SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
LAKE BOTTOM SUBSITE OF THE ONONDAGA LAKE SUPERFUND SITE
ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK
£
<
3D
o
V
ro
z
^ PRO*^°
CD
T
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
New York , New York
Digitally signed by Evangelista,
Evangelista, Pat Date: 2020.09.3019:01:03
:04 00' See Signature Block
Pat Evangelista, Director Date
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
-------
Table of Contents
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 4
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 4
Basis for Taking Action 4
Response Actions 6
Status of Implementation 11
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance 19
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW 28
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 29
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews 29
Data Review 30
Site Inspection 51
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 51
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 51
QUESTIONB: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? 55
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? 56
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 57
OTHER FINDINGS 58
\ II. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 58
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 58
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
APPENDIX B - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY, AND
LAND USE
Attachment 1: Figures and Tables
Attachment 2: Status Update of Onondaga Lake Upland Operable Units/Sub sites
Attachment 3: Fish Tissue Data Tables and Figures
Attachment 4: Site Photographs
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AMP
Ambient Monitoring Program
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
AWQS
Ambient Water Quality Standards
BERA
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
BAP
Biological Assessment Profile
BSQV
bioaccumulation-based sediment quality value
BTEX
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cm
centimeter
coc
chemical of concern
CPOIs
chemical parameters of interest
CQA
construction quality assurance
CQAP
construction quality assurance plan
CQC
construction quality control
CY
cubic yard
DDT
Di chl orodipheny ltri chl oroethane
DMU
Dredge Management Unit
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD
Explanation of Significant Difference
ft.
feet
FS
Feasibility study
FYR
Five-Year Review
GAC
granular activated carbon
g/cm2/yr
grams per square centimeter per year
GWTP
Groundwater Treatment Plant
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
ICs
Institutional Controls
ILWD
in-lake waste deposit
LMS
liquid management system
LOAELs
Lowest-Ob served-Adverse-Effect Level s
MeHg
methylmercury
MERC
modified erosion-resistant cap
METRO
Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant
Hg/L
micrograms per liter
mg/m2/day
mg per square meter per day
mg/L
milligrams per liter
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
mm
millimeter
MNR
monitored natural recovery
MPC
modified protective cap
NAPL
non-aqueous-phase liquid
NAVD88
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
ng/L
nanograms per liter
11
-------
NO A A
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAELs
no-observed-adverse-effect levels
NPL
National Priorities List
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH
New York State Department of Health
NYSOPRHP
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
OLMMP
Onondaga Lake Monitoring and Maintenance Plan
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OU
Operable Unit
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCDD/PCDF
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/polychlorinated dibenzofuran
PDI
pre-design investigation
PEC
probable effect concentration
PECQ
probable effect concentration quotient
PRG
Preliminary Remediation Goal
RA
Remedial Area
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RI
Remedial Investigation
RfD
reference dose
RG
Remedial Goal
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
SCA
Sediment Consolidation Area
SEC
sediment effect concentration
SMS
Sediment Management System
SMU
Sediment Management Unit
SPA
Sediment Processing Area
SVOC
semivolatile organic compound
SWQS
surface water quality standard
TBC
To-be-considereds
TDS
total dissolved solids
TEQs
Toxic Equivalents
TLC
thin-layer cap
UCL
upper confidence limit
UFI
Upstate Freshwater Institute
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
UU/UE
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
VOC
volatile organic compound
WBB/HB
Wastebed B/Harbor Brook
WTP
Water Treatment Plant
WW
wet weight
Ill
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health
and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR
reports, such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any,
and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared this FYR review pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section
121, consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40
CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy.
The Onondaga Lake Superfund site currently includes eleven subsites (subsites are defined as any
site that is situated on Onondaga Lake's shores or tributaries that has contributed contamination to
or threatens to contribute contamination to Onondaga Lake) as shown in Figure 1 (see Attachment
1 for figures). Each subsite consists of one or more operable units (OUs). This FYR report
evaluates the Lake Bottom subsite (Subsite).1 A status update of the other subsites is provided in
Attachment 2.
This is the second FYR for the Subsite. The triggering action for this statutory review is the
completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Subsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).
The FYR was led by Robert Nunes, the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Lake
Bottom Subsite. Participants included Nicholas Mazziotta (EPA-Ecological Risk Assessor),
Michael Sivak (EPA-Human Health Risk Assessor), Kathryn Flynn (EPA-Hydrogeologist), Larisa
Romanowski (EPA-Community Involvement Coordinator [CIC]), Joel Singerman (EPA-Section
Chief), Timothy Larson, Tracy Smith (NYSDEC-Project Managers), and Donald Hesler
(NYSDEC-Section Chief). Honeywell, a potentially responsible party for the Subsite, was notified
of the initiation of the FYR. The review began on November 1, 2019.
1 Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek subsite (OU 20) is considered by NYSDEC to be an OU of the Subsite.
The first FYR for the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek subsite was completed in 2017.
-------
Site Background
Site Setting
Onondaga Lake is a 4.6-square-mile, 3,000-acre lake, approximately 4.5 miles long and 1 mile
wide, with an average water depth of 36 feet, with two (northern and southern) deep basins. The
city of Syracuse is located at the southern end of Onondaga Lake, and numerous towns, villages,
and major roadways surround the lake (see Figure 2). The lake has three main tributaries—Ninemile
Creek to the west; Onondaga Creek to the south; and Ley Creek to the southeast. In addition,
several small tributaries flow into the lake, including Bloody Brook, Sawmill Creek, Tributary 5 A,
the East Flume, and Harbor Brook. While Ninemile Creek and Onondaga Creek supply the vast
majority of surface water to the lake, approximately 20 percent of the inflow comes from the
Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (METRO). The lake drains into the Seneca
River through a single outlet located at the northern tip of the lake.
The area around Onondaga Lake is the most urban in central New York State. The region
experienced significant growth in the twentieth century, and in 2000, Onondaga County was the
tenth most populous county in the State. There are approximately 320 acres of state-regulated
wetlands and numerous smaller wetlands directly connected to Onondaga Lake or within its
floodplains.
History of Contamination
Onondaga Lake has been the recipient of industrial and municipal sewage discharges for more
than 100 years. Honeywell International, Inc.'s (Honeywell's) predecessor companies (e.g.,
Solvay Process Company, Allied Chemical Corp. and AlliedSignal, Inc.) have been major
industrial waste contributors; however, other industries in the area have contributed contamination
as well. Other contaminant sources to the lake include the METRO facility, industrial facilities
and landfills along Ley Creek, the Crucible Materials Corporation (via Tributary 5A), and the
former giant bulk petroleum-products storage and transfer facility located north of the Barge Canal
known as "Oil City."
Honeywell's predecessor companies operated three manufacturing facilities in Solvay, New York
from 1881 until 1986. The product lines were collectively known as the "Syracuse Works." The
major products manufactured during this period included soda ash (sodium carbonate) and related
products; benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene at the Syracuse Works' Main Plant; chlorinated
benzenes, chlor-alkali products, and hydrochloric acid at the Willis Avenue Plant, and chlor-alkali
products and hydrogen peroxide at the Bridge Street Plant.2 The manufacturing processes resulted
in releases of primarily mercury, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, chlorinated benzenes,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (especially naphthalene), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDFs), and
calcite-related compounds.
2 The Bridge Street Facility was sold to Linden Chemicals and Plastics (LCP) in 1979. LCP operated the
facility until it closed in 1988.
2
-------
Waste streams were discharged from the three facilities to at least four destinations—the Semet
Residue Ponds (coke byproduct recovery only); Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek (via the West
Flume); the Solvay wastebeds, and directly to the lake (via the East Flume). The Solvay wastebeds
are located in the towns of Camillus and Geddes, and in the city of Syracuse (see Figure 3). From
approximately 1881 to 1986, the wastebeds were the primary means of disposal for the wastes
produced by the Solvay operations. The wastebeds consist primarily of inorganic waste materials
(Solvay waste) from the production of soda ash using the Solvay process. Initial Solvay waste
disposal practices consisted of filling low-lying land adjacent to Onondaga Lake. Later, unlined
wastebeds designed specifically for Solvay waste disposal were built using containment dikes
constructed with native soils, Solvay waste, and cinders, or by using bulkheads made with timber
along the lakeshore. The Solvay wastebeds and/or the East Flume also reportedly received
chlorinated benzene still bottoms and portions of waste streams from the Willis Avenue and/or
Bridge Street chlor-alkali plants.
The discharge of waste through the East Flume caused the formation of a large in-lake waste
deposit (ILWD). The ILWD extends approximately 2,000 feet into the lake, approximately 4,000
feet along the lakeshore, and contains waste up to 45 feet thick. The majority of the ILWD is within
the boundaries of Sediment Management Unit (SMU) 1 (see Figures 4 and 5), although some of
the ILWD extends into the adjoining SMUs 2 and 7.3 The ILWD contains waste from all of
Honeywell's product lines. The discharges of waste to Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek through
the West Flume, as well as the overflow from Solvay Wastebeds 9 to 15, also caused the formation
of deposits of Honeywell wastes and resulted in the development of the deposits in the Ninemile
Creek delta in the lake in SMU 4. The seeps overflow from Solvay Wastebeds 1 to 8 contributed
to the formation of Honeywell wastes in the lake itself.
Appendix A, attached, provides a list of the documents utilized to prepare this FYR.
Appendix B, attached, summarizes the site's physical characteristics, geology/hydrogeology and
land use. For more details related to background, physical characteristics, geology/hydrogeology,
land/resource use, and history related to the site, please refer to
www.epa.gov/superfurid/onondaga4ake.
3 Onondaga Lake was divided into eight SMUs during the feasibility study (FS) based on water depth,
sources of water entering the Lake, physical and ecological characteristics, and chemical risk drivers.
During the remedial design, the littoral areas were redefined into Remediation Areas (RAs) A through F so
as to more accurately reflect the current understanding of in-Lake conditions. The SMU boundaries and
RAs, as well as the extent of the ILWD based on additional data collected during design, are shown on
Figure 5.
3
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name:
Onondaga Lake Site (Lake Bottom Subsite) |
EPA ID:
NYD986913580
| Region: 2
State: NY
City/County: Syracuse/Onondaga County
SITE STATUS
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the site achieved construction completion?
No
Lead agency: State
[If "Other Federal Agency", enter Agency name]'.
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Robert Nunes
Author affiliation: EPA
Review period: 11/1/2019 - 9/25/2020
Date of site inspection: N/A
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 2
Triggering action date: 9/25/2015
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 9/25/2020
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
The Subsite includes the contaminated surface water and sediments in the 4.5-square mile lake.
Mercury contamination is found throughout the lake, with the most elevated concentrations
detected in the Ninemile Creek delta and in the sediments/wastes present in the southwestern
portion of the lake. Mercury contamination was widespread in the upper 6.5 feet of the sediments
in the lake, and it is even deeper in sediment in the Ninemile Creek delta and the ILWD. Other
contaminants present with lake sediments include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes
(BTEX), chlorinated benzenes, PAHs, PCBs, and PCDD/PCDFs. Much of the contamination
present in the southwestern portion of the lake is present in the ILWD, which comprises an area
of approximately 100 acres. Elevated concentrations of some contaminants in certain locations of
4
-------
the ILWD extended to a depth of 25 feet or more in lake sediments. Elevated contaminant
concentrations and visual evidence (e.g., liquids, droplets, and sheens) indicated that chlorinated
benzenes that were manufactured and released as a waste by Honeywell predecessor companies
exist as nonaqueous-phase liquids (NAPLs) throughout the ILWD and in an area off the former
Honeywell causeway. Based on data collected during the Subsite's remedial investigation (RI), it
was determined that the NAPLs and highly contaminated waste materials in these areas of the lake
were highly mobile, at least when disturbed, have high concentrations of toxic compounds, and
presented a significant risk to human health and the environment should exposure occur; therefore,
they were characterized as principal threat wastes.
Concentrations of total mercury in the lake water were highest in the nearshore areas around both
Ninemile Creek and the ILWD. In the deep basins, water column total mercury concentrations
increased significantly in the hypolimnion during summer stratification, with a high fraction of
this hypolimnetic total mercury occurring in the dissolved phase. Concentrations of chlorobenzene
and dichlorobenzenes in lake water were highest near the Honeywell source areas in the vicinity
of the East Flume and Harbor Brook and exceeded surface water quality standards.
Mercury, PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, and PCDD/PCDFs have bioaccumulated in Onondaga Lake
fish and mercury has been found at elevated levels in benthic macroinvertebrates. It is likely that
these contaminants have bioaccumulated in other biota (e.g., birds, mammals), as well. Fish tissue
concentrations of mercury and PCBs in excess of diet-based toxicity reference values suggest
injury to piscivorous birds and mammals that consume fish from the lake. Chemicals of concern
(COCs) in sediment shown to exhibit acute toxicity on a lake-wide basis include mercury,
ethylbenzene, xylenes, certain chlorinated benzenes, PAHs and PCBs. COCs in surface water
include mercury, chlorobenzene, and dichlorobenzenes.
The baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA) showed that cancer risks and noncancer health
hazards associated with ingestion of chemicals in sport fish (e.g., Largemouth Bass [Micropterus
salmoides]) from Onondaga Lake were above levels of concern. Fish ingestion is the primary
pathway for exposure to COCs and for potential adverse health effects. The HHRA also evaluated
risks associated with direct contact with contaminated sediments (inadvertently ingesting small
amounts of sediment or having sediment contact the skin); this did not result in unacceptable risks.
Key results of the baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) indicated that comparisons of
measured tissue concentrations and modeled doses of chemicals to toxicity reference values
showed exceedances of hazard quotients for site-related chemicals throughout the range of the
point estimates of risk. Subsite-specific sediment toxicity data indicated that sediments are toxic
to benthic macroinvertebrates on both an acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) basis. Many
of the contaminants in the lake were persistent and, therefore, the risks associated with these
contaminants were unlikely to decrease significantly in the absence of remediation. On the basis
of these comparisons, it was determined through the BERA that all ecological receptors of concern
were at risk. Contaminants and stressors in the lake have either impacted or potentially impacted
every trophic level examined in the BERA.
5
-------
Response Actions
Site-specific sediment effect concentrations (SECs) and consensus-based probable effect
concentrations (PECs) for COCs evaluated in the RI and the BERA were calculated using data
from acute sediment toxicity testing using benthic macroinvertebrates. Benthic macroinvertebrates
live in and around the sediments for most of their lives, and therefore experience the highest direct
exposure to contamination in the lake. Because of the large number of COCs and the differences
in sources, transport, and fate, a further refinement of the SEC/PEC approach was used to develop
a single number, the mean PEC quotient (PECQ), which takes into account the presence and the
concentrations of multiple chemicals in the sediments. The mean PECQ approach provides a
consistent method of comparing the overall acute toxicity risk from the mixture of contaminants
at various locations of the lake and to select a level of remediation that would address the risk of
direct acute toxicity to the benthic macroinvertebrate community from the contamination in the
lake sediments. The mean PECQ was used as a basis for delineating areas of the lake to be
remediated. The areas of the lake in which COC concentrations in the littoral sediment exceed a
mean PECQ of 1 generally coincide well with those areas where acute toxicity to benthic
macroinvertebrates was observed in the sediment toxicity tests. Therefore, the mean PECQ of 1
was determined to be protective and was selected as a remediation goal to address direct acute
toxicity to benthic invertebrates. Because mercury in the lake is a primary concern and elimination
or reduction of mercury is part of all five Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) discussed below,
the mercury PEC of 2.2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) was also selected as a remediation goal.
The selected remedy, which is presented in the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by NYSDEC
and the EPA in July 2005, addressed surface sediments exceeding a mean PECQ of 1 or a mercury
PEC of 2.2 mg/kg. The selected remedy would also attain a 0.8 mg/kg bioaccumulation-based
sediment quality value (BSQV) for mercury on an area-wide basis for the lake and five subareas
of the lake as determined during the remedial design. Another goal of the remedy was to achieve
lake-wide fish tissue mercury concentrations ranging from 0.14 mg/kg for protection of ecological
receptors to 0.3 mg/kg, which is based on the EPA's Methylmercury (MeHg) National
Recommended Water Quality criterion for the protection of human health for the consumption of
organisms. This range encompasses the goal for protection of human health based on the
reasonable maximum exposure scenario of 0.2 mg/kg of mercury in fish tissue (fillets).
To accomplish the noted objectives, the major components of the selected remedy, as outlined in
the ROD, include:
• Dredging up to an estimated 2,653,000 cubic yards (CY) of contaminated sediment from
the littoral zone (the portion of the lake in which water depths range below 30 feet) in
SMUs 1 through 7 to a depth that will prevent the loss of lake surface area, ensure cap
effectiveness, remove NAPLs, reduce contaminant mass, allow for erosion protection, and
reestablish the littoral zone habitat. Most of the dredging will be performed in the ILWD
(which largely exists in SMU1) and in SMU 2.
• Dredging, as needed, in the ILWD to remove materials within hot spots and to ensure
stability of the cap.
• Placement of an isolation cap over an estimated 425 acres within SMUs 1 through 7.
6
-------
• Construction/operation of a hydraulic control system along the SMU 7 shoreline to
maintain cap effectiveness. In addition, the remedy for SMUs 1 and 2 will rely upon the
proper operation of the hydraulic control system, which is being designed to control the
migration of contamination to the lake via groundwater from the adjacent upland areas.
• Placement of a thin-layer cap over an estimated 154 acres of the profundal zone (the portion
of the lake in which water depths exceed 30 feet) within SMU 8.
• Treatment and/or off-site disposal of the most highly contaminated materials (e.g., pure
phase chemicals segregated during the dredging/handling process). The balance of the
dredged sediment will be placed in a Sediment Consolidation Area (SCA), which will be
constructed on one or more of Honeywell's Solvay wastebeds that historically received
process wastes from Honeywell's former operations. The containment area will include, at
a minimum, the installation of a liner, a cap, and a leachate collection and treatment system.
• Treatment of water generated by the dredging and sediment handling processes to meet
NYSDEC discharge limits.
• Completion of a comprehensive lake-wide habitat restoration plan.
• Habitat reestablishment will be performed consistent with the lake-wide habitat restoration
plan in areas of dredging/capping.
• Performance of an oxygenation pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of oxygenation at
reducing the formation of MeHg in the water column, fish tissue MeHg concentrations,
and methane gas ebullition as well as to understand any other impacts. The pilot study
would be followed by full-scale implementation (if supported by the pilot study) in SMU
8.
• Monitored natural recovery (MNR) in SMU 8.
• Implementation of institutional controls (ICs) including the notification of appropriate
government agencies with authority for permitting potential future activities which could
impact the implementation and effectiveness of the remedy.
• Implementation of a long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring (O&M) program
to monitor and maintain the effectiveness of the remedy (e.g., cap repair).
The selected remedy also includes habitat enhancement, which is an improvement of habitat
conditions in areas where CERCLA contaminants do not occur at levels that warrant active
remediation, but where habitat impairment due to stressors has been identified as a concern. The
ROD indicated that habitat enhancement would be performed along an estimated 1.5 miles of
shoreline (SMU 3) and over approximately 23 acres (SMU 5) to stabilize calcite deposits and
oncolites,4 and promote submerged aquatic plant growth.
Remedial Action Objectives/Remediation Goals
The RAOs for Onondaga Lake were based on site-specific information, including the nature and
extent of chemical parameters of interest (CPOIs),5 the transport and fate of mercury and other
4 Oncolites are a form of calcite in littoral sediments of Onondaga Lake and are closely associated with
discharges of calcium-laden wastes to the Lake by Honeywell.
5 The CPOIs are those elements or compounds that were identified as contaminants of potential concern,
chemicals of concern, or stressors of concern for the Onondaga Lake RI/FS. The major classes of CPOIs
include mercury and other metals, BTEX, chlorinated benzenes, PAHs, PCBs, PCDD/PCDFs, and calcite.
7
-------
CPOIs, and the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments. The RAOs were developed
during the RI as goals for controlling CPOIs within the lake and protecting human health and the
environment. The RAOs for Onondaga Lake are:
• RAO 1: To eliminate or reduce, to the extent practicable, methylation of mercury in the
hypolimnion.
• RAO 2: To eliminate or reduce, to the extent practicable, releases of contaminants from
the ILWD and other littoral areas around the lake.
• RAO 3: To eliminate or reduce, to the extent practicable, releases of mercury from
profundal sediments.
• RAO 4: To be protective of fish and wildlife by eliminating or reducing, to the extent
practicable, existing and potential future adverse ecological effects on fish and wildlife
resources and to be protective of human health by eliminating or reducing, to the extent
practicable, potential risks to humans.
• RAO 5: To achieve surface water quality standards, to the extent practicable, associated
with CPOIs.
In order to achieve the RAOs, Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) were established for the
three primary media that have been impacted by CPOIs: sediments, biological tissue, and surface
water. The following three PRGs were developed, each addressing one of the affected media:
• PRG 1: Achieve applicable and appropriate SECs for CPOIs and the BSQV of 0.8 mg/kg
for mercury, to the extent practicable, by reducing, containing, or controlling CPOIs in
profundal and littoral sediments.
• PRG 2: Achieve CPOI concentrations in fish tissue that are protective of humans and
wildlife that consume fish. This includes a mercury concentration of 0.2 mg/kg in fish
tissue (fillets) for protection of human health based on the reasonable maximum exposure
scenario assumptions from the Onondaga Lake Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
and the EPA's MeHg National Recommended Water Quality criterion for the protection of
human health for the consumption of organisms of 0.3 mg/kg in fish tissue. This also
includes a mercury concentration of 0.14 mg/kg in fish6 (whole fish) for protection of
ecological receptors (wildlife) based on the exposure assumptions from the Onondaga Lake
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. These human health and ecological goals represent
the range of fish tissue PRGs.
• PRG 3: Achieve surface water quality standards, to the extent practicable, associated with
CPOIs.
In addition to the remediation goals for mercury in fish tissue cited above, ecological target tissue
concentrations for mercury based on the no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs), as well as
target tissue concentrations for bioaccumulative organic contaminants, corresponding to various
risk levels (including both the 10"4 and 10"5 cancer risk levels for human health exposure and both
the lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) and NOAELs, were developed in the FS
based on exposure parameters from the Onondaga Lake HHRA and BERA and were included in
6 This ecological goal was based on the LOAEL for the river otter.
8
-------
the ROD. These targets are not remediation goals, as presented in the ROD, but are points of
reference for evaluations of reduction of risk for human and wildlife consumers of fish.
As indicated in the ROD, contaminants other than mercury, including PCBs, hexachlorobenzene,
and PCDD/PCDFs, are not as widespread in sediments in the lake (as compared to mercury) and
are found primarily in a few specific areas of the lake (e.g., SMUs 1, 2, 6, and 7). These areas
were remediated in accordance with the remedial design for lake dredging and capping.
As the areas of the lake with elevated concentrations of these bioaccumulative organic
contaminants for which target tissue concentrations were developed are generally within the
remedial areas based on exceedance of the cleanup criteria of the mean PECQ of 1 (which
addresses multiple contaminants) plus the mercury PEC, the exposures to these compounds would
be reduced to the same or greater extent as that of mercury. It was, therefore, expected that if the
remediation goals for mercury in fish tissue are met in the future (e.g., during the 10-year MNR
period after completion of the dredging and capping, the future fish tissue concentrations for the
contaminants listed in Table 7 of the ROD7 would fall within the ranges shown in the table for
each contaminant and receptor. If this assumption is proven not to be the case in the future, based
on ongoing fish tissue monitoring, then an evaluation will take place to determine why this
assumption may no longer be valid.
Target concentrations, PECs and/or remediation goals are further presented in Tables la, lb, and
lc for fish, sediment, and surface water, respectively. (See Attachment 1 for tables.)
Explanations of Significant Difference
Three Explanations of Significant Difference (ESDs) have been issued since the issuance of the
ROD to document modifications of the selected remedy.
Additional data were generated in 2005 and 2006 in SMU 2 as part of the pre-design investigation
to more accurately define the extent of NAPLs in this area. These data showed that the site
conditions and contaminant distribution were significantly different than were previously believed
to be present in SMU 2 along the former causeway, and a small adjacent area in SMU 1. Based on
the additional information, a revision to the portion of the remedy that pertains to the SMU 2
causeway area (and a small adjacent area in SMU 1) was evaluated. As a result of this evaluation,
a modification to the remedy was made, including the placement of a portion of the lakeshore
barrier wall in the southwest portion of the lake, backfilling behind the barrier wall with clean
material, and collection of NAPLs present in the areas discussed above via wells with off-site
treatment and/or disposal. The change was necessary to ensure the stability of the adjacent
causeway and the adjacent area which includes a portion of 1-690, and is supported by extensive
sampling of the area which indicates that the areas containing NAPLs are significantly less
extensive than estimated in the ROD (NYSDEC and EPA, 2006; Parsons, 2019a). This
modification was documented in an ESD issued in December 2006 (the affected area is shown in
Figure 6).
7 The fish tissue concentration ranges in Table 7 of the ROD can be found in Table la except where modified
as indicated in Note 6 in the table and discussed under V. Technical Assessment, Question B.
9
-------
The second ESD, issued in August 2014, addressed two issues - a geotechnical concern in the
eastern end of the lake and an alternative measure to address the release of methylmercury from
sediment in the lake. This ESD allowed for the establishment of a buffer zone (approximately 10
acres) along the southeast shoreline where no dredging or capping would occur as the best means
to prevent shoreline and rail line instability (See Figure 7). The ESD also identified nitrification
of the hypolimnion by adding nitrate to the deep lake water instead of/in place of oxygenation. The
change in approach was based on the success of a 3-year nitrate addition pilot study completed in
2013, which demonstrated that nitrate addition effectively inhibits the release of methylmercury
from sediment in the deep water portions of the lake (NYSDEC and EPA, 2014; Parsons, 2019a).
A third ESD was issued in March 2018 to document the basis for the design and construction of
modified protective caps (MPCs) in portions of RA-B, RA-C, and RA-D, as well as a modified
erosion-resistant cap (MERC) in the vicinity of the METRO deep water outfall pipeline (see Figure
8). The MPCs were needed where geotechnical investigations completed subsequent to the Final
Design (Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2012) identified soft (low strength) sediment on relatively steep
slopes. In addition, small areas of disturbances of the cap occurred in RA-C during cap
construction in September 2012 and in RA-D in November 2014. These MPCs have minimum
thicknesses less than the minimum cap layer thicknesses specified in the ROD {i.e., the original
remedy required a minimum of 12 inches for the chemical isolation layer and minimum of 12
inches for the habitat layer, not including the underlying "mixing" layer). The sediments in the
MPC areas were softer than what was identified during the pre-design investigation (PDI) and,
therefore, design revisions were required in these and other areas (representing approximately 29
acres of the 418 acres of capped areas in the littoral zone8).
A subset of the MPCs (approximately 2 percent of the entire capped area) included areas where
underlying soft sediments limited the cap thicknesses such that it was not feasible to construct
separate chemical isolation and habitat/erosion protection layers. These areas, which include areas
of direct application of granular activated carbon (GAC) with limited sand placement, are referred
to as mono-layer caps. In addition, following the collection of data subsequent to the cap
disturbances, thin-layer caps and amended caps were required in approximately 7.4 acres in the
profundal zone (SMU 8) adjacent to RA-C (where a thin-layer cap was not included in the Final
Design) and 16.8 acres adjacent to RA-D. The total area above and immediately adjacent to the
METRO outfall pipeline that was not dredged or capped to protect the integrity of the pipeline is
approximately 1.9 acres, and the area where the MERC was placed in the vicinity of the outfall
pipeline is approximately 4.3 acres. The basis of the designs for the modified caps was to be
protective consistent with the evaluation timeframe used in the Final Design and specified in the
ROD. Given the relatively small size of these MPC areas relative to the remaining areas of the
Lake with a full thickness cap, as well as the increased GAC dosages applied in these MPC and
8 The Final Design (Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2012) included an isolation cap in approximately 430 acres
of the littoral zone of the Lake and select adjacent wetland areas as well as approximately 27 acres of thin-
layer cap in SMU 8 (deep water area in the profundal zone). As discussed in the second ESD for the RA-E
Shoreline Area and Nitrate Addition (NYSDEC and EPA, 2014), approximately 10 acres of the near-shore
area along the RA-E shoreline were not dredged or capped because of stability concerns for the shoreline
and active railroad lines. In addition, as noted above, a cap was not placed in approximately 1.9 acres above
and immediately adjacent to the METRO outfall pipeline. Therefore, an estimate of the area capped in the
littoral zone is 418 acres.
10
-------
MERC areas to ensure cap effectiveness, it was concluded that the modifications would not affect
remedial timeframes, degree of protectiveness of the overall remedy, remedial costs, or the extent
of ICs needed. MPC design revisions were reviewed by NYSDEC and EPA and approved by
NYSDEC prior to construction of the MPCs in 2015 and 2016 (NYSDEC and EPA, 2018; Parsons,
2018a; Parsons, 2019a). Post-construction physical and chemical monitoring is being conducted
in all capped areas (starting in 2017), including the MERC and MPC areas addressed in the ESD,
to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy in meeting the related goals specified in the 2005 ROD.
Status of Implementation
Dredging and Capping
Sediments were dredged hydraulically from designated areas within the lake and select adjoining
wetland areas between July 2012 and November 2014. Approximately 2.15 million cubic yards
(cy) of sediment were removed from the lake across 215 acres (Anchor QEA and Parsons, 2017)
(dredging areas are denoted on Figure 9). Sediments were dredged hydraulically from designated
areas within the lake and select adjoining wetland areas. Once a specific area of the lake was
dredged, post-dredge surveys were conducted in accordance with a construction quality assurance
plan (CQAP) to ensure that target elevations in the dredged area were achieved. Dredged material
was transported via a series of booster pumps and a double-walled pipeline through non-residential
areas to a lined sediment processing area (SPA) adjacent to the SCA. The SPA and SCA were
located on a former Solvay wastebed, Wastebed 13. (See Figure 10.) At the SPA, the dredge slurry
was passed through a screening process, which was designed to remove oversized material.
Oversized material was trucked to a Debris Management Area maintained at the SCA (see Figure
11) where the material was contained and covered. After screening, the slurry was conveyed to
thickeners to reduce the volume of water that would need to be removed from the solid material
by geotextile tubes (geotubes). The thickened slurry then underwent polymer injection to
precondition the slurry prior to being conveyed to and discharged into the geotubes for dewatering
and long-term isolation of the dredged material. The geotubes were managed within the lined SCA
which collected and managed the geotube filtrate (water discharged from the geotubes). As part of
the SCA construction, two basins were constructed adjacent to the eastern and western extents of
the Phase II area (see Figure 11). These basins were considered part of the sediment management
system (SMS) for the SCA.
The geotube filtrate and water coming into contact with filling tubes or dredged sediment (referred
to as "contact water") was collected and routed to the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) constructed
adjacent to the SCA for treatment of metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile
organic compounds, PCBs, and total suspended solids. The treated effluent was then conveyed to
METRO where it underwent additional treatment for ammonia prior to discharge to the lake (EPA,
2015).9 Mechanical dredging was used on a limited basis for a portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor
Brook (WBB/HB) Outboard Area adjacent to RA-D (Anchor QEA and Parsons, 2017).
9 Operational modifications were made in 2014 that provided the option for wastewater generated by the
dredging/sediment handling processes at the SCA and treated at the SCA water treatment facility to be
discharged directly to the Lake in accordance with a supplemental treatment/Lake discharge operations
11
-------
Capping operations commenced in August 2012 and were completed in December 2016. Cap
material was placed on approximately 475 acres over six RAs of the lake, three adjacent lakeshore
areas {i.e., Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Outboard Area, Wastebeds 1-8 Connected Wetland, and the
Ninemile Creek spits10), and portions of SMU 8. (See Figures 9 and 12.) The littoral areas which
received cap material included all areas which were dredged. Cap materials were placed both
hydraulically, using a custom hydraulic spreader barge, and mechanically, using a variety of
mechanical placement methods. The placement method depended on the grain size of the cap
material being placed, the water depth at the placement location, and the proximity to obstructions
such as the barrier wall located along the southwest lakeshore. Approximately 3.1 million CY of
cap material was placed, including 1.6 million CY hydraulically, and 1.5 million CY mechanically.
The installed cap was designed for an effective life span of 1,000 years and was constructed of
varying types of single-layer and multi-layer caps using sands, gravels, cobbles, topsoil and
amendments. The amendments consisted of siderite (a naturally-occurring mineral consisting
mostly of iron carbonate) to neutralize elevated pH and maintain conditions conducive to long-
term biological decay of key contaminants within the cap, and GAC to improve sorption of
contaminants within the cap and provide an added level of protectiveness. Amendments to the cap
were used in RA-B, RA-C, RA-D, the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Outboard Area, the Wastebeds
1-8 Connected Wetland, and in portions of RA-A (including the Ninemile Creek spits), RA-E, and
SMU 8.
Both the dredging and the capping operations were subject to a robust construction quality control
(CQC)/construction quality assurance (CQA) program designed to verify that the work was
completed in accordance with the Final Design and subsequent NYSDEC-approved modifications.
Dredging areas were divided into Dredge Management Units (DMUs) and completion was verified
within each DMU using single-beam dual frequency bathymetric surveys. CQC bathymetric
surveys were validated by performing duplicate CQA surveys across a minimum of 10% of each
CQC survey area. The CQC/CQA program for the capping involved measurement of each
individual cap layer in both single-layer and multi-layer caps. Layer thickness was verified using
a variety of techniques, including core sampling, catch pans, and bathymetric surveys. Thermal
processes were utilized to determine the presence of the necessary components for chemical
isolation layers (siderite, GAC). Bathymetric survey data were collected across completed caps to
verify that the installed cap was completed within the elevation tolerances specified by the design.
Similar to the dredging program, CQA measurements were collected for a minimum of 10% of the
CQC measurements. Additional details on capping and dredging operations are available in the
September 2017 Capping and Dredging Construction Completion Report (Anchor QEA and
Parsons, 2017).
Air Quality Monitoring
The Air Quality Monitoring Program consisted of real-time air monitoring and sampling for
speciated VOCs. Real-time monitoring was performed at eight fixed locations around the SCA
work plan and a State-approved wastewater discharge permit. The modifications provided operators with
the capability to maximize operational up-time for dredging operations during wet weather conditions.
10 The spits are depositional landforms caused by lake currents.
12
-------
and two to three fixed locations around the lakeshore for dust, total VOCs, mercury, hydrogen
sulfide, noise, and odors. Real-time monitoring commenced in July 2012 prior to dredging
operations and continued to SCA closure in December 2016. Speciated VOC sampling was
conducted at four of the fixed locations around the SCA for 25 project-specific VOCs. Speciated
VOC monitoring for the 25 compounds was conducted between July 2012 and July 2017.
Speciated monitoring for seven additional compounds was conducted between March 2014 and
March 2015. Real-time monitoring and speciated VOC monitoring data were compared to short-
term (1-hour) and long-term (12-month average) air quality criteria established by NYSDEC and
EPA.
There were no instances where total VOCs exceeded the New York State Department of Health's
(NYSDOH's) action levels. Background-corrected 12-month average VOC concentrations for all
speciated compounds were below their respective work perimeter limits. Occasional localized
criteria excursions for particulates were typically associated with truck traffic and were
immediately addressed by additional dust suppression measures, such as increasing the use of
water or reducing equipment speeds. Mercury, hydrogen sulfide, and odor annual averages were
all at or below monitor detection limits at each monitoring location. There were no excursions of
the mercury or hydrogen sulfide work perimeter limits and action levels. While low-level odors
were detected at times at monitoring stations over the duration of the project, the average odor
levels were below the detection limit of the field olfactometer. There was no work perimeter limit
for odor (Parsons, 2019a).
Construction-Related Water Quality Monitoring
A water quality monitoring program was maintained throughout remedy construction. Only three
action level turbidity exceedances were recorded while monitoring dredging and capping
activities, and investigations of those events determined that none were the result of the remedial
construction activities. All analytical results for discrete water column samples collected at
compliance monitoring locations outside the dredging operations were below applicable New York
State Aquatic (Acute) Class B/C Surface Water Quality Standards (Parsons, 2019a).
Sediment Consolidation Area Cover
A multilayer cover system was constructed between 2015 and 2017 at the SCA consistent with
requirements established in the approved design (Parsons and Beech & Bonaparte, 2016). The
final closure cross-section layers were constructed as follows (from top to bottom):
• 2-inch thick (average) layer of compost; initially seeded with temporary and later with a
permanent seed mix;
• 6-inch thick vegetative soil layer consisting of a mixture of 60 percent on-site borrow soil,
30 percent of imported sand, and 10 percent on-site topsoil;
• 18-inch thick protective soil layer;
• Geocomposite drainage layer consisting of a 200-mil thick geonet heat bonded to a single-
sided non-woven geotextile on top deck and 250-mil thick geonet heat bonded with
geotextile on both sides {i.e., double-sided) on sideslopes;
13
-------
• 40-mil thick linear low-density polyethylene geomembrane cap, smooth on top deck and
textured on sideslopes;
• Landfill gas vent layer consisting of a geonet composite strips, single-sided on top deck
and double-sided on sideslopes;
• 8 ounces/square yard cushion geotextile; and
• Varying thickness of leveling layer material over sediment filled geotextile tubes.
Additional details on the construction and the imported backfill materials utilized at the SCA are
provided in the SCA Closure Construction Quality Assurance Report (Geosyntec, 2018).
Habitat Restoration/Enhancement
The restoration of habitat is an integral component of the overall remedy for Onondaga Lake and
was one of the important elements in the design for the dredging and capping activities specified
for the lake. A goal of habitat restoration in these areas is to achieve ecological systems that
function naturally, are self-sustaining, and are integrated with the surrounding habitats. One of the
factors that was addressed during the design was the type and thickness of the habitat restoration
layer that would be placed above the isolation layer in a given area based on specific habitat needs
in that area. Another factor that was considered was the types of structure and aquatic plants that
might be placed in various areas of the lake. Accordingly, the ROD called for the development of
a comprehensive lake-wide habitat restoration plan and required that habitat re-establishment be
performed in all areas of dredging and capping consistent with the plan. The ROD specified that
the littoral zone in the vicinity of the dredging/capping should be restored to reestablish appropriate
habitat and function following removal of contaminated sediments. Specific goals associated with
this objective as set forth in the ROD can be found in the Onondaga Lake Capping, Dredging,
Habitat and Profundal Zone Final Design Habitat Addendum (Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2018a).
Habitat re-establishment was performed in RA-A through RA-E within Onondaga Lake (see
Figure 13). Habitat quality and diversity was achieved by planting and seeding more than 40 acres
of naturalized shoreline and wetlands, which are primarily located in the Ninemile Creek spits, the
adjacent in-lake area in RA-A, and in the WBB/HB Outboard Area. More than 450,000 plants
representing over 125 native species were installed in accordance with design specifications
detailed in the Habitat Design Addendum (Parsons, 2018b).
In addition to plantings and seeding, habitat enhancement was achieved by the placement of habitat
"structures" throughout all of the RAs. Structures can be tree stumps, clusters of rock piles,
submerged macrophytes, logs, or woody debris on the lake bottom or shoreline. Structural
complexity is an important component to fisheries population dynamics and predator-prey
relationships. Adding structures improves the quality of habitat for key species and increases
angling opportunities by attracting sport fish to accessible locations near shore. The habitat
restoration for the lake was designed to achieve these objectives through installation of more than
1,000 habitat structures, including rock piles, individual boulders and boulder clusters, basking
logs, downed trees, porcupine cribs (constructed wooden structures specifically designed to
provide habitat for fish) (Parsons, 2018b). Habitat structure was also incorporated on the sediment
cap adjacent to the Semet/Willis Sheetpile Wall. The habitat structures placed in this area include
reef balls, which are custom designed and constructed structures. The access holes and hollow
14
-------
interior spaces of the reef balls provide ideal habitat and shelter for a variety of species and provide
additional diversity with the other habitat structures placed throughout the lake (Parsons, 2019a).
Wetland optimization design revisions were incorporated into the WBB/HB Outboard Area
wetlands to increase habitat diversity and wetland resilience to wind/wave action, and provide for
cap surface elevations that would facilitate wetland vegetation establishment. These revisions did
not impact the original cap design or protectiveness of the cap. These revisions provided for an
increase in the cap thickness in some areas, and additional protection against erosion by placing
protective berms around portions of the wetland (see Figure 14) to aid in their establishment
(Anchor QEA and Parsons, 2017).
As noted above, the selected remedy included habitat enhancement, which is improvement of
habitat conditions in areas where CERCLA contaminants do not occur at levels that warrant active
remediation, but where habitat impairment due to stressors has been identified as a concern. The
ROD indicated that habitat enhancement would be performed along an estimated 1.5 miles of
shoreline (SMU 3) and over approximately 23 acres (SMU 5) to stabilize calcite deposits and
oncolites, and promote submerged aquatic plant growth. The intent of the habitat enhancement
along the SMU 3 shoreline was to reduce near-shore turbidity associated with wind/wave events
and to reduce shoreline erosion.
Implementation of habitat enhancement of the SMU 3 shoreline, which was integrated with the
Wastebeds 1-8 interim remedial measure (IRM), included the placement of six inches, on average,
of coarse gravel from elevation 360 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) to
10 feet inland from elevation 362.5 feet NAVD88 to stabilize the substrate. From elevation 362.5
feet to 366.5 feet above mean sea level, the shoreline was stabilized with graded gravel material
up to 18 inches. Shoreline stabilization was expanded to include much of the SMU 4 shoreline
adjacent to Wastebeds 1-8. Shoreline stabilization along the SMUs 3 and 4 shorelines adjacent to
Wastebeds 1-8 was implemented between January to April 2014 and September to November
2014. Morooka trucks were used to transport gravel to excavators that subsequently placed the
gravel. Because portions of the shoreline stabilization area extended into the lake, the gravel was
used to construct a temporary land bridge to access these portions of the placement area. The
gravel from the land bridge was then side-cast into the placement area to complete the shoreline
stabilization placement (Anchor QEA and Parsons, 2017).
As noted in the first FYR report for the Subsite, in a 2008 survey, significantly more acreage in
SMU 5 was found to be naturally colonized by aquatic plants than would have resulted from
implementation of habitat enhancement of the 23 acres in this part of the lake. Therefore, the goals
outlined in the ROD for habitat enhancement in this area were already met without implementing
active measures.
Nitrate Addition
As during previous years, nitrate addition was performed between 2015 and 2018 in accordance
with the approved O&M Plan (Parsons and UFI, 2014). During this period, liquid calcium nitrate
solution was diluted with upper lake waters and added directly to the lower waters in the profundal
zone at three locations in the lake. One application location was in the northern basin of Onondaga
15
-------
Lake, and the other two were in the southern basin of the lake (see Figure 15).11 Equipment and
procedures used to apply nitrate during this period were essentially the same as were used during
the prior years.
Adjacent Hydraulic Control Systems
Consistent with remedial actions and IRMs associated with adjacent contaminated subsites,
shoreline subsurface barrier walls and/or groundwater collection systems have been installed
directly adjacent to several capped areas within the lake and adjacent wetlands. Hydraulic
containment by these systems limits groundwater upwelling in adjacent lake and wetland areas,
and is, therefore, an important factor in ensuring that the caps achieve their established
performance criteria. Groundwater flows through three zones in the aquifer—shallow;
intermediate; and deep. A clay layer acts as a confining layer between the intermediate and deep
zones. Thus, the only potential source of groundwater upwelling through the cap is from the deep
zone through the underlying clay layer. This was the design basis used to generate the groundwater
upwelling rates for cap modeling for the final design.
The hydraulic containment systems include:
• Shoreline barrier walls and groundwater collection systems that have been implemented as
part of the remedial action for OU1 of the Semet Residue Ponds subsite, and the
Willis/Semet and Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMs
• Shoreline groundwater collection system that has been implemented as part of the
Wastebeds 1-8 IRM
Infiltration of impacted groundwater to Onondaga Lake along the southwestern shoreline is being
controlled as part of the Willis/Semet and WBB/HB IRMs through hydraulic containment systems
that include an epoxy-coated steel sheet pile barrier wall, which extends a minimum of three feet
into the clay layer present at depths ranging from 35 to 70 feet below grade, and shallow and
intermediate groundwater collection systems. The Wastebeds 1-8 IRM includes Eastern and RA-
A shoreline groundwater collection systems to control shallow and intermediate groundwater
discharges to Onondaga Lake. Collected groundwater from the hydraulic control systems is
conveyed to the nearby Willis Avenue Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) where it is treated
for metals and organics prior to conveyance to METRO, where further treatment for ammonia is
conducted prior to discharge to Onondaga Lake.
Monitored Natural Recovery
The selected remedy includes MNR to address mercury contamination in the profundal zone and
hypolimnion of the lake. Natural recovery is ongoing in SMU 8 (see Figure 5 for the location of
SMU 8) through the burial of the contaminated sediments as new sediment enters the lake as
inflows from tributaries and direct runoff to the lake. As the remediation of other subsites impacted
by mercury are completed, mercury concentrations in sediment entering the lake are expected to
further decline.
11 Figure 15 shows the three 2018 liquid nitrate application locations. The application locations used in 2018
were the same locations where liquid nitrate was applied from 2011 through 2017.
16
-------
Sediment remediation goals in the profundal zone include achieving the mercury PEC of 2.2 mg/kg
or lower on a point basis and the mercury BSQV of 0.8 mg/kg or lower on an area-wide basis
within 10 years following the remediation of upland sources, littoral sediments, and initial thin-
layer capping in the profundal zone. The remediation of upland sources, littoral sediments, and
initial thin-layer capping in the profundal zone was completed in 2016. The mercury BSQV is
being applied over five subareas of the lake bottom that together cover the entire surface area of
the lake. The five lake subareas from north to south are designated as: North Basin, Ninemile
Creek Outlet, Saddle, South Basin, and South Corner (see Figure 16).
CSX Shoreline Area of Remediation Area E
A dredging and capping offset was developed in RA-E in the vicinity of the active rail lines along
the southeastern shoreline based on rail line stability considerations. This offset ranges from
approximately 130 to 200 feet (ft.) from the shoreline and impacts an area of approximately 10.1
acres.
Institutional Controls
Institutional Controls (ICs) are included as part of the ROD remedy for the Subsite to protect the
integrity of the cap and ensure long-term protectiveness of human health and the environment.
Specifically, ICs are being implemented to prevent unacceptable exposure to residual
contamination within the lake, prevent recreational boaters from accidently contacting any
navigational hazards created by capping and restoration components of the remedy, and preventing
damage to the cap from activities such as navigational dredging. The controls are being achieved
through the NYSDEC and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting process
to restrict actions that may disrupt the cap or SMU 8 sediment, the placement and maintenance of
navigational buoys in the lake by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation (NYSOPRHP), the provision of updated (post-capping) bathymetric survey results to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to facilitate updating of the
Navigational Chart for Onondaga Lake, and the establishment of environmental easements.
Consistent with the Onondaga Lake Subsite Site Management Plan, the Onondaga Lake
Monitoring and Maintenance Plan, and the ROD, ICs being implemented in support of the remedy
also include NYSDOH's Fish Consumption Advisory for Onondaga Lake. (See Appendix B for a
description of the advisory.) A summary of the ICs enacted and being applied is provided in the
table below.
17
-------
Table I: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls
Medi.i, engineered
controls, itncl :tie:ts
(li:il do 11 ot support
I I /I K based oil
current conditions
It's
Needed
ICsC jiIled
lor in the
Decision
Document
s
Impacted
I'.irceKs)
IC
()hjecli\e
Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented ;ind
Dsite (or phinncd)
Environmental
Easement, December
31, 2020 (planned)
Capped
Areas; CSX
Dredging/
Capping
Offset Area;
SCA
Prevent future
exposure to
remaining
contamination by
controlling
Placement and
maintenance of
navigational buoys by
NYSOPRHP
(Ongoing)
Soils, sediments
Yes
Yes
disturbances of
the subsurface
contamination;
limit the use and
development of
the site.
NOAA navigational
chart for Onondaga
Lake (Chart # 14786
for the Small-Craft
Book Chart for the
New York State Barge
Canal System
(November 2018)
NYSDEC and
USACOE Permitting
Process (Ongoing)
Fish
Yes
Yes
Onondaga
Lake
Provides
recommended
limits for
consumption of
fish caught from
Onondaga Lake
and its tributaries.
NYSDOH Finger
Lakes Region Fish
Advisories (Ongoing)
18
-------
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance
Adjacent Hydraulic Control Systems
Operational and monitoring data from the hydraulic containment systems discussed in the "Status
of Implementation" section, above, are used to determine if groundwater from the shallow and
intermediate zones is being successfully captured.
The Willis/Semet and WBB/HB IRM hydraulic containment systems are, generally, meeting the
design goals (i.e., groundwater levels are below lake level, indicating that hydraulic capture and
an inward hydraulic gradient are achieved). On several occasions, groundwater levels have been
above lake levels; however, these conditions occurred over relatively short periods of time during
scheduled maintenance, extreme weather conditions, and elevated lake levels and are not
indicative of overall system performance (Parsons and O'Brien & Gere, 2018; Parsons and
O'Brien & Gere, 2019; Parsons, 2020c).
For the Wastebeds 1-8 IRM Eastern Shoreline Groundwater/Seep and Northern (RA-A) Shoreline
Groundwater Collection Systems, data through the end of March 2016 indicated general
achievement of hydraulic control for these systems, with periodic exceptions during scheduled
maintenance, extreme weather conditions, and elevated lake levels (Parsons and O'Brien & Gere,
2016). As a result, NYSDEC approved capping of lake areas adjacent to these systems. Since
then, numerous system upgrades and optimization activities have been implemented that have
resulted in improved system performance. The upgrades included the installation of a dedicated
collection pipe adjacent to the existing Northern Shoreline groundwater collection trench to
connect the passive recovery wells and convey the intermediate groundwater from those wells to
the Northern Shoreline pump station, installation of a vacuum extraction system along a portion
of the Northern Shoreline Groundwater Collection System, and placement of acid delivery systems
at both the Northern and Eastern Shoreline pump stations to reduce scaling and downtime for
maintenance. Other modifications have also been implemented to improve system performance
and conveyance capacities. These included the construction of physical barriers of steel sheet
piling with hydrophilic sealed joints along areas at both the Northern and Eastern Shoreline
systems to limit collection of lake water, the establishment of an alternate pH adjustment and
discharge option for groundwater being collected under the Wastebeds 1-8 IRM in lieu of
treatment at the Willis Avenue GWTP, and upgrading of the forcemain from the Wastebeds 1-8
Eastern Shoreline pump station to the GWTP.
The Eastern and RA-A systems are undergoing initial performance verification with oversight by
and ongoing coordination with NYSDEC. Demonstration of consistent performance has been
challenging along a portion of the system that is directly adjacent to the capped area in RA-A.
Additional cap monitoring was conducted in this area in 2019 and will be conducted in 2022 to
verify that the cap adjacent to this portion of the hydraulic containment system is functioning as
designed. Monitoring of upwelling velocities in this area is also being conducted as part of the
monitoring program for the lake remedy (Parsons, 2020c; Parsons, 2019b).
19
-------
Habitat Restoration Monitoring
As noted above, planting and seeding was conducted in the Ninemile Creek spits and the adjacent
in-lake area in RA-A, and in the WBB/HB Outboard Area to enhance habitat quality and diversity.
The mouth of Ninemile Creek was planted in 2016 following the completion of construction
activities, and 2018 represented the second year of the five-year monitoring program in that area.
The WBB/HB Outboard Area was planted in 2017 following the completion of construction, and
2018 was the first year of the five-year monitoring program for that area. Consistent with the
Onondaga Lake Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (OLMMP), quantitative vegetative monitoring
was conducted at 59 and 64 50-square-foot plot locations in both areas, respectively. Vegetation
cover types and wetland acreages were estimated from these data and included extensive areas of
emergent wetland and aquatic bed. The overall cover of vegetation at the mouth of Ninemile Creek
was 85% in 2018, which exceeded the interim goal of 75% for the second year of the five-year
monitoring program (see Figure 17). The average vegetation coverage in the WBB/HB Outboard
Area was 78% in 2018, which, in the first year of the five-year monitoring program, exceeded the
interim goal of 75% for the second year of the program (see Figure 18).12 Invasive species
coverage in both areas was less than 1% in 2018. In both areas, the interim goal is 0% invasive
species. The intent of the interim goal is to manage all invasive species to achieve the goal of 5%
or less after five years.
