Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 1

Citizen Position Statement on the “Proposed Standar ds of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Force d Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters” 40 CFR Part 60, 79 FR 6329.
We strongly support updating the outdated NSPS for residential wood heaters, which is 20 years overdue. The health benefits from the proposed NSP S for hydronic heaters will have a value from $1.5 to $3.5 billion, or $120 to $280 for every dollar s pent on compliance.
Citizen complaints about hydronic heater smoke is t he primary reason why EPA is updating the NSPS. These complaints pushed states and environmental/he alth organizations to urge EPA to update the NSPS back in 2005. Since then, many states and hund reds of municipalities across the country have written a patchwork of ordinances and regulations i n response to complaints from neighbors about hydronic heater smoke. But, citizen complaints cont inued and EPA was sued for not updating the NSPS. If the final NSPS complies with Clean Air Act requi rements, the citizen complaints should end. We don' t want have to complain about our neighbor's wood smo ke anymore.
We are asking OMB to ensure that EPA does the right thing and updates the NSPS to set performance standards that stop harmful, nuisance smoke from re sidential hydronic heaters. However, we are concerned that the final NSPS for hydronic heaters may not fulfill EPA's mandate to adopt healthprotective standards under the Clean Air Act.
Much of EPA's proposed NSPS is based on its Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heater Voluntary Program - a program that is now seven years old. EPA is proposi ng to "grandfather" Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters as certified under Step 1 of the NSPS for 5 years after the rule is final.
We adamantly oppose this proposal. We have found th rough real-world experience that Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters smoke excessively and ha ve health-harming emissions that have forced families to leave their homes, bear expensive medic al and legal costs, suffer loss of property value, or suffer impaired health when they cannot leave or af ford to fight.

Photos of smoke from Phase 2 qualified hydronic hea ters. Left -Central Boiler E-Classic 2300, Fairbank s, AK, FNSB photo; right: Central Boiler E-Classic 2400, Wiscon sinPosition Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 2

Our experience of excessive smoke from hydronic hea ters is validated with data from EPA's own study, which measured unhealthy emission spikes over 100 m icrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 (Gullett, et al. 2012), and by a review of EPA's emission tests and method (NYSERDA 2011). This review found that EPA's emission tests for hydronic heaters is seriou sly flawed, which questions the validity of the NSP S. Test data analyzed by NYSERDA and NESCAUM found tha t 90% of the 23 hydronic heaters evaluated had missing or questionable data. (Review of EPA Metho d 28 OWHH Test Results, NYSERDA, 2011 )
EPA's proposed NSPS is based on this flawed emissio ns data and test method, which will be used to certify hydronic heaters as compliant with emission s standards that they are not proven to meet. This will result in continued excessive smoke and health -harming emissions and have negative financial consequences for manufacturers, state and local gov ernment, consumers and neighbors.
NSPS comments from manufacturers, industry trade g roups, state regulators, and individuals all document errors with the current emission and quali fication test method for hydronic heaters.
Under the law, EPA is required to adopt a health-pr otective NSPS. To ensure that no person ever again endures the tragedy and suffering of smoke from hyd ronic heaters after the NSPS is promulgated, we support three critically important requirements for the NSPS.

• Support #1 - We support a g/hr cap on emission limits for hydron ic heaters. But this g/hr cap cannot be averaged and cannot be exceeded at anytim e during the entire burn cycle to ensure continuous compliance and health-protective standar ds as required by the Clean Air Act

.

• Support #2 - We support a standardized emission test method. Bu t this test method must captures short-term emissions and measure emissions during the entire burn cycle, including start-up, and be based on real-world practice and p erformance

.

• Support #3 - We support visible emissions standards and enforce ment that prohibit nuisance smoke and ensures compliance with health-protective performance standards. But this must be based on the cost-effective EPA Method 22 not th e cost-prohibitive Method 9.
Here are the justifications for supporting these re quirements in the final NSPS:
Support #1 - We support a g/hr cap on emission limits for hydron ic heaters that cannot be exceeded at anytime during the entire burn cycle to ensure c ontinuous compliance and health-protective standards as required by the Clean Air Act.

