From: John and Bonnie Lichak [mailto:bjlich@live.com] 

Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:59 PM

To: Browne, Cynthia

Subject: CARE NY statement for 12:00 meeting 10/14

Dear Ms. Browne:

I submitted the attached statement to Ms. Atkinson for a noon meeting on 10/14 with 

Administrator McCabe and Mr. Green but received back an email that Ms. Atkinson is out all 

week and so to contact you. I am therefore forwarding to you for distribution.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lichak

Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY

www.careny.org

From: bjlich@live.com

To: atkinson.emily@epa.gov

Subject: CARE NY statement for 12:00 meeting 10/14

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:52:33 -0400

Dear Ms. Atkinson:

Attached is a copy of the statement I will be presenting tomorrow in the 12:00 meeting with 

Administrator McCabe and Mr. Green.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lichak

Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY
Working for clean air for everyone in New York State www.careny.org

2136 US 20

Nassau, NY 12123

October 14, 20114

Ms. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator 

Mr. Gregory Green, Director Outreach and Information Division

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20760

Dear Ms. McCabe and Mr. Green:

Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY is a citizen organization that has spent years trying to 

get NY local and State officials to stop the assault on public health and quality of life from 

wood boilers. Living downwind of a wood boiler is hell on earth that has been long 

ignored and rarely addressed. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) can begin 

to change this very large backward slide in air quality but only if EPA sets emission limits 

using test methods that are true to consumer usage. 

Public officials simply do not understand how much smoke is released from wood boilers. 

Existing local laws and State regulations have been ignored in favor of the consumer that 

bought the faulty equipment while families grow sicker and more frustrated. The 

automatic damper makes many think “what smoke” but when that damper opens and all 

that smoldered wood gets a gasp of air it struggles and puffs out giant plumes of ground 

level smoke engulfing all those within its path. 

NY has not adequately dealt with the issue of wood boiler pollution in whole or in part. 

Despite the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) sending 17 manufacturers’ 

letters in 2003 advising their products violated existing DEC regulations sales continued. 

DEC also passed a regulation modeled after EPAs Model Rule which has undermined their 

prior regulation. 

DEC’s regulation uses the EPA test method known as Method 28 OWHH of kiln dried red 

oak stacked in a tepee with raking, hot starts, and weighted averages. Not real world 

testing and so not real world emissions. We have a member family who will tell you the 

smoke from the DEC certified boiler is still heavy, ground level, and making her sick. No 

one is listening to her.
Page 2

CARE NY

To fully understand how horrendous the EPA loophole has made NYers lives the voices of 

commenters during the public comment period of DEC Part 247 state it best:

 “Daddy are we going to die?” (Commenter #300)

 “I go in the house crying, take a tranquilizer.” “It’s been a stressful year. I’m not 

doing well.” (Comment #1013 smoke log)

 “There’s been no one to help us.” (Commenter #297)

 “We were forced to abandon our beautiful home” (Commenter #276)

 “No you can’t judge these things by the number of complaints. (Commenter #1401)

 “An elderly couple next door are affected severely, and they have even said ‘he is 

killing us’ (Commenter #1517)

 “the children cannot go out to play....” (Commenter #1418)

 “I cannot go through another winter coughing, and feeling sick every day” ... “my 

neighbor has made reparations to the stack twice but the smoke still billows out all 

day and night.” (Commenter #113)

The NY DEC files are full of complaints about wood boilers. 

The EPA Voluntary Program confused States with its claims of 90% cleaner. We don’t 

understand how that claim was and is still being made on EPAs website and in the NSPS 

documents. The Alaska AG v. Straughn shut down a Phase II Voluntary Program boiler. 

The AG affidavits from the staff and children at Woodriver Elementary School are chilling. 

If you have not read them then I strongly suggest you do before allowing the Phase II 

standards and Method 28 test method to become the EPA NSPS standard for the next 5 

years.

No family should be forced from their home or made sick by their neighbors heating 

system nor subjected to ground level smoke 24/7 365 days a year nor forced to close 

their windows in summer because a neighbor is using wood and filling their valley with 

smoke to heat a swimming pool or domestic hot water nor endure a wood boiler being 

used as a residential incinerator. And no State should have to determine if the EPA is 

using a test method that really ensures emissions stated are emissions that will be 

achieved in real world operations.

Today I am here to strongly support EPA finally closing the wood boiler loophole. EPA 

must use a test method that is real world assured. Data can’t be weighted and averaged. 

Wood can’t be kiln dried red oak. The test must be with cord wood including hard and 

soft woods or all soft if that is what real world use will mean. There is no reason that 

boilers should be held to a lesser standard than wood stoves. If g/hr are to be met by a 

wood stove then so too should they be for a boiler.

NY now has the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) test for boilers with partial or full 

thermal storage. This test method was developed for boilers that as we understand it 
Page 3

CARE NY

really do meet an emission limit that can be replicated IF the boiler is right sized. EPA 

needs to ensure that emissions are met and can be met at all times, not just in a lab under 

perfect conditions. We need clean air, not the sale of devices that harm public health 

certified or qualified by EPA under false data.

It is most disturbing to those of us that support a strong NSPS that NESCAUM has 

submitted to EPA a consensus paper with the Hearth Patio and Barbeque Association that 

suggests the federal standard be the NY certified boilers for the next 5 years. These 

boilers were certified using the discredited Method 28 OWHH test except for we believe 

two of the models which have thermal storage and were tested with the BNL test method. 

How could NESCAUM and WESTAR support the continued sales of what is essentially the 

EPA Voluntary Program Phase II boilers? This is unacceptable. 

We ask that EPA genuinely protect public health and ensure that the test methods 

used to certify boilers meet emission limits when homeowners use them. 

