Date post: | 14-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | preston-coffer |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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.
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
2. Everybody else is doing it.
607 municipal NPDES Permits in NYS
~10 discharges
Image source: UFI
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
2. Everybody else is doing it.
42 discharge to lakes
~10 discharges
Image source: UFI
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
2. Everybody else is doing it.
25 discharge to inland lakes
~10 discharges
Image source: UFI
Compelling reasons for in-lake discharge
2. Everybody else is doing it.
only 1 accounts for >4% of lake inflow
~10 discharges
Image source: UFI
22%
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.
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
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
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
Distance Downstream of Baldwinsville (km)
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)
Distance Downstream of Baldwinsville (km)
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
• 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.
Conclusions of initial analysis
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
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
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