14.12.2012 Views

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

kg kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.<br />

eq.<br />

methane emissions – considered in terms <strong>of</strong> kg <strong>of</strong> methane emitted per kg <strong>of</strong><br />

stabilised waste - is assumed to be exactly the same as that <strong>of</strong> the non-stabilised<br />

material. WRATE does take into account the reduction in mass which occurs in<br />

material which is biologically pre-treated as a result <strong>of</strong> moisture loss, and this leads to<br />

a reduction in the landfill emissions – but it does not account for reduction in<br />

biodegradability, so the emissions are reduced only to a limited extent. The model,<br />

therefore, significantly underestimates the extent to which the biological component<br />

<strong>of</strong> the MBT process reduces the biological activity <strong>of</strong> material subsequently sent to<br />

landfill, biasing any assessment <strong>of</strong> residual waste facilities against this criterion. 1192<br />

Any MBT process which stabilises waste prior to landfilling is effectively penalised by<br />

the shortcomings <strong>of</strong> the model.<br />

62.1.1.3 Human Toxicity Potential<br />

The human toxicity potential is an index intending to reflect the potential harm <strong>of</strong> a<br />

unit <strong>of</strong> chemical released, based both on the inherent toxicity <strong>of</strong> the chemical and its<br />

potential dose. The default impact assessment in WRATE considers these impacts in<br />

terms <strong>of</strong> kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene equivalent.<br />

Our analysis shows that landfill performs relatively well against this assessment<br />

criterion. The worst performing facility in this case is the Dundee incinerator, and<br />

thermal treatments appear less favourable in comparison to the MBT options (with<br />

the exception <strong>of</strong> the Chineham incinerator).<br />

Figure 62-3: Human Toxicity (HTP inf)<br />

80.00<br />

60.00<br />

40.00<br />

20.00<br />

0.00<br />

-20.00<br />

-40.00<br />

968<br />

29/09/09<br />

0.98<br />

3.30<br />

Landfill Ecodeco<br />

MBT<br />

12.10<br />

Generic<br />

Aero MBT<br />

Generic<br />

-5.32<br />

AD MBT<br />

14.40<br />

AD<br />

Arrowbio<br />

MBT<br />

Incin Elec<br />

C<br />

-27.10<br />

70.60<br />

Incin Elec<br />

D<br />

29.80<br />

Incin Elec<br />

B<br />

39.50<br />

Incin CHP<br />

C<br />

40.60<br />

Incin CHP<br />

G<br />

1192 This is a problem <strong>of</strong> the model, related to the fact that WRATE does not incorporate a landfill model<br />

per se, rather emissions are hard-coded into the model.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!