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 biorenewables 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
2
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 5
1.1
Background ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2
Manual structure and how to use the manual.................................................................... 5
The decision support tool process ............................................................................................ 6
2.1
3
Using an iterative approach .............................................................................................. 6
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
6
5.1
List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 28
5.2
Glossary ......................................................................................................................... 28
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.
Start
Crop types
Climate/ topography
Crop
Business use options
Output: Option for suitable crops and uses
Soil characteristics
Site
Risk assessment
Project impact
Output: Site management strategy
Economic
Environmental
Social
Output: Best value approach
Technology status
Project risk
Detailed dilligence
Stakeholder views
Output: Project risk
assessed/ minimised
Figure1 Project development for biomass on marginal land
Acceptable value
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 offsite 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
Start
Re-visit
objectives
Set objectives
Stage I
Crop
Crop types
Climate/ topography
No suitable biomass option for
the marginal land under
consideration
Biomass use option
NO
Suitable
crops &
uses?
No suitable
crop found
Yes
A suitable biomass option may
exist but would require that
previous stages /objectives are
revisited
Output: Option for suitable
crops and uses
A viable project approach
Stage II
Soil characteristics
Site
Intervention
specified
Risk assessment
Verification
Process impacts
Yes
Possible
interventions
No suitable
intervention
available
+
NO
Suitable
site for
use?
Implementation
Yes
Output: Site management
strategy
Stage III
Value
Enhancements
specified (e.g. other
on site renewables)
Economic
Environmental
Social
Yes
Possible
enhance
-ments
Insufficient
value
NO
Sufficient
value?
Yes
Output: Best value approach
Mitigation
measures
specified
Project
Risk
Stage IV
Technology status
Detailed diligence
Stakeholder views
Yes
NO
No appropriate
approach, but
objectives can
be reconsidered
Not possible
Possible
mitigation
Acceptable
risk?
Yes
No
available
approach
Output: Project risk assessed/
minimised
Appropriate
approaches
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
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).
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.
1.2: range of 
crops
meeting
local climate 
conditions

Average temperature
and range.
Sunlight hours.
Rainfall / water supply.

Elevation.

Soil
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
temperature/thawing.
1.3: range of 
crops that
can be
cultivated on 
the site land
form.
1.4:
available
uses
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. Northfacing).

Degree of surface
heterogeneity
(undulation, existing soil
characteristics).

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.
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.
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.
Possible on-site conversion
methods for crops remaining
after 1.3 – unless on-site
conversion was discounted at
1.1.
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.
Start
Set objectives
Stage I:
Crop
Various
alternatives
available
Range of
crops
Yes
Regional climate
conditions
Adequate
climate
Yes
Site topography,
slope and
situation…
Suitable
condition
Yes
On/ off site
utilisation
Available
outlets
Yes
No suitable
crop found
Suitable
crops +
uses
Yes
Output: Option for suitable
crops and uses
Red / yellow traffic light
Stage II
Figure 3 Stage 1: Selecting the crops (Note: each “triangle” is a factor which may mean no suitable
crop is found)
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).
1
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.
Output of Stage I
Stage II:
Site
Crop
alternative
NO
NO
Growth
rqts.
Site
rqts.
Yes
Soil management
specification:
• Formation
Off site
conversion
alternative
On site
conversion
alternative
Yes
Soil improvement
intervention (if needed)
• Maintenance
Facility development
intervention (if needed)
• Crop management
Risk assess crop +
soil managment
• Predicted yield
Facility development
specification:
• Commissioning
• Operating
• Monitoring
Risk
management
needed?
Risk management
specification:
• Formation
• Maintenance
NO
Yes
Risk management
intervention (if needed)
• Monitoring
Impact
assessment
Impact
management
needed?
Impact management
specification:
• Commissioning
• Operating
Impact
assessment
NO
Impact
management
needed?
Yes
NO
Yes
Impact management
intervention (if needed)
Impact management
intervention (if needed)
• Monitoring
Intervention
intervention
specified
Yes
Possible
interventions
No suitable
intervention
available
Red / yellow traffic light
Figure 4 Stage 2: Site Management
NO
Suitable
site
Yes
Output: Site management strategy/
sustainability assessment
Stage III
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:
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.

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
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Decision
Considerations
March 2013
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.
2.3: impact of
interventions
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).
Possible impacts to
groundwater, surface
water and air of the soil
and risk management
Environmental impact
assessment.
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.
Identification of any
unacceptable
environmental impacts
and a mitigation strategy
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Decision
Considerations
March 2013
Information needs
interventions proposed
from Steps 2.1 and 2.2,
considering issues such
as N and P migration,
odour, noise and
nuisances.
Decisions to be made
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.
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.