We are glad EPA is getting rid of weighted annual average in Step 2 but it can’t be 

allowed for Step 1. 

We also request that EPA require increased air monitoring in States to ensure compliance 

w/NAAQS. NYSERDA used mobile monitoring and released a report detailing that in the 

Adirondacks there were spikes of 750 micrograms per cubic meter observed. They also 

stated that 90% of PM 2.5 is from wood smoke in rural areas. Limited monitoring devices 

and their locations are under reporting the pollution many in the U.S. are enduring. 

We also request emission standards holding all “alternate” fuel burning devices to the 

same level. This should include both residential and those appliances labeled commercial 

for wood stoves, wood boilers, and coal or other fuel sources devices. EPA and the public 

can’t afford new NSPS loopholes.

Lastly we request that test data be reviewed by EPA and available for States, third party 

certification of test labs, requirements for right sizing to match the appliance to the 

square footage of the house with language that provides enforcement for failure to do so 

by States, and hang tags to ensure consumers know what they are buying w/both 

efficiencies and emissions so they can compare one appliance against another.

In summary we very much support EPA updating the NSPS to protect public health and to 

ensure consumers are getting what they think they are with efficiencies and emissions. 

We support boilers emitting no more pollution than wood stoves. EPA must somehow 

ensure outdoor boilers can’t be used as incinerators. Test Methods must be reflective of 

real world use. We also request that any standard use grams per hour vs. mmBTU. 
Page 4

CARE NY

All of us living downwind of "old OWBs," "Voluntary EPA OWBs", IWBs and even old wood 

stoves deserve to have the Clean Air Act adhered to. 

The NSPS should advance public policy that will be health protective. 

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lichak

Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY

The above statements are also supported by:

Secor Home Civic Association, Inc. located in the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester 

County, New York
From: John and Bonnie Lichak <bjlich@live.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:44 PM

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

Subject: NSPS meeting and comments

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

Thank you very much for taking the time to meet w/Andrea Wieland, Patrice Lee, Sylvia Schultz, 

Roger Soldano, Nancy Alderman, and myself on Tuesday.

I submitted my statement to Cynthia Browne so I assume all of you have received a copy but I 

have attached just 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.

One additional comment that I don't think we covered in all our presentations is the issue not 

only of the need to monitor visible emissions by the States but also the other air toxins --- PAHs 

and VOCs. Living downwind of a wood boiler we can all tell you that the smell of the 

incomplete combustion is horrendous. The need for monitoring of these carcinogens w/other 

tools than visible emissions is important also to protecting public health since night time 

emissions are often some of the worst because of inversions, no wind, and then the inability to 

see those emissions but these PAHs and VOCs also occur during the day as well. 

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

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lichak

Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY

www.careny.org
Bonnie Lichak – NSPS Comments

Submitted May 4, 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

Via Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov

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

The EPA’s proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) will not fulfill the EPA’s mandate to 

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

protective NSPS. 

3

EPA past behavior and Proposed Rule Fails to Meet Legal Standards

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.” EPA has failed the public in providing this 

protection in both its delay in adopting standards and in the proposed standard for hydronic heaters. 

When the EPA adopted the NSPS in 1988 they left a loophole that allowed hydronic heaters to go 

unregulated for decades. It is not clear from the proposed regulation if EPA is again creating a loophole 

by ignoring that hydronic heaters are currently sold as both residential and commercial models. Since 

this rule is titled Residential and not Commercial it is expected that EPA is creating another loophole 

which States will have to suffer thru or close with their own Legislation. At this juncture with all the 

millions of dollars that have been spent by States and EPA documenting the pollution emitted by 

 

1

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

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

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

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

3 40 CFR Part 60, subpart AAA
Page 2 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

hydronic heaters, this new loophole would be inexcusable. No family should have to endure what so 

many have by EPAs failure to regulate and no family should have to endure a commercial hydronic

heater in a residential neighborhood that could be placed within feet of their home because EPA 

failed to protect public health with this new standard by ignoring this manufacturer “classification” or 

nuance. 

Hydronic heaters have created a nightmare for 10s of thousands of U.S. families. Northeast States 

Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM ) released their report on hydronic heaters in 2006. 4In 

that report they estimated that by 2010 there would be 500,000 outdoor wood boilers (OWBs -

hydronic heaters) emitting 900,000 tons of fine particulate. The wood smoke from these heaters is 

emitted at ground level and engulfs the homes and yards of families. OWBs have short stacks, cyclic 

operation, an oversized firebox, and can operate year round. Families living downwind can’t escape the 

dense smoke because it hangs at ground level. NESCAUM stated the smallest OWB emitted 161 g/hr of 

fine particulate (this in a time period where EPA required wood stoves to emit no more than 4.1 g/hr 

or 7 g/hr. depending upon whether there was a catalytic converter). The average of these emissions 

was equated to the pollution of 205 oil furnaces and 8000 gas furnaces. The New York Attorney General 

report, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs, released in 2005 and 2008 also reiterated this data. 5

NESCAUM stated in their Executive Summary:

“The cumulative impact of OWBs to ambient air quality is only one part of the problem. Because OWBs 

are used primarily in residential applications, they have the potential to emit fine particulate matter and 

air toxics at levels that could create elevated risk to nearby populations. A second pilot study conducted 

by NESCAUM measured ambient PM2.5 within 150 feet of an OWB device. Relative to background 

levels, the study documented high 15-second average values (>1,000 micrograms per cubic meter

(μg/m3)) with spikes greater than 8,000 μg/m3 throughout the course of normal daily OWB operating 

modes. These data suggest that buildings located near OWBs can experience high PM2.5 levels during 

typical boiler operating conditions. Health studies have found associations of acute and chronic 

exposure to wood smoke with adverse health outcomes such as increases in respiratory symptoms, 

decreases in lung function, visits to emergency departments, and hospitalization.”

