Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 1 

Citizen Position Statement on the “Proposed Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood 

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

Heaters” 40 CFR Part 60, 79 FR 6329. 

We strongly support updating the outdated NSPS for residential wood heaters, which is 20 years 

overdue. The health benefits from the proposed NSPS for hydronic heaters will have a value from $1.5 

to $3.5 billion, or $120 to $280 for every dollar spent on compliance. 

Citizen complaints about hydronic heater smoke is the primary reason why EPA is updating the NSPS. 

These complaints pushed states and environmental/health organizations to urge EPA to update the 

NSPS back in 2005. Since then, many states and hundreds of municipalities across the country have 

written a patchwork of ordinances and regulations in response to complaints from neighbors about 

hydronic heater smoke. But, citizen complaints continued and EPA was sued for not updating the NSPS. 

If the final NSPS complies with Clean Air Act requirements, the citizen complaints should end. We don't 

want have to complain about our neighbor's wood smoke anymore. 

We are asking OMB to ensure that EPA does the right thing and updates the NSPS to set performance 

standards that stop harmful, nuisance smoke from residential hydronic heaters. However, we are 

concerned that the final NSPS for hydronic heaters may not fulfill EPA's mandate to adopt healthprotective standards under the Clean Air Act. 

Much of EPA's proposed NSPS is based on its Phase 2 Wood-fired Hydronic Heater Voluntary Program - a 

program that is now seven years old. EPA is proposing to "grandfather" Phase 2 qualified hydronic 

heaters as certified under Step 1 of the NSPS for 5 years after the rule is final. 

We adamantly oppose this proposal. We have found through real-world experience that Phase 2 

qualified hydronic heaters smoke excessively and have health-harming emissions that have forced 

families to leave their homes, bear expensive medical and legal costs, suffer loss of property value, or 

suffer impaired health when they cannot leave or afford to fight. 

Photos of smoke from Phase 2 qualified hydronic heaters. Left -Central Boiler E-Classic 2300, Fairbanks, AK, FNSB 

photo; right: Central Boiler E-Classic 2400, Wisconsin 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 2 

Our experience of excessive smoke from hydronic heaters is validated with data from EPA's own study, 

which measured unhealthy emission spikes over 100 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 (Gullett, et 

al. 2012), and by a review of EPA's emission tests and method (NYSERDA 2011). This review found that 

EPA's emission tests for hydronic heaters is seriously flawed, which questions the validity of the NSPS. 

Test data analyzed by NYSERDA and NESCAUM found that 90% of the 23 hydronic heaters evaluated had 

missing or questionable data. (Review of EPA Method 28 OWHH Test Results, NYSERDA, 2011) 

EPA's proposed NSPS is based on this flawed emissions data and test method, which will be used to 

certify hydronic heaters as compliant with emissions standards that they are not proven to meet. This 

will result in continued excessive smoke and health-harming emissions and have negative financial 

consequences for manufacturers, state and local government, consumers and neighbors. 

NSPS comments from manufacturers, industry trade groups, state regulators, and individuals all 

document errors with the current emission and qualification test method for hydronic heaters. 

Under the law, EPA is required to adopt a health-protective NSPS. To ensure that no person ever again 

endures the tragedy and suffering of smoke from hydronic heaters after the NSPS is promulgated, we 

support three critically important requirements for the NSPS. 

• Support #1 - We support a g/hr cap on emission limits for hydronic heaters. But this g/hr cap 

cannot be averaged and cannot be exceeded at anytime during the entire burn cycle to ensure 

continuous compliance and health-protective standards as required by the Clean Air Act. 

• Support #2 - We support a standardized emission test method. But this test method must 

captures short-term emissions and measure emissions during the entire burn cycle, including 

start-up, and be based on real-world practice and performance. 

• Support #3 - We support visible emissions standards and enforcement that prohibit nuisance 

smoke and ensures compliance with health-protective performance standards. But this must 

be based on the cost-effective EPA Method 22 not the cost-prohibitive Method 9. 

