Warrenpoint Harbour. Best Practical Environmental Option Assessment

Transcription

1 Warrenpoint Harbour Best Practical Environmental Option Assessment July 2015 Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Laburnham Farm Upper Weare Axbridge Somerset BS26 2LE Project Nr 440 tel: info@anthonybates.co.uk web:

2 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment Client : Project : Title : Warrenpoint Harbour Warrenpoint Turning Basin Dredging Best Practicable Environmental Option Assessment Prepared by: Reviewed by: DRAFT NAME NAME C M Sheehan A D Bates DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE 17 th July 2015 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Final NAME NAME C M Sheehan M Maloney DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE 20 th July 2015 This report, and information or advice which it contains, is provided by Anthony Bates Partnership solely for internal use and reliance by its Client in performance of Anthony Bates Partnership s duties and liabilities under its contract with the Client. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this report should be read and relied upon only in the context of the report as a whole. The advice and opinions in this report are based upon the information made available to Anthony Bates Partnership at the date of this report and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this report. This report has been prepared by Anthony Bates Partnership in their professional capacity as Consulting Engineers. The contents of the report do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion. This report is prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of Anthony Bates Partnership s contract with the Client. Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this report. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants

3 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment Contents 1 INTRODUCTION THE NEED FOR DREDGING PRESENT PRACTICE Historic Campaigns Sampling Dredge Material Management General Prevention Beneficial Use Beach Nourishment Land Reclamation/Improvement Coastal Protection using Geotubes Landfill Cover/Liner and Quarry/Mine Infilling Manufactured to Topsoil Aggregate Industry Recycling Sediment Cell Maintenance Processing/Recovery Continued Disposal at Existing Site Best Practical Environmental Option... 9 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B... Error! Bookmark not defined. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants

4 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment 1 INTRODUCTION This report concerns the management of dredged materials from Warrenpoint Port. The Port is situated on the East Coast of Northern Ireland in Country Down. Warrenpoint Port is a successful organisation and since 2013 the total cargo was the highest tonnage throughout the port s history (over 3 million tonnes). The trade generated turnover in 2013 was 4.62 million and is expected to rise. This business coupled with the greater value of port related trade and industry represents an important factor in the local economy and is estimated to be responsible for 1,400 jobs in the locally economy. In common with many ports that are located within the zone of the interface between fresh river outflow and saline lough/estuary water, the Port suffers from almost continuous loss of depth in its navigation and berthing areas. Locally the Ports of Londonderry and Belfast suffer similar problems. The OSPAR Convention recognises that dredging is essential to maintain navigation in ports and harbours as well as for the development of port facilities and that much of the material removed during these necessary activities requires disposal at sea. Within the OSPAR Convention framework dredged materials have been listed in Article 3.2 of Annex II as being permitted to be dumped at sea. However the OSPAR Convention requires consideration of the potential for beneficial use of dredged materials, over dumping at sea, where possible. The OSPAR Commission s Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material (2009) states that where no beneficial or financially viable use for dredged material is available then disposal of material at sea is acceptable. Furthermore a duty of care is placed on Harbour Authorities by Section 63 and Schedule 3, paragraph 6 of the Transport and Works Act A new insertion, 48A, into the Harbours Act 1964, headed 'Environmental duties of Harbour Authorities', states as follows:-...conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest. This report describes past and current dredging and disposal practices and examines a range of alternative dredge material management options for the disposal of dredged materials, including continued disposal at sea. This report has been drafted to facilitate an informed decision by the regulators on an application by the port for a minor dredging campaign to remedy the build-up of coarse material within the turning circle area. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.1

5 2 THE NEED FOR DREDGING Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment The Port of Warrenpoint has already applied for a multiyear maintenance dredge license. However, urgent dredging is required within the turning circle area and requires a separate expedited application. The reason for this request is the presence of a significant navigational hazard within the turning circle area. Figure 1 demonstrates the present situation (orange high spot in the middle of the turning circle). The design level of the turning circle is 5.4mCD, however, there is now a high spot present up to 3.5mCD. This has occurred due to the turning of the new larger ferries. Upon arrival the ferry uses the turning circle, swinging with their twin propellers rotating in opposite directions to hasten the turning manoeuvre whilst maintaining control. This has resulted in a scouring of the northern half of the turning circle. The vortex created has displaced heavy material within the centre of the turning circle (area of least resistance). This matter is now significantly restricting port operations, particularly with regard to the twice daily ferries. Figure 1 Bathymetry of Inner Harbour The Port has attempted to reduce the level of this high spot, with both a local plough and a mobilised large plough during July However, the material is too heavy and no significant impact has been achieved. Due to this the Port must now consider using larger scale plant to remove this material as soon as possible and wish to deposit at the licensed site as per the recent application. The volume of material causing the immediate obstruction is not large at a maximum of 6,000m³. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.2

