Emission inventory – Vanderhoof and surrounding areas

On this page

• Executive summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Emission estimates
• 3. Result summary
• 4. Analysis

For the full content list, see Contents.

Executive summary

An inventory of air pollutant emissions in Vanderhoof and its surrounding area was developed by the British Columbia (B.C.) Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (ENV) to support future air quality management actions. The air pollutants of concern in this emission inventory include:

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – A collective form of nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
• Total particulate matter (TPM) – A mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in air
• PM₁₀ – Particulate matter less than 10 microns in equivalent diameter
• PM_2.5 – Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in equivalent diameter

Emissions were categorized as point, mobile and area sources. The study area includes Vanderhoof and the surrounding areas, of which there are four sub-regions:

• Vanderhoof DM: District of Vanderhoof
• Fraser Lake: Village of Fraser Lake
• Area D: Electoral Area D of Regional District of Bulkley–Nechako (RDBN)
• Area F: Electoral Area F of RDBN

In the 2018 reporting year the study area emitted 1669 tonnes of NOx, 10220 tonnes of TPM, 6750 tonnes of PM₁₀, and 5799 tonnes of PM_2.5. Wildfires were responsible for 8 percent of NOx, 68 percent of TPM, 76 percent of PM₁₀, and 81 percent of PM_2.5 emissions.

Table ES-1 presents a summary of the total emissions (excluding wildfire) for each air pollutant in the four sub-regions.

Table ES-1: Total Emissions in the Study Area – Total Emissions

Total Emissions in the Study Area – Total Emissions (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	253	235	83.56	46.23
Fraser Lake	35.49	46.27	19.36	10.65
Area D	546	881	513	363
Area F	702	2065	1030	669
Total in Study Area (without Wildfire)	1537	3227	1646	1089
Total in Study Area (with Wildfire)	1669	10220	6750	5799

Table ES-2 summarizes the emissions contribution (excluding wildfire) from significant sources across the entire study area.

Table ES-2: Emission Distribution (without Wildfire) in the Study Area

Emission Distribution (without Wildfire) in the Study Area

Air Pollutants	Point Sources (%)	Mobile Sources  (%)	Area Source – Open Burning  (%)	Area Source – Space Heating (%)	Area Source – Agriculture (%)	Area Source – Fugitive Dust (%)
NOx Emission	40.22	42.51	15.11	2.17	0.00	0.00
TPM Emission	9.19	1.40	39.76	3.65	22.48	23.53
PM10 Emission	8.64	2.74	55.47	6.76	13.60	12.79
PM2.5 Emission	7.47	3.44	72.92	10.21	3.65	2.31

Upon excluding wildfire emissions mobile sources emerged as the primary contributors to NOx emissions in the entire study area, closely followed by point sources. Area sources arising from open burning were identified as the predominant contributors to TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5 emissions after removing wildfire emissions.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background information

In 2021, the British Columbia (B.C.) Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (ENV) implemented two projects to support air quality management in Vanderhoof. One of the projects was to develop an air pollutant emission inventory. The goal of the inventory was to identify and quantify major local emission sources for nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) within the study area. The project supports informed, science-based decision-making with respect to local airshed management and raises public awareness of local sources of air pollution.

1.2 Air pollutants of concern

The project focused on three size categories of PM:

• TPM – Total particulate matter
• PM₁₀ – Particulate matter less than 10 microns in equivalent diameter
• PM_2.5 – Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in equivalent diameter

The potential for causing health effects is linked to the size of PM since the smallest particles can transport deep into a human’s lung or even the bloodstream^{[Footnote 1]}. PM_2.5, the fine fraction of PM, has the strongest correlation with adverse health outcomes and is mostly generated from combustion of gasoline, oil, diesel fuel or wood^{[Footnote 2]}. The coarse fraction of PM, particles between 2.5-10 microns in diameter typically originates from the mechanical process (for example, dust from roadways, construction sites, and farming)^{[Footnote 3]}.TPM has been included in the emission inventory due to the prevalence of its reference in Ministry-issued authorizations (for example, permits).

Although the determination of PM emissions was a primary focus of this work, NOx was also scoped into the inventory due to its significance as a common air contaminant (CAC) and in knowing that there are local contributions from transportation and nearby industrial facilities. NOx is usually reported as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) equivalent, including nitric oxide (NO) and NO2, it forms from the liberation of nitrogen contained in fuel and nitrogen contained in combustion air during combustion processes^{[Footnote 4]}.

1.3 Study area

The information presented in this report is for Vanderhoof and the surrounding areas, comprising of the following regions shown in Figure 1:

• Vanderhoof DM: District of Vanderhoof
• Fraser Lake: Village of Fraser Lake
• Area D: Electoral Area D of RDBN
• Area F: Electoral Area F of RDBN

Figure 1: Project Study Area

Description: Map showing District of Vanderhoof, Village of Fraser Lake, Electoral Area D of RDBN, and Electoral Area F of RDBN

2. Emission estimates

In this section, comprehensive information pertaining to the annual emission inventory estimation for the study area in 2018 is presented, encompassing data resources, methodologies, and structured results. The emission inventory is classified into three distinct categories of emission sources: point sources, mobile sources, and area sources.

• Point sources refer to substantial stationary sources originating from industrial facilities, which operate under discharge permits from provincial authorities or necessitate emissions reporting to the national pollutant release inventory. An example of a point source would be a cyclone from an industrial facility such as a pellet plant or a sawmill
• Mobile sources encompass various modes of vehicles or equipment utilized for motorized transportation. Mobile sources include cars, trucks, rail, and offroad equipment used in farming and other activities
• Area sources comprise smaller, widely distributed sources that are not encompassed within the point source and mobile source categories. Area sources are either too small or too numerous to be quantified individually so they are estimated over an area. Area sources could include residential heating and open burning

An in-depth analysis of point sources, mobile sources, and area sources is provided in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, respectively.

Note that due to rounding of numbers presented in some of the tables, the sums in certain tables may not add up to the total or subtotal indicated. This limitation applies to all tables presented in this report. Additionally, the 2016 data from Statistics Canada is assumed to represent the corresponding data for the year 2018.

2.1 Point sources

Emissions from point sources consist of releases from stacks, flares, vents, ducts, pipes, or other confined process streams associated with industrial facilities, typically operating under authorizations such as permits, or approvals. A synopsis of point source emissions within the study area is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Emissions from Point Sources – Annual Average Emissions from Point Sources

Summary of Emissions from Point Sources – Annual Average Emissions from Point Sources (tonnes/year)

Facility	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	53.17	57.00	14.70	9.00
Premium Pellet Ltd.	31.80	43.50	14.50	9.40
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	0.00	2.80	1.10	1.10
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	70.39	46.33	26.84	19.19
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	262	138	75.62	33.26
Pacific Northern Gas Ltd.	201	9.39	9.39	9.39
Point Sources – Total	618	297	142	81.34

Table 2: NPRI and B.C. ENV Permit Identification Number (ID) for Industries Identified in the Study Area

NPRI and B.C. ENV Permit Identification Number (ID) for Industries Identified in the Study Area

Company Name	NPRI ID	B.C. ENV Permit ID
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	20016	3133
Premium Pellet Ltd.	29071	16502
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	–	10606
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	7710	2684
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	5161	5625
Thompson Creek Mining Ltd., Endako Mine	2794	2399
Pacific Northern Gas Ltd.	–	6690

2.1.2 Methods

The methods used for estimating emissions from point sources in the study area are as follows:

• Firstly, total emissions for each facility were extracted from the 2018 NPRI, which was a reliable representation of normal industrial operations. According to the 2018 NPRI guideline, facilities were required to report air pollutant emissions that met specific thresholds. In cases where specific air pollutant emissions were not reported in the NPRI dataset, emissions from the AMS (that is, Pacific Northern Gas Ltd.) and emissions calculated based on Vanderhoof Emissions Inventory^{[Footnote 6]} (that is, VSWP) were used for estimation.
• Secondly, the total facility emissions from the NPRI dataset were scaled to each point source based on its emissions of NOx and TPM, as specified in the AMS database. Since TPM is the only PM emission listed in AMS permits, the ratio of TPM from each source to total facility emissions was used to scale NPRI’s listed PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 facility emissions in order to obtain the individual point source's emissions of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. A detailed breakdown of point source emissions is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Point Source Emissions – Point Sources Annual Average Emissions 2018

Point Source Emissions – Point Sources Annual Average Emissions 2018 (tonnes/year)

