U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Bethesda ...

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Bethesda, Maryland

Public Hearing Portable Generators Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) Wednesday, March 8, 2017 10:00 a.m.

Presenter

EDT

10:00 AM

Opening

10:05 AM

Panel1

11:15 AM 12:05 PM 1:00PM

Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle

1

Lindell Weaver (via phone)

2

Greg Wischstadt

3

Kevin Dunn

4

Kimberly Pendo

Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association

5

William Wallace

Consumers Union

6

Marvin Klowak

Briggs and Stratton Corporation

7

Lee Sowell

Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd .

8

« LUNCH Joe Moses

9

Gordon Selby Johnson, Jr.

Attorney

10

Tim Shively

Fireboy-Xintex Inc.

11

Antonio Santos

12

Albert Donnay

1:50PM

Panel 2 Questions

2:40PM

Adjourn

-

-

-

Intermountain LOS Hospital --- - - - - - - - - Portable Generators Manufacturers' Association National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Commission

Panel1 Questions Panel2

Affiliation

B R E A K >>

Commission Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle

Generac Power Systems, Inc.

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association Consulting Detoxicologist, Env. Health Engineer, and Carbon Monoxide Analyst

Lindell K. Weaver, MD, FACP, FCCP, FCCM, FUHM Medical Director and Division Chief, Hyperbaric Medicine LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT

o..c ~ 2

0

c

u

0

·(./) (./) ·-

..c

..f-1

ro

E Q) Q)

"""0 ·X

0

c 0

E c 0

L

0

~

ru L

:::J """0 Q)

cc:

ro

OJ

u

E

:::J

..c

""C

QJ

ro

0

!.....

c

Vl

!.....

:::J

..f-1

u

tl.O

c

~

L

0

0..

E

0

L

4-

ro

c

·c 0

..f-1 !.......

!.......

0 ro

+""'

!a-

0 rn !.......

OJ

QJ

0...

0

u

rn

..f-1

!.......

!.....

0

0

OJ tl.O OJ

0

·Vl Vl ·E

..c ro

..f-1

QJ

0

Vl

-o QJ

·-

0... ..::::L.

• • •

c

c

E u

!.......

OJ

Vl

0.0

rn

0 ro

'+-

QJ

+""'

0...

E

QJ

..f-1 !a-

Vl

!.....

0

c

QJ ·0 ..c ..c Vl

0...

> rn

!.......

OJ tl.O OJ

0

:::J

Vl

u '+·-

..f-1 !.......

0

!.....

Vl

!.......

0 ..f-1 QJ ro u !....... :::J

0::::

•

'+'+-

..c

tl.O

0 ·-

QJ

c..c

QJ

0 ::s 0

-o c QJ

0

0...

tl.O

!.......

r-

•

ro

Q)

_J

""0

.......

c

ro

:..:::JV"l

0

rn

0..

Vl

tlO Q)

QJ

..c

QJ Vl

0

0...

Q)

ru ru

u

..f-1

c

-

-OJ > OJ

QJ -..c

0..

""C

Q)

Vl

QJ

0 0

..c

L

Q)

:::J

E

Q)

...0 ...0

u

u

QJ

-o (./')

..c

'

s~

ro

rn

.c u

ro ·-

!.....

-o c

::)

Q)

>

OJ

(./)

._,

..f-1

Greg Wischstadt, President Portable Generator Manufacturers' Association (PGMA)

·~·· Portable

~ Manufacturers' Association

SecretaryfTreasurer: THOMAS ASSOCIATES, INC.

Portable Generator Manufacturers' Association Submitted Testimony Susan Orenga, Executive Director Presented by Greg Wischstadt, President Hearing: Portable Generators: Oral Presentations on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking March 8, 2017, 10:00 A.M. Acting Chair Buerkle and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the Consumer Product Safety Comm ission. My name is Greg Wischstadt and I serve as the President of the Portable Generator Manufacturers' Association. PGMA is a voluntary trade organization which began in 2009 representing major manufacturers of portable generators. PGMA has seven member companies, in addition to one associate member company, which employ thousands of individuals in t he United States. PGMA and its members are dedicated to the safe use of power portable generators. PGMA has developed the first and only ANSI standard for portable generators, ANSI/PGMA G300. Although the standard was only finalized and approved by ANSI in 2015, PGMA decided to go a step further by reopening the standard to include requirements to address potential CO hazards when generators are used improperly. PGMA is also involved in the voluntary standards process with UL, serving on the UL 2201 CO Task Group. However, we would note that PGMA is not comfortable with the Task Group's current direction. In addition to our standards activities, PGMA members contribute extensive resources to educating consumers on the safe use of portable generators. In 2015, PGMA developed the Take it Outside™ safety campaign with a Website, fact sheet, video, and resources that PGMA and our members use to promote a consistent message around the safe use of portable generators and the potential hazards if generators are misused by running them indoors. The campaign also includes ongoing press releases that highlight different usage scenarios and provides information reminding consumers of the importance of properly working CO alarms. We also track major storms and send media alerts with pertinent information about the safe use of generators when there is a power outage. Since its inception, our Take It Outsiden>1 campaign has garnered nearly 35,000 media placements and over 1 billion impressions. PGMA has always been focused on the dangers of carbon monoxide and we have taken numerous steps to focus our attention on a solution. Efforts include the following: •

CPSC's Incidents, Deaths, and In-Depth lnvestigaUons Associated with Non-Fire Carbon Monoxide from Engine-Driven Generators and Other Engine-Driven Tools, 2004-2014 report indicated that the second most common reason for portable generator use was shut off of utilities, accounting for 20% of deaths. PGMA has reached out to utility commissions across the country and provided them with the Take it Outside™ fact 1300 Sumner Ave. • Cleveland , Ohio 44115-2851 • 216-241-7333 • Fax 216-241-0105 URL: www.pgmaonline.com E-mail: [email protected]

sheet, requesting that when t hey shut off power, they include the fact sheet with the shut off notice and post the information on their websites. PGMA has also made several requests to CPSC to help in this outreach . •

In addition, in 2013, PGMA worked with NARUC on their adoption of CA-l Resolution, recognizing the importance of educating power consumers on portable generator carbon monoxide safety. Unfortunately, follow-up attempts to ensure utilities are sharing safety information on their websites and through consumer notifications has been challenging. As request ed previously, we would appreciate CPSC assistance in this matter.

•

The same incident report previously noted indicated that more than 92% of EngineDriven Carbon Monoxide deaths occurred without properly operating alarms. PGMA has provided support to the Nicholas and Zachary Burt Memorial Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act (S. 1250), which would make carbon monoxide detectors more readily available. In past meetings, PGMA has also requested the CPSC help in requiring CO Alarms in residential buildings.

•

In 2016, PGMA held a Technical Summit bringing together PGMA members, CPSC Staff, the National Institute of Sta ndards and Technology (NIST), UL, technical experts, and others, to gather input for how to address the potential CO hazards that occur with the misuse of portable generato rs.

We appreciate the work the CPSC has done with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). This effort, combined with the input from the Technical Summit held in 2016, helped PGMA members with their individual resea rch and development efforts on the issue, and PGMA to get very close to releasing a revised ANSI/PGMA G300 standard for canvass. However, as you are aware, our Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to NIST has not provided all of the necessary data fo r us to continue with our testing to ensure that the solution we are recommending is the best fo r consumers. NIST is now requesting $8,000 for the rest of the data, and PGMA is not guaranteed we will receive all of the information requested that we require for our testing. Also, as a non-profit, $8,000 is a high cost that had not been allocated for PGMA's 2017 operating budget. PGMA believes that since CPSC's NPR largely relies upon the NIST modeling, it is in the public's int erest to have this data released . We would ask that CPSC contact NIST and ask them to release this crucia l information used to develop your rule. This information should not be withheld, especially when CPSC itself has an open comment period on its rule . Having access to the NIST data is pa rt icularly important for our standard revision, in addition to being able to respond to the NPR. PGMA' s newest iteration of the standard will propose a detection methodology with shut off mechanism to help ensure CO doesn't build up in an enclosed space if the generator is being misused. Initial modeling based on the FOIA data we did receive from CPSC shows that a shut-off sensor approach will be more effective towards minimizing deaths. The missing data f rom NIST is crucial to better understanding the proposed solution in the NPR and in PGMA's work on its standard to address the potential hazards. As a whole, PGMA members are committed to quickly finalizing the revisions to the ANSI/PGMA G300 standard to address the poten t ial CO Hazards if generators are used improperly. To assist

