From: Clean Air Fairbanks <cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:18 PM

To: Green, Gregory; Powers, Tom; Stewart, Lori; Wood, Gil; McCabe, Janet

Cc: Atkinson, Emily; Browne, Cynthia

Subject: NSPS meeting and comments from Tuesday, 10/14/2014 meeting

Dear Ms. McCabe, Ms. Stewart, Mr. Green, Mr. Powers, and Mr. Wood:

Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with Andrea Wieland, Patrice Lee, Roger 

Soldano, Nancy Alderman, Bonnie Lichak, and me on Tuesday.

I submitted my statement to Emily Atkinson, so I assume all of you have received a copy but 

have attached a PDF version in case you did not. In addition, I am attaching my May NSPS 

comments since I believe it was Mr. Powers that asked if we had submitted comments or if 

these were our comments. We all submitted during the comment period. I am also providing 

several attachments submitted to OMB a year ago including the affidavits and preliminary 

injunction order in Alaska v. Straughn. This model of hydronic heater meets the proposed 

standard to be sold as "EPA certified" but was found a "public nuisance" by a state judge.

The injury and cost from two Central Boiler 2300 Phase 2 hydronic heaters near Woodriver 

Elementary are not limited to just those two hydronic heaters. They are merely the most 

thoroughly documented in Fairbanks. A hundred or more coal and wood hydronic heaters 

installed in Fairbanks since 2008 have significantly worsened nonattainment. PM2.5 24-hour 

98th percentiles in 2012 and 2013 were three times higher than any other nonattainment area 

in the nation.

Again thank you very much for your time and attention to this most serious issue.

--

cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com

http://cleanairfairbanks.wordpress.com

Polluting is a choice. Breathing is not.
October 14, 2014

Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator <mccabe.janet@epa.gov>

Gregory Green, Director Outreach and Information Division <Green.Gregory@epa.gov>

Office of Air and Radiation

US Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20760

Also submitted by email to: Emily Atkinson <atkinson.emily@epa.gov>

Dear Assistant Administrator McCabe, Director Green, and others in attendance:

[Presentation by Patrice Lee]

In May, we submitted a case study documenting over $460,000 in public costs from two Phase 

2 wood-fired hydronic heaters in Fairbanks, Alaska. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734-1488 The study

highlights significant costs and harms from Phase 2 hydronic heaters meeting EPA’s proposed 

standard.

Two Central Boiler 2300 Phase 2 hydronic heaters

 Operated year-round, 24/7 from 2008 to 2013 in a neighborhood across from Woodriver 

Elementary School in a PM2.5 nonattainment area.

 After the first year, the owner burned only split, dried wood. No use of prohibited fuels was

reported.

 From the state inspector’s affidavit: “It appeared from his description that he was 

operating them correctly.”

 The local air agency recorded PM2.5 of 1,088.3 micrograms per cubic meter in the street 

across from the school.

 Agencies recorded 358 smoke complaints from the neighborhood. 43 percent identified the 

heaters.

 In 2013, the State of Alaska took the owner to court. (Alaska v. Straughn case #4FA-13-

01205CI)

 State Superior Court Judge Robert Downes found operation of the two heaters had “proven 

to be a public nuisance” and, after considering the overwhelming evidence, ordered 

burning to cease.

 I was teaching at the school when the burning stopped. Air in the neighborhood, 

playground, and school became clean. Air monitoring no longer showed high concentrations 

over the school.
Presentation by Patrice Lee and Sylvia Schultz re Wood Heater NSPS, 10/14/2014, page 2

Harms to Health

 Smoke was “almost constant” and so thick teachers thought there was a fire in the school.

 The school principal canceled recess repeatedly. Students were sent home.

 Teachers missed weeks of work. A 33-year-old teacher became disabled and can no longer 

work.

 The school nurse identified smoke as the cause of asthma attacks in the children. In a 

single day, 4 children had asthma attacks. At least one child was hospitalized.

 Many individuals received medical care including hospitalization and surgeries. Affidavits 

listed antibiotics; steroids pills, eye drops, and inhalers; and painful anti-allergy shots.

Doctors attributed the symptoms to smoke exposure.

 A neighbor was reduced to 20 percent lung function.

 Another neighbor’s affidavit described smoke inside his home and that his yard “reeks with 

the smell.” A month later, he died of a massive stroke.

Costs

 Over $360,000 in medical costs

 Over $170,000 in relocation costs

 Over $106,000 in mitigation costs (Including a $67,500 air filtration system for the school.

No other school in the district has a filtration system.)

 Public Costs: over $460,000

 Total Costs: over $500,000

What would have prevented Woodriver?

We have been told, “It falls on citizens to file civil suits.” This puts the job EPA failed to do on 

suffering victims. To settle cases, Central Boiler usually requires plaintiffs to agree to seal the 

case. EPA needs to set health-protective NSPS standards now, not five years from now.

The two hydronic heaters at Woodriver were Phase 2, cleaner than EPA’s proposed standard 

of 0.32 pounds per million Btu.

[Presentation by Sylvia Schultz]

Based on our experience in Fairbanks, we strongly oppose certifying any hydronic heater having 

emission spikes exceeding 4.5 g/hr for any individual test run.

Standard to Protect Health

Step 1: cap of 4.5 g/hr for individual test runs

Step 2 (in 2 yrs): cap of 1.3 g/hr for individual test runs
Presentation by Patrice Lee and Sylvia Schultz re Wood Heater NSPS, 10/14/2014, page 3

In 2007, EPA qualified a Phase 1 hydronic heater with a highest individual test run of 8.31 g/hr. 

Seven years later, EPA has proposed a cap of 7.5 g/hr for individual test runs but has not 

provided this data for existing Phase 2 heaters.

 Rather than using the unsupported 7.5 g/hr, EPA should base the performance standard on 

the lowest emitting Phase 2 models currently in use -- “achieved in practice.” 42 USC §7411

(b)(1)(B). Breakpoints exist after the 4th (Step 2) and 9th (Step 1) lower polluting models.

 EPA shall include requirements to “assure... proper operation and maintenance.” 42 USC 

§7411 (h)(1). These should include: visibility limits, nuisance prohibitions, prohibited fuels, 

delegation of enforcement to states, and requirements for labeling and compliance with 

owner’s manual.

 Only continuous-feed wood pellet models avoid the substantial harm to public health from 

misuse. “If it fits, it burns” has led some in Fairbanks to heat with garbage, creosote-treated 

poles, manure, carpet, and tires.

 EPA should track complaints regarding certified hydronic heaters for consideration in future 

NSPS reviews.

Revise Test Method to Reflect Actual Use

EPA’s test method for hydronic heaters underreports emissions during actual use. Certifying 

entire model lines is only valid if the test method represents emissions during operation. EPA’s 

test method should challenge a model’s capacity to emit, as these are consumer-operated 

devices without continuous stack monitoring.

 A grams per hour standard is enforceable on “any owner or operator.” 42 USC §7411 (e). A 

weighted average by rate of heat output is not.

 Harm to health is related to concentration at the time of exposure. EPA has regulated wood 

heaters with a grams per hour standard for 26 years. Why regulate hydronic heaters not 

only under a different standard but by a fundamentally different unit?

 Outdoor models should be tested in realistic ambient temperatures, not in optimal 

conditions inside a test facility maintained between 55 and 90°F. (ASTM E2515) In 

Fairbanks, winter temperatures can be more than 100°F colder than inside a cozy lab. 

Operation in subzero air reduces firebox temperatures, causing incomplete combustion and 

higher emissions.

 Manufacturers should be required to submit results from crib and cord wood tests but 

require certifying with only the higher values.

 Similarly, manufacturers should be required to submit results from hardwood and softwood 

but require certifying with the higher. EPA acknowledged concerns about higher emissions 

from Douglas fir but did nothing about it.

 Test models with 30 percent moisture content wood. EPA proposes average moisture 

content as low as 19 percent, highly unrealistic of actual operator practices.
Presentation by Patrice Lee and Sylvia Schultz re Wood Heater NSPS, 10/14/2014, page 4

Central Boiler 2300 Tested by EPA

In 2012, EPA tested the Phase 2 Central Boiler 2300 and reported its emissions in a major 375-

page study. (The report hid the heater’s identity and was not disclosed as a Phase 2 model as 

corroborated in our May 2014 supplementary submittal.) The study found Central Boiler 2300 

particle emissions averaged 28.75 g/hr (0.69 kg/day). Gullett, et al, 2012, S-26. EPA concluded 

that the model “showed considerable emission reduction.” Fed Reg Vol. 79, No. 22, Feb 3, 

2014, 6336. However, the 2007 Phase 1 heater was more than three times lower polluting

based on highest individual test run.

EPA testing showed high emissions but held up the results as a shining example in the NSPS. 

Has EPA noted no reports of problems with Central Boiler 2300? EPA is required to keep a file 

on the validity of the Phase 2 qualifications. Phase 2 Partnership Agreement, 7. How can EPA 

certify standards that are met by heaters with records of over 300 complaints, been judged a 

public nuisance, and have caused incalculable harm?

EPA-certified should mean safe.

EPA’s proposed standard for hydronic heaters disregards improvements achieved by the lower 

polluting hydronic heaters and fails to assure proper operation or prevent injury to the public 

and neighbors. Hydronic heater sales will expand when they are certified. It will discredit the 

certified wood heater program if reports of harm continue.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Patrice Lee, Citizens for Clean Air, Fairbanks, AK

Sylvia Schultz, Clean Air Fairbanks, moved to Woodinville, WA from Fairbanks, AK
To: EPA Air and Radiation Docket <a-and-r-docket@epa.gov>

Subject: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734

Date: 5/5/2014

Gina McCarthy, Administrator

US Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Docket Center

Mail Code 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington DC 20460

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734

Re: Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic 

Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

The following comments are submitted on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed 

Rule, published February 3, 2014 in the Federal Register, entitled Standards of Performance for 

New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and 

New Residential Masonry Heaters [79 FR 6329].1

We oppose the unsafe particulate standards proposed for new residential hydronic heaters.2

The proposed Step 1 standard is 0.32 lb/million Btu heat output and a cap of 7.5 g/hour on 

effective date of the final rule. The 

proposed Step 2 standard of 0.06 

lbs/million Btu would take effect five 

years later. If finalized as proposed, 

EPA will begin to regulate new 

hydronic heaters and certify their 

manufacture, sale, and installation in 

the United States.

EPA has shown it is incapable of 

properly limiting hydronic heater 

emissions as demonstrated by health 

effects and costs from models 

qualified under EPA’s Phase 2 

program for hydronic heaters.

Figure 1: Photo taken by a student’s parent showing smoke 

plume from Central Boiler 2300 crossing street toward Woodriver 

Elementary, Fairbanks, AK 3/3/24/2011
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 2

In 2008, the Central Boiler 2300 was qualified for EPA’s Phase 2 program with particulate

emissions of 0.31 lbs/million Btu output and 6.4 grams/hour. These levels meet the Proposed 

Rule Step 1 standard.

The two hydronic heaters in Fairbanks led to over $460,000 of documented public health and 

other costs.3Fairbanks paid a heavy price for inadequate limits on Phase 2 units and has not 

forgotten the ordeal of harm from two Central Boiler 2300 hydronic heaters across from 

Woodriver Elementary from 2008 to 2013. With the Proposed Rule, EPA has proposed to certify 

dangerously unsafe hydronic heaters like the two hydronic heaters in Fairbanks.

When considering the significant costs of healthcare and largely unsuccessful mitigation, woodfired hydronic heaters can easily be the most costly heating systems on the market. These 

expensive, high emission devices belong nowhere, certainly not in a densely populated 

residential neighborhood or near a school. Yet, EPA seems unaware that its proposed standard 

will certify hydronic heaters like the two in Fairbanks that left dozens of neighbors, teachers, 

and students damaged and suffering.

Preventing endangerment of public 

health and welfare requires a healthbased standard. The test method should

accurately predict real world emissions 

and include safeguards to ensure that 

actual emissions are not under-predicted

or unsafe. Consumers and the public 

should be better informed about the 

risks and responsibilities of using a 

hydronic heater. What happened to 

Woodriver should not happen to any 

community ever again.

Following are our specific concerns and recommendations regarding the Proposed Rule.

Proposed Rule Fails to Meet Legal Standards

EPA’s Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters (outdoor and indoor) does not meet Clean Air Act 

requirements to protect human health. The Clean Air Act requires that EPA shall regulate any 

category of stationary source that in the Administrator’s judgment “causes, or contributes 

significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 

or welfare.”