The restored planted wetland vegetation and upland areas are being monitored annually for a
minimum of five years to evaluate the success of the restoration, and verify that success criteria
goals are met. The monitoring program includes both quantitative and qualitative evaluations,
which document parameters such as vegetative aerial percent cover, relative percent cover of each
species, aerial percent cover of invasive species, cover type, counts of woody species, and wetland
acreages (Parsons, 2018b).
Total wetland acreages temporarily lost during remediation of the lake that required restoration to
meet mitigation success criteria were 1.9 acres for the Ninemile Creek Spits and 7.5 acres for the
WBB/HB Outboard Areas. Qualitative estimates of wetland acreage for the Ninemile Creek spits
and the WBB/HB Outboard Area were made in 2018 based on observed vegetation cover types.
In addition to these areas, adjacent wetland areas were either temporarily or permanently lost
during remediation activities conducted at other Onondaga Lake site subsites, as well as permanent
loss of an open water area along the former SMU 2 shoreline, as documented in the 2006 ESD for
the Subsite discussed above. Consistent with the OLMMP, mitigation wetland acreage will be
assessed holistically across respective parts of the Onondaga Lake site that comprise the mitigation
areas to determine if the required mitigation has been attained. In year three of the five-year
monitoring program (2019 for the Nimemile Creek spits, 2020 for the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook
Area), a formal wetland survey was/will be performed by a certified wetland delineator based on
vegetation and hydrology. A wetland delineation conducted in accordance with federal and state
delineation methods will be completed in year five (2021 for the Nimemile Creek spits and 2022
for the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Area) to quantify wetland mitigation acreage (Parsons, 2018a).
12 The interim goal for the first year of planting is increased percent cover of wetland plants from the initial
plantings.
20
-------
At the mouth of Ninemile Creek and WBB/HB Outboard Area, 134 and 159 plant species were
observed, respectively, during surveys conducted in 2018. Additionally, the conditions of large
trees were surveyed in the WBB/HB Outboard Area in 2018. Out of 103 large trees planted, 101
survived and were generally in good condition. The two trees that did not survive were replaced
in fall 2018 and spring 2019 (Parsons, 2020c).
Qualitative and quantitative surveying of aquatic macrophytes was conducted in 2017 and 2018 to
document the natural recolonization by aquatic plants in remediation areas and the coverage in
non-remediated areas (reference areas). Species observed included Sago pondweed (Stuckenia
pectinata), watermilfoil, (Myriophyllum spp.), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), curly
pondweed (Potamageton crispus), common waterweed (Elodea canadensis), water stargrass
(Heteranthera dubia) and stonewort (Nitellopsis sp.). Although the size, distribution, and density
of beds were variable, most of the lake, including remediation areas, was characterized by
moderate (26-75%) to dense (76-100%) macrophyte coverage. There are no specific success
criteria for aquatic vegetation that naturally recolonizes shallow remediated non-planted areas. In
both the qualitative and quantitative surveys, remediated areas contained slightly sparser growth
compared to other areas of the lake. The sparser growth in remediation areas is likely attributable
to the short period of time that plants have had to colonize these areas and the generally coarser
substrate now present. Overall, more of the quantitative sampling locations surveyed in 2018
contained vegetation relative to surveyed sampling locations in 2017, particularly in remediation
areas (see Figure 19).
While there are no goals for the fish community, monitoring was conducted in 2017 to document
how fish are using the newly-restored habitats in the lake. Forty-one and 42 fish species were
documented in Onondaga Lake in 2017 and 2018, respectively, which is comparable to the lake-
wide average richness of 40 species observed during the baseline sampling period (2008 through
2011) and the 38 species observed during the construction period (2012 through 2016). The species
richness in both remediated areas (39 in 2017, 36 in 2018) and unremediated areas (34 in 2017, 38
in 2018) were comparable to average richness within these areas during the baseline and
construction periods. Richness within remediated areas was higher than what was observed in
sampling during the construction sampling period. Year-to-year fluctuations in the relative
abundance of fish are expected due to natural variability in such factors as year-class strength and
catchability. However, the lake continues to contain a predominantly warm water fish community
with abundance proportions similar to that of the baseline sampling period prior to dredging and
construction. Some notable species of this community and their relative abundance in 2018 are
Largemouth Bass (14.26 percent), Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) (27.04 percent), Banded
Killifish (Fundulus diaphanous) (36.56 percent), and Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) (7.87
percent) (Parsons, 2020c).
In accordance with the OLMMP, monitoring for evidence of spawning/reproduction of Northern
Pike (Esox lucius) and other wetland species was conducted in the WBB/HB Outboard wetlands
in 2018 from April 3 to May 8 during the Northern Pike spawning season and from July 16 to
August 9 when the young-of-the-year would likely be present. No adult or juvenile Northern Pike
were observed during the monitoring period. However, 15 species were observed during the April
through May monitoring event, including Banded Killifish, Bluegill, and Brown Bullhead
[Ameiurus nebulosus], indicating that the newly established habitat is being used by fish. Eleven
21
-------
species were observed during the July through August monitoring event, including young of the
year Largemouth Bass and Brown Bullhead. Potentially spawning Longnose Gar (Lepisosteus
osseus) were also observed. Since 2018 was the first year of monitoring following the completion
of construction and associated plantings and because Northern Pike are uncommon in Onondaga
Lake, it was not unexpected that adult or juvenile Northern Pike were not observed. Wetland
spawning species may increasingly find and use these areas as vegetation expands (Parsons,
2020c).
Although there are no specific success criteria for wildlife usage in remediated areas, monitoring
was conducted in 2017 and 2018 to document functional wildlife use of the sites. Recorded
observations indicate that the restored areas are attracting diverse wildlife including large numbers
of migrating waterfowl during spring and fall. Overall, approximately 90 species were observed
across all remediation areas in 2018. As expected, most were found within the restored wetlands.
This included 60 species of birds, nine fish species, 12 macroinvertebrates, six mammals, and three
amphibians. Common wildlife species included Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Spotted
Sandpiper (Actitis macularius), and Killdeer (iCharadrius vociferus). Other notable species include
northern leopard frog {Lithobates pipiens), American toad (Bufo americanus), green frog
{Lithobates clamitans), Pied-billed Grebe {Podilymbus podiceps), and Bald Eagle (Parsons,
2020c).
Benthic community data (benthic macroinvertebrates) were collected in 2018 from representative
areas within remediation areas, the CSX shoreline area, and reference (unremediated) areas of the
lake as per the OLMMP to assess recolonization of new cap substrate. Samples were collected
using petite ponars in areas of soft substrate and sediments in both remediated and unremediated
areas, while multiplates were used in remediated areas of coarse substrate such as gravel.
Following NYSDEC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Biological Monitoring of Surface
Waters in New York (NYSDEC, 2018), individual metrics calculated from the data as described
in the SOP were converted to Biological Assessment Profile (BAP) scores. Average BAP scores
from ponars ranged from 1.3 to 3.4 in the remediated areas and from 1.4 to 3.6 in the unremediated
areas of the lake.13 Remediated and unremediated areas of the lake from ponars had identical
overall average BAP scores of 2.6, indicating that the remediated areas are developing a
macroinvertebrate community consistent with other comparable locations in Onondaga Lake.
Multiplates had an average score of 2.3, which is similar to the ponar sample results. While the
average BAP score in both remediated and unremediated areas were generally lower in 2018 than
in baseline sampling, the substrate, lake bathymetry, sampling locations, and methods are different
than these historical locations, which make direct point-to-point comparisons impractical. As it is
believed that recolonization of capped areas is still ongoing, a second post-remediation benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling event is expected to be conducted in 2021.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the habitat enhancement conducted along the SMU 3 shoreline,
high frequency turbidity measurements obtained from three data sondes affixed to stakes driven
into the lake bottom or suspended from a buoy during the September to November interval in 2017
were compared with turbidity data obtained from data sondes deployed in 2012. The 2017 data
indicated reductions in wind-driven resuspension of nearshore sediments occurred following
13 The BAP scale ranges from zero to ten, with zero indicating the lack of a benthic community and ten
being comparable to a reference/pristine benthic invertebrate community.
22
-------
stabilization of the Wastebeds 1-8 shoreline. The results indicate that shoreline stabilization
measures implemented along the Wastebeds 1-8 shoreline were successful in stabilizing calcite
deposits and in reducing sediment resuspension and turbidity along this shoreline (Parsons, 2019a).
Cap Monitoring
Physical monitoring of the capped areas is conducted in RAs A through F, adjacent wetland areas,
and thin layer and amended areas of SMU 8 to verify that the habitat/erosion protection layer and
underlying chemical isolation layer for multi-layer caps and mono-layer caps are stable.
Comprehensive physical monitoring of the cap and the Wastebeds 1-8 shoreline stabilization area
was conducted in 2017 and 2018, consistent with the scope and schedule detailed in the OLMMP.
Cap probing was conducted in 2017 and 2018 in coarse gravel- and gravelly-cobble areas of the
cap to verify the presence of these materials. Probing was conducted by manually tapping the cap
along OLMMP-specified transects shown in Figures 20.1 through 20.6 at 25-foot intervals with a
steel plate attached to rods. In probing areas where the water depth, water clarity, and/or vegetation
cover did not interfere, the presence of the coarse substrate was also verified to the extent possible
based on visual observations from the water surface. Probing and visual inspections were also
conducted directly adjacent to shoreline tributaries and outfalls to verify the cap remains physically
stable at these locations. Probing did not identify any anomalies, such as the apparent absence of
coarse substrate or significant accumulation of sediment on top of the cap.
Comprehensive bathymetric surveys were conducted for the capped areas in 2017 and 2018
consistent with methods and coverage areas specified in the OLMMP. Minor exceptions were
associated with shallow areas where vegetation prevented access in 2017. Bathymetry in these
areas was measured as part of the 2018 comprehensive bathymetry measurements. The surveys
were conducted on transect lines running perpendicular to the slope and spaced 30 feet apart
(Figures 20.1 through 20.6) repeating every other survey line that was established during the
collection of as-built data during construction. In areas that were too shallow for boat-based
surveying (e.g., where the cap meets the shore), elevations were manually surveyed by wading and
using conventional survey techniques.
Within topsoil areas in RA-A, the Ninemile Creek spits, Outboard Area wetlands (including lower
Harbor Brook), and the Wastebeds 1-8 connected wetland, the survey lines were modified, as
necessary, to collect as much data as possible in and around wetland vegetation. However, portions
of these areas are too shallow and/or vegetated for a boat-based survey, and a comprehensive
survey using manual methods could damage the wetland vegetation. Vegetation in these areas was
inspected on a regular basis in 2017 and 2018 as part of the habitat restoration monitoring. This,
in combination with cores collected in these areas and observations from the aerial drone
photography, provided verification that there has not been significant erosion of material in these
areas.
Comparisons of 2018 to 2017, 2018 to as-built, and 2017 to as-built bathymetries for all RAs are
shown in Figures 20.7 through 20.24. Based on the 2017 bathymetry results and in consultation
with NYSDEC, several of the 2017 planned chemical coring locations were relocated to locations
of relatively greater bathymetric change (i.e., decrease in cap elevation compared to as-built
23
-------
survey). Several additional coring locations for physical cap thickness measurements were also
added in 2017, as shown in Figures 20.7 through 20.24. The 2017 multi- and mono-layer cap
thickness measurements based on the cap coring are provided in Tables 3.1a and 3.1b, respectively.
The 2018 cap thickness measurements based on cap coring are provided in Table 3.2. Based on a
comprehensive review of the bathymetry survey results, probing results, and originally-planned
and additional coring results, there has been no significant loss of cap material in any capped area
and the cap remains physically stable. Bathymetry changes greater than 0.5 ft. shown on Figures
20.7 through 20.24 are generally attributable to settlement of the underlying sediment as a result
of the weight of the cap and/or a result of loss of finer-grained habitat material overlying the
coarser erosion protection layer. Such changes were anticipated in the final design (Parsons,
2020b; Parsons, 2020c).
One hundred seventy-seven cores were collected in multi-layer cap areas in 2017. With one
exception, all individual layer and cap thicknesses measured in multi-layer capped areas in 2017
met or exceeded the target thickness goals specified in the OLMMP. The exception was a result
of two duplicate cores where the measured erosion protection layer thickness was one inch less
than the target thickness specified in the OLMMP. These cores are in MPC area RA-C-2A (4 to
10 ft.). One hundred twenty-eight cores were collected in mono-layer cap areas in 2017. Of these
cores, 93 percent of the measured thicknesses exceeded the specified average design thickness.
Measured thicknesses in the remaining cores were consistent with expectations considering
construction variability and the average thickness-based goal.
Additional coring was completed at 13 initial multi-layer cap locations in 2018, coinciding with
the peeper (in-situ diffusion porewater sampler) chemical sampling locations in RAs B, C, D and
E. All individual layer and cap thicknesses measured in multi-layer capped areas in 2018 in RAs
D and E met or exceeded the target thickness goals specified in the OLMMP. Erosion protection
layer thickness measurements from initial cores in Zone 2 of RA-B and in Model Area RA-C-2A
(4 to 10 ft.) were less than target thickness goals. Additional monitoring of Zone 2 RA-B
conducted in 2018 and 2019 indicated that the measured core thickness may have been biased low
and that thickness of the fine gravel layer or total thickness based on videoprobe measurements
were not less than the target thicknesses. Based on these findings, no further action with respect to
Zone 2 of RA-B was determined to be needed at that time.
Based on the physical monitoring results in Model Area RA-C-2A (4 to 10 ft.), total cap
thicknesses meet the target thickness in most areas within MPC RA-C-2A. The thickness of the
chemical isolation layer in this area was greater than the target thickness. However, the monitoring
results indicate that there were very small areas where fine gravel (for the erosion
protection/habitat layer) was not observed or where the total cap thickness was less than the target
thickness. These areas are part of an area where stability of the underlying sediment is very
sensitive to the thickness of the cap material placed. Based on comprehensive follow-up
investigations it was determined that cap materials were not placed here as intended during
construction, most likely as a result of caution related to overplacement of materials that could
have adversely impacted the underlying sediment stability (Parsons, 2019c). In order to meet the
design criteria, placement of additional cap material in a portion of this area (approximately 0.12
acres) took place in November 2019. (See Figure 21.)
24
-------
The combined 2017 and 2018 chemical monitoring programs included over 8,200 chemical
analyses from 165 sampling locations, including multi-layer and monolayer isolation caps in the
littoral zone and thin layer capping and direct application areas in SMU 8. The monitoring of the
cap includes both bathymetric surveys (including conventional survey methods in shallow areas)
as well as coring and/or probing throughout the entire cap area, including thin-layer and amended
cap areas in SMU 8. In areas where the cap consists entirely of sand-sized materials or a
combination of sand and fine gravel, physical monitoring includes verification, via coring, that the
thickness of both the habitat/erosion protection layer and chemical isolation layer is maintained.
In areas where the sediment cap habitat/erosion protection layer consists of coarse gravel- and
cobble-sized material that prevent coring, the monitoring program consists of verifying the
presence of the overlaying habitat/erosion protection layer from the results of probing and
bathymetric surveying (Parsons, 2018a).
Chemical monitoring is being conducted to verify that the chemical isolation in multi-layer caps
and mono-layer caps is occurring consistent with design criteria. Chemical monitoring, which
includes sampling within each of 17 primary cap modeling areas developed during the remedial
design and within each MPC area, entails collection of porewater and/or cap material samples from
the chemical isolation and habitat layers of the cap. All chemical monitoring includes "focused"
constituents, referred to as "indicator chemicals," which were constituents determined during the
design phase to represent the most significant potential for migration through the cap and which
therefore dictated cap design, including GAC application rates. Indicator chemical groups are
shown on Table 2. Chemicals in addition to the indicator chemicals are included in the sampling
program during "comprehensive" chemical monitoring events. The additional chemicals include
all constituents that have chemical isolation performance criteria that are not already identified as
indicator chemicals.
Comprehensive chemical monitoring was conducted in 2017 in accordance with the approved cap
monitoring work plan. This included collection and analysis of 421 porewater and solid-phase
samples at 157 sampling locations. The methods for sample collection are dependent upon various
factors, such as the grain size of the material being sampled, presence or absence of GAC in the
material, and detection limits/sample volumes of certain constituents in porewater. Cap porewater
concentrations for constituents included in the mean PECQ calculation are compared to the solid-
phase performance criteria (see Table lb for solid-phase criteria) by converting the porewater
concentration to a solid phase concentration based on partitioning calculations using the
equilibrium partitioning coefficients. Similarly, cap solid-phase sample results for benzene,
toluene, and phenol are compared to porewater screening criteria by converting the solid-phase
concentration to porewater concentrations based on partitioning calculations using the equilibrium
partitioning coefficients.
In 2018, 13 peeper locations were sampled that had not been completed in 2017 (Parsons and
Anchor QEA, 2017; Parsons, 2020c).
A schedule of the physical and chemical monitoring activities through 2026 is available in the
OLMMP. Additional work plans documenting the cap monitoring schedule after 2026 will be
developed subject to NYSDEC review and approval. The post-remediation results for chemical
monitoring of the cap are discussed in the "Data Review" section, below.
25
-------
Nitrate Addition Program
Based on the success of the three-year pilot test, nitrate addition is continuing as part of the long-
term remedy consistent with the 2014 ESD. Nitrate is applied after thermal stratification is
established in summer and it has been applied at the same three locations in the lake, as necessary,
since 2011 to maintain a concentration of 1.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in the hypolimnion. Water
quality measurements are used to determine the density of nitrate solution, and there is frequent
sampling of nitrate concentrations at depth and a submersible ultraviolet nitrate analyzer deployed
to analyze nitrate conditions. The extent of nitrate needed in Onondaga Lake during summer
months prior to fall turnover is anticipated to decline gradually over the coming years as mercury-
contaminated sediment in SMU 8 is further isolated via MNR. Therefore, nitrate addition will be
evaluated annually based on the prior year's results, the lake's fluctuating seasonal hydrologic and
nitrate inputs, and other factors. Observed reductions of methylmercury in surface water and in
zooplankton are discussed in the "Data Review" section, below.
Sediment Consolidation Area
Monitoring and maintenance activities at the SCA from closure through 2018 were performed
consistent with the SCA Post-Closure Care Plan (Parsons and Beech & Bonaparte, 2017), with the
objective of maintaining and verifying the integrity and effectiveness of the cover system, surface
water management system, liquid management system (LMS), and the SCA perimeter berm.
Monitoring activities include quarterly visual inspections of the SCA final cover system and of the
surface water management systems, monthly inspections of the LMS system, odor monitoring, and
additional inspections after major storm events and prior to mowing events. Maintenance activities
{i.e., mowing, seeding, and invasive species control) were conducted, as needed, based on
inspection findings. Conditions and operation of the SCA during the 2017 and 2018 monitoring
period were satisfactory. Inspections of the LMS inspections conducted during 2017 and 2018
found equipment to be in working order. Odor monitoring consisted of odor observations by a
qualified individual who has experience with site-related odors at eight air monitoring stations
along the SCA work zone perimeter road. No site-related odors were detected during inspections
conducted during the 2017 or 2018 monitoring periods (Parsons, 2020a).
Monitored Natural Recovery
The primary mechanism by which profundal zone surface sediment mercury concentrations are
declining is burial by incoming clean sediments that are continually being deposited from
overlying water. Collection and total mercury analysis of shallow sediment cores (0-4 cm and 4-
10 cm) in SMU 8 is the primary method of determining attainment of MNR performance criteria.
In 2017, shallow cores were collected at 20 profundal zone locations sampled in 2014 and two
new locations to verify compliance with the mercury BSQV of 0.8 mg/kg in each of the five
designated BSQV areas (Figure 16), and throughout the profundal zone for compliance with the
mercury PEC of 2.2 mg/kg.
The MNR monitoring scope includes several components that can aid in the assessment of the
extent and rate of natural recovery in SMU 8:
26
-------
• sampling and total mercury analysis of surface sediment samples and comparing these data
with predicted concentrations obtained via site-specific natural recovery modeling;
• use of sediment traps deployed at a location in the South basin (South Deep) from May
through October each year to monitor sediment deposition rates of solids and total mercury
in settling sediment;
• measurement over time of the depth of sediment above fluorescent sand-sized microbeads,
which were placed in nine 1,400-square-foot plots in the deep-water zone of in SMU 8
during 2009 to provide a vertical marker of the SMU 8 sediment, and which provide a
quantitative demonstration of the extent of ongoing sediment burial;
• visual observations of varves/layers collected from profundal zone sediments in 2014, 2015
and 2017 and frozen cores to assess vertical mixing of sediment; and
• assessment of abundance and composition of benthic macroinvertebrates (e.g., worms),
which if present in significant numbers, can affect ongoing natural recovery by increasing
the extent to which sediment is vertically mixed.
CSX Shoreline Area of Remediation Area E
As specified in the Design Addendum for this area (Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2014), the offset
area includes baseline surface sediment sampling at approximately the same density as sampled
during the PDI for the full list of mean PECQ parameters, plus benzene, toluene, and phenol; total
organic carbon; grain size; and post-remedy surface sediment sampling at/near baseline locations
to confirm natural recovery.
Baseline surface sediment sampling in the offset area was completed in fall 2016. Sampling details
and results are provided in the Summary Report Onondaga Lake 2016 Cap Monitoring (Parsons
and Anchor QEA, 2018c). As specified in the OLMMP, post-remedy sampling events and
bathymetric surveys were and will be completed in this area in 2019 and 2024, respectively. The
need for scope and timing for subsequent monitoring in this area will be determined based on the
results of the 2024 sampling event (Parsons, 2020c).
In addition to the surface sediment sampling, baseline habitat sampling was conducted in June and
July 2016 to characterize current habitat present along the shoreline of the offset area. The baseline
habitat survey found that conditions immediately above and below the water line are harsh and
support only a few plant species with the invasive species common reed (Phragmites australis)
being most common. However, there is substantial canopy cover at the upper end of the zone,
which provides perches for birds such as Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which are
routinely observed in the area during the winter months. The offshore aquatic vegetation
community was found to provide much better habitat value and is composed of a diversity of
mostly native species which are expanding naturally (Parsons, 2019d).
Fish Tissue
Contaminant data from fish tissue in Onondaga Lake are being used to assess the progress of the
remediation in several contexts. These include the exposure of the public from consuming fish,
and exposure experienced by two types of wildlife (those consuming smaller prey fish, and those
consuming larger fish). In addition, the trends in the data are being considered to assess
27
-------
improvements {i.e., declines) in the contaminant concentrations due to the remediation. Although
fish have been collected on an annual basis during the post-ROD baseline monitoring period (2008
to 2011) prior to commencement of remedial actions in the lake and during the remedial action
period (2012 to 2016), only two years of data (2017 and 2018) have been collected and are
available since remediation activities were completed in 2016. To statistically assess the direction
and rate of change in fish concentrations post-remedy {i.e., after 2016), additional data collection
is needed and will be undertaken in future years as defined in the OLMMP. Therefore, the
discussion in the "Data Review" section, below, focuses on a qualitative comparison of pre-remedy
and post-remedy concentrations and comparisons to the fish tissue goals for mercury and the fish
tissue target concentrations for the organics.
Both Honeywell and NYSDEC have collected fish over the time frames prior to, during and
subsequent to implementation of remedial activities, although they typically sample different
species, with NYSDEC concentrating on Largemouth Bass, with other species being less
consistently collected.
Potential Effects from Climate Change
Potential site impacts from climate change have been assessed, and the performance of the remedy
may be impacted by the climate change effects in the region and near the site. Potential effects
from climate change include erosion of the lake and wetland sediment caps and SCA cover due to
severe storms/weather events and associated flooding. The sediment cap has been designed to
provide long-term physical isolation and stability, as well as chemical isolation with no anticipated
cap maintenance or enhancement. The erosion protection layer of the cap was designed to be
physically stable under conditions predicted to occur based on consideration of a 100-year return-
interval wind-generated wave event and a 100-year tributary flood flow event. The cap includes
over 40 different design profiles across the capping area, each of which was developed based on
goals and input parameters specific to a given area, including sediment contaminant
concentrations, water depth, wave erosive forces, and habitat substrate goals. EPA's Contaminated
Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (2005) recommends that the physical
cap integrity be monitored both routinely and after events with certain recurrence intervals.
Therefore, in addition to routine monitoring of the cap, physical monitoring will be performed
after extreme events to verify the integrity of the cap. The extreme event conditions that will be
used to trigger a monitoring event include a 50-year or greater wind-generated wave event or a 50-
year or greater tributary flow event (Parsons, 2019e).14 Stormwater calculations performed for the
SCA as part of the Final Design Report showed the stormwater management system is capable of
handling a 100-year, 24-hour storm. Vulnerability assessments will be conducted for the SCA
when deemed necessary and will address the vulnerability of the SCA and/or engineering controls
to severe storms/weather events and associated flooding (Parsons, 2019f).
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the last FYR, as well
14 Consistent with the OLMMP, cap monitoring would also occur following a seismic event measuring 5.5
or larger within 30 miles of Onondaga Lake as measured by the US Geological Survey.
28
-------
as the recommendations from the last FYR and the current status of those recommendations.
Table II: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2015 FYR
ou#
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
02
Will be Protective
The OU2 remedy, which includes dredging, capping,
habitat restoration, nitrate addition and monitored
natural recovery, is expected to be protective of
human health and the environment upon completion.
In the interim, remedial activities conducted to date
are operating as intended to protect human health and
the environment.
There were no issues and recommendations in the last FYR.
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews
On October 1, 2019, EPA Region 2 posted a notice on its website indicating that it would be
reviewing site cleanups and remedies at 42 Superfund sites in New York, New Jersey, and Puerto
Rico, including the Subsite. The announcement can be found at the following web address:
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/fiscal-vear-2020-five-vear-reviews. In addition to this notification,
a notice of the commencement of the FYR was sent to local public officials. The notice was
provided to Villages of Liverpool and Solvay, Towns of Camillus, Geddes and Salina, and City of
Syracuse by email on June 24, 2020 with a request that the notice be posted in town hall and on
their webpages. In addition, on June 25, 2020, the notice was distributed via the NYSDEC's
Onondaga Lake News email listserv, which includes approximately 11,000 subscribers. The
purpose of the public notice was to inform the community that the EPA would be conducting a
FYR to ensure that the remedy implemented at the site remains protective of public health and the
environment and is functioning as designed. In addition, the notice included contact information,
including addresses and telephone numbers, for questions related to the FYR process for the site.
No interviews were conducted for this FYR.
The results of the review and the report will be made available at the Onondaga Lake site
information repositories and the site website: https://www.epa.gov/superfurid/onondaga-lake. The
information repositories are maintained at the NYSDEC Region 7 Office, 615 Erie Boulevard
West, Syracuse, New York; NYSDEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York;
Onondaga County Public Library, Syracuse Branch at the Galleries, 447 South Salina Street,
Syracuse, New York; Solvay Public Library, 615 Woods Road, Solvay, NY 13209; and Atlantic
States Legal Foundation, 658 West Onondaga Street, Syracuse, New York. In addition, efforts will
be made to reach out to local public officials to inform them of the results.
29
-------
Data Review
A discussion of the performance of the remedy based on data for all relevant media (e.g., capped
areas, surface water, SMU 8 sediment, fish tissue) is presented in this section. Figures and tables
referenced in this section associated with cap monitoring, surface water/mercury methylation in
the hypolimnion and natural recovery can be found in Attachment 1. The tables and figures
associated with monitoring of fish tissue and a general description of the fish tissue monitoring
program since 2008 is presented in Attachment 3.
Cap Chemical Monitoring
The combined 2017 and 2018 chemical monitoring programs included over 8,200 chemical
analyses from 165 sampling locations. Over 90 percent of the analytical results were "nondetects"
or very low concentrations (less than five percent of the performance criteria). Detected
concentrations were primarily attributable to background influences as well as potentially
anomalous data or isolated occurrences (Parsons, 2020c). The monitoring results are summarized
below.
Table III: Cap Chemical Combined 2017-2018 Monitoring Summary
Cap Type
Number of
Number of
Number of
Number of
Sample
Samples
Analyses
Exceedances
Locations
Multi-Layer
120
441
6961
10
Mono-Layer
20
46
345
0
SMU 8 TLC
25
38
950
0
There were exceedances of the cap performance criteria in multi-layer caps at ten locations. Five
of the sample locations with exceedances, all for toluene, were subsequently resampled. None of
the results from the resampling exceeded the cap criteria. Of the five remaining sample locations
with exceedances, one was for toluene, two were for phenol, one was for benzo(a)pyrene, and one
was for mercury. In the case of the remaining toluene and phenol exceedances, it could not be
concluded whether the exceedances were attributable to chemical migration from the underlying
chemical isolation layer or to other factors. As documented in the ROD, neither toluene nor phenol
was shown to exhibit acute toxicity on a lake-wide basis. Therefore, these chemicals were not
included among the chemicals used to develop the mean PECQ, which was the primary basis for
identifying areas of the lake that pose potential unacceptable risks to benthic organisms based on
toxicity considerations. There were no exceedances of the mean PECQ among all of the samples
collected. Unlike toluene and phenol, benzo(a)pyrene is included in the calculation of the mean
PECQ. The level of benzo(a)pyrene detected in the sample (200 micrograms per kilogram [|ig/kg])
exceeded the criterion (146 |ig/kg), but, as there was a lower level (76 |ig/kg) of benzo(a)pyrene
deeper within the habitat layer at the same sample location and both samples have similar total
organic carbon levels, this exceedance does not appear to be attributable to chemical migration
from the underlying chemical isolation layer and is likely a result of background influences.
Because this elevated result was identified in one isolated sample and because the mean PECQ
was not exceeded at this location, it is not considered to be indicative of an unacceptable risk to
benthic organisms.
30
-------
The one exceedance for mercury was in the lower habitat interval in one of the two topsoil
locations sampled in the Ninemile Creek spits. The sample had a mercury concentration of 0.353
mg/kg, which although less than the mercury PEC of 2.2 mg/kg, is greater than the mercury
criterion of 0.15 mg/kg, which is the applicable criterion that applies to the Ninemile Creek spits.
All samples collected from the monolayer, SMU 8 thin-layer cap (TLC) and direct GAC
application areas were below the performance criteria. Summary information on the exceedance
locations, depths and concentrations is available in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 for 2017 and 2018,
respectively.
The results from the 2017 and 2018 chemical monitoring programs do not indicate any significant
chemical migration through any of the capped areas. All 2017 and 2018 sample locations were
resampled in 2019; the results are pending.
Surface Water Compliance Monitoring
Surface water sampling was conducted in 2017 and 2018 for filtered (dissolved) and unfiltered
(total) mercury, methylmercury, PCBs, and select VOCs/semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, chlorobenzenes, acenapthene, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, phenol, pyrene).
Consistent with the OLMMP, surface water samples were collected at ten littoral zone locations
and two mid-lake locations (Figures 22.1 and 22.2) at sample depths ranging from 0.33 to 6.6 feet
prior to and after fall turnover each year.
The results for dissolved mercury, total mercury, and methylmercury in surface water are
summarized on Tables 5.1 and 5.2 for 2017 and 2018, respectively. The results for dissolved
mercury are also shown on Figure 23. Detected levels of dissolved mercury at littoral and mid-
lake locations were estimated from 0.08 to 0.37 nanograms per liter (ng/L) in 2017 and from 0.12
to 0.40 ng/L in 2018. The levels are below dissolved mercury goals of 2.6 ng/L for the protection
of wildlife and 0.7 ng/L for human health via fish consumption for both pre- and post- turnover
events in 2017 and 2018. Total mercury concentrations in surface water ranged from 0.43 ng/L to
2.29 ng/L in 2017 and from 0.43 ng/L to 2.88 ng/L in 2018. Methylmercury concentrations ranged
from "nondetect" to 0.21 ng/L in 2017 and from "nondetect" to 0.15 ng/L in 2018. There are no
surface water criteria for total mercury or methylmercury.
Benzene and chlorobenzene were detected at estimated concentrations of 0.2 micrograms per liter
(|J.g/L) and 0.3 |ig/L, respectively, at one location in RA A in 2018. The surface water quality
standard (SWQS) for benzene and chlorobenzene are 10 [j,g/L and 5 ng/L, respectively. Toluene
was detected at one location in RA E in 2018 at an estimated concentration of 0.3 [j,g/L (SWQS of
100 |ig/L), All of the other pre-turnover VOC/SVOC samples in 2017 and 2018 were nondetect.
(See Tables 6.1 and 6.2.) VOC and SVOC samples were not collected after fall turnover because
all the pre-turnover results were below standards.
Total PCBs were evaluated during pre- and post-turnover events in both 2017 and 2018 at all
specified littoral and mid-lake locations using a congener-based approach to achieve low detection
limits. Total PCBs averaged 1.15 and 1.45 ng/L during pre- and post-turnover events in 2017.
31
-------
Similarly, total PCBs averaged 0.69 and 1.20 ng/L, respectively, during pre- and post-turnover
events in 2018 (Table 7). Concentrations were generally lower in 2018 than those observed in
2017. The detected concentrations are above both the criteria for the protection of wildlife (0.12
ng/L) and the protection of human health via fish consumption (0.001 ng/L) (Figure 24). The
highest total PCB concentrations observed in the lake during the 2017 pre-turnover period and
both the 2018 pre- and post-turnover periods occurred at the monitoring location that is closest to
the Ley Creek outlet to the lake (SW-03). Four subsites located along Ley Creek (two of the
subsites include portions of the Creek itself) are current or former PCB sources. While some IRM
and remedial actions addressing PCB sources located adjacent to Ley Creek have been conducted
at two of the subsites and a portion of another subsite, remediation of the Creek itself has not yet
been implemented.
The Onondaga Lake ROD lists calcite and ionic waste constituents as CPOIs. Stressors of concern
include calcium, chloride, salinity, ammonia, nitrite, phosphorus, sulfide, dissolved oxygen and
transparency. These stressors have been routinely monitored by Onondaga County in both the
tributaries and deep portions of the lake as part of the Ambient Monitoring Program (AMP). As
noted in the AMP reports from 2012 through 2017, the high concentrations of total dissolved solids
(TDS) in Onondaga Lake, which include concentrations of cations and anions (calcium, chloride,
sodium, sulfate and others) are primarily associated with the natural hydrogeology of the lake and
not with anthropogenic effects. The most recently approved Onondaga County AMP report
(Onondaga County, 2019) was reviewed and is summarized below (Parsons, 2020c).
TDS measurements at South Deep exceeded the Ambient Water Quality Standards (AWQS)
guidance value of 500 mg/L in 2017. TDS reflects the concentration of major cations such as
calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, and anions such as bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate.
Exceedance of the guidance value is associated with the natural hydrogeology of the lake and not
with anthropogenic effects. The bedrock of Onondaga County is high in concentrations of calcium
and sulfate, which contribute to the high levels of TDS in the lake and its tributaries. For the 2007-
2017 period, trends in lake concentrations show a statistically significant decrease of 1.3% in TDS
at the lake outlet (3.7 m depth), but no significant trends in elsewhere. Calcium, chloride, and
salinity are all monitored separately from TDS; calcium and salinity showed no statistically
significant trends over the period reviewed in the report (2007-2017). However, a statistically
significant decrease in chloride of 2.1% at the south basin (low waters) and 1.7% at the lake outlet
(3.7-meter depth) were observed over the 2007-2017 period. No statistically significant trends
were observed elsewhere (Parsons, 2020c).
Monitored Natural Recovery
Mercury concentrations measured in 2014 and 2017 in surface (0 to 4 centimeters [cm]) and
subsurface (4 to 10 cm) sediments throughout the profundal zone are provided in Table 8. The
appropriate compliance depth for the mean PECQ of 1, the mercury PEC and the mercury BSQV
in SMU 8 has been conservatively defined as the top 4 cm of sediment. The sediment from 4 cm
to 10 cm is also being evaluated in order to provide further data in the event of mixing deeper than
the 4 cm compliance depth. Mercury concentrations measured in 2017 are generally less than those
measured in 2014, indicating ongoing natural recovery of sediments in SMU 8. Mercury
concentrations were below the mercury PEC of 2.2 mg/kg in all 22 of the surface samples and in
32
-------
20 of the 22 subsurface samples. Two samples in the 4 to 10 cm interval were marginally above
2.2 mg/kg (2.55 mg/kg and 2.26 mg/kg) in the South Corner and Saddle areas (Parsons, 2018a and
Parsons, 2020c). At all locations, 2017 concentrations are higher in the 4 to 10 cm interval than in
the 0 to 4 cm interval.
In addition to the 2014 and 2017 SMU 8 measured surface sediment mercury concentrations, Table
8 includes the model-predicted surface sediment mercury concentrations from the final design. Of
the 22 sediment locations sampled in 2017, 14 were modeled as part of the final design analysis.
Measured mercury concentrations in 2017 ranged from 0.4 to 1.4 mg/kg in the top four cm. These
levels are lower than the model levels predicted to occur in 2017 at all 14 locations, indicating that
recovery of profundal zone sediments is occurring more rapidly than predicted.
Area-weighted average mercury concentrations were calculated for the five sub-basins of
Onondaga Lake, which include the profundal zone (SMU 8) and littoral zone, for comparison to
the BSQV. Two methods were used to calculate the area-weighted average concentrations in each
sub-basin. The first method (Method 1) relied on the 2017 SMU 8 surface sediment samples only
from the 22 locations to calculate area-weighted average concentrations in the SMU 8 portion of
each sub-basin (Figure 25.1). Because the number of 2017 data points was less than the data
density used to calculate the area-weighted average concentration during the final design, a second
method (Method 2) was employed, which supplements the 2017 data from the 22 locations along
with the SMU 8 data from the final design and assigned a mercury concentration to each location
not sampled in 2017 based on a percent reduction that has occurred since that time (Figure 25.2).
Average percent reductions for each of the five BSQV sub-areas were calculated by comparing
the surface sediment mercury concentrations measured during the 2017 sampling to the surface
sediment mercury concentrations from co-located sample locations measured as part of the PDI.
The following datasets were used to develop the area-weighted average surface sediment mercury
concentrations inclusive of SMU 8 and littoral zone capped and uncapped areas:
• 2017 SMU 8 surface sediment samples (0 to 4 cm)
• PDI SMU 8 surface sediment samples (Method 2 only)
• 2017 and 2018 cap monitoring samples (including both solid phase and porewater
converted to solid phase using equilibrium partitioning) collected within the 0- to 15-cm
depth interval within the littoral zone (0- to 6-inch samples and 3- to 6-inch samples
included) and 0- to 4- cm depth interval for locations within the profundal zone
• Remedial investigation samples collected within the 0- to 15-cm depth interval from
locations within the littoral zone outside the cap areas
For Method 2, percent reductions applied to the PDI sampling locations were calculated for each
sub-area as presented in Table 9. Where 2017 samples exist, those were used in place of the PDI
sample concentration with reduction. Areas of influence (based on Thiessen polygons) for each
sample location are presented in Figures 25.1 (Method 1) and 25.2 (Method 2). Areas of influence
were defined for the profundal zone, non-capped areas, and each cap type separately. For example,
the area of influence for a sample collected in SMU 8 does not extend beyond the boundary of
non-capped areas in SMU 8.
33
-------
Regardless of the method used, the analysis indicates that the area-weighted average surface
sediment mercury concentrations have declined to values less than or equal to the mercury BSQV
of 0.8 mg/kg in all five sub-basins of Onondaga Lake. Surface sediment area-weighted average
concentrations across Onondaga Lake in each of the five lake zones are presented in Table 10 for
Methods 1 and 2. The area-weighted mercury concentrations are less than predicted to occur by
2017 during the final design, indicating that recovery is occurring more rapidly than predicted.
It should be noted that the 2017 sampling results noted above and presented in Table 9 are from a
"routine" sampling event as described in the OLMMP. Routine results alone are not being used
to verify compliance, but are being used to determine when compliance verification sampling
would be conducted. In accordance with the OLMMP, once routine monitoring results indicate
that the mercury PEC and BSQV are being met (which have been achieved based on the 2017
SMU 8 surface sediment samples from 0 to 4 cm), compliance verification sampling events would
be conducted using a more robust number of sampling locations in SMU 8 and include additional
sampling of the littoral zone including in un-remediated areas. Compliance with the mercury PEC
would be based on meeting that criterion at every location. Compliance with the mercury BSQV
would be based on the calculated surface-weighted average concentrations (SWACs) meeting the
BSQV in each of the five sub-areas. To demonstrate attainment of the performance criteria,
compliance verification results would need to meet the criteria over two consecutive verification
sampling events completed within one to three years of each other. Since all recent mercury
concentrations in SMU 8 surface (0 to 4 cm) sediment were below the mercury PEC (Table 9) and
the mercury SWACs calculated under both Methods 1 and 2 were below the BSQV for each of the
five sub-areas (Table 10), the next sampling event, which is scheduled to be conducted in 2021,
will be the first compliance verification sampling event. If the mercury performance criteria are
attained in 2021, a subsequent compliance verification sampling event would be conducted in
accordance with the OLMMP to further evaluate compliance.
In addition to the collection of shallow cores and their analysis for mercury, monitoring to assess
monitored natural recovery also includes evaluations of the depth of mixing of surface sediments,
sedimentation rates, and the concentrations on the settling particles.
To assess mixing depths in SMU 8, cores were collected from profundal zone sediments in 2014,
2015 and 2017. The presence of layers or laminations in the SMU 8 sediment is primary evidence
that SMU 8 sediment is relatively undisturbed and not affected by bioturbation or resuspension of
lakebed sediment. Based on observations of laminations from the cores collected from SMU 8 in
2014, 2015 and 2017, mixing depths range from 0.1 to 7 cm, with an average of 1.5 cm (see Table
11). The average depth of 1.5 cm is within the SMU 8 compliance depth of 4 cm for the mercury
PEC and mercury BSQV, but there are some locations in the north and south basins where mixing
appears to be deeper. Additional monitoring is planned for 2021.
Based upon the fluorescent microbeads that were placed on top of sediments to visually demarcate
the sediment surface, allowing for the quantification of the depth of settling sediments since the
time of placement. Sedimentation rates were estimated from cores collected in the microbead plots
by measuring the thickness of sediment that accumulated on top of the microbead marker.
Sediment cores have been collected periodically (2011, 2014, 2015 and 2017). The cores were
visually inspected for the green microbead marker. Results from the 2014, 2015 and 2017 events
34
-------
are summarized in Table 11. The results indicate that sedimentation rates range from 0.04 to 0.32
grams per square centimeter per year (g/cm2/yr), with an average of 0.16 g/cm2/yr. The
sedimentation rate of 0.25 g/cm2/yr (1.0 cm year) used in the final design natural recovery
modeling is within the range measured in 2015 and 2017.
Based upon the results from sediment traps deployed at a location in the South Deep, it was
determined that the average deposition of suspended solids during the 2014 through 2018 period
ranged from 11,151 to 17,800 mg per square meter per day (mg/m2/day), all of which are higher
than the solids deposition rate of 6,850 mg/m2/day (or 0.25 g/cm2/yr) used in the MNR modeling
conducted as part of the final design. The results are tabulated in Table 12 and shown in Figure
26. The average mercury concentrations in settling suspended solids in SMU 8 declined from 0.91
mg/kg in 2014 to 0.18 mg/kg in 2018, with an average of 0.43 mg/kg (see Table 12). In 2017 and
2018, mercury concentrations in settling suspended solids (approximately 0.2 mg/kg) were lower
than the mercury concentration of 0.4 mg/kg used to represent the post-remediation period in the
natural recovery modeling conducted during the final design. These lower mercury concentrations
result in lower concentrations at the surface sediments and therefore result in faster recovery of
SMU 8 sediments (Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2012; Parsons, 2020c).
As Onondaga Lake recovers, there is potential for increased density in benthic organisms, which
could in turn lead to increased mixing in SMU 8 sediments. Therefore, the benthic
macroinvertebrate community was monitored and compared to previous years to understand the
potential for increased mixing depth. In 2015, the benthic macroinvertebrate community was
documented in SMU 8 at three different water depths along three transects, as well as two deeper
locations. Most (greater than 95 percent) organisms collected during the June and August 2015
sampling events were chironomids and oligochaetes. Considerable variability was observed
among grab samples at most locations. Macroinvertebrate densities were generally lower at
profundal zone locations in the deepest water compared to the most-shallow water depths along
the transects. Profundal zone macroinvertebrate densities observed in 2015 (mean of
approximately 1,300 organisms/square meter) were higher than those reported in 1992 and 2000
for water depths greater than 7.5 meter (mean of 36 organisms/square meter) suggesting an
improvement in the profundal macroinvertebrate community. The observed densities do not appear
to be contributing to significant bioturbation, as evident from the mixing depth estimated from the
frozen cores. Differences in sampling months, locations, and water depths preclude more detailed
comparisons among years.
Mercury Methylation in the Hypolimnion
Nitrate addition has achieved the goal concentration of 1 mg/L nitrate in the hypolimnion since
2011 (see Figure 27). The time series of methylmercury concentrations for the 18-m water depth
at the South Deep location for the period between 2007 and 2018 is shown on Figure 28. The
annual maximum mass of methylmercury in the hypolimnion for the period between 1992 and
2018 is shown on Figure 29. As illustrated in the figures, methylmercury concentrations and total
methylmercury mass declined considerably in the lake's hypolimnion since 2011. Low
methylmercury concentrations in Onondaga Lake since 2011 are consistent with the higher nitrate
concentrations.
35
-------
Zooplankton samples have been collected from a single deep water station and analyzed for total
mercury and methylmercury. Zooplankton total mercury concentrations have primarily decreased
since nitrate addition began in 2011 (Figure 30). Methylmercury, a more bioaccumulative and
toxic form of mercury, has consistently comprised a very low percentage of the total mercury
present. Peak methylmercury concentrations in zooplankton spiked when nitrate was depleted
from the hypolimnion in 2009 and have remained relatively low since nitrate addition began (see
Figure 31). Proceeding with mercury and methylmercury monitoring in zooplankton and Daphnia,
which are large zooplankton that are important fish prey, will continue to facilitate interpretation
of the long-term results of the fish tissue monitoring program (Parsons, 2018a; Parsons, 2020c).
To date, significant adverse effects on water quality or growth of algae in the lake have not been
observed as a result of the application of nitrate to Onondaga Lake. Total dissolved gas (TDG)
measurements have been monitored as part of the nitrate addition monitoring program to provide
information on the fate of added nitrate and the potential occurrence of oversaturated dissolved
gas levels that could be harmful to fish. Levels of TDG between 2007 and 2017, which include the
baseline period and the period in which the nitrate addition has been implemented, have been
consistent. Despite natural oversaturation of nitrogen gas, TDG levels in the hypolimnion have
consistently remained at or slightly below 100 percent saturation over this period (Figure 32). EPA
has published TDG water quality guidelines which recommend a maximum TDG pressure of 110
percent of local atmospheric pressure (EPA, 1986). Fish can usually tolerate supersaturated water
of less than 110 percent of saturation near the surface of the water. At a water depth of 3.3 feet (1
meter), most fish can tolerate a total gas pressure of 120 percent of saturation with tolerance
increasing about 10 percent for each additional meter of water depth. Because of the consistent
results at levels below EPA guidelines for protection of fish, the requirement to measure TDG was
removed from the monitoring program following monitoring conducted in 2017.
Nitrite-nitrogen concentrations were measured in Onondaga Lake from 2006 through 2018 and
were compared to the New York State SWQS established for nitrite (100 [j,g/L as nitrogen) to
protect warm water fish from effects of nitrite (see Figure 33). For the 2006-2017 period, weekly
average concentrations were below the SWQS for nitrite except in late June and early July at the
16- and 18-m depths. In 2018, the SWQS for nitrite was exceeded at the 12-m depth during July
and again during early October. Elevated nitrite concentrations during 2018 were caused by
incomplete nitrification of ammonia. Nitrification treatment at Metro was suspended temporarily
for project-related construction from October 16, 2017 through March 3, 2018 and again from
October 16, 2018 through February 28, 2019. The shutdown during the winter of 2017-2018
resulted in higher loading of nitrite and ammonia to the lake in 2018 and lower loading of nitrate.
In 2018, nitrite concentrations did not exceed the standard at the water depth most affected by
application of nitrate (18 m). Nitrate added to the hypolimnion is denitrified to dinitrogen gas (N2)
(Parsons, 2020c). During the 2006-2018 period, concentrations of nitrite remained below the New
York State surface water quality standard in the upper waters (2 m) where fish reside.
Fish Tissue
Both Honeywell and NYSDEC have collected fish over the time frames prior to, during and
subsequent to implementation of remedial activities, although they typically sample different
species, with NYSDEC concentrating on Largemouth Bass, with other species being less
36
-------
consistently collected. For the fish tissue data reporting, both the Honeywell data sets from 2008
to 2018 (fillets of Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu), Walleye {Sander vitreus), Common
Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) and whole-body small and large
prey fish) and NYSDEC data sets from 2008 to 2018 (Largemouth Bass, Carp, Yellow Perch
[Perca jlavescens], White Perch [Morone americana], and Channel Catfish [Ictaluruspunctatus])
are used.
The discussion of fish tissue monitoring results below generally focuses on the 2015-2018
monitoring period for both the Honeywell and NYSDEC data sets, as this period follows that
which was covered in the first FYR report (data through 2014). Fish tissue sampling and analysis
conducted by Honeywell in 2015 and 2016 were implemented consistent with NYSDEC approved
submittals, including the 2015 and 2016 work scopes for tissue monitoring submitted as work plan
addenda to the Onondaga Lake Tissue Monitoring Work Plan for 2012 (Parsons and Anchor QEA,
2015; Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2016). Fish tissue monitoring conducted by Honeywell in 2017
and 2018 was implemented consistent with draft and final versions of the Onondaga Lake
Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2018b). Data for the period prior
to 2015, including the baseline monitoring period, are also discussed to some extent, particularly
when considering potential trends in contaminant concentrations. The figures referenced in the
discussion below can be found in Attachment 3 along with a general description of the fish tissue
monitoring program since 2008 and a summary of the data sets used in this assessment.
Potential human health exposures associated with fish consumption are evaluated based on adult
sport fish species selected to cover a range of trophic levels including top level piscivores
(Smallmouth Bass, Walleye), invertivores (Pumpkinseed), and benthic herbivores (Common
Carp)15. A total of 25 individual fish for each of up to four adult sport fish species were targeted
for collection each year during the 2015-2018 period for a total of up to 100 adult sport fish
samples. The actual number of species collected by Honeywell between 2008 and 2018 is
presented in Table 1 of Attachment 3. Approximate fish tissue sampling locations are provided on
Figure 34.
For ecological exposure, the fish were grouped into two size classes: small (3 to 18 cm) and large
(18 to 60 cm) consistent with the Onondaga Lake BERA (TAMS, 2002). Small prey fish
composite samples collected by Honeywell, each consisting of a single species, were comprised
of approximately 10-15 small prey fish per sample, depending on individual weights, consistent
with prior sampling. The target species of small prey fish for composites were Banded Killifish,
consistent with baseline monitoring, but may vary based on availability at the time of collection.
For the small prey fish, three composite samples were targeted for collection at each of eight
locations (see Figure 32) for a total of 24 samples per year during the 2015-2018 period. To
represent the large prey fish, 24 White Sucker, were targeted for collection by Honeywell within
eight locations (see Figure 32) during the 2015-2018 period. The large prey fish were analyzed as
individuals on a whole-body basis.
15 From 2008-2014, Brown Bullhead was one the four sport fish species included in the Honeywell
monitoring program. In 2014, Common Carp, was also collected at the request of NYSDEC. In 2015,
Brown Bullhead was dropped from the program and replaced by Common Carp.
37
-------
Sport and prey fish were collected using the same methods that were successfully used from 2008
through 2014, including nighttime electrofishing, gill netting, trap netting, and seining (Parsons,
2018a). All of the total sample collection targets were met during the 2015-2018 period with the
exception of Pumpkinseed in 2017 and in 2018, where there was insufficient sample mass
remaining to complete the analysis of hexachlorobenzene in 5 of the 25 samples in 2017 and 2 of
the 25 samples in 2018).
Analyses were conducted for mercury, PCBs, lipids, and percent moisture for all Honeywell
samples (both sport and prey fish) collected for the 2015-2018 period. In 2015, 2017, and 2018,
all Honeywell sport and prey fish collected fish were analyzed for hexachlorobenzene unless
sufficient mass was not available as noted above. In 2015, 2017, and 2018, Honeywell collected
prey fish were analyzed for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites, and a subset of
the Honeywell collected sport fish (11-14 samples per species) were analyzed for dioxins/furans.
Sport fish samples were analyzed as NYSDEC standard fillets, consistent with NYSDEC's fish
preparation procedures for contaminant analysis (NYSDEC, 2014). The large and small prey fish
were analyzed as whole body and whole body composites, respectively.
