14.04.98/AJE

Use of the Rapid Impact Assessment Method (RIAM) on the fly ash landfill at the power station Vestkraft I/S in Esbjerg Arne Jensen and Karin Laursen1, VKI, Agern Alle 11, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark

1 INTRODUCTION 2

2 THE PROJECT 2

2.1 THE PROJECT BACKGROUND 2 2.2 THE POLITICAL DECISION PROCESS 3 2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 4 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY 5 2.5 INITIAL SCOPING 6 2.6 SCOPING 8 2.6.1 SCENARIO 1 - OPTIONS 1-5 8 2.6.2 SCENARIO 2 - OPTIONS 2-5 8 2.6.3 SCENARIO 3 - OPTIONS 2-5 WITH THE EO COMPONENTS DELETED 9 2.6.4 SCENARIO 4 - OPTIONS 1 AND 2 9 2.6.5 SCENARIO 5 - OPTIONS 1 AND 5 9 2.6.6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 10

3 DISCUSSION 10

4 CONCLUSIONS 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 11

REFERENCES 11

APPENDIX 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPONENTS 13

APPENDIX 2 - OPTION 1-5, FIRST SCENARIO 16

1 Present address: Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Strandgade 29, DK-1401 Copenhagen K, Denmark

1 etapeIV.doc

FIGURE 2 LOCATION OF THE FLY ASH DEPOSITS IN ESBJERG 17

FIGURE 3 - 8 18

1 Introduction The European Union has adopted a Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Council Directive, 1997). This directive requires that “the environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case in accordance with articles 4 to 11, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors • human beings, fauna and flora; • soil, water, air, climate and the landscape; • material assets and the cultural heritage; • the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first, second and third indents.”

The execution of this environmental impact assessment (EIA) requires an objective assessment of the different factors cited. The Rapid Impact Assessment Method (RIAM) was developed as an objective and transparent tool in connection with EIA’s (Pastakia, 1998). It was shown to be a powerful tool in connection with EIA’s and was tested on projects in Denmark, Vietnam, Malaysia and Nepal by VKI (Jensen, 1998). The amount of data in these studies have, in comparison with the present study, been less detailed. The purpose of the present study was to test the RIAM on an actual case in Denmark where the Council Directive has to be implemented. The County of Ribe is the responsible, local authority for implementing the Council Directive. The County and the Danish power company Vestkraft I/S accepted that the proposed new fly ash landfill at the power station Vestkraft I/S in Esbjerg could be used as a test case for the RIAM. The detailed EIA prepared by Vestkraft I/S and Ribe County was placed at the disposal of the present study together with several more technical documents.

2 The project

2.1 The project background

2 etapeIV.doc

The power production at Vestkraft I/S is based on coal imported from different coal mines with varying contents of trace elements. The burning of coal produces several waste products: bottom ash from the furnace, fly ash from the dust collection system (electrostatic precipitators) and gypsum from the flue gas cleaning system. The majority of the waste products are reused, e.g. fly ash in cement production and road construction, gypsum in production of plasterboard and bottom ash in road construction. However, it is not possible to completely reuse the fly ash which is the largest quantity produced. The fly ash contains different trace elements with arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), selenium (Se), molybdenum (Mo) and vanadium (V) being the elements with the major environmental problems because they may be leached from the fly ash. Generally, the power production co-operation in Jutland and Fuen, Elsam, has a goal of 70% reuse of fly ash for the whole area. The main features of the project background is illustrated in figure 1.

Power production by use of coal

Fly ash with trace elements approx. 0.1%, e.g. As, Cr, Se, Mo and V

Production of fly ash: 1994: 141,000 tons1995: 103,000 tons1996: 156,000 tons1997-2000: 120,000 tonsAfter 2000: 100,000 tons

Deposition of fly ash:

1994: 96.000 tons1995: 25,000 tons1996: 84.000 tons1997-2000: 65,000 tons/yearAfter 2000: 30,000 tons/year

Reuse of fly ash:

1994: 45,000 tons1995: 78,000 tons1996: 72,000 tons 1997-2000: 55,000 tons/yearAfter 2000: 70,000 tons/year

Figure 1 Illustration of project background The fly ash has been deposited (since the end of the 70’es) in landfills (phase I-III) constructed along the coastline in the Wadden Sea as shown in figure 2. The embankment (phase III) in the sea (at 0-0.6 m depth) was constructed from sand covered with fibre textile and big stones. The deposition of fly ash took place from west to east. The final deposition height was +4.5 m above Danish Normal Sea Level (DNN). These filled landfills become part of the harbour area. However, a new landfill or another site for deposition of fly ash must be established because the existing landfills are now fully utilised.