Facility	Source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	Nechako Lumber Wood Residue Energy Recovery System	53.17	27.97	7.21	4.42
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	Debarker Cyclone	0.00	1.36	0.35	0.22
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	Nechako Lumber Two Cyclones	0.00	4.01	1.03	0.63
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	Nechako Four Lumber Kilns	0.00	21.1	5.45	3.33
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	Planer Baghouse	0.00	2.14	0.55	0.34
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	#1 Bin Vent Baghouse	0.00	0.20	0.05	0.03
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	#2 Bin Vent Baghouse	0.00	0.20	0.05	0.03
Nechako Lumber Company Ltd. – Total	All	53.17	57.00	14.70	9.00
Premium Pellet Ltd.	One Wood Fiber Dryer	31.8	32.8	10.93	7.09
Premium Pellet Ltd.	Two Pellet Coolers - With Cyclone	0.00	6.99	2.33	1.51
Premium Pellet Ltd.	Dry Shavings Bin Storage System (Baghouse #1)	0.00	0.36	0.12	0.08
Premium Pellet Ltd.	Hammermill Dust Recovery System (Baghouse #2)	0.00	0.87	0.29	0.19
Premium Pellet Ltd.	Sawdust Storage Bin Vents	0.00	2.47	0.82	0.53
Premium Pellet Ltd. – Total	All	31.80	43.50	14.50	9.40
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	Boiler (not operating)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	Cooling Tower Cyclone	0.00	0.37	0.15	0.15
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	Dunage Cyclone	0.00	0.06	0.02	0.02
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	Finger Joint Cyclone	0.00	0.23	0.09	0.09
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	Pellet Plant Cyclone	0.00	1.07	0.42	0.42
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	Storage Bin Cyclone	0.00	1.07	0.42	0.42
Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP) – Total	All	0.00	2.80	1.10	1.10
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	B Mill #1 Dust Collection Cyclone	0.00	6.47	3.75	2.68
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	B Mill #2 Dust Collection Cyclone	0.00	6.26	3.63	2.59
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Chip Bin Cyclone	0.00	0.75	0.43	0.31
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Sawmill Bandmill Grinder Cyclone	0.00	0.27	0.15	0.11
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Sawmill Debarker Cyclone	0.00	4.29	2.49	1.78
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	2 Deltech Wood Residue Fired Energy Systems	24.68	4.47	2.59	1.85
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Natural Gas Fired Hot Oil Booster	45.71	0.21	0.12	0.09
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	A Mill Dust Collection Cyclone	0.00	3.61	2.09	1.50
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Two Sawmill Sawdust Bin Cyclones	0.00	1.25	0.73	0.52
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Sawmill Filing Room Cyclone	0.00	0.72	0.42	0.30
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Two Planermill Shavings Cyclones	0.00	1.23	0.71	0.51
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Hammer Mill Storage Bin Cyclone	0.00	0.55	0.32	0.23
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Two Planermill Pneumatic Dust Collection Systems	0.00	2.22	1.29	0.92
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	Eleven Lumber Dry Kilns	0.00	14.02	8.12	5.81
Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division – Total	All	70.39	46.33	26.84	19.19
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Filing Room Cyclone	0.00	1.60	0.88	0.39
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Hogger Cyclone	0.00	1.70	0.94	0.41
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Konus Kessel Unit Four	20.68	8.11	4.46	1.96
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Konus Kessel Unit One	20.68	8.11	4.46	1.96
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Konus Kessel Unit Three	20.68	8.11	4.46	1.96
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Konus Kessel Unit Two	20.68	8.11	4.46	1.96
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Konus Shavings Silo Cyclone	0.00	1.60	0.88	0.39
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Planer Chip High Pressure Cyclone	0.00	1.08	0.60	0.26
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Planer Screen Rm Cyclone	0.00	6.09	3.35	1.47
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Planer Shavings Cyclone #1	0.00	10.48	5.76	2.53
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Planer Shavings Cyclone #2	0.00	10.48	5.76	2.53
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Sawdust Truck Bin Cyclone	0.00	1.70	0.94	0.41
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Sawmill Dust Cyclone #1	0.00	4.65	2.56	1.12
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Sawmill Dust Cyclone #2	0.00	8.52	4.68	2.06
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Sawmill Dust Cyclone #3	0.00	17.04	9.37	4.12
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	West Fraser Lejac Biomass Power Boiler	179	15.27	8.39	3.69
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	Five Thermal Oil Heated Lumber Dry Kilns	0.00	24.87	13.68	6.01
Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills – Total	All	262	138	75.62	33.26
Pacific Northern Gas Ltd.	Gas compressor exhaust stack	201	9.39	9.39	9.39
Pacific Northern Gas Ltd. – Total	All	201	9.39	9.39	9.39
Study Area – Total	All	618	297	142	81.34

2.2 Mobile sources

Mobile sources in the study area were categorized into the following five groups:

• On-road vehicles
• Tire wear and brake lining
• Off-road vehicles and equipment
• Rail transportation
• Air Transportation

Sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.5 provide detailed information on the methods used to estimate emissions from each of these five mobile sources.

2.2.1 On-road vehicles

On-road vehicle emissions were estimated by multiplying the vehicle kilometres traveled (VKT) with the emission factors specific to each air pollutant of concern. Typically, these emission factors were obtained from the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model.

Total VKTs in B.C. and VKTs in each region were extracted from the 2010 Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) Report^{[Footnote 7]}. To match these VKTs with the emissions factors of different types of vehicles, certain assumptions were made. For instance:

• Hybrid vehicles were classified under the gasoline fuel category
• Other fuel vehicles were placed in the diesel fuel category, to be conservative

The emission factors for TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5 were taken from the Particulate Matter Emissions Inventory for the Alberni Airshed^{[Footnote 8]}, while the NOx emission factors for on-road vehicles were based on 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Emission Inventory Report^{[Footnote 9]}, assuming the vehicle age distributions, vehicle type populations, speed distributions, etc. are similar in B.C., and the emission factors mentioned above are applicable for the study area. Table 4 provides a detailed list of the emission factors used for calculation.

Table 4: Emission Factors for On-road Vehicles

Emission Factors for On-road Vehicles (g/VKT)

Fuel Type	Vehicle Type	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Gasoline	Bus	2.98	0.12	0.12	0.03
Gasoline	Commercial Vehicles	1.20	0.03	0.03	0.01
Gasoline	Large Passenger Cars	0.66	0.03	0.03	0.01
Gasoline	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	1.20	0.03	0.03	0.01
Gasoline	Motorcycles, Mopeds	0.91	0.02	0.02	0.01
Gasoline	Motorhomes	2.98	0.11	0.11	0.04
Gasoline	Small Passenger Cars	0.66	0.03	0.03	0.01
Gasoline	Tractor Trailer Trucks	2.98	0.09	0.09	0.03
Diesel	Bus	6.79	0.24	0.24	0.15
Diesel	Commercial Vehicles	0.92	0.06	0.06	0.03
Diesel	Large Passenger Cars	0.49	0.06	0.06	0.03
Diesel	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	0.92	0.06	0.06	0.03
Diesel	Motorhomes	6.79	0.24	0.24	0.18
Diesel	Small Passenger Cars	0.49	0.03	0.03	0.01
Diesel	Tractor Trailer Trucks	6.79	0.14	0.14	0.06

Emissions for on-road gasoline vehicles and on-road diesel vehicles were calculated separately for each region due to different gasoline and diesel emissions factors. The results are shown in Table 5 and Table 6.

Table 5: Annual Emissions from On-road Gasoline Vehicles

Annual Emissions from On-road Gasoline Vehicles (tonnes/year)

Area	Vehicle Type	NOX	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	Bus	0.20	0.01	0.01	2.0E-03
Vanderhoof DM	Commercial Vehicles	6.10	0.15	0.15	0.04
Vanderhoof DM	Large Passenger Cars	4.08	0.19	0.19	0.06
Vanderhoof DM	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	26.80	0.65	0.65	0.16
Vanderhoof DM	Motorcycles, Mopeds	0.23	0.01	0.01	3.0E-03
Vanderhoof DM	Motorhomes	1.05	0.04	0.04	0.02
Vanderhoof DM	Small Passenger Cars	5.68	0.24	0.24	0.07
Vanderhoof DM	Tractor Trailer Trucks	0.23	0.01	0.01	2.4E-03
Vanderhoof DM – Total	All	44.36	1.28	1.28	0.34
Fraser Lake	Bus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Fraser Lake	Commercial Vehicles	1.71	0.04	0.04	0.01
Fraser Lake	Large Passenger Cars	1.42	0.06	0.06	0.02
Fraser Lake	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	9.76	0.24	0.24	0.06
Fraser Lake	Motorcycles, Mopeds	0.03	7.4E-04	7.4E-04	4.0E-04
Fraser Lake	Motorhomes	0.31	0.01	0.01	4.6E-03
Fraser Lake	Small Passenger Cars	2.00	0.09	0.09	0.02
Fraser Lake	Tractor Trailer Trucks	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Fraser Lake – Total	All	15.23	0.44	0.44	0.12
Area D	Bus	0.08	3.3E-03	3.3E-03	8.1E-04
Area D	Commercial Vehicles	1.83	0.04	0.04	0.01
Area D	Large Passenger Cars	1.45	0.07	0.07	0.02
Area D	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	10.71	0.26	0.26	0.06
Area D	Motorcycles, Mopeds	0.08	2.0E-03	2.0E-03	1.1E-03
Area D	Motorhomes	0.41	0.01	0.01	0.01
Area D	Small Passenger Cars	2.21	0.09	0.09	0.03
Area D	Tractor Trailer Trucks	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Area D – Total	All	16.76	0.48	0.48	0.13
Area F	Bus	0.20	0.01	0.01	2.0E-03
Area F	Commercial Vehicles	4.55	0.11	0.11	0.03
Area F	Large Passenger Cars	3.61	0.17	0.17	0.05
Area F	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	26.65	0.65	0.65	0.16
Area F	Motorcycles, Mopeds	0.20	4.9E-03	4.9E-03	2.7E-03
Area F	Motorhomes	1.02	0.04	0.04	0.02
Area F	Small Passenger Cars	5.50	0.23	0.23	0.07
Area F	Tractor Trailer Trucks	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Area F – Total	All	41.74	1.21	1.21	0.32
Study Area – Total	All	118	3.42	3.42	0.90

Table 6: Annual Emissions from On-road Diesel Vehicles

Annual Emissions from On-road Diesel Vehicles (tonnes/year)

Area	Vehicle Types	NOX	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	Bus	2.75	0.10	0.10	0.06
Vanderhoof DM	Commercial Vehicles	9.92	0.59	0.59	0.34
Vanderhoof DM	Large Passenger Cars	0.03	3.5E-03	3.5E-03	2.1E-03
Vanderhoof DM	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	0.74	0.04	0.04	0.03
Vanderhoof DM	Motorhomes	2.12	0.08	0.08	0.06
Vanderhoof DM	Small Passenger Cars	0.34	0.02	0.02	4.2E-03
Vanderhoof DM	Tractor Trailer Trucks	48.87	1.04	1.04	0.45
Vanderhoof DM – Total	All	64.76	1.86	1.86	0.94
Fraser Lake	Bus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Fraser Lake	Commercial Vehicles	2.29	0.14	0.14	0.08
Fraser Lake	Large Passenger Cars	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Fraser Lake	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	0.33	0.02	0.02	0.01
Fraser Lake	Motorhomes	0.60	0.02	0.02	0.02
Fraser Lake	Small Passenger Cars	0.18	0.01	0.01	2.2E-03
Fraser Lake	Tractor Trailer Trucks	6.66	0.14	0.14	0.06
Fraser Lake – Total	All	10.05	0.33	0.33	0.17
Area D	Bus	0.27	0.01	0.01	0.01
Area D	Commercial Vehicles	3.56	0.21	0.21	0.12
Area D	Large Passenger Cars	0.01	7.1E-04	7.1E-04	4.3E-04
Area D	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	0.37	0.02	0.02	0.01
Area D	Motorhomes	0.73	0.03	0.03	0.02
Area D	Small Passenger Cars	0.13	0.01	0.01	1.6E-03
Area D	Tractor Trailer Trucks	12.49	0.27	0.27	0.12
Area D – Total	All	17.56	0.54	0.54	0.28
Area F	Bus	0.67	0.02	0.02	0.01
Area F	Commercial Vehicles	8.86	0.53	0.53	0.31
Area F	Large Passenger Cars	0.02	1.8E-03	1.8E-03	1.1E-03
Area F	Light Trucks, Vans, SUVs	0.92	0.06	0.06	0.03
Area F	Motorhomes	1.82	0.06	0.06	0.05
Area F	Small Passenger Cars	0.32	0.02	0.02	0.004
Area F	Tractor Trailer Trucks	31.1	0.66	0.66	0.29
Area F – Total	All	43.71	1.35	1.35	0.69
Study Area – Total	All	136	4.08	4.08	2.08

2.2.2 Tire wear and brake lining

PM emissions from tire wear and brake lining of on-road vehicles refer to the airborne portion of the "wear" generated by abrasion, corrosion, and turbulence, which can result in suspended particles in the atmosphere^{[Footnote 10]}.