in this effort, and to ensure we have all of the relevant information and feedback necessary, we have scheduled a second Technical Summit for April3, 2017 where we are inviting PGMA Technical Committee members, CPSC staff, health experts, CO experts, NIST, UL, and other interested parties to review the revisions to the standard and ask any questions and present feedback. This Summit will result in a Steering Committee to help PGMA finalize the standard. Once PGMA has this input, PGMA's Technical Committee will make the appropriate updates to the standard and proceed with the ANSI canvass process. A majority of the PGMA member manufacturers are in line with PGMA's voluntary standard revisions which address the CO hazard posed by indoor use through a detection and shutoff strategy. We ultimately feel that this method will prevent more incidents than the lower CO emissions solution outlined in the NPR. The revised PGMA draft standard that will be shared and published shortly. While PGMA's full comments on the NPR will come on April 24, 2017 {pending release of data from NIST), we do have several initial concerns with the NPR including: • Unintended consequences of a low CO emissions solution. Individuals may think generators are safe to take indoors which, with any CO emissions, they will never be safe to take indoors. • Congress directed the jurisdiction of regulating CO emissions to the EPA. As a separate federal agency, CPSC moving forward with a mandatory standard that regulates emissions is misplaced. Price increases, job loss, a reduction of choice in the marketplace, and potential unintended consequences of incidents and deaths with the misunderstanding that generators are safe to bring indoors, are all very real concerns of a mandatory portable generator rulemaking moving forward. Given our good faith effort t o take all opinions into account, and work on a revision to our ANSI standard that addresses th e risk of CO poisoning from improper use, we urge the Commission to halt or delay the NPR and continue to work with industry and the voluntary standards' process to address portable generator safety. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kevin H. Dunn, Sc.D., CIH Research Mechanical Engineer, Division of Applied Research and Technology, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Controlling Carbon Monoxide from Generators: Comments from NIOSH

Kevin H. Dunn Sc.D. Research Mechanical Engineer Consumer Products Safety Commission Pubic Meeting on NPR for Portable Generators March 8, 2017

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Division of ADDiied Research and Ti

(.-.-~t.t

'

...-~ ·.......

CD(:

-·--

---H AZARD ALERT CP"VR [ e I ~

a:· ·.... "' ; I

* •, , r .' "' t t& l t t &.c

.l ) • .t• v ...1 • ' t I

ertr•tf~o~

.t•:.

CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING GAS-POWERED GENERATORS, TOOLS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT

Know the basics ... ~~----~~--~- ----~-

Usa generators outside NEVER run gas-powered generators or compressors inside a building or in a semi-enclosed outdoor space. Locate them as far as practical from any occupied building.*

PHOTO ELCOSH .ORG JCPWRNUPPY

•Generators should be outdoors, preferably 25 feet downwind from an occupied building as recommended by the National institute of Standards and Technology.

CO can reach deadly concentrations in less than 1 minute, depending on the type of engine, and CO can linger for hours. ~

© 2014, CPWR-The Center for Construction Research and Training. All rights reserved.

-

~ ifi

One generator can produce more CO than 100 idling cars.

~

~

Initial Involvement-Lake Powell 2000-2001 • After the August 2000 death of two Y.Oung brothers swimming near their houseboat, the DOl and NPS requested assistance from the NIOSH to evaluate potential boat-related exposures to CO on Lake Powell • An initial review of EMS dispatch records as well as law enforcement and hospital records identified 176 CO poisoning cases between 1990-2004 on Lake Powell • 122 were on houseboats with 42 poisonings occurring outdoors Source: NIOSH HHE #2005-0400-2956 https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2000-04002956.pdf

• From 1990-2008, over 800 CO-related poisonings on boats have been identified across the U.S. • Over 300 poisonings from generator exhaust Source: National Case Listing, 2008 http://www.doubleangel.org/documents/NatiCaseListingBoatRelatedCOPoisoningsMay2007 April2008 OOO.pdf

CO Concentrations and Health Effects

COin ppm

Limits/Symptoms

35

NIOSH REL; Max. exposure allowed by EPA outside for 1 hour

50

Maximum exposure allowed by OSHA over 8 hours

125

American Boat & Yacht Council limit over 5 minutes

6,400

Death in less than 20 minutes

12,800

Death in less than 3 minutes Source: NIOSH, OSHA, EPA, Goldstein (2008)

I• •

•

I

n

--

0

n

0 ::J n

tD ::J

Ill

,.... iil ,....

-·::J

0

"'I

C) tD ::J tD

AI ,....

..,0 0

-

::J

< 0 -a tD

iil ,....

-·

::J

OQ

CO-Related Poisonings and Low Emissions Generator Development • Prototype emissions control device (catalytic converter) was introduced into the market in 2001 • Generator manufacturers developed Low CO emissions generators •

Westerbeke Safe-CO marine generators in 2004

•

Kohler launched low CO generators in 2005

• Evaluations of the both the Westerbeke and Kohler generators showed reductions in CO emissions by 99% or greater

Low CO Emission Gen Sets ~

• Westerbeke Low-CO Generator - 3.5 kW to 22.5-kW generators available

• Kohler Generator - 4kWto 15 kW generators available

.

/'

""

CO Concentrations on Houseboats with and without emission controls 500

.-.. E c. c. .._.. t/)

c

...0cu ·...c

I-

o Low-Emission Generator 400

r_-.,

350 300 250

CD

200

0

150

0

100

0

o Generator-no controls

450

L.

u c

457

243

63

0

50

1.3

5

0.4

0

Stbd Rear Platform

Port Rear Platform

Stbd Lower Stern

14 •

r

1

1

Port Lower Stem

Sample Location

\.

~

Voluntary and Regulatory actions

ABVC

-:...-- ···.;

-~.'

••. _,. •,·

Cel~~·a~

·, •••

,'l,.t•

••q cu•

5o·~ ,":~r; ~';:~~y

• ABYC issued a standard on exhaust configuration and emissions control (ABYC P-1) • EPA finalized a new emission control program to reduce hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from marine spark-ignition • engines. -

... ~ ~

New exhaust emissions standards effect 2010 model year. • Spark-ignition marine generators- 5 glk.W-hr • Current EPA emissions standards for portable generators- 610 glk.W-hr

• National Park Service issued new requirements in 2012 for concession boat rental and marina operations to prevent CO poisoning

Crude annual rates of unintenti·o nal, non-fire, CO-related deaths and average emissions, US

1968-1998 120

5 In

'-

as ~ I

4

c:

0 In

'-

G)

a.

2

'-

1

,...

a.

a: c

0

/-

------

--

3

0 0 0 ... 0 0 0 ... G)

..! ()

100

-...._

''

80

>

' ' , __ '' '-.

G)

a.

-

"C G)

60

---- ---- •

40 20 0

rofb ~~ ~'lf ~~ ~ro ~fb !b~ !b'lf !b~ !bro !bfb ~~ ~'lf ~~ ~ro ~fb

. . _OJ . . _OJ . . _OJ . . _OJ . . _OJ ...._q ...._q ...._q

~

·EG)

0

0 .... 0 ·-EG)

0

-CDR: Motor vehicle

G)

'-

1975--catalytic converters required on all new passenger cars

...._OJ "'c.) "'c.) "'c.) "'c.) ~

·-'=

...._q

- - CO Emissions (grams/mile)

UJ E as '-

(!)

Kevin H. Dunn Sc.D., CIH Research Mechanical Engineer Division of Applied Research and Technology Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Phone: 513-841-4152 E-mail: [email protected] For more information please contact Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone: 1-800-CDC-INFO {232-4636)/TTY: 1-888-232-6348 Visit: www.cdc.gov

I Contact CDC at: 1-800-CDC-INFO or www.cdc.gov/info

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(.-.-~~t_ CDC · -..:i .... ,

-··--'

~National Institute for

wii:J:Til® I

Comments to CPSC

Comments of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Safety Standard for Portable Generators