To supplement the small and large prey fish data, whole-body concentrations were estimated based
on the fillet samples from that size class and the fillet to whole-body conversion factors (0.7 for
mercury, 2.5 for PCBs, and 2.3 for DDTs and hexachlorobenzene) from the Onondaga Lake BERA
(Section 8.2.6.4). These conversion factors may be reassessed with new data in the future, if
appropriate.
During the 2015-2018 period, NYSDEC collected Largemouth Bass in Onondaga Lake in 2015
(53 samples), 2016 (55 samples), and 2017-2018 (50 samples each year), as well as Yellow Perch
in 2016 and 2018 (20 samples each year). Analyses were conducted for mercury, PCBs, DDT,
hexachlorobenzene, and lipids on all samples with the exception of mercury in one of the 20
Yellow Perch in 2016. The number of samples and species collected by NYSDEC between 2008
and 2018 is presented in Table 2 of Attachment 3.
The data in Sets 1, 2, and 3 represent results for sport fish, small prey fish, and large prey fish,
respectively. These data are presented in the figures as box-and-whisker plots, similar to the
figures presented in the First FYR Report, but which now also include the 95% upper confidence
limit (UCL) values, and are compared with human health (fillet data in Set 1 figures) or ecological-
based remedial goals or targets (whole-body concentrations for small prey fish in the Set 2 figures
and for large prey fish in the Set 3 figures) for fish tissue as presented in Table 13, where
applicable.
The discussion of the fish data presented below focuses on mean and 95% UCL values and the
figures included in Attachment 3 present the full range of concentrations. For annual data sets for
a contaminant where the 95% UCL value in a species is less than the goal (for mercury) or target
concentration (for organics) but the maximum value (as presented in the box-and-whisker plots)
is greater than the goal or target, the text below includes a discussion of the number (and
percentage) of samples that exceed the goal or target.
38
-------
Annual fish tissue mean and 95% UCL contaminant concentrations for each species for the 2015-
2018 period for the Honeywell data for sport fish fillet data, prey fish whole-body data, and
calculated whole-body concentrations based on the fillet data are presented in Attachment 3 Tables
3a, 3b, and 3c, respectively. Annual fish tissue mean and 95% UCL contaminant concentrations
for the NYSDEC sport fish fillet data for Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch, and calculated
whole-body concentrations based on the NYSDEC fillet data are presented in Attachment 3 Tables
4a and 4b, respectively.
For information on the potential impact of remediation on contaminant concentrations in fish tissue
(as opposed to the risk to consumers of fish), the changes in concentration over time are reported.
In these figures (Set 4), the data are presented in a way that controls factors which may influence
the wet-weight concentrations, but are independent of any exposure to the site-related
contamination. This reduces the variability (e.g., noise) in the data. For mercury, the variability
due to fish age is corrected by using length as a surrogate for age. The wet-weight mercury
concentration of each individual fish is adjusted by dividing the concentration (in mg/kg) by its
length (in millimeters [mm]), providing a concentration as mg/kg per mm. For the organic
contaminants, the amount of lipid in the fish has a major influence on the wet-weight
concentrations (Sloan et al., 2002). For PCBs, dioxin/furans, DDTs, and hexachlorobenzene, the
wet-weight concentrations for each individual fish are adjusted by dividing the concentration by
its lipid content, providing a lipid-normalized concentration (e.g., mg PCBs/kg lipid). The data in
Set 4 are presented as means plus and minus two standard errors, which provide an estimate of 95
percent UCL and lower confidence limit.
The data for Sets 1, 2, 3 and 4 are discussed, below.
SPORT FISH (SET 1)
Honeywell Data
Mercury
Mercury concentrations in all sport fish species have generally declined since completion of
dredging and capping in 2016. Smallmouth Bass, Walleye, Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
concentrations for mercury on a wet-weight basis are depicted on Set 1, Figures 1 and 2.
Smallmouth Bass ( mean of 0.79 mg/kg wet weight [ww] in 2018 and 95% upper confidence limit
(UCL)16 of 0.91 mg/kg ww in 2018) and Walleye (mean of 0.71 mg/kg ww in 2018 and 95% UCL
of 0.81 mg/kg ww in 2018) mercury concentrations remain well above the human-health-based
Remedial Goals (RGs) of 0.2 and 0.3 mg/kg ww. These results are not unexpected as Smallmouth
Bass and Walleye are longer-lived, higher trophic level species that take longer to respond to the
effects of the remedy.
Mercury concentrations in Common Carp show a decline since initial sampling in 2014, with the
2018 mean (0.10 mg/kg ww) and 95% UCL (0.14 mg/kg ww) having the lowest mean and 95%
UCL reported values to date. Mean concentrations in Common Carp have been below the human-
health-based RG of 0.3 mg/kg ww since 2014, and below the human-health-based RG of 0.2 mg/kg
16 The 95% UCL is an estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean.
39
-------
ww in 2017 and 2018. In 2016 and 2017, the 95% UCL values were below the human-health-
based RG of 0.3 mg/kg ww but above the human-health-based RG of 0.2 mg/kg ww. Maximum
concentrations of 0.4 and 0.7 mg/kg ww in 2016 and 2017, respectively, were above both goals.
In 2016 and 2017, mercury concentrations in Common Carp were above the RG of 0.3 mg/kg ww
in six of 25 (24%) and three of 25 (12%) samples, and above the RG of 0.2 mg/kg ww in ten of 25
(40%) and nine of 25 (36%) samples, respectively. In 2018, the 95% UCL was below both RGs
with the maximum concentration of 0.34 mg/kg ww from the one sample of 25 (4%) that exceeded
the higher RG of 0.3 mg/kg ww. The lower human-health-based RG of 0.2 mg/kg ww was
exceeded in five of 25 (20%) samples in 2018.
Mean and 95% UCL concentrations in Pumpkinseed on a wet-weight basis were elevated in 2015
relative to 2014, but have generally decreased from 2015 to 2018. The 2018 mean (0.09 mg/kg
ww) and 95% UCL (0.11 mg/kg ww) in Pumpkinseed are the lowest mean and 95% UCL reported
values to date. Mean mercury concentrations in Pumpkinseed have been below the 0.3 mg/kg ww
RG since 2010 and were below the 0.2 mg/kg ww RG in 2013, 2014, and from 2016 to 2018. In
2016, the mercury 95% UCL was below the 0.3 mg/kg ww RG but above the 0.2 mg/kg ww RG
and there were four of 25 (16%) and nine of 25 (36%) Pumpkinseed samples that were above the
0.3 mg/kg ww RG and the 0.2 mg/kg ww RG, respectively. In 2017, the mercury 95% UCL was
below the 0.3 mg/kg ww RG and at the 0.2 mg/kg ww RG and there were four of 25 (16%) and
eight of 25 (32%) Pumpkinseed samples that were above the 0.3 mg/kg ww RG and the 0.2 mg/kg
ww RG, respectively. In 2018, the mercury 95% UCL was below both RGs and there were no
exceedances of the 0.3 mg/kg ww RG and only one of 25 (4%) samples exceeded the 0.2 mg/kg
ww RG.
PCBs
Sport fish PCB concentrations on a wet-weight basis are depicted on Set 1, Figures 3 and 4. PCB
2017 and 2018 mean concentrations in Smallmouth Bass (0.50 mg/kg ww in 2017 and 0.47 mg/kg
ww in 2018) are lower compared to mean PCB concentrations in 2014 (1.38 mg/kg ww), 2015
(1.91 mg/kg ww), and 2016 (1.20 mg/kg ww). Similarly, PCB 2017 and 2018 mean concentrations
in Walleye (0.74 mg/kw ww in 2017 and 0.96 mg/kg ww in 2018) are lower compared to mean
PCB concentrations in 2014 (2.21 mg/kg ww), 2015 (3.82 mg/kg ww), and 2016 (2.51 mg/kg ww).
The mean and 95% UCL PCB levels for the Smallmouth Bass and Walleye remain well above
human-health-based targets (0.3 mg/kg ww cancer-based target and 0.04 mg/kg ww noncancer-
based target) throughout the 2014-2018 period.
PCB concentrations in Pumpkinseed show no discernable trend on a wet-weight basis, while
concentrations in Common Carp were higher in 2015 and 2016 relative to 2014, but were
considerably lower in 2017 and 2018 relative to 2014. In 2017 and 2018, the mean (0.10 mg/kg
ww in 2017, 0.09 mg/kg ww in 2018) and 95% UCL (0.13 mg/kg ww in 2017, 0.12 mg/kg ww in
2018) PCB levels for Pumpkinseed and the 2018 mean for Common Carp (0.27 mg/kg ww in
2018) were below the 0.3 mg/kg ww cancer-based target, but above the 0.04 mg/kg ww noncancer-
based target. The 95% UCL in Common Carp in 2018 (0.44 mg/kg ww) remained above the 0.3
mg/kg ww cancer-based target. PCB concentrations exceeded the 0.3 mg/kg ww cancer-based
target in two of 25 (8%) Pumpkinseed samples in 2015 and in one of 25 (4%) samples in both
2016 and 2017. Although all Pumpkinseed samples were below the 0.3 mg/kg ww cancer-based
40
-------
target in 2018, the 95% UCL values continue to remain above the 0.04 mg/kg ww noncancer-based
target through 2018 (0.12 mg/kg ww).
Dioxins/Furans
Wet-weight concentrations of dioxins and furans (evaluated as Toxic Equivalents [TEQs]) in sport
fish are depicted on Set 1, Figures 5 and 6. Dioxins and furans (evaluated as TEQs) in Smallmouth
Bass and Walleye have, in general, declined in concentration since baseline. In 2018, the mean
and 95% UCL for Smallmouth Bass were 1.04 ng/kg ww and 1.33 ng/kg ww, respectively. In
2018, the mean and 95% UCL for Walleye were 1.81 ng/kg ww and 2.52 ng/kg ww, respectively.
These levels for Smallmouth Bass and Walleye are below the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-based target, but
only the 2018 mean for Smallmouth Bass is below the 1.3 ng/kg ww noncancer-based target. For
Smallmouth Bass and Walleye, the 95% UCL values were below the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-based
target but above the 1.3 ng/kg ww noncancer-based target from 2014 through 2018. In 2015, there
was one of 12 (8.3%) Smallmouth Bass samples above the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-based target.
Walleye exceeded the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-based target in two of 13 (15.4%) samples in 2014, one
of 11 (9%) samples in 2017, and two of 13 (15.4%) samples in 2018.
Dioxin and furan TEQ concentrations in Common Carp have declined since 2014 (when this
species was first sampled since the RI), while concentrations in Pumpkinseed have remained
relatively unchanged, although significantly lower than other species. In 2015 and 2017, the mean
and 95% UCL in Common Carp were above the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-based target. In 2018, the
mean and 95% UCL in Common Carp were 1.08 ng/kg ww and 3.24 ng/kg ww, respectively.
These levels are below the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-based target, but the 95% UCL is above the 1.3
ng/kg ww noncancer-based target. There were two of 14 (14.3%) Common Carp samples in 2018
that exceeded the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-based target. The 2017 mean (0.27 ng/kg ww), 2017 95%
UCL (0.33 ng/kg ww), 2018 mean (0.54 ng/kg ww), and 2018 95% UCL (0.73 ng/kg ww) for
Pumpkinseed are below both human-health-based targets.
Hexachlorobenzene
Sport fish hexachlorobenzene concentrations on a wet-weight basis are depicted on Set 1, Figures
7 and 8. Detected mean and 95% UCL concentrations in all sport fish were lower in 2017 and 2018
relative to prior years. Hexachlorobenzene concentrations have a low frequency of detection in
most samples analyzed in the last two years (see Attachment 3, Table 3a). No human health-based
goals or targets for hexachlorobenzene were identified in the ROD.
NYSDECData
The discussion below focuses on the two species sampled by NYSDEC in Onondaga Lake since
2015 (Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch). The figures referenced below are included in
Attachment 3.
41
-------
Mercury
Mercury concentrations in Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch fillet samples since 2015 are
generally lower than pre-remediation (baseline) concentrations prior to 2012. (See Set 1, DEC
Figure 1.) Although mean and 95% UCL values in Largemouth Bass have remained relatively
constant since 2015, mercury concentrations in Yellow Perch, which was only sampled in two
years since 2015, declined in 2018 (95% UCL of 0.45 mg/kg ww) compared to 2016 (95% UCL
of 0.61 mg/kg ww). Mean and 95% UCL concentrations remain well above the human-health-
based RGs of 0.2 and 0.3 mg/kg ww for both species since 2008.
PCBs
PCB concentrations in Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch fillets are depicted in Set 1, DEC
Figure 2. Although mean and 95% UCL PCB concentrations in Largemouth Bass in 2017 and
2018 are lower than in most years prior to commencement of remediation (with the exception of
2009 and 2010), there is no discernable trend since 2015. All PCB mean and 95% UCL
concentrations in Largemouth Bass continue to exceed both the 0.3 mg/kg ww cancer-based target
and the 0.04 mg/kg ww noncancer-based target. Mean and 95% UCL PCB concentrations in
Yellow Perch in 2016 and 2018 are below the 0.3 mg/kg ww cancer-based target but above the
0.04 mg/kg ww noncancer-based target. There were one of 20 (5%) and six of 20 (30%)
exceedances of the 0.3 mg/kg ww cancer-based target in 2016 and 2018, respectively.
DDT
DDT concentrations in Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch fillets are depicted in Set 1, DEC
Figure 3. Similar to PCBs, although mean and 95% UCL DDT concentrations in Largemouth Bass
in recent years are lower than in most years prior to commencement of remediation (with the
exception of 2009 and 2010), there is no discernable trend since 2015. Although mean and 95%
UCL concentrations in Yellow Perch were higher in 2018 than in 2016, mean and 95% UCL
concentrations in Yellow Perch remain low (below 0.01 mg/kg ww). No human-health-based
targets for DDTs were identified in the ROD.
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene concentrations in Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch fillets are depicted in
Set 1, DEC Figure 4. Mean and 95% UCL hexachlorobenzene concentrations in Largemouth Bass
in recent years are lower than in the years prior to commencement of remediation, with only a
limited number of detections in 2016 (8 of 55 samples) and no detections in 2017 and 2018 (50
samples each year). Hexachlorobenzene was not detected in Yellow Perch in both 2016 and 2018
(20 samples each year). No human health-based goals or targets for hexachlorobenzene were
identified in the ROD.
42
-------
SMALL PREY FISH (SET 2)
Honeywell Data
Contaminant concentrations in small prey fish (e.g., Banded Killifish) collected under the
Honeywell monitoring program. In addition to the collected small prey fish, this category of
samples also includes Small Pumpkinseed (30-180 mm) from the Honeywell mercury, PCB, and
hexachlorobenzene fillet data corrected to provide an estimate of the whole-body concentrations
(based on the fillet to whole-body factors used in the BERA). These data were evaluated via
comparison to ecological remedial goals and targets, which are presented in the Set 2 figures.
Mercury
On a lake-wide basis, mercury wet-weight concentrations in small prey fish are generally lower
for the 2015-2018 period relative to prior years. The 2016 mean (0.09 mg/kg ww) and 95% UCL
(0.10 mg/kg ww), the 2017 mean (0.06 mg/kg ww) and 95% UCL (0.07 mg/kg ww), and the 2018
mean (0.07 mg/kg ww) and 95% UCL (0.09 mg/kg ww) were below the ecological-based RG of
0.14 mg/kg ww. (See Set 2, Figure 1.) Mercury concentrations exceeded the ecological-based RG
in two (8.3%>), one (4.2%), and one (4.2%) of 24 annual small prey fish samples in 2016, 2017,
and 2018, respectively. Calculated Small Pumpkinseed whole-body mercury wet-weight
concentrations are depicted in Set 2, Figure 2. Calculated mean and 95% UCL whole-body
mercury concentrations in Small Pumpkinseed were above the ecological-based RG in 2015.
Between 2016 and 2018, both the mean and 95% UCL were below the RG. Calculated whole-
body mercury concentrations in Small Pumpkinseed were above the ecological-based RG in three
of 17 (17.6%>) and five of 20 (25%) samples in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and calculated
concentrations in all samples were below the RG in 2018.
PCBs
PCB wet-weight concentrations in small prey fish have generally declined since 2015. (See Set 2,
Figure 3.) On a lake-wide basis in 2018, the small prey fish mean PCB level (0.05 mg/kg ww)
and the 95% UCL PCB level (0.13 mg/kg ww) were below the 0.19 mg/kg ww ecological target,
which is based on protection of the river otter receptor at the LOAEL level. In 2018, the PCB
concentrations exceeded the 0.19 mg/kg ww ecological target in three of 24 (12.5%) small prey
fish samples. Calculated Small Pumpkinseed whole-body mean and 95% UCL total PCB wet-
weight concentrations (Set 2, Figure 4) were above the ecological-based target for PCBs between
2015 and 2018, although the levels were lower in 2017 and 2018 relative to 2015 and 2016.
DDT and Metabolites
Concentrations of the sum of DDT and metabolites in small prey fish are generally low with respect
to the ecological target and are relatively unchanged throughout the collection period. (See Set 2,
Figure 5.) On a lake-wide basis, the mean and 95% UCL in 2015, 2017 and 2018 (samples were
not collected in 2016) for the sum of DDT and metabolites in small prey fish were less than or
equal to 0.01 mg/kg ww, which is below the ecological target of 0.049 mg/kg ww for the sum of
DDT and metabolites. Maximum concentrations in each of these years were also less than the
43
-------
small prey fish target. The ecological target for small prey fish is based on protection of the belted
kingfisher receptor at the LOAEL level.
Hexachlorobenzene
Mean and 95% UCL hexachlorobenzene concentrations in small prey fish (Set 2, Figure 6) and
calculated Small Pumpkinseed whole-body hexachlorobenzene wet-weight concentrations (Set 2,
Figure 7) show no discernable trends over the collection period. Hexachlorobenzene was not
detected in 11 of 24, 21 of 24, and 24 of 24 small prey fish samples collected in 2015, 2017, and
2018, respectively. Hexachlorobenzene was not detected in the Small Pumpkinseed samples
collected in 2017 and 2018. There are no ecological goals or targets for hexachlorobenzene in fish
tissue.
LARGE PREY FISH (SET 3)
Larger prey fish (e.g., White Sucker and sport fish) were collected to assess exposure to larger
wildlife which consume fish (e.g., otter, great blue heron, osprey). Estimated or measured
concentrations of whole fish in this size class (180 to 600 mm) are presented because they would
also consume the entire fish. This category of samples includes seven species to provide an
assessment of this exposure, including whole-body samples of White Sucker analyzed by
Honeywell beginning in 2014 along with the four large sport fish (Smallmouth Bass, Walleye,
Common Carp and Pumpkinseed) from the Honeywell data set and two species from the NYSDEC
data set (Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch) corrected to provide an estimate of the whole-body
concentrations (based on the fillet to whole-body conversion factors used in the BERA). These
data for White Sucker and calculated concentrations for the sport fish species are presented in the
Set 3 figures.
Honeywell Data
Mercury
For the White Sucker, the mercury mean concentration in 2016 (0.13 mg/kg ww) and mean 2017
(0.09 mg/kg ww) were lower than the ecological-based RG of 0.14 mg/kg ww (Set 3, Figure 1),
but the 2018 mean (0.17 mg/kg ww) was above this RG. In 2014 through 2016 and in 2018, the
95% UCL values were above the ecological-based RG of 0.14 mg/kg ww. In 2017, the 95% UCL
was equal to the 0.14 mg/kg ww RG with seven of 24 (29.2%) samples exceeding the RG.
There are clear differences in the calculated whole-body mercury concentrations among species.
The larger, higher trophic level, longer-lived fish (e.g., Smallmouth Bass and Walleye) have higher
concentrations than other species such as Pumpkinseed (Set 3, Figures 2 and 3). Smallmouth Bass
and Walleye calculated whole-body mercury concentrations (about 0.1 to 2 mg/kg) during the
2015-2018 period are generally above the ecological goal of 0.14 mg/kg ww. Over this period,
Walleye whole-body mercury concentrations are generally lower relative to the 2010-2014 period,
but Smallmouth Bass whole-body mercury concentrations are mostly similar to mercury whole-
body levels for this species over the 2010-2014 period. For the 2014-2018 period, mean mercury
calculated whole-body concentrations for Common Carp are below the ecological RG. The 95%
44
-------
UCLs are slightly above the RG in 2014 but are at or below the RG in 2015 through 2018. In
2015, 2016, and 2017, there were 13 of 25 (52%), ten of 25 (40%), and nine of 25 (36%) Common
Carp samples above the ecological RG of 0.14 mg/kg ww, respectively. The maximum was below
the RG in 2018. The mean of the calculated whole-body mercury concentrations in Pumpkinseed
declined over the 2015-2018 period, with the 2018 mean level dropping below the RG and the
2018 95% UCL just above the RG.
PCBs
Mean PCB wet-weight concentrations for the White Sucker were considerably higher in 2015
compared to 2014, but have declined since 2015 (Set 3, Figure 4). In 2018, the mean (0.10 mg/kg
ww) and 95% UCL (0.13 mg/kg) PCB levels for the White Sucker were below corresponding
levels in 2014 and the 0.19 mg/kg ww ecological target for prey fish based on protection of the
river otter receptor at the LOAEL level. The 95% UCL values exceeded the target through 2017
and declined to below the 0.19 mg/kg ww ecological target in 2018. In 2018, three of 24 (12.5%)
White Sucker samples exceeded the target.
Whole-body PCB concentrations calculated from collected sport fish fillet data are depicted on Set
3, Figures 5 and 6. As is the case for mercury, the larger, higher trophic level, longer-lived fish
(e.g., Smallmouth Bass and Walleye) have higher PCB concentrations than lower trophic level
species. Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye were higher in 2015 than 2014, but are
generally declining since 2015. The calculated concentrations for both Smallmouth Bass and
Walleye, however, remain elevated relative to the ecological target of 0.19 mg/kg for PCBs. The
calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL PCB concentrations in Common Carp in 2017 and
2018 are lower than in prior years but remain above the target of 0.19 mg/kg ww. The calculated
whole-body mean PCB concentration in Pumpkinseed was below the ecological target in 2016,
but the means in 2015, 2017 and 2018 and the 95% UCLs between 2015 and 2018 were above the
target.
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene concentrations in White Sucker samples collected are depicted in Set 3, Figure
7. There is no discernable pattern in hexachlorobenzene levels since monitoring for the White
Sucker commenced in 2014. Hexachlorobenzene was not detected in 14 of 24 and 23 of 24 White
Sucker samples in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
Whole-body hexachlorobenzene concentrations calculated from collected sport fish fillet data are
depicted on Set 3, Figures 8 and 9. The 2017 and 2018 levels are generally lower than levels in
2014 and 2015 for Smallmouth Bass and Walleye. There is no discernable pattern in
hexachlorobenzene levels in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed during the 2015-2018 monitoring
period with the majority of the 2017 and 2018 samples of Common Carp and all Pumpkinseed
samples reported as non-detect.
There are no ecological goals or targets for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue.
45
-------
DDT and Metabolites
Concentrations of the sum of DDT and metabolites in large prey fish (White Sucker) for the 2015-
2018 period are relatively unchanged throughout the collection period and generally below the
ecological target of 0.14 mg/kg ww for the sum of DDT and metabolites based on protection of
the osprey receptor at the LOAEL level. (See Set 3, Figure 10.) In 2015, the mean and the
maximum concentration of DDT and metabolites for the White Sucker on a lake-wide basis were
0.02 mg/kg ww and 0.09 mg/kg ww, respectively. In 2017, the mean and 95% UCL lake-wide
concentrations for the White Sucker were both at 0.02 mg/kg ww. In 2018, the mean and 95%
UCL concentrations for the White Sucker were 0.03 mg/kg ww and 0.10 mg/kg ww, respectively.
The White Sucker mean and 95% UCL concentrations in 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018 were below
the ecological target of 0.14 mg/kg ww. In 2018, there was one of 24 (4.2%) White Sucker samples
that considerably exceeded the ecological target of 0.14 mg/kg ww.
NYSDECData
Mercury
Calculated whole-body mercury concentrations in Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch (Set 3,
DEC Figures la and 3a) since 2015 are generally lower than pre-remediation (baseline)
concentrations prior to 2012. Although mean and 95% UCL values in Largemouth Bass have
remained relatively constant since 2015, calculated whole-body mercury concentrations in Yellow
Perch, which was only sampled in two years since 2015, declined in 2018 (95% UCL of 0.32
mg/kg ww) compared to 2016 (95% UCL of 0.44 mg/kg). Calculated whole-body mean and 95%
UCL concentrations remain well above the ecological RG of 0.14 mg/kg ww for both species since
2008.
PCBs
Although calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL PCB concentrations in Largemouth Bass in
2017 and 2018 are lower than in most years prior to commencement of remediation (with the
exception of 2009 and 2010), there is no discernable trend since 2015 (Set 3, DEC Figure lb).
Calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL PCB concentrations in Largemouth Bass continue to
exceed the 0.19 mg/kg ww ecological target. Calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL PCB
concentrations in Yellow Perch in 2016 and 2018 exceed the 0.19 mg/kg ww ecological target (Set
3, DEC Figure 3b).
Hexachlorobenzene
Calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL hexachlorobenzene concentrations in Largemouth
Bass in recent years are generally lower than in the years prior to commencement of remediation,
with only a limited number of detections in 2016 (8 of 55 samples) and no detections in 2017 and
2018 (50 samples each year) (Set 3, DEC Figure 2b). Hexachlorobenzene was not detected in
Yellow Perch in both 2016 and 2018 (20 samples each year) (Set 3, DEC Figure 4b). No
ecological-based targets for hexachlorobenzene were identified in the ROD.
46
-------
DDT and Metabolites
Similar to PCBs, although calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL DDT concentrations in
Largemouth Bass in recent years are lower than in most years prior to commencement of
remediation (with the exception of 2009 and 2010), there is no discernable trend since 2015 (Set
3, DEC Figure 2a). The calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL concentrations of DDTs in
Largemouth Bass have been below the ecological target of 0.14 mg/kg ww for all years since 2009.
Since 2015, only a limited number of samples (less than 10% each year) exceeded the ecological
target of 0.14 mg/kg ww, including two of 53 samples (3.8%) in 2015, one of 55 samples (1.8%)
in 2016, five of 50 samples (10%) in 2017, and two of 50 samples (4%) in 2018.
Calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL DDT concentrations in Yellow Perch have been
below the ecological target of 0.14 mg/kg ww in all sampled years (Set 3, DEC Figure 4a).
ADDITIONAL REPORTING TO ASSESS POTENTIAL TRENDS AND LOCATION
IMPACTS (SET 4)
The previous sections reported the concentrations in fish tissue as they would appear to the
consumers of those fish—as fillet or whole-body samples on a wet-weight basis. As discussed
above and in Attachment 3, there are factors that will affect the concentrations of contaminants,
causing increased variability that will make it more difficult to discern trends and understand the
mechanisms influencing the results in the context of remedial success. These factors include the
trophic level and age of fish for mercury, lipid content for organic contaminants, and location for
species with limited home ranges. These factors are addressed in the data presented in the Set 4
figures in Attachment 3.
The first subset of figures presents mercury data normalized to fish length and organic
contaminants normalized to lipids for both sport fish and prey fish. As the normalized data are not
compared to the goals and targets (which are on a wet-weight basis), the data are presented as
mean plus and minus two standard errors rather than box-and-whisker plots to provide a simpler
image.
The second subset of figures presents the normalized data by sample location for localized small
and large prey fish species collected by Honeywell (note, whole-body prey fish were not collected
by NYSDEC). These figures show normalized concentrations for the SMUs from which the prey
fish samples were collected. Note, Honeywell's fish sampling program did not include stations in
SMU 1 prior to 2017. As small prey fish, large prey fish, and Pumpkinseed tend to be more
localized and feed more heavily in the littoral zone than the other fish collected, figures for these
species are also included in this subset.
Honeywell Data
Mercury
Mercury concentrations in sport fish species have generally declined since completion of dredging
and capping. The general trend is apparent in the length-normalized plots (Set 4, Subset 1, Figure
47
-------
1). Mean length-normalized concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed were elevated in
2015 relative to 2014, but have generally decreased from 2015 to 2018. Mean length-normalized
concentrations in Smallmouth Bass were also elevated in 2015 relative to 2014, and decreased
from 2015 to 2017. The 2018 mean for Smallmouth Bass is higher than the 2017 mean but lower
than the 2016 mean. Mean length-normalized concentrations in Walleye have been declining since
2014.
Length-normalized mercury concentrations in small and large prey fish for all SMUs are depicted
in Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 2. In small prey, fish length-normalized mercury concentrations appear
to generally be declining between 2014 and 2017/2018 on a lake-wide basis. Length-normalized
mercury concentrations in small prey fish, Small Pumpkinseed (30-180 mm), and large prey fish
for individual SMUs are depicted in Set 4, Subset 2, Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Length-
normalized mercury concentrations were generally higher in small prey fish in 2017 relative to
2016 in SMU 4 and higher in 2018 relative to 2017 in SMUs 5 and 7. Otherwise, length-
normalized mercury concentrations generally declined in small prey fish between 2015 and 2018
and concentrations in 2018 in samples from SMUs 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, where nearly all of the active
remediation (dredging and capping) took place from 2012 to 2016, are similar to concentrations in
SMU 5. For the Small Pumpkinseed, length-normalized mercury concentrations generally
declined between 2015 and 2018, except for increases between 2016 and 2017 in SMUs 3, 5 and
7. The length-normalized Small Pumpkinseed mean mercury level in SMU 7 in 2018 was lower
than in 2017 and similar to that for 2016.
For the large prey fish (White Sucker), length-normalized mercury levels declined between 2014
and 2017. (See Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 2.) The 2018 length-normalized mercury levels for the
White Sucker are higher than those for 2017 and are near the 2015 and 2016 levels. The higher
levels in 2018 for the White Sucker also appear to be most evident in SMUs 1 and 4, as well as
SMU 5. (See Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 3.) Similar to small prey fish, length-normalized mercury
concentrations in 2018 in large prey fish samples from SMUs 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, where nearly all of
the active remediation (dredging and capping) took place from 2012 to 2016, are similar to
concentrations in SMU 5.
PCBs
Lipid-normalized concentrations for total PCBs in sport fish are depicted on Set 4, Subset 1,
Figures 3 and 4. Mean lipid-normalized PCB concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
show no discernable trends but concentrations in these species are lower in 2017 and 2018
compared to prior years. Mean lipid-normalized PCB concentrations in Common Carp and
Pumpkinseed also show no apparent trends, but the lowest mean concentrations in both species
were observed in 2018.
Lipid-normalized concentrations for total PCBs in small and large prey fish are depicted on Set 4,
Subset 1, Figures 5 and 6, respectively. Mean lipid-normalized concentrations for total PCBs in
small prey fish were higher in 2015 relative to 2014, but declined in 2016 and 2017. The mean
lipid-normalized concentrations for total PCBs in small prey fish in 2018 was about the same as
in 2017, although the variability around the mean was greater in 2018. Lipid-normalized mean
PCB concentrations for the large prey fish (White Sucker) were elevated in 2015 and 2016
48
-------
compared to 2014, but have declined since 2016 on a lipid-normalized basis; mean lipid-
normalized PCB concentrations in 2017 and 2018 for the White Sucker were lower than the 2014
levels.
In small prey fish, the lipid-normalized PCB concentrations in SMUs 1 through 5 and SMU 7
between 2015 and 2018 were lower than in 2014 and generally declined during this period on a
lipid-normalized basis (see Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 4). Mean PCB concentrations in small prey fish
remain elevated in SMU 6 compared to other SMUs, as they have for most years. This condition
may continue until remedial activities addressing PCBs in and adjacent to Ley Creek have been
fully implemented since Ley Creek enters Onondaga Lake at the northern end of SMU 6. In
Pumpkinseed, lipid-normalized PCB concentrations generally decreased in SMUs 1, 3, 5 and 7
between 2015 and 2018. (See Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 5.) In SMU 2, the mean lipid-normalized
Pumpkinseed concentration in 2017 was similar to that in 2015, but the mean was at its lowest
level in 2018. In SMU 6, mean lipid-normalized concentrations in Pumpkinseed were similar in
2017 and 2018 relative to 2015. In 2018, the relatively high variability in lipid-normalized PCB
concentrations in small prey fish from SMU 6 is attributable to one unusually low lipid result (0.53
percent) (Parsons, 2019b). On a wet-weight basis, average concentrations in small prey fish in
SMU 6, as well as in SMUs 2 and 7 near former Honeywell source areas, have continued to decline
from 2015 (during capping) through 2018. In large prey fish (see Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 6), lipid-
normalized PCB concentrations have generally declined between 2015 and 2018. Since 2016, the
observed lipid-normalized PCB concentrations in SMU 6 in large prey fish are similar to or higher
than those in other SMUs.
Dioxins/Furans
Lipid-normalized dioxins and furans (evaluated as TEQs) in sport fish on a lake-wide basis are
depicted in Set 4, Subset 1, Figures 7 and 8. Lipid-normalized dioxins and furans (evaluated as
TEQs) in Smallmouth Bass, Walleye, and Pumpkinseed have, in general, remained relatively
unchanged during the 2014-2018 period. Lipid-normalized dioxins and furans (evaluated as
TEQs) in Common Carp were higher in 2017 relative to 2014 and 2015. The lipid-normalized
concentrations in 2018 returned to levels similar to the levels observed in 2014 and 2015. Lipid-
normalized concentrations in Pumpkinseed on an individual SMU basis showed no particular
pattern over time (Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 7).
DDT and Metabolites
Lipid-normalized concentrations for DDT and metabolites in small prey fish lake-wide and on an
individual SMU basis are depicted in Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 9 and Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 8,
respectively. Mean lipid-normalized DDT concentrations in small prey fish are variable over the
2014-2018 period on both a lake-wide and individual SMU basis. Mean concentrations in small
prey fish are somewhat higher in 2017 and 2018 relative to the means observed in 2014 and 2015,
although all lake-wide mean levels over this period are significantly less than the 2013 lake-wide
mean. Mean lipid-normalized DDT concentrations in large prey fish are also variable with the
highest lake-wide mean reported in 2018 due to an unusually high DDT concentration in one
sample collected from SMU 4. (See Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 10 and Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 9.)
49
-------
Hexachlorobenzene
Lipid-normalized hexachlorobenzene concentrations in Smallmouth Bass, Walleye, Common
Carp and Pumpkinseed on a lake-wide basis are depicted in Set 4, Subset 1, Figures 11 and 12.
Lipid-normalized hexachlorobenzene concentrations in Pumpkinseed on an individual SMU basis
are depicted in Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 10. Levels for Smallmouth Bass, Walleye and Common
Carp declined between 2014 and 2017. Lipid-normalized hexachlorobenzene concentrations for
Walleye and Common Carp in 2018 were higher relative to 2017. Hexachlorobenzene was not
detected in Smallmouth Bass in 2018 and was not detected in Pumpkinseed in 2017 and 2018.
Mean lipid-normalized hexachlorobenzene concentrations in small and large prey fish on a lake-
wide and individual SMU basis are depicted in Set 4 Subset 1, Figures 13 and 14 and Set 4, Subset
2, Figures 8 and 9, respectively. Lipid-normalized hexachlorobenzene levels in small prey fish on
a lake-wide basis were lower in 2015 and 2017 relative to 2014, and were non-detect in 2018.
Mean lipid-normalized concentrations in small prey fish were similar among SMUs, and
concentrations since 2014 were low or non-detect except for SMU 7 in 2014. In large prey fish,
lipid-normalized concentrations on a lake-wide basis declined between 2014 and 2017, but
increased in 2018 as a result of one relatively elevated detection in SMU 7. Lipid-normalized
hexachlorobenzene concentrations in large prey fish declined in most SMUs between 2014 and
2017. With the exception of SMU 7, large prey fish hexachlorobenzene concentrations in 2018
were reported as non-detect in all other SMUs.
NYSDECData
Mercury
Mean length-normalized mercury concentrations in Largemouth Bass since 2015 are generally
lower than pre-remediation (baseline) concentrations prior to 2012, although there has been no
discernable trend since 2015 (Set 4, Subset 1, DEC Figure 1). Mean length-normalized
concentrations in Yellow Perch were lower in 2018 than in 2016.
PCBs
Although mean and 95% UCL lipid-normalized PCB concentrations in Largemouth Bass in 2016,
2017 and 2018 are lower than in most years prior to commencement of remediation (with the
exception of 2009 and 2010), there is no discernable trend since 2015 (Set 4, Subset 1, DEC Figure
2a). Mean lipid-normalized concentrations in Yellow Perch were higher in 2018 than in 2016, and
these mean concentrations in 2016 and 2018 were slightly lower than pre-remediation mean
concentrations in 2011 and 2012.
DDT and Metabolites
Similar to PCBs, there is no discernable trend in lipid-normalized DDT concentrations in
Largemouth Bass since 2015 (Set 4, Subset 1, DEC Figure 2b). Mean lipid-normalized DDT
concentrations in Yellow Perch were higher in 2018 than in 2016, and similar to pre-remediation
mean concentrations in 2010 to 2012.
50
-------
Hexachlorobenzene
Although lipid-normalized hexachlorobenzene concentrations in Largemouth Bass increased from
2014 to 2015, concentrations decreased significantly in 2016 and hexachlorobenzene was not
detected in 2017 and 2018 (Set 4, Subset 1, DEC Figure 3). Hexachlorobenzene was also not
detected in Yellow Perch in 2016 and 2018.
Site Inspection
Due to health and safety considerations from the COVID-19 pandemic, a site inspection was not
conducted by the review team during the review period. In lieu of a site inspection, photographs
of the site depicting the SCA and shoreline areas along the lake were received from Honeywell
and are provided in Attachment 4. No issues impacting protectiveness were observed. A formal
site inspection by the review team will be scheduled when it is determined to be safe to do so.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Based on a comprehensive review of the bathymetry survey results, probing results, and originally-
planned and additional coring results, there has been no significant loss of cap material in any
capped area and the cap remains physically stable. The monitoring results did indicate that there
were very small areas in Model Area RA-C-2A where fine gravel was not observed or where the
total cap thickness was less than the target thickness. Based on comprehensive follow-up
investigations, it was determined that cap materials for the erosion protection/habitat layer were
not fully placed here as intended during construction (most likely as a result of caution related to
overplacement of materials that could have adversely impacted the underlying sediment stability
in an area identified as being very sensitive to the thickness of cap material). Accordingly,
additional cap material in a portion of this area (approximately 0.12 acres) was placed here in
November 2019.
The combined 2017 and 2018 chemical monitoring programs of capped areas of the lake included
over 8,200 chemical analyses from 165 sampling locations, including multi-layer and monolayer
isolation caps in the littoral zone and thin layer capping and direct application areas in SMU 8.
Over 90 percent of the analytical results were non-detects or very low concentrations (less than
five percent of the performance criteria). Detected concentrations were primarily attributable to
background influences. Although there were exceedances of cap criteria in the habitat layer at ten
locations in 2017/2018 (as summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2), it does not appear that any of these
exceedances were attributable to chemical migration from the underlying chemical isolation layer,
and that the exceedances were due to other factors such as background impacts, potentially
anomalous data, or isolated occurrences as detailed above. The chemical monitoring results
indicate that the cap appears to be functioning consistent with the design.
In 2017 and 2018, surface water sampling results for dissolved mercury indicated that the levels
are below goals for the protection of human health via fish consumption and for protection of
51
-------
wildlife. Benzene, chlorobenzene and toluene were detected at concentrations below criteria or not
detected. All other VOC/SVOC samples were nondetect. Total PCBs were detected in surface
water at concentrations above criteria for the protection of wildlife and of human health via fish
consumption in 2017 and 2018. The highest total PCB concentrations observed in the lake during
three of the four sampling events conducted during the 2017-2018 period occurred at the
monitoring location that is closest to the Ley Creek outlet to the lake. Four subsites located on
Ley Creek (two of the subsites include portions of the Creek itself) are current or former PCB
sources. While some IRM and remedial actions addressing PCB sources located adjacent to Ley
Creek have been conducted at two of the subsites and a portion of another subsite, remediation of
the Creek itself has not yet been implemented.
In SMU 8, mercury surface sediment concentrations in 2017 are generally lower than mercury
concentrations in 2014 and lower than they were projected to be as part of the Final Design
analysis. Also, the sedimentation rate assumed in the Final Design analysis for predicting natural
recovery rates is within the range of sedimentation rates as measured from the 2014, 2015 and
2017 collected cores with the microbead markers, and the solids deposition rate assumed in the
Final Design is less than annual average deposition rate of suspended solids as measured from
sediment traps deployed between 2014 and 2018. Recent mercury concentrations on settling
sediments are lower than they were assumed to be for purposes of natural recovery modeling
completed during the Final Design. Based on the above, natural recovery appears to be progressing
at a rate consistent with or more rapidly than predicted.
Declining methylmercury concentrations in Onondaga Lake since 2011 are consistent with the
higher nitrate concentrations (as a result of nitrate additions). Methylmercury concentrations in
zooplankton have also remained consistently low since nitrate addition began. As zooplankton are
critical for the base of the food chain for upper level sport fish (e.g., walleye, bass), the lower
methylmercury concentrations in zooplankton are expected to result in lower exposure of fish to
methylmercury. Similarly, reductions in methylmercury exposures from the water column and
through the food chain are anticipated over time to result in lower concentrations of methylmercury
in fish in Onondaga Lake which in turn will reduce potential risks to humans and wildlife that
consume fish.
Mercury concentrations in fish collected in Onondaga Lake were evaluated to assess the progress
of the remediation towards meeting human health and ecological based RGs established in ROD.
There are no RGs in the ROD for organic compounds in fish tissue, however, detected
concentrations of organic compounds in fish tissue were compared to points of reference (i.e.,
targets) for evaluations of risk reduction for human and wildlife consumers of fish. These
compounds include PCBs in sport fish and prey fish, dioxins/furans in sport fish, and DDT and
metabolites in prey fish. Contaminant concentrations for these compounds as well as for
hexachlorobenzene were also evaluated. A summary of the principal findings of fish tissue
contaminant concentrations with a focus on available data obtained since 2014 is provided below:
• Mercury concentrations in all monitored sport fish species have generally declined since
2014. The mean and 95% UCL mercury levels in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed in 2018
were below RGs for human consumption of fish (0.2 and 0.3 mg/kg ww) established in the
ROD. While concentrations of mercury in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye have also
52
-------
declined, mercury levels in these species remain well above RGs during the 2015-2018
monitoring period. Mercury concentrations in Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch fillet
samples since 2015 are generally lower than pre-remediation (baseline) concentrations
prior to 2012; however, mean and 95% UCL concentrations remain well above the human-
health-based RGs for both species. On both a lake-wide wet weight and length-normalized
individual SMU basis, mean mercury concentrations in small prey fish have declined since
2014. Lake-wide mean and 95% UCL mercury concentrations in small prey fish in 2017
and 2018 were below the ecological-based RG (0.14 mg/kg ww), with only one of 24
samples still exceeding the goal in each year. Mean small prey fish mercury concentrations
have been at or below this RG in all SMUs since 2016. Large prey fish (White Sucker)
mercury levels lake-wide declined from 2014 to 2017, although levels were somewhat
higher in 2018 relative to 2017. Calculated whole-body mercury concentrations in
Smallmouth Bass and Walleye remain above the ecological RG over the 2015-2018 period.
Except for the 2018 calculated whole-body mean concentration which is below the RG,
calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL mercury concentrations in Pumpkinseed
remain above the ecological RG over the 2015-2018 period. Calculated whole-body mean
and 95% UCL mercury concentrations in Common Carp are at or below the ecological RG
over the 2015-2018 period. Calculated whole-body mercury concentrations in Largemouth
Bass and Yellow Perch remain above the ecological RG over the 2015-2018 period.
• PCBs in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye generally decreased in recent years, but mean PCB
levels for these species remain above human-health-based targets throughout the 2014-
2018 period. In 2017 and 2018, the mean and 95% UCL PCB levels for Pumpkinseed and
the 2018 mean for Common Carp were below the 0.3 mg/kg ww cancer-based target, but
above the 0.04 mg/kg ww noncancer-based target. Although mean and 95% UCL PCB
concentrations in Largemouth Bass in 2017 and 2018 are lower than in most years prior to
commencement of remediation, there is no discernable trend since 2015. Mean PCB
concentrations for the large prey fish (White Sucker) were elevated in 2015 compared to
2014, but have declined since 2015; concentrations in 2018 were comparable to or lower
than the 2014 levels. In 2018, the mean and 95% UCL PCB levels for both large prey fish
(White Sucker) and small prey fish were below the ecological target of 0.19 mg/kg ww
with three of the 24 (12.5%) samples exceeding the target. The 95% UCL calculated
whole-body total PCBs in sport fish and Small Pumpkinseed remain elevated with respect
to the ecological target. Calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL PCB concentrations
in Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch continue to exceed the ecological target.
• Dioxins and furans (evaluated as TEQs) in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye have, in general,
declined in concentration since baseline. The 2018 mean and 95% UCL for these species
are below the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-based target, but only the 2018 mean for the Smallmouth
Bass is below the 1.3 ng/kg ww noncancer-based target. Dioxin and furan TEQ
concentrations in Common Carp have declined since 2014 (when this species was first
sampled), while concentrations in Pumpkinseed have remained relatively unchanged. In
2018, the mean and 95% UCL for the Common Carp were below the 4 ng/kg ww cancer-
based target, but the 95% UCL is above the noncancer-based target. The 2017-2018 mean
and 95% UCL for Pumpkinseed remained below both human-health-based targets.
• Concentrations for the sum of DDT and metabolites in large and small prey fish are
generally low with respect to the ecological targets, and are relatively unchanged
throughout the 2015-2018 period. The calculated whole-body mean and 95% UCL
53
-------
concentrations of DDTs have been below the ecological target of 0.14 mg/kg in
Largemouth Bass for all years since 2009 and in Yellow Perch in all years when samples
were collected. Hexachlorobenzene concentrations in sport and prey fish show no
discernable trends over the 2015-2018 period and have a low frequency of detection in
most samples analyzed in the last two years. There are no human health or ecological
targets for hexachlorobenzene.
The fish tissue results generally indicate lower contaminant concentrations in the 2015-2018
period relative to prior years. While contaminant concentrations are below or near RGs or targets
for some fish species, for other species, particularly longer-lived, higher trophic level species (e.g.,
Smallmouth Bass, Walleye), contaminant concentrations remain at levels that are considerably
above RGs or targets. This condition is not unexpected, however, as it is anticipated that longer-
lived, higher trophic level species will take longer to respond to reduced contaminant
concentrations in other media as a result of remedy implementation.
The discussion of the fish tissue data presented above and in the Data Review section primarily
focuses on mean and 95% UCL values and the Sets 1, 2 and 3 figures included in Attachment 3
present the full range of concentrations. It should be noted that the mean and 95% UCL are not
indicative of the distribution of individual sample results within a data set and do not indicate the
percentage of sample results which may exceed a fish tissue RG or target concentration. To date,
metrics which would be used to statistically evaluate contaminant concentrations for each target
fish species relative to the fish tissue RGs and targets, have not yet been formalized.
It is noted in the OLMMP that "to account for natural variability, performance criteria [for fish
tissue] will be considered to have been met after multiple years of data indicate attainment.
Performance criteria should be met at least three years in a row or four years out offive to verify
achievement of goals. Fish monitoring will continue until NYSDEC/EPA determine that the
relevant RAOs and PRGs in the ROD have been achieved. The data will be provided to NYSDOH
for consideration in setting fish consumption advisories, as changes to the advisories can denote
trends toward meeting the PRG and RAO." Although there are some fish tissue data sets where
the 95%) UCL was below goals or targets for at least three years in a row based on data from 2015-
2018 (i.e., dioxins/furan TEQs in Pumpkinseed, mercury in small prey fish on a lake-wide basis
and DDT and metabolites in small and large prey fish), modifications to the Honeywell fish tissue
monitoring program will be evaluated by EPA and NYSDEC, if appropriate, following a review
of the 2017 and 2018 organics and lipids data quality (as discussed in Attachment 3), as well as
the results from the 2019 and 2020 fish tissue monitoring which is incorporating refinements in
the laboratory procedures and improvements in the QA/QC procedures as documented in the
revised QAPP (Parsons/UFI/Eurofins Lancaster Labs, 2020, in progress).
Qualitative and quantitative surveys of aquatic macrophytes conducted in 2017 and 2018 to
document the natural recolonization by aquatic plants in remediation areas and the coverage in
non-remediated areas (reference areas) indicate that significant natural recolonization of capped
areas has occurred since cap placement such that remediated and non-remediated areas were
characterized as having moderate to dense macrophyte coverage. The continued colonization and
growth of submerged aquatic macrophytes in remediated areas is expected to continue.
54
-------
The results of monitoring and maintenance activities at the SCA, from closure through 2019, of
the cover system, surface water management system, liquid management system, and the SCA
perimeter berm indicate that these systems and features are functioning as intended. Odor
monitoring inspections conducted at eight air monitoring stations along the SCA work zone
perimeter road indicated that no site-related odors were detected during the 2017 or 2018
monitoring periods.
ICs are being implemented to prevent unacceptable exposure to residual contamination within the
lake, prevent recreational boaters from accidently contacting any navigational hazards created by
capping and restoration components of the remedy, and prevent damage to the cap from activities,
such as navigational dredging. The controls achieved to date include use of the NYSDEC and
USACE permitting process to restrict actions that may disrupt the cap or SMU 8 sediment, the
placement and maintenance of navigational buoys in the lake by the NYSOPRHP, and the
provision of updated (post-capping) bathymetric survey results to NOAA to facilitate updating of
the Navigational Chart for Onondaga Lake. These ICs are functioning as intended. The
establishment of additional ICs {i.e., environmental easements) is currently underway.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the selection
of the remedy are still valid. The risk assessment methodology used to complete the 2002 BERA
was consistent with both EPA and NYSDEC guidance. Assessment and measurement endpoints
encompassed the sustainability (survival, growth, and reproduction) of organisms at the base of
the food web (aquatic macrophytes, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and
terrestrial plants) and up the food chain (fish, amphibians and reptiles, insectivorous birds,
benthivorous waterfowl, piscivorous birds, carnivorous birds, insectivorous mammals, and
piscivorous mammals). Measurement endpoints included measured or modeled concentrations of
chemicals and stressors in water, sediment, fish, birds, and mammals, laboratory toxicity studies,
and field observations. Toxicity Reference Values were selected based on LOAELs and/or
NOAELs from laboratory and/or field-based studies reported in the scientific literature.
Reproductive effects {e.g., egg maturation, egg hatchability, and survival of juveniles) were
generally the most sensitive exposure endpoints and were selected when available and appropriate.
Site-specific SECs using toxicity and chemistry data were derived to allow assessment of whether
the sediment chemical concentrations found at various stations in the lake would result in adverse
biological effects. These SECs were then used to derive consensus-based PECs for use in
determining areas of the lake bottom that potentially pose a risk to the benthic community.
The exposure assumptions and toxicity values that were used in the HHRA to estimate the potential
risk and hazards to human health from exposure to the contaminants followed the general practice
at the time that the risk assessment was performed. Although specific parameters and toxicity
values may have changed, the risk assessment process that was used is still consistent with current
practices, and the conclusions remain valid. Toxicity values for PCDD/PCDFs and for
benzo(a)pyrene have been updated since the time of the ROD. The conclusions of the HHRA
remain valid; a discussion of the revised toxicity values is presented below.
55
-------
At the time of the ROD, the human health target fish tissue concentrations for PCDD/PCDFs were
based on RME carcinogenic risks at risk targets ranging from lxlO"5 (0.4 ng/kg) to lxlO"4 (4.0
ng/kg). Noncarcinogenic targets were not developed for PCDD/PCDFs prior to the issuance of the
ROD since a noncarcinogenic reference dose (RfD) was not available. Subsequent to the issuance
of the ROD, an RME noncancer endpoint target of 1.3 ng/kg was developed using the parameters
presented in Appendix G of the FS report for a target concentration for the noncancer endpoint
and the EPA 2012 reference dose of 7xlO"10 mg/kg-day. The RME target based on noncancer
effects of PCDD/PCDFs fall within the range based on carcinogenic risks. Therefore, the
PCDD/PCDF targets for comparison with the PCDD/PCDF fish tissue data considered in this FYR
included the noncancer endpoint, 1.3 ng/kg (noncancer), in addition to 4.0 ng/kg (lxlO"4 cancer).
