EPA 2020 rule 2.0 emissions

[BKVP]

As an update to this thread, while the 2020 standard is 2.0 gr/hr of 2.5 micron, the new rule allows for 2.5 gr/hr of 2.0 micron particulate if you test with cordwood and not cribs. (dimensional lumber)

Some stove MAY find it easier on the yet to be announced cordwood test method. Time will tell.

The review and comment period on the 2015 NSPS began more than 5 year prior. If you on your game, you began working towards the 2020 rules in 2011....that's nine years for R&D.

 

[bholler]

See why I posted the comment? There are many folks that come to this site that are not the expert you and others are and therefore we should all be mindful of our posts, even if they are marked LOL.

I know I did not mean anything negative by my response

 

[BKVP]

There will probably be some nice close out sales in the year before. I believe Tarm had a great deal on gasifier last year that was no longer in compliance.

I do wonder on the Alaska situation is how much of the pollution is reflated to burning unseasoned wood. All the shows on cable show folks running with a small woodpile and when they get short going out in the woods and cut wood to burn immediately. Not sure how high tech stoves are going to run with wet wood.

The opportunities will probably be much sooner. You see, in prior promulgations of the NSPS, there was a date manufacturers had to meet but the retailers had an additional year or two. Under the new NSPS rules, the May 15, 2020 deadline applies to all parties. There is no sell through period for the retailer. One might expect retailers to move off the showroom and back room any unit that is not compliant to the 2020 standard in 2017-2018. Dealers will want to have only updated product on their showroom floors in 2019 and 2020.

Of course there are many units, both catalytic and secondary combustion that already meet the 2020 emissions requirement and they will be readily available.

As for burning unseasoned wood in AK, you could not have hit the nail on the head any better! Some air resource folks have even looked at exchange programs whereby you could cut a cord of wood and bring it to the exchange center and get a cord of kiln dried wood. The costs to dry the wood have of course been the block to making this even a possibility.

 

[BKVP]

Well for what it's worth - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf

The madison is listed in that document at 2.5g/hr emissions. Per https://www.epa.gov/residential-woo...ary-requirements-woodstoves-and-pellet-stoves , step 2 emissions restrictions will be "2.0 g/hr" or "2.5 g/hr using cord wood if method is approved". Not sure how the Madison was tested for its current spec but that's pretty stinkin' close enough to me (for the purpose of assuaging guilt over running what will be a "smoke dragon" by 2020's extreme standards)

There are no certified cordwood stoves to date. The reason, EPA has not approved a method for testing.

 

[jatoxico]

@BKVP I wonder if you wouldn't mind quickly talking about any changes in the test protocol. I read briefly some of the EPA document (its big) which talked about the concerns expressed by some manufacturers about past test protocols and their real world applicability. [EDIT] Should have read whole thread first. Do you anticipate any significant changes and if so how will it effect meeting the new standards?

 

[BKVP]

@BKVP I wonder if you wouldn't mind quickly talking about any changes in the test protocol. I read briefly some of the EPA document (its big) which talked about the concerns expressed by some manufacturers about past test protocols and their real world applicability. [EDIT] Should have read whole thread first. Do you anticipate any significant changes and if so how will it effect meeting the new standards?

Well, Method 28 (which originated in the Oregon test programs from 1983) was adopted by EPA in 1988. In 2015, it was retitled Method 28R. I recall the "R" means revised.

Manufacturers could use either 47mm filters or 4" in the sample train. Now we must request a variance of EPA for use of 4" or only use 47mm. There use to be a single train in the dilution tunnel sampling. Now, we must run dual trains. One of the trains must now have the filter checked after the first hour. The first train (with filters), remains in place throughout the entire run, just as was done in Method 28.

There were previously some baffles used in the dilution tunnel as well, they are now to be removed.

There were multiple test methods and if a test was done using the 5H method, that result had a conversion formula to bring it into 5G method. Those conversion formulas are now extinct.

