variables examined for this report was that of children 18 years and
younger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ ``Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion
Emissions for Different Socio-Economic Groups, Revised Draft
Report.'' Prepared for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Prepared by EC/R
Inc., EPA Contract No. EP-D-05-085, Work Assignment No. 4-3. April
22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule is expected to reduce environmental impacts for
everyone, including children. This action proposes emissions limits at
the levels based on BSER, as required by the CAA. Based on our
analysis, we believe this rule would not have a disproportionate impact
on children, and, in fact, will result in improvements to children's
health.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to smoke
from residential wood heaters.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any significant adverse energy effects. In
general, we expect the NSPS to improve technology, including energy
efficiency. Reducing emissions and increasing efficiency might increase
the use of wood fuel, which would relieve pressure on traditional coal
or petroleum based energy sources. However, as described in section
IV.E, it is difficult to determine the precise energy impacts that
might result from this rule. This is because wood-fueled appliances
compete with other biomass forms as well as more traditional oil,
electricity and natural gas. We have not determined the potential
conversion to other types of fuels and their associated appliances if
the consumer costs of wood-fueled appliances increase and at what level
that increase would drive consumer choice.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes to use several VCS test methods, in full or in part, including
the following methods available for review at the ASTM Web site
www.astm.org/EPA-review: E2515-10 ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution
Tunnel'' (See also ASTM WK20442 proposed revision and ASTM WK31433
proposed revision); E2779-10 ``Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions from Pellet Heaters;'' E2780-10 ``Standard
Test Method for Determining Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood
Heaters;'' E2618-13 ``Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Particulate Matter Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Outdoor Solid
Fuel-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances;'' ASTM E2817-11 ``Standard Test
Method for Test Fueling Masonry Heaters;'' ASTM WK26558 ``Specification
for Calculation Method for Custom Designed, Site Built Masonry
Heaters.'' Also, we propose to use, in part, the following test method
available for review at the CSA Web site https://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/fuel-burning-equipment/b4151-10/invt/27013322010/: CSA B415.1-10
``Performance Testing of Solid-fuel-burning Heating Appliances.''
Finally, we propose to use, in part, the following test method prepared
by the European Union: EN 303-5 ``Heating boilers for solid fuels, hand
and automatically stoked nominal heat output of up to 1025 MBtu--
Terminology, requirements, testing, and marketing.'' We believe that
all the methods listed above have some positive aspects that can help
stakeholders determine emissions under various operation conditions.
For more details on each method, please refer to the discussions in
Section III of this preamble.
In addition, we determined that the VCS ASTM E871-82 (2006),
``Standard Test Method for Moisture Analysis of Particulate Wood
Fuels'' is acceptable as an alternative to Methods 5H and 28.
The search identified five other VCS that were potentially
applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. However,
the EPA determined that the five candidate VCS would not be practical
due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other
important technical and policy considerations. The five VCS and other
information and conclusion, including
[[Page 6373]]
the search and review results, are in the docket for this proposed
rule. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking. Specifically, we invite the public to identify potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards, in whole or in part, should or should not be used in this
regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S. The EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to
include meaning involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin or income with respect to the development,
implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and
policies.
As discussed earlier, the report, ``Analysis of Exposure to
Residential Wood Combustion Emissions for Different Socio-Economic
Groups,'' shows that on a nationwide basis, cancer risks due to
residential wood smoke emissions among disadvantaged population groups
generally are lower than the risks for the general population due to
residential wood smoke emissions. Thus, we have determined that this
proposed rule would not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations because it increases the level of environmental protection
for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority low-income or indigenous population.\69\ This
proposed rule establishes national standards that would reduce
primarily PM emissions from new residential wood heaters and, thus,
would decrease the amount of these emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ ``Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion
Emissions for Different Socio-Economic Groups, Revised Draft
Report.'' Prepared for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Prepared by EC/R
Inc., EPA Contract No. EP-D-05-085, Work Assignment No. 4-3. April
22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 3, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart A--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(109) through (a)(115); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(109) ASTM E871-82 (2006), Standard Test Methods for Moisture
Analysis of Particulate Wood Fuels, IBR approved for appendix A: Method
5H and Method 28.
(110) ASTM E2515-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution Tunnel, IBR
approved for Sec. 60.534(c), Sec. 60.5476(b) and Sec. 60.5488(b).
(111) ASTM E2779-10, Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions from Pellet Heaters, IBR approved for
Sec. 60.534(a)(2).
(112) ASTM E2618-13 Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Particulate Matter Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Outdoor Solid
Fuel-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances, IBR approved for Sec.
60.5476(a)(2).
(113) ASTM E2780-10, Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters, IBR approved for Sec.
60.534(a)(2).
(114) ASTM E2817-11, Standard Test Method for Test Fueling Masonry
Heaters, IBR approved for Sec. 60.5488(a).
(115) ASTM WK26558, New Specification for Calculation Method for
Custom Designed, Site Built Masonry Heaters, IBR approved for Sec.
60.5488(c)(1).
* * * * *
(p) This material is available for purchase from the Canadian
Standards Association (CSA) at https://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/fuel-burning-equipment/b4151-10/invt/27013322010/.
(1) CSA B415.1-10, Performance Testing of Solid-fuel-burning
Heating Appliances, IBR approved for Sec. 60.534(d) and Sec.
60.5476(c) and (d).
(2) [Reserved]
0
3. Revise subpart AAA to read as follows:
Subpart AAA--Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters
Sec.
60.530 Am I subject to this subpart?
60.531 What definitions must I know?
60.532 What standards and associated requirements must I meet and by
when?
60.533 What compliance and certification requirements must I meet
and by when?
60.534 What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and requirements for certification?
60.535 What procedures must I use for laboratory accreditation or
certifying body accreditation?
60.536 What requirements must I meet for permanent labels and
owner's manuals?
60.537 What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
60.538 What activities are prohibited under this subpart?
60.539 What Petition for Review procedures apply to me?
60.539a Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.539b What parts of the General Provisions do not apply?
Subpart AAA--Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood
Heaters
Sec. 60.530 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you operate, manufacture,
sell, offer for sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to distribute,
introduce, or deliver for introduction, into commerce in the United
States, an affected wood heater specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of this section:
(1) Each adjustable burn rate wood heater with a current EPA
certificate of compliance, single burn rate wood heaters with a current
EPA certificate of compliance, and each pellet stove with a current EPA
certificate of compliance issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE] according to the certification procedures in effect in this
subpart at the time of certification that are manufactured on or after
July 1, 1988 are affected wood heaters.
[[Page 6374]]
(2) All other residential wood heaters under this subpart
manufactured or sold on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] are
affected wood heaters.
(b) Each affected wood heater must comply with the provisions of
this subpart unless exempted under paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of
this section.
(1) Affected wood heaters manufactured in the United States for
export are exempt from the applicable emission limits of Sec. 60.532
and the requirements of Sec. 60.533.
(2) Affected wood heaters used for research and development
purposes that are never offered for sale or sold and that are not used
for the purpose of providing heat are exempt from the applicable
emission limits of Sec. 60.532 and the requirements of Sec. 60.533.
No more than 50 wood heaters manufactured per model line can be
exempted for this purpose.
(3) Appliances that do not burn wood or wood pellets (such as coal-
only heaters that meet the definition in Sec. 60.531 or corn-only
pellet stoves) are exempt from the applicable emission limits of Sec.
60.532 and the requirements of Sec. 60.533.
(4) Cook stoves that meet the definition in Sec. 60.531 are exempt
from the applicable emission limits of Sec. 60.532 and the
requirements of Sec. 60.533.
(5) Camp stoves that meet the definition in Sec. 60.531 are exempt
from the applicable emission limits of Sec. 60.532 and the
requirements of Sec. 60.533.
(6) Modification or reconstruction, as defined in Sec. 60.14 and
Sec. 60.15 of Subpart A will not, by itself, make a wood heater an
affected facility under this subpart.
(c) The following are not affected wood heaters and are not subject
to this subpart:
(1) Residential hydronic heaters and residential forced-air
furnaces subject to subpart QQQQ of this part.
(2) Residential masonry heaters subject to subpart RRRR of this
part.
(3) Appliances that are not residential heating devices (for
example, manufactured or site-built masonry fireplaces).
(4) Traditional Native American bake ovens that meet the definition
in Sec. 60.531.
Sec. 60.531 What definitions must I know?
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.
Adjustable burn rate wood heater means an enclosed, wood-burning
appliance capable of and intended for residential space heating or
domestic water heating that is equipped with or installed with a damper
or other mechanism to allow the operator to vary burn rate conditions,
regardless of whether it is internal or external to the appliance. This
definition does not distinguish between heaters that are free standing
or fireplace inserts.
Accredited test laboratory means a test laboratory that is
accredited for wood heater certification testing under Sec. 60.535 or
is an independent third-party test laboratory that is accredited by a
nationally recognized accrediting entity under ISO-IEC Standard 17025
to perform testing using the test methods specified in Sec. 60.534 and
approved by the EPA for conducting testing under this subpart.
At retail means the sale by a commercial owner of a wood heater to
the ultimate purchaser.
Camp stove (sometimes also called cylinder stove or wall tent
stove) means a portable stove equipped with a pipe or chimney exhaust
capable of burning wood or coal intended for use in a tent or other
temporary structure used for hunting, camping, fishing, or other
outdoor recreation. The primary purpose of the stove is to provide
space heating, although cooking and heating water may be additional
functions.
Catalytic combustor means a device coated with a noble metal used
in a wood heater to lower the temperature required for combustion.
Certifying entity means an independent third party that is
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting entity under ISO-IEC
Standard 17020 to perform certifications, inspections and audits under
ISO-IEC Guide 17065 and approved by the EPA for conducting
certifications, inspections and audits under this subpart.
Coal-only heater means an enclosed, coal-burning appliance capable
of space heating, or domestic water heating, which has all of the
following characteristics:
(1) An opening for emptying ash that is located near the bottom or
the side of the appliance;
(2) A system that admits air primarily up and through the fuel bed;
(3) A grate or other similar device for shaking or disturbing the
fuel bed or power-driven mechanical stoker;
(4) Installation instructions that state that the use of wood in
the stove, except for coal ignition purposes, is prohibited by law; and
(5) The model is listed by a nationally recognized safety-testing
laboratory for use of coal only, except for coal ignition purposes.
Commercial owner means any person who owns or controls a wood
heater in the course of the business of the manufacture, importation,
distribution (including shipping and storage), or sale of the wood
heater.
Cookstove means a wood-fired appliance that is designed primarily
for cooking food and that has the following characteristics:
(1) An oven, with volume of 0.028 cubic meters (1 cubic foot) or
greater, and an oven rack;
(2) A device for measuring oven temperatures;
(3) A flame path that is routed around the oven;
(4) An ash pan;
(5) An ash clean-out door below the oven;
(6) The absence of a fan or heat channels to dissipate heat from
the appliance;
(7) A cooking surface measured in square inches or square feet that
is 1.5 times greater than the firebox, which is measured in cubic
inches or cubic feet. Example: A firebox of 2 cubic feet would have a
cooking surface of at least 3 square feet;
(8) A portion of at least four sides of the oven is exposed to the
flame path during the heating cycle of the oven. A flue gas bypass may
exist for temperature control.
Manufactured means completed and ready for shipment (whether or not
packaged).
Manufacturer means any person who constructs or imports into the
United States a wood heater.
Model line means all wood heaters offered for sale by a single
manufacturer that are similar in all material respects.
Particulate matter (PM) means total particulate matter including
coarse PM (PM10) and fine PM (PM2.5).
Pellet stove means an enclosed, solid fuel burning device capable
of and intended for residential space heating or domestic water heating
that is designed specifically to burn wood pellet fuel that
incorporates induced air flow, is installed with an automatic pellet
feeder, and is a free standing room heater or fireplace insert.
Representative affected wood heater means an individual wood heater
that is similar in all material respects to other wood heaters within
the model line it represents.
Room heater means an enclosed, wood-burning appliance capable of
and intended for residential space heating. Unless otherwise specified,
these devices include adjustable burn rate wood heaters, single burn
rate wood heaters and pellet stoves.
[[Page 6375]]
Sale means the transfer of ownership or control, except that a
transfer of control of an affected wood heater for research and
development purposes within the scope of Sec. 60.530(b)(2) is not a
sale.
Seasoned wood means wood with a moisture content of 20 percent or
less.
Similar in all material respects means that the construction
materials, exhaust and inlet air system, and other design features are
within the allowed tolerances for components identified in Sec.
60.533(k).
Single burn rate wood heater means an enclosed, wood-burning
appliance capable of and intended for residential space heating or
domestic water heating that is not equipped with or installed with a
damper to allow the operator to vary burn rate conditions.
Traditional Native American bake oven means a wood or other solid
fuel burning appliance that is designed primarily for use by Native
Americans for food preparation, cooking, warming, or for instructional,
recreational, cultural or ceremonial purposes.
Valid certification test means a test that meets the following
criteria:
(1) The Administrator was notified about the test in accordance
with Sec. 60.534(f);
(2) The test was conducted by an accredited test laboratory;
(3) The test was conducted on a wood heater similar in all material
respects to other wood heaters of the model line that is to be
certified; and
(4) The test was conducted in accordance with the test methods and
procedures specified in Sec. 60.534.
Wood heater means an enclosed, wood burning-appliance capable of
and intended for residential space heating or domestic water heating.
Unless otherwise specified, these devices include adjustable burn rate
wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters and pellet stoves.
Wood pellet fuel means refined and densified wood shaped into small
pellets or briquettes that are uniform in size, shape, moisture,
density and energy content.
Sec. 60.532 What standards and associated requirements must I meet
and by when?
(a) 1990 Particulate Matter Standards. Unless exempted under Sec.
60.530, each adjustable burn rate wood heater and pellet stove with a
current EPA certification issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], according to the certification procedures in effect in this
subpart at the time of certification, must comply with the following
particulate matter emission limits as determined by the applicable test
methods and procedures in Sec. 60.534(a) through (c) until the current
certification expires as specified in Sec. 60.533(h)(1), or it is
revoked by the Administrator as specified in Sec. 60.533(l), whichever
is first. After the certificate expires or is revoked, individual wood
heaters in that model line can no longer be manufactured or sold unless
the manufacturer receives a new certificate of compliance from the
Administrator.
(1) An affected wood heater equipped with a catalytic combustor
must not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that contain
particulate matter in excess of a weighted average of 4.1 g/hr (0.009
lb/hr) as specified in the applicable test method. Particulate matter
emissions during any test run at any burn rate that is required to be
used in the weighted average as specified in the applicable test method
must not exceed the value calculated for ``C'' (rounded to 2
significant figures) calculated using the following equation:
(i) At burn rates less than or equal to 2.82 kg/hr (6.2 lb/hr),
C=K1BR+K2
Where:
BR = Burn rate in kg/hr (lb/hr)
C = Actual particulate matter emission rate in g/hr (lb/hr) per burn
rate in a given test run
K1= 3.55 g/kg (0.00355 lb/lb)
K2= 4.98 g/hr (0.0.011 lb/hr)
(ii) At burn rates greater than 2.82 kg/hr (6.2 lb/hr), C = 15 g/hr
(0.033 lb/hr).
(2) An affected wood heater not equipped with a catalytic combustor
must not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that contain
particulate matter in excess of a weighted average of 7.5 g/hr (0.017
lb/hr) as specified in the applicable test method. Particulate matter
emissions must not exceed 15 g/hr (0.033 lb/hr) during any test run at
a burn rate less than or equal to 1.5 kg/hr (3.3 lb/hr) that is
required to be used in the weighted average as specified in the
applicable test method and particulate matter emissions must not exceed
18 g/hr (0.040 lb/hr) during any test run at a burn rate greater than
1.5 kg/hr (3.3 lb/hr) that is required to be used in the weighted
average as specified in the applicable test method.
(3) As an alternative, an affected wood heater subject to paragraph
(a) of this section may elect to comply with the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) 2015 Particulate Matter Standards. Unless exempted under Sec.
60.530 or subject to the standards specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, each adjustable burn rate wood heater or pellet stove
manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or sold at
retail for use in the United States on or after [6 MONTHS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] must comply with the emission limits
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as
applicable. Unless exempted under Sec. 60.530, each single burn rate
wood heater manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or
sold at retail on or after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE] must comply with the emission limit specified in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section. Compliance for all sources must be determined by the
test methods and procedures in Sec. 60.534.
(1) An adjustable burn rate wood heater or pellet stove that is an
affected wood heater equipped with a catalytic combustor must not
discharge into the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter
in excess of a weighted average of 4.5 g/hr (0.01 lb/hr).
(2) An adjustable burn rate wood heater or pellet stove that is an
affected wood heater not equipped with a catalytic combustor and
capable of making burn rate adjustments must not discharge into the
atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in excess of a
weighted average of 4.5 g/hr (0.01 lb/hr).
(3) A single burn rate wood heater that is an affected wood heater
must not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that contain
particulate matter in excess of 4.5 g/hr (0.01 lb/hr).
(c) 2020 Particulate Matter Standards. Unless exempted under Sec.
60.530 or subject to the standards specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, each adjustable burn rate wood heater, pellet stove or single
burn rate wood heater manufactured or sold at retail for use in the
United States on or after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
must not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that contain
particulate matter in excess of 1.3 g/hr (0.003 lb/hr) for any burn
rate. Compliance for all sources must be determined by the test methods
and procedures in Sec. 60.534.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Pellet Fuel Requirements. Operators of wood heaters that are
certified to burn pellet fuels may only burn pellets that have been
produced under a licensing agreement with the Pellet Fuels Institute or
an equivalent organization approved by the EPA. The pellet fuel must
meet the following minimum requirements:
(1) Density: consistent hardness and energy content with a minimum
density of 38 pounds/cubic foot;
[[Page 6376]]
(2) Dimensions: maximum length of 1.5 inches and diameter between
0.230 and 0.285 inches;
(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal to 1 percent;
(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300 parts per million by
weight;
(5) Ash content: no more than 2 percent; and
(6) A quality assurance process licensed by the Pellet Fuels
Institute or equivalent organization approved by EPA.
(f) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person is permitted to burn any of
the following materials in an affected wood heater:
(1) Residential or commercial garbage;
(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste;
(3) Materials containing rubber, including tires;
(4) Materials containing plastic;
(5) Waste petroleum products, paints or paint thinners, or asphalt
products;
(6) Materials containing asbestos;
(7) Construction or demolition debris;
(8) Paper products, cardboard, plywood, or particleboard. The
prohibition against burning these materials does not prohibit the use
of fire starters made from paper, cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar
substances for the purpose of starting a fire in an affected wood
heater;
(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated wood;
(10) Manure or animal remains; or
(11) Salt water driftwood or other previously salt water saturated
materials.
(g) Owner's Manual. A person must not operate an affected
residential wood heater in a manner inconsistent with the owner's
manual. The owner's manual must clearly specify that operation in a
manner inconsistent with the owner's manual would violate the warranty.
(h) Temperature Sensor Requirement. An affected wood heater
equipped with a catalytic combustor must be equipped with a temperature
sensor that can monitor combustor gas stream temperatures within or
immediately downstream [within 2.54 centimeters (1 inch)] of the
catalytic combustor surface.
Sec. 60.533 What compliance and certification requirements must I
meet and by when?
(a) Certification Requirement. Each affected wood heater must be
certified to bein compliance with the applicable emission standards and
other requirements of this subpart. For each model line manufactured or
sold by a single entity, e.g., company or manufacturer, compliance with
applicable emission standards of Sec. 60.532 may be determined based
on testing of representative affected wood heaters within the model
line. If one entity, licenses a model line to another entity, each
entity's model line must be certified. If an entity changes the name of
the entity or the name of the model, the manufacturer must apply for a
new certification.
(1) Prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the manufacturer must
submit to the EPA the information required in paragraph (b) of this
section and follow either the certification process in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this section or the certifying entity based application
process specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the manufacturer
must submit the information required in paragraph (b) of this section
and follow the certifying entity based application process specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) Application for Certificate of Compliance. Any manufacturer of
an affected wood heater must apply to the Administrator for a
certificate of compliance for each model line. The application must be
submitted to: Wood Heater NSPS Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_Program. The application must be signed by a
responsible representative of the manufacturer or an authorized
representative and must contain the following:
(1) The model name and/or design number and responsible contact
information for the manufacturer and all authorized representatives,
including name, affiliation, physical address, telephone number, and
email address.
(2) Engineering drawings and specifications of components that may
affect emissions (including specifications for each component listed in
paragraph (k) of this section). Manufacturers may use complete assembly
or design drawings that have been prepared for other purposes, but must
designate on the drawings the dimensions of each component listed in
paragraph (k) of this section. Manufacturers must identify tolerances
of components of the tested unit listed in paragraph (k)(2) of this
section that are different from those specified in that paragraph, and
show that such tolerances may not reasonably be anticipated to cause
wood heaters in the model line to exceed the applicable emission
limits. The drawings must identify how the emission critical parts,
such as air tubes and catalyst, can be readily inspected and replaced.
The drawings may be submitted either in hard copy or electronic format.
(3) A statement whether the firebox or any firebox component
(including the materials listed in paragraph (k)(3) of this section)
will be composed of material different from the material used for the
firebox or firebox component in the wood heater on which certification
testing was performed and a description of any such differences.
(4) Clear identification of any confidential business information.
Submit such information under separate cover to the EPA CBI Office;
Attn: Residential Wood Heater Compliance Program. Note that emissions
data, including information necessary to determine emission rates in
the format of the standard, cannot be claimed as confidential business
information.
(5) All documentation pertaining to a valid certification test,
including the complete test report and, for all test runs: raw data
sheets, laboratory technician notes, calculations, and test results.
Documentation must include the items specified in the applicable test
methods. The test report must include a summary table that clearly
presents the individual and overall emission rates, efficiencies, and
heat output range. Submit the test report and all associated required
information according to the procedures for electronic reporting
specified in Sec. 60.537(f).
(6) A copy of the warranties for the model line, including a
statement that the warranties are void if the unit is used to burn
materials for which the unit is not certified by the EPA.
(7) A statement that the manufacturer or certifying entity will
conduct a quality assurance program for the model line that satisfies
the requirements of paragraph (m) of this section.
(8) A statement describing how the tested unit was sealed by the
laboratory after the completion of certification testing and that such
unit will be stored by the manufacturer in the sealed state until 1
year after the certification expires.
(9) Statements that the wood heaters manufactured under this
certificate will be--
(i) Similar in all material respects as defined in this subpart to
the wood heater submitted for certification testing, and
(ii) Labeled as prescribed in Sec. 60.536.
(iii) Accompanied by an owner's manual that meets the requirements
in Sec. 60.536. In addition, a copy of the owner's manual must be
submitted to the EPA and be available on the manufacturer's Web site.
(10) A statement that the manufacturer has entered into a contract
with an accredited laboratory that satisfies the requirements of
paragraph (e) of this section.
[[Page 6377]]
(11) A statement that the accredited certifying body is allowed to
submit information on behalf of the manufacturer.
(c)(1) Administrator Approval Process. The Administrator will
electronically issue a certificate of compliance for a model line if
the Administrator determines, based on all information submitted by the
applicant and any other relevant information available, that:
(i) A valid certification test demonstrates that the representative
affected wood heater complies with the applicable emission standards in
Sec. 60.532,
(ii) Any tolerances for components listed in paragraph (k)(2) of
this section that are different from those specified in those
paragraphs may not reasonably be anticipated to cause wood heaters in
the model line to exceed the applicable emission limits; and
(iii) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section have been
met.
(2) The Administrator will deny certification if the Administrator
determines that the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section have
not been satisfied. Upon denying certification under this paragraph,
the Administrator will give written notice to the manufacturer setting
forth the basis for this determination.
(d) Prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the Administrator
will issue the certificate for the most stringent particulate matter
emission standard that the unit meets under Sec. 60.532(a) or (b), as
applicable.
(e) To receive EPA certification, a manufacturer must enter into a
contract with the accredited laboratory that performed the
certification test, under which the laboratory will:
(1) Conduct the compliance audit test at no additional cost to the
manufacturer if the EPA selects that laboratory to conduct the test; or
(2) Pay the manufacturer the cost of a compliance audit test (as
determined by the EPA) if the EPA selects any other laboratory to
conduct the test.
(f) Certifying Entity-Based Application Process.
(1) Any manufacturer of an affected wood heater must apply to the
Administrator for a certificate of compliance for each model line. The
manufacturer must meet the following requirements:
(i) The manufacturer must contract with a certifying entity for
certification services.
(ii) The manufacturer must submit the materials specified in
paragraph (b) of this section and a quality control plan that meets the
requirements of paragraph (m)(4) of this section to the certifying
entity. The quality control plan must ensure that units within a model
line accurately reflect emission-critical components of the model line
design, and it must include design drawings for the model line.
(iii) The manufacturer must apply to the certifying entity for a
certification of conformity with the applicable requirements of this
subpart for the model line.
(A) After testing by an accredited test laboratory is complete,
certification of conformity with the emission standards in Sec. 60.532
must be performed by the manufacturer's contracted certifying entity.
(B) The certifying entity can certify conformity if the emission
tests have been conducted per the appropriate guidelines and the test
report is complete and accurate and the instrumentation is properly
calibrated and the test report shows that the representative affected
wood heater meets the applicable emission limits specified in Sec.
60.532 and the quality control plan is adequate to ensure that units
within the model line will be similar in all material respects to the
wood heater submitted for certification testing.
(iv) The manufacturer must then request that the certifying entity
electronically submit, on behalf of the manufacturer, an application
for EPA certification that includes the certification of conformity,
quality control plan, test report and supporting documentation.
(v) The submission must include a statement signed by a responsible
official of the manufacturer that the manufacturer has complied with
all requirements of this subpart and that the manufacturer remains
responsible for compliance regardless of any error by the certifying
entity.
(2) The Administrator will electronically issue to the manufacturer
a certificate of compliance for a model line if it is determined, based
on all of the information submitted in the application for
certification and any other relevant information, that:
(i) A valid certification of conformity has demonstrated that the
representative affected wood heater complies with the applicable
emission standards in Sec. 60.532; and
(ii) Any tolerances or materials for components listed in paragraph
(k)(2) or (3) of this section that are different from those specified
in those paragraphs may not be reasonably anticipated to cause wood
heaters in the model line to exceed the applicable emission limits.
(iii) The requirements of paragraphs (b) of this section have been
met.
(iv) A valid certificate of conformity for the model line has been
prepared and submitted.
(3) The Administrator will deny certification if the Administrator
determines that the criteria in paragraph (f)(2) of this section have
not been satisfied. Upon denying certification under this paragraph,
the Administrator will give written notice to the manufacturer setting
forth the basis for the determination.
(g) Waiver from Submitting Test Results. An applicant for
certification may apply for a potential waiver of the requirement to
submit the results of a certification test pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)
of this section, if the wood heater meets either of the following
conditions:
(1) The wood heaters of the model line are similar in all material
respects, as defined in this subpart, to another model line that has
already been issued a certificate of compliance. A manufacturer that
seeks a waiver of certification testing must identify the model line
that has been certified, and must submit a copy of an agreement with
the owner of the design permitting the applicant to produce wood
heaters of that design.