The HHRA concluded that benzo(a)pyrene was not associated with unacceptable risk. As part of
this FYR, the updated toxicity values for benzo(a)pyrene have been reviewed to assess if the
conclusions of the HHRA would be different when including the updated information; the review
concluded the conclusions are the same, and that benzo(a)pyrene is not associated with
unacceptable risk.
The RAOs identified in the ROD include reducing or eliminating potential risks to humans and
ecological receptors. Currently, there are advisories in place that recommend that consumption of
fish is limited to certain types and specific meal frequencies. The actions taken through the
implementation of the remedy to date include reducing methylation rates of mercury, completion
of dredging, capping and habitat enhancement/reestablishment. The State's fish consumption
advisories currently in place help to reduce exposure through ingestion. Fish tissue monitoring will
continue, and it is expected that concentrations will continue to decrease.
Sediment-based cleanup levels identified at the time of the remedy incorporated site-specific
criteria established during the RI/FS and were developed consistent with published scientific
literature. Fish-based remediation goals include fish tissue mercury concentrations ranging from
0.14 mg/kg, which is for protection of ecological receptors, to 0.3 mg/kg, which is based on the
EPA's MeHg National Recommended Water Quality criterion for the protection of human health
for the consumption of organisms. This range encompasses the goal for protection of human health
based on the reasonable maximum exposure scenario of 0.2 mg/kg of mercury in fish tissue
(fillets).
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
Based on media reports and other information, some individuals, including members of refugee
communities, may not currently be aware of the NYSDOH fish consumption advisory for
Onondaga Lake and may be consuming fish caught from the lake and/or its tributaries at rates
above recommended guidelines provided in the advisory. Further efforts to conduct outreach on,
and enhance the effectiveness of the fish consumption advisory, may be warranted.
56
-------
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Table IV, below, presents the recommendations and follow-up actions for this FYR.
Table IV: Issues and Recommendations
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the I'ive-Year Review:
None
1 Issues and Recon
imendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s): 02
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Post-construction fish tissue data to be collected through 2022 should
be statistically evaluated with prior post-construction data to ascertain when
the RGs identified in the ROD will be achieved.
Recommendation: In four years, evaluate whether rates of decline in fish
tissue contaminant levels can be estimated with statistical significance.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
State
9/30/2024
OU(s): 02
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Statistical metrics that would be utilized to evaluate attainment of fish
tissue RGs and targets have, to date, not been formalized.
Recommendation: Statistical metrics that would be utilized to evaluate
attainment of fish tissue RGs and targets should be developed. The metrics
should characterize the population of the sample set, including an
assessment of the significance of samples that exceed the RGs and targets.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA/State
State
9/30/2021
OU(s): 02
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: All institutional controls are not in place.
Recommendation: Institutional controls should be put into place.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
State
3/31/2021
57
-------
OTHER FINDINGS
A site inspection could not be performed during the review period due to the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. A site inspection will be scheduled when it is determined that it is safe to conduct the
inspection.
Available information indicates that some individuals, including members of refugee
communities, may not currently be aware of the NYSDOH fish consumption advisory for
Onondaga Lake and may be consuming fish caught from the lake and/or its tributaries at rates
above recommended guidelines provided in the advisory. It is recommended that NYS consider
implementing additional outreach activities or techniques to increase awareness of the fish
consumption advisory, particularly with respect to refugee communities located in the vicinity of
Onondaga Lake.
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit:
Protectiveness Determination:
Planned Addendum
02
Protectiveness Deferred
Completion Date:
9/30/2024
Protectiveness Statement: A protectiveness determination of the remedy for the Lake Bottom
Subsite cannot be made until additional post-construction fish tissue data are available to
ascertain when the remedial goals identified in the ROD will be achieved. It is anticipated that
at least four additional years of fish data will be needed to determine when the rates of decline
can be estimated with statistical significance. Following the evaluation of the additional data,
a protectiveness determination will be made. In the interim, remedial operation, maintenance
and monitoring activities will continue to be implemented in accordance with existing plans and
requirements. The construction components of the remedy, which includes in-lake dredging,
capping, habitat restoration, capping/closure of the Sediment Consolidation Area located on
Wastebed 13, which contains sediment and debris removed from the lake have been
completed. Other components of the remedy, including nitrate addition in the hypolimnion and
MNR are ongoing. The establishment of ICs is anticipated to be completed in 2021.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR report for the Lake Bottom Subsite of the Onondaga Lake Superfund site is required
five years from the completion date of this review.
58
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
Anchor QEA and Parsons, 2012. Water Quality Management and Monitoring Plan. Onondaga
Lake. May.
Anchor QEA and Parsons. 2017. Capping and Dredging Construction Completion Report.
September.
Geosytec. 2018. Onondaga Lake Sediment Consolidation Area Closure Construction,
Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Draft Final Report. April.
NYSDEC. 2014 Prep Lab Standard Operating Procedure. SOP PrepLab4. Hale Creek Field
Station. May 28.
NYSDEC. 2018. Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New
York State. May.
NYSDEC and EPA. 2006. Explanation of Significant Differences - Onondaga Lake Bottom Sub site
of the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site. December.
NYSDEC and EPA. 2014. Explanation of Significant Differences - Onondaga Lake Bottom Sub site
of the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site. August.
NY SDEC and EPA. 2018. Explanation ofSignificant Differences - Onondaga Lake Bottom Sub site
of the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site - Modified Protective Caps. March.
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection. 2019. 2017 Annual Report,
Onondaga Lake Annual Monitoring Program. February.
Parsons. 2004. Onondaga Lake Feasibility Study Report. Draft Final. Prepared by Parsons,
Liverpool, NY in association with Anchor Environmental and Exponent for Honeywell.
November.
Parsons. 2012. Onondaga Lake Capping, Dredging, Habitat and Profundal Zone (Sediment
Management Unit 8) Final Design. April.
Parsons. 2018a. Onondaga Lake Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. June.
Parsons. 2018b. Onondaga Lake Habitat Restoration Construction Completion Report. October.
Parsons. 2019a. Onondaga Lake Final Engineering Report. January.
-------
Parsons. 2019b. Wastebeds 1-8 Interim Remedial Measure Northern Shore Hydraulic Control
System - Groundwater Upwelling Velocity Measurement in Adjacent Capped Area of the Lake.
Memo from Ed Glaza, Parsons to Tim Larson, NYSDEC. July 23.
Parsons. 2019c. Work Plan for Placement of Cap Material in Cap Model Area RA-C-2A (4 to 10
ft. of water) inRA-C. October 28.
Parsons. 2019d. Onondaga Lake Baseline Habitat Characterization for the CSX Shoreline Area of
Remediation Area E. November.
Parsons. 2019e. Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite Site Management Plan. December.
Parsons. 2019f. Onondaga Lake Sediment Consolidation Area (SCA) Site Management Plan.
December.
Parsons. 2020a. 2018 Annual Post Closure Care Summary Report for the Onondaga Lake
Sediment Consolidation Area. January.
Parsons. 2020b. Onondaga Lake 2017 Monitoring and Maintenance Report. September.
Parsons. 2020c. Draft Onondaga Lake 2018 Annual and Comprehensive Monitoring and
Maintenance Report. September.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2012. Onondaga Lake Capping, Dredging, Habitat andProfundal Zone
(Sediment Management Unit 8) Final Design. March.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2014. Remediation Area E Shoreline Design Addendum. August.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2015. Addendum 3 (2015) to Onondaga Lake Tissue Monitoring Work
Plan for 2012. May.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2016. Addendum 4 (2016) to Onondaga Lake Tissue Monitoring Work
Plan for 2012. October.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2017. Onondaga Lake Long-Term Cap Monitoring Work Plan.
October.
Parsons and Anchor QEA, LLC, 2018a. Onondaga Lake Capping, Dredging, Habitat and
Profundal Zone (SMU 8) Final Design Habitat Addendum. January.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2018b. Onondaga Lake Tissue and Biological Monitoring Report for
2015 and2016. April.
2
-------
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2018c. Summary Report Onondaga Lake 2016 Cap Monitoring. June.
Parsons and Beech & Bonaparte. 2016. Onondaga Lake Sediment Consolidation Area (SCA) Final
Cover Design Report. May.
Parsons and Beech & Bonaparte. 2017. Post-Closure Care Plan - Onondaga Lake Sediment
Consolidation Area (SCA) Final Cover Design Submittal. Preparedfor Honeywell. April.
Parsons and O'Brien & Gere. 2016. 2015 and 2016 Source Control Summary for the Onondaga
Lake Bottom Subsite. December.
Parsons and O'Brien & Gere. 2018. Honeywell Lakeshore Upland Sites Performance Verification
2017 Annual Report. April.
Parsons and 0'Brien& Gere. 2019. 2018 Annual Performance Verification and Monitoring Report
for Onondaga Lakeshore Hydraulic Containment System. April.
Sloan, R.J., M. Kane, and L. Skinner. 2002. 1999 as a Special Spatial Year for PCBs in Hudson
River Fish. NYSDEC Div. of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. Albany, NY. May.
TAMS, 2002. Onondaga Lake Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Original document prepared
by Exponent, Bellevue, Washington, for Honeywell, East Syracuse, New York. Revision prepared
by TAMS, New York, New York and YEC, Valley Cottage, New York, for New York. December.
3
-------
APPENDIX B - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY,
AND LAND USE
-------
APPENDIX B: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
AND LAND USE
Physical Characteristics
Onondaga Lake is a 4.6-square-mile, 3,000-acre lake, approximately 4.5 miles long and 1 mile
wide, with an average water depth of 36 feet, with two (northern and southern) deep basins. The
city of Syracuse is located at the southern end of Onondaga Lake, and numerous towns, villages,
and major roadways surround the lake (see Figure 2). The lake has three main tributaries—Ninemile
Creek to the west; Onondaga Creek to the south; and Ley Creek to the southeast. In addition,
several small tributaries flow into the lake, including Bloody Brook, Sawmill Creek, Tributary 5 A,
the East Flume, and Harbor Brook. While Ninemile Creek and Onondaga Creek supply the vast
majority of surface water to the lake, approximately 20 percent of the inflow comes from the
Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (METRO). The lake drains into the Seneca
River through a single outlet located at the northern tip of the lake.
The area around Onondaga Lake is the most urban in central New York State. The region
experienced significant growth in the twentieth century, and in 2000, Onondaga County was the
tenth most populous county in the State. There are approximately 320 acres of state-regulated
wetlands and numerous smaller wetlands directly connected to Onondaga Lake or within its
floodplains.
Site Geology/Hydrogeology
Onondaga Lake is underlain by a thick layer of soft, unconsolidated sediments ranging from
approximately 80 feet to over 300 feet thick beneath the mouth of Onondaga Creek at the south
end of the lake. These unconsolidated deposits consist (from top to bottom) of layers of fill, marl,
silt and clay, silt and fine sand, sand and gravel, and till. The bedrock geology beneath the lake
consists of 500 to 600 feet of sedimentary rocks of the Vernon Shale Formation, which are
comprised of soft and erodible mudstones with some localized, discontinuous gypsum seams.
Two primary hydrogeologic units exist at the lake—unconsolidated deposits and underlying
bedrock shale. Groundwater in the unconsolidated deposits, which overlies the silt and clay layer,
comprises an unconfined groundwater zone that provides most of the discharge of groundwater to
the lake. There is limited groundwater discharge from the deeper bedrock to the lake Total
quantities of groundwater discharged to the lake are small compared to discharges of surface water
to the lake.
Land and Resource Use
From 1970 to 1985, fishing on the lake was banned due to contamination. From 1986 to 1999, the
fish consumption advisory for Onondaga Lake was "Don't eat any fish" from the lake. In 1999,
the advisory was updated to "Don't eat any Walleye [Sander vitreus] and eat up to one meal a
month of all other species." In 2007, the advisory was updated to "Don't eat Largemouth Bass
\Micropterus salmoides\ and Smallmouth Bass \Micropterus dolomieu\ over 15 inches, and
Walleye. Eat up to one meal a month of Smallmouth Bass and Largemouth Bass less than 15
-------
inches. Carp [Cyprinus carpio], Channel Catfish [Ictalurus punctatus],White Perch [Morone
americana] and all other species." In 2010, the advisory was updated to "For men over 15 and
women over 50: Don't eat Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Bass greater than 15 inches,
Walleye, Carp, Channel Catfish and White Perch. Eat up to four meals a month of Brown Bullhead
\Ameiurus nebulosus] and Pumpkinseed [Lepomis gibbosus]. Eat up to one meal a month of all
other fish, (including Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Bass less than 15 inches). For women
under 50 and children under 15: Don't eat any fish." This advisory, which is established by the
New York State Department of Health, is currently in effect. The fish consumption advisory is
based on the presence of mercury, dioxin, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissues.
In general, the eastern shore of Onondaga Lake is mainly urban and residential, and the northern
shore is dominated by parkland, wooded areas, and wetlands. The northwest upland is primarily
residential, with interspersed urban structures and several undeveloped areas. The southern and
western shorelines are dominated by industrial wastebeds, consisting mainly of ionic wastes, many
of which have been revegetated. Urban centers and industrial zones dominate the landscape
surrounding the south end of Onondaga Lake from approximately the New York State Fairgrounds
to Ley Creek. Land around the southwest corner and southern portion of the lake is generally
industrial and has been significantly modified as part of long-term development of the Syracuse
area. Land around much of the lake is recreational, providing hiking and biking trails, picnicking,
sports, and other recreational activities.
Anticipated recreational uses of Onondaga Lake include fishing without lake specific consumption
advisories and swimming. In early 2014, Onondaga County announced plans to construct an
amphitheater complex near Lakeview Point, located on the Wastebeds 1-8 Subsite, as part of a
community revitalization effort that is supported by New York State. The construction of the
amphitheater commenced in January 2015 and was substantially completed in the late summer
2015 (EPA, 2015). Onondaga County is currently performing a feasibility study and design for a
beach on Onondaga Lake's northeastern shoreline. Onondaga County has proposed to complete a
recreational trail, the Loop the Lake Trail, around Onondaga Lake. Sections of this trail currently
cross the Wastebeds 1-8 Subsite and are anticipated to be extended over the Semet Residue Ponds,
Willis Avenue, and Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Subsites in 2020.
The Onondaga Nation has a unique cultural, spiritual, and historic relationship with and an
obligation to act as an environmental steward of Onondaga Lake. The Nation's Vision for
Onondaga Lake is a safe, clean, and healthy ecosystem that supports a thriving and varied
community of fish in its waters, benthic organisms in its sediments, and wildlife along its shores.
The Nation also envisions waters clean enough for drinking, swimming, and other human contact
and shorelines safe enough for traditional and ceremonial uses by Nation citizens (Heath, 2020).
References
EPA, 2015. First Five-Y ear Review Report, Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite of the Onondaga Lake
Superfund Site. September.
Heath, Joseph. 2020. Onondaga Nation General Counsel. Letter to EPA, Re: Second Five Year
Review of Onondaga Lake Bottom. September 4.
2
-------
Onondaga Lake Second Five Year Review
Attachment 1
Tables and Figures
-------
Attachment 1 - List of Tables
Table la - Target Tissue Concentrations in Fish
Table lb - Sediment Probable Effect Concentrations
Table lc - Remediation Goals for Surface Water
Table 2 - Cap Monitoring Chemical Parameters
Table 3.1a - 2017 Multi-Layer Cap Thickness Measurements
Table 3.1b - 2017 Mono-Layer Cap Thickness Measurements
Table 3.2-2018 Cap Thickness Measurements
Table 4.1 - 2017 Cap Monitoring Exceedances
Table 4.2 - 2018 Cap Monitoring Exceedances
Table 5.1 - Mercury Results for 2017 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Table 5.2 - Mercury Results for 2018 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Table 6.1 - VOC and SVOC Results for 2017 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Table 6.2 - VOC and SVOC Results for 2018 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Table 7 - Summary of Surface Water Total PCB Concentrations in 2017 and 2018
Table 8 - 2014 and 2017 SMU 8 Mercury Concentrations Including Comparison of Predicted and
Actual 2017 SMU 8 Surface (0-4 cm) Sediment Mercury Concentrations
Table 9 - Percent Reductions in SMU 8 Surface Sediment Mercury Concentrations from PDI to 2017
Table 10 - Surface Sediment Area Weighted Average Mercury Concentrations
Table 11 - Summary of SMU 8 Frozen Core Observations (2014, 2015, 2017)
Table 12 - Average Mid-May to Mid-November 2014-2018 Solids Deposition at the South Deep
Location in Onondaga Lake Based on Sediment Trap Results
Table 13 - Fish Tissue Remedial Goals (Mercury) and Target Concentrations (Organics)
-------
Table la: Target Tissue Concentrations for Fish
(all concentrations in mg/kg wet weight)
Contaminants of Concern
Target Tissue Concentrations
Human Health - Fish Fillets
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Mercury (as MeHg)4
0.2
Total PCBs5
0.03 to 0.1
PCDD/PCDFs (TEQ as 2,3,7,8-TCDD)6
4 x 10"7to 1.3 xlO"6
Ecological Exposure
Small Fish (3-18 cm) - Whole Fish
NOAEL
LOAEL
Mercury (as MeHg)
0.009
0.187
Total PCBs
0.013
3.15
DDT and metabolites (sum)
0.005
0.049
Ecological Exposure
Large Fish (18-60 cm) - Whole Fish
NOAEL
LOAEL
Mercury (as MeHg)
0.014
0.341
Total PCBs
0.019
9.6
DDT and metabolites (sum)
0.014
0.15
Table la Notes:
1. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level; LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level.
2. NOAELs and LOAELs for small (3 to 18 cm) fish are based on the belted kingfisher and mink. NOAELs and LOAELs for large
(18 to 60 cm) fish are based on the great blue heron, osprey, and river otter.
3. Only avian fish target concentrations are presented for DDT and metabolites.
4. The human health target tissue concentration for mercury (0.2 mg/kg) is based on young child reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) (non-cancer effects). The RME target concentration for adults is slightly higher (0.3 mg/kg).
5. The human health target tissue concentrations for total PCBs are based on RME carcinogenic risks at risk targets ranging from
1E-05 (0.03 mg/kg) to 1E-04 (0.3 mg/kg). The RME targets based on non-cancer effects of 0.04 mg/kg for high molecular weight
PCBs and 0.1 mg/kg for low molecular weight PCBs fall within the range based on carcinogenic risks. A target concentration based
on the 1E-06 risk level was not selected as a goal since it is much lower than mean background concentrations in US waters and
may not be achievable (see Appendix G of the Onondaga Lake FS).
6. TEQ = toxicity equivalent (toxicity-weighted mass of dioxin mixtures). The human health target tissue concentrations for
PCDD/PCDFs are based on RME carcinogenic risks at risk targets ranging from 1E-05 (4E-07 mg/kg) to 1E-04 (4E-06 mg/kg).
Non-carcinogenic targets were not developed for PCDD/PCDFs prior to the issuance of the ROD. Subsequent to its issuance, a
RME noncancer endpoint target of 1.3E-06 mg/kg was developed using the parameters presented in Appendix G of the FS for a
target concentration for the non-cancer endpoint, and using the EPA 2012 reference dose of 7E-10 mg/kg-day. The RME target
based on non-cancer effects PCDD/PCDFs fall within the range based on carcinogenic risks. A target concentration based on the
1E-06 risk level was not selected as a goal since it is much lower than mean background concentrations in US waters and may not
be achievable (see Appendix G of the Onondaga Lake FS).
-------
Table lb: Sediment Probable Effect Concentrations (PECs)
Contaminants of Concern
Performance Criteria
Micrograms per Kilogram (jig/kg)
Mercury
2,200
Ethylbenzene
176
Xylenes
560.8
Chlorobenzene
428
Di chl orob enzenes
239
Tri chl orob enzenes
347
Acenapthene
861
Acenaphthylene
1,301
Anthracene
207
B enz [ al anthracene
192
Benzo[alpyrene
146
B enzo [b ] fluoranthene
908
B enzo [ghi ] pery 1 ene
780
B enzo [k] fluoranthene
203
Chrysene
253
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
157
Fluoranthene
1,436
Fluorene
264
Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
183
Naphthalene
917
Phenanthrene
543
Pyrene
344
Total PCBs
295
Table lb Notes: The 23 site-specific PECs developed during the RI phase which are included in this table were used in the calculations for the
mean PECQ approach. In the littoral zone, sediment remediation goals include achieving the mean PECQ of 1 or lower and the mercury PEC of 2.2
mg/kg or lower. In the profundal zone, sediment remediation goals include achieving the mean PECQ of 1 or lower, and achieving the mercury PEC
or lower on a point basis and a BSQV of 0.8 mg/kg or lower on an area-wide basis within 10 years following the remediation of upland sources,
littoral sediments, and initial thin-layer capping. The 23 PECs and NYSDEC sediment screening criteria for benzene, toluene, and phenol are also
chemical isolation performance criteria for capped areas in the Lake's littoral zone, the Wastebed B Outboard Area, and the Wastebeds 1-8
connected wetland. Performance criteria for the Spits at the mouth of Ninemile Creek are based on remedial goals specified in the Geddes Brook/
Ninemile Creek OU2 ROD and include the NYSDEC Lowest Effect Level of 0.15 mg/kg for mercury.
Table lc: Remediation Goals for Surface Water
Contaminants of Concern
New York State
Surface Water Quality Standards
Dissolved Mercury
0.7 ng/L
Chlorobenzene
5 ng/L
Dichlorobenzenes
5 ng/L
Table lc Notes: Remediation goals for surface water are based on the NYSDEC aquatic (chronic) (A[C]) water quality standard
for chlorobenzene and dichlorobenzenes and human health fish consumption (H[FC]) for dissolved mercury.
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 2
CAP MONITORING CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Remediation
Area
Cap Model Area
(Inclusive of
MFCS)
Chemical Groups That
Determined GAC
Application Rate
Indicator Chemical Groups
Additional
Chemical Groups
A
A1
Sand Only
mercury
VOCs, PCBs,
LPAHs, HPAHs
A21
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
B
B1
Phenol
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
B2
Phenol
VOCs4, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
C
CI
Phenol
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
C2
LPAHs
VOCs, LPAHs, HPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs
C3
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
D
SMU 2
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
West
Phenol
VOCs, LPAHs, HPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs
Center
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
East
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
E
E1A3
Sand Only
mercury
VOCs, PCBs,
LPAHs, HPAHs
E1B3
Sand Only
mercury
VOCs, PCBs,
LPAHs, HPAHs
E2
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury
PCBs, HPAHs
E3
VOCs
VOCs, mercury
PCBs, LPAHs,
HPAHs
F
F
Sand Only
mercury
VOCs, PCBs,
LPAHs, HPAHs
SMU 8
Amended TLCs
and GAC Direct
Application
SMU 8
Not Applicable
mean PECQ VOCs, PAHs, PCBs,
mercury. pH
None
SMU 8
Unamended
TLCs
SMU 8
Not Applicable
mean PECQ VOCs, PAHs, PCBs,
mercury
None
Wetlands
WB1-8
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs, HPAHs
WBB-East
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, mercury
PCBs, HPAHs
WBB-Center
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, HPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs
WBB-West
VOCs
VOCs, LPAHs, HPAHs, mercury. pH
PCBs
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Notes: Naphthalene is included as a VOC.
LPAHs include fluorene. phenanthrene, acenaphthene. acenaphthylene and anthracene. Phenol is not
a PAH but is included in the LPAH indicator and additional chemical group for convenience since
PAHs and phenol are both analyzed by EPA Method 8270. HPAHs include fluoranthene. pyrene.
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene. bcnzo(b)fluoranthene. benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene.
indeno(l,2,3,-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and benzo(g.h.i)per\ lene.
1 Includes Ninemile Creek Spits and Model Area RA-A-40197.
2 Includes Model Area OL-VC-10138/40.
3 El consists of two separate areas that were modeled as one area.
4 VOCs are not considered an indicator chemical group for Model Area B2 based on the original cap
modeling but are included because they were modeled as part of the design for the MFCs within that
area.
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 3.1a
2017 MULTI-LAYER CAP THICKNESS
MEASUREMENTS
Design4/Target5 Thickness (inches)
Measured Thickness (inches)
Rem.
Area
Model Area
Zone1
Location ID
Cap Type
Habitat
Layer
Erosion
Protection
Layer2
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Core 1 Thickness
Core 2 Thickness
Comment
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
N ative Plug
(y/n)6
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
Native Plug
Cv/n)6
A1
1
OL-RAA-C AP-0001
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
22
0.5
Y
NM
NM
22
0.5
Y
A1
1
OL-RAA-C AP-0002
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
21.5
0.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A1
1
OL-RAA-C AP-0003
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
25.5
2
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A1
1
OL-RAA-C AP-0004
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
25
1.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A1
1
OL-RAA-C AP-0005
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
33
0.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A2
1
OL-RAA-C AP-0006
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
34.5
0.75
Y
NM
NM
38
0.5
Y
A1
1
OL-RAA-C AP-0007
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
28.5
0.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A2
2
OL-RAA-C AP-0008
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
13
20
33
0
Y
13
15
28
0
N
A1
2
OL-RAA-C AP-0009
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
25
18
43
0
Y
17
17
34
0
Y
<
A2
2
OL-RAA-C AP-0010
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
15
19
34
0.25
Y
13
13
26
0.5
N
C5
V
A2
2
OL-RAA-C AP-00223
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
10
14
24
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<
g
A2
2
OL-RAA-C AP-00233
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
12
14
26
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A2
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0011
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
14.5
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.2
•3
A2
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0012
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
14.5
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
V
E
RA-A40197
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0013
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
12
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A
RA-A40197
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0014
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
14
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-A40197
3
OL-RAA-CAP-00147
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
10.5
NM
NM
NM
N
12.5
NM
NM
NM
N
A1
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0015
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
16
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Thicknesses are
A2
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0016
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
13
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
topsoil habitat layer
A2
3
OL-RAA-C AP-00167
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
13.5
NM
NM
NM
N
12
NM
NM
NM
N
only
NMC Spits
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0017
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
21.5
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NMC Spits
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0018
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
21
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A1
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0019
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
14.5
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A1
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0020
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
13.5
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A1
3
OL-RAA-C AP-0021
Multi-layer
12/9
12
12
36/21
13
NM
NM
NM
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
B2
1
OL-RAB-C AP-0002
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
36
0.5
Y
NM
NM
35
1
Y
Bl/Cl
1
OL-RAB-CAP-0015
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
30.5
0.5
Y
NM
NM
33
1
Y
a
a
RA-B-1C (4-10)
2
OL-RAB-C AP-0008
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
9
21/18
11
15
26
0
Y
9
15
24
0
Y
RA-B-1E (4-10)
2
OL-RAB-CAP-0016
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
9
23
32
0
Y
10
15
25
0
Y
s.
RA-B-1A
1
OL-RAB-C AP-0001
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
7.5
19.5 / 16.5
NM
NM
23.5
0.75
Y
NM
NM
26
0.25
Y
s
o
RA-B-1A
1
OL-RAB-C AP-0003
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
7.5
19.5 / 16.5
NM
NM
22
0.5
Y
NM
NM
24
0.5
Y
RA-B-1B
1
OL-RAB-C AP-0004
MPC Multi-layer
6/3
3
9/6
NM
NM
17.5
0.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
¦3
04
RA-B-1E (10-30)
1
OL-RAB-CAP-0014
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
24.5
0.5
Y
NM
NM
26
0.25
Y
E
Pi
WB 1-8 Wetland
WB 1-8 Wetland
3
3
OL-RAB-C AP-0006
OL-RAB-C AP-00067
Multi-layer
Multi-layer
19.5/9
19.5/9
4.5
4.5
12
12
36/21
36/21
21.5
21.5
NM
NM
NM
NM
0
0
N
N
NA
16
NA
NM
NA
NM
NA
NM
NA
N
Thicknesses are
topsoil habitat layer
only
WB 1-8 Wetland
3
OL-RAB-C AP-0009
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
19.5
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WB 1-8 Wetland
3
OL-RAB-CAP-0019
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
21
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2017 Annual Report\Rev 2\Tables\Section 6 Tables\
Table 6-1 Multi-Layer Cap Core Thickness.xlsx
Page 1 of 4
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 3.1a (CONTINUED)
2017 MULTI-LAYER CAP THICKNESS
MEASUREMENTS
Design4/Target5 Thickness (inches)
Measured Thickness (inches)
Rem.
Area
Model Area
Zone1
Location ID
Cap Type
Habitat
Layer
Erosion
Protection
Layer2
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Core 1 Thickness
Core 2 Thickness
Comment
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
N ative Plug
(y/n)6
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
Native Plug
Cv/n)6
Bl/Cl
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0002
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
27.5
0.5
Y
NM
NM
36
0.5
Y
C2
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0003
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
40.5
0
Y
NM
NM
31
0
Y
C2
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0004
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
35
0.25
Y
NM
NM
41
0
Y
C3
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0020
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
30.5
0.25
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
C3
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0021
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
40
0.5
Y
NM
NM
40.5
0.5
Y
U
C3
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0023
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
41
0.75
Y
NM
NM
40
0.5
Y
«
04
u
Bl/Cl
2
OL-RAC-CAP-0001
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
21
24
45
0
Y
24
19
43
0
Y
<
s
#o
¦3
C3
2
OL-RAC-CAP-0022
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
24 sand
48+ sand w/
trace fine
gravel
72+
0.5
N
17 sand
17 gravel,
then 9+ sand
43+
0
N
1
C3
2
OL-RAC-CAP-0022
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
NM
NM
40
0
Y
17
24
41
0.5
Y
h
a
RA-C-2A (10-30)
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0005
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
4.5
16.5 / 13.5
NM
NM
18.5
0.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2A (10-30)
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0009
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
4.5
16.5 / 13.5
NM
NM
15
0.25
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-1A
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0016
MPC Multi-layer
9/6
4.5
13.5 / 10.5
NM
NM
20
1
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-1A
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0017
MPC Multi-layer
9/6
4.5
13.5 / 10.5
NM
NM
13
0.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2A (4-10)
2
OL-RAC-CAP-0007 (North)
MPC Multi-layer
10/7
4.5
14.5/11.5
7
15
22
0
Y
8
13
21
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4-10)
2
OL-RAC-CAP-0007
MPC Multi-layer
10/7
4.5
14.5/11.5
6
1 17
23
0
Y
6
15
21
0
Y
D-SMU-2
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0001
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
33.5
1
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D-SMU-2
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0006
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
30.5
0.5
Y
NM
NM
30.5
0
Y
D-Addendum East
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0007
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
39.5
0.75
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D-SMLT-2
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0009
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
39.5
1
Y
NM
NM
43
0
Y
D-West
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0010
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
34.5
0.25
Y
NM
NM
37.5
0.5
Y
D-C enter
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0012
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
36.5
0.75
Y
NM
NM
47
0.75
Y
Q
D-C enter
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0013
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
38.5
0.5
Y
NM
NM
39
0
Y
04
D-East
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0014
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
48
1
Y
NM
NM
32
0
Y
<
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-00147
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
36
0
Y
NM
NM
43
0
Y
S
#o
D-West
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0015
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
36.5
0
Y
NM
NM
37.5
0
Y
D-SMLT-2
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0016
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
34.5
0.5
Y
NM
NM
40.5
0.5
Y
04
E
D-West
1
OL-RAD-C AP-0020
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
39.5
0
Y
NM
NM
36.5
0
Y
A
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-0021
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
34.5
0
Y
NM
NM
36
0
Y
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-0025
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
35
0.5
Y
NM
NM
36
0
Y
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-0028
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
28
0.75
Y
NM
NM
27.5
0.25
Y
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-00287
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
31
0.25
Y
NM
NM
30
0.25
Y
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-0031
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
38
0.25
Y
NM
NM
40
0
Y
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-0032
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
36.5
0.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-0033
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
37
0.25
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-003 8
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
35
0.25
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D-East
1
OL-RAD-C AP-0040
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
31.75
0
Y
NM
NM
34.5
0.5
Y
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2017 Annual Report\Rev 2\Tables\Section 6 Tables\
Table 6-1 Multi-Layer Cap Core Thickness.xlsx
Page 2 of 4
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 3.1a (CONTINUED)
2017 MULTI-LAYER CAP THICKNESS
MEASUREMENTS
Design4/Target5 Thickness (inches)
Measured Thickness (inches)
Rem.
Area
Model Area
Zone1
Location ID
Cap Type
Habitat
Layer
Erosion
Protection
Layer2
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Core 1 Thickness
Core 2 Thickness
Comment
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
N ative Plug
(y/n)6
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
Native Plug
(y/n)6
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-CAP-0023
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
24
20
44
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-CAP-0034
Multi-layer
18/9
12
30/21
23
28
51
0.5
Y
12
24
36
0
Y
D-East
2
OL-RAD-CAP-0036
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
36
24
60
0.25
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-D-1A
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0002
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
47
1
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-D-1A
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0003
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
27
0.25
Y
NM
NM
26.5
0
Y
RA-D-1A
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0004
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
31
2.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
a
«
&.
RA-D-1A
1
OL-RAD-CAP-00047
MPC Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
48
0.5
Y
NM
NM
48
0
Y
RA-D-2
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0008
MPC Multi-layer
10.5/7.5
7.5
18/15
NM
NM
24
0.25
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<
c
RA-D-2
1
OL-RAD-CAP-OO19
MPC Multi-layer
10.5/7.5
7.5
18/15
NM
NM
18
0.25
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
#©
.2
¦5
Outboard West
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0027
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
22.5
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outboard West
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0030
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
19
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i
Outboard West
3
OL-RAD-CAP-003 5
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
19
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-1
Outboard Center
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0037
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
21
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outboard Center
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0039
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
20.5
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Thicknesses are
topsoil habitat layer
only
Outboard Center
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0041
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
20.5
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outboard East
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0042
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
24.5
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outboard East
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0043
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
19
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outboard East
3
OL-RAD-CAP-00447
Multi-layer
19.4/9
4.5
12
36/21
27
NM
NM
0
N
22
NM
NM
0
N
Outboard East
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0044
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
20
NM
NM
0
N
18.5
NM
18.5
0
N
Outboard East
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0045
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
22
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Outboard East
3
OL-RAD-CAP-0046
Multi-layer
19.5/9
4.5
12
36/21
19
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2017 Annual Report\Rev 2\Tables\Section 6 Tables\
Table 6-1 Multi-Layer Cap Core Thickness.xlsx
Page 3 of 4
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 3.1a (CONTINUED)
2017 MULTI-LAYER CAP THICKNESS
MEASUREMENTS
Design4/Target5 Thickness (inches)
Measured Thickness (inches)
Rem.
Area
Model Area
Zone1
Location ID
Cap Type
Habitat
Layer
Erosion
Protection
Layer2
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Core 1 Thickness
Core 2 Thickness
Comment
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
N ative Plug
(y/n)6
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
Native Plug
Cv/n)6
E-l (B)
1
OL-RAE-CAP-0017
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
25
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E-l (B)
1
OL-RAE-CAP-0018
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
28
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E-l (B)
1
OL-RAE-CAP-0021
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
24
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E-3
1
OL-RAE-CAP-0025
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
22
0.5
Y
NM
NM
32.5
0
Y
E-3
1
OL-RAE-CAP-0027
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
27
0.25
Y
NM
NM
22
0
Y
E-3
1
OL-RAE-CAP-0030
Multi-layer
12/9
6
18/15
NM
NM
49
0.25
Y
NM
NM
54
0.25
Y
W
E-2
1
OL-RAE-CAP-0031
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
30
0.5
Y
NM
NM
29
0
Y
C3
V
E-2
1
OL-RAE-CAP-0033
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
24
0.5
Y
NM
NM
24.5
0.5
Y
<
E-2
1
OL-RAE-CAP-00337
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
26
0.5
Y
NM
NM
36
0.75
Y
£
¦3
E-l (B)
2
OL-RAE-CAP-0019
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
16
20
36
0.25
Y
9
16+
25+
0
N
E-l (B)
2
OL-RAE-CAP-0020
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
16
17
33
0
Y
17
16+
33+
0
N
E
E-l (B)
2
OL-RAE-CAP-0022
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
18.5
12
33
0
Y
26
13
42
0
Y
&
E-3
2
OL-RAE-CAP-0023
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
28
12
40
0.5
Y
24
14
38
0
Y
E-3
2
OL-RAE-CAP-0029
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
42
0
42
0
N
31
18
49
0
Y
E-3
2
OL-RAE-CAP-003 5
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
25
27
52
0
Y
14
26
40
0
Y
E-2
2
OL-RAE-CAP-0039
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
16
22
38
0
Y
16
11
27
0
Y
E-2
2
OL-RAE-CAP-0040
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
9
22
31
0
Y
20
22
50
0
Y
E-3
2
OL-RAE-C AP-00463
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
31+
NM
NM
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E-3
2
OL-RAE-CAP-0026
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
21
14
35
0.5
Y
24
18
42
0
Y
RAF
1
OL-RAF-CAP-OOOl
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
27
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
RAF
1
OL-RAF-CAP-0002
Multi-layer
12/9
12
24/21
NM
NM
24
0
Y
NM
NM
38
0
Y
| |Measured thickness is less than the minimum target thickness specificed in the OLMMP.
The coarsest substrates in Zones 1, 2, and 3 are sand, fine gravel and coarse gravel/cobble, respectively.
2When the habitat and erosion protection layer are the same substrate, the total thickness of the habitat/erosion protection layer is listed under the habitat layer.
3 Samples collected from locations for additional physical monitoring based upon elevations observed during bathymetric survey.
4 Design thickness specified as a minimum.
5 Listed thickness is the target minimum thickness specified in the OLMMP.
6 The presence of a plug of native sediment in the bottom of the core indicates the core fully penetrated the cap material, allowing measurement of the total cap thickness.
7 Cap thickness data collected in April 2018 during cap resampling.
NA - Not applicable, core was not required or collected.
NM - Not measured. When the entire cap consists of sand, it is not possible to differentiate the different layers, therefore only the total thickness is provided. When the cap design consists of topsoil overlying
coarse gravel, the core can be advanced through the topsoil but not the coarse gravel, therefore only the topsoil thickness is provided.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2017 Annual Report\Rev 2\Tables\Section 6 Tables\
Table 6-1 Multi-Layer Cap Core Thickness.xlsx
Page 4 of 4
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 3.1b
2017 MONO-LAYER CAP THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS
Measured Thickness (inches)
Rem.
Area
Model Area
Zone
Location ID
Cap Type
Design
Thickness
(inches)1
Core 1 Thickness
Core 2 Thickness
Core 3 Thickness
Core 4 Thickness
Comment
Cap
Overlying
Sediment
Cap
Overlying
Sediment
Cap
Overlying
Sediment
Cap
Overlying
Sediment
RA-B-1C (10-20)
1
OL-RAB-CAP-OO10
MPC Monolayer
8
13.25
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PQ
1
3
RA-B-1D (20-30)
1
OL-RAB-CAP-OO11
MPC Monolayer
7.5
9
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-B-ID (10-20)
1
OL-RAB-CAP-OO 13
MPC Monolayer
12
13.5
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K
RA-B-1C
1
OL-RAB-CAP-0005
MPC Monolayer
2
4.5
0.25
4
0
3.5
0
3.5
1
RA-B-1C
1
OL-RAB-CAP-0007
MPC Monolayer
2
5
0
4
0
5
0
5.5
0
RA-C-1B
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0014
GAC Direct App.
0
5
0.25
5
0.25
3
0.25
6
0.25
RA-C-1B
1
OL-RAC-CAP-OO18
GAC Direct App.
0
5
0
4
0
4
0
6
0
RA-C-1C
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0015
GAC Direct App.
0
8
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-1D
1
OL-RAC-CAP-OO 19
MPC Monolayer
9
11.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2B
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0006
MPC Monolayer
2
3
0
3
0
3
0
3.5
0.25
U
1
RA-C-2B
1
OL-RAC-CAP-0008
MPC Monolayer
2
3.75
0
4
0
3
0
3
0
p2
RA-C-2C
1
OL-RAC-CAP-OO 11
MPC Monolayer
13.5
12
0
8
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2C
1
OL-RAC-CAP-OO ll2
MPC Monolayer
13.5
9
1.75
11.5
0.5
12
0
17
0
RA-C-2C
1
OL-RAC-CAP-OO 13
MPC Monolayer
13.5
20
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2C
1
OL-RAC-CAP-OO 132
MPC Monolayer
13.5
14
0.5
11
0.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2D
1
OL-RAC-CAP-OO 10
GAC Direct App.
0
5
0.25
7.5
0.25
10
0.25
6
0.25
RA-C-2D
1
OL-RAC-CAP-OO 12
GAC Direct App.
0
4.25
0.25
4.5
0
6
0
5
0.25
Q
RA-D-1B
1
OL-RAD-CAP-0005
MPC Monolayer
4.5
6
0.25
5.5
0.25
5.5
0
8.5
0.25
1
3
RA-D-1B
1
OL-RAD-CAP-OO11
MPC Monolayer
4.5
15
2.5
5.5
1
7.5
0.5
8
0.5
PS
RA-D-1B
1
OL-RAD-CAP-00112
MPC Monolayer
4.5
8
0
6.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
MERC E2
1
OL-RAE-C AP-003 6
MERC
6
6
0
10
0.5
10.5
0.25
NA
NA
MERC E2
1
OL-RA3 -C AP-003 62
MERC
6
14
0.75
9
0.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
W
1
MERC E3
1
OL-RAE-C AP-003 8
MERC
6
12
0
6.5
0.5
6
1
NA
NA
o2
MERC E3
1
OL-RAE-CAP-00382
MERC
6
18
0.25
17.5
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
MERC El
1
OL-RAE-C AP-0042
MERC
6
6.5
1.5
12
1
0
NA
NA
NA
MERC El
1
OL-RAE-CAP-00422
MERC
6
6
0.5
5.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2017 Annual Report\Rev 2\Tables\Section 6 Tables\
Table 6-2 Mono-Layer Cap Core Thicknesses.xlsx Page 1 of 2 PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 3.1b (CONTINUED)
2017 MONO-LAYER CAP THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS
Measured Thickness (inches)
Rem.
Area
Model Area
Zone
Location ID
Cap Type
Design
Thickness
(inches)1
Core 1 Thickness
Core 2 Thickness
Core 3 Thickness
Core 4 Thickness
Comment
Cap
Overlying
Sediment
Cap
Overlying
Sediment
Cap
Overlying
Sediment
Cap
Overlying
Sediment
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0014
TLC
2
5
2.5
6.5
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0017
TLC
2
7.5
0.25
8
0.25
8.5
0.25
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0018
TLC
2
6.5
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0019
TLC
2
5
0.25
8.5
0
8
0.1
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0020
TLC
2
5
0.5
9
0.75
6
1
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0008
Amended TLC
4.5
7.5
0
4
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Adjacent to
RA-D
TLC
TLC
SMU 8
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0009
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0010
Amended TLC
Amended TLC
4.5
4.5
5.5
4.5
0
0
NM
4.5
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0011
Amended TLC
4.5
11
0
16
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0012
Amended TLC
4.5
5
0
9
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0013
Amended TLC
4.5
7
0
5.5
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
oo
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0015
Amended TLC
4.5
10
0
9
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
P
2
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0016
Amended TLC
4.5
14
0
10
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
in
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0001
TLC
4.5
3.5
0.1
3.5
0.1
3.5
0
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0002
TLC
4.5
4.5
0.25
5
0.25
5
0.5
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0003
TLC
4.5
4.25
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Adjacent to
RA-C
TLC
TLC
SMU 8
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0004
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0005
GAC Direct App.
GAC Direct App.
0
0
5
7
0.25
0
4
9
0.25
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0006
Transition Zone
4.5
7
0.25
6
0.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0007
Transition Zone
4.5
6
0.5
7.5
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0021
TLC
2
9
0.5
7.5
0.75
6.5
0.5
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0022
TLC
2
7
0.25
6.5
0.25
7.5
0
NA
NA
Adjacent to
RA-E
TLC
TLC
SMU 8
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0023
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0024
TLC
TLC
2
2
6.25
7.5
1
0
4
8.5
1
0
6
8
1.5
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
TLC
SMU 8
OL-SMU 8-CAP-0025
TLC
2
9.5
0.1
8.5
0.25
6.5
0.25
NA
NA
1 The design thickness is specified as an average thickness over the model area, except for the unamended TLCs adjacent to remediation areas D and E, which are specificed as a minimum thickness.
2
Cap thickness data collected in April 2018 during cap resampling.
NA - Not applicable, core not required or collected.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2017 Annual Report\Rev 2\Tables\Section 6 Tables\
Table 6-2 Mono-Layer Cap Core Thicknesses.xlsx
Page 2 of 2
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 3.2
2018 Cap Thickness Measurements
Design2/Target3 Thickness (inches)
Measured Thickness (inches)
Rem.
Area
Habitat
Layer
Erosion
Chemical
Zone1
Location ID
Cap Type
Protection
Layer4
Isolation
Layer
Total
Core A Thickness
Core B Thickness
Comment
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
Native Plug
(Y/N)5
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
Native Plug
(y/n)5
RA-B-1C (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0008
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
21
18
10
17
27
0
Y
10
16
26
0
Y
RA-B-1C (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0020
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
21
18
4
13
0
Y
7
20
27
0
Y
RA-B-1C (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0024
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
21
18
13
22
0
Y
8
12
20
0
Y
to
RA-B-1C (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0025
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
21
18
7
17
24
0
Y
4
14
18
0
Y
RA-B-1D (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0021
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
4.5
16.5
13.5
3
10
13
0.5
Y
5
12
17
1
Y
RA-B-1D (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0022
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
4.5
16.5
13.5
6
23+
29+
0
N
n 8
12
20
0
Y
RA-B-1E (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0023
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
12
24
21
6
16
22
0
Y
16
25
0
Y
1
i
&
RA-B-1E (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0026
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
12
24
21
n 6
8+
14+
0
N
5
20
25
0
Y
RA-B-1E (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0016
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
12
24
21
6
15
21
0
Y
6
17
23
0
Y
RA-B-1E (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0016C
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
12
24
21
16
15
31
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-B-1E (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0016D
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
12
24
21
5
19+
24+
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-B-1E (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0016E
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
12
24
21
8
12
2»
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-B-1E (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0016F
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
12
24
21
5
18
23
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-B-1E (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAB-0016N
MPC-Multilayer
12
9
12
24
21
7.5
12.5
2»
0
Y
7
18
25
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0007
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
3.5
13.5
17
0
Y
4
10
14
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0007C
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
14
22
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0007D
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
12
11
23
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0007E
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
5
11
16
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0007F
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
0
17
17
1
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0007F Retake
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
()
15
15
0
Y
0
13
13
0.5
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0007N
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
13
20
0
Y
12
20
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0007S
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
15
0
Y
4
12
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0024
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
4
12
0.5
Y
4
7
0
Y
u
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0025
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
14
0
Y
6
4
10
0
Y
1
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0026
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
6
14
0
Y
10
12
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0027
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
()
11
11
0.5
Y
()
18
18
0.5
Y
;§
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0027 Retake
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
2
9
11
0
Y
3
10
13
0.25
Y
=3
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0028
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
4
11
15
0
Y
6
13
0
Y
|
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0029
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
8
16
1.5
Y
7+
14+
1.5
N
OS
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0030
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
4
10+
14+
0
N
5
12
17
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0031
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
14
1
Y
10
17
1
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0032
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
16
23
0
Y
13
20
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0033
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
10
13+
23+
0
N
11
19
0
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0034
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
10
26
36
2
Y
11
19
1.5
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0035
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
18
3
Y
10
19
2
Y
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0036
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
2
12
14
0.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0037
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
3
12
0.25
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RA-C-2A (4
10 ft of Water)
2
OL-RAC-0038
MPC-Multilayer
10
7
4.5
14.5
11.5
11
16
2.5
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
C3
2
OL-RAC-0022
Multilayer
18
9
12
30/21
13
23+
36+
0
N
14
19.5+
33.5+
0
N
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev l\Tables\
Table 6.1 Cap Core Thickness.xlsx
Page 1 of2
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 3.2
(Continued)
2018 Cap Thickness Measurements
Design2/Target3 Thickness (inches)
Measured Thickness (inches)
Rem.
Area
Habitat
Layer
Erosion
Chemical
Zone1
Location ID
Cap Type
Protection
Layer4
Isolation
Layer
Total
Core A Thickness
Core B Thickness
Comment
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
Native Plug
(Y/N)5
Habitat
Layer
Chemical
Isolation
Layer
Total
Overlying
Sediment
Native Plug
(y/n)5
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-0017
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
11
19
30
0
Y
9
20.5
29.5
0
Y
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-0018
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
12
13
25
0
Y
10
12
22
0
Y
Q
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-0026
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
13
13
26
0
Y
11.5
13.5
25
0
Y
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-0026 Recoring
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
12
18
30
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-0029
Multilayer
18/9
12
30/21
14
17
31
0
Y
14
18
32
0
Y
=
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-0049
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
28
1+
29+
0.5
N
28
1+
29+
1.5
N
I
D-Center
2
OL-RAD-0050
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
21
21+
42+
3
N
31
2+
22+
3
N
1
D-West
2
OL-RAD-0022
Multilayer
18/9
12
30/21
12
15
27
0
Y
12
13.5
25.5
0
Y
|
OS
D-West
2
OL-RAD-0022 Recoring
Multilayer
18/9
12
30/21
16
20
36
0
Y
14
18
32
0
Y
OL-VC-10138/40
2
OL-RAD-0024
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
10.5
22.5
33
0
Y
14
12+
26+
0
N
OL-VC-10138/40
2
OL-RAD-0048
Multilayer
18/9
12
30/21
31
11+
42+
0
N
30
2CH-
50+
0
N
D-East
1
OL-RAD-0047
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
NA
45
45
2
Y
NA
46
46
2
Y
w
E-2
2
OL-RAE-0040
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
14
26
40
0
Y
12
27
39
0
Y
S
E-3
2
OL-RAE-0023
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
29
22
51
0
Y
15
17
32
0
Y
<3
E-3
2
OL-RAE-0023 Recoring
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
25
17
42
0
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
|
E-3
2
OL-RAE-0029
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
14.5
15.5
30
0
Y
14
15
29
3
Y
E-3
2
OL-RAE-0029 Recoring
Multilayer
12/9
12
24/21
41+
41+
0
N
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i
MERC6
NA
OL-RAE-0047
Monolayer
NA
NA
6
NA
11
11
1
Y
NA
10
10
0
Y
&
MERC6
NA
OL-RAE-0048
Monolayer
NA
NA
6
NA
7
2
Y
NA
11
11
1
Y
I JjMeasured thickness is less than the minimum target thickness specified in the OLMMP.
1 The coarsest substrates in Zones 1, 2, and 3 are sand, fine gravel and coarse gravel/cobble, respectively.
2 Design thickness specified as a minimum.
3 Listed thickness is the target minimum thickness specified in the OLMMP
When the habitat and erosion protection layer are the same substrate, the total thickness of this habitat/erosion protection layer is listed under the habitat layer.
5 The presence of a plug of native sediment in the bottom of the core indicates the core fully penetrated the cap material, allowing measurement of the total cap thickness.
^Design thickness for MERC monolayer caps is specified as an average thickness over the cap area.
NA - Not applicable
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev l\Tables\
Table 6.1 Cap Core Thickness.xlsx
Page 2 of 2
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 4.1
2017 Cap Monitoring Exceedances
Station
Contaminant
Depth (in)
Cap Layer
Measured
Result
Units
Calculated
Result
Units
Criteria
Units
Notes
OL-RAA-CAP-OO18
Mercury
3-6
H
0.047
mg/kg
NA
0.15
mg/kg
Topsoil in Ninemile Creek spits. Mercury criteria for the spits is 0.15 mg/kg
consistent with the Ninemile Creek remedy rather than 2.2 mg/kg which applies to
the cap throughout the lake. May have been impacted by adjacent sediments during
construction. No CI sample. The exceedance was from a sample at the bottom of the
habitat layer below the majority of the ecological exposure for the area.
18-21
H
0.353
mg/kg
NA
0.15
mg/kg
OL-RAA-CAP-OO11
Benzo(a)pyrene
3-6
H
200
ug/kg
NA
146
ug/kg
Topsoil. No CI layer sample. The concentration in the upper sample was greater
than the concentration in the lower sample, indicating exceedance is not due to
chemical migration. Exceedance likely due to topsoil source.
11.5-14.5
H
76
ug/kg
NA
146
ug/kg
OL-RAA-CAP-OO 14
Toluene
3-6
H
1500
ug/kg
546
ug/L
480
ug/L
Topsoil. No CI layer sample. The concentration in the upper sample was greater
than the concentration in the lower sample, indicating exceedance is not due to
chemical migration. Resampled in April 2018 and concentrations were very low.
