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

Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:29 PM

To: Green, Gregory; McCabe, Janet

Cc: Atkinson, Emily; Browne, Cynthia

Subject: Citizen Meeting Agenda and Group Statement

Hello Mr. Green and Ms. McCabe:

Thank you very much for agreeing to meet with us tomorrow, October 14, on the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s proposed revisions to the New Source Performance Standards for New Residential 

Wood Heaters (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734). We greatly appreciate the opportunity to share 

our views with you on this important rulemaking.

The citizen attendees of this meeting are: Nancy Alderman (Connecticut), Patrice Lee (Alaska), Bonnie 

Lichak (New York), Sylvia Schultz (Washington), Roger Soldano (Michigan), and Andrea Wieland 

(Wisconsin). Thank you for agreeing to a phone conference to accommodate us.

Attached is our group statement for your reference.

Here is the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting with you.

Agenda: 

12:00 to 12:05 - Introduction and meeting agenda overview

12:05 to 12:15 – Position statement summary

12:15 to 12:40 – Individual statements from Sylvia Schultz, Patrice Lee, Bonnie Lichak, Roger Soldano, 

Andrea Wieland and Nancy Alderman

12:40 to 12:41 – Closing statement 

12:41 to 12:45 – Questions

Thank you. We look forward to meeting with you.

Respectfully,

Andrea Wieland
Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 1 

Citizen 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. October 14, 2014 

Citizen complaints about hydronic heater smoke is what pushed states and environmental/health 

organizations to urge EPA to update the NSPS back in 2005. 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. Citizen complaints continued and EPA was sued for not 

updating the NSPS. We don't want to complain about our neighbor's wood smoke anymore. We want 

EPA to do the right thing and update the NSPS to set performance standards that stop harmful, nuisance

smoke from residential hydronic heaters. 

We strongly support updating the outdated NSPS for residential wood heaters, which is 17 years 

overdue. The health benefits from the proposed NSPS for hydronic heaters and furnaces will have a 

value from $1.5 to $3.5 billion, or $120 to $280 for every dollar spent on compliance. 

However, we are concerned that the final NSPS for hydronic heaters may not fulfill EPA's mandate to 

adopt health-protective 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 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 

To ensure that no person ever again endures this tragedy and suffering after the NSPS is promulgated, 

we support five critically important requirements for the NSPS. 
Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 2 

• Support #1 - We support an NSPS that regulates short-term exposures to capture all emission 

spikes to ensure health-protective standards as required by the Clean Air Act. 

• Support #2 - We support an NSPS that is based on the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) 

as required by the Clean Air Act. 

• Support #3 - We support visible emissions standards and enforcement to ensure compliance 

with health-protective performance standards. EPA must require states to enforce these 

standards through delegation of authority. The limits must be based on EPA Method 22, not 

Method 9. 

• Support #4 - We support Step 1 and Step 2 emission limits for hydronic heaters that must 

include a g/hr cap per individual test run that cannot be exceeded during the entire burn cycle. 

A g/hr cap ensures performance standards meet the emission limits as required under the NSPS. 

We support the Washington State Standard of 4.5 g/hr cap for Step 1 with a lower g/h cap for 

Step 2. 

• Support #5 -We support testing based on real-world practice and performance using cordwood 

and multiple hardwood and softwood species, with the highest g/hr for the entire burn cycle as 

the basis for certification. 

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

Support #1 - We support an NSPS that regulates short-term exposures to capture all emission spikes to 

ensure health-protective standards as required by the Clean Air Act. 

• 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 health-protective standards without regulating short-term emission spikes. 

• We support test methods that captures emission spikes during cycling of hydronic heaters, as 

done by the State of Washington. 

Support #2 - We support an NSPS that is based on the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) as 

required by the Clean Air Act. 

• The proposed Step 1 emission level for hydronic heaters is not based on 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." 

• We are adamantly opposed to the argument that these 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 
Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 3 

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. The final NSPS cannot continue this failure to issue health-protective standards, 

which will continue to shift costs to neighbors. EPA must base the emission limits on BSER. 

Support #3 - We support visible emissions standards and enforcement to ensure compliance with 

health-protective performance standards. EPA must require states to enforce these standards through 

delegation of authority. The limits must be based on EPA Method 22, not Method 9. 

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

heaters for visible emissions. 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 gather visible emissions proof 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." 

• 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. 

• 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. 

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

rules. This has not happened. Instead states point to EPA and local government or the victim of 

smoke to deal with the problem. 

Support #4 - We support Step 1 and Step 2 emission limits for hydronic heaters that must include a g/hr 

cap per individual test run that cannot be exceeded during the entire burn cycle. A g/hr cap ensures 

performance standards meet the emission limits as required under the NSPS. We support the 

Washington State Standard of 4.5 g/hr cap for Step 1 with a lower g/h cap for Step 2. 

• This standard is achievable now, as noted in the NSPS. Four models of solid wood and pellet 

heaters meet Step 2 emission limits now, and three have a maximum emission rate under 4.5 

g/h across all individual test runs.

• 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. 
Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 4 

• EPA has had Phase 2 standards since 2007. 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 the 0.15 lb/MMBtu level 

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. 

• Step 2 must be required in two years after promulgation of rule, rather than the proposed five 

years. 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). 

Support #5 - We support testing based on real-world practice and performance using cordwood and 

multiple hardwood and softwood species, with the highest g/hr for the entire burn cycle as the basis for 

certification. 

We also support: 

• Nuisance requirements and enforcement. EPA must include in the NSPS that no person shall

operate a hydronic heater in such a manner as to create a nuisance. This language must be on 

permanent labels on hydronic heaters and in owner/operator manuals. 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. 

• Removal of 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 

provides no evidence in support of this statement. On January 7, 2014, a 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 the 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 states and consumers with this 

unsubstantiated claim and remove this wording from the final NSPS.
Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 5 

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

Phase 2 emission testing. 

• 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 with all other 

residential heating devices. 

• Restrict use during air nonattainment days. 

• 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 and sets emission levels on grams per 

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

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

The cost of EPA's failure to effectively regulate hydronic heaters can no longer be shifted to the 

neighbors or local government and states. States need federal visible emission rules to enforce 

performance standards. Therefore, we urge EPA to comply with the Clean Air Act and issue healthprotective standards in regulating hydronic heaters. 

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

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 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) 

• 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 
Citizen Statement on Wood Heater NSPS, October 14, 2014 page 6 

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. 

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

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

data. 

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

1/10/2009 at 12:26 pm using DataRAM mobile monitoring.

• 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.