Upload
doanthien
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Civil Engineering Applications for Marine Sediments Project
Closing Event
17th of September 2015
SUMMARY
Introduction to CEAMaS project • 10.00 - 10.30: Global presentation of the project, the partners and EU
perspective
Global vision through multi-criteria decision tool • 10.30 – 10.40: First example of a multi-criteria decision tool
4 Thematic sessions • 10.40 – 11.35: Social issues 11.35 – 11.50: Break • 11.50 – 12.45: Technical issues for reuse 12.45 – 13.45: Lunch • 13.45 – 14.40: Economic issues • 14.40 – 15.35: Environmental issues
Conclusion • 15.35 – 16.00: how to share, how to continue?
CEAMAS CLOSING EVENT
- 2 -
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
• EU perspective : Ruut Louwers, programme director InterReg North West Europe
• Presentation of the project:
– Global vision of CEAMaS : Tristan DEBUIGNE (Cd2e)
– Technical work overview and partners contributions
• Gerry SUTTON (UCC)
• Zoubeir LAFHAJ (Ecole Centrale de Lille)
• Joe HARRINGTON (CIT)
• An JANSSEN (BBRI)
• Arjan WIJDEVELD (TUDelft)
• Eric MASSON (Lille1 University)
• Bruno LEMIERE (BRGM)
GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 3 -
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
EU perspective
Ruut Louwers, Interreg North West Europe
GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 4 -
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
Global vision of CEAMaS
Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 5 -
• France: 4 partners
• Ireland: 2 partners
• Belgium: 1 partner
• Netherlands: 1 partner
• Mid 2013 – end 2015 project
INTERREG IV B PROJECT (2013 – 2015)
4 STATES, 8 PARTNERS
- 6 -
C a r t e p a r t e n a i r e s
ACTIONS AND OBJECTIVES
ANALYSING REGULATORY ISSUES
ANALYSING DEPOSITS, APPLICATIONS ISSUES AND IDENTIFYING REUSE METHODS
ANALYSING ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES
ENHANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR REUSE IN EUROPE
MAINSTREAM SUSTAINABLE REUSE OF DREDGED MARINE SEDIMENTS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS
- 7 -
AD
VIS
OR
Y C
OM
MIT
TEE
ACTIONS AND OBJECTIVES
MAINSTREAM SUSTAINABLE REUSE OF DREDGED MARINE SEDIMENTS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS
- 8 -
• 19 actions including various deliverables – Investigations on technical,
social, environmental & economic fields
– Studies
– Tools development
– Meetings & communication actions
• 5 linked Work Packages to organise actions in which all partners have contribute
Benchmarking on dredged sediments management and reuse in Europe
Development of new solutions /new formulations of sediments
reuse
Environmental, social and
economicalacceptability
Methodology to reuse marine
sediments
Communication / Centre of Resources on sediments management and reuse
• France :
– Cd2e - Lead partner
– BRGM
– Ecole Centrale de Lille – WP leader
– Université de Lille 1
• Ireland:
– University College of Cork – WP leader
– Cork Institute of Technology – WP leader
• Belgium
– BBRI
• Netherlands
– TUDelft / Deltares
INTERREG IV B PROJECT (2013 – 2015)
PARTNERS
- 9 -
CD2E
PROJECT LEAD PARTNER
- 10 -
• Non profit association dedicated to drive the eco-transition of Northern France’s environmental actors and economic sectors
• Networking and clustering
• Project development for new practices and innovation diffusion
• Expertise in sediment reuse with :
• Sedimateriaux & Sedilab resource center
• CEAMaS Lead Partner
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
Technical work overview and partners contributions
Gerry SUTTON, UCC
Zoubeir LAFHAJ, Ecole Centrale de Lille
Joe HARRINGTON, CIT
An JANSSEN, BBRI
Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
Eric MASSON, Lille1 University
Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 11 -
Lead partner
for WP1
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 12 -
Coastal Governance How to plan a maritime economy in a
sustainable way within a dynamic environment
Marine Ecology Understanding the role of key species in
the marine environment and their contribution to marine ecosystems
Applied Remote Sensing and GIS Enhancing our knowledge of the
environment and improving analysis and visualisation capabilities
Geomatics How to manage and add value to existing
and newly acquired marine data and information
Physical processes & seabed mapping Increasing understanding of the physical
aspects of the coastal and marine environment
Beaufort Laboratory
• 135 Researchers
• 4500m2
WP 1 OVERVIEW
PARTNERS CONTRIBUTIONS
- 13 -
Action Deliverables Main partners Involved
A1: Stakeholder involvement and analysis of views on sediment management
• Questionnaire template and guidelines, categorised contact lists, report, database entries
• Advisory committee and docs
UCC/CIT/UL-1 CD2E / UCC
A2: Review of existing sediment management regulatory regimes and practice in NWE
• Regulatory regs – tabulated per country per use category
• Database entries • Comparative report
UCC- All
A3: Review of technically feasible reuse options for sediments in NWE countries
• Categorised tabulated analysis of re-use options
• Database input • SWOT & report chapter
UCC/CIT/TU-Delft/BBRI
WP 1 OVERVIEW
TECHNICAL WORK OVERVIEW & PARTNER INVOLVEMENT
- 14 -
Action Deliverables Partners involved
A4: Searchable online bibliographic resource for sediment reuse reference material
• Bibliographic archive –database of PDF’s
• Online database • User manual
UCC/BRGM-All
A5: Spatial inventory for dredged sediments including: sources, stocks, storage areas, end-use locations and transport routes
• Web GIS operational system • Spatial data content &
inventory • Web enablement for DSS
case- study (Irl-FR) • User manual
UCC/UL-1
Lead partner of WP2
Development of new solutions /new formulations of sediments reuse
Competences:
Different projects: SEDIBET, COVASED,…
Collaboration with industrial partners (BdN, Solvay,…)
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 15 -
Legislative constraints
Technical constraints
Economical constraints
Societal Constraints
Ma
rin
e S
ed
ime
nts
Civ
il En
gin
ee
ring
Ap
plic
atio
ns
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 16 -
WP2 - Development of new solutions /new formulations of sediments reuse
Definition of common
characterization methods
Characterization of different sludge
types and compositions
Requirements for sediment-based civil engineering
formulations
Best practice exchange through field experiment
studies
Technical Report:
Characterization
techniques of
sediments
Site Description
and sampling
Methods
Mari
ne s
ed
imen
ts
Dunkir
k, F
R
A
mora
s,
BE
Cork
, IE
Low
lands,
NL
Synoptic files
+
Tools
Formulation for
the sediments
reuse Site visits and
technical
exchange
+
Best practice Flow sheets:
Criteria for reuse
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
Cork Institute of Technology, Ireland
Higher Education Institution in Cork City, Ireland
Involved in Teaching & Learning, Research and Industry Engagement & Innovation (7,000 students, 1,500 staff)
Active in Sediment Research (Marine and Freshwater Sediments)
Leader of Work Package 3 (Economic, Environmental & Societal Impacts)
GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 17 -
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
Cork Institute of Technology, Ireland
Primary Contributions:
Stakeholder Engagement – Contacts & Structured Interviews (WP1)
Literature Reviews including the Relevant Legislative Framework for Ireland (WP1)
Field Sampling (Cork Harbour & Bantry Harbour) (WP2)
Laboratory Testing (Physical & Geotechnical) and Analysis (WP2)
Economic Modelling and Analysis (WP3)
Leader of Work Package 3 (WP3)
GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 18 -
• Belgian Building Research Institute
– private research institute (1960)
– members = 90.000 construction companies
– 3 missions
• CEAMaS offers opportunities for the Belgian construction sector
– about 20 Mm³ of marine sediments are dredged each year in Belgian ports
– Flanders is a pioneer in the treatment of sediments with AMORAS installation in the Port of Antwerp
– positive attention of government regarding economic and environmentally friendly reuse solutions for dredged sediments
– circular economy: sediments are a new business and a new source of resources for construction products and geotechnical applications
• Most important actions
– stakeholder contacts and key stakeholder interviews
– reuse of sediments in concrete and mortar: literature and laboratory study
– reuse of sediments in geotechnical applications: literature study
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT BBRI (BELGIUM)
- 19 -
www.wtcb.be www.cstc.be
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
- 20 -
M€
• Scientific staff • Number of students • Promotions • Scientific publications • Trade publications • Startups
• Cash/revenues, directly financed • Cash/revenues, second/third funding
2539 17.530
319 5840 693 14
377 167
Geo-Engineering The Geo-Engineering Section is part of the Faculty of Civil Engineering & Geosciences. This Section comprises a number of Groups with a common interest in Geotechnology: • Geomechanics, • Engineering Geology, • Geo-Environmental Engineering, • Foundation Engineering, and • Underground Space Technology.
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DELFT
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
- 21 -
• University Lille 1 Sciences and Technologies (19600 students, 2975 staff, 220 Phd.yr-1)
• Team involved in CEAMaS:
– Lab. TVES (Territory, Cities, Environment, Society)
– CEAMaS project team: 2 Prof., 2 Ass. Prof, 2 Ir, 1 staff
– Field of expertise : Human, Environmental and Geospatial Sciences
• Stakeholders and social inquiries
• Natural resources (sediment) management
• Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Spatial Decision support System (SDSS)
• Contribution to WP1, 3, 4 & 5 - Participation to WP2
GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
INTRODUCTION TO CEAMAS PROJECT
BRGM contribution
• BRGM is the French GeoSurvey and one of the key members of the GeDSeT InterReg FWF project on waterways sediments management (2008-2013)
• BRGM brought its expertise especially in sediment characterisation and in decision support tools.
GLOBAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THE PARTNERS AND EU PERSPECTIVE
- 22 -
100% reference scale « worst » scenario
Compared to option « do nothing »
Decision
risk level
note
Improvement
due to sediment
management
Positive
effects
Cost
assessment
k€Negative
effects
Damage due
to sediment
management
Fossil energy uses
Climate
change
Ecosystem
quality
Human health
Living
environment
Regional
economic
development
GLOBAL VISION THROUGH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION TOOL
Global vision through multi-criteria decision tool
Pascale MICHEL, Jérôme JACOB & Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
FIRST EXAMPLE OF A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION TOOL
- 23 -
GLOBAL VISION THROUGH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION TOOL
• A « what-if » decision support environment :
– to simulate the various consequences of available management options
– to take into account possible options in Belgium, France, Ireland and the Netherlands
– Indirect benefits for options that would not be retained in a local tendering process (widened system boundaries)
• => Exchange and sharing for return on experience between each country
A “WHAT-IF” TOOL
- 24 -
GLOBAL VISION THROUGH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION TOOL
•Goals of the CEAMaS decision tool:
– to allow various users to explore sediment management options in a port situation, and discuss them within the same framework
– to act as a hub for the other more detailed tools or studies of the CEAMaS project, and beyond them, in the European Centre for Resources
•Targeted users:
– students and communities, not necessarily with a high technical background
– port decision makers and territorial authorities
•The tool includes specific points of view for civil engineering companies that can reuse sediment.
TARGET AUDIENCE
- 25 -
GLOBAL VISION THROUGH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION TOOL
• From sediments’ characteristics (vol., bulk content)
• Based on the flowsheet of technical options
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT: SCENARIO SIMULATOR
- 26 -
Sediments in place
Selective dredging
Bulk dredging Dehydration Separation
Treatment
Reuse
Temporary storage
Non contaminated
Contaminated
Final disposal site
GLOBAL VISION THROUGH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION TOOL
• Derived from GEDSET project
• Inputs from other WPs & partners
KEY FACTORS TO EXPLORE SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS
- 27 -
Decision “Risk” level
MATURITY (technical point of views)
FEASABILITY
•Acceptability and ease to set up (legislation /regulatory guidance)
•Guaranteed longevity
•one shot vs long term solution (dredging planning)
•« local » need/acceptance of potential consumers
AMBITION (Local stakeholders
ambition)
Costs
Dredging
Transport
Processing
Disposal
Effects on environment
Linked to release or fuel consumption
Fossil energy uses
Climate change
Ecosystem quality
Human health
Social acceptance
Maintain parking slots in marina
(maintenance dredging)
Restauration of water quality
Final uses /products acceptation
• Sense of safety from seawall constructions or inland flooding barriers
• Erosion protection, beach embankment…
• Others uses
Nuisances
Regional economic
development
Maintain parking slots in marina
(maintenance dredging)
Alternative resource that meets local
requirements
Land occupation
Jobs
GLOBAL VISION THROUGH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION TOOL
100% reference scale = « worst » scenario
EXAMPLE OF RESULTS
- 28 -
Compared to the « nothing done » option
Decision risk
level
note
Improvement
due to sediment
management
Positive
effects
Cost assessment
k€
Negative
effects
Damage due to
sediment
management
Fossil energy uses
Climate change
Ecosystem quality
Human health
Social acceptance
Regional
economic
development
GLOBAL VISION THROUGH MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION TOOL
To be highlighted :
• The indirect costs of the cheaper options have actually to be borne by other public budgets.
• Need for regulation and for discussions to support sediment recycling/re-use
• It confirms the benefits of early planning and of the integration of potential uses for sediments in harbor dredging plans
CONCLUSIONS FROM TOOL DEVELOPMENT
- 29 -
SUMMARY
Introduction to CEAMaS project • 10.00 - 10.30: Global presentation of the project, the partners and EU
perspective
Global vision through multi-criteria decision tool • 10.30 – 10.40: First example of a multi-criteria decision tool
4 Thematic sessions • 10.40 – 11.35: Social issues 11.35 – 11.50: Break • 11.50 – 12.45: Technical issues for reuse 12.45 – 13.45: Lunch • 13.45 – 14.40: Economic issues • 14.40 – 15.35: Environmental issues
Conclusion • 15.35 – 16.00: how to share, how to continue?
CEAMAS CLOSING EVENT
- 30 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
European stakeholder point of view regarding social issues
Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Overview of differences in European legislation & example in result interpretation variations
Gerry SUTTON, UCC & Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
Finding location for reuse options by integration of different spatial constraints
Eric MASSON, Lille 1 University
Roundtable / discussion
SOCIAL ISSUES
- 31 -
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW REGARDING SOCIAL ISSUES
STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY
- 32 -
Ports Public services Academics
Territorial authorities
Civil engineering industries
Consultancies
National study groups
Dredging companies
European project
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW REGARDING SOCIAL ISSUES
• 100 stakeholders identified, 42 were interviewed
• 13 stakeholders in United Kingdom have also been interviewed.
STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY
- 33 -
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW REGARDING SOCIAL ISSUES
INTERVIEW GRID
- 34 -
• Experience
• Society
• Background
Profil of the interviewee
• Sediment management
• Contamination
• Quantity managed
• Cost of managing
Sediment issues
• Storage
• Re-use
• Treatments
• Adding values
Opinion
• Contact given
• Particular idea Other issues
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW REGARDING SOCIAL ISSUES
PROBLEM EXPERIENCED
- 35 -
• The time taken to organise face to face interview
• No direct partner in United Kingdom
• Difficulty to have answers from stakeholder
• The different local context: a pertinent question in France for example can be a non-sense question in the Netherlands for example.
RESULTS
FRANCE
- 36 -
• Cost management
• Re-use is too expensive
• Legislation issues Harbour
• Difference of knowledge
• Sediment spinneret
• Legislation issues Consultancies
• Sediment are a good opportunity to complet stonepit material Industrials
• Different fields (geography, economy, geophysic,…) Academics
• Technical help to harbour
• Lobbying
Public institution
RESULTS
IRELAND
- 37 -
• Dredging happen every 3 or 6 years
• Clean material Harbour
• Legislation can make reuse expensive Consultancies
• Authorise licensing
• Monitoring nature
Public institution
RESULTS
BELGIUM & THE NETHERLANDS
- 38 -
• Dredging is a local problem
• Economic solution
Harbour
• Involved in project research Consultancies
• Building with nature
Public institution
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
- 39 -
• Local context is different everywhere except in The Netherlands and Belgium.
• A better cognition of the local context can make more efficient project and European legislation
• No common vision on sediment management
THEMATIC SESSIONS
European stakeholder point of view regarding social issues Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Overview of differences in European legislation & example in result interpretation variations
Gerry SUTTON, UCC & Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
Finding location for reuse options by integration of different spatial constraints
Eric MASSON, Lille 1 University
Roundtable / discussion with the room
SOCIAL ISSUES
- 40 -
EUROPEAN LEGISLATION & EXAMPLE IN RESULT INTERPRETATION
- 41 -
Overarching legislative framework governing extraction of sediments (reproduced from Setarms WP 1)
EUROPEAN LEGISLATION & EXAMPLE IN RESULT INTERPRETATION
- 42 -
EU directives that have a bearing on different aspects related to dredging and sediment re-use (reproduced from Setarms WP 1)
THEMATIC 1
While the Water Framework Directive has a EU standard for priority substances in water, there is no common sediment standard. This means that for sediments:
• Classification systems (and their implication) differ
• Concentration levels for contaminants differ
• Second tier evaluation methods differ
We have tested one sediment sample for each participating country to see how this variation in legal standards impacts sediment reuse.