Overall Stage
2 findings
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
Output of Stage II
Stage III:
Value
Financial
feasibility
Contribution to sustainable
development
Measurements e.g:
Sustainability appraisal e.g:
Outcome per ha,
calorific value per crop,
number of ha, …
Chain of regional added
value, energy supply
guarantee, biodiversity, …
Measurable?
Yes
Equation of crop types e.g:
Utilisation lifespan, rhythm of re-cultivation,
capital & operational & additional cost,
revenue options, site monitoring
Economic:
Environmental:
E.g. (in-)direct
cost, gearing,
employment,
capital,
flexibility
Intrusiveness,
resource use,
impacts e.g. on
air, water, soil,
ecology
Social:
On-site
E.g. sensitisation for
the environment,
ethical considerations,
local & national policy
Off-site
Economic
output
Positive
impact
Yes
Deciding factors:
Yes
Net present value,
amortisation, internal
rate of return
NO
Intervention alternatives:
E.g. solar & wind power,
organic waste, synergy
effects
Sustainability
assessment
Yes
Sufficiant
enhancement
Sufficiant
value
Yes
Insufficiant
value
Red / yellow traffic light
Figure 5 Stage 3: Value Management
Output: Best value approach
Stage IV
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.
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.
Overall Stage
3 findings
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
Output of Stage III
Stage IV:
Project risk
Stakeholder
views
NO
Approval?
Yes
Responses
Technology status
NO
Adequate?
Yes
Implementation
plan
Detailed diligence
NO
Practical?
Yes
Business
plan
Yes
Possible
mitigation
NO
Acceptable
risk?
Yes
Insufficiant
value
Red / yellow traffic light
Output: Project risk assessed/
minimised
Verification
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
Stop / go for the project
concept and whether
mitigation measures are
required (for example use of
alternative technologies or
suppliers)
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)
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.
4.3: Detailed
diligence
Overall
Stage 4
findings
Commencement of formal
planning permitting and
licensing negotiations
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
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)
Period
considered
for
verification
Criteria to be
considered for
verification
Verification
goals/
references
Projected
values
Actual
values
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=f27bd8f14789-4b6d-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.snowmanera.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_final_report.pdf).
Bardos, P., Bone, B., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Suer, P., Track, T., Wagelmans, M., (2011) Cropbased 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/0-19282080-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.environmentagency.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
footprint
balance
/ 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
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.
Observation of conditions.
Monitoring
compost
like
output,
more
acceptable
to
some
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
land
developed 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.
Something that could be adversely affected by a contaminant, such as
Receptor
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Term
March 2013
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. Hyperaccumulators 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, ryegrass, 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 Use of plants and cultivation techniques (such as the regular addition of organic
(alternative covers) 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) Cropbased 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., EDTAassisted 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
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.
Defra (2004)
Poplar
(SRC)
Tubby and
Armstrong
(2002)
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 waterlogging (which is also highly
unsuitable for heavy
machinery and harvesting
becomes unfeasible).
SRC cultivation
requirements are detailed in
Table 4.3.
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 wateruse 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.
Karp and
Shield (2008)
RHS (1992)
Also C4 like Miscanthus,
therefore has a high wateruse efficiency. There are
both upland and lowland
ecotypes, however lowland
ecotypes require longer
growing seasons.
Fibre
Harvested biomass may
be combusted directly,
fibre may be used in
manufacturing
Reed
Canary
Grass
Native to temperate regions Klages
of Europe, Asia and North
(1942)
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.
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.
Linen
(Linseed)
3
http://www.hanffaser.de
4
http://www.krishiworld.com/html/comm_crops7.html
(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
Hanf-FaserFabrik,
Hompage
(2009)3
Klages
(1942)
Klages
(1942)
Krishiworld
website4
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/weedcontrolled) 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.
Karp and
Sheild (2008)
Klages
(1942)
Wilsie (1962)
Best adapted to long and
warm growing seasons (1824oC, 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/weedcontrolled) according to
local climatic conditions. For
cultivation requirements
refer to Table 4.3.
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.
Sauer (1994)
Managed (irrigated,
fertilised, pest/weedcontrolled) according to
local climatic conditions. For
cultivation requirements
refer to Table 4.3.
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-CentralAsiatic 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.
Wilsie (1962)
Klages
(1942)
Karp and
Shield (2008)
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/weedcontrolled) according to
local climatic conditions.
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/shortrotation-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/grantsfunding/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 5.57 (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.
150 to 180 kg
Circa 20 years
K2O/ha, 30 bis 50
kg P2O5/ha and
ca. 30 kg MgO/ha
Prefers well
drained fertile
soils6, however
free-draining
soils or elevated
northerly sites
are limiting
(MAFF, 1988).
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.
Soil pH optimum
range 5.5-7.5 but
toleration
exceeds this
range (Defra
2007)
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
5
7
http://www.ukagriculture.com/crops/Miscanthus.cfm
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Switchgrass
March 2013
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).