• The Clean Air Act requires that sources continuousl y comply with emission limits. The unit must never emit higher than the emission standard o f grams per hour. If it does, compliance is considered intermittent and therefore not in full c ompliance with the NSPS standard.

• EPA's proposed NSPS does not require continuous com pliance with emission limits. Instead it proposes an averaged

g/hr cap for individual test runs, and assumes tha t emissions occur equally during the test run. However, EPA’s study f unded by NYSERDA (Gullett) showed that most of the emissions occurred in the first 5-6 hou rs of the burn. But EPA allows test runs to range from 8-40+hours, and then takes the total amo unt of PM 2.5 emitted and divides it by the total hours of the test. That results in nonstandar dized, highly variable results. An averaged g/hrPosition Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 3

cap does not measure emission spikes. An averaged g/hr cap also deceives consumers and state/local regulators who see it as an absolute li mit.

• The health cost of exposure to high levels of wood smoke is well documented. Short-term exposures to PM2.5 cause lung dysfunction and heart attacks. Phase 2 hydronic heaters have documented emission spikes that exceed the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. EPA's own study of a Phase 2 hydronic heater measured spikes over 100 mi crograms per cubic meter of PM2.5, which is considered unhealthy by EPA's air quality index. The Fairbanks, Alaska Air Quality Division measured spikes over 1,000 micrograms per cubic met er of PM2.5 from a Phase 2 hydronic heater. That's twice the highest level that EPA me asures in its AQI. You can't have healthprotective standards without regulating short-term emission spikes.

• The proposed Step 1 emission level for hydronic hea ters is not based on Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER). There are commercially available hydronic heaters with significantly lower emissions than what EPA is proposing, as acknowledg ed in the NSPS: "Step 2 emission limit is already met by 4 hydronic heater models (2 cord woo d and 2 pellet models) built by 2 U.S. manufacturers, as well as over 50 European models."

• EPA has had Phase 2 standards since 2007, which is the Step 1 level in the NSPS. EPA repeatedly notes throughout the NSPS that manufacturers have k nown for seven years that the old emission limits will be stricter in the final NSPS. On p.6359 it states that several years ago, EPA discussed lower emission levels (0.15 lb/MMBtu) wit h the voluntary program stakeholders. In 2010, Gil Wood presented to the Hearth Patio and Ba rbecue Association (HPBA) that emissions will include a g/hr cap, and to expect Washington S tate levels immediately upon NSPS promulgation. Manufacturers have had more than suf ficient time to develop devices that meet stricter emission levels. We support EPA's stateme nt that manufacturers meet Washington State levels immediately upon NSPS promulgation.

• According to EPA's "Manufacturer Cost Memo," manufa cturers can develop, test, and begin manufacturing a new wood stove model within 10-18 m onths. EPA emission standards for other consumer products have required a similar lead time of two to three years (Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment, 73 Fed. Reg. 59,034). Step 2 emission limits must be required within two years after prom ulgation of the rule, rather than the proposed five years. Manufacturers have had seven years to meet the proposed level and EPA wants to extend that to a total of 12 years in the final NSPS.

• We are adamantly opposed to the argument that the a vailable cleaner technologies are cost prohibitive to manufacturers and consumers. This argument just shifts the cost to neighbors living next door to hydronic heaters. Neighbors cannot move out of the way of the smoke t o protect their health and the value of their propert y. Instead, neighbors must pay excessive and unreasonable medical, mitigation, and litigation co sts; suffer loss of property value; be forced to leave their homes to protect their families; or suf fer impaired health when they cannot leave or afford to fight. We have all personally experienced some or all of these costs.

• Some manufacturers and elected officials claim that a lower emission limit will make hydronic heaters too expensive for consumers. Hydronic heat ers currently cost up to $15,000. In spite of that high price, since 2006, EPA estimates that ove r 500,000 hydronic heaters have been sold atPosition Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 4

these high prices. These are not inexpensive wood- burning devices, yet consumer demand is high. The market prices for hydronic heaters have n ot diminished consumer demand. Any claim that higher prices will prevent consumers from buyi ng hydronic heaters is speculative and not supported by data. We urge OMB to make decisions ba sed on data-supported fact and not speculation or political pressure.
Support #2 - We support a standardized test method that capture s short-term emissions and measures emissions during the entire burn cycle, in cluding start-up, that is based on real-world practice and performance

.

