A Tutorial for Identifying a Project-Specific Dredged Material ...

A Tutorial for Identifying a Project-Specific Dredged Material Placement Site

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Kaitlin McCormick October 2012

Peggy Derrick

2

General Placement Options • Open water placement (unconfined) • Confined disposal  Upland  Fast land creation

• Beneficial use

 Wetland creation  Beach nourishment  Island/shoreline

restoration

• Innovative reuse

 Mine reclamation  Aggregate/bricks

• Landfill placement

3

Placement Considerations • Volume • Physical • • • • • •

characteristics (grain size) Sediment quality Authorizations Cost Timing Distance Dredging and placement methods

4

Volume • Existing capacity or new site

 Existing placement capacity in the region  Duration of availability of existing sites with capacity

• Large volume projects

 May overwhelm capacity at existing site  May have more volume than can be reasonably placed • Beneficial use • Innovative reuse  Use of multiple sites = extra handling

• Small volume projects

 High costs per unit for new sites  May not have sufficient volume for a beneficial use or

innovative reuse project

5

Physical Parameters • Driver for beneficial use and innovative reuse projects • Specific grain-size often required

 Beach nourishment = sand  Wetland creation = minimum

amount of coarse grained material

• Some characteristics driven by site goals

 e.g., cannot use stiff clays

for marsh restoration

6

Sediment Quality • Concentrations of chemical constituents • Material with high levels of contaminants may require:  Confined disposal  Specific classes of landfill or hazardous waste sites  Treatment or stabilization

• Screening criteria    

Open water testing requirements Beneficial use screening Site-specific testing for existing placement sites TCLP testing for landfills

• Salinity

 Estuarine/marine sediments precluded from some options

7

Authorizations/Ownership • Limitations based on existing authorizations

 Congressional authorizations - federal placement sites  Permits for existing facilities

• Authorizations required for new facilities

 Federal approvals • Clean Water Act/Rivers and Harbors Act • Endangered Species Act • Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act • National Historic Preservation Act  State approvals • Clean Water Act – Section 401 • Wetland Permits • Discharge Permits

• Site ownership

8

Relative Cost • Tipping or placement fees • Handling costs  Loading  Unloading  Dewatering

• Transportation costs  Distance  Mode of transport

• Offloading costs  Wet material  Dry material

• Monitoring requirements

9

Open Water Placement • Sediment quality

 Inland or Ocean Testing Manual  Potential interaction between material and aquatic life  Section 103 Marine Protection Resource and Sanctuaries Act

• Authorizations

 Existing facilities / placement areas / ODMDS  State/local restrictions  Beneficial use

• Handling

 No dewatering costs  Does not required double handling

• Costs    

No tipping or placement fees Transportation/offloading costs only Monitoring of placement Extensive testing required

• Other

 Public perception footer

10

Confined Disposal • Sediment Quality

 Upland Testing Manual  Testing can vary by location

• Authorizations

 May be restrictions based on type of material placed

• Characteristics of material • Source of material

 Existing - generally no permits or approvals required  New – long lead time to design and permit

• Handling

 Dewatering generally managed at site  Generally no double handling

• Costs

 Tipping/placement fees required  Transportation/offloading costs

• Other

 No environmental benefits  Can accept a wide range of material footer

11

Beneficial Use • Sediment Quality

 Cannot use contaminated material  Physical characteristics are key

• Authorizations

 Existing projects – already permitted and authorized

• Permit modifications • Some sites may restrict geographic sources (e.g. Corps restoration sites)

 New projects – need permits/approvals

• Handling

 Varies by site – direct placement or multiple handling  Dewatering may be required

• Costs

 Placement fee for existing sites  High costs for new projects – design/permitting/monitoring

• Other

 Environmental benefits  Positive public image  Opportunities for partnering with local and national groups footer

12

Innovative Reuse • Sediment Quality

 Would require testing/characterization of material  Potential for pilot testing  Varies by proposed use

• Authorizations

 Unclear regulatory

environment for some uses

• Handling

 Dewatering generally     

required Extra handling Treatment Cost New infrastructure required Processing costs

• Other

 Infrastructure availability  Some not feasible for a single project  Pilot vs. large-scale processing

Source: MPA

13

Landfill • Sediment Quality

 Hazardous vs. non-hazardous (TCLP)  Paint filter test

• Authorizations

 Some facilities will not accept dredged material

• Handling

 Multiple handling – barge, dewatering, truck, placement  Potentially time consuming

• Cost

 High – placement fee per truckload or ton

• Other

 Capacity restrictions  Traffic concerns, need for sealed bed trucks, air emissions

14

Evaluation • Develop a laundry list of all potential sites in an area • • • • •

without regard to project criteria Networking – ask regulators, industry, placement site operators for suggestions Screen full list of sites against criteria Rank viable placement sites Develop a short-list of placement sites for detailed evaluation Select a preferred option

15

Questions? – Thank You

Source: Mary Frazier

Kaitlin McCormick and Peggy Derrick 225 Schilling Circle, Suite 400 Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031 410-584-7000 [email protected] [email protected] www.eaest.com footer

Scan this code to connect with EA