Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Power Plants Local Impacts on Human Health Risk.

Sullivan, T.M.; Bowerman, B.S.; Adams, J.W.; Lipfert, Frederick W.; Morris, S. M.; Bando, Atsushi; Pena, Rosa G. de; Blake, Rhiannon

doi:10.2172/877288

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The data showed a much wider distribution than for Plant A with a few values that were very high above the mean. Statistical analysis of the data (Sullivan, et al 2005) showed that the data did not fit a lognormal distribution with the distribution skewed towards higher values above the mean. This could imply enhanced deposition, or it could imply differences due to different soils.…”

Section: Kincaidmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Studies of soils, sediments, and wet deposition around coal plants typically find some evidence of enhanced deposition; however, the impact and statistical significance of the results is generally weak with incremental deposition about 15% of background (Lipfert, 2004, Sullivan, 2005. Many of the coal plant studies (Klein et al 1973, Anderson et al 1977, Crockett et al 1979, Kotnik, et al 2000 were conducted in the 1970's when emission rates were higher due to fewer pollution controls and the use of coals with higher Hg content.…”

Section: Modeling Mercury Depostion Around Coal-fired Power Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are described in detail in Sullivan (2005). Mercury emissions data from each of the plants were used to represent the source terms.…”

Section: Deposition Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These samples were analyzed between 3 and 7 times to improve the accuracy of the results. Details are provided in Sullivan, 2005. Unlike the soil samples, the vegetation samples did show regions of elevated Hg concentration. Defining a high Hg concentration as any average value that is 3 times above the median value for all samples shows that 12 of 49 samples have 'high' concentrations.…”

Section: Plant Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Local Impacts of Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Power Plants.

Sullivan¹,

Bowerman²,

Adams³

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Kincaidmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Modeling Mercury Depostion Around Coal-fired Power Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are described in detail in Sullivan (2005). Mercury emissions data from each of the plants were used to represent the source terms.…”

Section: Deposition Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plant Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Local Impacts of Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Power Plants.

Sullivan¹,

Bowerman²,

Adams³

et al. 2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Literature reviews examined the evidence for deposition around local sources including coalfired power plants (Lipfert et al 2004, Sullivan, et al, 2005. The extant experimental data are considered at three spatial scales: local (< 30 km), regional (< -300 km), and national (multistate data).…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Impacts of Mercury Emissions from the Three Pennsylvania Coal Fired Power Plants.

Sullivan¹,

Adams²,

Bender³

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) as proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when fully implemented will lead to reduction in mercury emissions fiom coal-fired power plants by 70 percent to fifteen tons per year by 2018. The EPA estimates that mercury deposition would be reduced 8 percent on average in the Eastern United States.The CAMR permits cap-and-trade approach that requires the nationwide emissions to meet the prescribed level, but do not require controls on each individual power plant. This has led to concerns that there may be hot-spots of mercury contamination near power plants. Partially because of this concern, many states including Pennsylvania have implemented, or are considering, state regulations that are stricter on mercury emissions than those in the CAMR.This study examined the possibility that coal-fired power plants act as local sources leading to mercury "hot spots". Soil and oak leaf samples from around three large U.S. coal-fired power plants in Western Pennsylvania were collected and analyzed for evidence of "hot spots". These three plants (Conemaugh, Homer City, and Keystone) are separated by a total distance of approximately 30 miles. Each emits over 500 pounds of mercury per year which is well above average for mercury emissions from coal plants in the U.S.Soil and oak leaf sampling programs were performed around each power plant. Sampling rings one-mile apart were used with eight or nine locations on each ring. The prevailing winds in the region are from the west. For this reason, sampling was conducted out to 10 miles from the Conemaugh plant which is southeast of the others. The other plants were sampled to a distance of five miles. The objectives were to determine if local mercury hot spots exist, to determine if they could be attributed to deposition of coal-fired power plant emissions, and to determine if they correlated with wind patterns. The study found the following: 0 There was some correlation between the prevailing wind direction and measured soil and oak leaf concentrations. This correlation was not statistically significant, but higher soil concentrations were generally found in the east and southeast from the plants and lower soil concentrations were found west/southwest from the plants. The prevailing winds are to the east. The Conemaugh plant which was the most southeast of the three plants did have the highest average oak leaf and soil mercury concentrations. Based on emissions, the Keystone plant would be expected to see the highest concentrations as it emitted about 25% more mercury than the other two plants.The results of this study did not turn up strong evidence for large areas (several square miles) of elevated mercury concentrations around the three coal-fired power plants that were tested. This does not mean that there is no effect, there was some evidence of increasing mercury content to the east and south of these plants, however, the trends were not statistically significant suggesting that if the...

show abstract

Soil and ambient air mercury as an indicator of coal-fired power plant emissions: a case study in North China

Chen

Liu

et al. 2021

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Power Plants Local Impacts on Human Health Risk.

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

Local Impacts of Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Power Plants.

Local Impacts of Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Power Plants.

Local Impacts of Mercury Emissions from the Three Pennsylvania Coal Fired Power Plants.

Soil and ambient air mercury as an indicator of coal-fired power plant emissions: a case study in North China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About