[Docket No. CPSC-2006-0057] RIN 3041-AC36

Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, Ohio

February 6, 2017- v8

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has reviewed the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Safety standard for portable generators published in the Federal Register (FR) on November 21, 2016 [81 FR 83556]. NIOSH has conducted research to prevent carbon monoxide (CO) poisonings from small gasoline-powered engines for over twenty years. NIOSH continues to research this problem, particularly after identification of CO poisonings and deaths associated with marine engines and generators beginning in 2000 [CDC 2000]. The CO emission hazard from portable generators continues to be a serious concern for both workers and the general public. As a public health agency, NIOSH supports this rulemaking process to prevent poisonings and fatalities from CO. NIOSH is willing to provide technical assistance to the CPSC to support the rulemaking process and we offer the following comments. Portable generators and small engines In 1993, the NIOSH-sponsored Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities Surveillance Program identified several cases of CO poisoning related to the use of gasoline-powered pressure washers in Iowa [CDC 1993]. Near this time, other public health agencies in the U.S. documented CO poisonings related to the use of small gasoline powered engines. This work led to publication of a joint NIOSH/Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)/CPSC/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Alert "Preventing Carbon Monoxide Poisoning from Small Gasoline-Powered Engines and Tools" [NIOSH 1996]. The need for temporary power following hurricanes, ice storms and other power outage situations combined with the low cost of portable generators caused increases in the purchase and use of these products. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a systematic literature review to understand aspects of disaster-related CO poisoning surveillance and to determine potentially effective prevention strategies [Iqbal et al. 2012]. The review identified 362 incidents and 1,888 disaster-related CO poisoning cases, including 75 fatalities, occurring between 1991 and 2009 in the United States. Generator use was involved in most of the fatal and nonfatal cases and was the primary source of CO exposure for all post-hurricane investigations. Almost 67% of the fatal cases resulted from using the generator indoors. However, placement of a generator outside in an attached garage, near open doors or windows, or near the air conditioning vent put residents at risk for CO poisoning and was responsible for 10 fatalities identified in the review [Iqbal et al. 2012]. Marine Engines In August 2000, the National Park Service, through the Department of the Interior, requested assistance from NIOSH and the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate visitor and employee CO exposures from generators and propulsion engines on houseboats. This investigation characterized CO poisonings by collecting epidemiologic data and measuring severely hazardous CO concentrations on houseboats at Lake Powell, Arizona. From 1990-2008, over 800 boating-related poisonings in 35 states have been identified with over 140 of these poisonings resulting in death [Carbon Monoxide Action Group 2

2008]. Over 300 of the poisonings occurred inside or outside of houseboat cabins, with more than 200 of these poisonings attributed to generator exhaust alone. Initial air sampling surveys conducted by NIOSH found hazardous concentrations of CO on and around houseboats using gasoline-powered generators [CDC 2000]. CO measured in the exhaust and near the rear of boats often exceeded the NIOSH Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) concentration of 1200 parts per million (ppm) [NIOSH 2005]. These generators with no engineering controls for CO routinely emitted CO at concentrations exceeding the NIOSH workplace ceiling limit of 200 ppm [NIOSH 1972] and the IDLH concentration. Initially, the major obstacle to the safe use of gasoline-powered generators was the absence of any emission controls. In 2001 , NIOSH researchers began partnering with boat builders and marine engine manufacturers to prevent CO poisonings from gasoline marine engines. Extensive research resulted in development of new low-emission generators and other exhaust configurations which have greatly reduced the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning on recreational boats [Hallet al. 2014]. Following these findings concerning prototype engineering controls, two major manufacturers of marine power generation systems developed low CO emission generators [Hall et al. 2014] . NIOSH evaluations found that new technologies for marine engines such as catalytic converters and electronic fuel injection used in combination reduced CO emissions by over 99% [Hall et al. 2014]. Due to these efforts to develop emission control technologies, boating exhaust standards and regulations have been implemented which are expected to prevent boating-related CO poisonings and deaths. The American Boat and Yacht Council modified their standards for generator exhaust to include exhaust stacks [ABYC 2012, 2014] . The U.S. EPA, using NIOSH engineering control research, developed and promulgated a low CO emission standard for all marine generators-5.0 grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr) versus 610 g/kW-hr currently allowed for portable home generators [EPA 2008]. There are many different types of gasoline-powered engines; however, the basic operating principles are similar regardless of the engine application. Much can be learned by studying changes in emission control technologies for automobile engines and their impact on CO poisonings. The addition of catalytic converters has been demonstrated to reduce motor vehicle-related CO poisonings [Mott et al. 2002] . In 1970, Congress established the U.S. EPA and enacted the Clean Air Act which set emission limits on automobiles. Beginning in 1975, automobile manufacturers began installing catalytic converters on automobiles in the U.S. to meet these standards. An analysis of the effect of these technologies and related policies on carbon monoxide-related mortality showed a decline in unintentional vehicle-related CO deaths of greater than 80% from 1975-1996 [Mott et al. 2002]. NIOSH encourages the use of emission control technologies (such as fuel injection and catalytic converters) for portable generators used by both workers and the public. Since 2014, NIOSH researchers have participated in an Underwriters Laboratories (UL) task group charged with developing a proposal for requirements for portable engine-generator sets that fall under UL 2201 , the Standard for Portable EngineGenerator Assemblies, to reduce the risk of death and injury due to CO poisoning.

3

References

ABYC [20 14]. P-1 Installation of exhaust systems for propulsion and auxiliary engines. Annapolis, MD: American Boat and Yacht Council, http://abycinc.org/page/StandardsList/Standards-List.htm. ABYC [2012]. TH-23 Design, construction, and testing of boats in consideration of carbon monoxide. Annapolis, MD: American Boat and Yacht Council, http://abycinc.org/page/StandardsList/Standards-List.htm. Carbon Monoxide Action Group [2008]. Boat-related carbon monoxide (CO) poisonings, updated May 2007-April2008, http://www.doub1eangel.org/documents/NatlCaseListingBoatRelatedCOPoisoningsMay2007 April2008 OOO.pdf. CDC [1993]. Unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning from indoor use of pressure washers-Iowa, January 1992-January 1993. MMWR 42(40):777-779, 785, https://www.cdc.gov/Mmwrlpreview/mmwrhtml/00022020.htm. CDC [2000]. Houseboat-associated carbon monoxide poisonings on Lake Powell Arizona and Utah, 2000. MMWR 49(49):1105-1108, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtmllmm4949a l .htm. EPA [2008]. Control of emissions from new, small nonroad spark-ignition engines and equipment. 40 CFR Part 1054.105, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-201 1-title40vol33/pdf/CFR-20 11 -title40-vol33-sec 1054- 105.pdf. Hall RM, Earnest GS, Hammond DR, Dunn KH, Garcia A [2014]. Case study: A summary of research and progress on carbon monoxide exposure control solutions on houseboats. J Occup Environ Hyg 11(7):D92-D100, http://dx.doi.org/l 0. 1080/15459624.2014.895374. Iqbal S, Clower JH, Hernandez SA, Damon SA, Yip FY [2012]. A review of disaster-related carbon monoxide poisoning: surveillance, epidemiology, and opportunities for prevention. Am J Public Health 102(10):1957- 1963, http://ajpb.aphapublications .org/doi /abs/1 0.2105/ AJPH.20 12.300674 ?uri ver=Z39.882003&rfr id=o ri%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr dat=cr pub%3Dpubmed. Mott JA, Wolfe MI, Alverson CJ, Macdonald SC, Bailey CR, Ball LB, Moorman JE, Somers JH, Mannino DM, Redd SC [2002]. National vehicle emissions policies and practices and declining US carbon monoxide-related mortality. JAMA 288(8):988-995, http://jamanetwork.com/ journals/jama/fu llartic le/195229.

4

NIOSH [1972]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to carbon monoxide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. HSM 73- 11000, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/1970/73-llOOO.htm l NIOSH [1996]. Preventing carbon monoxide poisoning from small gasoline-powered engines and tools. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96- 118, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96- 1 18/. NIOSH [2005]. Pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005- 149, https://v.rww.cdc.gov/ni osh/docs/2005- 149/pclfs/2005-l49.pdf.

5

Kimberly Pen do Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association

333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 810 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: (312) 929-1970 I Fax: (312) 929-1975 www.truckandenginemanufacturers.org

Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association• Bringing Cleaner Power to the World Since 1968 •

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION ) )

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Safety Standard for Portable Generators

) Oral Presentation of Comments: ) March 8, 2017 ) ) )

ORAL TESTIMONY OF THE TRUCK & ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Good morning/afternoon, my name is Kimberly Pendo and I am here today on behalf of the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association ("EMA"). EMA appreciates the opportunity to testify regarding the Consumer Product Safety Commission's ("CPSC") proposed Safety Standard for Portable Generators that seeks to regulate CO emissions generated by portable generators (the "Proposed Rule"). EMA represents the world's leading manufacturers of nonhandheld small spark-ignited engines. EMA's members manufacture the engines used to power the portable generators that are the subject of the Proposed Rule. While CPSC's proposal seeks to regulate portable generators, it is the engines that power generators that create CO emissions. Accordingly, EMA and its members have a direct and significant stake in the Proposed Rule. EMA has been actively involved in the CPSC rulemaking process from the outset and

