Appendix A. Andrea Wieland - E-mails with Gil Wood, EPA, about Phase 2 Hydronic Heater 

Smoke. March-April 2012 

From: Gil Wood [mailto:Wood.Gil@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:51 AM 

To: Andrea Wieland 

Subject: RE: Question about smoke from neighbor's OWB [Andrea Wieland, Spring Valley, Wisconsin - 

3/5/12, 3/21/12, 4/3/12, 4/15/12, 4/29/12] 

Hello Ms. Wieland,

As I indicated in my email to you on April 9, I do not know the answer.

Also, I have contracted the Wisconsin DNR and EPA's Region 5 office and the manufacturer and they all 

are aware of your question but no one knows the answer at this time for that particular OWB.

Gil 

"Andrea Wieland" ---04/29/2012 10:57:26 PM---Hello Mr. Wood –

From: "Andrea Wieland" 

To: Gil Wood/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/29/2012 10:57 PM

Subject: RE: Question about smoke from neighbor's OWB [Andrea Wieland, Spring Valley, Wisconsin - 4/3/12]

Hello Mr. Wood –

I haven’t yet heard back from you since I responded to your e-mail on April 15. I’d like to confirm that you received 

this e-mail.

Please let me know if you need more information to respond to my initial question about why a Phase II-qualified 

OWB would smoke, as shown in the attached photos.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Andrea Wieland

Pierce County Wisconsin

svrosesbirds@gmail.com

715-778-4481

From: Andrea Wieland [mailto:svrosesbirds@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 7:14 PM

To: 'Gil Wood'

Cc: 'Amanda Aldridge'; 'Chebryll Edwards'; 'Debbie Stackhouse'; 'Gregory Green'; 'Pat Finch'; 

'Joseph.Hoch@wisconsin.gov'; 'Bart.Sponseller@wisconsin.gov'; 'Bruce.Rodger@wisconsin.gov'; 
'thomas.woletz@wisconsin.gov'; 'robert.thiboldeaux@dhs.wisconsin.gov'

Subject: RE: Question about smoke from neighbor's OWB [Andrea Wieland, Spring Valley, Wisconsin - 

4/3/12]

Mr . Wood –

Thank for your response to my e-mail and for the suggestions that you provided.

As is common for people like myself who are exposed to OWB smoke for many years, I have done all of the 

suggestions that you listed, plus many more for the past seven years in the ongoing struggle to protect my health 

from the hazards of breathing OWB smoke on my property and in my home.

Here is a basic summary to respond to your questions.

1. I have discussed the ongoing OWB problem with both the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

(WI DNR), the Wisconsin Department of Health (WI DHS), my county (Pierce) and my township (Gilman). 

2. The WI DHS did air monitoring on my property and found that the PM2.5 exceeded the NAAQS for 

multiple contiguous days, which correlated with atmospheric/climatic conditions for wind direction and

inversions. WI DHS was prepared to declare a human health hazard but requested more air monitoring 

from the WI DNR, which was denied.

3. The WI DHS and Central Boiler have visited my neighbors to review the OWB installation and operation 

and to provide best burn practices information for reducing the smoke. This included burning only dry,

seasoned wood and raising the stack above the roofline (the stack was never raised above the roofline). I 

am not certain if the dealer was present during the site visit or if my neighbor has consulted with or

complained to the dealer. I don't know of any stack emission tests of the unit.

4. There are no nearby OWBs that contribute additional smoke. I see the smoke coming from the Phase II

EPA qualified OWB and then smell the smoke on my property and in my home.

Here are details to provide information for the above responses to help answer your questions: 

In 2006 after two neighbors installed OWBs (Central Boiler HF60 and Central Boiler CL6048) that produced smoke 

that impacted my property and home, I contacted both the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR), 

and the Wisconsin Department of Health (WI DHS) for assistance. The WI DHS worked with my county (Pierce) and 

monitored the air at my home for two weeks in November 2006. The results are attached and show that the 

PM2.5 exceeded the allowable NAAQS levels for multiple contiguous days. At that time, there were no other OWBs 

nearby and the high levels directly correlated with wind and atmospheric conditions that directed smoke toward 

my property, including inversions. Note that the WI DHS incorrectly guessed the distance from the OWB to my 

property line at 1,000 feet. But, the closest OWB is 250-feet from my property line. 

