REJUVENATE Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk...

126
REJUVENATE Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for Economically Marginal Degraded Land Short Guide for Decision Support Tool

Transcript of REJUVENATE Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk...

REJUVENATE

Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for Economically Marginal Degraded Land

Short Guide for Decision Support Tool

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Abstract

In this report a guide for a decision support tool developed within the frame of the Rejuvenate is presented. The Rejuvenate project was a project carried out by organisations from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Rumania, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The project is described at http://projects.swedgeo.se/r2/ from where also the project reports and information on the decision tool development can be downloaded.

The goal of the tool is to provide a framework for the assessment of the opportunities and risks for using non-food crop as a management method for marginal or degraded land, in particular brownfields and other previously developed or contaminated land. The method offers a systematic analysis of health, environmental, social and economic risks and opportunities including site specific to more broad general impacts such as regional socioeconomic impacts and constraints. The tool is set up of four broad stages, where each can be used to refine choices for bio-renewables on marginal land.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Acknowledgements

Rejuvenate was funded, under the umbrella of Sustainable management of soil and groundwater under the pressure of soil pollution and soil contamination (SNOWMAN), by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER) and the Environment Agency (England and Wales), Swedish Research Council (FORMAS) and Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI) (Sweden), the Netherlands Centre for Soil Quality Management and Knowledge transfer (SKB) and Bioclear BV (Netherlands), Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM) (Belgium) and The Ministry of Education, Research and Youth, Romania ( IUFISCU) (Romania). SNOWMAN is a network of national funding organisations and administrations providing research funding for soil and groundwater bridging the gap between knowledge demand and supply (www.snowmannetwork.com).

The decision support tool (DST) has also been applied in parallel projects and the results from those applications are provided in Annexes 14 ad 15. Special thanks are to Professor Michel Chalot, Université de Franche-Comté, Montbeliard, France for applying the DST at the PHYTOPOP project research site, and Dr Valerie Bert, Institut National de l'Environnement Industriel et des Risques (INERIS) for applying the tool on the PHYTOSED project research site.

The guide is based on the Rejuvenate (phase 1) Final report by Bardos et al. (2009) and the guide report authors are:

Yvonne Andersson-Sköld*, Swedish Geotechnical Institute, SGI, SE 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden, [email protected], www.swedgeo.se

R. Paul Bardos, r3 environmental technology ltd, c/o Department Soil Science, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6DW, UK, [email protected], www.r3environmental.com

Thomas Track, DECHEMA e.V., Theodor-Heuss-Allee 25, 60486 Frankfurt/Main, Germany, [email protected], www.dechema.de

* Current contact details: Yvonne Andersson-Sköld, Mobile: (+46) 70 600 54 94 [email protected], www.cowi.com

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Content

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Manual structure and how to use the manual .................................................................... 5

2 The decision support tool process ............................................................................................ 6

2.1 Using an iterative approach .............................................................................................. 6

3 The procedure overall ............................................................................................................... 8

3.1 The procedure step by step .............................................................................................. 8

3.1.1 Stage 1: Crop types ................................................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Stage 2: Site management ...................................................................................... 13

3.1.3 Stage 3: Value management.................................................................................... 17

3.1.4 Verification of project performance........................................................................... 24

4 References ............................................................................................................................. 26

5 List of abbreviations and glossary ........................................................................................... 28

5.1 List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 28

5.2 Glossary ......................................................................................................................... 28

6 List of appendixes................................................................................................................... 31

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

In the project Rejuvenate an inclusive decision support approach, which is sensitive and adaptive to the different national and regional contexts, caused by varying policy, regulatory and market drivers, was developed based on the idea that the fundamental decision making process for bringing marginal land back into use for non-food crops is the same across Europe. The framework developed based on this idea resulted in a step wise framework with four key steps (Bardos et al., 2011):

Crop suitability: primarily considers from a range of possible biomass crops which crops are able to grow in a region with a potential local market. This will include an assessment of both climate and site topography. For convenience, this stage provides a biomass crop short list. Each subsequent stage is likely to reduce the length of this list as a more refined solution is found.

Site suitability: considers whether the site conditions are suitable for particular biomass crops in the short list and what the environmental risks of crop production might be; a site may be suitable already for some crops or can be made suitable by soil / risk management interventions. If an on-site conversion facility is being considered then the suitability of the site for this facility must also be considered and any necessary interventions (for example infrastructure considered. Furthermore, the impacts arising from any site management activities for risk and soil management and facility development need to be properly considered.

Value: there is a direct cost benefit equation as to whether the benefits of using a site for biomass are worth the investment needed, but also a wider sustainability consideration, considering for example aspects such as improvement in biodiversity, carbon sequestration or local community enhancement. It may be appropriate to include other measures to increase overall project value, for example integrating other forms of renewable energy production with the site re-use, or combining biomass use with the re-use of agricultural residues.

Project risk: once a firm project concept has been elaborated, and its value is attractive to its developers, the project planning needs to then ensure its viability as far as possible before any major investment takes place. Three broad considerations are important: technology status, detailed diligence (e.g. of financial partners and project partners) and developing a broad stakeholder consensus.

The background and description of the tool and the development is provided in Bardos et al. (2009) which can be downloaded from http://projects.swedgeo.se/r2/. Here, in addition to a brief overall view of the aim and tool is presented, a summary of the major questions and considerations to be addressed are presented together with the expected outcomes.

1.2 Manual structure and how to use the manual

In section 2 the method is presented. In section 3 the main considerations and expected outcomes form the procedure is presented. For each stage of the process a set of basic questions is provided as a checklist for the process. The process itself aims to work as a checklist and is recommended to be iterative.

Section 5 provides a glossary and, list of abbreviations.

In appendixes 1 – 10 information that can contribute to answer the questions are provided. Appendixes 11- 16 give examples from applying the DST at demonstration sites (Rejuvenate, Phytopop and Phytosed) and a workshop activity in Rejuvenate.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

2 The decision support tool process

Crucial to the success of using the framework is a clear starting point. This implies that the result depend on how clear the view of the objectives for the marginal land area are. For example, it is important to decide at an early stage if there is a possible appetite and opportunity for on-site biomass conversion, or will only off-site biomass be considered. This may depend strongly on the preferences of both national and regional context as on individual project teams. For instance, a farmer considering how to better use land contaminated by diffuse metal pollution may prefer to produce commodity biomass products that can be sold to a third party.

Once a short list of possible biomass options has been determined, the next logical step is to consider what the management needs are for the marginal land in order to grow and process the crop If a crop cannot grow, then there will be no biomass and hence no project. Where on-site conversion is being considered it will also be necessary to develop a site management strategy for the conversion facility, including any infrastructure that might be needed such as for services and access, along with the environmental impacts of any conversion and their mitigation.

With a short list of options for biomass and their associated soil management needs, there is a better defined set of scenarios to determine risk assessment / management needs, taking into account the possible site end use scenarios for a practical range of biomass production options. The outcome after this stage will be a shortened list of options for biomass with their associated soil and risk management requirements for the marginal land being considered.

For most projects some form of cost benefit appraisal will be undertaken, and direct project value will need to be greater than direct project costs. Additionally, particularly where public investment is being sought, it will be necessary to show that the wider benefits for a project merit investment and any wider impacts to economy, society or the environment. Hence options will need to be assessed for their likely levels of profitability, levels of project risk, know-how requirements, compatibility with other forms of reuse (such as built development) and amenity and their sustainability. Not all possible options will deliver sufficient value. The outcome after financial feasibility and sustainability appraisals will be one or two viable project opportunities which can be taken forward for detailed project appraisal to identify and mitigate any significant project risks (such as those relating to the status and verifiability of the different project components, detailed engagement with stakeholders and due diligence for financial resources).

Regulations governing restoration of marginal lands using organic waste materials vary from country to country, but two considerations tend to be most important: the quality of the biomass produced and the effective management of risks to human health and the wider environment.

The transfer of potential contaminants from the marginal land (or secondary organic matter inputs) to biomass should be avoided, or at least be limited to levels tolerable by downstream biomass use (for energy, fuel or manufacturing feedstock). Pragmatism will be driven by finding the approach that is most likely to win regulatory acceptance, and is most economically feasible, both of which are vital to securing a rapid re-use of the marginal land.

The result of this overall process using the decision support tool is a funnelling process including four key decision factors (as illustrated in Figure 1).

2.1 Using an iterative approach

An iterative approach to using this framework is suggested.

The first time going through the process is preferably done by a smaller group, i.e. the project team members. The aim is to identify and set the aim and objectives, identify relevant management alternatives, identify knowledge gaps that need to be addressed and information needed before going through the process with wider stake holder involvement.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

A second loop involving a larger stakeholder group and the aim can be used to refine the result based on a broader stakeholder involvement and the increased information since the first loop. Additional loops may be needed where further knowledge gaps are found, or there is a need for other information or additional stakeholder involvement. The amount of iteration is not fixed as it depends on what the project needs, but a typical decision process will use more than one iteration.

StartStart

Project risk

Crop

Acceptable value

Site

Crop types

Climate/ topography

Business use options

Soil characteristics

Risk assessment

Project impact

Economic

Environmental

Social

Technology status

Detailed dilligence

Stakeholder views

Output: Option for suitable crops and uses

Output: Site management strategy

Output: Best value approach

Output: Project risk

assessed/ minimised

Figure1 Project development for biomass on marginal land

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

3 The procedure overall

The decision making procedure’s starting point requires an explicit statement by the project team of their objectives for the marginal land in question, including any constraints, for example that off-site biomass re-use only is to be considered. It then proceeds through four stages considering (1) the biomass crop, (2) the site, (3) the project value and (4) the project risks to identify viable project opportunities. The framework uses a simple traffic light concept to describe the outcomes for project options at each stage.

The overall scheme is shown as a flow chart in Figure 2, using the traffic light colours to show progress at each of the four linked stages. Each stage produces an interim finding or output. With the aid of checklists, the scheme identifies both the considerations needed at each stage and the possible site management and other interventions that might need to be considered. It uses checklists to suggest the broad types of information needed at each stage and the outputs that might be expected from each stage and how those outputs should be reported. In practice most much of the information needed will be highly site and circumstance specific.

3.1 The procedure step by step

As illustrated in Figure 1 four broad stages can be used to refine the choices for bio-renewables on marginal land:

1. Crop suitability: primarily considers from a range of possible biomass crops which crops are able to grow and find a market in a region. Site topography is also considered at this stage for convenience. The output short list of biomass of crops that fit local conditions and have an outlet. Each subsequent stage is likely to reduce the length of this list as a more refined solution is found.

2. Site suitability: considers whether the site conditions are suitable for particular biomass crops in the short list and what the environmental risks of crop production might be. A site may be suitable already for some crops or can be made suitable by soil / risk management interventions. If an on-site conversion facility is being considered then the suitability of the site for this facility must also be considered and any necessary interventions (for example infrastructure considered. Furthermore, the impacts arising from any site management activities for risk and soil management and facility development need to be properly considered. The output is a shortened list of crops that could be grown on-site and specification of the management interventions needed to achieve this.

3. Value: there is a direct cost benefit equation as to whether the benefits of using a site for biomass are worth the investment needed, and also a wider sustainability consideration, for example aspects such as carbon sequestration or local community or biodiversity enhancement. It may be appropriate to include other measures to increase overall project value, for example integrating other forms of renewable energy production with the site re-use, or combining biomass use with the re-use of agricultural residues. The outputs are project options that are financially viable and sustainable.

4. Project risk: once a firm project concept has been elaborated, with a value that is attractive to its developers, the project planning needs to ensure as far as possible its viability before any major investment takes place. Three broad considerations are important: technology status, detailed diligence (e.g. of financial partners and project partners) and developing abroad stakeholder consensus. The output is a realistic appraisal of project risks and a mitigation strategy.

Examples on how the DST has been applied are provided in Annexes 11-16.

Below the different steps are described in sequence.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

No appropriate

approach, but

objectives can

be re-

considered

Re-visit

objectives

Yes

Start

Crop types

Climate/ topography

Biomass use option

Cro

p

Soil characteristics

Risk assessment

Process impacts

Economic

Environmental

Social

Valu

e

Intervention

specified

No suitable

crop found

No suitable

intervention

available

Yes

Yes

Yes

Enhancements

specified (e.g. other

on site renewables)

NO

NO

Insufficient

value

Suitable

crops &

uses?

Suitable

site for

use?

Sufficient

value?

Possible

inter-

ventions

Possible

enhance

-ments

Not possible

Yes

Possible

mitigation

Technology status

Detailed diligence

Stakeholder views

Pro

ject

Ris

k

Verification

+

Implementation

Mitigation

measures

specified

NO

Acceptable

risk?

Yes

Sit

e

Yes

Output: Option for suitable

crops and uses

Output: Site management

strategy

Output: Best value approach

Output: Project risk assessed/

minimised

NO

No

available

approach Appropriate

approaches

Set objectives

Stage I

Stage II

Stage III

Stage IV

No appropriate

approach, but

objectives can

be re-

considered

Re-visit

objectives

Yes

Start

Crop types

Climate/ topography

Biomass use option

Cro

p

Soil characteristics

Risk assessment

Process impacts

Economic

Environmental

Social

Valu

e

Intervention

specified

No suitable

crop found

No suitable

intervention

available

Yes

Yes

Yes

Enhancements

specified (e.g. other

on site renewables)

NO

NO

Insufficient

value

Suitable

crops &

uses?

Suitable

site for

use?

Sufficient

value?

Possible

inter-

ventions

Possible

enhance

-ments

Not possible

Yes

Possible

mitigation

Technology status

Detailed diligence

Stakeholder views

Pro

ject

Ris

k

Verification

+

Implementation

Mitigation

measures

specified

NO

Acceptable

risk?

Yes

Sit

e

Yes

Output: Option for suitable

crops and uses

Output: Site management

strategy

Output: Best value approach

Output: Project risk assessed/

minimised

NO

No

available

approach Appropriate

approaches

Set objectives

Stage I

Stage II

Stage III

Stage IV

Figure 2 Overall Rejuvenate decision support flowchart

3.1.1 Stage 1: Crop types

The scheme of Stage 1 is shown as a flow chart in Figure 3 and the key tasks are as follows:

Stage 1.1: range of crops meeting site objectives. This initial step is where the range of biomass crop alternatives (e.g. as summarised in Appendixes 2 and 3) are compared against the site objectives agreed by the project team for the marginal land under consideration.

Stage 1.2: range of crops meeting local climate conditions. The list of biomass crops remaining after site objectives have been considered is then screened against prevailing local

No suitable biomass option for the marginal land under consideration

A suitable biomass option may exist but would require that previous stages /objectives are revisited

A viable project approach

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

climatic conditions. For example local wind and rainfall conditions may favour some biomass crops over others. Appendix 3 provides initial screening information for biomass crops. However, the project will need to consider the micro-climatic conditions at the site.

Stage 1.3: range of crops that can be cultivated on the sites topography. Biomass crops vary in their cultivation requirements. For example steep slopes restrict what can be grown on them. Only biomass crops that can grow under the topographical conditions of the site should be considered further.

Stage 1.4: available uses. An initial appraisal of biomass use opportunities should be carried out for the remaining biomass crop options. Biomass use options may be present off-site or on-site, depending on project team’s preferences. At this stage the decision making is concerned with the broad feasibility of use, rather than an exact calculation of revenue. However, this screening process should select only biomass crops for which profitable use of the biomass produced seems feasible.

The output of Stage 1 is a list of feasible biomass crops able to grow under local and topographical conditions, which can fulfil the project team’s objectives and for which viable end uses exist. The output reporting should report the option appraisal undertaken on a stage by stage basis, recording the information and assumptions used in each stage of decision making. Alternatively, if no crops are feasible, then reasons for this finding can be recorded. It may be appropriate to revisit the original project objectives, to widen the range of possible options. Table 1 sets out the key considerations for Stages 1.1 to 1.4 in a checklist with a proforma for reporting the output from this stage.

Table 1 Rejuvenate Stage 1 Checklist and Reporting Format (shaded)

Stage Considerations Information needs Decisions to be made

1.1 range of crops meeting site objectives

Crop characteristics related to any boundaries or preferences set by the general biomass objectives (e.g. Short rotation coppice (SRC) may be discounted because the site will have a limited availability in time).

List the main aims of the biomass project: for example on-site or off-site conversion processes; preferences such as whether arable crops are preferred, or that crops requiring irrigation would be preferred for landfill leachate treatment etc Also consider limitations relating to planning and regulatory consents and final allowable landform.

Removal of crops not able to meet overarching project objectives from the short list of possible crops (see Appendixes 2 and 3).

1.2: range of crops meeting local climate conditions

Average temperature and range.

Sunlight hours.

Rainfall / water supply.

Elevation.

Soil

Crop characteristics to identify if their tolerable / optimal range matches local climatic conditions (note local rather than regional data may give a better basis for decision making).

Removal of crops unsuitable for local climatic conditions from the short list of possible crops.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

temperature/thawing.

1.3: range of crops that can be cultivated on the site land form.

Coverage of sloping areas.

Steepness i.e. Catena effect – sequence of soil profiles and characteristics on a slope (Huggett, 2007).

Soil cover and presence of erosion gullies on steep, unstable topography.

Slope angle (i.e. North-facing).

Degree of surface heterogeneity (undulation, existing soil characteristics).

Establish the optimal and the tolerable cultivation conditions for crops remaining after Step 1.2, therefore determining profitability of potential yield.

Removal of crops that cannot be grown on gross site conditions from the short list of possible crops.

Possibly: site management interventions to improve gross conditions such as slope and topography.

1.4: available uses

Available biomass markets (considering revenue paid at gate and transportation needs) for crops remaining after 1.3, also taking into account the likely area of cultivation.

Possible on-site conversion methods for crops remaining after 1.3 – unless on-site conversion was discounted at 1.1.

Initial market and technology survey.

Note: This is an initial screening assessment. Detailed valuation is carried out at Step 3.

Short list of crops that are feasible to grow on the site in question, and for which feasible options for use exist.

Overall Stage 1 findings

Summarise the information and assumptions used at each stage.

Short list of crops that are feasible to grow on the site in question, and for which feasible options for use exist, identifying decisions made at each stage.

Appendix 1 provides a Table summarising phytoremediation process variants (based on Nathanail et al., 2007 and updated by Michel Chalot, 2012 within the Rejuvenate project). In general for organic contaminants phytodegradation may be the most favourable, while for metals the phyto stabilisation variants may be related to the lowest risks. Appendix 2, Example Major Biomass Crop Types (including biofuel, biofeedstock and fibre crops), lists temperate biomass (and fibre crops)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

that might be considered in the UK, Germany and Sweden along with sources of further information and their key properties. From a cultivation point of view, the selection of a suitable crop will depend on local climatic conditions (which will vary from site to site even within a region) and the topography and size of the marginal land area. Climatic conditions may be seen as limiting, for example owing to temperature1 or levels of rainfall. In Appendix 3 a list of indicative soil requirements for examples of major biomass crop types is presented.

Yes

Range of

crops

Various

alternatives

available

Yes

Regional climate

conditions

Yes

Site topography,

slope and

situation…

Yes

On/ off site

utilisation

Yes

No suitable

crop found

Adequate

climate

Suitable

condition

Available

outlets

Suitable

crops +

uses

Stage I:

Crop

Stage II

Output: Option for suitable

crops and uses

Set objectives

Start

Red / yellow traffic light

Figure 3 Stage 1: Selecting the crops (Note: each “triangle” is a factor which may mean no suitable crop is found)

1 Interestingly, a comparison of short rotation coppice (SRC) in the south of Sweden (Skåne) versus further north (700 km) did not find a poorer

productivity at the northern site (Lundström and Hasselgren, 2003).

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

3.1.2 Stage 2: Site management

Stage 2 considers the management of the site from the perspective of biomass production, and from the perspective of biomass conversion on-site options are under consideration. There are three sequential considerations for the biomass production, and two for on-site biomass conversion. While conceptually the biomass production and on-site biomass conversion are parallel considerations, in practice it may be sensible to initially consider one before the other in timing, since for example if an on-site facility is linked to a particular biomass crop that cannot be produced on the site, then it makes no sense to consider it in detail. Figure 4 shows the Stage 2 decision procedure, and each of its steps is described below. Table 2 sets out the key considerations for Stages 2.1 to 2.5 in a checklist with a proforma for reporting the output from this stage.

intervention

specified

On site

conversion

alternative

Impact management

specification:

• Commissioning

• Operating

• Monitoring

Risk management

specification:

• Formation

• Maintenance

• Monitoring

Soil management

specification:

• Formation

• Maintenance

• Crop management

• Predicted yield

Crop

alternative

Growth

rqts.

Soil improvement

intervention (if needed)

Risk assess crop +

soil managment

Risk management

intervention (if needed)

Impact

assessment

Facility development

intervention (if needed)

Output of Stage I

Impact management

intervention (if needed)

YesNo suitable

intervention

available

NONO

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Off site

conversion

alternative

Site

rqts.

Possible

inter-

ventions

Possible

inter-

ventions

Suitable

site

Stage II:

Site

Stage III

Intervention

specified

Output: Site management strategy/

sustainability assessment

Yes

Impact management

intervention (if needed)

Impact

assessment

Facility development

specification:

• Commissioning

• Operating

• Monitoring

NONO

NONO

NONO NONO

NONO

Risk

management

needed?

Impact

management

needed?

Impact

management

needed?

Red / yellow traffic light

Figure 4 Stage 2: Site Management

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Stage 2.1: range of crops that can be grown on the site. The existing soil on the site is compared against the crop requirements for the biomass types short listed from Stage 1. In Appendix 3 a summary of soil requirements for major biomass types is presented. This comparison will require soil compositional information for the marginal land area, in particular for chemical and physical properties, as well as information about soil depth. There are three possible outcomes from this consideration: that the soil is already suitable for a biomass crop, in which case perhaps only soil maintenance for the crop need be considered (traffic light = green); that the soil can be made suitable for crop production by soil improvement and/or soil forming measures (traffic light = yellow), or that the soil surface cannot be brought into a condition that is suitable for a particular crop type, for example because local rainfall and ground conditions mean that it will always be too wet for the particular crop type (traffic light = red). The outcome of this stage is a short list of viable biomass crop types along with their individual soil management needs (encompassing site preparation and ongoing maintenance). In Appendix 7 Strengths and Weaknesses of Different forms of Organic Matter for Soil Formation or Improvement on Marginal Land is presented.

Stage 2.2: environmental risk management. The short list of crop and soil management combinations should be included as possible end uses for site risk assessment where the site is suspected as being contaminated (or organic matter inputs may contain contaminants). These end uses should be included in a conceptual site model that reviews all of the pollutant linkages that need to be considered for a site. Risk assessment may determine that some of these pollutant linkages are not significant, whereas others will require a risk management intervention. In some cases it may be determined that a particular biomass type cannot be grown on a site with acceptable risks. In Appendix 4 examples of possible sources of risk, the major classes of pathway and the types of receptor that may need to be considered are listed. Appendix 5 overviews the most commonly used risk management methods and their general applicability. Germany, Sweden and the UK have all produced extensive guidance about the management of land historic contamination (e.g. Environment Agency 2004 and 2009, Franzius et al. 2008, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 1999).

Stage 2.3: impact of interventions. The outcome of Stage 2.2 is a refinement of the short list of crop and soil management options to list options for which appropriate risk management exists, and which describes possible risk management interventions required. The soil management and risk management interventions may have environmental impacts. For example soil maintenance and crop production impacts on the water environment may need to be minimised. The purpose of this step is to ensure that the crop, soil and risk interventions on-site are compliant with wider environmental protection needs, for example considering the water environment and the local ecology. This consideration, may favour particular crop alternatives, for example short rotation coppice (SRC) is known to have low fertiliser requirements (and hence less nitrogen loss). Willow coppice can also improve biodiversity in marginal land contexts and supports greater biodiversity than many conventional arable crops (ADAS 2002, Haughton et al. 2009, Perttu 1999, Volk et al. 2004). The outcome of this stage will be a short list of viable biomass crops that can be grown on the site under consideration with acceptable environmental impacts. A comprehensive impact assessment system for biomass production has recently been made available in the UK (AEA Energy and Environment and North Energy 2008).

Stage 2.4: facility development. This stage considers the feasibility of the various on-site bioconversion alternatives under consideration. Key factors will include infrastructure and service requirements (such as roadways and mains water), suitability of the site for construction (for example is it geotechnical suitable) and any risk management that might need to be undertaken to protect the facility (for example to deal with fugitive landfill gas). These considerations may mean that some conversion options will not be feasible for a particular site. The outcome of this stage will be a short list of feasible biomass conversion options and their site development requirements.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Stage 2.5: facility development impacts. This stage considers the impacts of the facility development on the marginal land and its surroundings, for example the impact of construction work and new roadways, and any mitigation measures that need to be put in place to deal with these impacts. The outcome of this stage will be a short list of feasible biomass conversion options, their site development requirements and any mitigation strategies needed for their environmental impacts.

The output of Stage 2 is therefore a list of feasible biomass crops able to grow on the marginal land under consideration, their soil and risk management needs and their environmental impacts, along with the on-site conversion strategies for those crops if they are to be considered.