A Non Governmental Organization in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

has participated in CPSC' s working groups and related activities organized by Underwriters Laboratory. In addition, EMA has collaborated with other industry associations, including the Portable Generator Manufacturers Association ("PGMA"), and generally supports PGMA' s efforts and comments provided today. EMA remains committed to working with CPSC and other stakeholders ' to address the safety concerns raised in the Proposed Rule in a manner that meets applicable legal standards and requirements and results in a feasible, realistic and workable means to address safety concerns without the imposition of overly burdensome, redundant and unnecessary government regulation. As CPSC is aware, industry is actively engaged in the development of an independent ANSI standard that would address CPSC' s safety concerns through cost effective and efficient self-regulation, thus avoiding the need for government interference or the imposition of unnecessary regulation. Industry self-regulation is particularly warranted in this situation because CPSC lacks the authority to regulate CO emissions. The Proposed Rule is based on the premise that CPSC has the authority and capability to regulate the generator manufacturer. However, the generator manufacturer does not (and cannot) control the CO emissions that the Proposed Rule seeks to regulate. The CO emissions that are the subject of the Proposed Standard are produced by the engine that powers the generator - and those engines (and engine manufacturers) are preemptively and exclusively regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). Engine manufacturers are required to comply with EPA emission regulation; and such EPA regulatory requirements preclude the generator manufacturer from changing any aspect of the engine that would affect emissions regulated

by EPA. CO emissions are regulated by EPA under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act specifically states that the CPSC has no authority to regulate "any risk of injury associated with a consumer product if such risk could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions taken under the ... Clean Air Act." Accordingly, EPA - and not CPSC - has the sole and exclusive authority to regulate engine CO emissions associated with portable generators. As such, CPSC must withdraw the Proposed Rule and work with industry on the ANSI standard development process. In addition, the stand~rd levels proposed in the Proposed Rule are not supported by CPSC's technology demonstration. CPSC's two-part prototype low CO emission generator technology demonstration program (i) covered only one of the three classifications for which CPSC has proposed regulations; and (ii) showed that the technology required to achieve the demonstrated CO levels results in increased exhaust temperatures - which itself could create safety issues. Such increased exhaust temperatures were well documented in work done by EPA in the development of the existing EPA Phase 3 exhaust emission standards for the type of small spark-ignited engines used in portable generators and were the subject of safety studies included in EPA's rulemaking docket. Further, the Proposed Rule improperly proposes to measure CO emissions on a grams per hour basis. The proper way to measure emissions, as used by EPA, is to account for the work done by the engine on a grams per kilowatt hour basis. In that way, small and large engines can be compared and treated fairly based on the amount of work the engine does. EPA's method results in significantly greater accuracy (e.g., less errors). The measurement methodology and standard levels proposed in the Proposed Rule do not effectively address the implications of different engine sizes or efficiencies. EMA and its member companies are committed to continuing to work with the CPSC, ANSI, Underwriters Laboratory, PGMA and other

interested stakeholders to minimize any risks associated with the use of portable generators. Thank you for your time. questions.

I would be happy to answer any

William Wallace, Policy Analyst Consumers Union

Cn POLICY & ACTION FROM CONSUMER REPORTS Comments of Consumers Union Portable Generator NPR; Oral Presentation U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Docket No. CPSC-2006-0057 March 8, 2017 Presented by William C. Wallace Policy Analyst Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, welcomes the opportunity to present oral comments to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on the proposed safety standard for portable generators. We appreciate the work done by the commissioners and CPSC staff to research the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning and issue the notice of proposed rulemaking to reduce future injuries and deaths associated with portable generators. CPSC has been taking steps to make these products safer. The agency has long urged consumers never to operate a portable· generator inside or too close to the house-a message we at CR and CU have communicated through articles, videos, and public outreach, often timed to snow season or hurricane season. For example, we published a story featuring this critical advice on CR.org on February 3, 2017. Additionally, starting ten years ago, CPSC required a clear label on portable generators that warns consumers, in appropriately descriptive and severe terms, about the deadly risks of operating the product in the wrong place. We at CR and CU always consider it important for us to urge consumers to heed safety instructions, and to be responsible for the safe use of products. However, as the incident data make tragically clear, education and warning labels alone are not enough to protect consumers from carbon monoxide poisoning. With an average of some 70 deaths and several thousand non-fatal injuries annually, we strongly agree with the Commission that performance requirements are needed-and without any further delay. Consumer Reports periodically tests and rates generators, including portable generators. Our overall score is based on power delivery (the wattage delivered and how well it handled surges), power quality (the ability to deliver power smoothly with consistent voltage), noise level, ease of use (including starting, transport, and helpful features, such as fuel shutoff), and run time range (our average of how long a generator ran over various loads). The generators we recommend produce smooth, steady power for refrigerators, well pumps, and other home items without losing voltage under load, and most shut off automatically if engine oil is low. We also identify "CR Best Buys" that blend performance and value.

In the name of one of our guiding principles-safety-Consumer Reports is exploring potential changes to our testing to account for portable generators' carbon monoxide emissions. Consumers deserve the opportunity to have independently-evaluated, comparative information about this aspect of the product, and to know which models perform better within a class of generators. While we fully recognize that the risk of poisoning from carbon monoxide depends on many factors, including the generator's placement and the local airflow, reducing CO emissions is a feasible and effective way to reduce the risk. Consumers who want to know which models have lower CO emissions and want to use this information as part of their purchasing decision should have the ability to do so. This would empower individual consumers and help shape the marketplace. That is in keeping with our mission, and we take our role seriously. We also recognize, though, that effective safety standards are those which apply across the marketplace. Substantial compliance is an important component in maximizing the number of injuries and deaths prevented. It also is important to promote a level playing field for the businesses that make up an industry, so that marketplace competition is fair and leads to safer products that also provide a meaningful value to consumers. Accordingly-and especially given the inadequacy of current voluntary standards-we support the proposed rule, and urge the Commission to keep moving forward on its development of a mandatory safety standard. As it does so, we encourage portable generator manufacturers to deliver product changes-expeditiously and with across-the-board participation-that would meaningfully address the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning, and would further inform the Commission's safety standard development. In most scenarios, these changes should substantially extend the time consumers have to identify that something is wrong before being exposed to CO levels that seriously injure them. We look forward to working together with both industry and CPSC to achieve these changes that would protect consumers from harm. Turning back to the proposed rule, we have several preliminary views to share with the Commission. Our more detailed comments will be submitted in writing. •

Purpose: The purpose of the proposed rule-to set requirements for carbon monoxide emission rates for categories of portable generators-is appropriate for the goal of reducing the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with these products. We also note that another factor in CO poisoning and death may be the length of the electric cord that connects the generator to a home's transfer switch. Including ten-foot cords with portable generators may suggest to consumers that they can place their generators close to their homes. In addition to addressing CO levels, banning short cords and requiring cords to be at least 30 or 40 feet long could help reduce the risk to consumers.

•

Scope: Generally, the scope of the proposed rule is appropriately tailored to products that are portable and are typically used by consumers. However, we recognize that products outside this scope, especially the products I is ted under items (1) through (8) in § 1241.1 (b) that are intended to be used with a vehicle, may pose similar risks to consumers who use them. We encourage careful monitoring of the marketplace for any product that presents an unreasonable risk of injury or death.

2

•

Compliance dates: We understand that design modifications may be necessary under the rule, and an effective date that is one year after the final rule is issued therefore may be in the public interest. We also understand that design challenges may be more difficult for smaller units . However, we urge the Commission to set an earlier compliance date for handheld and class 1 generators than three years after publication of the final rule. No justification is given for why such an extended period of time would be necessary for compliance, or why such a delay would outweigh the benefits to the public of the rule. The Commission instead should adopt a compliance date for these smaller products that is, at most, 18 months from the date of the final rule.

•

Findings: We appreciate that the proposed rule includes appropriate context on incident data, indicating that the documented fatality and injury reports in CPSC databases, including NEISS, likely represent an underestimate of the true number of fatalities and injuries associated with the risk of generator-related carbon monoxide poisoning. In addition, we agree with the Commi ssion that there may be noticeable, positive changes in the utility of portable generators to consumers, in terms of fuel efficiency and other aspects.

•

Automatic shutoff systems: In previous comments, including comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Consumers Union suggested that automatic shutoff systems were the most promising way to reduce injuries and deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning. This view was based partially on the fact that many generators on the market have a similar system designed to cut off the equipment when it senses that the machine is low on oil. While it is theoretically possible that automatic shutoff systems may eventually emerge that can adequately address the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning, we-like the Commission- are not aware of automatic shutoff technologies that would be feasible for hazard reduction at this time.

•

Voluntary standards: Although we would look forward to working with industry and CPSC in any venue that would facilitate substantial advances for consumers' safety, we agree with the Commission that the voluntary standards UL 2201 and ANSI/PGMA 0300-2015 are inadequate because they do not address the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning beyond the CPSC mandatory labeling requirement.

•

Least burdensome requirement: While we recognize that regulatory alternatives can change as previously unknown facts come to light- including, for instance, the existence of new technologies effective at reducing a hazard- we consider the Commission's reasoning appropriate that leads it to conclude preliminarily that none of the lessburdensome alternatives to th is rule would adequately reduce the risk of injury.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to continuing to work with the Commission, CPSC staff, manufactures, and other stakeholders to make portable generators safer for consumers nationwide.

