attachment no k remediation, decommissioning, restoration ... · – deep both adjacent to graving...

Dublin Port Company

IE Application

Ref: IBR0668 Status: Final Date: July 2015

1

Section K Remediation, Decommissioning, Restoration & Aftercare Attachments

Attachment K.1 Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment, Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan.

Dublin Port Company is in a position to meet current foreseeable environmental risk and liabilities. An Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment (ELRA) and Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) have been completed as part of the IE application. These are included in Appendix K.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55

Dublin Port Company

IE Application


2

Appendix K

Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment

Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55

rpsgroup.com/ireland

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Client: Dublin Port Company

Project Title: Industrial Emissions Licence Application

Document Title: Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment (ELRA)

Document No: IBR0668

This Document Comprises:

DCS TOC Text List of Tables List of Figures No. of Appendices

1 1 20 1 - 1

Rev. Status Author(s) Reviewed By Approved By Office of Origin Issue Date

F01 Final A McGinley P. Chadwick D Doyle Letterkenny 01/07/15

Dublin Port Company

Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment (ELRA)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55

Dublin Port Company Environmental Liability Risk Assessment

Ref: IBR0668 i Status: Final Date: July 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1

2 SCOPING ................................................................................................................................... 2

3 RISK IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................................. 3

3.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 3

3.2 SITE OPERATION ............................................................................................................. 3

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY ........................................................................................... 5

3.3.1 Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 5

3.3.2 Surface Water................................................................................................... 6

3.3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 7

3.3.4 Natural Habitats and Protected Species .......................................................... 7

3.3.5 Human Beings .................................................................................................. 8

3.4 RISKS IDENTIFIED AT THE FACILITY .................................................................................... 8

4 RISK ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 10

5 RISK EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 16

6 COSTING ................................................................................................................................. 18

6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE WORST CASE SCENARIO .............................................................. 18

6.2 QUANTIFICATION AND COSTING ....................................................................................... 18

7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 20

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55


Ref: IBR0668 ii Status: Final Date: July 2015

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 List of Risks Identified at the facility ........................................................................................ 8

Table 4.1 Risk Classification Table – Likelihood ................................................................................... 10

Table 4.2 Risk Classification Table – Consequence ............................................................................. 10

Table 4.3 Risk Analysis at the Facility ................................................................................................... 11

Table 5.1 Risk Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 16

Table 5.2: Risk Matrix ............................................................................................................................ 17

Table 6.1: Quantification and Costing of Worst Case Scenario ............................................................ 19

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Process Flow Diagram for Treatment Activity ........................................................................ 4

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Drawing

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55


Ref: IBR0668 1 Status: Final Date: July 2015

1 INTRODUCTION

This report provides an Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment (ELRA) for the Dublin Port Authority (DPC). This report has been completed as part of IE Application to EPA for the proposed treatment of dredge material for recovery in Berth 52/53 and Graving Dock #2

The ELRA and was conducted in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidance on Assessing and Costing Environmental Liabilities (Draft), published in July 2013.

This ELRA will not deal with the underwriting of costs for remedial actions following closure as these costs are covered in the Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) which has also been prepared by as part of IE application.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



2 SCOPING

As per EPA guidance the ELRA should cover environmental risks leading to a potential or anticipated liability. Environmental risks will be deemed to cover all risks to: surface water, groundwater, atmosphere, land and human health.

Liabilities associated with closure are not considered in this ELRA as they have been covered in the Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) which has also been prepared by as part of IE application.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



3 RISK IDENTIFICATION

3.1 METHODOLOGY

The risk identification process involved;

� The identification of site operations/processes that pose potential hazards to the environment,

� The risks will focus on unplanned, but possible and plausible events occurring during the operational phase that could result in unknown liabilities.

� The quantification and plausibility of the risks , and

� The identification of potential environmental receptors at the facility.

A list of plausible risks was subsequently developed for the facility and is displayed in Table 4.

3.2 SITE OPERATION

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) project has been completed. Best practice industry techniques will be used to treat the contaminated material yielded from the dredging of the Alexandra Basin West. Stabilisation/Solidification (S/S) is a remediation technology that reduces the mobility of contaminants. Immobilisation is achieved by reaction of contaminants with reagents to promote sorption, precipitation or incorporation into crystal lattices, and/or by physically encapsulating the contaminants

1. The method produces a high strength

monolith-like product that physically reduces the mobility and chemically binds contaminants to the produced matrix. The treated mass can then be recovered/recycled to serve as infill material. Following treatment the material will be placed in Graving Dock #2 and Berth 52/53 as a recovery activity, replacing the need to use virgin materials that would otherwise be required for the development.

1 Bone B.,et al (2004); Guidance on the use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil

Pollution .Environment Agency

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



Figure 3.1 Process Flow Diagram for Treatment Activity

Discharge to Surface water

Note on Emissions � Noise � Dust � Fugitive dust emission � Gaseous Emissions � Wastes

Raw material delivery

Dredged Contaminated

Sediments

Boundary of treatment activity


Additives Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), quicklime and pozzolanic materials, which include pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and granulated ground blast furnace slag (GGBS).

Ex situ stabilisation using process stabilisation.

e.g Batching plant. Consisting of silos, premixing chamber, mixing chamber, belt feeding/ conveyors control room and unloading area

Treated sediment will be off loaded by trucks or pumped

Waste Water Treatment Plant

Storage and preparation

Sediment Unloading, Screening and Dewatering if required

Sediments returned to process

Treated contaminated dredged material recovered for use as infill for Graving Dock #2, Berth 52/53 and adjacent area.

Monitoring

� Short Term � Long Term

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY

This section identifies environmental receptors that have the potential to be affected by site operations at the facility. The sensitivity of potential environmental receptors will also be discussed and this will inform the impact severity or consequence of any identified risks. Environmental receptors at facility include;

� Groundwater

� Surface Water

� Air Quality

� Natural Habitats and Protected Species

� Human Beings

3.3.1 Groundwater

Geological Society of Ireland published mapping indicates the site is underlain by Estuarine deposits which generally comprise sandy gravelly silt overlying low permeability Glacial Till deposits which generally comprise variable lithology, usually sandy, silty clay with pebbles, but can contain gravel-rich, or laminated sand layers. These are further underlain by bedrock of Limestone from the Calp Formation.

The Lower Carboniferous rocks that underlie the region have been classified by the Geological Survey of Ireland as “Locally Important Aquifer, bedrock which is moderately productive only in local zones”. These locally productive zones are due to the presence of more permeable strata that are encountered in different parts of the outcrop area due to substantial faults, fractures or fissures. The limited groundwater movement within the rock tends to be restricted to the weathered horizons or to non-extensive fractured zones. These zones tend to have a limited hydraulic continuity, low storage capacity and low potential yield. Groundwater levels beneath the site remain close to sea level and are affected by tidal variation.

Shallow groundwater at the site does not represent a sensitive receptor in its own right (due to the salinity and likely contamination); and the Aquifer associated with the Bedrock represents a sensitive receptor, however is protected by the low permeability Glacial Till. There are no ground water abstractions down gradient of the facility so there are no sensitive groundwater receptors.

A number of site investigations have been undertaken within Dublin Port's current estate. As part of the IE application process a site investigation was undertaken in January – February 2015 which comprised the advancement of nine boreholes to a maximum depth 18.45m.bgl. Boreholes were advanced around the two areas proposed for infilling (Appendix B). Four boreholes (BH1, BH2, BH4, and BH5) were advanced adjacent to Graving Dock No.2 and five boreholes (BH6, BH7, BH8, BH10 and BH12) were advanced adjacent to Berth 52/53. Boreholes were positioned to provide an insight into the geology, hydrogeology, geotechnical properties and groundwater quality.

Groundwater monitoring of the boreholes installed during the 2015 site investigation and of surface water upstream and downstream of Alexandra Basin has provided information on the background groundwater/surface water concentrations of contaminants. A complete set of ground and surface water monitoring data showing contaminant levels metals, PAHs and PCBs is presented in Appendix D of the site-specific detailed quantitative risk assessment.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



Arsenic exceeded the EU Surface Water Objective of 20µg/l in all groundwater samples during both monitoring rounds except BH1 – shallow, BH2 and BH4 (Round 2 only). Cadmium exceeded the EU Surface Water Objective of 0.2µg/l in three groundwater samples collected from adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 and one sample collected from adjacent to Berth 52/53 during monitoring round. Zinc exceeded the EU Surface Water Objective of 40µg/l in groundwater samples taken from BH4 and BH6 – deep both adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 in monitoring round one.

EU Surface Water Objective values do not exist for Petroleum Hydrocarbons or PAHs. A screening value for Petroleum Hydrocarbons of 10ug/l is generally accepted as an acceptable concentration protective of controlled waters. PAH screening values protective of controlled waters in the UK vary but are all generally no higher than 0.1ug/l. Using these as a baseline, elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons are present in boreholes adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 and Berth 52/53 during both monitoring rounds. Elevated levels of PAHs are present in three boreholes all adjacent to Berth 52/53 in monitoring round one and elevated PAHs are present in one borehole adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 and four boreholes adjacent to Berth 52/53 in monitoring round two.

The EU Surface Water Objective for Tributyl Tin of 0.0002ug/l was exceeded in three samples collected from adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 and six samples from boreholes adjacent to Berth 52/53.

3.3.2 Surface Water

The existing surface water drainage system at Dublin Port utilises silt traps/oil interceptors prior to discharge. This existing surface water drainage system will be decommissioned during the treatment and infilling works and reinstalled following the completion of the infilling works.

Surface water will be collected through a series of storm water drain networks from the infilled areas installed in the surfacing layer. The storm water drains will flow via an underground pipe network as shown in Drawings IBR0668/112 and 113.

Chapter 10 of the EIS provides details of the existing water quality in the vicinity of the proposed development. The available monitoring information for the water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the ABR Project (i.e. the Liffey Estuary Lower and Dublin Bay water bodies) indicates that:

� the overall WFD status of the water bodies is ‘moderate’ due to general components and morphology;

� tropic status is ‘unpolluted’;

� dissolved oxygen levels are satisfactory and capable of supporting nearly all forms of aquatic life;

� the level of oxygen demand in the water bodies is acceptable; and

� the designated bathing areas in the vicinity of the ABR Project are compliant with bathing water quality standards.

There shall be no emissions to water of environmental significance. A detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA) has been undertaken to assess the potential impact of available contamination within the dredgings to the quality of controlled waters receptors. Remedial Target Concentrations (RTC’s) have been set based on EU Surface water and EU Groundwater Objectives for certain parameters.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



3.3.3 Air Quality

There will be no point source emission points to air during Construction from the S/S treatment process and in the aftercare phase from the infilled areas.

3.3.4 Natural Habitats and Protected Species

Natural Habitats

The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project including its capital dredging scheme will take place within the Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

There are two designated Special Protection Areas (SPA) for birds in the vicinity of the proposed development and a further six SPAs on the wider Dublin coastline, that could have connectivity with the proposed development area. These SPAs are:

� South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary (site code 004024) � North Bull Island (site code 4006) � Skerries Islands (site code 4122) � Rockabill (site code 4014) � Lambay Island (site code 4069) � Ireland’s Eye (site code 4117) � Howth Head (site code 4113) � Dalkey Island (site code 4172)

The proposed Alexander Basin redevelopment does not lie within any statutory sites designated for nature conservation. Six Natura 2000 sites and two Ramsar sites lie within km of the development:

� North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000206); � South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000210); � North Bull Island SPA (Site Code: 004006); � South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (Site Code: 004024); � Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary: Ramsar Site (Site Code:832); � North Bull Island: Ramsar Site (Site Code: 406).

