Health risk assessment linked to filling coastal quarries with treated dredged seaport sediments.

Dredged seaport sediments raise complex management problems since it is no longer possible to discharge them into the sea. Traditional waste treatments are poorly adapted for these materials in terms of absorbable volumes and cost. In this context, filling quarries with treated sediments appears interesting but its safety regarding human health must be demonstrated. To achieve this, a specific methodology for assessing health risks has been developed and tested on three seaport sediments. This methodology includes the development of a conceptual model of the global scenario studied and the definition of specific protocols for each of its major steps. The approach proposed includes in particular the use of metrological and experimental tools that are new in this context: (i) an experimental lysimeter for characterizing the deposit emissions, and (ii) a geological radar for identifying potential preferential pathways between the sediment deposit and the groundwater. The application of this approach on the three sediments tested for the scenario studied showed the absence of health risk associated with the consumption of groundwater for substances having a "threshold effect" (risk quotient <1), and an acceptable risk for substances having a "non-threshold effect", with the notable exception of arsenic (individual risk equal to 3.10(-6)).

Ecotoxicological risk assessment linked to infilling quarries with treated dredged seaport sediments.

The dredged sediments of polluted seaports now raise complex management problems since it is no longer possible to discharge them into the sea. This results in the need to manage them on land, raising other types of technical, economic and environmental problems. Regarding the technical and economic dimensions, traditional waste treatment methods have proved to be poorly adapted, due to very high costs and low absorbable volumes. In this context, filling quarries in coastal areas with treated sediments could represent an interesting alternative for these materials. Nevertheless, for the environmental dimension, it is necessary to demonstrate that this possibility is harmless to inland ecosystems. Consequently, a specific ecotoxicological risk assessment methodology has been formulated and tested on three sediments taken from seaboards of France, in view to providing an operational and usable tool for the prior validation of any operation to fill quarries with treated seaport sediments. This method incorporates the formulation of a global conceptual model of the scenario studied and the definition of protocols for each of its steps: the characterisation of exposures (based on a simulation of sediment deposit), the characterisation of effects (via the study of sediments ecotoxicity), and the final ecotoxicological risk assessment performed as a calculation of a risk quotient. It includes the implementation in parallel of two types of complementary approach: the "substances" approach derived from the European methodology for assessing new substances placed on the market, and the "matrix" approach which is similar to methods developed in France to assess ecological risks in other domains (waste management, polluted site management, …). The application of this dual approach to the three sediments tested led to conclude with reliability that the project to deposit sediments "1" and "2" presented a low risk for the peripheral aquatic ecosystems while sediment "3" presented a high risk.

Ecological risk assessment of urban and industrial systems: a review.

Numerous ecological risk assessment methodologies have been developed over the last twenty years around the world for evaluating urban and industrial systems and installations, by both the organisations responsible for implementing regulations and the scientific community. Although these methodologies share the general principle underlying their use, they differ widely with respect to the approaches chosen and the resources employed to apply them. Also, they may even have different objectives: prior assessment as part of an impact study before building a new installation, or retrospective assessment, for example, in view to explaining the reasons for an impact recorded or for forecasting additional expected impacts. This article provides a synthesis of the different approaches used around the world for carrying out each of the major steps common to all ecological risk assessment methodologies. The advantages and limitations of these different options are discussed in order to provide elements for formulating any new methodology adapted to a given scenario. To conclude, perspectives for improving the tools required for these methodologies are proposed, and the research works to which priority should be given are identified.