2.2 The political decision process

3 etapeIV.doc

Several different localities in the County of Ribe for establishment of a new landfill were initially assessed by the County and Vestkraft with the conclusion that two sites are suitable: • an area south of Esbjerg where Esbjerg Community already has a dump site for garbage

where it is possible to deposit the required amount up to a height of 30 meters above ground level;

• the area - named phase IVa and IVb in figure 2 - south of the existing landfill. However, the assessment revealed that the landfill site, phase IV, was the most suitable location and the area close to the dump site for garbage was not assessed in such details as Phase IV. Table 1 presents technical details of the proposed landfill. The licence for the establishment of the new landfill requires that an EIA is implemented according to the Council Directive (1997). The County prepared the EIA (Ribe Amt, 1997a) based on the technical report prepared by I/S Vestkraft, 1997. Ribe County prepared an addendum to the existing regional plan with the plan for the new landfill with a none-technical summary of the EIA (Ribe Amt, 1997b). Further, a proposal for an environmental licence for the project (Ribe Amt, 1997c) was prepared based on the technical report from I/S Vestkraft, 1997. These three reports were sent for public hearing from 13 August 1997 to 22 October (later extended to 15 December 1997). After the hearing phase, the County intends to approve the project unless significant objections to the project have been received. Table 1 Technical details of the landfill for phase IV Technical details Volume 1,000,000 m3 Height above DNN +5,5 m Area 18.2 ha Leachate Average deposition 1996-2000

150,000 m3/year

65,000 tons/year After 2000 30,000 tons/year Simultaneously, Esbjerg Community will prepare an addendum to the local plan. It was expected that both the regional and local plans should be sent out for public hearings in August 1997. However, Esbjerg Community did not approve the proposal for the phase IV and suggested Ribe County that the alternative area close to the existing dump site for garbage should be assessed in similar detail to phase IV. These political problems have influenced the present study in the way that the full EIA cannot be used. Therefore, this present study concentrates only on the landfill site. The study was performed as described in chapter 2.3.

2.3 Objectives of the study The objective of the study is to test the RIAM on the data collected in connection with the EIA and the related environmental studies for the landfill, phase IV. The aim is to investigate the usefulness of the RIAM as a tool in connection with projects requiring an EIA according to the Council Directive (1997).