6 3 PRESENT PRACTICE 3.1 Historic Campaigns Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment Routine maintenance dredging has been carried out sporadically and has been interspersed with localised dredging and capital works. Large scale maintenance dredging of the whole Port was carried out in 2005 and All maintenance dredging has been undertaken by a small or medium sized trailing suction hopper dredger (1,400 to 6,000m 3 capacity) with the assistance of a plough vessel to assist with bed levelling. Between 2005 and 2008 capital works using a mechanical dredger was used to deepen areas of resistant material. The details pertaining to the historical dredging campaigns in Warrenpoint Port are summarised in Table 1 below. Table 1 Warrenpoint Port Historical Dredging Campaigns with Disposal at Sea Year Works Undertaken Method/Volume 2014 Deep Water Pocket (Maintenance Works) TSHD - 30,000m³ 2011/12 Entire Harbour Area and Approaches (Maintenance Works) TSHD - 390,000m³ 2008 Turning Circle Area (Maintenance Works) TSHD - 25,000m³ 2009 Breakwater footprint, container ship berths pocket, turning circle re-instatement (Capital Works) Backhoe - 127,000m³ RoRo Berth (Capital Works) Backhoe - 20,000m³ 2005 Town Dock Phase 2 (Capital Works) Backhoe - 41,000m³ 2005 Turning Basin and Approach Channel (Maintenance Works) TSHD - 268,000m³ 2004 Old Town Dock Phase 1 (Capital Works) Backhoe - 13,000m³ The volume of annual dredged material in any given year may vary subject to weather, sea state and by area in which the work is required. In recent years, the range of quantities dredged has ranged from 10,000 to 390,000 cubic metres. The dredging methodology is more consistent, with a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger being used for all maintenance works in the Port. All dredged materials have been disposed of at a licensed disposal site 26km from the Port and approximately 11km outside of the Lough. This licensed area is a dispersive site area with water depths exceeding 30m. The centre of the area (Figure 2) is defined by the following co-ordinates: Circle of 0.25NM centred on N and 'W Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.3

7 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment Figure 2 Current Licensed Disposal at Sea Location 3.2 Sampling and Testing In 2014 AQUAFACT International Services Ltd was commissioned by Warrenpoint Harbour Authority to carry out a physical and chemical sediment survey within the inner harbour, adjacent to the proposed dredge area within this application. Sediment samples were taken at 10 locations and full details of the testing report are included in Appendix B. In 2015, during the pre-application for a multiyear disposal at sea license, sample sites were specified by the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland. AQUAFACT International Services Ltd was commissioned by Warrenpoint Harbour Authority to carry out a physical and chemical sediment sampling to facilitate this application. Sediment samples were taken at 18 locations, with a total of 45 samples acquired at various depths. Of relevance to this application is Sample 5 and 9 (Sample location map included in Appendix A). No viable sample for chemical testing purposes was recovered at Station 9 as gravel/cobbles were recovered on each occasion of sampling (Figure 3). This granular material cannot be analysed for the various chemical parameters required and is the material currently causing a navigational obstruction. Figure 3 Gravel and Cobbles recovered at Station 9 Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.4

8 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment Although chemical analysis could not be undertaken on Sample 9 the results of the other pertinent samples, including Sample 5, indicate the composition of the target and surrounding sediments, as some minor fractions of silt may be present within the elevated gravel/cobbles within the turning circle. Full details of the 2015 testing results are included in Appendix C. 4 Dredge Material Management 4.1 General To facilitate this license application a review of potential alternatives was undertaken for a variety of management techniques. Figure 5 outlines different methods of managing dredge material and is put into a hierarchy of desirability. Avoiding dredging completely or minimising the dredge quantity would be most desirable and disposing in the aquatic environment or on land would be the least desirable. This hierarchy has been developed from the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), from which Ireland s Waste Management Acts are derived. The following sections detail each segment from the dredge management pyramid (starting from the most desirable - prevention) and analyses its suitability within Warrenpoint harbour. Avoid dredging, minimise dredge quantity Prevention Desirability Apply a beneficial use technique Beneficial Use Retain the DM within the local estuarine system (Sediment Cell Maintenance) Treat to improve DM properties for potential reuse Recycling Processing/Recovery Dispose DM in the aquatic environment or on land Disposal Figure 5 Hierarchy for Prioritising DM Management (Sheehan and Harrington, 2011) 1 1 Sheehan, C., Harrington, J.R. (2011), The Management of Dredge Material in the Republic of Ireland A Review, Journal of Waste Management 32(5), pp Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.5