The output reporting should report the option appraisal undertaken on a stage by stage basis, recording the information and assumptions used in each stage of decision making.

Table 2 Rejuvenate Stage 2 Checklist and Reporting Format (shaded)

Decision Considerations Information needs Decisions to be made

2.1: range of crops that can be grown on the site.

Site soil, hydrological and hydrogeological characteristics, matched to crop requirements from the Stage 1 short list.

Site investigation information considering:

Site hydrology information, including drainage, hydrogeological information, especially regarding shallow perched aquifers (a hydrology plan should show the current drainage regime and discharge points (and applicable consents),

Ground conditions: how any surface working such as sub soil addition or capping / covering has been carried out; consideration of possible compaction,

Soil depth across

Identification of crops which can be feasibly grown on under the prevailing site conditions and/or soil management interventions needed and a consequent range of possible crop options.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Decision Considerations Information needs Decisions to be made

site (e.g. depth of soil cover above a landfill cap),

Soil physical conditions (texture, water holding, particle analysis – e.g. stones, wastes such as plastics, organic matter content, density),

Soil chemical conditions (pH, nutrient status, redox, content of phyto-toxic components – see also Step 2.2, cation exchange capacity, buffering capacity),

Limitations relating to planning and regulatory consents and final allowable landform.

See for example Nason et al. 2007.

2.2: environmental risk management.

Possible risks to receptors, considering sources, pathways and receptors, set out in a site conceptual model (SCM). Three models are suggested: SCM for initial conditions; SCM for initial conditions plus soil management plus crop; SCM post remediation / risk management interventions including soil management and crop.

Site investigation information based on prevailing regulatory requirements / advice (see Appendix .6).

Site / project risk assessment and risk management strategy, including implementation and verification requirements (e.g. see Environment Agency 2004)

Selection of a short list of combined strategies considering: crop, soil management and risk management.

2.3: impact of interventions

Possible impacts to groundwater, surface water and air of the soil and risk management

Environmental impact assessment.

Identification of any unacceptable environmental impacts and a mitigation strategy

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Decision Considerations Information needs Decisions to be made

interventions proposed from Steps 2.1 and 2.2, considering issues such as N and P migration, odour, noise and nuisances.

for them, this may comprise meeting accepted codes of practice for agricultural land, even although the site in question may be brownfield or previously developed land (depending on the local regulators and planning authorities).

2.4: facility development.

(If applicable) Site engineering plan outlining infrastructure and site management interventions for example for geotechnical stabilisation.

Engineering feasibility study.

(If applicable) Identification of feasible on-site re-use options for the crop types remaining after Step 2.2.

2.5: facility development impacts

(If applicable) Possible impacts to air, water and soil of the facility development.

Environmental impact assessment.

(If applicable) Identification of any unacceptable environmental impacts and a mitigation strategy for them.

Overall Stage 2 findings

Summarise the information and assumptions used at each stage.

Short list of possible biomass and site management options and specifications for any interventions required for site / soil management; risk management; on-site facility development (if applicable) and mitigation of unacceptable environmental impacts.

3.1.3 Stage 3: Value management

Stage 3 considers the assessment of project value and its possibilities for enhancement. It includes two parallel considerations: the direct economic benefits of the project compared with its costs, the so-called “bottom line”, and the wider sustainability of the project. The key factors driving costs and revenues (and also environmental sustainability impacts) will have been already been elaborated in Stage 1 and Stage 2. Stage 3 identifies the most economically viable option from the Stage 2 short list from the point of view of the project promoters and also an overall sustainability appraisal considering economic, social and environmental elements in a holistic way. Figure 5 shows the Stage 3 decision procedure.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Project options may also be eliminated during Stage 3 as failing to reach adequate value for the project team. The output of Stage 3 is therefore one, or may be two, economically viable project concepts worthy of detailed appraisals, Table 3 sets out the key considerations for Stage 3 in a checklist with a proforma for reporting the output from this stage.

Stage 3.1: financial feasibility. The direct costs for each biomass option (including soil and other site management interventions and any on-site conversion) are compared with its revenue earning potential. Where the revenue earning potential for a particular approach exceeds its costs an initial suggestion of viability is indicated. The value of linked initiatives should also be considered as part of this valuation process, and indeed the valuation process may trigger the need to identify possible linkages, for example adding other forms of renewables to the site management approach such as wind power, or linking the project to carbon offsetting or carbon neutrality for a larger regeneration initiative, This activity also includes the initial identification of possible funding streams such as grants and tax breaks, as well as potential sources of investment (and what needs must be met to secure those investments).

Stage 3.2: financial viability. This stage considers the financial feasibility of each approach in more detail, developing a more detailed financial model and comparing it against investment thresholds set for the project, such as requirements for return on capital (see Appendix 10) set by investors and other funders.

Stage 3.3: Sustainability appraisal. This stage uses qualitative sustainability appraisal based on a series of indicators of sustainability representative of economic, environmental and social factors identified as important by the project team and the other stakeholders involved in the project. In the UK the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF-UK) has set out a framework for “sustainable remediation” which can guide this sustainability appraisal process2.

2 www.claire.co.uk/surfuk

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Insufficiant

value

Sufficiant

enhance-

ment

Measurements e.g:

Outcome per ha,

calorific value per crop,

number of ha, …

Yes

Yes

Deciding factors:

Net present value,

amortisation, internal

rate of return

Yes

Sufficiant

value

Output of Stage II

Intervention alternatives:

E.g. solar & wind power,

organic waste, synergy

effects

NONO

Financial

feasibility

Contribution to sustainable

development

Yes

Yes

Stage III:

Value

Stage IV

Output: Best value approach

Off-siteOn-site

Economic:

E.g. (in-)direct

cost, gearing,

employment,

capital,

flexibility

Environmental:

Intrusiveness,

resource use,

impacts e.g. on

air, water, soil,

ecology

Social:

E.g. sensitisation for

the environment,

ethical considerations,

local & national policy

Measur-

able?

Economic

output

Equation of crop types e.g:

Utilisation lifespan, rhythm of re-cultivation,

capital & operational & additional cost,

revenue options, site monitoring

Positive

impact

Sustainability appraisal e.g:

Chain of regional added

value, energy supply

guarantee, biodiversity, …

Sustainability

assessment

Red / yellow traffic light

Figure 5 Stage 3: Value Management

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Table 3 Rejuvenate Stage 3 Checklist and Reporting Format (shaded)

Decision Considerations Information needs Decisions to be made

3.1: Financial feasibility

Profit and loss accounting.

Capital and operational cost, utilisation duration, turnover.

Identification of financially feasible options, and where appropriate interventions to improve financial performance.

3.2: Financial viability

NPV, IRR, amortisation, annuity.

Cash inflows and outflows over the project duration.

Identification of financially viable options, and where appropriate interventions to improve financial performance.

3.3: Sustainability appraisal.

A wide ranging SA, overarching considerations are listed in Table 2.1.

Qualitative sustainability appraisal (some regulators may require quantitative appraisals such as LCA, however this does not apply in the UK).

Identification of the most sustainable project option.

Overall Stage 3 findings

Summarise the information and assumptions used at each stage.

The goal of this stage is to identify an option that balances economic viability against sustainability, and identify any interventions that might improve value. These interventions may mean that Stage 2 has to be reconsidered.

Stage 3 sets in place the components of a business plan for the project, and – depending on funders’ and stakeholders’ needs, a series of wider sustainable development goals for the project.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

3.1.4 Stage 4: Project risk management

Stage 4 considers the project risks for the viable project opportunities identified at the end of Stage 3. Three broad considerations are important: technology status, detailed diligence (e.g. of financial partners and project partners) and developing a broad stakeholder consensus. Figure 6 shows the Stage 4 decision procedure, and each of its steps is described below.

Stage 4.1: Stakeholder views during this stage the project team offers their plans for detailed external comment and scrutiny now that a complete project concept exists. This stage includes seeking the necessary permissions and permits for activity from regulators and planners and engagement with the local community to involve them and other partner organisations if this has not already taken place. It also includes the confirmation of public financial support prior to step 4.2. Stakeholder engagement needs to begin at an early stage of planning, and it will be prudent to seek initial stakeholder views about the various site management interventions under consideration during Stage 2, and the Stage 3 sustainability appraisal, to reduce the risk of major surprises at this Stage.

Stage 4.2: Technology status: this consideration is a detailed assessment of the project components, for example: will the crop really grow and provide the predicted yields, will the site really be managed, and will the conversion really work in practice? What needs to be tested before the project starts in full, what preparatory studies are needed? This stage may include detailed biomass and possibly conversion technology trials to demonstrate proof of concept. Earlier work (in Stage 2) may have included some biomass growth trials. However, it may be sensible to wait until the Stage 1 – 3 assessments are completed, to maximise chances of success, before undertaking expensive trial work. Large scale trial work may also be important in satisfying stakeholder requirements, for example building regulatory and investment confidence.

Stage 4.3: Detailed diligence during this stage the project team seeks firm prices and makes the project business plan in detail and checking in detail that they can raise capital, employ people, are in line with environmental legislation and that the partners they wants to work with are reliable, across the whole site management and biomass production (and conversion) system. This is also the point when any investment, or public or regional funding or tax breaks have to be finally consolidated. In Appendix 6 Regulatory regimes and policy links in Germany, Sweden and the UK are summarised.

The output of Stage 4 is therefore a firm project concept where project risks are known, and mitigated where necessary, that is ready for detailed planning and implementation. The output reporting should report the option appraisal undertaken on a stage by stage basis, recording the information and assumptions used in each stage of decision making.

Table 4 sets out the key considerations for Stage 4 in a checklist with a proforma for reporting the output from this stage.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Insufficiant

value

Yes

Yes

Yes

Output of Stage III

NONO

Yes

Stage IV:

Project risk

Verification

Possible

mitigationAcceptable

risk?

Output: Project risk assessed/

minimised

Stakeholder

views

Responses

NONO

Technology status

NONO

Implementation

plan

Detailed diligence

Approval?

Adequate?Adequate?

Practical?

NONO

Yes

Business

plan

Red / yellow traffic light

Figure 6 Rejuvenate DST: Stage 4: Project Risk Management

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Table 4 Rejuvenate Stage 4 Checklist and Reporting Format (shaded)

Decision Considerations Information needs Decisions to be made

4.1: Stakeholder views

Are there any conflicts with potential stakeholders to be expected?

Stakeholder engagement should have begun at an early stage, particularly of core stakeholders. This should be a wider consultation of approaches already agreed in principle

Whether the stakeholders involved will support a project going ahead, and if not what mitigation measures might be required.

4.2: Technology status

Do all elements of the concept work properly and in an integrated way and what are the key parameters that control this?

Detailed technical appraisal of Stage 1 and Stage 2 information

Commencement of formal planning permitting and licensing negotiations

Stop / go for the project concept and whether mitigation measures are required (for example use of alternative technologies or suppliers)

4.3: Detailed diligence

Does the concept work from the legal and financial perspective?

Due diligence procedure applied to Stage 3 findings.

Stop / go for the project financing and whether mitigation measures are required (for example use of alterative investors, or revisions in project approach to provide improved investor confidence)

Overall Stage 4 findings

Summarise the information and assumptions used at each stage.

Whether a viable project concept can be taken forward to implementation, and what mitigation measures may be necessary.

These mitigation measures may mean that earlier stages have to be reconsidered.

An important output of this stage is an agreed business plan for the project, and – depending on funders’ and stakeholders’ needs, agreement of wider sustainable development goals for the project.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

3.1.5 Verification of project performance

Verification of project performance will need to consider both the specific environmental project goals agreed with regulators and the project economic goals needed to achieve suitable economic performance. It will also need to consider the wider sustainable development performance of the project, in particular if sustainability goals have been agreed as a part of any public investment in the project.

Implementation and business planning information needs should largely be met by the four stages of decision making described above. Verification is the process by which stakeholders can be assured that the project has met its planned objectives. The project verification can therefore also follow the same structure as the four stages of decision making outlined. Additionally, verification needs to consider the following.

The period to be considered for verifying the project performance should be defined. Dependant on the project complexity verification can be done in a single step or in a stepwise approach, dynamically following the project start-up phase. This allows the project team to identify deviations between planned and actual performance development at early stage so enabling early corrective action to be taken. It may be useful to identify milestones to ensure routine verification checks. The verification process should be linked to the site conceptual model, and the verification process will need to take into account the possibility that the SCM will need to be adapted as the site develops, and in response to changing circumstances. Hence the verification process needs to be adaptive.

Parameters that allow one to assess the performance related to the three categories have to be defined carefully as well as the location where and the methodology how they will be measured.

Verification goals/references which are the values (e.g. financial, environmental, productivity) that were planned to be achieved in the defined period. These can be compared against “control” scenarios such as an alternative use or no use of marginal land.

Three broad classes of project goals can be distinguished: environmental goals, economic goals and social goals.

Verification of project environmental goals: the project will include several environmental goals that might be explicit requirements for compliance with investment, regulations and planning constraints, and also other agreements reached with stakeholders. A key objective is likely to be that the desired site risk management is required (.e.g. that pollutant linkages are effectively managed). Wider environmental goals may relate to restoration of soil function, carbon sequestration, and improved biodiversity, as well as managing impacts, for example from N and P, on the water environment. Verification may be linked to specific measurement thresholds and an agreed environmental monitoring programme, for example for groundwater quality, as well as effective ground cover and productivity, and possibly third party verification for VER (Verified Emission Reductions) carbon financing. The verification framework should follow the assumptions and decisions made through Stages 1.1 – 1.3, 2.1 – 2.4, 3.3 and 4.1.

Verification of project economic goals: in the business plan economic goals in terms of financial feasibility and viability have to be set. In case of the implementation of supporting activities as identified in Stage 3 (value management) they have to be considered in this assessment as well. Stages 3 and 4 should be formalised in a business plan which can serve as the point of reference for economic verification, linked to project viability; and perhaps a wider range of sustainable development goals agreed in these stages for broader objectives agreed with funders and other stakeholders, such as increasing local/regional employment. The verification framework should follow the assumptions and decisions made through Stages 3.1, 3.2, 4.2 and 4.3.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Verification of social goals: a series of goals may have been established for the project, for example demonstrating stakeholder engagement and inclusive decision making as the project is implemented (and indeed while it was planned). In addition, particularly where public funding or investment has been secured, there may be wider sustainable development goals agreed, for example related to the provision of public open space and access, or linkage of the project to local education and training initiatives, or work by charities. The verification framework should follow the assumptions and decisions made through Stage 4.3. Table 5 sets out an example a verification template. As criteria would vary on a case basis, a matrix would need to be refined and adapted for each specific project.

Table 5 Rejuvenate verification matrix template

Elements for verification

Period considered for verification

Criteria to be considered for verification

Verification goals/ references

Projected values

Actual values

Environmental goals

Contaminated land risk management performance

Organic matter re-use performance

Wider environmental performance (soil, water and air)

Carbon / energy balance

….

Economic goals

NPV

IRR

Amortisation

Annuity

wider economic value (e.g. surrounding land values, local economic benefits etc)

Social goals

permission related criteria

Community inclusion and satisfaction

wider economic value (e.g. surrounding land values, local economic benefits etc)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

4 References

ADAS (2002) Bioenergy crops and bioremediation – a review. Produced for Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Final report August 2002. http://www.defra.gov.uk/FARM/crops/industrial/research/reports/NF0417.pdf

AEA Energy and Environment (2008) The evaluation of energy from biowaste arisings and forest residues in Scotland. Report to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. ED 02806. Issue Number 1. April 2008 www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste_publications/idoc.ashx?docid=f27bd8f1-4789-4b6d-9be2-a88c9f552512&version=-1

Bardos, P., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Keuning, S., Polland, M., Suer, P. and Track, T., 2009, "Rejuvenate - Final Research Report." Report nr SN-01/20 (http://www.snowman-era.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_final_report.pdf).

Bardos, P., Bone, B., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Suer, P., Track, T., Wagelmans, M., (2011) Crop-based systems for sustainable risk-based land management for economically marginal damaged land. REMEDIATION vol 21 (4), 11-33

Brundtland. G.H. (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-282080-X. http://www4.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-282080-X

Environment Agency (2004) Model procedures for the management of land contamination R&D Report CLR 11, 192pp Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. Available from http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront

Environment Agency (2009) Updated technical background to the CLEA Model. Science Report Final SC050021/SR3. Environment Agency, Bristol. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/64000.aspx

Franzius, V., Altenbolum, M., Gerold, T. (Eds.) (2008). Handbuch Altlastensanierung und Flächenrecycling. C.F. Müller Verlag, 14. edition

Haughton, A.J., Bond, A.J., Lovett, A.A., Dockerty, T., Sünnenberg, G., Clark, S.J., Bohan, D.A., sage, R.B., Mallott, M.D., Mallott, V.E., Cunningham, M.D., Riche, A.B., Shield, IF., Finch, JW., Turner,M.M. and Karp, A. (2009) A novel, integrated approach to assessing social, economic and environmental implications of changing rural land-use: a case study of perennial biomass crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 46 315–322

Huggett, R. J. (2007) Fundamentals of Geomorphology 2nd Edition. Routledge Fundamentals of Physical Geography, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, New York

Lundström, I. and K. Hasselgren. 2003. Omsättning av metaller i slamgödslad Salix odling. (Metal turnover in Salix cultivation fretilised by slugde), in Swedish, VA-Forsk Rapport. 46. Svenskt Vatten AB

Nason,M., Williamson, J., Tandy, S., Christou, M., Jones, D., and Healey, J. (2007) Using Organic Wastes and Composts to Remediate and Restore Land Best Practice Manual School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University. ISBN: 978-1-84220-101-5 http://ies.bangor.ac.uk/TWIRLS/Web%20version%20Manual.pdf

Nathanail, J. Bardos, P.,and Nathanail, P. (2007) Contaminated Land Management Ready Reference. Update EPP Publications/ Land Quality Press. Available from: EPP Publications, 6 Eastbourne Road, Chiswick, London, W4 3EB. E-mail [email protected]. ISBN 1900995069. www.readyreference.co.uk

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Swedish Environmental Protection (1999). Metodik för inventering av förorenade områden: Bedömningsgrunder för miljökvalitet. Rapport 4918. (in Swedish)

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Remediation of contaminated areas, quality manual - edition 4, 2008 (Efterbehandling av förorenade områden, kvalitetsmanual – Utgåva 4, 2008). In Swedish, SEPA, 2008, ISBN:1234-7 (www.naturvardsverket.se)

Perttu, K.L. (1999) Environmental and hygienic aspects of willow coppice in Sweden Biomass and Bioenergy 16(4) 291-297

r3 environmental technology limited: - Bardos, P. with Nathanail, J. and Nathanail, P. (2004) Markham Willows Master-planning. exSite Research Ltd, Hillam, Leads, UK. Annex Risk Management Model. www.r3environmental.com

Volk, T.A., Verwijst, T., Tharakan, P.J., Abrahamson. L.P., and White, E.H. (2004) Growing fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment:2 (8) 411-418.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

5 List of abbreviations and glossary

5.1 List of abbreviations

DST Decision Support Tool

IRR Internal Rate of Return

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

NPV Net Present Value

SA Sustainability Appraisal

SNOWMAN Sustainable Management of Soil and Groundwater Under the Pressure of Soil Pollution and Soil Contamination

SRC Short Rotation Coppice

SURF-UK Sustainable Remediation Forum - UK

UK United Kingdom

5.2 Glossary

This glossary is not intended to be a set of formal definitions, or to supplant terms defined by any standards organisation. Rather it is intended to convey the meaning of terms as they have been used in this report.

Term Contemporary Usage

Biofuel Fuel produced directly or indirectly from biomass, such as fuelwood, charcoal, bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas (methane) or biohydrogen [colloquially biofuel tends to be restricted as a term to liquid fuels].

Biomass Non-fossil material of biological origin such as energy crops, agriculture and forestry waste, and by-products, manure or microbial biomass.

Brownfield land Brownfield land has been defined at a European level as referring to sites which have been affected by former uses of the site or surrounding land, are derelict or underused, are mainly in fully or partly developed urban areas, require intervention to bring them back to beneficial use, and may have real or perceived contamination problems.

Carbon balance / footprint

A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of GHG produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide.

A carbon balance is calculations of tonnes of carbon in the various inputs and outputs of a system.

Related concepts are water or waste footprints.

Compost like output Compost or digestate produced from materials extracted from mixed wastes as opposed to separately collected wastes (may also be referred to as “bio-composts” or “grey composts”).

Contaminant A substance which is in, on or under the land and has the potential to cause harm (or to cause pollution of controlled waters).

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Term Contemporary Usage

Contaminated land Land that has been designated as “contaminated” by regulatory authorities because of unacceptable risks to human health, water or other receptors

Cost benefit analysis A form of economic analysis in which costs and benefits are converted into monetary values for comparison

Decision support Assistance for, substantiation and corroboration of, an act or result of deciding; typically this deciding will be a determination of an optimal or best approach.

Decision support system A Decision Support System is the complete decision making approach, including all of its components.

Decision support tool A Decision Support Tool supports one or more components of decision making. (Note some writers use “tool" and "system" interchangeably.)

Evaluating wider impacts Assessment systems for the key elements of sustainability appraisal (economic, environmental, resource and social evaluations).

Feedstock Feedstock is the raw material used to power a machine or industrial activity

Flow charts A diagrammatic representation of a procedure or protocol or series of procedures / protocols.

Grey compost Synonym for compost like output, more acceptable to some stakeholders.

Indicator An indicator is a single characteristic that can be compared between options to evaluate their relative performance towards specific sustainable development concerns. Indicators need to be measurable or comparable is some way that is sufficient to allow this evaluation.

Life cycle The life cycle of a product encompasses its manufacture, its use and its disposal / fate.

Life cycle assessment Life cycle assessment is a tool to evaluate the environmental consequences of products or services from cradle-to-grave (i.e. through the life cycle), and their use.

Marginal land Land that has been previously used in an industrial or urban context, or agricultural and other land that has been damaged by pollution, which is perceived to be unsuitable for the production of food or for urban or industrial re-use.

Monitoring Observation of conditions.

Pathway A means by which a receptor can be exposed to, or affected by, a contaminant.

Phytoremediation Direct use of living green plants for in situ risk reduction for contaminated soil, sludges, sediments and groundwater.

Pollutant linkage Relationships between a contaminant source, a pathway and a receptor.

Previously developed land

Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agriculture or forestry buildings) and associated fixed surface infrastructure.

Procedure Mode of conducting business, system laid down for actions / calculations etc.

Protocol A written means of setting out a framework for action of some kind / calculation of some quality, agreed or to be negotiated by stakeholders.

Receptor Something that could be adversely affected by a contaminant, such as

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Term Contemporary Usage

people, an ecological system or a water body.

Risk assessment The process of assessing the hazards and risks associated with a particular site or group of sites.

Stakeholders Stakeholders typically include any individuals or groups that may be affected by the environmental contamination. Stakeholders include federal, state, and local regulators, local businesses, citizens, citizen groups, problem holders, environmental industry, and public health officials.

Sustainability appraisal A system intended to determine the contribution of a particular project or action to achieving sustainable development.

Sustainable development:

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland 1987).

System Collection of materially and energetically connected unit processes which performs one or more defined functions (e.g. windrow composting system).

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

6 List of appendixes

Appendix 1 Phytoremediation Process Variants (From Nathanail et al. 2007, updated by Michel Chalot 2012)

Appendix 2 Major Biomass Crop Types (including biofuel, biofeedstock and fibre crops)

Appendix 3 Indicative Soil Requirements for Example Major Biomass Crop Types

Appendix 4 Example sources, general pathways and key receptors for biomass on marginal land projects

Appendix 5 Contaminated land risk management methods – (Nathanail et al. 2007, Franzius et al. 2008, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2008)

Appendix 6 Regulatory regimes and policy links in Germany, Sweden and the UK.

Appendix 7 Strengths and Weaknesses of Different forms of Organic Matter for Soil Formation or Improvement on Marginal Land

Appendix 8 Organic Materials as Sources of Supplementary Biomass

Appendix 9 Integrated Remediation Strategy for Markham Willows, UK (r3 2004)

Appendix 10 Financial Viability

Appendix 11 Example Pilot the Häggatorp landfill, Kallinge, Sweden

Appendix 12 Example Pilot Copsa Mica, Micasasa, Rumania

Appendix 13 Example Pilot Vivsta varv, Vivsta, Sweden

Appendix 14 Example from case study PHYTOPOP, France

Appendix 15 Example from case study PHYTOSED EC 1, France

Appendix 16 Example from workshop on radio active contaminated land, Rumania

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 1 Phytoremediation Process Variants

(From Nathanail et al. 2007, updated by Michel Chalot, Université de Franche-Comt, Besançon, France within the Rejuvenate project. The updates are also providing the source of information)

Phytoextraction Use of plants that accumulate contaminants in harvestable biomass. Hyper-accumulators are plants that can accumulate metals to % levels of dry matter, mainly Cruciferae. Few commercially practical types exist. More common is the use of woody biomass such as willow and poplar. A few trials have been carried out using chelating agents such as Ethylene-Diamine-Tetra-Acetic (EDTA) to flood soils and so increase metal availability, and hence uptake, by plants such as Indian Mustard (Bardos et al. 2001)

Ruttens et al., 2008: Short rotation coppice of willow and poplar, maize (but less efficient than willow), rapeseed. Estimated clean up periods are too long (from 100 to 500 years for willows and poplars).

