Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Great Lakes A Multi-Year Study Supported by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Principal Investigator: Dr. Mark

Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Great LakesA Multi-Year Study Supported by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Principal Investigator: Dr. Mark Cohen, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory

FY10 GLRI funding: Baseline analysis for 2005 Used “EDAS” meteorological data

One set of model parameters and emissions data

Summary: http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/GLRI_Atmos_Mercury_Summary.pdf

Final Report: http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/GLRI_FY2010_Atmospheric_Mercury_Final_Report_2011_Dec_16.pdf

Recent Presentations: http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/Cohen_ARL_Seminar_Feb_7_2013.pptxhttp://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/ICMGP_2013_Edinburgh_Cohen_Presentation.pptx

FY11 GLRI funding: Sensitivity analysis Used “NARR” meteorological data

Numerous variations of model parameters and emissions data

Overall results – even for largest variations found – not changed dramatically

Conclusion: results are robust

Final Report: http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/GLRI_FY2011_Atmospheric_Mercury_Final_Report_2013_June_30.pdf

FY12 GLRI funding: Analysis of alternative future emissions scenarios Work is beginning on this policy-relevant analysis

FY13 GLRI funding (and beyond): Updates to more recent years

Natural23%

Ocean Re-emission

14%

U.S.32%

China14%

Canada3%

India2%

Other Countries12%

Sources of Mercury Deposition to the Great Lakes Basin2005 Baseline Analysis

Total = 11,300 kg/yr

Natural16%

Ocean Re-emission

10%

U.S.49%

China10%

Canada4%

India1%

Other Countries9%

Sources of Mercury Deposition to the Lake Erie Basin

2005 Baseline Analysis

Total = 2,300 kg/yr

2

Comparison of precipitation measured by rain gauges at Mercury Deposition Network sites with that in the EDAS and NARR

meteorological datasets used to drive the HYSPLIT-Hg model

EDAS used in Phase 1 baseline analysis

NARR used in Phase 2 sensitivity analysis

3

U.S, 45%

China, 11%

Canada, 4%

Mexico, 1%

India, 1%

other countries,

9%

ocean re-emit, 11%

natural, 18%

Contributions to 2005 Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to Lake Erie

(EDAS met data)

U.S, 39%

China, 13%

Canada, 3%Mexico, 1%

India, 2%

other countries,

10%

ocean re-emit, 12%

natural, 20%


(NARR met data)

U.S, 34%

China, 16%

Canada, 3%Mexico, 1%India, 2%

other countries,

12%

ocean re-emit, 16%

natural, 16%


(NARR met data + "high-range" re-emissions)

U.S, 32%

China, 14%

Canada, 3%Mexico, 1%India, 2%

other countries,

11%

ocean re-emit, 14%

natural, 23%

Contributions to 2005 Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Great Lakes Basin

(EDAS met data)

U.S, 23%

China, 17%

Canada, 2%

Mexico, 1%India, 2%

other countries,

13%

ocean re-emit, 16%

natural, 26%


(NARR met data)

Overall source attribution results not changed dramatically for Lake Erie (top) or the Great Lakes Basin (bottom) for largest variations in modeling

methodology; 2005 baseline (left); variations (center & right)

U.S, 19%

China, 20%

Canada, 1%Mexico, 1%

India, 3%

other countries,

16%

ocean re-emit, 20%

natural, 20%


(NARR met data + "high range" re-emissions)

U.S, 45%

China, 11%

Canada, 4%

Mexico, 1%

India, 1%

other countries,

9%

ocean re-emit, 11%

natural, 18%


(EDAS met data)

4

2005 Atmospheric Mercury Emissions from Large Point Sources

Type of Emissions Sourcecoal-fired power plantsother fuel combustionwaste incinerationmetallurgicalmanufacturing & other

Emissions (kg/yr)

10-50

50-100

100–300

5-10

300–500

500–1000

1000–3000

NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 5

2005 Atmospheric Mercury Emissions (Direct Anthropogenic + Re-emit + Natural)

Policy-Relevant Scenario Analysis

NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 6

7

Geographical Distribution of 2005 Atmospheric Mercury Deposition Contributions to Lake Erie

Policy-Relevant Scenario Analysis

Here’s where the mercury came from that was deposited to Lake Erie

8

-500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

< 50

0 km

500

-1,0

00 k

m

1,00

0 -3

,000

km

3,00

0 -1

0,00

0 km

10,0

00 -

20,0

00 km

Mer

cury

Em

issi

ons

(Mg/

yr)

Distance of Emissions Source from the Center of Lake Erie

Emissions from Natural Sources

Emissions from Re-Emissions

Emissions from Anthropogenic Sources

A tiny fraction of 2005 global mercury emissions within 500 km of Lake Erie

-

50

100

150

200

250

< 50

0 km

500

-1,0

00 k

m

1,00

0 -3,

000

km

3,00

0 -10

,000

km

10,0

00 -

20,0

00 k

m

Dep

ositi

on C

ontr

ibuti

on (

kg/y

r)

Distance of Emissions Source from the Center of Lake Erie

Contributions from Natural Sources

Contributions from Re-Emissions

Contributions from Anthropogenic Sources

Modeling results show that these “regional” emissions are responsible for a large fraction of the modeled 2005 atmospheric deposition

Important policy implications!