No Natural Heritage Areas or proposed NHAs are considered to be potentially affected by the proposed development.

The emissions to surface water and groundwater from the facility will discharge directly into Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

Protected species

Chapter 5 of the EIS assesses the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment in terms of birds, marine mammals, terrestrial ecology and marine ecology (including fisheries).

Alexandra Basin West was found to be;

� Artificial surfaces and sea walls, piers and jetties - The terrestrial component of this habitat (buildings and artificial surfaces) is of low importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘negligible’ ecological value.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



� Exposed sand, gravel or till, spoil and bare ground - The terrestrial component of this habitat is of low to medium importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘low’ ecological value.

Berth 52/53 was found to be;

� Exposed sand, gravel or till , spoil and bare ground - This habitat has low to medium importance at a local scale due to the continued arrival of broadleaved herbs, providing foraging habitat for invertebrates, particularly bees. The terrestrial component of this habitat is of low to medium importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘low’ ecological value.

3.3.5 Human Beings

Human beings will not be exposed to the treated contaminated sediment as the material will be covered with concrete hard-standing thereby negating any direct contact, ingestion or inhalation pathways.

Noise levels will be monitored as part of the IE licence as required and comply with the required noise emission limits for day and night time hours.

3.4 RISKS IDENTIFIED AT THE FACILITY

Proposed S/S operations on site where reviewed in relation to site operation, operator performance and environmental sensitivity to determine the potential for environmental liabilities to arise. The risks presented in Table 3.1 have been identified at the facility. The list includes all plausible risks that are considered possible at the facility.

Table 3.1 List of Risks Identified at the facility

Risk ID Process Potential Hazards/Risks

1 Unloading of Dredged Material

Uncontrolled or poorly controlled release of dredge spoil during unloading

2 Material intake Contaminated dredgings delivered to site generating contaminating effluent

3 Material intake Contaminated dredgings delivered to site generating dust

4 Raw Material Storage Wind borne dust dispersion

5 Raw Material Storage Discharge to soil/groundwater/surface water

6 S/S Process Plant Wind borne dust dispersion

7 S/S Process Plant Fire in treatment area

8 Process oil storage Oil leak to ground

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



Risk ID Process Potential Hazards/Risks

9 Process oil storage Oil spill during filling of equipment or drums

10 Fuel (diesel) storage Fuel leak to ground

11 Fuel (diesel) storage Fuel spill during vehicle refuelling/tank refilling

12 Material output Fuel/oil leak from collection truck

13 Material output Overfill of trucks

14 Infilling Treated material unsuitable for recovery infilled. Discharge to surface water/groundwater

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



4 RISK ANALYSIS

Potential hazards identified in Table 3.1 are assessed against the Risk Classification Tables (RCT) in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The RCT’s were designed to reflect the levels of risk appropriate to the facility. Ratings, taken from the risk classification table, were applied to the severity and likelihood of occurrence of each risk. A risk score was calculated for each risk using the ratings.

The Risk Classification Tables (RCT) were designed to reflect the levels of risk appropriate to the facility. The RCT provides likelihood and consequence for the ranking of risks on a qualitative basis.

Table 4.1 Risk Classification Table – Likelihood

Rating

Likelihood

Category Description

1 Very Low Very low chance of hazard occurring

2 Low Low chance of hazard occurring

3 Medium Medium chance of hazard occurring

4 High High chance of hazard occurring

5 Very High Very high chance of hazard occurring

Table 4.2 Risk Classification Table – Consequence

Rating

Consequence

Category Description

1 Trivial No damage or negligible change to the environment.

2 Minor Minor impact/localised or nuisance

3 Moderate Moderate damage to environment

4 Major Severe damage to local environment

5 Massive Massive damage to a large area, irreversible in medium term

Table 4.3 sets out the risk analysis register for those risks identified in Table 3.1 against the criteria in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. This risk analysis is carried out based on the current mitigation controls in place at the time of the assessment.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



Table 4.3 Risk Analysis at the Facility

Risk ID

Process Potential Risks Environmenta

l effect

Consequence

Rating Basis of Consequence

Likelihood Rating

Basis of Likelihood Risk Score

(Consequence x Likelihood)



Discharges to air, ground and surface water.

3 Air release with human health impacts. Contaminated water release to locally important aquifer not supplying drinking water in the locality. Contaminated water release to Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay. The WFD status of both the Liffey Estuary Lower and Dublin Bay water bodies was reported as ‘moderate’ in the final status classifications reported in 2011.

2 A suite of Construction Phase Management Plans will be prepared in association with the preferred Contractor(s) in accordance with the Construction environmental Management Plan (CEMP). These Management Plans will reflect any conditions imposed by ABP and EPA and will be agreed with DPC and the relevant competent authorities. For the S/S project these will include • Traffic Management Plan • Site Waste Management Plan • Noise Management Plan • Dust & Odour Management Plan • Water Quality Management Plan • Waste Acceptance Management Plan

6

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:55



Risk ID


l effect

Consequence


Likelihood Rating



2 Material intake

Contaminated dredgings delivered to site generating contaminating effluent

Discharges to ground and surface water.

3 Air release with human health impacts. Low volume contaminated water release to locally important aquifer not supplying drinking water in the locality. Low volume contaminated water release to Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

2 As above 6

3 Material intake

Contaminated dredgings delivered to site generating dust



1 As above 3

4 Raw Material Storage

Wind borne dust dispersion



1 As above 2


Discharge to soil/groundwater/surface water

Potentially contaminating effluent discharged to surface water.

3 Air release with human health impacts. Contaminated water release to locally important aquifer not supplying drinking water in the locality. Contaminated water release to Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

2 As above 6

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



Risk ID


l effect

Consequence


Likelihood Rating



6 S/S Process Plant

Wind borne dust dispersion



2 As above 4

7 S/S Process Plant

Fire in treatment area


3 Air release with human health impacts. Contaminated water release to locally important aquifer not supplying drinking water in the locality. Contaminated water release to Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

2 As above 6

8 Process oil storage

Oil leak to ground Hydrocarbon discharge to ground and surface water

3 Low volume contaminated water release to locally important aquifer not supplying drinking water in the locality. Low volume contaminated water release to Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

1 Oil will be stored in bunded area or self bunded double-skinned storage tank. Spill kits will be available. Oil interceptor installed in surface water drainage system.

3

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



Risk ID


l effect

Consequence


Likelihood Rating




Oil spill during filling of equipment or drums

Hydrocarbon discharge to ground and surface water


2 Oil will be stored in bunded area or self bunded double-skinned storage tank. Spill kits will be available. Oil interceptor installed in surface water drainage system. If refilling/refuelling occurs outside of bund. SOP will be in place. Spill trays will be provided.

4

10 Fuel (diesel) storage

Fuel leak to ground



1 Oil will be stored in bunded area or self bunded double-skinned storage tank. Spill kits will be available. Oil interceptor installed in surface water drainage system.

3


Fuel spill during vehicle refuelling/tank refilling



2 Oil will be stored in bunded area or self bunded double-skinned storage tank. Spill kits will be available. Oil interceptor installed in surface water drainage system. If refilling/refuelling occurs outside of bund. SOP will be in place. Spill trays will be provided.

4

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



Risk ID


l effect

Consequence


Likelihood Rating



12 Material output

Fuel/oil leak from collection truck



3 Spill kits provided on site. Hard standing cover at site. Oil interceptor installed in surface water drainage system. Vehicle service

6

13 Material output

Overfill of trucks Discharges to air, ground and surface water.


3 SOP will be in place. Spill kits provided on site. Hard standing cover at site. Oil interceptor installed in surface water drainage system.

6

14 Infilling Treated material unsuitable for recovery infilled. Discharge to groundwater

Potentially contaminated water discharge to ground water

4 Contaminated water release to locally important aquifer not supplying drinking water in the locality.

2 Specification based contract. Q&C Testing procedures in place.

8

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



5 RISK EVALUATION

Based on the risk analysis carried out in Table 4.3, the risks have been prioritised to identify the risks with the highest profile and allow for prioritisation of risk treatment. The prioritised risks are presented in Table 5.1. The risk evaluation table highlights that the highest priority risk treated material unsuitable for recovery infilled.

Table 5.1 Risk Evaluation

Risk ID Process Potential Risk Consequence

Rating Likelihood

Rating Risk Score

14 Infilling Discharge to groundwater 4 2 8



3 2 6

2 Material intake Contaminated dredgings delivered to site generating contaminating effluent

3 2 6


Discharge to soil/groundwater/surface water

3 2 6

7 S/S Process Plant

Fire in treatment area 3 2 6

12 Material output Fuel/oil leak from collection truck 2 3 6

13 Material output Overfill of trucks 2 3 6

6 S/S Process Plant

Wind borne dust dispersion 2 2 4


Oil spill during filling of equipment or drums

2 2 4


Fuel spill during vehicle refuelling/tank refilling

2 2 4

3 Material intake Contaminated dredgings delivered to site generating dust

3 1 3


Oil leak to ground 3 1 3


Fuel leak to ground 3 1 3


Wind borne dust dispersion 2 1 2

14 Infilling Treated material unsuitable for recovery infilled. Discharge to groundwater

4 2 8

In addition to the risk evaluation table in Table 5.1, a risk matrix has been developed to allow the risks to be easily displayed. The consequence and likelihood ratings are used in the matrix with the level of consequence forming the x-axis and the likelihood forming the y-axis. This matrix provides a visual tool for regular risk reviews since the success of mitigation can be easily identified. The risk matrix is displayed in Table 5.2.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



The risks have been colour coded in the matrix to provide a broad indication of the critical nature of each risk. The colour code is as follows;

� Red – These are considered to be high-level risks requiring priority attention.

� Amber – These are medium-level risks requiring treatment, but are not as critical as a red coded risk.

� Green – These are the lowest-level risks and indicate a need for continuing awareness and monitoring on a regular basis. Whilst they are currently low or minor risks, some have the potential to increase to medium or even high-level risks and must therefore be regularly monitored and if cost-effective mitigation can be carried out to reduce the risk even further this should be pursued.

The Risk Matrix indicates that there are no risks in the red zone requiring priority treatment. There is 1 risk in the amber zone requiring treatment through mitigation or management action. The risk in the amber zone is related to the treated dredge material.

A site-specific DQRA of the likely source – pathway – receptor pollutant linkages has been undertaken in line with guidance and best practice in order to quantify the significance of leachable contamination identified in the treated dredged material upon the quality of controlled waters, specifically the River Liffey as agreed with the EPA. Remedial Target Concentrations (RTC’s) have been derived for the treated dredged material. Therefore the risk of activities causing pollution to ground, groundwater and surface water is very low.

The remaining 13 risks are located in the green zone indicating the need for continuing awareness and monitoring on a regular basis. However, assessment of the green zone risks has indicated that a number of these risks can be reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures. These risk treatment measures should be adopted where considered cost-effective to further reduce the risks.

Table 5.2: Risk Matrix

V. High 5

Likelihood High 4

Medium 3 12,13,11

Low 2 6,9 1,2,3,5,7 14

V. Low 1 4 8,10

Trivial Minor Moderate Major Massive

1 2 3 4 5

Consequence

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



6 COSTING

6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE WORST CASE SCENARIO

Section 5 of this report represents the risk analysis for the proposed treatment of dredge material for recovery in Berth 52/53 and Graving Dock #2 and ranks all risks in descending order of risk score (refer Table 5.1).

The risk with the highest risk score relates to Risk Id 14, treated material unsuitable for recovery infilled resulting in discharge to groundwater. In this case the likelihood of the event is considered “low” given the proposed controls but the consequence of such an event is deemed “major”.