4 etapeIV.doc

2.4 Description of the study The study was executed on the landfill, phase IV, as described by I/S Vestkraft (1997), and Ribe Amt (1997a, 1997b and 1997c). Five different options for the phase IV project were tested with different degrees of collection and treatment of the leachate from the landfill: Option 1: Phase IV is constructed in the same way as Phase III was constructed as described by ELSAM-PROJEKT A/S (1987). Phase III was constructed with an embankment; but without a drainage system for collection of leachate, either in the bottom or at the surface of the filled landfill. The precipitation therefore leaches through the ash to the sea through the embankment of the landfill. In addition, leachate from the old landfills will penetrate into the new landfill. This option was used as the reference study (zero-solution) for the other phase IV options. Options 2-5: The embankment is constructed as in option 1. However, a drainage system is constructed at the bottom of the landfill and along the embankment so that it is possible to collect, control and treat all leachate if necessary. The landfill will be filled in subsections with drainage systems so that the leachate can be collected when deposition is started. Leachate from the old landfills (phase II and III) will penetrate into the new landfill and will be collected in the drainage system. The following paragraphs describe the differences between option 2-5. Option 2: Collection of leachate from the start of Phase IV with direct discharge - by pumping - of the leachate into the channel transporting cooling water from the power plant to the sea where the leachate is extensive diluted. Option 3: At the beginning leachate is discharged as in option 2. After some time when the leachate contains higher concentrations of pollutants, it will be treated in a new treatment plant (coprecipitation technique) for removal of harmful substances (especially As, Cr, Mo, Se and V). The effluent from the treatment plant will be discharged into the channel transporting cooling water from the power plant to the sea. The sludge containing the trace elements will be transported to a special landfill (at Kommunekemi) for hazardous chemical waste products. Option 4: Diffuse leaching (by stopping of the pump) directly into the sea through the embankment of the landfill. After some time when the leachate contains higher concentrations of pollutants the leachate will be treated as described in option 3. Option 5: Collection of leachate from the start of Phase IV with direct discharge of the leachate into the channel transporting cooling water from the power plant to the sea (like option 2). After some time when the leachate contains higher concentrations of pollutants it will be reused as make-up water in the desulphurization plant thus saving the groundwater resources. The leachate will be injected directly in the absorption tower of the desulphurization plant. After some time when the concentrations of pollutants in the absorption water are too high it will be discharged to the existing treatment plant at the desulphurization plant and afterwards to a new treatment plant (coprecipitation technique) for removal of harmful substances (especially As, Cr, Mo, Se and V). The effluent from the treatment plant will be discharged to the municipal sewage treatment plant due to the content

5 etapeIV.doc

of nitrate originating from the desulphurization plant. The sludge from the existing treatment plant is today mixed with the coal and burnt in the power plant and it is hoped that also the new sludge can be treated in the same way. The sludge from the coprecipitation plant containing especially As, Cr, Mo, Se and V will be transported to the special landfill at Kommunekemi if it cannot be burnt together with the coal.

2.5 Initial scoping The different, environmental components identified are divided into four types according to the RIAM procedure (Pastakia, 1998): • Physical/Chemical components (PC) - Covering all physical and chemical aspects of the

environment; • Biological/Ecological component (BE) - Covering all biological aspects of the

environment; • Sociological/Cultural component (SC) - Covering all human aspects of the environment

including cultural aspects; • Economic/Operational component (EO) - To qualitatively identify the economic

consequences of environmental change, both temporary and permanent. The components are described in Appendix 1. The importance of each component are assessed according to the criteria shown in table 2. The sum of the group (B) scores are then multiplied by the result of the group (A) scores to provide a final environmental score (ES) for the condition. The process can be expressed: (1) (al)x(a2) = aT (2) (b1)+(b2)+(b3) = bT (3) (aT)x(bT) = ES Where: (a1) and (a2) are the individual criteria scores for group (A) (b1) to (b3) are the individual criteria scores for group (B) aT is the result of multiplication of all (A) scores bT is the result of summation of all (B) scores ES is the environmental score for the condition Table 2 Assessment criteria Criteria Scale Description A1 4 important to national/international interests Importance of Condition 3 important to regional/national interests 2 important to areas immediately outside the local condition 1 important only to the local condition 0 no importance A2 Magnitude of Change/ Effect

+3 +2

major positive benefit significant improvement in status quo

6 etapeIV.doc

+1 0 -1 -2 -3

improvement in status quo no change/status quo negative change to status quo significant negative dis-benefit or change major dis-benefit or change

B1 Permanence

1 2 3

no change/not applicable temporary permanent

B2 Reversibility

1 2 3

no change/not applicable reversible irreversible

B3 Cumulative

1 2 3

no change/not applicable non-cumulative/single cumulative/synergistic

The final assessment of each component is evaluated according to the range bands presented in table 3. These range bands will be used for the final assessment of the five options. Table 3 Conversion of environmental scores (ES) to range bands Environmental score (ES) Range Bands Description of range bands

+72 to +108 +36 to + 71 +19 to + 35

+E +D +C

Major positive change/impacts Significant positive change/impacts Moderately positive change/impacts