Emissions from tire wear and brake lining of on-road vehicles were scaled from the 2022 air pollutants emission inventory^{[Footnote 11]} (APEI) by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) based on the percentage of VKT associated with each region. For example, the TPM annual emissions from Vanderhoof DM, were estimated as TPM emissions from total B.C. multiplied by the VKT percentage (0.07 percent).

The total VKTs in B.C. and VKTs in each region were extracted from the 2010 CEEI report^{[Footnote 7]}.

It was assumed that tire wear and brake lining emissions from on-road vehicles correlated linearly with VKTs in B.C. The annual emissions for the study area are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Annual Emissions from Tire Wear and Brake Lining of On-road Vehicles

 Annual Emissions from Tire Wear and Brake Lining of On-road Vehicles (tonnes/year)

Area	VKT Percentage (%)	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
British Columbia	100	˗	1411	1411	184
Vanderhoof DM	0.07	˗	0.95	0.95	0.12
Fraser Lake	0.02	˗	0.29	0.29	0.04
Area D	0.02	˗	0.34	0.34	0.05
Area F	0.06	˗	0.85	0.85	0.11
Study Area – Total	˗	˗	2.44	2.44	0.32

2.2.3 Off-road vehicles and equipment

Off-road vehicles and equipment were classified into two main categories:

• Agriculture
• Construction operations

This report estimated emissions from these two major contributors while emissions from small sources such as lawnmowers were neglected.

2.2.3.1 Off-road vehicles and equipment from agriculture

Regarding off-road vehicles and equipment from agriculture, the 2014 B.C. emissions from farm equipment, as reported in the B.C. Agricultural Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 12]} were scaled to 2018 for B.C., based on the market value increase rate of total farm capital^{[Footnote 13]}. Additionally, the percentages of different types of farm equipment from each study region over the entire province were obtained from the same reference.

There were no reported off-road vehicles and equipment from agriculture in Vanderhoof DM and Fraser Lake. Assuming that emissions from agricultural off-road vehicles and equipment depend on the percentage of types of farm equipment, B.C. emissions were distributed to the study area and summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: Annual Emissions from Off-road Vehicles and Equipment used for Agriculture (tonnes/year)

Annual Emissions from Off-road Vehicles and Equipment used for Agriculture (tonnes/year)

Area	Percentage of Farm Equipment (%)	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
British Columbia	100	8365	1051	1051	1020
Area D	0.54	45.34	5.70	5.70	5.53
Area F	2.29	191	24.06	24.06	23.34
Study Area – Total	2.83	237	29.75	29.75	28.86

2.2.3.2 Off-road vehicles and equipment from construction

The estimation of emissions from off-road vehicles and equipment used for construction followed four steps:

1. Firstly, the provincial 2018 emissions from off-road diesel vehicles and equipment were added to the emissions from off-road gasoline/ liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)/natural gas (NG) vehicles and equipment (both from APEI 2022) to obtain the total B.C. 2018 emissions of off-road vehicles and equipment.
2. Secondly, the B.C. farm equipment emissions (Section 2.2.3.1) were subtracted from the total B.C. 2018 off-road emissions to obtain off-road vehicles and equipment from construction.
3. Thirdly, the dollar values of building permits in B.C. and each study region were obtained from British Columbia Building Permits by Type^{[Footnote 14]}. To calculate the percentage of dollar values of building permits in each study region, the following equation was applied:

Percentage in each study region = Dollar values of building permits in the region /
Dollar values of building permits in B.C.

4. Lastly, assuming that the emissions from construction off-road vehicles and equipment have a linear relationship with the percentage of dollar values of building permits, the total B.C. off-road construction emissions were scaled to the study area and summarized in Table 9.

Table 9: Annual Emissions from Off-road Vehicles and Equipment Used for Construction

Annual Emissions from Off-road Vehicles and Equipment Used for Construction (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	2.03	0.17	0.17	0.16
Fraser Lake	0.01	7.8E-04	7.6E-04	7.3E-04
Area D	0.82	0.07	0.07	0.06
Area F	1.83	0.15	0.15	0.14
Study Area – Total	4.69	0.39	0.38	0.37

2.2.4 Rail transportation

Fuel consumed by locomotive engines generates emissions from rail transportation. To calculate these emissions locomotive emission factors were multiplied by horsepower rating and load factors, as documented in the U.S. EPA PM Hot-spot Guidance^{[Footnote 15]}. For the study regions, line haul locomotives GE AC 4400 (4400 hp) from Canadian National Railway (CN) and EMD SD40 (3000 hp) from Via Rail were used based on the 2006 Vanderhoof Emissions Inventory Report.

Canadian Locomotive Emissions Regulation^{[Footnote 7]} employs the exhaust emission standard defined in section 1033.101, Tables 1 and 2 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)^{[Footnote 17]}. The NOx and PM emission factors (shown in Table 10) were adopted from this standard and applied in this inventory. In the CFR, PM is defined as respirable PM with a diameter of less than or equal to 10 microns¹⁷. This is consistent with the definition of PM₁₀ used in this inventory. PM_2.5 and TPM emissions were subsequently estimated based on the ratios of TPM/PM₁₀ and PM_2.5/PM₁₀ obtained from 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions^{[Footnote 9]}.

Table 10: Emissions Factors for Line-Haul Locomotives

Emissions Factors for Line-Haul Locomotives (g/bhp-hr)

Tier of standards	NOx	PM10
Tier 0	8.00	0.22
Tier 1	7.40	0.22

Some assumptions were adopted from the 2006 Vanderhoof Emissions Inventory report:

• For the GE AC 4400 locomotive, which belongs to the Tier 1 fleet, ten trains per day passed through the study area (five loaded, five unloaded), with two active locomotive engines per loaded train and one active locomotive engine per unloaded train. An additional estimate of half an hour of idling time for three locomotives each day was assumed for yard activity based on the Canadian Locomotive Emissions Regulation^{[Footnote 16]}.
• For the EMD SD40 locomotive, which belongs to the Tier 0 fleet, six trains per week passed through the study area, with an idling time of 540 seconds at Vanderhoof station, Fort Fraser station (in Area D), and Endako station (in Area D) for passenger rail at the terminals. The train speed for both locomotives was assumed to be 50 km/h adopted from the 2006 Vanderhoof Emissions Inventory report^{[Footnote 5]}, except for GE AC 4400 in areas D and F based on the speed limitation for freight trains in Canada, which is 80 km/h.

The emissions from rail transportation are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11: Annual Emissions from Rail Transportation

Annual Emissions from Rail Transportation (tonnes/year)

Area	Model	Status	Power Rating (HP)	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	GE AC 4400	Idling	4400	0.18	0.01	0.01	0.01
Vanderhoof DM	GE AC 4400	Moving	4400	10.46	0.32	0.31	0.31
Vanderhoof DM	EMD SD40	Idling	3000	4.5E-03	1.3E-04	1.2E-04	1.2E-04
Vanderhoof DM	EMD SD40	Moving	3000	0.44	0.01	0.01	0.01
Vanderhoof DM – Total	All	All	All	11.09	0.34	0.33	0.33
Fraser Lake	GE AC 4400	Idling	4400	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Fraser Lake	GE AC 4400	Moving	4400	5.62	0.17	0.17	0.17
Fraser Lake	EMD SD40	Idling	3000	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Fraser Lake	EMD SD40	Moving	3000	0.24	0.01	0.01	0.01
Fraser Lake – Total	All	All	All	5.86	0.18	0.17	0.17
Area D	GE AC 4400	Idling	4400	0.21	0.01	0.01	0.01
Area D	GE AC 4400	Moving	4400	46.75	1.42	1.39	1.37
Area D	EMD SD40	Idling	3000	0.01	2.5E-04	2.5E-04	2.4E-04
Area D	EMD SD40	Moving	3000	3.14	0.09	0.09	0.09
Area D – Total	All	All	All	50.12	1.52	1.48	1.47
Area F	GE AC 4400	Idling	4400	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Area F	GE AC 4400	Moving	4400	56.02	1.70	1.67	1.65
Area F	EMD SD40	Idling	3000	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Area F	EMD SD40	Moving	3000	3.77	0.11	0.10	0.10
Area F – Total	All	All	All	59.79	1.81	1.77	1.75
Study Area – Total	All	All		127	3.84	3.75	3.71

2.2.5 Air transportation

Air transportation emissions were assumed to result from aircraft landing and takeoffs (LTO). The 2022 ECCC APEI11 air transportation emissions for 2018 were scaled to the Vanderhoof airport.

To calculate the scaling factors, aircraft movements by class of operation were obtained from Statistics Canada for airports with NAV CANADA (Canada's air navigation service provider) flight service stations^{[Footnote 18]}. Since no aircraft movement data is available for the Vanderhoof airport, data from the Quesnel airport were assumed to be similar and used to determine a scaling factor of 0.019 for aircraft movements from the Vanderhoof airport over total B.C.

Assuming that emissions from air transportation only relate to aircraft movements, they were calculated and summarized in Table 12. 

Table 12: Annual Emissions from Air Transportation in the Study Area

Annual Emissions from Air Transportation in the Study Area (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	30.81	1.19	1.19	1.16

2.3 Area sources

This section outlines the methods for calculating emissions and underlying assumptions made to determine the annual average emission rates for area sources within the study area. Area sources refer to air pollutant sources that are spread over a defined area and are broadly categorized as agricultural, residential/commercial, or other naturally occurring and human-generated sources.

The report identifies the following area sources:  

• Open burning
• Space heating
• Agriculture
• Fugitive dust
• Wildfires

Miscellaneous area sources were not included in the emission inventory as the primary objective of the project was to identify the major contributors to NOx and PM emissions in Vanderhoof and its surrounding areas. Each area source type is discussed in detail in subsections 2.3.1 to 2.3.5.

2.3.1 Open burning

Open burning, can be controlled or uncontrolled combustion activities that emit air pollutants of concern. Thousands of piles of vegetative debris are open burned every year as a result of:

• Tree harvesting activities from the logging sector,
• Resource management and land clearing for development and agricultural activities, and
• Cleanup (small piles) of yard waste and trimmings from residential lots.