3

Marvin Klowak, Global Vice-President R&D Briggs and Stratton Corporation

BRIGGS & STRATTON

CORPORATION

Portable Generators: Oral Presentation on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking March 8, 2017

Introduction Briggs & Stratton is a trusted company with a long history of manufacturing safe and reliable products. These products make lives better by empowering customers to get their work done. Portable generators are among the products we produce; they provide essential electric power for work, recreation , and emergency backup. The CPSC is seeking to address risks associated with the production of carbon monoxide gas, a byproduct of the internal combustion engine that powers the portable generator. The CPSC's proposed regulation, "Low CO," would establish lower exhaust emissions limits for CO from the eng ine, with the intent to reduce fatalities from misuse of portable generators. Briggs & Stratton believes a performance standard which allows for a CO shutdown system would be a more effective approach.

--··.,..A TTON CORPORATION

Po•

Effectiveness of CO Shutdown CO Shutdown is substantially more effective than Low CO: • A Low CO engine running in an en,c losed space will still produce poisonous levels of CO: As demonstrated in the automotive industry, NHTSA has engaged in regulatory development designed to address the low level exposure over long periods of time; Low CO production rates fro m portable generators will result in longer exposure times for consumers; Low CO requires a catalyst; until the catalyst warms up, CO will be produced at a higher rate. • A CO shutdown system will work quickly to shut down the portable generator and force a task oriented change in consumer behavior. As cited in the NPR, "The Commission recognizes that consumers cannot be relied upon to react appropriately to any indication of a CO exposure ... ." • Low CO systems will result in unintended consequences such as higher operating temperatures, increasing risks when using the generator.

. . . . . . . .,.ATTON

CORPORATION

Reliability and Durability of CO Shutdown CO shutdown is substantially more reliable and durable than Low CO: • Low CO requires a catalyst. Catalyst degradation occurs naturally and can be accelerated with exhaust contamination. Diagnostics adds complexity with an additional 02 sensor and control algorithms. CO sensor technology has greatly advanced since the time of the CPSC's shutoff device study conducted in 2005, published in 2013. Additional CO sensors are now commercially available with longer life and increased durability and used in numerous applications including houseboats and the automotive industry. • CO sensor modules now have provisions for expanded self diagnostic capabilities. • CO shutdown involves a fewer nu mber of components which reduces system complexity, resulting in higher reliability .

. . . . . . . .TI'ATTDN

C ORPOAATION

Additional Regulatory Considerations The CPSC has yet to complete a study of the effectiveness of the 2007 mandatory safety label to determine whether additional regulation should be considered. Based on the information available, the fatality rate is trending downward. PGMA has published a comprehensive ANSI safety standard for portable generators and is in the process of updating it to include a CO performance requirement. CPSC should defer to the voluntary industry standard setting procedures. EPA has already adopted emission regu lations, which include CO limits, occupying the regulatory space. Briggs & Stratton supports EMA's and PGMA's position on this.

M - e a 8TIIIIATTON

CORPORATION

I I

Next Actions CPSC should work with NIST to fulfill PGMA's outstanding FOIA request for modelling information so that PGMA members can model alternate solutions following CPSC's methodology. Additional detailed written comments will be submitted by Briggs & Stratton prior to the close of the public comment period. Briggs & Stratton welcomes CPSC's support of the PGMA's effort to refresh and modernize the current 2007 mandatory safety label. Briggs & Stratton formally extends an invitation to CPSC for a private technology demonstration and discussion at our facility. We respectfully request that the CPSC forego the NPR activity, work with industry, and endorse the CO performance based voluntary standard being developed by the PGMA .

. . . . . . . .TJI ATTCH

CORPORATION

Lee Sowell, President, Outdoor Product Division Techtronic Industries Inc. (TTi)

..,...,.,

~

~ Oral Testimony of Mr. Lee Sowell: President, Outdoor Products Division , Techtronic Industries Power Equipment. Before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Portable Generator NPR March 08, 2017

Good morning . My name is Lee Sowell and I'm the President of the Outdoor Products Division for Techtronic Industries Power Equipment, known as TTi. As a major manufacturer of outdoor power equipment including portable generators, TTi sells product under the Ryobi, Blackmax and Powerstroke brands to major retailers like The Home Depot and others. Though industry data is limited for determining US generator market share, I estimate that we are the 41h largest supplier of portable generators in the industry. We have a manufacturing facility in Anderson , South Carolina where we produce a portion of our generators. We also have overseas manufacturing capabilities.

I want to thank the Commission and CPSC staff for thei r leadership in this important topic. We share the CPSC's goal of ensuring the safety of all consumer products sold to U.S. consumers. I'd also like to point out that we are one of the founding members of the PGMA and we are active on the Board of Directors and also Chair the PGMA Tech nical Committee .

TTl is here today to publicly support the Portable Generator NPR because it promotes a technical standard that will address the CO hazard associated with portable generator in enclosed , partially enclosed mis-use scenarios and as well as outdoor use scenarios. We offer our comments from the perspective of a finished goods manufacturer of portable generators, who has a track record of consistently demonstrating that product safety is of the utmost importance to our company. Today, I will highlight our support with the proposed rule; and how Tii has spent significant time and resources doing the R&D and testing of low CO emissions to prove the technical feasibility of the technology. TTi wholeheartedly supports the CPSC's mission of product safety and the proposed rule to limit the CO emissions rate of portable generators at the source. This is, in our opinion, the most sure way to directly reduce the chances of injuries and fatalities as a result of the mis-use of portable generators. To illustrate my point let me refer you to an example case that was included in a recently submitted comment to the Portable Generator NPR site. Ed & Chistine Watson , from Clarksville TN , lost a daughter, a husband and three friends due to carbon monoxide poisoning after operating their generator outside of their camper. Like most consumers , the Watsons, despite warning labels provided, may not have realized how dangerous generator exhaust can be resulting in mis-use. From the Watson 's perspective they were operating the generator correctly -it was not inside the camper. Rather, it was intentionally placed outside. Unfortunately, placing the generator outside was not enough to avoid a tragic accident. This scenario and many others like it will most likely not be prevented by shut off technology alone. Rather, the most effective way to mitigate the potential for CO related injury is to first address the hazard at its source -by lowering the amount of CO produced -and then focusing on shut off technology. The work that the CPSC did in conjunction with the University of Alabama to make a working prototype demonstration provided us a solid foundation of technical understanding and a very helpful framework of reference points that helped guide our development teams to achieve CO emission results that were otherwise thought to be unachievable for portable generators. My teams have been able to demonstrate low CO emissions on many different engines and engine sizes, as well as successful demonstrations using multiple fuel types. With each passing phase of development, my teams are making further discoveries, improvements and helping to push the base on knowledge and understanding of what the technology is capable of achieving , and

how it fits perfectly as a technical solution to solve the CO hazard associated with portable generators. I would like to point out that at the PGMA TechnicS! summit in March 2016, we were the only company that publically presented the results of our reduced CO emission development efforts. Since then, we have continued our development and have been able to incorporate a shut-off technology that does not rely on chemical sensing devices and has the potential to demonstrate higher reliability. The optimal solution for limiting the CO hazard would be prevention via reduced CO emissions and detection via a shut-off feature. We have been working with multiple partners that combined have significant technical experience to enable us to replicate the University of Alabama results and make it commercially viable reduced CO emissions technical solution . The technology to reliably control CO emissions on small engines is readily available on the market today from multiple sources. Anyone who is serious about addressing this hazard can do so today. We have plans to launch multiple generators during the 2017 calendar year using our own reduced CO emissions engines, and also using other thi rd party engines that are readily available on the market. Kohler announced in October 2016 that they have developed an engine for use on portable generators which has a reduced CO emissions rate and we are proud to partner with them to resolve this CO hazard and improve the health and safety of US consumers. We a ~e also partnering with another engine manufacturer from Japan and we welcome the opportunity to work with others. TTi remains strongly committed to working with industry to address the hazards associated with the use of portable generators. We do appreciate the opportunity to provide our view on the proposed rule. Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Joe Moses, VP Engineering Generac Power Systems, Inc.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. 211 Murphy Drive Eagle. Wisconsin 53119

