Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, September 30, 2013, page 1 

Position Statement from Citizen Group for September 30, 2013, Meeting with OMB on EPA's Proposed 

Revisions to the NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters 

We strongly support updating the outdated New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for residential 

wood heaters, which is 17 years overdue.1 However, we oppose the Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA) proposed NSPS for hydronic heaters (outdoor and indoor) because it will not fulfill the EPA's 

mandate to protect public health under the Clean Air Act.2 Under the law, EPA is required to adopt a 

health-protective NSPS.1

We oppose EPA's proposed hydronic heater emission level of .32 lb/mmBTU of fine particulate (PM2.5), 

which is based on its Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heater Voluntary Program (Phase 2 hydronic heater), 

for the following reasons: 

Reason 1: The proposed NSPS does not provide health-protective standards because it does not 

regulate short-term exposures. Proposed emission levels and testing method do not protect human 

health because emissions are averaged over a complete 8-hour burn cycle using EPA Method 28 WHH 

instead of the highest emission level during an individual test run, as used by the State of Washington to 

protect public health.7

 This allows hazardous emission spikes to exceed the maximum level, especially 

during startup and damper mode. It is a well-established fact that exposure to short-term, high-levels of 

PM2.5 from hydronic heaters causes adverse respiratory and cardiovascular health effects.3 EPA's own 

study found that a Phase 2-qualified hydronic heater emissions were "highly cyclic" and exceeded 

health-protective standards with frequent PM2.5 spikes over 100 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), 

which EPA has determined is unhealthy for all humans.4 Another Phase 2-qualified hydronic heater in 

Alaska had PM2.5 emissions spikes over 1000 ug/m3.5, which is twice the amount of what EPA considers 

the highest level of hazardous air (Air Quality Index highest calculation is 500 ug/m3).6 If EPA sets a 

maximum emission level in the NSPS as a health-protective standard, it should not be exceeded at any 

time during the 8-hour burn cycle. You can't have health-protective standards without regulating shortterm exposures. 

Reason 2: The proposed NSPS does not measure emissions in grams/hour, as in the existing NSPS for 

EPA's certified wood stoves. BTU measurements do not account for operational variables and have 

proven efficiency rating flaws as admitted by EPA in its May 9, 2013, letter to manufacturers.15 The 

emission test should be a simple stack test of grams/hour that cannot be exceeded at any time, as used

by the State of Washington to protect public health.

7

 

Reason 3: The proposed NSPS does not set a limit on Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions. EPA's proposed 

NSPS fails to regulate other hazardous air pollutants from hydronic heaters including Carbon Monoxide 

(CO), a deadly air toxin. The CO emissions from hydronic heaters in EPA's recent study was so high it 

killed the test mice, so they were unable to complete the test: "Emissions toxicity results from animal 

exposure experiments were inconclusive, as extreme dilution of the combustion gas was necessary to 

avoid immediate acute toxic effects from the CO that at times exceeded 10,000 parts per million 

(ppm)."4
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, September 30, 2013, page 2 

Reason 4: The proposed NSPS is based on flawed engineering design. Phase 2 hydronic heater emissions 

are a proven health threat and nuisance to neighbors because they are designed to cycle and smolder. 

Our personal experiences with Phase 2 hydronic heaters, EPA's proposed standard, is that they smoke as

much as the nonqualified units and are hazardous to human health, as shown in the photos and videos 

we've submitted, and as vetted by the State of Alaska in Alaska v. Straughn,8 and shown in EPA's own 

study4 and in a recent public television documentary.17 Even a major hydronic heater manufacturer 

(Central Boiler) acknowledges in its Phase 2 hydronic heater owner's manual that its EPA-qualified 

devices can cause nuisance conditions even when properly operated: “Improper use or failure to 

maintain the hydronic heater may cause nuisance conditions. The person(s) operating a hydronic heater 

is/are responsible for operation in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance condition. 

Meeting the distance and stack height recommendations from the manufacturer and requirements in 

applicable State and local regulations may not always be adequate to prevent nuisance conditions in 

some areas due to terrain or other factors."9 

Reason 5: The NSPS is not based on best available technologies. EPA's updated NSPS must be based on 

the "best system of emission reduction...adequately demonstrated" as required by the Clean Air Act.1

 

But, EPA's proposed NSPS fails to comply with that requirement. There are commercially available 

hydronic heaters with lower emissions than what EPA is proposing. There are commercially available 

hydronic heaters that don't cycle and smolder, that burn at complete combustion temperatures, and 

that capture excess heat in thermal storage.4 EPA's website lists 6 qualified Phase 2 hydronic heaters 

that emit significantly less than the proposed standards (.04 to .08 lbs/mmBTU).10 A commercially 

available hydronic heater compliant with European Union emission standards emitted approximately 94 

percent less PM2.5, 92 percent less CO, and 89 percent less carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons than an EPA-qualified Phase 2 hydronic heater, while using 33 to 45 percent less fuel.4

 In 

comparison, a Phase 2 hydronic heater in the Fairbanks v. Straughn case used 20 cords of wood for one 

burn season.8 EPA's own report shows that using thermal storage and burning at complete combustion 

temperatures can significantly reduce emissions from hydronic heaters.4 The Farm Bureau and others 

have argued that they need hydronic heaters to heat water year round.11 Requiring thermal storage 

would address their demands, while significantly reducing emissions. 

