annual teck coal ltd. regional air monitoring program report 2019-03 … · 2019-04-25 · 2018...

REPORT

This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document formats provided upon request. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America

rwdi.com

ANNUAL TECK COAL LTD. REGIONAL AIR MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT 2019-03-31 SPARWOOD, BC

2018 ANNUAL REPORT RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

SUBMITTED TO Jessica Tremblay Environmental EIT Teck Coal Limited T: 250.425.8805 [email protected]

SUBMITTED BY Eric Christensen, M.Sc. Air Quality Scientist [email protected] Matthew Sawycky, B.Sc. Senior Project Manager / Associate [email protected] RWDI Suite 280 - 1385 West 8th Avenue Vancouver, BC, V6H 3V9 T: 604.730.5688

2018 ANNUAL REPORT ANNUAL TECK COAL LTD. REGIONAL AIR MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT 2019-03-31

RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Teck Coal Ltd. (Teck) operates five open pit coal mine operations in the Elk Valley: Coal Mountain (CMO), Elkview

(EVO), Line Creek (LCO), Greenhills (GHO) and Fording River (FRO). Each mine is authorized by permits issued by

the British Columbia Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy (BC ENV) under the Environmental

Management Act to discharge emissions to the air. There is also a requirement under these permits for a Regional

Air Monitoring Program (RAMP) that allows for an ongoing assessment of the efficacy of monitoring and to

provide annual reporting summarizing the state of air quality and meteorology in the region.

There are eight monitoring sites that are part of the RAMP where Particulate Matter 10 micrometer diameter and

less (PM10), Particulate Matter 2.5 micrometer diameter and less (PM2.5) and Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)

concentrations are measured. The meteorological conditions of 2018 largely impacted particulate concentrations

and exceedances. Decreased precipitation volumes throughout most of the year led to higher PM readings, and

increased forest fires throughout Western North America led to increased regional PM in August and early

September. During 2018, daily averaged TSP readings above British Columbia Ambient Air Quality Objectives

(BCAAQO) occurred fourteen times; ten at LCO – L10A, two at CMO – AGWS (E297251) and two at GHO-Elkford

(E290310).

One hundred twenty-eight (128) daily average results of PM10 were observed above BCAAQO at 7 stations: sixty-

two (62) at South Station (FRO – SS /E297832), fourteen (14) at Michel Creek road Residences (EVO – MCRR), nine

(9) at Elkford (GHO – Elkford/E290310), sixteen (16) at Hosmer (CMO – Hosmer), seven (7) at Andy Good Weather

Station (CMO – AGWS/E297251), one (1) at Whispering Winds Trailer Park (EVO – WWTP/0250184) and nineteen

(19) at Downtown Air Monitoring Station (EVO – DTAM/E262137). Half of the daily averaged concentrations above

the BCAAQO occurred during the month of August 2018, an exceptionally bad forest fire season. The BCAAQO for

PM2.5 is evaluated against the 98th percentile of the daily average PM2.5 over 365 days. Six out of six stations that

record PM2.5 observed 98th percentile results above BCAAQO: CMO – AGWS (E297251), CMO – Hosmer, EVO –

DTAM (E262137), EVO – MCRR, EVO – WWTP (0250184) and GHO – Elkford (E290310). In addition, daily average

data is compared to the BCAAQO to inform performance. Eighty-four (84) daily average results of PM2.5 were

observed above BCAAQO at 6 stations: twenty-one (21) at CMO-Hosmer, sixteen (16) at GHO-Elkford (E290310),

ten (10) at EVO – MCRR, twelve (12) at EVO – WWTP (0250184), sixteen (16) at EVO – DTAM (E262137) and nine (9)

each at CMO – AGWS (E297251).

There were no results above BCAAQO over any averaging period for NO2, SO2 or CO.

Long temporal records of air quality measurements were not available for all monitoring stations, therefore,

figures presenting inter-annual variability are presented but the trends are not discernible in all cases. The trend

at LCO – L10A (E206189) showed an increase in annual TSP concentrations in 2018 toward values more similar to

those observed from 2011 to 2014. The GHO – Elkford (E290310) continuous air monitoring station shows a

continued increase in annual TSP concentrations. CMO – AGWS (E297251) TSP concentrations have been

decreasing since 2016. All stations showed increases in annual PM10 concentrations and all but CMO – AGWS

(E297251) and GHO – Elkford (E290310) showed an increase in annual PM2.5 in 2018, likely due to contributions

from forest fires, with EVO – WWTP (0250184) exceeding the annual BCAAQO.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com iii

There were some quarters where data completeness did not achieve the 75% requirement of the BC ENV,

outlined in site specific permits. This was a result of instrument malfunctions. There were no parameters that did

not meet the 75% completeness requirement on an annual basis at any station.

Meteorological monitoring at sites include: wind speed and direction, air temperature (measured at nine stations)

and precipitation (measured at four stations). Meteorological data were compared against 30 – year climate

normals measured in Sparwood. Overall, 2018 was found to be warmer and much drier than normal. All

variability in meteorological monitoring between stations can be mainly attributed to differences in elevation,

local topography and the siting of each station.

In 2018, EVO received 158 pieces of feedback related to air quality and dust management. The feedback was

related to specific weather events (56), complaints relating to visual impacts, dirty vehicles and dust on personal

property (77) or from the highway haul between EVO and CMO (25), Teck’s Coal Operations in the Elk Valley

continue to recognize dust as a primary concern to nearby communities and takes all feedback seriously.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ II

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

2 MONITORING LOCATIONS ......................................................................................................... 3

3 AIR QUALITY RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) .................................................................................................. 7

3.2 PM10 ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.3 PM2.5 ................................................................................................................................................................ 9

3.4 Gases ............................................................................................................................................................ 10

3.5 Inter-annual Variability of Air Quality Measurements ......................................................... 16

3.6 Data Completeness ............................................................................................................................... 23

3.6.1 TSP ................................................................................................................................................................. 23 3.6.2 PM10 ............................................................................................................................................................... 23 3.6.3 PM2.5 .............................................................................................................................................................. 24 3.6.4 Gases ............................................................................................................................................................. 24

4 METEOROLOGY RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 26

4.1 Wind Speed and Direction ................................................................................................................ 26

4.2 Precipitation .............................................................................................................................................27

4.3 Air Temperature .................................................................................................................................... 28

5 MANAGEMENT OF AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................... 30

5.1 Public Air Quality Feedback ............................................................................................................. 30

5.2 Fugitive Dust Management Plans .................................................................................................. 31

6 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 31

7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 32


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com v

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Location in decimal degrees and elevation in metres of the monitoring

stations in the Regional Air Monitoring Program. ....................................................... 3 Table 2: Parameters measured at each of the stations that are part of the Regional

Air Monitoring Program. .................................................................................................. 5 Table 3: BC Ambient Air Quality Objectives for each air contaminant that is

monitored at any of the stations covered by this report. ........................................... 6 Table 4: Annual Means of Particulate Matter Concentrations from Each Station for

2018 ................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 5: Total Number Results above BCAAQO for 2018 ....................................................... 15 Table 6: Annual Means of TSP Concentrations (geometric means) ...................................... 17 Table 7: Annual Means of PM10 Concentrations ...................................................................... 19 Table 8: Annual Means of PM2.5 Concentrations ...................................................................... 21 Table 9: Annual Means of Gas Concentrations ........................................................................ 22

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of Teck’s Operations and Regional Monitoring Locations in the Elk

Valley ................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Daily Averaged TSP Concentrations. .............................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations. ............................................................................ 9 Figure 4: Daily Averaged PM2.5 Concentrations. ........................................................................ 10 Figure 5: Daily 1-hour Maximum NO2 Concentrations from EVO – DTAM. ........................... 11 Figure 6: 1-hour and 8-hour Rolling Averaged CO Concentrations from EVO – DTAM. ...... 12 Figure 7: Daily 1-hour Maximum SO2 Concentrations from EVO – DTAM. ............................ 13 Figure 8: Time Series of Annual Averages of TSP Concentration since Station Inception .. 18 Figure 9: Time Series of Annual Averages of PM10 Concentration since Station

