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

kg kg SO2 SO2 eq.
eq.
The results shown in Figure 62-4 indicate the MBT treatments are the most
favourable options with regard to this assessment criterion whilst landfill and the
Billingham incinerator perform worst.
The impacts attributed through this assessment method result from two principle
sources:
971
� Avoided vanadium emissions to water as a result of recycling ferrous metal;
� Emissions of copper to water from the landfilling of combustion residues.
62.1.1.5 Acidification
The acidification indicator measures the potential for a pollutant to contribute to the
atmospheric acidification resulting in the production of acid rain. The default impact
assessment method within WRATE considers impacts in terms of kg SO2 equivalent.
Table 62-1 indicates that the thermal treatments perform the worst with regard to
their acidification potential. Whilst landfill fares relatively well in comparison to the
incineration facilities, the best performers are the MBT facilities. Again, the Arrowbio
AD-based MBT plant is the best performer against this particular assessment
criterion.
Table 62-1: Acidification (AP)
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
0.10
Landfill Ecodeco -0.08
MBT
0.14
Generic
Aero MBT
0.06
Generic
AD MBT
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes
AD
Arrowbio
MBT
-0.92
0.19
Incin Elec
C
0.66
Incin Elec
D
1.04
Incin Elec
B
0.73
Incin CHP
C
0.41
Incin CHP
G
The Arrowbio AD-based MBT process performs favourably because the facility recycles
plastic, resulting in avoided SO2 emissions (according to WRATE, this material is not
recycled by the other options considered within our appraisal).
The performance of incineration facilities against this criterion is heavily influenced by
the amount of NOx that is assumed to be emitted.