From: John and Bonnie Lichak [ mailto:bjlich@live.com ]

Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:59 PM
To: Browne, Cynthia Subject: CARE NY statement for 12:00 meeting 10/14



### Dear Ms. Browne:

I submitted the attached statement to Ms. Atkinson for a noon meeting on 10/14 with Administrator McCabe and Mr. Green but received back an email that Ms. Atkinson is out all week and so to contact you. I am therefore forwarding to you for distribution.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lichak Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY

www.careny.org

From: bjlich@live.com
To: atkinson.emily@epa.gov Subject: CARE NY statement for 12:00 meeting 10/14 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:52:33

- 04 00

Dear Ms. Atkinson:

Attached is a copy of the statement I will be presenting tomorrow in the 12:00 meeting with Administrator McCabe and Mr. Green.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lichak Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY

### Working for clean air for everyone in New York State www.careny.org 2136 US 20 Nassau, NY 12123 October 14, 20114

Ms. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator Mr. Gregory Green, Director Outreach and Information Division Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20760

Dear Ms. McCabe and Mr. Green:

Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY is a citizen organization that has spent years trying to get NY local and State officials to stop the assault on public health and qualit y of l ife from wood boilers. L iving downwind of a wood boiler is hell on earth that has been long ignored and rarely addressed. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) can begin to change this very large backward slide in air quality but only if EPA sets emission limits using test methods that are true to consumer usage.
Public officials simply do not understand how much smoke is released from wood boilers

. Existing loca l laws and State regulations have been ignored in favor of the consumer that bo ught the faulty equipment while families grow sicker and more frustrated. The automatic damper makes many think “what smoke” but when that damper opens and all that smoldered wood gets a gasp of air it struggles and puffs out giant plumes of ground level smoke engulfing all those within its path.

NY has not adequately dealt with the issue of wood boiler pollution in whole or in part. Despite the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation ( DEC ) sending 17 manufacturers’ letters in 2003 advising their product s violated existing DEC regulations sales continued. DEC also passed a regulation modeled after EPAs Model Rule which has undermined their prior regulation

. DEC’s regulation uses the EPA test method known as Method 28 OWHH of kiln dried red oak stacked in a tepee with raking, hot starts, and weighted averages. Not real world testing and so not real world emissions. We have a member family who w ill tell you the smoke from the DEC certified boiler is still heavy, ground level, and making her sick. No

one is listening to her.

### Page 2

CARE NY

To fully understand how horrendous the EPA loophole has made NYers lives the voices of commenters during the public comment period of DEC Part 247 state it best:

 “Daddy are we going to die?” (Commenter #300)

 “I go in the house crying , take a tranquilizer

. ” “It’s been a stressful year. I’m not doing well.” (Comment #1013 smoke log)

 “There’s been no one to help us.” (Commenter #297)

 “We were force d to abandon our beautiful home ” (Commenter #276)

 “No you can’t judge these things by the number of complaints. (Commenter #1401)

 “An elderly couple next door are affected severely, and they have even said ‘he is killing us’ (Commenter #1517)

 “the children cannot go out to play....” (Commenter #1418)

 “I cannot go through another winter coughing, and feeling sick every day”

... “my neighbor has made reparations to the stack twice but the smoke still billows out all day and night.” (Commenter #113)

The NY DEC files are full of complaints about wood boile rs.
The EPA Voluntary Program confused States with its claims of 90% cleaner. We don’t understand how that claim was and is still being made on EPAs website and in the NSPS documents . The Alaska AG v. Straughn shut down a Phase II Voluntary Program boi ler. The AG affidavits from the staff and children at Woodriver Elementary School are chilling. If you have not read them then I strongly suggest you do before allowing the Phase II standards and Method 28 test method to become the EPA NSPS standard for t he next 5
years.
No family should be forced from their home or made sick by their neighbors heating system nor subjected to ground level smoke 24/7 365 days a year nor forced to close their windows in summer because a neighbor is using wood and filling the ir valley with smoke to heat a swimming pool or domestic hot water nor endure a wood boiler being used as a residential incinerator. And no State should have to determine if the EPA is using a test method that really ensures emissions stated are emissions that will be achieved in real world operations.

Today I am here to strongly support EPA finally closing the wood boiler loophole. EPA must use a test method that is real world assured. Data can’t be weighted and averaged. Wood can’t be kiln dried red oak . The test must be with cord wood including hard and soft woods or all s oft if that is what real world use will mean. There is no reason that boilers should be held to a lesser standard than wood stoves. If g/hr are to be met by a wood stove then so too should they be for a boiler.

NY now has the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) test for boilers with partial or full thermal storage. This test method was developed for boilers that as we understand it

### Page 3

CARE NY

really do meet an emission limit that can be repli cated IF the boiler is right sized. EPA needs to ensure that emissions are met and can be met at all times, not just in a lab under perfect conditions. We need clean air, not the sale of devices that harm public health certified or qualified by EPA under false data.

It is most disturbing to those of us that support a strong NSPS that NESCAUM has submitted to EPA a consensus paper with the Hearth Patio and Barbeque Association that suggests the federal standard be the NY certified boilers for the next 5 ye ars. These boilers were certified using the discredited Method 28 OWHH test except for we believe two of the models which have thermal storage and were tested with t he BNL test method. How could NESCAUM and WESTAR support the continued sales of what is e ssentially the EPA Voluntary Program Phase II boilers? This is unacceptable.

We ask that EPA genuinely protect public health and ensure that the test methods used to certify boilers meet emission limits when homeowners use them.

We are glad EPA is getting rid of weighted annual average in Step 2 but it can ’ t be allowed for Step 1.

We also request that EPA require i ncreased a ir monitoring in Stat es to ensure compliance w/NAAQS. NYSERDA used mobile monitoring and released a report detailing that in the Adirondacks there were spikes of 750 micrograms per cubic meter observed. They also stated that 90% o f PM 2.5 is from wood smoke in rural areas. Limited monitoring devices and their locations are under reporting the pollution many in the U.S. are enduring.