The IE Licence and planning permission will have number of conditions which must be adhered to which will reduce the potential for the failure in this case.

6.2 QUANTIFICATION AND COSTING

The worst case scenario as described above has been developed to allow for a meaningful quantification of the potential costs that would be incurred following an extreme event at the facility. The assumptions that have been employed in this scenario are outlined in the paragraphs below.

The following assumptions are included in this costing:

� A field test of proposed S/S method will be undertaken. The objectives of the field test are to demonstrate and verify the applicability of the S/S method with respect to:

o environmental properties of the treated dredge material. o geotechnical properties of the treated dredge material o effects on the surrounding environment and: o the process stabilisation technology to be used

The field test will be performed by the appointed contractor and will form a base to the design and execution of the main S/S process to be undertaken. Approximately 3-5000 m

3 of

dredged material will be treated in the field test. This will allow the method to be refined before the main works are undertaken. It is assumed that treated material unsuitable for recovery infilled resulting in discharge to groundwater occurs during the undertaking of the field test (worst case scenario).

� A ground investigation consisting of soil and groundwater sampling will be undertaken to verify that no contamination from the infilling has been discharged to ground. It is assumed existing boreholes installed as part of the IE application process will be sufficient to investigate potential ground contamination.

� It is assumed treated dredge material is suitable for disposal at non hazardous landfill. Waste acceptance criteria analysis undertaken to confirm.

� Is it assumed that all clean-up works will be undertaken by third party operators and not by DPC.

Table 6.1 presents an estimation of the costs associated with controlling, cleaning, remediating and monitoring the pollution caused by this scenario. A significant contingency has been added to the costing to ensure that any uncertainty in the assessment is adequately covered.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



Table 6.1: Quantification and Costing of Worst Case Scenario

Task Description Quantity (No.) Measurement

Unit Unit Rate

(€) Cost (€)

Risk ID 14 Infilling

Excavation of treated dredge material

5000 tonnes 80 400,000.00

Disposal gate fee for of treated dredge material (includes transport)

5000 tonnes 110 550,000.00

Consultancy costs

20 days 600 12,000.00

Waste sampling and analysis (WAC suite )

6 samples 400 2,400.00

Groundwater sampling and analysis

12 samples 300 3,600.00

Environmental report

1 event 5000 5,000.00

Total (€) 973,000.00

Contingency (%) 10%

Total including contingency(€) 1,070,300.00

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



7 CONCLUSIONS

An Environmental Liabilities Risk Assessment (ELRA) has been completed as part of IED application. The ELRA was carried in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidance on Assessing and Costing Environmental Liabilities (Draft), published in July 2013.

Risk identification for the site identified 14 risks that could potentially impact the surrounding environment and risk analysis and evaluation ascertained that treated material unsuitable for recovery infilled was the risk with the highest risk score.

The worst case scenario underwent quantification and costing and a financial provision of €1,070,300 (including contingency) was calculated based on this event.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56



APPENDIX A

DRAWING

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56

Ro Ro No.4

Bulk Jetty

Alexandra Quay West

TOLKA QUAY ROAD

ES

Warehouse

Port

Centre

J

e

t

t

y

Jetty

ALEXANDRA

BASIN

HW

M

H

ES

ES

LS

Platform

Coal Yard

Freight Terminal

W

B

Tank

WB

Area under construction

Car Park


WM

Transit Shed

Grain Store

Tank

WB

Tanks

Tanks

Overhead C

onveyor

WB

Overhead

Passage

Chy

Overhead

Conveyor

Overhead

Conveyor

C

ra

n

e

R

a

il

Tanks

Tanks

Oil Installations

Tanks

Tks

Dock Gates

ALEXANDRA BASIN

North Wall

Graving

Dock

Dock Gates

ALEXANDRA QUAY

QU

AY

2

RO

AD

RO

AD

BR

AN

CH

TOLKA

1

NO

RT

H

RO

AD

BR

AN

CH

1

SO

UT

H

SO

UT

H

BR

AN

CH

ES

ES

EX

TE

NS

ION

NO

RT

H

QU

AY

Top of T

op-up B

und

Top of T

op-up B

und

NO

RT

H

E

A

S

T

R

O

A

D

RO

AD

W

A

L

L

EA

ST

WA

LL

RO

AD

ALE

XA

ND

RA

ALE

XA

ND

RA

RO

AD

SH

ER

IFF

ST

RE

ET

UP

PE

R

TOLKA QUAY ROAD

150Ø

225Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

150Ø

100Ø

2

2

5

Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

225Ø

1

0

0

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

225Ø

1

5

0

Ø

225Ø

300Ø

2

2

5

Ø

1

5

0

Ø

150Ø

2

5

0

Ø

250Ø

150Ø

225Ø

225Ø

200Ø

225Ø

225Ø

1

5

0

Ø

1

5

0

Ø

200Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

3

0

0

Ø

100Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

1

0

0

Ø

150Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

3

0

0

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

225Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

2

2

5

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

1

0

0

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

150Ø

150Ø

225Ø 225Ø

150Ø

150Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

1

5

0

Ø

600Ø

6

0

0

Ø

6

0

0

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

7

5

0

Ø

750Ø

P.S.

7

5

0

Ø

750Ø 1

5

0

Ø

450Ø

225Ø

225Ø

450Ø

450Ø

IN

T.

375Ø

375Ø

?

?

225Ø

225Ø

750Ø

450Ø

450Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

150Ø

450Ø

450Ø

450Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

450Ø

450Ø

225Ø 2

2

5

Ø

225Ø 225Ø

??

450Ø

(R

ED

UN

DA

NT

C

OLLIN

G W

AT

ER

IN

TA

KE

)

750Ø

450Ø

250Ø

600Ø

750Ø

225Ø

225Ø

TO

S

.W

.F

.M

.

IN

T

.

IN

T

.

6

0

0

Ø

O

u

tfa

ll W

ith

H

e

a

d

w

a

ll

450Ø

450Ø

450Ø

250Ø

7

5

Ø

100Ø

100Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

A.V.

100Ø

100Ø

A.V.

100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

100Ø

100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

100Ø

100Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

400Ø

400Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

400Ø

400Ø

150Ø

400Ø

150Ø

400Ø

150Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

1

8

Ø

1

5

0

Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

400Ø

400Ø

150Ø

400Ø

300Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

80Ø

80Ø

80Ø

1

0

0

Ø

AREA REQUIRES WALK-AROUND CHECK.


Pump House

150Ø

300Ø

100Ø

P.R

.V.

300Ø

225Ø

150Ø

150Ø

??

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

CH

EC

K

125124

106

123

112

122

163

120

119

110

118

105

104

103

102

107

108

109

111

113

114

115

116

117

1

2

3

4

5

6

OBSOLETE

600mmØ

180mmØ

600mmØ

600mmØ

180mmØ

600mmØ

6

0

0

m

m

Ø

6

0

0

m

m

Ø

3

0

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

3

0

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

3

0

0

m

m

Ø

300mmØ

180mmØ

450mmØ

ALEXANDRA

ROAD D.M.A

RE

DU

ND

AN

T

RE

DU

ND

AN

T

RE

DU

ND

AN

T

3

0

0

m

m

Ø

6

0

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

300mmØ

ENLARGED VIEW

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

WM

225Ø

150Ø

WM

100Ø

150Ø

SV Dom.

75Ø

Fire Service

EXISTING OUTFALLUNPLUGGED AND EXTENDEDTO FACE OF PROPOSEDQUAY WALL

EXISTINGINTERCEPTOR

EXISTING DRAINAGE DIVERTED THROUGH NEWFULL RETENTION INTERCEPTORS TO DISCHARGETHROUGH FLAP VALVE VIA QUAY WALL

EXISTING OUTFALLEXTENDED TO FACE OFPROPOSED QUAY WALL

EXISTING OUTFALL SYSTEMRELOCATED TO SUIT AIDPOSITION OF LINKSPAN.POSITION TO BEDETERMINED AT DETAILEDDESIGN STAGE

PROPOSED FULLRETENTIONINTERCEPTOR

NEW DRAINAGE DISCHARGESOUT THROUGH FULLRETENTION INTERCEPTOR

DRAINAGE FROMCONSERVATIONZONE A

NEW DRAINAGE THROUGHGRAVING DOCK Nr 2DISCHARGES THROUGH FULLRETENTION INTERCEPTORAND PASSES THROUGH FLAPVALVE THROUGH QUAY WALL

FULL RETENTION INTERCEPTORS TO DISCHARGE

Drawing Number

Drawing Status Sheet Size

Client

Rev

Drawing Scale

drawnamendmentsrev

Project

Title

date

/

Dublin Port Authority

Initial ReviewProject Leader Drawn By Date

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment

Proposed Drainage - Graving Dock Nr 2

Preliminary

Mar '15

1:10,000

IBR0668

A3

112 0

DD AMB AMcG

1. Verifying Dimensions.The contractor shall verify dimensions against such otherdrawings or site conditions as pertain to this part of the work.

2. Existing Services.Any information concerning the location of existing servicesindicated on this drawing is intended for general guidance only. Itshall be the responsibility of the contractor to determine and verifythe exact horizontal and vertical alignment of all cables, pipes, etc.(both underground and overhead) before work commences.

3. Issue of Drawings.Hard copies, dwf and pdf will form a controlled issue of thedrawing. All other formats (dwg, dxf etc.) are deemed to be anuncontrolled issue and any work carried out based on these files isat the recipients own risk. RPS will not accept any responsibilityfor any errors arising from the use of these files, either by humanerror by the recipient, listing of un-dimensioned measurements,compatibility issues with the recipient's software, and any errorsarising when these files are used to aid the recipients drawingproduction, or setting out on site.

NOTES

4. Datum: All Coordinates in metres and relative to ITM

5. Keys

RPS Consulting Engneers

Enterprise Fund Business Centre

Ballyraine

Letterkenny

Co. Donegal

+353 (0) 74 91 61927

+353 (0) 74 91 61928

W www.rpsgroup.com/ireland

E [email protected]

Proposed IED Site Boundary

100m SCALE 1:10 000

Proposed Drainage Line - Graving Dock Nr 2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56

Ro`Ro No.5

5

Berth No.52

Berth No.53

Ro Ro No.1

7

Ro Ro No.7

Ro Ro No.8

Mh

R

a

m

p

WB

Ramp

Elevated R

am

p

WB

Tank

WB

Ferry

Terminal

WB

Freight Terminal

Car Park

Ram

p

Freight Terminal

LS

TE

RM

IN

AL R

OA

D N

OR

TH

Jetty

MP

Mooring P

osts

Sluice

Jetty

Pier

MP

Sluice

HWM

H

W

M

HWM

HWM

HW

M

HW

M

HW

M

Mh

Car Park

Car Park

Ramp

Tank

Pla

tform

Elevated Ramp

Beacon

Beacon

DUBLIN PORT PASSENGER TERMINAL

Pier

LW

M

Dolphin

Concrete

HWM

TE

RM

IN

AL R

OA

D S

OU

TH

ALEXANDRA ROAD EXTENSION

ALEXANDRA ROAD

225Ø

300Ø

3

0

0

Ø

150Ø

900Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

350Ø

TANK

300Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

450Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

525Ø

300Ø

450Ø

375Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

450Ø

300Ø

525Ø

600Ø

300Ø

450Ø

600Ø

5

2

5

Ø

300Ø

525Ø

6

0

0

Ø

INT.

675Ø

450Ø

750Ø

750Ø

450Ø

750Ø

INT.

900Ø

900Ø

9

0

0

Ø

IN

T.

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

INT.