Inception. ........................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 10: Time Series of Annual Averages of PM2.5 Concentration since Station

Inception. ........................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 11: Wind Roses for All Stations in the Regional Air Monitoring Program for 2018. ... 26 Figure 12: Monthly Precipitation Totals for stations in the Regional Air Monitoring

Program for 2018 ........................................................................................................... 28 Figure 13: Daily Averaged Temperature for Regional Air Monitoring Program Stations ...... 29


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com vi

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Air Quality Data Summary Tables Appendix B: Plots of Particulate Matter Concentrations


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Teck Coal Limited (Teck) operates five open pit coal mines (the Sites) within the Elk Valley located in the

southeastern Kootenay region of British Columbia (Figure 1). The Elk Valley is characterized by rugged terrain and

localized mountain weather patterns. As with similar valleys in British Columbia, the mixing of air and dispersion

of any pollutants it may contain is limited by a combination of topographic constraints and meteorological

conditions. The communities of Elkford (population 2,500) and Sparwood (population 3,800) are the largest

communities located in the vicinity of the Sites. Each mine, as outlined below, is authorized by permits issued by

the British Columbia Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy (ENV) under the Environmental

Management Act to discharge emissions to the air:

• Coal Mountain Operations (CMO) – PA-4751

• Elkview Operations (EVO) – PA-1807

• Fording River Operations (FRO) – PA-1501

• Greenhills Operations (GHO) – PA-6249

• Line Creek Operations (LCO) – PA-5352

In 2014, site specific permits were amended to include a condition which states:

Valley Wide Monitoring Plan

The Permittee must participate in a comprehensive ambient monitoring program that considers emissions

from all Teck Coal Limited mines in the Elk Valley. This program must be prepared and implemented by a

qualified professional. This program must be conducted to the satisfaction of the Director.

The Regional Air Monitoring Program (RAMP) aims to satisfy this requirement of the Site’s individual permits. The

monitoring program uses an Adaptive Management Framework to allow for continual assessment and

adjustment of the program to ensure it continues to efficiently meet objectives over time.

This report forms part of the requirements of the RAMP. This report will cover air quality and meteorological

monitoring conducted by Teck in the Elk Valley under the RAMP, as well as draw in outside sources where

necessary and if available. This report will supplement the Mines’ reporting according to their individual permits

by providing an overall summary and linking back to site specific monitoring and mining activities as required,

providing context for the monitoring results for the Elk Valley.

This report includes information on:

• results above provincial or federal ambient air quality objectives or guidelines and,

• temporal trends in ambient air quality concentrations.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 2

In addition, as required to provide context for the ambient results, this report includes:

• public input to visibility or nuisance dusting issues;

• changes in Teck mining operations that may impact air quality;

• changes in Teck’s dust management plan, and

• changes in Teck’s ambient monitoring program.

Using an adaptive management framework, this annual report will also make recommendations to adjust the

RAMP where needed.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 3

2 MONITORING LOCATIONS

Air quality and meteorological monitoring is conducted at the Sites and in three different communities in the Elk

Valley. There are currently eight continuous regional air monitoring stations operated by Teck, at which various

parameters are measured and used for different purposes; including research and development, site fugitive

dust management plans and ambient air quality monitoring. This section describes the eight stations and all

parameters that are included in the RAMP that focus on monitoring and assessing ambient air quality. These

eight stations were chosen to provide a representative assessment of air quality and meteorology throughout the

Elk Valley region. See Table 1 and Figure 1 for the locations of the monitoring stations and Table 2 for a

description of the parameters measured at each of those monitoring stations as required under the RAMP. The

criteria air contaminants (CACs) measured at these stations include:

• TSP – Total Suspended Particulate

• PM10 – Particulate matter smaller than 10 µm in diameter

• PM2.5 – Particulate matter smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter

• NO2 – Nitrogen dioxide

• SO2 – Sulphur dioxide

• CO – Carbon monoxide

Table 1: Location in decimal degrees and elevation in metres of the monitoring stations in the Regional Air Monitoring Program.

Notes: Station name abbreviations along with station identifiers are included in parentheses beside the station name. Station names with regards to the valley wide monitoring program differ from those specified in the permits.

1- Named “Andy Good Spoils” in the Teck CMO permit PA 4751. 2- Named “Rocky Mountain Elementary” in the Teck GHO permit PA 6249. 3- Named “Sewage Treatment Facility Air Quality Station” in the Teck FRO permit PA 1501.

Station Name Latitude (decimal degrees)

Longitude (decimal degrees)

Elevation (m)

CMO

Andy Good Weather Station (CMO - AGWS/E297251)

[1] 49.523678 -114.684289 1493

Hosmer 49.590260 -114.959234 1057

EVO

Downtown Air Monitoring Station (EVO - DTAM/E262137))

49.732811 -114.887683 1138

Whispering Winds Trailer Park (EVO - WWTP/E0250184)

49.798506 -114.888639 1160

Michel Creek Road Residences (EVO - MCRR) 49.743520 -114.872577 1150

LCO L10A (LCO - L10A/E206189) 49.891055 -114.845795 1298

LCO Plant Weather (E297050) 49.891053 -114.845684 1298

GHO Elkford (GHO – Elkford/E290310) [2] 50.007808 -114.933668 1333

FRO South Station (FRO - SS/E297832) [3] 50.148679 -114.856601 1582

!

!

!

!

!

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ALBERTA

Hosmer

Sparwood

Hosmer

Elkford

South Station

LCO Plant WeatherL10A

Andy Good Weather Station

Whispering Winds Trailer Park (WWTP)

Michelle Creek Road Residences (MCRR)

Downtown Air Monitoring Station (DTAM)

630000

630000

645000

645000

660000

660000

675000

675000

690000

690000

5490

000

5490

000

5505

000

5505

000

5520

000

5520

000

5535

000

5535

000

5550

000

5550

000

1500

459_

Teck

_Mon

itorin

g_Fig

ure 1_

Monit

oring

Stat

ions.m

xd

REV. 0DESIGN

AIR MONITORING STATIONSPROJECT No. 12-1349-0003 SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

DR 03 Jan. 2014

CHECK

TECK COAL REGIONAL AIR MONITORING PROGRAM

LEGEND

Provincial Boundary and communities obtained from The Atlas of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. Alberta Hydrographyobtained from CanVec, Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada. BC Hydrography, Dominion Coal Blocks andproject data obtained from Teck Coal Limited. Roads obtained from Geobase. Provincial parks and Railroad data obtained from Geogratis. Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83

REFERENCE

³

#* AIR MONITORING STATION! CITY / TOWN / COMMUNITY

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYPRIMARY HIGHWAYSECONDARY HIGHWAYROAD

BRITISH COLUMBIA / ALBERTAPROVINCIAL BOUNDARYMINE OPERATIONSPROVINCIAL PARKWATERBODY

10 0 10

KILOMETRES1:400,000SCALE

DRAFTDJHABSTAD

16 Mar. 201716 Mar. 201716 Mar. 2017

FIGURE 1

FRO

GHO

LCO

EVO

CMO


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 5

Table 2: Parameters measured at each of the stations that are part of the Regional Air Monitoring Program.

Station Name

Air Quality Parameters Meteorological Parameters

TSP

PM10

PM2.