This report categorizes open burning sources into two groups: provincially regulated open burning and backyard burning. Sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2 provide detailed information on the estimation methodologies used to determine emissions for each category.

2.3.1.1 Provincially regulated open burning

Open fires under the B.C. Wildfire Act and Wildfire Regulation are categorized into:

• Outdoor stoves
• Campfires
• Category 2 open fires (smaller piled debris)
• Category 3 open fires (larger piled debris)
• Category 4 resource management open fires

Emissions from the latter two categories are discussed in detail in this section.

B.C. ENV Open Burning CAC Emissions Inventory for 2018 Report^{[Footnote 19]} was adopted to estimate the provincially regulated open burning emissions in the study area. Note that the B.C. open burning emission inventory was developed for CAC from open burning of vegetative debris in B.C. for 2018 by using the Open Fire Tracking System (OFTS) data from the Ministry of Forests (FOR). Operators conducting Category 4 resource management open fires and Category 3 burning are required to obtain a Burning Registration Number (BRN).

Although OFTS is the only database available for compiling information on open burning for inventory purposes in B.C., it has some limitations that should be considered:

• The OFTS only records Category 3 and Category 4 resource management open fire data. Campfires and Category 2 open fires are not included in the system
• Duplicate records may exist, that is, an operator may apply for new BRNs for unburned piles under a prior BRN. (BRNs may be re‐issued if the operator did not complete some or all of their burns
• OFTS is restricted to forest Crown Land and some private forest land. Some municipalities and higher-populated regional district areas are not covered under the OFTS database
• Actual open burning might not necessarily happen even if debris piles are registered with OFTS
• No other information is recorded, such as the size and shape of piles, types of wood/debris, and other best practices used in piling and smoke management

To determine provincially regulated open burning emissions in the study area, OFTS BRNs issued in 2018 were identified using GIS software (QGIS) based on recorded latitudes and longitudes. QGIS is a free and open-source cross-platform desktop geographic information system.

Net mass burned was calculated based on the number of registered piles in the study area assuming certain pile sizes, shapes, and types of wood/debris as detailed in the 2018 provincial open burning emissions inventory. Emissions factors from the 2018 open burning emission inventory (shown in Table 13) were utilized and the results are presented in Table 14, depicting the annual emissions.

Table 13: Emission Factors for Pile Open Burning

Emission Factors for Pile Open Burning

Category	Number of Piles	Class	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Clean	>19.5	A	2.00	11.00	7.75	6.75
Dirty	>9.5<19.5	B	2.00	13.50	10.00	8.50
Very Dirty	<9.5	C	2.00	18.00	14.00	11.90

Table 14: Annual Emissions from Provincially Regulated Open Burning in the Study Area

Annual Emissions from Provincially Regulated Open Burning in the Study Area (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Area D	77.54	430	305	266
Area F	150	842	599	521
Study Area – Total	228	1272	904	786

2.3.1.2 Backyard burning

Backyard burning, as discussed in this report, refers to the burning of yard residues and vegetative debris on residential properties.

The 2018 Solid Waste Management Plan^{[Footnote 20]} prepared for the RDBN reported the disposal rate in RDBN was 600 kg per capita in 2016. The report showed a total of just over 23,100 tonnes of municipal solid waste was disposed of in the regions’ landfills, of which 38 percent was organic waste, including food waste (assume 40 percent) and yard waste and compostable paper products like paper toweling and tissues (assume 60 percent)^{[Footnote 8]}.

The 2016 population of regional electoral areas and municipalities were used for calculating 2018 yard waste burned (assuming all 60 percent of organic waste belonged to yard waste and was openly burned) in the study area.  

The U.S. EPA AP 42 Chapter 2.5 Open Burning^{[Footnote 21]} emission factors for waste burning, listed in Table 15, were used to calculate emissions from backyard open burning. Table 16 displays the annual emissions resulting from backyard open burning for 2018. 

Table 15: Emission Factors for Backyard Burning

Emission Factors for Backyard Burning (kg/tonne)

Category	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Waste burning	3.00	8.00	5.90	5.44

Note: NOx and TPM emission factor were based on U.S. EPA Ap42 2.5, and PM₁₀/TPM and PM_2.5/TPM ratios were based on APEI 2022.

Table 16: Annual Emissions from Backyard Burning

Annual Emissions from Backyard Burning (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	1.82	4.86	3.58	3.30
Fraser Lake	0.41	1.08	0.80	0.74
Area D	0.60	1.61	1.19	1.10
Area F	1.50	4.01	2.96	2.73
Study Area – Total	4.34	11.56	8.52	7.86

2.3.2 Space heating

The process of heating commercial, industrial, and residential spaces by means of fossil fuels such as fuel oil, natural gas, and propane, as well as wood, is known to release substantial amounts of air pollutants. In the study area, emissions from space heating were estimated based on the type of fuel combusted, including:

• Fuel oil
• Natural gas
• Propane
• Wood

The estimation of combustion emissions from natural gas, residential oil, and residential propane for space heating used the corresponding emission factors from U.S. EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42), which are presented in Table 17.

Table 17: Emission Factors for Space Heating (Non-wood Fuel)

Emission Factors for Space Heating (Non-wood Fuel)

Fuel Types	Unit	NOx	TSP	PM10	PM2.5
Natural Gas	lb/MMBTU	9.2E-02	7.5E-03	7.5E-03	7.5E-03
Residential Oil (Fuel Oil)	lb/MMBTU	0.13	1.2E-02	1.2E-02	1.2E-02
Residential Propane	lb/MMBTU	0.14	7.7E-03	7.7E-03	7.7E-03

2.3.2.1 Fuel oil

The study area’s fuel oil consumption for residential space heating was obtained from the latest Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI 2012)^{[Footnote 22]}. Emission factors for residential furnaces were sourced from the U.S. EPA AP-42, Chapter 1.3 “Fuel Oil Combustion”^{[Footnote 23]}(condensable PM emission factor is sourced from No. 2 oil fired). To convert to lb/MMBtu of No. 2 oil (generally referred to as home heating oil), the emission factors were divided by 140 MMBtu/103 gal. Table 17 provides the NOx and PM emission factors used for fuel oil.

Assumptions were made during the emission estimation process, including the exclusion of fuel oil usage for space heating in areas lacking data from CEEI 201222 . Additionally, the 2018 fuel oil consumption was estimated to have increased from 2012 based on the increase or decrease in total private dwellings in each region.

Table 18 presents a summary of the annual space heating emissions resulting from fuel oil combustion.

Table 18: Annual Emission from Space Heating Burning Fuel Oil

Annual Emission from Space Heating Burning Fuel Oil (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	0.45	0.04	0.04	0.04
Fraser Lake	˗	˗	˗	˗
Area D	0.50	0.05	0.05	0.05
Area F	1.11	0.11	0.11	0.11
Study Area – Total	2.06	0.19	0.19	0.19

2.3.2.2 Natural gas

The NG consumption for space heating in residential, commercial, and small-to-medium industrial buildings within the study area was obtained from the latest Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI 2012)^{[Footnote 22]}. Emission factors for residential furnaces were sourced from the U.S. EPA AP-42, Chapter 1.4 “Natural Gas Combustion”^{[Footnote 24]}. To convert from lb/10 6 scf to lb/MMBtu of NG, the emission factors were divided by 1020 Btu/scf. Table 17 in Section 2.3.2 provides the NOx and PM emission factors used for estimating NG space heating emissions.

Several assumptions were made during the emission estimation process. For instance, it was assumed that residential NG consumption had a linear correlation with the percentage of private dwellings in Vanderhoof DM and Fraser Lake. In contrast, NG consumption from commercial and small-to-medium industrial space heating had a linear correlation with the percentage of population in Vanderhoof DM and Fraser Lake. The use of NG was very limited in Area D and Area F, so the emissions were neglected. Table 19 provides a summary of the annual space heating emissions resulting from NG combustion.

Table 19: Annual Emission from Space Heating Burning NG

Annual Emission from Space Heating Burning NG (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	8.48	0.69	0.69	0.69
Fraser Lake	1.85	0.15	0.15	0.15
Study Area – Total	10.32	0.83	0.83	0.83

2.3.2.3 Propane

The residential space heating propane consumption data was sourced from the latest Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI 2012)^{[Footnote 22]}. The emission factors for residential furnaces were obtained from the U.S. EPA AP-42, Chapter 1.5 “Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion”^{[Footnote 25]}. To convert to lb/MMBtu of propane, the emission factors were divided by the heat content of 91.5 MMBtu/103 gal. The NOx and PM emission factors for estimating propane space heating emissions are presented in Table 17 in Section 2.3.2. Propane consumption was assumed to correlate with the percentage of private dwellings in each region. Based on this assumption, the emissions resulting from space heating burning propane were estimated and are presented in Table 20.

Table 20: Annual Emission from Space Heating Burning Propane

Annual Emission from Space Heating Burning Propane (tonnes/year)

Area	NOX	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	1.35	0.07	0.07	0.07
Fraser Lake	0.51	0.03	0.03	0.03
Area D	1.49	0.08	0.08	0.08
Area F	3.32	0.18	0.18	0.18
Study Area – Total	6.68	0.36	0.36	0.36

2.3.2.4 Wood

In 2017, the District of Vanderhoof and B.C. ENV jointly funded a door-to-door residential wood-burning appliances survey^{[Footnote 1]}. The purpose of the survey was to provide insight into future air quality improvement initiatives. The results of the survey were used to estimate the annual consumption of wood and pellets as residential heating fuels for Vanderhoof DM and Fraser Lake:

• Over one-third of residents (37 percent) reported using a wood-burning appliance,
• 71 percent of wood-burning appliances in the community were emission-certified,
• Among the wood-burning appliances, 30 percent were wood stoves, 15 percent were wood fireplaces, 2 percent were wood furnaces, 44 percent were pellet stoves, 2 percent were pellet furnaces, 2 percent were wood fireplace inserts, and 3 percent were outdoor wood boilers, and
• Additionally, the report summarized the percentage of pellet and wood cords combusted per year for different usage categories.

In 2012, B.C. commissioned Mustel Group to conduct a province-wide survey of B.C. residents regarding the use of residential wood-burning appliances^{[Footnote 27]}. The outcomes for the northern region served as a basis to calculate annual wood and pellet consumption for residential heating in Areas D and F:

• In rural areas, 63 percent of residents reported using a wood-burning appliance
• 37 percent of wood stoves and 67 percent of wood fireplaces or inserts^{[Footnote 28]} in northern region were emission certified
• Among the wood-burning appliances, the breakdown was as follows:
  • 53 percent were wood stoves
  • 29 percent were wood fireplaces/inserts
  • 12 percent were central heating wood burners
  • 14 percent were pellet stoves/furnaces

These figures, normalized to 100 percent, were applied to Area D and Area F.

