civil engineering applications for marine sediments project · civil engineering applications for...

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 -


EU perspective

Ruut Louwers, Interreg North West Europe


- 4 -


Global vision of CEAMaS

Tristan DEBUIGNE, Cd2e


- 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


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


- 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,…)


- 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


- 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


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)


- 17 -


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)


- 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

http://www.wtcb.be/

http://www.cstc.be/


- 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

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAkQjRwwAGoVChMI7JvAjIHsxwIVBrMUCh0KNAlu&url=http://www.stucomm.com/blog/stucomm-gaat-samenwerken-met-de-tu-delft/&psig=AFQjCNHv8iJo6N2hIAuOOyzBOJHJNm-Bwg&ust=1441958755624632


- 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



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.


- 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 -


• 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 -


•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 -


• 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


• 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


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


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


perspective





- 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


• 100 stakeholders identified, 42 were interviewed

• 13 stakeholders in United Kingdom have also been interviewed.

STAKEHOLDER CATEGORY

- 33 -


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


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





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


- 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


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


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


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.

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCNStwqOt7McCFYGaFAodV0UARw&url=http://pretwerk.nl/topnieuws/markerwadden-nieuw-vaardoel-voor-watersport/18146&psig=AFQjCNHe1RnkB620cWpy20VDpYVnQbRcIA&ust=1441970613862656

THEMATIC SESSIONS







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 -


GIS PROCESSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION

- 50 -


DATA SOURCES AND COLLECTION USED FOR THE FRENCH CASE

- 51 -


MARINE SEDIMENT (CEAMAS INTERREG IVB NWE)

- 52 -


SPATIALISED PARAMETERS: CONSTRAINT LAYERS (NORMALISED VALUES)

- 53 -


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 -


SCENARIO SAMPLES FOR THE IRISH CASE: WEBGIS ACCESS

- 56 -


FROM SINGLE STAKEHOLDER SCENARIO TO SPATIAL CONSENSUS

- 57 -


• 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







SOCIAL ISSUES

- 59 -

SUMMARY


perspective





- 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



TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR REUSE

- 61 -


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



- 64 -

Database of sediments characteristics



- 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



- 66 -


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,…



- 67 -


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.


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)


- 68 -

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION


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.


- 69 -

CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION



- 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



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


- 71 -



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


- 72 -



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.


- 73 -


THEMATIC SESSIONS







- 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.


- 75 -

THEMATIC 2


- 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.


- 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”


- 79 -

THEMATIC 2

Filling of depot N, before, during and after filling.


- 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?


- 81 -

THEMATIC 2

Drying behavior peat: Soil - water

retention curve, measured with a Hyprop.


- 82 -

THEMATIC SESSIONS







- 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


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







- 86 -

SUMMARY


perspective





- 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


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 -


• 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



On site characterisation for optimised dredging and sediments reuse: technical investigations and consequences on the cost

for reuse options Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM


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


- 94 -

ECONOMIC ISSUES

• The Economic Model – General Framework


- 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


- 96 -

ECONOMIC ISSUES


- 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


- 98 -

ECONOMIC ISSUES


- 99 -

Type 1 Multiplier Data

Multiplier Data Applied for each Partner Country

ECONOMIC ISSUES

Sediment Management Scenarios Modelled:


- 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)


- 101 -

ECONOMIC ISSUES


- 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


- 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


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


Land Reclamation [€]

Disposal at Sea [€]

ECONOMIC ISSUES


- 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


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


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


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


- 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


- 106 -

Sampling & Analysis

Dredging Transport PlacementLicencing fees &

Charges

Licencing fees & Charges

Environmetnal Assessment

ECONOMIC ISSUES


- 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


- 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.


- 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


THEMATIC SESSIONS



On site characterisation for optimised dredging and sediments reuse Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM


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)


- 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


- 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%


- 115 -

ECONOMIC ISSUES

• Sample splitting at TU Delft

• Samples from various locations divided for all lab tests and checked for homogeneity


- 116 -

ECONOMIC ISSUES

• pXRF operation on-board a sampling ship


- 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


- 118 -

ECONOMIC ISSUES


- 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


- 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 =>


- 121 -

ECONOMIC ISSUES

Multiparametric probe

• water quality parameters during dredging

• monitoring sediment reuse impacts on groundwater


- 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


- 123 -

THEMATIC SESSIONS



On site characterisation for optimised dredging and sediments reuse

Bruno LEMIERE, BRGM


ECONOMIC ISSUES

- 124 -

SUMMARY


perspective





- 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


ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

- 126 -


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

/


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.)

/


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).

/


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.

/


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.

/


ConstraintHigh :1

Faible : 0Low: 0

High: 1

&

&

&

&

&

CALAIS

MONTREUIL

DUNKERQUE

SAINT-OMER

/


Scenario 1

ConstraintHigh: 1

Low: 0

Fig. 9. Scenario using the combination of figures 3, 4, 5, 6 (no weights

applied to any constraint).

/


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.

/


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.

/


ConstraintHigh :1

Faible : 0Low: 0

High: 1

&

&

&

&

&

CALAIS

MONTREUIL

DUNKERQUE

SAINT-OMER

/


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


Sediment characterisation for potential ecotoxicity methods Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft & Philippe BATAILLARD, BRGM



- 134 -


• 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


• 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


- 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


• Process assessment: Means of Transportation


- 137 -

Critical review ongoing – final results may be modified


• Scenario comparison in each country


- 138 -





- 139 -





- 140 -



• LCA to analyse process impacts


- 141 -



• Reuse option / classic option with conventional process


- 142 -


Important energy consumption impact


• Reuse option / classic option with conventional process


- 143 -


Including Dredging, Transport, Dehydration for sediment Important cement & lime impact


• 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


- 144 -

THEMATIC SESSIONS



Sediment characterisation for potential ecotoxicity methods

Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft & Philippe BATAILLARD, BRGM



- 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 -


• In France, a protocol composed of several ecotoxicological tests, is used since 2012,


- 147 -



- 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.


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


• 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


• 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



Sediment characterisation for potential ecotoxicity methods Arjan WIJDEVELD, TUDelft



- 159 -

SUMMARY


perspective





- 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



- 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


• 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 -


• 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


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


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



- 170 -

www.ceamas.eu

Thanks for your attention

Contact : [email protected]

171

mailto:[email protected]

civil engineering applications for marine sediments project · civil engineering applications for...

Documents