Author Institution: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of CincinnatiMercury emissions from coal-fired power plants are estimated to contribute to approximately 46% of the total U. S. anthropogenic mercury emissions and required to be regulated by maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.  Dispersion modeling of mercury emissions using the AERMOD model and the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) model was conducted for two representative coal-fired power plants at Coshocton and Manchester, Ohio. Atmospheric mercury concentrations, dry mercury deposition rates, and wet mercury deposition rates were predicted in a 5 × 5 km area surrounding the Conesville and JM Stuart coal-fired power plants. In addition, the analysis results of meteorological parameters showed that wet mercury deposition is dependent on precipitation, but dry mercury deposition is influenced by various meteorological factors

Keener, Tim C.

Lee, Sang-Sup

The Ohio Journal of Science

KnowledgeBank at OSU

OhiO JOurnal Of Science 65S. S. lee and t. c. keenerDispersion Modeling of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants at Coshocton and Manchester, Ohio Sang-Sup lee and tim c. keener1, department of civil and environmental engineering, university of cincinnati, cincinnati, OhAbstract.  Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants are estimated to contribute to approximately 46% of the total U. S. anthropogenic mercury emissions and required to be regulated by maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. Dispersion modeling of mercury emissions using the AERMOD model and the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) model was conducted for two representative coal-fired power plants at Coshocton and Manchester, Ohio.  Atmospheric mercury concentrations, dry mercury deposition rates, and wet mercury deposition rates were predicted in a 5 × 5 km area surrounding the Conesville and JM Stuart coal-fired power plants.  In addition, the analysis results of meteorological parameters showed that wet mercury deposition is dependent on precipitation, but dry mercury deposition is influenced by various meteorological factors.OHIO J SCI 108(4):65-69, 2008    INTRODUCTION  due to the impacts of mercury on environment and human health, mercury has been assigned as one of the hazardous air pollutants (haPs) in the 1990 clean air act amendments (kilgroe and others 2002).  in addition, in february 2008, the u.S. district court required environmental Protection agency (ePa) to regulate mercury emissions under section 112 of the clean air act which requires the application of the maximum achievable control technology (Mact) (united States court, 2008).  Of several anthropogenic mercury emission sources, coal-fired boilers account for approximately 46% anthropogenic mercury emissions in the united States (keating and others 1997).  Three forms of mercury exist in coal combustion flue gas streams: elemental mercury (hg0), oxidized mercury (hg2+), and particulate mercury (hgp). The atmospheric mercury is deposited on the soil and waterbody in the absence of precipitation (dry deposition) and by cloud microphysics and precipitation (wet deposition).  While most of hg2+ and hgp are known to be deposited on a local and regional scale, hg0 may transport globally due to its insolubility to water (rice and others 1997). according to the national energy technology laboratory (netl)’s 2007 coal Power Plant database (http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/technology.html), 33 coal-fired power plants have being operated in Ohio.  dispersion modeling was conducted for the top two mercury-emitting coal-fired power plants.  atmospheric mercury concentrations, dry mercury deposition rates, and wet mercury deposition rates were predicted on a 500 m cartesian grid up to 5 km far from those power plants. Meteorological data used in the dispersion model were analyzed to examine meteorological influences on mercury deposition rates.  MATERIALS AND METHODS The aerMOd model and the industrial Source complex Short term (iScSt3) model were used for dispersion modeling of mercury emissions from the top two mercury-emitting coal-fired power plants in Ohio in 2005.  aerMOd can be used to model the local atmospheric dispersion of mercury, while photochemical models such as community multi-scale air quality (cMaQ) are typically used to simulate long-range transport and deposition of 1corresponding author: tim c. keener, department of civil and environmen-tal engineering, university of cincinnati, cincinnati, Oh 45221. email: tim.keener@uc.edupollutants.  aerMOd has been promulgated by ePa as a preferred air dispersion model to replace the iScSt3.  dispersion modeling was conducted by both aerMOd and iScSt3 model systems, and the results were compared in this study.  The features of stack flue gases and mercury emission rates of those power plants were obtained from the netl’s 2007 coal Power Plant database and ePa’s toxics release inventory (tri) database (http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer), respectively, and summarized in table 1.  in addition, aerMOd and iScSt3 model parameters are summarized in table 2.  Meteorological data were obtained from the meteorological resource center (http://www.webmet.com).  due to limitations on availability, 1990 meteorological data were used for both aerMOd and iScSt3 modeling.  considering proximity to each coal-fired power plant, columbus meteorological data were applied to the conesville coal-fired power plant, and dayton meteorological data were applied to the JM Stuart coal-fired power plant.  