Cleaning Onondaga:

Dr. Marty AuerDr. Marty Auer

ProfessorProfessorCivil & Environmental EngineeringCivil & Environmental EngineeringMichigan Tech UniversityMichigan Tech University

Onondaga Lake, located in metropolitan Syracuse, New York, has received the municipal and industrial waste of the region for over 100 years. Testimony to the United States Senate has described Onondaga Lake as one of the most polluted in the country – perhaps the most polluted.

Onondaga Lake

Oswego River

Seneca River

Syracuse

Cross Lake

Lake Ontario

New YorkState

Onondaga Lake/Seneca RiverSyracuse…..

Syracuse, New York: The Salt City

• 1615 – first European visitor, Samuel Champlain• 1654 – salt springs discovered, Father Simon Lemoyne• 1794 – salt industry in place, James Geddes• 1820 – local brine springs failing• 1838 – wells dug around Onondaga Lake fail to locate source• 1862 – salt industry reaches its peak

Central New York

• 1828 – Erie and Oswego Canals• 1838 – railroads reach Syracuse• 1848 – City of Syracuse incorporated• 1950s – NYS Thruway and I-81

http://www.nycanal.com/nycanalhistory.html

http://www.history.rochester.edu/canal/

Solvay Process Allied Chemical Allied Signal Honeywell

1884 soda ash production begins on west shore using locallyproduced salt brine and limestone from nearby Dewitt

1880s salt production moved to Tully Valley

1912 limestone quarries moved to Jamesville

1986 industry closes

The Solvay Process

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/tcaw/11/i02/html/02chemchron.html

In 1865, a Belgian chemist, Ernest Solvay, developed a process to produce soda ash from calcium carbonate (limestone) and sodium chloride (salt). Soda ash is used in softening water and in the manufacture of glass, soap and paper:

3 2 3 22CaCO NaCl N Ca O ClC a

Ernest Solvay

1943: wastebeds collapse flooding region with soda ash waste

The Chlor-Alkali Process

The chlor-alkali process was used to generate chlorine gas and sodium hydroxide through electrolysis of a salt brine solution. Mercury was used as the cathode in the electrolysis cell. There is loss of mercury through leakage and dumping as the cells are cleaned or replaced. Approximately 75,000 kg of mercury were discharged to Onondaga Lake over the period 1946-1970.

( ) 2 ( ) ( ) 2( ) 2( )2 2 2aq l aq g gNaCl H O NaOH Cl H

The Mud Boils

Mud boils or mud volcanoes occur along Onondaga Creek in Tully Valley, New York where salt brine was solution-mined for nearly a century (1889-1986). Mud boils form when increased groundwater pore pressures (rain, spring runoff) liquefy sediment (soil). These pressures result in a surface discharge of liquefied sediment as a mud volcano or mud boil.

Distribution of terrigenoussediment solids Onondaga Creek,

flowing from Tully Valley, enters here

The Mud Boils

There is considerable debate regarding the role of brine solution mining in leading to mud boils. However, it is known that more than half the sediment loading to Onondaga Lake comes via Onondaga Creek and a substantial fraction of that load originates in the Tully Valley.

Metro

1896 backyard privies banned; sewers constructed; sewage flows directly to Onondaga Lake via Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook

1922 interceptor sewers; screening and disinfection; lake discharge

1925 treatment plant constructed; primary treatment; lake discharge

1928 treatment plant overloaded; need for CSOs with lake discharge

1934 additional treatment plant constructed; lake discharge

Metro

1960 METRO plant completed; lake discharge

1974 METRO deemed overloaded

1979 METRO upgrade; secondary treatment; lake discharge

1981 METRO upgrade; tertiary treatment; lake discharge

1998 State calls for a 14-year, $400 million treatment plant upgrade; lake discharge

2002 Scientific community questions technical feasibility of lake restoration plan

CSOs

CombinedSewer Overflow

CSOs have discharged to Onondaga Lake via Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ley Creek. A plan is in place to reduce discharges by 56% at a cost of $65-80 million. The plan incorporates limited sewer separation (7%), activation of a dormant in-line storage system (43%) and construction of ‘regional treatment facilties’ or RTFs (50%). The RTFs include a wet well, swirl concentrator (~0.5 MG) and disinfection tank. Combined wastewater captured through in-line storage and solids captured in swirl concentrators are routed to the treatment plant as storm flows abate. The Partnership for Onondaga Creek is contesting the County plan as an incomplete and insufficient approach which violates the principles of environmental justice.

