• Simulations of RGM air emissions from 30 power plants + 16 other large RGM sources in the 4-state region
• Simulations with HYSPLIT-Hg for Oct-2004 through Dec-2005, using NARR met data• Oct-2004 through Dec-2004 used as model “spin-up”• Results for Jan-2005 through Dec-2005 are presented, i.e., the entire year 2005• Unit emissions runs were carried out; then results multiplied by actual emissions• Individual runs done for each plant; results added together in post-processing• RGM emissions estimates from EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory• Emissions from plants have not been constant; this is a “snapshot” for one year• Results were tabulated on a 0.5o x 0.5o grid (~50km)
• Pattern of deposition makes “sense” relative to plants modeled• With just the 30 power plants, the maximum deposition grid cell is ~15 ug/m2-yr• Adding in the other RGM sources, the maximum deposition grid cell is ~37 ug/m2-yr• More than 100 cells have grid-cell fluxes of between 1-16 ug/m2-year• All values are average deposition flux over a given grid cell, i.e., a 50km x 50km area• Localized deposition can be significantly higher• We have include the power plants + 16 other large RGM sources, but there are other
mercury sources in the region• Sources outside the region will also contribute to deposition• So, this is only a “partial” picture of the mercury deposition pattern
Methodology
Results and Discussion
MO
NTI
CELL
O BIG
BRO
WN
W.A
. PA
RISH
LCRA
FA
YETT
E PO
WER
PRO
JECT
MA
RTIN
LA
KE
BIG
CA
JUN
2SP
RUCE
GEN
ERA
TIN
G C
OM
PLEX
ENTE
RGY
ARK
-WH
ITE
BLU
FF
OG
andE
HW
PIR
KEY
POW
ER P
LTH
ARR
ING
TON
STA
TIO
N
LIM
ESTO
NE
ENTE
RGY
ARK
-IND
EPEN
DEN
CE
TOLK
STA
TIO
N
OG
andE
PUBL
IC S
VC C
O O
F O
KEN
TERG
Y G
SI N
ISCO
GRA
ND
RIV
ER D
AM
AU
THW
ESTE
RN F
ARM
ERS
ELEC
CO
OP
WEL
SH P
OW
ER P
LAN
T
DO
LET
HIL
LS P
WR
STN
SAN
DO
W S
TEA
M E
LECT
RIC
TWIN
OA
KS
COLE
TO C
REEK
FLIN
T CR
EEK
SAN
MIG
UEL
ROD
EMA
CHER
AES
SH
AD
Y PO
INT
LLC
GIB
BON
S CR
EEK
OKL
AU
NIO
N P
OW
ER S
TATI
ON
EAST
MA
N C
HEM
ICA
L TX
OPE
RATI
ON
SO
NYX
EN
VIRO
NM
ENTA
L SE
RVIC
ES L
LCPO
INT
COM
FORT
PLA
NT
SHEL
L N
ORC
O C
HEM
ICA
L PL
AN
TA
sh G
rove
Cem
ent C
ompa
ny
PIO
NEE
R A
MER
ICA
S CH
LOR-
ALK
ALI
AES
DEE
PWA
TER
INC
SAFE
TY K
LEEN
DEE
R PA
RK
CLEA
N H
ARB
ORS
EL
DO
RAD
O
LYO
ND
ELL
CHEM
ICA
L CH
AN
NEL
VIEW
NU
COR
STEE
L
Texa
s In
dust
ries
Inc.
SYN
GEN
TA C
ROP
PRO
TECT
ION
69TH
ST
SLU
DG
E D
RYIN
GCH
APA
RRA
L ST
EEL
MID
LOTH
IAN
PPG
LA
KE C
HA
RLES
UN
ION
CA
RBID
E TE
XAS
CITY
PLA
NT
GRE
EN B
AY
PACK
AG
ING
CYPR
ESS
CHEM
ICA
L CO
MPA
NY
POTL
ATC
H W
ARR
EN L
UM
BER
MIL
LN
ORI
T A
MER
ICA
S IN
CN
UCO
R ST
EEL
ARK
AN
SAS
CABO
T CO
RP P
AM
PA P
LAN
TD
U P
ON
T SA
BIN
E RI
VER
WO
RKS
NO
RIT
AM
ERIC
AS
INC
SHEF
FIEL
D S
TEEL
CO
RP
POTL
ATC
H C
ORP
OZA
N P
RESC
OTT
TEM
PLE-
INLA
ND
BO
GA
LUSA
MIL
LD
ow C
hem
ical
Co
CHA
NN
ELVI
EW C
OM
PLEX
DO
W C
HEM
ICA
L FR
EEPO
RTD
ELTI
C TI
MBE
R-W
ALD
O
HA
ZARD
OU
S W
AST
E D
ISPO
SAL
SOLU
TIA
CH
OCO
LATE
BA
YOU
PVA
LERO
REF
ININ
G -
TEXA
S L.
P.W
ICH
ITA
FA
LLS
PLA
NT
SHER
WIN
PLA
NT
BP O
IL C
OM
PAN
Y A
LLIA
NCE
REF
INER
YEX
IDE
TECH
NO
LOG
IES
-BA
TON
RO
UG
E SM
ELTE
RM
EAD
WES
TVA
CO C
ORP
DER
IDD
ER P
LAN
TW
EST
FRA
SER
SO
UTH
IN
C-H
UTT
IG M
ILL
HO
RSEH
EAD
CO
RP.
LON
E ST
AR
STEE
L CO
MPA
NY
BASF
Cor
pora
tion
DU
PO
NT
-VIC
TORI
A S
ITE
DO
W C
HEM
ICA
L -F
REEP
ORT
TX
REYN
OLD
S M
ETA
LS G
UM
SPR
ING
S PL
AN
TH
OU
STO
N A
LMED
A S
IMS
WBH
GEN
ERA
TIN
G C
O L
LCA
IR P
ROD
UCT
S D
INIT
ROTO
LUEN
E PL
AN
TCO
NO
COPH
ILLI
PS -
LAKE
CH
ARL
ES R
EFIN
ERY
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
Cum
ulati
ve F
racti
on o
f RG
M
emitt
ed in
TX-
OK-
AR-L
A
four-state power plant modeled
other large RGM source modeled
other top RGM sources in TX-OK-AR-LA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 10 100 1000
Cum
ulati
ve F
racti
on o
f RG
M
emitt
ed in
TX-
OK-
AR-
LA
four-state power plant already modeled
other large RGM source modeled
other sources in TX-OK-AR-LA
We explicitly modeled sources representing about 90% of the RGM emissions in the four-state area, according to the 2005 NEI
15
• Location of modeled power plant
Here’s what we had before, when we just included the power plants
Here’s what we get when we add in other large RGM sources in the region
• Location of modeled power plant• Location of other large RGM source
• Location of other large RGM source
• Location of modeled power plant
Just in case its helpful, here’s something I did a few weeks earlier…
These are illustrative overall and time-series results just for one plant (Big Cajun)
First map is for the overall simulation, over 15 months
The second set of slides shows the time-series of deposition, on a finer-grid close-in to the source, that demonstrates how things evolve… for a unit emissions of RGM from the plant, for 3-hr time steps… This “movie” might be interesting to show?
Movie showing illustrative simulation of deposition arising from 1 g/hr emissions of RGM from Big Cajun II power plant
• each frame represents 3 hours; four weeks shown• actual plant emits ~9 g/hr RGM (according to 2005 National Emissions Inventory)