RAWSEP View on Indiana’s State OWB law (pending)
l. Many instances. Everyone who opposes their neighbor’s OWB is initially told theirs is an isolated case. This has continued in places like Indiana where the many letters that came in to IDEM in support of the OWB law told their individual stories about exposure to wood smoke that were humble, heartbreaking and alarming. These are the many people whose lives are on the line, who are pleading for action to alleviate their suffering. It is almost impossible to believe that this man-made health hazard is allowed to continue. That is why everyone at first thinks they are the only one, because they think something must have been put in place already to deal with this, and they just haven’t found the rule that will protect them. However the stark truth is that this is a problem that is nationwide, but currently every instance is treated differently and with less regulation than is necessary to preserve human life.
2. Statewide is better than local. RAWSEP members are supportive of statewide laws governing OWBs because that is a step above haphazard and weak ordinances currently passed by the hundreds nationwide. And local ordinances in some instances are the best that a local government can come up with, such as total bans within the municipality.
3. Federal is better than statewide. But air pollution in one area affects the air of everyone eventually because air travels. It would be preferable for the federal government to act and provide strict regulation or bans and enforcement of bans of all wood burning devices, from Outdoor Wood Boilers to wood stoves.
4. Statewide OWB regulations vary. Washington State and New Jersey already have OWB regulations in place. New York State has pending stricter statewide OWB regulations than Indiana’s pending statewide OWB regulations. Ohio’s and Pennsylania’s pending statewide OWB regulations are different that either New York’s or Indiana’s and the failed Connecticut and Rhode Island statewide OWB regulations are different from the others, too. Is the air pollution in these states really different from the others? Do the health hazards of wood smoke differ from state to state? Are the residents of one state as opposed to another really more apt to develop heart disease or lung disease from exposure to wood smoke than the others? These states are at the same latitude and in the same general area of the country, so their weather is very similar, with the same onsets of winter weather and the same sweltering summers.
5. RAWSEP looks to the residents of each state who are affected by wood smoke to tell it like it is. If you are facing man-made health problems and know the source of them, it concentrates your mind wonderfully. These are the critiques which Jim Donelly of LaPorte Indiana has of the DRAFT IN OWB Rules.
5.A. Indiana should use an indirect heat rule. New Jersey uses the indirect heat rule which does not require visilbe emission measurement. Indiana should not use NESCAUM’s emissions rule.
5.B. Indiana should have a nuisance provision about wood smoke, similar to NESCAUM’s nuisance provision of 2007.
5.C. Funds should be set aside by the State of Indiana for enforcement of statewide OWB regulations and some of the funds should come from penalties for operating an OWB illegally. This fund and the amount of penalties should be spelled out in these regulations.
5.D. There should be a rule covering the disposal of ashes from OWBs.
5.E. Set back distance of OWBs from their neighbors should be based on science. The NESCAUM rules are not strict enough, and should not be the basis for the rule.
5.F. The Indiana rules are without teeth. The rules should include statements of fact about the amount of particulates emitted by OWBs, and the rules should reflect the facts that "Nationally, residential wood combustion accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions and 62 percent of the 7-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are probable human carcinogens and are of great concern to EPA".
5.G. What is polluting in winter is polluting in summer, and vice versa. In Indiana, OWBs should not be allowed to operate nine months out of the year.
5.H. OWBs not sole source of heat. In modern societies, the overwhelming majority of residences have existing gas furnaces or other heating for houses which are not wood burning. The houses that only have wood burning furaces for heat and are off the grid can easily get back on the grid in the United States of America. Many people who operate OWBs are on the grid with regard to home cooling and possess air conditioners.
5.I. OWB wood smoke is a health hazard. One OWB produces 1800x the particulates as a natural gas furnace. OWB smoke causes heart attacks, COPD, stroke, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, asthma and cataracts.
5.J. OWB smoke crosses property lines.
5.K. NESCAUM modeling shows that OWBs, when operated according to manufacturer’s directions, routinely exceed the EPA 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
5.L. PM2.5 can stay airborne for weeks.