(2) The manufacturer has previously conducted a valid certification
test to demonstrate that the wood heaters of the model line meet the
applicable standard specified in Sec. 60.532(a), and that test also
demonstrates that the wood heaters of the model line meet the
applicable standard specified in Sec. 60.532(b). This option is only
potentially available a maximum of one time per model line.
(h) Certification Period. Unless revoked sooner by the
Administrator, a certificate of compliance will be valid for the
following periods as applicable:
(1) For a model line certified as meeting the emission standards in
Sec. 60.532(a), a certificate of compliance will be valid for 5 years
from the date of issuance.
(2) For a model line certified as meeting emission standards in
Sec. 60.532(b), a certificate of compliance will be valid for 5 years
from the date of issuance.
(3) For a model line certified as meeting emission standards in
Sec. 60.532(c), a certificate of compliance will be valid for 5 years
from the date of issuance.
(i) Renewal of Certification.
(1) The certificate must be recertified or renewed every 5 years or
the manufacture may choose to no longer manufacture or sell that model.
If the manufacturer chooses to no longer
[[Page 6378]]
manufacture or sell that model, then the manufacturer must submit a
statement to EPA for that model. A manufacturer of an affected wood
heater may apply to the Administrator for potential renewal of their
certificate by submitting the material specified in Sec. 60.533(b) and
following the procedures specified in Sec. 60.533(f) or by affirming
in writing that the wood heater has been subject to no changes that
would impact emissions and requesting a potential waiver from
certification testing.
(2) If the Administrator grants a renewal of certification, the
Administrator will give written notice to the manufacturer setting
forth the basis for the determination and issue a certification
renewal.
(3) If the Administrator denies the request for a renewal of
certification, the Administrator will give written notice to the
manufacturer setting forth the basis for the determination.
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Recertification.
(1) The manufacturer must recertify a model line whenever any
change is made in the design submitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of
this section that is presumed to affect the particulate matter emission
rate for that model line. The manufacturer of an affected wood heater
must apply to the Administrator for potential recertification by
submitting the material specified in Sec. 60.533(b) and following the
procedures specified in Sec. 60.533(f) or by affirming in writing that
the wood heater has been subject to no changes that would impact
emissions and requesting a potential waiver from certification testing.
The Administrator may potentially waive this requirement upon written
request by the manufacturer, if it is determined that the change may
not reasonably be anticipated to cause wood heaters in the model line
to exceed the applicable emission limits. The granting of such a waiver
does not relieve the manufacturer of any compliance obligations under
this subpart.
(2) Any change in the design tolerances of any of the following
components (where such components are applicable) is presumed to affect
particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions and efficiency if that
change exceeds 0.64 cm (\1/4\ inch) for any
linear dimension and 5 percent for any cross-sectional area
relating to air introduction systems and catalyst bypass gaps unless
other dimensions and cross-sectional areas are previously approved by
the Administrator under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section:
(i) Firebox: Dimensions;
(ii) Air introduction systems: Cross-sectional area of restrictive
air inlets and outlets, location and method of control;
(iii) Baffles: Dimensions and locations;
(iv) Refractory/insulation: Dimensions and location;
(v) Catalyst: Dimensions and location;
(vi) Catalyst bypass mechanism and catalyst bypass gap tolerances
(when bypass mechanism is in closed position): Dimensions, cross-
sectional area, and location;
(vii) Flue gas exit: Dimensions and location;
(viii) Door and catalyst bypass gaskets: Dimensions and fit;
(ix) Outer shielding and coverings: Dimensions and location;
(x) Fuel feed system: For wood heaters that are designed primarily
to burn wood pellets and other wood heaters equipped with a fuel feed
system, the fuel feed rate, auger motor design and power rating, and
the angle of the auger to the firebox; and
(xi) Forced air combustion system: For wood heaters so equipped,
the location and horsepower of blower motors and the fan blade size.
(3) Any change in the materials used for the following components
is presumed to affect particulate matter emissions and efficiency:
(i) Refractory/insulation; or
(ii) Door and catalyst bypass gaskets.
(4) A change in the make, model, or composition of a catalyst is
presumed to affect particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions and
efficiency, unless the change has been approved in advance by the
Administrator, based on test data in the same model stove that
demonstrate that the replacement catalyst is equivalent to or better
than the original catalyst in terms of particulate matter emission
reduction.
(l) Criteria for Revocation of Certification.
(1) The Administrator may revoke certification if it is determined
that the wood heaters being manufactured or sold in that model line do
not comply with the requirements of this subpart. Such a determination
will be based on all available evidence, including but not limited to:
(i) Test data from a retesting of the original unit on which the
certification test was conducted or a similar unit;
(ii) A finding that the certification test was not valid. (iii) A
finding that the labeling of the wood heater model line or the owner's
manual or marketing information does not comply with the requirements
of Sec. 60.536;
(iii) Failure by the manufacturer to comply with reporting and
recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 60.537;
(iv) Physical examination showing that a significant percentage (as
defined in the quality assurance plan, but no larger than 1 percent) of
production units inspected is not similar in all material respects to
the representative affected wood heater submitted for testing; or
(v) Failure of the manufacturer to conduct a quality assurance
program in conformity with paragraph (m) of this section.
(2) Revocation of certification under this paragraph will not take
effect until the manufacturer concerned has been given written notice
by the Administrator setting forth the basis for the proposed
determination and an opportunity to request a review under Sec.
60.539.
(m) Quality Assurance Program.
(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for each certified
model line, the manufacturer must conduct a quality assurance program
that satisfies the requirements of this section The quality assurance
program requirements of this section supersede the quality assurance
plan requirements specified in Sec. 60.533(o) of the 1988 rule. By [60
DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for model lines that had a
valid EPA certification on [60 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], manufacturers must submit the quality assurance plan to the EPA
Administrator for review and approval.
(i) The manufacturer must prepare and operate according to a
quality assurance plan for each certified model line that has specific
inspection and testing requirements for ensuring that units within a
model line accurately reflect emission-critical components of the model
line design and meet the emissions standards in Sec. 60.532.
(ii) The quality assurance plan must be approved within 30 days by
the certifying entity as part of the certification of conformity
process specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(iii) Within 30 days after approval by the certifying entity, the
quality control plan must also be submitted to EPA for review and
approval.
(iv) The certifying entity must conduct quarterly unannounced
audits under ISO-IEC Guide 17065 and ISO-EC Standard 17020 to ensure
that the manufacturer's quality control plan is being implemented.
(v) The certifying entity must prepare a report for each audit
under ISO-IEC Guide 17065 and ISO-EC Standard 17020 that fully
documents the results of the audit, and the manufacturer must include
in their contract with the certifying entity the authorization and
requirement to submit all such reports
[[Page 6379]]
to the EPA within 30 days. In the audit report, the certifying entity
must identify deviations from the manufacturer's quality control plan
and specify the corrective actions that need to be taken to address
each identified deficiency.
(vi) The manufacturer must report within 30 days to the certifying
entity and to the EPA its responses to any deficiencies identified in
an audit report.
(n) EPA Compliance Audit Testing.
(1)(i) The Administrator may select by written notice wood heaters
for compliance audit testing to determine compliance with the emission
standards in Sec. 60.532.
(ii) The written notification shall be forwarded to the
manufacturer by the Administrator and shall include the name and
address of the laboratory selected to perform the audit test and the
model name and serial number of the wood heater(s) selected to undergo
audit testing.
(2)(i) The Administrator may test, or direct the manufacturer to
have tested, the wood heater(s) selected under paragraph (n)(1)(i) of
this section in a laboratory accredited under Sec. 60.535 that is
selected pursuant to paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
(ii) The expense of the compliance audit test is the responsibility
of the wood heater manufacturer. A manufacturer may require the
laboratory that performed the certification test to bear the expense of
an audit test by means of the contract required under paragraph (e) of
this section. The manufacturer will bear the cost of audit testing if
the laboratory with which the manufacturer had a contract has ceased
business or is otherwise legally unable to honor the contract. The
manufacturer will also bear the cost of audit testing if the
manufacturer has not entered into contract with an accredited test
laboratory to perform audit testing.
(iii) The test must be conducted using the same test method and
procedure used to obtain certification or a new test method approved by
the EPA Administrator. If the certification test consisted of more than
one particulate matter sampling test method, the Administrator may
direct the test laboratory as to which of these methods to use for the
purpose of audit testing. The Administrator will notify the
manufacturer at least 1 week prior to any test under this paragraph,
and allow the manufacturer and/or his authorized representatives to
observe the test.
(3) The Administrator may select any accredited test laboratory or
federal laboratory for audit testing.
(4) Revocation of Certification.
(i) If emissions from a wood heater tested under paragraph (n)(2)
of this section exceed the certification emission values limit by more
than 50 percent, the Administrator will notify the manufacturer that
certification for that model line is suspended effective 72 hours from
the receipt of the notice, unless the suspension notice is withdrawn by
the Administrator. The suspension will remain in effect until withdrawn
by the Administrator, or 30 days from its effective date (if a
revocation notice under paragraph (n)(5)(ii) of this section is not
issued within that period), or the date of final agency action on
revocation, whichever occurs earlier.
(ii)(A) If emissions from a wood heater tested under paragraph
(n)(2) of this section exceed the applicable emission limit, the
Administrator will notify the manufacturer that certification is
revoked for that model line.
(B) A suspension under paragraph (n)(4)(i) or a revocation notice
under paragraph (n)(4)(ii)(A) of this section will become final and
effective 60 days after receipt by the manufacturer, unless it is
withdrawn, a supplemental review is requested under Sec. 60.539, or
the deadline for requesting a supplemental review is extended.
(C) The Administrator may extend the deadline for requesting a
supplemental review for up to 60 days for good cause.
(D) A manufacturer may extend the deadline for requesting a
supplemental review for up to 6 months, by agreeing to a voluntary
suspension of certification.
(iii) Any notification under paragraph (n)(4)(i) or (n)(4)(ii) of
this section will include a copy of a preliminary test report from the
accredited test laboratory or federal test laboratory. The test
laboratory must provide a preliminary test report to the Administrator
within 10 days of the completion of testing, if a wood heater exceeds
the applicable emission limit in Sec. 60.532. The test laboratory must
provide the Administrator and the manufacturer, within 30 days of the
completion of testing, all documentation pertaining to the test,
including the complete test report and raw data sheets, laboratory
technician notes, and test results for all test runs.
(iv) Upon receiving notification of a test failure under paragraph
(n)(4)(ii) of this section, the manufacturer may request up to four
additional wood heaters from the same model line be selected under
paragraph (n)(1) of this section for testing at the manufacturer's
expense, at the test laboratory that performed the emissions test for
the Administrator.
(v) Whether or not the manufacturer proceeds under paragraph
(n)(4)(iv) of this section, the manufacturer may submit any relevant
information to the Administrator, including any other test data
generated pursuant to this subpart. The manufacturer must pay the
expense of any additional testing.
(vi) The Administrator will withdraw any notice issued under
paragraph (n)(4)(ii) of this section if tests under paragraph
(n)(4)(iv) of this section show either--
(A) That all wood heaters tested for the manufacturer met the
applicable emission limits; or
(B) That the second and third wood heaters selected met the
applicable emission limits and the average of all three (including the
original audit test) was below the applicable emission limits.
(C) The Administrator will revise the certification values based on
the test data and other relevant information and the manufacturer must
revise the labels and marketing information accordingly.
(vii) The Administrator may withdraw any proposed revocation, if
the Administrator finds that an audit test failure has been rebutted by
information submitted by the manufacturer under paragraph (n)(4)(iv) of
this section and/or (n)(4)(v) of this section or by any other relevant
information available to the Administrator.
Sec. 60.534 What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and requirements for certification?
Test methods and procedures specified in this section or in
appendices of this part, except as provided under Sec. 60.8(b), must
be used to determine compliance with the standards and requirements for
certification under Sec. Sec. 60.532 and 60.533 as follows:
(a)(1) Method 28 of appendix A-8 of this part must be used to
establish the certification test conditions and the particulate matter
emission values for affected wood heaters subject to the 1990
particulate matter standards specified in Sec. 60.532(a).
(2) For affected wood heaters subject to the 2015 particulate
matter standards specified in Sec. 60.532(b), you must conduct testing
according to paragraphs Sec. 60.534(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section
and submit the full test reports. You have the option of submitting the
test results of either (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section to the
Administrator as specified under Sec. 60.537 for certification
compliance.
[[Page 6380]]
(i) Conduct testing with crib wood using EPA Method 28R of appendix
A-8 of this part to establish the certification test conditions and the
particulate matter emission values.
(ii) Conduct testing with cord wood using EPA Method 28R of
appendix A-8 of this part to establish the certification test
conditions and the particulate matter emission values.
(3) For affected wood heaters subject to the 2020 particulate
matter standards specified in Sec. 60.532(c), you must conduct testing
with cord wood using EPA Method 28R of appendix A-8 of this part to
establish the certification test conditions, except that you should
first test Burn Rate Categories 1 and 4 and then test 2 more times for
whichever burn rate category is worse and then report the results
separately per burn rate category.
(b) For affected wood heaters subject to the 1990 particulate
matter standards specified in Sec. 60.532(a), emission concentrations
must be measured with Method 5G of appendix A-3 of this part, i.e.,
using a dilution tunnel sampling location. Method 5H is no longer
allowed for certification testing.
(c) For affected wood heaters subject to the 2015 and 2020
particulate matter standards specified in Sec. 60.532(b) and (c),
emission concentrations must be measured with ASTM E2515-10.
(d) Canadian Standards Administration Method B415.1-10, section
13.7, must be used to measure the efficiency and carbon monoxide output
of the tested appliance.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) The manufacturer of an affected wood heater must notify the
Administrator of the date that certification testing is scheduled to
begin by email to Wood Heater NSPS Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_Program. This notice must be received
by the EPA at least 30 days before the start of testing. The
notification of testing must include the manufacturer's name and
physical and email addresses, the accredited test laboratory's name and
physical and email addresses, certifying entity name, the model name
and number (or, if unavailable, some other way to distinguish between
models), and the dates of testing.
(g) The accredited test laboratory must allow the manufacturer, the
EPA and delegated states to observe certification testing. However,
manufacturers must not involve themselves in the conduct of the test
after the pretest burn has begun. Communications between the
manufacturer and laboratory or certifying entity personnel regarding
operation of the wood heater must be limited to written communications
transmitted prior to the first pretest burn of the certification
series. Written communications between the manufacturer and laboratory
personnel may be exchanged during the certification test only if
deviations from the test procedures are observed that constitute
improper conduct of the test. All communications must be included in
the test documentation required to be submitted pursuant to Sec.
60.533(b)(3) and must be consistent with instructions provided in the
owner's manual required under Sec. 60.536(f), except to the extent
that they address details of the certification tests that would not be
relevant to owners or regulators.
Sec. 60.535 What procedures must I use for laboratory accreditation
or certifying body accreditation?
(a)(1) A laboratory must apply to the Administrator for
accreditation as an EPA accredited test laboratory by submitting
documentation that the laboratory is accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting entity under ISO-IEC Standard 17025 to perform
testing using the test methods specified under Sec. 60.534.
(2) As part of the application, the test laboratory must:
(i) Agree to enter into a contract as described in Sec. 60.533(e)
with each wood heater manufacturer for whom a certification test has
been performed;
(ii) Agree to participate biennially in a proficiency testing
program conducted by the Administrator;
(iii) Agree to allow the Administrator and delegated states and
certifying bodies access to observe certification testing;
(iv) Agree to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements
that affect testing laboratories; and
(v) Agree to perform a compliance audit test (as determined by the
Administrator) at the cost normally charged to manufacturers if it is
selected to conduct the compliance audit test of a model line
originally tested for certification at another laboratory.
(vi) Have no conflict of interest and receive no financial benefit
from the outcome of certification testing conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.533.
(vii) Agree to not perform initial certification tests on any
models manufactured by a manufacturer for which the laboratory has
conducted research and development tests within the last 5 years.
(3) If the EPA approves the accreditation, the Administrator will
provide the test laboratory with a certificate of accreditation. If the
EPA denies the accreditation, the Administrator will give written
notice to the laboratory setting forth the basis for the determination.
(b)(1) The Administrator may revoke the EPA laboratory
accreditation if it is determined that the laboratory:
(i) Is no longer is accredited by the nationally recognized ISO
certifying entity;
(ii) Does not follow required procedures or practices;
(iii) Has falsified data or otherwise misrepresented emission data;
(iv) Failed to participate in a proficiency testing program, in
accordance with its commitment under paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section; or
(v) Failed to seal the wood heater in accordance with paragraph (d)
of this section.
(2) Revocation of accreditation under this paragraph will not take
effect until the laboratory concerned has been given written notice by
the Administrator setting forth the basis for the proposed
determination and an opportunity for a Petition for Supplemental Review
under Sec. 60.539. However, if revocation is ultimately upheld, all
tests conducted by the laboratory after written notice was given will,
at the discretion of the Administrator, be declared invalid.
(c)(1) With the exception of laboratories meeting the provisions of
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and unless revoked sooner, a
certificate of accreditation as an accredited test laboratory granted
by the Administrator is valid for 5 years from the date of issuance.
(2) Laboratories accredited by the EPA by February 3, 2014 under
the provisions of Sec. 60.535 in effect prior to that date may
continue to be accredited until [1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], at which time the accreditation ends unless the laboratory has
obtained accreditation under Sec. 60.535 as in effect beginning on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(d) A laboratory accredited by the Administrator must seal any wood
heater on which it performed certification tests, immediately upon
completion or suspension of certification testing, by using a
laboratory-specific seal. For any tests that are suspended, the
laboratory must email the EPA immediately with the date suspended, the
reason(s) why, and the projected date for re-starting. The laboratory
must submit the operation and test data obtained, even if the test is
not completed.
(e)(1) A Certifying Entity may apply to the Administrator for
approval to be an EPA-approved certifying entity by submitting
credentials demonstrating that they have been accredited by a
[[Page 6381]]
nationally recognized accrediting entity to perform certifications and
inspections under ISO-17025, ISO-IEC Standard 17065 and ISO-IEC
Standard 10720.
(2) As part of the application, the certifying entity must:
(i) Agree to enter into a contract as described in Sec. 60.533(e)
with each wood heater manufacturer for whom a certification test has
been performed and a test report has been received and reviewed;
(ii) Agree to periodically conduct audits as described in Sec.
60.534 and manufacturer's QA/QC Plan;
(iii) Agree to participate biennially in a proficiency testing
program conducted by the Administrator;
(iv) Agree to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements
that affect accredited wood heater testing laboratories and certifying
entities;
(v) Have no conflict of interest and receive no financial benefit
from the outcome of certification testing conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.533;
(vi) Agree to make available to the EPA supporting documentation
for each wood heater certification and audit; and
(vii) Agree to not perform initial certification reviews on any
models manufactured by a manufacturer for which the certifying entity
has conducted research and development within the last 5 years.
(3) If approved, the Administrator will provide the certifying
entity with a certificate of accreditation. The accreditation will
expire 5 years after being issued unless renewed by the certifying
entity. If the EPA denies the accreditation, the Administrator will
give written notice to the certifying entity for the basis for the
determination.
(f)(1) The Administrator will revoke the EPA certifying entity
accreditation if it is determined that the certifying entity;
(i) Is no longer accredited by the nationally recognized ISO
certifying entity
(ii) Does not follow required procedures or practices;
(iii) Has falsified certification data or otherwise misrepresented
emission data; or
(iv) Failed to participate in the EPA proficiency testing program.
(2) Revocation of accreditation under this paragraph will not take
effect until the certifying entity concerned is given written notice by
the Administrator setting forth the basis for the proposed
determination and an opportunity for a Petition for Supplemental Review
under Sec. 60.539. However, if revocation is upheld, all tests
reviewed by the certifying entity will, at the discretion of the
Administrator, be declared invalid.
Sec. 60.536 What requirements must I meet for permanent labels and
owner's manuals?
(a) Permanent Label Requirements. (1) Each affected wood heater
manufactured on or after the date the applicable standards come into
effect as specified in Sec. 60.532, must have a permanent label
affixed to it that meets the requirements of this section.
(2) Except for wood heaters subject to Sec. 60.530(b)(1) through
(b)(5), the permanent label must contain the following information:
(i) Month and year of manufacture of the individual unit;
(ii) Model name or number; and
(iii) Serial number.
(3) The permanent label must:
(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or accessible location in such
a manner that it can be easily viewed before and after the appliance is
installed;
(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm wide (3\1/2\ inches long
and 2 inches wide);
(iii) Be made of a material expected to last the lifetime of the
wood heater;
(iv) Present required information in a manner so that it is likely
to remain legible for the lifetime of the wood heater; and
(v) Be affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed from the
appliance without damage to the label.
(4) The permanent label may be combined with any other label, as
long as the required information is displayed, the integrity of the
permanent label is not compromised, and the permanent label still meets
the requirements in Sec. 60.536(a)(3).
(5) Any label statement under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section
constitutes a representation by the manufacturer as to any wood heater
that bears it:
(i) That certification of compliance was in effect at the time the
wood heater left the possession of the manufacturer;
(ii) That the manufacturer was, at the time the label was affixed,
conducting a quality assurance program in conformity with Sec.
60.533(o); and
(iii) That any wood heater individually tested for emissions by the
manufacturer under Sec. 60.533(o)(2) or (o)(4) met the applicable
emissions limits.
(b) If the adjustable burn rate wood heater or pellet stove belongs
to a model line certified under Sec. 60.533, and it has been found to
meet the applicable emission limits or tolerances through quality
assurance testing, one of the following statements, as appropriate,
must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply with 1990
particulate emission standards. Not approved for sale or operation
after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply with 2015
particulate emission standards. Not approved for sale or operation
after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply with 2020
particulate emission standards.
(c) If the single burn rate wood heater belongs to a model line
certified under Sec. 60.533, and it has been found to meet the
applicable emission limits or tolerances through quality assurance
testing, the following statements must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply with 2015
particulate emission standards. Not approved for sale or operation
after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply with 2020
particulate emission standards.
(d)(1) If an affected wood heater is manufactured in the United
States for export as provided in Sec. 60.530(b)(1), the following
statement must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Export stove. May not be sold or
operated within the United States.
(2) If an affected wood heater is manufactured for use for research
and development purposes as provided in Sec. 60.530(b)(2), the
following statement must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Not certified. Research Stove. Not
approved for sale or for operation other than research.
(3) If an affected wood heater is exclusively a non wood-burning
heater as provided Sec. 60.530(b)(3) the following statement must
appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY This heater is not certified for
wood burning. Use of any wood fuel is a violation of federal law.
(4) If an affected wood heater is a cookstove that meets the
applicable definition in Sec. 60.531, the following statement must
appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY This unit is not a certified
residential wood heater. The primary use for this unit is for cooking
or baking.
[[Page 6382]]
(5) If an affected wood heater is a camp stove that meets the
applicable definition in Sec. 60.531, the following statement must
appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY This unit is not a certified
residential wood heater. For portable and temporary use only.
(e) The permanent label for all certified wood heaters must also
contain the following statement:
``This wood heater needs periodic inspection and repair for proper
operation. Consult owner's manual for further information. It is
against the law to operate this wood heater in a manner inconsistent
with operating instructions in the owner's manual.''
(f) Owner's Manual.
(1) Each affected wood heater offered for sale by a commercial
owner must be accompanied by an owner's manual that must contain the
information listed in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this section.
Such information must be adequate to enable consumers to achieve
optimal emissions performance. Such information must be consistent with
the operating instructions provided by the manufacturer to the
accredited test laboratory for operating the wood heater during
certification testing, except for details of the certification test
that would not be relevant to the ultimate purchaser. The commercial
owner must also make current and historical owner's manuals available
on the company Web site and upon request to the EPA.
(2) Installation information: Requirements for achieving proper
draft.
(3) Operation and maintenance information:
(i) Fuel loading procedures, recommendations on fuel selection, and
warnings on what fuels not to use, such as treated wood, colored paper,
cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage.
(ii) Fire starting procedures
(iii) Proper use of air controls
(iv) Ash removal procedures
(v) Instructions for replacement of gaskets, air tubes and other
parts that are critical to the emissions performance of the unit and
other maintenance and repair instructions
(vi) For catalytic models, information on the following pertaining
to the catalytic combustor: Procedures for achieving and maintaining
catalyst activity, maintenance procedures, procedures for determining
deterioration or failure, procedures for replacement, and information
on how to exercise warranty rights
(vii) For catalytic models, the following statement:
``This wood heater contains a catalytic combustor, which needs
periodic inspection and replacement for proper operation. It is against
federal law to operate this wood heater in a manner inconsistent with
operating instructions in this manual, or if the catalytic element is
deactivated or removed.''
(viii) For noncatalytic models, the following statement:
``This wood heater needs periodic inspection and repair for proper
operation. It is against federal law to operate this wood heater in a
manner inconsistent with operating instructions in this manual.''
(4) Any manufacturer using the EPA-recommended language contained
in appendix I of this part to satisfy any requirement of this paragraph
(f) will be considered to be in compliance with that requirement,
provided that the particular language is printed in full, with only
such changes as are necessary to ensure accuracy for the particular
wood heater model line.
(5) Wood heaters that are affected by this subpart, but that have
been owned and operated by a noncommercial owner, are not subject to
paragraphs (f) of this section when offered for resale.
Sec. 60.537 What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
(a)(1) Each manufacturer who holds a certificate of compliance
under Sec. 60.533(c) or (f) for a model line must maintain records
containing the information required by paragraph (a) of this section
with respect to that model line.
(2) All documentation pertaining to the certification test used to
obtain certification, including the full test report and raw data
sheets, laboratory technician notes, calculations, and the test results
for all test runs.
(3) Results of the quality assurance program inspections required
by Sec. 60.533(m).
(4) For emissions tests conducted pursuant to the quality assurance
program required by Sec. 60.533(o), all test reports, data sheets,
laboratory technician notes, calculations, and test results for all
test runs, the remedial actions taken, if any, and any follow-up
actions such as additional testing.
(b) Each accredited test laboratory and certifying entity must
maintain records consisting of all documentation pertaining to each
certification test, QA/QC inspection and audit test, including the full
test report and raw data sheets, technician notes, calculations, and
the test results for all test runs. Each accredited test laboratory
must submit initial and biennial proficiency test results to the
Administrator. Each certifying entity must submit each certification
test, QA/QC inspection report and ISO IEC accreditation credentials to
the Administrator.
(c) Each manufacturer must retain each wood heater upon which
certification tests were performed based upon which certification was
granted under Sec. 60.533(c) or (f) at the manufacturer's facility for
as long as the model line in question is manufactured. Each heater or
furnace must remain sealed and unaltered. Any such wood heater must be
made available to the Administrator upon request for inspection and
testing.