Here are the justifications for supporting these requirements in the final NSPS: 

Support #1 - We support a g/hr cap on emission limits for hydronic heaters that cannot be exceeded 

at anytime during the entire burn cycle to ensure continuous compliance and health-protective 

standards as required by the Clean Air Act. 

• The Clean Air Act requires that sources continuously comply with emission limits. The unit 

must never emit higher than the emission standard of grams per hour. If it does, compliance is 

considered intermittent and therefore not in full compliance with the NSPS standard. 

• EPA's proposed NSPS does not require continuous compliance with emission limits. Instead it 

proposes an averaged g/hr cap for individual test runs, and assumes that emissions occur 

equally during the test run. However, EPA’s study funded by NYSERDA (Gullett) showed that 

most of the emissions occurred in the first 5-6 hours of the burn. But EPA allows test runs to 

range from 8-40+hours, and then takes the total amount of PM 2.5 emitted and divides it by the 

total hours of the test. That results in nonstandardized, highly variable results. An averaged g/hr 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 3 

cap does not measure emission spikes. An averaged g/hr cap also deceives consumers and 

state/local regulators who see it as an absolute limit. 

• The health cost of exposure to high levels of wood smoke is well documented. Short-term 

exposures to PM2.5 cause lung dysfunction and heart attacks. Phase 2 hydronic heaters have 

documented emission spikes that exceed the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. EPA's own study of a 

Phase 2 hydronic heater measured spikes over 100 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5, which 

is considered unhealthy by EPA's air quality index. The Fairbanks, Alaska Air Quality Division 

measured spikes over 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 from a Phase 2 hydronic 

heater. That's twice the highest level that EPA measures in its AQI. You can't have healthprotective standards without regulating short-term emission spikes. 

• The proposed Step 1 emission level for hydronic heaters is not based on Best System of Emission 

Reduction (BSER). There are commercially available hydronic heaters with significantly lower 

emissions than what EPA is proposing, as acknowledged in the NSPS: "Step 2 emission limit is 

already met by 4 hydronic heater models (2 cord wood and 2 pellet models) built by 2 U.S. 

manufacturers, as well as over 50 European models."

• EPA has had Phase 2 standards since 2007, which is the Step 1 level in the NSPS. EPA repeatedly 

notes throughout the NSPS that manufacturers have known for seven years that the old 

emission limits will be stricter in the final NSPS. On p.6359 it states that several years ago, EPA 

discussed lower emission levels (0.15 lb/MMBtu) with the voluntary program stakeholders. In 

2010, Gil Wood presented to the Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA) that emissions 

will include a g/hr cap, and to expect Washington State levels immediately upon NSPS 

promulgation. Manufacturers have had more than sufficient time to develop devices that meet 

stricter emission levels. We support EPA's statement that manufacturers meet Washington 

State levels immediately upon NSPS promulgation. 

• According to EPA's "Manufacturer Cost Memo," manufacturers can develop, test, and begin 

manufacturing a new wood stove model within 10-18 months. EPA emission standards for other 

consumer products have required a similar lead time of two to three years (Control of Emissions 

from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment, 73 Fed. Reg. 59,034). Step 2 emission 

limits must be required within two years after promulgation of the rule, rather than the 

proposed five years. Manufacturers have had seven years to meet the proposed level and EPA 

wants to extend that to a total of 12 years in the final NSPS. 

• We are adamantly opposed to the argument that the available cleaner technologies are cost 

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

living next door to hydronic heaters. Neighbors cannot move out of the way of the smoke to 

protect their health and the value of their property. Instead, neighbors must pay excessive and 

unreasonable medical, mitigation, and litigation costs; suffer loss of property value; be forced to 

leave their homes to protect their families; or suffer impaired health when they cannot leave or 

afford to fight. We have all personally experienced some or all of these costs. 