2

0

0

Ø

900Ø

4

5

0

Ø

SLUICE VALVE

FISH TAIL

PUMP STATION

225Ø

300Ø

3

0

0

Ø

150Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

350Ø

TA

NK

300Ø

2

2

5

Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

450Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

525Ø

300Ø

450Ø

375Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

450Ø

300Ø

525Ø

600Ø

600Ø

IN

T.

300Ø

2

2

5

Ø

450Ø

600Ø

5

2

5

Ø

300Ø

525Ø

6

0

0

Ø

INT.

675Ø

450Ø

750Ø

750Ø

450Ø

750Ø

INT.

900Ø

900Ø

9

0

0

Ø

IN

T.

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

INT.

2

0

0

Ø

900Ø

4

5

0

Ø

3

0

0

Ø

375Ø

2

2

5

Ø

450Ø

300Ø

225Ø

2

2

5

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

INT.

150Ø 150Ø 100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

300Ø

2x50Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

100Ø

ENLARGED VIEW

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

100Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

50Ø

50Ø

300Ø

50Ø

200Ø

200Ø

100Ø

200Ø

80Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

300Ø

300Ø

200Ø DPC/225ØAS BUILT

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

1

0

0

Ø

?

DOES A MAIN

EXIST THRO' SITE

45

46

47

44

4342

49

50

51

39

40

41

48

52

53

56

58

57

54

55

59

60

61

62

63

35

36

37

38

IRISH

FERRIES

D.M.A

STENA

LINE

D.M.A

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

59

61

64

150Ø

150Ø

71

150Ø

80Ø





EXISTING DRAINAGENETWORK EXTENDED TOFACE OF NEW QUAY WALL.ALL EXISTING RETENTIONSYSTEMS RETAINED

EXISTING RETENTIONSYSTEM RETAINED



EXISTING DRAINAGENETWORK EXTENSION TIESINTO NEW LINE OFDRAINAGE AFTER THEPROPOSED FULL RETENTIONINTERCEPTOR


PROPOSED OUTFALLDISCHARGES THROUGH NEWQUAY FACE VIA A FLAPVALVE OR SIMILAR

EXISTING OUTFALLS ANDRETENTION SYSTEMRETAINED

Drawing Number


Client

Rev

Drawing Scale

drawnamendmentsrev

Project

Title

date

/




Proposed Drainage - Berth 52/53

Preliminary

Mar '15

1:10,000

IBR0668

A3

113 0

DD AMB AMcG




NOTES


5. Keys



Ballyraine

Letterkenny

Co. Donegal

+353 (0) 74 91 61927

+353 (0) 74 91 61928


E [email protected]


Proposed Drainage Line - Berth 52/53

50m SCALE 1:2500

Existing Drainage Line

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56

rpsgroup.com/ireland

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Client: Dublin Port Company

Project Title: Industrial Emissions Licence Application

Document Title: Closure Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan

Document No: IBR0668

This Document Comprises:

DCS TOC Text List of Tables List of Figures No. of Appendices

1 2 25 1 1 1

Rev. Status Author(s) Reviewed By Approved By Office of Origin Issue Date

F01 Final A McGinley P. Chadwick D Doyle Letterkenny 01/07/15

Dublin Port Company

Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:56

Dublin Port Company Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan

Ref: IBR0668 i Status: Final Date: July 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1

2 SITE EVALUATIION .................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 FACILITY OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 2

2.2 OPERATOR PERFORMANCE .............................................................................................. 2

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS AND SENSITIVITY .................................................................. 4

2.3.1 Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 4

2.3.2 Storm Water emissions to Surface Water ........................................................ 5

2.3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 5

2.3.4 Human Beings .................................................................................................. 5

2.3.5 Natural Habitats and Protected Species .......................................................... 5

2.4 FACILITY PROCESS AND ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 7

2.4.1 Waste Water Treatment. ................................................................................ 10

3 CLOSURE TASKS AND PROGRAMME................................................................................. 11

3.1 CLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 11

3.2 PROGRAMME TO ACHIEVE CLOSURE ................................................................................ 11

3.3 CLOSURE PLAN .............................................................................................................. 12

4 CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL CLOSURE ............................................................................ 14

5 CLOSURE PLAN VALIDATION .............................................................................................. 15

6 CLOSURE PLAN COSTING .................................................................................................... 16

7 CLOSURE PLAN UPDATE AND REVIEW ............................................................................. 19

8 RESTORATION/AFTERCARE PLAN ..................................................................................... 20

8.1 RESTORATION/AFTERCARE PLAN FOR GRAVING DOCK 2. ................................................ 20

8.2 RESTORATION/AFTERCARE PLAN FOR BERTH 52 / 53 ...................................................... 20

8.3 COSTING THE RESTORATION/AFTERCARE PLAN .............................................................. 20

9 COST SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 23

10 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 24

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57


Ref: IBR0668 ii Status: Final Date: July 2015

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Process Flow Diagram for Treatment Activity ........................................................................ 8

Figure 2.2 Process Flow Diagram for Waste water Treatment ............................................................. 10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.1: Costing of closure of S/S Process Treatment Facility at Dublin Port ................................... 17

Table 8.1: Costing of restoration and aftercare of the Dublin Port facility ............................................. 22

Table 9.1 2015 Cost Estimates for Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan ................. 23

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Drawings

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



1 INTRODUCTION

This report provides a Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) for the Dublin Port Authority (DPC). DPC produced a Masterplan in 2012 covering the period 2012 to 2040. In this Masterplan, DPC set out their proposals for major developments within the Port and Entrance Channel over the next thirty years.

New infrastructure is proposed to facilitate the development of Berth 52/53 and Graving Dock #2 including infilling with treated dredge material.

This report has been completed as part of IE Application to EPA for the proposed treatment to allow treated dredge material for recovery in Berth 52/53 and Graving Dock #2

The EPA guidance document entitled ‘Guidance on assessment and costing environmental liabilities 2014 has been used as the basis for the methodology in preparing this report, hereafter referred to as EPA 2014.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



2 SITE EVALUATIION

2.1 FACILITY OVERVIEW

The proposed development is located within Dublin Port Estate, Dublin, the largest Port in Ireland located on the East Coast of Ireland and within the navigation channel and fairway from Dublin Port into Dublin Bay.

DPC now wishes to advance a number of projects highlighted in the Masterplan document, mainly:

1 Works at Alexandra Basin West including construction of new quays and jetties, remediation of contamination on the bed of the basin, capital dredging to deepen the basin and to achieve the specified depths of -10m Chart Datum (CD) at the new berths.

2. Infilling of the Basin at Berths 52 & 53 and construction of a new river berth with a double tiered Ro-Ro ramp.

3. Deepening of the fairway and approach to Dublin Port to increase the ruling depth from -7.8m CD to -10.0m CD.

There are two Graving Docks immediately to the north of Alexandra Basin West. Graving Dock #1, which is the older of the two docks dating from 1860, was filled in by Dublin Port Company in 2010. Graving Dock #2 was designed and built in the 1950’s. Graving Dock #2 is approximately 29m wide and 200m long and is used for ship repair and maintenance. The lead in jetty to the south of the graving dock is occasionally used as an additional berth for vessels waiting to enter Graving Dock #2.

Berths 52 / 53 are located in a basin at the eastern end of the Port, on the northern side of the River Liffey. Both berths 52 and 53 are fitted with Ro-Ro ramps, (Ramps No. 7 and No. 8) and are currently used by Seatruck for their Ro-Ro services to the UK.

2.2 OPERATOR PERFORMANCE

Dublin Port Company are accredited to ISO 14001 and Ports Environmental Review System (PERS). Copies of both certifications are attached in Appendix C of the application. Section 4 of the Environmental Management Manual (EMM) describes how the EMS is implemented and operated including structure and responsibility. Please refer to Table 4.1 General EMS Responsibilities and Fig. 4.1 Organisational Flowchart of Dublin Port Company.

DPC intends to appoint a Contractor(s) to undertake the works. The Contract between DPC and the Contractor will allocate responsibility for compliance with Construction Phase Management Plans. A suite of Construction Phase Management Plans will be prepared in association with the preferred Contractor(s) in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). These Management Plans will reflect any conditions imposed by ABP and EPA and will be agreed with DPC and the relevant competent authorities. .

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) project has been completed. Best practice industry techniques will be used to treat the contaminated material

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



yielded from the dredging of the Alexandra Basin West. Stabilisation/Solidification (S/S) is a remediation technology that reduces the mobility of contaminants. Immobilisation is achieved by reaction of contaminants with reagents to promote sorption, precipitation or incorporation into crystal lattices, and/or by physically encapsulating the contaminants

1. The method produces a high strength

monolith-like product that physically reduces the mobility and chemically binds contaminants to the produced matrix. The treated mass can then be recovered/recycled to serve as infill material or for beneficial use. Following treatment the material will be placed in Graving Dock #2 and Berth 52/53 as a recovery activity, replacing the need to use virgin materials that would otherwise be required for the development. For the S/S project these will include

� Traffic Management Plan � Site Waste Management Plan � Noise Management Plan � Dust & Odour Management Plan � Water Quality Management Plan � Waste Acceptance Management Plan

DPC will establish a liaison group including, but not limited to, representatives of DPC, the Contractor, Dublin City Council and representatives of the port users. The group will meet at least quarterly with an agenda and minutes taken of the meetings. DPC will appoint a suitably qualified person, or persons, to the role of Environmental Clerk of Works (EnCoW) to monitor the construction works. The EnCoW will provide reports to the competent authorities at a frequency agreed by all parties and submit copies to members of the liaison group. The EnCoW will work closely with the Contractors site supervisors to monitor activities and ensure that all relevant environmental legislation is complied with and that the requirements of the CEMP are implemented. The EnCoW will have the authority to review method statements, oversee works and instruct action, as appropriate, including the authority to require the temporary cessation of works, where necessary.

1 Bone B.,et al (2004); Guidance on the use of Stabilisation/Solidification for the Treatment of Contaminated Soil

Pollution .Environment Agency

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS AND SENSITIVITY

The closure, restoration and aftercare program will be based on reducing any residual contamination and as such, the sensitivity of the surrounding environment and the potential pathways of contaminants to this pathway are noted. The key sensitivity receptors are listed below:

� Groundwater

� Surface Water

� Human Beings

� Air Quality

� Natural Habitats and Protected Species

2.3.1 Groundwater

Geological Society of Ireland published mapping indicates the site is underlain by Estuarine deposits which generally comprise sandy gravelly silt overlying low permeability Glacial Till deposits which generally comprise variable lithology, usually sandy, silty clay with pebbles, but can contain gravel-rich, or laminated sand layers. These are further underlain by bedrock of Limestone from the Calp Formation. The Lower Carboniferous rocks that underlie the region have been classified by the Geological Survey of Ireland as “Locally Important Aquifer, bedrock which is moderately productive only in local zones”. These locally productive zones are due to the presence of more permeable strata that are encountered in different parts of the outcrop area due to substantial faults, fractures or fissures. The limited groundwater movement within the rock tends to be restricted to the weathered horizons or to non-extensive fractured zones. These zones tend to have a limited hydraulic continuity, low storage capacity and low potential yield. Groundwater levels beneath the site remain close to sea level and are affected by tidal variation.

Shallow groundwater at the site does not represent a sensitive receptor in its own right (due to the salinity and likely contamination); and the Aquifer associated with the Bedrock represents a sensitive receptor, however is protected by the low permeability Glacial Till. There are no ground water abstractions down gradient of the facility so there are no sensitive groundwater receptors.

