From: Clean Air Fairbanks < cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com >

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:18 PM To: Green, Gregory; Powers, Tom; Stewart, Lori; Wood, Gil; McCabe, Janet Cc: Atkinson, Emily; Browne, Cynthia Subject: NSPS meeting and comments from Tuesday, 10/14/2014 meeting
Dear Ms. McCabe, Ms. Stewart, Mr. Green, Mr. Powers, and Mr. Wood: Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with Andrea Wieland, Patrice L ee, Roger Soldano, Nancy Alderman, Bonnie Lichak, a nd me on Tuesday.
I submitted my statement to Emily Atkinson, so I assume all of you have received a copy but have attached a PDF version in case you did not. In addition, I am attaching my May NSPS
comm ents since I believe it was Mr. Powers that asked if we had submitted comments or if these were our comments. We all submitted during the comment period. I am also providing several attachments submitted to OMB a year ago including the affidavits and prel iminary injunction order in Alaska v. Straughn. This model of hydronic heater meets the proposed standard to be sold as "EPA certified" but was found a "public nuisance" by a state judge. The injury and cost from two Central Boiler 2300 Phase 2 hydronic heaters near Woodriver Elementary are not limited to just those two hydronic heaters. They are merely the most thoroughly documented in Fairbanks. A hundred or more coal and wood hydronic heaters installed in Fairbanks since 2008 have significantly worsene d nonattainment. PM2.5 24

- hour 98th percentiles in 2012 and 2013 were three times higher than any other nonattainment area in the nation. Again thank you very much for your time and attention to this most serious issue.

-- cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com http://cleanairfairbanks.wordpress.com Polluting is a choice. Breathing is not.October 14, 2014

Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator < mccabe.janet@epa.gov > Gregory Green, Director Outreach and Information Division <Green.Gregory@epa.gov> Office of Air and Radiation US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20760 Also s ubmitted by email to: Emily Atkinson <atkinson.emily@epa.gov>
Dear Assistant Administrator McCabe, Director Gree n, and others in attendance: [Present ation by Patrice Lee]
In May, we submitted a case study documenting over $460 ,000 in public costs from two Phase 2 wood

- fired hydronic heaters in Fairbanks, Alaska. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0734

- 1488 Th e stud y highlights sig nificant cost s and harm s from Phase 2 hydronic heaters meeting EPA ’s propose d standard

. Two Central Boiler 2300 Phase 2 hydronic heaters

 Operated year

- round, 24/7 from 2008 to 2013 in a neighborhood across from Woodriver Elementary School in a PM2.5 nonattainment area

.  After the first year , the owner burned only split , dried wood . No use of prohibited fuels was reported

.  From the s tate inspector’s affidavit: “ It appeared from his description that he was operating them correctly .”

 The l ocal air agency recorded PM2.5 of 1,088.3 micrograms per cubic meter in the street across from the school.

 Agencies recorded 358 smoke complaints from the neighborhood

. 43 percent identified the heaters

.  In 2013, t he State of Alaska took the owner to court . ( A laska v. Straughn case #4FA

- 13

- 01205CI )

 State Superior Court Judge Robert Downes found operation of the two heaters had “ proven to be a public nuisance ” and, after considering the over whelming evidence, ordered burning to cease

.  I was teaching at the school w hen the burning stopped . A ir in the neighborhood, playground, and school became clean. Air monitoring no longer showed high concentrations
over the school.Presentation by Patrice Lee and Sylvia Schultz re Wood Heater NSPS, 10/14/2014, page 2

Harms to Health

 Smoke was “almost constant” and s o thick teachers thought there was a fire in the school.

 The school principal canceled recess repeatedly. S tudents were sent home.

 Teachers missed weeks of work. A 33

- year - old teacher became disabled and can no longer work

.  The s chool nurse identified smoke as the cause of asthma attacks in the children. In a single day , 4 children had asthma attacks
. At least one child was hospitalized.

 Many individuals received medical care including hospitalization and surgeries. Affidavits lis ted antibiotics; steroids pills, eye drops, and inhalers; and painful anti

- allergy shots. Doctors attributed the symptoms to smoke exposure.

 A neighbor was reduced to 20 percent lung function.

 Another neighbor ’s affidavit described smoke inside his home an d that his yard “reeks with the smell

. ” A month later , he died of a massive stroke
.
Costs

 Over $ 360,000 in medical costs

 Over $170,000 in relocation costs

 Over $106,000 in mitigation costs (I ncluding a $67,500 air filtration system for the school

. No oth er school in the district has a filtration system.)

 Public Costs: over $460,000

 Total Costs: over $500,000
What would have prevented Woodriver? We have been told, “It falls on citizens to file civil suits.” This puts the job EPA failed to do on suffering victims. To settle cases, Central Boiler usually requires plaintiffs to agree to seal the
case. EPA needs to set health

- protective NSPS standards now, not five years from now. The two hydronic heaters at Woodriver were Phase 2, cleaner than EPA’s propose d standard of 0.32 pounds per million Btu
. [P resent ation by Sylvia Schultz] Based on our experience in Fairbanks, we strongly oppose certifying any hydronic heater having emission spikes exceeding 4.5 g/hr for any individual test run.

Standard to Protec t Health
Step 1: cap of 4.5 g/hr for individual test runs Step 2 (in 2 yrs): cap of 1.3 g/hr for individual test runsPresentation by Patrice Lee and Sylvia Schultz re Wood Heater NSPS, 10/14/2014, page 3

In 2007, EPA qualified a Phase 1 hydronic heater with a highest individual test run of 8.31 g/hr

. S even years later, EPA has propose d a cap of 7.5 g/hr for individual test runs but has not provided this data for existing Phase 2 heaters.

 Rather than using the unsupported 7.5 g/hr , EPA should base the performance standard on the low est emitting Phase 2 models currently in use

-- “ achieved in practice

. ” 42 USC § 7411 (b)(1)(B)

. B reakpoint s exist after the 4th (Step 2) and 9th (Step 1) lower polluting models.

 EPA shall include requirements to “assure... proper operation and maintenance.” 42 USC § 7411 (h)(1) . These should include: visibility limits, nuisance prohibitions, prohibited fuels, delegation of enforcement to states , and requirements for labeling and compliance with owner’s manual.

 Only continuous

- feed wood pellet models avoid the substantial harm to public health from mis use. “If it fits, it burns” has led some in Fairbanks to heat with garbage, creosote

- treated po les, manure, carpet, and tires.

 EPA should track complaints regarding certified hydronic heaters for consideration in future NSPS reviews.

Revise Test Method to Reflect Actual Use EPA’s test method for hydronic heaters underreport s emissions during actual use. Certifying entire model lines is only valid if the test method represents emissions during operation . EPA’s test method should challeng e a model’s capacit y to emit , as these are consumer

- operated devices without continuous stack monitoring

.

 A grams per hour standard is enforceable on “any owner or operator.” 42 USC § 7411 (e) . A weighted average by rate of heat output is not.

 Harm to health is related to concentration at the time of exposure . EPA has regulated wood heaters with a grams per hour standard for 26 years. Why regulate hydro nic heaters not only under a different standard but by a fundamentally different unit?

 Outdoor models should be tested in realistic ambient temperatures, not in optimal conditions inside a te st facility maintained between 55 and 90°F. (ASTM E2515 ) In Fairb anks , winter temperatures can be more than 100°F colder than inside a cozy lab

. Operation in subzero air reduce s firebox temperatures, causing incomplete combustion and higher emissions.

 M anufacturers should be required to submit results from crib and cord wood tests but require certifying with only the higher values

.  Similarly, manufacturers sh ould be required to submit results from hard wood and softwood but require certifying with the higher. EPA acknowledged concerns about higher emissions from Douglas f ir but d id nothing about it.

 Test models with 30 percent moisture content wood . EPA proposes average moisture content as low as 19 percent, highly unrealistic of actual operator practices.Presentation by Patrice Lee and Sylvia Schultz re Wood Heater NSPS, 10/14/2014, page 4

Central Boiler 2300 Tested by EPA In 2012, EPA tested t he Phase 2 Central Boiler 2300 and reported its emissions in a major 375

- page study. (The report hid the heater’s identity and was not disclosed as a Phase 2 model as corroborated in our May 2014 supplementary submittal.) The study found Central Boiler 2300 particl e emissions averaged 28.75 g/hr (0.69 kg/day)

. Gullett, et al, 201 2, S

- 26

. EPA concluded that th e model “showed considerable emission reduction.” Fed Reg Vol. 79, No. 22, Feb 3, 201 4, 6336 . However, t he 2007 Phase 1 heater was more than three times lower polluting based on highest individual test run.

EPA testing showed high emissions but held up the results as a shining example in the NSPS

. Has EPA noted no reports of problems with Central Boiler 230 0 ? EPA is required to keep a file on the validity of the Phase 2 qualifications

. Phase 2 Partnership Agreement , 7

. How can EPA certify standards that are met by heaters with records o f over 300 complaints , been judged a public nuisance, and have caused incalculable harm ?

EPA
- certified should mean safe

. EPA’s proposed standard for hydronic heaters disregards improvements achieved by the lower polluting hydronic heaters and fails to as sure proper operation or prevent injur y to the public and neighbors. Hydronic heater sales will expand when they are certified. It will discredit the certified wood heater program if reports of harm continue. Thank you for this opportunity.
Patrice Lee, Citizens for Clean Air, Fairbanks, AK Sylvia Schultz, Clean Air Fairbanks, moved to Woodinville, WA from Fairbanks, AKTo: EPA Air and Radiation Docket < a - and

- r - docket@epa.gov >

Subject: Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0734 Date: 5/5 /2014 Gina McCarthy, Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20460
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0734 Re: Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

-

Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonr y Heaters Dear Administrator McCarthy: The following comments are submitted on the US Environmental Protection Agen cy ’ s Proposed Rule, published February 3, 2014 in the Federal Register, entitled Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters [79 FR 6329]. 1

We oppose the unsafe particulate standards proposed for n ew r esidential h ydronic h eaters. 2 The proposed Step 1 standard is 0.32 lb/ million B tu h ea t output and a cap of 7.5 g /hour on effective date of the final rule

. The proposed Step 2 standard of 0.06 lbs/million Btu would take effect five years later

. If finalized as proposed , EPA will begin to regulate new hydronic heaters and certify their
man ufacture, sale, and installation in the United States.
EPA has shown it is in capable of properly limiting hydronic heater emissions as demonstrated by health effects and costs from models qualified under EPA’s Phase 2 program for hydronic heaters. Figure 1 : Photo taken by a student’s parent showing smoke plume from Central Boiler 2300 cros s ing stre et toward Woodriver Elementary, Fairbanks, AK 3/3/24/2011Clean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 2

In 20 08, the Central Boiler 2300 was qualified for EPA’s Phase 2 program with particulate emissions of 0.31 lbs/million Btu output and 6.4 g rams/hour. These levels meet the Proposed Rule Step 1 standard

.
T he two hydronic heaters in Fairbanks led to o ver $460,0 00 of documented public health and other costs. 3 Fairbanks paid a heavy price for inadequate limits on Phase 2 units and has not forgotten the ordeal of harm from two Central Boiler 2300 hydronic heaters a cross from Woodriver Elementary from 2008 to 2013. With the Proposed Rule, EPA has proposed to certify dangerously unsafe hydronic heaters like the two hydronic heaters in Fairbanks. When considering the significant costs of healthcare and largely unsuccessful mitigation, wood

fired hydronic heaters can e asily be the most costly heating system s on the market

. These expensive, h igh emission devices belong nowhere, certainly not in a densely populated residential neighborhood or near a school. Yet, EPA seems unaware that its proposed standard will certify hy dronic heaters like the two in Fairbanks that left dozens of neighbors, teachers, and students damaged and suffering. Preventing endangerment of public health and welfare requires a health

based standard. The test method should accurately predict real wo rld emissions and include safeguards to ensure that actual emissions are not under

- predicted or unsafe

. Consumers and the public should be better informed about the risks and responsibilities of using a hydronic heater. What happened to Woodriver should no t happen to any community ever again.