EPA needs to couple the NESCAUM and NY Attorney General studies on OWBs with what it knows about 

the impacts of increased fine particulate on human health. In every letter that the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee (CASAC) wrote to EPA in 2006 (March, June, September) commenting on the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, CASAC stated the Clean Air Act requires standards be set with 

an “adequate margin of safety....requisite to protect public health.” 6

 

4 Assessment of Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers, revised June 2006, Executive Summary, vii and viii. 

http://www.nescaum.org/documents/assessment-of-outdoor-wood-fired-boilers

5

Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York State (2005 and 2008). NY Attorney General, 

Environmental Protection Bureau

6 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee September 29, 2006 letter to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Subject: 

Clean Ari Scientific Advisory Committee Recommendations Concerning the Final National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter
Page 3 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

In CASAC’s letter of September 29, 2006 they stated:

“There is clear and convincing scientific evidence that significant adverse human-health effects occur 

in response to short-term and chronic particulate matter exposures at and below 15 ug/m3”

EPA ignoring that wood boilers have subjected U.S. families to greater than 8000 ug/m3 when health 

impacts occur at and below 15 ug/m3 is nothing short of criminal and a clear violation of the Clean Air 

Act. Delaying implementation of the NSPS for so many years and then proposing phase-ins and the use 

of test methods in this Draft NSPS that are not real world and distort emissions will be a death sentence 

to many more households from these spikes in air pollution. If EPA has determined that 1.5 g/hr. can 

be met with wood burning appliances why would EPA propose a dual standard for hydronic heaters,

which are also wood burning appliances, phase in standards (after decades of no standards already), 

and use test methods that cover up the real world emissions?

EPA has been ignoring not only Regional Air Agencies and their reports, as well as the CASAC, which is 

comprised of Doctors and Scientists, but also a petition from States. After the NY Attorney General 

released their 2005 report, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs, NY and 6 other Attorney Generals along with 

NESCAUM petitioned EPA to issue the NSPS. 7 EPA did not. This delay has caused an undocumented 

public health care cost. It has also ignored costs of destroyed finances of the many families that have

had to incur legal costs, abandon their homes, sell their homes at a loss to others who will suffer, or the 

expense of air filters to try and combat the impacts upon their health within their homes. The EPA’s

delay has also caused countless hours and dollars spent by State officials responding to complaints, 

writing letters to EPA and the filing of a lawsuit. 

Over the years from 2004 until 2013 States along with NESCAUM, WESTAR and other Regional Air 

Agencies have written letter after letter appealing to EPA to close the hydronic heater loophole and to 

use real test methods. (See NESCAUM 2006 report for earliest known letter from Kenneth Colburn, then 

Executive Director of NESAUM, to then Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Jeffery R. 

Holmstead dated July 29, 2004). 

8

Instead of complying with the Clean Air Act and proceeding with NSPS open to the public for comment 

and backed by science, the EPA started a Voluntary Program. This program has created a further 

nightmare for States because it used a test method that vastly under reported emissions. EPA made 

claims that the Voluntary Program boilers were 90% cleaner. These claims were unsubstantiated. EPA 

allowed manufacturers to use hang tags and to advertise the 90% cleaner sound bite confusing both 

State Officials and Consumers. 

New York Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) released a 2011 report, Review of EPA 

Method 28 Outdoor Wood Heater Test Results, documenting that 90% of the data from the EPA 

Voluntary Program was missing or incorrect. 9

 

7 http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-targets-air-pollution-problem-rural-communities

8 Assessment of Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers, revised June 2006, Appendix A, pages 56-57

http://www.nescaum.org/documents/assessment-of-outdoor-wood-fired-boilers

9 NYSERDA Report, Review of EPA Method 28 Outdoor Wood Heater Test Results, Executive Summary, Page ES-2, 

September 2011
Page 4 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

The Voluntary Program misled the States so much that even in NY, where the NY Attorney General had 

been on the forefront of petitioning the EPA , the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 

adopted the EPA test method in its regulation known as DEC Part 247. DEC Part 247 was pushed thru to 

approval under the leadership of Acting Commissioner Peter Iwanowicz who had formerly worked at 

American Lung and written a letter to the NY Times on February 4, 2007 about the issues with wood 

boilers.

10 Through no fault of his own then Commissioner Iwanowicz allowed NYS to pass a regulation 

that was a step backward from the existing regulations that NY had advised manufacturers they violated 

in 2003. 11 Mr. Iwanowicz was merely trying to stop the sale in NY of the “dirtiest boilers” but 

unwittingly undermined NYs existing regulations. This likely never would have happened IF EPA had not 

misled the States with its test method. 

NY now is allowing for sale in NY the very boiler make and model that the Alaska Attorney General in 

Alaska v. Straughn shut down for the pollution emitted. 

12 Those two boilers (Central Boiler E Classic 

2300) made staff & children sick at Woodriver Elementary School in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Central 

Boiler E Classic 2300 is on the list of EPA Voluntary Program so called 90% cleaner boilers and the NY 

DEC list of certified boilers. 13 

Also on the list for sale in NY of the EPA Voluntary Program boilers is the Central Boiler E Classic 2400. 

As you can see in the photos below those who live downwind would be asking if these are 90% cleaner 

how horrendous are the boilers that are in place and will remain in place after the NSPS is implemented. 

A valid question.