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 resowing8.
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
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
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).
Fertiliser is best
applied to the
seedbed17.
8
www.walesbiomass.org
9
http://www.york.ac.uk/org/cnap/oilcrop/cropsind/linseed_agro.htm
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 ().
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.
Annual crop
(spring sowing)
N 60-90 kg ha
with maintenance
dressings of
phosphate and
potash17.
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 preharvest 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 MayJune 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
11
http://www.ukagriculture.com
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%3Dfirefoxa%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26hs%3DSoI%26sa%3DG%26pwst%3D1
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
grade agricultural
quality soil
pH Max. 6.5
(MAFF, 1988)
March 2013
(spring dressing)
160 kg ha N on
mineral soils, 90
kg ha N on
organic soils
(MAFF, 1988).
year, winter and
spring sowings)
weed management, May
fertiliser addition,
combine harvesting
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, cornshellers or combineharvesters15
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)
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.
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).
Maize
Medium to high
grade agricultural
quality soil
PH-Value 5.5
Oil seed
rape
(canola)
Medium to high
grade agricultural
quality soil
pH Max. 6
(MAFF, 1988)
Winter oilseed
rape (spring
dressing) 200240 kg ha N on
mineral soils, 100
kg ha N on
organic soils, 100
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
14
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)
Wheat
Medium to high
grade agricultural
quality soil
pH Max. 6
(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.
Winter wheat
(spring dressing)
175 kg ha N on
mineral soils, 90
kg ha N on
organic soils
(MAFF, 1988).
Annual crop (1
year, winter and
spring sowings)
Direct drilling, pest and
weed management, May
fertiliser addition,
combine harvesting
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).
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/shortrotation-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/grantsfunding/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)
Direct contact with soil and
dust
Water (groundwater, surface
water)
Via air (including via dust)
Products (biomass)
Via water
Ecological (e.g. conservation
areas., habitats)
Via biomass
Via consumption
Human health (e.g. site
workers, visitors, neighbours)
Built constructions and
services
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)
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.environmentagency.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
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)
Ex situ bioremediation –
engineered systems to
biodegrade contaminants in
excavated soil
Dilution and
dispersion of
gases for
buildings –
building
measures such
as ventilation
Excavation and
related materials
handling – removal
of soils to the
surface for
screening and preprocessing 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
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
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 in-ground
– natural
attenuation
processes, for
example
methane
oxidation by soil
microorganisms
Gas barriers for
buildings –
impermeable
membranes or
other barriers
that prevent the
migration of gas
Gas barriers inground –
impermeable
membranes or
other barriers
that prevent the
migration of gas
Long-term postconstruction
monitoring for
gases –
buildings on
areas at risk
from methane
or radon may
require regular
gas monitoring
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
groundwater
March 2013
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. Email [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)
Germany
Sweden
Contaminated
land
Organic matter re-use
(for composts and
sewage sludge)
Water, soil and
agriculture
Biomass use
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).
Environmental
code (MB, 1998)
Environmental Code
(MB, 1998)
Environmental
Code (MB, 1998)
Environmental
Code (MB, 1998)
Risk assessment
practice (SEPA,
2008c)
Guidelines
(Jordbruksverket,
2009, SEPA, 2008d,
bioenergiportalen,
2008)
Plan and Building
Code (Plan och
bygglage, PBL,
1987)
Aids for more
efficient energy and
biofuel and
renewable energy
resources (Swedish
Parliament, 2006)
Plan and Building
Code (Plan och
bygglagen, PBL,
1987)
(National
environmental
targets – sub
target 6.2, SEPA,
2009)
Risk assessment
practice (SEPA,
2008c)
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
Contaminated
land
March 2013
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.
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/clea
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
19
21
26
27
http://www.wfduk.org/
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/crops/industrial/energy/biomass-taskforce/index.htm
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%
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Contaminated
land
Organic matter re-use
(for composts and
sewage sludge)
Contaminated
Land (England)
Amendment
Regulations 2001.
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.
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.
20
March 2013
Water, soil and
agriculture
Biomass use
renewable energy
(RAB 2008a). In
It is planned for the 2009 the Welsh
current
Assembly
Groundwater
Government
Directives to fall
published a
under the WFD in
bioenergy action
2013. The
plant consultation.
Groundwater
A progress report
Directive regulates
was recently
pollution discharges published by the
to groundwater,
Department of
and controls
Energy and Climate
discharges of some Change – DECC
pollutants by
(2009b), and also a
permits. In 2006,
“road map “towards
the Groundwater
a low carbon
Daughter Directive
future” by the Royal
(2006/118/EC) was Society (2009).
introduced as an
Recently a revised
offshoot of the
UK renewable
WFD. Discharge
energy strategy
The Waste
limits for pollutants
was published
Framework Directive
are not specified as (DECC 2009c).
