Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: " Great Lakes Areas of Concern  U.S. urban areas (pink shading)"— Presentation transcript:

1

2

3  Great Lakes Areas of Concern

4  U.S. urban areas (pink shading)

5  Great Lakes Areas of Concern  U.S. urban areas (pink shading)  Large U.S./Canadian 2002 point sources of mercury Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other Emissions of Mercury (kg/yr) – – – –3500

6  Great Lakes Areas of Concern  U.S. urban areas (pink shading)  Large U.S./Canadian 2005 point sources of mercury Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other Emissions of Mercury (kg/yr) – – – –3500

7  Contaminated Sediment. The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal contain 5 to 10 million cubic yards (3.9 to 7.7 million cubic meters) of contaminated sediment up to 20 feet (6 m) deep. Contaminants include toxic compounds (e.g., PAHs, PCBs and heavy metals) and conventional pollutants (e.g., phosphorus, nitrogen, iron, magnesium, volatile solids, oil and grease).  Industrial Waste Site Runoff. Stormwater runoff and leachate from 11 of 38 waste disposal and storage sites in the AOC, located within.2 mi (.3 km) of the river, are degrading AOC water quality. Contaminants include oil, heavy metals, arsenic, PCBs, PAHs and lead.  CERCLA Sites. There are 52 sites in the AOC listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability System (CERCLA). Five of these sites are Superfund sites on the National Priorities List (NPL).  Hazardous Waste Sites under RCRA. There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), such as landfills or surface impoundments, where hazardous waste is disposed. Twenty-two of these sites are treatment, storage and disposal facilities.  Underground Storage Tanks (USTs). There are more than 460 underground storage tanks in the AOC. More than 150 leaking tank reports have been filed for the Lake County section of the AOC since mid  Atmospheric Deposition. Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration and evaporation enter the AOC through direct contact with water, surface water runoff and leaching of accumulated materials deposited on land. Toxins from this source include dioxins, PCBs, insecticides and heavy metals.  Urban Runoff. Rain water passing over paved urban areas washes grease, oil and toxic organics such as PCBs and PAHs into AOC surface waters.  Contaminated Groundwater. Groundwater contaminated with organic compounds, heavy metals and petroleum products contaminates AOC surface waters. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) estimates that at least 16.8 million gallons (63.6 million liters) of oil float on top of groundwater beneath the AOC. Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Beneficial Use Impairments The largest extent of the impairment to the AOC come from the legacy pollutants found in the sediments at the bottom of the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal. Problems in the AOC include contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals, such as mercury, cadmium, chromium and lead. Additional problems include high fecal coliform bacteria levels, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids, oil and grease. These contaminants originated from both point and nonpoint sources. Nonpoint sources include: From: (emphasis added)

8 Chicago IllinoisIndiana Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Lake Michigan

9 Chicago IllinoisIndiana Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other Emissions of Mercury (kg/yr) – – – –3500

10 Chicago IllinoisIndiana Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other Lake Michigan Emissions of Reactive Gaseous Mercury (kg/yr) – – – –3500 < 5

11 Cuyahoga River AOC Lake Erie Lake Huron Black River AOC Maumee River AOC River Raisin AOC St. Clair River AOC Rouge River AOC Detroit River AOC Clinton River AOC

12 Cuyahoga River AOC Lake Erie Lake Huron Black River AOC Maumee River AOC River Raisin AOC St. Clair River AOC Rouge River AOC Detroit River AOC Clinton River AOC Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other Emissions of Mercury (kg/yr) – – – –3500

13 see explanation on next slide

14  This is an example of overall HYSPLIT-Hg modeling results for one particular simulation – a hypothetical source located at lat/long = 41.86, , in the vicinity of Chicago  Results have been converted to display deposition in units of ug/m2-year for a source emitting 1 kg/day (365 kg/year) of reactive gaseous mercury  This simulation was done for a source with stack height of 250m – a relatively tall stack that would tend to lower local deposition. Many emissions sources have stacks lower than this.  Because this run was done for an analysis of the entire Great Lakes basin, the grid size chosen to “save” the results to disk was 0.5 x 0.5 degrees, essentially grid squares of about 50x50 km. This is not the resolution of the underlying simulation, its just the resolution that was chosen to output this type of result.  The grid square with the maximum deposition is shown as a red square, and the modeled deposition was 4.6 ug/m2-year  The deposition flux “nearby” the source would probably be larger; this 4.6 ug/m2-year “smears” out the local deposition over this relatively large area. In other words, the deposition right near the sources, say, within km would probably be greater – perhaps significantly greater than this value of 4.6 ug/m2-yr  Comparing the above result with earlier modeling results (from the NOAA Report to Congress on Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes) – see the next two slides – we can see in more detail the dramatic fall off with distance in deposition flux. From the next slide, for example, the modeling resulted in a deposition flux of ~35 ug/m2-year from a comparable source within 15 km of a source of reactive gaseous mercury (RGM)  This is a *big* enhancement over background mercury deposition fluxes

15 Deposition flux falls off rapidly as a function of distance away from the source Linear Logarithmic From the NOAA Report to Congress on Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes

16 From the NOAA Report to Congress on Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes


Download ppt " Great Lakes Areas of Concern  U.S. urban areas (pink shading)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google