I requested help at many of my county's Health Committee meetings and asked WI DHS staff to give a presentation 

on OWB health impacts. WI DHS encouraged my county to adopt a model ordinance for OWBs, but it lacked 

political support among county board members. The WI DHS advised my county to declare a health hazard at my 

home due to the OWB smoke. But on March 7, 2007, the county attorney, Lynn Lahti, decided not to pursue legal 

action because of concern for "not being able to meet the burden of proof required to successfully litigate this 

matter." 

In March 2007, I contacted the WI DNR for assistance (Tom Woletz, Eau Claire Regional Air Administrator). Mr. 

Woletz told me that OWBs violate numerous air rules and it is easy to find an OWB in violation of the visible 

emission law. He sent me a NOV for an OWB that violated WI visible emission law in 2001. But now the DNR 

doesn't have the resources to enforce these laws against OWBs due to litigation time and expense. On March 27, 

2007, Mr. Woletz wrote this summary of the problem: "We are not unsympathetic to your problems and it is 

difficult to answer your request by a simple statement that it’s a matter of setting priorities with limited resources; 

however, that’s the reality of it.” And on April 24, 2007, Mr. Woletz wrote: “...the initial readings documenting a 
visible emission violation would be the least time consuming effort for us. Visible emission readings only take a half 

hour or so. It's the follow up meetings, putting together the enforcement package, staff review, and lawyer and 

prosecuting attorney time that are really our main concern as far as resources.” 

Mr. Woletz also sent letters on March 27, 2007, to my two neighbors advising them of a neighbor’s complaint 

about their smoke and providing guidance on best burn practices.

In October 2007, WI DHS requested air monitoring equipment from the WI DNR to do additional monitoring of 

outdoor wood-fired boiler emissions at my home. Bill Otto of WI DHS wrote, "We have a site in Pierce County 

where we really could use a PM2.5 monitor for acquiring air data. We would need it for about 2 weeks. We are 

working towards declaring a human health hazard for a resident affected by emissions from an OWB. It seems 

pretty obvious that the home is impacted by OWB emissions but we really need to shore up our air monitoring 

data."

On November 2007, WI DNR (Bruce Roger) responded to WI DHS stating that they didn't have any spare monitors 

to loan to WI DHS (email attached). Neither WI DHS or WI DNR shared this information with me until I sent an 

open records request. I continued asking WI DHS for assistance to reduce the hazardous smoke exposure and to 

protect my health.

On December 12, 2007, a WI DHS e-mail from Mr. Otto to his staff stated that air monitoring "is not the strongest 

part of the case" in determining a health hazard from an OWB. He wrote, "in order of importance, I'd suggest 

reports of irritant/respiratory symptoms of the complainants, location of the OWB relative to the recommendation 

of the HPBA, and visible smoke plume all would be good evidence of potential for a human health hazard being 

present."

On May 15, 2008, WI DHS visited the property of one neighbor with the closest OWB to observe the OWB in use 

and provide suggestions for reducing smoke. Also in attendance were the second neighbors with an OWB, the 

Gilman Township Chair, and two representatives from Central Boiler: Rodney Tollefson and David McDonald. 

During this site visit, both neighbors said that they followed best-burn practices and used only seasoned, dried 

wood. Because my neighbors are approximately 25-feet lower in elevation than my home, we are typically directly 

in the smoke plume. Central Boiler and WI DHS suggested that my neighbors raise their stack to above their roof 

line. This change never occurred. 

WI DHS incorrectly guessed the distance of the OWB from my property line in their follow-up letter as 1,000 feet. 

The distance is 250-feet. Please note that DHS used this erroneous distance as an excuse in its letter for not 

enforcing existing public health laws against nuisance smoke and denying me equal protection under the law. WI 

DHS also said they would follow up with my neighbors, but when I inquired about the dates of the follow-up, WI 

DHS said they did not follow-up with my neighbors to ensure that the smoke hazard had been mitigated. And they 

never did a surveyed distance of the OWB to my property line. Under false information (unverified, false distance), 

they denied me protection of my health under state law, but gave this protection to at least seven other 

individuals impacted by OWBs during the same time (found through open records request).

