Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, September 30, 2013, page 1

Position Statement from Citizen Group for September 30, 2013, Meeting with OMB on EPA's Proposed Revisions to the NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters
We strongly support updating the outdated New Sourc e Performance Standards (NSPS) for residential wood heaters, which is 17 years overdue. 1 However, we oppose the Environmental Protection Ag ency's (EPA) proposed NSPS for hydronic heaters (outdoor a nd indoor) because it will not fulfill the EPA's mandate to protect public health under the Clean Ai r Act. 2 Under the law, EPA is required to adopt a health-protective NSPS. 1

We oppose EPA's proposed hydronic heater emission l evel of .32 lb/mmBTU of fine particulate (PM2.5), which is based on its Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic H eater Voluntary Program (Phase 2 hydronic heater), for the following reasons:

Reason 1: The proposed NSPS does not provide health-protecti ve standards because it does not regulate short-term exposures. Proposed emission le vels and testing method do not protect human health because emissions are averaged over a comple te 8-hour burn cycle using EPA Method 28 WHH instead of the highest emission level during an ind ividual test run, as used by the State of Washingto n to protect public health. 7 This allows hazardous emission spikes to exceed th e maximum level, especially during startup and damper mode. It is a well-establ ished fact that exposure to short-term, high-levels of PM2.5 from hydronic heaters causes adverse respirat ory and cardiovascular health effects. 3 EPA's own study found that a Phase 2-qualified hydronic heate r emissions were "highly cyclic" and exceeded health-protective standards with frequent PM2.5 spi kes over 100 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), which EPA has determined is unhealthy for all human s. 4 Another Phase 2-qualified hydronic heater in Alaska had PM2.5 emissions spikes over 1000 ug/m3. 5 , which is twice the amount of what EPA considers the highest level of hazardous air (Air Quality Ind ex highest calculation is 500 ug/m3). 6 If EPA sets a maximum emission level in the NSPS as a health-prot ective standard, it should not be exceeded at any time during the 8-hour burn cycle. You can't have h ealth-protective standards without regulating short

term exposures.

Reason 2: The proposed NSPS does not measure emissions in gr ams/hour, as in the existing NSPS for EPA's certified wood stoves. BTU measurements do no t account for operational variables and have proven efficiency rating flaws as admitted by EPA i n its May 9, 2013, letter to manufacturers. 15 The emission test should be a simple stack test of gram s/hour that cannot be exceeded at any time, as used by the State of Washington to protect public health

. 7

Reason 3: The proposed NSPS does not set a limit on Carbon M onoxide (CO) emissions. EPA's proposed NSPS fails to regulate other hazardous air pollutan ts from hydronic heaters including Carbon Monoxide (CO), a deadly air toxin. The CO emissions from hyd ronic heaters in EPA's recent study was so high it killed the test mice, so they were unable to comple te the test: "Emissions toxicity results from anima l exposure experiments were inconclusive, as extreme dilution of the combustion gas was necessary to avoid immediate acute toxic effects from the CO tha t at times exceeded 10,000 parts per million (ppm)." 4Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, September 30, 2013, page 2

Reason 4: The proposed NSPS is based on flawed engineering d esign. Phase 2 hydronic heater emissions are a proven health threat and nuisance to neighbor s because they are designed to cycle and smolder. Our personal experiences with Phase 2 hydronic heat ers, EPA's proposed standard, is that they smoke as much as the nonqualified units and are hazardous to human health, as shown in the photos and videos we've submitted, and as vetted by the State of Alas ka in Alaska v. Straughn, 8 and shown in EPA's own study 4 and in a recent public television documentary. 17 Even a major hydronic heater manufacturer (Central Boiler) acknowledges in its Phase 2 hydron ic heater owner's manual that its EPA-qualified devices can cause nuisance conditions even when pro perly operated: “Improper use or failure to maintain the hydronic heater may cause nuisance con ditions. The person(s) operating a hydronic heater is/are responsible for operation in a manner that d oes not create a public or private nuisance conditi on. Meeting the distance and stack height recommendatio ns from the manufacturer and requirements in applicable State and local regulations may not alwa ys be adequate to prevent nuisance conditions in some areas due to terrain or other factors." 9

Reason 5: The NSPS is not based on best available technologi es. EPA's updated NSPS must be based on the "best system of emission reduction...adequately demonstrated" as required by the Clean Air Act. 1 But, EPA's proposed NSPS fails to comply with that requirement. There are commercially available hydronic heaters with lower emissions than what EPA is proposing. There are commercially available hydronic heaters that don't cycle and smolder, that burn at complete combustion temperatures, and that capture excess heat in thermal storage. 4EPA's website lists 6 qualified Phase 2 hydronic heaters that emit significantly less than the proposed stan dards (.04 to .08 lbs/mmBTU). 10 A commercially available hydronic heater compliant with European U nion emission standards emitted approximately 94 percent less PM2.5, 92 percent less CO, and 89 perc ent less carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons than an EPA-qualified Phase 2 hydronic heater, while using 33 to 45 percent less fuel. 4 In comparison, a Phase 2 hydronic heater in the Fairba nks v. Straughn case used 20 cords of wood for one burn season. 8 EPA's own report shows that using thermal storage and burning at complete combustion temperatures can significantly reduce emissions fro m hydronic heaters. 4 The Farm Bureau and others have argued that they need hydronic heaters to heat water year round. 11 Requiring thermal storage would address their demands, while significantly re ducing emissions.
We are adamantly opposed to the argument that these commercially available technologies are cost prohibitive to manufacturers and consumers. This argument just shifts the cost to the neighbors living next door to hydronic heaters. Unlike moving out of the way of smoke at a campfire , neighbors next to hydronic heaters cannot move out of the way of the smoke to protect their health and the value of thei r property. Instead, neighbors must pay excessive and unreasonable costs for medical expenses, civil litigation expenses, air filtering expenses, loss o f property value and moving expenses. 8,17 In one known case, it cost a human life as documented in the wro ngful death lawsuit, Paris v. Lussier 12 In Alaska, the state, at great cost, shut down a Phase 2 hydronic heater because it posed a significant health threa t to neighbors and a nearby school. This was after signi ficant mitigation costs borne by the school and the neighbors failed. 8 These are not isolated incidents. Seven states ha ve implemented regulations on hydronic heaters in response to complaints from nei ghbors; all because EPA failed to regulate these devices. In Wisconsin and Minnesota, over 200 loca l governments in each state implemented hydronicPosition Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, September 30, 2013, page 3