Results can be shown in many ways…

9

DET

ROIT

ED

ISO

N M

ON

ROE

POW

ER

CON

ESVI

LLE

RELI

ANT

ENER

GY

AVO

N L

AKE

FIRS

TEN

ERG

Y CO

RP E

ASTL

AKE

RELI

ANT

ENER

GY

KEYS

TON

E

Nan

ticok

e G

ener

ating

Sta

tion

PA P

OW

ER C

O B

RUCE

MAN

SFIE

LD P

LT

DET

ROIT

ED

ISO

N T

REN

TON

CH

ANN

EL

CARD

INAL

PO

WER

PLA

NT

RELI

ANT

ENER

GY

SHAW

VILL

E

W. H

. SAM

MIS

PLA

NT

DU

NKI

RK S

TEAM

GEN

ERAT

ING

STA

TIO

N

HO

MER

CIT

Y O

L H

OM

ER C

ITY

GEN

STA

CLEV

ELAN

D E

LECT

RIC

ASH

TABU

LA

TOLE

DO

ED

ISO

N C

O. B

AY S

HO

RE

OH

IO P

OW

ER -

MIT

CHEL

L PL

ANT

ALLE

GH

ENY

ENER

GY

HAT

FIEL

DS

FERR

Y

MO

NO

NG

AHEL

A PO

WER

FO

RT M

ARTI

N

J RW

HIT

ING

CO

DET

ROIT

ED

ISO

N R

IVER

RO

UG

E

OH

IO P

OW

ER -

KAM

MER

PLA

NT

ALLE

GH

ENY

ENER

GY

ARM

STRO

NG

ORI

ON

PO

WER

NEW

CAS

TLE

DET

ROIT

ED

ISO

N S

T. C

LAIR

MO

UN

T ST

ORM

PO

WER

PLA

NT

R. E

. BU

RGER

PLA

NT

HU

NTL

EY S

TEAM

GEN

ERAT

ING

STA

TIO

N

APPA

LACH

IAN

PO

WER

-JO

HN

E A

MO

S

Dom

tar P

aper

John

sonb

urg

Mill

CLEV

ELAN

D E

LECT

RIC

LAKE

SH

ORE

PLA

NT

Lam

bton

Gen

erati

ng S

tatio

n

PPG

IND

UST

RIES

OH

IO C

IRCL

EVIL

LE

Essr

oc C

emen

t Cor

p.

LAFA

RGE

SYST

ECH

EN

VIRO

NM

ENTA

L CO

RP.

Nia

gara

Fal

ls

ROSS

INCI

NER

ATIO

N S

ERVI

CES

INC.

Biom

edic

al W

aste

Inci

nera

tion_

4320

Biom

edic

al W

aste

Inci

nera

tion_

4245

STER

ICYC

LE IN

C

VON

RO

LL A

MER

ICA

INC

Biom

edic

al W

aste

Inci

nera

tion_

4319

CEN

TRAL

WAY

NE

ENER

GY

RECO

VERY

Repu

blic

Eng

inee

red

Stee

ls In

c

NO

RTH

STAR

BLU

ESCO

PE S

TEEL

LLC

AK S

TEEL

CO

RPO

RATI

ON

Nor

th S

tar S

teel

ISG

CLE

VELA

ND

INC.

Vand

M S

TAR

ASH

TA C

HEM

ICAL

S IN

C

GE

RAVE

NN

A LA

MP

PLAN

T

MI

OH

OH

OH

OH

OH

PA

ON PA

MI O

H PA

OH N

Y PA OH O

H WV IN PA W

V OH M

I MI

WV NY PA PA M

I

WV OH OH OH OH NY OH

WV ON ON PA OH OH ON OH ON M

I

OH OH OH M

I

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cum

ulati

ve F

racti

on o

f Tot

al

Mod

eled

Dep

ositi

on (2

005)

Rank of Source's Atmospheric Mercury Deposition Contribution to Lake Erie

Top 50 Atmospheric Deposition Contributors to Lake Erie

coal fired power plants

other fuel combustion

waste incineration

metallurgical

manufacturing and other

Based on estimated 2005 mercury emissions, e.g., from the 2005 USEPA National Emissions Inventory, and atmospheric fate and transport simulations with the NOAA HYSPLIT-Hg model

Documents

Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Great Lakes A Multi-Year Study Supported by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Principal Investigator: Dr. Mark