NOTE—NTAA recommends that you begin your Tribe’s comment letter with
introductory remarks regarding the signatory’s position with the Tribe and include
somewhere in the letter a description of the Tribe’s physical environment and any
particular concerns the Tribe has with respect to this proposed NSPS revision. The
more individual each Tribe’s letter is, the greater its potential impact. Feel free to
add you own arguments, objections or support for various aspects of the proposal.
The deadline for comments is May 5th, 2014.
EPA Docket Center
EPA West (Air Docket)
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 2822T
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC, 20460
Subject:
Proposed Rule for Standards of Performance for New
Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters
and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry
Heaters
Introduction
The (NAME OF TRIBE) is pleased to submit these comments regarding the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)’s proposed rule for Standards of Performance
for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air
Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters (Proposed Rule).
The (NAME OF TRIBE) approves generally of the Proposed Rule. However, the
(NAME OF TRIBE) finds it necessary to provide EPA with its comments and
recommendations regarding health concerns related to the pollutants emitted by residential wood
heaters, residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces, and residential masonry heaters
wood heaters (collectively “Wood Heaters”), the use of a two-step compliance approach for
meeting the emissions limits of the Proposed Rule, addressing carbon monoxide (CO) emissions,
the use of permanent labels on Wood Heaters, providing information on fuel usage for Wood
Heaters, and Tribal consultation conducted by EPA regarding the Proposed Rule and its
outcome.
Health Concerns about Wood Heater Emissions
The (NAME OF TRIBE) recognizes that many people heat their homes and work places
with wood. Wood smoke is made up of a mixture of different pollutants including fine particles
(PM-2.5), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and CO that are produced when wood and other
organic matter is burned. These pollutants can cause the following health effects:
PM-2.5: Premature death in people with heart or lung disease; nonfatal heart attacks; irregular
heartbeats; aggravated asthma, decreased lung function; increased respiratory symptoms such as
irritation of the airways; and coughing or difficulty breathing
VOCs: Eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches; loss of coordination; nausea; and damage to
liver, kidney, and central nervous system
CO: Visual impairment; reduced work capacity; reduced manual dexterity; poor learning ability;
and difficulty in performing complex tasks
Indian Tribes are not immune from the health effects of such pollutants. In fact, many of
these health effects, such as asthma, are more highly prevalent in Tribal communities than other
communities.1
The (NAME OF TRIBE) expects that the Proposed Rule will lessen the adverse health
effects of PM-2.5, VOCs, and CO on Tribal members given the projected reductions of such
emissions outlined in the rule. For example, EPA estimates that the Proposed Rule will reduce
PM-2.5 emissions from new manufactured woodstoves, pellet stoves, hydronic heaters, and
forced air furnaces by an estimated 4,825 tons per year2 – an 80% reduction over current
emissions rates – and that VOCs and CO emissions will be reduced by 76% and 72%
respectively. These are emissions reductions that the (NAME OF TRIBE) finds acceptable and
beneficial to Indian Tribes and their members.
Two-Step Compliance Approach
The (NAME OF TRIBE) understands that, except for masonry heaters, the EPA is
proposing as the best system of emissions reduction for Wood Heaters, a phased implementation
of emissions limits for manufacturers that involves a two-step compliance approach.
Specifically, Wood Heaters would be required to meet a baseline emissions limit on the effective
date of the Proposed Rule and a more stringent emissions limit five years later.
EPA asks whether the two-step compliance approach strikes the right balance between
(1) avoiding undue economic burdens on manufacturers and consumers and (2) the need to get
better performing Wood Heater models on the market as soon as possible to reduce emissions.3.
The (NAME OF TRIBE) finds that it does. Absent a phased approach, the smallest of Wood
Heater manufacturers would be required to comply with a single emissions limit on the effective
date of the Proposed Rule. This could realistically cause a number of said manufacturers to go
“Asthma in Tribal Communities” viewed at http://www.epa.gov/iaqtribal (last visited April 16, 2014).
“Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air
Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heater,” 79 Fed. Reg. 6330, 6348 (February 3, 2014).
3
Id. at 6366.
1
2
out of business.4 Further, other manufacturers could realistically be forced to increase the sales
price of their Wood Heaters to absorb the cost of redesigning them to comply with the single
emissions limit. The (NAME OF TRIBE) suspects that many Tribal members would be unable
to absorb correspondingly the increased cost of these Wood Heaters into their own budgets,
which are already constrained in meeting other basic demands such as food and housing.
Finally, laboratories designated to test Wood Heaters for compliance with a single emissions
limit would likely face a logjam of such models to test in a very short time, a task that the
(NAME OF TRIBE) finds difficult if not impossible for the laboratories to complete timely.5
The two-step compliance approach gives manufacturers, big and small, the time
necessary to redesign their Wood Heaters to meet the emissions limits and certification process
required by the Proposed Rule while spreading the cost for doing so over a five-year period.