(d) Each manufacturer of an affected wood heater certified under
Sec. 60.533(c) or (f) must submit a report to the Administrator every
2 years following issuance of a certificate of compliance for each
model line. This report must include the sales for each model by state
and certify that no changes in the design or manufacture of this model
line have been made that require recertification under Sec. 60.533(k).
(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all records required under this
section must be maintained by the manufacturer, commercial owner of the
affected wood heater, accredited test laboratory or certifying entity
for a period of no less than 5 years.
(2) Unless otherwise specified, all reports to the Administrator
required under this subpart must be made to: Wood Heater NSPS
Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_Program.
(f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test, each manufacturer or accredited test laboratory or certifying
entity must submit performance test data electronically to the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/). Only data
collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this
requirement to be submitted electronically to the EPA's CDX.
Manufacturers may submit compliance reports to the EPA via regular mail
at the address listed below if the test methods they use are not
compatible with ERT or if ERT is not available to accept reports at the
time the final rule is published. Owners or operators who claim that
some of the information being submitted for performance tests is
confidential business information (CBI) must submit a completed ERT
file, including information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk or
other commonly used electronic storage media (including, but not
limited to, flash drives), to the EPA, and the same ERT
[[Page 6383]]
file, with the CBI omitted, to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in
this paragraph. The compact disk must be clearly marked as CBI and
mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703.
Emission data, including all information necessary to determine
compliance, except sensitive engineering drawings and sensitive
detailed material specifications, may not be claimed as CBI.
Sec. 60.538 What activities are prohibited under this subpart?
(a) No person is permitted to operate an affected wood heater that
does not have affixed to it a permanent label pursuant to Sec. 60.536
(b), (c), or (d)(2) through (d)(5).
(b) No commercial owner is permitted to advertise for sale, offer
for sale, or sell an affected wood heater labeled under Sec.
60.536(d)(1) except for export.
(c)(1) No commercial owner is permitted to advertise for sale,
offer for sale or sell an affected wood heater permanently labeled
under Sec. 60.536 (b) or (c) unless:
(i) The affected wood heater has been certified to comply with 2020
particulate emission standards. This prohibition does not apply to wood
heaters affected by this subpart that have been previously owned and
operated by a noncommercial owner; and
(ii) The commercial owner provides any purchaser or transferee with
an owner's manual that meets the requirements of Sec. 60.536(f), a
copy of the warranty and a moisture meter.
(2) No commercial owner is permitted to advertise for sale, offer
for sale, or sell an affected wood heater permanently labeled under
Sec. 60.536(d)(3), unless the affected wood heater has been certified
to comply with 2020 particulate emission. This prohibition does not
apply to wood heaters affected by this subpart that have been
previously owned and operated by a noncommercial owner.
(3) A commercial owner other than a manufacturer complies with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section if the commercial
owner:
(i) Receives the required documentation from the manufacturer or a
previous commercial owner; and
(ii) Provides that documentation unaltered to any person to whom
the wood heater that it covers is sold or transferred.
(d)(1) In any case in which the Administrator revokes a certificate
of compliance either for the knowing submission of false or inaccurate
information or other fraudulent acts, or based on a finding under Sec.
60.533(l)(1)(ii) that the certification test was not valid, the
Administrator may give notice of that revocation and the grounds for it
to all commercial owners.
(2) On and after the date of receipt of the notice given under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no commercial owner is permitted to
sell any wood heater covered by the revoked certificate (other than to
the manufacturer) unless the model line has been recertified in
accordance with this subpart.
(e) No person is permitted to install or operate an affected wood
heater except in a manner consistent with the instructions on its
permanent label and in the owner's manual pursuant to Sec. 60.536(f).
(f) No person is permitted to operate an affected wood heater that
was originally equipped with a catalytic combustor if the catalytic
element is deactivated or removed.
(g) No person is permitted to operate an affected wood heater that
has been physically altered to exceed the tolerance limits of its
certificate of compliance.
(h) No person is permitted to alter, deface, or remove any
permanent label required to be affixed pursuant to Sec. 60.536.
(i) No certifying entity is permitted to certify its own
certification test report.
Sec. 60.539 What Petition for Review procedures apply to me?
(a)(1) In any case where the Administrator--
(i) Denies an application under Sec. 60.530(c) or Sec. 60.533(f);
(ii) Issues a notice of revocation of certification under Sec.
60.533(l);
(iii) Denies an application for laboratory accreditation under
Sec. 60.535(a); or
(iv) Issues a notice of revocation of laboratory accreditation
under Sec. 60.535(b), the manufacturer or laboratory affected may
submit to the EPA, a Petition for Review request under this section
within 30 days following receipt of the required notification of the
action in question.
(2) In any case where the Administrator issues a notice of
revocation under Sec. 60.533(p), the manufacturer may submit to the
EPA a Petition for Review request under this section with the time
limits set out in Sec. 60.533(p)(4).
(b) Any Petition for Review request must be in writing, must be
signed by an authorized representative of the petitioning manufacturer
or laboratory, and must include a statement and supporting
documentation setting forth with particularity the petitioner's
objection to the Administrator's determination or proposed
determination.
(c) Upon receipt of a Petition for Review under paragraph (a) of
this section, the Administrator shall provide a written response within
45 days.
Sec. 60.539a Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
state under section 111(c) of the Act, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the Administrator and
not transferred to a state.
(b) Authorities that must not be delegated to states:
(1) Section 60.531, Definitions;
(2) Section 60.533, Compliance and certification;
(3) Section 60.534, Test methods and procedures; and
(4) Section 60.535, Laboratory accreditation.
Sec. 60.539b What parts of the General Provisions do not apply to me?
The following provisions of subpart A of part 60 do not apply to
this subpart:
(a) Section 60.7;
(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g); and
(c) Section 60.15(d).
0
4. Add subpart QQQQ to read as follows:
Subpart QQQQ--Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic
Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
Sec.
60.5472 Am I subject to this subpart?
60.5473 What definitions must I know?
60.5474 What standards and requirements must I meet and by when?
60.5475 What compliance and certification requirements must I meet
and by when?
60.5476 What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and requirements for certification?
60.5477 What procedures must I use for laboratory accreditation?
60.5478 What requirements must I meet for permanent labels and
owner's manuals?
60.5479 What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
60.5480 What activities are prohibited under this subpart?
60.5481 What Petition for Review procedures apply to me?
60.5482 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.5483 What parts of the General Provisions do not apply to me?
[[Page 6384]]
Subpart QQQQ--Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic
Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
Sec. 60.5472 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you operate, manufacture,
sell, offer for sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to distribute,
introduce, or deliver for introduction, into commerce in the United
States, residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace manufactured
on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(b) Each residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace must
comply with the provisions of this subpart unless exempted under
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
(1) Affected residential hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces
manufactured in the United States for export are exempt from the
applicable emission limits of Sec. 60.5474 and the requirements of
Sec. 60.5475.
(2) Affected residential hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces
used for research and development purposes that are never offered for
sale or sold and that are not used to provide heat are exempt from the
applicable emission limits of Sec. 60.5474 and the requirements of
Sec. 60.5475. No more than 12 affected residential hydronic heaters or
forced-air furnaces manufactured per model line may be exempted for
this purpose.
(3) Appliances that do not burn wood or wood pellets (such as coal-
only hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces that meet the definition
in Sec. 60.5473 or corn-only hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces)
are exempt from the applicable emission limits of Sec. 60.5474 and the
requirements of Sec. 60.5475.
(c) The following are not affected residential hydronic heaters or
forced-air furnaces and are not subject to this subpart:
(1) Residential wood heaters subject to subpart AAA of this part.
(2) Residential masonry heaters subject to subpart RRRR of this
part.
Sec. 60.5473 What definitions must I know?
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the same
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.
Accredited test laboratory means a test laboratory that is
accredited for residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
certification testing under Sec. 60.5477 and is an independent third-
party test laboratory that is accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting entity under ISO-IEC Standard 17025 to perform testing
using the test methods specified in Sec. 60.5476 and approved by the
EPA for conducting certification tests under this subpart.
At retail means the sale by a commercial owner of a residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace to the ultimate purchaser.
Central heater means a fuel-burning device designed to burn wood or
wood pellet fuel that warms spaces other than the space where the
device is located, by the distribution of air heated by the furnace
through ducts or liquid heated in the device and distributed typically
through pipes. Unless otherwise specified, these devices include
residential forced-air furnaces and residential hydronic heaters.
Certifying entity means an independent third party that is
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting entity under ISO-IEC
Standard 17020 to perform certifications, inspections and audits under
ISO-IEC Guide 17065 and approved by the EPA for conducting
certifications, inspections and audits under this subpart.
Coal-only hydronic heater or forced-air furnace means an enclosed,
coal-burning appliance capable of space heating or domestic water
heating that has all of the following characteristics:
(1) Installation instructions that state that the use of wood in
the appliance, except for coal ignition purposes, is prohibited by law;
and
(2) The model is listed by a nationally recognized safety-testing
laboratory for coal use only, except for coal ignition purposes.
Commercial owner means any person who owns or controls a
residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace in the course of the
business of the manufacture, importation, distribution, or sale of the
unit.
Manufactured means completed and ready for shipment (whether or not
packaged) for purposes of determining the date of manufacture.
Manufacturer means any person who constructs or imports into the
United States a residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace.
Model line means all residential hydronic heaters or forced-air
furnaces offered for sale by a single manufacturer that are similar in
all material respects as defined in this section.
Particulate matter (PM) means total particulate matter including
PM10 and PM2.5.
Pellet fuel means refined and densified solid wood shaped into
small pellets or briquettes that are uniform in size, shape, moisture,
density and energy content.
Representative residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
means an individual residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
that is similar in all material respects as defined in this section to
other residential hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces within the
model line it represents.
Residential forced-air furnace means a fuel burning device designed
to burn wood or wood pellet fuel that warms spaces other than the space
where the furnace is located, by the distribution of air heated by the
furnace through ducts.
Residential hydronic heater means a fuel burning device designed to
burn wood or wood pellet fuel for the purpose of heating building space
and/or water through the distribution, typically through pipes, of a
fluid heated in the device, typically water or a water and antifreeze
mixture.
Sale means the transfer of ownership or control, except that a
transfer of control of an affected residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace for research and development purposes within the
scope of Sec. 60.5472(b)(2) is not a sale.
Seasoned wood means wood with a moisture content of 20 percent or
less.
Similar in all material respects means that the construction
materials, exhaust and inlet air system, and other design features are
within the allowed tolerances for components identified in Sec.
60.533(k).
Valid certification test means a test that meets the following
criteria:
(1) The Administrator was notified about the test in accordance
with Sec. 60.5476(f);
(2) The test was conducted by an accredited test laboratory as
defined in this section;
(3) The test was conducted on a residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace similar in all material respects as defined in this
section to other residential hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces of
the model line that is to be certified; and
(4) The test was conducted in accordance with the test methods and
procedures specified in Sec. 60.5476.
Sec. 60.5474 What standards and requirements must I meet and by when?
(a) Particulate Matter Standards. Unless exempted under Sec.
60.5472, no person is permitted to:
(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], manufacture or sell
at retail a residential hydronic heater unless it has been certified to
meet the 2015 particulate matter emission limits in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(2) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
manufacture or sell at retail a residential hydronic heater unless it
has been
[[Page 6385]]
certified to meet the 2020 particulate matter emission limit in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(3) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], manufacture or sell
at retail a residential forced-air furnace unless it has been certified
to meet the 2015 particulate matter emission limits in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section.
(4) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
manufacture or sell at retail a residential forced-air furnace unless
it has been certified to meet the 2020 particulate matter emission
limit in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(b)(1) 2015 residential hydronic heater particulate matter emission
limit: 0.32 lb/million Btu (0.137 g/megajoule) heat output and 7.5 g/hr
(0.017 lb/hr) as determined by the test methods and procedures in Sec.
60.5476.
(2) 2020 residential hydronic heater particulate matter emission
limit: 0.06 lb/million Btu (0.026 g/megajoule) heat output as
determined by the test methods and procedures in Sec. 60.5476.
(3) 2015 forced-air furnace particulate matter emission limit: 0.93
lb/million Btu (0.40 g/megajoule) heat output and 7.5 g/hr (0.017 lb/
hr) as determined by the test methods and procedures in Sec. 60.5476.
(4) 2020 forced-air furnace particulate matter emission limit: 0.06
lb/million Btu (0.026 g/megajoule) heat output as determined by the
test methods and procedures in Sec. 60.5476.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Pellet Fuel Requirements. Operators of outdoor residential
hydronic heaters, indoor residential hydronic heaters, or residential
forced-air furnaces that are certified to burn pellet fuels may only
burn pellets that have been produced under a licensing agreement with
the Pellet Fuels Institute or an equivalent organization approved by
the EPA. The pellet fuel must meet the following minimum requirements:
(1) Density: consistent hardness and energy content with a minimum
density of 38 pounds/cubic foot;
(2) Dimensions: maximum length of 1.5 inches and diameter between
0.230 and 0.285 inches;
(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal to 1 percent;
(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300 parts per million by
weight; and
(5) Ash content: no more than 2 percent.
(6) A quality assurance process licensed by the Pellet Fuel
Institute or equivalent organization approved by EPA.
(f) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person is permitted to burn any of
the following materials in an outdoor residential hydronic heater,
indoor residential hydronic heater, or residential forced-air furnace:
(1) Residential or commercial garbage;
(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste;
(3) Materials containing rubber, including tires;
(4) Materials containing plastic;
(5) Waste petroleum products, paints or paint thinners, or asphalt
products;
(6) Materials containing asbestos;
(7) Construction or demolition debris;
(8) Paper products; cardboard, plywood or particleboard. The
prohibition against burning these materials does not prohibit the use
of fire starters made from paper, cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar
substances for the purpose of starting a fire in an affected
residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace;
(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated lumber;
(10) Manure or animal remains;
(11) Salt water driftwood or other or other previously salt water
saturated materials;
(12) Unseasoned wood; or
(13) Any materials that were not included in the certification
tests for the subject heater or furnace.
(g) Owner's Manual. A person must not operate an outdoor
residential hydronic heater, indoor residential hydronic heater, or
residential forced-air furnace in a manner inconsistent with the
owner's manual. The owner's manual must clearly specify that operation
in a manner inconsistent with the owner's manual would violate the
warranty.
Sec. 60.5475 What compliance and certification requirements must I
meet and by when?
(a)(1) Certification Requirement. Each affected residential
hydronic heater and forced-air furnace must be certified to be in
compliance with the applicable emission standards and other
requirements of this subpart. For each model line manufactured or sold
by a single entity, e.g., company or manufacturer, compliance with
applicable emission standards of Sec. 60.5474(b) must be determined
based on testing of representative affected residential hydronic
heaters and forced-air furnaces within the model line. If one entity
licenses a model line to another entity, each entity's model line must
be certified. If a entity changes the name of the entity or the name of
the model, the manufacturer must apply for a new certification.
(2) The manufacturer of each model line must submit the information
required in Sec. 60.533(b) and follow the certification procedure
specified in Sec. 60.533(f) except that, for the purposes of this
paragraph, the references in Sec. 60.533(f) to the ``emission
standards'' in Sec. 60.532 must be understood to refer to the emission
limits in Sec. 60.5474(b).
(b) Waiver from Submitting Test Results. An applicant for
certification may apply for a potential waiver of the requirements to
submit the results of a certification test pursuant to the
certification procedures specified in Sec. 60.533(f) according to the
procedure specified in Sec. 60.533(g)(1).
(c) Certification Period. Unless revoked sooner by the
Administrator, a certificate of compliance will be valid 5 years from
the date of issuance.
(d) Renewal of Certification. (1) Any manufacturer of an affected
residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace may apply to the
Administrator for potential renewal of a certificate of compliance by
submitting the material specified in Sec. 60.533(b) and following the
procedures specified in Sec. 60.533(f).
(2) The certificate must be recertified or renewed every 5 years or
the manufacture may choose to no longer manufacture or sell that model.
If the manufacturer chooses to no longer manufacture or sell that
model, then the manufacturer must submit a statement to the EPA for
that model. A manufacturer may apply for potential renewal of their
certificate by submitting certification information in accordance with
Sec. 60.533(b) or by affirming in writing that the wood heater has
been subject to no changes that would impact emissions and request a
potential waiver from certification testing.
(3) If the Administrator grants or waives certification testing
under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the Administrator will give
written notice to the manufacturer setting forth the basis for the
determination and issue a certification renewal.
(4) If the Administrator denies the request for a renewal of
certification, the Administrator will give written notice to the
manufacturer setting forth the basis for the determination.
(e) Recertification. The procedure specified in Sec. 60.533(k)
must be used to determine when a product line must be recertified.
(f) Criteria for Revocation of Certification. (1) The Administrator
may revoke certification of a product line if it is determined that the
residential hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces being manufactured
or sold in that model line do not comply with the requirements of this
subpart. Such a determination will be based on all
[[Page 6386]]
available evidence, including but not limited to:
(i) Test data from retesting of the original unit on which the
certification was conducted or a similar unit;
(ii) A finding that the certification test was not valid. The
finding will be based on problems or irregularities with the
certification test or its documentation, but may be supplemented by
other information;
(iii) A finding that the labeling of the residential hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace model line or the owner's manual or
marketing information does not comply with the requirements of Sec.
60.5478;
(iv) Failure by the manufacturer to comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 60.5479;
(v) Physical examination showing that a significant percentage (as
defined in the quality assurance plan, but no larger than 1 percent) of
production units inspected is not similar in all material respects as
defined in this subpart to the representative affected hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace submitted for testing; or
(vi) Failure of the manufacturer to conduct a quality assurance
program in conformity with paragraph (g) of this section.
(2) Revocation of certification under this paragraph will not take
effect until the manufacturer concerned has been given written notice
by the Administrator setting forth the basis for the proposed
determination and an opportunity to request a review under Sec.
60.5481.
(g) Quality Assurance Program. For each certified model line, the
manufacturer must conduct a quality assurance program according to the
requirements of Sec. 60.533(m).
(h) EPA Compliance Audit Testing. The Administrator will conduct
compliance audit testing according to the requirements of Sec.
60.533(n). For the purposes of this paragraph, references in Sec.
60.533(n) to Sec. Sec. 60.532 through 60.535 must be understood to
refer to the comparable paragraphs in Sec. Sec. 60.5474 through
60.5477 and the associated test methods specified in this subpart.
Sec. 60.5476 What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and requirements for certification?
Test methods and procedures specified in this section or in
appendix A of this part, except as provided under Sec. 60.8(b), must
be used to determine compliance with the standards and requirements for
certification under Sec. Sec. 60.5474 and 60.5475 as follows:
(a)(1) Method 28 WHH must be used to measure the heat output
(million Btu/hr) of outdoor and indoor residential hydronic heaters.
(2) If the model is subject to the 2015 particulate matter
standards specified in Sec. 60.5474(a)(1) and is equipped with an
external heat storage unit, you must conduct testing according to
paragraph Sec. 60.5476(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. You have the
option of submitting the test results of either (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of
this section to the Administrator as specified under Sec. 60.5479 for
certification compliance.
(i) Conduct testing using crib wood as specified in Method 28 WHH.
The heat input and heat output measurements must be performed according
to ASTM method E2618-13 entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions and Heating of Outdoor Solid Fuel-fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances.'' Testing conducted with continuously fed
biomass as the fuel(s) must be conducted according to the relevant
section of the ASTM method.
(ii) Conduct testing using cord wood as specified in ``A Test
Method for Certification of Cord Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances
with Partial Thermal Storage: Measurement of Particulate Matter (PM)
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage.''
(3) If the model is subject to the 2020 particulate matter
standards specified in Sec. 60.5474(a)(2) and is equipped with an
external partial heat storage unit, you must conduct cord wood testing
according to the test methods and procedures of ``A Test Method for
Certification of Cord Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances with
Partial Thermal Storage: Measurement of Particulate Matter (PM) and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage.''
(b) Method 28 WHH in conjunction with ASTM E2515-10 must be used to
measure the particulate matter emission rate (lb/million Btu heat
output) of outdoor and indoor residential hydronic heaters, except that
for the 2020 standards, you should first test Burn Rate Categories 1
and 4 and then test 2 more times for whichever burn rate category is
worse on a lb/million BTU heat output basis and report the results
separately per burn rate category.
(c) Canadian Standards Administration (CSA) Method B415.1-10 must
be used to measure the heat output (million Btu/hr) and particulate
matter emission rate (lb/million Btu heat output) of forced-air
furnaces, except that for the 2020 standards, you should first test
Burn Rate Categories 1 and 4 and then test 2 more times for whichever
burn rate category is worse on a lb/million BTU heat output basis and
report the results separately per burn rate category.
(d) CSA Method B415.1-10, section 13.7, must be used to measure the
thermal efficiency of outdoor and indoor residential hydronic heaters.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) The manufacturer of an affected residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace must notify the Administrator of the date that
certification testing is to begin, by email, to Wood Heater NSPS
Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_Program. This notice must be at least 30 days before the start of
testing. The notification of testing must include the manufacturer's
name and address, the accredited test laboratory's name and address,
certifying entity name, the model name and number (or, if unavailable,
some other way to distinguish between models), and the dates of
testing.
(g) The accredited test laboratory must allow the manufacturer, the
EPA and delegated states to observe certification testing. However,
manufacturers must not involve themselves in the conduct of the test
after the pretest burn (as defined by EPA Method 28 WHH) has begun.
Communications between the manufacturer and laboratory or certifying
entity personnel regarding operation of the hydronic heater must be
limited to written communications transmitted prior to the first
pretest burn of the certification series. Written communications
between the manufacturer and laboratory personnel may be exchanged
during the certification test only if deviations from the test
procedures are observed that constitute improper conduct of the test.
All communications must be included in the test documentation required
to be submitted pursuant to Sec. 60.533(b)(3) and must be consistent
with instructions provided in the owner's manual required under Sec.
60.5478(f), except to the extent that they address details of the
certification tests that would not be relevant to owners.
Sec. 60.5477 What procedures must I use for laboratory accreditation?
The accreditation procedure specified in Sec. 60.535 must be used
to certify test laboratories under this subpart.
[[Page 6387]]
Sec. 60.5478 What requirements must I meet for permanent labels and
owner's manuals?
(a) Permanent Label Requirements.
(1) Each affected residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
manufactured or sold on or after the date the applicable standards come
into effect as specified in Sec. 60.5474, must have a permanent label
affixed to it that meets the requirements of this section.
(2) The permanent label must contain the following information:
(i) Month and year of manufacture of the individual unit;
(ii) Model name or number; and
(iii) Serial number.
(3) The permanent label must:
(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or accessible location in such
a manner that it can be easily viewed before and after the appliance is
installed;
(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm wide (3 1/2 inches long and
2 inches wide);
(iii) Be made of a material expected to last the lifetime of the
residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace;
(iv) Present required information in a manner so that it is likely
to remain legible for the lifetime of the residential hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace; and
(v) Be affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without
damage to the label.
(4) The permanent label may be combined with any other label, as
long as the required information is displayed, the integrity of the
permanent label is not compromised, and the requirements of Sec.
60.5478(a)(3) are still met.
(b) If the residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
belongs to a model line certified under Sec. 60.5475, and it has been
found to meet the applicable emission limits or tolerances through
quality assurance testing, one of the following statements, as
appropriate, must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply with 2015
particulate emission standards. or
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply with 2020
particulate emission standards.
(c) The label under paragraph (b) of this section must also contain
the following statement on the permanent label:
``This appliance needs periodic inspection and repair for proper
operation. Consult owner's manual for further information. It is
against the law to operate this appliance in a manner inconsistent with
operating instructions in the owner's manual.''
(d) Any label statement under paragraph (b) of this section
constitutes a representation by the manufacturer as to any residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace that bears it:
(1) That the certification of compliance was in effect at the time
the residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace left the
possession of the manufacturer;
(2) That the manufacturer was, at the time the label was affixed,
conducting a quality assurance program in conformity with the
manufacturer's quality assurance program; and
(3) That as to any residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace individually tested for emissions by the manufacturer under
Sec. 60.5475(f), it met the applicable emission limit.
(e)(1) If an affected residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace is manufactured in the United States for export as provided in
Sec. 60.5472(b)(1), the following statement must appear on the
permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Export appliance. May not be
operated in the United States.
(2) If an affected residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace is manufactured for use for research and development purposes
as provided in Sec. 60.5472(b)(2), the following statement must appear
on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Not certified. Research Appliance.
Not approved for sale.
(3) If an affected residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace is a non wood-burning hydronic heater or forced-air furnace
exclusively as provided in Sec. 60.5472(b)(3) the following statement
must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY This appliance is not certified
for wood burning. Use of any wood fuel is a violation of federal law.
(f) Owner's Manual. (1) Each affected residential hydronic heater
or forced-air furnace offered for sale by a commercial owner must be
accompanied by an owner's manual that must contain the information
listed in paragraph (f)(2) of this section (pertaining to
installation), and paragraph (f)(3) of this section (pertaining to
operation and maintenance). Such information must be adequate to enable
consumers to achieve optimal emissions performance. Such information
must be consistent with the operating instructions provided by the
manufacturer to the accredited test laboratory for operating the
residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace during certification
testing, except for details of the certification test that would not be
relevant to the ultimate purchaser. The commercial owner must also make
current and historical owner's manuals available on the company Web
site.
(2) Installation information: Requirements for achieving proper
draft.
(3) Operation and maintenance information:
(i) Fuel loading procedures, recommendations on fuel selection, and
warnings on what fuels not to use, such as treated wood, colored paper,
cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage.
(ii) Fire starting procedures
(iii) Proper use of air controls
(iv) Ash removal procedures
(v) Instructions for replacement of gaskets and other parts that
are critical to the emissions performance of the unit and other
maintenance and repair instructions
(vi) The following statement: ``This wood heating appliance needs
periodic inspection and repair for proper operation. It is against
federal law to operate this wood heating appliance in a manner
inconsistent with operating instructions in the manual.''
(4) Any manufacturer using the EPA model language contained in
appendix I of this part to satisfy any requirement of this paragraph
(f) will be considered to be in compliance with that requirement,
provided that the particular model language is printed in full, with
only such changes as are necessary to ensure accuracy for the
particular model line.
(5) Residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces that are
affected by this subpart but have been operated by a noncommercial
owner are not subject to paragraph (f) of this section when offered for
resale.
Sec. 60.5479 What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
(a) Each manufacturer who holds a certificate of compliance
pursuant to Sec. 60.5475(a)(2) for a model line must maintain records
containing the following information with respect to that model line.
(1) All documentation pertaining to the certification test used to
obtain certification, including the full test report and raw data
sheets, laboratory technician notes, calculations, and the test results
for all test runs.
(2) Results of the quality assurance program inspections required
pursuant to Sec. 60.5475(g).
(3) For emissions tests conducted pursuant to the quality assurance
program required by Sec. 60.5475(g), all test reports, data sheets,
laboratory technician notes, calculations, and test results for all
test runs, the corrective actions taken, if any, and any follow-up
actions such as additional testing.
