EURO-ECO 2010 Hanover 2 - 3 Dezember 2010	Environmental, Engineering - Economic and Legal Aspects for Sustainable Living
	European Academy of Natural Sciences, Hanover European Scientific Society, Hanover University of Bremen, Bremen

Home

Abstracts EURO-ECO 2010

Contact

Disclaimer

The role of maritime transport in contemporary Russia increases inevitably and will increase in foreseeable future. The total cargo turn-over of Russian terminals has already exceeded the cargo turn-over of the Soviet Union and continues linearly increasing. The intensity of national port construction increases correspondingly. In addition, the volume of dredging and formation of new territories increases exponentially as well.

At the same time, it is essential to preserve the marine ecosystems being used, to ensure the ecological safety of port construction. These two interrelated issues must be resolved systematically and in strategic integration. Such objective can’t be achieved within the framework of the current environment-oriented regulatory and methodical base. In particular, one of its principal disadvantages is that only the simplified scenario of ecologically destructive developments is under consideration traditionally. Some conventional, the only possible value of the man-triggered damage is estimated as if determined by the impact. What actually happens is that the ecologically destructive developments cannot be strictly determined and are of probabilistic nature. Therefore, the active elaboration and implementation of methodology and methods of the environmental risk quantity analysis is essential in order to forecast and minimize the environmental implication of the developing system of maritime transport on the whole and its individual elements in particular. The assessment of the man impact on the ecological environment must have probabilistic and cost character: both the possibility of realization of negative consequences and the degree of their gravity shall be taken into account.

The most adequate approach of environmental hazard estimation seems to be the quantitative probabilistic and cost approach, already universally accepted for estimation of technological hazards. With that, the value of man-triggered environmental risk (R), resulting from an ecologically destructive development, is interpreted as the mathematical expectation of environmental damage (U):

     (1)

where p - probability of developments leading to the endamagement U.

When the extraction and quantity analysis of various scenarios of ecologically destructive developments are possible, their tree may be built. The probability and complete values of damage to the impact recipients in cost terms (U) must be taken into account for every possible alternative event (or scenario - sequence of events). The probability of realization of each i independent scenario of ecologically destructive events from n of potentially possible scenarios (p_i) is determined multiplicatively:

     (2)

where p_ij - probability of the i scenario at every alternative situation of further event development giving k of variants.

The expected damage R in cost terms is determined as the sum of mathematical expectation of the damage from realization of alternative scenarios of ecologically destructive developments, according to the equation:

     (3)

where: n - number of analyzed alternative scenarios of ecologically destructive developments caused by the object impact; R_i - probable environmental damage from the i scenario realization in cost terms; U_i - complete values of environmental damage in physical terms.

As an example of using such approach in engineering of ports may serve the Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Impact of the Avantports of the Big Port of Saint-Petersburg performed by the “Eco-Express-Service” LTD in 2008. According to the design specifications there were considered two alternatives of allocation of the Avantports. In the both cases the Avantport system will take much territory; its certain objects cover the southern part of the Protective structures complex, the coastal strip on the east and in the other alternative on the west of the Protective structures complex, southern part of the Kotlin island.

An overall comparative assessment of the expected impact of the Avantport system on the environment has been carried out concerning the both comparable alternatives of port allocation with the elements of risk-analysis. It was carried out simulation of rolling of water for different alternatives of possible hydrometeorological conditions in the period of conducting the construction

operations taking into consideration the probability of the each of them. Accordingly, based on the results of analysis of these alternative scenarios of environmentally hazardous developments the resulting assessment of the damage to the components of the aquatic environment has been carried out through an equation (3). The results of the overall comparative assessment of the environmental risk with regard to the said alternatives of allocation allowed to recommend reasonably the second alternative with partial removal of the objects to the west of the Protective structures complex. It will allow to preserve the group of planned wildlife sanctuaries between the “Bronka” port and the City of Lomonosov, and at the same time not to fall outside the limits of the admissible impact on the

Special Protected Natural Areas such as the wildlife sanctuary “Lebyazhie”.

Therefore, the suggested approach of estimation and regulation of the environmental risk connected with the port construction demonstrates distinct advantages as compared to the traditional “one-scenario” estimation. The calculation of so-called unique value, determined by the impact of future damage is changed for the tree analysis of possible ecologically destructive developments

with due account for the probability and cost of consequences of each scenario. This method is more adequate, realistic and enables to reach quantitatively reasonable project and management decisions.

Along with the risk assessment of projected activities, the mapping of environmental risk spacial distribution in cost terms is also possible within the framework of this method. Involving several alternative design solutions, it is reasonable to determine the total values of environmental risk of the object construction and operation for each of them. The preferred solution is the one associated with: the least environmental risk; the more prevented environmental risk (which may be estimated as the difference of risk values in compared situations); and the least costs of risk aversion.