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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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

eq.<br />

Life-cycle methodology involves the compilation <strong>of</strong> a life-cycle inventory, detailing all<br />

direct and indirect emissions (the latter relating to avoided impacts associated with<br />

energy generation and recycling). Each life-cycle assessment method assigns a series<br />

<strong>of</strong> characterisation factors (or weightings) to each <strong>of</strong> the substances in the inventory,<br />

according to their relative anticipated impact within the method. In some cases the<br />

different impact assessment methods give quite different results for the same type <strong>of</strong><br />

impact, through the use <strong>of</strong> different characterisation factors against the data<br />

contained within the same emissions inventory.<br />

An example <strong>of</strong> this is shown in Table 62-4 and Table 62-5. These figures compare the<br />

results obtained using two different impact assessment methods within WRATE to<br />

measure the terrestrial eco-toxicity <strong>of</strong> waste treatment technologies treating one<br />

tonne <strong>of</strong> residual waste. They show that whilst the CHP technologies perform<br />

relatively favourably against this criterion when assessed using the Impact 2002<br />

method, they do not fare well when the CML method is used to assess the same<br />

criterion.<br />

Further evidence <strong>of</strong> this can be seen when considering an assessment <strong>of</strong> the human<br />

toxicity associated with the different treatment technologies. Table 62-6 shows the<br />

results obtained using the Impact 2002. This method indicates the Arrowbio ADbased<br />

MBT plant as the most favourable treatment option with respect to human<br />

toxicity impacts, whilst the Billingham incinerator performs the worst against this<br />

criterion in this method. In contrast, the HTP Inf Method outlined in Section 62.1.1.3<br />

suggests that the Chineham incinerator is the most favourable treatment option,<br />

whilst the Arrowbio AD-based MBT plant performs less well in comparison to the<br />

Generic AD plant.<br />

Table 62-4: Terrestrial Eco-toxicity Assessed using the CML Method<br />

0.6<br />

0.5<br />

0.4<br />

0.3<br />

0.2<br />

0.1<br />

0<br />

-0.1<br />

-0.2<br />

-0.3<br />

974<br />

29/09/09<br />

0.0132<br />

0.174<br />

0.468<br />

Landfill Ecodeco MBT Generic Aero<br />

MBT<br />

0.358<br />

Generic AD<br />

MBT<br />

AD Arrowbio<br />

MBT<br />

-0.182<br />

0.0284<br />

0.502<br />

0.217<br />

0.179<br />

0.389<br />

Incin Elec C Incin Elec D Incin Elec B Incin CHP C Incin CHP G

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!