# Presentation: 099256

## 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

**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**

**Remedial MUDS****Tom Gries, Dept. of Ecology**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
History (mid-80’s 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)

**History (mid-80’s 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)**

**Summary of MUDS**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 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

**“****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**

**Summary of MUDS****Programmatic EIS Conclusions**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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?

**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?***

**Summary of MUDS****Siting Phase Investigations**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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

**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**

**Summary of MUDS****Siting Phase Investigations**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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

**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**

**Summary of MUDS****Interim Recommendations**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 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**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 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)**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

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

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

**Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Treatment Technologies**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

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

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

**Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Treatment Technologies**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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)

**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)**

**Barriers and Potential Solutions**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

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

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

**Barriers and Potential Solutions**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

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

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

**Barriers and Potential Solutions**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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”

**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”**

**Barriers and Potential Solutions**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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

**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**

** ****Final Recommendations**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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

**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**

** ****Final Recommendations**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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

***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**

**Lessons for Puget Sound and the Lower Duwamish Waterway**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006

## 
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?

**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?**

**Lessons for Puget Sound and the Lower Duwamish Waterway**

- Remedial MUDS

- June 2, 2006