[[Page 6388]]
(b) Each accredited test laboratory must maintain records
consisting of all documentation pertaining to each certification test
and audit test, including the full test report and raw data sheets,
laboratory technician notes, calculations, and the test results for all
test runs. Each accredited test laboratory must submit initial and
biennial proficiency test results to the Administrator.
(c) Each manufacturer must retain each residential hydronic heater
and forced-air furnace upon which certification tests were performed
and certification granted under Sec. 60.5475(a)(2) at the
manufacturer's facility for as long as the model line is manufactured.
Each heater or furnace must remain sealed and unaltered. Any such
residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace must be made
available upon request to the Administrator for inspection and testing.
(d) Each manufacturer of an affected residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace certified pursuant to Sec. 60.5475(a)(2) must
submit a report to the Administrator every 2 years following issuance
of a certificate of compliance for each model line. This report must
include the sales for each model by state and certify that no changes
in the design or manufacture of the model line have been made that
require recertification pursuant to Sec. 60.5475(e).
(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all records required under this
section must be maintained by the manufacturer, commercial owner of the
affected residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace, accredited
test laboratory or certifying entity for a period of no less than 5
years.
(2) Unless otherwise specified, all reports to the Administrator
required under this subpart must be made to: Wood Heater NSPS
Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_Program.
(f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test, each manufacturer or accredited test laboratory or certifying
entity must submit performance test data electronically to the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/). Only data
collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this
requirement to be submitted electronically to EPA's CDX. Manufacturers
may submit compliance reports to the EPA via regular mail at the
address listed below if the test methods they use are not compatible
with ERT or if ERT is not available to accept reports at the time the
final rule is published. Owners or operators who claim that some of the
information being submitted for performance tests is confidential
business information (CBI) must submit a completed ERT file, including
information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk or other commonly used
electronic storage media (including, but not limited to, flash drives),
to the EPA and the same ERT file, with the CBI omitted, to the EPA via
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. The compact disk must be
clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. Emission data and all information necessary to
determine compliance, except sensitive engineering drawings and
sensitive detailed material specifications, may not be claimed as CBI.
Sec. 60.5480 What activities are prohibited under this subpart?
(a) No person is permitted to operate an affected residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace that does not have affixed to it
a permanent label pursuant to Sec. 60.5478(b) or (c).
(b)(1) No commercial owner is permitted to advertise for sale,
offer for sale, or sell an affected residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace that does not have affixed to it a permanent label
pursuant to Sec. 60.5478(b) or (e)(3).
(2) No commercial owner is permitted to advertise for sale, offer
for sale, or sell an affected residential hydronic heater or forced-air
furnace labeled under Sec. 60.5478(e)(1) except for export.
(c)(1) No commercial owner is permitted to advertise for sale,
offer for sale, or sell an affected residential hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace permanently labeled under Sec. 60.5478(b) or (e)(3)
unless:
(i) The affected appliance has been certified to comply with 2020
particulate emission standards. This prohibition does not apply to
affected residential hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces regulated
under this subpart that have been previously owned and operated by a
noncommercial owner; and
(ii) The commercial owner provides any purchaser or transferee with
an owner's manual that meets the requirements of Sec. 60.5478(f), a
copy of the warranty and a moisture meter.
(2) A commercial owner other than a manufacturer complies with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section if the commercial
owner:
(i) Receives the required documentation from the manufacturer or a
previous commercial owner; and
(ii) Provides that documentation unaltered to any person to whom
the residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace that it covers is
sold or transferred.
(d)(1) In any case in which the Administrator revokes a certificate
of compliance either for the knowing submission of false or inaccurate
information or other fraudulent acts, or based on a finding under Sec.
60.5475(e)(1)(ii) that the certification test was not valid, the
Administrator may give notice of that revocation and the grounds for it
to all commercial owners.
(2) On and after the date of receipt of the notice given under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no commercial owner is permitted to
sell any residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace covered by
the revoked certificate (other than to the manufacturer) unless the
model line has been recertified in accordance with this subpart.
(e) No person is permitted to install or operate an affected
residential hydronic heater or forced-air furnace except in a manner
consistent with the instructions on its permanent label and in the
owner's manual pursuant to Sec. 60.5478(f), including only using fuels
for which the unit is certified.
(f) No person is permitted to operate an affected residential
hydronic heater or forced-air furnace that has been physically altered
to exceed the tolerance limits of its certificate of compliance.
(g) No person is permitted to alter, deface, or remove any
permanent label required to be affixed pursuant to Sec. 60.5478.
(h) No certifying entity is permitted to certify its own
certification test report.
Sec. 60.5481 What Petition for Review procedures apply to me?
(a) In any case where the Administrator:
(1) Denies an application under Sec. 60.5475(a)(2);
(2) Issues a notice of revocation of certification pursuant to
Sec. 60.5475(e);
(3) Denies an application for laboratory accreditation pursuant to
Sec. 60.5477; or
(4) Issues a notice of revocation of laboratory accreditation
pursuant to Sec. 60.5477, the manufacturer or laboratory affected may
submit to the EPA a request for review under this section pursuant to
the procedures specified in Sec. 60.539 within 30 days following
receipt of the required notification of the action in question.
[[Page 6389]]
(b) In any case where the Administrator issues a notice of
revocation pursuant to Sec. 60.5475(g), the manufacturer may submit to
the EPA a Petition for Review request under this section with the time
limits set out in Sec. 60.533(p)(4).
Sec. 60.5482 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
state under section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, the authorities
contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a state.
(b) Authorities that must not be delegated to states:
(1) Section 60.5473, Definitions;
(2) Section 60.5475, Compliance and certification;
(3) Section 60.5476, Test methods and procedures; and
(4) Section 60.5477, Laboratory accreditation.
Sec. 60.5483 What parts of the General Provisions do not apply to me?
The following provisions of subpart A of part 60 do not apply to
this subpart:
(a) Section 60.7;
(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g); and
(c) Section 60.15(d).
0
5. Add subpart RRRR to read as follows:
Subpart RRRR--Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry
Heaters
Sec.
60.5484 Am I subject to this subpart?
60.5485 What definitions must I know?
60.5486 What standards and requirements must I meet and by when?
60.5487 What compliance and certification requirements must I meet
and by when?
60.5488 What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and requirements for certification?
60.5489 What procedures must I use for laboratory accreditation?
60.5490 What requirements must I meet for permanent labels and
owner's manuals?
60.5491 What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
60.5492 What activities are prohibited under this subpart?
60.5493 What Petition for Review procedures apply to me?
60.5494 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.5495 What parts of the General Provisions do not apply to me?
Subpart RRRR--Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry
Heaters
Sec. 60.5484 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you operate, manufacture,
sell, offer for sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to distribute,
introduce, or deliver for introduction, into commerce in the United
States, a residential masonry heater manufactured on or after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(b) Each affected masonry heater must comply with the provisions of
this subpart unless exempted under paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of
this section.
(1) Affected masonry heaters manufactured in the United States for
export are exempt from the applicable emission limits of Sec. 60.5486
and the requirements of Sec. 60.5487.
(2) Affected masonry heaters used for research and development
purposes that are never offered for sale or sold and that are not used
to provide heat are exempt from the applicable emission limits of Sec.
60.5486 and the requirements of Sec. 60.5487. No more than six
affected masonry heaters manufactured per model line may be exempted
for this purpose.
(3) Affected masonry heaters that do not burn wood or wood pellets
(such as coal-only heaters that meet the definition in Sec. 60.5485 or
corn-only heaters) are exempt from the applicable emission limits of
Sec. 60.5486 and the requirements of Sec. 60.5487.
(c) The following are not affected masonry heaters and are not
subject to this subpart:
(1) Residential wood heaters subject to subpart AAA of this part.
(2) Residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces subject to
subpart QQQQ of this part.
Sec. 60.5485 What definitions must I know?
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the same
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.
Accredited test laboratory means a test laboratory that is
accredited for masonry heater certification testing under Sec. 60.5489
or is an independent third party test laboratory that is accredited by
a nationally recognized accrediting entity under ISO-IEC Standard 17025
to perform testing using the test methods specified in Sec. 60.5488
and approved by the EPA for conducting certification tests under this
subpart.
At retail means the sale by a commercial owner of a residential
masonry heater to the ultimate purchaser.
Certifying entity means an independent third party that is
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting entity under ISO-IEC
Standard 17020 to perform certifications and inspections under ISO-IEC
Guide 17065 and approved by the EPA for conducting certifications,
inspections and audits under this subpart.
Coal-only heater means an enclosed, coal-burning appliance capable
of space heating or domestic water heating which has all of the
following characteristics:
(1) Installation instructions that state that the use of wood in
the heater, except for coal ignition purposes, is prohibited by law;
and
(2) The model is listed by a nationally recognized safety-testing
laboratory for coal use only, except for coal ignition purposes.
Commercial owner means any person who owns or controls a
residential masonry heater in the course of the business of the
manufacture, importation, distribution, or sale of the unit.
Manufactured means completed and ready for shipment (whether or not
packaged) or installed in a residence in the case of custom-built
masonry heaters for purposes of determining the date of manufacture.
Manufacturer means any person who constructs or imports into the
United States a residential masonry heater.
Model line means all residential masonry heaters offered for sale
by a single manufacturer that are similar in all material respects as
defined in this section.
Particulate matter (PM) means total particulate matter including
PM10 and PM2.5.
Pellet fuel means refined and densified wood shaped into small
pellets or briquettes that are uniform in size, shape, moisture,
density and energy content.
Representative affected masonry heater means an individual
residential masonry heater that is similar in all material respects as
defined in this section to other residential masonry heaters within the
model line it represents.
Residential masonry heater means a factory-built or site-built
wood-burning device that has the following characteristics:
(1) The device has a core constructed primarily of manufacturer-
built, supplied, or specified masonry materials (such as stone,
cemented aggregate, clay, tile, or other non-combustible, non-metallic
solid materials) that weighs at least 1700 pounds;
(2) The firebox effluent of the masonry heater travels horizontally
and/or downward through one or more heat absorbing masonry duct(s) for
a distance at least the length of the largest single internal firebox
dimension before
[[Page 6390]]
leaving the masonry heater. These parameters are determined as follows:
(i) Horizontal or downward travel distance is defined as the net
horizontal and/or downward internal duct length, measured from the top
of the uppermost firebox door opening(s) to the exit of the masonry
heater as traveled by any effluent on a single pathway through duct
channel(s) within the heater (or average of net internal duct lengths
for multiple pathways of different lengths, if applicable). Net
internal duct length is measured from the center of the internal side
or top surface of a duct, horizontally or vertically to the center of
the opposite side or the bottom surface of the same duct, and summed
for multiple ducts or directions on a single pathway, if applicable.
For duct channel(s) traversing horizontal angles of less than ninety
degrees from vertical, only the net actual horizontal distance traveled
is included in the total duct length; and
(ii) The largest single internal firebox dimensions is defined as
the longest of either the length or the width of the firebox hearth and
the height of the firebox, measured from the hearth to the top of the
uppermost firebox door opening(s);
(3) The device has one or more air-controlling doors for fuel-
loading that are designed to be closed during the combustion of fuel
loads, and that control the entry of combustion air (beyond simple
spark arresting screens) to one or more inlets as prescribed by the
masonry heater manufacturer; and
(4) The device is assembled in conformance with Underwriters
Laboratories' and/or manufacturer's specifications for its assembly
and, if the core is constructed with a substantial portion of materials
not supplied by the manufacturer, is certified by a representative of
the manufacturer to be substantially in conformance with those
specifications.
Sale means the transfer of ownership or control, except that a
transfer of control of an affected heater for research and development
purposes within the scope of Sec. 60.5484(b)(2) is not a sale.
Seasoned wood means wood with a moisture content of 20 percent or
less.
Similar in all material respects means that the construction
materials, exhaust and inlet air system, and other design features are
within the allowed tolerances for components identified in Sec.
60.533(k).
Valid certification test means a test that meets the following
criteria:
(1) The Administrator was notified about the test in accordance
with Sec. 60.5488(d)
(2) The test was conducted by an accredited test laboratory as
defined in this section;
(3) The test was conducted on a residential masonry heater similar
in all material respects as defined in this section to other
residential masonry heaters of the model line that is to be certified;
and
(4) The test was conducted in accordance with the test methods and
procedures specified in Sec. 60.5488.
Sec. 60.5486 What standards and requirements must I meet and by when?
(a) Particulate Matter Standard. Unless exempted under Sec.
60.5484:
(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], no person is
permitted to manufacture and, on or after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], no person is permitted to sell at retail a
residential masonry heater unless the heater has been certified to meet
the particulate matter emission limit in paragraph (b) of this section
or the manufacturer is a small manufacturer as defined in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(2) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], no
small manufacturer is permitted to manufacture a residential masonry
heater unless it has been certified to meet the particulate matter
emission limit in paragraph (b) of this section. For the purposes of
this subpart, a small manufacturer is defined as a manufacturer that
constructs less than 15 residential masonry heaters per year. A small
manufacturer may elect to comply with the emission limit in paragraph
(b) of this section earlier than specified in this paragraph.
(b) Residential masonry heater particulate matter emission limit:
0.32 lb/million Btu (0.137 g/megajoule) heat output as determined by
the test methods and procedures in Sec. 60.5488.
(c) Pellet Fuel Requirements. Operators of masonry heaters that are
certified to burn pellet fuels may only burn pellets that have been
produced under a licensing agreement with the Pellet Fuel Institute or
an equivalent organization approved by EPA. The pellet fuel must meet
the following minimum requirements:
(1) Density: consistent hardness and energy content with a minimum
density of 38 pounds/cubic foot;
(2) Dimensions: maximum length of 1.5 inches and diameter between
0.230 and 0.285 inches;
(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal to 1 percent;
(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300 parts per million by
weight; and
(5) Ash content: no more than 2 percent.
(6) A quality assurance process licensed by the Pellet Fuel
Institute or equivalent organization approved by the EPA.
(d) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person is permitted to burn any of
the following materials in a residential masonry heater:
(1) Residential or commercial garbage;
(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste;
(3) Materials containing rubber, including tires;
(4) Materials containing plastic;
(5) Waste petroleum products, paints or paint thinners, or asphalt
products;
(6) Materials containing asbestos;
(7) Construction or demolition debris;
(8) Paper products, cardboard, plywood, or particleboard. The
prohibition against burning these materials does not prohibit the use
of fire starters made from paper, cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar
substances for the purpose of starting a fire in an affected masonry
heater;
(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated wood;
(10) Manure or animal remains; or
(11) Salt water driftwood or other previously salt water saturated
materials.
(e) Owner's Manual. A person must not operate a residential masonry
heater in a manner inconsistent with the owner's manual. The owner's
manual must clearly specify that operation in a manner inconsistent
with the owner's manual would violate the warranty.
Sec. 60.5487 What compliance and certification requirements must I
meet and by when?
(a)(1) Certification Requirement. Each affected residential masonry
heater must be certified to be in compliance with the applicable
emission standards and other requirements of this subpart. For each
model line manufactured or sold by a single entity, e.g., company or
manufacturer, compliance with applicable emission standards of Sec.
60.5486(b) must be determined based on testing of representative
affected appliances within the model line. If one entity licenses a
model line to another entity, each entity's model line must be
certified. If an entity changes the name of the entity or the name of
the model, the manufacturer must apply for a new certification.
(2) The manufacturer of each model line must submit to the EPA the
information required in paragraph (b) of this section and follow the
certification procedure specified in Sec. 60.533(f) except that, for
the purposes of this paragraph, the reference in Sec. 60.533(f) to the
emission limits in Sec. 60.532 must be understood to refer to the
emission
[[Page 6391]]
limits in Sec. 60.5486(b) and the associated test methods are those
specified in this subpart.
(3) As an alternative to the certification process described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an applicant may choose to submit a
computer model simulation program for review and certification by the
certifying entity and subsequent review and approval by the
Administrator for use as a surrogate for emissions testing. The
Administrator will post the certified model on the EPA Burnwise Web
site.
(b) Waiver from Submitting Test Results.
(1) An applicant for certification may apply for a potential waiver
of the requirements to submit the results of a certification test
pursuant to the certification procedures specified in Sec. 60.533(f)
according to the procedure specified in Sec. 60.533(g)(1).
(2) Alternatively, an applicant may submit results using a
validated computer model simulation program that demonstrates the
masonry heater design meets the emission limit in Sec. 60.5486(b).
(c) Certification Period.
(1) Unless revoked sooner by the Administrator, a certificate of
compliance will be valid for 5 years from the date of issuance.
(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a small manufacturer as
defined in Sec. 60.5486(a)(2) and the model was certified using the
procedure defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the certificate
of compliance will be valid for the life of the model line unless it is
revoked by the Administrator.
(d) Renewal of Certification.
(1) Any manufacturer of an affected masonry heater may apply to the
Administrator for potential renewal of a certificate of compliance by
submitting the material specified in Sec. 60.533(b) and following the
process specified in Sec. 60.533(f).
(2) A certificate issued pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this
section must be recertified or renewed every 5 years or the manufacture
may choose to no longer manufacture or sell that model. If the
manufacturer chooses to no longer manufacture or sell that model, then
the manufacturer must submit a statement to EPA for that model. A
manufacturer may apply to the Administrator for potential renewal of
their certificate by submitting certification information in accordance
with Sec. 60.533(b) or by affirming in writing that the wood heater
has been subject to no changes that would impact emissions and request
a potential waiver from certification testing.
(3) If the Administrator waives certification testing under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Administrator will give written
notice to the manufacturer setting forth the basis for the
determination and issue a certification.
(4) If the Administrator denies the request, the Administrator will
give written notice to the manufacturer setting forth the basis for the
determination.
(e) Recertification.
(1) The procedure specified in Sec. 60.533(k) must be used to
determine when a model line must be recertified.
(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a small manufacturer as
defined in Sec. 60.5486(a)(2) and the model line was certified using
the procedure defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
recertification provisions of paragraph (e)(1) of this section do not
apply.
(f) Criteria for Revocation of Certification.
(1) The Administrator may revoke certification of a model line if
it is determined that the residential masonry heaters produced in that
model line do not comply with the requirements of this subpart. Such a
determination will be based on all available evidence, including but
not limited to:
(i) Test data from retesting of the original unit on which the
certification was conducted or a similar unit;
(ii) A finding that the certification test or model simulation was
not valid;
(iii) A finding that the labeling of the residential masonry heater
model line or the associated owner's manual or marketing information
does not comply with the requirements of Sec. 60.5490;
(iv) Failure by the manufacturer to comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 60.5491;
(v) Physical examination showing that an inspected production unit
is not similar in all material respects as defined in this subpart to
the representative affected masonry heater submitted for testing; or
(vi) Failure of the manufacturer to conduct a quality assurance
program in conformity with paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) Revocation of certification under this paragraph will not take
effect until the manufacturer concerned has been given written notice
by the Administrator setting forth the basis for the proposed
determination and an opportunity to request a Petition for Review under
Sec. 60.5493.
(g) Quality Assurance Program. For each certified model line,
except for any model line at small manufacturers as defined in Sec.
60.5486(a)(2) and where the model line was certified using the
procedure defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the manufacturer
must conduct a quality assurance program according to the requirements
of Sec. 60.533(m).
(h) EPA Compliance Audit Testing. The Administrator may conduct
compliance audit testing according to the requirements of Sec.
60.533(n). For the purposes of this paragraph, references in Sec.
60.533(p) to Sec. Sec. 60.532 through 60.535 must be understood to
refer to the comparable paragraphs in Sec. Sec. 60.5486 through
60.5489, respectively. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply
to small manufacturers as defined in Sec. 60.5486(a)(2) and where the
model line was certified using the procedure defined in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.
Sec. 60.5488 What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and requirements for certification?
Test methods and procedures specified in this section or in
appendix A of this part, except as provided under Sec. 60.8(b), must
be used to determine compliance with the standards and requirements for
certification under Sec. Sec. 60.5486 and 60.5487 as follows:
(a) ASTM E2817-11, Standard Test Method for Test Fueling Masonry
Heaters, must be used to measure the heat output (million Btu/hr) of
residential masonry heaters.
(b) ASTM E2515-10 must be used in conjunction with ASTM E2817-11 to
measure the particulate emission rate (lb/million BTU heat output) of
residential masonry heaters.
(c)(1) ASTM WK26558, New Specification for Calculation Method for
Custom Designed, Site Built Masonry Heaters may be used as an
alternative to certification testing as specified in paragraphs (a),
(b) and (d) of this section.
(2) If the Administrator approves an alternative computer model
simulation program pursuant to Sec. 60.5487(a)(3), the approved
simulation program also may be used as an alternative to certification
testing as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Method 10 in appendix A-4 of this part must be used to measure
CO emissions of residential masonry heaters.
(e) The manufacturer of an affected masonry heater must notify the
Administrator of the date that certification testing is to begin, by
email, to Wood Heater NSPS Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_Program. This notice must be received at
least 30 days
[[Page 6392]]
before the start of testing. The notification of testing must include
the manufacturer's name and address, the accredited test laboratory's
name and address, certifying entity name, the model name and number
(or, if unavailable, some other way to distinguish between models), and
the dates of testing.
(f) The accredited test laboratory must allow the manufacturer, the
EPA and delegated states to observe certification testing. However,
manufacturers must not involve themselves in the conduct of the test
after the pretest burn (as defined by ASTM E2817-11) has begun.
Communications between the manufacturer and laboratory or certifying
entity personnel regarding operation of the masonry heater must be
limited to written communications transmitted prior to the first
pretest burn of the certification series. Written communications
between the manufacturer and laboratory personnel may be exchanged
during the certification test only if deviations from the test
procedures are observed that constitute improper conduct of the test.
All communications must be included in the test documentation required
to be submitted pursuant to Sec. 60.533(b)(3) and must be consistent
with instructions provided in the owner's manual required under Sec.
60.5490(g), except to the extent that they address details of the
certification tests that would not be relevant to owners.
Sec. 60.5489 What procedures must I use for laboratory accreditation?
The accreditation procedure specified in Sec. 60.535 must be used
to certify test laboratories under this subpart.
Sec. 60.5490 What requirements must I meet for permanent labels and
owner's manuals?
(a) Permanent Label Requirements.
(1) Each affected masonry heater manufactured on or after the date
the applicable standards come into effect as specified in Sec.
60.5486, must have a permanent label affixed to it that meets the
requirements of this section.
(2) The permanent label must contain the following information:
(i) Month and year of manufacture of the individual unit;
(ii) Model name or number; and
(iii) Serial number.
(3) The permanent label must:
(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or accessible location in such
a manner that it can be easily viewed before and after the appliance is
installed;
(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm wide (3 1/2 inches long and
2 inches wide);
(iii) Be made of a material expected to last the lifetime of the
residential masonry heater;
(iv) Present required information in a manner so that it is likely
to remain legible for the lifetime of the residential masonry heater;
and
(v) Be affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without
damage to the label.
(4) The permanent label may be combined with any other label, as
long as the required information is displayed, the integrity of the
permanent label is not compromised, and the requirements of Sec.
60.5490(3) are still met.
(b)(1) If the residential masonry heater belongs to a model line
certified under Sec. 60.5487, and it has been found to meet the
applicable emission limits or tolerances through quality assurance
testing, the following statement must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply with 2015
particulate emissions standards.
(2) If the masonry heater belongs to a model line owned by a
manufacturer that qualifies for the small volume manufacturer delay as
specified in Sec. 60.5486(a)(2), the following statement must appear
on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY This masonry heater was produced
by a small volume manufacturer that manufactures or exports to the
United States fewer than 15 masonry heaters per year. This appliance
cannot be sold after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(c) The label under paragraph (b) of this section must also contain
the following statement on the permanent label: ``This appliance needs
periodic inspection and repair for proper operation. Consult owner's
manual for further information. It is against the law to operate this
appliance in a manner inconsistent with operating instructions in the
owner's manual.''
(d) Any label statement under paragraph (b) of this section
constitutes a representation by the manufacturer as to any residential
masonry heater that bears it:
(1) That the certification was in effect at the time the
residential masonry heater left the possession of the manufacturer;
(2) That the manufacturer was, at the time the label was affixed,
conducting a quality assurance program in conformity with the
manufacturer's quality assurance program; and
(3) That as to any residential masonry heater individually tested
for emissions by the manufacturer under Sec. 60.5487(f), it met the
applicable emission limit.
(e)(1) If an affected masonry heater is manufactured in the United
States for export as provide in Sec. 60.5484(b)(1), the following
statement must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Export unit. May not be operated
in the United States.
(2) If an affected masonry heater is manufactured for research and
development purposes as provided in Sec. 60.5484(b)(2), the following
statement must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Not certified. Research unit. Not
approved for sale.
(3) If an affected masonry heater is a non wood-burning masonry
heater exclusively as provided Sec. 60.5484(b)(3) the following
statement must appear on the permanent label:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY This appliance is not certified
for wood burning. Use of any wood fuel is a violation of federal law.
(f) Owner's Manual.
(1) Each affected masonry heater offered for sale by a commercial
owner must be accompanied by an owner's manual that must contain the
information listed in paragraph (f)(2) of this section (pertaining to
installation), and paragraph (f)(3) of this section (pertaining to
operation and maintenance). Such information must be adequate to enable
consumers to achieve optimal emissions performance. Such information
must be consistent with the operating instructions provided by the
manufacturer to the accredited test laboratory for operating the
residential masonry heater, except for details of the certification
test that would not be relevant to the ultimate purchaser. The
commercial owner must also make current and historical owner's manuals
available on the company Web site.
(2) Installation information: Requirements for achieving proper
draft.
(3) Operation and maintenance information:
(i) Fuel loading procedures, recommendations on fuel selection, and
warnings on what fuels not to use, such as treated wood, colored paper,
cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage.
(ii) Fire starting procedures
(iii) Proper use of air controls
(iv) Ash removal procedures
(v) Instructions for replacement of gasket and other parts that are
critical to the emissions performance of the unit and other maintenance
and repair instructions
[[Page 6393]]
(vi) The following statement: ``This wood heating appliance needs
periodic inspection and repair for proper operation. It is against
federal law to operate this wood heating appliance in a manner
inconsistent with operating instructions in the manual.''
(4) Any manufacturer using the EPA model language contained in
appendix I of this part to satisfy any requirement of this paragraph
(f) will be considered to be in compliance with that requirement,
provided that the particular model language is printed in full, with
only such changes as are necessary to ensure accuracy for the
particular model line.
(5) Residential masonry heaters that are affected by this subpart
but have been operated by a noncommercial owner are not subject to
paragraph (f) of this section when offered for resale.
Sec. 60.5491 What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
(a) Each manufacturer who holds a certificate of compliance
pursuant to Sec. 60.5487(a)(2) for a model line must maintain records
containing the information required by this paragraph (a) with respect
to that model line.
(1) All documentation pertaining to the certification test or
computer simulation used to obtain certification.
(i) For certification tests, this includes the full test report and
raw data sheets, laboratory technician notes, calculations, and the
test results for all test runs.