2006/12/EC is
it was deemed to
implemented in the
be the responsibility
UK through the
of the Member
Environmental
Policy on biofuel
States. The UK
Protection Act (1990), Environment
use for transport is
the Control of
set out by DfT
Agency also
Pollution
2009. Support for
identifies Source
(Amendment) Act
biofuel production
Protection Zones
(1989), the Waste
and setting up of
(SPZs) to identify
Management
biofuel
risk of
Licensing Regulations contamination
infrastructure is
(1994) and the
available in
around sources of
Controlled Waste
England through
drinking water
(Registration of
Defra35 Energy
(such as bore
Carriers and Seizure
Crops Scheme;
holes, wells and
of Vehicles)
part of the Rural
springs).
Regulations 1991.
Development
The legislation
Programme
requires that anyone
England 2007Defra issued a
who treats, keeps,
201328 (Defra
public
consultation
deposits or disposes
2004b) and the
on the draft Soil
of waste needs a
Bioenergy
http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/land/soil/europe/
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
22
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Contaminated
land
March 2013
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.
Strategy for
England on 31
March 2008 (Defra
2008d).
Infrastructure
Scheme and
Bioenergy Capital
Grants Scheme (for
end users)29.
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.
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.
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
23
http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Legislation.htm#75442
24
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/index.htm
http://www.bioenergycapitalgrants.org.uk/
29
30
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=77,15133&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
A list of the current
grant schemes
available in the UK
is provided at the
following link
pages30.
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Contaminated
land
March 2013
Organic matter re-use
(for composts and
sewage sludge)
Water, soil and
agriculture
Biomass use
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.
Refer to
England/Wales for
EU Biomass
Directive.
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-
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
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.
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
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Contaminated
land
Contaminated
Land Regulations
Amendment
(2005)32.
March 2013
Organic matter re-use
(for composts and
sewage sludge)
Water, soil and
agriculture
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.
SEPA monitor the
schemes available
state of Scotland’s
in the UK.
water environment
and have published
the reports,
including river basin
planning, significant
water management
issues and water
characterisation
reports35.
Refer to
England/Wales for
Sewage Sludge.
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
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
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/asp_20030003_en_1
36
Biomass use
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Contaminated
land
March 2013
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.
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.
The Department of
the Environment
and the Department
of Agriculture and
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,
41
http://www.doeni.gov.uk/index/protect_the_environment/water/water_framework_directive_.htm
also see Scottish Government, 2008b
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Contaminated
land
March 2013
Organic matter re-use
(for composts and
sewage sludge)
Water, soil and
agriculture
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 reuse of composts for
the improvement of
PDL40.
Rural Development
have joint statutory
responsibility for
implementation of
the Nitrates
Directive42.
Refer to
England/Wales for
Sewage Sludge.
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
42
43
http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/waste/authorisation/exemption.htm
http://www.doeni.gov.uk/index/protect_the_environment/water/nitrates_.htm
http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/water.htm
Biomass use
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Contaminated
land
March 2013
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/planning
policystatements/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/shortrotation-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.environmentagency.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
th
Committee, 47 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 (19981998-0611, 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, 198701-08, 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-avavfall/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.environmentagency.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.
Materials may command a
price per m3, unless
processed on-site from
green wastes (in which case
revenue generation may be
possible).
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.
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 microorganisms such as
Aspergillus fumigatus.
Generally source
segregated materials are
well perceived.
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
Type
Description
March 2013
Strengths
Weaknesses
1774/2002).
risks from some microorganisms such as
Aspergillus fumigatus.
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. .
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 microorganisms such as
Aspergillus fumigatus.
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Type
Description
March 2013
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.
Untreated materials will pose
materials handling difficulties
as well as problems of odour
and potential microbial risks.
Potentially available at low They are likely to require
or zero cost
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
Agricultural Residues
(e.g. cereal straw, oil
seed rape straw).
Forestry Residues
(trimmings etc).
Description
Strengths
Post harvesting
residues.
Not regarded as
a waste, so
Low bulk density, seasonal
easier
supply, bulky for storage,
regulatory
vulnerable to moisture over
compliance.
storage, cost of materials, and
Ash or biochar
may already be existing uses.
may be
recyclable.
Residues produced
by forestry
management and
timber processing.
Not regarded as
a waste, so
Possibly seasonal supply, in
easier
some areas may already be used
regulatory
for established markets e.g. as
compliance
chipboard, and so cost of
Ash or biochar
materials may need to be met.
may be
recyclable.
Potential for
fairly uniform
materials.
Commercial and
industrial Waste
(waste paper, card,
rags, food processing
residues).
Accumulated waste
of business activities
collected by waste
management
organisations.
Potential to
command a
gate fee (for
waste
treatment).
Weaknesses
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.