Vangronsveld et al., 2009 (review): Brassica carinata, Brassica juncea, Salix species, Rape, horseradish, maize, orache, golden-rod, amaranth, robinia, rye-grass, Thlaspi caerulescens, Nicotiana tabacum, hybrid poplar.

Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) for oil production.

Cotton for fiber production.

Saifullah et al., 2009 (review): Due to environmental persistence of EDTA in combination with its strong chelating abilities, the scientific community is moving away from the use of EDTA in phytoextraction and is turning to less aggressive alternative strategies such as the use of organic acids or more degradable APCAs (aminopolycarboxylic acids).

Tang et al., 2012 (review): Co-cropping for enhancing phytoextraction

Combined cropping can cause a higher concentration of heavy metals in the biomass of hyperaccumulator plants. For example:

Zea mays (low-accumulating crop) / S. alfredii (Zn and Cd hyperaccumulator)

The co-planting system enhanced not only the removal of heavy metals from the contaminated soils but could also produce safe corn for animal feed, allowing farmers to continue their agricultural activities.

Hordeum vulgare (low-accumulating crop) / N. caerulescens (Cd Pb, and Zn hyperaccumulator)

B. parachinensis or Zea mays / Brassica napus (Cd Hyperaccumulator)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Phytovolatilisation Use of plants for extraction of volatile contaminants from shallow aquifers which are dispersed to atmosphere by the aerial parts of the plants.

Phytostabilisation Immobilisation of contaminants in soil and groundwater in the root zone and/or soil materials. Immobilisation may be a result of adsorption to roots and/or soil organic matter (e.g. of PAHs), or precipitation of metals. These effects may be a direct effect of plant growth, or result from soil microbial and soil chemical processes caused by root growth. The net effect is to reduce contaminant mobility.

Vangronsveld et al., 2009 (review): Plants species used in fields experiments on phytostabilisation and metal inactivation in Europe (in agricultural soil or land): Zea mays, Lactuca sativa, Lolium perenne, Mustard, Rye, Oat, Vegetable crops, Barley, Willow, Trifolium repens

Pourrut et al. 2011: the study aimed at evaluating the long-term efficiency of aided phytostabilisation on former agricultural soils highly contaminated by cadmium, lead, and zinc. Alnus glutinosa, Acer pseudoplatanus and Robinia pseudoacacia grew well on the site and accumulated quite low concentrations of metals in their leaves and young twigs. Translocation to their above-ground parts strongly decreased in fly ash-amended soils (the sulfo-calcic ash was more efficient).

Tang et al., 2012 (review): Phytostabilization is generally combined with amendment additions to increase metal immobilization and allows growth of plants. With a certain amendment applied into the soil, fiber crops could grow healthily and rapidly:

Hemp (Cannabis sativa)

Ramie (Boehmeria nivea)

kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus)

Witters et al., 2012: most relevant crops used for phytoremediation and renewable energy production: willow (Salix spp), energy maize (Zea mays) and rapeseed (Brassica napus).

Phytocontainment (alternative covers)

Use of plants and cultivation techniques (such as the regular addition of organic matter) can increase depth of topsoil, which can establish a cover layer over sites, such as spoil heaps and on landfill caps and reduce the migration of contaminants. Plant growth and organic matter addition may also produce a stabilisation effect, e.g. by controlling pH and redox conditions in the subsurface and phytostabilisation effects described above. Phytocontainment may also interrupt contamination of aquifers by percolating water, through interception of water by plant roots (although this effect is seasonally dependent).

Rhizo- and phytodegradation

Degradation of organic contaminants through plant metabolism, which may be within the plant (by metabolic processes) or outside the plant (through the effect of enzymes or other compounds that the plant produces).

Vangronsveld et al., 2009 (review): Willows and poplars have already been used for rhizofiltration, phytodegradation of organics in contaminated groundwater. Hybrid poplar trees seem to be efficient for the removal of benzene, toluene,

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

BTEX.

Phytostimulation/ biostimulation

Stimulation of microbial biodegradation of organic contaminants in the root zone, e.g. the roots provide conditions favouring microbial establishment and activity; this microbial activity results in the degradation or stabilisation of organic contaminants.

Phytoexclusion Tang et al., 2012 (review): Selection and breeding of low-accumulating cultivars, reduction of bioavailable metals in the soil and restriction of their potential uptake and translocation by plants. The uptake and translocation of heavy metal pollutants in plants varies greatly, not only among plant species but also among cultivars within the same species.

- Rice (Oryza sativa L.)

- Maize (Zea mays L.),

- Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

- Soybeans (Glycine max L.)

References

Bardos, P., Bone, B., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Suer, P., Track, T., Wagelmans, M., (2011) Crop-based systems for sustainable risk-based land management for economically marginal damaged land. REMEDIATION vol 21 (4), 11-33

Pourrut, B., Lopareva-Pohu, A., Pruvot, C., Garçon. G., Verdin, A., Waterlot, C., Bidar, G., Shirali, P., Doua, F., 2011, Assessment of fly ash-aided phytostabilisation of highly contaminated soils after an 8-year field trial Part 2. Influence on plants, Science of the Total Environment 409 , 4504–4510

Saifullah., Meers, E., Qadir, M., de Caritat, P., Tack, F.M.G.; Du Laing, G., Zia, M.H., EDTA-assisted Pb phytoextraction, Review, Chemosphere, Vol 74 (10), 1279 - 1291Saifullah; Meers, E; Qadir, M; de Caritat, P; Tack, F M G; Du Laing, G; Zia, M H

Tang, Y., Deng, T, Wu, Q., Wang, S., Qiu, R., Wei, Z.,,Guo, X., Wu, Q., Lei, M., Chen, T, Echevaira, G., Sterckeman, M, Simoonot, O., Morel, L, 2012, Designing Cropping Systems for Metal-Contaminated Sites: A Review, Pedosphere 22(4): 470–488, Vangronsveld, J., Herzig, R., Weyens, N., Boulet, J., Adriaensen K., Ruttens, A., Thewys, T., Vassilev, A., Nehnevajova, E., Meers, E., van der Lelie, D.,, R., Mench, M, 2009, Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater: lessons from the field, Review Article, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2009,vol 16 (7), 765

Witters, N., Van Slycken, S., Ruttens, A., Adriaensen, K., Meers, E., Meiresonne, L., Tack, F.M.G., Thewys, T., Laes, E., Vangronsveld, V, 2009, Short-Rotation Coppice of Willow for Phytoremediation of a Metal-Contaminated Agricultural Area: A Sustainability Assessment, Bioenerg. Res. 2:144–152

Witters, N., Mendelsohn, R.O., Van Slycken, S., Weyens, N., Schreurs, E., Meers, E., Tack, F., Carleer, R.,Vangronsveld, J., 2012, Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? Conclusions from a case study. I: Energy production and carbon dioxide abatement, Biomass and bioenergy 39, 454–469

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 2 Major Biomass Crop Types (including biofuel, biofeedstock and fibre crops)

Crop Type

Application and crop portion used

Species Climatic and topographical suitability

References

SRC biomass

Harvested woody biomass, may be combusted directly from domestic to industrial scales, thermally converted to gas. Current research and demonstration efforts focus on its use a feedstock for second generation biofuel or biofeedstock.

Willow (SRC) and

Poplar (SRC)

Both SRC Willow and Poplar share similar climatic and topographical suitability. Will produce good yields where moisture levels remain available within 1m of soil surface. Therefore will tolerate a range of climatic conditions but not areas with low soil moisture availability. Ideally should be grown on a medium textured soil with good moisture retention that remains well aerated.

Ideal annual rainfall between 600-1000mm. Can be cultivated on slopes ≤15% however most suitable slope for harvesting machinery is ≤7%. Can withstand seasonal flooding but not permanent water-logging (which is also highly unsuitable for heavy machinery and harvesting becomes unfeasible).

SRC cultivation requirements are detailed in Table 4.3.

Defra (2004)

Tubby and Armstrong (2002)

Grasses and straw

Straw may be combusted as briquettes from domestic to industrial scale. Otherwise harvested biomass may be combusted directly, thermally converted to gas. Current research and demonstration efforts focus on its use a feedstock for second generation biofuel or biofeedstock

Miscanthus

(China Reed, Elephant Grass)

Originates from East Asia. Grows well in cool temperate climates although late Spring frosts can damage yields. Does not grow below 6oC.

Growth of giganteus from dormant winter rhizome occurs when soil temperature reaches or exceeds ~9oC. Tolerates a range of climatic conditions although productivity is limited in temperate regions if emergence is late but

Defra (2007)

Farrell et al. (2006)

Karp and Shield (2008)

RHS (1992)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

earlier emergence may be susceptible to frost damage. Requires a consistent ample supply of water however it has a high water-use efficiency (C4 metabolism).

Switchgrass A warm-season grass native to the USA. Grow across a wide geographical distribution, from central Mexico to 55o northern latitude.

Also C4 like Miscanthus, therefore has a high water-use efficiency. There are both upland and lowland ecotypes, however lowland ecotypes require longer growing seasons.

Karp and Shield (2008)

RHS (1992)

Reed Canary Grass

Native to temperate regions of Europe, Asia and North America. Favours moist, cool climates with average mean winter temperatures ≤ 7oC and mean summer temperatures ≤ 27oC. Can be cultivated in climates and soils outside of range if managed.

Klages (1942)

Fibre Harvested biomass may be combusted directly, fibre may be used in manufacturing

Hemp Tolerates temperatures > 1oC with a land sloping < 10%. Grows under 700m elevation above sea level.

Requires a mild, humid climate and a highly fertile soil, in particular calcareous soils.

Hanf-Faser-Fabrik, Hompage (2009)3 Klages (1942)

Linen (Linseed)

(Fibre flax) Demands moist, cool weather during early part of growing season (March-June), followed by warm and relatively dry climate early summer. Extreme rainfall (e.g. storms) can be detrimental

Klages (1942)

Krishiworld website4

3 http://www.hanffaser.de

4 http://www.krishiworld.com/html/comm_crops7.html

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

to crop due to lodging (produces poor quality fibre). Optimal climatic conditions allow production of long stems, producing the most desirable fibre.

Grown extensively in temperate and tropical regions. Cultivation of linseed is confined to lower elevations but can be grown up to 770m above sea level. Rainfall requirement ranges between 450-750mm. Fibre crop does well in cool, moist climates whereas seed crop thrives in moderately cold climates.

Nettle Tends to grow >25m elevation.

For cultivation requirements please refer to Table 4.3

Nettle World, Homepage (2009) – follow link in Table 4.3

RHS (1992)

Grain Bioethanol and biodiesel. Straw may be used as biomass

Barley used for bioethanol

Native to Northern temperate climates, mainly in open and dry habitats. Natural populations exist in the Middle East ‘fertile crescent’, extending from Jordon Valley Northward to Antolia-Syria border and along the Iraq-Iran borders.

Able to mature in shorter seasons than other crop commodities. Demands moderate temperatures and an abundant supply of moisture. Can grow at relatively high elevations (up to 2100, even 3000m). The Northern limit of production is 65o latitude in Russia. Climatic factors influence malting quality and disease prevalence.

Managed (irrigated, fertilised, pest/weed-controlled) according to

Klages (1942)

Sauer (1994)

Wilsie (1962)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

local climatic conditions.

Maize - bioethanol

Originated in the Middle Eastern ‘fertile crescent’ along with Wheat and Barley. Subject to a millennia of improvement by man however most significant advances during ‘green revolution’ 1960-80’s.

Best adapted to long and warm growing seasons (18-24oC, remaining above 14oC during the night) with relatively ample annual precipitation (≥ 890mm) and grown from 40o South to 58o North. In the tropics, Maize is grown from near sea level to elevations up to ~4000m.

Cultivated worldwide and managed (irrigated, fertilised, pest/weed-controlled) according to local climatic conditions. For cultivation requirements refer to Table 4.3.

Karp and Sheild (2008)

Klages (1942)

Wilsie (1962)

Oil seed rape (canola) - biodiesel

Native to the winter rain Mediterranean regions, growing in rocky, open habitats. Have now expanded Northward into Europe and Eastward into Asia.

Managed (irrigated, fertilised, pest/weed-controlled) according to local climatic conditions. For cultivation requirements refer to Table 4.3.

Sauer (1994)

Sugar Beet - bioethanol

Demands a temperate climate with mean summer temperatures ~21oC with a dry autumn. Also requires a uniform availability of moisture provided either by natural precipitation or by irrigation.

Originally a European crop, developed for manufacture

Klages (1942)

Sauer (1994)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

in the 18th Century and by 1900, European sugar beet production almost matched world-wide sugar cane production. Now produced across the globe.

Wheat - bioethanol

Originated in relatively dry Caucasus-Turkey-Iraq and Afghanistan-West-Central-Asiatic areas, the fertile crescent of the Middle East.

Cultivated and adapted worldwide (40o South to 60o North latitude), most extensively in continental grassland climates. Prefers moderate temperatures but can grow successfully in a range of humidity and temperature if managed.

Grows in multiple climates where there is a cool, moist growing season followed by dry, warm ripening season. Poorly adapted to consistently hot areas due to disease and storage difficulty.

Managed (irrigated, fertilised, pest/weed-controlled) according to local climatic conditions.

Wilsie (1962)

Klages (1942)

Karp and Shield (2008)

References

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - Defra (2004) Best Practice Guidelines For Applicants to Defra’s Energy Crops Scheme Growing Short Rotation Coppice. Defra, London http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/short-rotation-coppice_tcm6-4262.pdf

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Defra (2007) Planting and growing Miscanthus: Best practice guidelines for applicants to Defra’s Energy Crop Scheme. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/planning/grants-funding/energy-crops/default.htm

Farrell, A. D., Clifton-Brown, J. C., Lewandowski, I. and Jones, M. B. (2006) Genotypic variation in cold tolerance influences the yield of Miscanthus. Annals of Applied Biology 149 337-345

Karp, A. & Shield, I. (2008) Tansley review: Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield challenge. New Phytologist 179 15-32

Klages, K. H. W. (1942) Ecological crop geography. The Macmillan Company, New York

Royal Horticultural Society - RHS (1992) The new Royal Horticultural Society dictionary of gardening (vol 1-4). Edited by A. J. Huxley, M. Griffiths & M. Levy. Macmillan Press

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Sauer, J. D. (1994) Historical geography of crop plants: A select roster. CRC Press Inc

Tubby, I. & Armstrong, A. (2002) Establishment and management of short rotation coppice. Practice Note FCPN7 (Revised), Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, UK

Wilsie, C. P. (1962) Crop adaptation and distribution. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 3 Indicative Soil Requirements

Crop Soil Requirements

NPK Fertiliser requirements5

Lifespan Cultivation requirements

Willow (coppiced)

Can establish on a wide range of soil types from heavy clay, sand through to reclaimed land. Ideal soils are clay or sandy loams that retain moisture but remain well aerated. pH 5.5-7 (Defra 2004; Tubby and Armstrong 2002)

200 kg Nitrogen (N), 80 kg Phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5), 120 kg Potassium oxide (K2O), 40 kg Magnesium oxide (MgO) and 240 kg Calcium oxide (CaO)

>20 years (Abrahamson et al, 1998)

Soil preparation, planting for example as “rods”, coppicing at the end of year one to encourage multiple stems, coppicing every 3 or 4 years subsequently. May require weed control measures and annual soil improver dressings (Paulson et al. 2003)

Poplar (coppiced)

As for willow however prefers soil pH between 5.5-7.5 and more fertile, deep soils (Defra 2004; Tubby and Armstrong 2002)

See willow Circa 25 years As for willow

Miscanthus (China Reed, Elephant Grass)

Low to medium grade agricultural quality soil.

Prefers well drained fertile soils6, however free-draining soils or elevated northerly sites are limiting (MAFF, 1988).

Soil pH optimum range 5.5-7.5 but toleration exceeds this range (Defra 2007)

150 to 180 kg K2O/ha, 30 bis 50 kg P2O5/ha and ca. 30 kg MgO/ha

Circa 20 years Established from rhizome cuttings planted in May at densities of 10-20,000 ha-1 (MAFF, 1988). Requires planting to a depth of 10cm into a fine seedbed and will require careful weed management during establishment (first 2-3 years) due to the 1m wide planting gaps7.

5 In general crops require a wider range of nutrients including Mg, Ca, S and trace elements. Specific fertiliser requirements can be found in

agricultural handbooks such as MAFF 2000

6 www.findmeplants.co.uk

7 http://www.ukagriculture.com/crops/Miscanthus.cfm

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Switchgrass

Hardy plant, adapted to a range of soils and climates, however it is easier to establish on loamy or sandy soils than clay soils (as clay takes longer to warm in the spring and clay lumps reduce seed-soil contact) (George et al, 2008).

Fertilisation not recommended during establishment year as this encourages weed competition (George et al, 2008).

Response of established switchgrass stands to N additions is only likely in sandy soils or soils with little previous fertiliser input (George et al, 2008).

Circa 10 years (depending on appropriate management) (George et al, 2008).

Does not reach full productivity for 3 years (DTI, 2006).

Can yield well at southerly locations although reliable establishment techniques not fully developed (DTI, 2006). Successfully established using conventional tillage and drill planting, no-till planting into crop stubble or pasture or frost seeding (Rinehart, 2006). Plant 4.5-12 kg seed per ha at depth of 0.25-0.5 inch ().

Reed canary grass

Tolerate soil pH range 4.9-8.2, well adapted to wet soils and also productive on upland sites (Sheaffer et al, 1990).

Requires N fertiliser for full yield potential to be reached (DTI, 2006). Will respond to N fertiliser (annual applications between 110-165 kg ha N) and to a lesser extent potassium (K) and phosphate fertilisers (Sheaffer et al, 1990).

Commercially productive within 2 years and has a productive life of between 5 and 7 years, after which productivity declines and the crop requires re-sowing8.

Seed mid-April to early June, apply 9-12 kg seed per ha, between 0.25-0.5 inches below soil surface (Sheaffer et al, 1990). Does better at more northerly latitudes and requires careful pest management (DTI, 2006), especially during establishment (Sheaffer et al, 1990). Seed into a well prepared damp seed bed prepared to a fine tilth, with an even surface16.

Hemp Prefers loamy soils with approx. pH 79

Phosphorous (P) 25-35 kgP/ha; K: 40-80 kgK/ha; 30-60 kgN/ha

Fertiliser is best applied to the seedbed17.

1 year

Seed rate approx. 25kg/ha with drill depth 2.5cm, with row spacing approx. 18 inches. Seeds should be sown from mid-April to end of May, giving a mid-August to early September harvest. Crop is harvested using a standard combine

8 www.walesbiomass.org

9 http://www.york.ac.uk/org/cnap/oilcrop/cropsind/linseed_agro.htm

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Little weed control is required as plant is fast growing17.

Linen (Linseed)

Suitable to a range of soil types17.

Compound fertiliser applied in March followed by N fertiliser in April10.

N 60-90 kg ha with maintenance dressings of phosphate and potash17.

Annual crop (spring sowing)

In the UK populations of around 550 plants per square metre are normally established from sowing rates of around 700 viable seeds per square metre. Best seed emergence results from a fine tilth seedbed. Careful weed management is required during establishment of young crops11.

Land ploughed in November for March cultivation and April drilling. Weed control usually required in May. Crop desiccated pre-harvest in August for harvesting in September12.

Harvesting of desiccated crop is done using a combine harvester with specially adapted stripper heads19.

Nettle13 Moist soils. Nettles are not tolerant to dry and light soils or prolonged periods of moisture.

Currently unknown for cultivated plants however fertilisation requirements are likely to be further investigated.

>7 years with optimal yields after 3 years. Yield increases with time.

Cuttings planted in May-June or Sept-Oct using cabbage planters. Cuttings are placed in rows ~ 0.75m apart.

Barley14 Medium to high Winter barley Annual crop (1 Direct drilling, pest and

10 http://www.ukagriculture.com 11 http://www.ienica.net/crops/linseed.pdf

12 http://www.ukagriculture.com/production_cycles/linseed_production_cycle.cfm

13 Nettle cultivation for biofuel is currently under development in Germany. For information, visit the translated web page:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.nettleworld.com/page.php%3Fid%3D14&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=9&

ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNettle%2Btextiles%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_de%26client%3Dfirefox-

a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26hs%3DSoI%26sa%3DG%26pwst%3D1

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

grade agricultural quality soil

pH Max. 6.5 (MAFF, 1988)

(spring dressing) 160 kg ha N on mineral soils, 90 kg ha N on organic soils (MAFF, 1988).

Spring barley 125 kg ha N on mineral soils, 70 kg ha N on organic soils (MAFF, 1988).

For 10 t ha yield, require 130 kg ha P2O5 and 110 kg ha K2O (MAFF, 1988).

year, winter and spring sowings)

weed management, May fertiliser addition, combine harvesting

Maize Medium to high grade agricultural quality soil

PH-Value 5.5

60 kg ha N (applied to sed bed), 80 kg ha P2O5 and 180 kg ha K2O (autmn application primarily for maintenance as response is small) (MAFF, 1988).

Annual crop (1 year, winter and spring sowings)

Direct drilling, pest and weed management, May fertiliser addition. Mechanised harvesting of maize is done with corn-pickers, corn-shellers or combine-harvesters15

Oil seed rape (canola)

Medium to high grade agricultural quality soil

pH Max. 6 (MAFF, 1988)

Spring sown: 187 kg ha-1 N and has little requirement for K (Holmes and Ainsley, 1977). High potash demand in spring (may reach 12 ka ha-1 day) (PDA, 2006)

Winter oilseed rape (spring dressing) 200-240 kg ha N on mineral soils, 100 kg ha N on organic soils, 100

Annual crop (1 year, winter and spring sowings)

Direct drilling, pest and weed management, May fertiliser addition. Oil seed rape may be harvested by desiccation (spraying to kill the plant evenly), swathing/windrowing (cutting the plant and leaving it on the stubble to dry) or direct cutting with a combine harvester16.

14 Agricultural crops such as wheat, barley, sugar beet etc are typically grown in rotation, so that several crops are grown on the same area of

land over succeeding years to reduce problems with pest and weed management

15 http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0522E/T0522E05.htm

16 http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/farming/stockcrop/rape/

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

kg ha P2O5 and 90 kg ha K2O (MAFF, 1988).

Spring oilseed rape 150 kg ha N, and 75 kg ha for P2O5 and K2O (MAFF, 1988).

Sugar Beet Medium to high grade agricultural quality soil

pH Max. 6.5 (MAFF, 1988)

125 kg ha N on mineral soils, 75 kg ha N on organic soils, 100 kg ha P2O5 and 200 kg ha K2O (when applied with Na, otherwise 300 kg ha) (MAFF, 1988).

Annual crop (during spring to autumn) – crop rotation with Winter Wheat

Seeds are sown from early March in rows 50cm wide with typical spacing of 18cm at depths 2.5-3.0cm in the soil17.

Wheat Medium to high grade agricultural quality soil

pH Max. 6 (MAFF, 1988)

Winter wheat (spring dressing) 175 kg ha N on mineral soils, 90 kg ha N on organic soils (MAFF, 1988).

Spring barley 150 kg ha N on mineral soils, 70 kg ha N on organic soils (MAFF, 1988).

For 10 t ha yield, require 130 kg ha P2O5 and 110 kg ha K2O (MAFF, 1988).