• EPA's emission test results and method for hydronic heaters is seriously flawed. Test data analyzed by NYSERDA and NESCAUM found that 90% of t he 23 hydronic heaters evaluated had missing or questionable data. "The specific test i ssues included missing data, testing outside of the prescribed heat-load categories, and error asso ciated with temperature and flow measurements.” (Review of EPA Method 28 OWHH Test Results, NYSERDA, 2011 )

• EPA removed efficiency ratings for hydronic heaters in 2012, after complaints were made about flawed test methods. Manufacturers continue to use these unproven efficiency ratings to promote sales in spite of our ongoing complaints to EPA.

• Misrepresented emission levels and inflated efficie ncy ratings resulting from flawed test methods give manufacturers an unfair advantage in t he marketplace.

• The approved test method must measure all emissions spikes throughout the burn cycle and use the highest g/hr for the entire burn cycle instead of the proposed average emission as the basis for certification. This regulates short-term exposu res to ensure health-protective standards as required by the Clean Air Act. The test must use co rdwood and multiple hardwood and softwood species to represent real-world practices and performance.

• Hydronic heater manufactures have effectively used laws intended to curb particulate matter (PM) in populated areas to contest any legal action brought forth by private individuals adversely effected by the PM emitted from hydronic heaters. This was accomplished by using the national criteria for nonattainment (three year averaging) to convince judges that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring any case forward. Th e NAAQS has also been the driving force behind the volunteer program. This needs to stop. T he EPA cannot publish numerous documents on the adverse health effects of short-te rm exposure and then base the NSPS on averaging the emission-test results mathematically over long periods of time.

• Test Method 28 WHH lowered the thermal efficiency r esults for Phase 2 testing but results still differ by 35-40 percent from EPA's funded study (Gu llett 2012). This validates the significant flaws in the current test method and proves why cyc ling technology in its current form cannot meet clean air standards during actual use.

• EPA must remove all references to Phase 2 hydronic heaters being "90% cleaner" from the final NSPS. EPA bases much of its NSPS recommendations for hydr onic heaters on an unsubstantiated "90% cleaner" claim. Many states ha ve used this claim to justify setting Phase 2 as the regulatory state standard for hydronic heate rs. But EPA has never cited the source and scientific data to verify this statement or the com parative parameters, and the proposed rulePosition Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 5

provides no evidence in support of this statement



### . On January 7, 2014, our citizen group filed a complaint to EPA about the unsubstantiated "90 perc ent cleaner" claim. On January 31, 2014, EPA required manufacturers to "discontinue claiming that specific models are 90% cleaner than older models." EPA states that the claim "could ref er to the burn rate, emissions, efficiency, or other data." On February 4, 2014, Gregory Green from EPA respond ed to our citizen complaint stating, "we also agree that claims that specific m odels are "90 percent cleaner" than older models may also be misleading to the typical consum er and asked manufacturers to be more specific regarding which parameter is "90% cleaner" than older models." But, On February 3, 2014, one week after notifying manufacturers to dis continue using the "90 percent cleaner claim," EPA published the NSPS and justified the pr oposed Phase 2 emission levels as the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) because these u nits are "90 percent cleaner" than typical outdoor hydronic heaters (p 6336). EPA must stop mi sleading state government and consumers with this unsubstantiated claim and remove this wor ding from the final NSPS and from all other informational materials (website, factsheets, repor ts).

• Everyone understands that government testing for mo st consumer products is based on compromise. But this situation is much different th an a person not getting the miles-per-gallon shown on a sticker of a new car. Continued compromi se in the hydronic heater program and in the final NSPS will only perpetuate the harm many a re now suffering across the nation. If the EPA is indeed constrained by politics in this matte r and continues to allow cycling technology to exist, then it must provide enforcement requirement s in the law to buffer the adverse effects that compromise will bring to unsuspecting neighbor s of hydronic heaters.