And NY like so many other governmental entities when they passed regulations/laws for outdoor wood 

boilers did not realize that they had also unwittingly created another loophole. Indoor Wood Boilers are 

not specifically regulated in NY. NY can use its cumbersome DEC Part 211 and DEC Part 227-1.3 but with 

State Budget cuts to NY DEC they have told families they do not “routinely” use these provisions for 

indoor heating appliances. No one who lives downwind can comprehend this ignoring of pollution.

The shame of all of this is that so many families have and will continue to suffer living downwind of 

hydronic heaters. The NSPS as proposed is not timely for any of the harmed families and will still delay 

implementation with standards that have been disproved. The staff and children at Woodriver 

 

10 http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/71720.html and NY Times Op Ed article, Smoke Signals by Peter M. Iwanowicz, then 

Vice President of American Lung, NYS 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/opinion/nyregionopinions/04WEiwanowicz.html?_r=0

11 Assessment of Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers, revised June 2006, Appendix A, pages 61-62

http://www.nescaum.org/documents/assessment-of-outdoor-wood-fired-boilers

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

13 http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhharchive.html and http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/73694.html and 

 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
Page 5 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

Elementary School in Fairbanks, Alaska who were finally “rescued” by the Attorney General filing a 

lawsuit 5 years after the harm began will never fully recover the damage done to their health. 

EPA knows full well that the NSPS as drafted is still advancing faulty test methods and will not undo the 

years of harm that have been done and that harm will continue with in place boilers long after the NSPS 

is in place.

Figure 1: Left -Central Boiler E-Classic 2300, Fairbanks, AK, FNSB photo; right: Central Boiler E-Classic 

2400, Wisconsin

On August 2, 2013 the NY Attorney General with 6 States and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency filed an 

intent to sue EPA to force EPA to issue the NSPS. 14 In October 2013 the lawsuit was filed. 15 In April 2014 

a Partial Consent Decree was signed requiring the NSPS to be finalized by 2015.16 The record must 

reflect that will be nearly a full 10 years AFTER the NY AG petitioned EPA. During this 10 year time 

frame the U.S. economy experienced one of its greatest set-backs since the Great Depression. People 

lost their jobs and energy prices spiked. People looked for alternative heating sources. Under the 

misdirection of the EPA with its Voluntary Program and misleading hang tags countless consumers 

unwittingly purchased hydronic heaters. These heaters are grossly expensive costing $10,000 - $16,000 

or more and then have efficiency issues as detailed in the NY AG report, Smoke Gets in Your Lungs. For 

far less money families could have been better off with higher efficiency wood stoves or putting that 

money to more efficient heat pumps, etc. 

For those at EPA who do not fully understand just how impossible these boilers are to operate without 

smoking please see the You Tube videos posted by Mr. O’Hara. He states he contacted the 

 

14 http://www.epa.gov/ogc/noi.html

15 http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-leads-coalition-suing-epa-failing-adequately-limitpollution

16 Case 1:13-cv-01553-GK Document 27-1 Filed 04/28/14
Page 6 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

manufacturer to no avail. He has posted 11 videos of his attempts to get his boiler to not smoke out his 

neighborhood. It is identified as a Crown Royal Furnace. You will find his videos enlightening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwOrdaHVkEE

The harm and cost of EPA failing to regulate hydronic heaters cannot be understated. Continuing to get 

it wrong will be a very large cost to families which should not be accepted by EPA or the States. 

By way of example the two hydronic heaters (Central Boiler E Classic 2300s) in Alaska resulted in health 

and other costs of over $460,000. 17 If in fact there are 500,000 or more hydronic heaters now in place, 

and this is a representative cost, then the cost to the U.S. economy may be $115 billion in health care 

and other costs from these in place boilers. This may seem an exaggeration to some but that is only 

because they do not understand what people endure from the increased PAHs, VOCs, fine particulate 

and carcinogens from these increased emissions. According to the CDC hydronic heaters are an urgent 

public hazard 18----one that EPA has ignored for decades. Per the CDC with 1 in 11 children and 1 in 12 

adults with asthma costing the U.S. $56 billion per year it is not difficult to see that the cost of these 

highly polluting devices is a great cost.19

Why the U.S. should not permit the sale of Outdoor Wood Boilers in the U.S.

Before going into the detail of EPAs proposed regulation of hydronic heaters the most important 

consideration is whether they should be allowed for sale in the U.S. ever. The outdoor versions of 

wood boilers have large fireboxes and are located outside the home. The NY DEC files are full of 

complaints from neighbors that OWBs are being used to burn household waste. For EPA to ignore this 

“inconvenient truth” that they can’t control what people burn in these heaters is to subject families 

living downwind to personal incinerators. The burning of household waste is a danger that must be 

calculated into EPAs rule.

Indoor hydronic heaters operate the same way as outdoor hydronic heaters. They have an automatic 

damper and have cyclic operation. The “technology” is designed to squash the oxygen supply creating a 

smoldering fire which then emits constant smoke with huge plumes when the damper opens. The 

States have recommended to EPA that this “technology” only operates “efficiently” with water storage. 

The question then becomes how will EPA or the States monitor installations and ensure that the

equipment is right sized and includes water storage to meet any emission standard that is set? If 

water storage is not part of the system how does EPA ensure that creosote buildup is not an added 

danger from these slow smoldering fires which then in turn raises the very fire hazard that the 1988 

NSPS was designed to lessen/eliminate when it made the sale of wood stoves that could be damped a 

 

17 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

18 Health Consultation, OWB Investigation, Pleasant Lake, Jackson County, Michigan, 10/13/09 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/OutdoorWoodBoilerInvestigation/OutdoorWoodBoilerInvestigation10-13-

2009.pdf

19 Asthma’s Impact on the Nation, Data from the CDC National Asthma Control Program 

http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/impacts_nation/AsthmaFactSheet.pdf
Page 7 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

thing of the past? EPA has a responsibility to protect not only the health of people’s lungs but also of 

the risk of increased fire. 

