1. Overview Operations: Background, Current State and Looking Forward Passive program in operation since August 2002 –H 2 S sampling introduced in 2012 Continuous monitoring program started in 2004 with Henry Pirker, remaining stations started in 2005 and Falher trailer in 2012

2. Background continued and Current State Rover has operated at 6 locations to date Girouxville2007-2008 Spirit River2008-2009 Kinuso2009-2010 Bonanza2010-2011 Sunset House2011-2013 Reno2013-2014 Clairmont (Scheduled)2014-2015 Current State –Network is essentially noted above: 6+1 continuous stations 44 passive locations sampling SO 2 /O 3 /NO 2 3 passive locations sampling H 2 S

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Passive Correlation

9. 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

10. Recommendations Network Assessment Suitability Map 2 – Permitted Facilities Weighting

11. Recommendations Network Assessment Suitability Map 1 – Base Scenario

12. Recommendations Network Assessment Suitability Map 3 – Current Site Negative Bias

13. Network Assessment Suitability Maps Particular areas of note: Rycroft, Sexsmith, Clairmont, West of current Smoky Heights station

14. 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

15. 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

16. Recommendations, prioritized Continuous SO2 monitoring program change –Provides comfort to all stakeholders in current incarnation No news?? Good News!

17. 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