Year round
availability.
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
-
Subsurface and
surface contaminants
-
Ingestion / inhalation /
dermal contact
-
Workers and public
not on bridle paths
-
Subsurface and
surface contaminants
-
Ingestion / inhalation /
dermal contact
-
Bridle path users
-
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
-
Mine gas
-
Explosion
-
All users
Remedial Objectives
Remedial Options
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.
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
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
Prevent mine gas
explosions
Possible remediation approaches, if
pollutant linkages are significant are:
 Permeable reactive barriers
(including bioscreens)
 Monitored natural attenuation
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.
T
Formula:
C
 I 
0
t 1
R  1i   L  1i 
t
T
t
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:
i i 
*
1
KW
 i  i 

KW KW
1
2
2
i*: IRR
1
1
KW 1: capital value
i1: interest
KW 2: capital value
i2: interest
Amortisation: Amortisation describes the period of time needed to recover capital investment
Formula:
A

I
D P
a
av
i
A: amortisation time
I: investment (asset costs)
Pav: average profit
i: imputed interest
Da= annual depreciation
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.
1i  i

1i 1
n
Formula:
ANF
ANFn,i: annuity factor
a: annuity value
n,i
n
i: interest
a  C  ANF
0
C0: capital value
n, i
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 TDIand 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.
,
Willow, Poplar, Pine, Miscanthus,
Switch grass, Reed Canary
Grass, Hemp,Wheat, Barley for
Willow, Poplar, Pine, Grass
ethanol, Maize, Oil seed rape,
Sun flower, Sugar beet,
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 costs
management
sameofas
for
The
and benefits
energy
any
similar
activities
(e.g.
working
crop highly depend on whether
machineries,
the
harvested transportation
crop will be etc.)
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
Figure 1. Project development for biofuel crop cultivation on with
contaminated
landcost
(from
a relative low
forBardos
risk et al.
2011).
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) Cropbased 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-B8DD548EB82CE802/0/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. Sitespecific 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
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.snowmanera.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_final_report.pdf).
Bardos, P., Bone, B., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Suer, P., Track, T., Wagelmans, M., (2011) Cropbased 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 ChronoEnvironnement, 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-deFrance 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 nonalimentary 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
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.
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

Hibiscus cannabinus: tropical annual crop

Trachycarpus fortunei : native to central China

Cocos nucifera : tropical and subtropical regions

Sedum alfredii: native to China
March 2013
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
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
Temperate
climate (it
depends on
cultivars).
Populus sp.
Phytostabilisation /
phytoextraction of
trace elements/
/rhizofiltration and
phytodegradation
of organics in
contaminated
groundwater
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).
Comment
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
pH 5.5-7.5
Phytostabilisation /
phytoextraction of
trace elements /
rhizofiltration and
phytodegradation
Salix sp.
of organics in
contaminated
groundwater.
Renewable energy
production (Witters
et al., 2012)
Miscanthus x
giganteus
Renewable energy
production,
Phytoremediation
Temperate
climate.
Can grow on a
wide range of
soil types but
requires high
water supplies.
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
pH 5.5 - 8
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 waterlimited conditions,
it has performed
best when
planted in clay
soils and worse
Grown in Ile de
when planted in
France region
sandy soils
(DRIAF, 2008).
(Heaton et al.,
2010).
Economic
constrains:
results to be less
profitable in terms
of annualized net
margin than the
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
usual
rape/wheat/barley
rotation
(Bocquého and
Jacquet, 2010
Adapted to a
large range of
soils and
climates.
Panicum virgatum
L.
Phytoextraction +
Renewable energy
production
Requires deep
soils with well
water supplies.
Combustion,
Biofuel
pH 5 – 8
Medicago sativa /
Brassica juncea
Renewable energy
production
(Medicago sativa),
Phytoextraction
(Brassica juncea)
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).
(RMT Biomasse,
2012)
For the moment,
there is no
market for these
crops (RMT
Biomasse, 2009).
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
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
Biofuel
Ability to provide its
own nitrogen
fertilizer Efficient
phytoextraction of
Cd for mustard
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
are limiting.
Medium-textured
soils such as
loams, silt loams,
and sandy loams
are ideal. Lighttextured soils,
such as coarse
sands, are too
drought prone for
alfalfa unless
irrigated. (Hall et
al., 2004)
et al., 2004)
Little current
valuation
opportunities for
Alfalfa biomass
energy. For the
moment, there is
no market. (RMT
Biomasse, 2009)
pH > 6.5
Biofuel
Hordeum vulgare /
Noccaea
caerulescens
Zea mays
/Brassica napus
Renewable energy
production,
Phytoextraction
Phytoextraction +
renewable energy
production (Witters
et al., 2012)
Temperate area
Temperate area
No market for
Noccaea
caerulescens
Biofuel
Efficient
phytoextraction of
Cd, Pb, and Zn
Efficient
phytoextraction of
Cd
Severe damages
due to Western
Corn Rootworm
were reported in
the plain of
Pierrelaye.