4

EPA’s proposed Step 1 hydronic heater standard has been met by Phase 2 

qualified hydronic heaters that caused extensive and well-documented harm to neighboring 

Figure 2: FNSB file photo, Central Boiler 2300 as 1,088.3 

μg/m3PM2.5 was recorded by FNSB mobile monitor, 58 

Trinidad Dr, Fairbanks, AK
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 3

residents. EPA’s proposed Step 1 standard is therefore demonstrably insufficient to protect 

against new sources that would cause harm to human health.

In addition, EPA’s Step 1 proposal for hydronic heaters does not meet the best system of 

emission reduction (BSER) objective required under the New Source Performance Standard 

(NSPS) nor properly consider available technology as required. The Clean Air Act established 

that NSPS standards shall reflect “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of emission reduction.”5In revising existing standards, the 

Administrator is required to consider “emission limitations and percent reductions achieved in 

practice.”6 However, what EPA has proposed for the initial regulatory standard is not the best; 

rather it is based on the highest emitting models qualified by EPA’s Phase 2 program. The 

proposed NSPS for new residential wood heaters is expected to allow EPA to certify 36 of 40 

currently listed Phase 2 hydronic heater models.7According to EPA, the proposed initial 

standard for new hydronic heaters has already been met by “almost all” existing models:

In general, for this rulemaking, we have determined that the proposed first step 

represents the emission levels that almost all models can readily achieve now using 

today’s designs and technology.8

Established in 2008, the Phase 2 voluntary program uses the same 0.32 lb/million Btu standard 

EPA has included in the 2014 Proposed Rule. The best on the list is eight times better than the 

worst, showing that technology has advanced even as EPA proposes the same, old standard.

Under the Proposed Rule, unsafe models like the two hydronic heaters near Woodriver 

Elementary could be certified by EPA for sale and installation for five more years.

Figure 3: Years of injurious smoke from Central Boiler 2300, 58 Trinidad Dr, Fairbanks, AK

The NSPS for new residential wood heaters was written in 1988 with a minor revision in 1995

and has never been applied to wood-fired hydronic heaters.

9

Any performance standard lacking 

efficacy must be reviewed and appropriately revised every eight years or sooner.

10 Health 

studies and technology have advanced while the federal program that certifies residential wood 

heaters has been frozen in time contrary to requirements in law. A NSPS standard is a 

performance-based standard. The Proposed Rule lacks efficacy to control health and safety 

impacts from hydronic heater performance during actual use.
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 4

Inadequate Test Method makes Emission Standard Arbitrary

A standard is only as good as its measurement method. Without a precise and accurate, 

repeatable method, the standard is arbitrary and inadequate for the required purpose of 

preventing harm to public health. EPA’s disclaimer states that proposed test methods for 

hydronic heaters‒Method 28 WHH and Method 28 WHH-PTS‒are not repeatable or 

reproducible, key elements of the scientific method:

It is not possible to specify the precision of the procedure in this test method because 

the appliance operation and fueling protocols and the appliances themselves produce 

variable amounts of emissions and cannot be used to determine reproducibility or 

repeatability of this test method.11

EPA’s proposed test methods are similar to an earlier method, Method 28 OWHH, developed in 

2006. Method 28 OWHH was found to be inaccurate with an under-prediction bias. According 

to a 2012 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) study by 

EPA, “The EPA method tends to somewhat under-predict” emissions from three of the four 

hydronic heater models in the study.

12

Recommendations: Significant modifications to EPA’s proposed NSPS for hydronic heaters are 

needed.

1. One Emission Standard for EPA Certified Heaters, not Six

EPA’s Proposed Rule includes six different emission standards. To reduce consumer confusion 

and better protect public health, a single standard should be adopted as quickly as possible: 1.3 

g/hr, with an interim standard of 2.5 g/hr.

We support a single emission rate standard of 1.3 grams/hour for all new residential wood, 

pellet, and biomass heaters including woodstoves, pellet stoves, wood and pellet-fired 

hydronic heaters, wood-fired forced-air furnaces, and masonry stoves, regardless of whether 

the heater is catalytic or noncatalytic. This 1.3 g/hr rate should take effect no longer than two 

years after the effective date of the final rule. A single, stringent emission standard for all 

devices will prevent harm to human health and simplify consumer comparisons between 

classes of certified residential wood heaters.

An interim standard of 2.5 g/hr should take effect on the effective date of the final rule or at 

least within six months of the effective date. The intent of the interim rate is to swiftly 

transition manufacturers, dealers, and consumers away from the unnecessary harm and waste

of high emission heaters. These regulations need to make all possible efforts to prevent 

installation of high emission heaters that cause years of ongoing and permanent harm to 

individuals and burden communities with excessive costs from monitoring, enforcement, health 

care, changeout programs, and lost business investments.
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 5

The State of Alaska has supported a 2.5 g/hr standard. In 2013, the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) proposed a 2.5 g/hr standard for the seriously impacted 

Fairbanks PM2.5 nonattainment area.

13 (More than 900 public comments were received, and 

the State has not finalized new regulations.) ADEC’s peer-reviewed justification for its proposed 

rules offered these findings:14

 Customers should find economical choices available for lower-emitting stoves.

 There are no significant technological barriers preventing the adoption of the 2.5 g/hr 

PM2.5 emission standard.

The State of Washington has used a 2.5 g/hr standard for catalytic wood heaters since 1995.15

Technology is available now to meet

stringent, health-protective

standards. Thirteen listed hydronic 

heaters meet a 2.5 g/hr standard. Five 

hydronic heaters listed by EPA for 

Phase 2 meet a 1.3 g/hr standard. 16

These hydronic heaters are available 

on the market today. Technology has 

advanced. EPA’s standards for 

hydronic heaters cannot ignore these 

advances.

2. Use Health-based Emission Unit for Hydronic Heaters and Woodstoves

We strongly oppose any hydronic heater standard based on emissions per energy input or 

output as they do not limit maximum emission concentrations (spikes) that harm health at the 

time of exposure. A performance emission standard to certify new hydronic heaters should

limit the rate of particulates released into ambient air over a set unit of time, such as grams per 

hour. EPA has regulated and certified wood stoves under a grams per hour standard for 26 

years. Why should hydronic heaters be regulated not only under a different standard but by a 

fundamentally different unit? The hydronic heater standard should reflect that particulate

emissions cause human health harm related to concentration at the time of exposure, not by 

the rate of energy consumed or released by the heater.

EPA has failed to justify why hydronic heaters should be regulated under a new subcategory 

called “central heater” with a separate performance standard and unit. In addition to 

particulates, smoke from woodstoves and hydronic heaters contains carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, benzene, toluene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as 

naphthalene, aldehydes such as formaldehyde, acrolein, propionaldehyde, butryaldehyde, 

acetaldehyde, and furfural, oxygenated monoaromatics such as guaiacol, phenol, syringol, and 

catechol, mold spores, metals, dioxins, and furans.17 Hydronic heaters differ from woodstoves 

Figure 4: The second Central Boiler 2300 across from Woodriver 

Elementary, 5055 Palo Verde Dr, Fairbanks, AK 12/5/2012
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 6

not in the composition of the smoke but in their ability to generate significant quantities of 

smoke for sustained durations throughout the year.18,19,20,21 Especially in regards to hydronic 

heaters, the appropriate unit to measure and limit the quantity of emissions is grams per hour, 

a health-based, respiratory-relevant unit.

It is vital, however, to maintain the distinction between wood heaters and hydronic heaters so 

new federal standards do not suddenly permit hydronic heaters in the many jurisdictions that 

have restricted installation and/or operation to wood heaters that are EPA certified.

3. Cap Spikes throughout Each Individual Test Run

The most significant public health concern with hydronic heaters is harmful emission spikes. 

EPA’s proposed test methods average particulate emissions over the entire duration of each 

test run. 22 (Typically four different test runs, each approximately 8 hours in duration.) The 

method hides short-term (<8 hours) emission spikes correlated with degrading ambient air 

quality and damaging health effects.

23,24 EPA’s test method should require once per minute 

particulate sampling throughout the entire burn cycle from startup to finish for each individual 

test. (Carbon monoxide grams/minute vs. time is plotted based on 1-minute averages in the 

Proposed Rule.25) The emission standard should apply to the highest emission spike recorded 

during any minute of any individual test as a cap, so that no emission spike exceeds the 1.3 g/hr 

(or 2.5 g/hr interim) standard. The goal is to prevent hazardous emission spikes that exceed the 

g/hr standard. The State of Washington requires minute-by-minute sampling and that no 

sample shall exceed the state emission cap.26 The highest emission spike of any individual test 

run should be published online and be shown on the permanent hangtag.

4. Eliminate Annual Weighted Average

EPA’s proposes an annual weighted average as the Step 1 emission limit for the standard rather 

than an actual emissions rate. This weighting is based on “an average of data from several cities 

located in the northern United States.”

27 An annual average hides hourly emission spikes. As it 

is also weighted to represent an average heat load for (unidentified) northern US cities, EPA’s 

method is an even worse predictor for emission rates from hydronic heaters operated in colder 

areas such as Fairbanks, Alaska. It is unlikely that the annual average weighting calculation 

reflects actual use patterns or emission performance of models installed in Fairbanks. 

Consumers and the public are misled by the reported average, not realizing it is weighted and 

may bear little relationship to actual emissions. Weighting adds bias, misleads consumers, and 

should be entirely removed from the Proposed Rule and hangtags. We support EPA’s proposal 

to drop weighting from the Step 2 standards.28

5. Test with Higher Emitting Softwood Species

EPA’s test method should include softwood species to better predict emissions from actual use.

It has been widely recognized that softwood species such as fir, spruce, and pine typically result 

in higher emissions than hardwood species such as oak. For example, according to NYSERDA’s 
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 7

2012 study prepared by EPA, “Higher emissions for soft wood (e.g., white pine) combustion in

residential wood combustion (RWC) appliances is typical and have been discussed previously 

(Kinsey et al., 2009).” White pine generated “PM emissions that were 40% greater than red 

oak.”

29 The State of Washington requires stick wood devices to be tested with Douglas fir.30

6. Visible Smoke Emission Standards, Wet Wood Prohibition, and Nuisance Prohibition

The Proposed Rule includes a new Prohibited Fuel list.31 We strongly support this inclusion. 

Similarly, the Proposed Rule should include a visible emissions prohibition (no visible smoke, 

except for three minutes in any 30-minute period) and a wet wood prohibition (>20% moisture 

content), and a nuisance smoke prohibition (operator is responsible for operation in a manner 

that does not create a public or private nuisance condition).

Operating standards are vital to ensure actual emissions from hydronic heaters more closely 

meet the certified standard and test methods.

7. EPA Hangtag Disclosure

The permanently affixed EPA hangtag for hydronic heaters should properly inform consumers 

and operators and be available online.32 Key metrics to include:

 Thermal efficiency rating - percentage

 Particle pollution – highest emission spike during any individual test run, g/hr

 Carbon monoxide – highest emission spike during any individual test run, g/hr

 Improper Fuels notice – Use of improper fuel voids manufacturer warranty.

 Nuisance Prohibited notice – Heater operator is responsible for complying with all laws 

for hydronic heaters. No person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a way as to 

create a nuisance.

8. Owner’s Manual and Promotional Materials Disclosures

Owner’s manuals for certified hydronic heaters and all advertising and promotional materials 

should add the following warning message: “This hydronic heater needs periodic inspection and 

repair for proper operation. It is against federal law to operate this hydronic heater in a manner 

inconsistent with operating instructions in the manual. Hydronic heaters must produce no 

visible smoke, except for three minutes in any 30-minute period. No person shall operate a 

hydronic heater in such a manner as to create a nuisance. Improper use or failure to maintain 

the hydronic heater may cause nuisance conditions. Meeting the distance and stack height 

recommendations from the manufacturer and requirements in state and local regulations may 

not always be adequate to prevent nuisance conditions in some areas due to terrain or other 

factors. The operator of a hydronic heater is responsible for operation in a manner that does 

not create a public or private nuisance condition.”
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 8

Manufacturers should be required to specify prohibited fuel types in the owner’s manual.33

Manufacturers should be required to post copies of all certified hydronic heater owner’s 

manuals and warranties.

EPA should publish all certified test data online.

9. Prevent Harm to Health from Actual Use

EPA’s failure to properly regulate hydronic heaters has allowed unregulated, poorly tested, high 

emission hydronic heaters to be installed in residential areas. It is essential now to respond to 

evidence where Phase 2 voluntary limits have proved insufficient by building a safety margin 

into the NSPS for hydronic heaters.