Support #3 - We support visible emissions standards and enforcem ent that prohibits nuisance smoke and ensures compliance with health-protective perfo rmance standards.

• EPA repeatedly asked throughout the NSPS for commen ts on visible emission provisions. We fully support visible emission standards and enforc ement. But, the visible emission standards must be based on the cost-effective EPA Method 22, not the cost-prohibitive Method 9, and EPA must require states to enforce these standards thro ugh delegation of authority.

• This is not an unreasonable request. Maine and New Jersey use Method 22 to regulate visible emissions from hydronic heaters. It is a proven met hod for determining violations of performance standards. It is cost-effective and ea sy for states to implement and use for enforcement. Affected neighbors can easily photogr aph visible emissions to support state enforcement of the violation.

• Most states already have visible emission laws, but do not apply these to residential sources. States using Method 9 do not enforce residential vi olations due to "lack of resources." Method 22 is a cost-effective alternative to Method 9 and will eliminate the "lack of resources" excuse for not enforcing the law.

• EPA must stop dodging responsibility by saying that states can add their own visible emission rules. This has not happened, except in Maine and N ew Jersey. Instead states point to EPA and local government or the victim of smoke to deal wit h the problem.Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 6

• Manufacturers claim that nuisance smoke is due to o perator error. Therefore, they should have no objection to a visible emission standard.

• A visible emission standard gives affected neighbor s the absolute tool they need to stop the high cost of exposure to hydronic heater smoke.

• We support a visible emissions limit that cannot ex ceed 20 percent opacity for 6 minutes during any one hour period, which is determined at the sta ck level with no requirement for crossing property line. Air does not acknowledge property li nes. The health hazards of breathing smoke in a localized area that is directed by wind or cap tured by an inversion is well established. The Wisconsin Dept. of Public Health guidance on hydron ic heaters states that, "If there are visible emissions and odors at a neighboring residence(s), there is a completed exposure pathway and the potential for adverse health effects. A visibl e plume, odors and health/nuisance complaints should be sufficient to establish exposure."

• EPA must set guidelines for fines and penalties for violators when delegating authority for enforcement to states to ensure consistency across states. Current federal regulation gives little to no authority to states to address operator requi rements because there are no provisions to delegate enforcement to the states or local agencie s.

• Nuisance requirements and enforcement must be in th e NSPS. EPA must include in the NSPS that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in s uch a manner as to create a private or public nuisance. This language must be on permanent label s on hydronic heaters and in owner/operator manuals. This is currently required in manuals for Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters. The proposed rule acknowledges that real- world use of hydronic heaters varies depending on operator diligence, skill level, fuel choice and moisture content, and equipment maintenance.

• The cost to neighbors for nuisance smoke exposure i s too disproportionately high to justify allowing hydronic heaters to continue to go unregul ated with no visible emission and nuisance compliance requirements. 

### We also support:

• CO emission limits to protect consumers from deadly levels of CO, as E PA's study found during Phase 2 emission testing. CO tests were stopped bec ause test animals died from exposure.

• Regulate other air toxins including benzene, dioxin, formaldehyde, and PAHs, as required under the Clean Air Act to set emission levels for all ai r toxins emitted by hydronic heaters.

• Reconstruction provision. We support EPA complying with the CAA 40 CFR par t 60 and Subpart JJJ that requires the NSPS to be applied to new and modified units, and "reconstructed" units to prevent extending the life of the unit indefinitely through readily available replacement parts.

• Efficiency ratings done with the Department of Ener gy and based on Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard to expedite implementati on.

• Right-sizing requirements to ensure that heater siz e matches heat demand, as required with all other residential heating devices. Hydronic heaters should not be exempt.