Test fuel, called cribs have spacers attached to them. In the past, the mc of the spaces was not required to be checked. Now, we must check the mc of the spacers.

More?

 

[WayneN]

I know I did not mean anything negative by my response

I didn't take your response as negative at all. This is what I wanted to hear ( that my current setup won't be illegal to use ). So the new regulations just mean stored produced after that date will be required to meet specs.

That's good news to me

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[BKVP]

The real change will be with the cordwood method. Stoves are designed to pass a test. One technology is so tuned to use crib fuel, testing with cordwood will bring significant changes to the method by which those stoves will burn cleanly. You have to remember however there was never any attempt to make anyone believe that the way a stove performed in an EPA certification test had any representation to how it burn in the real world. The method was developed to compare one stove to the next.

The cordwood method will throw that logic out the door and SHOULD give a better idea of how the stove will burn when using cordwood.

I have posted in the past, consumers should not compare gr/hr from one stove to the next because the variables in the test method are considerable. In a recent thread there was some discussion about a specific model being cleaner and more efficient than another model. I watched all the input from posters. None were on the mark. The two stoves being compared to one another were different in FB volume. One stove had all 4 x 4's as part of the test fuel load and the other was done on 2 x 4's. The surface area exposed to combustion was so vastly different, how is it possible to even consider a comparison?

Then, take the emissions results, plug them into a formula that the final outcome is influenced by size of firebox (usable space) and other variables and I thought, I'll be here all night if I try to explain this all.

At the end of the day, the best way for a consumer shopping for wood heater, is to invest in the one that has the best possible consumer reviews, fits the look of your home and addresses your life style and expectations. Then be happy you're burning wood and not gas!

 

[jatoxico]

Thanks BKVP for the insight. One other thing, are the stoves brought to temp (e.g. cat engaged) before collecting effluent samples or are the filters in place from a cold start?

 

[BKVP]

Thanks BKVP for the insight. One other thing, are the stoves brought to temp (e.g. cat engaged) before collecting effluent samples or are the filters in place from a cold start?

In the cordwood method, latest draft version, sampling of the high burn will require sampling begins with lighting of a match. Otherwise, there is not a cold start component in this Method 28R.

Read the Canterbury method for New Zealand and their test requires specific pine found in their region, cold start sampling and much more. EPA was encouraged by yours truly to take a peek at the method while developing one for here...

 

[Sodbuster]

Time to buy a few NC30's and store them in the basement.

 

[MisterFixIT]

Time to buy a few NC30's and store them in the basement.

Might not be a bad idea considering that stove (Englander NC30) has 196 reviews on Home Depot with a overall 4.5 out of 5.

I wonder if the EPA2020 compliant TL300 and Harman Oakwood would rate so high.... Google "having trouble with my Harmon TL300" Are these two stoves still efficient once the fire dome is clogged with ash and/or crumbles apart?

 

[begreen]

So far the 30NC already easily passes the 2020 requirements.

 

[Newburnerwisconsin]

How

Heating in a very cold climate is all about preventing heat loss. Then a steady state heater like a BK can keep up with the cold. There are differing opinions on how to heat with wood up there. Not everyone uses a cat stove. This fellow unfortunately got the bum's rush, but has an alternate pov.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/buyers-remorse-before-i-buy-blaze-king.85372/#post-1104650

Back on topic, what we can expect by 2020 is innovation and a refining of design. Some stove companies may drop out, but I don't expect many to. And there may be new companies that take their places.

How do you like the PE Alderlea T6? My stove is a little small so I thinking of a upgrade for next season. Thanks

 

[Karl Hungus]

What I find interesting in these EPA regs from what I understand contrary to title of threads is they do not affect fireplaces. And then Masonry heaters also.
Am I wrong on this?
Or are they supposed to control them but because they are "custom" built on site they just don't have the ability to go out and find and test everyone built into a house they just ignore them?