(ii) For computer simulations, this includes all data input into
the simulation program and all computer-generated output.
(2) Results of the quality assurance program inspections required
pursuant to Sec. 60.5487(f).
(3) For emissions tests conducted pursuant to the quality assurance
program required by Sec. 60.5487(f), all test reports, data sheets,
laboratory technician notes, calculations, and test results for all
test runs, the remedial actions taken, if any, and any follow-up
actions such as additional testing.
(4) If a masonry heater manufacturer qualifies as a small volume
manufacturer as specified in Sec. 60.5486(a)(2) and elects to defer
compliance as allowed by that paragraph, records of the number of
masonry heaters produced or constructed per year during the deferral
period.
(b) Each accredited test laboratory must maintain records
consisting of all documentation pertaining to each certification test,
audit test, or computer simulation, including the full test report and
raw data sheets, laboratory technician notes, calculations, and the
test results for all test runs. Each accredited test laboratory must
submit initial and biennial proficiency test results to the
Administrator.
(c) Each manufacturer must retain each residential masonry heater
upon which certification tests were performed and certification granted
pursuant to Sec. 60.5487(a)(2) at the manufacturer's facility for as
long as the model line is manufactured. Each masonry heater must remain
sealed and unaltered. Any such residential masonry heater must be made
available upon request to the Administrator for inspection and testing.
(d)(1) Each manufacturer of an affected masonry heater certified
pursuant to Sec. 60.5487 must submit a report to the Administrator
every 2 years following issuance of a certificate of compliance for
each model line. This report must include the sales for each model by
state and certify that no changes in the design or manufacture of the
model line have been made that require recertification pursuant to
Sec. 60.5487(d).
(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a small manufacturer as
defined in Sec. 60.5486(b)(2) and the model line was certified using
the procedure defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
reporting provision of paragraph (d)(1) of this section does not apply.
(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all records required under this
section must be maintained by the manufacturer, commercial owner of the
affected masonry heater, accredited test laboratory or certifying
entity for a period of no less than 5 years.
(2) Unless otherwise specified, all reports to the Administrator
required under this subpart must be made to: Wood Heater NSPS
Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_Program.
(f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test, each manufacturer or accredited test laboratory or certifying
entity must submit performance test data, except opacity data,
electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/). Only data collected using test methods compatible with ERT
are subject to this requirement to be submitted electronically to the
EPA's CDX. Manufacturers may submit compliance reports to the EPA via
regular mail at the address listed below if the test methods they use
are not compatible with ERT or if ERT is not available to accept
reports at the time the final rule is published. Owners or operators
who claim that some of the information being submitted for performance
tests is confidential business information (CBI) must submit a
completed ERT file, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage media
(including, but not limited to, flash drives), to the EPA, and the same
ERT file, with the CBI omitted, to the EPA via CDX as described earlier
in this paragraph. The compact disk must be clearly marked as CBI and
mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703.
Emission data and all information necessary to determine compliance,
except sensitive engineering drawings and sensitive detailed material
specifications, may not be claimed as CBI.
Sec. 60.5492 What activities are prohibited under this subpart?
(a) No person is permitted to operate an affected masonry heater
manufactured after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail
after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] that does not have
affixed to it a permanent label pursuant to Sec. 60.5490.
(b)(1) No manufacturer or commercial owner is permitted to
advertise for sale, offer for sale, or sell an affected masonry heater
manufactured after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail
after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] that does not have
affixed to it a permanent label pursuant to Sec. 60.5490.
(2) No manufacturer or commercial owner is permitted to advertise
for sale, offer for sale, or sell an affected masonry heater
manufactured after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail
after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] labeled under Sec.
60.5490(d)(1) except for export.
(c)(1) No commercial owner is permitted to advertise for sale,
offer for sale or sell an affected masonry heater permanently labeled
under Sec. 60.5490(b) unless:
(i) The affected appliance regulated under this subpart was
previously owned and operated by a noncommercial owner;
(ii) The commercial owner provides any purchaser or transferee with
an owner's manual that meets the requirements of Sec. 60.5490(g), a
copy of the warranty and a moisture meter.
(2) A commercial owner other than a manufacturer complies with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section if the commercial owner:
[[Page 6394]]
(i) Receives the required documentation from the manufacturer or a
previous commercial owner; and
(ii) Provides that documentation unaltered to any person to whom
the residential masonry heater that it covers is sold or transferred.
(d)(1) In any case in which the Administrator revokes a certificate
of compliance either for the knowing submission of false or inaccurate
information or other fraudulent acts, or based on a finding under Sec.
60.5487(e)(1)(ii) that the certification test was not valid, the
Administrator may give notice of that revocation and the grounds for it
to all commercial owners.
(2) On and after the date of receipt of the notice given under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no commercial owner is permitted to
sell any residential masonry heater covered by the revoked certificate
(other than to the manufacturer) unless the model line has been
recertified in accordance with this subpart.
(e) No person is permitted to install or operate an affected
masonry heater except in a manner consistent with the instructions on
its permanent label and in the owner's manual pursuant to Sec.
60.5490(g), including only using fuels for which the unit is certified.
(f) No person is permitted to operate an affected masonry heater
that has been physically altered to exceed the tolerance limits of its
certificate of compliance.
(g) No person is permitted to alter, deface, or remove any
permanent label required to be affixed pursuant to Sec. 60.5490.
(h) No certifying entity is permitted to certify its own
certification test report.
Sec. 60.5493 What Petition for Review procedures apply to me?
(a) In any case where the Administrator:
(1) Denies an application under Sec. 60.5487(a)(2);
(2) Issues a notice of revocation of certification under Sec.
60.5487(e);
(3) Denies an application for laboratory accreditation pursuant to
Sec. 60.5489; or
(4) Issues a notice of revocation of laboratory accreditation
pursuant to Sec. 60.5489, the manufacturer or laboratory affected may
submit to the EPA a Petition for Review request under this section
pursuant to the procedures specified in Sec. 60.593 within 30 days
following receipt of the required notification of the action in
question.
(b) In any case where the Administrator issues a notice of
revocation under Sec. 60.5487(e), the manufacturer may submit to the
EPA a Petition for Review request under this section pursuant to the
procedures specified in Sec. 60.5493 with the time limits set out in
Sec. 60.533(p)(4).
Sec. 60.5494 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
state under section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, the authorities
contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a state.
(b) Authorities that must not be delegated to states:
(1) Section 60.5473, Definitions;
(2) Section 60.5475, Compliance and certification;
(3) Section 60.5476, Test methods and procedures; and
(4) Section 60.5477, Laboratory accreditation.
Sec. 60.5495 What parts of the General Provisions do not apply to me?
The following provisions of subpart A of part 60 do not apply to
this subpart:
(a) Section 60.7;
(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f); and
(c) Section 60.15(d).
6. Part 60 Appendix A-8 is amended by adding Methods 28R, 28WHH,
and 28WHH-PTS to follow Method 28A to read as follows:
Appendix A-8 to Part 60--Test Methods 26 through 30B
* * * * *
Test Method 28R for Certification and Auditing of Wood Heaters
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 This test method applies to certification and auditing of
wood-fired room heaters and fireplace inserts.
1.2 The test method covers the fueling and operating protocol
for measuring particulate emissions, as well as determining burn
rates, heat output and efficiency.
1.3 Particulate emissions are measured by the dilution tunnel
method as specified in ASTM E2515-10 Standard Test Method for
Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected in a
Dilution Tunnel.
2.0 Procedures
2.1 This method incorporates the provisions of ASTM E2780-10
except as follows:
2.1.1 The burn rate categories, low burn rate requirement, and
weightings in Method 28 shall be used.
2.1.2 The startup procedures shall be the same as in Method 28.
2.1.3 The equation for converting the emission test values
between the EPA Reference Method 5G ``Determination of Particulate
Emissions From Wood Heaters From a Dilution Tunnel Sampling
Location'' and EPA Reference Method 5H ``Determination of
Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a Stack Location''
shall be the same as in Method 28.
2.1.4 Manufacturers shall not specify a smaller volume of the
firebox for testing than the full usable firebox.
2.1.5 The test fuel moisture content, fuel load, and coal bed
depth shall be as follows:
(a) The fuel load dry-basis moisture content shall be within a
range of 22.5 percent +/- 1 percent;
(b) The fuel load weight shall be 7 lb/ft\3\ +/- 1 percent (or 7
lb +/-0.07 lb) of the fuel load weight, calculated in accordance
with Method 28; and
(c) The range for the test-initiation coal-bed weight shall be
22 percent +/- 1 percent of the fuel load weight.
Test Method 28 WHH for Measurement of Particulate Emissions and Heating
Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 This test method applies to wood-fired hydronic heating
appliances. The units typically transfer heat through circulation of
a liquid heat exchange media such as water or a water-antifreeze
mixture.
1.2 The test method measures particulate emissions and delivered
heating efficiency at specified heat output rates based on the
appliance's rated heating capacity.
1.3 Particulate emissions are measured by the dilution tunnel
method as specified in ASTM E2515-10 Standard Test Method for
Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected in a
Dilution Tunnel. Delivered Efficiency is measured by determining the
heat output through measurement of the flow rate and temperature
change of water circulated through a heat exchanger external to the
appliance and determining the input from the mass of dry wood fuel
and its higher heating value. Delivered efficiency does not attempt
to account for pipeline loss.
1.4 Products covered by this test method include both
pressurized and non-pressurized heating appliances intended to be
fired with wood. These products are wood-fired hydronic heating
appliances that the manufacturer specifies for indoor or outdoor
installation. They are often connected to a heat exchanger by
insulated pipes and normally include a pump to circulate heated
liquid. They are used to heat structures such as homes, barns and
greenhouses and can heat domestic hot water, spas or swimming pools.
1.5 Distinguishing features of products covered by this standard
include:
1.5.1 Manufacturer specifies for indoor or outdoor installation.
1.5.2 A firebox with an access door for hand loading of fuel.
1.5.3 Typically an aquastat that controls combustion air supply
to maintain the liquid in the appliance within a predetermined
temperature range provided sufficient fuel is available in the
firebox.
1.5.4 A chimney or vent that exhausts combustion products from
the appliance.
1.6 The values stated are to be regarded as the standard whether
in I-P or SI units. The
[[Page 6395]]
values given in parentheses are for information only.
2.0 Summary of Method and References
2.1 Particulate matter emissions are measured from a wood-fired
hydronic heating appliance burning a prepared test fuel crib in a
test facility maintained at a set of prescribed conditions.
Procedures for determining burn rates, and particulate emissions
rates and for reducing data are provided.
2.2 Referenced Documents
2.2.1 EPA Standards
2.2.1.1 Method 28 Certification and Auditing of Wood Heaters
2.2.2 Other Standards
2.2.2.1 ASTM E2515-10 Standard Test Method for Determination of
Particulate Matter Emissions Collected in a Dilution Tunnel.
2.2.2.2 CAN/CSA-B415.1-2010 Performance Testing of Solid-Fuel-
Burning Heating Appliances.
3.0 Terminology
3.1 Definitions
3.1.1 Hydronic Heating--A heating system in which a heat source
supplies energy to a liquid heat exchange media such as water that
is circulated to a heating load and returned to the heat source
through pipes.
3.1.2 Aquastat--A control device that opens or closes a circuit
to control the rate of fuel consumption in response to the
temperature of the heating media in the heating appliance.
3.1.3 Delivered Efficiency--The percentage of heat available in
a test fuel charge that is delivered to a simulated heating load as
specified in this test method.
3.1.4 Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity--The value in
BTU/hr (MJ/hr) that the manufacturer specifies that a particular
model of hydronic heating appliance is capable of supplying at its
design capacity as verified by testing, in accordance with Section
13.
3.1.5 Burn rate--The rate at which test fuel is consumed in an
appliance. Measured in pounds (lbs) of wood (dry basis) per hour
(kg/hr).
3.1.6 Firebox--The chamber in the appliance in which the test
fuel charge is placed and combusted.
3.1.7 Test fuel charge--The collection of Test Fuel layers
placed in the appliance at the start of the emission test run.
3.1.8 Test Fuel Layer--Horizontal arrangement of Test Fuel
Units.
3.1.9 Test Fuel Unit--One or more Test Fuel Pieces with \3/4\
inch (19 mm) spacers attached to the bottom and to one side. If
composed of multiple Test Fuel Pieces, the bottom spacer may be one
continuous piece.
3.1.10 Test Fuel Piece--A single 4 x 4 (4 0.25
inches by 4 0.25 inches)[100 6 mm by 100
6 mm] white or red oak wood piece cut to the length
required.
3.1.11 Test Run--An individual emission test that encompasses
the time required to consume the mass of the test fuel charge.
3.1.12 Overall Efficiency (SLM)--The efficiency for each test
run as determined using the CSA B415.1-2010 Stack Loss Method.
3.1.13 Thermopile--A device consisting of a number of
thermocouples connected in series, used for measuring differential
temperature.
4.0 Summary of Test Method
4.1 Dilution Tunnel. Emissions are determined using the
``dilution tunnel'' method specified in ASTM E2515 Standard Test
Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected
in a Dilution Tunnel. The flow rate in the dilution tunnel is
maintained at a constant level throughout the test cycle and
accurately measured. Samples of the dilution tunnel flow stream are
extracted at a constant flow rate and drawn through high efficiency
filters. The filters are dried and weighed before and after the test
to determine the emissions catch and this value is multiplied by the
ratio of tunnel flow to filter flow to determine the total
particulate emissions produced in the test cycle.
4.2 Efficiency. The efficiency test procedure takes advantage of
the fact that this type of appliance delivers heat through
circulation of the heated liquid (water) from the appliance to a
remote heat exchanger and back to the appliance. Measurements of the
water temperature difference as it enters and exits the heat
exchanger along with the measured flow rate allow for an accurate
determination of the useful heat output of the appliance. The input
is determined by weight of the test fuel charge, adjusted for
moisture content, multiplied by the Higher Heating Value. Additional
measurements of the appliance weight and temperature at the
beginning and end of a test cycle are used to correct for heat
stored in the appliance. Overall Efficiency (SLM) is determined
using the CSA B415.1-2010 stack loss method for data quality
assurance purposes.
4.3 Operation. Appliance operation is conducted on a hot-to-hot
test cycle meaning that the appliance is brought to operating
temperature and a coal bed is established prior to the addition of
the test fuel charge and measurements are made for each test fuel
charge cycle. The measurements are made under constant heat draw
conditions within predetermined ranges. No attempt is made to
modulate the heat demand to simulate an indoor thermostat cycling on
and off in response to changes in the indoor environment. Four test
categories are used. These are:
4.3.1 Category I: A heat output of 15 percent or less of
Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.2 Category II: A heat output of 16 percent to 24 percent of
Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.3 Category III: A heat output of 25 percent to 50 percent of
Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.4 Category IV: Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
5.0 Significance and Use
5.1 The measurement of particulate matter emission rates is an
important test method widely used in the practice of air pollution
control.
5.1.1 These measurements, when approved by state or federal
agencies, are often required for the purpose of determining
compliance with regulations and statutes.
5.1.2 The measurements made before and after design
modifications are necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of
design changes in reducing emissions and make this standard an
important tool in manufacturers' research and development programs.
5.2 Measurement of heating efficiency provides a uniform basis
for comparison of product performance that is useful to the
consumer. It is also required to relate emissions produced to the
useful heat production.
5.3 This is a laboratory method and is not intended to be fully
representative of all actual field use. It is recognized that users
of hand-fired, wood-burning equipment have a great deal of influence
over the performance of any wood-burning appliance. Some compromises
in realism have been made in the interest of providing a reliable
and repeatable test method.
6.0 Test Equipment
6.1 Scale. A platform scale capable of weighing the appliance
under test and associated parts and accessories when completely
filled with water to an accuracy of 1.0 pound (0.5 kg).
6.2 Heat exchanger. A water-to-water heat exchanger capable of
dissipating the expected heat output from the system under test.
6.3 Water Temperature Difference Measurement. A Type-T `special
limits' thermopile with a minimum of 5 pairs of junctions shall be
used to measure the temperature difference in water entering and
leaving the heat exchanger. The temperature difference measurement
uncertainty of this type of thermopile is equal to or less than
0.05 [deg]F ( 0.25 [deg]C). Other
temperature measurement methods may be used if the temperature
difference measurement uncertainty is equal to or less than. 0.50 [deg]F ( 0.25 [deg]C).
6.4 Water flow meter. A water flow meter shall be installed in
the inlet to the load side of the heat exchanger. The flow meter
shall have an accuracy of 1 percent of measured flow.
6.4.1 Optional--Appliance side water flow meter. A water flow
meter with an accuracy of 1 percent of the flow rate is
recommended to monitor supply side water flow rate.
6.5 Optional Recirculation Pump. Circulating pump used during
test to prevent stratification of liquid being heated.
6.6 Water Temperature Measurement--Thermocouples or other
temperature sensors to measure the water temperature at the inlet
and outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger. Must meet the
calibration requirements specified in 10.1.
6.7 Wood Moisture Meter--Calibrated electrical resistance meter
capable of measuring test fuel moisture to within 1 percent moisture
content. Must meet the calibration requirements specified in 10.4.
6.8 Flue Gas Temperature Measurement--Must meet the requirements
of CSA B415.1-2010, Clause 6.2.2.
6.9 Test Room Temperature Measurement--Must meet the
requirements of CSA B415.1-2010, Clause 6.2.1.
[[Page 6396]]
6.10 Flue Gas Composition Measurement--Must meet the
requirements of CSA B415.1-2010, Clauses 6.3.1 through 6.3.3.
7.0 Safety
7.1 These tests involve combustion of wood fuel and substantial
release of heat and products of combustion. The heating system also
produces large quantities of very hot water and the potential for
steam production and system pressurization. Appropriate precautions
must be taken to protect personnel from burn hazards and respiration
of products of combustion.
8.0 Sampling, Test Specimens and Test Appliances
8.1 Test specimens shall be supplied as complete appliances
including all controls and accessories necessary for installation in
the test facility. A full set of specifications and design and
assembly drawings shall be provided when the product is to be placed
under certification of a third-party agency. The manufacturer's
written installation and operating instructions are to be used as a
guide in the set-up and testing of the appliance.
9.0 Preparation of Test Equipment
9.1 The appliance is to be placed on a scale capable of weighing
the appliance fully loaded with a resolution of 1.0 lb
(0.5 kg).
9.2 The appliance shall be fitted with the type of chimney
recommended or provided by the manufacturer and extending to 15
0.5 feet (4.6 0.15 m) from the upper
surface of the scale. If no flue or chimney system is recommended or
provided by the manufacturer, connect the appliance to a flue of a
diameter equal to the flue outlet of the appliance. The flue section
from the appliance flue collar to 8 0.5 feet above the
scale shall be single wall stove pipe and the remainder of the flue
shall be double wall insulated class A chimney.
9.3 Optional Equipment Use
9.3.1 A recirculation pump may be installed between connections
at the top and bottom of the appliance to minimize thermal
stratification if specified by the manufacturer. The pump shall not
be installed in such a way as to change or affect the flow rate
between the appliance and the heat exchanger.
9.3.2 If the manufacturer specifies that a thermal control valve
or other device be installed and set to control the return water
temperature to a specific set point, the valve or other device shall
be installed and set per the manufacturer's written instructions.
9.4 Prior to filling the tank, weigh and record the appliance
mass.
9.5 Heat Exchanger
9.5.1 Plumb the unit to a water-to-water heat exchanger with
sufficient capacity to draw off heat at the maximum rate
anticipated. Route hoses, electrical cables, and instrument wires in
a manner that does not influence the weighing accuracy of the scale
as indicated by placing dead weights on the platform and verifying
the scale's accuracy.
9.5.2 Locate thermocouples to measure the water temperature at
the inlet and outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.3 Install a thermopile meeting the requirements of 6.3 to
measure the water temperature difference between the inlet and
outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.4 Install a calibrated water flow meter in the heat
exchanger load side supply line. The water flow meter is to be
installed on the cooling water inlet side of the heat exchanger so
that it will operate at the temperature at which it is calibrated.
9.5.5 Place the heat exchanger in a box with 2 in. (50 mm) of
expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam insulation surrounding it to
minimize heat losses from the heat exchanger.
9.5.6 The reported efficiency and heat output rate shall be
based on measurements made on the load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.7 Temperature instrumentation per 6.6 shall be installed in
the appliance outlet and return lines. The average of the outlet and
return water temperature on the supply side of the system shall be
considered the average appliance temperature for calculation of heat
storage in the appliance (TFavg and TIavg).
Installation of a water flow meter in the supply side of the system
is optional.
9.6 Fill the system with water. Determine the total weight of
the water in the appliance when the water is circulating. Verify
that the scale indicates a stable weight under operating conditions.
Make sure air is purged properly.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
10.1 Water Temperature Sensors. Temperature measuring equipment
shall be calibrated before initial use and at least semi-annually
thereafter. Calibrations shall be in compliance with National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Monograph 175, Standard
Limits of Error.10.2 Heat Exchanger Load Side Water Flow Meter.
10.2.1 The heat exchanger load side water flow meter shall be
calibrated within the flow range used for the test run using NIST
Traceable methods. Verify the calibration of the water flow meter
before and after each test run and at least once during each test
run by comparing the water flow rate indicated by the flow meter to
the mass of water collected from the outlet of the heat exchanger
over a timed interval. Volume of the collected water shall be
determined based on the water density calculated from section 13,
Eq. 8, using the water temperature measured at the flow meter. The
uncertainty in the verification procedure used shall be 1 percent or
less. The water flow rate determined by the collection and weighing
method shall be within 1 percent of the flow rate indicated by the
water flow meter.
10.3 Scales. The scales used to weigh the appliance and test
fuel charge shall be calibrated using NIST Traceable methods at
least once every 6 months.
10.4 Moisture Meter. The moisture meter shall be calibrated per
the manufacturer's instructions and checked before each use.
10.5 Flue Gas Analyzers--In accordance with CSA B415.1-2010,
Clause 6.8.
11.0 Conditioning
11.1 Prior to testing, the noncatalytic appliance is to be
operated for a minimum of 10 hours using a medium heat draw rate.
Catalytic units shall be operated for a minimum of 50 hours using a
medium heat draw rate. The pre-burn for the first test can be
included as part of the conditioning requirement. If conditioning is
included in pre-burn, then the appliance shall be aged with fuel
meeting the specifications outlined in sections 12.2 with a moisture
content between 19 and 25 percent on a dry basis. Operate the
appliance at a medium burn rate (Category II or III) for at least 10
hours for noncatalytic appliances and 50 hours for catalytic
appliances. Record and report hourly flue gas exit temperature data
and the hours of operation. The aging procedure shall be conducted
and documented by a testing laboratory.
12.0 Procedure
12.1 Appliance Installation. Assemble the appliance and parts in
conformance with the manufacturer's written installation
instructions. Clean the flue with an appropriately sized, wire
chimney brush before each certification test series.
12.2 Fuel. Test fuel charge fuel shall be red (Quercus ruba L.)
or white (Quercus alba) oak 19 to 25 percent moisture content on a
dry basis. Piece length shall be 80 percent of the firebox depth
rounded down to the nearest 1 inch (25mm) increment. For example, if
the firebox depth is 46 inches (1168mm) the 4 x 4 piece length would
be 36 inches (46 inches x 0.8 = 36.8 inches round down to 36
inches). Pieces are to be placed in the firebox parallel to the
longest firebox dimension. For fireboxes with sloped surfaces that
create a non-uniform firebox length, the piece length shall be
adjusted for each layer based on 80 percent of the length at the
level where the layer is placed. Pieces are to be spaced \3/4\
inches (19 mm) apart on all faces. The first fuel layer may be
assembled using fuel units consisting of multiple 4 x 4s consisting
of single pieces with bottom and side spacers of 3 or more pieces if
needed for a stable layer. The second layer may consist of fuel
units consisting of no more than two pieces with spacers attached on
the bottom and side. The top two layers of the fuel charge must
consist of single pieces unless the fuel charge is only three
layers. In that instance only the top layer must consist of single
units. Three-quarter inch (19 mm) by 1.5 inch (38 mm) spacers shall
be attached to the bottom of piece to maintain a \3/4\ inch (19 mm)
separation. When a layer consists of two or more units of 4 x 4s an
additional \3/4\ inch (19 mm) thick by 1.5 inch (38 mm) wide spacer
shall be attached to the vertical face of each end of one 4 x 4,
such that the \3/4\ inch (19 mm) space will be maintained when two 4
x 4 units or pieces are loaded side by side. In cases where a layer
contains an odd number of 4 x 4s one piece shall not be attached,
but shall have spacers attached in a manner that will provide for
the \3/4\ inch (19 mm) space to be maintained. (See Figure 1).
Spacers shall be attached perpendicular to the length of the 4 x 4s
such that the edge of the spacer is 1 0.25 inch from
the end of the 4 x 4s in the previous layers. Spacers shall be red
or white oak and will be attached with either nails (non-
galvanized), brads or
[[Page 6397]]
oak dowels. The use of kiln-dried wood is not allowed.
12.2.1 Using a fuel moisture meter as specified in 6.7 of the
test method, determine the fuel moisture for each test fuel piece
used for the test fuel load by averaging at least five fuel moisture
meter readings measured parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of
the moisture meter insulated electrodes for all readings shall be
\1/4\ the thickness of the fuel piece or 19 mm (\3/4\ in.),
whichever is lesser. One measurement from each of three sides shall
be made at approximately 3 inches from each end and the center. Two
additional measurements shall be made centered between the other
three locations. Each individual moisture content reading shall be
in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry basis. The average
moisture content of each piece of test fuel shall be in the range of
19 to 25 percent. It is not required to measure the moisture content
of the spacers. Moisture shall not be added to previously dried fuel
pieces except by storage under high humidity conditions and
temperature up to 100 [deg]F. Fuel moisture shall be measured within
four hours of using the fuel for a test.
12.2.2 Firebox Volume. Determine the firebox volume in cubic
feet. Firebox volume shall include all areas accessible through the
fuel loading door where firewood could reasonably be placed up to
the horizontal plane defined by the top of the loading door. A
drawing of the firebox showing front, side and plan views or an
isometric view with interior dimensions shall be provided by the
manufacturer and verified by the laboratory. Calculations for
firebox volume from computer aided design (CAD) software programs
are acceptable and shall be included in the test report if used. If
the firebox volume is calculated by the laboratory the firebox
drawings and calculations shall be included in the test report.
12.2.3 Test Fuel charge. Test fuel charges shall be determined
by multiplying the firebox volume by 10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft \3\
(28L), or a higher load density as recommended by the manufacturer's
printed operating instructions, of wood (as used wet weight). Select
the number of pieces of standard fuel that most nearly match this
target weight. This is the standard fuel charge for all tests. For
example, if the firebox loading area volume is 10 ft \3\ (280L) and
the firebox depth is 46 inches (1168 mm), test fuel charge target is
100 lbs (45 kg) minimum and the piece length is 36 inches (914 mm).
If 8-4 x 4s, 36 inches long weigh 105 lbs (48 kg), use 8 pieces for
each test fuel charge. All test fuel charges will be of the same
configuration.