Following are our specific concerns and recommendations regarding the Proposed Rule. Proposed Rule Fails to Meet Legal Standards EPA’s Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters (outdoor and indoor) does not meet Clean Air Act requirements to protect human health

. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA shall regulate any category of stationary source that in the Administrator’s judgment “ causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipa ted to endanger public health or welfare

. ” 4 EPA’s proposed Step 1 hydronic heater standard has been met by Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters that caused extensive and well

- documented harm to neighboring Figure 2 : FNSB file photo , Central Boiler 2300 as 1,088.3 μg/m 3 PM2.5 was recorded by FNSB mobile monitor , 58 Trinidad Dr, Fairbanks , AKClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 3

residents . EPA’s proposed Step 1 standard is therefo re demonstrably insufficient to protect against new sources that would cause harm to human health. In addition, EPA’s Step 1 proposal for hydronic heaters does not meet the best system of emission reduction (BSER) objective required under the New Source P erformance Standard (NSPS) nor properly consider available technology as required. The Clean Air Act established that NSPS standards shall reflect “ the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reductio n .” 5 I n revising existing standards, the Administrator is required to consider “ emission limitations and percent reductions achieved in practice .” 6 However, what EPA has proposed for the initial regulatory standard is not the best; rather it is based on th e high est emitting model s qualified by EPA’s Phase 2 program. T he proposed NSPS for new residential wood heaters is expected to allow EPA to certify 36 of 40 currently listed Phase 2 hydronic heater models. 7 According to EPA, the proposed initial standard for new hydronic heaters has already been met by “almost all” existing models: 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 des igns and technology. 8
Established in 2008, the Phase 2 voluntary program uses the same 0.32 lb/million Btu standard EPA has included in the 2014 Proposed Rule. The best on the list is eight times better than the worst , showing that technology has advanced even as EPA proposes the same, old standard. Under the Proposed Rule, u nsafe m odels like the two hydronic heaters near Woodriver Elementary could be certified by EPA for sale and installation for five more years

.

Figure 3 : Yea rs of injurious smoke from Central Boiler 2300, 58 Trinidad Dr, Fairbanks, AK
The NSPS for new residential wood heaters was written in 1988 with a minor revision in 1995 and has never been applied to wood

- fired hydronic heaters

. 9 Any performance standard l acking efficacy must be reviewed and appropriately revised every eight years or sooner

. 10 Health studies and technology have advanced while the federal program that certifies residential wood heaters has been frozen in time contrary to requirements in law. A NSPS standard is a performance

- based standard. The Proposed Rule lacks efficacy to control health and safety impacts from hydronic heater performance during actual use.Clean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 4

Inadequate Test Method makes Emission Standard Arbitrary A standard is only as good as its measur ement method. Without a precise and accurate, repeatable method , the standard is arbitrary and inadequate for the required purpose of preventing harm to public health

. EPA’s disclaimer states that proposed test methods for hydronic heaters

‒ Method 28 WHH and Method 28 WHH

- PTS

‒ are not repeatable or reproducible , key elements of the scientific method: 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. 11
EPA’s proposed test method s are similar to an earlier method , Method 28 OWHH , developed in 2006. Method 28 O WHH was found to be inaccurate with an under

- prediction bias . According to a 2012 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) study by EPA , “T he EPA method tends to somewhat under

- predict” emissions from three of the four hydronic he ater models in the study

. 12

Recommendations : S ignificant modifications to EPA’s proposed NSPS for hydronic heaters are needed
.
1. One Emission Standard for EPA Certified Heaters , not Six

EPA ’ s Proposed Rule includes six different emission standards. To redu ce consumer confusion and better protect public health, a single standard should be adopted as quickly as possible : 1.3 g/hr , with an interim standard of 2.5 g/hr.

We support a single emission rate standard of 1.3 grams/hour for all new residential wood , pellet, and biomass heaters including woodstoves, pellet stoves , wood and pellet

- fired hydronic heaters, wood

- fired forced

- air furnaces, and masonry stoves, regardless of whether the heater is catalytic or noncatalytic. This 1.3 g/hr rate should take effec t no longer than two yea rs after the effective date of the final rule

. A single, stringent emission standard for all devices will prevent harm to human health and simplify consumer comparisons between classes of certified residential wood heaters.

An inte rim standard of 2.5 g/hr should take effect on the effective date of the final rule or at least within six months of the effective date . The intent of the interim rate is to swiftly transition manufacturers, dealers, and consumers away from the unnecessary harm and waste of high emission heaters . These regulations need to make all possible efforts to prevent installation of high emission heaters that cause years of ongoing and permanent harm to individuals and burden communities with excessive costs from mo nitoring, enforcement, health care, changeout programs, and lost business investment s
.Clean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 5

The State of Alaska has supported a 2.5 g/hr standard

. In 2013, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) proposed a 2.5 g/hr standard for the seriousl y impacted Fairbanks PM2.5 nonattainment area

. 13 ( More than 900 public comments were received, and the State has not finalized new regulations. ) ADEC’s peer - reviewed justification for its proposed rules offered these findings: 14

 Customers should find econom ical choices available for lower

- emitting stoves.

 There are no significant technological barriers preventing the adoption of the 2.5 g/hr PM2.5 emission standard. The State of Washington has used a 2.5 g/hr standard for catalytic wood heaters since 1995. 15

T echnology is available now to meet stringent, health

- protective standards. Thirteen listed hydronic heaters meet a 2.5 g/hr standard. Five hydronic heaters listed by EPA for Phase 2 meet a 1.3 g/hr standard. 16 These hydronic heaters are available on t he market today. Technology has advanced. EPA’s standards for hydronic heaters cannot ignore these advances

.

2. Use Health

- based Emission Unit for Hydronic Heaters and Wood stoves

We strongly oppose any hydronic heater standard based on emissions per energy input or output as they do not limit maximum emission concentrations (spikes) that harm health at the time of exposure. A performance emission standard to certify new hydronic heaters should limit the rate of particulate s released into ambient air over a set unit of time, such as grams per hour. EPA has regulated and certified wood stoves under a grams per hour standard for 26 years. Why should hydronic heaters be regulated not only under a different standard but by a fundamental ly different unit? The hydr onic heater standard should reflect that p articulate emissions cause human health harm related to concentration at the time of exposure, not by the rate of energy consumed or released by the heater. EPA has failed to justify why hydronic heaters should be regulated under a new sub category called “central heater” with a separate performance standard and unit. In addition to particulates, smoke from woodstoves and hydronic heaters contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, benzene, toluene, po lycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as naphthalene, aldehydes such as formaldehyde, acrolein, propionaldehyde, butryaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and furfural , oxygenated monoaromatics such as guaiacol, phenol, syringol, and catechol , mold spores, metals, dioxin s, and furans. 17 Hydronic heaters differ from woodstoves Figure 4 : The second Central Boiler 2300 across from Woodriver Elementary, 5055 Palo Verde Dr, Fairbanks, AK 12/5/2012Clean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 6

not in the composition of the smoke but in their ability to generate significant quantities of smoke for sustained durations throughout the year. 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 Especially in regards to hydronic heaters , the appropriate unit to measure and limit the quantity of emissions is grams per hour , a health

- based , respiratory

- relevant unit. It is vital, however, to maintain the distinction between wood heaters and hydronic heaters so new federal standards do not sudde nly permit hydronic heaters in the many jurisdictions that have restricted installation and/or operation to wood heaters that are EPA certified.

3. Cap Spikes throughout Each Individual Test Run
The most significant public health concern with hydronic heate rs is harmful emission spikes. EPA ’ s proposed test method s average particulate emission s over the entire duration of each test run. 22 ( T ypically four different test runs, each approximately 8 hours in duration

. ) T h e method hides short

- term (<8 hours) emiss ion spikes correlat ed with degrading ambient air quality and damaging health effects

. 23 , 24 EPA ’ s test method should require once per minute particulate sampling throughout the entire burn cycle from startup to finish for each individual test. ( Carbon monoxid e grams/minute vs. time is plotted based on 1

- minute averages in the Proposed Rule. 25 ) The emission standard should apply to the highest emission spike recorded during any minute of any individual test as a cap, so that no emission spike exceed s the 1.3 g/h r (or 2.5 g/hr interim) standard. The goal is to prevent hazardous emission spikes that exceed the g/hr standard

. T he State of Washington requires minute

- by

- minute sampling and that no sample shall exceed the state emission cap. 26 The highest emission spike of any individual test run should be published online and be shown on the permanent hangtag

.
4. Eliminate Annual Weighted Average

EPA ’ s proposes an annual weighted average as the Step 1 emission limit for the standard rather than an actual emissions rate

. This weighting is based on “ an average of data from several cities located in the northern United States. ” 27 A n annual average hides hourly emission spikes. As it is also weighted to represent an average heat load for (unidentified) northern US cities, EPA ’ s method is an even worse predictor for emission rates from hydronic heaters operated in colder
areas such as Fairbanks, Alaska. It is un likely that the annual average weighting calculation reflects actual use patterns or emission performance of models ins talled in Fairbanks. Consumers and the public are misled by the reported average, not realizing it is weighted and may bear little relationship to actual emissions. Weighting adds bias, mislead s consumers, and should be entirely removed from the Proposed R ule and hangtags

. We support EPA’s proposal to drop weighting from the Step 2 standards. 28

5. Test with Higher Emitting Softwood Species EPA’s test method should include softwood species to better predict emissions from actual use. It has b een widely recogni zed that soft wood species such as fir, spruce, and pine typically result in higher emissions than hardwood species such as oak. For example, according to NYSERDA ’ sClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 7

2012 study prepared by EPA , “ Higher emissions for soft wood (e.g., white pine) combustion in residential wood combustion (RWC) appliances is typical and have been discussed previously (Kinsey et al., 2009). ” W hite pine generated “ PM emissions that were 40% greater than red oak. ” 29 The State of Washington requires stick wood devices to be tested wi th Douglas fir. 30

6. Visible Smoke Emission Standards, Wet Wood Prohibition, and Nuisance Prohibition The Proposed Rule includes a new Prohibited Fuel list. 31 We strongly support this inclusion. Similarly, the Proposed Rule should include a visible emissions prohibition ( no visible smoke, except for three minutes in any 30

- minute period ) and a wet wood prohibition (>20% moisture content), and a nuisance smoke prohibition ( operator i s responsible for operation in a manner that does not create a public or privat e nuisance condition ). Operating standards are vital to ensure actual emissions from hydronic heaters more closely meet the certified standard and test methods.

7. EPA Hangtag Disclosure
The permanent ly affixed EPA hangtag for hydronic heaters should prope rly inform consumers and operators and be available online. 32 Key metrics to include :

 Thermal efficiency rating

- percentage

 Particle pollution

– highest emission spike during any individual test run, g/hr

 Carbon monoxide

– highest emission spike during an y individual test run, g/hr

 Improper Fuels notice

– U se of improper fuel voids manufacturer warranty.

 Nuisance Prohibited notice

– H eater operator is responsible for complying with all laws for hydronic heaters . N o person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a way as to create a nuisance.

8. Owner’s Manual and Promotional Materials Disclosures Owner’s manuals for certified hydronic heaters and all advertising and promotional materials should add the following warning message : “ This hydronic heater needs p eriodic inspection and repair for proper operation. It is against federal law to operate this hydronic heater in a manner inconsistent with operating instructions in the manual. Hydronic heaters must produce no visible smoke, except for three minutes in an y 30

- minute period. No person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a manner as to create a nuisance. Improper use or failure to maintain the hydronic heater may cause nuisance conditions. Meeting the distance and stack height recommendations from the ma nufacturer and requirements in state and local regulations may not always be adequate to prevent nuisance conditions in some areas due to terrain or other factors. The operator of a hydronic heater is responsible for operation in a manner that does not cre ate a public or private nuisance condition.”Clean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 8

Manufacturers should be required to specify prohibited fuel t ypes in the owner’s manual. 33 Manufacturers should be required to post copies of all certified hydronic heater owner’ s manuals and warranties.
EPA sh ould publish all certified test data online.