+10 to + 18 + 1 to + 9

+B +A

Positive change/impacts Slightly positive change/impacts

0 N No change/status quo/not applicable - 1 to - 9 -10 to - 18

-A -B

Slightly negative change/impacts Negative change/impacts

-19 to - 35 -36 to - 71

-72 to - 108

-C -D -E

Moderately negative change/impacts Significant negative change/impacts Major negative change/impacts

An initial scoping was executed on the components shown in Appendix 1. It was realised that some of the components were important and identical for all five options. These components are: • addition of 20% water to the fly ash at the power plant for dust reduction during trans-

portation (PC8); • effects on bird life from the construction of the landfill (BE7); • aesthetic impacts of landfill (SC3) • reuse of deposited fly ash which generally has a high priority (EO1). These components are excluded in the tests below because their impacts are identical in the five options.

7 etapeIV.doc

2.6 Scoping The results of the scoping with options 1-5 are presented in section 2.6.1. The scoping was sufficient to assess the results, however, it is difficult to obtain a complete overview of the different options due to the many components. Therefore, different stepwise scenarios are tested with the same scoping; but with the exclusion of some of the components. The scenarios are: • Scenario 1 - options 1-5; • Scenario 2 - options 2-5; • Scenario 3 - options 2-5 with the EO components deleted; • Scenario 4 - options 1 and 2 to demonstrate the difference between these two options; • Scenario 5 - options 1 and 5 to demonstrate the difference between these two options.

2.6.1 Scenario 1 - options 1-5 The scoping includes all five options with the following number of components: • 13 physical/chemical (PC) • 12 biological/ecological (BE) • 2 social/cultural (SC) • 9 economical/operational (EO). The components and the scoring for options 1-5 are shown in Appendix 2 and figure 3 shows the summary of the scores for the five options. The figures indicates that the most positive impacts can be expected by selection of option 5 compared to the other options. Option 1 has only neutral or negative impacts. However, the positive impacts in option 5 offset negative EO impacts, due to the higher investment, operation and maintenance costs. The negative impacts for option 5 include: • PC14 - deposition of sludge from treatment plant at Kommunekemi; • SC1 - dust from landfill affecting the nearby housing; • SC2 - noise from landfill affecting the nearby housing; • all the EO components except EO8 - Costs (savings) by use of leachate in desulphurization

plant.

2.6.2 Scenario 2 - options 2-5 Scenario 1 indicates that option 1 is the least optimal. However, a second scenario was executed to get a better overview of the results of options 2-5 leaving out the components with identical scorings. It resulted in the following components: • 5 physical/chemical (PC) • 7 biological/ecological (BE) • 0 social/cultural (SC) as the same scoring was given in all four options • 4 economical/operational (EO).

The summary scores in figure 4 shows that option 5 is still the most optimal solution although higher negative scores are found for:

• PC14 - deposition of sludge from treatment plant at Kommunekemi; • three EO components except EO8 - Costs (savings) by use of leachate in desulphurization

plant.

8 etapeIV.doc

2.6.3 Scenario 3 - options 2-5 with the EO components deleted A third scenario was executed on option 2-5 where the EO components are deleted due to the qualitative basis of the EO components. Figure 5 demonstrates clearly that option 5 gives the solution with the most positive impacts where the only negative impact is due to the deposition of sludge at Kommunekemi. The figures show very little difference between options 3 and 4.

2.6.4 Scenario 4 - options 1 and 2 In the fourth scenario option 1 is tested against option 2 to demonstrate the difference in impacts between these two solutions. The following components are included:

• 9 physical/chemical (PC) • 8 biological/ecological (BE) • 2 social/cultural (SC) • 6 economical/operational (EO).

Figure 6 shows clearly the positive impacts of option 2 compared to option 1, with the negative impacts caused by the EO components of option 2.

2.6.5 Scenario 5 - options 1 and 5 The fifth scenario compares option 1 with option 5 to demonstrate the difference in impacts between the zero solution and the option with the most positive impacts. The following components are included:

• 13 physical/chemical (PC) • 9 biological/ecological (BE) • 2 social/cultural (SC) as the same scoring was given in all four options • 9 economical/operational (EO).