5

NO

2

CO

SO2

Visu

al V

iew

shed

Win

d Sp

eed

and

Dir

ecti

on

Tem

pera

ture

Rela

tive

Hum

idit

y

Baro

met

ric

Pres

sure

Prec

ipit

atio

n

Sola

r Ra

diat

ion

Snow

Dep

th

CMO

Andy Good Weather Station (CMO - AGWS/E297251) [3]

X X X X X X X X

Hosmer X X X X X X

EVO

Downtown Air Monitoring Station (EVO - DTAM/E262137)

X1 X1 X X X X X X X

Whispering Winds Trailer Park (EVO - WWTP/E0250184)

X1 X1 X X X

Michel Creek Road Residences X X X X X

LCO

L10A (LCO - L10A/E206189) X2

LCO Plant Weather (E297050) X X X

GHO Elkford (GHO – Elkford/E290310) [4] X X X X X X X

FRO South Station (FRO - SS/E297832) [5] X1 X X X X X X

Notes: Station name abbreviations along with station identifiers are included in parentheses beside the station name. Station names with regards to the valley wide monitoring program differ from those specified in the permits.

1- PM10 and PM2.5 at these locations measured continuously using a Thermo 5030i SHARP. 2- TSP at these locations are measured using a Hi-Volume sampler per the National Air Pollution Surveillance schedule. 3- Named “Andy Good Spoils” in the Teck CMO permit PA 4751. 4- Named “Rocky Mountain Elementary” in the Teck GHO permit PA 6249. 5- Named “Sewage Treatment Facility Air Quality Station” in the Teck FRO permit PA 1501.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 6

3 AIR QUALITY RESULTS

As shown in Table 2, six air quality parameters were measured across Teck’s regional monitoring network. The

results of the monitoring in 2018 and the longer-term trends are discussed in this section. These results include a

discussion of the number of excursions and/or results above applicable BC Provincial Ambient Air Quality

Objectives (BCAAQO) for each air contaminant that is monitored (see Table 3 and Table 5), as well as the

completeness of the datasets for PM and gases at the monitoring stations. Appendices A and B also provide more

detailed information on air quality for 2018.

Figure 2 through Figure 7 and figures in Appendix B show time series of CAC concentrations measured at all

stations within the regional monitoring network and Table 4 shows the annual means of particulate matter

concentrations at all stations.

Table 3: BC Ambient Air Quality Objectives for each air contaminant that is monitored at any of the stations covered by this report.

Contaminant BCAAQO / BC PCO 1-Hour 8-Hour 24-Hour Annual

PM2.5 (µg/m3) BCAAQO[2] 25[3] 8

PM10 (µg/m3) BCAAQO[2] 50

TSP (µg/m3) BCAAQO[2] 120 60[6]

NO2 (µg/m3) BCAAQO[2] 113[4] 60

SO2 (µg/m3) BCAAQO[2] 183[5]

CO (µg/m3) BC PCO[1] 14,300 5,500

Notes: 1- BC PCO refers to the BC Pollution Control Objective (BC MOE, 2016). 2- BCAAQO refers to the Provincial Ambient Air Quality Objective (BC MOE, 2016). 3- The PM2.5 BCAAQO is based on 98th percentile values; therefore, an exceedance is defined as occurring only after six excursions

have occurred. 4- The NO2 BC interim AAQO is based on the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour value. Therefore, an exceedance is

defined as occurring only after six excursions have occurred. 5- The SO2 BC interim AAQO is based on the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour value. Therefore, an exceedance is

defined as occurring only after six excursions have occurred. 6- The annual TSP BCAAQO is based on the geometric mean.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 7

3.1 Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)

Figure 2 shows the time series of 24-hour average TSP concentrations for the three stations at which TSP is

measured as well as the BCAAQO for TSP of 120 µg/m3. Figure 2 and Table 5 show that there were fourteen

values greater than the 24-hour objective: two at CMO - AGWS, ten at LCO – L10A and two at GHO-Elkford. Of the

fourteen TSP concentrations above the objective, four occurred in August during the period when many air

quality advisories were issued; caused by forest fires in Western North America. The proximity of LCO – L10A to

the train loadout at LCO may contribute to the higher TSP concentrations seen at this location for time periods

outside of the forest fire season. Annual geometric means of TSP concentrations at all three stations remained

below the annual BCAAQO of 60 µg/m3 (see Table 4, Table 6 and Figure 8) in 2018.

Figure 2: Daily Averaged TSP Concentrations. The BCAAQO of 120 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 8

3.2 PM10

Figure 3 shows the time series of the 24-hour average PM10 concentrations at seven stations as well as the

BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3. Figure 3 and Table 5 show that there were 128 daily average results above the BCAAQO, 62

at FRO- SS, seven (7) at CMO – AGWS, sixteen (16) at CMO - Hosmer, nineteen (19) at EVO - DTAM, fourteen (14) at

EVO - MCRR, one (1) at EVO – WWTP and nine (9) at GHO - EHS. Half of the daily averaged concentrations above

the BCAAQO occurred during the month of August 2018. This month had exceptionally bad forest fires with

numerous air quality advisories issued for the East Kootenays.

Results above the BCAAQO for FRO – SS during the August forest fire season were likely elevated by contributions

to regional PM10 concentrations from the forest fires. It is unknown if concentrations would have been greater

than the BCAAQO in the absence of the forest fires. PM10 concentrations greater than the BCAAQO throughout

the remainder of the year may have been exacerbated by much lower than normal annual precipitation totals.

Aside from FRO – SS and a small number of isolated events at EVO – DTAM, EVO – MCRR and GHO – EHS, all of the

exceedances occurred during the forest fire season.

Outside of the forest fire season, EVO – MCRR recorded PM10 concentrations above the BCAAQO in March, April,

July and September through November. The predominant wind direction at EVO - MCRR (Figure 11) is from the

South. The higher concentrations observed in the colder months could be linked to smoke from heating local

homes with wood stoves.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 9

Figure 3: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations. The BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.

3.3 PM2.5

The term excursion is used here to describe a single 24-hour average that exceeds the numerical value of the

BCAAQO. The 24-hour objective for PM2.5 defines an exceedance based on the 98th percentile of the daily average

over one year. Table A-13 in Appendix A provides the 98th percentile of PM2.5 for each station. It is shown that the

PM2.5 98th percentiles were above the BCAAQO at all stations for 2018.

Figure 5 shows the time series of the 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations at six stations as well as the BCAAQO

of 25 µg/m3. Figure 5 and Table 5 show that there were 84 excursions above the 24-hour PM2.5 BCAAQO. The

annually averaged PM2.5 concentration at EVO - WWTP were greater than the BCAAQO of 8 µg/m3 and the

annually averaged PM2.5 concentrations at all stations but CMO – AGWS were greater than the BC planning goal of

6 µg/m3 (see Table 4). Eighty-one of the 84 excursions occurred during the month of August 2018. This month had

exceptionally bad forest fires with numerous air quality advisories issued for the East Kootenays. The remaining

three excursions all occurred in early September at CMO – Hosmer (2 excursions) and EVO – MCRR (1 excursion)

and were likely related to the tail end of the forest fire season.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 10

Figure 4: Daily Averaged PM2.5 Concentrations. The BCAAQO of 25 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.