12.3 Sampling Equipment. Prepare the particulate emission
sampling equipment as defined by ASTM E2515-10 ``Standard Test
Method For Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected
In a Dilution Tunnel.''
12.4 Appliance Startup. The appliance shall be fired with wood
fuel of any species, size and moisture content at the laboratories
discretion to bring it up to operating temperature. Operate the
appliance until the water is heated to the upper operating control
limit and has cycled at least two times. Then remove all unburned
fuel, zero the scale and verify the scales accuracy using dead
weights.
12.4.1 Pre-Test Burn Cycle. Reload appliance with oak wood and
allow it to burn down to the specified coal bed weight. The Pre-Test
burn cycle fuel charge weight shall be within 10 percent
of the test fuel charge weight. Piece size and length shall be
selected such that charcoalization is achieved by the time the fuel
charge has burned down to the required coal bed weight. Pieces with
a maximum thickness of approximately 2 inches have been found to be
suitable. Charcoalization is a general condition of the test fuel
bed evidenced by an absence of large pieces of burning wood in the
coal bed and the remaining fuel pieces being brittle enough to be
broken into smaller charcoal pieces with a metal poker.
Manipulations to the fuel bed prior to the start of the test run are
to be done to achieve charcoalization while maintaining the desired
heat output rate. During the pre-test burn cycle and at least one
hour prior to starting the test run, adjust water flow to the heat
exchanger to establish the target heat draw for the test. For the
first test run the heat draw rate shall be equal to the
manufacturer's rated heat output capacity.
12.4.1.1 Allowable Adjustments. Fuel addition or subtractions,
and coal bed raking shall be kept to a minimum but are allowed up to
15 minutes prior to the start of the test run. For the purposes of
this method, coal bed raking is the use of a metal tool (poker) to
stir coals, break burning fuel into smaller pieces, dislodge fuel
pieces from positions of poor combustion, and check for the
condition of charcoalization. Record all adjustments to and
additions or subtractions of fuel, and any other changes to the
appliance operations that occur during pretest ignition period.
During the 15-minute period prior to the start of the test run, the
wood heater loading door shall not be open more than a total of 1
minute. Coal bed raking is the only adjustment allowed during this
period.
12.4.2 Coal Bed Weight. The appliance is to be loaded with the
test fuel charge when the coal bed weight is between 10 percent and
20 percent of the test fuel charge weight. Coals may be raked as
necessary to level the coal bed but may only be raked and stirred
once between 15 to 20 minutes prior to the addition of the test fuel
charge.
12.5 Test Runs. For all test runs, the return water temperature
to the hydronic heater must be equal to or greater than
120[emsp14][deg]F. Aquastat or other heater output control device
settings that are adjustable shall be set using manufacturer
specifications, either as factory set or in accordance with the
owner's manual, and shall remain the same for all burn categories.
Complete a test run in each heat output rate category, as
follows:
12.5.1 Test Run Start. Once the appliance is operating normally
and the pretest coal bed weight has reached the target value per
12.4.2, tare the scale and load the full test charge into the
appliance. Time for loading shall not exceed 5 minutes. The actual
weight of the test fuel charge shall be measured and recorded within
30 minutes prior to loading. Start all sampling systems.
12.5.1.1 Record all water temperatures, differential water
temperatures and water flow rates at time intervals of one minute or
less.
12.5.1.2 Record particulate emissions data per the requirements
of ASTM E2515.
12.5.1.3 Record data needed to determine Overall Efficiency
(SLM) per the requirements of CSA B415.1-2010 Clauses 6.2.1, 6.2.2,
6.3, 8.5.7, 10.4.3(a), 10.4.3(f), and 13.7.9.3.
12.5.1.3.1 Measure and record the test room air temperature in
accordance with the requirements of Clauses 6.2.1, 8.5.7 and
10.4.3(g).
12.5.1.3.2 Measure and record the flue gas temperature in
accordance with the requirements of Clauses 6.2.2, 8.5.7 and
10.4.3(f).
12.5.1.3.3 Determine and record the Carbon Monoxide (CO) and
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the flue gas in
accordance with Clauses 6.3, 8.5.7 and 10.4.3(i) and (j).
12.5.1.3.4 Measure and record the test fuel weight per the
requirements of Clauses 8.5.7 and 10.4.3(h).
12.5.1.3.5 Record the test run time per the requirements of
Clause 10.4.3(a).
12.5.1.4 Monitor the average heat output rate on the load side
of the heat exchanger. If the heat output rate gets close to the
upper or lower limit of the target range (5 percent)
adjust the water flow through the heat exchanger to compensate. Make
changes as infrequently as possible while maintaining the target
heat output rate. The first test run shall be conducted at the
category IV heat output rate to validate that the appliance is
capable of producing the manufacturer's rated heat output capacity.
12.5.2 Test Fuel Charge Adjustment. It is acceptable to adjust
the test fuel charge (i.e., reposition) once during a test run if
more than 60 percent of the initial test fuel charge weight has been
consumed and more than 10 minutes have elapsed without a measurable
(1 lb or 0. 5 kg) weight change while the operating control is in
the demand mode. The time used to make this adjustment shall be less
than 60 seconds.
12.5.3 Test Run Completion. The test run is completed when the
remaining weight of the test fuel charge is 0.0 lb (0.0 kg). End the
test run when the scale has indicated a test fuel charge weight of
0.0 lb (0.0 kg) or less for 30 seconds.
12.5.3.1 At the end of the test run, stop the particulate
sampling train and Overall Efficiency (SLM) measurements, and record
the run time, and all final measurement values.
12.5.4 Heat Output Capacity Validation. The first test run must
produce a heat output rate that is within 10 percent of the
manufacturer's rated heat output capacity (Category IV) throughout
the test run and an average heat output rate within 5 percent of the
manufacturer's rated heat output capacity. If the appliance is not
capable of producing a heat output within these limits, the
manufacturer's rated heat output capacity is considered not
validated and testing is to be terminated. In such cases, the tests
may be restarted using a lower heat output capacity if requested by
the manufacturer.
[[Page 6398]]
12.5.5 Additional Test Runs. Using the Manufacturer's Rated Heat
Output Capacity as a basis, conduct a test for additional heat
output categories as specified in 4.3. It is not required to run
these tests in any particular order.
12.5.6 Alternative Heat Output Rate for Category I. If an
appliance cannot be operated in the category I heat output range due
to stopped combustion, two test runs shall be conducted at heat
output rates within Category II. When this is the case, the
weightings for the weighted averages indicated in Table 2 shall be
the average of the category I and II weightings and shall be applied
to both category II results. Appliances that are not capable of
operation within Category II (<25 percent of maximum) cannot be
evaluated by this test method.
12.5.6.1 Stopped Fuel Combustion. Evidence that an appliance
cannot be operated at a category I heat output rate due to stopped
fuel combustion shall include documentation of two or more attempts
to operate the appliance in burn rate Category I and fuel combustion
has stopped prior to complete consumption of the test fuel charge.
Stopped fuel combustion is evidenced when an elapsed time of 60
minutes or more has occurred without a measurable (1 lb or 0.5 kg)
weight change in the test fuel charge while the appliance operating
control is in the demand mode. Report the evidence and the reasoning
used to determine that a test in burn rate Category I cannot be
achieved. For example, two unsuccessful attempts to operate at an
output rate of 10 percent of the rated output capacity are not
sufficient evidence that burn rate Category I cannot be achieved.
12.5.7 Appliance Overheating. Appliances shall be capable of
operating in all heat output categories without overheating to be
rated by this test method. Appliance overheating occurs when the
rate of heat withdrawal from the appliance is lower than the rate of
heat production when the unit control is in the idle mode. This
condition results in the water in the appliance continuing to
increase in temperature well above the upper limit setting of the
operating control. Evidence of overheating includes: 1 Hour or more
of appliance water temperature increase above the upper temperature
set-point of the operating control, exceeding the temperature limit
of a safety control device (independent from the operating control),
boiling water in a non-pressurized system or activation of a
pressure or temperature relief valve in a pressurized system.
12.6 Additional Test Runs. The testing laboratory may conduct
more than one test run in each of the heat output categories
specified in section 4.4.1. If more than one test run is conducted
at a specified heat output rate, the results from at least two-
thirds of the test runs in that heat output rate category shall be
used in calculating the weighted average emission rate (See section
15.1.14). The measurement data and results of all test runs shall be
reported regardless of which values are used in calculating the
weighted average emission rate.
13.0 Calculation of Results
13.1 Nomenclature
ET --Total particulate emissions for the full test
run as determined per ASTM E2515 in grams.
Eg/MJ--Emissions rate in grams per mega joule of heat
output.
Elb/mmBtu output--Emissions rate in pounds per
million Btu's of heat output.
Eg/kg--Emissions factor in grams per kilogram of dry
fuel burned.
Eg/hr--Emissions factor in grams per hour.
HHV--Higher Heating Value of fuel = 8600 Btu/lb (19.990 MJ/kg).
LHV--Lower Heating Value of fuel = 7988 Btu/lb (18.567 MJ/kg).
[Delta]T--Temperature difference between water entering and
exiting the heat exchanger.
Qout--Total heat output in BTU's (mega joules).
Qin--Total heat input available in test fuel charge
in BTU's (mega joules).
M--Mass flow rate of water in lb/min (kg/min).
Vi--Volume of water indicated by a totalizing flow
meter at the ith reading in gallons (liters).
Vf--Volumetric Flow rate of water in heat exchange
system in gallons per minute (liters/min).
[Theta]--Total length of test run in hours
ti--Data sampling interval in minutes.
[eta]del--Delivered heating efficiency in percent.
Fi--Weighting factor for heat output category i. (See
Tables 2A and 2B)
T1--Temperature of water at the inlet on the supply side of the
heat exchanger.
T2--Temperature of the water at the outlet on the supply side of
the heat exchanger.
T3-Temperature of water at the inlet to the load side of the
heat exchanger.
TIavg--Average temperature of the appliance and water
at start of the test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.009
MC--Fuel moisture content in percent dry basis.
MCi--Average moisture content of individual 4 x 4
fuel pieces in percent dry basis.
MCsp--Moisture content of spacers assumed to be 10
percent dry basis.
[sigma]--Density of water in pounds per gallon.
Cp--Specific Heat of Water in Btu/lb [deg]-F.
Csteel--Specific Heat of Steel (0.1 Btu/lb-[deg]F).
Wfuel--Fuel charge weight in pounds (kg).
Wi--Weight of individual fuel 4 x 4 pieces in pounds
(kg).
Wsp--Weight of all spacers used in a fuel load in
pounds (kg).
Wapp--Weight of empty appliance in pounds.
Wwat-- Weight of water in supply side of the system
in pounds.
13.2 After the test is completed, determine the particulate
emissions ET in accordance with ASTM E2515.
13.3 Determine Average Fuel Load Moisture Content
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.010
[[Page 6399]]
13.5 Determine heat output and efficiency.
13.5.1 Determine heat output as:
Qout = [Sigma] [Heat output determined for each
sampling time interval]+ Change in heat stored in the appliance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.012
[[Page 6400]]
13.5.5 Determine [eta]SLM--Overall Efficiency (SLM)
using Stack Loss For determination of the average overall thermal
efficiency ([eta]SLM) for the test run, use the data
collected over the full test run and the calculations in accordance
with CSA B415.1-2010, Clause 13.7 except for 13.7.2 (e), (f), (g),
and (h), use the following average fuel properties for oak: percent
C = 50.0, percent H = 6.6, percent O = 43.2, percent Ash = 0.2
percent.
13.5.5.1 Whenever the CSA B415.1-2010 overall efficiency is
found to be lower than the overall efficiency based on load side
measurements, as determined by Eq. 16 of this method, section 14.1.7
of the test report must include a discussion of the reasons for this
result.
13.6 Weighted Average Emissions and Efficiency
13.6.1 Determine the weighted average emission rate and
delivered efficiency from the individual tests in the specified heat
output categories. The weighting factors (Fi) are derived from an
analysis of ASHRAE Bin Data which provides details of normal
building heating requirements in terms of percent of design capacity
and time in a particular capacity range--or ``bin''--over the course
of a heating season. The values used in this method represent an
average of data from several cities located in the northern United
States.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.013
13.7 Average Heat Output (Qout-8hr) and Efficiency
(([eta]avg-8hr) for 8 hour burn time.
13.7.1 Units tested under this standard typically require
infrequent fuelling, 8 to 12 hours intervals being typical. Rating
unit's based on an Average Output sustainable over an 8 hour
duration will assist consumers in appropriately sizing units to
match the theoretical heat demand of their application.
13.7.2 Calculations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.014
Where:
Y1 = Test Duration just above 8 hrs
Y2 = Test Duration just below 8 hrs
X1 = Actual Load for duration Y1
X2 = Actual Load for duration Y2
[eta]del1 = Average Delivered Efficiency for duration Y1
[eta]del2 = Average Delivered Efficiency for duration Y2
13.7.2.1 Determine the Test Durations and Actual Load for each
Category as recorded in Table 1A.
13.7.2.2 Determine the data point that has the nearest duration
greater than 8 hrs. X1 = Actual Load,
Y1 = Test Duration and
[eta]del1 = Average Delivered Efficiency for this data
point.
13.7.2.3 Determine the data point that has the nearest duration
less than 8 hrs.
X2 = Actual Load,
Y2 = Test Duration and
[eta]del2 = Average Delivered Efficiency for this data
point.
13.7.2.4 Example:
Category Actual Load Duration
[Category Actual Load Duration [eta]del]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Btu/Hr) (Hr) (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 15,000.............................................. 10.2 70.0
2 26,000.............................................. 8.4 75.5
3 50,000.............................................. 6.4 80.1
4 100,000............................................. 4.7 80.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
{{time}
Category 2 Duration is just above 8 hours, therefore: X1 = 26,000
BTU/hr, [eta]del1 = 75.5% and Y1 = 8.4 Hrs
Category 3 Duration is just below 8 hours, therefore: X2 = 50,000
BTU/hr, [eta]del2 = 80.1% and Y2 = 6.4 Hrs
Qout-8hr = 26,000 + {(8--8.4) x [(50,000--26,000)/(6.4--
8.4)]{time}
= 30,800 BTU/hr
[eta]avg-8hr = 75.5 + {(8--8.4) x [(80.1--75.5)/(6.4--
8.4)]{time} = 76.4%
14.0 Report
14.1.1 The report shall include the following.
14.1.2 Name and location of the laboratory conducting the test.
14.1.3 A description of the appliance tested and its condition,
date of receipt and dates of tests.
14.1.4 A statement that the test results apply only to the specific
appliance tested.
14.1.5 A statement that the test report shall not be reproduced
except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.
14.1.6 A description of the test procedures and test equipment
including a schematic or other drawing showing the location of all
required test equipment. Also, a description of test fuel sourcing,
handling and storage practices shall be included.
14.1.7 Details of deviations from, additions to or exclusions from
the test method, and their data quality implications on the test
results (if any), as well as information on specific test conditions,
such as environmental conditions.
14.1.8 A list of participants and observers present for the tests.
14.1.9 Data and drawings indicating the fire box size and location
of the fuel charge.
14.1.10 Drawings and calculations used to determine firebox volume.
14.1.11 Information for each test run fuel charge including piece
size, moisture content, and weight.
14.1.12 All required data for each test run shall be provided in
spreadsheet format. Formulae used for all calculations shall be
accessible for review.
14.1.13 Test run duration for each test.
14.1.14 Calculated results for delivered efficiency at each burn
rate and the weighted average Emissions reported as total emissions in
grams, pounds per million Btu of delivered heat, grams per mega-joule
of delivered heat, grams per kilogram of dry fuel and grams per hour.
Results shall be reported for each heat output category and the
weighted average.
14.1.15 Tables 1A, 1B, 1C and 2 must be used for presentation of
results in test reports.
14.1.16 A statement of the estimated uncertainty of measurement of
the emissions and efficiency test results.
14.1.17 Raw data, calibration records, and other relevant
documentation shall be retained by the laboratory for a minimum of 7
years.
15.0 Precision and Bias
15.1 Precision--It is not possible to specify the precision of the
procedure in Draft Test because the appliance
[[Page 6401]]
operation and fueling protocols and the appliances themselves produce
variable amounts of emissions and cannot be used to determine
reproducibility or repeatability of this measurement method.
15.2 Bias--No definitive information can be presented on the bias
of the procedure in Draft Test Method 28 WHH for measuring solid fuel
burning hydronic heater emissions because no material having an
accepted reference value is available.
16.0 Keywords
16.1 Solid fuel, hydronic heating appliances, wood-burning hydronic
heaters.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.001
[[Page 6402]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.003
[[Page 6403]]
Method 28WHH-PTS A Test Method for Certification of Cord Wood-Fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances With Partial Thermal Storage: Measurement
of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions and
Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances With
Partial Thermal Storage
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 This test method applies to wood-fired hydronic heating
appliances with heat storage external to the appliance. The units
typically transfer heat through circulation of a liquid heat
exchange media such as water or a water-antifreeze mixture.
Throughout this document, the term ``water'' will be used to denote
any of the heat transfer liquids approved for use by the
manufacturer.
1.2 The test method measures PM and CO emissions and delivered
heating efficiency at specified heat output rates referenced against
the appliance's rated heating capacity as specified by the
manufacturer and verified under this test method.
1.3 PM emissions are measured by the dilution tunnel method as
specified in the EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards referenced
therein with the exceptions noted in Section 12.5.9. Delivered
Efficiency is measured by determining the fuel energy input and
appliance output. Heat output is determined through measurement of
the flow rate and temperature change of water circulated through a
heat exchanger external to the appliance and the increase in energy
of the external storage. Heat input is determined from the mass of
dry wood fuel and its higher heating value (HHV). Delivered
efficiency does not attempt to account for pipeline loss.
1.4 Products covered by this test method include both
pressurized and non-pressurized hydronic heating appliances intended
to be fired with wood and for which the manufacturer specifies for
indoor or outdoor installation. The system, which includes the
heating appliance and external storage, is commonly connected to a
heat exchanger by insulated pipes and normally includes a pump to
circulate heated liquid. These systems are used to heat structures
such as homes, barns and greenhouses. They also provide heat for
domestic hot water, spas and swimming pools.
1.5 Distinguishing features of products covered by this standard
include:
1.5.1 The manufacturer specifies the application for either
indoor or outdoor installation.
1.5.2 A firebox with an access door for hand loading of fuel.
1.5.3 Typically an aquastat mounted as part of the appliance
that controls combustion air supply to maintain the liquid in the
appliance within a predetermined temperature range provided
sufficient fuel is available in the firebox. The appliance may be
equipped with other devices to control combustion.
1.5.4 A chimney or vent that exhausts combustion products from
the appliance.
1.5.5 A liquid storage system, typically water, which is not
large enough to accept all of the heat produced when a full load of
wood is burned and the storage system starts a burn cycle at
125[emsp14][deg]F.
1.5.6 The heating appliances require external thermal storage
and these units will only be installed as part of a system which
includes thermal storage. The manufacturer specifies the minimum
amount of thermal storage required. However, the storage system
shall be large enough to ensure that the boiler (heater) does not
cycle, slumber, or go into an off-mode when operated in a Category
III load condition (See section 4.3).
1.6 The values stated are to be regarded as the standard whether
in I-P or SI units. The values given in parentheses are for
information only.
2.0 Summary of Method and References
2.1 PM and CO emissions are measured from a wood-fired hydronic
heating appliance burning a prepared test fuel charge in a test
facility maintained at a set of prescribed conditions. Procedures
for determining heat output rates, PM and CO emissions, and
efficiency and for reducing data are provided.
2.2 Referenced Documents
2.2.1 EPA Standards
2.2.1.1 Method 28 Certification and Auditing of Wood Heaters
2.2.1.2 Method 28 WHH Measurement of Particulate Emissions and
Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances and the
standards referenced therein.
2.2.2 Other Standards
2.2.2.1 CAN/CSA-B415.1-2010 Performance Testing of Solid-Fuel-
Burning Heating Appliances
3.0 Terminology
3.1 Definitions
3.1.1 Hydronic Heating--A heating system in which a heat source
supplies energy to a liquid heat exchange media such as water that
is circulated to a heating load and returned to the heat source
through pipes.
3.1.2 Aquastat--A control device that opens or closes a circuit
to control the rate of fuel consumption in response to the
temperature of the heating media in the heating appliance.
3.1.3 Delivered Efficiency--The percentage of heat available in
a test fuel charge that is delivered to a simulated heating load or
the storage system as specified in this test method.
3.1.4 Emission factor--the emission of a pollutant expressed in
mass per unit of energy (typically) output from the boiler/heater
3.1.5 Emission index--the emission of a pollutant expressed in
mass per unit mass of fuel used
3.1.6 Emission rate--the emission of a pollutant expressed in
mass per unit time
3.1.7 Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity -The value in
Btu/hr (MJ/hr) that the manufacturer specifies that a particular
model of hydronic heating appliance is capable of supplying at its
design capacity as verified by testing, in accordance with section
12.5.4.
3.1.8 Heat output rate--The average rate of energy output from
the appliance during a specific test period in Btu/hr (MJ/hr)
3.1.9 Firebox--The chamber in the appliance in which the test
fuel charge is placed and combusted.
3.1.10 NIST--National Institute of Standards and Technology
3.1.11 Test fuel charge--The collection of test fuel placed in
the appliance at the start of the emission test run.
3.1.12 Test Run--An individual emission test which encompasses
the time required to consume the mass of the test fuel charge. The
time of the test run also considers the time for the energy to be
drawn from the thermal storage.
3.1.13 Test Run Under ``Cold-to-Cold'' Condition--under this
test condition the test fuel is added into an empty chamber along
with kindling and ignition materials (paper). The boiler/heater at
the start of this test is typically 125[deg] to 130[deg] F.
3.1.14 Test Run Under ``Hot-to-Hot'' Condition--under this test
condition the test fuel is added onto a still-burning bed of
charcoals produced in a pre-burn period. The boiler/heater water is
near its operating control limit at the start of the test.
3.1.15 Overall Efficiency, also known as Stack Loss Efficiency--
The efficiency for each test run as determined using the CSA B415.1-
2010 Stack Loss Method (SLM).
3.1.16 Phases of a Burn Cycle. The ``startup phase'' is defined
as the period from the start of the test until 15 percent of the
test fuel charge is consumed. The ``steady state phase'' is defined
as the period from the end of the startup phase to a point at which
80 percent of the test fuel charge is consumed. The ``end phase'' is
defined as the time from the end of the steady state period to the
end of the test.
3.1.17 Thermopile--A device consisting of a number of
thermocouples connected in series, used for measuring differential
temperature.
3.1.18 Slumber Mode--This is a mode in which the temperature of
the water in the boiler/heater has exceeded the operating control
limit and the control has changed the boiler/heater fan speed,
dampers, and/or other operating parameters to minimize the heat
output of the boiler/heater.
4.0 Summary of Test Method
4.1 Dilution Tunnel. Emissions are determined using the
``dilution tunnel'' method specified in EPA Method 28 WHH and the
standards referenced therein. The flow rate in the dilution tunnel
is maintained at a constant level throughout the test cycle and
accurately measured. Samples of the dilution tunnel flow stream are
extracted at a constant flow rate and drawn through high efficiency
filters. The filters are dried and weighed before and after the test
to determine the emissions collected and this value is multiplied by
the ratio of tunnel flow to filter flow to determine the total
particulate emissions produced in the test cycle.
4.2 Efficiency. The efficiency test procedure takes advantage of
the fact that this type of system delivers heat through circulation
of the heated liquid (water) from the system to a remote heat
exchanger (e.g. baseboard radiators in a room) and back to the
system. Measurements of the cooling
[[Page 6404]]
water temperature difference as it enters and exits the test system
heat exchanger along with the measured flow rate allow for an
accurate determination of the useful heat output of the appliance.
Also included in the heat output is the change in the energy content
in the storage system during a test run. Energy input to the
appliance during the test run is determined by weight of the test
fuel charge, adjusted for moisture content, multiplied by the Higher
Heating Value. Additional measurements of the appliance weight and
temperature at the beginning and end of a test cycle are used to
correct for heat stored in the appliance. Overall Efficiency (SLM)
is determined using the CSA B415.1-2010 stack loss method for data
quality assurance purposes.
4.3 Operation. Four test categories are defined for use in this
method. These are:
4.3.1 Category I: A heat output of 15 percent or less of
Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.2 Category II: A heat output of 16 percent to 24 percent of
Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.3 Category III: A heat output of 25 percent to 50 percent of
Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
4.3.4 Category IV: Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
These heat output categories refer to the output from the system by
way of the load heat exchanger installed for the test. The output
from just the boiler/heater part of the system may be higher for all
or part of a test, as part of this boiler/heater output goes to
storage.
For the Category III and IV runs, appliance operation is
conducted on a hot-to-hot test cycle meaning that the appliance is
brought to operating temperature and a coal bed is established prior
to the addition of the test fuel charge and measurements are made
for each test fuel charge cycle. The measurements are made under
constant heat draw conditions within pre-determined ranges. No
attempt is made to modulate the heat demand to simulate an indoor
thermostat cycling on and off in response to changes in the indoor
environment.
For the Category I and II runs, the unit is tested with a ``cold
start.'' At the manufacturer's option, the Category II and III runs
may be waived and it may be assumed that the particulate emission
values and efficiency values determined in the startup, steady-
state, and end phases of Category I are applicable in Categories II
and III for the purpose of determining the annual averages in lb/
MMBtu and g/MJ (See section 13). For the annual average in g/hr, the
length of time for stored heat to be drawn from thermal storage
shall be determined for the test load requirements of the respective
Category.
All test operations and measurements shall be conducted by
personnel of the laboratory responsible for the submission of the
test report.
5.0 Significance and Use
5.1 The measurement of particulate matter emission and CO rates
is an important test method widely used in the practice of air
pollution control.
5.1.1 These measurements, when approved by state or federal
agencies, are often required for the purpose of determining
compliance with regulations and statutes.
5.1.2 The measurements made before and after design
modifications are necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of
design changes in reducing emissions and make this standard an
important tool in manufacturer's research and development programs.
5.2 Measurement of heating efficiency provides a uniform basis
for comparison of product performance that is useful to the
consumer. It is also required to relate emissions produced to the
useful heat production.
5.3 This is a laboratory method and is not intended to be fully
representative of all actual field use. It is recognized that users
of hand-fired, wood-burning equipment have a great deal of influence
over the performance of any wood-burning appliance. Some compromises
in realism have been made in the interest of providing a reliable
and repeatable test method.
6.0 Test Equipment
6.1 Scale. A platform scale capable of weighing the boiler/
heater under test and associated parts and accessories when
completely filled with water to an accuracy of 1.0
pound ( 0.5 kg) and a readout resolution of
0.2 pound ( 0.1 kg).
6.2 Heat Exchanger. A water-to-water heat exchanger capable of
dissipating the expected heat output from the system under test.