In September 2008, the WI DHS issued the following guidance to County Health officials about OWBs: "The 

Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHFS) has accumulated historical air monitoring data for smoke 

particulates (PM2.5) related to OWB emissions. In each case, when a visible smoke plume impacts on a 

neighboring house/property, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PM 2.5 health standards have been

exceeded. Strong smoke odors along with the visible plume indicate the presence of a variety of irritating 

chemicals normally found in wood smoke. Typically, there are one or more individuals experiencing adverse health 

effects, i.e., respiratory irritation, sinus issues, headaches, etc. DHFS believes that a "cause and effect" relationship 

has been established between OWB emissions and adverse health effects for downwind neighbors, and that air 

monitoring is not essential to establish exposure and health impact. 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." 
I wrote letters and called all my elected state and federal representatives repeatedly and asked them to require 

that EPA update the wood stove New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and regulate OWBs, as requested by 

numerous state attorneys general in 2005. I asked my representatives to support state regulation of OWBs. To 

date, no regulations exist at the state or federal level. The political will does not exist to regulate residential 

sources of wood smoke.

After being denied protection under existing public health and environmental laws by my local, state and federal 

government, I had no choice but to attempt civil litigation against my neighbors. My neighbor's received technical 

assistance from Central Boiler and their litigation costs were paid by their insurance companies, in spite of a 

pollution exclusion clause in one policy. I paid for the litigation costs myself. After two years, we were outspent by 

the insurance companies and forced to settle in January 2010, and agreed to allow my neighbors to install EPA 

qualified Phase II OWBs under the condition that the neighbors install and operate the OWBs according to 

manufacturer's instructions. This includes following EPA Burn Wise guidance and Wisconsin laws for OWB

installation (under Commerce Department law).

I agreed to this settlement because I could no longer afford continued litigation and I had to trust that EPA had 

done its job and had solid science on emission testing and manufacturing design controls, to ensure that the Phase 

II qualified OWBs sanctioned through the EPA OWHH Voluntary Program truly would be 90% efficient (as EPA 

continues to claim) and not smoke.

However, that is not the case. One neighbor installed a Central Boiler E-Classic 2400 OWB that produces as much 

visible and choking smoke as the previous nonqualified Central Boiler CL6048 model. I see the smoke and smell it 

on my property regularly. I continue to be adversely impacted by the acrid smoke. As the WI DHS 2008 OWB 

guidance to health professionals advises, "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." 

As noted previously, I am higher in elevation than my neighbors, so I am directly in the visible smoke plume 

generated by the Phase II OWB. As shown in the photos below, the plume rises about 20 feet and spreads out. In 

addition, we are in a valley, with hills on three sides of the OWB (south, west and east) that funnels the smoke 

plume directly onto our property and into our home.

We are located northwest of the OWB. Smoke emitted from this OWB stays in a low-hanging plume as shown in 

the photos below. Because we are in a higher elevation than the OWB, we are in that plume. 

Central Boiler warns owners of its Phase II Qualified OWBs that terrain can cause nuisance conditions. This 

language shows that Central Boiler knows that even when properly operated, their Phase II Qualified OWBs will 

smoke and cause a nuisance condition.

Here is the warning/disclaimer language on the first page of Central Boiler’s owner’s manual for the E-Classic 2400:

“Improper use or failure to maintain the hydronic heater may cause nuisance conditions. The person(s) 

operating a hydronic heater is/are responsible for operation in a manner that does not create a public or 

private nuisance condition. Meeting the distance and stack height recommendations from the 

manufacturer and requirements in applicable State and local regulations may not always be adequate 

to prevent nuisance conditions in some areas due to terrain or other factors.”

Below are photos of smoke from the new EPA Qualified Phase II Central Boiler E-Classic 2400 OWB. Note that this 

unit regularly smokes for two or more continuous hours each morning, then on and off all day, and again for a long 

period in the evening after being fueled for the night:

For comparison purposes, here is a picture of smoke from the previous Central Boiler CL6048 nonqualified OWB. 