Financially speaking, this is a much more palatable approach for manufacturers that may have
insufficient funds currently for the research and development necessary to redesign Wood
Heaters to meet in a very short time period the more stringent emissions limits provided under
the Proposed Rule.6 Further, manufacturers might feel less inclined to pass on the costs of
redesigned Wood Heaters to consumers since the manufacturers could absorb the costs
themselves over a long time period. Finally, testing laboratories would unlikely face a logjam of
Wood Heaters to test since they would have a five year period in which to complete the tests.7
Most important is that EPA estimates overall emissions reductions for Wood Heaters
using the two-step compliance approach greater than the emissions limits that Wood Heaters
must meet currently. Further, the costs of compliance using the two-step approach are far
outweighed by the monetized health benefits of the Proposed Rule. The (NAME OF TRIBE)
favors the two-step compliance approach that results in vast emissions reductions and health
savings compared to a shorter, single emissions limit compliance approach that would place
undue burdens on manufacturers and consumers alike.
Carbon Monoxide
EPA provides that it will not establish carbon monoxide (CO) emissions standards for
Wood Heaters under the Proposed Rule.8 However, EPA will require manufacturers to measure
and collect CO emissions during compliance tests.9 In turn, EPA may use this information to
establish future CO emission limits for Wood Heaters.10 The (NAME OF TRIBE) finds the
collection of such data very important.
4
Id. at 6361. EPA considered whether it should allow a longer lead time over which small manufacturers/builders
could spread their research and development costs in order to stay in business. The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Act Panel strongly recommended that EPA consider allowing more time.
5
Id. at 6332, 6339, 6370 (see Small Business Advocacy Review Panel recommendations).
Id. at 6365. EPA finds that a 6-year lead time under the two-step approach will allow manufacturers a reasonable
time to develop complying models, access the necessary capital to develop them, and complete the certification
process.
6
7
Id. at 6332, 6339, 6370 (see Small Business Advocacy Review Panel recommendations).
Id. at 6366.
9
Id.
10
Id.
8
The (NAME OF TRIBE) understands also that EPA seeks comment on whether the
Proposed Rule should require the presence of CO monitors contiguous to each Wood Heater to
help ensure “proper operation of the heater and to reduce health and safety concerns for
appliances that are installed in occupied areas.”11 The (NAME OF TRIBE) finds inclusion of
CO monitors necessary, particularly since excessive CO concentrations within the home can
cause adverse health effects, and even death, for residents.
Permanent Labels
The (NAME OF TRIBE) understands that the Proposed Rule would require all Wood
Heaters sold in the United States to have a permanent label indicating that they are EPA-certified
to meet emission limits outlined in the Proposed Rule.12 This label – currently required for
adjustable burn-rate woodstoves – would signal to consumers that a Wood Heater meets EPA
standards. The Proposed Rule would also require testing and reporting on efficiency13 (and CO
mentioned above) that would provide consumers with valuable information for their use in
making decisions about what Wood Heaters to select for their homes. The (NAME OF TRIBE)
agrees with the use of permanent labels and any additional information that will help consumers
make informed decisions about the Wood Heaters that they purchase.
Information on Fuels
EPA is proposing to include as part of subpart AAA for Wood Heaters a list of prohibited
fuels (e.g., plastics, trash, and yard waste) because such fuels can prevent these heaters from
operating as designed, and even cause hazardous fumes.14 The (NAME OF TRIBE) finds
inclusion of this list under subpart AAA to be appropriate and further agrees with EPA’s
proposed requirement that direct distribution manufacturers and retailers of Wood Heaters
provide a moisture meter at the time of sale, understanding that the moistness of wood can affect
adversely the efficiency of Wood Heater operations.
Tribal Consultation
EPA provides that the Proposed Rule does “not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175.” The basis for EPA’s finding is that the Proposed Rule would “not
impose any requirements on tribal governments.” Too often, EPA makes assertions about
proposed rules and regulations not having impacts to Indian Tribes when referring to Executive
Order (EO) 13175. However, the (NAME OF TRIBE) finds that EPA does not understand EO
13175 fully or the intent behind it. EO 13175 requires EPA to develop an accountability process
to ensure “meaningful and timely input by development of regulatory policies that have tribal
implications,” not implications to tribal governments.
11
Id.
Id. at 6381.
13
Id. at 6340.
14
Id. at 6364.
12
Nevertheless, the (NAME OF TRIBE) finds that EPA conducted consultation with
Indian Tribes with a positive outcome. Specifically, as a result of consultation with Indian
Tribes and other outreach meetings with Tribal representatives, EPA makes it clear in the
Proposed Rule that “Traditional Native American bake ovens” will not be required to comply
with emissions limits for Wood Heaters (see §60.530(c)(4)) and provides an appropriate
definition for such ovens (see §60.530(1)). The (NAME OF TRIBE) appreciates the inclusion
of these sections in the Proposed Rule and that EPA chose correctly to consult with Tribes.
Conclusion
In summary, the (NAME OF TRIBE) is pleased to provide the aforementioned
comments and recommendations concerning the Proposed Rule.
(If appropriate, provide a staff contact who may be contacted if EPA has clarifying questions)