9 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment 4.2 Prevention Dredging is required to remove a navigational hazard that is currently present in the turning circle. As detailed above the material is relocated by the turning RoRo ferries as they approach the harbour. Discussions have been carried out to mitigate this problem by varying the manoeuvring methodology used by these vessels. However it is currently considered, by the vessel captains, that the present practice is the safest procedure given the local conditions. Continued build-up of the course granular material will continue to reduce the transit window available until eventually, trade will have to cease on navigational safety grounds. 4.3 Beneficial Use A full BPEO assessment for beneficial uses was undertaken for the current disposal at sea license application currently under consideration. However, only a minor portion of granular material is proposed to be dredged in this remedial maintenance dredging campaign. Nevertheless, the following sections will briefly assess each of the most pertinent beneficial use options to determine their feasibility for the Port of Warrenpoint Beach Nourishment Beach nourishment is a technique used regularly to replenish beach areas that have suffered losses by placing suitable material at optimum locations. Whilst beach nourishment is an option to help manage coastal erosion it can also prevent localised flooding, lessen the impact of storm damage by dissipating energy and provide a recreational area. This management option has been considered for this campaign. However, it is not considered a viable option due to the following: There is no demand to expand local beaches for recreational or commercial purposes; Beach nourishment generally requires hydraulic dredgers such as TSHD to facilitate placement. However, this type of dredger is not be capable of dredging the gravel/cobbles/boulders present; The material size and composition is not conducive to beach nourishment projects Land Reclamation/Improvement Land Reclamation is perhaps the best known use of dredge material and involves raising the level of land which is either just below or adjacent to the water. Land improvement is a variety of this which raises the level of already established land to prevent against flooding. These management options have been considered for this campaign. However, it is not considered a viable option due to the following: After review land improvement within the ports available land area is complete, with no further requirement for land improvement; There is no justification or demand for reclaiming land in the locality, with ample residential and industrial space available for future growth; The cost of landing material ashore, and transfer to a final placement site, is significantly greater than disposal at sea Coastal Protection using Geotubes Geotubes are large bags made from a high tensile strength woven polypropylene geotextile. Geotubes are designed to receive and retain pumped sediment while allowing water to escape through the pores of the geotube. Initially designed as a dewatering mechanism Geotubes have since evolved and are now used for containment of sediments in Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.6

10 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment marine structures. Alternatively they can be used in the retention and isolation of contaminated sediments. These management options have been considered for this campaign. However, it is not considered a viable option due to the following: No protection works entailing revetments or breakwaters are planned locally; Material is not suitable for hydraulic dredging and recovery. Hence geotubes cannot be hydraulically filled; Accurate marine placement for direct coastal protection would require alternative plant, at a significant cost Landfill Cover/Liner and Quarry/Mine Infilling Dredge material may be used as a landfill cover/liner or used to fill disused quarries and mines. Assessing the suitability of materials for disposal on land, the Waste Disposal Authority gives consideration to the characteristics of the material to be disposed. In the case of dredged materials arising from maintenance dredging, the main considerations usually are particle size, contamination issues and salt and water content. The material proposed to be dredged in the turning circle could potentially be used for land fill cover at a local landfill site 10.5km away in Newry. However, there would be significant increases in costs associated with double handling ashore and subsequent transport and placement. This would not be economical as daily cover is currently provided by ample quantities of construction and demolition waste. No redundant local quarries or mines have been identified in the area. For the above reasons landing dredged sediment ashore for treatment and transport to a landfill site or redundant quarry is unfeasible at this time Manufactured to Topsoil Dredged material (in conjunction with household organic waste), can be used for agricultural or horticultural purposes. This would have a benefit of producing a regular destination for a portion of the annual material produced from dredging. Warrenpoint do not currently use dredged material for this purpose. While this management option has been considered for this campaign it is not considered a viable option due to the material being too coarse to be included in a topsoil mix (greater than allowed for in British Standard 3882:2007) Aggregate Industry Dredged aggregates are an attractive alternative to land based sources. When compared with onshore quarrying activities extraction and emissions costs are less than 50%. Transport costs are less than 15% as a 5000t Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger transports the equivalent of 250 trucks. It has been estimated that, for example, 6 tonnes of offshore material costs the same as the equivalent of 1 tonne from onshore. Currently, the dredged material from Warrenpoint is not used for aggregates and currently the Crown Estates does not have any licensed aggregate sites in Northern Ireland. This management option has been considered for this campaign. However, it is not considered a viable option due to the following: Material is not well graded and is likely to require crushing for further use; Material matrix type and structure, not ideal for the manufacture of concrete; Minor silt and saline content will require washing for removal; Multiple handling of material will increase costs significantly. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.7