Low yields in Ilede-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)
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
Phytoextraction +
renewable energy
production (Witters
et al., 2012)
See appendix 2.
Biofuel
Helianthus
Annuus
Brassica napus
Low yields in Ilede-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
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
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).
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
Fig. 2a. Site location and major geological
features
March 2013
Fig. 2b. Location of two designated areas for
pedo-geochemical, geophysical and
hydrogeological studies.
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.
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
Risk assessment
Crop
Site conditions
Prior cultivation
(before 2007)
Initial condition
plus soil
management
plus crop
(2007)
Post remediation/
risk management
and interventions
incl. soil
management and
crop
Management
Relevant for the site
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
(2011)
Populus sp.
Temperate
climate (it
depends on
cultivars).
Sources : trace elements
(Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn)
Sources : trace
elements (Cd,
Cu, Pb and Zn)
Sources : trace
elements (Cd,
Cu, Pb and Zn)
Pathways:
Receptors:
Farmers,
intruders,
animals
Receptors:
Farmers,
intruders ,
animals
Can grow on a
wide range of
soil types but
requires deep
soils (from 80
cm to 1 m).
inhalation of dust, gases
Pathways:
Pathways:
soil ingestion
inhalation of dust,
gases
inhalation of dust,
gases
Soils with
>80% of sand
are to be
avoided,
unless clay
particles are
well
structured.
consumption of animals
which have ate
contaminated crops
soil ingestion
soil ingestion
consumption of
crops by animals
(stems, leaves,
etc.)
consumption of
crops by animals
(stems, leaves,
etc.)
Possible risks
to receptors:
Possible risks
to receptors:
Receptors: Farmers,
consumers (adults and
children), animals
consumption of food crops
Possible risks to
receptors: health risks:
serious systemic health
problems can develop as a
result of excessive dietary
Sums of
costs :
Potential
earnings:
- Incomes
from
energy crop
production
- CO2
abatement
cost (tax
breaks)
- Increase
in property
value
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
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)
March 2013
health risks for
farmers, toxicity
to animals
consuming
contaminated
crops.
health risks for
farmers, toxicity
to animals
consuming
contaminated
crops.
Impacts to
groundwater,
surface water
and air of the
soil?
Impacts to
groundwater,
surface water
and air of the
soil?
The risk is not yet
considered.
The risk is not yet
considered.
Risk is not acceptable
Sums of
costs :
Salix sp.
Temperate
climate. Wide
range of soil.
pH 5.5 – 8
Potential
earnings:
- Incomes
from
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
energy crop
production
- CO2
abatement
cost (tax
breaks)
- Increase
in property
value
Sums of
costs :
Can grow on a
large range of
soils, but it
requires deep
soils (>60 cm)
with well water
supplies.
Miscanthus
giganteus
pH 5.5 – 8
(RMT
Biomasse,
2012).
Potential
earnings:
- Incomes
from
energy crop
production
- CO2
abatement
cost (tax
breaks)
- Increase
in property
value
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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
Implantation
2 500 – 3 000
Harvest
8 000 – 10 000*
Implantation
3 000
Harvest
3 000 – 6 000**
Willow SRC
Miscanthus
Crop
Values (€/ha excl. taxes.)
* for 20 years; years per crops cycles: 2 (10 harvests)
** for 10 to 20 years (1 harvest per year)
99
Reference
AILE, 2007
RMT Biomasse, 2009
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
Potential revenue earning potentials for the different alternatives
Benefits
Poplar SRC
Willow SRC
Miscanthus Crop
Incomes from energy crop production
?
59 – 89 €/t
80 €/t (Céréopa,
(AILE, 2007) 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
100
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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
Dry mass of crop
Poplar SRC
Willow SRC
Miscanthus 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.: -
101
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
Preparatory activities, type of machines and maintenance need for the tree alteranatives
Poplar SRC
Willow SRC
Miscanthus Crop
Deep mouldboard
plough
Soil tillage
machinery
Tool with vibrating
tine
Rotary harrow
Rotary harrow
Preparatory activities
Ploughing
Shallow tillage
Secondary tillage
Rotary harrow
Weed control
Total weed control
Fertilization
optional
Total weed control
Cultivation
Planting
Specific planting
machines (manual or
semi-automatic)
Specific planting
machines (manual or
semi-automatic)
Specific planting
machines (manual or
semi-automatic)
Hoeing (2 years)
Chemical or/and
mechanical weed
control
Weeding harrow,
hoeing machines or
chemical weed
control (3 times the
first year after
planting)
Maintenance
Weed control
(1 – 2 years)
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.