DIFFERENCES IN EU LEGISLATION
- 43 -
THEMATIC 1
DIFFERENCES IN EU LEGISLATION
- 44 -
Irish Lower level Irish Upper level b Flemish free us excavated soilFlemish secondary resourceFrench
metals Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Antimone Sb
Arsenic As 192% 133% 141% 490% 328% 25% 17% 18% 63% 42% 49% 34% 36% 126% 84% 7% 5% 5% 18% 12%
Barium Ba
Cadmium Cd 295% 81% 160% 908% 539% 49% 14% 27% 151% 90% 172% 47% 93% 530% 315% 21% 6% 11% 64% 38%
Chromium Cr 138% 29% 43% 230% 164% 81% 17% 25% 134% 96% 106% 23% 33% 177% 126% 8% 2% 2% 13% 9%
Cobalt Co
Copper Cu 131% 98% 155% 190% 133% 48% 36% 57% 69% 48% 73% 54% 86% 106% 74% 14% 10% 17% 20% 14%
Lead Pb 270% 128% 180% 205% 147% 74% 35% 49% 57% 40% 135% 64% 90% 103% 73% 13% 6% 9% 10% 7%
Molybdenum Mo
Nickel Ni 99% 130% 138% 163% 119% 35% 46% 48% 57% 42% 37% 49% 52% 61% 45% 8% 11% 12% 14% 10%
Selenium Se
Tin Sn
Vanadium V
Zinc Zn 497% 100% 136% 357% 236% 194% 39% 53% 139% 92% 397% 80% 109% 286% 189% 64% 13% 17% 46% 30%
Classification 497% 133% 180% 908% 539% 194% 46% 57% 151% 96% 397% 80% 109% 530% 315% 64% 13% 17% 64% 38%
French Level 1 (N1) French Level 2 (N2) Dutch (*) Bbk, living (class A)Dutch (*) Bbk, industy (class B)Dutch (**)ZBT
metals Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Antimone Sb 7% 7% 5% 9% 7%
Arsenic As 69% 48% 51% 176% 118% 35% 24% 25% 88% 59% 55% 29% 57% 127% 78% 19% 10% 19% 43% 27% 60% 41% 44% 152% 102%
Barium Ba 6% 26% 6% 12% 8% 4% 17% 4% 7% 5%
Cadmium Cd 172% 47% 93% 530% 315% 86% 24% 47% 265% 157% 60% 12% 56% 160% 84% 17% 3% 16% 46% 24% 52% 14% 28% 159% 94%
Chromium Cr 107% 23% 33% 179% 128% 54% 11% 17% 89% 64% 52% 9% 13% 86% 58% 16% 3% 4% 27% 18% 81% 17% 25% 134% 96%
Cobalt Co 202% 105% 91% 96% 145% 21% 11% 9% 10% 15%
Copper Cu 117% 87% 138% 169% 118% 58% 43% 69% 85% 59% 50% 26% 88% 64% 40% 25% 13% 44% 32% 20% 88% 65% 104% 127% 89%
Lead Pb 162% 77% 108% 123% 88% 81% 38% 54% 62% 44% 110% 42% 98% 77% 51% 26% 10% 23% 18% 12% 147% 70% 98% 112% 80%
Molybdenum Mo 45% 54% 31% 27% 19% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Nickel Ni 56% 74% 78% 92% 68% 28% 37% 39% 46% 34% 20% 18% 18% 33% 22% 5% 4% 4% 8% 5% 46% 61% 64% 76% 56%
Selenium Se 2% 2% 2% 4% 4%
Tin Sn 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Vanadium V 14% 3% 4% 19% 14%
Zinc Zn 288% 58% 79% 207% 137% 144% 29% 39% 104% 69% 98% 14% 31% 66% 39% 28% 4% 9% 19% 11% 218% 44% 60% 157% 104%
Classification 288% 87% 138% 530% 315% 144% 43% 69% 265% 157% 202% 105% 98% 160% 145% 28% 17% 44% 46% 27% 218% 70% 104% 159% 104%
In Ireland and France,
2 out of 5 sediments can not be reused.
In Flanders and Holland, 5 out of 5 sediments are in potential reusable.
Low High Low High
Low High Low High
IRL BE
NL FR
THEMATIC 1
DIFFERENCES IN EU LEGISLATION
While there are differences in the “low” sediment quality concentration standards for each country, these differences can often be attributed to different natural background concentrations.
The differences in the “high” sediment quality concentration standard in Belgium and The Netherlands is mainly due to the combined approach between the Soil Directive and the Building directive for the reuse of sediment as secondary resources.
Secondary building materials have to pass an emission test (leaching), which can be seen as a second tier test.
THEMATIC 1
DIFFERENCES IN EU LEGISLATION
We tested the leaching according to the NEN 7373 (2004) protocol (with a Liquid to Solid ratio of 10).
L/S 10 Flemish VLAREA Dutch NV building material Dutch IBC building material
Legislation
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
metals
Antimone Sb 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 11.4% 1.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 5.2% 0.8%
Arsenic As 3.3% 2.2% 2.3% 73.9% 25.6% 3.0% 2.0% 2.0% 65.7% 22.8% 1.3% 0.9% 0.9% 29.6% 10.3%
Barium Ba 1.0% 0.9% 2.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1%
Cadmium Cd 1.2% 2.9% 4.1% 5.5% 5.4% 0.9% 2.2% 3.0% 4.1% 4.0% 0.6% 1.5% 2.0% 2.7% 2.7%
Chromium Cr 7.1% 7.0% 7.5% 9.0% 9.9% 5.6% 5.6% 5.9% 7.2% 7.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7%
Cobalt Co 1.4% 2.7% 5.1% 6.8% 3.2% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 1.5% 0.7%
Copper Cu 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 2.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 1.2% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Mercury Hg 3.6% 1.9% 1.5% 10.4% 2.1% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 2.6% 0.5%
Lead Pb 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Molybdenum Mo 1.7% 1.9% 0.6% 24.6% 1.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.1%
Nickel Ni 1.0% 2.7% 7.2% 53.0% 6.5% 1.7% 4.7% 12.2% 90.3% 11.1% 0.4% 1.0% 2.6% 18.9% 2.3%
Selenium Se 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Tin Sn 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Vanadium V 9.8% 7.4% 4.2% 14.7% 6.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.4% 1.3% 0.6%
Zinc Zn 4.3% 3.5% 3.5% 3.1% 4.1% 2.6% 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% 2.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8%
THEMATIC 1
DIFFERENCES IN EU LEGISLATION
So, while the sediment quality standards in Flanders and The Netherlands allow higher contaminant concentrations, the application of the sediment also has to pass a second tier approach (in this case, a leaching test).
Focusing on emission instead of total sediment concentrations often increases the reusability of sediments. This facilitates the large scale application of sediments.
Example: Artist impression of
Markerwadden, a new 10.000 hectares
nature conservation area.
THEMATIC SESSIONS
European stakeholder point of view regarding social issues Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Overview of differences in European legislation & example in result interpretation variations
Gerry SUTTON, UCC & Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
Finding location for reuse options by integration of different spatial constraints
Eric MASSON, Lille 1 University
Roundtable / discussion
SOCIAL ISSUES
- 48 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
• Geographical Information System (GIS) based on: – European GIS data sets
– Upgraded with national/regional GIS data set
• Open system offering: – New data entries according to local information needs or
specific decision criteria:
– Down/Upscalable methodology
• Multi-stakeholder « friendly »: – Port’s managers and authorities, local to national authorities,
riverine population to NGO’s…
– Transparent GIS algorithm building stakeholder driven spatial reuse scenarios
SPATIAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES
- 49 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
GIS PROCESSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION
- 50 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
DATA SOURCES AND COLLECTION USED FOR THE FRENCH CASE
- 51 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
MARINE SEDIMENT (CEAMAS INTERREG IVB NWE)
- 52 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
SPATIALISED PARAMETERS: CONSTRAINT LAYERS (NORMALISED VALUES)
- 53 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
SPATIAL RE-USE SCENARIO COMPUTED BY MAP ALGEBRA
- 54 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS PORT STAKEHOLDER’S VIEW POINT ON POTENTIAL REUSE LOCATIONS
- 55 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
SCENARIO SAMPLES FOR THE IRISH CASE: WEBGIS ACCESS
- 56 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
FROM SINGLE STAKEHOLDER SCENARIO TO SPATIAL CONSENSUS
- 57 -
FINDING LOCATION FOR REUSE OPTIONS BY INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
• The Spatial DSS is a GIS tool including:
– Participation (decision makers-public)
– User defined scenario building
– Transparent and understandable GIS calculations
– Adapted to multi-stakeholder decision making
– Delivering spatial perception of individual environmental values
• This CEAMAS output is a contribution:
– To the wide community of sediment management
– To cope with the spatial application of potential sediment re-use solutions
CONCLUSIONS ON THE CEAMAS SPATIAL DSS TOOL
- 58 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
European stakeholder point of view regarding social issues Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Overview of differences in European legislation & example in result interpretation variations
Gerry SUTTON, UCC & Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
Finding location for reuse options by integration of different spatial constraints
Eric MASSON, Lille 1 University
Roundtable / discussion
SOCIAL ISSUES
- 59 -
SUMMARY
Introduction to CEAMaS project • 10.00 - 10.30: Global presentation of the project, the partners and EU
perspective
Global vision through multi-criteria decision tool • 10.30 – 10.40: First example of a multi-criteria decision tool
4 Thematic sessions • 10.40 – 11.35: Social issues 11.35 – 11.50: Break • 11.50 – 12.45: Technical issues for reuse 12.45 – 13.45: Lunch • 13.45 – 14.40: Economic issues • 14.40 – 15.35: Environmental issues
Conclusion • 15.35 – 16.00: how to share, how to continue?
