TO:  ASTM E06.54 Members and All Other Interested Parties
FROM:  Bob Ferguson
DATE:  February 4, 2020
RE:  January 28, 2020 Teleconference Call Report - ASTM E2515 and ASTM E3053 Task Groups

Task Group teleconferences for both ASTM E2515 and E3053 Task Groups were held via WEBEX on January 28. 2020.  These task groups are addressing possible revisions/updates to these two ASTM standard test methods.  Once again, the calls were sequential for convenience of the participants.  
There was a brief discussion about the ASTM Collaboration Areas.  Rick Curkeet reported that he has established work items for the two test methods and has established the collaboration areas (CA's).  ASTM members will receive notification about the CA's and can access them using their ASTM log-in credentials.  Non-ASTM members will receive individual invitations that will come along with instructions for gaining access.  We are only submitting those folks that expressed interest in having access to the CA's.  Anyone that did not indicate interest to me already can do so at any time and will added in.
The attendees list was confirmed and is included with this report. Please check the columns indicating ASTM membership status and whether I have received a request from you for access to the CA's.  Please point out any errors or omissions.
ASTM E2515:  Standard Test Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution Tunnel

The subject of dilution tunnel flow was first on the agenda.  The topic of condensation was interspersed in the discussion. In general summary of the discussion, it was noted that:
 Increasing tunnel flow is the only way to reduce tunnel temperature and that increased flow can help mitigate condensation issues by more dilution of the moisture released during combustion.  
 Increasing tunnel flow also reduces PM concentration in the tunnel which will reduce PM catch at any given sample flow rate.  
 Increasing tunnel flow also increases the dilution ratio (Tunnel Flow/Sample Flow) which is the multiplier for converting PM catch to total PM.  
 As catches decease and tunnel flow increases, uncertainty in the total PM value can increase. 
 These factors must be considered when setting new limits or ranges in tunnel parameters.

Other noted comments:
 Ben Myren mentioned that he has been running his tunnels in the 190 to 200 cfm range. 
 Louise Cleroux from ICC/RSF has experience with higher tunnel flows because of all the fireplace work that she has done and will look at her data regarding tunnel flow and tunnel temperature.  
 Guillaume Thibodeau-Fortin from SBI has been running around 300 cfm and has provided a graph showing tunnel temperatures well above 100°F even at that rate.  He also noted that he sees very little weight loss on filters between immediately post-test and when fully dry which indicates to him that there is very little filter moisture.  
 Rick Curkeet addressed the uncertainty issue with higher tunnel flows.  
 Bob Ferguson asked about the tunnel flow measurement uncertainty using a Pitot tube. Rick responded that one factor is ratio of the magnitude of the Pitot delta P and the measurement resolution.   
 Bob Ferguson again suggested that some tunnel parameter data would be helpful.  He will put together a separate request form to help make it easy to provide data.
 Bob Ferguson will continue to try to locate a study on the impacts that dilution tunnel flow rates have on PM capture that was conducted many years ago by Dr. Houck while he was at OMNI.  

   The date and time for the next call was discussed.  
   
   The February call that was planned for February 18[th] has been cancelled.  
   
   There will be a face-to-face meeting at the HPBA EXPO in New Orleans.  This meeting will be on Tuesday, March 10[th] from 4:30 to 6:00 PM CST in Room 273 at the convention center.  Call-in information will be provided when available.
   
   At 2:30 PM EST the E2515 portion of call was adjourned.
   
   ASTM E3053:  Standard Test Method for Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters Using Cordwood Test Fuel

   The initial discussion was about Manufacturer's Written Instructions v. Owner's Manual and resulted in a number of comments:
 Bob Ferguson noted that the language currently in E3053 could be revised to be more clear about the requirements for consistency between how the stove is tested in the lab and the instructions for operation provided to the consumer in the owner's manual.  The intent was that there would be consistency, that is, that stoves wouldn't be tested one way and the consumer given different information.  
 Guillaume Thibodeau-Fortin felt that a standardized template for operating instructions for owner's manuals would be helpful.  
 Bob Ferguson noted that owner's manual information is part of the current rule but that perhaps that it could be improved or enhanced.
 Chris Neufeld from Blazeking mentioned that using the stove in a manner inconsistent with the owner's manual was covered in the EPA rule.  His read was that the stove warranty could be voided if the user operated the heater in a manner that was inconsistent with the owner's manual.
 Ben Myren supported having clear and standardized instructions.
 Martin Lunde from GARN felt that photos of recommended would loads should be included in the owner's manual.  Note:  This is a cross-over comment from the next discussion.

The discussion then moved to test fuel load properties.  The main issue was about how to better define the test fuel load and how to address concerns about things like piece shapes and bark.  Noted comments included:
 Louise Cleroux suggested that no more than one piece per load could have a generally square or rectangular profile noting that these shapes do occur in wood piles, especially when large diameter logs are split. Ben Myren was also concerned about losing the center of the tree.
 Brian Ziegler from Intertek suggested that no bark be spilt off any test fuel pieces while making up the test fuel loads
 Guillaume Thibodeau-Fortin suggested that some fraction of the load, maybe one-half or two-thirds of the pieces have at least some bark but questioned how the amount of bark would be determined on any given piece.
 There were multiple comments about how bark tends to fall off when pieces dry and are handled.  Chris Neufeld mentioned that this varies by species.  Others agreed.
 Aaron Saxton from Blazeking raised the possibility of testing without bark and then adding an adjustment factor.  The general response was concern about how you would generate a factor.
 Bob Ferguson asked if anyone knew of any models that were certified with D. fir cordwood.
 Ben Myren commented that he knew of one but also commented about the difficulty of loading at 12 lb/ft[3] with D. fir cordwood.
 Jeff Bain from Pacific Energy noted that they had switched from D. fir to Big Leaf maple in order to be able to make the required loading density.

The call was adjourned at approximately 3:55 PM.

   The February call that was planned for February 18[th] has been cancelled.   
   
   E3053 will be on the agenda at the March 10[th] meeting at the HPBA EXPO in New Orleans.