• Restrict use during air nonattainment days

.Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 7

• Require language on permanent labels and in owner's manual and advertising materials for operator responsibility to comply with federal and state regulations and not create a nuisance. We support a permanent warning label on hydronic he aters that warns consumers of known high levels of CO and PM2.5 emissions, requir ed compliance with federal and state laws, and visible emissions limits and nuisance restricti ons. This language must also be in owner's manuals and in advertising materials.
We support an NSPS that has proven health-protectiv e standards, sets emission levels on grams per hour that cannot be exceeded, and prohibits visible emissions and nuisance smoke. Hydronic heater technologies are commercially available now that si gnificantly reduce toxic air emissions beyond what EPA is proposing. States need federal visible emiss ion and nuisance provisions in the NSPS to enforce performance standards. The cost of EPA's failure t o effectively regulate hydronic heaters can no long er be shifted to the neighbors or local and state gove rnment. If politics and compromise determine the final NSPS for hydronic heaters, then compromise mu st provide neighbors with legal protection from nuisance smoke. We urge OMB to ensure that EPA comp lies with the Clean Air Act and issues healthprotective standards in regulating hydronic heaters in the NSPS.
Citizen Group: Nancy Alderman (Connecticut), Patrice Lee (Alaska ), Bonnie Lichak (New York), Sylvia Schultz (Washington), Roger Soldano (Michigan), and Andrea Wieland (Wisconsin)



### References

• Proposed Standards of Performance for New Residenti al Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced Air Furnaces, and New R esidential Masonry Heaters, 40 CFR Part 60, 79 FR 6329

• Supporting documents and comments submitted by Nanc y Alderman, Bonnie Lichak, Sylvia Schultz, Roger Soldano and Andrea Wieland for the P roposed Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 40 CFR Part 60, 79 FR 6329

• Clean Air Act, Section 111(b)(1)(A)

• Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characteri zation of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies (June 2012). Brian Gullett, et al., EP A, NYSERDA, including supplemental table data.

• Review of EPA Method 28 OWHH Test Results, NYSERDA (2011)

• Assessment of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers (2006). NE SCAUM.

• Woodsmoke Health Effects: A review (2006). Luke. P. Naeher, et al., Inhalation Toxicology 67, 82-87

• Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in N ew York State (2008). New York Attorney General, Environmental Protection Bureau

• The Dangers to Health from Outdoor Wood Furnaces (2 010). Nancy Alderman, et al., Environment and Human Health, Inc.

• An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released fro m Outdoor Wood Boilers (2007). David R. Brown, et al., Human and Ecological Risk Assessment , 13: 191–208Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood He ater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 8

• Outdoor Wood Boiler Investigation Health Consultati on, Pleasant Lake, Michigan (October 13, 2009). U.S. Department of Health Agency for Toxic S ubstances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation.

• Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Division air quality monitoring data. Measured peaks up to 1,088.3 μg/m3 on 1/10/2009 at 12:26 pm using DataRAM mobile monitori ng.

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

• Washington Dept. of Ecology, outdoor wood boiler re gulations: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/outdoor_woodsmok e/Wood_boilers.htm

• State of Alaska v. Straughn, case number 4FA-13-012 05CI

• Central Boiler E-Classic 2400 Phase 2 Owner's Manua l

• EPA List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, http://www. epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html

• Paris v. Lussier, 842-11-08l, Vermont, Wrongful De ath Lawsuit. https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/UPEO2006-2010/eo10 -034.pdf and http://www.7dvt.com/2009outdoor-wood-boilers-approp riate-technology-or-deadly-device

• Minnesota and Wisconsin Local Hydronic Heater Ordi nances and Regulations: http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/Air/OWBOrdinanceRep ort.htm and http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document. html?gid=18425

• Gil Wood Presentation to Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association, 2010.

• EPA Letter to Hydronic Heater Program Partners, May 9, 2013. http://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/epa-ltr-to-c b-pdf.105199/

• Letter of Notice of Intent to Sue from Attorneys Ge neral from New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont an d the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, August 1, 2013; a nd Letter of Notice of Intent to Sue from American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Envir onmental Defense Fund and Environment and Human Health Inc, to Gina McCarthy, EPA Adminis trator, August 1, 2013.

• Letter of Notice for Claims of 90% cleaner to Hydro nic Heater Manufacturers, from Gregory Green, EPA, January 31, 2014.