11-14
H
180
ug/kg
62
ug/L
480
ug/L
3-6 (2018 resample)
H
3.6
J
ug/kg
1.3
J
ug/L
480
ug/L
7.5-10.5 (2018 resample)
H
3.7
J
ug/kg
1.3
J
ug/L
480
ug/L
OL-RAA-CAP-OO 16
Toluene
3-6
H
150
J
ug/kg
44
J
ug/L
480
ug/L
Topsoil. No CI layer sample. Resampled in April 2018 and results did not exceed
criteria.
10-13
H
2100
ug/kg
650
ug/L
480
ug/L
3-6 (2018 resample)
H
110
ug/kg
32
ug/L
480
ug/L
10.5-13.5 (2018 resample)
H
1100
J
ug/kg
341
J
ug/L
480
ug/L
OL-RAB-CAP-0006
Toluene
3-6
H
2000
ug/kg
844
ug/L
480
ug/L
Topsoil. No CI layer sample. The concentration in the upper sample was greater
than the concentration in the lower sample, indicating exceedance is not due to
chemical migration. Resampled in April 2018 and concentrations were very low.
18.5-21.5
H
0.87
J
ug/kg
2.2
J
ug/L
480
ug/L
3-6 (2018 resample)
H
8.6
U
ug/kg
3.7
U
ug/L
480
ug/L
18-25 (2018 resample)
H
4.4
J
ug/kg
11.2
J
ug/L
480
ug/L
OL-RAD-CAP-OO10-H
Phenol
3-6
H
17
U
ug/kg
531
U
ug/L
250
ug/L
The listed porewater sample result of 7.1 ug/L in the CI layer was determined to be
not usable (NU) due to high turbidity which biased the results high. However, even
with this high bias, the concentration in the CI layer was less than the concentration
in the H layer, indicating exceedance in the H layer is likely not due to chemical
migration.
9-12
H
15
J
ug/kg
268
J
ug/L
250
ug/L
12-15
CI
7.1
NU
ug/L
NA
250
ug/L
OL-RAD-CAP-0022-H
Phenol
9-12
H
20
ug/kg
333
ug/L
250
ug/L
Sampling port. Phenol slightly exceeded the cap criteria in the 9 to 12 inch
sampling interval, which was the only interval sampled at this location. Sampling
ports could not be sampled via coring at all intervals due to the condition of the
sampling ports. As detailed in Attachment F of Appendix D of the final OLMMP, it
is uncertain whether 12 inches of sand H layer is present in any of the sample ports.
Therefore, the solid phase sample may have contained GAC with sorbed phase
phenol, which would result in a falsely-high calculated porewater concentration.
OL-RAE-CAP-0034-H
Toluene
3-6
H
0.79
J
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
Peeper. Toluene exceeded the criteria in the lower (15 to 18 inch) H layer sample
and was detected at a slightly lower concentration in the CI layer. This result is
considered anomalous because the maximum underlying sediment porewater
toluene concentration measured in this area during the PDI was more than an order
of magnitude lower than what was measured in the cap porewater sample. Toluene
was detected at a very low level, and well below the cap criteria, in the upper (3 to 6
inch) H layer where there would be potential for greater exposure.
15-18
H
550
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
18-21
CI
484
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
H - Habitat
CI - Chemical Isolation
NA - Not applicable
U - Undetected at the listed detection limit
J - Estimated value
NU - Not usable
Measured concentration exceeds cap H layer criteria
https://usepa-my.sharepoint.com/personal/nunes_robert_epa_gov/Documents/Oiiondaga Lake/Lake Bottom/LB 2nd FYR/Attachment 1/Tables/
Copy of FYR Attachment 1 Table 4.1 2017 Cap Exceedances (2017 Report Table 6.10)_091120.xlsx
1 Of 1
parsons
-------
Honeywell
Table 4.2
2018 Cap Monitoring Exceedances
Station
Contaminant
Depth (in)
Cap Layer
Measured
Result
Units
Calculated
Results
Units
Criteria
Units
Notes
OL-RAD-CAP-0026
Toluene
3-6
H
0.22
U
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
Peeper. Exceedances in lower (9" to 12") H layer sample
in June 2018. The concentration in the CI layer was less
than the concentration in the H layer, indicating
exceedance in the H layer is not due to chemical
migration. This location was resampled in October 2018
and toluene was not detected in any habitat or
chemical isolation layer samples using 2 labs (< 1 ug/L).
9-12
H
1760
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
12-15
CI
121
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
OL-RAE-CAP-0023-H
Toluene
3-6
H
0.22
U
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
Peeper. Exceedances in lower (9" to 12") H layer sample
in June 2018. The concentration in the CI layer was less
than the concentration in the H layer, indicating
exceedance in the H layer is not due to chemical
migration. This location was resampled in October 2018
and toluene was not detected in any habitat or
chemical isolation layer samples using 2 labs (< 1 ug/L).
9-12
H
1320
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
12-15
CI
132
ug/L
NA
480
ug/L
H - Habitat
CI - Chemical Isolation
NA - Not applicable
U - Undetected at the listed detection limit
J - Estimated value
Measured concentration exceeds cap H layer criteria
1 of 1
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 5.1
Mercury Results for 2017 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
Dissolved Mercury1'2
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
Pre-Turnover
North Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ng/L
0.11
J
0.48
J
0.11
South Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ng/L
0.08
J
0.43
J
0.11
J
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.10
J
2.29
0.21
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.10
J
0.52
0.07
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.21
J
0.71
0.06
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.08
U
0.53
0.11
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.10
J
1.16
0.09
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.08
J
0.50
0.10
OL-RAD-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.08
u
1.07
0.10
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.0
ng/L
0.22
J
1.11
0.16
OL-RAE-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.14
J
0.59
0.11
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/21/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.20
J
0.64
0.13
Post-Turnover
North Deep
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.25
J
1.24
0.04
J
South Deep
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.24
J
1.40
0.06
OL-RAA-SW-01
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.27
J
1.75
0.11
OL-RAB-SW-01
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.25
J
1.23
0.05
OL-RAB-SW-02
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.29
J
0.58
0.05
OL-RAC-SW-01
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.25
J
1.07
0.06
OL-RAC-SW-02
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.29
J
0.96
0.05
J
OL-RAD-SW-01
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.25
J
1.27
0.05
OL-RAD-SW-02
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.25
J
1.27
0.05
J
OL-RAE-SW-01
11/13/2017
1.0
ng/L
0.37
J
1.44
0.03
u
OL-RAE-SW-02
11/13/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.24
J
1.11
0.04
J
OL-RAE-SW-03
11/30/2017
1.5
ng/L
0.29
J
1.07
0.20
Notes:
1. Goal for dissolved mercury concentrations for the protection of wildlife is 2.6 ng/L or lower
2. Goal for dissolved mercury concenrtations for human health via fish consumption is 0.7 ng/L or lower
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev 0\Tables\
Tables 4.1 through 4.3 2017 SW tables 050719.xlsx\Hg
Page 1 of 1
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 5.2
Mercury Results for 2018 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
Dissolved Mercury1,2
Total Mercury
Methylmercury
North Deep
09/20/2018
6.6
ng/L
0.18
J
0.98
J
0.026
UJ
South Deep
09/20/2018
6.6
ng/L
0.12
J
0.43
J
0.033
J
OL-RAA- S W-01
09/20/2018
0.33
ng/L
0.26
J
1.00
0.090
OL-RAB- S W-01
09/20/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.16
J
0.88
0.043
J
OL-RAB- S W-02
09/20/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.18
J
0.59
0.111
Pre-Turnover
OL-RAC- S W-01
09/20/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.16
J
0.44
J
0.026
U
OL-RAC- S W-02
09/20/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.26
J
0.66
0.070
OL-RAD- S W-01
09/20/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.20
J
0.77
0.047
J
OL-RAD- S W-02
09/20/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.15
J
1.04
0.029
J
OL-RAE- S W-01
09/20/2018
0.66
ng/L
0.34
J
1.80
0.154
OL-RAE- S W-02
09/20/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.19
J
1.34
0.083
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/20/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.22
J
0.64
0.064
North Deep
11/08/2018
6.6
ng/L
0.34
J
1.27
0.026
U
South Deep
11/08/2018
6.6
ng/L
0.30
J
1.24
0.026
U
OL-RAA-S W-01
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.40
J
1.65
0.070
OL-RAB-S W-01
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.24
J
0.79
0.026
U
OL-RAB-S W-02
11/08/2018
0.99
ng/L
0.22
J
0.72
0.026
U
Post-Turnover
OL-RAC-S W-01
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.20
J
0.96
0.026
U
OL-RAC-S W-02
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.20
J
0.85
0.026
U
OL-RAD-S W-01
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.22
J
0.87
0.026
U
OL-RAD-S W-02
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.20
J
0.69
0.026
U
OL-RAE-S W-01
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.22
J
0.58
0.026
U
OL-RAE-S W-02
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.40
J
2.88
0.026
U
OL-RAE-SW-03
11/08/2018
1.65
ng/L
0.32
J
2.35
0.045
J
Notes:
1. Goal for dissolved mercury concentrations for the protection of wildlife is 2.6 ng/L or lower
2. Goal for dissolved mercury concenrtations for human health via fish consumption is 0.7 ng/L or lower
3. U: not detected at specified reporting limit
4. J: estimated concentration
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev 0\Tables\Original files\
Tables 4.4 thru 4.6 2018 results 050719.xlsx
Hg Page 1 of 1
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.1
VOC and SVOC Results for 2017 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
1,2,3-
TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,3,5-
TRICHLOROBENZENE
BENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
5
5
10 1
5
i
North Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
U
1
U
South Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
Pre-Turnover
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
OL-RAD-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.0
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
u
1
u
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev 0\Tables\
Tables 4.1 through 4.3 2017 SW tables 050719.xlsx
VOCs and SVOCs Page 1 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.1
(Continued)
VOC and SVOC Results for 2017 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
ETHYLBENZENE
O-XYLENE
M&P-XYLENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES, TOTAL
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
17 1
65 1
65 1
100 1
65 1
North Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
1
U
1
U
1
U
1
u
1
U
South Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
1
U
1
U
1
U
1
u
1
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
Pre-Turnover
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAD-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.0
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev 0\Tables\
Tables 4.1 through 4.3 2017 SW tables 050719.xlsx
VOCs and SVOCs
Page 2 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.1
(Continued)
VOC and SVOC Results for 2017 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
1,2,4-
TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-
DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-
DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-
DICHLOROBENZENE
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
5 1
5 1
5 1
5 1
Pre-Turnover
North Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
1
U
1
U
1
U
1
U
South Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
1
U
1
U
1
U
1
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAD-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.0
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev 0\Tables\
Tables 4.1 through 4.3 2017 SW tables 050719.xlsx
VOCs and SVOCs
Page 3 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.1
(Continued)
VOC and SVOC Results for 2017 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
ACENAPHTHENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
5.3 1
3.8 1
0.03 1
0.0012 1
North Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
South Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.52
U
0.52
U
0.52
U
0.52
U
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.52
U
0.52
U
0.52
U
0.52
U
Pre-Turnover
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
OL-RAD-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.0
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAE-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev 0\Tables\
Tables 4.1 through 4.3 2017 SW tables 050719.xlsx
VOCs and SVOCs
Page 4 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.1
(Continued)
VOC and SVOC Results for 2017 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
FLUORENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PYRENE
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
0.54 1
13 1
5
i
5
4.6 1
North Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
U
1
U
0.51
U
South Deep
09/21/2017
6.0
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
u
1
U
0.51
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.52
U
0.52
U
0.52
u
1
u
0.52
U
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
u
1
u
0.51
U
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.52
U
0.52
U
0.52
u
1
u
0.52
U
Pre-Turnover
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
u
1
u
0.51
U
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
u
1
u
0.51
U
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
u
1
u
0.51
U
OL-RAD-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
u
1
u
0.5
U
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/21/2017
1.0
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
u
1
u
0.5
U
OL-RAE-SW-02
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
u
1
u
0.51
U
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/21/2017
1.5
ug/L
0.51
U
0.51
U
0.51
u
1
u
0.51
U
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev 0\Tables\
Tables 4.1 through 4.3 2017 SW tables 050719.xlsx
VOCs and SVOCs
Page 5 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.2
VOC and SVOC Results for 2018 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
1,2,3-
TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,3,5-
TRICHLOROBENZENE
BENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
5
5
10 1
5 1
North Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
U
1
U
South Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
5
U
5
U
1
U
1
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.66
ug/L
5
u
5
u
0.2
J
0.3
J
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
U
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
u
Pre-Turnover
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAD-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.99
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
u
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/14/2018
2.31
ug/L
5
u
5
u
1
u
1
u
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
Page 1 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.2
(Continued)
VOC and SVOC Results for 2018 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
ETHYLBENZENE
O-XYLENE
M&P-XYLENE
TOLUENE
XYLENES,
TOTAL
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
17 1
65 1
65 1
100 1
65 1
North Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
1
U
1
U
5
U
1
U
5
U
South Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
1
U
1
U
5
U
1
U
5
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.66
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
Pre-Turnover
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
OL-RAD- S W-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.99
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
0.3
J
5
u
OL-RAE- S W-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/14/2018
2.31
ug/L
1
u
1
u
5
u
1
u
5
u
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
Page 2 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.2
(Continued)
VOC and SVOC Results for 2018 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
1,2,4-
TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-
DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-
DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-
DICHLOROBENZENE
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
5 1
5 1
5 1
5 1
North Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
South Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.66
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
Pre-Turnover
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAD- S W-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.99
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAE- S W-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/14/2018
2.31
ug/L
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
Page 3 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.2
(Continued)
VOC and SVOC Results for 2018 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
ACENAPHTHENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
5.3 1
3.8 1
0.03 1
0.0012 1
Pre-Turnover
North Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
South Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.66
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAD- S W-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.99
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAE- S W-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/14/2018
2.31
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
Page 4 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 6.2
(Continued)
VOC and SVOC Results for 2018 Surface Water Compliance Sampling
Period
Location
Sample Date
Sample
Depth (ft)
Units
FLUORENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PYRENE
Surface Water Quality Standards/Guidance Values
ug/L
0.54 1
13 1
5 1
5
4.6 1
Pre-Turnover
North Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
South Deep
09/14/2018
6.6
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAA-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.66
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAB-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAB-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAC-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAC-SW-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAD-SW-01
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAD- S W-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAE-SW-01
09/14/2018
0.99
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAE- S W-02
09/14/2018
1.65
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
OL-RAE-SW-03
09/14/2018
2.31
ug/L
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
2
U
0.5
U
1. Lowest SWQS as presented on Table 5.1 of the OLMMP.
U: not detected at specified reporting limit
J: estimated concentration
Page 5 of 5
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
Table 7
Summary of Surface Water Total PCB Concentrations in 2017 and 2018
Total PCBs in Onondaga Lake (ng/L
Location
2017
2018
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
DEEPN
0.46
1.16
0.36
1.07
DEEP S
0.44
1.93
0.54
1.06
OL-RAA-SW-01
0.97
0.43
0.36
0.39
OL-RAB-SW-01
0.93
1.62
0.33
0.83
OL-RAB-SW-02
0.74
0.83
0.17
0.63
OL-RAC-SW-01
0.43
1.76
0.36
0.90
OL-RAC-SW-02
1.77
1.27
1.19
0.82
OL-RAD-SW-01
0.67
1.64
0.13
0.86
OL-RAD-SW-02
0.44
2.01
0.15
0.72
OL-RAE-SW-01
0.75
1.10
1.14
0.62
OL-RAE-SW-02
1.31
2.47
0.90
1.08
OL-RAE-SW-03
4.91
1.17
2.60
5.44
Average
1.15
1.45
0.69
1.20
Notes:
1. When calculating Total PCBs, ND=0
2. Goals for PCB concentration of 0.12 ng/L for the Protection of Wildlife and 0.001 ng/L for the
protection of human health via fish consumption
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Report\Rev 0\Tables\
Tables 4.7 average total PCBs SW.xlsx
Page 1 of 1
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 8
2014 & 2017 SMU 8 MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS INCLUDING COMPARISON OF
PREDICTED AND ACTUAL 2017 SMU 8 SURFACE (0 to 4 cm)
SEDIMENT MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS
Location ID
Measured 2014 Sediment
Measured 2017 Sediment
2017 Model Predicted
(North to South)
Concentration (mg/kg)
Concentration (mg/kg)
Value (mg/kg)
0 to 4 cm
4 to 10 cm
0 to 4 cm
4 to 10 cm
0 to 4 cm
N
orth Basin
OL-STA-80068
0.71
1.4
0.57
1.19
1.0-1.02
OL-STA-80069
0.71
1.2
0.66
1.23
1.05-1.12
OL-STA-80225
0.65
1.1
0.70
1.06
NA
OL-VC-80157
0.66
1.48
0.58
1.16
1.07-1.16
Ninemile Creek Outlet Area
OL-STA-80073
0.87
1.5
0.44
1.09
1.4-1.42
OL-STA-80226
0.94
1.5
1.12
1.29
NA
OL-STA-80227
1.2
1.5
0.78
1.40
NA
Saddle
OL-STA-80075
0.69
1.2
0.55
0.98
1.46-1.55
OL-STA-80103
0.96
1.95
0.62
1.39
1.43-1.44
OL-STA-80234
0.69
1.4
1.04
2.26
NA
South Basin
OL-STA-80076
0.93
0.81
0.57
1.4
1.44-1.47
OL-STA-80078
1
1.7
0.80
0.93
1.45-1.52
OL-STA-80080
0.8
1.75
0.91
1.43
1.44-1.48
OL-STA-80082
0.94
1.6
0.81
1.66
1.46-1.54
OL-STA-80084
1.15
1.1
0.82
1.66
1.48-1.6
OL-STA-80229
0.82
1.3
0.70
1.46
NA
South Corner
OL-STA-80085
1.26
1.6
0.50
1.01
1.93-1.95
OL-STA-80236
NA
NA
1.40
2.01
NA
OL-STA-80237
NA
NA
0.41
0.23
NA
OL-STA-80238
NA
NA
0.44
2.55
NA
OL-VC-80172
1.2
1.8
1.07
1.36
1.77-1.87
OL-VC-80177
1.25
1.7
0.69
1.45
1.84-1.89
Notes:
1 - Sediment concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). For the 2014 event, concentrations are averages of
data from the 0 to 2 cm and 2 to 4 cm intervals.
2 - The MNR model in the design (Parsons et al. 2012) simulates surface mercury concentrations at specific SMU 8
locations. For locations not included in the final design, an NA is indicated.
3 - Predicted concentration ranges are based on the MNR model applied in the design for two different sedimentation
rates and a four centimeter mixing depth.
C:\Users\Rnunes\AppData\Local\Microsofl\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\0ZFM8XCI\
Table 5.2 Comparison to Model Predictions 5-31-19_REVISED_20200124_AECOM_092820.xlsx
Page 1 of 1
Parsons
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 9
PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN SMU 8 SEDIMENT MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS (0 to 4 cm) FROM PDI TO 2017
Location ID
(North to South)
Most Recent
(nearby station)
Initial Concentration
(mg/kg)
Measured 2014 Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
Measured 2017 Sediment
Concentration (mg/kg)
2017 Model Predicted
Value (mg/kg)
Percent
Reduction in
Measured
Concentration
By Location
Percent
Reduction By
Zone
0 to 4 cm
0 to 4 cm
0 to 4 cm
0 to 4 cm
North Basin
OL-STA-80068
0.84 (2008)
0.71
0.57
1.0-1.02
32%
38%
OL-STA-80069
1.2 (2007)
0.71
0.66
1.05-1.12
45%
OL-STA-80225
OL-VC-80199
0.87 (2010)
0.65
0.70
NA
20%
OL-VC-80157
1.3 (2010)
0.66
0.58
1.07-1.16
54%
Ninemile Creek Outlet Area
OL-STA-80073
1.3 (2008)
0.87
0.44
1.4-1.42
69%
61%
OL-STA-80226
OL-STA-80160
2.4 (2010)
0.94
1.12
NA
54%
OL-STA-80227
OL-VC-80161
2.0 (2010)
1.2
0.78
NA
60%
Saddle
OL-STA-80075
1.7 (2007)
0.69
0.55
1.46-1.55
68%
51%
OL-STA-80103
1.4 (2008)
0.96
0.62
1.43-1.44
56%
OL-STA-80234
OL-VC-80103
1.4 (2008)
0.69
1.0
NA
29%
South Basin
OL-STA-80076
1.4 (2008)
0.93
0.57
1.44-1.47
59%
55%
OL-STA-80078
1.6 (2007)
1.0
0.80
1.45-1.52
50%
OL-STA-80080
1.5 (2007)
0.80
0.91
1.44-1.48
39%
OL-STA-80082
1.7 (2007)
0.94
0.81
1.46-1.54
52%
OL-STA-80084
1.9 (2007)
1.2
0.82
1.48-1.6
57%
OL-STA-80229
OL-VC-80168
2.3 (2010)
0.82
0.70
NA
70%
South Corner
OL-STA-80085
1.9 (2007)
1.3
0.50
1.93-1.95
74%
60%
OL-STA-80236
OL-STA-80088
2.3 (2007)
NA
1.40
NA
39%
OL-STA-80237
OL-VC-80184
2.3 (2010)
NA
0.41
NA
82%
OL-STA-80238
OL-VC-80197
3.4 (2010)
NA
0.44
NA
87%
OL-VC-80172
1.4 (2010)
1.2
1.1
1.77-1.87
21%
OL-VC-80177
1.6 (2010)
1.3
0.69
1.84-1.89
57%
Notes:
1 - Sediment concentrations are in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). For the 2014 event, concentrations are averages of data from the 0 to 2 cm and 2 to 4 cm intervals
2 - The MNR model in the design (Parsons et al. 2012) simulates surface mercury concentrations at specific SMU 8 locations. For locations not included in the final design, anNAis indicated.
3 - Predicted concentration ranges are based on the MNR model applied in the design for two different sedimentation rates and a four centimeter mixing depth.
4 - Percent reductions were calculated from PDI concentrations rounded to two significant digits and 2017 measured concentrations rounded to two significant digits.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual Reporttftev l\Tables\
Table 5.3 BSQV_Analysis_Method2_PercentReductions_REVISED_20200212.xlsx
Page 1 of 1 PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 10
SURFACE SEDIMENT AREA-WEIGHTED AVERAGE MERCURY CONCENTRATION
Sub-Basin
Model-Predicted Surface
Sediment Area-Weighted
Average Mercury
Concentration (2017)
(mg/kg)
Calculated Surface Sediment Area-
Weighted Average Mercury
Concentration (mg/kg)
Method 1
Method 2
North Basin
0.92
0.75
0.79
Ninemile Creek Outlet Area
0.79
0.53
0.47
Saddle
0.96
0.67
0.57
South Basin
1.08
0.70
0.64
South Corner
0.89
0.54
0.54
Notes:
1. Model-predicted surface sediment area-weighted average mercury concentrations are reported for the end of
2017.
2. Method 1 relied on the 2017 SMU 8 surface sediment samples only to calculate area-weighted average
concentrations in the SMU 8 portion of each sub-basin.
3. Method 2 supplements the 2017 data from the 22 locations in SMU 8 along with the SMU 8 data from the final
design and assigned a mercury concentration to each location not sampled in 2017 based on a percent reduction that
has occurred since that time.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual ReportVRev l\Tables\
Table 5.4 BSQV_Analysis_Results_REVISED_20200213.xlsx
lofl PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF SMU 8 FROZEN CORE OBSERVATIONS (2014, 2015 and 2017)
\\ alrr Ih-plll
IK'|llll In I'il'ol \ ;MM'
1 a\rr (nil) lia-cil mi
Oliocn aliiuio ill' 1tii/I'll
Ih-plll In Saml
MiiTulirail
\ppni\iinaU-
Sriliiiu'iilaliiin Kalr
lia-cil nil lllkTiilirail
tlcplli
\ppro\iinaU-
SriliiiK'iilaliiui K;ilr
lia-cil mi miiTiilicail
tlcplli
1 iHiiliiiii
(I'D
^ rar
( urr*
Marker (rin)1
(nil prr.M'ar)
(H prr rm" prr \rar)
North Basin
OL-MB-80094-14-01
54
2014
0.5
NA
NA
NA
OL-MB-80069-14-01
51
2014
7
7
1
0.24
OL-MB-80094-15-01
50.3
2015
NA
2.7
0.45
0.11
OL-MB-80094-15-02
50.3
2015
NA
2-7.53
0.33, 1.25
0.08, 0.30
East-01-10-15
32.7
2015
4
NA
NA
NA
East-01-13-15
43.4
2015
1.5
NA
NA
NA
East-01-15-15
49.1
2015
1.5
NA
NA
NA
East-01-DEEP-15
59.3
2015
2.5
NA
NA
NA
OL-MB-80093-A
47
2017
0.4
3.5
0.44
0.11
OL-MB-80093-B
45
2017
1
1.5
0.19
0.05
OL-MB-80094-A
56
2017
2.5
3
0.38
0.09
OL-MB-80094-B
56
2017
0.7
1.2
0.15
0.04
OL-MB-80095-A
65
2017
1
2.5
0.31
0.08
OL-MB-80095-B
68.2
2017
0.1
2.5
0.31
0.08
OL-MB-80096-A
57
2017
0.1
3.7
0.46
0.11
OL-MB-80096-B
57.8
2017
0.2
6
0.75
0.18
South Basin
OL-MB-80098-14-01
62
2014
1.75
NA
NA
NA
OL-MB-80101-14-01
49
2014
1
NA
NA
NA
OL-MB-80101-15-01
48.3
2015
NA
6-6.5
1.0, 1.1
0.24, 0.26
OL-MB-80101-15-02
48.1
2015
NA
7.5-83
1.25, 1.33
0.30, 0.32
OL-MB-80098-15-01
61.6
2015
NA
8-9.53
1.33, 1.58
0.32, 0.38
OL-MB-80098-15-02
61.2
2015
NA
3
0.50
0.12
WB1-8-02-10-15
32.3
2015
4
NA
NA
NA
WB1-8-02-13-15
44.8
2015
4
NA
NA
NA
WB1-8-02-15-15
49.9
2015
3
NA
NA
NA
WB1-8-02-DEEP-15
62.7
2015
2.5
NA
NA
NA
RAD-D-03-10-15
31.4
2015
2
NA
NA
NA
RAD-D-03-13-15
42.2
2015
2
NA
NA
NA
RAD-D-03-15-15
49.2
2015
1
NA
NA
NA
OL-MB-80097-A
66
2017
3
4.5
0.56
0.14
OL-MB-80097-B
66
2017
1
4.3
0.54
0.13
OL-MB-80098-A
64
2017
1
6.7
0.84
0.20
OL-MB-80098-B
63.6
2017
0.2
5.5
0.69
0.17
OL-MB-80099-A
68
2017
0.1
6
0.75
0.18
OL-MB-80099-B
68.7
2017
0.1
6.5, 10.44
0.81, 1.30
0.20, 0.32
OL-MB-80100-A
61.4
2017
0.1
8
1.00
0.24
OL-MB-80100-B
60.5
2017
0.1
5.8
0.73
0.18
OL-MB-80101-A
56
2017
0.4
7, 7.44
0.88, 0.93
0.21, 0.22
OL-MB-80101-B
56
2017
0.1
7.5
0.94
0.23
Notes:
1-1 centimeter = 0.033 ft.
2 - The sand microbead marker was placed at nine localized SMU 8 plots in late June 2009.
3 - The core tube likely entered the sediment at an angle and, therefore, the depth of the accumulated sediment above the microbeads is uncertain.
4 - Multiple values indicate separate, distinct microbead marker layers.
P:\Honeywell -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\09 Reports\2018 Annual ReportVRev 2\Tables\
Table 5.5 Frozen Core Observation Summary_073020.xlsx
Page 1 of 1
PARSONS
-------
Honeywell
TABLE 12
AVERAGE MID-MAY TO MID-NOVEMBER 2014-2018 SOLIDS DEPOSITION AT
THE SOUTH DEEP LOCATION IN ONONDAGA LAKE
BASED ON SEDIMENT TRAP RESULTS
Year
Number of Sediment
Traps Deployed with
Mercury Measured in
Settling Sediment
Average Solids
Deposition/Settling
Rate (milligrams per
square meter per day)
Average Mercury
Concentration in Settling
Sediment (mg/kg or part
per million)
2014
19
17,800
0.91
2015
20
13,200
0.44
2016
20
11,158
0.43
2017
21
11,494
0.21
2018
20
11,788
0.18
Notes:
1 - Each sediment trap was typically deployed for seven days.
2 - Average solids deposition from June through September when traps are below the thermocline as
follows for 2014-2018, respectively: 15,000, 11,633, 8,745, 10,817, and 8,974 milligrams per square
meter per day.
3 - Modeling conducted during the final design assumed mercury concentrations on depositing particles
ranged from 1.0 to 1.9 mg/kg for the period prior to completion of remediation, and 0.4 mg/kg for the
period following remediation.
PARSONS
P:\Honeywell-SYR\449487 2015 OL Remedial Goal Monitoring\09 Reports\
9.2 MNR 2015 Summary\Draft\Tables\Sediment trap tables
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 13
FISH TISSUE REMEDIAL GOALS (MERCURY) AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS (ORGANIC
CHEMICALS)
IIuiikiii IIenllh
Ecological'
Remedial Goals
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.2 to 0.3b
0.14c for small and large prey fish
Target Concentrations
PCBs (mg/kg)
0.04to 0.3d
0.19° for small and large prey fish
Dioxin/furan TEQ (ng/kg)
1.3 to 4e
NA
DDT and Metabolites (mg/kg)
NA
0.049f for small prey fish
0.14s for large prey fish
Notes:
• Contaminant concentrations in fillet samples of sportfish (i.e., identified as Smallmouth Bass, Walleye,
Pumpkinseed, and Common Carp in the OLMMP) are compared to remedial goals and target concentration
ranges for protection of human health.
• Contaminant concentrations in 1) whole body samples of large prey fish, 2) composite whole body samples
of small prey fish, and 3) whole-body concentrations in sportfish of appropriate sizes calculated from fillet
concentrations are compared to remedial goals and target concentrations for protection of ecological
receptors. The OLMMP identifies White Sucker and Banded Killifish for large and small prey fish, but
states that other comparable species may be substituted if these species are difficult to obtain.
• Concentrations are on a wet-weight basis.
• While not collected as prey fish, remedial goals and target concentrations may be compared to contaminant
concentrations in whole body sportfish (i.e., specifically Smallmouth Bass, Walleye, Pumpkinseed, and
Common Carp in the OLMMP) where fillet data is converted to whole body data using "conversion factors
developed in the Onondaga Lake Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) (i.e., 0.7 for mercury, 2.5
for PCBs, and 2.3 for DDTs and hexachlorobenzene) (TAMS, 2002)," For these calculations, fish with
lengths 180-600 mm and 30-180 mm are compared to goal and target concentrations for large and small prey
fish, respectively.
NA - not applicable. Dioxin/furans and DDT were not identified as posing risk to ecological receptors and human
health, respectively.
a - Ecological remedial goals and targets based on lowest observed adverse effect levels presented in Appendix G of
the FS (Parsons et al. 2004). Protection of ecological receptors (wildlife) based on the exposure assumptions from
the Onondaga Lake Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) (TAMS, 2002). No-observed-adverse-effect-levels
were not identified as ecological remedial goals or targets as they are below background levels identified in the ROD and may
not be achievable.
b - Lower end of the mercury range is based on reasonable maximum exposure (RME), non-carcinogenic risk. The
higher end of the range is EPA's methylmercury National Recommended Water Quality criterion for the protection
of human health for the consumption of organisms and is expressed as mg/kg in fish tissue.
c - Protection of river otter.
d - Lower end of PCB range represents the RME non-carcinogenic target for high molecular weight PCBs and is
approximately equal to the target for lxlO 5 carcinogenic risk (0.03 mg/kg). Upper end of range is the RME
target for 1 x 10~4 carcinogenic risk.
e - Although non-carcinogenic targets were not developed for dioxin/furans at the time of the ROD (2005), using
the parameters presented in Appendix G of the FS (Parsons et al. 2004) for a target concentration for the non-
1
-------
cancer endpoint, and using the USEPA 2012 reference dose of 7E-10 mg/kg-day, the non-cancer target at a
hazard quotient of 1 was determined by USEPA to be 1.3E-06 mg/kg (or 1.3 ng/kg) and is the lower end of the
range. The upper end of the range is for protection of carcinogenic risk of lxlO4, reasonable maximum exposure
(RME).
f - Protection of belted kingfisher
g - Protection of osprey
2
-------
Attachment 1 - List of Figures
Figure 1 - Onondaga Lake Sub sites
Figure 2 - Onondaga Lake Area Tributaries and Roads
Figure 3 - Historical Locations of Solvay Wastebeds
Figure 4 - Approximate Location of ILWD
Figure 5 - SMU Boundaries and Remediation Areas
Figure 6 - Pooled NAPL Extent and Barrier Wall Alignment
Figure 7 - Remediation Area E Shoreline Offset and Wave Damper
Figure 8-2018 ESD Areas of Interest
Figure 9 - Onondaga Lake Dredge and Cap Areas
Figure 10 - Wastebed 13 Location
Figure 11 - Sediment Consolidation Area Closure Layout
Figure 12 - Onondaga Lake Adjacent Remediation Areas
Figure 13 - Habitat Restoration, Remediation and Enhancement Areas
Figure 14 - Outboard Area Berm Plan View
Figure 15-2018 Nitrate Application Locations
Figure 16 -BSQV Subareas
Figure 17 - Mouth of Ninemile Creek Vegetation Trends
Figure 18 - Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Vegetation Trends
Figure 19 - Onondaga Lake Macrophyte Cover Trends
Figure 20.1 - 2018 RA-A Bathymetry Measurement Area and Probing Transects
Figure 20.2 - 2018 RA-B Bathymetry Measurement Area and Probing Transects
Figure 20.3 - 2018 RA-C Bathymetry Measurement Area and Probing Transects
Figure 20.4 - 2018 RA-D Bathymetry Measurement Area and Probing Transects
Figure 20.5-2018 RA-E Bathymetry Measurement Area and Probing Transects
Figure 20.6-2018 RA-F Bathymetry Measurement Area and Probing Transects
Figure 20.7 - RA-A 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.8 - RA-A 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.9 - RA-A 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.10 - RA-B 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.11 - RA-B 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.12 - RA-B 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.13 - RA-C 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.14 - RA-C 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.15 - RA-C 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.16 - RA-D 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.17 - RA-D 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.18 - RA-D 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.19 - RA-E 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.20 - RA-E 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.21 - RA-E 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.22 - RA-F 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.23 - RA-F 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 20.24 - RA-F 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Figure 21 - RA-C-2A Cap Material Replacement Area
Figure 22.1 - Surface Water Sample Locations, North
-------
Figure 22.2 - Surface Water Sample Locations, South
Figure 23 - Dissolved Mercury Concentrations in Surface Water
Figure 24 - PCB Concentrations in Surface Water
Figure 25.1 - Evaluation of BSQV Compliance (Method 1)
Figure 25.2 - Evaluation of BSQV Compliance (Method 2)
Figure 26 - Sediment Trap Flux (2014-2018)
Figure 27 - Time Series of Weekly Nitrate Concentrations for the 18-m Water Depth at the South Deep
Location, 2007-2018
Figure 28 - Time Series of Methylmercury Concentrations for the 18-m Water Depth at the South Deep
Location, 2007-2018
Figure 29 - Annual Maximum Mass of Methylmercury in Hypolimnion (1992-2018)
Figure 30 - Annual Average Wet Weight Mercury Zooplankton Concentrations (2008-2018)
Figure 31 - Annual Maximum Wet Weight Mercury Zooplankton Concentrations (2008-2018)
Figure 32 - Time Series of Percent Saturation in the Hypolimnion of TDG, N2, O2 (2007-2017)
Figure 33 - Time Series of Nitrite-Nitrogen (N02-N) for Onondaga Lake at South Deep for Four water
Depths
Figure 34 - Approximate Fish Tissue Sample Locations
-------
Hopkins Rd
E Molloy Rd
sMattydale
Factory^
Lakeland
Galevjlle
Lyh court
Solvay
cRairrn
-------
-,v
\
r a
il V/
, J^fSSS
rc
1 ' \ 3^^'Virv-vi-u*
// 1 - /, V'. /- > v aKx®
/ Jff
/ #
\
,'C
m >¦¦
Liverpool A-
l k.i X'/Tf \
fc< > ;X\ ''¦ 3-
I"
H F hH
i-y-fiteW|f% }L&
v—j nsiAw. < ^
I I j
v
"¦ \ ^v*--
V$<'V
x,
\
Lakeland
Z'/e,
V
'<$
' PaSc /
.; y*^1 >£' Mattydale j
0»*4W° t 11
P//
," v^-'
V- 5 ;••'<' •';• •' -V " . .i
V ^
. I Inrt/jmp/4 Crt't>k
1 fHM-;
- »-• L-—i r^Tnl i •¦ • rs/-- is t i i ; i , i f m / —l.y\ i • *r» v<—rT^' : j ' V *» t_i -<-1.
k . \ }
T r~ ' He!
J. :', -v.--... vv: ,y -••¦r:-... :i..>r
:
>." '. =\
LEGEND
/\/ River or brook
/\/ River or brook (below grade)
/\/ Major road
A / Minor road
Source: NYSDOT (no date)
Modified from Exponent. 2001c
L>
-t j""—:H£~Vi
it—/
1
;:
3 Kilometers
-------
7/
0 2000 1000 6000
I feet
i meters
1000
2000
Figure 3 Historical Locations of Solvay Wastcbcds
-------
PERCENT AREA
Bathymetry is in 1 meter intervals.
Water surface elevation is 363.39 Feet
(110.76 Meters) above mean sea level
Figure 4
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
Approximate Location of the
In-Lake Waste Deposit
-------
-------
©
Existing Onshore NAPL
Recovery Well
2005/2006 Core does not
contain pooled NAPL but
may contain isolated NAPL
stringers, seams and/or
globules in Solvay Waste
(see text in ESD)
©
2005/2006 Core Contains
pooled NAPL (see text in ESD)
Barrier Wall Alignment
(Approximate)
Extent of Pooled NAPL
Extent of Pooled NAPL
Removal Area
Assumed in the FS/ROD
Notes:
1. Bathymetry is shown in 4' intervals.
FIGURE 6
Unnaviuall Onondaga Lake
ilUI I "j WKII Syracuse, New York
Pooled NAPL Extent
and Barrier Wall Alignment
PARSONS
290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 Phone:(31 5)451-9
-------
Remediation Area C
Remediation Area E
Remediation Area D
Wave Damper
Offset/Buffer Area
Wave Damper Unnecessary Due to
Shallow Post-Capping Water Depths
Wave Damper
Metro Shoreline Outfall
Metro Storm
Water Drain
Carousel
Mall
£>>~~~~~~~~
Metro
~
Remediation Area
Boundary
Offset/Buffer Area
Isolation Cap Area
SMU 8 Thin-layer Cap Area
Dredge Area
Sediment Management
Unit (SMU) Boundary
Wave Damper
(Approximate Location)
Willis/Semet IRM Barrier Wall
West Wall Portion of
the WB-B/HB IRM
East Wall Portion of
the WB-B/HB IRM
Eastern Shoreline Groundwater
Collection Trench
FIGURE 7
Honeywell Syracuse, New York
Remediation Area E Shoreline Offset
and Wave Damper
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
-------
RAC Area of Cap &
Sediment Movement
RAD Area of Cap &
Sediment Movement
Metro
Remediation
Area F
Remediation
Area B
Remediation
Area A
RA-B-1 M
Finalized h
RA-C-2 MPC Area
Finalized May 20161
Remediation
Area E
Remediation
Area C
RA-D-2 MPC Area
Finalized May 2016
Remediation
Area D
^Sb'urcelihs^i^BiHitalGlebe^QepBye. Earthstat^eographies
fearn ft [¦M^ ty>
Iffsl$.
Rem ediation Area
Boundary
Sediment Management Unit
(SMU) Boundary
Area of Cap and Sediment
Movement
~
Approximate Area of
Modified Protective Caps
(see Figures 4 through 8)
and Date of Design Revision
FIGURE 8
Honeywell ^fiSS
ESD AREAS OF INTEREST
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
-------
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\449883 GB NMC FER\10.0 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES\GRAPHICS\449883-LAKE CAPPING.DWG
PLOT DATE: 10/25/2018 11:37 AM PLOTTED BT: RUSSO, JILL
REMEDIATION AREA BOUNDARY
SMU BOUNDARY
DREDGE AREAS
CAPPED AREAS (INCLUDES ALL ISOLATION, THIN
LAYER, AND MODIFIED PROTECTIVE CAPS)
DREDGE AND CAP RAILROAD ACCESS
FIGURE 9
Honeywell
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
ONONDAGA LAKE DREDGE AND CAP
PARSONS
301 PLAINF1ELD ROAO. SUITE 3S0, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13212, PHONE: 315-451-9560
-------
"BODES
\ I.Ufdbjirjfh
Ljwipool
/¦Lakelahd'
GaMIe
. J n,rtt> Ifciio 111*
Wastebed
Wastebed
13
Wastebed
Amltoy
Wastebed
Wastebed 15
^SOl-VAV
Fnjnwwtity
WASTEBED 13 LOCATION MAP
SOURCE: PARSONS MAP
Geosyntec'
KENNESAW, GA
consultants
mm
January 2018
PROJECT m.
GQ5825A
fftE Na
47061001
Doounawr noi
¥mm m.
-------
1. FIGURE IS COMPRISED OF AERIAL
IMAGES FROM PARSONSJHEW
ANDBING
EAST BASIN
'5
SIDESLOPE
PERIMETER
CHANNEL
N mm
RAIN FLAP
NOTE:
TOP DECK
ROAD
ONONDAGA LAKE
SCA CLOSURE SITE LAYOUT
Geosyntec^
consultants
FIGURE
11
PROJECT NO: 5825A-07 I FEBRUARY 2018
-------
^ Shoreline Stabilizatioi
Remediation Area B
Ninemile Creek Spits
Onondaga Lake
Wastebeds 1-8
Wetlands
Remediation Area C
Shoreline Stabilization
Remediation Area D
Shoreline Stabilization
Wastebed B/
> Harbor Brook Outboard Area
SOURCE: Aerial Source: Bing Maps
HORIZONTAL DATUM: New York State Plane, Central Zone,
North American Datum 1983 (NAD83), U.S. Feet
VERTICAL DATUM: North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88)
LEGEND:
Adjacent Remedial Area p
Shoreline Stabilization Area
0
SMU Boundary
0 1000
U—\| Remediation Area Boundary
Scale in Feet
Figure 12
m h _ ¦ ¦ \ MfHni) Adjacent Remediation Areas
|"lOr|QV^VQll *jT- AJN^J-lUK Construction Completion Report
Onondaga Lake Capping and Dredging
-------
REMEDIATION
AREA B
MEDIATION
area A_
REMEDIATION
\ AREAE
REMEDIATION
AREA C
REMEDIATION
AREAD
NINEMILE CREEK SPITS AND ADJACENT PLANTED AREA
WASTEBED B/HARBOR BROOK OUTBOARD PLANTED AREA
SMU 3 4 4 SHORELINE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AREAS
WASTEBED 1-6 IRM WETLANDS
SPECIAL SHORELINE TRANSITION AREA
CSX SHORELINE
REMEDIATION AREA BOUNDARIES
SHORELINE
NOTE:
1. FIGURE TAKEN FROM ONONDAGA LAKE CAPPING,
DREDGING, HABITAT AND PROFUNDAL ZONE (SMU 8)
FINAL DESIGN ADDENDUM,
2000 1000
SCALE:
FIGURE 13
Honeywell
ONONDAGA LAKE HABrTAT
CONSTRUCTION REPORT
HABITAT RESTORATION,
REMEDIATION, AND ENHANCEMENT
AREAS
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD * SUITE 350
OFFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES
SYRACUSE, NY 13212 * 315/451-9560
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\450550 2017 HABrTAT WORK\10.0 TECHNICAL CATAGORIES\10.1 CAD\FIGURES\450550-100-SK-001 .DWG
PLOT DATE: 4/11/2018 9:37 AM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
-------
CROSS SECTION 3
! CROSS SECTION 4
BERM D
HSiS CROSS SECTION 6
CROSS SECTION 5
BERM F
BERM ESK
SCALE: 1 =250
FIGURE 14
Honeywel
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE. NEW YORK
OUTBOARD AREA BERM PLAN VIEW
-------
_ 2018 Nitrate Application Locations
Bathymetry Contours For Water Depth
10 Foot Intervals
iu ruoi !inervals
30 Foot Water Depth Contour
1.200 2,400
Feet
Figure 15
HnnPVWPlI Onondaga Lake
raWl 1*5^ "*CII Syracuse, New York
2018 Nitrate Application Locations
da ncriMC
301 Plainfield Road, Suite 350; Syracuse NY 13212 Phone:(315)451-9560
-------
HUE NAME: P:\HONEYV(ELL -SYR\«50102 - 2016 OL REMEDIAL GOAL MONfTORING\10 TECHNICAL CATH»RIES\CAD\2016\450102-MNR-015.DWG
PLOT DATE: 10/9/2017 11:52 AM PLOTTED BY: ROSSO, JILL
LEGEND:
DEMARCATION FOR BSQV SUBAREAS
(DELINEATION IS APPROXIMATE AND MAY BE
MODIFIED BASED ON DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL
THIESSEN POLYGONS FOR BSQV EVALUATION)
LITTORAL REMEDIATION AREA BOUNDARY
SMU BOUNDARY
CAPPED AREAS (INCLUDES ALL ISOLATION, THIN
LAYER, AND MODIFIED PROTECTIVE CAPS)
NOTES:
1, WATER DEPTH CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5 FT.
(PRE-REMEDY CONTOURS SHOWN)
2. WATER DEPTH BASED ON AVERAGE LAKE
ELEVATION OF 362,5 FT.
2000 1000 0 2000 4000
SCALE: 1 "=2000'
FIGURE 16
Honeywell
ONONDAGA LAKE SUBAREAS FOR
EVALUATION OF BSQV COMPLIANCE
PARSONS
301 PIAINFIELD ROAD. SUfTE 350. SYRACUSE. N Y. 13212. PHONE: 315-451-9560
-------
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2017
2018
Wetland Areas —
Invasives
Second Year Percent Cover Goal •
Maxiumum Invasive Species Cover Goal (5%)
FIGURE 17
HnnAVWAll Onondaga Lake
¦ WW^II Syracuse, New York
Mouth of Ninemile Creek Vegetation Trends
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
100%
30%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Wetland Areas
¦ Second Year Percent Cover Goal
Note: First year target is for expansion
from initial plantings. Second year goal is
shown for context
2018
• invassves
Maxiumum Invasive Species Cover Goai (5%)
FIGURE 18
Honeywell
Onondaga Lake
Syracuse, NewYork
Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Vegetation Trends
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0.60
0.50
£
o
CO
0.40
<
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
2017
Remediated
2018
Unremediated
FIGURE 19
HnnAVWAll Onondaga Lake
¦ WW^II Syracuse, New York
Onondaga Lake Macrophyte Cover Trends
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0 to 3 ft of water (Cap A)
P
b,
3 to 7 ft of water (Cap B)
Erosion Protection/Habitat
Coarse Gravel
12" min
Chemical Isolation
Medium Sand
12" min
Mixing Medium Sand
3" min
Habitat
Fine Gravel
18" min
Chemical Isolation
Medium Sand
12" min
Mixing Medium Sand
3" min
Cap Model Area A1
7 to 10 ft of water (Cap C) 10 to 20 ft of water (Cap D)
0 to 3 ft of water (Cap F) Nine Mile Spits (Cap U)
Habitat
Fine Gravel
12" min
Chemical Isolation
Medium Sand
12" min
Mixing Medium Sand
3" min
Habitat
Medium Sand
12" min
Chemical Isolation
Medium Sand
12" min
Mixing Medium Sand
3" min
20 to 30 ft of water (Cap E)
Habitat
Medium Sand
Chemical Isolation
Medium Sand 6" min
Mixing Medium Sand
3" min
Cap Model Area A2
Mouth of Nine Mile (Cap I) 3 to 10 ft of water (Cap H)
N
Erosion Protection/Habitat
Coarse Gravel
12" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
Erosion Protection
Coarse Gravel 4.5" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
Habitat
Coarse Gravel
18" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
Habitat
Fine Gravel
18" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
10 to 20 ft of water (Cap i)
Habitat
Medium Sand
12" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
Note: Cross-Section Profiles Are Not To Scale
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
Planned Probing Lines
2018 Bathymetry Measured Per
22 Work Plan
Area Planned for 2018 Bathymetry
33 Measurement That Was
Inaccessible, Typically Due To
Aquatic Vegetation
Planted Area Protective Edge (See
FCF 27 for details)
Cap Model Area
Habitat/EP Layer changed to Coarse
Gravel (See FCF 36 for details)
Sand Buttress (See FCF 19 for
details) Model Area
Habitat/EP Layer changed to 12" KA-A 40197
Fine Gravel (See FCF 40 for details)
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
Shoreline Stabilization
1,000
~ Feet
FIGURE 20.1
Honeywell
2018 RA-A Bathymetry Measurement Area
and Probing Transects
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE. NY 13212
-------
-------
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
Planned Probing Lines
Cap Integrity Adjacent To
Tributaries And Shoreline Utility
Discharges Verified Via Visual
Inspection And/Or Probing
2018 Bathymetry Measured Per
Work Plan
Cap Model Area
Pre-Remediation Shoreline
(Elev. 362.5)
Shoreline Stabilization
Modified Protective Cap
MPC Multilayer Cap
Cap Material
Various Thicknesses
0 to 4 ft of water (Cap I)
Habitat
Coarse Gravel
18" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
Cap Material
Various Thicknesses
Chemical Isolation/Siderite
Medium Sand 3" min
MPC Monolayer Cap
MPC Monolayer Cap Less Than
0.5' Thick
1-690 Storm
Drain Outfall
N
0 to 4 ft of water
(Cap K & L)
Habitat
Fine Gravel
12" min
Erosion Protection
Coarse Gravel
12" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
Chemical Isolation/Siderite
Medium Sand 3" min
Mixing Medium
Sand/Siderite 3" min
4 to 10 ft of water
(Cap H)
Habitat
Fine Gravel
18" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
Chemical Isolation/Siderite
Medium Sand 3" min
Mixing Medium
Sand/Siderite 3" min
10 to 30 ft of water
(Cap J)
Habitat
Medium Sand
Chemical Isolation/GAC
Medium Sand 9" min
Chemical Isolation/Siderite
Medium Sand 3" min
Mixing Medium
Sand/Siderite 3" min
Thin Layer Cap (TLC)
Medium Sand 4.5" Avg. Sand
and
Note: Cross-Section Profiles Are Not To Scale
-Thin Layer Cap (5.6 Acres)
•SMU 8 GAC Direct Application (1.1 Acres)
RA-C-1D (0.5 Acres)
4.5" Avg. Sand Layer
4.5" Avg. Sand/GAC/Siderite
Cap Material
Various Thicknesses
lodel Area
C3
500
1,000
~ Feet
FIGURE 20.3
Honeywell
2018 RA-C Bathymetry Measurement Area
and Probing Transects
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
-------
Cap Integrity Adjacent To
Tributaries And Shoreline Utility 48" Stormwater
Discharges Verified Via Visual Outlet
Inspection And/Or Probing
Cobble Armoring w/Topsoil on
5H:1V Slope Adjacent to Barrier
Wall (See FCF 62 for details)
West Naturalized Shoreline (See
FCF 57 for details)
East Naturalized Shoreline (See
FCF 58 for details)
Berms (See FCF 62 for details)
25 ft Zone of Topsoil Habitat
Plateau Armored Edge (See
FCF 62 for details)
Marine Mattress and Adjacent
Sand Buttress (See FCF 63 for
details)
Pre-Remediation Shoreline
(Elev. 362.5)
Cap Model Area
Modified Protective Cap
MPC Monolayer Cap Less Than
0.5' Thick
MPC Multilayer Cap
-------
-------
KZone 2
777/. 2018 Bathymetry Measured Per Work Plan
RAF-2
A
7 to 30 ft of water (Cap D)
Habitat
Medium Sand
12" min
Chemical Isolation
Medium Sand
12" min
Mixing Medium Sand
3ii *
min
3 to 7 ft of water (Cap B)
Habitat
Fine Gravel
18" min
Chemical Isolation
Medium Sand
12" min
Mixing Medium Sand
"i ii •
3 mm
50
100
~ Feet
Note: Cross-Section Profiles
Are Not To Scale
FIGURE 20.6
Honeywell
2018 RA-F Bathymetry Measurement Area
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE. NY 13212
-------
Note:
The 2017 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are consistent
with the coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are the locations
where cores are planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
A
A-2
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAA-CAP-0002)
2018 Survey vs 2017 Survey
Chemical/Physical Monitoring Core
Per OLMMP, Completed in 2017
2017 Additional Physical Monitoring
Core (Added Based on 2017
Bathymetry)
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
Inaccessible Areas, Typically Due To
Vegetation
Dredge Limits
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
Figure 20.7
Honeywell
RA-A 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
1,500
3 Feet
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE. NY 13212
Document Path: \\nysyr04fsQ1\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAA OMM Survey 2017 v 2018_Rev1 .mxd
-------
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations
The 2017 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are consistent with the
coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are the locations where cores are
planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
A1, A2, A3, A5
- Minimal change between 2017 and 2018, however some additional decrease
in cap elevation.
