OUTLINE

1
Remedial MUDSTom Gries, Dept. of Ecology

• OUTLINE
• Summary of MUDS Feasibility-Related Activities
  and Studies
• Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Treatment
  Technologies
• Barriers to Treatment and Potential Solutions
• Final Recommendations
• Lessons for Puget Sound and the Lower Duwamish
  Waterway

2
Summary of MUDS

• History (mid-80s origin)
• Reconnaissance Study, Feasibility Study/Cost
  Sharing Agreement (1995-1997)
• Programmatic EIS (1999)
• Siting Phase Studies (2000-2001)
• Final Recommendations and Corps Feasibility
  Report (2002-2003)

3
Summary of MUDSProgrammatic EIS Conclusions

• Large volume of CS to be removed from Puget Sound
  for safe management
• No action is not acceptable
• All confined disposal alternatives feasible and
  many treatment technologies promising
• MUDS cost/cubic yard ? existing mgt costs
• Environmental impacts/benefits significant
• Selecting any MUDS alternative tradeoffs

4
(No Transcript)
5
Summary of MUDSSiting Phase Investigations

• Management Options - Who should own and operate a
  MUDS facility?
• Siting Process - What kind of MUDS should be
  built and where?
• Public Participation - Which strategy and tools
  will get interest groups and the public involved?

6
Summary of MUDSSiting Phase Investigations

• Feasibility of Treatment/Beneficial Use Which
  technologies and beneficial uses are most
  promising?
• Evaluated various treatment technologies
• Surveyed vendors and end product markets
• Assessed environmental impacts, product liability
• Listed likely barriers (e.g., lack dependable
  supply of contaminated sediment) and incentives
• Identified funding options

7
Summary of MUDSInterim Recommendations

• Identify single public MUDS authority
• Form public/private partnership for
  privately-owned/operated MUDS and continue siting
  process for publicly-owned MUDS
• Facilitate development of regional-scale sediment
  treatment capacity
• Begin RFP-like process to interest private sector
• Identify preferred assistance/incentives
• Identify preferred funding/legislation

8
Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Treatment
Technologies

• What did MUDS agencies do?
• Developed evaluation process
• Agreed to (consensus) treatment technology
  evaluation criteria
• Developed questionnaire, conducted survey
• Compiled information submitted and applied
  criteria to select top four technologies
• Investigated top four further
• Identified important barriers and potential ways
  to overcome them

9
Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Treatment
Technologies

• Evaluation criteria categories
• (consensus weighting factor)
• Performance (8.2)
• Flexibility (7.0)
• Cost and marketability (6.3)
• Public acceptability/permittability (5.7)
• Facility process/characteristics (5.2)
• Relevant business information (4.4)

10
Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Treatment
Technologies

• Top four technologies/products
• Ultra-high temperature combustion/glass
• Chemical immobilization/construction fill
• High temperature combustion/cement
• Soil washing/manufactured top soil

11
Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Treatment
Technologies

• Technical Feasibility
• Most types of sediment treatment are technically
  feasible, for example
• Particle separation
• Neutralization (chemical, electrochemical,
  encapsulation, washing)
• Thermal destruction/treatment

12
Barriers and Potential Solutions

• Economics Related
• Continuous minimum flow of sediment or other raw
  materials needed for profitability
• Annual volume needed too great?
• Public sector guarantees of minimum volume
  unlikely?
• End or bi- product markets needed for
  profitability
• How certain is regional demand for clean fill,
  light weight aggregate, decorative tiles, etc.?
• Land (10 ac urban/industrial) and capital costs
• Facility life span interest rate interest
  payments
• Other (utility costs, marketing, monitoring,
  closure)

13
Barriers and Potential Solutions

• Others
• Treatment/reuse criteria
• Environmental impacts, product liability
• Siting and permitting processes

14
Barriers and Potential Solutions

• Public acceptance
• Technical feasibility
• Facility site/location (NIMBY)
• Environmental benefits/impacts for the region and
  selected location
• Public process and involvement

15
Barriers and Potential Solutions

• Potential Solutions
• Economics - public land, land swap, tax
  incentives, legislated tipping fee
• Flow - separate dewatering/storage facility,
  alternate feedstocks, scheduled cleanups,
  Aquafund/PSI resources, requirement to use MUDS
• Product markets - public sector survey of
  markets, promotions, use of products
• Permitting/public acceptability - public/private
  partnership

16
Final Recommendations

• Feasibility Report (USACE, Dec 2003)
• DNR should act as lead agency
• Clarify certain regulations
• Develop Request for Proposal, evaluate proposals,
  sign agreement(s) ensuring access to
  cost-competitive landfill disposal
• Integrate mgmt alternative with DMMP
• Conclude Feasibility Study

17
Final Recommendations

• Monitor effectiveness of long-term agreement(s)
  on progress cleaning up contaminated sediment
  sites
• Build public awareness that contaminated sediment
  poses substantial environmental risk and thus is
  an important environmental issue
• Track progress being made to develop treatment
  technologies
• Restart Feasibility Study if existing management
  alternatives no longer cost-competitive with MUDS

18
Lessons for Puget Sound and the Lower Duwamish
Waterway

• Treatment still muddy after all these years
• A regional MUDS owned and operated by a private
  sector entity requires profitability, meaning
• End product markets
• Steady flow
• Site with acceptable impacts and public buy-in
• A regional MUDS owned and operated by the public
  sector would likely require the same

19
Lessons for Puget Sound and the Lower Duwamish
Waterway

• Food for thought
• Are any smaller-scale, more periodic treatment
  options economically viable?
• Particle separation technologies to reduce
  volume?
• Chemical immobilization and beneficial use (e.g.,
  use as clean fill if meets MTCA Method B or place
  at open-water disposal sites if meets DMMP
  guidelines)?
• Soli washing?
• Subsidize smaller-scale treatment demo projects?