GENE RAe·

p (262) 544-481 1 F (262) 594-5039

Generac Power Systems Submitted Testimony Presented by Joe Moses, VP Engineering CPSC Hearing: Portable Generators: Oral Presentations on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking March 8, 2017 My name is Joe Moses. I am the Vice President of Global Product Engineering for Generac Power Systems. Commissioners, thank you for allowing me and Generac Power Systems the opportunity to submit testimony to the Commission regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Portable Generators. This is a very important issue, that I can assure you Generac is committed to helpink solve. Generac is a leading manufacturer of portable generators here in the United States, and we have the broadest and most diverse product lineup of portable generators in the industry. We presently have over 100 unique portable generator products ranging in power from 800W to 17 .SkW. Our products are designed and optimized for multiple consumer uses including recreation, general purpose, emergency backup, and construction. We produce portable generators that can be fueled by a broad range of fuels including gasoline, liquefied propane, and diesel. Generac has been an active member of Portable Generators Manufacturers Association, PGMA, since the organization was founded in 2009. Generac joined PGMA because we believe very strongly in the mission of PGMA to develop and influence safety and performance standards for portable generators. We are committed to continuously improving the safety of our products. Generac's engineering team has been actively working to develop product solutions and standards that address this issue. We have explored multiple solution options, such as reduced emissions strategies and detection. Prototypes have been built and tested in multiple operational scenarios. We have been contributing many of the results from these efforts to the PGMA technical comm ittee, in the hopes that PGMA would be able to complete the revision to G300 as quickly as possible. We believe that PGMA has made great progress towards the standard revision in a very short period oftime. Generac supports PGMA's approach towards addressing the hazard. Given PGMA's demonstrated progress towards the development of a voluntary standard, we request that the Commission defer the rulemaking activities to allow PGMA the time needed to complete their standard making process. We appreciate the work CPSC staff has done to prepare the NPR. Although we still are waiting for the release of additional important information, the studies and tests that were published as NIST technical notes and the CONTAM models have been instrumental for Generac, and other manufacturers, to compare the impact of detection versus various emissions reductions. Generac is in support of the detection based approach, and believes that it will offer superior results when compared to the reduced emissions strategy that is outlined in the NPR. We believe that detection has significant advantages over the emissions reductions outlined in the NPR. These advantages include:

•

•

More life saving- Modeling and testing t o date comparing shutoff versus emissions reductions are indicating that nearly twice as many deaths could have been avoided with a shutoff approach. This conclusion is preliminarily based on the data and models that have already been supplied from NIST through the FOIA request, comparing a shutoff to reduced emissions levels, consistent with the NPR requirements. With additional testing and modeling, we expect to show that the shutoff approach is a superior method to reduce the risks from the CO hazard. In order to complete this activity, we need the second FOIA request to be fulfilled. Hazard Elimination- Detection offers the advantage of being able to stop the hazardous condition altogether by shutting the generator off, before the CO levels become potentially lethal. ""'"

generac. cpm

Generac Power Systems, Inc. 211 Murphy Drive Eagle, Wisconsin 531 19

p (262) 544-481 1 F (262) 594-5039

•

•

•

•

•

GENE RAe·

•

Alerting the consumer- The shutoff system offers the advantage of annunciation. When the system recognizes the hazardous condition, not only is it possible to stop the generation of harmful CO, but it is also possible to provide an audible or visible alert to the occupants making them aware of the hazardous condition and notifying them to take appropriate action. Universal Application - The shutoff system is "scalable". This type of system can be applied to ALL types of portable generators, regardless of size or intended purpose. Generac has tested prototype shutoff systems, and is able to achieve similar results on small handheld generators, liquefied propane generators, diesel generators, and very large V-twin sized engine generators. Emissions control systems are not available for, and cannot be applied to, all types and sizes of the commercially available generators today. No Fuel Source Restrictions- The shutoff system does not discriminate fuel type or source. As a result, the shutoff system will apply to all fuels that are used for portable generators, both now and in the future. Today there are no known emissions control systems that would allow the reduced CO thresholds to be met for many of these fuel types, and it is unclear what impact there will be as fuel blends evolve in the future. Faster Implementation- The shutoff system can be implemented much faster on product lines than the emissions reductions suggested by the NPR. Our testing has already indicated that it will be possible to develop a single shutoff system that can be deployed on multiple generator models very easily. Emissions controls and catalysts would require complete re-development of the system for every engine, consuming far more resources and time. Generac's product portfolio currently contains more than 25 unique engines. Retroactive Application - We believe it will be possible to develop shutoff system accessories that consumers could purchase and apply to their existing generators. Generators used for general purpose and home backup scenarios can be expected to have service lives more than 10 years. Our estimates also indicate there more than 10 million portable generators currently owned by consumers.

Reliability concerns associated with emissions control and catalyst systems need to be understood and addressed as part of this NPR. Staff has been critical of the shutdown approach due to reliability concerns, but the same level of expectations have not been applied to the low CO emissions controls and catalyst systems. Reliability concerns must be considered as part of any rule or standard related to a either a detection or reduced CO emissions strategy. The design choices that are commonly made by designers of engines and emissions control systems can have dramatic impacts on the emissions rates under various conditions. Likewise, catalyst reliability is also a source for concern and must be addressed. There have been several documented studies and field reports that support the reliability concern. Some of these concerns include: • • • • • • • • • •

Cold startup engine choking logic, which typically runs the engine rich. Wide temperature range ECU map values in cold start conditions Operation at elevated altitudes Transient conditions that result from load changes on the engine Emissions control systems typically default to "open-loop" operation when input conditions are outside of their pre-programmed maps. The effects of engine wear over the life of the generator. Catalyst degradation and contamination Oil carryover into the catalyst that can result from operator miss-use or early engine failure System mechanical vibration and jarring of the catalyst and oxygen sensor. Thermal stresses that degrade or destroy catalyst operation

generac .com

Generac Power Systems, Inc. 211 Murphy Drive Eagle. Wisconsin 53119

p (262) 544-481 1

-

GENERAC"

F (262) 594-5039

More detail and specific case studies illustrating these reliability concerns will be highlighted in our complete NPR comments before the end of the comment period. Generac also has many concerns related to potential unintended consequences that we foresee with a reduction in emissions as proposed by the NPR. • • •

Consumers may mistakenly believe that reduced emissions means it is safe to operate the generators indoors. It will never be safe to operate a generator indoors. The proposed rule is based on the prem ise that occupants will become aware of the hazard and take appropriate steps to remove themselves from the hazard. There is no basis to support this premise. The significant cost increases to consurpers that will result from this ruling could lead to consumers identifying ways of extending the service life of their existing generators and potential refurbishment programs. This activity was seen recently when the EPA Tier4 regulations for non-road diesel products became active. This could significantly delay the benefits from a rule beyond the already long operating lives of these products.

Generac has been, and will remain committed to, developing the best solution to this hazard. We believe that solution is a CO detection and shutoff system for the reaso ns expressed here today. As our development of both the ANSI G300 standard revisions and the product designs continue to progress, we feel that this will become even more evident. We ask that the Commission consider a suspension of the rulemaking process, to allow us the time to continue working with PGMA and others, to fully develop and complete the revision to ANSI G300. These activities have made great progress to date, and Generac offers its assurances that we will continue to drive forward with the same energy and commitment in order to complete the process quickly. Suspending the rulemaking would allow us to share our efforts, and avoid the unnecessary duplication of efforts that has been slowing progress to date. We welcome input from CPSC staff on the approach we are taking, and are looking forward to working together through the PGMA technical summit activities. We will be providing more detailed comments through the NPR comment process as we get closer to the deadline in April. We have several commercial and technica l concerns with the proposed rule that were not outlined in our testimony today. It is our hope that the FOIA request PGMA has outstanding will be fulfilled in short order, so that we will have adequate time to perform the remaining modelling analysis and may represent the results in our comments. Thank you for allowing me to represent Generac here today to share our thoughts.