• Some manufacturers and elected officials claim that a lower emission limit will make hydronic 

heaters too expensive for consumers. Hydronic heaters currently cost up to $15,000. In spite of 

that high price, since 2006, EPA estimates that over 500,000 hydronic heaters have been sold at 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 4 

these high prices. These are not inexpensive wood-burning devices, yet consumer demand is 

high. The market prices for hydronic heaters have not diminished consumer demand. Any claim 

that higher prices will prevent consumers from buying hydronic heaters is speculative and not 

supported by data. We urge OMB to make decisions based on data-supported fact and not 

speculation or political pressure. 

Support #2 - We support a standardized test method that captures short-term emissions and 

measures emissions during the entire burn cycle, including start-up, that is based on real-world 

practice and performance. 

• EPA's emission test results and method for hydronic heaters is seriously flawed. Test data 

analyzed by NYSERDA and NESCAUM found that 90% of the 23 hydronic heaters evaluated had 

missing or questionable data. "The specific test issues included missing data, testing outside of 

the prescribed heat-load categories, and error associated with temperature and flow 

measurements.” (Review of EPA Method 28 OWHH Test Results, NYSERDA, 2011) 

• EPA removed efficiency ratings for hydronic heaters in 2012, after complaints were made about 

flawed test methods. Manufacturers continue to use these unproven efficiency ratings to 

promote sales in spite of our ongoing complaints to EPA. 

• Misrepresented emission levels and inflated efficiency ratings resulting from flawed test 

methods give manufacturers an unfair advantage in the marketplace. 

• The approved test method must measure all emissions spikes throughout the burn cycle and use 

the highest g/hr for the entire burn cycle instead of the proposed average emission as the basis 

for certification. This regulates short-term exposures to ensure health-protective standards as 

required by the Clean Air Act. The test must use cordwood and multiple hardwood and 

softwood species to represent real-world practices and performance. 

• Hydronic heater manufactures have effectively used laws intended to curb particulate matter 

(PM) in populated areas to contest any legal action brought forth by private individuals 

adversely effected by the PM emitted from hydronic heaters. This was accomplished by using 

the national criteria for nonattainment (three year averaging) to convince judges that plaintiffs 

did not have standing to bring any case forward. The NAAQS has also been the driving force 

behind the volunteer program. This needs to stop. The EPA cannot publish numerous 

documents on the adverse health effects of short-term exposure and then base the NSPS on 

averaging the emission-test results mathematically over long periods of time. 

• Test Method 28 WHH lowered the thermal efficiency results for Phase 2 testing but results still 

differ by 35-40 percent from EPA's funded study (Gullett 2012). This validates the significant 

flaws in the current test method and proves why cycling technology in its current form cannot 

meet clean air standards during actual use. 

• EPA must remove all references to Phase 2 hydronic heaters being "90% cleaner" from the 

final NSPS. EPA bases much of its NSPS recommendations for hydronic heaters on an 

unsubstantiated "90% cleaner" claim. Many states have used this claim to justify setting Phase 2 

as the regulatory state standard for hydronic heaters. But EPA has never cited the source and 

scientific data to verify this statement or the comparative parameters, and the proposed rule 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 5 

provides no evidence in support of this statement. On January 7, 2014, our citizen group filed a 

complaint to EPA about the unsubstantiated "90 percent cleaner" claim. On January 31, 2014, 

EPA required manufacturers to "discontinue claiming that specific models are 90% cleaner than 

older models." EPA states that the claim "could refer to the burn rate, emissions, efficiency, or 

other data."On February 4, 2014, Gregory Green from EPA responded to our citizen complaint 

stating, "we also agree that claims that specific models are "90 percent cleaner" than older 

models may also be misleading to the typical consumer and asked manufacturers to be more 

specific regarding which parameter is "90% cleaner" than older models." But, On February 3, 

2014, one week after notifying manufacturers to discontinue using the "90 percent cleaner 

claim," EPA published the NSPS and justified the proposed Phase 2 emission levels as the Best 

System of Emission Reduction (BSER) because these units are "90 percent cleaner" than typical 

outdoor hydronic heaters (p 6336). EPA must stop misleading state government and consumers 

with this unsubstantiated claim and remove this wording from the final NSPS and from all other 

informational materials (website, factsheets, reports).