We also request e mission s tandards holding all “alternate” fuel burning devices to the same level

. This should include both residential and those appliances labeled commercial for wood stoves, wood boilers, and coal or other fuel sources devices . EPA and the public can’t afford new NSPS loopholes

. Lastly we request that t est data be reviewed by EPA and available for States

, t hird party certification of test labs , requirements for r ight sizing to match the appliance to the square footage of the house with language that provides enforcement for failure to do so by States

, and hang t ags to ensure con sumers know what they are buying w/bot h efficiencies and emissions so they can compare one appliance against another

. In summary w e very much support EPA updating the NSPS to protect public health and to ensure consumers are getting what they think they ar e with efficiencies and emissions. We support boile rs emit ting no more pollution than wood stoves . EPA must somehow ensure outdoor boilers can’t be used as incinerators. Test Methods must be reflective of real world use

. We also request that any standa rd use grams per hour vs . mmBTU.

### Page 4

CARE NY

All of us living downwind of "old OWBs," "Voluntary EPA OWBs", IWBs and even old wood stoves deserve to have the Clean Air Act adhered to.

The NSPS should advance public policy that will be health protective

.

S incerely,

Bonnie Lichak Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY

The above statements are also supported by: Secor Home Civic Association, Inc. located in the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester County, New YorkFrom: John and Bonnie Lichak < bjlich@live.com >

Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:44 PM
To: Green, Gregory; Powers, Tom; Stewart, Lori; Wood, Gil; McCabe, Janet Subject: NSPS meeting and comments



### Dear Ms. McCabe, Ms. Stewart, Mr. Green, Mr. Powers, and Mr. Wood:

Thank you very much for taking the time to meet w/Andrea Wieland, Patrice Lee, Sylvia Schultz, Roger Soldano, Nancy Alderman, and myself on Tuesday.

I submitted my statement to Cynthia Browne so I assume all of you have received a copy but I have attached just in case you did not. In addition I am attaching my May NSPS comments 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.

One additional comment that I don't think we covered in all our pre sentations is the issue not only of the need to monitor visible emissions by the States but also the other air toxins

--- PAHs and VOCs. Living downwind of a wood boiler we can all tell you that the smell of the incomplete combustion is horrendous. The n eed for monitoring of these carcinogens w/other tools than visible emissions is important also to protecting public health since night time emissions are often some of the worst because of inversions, no wind, and then the inability to see those emissions but these PAHs and VOCs also occur during the day as well.

Again thank you very much for your time and attention to this most serious issue.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lichak Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY

www.careny.orgBonnie Lichak

– NSPS Comments

Submitted May 4, 2014

Gina McCarthy, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center Mail Code 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Attention Docket ID no. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0734

Via Email: a

- and

- r

- docket@epa.gov

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 on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule, published February 3, 2014 in the Federal Register, entitled Standards of Performance for New
Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Hea ters and Forced

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

. 1

The EPA’s proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) will not fulfill the EPA’s mandate to protect human health under the Clean Air Act. 2 Under the law, EPA is required to adopt a health protective NSPS

. 3

EPA past behavior and Proposed Rule Fails to Meet Legal Standards

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA shall regulate any category of stationary source that in the Administrator’s judgment “ causes, or contributes signif icantly to, air pollution wh ich may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare

. ” EPA has failed the public in providing this protection in both its delay in adopting standards and in the proposed standard for hydronic heaters.

When th e EPA adopted the NSPS in 1988 they left a loophole that allowed hydronic heaters to go unregulated for decades. It is not clear from the proposed regulation if EPA is again creating a loophole by ignoring that hydronic heaters are currently sold as both residential and commercial models. Since
this rule is titled Residential and not Commercial it is expected that EPA is creating another loophole which States will have to suffer thru or close with their own Legislation. At this juncture with all the millions of dollars that have been spent by States and EPA documenting the pollution emitted by

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

- Air Furnaces, and New Residen tial Masonry Heaters, Proposed Rule, FR Doc No: 2014

- 00409, Vol. 79, No. 22 (Feb 3, 2014), 6330

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

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

2 Clean Air Act, Section 111(b)(1)(A)

3 40 CFR Part 60, subpart AAAPage 2 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

hydronic heaters, this new loophole would be inex cusable. No family should have to endure what so many have by EPAs failure to regulate and no family should have to endure a commercial hydronic
heater in a residential neighborhood that could be placed within feet of their home because EPA failed to prot ect public health with this new standard by ignoring this manufacturer “classification” or

nuance

. Hydronic heaters have created a nightmare for 10s of thousands of U.S. families. Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management ( NESCAUM ) released their report on hydronic heaters in 2006. 4 In that report they estimated that by 2010 there would be 500,000 outdoor wood boilers (OWBs

- hydronic heaters) emitting 900,000 tons of fine particulate . The wood smoke from these heaters is emitted at ground level and engulfs the homes and yards of families. OWBs have short stacks, cyclic operation, an oversized firebox, and can operate year round. Families living downwind can’t escape the dense smoke because it hangs at ground level. NESCAUM stated the smallest OWB emitted 161 g/hr of fine particulate (this in a time period where EPA required wood stoves to em it no more than 4.1 g/hr or 7 g/ hr. depending upon whether there was a catalytic converter )

. The average of these emissions

was equated to the pollution of 205 oil furnaces and 8000 gas furnaces. The New York Attorney General report, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs , released in 2005 and 2008 also reiterated this data. 5

NESCAUM stated in their Executive Summary:

“The cumulative impact of OWBs to ambient air quality is only one part of the problem. Because OWBs are used primarily in residential applications, they have the potential to emit fine particulate matter and air toxics at levels that could create elevated risk to nearby populations. A second pilot study conducted by NESCAUM measured ambient PM2.5 within 150 feet of an OWB device. Relative to background levels, the study documented high 15

- second average values (>1,000 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)) wit h spikes greater than 8,000 μg/m3 throughout the course of normal daily OWB operating modes. These data suggest that buildings located near OWBs can experience high PM2.5 levels during typical boiler operating conditions. Health studies have found associat ions of acute and chronic exposure to wood smoke with adverse health outcomes such as increases in respiratory symptoms, decreases in lung function, visits to emergency departments, and hospitalization.”