11 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment 4.4 Recycling Sediment Cell Maintenance Sediment Cell Maintenance involves the 'in estuary' placement of dredge material, either by trickle charging or direct intertidal placement, to ensure that perturbations to a location from essential dredging works is minimised. This is also known as sustainable relocation and applies exclusively to maintenance dredging as this sediment is inherently mobile within the local environment. Undertaking plough dredging or water injection dredging is generally termed as sediment cell maintenance as the material is retained with the local environment. Neither of these methods is suitable for the material proposed to be dredged as they cannot relocate this type of material. 4.5 Processing/Recovery There is no practical viable benefit from processing the material, excluding dewatering and desalination for specific beneficial uses outlined above. 4.6 Continued Disposal at Existing Site For many years, all dredged material has been disposed of at the current licensed site 26km from the Port in depths exceeding 30m (Figure 2). During each campaign, 10,000 to 390,000m 3 of dredged material has been disposed of in this location (Table 1). Throughout its use, no impacts have been observed internally by the Port or received from any third party through the extended use of this site. Due to the characteristics of the material proposed to be dredged the majority will not be dispersed but will remain within the boundaries of the licensed disposal site. The volume is minor in comparison to historic campaigns and disposal events should take no longer than 2-3 weeks, with a period of 5 days likely to be sufficient to complete the works depending on the plant used. This will entail a much lower disposal rate than has been previously implemented at the marine disposal site. Whilst the use of this disposal site has significant costs to the Port, hitherto it has been considered to be the best practical social, logistical and environmental option available. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.8

12 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment 5 Best Practical Environmental Option After review it is deemed that disposal at sea, at the historic disposal site, is the most appropriate method for the disposal of material from the Port of Warrenpoint for the short term. This is primarily due to the current disposal site providing adequate performance logistically, economically and environmentally to the satisfaction of all of the stakeholders. Despite the above finding, alternative options to disposal at sea, such as the option outlined in Section 4.4.1, will continue to be investigated by the Port of Warrenpoint, with the goal of implementing the best social, economic and environmental dredge material management process possible. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.9

13 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment APPENDIX A Sediment Sample Locations 2015 Inner Harbour Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.10

14

15 Warrenpoint Port - BPEO Assessment APPENDIX B 2014 Action Levels Report and NLS Lab Report Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP Dredging, Harbour & Coastal Consultants Page.11

16 Analyte Units A 0m A 0.5m A 1.0m B 0m B 1.0m B 0.5m C 0m C 0.5m C 1.0m D 0m D 0.5m D 1.0m E 0m E 0.5m E 1.0m F 0m Mercury : Dry Wt mg/kg Arsenic, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Cadmium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Chromium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Copper, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Lead, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Nickel, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Zinc : HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Sum 16 PAH mg/kg Sum 7 PCB mg/kg Sum TBT and DBT ug/kg Sampling Test Results Highlighted cells indicate above Action Level 1 Cells with "0" indicate restuls are less than the limits of detection

17 Analyte Units F 0.5m F 1.0m G 0m G 0.5m G 1.0m H 0m H 0.5m H 1.0m I 0m I 0.5m I 1.0m J 0m J 0.5m J 1.0m Cefas Level 1 (mg/kg) Cefas Level 2 (mg/kg) Mercury : Dry Wt Arsenic, HF Digest : Dry Wt Cadmium, HF Digest : Dry Wt Chromium, HF Digest : Dry Wt Copper, HF Digest : Dry Wt Lead, HF Digest : Dry Wt Nickel, HF Digest : Dry Wt Zinc : HF Digest : Dry Wt Sum 16 PAH Sum 7 PCB Sum TBT and DBT mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ug/kg

18 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments MARCH 2014 Report for the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority AQUAFACT International Services Ltd. 12 Kilkerrin Park Tuam Road Galway City tel +353 (0) fax +353 (0)

19 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Materials and Methods Particle Size Analysis (PSA) Loss on Ignition Moisture content and Sediment density Results Particle Size Analysis (PSA) Loss on Ignition Moisture content and Sediment density Contaminant Analysis... 8 List of Figures Figure 2.1: Sediment Stations, Warrenpoint Harbour, 13 th March List of Tables Table 1.1: Average particle size, based on the Wentworth scale... 1 Table 1.2: Limits of Detection... 2 Table 2.1: Coordinates of the Sampling Points, Warrenpoint Harbour, 13 th March Table 3.1: Results of the granulometric analysis on the sediments from Warrenpoint Harbour, March Table 3.2: Results of the LOI, % moisture content, and density analysis carried out on the sediments from Warrenpoint Harbour, March Table 3.3: Chemical contaminant results from sediments from Warrenpoint Harbour, March Table 3.4: Chemical contaminant results from sediments from Warrenpoint Harbour, March Appendix 1 Appendices NLS

20 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN Introduction AQUAFACT International Services Ltd was commissioned by Warrenpoint Harbour Authority to carry out a sediment survey at Warrenpoint Harbour, Co Down. The survey was conducted on 13 th March Samples were be analysed for the following parameters in accordance with the OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material, Sintra, July 1998, Technical Annex 1. Tier 1: Physical Properties Average Particle Size (%sand, silt, clay) (see Table 1 below) Total solids (%) Percentage solids (dry matter) Density/specific gravity Organic matter (as total organic carbon) Table 1.0.1: Average particle size, based on the Wentworth scale Description Lower Range Upper Range Boulders 256mm+ Cobbles 64mm 256mm Pebbles 4mm 64mm Granules 2mm 4mm Sand 62 microns 2mm Silt and Clay 62 microns Tier 2: Chemical Properties Cadmium Copper Mercury Zinc Chromium Lead Nickel 1

