Dr. Marty Auer
Professor
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Michigan Tech University
Onondaga
Lake/
Syracuse…..
Seneca River
Lake
Ontario
New York
State
Oswego
River
Seneca River
Cross
Lake
Onondaga
Lake
Syracuse
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.
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
http://www.history.rochester.edu/canal/
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
Solvay Process  Allied Chemical  Allied Signal  Honeywell
1884
soda ash production begins on west shore using locally
produced 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
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:
CaCO3  2NaCl  Na2CO3  CaCl2
Ernest Solvay
1943: wastebeds collapse flooding
region with soda ash waste
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/tcaw/11/i02/html/02chemchron.html
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.
2NaCl(aq)  2H2O(l )  2NaOH( aq)  Cl2( g )  H2( g )
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.
The Mud Boils
Distribution of terrigenous
sediment solids
Onondaga Creek,
flowing from Tully
Valley, enters here
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
Combined
Sewer 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
Industry
Mud boils
Waste beds
Chloride
Ammonia
Mercury
Toxics
METRO
Phosphorus and Ammonia
Algae and Transparency
Oxygen and Redox
CSOs
Fecal bacteria
Sanitary detritus
Aesthetics
The ‘mistake by the lake’
Image source: www.onlakepartners.org/index.cfm
A Mall ?
Parallel World Edition
“Submitted for your approval …”
Rod Serling
b. 1924, Syracuse, NY
Twilight Zone
http://www.hollywoodlegends.com/rod-serling.html
http://www.liverpool.k12.ny.us/LCSD/SecSocStudies/MyCommunity/carousel.html
What’s a mall like you
doin’ in a place like this”
Revised Parallel World Edition
with apologies to
Bob Dylan
Image source:The Post-Standard
But first we’ve got to get the condoms off of the railing!
METRO Contribution to Lake Inflow
40
METRO (%)
30
20
10
0
J
F M
A
M J
J A
S
O N D
$400 Million
http://www.lake.onondaga.ny.us/ol41206.htm#ol50
$400
Million
clearer
^
The Diversion Plan
Seneca River
Onondaga Lake
METRO
Prior consideration of the diversion plan
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.
Effects of ionic pollution on river resources
12
Seneca River DO (mg/L)
10
saturation
8
6
DO standard
daily average
4
2
0
0
5
10
15
20
Distance Downstream of Baldwinsville (km)
Image source: UFI
25
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. oxygendemanding substances) which
most adversely impact rivers.
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
2. Everybody else is doing it.
~10 discharges
607 municipal
NPDES Permits in NYS
Image source: UFI
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
2. Everybody else is doing it.
~10 discharges
42 discharge to lakes
Image source: UFI
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
2. Everybody else is doing it.
~10 discharges
25 discharge to inland lakes
Image source: UFI
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
2. Everybody else is doing it.
~10 discharges
22%
only 1 accounts for >4% of lake inflow
Image source: UFI
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
3. One in three sounds good to me.
Image source: UFI
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
4. Zebramusselphobia.
…eeeeeeek!
Image source: Jeffrey L. Ram
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 Lake
Total Phosphorus
Model
Seneca River
Dissolved Oxygen
Model
Doerr et al. 1996
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
RiverMaster Module
Specify METRO Effluent
Conditions
CBOD (mg/L)
21.3
NH3 (mg/L)
1.0
DO (mg/L)
TP (mg/L)
8.0
0.55
Enter Sediment P
Release Rate (mg/m 2/d)
3.00
Non-Point TP Reduction
0%
Analysis of discharge strategies
Summer Avg. Epilimnetic TP (mg∙L-1)
80
60
1997
40
20
0
Management Goal (TPavg)
Prevailing
In-Lake
Discharge
Effluent TP =
120 mg∙L-1
Effluent TP =
20 mg∙L-1
Diverted
Discharge
Analysis of companion lake management options
Summer Avg. Epilimnetic TP (mg∙L-1)
40
30
20
Management Goal (TPavg)
1997
10
0
Diverted
Discharge
Diverted,
20% nonpoint
reduction
Diverted,
SS sediment
release
Diverted,
20% nonpoint
reduction,
SS sediment
RiverMaster Module
Specify METRO Effluent
Conditions
CBOD (mg/L)
21.3
NH3 (mg/L)
1.0
DO (mg/L)
TP (mg/L)
8.0
0.55
Enter Sediment P
Release Rate (mg/m 2/d)
3.00
Non-Point TP Reduction
0%
Diversion with Fixed Discharge
Feasibility of a river discharge … average conditions
Seneca River DO (mg/L)
12
10
8
average flow
6
4
2
0
0
5
10
15
20
Distance Downstream of Baldwinsville (km)
25
Feasibility of a river discharge … critical conditions
Seneca River DO (mg/L)
12
10
8
average flow
6
4
2
critical flow (7Q10)
0
0
5
10
15
20
Distance Downstream of Baldwinsville (km)
25
Conclusions of initial analysis
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
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
30-year probabilistic simulation
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
RiverMaster Module
Specify METRO Effluent
Conditions
CBOD (mg/L)
21.3
NH3 (mg/L)
1.0
DO (mg/L)
TP (mg/L)
8.0
0.55
Enter Sediment P
Release Rate (mg/m 2/d)
3.00
Non-Point TP Reduction
0%
Zebra Mussels and DO Boundary Conditions
Seneca River
Cross Lake
Onondaga Lake
Dissolved oxygen boundary conditions
Dissolved Oxygen (mg∙L-1)
Algorithm generated with multivariate data mining software (MARS™)
applied to data from 1994 - 2002.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
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
Cross validation of DO boundary conditions
·Predicted DO (mg L-1)
Applied to data 15% of data base not used in algorithm development.
12
10
8
6
4
y = 0.99 • x
2
r 2 = 0.80
0
0
2
4
6
8
·Observed DO (mg L -1)
10
12
Modeling approach - river
Return Flow
METRO
Effluent
DO Boundary
Condition
River
DO Model
Date
Flow
Air Temp
meets
standard
violates
standard
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
Expected Probability
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 – 40 41 - 50
51– 60
In-Lake Discharge (days∙yr-1)
61 - 70
Modeling approach - lake
Return
Flow
Loading
File
Lake
TP Model
Monte Carlo
actual
tributary
flow
simulation
distribution of
tributary TP
concentrations
Tributary Loads
Summer
Average
TP
Attainment of the TP management goal
Summer Avg Epilimnetic TP (mg∙L-1)
TP averages 16.1  3.3 mg∙L-1
Range 10.4 – 22.4 mg∙L-1
25
Management goal (20 mg∙L-1)
20
15
10
5
0
1973
1978
1983
1988
1993
1998
Attainment of the TP management goal
Exceeds management guidelines by <4 mg∙L-1 for 1 in 10 years
Expected Probability
1.0
0.8
Management
Management
goal goal
(20 mg∙L
20-1)µgP•L-1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0-8
8 - 10
10 - 12 12 - 14 14 - 16
16 - 18 18 – 20 20 – 22 22 - 24
Summer Average Epilimnetic TP (mg∙L-1)
Comparison to full time in-lake discharge
Mean Lake
TP (µg∙L-1)
Range in
TP (µg∙L-1)
Non
attainment
Diversion
In-lake Discharge
2012 Effluent
16.1±3.3
14.3 ±3.3
10.4 – 22.4
8.6 – 21.1
4 µg∙L-1
10% of time
2 µg∙L-1
7% of time
Return Flow with Hypolimnetic Discharge
Tributaries
METRO
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