Annual crop (1 year, winter and spring sowings)

Direct drilling, pest and weed management, May fertiliser addition, combine harvesting

17 http://www.ukagriculture.com/crops/sugar_beet_farming.cfm

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

References

Abrahamson, L. P., Robison, D. J., Volk, T. A., White, E. H., Neuhauser, E. F., Benjamin, W. H. and Peterson, J. M. (1998) Sustainability and environmental issues associated with willow bioenergy development in New York (USA). Biomass and Bioenergy 15 (1) 17-22

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - Defra (2004) Best Practice Guidelines For Applicants to Defra’s Energy Crops Scheme Growing Short Rotation Coppice. Defra, London http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/short-rotation-coppice_tcm6-4262.pdf

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Defra (2007) Planting and growing Miscanthus: Best practice guidelines for applicants to Defra’s Energy Crop Scheme. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/planning/grants-funding/energy-crops/default.htm

DTI (2006). A trial of the suitability of switchgrass and reed canary grass as biofuel crops under UK conditions (Project Summary No. PS254)

George, N., Tungate, K., Hobbs, A., Fike, J., Atkinson, A. (2008) A guide for growing switchgrass as a biofuel crop in North Carolina. NC Solar Centre, NC State University, USA

Holmes, M. R. J. and Ainsley, A. M. (1977) Fertiliser requirements of spring oilseed rape. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 28 (3) 301-311

MAFF (1988) Fertiliser Recommendations (ADAS). Reference book 209, HMSO Publications

Paulson, M., Bardos, P., Harmsen, J., Wilczek, J., Barton, M., and Edwards, D. (2003) The practical use of short rotation coppice in land restoration. Land Contamination and Reclamation 11 (3) 323-338

Potash Development Association PDA (2006) Oilseed rape and potash, leaflet no. 13

Rinehart, L. (2006) Swichgrass as a bioenergy crop. A publication of ATTRA – National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service

Sheaffer, C.C., Marten, G. C., Rabas, D. L., Martin, N. P. and Miller, D. W. (1990) Reed canarygrass. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 595

Tubby, I. & Armstrong, A. (2002) Establishment and management of short rotation coppice. Practice Note FCPN7 (Revised), Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, UK

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 4 Example sources, general pathways and key receptors for biomass on marginal land projects

Example Sources General Pathways Key Receptors

Former use of the site (e.g. landfill, mining etc). Extensive information is available in the UK from the DoE Industry Profiles18 and the Model Procedures (Environment Agency 2004). In Germany information is available via the contaminated site land register of the Federal States (Federal Ministry of Environment 2004) and in Sweden from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (1999)

Organic matter addition or use of other site amendments (see Chapter 5):

Biological risks (e.g. form animal pathogens

Chemical risks (e.g. from potentially toxic elements - PTEs or persistent organic pollutants - POPs)

Physical risks (e.g. from litter and sharp objects)

Direct contact with soil and dust

Via air (including via dust)

Via water

Via biomass

Via consumption

Water (groundwater, surface water)

Products (biomass)

Ecological (e.g. conservation areas., habitats)

Human health (e.g. site workers, visitors, neighbours)

Built constructions and services

References

Environment Agency (2004) Model procedures for the management of land contamination R&D Report CLR 11, 192pp Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. Available from http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront

Federal Ministry of Environment (2004)a Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz vom 17. März 1998 (BGBl. I S. 502), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 3 des Gesetzes vom 9. Dezember 2004 (BGBl. I S. 3214).

Federal Ministry of Environment (2004)b Bundesbodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung - Bundes-Bodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung vom 12. Juli 1999 (BGBl. I S. 1554), geändert durch Artikel 2 der Verordnung vom 23. Dezember 2004 (BGBl. I S. 3758)

Swedish Environmental Protection (1999). Metodik för inventering av förorenade områden: Bedömningsgrunder för miljökvalitet. Rapport 4918. (in Swedish)

18 Available from http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33708.aspx

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 5 Contaminated land risk management methods

Engineering and excavation methods

Broadly in situ techniques

Broadly ex situ techniques Gas control measures

Cover systems – containment of site surfaces for example to prevent the upward migration of contaminants

Excavation and related materials handling – removal of soils to the surface for screening and pre-processing prior to disposal or ex situ treatment, for example prior to bioremediation of PAH and hydrocarbon contaminated soil

Infilling - re-use of treated soils or other factions (such as stones, gravel etc) to fill in void space from previous excavations or level a site, or similar use of imported materials

Off-site disposal of contaminated soil – removal of soil and other materials to a licensed waste disposal site, for example highly contaminated tarry debris

Vertical barriers – containment of sites to prevent off-site movement of contaminated

Air sparging and biosparging – injection of air into an aquifer to volatilise contaminants and stimulate in situ biodegradation in the saturated zone (below the water table)

Electro-remediation - use of electric fields to collect or manage contaminants in saturated ground

In situ flushing (including in situ bioremediation) extraction of groundwater and treating/conditioning it ex situ above ground, before re-injecting it into the aquifer to simulate a treatment effect in situ such as biodegradation

In situ oxidation techniques – injection of strong redox agents into the ground to chemically oxidise or reduce contaminants

In situ stabilisation – use of chemical agents that reduce the availability and accessibility of contaminants, for example use of bone charcoal or beringite

In situ thermal – use of heating (for example electrically or with steam) to volatilise contaminants so that they can be recovered by venting

Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) – exploitation and

Ex situ bioremediation – engineered systems to biodegrade contaminants in excavated soil

Soil washing and related ex situ treatments– engineered systems to remove contaminants from excavated soil using physical and or chemical means

Solidification/stabilisation – mixing of amendments with soils to reduce their accessibility (solidification) or availability (stabilisation) – may also be used to improve materials handling properties (e.g. of tars_ prior to disposal

Thermal treatments – use of heat to remove and then combust contaminants in excavated soil

Vitrification – use of high energies to convert excavated materials into a glassy solid with very low contaminant availability (and thermally destroy organic contaminants)

Ex situ groundwater and vapour treatment – a range of physical treatments (such as filtration) and chemical treatments (such as precipitation) to remove contaminants

Dilution and dispersion of gases for buildings – building measures such as ventilation

Dilution and dispersion of gases in-ground – natural attenuation processes, for example methane oxidation by soil micro-organisms

Gas barriers for buildings – impermeable membranes or other barriers that prevent the migration of gas

Gas barriers in-ground – impermeable membranes or other barriers that prevent the migration of gas

Long-term post-construction monitoring for gases – buildings on areas at risk from methane or radon may require regular gas monitoring

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

groundwater monitoring of naturally occurring processes to manage risks, primarily in groundwater

Permeable reactive barriers – engineered in situ treatment zones to manage contamination problems in groundwater

Phytoremediation – use of plants to achieve remediation see Table 4.1

Pump and treat - extraction of groundwater and treating it ex situ above ground

Redox amendments for enhanced bioremediation – agents injected into the ground to stimulate either aerobic or anaerobic biodegradation in situ

Soil vapour extraction/venting and bioventing - extraction of air from soil to volatilise contaminants and stimulate in situ biodegradation in the unsaturated zone (above the water table)

References

Franzius, V., Altenbolum, M., Gerold, T. (Eds.) (2008). Handbuch Altlastensanierung und Flächenrecycling. C.F. Müller Verlag, 14. edition

Nathanail, J. Bardos, P.,and Nathanail, P. (2007) Contaminated Land Management Ready Reference. Update EPP Publications/ Land Quality Press. Available from: EPP Publications, 6 Eastbourne Road, Chiswick, London, W4 3EB. E-mail [email protected]. ISBN 1900995069. www.readyreference.co.uk

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Remediation of contaminated areas, quality manual - edition 4, 2008 (Efterbehandling av förorenade områden, kvalitetsmanual – Utgåva 4, 2008). In Swedish, SEPA, 2008, ISBN:1234-7 (www.naturvardsverket.se)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 6 Regulatory regimes and policy links in Germany, Sweden and the UK.

(Footnotes may be on following pages)

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

Germany Federal Soil Protection Law (Federal Ministry of Environment 2004)

Sewage Sludge Ordinance (Federal Ministry of Environment 2006a)

Federal Soil Protection Law, Drinking water Ordinance (Federal Ministry of Environment 2006b)

Federal Law of Renewable Energies (Federal Republic of Germany 2009)

The 2010 targets for Ethanol and Biodiesel use in Germany under the EU Biofuels Directive (2003/30/EC) are 3.6 and 6.17% respectively (House of Lords 2006).

Sweden Environmental code (MB, 1998)

Risk assessment practice (SEPA, 2008c)

Plan and Building Code (Plan och bygglagen, PBL, 1987)

(National environmental targets – sub target 6.2, SEPA, 2009)

Environmental Code (MB, 1998)

Guidelines (Jordbruksverket, 2009, SEPA, 2008d, bioenergiportalen, 2008)

Environmental Code (MB, 1998)

Plan and Building Code (Plan och bygglage, PBL, 1987)

Risk assessment practice (SEPA, 2008c)

Environmental Code (MB, 1998)

Aids for more efficient energy and biofuel and renewable energy resources (Swedish Parliament, 2006)

Climate investment programs (Swedish Parliament, 2006)

Obligation to provide renewable fuels (Swedish parliament, 2006, Act (2005:1248)

The 2010 target for biofuels in Sweden is 5.75% under the EU Biofuels Directive (2003/30/EC) (House of Lords

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

2006).

UK

England and Wales

Contaminated land legislation (Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) was introduced in 1995. It came into force in 2000 following the publication of accompanying “statutory guidance”. Sites may be regulated under environmental protection regulations or through the planning process depending on the context (Defra 2006b, DCLG 2004-2008, WAG 2006). Detailed technical guidance is available from the Environment Agency19.

The identification and subsequent remediation of contaminated land falls under the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations (2006) and the

Recently regulatory controls for the re-use of waste on land have been incorporated into a new Environmental Permitting system. This is still being developed (Defra 2007a and 2008b). The key features are that some composts meeting the PAS-100 specification and the Compost Quality Protocol will no longer be considered a waste and will be considered a product. A Quality Protocol is also being finalised for anaerobic digestates and is being developed for top soils, linked to an existing British Standard (BSI 1994, WRAP 2005 and 2007, WRAP and Environment Agency 2008). Otherwise materials re-use on land will be dealt with by an “exemption”, a “standard permit” or a “bespoke permit” depending on the potential level of risk and amount of regulatory effort they are perceived to carry by the regulator21.

A national package of advice and support for farmers preparing for the new Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations has been launched by Defra. The regulations came into force on 1 January 2009 and update the UK's implementation of the 1991 EU Nitrates Directive25. WFD implementation is being undertaken separately by England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However all countries are implementing the Directive in similar ways and are collaborating via the WFD United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG)26. UK TAG links to all implementation guidance, regulations and UK Draft River Basin Management Plans.

The EU Biofuels Directive (2003/30/EC) sets reference values for the EU market share of biofuels. Each Member State has a particular target. The UK target for biofuel use in 2010 is 3.5%. (House of Lords 2006).

The Biomass Task Force was designed to help the Government and the industry develop biomass energy in support of renewable energy targets and sustainable farming and forestry and rural objectives. Summaries of the proposed task force and governmental response can be accessed following link27. The UK Biomass Strategy was published in 2007 (Defra, DoT and DTI 2007) In 2008 the Renewables Advisory Board published its views on how the UK can meet its 2020 target of 15%

19 www.environment-agency.gov.uk/clea 21 Current situation described at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/34782.aspx

25 Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/nitrate/nvz2008.htm

26 http://www.wfduk.org/ 27 http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/crops/industrial/energy/biomass-taskforce/index.htm

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

Contaminated Land (England) Amendment Regulations 2001.

These Regulations set out provisions relating to the identification and remediation of contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

There are also ongoing attempts to produce an EU Soil Framework Directive, however the outcome is currently unknown20. The planned Soils Directive is likely to emphasise on contaminated and brownfield land, however this may also have an effect on surrounding water, soil (and air) environments.

CLOs are seen as carrying a higher level of risk than composts produced from materials separated at source (Environment Agency 2008c, Purchase 2009). Currently, spreading of CLOa can be achieved under paragraph 9A of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations if the result is deemed to be ‘ecological improvement’, but this is under review22.

The Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC is implemented in the UK through the Environmental Protection Act (1990), the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act (1989), the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (1994) and the Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991. The legislation requires that anyone who treats, keeps, deposits or disposes of waste needs a

It is planned for the current Groundwater Directives to fall under the WFD in 2013. The Groundwater Directive regulates pollution discharges to groundwater, and controls discharges of some pollutants by permits. In 2006, the Groundwater Daughter Directive (2006/118/EC) was introduced as an offshoot of the WFD. Discharge limits for pollutants are not specified as it was deemed to be the responsibility of the Member States. The UK Environment Agency also identifies Source Protection Zones (SPZs) to identify risk of contamination around sources of drinking water (such as bore holes, wells and springs).

Defra issued a public consultation on the draft Soil

renewable energy (RAB 2008a). In 2009 the Welsh Assembly Government published a bioenergy action plant consultation. A progress report was recently published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change – DECC (2009b), and also a “road map “towards a low carbon future” by the Royal Society (2009). Recently a revised UK renewable energy strategy was published (DECC 2009c).

Policy on biofuel use for transport is set out by DfT 2009. Support for biofuel production and setting up of biofuel infrastructure is available in England through Defra35 Energy Crops Scheme; part of the Rural Development Programme England 2007-201328 (Defra 2004b) and the Bioenergy

20 http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/land/soil/europe/

22 The Environment Agency suggest that large scale use of CLO’s for biomass crops will likely require a bespoke permit in future (Personal

Communication June 2009) 28 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/ecs/default.aspx

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

waste management licence (unless exempt or excluded), which is issued by the Environment Agency23.

Sewage sludge use on land is also regulated by a Code of Practice (DoE 1996). Sewage sludge falls under The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) is implemented in the UK by the Sludge Regulations 1989, IPPC and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations. The EC is currently assessing whether the current Sewage Sludge Directive should be reviewed (and the extent of the review if agreed it should occur)24.

The Sewage Sludge Directive is currently being reviewed (first consultation due to be released April 2009). The Safe Sludge Matrix also lays down strict rules on sludge application timing and the crops grown on the land to which it is applied. The Safe

Strategy for England on 31 March 2008 (Defra 2008d).

Defra have also issued a Farming: Code of Good Agricultural Practice to protect air, soil and water (Defra 2009a). This aims to limit diffuse pollution of excess nutrients from agricultural land, prevent unnecessary accumulation of excess nutrients in the soil and reduce the risk of GHG emissions.

Infrastructure Scheme and Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme (for end users)29.

A list of the current grant schemes available in the UK is provided at the following link pages30.

23 http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Legislation.htm#75442

24 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/index.htm 29 http://www.bioenergycapitalgrants.org.uk/

30 http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=77,15133&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

Sludge Matrix is a voluntary agreement led by the UK consultancy company, ADAS, and is supported by Defra, Environment Agency, British Retail Consortium, National Farmers Union, the water industry and the Food Standards Agency (ADAS et al. 2001).

Scotland Contaminated land legislation in Scotland is broadly in line with the rest of the UK. Sites may be regulated under environmental protection regulations or through the planning process depending on the context (Scottish Executive 2006)

Part 2A under The Environment Protection Act (1990) is implemented in Scotland through:

Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations (2000)31.

Waste regulatory approaches in Scotland are broadly similar and are also currently under review (Scottish Government and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 2008). The Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research have recently carried out a risk assessment for sewage sludge re-use on forestry and for restoration of derelict land (SNIFFER 2008), which is being used to support the development of a Code of Practice on the Use of Sludge, Composts and Biowastes for Land Restoration over 2009. Compost re-

Both the WFD and Nitrates Directives are implemented in Scotland in a largely similar way to the rest of the UK. Control over nitrate leaching, pesticides, soil erosion and agricultural waste in Scotland lies broadly in line with the rest of the UK33.

Since the Waste (Scotland) Regulations were published in 2005, Scottish farmers have a ‘Duty of Care’ to ensure they do not treat, keep or dispose of agricultural waste in any way that may cause detriment to the surrounding environment or human health34.

Refer to England/Wales for EU Biomass Directive.

Scottish Biomass Action Plan has been instigated by the EU Biomass Action Plan. It aims to develop the biomass sector in Scotland. Using biomass for heat and electricity, and transport fuel will be included in the Scottish Biomass Action Plan in order to develop a sustainable biomass industry39.

Refer to England/Wales for a link to a current list of grant

31 http://www.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2000/20000178.htm

33 http://www.sepa.org.uk/land/agriculture/arable.aspx

34 http://www.sepa.org.uk/land/agriculture/agricultural_regulation.aspx

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

Contaminated Land Regulations Amendment (2005)32.

use in Scotland also uses the PAS-100 standard. However the Compost Quality Protocol does not apply. Instead the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency released a position statement regard compost re-use in 2004.

Refer to England/Wales for Sewage Sludge.

SEPA monitor the state of Scotland’s water environment and have published the reports, including river basin planning, significant water management issues and water characterisation reports35.

The WFD in particular is implemented in Scotland through the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act (2003). This Act gave Scottish ministers power to introduce regulatory controls over water activities, to ensure Scotland’s water environments (wetlands, rivers, lochs, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwaters) are protected and used in a sustainable way36.

Discharges, disposal (to land), water abstraction, impoundments and engineering works are controlled by SEPA by The Controlled Activity

schemes available in the UK.

39 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/12095912/0

32 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2005/20050658.htm

35 http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/water_publications.aspx 36 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/asp_20030003_en_1

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

Regulations (CAR) (2005)37.

The Water Environment (Diffuse Pollution) (Scotland) Regulations, in the form of the ‘General Binding Rules’ were also published by the Scottish Government in 2008 and are an amendment to the CARS (2005)38.

Northern Ireland

Part 3 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 contains the main legal provisions for the introduction of a contaminated land regime in Northern Ireland. The Order was enacted in 1997 but the Contaminated Land Regime is not yet in operation (DoE NI 2006). The Regime will contribute to the principle objectives of the WFD.

The Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997), was introduced in Northern Ireland as a result of the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EC) (as amended by 91/156/EEC and 91/692/EEC), The Hazardous Waste Directive (91/689/EC) and The Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) which set legal standards and responsibilities for the deposit, treatment, keeping or disposal of waste. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) is responsible for the delivery and regulation of waste activities in Northern

Implementation of the WFD is the responsibility of the Department of Environment in Northern Ireland. The implementation of the WFD will be similar to the rest of the UK by involving the development of monitoring programmes, further characterisation of water bodies and the development of programmes of measures, which will be summarised in river basin management plans41.

The Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and

Refer to England/Wales for EU Biomass Directive.

Like Scotland, Northern Ireland will fall under the UK-wide Biomass Action Plan. Refer to England/Wales.

Refer to England/Wales for a link to a current list of grant schemes available in the UK.

37 http://www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/legislation/current/63590.aspx

38 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2008/pdf/ssi_20080054_en.pdf, also see Scottish Government, 2008b

41 http://www.doeni.gov.uk/index/protect_the_environment/water/water_framework_directive_.htm

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

Ireland. The re-use of materials on land is regulated via a Waste Management Licensing system (including exemptions for the re-use of certain materials for particular purposes, for example the re-use of composts for the improvement of PDL40.

Refer to England/Wales for Sewage Sludge.

Rural Development have joint statutory responsibility for implementation of the Nitrates Directive42.

The Nitrates Directive is implemented through the Nitrates Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, and the 2008 Amendment to this regulation and the Phosphorus (Use in Agriculture) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. The EC Groundwater Directive is also implemented in a similar way to the rest of the UK.

Northern Irelands aquatic environments are the responsibility of the Water Management Unit of the NIEA43.

Similar to the rest of the UK, the WFD is implemented through river basin management plans, and are currently out for consultation until June 2009.

40 http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/waste/authorisation/exemption.htm 42 http://www.doeni.gov.uk/index/protect_the_environment/water/nitrates_.htm

43 http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/water.htm

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Contaminated land

Organic matter re-use (for composts and sewage sludge)

Water, soil and agriculture

Biomass use

Discharges are regulated under the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which requires permission from the Department of Environment to discharge any potential pollutants.

References

ADAS, British Retail Consortium and Water UK (2001) Guidelines for the Application of Sewage Sludge to Agricultural Land. £rd Edition, April 2001. ADAS. http://www.adas.co.uk/media_files/Document%20Store/SSM.pdf

Bioenergiportalen (2008) “Bioenerigportalen” www.bioeneriportalen.se

British Standards Institution - BSI (1994) Specification for topsoil. British Standard, BS 3882: 1994, 15th October, ISBN 0 580 23406 1 http://www.bsonline.techindex.co.uk

Department for Communities and Local Government - DCLG (2004-8) Planning Policy Statement PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicystatements/pps23/

Department of Energy and Climate Change – DECC (2009)b Progress Report on Implementation of the Government Response to the Biomass Task Force Report. URN 09D/620, DECC, London. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52050.pdf

Department of Energy and Climate Change – DECC (2009)c The UK Renewable Energy Strategy Cm 7686, DECC, London, UK. ISBN: 9780101768627 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx#1

Department of the Environment, DoE (1996) Code of Practice For Agricultural Use Of Sewage Sludge. Now available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/sewage/sludge-report.pdf

Department of the Environment Northern Ireland – DoE NI (2006) Contaminated Land Implementation of Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 A Consultation Paper on Proposals for the Contaminated Land Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and Statutory Guidance 5th July 2006. Environmental Policy Division, 20-24 Donegall Street, Belfast, BT1 2GP http://www.doeni.gov.uk/cl-consultation_1_.pdf

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - Defra (2004)b Best Practice Guidelines For Applicants to Defra’s Energy Crops Scheme Growing Short Rotation Coppice. Defra, London http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/short-rotation-coppice_tcm6-4262.pdf

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs – Defra (2006)b Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Defra Circular 01/2006 September 2006 PB 12112 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/land/contaminated/pdf/circular01-2006.pdf

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Defra (2007)a Environmental Permitting: Simplifying Regulation for Waste Management and Pollution Prevention and Control. Defra, London, UK, October 2007. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/epp/documents/EPP-booklet.pdf

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Defra (2008)b Environmental Permitting: core guidance for the Environmental Permitting Regulations (2007). Defra, London, UK.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - Defra (2008)d Consultation on the draft Soil Strategy for England March 2008, Defra, London. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/soilstrategy/consultation.pdf

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Defra (2009)a Farming: Code of Good Agricultural Practice. The Stationery Office, Norwich. ISBN 978 0 11 243284 5 http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/cogap/pdf/cogap090202.pdf

Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs – Defra, Department of Transport – DoT and Department for Trade and Industry – DTI (2007) UK Biomass Strategy. Defra, London, UK. http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/climatechange/uk/energy/renewablefuel/pdf/ukbiomassstrategy-0507.pdf

Department of the Environment Northern Ireland – DoE NI (2006) Contaminated Land Implementation of Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 A Consultation Paper on Proposals for the Contaminated Land Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and Statutory Guidance 5th July 2006. Environmental Policy Division, 20-24 Donegall Street, Belfast, BT1 2GP http://www.doeni.gov.uk/cl-consultation_1_.pdf

Department for Transport - DfT (2009) Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future. A Carbon Reduction Strategy for Transport July 2009. Cm 7682 DfT, London, UK. ISBN:9780101768221 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/carbonreduction/low-carbon.pdf

Environment Agency (2008)c Compost-Like Output from Mechanical Biological Treatment of mixed source municipal wastes. Regulatory Position Statement. April 2008. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/mbt_2010727.pdf

Federal Ministry of Environment (2004)a Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz vom 17. März 1998 (BGBl. I S. 502), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 3 des Gesetzes vom 9. Dezember 2004 (BGBl. I S. 3214).

Federal Ministry of Environment (2004)b Bundesbodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung - Bundes-Bodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung vom 12. Juli 1999 (BGBl. I S. 1554), geändert durch Artikel 2 der Verordnung vom 23. Dezember 2004 (BGBl. I S. 3758)

Federal Ministry of Environment (2006)a Klärschlammverordnung vom 15. April 1992 (BGBl. I S. 912), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 4 der Verordnung vom 20. Oktober 2006 (BGBl. I S. 2298)

Federal Ministry of Environment (2006)b Trinkwasserverordnung vom 21. Mai 2001 (BGBl. I S. 959), geändert durch Artikel 363 der Verordnung vom 31. Oktober 2006 (BGBl. I S. 2407)

House of Lords (2006). The EU strategy on biofuels: from field to fuel, Volume I: Report. From the House of Lords, EU Committee, 47

th Report of Session 2005-2006. The Stationery Office Ltd, London, UK

Jordbruksverket (2009) Riktlinger för gödsling och kalkning 2009, Jordbruksverket (Swedish Board of Agriculture) www.sjv.se

MB (1998) Environmental code, SFS nr: 1998:808, Miljöbalk (1998:808), Environmental Ministry, Sweden (19981998-06-11, changes included 2006:673 and 2006:828)

PBL (1987) Plan and building act, SFS nr: 1987:10, Plan- och bygglag (1987:10), Environmental Ministry, Sweden, 1987-01-08, changes included, SFS 2008:1366, SFS 1992:1769

Purchase, D. (2009) The lighter touch. CIWM Magazine. May 2009 pp48-49. www.ciwm.org.uk

Renewables Advisory Board – RAB (2008)a 2020 VISION – How the UK can meet its target of 15% renewable energy. June 2008. 0226 www.renewables-advisory-board.org.uk http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/mediaDetail.asp?MediaDetailsID=244289&NewsAreaID=2&ClientID=379&LocaleID=2

Royal Society (2009) Towards a low carbon future. Scientific Discussion Meeting. Royal Society, London. http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8174

Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research - SNIFFER (2008) Human Health And Environmental Impacts Of Using Sewage Sludge on Forestry And For Restoration Of Derelict Land UKLQ09 http://www.sniffer.org.uk/Resources/UKLQ09/Layout_Default/0.aspx?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sniffer.org.uk%3a80%2fproject-search-results.aspx%3fsearchterm%3dUKlq09&selectedtab=completed

Scottish Executive (2006) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance: Edition 2 May 2006 Paper SE/2006/44 ISBN: 0-7559-6097-1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/127825/0030600.pdf

Scottish Government and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Better Waste Regulation Consultation report. Scottish Government Edinburgh. http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste_regulation/better_waste_regulation.aspx

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (2008)c Remediation of contaminated areas, quality manual - edition 4, 2008 (Efterbehandling av förorenade områden, kvalitetsmanual – Utgåva 4, 2008). In Swedish, SEPA, 2008, ISBN:1234-7 (www.naturvardsverket.se)

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (2008)d Handling of biological waste (Hantering och behandling av avfall, biologics bahndling) www.naturvardsverket,.se/sv.Produkter-och-avfall/Avfall/hantering-och -behandling-av-avfall/Biologisk-behandling

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (2009) The Swedish environmental quality objectives, http://www.miljomal.nu/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/

Swedish parliament (2006) Swedish Parliaments decision of 16 December 2005 (prop. 2005/06:16, report 2005/06:TU6,rskr.20054/06:134) Memorandum, 2006-06-30 M2006/2879/E, DG TREN, Ministry of Sustainable Development, Energy Divivision

Waste and Resources Action Programme - WRAP (2005) PAS100:2005 Specification for composted materials. WRAP, Banbury, UK. ISBN 0 580 45195 X. http://www.wrap.org.co.uk

Waste and Resources Action Programme - WRAP and Environment Agency (2007)a Waste vegetable oil. A technical report on the manufacture of products from waste vegetable oil. Waste Protocols Project. October 2007. WRAP, Banbury, UK

Waste and Resources Action Programme - WRAP (2007)b The quality protocol for the production and use of quality compost from source-segregated biodegradable waste. WRAP, Banbury, UK Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/compostqp_1721787.pdf

Waste and Resources Action Programme - WRAP - and Environment Agency (2008) Anaerobic digestate The quality protocol for the production and use of quality outputs from anaerobic digestion of source-segregated biodegradable waste (DRAFT). http://www.wrap.org.co.uk

Welsh Assembly Government – WAG (2006) Part 2A Statutory Guidance on Contaminated Land, December 2006. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff. http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/contaminatedland/documents/?lang=en

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 7 Strengths and weaknesses of different forms of organic matter for soil formation or improvement on marginal land

Type Description Strengths Weaknesses

Source segregated – “green waste” compost

Material produced by composting or anaerobic digestion from separately collected materials from private and public gardens and parks (including leisure facilities such as golf courses).