EPA needs to couple the NESCAUM and NY Attorney Gen eral studies on OWBs with what it knows about the impacts of increased fine particulate on human health. I n every letter that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) wrote to EPA in 2006 (March, June, September) commenting on the National Ambi ent Air Quality Standards, CASAC stated the Clean Air Act requires standards be set with an “adequate margin of safety....requ isite to protect public health.” 6

4 Assessment of Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers, revised June 2006, Executive Summary, vii and viii. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/assessment

- of

- outdoor

- wood

- fired

- boilers

5 Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State (2005 and 2008). NY Attorney General,
Envi ronmental Protection Bureau

6 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee September 29, 2006 letter to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Subject: Clean Ari Scientific Advisory Committee Recommendations Concerning the Final National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate MatterPage 3 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

In CASAC’s letter of September 29, 2006 they stated:

“ There is clear and convincing scientific evidence that significant adverse human

- health effects occur in response to short

- term and chronic particulate matter exposures at and below 15 ug/m3”

EPA ignoring that w ood boilers have subjected U.S. families to greater than 8000 ug/ m3 when health impacts occur at and below 15 ug/m3 is nothing short of criminal and a clear violation of the Clean Air
Act. Delaying implementation of the NSPS for so many years and then pro posing phase

- ins and the use of test methods in this Draft NSPS t hat are not real world and distort emissions will be a death sentence to many more households from these spikes in air pollution. If EPA has determined that 1.5 g/hr. can be met with wood bu rning appliances why would EPA propose a dual standard for hydronic heaters
, which are also wood burning appliances , phase in standards (after decades of no standards already), and use test methods that co ver up the real world emissions?

EPA has been ignoring not only Regional Air Agencies and their reports

, as well as the CASAC, which is comprised of Doctors and Scientists, b ut also a petition from States. After the NY Attorney General released their 2005 report, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs
, NY and 6 ot her Attorney Generals along with
NESCAUM petitioned EPA to issue the NSPS. 7 EPA did not. This delay has caused an undocumented public health care cost . It has also ignored costs of destroyed finances of the many families that have had to incur legal cos ts, abandon their homes, sell their homes at a loss to others who will suffer, or the expense of air filters to try and combat the impacts upon their health within their homes. The EPA ’s delay has also caused countless hours and dollars spent by State offi cials responding to complaints, writing letters to EPA and the filing of a lawsuit.

Over the years from 2004 until 2013 States along with NESCAUM, WESTAR and other Regional Air Agencies have written letter after letter appealing to EPA to close the hydro nic heater loophole and to use real test methods. (See NESCAUM 2006 report for earli e st known letter from Kenneth Colburn, then Executive Director of NESAUM , to then Assistant Administrator for Air an d Radia t i on, Jeffery R. Holmstead dated July 29, 2004 )

. 8

Instead of complying with the Clean Air Act and proceeding with NSPS open to the public for comment and backed by science, the EPA started a Voluntary Program. This program has created a further nightmare for States because it used a test method that vastly under reported emissions. EPA made claims that the Voluntary Program boilers were 90% cleaner. These claims were unsubstantiated. EPA allowed manufacturers to use hang tags and to advertise the 90% cleaner sound bite confusing both State Off icials and Consumers.

New York Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) released a 2011 report, Review of EPA Method 28 Outdoor Wood Heater Test Results , documenting that 90% of the data from the EPA Voluntary Program was missing or incorrect. 9

7 h ttp://www.ag.ny.gov/press

- release/ag

- targets

- air

- pollution

- problem

- rural

- communities

8 Assessment of Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers, revised June 2006 , Appendix A, pages 56

- 57 http://www.nescaum.org/documents/assessment

- of

- outdoor

- wood

- fired

- boilers

9 NYSERDA Report, Review of EPA Method 28 Outdoor Wood Heater Test Results , Executive Summary, Page ES

- 2
, September 2011Pag e 4 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

The Voluntary Program misl e d the States so much that even in NY

, wh ere the NY Attorney General had been on the forefront of petitioning the EPA , the NY Department of Environmenta l Conservation (DEC) adopted the EPA test method in its regulation known as DEC Part 247 . DEC Part 247 was pushed thru to approval under the leadership of Acting Commissioner Peter Iwanowicz who had formerly worked at American Lung and written a lette r to the NY Times on February 4, 2007 about the issues with wood boilers

. 10 Through no fault of his own then Commissioner Iwanowicz allowed NYS to pass a regulation that was a step backward from the existing regulations that NY had advised manufacturers t hey violated
in 2003. 11 Mr. Iwanowicz was merely trying to stop the sale in NY of the “dirtiest boilers” but unwittingly undermined NYs existing regulations. This likely never would have happened IF EPA had not misled the States with its test method.

N Y now is allowing for sale in NY the very boiler make and model that the Alaska Attorney General in Alaska v. Straughn shut down for the pollution emitted

. 12 Those two boilers (Central Boiler E Classic 2300) made staff & children sick at Woodriver Elementa ry School in Fairbanks, Alaska. T he Central Boiler E Classic 2300 is on the list of EPA Voluntary Program so called 90% cleaner boilers and the NY DEC list of certified boilers. 13

Also on the list for sale in NY of the EPA Voluntary Program boilers is the Central Boiler E Classic 2400. As you can see in the photos below those who live downwind would be asking if these are 90% cleaner how horrendous are the boilers that are in place and will remain in place after the NSPS is implemented. A valid question.

