Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Use of Multi-Media Monitoring to Develop a
Statewide Mercury TMDL
Bruce Monson and Howard Markus
Environmental Analysis & Outcomes Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
2
Minnesota’s Impaired Waters 2004
Low DO, 45, 2%
Other PBTs, 129, 7%
Excess nutrients, 153, 8%
Ammonia, 10, 1%
Biotic community, 103, 5%
Mercury, 1239, 66%
River Impairments, 419, 22%
Lake Impairments, 820, 44%
Others (pH, T., Cl), 6, 0%
Turbidity, 118, 6%
Fecal coliform, 89, 5%
3
Waters Impaired by Mercury in Fish
FCA more restrictive than 1 meal/wk for moms & kids (>0.2 ppm for a fish size class)
4
Northern Lakes and Forests
Northern Minnesota Wetlands
Red River Valley
North Central Hardwood ForestNorthern
Glaciated Plains
Western Corn Belt Plains
Driftless Area
TMDL Regional Area
Northeast (NE)
Southwest (SW)
2004 Minnesota Regional Mercury TMDLs
Minnesota PollutionControl Agency
Impaired waters are highlighted
Minnesota Mercury TMDL Regions
TMDL REGION
Dominant Mercury Transport Process
Northeast (NE)
Forest & wetland hydrology
Southwest (SW)
Erosion from cultivated land
5
Target Level & Reduction Factor
NE SW
Target fish mercury concentration0.2
mg/kg0.2
mg/kg
Mercury concentration for standard length walleye (WE4090)
0.572mg/kg
0.405mg/kg
Reduction Factor (RF) = (WE4090 – 0.2) WE4090)
65% 51%
Anthropogenic RF = (WE4090 – 0.2) WE4090) 70% 93% 73%
6
90 % from emission sources outside
Minnesota
How do we know?
Mercury Deposition to Minnesota Lakes
10 % from emission sources within Minnesota
7
Total Mercury Deposition is Based on Sediment Cores
Engstrom and Swain collecting a sediment core
8
Swain, Engstrom, Brigham, Henning, and Brezonik. 1992. Science 257, 784-787
9
Sources of Atmospheric Mercury Deposition in North-Central US (Engstrom and Swain 1997 ES&T)
2X
3X
4X
1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000Year
RegionalNorth America
Natural mercury deposition
Global(Coastal Alaska)
Natural30%Global
30%
Regional40%
10
Atmospheric Deposition: Sediment Core Findings
~70% current Hg deposition in MN from anthropogenic emissions (30% global + 40% regional)
Annual atmospheric deposition ~ 12.5 µg/m2 Atm Dep peaked ~1970s in some parts of MN Deposition now relatively uniform across state;
no known fish tissue hot spots
11
Purposeful Use 28%
Sources of Minnesota’s Mercury Deposition
Minnesota Mercury Emissions (2000)
Coal 46%
Petroleum 5%Wood 0.3%
Natural gas 0.0%
Volatilization from disposed products 7%Municipal solid waste combustion 5%
Smelters that recycle cars and appliances 5%Sewage sludge incineration 3%
Dental preparations 3%Crematories 2%
On-site household waste incineration 2%Recycling mercury from products 1.4%
Fluorescent lamp breakage 0.9%Medical waste incineration 0.2%
Taconite processing 21%
Soil roasting 0.4%
Energy 51%
Material Processing 21%
Sources of Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to Minnesota
NaturalEmissions
30%
Global Emissions
30%
RegionalEmissions 40%
MN Emissions (~10%)
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency March 2004
12
Minnesota Mercury Emissions, 1990, 1995, 2000 and Projected 2005
724 756 759 679
8,881
1,7381,045 739
1,667 1,779 1,834 1,923
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1990 1995 2000 2005Year
Pou
nds
Hg
Product Use & Disposal
Other (mostly taconite production)
Energy (mostly coal and oil)
68% Reduction from 1990(73% of TMDL reduction goal)
70% Reduction from 1990
TMDL Emissions Reduction Goal: 93% Reduction from 1990 (879 lbs)
13
Mercury Deposition Network
14
Annual Wet Deposition at MN Sites
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
g H
g km
-2 y
r-1
Marcell (MN16)
Fernberg (MN18)
Ripley (MN23)
Lamberton (MN27)
Brule (WI08)
Average
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Marcell (MN16)
Fernberg (MN18)
Ripley (MN23)
Lamberton (MN27)
Brule (WI08)
Mean Annual Flux ± 95% C.I.(g km-2) for 1996-2004
15
DNR
Fish Collectio
n
DNR
Fish Processing
DNR/MDAChemical Analysis
DNR
Data Reporting
MDHPublic Health Evaluation
MPCA DNR MDH
Site Selection
MPCAAnalysis & Research
Fish Contaminant Monitoring Process
16
Minnesota’s Fish Consumption Advisory Levels Applied to Fish Size Classes
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
General
Sensitive
Mercury (ppm)
Unlimited
1 meal/week
1 meal/month
Do not eat
Population
0.2
17
Sand Point Lake 69-617 Northern Pike, 1997
Fish Length, cm
MercuryConcentration
(mg/kg)
40 50 60 70 80
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2
Calculating Standard Concentration of Northern Pike
18
Water Point Sources of Mercury – Existing, Expanding, & New
Data from about 37 facilities, averaged 5 ng/L Hg WLA not to exceed 1% of total mercury load
allocation [11 kg/yr] In 1990, water point sources about 1.2% of total New & expanding water sources can expand up to
the current WLA of 11 kg/yr Mercury minimization plan required
19
Summary of Monitoring Data Needed to Prepare the Statewide Mercury TMDL
Fish tissue mercury data to show spatial differences and includes data from 1988–1992
Sediment core data sufficient to est. whole basin mercury fluxes
Wet deposition stations across the state to show uniform deposition
Wastewater effluent data to estimate WLA
20
Future TMDL Monitoring Needs Fish tissue trends Dry deposition (as well as Wet Dep) Follow up intensive lake sediment core study Wasteload allocation studies
(upstream/downstream)
