• 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)