Overview

Operations: Background, Current State and Looking Forward

• Passive program in operation since August 2002

– H2S sampling introduced in 2012

• Continuous monitoring program started in 2004 with Henry Pirker, remaining stations started in 2005 and Falher trailer in 2012

Background continued and Current State

• Rover has operated at 6 locations to date

Girouxville 2007-2008

Spirit River 2008-2009

Kinuso 2009-2010

Bonanza 2010-2011

Sunset House 2011-2013

Reno 2013-2014

Clairmont (Scheduled) 2014-2015

• Current State– Network is essentially noted above:

• 6+1 continuous stations

• 44 passive locations sampling SO2/O3/NO2

• 3 passive locations sampling H2S

The Path Forward

• Network Assessment final submitted at end of October

• Next phase of project: Board support for recommendations from TC

• NA did not take regulatory, socio-political climate, etc into account

• Provides PAZA with a framework to pivot toward emerging issues, optimize monitoring resources

Suggested Recommendations (paraphrased)

• Replace passive monitoring of O3 and NO2 with passive measurements of BTEX to assess spatial and temporal patterns in speciated hydrocarbons– Consider reducing the number of SO2

passive monitoring sites and/or relocating them closer to specific facilities of interest

– Consider using passives in targeted studies of relevant pollutants near specific sites of interest, before/after studies

Suggested Recommendations (paraphrased)

• Station Relocations:– Smoky Heights west to better capture facility

emissions, or to location such as Rycroft or Clairmont

– Evergreen Park is not representative and influenced by micro-scale emissions, relocate to location such as “Countryside West” or SE of Wood Lake to capture downwind of Grande Prairie

Suggested Recommendations (paraphrased)

• Consider adding parameters to Henry Pirker and/or Rover:– BTEX to capture speciated hydrocarbons– PM10 or TSP to capture tilling/road dust– Aethlometer to capture black carbon (wood

smoke)• Standardize and modernize PM2.5 monitoring

– Phase TEOMs out, Sharp/Grimm/etc in• Determine if level of SO2 monitoring is required

to meet compliance requirements– If can be reduced, redirect resources to

BTEX, etc

Passive Program Changes

• Over 10 years of passive data across much of the network for SO2, O3, NO2

• Little temporal variance shown• Many sites very highly correlated• Many emerging issues within PAZA revolve

around speciated hydrocarbons; BTEX

Passive Correlation

Passive Correlation

• O3 table shown above• Red = High correlation

– High correlation suggests redundancy• Handful of locations show very low correlation

– Grande Prairie, Crooked Creek, Fitzsimmons• NO2, SO2 show progressively less correlation

Recommendations

Network Assessment Suitability Map 2 – Permitted Facilities Weighting

Recommendations

Network Assessment Suitability Map 1 – Base Scenario

Recommendations

Network Assessment Suitability Map 3 – Current Site Negative Bias

Network Assessment Suitability Maps

• Particular areas of note: Rycroft, Sexsmith, Clairmont, West of current Smoky Heights station

Recommendations, prioritized

• Added parameters– BTEX in the rover, *if* funding can be

secured• Station relocation

– Evergreen Park is poorly located for security as well as reasons mentioned above

– Smoky Heights also heavily influenced by very local effects, areas to the west indicated as being potentially noteworthy

Recommendations, prioritized

• Reduction of passive program, introduce BTEX– Put passives on rotating schedule (similar to

current duplicates schedule) through existing network, revisiting sites periodically to “scan” for changes.

– Explore putting passives on 60-day schedule– Introduce BTEX at strategic locations

(potential and known sites, background sites) to assess suitability for continuous monitoring

• PM monitoring– Updating to Sharp analyzers already

underway

Recommendations, prioritized

• Continuous SO2 monitoring program change– Provides comfort to all stakeholders in

current incarnation• No news?? Good News!

Challenges and Steps Forward

• Changes to monitoring network requires approval from the Director– Draft Plan, Get Approval

• Stakeholder input?– Circulate Draft, Hold Workshop?, Acquire

Input• Costs/savings need to be clarified/determined• Timeline