Figure 7 demonstrates that option 1 has mainly neutral impacts and no positive impacts with negative impacts for components: • PC4 - Leaching from the existing fly ash landfill into the new landfill. • PC5 - Leaching to the sea through the embankments • PC7 - Leaching to the groundwater • BE1 - Effects in the sea by diffuse leaching through the embankment • BE6 - Effects on ground water • BE12 - Leaching to the sea from old landfills of fly ash. • SC1 - Dust from landfill affecting the nearby housing • SC2 - Noise from landfill affecting nearby housing Whereas the negative impacts for options 5 only include: • PC14 - Deposition of sludge from treatment plant at Kommunekemi • SC1 and SC2 but less negative compared with option 1 • All the EO components except EO8 - Costs (savings) by use of leachate in

desulphurization plant.

9 etapeIV.doc

2.6.6 Sensitivity analysis A sensitivity analysis was executed on the second scenario (section 2.6.2) to test the robustness of the method by given different scoring to some of the components as higher/lower scorings were given for some of the A2, B1 and B2 criteria. Comparison of figure 8 with figure 4 shows that the tendency is still the same with option 5 as the most optimal solution. However, the range of impacts are wider (-E to D); but with the same overall tendency.

3 Discussion The study has shown that option 1 (zero-solution) has only no impacts or the most negative impacts due to direct leaching into the sea from the new as well as from the old landfills. On the other hand it is the least costly solution, and the investment and operation and maintenance cost are significantly higher for options 2-5 (giving negative impacts for these components compared with option 1). The major positive impacts of options 2-5 compared with option 1 are the pumping out of the leachate with discharge into the cooling channel where it is immediately diluted, so that possible effects in the sea are restricted to a small area. There is not very much difference between the impacts of options 3 and 4 as shown in figure 4. Option 5 has the most positive impacts because leachate is only discharged, during the start-up period, into the cooling channel where the concentrations of harmful substances are so low that no impacts are expected in the sea. After the initial period, the leachate would be reused in the desulphurization plant saving ground water resources. The reused leachate would be treated in a special treatment plant for removal of harmful substances. The effluent from the treatment plant would be discharged to the municipal treatment plant due to high concentrations of nitrate. The negative impacts of option 5 are the high investment and operation costs, and the deposition of the sludge from the treatment plant into a special landfill for hazardous waste. The impacts of option 5 could be further reduced if the leachate is reused when it is first produced. This solution allows no discharge to the sea except of treated effluent from the municipal treatment plant. It is expected that this effluent contains very low concentrations of pollutants. The RIAM is a very useful tool to use in an EIA, especially with very complex options as demonstrated in this study. It is transparent and easy to test different options and to still obtain an overview of the solutions. It is easy to visualise the results of different options, which makes the tool useful for decision makers. No similar tool has been published to our knowledge. However, a recent study (Mohorjy and Aburizaiza, 1997) has used the Delphi approach to identify and evaluate systematically the impacts of effluent control system in Jedda, Saudi Arabia. In this study, a panel consisting of up to 350 respondents with special expertise was requested to give their opinion on 17 different impacts related to this problem in Jedda. The respondents were asked to assess/interpret the impacts and rank them according to the following criteria: importance, magnitude, probability, urgency, type, range and nature of impact (reversible/irreversible). The impacts answered by the respondents were ranked by use of a statistical analysis. Both studies - although quite different - have shown that systematically ranking of possible impacts makes the decision process transparent and it is easy to make changes in the rating of the impacts and to demonstrate the effects.

10 etapeIV.doc

4 Conclusions This study has been performed to test the RIAM tool on an actual case in Denmark. The study has shown that RIAM is a very useful and transparent tool to apply when implementing the EU directive on EIA. It also demonstrates the efficiency of the RIAM tool in handling cases with large quantities of data, which make it difficult to obtain an overview of the results. Further, RIAM may, beneficially be used in the preparatory phase where different options are screened, e.g. in connection with the screening of the different localities for the deposition of fly ash. It is easy to visualise the impacts, so RIAM results can be understood and used by decision makers.