The total number of households (that is, total private dwellings) within the study area was sourced from Statistics Canada's 2016 data. The emission factors for each appliance type were adopted from the Residential Wood-Burning Emissions in British Columbia^{[Footnote 29]} and the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions report^{[Footnote 9]}. These factors are presented in Table 21.

Table 21: Emission Factors for Wood Burning

Emission Factors for Wood Burning (kg/tonne material consumed)

Appliance Type	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Fireplace – AdvancedTable note 1	1.40	5.10	4.80	4.80
Fireplace – Conventional without glass doorsTable note 1	1.40	19.30	18.50	18.40
Fireplace – Conventional glass doors	1.40	13.50	13.00	12.90
Central Furnace/Boiler (inside and outside)Table note 1	1.40	14.10	13.30	13.30
Fireplace Insert – Advanced Technology and CatalyticTable note 1	1.40	5.10	4.80	4.80
Fireplace Insert – ConventionalTable note 1	1.40	14.40	13.60	13.60
Wood Stove – Advanced Technology and CatalyticTable note 1	1.40	5.10	4.80	4.80
Wood Stove – ConventionalTable note 1	1.40	24.60	23.20	23.20
Pellet appliancesTable note 2	1.40	1.20	1.10	1.10

Table note 1: Emission factors from Residential Wood-Burning Emissions in British Columbia were used for fireplaces, central furnaces, and wood stoves.
Table note 2: Emission factors from 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions were used for pellet appliances.

The emissions resulting from residential wood burning for space heating were calculated by multiplying the annual consumption of wood cords and pellets within the study area by the emission factors associated with different wood appliance types, as presented in Table 21.

Several assumptions were made during the emission estimation process:

• The District of Vanderhoof door-to-door 2017 survey results were applicable to Vanderhoof DM and Fraser Lake in terms of appliance type distributions
• 2012 B.C. survey results were applicable to Area D and Area F in terms of appliance type distributions
• Emission factors for advanced technology appliances applied to certified devices and emission factors for conventional appliances applied to uncertified wood appliances
• 50 bags of pellets were equivalent to 1 tonne of pellets^{[Footnote 26]}
• As a conservative estimate, three tonnes of pellets were used for "others" or blank survey responses
• In the 2017 Vanderhoof survey, an unconventional unit of measure, 'armfuls' was utilized, wherein 25 armfuls of wood were equivalent to a maximum of 0.5 cords^{[Footnote 26]}
• A conservative estimate of four cords was used for "do not know," "others," or blank survey responses
• The average amount within each category range of “pellet” or “wood cord” was used for estimation

Based on the percentage of pellet and wood cords combusted (as primary heating source) per year, as identified from different usage categories, the annual average consumption of pellet per household was estimated at 2.13 tonnes, and the annual average consumption of wood cords per household was estimated at 4.21 tonnes in the study area.

Table 22 provides a summary of the emissions resulting from wood burning for space heating. For instance, emissions of TPM from residential wood burning were calculated using the following equation:

TPM annual emission rate = Number of households * Percent of households using a specific type of wood burning appliance * Annual average wood (or pellet) burnt per household (tonne/household) * TPM emission factor

Table 22: Annual Emissions from Residential Wood Burning

Annual Emissions from Residential Wood Burning (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	3.09	16.49	15.55	15.54
Fraser Lake	1.58	8.45	7.97	7.96
Area D	2.97	28.34	26.76	26.75
Area F	6.61	63.12	59.61	59.57
Total in Study Area	14.25	116	110	110

2.3.3 Agriculture

Air emissions from agriculture sources were estimated according to the following categories:

• Movements from farm animals
• Fertilizer application
• Pesticides application
• Tilling soil
• Harvesting crops
• Wind erosion

Sections 2.3.3.1 to 2.3.3.6 provide detailed information on how to calculate TPM, PM₁₀, PM_2.5 emissions from each category. Negligible emissions were associated with agriculture in Vanderhoof DM, and Fraser Lake, and therefore can be disregarded.

2.3.3.1 Movements of farm animals

Farm animals generate particulate matter through their movement, including the entrainment of feeds, dry manure, soil, and other materials. To determine the number of cattle, pigs, poultry, and horses on farms, data were extracted from the 2016 Census of Agriculture. If no data were available for 2016, 2011 census data were used^{[Footnote 30]}. The emission factors for cattle, pigs, and horses were obtained from the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions report^{[Footnote 9]} and are shown in Table 23. The PM emission factors for poultry were drawn from the PM Emissions Inventory for the Alberni Airshed Report^{[Footnote 8]}, also shown in Table 23.

Table 23: Emissions Factors for the Movement of Farm Animals

Emissions Factors for the Movement of Farm Animal (kg/head/year)

Farm Animal	Farm Animal Type	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Cattle	Steers, 1 year and over	˗	6.38	2.13	0.32
Pigs	Boars	˗	3.74	1.87	0.37
Pigs	Sows	˗	2.76	1.38	0.28
Pigs	Pigs	˗	0.76	0.38	0.08
Poultry	Pullets under 19 weeks	˗	8.3E-03	1.7E-03	1.7E-04
Poultry	Laying hens, 19 weeks and over	˗	2.0E-02	4.0E-03	4.0E-04
Poultry	Layer and broiler breeders (pullets and hens)	˗	2.0E-02	4.0E-03	4.0E-04
Poultry	Broilers, roasters and Cornish	˗	3.7E-02	3.7E-03	3.7E-04
Poultry	Turkeys	˗	1.8E-01	1.8E-02	1.8E-03
Poultry	Other poultry	˗	6.5E-02	6.5E-03	6.5E-04
Horses	Paddocks	˗	2.15	0.72	0.11
Horses	Rings	˗	1.61	0.54	0.08

To estimate PM emissions from the movements of farm animals, the number of each type of farm animal in the study area was multiplied by the emission factors listed in Table 23. The following assumptions were made:

• The movements of farm animals were universal in B.C.
• Only cattle (steers, one year and over) were included in the emissions inventory, consistent with the assumption used in the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Report^{[Footnote 9]}
• 22 percent of horses were in paddocks and the remaining (78 percent) were in riding rings^{[Footnote 9]}.

Table 24 provides a summary of emissions resulting from farm animal movements in Areas D and Area F.

Table 24: Annual Emissions from the Movement of Farm Animal in the Study Area

Annual Emissions from the Movement of Farm Animal in the Study Area (tonnes/year)

Area	Animal	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Area D	Cattle	˗	1.36	0.45	0.07
Area D	Pigs	˗	0.05	0.03	0.01
Area D	Poultry	˗	0.03	3.4E-03	3.4E-04
Area D	Horses	˗	0.36	0.12	0.02
Area F	Cattle	˗	10.08	3.37	0.51
Area F	Pigs	˗	0.35	0.18	0.04
Area F	Poultry	˗	0.11	0.01	1.4E-03
Area F	Horses	˗	1.79	0.60	0.09
Study Area – Total	All	˗	14.14	4.76	0.73

2.3.3.2 Fertilizer application

Fertilizer Application includes emissions resulting from the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in annual and perennial crop production. The total emissions resulting from inorganic fertilizer applications in B.C. in 2018 are provided in the APEI 2022 report11.

Additionally, Statistics Canada published 2016 data on commercial fertilizer usage in hectares for farms located in the RDBN Areas D and F^{[Footnote 31]}.

The total B.C. emissions from inorganic fertilizer applications were scaled by calculating the percentage of fertilizer applications to RDBN Electoral Areas D and Area F relative to the commercial fertilizer usage for all of B.C. The assumption made here was that the quantities of commercial fertilizer applied to the farm area are correlated with the emissions generated by inorganic fertilizer application. The annual emissions in the study area have been calculated and are presented in Table 25.

Table 25: Annual Emissions from Inorganic Fertilizer Application

Annual Emissions from Inorganic Fertilizer Application (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
British Columbia	˗	87.00	43.00	12.00
Area D	˗	1.31	0.65	0.18
Area F	˗	6.84	3.38	0.94
Study Area – Total	˗	8.15	4.03	1.12

2.3.3.3 Pesticide application

The hectares of land area to which pesticides were applied in 2016 were obtained from the Statistics Canada 2016 Land Inputs data in Table 32-10-0409-0131. It was assumed that the 2016 data represents the land area to which pesticides were applied in 2018. These pesticides include herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. The PM emission factors for the application of pesticides were drawn from the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Report9 and are presented in Table 26.

Table 26: Emission factors for Application of Pesticide

Emission factors for Application of Pesticide (kg/ha pesticide applied)

Activity	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Pesticide Application	˗	1.67	0.82	0.23

Emissions resulting from the application of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides were calculated for the study area by multiplying the hectares of the land areas by the corresponding emission factors presented in Table 26. The calculated emissions are presented in Table 27.

Table 27: Annual Emissions from Pesticides Application

Annual Emissions from Pesticides Application (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Area D	˗	0.06	0.03	0.01
Area F	˗	9.60	4.72	1.32
Total in Study Area	˗	9.66	4.74	1.33

2.3.3.4 Tilling soil

PM can be generated by mechanical disturbances such as seeding, seedbed preparation, and cultivation of tilling soil. The emissions generated depend on various factors such as crop types, and the number of tilling events per year per crop.

The Census of Agriculture provided tilling areas for each crop type in 2016, including field crops^{[Footnote 32]}, fruits^{[Footnote 33]}, and field vegetables^{[Footnote 34]}.

The number of tilling practices per month by crop category for the study area was obtained from the B.C. Agricultural Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 12]}.

Various factors, such as moisture conditions, percentage of tillage practice, and silt content of lands, play important roles in air emission generation from soil tilling. The moisture reduction factor reflects the precipitation accumulation, which decreases the likelihood of particles becoming airborne. The tillage factor was assumed to be 100 percent minus the percentage of area managed with no-till or zero-till practices. The moisture reduction factors by month, silt content (43 percent), and tillage factors (54 percent) for the Nechako region from the same B.C. Agricultural Air Emissions Inventory Report¹² were adopted for the emission estimation for both Area D and Area F. The methodology for estimating emissions from dry field tillage used in the B.C. Agricultural Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 12]} was adopted for this report.

The particle size multipliers were 1.00 for TPM, 0.21 for PM₁₀, and 0.042 for PM_2.5^{[Footnote 12]}.