CEAMAS CLOSING EVENT
- 60 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
Sediment characterisation techniques for reuse Zoubeir LAFHAJ, Ecole Centrale de Lille & Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
Reuse options identification Gerry SUTTON, UCC & Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
European stakeholder point of view regarding technical feasibility and practice
Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Roundtable / discussion
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 61 -
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 62 -
METHODOLOGY A6 - PHYSICAL, GEOTECHNICAL, AND CHEMICAL
CHARACTERIZATION TECHNIQUES OF SEDIMENTS
Netherlands France Ireland
Site Description and sampling Methods
A7- CHARACTERIZATION OF SEDIMENTS
Synoptic file for each
studied sediment +
Classification
A8-
Requirements
for sediment-
based civil
engineering
formulations
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 64 -
Database of sediments characteristics
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 65 -
PHYSICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND COMPLEMENTARY CHARACTERIZATION
ω (%) 40°C 60°C 105°C
FR 92,58 93,78 95,5
BE 132,84 134,54 136,5
NL 44,15 44,5 45,05
IE 1555,4 1606,86 1683,35
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
40°C 60°C 105°C
Wat
er co
nten
t (%)
Drying temperature (°C)
FR
BE
NL
IE
Water content
For sediment, water content may be an extremely important index. For
example, the consistency of a fine-grained sediment largely depends on
its water content. Ecole Centrale de Lille determined the water content
of sediments by drying samples at 40°C according to the French Standard
NF P 94-050 [1]; but in order to have a wider scope, ECL also dried
samples at 60°C and 105°C. Such a process is compliant with TUD ‘s one
that dried samples at 105 °C during 24 hours, in accordance with the
European standard NEN 15934:2012 [2]. CIT also dried the sediment at
105°C in accordance with the British Standard BS 1377-2 [3].
The water content is calculated as the ratio of the mass of water to the
mass of solid grains in a sample, as presented in Equation (1). It is
denoted by ω and expressed in percentage.
Where:
Mh: Mass of the humid sample
Md: Mass of the dried sample.
(%) h d
d
M M
M
Practical tool for users: characterization techniques using several standards
+ Comparison of results + Integration of other tests and other sediment
characteristics
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 66 -
PHYSICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND COMPLEMENTARY CHARACTERIZATION
Results are different for each test:
- Standards are different for each country
Technical report of common characterization
methods.
- Homogenization and sample preparation
Site Description and sampling Methods are
very important for this type of materials.
Synoptic files were edited: Classifications were
done based on sediment characteristics.
Complementary tests were carried out:
Thermal conductivity, Sorption / Desorption,…
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 67 -
PHYSICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND COMPLEMENTARY CHARACTERIZATION
Sorption/Desorption
0
5
10
15
20
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ma
ss M
ois
ture
Co
nte
nt
(%)
Relative humidity (%)
Likos, W.J., and Lu, N., 2002. Water-vapor sorption
behavior of smectite-kaolinite mixtures, Clays and Clay
Minerals, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 553-561.
Sediments present a significant hygroscopic capacity
A high potential to be used in hygroscopic materials.
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
Chemical characterisation of each sediment was carried out to evaluate its suitability for reuse:
• Knowing its matrix composition
• Knowing its total contents in pollutants
• Knowing its contents in leachable or bioavailable pollutants
• Contributing to understand and predict its long term behaviour in the reuse application
Within CEAMaS, these properties were provided to the « user » modules (engineering, environmental evaluation)
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 68 -
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
Sediment matrix composition properties affecting its suitability for reuse (ex. in cement) or its behaviour (ex. in concrete) were identified:
• reactive elements for cement and concrete (sulphur, chloride),
• organic carbon contents
Additionally, major elements (Si, Al, Fe, Ca,...), inorganic carbon and penalty elements (Ti, Cr, Mn, Ni, Zn...) should be determined (like for soil) for specific reuse options, or for sediment treatment design.
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 69 -
CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 70 -
Raw sample (<2 µm - dry matter)
As Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn
LQ 5 2 10 5 0.025 10 10 5
Unit mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
BE 34.3 6 166 84 1.42 40 148 630
NL 16.9 2 72 76 1.39 42 134 290
FR 14.9 2 104 52 0.32 22 158 708
IE 15.8 < LQ 66 40 0.37 28 58 170
FR N1 25 1.2 90 45 0.4 37 100 276
FR N2 50 2.4 180 90 0.8 74 200 552
Dutch Bbk, living (class A) Dutch Bbk, industy (class B)Dutch (**) ZBT
FR IE NL
BE
dry
BE
wet
FR IE NL
BE
dry
BE
wet
FR IE NL
BE
dry
63% 232% 28% 37% 0% 14% 52% 6% 8% 0% 71% 261% 31% 41%
82% 12% 13% 81% 0% 11% 2% 2% 11% 0% 113% 16% 18% 113%
0% 2% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 25% 49% 24%
31% 0% 0% 57% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
The total contents in pollutants was determined, to be used in compliance evaluation with guide values:
• “heavy metals” (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn) and As,
• priority organic substances (PAHs, PCBs) and specific substances (ex: TBT)
Substances and levels may vary according to reuse scenario
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
Sediment contents in leachable or bioavailable pollutants is more representative for impact or risk evaluation of reuse. Methods include: • selective extraction, • leaching tests, • ecotoxicity testing • passive samplers. Most of them are not yet fully implemented in regulations.
From Brand et al., 2013: Possibilities of implementation of bioavailability methods
for organic contaminants in the Dutch Soil Quality Assessment Framework
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 71 -
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
To understand and predict the sediment’s long term behaviour in the reuse application, we identified the need for
• health risk models for the risk assessment of the reuse application (civil works, etc.) and its acceptance
• monitoring of the long term release of contaminants by reused sediments. Release characteristics are site-dependent and application-dependent.
We confirmed that the total contaminants content is a majorant of leachable or bioavailable content – and easier to establish – but may be misleading.
a compromise is needed between accurate risk evaluation and easier characterisation needed for reuse development
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 72 -
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
Grain size chemistry is an invaluable tool to determine
• in which size fraction are the undesirable elements ?
• if a grain size separation process may improve the reusability of a sediment, by concentrating the unwanted substance in a small fraction
We undertook its conversion to a practical field decision tool, using field analysis techniques, to allow operators to take benefit of it.
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISATION TECHNIQUES FOR REUSE
- 73 -
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION
THEMATIC SESSIONS
Sediment characterisation techniques for reuse Zoubeir LAFHAJ, Ecole Centrale de Lille & Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
Reuse options identification Gerry SUTTON, UCC & Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
European stakeholder point of view regarding technical feasibility and practice
Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Roundtable / discussion
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 74 -
THEMATIC 2
After characterizing the sediments, we have looked at the technical suitability of the sediment for different types of applications.
We used the overview as made by
DWW (2013) as starting point,
grouping sediment reuse in four themes:
• Road construction,
• Soil/landfill material,
• Safety against flooding, and
• Building industry.
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 75 -
THEMATIC 2
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 76 -
THEMATIC 2 TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 77 -
THEMATIC 2
While we have screened over a hundred publications, the list is still not complete and mainly focuses on:
• Applications in The Netherlands and Belgium,
• Related INTERREG programs (PRISMA, TIDE), and
• EU knowledge exchange platforms (PIANC, SedNet, CEDA).
There is a global trend in information level for the 4 groups:
• For road construction & building material use, there are detailed technical protocols with specific geotechnical tests on what materials can be used.
• For soil/landfill material & safety against flooding, the sediment geotechnical targets are more global.
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 78 -
THEMATIC 2
Within CEAMaS we had two pilot sites for the reuse of sediments:
• Lift up of Lowlands,
• Sealing of sediment deposit IJsseloog towards groundwater.
Both are within the group
“Sediment reuse for soil/landfill
material“.
“Lift up of Lowlands”
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 79 -
THEMATIC 2
Filling of depot N, before, during and after filling.
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 80 -
THEMATIC 2
Technical characterization:
• Organic content: 70- 98%
• Fibre content: 50-60%
• Moisture content: 1000-1500%
• Specific gravity: 0.88
.. or in short, peat.
How does peat transforms to a soil?
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 81 -
THEMATIC 2
Drying behavior peat: Soil - water
retention curve, measured with a Hyprop.
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 82 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
Sediment characterisation techniques for reuse Zoubeir LAFHAJ, Ecole Centrale de Lille & Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
Reuse options identification Gerry SUTTON, UCC & Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
European stakeholder point of view regarding technical feasibility and practice
Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Roundtable / discussion
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 83 -
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW
• Common view points:
• Dumping at sea is actually used by all
• Building with nature
• View points differences:
• Knowledge induced by different practice
• Lack of knowledge for the smallest harbours
- 84 -
CONCLUSIONS
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW
CONCLUSIONS
- 85 -
• Knowledge gap between stakeholders
• Waste mineral regulation is a key parameter in decision making in each country
• Sediment treatments are an additional cost working against sediment re-use
THEMATIC SESSIONS
Sediment characterisation techniques for reuse Zoubeir LAFHAJ, Ecole Centrale de Lille & Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
Reuse options identification Gerry SUTTON, UCC & Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
European stakeholder point of view regarding technical feasibility and practice
Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Roundtable / discussion
TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE
- 86 -
SUMMARY
Introduction to CEAMaS project • 10.00 - 10.30: Global presentation of the project, the partners and EU
perspective
Global vision through multi-criteria decision tool • 10.30 – 10.40: First example of a multi-criteria decision tool
4 Thematic sessions • 10.40 – 11.35: Social issues 11.35 – 11.50: Break • 11.50 – 12.45: Technical issues for reuse 12.45 – 13.45: Lunch • 13.45 – 14.40: Economic issues • 14.40 – 15.35: Environmental issues
Conclusion • 15.35 – 16.00: how to share, how to continue?
CEAMAS CLOSING EVENT
- 87 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
European stakeholder point of view Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Global Economic Modelling for reuse options Joe HARRINGTON, CIT
On site characterisation for optimised dredging and sediments reuse
Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
Roundtable / discussion
ECONOMIC ISSUES
- 88 -
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW ON ECONOMIC ISSUES
METHODOLOGY
- 89 -
• 100 stakeholders identified, 42 were interviewed
• 13 stakeholders in United Kingdom have also been interviewed.