As you can see, there isn't any visible different in opacity or volume between the two units. And the choking, acrid 

smell is the same from both units:

As stated earlier, I see the smoke coming from my neighbor's Phase II qualified OWB and I smell it when the wind 

is from the southeast or during calm conditions. There are no other nearby OWBs that blow or drift smoke onto 

my property during those same conditions or durations. From my two years of experience with breathing Phase II 

EPA qualified OWB smoke, I agree with the WI DHS statement 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." 

Mr. Wood, this e-mail correspondence started with a basic question in response to your statement in the February 

NSPS Webinar that Phase II OWBs would not smoke.

Now that you have the information requested, I would appreciate your answer to my question as to why this 

Phase II OWB smokes and why it smokes continuously for hours. 

And please explain why Central Boiler would include the disclaimer in the owner’s manual that their Phase II EPQ 

qualified OWBs can cause nuisance conditions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Andrea Wieland

Pierce County Wisconsin

svrosesbirds@gmail.com

715-778-4481

From: Gil Wood [mailto:Wood.Gil@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 2:41 PM

To: Andrea Wieland

Cc: Amanda Aldridge; Chebryll Edwards; Debbie Stackhouse; Gregory Green; Pat Finch

Subject: RE: Question about smoke from neighbor's OWB [Andrea Wieland, Spring Valley, Wisconsin - 

4/3/12]

Ms. Wieland,

I am not aware of any good reason why your neighbor's E-Classic 2400 should be smoking for 2 hours 

each morning if your neighbor is actually following the manufacturer's recommendations, including proper 

loading of the right quantity of clean dry wood [and nothing else] for the time of season and proper ignition 

procedures. I still wonder if your neighbor is actually following the best practices recommendations, 

despite the court order.

I have previously discussed the performance of Central Boiler E-Classic 2400's and 3200's with the 

manufacturer and they indicated that these models have a good track record in the field. They do note 

that some dealers do a better job than others in installing the units properly and ensuring that the owner 

understands best practices. Has your neighbor asked the dealer or manufacturer to trouble-shoot this 

particular unit? The dealers have responsibility to follow-up on owner complaints in the warranty period.

Have you discussed this situation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources? Have they 

talked to your neighbor? Do they agree that your neighbor is using best practices? Have they conducted

particulate matter (PM) stack emission tests of the unit itself or conducted ambient air quality monitoring 

of PM at the fenceline?

A thought: Are there any other OWB nearby that may be contributing to the smoke/odor that is coming to

you?

Gil

"Andrea Wieland" ---04/05/2012 05:33:40 PM---Mr. Wood:

From: "Andrea Wieland" <svrosesbirds@gmail.com>

To: Gil Wood/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Amanda Aldridge/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Chebryll Edwards/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Debbie Stackhouse/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Gregory Green/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Pat Finch/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/05/2012 05:33 PM

Subject: RE: Question about smoke from neighbor's OWB [Andrea Wieland, Spring Valley, Wisconsin - 4/3/12]
Mr. Wood:

Thanks for your response. 

To answer your question, I know that my neighbor follows the instructions in the Central Boiler E classic 2400 

owner’s manual and Burnwise Best Practices because: 

1. Our proximity to the OWB and the covered wood pile allows us to see that the wood is seasoned, 

stacked, split and protected from rain and snow. When the device is in use, the odor emitted is of strong 

wood smoke typical of OWBs (anyone who lives near an OWB knows this odor very well). 

2. My neighbor is required by court order to operate the OWB according to manufacturer’s instructions.

Central Boiler’s owner’s manual and instructions include following EPA’s Burnwise Best Practices, as noted 

on its Web site: http://www.outdoorfurnacefacts.com/wood-corn-heating-best-practices/best-burnpractices/index.html

I’m still awaiting your response to my questions about why my neighbor’s Phase II qualified OWB smokes for hours 

after loading, as noted in the attached e-mails.

Thank you.

Andrea Wieland

svrosesbirds@gmail.com

715-778-4481

From: Gil Wood [mailto:Wood.Gil@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 2:09 PM

To: Andrea Wieland

Cc: Amanda Aldridge; Chebryll Edwards; Debbie Stackhouse; Gregory Green; Pat Finch

Subject: RE: Question about smoke from neighbor's OWB [Andrea Wieland, Spring Valley, Wisconsin - 

4/3/12] 

Dear Ms. Wieland, 

You're welcome. 