Smoke sitting on top of a house in E. Nassau, NY from an indoor wood/coal hydronic heater located 

across the road. The indoor hydronic heater is a Harmon Trident SF 160 which is advertised as a 

wood/coal boiler. It is oversized for the square footage of the house and has no water storage. The 

chimney to the house is encrusted with creosote.

Ignoring operator error with hydronic heaters creates a very real pollution source that will impact public 

health. Based upon how poorly the States have been able to implement regulations (even here in NY) 

to protect public health or to stop sales of these consumer nightmares, it is imperative that EPA really 

consider how the NSPS can be implemented. Passing costs on to consumers, down winders, or State 

regulators is a very serious problem with hydronic heaters. 
Page 8 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

Picture of creosote encrusted chimney in E. Nassau, NY from Harmon Trident SF 160 indoor wood/coal 

hydronic heater
Page 9 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

Playground in adjacent yard from Harmon Trident SF 160 Indoor Wood/Coal Hydronic Heater. Would 

you want your child to play here?

Recommendations

Hang Tag Comparisons – page 6330

The NSPS is proposing to eliminate hang tag comparisons. Consumers need to be able to make 

informed decisions on energy use and output for all appliances and the EPA should continue the use of 

such information including the following information:

 Emission Rate – clearly delineated by grams per hour for all appliances based upon real world 

test methods (cord wood vs. crib wood). Hydronic heaters based upon the State of Washington 

Test Method so emissions are real world

 Heating Range (for correct sizing)

 Overall Thermal Efficiency rating – percentage
Page 10 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

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

 Manufacturer and model of heater

 Particle pollution – 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, and no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a way as to create a 

nuisance. 

 Manufacturers should be required to specify proper fuels in the owner’s manual

 The hydronic heater owner’s manual and all advertising and promotional materials should 

include the following language: “Operators must comply with all laws and regulations for 

hydronic heaters. 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 applicable state and local regulations may not always be adequate to prevent 

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

Hang tag information cannot be a voluntary program. Consumers have the right to know what they are 

purchasing. 

Test Methods

The NSPS is proposing to certify emissions of hydronic heaters using the Method 28 WHH. This method 

has been proven to vastly under report emissions. Those who have lived downwind of the so called 

cleaner Voluntary Phase II boilers can testify that these boilers are in fact NOT meeting a standard to 

protect public health. In the Alaska AG case of Alaska v Straughn two Central Boiler E-Classic 2300s were 

shut down for the high emissions that resulted in staff and children suffering very serious health impacts 

at Woodriver Elementary school. EPA needs to do real world testing to protect people in the real world.

Test Methods should follow the State of Washington and include the following:

 Use of cord wood vs. crib wood. Cord Wood more typically resembles what a typical 

homeowner would use

The current use of kiln dried red oak so vastly under reports emissions as to make the test data 

totally fictional. The current test method requires that the wood be free of fungus, decay, and 

loose bark. The reality is that outdoor wood boilers by their location eliminate the operator’s 

fear of building creosote in their chimney and so wood is often cut and burned, stored outside 

without benefit of cover, or includes treated wood or other hazardous materials. If EPA really 

believes that OWBs can and should be allowed to be sold in the U.S. then they must account for 

“operator error” when calculating the impact upon our air. OWBs are high users of wood 
Page 11 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

because they are essentially heating the outdoors. For EPA to not recognize that people run out 

of wood and proceed to burn whatever is available is a head in the sand approach to regulation. 

For example, according to NYSERDA’s 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.” 20 The State of Washington requires stick wood devices 

to be tested with Douglas fir. 21

It is suggested that EPA view the 11 videos posted on line by Mr. O’Hara so you are more 

familiar of how OWBs operate and how difficult it is to get them to not smoke. Mr. O’Hara uses 

very dry wood (10 – 13% moisture) and he can never get the boiler to stop smoking. The boiler 

is a Crown Royal RS 7400. This boiler is currently allowed for sale in the U.S. The EPA has 

approved an “E” version in their Voluntary Program. If Crown Royal has so improved under the 

EPA Voluntary Program and the purpose of that program was to encourage innovation why is 

the OWB with high emissions still being sold by them? This would seem to fly in the face of 

proof that manufacturers will improve w/encouragement vs. regulation. Mr. O’Hara is a harmed 

consumer. Test methods must ensure no more consumers are harmed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwOrdaHVkEE

 Test Fuel Charge – The current method of testing uses the optimal wood determined by the fuel 

box size and manufacturer’s instructions. Real world testing should assume owners will load an 

outdoor hydronic heater w/fresh cut large logs intended to avoid frequent reloading. If EPA 

watches any of a number of videos posted by manufacturers they clearly show that their boilers 

are made to use large pieces for long burn. Unless EPA is going to stipulate fuel box size that 

can’t do that then the fuel charge must replicate the worst case not best case scenario

 Standard for CO Emissions – In the Gullet Study the mice are reported to have died from the CO 

emissions from the wood boiler. EPA must ensure that CO emissions are set to protect families

who may have indoor wood boilers22 or locate their outdoor wood boilers in a structure.

 Efficiency information for hydronic heaters must include calculations to account for pipeline 

loss for outdoor hydronic heaters. Families need to know that hydronic heaters have been

 

20 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, 2-80, 2-82. 

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

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

21 Washington 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)

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

Technologies (June 2012). Brian Gullett, et al.
Page 11 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

known to use 10 – 20 cords of wood in a season. The heat loss is a significant factor in 

operational costs and should not be ignored

 Cold Start vs. Hot Start– The current method of using a hot to hot start is not real world 

burning. Hydronic heaters cycle multiple times per day and do in fact have cold starts over and 

over again. The test method must use a cold start. The method must modulate heat demand 

to simulate an indoor thermostat cycling on and off so as to replicate real world operation.