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW ON ECONOMIC ISSUES
• Dredging costs
• Transportation costs
• Treatment costs (according to national legal frameworks)
• Lack of integrated (dredged and natural) sediment market
THE COST OF MANAGING SEDIMENT
- 90 -
EUROPEAN STAKEHOLDER POINT OF VIEW
• Need to create a user community/association
• Reliable applications (materials and potential re-uses)
• Optimisation of the transport cost
• Working on civil society
CONCLUSION
- 91 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
European stakeholder point of view Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Global Economic Modelling for reuse options Joe HARRINGTON, CIT
On site characterisation for optimised dredging and sediments reuse: technical investigations and consequences on the cost
for reuse options Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
Roundtable / discussion
ECONOMIC ISSUES
- 92 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
• Introduction to the Economic Model
• General Model Framework & Structure
• Direct Costs and Economic Impacts
• Model Scenarios and Outputs
• Conclusions
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 93 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
- An economic model has been developed to allow the modelling of Specific Civil Engineering Applications/Scenarios and specific reference scenarios (for the different CEAMaS partner countries).
- Available direct unit costs have been gathered for the Partner Countries
Model Output: Direct Project Costs
- Economic multiplier and wage data gathered (where available) for the individual Partner Countries
Model Output: Wider Economic Impact
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 94 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
• The Economic Model – General Framework
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 95 -
• Identification of the National Economic Impact Area
• Identification of the dredging site and its sediment characteristics
• Preliminary selection of the potentially feasible sediment management options
• Direct costs and economic impacts form the model output based on multipliers derived from input-output analysis of economic activity
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Model Structure
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 96 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 97 -
Direct Costs
Unit Process Costs
by Partner Country
Management Process Step Cost
Disposal costs on land [€/TMS] Inert waste storage 18
Environmental tax 7512
Disposal at sea [€/m3] €0.178
Disposal at Sea Charges [€] 2000-1800016
Licencing fees and Charges [€]* 300008
Water transport cost [€/m3/km] 0.06 – 1.08
Unloading costs [€/m3] Non-mechanical 0.768
Mechanical 4.08
Land transport cost [€/t/km] Road - Rural Conditions 0.048
Road - Urban Conditions 0.098
Dredger mobilization [€] 700008
Pipeline Mobilization [€] 80-908
Dredging cost [€/m3] 38
Pumping/Rainbowing cost [€/m3] 1.30 – 1.508
Environmental Assessment [€] 15000
Monitoring [€] 35000
Sampling cost [€/Sample] 500
Analysis cost [€/Sample] 610
8 Sheehan C. (2008), An analysis of Dredge material Reuse Techniques for ireland - DMMAP
12 Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government – Landfill levy
11 RPS Ireland (2011), Dunmore East Dredging Study
16 Irish Dumping at Sea (Fees) Regulations 2012
*Including the Irish Environmental Protection Agency Licence fee, the Foreshore licence Fee and other
permitting costs.
ECONOMIC ISSUES
• Economic Impacts
Contribution to GDP and Impact on Employment
Direct Contribution
Employment directly related to the Project
Indirect Contribution
The ‘supplier’ effect, upstream & downstream
Type I Industry Multipliers applied
Induced Contribution
Employment created by the expenditure induced effects within the general economy Type II Industry Multipliers applied
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 98 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 99 -
Type 1 Multiplier Data
Multiplier Data Applied for each Partner Country
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Sediment Management Scenarios Modelled:
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 100 -
CEAMaS
Partner
Country
Beneficial Use Scenarios
Land
Reclamation
Wetland
Creation/
Building with
Nature
Brick
Manufacture
Road SubBase
Construction Amoras
Slufter/
Disposal on
Land
Underwater
Cell
Disposal
at Sea
Belgium
France
Ireland
The
Netherlands
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Economic Modelling – Land Reclamation (Ireland)
• General Project Details:
– Dredged volume of 100,000m3
– Uncontaminated sediment, suitable for land reclamation
– Dredge site close to land reclamation area (2km)
– Disposal at Sea option (10km sail distance assumed)
– Alternative quarry based material source (10km trucking distance)
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 101 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 102 -
Land Reclamation
using
Dredge
Sediment
0
500 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
2 000 000
2 500 000
3 000 000
Contribution Type to GDP(Direct, Indirect, Induced,
Total)
Euro
Direct Contribution to GDP [€] Max. Indirect Contribution to GDP [€] Min. Indirect Contribution to GDP [€] Max. Induced Contribution to GDP [€] Min. Induced Contribution to GDP [€] Max. Total GDP [€] 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Job types (Direct, Indirect, Induced)
Job
s
Max. Direct Jobs
Min. Direct Jobs
Max. Indirect Jobs
Min. Indirect Jobs
Max. Induced Jobs
Min. Induced Jobs
Max. Total Jobs
Min. Total Jobs
-1 500 000,00
-1 000 000,00
-500 000,00
0,00
500 000,00
1 000 000,00
1 500 000,00
Costs Assets
Co
sts
[€]
Land value created
Saving to disposal at Sea
Other liabilities
Site preparation
Sampling, Assessment andMonitoring
Dredging and transport
ECONOMIC ISSUES
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 103 -
Comparison with
Disposal at Sea
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
50000
100000
150000
200000
500000
Euro
Area of Land Reclamation[m2]
Max. Total GDP [€]
Min. Total GDP [€]
Total GDP - Disp. at Sea [€] 0
50
100
150
200
50 000 100000
150000
200000
500000
Job
s
Area of Land Reclamation[m2]
Max. Total Jobs
Min. Total Jobs
Total Jobs - Disp. atSea
0
2 000 000
4 000 000
6 000 000
8 000 000
10 000 000
50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 500 000
Euro
Area of Land Reclamation[m2]
Land Reclamation [€]
Disposal at Sea [€]
ECONOMIC ISSUES
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 104 -
Comparison with
Quarry-based
Source 0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 500 000
Euro
Area of Land Reclamation[m2]
Quarry [€]
Dredge Material [€]
0
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
20 000 000
25 000 000
30 000 000
35 000 000
50000
100000
150000
200000
500000
Euro
Area of Land Reclamation[m2]
Max. Total GDP - Quarry [€]
Min. Total GDP - Quarry [€]
Max. Total GDP - DM [€]
Min. Total GDP - DM [€]
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
50000
100000
150000
200000
500000
Job
s
Area of Land Reclamation[m2]
Max. Total Jobs -Quarry
Min. Total Jobs -Quarry
Max. Total Jobs -DM
Min. Total Jobs - DM
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Comparison of Scenarios for Ireland – Dredged volume of 10,000m3
– Disposal at Sea typically provides the lowest direct cost
– Other management options potentially economically feasible under certain circumstances
– Other management options provide greater economic impact
– Environmental & societal impacts not included in this analysis
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 105 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Economic Modelling – Disposal (The Netherlands)
• General Project Details:
– Dredged volume of 100,000m3
– Sediment Quality may vary
– Disposal may be to an underwater cell or to the Slufter
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 106 -
Sampling & Analysis
Dredging Transport PlacementLicencing fees &
Charges
Licencing fees & Charges
Environmetnal Assessment
ECONOMIC ISSUES
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 107 -
Underwater Cell
0
1 000 000
2 000 000
3 000 000
4 000 000
5 000 000
6 000 000
7 000 000
8 000 000
Contribution Type to GDP(Direct, Indirect, Induced, Total)
Euro
Direct Contributionto GDP [€]
Max. Indirect Contributionto GDP [€]
Min. Indirect Contributionto GDP [€]
Max. Induced Contributionto GDP [€] 0
20
40
60
80
100
Job types (Direct, Indirect, Induced)
Nu
mb
er
of
Job
s
Max. Direct Jobs
Min. Direct Jobs
Max. Indirect Jobs
Min. Indirect Jobs
Max. Induced Jobs
Min. Induced Jobs
Max. Total Jobs
Min. Total Jobs
-€1 000 000
-€500 000
€0
€500 000
€1 000 000
€1 500 000
€2 000 000
Costs AssetsC
ost
s
Assets
Other Liabilities
Cost of Disposal in Facility
Sampling, Assessment andMonitoring
Dredging and transport
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Comparison of Scenarios for the Netherlands – Dredged volume of 100,000m3
– These costs are indicative only
– Disposal at Sea included for comparative purposes only
– Other options provide greater economic impact
– Environmental & societal impacts not included in this analysis
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 108 -
0
500 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
2 000 000
2 500 000
3 000 000
Disposal at Sea Slufter UWC
Euro
Facility
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Conclusions for Economic Modelling – An economic model has been developed including direct costs and a
range of economic impacts
– The model has been applied to a range of sediment management scenarios for different CEAMaS countries
– The cost input information is indicative only
– Model results show the potential economic impact (on GDP and employment) of a range of sediment management scenarios
– The optimum dredged sediment management solution will depend on the specific site conditions
– The model has the capacity to provide results for a wide range of site conditions and different scenarios
– Economic modelling results need to be considered in the context of the broader environmental and societal impacts and the needs and requirements of the stakeholder community.