Material contains useful amounts of stabilised organic matter and plant nutrients.

Properly treated materials should be sanitised of animal pathogens and most plant pathogens.

Materials may have a protective effect by: liming (increasing pH, immobilising toxic substances and reducing the effects of some plant pathogens).

Some jurisdictions may have quality standards for these composts which offer element of quality assurance, and these materials may be seen as “recycled” and hence no longer under waste regulations.

Generally source segregated materials are well perceived.

Materials may command a price per m3, unless processed on-site from green wastes (in which case revenue generation may be possible).

These materials may contain hazardous materials, albeit at lower levels than for most mixed waste composts.

Unstabilised material is highly odorous and may also carry wider public health / nuisance risks.

Stored materials may pose risks from some micro-organisms such as Aspergillus fumigatus.

Source segregated – food waste compost

Material produced by composting or anaerobic digestion from separately collected materials from private kitchens and/or catering operations or commercial food producers / processors.

Properly treated materials should be sanitised of animal pathogens and most plant pathogens.

Materials may have a protective effect by: liming (increasing pH, immobilising toxic substances and reducing the effects of some plant pathogens). Note: under European law all such material has to have a minimum treatment to sanitise animal pathogens (Regulation EC

Materials may command a price per m3, unless processed on-site (in which case revenue generation may be possible).

These materials may contain hazardous materials, albeit at lower levels than for most mixed waste composts.

Unstabilised material is highly odorous and may also carry wider public health / nuisance risks.

Stored materials may pose

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Type Description Strengths Weaknesses

1774/2002).

Some jurisdictions may have quality standards for these composts which offer element of quality assurance, and these materials may be seen as “recycled” and hence no longer under waste regulations.

Generally source segregated materials are well perceived. .

risks from some micro-organisms such as Aspergillus fumigatus.

CLO Material produced by composting or anaerobic digestion from mechanically processed fractions of mixed municipal (household) waste; or other similar collected wastes from commercial sources (Cameron et al. 2008).

Material contains useful amounts of stabilised organic matter and plant nutrients

The material may be available at low or zero cost, or potentially in some regulatory jurisdictions its use could command a gate fee.

Properly treated materials should be sanitised of animal pathogens and most plant pathogens. Note: under European law all such material has to have a minimum treatment to sanitise animal pathogens (Regulation EC 1774/2002).

Materials may have a protective effect by: liming (increasing pH, immobilising toxic substances and reducing the effects of some plant pathogens).

Some jurisdictions may have quality standards for mixed waste composts which offer an element of quality assurance.

Stabilised material is

Mixed waste composts tend to contain higher levels of inert materials (e.g. plastic traces) and hazardous materials than some other forms of organic matter: for example, PTEs, POPs and sharps such as glass fragments. The best mixed waste composts are likely to have PTE levels similar to poorer source segregated materials.

Mixed waste composts may suffer from a poor perception by some stakeholders and a more stringent regulatory regime than some other forms of organic matter.

Unstabilised material is highly odorous and may also carry wider public health / nuisance risks.

Stored materials may pose risks from some micro-organisms such as Aspergillus fumigatus.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Type Description Strengths Weaknesses

generally free from odour.

Sewage sludge “biosolids”

Residues remaining after treatment of human effluents at a municipal scale. Untreated dilute sewage fractions have been used to irrigate energy forestry.

Very high levels of usable organic matter and plant nutrients.

Potentially available at low or zero cost

Untreated materials will pose materials handling difficulties as well as problems of odour and potential microbial risks. They are likely to require special handling.

Sewage materials tend to contain higher levels of inert materials (e.g. plastic traces) and hazardous materials than some other forms of organic matter: e.g. PTEs, POPs.

References

Cameron, R.W.F., Wheeler, R.S., Hadley, P.H., Bishop, H.O., Nortcliff, S., Chapman, A.S., Bardos, R.P., & Edwards, D. (2008). Market development of Waste Derived Organic Materials (WDOM). Report prepared for Grantscape by The University of Reading and r3 Environmental Technology Ltd

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 8 Organic Materials as Sources of Supplementary Biomass

Type Description Strengths Weaknesses

Agricultural Residues (e.g. cereal straw, oil seed rape straw).

Post harvesting residues.

Not regarded as a waste, so easier regulatory compliance.

Ash or biochar may be recyclable.

Low bulk density, seasonal supply, bulky for storage, vulnerable to moisture over storage, cost of materials, and may already be existing uses.

Forestry Residues (trimmings etc).

Residues produced by forestry management and timber processing.

Not regarded as a waste, so easier regulatory compliance

Ash or biochar may be recyclable.

Possibly seasonal supply, in some areas may already be used for established markets e.g. as chipboard, and so cost of materials may need to be met.

Commercial and industrial Waste (waste paper, card, rags, food processing residues).

Accumulated waste of business activities collected by waste management organisations.

Potential for fairly uniform materials.

Potential to command a gate fee (for waste treatment).

Year round availability.

Regarded as a waste, some types may contain contaminants requiring additional ash or emission treatment. Some waste types may have alternative uses and established prices. Some types may not be readily storable.

Municipal Waste (wood – e.g. separately collected or from green waste oversize, cooking fat, refuse derived fuel).

Waste streams collected by local authorities (or their contractors).

Potential to command a gate fee (for waste treatment).

Usually year round availability.

Regarded as a waste, some types may contain contaminants requiring additional ash or emission treatment. Some waste types may have alternative uses and established prices. Some types may not be readily storable.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 9 Integrated Remediation Strategy for Markham Willows (r3 2004)

Possible Pollutant Linkages

Remedial Objectives Remedial Options

- Subsurface and surface contaminants

- Ingestion / inhalation / dermal contact

- Workers and public not on bridle paths

Prevent workers and public not on bridle paths being exposed to hazardous levels of contaminants

Hotspot removal then vegetation based containment (pathway management), linked to a comparison of surface contamination levels with suitable criteria. Derbyshire County Council have decided that fenced off deciduous woodland will be used for areas with elevated dioxin contamination levels.

- Subsurface and surface contaminants

- Ingestion / inhalation / dermal contact

- Bridle path users

Prevent bridle path users being exposed to hazardous levels of contaminants

Hotspot removal in bridle path and picnic areas, followed by a conventional cover system for containment (pathway management), in turn protected by a wearing surface

- Colliery spoil, waste deposits, surface deposits (various contaminants)

- Surface water / drainage / vadose zone / groundwater

- River Doe Lea, Doe Lea Flash, Poolsbrook Flash, Woodside Field slope and stream, Markham Colliery Reedbeds, Bolsover Colliery Marsh, Coal Measures

Prevent unacceptable deterioration of the River Doe Lea, Doe Lea Flash, Poolsbrook Flash, Woodside Field slope and stream, Markham Colliery Reedbeds, Bolsover Colliery Marsh, Coal Measures

Possible remediation approaches, if pollutant linkages are significant are:

Permeable reactive barriers (including bioscreens)

Monitored natural attenuation

- Mine gas

- Explosion

- All users

Prevent mine gas explosions

Any buildings on the North Tip will need to be constructed with adequate measures to prevent accumulation of mine gas in enclosed volumes, for example adequate ventilation. This includes any temporary excavations, e.g. for drainage etc

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 10 Financial Viability

The financial measurements Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Amortisation, and Annuity are used in dynamic investment appraisal. Each method is a monetary evaluation

NPV: This method considers cash in- and out-flows over a period of time and uses a Discounting Factor (DF), which brings future cash into a current value. Investment C0 > 0 is an indication for the profitability of an investment.

Formula: iLiRICTt

t

T

t

111

0

C0: capital value I: investment T: period of time

R: cash in-/ out-flows L: liquidation proceeds i: interest

IRR: This method is an estimation of the discounting factor, which projects use to consider all cash in- and out-flows. The IRR represents a minimum percentage from the investors’ point of view.

Formula: iiKWKW

KWii 12

12

1

1

*

i*: IRR KW1: capital value KW2: capital value

i1: interest i2: interest

Amortisation: Amortisation describes the period of time needed to recover capital investment

Formula: iPD

Aava

I

A: amortisation time I: investment (asset costs) Da= annual depreciation

Pav: average profit i: imputed interest

Annuity: This measurement estimates the average active trade balance of an investment. The annuity factor is better known as the reciprocal value of the present value of annuity.

Formula: 11

1,

i

iiANF n

n

in ANFCa in,0

ANFn,i: annuity factor i: interest C0: capital value

a: annuity value

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 11 Example Pilot the Häggatorp landfill, Kallinge, Sweden

The details about the site can be found the Midterm Report of Rejuvenate 2 (Andersson-Sköld et al., 2011) and Enell et al. (2013, manuscript in prep.) The Midterm report can be downloaded at www.snowmannetwork.com/upload/documents/call2vienna/Rejuvenate%20Midterm%20Report.pdf

Application of the Rejuvenate decision support tool (DST) at the Häggatorp Landfill

This example is based on the results from the field results at the Häggatorp landfill. The Häggatorp landfill is located in the south of Sweden in Kallinge, Ronneby municipality. As the contaminant concentrations are moderate, the main aims of the demonstration site were to investigate the biomass production (growth) and to see if there is any uptake of contaminants into the biota.

Results of applying the DST at the Häggatorp Landfill

Stage 1: Crop

Determining Crop Suitability is the first step of the decision making framework. This stage identifies from a range of possible biomass crops those crops which are able to grow in a region and find a market in a region. It also considers site topography at this stage for convenience. This stage provides a possible biomass crop shortlist. Each subsequent stage is likely to reduce the length of this list as a more refined solution is found.

Range of crops meeting the site objectives

The aim of Rejuvenate phase 2 is to assess the potential to cultivate plants for biofuel. Examples of crops and their potential uses are summarized in Appendix 1 in the DST Guide and in the Final report of Rejuvenate phase 1. Relevant crops for biofuel use are:

Willow

Poplar

Pine

Miscanthus

Switch grass

Reed Canary Grass

Hemp

Wheat

Barley for ethanol

Maize

Oil seed rape

Sun flower

Sugar beet

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

An important part of the cultivation of crops at contaminated sites is that the cultivation shall either decrease or, at least, not increase the risks related to the contamination (Rejuvenate Phase 2, Midterm report, 2011). At the Häggatorp landfill metals are the contaminations under most concern as can be seen in the Final and Midterm reports. In order not to increase the risks, the goal is that the metals shall not be transferred to the leaves in such amounts that it will constitute an increased risk for rabbits or other grazing animals that may reach the area. The site will not be used for domestic grazing.

Appropriate plants to fulfill those criteria are those suitable for phyto-stabilization. Plants stabilizing the soil and reducing the leaching are poplar, willow and grass. The properties of pine are at present not known.

The list of appropriate plants now includes:

Poplar

Willow

Grass

(Pine)

Range of crops meeting local climate conditions.

In the south of Sweden the annual temperature is higher than in the north of Sweden but lower than most other parts of Europe. Also the growth season is relatively short, but the list from above remains unchanged.

Range of crops that can be cultivated on the sites topography

The site is flat and thereby no restrictions due to site topography.

Available uses

In southern Sweden the total energy production for Blekinge county, where the Häggatorp landfill is located, was 10.4 TWh, of which biofuel constituted 45% (Eckerberg, 2006, Nilsson, 2007). The very high proportion (almost twice the national portion) is explained by the use of end products from the Pulp Mill of Södra Cell Mörrum to generate heat and energy (almost 80% of the total bioenergy use in the county.

According to a recent investigation on bioenergy potentials in the region, an increased production of biofuel to replace fossil fuel would not only have good/positive impacts on the climate and the environment, but also on the employment in the rural parts of the county. “Local production and use of biofuel stimulates the regions (rural) enterprises simultaneously as increasing the local energy maintenance” (Nilsson, 2007). The ability to commercially distribute the biomass to one of several existing biofuel producers in the area seems highly feasible. Economic feasibility will be further investigated for the demonstration sites as part of the DST evaluation in the Rejuvenate project.

The list of potential bioenergy crops for cultivation on the demonstration site at the Häggatorp landfill is thus unchanged. As most ongoing activities in the region are based on forest material, wood type vegetation such as willow may be the most favorable in comparison to non-wood crops such as grasses.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Stage 2: Site management

Site conditions

The DST-Stage 2 considers the management of the site from the perspective of biomass production, and from the perspective of biomass conversion on site options are under consideration. There are three sequential considerations for the biomass production, and two for onsite biomass conversion. While conceptually the biomass production and on site biomass conversion are parallel considerations, in practice it may be sensible to initially consider one before the other in timing, since for example if an onsite facility is linked to a particular biomass crop that cannot be produced on the site, then it makes no sense to consider it in detail.

At the Häggatorp landfill there were several places where slag had been deposited without any further mixing with soil. Some spots were uncovered, while others had been covered with a thin layer of topsoil. No preparation of the ground at the site was planned before the cultivation. However, the area had recently been used for temporary storage of topsoil. In order to make the area flat and suitable for cultivation the soil piles had to be removed and thus the soil was spread (partly) over the area. In the summer 2010 Willow was planted without any other preparations. The reasons were for the TRIAD to work over time, and therefore to keep the conditions under and during cultivation as similar as prior cultivation as possible at the site. The growth over the first year, however, was very limited due to weed and the soil structure. In 2011, approx. 75% of the area was re-planted with new willow plants and major improvements were done including weed management and plouging.

Environmental risk management

The site specific environmental risk assessments constitute a large and important part of the complete assessment of the feasibility of the projects in the current project.

In order to get a full and clear picture of ecological risks of heavy metal pollution in soil a TRIAD analysis is performed based on a RIVM report (2007) (National Institute of public health and environment). In this report the following analyses are proposed:

• Total concentration of pollutants (i.e. chemical analyses of heavy metals in the soil);

• Microtox analyses (an acute test with bacteria sensitive to heavy metals);

• Nematode analyses (i.e. ecological field observations of the nematode population).

The results from the TRIAD analysis indicate that there are no eco-toxic or environmental risk at the site neither prior nor caused by the cultivation.

In the current project willow (Salix Inger) was chosen for the Häggatorp landfill. The clone was chosen because of its ability to survive the climate, the rotation time and capacity to survive the conditions at the sites and the clone is not an extractor of contaminants. The selection was done based on expert advice by Larsson (2010).

The intention with cultivation was mainly to use the land for the production of energy raw material. Expected result of cultivation is not that the level of contaminants in the soil will be reduced, but due to activities in the soil it is possible that some changes occur during the growing period. Side effects that can be expected to achieve are a reduction in the spreading of contaminants and contribution to increased biodiversity (Suer et al., 2009, Suer and Andersson-Sköld, 2011).

By the end of growing season, October, in 2011 and 2012 the uptake of contaminant into the Willow leaves was measured. The measurements showed that there is no accumulation of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and vanadium. Only zinc accumulates significantly. Based on the results from measured contaminant concentrations in the leaves a potential risk for model (cow and sheep) grazing animals was calculated. The results showed a potential risk based on the

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

concentrations of cadmium and copper. For sheep, as model animal also zinc contributes to the potential risk. The calculated risk is based on the daily intake need and literature values on TDI- and NOEC-values for the model animals. Neither today, nor in the nearest decade, the site is planned for grazing. Grazing by wild animals is also very limited, as the site is in the middle of an industrial area surrounded by highly trafficated roads. Smaller animals like rabbits and hares may reach the site, they will however, combine their intake of food with other sources by feeding on other sites. In addition, they are most likely to feed on sprouts which will not have accumulated as high concentrations of contaminants as found in leaves in autumn. In the potential risk calculation autumn leave samples were used.

Stage 3: Value

Stage 3 considers the assessment of project value and the possibilities for enhancement. It includes two parallel considerations: the direct economic benefits of the project compared with its costs, the so-called “bottom line”, and the wider sustainability of the project. The key factors driving costs and revenues (and also environmental sustainability impacts) will have been already been elaborated in Stage 1 and Stage 2.

The net gross income depends both on the amount produced and to what the product can be used. Based on the current information the final product (to be harvested during the period 2014-2030) may be regarded as produced for energy purposes, thereby supported by subsidies for energy crops as, providing a net gross income of € (€ 270-370 per year ( 2696-3696 SEK per year). The net gross income of this alternative depends on the financial support /subsidies. The product may also be legally regarded perceived as waste, thereby causing a net cost of € 150-260 per year (-2600 – (-150) SEK per year) in addition to the costs for treating the product as waste. A third alternative is to leave the crop at the site. This will reduce the risk at the site by phyto-stabilization, it will create a small carbon sequestration and it will contribute to biodiversity compared to leaving the site without any action (Suer et al., 2009, Suer and Andersson-Sköld, 2011). The third alternative also results in a net economic cost, but limited compared to the waste case. For all three alternatives the area may be improved thereby contributing to a wider value.

As all alternatives may result in no or low net gross income, the value of bioenergy crop at the site may be only the wider value and may also be related to the, yet, relative low cost for risk management at the site.

The results indicate that the set-up of a small part or other outdoor area may be an alternative use of the site. The costs will be of the same magnitude as for the bioenergy crop purposed and the risk will be similar. By selecting a variety of no-extraction crops the risk will be managed, the biodiversity will be increased and the area may be utilized by people at the nearby industrial area for activities or recreation by people from nearby urban areas.

Stage 4: Project risk management

Stage 4 considers the project risks for the viable project opportunities identified at the end of Stage 3. Three broad considerations are important: technology status, detailed diligence (e.g. of financial partners and project partners) and developing a broad stakeholder consensus.

The Rejuvenate phase 2 project began with finding demonstration sites. The aim initially was to find large areas (> 5 ha) as this has been referred to as the minimum size for economic feasible

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

bioenergy crop cultivation. The method to find such sites was in Sweden via contacts with regulators. Other restrictions were that the contaminants in the soil should be fairly well known (due to the limitations in the project budgets) and there should not be any acute risks nor any other planned land use activities associated with the test work. Initially a number of potential sites were identified. For those sites contacts were taken with the landowners. In principle the land owners were very positive about the Rejuvenate project concept. The project was considered very useful and to offer sustainable marginal contaminated land management. There were for a short time several potential areas that could have come into consideration. As decisions came closer, more concerns were, however, taken by the regulators. The consequence was that only a limited number of sites, and the areas allowed for testing biomass cultivation were substantially reduced. The main reasons for this were that there were no previous examples that could be used to prove the limited, or possibly even reduced, risks from cultivation on the land. Therefore trials were limited to low to moderately contaminated areas, for further details see the mid-term report of Rejuvenate-2 (2011).

There are several legal aspects to consider when cultivating bioenergy crops on marginal, and especially, contaminated land. Below are some general and major aspects to consider when selecting crops based on the reviews carried out by Vanheusden et al. (2011). A crucial aspect when growing crops on contaminated soil is whether the harvested crop will be classified waste, or as biomass since this has an impact on the further utilization and valorization of the crop (Vanheusden et al., 2011). Summary of DST results by applying the DST at the Häggatorp landfill is shown in Figure 1.

,

Figure 1. Project development for biofuel crop cultivation on contaminated land (from Bardos et al. 2011).

Willow, Poplar, Pine, Miscanthus, Switch grass, Reed Canary Grass, Hemp,Wheat, Barley for ethanol, Maize, Oil seed rape, Sun flower, Sugar beet,

Willow, Poplar, Pine, Grass

Willow

All soil concentrations at site below guideline values. Concentrations in vegetation pose no known risks No observed risk caused by site management due to the soil contamination. Risks related to site management same as for any similar activities (e.g. working machineries, transportation etc.)

The costs and benefits of energy crop highly depend on whether the harvested crop will be classified waste, or as biomass. It also depends on the aim of the land use, and whether the cultivation shall be regarded from the perspective that it is combined with a relative low cost for risk management at the site.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

DST-Verification of project performance

The result from the Häggatorp landfill demonstrates that the costs and benefits of energy crop highly depends on whether the harvested crop will be classified waste, or as biomass. It also depends on the aim of the land use, and whether the cultivation shall be regarded from the perspective that it is combined with a relative low cost for risk management at the site.

As the result of cultivation is no or low net gross income, possible savings caused by the low risk management cost, the value of the cultivation at the site may be only the wider value. By selecting a variety of no-extraction crops the risk will be managed, the biodiversity will be increased and the area may be utilized by people at the nearby industrial area for activities or recreation by people from nearby urban areas.

Currently the willow will be kept at the site. The first harvest will be in 2014 and by then the growth will have increased. The risk has been assessed to very low at the site and the uptake to biota is very low. Accordingly, there is a potential net gross income at the site based on the results from this pilot study and the results show that there also are wider benefits of biocrop on this type of marginal land.

References

Bardos, P., Bone, B., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Suer, P., Track, T., Wagelmans, M., (2011) Crop-based systems for sustainable risk-based land management for economically marginal damaged land. REMEDIATION vol 21 (4), 11-33

Eckerberg, L. 2006. Energibalans. Blekinge län år 2003. Energikontor Sydost, Oskarshamn

Larsson S (2010). Personal communication, Research responsible for Clone development of willow for biofuel uses

Nilsson, D., 2007, Biobränslen i Blekinge - undersökning av jord- och skogsbrukets

produktionsmöjligheter (in Swedish), Rapport 2007:17, Länsstyrelsen Blekinge län, Karlskrona

(http://www.lst.se/NR/rdonlyres/EA95D05F-7775-483E-B8DD-

548EB82CE802/0/Biobränslen_i_Blekinge_rapport_200717.pdf)

Suer, P., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Blom, S., Bardos, P., Track, T. Polland, M, 2009, Environmental

impact assessment of biofuel production on contaminated land – Swedish case studies. SGI Varia

600

Suer, P. and Andersson-Sköld, Y. (2011). Biofuel or excavation? – Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 35, Issue 2, 969-981

REJUVENATE Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for Economically Marginal Degraded Land, Phase 2, Midterm Report, 2011 Andersson-Sköld, Y, Crutu, G., Enell, A., Georgescu, P-D, Hoppenbrouwers, M., Vanheusden, B., Wagelmans, M, Witters, N., Bardos, P., Track, T.

RIVM (2007) Mesman M., A. Schouten, M. Rutgers, E. Dirven-van Breemen. Guideline Triad. Site-specific ecological risk assessment in the Remediation Criterion. RIVM 711701068

Vanheusden, B., Hoppenbrouwers, M., Witters, N., VANGRONSVELD, J., THEWYS, T., VAN PASSEL, S. 2011, Legal and economic aspects of crops selection for phytoremediation purposes and the production of biofuel. Report, Hasselt University

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 13 Example Pilot Vivsta varv, Vivsta, Sweden

The details about the site can be found the Midterm Report of Rejuvenate 2 (Andersson-Sköld et al., 2011) and Enell et al. (2013, manuscript in prep.) The Midterm report can be downloaded at www.snowmannetwork.com/upload/documents/call2vienna/Rejuvenate%20Midterm%20Report.pdf

Application of the Rejuvenate decision support tool (DST) at Vivsta varv

This example is based on the results from the field results at Vivsta varv, Sweden.

Vivsta varv is located in the middle of Sweden (Figure 1). The area has been in industrial use for approximately 200 years. The activities have included a wharf, a saw mill with dipping, a sulphate factory, a board factory and an enterprise for production of fine paper. The industrial use was ended in 2007.