We're curious: How do you know that your neighbor actually follows the burnwise best practices and the

owner's manual? 

Thanks, 

Gil 

"Andrea Wieland" ---04/03/2012 05:26:15 PM---Dear Mr. Wood –

From: "Andrea Wieland" <svrosesbirds@gmail.com>

To: Gil Wood/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Chebryll Edwards/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Gregory Green/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Pat Finch/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amanda 

Aldridge/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Debbie Stackhouse/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/03/2012 05:26 PM

Subject: RE: Question about February 9, 2012 EPA Webinar on draft NSPS [Andrea Wieland]
Dear Mr. Wood – 

Thank you very much for responding to my e-mails. I appreciate your time and consideration of my request and 

question. 

Here is the additional information you requested about my neighbor’s Phase II OWB to help you determine why it 

produces smoke for more than 2 hours each morning. Please note that it also emits smoke on and off all day after 

the initial 2-hour contiguous smoke emissions: 

- Model/Make: Central Boiler E Classic 2400, Phase II Qualified 

- Manufactured date: 2010 

- Installation Date: September 2010 

- Operated according to manufacturer’s instructions detailed in owner’s manual. 

- Fuel source: hardwood (primarily oak), dried, split and stored under shelter (3-sided metal pole building 

located next to OWB). 

- Fuel wood loaded in the morning and again in the late evening. 

- OWB provides heat and hot water to a house and a pole shed. Pole shed is approximately 15 feet from 

OWB and house is approximately 30 feet from OWB. 

- Owner follows EPA’s best burn practices, as instructed in owner’s manual and on EPA’s Web site (Best

Burn).

If you need additional information about this OWB to determine why it smokes more than you state that it should, 

please let me know. 

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. 

Andrea Wieland

svrosesbirds@gmail.com

715-778-4481

From: Gil Wood [mailto:Wood.Gil@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:58 PM

To: Andrea Wieland

Cc: Chebryll Edwards; Gregory Green; Pat Finch; Amanda Aldridge; stackhouse.debbie@epa.gov

Subject: Re: Question about February 9, 2012 EPA Webinar on draft NSPS [Andrea Wieland] 

Dear Ms. Wieland, 

I'm sorry that I was unable to respond directly to you sooner. You do have my correct email address for 

sending me comments and questions and I appreciate your input. 

Please remember that official comments on the official proposal will need to be sent to the EPA docket

office after the official rule proposal in the Federal Register this summer. In the meantime, we will 

consider all comments and questions but we may not able to send individual acknowledgements or 

responses to each email... Please do not think that we are ignoring your comments just because we may 

have not responded to you in individual personalized emails to each of your emails. 
Also, please do not think that there is a "table" for negotiations and that you are a not a party. EPA is not 

negotiating this standard at all but rather we are fully considering all available information and proposing 

data-based standards accordingly. From the beginning of this effort, we have been inviting and 

welcoming input not only from "some" states but every state and tribe and community and from all of the 

public. The February 9, 2012 webinar was just the most recent event... 

In regard to my thoughts on why there is smoke from your neighbor's unit, I can not answer without 

additional information. We have coordinated with the state authorities to learn what they know and can do 

and have done. In general, I continue to believe that Phase 2 qualified OWB that are built, installed, and 

operated properly should not smoke for 2 hours every morning but I do not have details for the particular 

unit near you. 

Yes, inclusion in the owner's manual of info on proper operation is required via the partnership 

agreement. See pages 45-47. 

Sincerely yours, 

Gil Wood

"Andrea Wieland" ---04/03/2012 10:01:50 AM---Mr. Finch -

From: "Andrea Wieland" <svrosesbirds@gmail.com>

To: Pat Finch/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Chebryll Edwards/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Gregory Green/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Gil Wood/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/03/2012 10:01 AM

Subject: Question about February 9, 2012 EPA Webinar on draft NSPS

Mr. Finch – 

I saw that you were the coordinator for the February 9, 2012, EPA Webinar on the draft NSPS for Residential Wood 

Heaters. 

I’ve sent Gil Wood, the presenter of that Webinar, two e-mails with questions from the seminar presentation and 

he has not replied. These e-mails are attached. The e-mail address that I’ve sent to was listed in the Webinar 

presentation (http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/20120209NSPSpresentation.pdf). 