5.M. PM2.5 can enter closed dwellings. Wood smoke seeps through sealed windows and closed doors and residents wake in the middle of the night unable to breathe, experiencing the smoke inhalation of a house fire.
5.N. Wood smoke in the yard prevents enjoyment of property.
5.O. Wood smoke causes property damage and lowers property values.
5.P. OWB wood smoke causes harm to waterways and animals.
5.Q. OWB wood smoke contributes to global warming. Black Carbon (soot, particulates) is the 2nd leading cause of global warming, and stopping it is the quickest way to slow climate change.
2010 July 28: IN: Letter to fellow Hoosiers about Indiana’s Final Draft Rule on OWBs (please COMMENT to IDEM before their Meeting on September 1, 2010)
July 28, 2010
Dear Hoosier:
Please take a minute to evaluate the Comments regarding what the Governor and IDEM are trying to push down our lungs. In recent years I have written or talked to you about the issue of air quality and Outdoor Wood-Burning Boilers (OWB’s). Over the years you and others have made this a Jim Donnelly’s neighbor issue and Jim Donnelly should take care of it himself.
Putting aside your differences AIR QUALITY should not be burdened by politics or personal feelings. Do you wish to take credit for clean air in Indiana or take the responsibility for more sick residents especially the kids because of the increased pollution that OWB’s pose to Air Quality in the State of Indiana? Read the COMMENTS 1 thru 10 attached. This issue is not just a Donnelly issue but every Hoosier that is taking a breath of air issue.
The State’s Department of Environmental Management (Air Board) will soon meet on September 1, 2010 to discuss and pass the final, DRAFT RULE into a NEW RULE for regulating OWB’s in the State of Indiana. You can read the Draft Rule here at http://www.in.gov/idem/4710.htm under July 13th Board Packet.
Do not let them fool you with “something is better than nothing”, that is what is wrong with all our laws in this Country. Let’s get it right the first time. This proposed DRAFT RULE will only make the OWB manufacturers and their lobbyists happy, but it will do nothing to regulate, protect or preserve our health and the air we breathe.
You need to write, call, e-mail the Governor and IDEM (teasterly@idem.in.gov) as well as Dr. James Miner MD Chairman of the Air Board (Ent88@aol.com) and demand better for all Hoosiers. A call, e-mail or letter take only a few minutes and could save a life or at the very least a lung.
Also please do not hesitate to contact me with questions I have been working on this issue since October of 2004.
Thank you.
James and Susan Donnelly
(1 of 5)
http://www.in.gov/idem/4710.htm under July 13th Board Packet.
Where in IDEM’s Draft Rules LSA Document #05-332 (326 IAC 4-3) or LaPorte County Ordinance 2007-10-B does it deal with fine particulate matter (PM2.5)? “The 2005 report summarized data from U.S. EPA emissions test as well as manufacturer supplied emissions test and found the average outdoor Hydronic heater (OWB’s) to emit 72 grams per hour. In comparison, indoor U.S. EPA certified wood stoves emit an average of about 6 grams of PM2.5 per hour”
Comment 1. Why isn’t IDEM following the Rule Fact Sheet, there is not one ounce of this in the Draft Rule LSA Document #05-332
In the Board packet July 13th there is the Rule Fact Sheet.
( http://www.in.gov/idem/4710.htm )
Under Consideration of Factors Outlined (page 3) in Indiana Code 13-14-8-4 (7) “The right of all persons to an environment sufficiently uncontaminated as not to be injurious to:
(A) human, plant, animal or aquatic life; or
(B) the reasonable enjoyment of life and property.
Please challenge IDEM and ask them where NEW RULES comes even close to protecting the rights of human and the reasonable enjoyment of life and property. While all of you are enjoying Spring and Fall we are choking to death and are boarded up because of what these 8,000 plus units put out in the air that we breathe.