And NY like so many other governmental entities when they passed regulations/laws for outdoor wood boilers did not realize that they had also unwittingly created another loophole. Indoor Wood Boilers are not specifically regulated in NY. NY ca n use its cumbersome DEC Part 211 and DEC Part 227

- 1.3 but with State Budget cuts to NY DEC they have told families they do not “routinely” use these provisions for indoor heating appliances. No one who lives downwind can comprehend this ignoring of pollu tion.

The shame of all of this is that so many families have and will continue to suffer living downwind of hydronic heaters. The NSPS as proposed is not timely for any of the harmed families and will still delay implementation with standards that have been dis proved. The staff and children at Woodriver

10 http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/71720.html and NY Times Op Ed article, Smoke Signals b y Peter M. Iwanowicz, then Vice President of American Lung, NYS http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/opinion/nyregionopinions/04WEiwanowicz.html?_r =0

11 Assessmen t of Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers, revised Ju ne 2006, Appendix A, pages 61

- 62 http://www.nescaum.org/documents/assessment

- of

- outdoor

- wood

- fired

- boilers

12 State of Alaska v. Straughn, case number 4FA

- 13

- 01205CI

13 http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhharchive.html and http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/73694.html and 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.pdfPage 5 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

Elementary School in Fairbanks, Alaska who were finally “rescued” by the Attorney General filing a lawsuit 5 years after the harm began will never fully recover th e damage done to their health.

EP A knows full well that the NSPS as drafted is still advancing faulty test methods and will not undo the years of harm that have been done and that harm will continue with in place boilers long after the NSPS is in place.

Figure 1: Left

- Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300, Fairbanks, AK, FNSB photo; right: Central Boiler E

- Classic 2400, Wisconsin

O n August 2, 2013 the NY At torney General with 6 States and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency fil ed an
intent to sue EPA to force EPA to issue the NSPS. 14 In October 2013 the lawsuit was filed. 15 In April 2014

a Partial Consent Decree was signed requiring the NSPS to be finalized by 2015. 16 The record must reflect that will be nearly a full 10 years A FTER the NY AG petitioned EPA. During this 10 year time frame the U.S. economy experienced one of its greatest set

- backs since the Great Depression. People lost their jobs and energy prices spiked. People looked for alternative heating sources . Under t he misdirection of the EPA with its Voluntary Program and misleading hang tags countless consumers unwittingly purchased hydronic heaters . These heaters are grossly expensive costing $10,000

- $16,000

or more and then have efficiency issues as detailed in the NY AG report, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs . For far less money families could have been better off with higher efficiency wood stoves or putting that money to more efficient heat pumps, etc

.
For those at EPA who do not fully understand just how impos sible these boilers are to operate without smoking please see the You Tube videos posted by Mr. O’Hara. He states he contacted the

14 http://www.epa.gov/ogc/noi.html

15 http://www.ag.ny.gov/press

- release/ag

- schneiderman

- leads

- coalition

- suing

- epa

- failing

- adequately

- limit

pollution

16 Case 1:13

- cv

- 01553

- GK Document 27

- 1 Filed 04/28/14Page 6 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

manufacturer to no avail. He has posted 11 videos of his attempts to get his boiler to not smoke out his neighborhood. It is identified as a Crown Royal Furnace. You will find his videos enlightening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwOrdaHVkEE

The harm and cost of EPA failing t o regulate hydronic heaters can not be understated. Continuing to get it wrong will be a very large cost to families which should not be accepted by EPA or the States. By way o f example t he two hydronic heaters (Central Boiler E Classic 2300s) in Alaska resulted in health and other costs of over $460,000. 17 If in fact there are 500,000 or more hydronic heaters now in place, and this is a representative cost, the n the cost to th e U.S. economy may be $ 115 billion in health care and other costs from these in place boilers . This may seem an exaggeration to some but that is only because they do not understand what people endure from the increased PAHs, VOCs, fine particulate and car cinogens from these increased emissions. According to the CDC hydronic heaters are an urgent public hazard 18

---- one that EPA has ignored for decades. Per the CDC with 1 in 11 children and 1 in 12 adults with asthma costing the U.S. $56 billion per year i t is not difficult to see that the cost of thes e highly polluting devices is a great cost. 19

Why the U.S. should not permit the sale of Outdoor Wood Boilers in the U.S.

Before going into the detail of EPAs proposed regulation of hydronic heaters the most important consideration is whether they should be allowed for sale in the U.S. ever . The outdoor versions of wood boilers have large fireboxes and are located outside the home. The NY DEC files are full of complaints from neighbors that OWBs are being us ed to burn household waste. For EPA to ignore this “inconvenient truth” that they can’t control what people burn in these heaters is to subject families living downwind to personal incinerators. The burning of household waste is a danger that must be cal culated into EPAs rule.

Indoor hydronic heaters operate the same way as outdoor hydronic heaters. They have an automatic damper and have cyclic operation. The “technology” is designed to squash the oxygen supply creating a smoldering fire which then emi ts constant smoke with huge plumes when the damper opens. The States have recommended to EPA that this “technology” only operates “efficiently” with water storage.

The question then becomes how will EPA or the States monitor installations and ensure th at the equipment is right sized and includes water storage to meet any emission standard that is set? If water storage is not part of the system how does EPA ensure that creosote buildup is not an added danger from these slow smoldering fires which then in turn raises the very fire hazard that the 1988 NSPS was designed to lessen/eliminate when it made the sale of wood stoves that could be damped a

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

- fi red 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

- hy dronic

- heaters

- fairbanks

- ak.pdf

18 Health Consultation, OWB Investigation, Pleasant Lake, Jackson County, Michigan, 10/13/09 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/OutdoorWoodBoilerInvestigation/OutdoorWoodBoilerInvestigation10

- 13

- 2009.pdf

19 Asthma’s Impact on the Nation, Data from the CDC National Asthma Control Program http://www.cd c.gov/asthma/impacts_nation/AsthmaFactSheet.pdfPage 7 Comments on Residential Wood Hea ters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

thing of the past? EPA has a responsibility to protect not only the health of people’s lungs but also of the risk of increased fire.