-All 2017 cores met minimum cap thickness requirements defined in OLMMP,
however fine gravel thicknesses were consistently less than 18" design
thickness.
- Collect cores as shown for verification.
- Add supplemental probing line in A3 as shown.
Zone 1 is the deepest area of the cap, and thus least likely to be impacted by
wind/wave action, and where underlying sediments are typically the softest and
most prone to settlement. — I
Collect cores as shown for verification
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(QL-RAA-CAP-0002)
Representative Assessment Area
Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
»*CMU 8A
2018 Survey vs
Asbuilt Survey
GM053B:
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
Core Per OLMMP, Completed In
2017
2017 Additional Physical
Monitoring Core (Added Based
on 2017 Bathymetry)
Proposed 2019 Additional
Physical Monitoring Core
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
Proposed Supplemental 2019
Probing Lines
Inaccessible Areas, Typically Due
To Vegetation
Honeywell
1.0' Lower
1.5' Lower
RA-A 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Dredge Limits
1.5'-2.0' Lower
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
>2.0' Lower
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAA OMM Survey 2018_Rev1 .mxd
-------
A
A-2
ik
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAA-CAP-0002)
2017 Survey vs Asbuilt
2017 Cap
Physical/Chemical
Monitoring Core Location
2017 Additional Physical
Monitoring Core Location
(Added Based on 2017
Bathymetry)
Actual 2017 Probing Lines
Dredge Limits
> 0.5' Higher
Within 0.5'
0.5' -1' Lower
1' -1.5' Lower
1.5' -2' Lower
> 2' Lower
Figure 20.9
Honeywell
RA-A 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
Inaccessible Areas,
Typically Due To Vegetation
0
750
1,500
zzi Feet
Document Path: \\nysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\2019 Assessment Areas\Figure 6-7 - RAA Bathy_Rev1 .mxd
Plot Date: 5/8/2019 Plotted By: Joshua Domanski
-------
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations
The 2017 and 2018 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are
consistent with the coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are the
locations where cores are planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
B2, B3
- Cap includes 12" min coarse gravel EP layer overlain by 12" min
fine gravel habitat layer. Movement/loss of portions of the habitat layer
is expected, which results in decreases in cap elevation.
- 2017 probing transects and 2017 and 2018 visual shoreline inspection
verified the presence of gravel in these areas. Water elevations were
too low to allow probing of some of these areas in 2018.
- Complete 2019 probing in these areas consistent with OLMMP
A-2
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAB-CAP-0002)
Representative Assessment Area
B2( ) Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
o
2018 Survey vs 2017 Survey
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
Core Per OLMMP, Completed In
2017
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
¦ Dredge Limits
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
A
Zone 1
>0.5' Higher
Within 0.5'
0.5' - 1.0' Lower
1.0' - 1.5' Lower
1.5' - 2.0' Lower
>2.0' Lower
See 2018 Annual &
Comprehensive Monitoring &
Maintenance Report Figure 6.25
for 2018 core locations in CMUs
8 11, and 14.
0
500
1,000
l Feet
Zone 2
Figure 20.10
Honeywell
RA-B 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAB OMM Survey 2017 v 2018_Rev1 .mxd
-------
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAB-CAP-0002)
Representative Assessment Area
B1 ( ) Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
2013 Survey vs Asbuilt
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
Core Per OLMMP, Completed In
2017
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
Dredge Limits
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
>0.5' Higher
Within 0.5'
0.5' - 1.0' Lower
1.0' - 1.5' Lower
1.5' - 2.0' Lower
>2.0' Lower
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations
The 2017 and 2018 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are
consistent with the coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are the
locations where cores are planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
- Zone 1 is the deepest area of the cap and thus least likely to be
impacted by wind/wave action, and where underlying sediments are
softest and most prone to settlement.
- Minimal bathymetry change in these areas between 2017 and 2018.
- 2017 coring verified the presence of target cap thicknesses
throughout Zone 1.
- Collect cores as shown for verification.
Zone 1
See 2018 Annual &
Comprehensive Monitoring &
Maintenance Report Figure 6.25
for 2018 core locations in CMUs
8, 11, and 14.
1,000
zzi Feet
Zone 2
Figure 20.11
Honeywell
RA-B 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
Document Path: \\nysyr04fsQ1\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAB OMM Survey 2018_Rev1 .mxd
-------
Zone 3
B-2
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAB-CAP-OOCS2)
2017 Survey vs As-built
2017 Physical/Chemical
Cap Monitoring Core
Location
Actual 2017 Probing Lines
Dredge Limits
Inaccessible Areas,
Typically Due To Vegetation
A
CMU 13B
Higher
0.5' -1' Lower
1' -1.5' Lower
1.5' -2' Lower
> 2' Lower
CMU 6E
0
500
1,000
I! Feet
Figure 20.12
Honeywell
RA-B 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
Document Path: \\nysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\2019 Assessment Areas\Figure 6-8 - RAB Bathy_Rev1 .mxd
Plot Date: 5/8/2019
Plotted By: Joshua Domanski
-------
Zone 3
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations
The 2017 and 2018 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are
consistent with the coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are
the locations where cores are planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
Cap bathymetrywas lower in 2018 than 2017, but relatively
consistent with the post-construction bathymetry. The 2017 bathymetry
showed an increase in bathymetry compared to post construction,
likely due to interference from aquatic vegetation and/or temporary
deposition of sediments on top of the cap. 2018 results indicate a
return to asbuilt elevations.
Complete 2019 probing in this area consistent with OLMMP
C-2
C1
O
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(O L-RAC-CAP-Q002)
Representative Assessment Area
Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
2018 Survey vs 2017 Survey
_ Chemical/Physical Monitoring Core
Per OLMMP, Completed In 2017
Chemical/Physical Monitoring Core
Per OLMMP, Completed In 2018
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
/yy* Inaccessible Areas, Typically Due
To Vegetation
J Dredge Limits
A
See 2018 Annual &
Comprehensive
Monitoring &
Maintenance Report
Figure 6.26 for 2018 core
locations in CMU 6
Zone 3
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
0
500
1,000
nFeet
Figure 20.13
Honeywell
RA-C 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAC OMM Survey 2017 v 2018_Rev1 .mxd
-------
Zone 3
See 2018 Annual &
Comprehensive
Monitoring &
Maintenance Report
Figure 6.26 for 2018 core
locations in CMU 6
C-2
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAC-CAP-0002)
Representative Assessment Area
Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
csO
2013 Survey vs Asbuilt
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
O Core Per OLMMP, Completed In
2017
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
~ Core Per OLMMP, Completed In
2018
a, Proposed 2019 Additional
^ Physical Monitoring Core
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
j Dredge Limits
I ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Wm
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
Zone 3
A
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations
The 2017 and 2018 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are consistent with
the coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are the locations where cores are
planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
- Zone 1 is the deepest area of the cap and thus least likely to be impacted by
wind/wave action, and where underlying sediments are softest and most prone to
settlement.
- Minimal bathymetry change in these areas between 2017 and 2018.
- Cores collected in 2017 verified the presence of target cap thickness throughout
Zone 1
- Collect core as shown for verification.
- Cap in this area includes 12" min coarse gravel EP layer overlain by 12" min fine
gravel habitat layer. Movement/loss of portions of the habitat layer Is expected, which
results in decreases in cap elevation.
- 2017 and 2018 probing transects verified the presence of gravel in this area.
- Complete 2019 probing in this area consistent with OLMMP.
C4, C5
- Minimal bathymetry change in these areas between 2017 and 2018.
- 2017 coring verified the presence of target cap thickness in these areas.
- Collect cores as shown for verification.
- Based on the relatively thin caps in these areas, significant settlement of
the underlying sediment is unlikely. Given the area of significant bathymetry
change shown in each area corresponds almost exactly with the CMU boundary,
it is suspected that the as-built survey for these two CMUs may have been
incorrect.
0
500
1,000
3 Feet
Figure 20.14
Honeywell
RA-C 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAC OMM Survey 2018_Rev1 .mxd
-------
Zone 3
CMU 25>
C-2
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAC-CAP-0002)
2017 Survey vs Asbuilt Survey
2017 Physical/Chemical
Cap Monitoring Core
Location
- Actual 2017 Probing Lines
"¦
; Dredge Limits
Inaccessible Areas,
Typically Due To Vegetation
A
Zone 3
> 0.5' Higher
Within 0.5'
0.5' -1' Lower
1' - 1.5' Lower
1.5' -2' Lower
> 2' Lower
0
500
1,000
3 Feet
Figure 20.15
Honeywell
RA-C 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
Document Path: \\nysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\2019 Assessment Areas\Figure 6-9 - RAC Bathy_Rev1 .mxd
Plot Date: 5/16/2019 Plotted By: Joshua Domanski
-------
SMU8-14
SMU8-15
SMU8-16
SMU8-17
SMU8-18
SMU8-19
SMU8-20
¦ * ¦is-'—
CMl>J?32
CMU 19B^
CMU 48-
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAD-CAP-0002)
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations
The 2017 and 2018 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are consistent
with the coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are the locations where
cores are planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
- Zone 1 is the deepest area of the cap and thus least likely to be impacted by
wind/wave action, and where underlying sediments are softest and most prone
to settlement.
- Cores collected in 2017 verified the presence of target cap thicknesses in this
area,
- Collect core as shown for verification.
D2, D3
- Cap bathymetry was lower in 2018 than 2017, but relatively consistent with the
post-construction bathymetry. The 2017 bathymetry showed an increase in
bathymetry compared to post-construction, likely due to interference from
aquatic vegetation and/or temporary deposition of sediments on top of the cap
2018 results indicate a resturn to asbuilt elevations.
- Cores collected in 2017 and 2018 verified the presence of target cap
thicknesses in this area.
- No evidence of loss of cap material
- Collect cores as shown for verification.
- D-49 showed sufficient gravel tickness but did not fully penetrate the chemical
isolation layer, so it will be re-cored in 2019.
SMU8-8
SMU8-9
SMU8-10
SMU8-11
SMU8-12
SMU8-13
CMU 20B
CMU 21AiX-
ng^TF-/;iviu 38*
CMU 22f\-^ CMU 22B' /
CMU 20c/ CMU 24B
CMU 28A
CMU 31B
CMU 33A'
CMU 34B
Figure 20.16
CMU 37B
Honeywell
CMU 41B
RA-D 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
1,500
ZD Feet
O Representative Assessment Area
Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
2018 Survey vs 2017 Survey
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
O Core Per OLMMP, Completed In
2017
2018 Additional Physical
0 Monitoring Core (added based on
2018 bathymetry)
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
1 1 ¦
\ Dredge Limits
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ m
inaccessible Areas, Typically Due
To Vegetation
Pie-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
>0.5 Higher
Within 0.5
0,5'-1.0" Lower
1.0' - 1.5' Lower
.5* - 2.0' Lower
>2.0 Lower
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAD OMM Survey 2017 v 2018_Rev1 .mxd
-------
SMU8-14
SMU8-15
SMU8-16
SMU8-17
SMU8-18
SMU8-19
SMU8-20
P*"—
D-Mgffione
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations
The 2017 and 2018 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are consistent
with the coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are the locations where
cores are planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
- Zone 1 is the deepest area of the cap and thus least likely to be impacted by
wind/wave action, and where underlying settlements are softest and most prone
to settlement.
- Cores collected in 2017 verified the presence of target cap thicknesses throughout
Zone 1
- Collect cores throughout Zone 1 as shown, including shallower and thus higher
energy areas than D4, to verify stability of sand cap.
- The 2018 shoreline inspection and zooming in on this area identified a localized
shoreline area of lower cap surface elevation.
- Focused collection of increased bathymetry data and physical inspection
recommended in 2019.
SMU8-8
SMU8-9
SMU8-10
SMU8-11
SMU8-12
SMU8-13
CMU 19B
CMU 48
CMU 20B
CMU 21
CMU22A/"^ C
CMU 20C'
CMU 28A
CMU 31B
CMU 33A'
CMU 34B
>0.5 Higher
Within 0.5'
0.5'-1.0' Lower
1.0'-1.5' Lower
1.5'-2.0' Lower
>2.0' Lower
Figure 20.17
CMU 37B
Honeywell
CMU 41B
RA-D 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
1,500
ZD Feet
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAD-CAP-0002)
Representative Assessment Area
D4( ) Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
2018 Survey vs Asbuilt Survey
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
Core Per OLMMP, Completed In
2017
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
Core Per OLMMP, Completed In
2018
2018 Additional Physical
Monitoring Core (added based on
2018 bathymetry)
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
; Dredge Limits
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362.5)
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAD OMM Survey 2018_Rev1 .mxd
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
-------
CMU 48
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAD-CAP-0029)
2017 Survey vs As-built Survey
2017 Physical/Chemical
Cap Monitoring Core
Location
Actual 2017 Probing Lines
1 ¦»
; Dredge Limits
¦ Bi
Inaccessible Areas,
Typically Due To Vegetation
> 0.5' Higher
Within 0.5'
0.5' -1' Lower
1' -1.5' Lower
1.5' -2' Lower
> 2' Lower
Document Path: \\nysyr04fsQ1\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\2019 Assessment Areas\Figure 6-10 - RAD Bathy_Rev1 .mxd
Plot Date: 5/17/2019 Plotted By: Joshua Domanski
-------
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations
The 2017 and 2018 coring locations (excluding additional coring) are
consistent with the coring locations specified in the OLMMP, and are the
locations where cores are planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
E1
- Cap bathymetry was lower in 2018 than 2017, but relatively consistent
with the post-construction bathymetry. The 2017 bathymetry showed
an increase in bathymetry compared to post-construction, likely due
to interference from aquatic vegetation and/or temporary deposition
of sediments on top of the cap. 2018 results indicate a return to
asbuilt elevations.
- Cores collected in 2017 and 2018 verified the presence of target
cap thickness.
- Collect core as shown for verification.
X
E1
o
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(O L-RAE-CAP-0002)
Representative Assessment Area
Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
2018 Survey vs 2017
Survey
~
©
2017 Additional Physical Monitoring
Core (Added Based On 2017
Bathymetry Results)
Chemical/Physical monitoring Core
Per OLMMP, Completed In 2017
Chemical/Physical Monitoring Core
Per OLMMP, Completed In 2018
2018 Additional Physical Monitoring
Core (added based on 2018
bathymetry)
Actual 2018 Probing Lines
J Dredge Outlines
¦
Inaccessible Areas, Typically Due To 0
Vegetation
A
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev.
362-5) 700
1,400
^Feet
Figure 20.19
Honeywell
RA-E 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350. SYRACUSE. NY 13212
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAE OMM Survey 2017 v 2018_Rev1 .mxd
Plot Date: 5/17/2019 Plotted By: Joshua Domanski
-------
SMU8-21
SMU8-22
SMU8-23
SMU8-24
SMU8-25
CMU»15
naV/
eM'OGOB
CMU 34B J/
/
No Post Construction
Survey Completed
Note:
The 2017 and 2018 coring locations (excluding
additional coring) are consistent with the coring
locations specified in the OLMMP, and are
the locations where cores are planned for
2019, per the OLMMP.
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(QL-RAE-CAP-0002)
O Representative Assessment Area
Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
2018 Survey vs
Asbuilt Survey
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
Core Per OLMMP, Completed
In 2017
2017 Additional Physical
Monitoring Core (Added Based
On 2017 Bathymetry Results)
Chemical/Physical Monitoring
Core Per OLMMP, Completed
In 2018
2018 Additional Physical
( » Monitoring Core (added based
on 2018 bathymetry)
~ Proposed 2019 Additional
Physical Monitoring Core
¦¦¦¦¦¦ Actual 2018 Probing Lines
n l Proposed Supplemental 2019
Probing Lines
¦ Dredge Outlines
>0.5 Higher
Within 0.5
Assessment Area Summary and 2019 Recommendations^
E2
- Minimal change in bathymetry between 2017 and 2018
- Cap includes 12" min cobble EP layer overlain by 12" min coarse gravel
habitat layer. Movement/loss of portions of the habitat layer is expected,
which results in decreases in cap elevation.
- 2017 and 2018 probing transects verified the presence of gravel in
these areas.
- Complete 2019 probing in this area as planned.
- EP layer is too coarse to core through
E3, E4, E5, E6
- Minimal change in bathymetry between 2017 and 2018
- Beyond extent of dredging, resulting in greater potential for
settlement than other areas of Zone 3, while in deepest portio
of Zone 3 and thus the least subject to wind/wave erosion.
Shallower areas of Zone 3 show minimal decrease in
elevation. Therefore, decrease in cap elevation is
likely due to settlement, not loss of cap material.
- 2017 and 2018 probing transects verified the presence
of gravel in these areas.
- EP layer is too coarse to core through.
- Complete 2019 probing in these areas as
planned.
-Add supplemental probing lines as
shown.
0.5' -1.0' Lower
1.0' -1.5' Lower
1.5' - 2.0' Lower
>2.0' Lower
Pre-Remediation Shoreline
(Elev. 362.5)
0
1,400
^Feet
E7, E8, E9
- Minimal change in bathymetry between 2017
and 2018
- 2017 and 2018 coring verified the presence of
target cap thickness in these areas.
- Collect cores as shown for verification.
E10, E11
- Zone 1 is the deepest area of the cap and thus
least likely to be impacted by wind/wave action,
and where underlying sediments are softest and
most prone to settlement.
- 2017 coring verified the presence of target cap
thicknesses in these areas
- Collect cores as shown for verification
Figure 20.20
Honeywell
RA-E 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350. SYRACUSE. NY 13212
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\RAE OMM Survey 2018_Rev1 mxd
Plot Date: 5/17/2019 Plotted By: Joshua Domariski
-------
SMU8-21
SMU8-22
SMU8-23
:CMU*7>
SMU8-24
SMU8-25
,CMU>22
CMU>23;
CMU 29a
Surveyed In 2017,
No Post Construction
Survey Completed
E-29
2017 Survey vs Asbuilt
Survey
2017 Chemical/Physical
• Cap Monitoring
CoreLocation
2017 Additional Physical
Monitoring Core Location
(added based on 2017
bathymetry results)
Dredge Limits
¦ Actual 2017 Probing Lines
Inaccessible Areas,
Typically Due To Vegitation
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAE-CAP-0029)
> 0.5' Higher
Within 0.51
0.5' -1' Lower
1' -1,5' Lower
1.5' -2' Lower
> 2' Lower
1,500
=] Feet
Figure 20.21
Honeywell
RA-E 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350. SYRACUSE. NY 13212
Document Path: Wnysyr04fs01\PrjData\GIS\Hon_Syracuse\OLMMS\OMM Survey\2018 Survey\MXDs\2019 Assessment Areas\Figure 6-11 - RAE Bathy_Rev1 .mxd
Plot Date: 5/17/2019 Plotted By: Joshua Domanski
-------
RA-F2
Note:
The 2017 coring locations (excluding additional
coring) are consistent with the coring locations
specified in the OLMMP, and are the locations
where cores are planned for 2019, per the
OLMMP.
ji
2018 Survey vs 2017 Survey
m Chemical/Physical Monitoring Core Per OLMMP,
Completed In 2017
Pre-Re mediation Shoreline (Elev. 362.5)
> 0.5' Higher
Within 0.5'
o
50
100
~ Feet
F-2
0.5' - V Lower
V - 1.5' Lower
1.5' - 2' Lower
> 2' Lower
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAF-CAP-0002)
Figure 20.22
Honeywell
RA-F 2018 vs 2017 Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
-------
~o
X
E
c\i
>
CD
or
CO
o
CM
>
a)
£
CO
<
%
w
Q
X
a)
£
3
CO
CO
o
CNj
a)
£
CO
O
CO
9*
a) co
CO ~
3 cu
° E
5 o
>Q
> m
® -r,
"K ^
cc a)
Q ts
o
0,0.
o
o a)
£§
5 P:
io
a>
E-8
CO CO
zQ
^ o
iZ o.
2018 Survey vs Asbuilt
m Chemical/Physical Monitoring Core Per
• OLMMP, Completed In 2017
Pre-Remediation Shoreline (Elev. 362.5)
> 0.5' Higher
Within 0.5'
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAF-CAP-0002)
100
ZD Feet
0.5' - V Lower
V -1.5' Lower
1.5' - 2' Lower
> 2' Lower
O Representative Assessment Area
Based on Cap Elevation
Decrease Greater Than 0.5 Feet
Figure 20.23
Honeywell
RA-F 2018 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
RA-F 1
RA-F 2
Assessment Area Summary and
2019 Recommendations
The 2017 coring locations (excluding
additional coring) are consistent with the
coring locations specified in the OLMMP,
and are the locations where cores are
planned for 2019, per the OLMMP.
F1
- Minimal change in bathymetry between
2017 and 2018.
- 2017 core verified the presence of target
cap thickness
- Collect core as shown for verification
-------
9*
0 CO
C/) C
3 03
° E
£ o
c"!
x §
rn >•
> m
® -r,
"K ^
CO d)
Q a
¦z? o
9=°-
o
&
¦<*
o t-
t°
wCJ
>>CO
*T! ^
cu ¦ ¦
EB
CO CO
zQ
^ o
iZ cl
2017 Survey vs As-built Survey
2017 Chemical/Physical Cap Monitoring Core Location
> 0.5' Higher
Within 0.5'
0.5' -1' Lower
1' -1.5' Lower
1.5' -2' Lower
> 2' Lower
Abbreviated Sample ID Location
(OL-RAE-CAP-0029)
RA-F 1
RA-F2
Figure 20.24
Honeywell
RA-F 2017 vs Asbuilt Bathymetric Survey
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
-------
A
RA-C-2A 4 to 10 ft of
water (0.48 Acres)
Habitat/Erosion Protection
Fine Gravel 10" min
Chemical Isolation/GAC
I 4.E
Note:
C-46
V-
/
C-7N
C-45
,C-33l
lC-32-
C-43
C-44
C-7E
C-7D
Cap material placement
verification cores will consist
of recoring at previous core
locations C-27, C-7F, C-30,
C-7G, C-7F Retake, C-7D,
C-24, and C-35, and at new
locations C-51, C-52. and C-53.
Core and/or Videoprobe locations
with no fine gravel observed
•• MM
c-r c-24 a
.JpBEBKgr^
C-42
New cap material placement verificatio
core location
No gravel observed based on 2019
Diver Survey
2018 Physical Core and 2019 Physical
Core and/or Videoprobe locations
2018 Bathymetric Survey - 352.5'
Elevation (10' water depth)
2019 Diver Transects
Proposed area of fine gravel placement
Honeywell
Model Area RA-C-2A (4-10 ft)
Proposed Area of Cap Material Placement
and Placement Verification Cores
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212
-------
FILE NAME-
PLOT DATE:
P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\450?04 2017-2018 OL PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEG0RIES\10.1 CAD\2018 ANNUAL REPORT\4S0?04-ANNUALRPT-
5/8/2019 9:11 AM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
©
I.FGFNf):
REMEDIATION AREA BOUNDARY
SMU BOUNDARY
CAPPED AREAS (INCLUDES ALL ISOLATION,
THIN LAYER, AND MODIFIED PROTECTIVE CAPS)
SMU 8
LITTORAL ZONE
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
NOTES:
1. WATER DEFTH CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5 FT (POST-REMEDIATION).
2. THE 30' WATER DEPTH CONTOUR IS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
LITTORAL ZONE (SMUs 1-7) AND SMU 8.
3. SAMPLING CONDUCTED AT THE SHOWN LOCATIONS FOR BOTH PRE
AND POST TURNOVER EVENTS.
1200 600 0
1200
2400
1 "=1 200'
Figure 22.1
&
s*'
SURFACE WATER COMPLIANCE SAMPLE
LOCATIONS IN NORTH HALF OF
ONONDAGA LAKE
NFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13212, PHONE: 315-451-95K)
-------
LEGEND:
REMEDIATION AREA BOUNDARY
SMU BOUNDARY
CAPPED AREAS (INCLUDES ALL ISOLATION,
THIN LAYER, AND MODIFIED PROTECTIVE CAPS)
SMU 8
LITTORAL ZONE
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
NOTES:
1. WATER DEPTH CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5 FT (POST-REMEDIATION).
2. THE 30' WATER DEPTH CONTOUR IS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
LITTORAL ZONE (SMUs 1-7) AND SMU 8.
3. SAMPLING CONDUCTED AT THE SHOWN LOCATIONS FOR BOTH PRE
AND POST TURNOVER EVENTS.
1200 600
SCALE: 1 "=1 200'
FIGURE 22.2
Unnmnuol ONONDAGA LAKE
ritlfieywtHl SYRACUSE, new york
SURFACE WATER COMPLIANCE SAMPLE
LOCATIONS IN SOUTH HALF OF
ONONDAGA LAKE
PARSONS
FILE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\450704 2017-2018 OL PVM\10 TECHNICAL CATEGORIE5\10.1 CAD\201B ANNUAL REPORT\450704-ANNUALRPT-2018-03.DWG
PLOT DATE: 5/B/2019 9:10 AM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
-------
Goal for the protection of wildlife (2.6 ng/L)
z>
Sampling
• Post-Turnover
^ Pre-Turnover
(A 1 -
b
Goal for the protection of human health (0.7 ng/L)
Year
• 2017
• 2018
A
A
o-
1
1
I
ft
4
/
&
j-
¦J*
&
&
/
c?
,/¦ ^
/
&
Location
&
r
&
J?
&
*
&
*
&
cy
FIGURE 23
Honeywell
Onondaga Lake
Syracuse, NewYork
Onondaga Lake Dissolved Mercury Concentrations
(2017-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
&
/- J- J- /-
/ / f /
d- d- d- d-
Location
&
&
$>
-------
Legend
Sub-Basin Boundaries
Profundal Zone (non-capped areas)
Multi-Layer Cap Areas
| Multi-Layer Modified Protective Caps (MPCs)
Mono-Layer MPCs
J Mono-Layer (less than 6 inch) MPCs
J Thin Layer Caps
| Direct Application MPCs
^ CSX Area
Littoral Zone (non-capped areas)
E
S
FIGURE 25.1
Honeywell
Evaluation of BSQV
Compliance (Method 1)
-------
North Basin
Nmemile Creek Outlet Area
Legend
Sub-Basin Boundaries
Profundal Zone (non-capped areas)
Multi-Layer Cap Areas
Multi-Layer Modified Protective Caps (MPCs)
Mono-Layer MPCs
Mono-Layer (less than 6 inch) MPCs
Thin Layer Caps
Direct Application MPCs
CSX Area
Littoral Zone (non-capped areas)
FIGURE 25.2
Honeywell
Evaluation of BSQV
Compliance (Method 2)
-------
2013 2014 2015
Note: Plots show the average +/- 2 standard error
(SE) of the mean, which is one way of representing
the variability in weekly values obtained for the year
noted.
2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
FIGURE 26
Honeywell
Onondaga Lake
Syracuse, New York
Onondaga Lake Sediment Trap Flux (2014-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
6 -
d 5 -
Z
O) 4 _
E 4
jfi 3-
co
1
1 -
o 4
A
2007
~
2008
0
2009
•
2010
0
2011
~
2012
~
2013
X
2014
~
2015
e>
2016
~
2017
2018
_
Apr May
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
FIGURE 27
Honeywell Q 0nonda9fLa^
Time Series of Weekly Nitrate Concentrations for the
18-meter Water Depth at the South Deep Location,
2007-2018.
PARSONS
^(^£lainfiejc^c^uit^5(^^racus^M^321^£hon^^M^^56(^
-------
8
0
0.5
0.4
O) 0.3
CO
3; 0.2
0.1
0.0
A
2007
~
2008
o
2009
©
2010
*
2011
V
2012
¦it
2013
O
2014
X
2015
2016
2017
2018
Aca» ~ utan ~ nunmalflr
Apr May Jun
*
2011
V
2012
~
2013
0
2014
X
2015
2016
2017
2018
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
v * *
* u* *
- w ^9. -ft * *
4
xx
x
Apr May
Jun
1 r
Jul Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
FIGURE 28
Honeywell c Onondaga Lake
Syracuse, New York
Time Series of Methylmercury Concentrations for the
18-meter Water Depth at the South Deep Location,
2007-2018. Bottom panel: 2011-2018 only.
PARSONS
^&n^jainfiekn?c^uit^5(^^racus^^^3^^^honf^M^356(^
-------
¦3
CD
CD
E
13
E
x
03
400
300
200
100 -
394
280
CD
100
CD
I 75
0
1 50 H
rs
i 25
x
03
230
63
29 32
14
10
6 9 7
4 5 64
I 1 1 « 1 1 I " r
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
I ' i ' 1 1 i ' I i ' 1 ¦ 1 1 I 1 1 ' 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
FIGURE 29
Honeywell c Onondaga Lake
Syracuse, New York
Annual Maximum Mass of Methylmercury
in the Hypolimnion of Onondaga Lake
from 1992 through 2018
PARSOMS
^ff^lainfiej^d^ult^50^racus^^YJ3^^^hon^^M^^56^
-------
bJj
~~Sh
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
0.025 i
£
0.020 -
£
r\
W)
0.015 -
W)
B
0.010 -
W)
0.005 -
0.000 -
B
Nitrate Addition
Full-scale
Pilot
Addition
MeHg
i i
i i i i
i i i
o o
1
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
(A) total mercury and methylmercury
concentrations and
(B) methylmercury concentrations
presented with modified y-axis.
FIGURE 30
Honeywell
Onondaga Lake
Syracuse, NewYork
Annual Average Wet Weight Mercury
Concentrations in Zooplankton (2008-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
0.18
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
FIGURE 31
Honeywell
Onondaga Lake
Syracuse, NewYork
Annual Maximum Wet Weight Methylmercury
Concentrations in Zooplankton (2008-2018)
PARSONS
301 PLAIN FIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
-------
July - September Average
Hypolimrietic Saturation (South Deep)
o
TO
=3
+j
03
C/)
120
100
80
/
40/1
20
1/
/
0
/
/f
/
/
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 32 Time series of percent saturation in the hypolimnion for total dissolved gas, dinitrogen
(N2}, and oxygen (02) for the period 2007-2017. Plotted values are July-September
averages from Onondaga Lake, South Deep.
-------
100
50 H
0
100
50 H
0
(a) 2006-2017 Weekly Average Cone.
lOOjigN/L standard
OOO-qtv
—O— 2 m
—O— 12 m
—O— 16 m
—18m
1 1 1 r
(b) 2018 J
100 (igN/L standard /
j i i i
i i
JP
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
a) weekly average concentration for 2006-
2017 and (b) 2018 concentrations. Note:
The ambient water quality standard for
nitrite applicable to warm-water fisheries is
100 micrograms per liter (pgN/L) as nitrogen
(red-dashed line)
FIGURE 33
Honeywell
Onondaga Lake
Syracuse, New York
Time Series of Nitrite-Nitrogen (N02-N) for
Onondaga Lake at South Deep for Four
Water Depths
PARSON!
i301_Rainfield_Rd^Lme^50i^racuse4_NYiJ32124_Phone^15;451;956^
-------
LEGEND:
~ SMALL PREY FISH LOCATIONS
ADULT SPORT FISH AND LARGE
PREY FISH LOCATIONS
REMEDIATION AREA BOUNDARY
SMU BOUNDARY
SMU 8
LITTORAL ZONE
CAPPED AREAS (INCLUDES ALL ISOLATION, THIN
LAYER, AND MODIFIED PROTECTIVE CAPS)
2000 1000 0 2000 4000
SCALE: 1 "=2000'
FIGURE 34
Ubuunuumll «®N088* Wfffi
iWneywelB swswse, nsw york
APPROXIMATE FISH TISSUE
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PARSONS
301 PLAINF1ELD ROAD. SUfiE 350. SYRACUSE. N.Y. 13212. PHONE: 315-451-9560
RLE NAME: P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\450102 - 2016 OL REMEDIAL GOAL M0N[T0RING\10 TECHNICAL CATEG0RIES\CAD\2016\450102-MNR-016.DWG
PLOT DATE: 9/20/2017 3:33 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO. Jill
-------
Onondaga Lake Second Five Year Review
Attachment 2
Status Update of Onondaga Lake Upland Operable Units/Subsites
-------
Onondaga Lake Site/Lake Bottom Subsite Second Five-Year Review
Attachment 2
Status Update of Onondaga Lake Upland Operable Units/Subsites
The control of contamination migrating to Onondaga Lake from the various upland sites is an
integral part of the overall cleanup of Onondaga Lake. To facilitate coordination of investigation
and remedial activities, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have identified eleven subsites, as
shown in Figure 1 of this attachment, which comprise the Onondaga Lake National Priorities List
(NPL) site. These subsites are also considered to be operable units (OUs) of the NPL site by EPA,
and actions at these subsites are being performed consistent with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act requirements.
Remedial activities at the upland subsites have been or are being performed via various means
(e.g., as part of the remedy selected in a Record of Decision [ROD] for the upland area or as an
interim remedial measure [IRM]). The current status of the each of the upland OUs/subsites is
discussed below.
LCP Bridge Street Subsite
The 20-acre LCP Bridge Street subsite, which was used for various industrial activities from 1953
to 1988, is located in Solvay, New York (Attachment 2, Figures 1 and 2). The chlor-aIkaIi facility
produced caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) and liquid chlorine using the mercury cell process,
and, beginning in 1968, both the mercury cell and diaphragm cell processes were used. Between
1955 and 1969, hydrogen gas, generated as a by-product at the facility, was used to manufacture
hydrogen peroxide. In 1979, the plant was sold to LCP Chemicals. LCP operated the plant until
1988, when manufacturing ceased. Since 1990, various interim cleanup activities have been
performed, including the removal of PCB-contaminated electrical equipment and mercury-
contaminated equipment.
A ROD for this subsite was issued in 2000. Remedial construction, which commenced in 2004
and which was substantially completed in 2007, included removal of contaminated sediments
from the West Flume, on-site ditches, and wetlands; restoration of wetlands; installation of a
low-permeability cutoff wall around this subsite; installation of an interim low-permeability cap;
and capture of contaminated groundwater inside the cutoff wall. Some additional excavation
work was performed at this subsite in 2011 and 2012. Remediation of the LCP Bridge Street
subsite has controlled discharges of contaminants, mainly mercury, to the West Flume, some of
which previously migrated to Onondaga Lake through Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek.
Construction of a final cap was completed in 2015. The subsite is undergoing long-term
operation and maintenance (O&M).
1
-------
Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Operable Unit of the Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite
The Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek system (Attachment 2, Figure 1) was impacted by dissolved
and particulate loading from the LCP Bridge Street subsite and episodic loading that occurred
when mercury-contaminated sediments in the creeks and floodplains were mobilized during
high-flow periods. Analysis of surface water, sediment, and floodplain soils indicated that the
West Flume was the main conduit of mercury contamination in the Ninemile Creek watershed.
Pursuant to a 2009 decision document issued by NYSDEC and EPA, and an Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC) between NYSDEC and Honeywell, the principal potentially responsible party
(PRP) for this and adjacent subsites, an IRM for the Geddes Brook portion of the site began in
2011 and was substantially completed in 2013. The IRM included the removal of approximately
102,400 cubic yards of contaminated sediments and floodplain soils/sediments over
approximately 16 acres from Outfall 019, lower Geddes Brook, and the adjacent floodplain
(Attachment 2, Figure 3).
NYSDEC/EPA issued two consecutive RODs addressing the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek
operable unit of the Onondaga Lake Bottom subsite in 2009. The selected remedies included the
dredging/excavation and removal of an estimated 120,000 cubic yards of contaminated channel
sediments and floodplain soils/sediments in lower Ninemile Creek over approximately 30 acres.
Pursuant to the RODs, remedial activities commenced in 2012 and were substantially completed
in 2014.
Contaminated sediments and soils removed from Geddes Brook, Ninemile Creek, and the
adjacent floodplains were placed at the LCP Bridge Street subsite containment system, which
was designed and constructed pursuant to the requirements ofthe RODforthe LCP Bridge Street
subsite. The subsite is undergoing long-term O&M.
Semet Residue Ponds Subsite
The Semet Residue Ponds subsite is located in the Town of Geddes in an industrial area
approximately 400 feet from the southern shore of Onondaga Lake (Attachment 2, Figure 1). It
included five irregularly-shaped, man-made ponds used between 1917 and 1970 for the disposal
of a tarry organic-based residue (Semet residue) generated by the acid washing of coke light oil
during the production of benzene, toluene, naphthalene, xylene, and "motor benzol" at the
Semet-Solvay Division of Allied Chemical & Dye Company's (a predecessor to Honeywell
International, Inc.) BTX [Benzol] Plant) and two small areas bordering the subsite that were built
to contain leakage from the ponds.
Consistent with a 2002 ROD for the subsite and pursuant to an IRM stipulated in a 2002 AOC
between Honeywell and New York State, construction of a 1,288-foot lakeshore barrier wall and
groundwater collection system for the shallow and intermediate groundwater zones occurred
between October 2006 and May 2007 (Attachment 2, Figure 4). The Semet Lakeshore barrier wall
collection system has been operating since May 2007.
2
-------
Consistent with the 2002 ROD and a 2004 AOC, potential groundwater impacts to an adjacent
tributary, Tributary 5A, were mitigated using a shallow groundwater collection system
constructed between 2010 and 2013. The construction of the groundwater collection system
also necessitated sediment removal and liner installation along the length of the tributary, which
mitigated the potential for contaminated sediment to migrate and re-contaminate the area of
the Lake near the tributary. Groundwater collection system performance verification data
obtained since its operation demonstrate hydraulic control of groundwater migrating to
Tributary 5A. All groundwater collected by the Semet Lakeshore and Tributary 5A systems, and
by the groundwater collection systems discussed below for the Willis Avenue, Wastebed
B/Harbor Brook, and Wastebeds 1-8 subsites is conveyed to the nearby Willis Avenue
Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) where it is pretreated prior to its conveyance to the
Onondaga County Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment facility (Metro) for additional treatment
for ammonia. The effluent from Metro's wastewater treatment operations is discharged to
Onondaga Lake.
In addition to achieving hydraulic control of contaminated groundwater at the subsite, the ROD
remedy included excavation and reuse of the Semet residue material present in ponds
constructed in the Solvay waste located on the subsite. The remedy specifically called for on-
site processing of the Semet residue for use in the production of a soft tar product (RT-12). After
the ROD was issued, it became necessary to re-evaluate remedial alternatives for the Semet
residues due to a change in market conditions for RT-12. Treatability studies were performed to
assess various remedial technologies. In 2017, an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD)
issued by NYSDEC and EPA modified the selected remedy to include the excavation of the Semet
residue and off-site transport to a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-permitted thermal
processing facility for beneficial reuse. As part of a pilot demonstration program, which
commenced in 2014, and consistent with the ESD, the tar material was excavated and
transported off-site to thermal processing facilities (cement kilns) for beneficial reuse. By the
end of 2019, all of the Semet residue that could be used at the facilities had been removed from
the subsite.
A second ROD for the Semet Residue Ponds subsite was issued by NYSDEC and EPA in 2019 to
address the areas beneath the tar ponds and other areas of the subsite. The selected remedy
included in-situ treatment of any Semet residue remaining at the site that could not be
beneficially reused consistent with the ESD, installation of an enhanced engineered cover system
including an impermeable geomembrane cap and 18-inch clean soil cover overthe former ponds
and other Semet residue areas, and installation of a minimum one-foot soil cover in other areas
of the site where soil concentrations were above commercial use soil cleanup objectives (SCOs)
(Attachment 2, Figure 5). The targeted in-situ treatment of the residual Semet residue has been
implemented and the pond areas are currently being backfilled. The site cover has been
completed over portions of the subsite to provide additional parking areas for the New York
State Fair.
3
-------
Willis Avenue Subsite
The Willis Avenue subsite is a former chlor-aIkali and chlorinated benzene plant located at the
corner of Willis Avenue and State Fair Boulevard in Geddes, New York (Attachment 2, Figure 1).
Plant operations, including loading and unloading of material took place near the plant as well
as on the lakeshore. The chlor-alkali plant operated from 1918 until 1977, producing chlorine
and other chemicals and utilized both diaphragm and mercury cells for chlorine production.
Chlorinated benzenes were also produced at this facility between 1918 and 1977. Plant
operation resulted in impacts to two smaller areas, the Chlorobenzene Hot-Spot Area and the
Petroleum Storage Area, located to the south of the Willis Plant Area. The Willis Avenue subsite
was a significant source of mercury and chlorinated compounds to Onondaga Lake through
groundwater and surface runoff via the East Flume. The construction of the lakeshore barrier
wall/collection system and East Flume IRM activities have mitigated this discharge.
Pursuant to the 2002 AOC noted in the discussion above for the Semet Residue Ponds subsite,
construction of 1,612 linear feet of barrier wall and groundwater collection system for the
shallow and intermediate groundwater zones occurred between 2008 and 2009 (Attachment 2,
Figure 6). Subsequent to this work and the initiation of the construction of the collection system,
a tie-back anchorage system to mitigate deflection of the barrier wall in areas with deep water
present outboard of the wall was completed in 2012. The hydraulic containment system is
meeting the design goals (i.e., groundwater levels are below Onondaga Lake level, indicating
that hydraulic capture and an inward hydraulic gradient are being achieved). On occasion,
groundwater levels have been recorded above Lake levels, however, these conditions typically
occurred during high Lake levels over short periods of time and are not indicative of overall
system performance. Also, under this IRM, remediation was implemented to address
groundwater influences on the eastern and western storm drain systems related to Interstate
Route 1-690 (1-690) downgradient of the Willis Avenue and Semet Ponds Subsites. To date,
measures implemented in the storm drain systems in four separate phases have mitigated
potential impacts to Onondaga Lake.
An IRM was also implemented to address chlorobenzene dense non-aqueous-phase liquid
(DNAPL) contamination along the Lakeshore. The system was initiated in 1993 and expanded in
1995 and 2002 to include additional collection wells. In 2012, the system was again expanded,
and the system further upgraded and optimized. The DNAPL collection system was shut down
between 2017 and 2019 for system optimization, well redevelopment, and implementation of
additional modifications. The modifications included relocation of existing DNAPL recovery
system facilities and utilities from the DNAPL storage building to the Groundwater Pump Station
and Willis Avenue GWTP, demolition of the storage building, repair and maintenance of existing
recovery well vault facilities and electrical structures, and decommissioning of eight existing
DNAPL wells that demonstrated little or no production. To date, approximately 76,000 gallons of
DNAPL from the area have been collected and transported off-site for treatment/disposal.
A ROD for the Willis Avenue subsite was issued by NYSDECand EPA in 2019. The remedy includes
the installation of a one-foot thick cover system, in-situ treatment and/or excavation of mercury
4
-------
hot spots, targeted shallow/intermediate groundwater hydraulic control, evaluation and
recovery/treatment of separate phase liquids (if present), continued operation and
maintenance related to IRMsthat have been implemented at the Subsite, and monitored natural
attenuation of shallow/intermediate groundwater at the Waste Management Area point of
compliance (POC) for the Willis Avenue subsite and the POC for the adjacent Semet Residue
Ponds subsite (Attachment 2, Figure 7). A work plan for remedial design/remedial action is
under development and a treatability study relating to in-situ treatment of mercury hot spots is
in progress.
Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Subsite
The 90-acres subsite is located to the north and south of 1-690 in the City of Syracuse and Town
of Geddes, Onondaga County (Attachment 2, Figure 1). The subsite includes three main areas:
Lakeshore Area (which includes Wastebed B), Penn-Can Property, and Railroad Area
(Attachment 2, Figure 8). Wastebed B is a former Solvay wastebed, which received Solvay waste
between 1898 and 1926. Wastebed B covers approximately 54 acres and was engineered to
receive waste by construction of a bulkhead into Onondaga Lake. The Penn-Can Property was
historically used forthe production and storage of asphalt products. The Railroad Area is situated
to the south of the Penn-Can Property and is bounded to the north, south and east by railroad
tracks. Two additional areas of study (AOS #1 and AOS #2) located east of Harbor Brook were
also included in the investigations/studies conducted for the subsite.
Pursuant to an IRM stipulated in a 2003 AOC between Honeywell and New York State,
construction associated with a 4,678 ft Lakeshore barrier wall and groundwater collection
system along the Onondaga Lake shoreline perimeter of Wastebed B and upstream along the
west bank of Harbor Brook, realignment of the lower reach Harbor Brook, and replacement of a
culvert for Lower Harbor Brook were conducted from 2009 to 2012 (Attachment 2, Figure 9).
The Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Lakeshore barrier wall collection system has been operating since
2012. The hydraulic containment system is meeting design goals (i.e., groundwater levels are
below Lake level, indicating that hydraulic capture and an inward hydraulic gradient are
achieved). On occasion, groundwater levels have been above Onondaga Lake levels, however,
these conditions typically occurred over short periods of time during high Lake levels and are not
indicative of overall system performance.
Potential groundwater impacts to Upper Harbor Brook were mitigated via the operation of a
groundwater collection system for shallow groundwater constructed in 2012 and 2013. This work
also included sediment removal, isolation layer installation, sealing of leaks in the culverts, and
ditch/stream/wetland restoration. Consistent with the design goals, groundwater elevations in
Upper Harbor Brook collection trenches have been maintained below the surface water elevation
in Harbor Brook since 2014.
Consistent with a 2012 decision document issued by NYSDEC and EPA, and an AOC between
Honeywell and New York State, an IRM for a 16-acre strip of land that lies in the outboard area
5
-------
between Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Lakeshore barrier walls and Onondaga Lake (including the
mouth of Harbor Brook and areas of wetlands along the shoreline) commenced in 2013
(Attachment 2, Figure 9). The Outboard Area IRM included excavation and/or dredging of
approximately 200,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediment located between the
Wastebed B/Harbor Brook barrier walls and Onondaga Lake. With the completion of the
soil/sediment removal, an isolation cap was installed as part of the Lake remedy to physically
isolate the contaminated soil/sediment from the environment. The Outboard Area has been
restored and enhanced as a wetland habitat including a pike spawning wetland in a portion of
the Outboard Area in the vicinity of the mouth of Harbor Brook.
Discharges of storm water from upstream areas to the East Flume via conveyance and sewer
pipes have been addressed under an IRM pursuant to a 2002 AOC between Honeywell and
NYSDEC. The Upper East Flume was filled in during the installation of the work platform,
Lakeshore barrier wall, and groundwater collection system. The Lower East Flume was addressed
under the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Outboard Area IRM.
A ROD for the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Subsite was issued by NYSDEC and EPA in 2018. The
selected remedy includes the installation of a soil/granular cover (or maintained paved surfaces
and buildings), implementation of vegetation enhancements, construction/restoration of an
approximately 1-acre wetland (including the installation of a low permeability liner system
beyond the wetland footprint within an area of dense non-aqueous phase liquid-impacted
soil/fill material), additional actions (e.g., stabilization, removal), if necessary, in the areas where
surficial tar material is present, and continued operation and maintenance associated with the
IRMs that have been implemented at the subsite (Attachment 2, Figure 10). The remedial design
is currently underway.
A wetland area, designated SYW-12 (Attachment 2, Figure 8 for location of SYW-12) is also part
of the subsite but is not addressed under the IRMs or the ROD. The SYW-12 area will be
addressed as a separate OU. A feasibility study (FS) for the SYW-12 area is currently in progress.
Wastebeds 1-8 Subsite
Wastebeds 1-8 is a 404-acre site that includes eight irregularly shaped wastebeds that extend
roughly 1.5 miles along the southwest side of Onondaga Lake (Attachment 2, Figure 1) that were
used for Solvay Process waste disposal from 1926 until 1944. The underlying groundwater is
contaminated with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols, and metals.
Pursuant to a 2011 decision document issued by NYSDEC and EPA and an AOC between
Honeywell and NYSDEC, an IRM commenced in 2011 and was completed in 2016. The IRM
included the collection and treatment of groundwater and seeps along Ninemile Creek and the
shoreline of Onondaga Lake, the placement of a vegetative cover over a 14.4-acre area along the
eastern lakeshore, sediment removal from the lower reach of Ditch A, a surface water drainage
ditch, rehabilitation of water conveyance pipes at the upper reach of Ditch A, and stabilization of
6
-------
the lakeshore soils. Additional components incorporated into the IRM included mitigation
wetlands, a hydraulic groundwater control system along the Wastebeds 1-8 northern shoreline,
and restoration, cleaning, and installation of a seep collection trench, geosynthetic lining
systems, and seep aprons in the middle and lower reaches of Ditch A (Attachment 2, Figure 11).
The IRM was designed to prevent the continued migration of contaminants into Ninemile Creek
and Onondaga Lake and reduce groundwater upwelling velocities that may impact the isolation
cap placed in Onondaga Lake Sediment Management Unit 4. The eastern shoreline, northern
shoreline, and Ditch A control systems are undergoing initial performance verification with
oversight by and ongoing coordination with NYSDEC.
A ROD which addresses the OU1 portion of the Wastebeds 1-8 subsite and includes Solvay waste
and contaminated soil/fill materials was issued in 2014. The OU1 remedy is being implemented
in multiple phases because of cover material availability, material placement productivity rates,
planting seasons for the optimal establishment of vegetation enhancements, and site usage by
the property owners. Between 2015 and 2019, approximately 52 acres of vegetative
enhancement cover, nine acres of one-foot vegetative structural fill cover, and five acres of one-
foot vegetative cover were placed on the subsite (Attachment 2, Figure 12). Construction in the
area of the New York State Fair Orange Parking Lot entrance area near the eastern end of the
Onondaga County West Shore Trail was completed in 2019. The steep bank slopes where exposed
Solvay waste was present were cut back and regraded. A soil cover was subsequently placed and
vegetated. Design and construction of the Lakeview Amphitheater and related buildings,
sidewalks, cover systems, retention basins, and other surface and subsurface features were
implemented in 2015 consistent with the OU1 remedy. In addition to the amphitheater
construction, several other projects have been undertaken at the subsite that have resulted in
the placement of cover, either over previously covered areas or where cover was necessary under
the ROD.
An FS for the OU2 portion of the Wastebeds 1-8 subsite, which will consider additional measures
to address impacted shallow, intermediate, and deep groundwater, is in progress.
Niagara Mohawk-Hiawatha Boulevard-Syracuse Former Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Subsite
The 20-acre Niagara Mohawk-Hiawatha Boulevard manufactured gas plant (MGP) subsite is
located south of the Barge Canal on West Hiawatha Boulevard, and borders Onondaga Lake and
Onondaga Creek (Attachment 2, Figures 1 and 13). The Barge Canal is part of Onondaga Creek.
The MGP operated from 1925 to 1958. In the mid-1970s, a 16-acre parcel of the area of concern
was used in the expansion of Metro. The remaining four acres were acquired by Onondaga
County for the recent expansion of Metro. The MGP used coal from 1925 to 1947 and partially
switched to a carbureted water gas process in 1941. Wastes associated with the MGP include
clinker waste containing heavy metals; coal tar, which contains PAHs, BTEX, and phenols; oil
sludge; and purifier waste, which contains cyanides.
NYSDEC and National Grid/Niagara Mohawk entered into multi-site consent orders in 1992 and
2003 obligating it to investigate and remediate 21 former MGP sites across the State, including
7
-------
this subsite.
Under an IRM conducted in 2001 and 2002 to support the construction of an ammonia
removal/phase 2 phosphorus treatment facility associated with Metro, approximately 73,000
cubic yards of impacted soil in the construction zone were removed and disposed of at permitted
solid waste disposal facilities. Soils were excavated to a depth of approximately 15 feet
throughout the footprint and to a depth of approximately 20 feet in an area where stained soils
and non-aqueous phase liquid lenses and globules were observed in deeper soil samples
(Attachment 2, Figure 13).
A ROD for the Niagara Mohawk-Hiawatha Boulevard Former MGP subsite was issued in 2010.