3.4 Gases

Figures 6 through 8 show the time series of concentrations of NO2, CO and SO2 respectively at the EVO – DTAM

station as well as the relevant BCAAQO for each gas. These three figures as well as Table 5 show that there were

no results above the applicable BCAAQO for any of these CACs over any averaging period during 2018. While

there was no CO exceedance in 2018, the elevated concentrations observed in August 2018 are also attributable

to forest fires during this time period.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 11

Figure 5: Daily 1-hour Maximum NO2 Concentrations from EVO – DTAM. The BCAAQO of 188 µg/m3 is

indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 12

Figure 6: 1-hour and 8-hour Rolling Averaged CO Concentrations from EVO – DTAM. The BC 8H PCO of

5500 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line. The BC 1H PCO of 14300 µg/m3 was omitted for better presentation of the data.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 13

Figure 7: Daily 1-hour Maximum SO2 Concentrations from EVO – DTAM. The BCAAQO of 183 µg/m3 is

indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 14

Table 4: Annual Means of Particulate Matter Concentrations from Each Station for 2018

Station Name TSP (1)(µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3) PM2.5 (µg/m3)

Annual BCAAQO of 60 µg/m3 Annual BCAAQO of 8 µg/m3

CMO AGWS 4.4 8.6 5.1

Hosmer 14.2 7.9

EVO

DTAM 17.2 7.8

MCRR 19.5 7.8

WWTP 9.2 8.6

LCO(2) L10A 53.3

GHO Elkford 8.6 11.5 7.4

FRO SS 30.0

Notes: Annual means for all parameters and stations except LCO – L10A are calculated from hourly values. (1): Annual average of TSP is calculated as the geometric mean to allow comparison with the BCAAQO. (2): Annual average of daily means was used for LCO due to it being a non-continuous particulate monitor.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 15

Table 5: Total Number Results above BCAAQO for 2018

Station Name Contaminant Threshold Results Above Objectives

Total Number Percentage

CMO

AGWS

TSP NAAQO 1 (120 μg/m3) 2 0.62

PM10 BCAAQO3 (50 μg/m3) 7 2.22

PM2.5 BCAAQO4 (25 μg/m3) 9 2.59

Hosmer PM10 BCAAQO3 (50 μg/m3) 16 4.85

PM2.5 BCAAQO4 (25 μg/m3) 21 6.46

EVO

DTAM

PM10 BCAAQO3 (50 μg/m3) 19 5.46

PM2.5 BCAAQO4 (25 μg/m3) 16 6.15

NO2 BCAAQO5 (188 µg/m3) 0 0.00

CO (1-hour avg) BCPCO (14,300 µg/m3) 0 0.00

CO (8-hour avg) BCPCO (5,500 µg/m3) 0 0.00

SO2 BCAAQO6 (200 µg/m3) 0 0.00

MCRR PM10 BCAAQO3 (50 μg/m3) 14 4.33

PM2.5 BCAAQO4 (25 μg/m3) 10 2.93

WWTP PM10 BCAAQO3 (50 μg/m3) 1 0.34

PM2.5 BCAAQO4 (25 μg/m3) 12 4.36

LCO L10A TSP NAAQO1 (120 μg/m3) 10 16.67

GHO Elkford

TSP NAAQO1 (120 μg/m3) 2 0.67

PM10 BCAAQO3 (50 μg/m3) 9 3.21

PM2.5 BCAAQO4 (25 μg/m3) 16 5.63

FRO SS PM10 BCAAQO3 (50 μg/m3) 62 18.24

Notes: 1- BC PCO refers to the BC Pollution Control Objectives (BC MOE, 2016) 2- BCAAQO refers to the Provincial Ambient Air Quality Objective (BC MOE, 2016) 3- The PM2.5 BCAAQO is based on 98th percentile values; therefore, an exceedance is defined as occurring only after six excursions

have occurred. 4- The NO2 BC interim AAQO is based on the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour value. Therefore, an exceedance is

defined as occurring only after six excursions have occurred. 5- The SO2 BC interim AAQO is based on the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour value. Therefore, an exceedance is

defined as occurring only after six excursions have occurred.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 16

3.5 Inter-annual Variability of Air Quality Measurements

As part of the analysis of air quality within the Elk Valley region, an examination of inter-annual variability in

annual average CAC concentrations at all stations is presented below. A long-term record, dating from the year

2000, using a Hi-Vol intermittent sampler is available from LCO - L10A only. Hi-Vol sampling at other locations has

been discontinued. All other locations use continuous Thermo Scientific SHARP PM monitors. The longest records

for these types of samplers are from GHO – Elkford, which began operation in late 2010, and CMO - AGWS which

began operation in 2011. All other monitors have records that are five years or less in length.

Table 6 and Figure 8 show the inter-annual trends of TSP concentrations. LCO – L10A shows relatively small

variation from year to year with no overall trend, except for the years 2011-2014 when the annual TSP

concentration was above the objective. CMO – AGWS has shown similar concentrations with no trend until 2016,

with slightly lower concentrations observed from 2016 to 2018. GHO – Elkford has shown a slight upward trend in

TSP concentrations since inception.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 17

Table 6: Annual Means of TSP Concentrations (geometric means)

Year

CMO GHO LCO

AGWS Elkford L10A

TSP (µg/m3) TSP (µg/m3) (µg/m3)

2000 42.5

2001 45.4

2002 49.2

2003 39.1

2004 40.8

2005 43.5

2006 41.1

2007 41.0

2008 44.9

2009 47.4

2010 1.7 48.0

2011 7.0 2.6 61.9

2012 7.9 6.2 76.3

2013 7.8 5.9 63.4

2014 7.0 5.9 61.8

2015 8.5 6.9 47.3

2016 5.7 7.1 43.5

2017 5.8 7.9 42.8

2018 4.4 8.6 53.3

Notes: • Cells highlighted in pink and red denote values for which the data was less than 75% complete • CMO – AGWS TSP measurements began on 2011-10-03 • GHO – Elkford TSP measurements began on 2010-11-03


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 18

Figure 8: Time Series of Annual Averages of TSP Concentration since Station Inception (geometric

mean). The annual BCAAQO of 60 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.

Table 7 and Figure 9 show the inter-annual trends of PM10 concentrations. All stations except CMO – AGWS and

EVO – WWTP show an increasing trend in annually averaged PM10 concentrations over the period of record.

Annual average PM10 concentrations in 2018 increased at all stations, reflecting, in part, the higher regional PM10

concentrations observed through the forest fire season.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 19

Table 7: Annual Means of PM10 Concentrations

Year

CMO EVO FRO GHO

Hosmer AGWS DTAM MCRR WWTP SS Elkford

PM10 (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3)

2010 5.8

2011 8.9 7.3

2012 10.4 8.4

2013 6.7 8.9 12.7 8.3

2014 10.0 9.3 14.3 15.1 9.9 25.5 9.8

2015 10.2 12.1 10.1 15.4 7.8 25.1 9.6

2016 8.2 8.4 10.8 12.4 6.4 17.0 7.0

2017 9.3 8.6 14.3 16.7 8.9 31.1 10.6

2018 14.2 8.6 17.2 19.5 9.2 30.0 11.5

Notes: • Cells highlighted in pink and red denote values for which the data was less than 75% complete for the year. • CMO – Hosmer PM10 measurements began on 2013-11-07 • CMO – AGWS PM10 measurements began on 2011-10-03 • EVO – DTAM PM10 measurements began on 2014-01-18 • EVO – MCRR PM10 measurements began on 2014-01-23 • EVO – WWTP PM10 measurements began on 2014-01-23 • FRO – SS PM10 measurements began on 2013-12-21 • GHO – Elkford PM10 measurements began on 2010-11-03


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 20

Figure 9: Time Series of Annual Averages of PM10 Concentration since Station Inception.

Table 8 and Figure 10 show the inter-annual trends of PM2.5 concentrations. Annual average PM2.5 concentrations

in 2018 increased at all stations except CMO – AGWS and GHO – Elkford, reflecting the higher regional PM2.5

concentrations observed through the forest fire season. The annual PM2.5 concentration at EVO - WWTP is above

the annual BCAAQO.

Table 9 shows the annual average gas concentrations for the five years available at the EVO – DTAM location.