Smoke sitting on top of a house in E . Nassau, NY from an indoor wood /coal hyd ronic heater located across the road. The indoor hydronic heat er is a Harmon Trident SF 160 which is advertised as a wood/coal boiler. It is oversized for the square footage of the house and has no water storage. The chimney to the house is encrusted wi th creosote.

Ignoring operator error with hydronic heaters creates a very real pollution source that will impact public health. Based upon how poorly the States have been able to implement regulations (even here in NY) to protect public health or to st op sales of these consumer nightmares, it is imperative that EPA really consider how the NSPS can be implemented

. Passing costs on to consumers, down winders, or State regulators is a very serious problem with hydronic heaters.Page 8 Comments on Res idential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

Picture of creosote encrusted chimney in E. Nassau, NY from Harmon Trident SF 160 indoor wood/coal hydronic heaterPage 9 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

Playground in adjacent yard from Harmon Trident SF 160 I ndoor Wood / Coal Hydronic Heater . Would you want your child to play here?



## Recommendations

Hang Tag Comparisons

– page 6330

The NSPS is proposing to eliminate hang tag comparisons. Consumers need to be able to make informed decisions on energy use and output for all appliances and the EPA should continue the use of such information including the following information:

 Emission Rate

– clearly delineated by grams per hour for all appliances bas ed upon real world
test methods (cord wood vs. crib wood). Hydronic heaters based upon the State of Washington
Test Method so emissions are real world

 Heating Range (for correct sizing)

 Overall Thermal Efficiency rating

– percentagePage 10 Comments on Re sidential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

 C arbon Dioxide

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

 Manufacturer and model of heater

 Particle pollution

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

 Improper Fuels notice

– use of improper f uel voids manufacturer warranty

 Nuisance Prohibited notice

– heater operator is responsible for complying with all laws for hydronic heaters, and no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a way as to create a
nuisanc e.

 Manufacturers should be required to specify pro per fuels in the owner’s manual

 The hydronic heater owner’s manual and all advertising and promotional materials should include the following language: “Operators must comply with all laws and regulations for hydronic heaters. Hydronic heaters must produce no visible smoke, except for three minutes in any 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 hea ter may cause nuisance conditions. Meeting the distance and stack height recommendations from the manufacturer and requirements in applicable state and local regulations may not always be adequate to prevent
nuisance conditions in some areas due to terrain or other factors. The person(s) operating a hydronic heater is/are responsible for operation in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance condition.”

Hang tag information cannot be a voluntary program. Consumers have the right to know wh at they are purchasing.

Test Methods

The NSPS is proposing to certify emission s of hydronic heaters using the Method 28 WHH. This method has been proven to vastly under report emissions. Those who have lived downwind of the so called cleaner Voluntary Phase II boilers can testify that these boilers are in fact NOT meeting a standard to protect public health. In the Alaska AG case of Alaska v Straughn two Central Boiler E

- Classic 2300s were
shut do wn for the high emissions that resulted in staff and children suffering very serious health impacts at Woodriver Elementary school. EPA needs to do real world testing to protect people in the real world.

Test Methods should follow the State of Washington and include the following:

 Use of cord wood vs. crib wood . Cord Wood more typically resembles what a typical
homeowner would use

The current use of kiln dried red oak so vastly under reports emissions as to make the test data totally fictional. The curre nt test method requires that the wood be free of fungus, decay, and loose bark. The reality is that outdoor wood boilers by their location eliminate the operator’s fear of building creosote in their chimney and so wood is often cut and burned, stored outs ide without benefit of cover, or includes treated wood or other hazardous materials. If EPA really believes that OWBs can and should be allowed to be sold in the U.S. then they must account for “operator error” when calculating the impact upon our air. O WBs are high users of woodPage 11 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

because they are essentially heating the outdoors . F or EPA to not recognize that people run out of wood and proceed to burn whatever is available is a head in the sand approach to regulation.

For example, according to NYSERDA’s 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 pr eviously (Kinsey et al., 2009).” White pine generated “PM emissions that were 40% greater than red oak.” 20 The State of Washington requires stick wood devices to be tested with Douglas fir. 21

It is suggested that EPA view the 11 videos posted on line by M r. O’Hara so you are more familiar of how OWBs operate and how difficult it is to get them to not smoke. Mr. O’Hara uses very dry wood ( 10

– 13% moisture) and he can never get the boiler to stop smoking. The boiler is a Crown Royal RS 7400. This boiler is currently allowed for sale in the U.S. The EPA has approved an “E” version in their Voluntary Program. If Crown Royal has so improved under the EPA Voluntary Program and the purpose of that program was to encourage innovation why is the OWB with high emi ssions still being sold by them? This would seem to fly in the face of proof that manufacturers will improve w/encouragement vs. regulation. Mr. O’Hara is a harmed
consumer. Test methods must ensure no more consumers are harmed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwOrdaHVkEE

 Test Fuel Charge

– T he current method of testing uses the optimal wood determined by the fuel
box size and manufacturer’s instructions. Real world testing should assume owners will load an outdoor hydronic heater w/fresh cut large logs intended to avoid frequent reloading. If EPA watches any of a number of videos posted by manufacturers they clearly show that their boilers are made to use large pieces for long burn. Unless EP A is going to stipulate fuel box size that can’t do that then the fuel charge must replicate the worst case not best case scenario

 Standard for CO Emissions

– I n the Gullet Study the mice are reported to have died from the CO
emissions from the wood boile r. EPA must ensure that CO emissions are set to protect families who may have indoor wood boilers 22 or locate their outdoor wood boilers in a structure.