Tilling emission factors (shown in Table 28) were calculated using the following equation: 

Emission Factor (TPM, PM₁₀, PM_2.5) = Empirically Derived Constant (5.38) × Moisture reduction factor per month × Particle size multiplier (TPM, PM₁₀, PM_2.5) × Silt content per region (%)0.6

To estimate emissions resulting from tilling soil per month, the following equation was used:

Emission per crop per month (TPM, PM₁₀, PM_2.5) = Area per crop (ha) × Tillage Factor × Number of tilling per crop per month × Emission Factor (TPM, PM₁₀, PM_2.5)

The number of tilling per crop per month was sourced from the B.C. Agricultural Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 12]}. The monthly emissions were added together, and the 2018 emissions are presented in Table 29. 

Table 28: Emission Factors for Tilling Soil

Emission Factors for Tilling Soil (kg/ha)

Crop Type	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Alfalfa and alfalfa Mixture	˗	13.57	2.85	0.57
Mixed grains	˗	87.46	18.37	3.67
Oats	˗	87.46	18.37	3.67
Barley	˗	87.46	18.37	3.67
Rye	˗	87.46	18.37	3.67
All other tame hay and fodder crops	˗	11.02	2.31	0.46
Fruits, berries and nuts	˗	69.66	14.63	2.93
Vegetables	˗	61.90	13.00	2.60

Table 29: Annual Emissions from Tilling Soil

Annual Emissions from Tilling Soil (tonnes/year)

Area	Crop Type	Crop Area (ha)	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Area D	Alfalfa and alfalfa mixture	3168	˗	23.21	4.87	0.97
Area D	Mixed grains	312	˗	2.29	3.09	0.62
Area D	Oats	95	˗	0.7	0.94	0.19
Area D	Barley	˗	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Rye	˗	˗	0	0	0
Area D	All other tame hay and fodder crops	762	˗	5.58	0.95	0.19
Area D	Fruits, berries and nuts	˗	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Vegetables	2	˗	0.01	0.01	2.80E-03
Area D – Total	All	4339	˗	31.79	9.86	1.9728
Area F	Alfalfa and alfalfa mixture	16807	˗	123	25.86	5.17
Area F	Mixed grains	338	˗	15.96	3.35	0.67
Area F	Oats	1813	˗	85.63	17.98	3.6
Area F	Barley	3681	˗	174	36.51	7.3
Area F	Rye	40	˗	1.89	0.4	0.08
Area F	All other tame hay and fodder crops	5494	˗	32.7	6.87	1.37
Area F	Fruits, berries and nuts	4	˗	0.15	0.03	0.01
Area F	Vegetables	4	˗	0.13	0.03	0.01
Area F – Total	All	28181	˗	433	91.02	18.2
Study Area – Total	All	32520	˗	465	101	20.18

2.3.3.5 Harvesting crops

PM generated from agricultural harvesting, also known as grain dust, includes grain and dry plant particles, molds, pollen and spores, silica, bacteria, fungi, insects, and possibly pesticide residues. These emissions are generated by vehicles travelling over soil or by the processing of plant materials by agricultural equipment^{[Footnote 11]}.

Crop types include crops, fruits, and field vegetables. The areas for each crop type in 2016 (assuming that 2016 data represent that of 2018) were obtained from the Census of Agriculture (field crops^{[Footnote 32]}, fruits^{[Footnote 33]}, and field vegetables^{[Footnote 34]}).

The PM₁₀ emission factors were available from the B.C. Agricultural Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 12]} for dry regions, which are summarized in Table 30. The particle size multipliers of 2.20 for TPM, 1.00 for PM₁₀, and 0.15 for PM_2.5 were taken from California Air Resource Board, Miscellaneous Process Methodology.[Footnote 35]

Table 30: Emission Factors for Crop Harvesting

Emission Factors for Crop Harvesting (kg/ha)

Crop Type	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Alfalfa and alfalfa Mixture	˗	2.75	1.25	0.19
Mixed grains	˗	5.20	2.36	0.35
Oats	˗	5.20	2.36	0.35
Barley	˗	5.20	2.36	0.35
Rye	˗	5.20	2.36	0.35
All other tame hay and fodder crops	˗	2.75	1.25	0.19
Fruits, berries and nuts	˗	0.02	0.01	1.5E-03
Vegetables	˗	0.07	0.03	4.5E-03

Emissions from crop harvesting were calculated by multiplying areas of each type of crop in hectares by their specific emission factors. Table 31 summarizes the emissions for Areas D and Area F. 

Table 31: Annual Emissions from Crop Harvesting

Annual Emissions from Crop Harvesting (tonnes/year)

Area	Crop Type	Crop Area (Ha)	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Area D	Alfalfa and alfalfa Mixture	3168	˗	8.72	3.96	0.59
Area D	Mixed grains	312	˗	1.62	0.74	0.11
Area D	Oats	95	˗	0.49	0.22	0.03
Area D	Barley	˗	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Rye	˗	˗	0	0	0
Area D	All other tame hay and fodder crops	762	˗	2.1	0.95	0.14
Area D	Fruits, berries and nuts	˗	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Vegetables	2	˗	1.30E-04	6.00E-05	9.00E-06
Area D – Total	All	4339	˗	12.93	5.87	0.88
Area F	Alfalfa and alfalfa Mixture	16807	˗	46.24	21	3.15
Area F	Mixed grains	338	˗	1.76	0.8	0.12
Area F	Oats	1813	˗	9.43	4.28	0.64
Area F	Barley	3681	˗	19.14	8.7	1.3
Area F	Rye	40	˗	0.21	0.09	0.01
Area F	All other tame hay and fodder crops	5494	˗	15.11	6.87	1.03
Area F	Fruits, berries and nuts	4	˗	8.80E-05	4.00E-05	6.00E-06
Area F	Vegetables	4	˗	2.60E-04	1.20E-04	1.80E-05
Area F – Total	All	28181	˗	91.9	41.75	6.26
Study Area – Total	All	32520	˗	105	47.62	7.14

2.3.3.6 Wind erosion

Wind erosion occurs when wind blows across exposed agricultural land, resulting in PM emissions from the entrained particles^{[Footnote 11]}.
Based on the B.C. Agricultural Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 12]}, the PM emission factor for wind erosion of agricultural soils has a linear relationship with the following factors:

• Soil erodibility (I)
• Surface roughness factor (K)
• Climatic factor (C)
• Unsheltered field width factor (L’)
• Vegetative cover factor (V’)

Soil erodibilities for various soil textural classes were drawn from B.C. Agricultural Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 12]}. The report also provided the surface roughness factors (K), the climatic factors (C), the unsheltered field width in foot (L), and vegetative cover in lb/acre (V).  Unsheltered filed width factor (L’) derived from L and vegetative cover factor (V’) derived from V, were obtained from U.S. EPA-450 /3-74-037^{[Footnote 36]}. The areas for each crop type in 2016 were sourced from the Census of Agriculture (field crops^{[Footnote 32]}, fruits^{[Footnote 33]}, and field vegetables^{[Footnote 34]}).

In order to get K, L, V, some assumptions were made:

• K, L, V of mixed grains are the same as those of wheat (crop type)
• K, L, V of all other tame hay and fodder crops are the same as those of grain hays (crop type)
• K, L, V of fruits, berries, and nuts are the same as those of sunflower (crop type)

The following equation drawn from U.S. EPA-450 /3-74-037 was used to calculate annual emissions from agricultural soil wind erosion.

Emission Factor (ton/acre) = A × I × K × C × L' × V'

“A” was estimated to be 0.025 and is defined as the portion of total wind erosion losses measured as suspended particulates^{[Footnote 12]}.

This method uses the speciation of total PM to PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 as referenced in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Fugitive Dust Handbook^{[Footnote 36]}. The PM₁₀/TPM ratio for wind erosion is 0.5. The PM_2.5/PM₁₀ ratio for windblown fugitive dust is 0.15. The annual emissions resulting from wind erosion are shown in Table 32.

Table 32: Annual Emissions from Wind Erosion of Agricultural Soils

Emission Factors from Crop Harvesting (EFCH) (ton/acre/year) and Annual Emissions from Wind Erosion (WE) of Agricultural Soils (tonnes/year)

Area	Crop Type	Crop Area (ha)	EFCH – NOx	EFCH TPM	EFCH – PM10	EFCH – PM2.5	WE – NOx	WE – TPM	WE – PM10	WE – PM2.5
Area D	Alfalfa and alfalfa Mixture	3168	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Mixed grains	312	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Oats	95	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Barley	˗	˗	0.02	9.50E-03	1.40E-03	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Rye	˗	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area D	All other tame hay and fodder crops	762	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Fruits, berries and nuts	˗	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area D	Vegetables	2	˗	0.15	0.08	0.01	˗	0.69	0.35	0.05
Area D – Total	All	4339	˗	0.17	0.0895	0.0114	˗	0.69	0.35	0.05
Area F	Alfalfa and alfalfa Mixture	16807	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area F	Mixed grains	338	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area F	Oats	1813	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area F	Barley	3681	˗	0.02	7.40E-03	1.10E-03	˗	122	60.91	9.14
Area F	Rye	40	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area F	All other tame hay and fodder crops	5494	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area F	Fruits, berries and nuts	4	˗	0	0	0	˗	0	0	0
Area F	Vegetables	4	˗	0.1	0.05	7.53E-03	˗	0.9	0.45	0.07
Area F – Total	All	28181	˗	0.12	5.74E-02	8.63E-03	˗	123	61.36	9.21
Study Area – Total	All	32520	˗	0.29	0.1469	0.02003		123.69	61.71	9.26

2.3.4 Fugitive dust

Significant atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of granular material exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed "fugitive" because it is not discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream^{[Footnote 38]}. Fugitive dust emission sources in this report include:

• Construction operations
• Landfill operations
• Rail transportation of coal
• Unpaved and paved roads

Some agricultural operations such as tilling soil, are common sources of fugitive dust, however, these have been classified as agricultural area emissions and were discussed in Section 2.3.3. Sections 2.3.4.1 to 2.3.4.4 provide detailed emission estimations of the above four types of fugitive dust emissions.

2.3.4.1 Fugitive dust from construction operations

PM emissions resulting from soil disturbance on construction sites are commonly classified as fugitive dust generated from construction operations.
The magnitude of fugitive dust emissions from construction operations is contingent upon the type of buildings constructed, as reported in the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory^{[Footnote 9]}. For this study, all relevant parameters including conversion factors, duration parameters, and adjusted emission factors for PM₁₀ outlined in Table 33 were sourced from the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory^{[Footnote 9]}.