The Proposed Rule would allow high emission hydronic heaters similar to the two in Fairbanks 

to continue to be installed for five more years. It offers no solution to the tens of thousands of 

high emission hydronic heaters left in place, menacing neighborhoods across the nation. EPA 

should not miss this opportunity to use the Proposed Rule to block installations of high 

emission hydronic heaters. In 2013, EPA estimated there were 243,000 hydronic heaters 

nationwide.34 Agencies have heard thousands of stories of harm caused by hydronic heater 

emissions. EPA estimates that the lifespan of a wood heater is “typically greater than 20 

years.”35 Complaints about individual devices could easily continue for years. Stopping 

emissions after a hydronic heater is in place is hard and expensive. Preventing installations of 

high emission hydronic heaters is as easy as setting an appropriate, defensible standard and 

test method that work in the real world. Regulations cannot be based exclusively on laboratory 

emission tests without consideration of how to prevent real world harm from high emission 

hydronic heaters. Ignoring the ways hydronic heaters are actually used and misused discredits 

the standard.

For example, would EPA’s test method and efficiency calculations have predicted that an owner 

of two Central Boiler 2300s in Fairbanks would, by his own admission, burn 14 cords of wood a 

season in one and 20 cords in the other?

36 (The cost of heating oil would have been about the 

same as firewood.)

EPA has made no attempt to assess the costs over the expected 20 year life of hydronic heaters. 

In the Fairbanks case, families inundated by smoke were unable to sell their homes. For most, a 

home is a family’s largest financial asset, and it is lost because someone nearby gets a $7,500 to 

$15,000 hydronic heater on the false promise of saving money. Families need to move for 

health reasons but can’t because no one will buy their home. Any new family that makes the 

mistake of buying into the neighborhood will start down the same financially-draining road of 

air filters, medical bills, lost work days, and disablement. Some costs are paid by the public, but 

the damaged health and worthless homes are expenses shouldered by the families next door.

The $460,000 in documented public costs from two hydronic heaters in Fairbanks that meet 

the Proposed Rule is an underestimate of the full costs incurred in that case.37 According to an
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 9

affidavit from a state inspector: It appeared from the owner’s description “that he was 

operating them correctly.”38 Even if apparently used properly, these devices still smoked out 

the neighborhood. What were the property losses to neighbors unable to sell to escape the 

smoke? What is the cost of hydronic heater smoke that promotes asthma attacks, corneal 

abrasions, COPD, atrial fibrillation, a stroke, pulmonary embolism, and possibly cancer? What is 

the cost of lost education for children when visible smoke flows through school halls, 

classrooms, and playgrounds as at Woodriver Elementary? Children complained of coughing 

and burning eyes and had to use rescue inhalers. Four students had asthma attacks on one day. 

What if one of the victims were your child? During a fire drill, there was so much smoke on the 

playground, students asked their 3rd grade teacher if it was a “real” fire. Finally, a judge in state 

court found operation of the two Phase 2 hydronic heaters had “proven to be a public 

nuisance” and ordered their use to cease. All this from two hydronic heaters that meet EPA’s 

proposed performance standard.

In 2007, EPA began signing Phase 1 agreements with manufacturers of hydronic heaters to 

qualify models that met an emission limit of 0.60 lbs/million Btu. EPA contracts are not 

enforceable by third parties (including the public) and the limits were not set through public 

rulemaking. In 2008, EPA began signing Phase 2 contracts with lower emission limits. “Properly 

operated Phase 2 emission level (0.32 lb/million Btu heat output) qualifying units are estimated 

to be approximately 90 percent cleaner than typical unqualified units.”39 “90 percent cleaner” 

makes a great marketing slogan, but the basis for the assertion has not been provided by EPA. 

The end goal is not “cleaner” hydronic heaters; it is protection of health.

In February 2014, EPA proposed the nation’s first regulatory emission standards for new 

hydronic heaters. Weak standards, applying the wrong unit, and biased test methods that 

under-predict emissions during actual use will harm the credibility of the “EPA certified” 

designation and reduce the quality of life for individuals and communities. Tests in laboratories 

are essential, but lessons from the real world cannot be ignored.
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 10

Real world lessons show there is not just one high emission hydronic heater model on EPA’s

Phase 2 list. The following photos from outside Alaska show two hydronic heaters. One photo

shows smoke from a nonqualified model. The other shows smoke from a Phase 2 Central Boiler 

2400. The smoke plumes are similar even though one is Phase 2 and the other is not.

Q: Which smoke plume is from the EPA Phase 2 hydronic heater?

Figure 5: Top photo - smoke from nonqualified hydronic heater, Central Boiler CL6048, 11/2007

Bottom photo - smoke from Phase 2 qualified hydronic heater, Central Boiler 2400, 11/4/2011
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 11

A: The bottom photo is the “cleaner” Phase 2 device.

The Central Boiler 2400 was qualified for Phase 2 with particulate levels of 0.12 lbs/million Btu 

output and 3.3 g/hr average. These levels easily meet the Proposed Rule. Central Boiler 2400 is 

marketed with this message:

There is no safer, more convenient way to heat with wood.40

The Proposed Rule and the current Phase 2 voluntary program are not stringent enough to 

prevent installation of more high emission hydronic heaters. Consumers will continue to be

duped into buying inefficient hydronic heaters thinking these “cleaner” units will lower their 

heating bills. Any savings owners may get is dwarfed by the costs put on neighbors and the 

public. These and other photographs and examples in EPA’s records demonstrate that EPA 

needs to recalibrate the proposed standards and test methods to meet the needs of public 

health and welfare.

Conclusion

No safe threshold has been identified for PM2.5 exposure.41 Health studies have documented 

adverse effects from exposures to elevated particulate concentrations from a few minutes to a 

few days.

42 Yet high emission hydronic heaters continue to be installed without setbacks or lot 

size limits, in confined valleys, cities, suburbs, and rural communities, in PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas (such as Fairbanks). Some neighborhoods have clusters; two or three have been on a 

single property. They burn near schools, and daycare facilities, senior residential facilities, and

medical facilities and along public highways and parks. They’re called “residential” but are 

installed at churches and commercial uses such as apartment buildings, B&Bs, outdoor 

equipment shops, landscape businesses, lumber yards, and pawn shops. They’re used to heat

poorly insulated homes, oversized homes, warehouses, greenhouses, and swimming pools. 

They typically burn 20 to 30 cords of wood a season but two are known to burn 100 cords/year. 

The large doors and firebox may allow over a hundred pounds of unsplit, green wood and 

prohibited materials such as manure, animal carcasses, plastic, creosote-impregnated railroad 

ties and power poles, treated lumber, construction debris, petroleum products, and don’t 

forget, coal. They are used as waste incinerators and have been intentionally misused to harass 

neighbors.

National hydronic heater standards are desperately needed to protect neighbors, property 

values, and the most sensitive among us including infants, children, seniors, asthmatics, people 

with heart or lung problems, diabetics, cigarette smokers, developing fetuses, and athletes.

43

The Proposed Rule is not up to the task.
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 12

At a bare minimum, EPA must not certify new hydronic heaters for five years using lax 

standards and an inappropriate unit. Technical and economic justifications support a 1.3 g/hr,

with interim 2.5 g/hr, emission cap today. EPA test methods must better reflect real world 

conditions and prohibit harmful emission spikes. EPA’s first responsibility for the hydronic 

heater NSPS is to safeguard communities like Fairbanks against harmful, high emission Phase 2 

hydronic heaters. A community can only be as healthy as the air shared by all.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

[Signature list and endnotes on following pages.]

Attachments:

CAF_Additional_Concerns_and_Supporting_Data.pdf

CAF-Harms_to_Health_and_Costs-Two_Phase_2_HHs_Fairbanks_AK_updated_5-5-2014.pdf

EPA_letter_to_mfgs_re_efficiency_revised_hangtags_2300_2400_5-9-2013.pdf

Sidhu_Gullett_Toxic_Air_Emissions_GLC_webinar_2011.pdf
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 13

Signature Page for Clean Air Fairbanks, et all – Comments on NSPS for New 

Residential Wood Heaters, 5/5/2014

Signers:

Sylvia Schultz, Director, Clean Air Fairbanks cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com, 

http://cleanairfairbanks.wordpress.com

Patrice Lee, Jimmy Fox, Carrie Dershin, Linda (Lou) Brown, and Rev. Jeffrey Merkel, Cocoordinators, Citizens for Clean Air, a local, Fairbanks-based, grass-roots collection of 

parents, business people, educators, physicians, and young adults and project of Alaska 

Community Action on Toxics patricelee3294@gmail.com, 

www.facebook.com/pages/Citizens-for-Clean-Air/451816281552859

Brian Moench, M.D., President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

drmoench@yahoo.com, www.uphe.org

Pam Miller, M.S., Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on Toxics www.akaction.org

Susan Goldsborough, Executive Director, Families for Clean Air 

susankgoldsborough@gmail.com, www.familiesforcleanair.org

Jeanne Olson, D.V.M., Raven Veterinary Services, North Pole, AK

Mary Shields, Alaskan Tails of the Trail http://maryshields.com, Fairbanks, AK

Robin Dale Ford and Pat Fitzgerald, 10th Planet Recording Studio www.10thPlanet.com, 

Fairbanks, AK

Julie Mellum, Organizer, Take Back the Air www.takebacktheair.com, and Midwest Director, 

Clean Air Revival Inc. www.burningissues.org

Julie Burgo, Pennsylvania Chair, Clean Air Revival Inc. www.burningissues.org

Barbara and Frank Peters, Wood Smoke Health barbara@WoodSmokeHealth.org, 

www.WoodSmokeHealth.org

Shirley and Jim Brandie, Wood Burner Smoke http://WoodBurnerSmoke.net

Gale Mellum, Mellum and Welsh Law Firm, Minneapolis, MN

Cathy Baiton, Only Clean Air: Helping to end wood smoke pollution

www.onlycleanair.wordpress.com, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 14

Shalonda Riley, Fairbanks, AK

Richard and Stephanie Clymer, Fairbanks, AK

Laurie Hueffer, Fairbanks, AK

Carolyn Leonard, Fairbanks, AK

The Franz and Mather Family: Joan Franz, Dr. David Mather, Luke and Laura Mather, Fairbanks, 

AK

Owen Hanley, M.D., Fairbanks, AK

Ronald M. Teel, D.D.S., and Mary Kay Teel, Fairbanks, AK

Nancy Kuhn, Fairbanks, AK

The Partyka Family: Doron Partyka, J.D., Craig Partyka, J.D., and Eva, Eric, and Lucas Partyka, 

Ester, AK

Linda (Lou) Brown and Jon Miller, Fairbanks, AK

The Rafferty and Hannon Family: Julie Rafferty, Robert Hannon, Madeline Rafferty, Fairbanks, 

AK

Glen Simpson, Professor Emeritus, Melissa Simpson, B.Ed., and Ian Simpson, Fairbanks, AK

Karen Post and Leon Lynch, Ester, AK

Avalon K. Lee, B.M., Fairbanks, AK

Nancy Rabener and Tom Stimpfle, Fairbanks, AK

The Fox Family: Jimmy, Joanna, Logan, and Audrey Fox, Fairbanks, AK

The Lee Family: Patrice and Guy Lee and son Alex Lee, Fairbanks, AK

Douglas A. Yates, 64th Parallel Press, Ester, AK

The Merkel and Kuizenga Family: Rev. Jeffrey Merkel, M.Div., Marin Kuizenga, Matteo Kuizenga, 

Annika Merkel, Fairbanks, AK

Frank and Jennifer Keim, Fairbanks, AK
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 15

Sally O’Connell, Fairbanks, AK

M. Vanslyke, Fairbanks, AK

Paul Holland, Fairbanks, AK

Stan Justice, Fairbanks, AK

The Earp and Iringa Family: Paula Earp and Matt, Cooper, and Quinn Irinaga, Fairbanks, AK

Carl F. Benson, Fairbanks, AK

Cristina and Rich Ackerman, Fairbanks, AK

Jackie M. Debevec, ACRW, Fairbanks AK

Karen Jensen, Fairbanks, AK

Bill Lewin, Parksville, BC, Canada

 

1

Federal Register, New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and 

New Residential Masonry Heaters (Feb 3, 2014). Proposed Rule, FR Doc No: 2014-00409, Vol. 79, No. 22, 6330-

6416. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

2

New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, § 60.5474(b)(1)and (2), 6385. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-

00409.pdf

3

Clean Air Fairbanks, Case Study: Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters, 

Fairbanks, Alaska from 2008 to 2013 (May 5, 2014): 1-5. 

http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/2013-5-5-updated-caf-harms-to-health-and-costs-twophase-2-hydronic-heaters-fairbanks-ak.pdf

4

Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7411(b)(1)(A). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

5

Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7411(a)(1). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

6

Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7411(b)(1)(B). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

7

US EPA, List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, Phase 2. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html (accessed 

4/28/2014)

8

New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 6353. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 16

 

9

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA—Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=27c30b0d5dc2fda0a3e99282912c9b3d&n=40y7.0.1.1.1&r=PART&ty=HTML#40:7.0.1.1.