as found in the ePa report to congress (rice and others 1997), the mercury species in all the stack flue gases were assumed to consist of 58% hg0, 40% hg2+, and 2% hgp.  The atmospheric oxidized mercury is expected to be deposited more readily than the atmospheric elemental mercury.  Several parameters such as diffusivity and henry’s law coefficient are used to apply a different deposition rate for different mercury species to the aerMOd model.  The level of deposition rate is also expressed in terms of scavenging coefficient in the iScSt3 model.  These parameters were obtained from the literature (rice and others 1997, Wesely and others 2002, Sullivan and others 2003, turner and Schulze 2007, douglas and others 2008).       RESULTSannual atmospheric mercury concentrations, annual dry mercury deposition rates, and annual wet mercury deposition rates were predicted on a 500 m cartesian grid of ground level positions in a 5 × 5 km area surrounding each coal-fired power plant using aerMOd and iScSt3.  table 3 summarizes these annual values averaged for the receptor area (5 × 5 km).  as shown in the table, aerMOd predicted similar levels of atmospheric mercury concentrations and dry deposition rates as iScSt3 for both power plants, but significantly lower wet deposition rates than iScSt3.  in addition, dry and wet deposition rates were determined for each month by the aerMOd model to evaluate monthly variations and meteorological effects on mercury deposition.  as shown in figure 1, both power plants show similar trends of monthly 66 VOl.  108diSPerSiOn and dePOSitiOn Of atMOSPheric MercurYtable 1Description of coal-fired power plants considered in this studycoal-fired             Stack             Stack              design exit            Mercury emissionPower Plant         height      diameter              Velocity                           rate                                    (m)                (m)                   (m/sec)                        (kg/yr)conesville               137                4.3                       28                                   446                                   244                7.9                       25.3                                      137                5.3                       12.2                                   244                7.9                       24.1JM Stuart                244                5.8                       32.3                               358                                       244                5.8                       32.3                                   244                5.8                       32.3                                   244                5.8                       32.3table 2Modeling parametersaerMOd Site characteristic ParametersParameters                              Spring, Summer, fall                               WinterSurface albedo                                         0.2                                                  0.6Bowen ratio                                             1                                                     2Surface roughness                                  1                                                     0.5aerMOd deposition Parametersform of            diffusivity            diffusivity           cuticular             henry’s law Mercury               in air                  in Water              resistance             coefficient                              (cm2/s)                 (cm2/s)                   (s/cm)                (Pa m3/mol)hg0                   7.23 x 10-2              6.30 x 10-6             1.0 x 105                      150hg2+                   6.0 x 10-2            3.256 x 10-4             1.0 x 105                  6.0 x 10-6                               fine Mass fraction                     Mean Particle diameterhgp                                    0.8                                                     0.4 µmiScSt3 deposition Parametersform of                                     liquid Scavenging                         frozen ScavengingMercury                                          coefficient                                        coefficient                                                           (hr/s.mm)                                         (hr/s.mm) hg0                                                     3.3 x 10-7                                            1.0 x 10-7hg2+                                                   2.5 x 10-4                                            5.0 x 10-5hgp     0.68 µm                                7.0 x 10-5                                            2.0 x 10-5hgp     3.5 µm                                   2.8 x 10-4                                           5.0 x 10-5table 3Summary of average annual atmospheric concentration, dry deposition, and wet deposition in a 5 x 5 km area surrounding each coal-fired power plant predicted by AERMOD and ISCST3coal-fired Power Plant                           conesville                           JM StuartModel                                              aerMOd   iScSt3       aerMOd   iScSt3average annual atmosphericmercury concentration (ng/m3)      0.036            0.085              0.014            0.041average annual dry mercurydeposition (µg/m2)                             6.25               3.62                 4.34              4.4average annual wet mercurydeposition (µg/m2)                             0.47               5.01                 0.35           13.73variations in mercury deposition.  Since similar meteorological conditions were found to be applied to these power plants, this result indicates that the dry and wet mercury deposition rates may be influenced by meteorological factors.  