Figure 1 Map of Sweden showing the location of Vivsta

As the contaminant concentrations are low, the main aims of the demonstration site at Vivsta were to investigate the biomass production (growth) and to see if there is any uptake of contaminants into the biota. The investigation includes the impact of fertilizer, i.e. comparison of the growth and potential contaminant uptake when there is no added fertilizer and when sewage sludge has been added as fertilizer.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Results of applying the DST at Vivsta varv

Stage 1: Crop

Determining Crop Suitability is the first step of the decision making framework. This stage identifies from a range of possible biomass crops those crops which are able to grow in a region and find a market in a region. It also considers site topography at this stage for convenience. This stage provides a possible biomass crop shortlist. Each subsequent stage is likely to reduce the length of this list as a more refined solution is found.

Range of crops meeting the site objectives

The aim of Rejuvenate phase 2 is to assess the potential to cultivate plants for biofuel. Examples of crops and their potential uses are summarized in Bardos et al. (2009) and relevant crops for biofuel use are:

Willow

Poplar

Pine

Miscanthus

Switch grass

Reed Canary Grass

Hemp

Wheat

Barley for ethanol

Maize

Oil seed rape

Sun flower

Sugar beet

An important part of the cultivation of crops at contaminated sites is that the cultivation shall either decrease or, at least, not increase the risks related to the contamination (Bardos et al., 2011). At Vivsta varv, dioxin is the contamination under most concern (Rejuvenate, Midterm report Appendix 2, 2011). Other contaminants are metals and PAH. In order not to increase the risks, the goal is that dioxin shall not be transferred to the leaves in such amounts that it will constitute an increased risk for birds or other animals that may reach the area. The risk for grazing animals is minimal as there is an urban area hindering and disconnecting the site from more wild and natural areas. The site will not be used for domestic grazing.

Appropriate plants to fulfill those criteria are those suitable for phyto-stabilization and those where rhizo or increased rhizo degradation may occur. This means that the roots changes the soil structure to increase the air conditioning, emit compounds stimulating the microorganism flora and chemical conditions for increased natural attenuation (both chemical and by microbes) in the root

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

zone. Increased rhizo degradation is convenient for organic compounds not taken up by plants such as BTEX, PAH, chlorinated hydrocarbons. Degradation of PAH is found to be successful by willow and poplar. Plants stabilizing the soil and reducing the leaching are poplar, willow and grass. The properties of pine are at present not known.

The list of appropriate plants now includes:

Poplar

Willow

Grass

(Pine)

Range of crops meeting local climate conditions.

In the north of Sweden the annual temperature is low, and the growth season is short. Under those conditions not many biofuel crops are easy to cultivate. Among those able to grow under these conditions are some clones of willow, hemp and pine.

Range of crops that can be cultivated on the sites topography

The site is flat and thereby no restrictions due to site topography.

Available uses

In the north of Sweden there are facilities for production of heat, ethanol from stems and roots from willow, production of pellets from willow for burning, and for production of wood chips from willow.

There is demand for willow for biofuel production in general in the area, but the real market for willow from contaminated land needs to be further investigated at the time for harvest.

Hemp could be used in the same way, but the energy yield per hectare is much less, and the public may have negative opinion and impacts of hemp cultivation. In addition, at one point during the Rejuvenate project contacts for hemp products was available, through the course of the project, however, such contact details were no longer easily available in line with negative opinion. In addition, while hemp is useful for the production of fibers, the aim of Rejuvenates second phase is biofuel products. In principle, and in a longer perspective, the production of materials such as plastic, clothes etc. prior used as energy can become relevant but under today’s conditions and the project time frame such options are not being considered.

Pine could also be used for biodiesel and similar biofuel products as willow. The growth of pine is slow compared to willow. The potential crop list for Vivsta varv was thus shortened to willow. Suitable crops are willow clones adapted to cold climate that are not likely to take up the dioxins in high amounts into the plants. The clone commercially available that survives in cold climate is a Russian hybrid called Klara. The clone is not expected to extract the dioxins available at the site (Larsson, 2010). Not much is known regarding degradation but it is expected to stabilize the contaminants (Larsson, 2010). In addition, there are facilities, in the area, which can use all the actual products for direct heating.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Stage 2: Site management

Site conditions

The DST-Stage 2 considers the management of the site from the perspective of biomass production, and from the perspective of biomass conversion on site options are under consideration. There are three sequential considerations for the biomass production, and two for onsite biomass conversion. While conceptually the biomass production and on site biomass conversion are parallel considerations, in practice it may be sensible to initially consider one before the other in timing, since for example if an onsite facility is linked to a particular biomass crop that cannot be produced on the site, then it makes no sense to consider it in detail.

At Vivsta varv there were waste piles from previous activities and the site needed soil improvements before these sites could be used for cultivation (Rejuvenate Midterm report, 2011).

Environmental risk management

The site specific environmental risk assessments constitute a large and important part of the complete assessment of the feasibility of the projects in the current project.

In a recent risk assessment (main) study of Vivsta varv (Swepro 2010) concentrations of VOC, PAH, metals and dioxins were measured in soil samples from all of the Vivsta varv area. At the demonstration site the concentrations of metals, PAH and VOC are all below general guideline values and below the site specific guidelines (Swepro 2010). At the site also all measured dioxin concentrations are below the lower site specific guideline value indicating that risk is limited. The low soil concentrations were also confirmed through the course of the project. The low concentrations found in leaves and soil at Vivsta in combination with minimal exposure for animals and humans strongly indicate that no risks at the site caused by the cultivation and potential contamination at the demonstration site.

In the current project willow Klara was chosen for Vivsta varv. The clone was chosen because of its ability to survive the climate, the rotation time and capacity to survive the conditions at the sites and the clone is not an extractor of contaminants. The selection was done based on expert advice by Larsson (2010).

The intention with cultivation was mainly to use the land for the production of energy raw material. Expected result of cultivation is not that the level of contaminants in the soil will be reduced, but due to activities in the soil it is possible that some changes occur during the growing period. Side effects that can be expected to achieve are a reduction in the spreading of contaminants and contribution to increased biodiversity (Suer et al., 2009; Suer and Andersson-Sköld, 2011).

Stage 3: Value

Stage 3 considers the assessment of project value and the possibilities for enhancement. It includes two parallel considerations: the direct economic benefits of the project compared with its costs, the so-called “bottom line”, and the wider sustainability of the project. The key factors driving costs and revenues (and also environmental sustainability impacts) will have been already been elaborated in Stage 1 and Stage 2.

The net gross income depends both on the amount produced and to what the product can be used. Based on the current information the final product (2014-2030) may be regarded as produced for energy purposes, thereby supported by subsidies for energy crops as, providing a net gross income of € 50-160 per year ( 561-1561 SEK per year). The net gross income of this alternative depends on the financial support /subsidies. The product may also be perceived, or legally

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

regarded, as waste thereby causing a net cost of € 165 SEK per year (-1650 SEK per year). A third alternative is to leave the crop at the site. This will reduce the risk at the site by phyto-stabilization, it will create a small carbon sequestration, and it will contribute to biodiversity compared to leaving the site without any action. The third alternative also results in a net economic cost, but limited compared to the waste case. For all three alternatives the area is improved and the risk managed (Suer et al., 2009; Suer and Andersson-Sköld, 2011) thereby contributing to a wider value.

As all alternatives may result in no or low net gross income, the value of bioenergy crop at the site may be only the wider value and may also be related to the, yet, relative low cost for risk management at the site.

The results indicate that the set-up of a small part or other outdoor area may be an alternative use of the site. The costs will be of the same magnitude as for the bioenergy crop purposed and the risk will be similar. By selecting a variety of no-extraction crops the risk will be managed, the biodiversity will be increased and the area may be utilized by people at the nearby industrial area for activities or recreation by people from nearby urban areas.

Stage 4: Project risk management

Stage 4 considers the project risks for the viable project opportunities identified at the end of Stage 3. Three broad considerations are important: technology status, detailed diligence (e.g. of financial partners and project partners) and developing a broad stakeholder consensus.

The Rejuvenate phase 2 project began with finding demonstration sites. The aim initially was to find large areas (> 5 ha) as this has been referred to as the minimum size for economic feasible bio energy crop cultivation. The method to find such sites was in Sweden via contacts with regulators. Other restrictions were that the contaminants in the soil should be fairly well known (due to the limitations in the project budgets) and there should not be any acute risks nor any other planned land use activities associated with the test work. Initially a number of potential sites were identified. For those sites contacts were taken with the landowners. In principle the land owners were very positive about the Rejuvenate project concept. The project was considered very useful and to offer sustainable marginal contaminated land management. There were for a short time several potential areas that could have come into consideration. As decisions came closer, more concerns were, however, taken by the regulators. The consequence was that only a limited number of sites, and the areas allowed for testing biomass cultivation were substantially reduced. The main reasons for this were that there were no previous examples that could be used to prove the limited, or possibly even reduced, risks from cultivation on the land. Therefore trials were limited to low to moderately contaminated areas, for further details see the mid-term report. There were few concerns from neighboring sites other than from a fish farm in the vicinity to the Vivsta varv cultivation site. Personal contacts were made and after discussion with the Rejuvenate project team, the attitude to the project was positive.

There are several legal aspects to consider when cultivating bio energy crops on marginal, and especially, contaminated land. Below are some general and major aspects to consider when selecting crops based on the reviews carried out by Vanheusden et al. (2011). A crucial aspect when growing crops on contaminated soil is whether the harvested crop will be classified waste, or as biomass since this has an impact on the further utilisation and valorisation of the crop (Vanheusden et al., 2011). Summary of DST results by applying the DST at Vivsta varv is shown in Figure 2.

Willow, Poplar, Pine, Miscanthus, Switch grass, Reed Canary Grass, Hemp,Wheat, Barley for ethanol, Maize, Oil seed rape, Willow, Poplar, Pine, Grass

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Figure 2. Project development for biofuel crop cultivation on contaminated land (from Bardos et al., 2011).

DST-Verification of project performance

The result from Vivsta varv demonstrates that the costs and benefits of energy crop highly depends on whether the harvested crop will be classified waste, or as biomass. It also depends on the aim of the land use, and whether the cultivation shall be regarded from the perspective that it is combined with a relative low cost for risk management at the site.

As the result of cultivation is no or low net gross income, possible savings caused by the low risk management cost, the value of the cultivation at the site may be only the wider value. By selecting a variety of no-extraction crops the risk will be managed, the biodiversity will be increased and the area may be utilized by people at the nearby industrial area for activities or recreation by people from nearby urban areas.

Currently the willow will be kept at the site. The first harvest will be in 2014 and by then regulations may be developed that will be more indicative on the financial costs and benefits of biocrop on marginal land as Vivsta varv.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

References

Bardos, P., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Keuning, S., Polland, M., Suer, P. and Track, T., 2009, "Rejuvenate - Final Research Report." Report nr SN-01/20 (http://www.snowman-era.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_final_report.pdf).

Bardos, P., Bone, B., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Suer, P., Track, T., Wagelmans, M., (2011) Crop-based systems for sustainable risk-based land management for economically marginal damaged land. REMEDIATION vol 21 (4), 11-33

REJUVENATE Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for Economically Marginal Degraded Land, Phase 2, Midterm Report, 2011, Andersson-Sköld, Y, Crutu, G., Enell, A., Georgescu, P-D, Hoppenbrouwers, M., Vanheusden, B., Wagelmans, M, Witters, N., Bardos, P., Track, T.

Larsson S(2010). Personal communication, Research responsible for Clone development of willow for biofuel uses

Suer, P., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Blom, S., Bardos, P., Track, T. Polland, M, 2009, Environmental impact assessment of biofuel production on contaminated land – Swedish case studies. SGI Varia 600.

Suer, P. and Andersson-Sköld, Y. (2011). Biofuel or excavation? – Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 35, Issue 2, 969-981

Swepro 2010, M-real Sverige AB, Wifstavarvs industriområde, Timrå (fastigheten Vivstavarv 1:64), Utredning om föroreningsskador, Huvudstudie del 1. Miljöteknisk utredning 2010-04-27, In Swedish.

Vanheusden, B., Hoppenbrouwers, M., Witters, N., VANGRONSVELD, J., THEWYS, T., VAN PASSEL, S. 2011, Legal and economic aspects of crops selection for phytoremediation purposes and the production of biofuel. Report, Hasselt University.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Appendix 14 Example from case study Phytopop, France

Phytopop coordinator: Professor Michel Chalot, Université de Franche-Comté, Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement, Montbéliard, France and Université de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre, France

The Phytopop study has been done in cooperation with below partners: - Alain BAILLY, FCBA, France - Denis BAIZE, INRA, France - Christian DRON, DRIAFF, France - Christophe PASCUAL, COFELY, France

Application of the DST at the Phytopop research site

The aim with this study was test the DST by to applying it at sites to another country by expterts not involved in the Rejeuvenate project. The application was based on applying the DST guide and the appendixes 1-10 of the DST guide. The results are provided below.

Preparatory stage - SET THE SCOPE

Background information

At the time when the phyto research sites were set up the site was a sewage field located on the plain of Bessancourt – Pierrelaye, in the northwest suburbs of Paris. Since 1899, it was aimed to clean raw wastewater (with much salt and organic matter) from the region because of soil properties. The use of wastewater was also a way to irrigate and fertilize sandy soils for vegetables production. However, wastewater has appeared to contain noxious contaminants such as trace elements (Lamy et al., 2006; Mandinaud, 2005).

After the prohibition of the market gardening from sewage fields, the lands had been used for maize production (for animal food) -At the time when the phyto research sites were set up the site was surrounded by agricultural lands, also used for animal food. (Mandinaud, 2005).

The research at this site was intitated since the authorities ordered to stop market gardening from sewage fields because of soil and vegetable contamination. The decision was based on previous risk assessments.

The first soil and water assessment was realized in 1995 by an administrative commission (MISE or Inter-ministerial mission on water). The pollution of the fields was publicly recognized in 1997. From 2000, other studies have been carried out by INRA in order to assess the extent of the environmental contamination (Epandagri research program). The first results showed a trace element accumulation in the agricultural soils. According to the standard values (NFU 44-041), it contained high levels of lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, mercury and lower levels of nickel, chromium and selenium (Mandinaud, 2005). Other studies confirmed that large quantities of Zn, Pb, Cd and Cu had accumulated in the topsoil (Lamy et al., 2006). Heavy metal concentrations in soil varied between 0.75 kg m-² to 1.25 kg m-² in the contaminated area. The dangers related to land pollution were confirmed, looking at contaminant concentrations and their physicochemical properties. Hazard and risk maps have then been realized (Mandinaud, 2005). In Table 1 a summary of the assessed risk is presented.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Table 1. Risk assessment prior use of the site for research purposes

Recepient impacts Assessed risk

Terrestral vegetation In the fields, terrestrial vegetation didn’t show much toxicity. In fact, under controlled conditions, the bioavailability of trace elements in soils was low. However, plant samples (such as maize stems and grains) collected in the spreading zones revealed a slight accumulation of trace elements (Mandinaud, 2005; Lamy et al., 2006).

Grazing No data available

Soil living organisms (all types such as nematodes, insects, bacteria etc.)

Because of the large quantities of trace elements, structural modifications in microbial population have been observed. Nevertheless, the studies showed that they maintained their activity (Lamy).

Oral intake of soil by children No data available

Oral intake (humans) via food grown at the site)

The potential dangers of the consumption of products contaminated by wastewater were difficult to establish because of the lack of expertise (low dose, unspecified targets among population, etc.) (Mandinaud, 2005)

Contaminant spreading via ground water and related risks for fauna and flora

Lamy et al. (2006) showed that Zn, Pb, Cd and Cu migrated downwards in irrigated soils. Therefore, there may be a risk of metals leaching into the groundwater, as well as fauna and flora contamination.

Water living organisms No data available

Terrestrial fauna due to drinking contaminated water

No data available

Drinking water (human) No data available

Aim of site and research

Due to the risks related to the contamination levels, there was an urgent need to find a solution to valorize the area and keep the farmers farming. In order to maintain the “the agricultural vocation of the plain", several local actions and assays were then carried out for a sustainable development on the plain. At the end of the extensive studies conducted by the national institute for agronomic research (INRA), non-alimentary agriculture has been advocated since the soils are still farmable (Epandagri research program). Following these recommendations, the Regional Council of Ile-de-France invited tenders for studying the development of renewable energy crop production, ornamental crops, biomaterials, etc. (Mandinaud, 2005). Therefore, the use of phytoremediation with poplar trees under short rotation coppice (SRC) has been suggested as a potential management option.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Research site description

In the area about 1200 ha of sandy soils are known to be contaminated by wastewater (Lamy et al., 2006). The total contaminated area is about 2150 ha (final report of PHYTOPOP project). The research site area used for cultivation in Phytopop was 3 ha. A conceptual model of the site/area including contaminants and hot spots, recipients and major surrounding activities is presented in Figure 1 below.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Figure 1: Map of the studied area and contamination levels

Potential management methods

The management alternatives have to consider soil remediation and the reconversion of the contaminated area. According to the risk assessment carried out by INRA, the contaminated soil is still a potential arable surface but it is recommended to develop agricultural systems for non-alimentary crops production. By this way, human exposure is reduced. Moreover, it is necessary to monitor pollution transfer and study the socio-economic aspects of the project to ensure its viability.

Since the land is mostly contaminated by metal trace elements, the possible management alternatives would be in situ remediation techniques (BRGM, 2010):

- Physical methods of trapping pollution: containment, in situ solidification/stabilization (deep soil mixing);

- Chemical methods: soil flushing, in situ chemical oxidation;

- Biological methods: bioventing, biosparging, phytoremediation;

- Thermal methods: vitrification, in situ thermal desorption

- Forest

Ex situ remediation techniques would be too expensive because of the large area to treat (excavation, disposal of waste in storage facilities, etc…)

The three most relevant management alternatives are:

- Containment + non-alimentary crops production

- in situ solidification/stabilization + non-alimentary crops production

- Phytoremediation + non-alimentary crops production

Theses in situ management alternatives seem more relevant from an economic and technical point of view. They are environmentally friendly, relatively simple alternative to chemical and thermal methods. These alternatives would also be risk based management alternatives as the risks would be limited by the containment infrastructures, soil amendments or non-edible plant cover.

Another relevant alternative would be decontamination by soil excavation before the addition of clean soil would be efficient, but this alternative was ruled out as it would be too expensive.

Within the area the same methods could be applied on also other locations and there are similar conditions in Nord-Pas Calais. The most feasible management alternative, however, depend on the specific soil and, when relvant, climate conditions.

Below the focus is to assess the in situ biological treatment method phytoremediation by applying the Rejuvenate DST.

Research aim at the site - the scope

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Since traditional agricultural use of the land has been forbidden, the crops would be used for

soil remediation (phytoremediation)

energy production purposes (woodfire, oil for biofuel)

bast fiber industry

paper industry

ply wood industries

The main objective of the project research was to compare the accumulation potential of hybrid poplars on the contaminated site, under short rotation coppice and very short rotation coppice in the framework of phytoremediation. The assays were also used to:

Monitor annual variation of heavy metal concentrations in these trees;

Investigate the relation between metal concentrations in soil and plants through the calculation of bioconcentration factors;

Search and characterize relevant genes for phytoremediation;

Contribute to the development of bio-energetic valorization;

Comprehend the mechanisms involved in the transport and storage of trace elements in trees organs.

Today, the project is over but the site is still used for experimentations.

DST application at the site

Stage 1: Crop

Crop suitability: Primarily considers from a range of possible biomass crops which crops are able to grow and find a market in a region. Site topography is also considered at this stage. The output is a short list of biomass of crops that fit the local conditions and have an outlet. Each subsequent stage is likely to reduce the length of this list as a more refined solution is found.

As a basis for the choice of crops Appendix 1 provides a table summarizing phytoremediation process variants based on the litterature. By applying the information provided in Appendix 1 below crops have been identified to meet the site objectives.

High tolerant energy plants used for both remediation of contaminated land and renewable energy sources:

Wood energy industry:

o Populus sp.

o Salix sp.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Possible substitutes for fossil diesel:

o Helianthus

o Zea mays

o Glycine max

o Trachycarpus fortunei

o Cocos nucifera

o Brassica napus. The Se-enriched economically viable phyto-products of canola such as seed oil have been used as biofuel additive and organic fertilizer.

o Miscanthus sinensis L. cv. Giganteus

Co-cropping for reducing heavy metal contents in crops:

o Association of low-metal crop to produce safe agricultural products on contaminated agricultural lands with a hyperaccumulator.

o Medicago sativa / Brassica juncea (a high Cd accumulator)

o Zea mays (for animal feeds) / S. alfredii (hyperaccumulator)

o Hordeum vulgare / Noccaea caerulescens (Cd Pb, and Zn hyperaccumulator)

o B. parachinensis or Zea mays / Brassica napus (Cd Hyperaccumulator)

The plain of Bessancourt-Pierrelaye is characterized by a continental and oceanic climate. The crops that suit the local and site specific climate conditions are:

Populus sp.

Salix sp.

Helianthus annuus

Brassica napus

Medicago sativa / Brassica juncea (a high Cd accumulator)

Hordeum vulgare / Noccaea caerulescens (Cd Pb, and Zn hyperaccumulator)

Miscanthus sinensis L. cv. Giganteus

Glycine max

Zea mays / Brassica napus (Cd Hyperaccumulator)

Triticosecale Wittmack

Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench

o Crops that don’t meet the local and site specific climate conditions:

Boehmeria nivea: grown best in a warm moist climate

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Hibiscus cannabinus: tropical annual crop

Trachycarpus fortunei : native to central China

Cocos nucifera : tropical and subtropical regions

Sedum alfredii: native to China

The site is located in the plain of Bessancourt-Pierrelaye which is favorable to crops. In Table 1 below the crops that meet the site objectives, local climate and the landform are provided. All those crops are also available in the nearby area. In Table 1also the suitability as energy crop, relevant market and utliliasation options, and known constrains and benefits are shown. For the crops in Table 1 it is possible to utilize the crops for those purposes in the area or neighbourhood as there already are a few crops that are intended for energy production purposes in the Ile-de-France region (rapeseed, wheat- bioethanol, sugar beet – bioethanol, sunflower, etc.). To overcome the constrains mentioned in Table 2, the status of contaminated biomass from phytoremediation has to be changed in the legislation in order to valorize and sell the wood on the market.

In Table 2 below the crops that were regarded for the site are indicatedby red rows. Those crops and the suggested utilizes will be further evaluated in the subsequent stages. Each subsequent stage is likely to reduce the length of this list as a more refined solution is found.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Table 2 Short list of biomass of crops that fit the local conditions and have an outlet, i.e.: possible biomass crops which may contribute to meet the objectives of the site management activity, are able to grow in the climate and on the site taking into account the site topography and form, for which it is also possible to find a market in the region.

Crop May contribute to site objectives by

Crop requirements

Utilization Benefits Constrain Comment

Populus sp.

Phytostabilisation / phytoextraction of trace elements/ /rhizofiltration and phytodegradation

of organics in contaminated groundwater

Temperate climate (it depends on cultivars).

Can grow on a wide range of soil types but requires deep soils (from 80 cm to 1 m).

Soils with >80% of sand are to be avoided, unless clay particles are well structured.

Water and oxygen needs are high (Berthelot, 2008).

Combustible renewable

Perennial crop with high biomass, fast growth, easy propagation, and deep root system. Cd and Zn accumulation potential

Legislative constrains for contaminated biomass

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

pH 5.5-7.5

Salix sp.

Phytostabilisation / phytoextraction of trace elements / rhizofiltration and phytodegradation

of organics in contaminated groundwater.

Renewable energy production (Witters et al., 2012)

Temperate climate.

Can grow on a wide range of soil types but requires high water supplies.

pH 5.5 - 8

Combustible renewable, biofuel

Perennial crop with high biomass, fast growth, easy propagation, and deep root system. Improve soil properties. Cd and Zn accumulation potential

Legislative constrains for contaminated biomass

Miscanthus x giganteus

Renewable energy production, Phytoremediation

Can grow on a large range of soils, but it requires deep soils (>60 cm) with well water supplies.

pH 5.5 – 8

(RMT Biomasse, 2012).

Combustible renewable, biofuel

There are companies that use Miscanthus as bioenergy source, such as NovaBiom.

Perennial grass with high productivity and low input requirements (Cadoux et al., 2012)

Non-invasive plant (RMT Biomasse, 2012)

Under water-limited conditions, it has performed best when planted in clay soils and worse when planted in sandy soils (Heaton et al., 2010).

Economic constrains: results to be less profitable in terms of annualized net margin than the

Grown in Ile de France region (DRIAF, 2008).

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

usual rape/wheat/barley rotation (Bocquého and Jacquet, 2010

Panicum virgatum L.

Phytoextraction + Renewable energy production

Adapted to a large range of soils and climates.

Requires deep soils with well water supplies.

pH 5 – 8

(RMT Biomasse, 2012)

Combustion, Biofuel

Perennial grass with high yields, often relegated to marginal agricultural areas with minimal inputs, to remove Cd, Cr, and Zn (Chen et al., 2012)

Economic constrains: results to be less profitable in terms of annualized net margin than the usual rape/wheat/barley rotation (Bocquého and Jacquet, 2010).

