Research on the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material

CFIRE 2013 – Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials Summit, St Louis, MO

Richard A. Price Environmental Laboratory

[email protected]


Dredging is not new. Historically, disposal of dredged material occurred where needed or where convenient. Many ports and other shoreline development were built on dredged material.


•  National Environmental Policy Act – 1969

•  Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972)

•  Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 amended and renamed the Clean Water Act, 1977


•  Constructed to contain contaminated dredged material

•  Not intended to be a long-term solution

•  Provided a solution until effects of CWA and environmental impacts research matured


•  Toxic sludge? •  Toxic waste? •  Spoil? •  Solid waste? •  Displaced soil & sediment


•  Excess watershed erosion increases dredging volume/frequency

•  Excess nutrients impair water quality

•  Contaminants impair sediment quality

•  Impairments increase dredging costs

•  Population density can affect disposal cost   Dredging in NY – $32.34/yd   Dredging in MVN - $2.16/yd


•  40+ years of research and development for evaluating engineering alternatives and environmental impacts of dredging and DM Mgt

•  Dredged Material Research Program: 1973-1978.   No single disposal alternative is most suited for a region or a type of project.   Long-range regional planning is required for effective disposal of dredged material.

•  Dredging Research Program: 1978 – 1994   Development of equipment, instrumentation, software, and operational monitoring and

management procedures to significantly enhance the Corps' dredging activities

•  USACE/USEPA Field Verification Program : 1983-1989   Techniques for predicting effluent and surface water quality, toxicity and

bioaccumulation in plants, and aquatic toxicity, bioaccumulation and growth have good utility for predisposal evaluations.

  Effects of disposal predicted in the laboratory and observed in the field were less persistent in aquatic < wetland < upland disposal.

•  Long-Term effects of Dredging Operations: 1985 - 2002   Provide proven technologies for identifying, quantifying, and managing contaminated

sediments in support of cost-effective, environmentally responsible navigation. •  Dredging Operations and Environment Research Program: 1998-

Present   Operations Tech, DM Mgt, Risk, Env Resource Protection


Freshwater amphipod


Contaminant pathways   Soil

–  Direct contact, ingestion   Surface Water

–  Water quality criteria (water column, effluent, surface runoff)   Ground Water

–  Drinking water standards   Plant

–  Wetland and upland toxicity and bioaccumulation   Animal

–  Water column toxicity / Benthic bioaccumulation –  Soil invertebrate toxicity and bioaccumulation

  Air –  Volatile emissions –  Dust

Contaminants - Define the Risk


•  Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal (Ocean Testing Manual)

•  Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972)

•  Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual)

• Section 404/401 Clean Water Act (1977)

•  Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal at Island, Nearshore, or Upland Confined Disposal Facilities – Testing Manual (Upland Testing Manual)

•  Section 404/401 Clean Water Act (1977) •  NEPA

•  State regulatory authority under Title 40 – Solid Waste.


•  Tier I – Existing info, material determined inert •  Tier II – Compare DM chemistry to screening level

  Pass: no further contaminant evaluation   Fail: Further evaluation

•  Tier III - Physical and biological tests for bioavailability   Biological exposure for bioavailability or site specific use

•  Tier IV - Risk assessment


13

  Chemical screening values can be under-predictive or over-predictive of actual toxicity to ecological receptors

  Soil quality screening values are problematic for evaluating dredged sediment

  Preference for direct measurements of toxicity and contaminant bioaccumulation

- Aquatic amphipods (H. azteca) - Fathead Minnow (P. promelas) - Aquatic midges (C. dilutus) - Water flea (C. dubia) - Aquatic worms (L. variegatus) - Terrestrial worms (E. fetida) - Terrestrial plants (C. esculentus) - Aquatic plants (S. alterniflora)

  Bioassay tests both whole sediment and elutriate samples


•  "WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately." - FDA Mandated Warning on Fluoride Toothpaste Labels

•  Benzo(a)pyrene in foods   0.2 – 60 ug kg-1 in fruits and vegetables   0.1-212 ug kg-1 in grilled/smoked meats

–  J.C. Larsen (http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v28je18.htm)

•  Arsenic in foods   390 ug kg-1 in chicken – Lasky (2004)   0.5 – 2 mg kg-1 inorganic As (FDA Standard for animal products treated with

veterinary medicines)

Products from Dredged Material – evaluate the risks of toxic ingredients and establish necessary use limitations