Hydronic heaters have exceeded the NAAQS for the 24 hour period in real world testing. EPA 

must do testing to ensure that no family has to endure those multiple times per day of spikes 

of PM and other emissions. The Alaska AG case had a sniffer vehicle that documented 1000 

ug/m3 from a Phase II Voluntary Program boiler. 23All efforts must be made to ensure hydronic 

heaters are held to the same standard as wood stoves. If EPA cannot ensure that then this 

NSPS is a giant step backward. 

Emissions testing must include appliance start up and should not be allowed to bring the water 

to temperature before data is gathered as is currently done.

 Raking – The current test method allows adjustments to the coal bed to dislodge fuel pieces 

from positions of poor operations. This is not real world operation and should not occur. Load 

the boiler w/fresh cut large pieces of wood and start testing. Real world operators are not going 

to stand outside in the freezing cold and babysit their outdoor hydronic heater. They load and 

go. The test method must be load and go.

 Water Temperature – The current test method requires the water temperature to be a perfect 

120 degrees. Again this is not real world operation. Tests of emissions must account for the 

cold water coming into the system. 

 Precision and Bias – The current test method states “the appliance operation and fueling 

protocols and the appliances themselves produce variable amounts of emissions and cannot be 

used to determine reproducibility.” This statement would seem to underline the key problem 

w/the current test method. The public may not reproduce the emissions each time but there 

needs to be some certainty that the emissions are ALWAYS within the maximums set by the 

EPA. At this point in time the U.S. has the ability to sell appliances that meet a health safety 

standard and only those meeting such standard should be certified.

 Audit Procedures – EPA must review the test data and ensure it complies with the standards 

set. The NYSERDA study found that for hydronic heater testing for the Voluntary Program the 

data was 90% missing or incomplete. The public needs to have faith that the consultants that 

 

23 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
Page 12 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

are paid by industry are in fact complying with the standards set. Everyone knows that a 

consultant works for the client which leaves room for data manipulation. EPA should do 

periodic testing by their own consultants (NYSERDA, NESCAUM, Brookhaven, etc) to ensure 

data is not being manipulated. Any company found to have data that cannot be replicated 

must be banned from further participation. 

 Thermal Storage - Consideration must be given by EPA to require all hydronic heaters to 

include 100% thermal storage if that is the only way that the system can be used and ensure 

that emission standards are met. (Note comments above however on concerns w/burning of 

garbage and ability to end run thermal storage requirements and ability to monitor by States.) 

In addition the use of automatic dampers to control the air flow needs to be reviewed. The 

1988 NSPS was specifically devised to require air flow to cut emissions. It is not clear how EPA is 

now ignoring the very elemental requirement for a hot fire to reduce emissions.

 Cap Spikes throughout Each Individual Test Run

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

EPA’s proposed test method averages total particulate emission over each 10-minute reading 

rather than over the duration of each test run (typically four different test runs without 

replicates, each approximately 8 hours in duration). The proposed method continues to hide 

short-term-emission spikes correlated with damaging health effects. EPA’s test method should 

be revised to require sampling once per minute during the entire burn cycle from startup to 

finish throughout each individual test. 

The standard should apply to the highest emission spike recorded during any minute of any 

individual test as an emission 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 no sample shall 

exceed the state emission cap. The highest emission spike of any individual test run should be 

published online and be available to the consumer prior to purchase.

 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.” An annual average hides hourly emission spikes. As it is 

weighted to represent an average heat load for the unidentified northern US cities, EPA’s 

method is an even worse predictor for emissions from hydronic heaters operated at a higher 

heat load in colder areas such as Fairbanks, Alaska. It is unlikely that the annual average 

weighting calculation reflects actual use patterns in Fairbanks. Consumers and the public are 

misled by the reported average, not realizing it is a weighted average and may bear little 

relationship to actual emissions. EPA should cease reporting the misleading annual weighted 

average to the public.
Page 13 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

EPA’s proposal to drop weighting from the Step 2 standards is of the utmost importance and 

must not be phased in. 

24 Weighting adds bias, is misleading to consumers, and should be 

removed entirely from the Proposed Rule.

One Emission Standard for EPA Certified Heaters

In order to protect public health there cannot be a dual standard for wood stoves and hydronic 

heaters. A single emission standard should be used: 1.3 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, forced-air furnaces, and masonry stoves, regardless of whether the heater is 

catalytic or non-catalytic. 

This 1.3 g/hr rate should take effect no later than two years after the effective date of the final 

rule.

A single, stringent emission standard for all devices will simplify comparisons between classes of 

heaters, such as a consumer weighing the differences between a wood stove, pellet stove, or 

hydronic heater and prevent harm to human health.

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

least by the first of the year. The intent of the interim rate is to swiftly transition 

manufacturers and dealers 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 ongoing and permanent harm to individuals and burden 

communities with excessive costs such as monitoring, enforcement, health care, change-out 

programs, and lost business investment.

Justification for the 2.5 g/hr rate has been prepared by the State of Alaska. The 2.5 g/hr was 

proposed as the particulate emission standard for the Fairbanks PM2.5 nonattainment area in 

2013. 25 The State of Alaska received more than 900 public comments and has not yet finalized 

new regulations. To support the proposed rules, the State’s peer-reviewed justification report 

offered these findings: 

• “There are no significant technological barriers preventing the adoption of the 

2.5 g/hr PM2.5 emission standard.” (Page 21)

• “Customers should find economical choices available for lower-emitting stoves.” 