 

[BKVP]

What I find interesting in these EPA regs from what I understand contrary to title of threads is they do not affect fireplaces. And then Masonry heaters also.
Am I wrong on this?
Or are they supposed to control them but because they are "custom" built on site they just don't have the ability to go out and find and test everyone built into a house they just ignore them?

Masonry fireplaces are exempt. Factory built fireplaces must meet the very fine definition of a fireplace in order to be exempt, and those definitions are in the rule.

Masonry heaters were exempt, but the council of manufacturers sued the EPA so as to become a regulated product. You see, if they are not EPA approved, they would not qualify for changeouts, tax credits or other incentives. Great segment of the industry that fought to be regulated!

 

[JRHAWK9]

I don't know. If a little mom and pop company can figure out how to pass the strict 2020 Phase 2 standard with a non-cat wood burning furnace, I don't quite understand how these HUGE companies with MUCH more $$$ to spend on R&D can't seem to figure it out. IMO, it's not that they can't figure it out, they just don't want to spend the money TO figure it out and hence have to be "forced" to do it.

What I know about the testing procedure is there are four categories based on BTU output. Emission levels at all these four burns must be below the 2.0 g/hr standard as well does the average emission level.

The Kuuma Vapor Fire 100 tested out as follows. This was done using cord wood:
Cat 1 - .62 g/hr
Cat 2 - .58 g/hr
Cat 3 - 1.06 g/hr
Cat 4 - .64 g/hr

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kuuma-vapor-fire-100-epa-testing-results.157075/

 

[Highbeam]

I don't know. If a little mom and pop company can figure out how to pass the strict 2020 Phase 2 standard with a non-cat wood burning furnace, I don't quite understand how these HUGE companies with MUCH more $$$ to spend on R&D can't seem to figure it out. IMO, it's not that they can't figure it out, they just don't want to spend the money TO figure it out and hence have to be "forced" to do it.

What I know about the testing procedure is there are four categories based on BTU output. Emission levels at all these four burns must be below the 2.0 g/hr standard as well does the average emission level.

The Kuuma Vapor Fire 100 tested out as follows. This was done using cord wood:
Cat 1 - .62 g/hr
Cat 2 - .58 g/hr
Cat 3 - 1.06 g/hr
Cat 4 - .64 g/hr

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kuuma-vapor-fire-100-epa-testing-results.157075/

Careful, the furnace was tested for lb/Mbtu (maybe MMbtu) and you made some assumptions and derived an unofficial gph rate. The gph rate you listed is not valid for anything. WA state requires a specific gph rate only. A real tested one. The furnace test protocol does not produce a gph rate.

 

[JRHAWK9]

Careful, the furnace was tested for lb/Mbtu (maybe MMbtu) and you made some assumptions and derived an unofficial gph rate. The gph rate you listed is not valid for anything. WA state requires a specific gph rate only. A real tested one. The furnace test protocol does not produce a gph rate.

wrong. The numbers I posted above ARE what Lamppa posted as their REAL tested numbers.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kuuma-vapor-fire-100-epa-testing-results.157075/#post-2111921

The ones I posted which I computed based on assumptions were actually dirtier because my assumed BTU's at each category were higher.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kuuma-vapor-fire-100-epa-testing-results.157075/#post-2109120

 

[Highbeam]

wrong. The numbers I posted above ARE what Lamppa posted as their REAL tested numbers.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kuuma-vapor-fire-100-epa-testing-results.157075/#post-2111921

The ones I posted which I computed based on assumptions were actually dirtier because my assumed BTU's at each category were higher.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/kuuma-vapor-fire-100-epa-testing-results.157075/#post-2109120

You're right, I went to the thread you first linked and only saw you trying to make the conversion yourself. Didn't read to the end where kuuma agreed.

I wish the specifications for all furnaces gave both GPH and lbs/MMbtu.

 

[huauqui]

Wow, there is a lot of information in this post. Thanks for all the input folks!