21 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN1246 Arsenic Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) congeners IUPAC nos, 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153,180 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Tributyl tin and Dibutyl tin The Limits of Detection for the chemical analysis can be seen in Table 1.2 below. Table 0.2: Limits of Detection Parameter Cadmium Copper Mercury Zinc Chromium Lead Nickel Arsenic PCBs PAH TBT and DBT Level of Detection 0.03 mg/kg 1.0 mg/kg mg/kg 5.0 mg/kg 3.0 mg/kg 3.0 mg/kg 1.0 mg/kg 0.4 mg/kg 0.1 µg/kg (per congener) 2 30 µg/kg (per PAH) 3 µg/kg each 2. Materials and Methods Sediment samples were taken at the 10 locations outlined in Figure 2.1 and Table

22 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN1246 Figure 2.1: Sediment Stations, Warrenpoint Harbour, 13 th March 2014 At each station, sediments were sampled at 3 depths. One sample was taken at the surface of the sediment by means of a m 2 Van Veen grab, and two samples were taken subsequently using a gravity corer at respective depths of 0.5m and 1m below the sediment surface. Sediment was taken at each station for contaminant analysis, organic carbon content, particle size analysis, sediment density, and moisture content. All sampling jars were marked externally with date, station number, sample number and survey reference number and placed in a cooler box. Table 2.1: Coordinates of the Sampling Points, Warrenpoint Harbour, 13 th March Station Latitude Longitude A B C D E F

23 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN1246 Station Latitude Longitude G H I J On return to the laboratory, sub-samples for contaminant samples were sent to the UK Environment Agencies National Laboratory Service facility at Leeds for the analysis. 2.1 Particle Size Analysis (PSA) AQUAFACT carried out the PSA analysis in-house using the following methodology: 1. Approximately 100g of dried sediment (previously washed in distilled water and dried) was weighed out and placed in a labelled 1L glass beaker to which 100ml of a 6 percent hydrogen peroxide solution was added. This was allowed to stand overnight in a fume hood. 2. The beaker was placed on a hot plate and heated gently. Small quantities of hydrogen peroxide were added to the beaker until there was no further reaction. This peroxide treatment removed any organic material from the sediment which can interfere with grain size determination. 3. The beaker was then emptied of sediment and rinsed into a 63μm sieve. This was then washed with distilled water to remove any residual hydrogen peroxide. The sample retained on the sieve was then carefully washed back into the glass beaker up to a volume of approximately 250ml of distilled water ml of sodium hexametaphosphate solution was added to the beaker and this solution was stirred for ten minutes and then allowed to stand overnight. This treatment helped to dissociate the clay particles from one another. 5. The beaker with the sediment and sodium hexametaphosphate solution was washed and rinsed into a 63μm sieve. The retained sample was carefully washed from the sieve into a labelled aluminium tray and placed in an oven for drying at 100ºC for 24 hours. 4

24 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN The dried sediment was then passed through a Wentworth series of analytical sieves (>8,000 to 63μm; single phi units). The weight of material retained in each sieve was weighed and recorded. The material which passed through the 63μm sieve was also weighed and the value added to the value measured in Point 5 (above). 7. The total silt/clay fraction was determined by subtracting all weighed fractions from the initial starting weight of sediment as the less than 63μm fraction was lost during the various washing stages. 8. The following range of particle sizes: <63 m, 63<125 m, 125<250 m, 250<500 m, 500<1000 m, 1000<2000 m, 2000<4000 m and 4000<8000 m were reported. 2.2 Loss on Ignition All organic matter samples were sent to ALS Labs for analysis. The following methodology was used: 1. The collected sediments were transferred to aluminium trays, homogenised by hand and dried in an oven at 100º C for 24 hours. 2. A sample of dried sediment was placed in a mortar and pestle and ground down to a fine powder. 3. 1g of this ground sediment was weighed into a pre-weighed crucible and placed in a muffle furnace at 450ºC for a period of 6 hours. 4. The sediment samples were then allowed to cool in a desiccator for 1 hour before being weighed again. 5. The organic content of the sample was determined by expressing as a percentage of the weight of the sediment after ignition over the initial weight of the sediment. 2.3 Moisture content and Sediment density Moisture content was taken as the percentage weight difference between the wet and dried sediment. Sediment density was calculated by placing a fixed volume (100 ml) of sediment in a volumetric cylinder and weighing the contents. 5