Water Quality Issues

Fecal bacteriaSanitary detritus

Aesthetics

CSOs

Mud boilsWaste beds

ChlorideAmmoniaMercuryToxics

Industry METRO

Phosphorus and AmmoniaAlgae and Transparency

Oxygen and Redox

The ‘mistake by the lake’

Image source: www.onlakepartners.org/index.cfm

A Mall ?

Parallel World Edition

http://www.liverpool.k12.ny.us/LCSD/SecSocStudies/MyCommunity/carousel.html

“Submitted for your approval …”

http://www.hollywoodlegends.com/rod-serling.html

Rod Serlingb. 1924, Syracuse, NYTwilight Zone

What’s a mall like youdoin’ in a place like this”

with apologies to Bob Dylan

Revised Parallel World Edition

Image source:The Post-Standard

But first we’ve got to get the condoms off of the railing!

$400 Million

0

10

20

30

40METRO Contribution to Lake Inflow

ME

TR

O (

%)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

http://www.lake.onondaga.ny.us/ol41206.htm#ol50

$400 Million

Onondaga Lake

Seneca River

METRO

The Diversion Plan

^

clearer

METRO Construction (ca. 1960)

According to the original plans for the facility, the METRO effluent was to be pumped around the lake, combined with the Ley Creek plant effluent, and discharged to the Seneca River (Effler 1996). Needed for dilution.

METRO Upgrades (ca. 1970s)

Discharge of the effluent to the Seneca River was dismissed because the river’s assimilative capacity was judged to be inadequate (USEPA 1974, as cited in Effler 1996). Never quantified.

Rehabilitation Program (ca. 2003)

Diversion remains on the table as an alternative if initial efforts do not achieve water quality standards (Effler et al. 2002). Zebra mussels. Never quantified.

Prior consideration of the diversion plan

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25

Sen

eca

Riv

er D

O (

mg/

L)

Distance Downstream of Baldwinsville (km)

Effects of ionic pollution on river resources

Image source: UFI

saturation

DO standarddaily average

Tonight … on City Confidential

“Whatever Happened to the Diversion Plan?”

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/watergate/

Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge

1. In-lake discharge is consistent with the fundamental principles of lake and river management.

The pollutants which most adversely impact lakes (e.g. phosphorus) are those which are most difficult and expensive to treat to required levels.

Cost-effective treatment technologies have long been available to remove those pollutants (e.g. oxygen-demanding substances) which most adversely impact rivers.


2. Everybody else is doing it.

607 municipal NPDES Permits in NYS

~10 discharges

Image source: UFI



42 discharge to lakes

~10 discharges

Image source: UFI



25 discharge to inland lakes

~10 discharges

Image source: UFI



only 1 accounts for >4% of lake inflow

~10 discharges

Image source: UFI

22%


3. One in three sounds good to me.

Image source: UFI


4. Zebramusselphobia.

Image source: Jeffrey L. Ram

…eeeeeeek!

Lake Restoration - Water Quality Objectives

Lake: maintain phosphorus levels at 20 µgP/L to reduce levels of algae, improve transparency and eliminate oxygen depletion.

River: maintain oxygen levels at 5 mg/L to protect aquatic life.