The selected remedy called for in-situ solidification (ISS) of contaminated soil in the northeastern
portion of the subsite and treatment of ground water along the northern perimeter of the subsite
using enhanced bioremediation. The ISS portion of the remedy was completed in 2014. A pilot
study for enhanced bioremediation of groundwater was completed and the remedial design was
finalized in 2018. Construction of the groundwater enhanced bioremediation component of the
remedy was completed in 2018. Site groundwater was sampled in 2019 with a report to be
submitted in 2020.
General Motors-Inland Fisher Guide Subsite
The General Motors (GM)-lnland Fisher Guide subsite includes two OUs. OU1 includes the
former GM - Inland Fisher Guide Syracuse plant property that is located south of Ley Creek on
Town Line Road in the Town of Salina (Attachment 2, Figures 1 and 14). The facility began
operating in 1952, initially as a plating facility and later for the manufacture of plastic automotive
components. Some of the wastes from the plant were discharged to Ley Creek. Manufacturing
operations at the facility ceased in 1993.
Between 2002 and 2004, three large-scale IRMs were performed on the plant property pursuant
to AOCs between GM, the principal PRP for this subsite and some adjacent subsites, and NYSDEC
to mitigate contaminant migration from the subsite to Ley Creek; the Former Landfill IRM, the
Former Drainage Swale IRM and the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
Treatment System IRM. Under the Former Landfill IRM, hot spots in an on-site industrial landfill
containing chromium- and PCB-contaminated materials were excavated and the landfill was
capped to prevent contaminants from leaching into the groundwater. The Former Drainage
Swale IRM involved the removal of more than 26,000 tons of PCB-contaminated soil from a
former discharge swale that was used in the 1950s and 1960s as a conduit for the discharge of
liquid process waste to Ley Creek. The SPDES Treatment System IRM included the construction
of a retention pond and associated water treatment system to collect all waterthat accumulates
on the GM-lnland Fisher Guide property in any of the storm sewers or abandoned process
sewers. The pond water is then sent through the treatment plant to meet permitted discharge
limits prior to discharge to Ley Creek. The IRM was designed to stop the intermittent discharge
of PCBs and other contaminants that occurred during storm events. An FS is in progress for OU1.
8
-------
In 1997, the former site owner GM and NYSDEC entered into an AOC to conduct a Remedial
Investigation (RI)/FS for the site. Following GM's filing for bankruptcy in 2009, an RI/FS AOC was
executed between Revitalizing Auto Communities Environmental Response (RACER) and
NYSDEC in 2015.
Following GM's filing for bankruptcy in 2009, an AOC was executed between RACER and NYSDEC
in 2015 to continue the investigatory and remediation work at the subsite.
OU2 of the GM-lnland Fisher Guide subsite (Attachment 2, Figures 1, 14 and 15) includes Ley
Creek channel sediments, surface water, and floodplain soils/sediments in the reach between
Townline Road and the Route 11 Bridge. OU2 also includes an adjacent wetland and roadway
shoulders near the facility and on the northern side of Factory Avenue in the vicinity of LeMoyne
Avenue. A remedy for OU2, which includes excavating approximately 25,000 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated sediment and soil from impacted media, was documented in a ROD issued in
2015. Excavation and off-site disposal of PCB-contaminated soil from residential properties
(located adjacent to the creek) was conducted in 2016 and remediation of the Factory Avenue
and National Grid Wetland soils was conducted in 2018. The design of the remedial action for
the creek sediments and floodplain soils is in progress. During the pre-design investigation,
floodplain soils exceeding screening criteria were observed on the north side of Ley Creek. Upon
determining the extent of the contaminated floodplain soils that need to be addressed and the
associated cost, EPA will reassess the remedy selected in the 2015 ROD. Based upon the results
of this reassessment, EPA will prepare an appropriate decision document with updated volume
and cost estimates for remedial action.
Lev Creek PCB Dredgings Subsite
The Ley Creek PCB Dredgings_subsite includes areas along the banks of Ley Creek where PCB-
contaminated dredge spoils removed from the creek were placed (Attachment 2, Figures 1, 14,
and 16).
GM and NYSDEC entered into an AOC in 1991 to perform investigatory and remediation work at
the subsite.
A ROD for this subsite was issued in 1997 and remedial construction activities were completed
in 2001. The selected remedy included the consolidation and covering of PCB-contaminated
dredge spoils along a portion of Ley Creek. Approximately 8,400 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated material above 50 milligrams per kilogram were excavated and disposed of off-
site. RACER is currently performing long-term O&M at this subsite.
Groundwater at this subsite will be addressed under the forthcoming GM-lnland Fisher Guide
OU1 remedy.
9
-------
Lower Ley Creek Subsite
The Lower Ley Creek subsite consists of sediments and floodplain soils located along the lower
two-miles of Ley Creek beginning at and including the Route 11 bridge and ending downstream
at Onondaga Lake, as well as the sediments and floodplain soils associated with the "Old Ley
Creek Channel" (Attachment 2, Figures 1 and 17).
A ROD for this subsite was issued in 2014. The selected remedy includes excavation and capping
of contaminated soil and excavation of contaminated sediment in Lower Ley Creek and disposal
of the excavated soil and sediment. In 2016, EPA entered into an AOC with a number of PRPs to
conduct the remedial design; the remedial design is in progress.
Town of Salina Landfill Subsite
The 55-acre Town of Salina Landfill is located in the Town of Salina, New York (Attachment 2,
Figures 1 and 18). Because of flooding events, in 1970, the adjacent Ley Creek was widened,
deepened, and rerouted through the Town of Salina Landfill, splitting the landfill into a 50-acre
main landfill north of Ley Creek and a five-acre landfill south of Ley Creek.
In 1997, the Town of Salina entered into an AOC with NYSDEC to perform investigatory and
remediation work at the subsite.
The Town of Salina Landfill subsite ROD was issued in 2007. The selected remedy included
capping the landfills north and south of Ley Creek, with leachate collection and treatment. In
2010, NYSDEC and EPA executed a ROD amendment calling for the excavation and consolidation
of municipal waste from the five-acre landfill onto the main landfill. Construction of all
components of the remedy was completed in 2015. The subsite is undergoing long-term O&M.
10
-------
Onondaga Lake Second Five Year Review
Attachment 2
Figures
Figure 1 - Onondaga Lake Subsites
Figure 2 - LCP Bridge Street Subsite Location
Figure 3 - Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Area
Figure 4 - Semet Residue Ponds IRMs
Figure 5 - Semet Residue Ponds OU2 Remedy
Figure 6 - Willis Ave Subsite Interim Remedial Measures and Remedial Actions
Figure 7 - Willis Ave Subsite Selected Remedy
Figure 8 - Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Subsite, Site Plan
Figure 9 - Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Interim Remedial Measures
Figure 10 - Wastebed B/Harbor Brook Subsite OU1 Remedy
Figure 11 - Wastebeds 1 to 8 IRM Components
Figure 12 - Wastebeds 1 to 8 Subsite, Site Plan with Cover Types and Extent
Figure 13 - Niagara Mohawk-Hiawatha Boulevard-Former MGP Subsite IRM
Figure 14 -GM Inland Fisher Guide and Ley Creek PCB Dredgings Subsites
Figure 15 - GM Inland Fisher Guide Subsite OU2 Selected Remedy Areas
Figure 16 - Ley Creek PCB Dredgings Subsite, Site Layout
Figure 17 - Lower Ley Creek Subsite, Site Layout
Figure 18 - Town of Salina Landfill, Site Layout
-------
Hopkins Rd
E Molloy Rd
sMattydale
Factory^
Lakeland
Galevjlle
Lyh court
Solvay
cRairrn
-------
NEW YORK QUADRANGLE
SYRACUSE
LATITUDE: N43" 04* 30"
LONGITUDE: W76" 13' 56"
SOURCE ARCVIEW GIS- WORLD
STREET MAP
FIGURE 2
2014-2018 OPERATION,
MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING
REPORT
LCP Bridge Street
Subsite Location
301 PLAINFIELD ROAD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13212, PHONE; 315-451-9560
Onondaga
Lake Park
Sacred
Heart
Cemetery
Belle Isle
Cemetery Cross
Cemetery
Pope's
Grove Par
Three Golf
LCP Subsite
Onondaga 370 %, *%
Lake \ %.
Onondaga
Lake
Gertruto
Pai»<
inQ* Ct
Rich'"15
topkirr. Roa
County Park
G«0H«s "
Liverpool
UtfL
%
Sun
Flower
Park
ty r>
^"**66 S|
2i*dSt
3rdSt
\
a CJr
* o r
¦p
FILE NAME: P:\H0NEYWELL -SYR\449919 LCP 04J1 ONM 2016\10.0 TECHNICAL CATEGORIES 10.2 CAD\FlGURES\20ia\449919-SLM-OMM.DWG
PUJT OATE: 8/2/2010 151 PM PLOTTED BY: RUSSO, JILL
-------
Wastebeds 1 -8
SYW-10
Forested
Wetland
Ninemile Creek
Reaches BC and AB
Ninemile
Reach
Wastebed 11
Wastebeds 9&10
Geddes Brook
Fio&dplain
NYS Fair Grounds
Geddes Brook
FIGURE 3
Brook 8RIV8
Ninemile Creek
Syracuse, New York
Honeywell
Geddes Brook/
Ninemile Creek Area
Reaches CD and BC comprise
OU-1; Reach AB comprises OU-2
Wastebeds 12-15
Outfall
301 Plainfield Rd, Suite 350, Syracuse NY, (315) 451-9560
Onondaga Lake
-------
FIGURE 4
LEGEND
^3 SEMET RESIDUE PONDS SITE
INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES
WILLIS - SEMET HYDRAULIC
CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
LAKESHORE COLLECTION TRENCH
=¦=1 SEMET BARRIER WALL
=¦=1 WILLIS BARRIER WALL
1-690 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
INVESTIGATION AND REHABILITATION
IRM
1-690 STORM DRAIN
STATE FAIR COLLECTION TRENCH
WILLIS - SEMET BERM SITE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
irrrrri ballfield /willis/ semet berm area
EZ SOIL REMOVAL AREA
OU1 REMEDY
SEMET RESIDUE REMOVAL
I I FORMER POND AREAS-OU1
SEMET PONDS SHALLOW
GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL ACTION
(TRIBUTARY 5A)
I I TRIBUTARY 5A SEDIMENT REMOVAL
TftiByTARY 5A COLLECTION TRENCH
SEMET RESIDUE PONDS
GEDDES, NEW YORK
SEMET RESIDUE PONDS
INTERIM REMEDIAL
MEASURES AND
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
LAKESHORE
COLLECTION TRENCH
WILLIS BARRIER WALL
I690 STORM DRAIN
SEMET
LAKESHORE AREA.
SEMET BARRIER WALL
LIGHT WEIGHT FILL
STATE FAIRBLVD—
COLLECTION TRENCH
TRIBUTARY 5A
COLLECTION TRENCH
SEMET
MAIN SITE
TRIBUTARY 5A
POND 2
WILLIS AVENUE
SITE
BRUSHY
CLEARED AREA (BCA)
POND 1
CRUCIBLE
SPECIALTt
METALS I
WILLIS-SEMET GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
POND 3
POND 4
WEST OF THE BRUSHY
CLEARED AREA
CSX RAILROAD
(FORMERLY CONRAU-RR)
TRIBUTARY 5A
' TRIBUTARY 5A
COLLECTION TRENCH
CRUCIBLE,
.SPECIALTY/
METALS /
-------
FIGURE 5
©i!a@B8GM®^ L^Oli
SEMET LAKESHORE AREA
- CONFIRMATION OF 1-FTTHICKNESS OF VEGETATED IRM RESTORATION
-3.14 ACRES
LIGHTWEIGHT FILL
STATE FAIR BLVD
COLLECTION TRENCH
TRIBUTARY 5A
COLLECTION TRENCH
BERM AREA
SEMET
MAIN SITE
TRIBUTARY 5A
POND 2'
WILLIS AVENUE
SITE
POND 1
BCA
-CLEARING
- 1-FT ENGINEERED COVER
- 13ACRES
CRUCIBLE
SPECIALTY
METALS
IRONDI3]
WEST OF THE BCA
- CLEARING AND GRADING
- 1.5-FT LOW PERMEABILITY COVER
- 27,000 CY BACKFILL FORMER SEMET PONDS TO GRADE
- IN SITU TARGETED TREATMENT
-31.5 ACRES
WESTERN AND
~ CSX RAILROAD
(FORMERLY C0^^'L-
SOUTHERN BERMS
TRIBUTARY 5A
pRUClBLE
[SPECIALTY
METALS
BERM IMPROVEMENT IRM
NOTE:
- SHALLOW AND INTERMEDIATE GROUNDWATER OUTBOARD OF THE
SEMET BARRIER WALL IS ADDRESSED WITH THE WILLIS AVENUE SITE
WEST
- 1-FT ENGINEERED COVER
-2.7 ACRES
LEGEND
^3 SEMET PONDS SITE BOUNDARY
I I BRUSHY CLEARED AREA (BCA)
WEST OF THE BCA
H TRIBUTARY 5A
nn 6-INCH TOP SOIL
1-FOOT ENGINEERED COVER
X] 1.5-FOOT LOW-PERMEABILITY COVER
H IN-SITU TARGETED TREATMENT
STATE FAIR BOULEVARD COLLECTION
TRENCH (IRM)
SEMET POINT OF COMPLIANCE
WLLIS POINT OF COMPLIANCE
I " I SEMET WASTE MANAGEMENT
WILLIS WASTE MANAGEMENT
V~A SOIL REMOVAL AREA (IRM)
rrrrr^j BALLFIELD / WILLIS / SEMET BERM
SITE IMPROVEMENTS AREA (IRM)
OU1 REMEDY
LAKESHORE COLLECTION TRENCH
=¦=« SEMET BARRIER WALL
=¦=1 WILLIS BARRIER WALL
TRIB5ACOLLECTION TRENCH
I I TRIB5ASEDIMENT REMOVAL
SEMET RESIDUE PONDS SITE
OU2 REMEDY
GEDDES, NEWYORK
Feet
DECEMBER 2018
1163.63447
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
-------
ONONDAGA LAKE
ENGINEERED FLOODPLAIN
?00B RESTORATION AREA
OUTFALL 015 1
WILLIS BARRIER WALL
EASTERN STORM
DRAIN SYSTEM
{FORMER OUTFALL 041)
DNAPL COLLECTION SYSTEM
STORAGE TANK
2010 RESTORATION AREA
WILLIS LAKESHORE PROPERTY
STATE Fau>
OUTFALL 004__^
kGE DITCH
NORTHWEST
DITCH
WILLIS PLANT AREA
WLUS-SEMET
GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
POND 2
SEMET RESIDUE
PONDS SITE
POND 1
former mercury
CELL BUILDING
POND 5
POND 3
MOUNDEDAREA
POND 4
OUTFALL 006
HuU3TtlKtORIVE
TRIBUTARY 5A
:.RUCIBLI
PEC I ALT
METALS
NOTE:
INTERIM REMEDIAL MEASURES ARE DETAILED
IN SECTION 1.5 OF Rl REPORT.
LEGEND
LAKESHORE COLLECTION TRENCH
... STATE FAIR COLLECTION TRENCH
TRIB 5ACOLLECTION TRENCH AND CAP
DNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM
SLIP LINED PIPE
24" HDPE FORCE MAIN
EXISTING SEWER PIPE
•— NEW 48" STEEL PIPE
- - ABANDONED PA SEWER PIPE
K^\ WILLIS-SEMET BERM SITE IMPROVEMENTS
I 1 TRIB 5A SEDIMENT REMOVAL
I—I WILLIS-SEMET GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
PLANT FOOTPRINT
~ WILLIS AVENUE PLANT BOUNDARY
EXISTING IRM COVER
ENGINEERED FLOODPLAIN
2009 RESTORATION AREA
2010 RESTORATION AREA
STUDYAREA
I I WILLIS PLANT AREA
WM PETROLEUM STORAGE AREA
WZ\ CHLOROBENZENE HOT-SPOTS AREA
H TRIBUTARY5A
WILLIS AVENUE
SUBSITE
INTERIM REMEDIAL
MEASURES AND
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
0 150 300 600
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
-------
FIGURE 7
LAKESHORE PROPERTY
1-FT ENGINEERED SOIL COVER
2.4 ACRES
VERTICAL BARRIER
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF ELEMENTAL MERCURY
IvyiL'L'rgSEMETi
GROUNDWATERi
TREATMENT^
* R_LAN'l.''^i
LOW PERMEABILITY COVER
1 INCH =80 FEET
INDUSTRIAL drive
LCSX RAILROAD'
WILLIS PLANT AREA
REUSE AND/OR GRADE SOIL PILES
IN SITU TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL OF MATERIAL
IN MERCURY HOT SPOTS ASSOCIATED WITH
FORMER BUILDING FLOOR TRENCHES
TARGETED HYDRAULIC CONTROL
1-FT ENGINEERED SOIL COVER
14.3 ACRES
PSA
- 1-FT ENGINEERED SOIL COVER
- 1.8 ACRES
CHSA
- 1-FT EXCAVATION
- 1-FT ENGINEERED SOIL COVER
- 1.9 ACRES
ALSO INCLUDES:
- DNAPL INVESTIGATION (NORTHERN PORTION OF
WILLIS PLANT AREA AND CHSA) AND RECOVERY, IF
FEASIBLE
CONTINUED OPERATION OF:
- LAKESHORE DNAPL COLLECTION SYSTEM
- LAKESHORE HYDRAULIC CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
- PA SEWER LIFT STATION
- I-690 SEWER SYSTEM
LEGEND
=¦=1 SEMET BARRIER WALL
-m-i WILLIS BARRIER WALL
=¦=1 WEST WALL
DNAPL RECOVERY SYSTEM
— - TRIB5ACOLLECTION TRENCH
SLIP LINED PIPE (PA SEWER)
24" HDPE FORCE MAIN (PASEWER)
•— NEW 48" STEEL PIPE (PA SEWER)
—¦ EXISTING SEWER PIPE (PASEWER)
— ¦ SEMET POINT OF COMPLIANCE
WILLIS POINT OF COMPLIANCE
— . APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL EXTENT OF
I - ELEMENTAL MERCURY
SEMET WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA
I " | WILLIS WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA
£7^1 WILLIS-SEMET BERM SITE
IMPROVEMENTS
IZ3 1-FT ENGINEERED SOIL COVER
1-FT EXCAVATION AND 1-FT ENGINEERED
COVER
WILLIS-SEMET GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT PLANT FOOTPRINT
KS LOW PERMEABILITY COVER
^3 VERTICAL BARRIER
EXISTING IRM COVER
I I TRIB5ASEDIMENT REMOVAL
¦I TRIBUTARY 5A
^3 WILLIS AVENUE PLANT BOUNDARY
WILLIS AVENUE
SUBSITE
SELECTED REMEDY
0 200 400 800
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
-------
FIGURE 8
WASTEBED B / HARBOR BROOK
SUBSITE
SITE PLAN
MAP LOCATION
1,000 2,000
SEPTEMBER 2018
1163.61858
1:24 000
ON ON DAG A1I/AKE
SEMET
PONDS
LAKESHOREAREA
WILLIS
WEfS#
.TVy-Vi. ydV
PENN-CAN PROPERTY
AOS#'!
Jr*'
RAILROAD AREA
AOS#2
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
-------
FIGURE 9
¦OUTFALL 015
COLLECTION
TRENCH
FORMER UPPER
EAST FLUME
ABANDONED PA
SEWER PIPE
FORMER LOWER
EAST FLUME
WILLIS-SEMET
^GROUNDWATER
'treatment
PLANT*-
HDPE.
CURRENT
•HARBOR BROOK
OUTLET
FORMER
¦HARBOR BROOK
OUTLET
EAST WAIIL
FORMER
WPC2AREA'V
FORMER
&WPC3AREA
FORMER
Sj/VRCI AREA
iCULVERTi
-'WFTj
P^ULVER
"CULVERT;
JCULVERT^s
WRR21
CULVERT 1
WRR4s
;WRR1
WRR5:
CULVERT 2
¦HARBOR BROOK
CULVERT 3
WRR2
CULVERT 4
WRR1
CULVERT 5
1 INCH = 180 FEET
WRR5
LEGEND
IRM FEATURES HISTORIC FEATURES
17/1 COVER AREA HISTORIC/FORMER
,BUILDING
l/^f STAGED MATERIAL
W SEDIMENT REMOVAL C 3 BOUNDARY^AREA
(."'I FORMER WETLANDS
SITE BOUNDARIES
1 TRANSITIONAL ZONE _ RAILROAD AREA
, SEDIMENT REMOVAL
EAST WALL
'BOUNDARY
¦ i WEST WALL ^^11 LAKESHORE AREA
BOUNDARY
¦ i WILLIS BARRIER WALL
PENN-CAN PROPERTY
COLLECTION TRENCH BOUNDARY
UPPER HARBOR mm ADDITIONAL AREA OF
—BROOK COLLECTION STUDY BOUNDARY
TRENCH
«¦ CULVERT
SITE FEATURES
ACCESS PATHWAYS
DELINEATED
1 1 WETLAND
~ BUILDING
WASTEBED B / HARBOR
BROOK SUBSITE
INTERIM REMEDIAL
MEASURES
0: 250 500 1,000
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
-------
FIGURE 10
LAKE SUPPORT AREA
- CONFIRMATION OF CLEAN FILL THICKNESS
- FINAL RESTORATION OF FILLED AREA
BY VEGETATION ENHANCEMENT
-8.1 ACRES
[OUTFAHiyO'lS,
FORMER WETLAND WL-2 AREA
WETLAND CONSTRUCTION / RESTORATION
EXCAVATION OF MATERIAL
NECESSARY FOR WETLAND CONSTRUCTION
PERIMETER ENGINEERED
COVER WITH LOW PERMEABILITY LINER
2.2 ACRES
[wTiIli S-S em etJ
GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT
PL^NT '¦¦ *
FORMER
IH^BORTBROOi^
rSufrnm
CONFIRMATION OF CLEAN FILL THICKNESS
CONFIRMATION OF CLEAN FILL THICKNESS
1 -FT ENGINEERED COVER
VEGETATION ENHANCEMENT
2.1 ACRES
ALSO INCLUDES:
INSTALLATION OF DEEP DNAPL MONITORING WELLS
DEEP DNAPL MONITORING
CONTINUED OPERATION OF LAKESHORE
HYDRAULIC CONTAINMENT SYSTEM AND DNAPL COLLECTION
CONTINUED OPERATION OF UPPER HARBOR BROOK
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER AND NAPL COLLECTION
MAINTENANCE OF 2015 LAKESHORE AND AOS#1 COVER IRM
COVER THICKNESS NEEDS AND LIMITS WILL BE CONFIRMED BY SAMPLING
¦HARBOR BROOK
LAKESHORE AREA
- ENHANCED ENGINEERED COVER (MINIMUM 1-FT) |
- 19.5 ACRES
PENN-CAN AREA
- 1-FT ENGINEERED COVER
- VEGETATION ENHANCEMENT (STEEP SLOPES)
- 12.7 ACRES
iff
-------
FIGURE 11
WASTEBEDs 1-8
IRM
COMPONENTS
LEGEND
— - DITCH A IRM
SEEP COLLECTION TRENCH
GROUNDWATER COLLECTION
TRENCH
ACCESS PATHWAYS
H REVETMENT
H SEEP APRON
VEGETATIVE COVER /
HI RESTORED AREA/SHORELINE
STABILIZATION / WET SWALE
MITIGATION WETLAND
yZ2\ BIOSOLIDSAREA
I 1 WASTEBEDS 1-8 SITE
WASTEBEDS 1-8
GEDDES, NEWYORK
-------
FIGURE 12
1 1 I
H:
rJ1
LEGEND
~ ACCESS PATHWAYS
~ ONONDAGA COUNTY AMPHITHEATER
FOORPRINT
CRUCIBLE LANDFILL
ONONDAGA COUNTY WEST SHORE TRAIL
I BIOSOLIDS AREA FOOTPRINT
LAKE VIEW DOCK ACCESS CONSTRUCTION
BOUNDARY
PV PROJECT AREAS
| MITIGATION WETLANDS
VEGETATIVE COVER / SHORELINE
ENHANCEMENT AREAS/ VEGETATED WET
SWALE
REVETMENT
SEEP APRON
~
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF VEGETATED
WET SWALE
PHASE 1 VEGETATED SOIL COVER
PHASE 1 VEGETATION ENHANCEMENT
COVER
PHASE 2 STRUCTURAL FILL PARKING AREA
PHASE 2 VEGETATION ENHANCEMENT
COVER
PHASE 3 VEGETATION ENHANCEMENT
COVER (2018)
PHASE 3 VEGETATION ENHANCEMENT
COVER (2017)
PHASE 3 STABILIZED VEGETATED SOIL
COVER (2018)
PHASE 3 1-FT VEGETATED SOIL COVER
(2017)
Addendum DP#4 Cover
COVER REMAINING'
NOTES:
1. COVER REMAINING EXTENTS ARE
FROM THE SELECTED REMEDY IN THE
DECEMBER 2014 RECORD OF DECISION
AN D MAY BE MODIFIED AS PART OF
FUTURE REMEDIAL DESIGNS.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
WASTEBEDS 1-8
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
SITE PLAN WITH COVER
TYPES AND EXTENT
1163.71536
MARCH 2020
O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC.
INLAND
WETLAND A
.^¦inAOA COUNTY WEST SHORE TRA L
INLAND
WETLAND C
NYS Fair Orange Parking Lot
STAGING
AREA-B
STAGING
AREA-C
DITCH D
HITCH C
Mnemile creek
NYS Fair Brown Parking Lot
STATE FAIR BLVD
ONONDAG A LAKE
LAKEVIEW DOCK
CONNECTED
WETLAND
INLAND
WETLAND B
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
-------
f A.
eQn6 -:i-v
L-> i
Legend
Borings Without NAPL
NAPL Contaminated Borings
Previous Soil Excavations
2001 Soil Removal IRM
Soil Removed During Treatment Plant Construction
^ ¦
\ %
-
Mm
/,/ ' ¦ -•#. WP jrL'f £
S38
rv; i
//
'W '
l?*V rv^
mf
•<
4
^ /#
•?';
/
a
r'i«VT •
&
Pk&s&ip
x*
'<•< •
-V
V 4
s/
#3*
V /
^ >•
*N
Cs
Figure 13: Niagara
Mohawk Hiawatha Blvd
Former MGP Subsite
-------
OU-1
Former GM
Plant
OU-2
Upper Ley
Creek
Figure 14 - GM Inland Fisher Guide and Ley Creek
PCBDredgingsSubsites /wwroitK Departmento(
/ OffOdTUNHV Environmental
Conservation
-------
iHOTfeROTj
AREA 1
LEMOYNE AVE
FACTORY
AVENUE AREA
FACTORY AVE
100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN AREA
NATIONAL GRID
WETLANDS,
FACTORY AVE
ARErcjjH
r.
m -V- 3
I ,1 .Hi »•*
¦ Tifgir^ry '«v
--r"
This document was developed in color. Reproduction in B/Wmay not represent the data as intended.
FIGURE 15
LEGEND
~ SOIL BORING
4 SURFACE SOIL
SOIL SAMPLE
M SEDIMENT SAMPLE
SURFACE WATER
____ FORMER IFG FACILITY PROPERTY
BOUNDARY (OU 1)
CO FACTORYAVENUEAREA
| LEY CREEK 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
1 1 AREA
I LEY CREEK 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN HOT
SPOTAREA
I I LEY CREEK
~ NATIONAL GRID WETLANDS
FACTORY AVENUE / LEMOYNE AVENUE
INTERSECTION
GENERAL MOTORS
IFG SUBSITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
OU 2 SELECTED
REMEDY AREAS
APRIL 2014
15388.51418
reiQBRIENEGEUE
-------
o [ This document was developed in color. Reproduction in B/W may not represent the data as intended.
ADAPTED FROM: SYRACUSE EAST AND SYRACUSE WEST, NEW YORK USGS QUADRANGLES
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
LEY CREEK PCB
DREDGINGS SUBSITE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
SITE LOCATION
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000
8,000
Feet
¦4968.34124
JANUARY 2017
1:24,00Q
¦ ¦ oemeNSoene
-------
Lower Ley Creek Subsite of Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, NY
Figure 17
Site Layout
Legend
Surface Water Course
Road
Highway
Railroad
Lower Ley Creek and Old Ley Creek
Site Boundary
Soil Site Boundary
Cooper Crouse-Hinds Landfill
Town of Salina Landfill
and Former Landfill Parcel
I \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Ley_Creek\_MSIW\FS\
(2-02)t$te_layout.mxd
1/13/2014 CNL
Source: HGL,AE Engineering, ESRI,
ArcGIS Online Imagery
&
v HGL
-------
-------
Onondaga Lake Second Five Year Review
Attachment 3
Fish Tissue Data Summary Tables and Figures
-------
Onondaga Lake Site/Lake Bottom Subsite
Second Five-Year Review Report
Attachment 3
Fish Tissue Data Tables and Figures
Introduction
The following includes a summary of the fish tissue data tables and figures presented in this Five-
Year Review (FYR) Report and a general description of the fish tissue monitoring program since
2008. As noted in the Onondaga Lake Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (OLMMP) (Parsons,
2018), fish tissue concentrations by species, with statistical evaluation (e.g., 95 percent upper
confidence limit [UCL] on the mean) are compared to the Onondaga Lake fish tissue goals and
target concentrations, as presented below and in Table 13 of the main section of this FYR report.
The information presented here and the assessments in the main portion of the FYR Report reflect
the general distribution of the bulk of the data (i.e., a large percentage of the data is reflected in
the assessment rather than a specific metric, and the full range of concentrations can be seen in the
box-and-whisker plots, as defined below).
The Onondaga Lake Record of Decision (ROD) (NYSDEC and USEPA, 2005) indicated
that mercury is a primary concern in the lake and is a part of all five remedial action objectives
(RAOs), and therefore the ROD specified the following remedial goals for mercury in fish tissue
for protection of human health and ecological exposure:
• 0.2 mg/kg (fish tissue fillet) for protection of human health based on the reasonable
maximum exposure scenario assumptions from the Onondaga Lake Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) (TAMS, 2002a).
• 0.3 mg/kg (fish tissue fillet) based on EPA's methylmercury National Recommended
Water Quality criterion for the protection of human health for the consumption of
organisms.
• 0.14 mg/kg (whole fish) for protection of ecological receptors (wildlife) based on the
exposure assumptions from the Onondaga Lake Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
(BERA) (TAMS, 2002b). This ecological goal was based on the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect level (LOAEL) for the river otter.
In addition to the remedial goals for mercury in fish tissue, cited above, ecological target tissue
concentrations for mercury based on the no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) as well as
target tissue concentrations for bioaccumulative organic contaminants, corresponding to various
risk levels (including both the 10"4 and 10"5 cancer risk levels for human health exposure and both
the LOAELs and NOAELs for ecological exposure), were developed in the Onondaga Lake
Feasibility Study (Parsons, 2004) based on exposure parameters from the Onondaga Lake HHRA
and BERA and were included in the ROD (ROD Table 7).1 These targets are not remedial goals,
1 Non-carcinogenic targets were not developed for PCDD/PCDFs prior to the issuance of the ROD. Subsequent to its issuance, a
RME noncancer endpoint target of 1. 3E-06 mg/kg (1.3 ng/kg) was developed using the parameters presented in Appendix G of
the FS for a target concentration for the non-cancer endpoint, and using the EPA 2012 reference dose of 7E-10 mg/kg-day.
1
-------
as presented in the ROD, but are points of reference for evaluations of reduction of risk for human
and wildlife consumers of fish.
As indicated in the ROD, other contaminants, including PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, and
PCDD/PCDFs, are not as widespread in sediments in the lake (as compared to mercury) and are
found primarily in a few specific areas of the lake (e.g., sediment management units [SMUs] 1, 2,
6, and 7), which underwent aggressive active remediation (dredging and/or capping). The
ecological and human health remedial goals for mercury and targets for other bioaccumulative
contaminants in fish tissue are summarized in Table 13 in the main section of this FYR Report.
As the areas of the lake with elevated concentrations of these bioaccumulative organic
contaminants for which target tissue concentrations were developed are generally within the
remedial areas based on exceedance of the cleanup criteria of the mean PECQ of 1 (which
addresses multiple contaminants) plus the mercury PEC, the exposures to these compounds would
be reduced to the same or greater extent as that of mercury. It was therefore expected that if the
remedial goals for mercury in fish tissue are met in the future (e.g., during the 10-year monitored
natural recovery [MNR] period after completion of the dredging and capping), that the future fish
tissue concentrations for the contaminants listed in ROD Table 7 would fall within the
concentration ranges shown in that table for each contaminant and receptor. If the expectation is
proven not to be the case, based on ongoing fish tissue monitoring, then an evaluation will take
place to determine why this expectation may no longer be valid.
The Onondaga Lake ROD envisioned a long-term monitoring program to assess the effectiveness
of the remedy, since changes in the contaminant concentrations in biota typically take at least
several years to fully manifest. This concept is reflected in the ten-year MNR period discussed in
the ROD and is consistent with the results seen following remediation at other sediment sites (e.g.,
Cumberland Bay in New York State). Future Five-Year Reviews will continue to assess the data
trends as they are established as well as attainment of the fish tissue goals.
Although fish have been collected on an annual basis during the post-ROD baseline monitoring
period (2008 to 2011) prior to commencement of remedial actions in the lake and during the
remedial action period (2012 to 2016), only two years of data (2017 and 2018) have been collected
and are currently available since remediation activities were completed in 2016. To statistically
assess the direction and rate of change in fish concentrations post-remedy (i.e., after 2016),
additional years of data collection are needed and will be undertaken in future years as defined in
the OLMMP. Therefore, the discussion in the "Data Review" section in the main portion of this
FYR Report focuses on a qualitative comparison of pre-remedy and post-remedy concentrations
and comparisons to the fish tissue goals for mercury and the fish tissue target concentrations for
the organics.
Fish Data Reporting
For the fish tissue data reporting, both the Honeywell data sets from 2008 to 2018 (fillets of
smallmouth bass, walleye, pumpkinseed, and carp [2014-2018]), whole-body small prey fish, and
whole-body large prey fish (2014-2018) and NYSDEC data sets from 2008 to 2018 (largemouth
bass and yellow perch) are used. The Honeywell fish data presented herein are as provided by
2
-------
Honeywell's consultants. The NYSDEC fish data from 2008 through 2016 were obtained from
the August 2019 version of the NYSDEC Onondaga Lake Database (AECOM, consultant to
NYSDEC) and data from 2017 and 2018 were obtained from source files provided by NYSDEC
in December 2019. Honeywell data from 2008 through 2011 were collected under the Baseline
Monitoring Program, data from 2012 through 2016 were collected under the Monitoring and
Maintenance Program during remedial action (dredging and capping)2, and data from 2017 and
2018 were collected under the Post-Construction Monitoring Program.
For the Honeywell Baseline Monitoring Program, the selected adult sport fish species covered a
range of trophic levels including top level piscivores (smallmouth bass, walleye), benthic
invertivores (brown bullhead), and invertivores (pumpkinseed). In 2014, a benthic herbivore
(common carp), was also collected at the request of NYSDEC. In 2015, brown bullhead was
dropped from the program and replaced by common carp. Fish tissue sampling and analysis
conducted by Honeywell in 2015 and 2016 were implemented consistent with NYSDEC approved
submittals, including the 2015 and 2016 work scopes for tissue monitoring submitted as work plan
addenda to the Onondaga Lake Tissue Monitoring Work Plan for 2012 (Parsons and Anchor QEA,
2015; Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2016). Fish tissue sampling conducted by Honeywell in 2017
and 2018 was implemented consistent with draft and final versions of the Onondaga Lake
Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2018; Parsons, 2018).
The NYSDEC monitoring program is independent of the Honeywell program. NYSDEC instituted
a long-term sampling program in 1970, initially concentrating on smallmouth bass and later
largemouth bass. Other species were analyzed by NYSDEC if collected in certain years to provide
information on other trophic levels such as carp, yellow and white perch (invertivores), and
channel catfish (benthic omnivore). Under the NYSDEC monitoring program carp have not been
collected since 2013, and white perch and channel catfish have not been collected since 2012.
Based on prior discussions with Honeywell related to data usability, the Honeywell organics data
from 2010 are not used and the mercury data from 2010 are qualified as estimated due to incorrect
filleting procedures and potential problems with extractions resulting in very low concentrations
of organic contaminants in sport fish and prey fish in 2010. In addition, four of the revised lipids
results from 2011 were rejected and the lipids results for these samples are not used. In addition,
as discussed in NYSDEC's January 17, 2020 comments on Honeywell's draft Onondaga Lake
2018 Annual and Comprehensive Monitoring and Maintenance Report (Parsons, 2020), the PCBs
and lipids data sets for 2017 and 2018 are under NYSDEC review. As noted by NYSDEC during
review of the 2017 data, due to a potential misinterpretation of the lipids analysis standard
operating procedure (SOP) by the laboratory, the lipid analysis of many of the fish samples may
not have confirmed that the hexane solvent used in the extraction had been properly evaporated,
and it is likely that many of those samples were not properly dried. This potentially caused the
laboratory to report artificially high weights of residuals, resulting in lipid results biased high. A
limited set of the samples using archived material were reanalyzed although many of the samples
did not have sufficient mass for reanalysis. It is believed that similar issues existed with the 2018
data. Based on this, as well as other modifications to the analytical program to incorporate
2 Adult sport fish and alewife prey fish were collected by Honeywell in June 2012 just prior to the
commencement of dredging in late July 2012. Minnow prey fish were collected in August 2012.
3
-------
improvements in the QA/QC procedures (e.g., inclusion of additional fish tissue certified reference
materials that will be analyzed and evaluated with each analytical batch), some of the analytical
SOPs have been revised for the analysis of fish samples collected in the 2019 and 2020 seasons
and the revised SOPs are being included in a revised Onondaga Lake Media Monitoring Quality
Assurance Project Plan (in progress).
Calculations of total PCBs, sum of DDT and metabolites, and dioxin/furan toxic equivalence
(TEQs) (based on the World Health Organization human health and mammalian-based toxicity
equivalence factors [TEFs] from van den Berg et al., 2006) were performed for those data sets
where totals were not included in the source files.
For ecological exposure, the fish were grouped into two size classes: small (30 to 180 mm) and
large (180 to 600 mm) consistent with the Onondaga Lake BERA (TAMS, 2002b). Data for small
whole-body prey fish are available in the Honeywell data set since 2008. Between 2014 and 2018,
Honeywell collected large (180 to 600 mm) prey fish for whole-body analysis, consisting
exclusively of white suckers. As large whole-body prey fish were not collected from 2008 to 2013
and to supplement the large prey fish data collected since 2014, whole-body concentrations were
estimated based on the fillet samples from that size class and the fillet to whole-body conversion
factors (0.7 for mercury, 2.5 for PCBs, and 2.3 for DDTs and HCB) from the Onondaga Lake
BERA (Section 8.2.6.4). These conversion factors will be reassessed with new data in the future,
if appropriate.
In this attachment, Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the number of samples used in the
analyses for each species and analyte for the Honeywell and NYSDEC data sets, respectively.
Tables 3a, 3b, and 3c include annual fish tissue arithmetic mean and 95% UCL contaminant
concentrations, as defined below, for each species for the 2015-2018 period for the Honeywell
data for sport fish fillet data, prey fish whole-body data, and calculated whole-body concentrations
based on the fillet data, respectively. Tables 4a and 4b include annual fish tissue mean and 95%
UCL contaminant concentrations for the NYSDEC sport fish fillet data for Largemouth Bass and
Yellow Perch, and calculated whole-body concentrations based on the NYSDEC fillet data,
respectively. USEPA's ProUCL Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for Data Sets
with and without Nondetect Observations was used by both Honeywell/Parsons and
NYSDEC/AECOM for calculation of the 95% UCL and mean values for their respective fish data
sets, unless three or fewer results were detects (USEPA, 2015). If three or fewer results were
detects, then means and 95% UCLs were not calculated for the tables and the 95% UCLs are not
shown on the figures. However, for the figures, the mean was calculated arithmetically when one
to three results were detects, substituting one-half the detection limit (mercury) or reporting limit
(organic analytes) for non-detects. For data sets where all the results were non-detects, "ND" is
shown on the figure.
The data are presented in the Sets 1 through 3 figures as box-and-whisker plots with 95% UCL
values, and as means plus and minus two standard errors in the Set 4 Honeywell figures, which
provides an estimate of 95 percent upper and lower confidence limits. (See Figure 1 in this
attachment.) Refinements to these methods may be incorporated in future Five-Year Reviews.
4
-------
Honeywell Labs for Fish Analyses (2008 to 2018):
2008. Test America, Vermont (all analytes)
2009. Accutest, New Jersey (mercury in prey fish); Test America, Pittsburgh, PA (other
analytes, mercury in sport fish)
2010. SGS, North Carolina (dioxins/furans); Accutest, NJ (other analytes)
2011. 2012, 2013. Test America, Pittsburgh PA and Knoxville TN
2014, 2015, 2016. Pace Analytical (all analytes)
2017, 2018. Eurofins - Lancaster, PA and Eurofins - Frontier, WA
NYSDEC Lab for Fish Analyses (2008 to 2018):
- Hale Creek Field Station, Analytical Services Unit
Note, largemouth bass was the predominant species analyzed by NYSDEC during the 2015-2018
period and yellow perch was also analyzed in 2016 and 2018. As samples of the other species
{i.e., white perch, carp, channel catfish) were not analyzed after 2013 as shown in Table 2, figures
for fillet data for white perch, carp, and channel catfish are not included in the Set 1 figures and
calculated whole-body concentrations based on the fillet data for these species are not included in
the Set 3 figures.
5
-------
LIST OF FISH MONITORING SUMMARY TABLES
Table 1: Honeywell Fish Data Used in the Analyses (Number of Samples)
Table 2: NYSDEC Fish Data Used in the Analyses (Number of Samples)
Table 3a: Summary of Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish Fillet (2015 -
2018)
Table 3b: Summary of Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Prey Fish Whole Body
(2015 -2018)
Table 3c: Summary of Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish Calculated
Whole Body (2015 -2018)
Table 4a: Summary of NYSDEC Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish Fillet
Data (2015 -2018)
Table 4b: Summary of NYSDEC Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish
Calculated Whole Bodyl (2015 - 2018)
LIST OF FISH MONITORING SUMMARY FIGURES
- Figure 1: Figure Nomenclature, Data Treatment, and Analyte-Specific Details (for
Honeywell Data Sets)
Set 1: Sport Fish Fillet Concentrations for Human Health Remedial Goals and Targets
Honeywell Data (2008-2018)
- Figure 1: Mercury Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
- Figure 2: Mercury Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
- Figure 3: Total PCB Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
- Figure 4: Total PCB Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
- Figure 5: Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
- Figure 6: Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
- Figure 7: Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
- Figure 8: Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
NYSDEC Data (2008-2018)
- DEC Figure 1: Mercury - Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch (Fillet)
- DEC Figure 2: Total PCBs - Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch (Fillet)
- DEC Figure 3: DDTs - Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch (Fillet)
- DEC Figure 4: Hexachlorobenzene - Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch (Fillet)
6
-------
Set 2: Small (30 to 180 mm) Prey Fish Whole-Body Concentrations for Ecological Remedial
Goal and Targets
Honeywell Data (2008-2018)
Figure 1: Mercury Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 2: Calculated Whole-Body Mercury Concentrations in Small Pumpkinseed
- Figure 3: Total PCB Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 4: Calculated Whole-Body Total PCB Concentrations in Small Pumpkinseed
Figure 5: DDT Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
Figure 6: Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 7: Calculated Whole-Body Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Small
Pumpkinseed
Note, all species of small prey fish (whole body) collected by Honeywell are included in this data
set (banded killifish, round goby, golden shiner, brook silverside, minnow, bluntnose minnow
[alewife excluded]).
Set 3: Large (180 to 600 mm) Prey Fish Whole-Body Concentrations for Ecological Remedial
Goal and Targets
Honeywell Data (2008-2018)
- Figure 1: Mercury Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 2: Calculated Whole Body Mercury Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and
Walleye
- Figure 3: Calculated Whole Body Mercury Concentrations in Common Carp and Large
Pumpkinseed
- Figure 4: Total PCB Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 5: Calculated Whole Body Total PCB Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and
Walleye
- Figure 6: Calculated Whole Body Total PCB Concentrations in Common Carp and Large
Pumpkinseed
Figure 7: Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 8: Calculated Whole Body Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Smallmouth
Bass and Walleye
- Figure 9: Calculated Whole Body Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Common Carp
and Large Pumpkinseed
- Figure 10: DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
7
-------
NYSDEC Data (2008-2018)
- DEC Figure la: Calculated Mercury (Whole Body) in Large Fish (180-600 mm),
Largemouth Bass
- DEC Figure lb: Calculated Total PCBs (Whole Body) in Large Fish (180-600 mm),
Largemouth Bass
- DEC Figure 2a: Calculated DDTs (Whole Body) in Large Fish (180-600 mm),
Largemouth Bass
- DEC Figure 2b: Calculated Hexachlorobenzene (Whole Body) in Large Fish (180-600
mm), Largemouth Bass
- DEC Figure 3a: Calculated Mercury (Whole Body) in Large Fish (180-600 mm), Yellow
Perch
- DEC Figure 3b: Calculated Total PCBs (Whole Body) in Large Fish (180-600 mm),
Yellow Perch
- DEC Figure 4a: Calculated DDTs (Whole Body) in Large Fish (180-600 mm), Yellow
Perch
- DEC Figure 4b: Calculated Hexachlorobenzene (Whole Body) in Large Fish (180-600
mm), Yellow Perch
Set 4: Additional Reporting to Assess Potential Impacts of Remediation
For information on the potential impact of the implementation of the remediation on contaminant
concentrations in fish tissue (as opposed to the risk to consumers of fish), the changes in
concentration over time are reported. In these Set 4 figures, the data are presented in a way that
controls factors which may influence the wet-weight concentrations but are independent of any
exposure to the site-related contamination. This reduces the variability (e.g., noise) in the data.
For mercury, the variability due to fish age is corrected by using length as a surrogate for age. The
wet-weight mercury concentration of each individual fish is adjusted by dividing the concentration
(in mg/kg) by its length (in millimeters [mm]), providing a concentration as mg/kg per mm. For
the organic contaminants, the amount of lipid in the fish has a major influence on the wet-weight
concentrations (Sloan et al., 2002). For PCBs, dioxin/furans, DDTs, and hexachlorobenzene, the
wet-weight concentrations for each individual fish are adjusted by dividing the concentration by
its lipid content, providing a lipid-normalized concentration (e.g., mg PCBs/kg lipid).
The first subset of figures presents mercury data normalized to fish length and organic
contaminants normalized to lipids for both sport fish and prey fish. As the normalized data are not
compared to the goals (which are on a wet-weight basis) and all sport fish species for each
contaminant are shown on one figure, the Honeywell data are presented as means plus and minus
two standard errors rather than box-and-whisker plots to provide a simpler image.
The second subset of figures presents the normalized data by sample location for localized small
and large prey fish species collected by Honeywell (note, whole-body prey fish were not collected
by NYSDEC). These figures show normalized concentrations for the sediment management units
(SMUs) from which the prey fish samples were collected. Note, Honeywell's fish sampling
program did not include stations in SMU 1 prior to 2017.
8
-------
Honeywell Data (2008-2018)
Subset 1
- Figure 1: Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Sport Fish
Figure 2: Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 3: Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
- Figure 4: Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Common Carp and
Pumpkinseed
- Figure 5: Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 6: Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
- Figure 7: Lipid-Normalized Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass
and Walleye
Figure 8: Lipid-Normalized Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Common Carp
and Pumpkinseed
- Figure 9: Lipid-Normalized DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All
SMUs)
- Figure 10: Lipid-Normalized DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Large Prey Fish
(All SMUs)
- Figure 11: Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass
and Walleye
- Figure 12: Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Common Carp and
Pumpkinseed
Figure 13: Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All
SMUs)
Figure 14: Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All
SMUs)
Subset 2
Figure 1: Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Small Prey Fish By SMU
- Figure 2: Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Small Pumpkinseed By SMU
Figure 3: Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Large Prey Fish By SMU
- Figure 4: Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Small Prey Fish By SMU
- Figure 5: Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Pumpkinseed By SMU
- Figure 6: Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Large Prey Fish By SMU
- Figure 7: Lipid-Normalized Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Pumpkinseed By
SMU
- Figure 8: Lipid-Normalized DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Small Prey Fish By
SMU
- Figure 9: Lipid-Normalized DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Large Prey Fish By
SMU
Figure 10: Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Pumpkinseed By
SMU
9
-------
Figure 11: Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Small Prey Fish By
SMU
Figure 12: Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Large Prey Fish By
SMU
NYSDEC Data (2008-2018)
Subset 1
- DEC Figure 1: Mercury - All Sport Fish Species (Fillet), Length Normalized
- DEC Figure 2a: Total PCBs - All Sport Fish Species (Fillet), Lipid Normalized
- DEC Figure 2b: DDTs - All Sport Fish Species (Fillet), Lipid Normalized
- DEC Figure 3: Hexachlorobenzene - All Sport Fish Species (Fillet), Lipid Normalized
Note, these Set 4 figures depicting the NYSDEC data are presented as means +/- one standard
deviation for consistency with the First FYR Report.
References
NYSDEC and USEPA Region 2. 2005. Record of Decision. Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite of
the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site. July.
Parsons. 2004. Onondaga Lake Feasibility Study Report. Draft Final. Prepared by Parsons,
Liverpool, NY in association with Anchor Environmental and Exponent for Honeywell.
November.
Parsons. 2018. Onondaga Lake Monitoring and Maintenance Plan. Prepared for Honeywell. June.
Parsons. 2020. Draft Onondaga Lake 2018 Annual and Comprehensive Monitoring and
Maintenance Report. Prepared for Honeywell. September.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2015. Addendum 3 (2015) to Onondaga Lake Tissue Monitoring Work
Plan for 2012. May.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2016. Addendum 4 (2016) to Onondaga Lake Tissue Monitoring Work
Plan for 2012. October.
Parsons and Anchor QEA. 2018. Onondaga Lake Tissue and Biological Monitoring Report for
2015 and 2016. April.
Sloan, R.J., M. Kane, and L. Skinner. 2002. 1999 as a Special Spatial Year for PCBs in Hudson
River Fish. NYSDEC Div. of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. Albany, NY. May.
TAMS. 2002a. Onondaga Lake Human Health Risk Assessment. Original document prepared by
Exponent, Bellevue, Washington, for Honeywell, East Syracuse, New York. Revision prepared by
10
-------
TAMS, New York, New York and YEC, Valley Cottage, New York, for New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. December.
TAMS. 2002b. Onondaga Lake Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Original document
prepared by Exponent, Bellevue, Washington, for Honeywell, East Syracuse, New York. Revision
prepared by TAMS, New York, New York and YEC, Valley Cottage, New York, for New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. December.
USEPA. 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. Statistical Software for Environmental
Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations. EPA/600/R-07/041. October
2015.
Van den Berg, M., L.S. Birnbaum, M. Denison, et al. 2006. The 2005 World Health Organization
Reevaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like
Compounds. Toxicol Sci 93(2):223-241.
11
-------
Attachment 3 Tables
September 2020
-------
TABLE 1
HONEYWELL FISH DATA USED IN THE ANALYSES (NUMBER OF SAMPLES)
Analyte
Baseline Monitoring
2008
2009
2010 (2)
2011
SMB
WEYE
BB
PKSD
Small Prey
Fish
SMB
WEYE
BB
PKSD
Small Prey
Fish
SMB
WEYE
BB
PKSD
Small Prey
Fish
SMB
WEYE
BB
PKSD
Small Prey
Fish
Mercury (1)
18
50
50
50
40
42
50
50
50
40
41
50
51
50
40
25
25
25
25
40
Total PCBs
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
0
0
0
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
12
12
0
PCDDs/PCDFs
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
5
0
Hexachlorobenzene
12
12
12
12
10
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
12
11
10
11
12
9
10
0
Total DDTs
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
0
0
0
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
12
12
0
Lipid
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
0
0
0
12
12
12
12
10
10
12
11
11
0
Monitoring During Remedial Action
2012 (3)
2013
2014
2015
2016
Analyte
SMB
WEYE
BB
PKSD
Small Prey
Fish
SMB
WEYE
BB
PKSD
Small Prey
Fish
SMB
WEYE
BB
PKSD
CP
Small Prey
Fish
Large Prey
Fish
SMB
WEYE
PKSD
CP
Small Prey Large Prey
Fish Fish
SMB
WEYE
PKSD
CP
Small Prey Large Prey
Fish Fish
Mercury
25
25
25
0
40
25
25
24
25
40
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
Total PCBs
12
12
12
0
10
25
25
25
25
40
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
PCDDs/PCDFs
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
13
6
1
9
0
0
12
12
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hexachlorobenzene
12
12
12
0
10
25
25
25
25
40
25
25
25
12
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total DDTs
12
12
12
0
10
25
25
25
25
40
0
0
0
0
0
24
24
0
0
0
0
24
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lipid
12
12
12
0
10
25
25
25
25
40
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
Post-Construction Monitoring
2017
2018
Analyte
SMB
WEYE
PKSD
CP
Small Prey
Fish
Large Prey
Fish
SMB
WEYE
PKSD
CP
Small Prey
Fish
Large Prey
Fish
Mercury
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
Total PCBs
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
PCDDs/PCDFs
12
11
12
12
0
0
13
13
12
14
0
0
Hexachlorobenzene
25
25
20
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
Total DDTs
0
0
0
0
24
24
0
0
0
0
24
24
Lipid
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
25
25
24
24
SMB - Smallmouth Bass
WEYE - Walleye
BB - Brown Bullhead
PKSD - Pumpkinseed
CP - Carp
Notes:
1. Sample counts do not include fish plug samples collected in 2008 and 2009.
2. Results for organics and lipids from 2010 are not used in analysis. See text for discussion.
3. Adult sport fish and alewife prey fish were collected by Honeywell in June 2012 just prior to the commencement of dredging in late July 2012. Minnow prey fish were collected in August 2012.