9. Prevent Harm to Health from Actual Use EPA’s failure to properly regulate hydronic heaters has allowed unregulated, poorly tested, high emission hydronic heaters to be installed in residential areas. It is ess ential now to respond to evidence where Phase 2 voluntary limits have proved insufficient by building a safety margin into the NSPS for hydronic heaters

. The Proposed Rule would allow high emission hydronic heaters similar to the two in Fairbanks to conti nue to be installed for five more years . It offers no solution to the tens of thousands of high emission hydronic heaters left in place, menacing neighborhoods across the nation. EPA should not miss this opportunity to use the Proposed Rule to block instal lation s of high emission hydronic heaters. In 2013, EPA estimated there were 243,000 hydronic heaters nationwide. 34 Agencies have heard t housands of stories of harm caused by hydronic heater emissions. EPA estimate s that the lifespan of a wood heater is “ ty pically greater than 20 years .” 35 Complaints about individual devices could easily continue for years. Stopping emissions after a hydronic heater is in place is hard and expensive . Preventing installations of high emission hydronic heaters is as easy as set ting an appropriate, defensible standard and test method that work in the real world. Regulations cannot be based exclusively on laboratory emission tests without consideration of how to prevent real world harm from high emission hydronic heaters. Ignoring the ways hydronic heaters are actually used and misused discredits the standard. For example, would EPA’s test method and efficiency calculations have predicted that an owner of two Central Boiler 2300s in Fairbanks would, by his own admission, burn 14 c ords of wood a season in one and 20 cords in the other ? 36 ( The cost of heating oil would have been about the same as firewood .)
EPA has made no attempt to assess the costs over the expected 20 year life of hydronic heater s
. In the Fairbanks case, families inundated by smoke were unable to sell their homes. For most, a home is a family’s largest financial asset , and it is lost because someone nearby gets a $7,500 to $15,000 hydronic heater on the false promise of saving money

. Families need to move for healt h reasons but can’t because no one will buy their home. Any new family that makes the mistake of buying into the neighborhood will start down the same financially

- draining road of air filters, m edical bills, lost work days, and disablement . Some costs are paid by the public , but the damaged health and worthless home s are expenses shouldered by the families next door

. The $460,000 in documented public costs from two hydronic heaters in Fairbanks that meet the Propose d Rule is an underestimate of the full co sts incurred in that case. 37 According to a nClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 9

aff idavit from a state inspector: It appeared from the owner’s description “ that he was operating them correctly .” 38 Even if apparently used properly, these devices still smoked out the neighborhood. W hat were the property losses to neighbors unable to sell to escape the smoke? What is the cost of hydronic heater smoke that promot es asthma attack s , corneal abrasions, COPD, atrial fibrillation, a stroke, pulmonary embolism , and possibly cancer ? What is the cost of l ost education for children when visible smoke flows through school halls, classrooms, and playgrounds as at Woodriver Elementary ? Children complained of coughing and burning eyes and had to use rescue inhalers

. F our students had asthma attacks on one day

. What if one of the victims were your child? D uring a fire drill , there was so much smoke on the playground , students asked their 3 rd grade teacher if it was a “ real ” fire. Finally , a judge in state court found operation of the two Phase 2 hydronic heaters had “ proven to be a public nuisance ” and ordered their use to cease. All this from two hydronic heaters that meet EPA’s proposed performance standard. In 2007, EPA began signing Phase 1 agreements with manufacturers of hydronic heaters to qualify models t hat met an emission limit of 0.60 lbs/million Btu. EPA contracts are not enforceable by third parties ( including the public ) and the limits were not set through public rulemaking. In 2008, EPA began signing Phase 2 contracts with lower emission limits. “Pr operly operated Phase 2 emission level (0.32 lb/ million B tu heat output) qualifying units are estimated to be approximately 90 percent cleaner th an typical unqualified units.” 39 “90 percent cleaner” makes a great marketing slogan , but the basis for the asse rtion has not been provided by EPA. The end goal is not “cleaner” hydronic heaters ; it is protection of health. In February 2014, EPA proposed the nation’s first regulatory emission standards for new hydronic heaters. W eak standards , applying the wrong un it, and biased test methods that under

- predict emissions during actual use will harm the credibility of the “ EPA certified” designation and reduce the quality of life for individuals and communities

. Tests in laboratories are essential , but lessons from th e real world can not be ignored.Clean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 10

Real world lessons show there is not just one high emission hydronic heater model on EPA’s Phase 2 list . The following photos from outside Alaska show two hydronic heaters. One photo shows smoke from a nonqualified model. The other shows smoke from a Phase 2 Central Boiler 2400. The smoke plumes are similar even though one is Phase 2 and the other is not

.

Q: W hich smoke plume is from the EPA Phase 2 hydronic heater ?

Figure 5 : Top photo

- smoke from nonqualified hydronic heater , Central Boiler CL6048, 11/2007 Bottom photo

- smoke from Pha se 2 qualified hydronic heater, Central Boiler 2400 , 11/4/2011Clean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 11

A: The bottom photo is the “cleaner” Phase 2 device.
The Central Boiler 2400 was qualified for Phase 2 with particulate levels of 0.12 lbs/million Btu output and 3.3 g/hr average. These levels easily meet the Proposed Rule. Central Boiler 2400 is marketed with this message: There is no safer, more convenient way to heat with wood. 40
The Proposed Ru le and the current Phase 2 voluntary program are not stringent enough to prevent installation of more high emission hydronic heaters. Consumers will continue to be duped into buying inefficient hydronic heaters thinking these “cleaner” units will lower the ir heating bills

. Any savings owners may get is dwarfed by the costs put on neighbors and the public. These and other photographs and examples in EPA’s records demonstrate that EPA needs to recalibrate the proposed standards and test methods to meet the ne eds of public health and welfare.
Conclusion No safe threshold has been identified for PM2.5 exposure. 41 Health studies have documented adverse effects from exposures to elevated particulate concentrations from a few minutes to a few days

. 42 Yet h igh emiss ion hydronic heaters continue to be installed without setbacks or lot size limits , in confined valleys, cities, suburbs , and rural communities, in PM2.5 nonattainment areas (such as Fairbanks) . Some neighborhoods have clusters; two or three have been on a single property. They burn near schools , and daycare facilities, senior residential facilities, and medical facilities and along public highways and parks . They’re called “residential” but are installed at churches and commercial uses such as apartment bui ldings, B&Bs, outdoor equipment shops, landscape businesses , lumber yards , and pawn shops . They’re used to heat poorly insulated homes, oversized homes , warehouses , greenhouses , and swimming pools. They typically burn 20 to 30 cords of wood a season but tw o are known to burn 100 cords/year. The large doors and firebox may allow over a hundred pounds of unsplit, green wood and prohibited materials such as manure, animal carcasses, plastic, creosote

- impregnated railroad ties and power poles, treated lumber, c onstruction debris, petroleum products, and don’t forget, coal. They are used as waste incinerators and have been intentional ly misused to harass neighbors.
National h ydronic heater standards are desperately needed to protect neighbors, property values, a nd the most sensitive among us including infants, children , seniors, asthmatics, people with heart or lung problems , diabetics, cigarette smokers, developing fetuses, and athletes

. 43
The Proposed Rule is not up to the task.Clean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 12

At a bare minimum , EPA must no t certify new hydronic heaters for five years using lax standards and an inappropriate unit . T echnical and economic justification s support a 1.3 g/hr , with interim 2.5 g/hr , emission cap today. EPA test methods must better reflect real world conditions and prohibit harmful emission spikes. EPA’s first responsibility for the hydronic heater NSPS is to safeguard communities like Fairbanks against harmful, high emission Phase 2 hydronic heaters. A community can only be as healthy as the air shared by all.
Tha nk you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely,

[S ignature list and endnotes on following pages. ]

Attachments:
CAF_ Add itional_Concerns_and_Supporting_ Data .pdf CAF

- Harms_to_Health_and_Costs

- Two_Phase_2_HHs_Fairbanks_AK_updated_5

- 5

- 2014.pdf EPA_lett er_to_mfgs_re_efficiency_revised_hangtags_2300_2400_5

- 9

- 2013.pdf Sidhu_Gullett_Toxic_Air_Emissions_GLC_webinar_2011.pdfClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 13



### Signature Page for Clean Air Fairbanks, et all

– Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, 5/5/2014
Signers: Sylvia Schultz , Director, Clean Air Fairbanks cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com , http://cleanairfairbanks.wordpress.com

Patrice Lee , Jimmy Fox , Carrie Dershin, Linda ( Lo u ) Brown, and Rev. Jeffrey Merkel, Co

coordinator s , Citizens for Clean Air, a local, Fairbanks

- based, grass

- roots collection of parents, business people, educators, physicians, and yo ung adults and project of Alaska Community Action on Toxics patricelee3294@gmail.com , www.facebook.com/pages/Citizens

- for

- Clean

- Air/451816281552859
Brian Moench, M

. D

. , President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment drmoench@yahoo.com , www.uphe.org Pam Miller, M

. S

. , Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on Toxics www.aka ction.org Susan Goldsborough, Executive Director, Families for Clean Air susankgoldsborough@gmail.com , www.familiesforcleanair.org
Jeanne Olson, D

. V

. M ., Raven Veterinary Services , North Pole, AK Mary Shields , Alaskan Tails of the Trail http://maryshields.com , Fairbanks, AK
Robin Dale Ford and Pat Fitzgerald , 10th Planet Recording Studio www.10thPlanet.com , Fairbanks, AK
Julie Mellum , Organizer, Take Back the Air www.takebacktheair.com , and Midwest Director, Clean Air Revival Inc. www .burningissues.org Julie Burgo , Pennsylvania Chair, Clean Air Revival Inc. www.burningissues.org
Barbara and Frank Peters, Wood Smoke Health barbara@WoodSmoke Health.org , www.WoodSmokeHealth.org Shirley and Jim Brandie, Wood Burner Smoke http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net Gale Mellum, Mellum and Welsh Law Firm, Minneapolis , MN Cathy Baiton, Only Clean Air: Helping to end wood smoke pollution www.onlycleanair.wordpress.com , Lethbridge, Alberta , CanadaClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 14

Shalonda Riley , Fairbanks, AK Richard and Stephanie Clymer, Fairbanks, AK
Laurie Hueffer , Fairbanks, AK Carolyn Leonard , Fairbanks, AK The Franz and Mather Family: Joan Franz, Dr. David Mather, Luke and Laura Mather , Fairbanks, AK Owen Hanley , M.D. , Fairbanks, AK
Ronald M. Teel , D

. D

. S

. , and Mary Kay Teel , Fairbanks, AK

Nan cy Kuhn, Fairbanks, AK The Partyka Family: Doron Partyka, J

. D

. , Craig Partyka, J

. D

. , and Eva, Eric, and Lucas Partyka , Ester, AK Linda (Lou) Brown and Jon Miller, Fairbanks, AK The Rafferty and Hannon Family: Julie Rafferty, Robert Hannon, Madeline Raff erty , Fairbanks, AK
Glen Simpson, Professor Emeritus, Melissa Simpson , B.Ed., and Ian Simpson , Fairbanks, AK

Karen Post and Leon Lynch , Ester, AK Avalon K. Lee, B

. M ., Fairbanks, A K Nancy Rabener and Tom Stimpfle , Fairbanks, AK The Fox Family: Jimmy, J oanna, Logan , and Audrey Fox , Fairbanks, AK The Lee Family: Patrice and Guy Lee and son Alex Lee, Fairbanks, AK Douglas A. Yates , 64th Parallel Press , Ester, AK The Merkel and Kuizenga Family: Rev. Jeffrey Merkel, M.Div., Marin Kuizenga, Matteo Kuizenga , Annika Merkel , Fairbanks, AK
Frank and Jennifer Keim , Fairbanks, AKClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 15

Sally O ’ Connell , Fairbanks, AK M. Vanslyke , Fairbanks, AK
Paul Holland , Fairbanks, AK
Stan Justice, Fairbanks, AK The Earp and Iringa Family: Paula Earp and Matt , Cooper, and Quinn Irinaga , Fairbanks, AK
Carl F

. Benson , Fairbanks, AK
Cristina and Rich Ackerman, Fairbanks, AK
Jackie M. Debevec, ACRW , Fairbanks AK
Karen Jensen, Fairbanks, AK
Bill Lewin, Parksville, BC, Canada

1 Federal Register, New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters (Feb 3, 2014). Proposed Rule, FR Doc No: 2014

- 00409, Vol. 79, No. 22 , 6330

- 6416. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

2 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Fo rced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, § 60.5474(b)(1) and (2), 6 385

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

3 Clean Air Fairbanks, Case St udy: Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairba nks, Al aska from 2008 to 2013 (May 5, 2014 ): 1

- 5

. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/2013

- 5

- 5

- updated

- caf

- harms

- to

- health

- and

- costs

- two

phase

- 2

- hydronic

- heaters

- fairbanks

- ak.pdf

4 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 741 1 (b)(1)(A)

. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

5 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 741 1(a)(1). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

6 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 741 1 (b)(1)(B). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

7 US EPA , List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters , Phase 2. http://www.epa.gov/burn wise/owhhlist.html (accessed 4 /28/2014)

8 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 6353

. http: //www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdfClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 16 9 40 CFR P art 60, Subpart AAA

— Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=27c30b0d5dc2fda0a3e99282912c9b3d&n=40y7.0.1.1.1&r=PART&ty=HTML#40:7.0.1.1. 1.67

10 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7411(b)(1)(B). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

11 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 64 00, 6411

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

12 NYSERDA by US EPA , Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies ( June 2012 ). No. 12

- 15 , Bria n Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, 2

- 83 and 2

- 84. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research

- and

- Deve lopment

- Technical

- Reports/

- /media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood

- Fired

- Hydronic

- Heater

- Tech.ashx

.