Comment 2. Where in the Draft Rules is this covered:
Scott Deloney, IDEM’s Chief of Air Quality, declared, “In some cases the air near one of the outdoor boilers can exceed the federal health standard for fine particulate matter.” Those tiny particles can exacerbate respiratory problems, such as asthma, in the elderly, children and people sensitive to smoke and soot. See API article June 28, 2010 by Rick Callahan
Comment 3. Is Mr. Deloney aware of the 2007 Summit where it states?
PM2.5 stays airborne for many days, can travel many miles and can enter closed dwellings.
PM2.5 Short Term effect on children: Lung function changes, especially in children and people with lung disease such as asthma.
Long-term exposure to PM2.5: Development of chronic respiratory disease in children.
See 2007 Summit for Children’s Environmental Health Effects of PM2.5 on Children Health in Indiana: http://www.ikecoalition.org/Environmental_Summit/PM2.5.pdf
(2 of 5)
Comment 4. Where is this covered in the Draft Rules?
a. “Scientific studies have linked increases in daily PM2.5 exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions, emergency department visits and deaths” USEPA Dec 17, 2004
b. The EQSC issued their final report on November 1, 2006, finding that emissions from Outdoor Hydronic heaters is an environmental concern, especially in areas designated as nonattainment for fine particulate matter PM2.5
c. “The smokes drifts across property lines and can penetrate even closed nearby structures, due to the very small size of PM2.5” IDEM January 2010
d. “Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) modeling shows that under a variety of operating scenarios existing outdoor Hydronic heaters emit enough particulate matter to exceed the 24 hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standard.” Rule Fact Sheet-Preliminary Adoption June 2, 2010 IDEM
Comment 5. Where in Draft Rule 326IAC4-3-5 Operating Standards Sec 5. Page 3 does it consider any of the below statements as well as the OWB manufacturers publications. Did IDEM not investigate any of the installations? How many are sole heating systems??? Why does the OWB’s have the right to operate nine months out of a calendar year? This is insane!
Please do not be fooled by IDEM and the Governor that these units are the only source of heat and that having them operate in April, May and September and October is essential to the well being of the OWB’s owners. Let’s get real; nobody in their right mind would count on a system outdoors that is fueled by wood that heats water that is pumped into the house underground to provide heat. Most if not all of the OWB’s have a main heating system in place way before the OWB was installed and have those original heating system as a back up. So why is the Governor and IDEM so interested in having these units smolder and make folks sick when there are other options for the months of April, May, June, July, August, September, October. Just for thought what do these OWB owners use in the hot summer months to air condition their homes?
Manufacturer Statements:
“The AAA Outdoor Boiler ReBurn R120 boiler is not intended to be the only source of heat. Therefore, a backup system should always be in place and be ready for use.” www.northerntool.com/downloads/manuals/175577.pdf
www.centralboiler.com and go to installations January 2010
www.dheat.com/installation-scenarios.html
www.freeheatmachine.com/about.html
(3 of 5)
Comment 6. Where in the Draft Rules has IDEM considered the below statement when developing those NEW RULES without teeth.
“Each year, smoke from wood stoves and fireplaces contributes over 420,000 tons of fine particles throughout the country – mostly during the winter months. Nationally, residential wood combustion accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions and 62 percent of the 7-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are probable human carcinogens and are of great concern to EPA.”
Source: Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke. EPA Document # EPA-456/B-09-001, September 2009. Prepared by Outreach and Information Division, Air Quality Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. pp. 4-5.