A number of site investigations have been undertaken within Dublin Port's current estate. As part of the IE application process a site investigation was undertaken in January – February 2015 which comprised the advancement of nine boreholes to a maximum depth 18.45m.bgl. Boreholes were advanced around the two areas proposed for infilling (Appendix B). Four boreholes (BH1, BH2, BH4, and BH5) were advanced adjacent to Graving Dock No.2 and five boreholes (BH6, BH7, BH8, BH10 and BH12) were advanced adjacent to Berth 52/53. Boreholes were positioned to provide an insight into the geology, hydrogeology, geotechnical properties and groundwater quality.

Groundwater monitoring of the boreholes installed during the 2015 site investigation and of surface water upstream and downstream of Alexandra Basin has provided information on the background groundwater/surface water concentrations of contaminants. A complete set of ground and surface water monitoring data showing contaminant levels metals, PAHs and PCBs is presented in Appendix D of the site-specific detailed quantitative risk assessment.

Arsenic exceeded the EU Surface Water Objective of 20µg/l in all groundwater samples during both monitoring rounds except BH1 – shallow, BH2 and BH4 (Round 2 only). Cadmium exceeded the EU Surface Water Objective of 0.2µg/l in three groundwater samples collected from adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 and one sample collected from adjacent to Berth 52/53 during monitoring round. Zinc

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



exceeded the EU Surface Water Objective of 40µg/l in groundwater samples taken from BH4 and BH6 – deep both adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 in monitoring round one.

EU Surface Water Objective values do not exist for Petroleum Hydrocarbons or PAHs. A screening value for Petroleum Hydrocarbons of 10ug/l is generally considered as an acceptable concentration protective of controlled waters. PAH screening values protective of controlled waters in the UK vary but are all generally no higher than 0.1ug/l. Using these as a baseline, elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons are present in boreholes adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 and Berth 52/53 during both monitoring rounds. Elevated levels of PAHs are present in three boreholes all adjacent to Berth 52/53 in monitoring round one and elevated PAHs are present in one borehole adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 and four boreholes adjacent to Berth 52/53 in monitoring round two.

The EU Surface Water Objective for Tributyl Tin of 0.0002ug/l was exceeded in three samples collected from adjacent to Graving Dock #.2 and six samples from boreholes adjacent to Berth 52/53.

2.3.2 Storm Water emissions to Surface Water

The existing surface water drainage system at Dublin Port utilises silt traps/oil interceptors prior to discharge. These existing surface water drainage system will be decommissioned during the treatment and infilling works and reinstalled following the completion of the infilling works. Surface water will be collected through a series of storm water drain networks from the infilled areas installed in the surfacing layer. The storm water drains will flow via an underground pipe network as shown in Drawings IBR0668/112 and 113.

2.3.3 Air Quality

There will be no point source emission points to air during Construction from the S/S treatment process and End Use, Maintenance and Aftercare Phase from the infilled areas.

2.3.4 Human Beings

Human beings will not be exposed to treated contaminated sediment as the material will be covered with concrete hard-standing thereby negating any direct contact, ingestion or inhalation pathways.

Noise levels will be monitored as part of the IE licence as required and comply with the required noise emission limits for day and night time hours.

2.3.5 Natural Habitats and Protected Species

Natural Habitats

The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project including its capital dredging scheme will take place within the Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

There are two designated Special Protection Areas (SPA) for birds in the vicinity of the proposed development and a further six SPAs on the wider Dublin coastline, that could have connectivity with the proposed development area. These SPAs are:

� South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary (site code 004024) � North Bull Island (site code 4006)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



� Skerries Islands (site code 4122) � Rockabill (site code 4014) � Lambay Island (site code 4069) � Ireland’s Eye (site code 4117) � Howth Head (site code 4113) � Dalkey Island (site code 4172)

The proposed Alexander Basin redevelopment does not lie within any statutory sites designated for nature conservation. Six Natura 2000 sites and two Ramsar sites lie within km of the development:

� North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000206); � South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000210); � North Bull Island SPA (Site Code: 004006); � South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (Site Code: 004024); � Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary: Ramsar Site (Site Code:832); � North Bull Island: Ramsar Site (Site Code: 406).

No Natural Heritage Areas or proposed NHAs are considered to be potentially affected by the proposed development.

The emissions to surface water and groundwater from the facility will discharge directly into Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

Protected Species

Chapter 5 of the EIS assesses the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment in terms of birds, marine mammals, terrestrial ecology and marine ecology (including fisheries). Alexandra Basin West was found to be;

� Artificial surfaces and sea walls, piers and jetties - The terrestrial component of this habitat (buildings and artificial surfaces) is of low importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘negligible’ ecological value.

� Exposed sand, gravel or till. spoil and bare ground - The terrestrial component of this habitat is of low to medium importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘low’ ecological value.

� Berth 52/53 was found to be;

� Exposed sand, gravel or till , spoil and bare ground - This habitat has low to medium importance at a local scale due to the continued arrival of broadleaved herbs, providing foraging habitat for invertebrates, particularly bees. The terrestrial component of this habitat is of low to medium importance and rarity at a local scale and is therefore of ‘low’ ecological value.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



2.4 FACILITY PROCESS AND ACTIVITIES

2.4.1 Dredging and Treatment

Dredging and treatment will be carried out at a rate of approximately 1,000 m3

per day. The sediment handling process is estimated to last approximately 18 months based on the estimated volume to be treated of 470,000 m

3 and will be undertaken all year round.

Screening

The contaminated dredged material will be screened if required to remove extraneous material unsuitable for treatment (e.g. debris). This can be undertaken on the barge by raking or by feeding the material onto a screen. This material will be disposed off at an appropriately licensed landfill. The extent of dewatering will be determined by the water requirements of the treatment technology and the solids content of the sediments following dredging, transport and screening.

Dewatering

Reducing the moisture content reduces the volume to be treated and the volume of additives that may be required for the S/S process. If required, further dewatering methods will be applied to the dredged sediments to return the moisture content as a minimum to what is was when still in-situ. The dredged sediments will be dewatered by mechanical pressing. Flocculants may be required for mechanical dewatering. Water arising from the dewatering process will be removed by pumping and treated in a water treatment plant before being discharged via the designated discharge point in accordance with appropriate consents.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



Figure 2.1 Process Flow Diagram for Treatment Activity

Discharge to Surface water

Note on Emissions

• Noise

• Dust

• Fugitive dust emission

• Gaseous Emissions

• Wastes


Dredged Contaminated

Sediments

Boundary of treatment activity


Additives Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), quicklime and pozzolanic materials, which include pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and granulated ground blast furnace slag (GGBS).

Ex situ stabilisation using process stabilisation.

e.g Batching plant. Consisting of silos, premixing chamber, mixing chamber, belt feeding/ conveyors control room and unloading area

Treated sediment will be off loaded by trucks or pumped

Waste Water Treatment Plant

Storage and preparation

Sediment Unloading/ Pretreatment Screening and Dewatering if required.

Sediments returned to process

Treated contaminated dredged material recovered for use as infill for Graving Dock #2, Berth 52/53 and adjacent area.

Monitoring

• Short Term

• Long Term

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



2.4.2 Ancillary Processes

Wheel-wash

The contractor will also be required to ensure that all local roads, including the access road to the site, are maintained and kept clean as far as is reasonably practicable. This shall be achieved by providing a self contained wheelwash and sufficient hard standing area for parked vehicle.

In addition to this the Contractor shall be required to employ road sweepers to ensure local roads are kept clean and free of debris which may have originated from the site.

Laboratory facilities

The contractor will also be required to have laboratory facilities on site for certain testing. It is proposed that the contractor will retrieve the necessary samples and have adequate facilities in place to facilitate the preparation and storage of samples for the duration of the S/S treatment phase. Other samples will be sent to an accredited laboratory for independent analysis where required.

Design and location of fuel storage areas

Fuel required for mechanical excavators and generators on site shall be contained in a designated fuel point of the Contractor’s choice to ensure that surface water and ground water is protected from potential adverse impacts. All storage facilities will conform to Best Available techniques (BAT).

Quarantine area

In the event that testing uncovers treated sediments unsuitable for fill that requires offsite disposal, then measures to remove and dispose/recover such materials will be undertaken in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan. Such measures will include the provision of a waste quarantine area where suspect material will be placed pending removal if deemed necessary.

Sediment Handling

It is proposed to treat the sediment through the S/S treatment process. Process stabilisation equipment can be an efficient and well functioning technique for the treatment of contaminated sediments.

The stabilisation and the immobilisation of the fine particles start immediately after mixing. The process allows accurate proportioning of additives with the sediments.

The additives, water and contaminated sediments will be loaded into the stationary mixing drum in the correct proportions where it is blended into a mortar consistency and then discharged into a ready-mix truck or the hopper of a concrete pump for transport to the recovery area.

The binder components will be transported to site via sea or in tank lorries and stored in silos or in stacks under cover at the treatment area.

Filling of Treated Sediments

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



When infilling into water process stabilisation will ensure that the water does not contain contaminants as the stabilised mixture is made before it is deposited into the fill area.

The new berth configuration proposed in Alexandra Basin West involves the extension of Berth 29 on Alexandra Quay West westwards in front of the entrance to Graving Dock #2. This will be completed prior to the filling operation isolating Graving Dock #2 from the sea.

The treated contaminated dredged material will be recovered for use as infill for Graving Dock #2 and Berth 52/53 as shown in Drawing IBR0668/108 and 109. Prior to the filling of Berth 52/53 basin, a cellular cofferdam will be constructed to close off Berth 52/53 from the main navigation channel. This will eliminate surface water flows from the main estuary into the berths. The exact method of filling i.e. the treated sediment will be off loaded by trucks or pumped from the treatment area to the infill areas will be determined by the selected contactor for the works.

Water quality will be measured in Berth 52/53 during the filling operation to ensure that measured parameters are within agreed limits. If necessary, a controlled outlet from Berth 52/53 will be constructed to control water level/flow. A written record of the types and quantities of material recovered at the infill sites will be maintained. Ongoing monitoring of the S/S process during the field trial and construction project will consist of the following:

2.4.3 Waste Water Treatment

Through appropriate site layout and design of surface water collection systems, uncontaminated water will be kept separate from contaminated water, and good housekeeping measures put into place to minimise the potential for cross-contamination.

During the construction phase of works, the contractor will be required to manage any contaminated water arising from the sediment handling process. A water treatment plant will comprise a single lane treatment process to remove suspended solids, product and contaminants (if present) from the waste water produced from dewatering and treatment processes. Options for dewatering are outlined Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS. The volume of water to be treated will be determined by the amount of water to be removed prior to the treatment process.

The water treatment plant will be sized accordingly.

Figure 2.2 Process Flow Diagram for Waste water Treatment

The waste water will be pumped from the treatment area into a settlement holding tank/lagoon. From the tank/ lagoon water will be directed through a separator (Class 1 Full Retention) to prevent suspended solids and oil from entering the treatment process. From the separator the remaining water will be directed through a sand filter to remove further suspended solids and an activated carbon vessel to remove any organic contaminants before discharged via a designated discharge point to Berth 52/53 as shown on Drawing IBR0668/107.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



3 CLOSURE TASKS AND PROGRAMME

3.1 CLOSURE CONSIDERATIONS

In order to develop a fully costed Closure Plan for the DPA facility, a number of assumptions have been made:

� It has been assumed that the closure of the facility will be an unforeseen event with no planning incorporated into the day to day operation of the site. This is a worst case scenario as typically for such a facility, the closure would be a well-planned event and production schedules and raw materials purchasing and storage will be planned to reflect this. For this closure scenario, it is assumed that the S/S process and storage are at capacity at the time of closure.