Table 33: Emission factors for Construction Operation

Emission factors for Construction Operation

Building Type	Conversion Factor (ha/unit)	Duration (months)	Adjusted Emission Factor (PM10/ha-month)
Single-detached (unit: dwellings)	0.07	4.20	0.01
Duplex/Row (unit: dwellings)	0.07	4.20	0.01
Apartment (unit: dwellings)	0.02	12.00	0.05
Commercial (unit: million dollars)	0.55	11.00	0.09
Industrial (unit: million dollars)	0.55	11.00	0.09
Institutional (unit: million dollars)	0.27	11.00	0.09

Building counts or building costs of different types (residential single-detached, residential duplex/row, residential apartment, commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings) were obtained from B.C. Stats, Building Permits, Housing Starts & Sales^{[Footnote 39]}. Since there was no information for Fraser Lake, Area D, and Area F, assume the emissions are minimal and can be neglected. The fugitive dust emissions presented in Table 34 were calculated based on the emission factors outlined in Table 33 and the counts or costs of various building types, with the ratios of PM₁₀/TPM and PM_2.5/TPM set to 80 percent and 20 percent respectively (based on 2022 APEI11).

Table 34: Annual Emissions from Construction Operations

Annual Fugitive Dust Emissions from Construction Operations (tonnes/year)

Area	Building Type	Number	Unit	NOX	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	Single-detached	2	dwellings	˗	0.01	0.01	2.0E-03
Vanderhoof DM	Duplex/Row	0	dwellings	˗	0.00	0.00	0.00
Vanderhoof DM	Apartment	0	dwellings	˗	0.00	0.00	0.00
Vanderhoof DM	Commercial	0.38	$M	˗	0.25	0.20	0.05
Vanderhoof DM	Industrial	1.12	$M	˗	0.78	0.62	0.16
Vanderhoof DM	Institutional	1.08	$M	˗	0.34	0.27	0.07
Study Area – Total	-	-		-	1.38	1.10	0.28

2.3.4.2 Fugitive dust from landfill operations

Emission estimations of PM from landfill operations depend on the amount of the material landfilled and PM emission factors.

The total annual amounts of material landfilled for Vanderhoof transfer station, Fraser Lake Rural Transfer Station (located in Area D), and Clearview Landfill (located in Area F) were obtained from the 2018 RDBN Solid Waste Management Plan^{[Footnote 20]}.
The TPM emission factor of 0.193 kg per tonne of material landfilled was drawn from the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 9]}. PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 emissions were calculated to be 36 percent and 10 percent of the TPM emissions, respectively, according to the same reference.

Assuming the landfill activities such as material moving in the study area were the same as those in the Lower Fraser valley, the annual fugitive dust emissions (shown in Table 35) were calculated using activity data of material landfilled multiplied by the emission factors discussed above. 

Table 35: Annual Fugitive Dust Emissions from Landfill Operation

Annual Fugitive Dust Emissions from Landfill Operation (tonnes/year)

Area	Amount of Material Landfilled (tonnes)	NOx (tonnes/year)	TPM (tonnes/year)	PM10 (tonnes/year)	PM2.5 (tonnes/year)
Vanderhoof DM	3892	˗	0.75	0.27	0.08
Area D	1078	˗	0.21	0.08	0.02
Area F	8400	˗	1.62	0.58	0.16
Study Area – Total	13370	˗	2.58	0.93	0.26

2.3.4.3 Fugitive dust from rail transportation of coal

According to the APEI 2022 report11, most of the coal mined in Canada is transferred to the port terminal or to end-use facilities (that is, facilities that use coal as fuel) by trains. PM emissions were estimated based on the amounts of coal transported and the emission factors developed for TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5. For this report, the CN mainline Jasper–Prince Rupert was identified to estimate the total rail distance (1160km). The method for calculating emission factors (shown in Table 36) of fugitive losses of dust from the rail transportation of coal was based on the following equation indicated in the 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory Report^{[Footnote 9]}. Emissions for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 were calculated as 0.5 and 0.2 of those of TPM, respectively, according to the same reference.

EF (kg/tonne) = 0.1*(0.62*D)^0.6 x (365-P)/365 x (Segment Distance/D) x (100–Control Efficiency)/100
where:

• D: total rail distance (km)
• P: number of precipitation days greater than 3 mm rainfall or 10 mm snow
• Segment Distance: distance travelled in a province or region
• Control Efficiency: coal dust control efficiency = 99 percent (%)

Table 36: Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors for Rail Transportation of Coal

Fugitive Dust Emissions Factors for Rail Transportation of Coal (kg/tonne)

Area	Segment Distance (km)	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	6.70	˗	2.5E-04	1.3E-04	5.2E-05
Fraser Lake	3.60	˗	1.3E-04	6.8E-05	2.8E-05
Area D	47.90	˗	1.8E-03	9.1E-04	3.7E-04
Area F	57.40	˗	2.1E-03	1.1E-03	4.5E-04

The quantities of coal conveyed through the study area have been estimated based on the assumptions in the 2006 Vanderhoof emission inventory Report^{[Footnote 6]}. The annual fugitive dust emissions (Table 37) from the rail transportation (in transit) of coal were calculated by multiplying the amount of coal transported by rail by the emission factors. 

Table 37: Annual Fugitive Dust Emissions from Rail Transportation of Coal

Annual Fugitive Dust Emissions from Rail Transportation of Coal (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Vanderhoof DM	˗	0.90	0.46	0.19
Fraser Lake	˗	0.48	0.25	0.10
Area D	˗	6.44	3.32	1.37
Area F	˗	7.71	3.97	1.64
Study Area – Total	˗	15.53	8.00	3.29

2.3.4.4 ​Fugitive dust from paved and unpaved roads

Fugitive emissions from paved roads arise from both primary sources, such as road abrasion, and secondary sources, such as resuspension of particles. Unpaved roads generate emissions primarily from suspended or resuspended silt from the road surface. Typically, road dust emissions are estimated by multiplying emission factors with the vehicle kilometers travelled (VKT).

The 2022 APEI report11 presented PM emissions from paved and unpaved roads in B.C.  Emissions from paved roads for Vanderhoof DM and Fraser Lake were firstly estimated by scaling the total emissions from B.C.'s paved roads in accordance with the VKTs of Vanderhoof DM, and Fraser Lake, respectively, and emissions from unpaved roads for Area D and Area F were then calculated by scaling the total emissions from B.C.'s unpaved roads in accordance with VKTs of Area D and Area F, respectively;  The ratio of unpaved to paved roads in each region and the VKTs for each region, extracted from the 2010 CEEI report^{[Footnote 7]}, were then used to determine emissions from paved roads in Area D and Area F, as well as emissions from unpaved roads in Vanderhoof DM and Fraser Lake. For Vanderhoof DM and Fraser Lake, assume 86 percent of roads are paved while the remaining 14 percent are unpaved based on the 2006 Vanderhoof emission inventory^{[Footnote 6]}. For Area D and Area F, assume 92 percent of roads are unpaved while the remaining 8 percent are paved based on Environmental Reporting for B.C.^{[Footnote 40]}

1. The emissions for TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5 from both paved and unpaved roads in 2018 for B.C. are summarized in Table 38, and the emissions from both paved and unpaved roads in 2018 for each region in the study area are presented in Table 39.
2. U.S. EPA AP42 CH 13.2. Fugitive Dust Sources. January 1995.
3. B.C. Stats, Building Permits, Housing Starts and Sales, www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/statistics/economy/building-permits-housing-starts-sales. Accessed in April 2022.
4. Environmental Reporting B.C. www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/land/roads.html. Accessed in July 2023.

Table 38: 2018 Road Dust Emissions from Entire B.C.

Table 38: 2018 Road Dust Emissions (tonnes) from Entire B.C.

Year	Road Dust	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
2018	Paved Roads	42354	8503	2238
2018	Unpaved Roads	707631	194588	19356

Table 39: Annual Fugitive Dust Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads

Annual Fugitive Dust Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads (tonnes/year)

Emission Source	Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Paved Road	Vanderhoof DM	˗	28.57	5.74	1.51
Paved Road	Fraser Lake	˗	8.66	1.74	0.46
Paved Road	Area D	˗	0.96	0.19	0.05
Paved Road	Area F	˗	2.39	0.48	0.13
Paved Road – Total	All	˗	40.58	8.15	2.14
Unpaved Road	Vanderhoof DM	˗	72.64	19.97	1.99
Unpaved Road	Fraser Lake	˗	26.18	7.20	0.72
Unpaved Road	Area D	˗	172	47.31	4.71
Unpaved Road	Area F	˗	428	118	11.72
Unpaved Road – Total	All	˗	699	192	19.13
Study Area – Total	All	˗	740	200	21.27

2.3.5 Wildfire

The B.C. Wildfire Emission Inventory for 2018^{[Footnote 41]} was developed to estimate CAC emissions. The inventory was compiled based on reported fires, with a total of 1231 recorded in B.C. in 2018. Of these, 26 fires were in Area D, and 24 fires were located in Area F.

The wildfire emissions for Areas D and Area F were extracted from the 2018 B.C. Wildfire CAC Emission Inventory Report^{[Footnote 37]}. Detailed information regarding the methodology and assumptions used for emission estimation can be found in the same inventory. Table 40 provides a summary of the annual emissions from wildfires in the study area. 

Table 40: Annual Emissions from Wildfire

Annual Emissions from Wildfire (tonnes/year)

Area	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Area D	21.67	1143	835	770
Area F	111	5849	4270	3940
Study Area – Total	133	6992	5105	4710

3. Result summary

The B.C. ENV compiled this emission inventory for Vanderhoof and its surrounding areas. The air pollutants of concern included NOx, TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5. The study area comprised the following regions:

• Vanderhoof DM
• Fraser Lake
• Area D
• Area F

The emission sources identified for the study area included point sources, mobile sources, and area sources. A summary of the emission inventory is shown in Table 41.