 Efficiency information for hydronic heaters must include calculations to account for pipeline
loss for outdoor hydronic heaters . Families need to know that hydronic heaters have been

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

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

- 15. Brian Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, 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

21 Washington Dept 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)

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

- Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies (June 2012). Brian Gullett, et al.Page 11 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

known to use 10

– 20 cords of wood in a season. The heat loss is a significant factor in operational costs and should not be ignored

 Cold Start vs. Hot Start

– T he current method of using a hot to hot start is not real world burning. Hydronic heaters cycle multiple times per day and do in fact have cold starts over and over again

. The tes t m ethod must use a cold start . The method must modulate heat demand to simulate an indoor thermostat cycling on and off so as to replicate real world operation.

Hydronic heaters have exceeded the NAAQS for the 24 hour period in real world testing. EPA must d o testing to ensure that no family has to endure those multiple times per day of spikes
of PM and other emissions. The Alaska AG case had a sniffer vehicle that documented 1000 ug/m3 from a Phase II Voluntary Program boiler. 23 All efforts must be made to e nsure hydronic
heaters are held to the same standard as wood stoves. If EPA cannot ensure that then this NSPS is a giant step backward.

Emissions testing must include appliance start up and should not be allowed to bring the water to temperature before d ata is gathered as is currently done.

 Raking

– T he current test method allows adjustments to the coal bed to dislodge fuel pieces from positions of poor operations. This is not real world operation and should not occur. Load the boiler w/fresh cut large pieces of wood and start testing. Real world operators are not going
to stand outside in the freezing cold and babysit their outdoor hydronic heater. They load and

go. The test method must be load and go.

 Water Temperature

– T he current test method req uires the water temperature to be a perfect 120 degrees. Again this is not real world operation. Tests of emissions must account for the cold water coming into the system.

 Precision and Bias

– T he current test method states “ the appliance operation and fueling protocols and the appliances themselves produce variable amounts of emissions and cannot be used to determine reproducibility.” This statement would seem to underline the key problem w/the current test method. The public may not reproduce th e emissions each time but there needs to be some certainty that the emissions ar e ALWAYS within the maximums se t by the
EPA . At this point in time the U.S. has the ability to sell appliances that meet a health safety standard and only those meeting such s tandard should be certified.

 Audit Procedures

– EPA must review the test data and ensure it complies with the standards set. The NYSERDA study found that for hydronic heater testing for the Voluntary Program the data was 90% missing or incomplete. The p ublic needs to have faith that the consultants that

23 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.pdfPage 12 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

are paid by industry are in fact complying with the standards set. Everyone knows that a
consultant works for the client wh ich leaves room for data manipulation. EPA should do periodic testing by their own consultants (NYSERDA, NESCAUM, Brookhaven, etc) to ensure data is not being manipulated. Any company found to have data that cannot be replicated
must be banned from furth er participation.

 Thermal Storage

- Consideration must be given by EPA to require all hydronic heaters to
include 100% thermal storage if that is the only way that the system can be used and ensure
that emission standards are met

. (Note comments above how ever on concerns w/burning of garbage and ability to end run thermal storage requirements and ability to monitor by States.)
In addition the use of automatic dampers to control the air flow needs to be reviewed . The 1988 NSPS was specifically devised to require air flow to cut emissions. It is not clear how EPA is now ignoring the very elemental requirement for a hot fire to reduce emissions.

 Cap Spikes throughout Each Individual Test Run

The most significant public health concern with hydronic heaters are harmful emission spikes. EPA’s proposed test method averages total particulate emission over each 10

- minute reading rather than over the duration of each test run (typically four differen t test runs without replicates, each approximately 8 hours in duration). The proposed method continues to hide
short

- term

- emission spikes correlated with damaging health effects. EPA’s test method should be revised to require sampling once per minute dur ing the entire burn cycle from startup to finish throughout each individual test

. The standard should apply to the highest emission spike recorded during any minute of any individual test as an emission cap, so that no emission spike exceeds the 1.3 g/hr (or 2.5 g/hr interim) standard. The goal is to prevent hazardous emission spikes that exceed the g/hr
standard. The State of Washington requires minute

- by

- minute sampling and no sample shall exceed the state emission cap. The highest emission spike of any individual test run should be published online and be available to the consumer prior to purchase.

 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.” An annual average hide s hourly emission spikes. As it is weighted to represent an average heat load for the unidentified northern US cities, EPA’s method is an even worse predictor for emissions from hydronic heaters operated at a higher
heat load in colder areas such as Fairba nks, Alaska. It is unlikely that the annual average weighting calculation reflects actual use patterns in Fairbanks. Consumers and the public are misled by the reported average, not realizing it is a weighted average and may bear little relationship to act ual emissions. EPA should cease reporting the misleading annual weighted average to the public.Page 13 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

EPA’s proposal to drop weighting from the Step 2 standards is of the utmost imp ortance and must not be phased in

. 24 Weighting adds bias, is misleading to consumers, and should be removed entirely from the Proposed Rule.

One Emission Standard for EPA Certified Heaters

In order to protect public health there cannot be a dual standard for wood stoves and hydronic heaters. A single emission standard should be used: 1.3 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 an d pellet

- fired hydronic heaters, forced

- air furnaces, and masonry stoves, regardless of whether the heater is catalytic or non

- catalytic

. This 1.3 g/hr rate should take effect no later than two years after the effective date of the final
rule.

A single, stringent emission standard for all devices will simplify comparisons between classes of heaters, such as a consumer weighing the differences between a wood stove, pellet stove, or hydronic heater an d prevent harm to human health.

 An interim standard of 2. 5 g/hr should take effect on the effective date of the final rule or at least by the first of the year. The intent of the interim rate is to swiftly transition manufacturers and dealers 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 ongoing and permanent harm to individuals and burden communities with excessive costs such as monitoring, enforcement, health care, change

- out

p rograms , and lost business investment.