13 ADEC, Proposed Regulation, 18 AAC 50 Air Qualit y Control (Sept 19, 2013 ). 1

- 10. http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm/docs/proposedRegs.pdf

14 ADEC, Need and Basis for More Stringent Wood

- fired Heating Device Emission Standards (Nov 2013)

. 20

- 21. http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm/docs/justification_NOV13.pdf

15 W A Dept of Ecology, Wood Stoves, Fireplaces, Pellet Stoves and Masonry Heaters , webpage. http: //www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/wood_smoke_page.htm (accessed 5/1/2014)

16 US EPA , List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, Phase 2. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html (accessed 5/1 /2014)

17 US EPA, A Summary of the Emissions Characterization and Noncancer Respiratory Effects of Wood Smoke (1993). EPA

- 453/R

- 93

- 036 , Timothy V

. Larson and Jane Q

. Koenig , 1

- 47. http: //nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000IK0H.txt

18 US EPA, Emissions from Outdoor Wood

- burning Residential Hot Water Furnaces ( Feb 1998 )

. EPA/600/SR

- 98/017 , Joseph C. Valenti and Russell K. Clayton , 3

. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1003CLA.txt

19 NY EPB, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State ( Aug 2005 )

. Eliot Spitzer , 8

. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/New_York_Report_on_OWBs_142279_7.pdf

20 NY Dept of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment , Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations in Outdoor Air near Outdoor Wood

- Fired Boilers (Jan 2013). 1

- 121. http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/owb/docs/owb_report.pdf

21 US EPA, Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke (March 2013)

. Publication No. EPA

- 456/B

- 13

- 001, 10

. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/strategies.pdf

22 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, Test Method 28 WHH, 4.1 and Method 28WHH

– PTS, 4

- 1, 6395 and 6403

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdfClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 17 23 Philip R. S. Johnson, Adverse Health Effects: Exposu re Threats of OWBs, Air & Waste Management Association (Jan 2011) : 9. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/201 1/04/adverse

- health

- effects

- exposure - threats

- of

owbs

- johnson_awma_2011.pdf ( published with permission)

24 David R. Brown et al, An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 13 (2007): 191

– 2 08. http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/Brown

- OWB

Risk_HERA2007.pdf

25 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 14.1.18 , 6411. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

26 W A D ept of Ecology , Indoor Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters Meeting WA Emission Standards (June 25, 2012). http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/pdfs/wood_Hydronic.pdf (accessed 4/28/2014)

27 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 6411

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

28 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Resi dential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 6 342. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

29 NYSERDA by US EPA , En vironmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies (June 2012). 2

- 80 , 2

- 82. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research

- and

- Development

Technical

- Reports/

- /media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood

- Fired

- Hydronic

- Heater

- Tech.ashx

30 W A D ept of Ecology , Indoor Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters Meeting WA Emission Standards (June 25, 2012). http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/pdfs/wood_Hydronic.pdf (accessed 4/28/2014)

31 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters , § 60.5474 (f), 6385

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

32 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, § 60.5478, 6387
. htt p://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

33 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, § 60.5474 (f), 63 85

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

34 US EPA, Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke ( March 2013 )

. P ublication No. EPA

- 456/B

- 13

- 001, 5. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/strategies.pdf

35 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters , Table 7, 6348

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

36 Andrew Straughn , FNSB changeout application w ith color photos. June 7, 2013 , 2, 11

. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/straughn

- fnsb

- application

- with

- color

- photos

- 2013

- 6

- 7.pdf

37 Clean Air Fairbanks, Case Study: Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters , Fairbanks, Alaska from 2008 to 2013 ( May 5, 2014 ): 1

- 5. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpr ess.com/2014/05/2013

- 5

- 5

- updated

- caf

- harms

- to

- health

- and

- costs

- two

phase

- 2

- hydronic

- heaters

- fairbanks

- ak.pdfClean Air Fairbanks, et al

- Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 18 38 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, 11

. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/state

- of

- alaska

- v straughn_20

- affidavits

- 2013

- 1

- 31.pdf

39 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 6336

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

40 Central Boiler, website. http://www.centralboiler.com/model s.php (accessed 5/1/2014)

41 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters , 6349

- 6350

. http://www.gpo .gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

42 NY Dept of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations in Outdoor Air near Outdoor Wood

- Fired Boilers (Jan 2013). 1

. http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/owb/docs/owb_report.pdf

43 US EPA , Integrated Science As sessment for Particulate Matter, Final Report (2009). Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

08/139F , 1

- 2228

. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546To : EPA Air and Radiation Docket < a - and

- r - docket@epa.gov >

Subject: Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0734 Date: 5/5/2014 Gina McCarthy, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Cente r Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460
Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0734 Re: Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

-

Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters Dear Administrator McCarthy: The following comments are submitted as supplementary information to comments submitted earlier on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule, published February 3, 2014 in the Federal Register, en titled Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters [79 FR 6329]. 1
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Sylvia Schultz, D irector Clean Air Fairbanks cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com , http://cleanairfairbanks.wordpress.comClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 2



### Additional Concerns and Supporting Data

Clean Air Fairbank s 5/5/2014 Hydronic Heaters Interfere with PM2.5 Nonattainment Hydronic heaters are substantial sources of air pollution emission sources and figure prominently in the serious PM2.5 nonattainment problem in Fairbanks, Alaska. “Cleaner” but still high emi ssion hydronic heaters don’t belong in PM2.5 nonattainment areas like Fairbanks.

T he Fairbanks North Star Borough has a serious PM2.5 problem, yet monitors in the City of Fairbanks are consistently cleaner than those in outlying areas. The City of Fairban ks has created its own relative oasis from the pollution. An important factor is the 2009 City of Fairbanks code prohibiting n ew installations of all hydronic heaters, including pellet

- fueled devices

. 2 Still, FRM monitors downtown record levels that put Fa irbanks in the handful of most air polluted areas in the US. A recent CNN article, entitled When Air becomes a Public Health Hazard , features Fairbanks as one of the most air polluted communities in the US. 3 The 2014 State of the Air report from the Americ an Lung Association ranks Fairbanks #7 for short

- term particulate pollution, up from #9 in 2013. 4

A source apportionment monitoring study published in 2012 compares Fairbanks air pollution to national levels : Compared with PM2.5 concentrations in the low er 48, Fairbanks has some of the highest wintertime ambient PM2.5 concentrations measured throughout the United States

. 5
The City of Fairbanks ’ ban on new hydronic heaters is invaluable because woodsmoke is the primary source of Fairbanks’ public health h azard. A monitoring study published in 2012 found woodsmoke (likely residential wood combustion) was the major source of PM2.5 throughout the winter in Fairbanks, contributing between 62.7 and 81.2 percent of the measured PM2.5 at four sites. The following pie graphs show the higher concentrations of woodsmoke found inside and outside the City of Fairbanks each winter

.Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 3

The City of Fairbanks ’ ban on hydronic heaters is an anomaly for the area. No other state or local rule prohibits any type of wood heating device no matter how polluting. Typical exceedance periods are virtually windless , resulting in monitor readings that closely reflect nearby emissions

. Outside the Fairbanks airshed, ambient win ter PM2.5 is some of the cleanest in t he world, approximately 0.3 to 3 .0 μg/m 3

. Woodsmoke sources within the City of Fairbanks consist of the full range of types of wood

- fired heaters and approximately 22 grandfathered hydronic heaters installed prior to t he 2009 ban. Outside the City of Fairbanks, no restrictions limit hydronic heater installation. It is therefore probable that t he prohibition against new hydronic heaters in the City of Fairbanks has helped reduce concentrations of woodsmoke compared to th e surrounding nonattainment area

. Proposed Rule Emission Standard Similar to Phase 2 Limits The Step 1 emission standard in the Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters is similar to the Phase 2 limit. Importantly, at least two high emission hydronic heaters m eet this standard. Hydronic Heater Emission Rates PM Lbs/ M illion Btu Heat Output PM Grams/Hour Cap
Phase 2 Emission Limit , 2008

- current 6 0.3 2 18.0 Proposed Rule Emission Standard 2014 7 0.32 7.5 Central Boiler 2300 Hangtag, revised 2013 0.31 8 6.4

Centr al Boiler 2 4 00 Hangtag, revised 2013 0.12 9 3.3

Table 1 : Qualifying test data submitted by manufacturers to EPA. EPA’s current and archived Phase 2 listings of qualified hydronic heaters show lbs/MMBtu rate used to qualify models. E PA Phase 2 hangtags show the g/hr rate used to qualify models. (Copies of Central Boiler 2300 and 2400 hangtags are submitted as an attachment to our comments.) Figure 1 : 2012 Ward et al, 536.Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 4

Health

- based Emission Unit for Hydronic Heaters and Woodstoves Additional support for a gram/ hour standard for hydronic heaters. Mass per hour comparisons are more relevant than heat output

- adjusted comparisons when evaluating the relative potential for nearfield exposure to smoke and smoke components. 10
Neighborhood

- scale Impacts of Shutdown of Hydronic Heaters Meeting Proposed Rule
When a pollution source has shut down , it is a good time for a retrospective study. C. Arden Pope published a study assessing hospitalization rates before and after the Geneva Steel Mill i n Utah Valley shut down

. 11 Wh en the two Central Boiler 2300s in the Fairbanks neighborhood of Woodriver shut down, air quality improved overnight.Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 5 The Alaska v. Straughn preliminary injunction order regarding the two Central Boiler 2300s was issued Feb. 4, 2013

. 12 It took ten days for the owner to receive the order and cease operating the two hydronic heaters. Before the owner stopped burning , daily maps of PM2.5 concentrations by the Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Division showed pockets of high levels of pollution
surro unding the hydronic heaters and th e school.

BEFORE court order took effect, PM2.5 concentrations shroud Woodriver Elementary. (Click on image for larger view.)

On Feb. 14, 2013, the owner finally abided by the court order . The smoke over Woodriver E lementary was gone and the air became clear. (Note that from Feb

. 14

- 20 , the air quality in Fairbanks was good. However, pockets of high levels of particulate pollution, largely from other hydronic heaters, continued to plague Watershed School and its
sur rounding neighborhood south of Woodriver Elementary

. )

AFTER court order took effect, PM2.5 concentrations over Woodriver Elementary are good, similar to most areas of Fairbanks at the time. Emissions to the south shroud Watershed School. (Click on image for larger view.)Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 6

Independent Testing of Hydronic Heater Meeting Proposed Rule Independent verific ation of manufacture test data is rarely available. While m ultiple studies have independently tested and analyzed hydronic heater emissions , which are th en analyzed by further studies, most studies do not identify the model tested

. We know all hydronic heaters are not the same, but omitting models, in effect, presumes they are. A basic principle of the scientific method includes clearly describing the meth odology so that the study can be replicated by other researchers . In wood heating device studies, tests identify the rate of emissions but typically fail to identify the model. For example, t he following image is from a 2009 study by the Cold Climate Hous ing Research Center : 13

The CCHRC 2009 study does not identify the make and model of hydronic heater s used in its baseline model

. 14 Similarly, the New York Department of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment 2013, while important, does not identif y the six hydronic heaters or whether they are Phase 2. 15 Th ese omission s makes drawing com parisons with lab and field tested hydronic heaters and the Proposed Rule highly challenging.
However, two stud ies do disclose the models tested. Hays 2011 and Sidhu 2011
. Both t ested EPA’s Phase 2 qualified Central Boiler 2300 , a model that appears to meet the standard in the Proposed Rule. (This is the same model that caused significant harm to health near Woodriver Elementary in Fairbanks, Alaska and was “ proven to be a public nuisance ” in the court case Alaska v. Straughn

. 16 )
Hays 2011 is a study is of p olycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions from four hydronic heaters. E ntitled Characterization of Carbonaceous Aerosols Emitted from Outdoor WoodClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 7

Boilers , pri ncipal a uthors include Michael Hays and Brian Gullett from EPA Office of Research and Development and ARCADIS US , published in 2011. 17

Central Boiler 2300 is identified on page 2. The following findings apply to all four hydronic heaters (OWBs) tested in t he study:

 PAHs accounted for “ between 0.1 and 4% w/w of the aerosol mass.”

 W ood combustion in the OWB s released “ significantly more PAH per unit mass of fuel burned than either domestic fireplace or woodstove appliances .”

