2. Sierra’s Role  Guidance/advice to OMNI on technical issues and documentation for final report  Supplemental quality assurance (after testing)  Specific direction on analyses for: cold start, liquid fuels, XRF and emission profiles, results from control device and other tests  Independent evaluation and recommendations to FNSB on integrity of results 2

3. Study Objectives: Measure Emissions and Provide Detailed Source Profiles for CMB Modeling  6 Fairbanks fuels  Birch & spruce cordwood, pellets  coal (stoker, lump, wet & dry)  Nos.1 & 2 fuel oils, waste lube oil  9 Common appliance types  conventional & advanced (EPA cert.) woodstoves  conventional & advanced (EPA Phase 2 qualified) OWHHs  conventional coal stove  central indoor oil furnace & waste oil burner  pellet room heater & auger-fed OHH  35 emission tests in all 3

4. Method 28 vs. OMNI Modifications Method 28 - Prescribes fueling, test conditions, etc. for wood heaters OMNI Adaptations (consistent with FNSB specification) Douglas fir, crib fuel (prescribed loadings) Birch or spruce cordwood, and other specified Alaskan fuels Hot start test: Kindling + preburn for bed of coals, then run filter for load+burn of test charge 30 hot start tests no cold start test procedure5 cold start tests run filter for kindling+preburn+test charge 4 firing rates weighted annual & seasonal avgs 1 or 2 firing rates: “low” (~35%) and max. no weightings computed Test ends when stove returns to sampling weight at start For solid fuel, followed M28 or M28Pellet. For liquid fuels, continued until measurable PM collected 4

5. Other Sampling and Analytical Methods Used Target CompoundsMethodLaboratory PM 2.5 EPA Other Test Method 27 (per proposed changes to M201A) RTI Gases : NOx CO O 2 CO 2 SO 2 NH 3 VOC EPA Method 7E EPA Method 10 EPA Method 3A EPA Method 6 EPA Conditional Test Method 27 EPA Method 25A OMNI EfficiencyCSA B415.1-10 Bottom Ash-Columbia Analytical Services Solid Fuels Liquid Fuels various Twin Ports Testing SWRI 5

6. Testing Results (Based on December DRAFT report) 6

7. (Preliminary) PM 2.5 Emission Factors from OMNI Testing for Conventional and EPA-certified Wood Stoves, using Birch or Spruce and Low or High Firing Rates (lbs/ton of dry fuel) 7

8. (Preliminary) Outdoor Wood Hydronic Heaters PM 2.5 Emission Factors from OMNI Testing for “non-qualified” and EPA-qualified OWHHs using Birch or Spruce and Low or High Firing Rates (lbs/ton of dry fuel) 8

9. OMNI’s Caution about Nonqualified OWHH Test Results:  This unit produced extreme flow, PM and heat in the flue  Combined with a low dilution, caused excessive PM concentrations and temperature  Required substantially modified procedures “…far beyond the capabilities of the sampling systems…” 9

10. Summary of Testing Modifications by OMNI  Large bypass filter to reduce overload,  Heat filters to avoid condensation  Replace filters during some runs  Reanalysis by RTI of (spare) overloaded teflon filters w. individual element XRF calibration  Issues remain with the conventional OWHH measurements 10

11. (Preliminary) Coal PM 2.5 Emission Factors from OMNI Coal Stove Testing for Wet or Dry Stoker and Lump Coal; Low and High Firing Rates; (lbs/ton of dry fuel) 11

12. Methodology to Determine Cold Start Effect 1. Start integrated sample filter 2. Light birch kindling w. propane torch 3. After kindling burns, load pre-burn charge (coal or wood) 4. Conduct pre-burn at high firing rate 5. After precharge burns, load test charge & burn at low rate 6. End sampling 12 Cold Start mass (estimate) = PM mass emission (steps 1-6) minus mass from high rate burn of preburn fuel load (from hot start test) minus low rate burn of test fuel load (from hot start test)