• Everyone understands that government testing for most consumer products is based on 

compromise. But this situation is much different than a person not getting the miles-per-gallon 

shown on a sticker of a new car. Continued compromise in the hydronic heater program and in 

the final NSPS will only perpetuate the harm many are now suffering across the nation. If the 

EPA is indeed constrained by politics in this matter and continues to allow cycling technology to 

exist, then it must provide enforcement requirements in the law to buffer the adverse effects 

that compromise will bring to unsuspecting neighbors of hydronic heaters. 

Support #3 - We support visible emissions standards and enforcement that prohibits nuisance smoke 

and ensures compliance with health-protective performance standards.

• EPA repeatedly asked throughout the NSPS for comments on visible emission provisions. We 

fully support visible emission standards and enforcement. But, the visible emission standards 

must be based on the cost-effective EPA Method 22, not the cost-prohibitive Method 9, and EPA 

must require states to enforce these standards through delegation of authority. 

• This is not an unreasonable request. Maine and New Jersey use Method 22 to regulate visible 

emissions from hydronic heaters. It is a proven method for determining violations of 

performance standards. It is cost-effective and easy for states to implement and use for 

enforcement. Affected neighbors can easily photograph visible emissions to support state 

enforcement of the violation. 

• Most states already have visible emission laws, but do not apply these to residential sources. 

States using Method 9 do not enforce residential violations due to "lack of resources." Method 

22 is a cost-effective alternative to Method 9 and will eliminate the "lack of resources" excuse 

for not enforcing the law. 

• EPA must stop dodging responsibility by saying that states can add their own visible emission 

rules. This has not happened, except in Maine and New Jersey. Instead states point to EPA and 

local government or the victim of smoke to deal with the problem. 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 6 

• Manufacturers claim that nuisance smoke is due to operator error. Therefore, they should have 

no objection to a visible emission standard. 

• A visible emission standard gives affected neighbors the absolute tool they need to stop the high 

cost of exposure to hydronic heater smoke. 

• We support a visible emissions limit that cannot exceed 20 percent opacity for 6 minutes during 

any one hour period, which is determined at the stack level with no requirement for crossing 

property line. Air does not acknowledge property lines. The health hazards of breathing smoke 

in a localized area that is directed by wind or captured by an inversion is well established. The 

Wisconsin Dept. of Public Health guidance on hydronic heaters states that, "If there are visible 

emissions and odors at a neighboring residence(s), there is a completed exposure pathway and 

the potential for adverse health effects. A visible plume, odors and health/nuisance complaints 

should be sufficient to establish exposure." 

• EPA must set guidelines for fines and penalties for violators when delegating authority for 

enforcement to states to ensure consistency across states. Current federal regulation gives little 

to no authority to states to address operator requirements because there are no provisions to 

delegate enforcement to the states or local agencies. 

• Nuisance requirements and enforcement must be in the NSPS. EPA must include in the NSPS 

that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a manner as to create a private or public 

nuisance. This language must be on permanent labels on hydronic heaters and in 

owner/operator manuals. This is currently required in manuals for Phase 2 qualified hydronic 

heaters. The proposed rule acknowledges that real-world use of hydronic heaters varies 

depending on operator diligence, skill level, fuel choice and moisture content, and equipment 

maintenance. 

• The cost to neighbors for nuisance smoke exposure is too disproportionately high to justify 

allowing hydronic heaters to continue to go unregulated with no visible emission and nuisance 

compliance requirements. 

We also support: 

• CO emission limits to protect consumers from deadly levels of CO, as EPA's study found during 

Phase 2 emission testing. CO tests were stopped because test animals died from exposure. 

• Regulate other air toxins including benzene, dioxin, formaldehyde, and PAHs, as required under 

the Clean Air Act to set emission levels for all air toxins emitted by hydronic heaters. 

• Reconstruction provision. We support EPA complying with the CAA 40 CFR part 60 and Subpart 

JJJ that requires the NSPS to be applied to new and modified units, and "reconstructed" units to 

prevent extending the life of the unit indefinitely through readily available replacement parts. 