102
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
Considerations taken into account for assessing the project risks
Stakeholder
views
Technology
status
Detailed
diligence
Are there any conflicts with
potential stakeholders to be
expected?
No
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.
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.
103
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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.
104
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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
105
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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
106
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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.
-1
Concentrations (mg kg ) of pollutants in sediment disposal site, Scenario 2
Regarding adults, results lead to an acceptable (or tolerable) risk for both threshold and nonthreshold 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.
107
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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
108
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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
109
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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
Maize
wheat
It is already cultivated in the region and on dredged sediment
landfill sites in the region
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.
.
110
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
Zone
studied
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
Willow
SRC biomass
Poplar
Miscanthus
Switchgrass
Grasses and straw
Red Canary Grass
Hairgrass
Hemp
Fibre
Linen
Nettle
Barley
Maize
Grain
Oil seed rape
Sugar beet
Wheat
111
Availability in the nearby area
No, near the region
No, near the region
No
No
No
Easily available (seed bearer) in the region
Easily available (seed bearer) in the region
Easily available (seed bearer) in the region
No seed bearer
Easily available (seed bearer) in the region
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
Species
Constrains
Willow
Poplar
Miscanthus
Switchgrass
Red Canary Grass
Hemp
Linen
Nettle
Barley
Maize
Oil seed rape
Sugar beet
Wheat
Hairgrass
No, only the pH (<8)
No, only the pH (<8)
Species
Willow
Poplar
Hemp
Linen
Nettle
Barley
Wheat
Hairgrass
Maize
Yes, landowner wishes, they cannot be used
No
No
Harvest of grain, seed provider?
No
No
Benefits
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)
Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil
structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching
Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil
structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching
Not really, no market
Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil
structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching
Not really, superficial roots system (not met the phytostabilisation objective)
Soil covers, reduce risk due to dust wing, roots system approve the soil
Oil seed rape
structure and contribute to reduce risk of leaching
Sugar beet
Not really, not met the phytostabilisation objective
Species
Willow
Poplar
Hemp
Linen
Barley, wheat, Maize, oil
seed rape, sugar beet,
hairgrass
112
Relevant market/utilization
Biomass for energy purpose,
combustion plant is a main utilization
Biomass for energy purpose,
combustion plant is a main utilization
Textile, ecodesign, construction
materials, paper mill...
Not for food consumption, energy crop
(bio-fuel, methanisation), composting
biomaterial (plastic conception),
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Species
Willow
Poplar
Hemp
Linen
Nettle
Barley, Maize, Oil
seed rape, sugar
beet, wheat,
hairgrass
March 2013
Relevant market/utilization in the area or
neighborhood
Big combustion plants are and will be installed in
the region
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
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.
113
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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
Willow
Poplar
Miscanthu
s
Switchgra
ss
May
contribute
to site
objectives
by:
Do not
accumulate
, reduce the
risk
(depend of
the clone
used) and
provide a
rent
Do not
accumulate
, reduce the
risk and
provide a
rent
reduce the
risk (soil
stabilization
) and
provide a
rent
Red
Canary
Grass
Hemp
114
Accumulati
on depend
of the clone
used
Crop
requiremen
ts
Utilization
Benefits
Constrain
pH < 8
wide type
of soil type
Well
aerated
Need water
Combustion
plant
Essays are
needed to
compare
the
biomass
with a
commercial
wood
Tolerate a
range of
climatic
conditions
Supply
water
High wateruse
efficiency
Combustion
plant
Favours
moist, cool
climates
with mean
winter
temperatur
es ≤ 7°C
and mean
summer
temperatur
es ≤27°C
Mild, humid
climate and
a highly
fertile soil
in particular
calcereous
soils
bioenergy
Soil
stabilizatio
n, reduce
risk
Resale of
wood: 18
000€
Soil
stabilizatio
n, reduce
risk
Soil
covers,
reduce risk
due to
dust wing,
roots
system
approve
the soil
structure
and
contribute
to reduce
risk of
leaching
Combustion
plant or
biofuel
Yes,
landowner
wishes
(cannot be
used)
Yes,
landowner
wishes
(cannot be
used)
Yes,
landowner
wishes
(cannot be
used)
Thermoplasti
c
compounds
production
(with fiber),
Need more
intervention
s
(fertilization
,
seedbed...)
every year,
Comme
nt
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
Moist, cool
weather
early part
of growing
season,
warm and
relatively
dry
climate
early
summer
Linen
Nettle
March 2013
Reduce the
risk (dust
wind)
Approve
the soil
structure,
Nitrogen
fixation
No relevant
market
pH max 6.5
Barley
pH max 6
Composting
plant,
methanisatio
n,
(bioenergy)
Wheat
Maize
Oil seed
rape
Sugar
beet
Reduce the
risk (dust
wind)
Reduce the
risk (dust
wind)
Reduce the
risk (dust
wind)
Reduce the
risk (dust
wind)
Hairgrass
Stage 2: Site suitability
115
research of
outlet
(specific for
crops
issued of a
contaminat
ed site,
traceability
No seed
provider
Soil
covers,
reduce risk
due to
dust wing,
roots
system
approve
the soil
structure
and
contribute
to reduce
risk of
leaching
pH max 5.5
pH max 6
Biofuel
pH max 6.5
Biofuel
Heavy soil,
no
calcareous
soil, good
moisture,
tolerate
temperatur
e until 15°C.