There are no discernable year-to-year trends in the annual averaged gas concentrations.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 21

Table 8: Annual Means of PM2.5 Concentrations

Year

CMO EVO GHO

Hosmer AGWS DTAM MCRR WWTP Elkford

PM2.5 (µg/m3) PM2.5 (µg/m3) PM2.5 (µg/m3) PM2.5 (µg/m3) PM2.5 (µg/m3) PM2.5 (µg/m3)

2010 6.4

2011 3.2 3.7

2012 4.2 4.6

2013 6.6 3.9 4.2

2014 6.2 4.2 6.9 5.1 5.2 4.7

2015 6.8 6.1 5.5 5.8 5.4 4.9

2016 5.7 3.7 4.6 4.8 3.7 3.6

2017 9.4 4.2 5.3 7.6 5.8 7.4

2018 7.9 5.1 7.8 7.8 8.6 7.4

Notes: • Cells highlighted in pink and red denote values for which the data was less than 75% complete for the year. • CMO – Hosmer PM2.5 measurements began on 2013-11-07 • CMO – AGWS PM2.5 measurements began on 2011-10-03 • EVO – DTAM PM2.5 measurements began on 2014-01-18 • EVO – MCRR PM2.5 measurements began on 2014-01-23 • EVO – WWTP PM2.5 measurements began on 2014-01-23 • GHO – Elkford PM2.5 measurements began on 2010-11-03


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 22

Figure 10: Time Series of Annual Averages of PM2.5 Concentration since Station Inception. The annual

BCAAQO of 8 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.

Table 9: Annual Means of Gas Concentrations

Year

EVO - DTAM

NO2 CO SO2

(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)

2014 8.5 189 0.1

2015 7.6 190 0.2

2016 6.2 287 0.2

2017 10.4 130 0.06

2018 8.1 193 0.3

Notes: • Cells highlighted in pink and red denote values for which the data was less than 75% complete.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 23

3.6 Data Completeness

The permit for each of the Sites states that continuous data for a given time period will be considered valid if 75%

of the data for that time period has been captured. Non-continuous data for a given time period will be

considered valid if 85% of the data for that time period has been captured. Tables A-1 through A-4 (Appendix A)

provide the number of valid hours and days of data per time period for TSP, PM10, PM2.5 and for the gases

respectively. Cells highlighted in pink indicate periods that do not meet completeness requirements to be

considered valid. These pink-highlighted averages are therefore kept for indicative purposes only and should not

be used to verify regulatory compliance. Caution must also be exercised in trying to establish trends or draw

conclusions from data that do not meet the minimum completeness requirements as they may be biased toward

certain conditions prevailing in the part of the period that was collected.

Following an agreement between the Sites and ENV, the days during which annual maintenance were performed

or extended maintenance involving notification to the ENV were removed from the possible number of days. The

following periods were removed from the data completeness calculations for an instrument at a given station due

to that instrument being removed for annual maintenance:

• CMO – AGWS: August 2 to August 16.

• CMO – Hosmer: September 18 to September 27.

• GHO – Elkford: August 30 to September 27.

• FRO – SS: August 16 to August 30.

• EVO – DTAM:

o PM2.5: August 30 to September 27.

o PM10: September 18 to September 26.

• EVO – MCRR: August 16 to August 30.

• EVO – WWTP:

o PM2.5: April 18 to June 13.

o PM10 August 17 to September 18.

3.6.1 TSP

TSP measurements at CMO – AGWS and GHO – Elkford met the objective for data completeness during all

quarters and the year.

The LCO - L10A Hi-Vol station met the 85% completeness objective based on collection scheduled every six days

for all months except January when it only sampled 4 out of 5 days. Completeness was greater than 85% for all

other periods considered.

3.6.2 PM10

PM10 measurements at all monitoring stations (CMO – AGWS, CMO – Hosmer, EVO – DTAM, EVO – MCRR, EVO –

WWTP, FRO – SS and GHO – Elkford) met the 75% completeness objectives for all quarters and the year.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 24

PM10 measurements at EVO – MCRR observed lower completeness during the months of August and October. The

October downtime was caused by a failure of the sample pump.

PM10 measurements at EVO – WWTP saw extended downtime for the month of March. The March downtime was

caused by a failure of the sample pump.

FRO – SS saw lower data completeness in April. The downtime in April was caused by a failure of the sample

pump.

PM10 measurements at GHO – Elkford saw extended downtime for the months of April and September. The April

data loss was due to extended periods of insufficient sample flow through the instrument that took some time to

diagnose and rectify. The low completeness for September is caused by the instrument requiring an extra day to

stabilize following annual maintenance which was not excluded from the count of possible days for the month

because the dates provided to ENV ended when the unit was re-installed.

3.6.3 PM2.5

PM2.5 measurements at CMO – AGWS, CMO – Hosmer, GHO - Elkford and EVO – MCRR met the objective for data

completeness during all quarters and for the year.

PM2.5 measurements at EVO – DTAM did not meet the 75% completeness objective second quarter of 2018 and

saw reduced completeness in May, June, September and October. The outage in May and June was the result of a

sample heater failure and some instabilities in the measurement that followed. The downtime in September and

October was due to a failure of the nephelometer following the re-installation after annual maintenance and a

failed take-up reel motor in the tape advance system.

PM2.5 measurements at EVO – WWTP did not meet the 75% completeness objective for the second quarter of

2018 and saw reduced completeness in April. The April downtime was caused by a complete system failure of the

instrument.

3.6.4 Gases

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) did not meet the 75% completeness objective the fourth quarter of 2018 and saw reduced

completeness in March, June, September, November and December. The March downtime was related to a

failure of the sample pump. The June downtime was caused by the unit having shut itself off due to an onboard

software failure. The September data loss was due to an extended period during which recorded NO, NO2 and

NOX concentrations were fluctuating rapidly and erratically and resulted in NO concentrations exceeding NOX

concentrations. The November downtime was due to a calibration error, a failure of the instrument’s analog

outputs and the station was moved from the rooftop to a room on the top floor of the same building. The

December data loss was due to instrument flow problems that followed the station move.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) saw lower than anticipated completeness for the months of June and November. The June

downtime was caused by the unit having shut itself off due to an onboard software failure. The November data


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 25

loss was caused by the moving of the station from the rooftop to a room on the top floor of the same building

and a leak in the inlet hose that resulted in indoor air being sampled. The objective was met during all other

periods considered.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) did not meet the 75% completeness objective for the second, third and fourth quarters of

2018 and saw increased downtime in June, July, November and December. The June and July downtime was

caused by a failure of the sample pump and the time required to repair it. The November data loss was related to

moving the station from the rooftop to a room on the top floor of the same building and a leak in the inlet hose

that resulted in indoor air being sampled. The December data loss was due to instrument flow problems that

began following the station move.

The station move from the rooftop to a room on the top floor of the building should allow better climate control

of the instruments which should result in more accurate calibrations, more stable measurements and less wear

and tear on the sample pumps and cooler assemblies. This should translate into better uptime for 2019.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 26

4 METEOROLOGY RESULTS

4.1 Wind Speed and Direction

Figure 11 shows wind roses for the eight stations included in the RAMP. The differences between stations in wind

speed and direction that are apparent in the wind roses are mainly attributed to differences between local

topography and, to a lesser extent, small scale surface features such as proximity to trees.

Figure 11: Wind Roses for All Stations in the Regional Air Monitoring Program for 2018.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 27

4.2 Precipitation

Monthly precipitation totals are shown in Figure 12 where they are compared to the 30 year mean and standard

deviation of monthly precipitation totals observed at the Environment and Climate Change Canada

meteorological station in Sparwood (1981 – 2010).

Precipitation totals for January at CMO - AGWS were excluded from this plot due to several days in that month

during which the precipitation gauge recorded artificially high amounts of precipitation. There was insufficient

valid precipitation data completeness remaining in the month to calculate a valid total. Despite this data being

excluded, CMO – AGWS recorded the highest annual total precipitation of any of the 4 sites (482 mm) and the

highest monthly totals for the months of April and September through December. The LCO – Plant Weather

station received the least precipitation in 2018; recording a total of 353 mm.

The months of January, May, June, August and November recorded below average precipitation at all stations.

Monthly totals were always within one standard deviation of the 30 year for at least one station.

All stations recorded above average monthly precipitation totals in the month of March.