•  Sediment Quality – Exposure = Acceptable Risk   Keep sediment in the aquatic system

–  Suitable for aquatic placement – aquatic habitat, beach/littoral nourishment

•  Soil Quality – Exposure = Acceptable Risk   Return to upland environments for productive use

–  Suitable for unconfined upland placement – habitat, green space, landscaping, crop production, restoration

•  Fill Quality – Exposure = Unacceptable Risk   Industrial fill, cover

–  Suitable for regulated or restricted use

•  Impaired – Unacceptable Risk without Treatment   Requires treatment/management

–  Treatment to render suitable or confined disposal

Green Revolution 2.0: Food + Energy and Environmental Security

•  Washing to reclaim sandy fraction for construction fill

•  Reuse of fine fraction for topsoil


•  Fine grained dredged material is generally productive with little need for soil amendments


•  Cellulose   Yard wastes, paper wastes

•  Biosolids   Sewage sludge, animal wastes

•  Industrial by-products   Red mud, fly ash


Demonstrated Beneficial Uses


Habitat Creation •  Beach and Littoral •  Wetland and Fisheries •  Island/Upland Habitat


•  Industrial Fill •  Recreation •  Agriculture/Forestry

CO2 Credits

NY Harbor Dredged Material, Bark Camp


Frank O’Connor, Buffalo CE

75 M

Frank O’Conner, CELRB


•  Erie Pier CDF near capacity

•  Permitted by MPCA – unrestricted upland

•  WIDNR (case specific •  Monitoring for Purple

Loosestrife


•  Numerous CDFs along many waterways that are managed by the USACE

•  Not always readily advertised what is available and suitable beneficial use options

•  Sometimes you just have to ask your local USACE office for information

•  Testing may be necessary


Numerous CDFs – mostly sand and gravel


Maumee River Watershed produces 800,000 yd3/yr Fine-grained topsoil


DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT STATUS

Lake Superior

Lake

Mic

higa

n

Lake Ontario

IN

CANADA

CANADA

CANADA

WISCONSIN

OHIO INDIANA ILLINIOS

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA Grand Marias

Two Harbors

Duluth Superior

Ashland Ontonagon

Keweenaw Waterway

Presque Isle

Marquette Grand Marias St. Marys River

Channel in Straits of Mackinac

Grays Reef Little Bay

de Noc

Menominee

Green Bay Kewaunee

Port Washington

Milwaukee

Kenosha

Manitowoc

Sheboygan

Waukegan

Chicago River & Harbor

Calumet

St. Joseph Harbor

Holland

Grand Haven

Muskegon Harbor

Ludington

Manistee

Frankfort

Charlevoix

Cheboygan

Alpena

Saginaw Harbor Beach

Monroe

Channels in Lake St.

Clair

St. Clair River

Detroit River

Rouge River

Toledo

800K

100K – 250K

50K – 95K

<50K

ANNUAL DREDGING REQUIREMENT (CY)

Critical – Dredged Material Management issues could severely restrict channel availability within 5 years

Pressing – Dredged Material Management issues could severely restrict channel availability within 10 years.

No pressing issues within next 10 years; continue to work on long range planning such as DMMPs.

3.5M yd3 / yr


•  Dredged material is a sustainable source of soil materials

•  Over 40 years of research in developing risk-based guidance

•  No beneficial uses:   Reduced dredging

•  No Dredging:   Loss of water navigation,

increased impact to road surfaces


•  Suitability determined by:   Regulatory compliance   Environmental benefit

•  Action determined by:   $$

•  40% could be defined as a beneficial use in 2008

Disposal Type Cubic yds % of Total

Beach Nourishment

4,833,125 3.3

Confined 12,565,711 8.6

Underwater Confined

2,926,000 2.0

Mixed Types 5,186,694 3.5

Overboard & Open Water

50,050,381 34.2

Open & Upland 3,435,000 2.3

Beach & Upland 929,000 0.6

Upland 3,897,019 2.7

Wetland Nourishment

49,075,000 33.5

Undefined 13,385,700 9.2


•  Upland Beneficial Uses   State regulatory authority

under Title 40 for management of solid waste

  Guidance varies between states up to 7 orders of magnitude

  Cadmium varies by 3 orders of magnitude – ranges from 0.5 to 550

  Cd has been an ecological concern in dredged material management for upland placement

Research on the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material

Documents

Transcript of Research on the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material