We are adamantly opposed to the argument that these commercially available technologies are cost 

prohibitive to manufacturers and consumers. This argument just shifts the cost to the neighbors living 

next door to hydronic heaters. Unlike moving out of the way of smoke at a campfire, neighbors next to 

hydronic heaters cannot move out of the way of the smoke to protect their health and the value of their 

property. Instead, neighbors must pay excessive and unreasonable costs for medical expenses, civil 

litigation expenses, air filtering expenses, loss of property value and moving expenses.8,17 In one known 

case, it cost a human life as documented in the wrongful death lawsuit, Paris v. Lussier12 In Alaska, the 

state, at great cost, shut down a Phase 2 hydronic heater because it posed a significant health threat to 

neighbors and a nearby school. This was after significant mitigation costs borne by the school and the

neighbors failed.8 These are not isolated incidents. Seven states have implemented regulations on 

hydronic heaters in response to complaints from neighbors; all because EPA failed to regulate these 

devices. In Wisconsin and Minnesota, over 200 local governments in each state implemented hydronic 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, September 30, 2013, page 3 

heater ordinances in response to complaints from neighbors and to protect human health.13 Washington 

State set a hydronic heater emission level of 4.5 grams/hour of PM2.5 to protect human health.7 And in 

August 2012, 44 states supported the Environmental Council of the States resolution to update the NSPS

to establish rigorous and health-protect standards for hydronic heaters.14 All of this regulatory activity is 

in response to complaints from neighbors to hydronic heaters heaters who have suffered adverse health 

effects and borne the cost of EPA failing to comply with the law. The proposed NSPS continues this 

failure to issue health-protective standards and comply with the law and will continue to shift this cost 

to neighbors.

We support an NSPS that has proven health-protective standards and sets emission levels on grams per 

hour that cannot be exceeded, as used by the State of Washington. 7 Hydronic heater technologies are 

commercially available that significantly reduce toxic air emissions beyond what EPA is proposing. The

cost of EPA's regulatory failure can no longer be shifted to the neighbors. Therefore, we urge OMB to 

reject the EPA’s proposed NSPS emission standards for hydronic heaters and require EPA to comply with 

the Clean Air Act and issue health-protective standards in regulating hydronic heaters. 

We also support the same requests made on August 10, 2013 to EPA by the attorneys general of the 

states of New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and the 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency; and by the American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Environmental 

Defense Fund, and Environment and Human Health, Inc.

16

Citizen Group: Nancy Alderman, Patrice Lee, Bonnie Lichak, Sylvia Schultz, and Andrea Wieland 

References 

(1) 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA 

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

(3) Assessment of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers (2006). NESCAUM; Woodsmoke Health Effects: A review 

(2006). Luke. P. Naeher, et al., Inhalation Toxicology 67, 82-87; Smoke Gets In Your Lungs: Outdoor 

Wood Boilers in New York State (2008). New York Attorney General, Environmental Protection Bureau; 

The Dangers to Health from Outdoor Wood Furnaces (2010). Nancy Alderman, et al., Environment and 

Human Health, Inc.; An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers 

(2007). David R. Brown, et al., Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 13: 191–208; Outdoor Wood 

Boiler Investigation Health Consultation, Pleasant Lake, Michigan (October 13, 2009). U.S. Department 

of Health Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and 

Consultation. 

(4) Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater 

Technologies (June 2012). Brian Gullett, et al., EPA, NYSERDA. 

(5) Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Division measured peaks up to 1,088.3 μg/m3 on 

1/10/2009 at 12:26 pm using DataRAM mobile monitoring. 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, September 30, 2013, page 4 

(6) EPA Air Quality Index Calculator: Concentration to AQI 

http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=resources.conc_aqi_calc

(7) Washington Dept. of Ecology, 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/outdoor_woodsmoke/Wood_boilers.htm 

(8) State of Alaska v. Straughn, case number 4FA-13-01205CI 

(9) Central Boiler E-Classic 2400 Phase 2 Owner's Manual 

(10) EPA List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html 

(11) Hearing Report on the Matter of Proposed Part 247 (Outdoor Wood Boilers) (July 30, 2010). State of 

New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation, http://www.dec.ny.gov/hearings/68000.html

(12) Paris v. Lussier, 842-11-08l, Vermont, Wrongful Death Lawsuit. 

https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/UPEO2006-2010/eo10-034.pdf and 

http://www.7dvt.com/2009outdoor-wood-boilers-appropriate-technology-or-deadly-device 

(13) Minnesota and Wisconsin Local Hydronic Heater Ordinances and Regulations: 

http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/Air/OWBOrdinanceReport.htm and 

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=18425

(14) ECOS Resolution 12-3, Regarding New Source Performance Standards for Residential 

Wood Burning Devices, Approved August 28, 2012, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

(15) EPA Letter to Hydronic Heater Program Partners, May 9, 2013. 

http://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/epa-ltr-to-cb-pdf.105199/ 

(16) Letter of Notice of Intent to Sue from Attorneys General from New York, Connecticut, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to Gina 

McCarthy, EPA Administrator, August 1, 2013; and Letter of Notice of Intent to Sue from American Lung 

Association, Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Environment and Human Health Inc, to 

Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, August 1, 2013. 

(17) WCNY New York Public Television Documentary on Wood Boilers, September 27, 2013: 

http://video.wcny.org/video/2365087958/