 “ Each of the original 16 EPA prio rity PAHs was detected in the OWB PM emissions. ”
Central Boiler 2300 PAH emission data is available on the study’s data sheet from Michael Hays hays.michael@epa.gov

. Methods included : firebox was loaded with app roximately 198 to 253 lbs (90 to 115 kg) of red oak ( Quercus rubra ). The second key study, Sidhu 2011 , Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics

– A Cone Calorimeter Study was published as a report in 2005 18 and as a webinar in 2011. 19 T he study’s principal authors are Sukh Sidhu and Brian Gullett. Central Boiler 2300 is pictured on page 17 of the webinar. The study tested the same four hydronic heaters as in Hays 2011 including Central Boiler 2300.
These two studies link the Central Boi ler 2300 to a major 375

- page EPA study for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) on PM2.5 emissions . The principal authors are Brian Gullett and Gil Wood of EPA Office of Research and Development

. 20 NYSERDA 2012 does not explici tly identify the Central Boiler 2300, but uses the same photograph of the Central Boiler 2300 as Sidhu 2011 on pages S

- 3 and 2

- 7

. Documented Significant and Lasting Harm from Hydronic Heater s Meeting Proposed Rule Hydronic heaters, including those meetin g the proposed 0.32 lb/MMBtu standard, have a track record of causing significant and lasting harm to human health. Documentation of harm from hydronic heaters meeting EPA’s proposed 0.32 lb/MMBtu standard is available from various
sources. A primary sour ce of this evidence should be provided by EPA itself. EPA is bound by contract to maintain problem files on hydronic heater models qualified in EPA’s voluntary Phase 2 program. The files are to contain “relevant information that brings into question the va lidity of the qualification.” 21 This file should have been published as part of the public review documentation for the Proposed Rule. We cannot be certain that EPA has indeed diligently maintained these problem files as the requirements exist in contracts exclusively between EPA and individual hydronic heater manufacturers. Private contracts are apparently not enforceable by third parties including the public. In fact, manufactures and dealers have promoted hydronic heaters as “EPA approved” in violation of the Phase 2 contract 22 and federal regulation 5 CFR Section 2635.702(c) prohibiting endorsements. 23 (We question the legality of EPA’s ongoing useClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 8

since 2007 of unenforceable private contracts to circumvent the NSPS rulemaking process to set emission standa rds for hydronic heaters.) EPA’s files, including the agency’s problem files on Phase 2 models, should be a treasure trove of data and track record of complaints from neighbors and regulators that must be considered before any hydronic heater is certified. For EPA to propose a standard for hydronic heaters knowing the harm devices meeting that standard have caused is a chilling indictment of our nation’s public health defender. Central Boiler’s model 2300 hydronic heater should have an extensive EPA proble m file. The Central Boiler 2300 met the standard in the Proposed Rule, was on EPA’s Phase 2 qualified list for 5 years (2008 to 2013), and was found by EPA testing to have just 30 percent thermal efficiency (inefficiency is a factor in excessive smoke). Fu rther, this model led to 358 public record smoke complaints in a Fairbanks, Alaska neighborhood where two Central Boiler 2300s were operated for more than 4 1⁄2 years. The Fairbanks case was brought to the attention of the Administrator of EPA, individual EP A employees, and OMB so it is reasonable to assume that EPA has a problem file on this model that could be considered for the Proposed Rule. However, there is no indication that EPA has considered the Fairbanks case or any other problem file from the agenc y’s own records of complaints, reports, and data on hydronic heaters meeting the proposed initial emission standard.
In 2008, two outdoor wood

- fired hydronic heaters were installed to serve two rental properties in Fairbanks, Alaska. The two wood heaters were Central Boiler 2300, EPA

- qualified Phase 2. Air pollution from the heaters injured neighbors as well as teachers and students at a public school across the street. After 41⁄2 years of impacts and complaints, the state finally took the case to court in 2 013: Alaska v. Straughn , case #4FA

- 13

- 01205CI. Clean Air Fairbanks’ 2014 report documents public costs from the two hydronic heaters of over $460,000

. 24
Several facts set the Fairbanks hydronic heater case apart: 1) Two hydronic heaters were involved, both t he same EPA Phase 2 qualified model, 2) The long delay before enforcement allowed extensive damage to health and significant costs, and 3) The plaintiff in the case was subject to public record law, thus court records could not be sealed as in previous hydroni c heater injury cases.

B y every indication , the two Central Boiler 2300s performed as designed by the manufacturer. Regarding a different hydronic heater model, the Central Boiler 2400, Gil Wood with EPA attributed excessive smoke from a Phase 2 qualifi ed Central Boiler 2400 in the Midwest to a defective unit. In the Fairbanks case, it is harder to defend the lax standard by blaming both hydronic heaters for being defective. Many unsuccessful attempts to make the two Fairbanks hydronic heaters burn clean ly indicate the ultimate cause of the damage to the individuals in Fairbanks was more likely EPA’s standard for Phase 2 hydronic heaters. According to testing submitted to EPA by Central Boiler, the 2300 would meet EPA’s primary initial emission standard o f 0.32 lbs per million Btu.Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 9

Proposed Rule Fails to Meet Legal Standards Failure to meet best system of emission reduction (BSER) objectives: 25
The emission limits for hydronic heaters are not BSER

. The best on EPA Phase 2 list is eight times better than the worst. Setting the standard by the worst, not the best as required, fails to meet BSER. Lowest v. Highest Annual Average Emission Levels, EPA Phase 2 Qualified Hydronic Heaters 26 Manufacturer Model Lbs/million Btu Woodmaster Flex

- Fuel 30 KW indoor/ou tdoor 0.04 Wood Doctor HE

- 5000 0.32 The compliance schedule for hydronic heaters is not BSER. EPA has proposed a five

- year delay before the agency would apply the BSER standard. This delay is not needed to design, test, or field evaluate cleaner models as these models are already available on the market today. Residential Hydronic Heater, Proposed Rule 27 (PM per million Btu) Step 1 Upon the effective date of

the final rule 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output and a cap of 7.5 g PM2.5/hour for individual test runs Step 2 5 years after the effective

date of final rule 0.06 lb/MMBtu

Because hydronic heaters are a consumer product, it is essential not to tarnish the “EPA certified” brand and customer respect and goodwill. What credibility will be left when the stor y is finally told that EPA certified high emission hydronic heaters for sale, knowing better units were available and that EPA’s only reason was to give manufacturers more time to make and dump into the retail market, devices meeting levels known to have c ause significant harm to neighbors and communities? Do hydronic heaters and the regulatory process mechanism that has failed to properly regulate them need a bigger black

- eye?

EPA Cover
- up of Information Relevant to the Proposed Rule

EPA and a state agen cy attempted to cover

- up key information relevant to the Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters. We assume the intent was to protect confidential business information (CBI) . However, in the effort to protect the interests of hydronic heater manufacturers, emis sions test data cannot be connected to the hydronic heater model that generated the emissions. Associating emissions data with the device that made the emissions is not CBI and is not protected. If this cover - up succeeded, there would be no relevance to EP A test s showing higher emissions to previous tests used to qualify the hydronic heater model for EPA’s Phase 2 voluntary program that also appear to meet EPA’s Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters.Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 10

The significance of connecting the testing with the model is to show that EPA’s proposed initial standard for hydronic heaters places the public at higher risk because of bias in the proposed testing method leading to lower emission concentrations.

Our document ation of this cover

- up follows.
Gil Wood and other EPA staff with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards test ed the Central Boiler 2300 for the 375

- page Gullet t 2012 study for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)

. 28 The findings for the Central Boiler 2300 ( identi fied only as “ T hree S tage HH” ) include : 1) 30 percent thermal efficiency ( page 2

- 51 ) 2) 1.88 lb / MMB tu a verage PM emissions on a thermal energy output basis ( page 2

- 81)
The NYSERDA/EPA study contrasts Central Boiler 2300 performance with that of a residential
o il

- fired boiler with far higher thermal efficiency ( 86 to 92% ) (page 2

- 52) and far lower emissions ( 0.08 g/kg fuel ) (page 2

- 83)

. T he study noted that due to test design “ thermal efficiencies used in this analysis are higher than would be experienced in pra ctice .” (page S

- 25)

T he authors attempted to withhold identification of the make and model and that it was EPA Phase 2 qualified. However , clues show that the “Three

- Stage HH” in the study was a Central Boiler 2300, a model that listed as EPA Phase 2 qual ified from 2008 to 2013

. The first clue is that on page S

- 15, the NYSERDA/EPA study refers to the hydronic heater as “2300

. ” 29
A review of publications using the EPA file photograph of the “Three

- Stage HH” confirm that the unit tested was a Central Boile r 2300. In addition, the evidence shows a systematic effort on the part of EPA and NYSERDA to obscure identification of the model tested. EPA’s file photo used in the Gullet t 2012 report uses a white rectangle to obscure the “Central Boiler Classic” logo on the heater door. 30 If you copy and paste the image, however, the white rectangle disappears , revealing Central Boiler’s logo

. A NYSERDA 2012 presentation by Ellen Burkhard publishe d the same image but with a black rectangle over the manufacturer ’s logo. 31 A third use of the same EPA file photo in the Sidhu 2011 presentation did not obscure the manufacturer logo on the door of the hydronic heater and caption ed the image as “ The Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300 .” 32 Sidhu published a study by the same name in 200 5. 33 Sidhu 2005 has been cited by a 2012 published study. 34 (A pdf of Sidhu 2011 is submitted with these comments.) There can be no doubt that the hydronic heater called “Three

- Stage HH” in Gullett 2012 is a Central Boiler 2300. Oddly , the Gullett 2012 repo rt includes this statement on its opening page: “It is also anticipated that these results will be of value to EPA as it sets New Source Performance Standards for biomass

- fired HHs.” Without connecting that EPA had actually tested CentralClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 11

Boiler 2300 , an E PA qualified Phase 2, the value of the report for the NSPS would be quite limited. The Gulle t t 2012 study was funded by the public (NYSERDA and EPA), yet the models of the hydronic heaters models were withheld from the public. EPA’s study could not be comp ared with the proposed standard and test method even though Gil Wood with EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards helped prepare the study and for years has been the primary public contact person for the Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters.

Additi onally , the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards did not consider the Gullett 2012 findings of higher emissions from the Central Boiler 2300 than the level used to qualify the model for Phase 2. The study reported average PM emissions of 1.88 lb/ mi llion B tu, more than 5 times higher the 0.31 lb/ million Btu level used to qualify the Central Boiler 2300 for EPA’s Phase 2 program and the 0.32 lb/ million Btu in the Proposed Rule. Thus, EPA had information from the Gullett 2012 that the t est m ethod resul ts could not be replicated by other labs, raising questions about the validity of EPA’s proposed test method.
Publications of EPA File Photo of Central Boiler 2300

Published in: Gullett, 2012, p 2

- 7

. Captioned: “The Three Stage HH Unit” Cropped screen sh ot Note white rectangle on the hydronic heater door.

Copy and paste d image from Gullett 2012, p 2

- 7. Note white rectangle is gone , and Central Boiler logo is visible on the door.Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 12

Published in: Bur khard , 2012, p 12. Captioned: “Advanced OWB down

- draft, 160,000 Btu/h, 450 gallons” Cropped screen shot Note black rectangle on hydronic heater door.

Copy and paste d image from Burkhard 2012, p 12. Note black rectangle is gone, and Central Boiler logo i s visible on the door.

Published in: Sidhu, 2011, p 17. Captioned: “ The Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300”Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 13

For comparison, these are the photos of the two Fairbanks Central Boiler 2300s.
Photos of Central Boiler 2300s Prior to Removal and Destruction

58 Trinidad Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 5055 Palo Verde Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska

Photo source : FNSB changeout application with color photos , submitted by Andrew Straughn , June 7, 2013

. 35
Ensure Existing Safeguards are Not Bumped by NSPS Will the new Subpart QQQQ for hydronic heaters carry any authority to supersede prohibitions in place? Many areas of the country currently prohibit the sale and installation of hydronic he aters and forced

- air wood furnaces due to restrictions on solid fuel heating devices that are not EPA certified. Will hydronic heaters certified under the new Subpart QQQQ become suddenly allowed? It is critical to ensure certification is not used to open the door to the sale of hydronic heaters and forced

- air wood

- fired furnaces in areas of the country that currently prohibit them. Communities that have opted

- out of noncertified wood heaters should not have to take separate action to ensure that EPA certi fied hydronic heaters remain prohibited. For example, the much heralded success story of how Libby, Lincoln County, MT met attainment could be put to a test by the Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters. Lincoln County’s 2008 ordinance defines “Standard Non

- Ca talytic Device” to mean “a solid fuel burning device with a non

- catalytic emissions control system that has been certified by EPA test method as having emissions <7.5 grams/hour.” 36 During 2005 and 2006, Libby spent a total of $2.5 million in state, federal , and industry grants to remove 1,130 stoves prohibited by the ordinance. With the additional help ofClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 14

burn bans and a prohibition of use of any noncertified wood heating device, Libby addressed its PM10 nonattainment problem. Will Libby be in for a shock t o find their code language approves hydronic heaters? If this concern is warranted, to prevent installation of EPA certified but high

- emitting hydronic heaters, state and local governments would have to take swift action to rewrite rules to, for example, prevent undesirable hydronic heater installations in residential neighborhoods and PM2.5 nonattainment areas. If local and state governments fail to take swift action

-- and there is no promise that even one jurisdiction is poised to take action

-- the result will be excessive levels of air pollution and harm to health for decades. Without timely action, preventing harm will no longer be an option. The only remaining option will be mitigation triage at tremendous expense. Certifying the worst as though they wer e the best passes the burden onto individuals, public health providers, insurers, health and safety inspectors, the legal system, and change

- out programs. Five years down the road, EPA has proposed a more restrictive standard for new hydronic heaters and f orced air heaters, but by then thousands of expensive, new, EPA

- certified but excessively polluting hydronic heaters will be in operation and the struggle of attempting to undo the damage caused by EPA’s initial lax standard would be ongoing and too late.