In the present study five different options for the deposition of fly ash in Esbjerg Harbour were tested and assessed. However, it is very difficult to obtain an overview of five different complex options. Therefore, five different scenarios were stepwise tested with the following overall conclusions:

• option 1 (zero-solution) gives the least optimal solution due the direct leaching through the embankments with possible effects on flora and fauna in the sea;

• option 2 gives less negative impacts than option 1 caused by the high dilution with cooling water from the power station before discharge into the sea;

• options 3 and 4 have slightly, less negative impacts than option 2, and give nearly identical results in the RIAM tests. The less negative impacts are due the removal of pollutants in a special treatment plant followed by direct discharge of the effluent into the cooling water channel;

• option 5 gives the most optimal solution with the least negative impacts of the five options because

• no discharge of leachate after the initial phase; • reuse of leachate in desulphurisation plant and • effluent from treatment plant discharged to municipal treatment plant.

Major negative impacts for option 5 are caused by • disposal of chemical waste at a special hazardous landfill and • higher investments and operational costs than other options.

Generally, the investment, operation and maintenance costs increase from option 1 to 5; but the costs give significant higher positive, environmental impacts.

Acknowledgement The authors appreciate that I/S Vestkraft and Ribe County have given all the available documentation making our study possible. Further, we thank them for fruitful discussions during the execution of the project. The study was part of a research project concerning RIAM financed by the Technological Service Organisation of the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

References Council Directive, 1997. Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Council Directive 97/11/EC, O.J., L73, 5-15.

11 etapeIV.doc

ELSAMPROJEKT A/S (1987). Fly ash utilised as landfill in Esbjerg Harbour, fly ash landfill phase III. Application for an environmental licence. Report, ELSAMPROJEKT A/S, EP87/232 (in Danish). Jensen, K. (ed.), 1998. Environmental Impact Assessment Using the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM), Olsen & Olsen, Fredensborg, Denmark, 69 pp [ISBN 87-85215-32-5]. I/S Vestkraft, 1997. Fly ash landfill, phase IV, - Description of the environmental effects. Report, I/S Vestkraft, EP96/631 (in Danish). Mohorjy, A.M. and Aburizaiza, O.S, 1997. Impacts Assessment of an improper Effluent Control System: A Delphi Approach. Ecological Impact Assessment, 17, 205-217. Pastakia C.M.R, 1998. The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) - A New Tool for Environmental Impact Assessment, in Kurt Jensen (ed.) Environmental Impact Assessment Using the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM), Olsen & Olsen, Fredensborg, Den-mark, 8-19. Ribe Amt, 1997a. Environmental impacts assessment (VVM) of deposition of fly ash in Esbjerg Harbour (in Danish). Ribe Amt, 1997b. Proposal for an addendum no. 4 to the regional plan 2004 for the deposition of fly ash in Esbjerg Harbour with a none-technical summary of the EIA (in Danish). Ribe Amt, 1997c. Proposal for an environmental licence for deposition of fly ash in Esbjerg Harbour (in Danish).

12 etapeIV.doc

Appendix 1 Description of the components Physical and chemical components PC1 - Construction of the embankment - dredging of the bottom/sheet piling - reduction in leaching from and to the sea. The geology of the area where the embankment would be constructed may contain formations allowing seawater to leach into the drainage system. These formations must be dredged and reused in the construction of the embankment if leaching is to be avoided. Alternatively, sheet piling may be used. PC2 - Construction of smaller embankments within the landfill - reduction in leaching to unused landfill. Smaller embankments may be constructed within Phase IV to avoid leaching into the unfilled areas. PC3 - Drainage of the surface soil with direct discharge to the sea When a compartment is filled with fly ash a layer of surface soil is established with a surface drainage system with direct discharge to the sea. The surface drainage water would be analysed twice a year for chromium and molybdenum. If the analysis shows increased concentrations, the drainage may be collected and be treated before discharge to the sea. PC4 - Leaching from the existing fly ash landfill into the new landfill. Leaching from the old landfills into the new landfill will take place. PC5 - Leaching to the sea through the embankments PC6 - Collection of leachate in a drainage system in the bottom of the landfill A drainage system in the bottom of the landfill will collect most of the leachate and avoid leaching to the sea and to groundwater. PC7 - Leaching to the groundwater Some leaching may take place to groundwater of leachate from the fly ash even with the established drainage system and the pumping and collection of leachate. Analysis of groundwater samples along the embankment would be regularly executed. PC8 - Addition of 20% water to the fly ash at the power plant for reduction of dust (common for all five option) PC9 - Sprinkler equipment for watering of deposited fly ash for reduction of dust PC10 - Collection of leachate and pumping to channel for cooling water PC11 - Use of leachate as make-up water in desulphurization plant PC12 - Treatment of the leachate in a special treatment plant for removal of As,Cr, Se, Mo and V PC13 - Discharge of reused and treated leachate to the municipal sewage treatment plant PC14 - Deposition of sludge from treatment plant at Kommunekemi

