From: Andrea Wieland [mailto:svrosesbirds@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:29 PM To: Green, Gregory; McCabe, Janet Cc: Atkinson, Emily; Browne, Cynthia Subject: Citizen Meeting Agenda and Group Statement

Hello Mr. Green and Ms. McCabe:

Thank you very much for ag reeing to meet with us tomorrow, October 14, on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed revisions to the New Source Performance Standards for New Residential Wood Heaters (Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0734). We greatly appreciate the opportunity to share our views with you on this important rulemaking.

The citizen attendees of this meeting are : Nancy Alderman (Connecticut), Patrice Lee (Alaska), Bonnie Lichak (New York), Sylvia Schultz (Washington), Roger Soldano (Michigan), and Andrea Wielan d (Wisconsin). Thank you for agreeing to a phone conference to accommodate us.

Attached is our group statement for your reference.

Here is the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting with you.

Agenda:

12:00 to 12:05

- Introduction and meeting agenda overview 12:05 to 12:15

– Position statement summary 12:15 to 12:40

– Individual statements from Sylvia Schultz, Patrice Lee, Bonnie Lichak, Roger Soldano, Andrea Wieland and Nancy Alderman 12:40 to 12:41

– Closing statement 12:41 to 12:45

– Questions

Thank you. We look forward to meeting with you.

Respectfully,

Andrea WielandCitizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 1

Citizen Statement on the “Proposed Standards of Per formance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced Air Fur naces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters” 40 CFR Part 60, 79 FR 6329. October 14, 2014

Citizen complaints about hydronic heater smoke is w hat pushed states and environmental/health organizations to urge EPA to update the NSPS back i n 2005. Many states and hundreds of municipalities across the country have written a patchwork of ordi nances and regulations in response to complaints from neighbors about hydronic heater smoke. Citizen complaints continued and EPA was sued for not updating the NSPS. We don't want to complain about our neighbor's wood smoke anymore. We want EPA to do the right thing and update the NSPS to se t performance standards that stop harmful, nuisance smoke from residential hydronic heaters.

We strongly support updating the outdated NSPS for residential wood heaters, which is 17 years overdue. The health benefits from the proposed NSP S for hydronic heaters and furnaces will have a value from $1.5 to $3.5 billion, or $120 to $280 fo r every dollar spent on compliance.

However, we are concerned that the final NSPS for h ydronic heaters may not fulfill EPA's mandate to adopt health-protective standards under the Clean A ir 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 the NSPS for 5 years aft er 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 sin
To ensure that no person ever again endures this tr agedy and suffering after the NSPS is promulgated, we support five critically important requirements f or the NSPS.Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 2

• Support #1 - We support an NSPS that regulates short-term exp osures to capture all emission spikes to ensure health-protective standards as req uired by the Clean Air Act.

• Support # 2 - We support an NSPS that is based on the Best Sy stem of Emission Reduction (BSER) as required by the Clean Air Act.

• Support #3 - We support visible emissions standards and enfor cement to ensure compliance with health-protective performance standards. EPA m ust require states to enforce these standards through delegation of authority. The lim its must be based on EPA Method 22, not Method 9.

• Support #4 - We support Step 1 and Step 2 emission limits for hydronic heaters that must include a g/hr cap per individual test run that can not be exceeded during the entire burn cycle. A g/hr cap ensures performance standards meet the e mission limits as required under the NSPS

. We support the Washington State Standard of 4.5 g/h r cap for Step 1 with a lower g/h cap for Step 2.

• Support # 5 -We support testing based on real-world practice and performance using cordwood and multiple hardwood and softwood species, with th e highest g/hr for the entire burn cycle as the basis for certification.

Here are the justifications for supporting these re quirements in the final NSPS:

Support #1 - We support an NSPS that regulates short-term exp osures to capture all emission spikes to ensure health-protective standards as required by t he Clean Air Act.

• Phase 2 hydronic heaters have documented emission s pikes that exceed the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. EPA's own study of a Phase 2 hydronic heater measured spikes over 100 micrograms 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 meter of PM2.5 from a Phase 2 hydronic heater. That's twice the h ighest level that EPA measures in its AQI. You can't have health-protective standards without regu lating short-term emission spikes.

• We support test methods that captures emission spik es during cycling of hydronic heaters, as done by the State of Washington.

Support # 2 - We support an NSPS that is based on the Best Sy stem of Emission Reduction (BSER) as required by the Clean Air Act.

• The proposed Step 1 emission level for hydronic he aters is not based on BSER. There are commercially available hydronic heaters with signif icantly lower emissions than what EPA is proposing, as acknowledged in the NSPS: "Step 2 emi ssion limit is already met by 4 hydronic heater models (2 cord wood and 2 pellet models) bui lt by 2 U.S. manufacturers, as well as over 50 European models."