13. Cold Start Emissions for EPA Certified Wood Stove Burning Birch with Estimated Contribution from Each Test Phase 13

14. Estimated Contribution of Start+Kindling Emissions to Total Cold Start Test Emissions 14

15. Evaluation of Retrofit PM Control Device on Two OWHHs Test results for OWHHs not considered reliable by Sierra due to flow rates and PM loadings that exceeded sampling system capabilities AND Feedback air control wasn’t installed on either unit Testing needs to be repeated with more appropriate sampling setup and with feedback air attached 15

16. Preliminary Min, Max and Avg PM 2.5 Emission Factor by Appliance Type from OMNI Testing (lbs PM 2.5 emitted per ton of fuel burned) 16

17. OMNI Preliminary Results for All Appliances PM 2.5 Emissions per Unit of Useful Heat Output (lbs per megaJoule) IMPORTANT – raw measurement results, all previous caveats apply 17

18. Comparison of Selected OMNI PM Emission Factors Measurements (lbs/ton) with Prior Study Results & AP-42 Appliance Type Current OMNI Testing Avg (range of conditions) Earlier OMNI Testing of Same Model (fuel & method may vary) AP-42 Efs (w. assumed or measured fuel properties) Stove Conventional, wood EPA-certified, wood Coal 9.8 (8.9 - 12.0) 2.9 (2.4 - 5.3) 8.7 (2.3 - 15.1) 7.1 - 30.6 14.6 – 16.2 - OHH Nonqualified, wood EPA Ph2 Qualifd, wood Augerfed coal 14.3 (8.8 - 25.7) 2.3 (0.77 – 5.3) 0.96 - 2.4 - 3.8 (boiler) Pellet Stove3.0-4.2 - 8.8 Coal Stove8.7 (2.3 – 15.1)-3.8 (boiler) Oil burner No. 1 No.2 Waste oil 0.33 0.12 2.97 ------ 0.55 0.58 0.17 18

19. Summary of Sierra’s Findings on the Test Program Testing by OMNI-Test Laboratories of popular appliances with Fairbanks fuels showed: 1. Wood burning units have higher PM emissions than either oil or coal burners; continuously fed units (oil, augerfed OHH, pellet stove) are lowest 2. EPA-certified and –qualified models were cleaner burning and more efficient 3. High firing rate emits fewer lbs/ton than low 4. Birch tended to emit more than spruce 19

20. Preliminary Findings (cont.) 5. EPA-certified stove emitted ~70% less PM 2.5 (lbs/ton of dry fuel) than conventional 6. EPA qualified OWHH emitted ~84% less PM 2.5 than nonqualified but confirmation needed due to eqpt problems 7. Coal burning had mixed results for stoker vs. lump, wet/dry, low vs. high firing rate 8. For one test of EPA certified woodstove, cold start increased emissions by 15.4%, but this is within measurement uncertainty. More testing is needed. 20

21. Preliminary Findings (cont.) 9. Limited testing with retrofit PM control was of no use due to lack of air inlet control setup 10. Alaska-specific EFs can be used to help evaluate sensitivity of the Fairbanks EI to different factors in order to assess/improve/demonstrate its reliability 11. OMNI’s emission profiles can be used for CMB analysis, except the questionable pellet burner profile needing further investigation 12. Several subject appliances emitted HAPs, SO 2 (a PM 2.5 precursor), and other criteria pollutant gases - beyond the scope of this review 21

22. Factors in OMNI’s Test Matrix can be Used to Help Evaluate Sensitivity of EF’s in the Emission Inventory OMNI data allows calculation of emission factors to assess sensitivity of EI analysis and assumptions about:  EPA-certified/uncertified wood stoves, including low/high firing rates & birch/spruce  Fairbanks specific fuels (wood-, coal-, pellet-, and oil- burning) with common Fairbanks appliances  Cold vs. hot start for woodstove & coal (limited data)  Various forms of coal (wet/dry, lump/stoker, stove/augerfed) ~ 22