(Page 20)

 

24 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

25 Alaska DEC, Need and Basis for More Stringent Wood-fired Heating Device Emission Standards (Nov. 2013), 1-27. 

http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/comm/docs/justification_NOV13.pdf
Page 14 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

Small Volume Manufacturers

It is recommended that no compliance extension be granted to small volume manufacturers especially 

those manufacturing hydronic heaters. The EPA has already given hydronic heater manufacturers a near 

10 year extension with its Voluntary Program. That has created a nightmare that sadly may never be 

mitigated absent serious buyback programs. 

Exclusions from NSPS rule that should be included

 Heaters Other than Wood 

The NSPS states that heaters other than wood are not covered by this rule – coal, corn, grass, 

etc. It would seem that EPA is creating another loophole in their stationery devices. The title 

of the rule is New Residential Wood Heater, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air 

Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters. 

It is not clear why EPA is ignoring these other sources of fuel for residential appliances. This will 

potentially again leave more families to suffer for decades as has occurred with the 25 year gap 

in regulations allowing hydronic heaters to impact 1000s of family’s lives. Estimates are there 

are over 500,000 hydronic heaters in the U.S. because EPA failed to regulate. The impacts on air 

quality and health care costs and loss of property value are astronomical and completely 

ignored by this NSPS. To move forward and leave yet more loopholes is unconscionable. EPA’s 

rule needs to address dual and single fuel residential heaters including those fueled with 

whatever people and manufacturers dream up.

 Other Air Toxins

The proposed NSPS rule is flawed in that while it addresses particulates, it ignores air toxins. 

There is an unqualified assumption in the proposed rule that toxins will decrease in parallel with 

particulates. However, most available evidence contradicts this assumption.

It is requested 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.26

 

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

Luke. P. Naeher, et al., Inhalation Toxicology 67, 82-87; Smoke Gets In Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New 

York State (2008). New York Attorney General, Environmental Protection Bureau; The Dangers to Health from 

Outdoor Wood Furnaces (2010). Nancy Alderman, et al., Environment and Human Health, Inc.; An Assessment of 

Risk from Particulate Released from Outdoor Wood Boilers (2007). David R. Brown, et al., Human and Ecological 

Risk Assessment, 13: 191–208; Outdoor Wood Boiler Investigation Health Consultation, Pleasant Lake, Michigan 

(October 13, 2009). U.S. Department of Health Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of 

Health Assessment and Consultation.
Page 15 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

 Visible Emissions (pp 6336, 6341, 6343, 6364)

EPA must include visible emissions limits in the NSPS to ensure health-protective standards 

for hydronic heaters. The limits must be based on EPA Method 22 Visual Determination of 

Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares (40CFR60, 

Appendix A). 

Visible emissions cannot exceed 3 minutes in any 30-minute period. EPA Method 22 is currently 

used by Maine and New Jersey to regulate hydronic heaters: NJAC 7:27-3, “Control and 

Prohibition of Smoke from Combustion of Fuel,” mandates that stationary indirect heat 

exchangers, such as outdoor wood burning boilers, produce no smoke, except for three minutes 

in any 30-minute period; and Maine Chapter 150 5.A. 27This is not an unreasonable request. 

Most states already have visible emission laws that are directed to individuals with the common 

opening phrase of "no person shall." 

EPA must include visible emission limits in the NSPS that hydronic heaters produce no smoke, 

except for three minutes in any 30-minute period, based on EPA Method 22 Visible Emission 

determination. This is an extremely important requirement that must be added to the NSPS. It 

is the only practical and affordable tool for determining a nuisance and a health hazard by local 

and state governments, and for individuals that must provide the burden of proof for civil 

litigation. 

EPA must stand behind its words that properly operated hydronic heaters do not smoke. Any 

violation of Method 22 Visible Emission rules would be the result of the operator improperly 

operating or maintaining the hydronic heater. Therefore, EPA must include visible emission 

requirements in the final NSPS for all hydronic heaters to ensure that health-protective 

standards are met.

EPA Method 22 (http://epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method22.html and 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-22.pdf) 40CFR60, Appendix A) must allow anyone 

with no certification requirements to take a time and date-stamped video of smoke for a time 

period of at least 6 minutes as evidence of a violation. The smoke does not need to cross a 

property line to be in violation. This is based on known health hazards of breathing smoke in a 

localized area that is directed by wind or captured by an inversion. 

 Nuisance Conditions

EPA must include in the NSPS that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a manner 

as to create a nuisance. Real-world use of hydronic heaters varies depending on operator 

diligence, skill level, fuel choice and moisture content, and equipment maintenance. The 

 

27 Method 22 Visible Emissions Rules for Hydronic Heaters. New Jersey: 

nttp://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/woodburning_regs.html, http://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/advisories/2008-

05.pdf; and Maine: http://www.state.me.us/dep/air/rules/index.html - Ch. 150 Control of Emissions from Outdoor 

Wood Boilers
Page 16 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

proposed rule acknowledges these issues by stating, “It is not possible to specify the precision of 

the procedure in Draft Test 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 measurement method” (p 6400).

Future revisions of this rule should require wood heater designs and certification 

methodology that ensure that wood heaters operate at certification values independent of 

the user’s skill or diligence. Currently, the technology used in pellet stoves comes closest to this 

method, as the combustion air-to-fuel ratio and the fuel type cannot be changed by the 

operator. All hydronic heaters should move to a design that prevents their emissions from 

varying depending on the operator and fuel choice.

Until operator variables can be controlled, EPA must provide nuisance enforcement tools to 

local and state government by requiring that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in 

such a manner as to create a nuisance. This requirement that "no person shall operate a 

hydronic heater in such a manner as to create a nuisance" must be permanently affixed on the 

hydronic heater and be published on EPA's Web site, in hydronic heater operator manuals, and 

in manufacturer’s promotional materials.