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
- 109 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
• Review undertaken for each of the Partner Countries:
Summary of Current Potential Market & Demand
Specific Uses identified where there may be a demand
Specific Market/Demand Issues
Identification of key source/reference material
GLOBAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR REUSE OPTIONS
THEMATIC SESSIONS
European stakeholder point of view Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Global Economic Modelling for reuse options Joe HARRINGTON, CIT
On site characterisation for optimised dredging and sediments reuse Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
Roundtable / discussion
ECONOMIC ISSUES
- 111 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Why on-site characterisation ?
• Faster access to information – decisions during works
• Ability to multiply points – dynamic mapping and sampling
On-site characterisation is a pre-requisite technology for the development of economic applications:
• Selection of sediments at the dredging site
• Real-time decisions during dredging operations on the destination of sediment loads
• Help for the management of temporary storage and treatment facilities, and of on-ship treatment
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 112 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Technologies
• pXRF (matrix, heavy metals in solids)
• FTIR (organic contaminants in solids)
• µRaman (matrix, organic contaminants ? in solids)
• multiparametric probe (water quality)
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 113 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
pXRF (matrix, heavy metals) sediment characterisation
• on site and at disposal sites
• during dredging and at treatment sites
• during implementation at reuse sites
• pXRF is also used as a support to sampling homogeneity verification
• and to operational decisions
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 114 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
• Sampling at Dunkerque settling pond
• On site analysis for samples control
• Spatial heterogeneity of measurements did not exceed ±20%, to the exception of Pb, for which one local anomaly was measured.
• Vertical heterogeneity is slightly higher but does not exceed ±25%
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 115 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
• Sample splitting at TU Delft
• Samples from various locations divided for all lab tests and checked for homogeneity
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 116 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
• pXRF operation on-board a sampling ship
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 117 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
FTIR (organic contaminants) characterisation
• Objectives : detection and screening of industrial organic pollutants (PAHs, PCBs, aromatics, phenol, petroleum hydrocarbons...) Observation of matrix components for reuse (minerals, OM...)
• New technology, no return on experience yet
• Application to harbour sediments explored in CEAMaS
• Same applications as pXRF but not yet ready for routine use
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 118 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 119 -
FTIR (organic contaminants) first results: Silica sand + diesel fuel
diesel absorbances
ECONOMIC ISSUES
FTIR first results: Silica sand + diesel fuel + soot residues
extra absorbances of residues
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 120 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
µRaman sediment characterisation
• matrix (minerals), organic contaminants (?) in solids
• expected to overcome FTIR limitations (water content, darkness from organic matter)
• equipment became available too late in the project
Test equipment at BRGM,
summer 2015 =>
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 121 -
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Multiparametric probe
• water quality parameters during dredging
• monitoring sediment reuse impacts on groundwater
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 122 -
10
100
1000
11:18:14 11:19:41 11:21:07 11:22:34 11:24:00 11:25:26 11:26:53 11:28:19 11:29:46 11:31:12 11:32:38
Turbidité+ NTU
Turbidité+
Profondeur
Redox
pH
CondSp
Cl-
ECONOMIC ISSUES
Why on-site characterisation ?
• Fast access to information – decisions during works
• Ability to multiply points – dynamic mapping and sampling
• A tool for immediate industrial application
• Improving environmental monitoring
• Helping sediment processing and handling
ON SITE CHARACTERISATION FOR OPTIMISED DREDGING AND SEDIMENTS REUSE
- 123 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
European stakeholder point of view Eric MASSON & Dounia LAHLOU, Lille 1 University
Global Economic Modelling for reuse options Joe HARRINGTON, CIT
On site characterisation for optimised dredging and sediments reuse
Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM
Roundtable / discussion
ECONOMIC ISSUES
- 124 -
SUMMARY
Introduction to CEAMaS project • 10.00 - 10.30: Global presentation of the project, the partners and EU
perspective
Global vision through multi-criteria decision tool • 10.30 – 10.40: First example of a multi-criteria decision tool
4 Thematic sessions • 10.40 – 11.35: Social issues 11.35 – 11.50: Break • 11.50 – 12.45: Technical issues for reuse 12.45 – 13.45: Lunch • 13.45 – 14.40: Economic issues • 14.40 – 15.35: Environmental issues
Conclusion • 15.35 – 16.00: how to share, how to continue?
CEAMAS CLOSING EVENT
- 125 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
WebGIS, a tool for spatial data-information dissemination at European level
Gerry SUTTON, UCC
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) applied on sediment reuse Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
Sediment characterisation for potential ecotoxicity methods Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft & Philippe BATAILLARD, BRGM
Roundtable / discussion
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
- 126 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
WEBGIS, A TOOL FOR DATA-INFORMATION ACCESS, DECISION SUPPORT AND DISSEMINATION AT EUROPEAN SPATIAL LEVEL
- 127 -
Web-GIS tools are relatively intuitive in use
with underlying modular design providing
the inherent functionality that can be
rapidly adapted to suit specific
requirements.
The web-GIS tool created by the CEAMaS
team provides an interactive graphical user
interface which has been designed to
facilitate CEAMaS information diffusion and
decision support for end users.
CEAMAS WEBGIS TOOL
• A GIS in an online format is delivered as a platform to display the analyses and processes carried in the project.
• Providing an online catalogue for CEAMAS GIS products
OVERVIEW
- 128 -
Overview from CEAMaS web-GIS highlighting the toolset and the legend
CEAMAS WEBGIS TOOL
- 129 -
Web-GIS (Smart Atlas): an online mapping application that
displays relevant information about a specific topic, whilst
offering users some of the standard toolsets and
functionality provided by a desktop GIS.
For every dataset, a quality informative metadata is being displayed compliant to ISO 19115 standard. Data layers are organized and served over the internet using Mapserver (WMS standards compliant).
The Web-GIS is using open source software
technology. All the functionalities are divided and
processed through a central server, making of the
main webpage a user friendly interface, accessible to
all types of end-users.
CEAMAS WEBGIS TOOL
This spatial catalogue may become a primary
source of consultation decision makers
E.g. to appraise themselves of previous stages
of dredging activity relevant to future
planning.
Target sediments are first characterised.
spatial analytical and geostatistical techniques
can then produce an integrated volumetric
map of the target area
CEAMaS has eveloped two detailed study cases
for dredged material potential reuse:
Munster and Leinster (Ireland)
Nord Pas de Calais (France).
POTENTIAL USES & CASE STUDIES
- 130 -
CEAMAS WEBGIS TOOL PROCESSING
- 131 -
Spatial DSS aims to highlight locations with the minimum of constraints for potential civil engineering applications. Including environmental, regulatory and economical limits.
Dredging Sediments steps:
• Sampling
• Analysis
• Characterization
• Collection
Decision making step*
Dumping at sea
Potential civil engineering application
Marine/coastal applications
Terrestrial applications
CEAMAS WEBGIS TOOL
- 132 -
Attractiveness Repellence Regulatory Incentive
Fig. 2. Raster data treatment's principle (Modified after Zeiler 1999 [15],
ESRI 2008 [16]).
Raster data can be obtained by rasterization of vector data.
It enables the integration of vector data in raster databases.
The use of raster data predominately permits the mobilization of numerous tools for spatial analysis, especially for the modeling of continuous phenomena in space (for instance the distance considered, in the project, as attractive or repellent).
(from ArcGIS spatial analyst tool box, Fig. 3) in order to assess attractiveness and repellence constraints. It is motivated by the fact that this tool allows to model a gradient in a 2D plan, and therefore to measure an increasing, or decreasing phenomenon in space.
Fig. 3. Spatial constraints principal by use of an Euclidienne distance calcul
tool with or without spatial rugosity (Modified after ESRI 2008 [16]).
This device uses a concept that is sufficiently explicit for
the assessment model of spatial constraints to be understandable by a wide class of users, decision makers and local communities. It is based on the notion of positive or
method used in environmental economy [17]: the value of the constraint is a decision cost that allows to accept or decline a spatialised scenario issued from the combination of the four types of constraints available, possibly weighted by the decision maker.
Users can implement this tool rapidly and effortlessly. A large number of location scenarios can thus be quickly produced, and these scenarios can be further refined in an interactive manner by a decision maker.
B. Trading information at regional scale
1)
An attractiveness constraint (Fig. 4) corresponds to an investigation of the proximity in relation to an attractive element in an urban, or regional context. The shorter Euclidian distance to reach the objective is therefore the one offering the least constraint.
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
Spatial constraintHigh: 1
Low: 0
Fig. 4. Attractivness constraint to ports.
A repellence constraint (Fig. 5) corresponds to an investigation of the remoteness in relation to a repellent element in an urban, or regional context. The shorter Euclidian distance to reach the objective is therefore the one offering the highest constraint. A repellence constraint is decreasing in space whereas an attractive constraint is increasing in space (Fig. 6.)
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
Spatial constraintHigh: 1
Low: 0
Fig. 5. Repellence Remoteness to drinking water wells.
In the GIS used, there is no spatial analysis tool to process an inverse distance calculation. In order to obtain this result, a grid algebra tool must be used as follows:
InvRastDist=(RastDist-DistMax) x (-1)
Where RastDist = distance raster; InvRastDist = inverse distance raster; DistMax = maximum value of RastDist.
Fig. 6. Spatial propagation of contraints (A) and inverse distance calculation
model (B).