Justification for the 2.5 g/hr rate has been prepared by the State of Alaska. The 2.5 g/hr was proposed as the particulate emission standard for the Fairbanks PM2.5 nonattainment area in
2013. 25 The State of Alaska re ceived more than 900 public comments and has not yet finalized new regulations. To support the proposed rules, the State’s peer

- reviewed justification report offered these findings:

• “There are no significant technological barriers preventing the adoptio n of the 2.5 g/hr PM2.5 emission standard.” ( Page 21)

• “Customers should find economical choices available for lower

- emitting stoves.” ( Page 20)

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

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 6342. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 02

- 03/pdf/2014

- 00409.pdf

25 Alaska DEC, Need and Basis for More Stringent Wood

- fired Heating Device Emission Standards (Nov. 2013), 1

- 27. http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm/docs/justification_NOV 13.pdfPage 14 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

Small Volume Manufacturers

It is recommended that no compliance extension be granted to small volume manufacturers especially those manufacturing hydronic heaters. The EPA has already given hydronic heater manufacturers a near 10 year extension with its Voluntary Program. That has created a nightmare that sadly may never be mitigated absent serious buyback programs.

Exclusions from NSPS rule that should be included

 Heaters Other than Wood

The NSPS states that heaters other than wood are not covered by this rule

– coal, corn, gra ss,
etc . It would seem that EPA is creating another loophole in their stationery devices . The title
of the rule is New Residential Wood Heater, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced

- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters.

It is not cle ar why EPA i s ignoring these other sources of fuel for residential appliances. This will potentially again leave more families to suffer for decades as has occurred with the 25 year gap in regulations allowing hydronic heaters to impact 1000s of family’s lives. Estimates are there are over 500,000 hydronic heaters in the U.S. because EPA failed to regulate. The impacts on air quality and health care costs and loss of property value are astronomical and completely ignored by this NSPS. To move forward a nd leave yet more loopholes is unconscionable. EPA’s rule needs to address dual and single fuel residential heaters including those fueled with whatever pe ople and manufacturers dream up.

 Other Air Toxins

The proposed NSPS rule is flawed in that while it addresses particulates, it ignores air toxins. There is an unqualified assumption in the proposed rule that toxins will decrease in parallel with particulates. However, most available evidence contradicts this assumption.

It is requested that a timeline fo r certification of emissions levels for toxic compounds, including benzene, 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. 26

26 Assessment of Outdoor Wood

- fired Boilers (2006). NESCAUM; 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 New York State (2008). New York Attorn ey General, Environmental Protection Bureau; The Dangers to Health from Outdoor Wood Furnaces (2010). Nancy Alderman, et al., Environment and Human Health, Inc.; An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers (2007). David R. Br own, et al., Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 13: 191

– 208; Outdoor Wood Boiler Investigation Health Consultation, Pleasant Lake, Michigan (October 13, 2009). U.S. Department of Health Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Healt h Assessment and Consultation.Page 15 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

 Visible Emissions (pp 6336, 6341, 6343, 6364)

EPA must include visible emissions limits in the NSPS to ensure health

- protective standards for hydronic heaters. The limits must be based on EPA Method 22 Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and S moke Emissions from Flares (40CFR60, Appendix A ).

Visible emissions cannot exceed 3 minutes in any 30

- minute period. EPA Method 22 is currently used by Maine and New Jersey to regulate hydronic heaters: NJAC 7:27

- 3, “Control and
Prohibition of Smoke fro m Combustion of Fuel,” mandates that stationary indirect heat exchangers, such as outdoor wood burning boilers, produce no smoke, except for three minutes in any 30

- minute perio d; and Maine Chapter 150 5.A. 27 This is not an unreasonable request.
Most states already have visible emission laws that are directed to individuals with the common opening phrase of "no person shall."

EPA must include visible emission limits in the NSPS that hydronic heaters produce no smoke, except for three minutes in any 30

- minu te period, based on EPA Method 22 Visible Emission
determination . This is an extremely important requirement that must be added to the NSPS. It is the only practical and affordable tool for determining a nuisance and a health hazard by local and state go vernments, and for individuals that must provide the burden of proof for civil litigation.

EPA must stand behind its words that properly operated hydronic heaters do not smoke. Any
violation of Method 22 Visible Emission rules would be the result of the operator improperly operating or maintaining the hydronic heater. Therefore, EPA must include visible emission requirements in the final NSPS for all hydronic heaters to ensure that healt h

- protective standards are met.

EPA Method 22 (http://epa.gov/ttn/e mc/methods/method22.html and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m

- 22.pdf) 40CFR60, Appendix A) must allow anyone with no certification requirements to take a time and date

- stamped video of smoke for a time period of at least 6 minutes as evidence of a vio lation. The smoke does not need to cross a property line to be in violation. This is based on known health hazards of breathing smoke in a localized area that is directed by wi nd or captured by an inversion.

 Nuisance Conditions

EPA must include in the NSPS that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a manner
as to create a nuisance . Real

- world use of hydronic heaters varies depending on operator diligence, skill level, fuel choice and moisture content, and equipment maintenance. The

27 Method 22 Visible Emissions Rules for Hydronic Heaters. New Jersey: nttp://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/woodburning_regs.html, http://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/advisories/2008

- 05.pdf; and Maine: http://www.state.me.us/dep/air/rules /index.html

- Ch. 150 Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood BoilersPage 16 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

proposed rule acknowledges these issues by stating, “It is not possible to specify the precision of the procedure in Draft Test 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 th is measurement method” (p 6400).