6.3 Water Temperature Difference Measurement. A Type-T `special
limits' thermopile with a minimum of 5 pairs of junctions shall be
used to measure the temperature difference in water entering and
leaving the heat exchanger. The temperature difference measurement
uncertainty of this type of thermopile is equal to or less than
0.50 [deg]F ( 0.25 [deg]C). Other
temperature measurement methods may be used if the temperature
difference measurement uncertainty is equal to or less than 0.50 [deg]F ( 0.25 [deg]C). This measurement
uncertainty shall include the temperature sensor, sensor well
arrangement, piping arrangements, lead wire, and measurement/
recording system. The response time of the temperature measurement
system shall be less than half of the time interval at which
temperature measurements are recorded.
6.4 Water Flow Meter. A water flow meter shall be installed in
the inlet to the load side of the heat exchanger. The flow meter
shall have an accuracy of 1 percent of measured flow.
6.4.1 Optional--Appliance side water flow meter. A water flow
meter with an accuracy of 1 percent of the flow rate is
recommended to monitor supply side water flow rate.
6.5 Optional Recirculation Pump. Circulating pump used during
test to prevent stratification, in the boiler/heater, of liquid
being heated.
6.6 Water Temperature Measurement--Thermocouples or other
temperature sensors to measure the water temperature at the inlet
and outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger must meet the
calibration requirements specified in 10.1 of this method.
6.7 Lab Scale--For measuring the moisture content of wood slices
as part of the overall wood moisture determination. Accuracy of
0.01 pounds.
6.8 Flue Gas Temperature Measurement--Must meet the requirements
of CSA B415.1-2010, Clause 6.2.2.
6.9 Test Room Temperature Measurement--Must meet the
requirements of CSA B415.1-2010, Clause 6.2.1.
6.10 Flue Gas Composition Measurement--Must meet the
requirements of CSA B415.1-2010, Clauses 6.3.1 through 6.3.3.
6.11 Dilution Tunnel CO Measurement--In parallel with the flue
gas composition measurements, the CO concentration in the dilution
tunnel shall also be measured and reported at time intervals not to
exceed one minute. This analyzer shall meet the zero and span drift
requirements of CSA B415.1-2012. In addition the measurement
repeatability shall be better than 15 ppm over the range
of CO levels observed in the dilution tunnel.
7.0 Safety
7.1 These tests involve combustion of wood fuel and substantial
release of heat and products of combustion. The heating system also
produces large quantities of very hot water and the potential for
steam production and system pressurization. Appropriate precautions
must be taken to protect personnel from burn hazards and respiration
of products of combustion.
8.0 Sampling, Test Specimens and Test Appliances
8.1 Test specimens shall be supplied as complete appliances, as
described in marketing materials, including all controls and
accessories necessary for installation in the test facility. A full
set of specifications, installation and operating instructions, and
design and assembly drawings shall be provided when the product is
to be placed under certification of a third-party agency. The
manufacturer's written installation and operating instructions are
to be used as a guide in the set-up and testing of the appliance and
shall be part of the test record.
8.2 The size, connection arrangement, and control arrangement
for the thermal storage shall be as specified in the manufacturer's
documentation. It is not necessary to use the specific storage
system that the boiler/heater will be marketed with. However, the
capacity of the system used in the test cannot be greater than that
specified as the minimum allowable for the boiler/heater.
8.3 All system control settings shall be the as-shipped, default
settings. These default settings shall be the same as those
communicated in a document to the installer or end user. These
control settings and the documentation of the control settings as to
be provided to the installer or end user shall be part of the test
record.
8.4 Where the manufacturer defines several alternatives for the
connection and loading arrangement, one shall be defined in the
appliance documentation as the default or standard installation. It
is expected that this will be the configuration for use with a
simple baseboard heating system. This is the
[[Page 6405]]
configuration to be followed for these tests. The manufacturer's
documentation shall define the other arrangements as optional or
alternative arrangements.
9.0 Preparation of Test Equipment
9.1 The appliance is to be placed on a scale capable of weighing
the appliance fully loaded with a resolution of 0.2 lb
(0.1 kg).
9.2 The appliance shall be fitted with the type of chimney
recommended or provided by the manufacturer and extending to 15
0.5 feet (4.6 0.15 m) from the upper
surface of the scale. If no flue or chimney system is recommended or
provided by the manufacturer, connect the appliance to a flue of a
diameter equal to the flue outlet of the appliance. The flue section
from the appliance flue collar to 8 0.5 feet above the
scale shall be single wall stove pipe and the remainder of the flue
shall be double wall insulated class A chimney.
9.3 Optional Equipment Use
9.3.1 A recirculation pump may be installed between connections
at the top and bottom of the appliance to minimize thermal
stratification if specified by the manufacturer. The pump shall not
be installed in such a way as to change or affect the flow rate
between the appliance and the heat exchanger.
9.3.2 If the manufacturer specifies that a thermal control valve
or other device be installed and set to control the return water
temperature to a specific set point, the valve or other device shall
be installed and set per the manufacturer's written instructions.
9.4 Prior to filling the boiler/heater with water, weigh and
record the appliance mass.
9.5 Heat Exchanger
9.5.1 Plumb the unit to a water-to-water heat exchanger with
sufficient capacity to draw off heat at the maximum rate
anticipated. Route hoses and electrical cables and instrument wires
in a manner that does not influence the weighing accuracy of the
scale as indicated by placing dead weights on the platform and
verifying the scale's accuracy.
9.5.2 Locate thermocouples to measure the water temperature at
the inlet and outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.3 Install a thermopile (or equivalent instrumentation)
meeting the requirements of section 6.3 to measure the water
temperature difference between the inlet and outlet of the load side
of the heat exchanger.
9.5.4 Install a calibrated water flow meter in the heat
exchanger load side supply line. The water flow meter is to be
installed on the cooling water inlet side of the heat exchanger so
that it will operate at the temperature at which it is calibrated.
9.5.5 Place the heat exchanger in a box with 2 in. (50 mm) of
expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam insulation surrounding it to
minimize heat losses from the heat exchanger.
9.5.6 The reported efficiency and heat output rate shall be
based on measurements made on the load side of the heat exchanger.
9.5.7 Temperature instrumentation per section 6.6 shall be
installed in the appliance outlet and return lines. The average of
the outlet and return water temperature on the supply side of the
system shall be considered the average appliance temperature for
calculation of heat storage in the appliance (TFavg and
TIavg). Installation of a water flow meter in the supply
side of the system is optional.
9.6 Storage Tank. The storage tank shall include a
destratification pump as illustrated in Figure 1. The pump will draw
from the bottom of the tank and return to the top as illustrated.
Temperature sensors (TS1 and TS2 in Figure 1) shall be included to
measure the temperature in the recirculation loop. The valve plan in
Figure 1 allows the tank recirculation loop to operate and the
boiler/heater-to-heat exchanger loop to operate at the same time but
in isolation. This would typically be done before the start of a
test or following completion of a test to determine the end of test
average tank temperature. The nominal flow rate in the storage tank
recirculation loop can be estimated based on pump manufacturer's
performance curves and any significant restriction in the
recirculation loop.
9.7 Fill the system with water. Determine the total weight of
the water in the appliance when the water is circulating. Verify
that the scale indicates a stable weight under operating conditions.
Make sure air is purged properly.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
10.1 Water Temperature Sensors. Temperature measuring equipment
shall be calibrated before initial use and at least semi-annually
thereafter. Calibrations shall be in compliance with National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Monograph 175, Standard
Limits of Error.
10.2 Heat Exchanger Load Side Water Flow Meter.
10.2.1 The heat exchanger load side water flow meter shall be
calibrated within the flow range used for the test run using NIST-
traceable methods. Verify the calibration of the water flow meter
before and after each test run and at least once during each test
run by comparing the water flow rate indicated by the flow meter to
the mass of water collected from the outlet of the heat exchanger
over a timed interval. Volume of the collected water shall be
determined based on the water density calculated from section 13,
Eq. 12, using the water temperature measured at the flow meter. The
uncertainty in the verification procedure used shall be 1 percent or
less. The water flow rate determined by the collection and weighing
method shall be within 1 percent of the flow rate indicated by the
water flow meter.
10.3 Scales. The scales used to weigh the appliance and test
fuel charge shall be calibrated using NIST-traceable methods at
least once every 6 months.
10.4 Flue Gas Analyzers--In accordance with CSA B415.1-2010,
Clause 6.8.
11.0 Conditioning
11.1 Prior to testing, a non-catalytic appliance is to be
operated for a minimum of 10 hours using a medium heat draw rate.
Catalytic units shall be operated for a minimum of 50 hours using a
medium heat draw rate. The pre-burn for the first test can be
included as part of the conditioning requirement. If conditioning is
included in pre-burn, then the appliance shall be aged with fuel
meeting the specifications outlined in section 12.2 with a moisture
content between 19 and 25 percent on a dry basis. Operate the
appliance at a medium heat output rate (Category II or III) for at
least 10 hours for non-catalytic appliances and 50 hours for
catalytic appliances. Record and report hourly flue gas exit
temperature data and the hours of operation. The aging procedure
shall be conducted and documented by a testing laboratory.
12.0 Procedure
12.1 Appliance Installation. Assemble the appliance and parts in
conformance with the manufacturer's written installation
instructions. Clean the flue with an appropriately sized, wire
chimney brush before each certification test series.
12.2 Fuel. Test fuel charge fuel shall be red (Quercus ruba L.)
or white (Quercus Alba) oak 19 to 25 percent moisture content on a
dry basis. Piece length shall be 80 percent of the firebox depth
rounded down to the nearest 1 inch (25mm) increment. For example, if
the firebox depth is 46 inches (1168mm) the piece length would be 36
inches (46 inches x 0.8 = 36.8 inches round down to 36 inches).
Pieces are to be placed in the firebox parallel to the longest
firebox dimension. For fireboxes with sloped surfaces that create a
non-uniform firebox length, the piece length shall be adjusted for
each layer based on 80 percent of the length at the level where the
layer is placed. The test fuel shall be cord wood with cross section
dimensions and weight limits as defined in CSA B415.1-2010, section
8.3, Table 4. The use of dimensional lumber is not allowed.
12.2.1 Select three pieces of cord wood from the same batch of
wood as the test fuel and the same weight as the average weight of
the pieces in the test load 1.0 lb. From each of these
three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice shall be \1/2\ inch to
\3/4\ inch thick. One slice shall be cut across the center of the
length of the piece. The other two slices shall be cut half way
between the center and the end. Immediately measure the mass of each
piece in pounds. Dry each slice in an oven at 220[emsp14][deg]F for
24 hours or until no further weight change occurs. The slices shall
be arranged in the oven so as to provide separation between faces.
Remove from the oven and measure the mass of each piece again as
soon as practical in pounds.
The moisture content of each slice, on a dry basis shall be
calculated as:
[[Page 6406]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.004
Where:
WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds
WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds
MCSlice = moisture content of the slice in % dry basis
The average moisture content of the entire test load (MC) shall
be determined using Eq. 6. Each individual slice shall have a
moisture content in the range of 18 percent to 28 percent on a dry
basis. The average moisture content for the test fuel load shall be
in the range of 19 percent to 25 percent. Moisture shall not be
added to previously dried fuel pieces except by storage under high
humidity conditions and temperature up to 100 [deg]F. Fuel moisture
measurement shall begin within four hours of using the fuel batch
for a test. Use of a pin-type meter to estimate the moisture content
prior to a test is recommended.
12.2.2 Firebox Volume. Determine the firebox volume in cubic
feet. Firebox volume shall include all areas accessible through the
fuel loading door where firewood could reasonably be placed up to
the horizontal plane defined by the top of the loading door. A
drawing of the firebox showing front, side and plan views or an
isometric view with interior dimensions shall be provided by the
manufacturer and verified by the laboratory. Calculations for
firebox volume from computer aided design (CAD) software programs
are acceptable and shall be included in the test report if used. If
the firebox volume is calculated by the laboratory the firebox
drawings and calculations shall be included in the test report.
12.2.3 Test Fuel charge. Test fuel charges shall be determined
by multiplying the firebox volume by 10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft\3\
(28L), or a higher load density as recommended by the manufacturer's
printed operating instructions, of wood (as used wet weight). Select
the number of pieces of cord wood that most nearly match this target
weight. However, the test fuel charge cannot be less than the target
of 10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft\3\ (28L).
12.3 Sampling Equipment. Prepare the particulate emission
sampling equipment as defined by EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards
referenced therein.
12.4 Appliance Startup. The appliance shall be fired with wood
fuel of any species, size and moisture content at the laboratories
discretion to bring it up to operating temperature. Operate the
appliance until the water is heated to the upper operating control
limit and has cycled at least two times. Then remove all unburned
fuel, zero the scale and verify the scales accuracy using dead
weights.
12.4.1 Startup Procedure for Category III and IV Test Runs,
``Hot-to-Hot''
12.4.1.1 Pre-Test Burn Cycle. Following appliance startup
(section 12.4), reload appliance with oak cord wood and allow it to
burn down to the specified coal bed weight. The pre-test burn cycle
fuel charge weight shall be within 10 percent of the
test fuel charge weight. Piece size and length shall be selected
such that charcoalization is achieved by the time the fuel charge
has burned down to the required coal bed weight. Pieces with a
maximum thickness of approximately 2 inches have been found to be
suitable. Charcoalization is a general condition of the test fuel
bed evidenced by an absence of large pieces of burning wood in the
coal bed and the remaining fuel pieces being brittle enough to be
broken into smaller charcoal pieces with a metal poker.
Manipulations to the fuel bed prior to the start of the test run are
to be done to achieve charcoalization while maintaining the desired
heat output rate. During the pre-test burn cycle and at least one
hour prior to starting the test run, adjust water flow to the heat
exchanger to establish the target heat draw for the test. For the
first test run the heat draw rate shall be equal to the
manufacturer's rated heat output capacity.
12.4.1.2 Allowable Adjustments. Fuel addition or subtractions,
and coal bed raking shall be kept to a minimum but are allowed up to
15 minutes prior to the start of the test run. For the purposes of
this method, coal bed raking is the use of a metal tool (poker) to
stir coals, break burning fuel into smaller pieces, dislodge fuel
pieces from positions of poor combustion, and check for the
condition of charcoalization. Record all adjustments to and
additions or subtractions of fuel, and any other changes to the
appliance operations that occur during pretest ignition period.
During the 15-minute period prior to the start of the test run, the
wood heater loading door shall not be open more than a total of 1
minute. Coal bed raking is the only adjustment allowed during this
period.
12.4.1.3 Coal Bed Weight. The appliance is to be loaded with the
test fuel charge when the coal bed weight is between 10 percent and
20 percent of the test fuel charge weight. Coals may be raked as
necessary to level the coal bed but may only be raked and stirred
once between 15 to 20 minutes prior to the addition of the test fuel
charge.
12.4.1.4 Storage. The Category III and IV test runs may be done
either with or without the thermal storage. If thermal storage is
used the initial temperature of the storage must be 125 [deg]F or
greater at the start of the test. The storage may be heated during
the pre-test burn cycle or it may be heated by external means. If
thermal storage is used, prior to the start of the test run, the
storage tank destratification pump, shown in Figure 1, shall be
operated until the total volume pumped exceeds 1.5 times the tank
volume and the difference between the temperature at the top and
bottom of the storage tank (TS1 and TS2) is
less than 1[emsp14][deg]F. These two temperatures shall then be
recorded to determine the starting average tank temperature. The
total volume pumped may be based on the nominal flow rate of the
destratification pump (See section 9.6). If the Category III and IV
runs are done with storage, it is recognized that during the last
hour of the pre-burn cycle the storage tank must be mixed to achieve
a uniform starting temperature and cannot receive heat from the
boiler/heater during this time. During this time period the boiler/
heater might cycle or go into a steady reduced output mode. (Note--
this would happen, for example, in a Category IV run if the actual
maximum output of the boiler/heater exceed the manufacturer's rated
output.) A second storage tank may be used temporarily to enable the
boiler/heater to operate during this last hour of the pre-burn
period as it will during the test period. The temperature of this
second storage tank is not used in the calculations but the return
water to the boiler/heater (after mixing device if used) must be 125
[deg]F or greater.
12.4.2 Startup Procedure for Category I and II test runs,
``cold-to-cold.''
12.4.2.1 Initial Temperatures. This test shall be started with
both the boiler/heater and the storage at a minimum temperature of
125 [deg]F. The boiler/heater maximum temperature at the start of
this test shall be 135 [deg]F. The boiler/heater and storage may be
heated through a pre-burn or it may be heated by external means.
12.4.2.2 Firebox Condition at Test Start. Prior to the start of
this test remove all ash and charcoal from the combustion
chamber(s). The loading of the test fuel and kindling should follow
the manufacturer's recommendations, subject to the following
constraints: Up to 10 percent kindling and paper may be used which
is in addition to the fuel load. Further, up to 10 percent of the
fuel load (i.e., included in the 10 lb/ft\3\) may be smaller than
the main fuel. This startup fuel shall still be larger than 2
inches.
12.4.2.3 Storage. The Category I and II test runs shall be done
with thermal storage. The initial temperature of the storage must be
125 [deg]F or greater at the start of the test. The storage may be
heated during the pre-test burn cycle or it may be heated by
external means. Prior to the start of the test run, the storage tank
destratification pump, shown in Figure 1, shall be operated until
the total volume pumped exceeds 1.5 times the tank volume and the
difference between the temperature at the top and bottom of the
storage tank (TS1 and TS2) is less than 1
[deg]F. These two temperatures shall then be recorded to determine
the starting average tank temperature. The total volume pumped may
be based on the nominal flow rate of the destratification pump (See
section 9.6).
12.5 Test Runs. For all test runs, the return water temperature
to the hydronic heater must be equal to or greater than 120 [deg]F
(this is lower than the initial tank temperature to allow for any
pipeline losses). Where the storage system is used, flow of water
from the boiler/heater shall be divided between the storage tank and
the heat
[[Page 6407]]
exchanger such that the temperature change of the circulating water
across the heat exchanger shall be 30 5 [deg]F,
averaged over the entire test run. This is typically adjusted using
the system valves.
Complete a test run in each heat output rate category, as
follows:
12.5.1 Test Run Start. For Category III and IV runs: once the
appliance is operating normally and the pretest coal bed weight has
reached the target value per 12.4.1, tare the scale and load the
full test charge into the appliance. Time for loading shall not
exceed 5 minutes. The actual weight of the test fuel charge shall be
measured and recorded within 30 minutes prior to loading. Start all
sampling systems.
For Category I and II runs: once the appliance has reached the
starting temperature, tare the scale and load the full test charge,
including kindling into the appliance. The actual weight of the test
fuel charge shall be measured and recorded within 30 minutes prior
to loading. Light the fire following the manufacturer's written
normal startup procedure. Start all sampling systems.
12.5.1.1 Record all water temperatures, differential water
temperatures and water flow rates at time intervals of one minute or
less.
12.5.1.2 Record particulate emissions data per the requirements
of EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards referenced therein.
12.5.1.3 Record data needed to determine Overall Efficiency
(SLM) per the requirements of CSA B415.1-2010 Clauses 6.2.1, 6.2.2,
6.3, 8.5.7, 10.4.3 (a), 10.4.3(f), and 13.7.9.3
12.5.1.3.1 Measure and record the test room air temperature in
accordance with the requirements of Clauses 6.2.1, 8.5.7 and 10.4.3
(g).
12.5.1.3.2 Measure and record the flue gas temperature in
accordance with the requirements of Clauses 6.2.2, 8.5.7 and 10.4.3
(f).
12.5.1.3.3 Determine and record the Carbon Monoxide (CO) and
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the flue gas in
accordance with Clauses 6.3, 8.5.7 and 10.4.3 (i) and (j).
12.5.1.3.4 Measure and record the test fuel weight per the
requirements of Clauses 8.5.7 and 10.4.3 (h).
12.5.1.3.5 Record the test run time per the requirements of
Clause 10.4.3 (a).
12.5.1.3.6 Record and document all settings and adjustments, if
any, made to the boiler/heater as recommended/required by
manufacturer's instruction manual for different combustion
conditions or heat loads. These may include temperature setpoints,
under and over-fire air adjustment, or other adjustments that could
be made by an operator to optimize or alter combustion. All such
settings shall be included in the report for each test run.
12.5.1.4 Monitor the average heat output rate on the load side
of the heat exchanger based on water temperatures and flow. If the
heat output rate over a 10 minute averaging period gets close to the
upper or lower limit of the target range ( 5 percent),
adjust the water flow through the heat exchanger to compensate. Make
changes as infrequently as possible while maintaining the target
heat output rate. The first test run shall be conducted at the
category IV heat output rate to validate that the appliance is
capable of producing the manufacturer's rated heat output capacity.
12.5.2 Test Fuel Charge Adjustment. It is acceptable to adjust
the test fuel charge (i.e., reposition) once during a test run if
more than 60 percent of the initial test fuel charge weight has been
consumed and more than 10 minutes have elapsed without a measurable
(1 lb or 0.5 kg) weight change while the operating control is in the
demand mode. The time used to make this adjustment shall be less
than 60 seconds.
12.5.3 Test Run Completion. For the Category III and IV, ``hot-
to-hot'' test runs, the test run is completed when the remaining
weight of the test fuel charge is 0.0 lb (0.0 kg). (WFuelBurned =
Wfuel) End the test run when the scale has indicated a test fuel
charge weight of 0.0 lb (0.0 kg) or less for 30 seconds.
For the Category I and II ``cold-to-cold'' test runs, the test
run is completed; and the end of a test is defined at the first
occurrence of any one of the following:
(a) The remaining weight of the test fuel charge is less than 1
percent of the total test fuel weight (WFuelBurned > 0.99 [middot]
Wfuel);
(b) The automatic control system on the boiler/heater switches
to an off mode. In this case the boiler/heater fan (if used) is
typically stopped, and all air flow dampers are closed by the
control system. Note that this off mode cannot be an ``overheat'' or
emergency shutdown which typically requires a manual reset; or
(c) If the boiler/heater does not have an automatic off mode:
After 90 percent of the fuel load has been consumed and the scale
has indicated a rate of change of the test fuel charge of less than
1.0 lb/hr for a period of 10 minutes or longer. Note--this is not
considered ``stopped fuel combustion,'' See section 12.5.6.1.
12.5.3.1 At the end of the test run, stop the particulate
sampling train and Overall Efficiency (SLM) measurements, and record
the run time, and all final measurement values.
12.5.3.2 At the end of the test run, continue to operate the
storage tank destratification pump until the total volume pumped
exceeds 1.5 times the tank volume. The maximum average of the top
and bottom temperatures measured after this time may be taken as the
average tank temperature at the end of the tests (TFSavg, See
section 13.1). The total volume pumped may be based on the nominal
flow rate of the destratification pump (See section 9.6).
12.5.3.3 For the Category I and II test runs, there is a need to
determine the energy content of the unburned fuel remaining in the
chamber if the remaining mass in the chamber is greater than 1
percent of the test fuel weight. Following the completion of the
test, as soon as safely practical, this remaining fuel is removed
from the chamber, separated from the remaining ash and weighed. This
separation could be implemented with a slotted ``scoop'' or similar
tool. A \1/4\ inch opening size in the separation tool shall be used
to separate the ash and charcoal. This separated char is assigned a
heating value of 12,500 Btu/lb.
12.5.4 Heat Output Capacity Validation. The first test run must
produce a heat output rate that is within 10 percent of the
manufacturer's rated heat output capacity (Category IV) throughout
the test run and an average heat output rate within 5 percent of the
manufacturer's rated heat output capacity. If the appliance is not
capable of producing a heat output within these limits, the
manufacturer's rated heat output capacity is considered not
validated and testing is to be terminated. In such cases, the tests
may be restarted using a lower heat output capacity if requested by
the manufacturer. Alternatively, during the Category IV run, if the
rated output cannot be maintained for a 15 minute interval, the
manufacturer may elect to reduce the rated output to match the test
and complete the Category IV run on this basis. The target outputs
for Cat I, II, and III shall then be recalculated based on this
change in rated output capacity.
12.5.5 Additional Test Runs. Using the Manufacturer's Rated Heat
Output Capacity as a basis, conduct a test for additional heat
output categories as specified in 4.3. It is not required to run
these tests in any particular order.
12.5.6 Alternative Heat Output Rate for Category I. If an
appliance cannot be operated in the Category I heat output range due
to stopped combustion, two test runs shall be conducted at heat
output rates within Category II. When this is the case, the
weightings for the weighted averages indicated in section 15.1.14
shall be the average of the Category I and II weighting's and shall
be applied to both Category II results. Appliances that are not
capable of operation within Category II (<25 percent of maximum)
cannot be evaluated by this test method.
12.5.6.1 Stopped Fuel Combustion. Evidence that an appliance
cannot be operated at a Category I heat output rate due to stopped
fuel combustion shall include documentation of two or more attempts
to operate the appliance in heat output rate Category I and fuel
combustion has stopped prior to complete consumption of the test
fuel charge. Stopped fuel combustion is evidenced when an elapsed
time of 60 minutes or more has occurred without a measurable (1 lb
or 0.5 kg) weight change in the test fuel charge while the appliance
operating control is in the demand mode. Report the evidence and the
reasoning used to determine that a test in heat output rate Category
I cannot be achieved. For example, two unsuccessful attempts to
operate at an output rate of 10 percent of the rated output capacity
are not sufficient evidence that heat output rate Category I cannot
be achieved.
12.5.7 Appliance Overheating. Appliances with their associated
thermal storage shall be capable of operating in all heat output
categories without overheating to be rated by this test method.
Appliance overheating occurs when the rate of heat withdrawal from
the appliance is lower than the rate of heat production when the
unit control is in the idle mode. This condition results in the
water in the appliance continuing to increase in temperature well
[[Page 6408]]
above the upper limit setting of the operating control. Evidence of
overheating includes: 1 hour or more of appliance water temperature
increase above the upper temperature set-point of the operating
control, exceeding the temperature limit of a safety control device
(independent from the operating control--typically requires manual
reset), boiling water in a non-pressurized system or activation of a
pressure or temperature relief valve in a pressurized system.
12.5.8 Option to Eliminate Tests in Category II and III.
Following successful completion of a test run in Category I, the
manufacturer may eliminate the Cat II and III tests. For the purpose
of calculating the annual averages for particulates and efficiency,
the values obtained in the Category I run shall be assumed to apply
also to Category II and Category III. It is envisioned that this
option would be applicable to systems which have sufficient thermal
storage such that the fuel load in the Cat I test can be completely
consumed without the system reaching its upper operating temperature
limit. In this case the boiler/heater would likely be operating at
maximum thermal output during the entire test and this output rate
may be higher than the Manufacturer's Rated Heat Output Capacity.
The Category II and III runs would then be the same as the Category
I run. It may be assumed that the particulate emission values and
efficiency values determined in the startup, steady-state, and end
phases of Category I are applicable in Categories II and III, for
the purpose of determining the annual averages in lb/MMBtu and g/MJ
(See section 13). For the annual average in g/hr, the length of time
for stored heat to be drawn from thermal storage shall be determined
for the test load requirements of the respective Category.
