Laserfiche WebLink
03/16/2004 14:02 F ?..S 1 218 782 2580 <br />CENTRAL BOILER INC [rte. 004 <br />control. Other wood stove and outdoor furnace manufacturers are also actively testing for <br />emissions and are seeidng improvements for better performance. <br />I am presenting this testimony in writing along with copies of the above mentioned <br />informafionJ of ltr.consideration. Thank you again for your attention and I invite your <br />4)1EPA <br />presented. Co =ef to •.� ^-nca <br />n! r9- td^:g$k L--' •rr.c options, these fur- <br />naces emissions were of the sa7ie of- <br />ecr as other stick wocc ournu5a3pph- <br />ar502s <br />This ;Project Summar/ ,vas developed. <br />by the National Risk Management Rc- <br />scarch Laboratery's'Air Penticton Pre- <br />vention and Contret Division, Research <br />Triangle Park, NC, to announce key <br />findings of the research project. (hat is <br />fully documented in a separate.repart <br />or mo same rine (see Palled Report <br />ordering in(orma(!cn at back). <br />l)nitcci Stales <br />Environmental Protection <br />Acency <br />National Risk Management <br />Research Laboratory <br />Cincinnati, OH 45265 <br />Research oral Development <br />EF.A/600/SR-98/017 February 5998 <br />Project Summary <br />Emissions from Outcoor Wood - <br />Burning Resicential ( lot Water <br />Hurnaces <br />Furnace /Teat/ <br />Condition <br />Wood <br />Load <br />(wet <br />lbs) <br />Coal <br />3cd <br />(lha <br />) <br />Mciatu -o <br />(k dry <br />baeis) <br />Average <br />3urnrate <br />(dry <br />kg/hr) <br />Ava rm. go <br />Molivered <br />a£_°iciency <br />('=) <br />3 ar t i cti1 ate, EPA Method SC <br />g /hr <br />g /kg <br />of dry <br />fuel <br />mg/3tu <br />output <br />- g /MT: <br />autpu C` <br />mg (M.. <br />input <br />r urnece B/E-i /high <br />heat removal <br />132.0 <br />29,5 <br />23.7 <br />3.35 <br />50.5 <br />26.5 <br />10.9 <br />1.21 <br />1.1 c5 <br />579 <br />Furnace 8 /5- 2 thigh <br />heat removal <br />136.9 <br />29.5 <br />23.7 <br />2.84 <br />57,1 <br />37.5 <br />13.3 <br />1.31 <br />1228 <br />707 <br />Furnace 3/3 -3/10w <br />heat removal <br />125.3 <br />29.0 <br />24.7 <br />1.51 <br />55.4 <br />14.3 <br />9.5 <br />0,96 <br />911 <br />505 <br />Furnace 9/8 -4 /low <br />heat removal <br />139.5 <br />26.0 <br />23.5 <br />1.69 <br />55.1 <br />15.5 <br />9.2 <br />0.94 <br />1..8°2. <br />49L <br />Table 1. Comparison of average <br />particulate emission factor, (5H <br />adjusted) to .AP -42 values, <br />Method 5H <br />Equivalent <br />Emission Factor <br />Stove Group <br />gfkg (Dry) / <br />Catatylio Stoves <br />10.8 <br />(5 Stoves. 13 <br />' - <br />Runs) <br />Noncstalytic <br />Stoves (11 <br />923 kce <br />Stoves, 30 Runs) <br />Catalytic <br />8.1 <br />Noncatatytic <br />7.3 <br />Conventional <br />15.3 <br />United States Nation �lweunenl `�' <br />Environmental Protection Research' a oratory <br />Agenr� Cincinnati, OH 45268 <br />,� ear?nand Development <br />Protect Summary <br />,gong -Term Performance of EPA - <br />Certified Phase 2 Woodstoves, <br />Klamath Falls and Portland, <br />Orecori: 19E98/1999 <br />-24- <br />EPA/600 /SR- 00/500 December 2000 <br />