No utilization
for the
research site
yes
No
No
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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.
116
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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)
117
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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.
118
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
Table 2: Crop
Risk assessment
Crop
Willows
Poplars
Hairgras
s
Site
condition
s
Prior
cultivation
Risk for
human health
(dusts
inhalation, soil
ingestion)
Animal plant
consumption
Contamination
of food chain
(hunting
activities)
Wheat
Leaching of
TE
Barley
Star ; alternative 2 in table 2.
119
Initial condition
plus soil
management
plus crop
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)
reduce the
leaching, dust
wind
reduce the
leaching, dust
wind
Post
remediation/
risk
management
and
interventions
incl. soil
management
and crop
Management
Risk during the
harvest and
grubbing bare
sediment stage
at this end (dust
wind)
Dispersion of
pollutants in the
environment
during the
combustion
dispersion of
pollutants in the
environment
during the
valorization
process has to
be assessed
Phytoextraction
or
phytostabilisatio
n
Valorization
biomass
Relevant for
the site
Yes, good
for
biodiversity,
valorisation
on
combustion
plants in the
region, no
extra
managemen
t except for
the research
(sediment,
plant
samples...)
Annual
constraint,
not very
good for
biodiversity
on the site
Annual
constraint,
not very
good for
biodiversity
on the site
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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).
120
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
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.
121
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
March 2013
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.
122
Rejuvenate - Guide to DST
visits site
Land clearing
March 2013
Number of vehicles
Type of Vehicles
1
1
car
car
2
tractors (vegetation
management)
1
Soil work
Amendment
Slags spreading
Hairgrass seed
Hairgrass seedbed
Plants (1,50m à 2m)
garden tarpaulin
Manual plantation
Harvest (8 harvests)
Storage, drying wood
1
2hrs*3
1
5-7 l.h-1
5-7 l.h-1
Total consumption
(l) (round trip)
60 to 84
5 to 7
< 30 km
72 hrs (9 days) +2
hours (trip)
11l.h-1
1606
tractors are staying on site
during the work (9 days)
< 30 km
16
11l.h-1
374
number of hour : 2 days of
8 hours / tractors
< 30 km
80 km
less than 10 km
40 km
less than 10 km
200 km
200 km
< 30 km
200
around 30 km
less than 10 km
180 km
11.5
1.5
2
1
4
2
2
4
2
8
8
2
11l.h-1
10 l.h-1
11l.h-1
10 l.h-1
11l.h-1
10l.h-1
5-7 l.h-1
11l.h-1
5-7 l.h-1
10 l.h-1
11l.h-1
5-7 l.h-1
148.5
15
22
20
44
40
20 to 28
66
40 to 56
100
110
10
option 2 : 60 to 80 km (in a
combustion plant)
option 3 : less than 20 km
(local farmer)
Number of hour Fuel comsumption
1
10l.h-1
10
1
11l.h-1
11
3
11l.h-1
33
1.5
10l.h-1
15
1
10l.h-1
10
1
option 3 : tractors
1
tractor (loading on
site)
1
truck
1
truck
Grass 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
Transport for valorization
123
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
tractors (invasive
species management)
tractor
truck
tractor
truck
tractor
pick up
car
tractor
car
Adapted silo filler
tractor + trailer
car (INERIS)
option 1 : on-site
option 2 : a truck
Number of kilometers
(source to the site)
180*3(days) = 540 km
< 30 km
less than 10 km
option 1: 60 to 80 km (in a
combustion plant)
option 2 : less than 30 km
(local user, individual boiler
(supplying = local farmer))
Comments
Amendment Supplying
from seed bearer
with plants transportation
people transport
option 1: on site
option 2 : combustion
plant
option 3 : local farmer
storage on site or a local
specific installation
storage at a local farmer or
in a local specific
installation
tractors are staying on site
during the work (7 days)
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?
Here a detailed technical
appraisal of Stage 1 and Stage
2 information shall be
undertaken. Experiences from
the project:.
Aided phytostabilisation at the
demonstration stage(set up)
Monitoring and sustainable efficiency still at
a research demonstration stage on the field
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
Some technical problems
occurred. Yellowing of willows
leaves has been observed,
might be due to phytotoxicity or
completion for water and
nutrient needs.
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