• We are adamantly opposed to the argument that these available 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 andCitizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 3

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. The final NSPS cannot continue thi s failure to issue health-protective standards, which will continue to shift costs to neighbors. E PA must base the emission limits on BSER.

Support #3 - We support visible emissions standards and enfor cement to ensure compliance with health-protective performance standards. EPA must r equire states to enforce these standards through delegation of authority. The limits must be based on EPA Method 22, not Method 9.

• This is not an unreasonable request. Maine and New Jersey use Method 22 to regulate hydronic heaters for visible emissions. It is a proven metho d for determining violations of performance standards. It is cost-effective and easy for state s to implement and use for enforcement. Affected neighbors can gather visible emissions pro of 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."

• Current federal regulation gives little to no autho rity to states to address operator requirements because there are no provisions to delegate enforce ment to the states or local agencies.

• 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.

• EPA must stop dodging responsibility by saying that states can add their own visible emission rules. This has not happened. Instead states point to EPA and local government or the victim of smoke to deal with the problem.

Support #4 - We support Step 1 and Step 2 emission limits for hydronic heaters that must include a g/hr cap per individual test run that cannot be exceeded during the entire burn cycle. A g/hr cap ensures performance standards meet the emission limits as r equired under the NSPS

. We support the Washington State Standard of 4.5 g/hr cap for Step 1 with a lower g/h cap for Step 2.

• This standard is achievable now, as noted in the NS PS. Four models of solid wood and pellet heaters meet Step 2 emission limits now, and three have a maximum emission rate under 4.5 g/h across all individual test runs.

• 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.Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 4

• EPA has had Phase 2 standards since 2007. EPA repea tedly notes throughout the NSPS that manufacturers have known for seven years that the o ld emission limits will be stricter in the final NSPS. On p.6359 it states that "several year s ago, EPA discussed the 0.15 lb/MMBtu level with the voluntary program stakeholders." In 2010, Gil Wood presented to the Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA) that emissions will inc lude a g/hr cap, and to expect Washington State levels immediately upon NSPS promulgation. M anufacturers have had more than sufficient time to develop devices that meet strict er emission levels.

• Step 2 must be required in two years after promulga tion of rule, rather than the proposed five years. According to EPA's "Manufacturer Cost Memo ," manufacturers can develop, test, and begin manufacturing a new wood stove model within 1 0-18 months. EPA emission standards for other consumer products have required a similar lea d time of two to three years (Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and E quipment, 73 Fed. Reg. 59,034).

Support #5 - We support testing based on real-world practice and performance using cordwood and multiple hardwood and softwood species, with the hi ghest g/hr for the entire burn cycle as the basis f or certification.


### We also support:

• Nuisance requirements and enforcement. EPA must include in the NSPS that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a manner as to cr eate a nuisance. This language must be on permanent labels on hydronic heaters and in owner/o perator manuals. The proposed rule acknowledges that real-world use of hydronic heater s varies depending on operator diligence, skill level, fuel choice and moisture content, and equipment maintenance.

• Removal of all references to Phase 2 hydronic heate rs 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 rule provides no evidence in support of this statement



### . On January 7, 2014, a 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 the 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 states and consumers with this unsubstantiated claim and remove this wording from the final NSPS.Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 5

• CO emission limits to protect consumers from deadly levels of CO, as E PA's study found during Phase 2 emission testing.

• 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 with all other residential heating devices.

• Restrict use during air nonattainment days

.

• 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 and sets emission levels on grams per hour that cannot be exceeded, as used by the State of Washington. Hydronic heater technologies are commercially available now that significantly reduc e toxic air emissions beyond what EPA is proposing. The cost of EPA's failure to effectively regulate h ydronic heaters can no longer be shifted to the neighbors or local government and states. States ne ed federal visible emission rules to enforce performance standards. Therefore, we urge EPA to co mply with the Clean Air Act and issue healthprotective standards in regulating hydronic heaters

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



### 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 for the Proposed Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydro nic Heaters and Forced Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 40 CFR Part 60, 7 9 FR 6329

• Clean Air Act, Section 111(b)(1)(A)

• 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 New York State (2008 ). New York Attorney General, Environmental Protection Bureau; The Dangers to Hea lth from Outdoor Wood Furnaces (2010). Nancy Alderman, et al., Environment and Human Healt h, Inc.; An Assessment of Risk fromCitizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 6

Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers (200 7). David R. Brown, et al., Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 13: 191–208; Outdoor Wo od Boiler Investigation Health Consultation, Pleasant Lake, Michigan (October 13, 2009). U.S. Department of Health Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation.

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

• Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Division 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.