Therefore, the effects of meteorological parameters were analyzed with respect to the dry deposition rate and the wet deposition rate, respectively.  figure 2 shows correlation of each selected meteorological parameter with the dry deposition rate and the wet deposition rate for each coal-fired power plant.  as shown in the figure, while rainfall parameters have a close relationship with wet mercury deposition rate, no significant meteorological factor is found for dry mercury deposition.  to further investigate meteorological effects on dry and wet deposition, the isopleths for atmospheric mercury concentrations, dry mercury deposition rates, and wet mercury deposition rates are illustrated for the conesville coal-fired power plant during february in figures 3, 4 and 5, respectively.  as shown in these figures, while dry deposition has similar isopleths as atmospheric mercury concentration, wet deposition is mainly found in the center of the emission source.            DISCUSSIONThe average dry and wet deposition rates during each month were predicted for two representative Ohio coal-fired power plants using the aerMOd model.  While similar trends of monthly variations in mercury deposition were found between two coal-fired power plants, the dry deposition rate showed a different trend of monthly variation from the wet deposition rate.  These results indicate that the dry and wet mercury deposition rates may be influenced by meteorological conditions, but have different meteorological factors each other.  as a result of correlation analysis with meteorological data, wet mercury deposition was found to be dependent on rainfall parameters.  hence the isopleths showed that wet mercury deposition is centered in the mercury emission source.  On the other hand, a critical meteorological factor was not found for dry mercury deposition.  however, the isopleths drawn for dry mercury deposition were consistent with the isopleths for atmospheric mercury concentrations.  Therefore, wet mercury deposition is dependent on precipitation near the emission source, but dry mercury deposition is related to the dispersion and transport of atmospheric mercury which are influenced by various meteorological factors.            OhiO JOurnal Of Science 67S. S. lee and t. c. keenerfigure 1. average monthly dry mercury deposition rates (μg/m2, scaled by 0.2) and average monthly wet mercury deposition rates (μg/m2) predicted for the conesville and JM Stuart coal-fired power plants by the aerMOd model for year 2005. figure 2. correlation of the selected meteorological parameters with dry deposition and wet deposition for the conesville (top) and JM Stuart (bottom) coal-fired power plants.68 VOl.  108diSPerSiOn and dePOSitiOn Of atMOSPheric MercurYfigure 3. isopleths for average monthly atmospheric mercury concentrations (ng/m3/month) predicted for the conesville coal-fired power plant in february using aerMOd. figure 4. isopleths for average monthly dry mercury deposition rates (μg/m2/month) predicted for the conesville coal-fired power plant in february using aerMOd. OhiO JOurnal Of Science 69S. S. lee and t. c. keenerLITERATURE CITED douglas S, haney J, Wei Y, Myers t, hudischewskyj B. 2008. Mercury deposition modeling for the Virginia mercury study.  available from http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/regulations/documents/app_a-VdeQ_hg_Modeling_report_final_10-20-08.pdfkeating Mh, Beauregard d, Benjey WG, driver l, Maxwell Wh, Peters Wd, Pope aa. 1997.  Mercury study report to congress volume ii: an inventory of anthropogenic mercury emissions in the united States. Washington (dc): u.S. environmental Protection agency. ePa-452/r-97-004.   kilgroe Jd, Sedman cB, Srivastava rk, ryan JV, lee cW. Thorneloe Sa. 2002. control of mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utility boilers: interim report. research triangle Park (nc): u.S. environmental Protection agency. ePa-600/r-01/109.rice Ge, ambrose Jr rB, Bullock Jr Or, Swartout J. 1997. Mercury study report to congress volume iii: fate and transport of Mercury in the environment. Washington (dc): u.S. environmental Protection agency. ePa-452/r-97-004. figure 5. isopleths for average monthly wet mercury deposition rates (μg/m2/month) predicted for the conesville coal-fired power plant in february using aerMOd. Sullivan tM, lipfert fd, Morris SM, renninger S. 2003. assessing the mercury health risks associated with coal-fired power plants: impacts of local depositions. Proceedings of air Quality iV conference; 2003 Sep; arlington (Va). available from http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/ewr/air_quality_research/health_effects/pdfs/Prh-2_aQiV_Sullivan.pdf      turner dB, Schulze rh. 2007. atmospheric dispersion modeling. dallas: trinity consultant, inc. and air & Waste Management association. chapter 9. united States court of appeal for the district of columbia circuit. 2008. available from http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/20082/05-1097a.pdf Wesely Ml, doskey PV, Shannon Jd. 2002. deposition parameterizations for the industrial source complex (iSc3) model.  argonne (il): argonne national laboratory. anl/er/tr-01/003.  

Dispersion Modeling of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants at Coshocton and Manchester, Ohio

https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/1811/48446/1/V108N4_65.pdf

Dispersion Modeling of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants at Coshocton and Manchester, Ohio

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnowledgeBank at OSU