� The entire S/S plant will be fully decontaminated (i.e. cleaned) and decommissioned (i.e. rendered safe and removed from the site where stated). All wastes, materials, etc. on the site will be removed and treated as waste.

� Unused raw materials will be returned to vendors where possible.

� It has been assumed that the costs of decontamination and decommissioning will be based on contractors carrying out such works, i.e. these are not standard DPA operational costs.

� It has been assumed that the treatment process will be recommenced under different contract at a later date to complete the infilling of the Berth 52/53 and Graving Dock #2 in accordance with overall project objectives.

� This Closure Plan will be subject to annual reviews, particularly focusing on the cost and suitable financial provisions and take into account any changes in the activities carried out at the facility.

3.2 PROGRAMME TO ACHIEVE CLOSURE

The S/S treatment process will be carried out under well-defined and strict controls. These controls will include Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), legislative and regulatory controls.

In the event that the entire facility is closed, all areas of the facility shall be decommissioned and decontaminated. It is estimated that the closure of the S/S treatment process and associated infrastructure would take a 2-3 week timeframe.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



3.3 CLOSURE PLAN

Step 1: Decommissioning and Decontamination of Plant and Equipment

Decommissioning and decontamination of the S/S treatment plant will be undertaken at this stage. Any residual treated dredged material in the production vessels will be removed and infilled. Untreated dredged material will be collected for offsite disposal by a licensed waste disposal company. Due to the nature of the process it is not plausible that all tanks would be full at any given time and a reasonable conservative assumption is that the vessels would be at 50% of the full capacity.

All solid wastes located in the production areas will be disposed of through licensed contractor. For the untreated dredged material this is estimated at 100 tonnes of hazardous material.

Any solid cleaning wastes (wipes, cloths, etc.) resulting from decontamination will be disposed of through licensed contractor.

The decontamination and decommissioning costs will be separate from typical operational costs under the basic assumption that the closure will be unplanned. DPC may opt to hire an external contractor. The costs are covered by the closure costs presented in Section 6 of this plan.

The costs also include for any specialist cleaning chemicals and equipment required to complete the decontamination process. This cost includes for validation testing carried out by the contractor to ensure all vessels are free from contamination.

Mobile plant items will be decommissioned and removed from the site. In short, all plant within the site will be removed off site leaving the hard standing area empty suitable for reuse.

Step 2: Removal from service for plant and equipment.

As the closure scenario is for unplanned closure it has been assumed that typical volumes of raw materials, products and intermediates will be present on site.

It has been assumed that up to 200 tonnes of raw material (additives) may be stored on site at any given time (vessels would be at 50% of the full capacity). This material will be pre-packaged from the supplier so handling costs will be minimal.

It has also been conservatively assumed that there is will be no route for this material other than disposal/recovery through licensed contractor. In other words, no raw materials can be returned to suppliers.

Step 3: Emptying, Decontamination and Decommissioning of Silo Tank, storage areas and Fuel Tanks

As above, it is conservatively assumed that bulk storage on site will be at 50% capacity at the time of closure. Assuming that there is no other outlet for this material other than recovery/disposal as a waste, the principle route for this waste is through recovery/disposal off site by a suitably licensed waste contractor.

All bunded areas will be flushed and cleaned. All liquid waste generated during cleaning process will be sent to the WWTP as appropriate. In the event where washed waters are highly concentrated with

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



pollutants – this liquid can be diverted to a suitable tank for temporary storage and fed through the WWTP to suit the treatment load of the system or pumped out for off-site treatment.

All fuel tanks will be emptied by a licensed contractor and tanks and bunds decontaminated.

Step 4: Decommission Laboratories

All chemicals and equipment will be removed from the laboratories. All chemicals will be treated as waste and dispatched for recovery/disposal through licensed contractor. Equipment in the laboratories that has an inherent value and is uncontaminated may be donated. . All documentation will be shredded and recovered as recyclable material. All computers and electrical equipment will be recycled as WEEE. All solid wastes (PPE, consumables) will be treated as hazardous for contaminated material (estimated 1 tonne) and non-hazardous (estimated 1 tonne) for unused PPE and consumables. The cost of the disposal or all equipment and chemicals is included in the waste disposal costs.

Step 5: Contractors Compound

Closure of this area of the site will involve dismantling of cabins, and safe disposal of wastes, by a licensed contractor. All non hazardous waste will be segregated for recycling/recovery or disposal and will be collected by appropriate licensed contractors. This waste is the responsibility of the contractor and costs for disposal/recovery lie with the contractor.

Step 6 Decommission Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)

The WWTP will be one of the last items of plant to be fully decommissioned. After full decommissioning the system can be drained and cleared. WWTP sludge will be removed from the facility and a conservative estimate of 300 tonnes is used in the costing.

Upon final drainage of the WWTP system, all tanks will be fully emptied and decontaminated where necessary, and removed from the site.

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



4 CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL CLOSURE

In order to achieve clean closure, the following benchmark set of criteria will need to be met as per EPA guidance document:

� Full decontamination and decommissioning of all S/S process treatment equipment using standard procedures and authorised contractors.

� Associated temporary buildings removed from site.

� All S/S process treatment equipment and associated temporary buildings removed off site.

� All treated contaminated dredging recovered on site.

� All excess raw materials removed from site.

� All storage areas fully emptied and stored material transported or disposed of.

� All waste disposed or recovered in a manner that complies with regulatory requirements.

� All site services fully decontaminated and decommissioned and verified.

� All relevant records relating to waste and materials movement and transfer or disposal managed and retained throughout the closure process.

� Independent verification and certification of clean closure status.

� The Environmental Management System remained in place and was actively implemented during the closure period.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



5 CLOSURE PLAN VALIDATION

Dublin Port Company will notify the EPA as soon as practicable of any decision to cease operations with full closure of the facility. An agreed time frame and specific methodologies will be submitted to the EPA for agreement prior to any cessation.

Other statutory bodies including the local authority will be notified of plans to cease operation and proposed closure timeframe.

A test programme will be implemented on sequential planned order of closure in order of:

1. Decontamination verification

2. Final investigation/integrity test of underground structures

3. Soil and groundwater validation investigation

Upon completion of implementation of the Closure Plan, DPA will conduct a validation audit to demonstrate to the EPA that the closure plan has been implemented. The qualification and experience of the auditor will be provided and agreed with the EPA prior to the validation commencing, and a validation report will be submitted to the agency upon completion.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



6 CLOSURE PLAN COSTING

Table 6.1 presents an estimation of the costs associated with controlling, cleaning, remediating and monitoring the pollution cased by this scenario.

The costs presented include for the maximum scale of costs including the following:

� Assuming S/S operating at full capacity at the time of closure (~200 m3/hr). Approximately

1,000 m3.

� Assuming all storage tanks/silos are at full capacity at the time of closure (500 tonnes).

� Assuming that S/S batch treatment plant has not been removed by the appointed Contractor and Dublin Port has to decommission and remove from site.

The costing also assumes that the closure of the facility is a totally unplanned event and the costs for carrying out cleaning, decontamination and decommissioning works are based on a third party carrying out the works and not Dublin Port Company.

The costs for the decommissioning of the WWTP are also included in Table 6.1. .

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



Table 6.1: Costing of closure of S/S Process Treatment Facility at Dublin Port

Task Description Quantity

(No.) Measurement

Unit

Unit Rate Cost

(€) (€)

Plant and equipment

decontamination

Associated S/S Production Temporary Buildings - Cleaning contractor personnel costs (1 supervisor, 1 operative) 1 day 500 500

S/S Plant facility - Cleaning contractor personnel costs (1 supervisor, 2 operatives) 1 day 2,000 2,000

Laboratory - Cleaning contractor personnel costs (1 supervisor, 2 operatives) 1 day 2,000 2,000

Decontamination of Large Silos Tanks (100 tonnes) 4 unit 1,000 4,000

Fuel Storage Tanks (operational) 2 unit 2,500 5,000

Process drain jetting 2 day 2,000 4,000

Plant and equipment

decommissioning, i.e. removal from service for plant and equipment.

S/S Plant facility - Decommissioning contractor personnel costs (1 supervisor, 3 general operatives) 5 day 2,400 12,000

Decommissioning of Large Silos Tanks (100 tonnes) 4 day 2,400 9,600

Laboratory - Decommissioning contractor personnel costs (1 supervisor, 3 operatives) 1 day 2,400 2,400

Decommissioning Fuel Storage Tanks 1 day 2,400 2,400

Plant Disposal Transport of plant off site (assumes 1 plant item per load travelling 100km) 4 unit 800 3,200

Recovery (all steel may be recovered for reuse so disposal cost at zero) unit

Waste Disposal/Recovery

Waste Management Area – Other hazardous waste (transport and disposal/recovery) 1,000 tonne 300 300,000

Waste Management Area – Non hazardous waste (transport and disposal recovery) 200 tonne 250 50,000

WWTP Sludge (gate fee) 10 tonne 200 2,000

WWTP Sludge – (transport) 10 tonne 70 700

Interceptor sludge (transport and disposal/recovery) 5 tonne 70 350

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



Task Description Quantity

(No.) Measurement

Unit

Unit Rate Cost

(€) (€)

Environmental monitoring

Surface water monitoring 1 annual 3600 3,600

Ground water monitoring 1 annual 12000 12,000

Validation audit Consultant costs 5 day 650 3,250

Management Costs

Management (Site Manager, part time 2 days per week) 4 days 500 2,000

Other administration overheads 4 days 500 2,000

Total (€) 423,000

Contingency (20%) 84,600

Total including contingency(€) 592,200

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



7 CLOSURE PLAN UPDATE AND REVIEW

The closure plan will be updated and reviewed in accordance with the facility’s IE licence conditions.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



8 RESTORATION/AFTERCARE PLAN

Ground investigations, soil and groundwater testing programmes have been undertaken at Dublin Port as part of the IED application process.

These investigations have focused on the proposed infilling areas (Graving Dock 2 and Berth 52/53). It is therefore proposed to deal with the Restoration and Aftercare of the facility in two sections:

� Restoration/Aftercare Plan for the infilling area Graving Dock 2.

� Restoration/Aftercare Plan for the infilling area Berth 52/53.

8.1 RESTORATION/AFTERCARE PLAN FOR GRAVING DOCK 2.

As part of this scheme it is proposed to seal and fill Graving Dock No. 2 at Alexandra Basin West to provide space for open hardstanding space for storage/parking. The graving dock will be filled with treated material and capped with crushed material to tie in with the surrounding surface levels. A layer of sand and a geotextile material will be placed in the graving dock, prior to the infilling, to act as a separation layer. This will facilitate future reversal of the infilling works if required. The reinstated areas behind the quay walls and the reclamation area at Graving Dock # 2 will be surfaced using a combination of concrete slabs and bituminous surfacing or block paving (in the order of 300-400mm) for trafficked areas and trailer parking.

A site-specific detailed quantitative risk assessment (DQRA) of the likely source – pathway – receptor pollutant linkages has been undertaken in line with guidance and best practice in order to quantify the significance of leachable contamination identified in the treated dredged material upon the quality of controlled waters, specifically the River Liffey. The DQRA has been carried out to assess the potential impacts the infilling of Graving Dock #.2 and Berth 52/53 may have the on the River Liffey. The risk assessment was carried out using the UK Remedial Targets Worksheet (in absence of an equivalent Irish Model), which was used to determine if the levels of contaminants which may leach from treated dredgings into the River Liffey were acceptable.

Achievement of remediation targets will be assessed through a programme of long term aftercare monitoring. This monitoring will take place at the existing groundwater monitoring wells and the period of monitoring required will be reviewed on an annual basis.