1.67

10 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7411(b)(1)(B). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

11 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 6400, 6411. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

12 NYSERDA by US EPA, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater 

Technologies (June 2012). No. 12-15, Brian Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, 2-83 and 2-84. 

http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research-and-Development-Technical-Reports/-

/media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood-Fired-Hydronic-Heater-Tech.ashx.

13 ADEC, Proposed Regulation, 18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control (Sept 19, 2013). 1-10. 

http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm/docs/proposedRegs.pdf

14 ADEC, Need and Basis for More Stringent Wood-fired Heating Device Emission Standards (Nov 2013). 20-21. 

http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm/docs/justification_NOV13.pdf

15 WA Dept of Ecology, Wood Stoves, Fireplaces, Pellet Stoves and Masonry Heaters, webpage. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/wood_smoke_page.htm (accessed 5/1/2014)

16 US EPA, List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, Phase 2. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html (accessed 

5/1/2014)

17 US EPA, A Summary of the Emissions Characterization and Noncancer Respiratory Effects of Wood Smoke (1993).

EPA-453/R-93-036, Timothy V. Larson and Jane Q. Koenig, 1- 47. 

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000IK0H.txt

18 US EPA, Emissions from Outdoor Wood-burning Residential Hot Water Furnaces (Feb 1998). EPA/600/SR-98/017, 

Joseph C. Valenti and Russell K. Clayton, 3. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1003CLA.txt

19 NY EPB, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State (Aug 2005). Eliot Spitzer, 8. 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/New_York_Report_on_OWBs_142279_7.pdf

20 NY Dept of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations in Outdoor Air 

near Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers (Jan 2013). 1-121. 

http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/owb/docs/owb_report.pdf

21 US EPA, Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke (March 2013). Publication No. EPA-456/B-13-001, 10. 

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/strategies.pdf

22 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, Test Method 28 WHH, 4.1 and Method 28WHH–PTS, 4-1, 6395 and 6403. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 17

 

23 Philip R. S. Johnson, Adverse Health Effects: Exposure Threats of OWBs, Air & Waste Management Association 

(Jan 2011): 9. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/adverse-health-effects-exposure-threats-ofowbs-johnson_awma_2011.pdf (published with permission)

24 David R. Brown et al, An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers, Human and 

Ecological Risk Assessment 13 (2007): 191–208. http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/Brown-OWBRisk_HERA2007.pdf

25 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 14.1.18, 6411. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

26 WA Dept of Ecology, Indoor Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters Meeting WA Emission Standards (June 25, 2012). 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/pdfs/wood_Hydronic.pdf (accessed 4/28/2014)

27 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 6411. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

28 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 6342. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

29 NYSERDA by US EPA, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater 

Technologies (June 2012). 2-80, 2-82. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research-and-DevelopmentTechnical-Reports/-/media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood-Fired-Hydronic-Heater-Tech.ashx

30 WA Dept of Ecology, Indoor Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters Meeting WA Emission Standards (June 25, 2012). 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/pdfs/wood_Hydronic.pdf (accessed 4/28/2014)

31 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, § 60.5474(f), 6385. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

32 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, § 60.5478, 6387. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

33 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, § 60.5474(f), 6385. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

34 US EPA, Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke (March 2013). Publication No. EPA-456/B-13-001, 5. 

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/strategies.pdf

35 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, Table 7, 6348. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

36 Andrew Straughn, FNSB changeout application with color photos. June 7, 2013, 2, 11. 

http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/straughn-fnsb-application-with-color-photos-2013-6-7.pdf

37 Clean Air Fairbanks, Case Study: Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters, 

Fairbanks, Alaska from 2008 to 2013 (May 5, 2014): 1-5.

http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/2013-5-5-updated-caf-harms-to-health-and-costs-twophase-2-hydronic-heaters-fairbanks-ak.pdf
Clean Air Fairbanks, et al - Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, page 18

 

38 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, 11. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/state-of-alaska-vstraughn_20-affidavits-2013-1-31.pdf

39 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 6336. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

40 Central Boiler, website. http://www.centralboiler.com/models.php (accessed 5/1/2014)

41 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 6349-6350. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

42 NY Dept of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations in Outdoor Air 

near Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers (Jan 2013). 1.

http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/owb/docs/owb_report.pdf

43 US EPA, Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, Final Report (2009). Washington, DC, EPA/600/R08/139F, 1-2228. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546
To: EPA Air and Radiation Docket <a-and-r-docket@epa.gov>

Subject: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734

Date: 5/5/2014

Gina McCarthy, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Docket Center

Mail Code 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734

Re: Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic 

Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

The following comments are submitted as supplementary information to comments submitted 

earlier on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule, published February 3, 2014 

in the Federal Register, entitled Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, 

New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry 

Heaters [79 FR 6329].1

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Schultz, Director

Clean Air Fairbanks cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com, http://cleanairfairbanks.wordpress.com
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 2

Additional Concerns and Supporting Data

Clean Air Fairbanks

5/5/2014

Hydronic Heaters Interfere with PM2.5 Nonattainment

Hydronic heaters are substantial sources of air pollution emission sources and figure 

prominently in the serious PM2.5 nonattainment problem in Fairbanks, Alaska. “Cleaner” but 

still high emission hydronic heaters don’t belong in PM2.5 nonattainment areas like Fairbanks.

The Fairbanks North Star Borough has a serious PM2.5 problem, yet monitors in the City of 

Fairbanks are consistently cleaner than those in outlying areas. The City of Fairbanks has 

created its own relative oasis from the pollution. An important factor is the 2009 City of 

Fairbanks code prohibiting new installations of all hydronic heaters, including pellet-fueled 

devices.

2

Still, FRM monitors downtown record levels that put Fairbanks in the handful of most 

air polluted areas in the US. A recent CNN article, entitled When Air becomes a Public Health 

Hazard, features Fairbanks as one of the most air polluted communities in the US.3The 2014 

State of the Air report from the American Lung Association ranks Fairbanks #7 for short-term 

particulate pollution, up from #9 in 2013.4

A source apportionment monitoring study published in 2012 compares Fairbanks air pollution 

to national levels:

Compared with PM2.5 concentrations in the lower 48, Fairbanks has some of the 

highest wintertime ambient PM2.5 concentrations measured throughout the United 

States.

5

The City of Fairbanks’ ban on new hydronic heaters is invaluable because woodsmoke is the 

primary source of Fairbanks’ public health hazard. A monitoring study published in 2012 found 

woodsmoke (likely residential wood combustion) was the major source of PM2.5 throughout 

the winter in Fairbanks, contributing between 62.7 and 81.2 percent of the measured PM2.5 at 

four sites. The following pie graphs show the higher concentrations of woodsmoke found inside 

and outside the City of Fairbanks each winter.
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 3

The City of Fairbanks’ ban on hydronic heaters is an anomaly for the area. No other state or 

local rule prohibits any type of wood heating device no matter how polluting. Typical 

exceedance periods are virtually windless, resulting in monitor readings that closely reflect 

nearby emissions. Outside the Fairbanks airshed, ambient winter PM2.5 is some of the cleanest 

in the world, approximately 0.3 to 3.0 μg/m3. Woodsmoke sources within the City of Fairbanks 

consist of the full range of types of wood-fired heaters and approximately 22 grandfathered 

hydronic heaters installed prior to the 2009 ban. Outside the City of Fairbanks, no restrictions 

limit hydronic heater installation. It is therefore probable that the prohibition against new 

hydronic heaters in the City of Fairbanks has helped reduce concentrations of woodsmoke

compared to the surrounding nonattainment area.

Proposed Rule Emission Standard Similar to Phase 2 Limits

The Step 1 emission standard in the Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters is similar to the Phase 2 

limit. Importantly, at least two high emission hydronic heaters meet this standard.

Hydronic Heater Emission Rates PM Lbs/Million Btu

Heat Output

PM Grams/Hour Cap

Phase 2 Emission Limit, 2008-

current6

0.32 18.0

Proposed Rule Emission Standard 

20147

0.32 7.5

Central Boiler 2300 Hangtag, 

revised 2013

0.3186.4

Central Boiler 2400 Hangtag, 

revised 2013

0.1293.3

Table 1: Qualifying test data submitted by manufacturers to EPA. EPA’s current and archived Phase 2 listings of 

qualified hydronic heaters show lbs/MMBtu rate used to qualify models. EPA Phase 2 hangtags show the g/hr 

rate used to qualify models. (Copies of Central Boiler 2300 and 2400 hangtags are submitted as an attachment to

our comments.)

Figure 1: 2012 Ward et al, 536.
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 4

Health-based Emission Unit for Hydronic Heaters and Woodstoves

Additional support for a gram/hour standard for hydronic heaters.

Mass per hour comparisons are more relevant than heat output-adjusted comparisons 

when evaluating the relative potential for nearfield exposure to smoke and smoke 

components.10

Neighborhood-scale Impacts of Shutdown of Hydronic Heaters Meeting Proposed Rule

When a pollution source has shut down, it is a good time for a retrospective study. C. Arden 

Pope published a study assessing hospitalization rates before and after the Geneva Steel Mill in 

Utah Valley shut down.

11 When the two Central Boiler 2300s in the Fairbanks neighborhood of 

Woodriver shut down, air quality improved overnight.
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 5

The Alaska v. Straughn preliminary injunction 

order regarding the two Central Boiler 2300s 

was issued Feb. 4, 2013.

12 It took ten days for 

the owner to receive the order and cease 

operating the two hydronic heaters.

Before the owner stopped burning, daily maps 

of PM2.5 concentrations by the Fairbanks 

North Star Borough Air Quality Division

showed pockets of high levels of pollution 

surrounding the hydronic heaters and the 

school.

BEFORE court order took effect, PM2.5 

concentrations shroud Woodriver Elementary. 

(Click on image for larger view.)

On Feb. 14, 2013, the owner finally abided 

by the court order. The smoke over 

Woodriver Elementary was gone and the air 

became clear.

(Note that from Feb. 14-20, the air quality in 

Fairbanks was good. However, pockets of 

high levels of particulate pollution, largely 

from other hydronic heaters, continued to 

plague Watershed School and its 

surrounding neighborhood south of 

Woodriver Elementary.)

AFTER court order took effect, PM2.5 

concentrations over Woodriver Elementary are 

good, similar to most areas of Fairbanks at the 

time. Emissions to the south shroud Watershed 

School. (Click on image for larger view.)
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 6

Independent Testing of Hydronic Heater Meeting Proposed Rule

Independent verification of manufacture test data is rarely available. While multiple studies 

have independently tested and analyzed hydronic heater emissions, which are then analyzed by 

further studies, most studies do not identify the model tested. We know all hydronic heaters 

are not the same, but omitting models, in effect, presumes they are. A basic principle of the 

scientific method includes clearly describing the methodology so that the study can be 

replicated by other researchers. In wood heating device studies, tests identify the rate of 

emissions but typically fail to identify the model.

For example, the following image is from a 2009 study by the Cold Climate Housing Research 

Center:

13

The CCHRC 2009 study does not identify the make and model of hydronic heaters used in its

baseline model.

14 Similarly, the New York Department of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance 

Assessment 2013, while important, does not identify the six hydronic heaters or whether they 

are Phase 2.15 These omissions makes drawing comparisons with lab and field tested hydronic 

heaters and the Proposed Rule highly challenging.

However, two studies do disclose the models tested. Hays 2011 and Sidhu 2011. Both tested 

EPA’s Phase 2 qualified Central Boiler 2300, a model that appears to meet the standard in the 

Proposed Rule. (This is the same model that caused significant harm to health near Woodriver 

Elementary in Fairbanks, Alaska and was “proven to be a public nuisance” in the court case 

Alaska v. Straughn.

16)

Hays 2011 is a study is of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions from four hydronic 

heaters. Entitled Characterization of Carbonaceous Aerosols Emitted from Outdoor Wood 
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 7

Boilers, principal authors include Michael Hays and Brian Gullett from EPA Office of Research 

and Development and ARCADIS US, published in 2011.17

Central Boiler 2300 is identified on page 2. The following findings apply to all four hydronic 

heaters (OWBs) tested in the study:

 PAHs accounted for “between 0.1 and 4% w/w of the aerosol mass.”

 Wood combustion in the OWBs released “significantly more PAH per unit mass of fuel 

burned than either domestic fireplace or woodstove appliances.”

 “Each of the original 16 EPA priority PAHs was detected in the OWB PM emissions.”

Central Boiler 2300 PAH emission data is available on the study’s data sheet from Michael Hays 

hays.michael@epa.gov. Methods included: firebox was loaded with approximately 198 to 253 

lbs (90 to 115 kg) of red oak (Quercus rubra).