Review of Restoration Strategies

In-lake Discharge

• METRO TP at 120 µgP∙L-1 by 2006• METRO TP at 20 µgP∙L-1 by 2012• No action on river

Diversion

• Destratify river

• Route METRO to river

Other Actions/Considerations

• Sediment response

• Nonpoint P management

Integrated modeling approach

Onondaga LakeTotal Phosphorus

Model

Doerr et al. 1996

Seneca RiverDissolved Oxygen

Model

Canale et al. 1995

RiverMaster Software Module

Feasibility Study of METRO Discharge Alternatives

Model Simulation of a Dual Discharge Approach

Lake model: Doerr et al. 1996

River model: Canale et al. 1995

RiverMaster Module: Rucinski et al. 2003

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J S O N D

Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(

gP

/L)

Average Summer Epilimnion TP Concentration = 39.17 g/L

Display Hypolimnion

Display Epilimnion

Display w/o Rivermaster

Clear

Run

Program Options

Wet Year

0 kmSelect METRO Discharge Site Downstream of Onondaga Lake

Select Tributary Flow Regime

Zebra Mussels

Hypolimnetic Discharge

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

May June July Aug Sept Oct

Month

Cri

tica

l D

O i

n S

en

eca

Riv

er

(mg

/L)

Critical DO Location Dow nstream of B'VilleClick Month to View DO Sag Curve

km8.9 km22.3 km22.3 km18.7 km18.7 km22.3

Destratify Seneca River

CBOD (mg/L) 21.3NH3 (mg/L) 1.0

DO (mg/L) 8.0

TP (mg/L) 0.55

Enter Sediment P

Release Rate (mg/m2/d)3.00

Non-Point TP Reduction 0%

Specify METRO Effluent Conditions

RiverMaster Module

Analysis of discharge strategiesAnalysis of discharge strategies

0

20

40

60

80

Su

mm

er

Avg

. Epi

limne

tic T

P (g

∙L-1)

Management Goal (TPavg)

1997

Prevailing In-Lake

Discharge

Effluent TP = 120 g∙L-1

Effluent TP = 20 g∙L-1

Diverted Discharge

Analysis of companion lake management optionsAnalysis of companion lake management options

0

10

20

30

40

1997

Su

mm

er

Avg

. Epi

limne

tic T

P (g

∙L-1)

Management Goal (TPavg)

Diverted Discharge

Diverted, 20% nonpoint

reduction

Diverted, SS sediment

release

Diverted, 20% nonpoint reduction, SS sediment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000


Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(

gP

/L)


Display Hypolimnion

Display Epilimnion


Clear

Run

Program Options

Wet Year



Zebra Mussels


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Month

Cri

tica

l D

O i

n S

en

eca

Riv

er

(mg

/L)


km8.9 km22.3 km22.3 km18.7 km18.7 km22.3



DO (mg/L) 8.0

TP (mg/L) 0.55

Enter Sediment P




RiverMaster Module

Diversion with Fixed Discharge

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25

Feasibility of a river discharge … average conditions

average flow


Sen

eca

Riv

er D

O (

mg/

L)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25

Sen

eca

Riv

er D

O (

mg/

L)


average flow

critical flow (7Q10)

Feasibility of a river discharge … critical conditions

• a comprehensive lake management plan, incorporating the diversion strategy, can achieve the phosphorus management goal;

• implementation of a diversion strategy would eliminate the cost and uncertainty of seeking heroic levels of phosphorus removal at METRO;

• the river possesses, under average flow conditions, the assimilative capacity to handle the METRO effluent without violation of oxygen standards;

• there exist certain critical conditions under which the river cannot assimilate the METRO effluent and for which return to the lake would be necessary.

Conclusions of initial analysis














• there exist certain critical conditions under which the river cannot assimilate the METRO effluent.


Diversion with Dual Discharge

Guiding questions

What would be the frequency and magnitude of:

Return flows?

Associated non-attainment of lake TP?