Mr. Wood also stated that we could send him comments on the draft NSPS. However, I’m concerned about 

sending comments to him if there is a problem with his e-mail address or if he is not responding to public 

questions or comments. 

Please let me know if you can assist me in contacting Mr. Wood to both ask him questions about the draft NSPS 

and to send him comments. 

The February 9, 2012, Webinar was the only time the public has had a seat at the table to learn and comment on 

the draft NSPS. To date, only industry and some state government has been allowed to participate in this 

important rule revision. But, the public is directly impacted daily by smoke emitted by unregulated outdoor wood 
boilers (OWB). It could be argued that the economic impact on public health far surpasses the impact on a handful 

of OWB manufacturers and, therefore, would justify a greater public involvement in the rule-making process. 

I certainly hope that EPA has not intentionally decided to ignore e-mails from the public with questions and 

comments about the draft NSPS. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Andrea Wieland

svrosesbirds@gmail.com

715-778-4481 

Spring Valley, WI 

----- Message from "Andrea Wieland" <svrosesbirds@gmail.com> on Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:37:45 -0500 -

---- 

To: <wood.gil@epa.gov> 

Subject: Question about your NSPS Webinar Presentation 

in February 

Hi Mr. Wood – 

I listened to your February 9, 20120 Webinar presentation on EPA's Draft Proposed Rule NSPS for New Residential 

Wood Heaters. Thank you for presenting this information to the general public. 

During the Webinar you said a few times that a Phase II qualified OWB should not smoke when operated properly 

according to manufacturer's instructions, except briefly during initial startup. 

My question is if a Phase II qualified OWB produces smoke for longer than the initial 15-minute startup, is it 

because it is being improperly operated (not following manufacturer’s instructions)? 

I looked through the OWHH voluntary agreement and didn’t find specific requirements for manufacturers on the 

definition of proper operations of an OWB that would in the user manual? 

Thank you for any information or explanation you can provide about this question. 

Andrea Wieland

svrosesbirds@gmail.com

715-778-4481

----- Message from "Andrea Wieland" <svrosesbirds@gmail.com> on Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:10:52 -0500 ---

-- 

To: <wood.gil@epa.gov> 

Subject: Question about Information from your NSPS Webinar 

Presentation 

Hello Mr. Wood – 

Thank you for your February 9, 2012, Webinar presentation on EPA's Draft Proposed Rule NSPS for New 

Residential Wood Heaters. 

It was interesting and helpful to hear your explanation of the NSPS highlights and your answers to the questions 

submitted by Webinar participants. 

You had requested that we send you questions and comments on the draft NSPS. I will be sending mine to you 
soon, but have a question about your reference to proper operation of an Outdoor Wood Boiler (OWB). 

During the Webinar you said a few times that a Phase II qualified OWB should not smoke (except briefly during 

initial startup) when operated properly according to manufacturer's instructions. 

My question about this reference is from first-hand experience. My neighbor installed a Central Boiler E-Classic 

2400 Phase II-qualified OWB. This replaced a non-qualified OWB. My neighbor follows the manufacturer's

instructions and EPA’s Best Burn Practices by burning only seasoned, dried hardwood that is stored under a 

shelter. But, this EPA-qualified Phase II OWB produces enormous amounts of smoke continuously for two-hours 

every morning after startup. 

Here is my question: Why would this Phase II-qualified OWB smoke so much if it is operated according to 

manufacturer's instructions and EPA's Best Burn Practices? Is it because he is not operating the OWB according to 

manufacturer's instructions, or is this particular Phase II-qualified OWB defective in some way? 

Here are photos to show the typical smoke produced from this OWB over the last year:


As these photos show, this Phase II- qualified OWB produces alot of smoke, which is produced continuously for at 

least two hours after startup. So, I would appreciate your opinion about whether or not this Phase II-qualified OWB 

is being operated according to manufacturer's instructions. This is in reference to your statement that these 

devices should not produce smoke when operated properly according to manufacturer's instructions. 

Thank you for your work in trying to develop cleaner-burning OWBs. And thank you for your time and 

consideration of my question. 

Andrea Wieland

svrosesbirds@gmail.com

715-778-4481 

Spring Valley, WI