The second key study, Sidhu 2011, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural 

Plastics–A Cone Calorimeter Study was published as a report in 200518 and as a webinar in 

2011.19 The study’s principal authors are Sukh Sidhu and Brian Gullett. Central Boiler 2300 is 

pictured on page 17 of the webinar. The study tested the same four hydronic heaters as in Hays 

2011 including Central Boiler 2300.

These two studies link the Central Boiler 2300 to a major 375-page EPA study for New York 

State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) on PM2.5 emissions. The 

principal authors are Brian Gullett and Gil Wood of EPA Office of Research and Development.

20

NYSERDA 2012 does not explicitly identify the Central Boiler 2300, but uses the same 

photograph of the Central Boiler 2300 as Sidhu 2011 on pages S-3 and 2-7.

Documented Significant and Lasting Harm from Hydronic Heaters Meeting Proposed Rule

Hydronic heaters, including those meeting the proposed 0.32 lb/MMBtu standard, have a track 

record of causing significant and lasting harm to human health. Documentation of harm from 

hydronic heaters meeting EPA’s proposed 0.32 lb/MMBtu standard is available from various 

sources.

A primary source of this evidence should be provided by EPA itself. EPA is bound by contract to 

maintain problem files on hydronic heater models qualified in EPA’s voluntary Phase 2 program. 

The files are to contain “relevant information that brings into question the validity of the 

qualification.”21 This file should have been published as part of the public review 

documentation for the Proposed Rule. We cannot be certain that EPA has indeed diligently 

maintained these problem files as the requirements exist in contracts exclusively between EPA 

and individual hydronic heater manufacturers. Private contracts are apparently not enforceable 

by third parties including the public. In fact, manufactures and dealers have promoted hydronic 

heaters as “EPA approved” in violation of the Phase 2 contract22 and federal regulation 5 CFR 

Section 2635.702(c) prohibiting endorsements.23 (We question the legality of EPA’s ongoing use 
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 8

since 2007 of unenforceable private contracts to circumvent the NSPS rulemaking process to 

set emission standards for hydronic heaters.) EPA’s files, including the agency’s problem files on 

Phase 2 models, should be a treasure trove of data and track record of complaints from 

neighbors and regulators that must be considered before any hydronic heater is certified. For 

EPA to propose a standard for hydronic heaters knowing the harm devices meeting that 

standard have caused is a chilling indictment of our nation’s public health defender.

Central Boiler’s model 2300 hydronic heater should have an extensive EPA problem file. The 

Central Boiler 2300 met the standard in the Proposed Rule, was on EPA’s Phase 2 qualified list 

for 5 years (2008 to 2013), and was found by EPA testing to have just 30 percent thermal 

efficiency (inefficiency is a factor in excessive smoke). Further, this model led to 358 public 

record smoke complaints in a Fairbanks, Alaska neighborhood where two Central Boiler 2300s 

were operated for more than 4 1⁄2 years. The Fairbanks case was brought to the attention of the 

Administrator of EPA, individual EPA employees, and OMB so it is reasonable to assume that 

EPA has a problem file on this model that could be considered for the Proposed Rule. However, 

there is no indication that EPA has considered the Fairbanks case or any other problem file from 

the agency’s own records of complaints, reports, and data on hydronic heaters meeting the 

proposed initial emission standard.

In 2008, two outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters were installed to serve two rental properties 

in Fairbanks, Alaska. The two wood heaters were Central Boiler 2300, EPA-qualified Phase 2. Air 

pollution from the heaters injured neighbors as well as teachers and students at a public school 

across the street. After 41⁄2 years of impacts and complaints, the state finally took the case to 

court in 2013: Alaska v. Straughn, case #4FA-13-01205CI. Clean Air Fairbanks’ 2014 report 

documents public costs from the two hydronic heaters of over $460,000.

24

Several facts set the Fairbanks hydronic heater case apart: 

1) Two hydronic heaters were involved, both the same EPA Phase 2 qualified model, 

2) The long delay before enforcement allowed extensive damage to health and significant 

costs, and 

3) The plaintiff in the case was subject to public record law, thus court records could not 

be sealed as in previous hydronic heater injury cases.

By every indication, the two Central Boiler 2300s performed as designed by the manufacturer. 

Regarding a different hydronic heater model, the Central Boiler 2400, Gil Wood with EPA 

attributed excessive smoke from a Phase 2 qualified Central Boiler 2400 in the Midwest to a 

defective unit. In the Fairbanks case, it is harder to defend the lax standard by blaming both 

hydronic heaters for being defective. Many unsuccessful attempts to make the two Fairbanks 

hydronic heaters burn cleanly indicate the ultimate cause of the damage to the individuals in 

Fairbanks was more likely EPA’s standard for Phase 2 hydronic heaters. According to testing 

submitted to EPA by Central Boiler, the 2300 would meet EPA’s primary initial emission 

standard of 0.32 lbs per million Btu.
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 9

Proposed Rule Fails to Meet Legal Standards

Failure to meet best system of emission reduction (BSER) objectives:25

The emission limits for hydronic heaters are not BSER. The best on EPA Phase 2 list is eight 

times better than the worst. Setting the standard by the worst, not the best as required, fails to 

meet BSER.

Lowest v. Highest Annual Average Emission Levels, EPA Phase 2 Qualified Hydronic Heaters26

Manufacturer Model Lbs/million Btu

Woodmaster Flex-Fuel 30 KW indoor/outdoor 0.04

Wood Doctor HE-5000 0.32

The compliance schedule for hydronic heaters is not BSER. EPA has proposed a five-year delay

before the agency would apply the BSER standard. This delay is not needed to design, test, or 

field evaluate cleaner models as these models are already available on the market today. 

Residential Hydronic Heater, Proposed Rule27 (PM per million Btu)

Step 1 Upon the effective date of 

the final rule

0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output and a cap of 7.5 g

PM2.5/hour for individual test runs

Step 2 5 years after the effective 

date of final rule

0.06 lb/MMBtu

Because hydronic heaters are a consumer product, it is essential not to tarnish the “EPA 

certified” brand and customer respect and goodwill. What credibility will be left when the story 

is finally told that EPA certified high emission hydronic heaters for sale, knowing better units 

were available and that EPA’s only reason was to give manufacturers more time to make and 

dump into the retail market, devices meeting levels known to have cause significant harm to 

neighbors and communities? Do hydronic heaters and the regulatory process mechanism that 

has failed to properly regulate them need a bigger black-eye?

EPA Cover-up of Information Relevant to the Proposed Rule

EPA and a state agency attempted to cover-up key information relevant to the Proposed Rule 

for hydronic heaters. We assume the intent was to protect confidential business information

(CBI). However, in the effort to protect the interests of hydronic heater manufacturers, 

emissions test data cannot be connected to the hydronic heater model that generated the 

emissions. Associating emissions data with the device that made the emissions is not CBI and is 

not protected. If this cover-up succeeded, there would be no relevance to EPA tests showing 

higher emissions to previous tests used to qualify the hydronic heater model for EPA’s Phase 2 

voluntary program that also appear to meet EPA’s Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters.
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 10

The significance of connecting the testing with the model is to show that EPA’s proposed initial 

standard for hydronic heaters places the public at higher risk because of bias in the proposed 

testing method leading to lower emission concentrations.

Our documentation of this cover-up follows.

Gil Wood and other EPA staff with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards tested the 

Central Boiler 2300 for the 375-page Gullett 2012 study for the New York State Energy Research 

and Development Authority (NYSERDA).

28 The findings for the Central Boiler 2300 (identified 

only as “Three Stage HH”) include:

1) 30 percent thermal efficiency (page 2-51)

2) 1.88 lb/MMBtu average PM emissions on a thermal energy output basis (page 2-81)

The NYSERDA/EPA study contrasts Central Boiler 2300 performance with that of a residential 

oil-fired boiler with far higher thermal efficiency (86 to 92%) (page 2-52) and far lower 

emissions (0.08 g/kg fuel) (page 2-83). The study noted that due to test design “thermal 

efficiencies used in this analysis are higher than would be experienced in practice.” (page S-25)

The authors attempted to withhold identification of the make and model and that it was EPA 

Phase 2 qualified. However, clues show that the “Three-Stage HH” in the study was a Central 

Boiler 2300, a model that listed as EPA Phase 2 qualified from 2008 to 2013.

The first clue is that on page S-15, the NYSERDA/EPA study refers to the hydronic heater as 

“2300.”

29

A review of publications using the EPA file photograph of the “Three-Stage HH” confirm that the 

unit tested was a Central Boiler 2300. In addition, the evidence shows a systematic effort on the 

part of EPA and NYSERDA to obscure identification of the model tested.

EPA’s file photo used in the Gullett 2012 report uses a white rectangle to obscure the “Central 

Boiler Classic” logo on the heater door.30 If you copy and paste the image, however, the white 

rectangle disappears, revealing Central Boiler’s logo. A NYSERDA 2012 presentation by Ellen 

Burkhard published the same image but with a black rectangle over the manufacturer’s logo.31

A third use of the same EPA file photo in the Sidhu 2011 presentation did not obscure the 

manufacturer logo on the door of the hydronic heater and captioned the image as “The Central 

Boiler E-Classic 2300.”32 Sidhu published a study by the same name in 2005.33 Sidhu 2005 has 

been cited by a 2012 published study.34 (A pdf of Sidhu 2011 is submitted with these 

comments.) There can be no doubt that the hydronic heater called “Three-Stage HH” in Gullett

2012 is a Central Boiler 2300.

Oddly, the Gullett 2012 report includes this statement on its opening page: “It is also 

anticipated that these results will be of value to EPA as it sets New Source Performance 

Standards for biomass-fired HHs.” Without connecting that EPA had actually tested Central 
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 11

Boiler 2300, an EPA qualified Phase 2, the value of the report for the NSPS would be quite 

limited. The Gullett 2012 study was funded by the public (NYSERDA and EPA), yet the models of 

the hydronic heaters models were withheld from the public. EPA’s study could not be 

compared with the proposed standard and test method even though Gil Wood with EPA Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards helped prepare the study and for years has been the 

primary public contact person for the Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters.

Additionally, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards did not consider the Gullett 2012 

findings of higher emissions from the Central Boiler 2300 than the level used to qualify the 

model for Phase 2. The study reported average PM emissions of 1.88 lb/million Btu, more than 

5 times higher the 0.31 lb/million Btu level used to qualify the Central Boiler 2300 for EPA’s 

Phase 2 program and the 0.32 lb/million Btu in the Proposed Rule. Thus, EPA had information 

from the Gullett 2012 that the test method results could not be replicated by other labs, raising 

questions about the validity of EPA’s proposed test method.

Publications of EPA File Photo of Central Boiler 2300

Published in: Gullett, 2012, p 2-7.

Captioned: “The Three Stage HH Unit”

Cropped screen shot

Note white rectangle on the hydronic heater door.

Copy and pasted image from Gullett 2012, p 2-7.

Note white rectangle is gone, and Central Boiler 

logo is visible on the door.
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 12

Published in: Burkhard, 2012, p 12.

Captioned: “Advanced OWB down-draft, 160,000 

Btu/h, 450 gallons”

Cropped screen shot

Note black rectangle on hydronic heater door.

Copy and pasted image from Burkhard 2012, p 12.

Note black rectangle is gone, and Central Boiler 

logo is visible on the door.

Published in: Sidhu, 2011, p 17.

Captioned: “The Central Boiler E-Classic 2300”
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 13

For comparison, these are the photos of the two Fairbanks Central Boiler 2300s.

Photos of Central Boiler 2300s Prior to Removal and Destruction

58 Trinidad Drive

Fairbanks, Alaska

5055 Palo Verde Avenue

Fairbanks, Alaska

Photo source: FNSB changeout application with color photos, submitted by Andrew Straughn,

June 7, 2013.

35

Ensure Existing Safeguards are Not Bumped by NSPS

Will the new Subpart QQQQ for hydronic heaters carry any authority to supersede prohibitions 

in place?

Many areas of the country currently prohibit the sale and installation of hydronic heaters and 

forced-air wood furnaces due to restrictions on solid fuel heating devices that are not EPA 

certified. Will hydronic heaters certified under the new Subpart QQQQ become suddenly 

allowed?

It is critical to ensure certification is not used to open the door to the sale of hydronic heaters 

and forced-air wood-fired furnaces in areas of the country that currently prohibit them. 