Assessment Test Method We have deep concerns with the testing method and its reliance on calculated emission values rather than actual PM2.5 emission rates. We recommend grams per hour without weighting or averaging . We do not support a standard based on pounds per million Btu as this unit is ir relevant to protecting public health as required 37 and does not correlate with contribution to ambient concentrations. The only emission standard that is relevant to health is rate of PM2.5 emission per hour . Second ary factors, such as cold weather inversion and dispersion (wind) , may concentrate or disperse emissions, but a lower rate of emission best protects human health under every weather condition. For example, if you have 10 hydronic heaters in one residentia l neighborhood emitting 6 g/hr , together they would account for a total contribution to ambient PM2.5 of 60 g/hr. If , instead, the 10 hydronic heaters each emitted 0.32 lb/MMBtu there is no clear way to tally how much PM2.5 was being contributed to ambient air

. EPA’s Proposed Rule uses an industrial design standard of emission per heat output (lbs/MMBtu ) for pollution control from residential heating. A standard based on the rate of emissions per heat output will not limit air pollution and cannot be usef ul as a standard to protect human health. Unfortunately, a lack of adequate disclosure in the Proposed Rule hindered o ur assessment of the proposed testing method.
We were unable to review the basis for the weighted average emission rate of ASHRAE bin da ta from “ several cities located in the northern United States ” used to calculate the weighting ofClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 15

emission samples. 38 Bin D ata, represented by F i , is used to calculate Method 28WHH

– PTS A Test Method for Certification of Cord Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heating Appl iances w ith Partial Thermal Storage. We were unable to identify the “several cities” used in the data set. Was Fairbanks, Alaska included? Even i f Fairbanks were included in the bin data represented by F i , bin data is an average, so at best would reflect c onsiderations for an average northern city , but fail to estimate heating emissions from communities that are colder than the average cities in the bin data set

. Communities that are colder than the average cities in the bin data set are outside the range o f the testing method. The testing method should properly be adjusted to reflect heating needs not for an average of several unidentified cities , but for the US city with the highest heating needs such as Fairbanks. Another problem regarding weighting, the Proposed Rule proposes to collect data from four test runs that are then weighted to calculate annual average emissions

. The weighting assumes 43.7 percent of the time hydronic heaters will operate at a heat output of 15 percent or less of manufacturer’s rated h eat o utput c apacity (low) and 5 percent of the time at the manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity (high)

.
Test Run Categories Load % of Capacity 39 Weighting Factor (F i ) 40 I <15% of max 0.437 II 16

– 24% of max 0.238 III 25

– 50% of max 0.275 IV Ma x capacity 0.050 Totals 1.00 While we object to using unidentified cities to determine the proportion of emissions from the four different test runs, the problem with this method is compounded further by annualizing. Human health exposures are most highly correlated with short

- term exposures of hours and days, not annual averages. The science for tracking the source of the harm is shortening, not lengthening the duration of harmful exposures: “I ncreasing use of continuous PM2.5 monitoring over the p ast decade has led to findings of health associations at time scales of less than 24

- hour averages. ” 41 In addition, “ current ambient exposure episodes to PM2

. 5 in the Northeast US increase hospitalization rates and emergency room visits for both cardiovascu lar and respiratory disease after only a few hours of PM2

. 5 exposure .” 42 Studies show a cute cardiac and pulmonary adverse effects from average hourly and maximum hourly exposures. EPA uses a health

- based standard for a 24

- hour average and annual average for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

. 43 Annualizing the test data dilutes the em issions, and the test method itself

. According to ASTM “The weighting factors (F i ) are derived from an analysis of American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

- Con ditioning Engineers (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.” 44 Hydronic heaters are not l imited to heating “normal” buildings

. They are used year

- around for hot water and canClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 16

be used to heat a swimming pool or greenhouse. Hydronic heaters are often used to heat large yet poorly insulated buildings. The ASHRAE Bin Data would not reflect heat lo ad requirements beyond what would be expected for a normal building.

O utdoor hydronic heaters have lower efficiencies during cold weather due to heat loss and frozen wood. O wners compensate by refueling with vast volumes of wood during the colder weather to make up for higher heat load requirements and reduced efficiency. The proposed test method makes no attempt to calculate the loss of efficiency for outdoor heaters operated in colder ambient temperatures. H ydronic heaters models manufactured for outdoor installation are tested under optimal conditions

— inside a test facility maintained between “55 and 90°F.” 45 Th e proposed method fails to assess the higher rate of emissions during actual use

. Actual use may easily include s ubzero temperatures ; in Fairbanks and North Pole, AK winter temperatures reach negative 50° F or colder

— more than 100°F colder than a lab facility. Similarly, the proposed test method makes no attempt to address the higher emissions from softwood versus hardwood species. It has been widel y recognized that soft wood species such as fir, spruce, and pine result in higher emissions than hardwood species such as oak. However , the proposed test method exclusively uses oak, resulting in lower emission rates than softwood fuels. Owners of hydroni c heaters use the fuel most readily available in their area, unaware that softwood tends to result in higher emissions. EPA’s proposed test method for hydronic heaters is biased downward by weighting and averaging, test ing outdoor models in unrealisticall y warm conditions, does not account for misuse such as wet wood and prohibited fuels, and relies on a standard utterly irrelevant to information that can help protect health. EPA is ill prepared to properly set an emission standard or health

- protective tes t method for hydronic heaters.

EPA must only certify hydronic heaters that meet levels known to be safe for human health based on realistic conditions and even accounting for elements of misuse such as burning wet wood. The test method needs to be run un der the most adverse conditions to provide a worst case, not an idealized version that cannot be replicated by other labs and researchers and that poorly refects actual emissions that may harm health. European Standards EPA put forward voluntary limits f or hydronic heaters in 2007. Not subject to public review, public comment, or citizen suits, Phase 1 become Phase 2. Seven years have been wasted. Meanwhile, European standards, called EN 303

– 5 , have advanced. EN 303

– 5 devices are required to meet CO, nitr ogen oxides and VOC emissions

. The BSER available in these units has resulted in technology performance improvements that reduced average CO emissions by 99 percent. 46Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 17

Air Toxics EPA must require permanent labeling on all hydronic heaters about the CO ha zard to protect consumers from a known, potentially fatal hazard. EPA also must require indoor CO monitors as a critical safety component for hydronic heaters installed in occupied buildings or other buildings or enclosures in which the operator would ente r to add fuel to the heater or conduct other normal operation and maintenance of the heater, as noted on p 6340. Since it is known by EPA that many consumers place outdoor hydronic heaters in shelters and buildings, CO monitors should be mandatory on all h ydronic heaters.
The Proposed Rule is flawed in that while it addresses particulates, it ignores air toxins. There is an unqualified assumption in the Proposed Rule that presumes that toxins will decrease in parallel with particulates. However, the growin g body of available evidence contradicts this assumption.

We request that a timeline for certification of emissions levels for toxic compounds, including b enzen e , dioxin, formaldehyde, and PAHs , be explicitly stated in the rule so that the public will be adequately protected from the air toxins produced by hydronic heaters. Under the Clean Air Act law, the EPA is mandated to adopt a health

- protective NSPS, which requires that it set emission levels for all air toxins emitted by hydronic heaters

.
Reconstr uction Provision The NSPS must require a reconstruction provision for hydronic heater s, as required by all other NSPS promulgated by EPA (reconstruction is defined in 40 CFR 60.15 and is subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJ). Many manufacturers are selling re placement parts that would extend the life of the unit significantly or indefi nitely

. If 50 percent of the unit value is repaired, that triggers the reconstruction clause

. “ Section 60.15 of the NSPS specifies that reconstruction occurs if the fixed capital cost of the new components exceed 50% of the fixed capital cost of a comparable entirely new (unit ). ” EPA knows that residential wood heating devices degrade over time, which reduces efficiency and increases toxic air emissions. Therefore, to provide he alth

- protective standards, the NSPS must require a reconstruction provision in the NSPS for hydronic heaters.

E fficiency Any efficiency ratings must be based on thermal efficiency and not combustion efficiency. EPA has warned hydronic heater manufacturer s of the misleading use of the term “ combustion efficiency ” in their sales and promotional materials. Hydronic heaters should be rated by the Department of Energy for thermal efficiency like any other residential furnace

. This includes efficiency measured by the Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency, and mandatory sizing requirements to match BTU with square footage.Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 18

EPA must set a date for when it will establish with the Department of Energy minimum thermal efficiency standards for residential wood heating d evices.

1 Federal Register, New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters (Feb 3, 2014). Proposed Rule, FR Doc No: 2014

- 00409, Vol. 79, No. 22 , 6330

- 6416. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

2 Fairbanks City Code , Article VI 34

- 201 & 34

- 202 Hydronic heaters , 2009. http://library.municode.com/HTML/12896/level3/PTIICOOR_CH34HE_ARTVIHYHE.html#TOPTIT LE

3 CNN, When A ir becomes a P ublic Health H azard

. Dan Farber , May 4, 2014

. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/04/opinion/farber

- air

- pollution/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

4 A LA, State of the Air 2014, 13. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2014/assets/ALA

- SOTA

- 2014

- Full.pdf

5 Tony Ward, et al, PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Study for Fairbanks, Alaska ( 2012 ). Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 53 6

. http://aaqr.org/VOL12_No4_August2012/8_AAQR

- 11

- 11

- OA

- 0208_536

- 543.pdf

6 US EPA, Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement between the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and individual manufacturers, Sept 12, 2011, 2. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf

7 New R esidential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 6344

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 0 0409.pdf

8 US EPA , EPA List of Phase 2 Archived Hydronic Heater Models

. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhharchive.html (accessed 4/29/2014)

9 US EPA , List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters , Phase 2. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html (accessed 4/28/2014)

10 NY Dept of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations in Outdoor Air near Outdoor Wood

- Fired Boilers (Jan 2013). 8. http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/owb/docs/owb_report.pdf

11 C. Arden Pope, Respiratory hospital admissions associated with PM10 pollution in Utah, Salt Lake, and Cache Valleys. Arch. Environ. Health , 1991: 46 (2): 90

– 97. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039896.1991.9937434# .U2fziGdOXIU and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2006899

12 Alaska v. Straughn preliminary injunction order, Judge Robert B. Downes, Feb 4, 2013

. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/state

- of

- alaska

- v - straughn_preliminary

- injunction

- order

2013

- 2

- 4.pdf

13 CCHRC, Reducing PM 2.5 Emissions from Resi dential Heating Sources in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (2009). John Davies, et al, 15. http://cchrc.org/docs/reports/PM2.5_Final_2

- 23

- 09.pdfClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 19 14 CCHRC, Reducing PM 2.5 Emissions from Residential Heating Sources in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (2009). John Davies, et al, 52

. http://cchrc.org/docs/reports/PM2.5_Final_2

- 23

- 09.pdf

15 NY Dept of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations in Outdoor Air near Outdoor Wood

- Fired Boilers (Jan 2013). 1

- 121

. http://www.health.ny.gov/environmenta l/outdoors/air/owb/docs/owb_report.pdf

16 Alaska v. Straughn preliminary injunction order, Judge Robert B. Downes, Feb 4, 2013

. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/state

- of

- alaska

- v - straughn_preliminary

- injunction

- order

2013

- 2

- 4.pdf

17 Michael D. Hays, et al, Characterization of Carbonaceous Aerosols Emitted from Outdoor Wood Boilers. Energy Fuels, 2011, 2 5 (12), 5632

– 5638. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef2012694?journalCode=enfuem

18 Sukh Sidhu, et al , Toxic air emissions from burning wood and agricultural plastics

– a con e calorimeter study. Final report. University of Dayton Research Institute , 2005.