• Efficiency ratings done with the Department of Energy and based on Canadian Standards 

Association (CSA) standard to expedite implementation. 

• Right-sizing requirements to ensure that heater size matches heat demand, as required with all 

other residential heating devices. Hydronic heaters should not be exempt. 

• Restrict use during air nonattainment days. 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 7 

• Require language on permanent labels and in owner's manual and advertising materials for 

operator responsibility to comply with federal and state regulations and not create a 

nuisance. We support a permanent warning label on hydronic heaters that warns consumers of 

known high levels of CO and PM2.5 emissions, required compliance with federal and state laws, 

and visible emissions limits and nuisance restrictions. This language must also be in owner's 

manuals and in advertising materials. 

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

hour that cannot be exceeded, and prohibits visible emissions and nuisance smoke. Hydronic heater 

technologies are commercially available now that significantly reduce toxic air emissions beyond what 

EPA is proposing. States need federal visible emission and nuisance provisions in the NSPS to enforce 

performance standards. The cost of EPA's failure to effectively regulate hydronic heaters can no longer 

be shifted to the neighbors or local and state government. If politics and compromise determine the 

final NSPS for hydronic heaters, then compromise must provide neighbors with legal protection from 

nuisance smoke. We urge OMB to ensure that EPA complies with the Clean Air Act and issues healthprotective standards in regulating hydronic heaters in the NSPS. 

Citizen Group: Nancy Alderman (Connecticut), Patrice Lee (Alaska), Bonnie Lichak (New York), Sylvia 

Schultz (Washington), Roger Soldano (Michigan), and Andrea Wieland (Wisconsin) 

References 

• Proposed Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential 

Hydronic Heaters and Forced Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters, 40 CFR Part 

60, 79 FR 6329 

• Supporting documents and comments submitted by Nancy Alderman, Bonnie Lichak, Sylvia 

Schultz, Roger Soldano and Andrea Wieland for the Proposed Standards of Performance for New 

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

Residential Masonry Heaters, 40 CFR Part 60, 79 FR 6329 

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

• Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater 

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

data. 

• Review of EPA Method 28 OWHH Test Results, NYSERDA (2011) 

• Assessment of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers (2006). NESCAUM. 

• Woodsmoke Health Effects: A review (2006). Luke. P. Naeher, et al., Inhalation Toxicology 67, 

82-87 

• Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State (2008). New York Attorney 

General, Environmental Protection Bureau 

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

Environment and Human Health, Inc. 

• An Assessment of Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers (2007). David R. 

Brown, et al., Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 13: 191–208 
Position Statement, Citizen Group Meeting on Wood Heater NSPS, January 30, 2015 page 8 

• Outdoor Wood Boiler Investigation Health Consultation, Pleasant Lake, Michigan (October 13, 

2009). U.S. Department of Health Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of 

Health Assessment and Consultation. 

• Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Division air quality monitoring data. Measured peaks 

up to 1,088.3 μg/m3 on 1/10/2009 at 12:26 pm using DataRAM mobile monitoring.

• EPA Air Quality Index Calculator: Concentration to AQI 

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

• Washington Dept. of Ecology, outdoor wood boiler regulations: 

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

• State of Alaska v. Straughn, case number 4FA-13-01205CI 

• Central Boiler E-Classic 2400 Phase 2 Owner's Manual 

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

• Paris v. Lussier, 842-11-08l, Vermont, Wrongful Death Lawsuit. 

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

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

• Minnesota and Wisconsin Local Hydronic Heater Ordinances and Regulations: 

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

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

• Gil Wood Presentation to Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association, 2010. 

• EPA Letter to Hydronic Heater Program Partners, May 9, 2013. 

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

• Letter of Notice of Intent to Sue from Attorneys General from New York, Connecticut, Maryland, 

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

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

American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Environment 

and Human Health Inc, to Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, August 1, 2013. 

• Letter of Notice for Claims of 90% cleaner to Hydronic Heater Manufacturers, from Gregory 

Green, EPA, January 31, 2014.