25 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN Results 3.1 Particle Size Analysis (PSA) The results of the granulometric analysis carried out on all 30 sediment samples are included as Table 3.1. In general, the sediments were dominated by fine sand, with the remainder mostly belonging to the silt-clay fraction. Table 3.1: Results of the granulometric analysis on the sediments from Warrenpoint Harbour, March Station Boulders (>256mm) Cobbles (64-256mm) Pebbles (4-64mm) Granules (2-4mm) Sand (62-2mm) Silt-Clay (<62mm) A 0.0m A 0.5m A 1.0m B 0.0m B 0.5m B 1.0m C 0.0m C 0.5m C 1.0m D 0.0m D 0.5m D 1.0m E 0.0m E 0.5m E 1.0m F 0.0m F 0.5m F 1.0m G 0.0m G 0.5m G 1.0m H 0.0m H 0.5m H 1.0m I 0.0m I 0.5m I 1.0m J 0.0m J 0.5m J 1.0m

26 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN Loss on Ignition Table 3.2 shows the organic carbon results from each of the grab stations. Organic matter levels ranged from 9.25% (D 0.5m) to 11.35% at (F 0.5m). Table 3.2: Results of the LOI, % moisture content, and density analysis carried out on the sediments from Warrenpoint Harbour, March Station % LOI % Moisture Content Sediment Density (g/ml) A 0.0m A 0.5m A 1.0m B 0.0m B 0.5m B 1.0m C 0.0m C 0.5m C 1.0m D 0.0m D 0.5m D 1.0m E 0.0m E 0.5m E 1.0m F 0.0m F 0.5m F 1.0m G 0.0m G 0.5m G 1.0m H 0.0m H 0.5m H 1.0m I 0.0m I 0.5m I 1.0m J 0.0m J 0.5m J 1.0m Moisture content and Sediment density The water content and density results can be seen in Table 3.2 above. Values ranged from (H 1.0m) to 70.39% (A 0.0m) for moisture content and from 1.33 (A 0.0m) to 1.60 g/ml (S13) for density. 7

27 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN Contaminant Analysis The results of the contaminant analysis carried out on the sediment samples are presented below in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. Appendix 1 contains the analytical report from NLS. 8

28 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN1246 Table 3.3: Chemical contaminant results from sediments from Warrenpoint Harbour, March Analyte Units A 0m A 0.5m A 1.0m B 0m B 1.0m B 0.5m C 0m C 0.5m C 1.0m D 0m D 0.5m D 1.0m E 0m E 0.5m Mercury : Dry Wt mg/kg Aluminium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Arsenic, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Cadmium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Chromium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Copper, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Lead, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Nickel, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Zinc : HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Acenaphthene : Dry Wt ug/kg Acenaphthylene : Dry Wt ug/kg Anthracene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(a)anthracene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(a)pyrene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(b)fluoranthene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(ghi)perylene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(k)fluoranthene : Dry Wt ug/kg Chrysene + Triphenylene : Dry Wt ug/kg Dibenzo(ah)anthracene : Dry Wt ug/kg Fluoranthene : Dry Wt ug/kg Fluorene : Dry Wt ug/kg Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene : Dry Wt ug/kg Naphthalene : Dry Wt ug/kg Phenanthrene : Dry Wt ug/kg

29 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN1246 Analyte Units A 0m A 0.5m A 1.0m B 0m B 1.0m B 0.5m C 0m C 0.5m C 1.0m D 0m D 0.5m D 1.0m E 0m E 0.5m Pyrene : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg Dibutyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation ug/kg <9 <7 <8 120 <7 <7 <9 <7 <7 < <6 <8 <6 Tributyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation ug/kg <9 < <7 <7 <9 <7 <7 <8 <7 <6 <8 <6 Dry 30 C % Accreditation Assessment No

30 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN1246 Table 3.4: Chemical contaminant results from sediments from Warrenpoint Harbour, March Analyte Units E 1.0m F 0m F 0.5m F 1.0m G 0m G 0.5m G 1.0m H 0m H 0.5m H 1.0m I 0m I 0.5m I 1.0m J 0m J 0.5m J 1.0m Mercury : Dry Wt mg/kg Aluminium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Arsenic, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Cadmium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Chromium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Copper, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Lead, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Nickel, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Zinc : HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg Acenaphthene : Dry Wt ug/kg Acenaphthylene : Dry Wt ug/kg Anthracene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(a)anthracene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(a)pyrene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(b)fluoranthene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(ghi)perylene : Dry Wt ug/kg Benzo(k)fluoranthene : Dry Wt ug/kg Chrysene + Triphenylene : Dry Wt Dibenzo(ah)anthracene : Dry Wt ug/kg ug/kg Fluoranthene : Dry Wt ug/kg Fluorene : Dry Wt ug/kg Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene : Dry Wt ug/kg Naphthalene : Dry Wt ug/kg

31 Warrenpoint Harbour Sediments AF/JN1246 Analyte Units E 1.0m F 0m F 0.5m F 1.0m G 0m G 0.5m G 1.0m H 0m H 0.5m H 1.0m I 0m I 0.5m I 1.0m J 0m J 0.5m J 1.0m Phenanthrene : Dry Wt ug/kg Pyrene : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg Dibutyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation ug/kg <7 < <7 <9 <7 <7 <6 <7 <7 <9 <7 <7 <9 <9 <7 Tributyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation ug/kg < <7 <7 < <6 <7 <7 <9 <7 <7 <9 <9 <7 Dry 30 C % Accreditation Assessment No

