US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG®

Great Lakes Sediment Testing Manual – Evaluating the Suitability of Dredged Material for Beneficial Use

Richard A Price

US Army Engineer Research and Development Center

Great Lakes Dredging Team Annual Meeting Dundee, MI July 16-17, 3013

BUILDING STRONG®

Dredged Material is a Product of the Watershed

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

BUILDING STRONG®

Unique Challenge to Great Lakes

BUILDING STRONG®

Beneficial Use Managing sediment resources from maintenance

dredging operations for productive use ► Regional Sediment Management

• A geographical systems-based approach • A watershed based approach

► Great Lakes Restoration Initiative • Effective utilization of sediment resources in littoral, wetland and upland ecosystem

restoration/protection projects

BUILDING STRONG®

Why Do We Need Beneficial Use? Jul 14, 2013 - $16.92 trillion

• Confined disposal not sustainable – $$ •Aquatic disposal not acceptable – effects • Changing needs in port facilities – age/use • Predicted climate change effects on navigation – increased sedimentation/water levels • Use perceived better than disposal

BUILDING STRONG®

Two Paths for BU

Beneficial use is part of the dredging and placement process ►Aquatic Placement ►Confined or unconfined upland placement

Beneficial use is part of the CDF recovery process ►Mining CDFs to reclaim capacity ►Design CDFs for placement & processing

BUILDING STRONG®

Regulatory Authority and BU Disposal in coastal waters – MPRSA

Fill or discharge to coastal & inland waters – CWA

Upland – CWA if return flow and NEPA.

No discharge of DM into waters of US? – State authority for soil/solid waste: GW, HH, Eco, etc????

BUILDING STRONG®

The Science 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

BUILDING STRONG®

Testing Manuals

Environmental Suitability ► Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean

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

Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual)

► Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for

Placement in Island, Nearshore, or Upland CDFs - Testing Manual (Upland testing Manual)

BUILDING STRONG®

EPA/CE Evaluation Framework BU opportunities Physical suitability Logistics & Mgt needs Environmental

suitability – no testing methods specified ►State/Fed

screening criteria ►Physical &

biological tests

BUILDING STRONG®

Why More Guidance? Great Lakes Beneficial Use Task Force, 2001

► Lack of adequate regulatory guidance obstacle to BU

Testing and Evaluating Dredged Material for Upland Beneficial Uses:

A Regional Framework for the Great Lakes

Risk-based evaluation needed to define suitability for BU and assist in effective least cost determintion.

BUILDING STRONG®

Goals

One-Stop, Web-based Guidance Standardized risk-based testing methods Consistency in interpretation Updated regulatory guidance applicable to

Great Lakes States Regional, cost-effective approach to

unique sediment management needs of the Great Lakes

BUILDING STRONG®

Sediment Suitability Defined Sand Quality – Physical standard Sediment Quality – Exposure = Acceptable Risk

► Suitable for aquatic use – aquatic habitat, aquatic fill, beach/littoral nourishment

Soil Quality – Exposure = Acceptable Risk ► Suitable for confined or unconfined upland use – habitat, green

space, landscaping, crop production Unrestrictive Fill – Exposure = Acceptable Risk

► Suitable for unrestricted fill, material use Restricted Fill – Exposure = Unacceptable Risk

► Suitable for restricted industrial fill, landfill cover, material Impaired – Unacceptable Risk without Treatment

► Requires treatment to render suitable • Landfill or confined disposal

BUILDING STRONG®

Physical Suitability

BUILDING STRONG®

Environmental Suitability

Freshwater amphipod

BUILDING STRONG®

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

BUILDING STRONG®

Tiered Testing Approach 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

BUILDING STRONG®

Analysis of Dredged Material Suitability

Aquatic ► Standard elutriate

Toxicity ► Whole sediment

aquatic toxicity ► Benthic

Bioaccumulation ► Submerged Aquatic

Plant Bioaccumulation ► Ecological risk

analysis

BUILDING STRONG®

Analysis of Dredged Material Suitability

Upland ► Surface runoff WQ ► Upland plant toxicity

and bioaccumulation ► Wetland plant toxicity

and bioaccumulation ► Soil invertebrate

toxicity and bioaccumulation

► Ecological risk analysis

BUILDING STRONG®

Analysis of Dredged Material Suitability

Geotechnical ► Grain size distribution ► Atterberg limits and permeability

Human Health ► Bulk chemistry comparison to state

established soil standards • Direct contact • Groundwater protection

► Consumption of fish assassment ► Optional tests include:

• Bioaccumulation of by garden crops • Leachate tests for groundwater

Baseline Chemistry Analyte Groups 1. Metals - 23 per TAL (EPA 6000/7000) 2. Pesticides (EPA 8081A) 3. Total PCBs (Aroclors EPA 8082) 4. Ammonia Nitrogen (EPA 350) 5. Total Phosphorus (EPA 6000/7000) 6. Volatile Organics - TCL (EPA 8260B) 7. B/N/A (Semi-volatile organics) - TCL (EPA 8270C) 8. Total Organic Carbon (EPA 9060) 9. Grain Size (ASTM D421, D422; Includes Sieve and

Hydrometer Baseline Testing for Large Volume DMMU and Composite

Reference Samples 1. Hexavalent (VI) chromium (EPA 6000/7000) 2. Total CN - EPA 9010B/9012A), 3. Grain Size (ASTM D421, D422) 4. Atterberg Limits (ASTM 4318) 5. Proctor (ASTM d698-00a or ASTM d1557-00) 6. Permeability (ASTM D5084-00E1) 7. Percent Moisture (ASTM D2216) 8. Percent Organic Matter (ASTM D 2974-00) 9. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN - EPA 351)

BUILDING STRONG®

Application

BUILDING STRONG®

End Results Risk-based beneficial

use of dredged material for both aquatic and upland uses.

BUILDING STRONG®

Questions??

BUILDING STRONG®

State Regulatory Soil Surface Guidance

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

BUILDING STRONG®

Location

Soil pH Clay, % Soil Cd3 Plant Cd3 BAF

Island 18 7.5 38.3 2.6 10.267 3.95

Toledo Reference 6.4 42.5 2.2 1.450 0.66

Dike 10-B 6.8 9.2 2.6 1.29 0.50

Cleveland Reference 5.7 7.5 0.99 3.67 3.71

Lorain CDF 7.2 21.7 5.4 6.797 1.26

Lorain Reference 6.9 15.8 3.8 4.870 1.28

Detroit River 8.1 27.5 7.7 1.17 0.15

Michigan City 7.4 12.5 6.2 17.64 2.85

Michigan City 7.2 9.6 35.9 7.8 0.22

Indiana Harbor 7.6 5 16 6.34 0.40

Indiana Harbor 6.7 14.6 45.6 1.27 0.03

Milwaukee Harbor 7.7 25.9 7.8 1.84 0.24

Menominee River 6.4 8 0.1 1.44 14.40

Menominee River 7 6.5 9.3 9.57 1.03

Sediment/Soil characteristics and plant available cadmium.

BUILDING STRONG®

CONTAMINANT

FOOD INGESTION RATE (KG DW/KG BW/D)

TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUE (MG DW/KG BW/D)

ACCEPTABLE PLANT CONC. MG/KG

LORAIN CDF

DIKE 10-B CDF

ISLAND 18 CDF

Plant to Mammalian

Plant to Mammalian

Plant to Mammalian

Arsenic 0.0875 1.04 11.8 0.543 <0.05 <0.5

Cadmium 0.0875 0.770 8.8 6.797 1.29 10.267*

Chromium (III) 0.0875 2.40 27.3 0.823 0.59 0.65

Copper 0.0875 5.82 66.1 10.057 8.13 11.75

Lead 0.0875 4.70 53.4 10.617 3.64 4.217

Nickel 0.0875 1.70 19.4 1.54 1.04 1.71

Silver 0.0875 6.02 68.8 <0.50 <0.50 <0.517

Comparison of acceptable plant concentrations to dredged material plant concentrations.

*Island 18 dredged material = 2.6 mg kg-1, Eco-SSL =73 mg kg-1.