For the moment, there is no market for these crops (RMT Biomasse, 2009).

Medicago sativa / Brassica juncea

Renewable energy production (Medicago sativa), Phytoextraction (Brassica juncea)

Best suited to deep soils: at least 3 to 4 ft with no restrictions to root growth. Wide range of soil textures if no other conditions

Biofuel

Ability to provide its own nitrogen fertilizer Efficient phytoextraction of Cd for mustard

Soils in which rooting depth is limited by a shallow hardpan, shallow bedrock, or high water table are not well suited for alfalfa production (Hall

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

are limiting. Medium-textured soils such as loams, silt loams, and sandy loams are ideal. Light-textured soils, such as coarse sands, are too drought prone for alfalfa unless irrigated. (Hall et al., 2004)

pH > 6.5

et al., 2004)

Little current valuation opportunities for

Alfalfa biomass energy. For the moment, there is no market. (RMT Biomasse, 2009)

Hordeum vulgare / Noccaea caerulescens

Renewable energy production, Phytoextraction

Temperate area

Biofuel

No market for Noccaea caerulescens

Efficient phytoextraction of Cd, Pb, and Zn

Zea mays /Brassica napus

Phytoextraction + renewable energy production (Witters et al., 2012)

Temperate area Biofuel Efficient phytoextraction of Cd

Severe damages due to Western Corn Rootworm were reported in the plain of Pierrelaye.

Low yields in Ile-de-France region for Brassica napus (Insee, 2007)

Grown in Ile de France region (DRIAF, 2008).

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Beta vulgaris Renewable energy production

See appendix 2. Biofuel Grown in Ile de France region (DRIAF, 2008)

Triticum spp. Renewable energy production

See appendix 2. Biofuel Grown in Ile de France region (DRIAF, 2008)

Helianthus

Annuus

Renewable energy production , Phytoextraction potential

Can be grown in any area with limited water availability. It is tolerant to both low and high temperatures but more tolerant to low temperatures. Sunflower will grow in a wide range of soil types from sands to clays (Zabaniotou et al., 2008)

Biofuel

Brassica napus Phytoextraction + renewable energy production (Witters et al., 2012)

See appendix 2. Biofuel Low yields in Ile-de-France region (Insee, 2007)

Rapeseed is the main non-edible crop in Ile de France region (DRIAF, 2008).

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Glycine max. Renewable energy production, Phytostabilisation/ Phytoexclusion potential

Biofuel

Triticosecale Wittmack

Phytoextraction + Renewable energy production (Willscher et al., 2013; RMT Biomasse, 2009)

Hardy plant. Wide range of soils and climates (RMT Biomasse, 2009).

Combustible renewable, biofuel, methanization

Valorization of the entire plant (straw + grains) is possible for energy production

For the moment, there is no market for these crops (RMT Biomasse, 2009).

Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench

Phytoextraction + Renewable energy production (Zhuang et al., 2009 ; RMT Biomasse, 2009)

Wide range of soils and climates but best suited to deep soils (RMT Biomasse, 2009).

Biofuel, methanization

For the moment, there is no market for these crops (RMT Biomasse, 2009).

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

DST Stage 2: Site suitability

Site suitability: considers whether the site conditions are suitable for particular biomass crops in the short list and what the environmental risks of crop production might be. A site may be suitable already for some crops or can be made suitable by soil / risk management interventions. If an on-site conversion facility is being considered then the suitability of the site for this facility must also be considered and any necessary interventions (for example infrastructure considered. Furthermore, the impacts arising from any site management activities for risk and soil management and facility development need to be properly considered. The output is a shortened list of crops that could be grown on-site and specification of the management interventions needed to achieve this.

Site conditions:

Crops that can be grown at the site taking into account the site soil, hydrological and hydrogeological characteristics, matched to crop requirements from the Stage 1 short list:

Willow (Salix sp.)

Poplar (Populus sp.)

Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus)

The site of Pierrelaye contains alluvium from the Seine and Oise rivers. The irrigated area consists of two hard limestone plateaus (Lutetian and Saint Ouen, middle and upper Eocene) separated by Tertiary quartzitic sands (Sables de Beauchamp). The phreatic tables are located within the permeable formations of middle and lower Eocene and above clayey alluvial levels (perched aquifers).

The waterways throughout the area flow towards the Seine and the Oise. Nevertheless, hydraulic infrastructures were set up on the site to drain agricultural land and evacuate the excess contributions due to spreading, see Figure 2 below. Inputs led to a strong enrichment in organic matter, secondary carbonates and trace elements in the surface horizons (Lamy et al., 2006).

The soil depth across site is 40–80 cm (Lamy et al., 2006). The topsoil of the site is mainly sandy (sandy Luvisol) and contains large quantities of evaporite deposits which are very reactive towards metals. Pedogenesis consisted of total removal of calcium carbonate and a subsequent clay illuviation, resulting in the formation of (i) upper grey sandy Ap and E horizons and (ii) sandy-clay Bt horizons at medium depth (40–80 cm), more or less well expressed, and reddish in color. The sandy upper horizons contain 4–10% clay and 7–12% silt, whereas the medium depth Bt horizons contain 12–21% clay (Lamy et al., 2006). The soil pH is 6.82 – 7.47 (2007) and there is an excess of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn. The site conditions are suitable for the crops suggested in Table 1 and there is a low management demand at the site. Only raw wastewater has been spread in the fields. Prior cultivation hydraulic infrastructures were set up on the site to drain agricultural land and evacuate the excess contributions due to contaminant spreading (see risk assessment section below).

There were no limitations related to planning and regulatory consents and final allowable landform since the site was an agricultural land. In summary there were no limitations due to the site conditions and the site is appropriate for the "short list" of crops in Table 1.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Figure 3 Schematic section of different geological formations and representation of possible flow paths between contaminated agro ecosystem soils and groundwater.

Risk assessment (assessment of potential risks)

At this stage, possible risks to receptors, considering sources, pathways and receptors, shall be identified and set out in a site conceptual model (SCM). The advantage with the risk assessment at this specific site is that the risk has been assessed through the course of the research project. The results are provided in Table 2 below. The risk assessment has involved several equations to conclude whether the risk is regarded as acceptable or not, following heavy metal concentrations in soil, transfer factors (TF) for heavy metals from soil to vegetables, etc. In the preparatory part the risks prior cultivation are described and potential risk reducing actions were provided including Phytoremediation, containment, in situ solidification/stabilization. For active landmanagement Lamy et al. (2006) showed that Zn, Pb, Cd and Cu migrated downwards in irrigated soils. Therefore, there may be a risk of metals leaching into the groundwater, as well as fauna and flora contamination.

Fig. 2a. Site location and major geological features

Fig. 2b. Location of two designated areas for pedo-geochemical, geophysical and hydrogeological studies.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Table 3 Crop relevant for the site based on the SCM, potential risks due to interventions and the implementation and verification requirements

Crop Site conditions

Risk assessment

Management Relevant for the site

Sums of costs / potential earnings

Prior cultivation

(before 2007)

Initial condition plus soil management plus crop

(2007)

Post remediation/ risk management and interventions incl. soil management and crop

(2011)

Populus sp.

Temperate climate (it depends on cultivars).

Can grow on a wide range of soil types but requires deep soils (from 80 cm to 1 m).

Soils with >80% of sand are to be avoided, unless clay particles are well structured.

Sources : trace elements (Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn)

Receptors: Farmers, consumers (adults and children), animals

Pathways:

inhalation of dust, gases

soil ingestion

consumption of food crops

consumption of animals which have ate contaminated crops

Possible risks to receptors: health risks: serious systemic health problems can develop as a result of excessive dietary

Sources : trace elements (Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn)

Receptors: Farmers, intruders, animals

Pathways:

inhalation of dust, gases

soil ingestion

consumption of crops by animals (stems, leaves, etc.)

Possible risks to receptors:

Sources : trace elements (Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn)

Receptors: Farmers, intruders , animals

Pathways:

inhalation of dust, gases

soil ingestion

consumption of crops by animals (stems, leaves, etc.)

Possible risks to receptors:

Management before cultivation?

The spread of pollutants in the environment is limited by plants. This option is environmentally friendly and might be cost-effective.

Sums of costs :

Potential earnings:

- Incomes from energy crop production

- CO2 abatement cost (tax breaks)

- Increase in property value

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

Water and oxygen needs are high (Berthelot, 2008).

pH 5.5-7.5

intake of heavy metals such as Cd and Pb by human beings. Although Zn and Cu are essential elements, their excessive concentration in food and feed plants are of great concern because of their toxicity to humans and animals (Wang et al., 2012).

Impacts to groundwater, surface water and air of the soil:

Studies showed pollutant migration in soils (Lamy et al., 2006)

Risk is not acceptable

health risks for farmers, toxicity to animals consuming contaminated crops.

Impacts to groundwater, surface water and air of the soil?

The risk is not yet considered.

health risks for farmers, toxicity to animals consuming contaminated crops.

Impacts to groundwater, surface water and air of the soil?

The risk is not yet considered.

Salix sp.

Temperate climate. Wide range of soil.

pH 5.5 – 8

Sums of costs :

Potential earnings:

- Incomes from

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

energy crop production

- CO2 abatement cost (tax breaks)

- Increase in property value

Miscanthus giganteus

Can grow on a large range of soils, but it requires deep soils (>60 cm) with well water supplies.

pH 5.5 – 8

(RMT Biomasse, 2012).

Sums of costs :

Potential earnings:

- Incomes from energy crop production

- CO2 abatement cost (tax breaks)

- Increase in property value

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

99

Stage 3: Value Management

Stage 3 considers the assessment of project value and its possibilities for enhancement. It includes two parallel considerations: the direct economic benefits of the project compared with its costs, the so-called “bottom line”, and the wider sustainability of the project. The key factors driving costs and revenues (and also environmental sustainability impacts) will have been already been elaborated in Stage 1 and Stage 2. Stage 3 identifies the most economically viable option from the Stage 2 short list from the point of view of the project promoters and also an overall sustainability appraisal considering economic, social and environmental elements in a holistic way.

Financial feasibility and viability

Direct costs for the biomass options in use at the site including soil and other site management interventions and any on-site conversion

Description for the implementation of the poplar SRC (FCBA) Value (€/ha excl. taxes.)

Plot management (ditches maintenance, vegetation…) 75

Weeding 100

Fertilization 80

Ploughing 160

Secondary tillage 100

Poplar cuttings 3000

Plantation 1000

Weed control + plot maintenance (first year after plantation) 360

Weed control + plot maintenance (second year after plantation) 100

Total cost 4820 - 4975

Implantation and harvest estimated costs for the other potential alternatives

Potential alternatives Values (€/ha excl. taxes.) Reference

Willow SRC Implantation 2 500 – 3 000

AILE, 2007 Harvest 8 000 – 10 000*

Miscanthus Crop

Implantation 3 000 RMT Biomasse, 2009

Harvest 3 000 – 6 000**

* for 20 years; years per crops cycles: 2 (10 harvests)

** for 10 to 20 years (1 harvest per year)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

100

Potential revenue earning potentials for the different alternatives

Benefits Poplar SRC Willow SRC Miscanthus Crop

Incomes from energy crop production ? 59 – 89 €/t (AILE, 2007)

80 €/t (Céréopa, 2008)

CO2 abatement cost (tax breaks) - - -

Increase in property value - - -

Sustainability appraisal: This stage uses qualitative sustainability appraisal based on a series of indicators of sustainability representative of economic, environmental and social factors identified as important by the project team and the other stakeholders involved in the project. A quantitative method can be Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), while for example in the UK the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF-UK) has set out a framework for “sustainable remediation” which can guide the SA process. Another sustainable apprecial method is found in French: “Cadre méthodologique de vérification des écotechnologies adaptées à la surveillance et à la réhabilitation des sols et des eaux souterraines polluées” (BRGM). The objective is to define the methodological frame of ready-to-market environmental innovative technologies at a national level for the area ―Soil and groundwater monitoring and remediation‖ on the basis of General Verification Protocol (GVP) drafted at the European level.

Below are the results from the first round of sustainable apprecial assessment. The results can be utilised also for a more detailed quantitative LCA.

General aspects:

- Goal achievent: The alternatives (Poplar, Willow SRC and Miscanthus crop) will fulfill the goal of the site management set up at the start of the DST activity.

Site “life time” for the different alternatives:

Phytoremediation combined with Poplar SRC About 20 years

Phytoremediation combined with Willow SRC About 20 years

Phytoremediation combined with Miscanthus crop

10 to 20 years

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

101

Years per crop cycle (up to optimal harvest regarding the planned uses)

Poplar SRC 7 to 10 years

Willow SRC 2 to 3 years

Miscanthus crop 1 year

Differences among different crop cycles

Poplar SRC -

Willow SRC -

Miscanthus crop After implantation, the crop productivity increases during the first three to five years and then stabilizes.

Average expected annual production of dry mass

Poplar SRC Willow SRC Miscanthus Crop

Dry mass of crop 1000 t/km²/year

800-1200 t/km²/year

1000-1500 t/km²/year (combustion)

1500-2500 t/km²/year (biofuel)

Use of resources:

- Water for irrigation (amount): Not known (not measured) and the water equipment was initially at the site.

- Energy use (amounts and sources) including transportation distances and fuel consumption for cultivation and harvesting etc.: -

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

102

Preparatory activities, type of machines and maintenance need for the tree alteranatives

Poplar SRC Willow SRC Miscanthus Crop

Preparatory activities

Ploughing Deep mouldboard plough

Soil tillage machinery

Tool with vibrating tine

Shallow tillage Rotary harrow Rotary harrow

Secondary tillage Rotary harrow

Weed control Total weed control Total weed control

Fertilization optional

Cultivation

Planting Specific planting machines (manual or semi-automatic)

Specific planting machines (manual or semi-automatic)

Specific planting machines (manual or semi-automatic)

Maintenance

Weed control Hoeing (2 years) Chemical or/and mechanical weed control

(1 – 2 years)

Weeding harrow, hoeing machines or chemical weed control (3 times the first year after planting)

Coppicing X (optional)

Harvest

Harvest Specific harvest machines

Engine derived from the sugarcane type Autosoft, harvester derived from the corn silo loader, etc.

Pneumatic silo loader corn type

DST Stage 4: Project risks

Stage 4 of the process considers the project risks for the viable project opportunities identified at the end of Stage 3. Three broad considerations are important: technology status, detailed diligence (e.g. of financial partners and project partners) and developing a broad stakeholder consensus.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

103

Considerations taken into account for assessing the project risks

Stakeholder views

Are there any conflicts with potential stakeholders to be expected? No

Technology status

Do all elements of the concept work properly and in an integrated way and what are the key parameters that control this? Yes. The site management was well performed by the farmer who has rented his land and specialists who managed the poplar SRC (FCBA).

Here a detailed technical appraisal of Stage 1 and Stage 2 information shall be undertaken. For the research project please add relevant information based on experiences from the projects. Some of the selected clones produced biomass with rates similar to those measured in non polluted conditions, offering interesting perspectives in a phytoremediation program. Combustion assays further indicate that, using adequate filtering processes, pollutants may be efficiently sequestrated in ashes.

Detailed diligence

Does the concept work from the legal and financial perspective? Yes. Financial aid has been set up for farmers since 2004 in order to develop energy crops production in France. Does the concept work from praxis perspective (part of legal and stakeholder views but included here if not covered by the reply of those)? If no, why? What would be needed in your opinion to overcome this? Yes, the concept works from praxis perspective. Which would (unless a research project) be the most realistic alternative at the site? If not the same as the most preferable in accordance to this assessment, why is this? The most realistic alternative at the site would be phytoremediation combined with a perennial crop such as poplar SRC. It suits with the afforestation project on the plain of Pierrelaye.

RESULT OF DST APPLICATION AT THE SITE

The most realistic alternative at the site would be phytoremediation combined with a perennial crop such as poplar SRC. It suits with the afforestation project on the plain of Pierrelaye.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

104

Appendix 15 Example from case study PHYTOSED EC 1, Fresnes sur Escault, France

Site coordinator: Dr Valerie Bert, INERIS, TPPD/RISK,Parc Technologique Alata, BP2, Verneuil en Halatte, France

The study has been done in cooperation with Marion DELPLANQUE, INERIS, ISAE/RISK

Application of the DST at the PHYTOSED EC 1, Fresnes sur Escault, France research site

The aim with this study was test the DST by to applying it at sites to another country by experts not involved in the Rejuvenate project. The application was based on applying the DST guide and the appendixes 1-10 of the DST guide. The results are provided below.

Preparatory stage - Background information

The site was used as a dredged sediment landfill site by Voies Navigables de France. 200 000 m3 of sand and silt from the canal extension and 20 000 m3 of dredged sediment from canal maintenance were dumped on the site. Human activities (mining and metal smelting, agriculture, water treatment plant, etc.) during the last decade have contaminated canal sediment with various organic and inorganic pollutants.

At the time when the phyto research site was set up the dredged sediment landfill site was full. The dredged sediment landfill site was used for hunting activities to regulate undesirable species (rabbit, fox …) which could damage the cultivation fields near the site. Moreover, hunters have to maintain the site in good condition (removal of wastes, maintenance of the different pathways, etc.).

In the neighbourhood, the following activities can be observed: cultivation (fields, market gardening, and forestry) and habitations. The site was also included in the drinking water protected area.

Due to human activities in Northern France, a lot of sediment and consequently dredged sediment landfill sites are contaminated with organic or inorganic pollutants. The Northern France count 183 dredged sediment landfill sites, some of these sites present a low or high contamination with trace elements (TE) or organic pollutants like PAHs or PCBs. The decontamination (“dig and dump”) of all dredged sediment landfill sites was not economically feasible due to large surface area and volume. A previous diagnosis on this site highlighted a high contamination with arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc and PAH. The pollution is in 0 to 0.5 m depth of the sediment. The dredged sediment landfill site was full. Due to contamination, there was no activity on the site (no usage such as deposit or cultivation for food production). The aim is to valuate the landfill site for economic value/profit/usage point of view by the cultivation of energy crop such as willow for the combustion route combined with risk containment by aided phytostabilisation.

The site was a good candidate for the research. Indeed, It presents all the criteria: TE contamination (Cd, Zn, Pb, Cu, As), contamination depth (0.5 m), no activity on the site (deposit or cultivation), the surface area, accessibility, topography.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

105

The contamination on the sediments resulted from different activities such as metallurgical industry, agriculture, etc. The site is a disposal of dredged sediments (heterogeneous materials in terms of composition (silt, clay, sand), organic matter content and pollution level). Research of pollutants classically found in the region (TE, PAHs and PCBs) was performed on the whole site. These results are issued to the quantitative risk assessment performed by Voies Navigables de France in 2010, before the research begin.

The site is an example of similar contaminated sites in the region as a lot of dredged disposal sites are contaminated in the region, the surface of these sites range from 2 to 30 ha. A contaminated site can be used as an uncontaminated disposal site if the risk assessment has concluded to acceptable risk with regard to the use. This site extends over 25 ha. The research is carried out on 1 ha. A conceptual model of the site and the site conditions is shown in Figure 1. The pollution source is composed of 200 000 m3 of sand and silt from the canal extension and 20 000 m3 of dredged sediment from canal maintenance. A previous diagnosis shows a contamination by trace elements (As, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn), PAHs.

Fig.1 : Conceptual model of the site

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

106

The site is used for hunting activity and research (aided phytostabilisation). The both scenario (hunting activity and intrusion, promenade) were studied. For a first scenario (intrusion or promenade on the aided phytostabilisation zone only for adult), three exposure, transfer pathways were studied: dust and vapors inhalation and sediment oral intake. For a second scenario (hunting activity), risk were assessed for four different routes exposure, dust and vapors inhalation, sediment oral intake (only for adult) and rabbit consumption (adult and children).

The method use for the risk assessment is based on the French contaminated site management methodology. The risk assessment is performed by source/transfer/target approach. There are five steps: conceptual model, exposure, toxicity and risk characterization (calculation of the individual excess risk and the risk index (RI)) to finish by the objective and strategy of restoration (cost-benefit analysis).

Riskassessment for the first scenario (intrusion or promenade on the aided phytostabilisation zone only for adult), three exposure, transfer pathways were studied: dust and vapors inhalation and sediment oral intake. The different concentrations for this scenario were expressed as average concentrations in the studied area and are presented in the following table.

Concentrations (mg kg-1) of pollutants in the research zone (Aided phytostabilisation zone, 1 ha), Scenario 1

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

107

The cancer risk (individual excess risk total = 2.13e-05) for adult is unacceptable (> 10-5). For non-threshold contaminants, the risk for human health (adult) is tolerable (RI<1).

Risk assessment for the second scenario (hunting activity), risk were assessed for four different routes exposure, dust and vapours inhalation, sediment oral intake (only for adult) and rabbit consumption (adult and children).

The different concentrations for this scenario were expressed as average concentrations in entire disposal site and are presented in the following table.

Concentrations (mg kg-1

) of pollutants in sediment disposal site, Scenario 2

Regarding adults, results lead to an acceptable (or tolerable) risk for both threshold and non-threshold contaminants (individual excess risk total < 10-5 and RI<1). Relating to the children and the rabbit consumption, the risk calculation show acceptable risk for both threshold (RI<1) and non-threshold contaminants (individual excess risk total < 10-5) (high hypothesis: consumption of 22 rabbits per year).

From a first diagnosis, a drinking water abstraction point was pointed out near the site. The groundwater for drinking water supply of the region is analyzed since 1982 and the results do not exceed the guideline values of the French legislation. At the site, this groundwater is protected by a clay layout. Consequently, the risk about the water resource can be eliminating.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

108

Potential management alternatives of disposal sites

Disposal sites can be used for sediment disposal. When no more deposit can be performed or between two deposits (they can be spaced out many years), they can be used for agriculture (cultivation or pasture), economics (i.e. composting plant, industry) or leisure activity (i.e. soccer field, footpaths, etc.) In these cases, the scope is to make the site profitable for the landowner (Voies Navigables de France) by the way of a convention between the landowner and the user.

At the site, the most relevant management alternatives (depending on the landowner opportunities) are:

- Realistic/ in practice/ low risk management: hunting activity (with restrictions for consumption, e.g. no consumption of liver rabbit).

- Realistic/ in practice: natural zone (need protected zone for biodiversity reservoir)

- Realistic/ risk based management: biomass valorization combined with aided phytostabilisation

At the moment, this site is only used for hunting activities and for research. In case of no research the site would, based on the land owners opportunities, have been used by hunters and to keep the biodiversity due to its high natural resources (swampy zone, protected birds…).

A management strategy was developed by the landowner for its disposal sites following the French tools for contaminated site management. A first investigation for the entire disposal sites allows prioritizing sites which need an action when assessment leads to unacceptable risks. When the environmental setting is not suitable to current or future use(s), the activity is stopped. The site is closed to avoid any exposure pathways. Here, the aim is to reduce the risk (stopping the exposure pathways).

Decontamination measures (excavation, treatment) are not economically relevant due to surface and volume to be treated (sometimes slightly polluted). For highly polluted sediment disposal sites, containment measures (geomembrane, uncontaminated soil cover) allow to reduce and prevent the spreading of the contaminants. Monitoring measures on groundwater quality can also be performed.

Different phytoremediation management can be performed on the site. Aided phytostabilisation is an alternative management which allow reducing the risk bind to dust wing, leaching, consumption of plant by the terrestrial fauna. Phytoextraction could also be performed. Nevertheless, phytoextraction was not relevant on this site. This one was polluted with Cd, Zn but also with Cu, As and Pb. The phytoextraction aims to extract only Cd and Zn. Moreover, no clear classification exists in the French regulation for biomass issued to the phytoextraction essay (biomass Cd and Zn enriched). There is a debate to class the biomass in the waste or product category.

The sediment landfill sites could be used as a “quarry” (supply for raw material for concrete, civil engineering, etc.) but this use has to comply with economics and legal framework and shows harmlessness.

The site extends over 25 ha and presents a wide swampy zone (4-5 ha). This zone presents a good interest for biodiversity (protected birds were observed (Cettia cetti, Acrocephalus

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

109

schoenobaenus, Troglodytes troglodytes, etc.). As a consequence, the site could also be used as a natural zone (ecological valuation of the area).

From a generic perspective it can be said that there are other sediment deposit sites in the area as there are both elsewhere in France, and it is an international problem. A contaminated site can be used as an uncontaminated disposal site if the risk assessment has concluded to acceptable risk with regard to the use. It is not feasible for all of them to be managed in the same way because of technical constraints (e.g. access to the site). A lot of sites are already used for deposit, agriculture or leisure activities (convention with the landowner).

The scope of cultivation at the site

The scope of the crops (willows and grass in our case) is to produce energy (from willows) and reduce the risk (willows and grass for the risk management: dust, wind erosion reduction, leaching reduction).

The scope of the site for the research is energy production combined with aided phytostabilisation. There is no change since the project began.

DST application at the site

Stage 1: Crop

Crop suitability: Primarily considers from a range of possible biomass crops which crops are able to grow and find a market in a region. Site topography is also considered at this stage. The output is a short list of biomass of crops that fit the local conditions and have an outlet. Each subsequent stage is likely to reduce the length of this list as a more refined solution is found.