The annual precipitation at the Environment and climate change Canada station in Sparwood was 438.6 mm for

2018 versus the normal value of 613.3 mm. There was considerably less precipitation in 2018 than the 30 year

normal.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 28

Figure 12: Monthly Precipitation Totals for stations in the Regional Air Monitoring Program for 2018 as

Compared to the 30-year Mean +/- 1 standard Deviation Calculated from the Environment Canada Weather Station in Sparwood.

4.3 Air Temperature

Daily averaged air temperatures are presented in Figure 13 where they are compared to the 30 year mean and

standard deviation of air temperature measured at the Environment and Climate Change Canada station in

Sparwood. Inter-station variation is generally small compared to daily fluctuations but some change is discernible.

Greater day to day variability is observed in the winter months (January to March, and November and December)

than in the summer months (April to October). This is also observed in the 30-year averaged data from Sparwood

and can be attributed to the passage of warm and cold weather fronts in the winter, bringing with them large

variations in temperature. In the summer, the cold arctic air masses which dominate in winter are much farther

north and there is less frontal activity in the region, resulting in less extreme temperature fluctuations.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 29

Differences in elevation between stations drives the inter-station differences in temperature that can be

observed: CMO – Hosmer EVO – DTAM and EVO – MCRR are among the lowest-lying stations in the monitoring

program and they consistently record higher temperatures than the rest. FRO – SS is one of the highest elevation

stations and consistently records lower temperatures. CMO – AGWS also frequently observes low temperatures

even though it is not at as high of an elevation. This may be explained by the local topography which considerably

reduces sun exposure on site.

All stations observed temperatures lower than one standard deviation of the 30-year climate normal during

periods in February, April and October.

The annual average temperature in Sparwood in 2018 was 4.7 °C versus the normal value of 4.4 °C.

Figure 13: Daily Averaged Temperature for Regional Air Monitoring Program Stations as Compared to

the 30-year Mean +/- 1 Standard Deviation Calculated from the Environment Canada Weather Station in Sparwood.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 30

5 MANAGEMENT OF AIR QUALITY

5.1 Public Air Quality Feedback

The Teck Elk Valley Feedback Mechanism helps Teck consistently respond to feedback and maintain strong

relationships with community members. Dust related feedback are either forwarded (by mine sites) or received

directly by the Teck Social Responsibility group, which has an office in Sparwood. When feedback is received

about Teck’s activity, Teck’s Social Responsibility group works with the relevant operation(s) to investigate the

cause and the effect. If contact details have been provided, the Feedback Coordinator or designated respondent

will respond to the community member.

Engagement is tracked in Teck’s Trackline database, used for documenting engagement with Communities of

Interest (residents of local communities, First Nations, etc.) and Regulators. Emails, letters, phone calls, and other

communications are tracked here, as are follow-up actions. Teck looks for trends in feedback and uses this

information to monitor the effectiveness of mitigations and to gauge the need for further public updates on our

work.

In 2018, EVO received 158 pieces of feedback related to air quality and dust management. The feedback was

related to specific weather events (56), complaints relating to visual impacts, dirty vehicles and dust on personal

property (77) or from the highway haul between EVO and CMO (25),

Due to an increasing amount of feedback and concern from the community on dust management, the following

additional measures were taken in 2018 to provide information on current dust management practices and

continual improvement opportunities:

• Information newsletter mailed out to Sparwood residents; • Ongoing work with the District of Sparwood to respond to community concerns and jointly develop a

Socio-Community and Economic Effects Management Plan, and • Two public meetings on dust and air quality were held in Sparwood: July 10 and September 18, 2018 and

participation at local Farmer’s Markets • Article in new Elk Valley-wide newsletter Community Connections in December 2018 • Stopping the highway haul between EVO and CMO in March 2019

Teck appreciates the opportunity to hear the community’s feedback and to talk about the work being undertaken to resolve this issue and will continue to update the community on dust management initiatives in future.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 31

5.2 Fugitive Dust Management Plans

Four of the five mine sites (EVO, LCO, GHO and FRO) are required to maintain Fugitive Dust Management Plans

per their site specific permits. CMO maintains an Air Quality and Dust Control Management Plan as a voluntary

commitment. Each mine in the Elk Valley participates in a Regional Air Working Group to identify continual

improvement opportunities for fugitive dust management. The mine sites continue to investigate methods to

suppress and manage fugitive dust sources from site. In 2018 and throughout 2019, sites are updating their

Fugitive Dust Management plans in consideration of the draft guidance released in joint by the BC ENV and

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (BC EMPR) for Developing a Fugitive Dust Management Plan for

Industrial Projects.

6 SUMMARY

There were no significant changes in mining operations in 2018 which would be expected to impact air quality

and there were no changes to ambient air monitoring programs in 2018. It is recommended that further

improvement to instrumental reliability and ease of maintenance could be achieved by moving stations still

housed in small shelters (FRO – SS, GHO – EHS, CMO – AGWS and CMO – Hosmer) into walk-in shelters. Also,

implementing the Hornet monitoring system where it has not yet been installed (CMO – AGWS and FRO – SS)

would result in increased data completeness at these stations.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page 32

7 REFERENCES

BC Ministry of Environment. 2018. British Columbia Ambient Air Quality Objectives.

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY TABLES

2018 ANNUAL REPORT TECK COAL LTD. REGIONAL AIR MONITORING PROGRAM – APPENDIX A

RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-1

Table A-1: Number of valid TSP data. Red highlighted cells indicate less than 75% data completeness (or 85% for non-continuous monitors).

Period (Month / Quarter / Year)

CMO GHO LCO AGWS

(days / hours) Elkford

(days / hours) L10A

(days)

Collected Maximum Possible



# Valid Monitoring Days per month

January 28 31 30 31 4 5

February 23 28 23 28 5 5

March 29 31 27 31 5 5

April 28 30 26 30 5 5

May 31 31 26 31 5 5

June 30 30 30 30 5 5

July 30 31 27 31 6 6

August 14 16 27 29 5 5

September 29 30 3 3 5 5

October 26 31 31 31 5 5

November 26 30 19 30 5 5

December 31 31 29 31 5 5

# Valid Monitoring Days per Quarter

2018 Q1 80 90 80 90 14 15

2018 Q2 89 91 82 91 15 15

2018 Q3 73 77 57 63 16 16

2018 Q4 83 92 79 92 15 15

# Valid Monitoring Days for entire year

2018 325 350 298 336 60 61

# Valid Monitoring Hours per Quarter

2018 Q1 1990 2160 1947 2160

2018 Q2 2135 2184 1988 2184

2018 Q3 1789 1848 1404 1512

2018 Q4 2057 2208 1936 2208

# Valid Monitoring Hours for entire year

2018 7971 8400 7275 8064


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-2

Table A-2: Number of valid PM10 data. Red highlighted cells indicate less than 75% data completeness.

Period Period (Month / Quarter / Year)

CMO EVO FRO GHO

AGWS (days / hours)

Hosmer (days / hours)

DTAM (Days / Hours)

MCRR (Days / Hours)

WWTP (Days / Hours)

SS (Days / Hours)

Elkford (Days / Hours)









January 28 31 31 31 31 31 28 31 30 31 31 31 29 31

February 23 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 28 28 28 22 28

March 29 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 12 31 31 31 26 31

April 27 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 30 20 30

May 31 31 28 31 30 31 29 31 28 31 31 31 24 31

June 30 30 25 30 30 30 26 30 30 30 30 30 28 30

July 29 31 28 31 29 31 31 31 26 31 31 31 25 31

August 15 16 31 31 29 31 11 16 9 16 16 16 22 29

September 29 30 20 20 20 21 28 30 12 13 30 30 2 3

October 25 31 29 31 30 31 21 31 29 31 31 31 29 31

November 26 30 26 30 29 30 29 30 30 30 30 30 26 30

December 23 31 23 31 31 31 31 31 28 31 31 31 27 31


2018 Q1 80 90 90 90 90 90 87 90 69 90 90 90 77 90

2018 Q2 88 91 83 91 90 91 85 91 88 91 81 91 72 91

2018 Q3 73 77 79 82 78 83 70 77 47 60 77 77 49 63

2018 Q4 74 92 78 92 90 92 81 92 87 92 92 92 82 92


2018 315 350 330 355 348 356 323 350 291 333 340 350 280 336


2018 Q1 1990 2160 2093 2160 2142 2160 2099 2160 1670 2160 2150 2160 1877 2160

2018 Q2 2131 2184 2046 2184 2162 2184 2056 2184 2121 2184 1964 2184 1827 2184

2018 Q3 1794 1848 1920 1968 1896 1992 1747 1848 1195 1440 1859 1848 1252 1512

2018 Q4 1962 2208 1967 2208 2156 2208 1967 2208 2087 2208 2202 2208 1992 2208


2018 7877 8400 8026 8520 8356 8544 7869 8400 7073 7992 8175 8400 6948 8064


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-3

Table A-3: Number of valid PM2.5 data. Red highlighted cells indicate less than 75% data completeness.