heater ordinances in response to complaints from ne ighbors and to protect human health. 13 Washington State set a hydronic heater emission level of 4.5 g rams/hour of PM2.5 to protect human health. 7 And in August 2012, 44 states supported the Environmental Council of the States resolution to update the NSPS to establish rigorous and health-protect standards for hydronic heaters. 14All of this regulatory activity is in response to complaints from neighbors to hydroni c heaters heaters who have suffered adverse health effects and borne the cost of EPA failing to comply with the law. The proposed NSPS continues this failure to issue health-protective standards and co mply with the law and will continue to shift this cost to neighbors.
We support an NSPS that has proven health-protectiv e standards and sets emission levels on grams per hour that cannot be exceeded, as used by the State of Washington. 7 Hydronic heater technologies are commercially available that significantly reduce to xic air emissions beyond what EPA is proposing. The cost of EPA's regulatory failure can no longer be s hifted to the neighbors. Therefore, we urge OMB to reject the EPA’s proposed NSPS emission standards f or hydronic heaters and require EPA to comply with the Clean Air Act and issue health-protective stand ards in regulating hydronic heaters.
We also support the same requests made on August 10 , 2013 to EPA by the attorneys general of the states of New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachu setts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency; and by the American L ung Association, Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and Environment and Human Health, Inc

. 16

Citizen Group: Nancy Alderman, Patrice Lee, Bonnie Lichak, Sylvi a Schultz, and Andrea Wieland



### References

(1) 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA
(2) Clean Air Act, Section 111(b)(1)(A)
(3) Assessment of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers (2006) . NESCAUM; Woodsmoke Health Effects: A review (2006). Luke. P. Naeher, et al., Inhalation Toxicol ogy 67, 82-87; Smoke Gets In Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State (2008). New York Att orney General, Environmental Protection Bureau; The Dangers to Health from Outdoor Wood Furnaces (2 010). Nancy Alderman, et al., Environment and Human Health, Inc.; An Assessment of Risk from Par ticulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers (2007). David R. Brown, et al., Human and Ecologica l Risk Assessment, 13: 191–208; Outdoor Wood Boiler Investigation Health Consultation, Pleasant Lake, Michigan (October 13, 2009). U.S. Department of Health Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease R egistry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation.
(4) Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Charac terization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies (June 2012). Brian Gullett, et al., EP A, NYSERDA.

(5) Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Divisi on measured peaks up to 1,088.3 μg/m3 on 1/10/2009 at 12:26 pm using DataRAM mobile monitori ng.Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, September 30, 2013, page 4

(6) EPA Air Quality Index Calculator: Concentration to AQI http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=resources.co nc_aqi_calc

(7) Washington Dept. of Ecology, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/outdoor_woodsmok e/Wood_boilers.htm
(8) State of Alaska v. Straughn, case number 4FA-13 -01205CI
(9) Central Boiler E-Classic 2400 Phase 2 Owner's M anual
(10) EPA List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html
(11) Hearing Report on the Matter of Proposed Part 247 (Outdoor Wood Boilers) (July 30, 2010). State o f New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation, http://www.dec.ny.gov/hearings/68000.html
(12) Paris v. Lussier, 842-11-08l, Vermont, Wrongf ul Death Lawsuit. https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/UPEO2006-2010/eo10 -034.pdf and http://www.7dvt.com/2009outdoor-wood-boilers-approp riate-technology-or-deadly-device
(13) Minnesota and Wisconsin Local Hydronic Heater Ordinances and Regulations: http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/Air/OWBOrdinanceRep ort.htm and http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document. html?gid=18425
(14) ECOS Resolution 12-3, **Regarding New Source Performance Standards for Resi dential**  **Wood Burning Devices** , Approved August 28, 2012, Colorado Springs, Color ado.
(15) EPA Letter to Hydronic Heater Program Partners , May 9, 2013. http://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/epa-ltr-to-c b-pdf.105199/
(16) Letter of Notice of Intent to Sue from Attorne ys General from New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont an d the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, August 1, 2013; and Le tter of Notice of Intent to Sue from American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Environmental Defen se Fund and Environment and Human Health Inc, to Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, August 1, 2013.

(17) WCNY New York Public Television Documentary on Wood Boilers, September 27, 2013: http://video.wcny.org/video/2365087958/