Future revisions of this rule should require wood heater designs and certification

me thodology that ensure that wood heaters operate at certification values independent of the user’s skill or diligence . Currently, the technology used in pellet stoves comes closest to this method, as the combustion air

- to

- fuel ratio and the fuel type cannot be changed by the operator. All hydronic heaters should move to a design that prevents their emissions from varying depending on the operator and fuel choice.

Until operator variables can be controlled, EPA must provide nuisance enforcement tools to
local and state government by requiring that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in
such a manner as to create a nuisance . This requirement that "no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a manner as to create a nuisance" must be permanently affi xed on the hydronic heater and be published on EPA's Web site, in hydronic heater operator manuals, and in manufacturer’s promotional materials.

This is not an unreasonable request. Most states and municipalities already have nuisance laws
that are direct ed to individuals with the common opening phrase of "no person shall." However, stating in the NSPS that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a manner as to create a nuisance sets the expected standards for consumer operators and provides the enforcement tool to local and state government for problematic hydronic heaters that are improperly operated or sited, and provides the clear burden of proof for individuals who must pursue litigation against neighbors of problematic hydronic heaters.

It is hoped that at a minimum these nuisance standards can be used by States and Localities to then more readily address the in place hydronic heaters that are not a part of this rule making in the absence of EPA establishing buyback progr ams and shut down d ates of the existing boilers that EPA allowed to proliferate.

 Restrict ed Use

EPA requested comments on limits on use of hydronic heaters in non

- heating seasons. The NSPS must prohibit the use of hydronic heaters during the non

- heating seasons and the “bumper months.” Those families that have experienced numerous smoke

- filled days caused by neighbor's hydronic heaters, including Phase 2 hydronic heaters, know only too well the nightmare of not being able to open windows during spring
, summer and fall

. No family should be a prisoner in their home or have their home filling with smoke because they desire to open their windows. No family should be precluded from enjoying their yard for simple things like gardening, eating on a deck or porch, hanging out laundry, or playing in theirPage 17 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

yard because of wood smoke but this has happened over and over again around the country with hydronic heaters.

 Reconstruction Provision

The NSPS must require a reconstruction provision for hydronic heaters, 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 replacement parts that would extend the life of the unit significantly or indefinitely. 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 componen ts 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. EPA has required all qualified Phase 2 hydronic heaters to include the statement in owner's manuals that "failure to maintain the hydronic heater may
cause nuisance conditions." 28 Therefore, to provide health

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

 CO data and limits

It is recommended that EPA require test labs and manufacturers to forward existing efficiency and CO data to EPA within 6 months of promulgation. EPA should set CO limits based on the
data collected.

 Monitoring of Manufacturers advertising

EPA should provide adequate staffing to conduct periodic (no less than yearly) reviews of
manufacturer websites to discover and reduce fals e advertising. EPA should a l s o provide a
website or on line for m for reporting consumer fraud or problems relevant to this industry

sector.

The Voluntary Program for Hydronic Heaters has demonstrated the need for this ability to monitor and report misleading advertising to consumers. On January 31, 2014 EPA had to s end a letter to manufacturers admonishing them for this behavior. It is not clear if EPA has then followed up to ensure compliance. 29

28 EPA Voluntary Hydronic Heater Program, http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/participation.html#hydronic; and EPA List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html and Central Boiler E

- Classic 2400 Phase 2 Owner's Manual

29 Letter dated January 31, 2014 from EPA staffer Greg Green, Director Outreach and Information Division

, to Voluntary Hydronic Heater Program PartnersPage 19 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

 Recall Process

EPA must establish a recall process to address devices that are improperly tested, labeled or
marketed

 Consumer and State on line reporting of field violations

EPA must create an on line fo r m for reporting field violations by hydronic heaters and furnaces. The receipt by EPA of a set number (10 or fewer suggested) reports of excessive field emissions from a specific model should trigger a retest audit of that model and action to reduce these emissions for those in place hydronic heaters . Neither consumers nor their downwind

n eighbors should have to endure for years unabated high levels of emissions w/no action taken by States or EPA as has occurred over the past decade or more from hydronic heaters.

It should also be noted that in requirement of the number of complaints neces sary to trigger action EPA must include a provision for discontinued models which would require less complaints to trigger an investigation. This is based upon the reality that many manufacturers continually change model numbers with slight updates to esc ape legal action. A badly designed product with serious consumer injury should not be able to be exempted because of a deliberate effort by manufacturers to claim they no longer make that make and model.

 Product Certification Framework

It is recommended that EPA work with the American Association for Laboratory Associations, testing labs and States to develop a detailed framework for guiding the product certification bodies utilized by this industry. The framework must require sharing test data with EPA and
interested States.

Conclusion

- Advanced Technology to protect public health

Hydronic heaters differ from woodstoves not in the composition of the smoke but in their potential to generate vast quantities of smoke for long durations throughout the year.

Technology has advanced. It is time EPA wood heater standards catch up with technology. EPA must not lock in lax hydronic heater standards for five years with no technic al or economic justification at the expense of human health. The lessons of Woodriver Elementary School in Fairbanks, Alaska and other communities should inform decisions desperately needed to protect neighbors and neighborhoods, schools and students, homeowners and businesses.

A strong NSPS that has proven health

- protective standards and sets one emission standard for all residential devices based on grams per hour that cannot be exceeded at any time during an 8

- hour burn cycle, as used by the State of Washington

, is the minimum protection standard that should be put in place. Hydronic he ater technologies are commercially available that significantly reduce toxic air emissions beyond what EPA is proposing. The cost of EPA's regulatory failure can no longer be shifted to the neighbors, and to local and state government and taxpayers. EPA mu st include visible emissions and nuisance requirements in the NSPS to protect neighbors and communities from improperly operated, maintained or sited hydronic heaters. EPA is urged to do the right thing, to correct past mistakes, andPage 2 0 Comments on R esidential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

regain the public trust by complying with the Clean Air Act and issue health

- protective standards in regulating hydronic heaters.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Licha k

Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY (www.careny.org)