8.2 RESTORATION/AFTERCARE PLAN FOR BERTH 52 / 53

As above it is proposed to fill the basin at Berth 52 / 53 to provide open storage space and a new river berth at the port entrance. It is also proposed to raise the surface levels at the marshalling area adjacent to the infilled basin at Berth 52 / 53 by approximately 1.4m. The infill area at Berth 52 / 53 and the raised area adjacent to the infill site will be surfaced using a combination of concrete slabs and bituminous surfacing or block paving (in the order of 300-400mm) for trafficked areas and trailer parking.

8.3 COSTING THE RESTORATION/AFTERCARE PLAN

Table 8.1 provides the detailed summary of the proposed site investigation, remediation and subsequent aftercare for both the production area and also the infill areas. A number of factors have been incorporated into this costing.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



• The aftercare monitoring for this project is costed for up to 5 years post filling to account for validation that treatment sediment recovered on site are having no effect on the surrounding environment.

• The restoration of the infill areas is considered complete and there are no costs presented for this element as capping will be fully completed post closure.

• While the monitoring requirement through the aftercare phase may be reduced by the EPA, the projected costs are based on the full suite of analysis and sampling frequency.

• A contingency of 30% has been added to the costs.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



Table 8.1: Costing of restoration and aftercare of the Dublin Port facility

Task Description Quantity (No.) Measurement

Unit

Unit Rate Cost

(€) (€)

Aftercare at the infill area

Aftercare Management (Site Manager, 2 days per month) 120 days 500 60,000

SW Sampling/Reporting Costs (3 locations for 5 years) 60 sample 200 12,000

GW Analysis Costs (10 wells quarterly) 200 sample 200 40,000

Administration overheads 5 annual 5,000 25,000

Total (€) 137,000

Contingency (30%) 41,100

Total including contingency(€) 178,100

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



9 COST SUMMARY

Summary costs for Closure, Restoration and Aftercare management as calculated in 2015 are presented in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 2015 Cost Estimates for Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan

Item 2015 Total Cost (€) Notes

Closure of the S/S treatment area 592,200 Includes 20% contingency, excludes

VAT

Aftercare Management (Site Manager, 2 days per month)

178,100 Includes 30% contingency, excludes

VAT

Total 770,300

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



10 CONCLUSION

As part of IE application Dublin Port has prepared a Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan for the closure of the facility.

The EPA guidance document entitled ‘Guidance on assessment and costing environmental liabilities 2015 has been used as the basis for the methodology in preparing this report.

The calculated Financial Provision for the closure, restoration and aftercare of the facility is €792,200 (exclusive of VAT). This figure is based on a detailed analysis of the closure, restoration and aftercare program and tasks and rates are based on existing suppliers and industry norms.

Where there is uncertainty in the task or program a conservative estimate has been provided and a high level of contingency (20-30%) has been has been applied to the costing to ensure a robust financial provision.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57



APPENDIX A

DRAWING

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57

Ro Ro No.4

Bulk Jetty

Alexandra Quay West

TOLKA QUAY ROAD

ES

Warehouse

Port

Centre

J

e

t

t

y

Jetty

ALEXANDRA

BASIN

HW

M

H

ES

ES

LS

Platform

Coal Yard

Freight Terminal

W

B

Tank

WB


Car Park


WM

Transit Shed

Grain Store

Tank

WB

Tanks

Tanks

Overhead C

onveyor

WB

Overhead

Passage

Chy

Overhead

Conveyor

Overhead

Conveyor

C

ra

n

e

R

a

il

Tanks

Tanks

Oil Installations

Tanks

Tks

Dock Gates

ALEXANDRA BASIN

North Wall

Graving

Dock

Dock Gates

ALEXANDRA QUAY

QU

AY

2

RO

AD

RO

AD

BR

AN

CH

TOLKA

1

NO

RT

H

RO

AD

BR

AN

CH

1

SO

UT

H

SO

UT

H

BR

AN

CH

ES

ES

EX

TE

NS

ION

NO

RT

H

QU

AY

Top of T

op-up B

und

Top of T

op-up B

und

NO

RT

H

E

A

S

T

R

O

A

D

RO

AD

W

A

L

L

EA

ST

WA

LL

RO

AD

ALE

XA

ND

RA

ALE

XA

ND

RA

RO

AD

SH

ER

IFF

ST

RE

ET

UP

PE

R

TOLKA QUAY ROAD

DREDGE BASINDEPTH -12.51m O.D.M.

[-10.0m C.D.]

MARSHALLINGAREA

D

D

C

C

ALEXANDRA QUAY WEST

CROSSBERTH QUAY

NORTH WALL QUAY EXTENSION (BASIN SIDE)

F

J

GH

E E

Ro-Ro JETTY

K

REINFORCED CONCRETE CAPPING BEAM. (351m)

31.10

0m

21.425m 31.100m

256m

13.235m

14.400m

31m

273.0m

530m

PROPOSED BANKSEATAND Ro-Ro LINKSPAN 1

PROPOSED BANKSEATAND Ro-Ro LINKSPAN 2

PROPOSED BANKSEAT.STEEL PLATE OVERLAYTO RECESS TO ALLOWCONTINUOUS WORKINGAREA

PROPOSED MOORINGDOLPHINS WITH WALKWAYSAND FENDERS

STEEL PILE WALL WITHREINFORCED CONCRETECAPPING BEAM IN FRONT OFEXISTING WALL

FENDERS


MOORINGBOLLARD

EMERGENCY LADDERSRECESSED INTOCAPPING BEAM

MOORINGBOLLARD


EXISTING OUTFALLSEXTENDED

PROPOSED LINKSPANPONTOON

EMERGENCY LADDERSRECESSED INTOCAPPING BEAM

GRAVING DOCK Nr 2FILLED WITH TREATEDDREDGED MATERIAL ANDCAPPED

LIGHTINGMASTAB-01

LIGHTINGMASTAB-02

LIGHTINGMASTAB-03

LIGHTINGMASTAB-04

LIGHTINGMASTAB-05

LIGHTINGMASTAB-06

LIGHTINGMASTAB-07

LIGHTINGMASTAB-08

LIGHTING

EXISTING OUTFALLSEXTENDED TO SUITNEW POSITION OFPROPOSED WALL

HARBOUR MOBILECRANE

GRAVING DOCK Nr 1MATERIAL EXCAVATEDFROM EXISTING DOCK.

ORIGINALQUAY LINE

EXISTING QUAY WALLRETAINED.

NEW QUAY TIES

EXISTING ENTRANCE/EXITGATES CLOSED TOVEHICULAR TRAFFIC.PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLY

EXISTING GATES ATTERMINAL 3PERMANENTLY CLOSED

LOCAL ACCESS ONLY TOPORT CENTRE VIA EASTWALL ROAD. EXISTINGGATES CLOSED ONALEXANDRA ROAD

CONSERVATION ZONE `B` to ZONE'F'. OPENING IN NEW QUAY ATMOORING RING FEATURE. REFERTO MOLA ARCHITECTS DRAWING13011-2-2105 FOR DETAILS

CONSERVATION ZONE `C`. OPENINGIN NEW QUAY AT MOORING RINGFEATURE. REFER TO MOLAARCHITECTS DRAWINGS FOR

CONSERVATION ZONE `D`.OPENING IN NEW QUAY ATEXISTING MOORING RING FEATURE.

NEW HOPPER, AS PEREXISTING TO REPLACEEXISTING HOPPER ATLEAD-IN JETTY

NEW CONVEYOR, ASEXISTING TO REPLACEEXISTING CONVEYORAT LEAD-IN JETTY

CONSERVATION ZONE 'H'AROUND GRAVING DOCK Nr.1.

ESB SUBSTATION

ESB SUBSTATION

CRANE RAILSREINSTATED

CONSERVATION ZONE `A`(INTERPRETATIVE ZONE 1).

SITENOTICE

SITENOTICE

HARBOUR MOBILECRANE

CONSERVATION ZONE `H`REFER TO MOLAARCHITECTS DRAWING13011-2-2107 FOR DETAILS

QUAY WALL ALONG GRAVINGDOCK Nr 2

+3.89m O.D.M.

[+6.40m C.D.]

+3.89m O.D.M.[+6.40m C.D.]

+3.89m O.D.M.[+6.40m C.D.]

+4.19m O.D.M.[+6.70m C.D.]

+4.19m O.D.M.[+6.70m C.D.]

CONSERVATION ZONE 'G'AROUND GRAVING DOCK Nr.2.

EXTENT OF PRECASTFACING PANELS

EXTENT OF REINFORCEDCONCRETE CAPPINGBEAM

Drawing Number


Client

Rev

Drawing Scale

drawnamendmentsrev

Project

Title

date

/




Fill Areas - Graving Dock Nr 2

Preliminary

Mar '15

1:2,500

IBR0668

A3

108 0

DD AMB AMcG




NOTES


5. Keys



Ballyraine

Letterkenny

Co. Donegal

+353 (0) 74 91 61927

+353 (0) 74 91 61928


E [email protected]


50m SCALE 1:2500

Graving Dock Nr 2 - Fill with Treated Dregged Materials and Capped

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57

Ro`Ro No.5

5

Berth No.52

Berth No.53

7

Ro Ro No.7

Ro Ro No.8

Ramp

WB

Tank

WB

Ferry

Terminal

WB

Freight Terminal

Car Park

Ram

p

Freight Terminal

LS

TE

RM

IN

AL R

OA

D N

OR

TH

MP

Mooring P

osts

Sluice

Jetty

Pier

MP

Sluice

HWM

H

W

M

HWM

HWM

HW

M

HW

M

HW

M

Mh

Car Park

Car Park

Ramp

Tank

Pla

tform

Elevated Ramp

Beacon


LW

M

Dolphin

Concrete

HWM

TE

RM

IN

AL R

OA

D S

OU

TH


ALEXANDRA ROAD

297m

265m

260m

11.5m 25.5m

NEW STEEL PILE CELLULARWALL WITH REINFORCEDCONCRETE CAPPING BEAM.

FENDERS

MOORINGBOLLARD

EXISTING BERTH POCKETDREDGED TO REQUIRED DEPTH

LIMIT OF EXISTINGBASIN TO BE FILLED

LIMIT OF EXISTINGBASIN TO BE FILLED

LIGHTINGMASTB52-01

LIGHTINGMASTB52-02

LIGHTINGMASTB52-03

LIGHTINGMASTB52-04

LIGHTINGMASTB52-05

LIGHTINGMASTB52-06

LIGHTINGMASTB52-07

LIGHTINGMASTB52-08 LIGHTING

MASTB52-09

LIGHTINGMASTB52-10

LIGHTINGMASTB52-11

LIGHTINGMASTB52-12

LIGHTINGMASTB52-13

LIGHTINGMASTB52-14 LIGHTING

MASTB52-15

FILLED AREA SLOPED DOWNOVER 25m TO MEET EXISTINGLEVELS

EXISTING BERTH49 QUAY

PROPOSED MOORINGDOLPHINS WITH FENDERSAND WALKWAY

PROPOSED MOORINGDOLPHINS WITH FENDERSAND WALKWAY RELOCATED Ro-Ro

LINKSPAN FROMALEXANDRA BASIN

EXISTINGRo-Ro RAMP

Ro-Ro LINKSPANDOLPHIN.

Ro-Ro LINKSPAN DOLPHIN.SIZE SUBJECT TODETAILED DEIGN

PROPOSED TEMPORARYTREATMENT FACILITY.(REMOVED PRIOR TOCOMPLETION)

SITENOTICE

SITENOTICE

160m126m

TREATED DREDGE FILL AREA

EXISTING BASIN FILLED WITHTREATED DREDGE MATERIAL

MARSHALLING AREA

CHANNEL BASIN DEPTH: -12.51m [-10.00m C.D.]