This is not an unreasonable request. Most states and municipalities already have nuisance laws 

that are directed to individuals with the common opening phrase of "no person shall." 

However, stating in the NSPS that no person shall operate a hydronic heater in such a manner as 

to create a nuisance sets the expected standards for consumer operators and provides the

enforcement tool to local and state government for problematic hydronic heaters that are 

improperly operated or sited, and provides the clear burden of proof for individuals who must 

pursue litigation against neighbors of problematic hydronic heaters.

It is hoped that at a minimum these nuisance standards can be used by States and Localities to 

then more readily address the in place hydronic heaters that are not a part of this rule making in 

the absence of EPA establishing buyback programs and shut down dates of the existing boilers 

that EPA allowed to proliferate. 

 Restricted Use 

EPA requested comments on limits on use of hydronic heaters in non-heating seasons. The 

NSPS must prohibit the use of hydronic heaters during the non-heating seasons and the

“bumper months.” Those families that have experienced numerous smoke-filled days caused by 

neighbor's hydronic heaters, including Phase 2 hydronic heaters, know only too well the 

nightmare of not being able to open windows during spring, summer and fall.

No family should be a prisoner in their home or have their home filling with smoke because 

they desire to open their windows. No family should be precluded from enjoying their yard for 

simple things like gardening, eating on a deck or porch, hanging out laundry, or playing in their 
Page 17 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

yard because of wood smoke but this has happened over and over again around the country 

with 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. EPA has required all qualified Phase 2 hydronic heaters to 

include the statement in owner's manuals that "failure to maintain the hydronic heater may 

cause nuisance conditions." 28Therefore, to provide health-protective standards, the NSPS must 

require a reconstruction provision in the NSPS for hydronic heaters.

 CO data and limits

It is recommended that EPA require test labs and manufacturers to forward existing efficiency 

and CO data to EPA within 6 months of promulgation. EPA should set CO limits based on the 

data collected.

 Monitoring of Manufacturers advertising

EPA should provide adequate staffing to conduct periodic (no less than yearly) reviews of 

manufacturer websites to discover and reduce false advertising. EPA should also provide a 

website or on line form for reporting consumer fraud or problems relevant to this industry 

sector. 

The Voluntary Program for Hydronic Heaters has demonstrated the need for this ability to 

monitor and report misleading advertising to consumers. On January 31, 2014 EPA had to send a 

letter to manufacturers admonishing them for this behavior. It is not clear if EPA has then 

followed up to ensure compliance. 29

 

28 EPA Voluntary Hydronic Heater Program, http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/participation.html#hydronic; and EPA 

List of Qualified Hydronic Heaters, http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html and Central Boiler E-Classic 2400 

Phase 2 Owner's Manual

29 Letter dated January 31, 2014 from EPA staffer Greg Green, Director Outreach and Information Division, to 

Voluntary Hydronic Heater Program Partners
Page 19 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

 Recall Process 

EPA must establish a recall process to address devices that are improperly tested, labeled or 

marketed

 Consumer and State on line reporting of field violations

EPA must create an on line form for reporting field violations by hydronic heaters and furnaces. 

The receipt by EPA of a set number (10 or fewer suggested) reports of excessive field emissions 

from a specific model should trigger a retest audit of that model and action to reduce these 

emissions for those in place hydronic heaters. Neither consumers nor their downwind 

neighbors should have to endure for years unabated high levels of emissions w/no action taken 

by States or EPA as has occurred over the past decade or more from hydronic heaters. 

It should also be noted that in requirement of the number of complaints necessary to trigger 

action EPA must include a provision for discontinued models which would require less 

complaints to trigger an investigation. This is based upon the reality that many manufacturers 

continually change model numbers with slight updates to escape legal action. A badly designed 

product with serious consumer injury should not be able to be exempted because of a 

deliberate effort by manufacturers to claim they no longer make that make and model. 

 Product Certification Framework

It is recommended that EPA work with the American Association for Laboratory Associations, 

testing labs and States to develop a detailed framework for guiding the product certification 

bodies utilized by this industry. The framework must require sharing test data with EPA and 

interested States.

Conclusion - Advanced Technology to protect public health

Hydronic heaters differ from woodstoves not in the composition of the smoke but in their potential to 

generate vast quantities of smoke for long durations throughout the year.

Technology has advanced. It is time EPA wood heater standards catch up with technology. EPA must not 

lock in lax hydronic heater standards for five years with no technical or economic justification at the 

expense of human health. The lessons of Woodriver Elementary School in Fairbanks, Alaska and other 

communities should inform decisions desperately needed to protect neighbors and neighborhoods, 

schools and students, homeowners and businesses. 

A strong NSPS that has proven health-protective standards and sets one emission standard for all 

residential devices based on grams per hour that cannot be exceeded at any time during an 8-hour burn 

cycle, as used by the State of Washington, is the minimum protection standard that should be put in 

place. Hydronic heater technologies are commercially available that significantly reduce toxic air 

emissions beyond what EPA is proposing. The cost of EPA's regulatory failure can no longer be shifted to 

the neighbors, and to local and state government and taxpayers. EPA must include visible emissions and 

nuisance requirements in the NSPS to protect neighbors and communities from improperly operated, 

maintained or sited hydronic heaters. EPA is urged to do the right thing, to correct past mistakes, and 
Page 20 Comments on Residential Wood Heaters, NSPS, May 4, 2014, Bonnie Lichak

regain the public trust by complying with the Clean Air Act and issue health-protective standards in 

regulating hydronic heaters.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Lichak 

Clean Air Rights for Everyone of NY (www.careny.org)