Comment 7. How did IDEM come up with the set back distance? Did they use the same formula as NESCAUM or who ever and that was a guess. Where is the science to back up their set back distance? Draft Rule 326 IAC 4-3-4 General requirements for existing outdoor Hydronic heaters Sec. 4. (a) (1) page 3
Set backs from an OWB’s and a home or homes in its path there is no set distance by either the USEPA, NESCAUM or any state regulatory agency. It appears that no state or federal environmental regulatory agency has done actual continuous air emission monitoring of OWB smoke under variable topographic and atmospheric conditions (valleys, inversion) at distances past 200 feet to determine the safe setback distance under all conditions. The setback distance originally set by Vermont at 200 feet was their best guess. That’s a direct quote from VT air regulatory staff. VT rules are now based on emission levels of lbs of PM2.5/btu heat output. Note that doesn’t include any of the other criteria air pollutants in OWB smoke, such as PAH’s and carbon monoxide. NESCAUM also admitted that their 500-foot setback was a political decision, not based on science or health analysis. What is fair to the neighbors who are not gaining from the operation of the OWB but loosing their right to clean air with the pollutants that OWB’s produce prior to Phase 2 2010. Note: Regarding Phase II
The book has not been written yet as to their performance claims.
Comment 8. Where in the Draft Rule does IDEM cover disposal of the ashes from OWB’s?
What regulation and method should be used to dispose of this hazardous waste safely? Disposal should be monitored. Allot of toxic material is being dumped without any regulations.
Comment 9. Where in the Draft Rules does it cover the compensation or fee to deal with permits, field inspections and problems associated with these pieces of equipment? What are the penalties if you pollute or operate the OWB in a harmful manner?
Since when does a State take on the responsibility for someone else’s failure to produce a safe and clean operating piece of equipment? Do we have those types of funds just lying around? If we do let’s put it into education and not waste it on these products.
(4 0f 5)
Comment 10. Why is there no NUISANCE provision in DRAFT RULES? The average guy can not afford to go to court under IC32-30-6-6 & IC32-30-6-7 to protect his family. Whom would he bring suit against the one next door, the one down the block or the one a mile away? The below was suggested to all rule writers to be incorporated in their rules to protect residents. It was suggested by NESCAUM/USEPA why did IDEM ignored it?
11. Nuisance Conditions (page 17) NESCAUM’s/USEPA Outdoor Hydronic Heater Model Regulation January 29, 2007
A. No person shall cause or allow emissions of air contaminants to the outdoor
atmosphere of such quantity, characteristic or duration that are injurious to
Human, plant or animal life or to property, or that unreasonably interfere with the
Comfortable enjoyment of life or property. Notwithstanding the existence of
specific air quality standards or emission limits, this prohibition applies, but is not
limited to, any particulate, fume, gas, mist, odor, smoke, vapor, toxic, or
deleterious emission, either alone or in combination with others.
Comment 11. Why in the New Rules is Opacity a tool for regulating existing OWB’s 326 IAC 4-3-5 Operating standards Sec. 5. (e) Page 4
Smoke drifts across property lines an can penetrate even closed nearby structures, due to the very size of PM2.5” IDEM January 2010 (opacity can not read PM2.5)
Opacity as a regulatory tool? Why it will not work! Or is that their intent?
Reading Opacity does not tell you that PM2.5 is present or all the other carcinogens that these units emit. We asked in June of 05 for the DRAFT RULE to be concerned with air pollution, not JUST smoke.
Note: We asked and this is what was stated, did IDEM ask?
—–Original Message—–
From: Paul Miller [mailto:pmiller@nescaum.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:19 PM
To: James Donnelly
Subject: RE: Opacity
The NESCAUM model rule specifies opacity standards (http://www.nescaum.org/topics/outdoor-hydronic-heaters); however, this does not assure clean burning units. The opacity component is meant to assure that the end user burns appropriate materials. Given the cyclic nature of the unit, opacity regulations can be problematic to enforce. Emissions tend to be heaviest during the first few cycles (damper on then off consists of a cycle) and an inspector will need to be on site when emissions are at their peak or remain to watch the entire cycle of the operation, which may be impractical. Anecdotal data suggest that end users modify use patterns when an inspector is present. FYI, New Jersey has been enforcing against OWB’s using its indirect heat rule which requires no visible emissions.
(In fact, it’s possible a source could cause a PM2.5 violation even if it met opacity limits.)
(5 of 5)
woodsmokehaz1 