4. Sport fish analyzed as fillet samples. Small prey fish (various species) and large prey fish (white sucker in 2014-2018) analyzed as whole-body samples.
AECOM
February 2020
-------
TABLE 2
NYSDEC FISH DATA USED IN THE ANALYSES (NUMBER OF SAMPLES)
Analyte
Baseline Monitoring
2008
2009
2010
2011
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
Mercury
45
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
50
16
15
15
10
53
0
15
14
1
Total PCBs
10
0
0
0
0
49
0
0
0
0
50
16
15
15
10
53
0
15
14
1
Total DDTs
10
0
0
0
0
49
0
0
0
0
50
16
15
15
10
53
0
15
14
1
Hexachlorobenzene
10
0
0
0
0
49
0
0
0
0
50
16
15
15
10
53
0
15
14
1
Lipid
10
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
50
16
15
15
10
53
0
15
14
1
Analyte
Monitoring During Remedial Action
2012 (1)
2013
2014
2015
2016
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
Mercury
50
0
15
15
5
50
10
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
55
0
19
0
0
Total PCBs
50
0
15
15
5
50
10
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
55
0
20
0
0
Total DDTs
50
0
15
15
5
50
10
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
55
0
20
0
0
Hexachlorobenzene
50
0
15
15
5
50
10
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
55
0
20
0
0
Lipid
50
0
15
15
5
50
10
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
55
0
20
0
0
Analyte
Post-Construction Monitoring
2017
2018
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
LMB
CP
YP
WP
CHC
Mercury
50
0
0
0
0
50
0
20
0
0
Total PCBs
50
0
0
0
0
50
0
20
0
0
Total DDTs
50
0
0
0
0
50
0
20
0
0
Hexachlorobenzene
50
0
0
0
0
50
0
20
0
0
Lipid
50
0
0
0
0
50
0
20
0
0
LMB - Largemouth Bass
CP - Carp
YP - Yellow Perch
WP - White Perch
CHC - Channel Catfish
Notes:
1. Fish were collected by NYSDEC in May 2012 prior to the commencement of dredging in late July 2012.
2. Fish analyzed as fillet samples.
AECOM
February 2020
-------
Table 3a
Summary of Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish Fillet (2015 - 2018)
Sample Size
95% UCL
Taxon
Chemical Name
Year
(detects)
Mean1
Value1
95% UCL Calculation Type
2015
25
(25)
1.07
1.17
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
0.92
1.02
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
25
(25)
0.71
0.82
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
25
(25)
0.79
0.91
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
25
(25)
1.91
2.19
95% Student's-t UCL
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
1.20
1.50
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Smallmouth
2017
25
(25)
0.50
0.61
95% Student's-t UCL
Bass
2018
25
(25)
0.47
0.57
95% Student's-t UCL
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ
(ng/kg)
2015
12
(12)
1.90
2.44
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
12
(12)
1.5
1.94
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
13
(13)
1.04
1.33
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
25
(23)
0.006
0.007
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
25
(6)
0.002
0.003
95% KM (t) UCL
2018
25
(0)
-
-
-
2015
25
(25)
1.36
1.58
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
1.14
1.33
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
25
(25)
0.77
0.91
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
25
(25)
0.71
0.81
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
25
(25)
3.82
5.29
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
2.51
3.25
95% Student's-t UCL
Walleye
2017
25
(25)
0.74
1.41
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
2018
25
(25)
0.96
1.21
95% Student's-t UCL
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ
(ng/kg)
2015
12
(12)
2.09
2.64
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
12
(12)
1.64
2.37
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
13
(13)
1.81
2.52
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
25
(25)
0.027
0.032
95% Student's-t UCL
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
25
(17)
0.004
0.007
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
25
(3)
-
-
-
2015
25
(25)
0.2
0.31
95% H-UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
0.20
0.24
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
25
(25)
0.19
0.24
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
25
(20)
0.10
0.14
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
2015
25
(25)
1.96
2.93
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
1.80
2.65
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
25
(25)
0.50
0.74
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Common Carp
2018
25
(25)
0.27
0.44
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ
(ng/kg)
2015
12
(12)
5.94
14.76
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
12
(12)
4.15
9.17
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
14
(14)
1.08
3.24
95% H-UCL
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2015
25
(23)
0.038
0.081
Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when k< = 1 and 15
< n < 50 but k< = 1)
2017
25
(13)
0.004
0.006
95% KM (t) UCL
2018
25
(2)
-
-
-
2015
25
(25)
0.28
0.32
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
0.19
0.24
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
25
(25)
0.17
0.20
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
25
(16)
0.088
0.11
95% KM (t) UCL
2015
25
(25)
0.14
0.18
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
25
(17)
0.05
0.21
KM H-UCL
Pumpkinseed
2017
25
(25)
0.096
0.13
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
25
(23)
0.09
0.12
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ
(ng/kg)
2015
12
(9)
0.38
0.53
95% KM (t) UCL
2017
12
(12)
0.27
0.33
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
12
(12)
0.54
0.73
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
25
(V
-
-
-
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
20
(0)
-
-
-
2018
23
(0)
-
-
-
Notes:
1. Mean and 95% UCL were calculated using ProLICL version 5.1 and were not calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects (USEPA,2015). 95% UCL is an estimate of the
upper bound for the true population mean. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical method was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method
(i.e., one-half of the detection/reporting limit).
Abbreviations:
— Insufficient data to calculate Mean or 95% UCL; 3 or fewer results were detects
DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
KM: Kaplan-Meier
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
ng/kg: nanograms per kilogram
ND: non-detect
PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl
TEQ: toxicity equivalent quotient
UCL: upper confidence limit
Reference:
USEPA, 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/proucl_5.1_user-guide.pdfAccessed May
22, 2020.
Page 1 of 3
September 2020
-------
Table 3b
Summary of Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Prey Fish Whole Body (2015 - 2018)
Sample Size
95% UCL
Taxon
Chemical Name
Year
(detects)
Mean1
Value1
95% UCL Calculation Type
2015
24
(23)
0.19
0.24
95% KM (t) UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
24
(23)
0.13
0.16
95% KM (t) UCL
2017
24
(24)
0.093
0.14
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
24
(14)
0.17
0.21
95% KM (t) UCL
2015
24
(24)
1.56
1.99
95% Student's-t UCL
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
24
(24)
0.73
1.00
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Large Prey Fish
2017
24
(24)
0.36
0.50
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
24
(23)
0.1
0.13
95% KM (t) UCL
Sum of DDT and Metabolites
(mg/kg)
2015
24
(24)
0.02
0.026
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
24
(24)
0.016
0.021
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
24
(20)
0.025
0.098
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL
2015
24
(13)
0.01
0.018
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
24
(10)
0.002
0.002
95% KM (t) UCL
2018
24
(V
-
-
-
2015
24
(24)
0.14
0.16
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
24
(24)
0.087
0.099
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
24
(21)
0.057
0.074
95% KM (t) UCL
2018
24
(11)
0.072
0.087
95% KM (t) UCL
2015
24
(23)
0.16
0.39
KM H-UCL
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
24
(24)
0.17
0.23
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Small Prey Fish
2017
24
(24)
0.11
0.25
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
2018
24
(24)
0.049
0.13
95% H-UCL
Sum of DDT and Metabolites
(mg/kg)
2015
24
(13)
0.002
0.003
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
24
(23)
0.005
0.009
KM H-UCL
2018
24
(24)
0.006
0.008
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
24
(3)
-
-
-
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
24
(3)
-
-
-
2018
24
(0)
-
-
-
Notes:
1. Mean and 95% UCL were calculated using ProLICL version 5.1 and were not calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects (USEPA,2015). 95% UCL is an estimate of the
upper bound for the true population mean. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical method was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method
(i.e., one-half of the detection/reporting limit).
Abbreviations:
— Insufficient data to calculate Mean or 95% UCL; 3 or fewer results were detects
DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
KM: Kaplan-Meier
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
ND: non-detect
PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl
UCL: upper confidence limit
Reference:
USEPA, 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/proucl_5.1_user-guide.pdfAccessed May
22, 2020.
Page 2 of 3
September 2020
-------
Table 3c
Summary of Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish Calculated Whole Body1 (2015 - 2018)
Sample Size
95% UCL
Taxon
Size2
Chemical Name
Year
(detects)
Mean3
Value3
95% UCL Calculation Type
2015
25
(25)
0.75
0.82
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
0.65
0.71
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
25
(25)
0.50
0.58
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
25
(25)
0.55
0.64
95% Student's-t UCL
Smallmouth
Bass
2015
25
(25)
4.78
5.48
95% Student's-t UCL
Large
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
25
(25)
3.01
3.74
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
25
(25)
1.25
1.51
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
25
(25)
1.19
1.42
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
25
(23)
0.013
0.017
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
25
(6)
0.005
0.007
95% KM (t) UCL
2018
25
(0)
-
-
-
2015
25
(25)
0.96
1.10
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
24
(24)
0.77
0.90
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
25
(25)
0.54
0.64
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
25
(25)
0.50
0.57
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
25
(25)
9.55
13.23
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Walleye
Large
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
24
(24)
5.98
7.85
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
25
(25)
1.84
3.52
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
2018
25
(25)
2.40
3.04
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
25
(25)
0.062
0.073
95% Student's-t UCL
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
25
(17)
0.01
0.015
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
25
(3)
-
-
-
2015
13
(13)
0.11
0.14
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
9
(9)
0.10
0.12
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
10
(10)
0.10
0.14
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
18
(13)
0.036
0.048
95% KM (t) UCL
2015
13
(13)
1.54
4.61
95% H-UCL
Common Carp
Large
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
9
(9)
1.60
2.16
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
10
(10)
0.64
1.88
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
2018
18
(18)
0.26
0.41
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2015
13
(11)
0.067
0.30
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
10
(3)
-
-
-
2018
18
(2)
-
-
-
2015
2
(2)
-
-
-
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
8 (8)
0.21
0.27
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
5
(5)
0.17
0.23
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
5
(4)
0.10
0.15
95% KM (t) UCL
2015
2
(2)
-
-
-
Large
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
8 (6)
0.14
0.22
95% KM (t) UCL
2017
5
(5)
0.22
0.27
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
5
(5)
0.28
0.42
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
2
(0)
-
-
-
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
5
(0)
-
-
-
Pumpkinseed
2018
5
(0)
-
-
-
2015
23
(23)
0.19
0.22
95% Student's-t UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
17
(17)
0.097
0.13
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
20
(20)
0.11
0.13
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
20
(12)
0.052
0.063
95% KM (t) UCL
2015
23
(23)
0.36
0.46
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Small
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
17
(11)
0.31
0.91
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL
2017
20
(20)
0.25
0.35
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2018
20
(18)
0.21
0.29
95% KM Adjusted Gamma UCL
2015
23
(V
-
-
-
Hexachlorobenzene (mg/kg)
2017
15
(0)
-
-
-
2018
18
(0)
-
-
-
Notes:
1. Although not collected as prey fish, remedial goals and target concentrations may be compared to contaminant concentrations in whole body sportfish (i.e., specifically Smallmouth
Bass, Walleye, Pumpkinseed, and Common Carp in the OLMMP) where fillet data are converted to whole body data using "conversion factors developed in the Onondaga Lake Baseline
Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) (i.e., 0.7 for mercury, 2.5 for PCBs, and 2.3 for DDTs and hexachlorobenzene) (TAMS 2002b)" (Parsons 2018). For these calculations, fish with lengths
180-600 mm and 30-180 mm are compared to goal and target concentrations for large and small prey fish, respectively.
2. Small fish defined as 30 - 180 mm. Large fish defined as 180 - 600 mm.
3. Mean and 95% UCL were calculated using ProLICL version 5.1 and were not calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects (USEPA,2015). 95% UCL is an estimate of the upper
bound for the true population mean. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical method was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method (i.e., one-half of the
detection/reporting limit).
Abbreviations:
— Insufficient data to calculate Mean or 95% UCL; 3 or fewer results were detects
DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl
KM: Kaplan-Meier ND: non-detect
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram UCL: upper confidence limit
mm: millimeter
OLMMP: Onondaga Lake Monitoring and Maintenance Plan
Reference:
Parsons, 2018. Onondaqa Lake Monitorina and Maintenance Plan . Prepared for Honeywell. June 2018.
USEPA, 2015. ProUCL Version 5.1 User Guide. EPA/600/R-07/041 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/proucl_5.1_user-guide.pdfAccessed May 22, 2020.
Page 3 of 3
September 2020
-------
Table 4a.
Summary of NYSDEC Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish Fillet Data (2015 - 2018)
Taxon
Chemical Name
Year
Sample Size
(detects)
Mean1
95mm UCL
Value'
95"UCL Calculation Type from ProUCL
2015
53
(53)
0.898
0.963
95% H-UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
55
(55)
0.809
0.868
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
50
(50)
0.852
0.936
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
50
(50)
0.915
0.989
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
53
(53)
0.873
1.033
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
55
(55)
0.481
0.579
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
2017
50
(50)
0.926
1.046
95% Student's-t UCL
Largemouth Bass
2018
50
(50)
0.844
0.962
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
53
(53)
0.023
0.028
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
Total DDTs (mg/kg)
2016
55
(55)
0.017
0.021
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
2017
50
(50)
0.032
0.038
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
50
(50)
0.032
0.037
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
53
(36)
0.009
0.010
95% GROS Approximate Gamma UCL
Hexachlorobenzene
2016
55
(8)
0.002
0.002
95% KM (t) UCL
(mg/kg)
2017
50
(0)
0.001 U
--
-
2018
50
(0)
0.001 U
--
-
2015
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
19
(19)
0.529
0.611
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
2018
20
(20)
0.376
0.452
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
20
(20)
0.119
0.187
95% H-UCL
2017
Yellow Perch
2018
20
(20)
0.228
0.279
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
Total DDTs (mg/kg)
2016
20
(20)
0.003
0.004
95% Modified-t UCL
2017
2018
20
(19)
0.007
0.009
95% KM (t) UCL
2015
Hexachlorobenzene
2016
20
(0)
0.001 U
--
-
(mg/kg)
2017
2018
20
(0)
0.001 U
--
-
Notes:
1. For calculation of the mean for data sets with non-detects (NDs), USEPA's ProUCL version 5.1 was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method (i.e.,
one-half of the reported concentration).
2. 95% UCL was calculated using USEPA's ProUCL version 5.1. 95% UCL is an estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean; 95% UCL was not calculated
when 3 or fewer results were detects. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical method was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method (i.e., one-half
of the reported concentration).
Abbreviations:
- Insufficient data to calculate 95% UCL; 3 or fewer results were detects
DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl
UCL: upper confidence limit
U: non detect
AECOM
9/16/2020
-------
Table 4b.
Summary of NYSDEC Fish Tissue Chemical Concentrations: Sport Fish Calculated Whole Body1 (2015 - 2018)
Taxon
Chemical Name
Year
Sample Size
(detects)
Mean'
95":. UCL
Value'
95":. UCL Calculation Type from ProUCL
2015
53
(53)
0.629
0.674
95% H-UCL
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
55
(55)
0.566
0.607
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
50
(50)
0.596
0.655
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
50
(50)
0.641
0.692
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
53
(53)
2.181
2.583
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
55
(55)
1.204
1.448
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
2017
50
(50)
2.315
2.616
95% Student's-t UCL
Whole Body (calculated)
2018
50
(50)
2.111
2.403
95% Student's-t UCL
Largemouth Bass
2015
53
(53)
0.053
0.064
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
Total DDTs (mg/kg)
2016
55
(55)
0.039
0.049
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
2017
50
(50)
0.073
0.085
95% Student's-t UCL
2018
50
(50)
0.073
0.082
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
53
(36)
0.016
0.018
95% GROS Approximate Gamma UCL
Hexachlorobenzene
2016
55
(8)
0.005
0.005
95% KM (t) UCL
(mg/kg)
2017
50
(0)
0.002 U
-
-
2018
50
(0)
0.002 U
-
-
2015
Mercury (mg/kg)
2016
18
(18)
0.384
0.440
95% Student's-t UCL
2017
2018
20
(20)
0.263
0.316
95% Student's-t UCL
2015
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2016
19
(19)
0.297
0.422
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
2017
Whole Body (calculated)
2018
20
(20)
0.570
0.697
95% Student's-t UCL
Yellow Perch
2015
Total DDTs (mg/kg)
2016
19
(19)
0.008
0.010
95% Modified-t UCL
2017
2018
20
(19)
0.015
0.018
95% KM (t) UCL
2015
Hexachlorobenzene
2016
19
(0)
0.002 U
-
»
(mg/kg)
2017
2018
20
(0)
0.002 U
-
--
Notes:
1. Although not collected as prey fish, remedial goals and target concentrations may be compared to contaminant concentrations in whole body sportfish (i.e.,
specifically Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch) where fillet data are converted to whole body concentrations using "conversion factors developed in the Onondaga
Lake Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) (i.e., 0.7 for mercury, 2.5 for PCBs, and 2.3 for DDTs and hexachlorobenzene) (TAMS 2002b)" (Parsons 2018).
For these calculations, fish with lengths 180-600 mm are compared to the goal and target concentrations for large prey fish.
2. For calculation of the mean for data sets with non-detects (NDs), USEPA's ProUCL version 5.1 was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method
(i.e., one-half of the reported concentration).
3. 95% UCL was calculated using USEPA's ProUCL version 5.1. 95% UCL is an estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean; 95% UCL was not
calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects. For data sets with NDs, the stated statistical method was used for handling NDs rather than the substitution method
(i.e., one-half of the reported concentration).
Abbreviations:
- Insufficient data to calculate 95% UCL; 3 or fewer results were detects
DDT: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
mg/kg: milligrams per kilogram
PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl
UCL: upper confidence limit
U: non detect
AECOM
9/16/2020
-------
Attachment 3 Figures
September 2020
-------
Box and Whisker Plot
Plot Notes:
• Maximum: maximum concentration
75th ~
Maximum
• 95%UCL: estimate of the upper bound for the true population mean; calculated using ProUCL Version
5.1; not calculated when 3 or fewer results were detects. For data sets with NDs, ProUCL selected the
Percentile
95UCL
statistical method. The substitution method (i.e., one-half of the MDL or RL) was not used.
• Mean: mean or average concentration; calculated by ProUCL using the same statistical method used
for 95%UCL unless 3 or fewer results were detects. In that case and for standard error plots, the
arithmetic mean was calculated with non-detects substituted at 1/2 MDL for mercury and 1/2 RL for
most organic analytes.
• Median: median or midpoint concentration
• Minimum: minimum concentration
• 25th and 75th Percentiles: concentrations below which 25% and 75% of concentrations are found
A
Mean
• 2SE: two times the standard error of the mean
• A Open symbol indicates 3 or fewer results were detects in box and whisker plots, and ND in
standard error plots.
• "ND" indicates all results were non-detects and no statistics are shown.
• "A" indicates mean value is above axis range in standard error plots; 2SE values above the axis range
Mpdian
are not annotated.
Analyte-Specitic Details:
25th ~
1 Vl C VI1 d 1 1
Percentile
• Total PCB is the sum of detected Aroclors.
L
Minimum
• For Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ, non-detects summed at 1/2 MDL, except for 2014 and 2015, which used
1/2 RDL; plots for 2018 data show non-detects at 0 and 1/2 MDL
• 2010 organic analyte data are excluded from temporal plots due to analytical issues.
• Dioxin/furans, DDT and metabolites, and hexachlorobenzene were not analyzed on an annual basis.
Mean and Standard Errors Plot
Mean + 2SE
Fish Details:
• Sport fish for comparison to human health criteria and targets
- Smallmouth Bass, Walleye, Pumpkinseed, and Common Carp
- Collection of Common Carp began in 2014
- NYSDEC standard fillets
• Small prey fish for comparison to ecological criteria and targets
1
i
Mean
Primarily Banded Killifish but Golden Shiner, Brook Silverside, Minnow, Bluntnose Minnow, and
f
Round Goby were collected if Banded Killifish are unavailable (Alewife excluded).
- Whole body composite samples
• Large prey fish for comparison to ecological criteria and targets
- White Sucker
- Collection began in 2014
Individual whole-body samples
Mean - 2SE
All ages and both sexes were combined.
In 2012, in-lake remediation began in late July; fish were sampled mid-June to early-July.
t )£, ANCHOR
QEA
Figure 1
Figure Nomenclature, Data Treatment, and Analyte-Specific Details
-------
Set 1:
Sport Fish Fillet Concentrations
for Human Health RGs and Targets
September 2020
-------
Honeywell Set 1 Data (2008-2018)
September 2020
-------
Smallmouth Bass: Fillet
£ 3H
O)
^ £
o 0 2
0 >
s?
O)
E 1
I
? I
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Walleye: Fillet
2014
2015
2016
2017
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Human Health Performance Criteria (0.2 to 0.3 mg/kg)
2014 2015 2016 2017
Nitrate addition began in 2011. IVVsl Dredging
2018
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 1, Figure 1
Mercury Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
SYR-SPARE2 - \\helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMM\Python\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_sportfish_whole_body_or_fillet.py 3/18/2020 9:18:58
-------
2008
1.0-
.9> 0.8-
o o 0.6 H
o £
^ CD
=* 0.4 H
CD
0.2 "
Common Carp: Fillet
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
2013
Year
Pumpkinseed: Fillet
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Human Health Performance Criteria (0.2 to 0.3 mg/kg)
T 1AT
T
2014 2015 2016 2017
Nitrate addition began in 2011. I\X\1 Dredging
2018
Z~ Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 1, Figure 2
Mercury Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
BO SWKST 3 - Wheli os\AQ\H one ywel l\0 n onda ga_L ake_0 LM M S_( E602 87 )\AN AL'YSI S\F ISH\2018_0 M M\Python\2 020_Fi nalt em po ra l_sportfi sh_whol e_body_or_fil I et_202 00402.py 9/10/20208:42:53
-------
15.0 -i
F 12.5 :
O)
^ 10.0:
o
£ 7.5
CD
o) 5.0 -
2.5 :
0.0
2008
Smallmouth Bass: Fillet
2009
2010
2011
2012 2013 2014
Year
Walleye: Fillet
2015
2016
2017
2018
-r
2008
I
-i—
2009
2010
2011
Human Health Target (0.04 to 0.3 mg/kg)
2014
2015
-r
2016
2017
2018
Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V*QEA££^
Set 1, Figure 3
Total PCB Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
BO SWKST 3 - Wheli os\AQ\H one ywel l\0 n onda ga_L ake_0 LM M S_( E602 87 )\AN AL'YSI S\F ISH\2018_0 M M\Python\2 020_Fi nalt em po ra l_sportfi sh_whol e_body_or_fil I et_202 00402.py 9/10/20208:42:59
-------
Common Carp: Fillet
Year
Pumpkinseed: Fillet
2008 2009 2010 2011
Human Health Target (0.04 to 0.3 mg/kg)
2012
2014
2015
2016 2017
rcvq Dredging
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 1, Figure 4
Total PCB Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
B O SWKST3 - Vheli os V\Q\H oneywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMM S_( E60 287 )\AN AL YSI S\F I SH\2 018_0 M M\Pytho n\2020_Fi nal\te mp oral_spo rtti sh_who le_bod y_or_fi II et_20 200402.py 9/10/20208:43:5
-------
Smallmouth Bass: Fillet
a 6:
LU —
i—
-C 5
To .S>
o © ,
1—^4
m ©
A3 > „
3 3
li CD
.E o) 2
x c
o ^
b 1
2008
a
LU
10-
8 -
o
s ©
ro >
P CD
.E D)
x c
o
b
A
1
I
_A
4r
2009 2010 2011
2012 2013
Year
Walleye: Fillet
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
T
T
-A-
T
2008 2009 2010 2011
Human Health Target (1.3 to 4.0 ng/kg)
2012
2013
Year
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 1, Figure 5
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
SYR-SCOL -\\HeliosV\Q\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMM\Python\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_sportfish_whole_body_or_fillet.py 2/20/2020 15:21:8
-------
a
LU
^^
I—
-t—'
_c
20-
aj
CD
o
I—
c
a)
£
0
15-
CC
£
=3
LL
CD
10-
C
O)
'x
c
2008
O
LU .
1.50
1.25
3 -if 1.00-
|2S
| | 0-75
P CD
> =* 0.50
CD
X 3
Q 0-25
0.00
1
Common Carp: Fillet
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
2013
Year
Pumpkinseed: Fillet
2015
2016
2017
X
2008 2009 2010 2011
Human Health Target (1.3 to 4.0 ng/kg)
2012
2013
Year
2014
2015
2016 2017
rcvq Dredging
2018
I
2018
Z~ Capping
* SS, ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 1, Figure 6
Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
BO SWKST 3 - Wheli os\AQ\H one ywel l\0 n onda ga_L ake_0 LM M S_( E602 87 )\AN AL'YSI S\F ISH\2018_0 M M\Python\2 020_Fi nalt em po ra l_sportfi sh_whol e_body_or_fil I et_202 00402.py 9/10/20208:43:28
-------
Smallmouth Bass: Fillet
0.00
0.06 :
CD
c
0
N
C
0
_Q
O
0.05 :
0.04 :
"F ™ 0.03 :
o
g> 0.02
0.01 :
CC
x
o
x
0.00
2008
2009
2010 2011
2012 2013
Year
Walleye: Fillet
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
©
2008 2009
No Target
2010 2011
2012 2013 2014
Year
2015
2016 2017
rcvq Dredging
2018
Z~ Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 1, Figure 7
Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
BO SWKST 3 - Wheli os\AQ\H one ywel l\0 n onda ga_L ake_0 LM M S_( E602 87 )\AN AL'YSI S\F ISH\2018_0 M M\Python\2 020_Fi nalt em po ra l_sportfi sh_whol e_body_or_fil I et_202 00402.py 9/10/20208:43:1
-------
0.30-
0
c
0
CD
N .<=>
C 0
0 >
-Q _
O S
O £
X O)
0.25-i
0.20 :
0.15 -
0.10-
0.05-
0.00
0
c "c
n o) 0.006
c 0
0.004 -
0.000
2008
0.008 - T
Common Carp: Fillet
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
2013
Year
Pumpkinseed: Fillet
2015
2016
2017
2008 2009
No Target
2010
2011
2012
2014
2015
2016 2017
rcvq Dredging
2018
* ANCHOR
V* QEAZZZ?
Set 1, Figure 8
Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
BO SWKST 3 - Wheli os\AQ\H one ywel l\0 n onda ga_L ake_0 LM M S_( E602 87 )\AN AL'YSI S\F ISH\2018_0 M M\Python\2 020_Fi nalt em po ra l_sportfi sh_whol e_body_or_fil I et_202 00402.py 9/10/20208:43:16
-------
NYSDEC Set 1 Data (2008-2018)
September 2020
-------
Set 1, DEC Figure 1
NYSDEC Mercury Data - Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch
3.5
3.0
2.5
Mercury - Largemouth Bass (Fillet)
2 2.0
"SB
E
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
— 95% UCL EPA Water Quality Criterion (0.3 mg/kg) Human Health Goal (0.2 mg/kg)
Mercury - Yellow Perch (Fillet)
1.8
1.6
1.4
? 1.2
3
w
< 1.0
no
E.
£¦ 0.8
-------
Set 1, DEC Figure 2
NYSDEC Total PCBs Data - Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch
Total PCBs - Largemouth Bass (Fillet)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
- 95% UCL
Human Health Target, 10-4 cancer risk (0.3 mg/kg)
Human Health Target, RME non-carcinogenic target (0.04 mg/kg)
Total PCBs - Yellow Perch (Fillet)
--
T
¦¦
i
r
J j
E!
p
~ '
1
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
- 95% UCL
Human Health Target, 10-4 cancer risk (0.3 mg/kg)
Human Health Target, RME non-carcinogenic target (0.04 mg/kg)
AECOM
9/16/2020
-------
Set 1, DEC Figure 3
NYSDEC DDTs Data - Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch
DDTs - Largemouth Bass (Fillet)
s 0.16
CUO
0.14
| 0.12 -j
0
is 0.10
CD
1 0.08
(0
Q 0.06
Q
M—
g 0.04
o
to
0.02
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
-95% UCL
0.045
DDTs - Yellow Perch (Fillet)
0.040
0.035
a
1 0.025
-------
Set 1, DEC Figure 4
NYSDEC Hexachlorobenzene Data - Largemouth Bass and Yellow Perch
0.0900
§ 0.0300
x
I 0.0200
0.0100
).0000
Hexachlorobenzene - Largemouth Bass (Fillet)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
- 95% UCL
2015
2016
2017
2018
Hexachlorobenzene - Yellow Perch (Fillet)
0.007
0.006
?
? 0.005
no
c
Ja 0.003
o
i-
_2
-C
ra 0.002
-------
Set 2:
Small (30 to 180 mmJ Prey Fish Whole-Body
Concentrations for Ecological
Remedial Goal and Targets
September 2020
-------
Honeywell Set 2 Data (2008-2018)
September 2020
-------
1.0 H
Small Prey Fish
2009
2018
Ecological Performance Criterion (0.14 mg/kg)
Nitrate addition began in 2011. IVVsl Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 2, Figure 1
Mercury Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCOL -\\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMM\Python\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_preyfish_bysmus_mercury_organics_VWV.py 2/20/2020 14:6:21
-------
Pumpkinseed: Whole Body (30-180 mm)
Year
Ecological Performance Criterion (0.14 mg/kg) Nitrate addition began in 2011. iwn Dredging i i Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
Small Prey Fish
2.0-
1-5-
O)
m a)
o £
o
S *
O CD
I" =£
o) 1.0 -
0.5-
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Ecological Target (0.19 mg/kg)
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 2, Figure 3
Total PCB Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
B0SWKST3 - Whelios\AQ\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_0LMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMMFython\2020_Final\temporal_preylish_bysmus_mercury_organics_WW.py 9/11/2020 15:34:39
-------
Pumpkinseed: Whole Body (30-180 mm)
O)
CQ CD
O £
CL
0
CC
O
2.0-
1.5-
o) 1.0
O)
— 0.5 H
0.0
2011
~ .jAj.
2008
2009
2010
2012
2013
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Ecological Target (0.19 mg/kg)
rcvq Dredging
Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
0.16
Small Prey Fish
2008 2009 2010 2011
Ecological Target (0.049 mg/kg)
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 2, Figure 5
DDT Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
BOSWKST3 - Whelios\AQ\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_0LMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMMFython\2020_Final\temporal_preylish_bysmus_mercury_organics_WW.py 9/11/2020 15:34:47
-------
Small Prey Fish
0.20-
0.15-
CD
c r
N .9>
C 0
0 3;
_Q ^
2 ©
o £
4= CD
O v
SB, 0.10
0.05-
0.00
2008 2009
2010
2011
2012
ND
m
2015
2016
2017
2018
No Target
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* SS, ANCHOR
V*QEA££^
Set 2, Figure 6
Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
BOSWKST3 - Whelios\AQ\Honeywel l\0 non daga_Lake_0LMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMMFython\2020_Final\temporal_preylish_bysmus_mercury_organics_WW.py 9/11/2020 15:34:43
-------
0.008 -
CD .
c £
n - 0 006
c
0
J3
O
CD
0
o ^ 0.004-
-h
CC
X
0
X
CD
E
0.002 -
0.000
Pumpkinseed: Whole Body (30-180 mm)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
No Target
rcvq Dredging
Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
Large (180 to 600 mmJ Prey Fish Whole-Body
Concentrations for Ecological
Remedial Goal and Targets
September 2020
-------
Honeywell Set 3 Data (2008-2018)
September 2020
-------
Large Prey Fish
2009
Ecological Performance Criterion (0.14 mg/kg)
Nitrate addition began in 2011. IVVsl Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 3, Figure 1
Mercury Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCOL -\\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMM\Python\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_preyfish_bysmus_mercury_organics_VWV.py 2/20/2020 14:6:24
-------
2008
Smallmouth Bass: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 2014
Year
Walleye: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
2015
2016
2017
2008 2009
2015
2016
2017
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Ecological Performance Criterion (0.14 mg/kg) Nitrate addition began in 2011. iwn Dredging
2018
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 3, Figure 2
Calculated Whole Body Mercury Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
SYR-SPARE2 - \\helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMM\Python\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_sportfish_whole_body_or_fillet.py 3/18/2020 9:18:23
-------
Common Carp: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
0.30
F 0.25
O)
CD
0.20
13
O 0
© £ 0.15
a> 0.10
" 0.05
0.00
2008
T
I
2009 2010
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
Pumpkinseed: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
T
2016 2017 2018
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Ecological Performance Criterion (0.14 mg/kg) Nitrate addition began in 2011. iwn Dredging i i Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
Large Prey Fish
2008 2009 2010 2011
2012
2014 2015 2016 2017
2018
Ecological Target (0.19 mg/kg)
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 3, Figure 4
Total PCB Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCOL- \\Helios\AQ\D_DriveProjects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMMPython\Feb_2020_CommentsM:emporal_preylish_bysmus_mercury_organics_WW.py 2/20/2020 16:50:38
-------
Smallmouth Bass: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
15.0:
F 12.5 :
O)
CQ CD „ „ „ :
O £ 100:
Q_
_ CD
3 * 7.5:
O CD
I— =*
cd 5.0 -
E,
2.5 :
0.0"
I
I
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 2014
Year
Walleye: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
2015
2016
2017
2018
Ecological Target (0.19 mg/kg)
2016 2017
rcvq Dredging
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 3, Figure 5
Calculated Whole Body Total PCB Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
BOS-DBAK -\\HELIOS\aq\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMM\Python\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_sportfish_whole_body_or_fillet.py 3/4/2020 10:42:1
-------
Common Carp: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
2018
0.8
-c 0.6-
O)
m a)
O £
Q_
3 %
O CD
H =*
CD
E 0.2 H
Pumpkinseed: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
o.o
|a|
111.
--
1
2008 2009 2010 2011
Ecological Target (0.19 mg/kg)
2012 2013 2014
Year
2015 2016 2017 2018
rcvq Dredging i i Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
Large Prey Fish
2009
No Target
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 3, Figure 7
Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
BOSWKST3 - Whelios\AQ\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_0LMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMMFython\2020_Final\temporal_preylish_bysmus_mercury_organics_WW.py 9/11/2020 15:34:59
-------
0.00
0.150 -
CD .
c r
N .2>
C 0
0 3;
_Q
° ©
o £
4= CD
0.125 :
0.100-
0.075 -
5 "o) 0.050
X —
0.025
0.000
2008
Smallmouth Bass: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 2014
Year
Walleye: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
2015
2016
2017
2018
©
2008 2009
No Target
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
2015 2016 2017 2018
rcvq Dredging i i Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
0.4-
cd 0.6 -
c £
N .S>
C 0
0 >
-Q _
O S
O £
| I0'2
0.0
-h 05
x ~B)
8 E, 0.005
Common Carp: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
_^^E_
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Pumpkinseed: Whole Body (180-600 mm)
2008 2009
No Target
2010
2011
2012
2014 2015 2016 2017
rcvq Dredging
. SS, ANCHOR
\
-------
0.16
Large Prey Fish
A0.407
0.14-
0.12 -
0.10-
w
CD
"o
-Q 'a)
s £
^ I 0.08 -
E a>
to ^
H
Q E, 0.06
Q
0.04-
0.02 -
0.00
2008 2009 2010 2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Ecological Target (0.14 mg/kg)
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
\LrQEAZZZZ
Set 3, Figure 10
DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
"A" indicates result value above axis range.
Preliminary Draft.
SYR-SCOL -\\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMM\Python\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_preyfish_bysmu£
yLorganics_VWV.py 2/20/2020 14:6:25
-------
NYSDEC Set 3 Data (2008-2018)
September 2020
-------
Set 3, DEC Figure 1
Large Prey Fish Calculated Concentrations - Largemouth Bass
Mercury and Total PCBs
2.5
Figure la: Calculated Mercury (Whole Body) in Large Fish
(180-600 mm) Largemouth Bass
2.0 --
1.5 --
1.0
0.5 --
I
0.0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
- 95% UCL Goal, Prey Fish (0.14 mg
16
Figure lb: Calculated Total PCBs (Whole Body) in Large Fish
(180-600 mm) Largemouth Bass
14
12
10
~ 8
ro 6
+¦>
O
2 --
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
— 95% UCL Target, Prey Fish (0.19 mg/kg)
AECOM
9/16/2020
-------
Set 3, DEC Figure 2
Large Prey Fish Calculated Concentrations - Largemouth Bass
DDTs and Hexachlorobenzene
Figure 2a: Calculated DDTs (Whole Body) in Large Fish
(180-600 mm) Largemouth Bass
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
— 95% UCL Target, Large Prey Fish (0.14 mg/kg)
Figure 2b: Calculated Hexachlorobenzene (Whole Body) in Large Fish
(180-600 mm) Largemouth Bass
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
- 95% UCL
AECOM
9/16/2020
-------
Set 3, DEC Figure 3
Large Prey Fish Calculated Concentrations - Yellow Perch
Mercury and Total PCBs
Figure 3a: Calculated Mercury (Whole Body) in Large Fish
(180-600 mm) Yellow Perch
<
: 1
J
-<
~
r 1
' :
' 1
|
>-
P
3
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
— 95% UCL Goal, Prey Fish (0.14 mg/kg)
Figure 3b: Calculated Total PCBs (Whole Body) in Large Fish
(180-600 mm) Yellow Perch
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
— 95% UCL Target, Prey Fish (0.19 mg/kg)
AECOM
9/16/2020
-------
Set 3, DEC Figure 4
Large Prey Fish Calculated Concentrations - Yellow Perch
DDTs and Hexachlorobenzene
0.16
Figure 4a: Calculated Total DDTs (Whole Body) in Large Fish
(180-600 mm) Yellow Perch
0.14
1 0.12 --
0.10
0.08
£ 0.06 +
l-
o
o
^ 0.04 +
0.02
0.00
i
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
— 95% UCL Target, Large Prey Fish (0.14 mg
0.016
Figure 4b: Calculated Hexachlorobenzene (Whole Body) in Large Fish
(180-600 mm) Yellow Perch
0.014
| 0.012
w 0.010
£ 0.008
0.006 --
a o.oo4
x
0.002
0.000
ND
~
ND
~
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
AECOM
9/16/2020
-------
Set 4:
Additional Reporting to Assess
Potential Impacts of Remediation
September 2020
-------
Honeywell Set 4 Data (2008-2018)
September 2020
-------
Sport Fish
0.005 -
0.000
2008 2009 2010
^ Smallmouth Bass 9 Walleye
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Year
^ Common Carp A Pumpkinseed
Nitrate addition began in 2011. IVVsl Dredging
2018
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 1
Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Sport Fish
SYR-SCOL - \\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Hon eywe ll\0 nond aga_Lake_0 LM M S_(E60 287 )\AN AL YSI S\F I SH\2 018_0 M M\Pytho n\Feb_2020_Com m entsfem poral J en gthjwm al ized_H g. py 2/20/202016:8:22
-------
Prey Fish
0.005 -
0.004 -
o ^ 0.003
^ O)
0.002 -
0.001 -
0.000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
^ Large Prey Fish A Small Prey Fish
Nitrate addition began in 2011. Dredging I I Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 2
Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCOL - \\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Hon eywe ll\0 nond aga_Lake_0 LM M S_(E60 287 )\AN AL YSI S\F I SH\2 018_0 M M\Pytho n\Feb_2020_Com m entsfem poral J en gthjwm al ized_H g. py 2/20/202016:8:22
-------
LU
^ St 300
_ CD
jo g5 200
2008
2008
Smallmouth Bass
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Walleye
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014 2015 2016 2017
rcvq Dredging
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 3
Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
SYR-SCOL - \\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\0nondaga_Lake_0LMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_0MM\Python\Feb_2020_Comm entsM:em po ral_s portfi sh_org ani cs_Li pi dN orm .p y 2/20/2020 14:14:58
-------
2008
Common Carp
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Pumpkinseed
2014
2015
2016
2017
2009
2010 2011
2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
2018
2016 2017 2018
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 4
Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
SYR-SCOL - \\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\0nondaga_Lake_0LMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FI SH\2018_0 M M\Pyth on\Feb_2020_Comm entsM:em po ral_s portfi sh_org ani cs_Li pi dN orm .p y 2/20/2020 14:14:58
-------
Small Prey Fish
2009
2018
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 5
Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyti shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:29
-------
100
Large Prey Fish
GQ "3
O .Or
CL —
_ CD
CC
O CD
H E
2009
2018
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 6
Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyti shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:28
-------
800
O
LD
600-
CC ^
?!
£ cd 400
CO \s
P 05
LL
S 200
o
800
1
2008
2008
Smallmouth Bass
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Walleye
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2009
2010 2011
2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
2016 2017 2018
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 7
Lipid-Normalized Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
SYR-SCOL -\\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSISFISH\2018_OMMPython\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_sportfish_organics_LipidNorm.py 2/20/2020 14:15:0
-------
400
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Pumpkinseed
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 8
Lipid-Normalized Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Common Carp and Pumpkinseed
SYR-SCOL -\\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMMPython\Feb_2020_Comments\temporal_sporttish_organics_LipidNonn.py 2/20/2020 14:15:0
-------
Small Prey Fish
2008 2009
2018
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 9
Lipid-Normalized DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Small Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyti shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:29
-------
3.0
Large Prey Fish
2.5-
w
o
2.0-
o
_Q "D
j3 CL
0 —
^ O) 1.5
c ro
cc E
I—
Q
° 1.0-1
0.5-
i
I
I
0.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Dredging
Capping
f /.ANCHOR
\UQEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 10
Lipid-Normalized DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCOL - \\Helios\AQ\D_Drive\ProjectsMHoneywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287)\ANALYSIS\FISH\2018_OMM\Python\Feb_2020_Commentsterrbar_preyfish_lipid_ww_bySMU_allSMU py 2/20/2020 14 27 28
-------
2008
. ^ ANCHOR
SCrQEAi^
Smallmouth Bass
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Walleye
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
iwn Dredging i i Capping
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 11
Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Smallmouth Bass and Walleye
BO S WKST3 - Whe li os V\Q\H one ywel l\0 n onda ga_L ake_0 LM M SJ E602 87 )V\N AL YSI S\F IS H\2 018_0 MM\Pytho n\2 020_Fi nalM em p ora Lsportti sh_organ ics_Li pi dN o nn. py 9/10/20208:38:6
-------
0.0
2008
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Pumpkinseed
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014 2015 2016 2017
rcvq Dredging
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
1.0
Small Prey Fish
0.8-
0.6-
"D
Q.
CD
O)
E
0.4-
0.2 -
0.0
\\\\\\\\\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
Ovvvvvvv\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
Ovvvvvvv\\
\
s/VVVVVVV\\
\
s/VVVVVVV\\
\
\\\\\\\\\\
\
J
Ovvvvvvv\\
\
s/VVVVVVV\\
\
s/VVVVVVV\\
\
s/VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
\VVVVVVV\\
\
T
\VVVVVVV\\
\ T
\ 1
t
vooo^ooX
t
1
T
\ J-
ND
\
s.WWWW\
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
2014
2015 2016 2017 2018
rcvq Dredging
Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
Large Prey Fish
2009
2018
rcvq Dredging
Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 1, Figure 14
Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Large Prey Fish (All SMUs)
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyti shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:29
-------
Small Prey Fish
0.012 -
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
~ SMU 1 ~ SMU 2 ~ SMU 3 ~ SMU4 ~ SMU5 ~ SMU6 A SMU7
Nitrate addition began in 2011. Dredging I I Capping
* ANCHOR
V*QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 1
Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Small Prey Fish By SMU
S YR-SCO L - \\H el io s\AQ\D_Dri ve\Proj ects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287 )\AN AL YSI S\F I SH\2 018_0 M M\Pytho n\Feb_2020_Com m ents\tem poral_prey fi sh_bys m us J en gth_no mi al ized_H g. py 2/20/2020 16:8:58
-------
Pumpkinseed
0.0035 -
0.0000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
~ SMU 1 ~ SMU 2 ~ SMU 3 ~ SMU4 ~ SMU5 ~ SMU6 A SMU7
Nitrate addition began in 2011. Dredging I I Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 2
Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Small Pumpkinseed By SMU
S YR-SCO L - \\H el io s\AQ\D_Dri ve\Proj ects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287 )\AN AL YSI S\F I SH\2 018_0 M M\Pytho n\Feb_2020_Com m ents\tem poral_prey ti sh_bys m us J en gth_no rm al ized_H g. py 2/20/2020 16:8:59
-------
Large Prey Fish
Year
+ SMU 1 ^SMU2 ^SMU3 ^ SMU 4 ~ SMU 5 4 SMU 6 ~ SMU 7
Nitrate addition began in 2011. Dredging I I Capping
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 3
Length-Normalized Mercury Concentrations in Large Prey Fish By SMU
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
S YR-SCO L - \\H el io s\AQ\D_Dri ve\Proj ects\Honeywell\Onondaga_Lake_OLMMS_(E60287 )\AN AL YSI S\F I SH\2 018_0 M M\Pytho n\Feb_2020_Com m ents\tem poral_prey fi sh_bys m us J en gth_no rm al ized_H g. py 2/20/2020 16:8:59
-------
' 101.52
60
Small Prey Fish
50-
40-
CQ "3
O .9-
^t30
o CD
H E
20-
10-
i
\
I
-1 fr H U
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
A SMU 1 A SMU2 A SMU3 A SMU4 A SMU5 A SMU6 A SMU7
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V*QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 4
Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Small Prey Fish By SMU
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyti shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:38
-------
120
Pumpkinseed
2008
2010
2012 2014
Year
• SMU 1 • SMU 2 • SMU 3 • SMU4 • SMU5 • SMU6 • SMU7
2016
2018
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 5
Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Pumpkinseed By SMU
BO S-DBAK - VH EL IO S\aq\Proj ects\H on eywe ll\0 nond aga_Lake_0 LMMSJE60287 )\AN AL YSI S\F I SH\2 018_0 M M\Pytho n\Feb_2020_Com m entstem poral_e rrbar_pum p ki nse ed_b ysm us J ip id_norm_opti on .py 3/18/2020 19:0:8
-------
100
Large Prey Fish
80-
60-
GQ "3
O .Or
CL —
_ CD
CC
O CD
H E
40-
20-
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
+ SMU 1 ~ SMU 2 ~ SMU 3 ~ SMU 4 ~ SMU 5 ~ SMU 6 ~ SMU 7
iwn Dredging i i Capping
. ^ANCHOR
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 6
Lipid-Normalized Total PCB Concentrations in Large Prey Fish By SMU
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyli shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:37
-------
250-
200-
O
LU
CC -r
= 150 H
CD
,=3 O)
LL C
c
x
100-
Pumpkinseed
2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
• SMU 1 • SMU 2 • SMU 3 • SMU4 • SMU5 • SMU6 • SMU7
2016
2018
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 7
Lipid-Normalized Dioxin/Furan Total TEQ Concentrations in Pumpkinseed By SMU
BO S-DBAK - \\H EL 10 S\aq\Proj ects\H one ywel l\0 n onda ga_L ake_0 LM M S_( E602 87 )\AN AL'YSI S\F ISH \2018_0 M M\Python\F eb_2 020_Com m ents\tem poral_errb ar_pum pkin see d_by sm us Ji pi d_norm_opti on. py 3/18/2020 19:0:21
-------
Small Prey Fish
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
A SMU 1 A SMU2 A SMU3 A SMU4 A SMU5 A SMU6 A SMU7
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 8
Lipid-Normalized DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Small Prey Fish By SMU
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyti shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:39
-------
3.0
Large Prey Fish
' 14.66
2.5-
w
o
2.0-
o .
-Q "3
j3 cl
o —
^ 1.5
c
cc E
I—
Q
° 1.0 H
0.5-
0.0
I
F
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
+ SMU 1 ~ SMU 2 ~ SMU 3 ~ SMU 4 ~ SMU 5 ~ SMU 6 ~ SMU 7
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V*QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 9
Lipid-Normalized DDT and Metabolites Concentrations in Large Prey Fish By SMU
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyli shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:37
-------
71
6-
5-
CD
c
0
c "O 4
0 Q_
-Q —
2 O)
o ^
_C CD
O C O
CC S- 3
X
CD
X
2 -
1 -
Pumpkinseed
I
i
ND
ND
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
• SMU 1 • SMU 2 • SMU 3 • SMU4 • SMU5 • SMU6 • SMU7
iwn Dredging i i Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
Small Prey Fish
4-
3-
CD
c
0
N ^
C T3
0 Q_
_Q —
2 o)
o ^
_C CD
° E
CC S- n
x 2
o
X
1 -
2008
i
ND
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 2014
Year
A SMU 1 A SMU2 A SMU3 A SMU4 A SMU5 A SMU6 A SMU7
2015
2016
2017
2018
rcvq Dredging
Capping
. ^ ANCHOR
\
-------
0.8
Large Prey Fish
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
CD
c
CD
n ^
C T3
0 Q_
f^O.4
o
CC
X
0
X
CD
0.3-
0.2 -
0.1 -
0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
+ SMU 1 ~ SMU 2 ~ SMU 3 ~ SMU 4 ~ SMU 5 ~ SMU 6 ~ SMU 7
iwn Dredging i i Capping
* ANCHOR
V* QEA££^
Set 4, Subset 2, Figure 12
Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Concentrations in Large Prey Fish By SMU
SYR-SCO L -WHeli os\AQ\D_Driv e\Projects\H o neywel l\0 non daga_La ke_0 L M MSJE6 028 7 )\ANAL YS IS\F I SH\2018_0 M MP ython\Feb_202 0_Co mm e nts\e rrbar_preyli shJ ipi d_ww_bySM U_al ISM U .p y 2/20/2020 14:27:38
-------
NYSDEC Set 4 Data (2008-2018)
September 2020
-------
Set 4, Subset 1, DEC Figure 1
NYSDEC Length-Normalized Mercury Data
0.007
0.006
0.005
E
E
0.004
WJ
E.
I" 0.003
u
1_
(U
s
0.002
0.001
0.000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
~ LMB CP AYP WP •CHC
9/16/2020
Mercury - All Sport Fish Species (Fillet)
Length Normalized
-------
Set 4, Subset 1, DEC Figure 2
NYSDEC Lipid-Normalized Total PCBs and DDTs Data
Figure 2a: Total PCBs - All Sport Fish Species (Fillet)
Lipid Normalized
100 -r
90
80
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
~ LMB CP AYP BWP •CHC
4.0
Figure 2b: DDTs - All Sport Fish Species (Fillet)
Lipid Normalized
_ 3.5
;p
[a.
£ 3.0
"So
E
™ 2.0
£ 1-5 J-
Q
O
M—
o
E
1.0
0.5
0.0
1
5
w
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
~ LMB X CP AYP WP #CHC
2016
2017
2018
AECOM
9/16/2020
-------
Set 4, Subset 1, DEC Figure 3
NYSDEC Lipid-Normalized Hexachlorobenzene Data
2.0
Hexachlorobenzene - All Sport Fish Species (Fillet)
Lipid Normalized
1.8
_ 1.6
"o.
- 14
$1A
"So
E 1.2
a i.o
-------
Onondaga Lake Second Five Year Review
Attachment 4
Site Photographs
-------
Harbor Brook
-------
-------
Mouth of Ninemile Creek (East Spit and Wild Rice)
-------
Mouth of Ninemile Creek (West Spit and Water Lily)
-------
Wastebed B Outboard Area (Protective Berms)
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Sediment Consolidation Area
------- |