·--·=

generac .cbm I

Gordon Selby Johnson, Jr., Attorney

Public Comment of Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr. on CPSC Portable Generator NPR; Oral Presentation My name is Gordon Selby Johnson, Jr. I am an attorney, a trial lawyer. My father's name was Gordon Selby Johnson, Sr. He was not a lawyer. He was an electrical engineer, an electrical engineer who spent his career in the portable generator industry. For 47 years he was the chief electrical engineer for the Kohler Co. Later he served as President and then Technical Director Electric Generating Systems Association for 25 years. He retired from Kohler in his sixties and worked for the Electric Generating Systems Association until he was in his 80's. He died in 2011. I am here to speak in favor of this new regulation. Is my father rolling over in his grave? I highly doubt it. My father probably always kanted me to be an engineer. While I got the math and science gene from he and my mother, I always gravitated more to history, politics and writing. I was in high school in the turbulent political times of the 1960's and one of the causes I was espousing was the environmental need for clean air. My father, who could patiently answer most questions I had as a boy challenged me to think of solutions, not just identify problems. He wanted to know how I would clean up our air. He dumped upon me the technical magazines, literature and prodded me to come up with a solution. The solution I drafted in a 50-page senior term paper in the fall of 1971 was focused on two fronts, cleaner burning engines and reducing overall carbon consumption. A couple of novel ideas I had then was free mass transit and a hefty Federal gasoline tax, something like SO cents a gallon. At the time, gas was 29 cents a gallon. My Dad prodded me to understand automobile emissions. At the time, he was thinking gasoline turban engines might be the answer. I proposed Diesel as a short-term answer as they were more efficient and had easier to clean up e;x.haust than gasoline. My proposed method for cleaning up Diesel was after burners and/or catalytic converters. What we didn't anticipate was Electronic Emission Controls. Today, cars have such reduced emissions that the risk of suicide from CO from running your car in the garage is dramatically reduced. 1Yet, accidental deaths from the internal combustion engines my father's industry uses to power their generators marches on. Is it because we have not learned to clean up emissions from internal combustion engines? Of course not. Is it because there is no need to clean up emissions? Of course not. Is it because no one has ever made them I stop.?yes. My primary mission as a trial lawyer is to provide a deterrence for those who fail to make the world safe. We trial lawyers have been a part of most major shifts in safety from exploding gas cans and cars, to air bags and cigarettes. We clearly must play a role in making generators more 1 UHM 2015. Vol. 42, No.2- S UJCIDAL COP OISONING AND EMISSION CONTROLS Copyright © 2015 Undersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society, Inc .

Suicidal carbon monoxide poisoning has decreased with controls on automobile emissions Neil B. Hampson, M.D., James R. Holm, M.D. Center for Hyperbaric Medicine, Virginia Mason Medical Center, SeatUe, Washington USA

safe. But trial lawyers can only be part of the solution. Product liability laws are eroding including provisos that if a product does not violate a published rule or guideline as proposed herein, it is presumptively safe. There can be no denial today of the magnitude of this problem. I prepared the below graph to demonstrate the relative danger that unclean CO generators pose to known product liability catastrophes. The only products which I can think of which are more dangerous than portable generators are cigarettes, alcohol and cell phones. I compared portable generator deaths to those involved in the Takata Air Bag, For~ Pinto, Ford Firestone Roll overs and the Sudden Unexpected Acceleration of Cars. Tlie severity of this problem is shown by the below graph.

Product Liability Deaths BOO

600

400

200

180 .: " 0

Takata PUr Bags

Pinto

Firestone Roll

Sud den Ace

Po rt Gen CO

2

2

The above fatality numbers are taken from internet accounts of the magnitude of such product failures and are for illustrative purposes only. Such numbers are not intended as specific representations of the number of people who died as a result of any specific failure. The 751 deaths from portable generators is b ~sed upon the CPSC materials in support of this proposed rule. The sources for these numbers are: Takata Air bags: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-confirms-11th-death-linkedfaulty-takata-airbag-inflator-n670446 Ford Pinto: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6700/top-automotive-engineeringfailures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks/

751 deaths is the equivalent to an airline disaster every other year. With even the hint of a potential airline catastrophe from Gal axy phones, that entire product line was shut down. Yet every month, half a dozen people die from portable generator emissions. The CPSC's own findings show that 2,500 a year receive medical treatment for CO poisoning. I hope that no member of the portable generator industry should deny the magnitude of the risk. What they are likely to do is try to shift the blame. I can hear the words in advance of the hearing. If our products were used as they were intended, no one would be harmed. Perhaps, but don 't bet on it. Last month, a Nevada State Assemblyman was poisoned because he operated a portable generator after a storm near hi s home. http://elkodaily.com/newsllocal/assemblymanjohn-ellison-recovering-from-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/article 6e07027 5-f364-541 b-bcb64f2310ef2b53.html 3 Assemblyman John Ellison is a former marine, on government committees for natural resources, agriculture, mining and transportation. It is unlikely he was ignorant of the I risk factors of CO. It is more likely that he just didn 't realize how potent and toxic those little engines that could cause CO, were. We all have a collected experience with internal combustion engines. But that is not the collective experience my father had. Every day when I come home to my apartment building in Chicago, I drive my big V8 suburban into the parking garage below our high rise apartment. I never think about CO. I had an extra sensitive CO detector I was going to give to my in-laws. It sat in that car for a week without a reading of CO. But if CO emissions had not been cleaned up in cars going back to the Clean Air Act of 1970, I am guessing my parking garage would be a dangerous location. People are currently used to driving in and out of garages, with their engines running. If the minute or two your automobile engine runs indoors creates a de minimis risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, how could a tiny 3 kilowatt generator do so? Or a gasoline saw or sander? Those machines can because they have skipped the last 40 years of technological advancement. EFI engines are part of our world. Catalytic converters are part of our world. Perhaps at some point in my father' s career he never perceived that his machines could be safer, but we all know it now. If they can be safer, how can we continue to ignore 751 deaths and 25,000 cases of potential brain damage? To put that number into perspective, one of the most heated controversies in our time is the safety of football . And our firm has been at the forefront of challenging the risk

Ford Firestone Relievers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone and Ford tire controversy#cite note-autosafety.org-

z Sudden Unexpected Acceleration: https:ijen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden unintended acceleration 3

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Legislator/A/Assembly/Current/33

factors of brain injury and football. 4 Yet in assessing the relative risk of portable generators, it is worth noting that the total number of people who have ever played in the NFL is 23,204. In ten years, portable generators have exposed more people to brain damage than have ever risked CTE playing professional football. Assemblyman Ellison survived. He might be okay. But there is at least a 40% chance that he will and his family will have brain damage. Others can offer more medical knowledge than I as to the complexities and outcomes of the neuropsychiatric syndrome that flows from CO poisoning. Yet, I know those survivors. My staff and I have an intense longitudinal relationship with them that involves nuances that medical literature can't convey. Those survivors have ongoing that impact not just thinking, but emotions, behavior and physical functioning. Brain damage is known to impact four spheres: cognition, mood, behavior and neurological function. The reality of CO poisoning is that the survivors invariably have a combination of damage to those four areas of functioning, and particularly at the boundaries of those four functions. What is far more serious to CO survivors than for those who suffer a concussion is that the symptoms don't just get worse over the first 48 hours, but often the next 48 days. Delayed onset of symptoms has its own label: DNS or Delayed Neurological Sequelae. Yet those who suffer it are always mystified by its disabling onset since the emergency room personnel never heard of or warned about DNS. Carbon monoxide poisoning should come with its own discharge instructions, but it is treated as a binary result. You survive, you are okay. This ignores the poisoning side of carbon monoxide poisoning. Surviving a carbon monoxide event is not the same as being denied air for a brief time. CO is a toxin and it triggers an immune response in the body that can be create as severe of an overreaction as a sprinkler system going off to put out a candle. One final point. The news reports don' t tell us whether Assemblyman Ellison owned the generator or rented it. But the likelihood is that he, like so many other storm related victims, rented the generator. The case for prohibiting anything but low CO generators in the rental situation is even more compelling. When people are scrambling to return power because of storms and run to the rental place to grab the last generator, they are that much more likely to use the generator near or in the house, because they are using the generator to replace the electricity of the house. They are acting on impulse in response to a life-threatening emergency. There attentional resources are undoubtedly overwhelmed and have no time for deliberate thought or planning. While they may not perceive the connection between natural disasters and CO poisoning, this industry must. Even if the storm survivors grasp the risk factor of CO, they are limited by the dynamics of providing emergency power to a circumference from an enclosed space, that may be far too short of a distance to be safe. Until low CO generators are generally available, I would argue that rental places should not rent generators during times of emergency. One might argue that during times of power outages is the time that generators are most needed. That makes as much sense as arguing for football without 4

https://www.nvtimes.com/2015/02/06/sports/family-of-player-with-cte-who-killed-himselfsues-pop-warner.html?ref=sports& r=O

helmets. If technology has not advanced to the point that it can safely provide power inside a house during times of power outages, this industry should stop providing a deadly solution to that problem. I never had the chance to ask Gordon Selby Johnson, Sr. about the ongoing catastrophe of CO from his engines. He never had the opportunity to take a fresh look at the statistical data the CPSC has accumulated on the risk of this problem. Having seen such data, I would expect that he would agree with my perspective. But if he didn't, it would be time for me to mentor him.