19 Sukh Sidhu, et al, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics

– A Cone Calorimeter Study, March 2011, Great Lakes Commission, webinar presentation, 17. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=cG9seW1lcmluc2lnaHRzLmNvbXxmbGFtZS1yZXRhcmRhbnR zfGd4OjFmYWQ0MzQ5 ZDA5MGE1YTI

20 NYSERDA by US EPA , Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies (June 2012). No. 12

- 15

. Bria n Gullett, et al, 1

- 375. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research

- and

- Development

- Technical

- Reports/

- /media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood

- Fir ed

- Hydronic

- Heater

- Tech.ashx

21 US EPA , EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement between the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency, and individual hydronic heater manufacturers, 2011, 7. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf

22 US EPA , EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement between the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 8. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf (The regulation is incorrectly cited in the Phase 2 agreement as “5 CFR Section 2653.702(c).”)

23 5 CFR Section 2635.702(c) Use of pu blic office for private gain. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

- bin/text

idx?SID=305a965126d4225471db452037ce2e4e&node=5:3.0.10.10.9.7.50.2&rg n=div8

24 Clean Air Fairbanks, Case Study: Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, Alaska from 2008 to 2013, 1/12/2014. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/harms

- to

health

- and

- costs

- from

- two

- epa - phase

- 2

- wood

- fired

- hydronic

- heaters

- fairbanks

- ak.pdf

25 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 741 1(a)(1). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

26 US EPA, List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters , Phase 2. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist. html (accessed 4/28/2014)

27 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, Table 5, 6344

. http://www .gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdfClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 20 28 NYSERDA by US EPA , Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies (June 2012). No. 12

- 15

. Bria n Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, 1

- 375. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research

- and

- Development

- Technical

- Reports/

- /media/ Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood

- Fired

- Hydronic

- Heater

- Tech.ashx

29 NYSERDA by US EPA , Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies, S

- 15. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research

- and

- Development

- Technical

- Reports/

- /media/Files/Publications/Research/E nvironmental/Wood

- Fired

- Hydronic

- Heater

- Tech.ashx

30 Brian Gullett, et al, S

- 3 and 2

- 7

. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research

- and

- Development

- Technical

Reports/

- /media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood

- Fired

- Hydronic

- Heater

- Tech.ashx

31 NYSERDA, Biomass Heating Technologies, Emissions Measurements, and O bservations of Wood Smoke in Rural and Urban Communities in New York State (Nov. 2012). Ellen Burkhard , presentation, 12. http://www.epa.gov/reg ion9/climatechange/blackcarbon/pdf/burkhard

- biomass

- heating

- technology.pdf

32 Sukh Sidhu, et al, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics

– A Cone Calorimeter Study, March 2011, Great Lakes Commission , webinar presentation, 17

. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=cG9seW1lcmluc2lnaHRzLmNvbXxmbGFtZS1yZXRhcmRhbnRz fGd4OjFmYWQ0MzQ5ZDA5MGE1 YTI

33 Sukh Sidhu, et al , Toxic air emissions from burning wood and agricultural plastics

– a cone calorimeter study. Final report. University of Dayton Research Institute , 2005

.

34 Long Shi and Michael Yit Lin Chew , Experimental Study of Carbon Monoxide for W oods under S pontaneous Ignition C ondition , Fuel (2012): 1

- 7. http://www.academia.edu/1854889/Experimental_study_of_carbon_m onoxide_for_woods_under_spontaneous_i gnition_condition

35 FNSB changeout application with color photos. June 7, 2013, Andrew Straughn , 2, 11. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/straughn

- fnsb

- application

- with

- color

- photos

- 2013

- 6

- 7.pdf

36 Lincoln County, Health and Environment Regulations, 75.1.203 (Revised 2008). http://www.lincolncountymt.us/environmentalhealth/docs/NewAirOrdinanceFinal.pdf

37 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 741 1 (b)(1)(A)

. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ text/42/7411

38 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 6411

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

39 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, Table 1, 6412. http:/ /www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

40 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, Table 2, 6412

- 6413. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

41 Philip R. S. Johnson , Adverse Health Effects: Exposure Threats of OWBs , Air & Waste Management Association (Jan 2011): 9. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/adverse

- health

- effects

- exposure - threats

- of

owbs

- johnson_awma_2011.pdfClean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters , Page 21 42 David R. Brown et al, An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 13 ( 2007 ) : 191

– 208

. http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/Brown

- OWB

Risk_HERA2007.pdf

43 Fe deral Register , National Ambient Air Quality S tandards for Particulate Matter, Final Rule

- effective March 18, 2013, FR Doc No: 2012

- 30946 , Vol 78, No. 10 ( Jan

. 15, 2013 ): 3085

- 3287

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2013

- 01

- 15/pdf/2012

- 30946.pdf

44 ASTM , E2618

- 13 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Particulate Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Solid Fuel

- Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances , 8

- 9. http://www.astm.org/EPA

- review

45 ASTM , E2515

- 11 Standard Test Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution Tunnel , 8. http://www.astm.org/EPA

- review

46 B. Musi l

- Schläffer, et al, 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, NYSERDA, April 201 0

.58 Trinidad Dr ive Fairbanks, Alaska 

### EPA Phase 2

Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300

5055 Palo Verde Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska
Case Study: Harms to Health and C osts from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters , Fairbanks, A laska from 2008 to 2013 By Clean Air Fairbanks cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com 1/12/2014 , updated 5/5/2014
In 2008, t wo outdoor wood

- fired hydronic heaters (also called “ boilers ” ) were installed to provide heat and hot water for two re ntal properties in Fairbanks, Alaska

. The units were Central Boiler 2300 , EPA

- qualified Phase 2

. Air pollution from these heaters injured neighbors , teachers , and students at Woodriver Elementary School. After 41⁄2 years of impacts and complaints, t he case f inally went to court in 2013: Alaska v. Straughn , case # 4FA

- 13

- 01205CI

. Documentation of H arm s to H ealth Fairbanks North Star Borough recorded PM 2.5 peaks up to 1,088.3 μg/m 3

. 1 , 2 , 3 Borough air pollution sampling maps show ed h ot zone s around these heaters

. 4
358 public record complaints filed regarding smoke in the neighborhood; 43 percent identified the heaters

. 5 , 6 Yet, according to the affidavit from a s tate inspector: “ It appeared from his description that he was operating them correctly

. ” 7
Smoke was “ almost constant ; ” so thick teachers thought there was a fire in the school

. 8 Recess
was canceled repeatedly

. 9 Students were sent home. 10 T eachers were unable to work

. 11
A sch ool nurse identified smoke as the cause of at least six asthma attacks in children, 4 in one day

. 12 At least one child was hospitalized. 13 Photos Prior to DestructionHarms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, AK, page 2

A teacher was hospitalized for a blood clot in her lung , missed five weeks of work, and is still receiving extensive tr eatment out

- of

- state

. Doctors attribute her symptoms to wood smoke exposure. 14 Struggling to breathe, she consulted a school nurse who responded, “ Oh dear , you ’ ll just have to get an inhaler like the rest of us. ” Years went by. Coughs and infections escalat ed into chronic conditions. Prescriptions for school employees included antibiotics; steroids pills, eye drops, and inhalers; and painful anti

- allergy shots

. 15 Headaches, coughs, burning eyes, and persistent colds and bronchitis were reported in the school children. A local physician, Dr. James T. Foote at the Tanana Valley Clinic, attributed at least one child’s sinus infections and bronchitis to smoke exposure. 16
Another s chool employee developed persistent infections leading to cysts, polyps , hearing loss , and two sinus surgeries

. Her physician identified the likely cause as chronic exposure to smoke at the school. She was diagnosed with blood oxygen levels of a smoker but had never smoked in her life

. 17 One uninsured school employee filed a Worker’s Comp cl aim for smoke

- related breathing problems and injuries sustained at the school during working hours. Her claim was denied. Other school employees used Borough health insurance for their workplace injuries. Neighbors were harmed as well . One n eighbor was red uced to 20 percent lung function

. 18 Another neighbor submitted an affidavit describing the smoke inside his home and how the air “reeks with the smell” in his yard. 19 A month later , he died of a “massive stroke.” 20
The smoke continued until 2013 when the S tat e of Alaska took the owner to court. Within a month, Judge Robert Downes found that the operation of the two heaters had “ proven to be a public nuisance ” and , without a hearing, ordered burning to cease

. 21 Almost immediately , the air in the neighborhood, pl ayground , and school was clean er
. Air pollution sampling maps no longer showed the hot zone over the school

. 22
Documentation of Cost s Conventional oil

- fired boilers were installed when the properties were constructed in 2005, making the wood

- fired heaters r edundant heating systems. 23 (Hydronic heaters are rarely a sole source of heat.) Owner paid $ 23, 352 for the two heater s ( installation not included )

. 24 Owner paid an estimated $8,500 per year for split firewoo d. O wner report ed using 14 cords in
one heater and 20 cords in the other

. 25 The price of firewood is estimated at $250/cord

. 26Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, AK, page 3

Heating a properly insulated, 2,800

- square - foot home with fuel oil in Fairbanks typical ly costs $4,000 per year. The annual cost to heat the two 3,100

- sq - ft properties with fuel oil likely would have been about the same as purchas ing the firewood used in the heaters

. Owner paid an estimated $600 for t aller chimneys . A pprox . $100 per 4

- foot section , 27 3 sections each , 2009

. $96,000 for at least three sinus surger ies , $32,000 each

. 28 , 29 $ 160,000 for allergy treatment shots . F our years at $40,000/yr

. 30
Over $100,000 was paid by state health insurance to treat another resident, no preexisting conditions, for persistent atrial fibrillation , diagnosed January 2012 after exposure to smoke from t hese heaters. 31 Out

- of

- pocket copay was $4,000

. $67,500 paid by the School District to install an air f iltration system in the school , 2011. 32 Neighbors installed HEPA air filtration systems, approx. $1,000 each ; filters $50/each ; filters replaced every thre e months

. 33 $19,200 paid by a state grant for two pairs of retrofit afterburner ClearStak CS

- 100 catalysts, four for $4,800 each

. 34
O wner agreed to pay $12,000 to the state per the civil court settlement agreement. 35 Significant public costs of agency monitor ing, enforcement, and prosecution

. $20,000 to be paid by the Borough to owner for replacing the heaters , $10,000 each

. 36
Conclusions : Public Costs: over $460,000, Total Costs : over $500,000 Hydronic heaters are not cheap to buy or install

. If wood is purcha sed, savings may be n egligible
over the cost of fuel oil. Years of e x haustive, expensive efforts were unable to “fix” these two Phase 2 heaters

. When considering the significant costs for healthcare and largely unsuccessful mitigation , w ood

- fired hydronic heaters are the most costly heating system on the market
. Indoor cigarette smoking is all but forbidden and greenhouse g ases are a common concern, but hydronic heaters are largely unregulated

. 37
EPA has proposed to set Phase 2 emission limits as the certifi ed standard for newly manufactured wood

- fired hydronic heater s . Public comment ends May 5 , 2014

. 38 40 hydronic heater models currently qualify for Phase 2 under EPA’s voluntary program with manufacturers

. 39 Certifying the Phase 2 standard places significant costs on states, communities, neighbors, legal systems, and healthcare programs

.Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, AK, page 4

Cited Documents A vailable by Request from cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com

1 FNSB phot o 58 Trinida d 2009

- 1

- 10

.

2 FNSB dat a 2009

- 1

- 10

.

3 FNSB note s 2009

- 1

- 10

.

4 M ap Woodriver bulls

- eye , FNSB 2011

- 01

- 24

.

5 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, pp 7

- 8, 14

.

6 190 Woodriver area AQ complaints 2008

- 201 3, FNSB

.

7 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 11

.

8 Alaska v. Straughn a ffidavits, p 25

.

9 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, pp 22, 46

.

10 AQ in W oodriver area case records, ADEC 2009

- 2010 p 11

.

11 190 Woodriver area AQ complaints 2008

- 2013, FNSB pp 1, 8

.

12 AQ in W oodriver area case records, ADEC 2009

- 2010 pp 3 , 19

.

13 Alaska v

. Straughn affidavits, p 23

.

14 Alaska v

. Straughn affidavits, pp 33

- 34

.

15 Alaska v. Straughn a ffidavits, pp 27, 30, 34, 3 5, 37

.

16 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 27

.

17 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p p 2 6

- 2 7

.

18 Alaska v. Straughn a ffidavits, p 52

.

19 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 60

.

20 “Longtime fire chief, community volunteer Bill Shechter dies,” FDNM 2013

- 2

- 28

.

21 Alaska v. Straughn prelimin ary injunction order 2013

- 2

- 4

.

22 “ Compare Woodriver Smoke Maps Before and After Court Order ,” Clean Air Fairbanks 2013

- 2

- 27

.

