I am responsible for Federal…

I am responsible for Federal dredging contacts in the Great Lakes. I have reviewed the proposed regulation. As a Crown maintenance project, it would seem the Federal dredge project is exempt from most of the proposed regulations; however, it should be noted that if applied to the Federal project, the regulations as written have the potential to severely limit our ability to beneficially reuse dredged material as excess soil. Much of the dredged material is above lowest effect levels for in water placement, but below background levels for soil. It suitable for recreational/park areas, or contains only clean beach sand which can be used for beach nourishment, nearshore littoral drift nourishment, or habitat creation. By classifying dredged sediment as a waste or even a liquid waste, it is unclear if it will be possible to offload the material at a nearshore facility for drying and beneficial use. These facilities must be situated adjacent to water as a result of the nature of the work. If the material is classified as a waste, I fear such a location may be classified as a waste disposal site. As you know, it is not possible to locate a waste disposal side along the shoreline. As a result, this regulation has the potential to prevent us from accessing locations to offload dredged material. Since most of the material we dredge cannot be placed back in the water, this severely limits our ability to plan and execute beneficial reuse of the material, and to meet our mandate to maintain navigational safety by dredging the channels to the advertised depth. In addition, soil washing is listed in the regulation as an example of onsite soil processing. This method is employed in many dredged material management facilities to separate clean, useful sand from contaminated silt, allowing for the beneficial reuse of the sand, and limiting the volume of material which must be confined, landfilled, or otherwise managed. If this activity automatically classifies the material as a waste, again, any facility adjacent to the water may then be classified as a waste facility. This would severely limit our ability to employ this well established and extremely beneficial technology. Under “Excavated Sediment”, it is noted that "sediment that is not dewatered...shall be managed as liquid waste". It is not possible or practical to dewater while at sea. As a result, the wording dictates that all material in the Federal dredging project will be liquid waste. I do not believe this is a reasonable position to take, considering the limitations it may place on the options for management of the material. Under “Managing Excavated Soil That is Liquid Waste”, it is noted that a vehicle containing liquid waste would be regulated under a waste management system. Would a barge at sea be considered a vehicle requiring regulation? Unlike other liquid waste transporters, we do not have access to roads for transportation, and can only manage the material by sea. Therefore, a nearshore facility is required to offload the material. Again, the designation of a site to dewater material as a waste facility severely limits our ability to manage material. It is my understanding that the purpose of this regulation is to promote the beneficial reuse of excess soil. It would seem the regulations are written to capture the needs of upland excavation, including sucker trucks. Unfortunately, the wording of the regulation has potential to severely impact the ability of responsible management of dredged material specifically. Although the Federal project may be exempt, it is always our goal to meet or exceed all applicable regulations. I hope you will dedicate some consideration to the specific and unique requirements of dredge projects, and how these regulations could be injurious to responsible material management. I would be more than happy to discuss this in more detail at your convenience.

[Original Comment ID: 209842]