32 Appendix 1 NLS

33 Report ID Batch description: Sediment Analysis 19-May-2014 Helen Diskin AQUAFACT International Services Ltd 12 Kilkierrin Park Liosbaun Galway Dear Helen Please find attached the results for the batch of 31 samples described below. Samples Registered on: 19-Mar-2014 Analysis Started on: 20-Mar-2014 Analysis Completed on: 16-May-2014 Results for Batch Number Your Purchase Order Number: AF TN1246 You will be invoiced shortly by our accounts department. If we can be of further assistance then please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours sincerely William Fardon Customer Services Team Manager Tel: (0113) nls@environment-agency.gov.uk Opinions and interpretations expressed herein are outside the scope of UKAS Accreditation. Details of analytical procedures and performance data are available on request. The date of sample analysis is available on request. The Environment Agency carries out analytical work to high standards and within the scope of its UKAS accreditation, but has no knowledge of whether the circumstances or the validity of the procedures used to obtain the samples provided to the laboratory were representative of the need for which the information was required. The Environment Agency and/or its staff does not therefore accept any liability for the consequences of any acts or omissions made on the basis of the analysis or advice or interpretation provided. Page 1 of 64

34 Report ID Batch description: Sediment Analysis 19-May Client: AQUAFACT International Services Ltd Project: Dredged Sediment Sample Point Name: CC Aquafact Folder No: Sampled on: 12:40 Comments: Warrenpoint A 0m Quote No: Matrix: Sediment Analyte Result Units Flag MRV Accred Lab ID Testcode Mercury : Dry Wt mg/kg UKAS LE 1042 Aluminium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg 50 UKAS LE 756 Arsenic, HF Digest : Dry Wt 17.1 mg/kg 0.4 UKAS Cadmium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg 0.03 UKAS Chromium, HF Digest : Dry Wt 95.6 mg/kg 3 UKAS Copper, HF Digest : Dry Wt 32.2 mg/kg 1 UKAS Lead, HF Digest : Dry Wt 50.1 mg/kg 3 UKAS Nickel, HF Digest : Dry Wt 41.4 mg/kg 1 UKAS Zinc : HF Digest : Dry Wt 173 mg/kg 5 UKAS Acenaphthene : Dry Wt 9.13 ug/kg Acenaphthylene : Dry Wt 3.21 ug/kg 2 None Anthracene : Dry Wt 32.0 ug/kg Benzo(a)anthracene : Dry Wt 110 ug/kg Benzo(a)pyrene : Dry Wt 126 ug/kg Benzo(b)fluoranthene : Dry Wt 158 ug/kg Benzo(ghi)perylene : Dry Wt 128 ug/kg Benzo(k)fluoranthene : Dry Wt 77.4 ug/kg Chrysene + Triphenylene : Dry Wt 130 ug/kg 3 None Dibenzo(ah)anthracene : Dry Wt 28.2 ug/kg 5 UKAS Fluoranthene : Dry Wt 174 ug/kg Fluorene : Dry Wt 20.9 ug/kg Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene : Dry Wt 103 ug/kg Naphthalene : Dry Wt 40.3 ug/kg 30 UKAS Phenanthrene : Dry Wt 97.4 ug/kg Pyrene : Dry Wt 156 ug/kg 3 UKAS PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg Dibutyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation <9 ug/kg 3 UKAS LE 897 ELEVATED_MRV : Dry weight calculation Tributyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation <9 ug/kg 3 UKAS LE 897 ELEVATED_MRV : Dry weight calculation Dry 30 C 35.9 % 0.5 None LE 1130 Accreditation Assessment 2 No. None Sample Preparation None Page 2 of 64

35 Report ID Batch description: Sediment Analysis 19-May-2014 The sample appeared to be dark-brown clay-sediment g of the sample was taken for drying at <30degC which gave 8.71g of dried sample (weights include tray weight). The sample was received unpreserved. The sample was not crushed or sieved as only wet tests were required. All parameters are determined on the air-dried (<30degC) portion except those requiring a wet sample fraction where as received (wet) sample was used. Dry Weight (DW) results are reported as determined at <30degC. Page 3 of 64