23 Em ail from Seth Beausang, Alaska AG Office to CAF 2013

- 7

- 29

.

24 Straughn receipt two Central Boiler 2300s 2008

- 4

- 30

.

25 Straughn FNSB application with color photos 2013

- 6

- 7

.

26 Firewood Prices , CAF 2013

.Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood

- fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, AK, page 5 27 Alaska Resource Agency Leg Request 2011, p 13

.

28 190 Woodriver area AQ complaints 2008

- 2013, FNSB p 18

.

29 Alaska v. Straughn a ffidavits, p 27

.

30 Alaska v. Straughn a ffidavits, p 30

.

31 Alaska v. Straughn a ffidavits, pp 61

- 63

.

32 Alaska v. Straughn a ffidavits, p 16

.

33 Alaska v. Straughn a ffidavits, p 57

.

34 Alaska Resource Agency 2012

- 3

- 29, p 4

.

35 Alaska v Straughn s ettlement 2013

- 7

- 22, p 4

.

36 FNSB approval to pay Straug hn 2013

- 7

- 18

.

37 “ Where there's smoke, there ’ s pollution,” The News

- Times, CT 2014

- 1

- 11

.

38 Proposed N SPS for Residential Wood Heaters, EPA 2014

- 1

- 3

.

39 http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html , accessed 2014

- 5

- 1

.Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 1 of 6

Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard in Residential Wood Heater NSPS: EPA Proposed Certification of Phase 2 Hydronic Heaters yet Obscured Relevant Efficiency Data for the Phase 2 Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300 Prepared by < cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com > 9/28 /2013

The 30 percent average thermal efficiency 1 of a Phase 2 Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300 , a ccording to EPA ’s 2012 study , compares “ poorly with oil and natural gas fired residential systems with thermal efficiencies ranging from 86% to 92% and 79% to 90%, respectively (McDonald, 2009). ” 2

Figure 2. The Three Stage HH Unit and Illustration of a Down

- Draft Combustion Unit [Gullett, Wood 2012, p 9 3 ]

Table 3. Hydronic Heater Efficiencies [Gu llett , Wood 2012, p 16 , emphasis added 4 ]

Units Thermal Efficiency (%) Boiler Combustion Conventional HH RO Average 22 NC 74 STDV 5 3.0 Conventional HH RO + Ref Average 31 NC 87 STDV 2.2 3.4 Conventional HH WP Average 29 NC 82 STDV 1.8 3.2
T hree Stage HH/RO Average 30 NC 86 STDV 3.2 1.8 European Pellet/pellets Average 44 86 98 STDV 4.1 3.5 0.16 U.S. Downdraft RO Average IM 83 90 STDV 0.71 0.79 NC = Not calculated. IM = Insufficient measurements taken for this calculationRecommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 2 of 6

The ma ke and model of the three

- stage hydronic heater in Table 3 Gullett, Wood 2012 (above) is identified in a presentation by Sidhu and Gullet. B oth reports use the same photo. Gullett, Wood 2012 on page 9 and Sidhu, Gullett 2011 on page 17

. There can be no dou bt that the heater identified as ”Three Stage HH” in Gullett, Wood 2012 is the EPA Phase 2 qualified Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300.

Central Bo iler E
- Classic 2300 Three stage Combustion Process

[Sidhu, Gullett 2011 , p 17 5 ]

Due to this model’s 30 percent thermal efficiency , where 70 percent of the heat value of the fuel is lost, the operator must use a lot more fuel. Table 3 also shows a combustion efficiency of 86 percent for the same model. 86 percent combustion efficiency means 14 percent of the fuel i s wasted , much of it being released as unburned wood particles

. It is reasonable to conclude that a h ydronic heater having 86 percent combustion efficiency together with 30 percent thermal efficiency would have significant amounts of unburned fuel going o ut the chimney that may cause a health risk

. NSPS Policy Relevance: On July 2 6 , 2013, OMB received from EPA a package of proposed regulations for residential wood heaters under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in the Clean Air Act. 6 Gill Wood and David Cole with EPA submitted t he proposed rule. 7

In public presentation s in since 2012 and earlier, EPA has proposed to certify Phase 2 hydronic heaters: “match es EPA Phase 2

. ” 8 Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300 is on EPA’s list of Phase 2 hydronic heate rs
. 9Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 3 of 6

EPA Efforts to Obscure:
Gil Wood and other EPA staff with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards had full knowledge that the ir own study , published in Gullett, Wood 2012 10
, tested the Central Boiler E

Classic 2300. However, the make and mod el was withheld in the report

. The 2012 report also fails to reference that the model tested was EPA Phase 2. The photograph on page 9 in the report even obscures the “Central Boiler Classic” la bel on the heater door with a white rectangle. Yet, w hen the i mage is copied into another document, the white label disappears, revealing the manufacturer’ s label. T hrough a separate study by Sidhu, Gullett 2011 11 , we are able to identify the device by the coincidence that both reports use the same photo.

We cannot e xplain the clear effort to mislead the public and agencies in the run

- up to public release of the first draft regulations for hydronic heaters. While we understand that EPA must not release confidential business i nformation, a scientific study must identif y the object being tested otherwise the study is not reproducible or policy relevant. Make and model and photographs of the device are not confidential business information and are not required to be redacted under the EPA Phase 2 voluntary agreement. 12 The Phase 2 voluntary agreement is an off

- the

- books, quasi

- regulatory standard lacking public notice, public or agency review, or any oversight given during rulemaking, and lacks statutory enforceability. The Phase 2 voluntary agreement is purely a contract o f convenience between EPA and an individual manufacturer

. Further , nowhere in the slow

- motion lead

- in to hydronic heater rulemaking has EPA once plainly state d that the proposed rules would “certify” Phase 2 hydronic heaters under NSPS

.
E xamples : 1) The mo st recent public update, March 2013, states, “ Partnership Program Phase 2 level upon promulgation .” 13 2) Feb. 2012 and Dec. 2011 drafts state that the approach for hydronic heaters “ matches Phase 2 of EPA voluntary program .” 14 , 15 3) EPA’s March 2011 update to tri bes stated, “ 0.32 lb / mmBTU heat output for outdoor HH in 2013 and indoor in 2014 .” 16 4) Feb. 2011 update on NSPS regarding hydronic heaters notes, “ Include in NSPS

. ” 17
Agenc y staff and a few members of the public have been able to see through EPA’s bureaucra tic language proposing certification of Phase 2 hydronic heaters. H owever , it is neither clear nor plain, we suspect deliberately so. By its actions and omissions , EPA has hidden vital information relevant to assessing the efficiency (or lack of) of Phase 2 hydronic heaters and failed to state the proposed regulations would adopt Phase 2 as the certified standard for hydronic heaters

. EPA has done nothing but impede the public’s ability to connect the dots between a particular Phase 2 heater and the wrath of smoke it would reasonably be expected to emit

. Of greatest concern is that EPA has sought to conceal the connection between the Phase 2 device and its 30 thermal efficiency at the same time as EPA is recommend ing certification of these devices.Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 4 of 6

Conclus ions: In its own Gullett, Wood 2012 report, EPA conclude s that the tested three

- stage hydronic heater has only 30 percent thermal efficiency

. The policy relevance is that such a highly inefficient wood heating device would be expected to produce significa nt noxious emissions. The model tested was clearly EPA Phase 2. Yet, because EPA obscured the make and model, EPA is unable to relate its own test of a Phase 2 heater to its current proposal to include Phase 2 in the certified residential wood heater stand ard.
We ask that OMB ensure that Phase 2 not be included in the proposed rule that goes forward to public comment.
EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is responsible for setting standards to protect public health. Obscuring the manufacture r’s label, failing to disclose the model, omitting that the device tested was EPA Phase 2, then packaging a draft rule that inarticulately but specifically certif ies Phase 2 under the NSPS is deceptive and injurious

. By law, EPA is bound to pursue a stand ard that “ shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare .” 18 The NSPS was enacted in 1988 and has not bee n updated to include a standard to regulate the significant harm and air pollution from hydronic heaters. EPA proposes a remedy, but the Phase 2 standard, based on incomplete information with clear evidence to the contrary , is malfeasance and harmful to th e public interest. The cost to public health from Phase 2 hydronic heaters far exceeds any benefit. We strenuously object to EPA’s lack of transparency. The highest standards of integrity must apply when the issue is a matter of life and safety. EPA appea rs to have pursued a predetermined goal of certifying Phase 2 regardless of the evidence of harm and inefficiency. Communities, neighbors, and purchasers deserve better from those whose job it is to set the standards that protect lives and safety

.
Source s :
Brian Gullett , G il Wood , et al, June 2012, Environmental , Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies , Report 12

- 15 , Executive Summary , US EPA, Off i ce of Research and Development and Office of Air Quality Planni ng and Standards for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

. Executive Summary

- Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies

– NYSERD A 12

- 15 Full Report

- Environmental , Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies

– NYSERD A 12

- 15Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 5 of 6

Sukh Sidhu, Brian Gullett, et al , March 2011 , Toxic Air Emissions from Burning W ood and Agricultural Plastics

– A Cone Calorimeter Study , Great Lakes Commission webinar presentation

. Presentation: http://www.glc.org /glad/projects/sidhu08/GLCWebinar110331

- Sidhu.pdf Webinar Series: http://glc.org/glad/meetings/webinar/

EPA Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker for Residential Wood Heater NSPS : http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/rulegate.nsf/byRIN/2060

- AP93 OMB rulemaking page on Residential Wood Heater NSPS : http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=2060

- AP93 For Green Heat webpage review of OMB rulemaking process: ht tp://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2013/08/explanation

- of

- omb

- review

- of

- nsps.html

EPA list of Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters (includes Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300 ) : http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/o whhlist.html (last accessed 9/28/2013) EPA draft update Residential Wood Heat ers NSPS 3/ 22/2013 : http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/NSPSDraftProposal32213.pdf

EPA public outreach on draft proposed rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS , Webinar 2/9/2012: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20120209NSPSpresentation.pdf

EPA status of draft proposed rule Residen tial Wood Heaters NSPS 12/8/2011: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20111208nspspresentation.pdf
EPA draft revisions tribal consultation c all Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/29/ 2011, p 16. http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/pdfs/3

- 29

- 11TribalConsultation%20Call__Wood%20HeatersNSPS.pdf EPA draft options Residential W ood Heater s NSPS 2/15/2011: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20110215NSPSDraftOptionsTable.pdf

EPA revised draft review document Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 5/25/2010: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20091230draftreviewofnspssubpartAAA.pdf EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement b etween EPA Office of Air Quality Planning an d Standards and individual manufacturers: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf 40 CFR Part 2 (see subpart B for Confidential Business Information) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR

- 2012

- title40

- vol1/xml/CFR

- 2012

- title40

- vol1

- part2.xml
Clean Air Act, New Source Performance Standards 42 USC § 7411Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS , page 6 of 6

Definitions: Thermal efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of the heat exchanger of the boiler. It measures the ability of the exchanger to transfer heat from the combustion process to the water or steam in the boiler. Boiler Efficiency Guide

- Cleaver

- Brooks p 8 Combustion efficiency is an indication of the burner’s ability to burn fuel. The amount of unburned fuel and excess air in the exha ust are used to assess a burner’s combustion efficiency. Combustion efficiency is not the same for all fuels and, generally, gaseous and liquid fuels burn more efficiently than solid fuels. Boiler Eff iciency Guide

- Cleaver

- Brooks p 8

1 Brian Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, June 2012, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood

F ired Hydronic Heater Technologies, Report 12

- 15, Executive Summary, US EPA, Office of Research and Development and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards for NYSERDA , p 16

.

2 Gullett, Wood, 2012 , p 32

.

3 Gullett, Wood, 2012 , p 9.

4 Gullett, Wood, 201 2 , p 16.

5 Sukh Sidhu, Brian Gullett, et al, March 2011, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics

– A Cone Calorimeter Study, Great Lakes Commission webinar presentation , p 17.

6 EPA Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Trac ker for Residential Wood Heater NSPS website

.

7 OMB rulemaking web page on Residential Wood Heater NSPS

.

8 EPA draft rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS, Webinar 2/9/2012, p 20

.

9 EPA list of Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters webpage

.

10 Gullett, Wood, 2012

.

11 Sidhu, Gullett, 2011.

12 EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement, p 6

.

13 EPA draft update Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/22/2013, p 5

.

14 EPA public outreach on draft proposed rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS, Webinar 2/9/2012, p 20.

15 EPA draft proposal Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 12/8/2011 , p 8.

16 EPA draft revisions tribal consultation c all Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/29/2011, p 16

.

17 EPA draft options Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 2/15/2011 , p 1.

18 Clean Air Act, New Source P erformance Standards 42 USC § 7411(b)(1)(A ).