Image source: UFI

Simulation

• mid-May to mid-October of 1973-2002

• steady-state river DO model, computes minimum DO

• time-variable lake TP model, computes summer average TP

Lake

• compares dual diversion and in-lake discharge (2012 METRO effluent TP)

• Monte Carlo simulation of tributary loads

River

• de-stratified

• 30 years of USGS flows and NOAA, NCDC air temperatures

• DO boundary conditions based on post zebra mussel (1994-2002) data base

30-year probabilistic simulation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000


Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(

gP

/L)


Display Hypolimnion

Display Epilimnion


Clear

Run

Program Options

Wet Year



Zebra Mussels


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Month

Cri

tica

l D

O i

n S

en

eca

Riv

er

(mg

/L)


km8.9 km22.3 km22.3 km18.7 km18.7 km22.3



DO (mg/L) 8.0

TP (mg/L) 0.55

Enter Sediment P




RiverMaster Module

Seneca River

Onondaga LakeCross Lake

Zebra Mussels and DO Boundary Conditions

Algorithm generated with multivariate data mining software (MARS™) applied to data from 1994 - 2002.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Dis

solv

ed O

xyg

en (

mg

∙L-1

)

NSAF M A M JJ DOJ

DO = 2.657 + 0.1 ∙ F1 + 0.006 ∙ F2 + 0.007 ∙ F3 + 0.003 ∙ F4 + 0.051 ∙ F5

where F values are functions of date, flow and air temperature

Dissolved oxygen boundary conditions

Observed DO (mg L· -1)

Pre

dic

ted

DO

(m

g L

·

-1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

y = 0.99 • x

r2 = 0.80

Cross validation of DO boundary conditions

Applied to data 15% of data base not used in algorithm development.

Modeling approach - river

DateFlowAir Temp

DO BoundaryCondition

RiverDO Model

METROEffluent

meetsstandard

violatesstandard

Return Flow

0 - 10 21 - 30 31 – 40 41 - 5011 - 20

In-Lake Discharge (days∙yr-1)

51– 60 61 - 70

0.4

0.6

1.0

0

0.2

Exp

ecte

d P

rob

abil

ity

0.8

Required frequency of in-lake discharge

Average of 46 days per year

Of these, 27 or 58% are associated with boundary condition violations

METRO accounts for 4% of annual lake inflow and 3% of annual river flow

Modeling approach - lake

ReturnFlowLoadingFile

LakeTP Model

SummerAverage

TP

distribution oftributary TP

concentrations

actualtributary

flow

Tributary Loads

Monte Carlo simulation

0

5

10

15

20

25

1973 1983 1988 1993 19981978

Su

mm

er A

vg E

pil

imn

etic

TP

(g

∙L-1)

Management goal (20 g∙L-1)

Attainment of the TP management goal

TP averages 16.1 TP averages 16.1 3.3 3.3 g∙L-1 Range 10.4 – 22.4 g∙L-1

0 - 8 12 - 14 18 – 20 22 - 248 - 10

Summer Average Epilimnetic TP (g∙L-1)

0.4

0.6

1.0

0

0.2Exp

ecte

d P

rob

abil

ity

0.8

10 - 12 20 – 2214 - 16 16 - 18

Management goal (20 g∙L-1)

Management goal20 µgP•L-1

Exceeds management guidelines by <4 g∙L-1 for 1 in 10 years

Attainment of the TP management goal

Comparison to full time in-lake discharge

Diversion In-lake Discharge

2012 Effluent

Mean Lake

TP (µg∙L-1)

16.1±3.3 14.3 ±3.3

Range in

TP (µg∙L-1)

10.4 – 22.4 8.6 – 21.1

Non

attainment

4 µg∙L-1

10% of time

2 µg∙L-1

7% of time

METRO

Tributaries

Return Flow with Hypolimnetic Discharge

after Doerr et al. 1996

Conclusion

The Dual Discharge strategy represents a feasible approach for managing the METRO discharge. One which:

• meets river DO standards;

• meets lake TP guidelines;

• balances effluent flow contributions;

• and offers opportunities for economic benefit.

Diversion with Dual Discharge

Onondaga Lake Seneca River Robotic

Network

Robotic Monitoring Buoy

Communication Hub

“An Integrated Near-Real-Time Monitoring and Modeling System”

S.W. Effler, S.M. Doerr O’Donnell, R.K. Gelda, and D.M. O’Donnell

Upstate Freshwater Institute, Syracuse, New York

Documents

Cleaning Onondaga: