2010 Sept. 24: IN: Selected comments to IDEM during Comment Period 2
Comment: As a citizen with hyperactive airways, the commenter encourages
IDEM to ban the use of outdoor hydronic heaters in LaPorte County. It was such a relief
when open burning of leaves was banned. If neighbor installed an outdoor hydronic
heater the commenter would have to move. Commenter is a nurse at a school located
across the street from an outdoor hydronic heater. Sometimes the air around the school is
filled with smoke smells bad from more than just burning wood. Children are one of the
population categories most at risk for negative effects of wood smoke. (PB2)
IDEM to ban the use of outdoor hydronic heaters in LaPorte County. It was such a relief
when open burning of leaves was banned. If neighbor installed an outdoor hydronic
heater the commenter would have to move. Commenter is a nurse at a school located
across the street from an outdoor hydronic heater. Sometimes the air around the school is
filled with smoke smells bad from more than just burning wood. Children are one of the
population categories most at risk for negative effects of wood smoke. (PB2)
Comment: Comments are based on a personal observation of a home impacted by
a neighbor’s outdoor hydronic heater. The emissions have a strong odor and smell like
burning creosote. There is no doubt that they are damaging to the upper and lower
airway passages. Smoke also contains several volatile organic carcinogens, including
benzene and formaldehyde. The height of the stack (five feet about any roof structure) is
inadequate to prevent these dangers to public health. All units most be banned or
extensively altered to eliminate the release of these noxious and carcinogenic fumes into
the environment. (DR335)
a neighbor’s outdoor hydronic heater. The emissions have a strong odor and smell like
burning creosote. There is no doubt that they are damaging to the upper and lower
airway passages. Smoke also contains several volatile organic carcinogens, including
benzene and formaldehyde. The height of the stack (five feet about any roof structure) is
inadequate to prevent these dangers to public health. All units most be banned or
extensively altered to eliminate the release of these noxious and carcinogenic fumes into
the environment. (DR335)
Comment: Clearly outdoor hydronic heaters put many residents’ health in
jeopardy, and harm the environment. Those 41 documented complaints (“canaries in a
coal mine”) show what unregulated wood burning does to the environment.
(RAWSEP362)
jeopardy, and harm the environment. Those 41 documented complaints (“canaries in a
coal mine”) show what unregulated wood burning does to the environment.
(RAWSEP362)
Response: The 41 complaints received by IDEM are not from the same
individual. If someone complained more than once it was considered one complaint.
These numbers do not include complaints made to local air pollution control boards or
local health agencies. IDEM has also received a number of informal contacts from
citizens who are concerned about the health effects of smoke from outdoor hydronic
heaters, but who have decided not to file a formal complaint about the unit. Many
neighbors are uncomfortable complaining. IDEM does not know how many complaints
are from homeowners that moved in to the area after the outdoor hydronic heater was
installed. If a homeowner moves into an area during the summer when the unit is not is
use, it may be hard to even know that the unit was in existence. Other states and U.S.
EPA have identified the same concern from outdoor hydronic heaters as Indiana and find
action to be necessary to protect public health. In addition to complaints received, IDEM
is concerned about the impact of these units on the PM2.5 standard. Violations of the
standard can put an area into non-attainment resulting in restrictions impacting economic
development.
individual. If someone complained more than once it was considered one complaint.
These numbers do not include complaints made to local air pollution control boards or
local health agencies. IDEM has also received a number of informal contacts from
citizens who are concerned about the health effects of smoke from outdoor hydronic
heaters, but who have decided not to file a formal complaint about the unit. Many
neighbors are uncomfortable complaining. IDEM does not know how many complaints
are from homeowners that moved in to the area after the outdoor hydronic heater was
installed. If a homeowner moves into an area during the summer when the unit is not is
use, it may be hard to even know that the unit was in existence. Other states and U.S.
EPA have identified the same concern from outdoor hydronic heaters as Indiana and find
action to be necessary to protect public health. In addition to complaints received, IDEM
is concerned about the impact of these units on the PM2.5 standard. Violations of the
standard can put an area into non-attainment resulting in restrictions impacting economic
development.
Comment: IDEM should regulate outdoor hydronic heaters very tightly because
they produce a great deal of air pollution which has bad health effects on neighbors and
wildlife in the local environment. The air pollution has fine particles and chemicals such
as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, and formaldehyde which have
known health effects. (DS641)
they produce a great deal of air pollution which has bad health effects on neighbors and
wildlife in the local environment. The air pollution has fine particles and chemicals such
as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, and formaldehyde which have
known health effects. (DS641)
Response: IDEM agrees and is proposing to move forward with this rulemaking.
Due to the high level of particulate matter emissions from current units, and the well
documented health risks associated with exposure to wood smoke, this rule is necessary
to ensure that Indiana residents are able to use outdoor hydronic heaters that are
protective of air quality and that pose the least threat to human health. For some
homeowners this is their only source of heat.
Due to the high level of particulate matter emissions from current units, and the well
documented health risks associated with exposure to wood smoke, this rule is necessary
to ensure that Indiana residents are able to use outdoor hydronic heaters that are
protective of air quality and that pose the least threat to human health. For some
homeowners this is their only source of heat.
Comment: Indiana politicians should not have problems with new rules which
ensure that Hoosiers breathe clean air. No one, even in rural areas, should be allowed to
imperil the health of neighbors by unnecessary emissions from outdated outdoor hydronic
heaters. Therefore, the commenter is in support for implementation of U.S. EPA’s phase
2 standards for outdoor hydronic heaters. (GM460)
ensure that Hoosiers breathe clean air. No one, even in rural areas, should be allowed to
imperil the health of neighbors by unnecessary emissions from outdated outdoor hydronic
heaters. Therefore, the commenter is in support for implementation of U.S. EPA’s phase
2 standards for outdoor hydronic heaters. (GM460)
Comment: Old units should be retrofitted to be as clean as an U.S. EPA certified
wood stove or closed down, not grandfathered in to a lesser standard. (DS641)
wood stove or closed down, not grandfathered in to a lesser standard. (DS641)
Comment: Commenter lives near an outdoor hydronic heater. Luckily for the
commenter it usually blows away from house, but that means it is then blowing towards
another neighbor. It’s not right that someone can smoke out others so that they can
reduce their heating bills. It could also reduce property value and make it harder to sell
the house. All outdoor hydronic heaters should be required to meet the Phase 2 standard.
It would be better to ban the units. (MO320)
commenter it usually blows away from house, but that means it is then blowing towards
another neighbor. It’s not right that someone can smoke out others so that they can
reduce their heating bills. It could also reduce property value and make it harder to sell
the house. All outdoor hydronic heaters should be required to meet the Phase 2 standard.
It would be better to ban the units. (MO320)
Comment: The draft rule would allow Phase 2 units less than 150 feet from a
neighbor’s residence. This would be criminal considering the inversion factor and the
stack height misinformation, along with present thoughts of using opacity as a regulatory
tool. Consideration should not be given to Phase 2 outdoor hydronic heaters until U.S.
EPA certifies that Phase 2 units meet particulate emissions of 7.5 grams per hour or less
(NSPS limit for non-catalytic wood stoves). What is the distance under all topographic
and meteorological conditions where these emissions are dispersed that is safe and at
non-nuisance levels? Another option is to not allow older or Phase 2 units to be installed
in a major or minor subdivision. A yearly inspection should be made since boilers can
break down. U.S. EPA has no plans to develop mandatory emission standards for outdoor
hydronic heaters. Setback and stack height provisions do not prevent nuisance. (JD284)
neighbor’s residence. This would be criminal considering the inversion factor and the
stack height misinformation, along with present thoughts of using opacity as a regulatory
tool. Consideration should not be given to Phase 2 outdoor hydronic heaters until U.S.
EPA certifies that Phase 2 units meet particulate emissions of 7.5 grams per hour or less
(NSPS limit for non-catalytic wood stoves). What is the distance under all topographic
and meteorological conditions where these emissions are dispersed that is safe and at
non-nuisance levels? Another option is to not allow older or Phase 2 units to be installed
in a major or minor subdivision. A yearly inspection should be made since boilers can
break down. U.S. EPA has no plans to develop mandatory emission standards for outdoor
hydronic heaters. Setback and stack height provisions do not prevent nuisance. (JD284)
Comment: Emissions from even an indoor wood burning heating device can be
noxious and injurious at health at a distance of more than 150 feet. It should be at least
1,500 feet. What air dispersion model was used to establish the five foot height and 150
foot distance? (AK33)
noxious and injurious at health at a distance of more than 150 feet. It should be at least
1,500 feet. What air dispersion model was used to establish the five foot height and 150
foot distance? (AK33)
Comment: The proposed stack height requirement may protect adjacent property
owners from the effects of an outdoor hydronic heater, but it should be modified to apply
also to the structures on the property where the unit is located to protect any children
living there. The rule could be modified to limit the provision to residential structures on
the same premises. (IKE612)
owners from the effects of an outdoor hydronic heater, but it should be modified to apply
also to the structures on the property where the unit is located to protect any children
living there. The rule could be modified to limit the provision to residential structures on
the same premises. (IKE612)
Comment: The 150 foot setback is inadequate. Even a 300 feet setback might not
be enough depending on weather conditions and topography. Increased stack height may
help, but it may not if topography and inversion weather conditions are not favorable. A
500 foot setback would be safer for neighbors. (DS641)
be enough depending on weather conditions and topography. Increased stack height may
help, but it may not if topography and inversion weather conditions are not favorable. A
500 foot setback would be safer for neighbors. (DS641)
Comment: Commenter partially supports stack height requirement in draft rule
language. It should be increased to eight or more feet. In terms of distance from
neighbor’s property, the commenter originally proposed 500 feet for the LaPorte County
ordinance. IDEM should increase distance from 150 feet to 400 or more feet. This is an
essential part of a new rule to safeguard populated neighborhoods with either older or
Phase 2 units. (TO89)
language. It should be increased to eight or more feet. In terms of distance from
neighbor’s property, the commenter originally proposed 500 feet for the LaPorte County
ordinance. IDEM should increase distance from 150 feet to 400 or more feet. This is an
essential part of a new rule to safeguard populated neighborhoods with either older or
Phase 2 units. (TO89)
Comment: Stack height of five feet or higher than a neighbor’s roof top within
150 feet of the stack does not go far enough to address the problem. Stack height is
almost irrelevant during a temperature inversion when smoke that comes out at a certain
height is then plunged to the ground. (LK409)
150 feet of the stack does not go far enough to address the problem. Stack height is
almost irrelevant during a temperature inversion when smoke that comes out at a certain
height is then plunged to the ground. (LK409)
Comment: Commenter supports stack height requirement of five feet higher than
the peak of any roof structure not located on the property, however, a distance of 300
hundred feet would be better than the proposal of 150 feet from neighboring non-serviced
buildings. Experience from compliant investigation has shown that 150 feet falls short of
public health needs especially if the units are not Phase 2 certified. (LCHD4)
the peak of any roof structure not located on the property, however, a distance of 300
hundred feet would be better than the proposal of 150 feet from neighboring non-serviced
buildings. Experience from compliant investigation has shown that 150 feet falls short of
public health needs especially if the units are not Phase 2 certified. (LCHD4)
Comment: Stack height makes no difference in a populated rural setting. In this
situation the neighbors unit is 270 feet away and located near the unit owner’s property
line. When inversion happens and it happens frequently, the smoke crosses the property
line. Units should be at least 500 feet per NESCAUM from adjacent dwellings with
human inhabitants in order to protect their health and welfare, maybe more. (JD284)
situation the neighbors unit is 270 feet away and located near the unit owner’s property
line. When inversion happens and it happens frequently, the smoke crosses the property
line. Units should be at least 500 feet per NESCAUM from adjacent dwellings with
human inhabitants in order to protect their health and welfare, maybe more. (JD284)
Comment: The best component of the draft rule is stack height requirement.
(A458)
(A458)
Comment: Do this thoughtfully or not at all. A stack height requirement is not
enough because of inversion where hot meets cold with terrible emissions driven to the
ground and carried many feet, making life miserable for anyone in its path. Citizen’s
health is affected 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Outdoor hydronic heaters should
never be installed in a minor or major subdivision unless they meet U.S. EPA’s certified
wood stove emissions limit of 7.5 grams per hour. Set back distance from a neighbor
should be at least 500 feet. Property values affected by units installed in neighborhoods.
(MS170, LK409)
enough because of inversion where hot meets cold with terrible emissions driven to the
ground and carried many feet, making life miserable for anyone in its path. Citizen’s
health is affected 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Outdoor hydronic heaters should
never be installed in a minor or major subdivision unless they meet U.S. EPA’s certified
wood stove emissions limit of 7.5 grams per hour. Set back distance from a neighbor
should be at least 500 feet. Property values affected by units installed in neighborhoods.
(MS170, LK409)
Comment: Emissions from a neighbor’s outdoor hydronic heater makes house
smell like smoke and sometimes the house practically unlivable. Commenter supports the
draft rule. The distance should be increased from 150 feet to at least 300 feet. IDEM
should limit the number of these units that can be operated with a given area when they
are located in a residential area. (KS247)
smell like smoke and sometimes the house practically unlivable. Commenter supports the
draft rule. The distance should be increased from 150 feet to at least 300 feet. IDEM
should limit the number of these units that can be operated with a given area when they
are located in a residential area. (KS247)
Comment: Summertime operating restriction is okay. (DL316, TL234, SD438,
JC353)
JC353)
Comment: Unit is not used during the summer time. (BC465, BR445, GA90,
TN328)
TN328)
Comment: Outdoor hydronic heaters should not be allowed to operate between
May and October because those are the months that neighbor’s windows are likely to be
open and neighbor’s are likely to be out in the yard. It is bad enough to let them operate
during the winter heating season because the smoke still comes in the neighbor’s closed
windows. (DS641)
May and October because those are the months that neighbor’s windows are likely to be
open and neighbor’s are likely to be out in the yard. It is bad enough to let them operate
during the winter heating season because the smoke still comes in the neighbor’s closed
windows. (DS641)
Comment: Indoor air is replenished with outdoor air, even during the heating
season. (AK33)
season. (AK33)
Comment: Smoke enters homes even through closed windows and doors. People
spend more time indoors and travel less away from their homes in the winter. Not
operating from May through September is not good enough. Citizens’ health is affected
24 hours per day/seven days per week. (LK409)
spend more time indoors and travel less away from their homes in the winter. Not
operating from May through September is not good enough. Citizens’ health is affected
24 hours per day/seven days per week. (LK409)
Comment: The commenter does not support a rule that allows Phase 2 certified
units to operate year round. All outdoor hydronic heaters should operate only between
the period of October 1 and May 15, the timeframe in Indiana open burning laws.
(LCHD4)
units to operate year round. All outdoor hydronic heaters should operate only between
the period of October 1 and May 15, the timeframe in Indiana open burning laws.
(LCHD4)
Comment: The commenter rejects year round operation, even for Phase 2
compliance units. (TO89)
compliance units. (TO89)
Comment: April through October and part, if not all of November should be
considered as non-operational periods. To close up home so those who own outdoor
hydronic heaters can heat water for showers, tubs and spas is not right. It has been touted
by those that own them that they are saving on heating bills. Where is the health in the
proposed rule? (JD284)
considered as non-operational periods. To close up home so those who own outdoor
hydronic heaters can heat water for showers, tubs and spas is not right. It has been touted
by those that own them that they are saving on heating bills. Where is the health in the
proposed rule? (JD284)
Comment: The procedure leading to regulation of local outdoor hydronic heaters
and across the nation by local municipalities of densely populated and rural areas alike
has been long and difficult for neighbors whose health has been affected by outdoor
hydronic heaters. (LK409)
and across the nation by local municipalities of densely populated and rural areas alike
has been long and difficult for neighbors whose health has been affected by outdoor
hydronic heaters. (LK409)
Comment: Broad regulation of outdoor hydronic heaters would not be
burdensome to citizens of Indiana. (RAWSEP362)
burdensome to citizens of Indiana. (RAWSEP362)
Comment: The proposal will benefit the economy of Indiana. Indigent
homeowners can receive government subsidies such as food stamps and energy subsidies.
Homeowners can reduce heating costs by insulating their homes. (RAWSEP362)
homeowners can receive government subsidies such as food stamps and energy subsidies.
Homeowners can reduce heating costs by insulating their homes. (RAWSEP362)
Comment: The proposed rulemaking convinces a reasonable person that the cost
of becoming compliant with the stack height requirements would be minimal considering
its positive impact will result in better communities throughout Indiana. (RAWSEP362)
of becoming compliant with the stack height requirements would be minimal considering
its positive impact will result in better communities throughout Indiana. (RAWSEP362)
Comment: This regulation will not damage the economy by killing jobs. Those
who work for the outdoor hydronic heater industry may lose their jobs if they do not
diversify. The new green economy is vital to the future economic growth of Indiana.
(LK409) The proposal will improve the economy of the State of Indiana by preserving
tourism, industry jobs, and decreasing health care needed by sickened residents.
(RAWSEP362)
who work for the outdoor hydronic heater industry may lose their jobs if they do not
diversify. The new green economy is vital to the future economic growth of Indiana.
(LK409) The proposal will improve the economy of the State of Indiana by preserving
tourism, industry jobs, and decreasing health care needed by sickened residents.
(RAWSEP362)
Response: The proposed regulation will not damage Indiana’s economy. Outdoor
hydronic heaters can continue to be used and new units can be purchased and installed as
long as they are Phase 2 units. Small businesses that use outdoor hydronic heaters year
round should be able to continue to use them, since most likely there will not be a
neighboring occupied building within 300 feet of the unit. Due to the high level of
particulate matter emissions from current units, and the well documented health risks
associated with exposure to wood smoke, this rule is necessary to ensure that Indiana
residents are able to use outdoor hydronic heaters that are protective of air quality and
that pose the least threat to human health.
hydronic heaters can continue to be used and new units can be purchased and installed as
long as they are Phase 2 units. Small businesses that use outdoor hydronic heaters year
round should be able to continue to use them, since most likely there will not be a
neighboring occupied building within 300 feet of the unit. Due to the high level of
particulate matter emissions from current units, and the well documented health risks
associated with exposure to wood smoke, this rule is necessary to ensure that Indiana
residents are able to use outdoor hydronic heaters that are protective of air quality and
that pose the least threat to human health.
Comment: Property values affected by units installed in neighborhoods. (MS170,
LK409)
LK409)
Response: The draft rule does not address any potential aesthetic or other non-
environmental concerns that may impact property values; however, a reduction in
emission impacts should also help minimize the negative effect on these concerns.
environmental concerns that may impact property values; however, a reduction in
emission impacts should also help minimize the negative effect on these concerns.
Comment: U.S. EPA has already put out a voluntary program and has plans to
establish national standards. Why does IDEM need to regulate also? (AF462, DM241,
DC235)
establish national standards. Why does IDEM need to regulate also? (AF462, DM241,
DC235)
Comment: U.S. EPA has plans to revise the Residential Wood Heater New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) to include outdoor hydronic heaters. (JP6, HW173,
TS191, CS610, TN328, FM440, KK30)
Performance Standard (NSPS) to include outdoor hydronic heaters. (JP6, HW173,
TS191, CS610, TN328, FM440, KK30)
Comment: Indiana tax money will be spent on the same regulations that the
federal government is working towards implementing. (TK549, BE550, KK551, MK552,
VD553, VD554, MK555, WK556, MK557, JT558, CK559, TF560, CN561, DM562,
AT563, TC564, U565, TB566, DR567, ST568, KS569, DS570, JB571, KD572, CA573,
federal government is working towards implementing. (TK549, BE550, KK551, MK552,
VD553, VD554, MK555, WK556, MK557, JT558, CK559, TF560, CN561, DM562,
AT563, TC564, U565, TB566, DR567, ST568, KS569, DS570, JB571, KD572, CA573,
rc2 #05-332
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
September 1, 2010
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
September 1, 2010
EA574, JA575, CR576, JT577, CT578, MC579, KC580, MC581, MC582, KC583,
PB584, KC585, TC586, RJ587, U588, CT589, KM590)
PB584, KC585, TC586, RJ587, U588, CT589, KM590)
Comment: U.S. EPA is revising the NSPS. U.S. EPA has set an aggressive
timetable to amend the NSPS. (AC637)
timetable to amend the NSPS. (AC637)
Comment: IDEM should reconsider the rushed timing of the IDEM rule. (HW173,
TS191, CS610)
TS191, CS610)
Response: IDEM initiated this rule over five years ago to address the health and
quality of life impacts on neighbors as demonstrated by complaints, as well as to address
the impact of outdoor hydronic heater emissions on the PM2.5 standard. U.S. EPA has
only recently decided to regulate outdoor hydronic heaters at the national level and it will
cover only the manufacture of new units. The Indiana rule will cover the gap between
implementation of the state rule and federal rule for manufacture of new units and will
address minimal operating standards for all units. The schedule for a national rule has
been pushed back once and could be delayed again. IDEM does not feel the state
schedule has been rushed. This rulemaking was started over five years ago.
quality of life impacts on neighbors as demonstrated by complaints, as well as to address
the impact of outdoor hydronic heater emissions on the PM2.5 standard. U.S. EPA has
only recently decided to regulate outdoor hydronic heaters at the national level and it will
cover only the manufacture of new units. The Indiana rule will cover the gap between
implementation of the state rule and federal rule for manufacture of new units and will
address minimal operating standards for all units. The schedule for a national rule has
been pushed back once and could be delayed again. IDEM does not feel the state
schedule has been rushed. This rulemaking was started over five years ago.
Comment: The requirement for less than 20% opacity of smoke does not go far
enough. Opacity can only be measured in daylight. (LK409)
enough. Opacity can only be measured in daylight. (LK409)
Comment: Please put in place rules to address smoke from outdoor hydronic
heaters that enters neighbors home. (PB1)
heaters that enters neighbors home. (PB1)
Response: Opacity is an important tool for IDEM inspectors when responding to
complaints about outdoor hydronic heaters. Opacity is a surrogate for particulate
emissions and helps assure compliance with the requirement to burn appropriate fuel.
Water vapor will not cause the opacity limit to be exceeded. By definition, opacity does
not include condensed water vapor. If the plume is detached (not touching the
smokestack), then opacity readings can be taken before the steam starts. Opacity readings
can also be taken at the end of the stream after the plume has had time to cool down and
the steam to dry up. OAQ compliance and enforcement managers are certified every six
months to read smoke using 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A of Reference Method 9. As
part of the certification test no reading may be off by more than 15%. For white smoke,
an average error rate of 7.5% for 25 plumes is acceptable and for black smoke, an
average error rate of 7.5% for 25 plumes is acceptable. Though there is a margin of error
in Method 9 readings, this margin is taken into account in the Method 9 method itself and
is deemed an acceptable margin of error. IDEM recognizes that even though a preferred
method, Method 9 readings may not be appropriate for every situation. The thicker and
denser the smoke is, the higher the opacity reading will be. Many industrial sites do not
have certified Method 9 readers on site and use other operating parameters to ensure that
they are meeting the limit. While most homeowners will not be able to take their own
readings a homeowner can have assurance that compliance with the rule is being
achieved based on the following three premises:
complaints about outdoor hydronic heaters. Opacity is a surrogate for particulate
emissions and helps assure compliance with the requirement to burn appropriate fuel.
Water vapor will not cause the opacity limit to be exceeded. By definition, opacity does
not include condensed water vapor. If the plume is detached (not touching the
smokestack), then opacity readings can be taken before the steam starts. Opacity readings
can also be taken at the end of the stream after the plume has had time to cool down and
the steam to dry up. OAQ compliance and enforcement managers are certified every six
months to read smoke using 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A of Reference Method 9. As
part of the certification test no reading may be off by more than 15%. For white smoke,
an average error rate of 7.5% for 25 plumes is acceptable and for black smoke, an
average error rate of 7.5% for 25 plumes is acceptable. Though there is a margin of error
in Method 9 readings, this margin is taken into account in the Method 9 method itself and
is deemed an acceptable margin of error. IDEM recognizes that even though a preferred
method, Method 9 readings may not be appropriate for every situation. The thicker and
denser the smoke is, the higher the opacity reading will be. Many industrial sites do not
have certified Method 9 readers on site and use other operating parameters to ensure that
they are meeting the limit. While most homeowners will not be able to take their own
readings a homeowner can have assurance that compliance with the rule is being
achieved based on the following three premises:
1. Good combustion practices are followed, including using only an approved fuel.
2. Routine maintenance as recommended by the manufacturer is followed.
3. IDEM has not taken opacity readings higher than 20% on the unit.
The Fugitive Dust Rule, 326 IAC 6-4, is not a good tool to use for smoke from a stack or
chimney due to the exceptions listed in 326 IAC 6-4-6. Visible plumes from a stack or
chimney which provide adequate dispersion is considered an exception to the fugitive
dust rule. Opacity was created as a surrogate for particulate emission limits. The reason
why there are no opacity limits on activities such as open burning, barbeque pits, etc is
because these activities do not have particulate limits associated with them. This rule
proposes to put particulate limits on hydronic heater stacks and, therefore, opacity is the
best tool to use because it was created for the purpose of using on stacks or chimneys as
an indicator of particulate issues.
2. Routine maintenance as recommended by the manufacturer is followed.
3. IDEM has not taken opacity readings higher than 20% on the unit.
The Fugitive Dust Rule, 326 IAC 6-4, is not a good tool to use for smoke from a stack or
chimney due to the exceptions listed in 326 IAC 6-4-6. Visible plumes from a stack or
chimney which provide adequate dispersion is considered an exception to the fugitive
dust rule. Opacity was created as a surrogate for particulate emission limits. The reason
why there are no opacity limits on activities such as open burning, barbeque pits, etc is
because these activities do not have particulate limits associated with them. This rule
proposes to put particulate limits on hydronic heater stacks and, therefore, opacity is the
best tool to use because it was created for the purpose of using on stacks or chimneys as
an indicator of particulate issues.
Comment: The commenter recommends that inefficient outdoor hydronic heaters
by phased out in favor of U.S. EPA certified units or even cleaner forms of heat such as
solar hot water. Too much has been made of outdoor hydronic heaters burning wood
being “carbon neutral.” If they are inefficient and polluting, they are not desirable or
sustainable. Trees can’t grow as fast as wood gets burned in these devices. (DS641)
by phased out in favor of U.S. EPA certified units or even cleaner forms of heat such as
solar hot water. Too much has been made of outdoor hydronic heaters burning wood
being “carbon neutral.” If they are inefficient and polluting, they are not desirable or
sustainable. Trees can’t grow as fast as wood gets burned in these devices. (DS641)
Comment: Wood burning and wood smoke harm the environment. Wood smoke
is a form of carbon black. Black carbon (soot) is the second leading cause of global
warming and stopping particulates is the quickest way to slow climate change. Black
carbon is on the United Nations list of greenhouse pollutants, and is proven by many
scientific studies to act as harmfully as many greenhouse gases, surpassed only by carbon
dioxide (CO2). This does not dispute that fossil fuels harm the environment too. (LK409)
(RAWSEP362)
is a form of carbon black. Black carbon (soot) is the second leading cause of global
warming and stopping particulates is the quickest way to slow climate change. Black
carbon is on the United Nations list of greenhouse pollutants, and is proven by many
scientific studies to act as harmfully as many greenhouse gases, surpassed only by carbon
dioxide (CO2). This does not dispute that fossil fuels harm the environment too. (LK409)
(RAWSEP362)
Comment: Outdoor hydronic heaters emit CO2 and particulates. (RAWSEP362)
Comment: The State consists of heavily wooded, rural areas. These trees are a
valuable natural resource when alive, and much less valuable when cut. Trees provide
oxygen and naturally cleanse the air. It makes no sense to apply clean air regulations only
to those in densely populated areas. (LK409, RAWSEP362)
valuable natural resource when alive, and much less valuable when cut. Trees provide
oxygen and naturally cleanse the air. It makes no sense to apply clean air regulations only
to those in densely populated areas. (LK409, RAWSEP362)
rc2 #05-332
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
September 1, 2010
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
September 1, 2010
Comment: The harvesting and burning of wood depletes important natural
resources, forests in Indiana. (RAWSEP362)
resources, forests in Indiana. (RAWSEP362)
Comment: Natural gas is a reliable fuel as a bridge to the cleaner energy sources
of solar, wind and geothermal. (RAWSEP362)
of solar, wind and geothermal. (RAWSEP362)
Comment: The proposed regulation was prepared using extensive scientific data
which has been ignored for too long because of lobbying by outdoor hydronic heater
manufacturers. (LK409)
which has been ignored for too long because of lobbying by outdoor hydronic heater
manufacturers. (LK409)
Comment: The proposal was prepared using scientific data. (RAWSEP362)
Comment: The photo shown on the cover of the NESCAUM report shows wood
smoke coming out of an outdoor hydronic heater in a manner that has been documented
thousands of times. Search the internet or look at a unit in use. The rate of particulate
emissions from outdoor hydronic heaters is not the same of emissions from a certified
wood stove. Low stack heights can be found on outdoor hydronic heaters. An outdoor
hydronic heater with proper stack heights does not comply with the national ambient air
quality standard. (RAWSEP362)
smoke coming out of an outdoor hydronic heater in a manner that has been documented
thousands of times. Search the internet or look at a unit in use. The rate of particulate
emissions from outdoor hydronic heaters is not the same of emissions from a certified
wood stove. Low stack heights can be found on outdoor hydronic heaters. An outdoor
hydronic heater with proper stack heights does not comply with the national ambient air
quality standard. (RAWSEP362)
Response: The modeling studies mentioned confirm that proper stack height and
the distance to the nearest neighbor are important. While emissions data may show that
on a lb/MMBtu basis, actual emissions from a certified indoor wood stove may be
comparable to an outdoor hydronic heater, on a lb/hr basis outdoor hydronic heaters do
emit more particulate matter. This is important in terms of air quality impacts on nearby
neighbors. Also, emissions test data for outdoor hydronic heaters is for a limited number
of models and may not represent the variety of units that are currently in use. Some units
used in Indiana are much older than the ones in the test studies and may have deteriorated
over time from use.
the distance to the nearest neighbor are important. While emissions data may show that
on a lb/MMBtu basis, actual emissions from a certified indoor wood stove may be
comparable to an outdoor hydronic heater, on a lb/hr basis outdoor hydronic heaters do
emit more particulate matter. This is important in terms of air quality impacts on nearby
neighbors. Also, emissions test data for outdoor hydronic heaters is for a limited number
of models and may not represent the variety of units that are currently in use. Some units
used in Indiana are much older than the ones in the test studies and may have deteriorated
over time from use.
Comment: The proposed limit for particulate matter of 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat
output is ten times the limit for other wood combustors with much higher smokestacks,
combustors thus less likely to be a hazard or nuisance to neighbors. Why is the limit not
established at the emissions of efficient, modern, indoor, wood combusting heating
devices? What primary source of data and conclusions prove that this 0.32 lb/MMBtu
limit is safe for the public health. (AK33)
output is ten times the limit for other wood combustors with much higher smokestacks,
combustors thus less likely to be a hazard or nuisance to neighbors. Why is the limit not
established at the emissions of efficient, modern, indoor, wood combusting heating
devices? What primary source of data and conclusions prove that this 0.32 lb/MMBtu
limit is safe for the public health. (AK33)
Comment: Indiana has a terrible reputation for failing to protect its environment.
Does this rule protect citizens and what data proves this? (AK33)
Does this rule protect citizens and what data proves this? (AK33)
Response: The 0.32 lb/MMBtu Phase 2 limit is based on studies by NESCAUM
that show this limit is protective of public health. Industrial sources of particulate matter
have a much more stringent emission limit because they have a much high potential for
environmental or health impacts. In addition, these sources are usually emitting several
different pollutants and controlling them has a significant benefit. In addition, those
sources are regulated under different standards and have the capability of installing air
pollution controls to reduce emissions. Also, since industrial sources are much larger and
consume much more energy, their lb/hour emissions are going to be much higher than for
an outdoor hydronic heater. Manufacturers have been working with U.S. EPA through a
voluntary program to develop cleaner burning units. U.S. EPA has a program in place to
test and certify units that meet this limit. As U.S. EPA continues to work with
manufacturers there will be increased availability potentially a decrease in price for Phase
2 units.
that show this limit is protective of public health. Industrial sources of particulate matter
have a much more stringent emission limit because they have a much high potential for
environmental or health impacts. In addition, these sources are usually emitting several
different pollutants and controlling them has a significant benefit. In addition, those
sources are regulated under different standards and have the capability of installing air
pollution controls to reduce emissions. Also, since industrial sources are much larger and
consume much more energy, their lb/hour emissions are going to be much higher than for
an outdoor hydronic heater. Manufacturers have been working with U.S. EPA through a
voluntary program to develop cleaner burning units. U.S. EPA has a program in place to
test and certify units that meet this limit. As U.S. EPA continues to work with
manufacturers there will be increased availability potentially a decrease in price for Phase
2 units.
Comment: Although wood is a fuel that has been used since the beginning of
recorded history, emissions of particulates from wood burning is hazardous to health.
Wood burning contributed to shortened lifespan of earlier generations, and today causes
multiple health problems including early death, circulatory problems, heart and lung
problems, cataracts, and asthma. (LK409)
recorded history, emissions of particulates from wood burning is hazardous to health.
Wood burning contributed to shortened lifespan of earlier generations, and today causes
multiple health problems including early death, circulatory problems, heart and lung
problems, cataracts, and asthma. (LK409)
Response: IDEM agrees that people living close to these units can be exposed to
short term particle levels that are unhealthy and, therefore, IDEM is proposing to move
forward with this rule that includes requirements for existing and new installations.
short term particle levels that are unhealthy and, therefore, IDEM is proposing to move
forward with this rule that includes requirements for existing and new installations.
Comment: Since there is no limit on how many outdoor hydronic heaters may be
located in a geographical area there is effectively no limit to the air pollution from these
units. What is the maximum number of hydronic heaters per acre and per square mile
which can be operated without decreasing air quality below federal clean air standards?
(AK33)
located in a geographical area there is effectively no limit to the air pollution from these
units. What is the maximum number of hydronic heaters per acre and per square mile
which can be operated without decreasing air quality below federal clean air standards?
(AK33)
Response: Although IDEM is unsure of how many unit there are in Indiana or
where concentrations exist, research indicates that a single non-Phase 2 unit is capable of
producing enough particulate matter emissions to exceed the health based standard in
close proximity to the unit. Therefore, a Phase 2 emission limit for new installations and
a stack height requirement for existing units is necessary.
where concentrations exist, research indicates that a single non-Phase 2 unit is capable of
producing enough particulate matter emissions to exceed the health based standard in
close proximity to the unit. Therefore, a Phase 2 emission limit for new installations and
a stack height requirement for existing units is necessary.
Comment: What are the increases in the rates of cancer, of other illnesses, and of
death in the use of outdoor hydronic heaters? What are the savings in heating costs?
(AK33)
death in the use of outdoor hydronic heaters? What are the savings in heating costs?
(AK33)
rc2 #05-332
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
September 1, 2010
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
September 1, 2010
Response: Health impacts associated with the 24-hour health based standard and
exposure to particulate matter is well document. IDEM does not know what percentage
of negative health impacts are due to outdoor hydronic heaters. Modeling does show that
a single unit produces enough particulate matter to exceed the 24-hour health based
standard and poses a health threat for those in close proximity without appropriate stack
height on the unit. Savings in heating costs depends on how much space or hot water is
heated with the outdoor hydronic heater. It also depends on whether the unit owner has
access to free wood.
exposure to particulate matter is well document. IDEM does not know what percentage
of negative health impacts are due to outdoor hydronic heaters. Modeling does show that
a single unit produces enough particulate matter to exceed the 24-hour health based
standard and poses a health threat for those in close proximity without appropriate stack
height on the unit. Savings in heating costs depends on how much space or hot water is
heated with the outdoor hydronic heater. It also depends on whether the unit owner has
access to free wood.
Comment: The draft rule language does not require homemade units to comply
with the Phase 2 emission limit in Section 3 of the draft rule. Why do homemade units
not have to meet the Phase 2 emission limit? It is likely that homemade units would be
even less efficient than manufactured units, and therefore more polluting. It is also
possible that imposing the new emission limit for new units may cause more people to
build their own units, defeating the purpose of the new rule. IDEM is urged to extend the
Phase 2 emission limit to homemade units. (IKE612)
with the Phase 2 emission limit in Section 3 of the draft rule. Why do homemade units
not have to meet the Phase 2 emission limit? It is likely that homemade units would be
even less efficient than manufactured units, and therefore more polluting. It is also
possible that imposing the new emission limit for new units may cause more people to
build their own units, defeating the purpose of the new rule. IDEM is urged to extend the
Phase 2 emission limit to homemade units. (IKE612)
Comment: IDEM should clarify that homemade units are subject to the seasonal
operating restriction under Section 5 of the draft rule. (IKE612)
operating restriction under Section 5 of the draft rule. (IKE612)
Response: As required in 326 IAC 4-3-1(b), homemade units are subject to both
the operating standards in Section 5 of the draft rule and the general stack height
requirements in Section 4 of the draft rule. While IDEM agrees that homemade units can
emit more pollution and may not operate efficiently due to poor design, IDEM does not
want to deny people the ability to build their own unit when that is all they can afford.
This provision is limited to people building units for their own personal use.
the operating standards in Section 5 of the draft rule and the general stack height
requirements in Section 4 of the draft rule. While IDEM agrees that homemade units can
emit more pollution and may not operate efficiently due to poor design, IDEM does not
want to deny people the ability to build their own unit when that is all they can afford.
This provision is limited to people building units for their own personal use.
Notification requirements
Comment: The commenter supports the requirement for outdoor hydronic heater
sellers and dealers to provide a copy of the rule to the outdoor hydronic heater buyer or
lessee and provide notification to IDEM of installation location. LaPorte County requires
registration of outdoor hydronic heaters and has found this to be a valuable asset.
(LCHD4)
sellers and dealers to provide a copy of the rule to the outdoor hydronic heater buyer or
lessee and provide notification to IDEM of installation location. LaPorte County requires
registration of outdoor hydronic heaters and has found this to be a valuable asset.
(LCHD4)
Comment: Commenter suggests that IDEM add a registration process to the rule.
(TO89)
(TO89)
Comment: If IDEM is going to associate a name with a comment then the
comments should not be edited. (AK33)
comments should not be edited. (AK33)
Response: It is IDEM’s practice to summarize comments for ease of reading so
that the public can understand the issues identified by commenters during a rulemaking.
Letters submitted during a public comment period are public documents and can be
viewed by anyone interested in see an unedited version of a comment. IDEM endeavors
to summarize comments submitted without changing the intent of the comment.
that the public can understand the issues identified by commenters during a rulemaking.
Letters submitted during a public comment period are public documents and can be
viewed by anyone interested in see an unedited version of a comment. IDEM endeavors
to summarize comments submitted without changing the intent of the comment.
Comment: Commenter provided IDEM with a copy of a report from New York,
“Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State” (August 2005).
(LM88)
“Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State” (August 2005).
(LM88)
Response: IDEM is aware of this report and appreciates the information provided
by the commenter.
by the commenter.
Rule language
Comment: The rule is not clear if condensible particulate matter is included.
(AK33)
(AK33)
Response: The emission limit in the rule is for particulate matter, including the
condensible fraction. As part of U.S. EPA’s testing program for Phase 2 certification
Method 28 can be used for testing. Testing pursuant to the modified Method 28 test
protocol includes cooling of the exhaust gases prior to sampling, so that the condensible
particulate fraction is captured.
condensible fraction. As part of U.S. EPA’s testing program for Phase 2 certification
Method 28 can be used for testing. Testing pursuant to the modified Method 28 test
protocol includes cooling of the exhaust gases prior to sampling, so that the condensible
particulate fraction is captured.
Comment: Commenter supports language in Section 2 of the draft rule within the
definition of “outdoor hydronic heaters” to include “outdoor installation or installation in
structures not normally occupied by humans.” The LaPorte County ordinance did not
include this and so many outdoor hydronic heater owners moved their units into sheds,
barns, and garages. (TO89, LCHD4)
definition of “outdoor hydronic heaters” to include “outdoor installation or installation in
structures not normally occupied by humans.” The LaPorte County ordinance did not
include this and so many outdoor hydronic heater owners moved their units into sheds,
barns, and garages. (TO89, LCHD4)
Response: IDEM appreciates the support.
Comment: The projected effective date of the proposed regulations is September
of 2010. The Indiana proposed regulation is unnecessary, because U.S. EPA is planning
on revising the Residential Woodheater NSPS to include standards for outdoor hydronic
heaters, with a proposal planned for April 2011, and a final regulation a year later in May
2012. These updated projected implementation dates were only recently provided to
industry representatives. If Indiana nonetheless proceeds with its plans to promulgate
state regulations, the effective date shouldn’t be earlier than September 2011 to provide
manufacturers with additional time to develop/certify/field test/manufacture additional
Phase 2 models. (AC637)
of 2010. The Indiana proposed regulation is unnecessary, because U.S. EPA is planning
on revising the Residential Woodheater NSPS to include standards for outdoor hydronic
heaters, with a proposal planned for April 2011, and a final regulation a year later in May
2012. These updated projected implementation dates were only recently provided to
industry representatives. If Indiana nonetheless proceeds with its plans to promulgate
state regulations, the effective date shouldn’t be earlier than September 2011 to provide
manufacturers with additional time to develop/certify/field test/manufacture additional
Phase 2 models. (AC637)
Response: A state rule is necessary because U.S. EPA may further delay the
adoption of federal rules for new units and the federal rule will not include regulations for
currently installed units. When a federal rule is adopted for newly manufactured units
IDEM will revise the state rule, if necessary. The Indiana rule will not be effective until
adoption of federal rules for new units and the federal rule will not include regulations for
currently installed units. When a federal rule is adopted for newly manufactured units
IDEM will revise the state rule, if necessary. The Indiana rule will not be effective until
rc2 #05-332
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
September 1, 2010
Outdoor Hydronic Heaters
September 1, 2010
early 2011, if final adoption takes place in early fall 2010. After final adoption the state
promulgation process takes 3-4 months and then the rule is effective 30 days after filing
with the Legislative Services Agency. Considering that there are sell-through provisions
and not as many units being sold in the summer months there should be enough time for
additional Phase 2 models to be tested, certified, and manufactured.
promulgation process takes 3-4 months and then the rule is effective 30 days after filing
with the Legislative Services Agency. Considering that there are sell-through provisions
and not as many units being sold in the summer months there should be enough time for
additional Phase 2 models to be tested, certified, and manufactured.
woodsmokehaz1 