36 Report ID Batch description: Sediment Analysis 19-May Client: AQUAFACT International Services Ltd Project: Dredged Sediment Sample Point Name: CC Aquafact Folder No: Sampled on: 12:45 Comments: Warrenpoint A 0.5m Quote No: Matrix: Sediment Analyte Result Units Flag MRV Accred Lab ID Testcode Mercury : Dry Wt mg/kg UKAS LE 1042 Aluminium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg 50 UKAS LE 756 Arsenic, HF Digest : Dry Wt 16.0 mg/kg 0.4 UKAS Cadmium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg 0.03 UKAS Chromium, HF Digest : Dry Wt 94.1 mg/kg 3 UKAS Copper, HF Digest : Dry Wt 65.9 mg/kg 1 UKAS Lead, HF Digest : Dry Wt 48.3 mg/kg 3 UKAS Nickel, HF Digest : Dry Wt 40.0 mg/kg 1 UKAS Zinc : HF Digest : Dry Wt 201 mg/kg 5 UKAS Acenaphthene : Dry Wt 10.1 ug/kg Acenaphthylene : Dry Wt 3.08 ug/kg 2 None Anthracene : Dry Wt 30.8 ug/kg Benzo(a)anthracene : Dry Wt 113 ug/kg Benzo(a)pyrene : Dry Wt 134 ug/kg Benzo(b)fluoranthene : Dry Wt 161 ug/kg Benzo(ghi)perylene : Dry Wt 131 ug/kg Benzo(k)fluoranthene : Dry Wt 78.0 ug/kg Chrysene + Triphenylene : Dry Wt 134 ug/kg 3 None Dibenzo(ah)anthracene : Dry Wt 31.0 ug/kg 5 UKAS Fluoranthene : Dry Wt 173 ug/kg Fluorene : Dry Wt 22.9 ug/kg Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene : Dry Wt 112 ug/kg Naphthalene : Dry Wt 39.1 ug/kg 30 UKAS Phenanthrene : Dry Wt 92.8 ug/kg Pyrene : Dry Wt 163 ug/kg 3 UKAS PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg Dibutyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation <7 ug/kg 3 UKAS LE 897 ELEVATED_MRV : Dry weight calculation Tributyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation Dry 30 C Accreditation Assessment Sample Preparation <7 ug/kg 3 UKAS LE 897 ELEVATED_MRV : Dry weight calculation 39.7 % 0.5 None LE No. None None Page 4 of 64

37 Report ID Batch description: Sediment Analysis 19-May-2014 The sample appeared to be dark-brown clay-sediment g of the sample was taken for drying at <30degC which gave 8.53g of dried sample (weights include tray weight). The sample was received unpreserved. The sample was not crushed or sieved as only wet tests were required. All parameters are determined on the air-dried (<30degC) portion except those requiring a wet sample fraction where as received (wet) sample was used. Dry Weight (DW) results are reported as determined at <30degC. Page 5 of 64

38 Report ID Batch description: Sediment Analysis 19-May Client: AQUAFACT International Services Ltd Project: Dredged Sediment Sample Point Name: CC Aquafact Folder No: Sampled on: 13:05 Comments: Warrenpoint A 1.0m Quote No: Matrix: Sediment Analyte Result Units Flag MRV Accred Lab ID Testcode Mercury : Dry Wt mg/kg UKAS LE 1042 Aluminium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg 50 UKAS LE 756 Arsenic, HF Digest : Dry Wt 16.1 mg/kg 0.4 UKAS Cadmium, HF Digest : Dry Wt mg/kg 0.03 UKAS Chromium, HF Digest : Dry Wt 98.3 mg/kg 3 UKAS Copper, HF Digest : Dry Wt 35.7 mg/kg 1 UKAS Lead, HF Digest : Dry Wt 49.9 mg/kg 3 UKAS Nickel, HF Digest : Dry Wt 41.5 mg/kg 1 UKAS Zinc : HF Digest : Dry Wt 175 mg/kg 5 UKAS Acenaphthene : Dry Wt 10.7 ug/kg Acenaphthylene : Dry Wt 2.94 ug/kg 2 None Anthracene : Dry Wt 32.0 ug/kg Benzo(a)anthracene : Dry Wt 81.3 ug/kg Benzo(a)pyrene : Dry Wt 141 ug/kg Benzo(b)fluoranthene : Dry Wt 171 ug/kg Benzo(ghi)perylene : Dry Wt 148 ug/kg Benzo(k)fluoranthene : Dry Wt 82.8 ug/kg Chrysene + Triphenylene : Dry Wt 177 ug/kg 3 None Dibenzo(ah)anthracene : Dry Wt 32.5 ug/kg 5 UKAS Fluoranthene : Dry Wt 187 ug/kg Fluorene : Dry Wt 22.0 ug/kg Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene : Dry Wt 121 ug/kg Naphthalene : Dry Wt 41.5 ug/kg 30 UKAS Phenanthrene : Dry Wt 95.7 ug/kg Pyrene : Dry Wt 175 ug/kg 3 UKAS PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg PCB : Dry Wt ug/kg Dibutyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation <8 ug/kg 3 UKAS LE 897 ELEVATED_MRV : Dry weight calculation Tributyl Tin : Dry Wt as Cation Dry 30 C Accreditation Assessment Sample Preparation 304 ug/kg 3 UKAS LE % 0.5 None LE No. None None Page 6 of 64