Communities that have opted-out of noncertified wood heaters should not have to take 

separate action to ensure that EPA certified hydronic heaters remain prohibited. For example, 

the much heralded success story of how Libby, Lincoln County, MT met attainment could be put 

to a test by the Proposed Rule for hydronic heaters. Lincoln County’s 2008 ordinance defines 

“Standard Non-Catalytic Device” to mean “a solid fuel burning device with a non-catalytic 

emissions control system that has been certified by EPA test method as having emissions <7.5 

grams/hour.”36 During 2005 and 2006, Libby spent a total of $2.5 million in state, federal, and 

industry grants to remove 1,130 stoves prohibited by the ordinance. With the additional help of 
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 14

burn bans and a prohibition of use of any noncertified wood heating device, Libby addressed its 

PM10 nonattainment problem. Will Libby be in for a shock to find their code language approves 

hydronic heaters?

If this concern is warranted, to prevent installation of EPA certified but high-emitting hydronic 

heaters, state and local governments would have to take swift action to rewrite rules to, for 

example, prevent undesirable hydronic heater installations in residential neighborhoods and 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. If local and state governments fail to take swift action--and there 

is no promise that even one jurisdiction is poised to take action--the result will be excessive 

levels of air pollution and harm to health for decades. Without timely action, preventing harm 

will no longer be an option. The only remaining option will be mitigation triage at tremendous 

expense. Certifying the worst as though they were the best passes the burden onto individuals, 

public health providers, insurers, health and safety inspectors, the legal system, and change-out 

programs. Five years down the road, EPA has proposed a more restrictive standard for new 

hydronic heaters and forced air heaters, but by then thousands of expensive, new, EPA-certified 

but excessively polluting hydronic heaters will be in operation and the struggle of attempting to 

undo the damage caused by EPA’s initial lax standard would be ongoing and too late.

Assessment Test Method

We have deep concerns with the testing method and its reliance on calculated emission values 

rather than actual PM2.5 emission rates. We recommend grams per hour without weighting or 

averaging. We do not support a standard based on pounds per million Btu as this unit is 

irrelevant to protecting public health as required37 and does not correlate with contribution to 

ambient concentrations. The only emission standard that is relevant to health is rate of PM2.5 

emission per hour. Secondary factors, such as cold weather inversion and dispersion (wind),

may concentrate or disperse emissions, but a lower rate of emission best protects human 

health under every weather condition.

For example, if you have 10 hydronic heaters in one residential neighborhood emitting 6 g/hr,

together they would account for a total contribution to ambient PM2.5 of 60 g/hr. If, instead, 

the 10 hydronic heaters each emitted 0.32 lb/MMBtu there is no clear way to tally how much 

PM2.5 was being contributed to ambient air. 

EPA’s Proposed Rule uses an industrial design standard of emission per heat output 

(lbs/MMBtu) for pollution control from residential heating. A standard based on the rate of 

emissions per heat output will not limit air pollution and cannot be useful as a standard to 

protect human health.

Unfortunately, a lack of adequate disclosure in the Proposed Rule hindered our assessment of 

the proposed testing method.

We were unable to review the basis for the weighted average emission rate of ASHRAE bin data 

from “several cities located in the northern United States” used to calculate the weighting of 
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 15

emission samples.38 Bin Data, represented by Fi, is used to calculate Method 28WHH–PTS A Test 

Method for Certification of Cord Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances with Partial Thermal

Storage. We were unable to identify the “several cities” used in the data set. Was Fairbanks, 

Alaska included? Even if Fairbanks were included in the bin data represented by Fi, bin data is 

an average, so at best would reflect considerations for an average northern city, but fail to 

estimate heating emissions from communities that are colder than the average cities in the bin 

data set. Communities that are colder than the average cities in the bin data set are outside the 

range of the testing method. The testing method should properly be adjusted to reflect heating 

needs not for an average of several unidentified cities, but for the US city with the highest 

heating needs such as Fairbanks.

Another problem regarding weighting, the Proposed Rule proposes to collect data from four 

test runs that are then weighted to calculate annual average emissions. The weighting assumes 

43.7 percent of the time hydronic heaters will operate at a heat output of 15 percent or less of 

manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity (low) and 5 percent of the time at the 

manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity (high).

Test Run Categories Load % of Capacity39 Weighting Factor (Fi)

40

I <15% of max 0.437

II 16–24% of max 0.238

III 25–50% of max 0.275

IV Max capacity 0.050

 Totals 1.00

While we object to using unidentified cities to determine the proportion of emissions from the 

four different test runs, the problem with this method is compounded further by annualizing. 

Human health exposures are most highly correlated with short-term exposures of hours and 

days, not annual averages. The science for tracking the source of the harm is shortening, not 

lengthening the duration of harmful exposures: “Increasing use of continuous PM2.5 

monitoring over the past decade has led to findings of health associations at time scales of less 

than 24-hour averages.”

41 In addition, “current ambient exposure episodes to PM2.5 in the 

Northeast US increase hospitalization rates and emergency room visits for both cardiovascular 

and respiratory disease after only a few hours of PM2.5 exposure.”42 Studies show acute 

cardiac and pulmonary adverse effects from average hourly and maximum hourly exposures. 

EPA uses a health-based standard for a 24-hour average and annual average for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.

43 Annualizing the test data dilutes the emissions, and the test 

method itself.

According to ASTM “The weighting factors (Fi) are derived from an analysis of American Society 

of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Bin Data which provides 

details of normal building heating requirements in terms of percent of design capacity and time 

in a particular capacity range (or “bin”) over the course of a heating season.”44 Hydronic heaters 

are not limited to heating “normal” buildings. They are used year-around for hot water and can 
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 16

be used to heat a swimming pool or greenhouse. Hydronic heaters are often used to heat large 

yet poorly insulated buildings. The ASHRAE Bin Data would not reflect heat load requirements 

beyond what would be expected for a normal building.

Outdoor hydronic heaters have lower efficiencies during cold weather due to heat loss and 

frozen wood. Owners compensate by refueling with vast volumes of wood during the colder 

weather to make up for higher heat load requirements and reduced efficiency. The proposed 

test method makes no attempt to calculate the loss of efficiency for outdoor heaters operated 

in colder ambient temperatures. Hydronic heaters models manufactured for outdoor

installation are tested under optimal conditions—inside a test facility maintained between “55 

and 90°F.”45 The proposed method fails to assess the higher rate of emissions during actual use. 

Actual use may easily include subzero temperatures; in Fairbanks and North Pole, AK winter 

temperatures reach negative 50°F or colder—more than 100°F colder than a lab facility.

Similarly, the proposed test method makes no attempt to address the higher emissions from 

softwood versus hardwood species. It has been widely recognized that soft wood species such 

as fir, spruce, and pine result in higher emissions than hardwood species such as oak. However,

the proposed test method exclusively uses oak, resulting in lower emission rates than softwood 

fuels. Owners of hydronic heaters use the fuel most readily available in their area, unaware that 

softwood tends to result in higher emissions.

EPA’s proposed test method for hydronic heaters is biased downward by weighting and 

averaging, testing outdoor models in unrealistically warm conditions, does not account for 

misuse such as wet wood and prohibited fuels, and relies on a standard utterly irrelevant to 

information that can help protect health. EPA is ill prepared to properly set an emission 

standard or health-protective test method for hydronic heaters. 

EPA must only certify hydronic heaters that meet levels known to be safe for human health 

based on realistic conditions and even accounting for elements of misuse such as burning wet 

wood. The test method needs to be run under the most adverse conditions to provide a worst 

case, not an idealized version that cannot be replicated by other labs and researchers and that 

poorly refects actual emissions that may harm health.

European Standards

EPA put forward voluntary limits for hydronic heaters in 2007. Not subject to public review, 

public comment, or citizen suits, Phase 1 become Phase 2. Seven years have been wasted. 

Meanwhile, European standards, called EN 303–5, have advanced. EN 303–5 devices are 

required to meet CO, nitrogen oxides and VOC emissions. The BSER available in these units has 

resulted in technology performance improvements that reduced average CO emissions by 99 

percent.46
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 17

Air Toxics

EPA must require permanent labeling on all hydronic heaters about the CO hazard to protect 

consumers from a known, potentially fatal hazard. EPA also must require indoor CO monitors as 

a critical safety component for hydronic heaters installed in occupied buildings or other 

buildings or enclosures in which the operator would enter to add fuel to the heater or conduct 

other normal operation and maintenance of the heater, as noted on p 6340. Since it is known 

by EPA that many consumers place outdoor hydronic heaters in shelters and buildings, CO 

monitors should be mandatory on all hydronic heaters.

The Proposed Rule is flawed in that while it addresses particulates, it ignores air toxins. There is 

an unqualified assumption in the Proposed Rule that presumes that toxins will decrease in 

parallel with particulates. However, the growing body of available evidence contradicts this 

assumption.

We request that a timeline for certification of emissions levels for toxic compounds, including 

benzene, dioxin, formaldehyde, and PAHs, be explicitly stated in the rule so that the public will 

be adequately protected from the air toxins produced by hydronic heaters. Under the Clean Air 

Act law, the EPA is mandated to adopt a health-protective NSPS, which requires that it set 

emission levels for all air toxins emitted by hydronic heaters.

Reconstruction Provision

The NSPS must require a reconstruction provision for hydronic heaters, as required by all other 

NSPS promulgated by EPA (reconstruction is defined in 40 CFR 60.15 and is subject to 40 CFR 60 

Subpart JJJ). Many manufacturers are selling replacement parts that would extend the life of 

the unit significantly or indefinitely. If 50 percent of the unit value is repaired, that triggers the 

reconstruction clause. “Section 60.15 of the NSPS specifies that reconstruction occurs if the 

fixed capital cost of the new components exceed 50% of the fixed capital cost of a comparable 

entirely new (unit ).”

EPA knows that residential wood heating devices degrade over time, which reduces efficiency 

and increases toxic air emissions. Therefore, to provide health-protective standards, the NSPS 

must require a reconstruction provision in the NSPS for hydronic heaters.

Efficiency

Any efficiency ratings must be based on thermal efficiency and not combustion efficiency. EPA 

has warned hydronic heater manufacturers of the misleading use of the term “combustion 

efficiency” in their sales and promotional materials. Hydronic heaters should be rated by the 

Department of Energy for thermal efficiency like any other residential furnace. This includes 

efficiency measured by the Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency, and mandatory sizing 

requirements to match BTU with square footage.
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 18

EPA must set a date for when it will establish with the Department of Energy minimum thermal 

efficiency standards for residential wood heating devices.

 

1

Federal Register, New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and

New Residential Masonry Heaters (Feb 3, 2014). Proposed Rule, FR Doc No: 2014-00409, Vol. 79, No. 22, 6330-

6416. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

2

Fairbanks City Code, Article VI 34-201 & 34-202 Hydronic heaters, 2009. 

http://library.municode.com/HTML/12896/level3/PTIICOOR_CH34HE_ARTVIHYHE.html#TOPTITLE

3

CNN, When Air becomes a Public Health Hazard. Dan Farber, May 4, 2014.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/04/opinion/farber-air-pollution/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

4

ALA, State of the Air 2014, 13. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2014/assets/ALA-SOTA-2014-Full.pdf

5

Tony Ward, et al, PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Study for Fairbanks, Alaska (2012). Aerosol and Air Quality 

Research, 12: 536. http://aaqr.org/VOL12_No4_August2012/8_AAQR-11-11-OA-0208_536-543.pdf

6

US EPA, Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement between the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards and individual manufacturers, Sept 12, 2011, 2. 

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf

7

New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 6344. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

8

US EPA, EPA List of Phase 2 Archived Hydronic Heater Models. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhharchive.html

(accessed 4/29/2014)

9

US EPA, List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, Phase 2. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html (accessed 

4/28/2014)

10 NY Dept of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations in Outdoor Air 

near Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers (Jan 2013). 8.

http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/owb/docs/owb_report.pdf

11 C. Arden Pope, Respiratory hospital admissions associated with PM10 pollution in Utah, Salt Lake, and Cache 

Valleys. Arch. Environ. Health, 1991:46 (2): 90–97. 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039896.1991.9937434#.U2fziGdOXIU and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2006899

12 Alaska v. Straughn preliminary injunction order, Judge Robert B. Downes, Feb 4, 2013. 

http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/state-of-alaska-v-straughn_preliminary-injunction-order2013-2-4.pdf

13 CCHRC, Reducing PM 2.5 Emissions from Residential Heating Sources in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (2009). 

John Davies, et al, 15. http://cchrc.org/docs/reports/PM2.5_Final_2-23-09.pdf
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 19

 

14 CCHRC, Reducing PM 2.5 Emissions from Residential Heating Sources in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (2009). 

