財團法人台灣國際奧比斯防盲救盲基 ...pptVIP

Mercury Deposition and Risk AssessmentSantee Cooper Pee Dee Generating Station Draft EIS Presentation by: Rick Gillam U.S. EPA Region 4 Modelers Workshop March 19, 2009 Acknowledgements US Army Corps of Engineers Santee Cooper The LPA Group Trinity Consultants Why Mercury? Relatively large amounts of mercury emitted from the proposed coal-fired boilers Estimated emissions of 58 lb/yr from each of the 2 proposed boilers Many waterbodies in the area of the proposed facility already under fish-consumption advisories for mercury contamination Mercury Risk Assessment In the scoping phase of the NEPA assessment, EPA Region 4 recommended use of procedures in EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment (ATRA) Reference Library to assess mercury /ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html ATRA references the methodology contained in EPA’s Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities for performing indirect exposure risk assessments /epawaste/hazard/tsd/td/combust/risk.htm Santee Cooper Draft Mercury Risk Assessment AERMOD Screening Analysis Modeled deposition to the entire Pee Dee River Basin Out to 150 km from the proposed facility location 1 km receptor spacing AERMOD Refined Analysis Modeled impacts to the effective watershed area closer to the facility which had higher deposition impacts Out to ~50 km from proposed facility location 500 m receptor spacing Meteorology and Land Use Used South Carolina’s 2002-2006 surface data set from the Columbia, SC met station and Greensboro, NC Upper Air data Surface Parameters generated with AERSURFACE using the NLCD92 land-use data AERMOD was run with both met site and project site land-use parameters Project site parameters produced higher deposition rates and were used for the risk assessment AERMOD Mercury Deposition Inputs Wet and Dry deposition of both divalent (Hg+2 or RGM) and elemental (Hg0) vapors were modeled Also modeled particulate mercury deposition using AERMOD Method 2 Mean parti