- Kohler Power Systems. EGSA Past President 1983-84 . Active Member Early 1970s -1995 Posthumously, we pay tribute to EGSA's First Technical Director and Our 20th EGSA President native of Petersburg. IN, Gordon Johnson was a 1939 graduate of Purdue University with an Electrical Engineering degree. Upon graduation, he then went to work for Kohler Power Systems, Division of Kohler Co., at the company head· quarters. where he spent most of his career (47 years). During the last 15 of those years, Gordon served as the Director of Kohler's Generator Marketing and Sales Liaison, leading the product offerings and education of the design engineers throughout the world. Prior to that, he was Director of Design Engineering for 20 years. It was Gordon Johnson Sr. who greatly influenced the modern solid state electronic generator control and regulation designs, some of which are still current today. During WWII, Gordon proudly served his country as a Merchant Ma· rine. In addition to being a member of EGSA, as well as our 1983·84 EGSA Past President, Gordon was also a Life Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (I.E.E.E.) and the Society of Automotive Engineers. He also held a number of patents in the area of electric generator controls, and was considered by most accounts to be a true genius in on-site power. Gordon spent 25 years as EGSA's Technical Advisor upon retirement from Kohler. Some of his greatest accomplishments came at retirement! He became very active both as a consultant and member of the National Fire Prevention Association as well. "I remember a pre-

sentation he made for IEEE that stands out when I was a young man 15·20 years ago, " recalls Lowell Johnson, his eldest son. "There had been a high rise 4·alarm fire in downtown Philadelphia, at Plaza One. The details have faded, but the most Important 'take away' that I have was, that my dad's studies of fire causes were responsible for derailing the theory that generators were responsible for that fire! At 85, he presented his findings in a formal paper to IEEE." Gordon had 2 sons, 5 daughters, 12 grandchildren and 10 great· grand children at the time of his passing 3 years ago on May 28, 2012 at 93 years young (what impressive longevity!). Lowell, the eldest, had the great fortune of working with Gordon for 25 years, who served as both his mentor and educator. Gordon pursued several active hobbies in his 93 years. An Interesting side note on Gordon and his hobbies • he was a member of the Lakeland Runners Club and participated in the Senior Olympics for several years, becoming a National Senior Gold Medalist. To date, he still holds several records in the National Senior Olympics. What makes that really interesting is that as a young man, he never did achieve any great athletic success, but at the age of 50, he found a passion for running when his youngest son, Gordon Jr.• was running track in high school. "He turned his children into runners and we all ran with him at one time or another. On his 90th Birthday all of his childn!n and several grandchildren ran a 5K race with him," his son Lowell advised during our conversation this month. "My dad was also an avid sports enthusiast, either attending or watching on television the Gator and/or Purdue games,· Lowell added.

Left: Proof is in the Pudding! 011 july 25, 2008, Gordon's 90's birthday, he ran the Hollandfest Run in Cedar Grove, WI. What made tl1at day special? From left to right: jay johnson and Paul johnson (Gordon's grandsons). Alice jordan (granddaughter~. jay Taylor (grandson) and in the rear of the sltot clapping, his son-in-law, Alan Lawrence participating with him that day! Above: As multiple EGSA Time Capsule interviews have revealed this year, Gordon made a memorable fall into a pool at one of our earlier conventions. Appropriate for the times, the worcl of mouth that emerged from the incident was 'how our buddy, Gordon johnson tool1 a dive for EGSA.' He must llCive been one w/10 could also find humor, CIS you can see from this photo, where he was presented with a small tol1en (a life preserver) to remember the incident on the following clay. Power/inc • july/August 20 IS

w•vw.I!GSi\.org

35

For many of you who knew Gordon back In his hey-day, you will recall that he was preceded in death by his first wife, Frances Overstreet Johnson. Many of our members who knew Gordon and Frances have such nice recollections of how well he took care of her when her health was failing. His second wife, Alice Woods-Johnson, who he married in 2001, was a college professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa and Gordon became her research assistant up until his ill health. Since we are unfortunately unable to interview Gordon, EGSA reached out to his colleagues within our Association that still remember his contributions first-hand, as well as his two sons, Lowell Johnson and Gordon Johnson, Jr., who were also helpful in filling In the details about his personal life.

Here are a few things that EGSA found In our research and requests for comment: "Gordon Johnson was a wonderful accomplished person, and we were all privileged to have known him and to have worked with him. Putting aside all that technical stuff... in the early years, we always found time to sneak off and find a tennis court. I enjoyed so much being able to work with him over the years." Art Coren, Zenith Controls, EGSA Past President 1978-79

"Gordon Johnson worked at Kohler and was our Manager of Engineering. During my time there, we worked together often, both at the office, and on the road. During many new product introductions, he accompanied the Area Sales Managers, including me, to meet with consulting engineers. Later, when I joined the Board (EGSA), we had an opportunity to work together again. An 'engineer's engineer', he was apprehensive about EGSA writing specifications that might be considered proprietary. He always considered the end customer's point-of-view. When we had engineer fly-ins, he was usually the guy up front making the presentation. He was quite well known among consulting electrical engineers.

36

1remember a new product Introduction at a hotel in 1ndianapolis back in the middle '70s. A few of us from Kohler were making final preparations before customers arrived and I apparently said something that Gordon didn't like, and he read me the riot act! Raised his voice and pointed his finger at me! I was hoping I had a job when I returned to Kohler. There probably aren't 10 other people on the planet who can say they were 'dressed down' by Gordon Johnson. Always friendly and soft-spoken, he was a devoted husband, and could always be seen pushing Frances around in her wheelchair. He was a man of integrity, and honest to a fault. I admired and respected him very much. Let me end with a GSJ story. Back when Gordon was at Kohler, I was living in Chicago and went with a distributor salesman to try to get approval to submit a bid on a large project where we had not been named in the specification. The engineer sympathized with us, but said he was not familiar with Kohler Generators, but he thought one of his college classmates at Purdue worked for Kohler. Did 1know Gordy Johnson? A long conversation ensued where I brought him up to speed on Gordon, mentioning that he was the engineer that designed the very product we were proposing. That's all it took. Shortly thereafter an addendum was issued including Kohler as a qualified bidder. Thank you, Gordy!" Don Becker, Kohler Power Systems, EGSA Past President 1999

"I worked a great deal with Gordon Johnson. When the EGSA schools first rolled out, each instructor had a set of lecture notes that were combined into a loose leaf binder, and given to each attendee as retention material. One problem with this was that the handout changed, as the instructors changed. A number of the school sessions had multiple instructors, who rotated from one school session to another and the handout either changed, or did not closely match the lecture.

www.EGSA.org

Power/inc • Jul)•/Augusl 2015

I can't recall who first suggested a standardized volume, probably Jim Wright's Education Committee, but it was universally accepted that Gordon would be the Editor. Gordon wielded a razor sharp Editor's pen.... Rule #1No mention of the company who furnished the text or the illustrations within the text. Credit was given to all contributing authors and companies in an appendix at the end of what turned out to be our 1st Edition of EGSA's On-Site Power Reference Book: A Reference Book. In the days with limited computer publishing, Gordon put the book together manually, with chapters spread out on a large table. In order to minimize publishing costs, the 1st Edition was a paperback, and when heavily used by technicians as a reference, the books fell apart. I believe It was Gordon who insisted to the EGSA Board of Directors to consider that subsequent editions be hard covered to make them more durable. He was a/so involved with several of the committees and his expertise and advice was greatly appreciated. He was the Technical Committee's direct pipeline to the Board of Directors, which greatly improved communications.w

"Gordon was a mentor to many of the young EGSA Members, including myself when I first joined EGSA. He had a unique way of helping in solving difficult technical and management issues, by being very patient. He was very intelligent, very friendly, a devoted husband and published many interesting and valued technical articles in Powerline Magazine. It was no secret that he would run every morning when he was at our conventions. Going into that a little further, I would like to tell an Interesting story about Gordon participating in the Senior State Championship held in The Villages, Florida several years ago. The best that I can remember is the local newspaper article stated that Gordon won at /east two Gold Medals in his age group. Gordon, being the gentleman that he was, said there weren't many to compete within his age group. The article continued by saying that the final event was to be held on a Sunday, and because Gordon preferred not run competitively on Sundays, he walked away from the challenge. Gordon had his standards and he lived by them. We all sorely miss him at EGSA Conventions.n

Roman Gawlowski, Detroit Diesel, EGSA Past President 1995

Glynn Burchette, Libby Corporation, EGSA Past President 1993

"As Roman mentioned, Gordon was instrumental in all of our earlier technical endeavors, whether the first text book, the technical committee, standards writing, etc. Gordon a/so served on the NFPA committees, and /SO committees, representing EGSA. Gordon was, of course, our first Technical Director, a Past President, and, deservedly, the namesake of our Lifetime Achievement Award.... and then there was the time, at a poolside cocktail party, when Gordon backed into the pool. Don't ask me if he spilled his drink! All in all, Gordon was a wonderful man, knowledgeable, cheerful, always helpful, and ready to give advice to ayoung, eager EGSA Member. That's what I remember most!" Herb Daugherty, ASCO, EGSA Past President 1992

l'awerlin