John Davies, et al, 52. http://cchrc.org/docs/reports/PM2.5_Final_2-23-09.pdf

15 NY Dept of Health, Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations in Outdoor Air 

near Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers (Jan 2013). 1-121. 

http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/owb/docs/owb_report.pdf

16 Alaska v. Straughn preliminary injunction order, Judge Robert B. Downes, Feb 4, 2013. 

http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/state-of-alaska-v-straughn_preliminary-injunction-order2013-2-4.pdf

17 Michael D. Hays, et al, Characterization of Carbonaceous Aerosols Emitted from Outdoor Wood Boilers. Energy 

Fuels, 2011, 25 (12), 5632–5638. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef2012694?journalCode=enfuem

18 Sukh Sidhu, et al, Toxic air emissions from burning wood and agricultural plastics–a cone calorimeter study. Final 

report. University of Dayton Research Institute, 2005.

19 Sukh Sidhu, et al, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics–A Cone Calorimeter Study, 

March 2011, Great Lakes Commission, webinar presentation, 17.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=cG9seW1lcmluc2lnaHRzLmNvbXxmbGFtZS1yZXRhcmRhbnR

zfGd4OjFmYWQ0MzQ5ZDA5MGE1YTI

20 NYSERDA by US EPA, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater 

Technologies (June 2012). No. 12-15. Brian Gullett, et al, 1-375. 

http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research-and-Development-Technical-Reports/-

/media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood-Fired-Hydronic-Heater-Tech.ashx

21 US EPA, EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement between the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency, and individual hydronic heater manufacturers, 

2011, 7. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf

22 US EPA, EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement between the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, 8. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf (The regulation is 

incorrectly cited in the Phase 2 agreement as “5 CFR Section 2653.702(c).”)

23 5 CFR Section 2635.702(c) Use of public office for private gain. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=305a965126d4225471db452037ce2e4e&node=5:3.0.10.10.9.7.50.2&rgn=div8

24 Clean Air Fairbanks, Case Study: Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters, 

Fairbanks, Alaska from 2008 to 2013, 1/12/2014. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/harms-tohealth-and-costs-from-two-epa-phase-2-wood-fired-hydronic-heaters-fairbanks-ak.pdf

25 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7411(a)(1). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

26 US EPA, List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, Phase 2. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html (accessed 

4/28/2014)

27 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, Table 5, 6344. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 20

 

28 NYSERDA by US EPA, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater 

Technologies (June 2012). No. 12-15. Brian Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, 1-375. 

http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research-and-Development-Technical-Reports/-

/media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood-Fired-Hydronic-Heater-Tech.ashx

29 NYSERDA by US EPA, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater 

Technologies, S-15. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research-and-Development-Technical-Reports/-

/media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood-Fired-Hydronic-Heater-Tech.ashx

30 Brian Gullett, et al, S-3 and 2-7. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research-and-Development-TechnicalReports/-/media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Wood-Fired-Hydronic-Heater-Tech.ashx

31 NYSERDA, Biomass Heating Technologies, Emissions Measurements, and Observations of Wood Smoke in Rural 

and Urban Communities in New York State (Nov. 2012). Ellen Burkhard, presentation, 12. 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/climatechange/blackcarbon/pdf/burkhard-biomass-heating-technology.pdf

32 Sukh Sidhu, et al, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics–A Cone Calorimeter Study, 

March 2011, Great Lakes Commission, webinar presentation, 17.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=cG9seW1lcmluc2lnaHRzLmNvbXxmbGFtZS1yZXRhcmRhbnRz

fGd4OjFmYWQ0MzQ5ZDA5MGE1YTI

33 Sukh Sidhu, et al, Toxic air emissions from burning wood and agricultural plastics–a cone calorimeter study. Final 

report. University of Dayton Research Institute, 2005.

34 Long Shi and Michael Yit Lin Chew, Experimental Study of Carbon Monoxide for Woods under Spontaneous

Ignition Condition, Fuel (2012): 1-7. 

http://www.academia.edu/1854889/Experimental_study_of_carbon_monoxide_for_woods_under_spontaneous_i

gnition_condition

35 FNSB changeout application with color photos. June 7, 2013, Andrew Straughn, 2, 11. 

http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/straughn-fnsb-application-with-color-photos-2013-6-7.pdf

36 Lincoln County, Health and Environment Regulations, 75.1.203 (Revised 2008). 

http://www.lincolncountymt.us/environmentalhealth/docs/NewAirOrdinanceFinal.pdf

37 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7411(b)(1)(A). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411

38 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, 6411. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

39 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, Table 1, 6412. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

40 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential 

Masonry Heaters, Table 2, 6412-6413. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-03/pdf/2014-00409.pdf

41 Philip R. S. Johnson, Adverse Health Effects: Exposure Threats of OWBs, Air & Waste Management Association

(Jan 2011): 9. http://cleanairfairbanks.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/adverse-health-effects-exposure-threats-ofowbs-johnson_awma_2011.pdf
Clean Air Fairbanks, Supplementary Comments on NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters, Page 21

 

42 David R. Brown et al, An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers, Human and 

Ecological Risk Assessment 13 (2007): 191–208. http://www.vtwoodsmoke.org/pdf/Brown-OWBRisk_HERA2007.pdf

43 Federal Register, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Final Rule - effective March 18, 

2013, FR Doc No: 2012-30946, Vol 78, No. 10 (Jan. 15, 2013): 3085-3287. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-

01-15/pdf/2012-30946.pdf

44 ASTM, E2618-13 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Particulate Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Solid 

Fuel-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances, 8-9. http://www.astm.org/EPA-review

45 ASTM, E2515-11 Standard Test Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a 

Dilution Tunnel, 8. http://www.astm.org/EPA-review

46 B. Musil-Schläffer, et al, European Wood-Heating Technology Survey: An overview of Combustion Principles and 

the Energy and Emissions Performance Characteristics of Commercially Available Systems in Austria, Germany, 

Denmark, Norway and Sweden, NYSERDA, April 2010.
58 Trinidad Drive

Fairbanks, Alaska

EPA Phase 2

Central Boiler E-Classic 

2300

5055 Palo Verde Avenue

Fairbanks, Alaska

Case Study: Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters, 

Fairbanks, Alaska from 2008 to 2013

By Clean Air Fairbanks cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com 1/12/2014, updated 5/5/2014

In 2008, two outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters (also called “boilers”) were installed to 

provide heat and hot water for two rental properties in Fairbanks, Alaska. The units were 

Central Boiler 2300, EPA-qualified Phase 2. Air pollution from these heaters injured neighbors,

teachers, and students at Woodriver Elementary School. After 41⁄2 years of impacts and 

complaints, the case finally went to court in 2013: Alaska v. Straughn, case #4FA-13-01205CI.

Documentation of Harms to Health

Fairbanks North Star Borough recorded PM2.5 peaks up to 1,088.3 μg/m3.

1,2,3

Borough air pollution sampling maps showed hot zones around these heaters.

4

358 public record complaints filed regarding smoke in the neighborhood; 43 percent identified 

the heaters.

5,6

Yet, according to the affidavit from a state inspector: “It appeared from his description that he 

was operating them correctly.”

7

Smoke was “almost constant;” so thick teachers thought there was a fire in the school.

8

Recess 

was canceled repeatedly.

9

Students were sent home.10 Teachers were unable to work.

11

A school nurse identified smoke as the cause of at least six asthma attacks in children, 4 in one 

day.

12 At least one child was hospitalized.13

Photos Prior to Destruction
Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, AK, page 2

A teacher was hospitalized for a blood clot in her lung, missed five weeks of work, and is still 

receiving extensive treatment out-of-state. Doctors attribute her symptoms to wood smoke 

exposure.14 Struggling to breathe, she consulted a school nurse who responded, “Oh dear, 

you’ll just have to get an inhaler like the rest of us.”

Years went by. Coughs and infections escalated into chronic conditions. Prescriptions for school 

employees included antibiotics; steroids pills, eye drops, and inhalers; and painful anti-allergy 

shots.

15

Headaches, coughs, burning eyes, and persistent colds and bronchitis were reported in the 

school children. A local physician, Dr. James T. Foote at the Tanana Valley Clinic, attributed at 

least one child’s sinus infections and bronchitis to smoke exposure.16

Another school employee developed persistent infections leading to cysts, polyps, hearing loss,

and two sinus surgeries. Her physician identified the likely cause as chronic exposure to smoke 

at the school. She was diagnosed with blood oxygen levels of a smoker but had never smoked in 

her life.

17

One uninsured school employee filed a Worker’s Comp claim for smoke-related breathing 

problems and injuries sustained at the school during working hours. Her claim was denied. 

Other school employees used Borough health insurance for their workplace injuries.

Neighbors were harmed as well. One neighbor was reduced to 20 percent lung function.

18

Another neighbor submitted an affidavit describing the smoke inside his home and how the air 

“reeks with the smell” in his yard.19 A month later, he died of a “massive stroke.”20

The smoke continued until 2013 when the State of Alaska took the owner to court. Within a 

month, Judge Robert Downes found that the operation of the two heaters had “proven to be a 

public nuisance” and, without a hearing, ordered burning to cease.

21

Almost immediately, the air in the neighborhood, playground, and school was cleaner. Air 

pollution sampling maps no longer showed the hot zone over the school.

22

Documentation of Costs

Conventional oil-fired boilers were installed when the properties were constructed in 2005, 

making the wood-fired heaters redundant heating systems.23 (Hydronic heaters are rarely a sole 

source of heat.)

Owner paid $23,352 for the two heaters (installation not included).

24

Owner paid an estimated $8,500 per year for split firewood. Owner reported using 14 cords in 

one heater and 20 cords in the other.

25 The price of firewood is estimated at $250/cord.26
Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, AK, page 3

Heating a properly insulated, 2,800-square-foot home with fuel oil in Fairbanks typically costs 

$4,000 per year. The annual cost to heat the two 3,100-sq-ft properties with fuel oil likely 

would have been about the same as purchasing the firewood used in the heaters.

Owner paid an estimated $600 for taller chimneys. Approx. $100 per 4-foot section,

27 3 sections 

each, 2009.

$96,000 for at least three sinus surgeries, $32,000 each.

28,29

$160,000 for allergy treatment shots. Four years at $40,000/yr.

30

Over $100,000 was paid by state health insurance to treat another resident, no preexisting 

conditions, for persistent atrial fibrillation, diagnosed January 2012 after exposure to smoke 

from these heaters.31 Out-of-pocket copay was $4,000.

$67,500 paid by the School District to install an air filtration system in the school, 2011.32

Neighbors installed HEPA air filtration systems, approx. $1,000 each; filters $50/each; filters 

replaced every three months.

33

$19,200 paid by a state grant for two pairs of retrofit afterburner ClearStak CS-100 catalysts, 

four for $4,800 each.

34

Owner agreed to pay $12,000 to the state per the civil court settlement agreement.35

Significant public costs of agency monitoring, enforcement, and prosecution.

$20,000 to be paid by the Borough to owner for replacing the heaters, $10,000 each.

36

Conclusions: Public Costs: over $460,000, Total Costs: over $500,000

Hydronic heaters are not cheap to buy or install. If wood is purchased, savings may be negligible 

over the cost of fuel oil.

Years of exhaustive, expensive efforts were unable to “fix” these two Phase 2 heaters.

When considering the significant costs for healthcare and largely unsuccessful mitigation, 

wood-fired hydronic heaters are the most costly heating system on the market.

Indoor cigarette smoking is all but forbidden and greenhouse gases are a common concern, but 

hydronic heaters are largely unregulated.

37

EPA has proposed to set Phase 2 emission limits as the certified standard for newly 

manufactured wood-fired hydronic heaters. Public comment ends May 5, 2014.

38 40 hydronic 

heater models currently qualify for Phase 2 under EPA’s voluntary program with 

manufacturers.

39 Certifying the Phase 2 standard places significant costs on states, 

communities, neighbors, legal systems, and healthcare programs.
Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, AK, page 4

Cited Documents Available by Request from cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com

 

1

FNSB photo 58 Trinidad 2009-1-10.

2

FNSB data 2009-1-10.

3

FNSB notes 2009-1-10.

4 Map Woodriver bulls-eye, FNSB 2011-01-24.

5

Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, pp 7-8, 14.

6

190 Woodriver area AQ complaints 2008-2013, FNSB.

7

Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 11.

8

Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 25.

9

Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, pp 22, 46.

10 AQ in Woodriver area case records, ADEC 2009-2010 p 11.

11 190 Woodriver area AQ complaints 2008-2013, FNSB pp 1, 8.

12 AQ in Woodriver area case records, ADEC 2009-2010 pp 3, 19.

13 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 23.

14 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, pp 33-34.

15 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, pp 27, 30, 34, 35, 37.

16 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 27.

17 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, pp 26-27.

18 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 52.

19 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 60.

20 “Longtime fire chief, community volunteer Bill Shechter dies,” FDNM 2013-2-28.