EXISTING BERTHING BASINDEPTH: -12.51m [-10.00m C.D.]

TREATEDDREDGE

FILL AREA

A

A

B

B

C C

D D

E

E

EXISTING ESBSUBSTATION RETAINEDAT EXISTING LEVELS

36m36m

+4.59

m O.

D.M.

[+7.1

0m C

.D.]

LOCALISED SLOPESFROM RAISEDLEVEL TO EXISTINGAND ACCESS RAMP

PROPOSED REINFORCEDCONCRETE PILEDBRIDGE SUPPORTS TOCARRY UPPER ANDLOWER APPROACHRAMPS.

Drawing Number


Client

Rev

Drawing Scale

drawnamendmentsrev

Project

Title

date

/




Fill Areas - Berth 52/53

Preliminary

Mar '15

1:2,500

IBR0668

A3

109 0

DD AMB AMcG




NOTES


5. Keys



Ballyraine

Letterkenny

Co. Donegal

+353 (0) 74 91 61927

+353 (0) 74 91 61928


E [email protected]


50m SCALE 1:2500

Fill with Treated Dredge Materials and Capped

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57

Ro Ro No.4

Bulk Jetty

Alexandra Quay West

TOLKA QUAY ROAD

ES

Warehouse

Port

Centre

J

e

t

t

y

Jetty

ALEXANDRA

BASIN

HW

M

H

ES

ES

LS

Platform

Coal Yard

Freight Terminal

W

B

Tank

WB


Car Park


WM

Transit Shed

Grain Store

Tank

WB

Tanks

Tanks

Overhead C

onveyor

WB

Overhead

Passage

Chy

Overhead

Conveyor

Overhead

Conveyor

C

ra

n

e

R

a

il

Tanks

Tanks

Oil Installations

Tanks

Tks

Dock Gates

ALEXANDRA BASIN

North Wall

Graving

Dock

Dock Gates

ALEXANDRA QUAY

QU

AY

2

RO

AD

RO

AD

BR

AN

CH

TOLKA

1

NO

RT

H

RO

AD

BR

AN

CH

1

SO

UT

H

SO

UT

H

BR

AN

CH

ES

ES

EX

TE

NS

ION

NO

RT

H

QU

AY

Top of T

op-up B

und

Top of T

op-up B

und

NO

RT

H

E

A

S

T

R

O

A

D

RO

AD

W

A

L

L

EA

ST

WA

LL

RO

AD

ALE

XA

ND

RA

ALE

XA

ND

RA

RO

AD

SH

ER

IFF

ST

RE

ET

UP

PE

R

TOLKA QUAY ROAD

150Ø

225Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

150Ø

100Ø

2

2

5

Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

225Ø

1

0

0

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

225Ø

1

5

0

Ø

225Ø

300Ø

2

2

5

Ø

1

5

0

Ø

150Ø

2

5

0

Ø

250Ø

150Ø

225Ø

225Ø

200Ø

225Ø

225Ø

1

5

0

Ø

1

5

0

Ø

200Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

3

0

0

Ø

100Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

1

0

0

Ø

150Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

3

0

0

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

225Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

2

2

5

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

1

0

0

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

150Ø

150Ø

225Ø 225Ø

150Ø

150Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

1

5

0

Ø

600Ø

6

0

0

Ø

6

0

0

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

7

5

0

Ø

750Ø

P.S.

7

5

0

Ø

750Ø 1

5

0

Ø

450Ø

225Ø

225Ø

450Ø

450Ø

IN

T.

375Ø

375Ø

?

?

225Ø

225Ø

750Ø

450Ø

450Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

150Ø

450Ø

450Ø

450Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

450Ø

450Ø

225Ø 2

2

5

Ø

225Ø 225Ø

??

450Ø

(R

ED

UN

DA

NT

C

OLLIN

G W

AT

ER

IN

TA

KE

)

750Ø

450Ø

250Ø

600Ø

750Ø

225Ø

225Ø

TO

S

.W

.F

.M

.

IN

T

.

IN

T

.

6

0

0

Ø

O

u

tfa

ll W

ith

H

e

a

d

w

a

ll

450Ø

450Ø

450Ø

250Ø

7

5

Ø

100Ø

100Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

A.V.

100Ø

100Ø

A.V.

100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

100Ø

100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

100Ø

100Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

400Ø

400Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

400Ø

400Ø

150Ø

400Ø

150Ø

400Ø

150Ø

150Ø

100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

1

8

Ø

1

5

0

Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

400Ø

400Ø

150Ø

400Ø

300Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

80Ø

80Ø

80Ø

1

0

0

Ø



Pump House

150Ø

300Ø

100Ø

P.R

.V.

300Ø

225Ø

150Ø

150Ø

??

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

CH

EC

K

125124

106

123

112

122

163

120

119

110

118

105

104

103

102

107

108

109

111

113

114

115

116

117

1

2

3

4

5

6

OBSOLETE

600mmØ

180mmØ

600mmØ

600mmØ

180mmØ

600mmØ

6

0

0

m

m

Ø

6

0

0

m

m

Ø

3

0

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

3

0

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

3

0

0

m

m

Ø

300mmØ

180mmØ

450mmØ

ALEXANDRA

ROAD D.M.A

RE

DU

ND

AN

T

RE

DU

ND

AN

T

RE

DU

ND

AN

T

3

0

0

m

m

Ø

6

0

0

m

m

Ø

1

8

0

m

m

Ø

300mmØ

ENLARGED VIEW

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

WM

225Ø

150Ø

WM

100Ø

150Ø

SV Dom.

75Ø

Fire Service

EXISTING OUTFALLUNPLUGGED AND EXTENDEDTO FACE OF PROPOSEDQUAY WALL

EXISTINGINTERCEPTOR

EXISTING DRAINAGE DIVERTED THROUGH NEWFULL RETENTION INTERCEPTORS TO DISCHARGETHROUGH FLAP VALVE VIA QUAY WALL

EXISTING OUTFALLEXTENDED TO FACE OFPROPOSED QUAY WALL

EXISTING OUTFALL SYSTEMRELOCATED TO SUIT AIDPOSITION OF LINKSPAN.POSITION TO BEDETERMINED AT DETAILEDDESIGN STAGE


NEW DRAINAGE DISCHARGESOUT THROUGH FULLRETENTION INTERCEPTOR

DRAINAGE FROMCONSERVATIONZONE A

NEW DRAINAGE THROUGHGRAVING DOCK Nr 2DISCHARGES THROUGH FULLRETENTION INTERCEPTORAND PASSES THROUGH FLAPVALVE THROUGH QUAY WALL

FULL RETENTION INTERCEPTORS TO DISCHARGE

Drawing Number


Client

Rev

Drawing Scale

drawnamendmentsrev

Project

Title

date

/




Proposed Drainage - Graving Dock Nr 2

Preliminary

Mar '15

1:10,000

IBR0668

A3

112 0

DD AMB AMcG




NOTES


5. Keys



Ballyraine

Letterkenny

Co. Donegal

+353 (0) 74 91 61927

+353 (0) 74 91 61928


E [email protected]


100m SCALE 1:10 000

Proposed Drainage Line - Graving Dock Nr 2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57

Ro`Ro No.5

5

Berth No.52

Berth No.53

Ro Ro No.1

7

Ro Ro No.7

Ro Ro No.8

Mh

R

a

m

p

WB

Ramp

Elevated R

am

p

WB

Tank

WB

Ferry

Terminal

WB

Freight Terminal

Car Park

Ram

p

Freight Terminal

LS

TE

RM

IN

AL R

OA

D N

OR

TH

Jetty

MP

Mooring P

osts

Sluice

Jetty

Pier

MP

Sluice

HWM

H

W

M

HWM

HWM

HW

M

HW

M

HW

M

Mh

Car Park

Car Park

Ramp

Tank

Pla

tform

Elevated Ramp

Beacon

Beacon


Pier

LW

M

Dolphin

Concrete

HWM

TE

RM

IN

AL R

OA

D S

OU

TH


ALEXANDRA ROAD

225Ø

300Ø

3

0

0

Ø

150Ø

900Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

350Ø

TANK

300Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

450Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

525Ø

300Ø

450Ø

375Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

450Ø

300Ø

525Ø

600Ø

300Ø

450Ø

600Ø

5

2

5

Ø

300Ø

525Ø

6

0

0

Ø

INT.

675Ø

450Ø

750Ø

750Ø

450Ø

750Ø

INT.

900Ø

900Ø

9

0

0

Ø

IN

T.

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

INT.

2

0

0

Ø

900Ø

4

5

0

Ø

SLUICE VALVE

FISH TAIL

PUMP STATION

225Ø

300Ø

3

0

0

Ø

150Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

350Ø

TA

NK

300Ø

2

2

5

Ø

225Ø

300Ø

300Ø

450Ø

300Ø

225Ø

225Ø

525Ø

300Ø

450Ø

375Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

450Ø

300Ø

525Ø

600Ø

600Ø

IN

T.

300Ø

2

2

5

Ø

450Ø

600Ø

5

2

5

Ø

300Ø

525Ø

6

0

0

Ø

INT.

675Ø

450Ø

750Ø

750Ø

450Ø

750Ø

INT.

900Ø

900Ø

9

0

0

Ø

IN

T.

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

225Ø

225Ø

225Ø

INT.

2

0

0

Ø

900Ø

4

5

0

Ø

3

0

0

Ø

375Ø

2

2

5

Ø

450Ø

300Ø

225Ø

2

2

5

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

2

2

5

Ø

225Ø

225Ø

INT.

150Ø 150Ø 100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

300Ø

2x50Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

100Ø

ENLARGED VIEW

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

100Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

50Ø

50Ø

300Ø

50Ø

200Ø

200Ø

100Ø

200Ø

80Ø

150Ø

1

5

0

Ø

300Ø

300Ø


300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

300Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

100Ø

1

0

0

Ø

?

DOES A MAIN

EXIST THRO' SITE

45

46

47

44

4342

49

50

51

39

40

41

48

52

53

56

58

57

54

55

59

60

61

62

63

35

36

37

38

IRISH

FERRIES

D.M.A

STENA

LINE

D.M.A

200Ø

200Ø

200Ø

100Ø

150Ø

150Ø

150Ø

59

61

64

150Ø

150Ø

71

150Ø

80Ø





EXISTING DRAINAGENETWORK EXTENDED TOFACE OF NEW QUAY WALL.ALL EXISTING RETENTIONSYSTEMS RETAINED




EXISTING DRAINAGENETWORK EXTENSION TIESINTO NEW LINE OFDRAINAGE AFTER THEPROPOSED FULL RETENTIONINTERCEPTOR


PROPOSED OUTFALLDISCHARGES THROUGH NEWQUAY FACE VIA A FLAPVALVE OR SIMILAR

EXISTING OUTFALLS ANDRETENTION SYSTEMRETAINED

Drawing Number


Client

Rev

Drawing Scale

drawnamendmentsrev

Project

Title

date

/




Proposed Drainage - Berth 52/53

Preliminary

Mar '15

1:10,000

IBR0668

A3

113 0

DD AMB AMcG




NOTES


5. Keys



Ballyraine

Letterkenny

Co. Donegal

+353 (0) 74 91 61927

+353 (0) 74 91 61928


E [email protected]


Proposed Drainage Line - Berth 52/53

50m SCALE 1:2500

Existing Drainage Line

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 29-07-2015:23:44:57

attachment no k remediation, decommissioning, restoration ... · – deep both adjacent to graving...

Documents