To be able to combine the ensemble of the distances, and inverse distance rasters (in other words to combine attractiveness and repellence constraints), a normalization of the distance values is necessary in order for 1) the maximum value to be equal to 1 (the maximum constraint) and 2) the minimum value to be equal to 0 (the minimum constraint).
This data normalization is realized by the maximum value in order to obtain a gradient of constraints spanning from 0
(constraint null) to 1 (maximum constraint) for each raster calculated. For inverse distance raster, the result of the normalization is multiplied by -1 in order to keep positive values varying between 0 and 1.
The normalized distance rasters are expressed as follows:
RastDistNorm = RastDist
DistMax
and
InvRastDistNorm = (RastDist-DistMax)
DistMaxx(-1)
Where RastDist is distance raster; RastDistNorm is normalized distance raster; InvRastDistNorm is the normalized inverse distance raster; DistMax is the maximum value of RastDist.
In the cases of both constraints (attractiveness and repellence), the processed data varies between 0 and 1, following rigorously opposed directions. It allows the combination of constraints rasters obtained in coherence with the concepts used. The assessment of the two other constraints (regulatory and incentive) is even easier.
The regulatory constraint is considered as a surface area to be excluded from the final scenario. It is equivalent to a partition of the spatial analysis plan between regulated areas and areas considered as free (from a regulatory point of view). Example can be, at regional scale, the impossibility to build an industrial site in the protected perimeter of a drinking water well.
The incentive constraint is considered as a surface area relevant to an opportunity (development fund, politics, soil
the implantation of industrial or storage facilities.
The assessment of these two constraints corresponds to the elaboration of a binary raster (0 or 1). Here again, values are inversed between regulatory and incentive constraints.
For regulatory constraints, all surface areas subject to legal prohibition or recognized as impossible to plan by a territorial agent or a decision maker, have 0 as value. The other surface areas are equal to 1 (Fig. 7).
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
Protected drinking well perimeter
Fig. 7. Regulatory constraint Drinking water wells protection perimeter.
For incentive constraints (Fig. 8), all surface areas offering
the opportunity of development or recognized as so, have 0 as valuewhen the other surface areas are attributed the value of 1.
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
Coastal Development Fund
Fig. 8. Incentive constraint Coastal development fund area.
2)
Four types of spatial constraints formatted as a raster are therefore available for the combinatory analysis by grid algebra. Attractiveness, repellence arasters are integrated by summing, when the regulatory
where four constraints are taken into account (thus 4 rasters), the calculus is as follows:
RastScenCont=(RastAtt+RastRep+RastInc)
3x (RastReg)
Where RastScenCont is the raster of the scenario of constraints, in other words the result raster of the integration calculus of the four constraints; RastAtt is the attractiveness
raster; R
3) Creating scenarios by weighting spatial constraints
available can be considered as a reference scenario. However it does not take into account the diversity of the decision
compared to another. In other words, is it more important to be close to main roads or more important to be close to potential deconstruction sites? An informed decision maker would judge that it is meaningful to modulate this relative importance. As a matter of fact, there is no good decision without weighting the decisional criteria, especially when they are numerous. It is also convenient to prioritize and determine the most relevant criteria and their relative importance.
Moreover, the pertinence of a criterion (selection, or non-selection of a spatial constraint), or its relative importance (weights in relation to the ensemble of the criteria retained) depends on the point of view and the expertise of every stakeholder involved in the decision process. Eventually, as shown in Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.9, the injection of certain constraints can have a very significant
incentive constraint as equivalent in terms of weight to the other constraints). The system must therefore be open, modular from a catalog of constraints constituting the primary decisional material.
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
ConstraintHigh :1
Faible : 0Low: 0
High: 1
&
&
&
&
&
CALAIS
MONTREUIL
DUNKERQUE
SAINT-OMER
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
Scenario 1
ConstraintHigh: 1
Low: 0
Fig. 9. Scenario using the combination of figures 3, 4, 5, 6 (no weights
applied to any constraint).
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
Protected drinking well perimeter
Fig. 7. Regulatory constraint Drinking water wells protection perimeter.
For incentive constraints (Fig. 8), all surface areas offering
the opportunity of development or recognized as so, have 0 as valuewhen the other surface areas are attributed the value of 1.
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
Coastal Development Fund
Fig. 8. Incentive constraint Coastal development fund area.
2)
Four types of spatial constraints formatted as a raster are therefore available for the combinatory analysis by grid algebra. Attractiveness, repellence arasters are integrated by summing, when the regulatory
where four constraints are taken into account (thus 4 rasters), the calculus is as follows:
RastScenCont=(RastAtt+RastRep+RastInc)
3x (RastReg)
Where RastScenCont is the raster of the scenario of constraints, in other words the result raster of the integration calculus of the four constraints; RastAtt is the attractiveness
raster; R
3) Creating scenarios by weighting spatial constraints
available can be considered as a reference scenario. However it does not take into account the diversity of the decision
compared to another. In other words, is it more important to be close to main roads or more important to be close to potential deconstruction sites? An informed decision maker would judge that it is meaningful to modulate this relative importance. As a matter of fact, there is no good decision without weighting the decisional criteria, especially when they are numerous. It is also convenient to prioritize and determine the most relevant criteria and their relative importance.
Moreover, the pertinence of a criterion (selection, or non-selection of a spatial constraint), or its relative importance (weights in relation to the ensemble of the criteria retained) depends on the point of view and the expertise of every stakeholder involved in the decision process. Eventually, as shown in Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.9, the injection of certain constraints can have a very significant
incentive constraint as equivalent in terms of weight to the other constraints). The system must therefore be open, modular from a catalog of constraints constituting the primary decisional material.
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
ConstraintHigh :1
Faible : 0Low: 0
High: 1
&
&
&
&
&
CALAIS
MONTREUIL
DUNKERQUE
SAINT-OMER
/
0 20 4010 Kilometers
Scenario 1
ConstraintHigh: 1
Low: 0
Fig. 9. Scenario using the combination of figures 3, 4, 5, 6 (no weights
applied to any constraint).
SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS
Spatial consensus
CEAMAS WEBGIS TOOL
• The web-GIS is not intended to replace desktop software, rather to complement it as combined system for analysing DM operations.
• The web-GIS Smart Atlas adds considerable value to the CEAMaS platform, with
significant potential for growth and enhancement as the main platform supporting spatial approaches across a range of studies.
• (Case) Studies implemented using the Spatial DSS approach are inherently
instructive in current contexts, but can be readily – revisited to serve e.g. as benchmarks or to provide context for future work. – Serve as examples for application in new contexts
• The integral DM use case study, is demonstrates the value of GIS (web and desktop) as being informative throughout the entire value chain: from initial dredging concept through to final re-use of material in a civil engineering application,
• The approach also demonstrates how a Geo-database can be built which is capable
of registering the diverse types of information required to address Ceamas related issues
• Overall the combined tools can:
– Provide spatial information at supra-national level to both, stakeholders and decision makers,
– Assist practitioners dealing with marine sediment issues at EU and regional level; – Be the primary means for diffusing CEAMaS results based on spatial data.
SUMMARY
- 133 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
WebGIS, a tool for spatial data-information dissemination at European level Gerry SUTTON, UCC
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) applied on sediment reuse Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
Sediment characterisation for potential ecotoxicity methods Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft & Philippe BATAILLARD, BRGM
Roundtable / discussion
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
- 134 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• LCA ?
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 135 -
Inputs
WaterElectricity
Thermal energyChemicals
Etc.
Water, air and soil emissions
Outputs
Waste
Normalised methodology Multicriteria analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• LCA applied to sediment management strategy and reuse options:
• Modelisation done using data from real projects, completed by LCA databases as needed
– Impact of processes in different countries – Impact of reuse options
• Functional Unit: The management of 1 cubic meter (m3) of
dredged sediments in North-West Europe in 2014
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 136 -
CEAMaS
Partner Countries
Scenarios
Wetland Creation/
Building with Nature
Brick
Manufacture
Road SubBase
Construction Amoras
Slufter/
Disposal on Land Underwater Cell Dumping at Sea
Belgium
France
Ireland
The Netherlands
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Process assessment: Means of Transportation
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 137 -
Critical review ongoing – final results may be modified
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Scenario comparison in each country
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 138 -
Critical review ongoing – final results may be modified
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Scenario comparison in each country
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 139 -
Critical review ongoing – final results may be modified
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Scenario comparison in each country
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 140 -
Critical review ongoing – final results may be modified
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• LCA to analyse process impacts
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 141 -
Critical review ongoing – final results may be modified
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Reuse option / classic option with conventional process
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 142 -
Critical review ongoing – final results may be modified
Important energy consumption impact
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Reuse option / classic option with conventional process
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 143 -
Critical review ongoing – final results may be modified
Including Dredging, Transport, Dehydration for sediment Important cement & lime impact
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• CONCLUSION: LCA is a strategic tool but interpretation of results must be done with caution
– LCA gives interesting outcomes to identify process impact and help ecodesign of these processes
– Sediment management is very specific for each site:
• Geography is specific (distance to the sea, distance of quarries, urbanisation…)
• Process depends on sediment characteristics
– Reuse options are difficult to compare to common options because common options are also specific
– Toxicity of sediment is a key factor for dumping interdiction but toxicity dynamic is difficult to take into account in LCA
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO SEDIMENT REUSE
- 144 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
WebGIS, a tool for spatial data-information dissemination at European level Gerry SUTTON, UCC
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) applied on sediment reuse Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
Sediment characterisation for potential ecotoxicity methods
Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft & Philippe BATAILLARD, BRGM
Roundtable / discussion
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
- 145 -
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
• In France, inland management of sediment is largely guided by the waste regulation,
• when dealing with contaminated sediment, the operator has to establish whether the dredged material is hazardous or not,
• for this, he has to refer to the 15 properties listed in the Annex III of the Waste framework directive (2008/98/EC),
• Currently, the main property to be checked is the 14th one:
H14 : “Ecotoxic”: waste which presents or may present immediate or delayed risks for one or more sectors of the environment.