21 Alaska v. Straughn preliminary injunction order 2013-2-4.

22 “Compare Woodriver Smoke Maps Before and After Court Order,” Clean Air Fairbanks 2013-2-27.

23 Email from Seth Beausang, Alaska AG Office to CAF 2013-7-29.

24 Straughn receipt two Central Boiler 2300s 2008-4-30.

25 Straughn FNSB application with color photos 2013-6-7.

26 Firewood Prices, CAF 2013.
Harms to Health and Costs from Two EPA Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters, Fairbanks, AK, page 5

 

27 Alaska Resource Agency Leg Request 2011, p 13.

28 190 Woodriver area AQ complaints 2008-2013, FNSB p 18.

29 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 27.

30 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 30.

31 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, pp 61-63.

32 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 16.

33 Alaska v. Straughn affidavits, p 57.

34 Alaska Resource Agency 2012-3-29, p 4.

35 Alaska v Straughn settlement 2013-7-22, p 4.

36 FNSB approval to pay Straughn 2013-7-18.

37 “Where there's smoke, there’s pollution,” The News-Times, CT 2014-1-11.

38 Proposed NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters, EPA 2014-1-3.

39 http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html, accessed 2014-5-1.
Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS, page 1 of 6

Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard in Residential Wood Heater NSPS: 

EPA Proposed Certification of Phase 2 Hydronic Heaters yet Obscured Relevant 

Efficiency Data for the Phase 2 Central Boiler E-Classic 2300

Prepared by <cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com> 9/28/2013

The 30 percent average thermal efficiency1of a Phase 2 Central Boiler E-Classic 2300, according

to EPA’s 2012 study, compares “poorly with oil and natural gas fired residential systems with 

thermal efficiencies ranging from 86% to 92% and 79% to 90%, respectively (McDonald, 

2009).”

2

Figure 2. The Three Stage HH Unit and Illustration of a Down-Draft Combustion Unit

[Gullett, Wood 2012, p 93]

Table 3. Hydronic Heater Efficiencies [Gullett, Wood 2012, p 16, emphasis added4]

Units Thermal Efficiency (%) Boiler Combustion

Conventional HH RO 

Average 22 NC 74

STDV 5 3.0

Conventional HH RO + Ref 

Average 31 NC 87

STDV 2.2 3.4

Conventional HH WP 

Average 29 NC 82

STDV 1.8 3.2

Three Stage HH/RO Average 30 NC 86

STDV 3.2 1.8

European Pellet/pellets Average 44 86 98

STDV 4.1 3.5 0.16

U.S. Downdraft RO 

Average IM 83 90

STDV 0.71 0.79

NC = Not calculated. IM = Insufficient measurements taken for this calculation
Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS, page 2 of 6

The make and model of the three-stage hydronic heater in Table 3 Gullett, Wood 2012 (above) 

is identified in a presentation by Sidhu and Gullet. Both reports use the same photo. Gullett, 

Wood 2012 on page 9 and Sidhu, Gullett 2011 on page 17. There can be no doubt that the 

heater identified as ”Three Stage HH” in Gullett, Wood 2012 is the EPA Phase 2 qualified 

Central Boiler E-Classic 2300.

Central Boiler E-Classic 2300 Three stage Combustion Process

[Sidhu, Gullett 2011, p 175]

Due to this model’s 30 percent thermal efficiency, where 70 percent of the heat value of the 

fuel is lost, the operator must use a lot more fuel. Table 3 also shows a combustion efficiency of 

86 percent for the same model. 86 percent combustion efficiency means 14 percent of the fuel 

is wasted, much of it being released as unburned wood particles.

It is reasonable to conclude that a hydronic heater having 86 percent combustion efficiency 

together with 30 percent thermal efficiency would have significant amounts of unburned fuel 

going out the chimney that may cause a health risk.

NSPS Policy Relevance:

On July 26, 2013, OMB received from EPA a package of proposed regulations for residential 

wood heaters under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in the Clean Air Act.6 Gill 

Wood and David Cole with EPA submitted the proposed rule.7

In public presentations in since 2012 and earlier, EPA has proposed to certify Phase 2 hydronic 

heaters: “matches EPA Phase 2.”

8

Central Boiler E-Classic 2300 is on EPA’s list of Phase 2

hydronic heaters.

9
Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS, page 3 of 6

EPA Efforts to Obscure:

Gil Wood and other EPA staff with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards had full 

knowledge that their own study, published in Gullett, Wood 201210, tested the Central Boiler EClassic 2300. However, the make and model was withheld in the report. The 2012 report also 

fails to reference that the model tested was EPA Phase 2. The photograph on page 9 in the 

report even obscures the “Central Boiler Classic” label on the heater door with a white 

rectangle. Yet, when the image is copied into another document, the white label disappears, 

revealing the manufacturer’s label. Through a separate study by Sidhu, Gullett 201111, we are 

able to identify the device by the coincidence that both reports use the same photo.

We cannot explain the clear effort to mislead the public and agencies in the run-up to public 

release of the first draft regulations for hydronic heaters. While we understand that EPA must 

not release confidential business information, a scientific study must identify the object being 

tested otherwise the study is not reproducible or policy relevant. Make and model and 

photographs of the device are not confidential business information and are not required to be 

redacted under the EPA Phase 2 voluntary agreement.12 The Phase 2 voluntary agreement is an 

off-the-books, quasi-regulatory standard lacking public notice, public or agency review, or any 

oversight given during rulemaking, and lacks statutory enforceability. The Phase 2 voluntary 

agreement is purely a contract of convenience between EPA and an individual manufacturer.

Further, nowhere in the slow-motion lead-in to hydronic heater rulemaking has EPA once 

plainly stated that the proposed rules would “certify” Phase 2 hydronic heaters under NSPS.

Examples:

1) The most recent public update, March 2013, states, “Partnership Program Phase 2 level 

upon promulgation.”13

2) Feb. 2012 and Dec. 2011 drafts state that the approach for hydronic heaters “matches 

Phase 2 of EPA voluntary program.” 14,15

3) EPA’s March 2011 update to tribes stated, “0.32 lb / mmBTU heat output for outdoor 

HH in 2013 and indoor in 2014.”16

4) Feb. 2011 update on NSPS regarding hydronic heaters notes, “Include in NSPS.”

17

Agency staff and a few members of the public have been able to see through EPA’s 

bureaucratic language proposing certification of Phase 2 hydronic heaters. However, it is 

neither clear nor plain, we suspect deliberately so.

By its actions and omissions, EPA has hidden vital information relevant to assessing the 

efficiency (or lack of) of Phase 2 hydronic heaters and failed to state the proposed regulations 

would adopt Phase 2 as the certified standard for hydronic heaters. EPA has done nothing but 

impede the public’s ability to connect the dots between a particular Phase 2 heater and the 

wrath of smoke it would reasonably be expected to emit. Of greatest concern is that EPA has 

sought to conceal the connection between the Phase 2 device and its 30 thermal efficiency at 

the same time as EPA is recommending certification of these devices. 
Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS, page 4 of 6

Conclusions:

In its own Gullett, Wood 2012 report, EPA concludes that the tested three-stage hydronic 

heater has only 30 percent thermal efficiency. The policy relevance is that such a highly 

inefficient wood heating device would be expected to produce significant noxious emissions. 

The model tested was clearly EPA Phase 2. Yet, because EPA obscured the make and model, 

EPA is unable to relate its own test of a Phase 2 heater to its current proposal to include Phase 

2 in the certified residential wood heater standard.

We ask that OMB ensure that Phase 2 not be included in the proposed rule that goes forward 

to public comment.

EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is responsible for setting standards to protect 

public health. Obscuring the manufacturer’s label, failing to disclose the model, omitting that 

the device tested was EPA Phase 2, then packaging a draft rule that inarticulately but 

specifically certifies Phase 2 under the NSPS is deceptive and injurious.

By law, EPA is bound to pursue a standard that “shall include a category of sources in such list if 

in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”18 The NSPS was enacted in 1988 and has not 

been updated to include a standard to regulate the significant harm and air pollution from

hydronic heaters. EPA proposes a remedy, but the Phase 2 standard, based on incomplete 

information with clear evidence to the contrary, is malfeasance and harmful to the public 

interest. The cost to public health from Phase 2 hydronic heaters far exceeds any benefit.

We strenuously object to EPA’s lack of transparency. The highest standards of integrity must 

apply when the issue is a matter of life and safety. EPA appears to have pursued a 

predetermined goal of certifying Phase 2 regardless of the evidence of harm and inefficiency. 

Communities, neighbors, and purchasers deserve better from those whose job it is to set the 

standards that protect lives and safety.

Sources:

Brian Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, June 2012, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health 

Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies, Report 12-15, Executive 

Summary, US EPA, Office of Research and Development and Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

Executive Summary - Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of WoodFired Hydronic Heater Technologies – NYSERDA 12-15

Full Report - Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood-Fired 

Hydronic Heater Technologies – NYSERDA 12-15
Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS, page 5 of 6

Sukh Sidhu, Brian Gullett, et al, March 2011, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and 

Agricultural Plastics–A Cone Calorimeter Study, Great Lakes Commission webinar presentation. 

Presentation: http://www.glc.org/glad/projects/sidhu08/GLCWebinar110331-Sidhu.pdf

Webinar Series: http://glc.org/glad/meetings/webinar/

EPA Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker for Residential Wood Heater 

NSPS: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/rulegate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AP93

OMB rulemaking page on Residential Wood Heater NSPS:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=2060-AP93

For Green Heat webpage review of OMB rulemaking process:

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2013/08/explanation-of-omb-review-of-nsps.html

EPA list of Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters (includes Central Boiler E-Classic 2300):

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html (last accessed 9/28/2013)

EPA draft update Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/22/2013:

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/NSPSDraftProposal32213.pdf

EPA public outreach on draft proposed rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS, Webinar 2/9/2012:

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20120209NSPSpresentation.pdf

EPA status of draft proposed rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 12/8/2011:

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20111208nspspresentation.pdf

EPA draft revisions tribal consultation call Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/29/2011, p 16. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/pdfs/3-29-

11TribalConsultation%20Call__Wood%20HeatersNSPS.pdf

EPA draft options Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 2/15/2011:

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20110215NSPSDraftOptionsTable.pdf

EPA revised draft review document Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 5/25/2010:

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20091230draftreviewofnspssubpartAAA.pdf

EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement between EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards and individual manufacturers: 

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/owhhphase2agreement.pdf

40 CFR Part 2 (see subpart B for Confidential Business Information) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title40-vol1/xml/CFR-2012-title40-vol1-part2.xml

Clean Air Act, New Source Performance Standards 42 USC § 7411
Recommendation Opposing Hydronic Heater Standard NSPS, page 6 of 6

Definitions:

Thermal efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of the heat exchanger of the boiler. It 

measures the ability of the exchanger to transfer heat from the combustion process to the 

water or steam in the boiler. Boiler Efficiency Guide - Cleaver-Brooks p 8

Combustion efficiency is an indication of the burner’s ability to burn fuel. The amount of 

unburned fuel and excess air in the exhaust are used to assess a burner’s combustion efficiency. 

Combustion efficiency is not the same for all fuels and, generally, gaseous and liquid fuels burn 

more efficiently than solid fuels. Boiler Efficiency Guide - Cleaver-Brooks p 8

 

1

Brian Gullett, Gil Wood, et al, June 2012, Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of WoodFired Hydronic Heater Technologies, Report 12-15, Executive Summary, US EPA, Office of Research and 

Development and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards for NYSERDA, p 16.

2

Gullett, Wood, 2012, p 32.

3

Gullett, Wood, 2012, p 9.

4

Gullett, Wood, 2012, p 16.

5

Sukh Sidhu, Brian Gullett, et al, March 2011, Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics–A 

Cone Calorimeter Study, Great Lakes Commission webinar presentation, p 17.

6

EPA Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker for Residential Wood Heater NSPS website.

7

OMB rulemaking webpage on Residential Wood Heater NSPS.

8

EPA draft rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS, Webinar 2/9/2012, p 20.

9

EPA list of Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters webpage.

10 Gullett, Wood, 2012.

11 Sidhu, Gullett, 2011.

12 EPA Hydronic Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership Agreement, p 6.

13 EPA draft update Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/22/2013, p 5.

14 EPA public outreach on draft proposed rule Residential Wood Heaters NSPS, Webinar 2/9/2012, p 20.

15 EPA draft proposal Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 12/8/2011, p 8.

16 EPA draft revisions tribal consultation call Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 3/29/2011, p 16.

17 EPA draft options Residential Wood Heaters NSPS 2/15/2011, p 1.

18 Clean Air Act, New Source Performance Standards 42 USC § 7411(b)(1)(A).