CMO EVO GHO

AGWS (days / hours)

Hosmer (days / hours)

DTAM (days / hours)

MCRR (days / hours)

WWTP (days / hours)

Elkford (days / hours)

Collected Maximum Possible Collected Maximum Possible Collected Maximum Possible Collected Maximum Possible Collected Maximum Possible Collected Maximum Possible


January 31 31 31 31 31 31 28 31 30 31 29 31

February 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 28 25 28

March 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 27 31 27 31

April 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 17 22 30

May 31 31 25 31 1 31 29 31 0 0 26 31

June 30 30 24 30 16 30 30 30 17 17 26 30

July 30 31 29 31 29 31 31 31 31 31 26 31

August 16 16 31 31 23 29 15 16 24 31 27 29

September 29 30 20 20 0 3 30 30 30 30 1 3

October 31 31 29 31 12 31 30 31 29 31 30 31

November 30 30 28 30 28 30 28 30 29 30 27 30

December 31 31 19 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 18 31


2018 Q1 90 90 90 90 90 90 87 90 84 90 81 90

2018 Q2 91 91 79 91 47 91 89 91 17 34 74 91

2018 Q3 75 77 80 82 52 63 76 77 85 92 54 63

2018 Q4 92 92 76 92 71 92 89 92 89 92 75 92


2018 348 350 325 355 260 336 341 350 275 308 284 336


2018 Q1 2152 2160 2137 2160 2135 2160 2102 2160 2027 2160 1955 2160

2018 Q2 2176 2184 1984 2184 1103 2184 2125 2184 415 816 1828 2184

2018 Q3 1829 1848 1926 1968 1224 1512 1854 1848 2113 2208 1374 1512

2018 Q4 2199 2208 1953 2208 1713 2208 2158 2208 2150 2208 1840 2208


2018 8356 8400 8000 8520 6175 8064 8239 8400 6705 7392 6997 8064


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-4

Table A-4: Number of valid gas data. Red highlighted cells indicate less than 75% data completeness.


EVO - DTAM Total possible number of days/hours NO2 CO SO2


January 31 31 31 31

February 28 28 28 28

March 10 31 31 31

April 30 30 30 30

May 29 31 28 31

June 17 19 0 30

July 31 31 3 31

August 27 31 30 31

September 17 30 30 30

October 29 30 30 31

November 8 19 18 30

December 0 31 0 31


2018 Q1 69 90 90 90

2018 Q2 76 80 58 91

2018 Q3 75 92 63 92

2018 Q4 37 80 48 92


2018 257 342 259 365


2018 Q1 1647 2147 2146 2160

2018 Q2 1819 1942 1386 2184

2018 Q3 1810 2198 1535 2208

2018 Q4 885 1941 1163 2208


2018 6161 8228 6230 8760


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-5

Table A-5: TSP averaged annually, seasonally and by day of the week.

Period (Month / Quarter / Year / Day

of the Week / Season)

CMO GHO LCO

AGWS Elkford L10A

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Annual Hourly Mean 2018 4.4 8.6

Annual Hourly Standard Deviation 2018 27.3 29.4

Annual Daily Mean 2018 6.8 10.9 53.3

Annual Daily Standard Deviation 2018 17.2 18.8 100.2

Daily average by day of week

Monday 9.2 12.3 51.7

Tuesday 11.1 15.5 68.8

Wednesday 13.4 18.5 41.8

Thursday 13.0 19.5 62.9

Friday 11.9 15.1 175.9

Saturday 11.2 13.9 85.5

Sunday 11.7 19.3 60.3

Daily average by season

Spring (MAM) 10.7 17.4 41.2

Summer (JJA) 18.2 24.9 121.1

Autumn (SON) 9.8 13.9 86.7

Winter (DJF) 8.4 7.8 63.9

Note: Annual Hourly and Daily means are calculated as geometric means so they are comparable to the provincial pollution control objectives for TSP.


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-6

Table A-6: PM10 averaged annually, seasonally and by day of the week.

Period (Month /

Quarter / Year / Day of the Week / Season)

CMO EVO FRO GHO

AGWS Hosmer DTAM MCRR WWTP SS Elkford

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Annual Hourly Mean 2018 8.6 14.2 17.2 19.5 9.2 30.0 11.5

Annual Hourly Standard Deviation

2018 16.2 19.6 20.5 20.8 9.6 33.7 19.9

Annual Daily Mean 2018 8.4 14.0 17.2 19.4 8.8 29.9 11.2

Annual Daily Standard Deviation

2018 14.1 16.5 17.5 15.7 7.1 26.5 14.7


Monday 6.3 12.1 14.4 17.3 7.3 30.9 9.7

Tuesday 6.9 13.0 16.9 21.4 8.8 31.9 9.4

Wednesday 8.2 14.1 17.9 21.8 10.5 34.3 12.5

Thursday 9.5 16.2 21.0 25.4 10.4 34.5 14.1

Friday 10.4 15.4 18.3 20.5 9.2 28.2 10.1

Saturday 8.9 14.2 16.6 16.5 8.9 26.7 9.8

Sunday 9.1 13.4 15.7 14.2 6.6 22.8 13.5


Spring (MAM) 6.4 10.8 19.2 19.3 10.3 27.3 10.9

Summer (JJA) 16.3 25.9 27.8 27.6 11.9 37.2 20.1

Autumn (SON) 7.3 12.0 14.4 22.0 8.5 28.4 9.0

Winter (DJF) 4.1 7.4 7.5 10.9 5.5 27.4 4.6


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-7

Table A-7: PM2.5 averaged annually, seasonally and by day of the week.

Period (Month / Quarter / Year / Day of the Week /

Season)

CMO EVO GHO

AGWS Hosmer DTAM MCRR WWTP Elkford

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Annual Hourly Mean 2018 5.1 7.9 7.8 7.8 8.6 7.4

Annual Hourly Standard Deviation

2018 12.5 14.5 14.7 9.9 15.0 14.3

Annual Daily Mean 2018 5.0 8.0 7.8 7.7 8.2 7.4

Annual Daily Standard Deviation

2018 11.1 13.5 13.3 8.1 13.1 12.7


Monday 3.2 6.1 6.1 7.0 5.9 5.8

Tuesday 3.6 6.4 6.1 7.6 6.3 6.1

Wednesday 4.7 8.0 6.4 8.3 7.8 7.8

Thursday 5.7 9.4 10.2 8.7 8.1 9.4

Friday 5.5 8.9 8.9 8.4 9.2 7.4

Saturday 6.3 8.3 9.3 7.2 10.0 6.9

Sunday 5.8 8.6 7.5 6.7 9.8 8.5


Spring (MAM) 3.1 4.5 4.2 5.7 3.8 3.8

Summer (JJA) 12.2 17.3 17.5 13.0 16.4 15.4

Autumn (SON) 4.3 5.5 7.8 8.1 7.0 5.3

Winter (DJF) 1.5 4.2 2.9 4.6 3.9 3.8


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-8

Table A-8: Gas concentrations averaged annually, seasonally and by day of the week.