Crops for phytostabilisation

All of the crops (SRC biomass, cereal (grain or straw), grass, fibre, oleaginous plant) are able to grow on the site and allow reducing the risk and providing a potential rent to the landowner. The sediment presents good conditions for cultivation (organic matter content (31%), a moderate cationic exchange capacity (bioavailability of mineral trace elements and water)).

Climate condition in the region (2011):

Pluviometry: 627 mm

Sunshine hours: 1758 hours

Temperature: average 10°C, min -5.3°C, max 34.5°C

Mean winter temperature: 2°C to 4°C

Mean summer temperature: 17°C to 18°C

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

110

Based on the information in appendix 2, the following table presents the species suitable with local and site specific climate conditions.

Suitability with local and site specific climate conditions

Species Suitable with local and site specific climate conditions, Why?

Willow It is already grown on the site

Poplar It is already grown on the site

Miscanthus It is already used in the region for phytoremediation process

Switchgrass Yes

Red Canary Grass Yes

Hemp Yes

Linen It is already cultivated in the region

Nettle Ubiquitous plant

Barley

It is already cultivated in the region and on dredged sediment landfill sites in the region

Maize

wheat

Sugar beet

Oil seed rape

Hairgrass Yes, already cultivated

The following figure presents the topography of the site; it is suitable for the entire crops see above.

.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

111

Fig. 2: Dredged sediment landfill site topography (Royal Haskoning 2008)

Some of crops are available in the near region but none in the neighborhood (km distance) as shown in the Table below. The main constrains, for the use of different crop species, is the landowner wishes. Indeed, we have to use plants presents in the local area or region (biodiversity conservation). Consequently, plants like Miscanthus could not be used.

On the site, the development of invasive species Fallopia japonica could limit the development of the crop. A competitive crop and a Fallopia japonica management are needed. SRC crop could be a good option (limit sunshine for Fallopia japonica when tree are well developed).

In below consecutive Tables the availability, potential constrains, benfits and potential relevant markets are summarized.

Crop type Species Availability in the nearby area

SRC biomass Willow No, near the region

Poplar No, near the region

Grasses and straw

Miscanthus No

Switchgrass No

Red Canary Grass No

Hairgrass Easily available (seed bearer) in the region

Fibre

Hemp Easily available (seed bearer) in the region

Linen Easily available (seed bearer) in the region

Nettle No seed bearer

Grain

Barley

Easily available (seed bearer) in the region

Maize

Oil seed rape

Sugar beet

Wheat

Zone studied

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

112

Species Constrains

Willow No, only the pH (<8)

Poplar No, only the pH (<8)

Miscanthus

Yes, landowner wishes, they cannot be used Switchgrass

Red Canary Grass

Hemp No

Linen No

Nettle Harvest of grain, seed provider?

Barley

No

Maize

Oil seed rape

Sugar beet

Wheat

Hairgrass No

Species Benefits

Willow Yes, stabilisation of trace element in the 50 cm depth, valorisation of biomass, Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching Economical value of the crush wood : 18 000€ (8 harvests)

Poplar

Hemp Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching

Linen Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching

Nettle Not really, no market

Barley Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching

Wheat

Hairgrass

Maize Not really, superficial roots system (not met the phytostabilisation objective)

Oil seed rape Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching

Sugar beet Not really, not met the phytostabilisation objective

Species Relevant market/utilization

Willow Biomass for energy purpose, combustion plant is a main utilization

Poplar Biomass for energy purpose, combustion plant is a main utilization

Hemp Textile, ecodesign, construction materials, paper mill... Linen

Barley, wheat, Maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet, hairgrass

Not for food consumption, energy crop (bio-fuel, methanisation), composting biomaterial (plastic conception),

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

113

Species Relevant market/utilization in the area or neighborhood

Willow Big combustion plants are and will be installed in the region Poplar

Hemp Not really, there is no a lot of outlets; Linen outlet is Chinese spinning, moreover diminution of the surface with linen (insufficient yield and wheat or barley competition) are observed in the region

Linen

Nettle

Barley, Maize, Oil seed rape, sugar beet, wheat, hairgrass

Yes, in methanisation units, composting plants and for bio-fuel production in the region

Major constrains and potentials to be overcome

For all crops, the main constrain is the biomass status in the French regulation: waste or product. There is an impact on the economic feasibility of the project.

For SRC crops, biomass classification is a main constrain. Moreover, this region is the least planted trees in France (7% of the total region surface) and the fuel wood sector needs to be developed in the region with a good framework.

Moreover, the use of crops only for energy purpose is weakly accepted in France. Indeed, due to the competition between crop for food and crops for energy purpose, French government give priority to the use of crop remnants such as straw, environmental covers.

For composting and methanisation, plants harvested are considered as a waste. Consequently, no benefits are made. You have to pay for the biomass treatment in methanisation or composting plants. Moreover, the use of crops only for energy purpose is weakly accepted in France, French government gives priority to the use of crop remnants such as straw (grain valorisation), environmental covers.

For the SRC biomass, studies are needed to compare if similar characteristics are obtained between a biomass issued to phytostabilisation essay and a commercial biomass (“natural” biomass”) during the combustion process.

For the other alternatives, a change in policy or legislation is needed to consider the biomass as a product and not as a waste.

For the valorization of willow or poplar SRC, the French regulation related to biomass classification is not clear. There are no threshold values for the entrance products. Biomass grown on contaminated site is not taken into account in the French regulation. Studies are needed to compare if similar characteristics are obtained between a biomass issued to phytostabilisation essay and a commercial biomass (“natural” biomass) during the combustion. Best available techniques (e.g. sufficient filters) have to be used.

For methanisation and composting plants, a change in the legislation could change the economic feasibility. Biomass has to be considered as a product and not as a waste.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

114

Table 1. Short list of biomass of crops that fit the local conditions and have an outlet, i.e.: possible biomass crops which may contribute to meet the objectives of the site management activity, are able to grow in the climate and on the site taking into account the site topography and form, for which it is also possible to find a market in the region.

Crop

May contribute to site objectives by:

Crop requirements

Utilization Benefits Constrain Comment

Willow

Do not accumulate, reduce the risk (depend of the clone used) and provide a rent

pH < 8 wide type of soil type Well aerated Need water

Combustion plant

Soil stabilization, reduce risk Resale of wood: 18 000€

Essays are needed to compare the biomass with a commercial wood

Poplar

Soil stabilization, reduce risk

Miscanthus

Do not accumulate, reduce the risk and provide a rent

Tolerate a range of climatic conditions Supply water

Combustion plant

Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching

Yes, landowner wishes (cannot be used)

Switchgrass

reduce the risk (soil stabilization) and provide a rent

High water-use efficiency

Combustion plant or biofuel

Yes, landowner wishes (cannot be used)

Red Canary Grass

Favours moist, cool climates with mean winter temperatures ≤ 7°C and mean summer temperatures ≤27°C

bioenergy

Yes, landowner wishes (cannot be used)

Hemp

Accumulation depend of the clone used

Mild, humid climate and a highly fertile soil in particular calcereous soils

Thermoplastic compounds production (with fiber),

Need more interventions (fertilization, seedbed...) every year,

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

115

Linen

Moist, cool weather early part of growing season, warm and relatively dry climate early summer

Approve the soil structure, Nitrogen fixation

research of outlet (specific for crops issued of a contaminated site, traceability

Nettle Reduce the risk (dust wind)

No relevant market

No seed provider

Barley pH max 6.5

Composting plant, methanisation, (bioenergy)

Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching

Wheat

pH max 6

Maize Reduce the risk (dust wind)

pH max 5.5

Oil seed rape

Reduce the risk (dust wind)

pH max 6 Biofuel yes

Sugar beet

Reduce the risk (dust wind)

pH max 6.5 Biofuel

Hairgrass

Reduce the risk (dust wind)

Heavy soil, no calcareous soil, good moisture, tolerate temperature until -15°C.

No utilization for the research site

No No

Stage 2: Site suitability

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

116

Site suitability: considers whether the site conditions are suitable for particular biomass crops in the short list and what the environmental risks of crop production might be. A site may be suitable already for some crops or can be made suitable by soil / risk management interventions. If an on-site conversion facility is being considered then the suitability of the site for this facility must also be considered and any necessary interventions (for example infrastructure considered. Furthermore, the impacts arising from any site management activities for risk and soil management and facility development need to be properly considered. The output is a shortened list of crops that could be grown on-site and specification of the management interventions needed to achieve this.

Site conditions

The site is located near the canal and presents a wide swampy zone (4-5 ha). A superficial groundwater is presented at 3 m depth. There is no more information. The following table shows the physical and chemical properties of the sediment before slag spreading.

Parameters Values

Clay (%) 14

Silt (%) 70

Sand (%) 16

Organic carbon (g kg-1) 153.3

pHeau 7.19±0.27

Residual moisture (%) 2.2

CEC (cmol(+) kg-1) 23.5

Total nitrogen (g kg-1) 4.94

Phosphorus (g kg-1) 3.05

Organic matter (%) 31

C/N 31

CaCO3 (%) 53

The sediment presents a silty texture with high organic matter content (31%) and a moderate cation exchange capacity (23.5) which means a good bioavailability of nutrients and water to the plant. The sediment density is 1.3. A neutral pH was measured at different points of the research area.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

117

The site takes place on area which presents a good interest for biodiversity. A discussion with the local authorities was performed to assess the potential impacts of the project (clearing, leveling, plantation, slags spreading, etc.) on biodiversity.

SRC crops create a good biotope. These crops are more appropriate than the annual crop like wheat, barley...

The conclusion is that the site is appropriate for the different crops identified in the first DST stage (table 1).

No amendments and fertilization were performed on the site before research began. A clearing was performed on the site. Then, slag was spread to complete the action of phytostabilisation (reduce the risk of trace elements spreading) and to fertilize the sediment for plantation. A superficial work of the sediment was performed to mix the sediment with slag and to prepare hairgrass seedbed.

The sediment superficial work allows mixing slags with sediment and preparing the seedbed. However, it can have an impact on “soil” structure. Slags spreading can modify the pH of the sediment. Consequently, crop requirement could be affect.

SRC crops are the most relevant crops. Indeed, crops like wheat or maize are annual crop and need a soil preparation every year contrary to the SRC crops that are planting for 24 years (and just need a optional coppicing one year after the plantation). The multiplication of intervention increase the risk of trace elements spreading (e.g. increase of dust wind during the preparation phase).

Moreover, annual crop need a rotation to avoid diseases, insects development… Annual crop have different outlets that you have to research every year, may be specific outlets according to the biomass status (waste or product).

SRC crops, like willows, can be established just after sediment deposit (for future research or sediment landfill site valorization) contrary to the annual crop.

Risk assessment (assessment of potential risks)

The pollution source is composed of 200 000 m3 of sand and silt from the canal extension and 20 000 m3 of dredged sediment from canal maintenance. A previous diagnosis shows a contamination by trace elements (As, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn), PAHs.

The site is used for hunting activity and research (aided phytostabilisation). The both scenario (hunting activity and intrusion, promenade) were studied. For a first scenario (intrusion or promenade on the aided phytostabilisation zone only for adult), three exposure, and transfer pathways were studied: dust and vapors inhalation and sediment oral intake. For a second scenario (hunting activity), risk were assessed for four different routes exposure, dust and vapors inhalation, sediment oral intake (only for adult) and rabbit consumption (adult and children).

Receptors:

Health risk: Risk for people who work on the site for the preparation (clearing, amendment spreading)

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

118

Environmental risk: dust wind (contamination of nearby area), soil ingestion for animals (contamination of the food chain)

Pathways: inhalation of dust, soil ingestion

Risks related to the dust wind are assessed during the bare sediment stage. Results shows that source of pollutants collected in the gauge came from the sediment except for the Cr (from the atmosphere). We did not conclude on the risk because the control had been damaged. Future assessment need to be performed.

For species like willow and poplar, accumulation of trace elements in the above ground part of the biomass depends on the clone used. For other species, no accumulation is shown in literature.

At the end of the SRC cycle, intervention to remove stumps has to be performed. Risks are the same that clearing, that is to say risk related to dust inhalation and soil ingestion. After the aided phytostabilisation, the risk are the same that the initial one because there is no remediation, it is just a risk management.

Risk related to the dispersion of pollutants in the environment during the combustion need to be assessed at this end of the project (need sufficient filters or not).

For species like willow and poplar, accumulation of trace elements in the above ground part of biomass depends on the clone used. For other species, no accumulation is shown in literature. Risk calculations are needed to conclude /confirm.

The management option for unacceptable risk will be the containment options (geomembrane or uncontaminated soil cover) and restriction on uses.

From a first diagnosis, a drinking water abstraction point was pointed out near the site. The groundwater for drinking water supply of the region is analyzed since 1982 and the results do not exceed the guideline values of the French legislation. At the site, this groundwater is protected by a clay layout. Consequently, the risk about the water resource can be eliminated.

N and P are used for crop fertilization.

Odor, noise and nuisance are very limited during interventions on the site. Habitations are sufficiently far away.

There are no infrastructure or engineering activities on the site.

There is no a lot of difference between the crop on the risk assessment (see concept of the phytostabilisation). The only difference is the clone selection for willows and poplars.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

119

Table 2: Crop

Crop Site conditions

Risk assessment

Management Relevant for the site

Sums of costs / potential earnings

Prior cultivation

Initial condition plus soil management plus crop

Post remediation/ risk management and interventions incl. soil management and crop

Willows Risk for human health (dusts inhalation, soil ingestion)

Animal plant consumption

Contamination of food chain

(hunting activities)

Leaching of TE

Action on the 50th centimeters of the sediment, reduce the leaching, dust wind

Selection of clones for no contamination of the above ground part of plants (risk of food chain contamination and for the valorization (dispersion of TE in the atmosphere)

Risk during the harvest and grubbing bare sediment stage at this end (dust wind)

Dispersion of pollutants in the environment during the combustion

Phytoextraction or phytostabilisation

Valorization biomass

Yes, good for biodiversity, valorisation on combustion plants in the region, no extra management except for the research (sediment, plant samples...)

18 000 € resale of wood (for 8 harvests)

For costs see below (stage 3)

Poplars

Hairgrass

-

Wheat

reduce the leaching, dust wind

dispersion of pollutants in the environment during the valorization process has to be assessed

Annual constraint, not very good for biodiversity on the site

Barley reduce the leaching, dust wind

Annual constraint, not very good for biodiversity on the site

Star ; alternative 2 in table 2.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

120

Stage 3: Value Management

Stage 3 considers the assessment of project value and its possibilities for enhancement. It includes two parallel considerations: the direct economic benefits of the project compared with its costs, the so-called “bottom line”, and the wider sustainability of the project. The key factors driving costs and revenues (and also environmental sustainability impacts) will have been already been elaborated in Stage 1 and Stage 2. Stage 3 identifies the most economically viable option from the Stage 2 short list from the point of view of the project promoters and also an overall sustainability appraisal considering economic, social and environmental elements in a holistic way.

Financial feasibility and viability

The following table shows costs of the different intervention on the site (plantation, slags spreading, seed…) for the duration of SRC (24 years).

Opérations Coûts (€/ha)

Land clearing 5 400 €

Soil work 4 800 €

Amendment 360 €

Slags spreading 586,04 €

Hairgrass seed 4 554,75 €

Hairgrass seedbed 380 €

Plants (1,50m to 2m)

13 715 €

Garden tarpaulins 3 528,20 €

Manual plantation 5 740,80 €

Harvest (8 harvests) 7 200 € (estimation)

Storage, drying wood

2 880 € (estimation)

Grass removal, maintenance (twice per year)

21 600 €

Grubbing 3 500 € (estimation)

TOTAL 74 244,79 €

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

121

Cost are elevated because we are in the research project, different stakeholders were involved (clearing, amendment spreading, plantation, etc., increasing costs).

For all alternatives there would have been annual costs due to seed cost, soil preparation, harvest, disease treatments etc.

Standard gross marging for the different crop (Agricultural chamber, 2011):

Wheat : 935€/ha (2011, high for this year due to the wheat price in the market)

Barley : 562€/ha (2011, sold 140€/t)

These elements should be taken with care. Indeed, these crops are grown on an uncontaminated site and for conventional use.

Because the dredged sediment disposal site are located near the canal, the landowner do not want install wind generator in the different site in the region. VNF is making a technical and economical feasibility study to install photovoltaic array in the different sediment disposal in France.

Aided phytostabilisation, used for renewable energy production, could abate CO2.One hectare of SRC (irrigation with waste water) represent 8 tons of CO2.ha-1.y-1 economized (Source: Witters et al. 2009). The external benefit of CO2 abatement, when using phytoremediation crops for land management, ranges between € 55 and €501 per hectare (with a marginal abatement cost of CO2 of €20 ton-1) (Witters et al. 2012).

This project could create employments in the local area and in the region.

Avoiding cost:

The use of depreciate landfill for the energy purpose avoid to use fields or other land that could be use for food production or for urbanisation. Moreover, it approves the economical value of lands around the site (best reputation of the site). This should be taking into account but it’s very difficult to assess for now.

There is no return on capital needed for the research project but we need to prove the economical viability of the project.

In Table 2 above the costs and potential earnings from stage 2 relevant alternatives are indicated. Based on the information provided in Table 2 the best alternative, the Star alternative, is alternative 2 (Table 2).

Sustainability appraisal: This stage uses qualitative sustainability appraisal based on a series of indicators of sustainability representative of economic, environmental and social factors identified as important by the project team and the other stakeholders involved in the project. A quantitative method can be Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), while for example in the UK the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF-UK) has set out a framework for “sustainable remediation” which can guide the SA process.

Here the guide: « BRGM/RP-60880-FR (février 2012) Cadre méthodologique de vérification des écotechnologies adaptées à la surveillance et à la réhabilitation des sols et des eaux souterraines pollués. » has been applied. It is a French guide (for ecotechnology) but it is based on the “general Verification Protocol” (GVP) at EU scale. The Sustainable Remediation forum (SURF-UK) has been taken into account in this document.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

122

Wider benefits.

The most important benefit is that the selected alternative (phytostabilisation with SRC crop and hairgrass) will fulfill the goal of the site management (risk management and economic valorization of the Site). The site will be managed by phytostabilisation ove r24 years.

Regarding carbon dioxide impacts the biocrop aims to be used as biofuel with a rotation period of 8 harvest periods over 24 years for (but in the research project the site is available only for 4 years) or for grain (barley/wheat) every 1 year. Hairgrass would not be harvested.

The impacts caused by active site management are low as there is very little travelling and machineries needed. In general local machineries are and can be used thereby minimizing the emissions. The man travelling was in the initial phase (before cultivation), as many site visits (by car) was performed to characterize the pollution, delimit the research site. Clearing (by local tractor 9 days) was also needed on the site (invasive species management and other vegetation).

For the actual site (only 1 ha), plantation was manual but a specific machine can be used for higher surface. This one is not available in the region.

The maintenance that would be needed for hairgrass could be rolling in tillering phase where a tractor should be used for 3 hours. The invasive species removal has to be performed every year to limit its development on the site.

For the harvest adapted silo filler is needed to harvest the willow SRC every 3 year. For the research site (1 ha), only half a day is needed for the harvest. The final use of willows is in a combustion plant. No energy or additives are needed for the process. Instead heat is produced thereby reducing the need of fossil fuel or other non-renewable energy sources for heating applications. The end products are bottom ashes (around 1% of the biomass mass in entrance) and fly ashes (little quantity). Bottom ashes can be used as an inorganic fertilizer or as basic mineral amendments. The last one option depends on the insertion of wood ash into French standard as a new category of basic amendment. For fly ashes, it depends of trace elements concentrations. It might be considered as a waste and has to be consequently sent in a specific waste storage facility.

A summary of the machineries and vehicles applied (or potentially applied) combined with realistic distances is provided in the table below. In summary the maintenance and preparative work causes rather low emissions and contribution to carbon dioxide. Vegetation will be a temporary storage of carbon dioxide and at harvest the crop can be used for heat production thereby resulting in low or even positive impacts on GHG emissions.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

123

Number of vehicles Type of VehiclesNumber of kilometers

(source to the site)Number of hour Fuel comsumption

Total consumption

(l) (round trip)Comments

visits site 1 car 180*3(days) = 540 km 2hrs*3 5-7 l.h-1 60 to 84

1 car < 30 km 1 5-7 l.h-1 5 to 7

2tractors (vegetation

management)< 30 km

72 hrs (9 days) +2

hours (trip)11l.h-1 1606

tractors are staying on site

during the work (9 days)

1tractors (invasive

species management)< 30 km 16 11l.h-1 374

number of hour : 2 days of

8 hours / tractors

Soil work 1 tractor < 30 km 11.5 11l.h-1 148.5

Amendment 1 truck 80 km 1.5 10 l.h-1 15 Amendment Supplying

Slags spreading 1 tractor less than 10 km 2 11l.h-1 22

Hairgrass seed 1 truck 40 km 1 10 l.h-1 20 from seed bearer

Hairgrass seedbed 1 tractor less than 10 km 4 11l.h-1 44

1 pick up 200 km 2 10l.h-1 40

1 car 200 km 2 5-7 l.h-1 20 to 28

garden tarpaulin 1 tractor < 30 km 4 11l.h-1 66 with plants transportation

Manual plantation 2 car 200 2 5-7 l.h-1 40 to 56 people transport

1 Adapted silo filler around 30 km 8 10 l.h-1 100

1 tractor + trailer less than 10 km 8 11l.h-1 110

1 car (INERIS) 180 km 2 5-7 l.h-1 10

0 option 1 : on-site option 1: on site

1option 2 : a truck option 2 : 60 to 80 km (in a

combustion plant)1 10l.h-1 10

option 2 : combustion

plant

1 option 3 : tractorsoption 3 : less than 20 km

(local farmer)1 11l.h-1 11 option 3 : local farmer

1tractor (loading on

site)less than 10 km 3 11l.h-1 33

1 truckoption 1: 60 to 80 km (in a

combustion plant) 1.5 10l.h-1 15

storage on site or a local

specific installation

1 truck

option 2 : less than 30 km

(local user, individual boiler

(supplying = local farmer))

1 10l.h-1 10

storage at a local farmer or

in a local specific

installationGrass removal,

maintenance (twice per

year)

1 tractor less than 10 km 8 (per year) 10l.h-1 80

Grubbing (at this end of

SRC cycle, 24 years)2 tractors less than 30 km

56 (7 days)+ 2

hours (trip)11l.h-1 1254

tractors are staying on site

during the work (7 days)

Land clearing

Plants (1,50m à 2m)

Harvest (8 harvests)

Storage, drying wood

Transport for valorization

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

DST Stage 4: Project risks

Stage 4 of the process considers the project risks for the viable project opportunities identified at the end of Stage 3. Three broad considerations are important: technology status, detailed diligence (e.g. of financial partners and project partners) and developing a broad stakeholder consensus. As can be seen from the replies of the questions in the table below the results indicate that Phytostabilisation seems to be the most realistic option. This is based on the available information from the site and from literature. Especially the results related to monitoring and questions related to valuation of the harvested biomass will not be known until the first harvesting period and by the end of the project.

Considerations in the final project risk assessment:

Stakeholder views

Are there any conflicts with potential stakeholders to be expected? Yes, with legislator, biomass status issued from a contaminated site has to be more clear in the legal framework

The stakeholder was engaged at the beginning of the research project, notably with the local authorities as this is very important.

Technology status

Do all elements of the concept work properly and in an integrated way and what are the key parameters that control this?

Aided phytostabilisation at the demonstration stage(set up)

Monitoring and sustainable efficiency still at a research demonstration stage on the field

Here a detailed technical appraisal of Stage 1 and Stage 2 information shall be undertaken. Experiences from the project:.

Some technical problems occurred. Yellowing of willows leaves has been observed, might be due to phytotoxicity or completion for water and nutrient needs.

Detailed diligence

Does the concept work from the legal and financial perspective?

The cost-benefits analysis needs to be finalized. The legal framework has to change in order to determine the biomass status or combustion end-products (ashes). The legal framework is needed to use amendment like slags on contaminated site.

Does the concept work from praxis perspective (part of legal and stakeholder views but included here if not covered by the reply of those)? If no, why? What would be needed in your opinion to overcome this?

Yes.

Which would be the most realistic alternative at the site? Phytostabilisation could be the most realistic option but results related to monitoring and questions related to valuation of the harvested biomass need

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013

to be answered.

References

Witters N., R. Mendelsohn, S. Van Passel, S. Van Slycken, N. Weyens, E. Schreurs, E. Meers, F. Tack, B. Vanheusden, J. Vangronsveld (2012) Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? II: Economic assessment of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production, Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 39, April 2012, Pages 470-477

Witters N. , S. Van Slycken, A. Ruttens, K. Adriaensen, E. Meers, L. Meiresonne, F. M. G. Tack, T. Thewys, E. Laes and J. Vangronsveld (2009) Short-Rotation Coppice of Willow for Phytoremediation of a Metal-Contaminated Agricultural Area: A Sustainability Assessment, BioEnergy Research, Volume 2, (3), p144-152.

Rejuvenate - Guide to DST March 2013