1 / 7

Great Lakes Areas of Concern U.S. urban areas (pink shading)

Great Lakes Areas of Concern U.S. urban areas (pink shading) Large U.S./Canadian 2005 point sources of mercury. Emissions of Mercury (kg/yr). 5-10. 10-50. 50-100. 100–300. 300–500. 500–1000. 1000–3500. Type of Emissions Source. coal-fired power plants. other fuel combustion.

vinnie
Download Presentation

Great Lakes Areas of Concern U.S. urban areas (pink shading)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Great Lakes Areas of Concern • U.S. urban areas (pink shading) • Large U.S./Canadian 2005 point sources of mercury Emissions of Mercury (kg/yr) 5-10 10-50 50-100 100–300 300–500 500–1000 1000–3500 Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other

  2. Atmospheric Hg Monitoring Sites 2005 Hg Emissions (kg/yr) St. Louis River and Bay AOC < 5 5-10 10-50 50-100 100–300 300–500 500–1000 1000–3000 Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other

  3. 2005 Hg Emissions (kg/yr) Ispat Inland Steel Mining Minorca < 5 US Steel Minntac 5-10 10-50 MN Power Laskin 50-100 100–300 US Steel Keewatin Taconite 300–500 MN Power Boswell Hibbing Taconite United Taconite Fairlane Plant 500–1000 1000–3000 Georgia Pacific Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical MURPHY OIL USA INC. SUPERIOR REFINERY manufacturing & other

  4. Some of the issues to think about… • Mercury Emissions, especially local and regional • “current” (2005, 2008, 2011…) • Historical (emissions in the past may have been significantly different, e.g., incinerators?) • This is the primary area that I’d need help… we have to get this right! • “Receptor” details, i.e., what points and/or areas do to have model-estimated deposition? • Watershed(s) and sub-watersheds • Lake surface • River? • Interpretation of results? • Comparison against mercury “inventory” in AOC (i.e., in sediments and soil)? • Comparison against deposition elsewhere? • Time trend of deposition? • Groundtruthing the results • MDN (Hg wet deposition) sites in the region • Ambient Hg air concentration data? • Meteorological modeling data to drive local/regional dispersion simulations • Might have to carry out initial analyses using relatively coarse data • If higher-resolution data are needed, these might have to be generated

  5. Local mercury deposition impacts can be dramatically higher than impacts further away from the source • Distance results averaged over all directions: • Areas generally downwind of the source will have higher deposition fluxes than the averages shown here. • Areas generally upwind will have lower fluxes.

More Related