ARE DREDGED SEDIMENT HAZARDOUS WASTE ?
- 146 -
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
• In France, a protocol composed of several ecotoxicological tests, is used since 2012,
ARE DREDGED SEDIMENT HAZARDOUS WASTE ?
- 147 -
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
ARE DREDGED SEDIMENT HAZARDOUS WASTE ?
- 148 -
• However, according to the logic of characterization of the hazardness of waste and the specificity of sediment, the 15th property has to be considered :
H15: Waste capable by any means, after disposal, of yielding another substance, e.g. a leachate, which possesses any of the characteristics listed above.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
FORCING THE SEDIMENT OXIDATION
- 149 -
Ageing experiment
- Leaching - Measure of the
exchangeable, CBD and pyrophosphate fractions
- Leaching - Measure of the
exchangeable , CBD and pyrophosphate fractions
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
• Protocol 1 : phytotest
• Protocol 2 : humidity cell (derived from the ASTM D 5744-96)
• Protocol 3 : chemical oxidation
• Protocol 4 : soxhlet extraction
PROTOCOLS CURRENTLY TESTED
- 150 -
1
2
3
4
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
• This test aims at establishing if the sediment could become hazardous (according to current French standards) due to its progressive oxidation,
• Currently, then, it does not aim to characterize the potential emission of pollutants,
• However, a breach is now open regarding the consideration of the “emission value” of the material, which may vary with time and with the future conditions of reuse.
CONCLUSIONS, FRANCE
- 151 -
THEMATIC 4
To evaluate the presence of contaminants on the potential ecotoxicity we have:
1. Measured the total sediment concentration of 42 organic contaminants
2. Tested leaching (emission) & the potentially affected fraction
1. the MS-PAF, based on the leaching results (NEN 7373 (2004))
3. Measured the pore water concentration with passive sampling
4. Measured the bio-available fraction
We used the same set of sediment samples as for the metals (one for each country).
ECOTOXICITY, AS TESTED WITHIN CEAMAS
- 152 -
THEMATIC 4
1. Measured the total sediment concentration of 42 organic contaminants
ECOTOXICITY
- 153 -
Dutch Bbk, living (class A) Dutch Bbk, industy (class B) Dutch (**) ZBT
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
Exam
ple
1
Exam
ple
2
Exam
ple
3
Exam
ple
4
Exam
ple
5
4. Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH's) Example 2
sum 10 PAH 63% 232% 28% 37% 0% 14% 52% 6% 8% 0% 71% 261% 31% 41% 0%
d. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)
sum 7 PCB 82% 12% 13% 81% 0% 11% 2% 2% 11% 0% 113% 16% 18% 113% 0%
6. Pesticides
a. organochloro pesticides
sum DDT/DDE/DDD 0% 2% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 25% 49% 24% 0%
sum drins 31% 0% 0% 57% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
sum HCHs 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
THEMATIC 4
2. MS-PAF
ECOTOXICITY
- 154 -
THEMATIC 4
3. Pore water concentration, How does passive sampling work?
ECOTOXICITY
- 155 -
THEMATIC 4
3. Pore water concentration, one example
ECOTOXICITY
- 156 -
20
30
50
60
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0 4 8 12 16 20
Cext µg/kg
-
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20
Cw
(n
g/L
)
Cresidual µg/kg
PCB - 28 in Sample 1 Cw= 0.46 ( “ 0.02) ng/L
Cas= 9.4 ( “ 0.6) µg/kg
Kasw= 4.31 ( “ 0.03)L/kg
Ctot= 9.6 µg/kg
f_water_ext= 0.98 µg/kg
THEMATIC 4
4. Bio-available fraction
ECOTOXICITY
- 157 -
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NAP ACY ACE FLE FEN ANT FLU PYR BAA CHR BBF BkF BAP INP DBAHA
BGHIPE
Example 1 99% 97% 98% 99% 99% 94% 84% 61% 90% 85% 47% 14% 19% 100% 85% 88%
Example 2 16% 74% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Example 3 40% 40% 32% 73% 36% 5% 32% 52% 70% 100% 76% 88% 88% 74% 65%
Example 4 6% 19% 83% 87% 80% 69% 50% 34% 38% 83% 48% 61% 57% 79% 100% 62%
% b
ioav
aila
ble
Bio available fraction: PAH's
THEMATIC 4
4. Bio-available fraction
Looking at the PAH results for Example 2 we see that all PAH’s (from 2 to 5 rings) are almost 100% bio-available. The source of the PAH’s is therefore most likely a contamination after sediment deposition (possible an oil spill).
While in Example 4 the bio-available PAH fraction is most often <50%. This correlates with a PAH source which was present before sedimentation (soot bound, likely source is combustion).
ECOTOXICITY
- 158 -
THEMATIC SESSIONS
WebGIS, a tool for spatial data-information dissemination at European level Gerry SUTTON, UCC
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) applied on sediment reuse Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
Sediment characterisation for potential ecotoxicity methods Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft
Roundtable / discussion
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
- 159 -
SUMMARY
Introduction to CEAMaS project • 10.00 - 10.30: Global presentation of the project, the partners and EU
perspective
Global vision through multi-criteria decision tool • 10.30 – 10.40: First example of a multi-criteria decision tool
4 Thematic sessions • 10.40 – 11.35: Social issues 11.35 – 11.50: Break • 11.50 – 12.45: Technical issues for reuse 12.45 – 13.45: Lunch • 13.45 – 14.40: Economic issues • 14.40 – 15.35: Environmental issues
Conclusion • 15.35 – 16.00: how to share, how to continue?
CEAMAS CLOSING EVENT
- 160 -
CONCLUSION
Ceamas web site and content Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
Towards a European Resource Centre? Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
Roundtable: Global vision & perspectives CEAMaS partners
HOW TO SHARE, HOW TO CONTINUE?
- 161 -
WWW.CEAMAS.EU
- 162 -
WWW.CEAMAS.EU
- 163 -
CONCLUSION
Ceamas web site and content Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
Towards a European Resource Centre? Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e
Roundtable: Global vision & perspectives CEAMaS partners
HOW TO SHARE, HOW TO CONTINUE?
- 164 -
TOWARD A EUROPEAN RESOURCE CENTRE?
• Sediment management
– a major issue in Europe (cost – volume – environmental risk)
• Diffuse sediment expertise
– associations, networks, public agencies, academics, operators, sites owners, users…
• Networks & competence centres specialised in
– techniques/ science
– sediment management / legislation issues
• No network focusing on territorial development and economic global vision
CONTEXT & OPPORTUNITY
- 165 -
Opportunity for a network/resource centre for circular economy development with sediment reuse
TOWARD A EUROPEAN RESOURCE CENTRE?
• In order to develop circular economy using sediment, this network could aim to:
– Contribute to the development of new technical solutions for sediment reuse
– Help sediment managers with new solutions for sediment management
– Develop the motivation and acceptability for sediment reuse
– Contribute to create new activities by sediment reuse
– Capitalise European experiences in sediment reuse and circular economy
AIM
- 166 -
TOWARD A EUROPEAN RESOURCE CENTRE?
• Based on French SEDILAB experience, activities could include: – Diffusing survey & information via
website, providing access to information and knowledge
– Organising conferences to bring together territorial managers and stakeholders in sediment management
– Animating and participating in workshops
– Developing and promoting training courses
– Supporting/participating in projects that further promote sediment reuse
– Developing European expertise and give projects more dissemination impacts
POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES
- 167 -
NETWORKING
TOWARD A EUROPEAN RESOURCE CENTRE?
PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY / POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE
- 168 -
Cd2e secretariat & legal body
EU Resource Center
Sedimateriaux Technicalcommittee (national
associated partners foraction planning)
Sédimatériaux Scientific Experts Group
Sedimateriaux National Strategic Committee
European Network
Cd2e/Sedilab –Sédimatériaux for French
& North of France initiatives
Local resource center / network lead partners(national or regional)
European Steeringcommittee
Scientific Experts GroupFor neutral expertise
= enlargement of Sédimatériaux SEG
Thematic PartnerTerritory – Technic/R&D –
Social/Economy –Sediment manager
Associated partners(supporting EU Sedilbab
by giving information, publication, tools… but no
participation to the network life)
Supporting Partners
First draft of EU Resource Center structuration and Links with Cd2e/Sedilab - Sédimatériaux
TOWARD A EUROPEAN RESOURCE CENTRE?
First step towards a EUROPEAN RESOURCE CENTER
CEAMaS partners Agreement of understanding for
the development of a European resource centre for circular economy development with sediment reuse
Signature session
- 169 -
CONCLUSION
Roundtable: Global vision & perspectives CEAMaS partners
HOW TO SHARE, HOW TO CONTINUE?
- 170 -