Table 41: 2018 Emission Estimates for Vanderhoof and Surrounding Area

2018 Emission Estimates for Vanderhoof and Surrounding Area (tonnes/year)

Emission Sources	Category	Sub-Category	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	Nechako Lumber Company Ltd.	-	53.17	57.00	14.70	9.00
Point Sources	Premium Pellet Ltd.	-	31.80	43.50	14.50	9.40
Point Sources	Vanderhoof Specialty Wood Products (VSWP)	-	0.00	2.80	1.10	1.10
Point Sources	Canadian Forest Products Ltd, Plateau Division	-	70.39	46.33	26.84	19.19
Point Sources	Fraser Lake Lumber (Div of West Fraser Mills Ltd.), Fraser Lake Sawmills	-	262	138	75.62	33.26
Point Sources	Pacific Northern Gas Ltd.	-	201	9.39	9.39	9.39
Point Sources	All Categories	Point Sources Total	618	297	142	81.34
Mobile Sources	On-Road Vehicles	-	254	7.50	7.50	2.99
Mobile Sources	Tire wear and brake lining	-	˗	2.44	2.44	0.32
Mobile Sources	Off-road vehicles and equipment	-	242	30.14	30.13	29.23
Mobile Sources	Rail Transportation	-	127	3.84	3.75	3.71
Mobile Sources	Air Transportation	-	30.81	1.19	1.19	1.16
Mobile Sources	All Categories	Mobile Sources Total	653	45.11	45.01	37.41
Area Sources	Open Burning	Province Regulated Open Burning (pile and area)	228	1272	904	786
Area Sources	Open Burning	Backyard burning	4.34	11.56	8.52	7.86
Area Sources	Open Burning	Open Burning Total	232	1283	913	794
Area Sources	Space Heating	Fuel oil	2.06	0.19	0.19	0.19
Area Sources	Space Heating	Natural Gas	10.32	0.83	0.83	0.83
Area Sources	Space Heating	Propane	6.68	0.36	0.36	0.36
Area Sources	Space Heating	Wood burning appliances	14.25	116	110	110
Area Sources	Space Heating	Space Heating Total	33.31	118	111	111
Area Sources	Agriculture	Movements from farm animals	˗	14.14	4.76	0.73
Area Sources	Agriculture	Fertilizer application	˗	8.15	4.03	1.12
Area Sources	Agriculture	Pesticides application	˗	9.66	4.74	1.33
Area Sources	Agriculture	Tilling Soil	˗	465	101	20.18
Area Sources	Agriculture	Harvesting crops	˗	105	47.62	7.14
Area Sources	Agriculture	Wind Erosion	˗	123	61.71	9.26
Area Sources	Agriculture	Agriculture Total	0	725	224	39.76
Area Sources	Fugitive Dust	Construction operation	˗	1.38	1.10	0.28
Area Sources	Fugitive Dust	Landfill operation	˗	2.58	0.93	0.26
Area Sources	Fugitive Dust	Rail transportation of coal	˗	15.53	8.00	3.29
Area Sources	Fugitive Dust	Paved Road	˗	40.58	8.15	2.14
Area Sources	Fugitive Dust	Unpaved Road	˗	699	192	19.13
Area Sources	Fugitive Dust	Fugitive Dust Total	0	759	210	25.10
Area Sources	Wildfire	Wildfire Total	133	6992	5105	4710
Area Sources	All Categories	Area Sources Total	398	9878	6563	5680
Area Sources	All Categories	Area Sources Total without Wildfire	265	2886	1458	970
All Emission Sources	All Categories	Emissions Total	1669	10220	6750	5799
All Emission Sources	All Categories	Emissions Total without Wildfire	1537	3227	1646	1089

Analysis

Table 42 summarizes the 2018 annual emissions from major contributors for Vanderhoof and its surrounding areas. The percentage distribution of NOx, TPM, PM₁₀, and PM2.5 emissions (without wildfire) by source type for all study areas is shown in Figure 2. Tables 43 to 46 summarize the 2018 annual emissions for:

• Table 43: Vanderhoof DM
• Table 44: Fraser Lake
• Table 45: Area D
• Table 46: Area F

The percentage distribution is demonstrated in Figures 2 to 6, respectively:

• Figure 2: Vanderhoof and Surrounding Areas
• Figure 3: Vanderhoof
• Figure 4: Fraser Lake
• Figure 5: Area D
• Figure 6: Area F

NOx

• In 2018, 1669 tonnes of NOx were emitted in the study area. Of these, 8 percent of total NOx emissions were from wildfire
• After removing emissions from wildfire, mobile sources, followed by point sources, were two significant contributors to the study area's emissions
• Similarly, mobile sources accounted for 60 percent of emissions in Vanderhoof DM, 88 percent in Fraser Lake, and 48 percent in Area F. Point sources were the most significant contributors to Area D, accounting for 60 percent of emissions

PM

• In the study area, 10220, 6750, and 5799 tonnes of TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5 were emitted, respectively. Of these, 68 percent, 76 percent, 81 percent of TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5 emissions were from wildfire, respectively. After removing emissions from wildfire, area sources from open burning accounted for 40 percent, 55 percent, and 73 percent of TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5 emissions, respectively
• In Vanderhoof DM, the most significant contributor to PM_2.5 emissions was point sources, closely followed by space heating, which is an area source
• In Fraser Lake, space heating emerged as the leading contributor to PM_2.5 emissions, followed by fugitive dust
• For Area D and Area F, open burning was identified as the dominant emission source for TPM, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5

_{Emission distributions}

_{Vanderhoof and surrounding areas}

Table 42: Emission Distributions for Vanderhoof and Surrounding Areas in 2018

Emission Distributions for Vanderhoof and Surrounding Areas in 2018 (tonnes/year)

Emission Sources	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	618	297	142	81.34
Mobile Sources	653	45.11	45.01	37.41
Area Sources – Open Burning	232	1283	913	794
Area Sources – Space Heating	33.31	118	111	111
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	725	224	39.76
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	759	210	25.10
Area Sources – Wildfire	133	6992	5105	4710
Total Emissions with Wildfire	1669	10220	6750	5799
Total Emissions without Wildfire	1537	3227	1646	1089

Figure 2: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) in the Study Area

Description: The percentage distribution of NOx, TPM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions (without wildfire) by source type for Vanderhoof and surrounding areas

For tabular data, see Table 42a.

Table 42a: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) in the Study Area

Table 42a: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) in the Study Area

Emission Source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	0.40	0.09	0.09	0.07
Mobile Sources	0.42	0.01	0.03	0.03
Area Sources – Open burning	0.15	0.40	0.55	0.73
Area Sources – Space Heating	0.02	0.04	0.07	0.10
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	0.22	0.14	0.04
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	0.24	0.13	0.02

Vanderhoof DM

Table 43: Emission Distributions for Vanderhoof DM in 2018

Emission Distributions for Vanderhoof DM in 2018 (tonnes/year)

Emission Source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	84.97	103	30.30	19.50
Mobile Sources	153	5.80	5.78	3.05
Area Sources – Open Burning	1.82	4.86	3.58	3.30
Area Sources – Space Heating	13.37	17.29	16.36	16.34
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	104	27.55	4.04
Area Sources – Wildfire	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Total Emissions with Wildfire	253	235	83.56	46.23
Total Emissions without Wildfire	253	235	83.57	46.23

Figure 3: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Vanderhoof DM

Description: The percentage distribution of NOx, TPM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions (without wildfire) by source type for Vanderhooof DM

For tabular data, see Table 43a.

Table 43a: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Vanderhoof DM

Table 43a: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Vanderhoof DM

Emission Source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	0.34	0.44	0.36	0.42
Mobile Sources	0.60	0.02	0.07	0.07
Area Sources – Open Burning	0.01	0.02	0.04	0.07
Area Sources – Space Heating	0.05	0.07	0.20	0.35
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	0.44	0.33	0.09

Fraser Lake

Table 44: Emission Distributions for Fraser Lake in 2018

Emission Distributions for Fraser Lake in 2018 (tonnes/year)

Emission Source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Mobile Sources	31.15	1.23	1.23	0.50
Area Sources – Open Burning	0.41	1.08	0.80	0.74
Area Sources – Space Heating	3.94	8.62	8.15	8.14
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	35.33	9.19	1.28
Area Sources – Wildfire	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Total Emissions with Wildfire	35.49	46.27	19.36	10.65
Total Emissions without Wildfire	35.49	46.27	19.36	10.65

Figure 4: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Fraser Lake

Description: The percentage distribution of NOx, TPM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions (without wildfire) by source type for Fraser Lake

For tabular data, see Table 44a.

Table 44a: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Fraser Lake

Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Fraser Lake

Emission Source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Mobile Sources	0.88	0.03	0.06	0.05
Area Sources – Open Burning	0.01	0.02	0.04	0.07
Area Sources – Space Heating	0.11	0.19	0.42	0.76
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	0.76	0.47	0.12

Area D

Table 45: Emission Distributions for Area D in 2018

Table 45: Emission Distributions for Area D in 2018 (tonnes/year)

Emission Source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	332	184	102	52.44
Mobile Sources	131	8.65	8.61	7.51
Area Sources – Open Burning	78.14	431	306	267
Area Sources – Space Heating	4.96	28.47	26.89	26.87
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	48.59	17.38	3.19
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	180	50.89	6.14
Area Sources – Wildfire	21.68	1143	835	770
Total Emissions with Wildfire	568	2024	1347	1133
Total Emissions without Wildfire	546	881	513	363

Figure 5: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Area D

Description: The percentage distribution of NOx, TPM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions (without wildfire) by source type for Area D

For tabular data, see Table 45a.

Table 45a: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Area D

Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Area D

Emission source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	0.61	0.21	0.20	0.14
Mobile Sources	0.24	0.01	0.02	0.02
Area Sources – Open Burning	0.14	0.49	0.60	0.74
Area Sources – Space Heating	0.01	0.03	0.05	0.07
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	0.06	0.03	0.01
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	0.20	0.10	0.02

Area F

Table 46: Emission Distributions for Area F in 2018

Emission Distributions for Area F in 2018 (tonnes/year)

Emission Source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	201	9.39	9.39	9.39
Mobile Sources	339	29.43	29.38	26.36
Area Sources – Open Burning	152	846	602	523
Area Sources – Space Heating	11.04	63.41	59.89	59.85
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	677	206	36.57
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	440	123	13.64
Area Sources – Wildfire	111	5849	4270	3940
Total Emissions with Wildfire	813	7914	5300	4609
Total Emissions without Wildfire	702	2065	1030	669

Figure 6: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Area F

Description: The percentage distribution of NOx, TPM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions (without wildfire) by source type for Area F

For tabular data, see Table 46a.

Table 46a: Emission Distributions (Percentage of Total Emissions without Wildfire) for Area F

...

Emission source	NOx	TPM	PM10	PM2.5
Point Sources	0.29	0.00	0.01	0.01
Mobile Sources	0.48	0.01	0.03	0.04
Area Sources – Open burning	0.22	0.41	0.58	0.78
Area Sources – Space Heating	0.02	0.03	0.06	0.09
Area Sources – Agriculture	0.00	0.33	0.20	0.05
Area Sources – Fugitive Dust	0.00	0.21	0.12	0.02

Footnotes