13 etapeIV.doc

Biological and ecological components BE1 - Effects in the sea by diffuse leaching through the embankment BE2 - Effects in the sea due to discharge into the cooling water channel of leachate without treatment BE3 - Effects in the sea with discharge into the cooling water channel of treated leachate BE4 - Effects in the sea due to discharge of effluent from the treatment plant for removal of As, Cr, Se, Mo and V BE5 - Effects in the sea due to the construction of a drainage system along the embankment BE6 - Effects on ground water due to diffusion of leachate BE7 - Effect on bird life from construction of landfill (common for all five option) BE8 - Effects from construction of smaller embankments within the landfill BE9 - Effects of the drainage system at the surface of the filled landfill BE10 - Effects on ground water resources on reuse of leachate in the desulphurization plant BE11 - Effects in the sea when leachate can not be diluted with cooling water in the channel BE12 - Effects in the sea due to leaching through the new landfill from old landfills of fly ash BE13 - Effects in the sea when treated leachate cannot be diluted with cooling water Social and cultural components SC1 - Dust from landfill affecting the nearby housing SC2 - Noise from landfill affecting nearby housing SC3 - Aesthetic impact of landfill (common for all five option) Economical and operational components EO1 - Reuse of deposited fly ash (common for all five option)

14 etapeIV.doc

EO2 - Construction costs of embankment with dredging/sheet piling EO3 - Construction costs of smaller embankment within the landfill EO4 - Construction costs of surface drainage system EO5 - Construction costs for drainage system in the bottom of the landfill EO6 - Costs of sprinkler equipment for watering of fly ash in the landfill EO7 - Costs for collection of leachate and pumping to cooling channels EO8 - Costs (savings) by use of leachate in desulphurization plant EO9 - Costs of treatment plant for removal of As, Cr, Se, Mo and V EO10 - Costs for deposition of sludge from treatment plant at Kommunekemi

15 etapeIV.doc

Appendix 2 - Option 1-5, first scenario This Appendix is shown separately as a PDF File and contains the RIAM results

16 etapeIV.doc

Figure 2 Location of the fly ash deposits in Esbjerg

Existing fly ash deposit

Proposal for new fly ash deposit

Phase IVb

Phase IVa

Phase IPhase II

Phase III

Phase IVbAlternative 1, Northern half

Esbjerg

17 etapeIV.doc

Figure 3 - 8 These figures are shown separately as a PDF and XLS file and show the histograms of the

RIAM results

18 etapeIV.doc

19 etapeIV.doc

Option 1

05

1015202530

-E -D -C -B -A N A B C D E

EO 1SC 1BE 1PC 1

Option 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-E -D -C -B -A N A B C D E

EO 5SC 5BE 5PC 5

Option 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-E -D -C -B -A N A B C D E

EO 1

SC 1

BE 1

PC 1

Option 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-E -D -C -B -A N A B C D E

EO 2SC 2BE 2PC 2

Option 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-E -D -C -B -A N A B C D E

EO 3SC 3BE 3PC 3

Option 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-E -D -C -B -A N A B C D E

EO 4SC 4BE 4PC 4

Option 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-E -D -C -B -A N A B C D E

EO 4SC 4BE 4PC 4EO 5SC 5BE 5PC 5