12.5.9 Modification to Measurement Procedure in EPA Method 28
WHH to Determine Emissions Separately During the Startup, Steady-
State and End Phases. With one of the two particulate sampling
trains used, filter changes shall be made at the end of the startup
phase and the steady state phase (See section 3.0). This shall be
done to determine the particulate emission rate and particulate
emission index for the startup, steady state, and end phases
individually. For this one train, the particulates measured during
each of these three phases shall be added together to also determine
the particulate emissions for the whole run.
12.5.10 Modification to Measurement Procedure in EPA Method 28
WHH and the standards referenced therein on Averaging Period for
Determination of Efficiency by the Stack Loss Method. The methods
currently defined in Method 28 WHH allow averaging over 10 minute
time periods for flue gas temperature, flue gas CO2, and
flue gas CO for the determination of the efficiency with the Stack
Loss Method. However, under some cycling conditions the ``on''
period may be short relative to this 10 minute period. For this
reason, during cycling operation the averaging period for these
parameters may not be longer than the burner on period divided by
10. The averaging period need not be shorter than one minute. During
the off period, under cycling operation, averaging periods as
specified in EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards referenced therein
may be used. Where short averaging times are used, however, the
averaging period for fuel consumption may still be at 10 minutes.
This average wood consumption rate shall be applied to all of the
smaller time intervals included.
12.6 Additional Test Runs. The testing laboratory may conduct
more than one test run in each of the heat output categories
specified in section 4.3. If more than one test run is conducted at
a specified heat output rate, the results from at least two-thirds
of the test runs in that heat output rate category shall be used in
calculating the weighted average emission rate. The measurement data
and results of all test runs shall be reported regardless of which
values are used in calculating the weighted average emission rate.
13.0 Calculation of Results
13.1 Nomenclature.
COs--Carbon monoxide measured in the dilution tunnel at
arbitrary time in ppm dry basis.
COg/min--Carbon monoxide emission rate in g/min.
COT--Total carbon monoxide emission for the full test run
in grams.
CO--1--Startup period carbon monoxide emissions in grams.
CO--2--Steady-state period carbon monoxide emission in
grams.
CO--3--End period carbon monoxide emission in grams.
ET--Total particulate emissions for the full test run as
determined per EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards referenced
therein in grams.
E1 = Startup period particulate emissions in grams.
E2 = Steady-state period particulate emissions in grams.
E3 = End period particulate emissions in grams.
E1--g/kg = Startup period particulate emission index in
grams per kg fuel.
E2--g/kg = Steady-state period particulate emission index
in grams per kg fuel.
E3--g/kg = End period particulate emission index in grams
per kg fuel.
E1--g/hr = Startup period particulate emission rate in
grams per hour.
E2--g/hr = Steady-state period particulate emission rate
in grams per hour.
E3--g/hr = End period particulate emission rate in grams
per hour.
Eg/MJ--Emission rate in grams per MJ of heat output.
Elb/mmBtu output--Emissions rate in pounds per million
Btu's of heat output.
Eg/kg--Emissions factor in grams per kilogram of dry fuel
burned.
Eg/hr--Emission factor in grams per hour.
HHV--Higher Heating Value of fuel = 8600 Btu/lb (19.990 MJ/kg).
LHV--Lower Heating Value of fuel = 7988 Btu/lb (18.567 MJ/kg).
[Delta]T--Temperature difference between cooling water entering and
exiting the heat exchanger.
Qout - Total heat output in Btu's (MJ).
Qin - Total heat input available in test fuel charge in
Btu's (MJ).
Qstd--Volumetric flow rate in dilution tunnel in dscfm.
M--Mass flow rate of water in lb/min (kg/min).
Vi--Volume of water indicated by a totalizing flow meter
at the ith reading in gallons (liters).
Vf--Volumetric flow rate of water in heat exchange system
in gallons per minute (liters/min).
[Theta]--Total length of burn period in hours ([Theta]1 +
[Theta]2 + [Theta]3).
[Theta]1--Length of time of the startup period in hours.
[Theta]2--Length of time of the steady state period in
hours.
[Theta]3--Length of time of the end period in hours.
[Theta]4--Length of time for stored heat to be used
following a burn period in hours.
ti--Data sampling interval in minutes.
[eta]del--Delivered heating efficiency in percent.
Fi--Weighting factor for heat output category i. See
Table 2.
T1--Temperature of water at the inlet on the supply side of the heat
exchanger, [deg]F.
T2--Temperature of the water at the outlet on the supply side of the
heat exchanger, [deg]F.
T3--Temperature of cooling water at the inlet to the load side of
the heat exchanger, [deg]F.
T4--Temperature of cooling water at the outlet of the load side of
the heat exchanger, [deg]F.
T5--Temperature of the hot water supply as it leaves the boiler/
heater, [deg]F.
T6--Temperature of return water as it enters the boiler/heater,
[deg]F.
T7--Temperature in the boiler/heater optional destratification loop
at the top of the boiler/heater, [deg]F.
T8--Temperature in the boiler/heater optional destratification loop
at the bottom of the boiler/heater, [deg]F.
TIavg--Average temperature of the appliance and water at
start of the test.
TIS1--Temperature at the inlet to the storage system at
the start of the test.
TIS2--Temperature at the outlet from the storage system
at the start of the test.
TFS1--Temperature at the inlet to the storage system at
the end of the test.
TFS2--Temperature at the outlet from the storage system
at the end of the test.
TISavg--Average temperature of the storage system at the
start of the test.
[[Page 6409]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.016
MC--Fuel moisture content in percent dry basis.
[sigma]--Density of water in pounds per gallon.
[sigma]Initial--Density of water in the boiler/heater
system at the start of the test in pounds per gallons.
[sigma]boiler/heater--Density of water in the boiler/
heater system at arbitrary time during the test in pounds per
gallon.
Cp--Specific heat of water in Btu/lb -[deg]F.
Csteel--Specific heat of steel (0.1 Btu/lb -[deg]F).
Vboiler/heater--total volume of water in the boiler/
heater system on the weight scale in gallons.
Wfuel--Fuel charge weight, as-fired or ``wet'', in pounds
(kg).
Wfuel--1--Fuel consumed during the startup period in
pounds (kg).
Wfuel--2--Fuel consumed during the steady state period in
pounds (kg).
Wfuel--3--Fuel consumed during the end period in pounds
(kg).
WFuelBurned--Weight of fuel that has been burned from the
start of the test to an arbitrary time, including the needed
correction for the change in density and weight of the water in the
boiler/heater system on the scale in pounds (kg).
WRemainingFuel--weight of unburned fuel separated from
the ash at the end of a test. Useful only for Cat I and Cat II
tests.
Wapp--Weight of empty appliance in pounds (kg).
Wwat--Weight of water in supply side of the system in
pounds (kg).
WScaleInitial--weight reading on the scale at the start
of the test, just after the test load has been added in pounds (kg).
WScale--Reading of the weight scale at arbitrary time
during the test run in pounds (kg).
WStorageTank--Weight of the storage tank empty in pounds
(kg).
WWaterStorage--Weight of the water in the storage tank at
TISavg in pounds (kg).
13.2 After the test is completed, determine the particulate
emissions ET in accordance with EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards
referenced therein.
13.3 Determination of the weight of fuel that has been burned at
arbitrary time
For the purpose of tracking the consumption of the test fuel
load during a test run the following may be used to calculate the
weight of fuel that burned since the start of the test:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.017
[[Page 6410]]
13.6 Determine heat output, efficiency, and emissions
13.6.1 Determine heat output as:
Qout = [Sigma] [Heat output determined for each sampling
time interval] + Change in heat stored in the appliance + Change in
heat in storage tank.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.018
Note: The subscript (i) indicates the parameter value for
sampling time interval ti.
Mi = Mass flow rate = gal/min x Density of Water (lb/
gal) = lb/min.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.019
Note: Vi is the total water volume at the end of
interval i and Vi-1 is the total water volume at the
beginning of the time interval. This calculation is necessary when a
totalizing type water meter is used.
13.6.2 Determine Heat Output Rate Over Burn Period
([Theta]1+ [Theta]2+ [Theta]3) as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.020
If thermal storage is not used in a Category III or IV run, then
[Theta]4 = 0
E1--g/kg = E1/(Wfuel--1/(1+MC/
100)), g/dry kg
E2--g/kg = E2/(Wfuel--2/(1+MC/
100)), g/dry kg
E3--g/kg = E3/(Wfuel--3/(1+MC/
100)), g/dry kg
E1--g/hr = E1/[Theta]1, g/hr
E2--g/hr = E2/[Theta]2, g/hr
E3--g/hr = E3/[Theta]3, g/hr
13.6.4 Determine delivered efficiency as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.021
13.6.5 Determine [eta]SLM--Overall Efficiency, also
known as Stack Loss Efficiency, using Stack Loss Method (SLM).
For determination of the average overall thermal efficiency
([eta]SLM) for the test run, use the data collected over
the full test run and the calculations in accordance with CSA
B415.1-2010, Clause 13.7 except for 13.7.2 (e), (f), (g), and (h),
use the following average fuel properties for oak: %C = 50.0, %H =
6.6, %O = 43.2, %Ash = 0.2.
13.6.5.1 Whenever the CSA B415.1-2010 overall efficiency is
found to be lower than the overall efficiency based on load side
measurements, as determined by Eq. 22 of this method, section 14.1.7
of the test report must include a discussion of the reasons for this
result. For a test where the CSA B415.1-2010 overall efficiency SLM
is less than 2 percentage points lower than the overall efficiency
based on load side measurements,
[[Page 6411]]
the efficiency based on load side measurements shall be considered
invalid. [Note on the rationale for the 2 percentage points limit.
The SLM method does not include boiler/heater jacket losses and, for
this reason, should provide an efficiency which is actually higher
than the efficiency based on the energy input and output
measurements or ``delivered efficiency.'' A delivered efficiency
that is higher than the efficiency based on the SLM could be
considered suspect. A delivered efficiency greater than 2 percentage
points higher than the efficiency based on the SLM, then, clearly
indicates a measurement error.]
13.6.6 Carbon Monoxide Emissions
For each minute of the test period, the carbon monoxide emission
rate shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.022
Total CO emissions for each of the three test periods
(CO--1, CO--2, CO--3) shall be
calculated as the sum of the emission rates for each of the 1 minute
intervals. Total CO emission for the test run, COT, shall
be calculated as the sum of CO--1, CO--2, and
CO--3.
13.7 Weighted Average Emissions and Efficiency.
13.7.1 Determine the weighted average emission rate and
delivered efficiency from the individual tests in the specified heat
output categories. The weighting factors (Fi) are derived
from an analysis of ASHRAE Bin Data which provides details of normal
building heating requirements in terms of percent of design capacity
and time in a particular capacity range--or ``bin''--over the course
of a heating season. The values used in this method represent an
average of data from several cities located in the northern United
States.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.023
If, as discussed in section 12.5.8, the option to eliminate
tests in Category II and III is elected, the values of efficiency
and particulate emission rate as measured in Category I, shall be
assigned also to Category II and III for the purpose of determining
the annual averages.
14.0 Report
14.1.1 The report shall include the following:
14.1.2 Name and location of the laboratory conducting the test.
14.1.3 A description of the appliance tested and its condition,
date of receipt and dates of tests.
14.1.4 A description of the minimum amount of external thermal
storage that is required for use with this system. This shall be
specified both in terms of volume in gallons and stored energy
content in Btu with a storage temperature ranging from
125[emsp14][deg]F to the manufacturer's specified setpoint
temperature.
14.1.5 A statement that the test results apply only to the
specific appliance tested.
14.1.6 A statement that the test report shall not be reproduced
except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.
14.1.7 A description of the test procedures and test equipment
including a schematic or other drawing showing the location of all
required test equipment. Also, a description of test fuel sourcing,
handling and storage practices shall be included.
14.1.8 Details of deviations from, additions to or exclusions
from the test method, and their data quality implications on the
test results (if any), as well as information on specific test
conditions, such as environmental conditions.
14.1.9 A list of participants and their roles and observers
present for the tests.
14.1.10 Data and drawings indicating the fire box size and
location of the fuel charge.
14.1.11 Drawings and calculations used to determine firebox
volume.
14.1.12 Information for each test run fuel charge including
piece size, moisture content and weight.
14.1.13 All required data and applicable blanks for each test
run shall be provided in spreadsheet format both in the printed
report and in a computer file such that the data can be easily
analyzed and calculations easily verified. Formulas used for all
calculations shall be accessible for review.
14.1.14 For each test run,
[Theta]1,[Theta]2, [Theta]3, the
total CO and particulate emission for each of these three periods,
and [Theta]4.
14.1.15 Calculated results for delivered efficiency at each heat
output rate and the weighted average emissions reported as total
emissions in grams, pounds per million Btu of delivered heat, grams
per MJ of delivered heat, grams per kilogram of dry fuel and grams
per hour. Results shall be reported for each heat output category
and the weighted average.
14.1.16 Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 2 must be used for
presentation of results in test reports.
14.1.17 A statement of the estimated uncertainty of measurement
of the emissions and efficiency test results.
14.1.18 A plot of CO emission rate in grams/minute vs. time,
based on 1 minute averages, for the entire test period, for each
run.
14.1.19 A plot of estimated boiler/heater energy release rate in
Btu/hr based on 10 minute averages, for the entire test period, for
each run. This will be calculated from the fuel used, the wood
heating value and moisture content, and the SLM efficiency during
each 10 minute period.
14.1.20 Raw data, calibration records, and other relevant
documentation shall be retained by the laboratory for a minimum of 7
years.
15.0 Precision and Bias
15.1 Precision--It is not possible to specify the precision of
the procedure in this test method because the appliance operation
and fueling protocols and the appliances themselves produce variable
amounts of emissions and cannot be used to determine reproducibility
or repeatability of this test method.
15.2 Bias--No definitive information can be presented on the
bias of the procedure in this test method for measuring solid fuel
burning hydronic heater emissions because no material having an
accepted reference value is available.
16.0 Keywords
16.1 Solid fuel, hydronic heating appliances, wood-burning
hydronic heaters, partial thermal storage.
[[Page 6412]]
Table 1A--Data Summary Part A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Theta] Wfuel MCave Qin Qout
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test duration Wood weight as- Wood moisture Heat input
Category Run No. Load % capacity Target load Actual load Actual load ----------------- fired ----------------------------------
----------------- Heat input
lb %DB Btu Btu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............... ............... <15% of max.......
II.............. ............... 16-24% of max.....
III............. ............... 25-50% of max.....
IV.............. ............... Max capacity......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1B--Data Summary Part B
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T2 Min ET E E Eg/hr Eg/kg [eta]del [EEgr]SLM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min return water Total PM PM output based PM output based PM rate PM factor Delivered Stack loss
Category Run No. Load % capacity temp. emissions --------------------------------------------------------------------- efficiency efficiency
------------------------------------ ---------------------------------
[deg]F g lb/MMBtu Out g/MJ g/hr g/kg % %
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............... ............... <15% of max.......
II.............. ............... 16-24% of max.....
III............. ............... 25-50% of max.....
IV.............. ............... Max capacity......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1C--Data Summary Part C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Theta]1 [Theta]2 [Theta]3 CO_1 CO_2 CO_3 COT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Startup time. Steady state End time Startup CO Steady state End CO Total CO
Category Run No. Load % capacity --------------- time --------------- emission CO emission emission emission
--------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
min min min g g g g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............. ............. <15% of max.....
II............ ............. 16-24% of max...
III........... ............. 25-50% of max...
IV............ ............. Max capacity....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1D--Data Summary Part D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E1 E2 E3 E1_g/kg E2_g/kg E3_g/kg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Startup PM Steady state End PM Startup PM Steady state End PM
Category Run No. Load % capacity ---------------- PM --------------- emission PM emission emission
---------------- index index index
g g --------------------------------------------
g g/kg fuel g/kg fuel g/kg fuel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............. ............. <15% of max.....
II............ ............. 16-24% of max...
III........... ............. 25-50% of max...
IV............ ............. Max capacity....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1E--Label Summary Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANUFACTURER:
MODEL NUMBER:
ANNUAL EFFICIENCY RATING:......... [eta]avg.................. .......................... (Using higher
heating value).
PARTICLE EMISSIONS:............... Eavg...................... .......................... GRAMS/HR (average).
LBS/MILLION Btu/hr
OUTPUT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Annual Weighting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting [eta]del,i x Elb/MMBtu Out,i x
Category factor (Fi) Fi Eg/MJ,i x Fi Eg/kg,i x Fi Fi Eg/hr,i x Fi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................................................... 0.437
II.................................................. 0.238
[[Page 6413]]
III................................................. 0.275
IV.................................................. 0.050
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.......................................... 1.000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.007
[[Page 6414]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE14.008
0
7. Revise Appendix I to Part 60 to read as follows:
Appendix I to Part 60--Owner's Manuals for Wood-Burning Heaters Subject
to Subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR of Part 60
1. Introduction
The purpose of this appendix is to provide specific instructions
to manufacturers for compliance with the owner's manual provisions
of subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR of this part.
2. Instructions for Preparation of Wood Heater Owner's Manuals
2.1 Introduction
Although the owner's manuals do not require premarket approval,
EPA will monitor the contents to ensure that sufficient information
is included to provide heater operation and maintenance information
affecting emissions to consumers. The purpose of this section is to
provide instructions to manufacturers for compliance with the
owner's manual provisions of Sec. 60.536(f) of subpart AAA that
applies to wood heaters, Sec. 60.5478(f) of subpart QQQQ that
applies to hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces, and Sec.
60.5490(g) of subpart RRRR that applies to masonry heaters. A
checklist of topics and illustrative language is provided as
instructions. Owner's manuals should be tailored to specific wood
heater models, as appropriate.
2.2 Topics Required To Be Addressed in Owner's Manual
(a) Wood heater description and compliance status;
(b) Tamper warning;
(c) Catalyst information and warranty (if catalyst equipped);
(d) Fuel selection;
(e) Achieving and maintaining catalyst light-off (if catalyst
equipped);
(f) Catalyst monitoring (if catalyst equipped);
(g) Troubleshooting catalytic equipped heaters (if catalyst
equipped);
(h) Catalyst replacement (if catalyst equipped);
(i) Wood heater operation and maintenance; and
(j) Wood heater installation: achieving proper draft.
2.3 Sample Text/Descriptions
(a) The following are example texts and/or further descriptions
illustrating the topics identified above. Although the regulation
requires manufacturers to address (where applicable) the ten topics
identified above, the exact language is not specified. Manuals
should be written specific to the model and design of the wood
heater. The following instructions are composed of generic
descriptions and texts.
(b) If manufacturers choose to use the language provided in the
example, the portion in italics should be revised as appropriate.
Any manufacturer electing to use the EPA example language will be
considered to be in compliance with owner's manual requirements
provided that the particular language is printed in full with only
such changes as are necessary to ensure accuracy.
Example language is not provided for certain topics, since these
areas are generally heater specific. For these topics, manufacturers
should develop text that is specific to the operation and
maintenance of their particular products.
2.3.1 Wood Heater Description and Compliance Status
Owner's Manuals must include:
(a) Manufacturer and model;
(b) Compliance status (exempt, 1990 std., 2015 std., etc.); and
(c) Heat output range.
Exhibit 1--Example Text covering (a), (b), and (c) above:
``This manual describes the installation and operation of the
Brand X, Model 0 catalytic equipped wood heater. This heater meets
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's emission limits for wood
heaters sold after January 1, 2015. Under specific test
[[Page 6415]]
conditions this heater has been shown to deliver heat at rates
ranging from 8,000 to 35,000 Btu/hr.''
2.3.2 Tamper Warning
The following statement must be included in the owner's manual
for catalyst-equipped units:
``This wood heater contains a catalytic combustor, which needs
periodic inspection and replacement for proper operation. It is
against the law to operate this wood heater in a manner inconsistent
with operating instructions in this manual, or if the catalytic
element is deactivated or removed.''
2.3.3 Catalyst Information
The following information must be included with or supplied in
the owner's and warranty manuals:
(a) Catalyst manufacturer and model;
(b) Catalyst warranty details; and
(c) Instructions for warranty claims.
Exhibit 2--Example Text covering (a), (b), and (c):
``The combustor supplied with this heater is a Brand Z, Long
Life Combustor. Consult the catalytic combustor warranty also
supplied with this wood heater. Warranty claims should be addressed
to:
Stove or Catalyst Manufacturer-----------------------------------------
Address----------------------------------------------------------------
Phone --------------------------------------------------------
2.3.3.1 This section should also provide clear instructions on how to
exercise the warranty (how to package for return shipment, etc.).
2.3.4 Fuel Selection
Owner's manuals must include:
(a) Instructions on acceptable fuels; and
(b) Warning against inappropriate fuels.
Exhibit 3--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.''
2.3.5 Achieving and Maintaining Catalyst Light-Off
Owner's manuals must describe in detail proper procedures for:
(a) Operation of catalyst bypass (stove specific),
(b) Achieving catalyst light-off from a cold start, and
(c) Achieving catalyst light-off when refueling.
2.3.5.1 No example text is supplied for describing operation of
catalyst bypass mechanisms (Item (a) above) since these are
typically stove-specific. Manufacturers must provide instructions
specific to their model describing:
(1) Bypass position during startup;
(2) Bypass position during normal operation; and
(3) Bypass position during reloading.
Exhibit 4--Example Text for Item (b):
``The temperature in the stove and the gases entering the
combustor must be raised to between 500[deg] to 700[deg]F for
catalytic activity to be initiated. During the startup of a cold
stove, a medium to high firing rate must be maintained for about 20
minutes. This ensures that the stove, catalyst, and fuel are all
stabilized at proper operating temperatures. Even though it is
possible to have gas temperatures reach 600[deg]F within 2 to 3
minutes after a fire is started, if the fire is allowed to die down
immediately it may go out or the combustor may stop working. Once
the combustor starts working, heat generated in it by burning the
smoke will keep it working.''
Exhibit 5--Example Text for Item (c):
``REFUELING: During the refueling and rekindling of a cool fire,
or a fire that has burned down to the charcoal phase, operate the
stove at a medium to high firing rate for about 10 minutes to ensure
that the catalyst reaches approximately 600[emsp14][deg]F.''
2.3.6 Catalyst Monitoring
Owner's manuals must include:
(a) Recommendation to visually inspect combustor at least three
times during the heating season;
(b) Discussion on expected combustor temperatures for monitor-
equipped units; and
(c) Suggested monitoring and inspection techniques.
Exhibit 6--Example Text covering (a), (b) and (c):
``It is important to periodically monitor the operation of the
catalytic combustor to ensure that it is functioning properly and to
determine when it needs to be replaced. A non-functioning combustor
will result in a loss of heating efficiency, and an increase in
creosote and emissions. Following is a list of items that should be
checked on a periodic basis:
Combustors should be visually inspected at least three
times during the heating season to determine if physical degradation
has occurred. Actual removal of the combustor is not recommended
unless more detailed inspection is warranted because of decreased
performance. If any of these conditions exists, refer to Catalyst
Troubleshooting section of this owner's manual.
This catalytic heater is equipped with a temperature
probe to monitor catalyst operation. Properly functioning combustors
typically maintain temperatures in excess of 500[emsp14][deg]F, and
often reach temperatures in excess of 1,000[emsp14][deg]F. If
catalyst temperatures are not in excess of 500[emsp14][deg]F, refer
to Catalyst Troubleshooting section of this owner's manual.
You can get an indication of whether the catalyst is
working by comparing the amount of smoke leaving the chimney when
the smoke is going through the combustor and catalyst light-off has
been achieved, to the amount of smoke leaving the chimney when the
smoke is not routed through the combustor (bypass mode).
Step 1--Light stove in accordance with instructions in 3.3.5.
Step 2--With smoke routed through the catalyst, go outside and
observe the emissions leaving the chimney.
Step 3--Engage the bypass mechanism and again observe the
emissions leaving the chimney.
Significantly more smoke should be seen when the exhaust is not
routed through the combustor (bypass mode). Be careful not to
confuse smoke with steam from wet wood.''
2.3.7 Catalyst Troubleshooting
The owner's manual must provide clear descriptions of symptoms
and remedies to common combustor problems. It is recommended that
photographs of catalyst peeling, plugging, thermal cracking,
mechanical cracking, and masking be included in the manual to aid
the consumer in identifying problems and to provide direction for
corrective action.
2.3.8 Catalyst Replacement
The owner's manual must provide clear step-by-step instructions
on how to remove and replace the catalytic combustor. The section
should include diagrams and/or photographs.
2.3.9 Wood Heater Operation and Maintenance
Owner's manual must include:
(a) Recommendations about building and maintaining a fire;
(b) Instruction on proper use of air controls;
(c) Ash removal and disposal;
(d) Instruction on gasket replacement; and
(e) Warning against overfiring.
2.3.9.1 No example text is supplied for (a), (b), and (d) since
these items are model specific. Manufacturers should provide
detailed instructions on building and maintaining a fire including
selection of fuel pieces, fuel quantity, and stacking arrangement.
Manufacturers should also provide instruction on proper air settings
(both primary and secondary) for attaining minimum and maximum heat
outputs and any special instructions for operating thermostatic
controls. Step-by-step instructions on inspection and replacement of
gaskets should also be included. Manufacturers should provide
diagrams and/or photographs to assist the consumer. Gasket type and
size should be specified.
Exhibit 7--Example Text for Item (c):
``Whenever ashes get 3 to 4 inches deep in your firebox or ash
pan, and when the fire has burned down and cooled, remove excess
ashes. Leave an ash bed approximately 1 inch deep on the firebox
bottom to help maintain a hot charcoal bed.''
``Ashes should be placed in a metal container with a tight-
fitting lid. The closed container of ashes should be placed on a
noncombustible floor or on the ground, away
[[Page 6416]]
from all combustible materials, pending final disposal. The ashes
should be retained in the closed container until all cinders have
thoroughly cooled.''
Exhibit 8--Example Text covering Item (e):
``DO NOT OVERFIRE THIS HEATER''
``Attempts to achieve heat output rates that exceed heater
design specifications can result in permanent damage to the heater
and to the catalytic combustor if so equipped.''
2.3.10 Wood Heater Installation: Achieving Proper Draft
Owner's manual must include:
(a) Importance of proper draft;
(b) Conditions indicating inadequate draft; and
(c) Conditions indicating excessive draft.
Exhibit 9--Example Text for Item (a):
``Draft is the force which moves air from the appliance up
through the chimney. The amount of draft in your chimney depends on
the length of the chimney, local geography, nearby obstructions, and
other factors. Too much draft may cause excessive temperatures in
the appliance and may damage the catalytic combustor. Inadequate
draft may cause backpuffing into the room and `plugging' of the
chimney or the catalyst.''
Exhibit 10--Example Text for Item (b):
``Inadequate draft will cause the appliance to leak smoke into
the room through appliance and chimney connector joints.''
Exhibit 11--Example Text for Item (c):
``An uncontrollable burn or a glowing red stove part or chimney
connector indicates excessive draft.''
[FR Doc. 2014-00409 Filed 1-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