Period (Month / Quarter / Year / Day of

the Week / Season)

EVO - DTAM

NO2 CO SO2

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Annual Hourly Mean 2018 8.1 192.9 0.3

Annual Hourly Standard Deviation 2018 7.2 129.4 0.4

Annual Daily Mean 2018 8.1 192.4 0.3

Annual Daily Standard Deviation 2018 4.3 116.3 0.3


Monday 8.5 179.6 0.4

Tuesday 7.7 175.7 0.3

Wednesday 8.5 195.8 0.4

Thursday 8.7 203.3 0.3

Friday 7.7 200.0 0.3

Saturday 7.2 194.7 0.4

Sunday 8.2 196.8 0.4


Spring (MAM) 7.1 148.0 0.1

Summer (JJA) 6.7 263.6 0.8

Autumn (SON) 8.2 191.2 0.6

Winter (DJF) 10.8 174.5 0.2


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-9

Table A-9: Percentiles of TSP

Averaging period of data Percentile

CMO GHO LCO

AGWS Elkford L10A

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Hourly

0 0.0 0.0

10 0.5 2.0

25 1.7 4.1

50 5.6 9.1

75 12.6 18.1

90 23.8 35.0

95 37.2 60.4

98 77.9 91.7

100 797.2 1131.0

Daily (24H)

0 0.1 0.6 8.0

10 1.5 3.7 21.3

25 4.1 6.0 33.6

50 7.6 11.1 48.8

75 13.6 18.4 82.3

90 20.4 31.3 175.5

95 29.6 48.7 189.1

98 67.0 72.0 341.9

100 164.8 148.2 674.3


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-10

Table A-10: Percentiles of PM10


CMO EVO FRO GHO

AGWS Hosmer DTAM MCRR WWTP SS Elkford

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Hourly

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10 1.1 2.0 1.8 2.3 1.3 3.0 1.6

25 2.1 4.0 5.1 5.8 3.1 7.0 2.8

50 4.2 8.3 11.2 13.5 6.5 18.2 5.9

75 9.3 15.8 21.1 25.9 12.0 41.1 12.2

90 16.2 28.9 38.0 43.5 19.2 74.6 25.0

95 25.8 50.7 56.0 58.8 25.7 97.6 40.6

98 54.7 85.0 86.7 79.8 39.3 128.1 67.7

100 226.5 305.1 201.8 319.5 140.5 291.9 764.2

Daily (24H)

0 0.5 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.6

10 1.7 3.7 3.1 4.0 2.2 5.2 2.7

25 2.8 5.2 6.8 7.5 4.3 9.7 4.0

50 5.2 9.5 12.6 15.7 7.0 22.6 6.9

75 8.8 15.6 21.0 27.1 11.9 40.9 12.6

90 13.8 23.7 32.7 38.2 16.9 67.7 19.7

95 16.3 48.5 52.1 48.2 20.7 80.8 37.0

98 59.5 76.5 81.7 61.8 25.6 110.7 56.6

100 140.7 114.3 126.3 113.8 59.7 172.0 123.4


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-11

Table A-11: Percentiles of PM2.5


CMO EVO GHO

AGWS Hosmer DTAM MCRR WWTP Elkford

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Hourly

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10 0.2 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.8

25 0.8 1.7 1.1 2.3 2.0 1.8

50 2.0 3.4 3.7 5.5 4.6 3.3

75 5.0 7.6 8.1 9.7 8.9 6.8

90 8.8 15.8 14.4 14.9 15.7 14.5

95 14.2 32.1 30.6 20.4 29.7 28.1

98 40.2 63.3 62.9 42.9 65.3 58.4

100 162.4 141.7 151.5 123.7 159.5 175.6

Daily (24H)

0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4

10 0.4 1.6 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.7

25 1.1 2.7 1.8 3.5 3.0 2.5

50 2.6 4.2 4.2 6.0 5.2 4.0

75 4.9 6.8 8.1 9.2 8.6 6.6

90 7.8 12.0 12.3 13.0 12.4 12.1

95 11.1 32.1 38.5 17.4 20.3 32.5

98 50.1 64.0 52.2 36.1 60.1 51.7

100 95.1 102.3 102.4 65.5 108.7 104.2


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-12

Table A-12: Percentiles of gas concentrations.


EVO - DTAM

NO2 CO SO2

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Hourly

0 0.0 23.2 0.0

10 1.9 109.2 0.0

25 3.1 127.7 0.0

50 5.6 157.9 0.2

75 10.9 205.0 0.7

90 17.5 284.7 0.9

95 23.3 405.7 1.0

98 29.6 702.6 1.1

100 61.3 1435.6 3.0

Daily (24H)

0 1.0 83.0 0.0

10 3.7 117.2 0.0

25 5.4 135.9 0.0

50 7.1 162.2 0.2

75 9.5 198.2 0.7

90 13.6 272.2 0.8

95 17.3 359.7 0.9

98 21.7 685.7 1.0

100 23.3 810.2 1.4


RWDI#1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page A-13

Table A-13: 98th percentile values of daily averaged PM2.5. values above BCAAQO are highlighted in red.

Station Name 98th percentile of PM2.5

CMO AGWS 50.1

Hosmer 64.0

EVO

DTAM 52.2

MCRR 36.1

WWTP 60.1

GHO Elkford 51.7

APPENDIX B

PLOTS OF PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS

2018 ANNUAL REPORT TECK COAL LTD. REGIONAL AIR MONITORING PROGRAM – APPENDIX B

RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-1

Figure B-1: Daily Averaged TSP Concentrations from CMO – AGWS. The BCAAQO of 120 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-2

Figure B-2: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations from CMO – AGWS. The BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-3

Figure B-3: Daily Averaged PM2.5 Concentrations from CMO – AGWS. The BCAAQO of 25 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line. The dotted line indicates the 98th percentile of PM2.5.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-4

Figure B-4: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations from CMO – Hosmer. The BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-5

Figure B-5: Daily Averaged PM2.5 Concentrations from CMO – Hosmer. The BCAAQO of 25 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line. The dotted line indicates the 98th percentile of PM2.5.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-6

Figure B-6: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations from EVO – DTAM. The BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-7

Figure B-7: Daily Averaged PM2.5 Concentrations from EVO – DTAM. The BCAAQO of 25 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line. The dotted line indicates the 98th percentile of PM2.5.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-8

Figure B-8: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations from EVO – MCRR. The BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-9

Figure B-9: Daily Averaged PM2.5 Concentrations from EVO-MCRR. The BCAAQO of 25 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line. The dotted line indicates the 98th percentile of PM2.5.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-10

Figure B-10: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations from EVO – WWTP. The BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-11

Figure B-11: Daily Averaged PM2.5 Concentrations from EVO – WWTP. The BCAAQO of 25 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line. The dotted line indicates the 98th percentile of PM2.5.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-12

Figure B-12: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations from FRO – SS. The BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-13

Figure B-13: Daily Averaged TSP Concentrations from GHO – Elkford. The BCAAQO of 120 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-14

Figure B-14: Daily Averaged PM10 Concentrations from GHO – Elkford. The BCAAQO of 50 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-15

Figure B-15: Daily Averaged PM2.5 Concentrations from GHO – Elkford. The BCAAQO of 25 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line. The dotted line indicates the 98th percentile of PM2.5.


RWDI #1901524 March 29, 2019

rwdi.com Page B-16

Figure B-16: TSP Concentrations from LCO - L10A. Concentrations are collected for 24-hour periods every 6 days based on the NAPS schedule. The BCAAQO of 120 µg/m3 is indicated by a dashed line.

annual teck coal ltd. regional air monitoring program report 2019-03 … · 2019-04-25 · 2018...

Documents