Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Landfills

Port Hope council denies garbage incinerator applications

Todd McEwen

PORT HOPE — Well, bring on the Ontario Municipal Board.

In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, council denied the applications for a proposed Wesleyville garbage incinerator.

Entech-REM previously applied to change the zoning bylaw and municipality’s official plan in order to build an energy-from-waste facility on a 23-acre site in Wesleyville.

Now, the ball is in Entech-REM’s court.

Council has predicted the company will file an appeal on the decision with the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), considering the municipality’s director of planning recommended council approved the applications.

The OMB examines individual cases from a planning perspective, considering whether an application meets provincial land policies and the principles of good planning.

Northumberland News’s calls to Entech-REM for comment were not returned by press deadline.

“I feel very hopeful that REM will not pursue the OMB,” said Councillor Mary Lou Ellis, chairman of the planning committee. “I would hope they know this will not be a good fit for our community and they will try and find a more suitable location.”

“I like to remain hopeful on that,” she said, referring to them not appealing the OMB. “I’m hoping when the (health) studies that the Ministry of Environment are working on come forward, we’ll have a more complete picture and I’m sure (Entech-REM) will too.”

“I’m just happy this part’s done,” she said. “They now clearly know how this municipality and this council stand on that issue.”

“I just want to thank all of you for making this decision tonight,” resident Sarah Sculthorpe told council. “As an individual, as a mother, as a grandmother, as a farmer, as a business owner and as a resident of this amazing municipality, I thank you all from the bottom of my heart.”

Many residents were singing a different tune at a public meeting the previous Thursday.

The meeting attracted about 300 people, about 40 of whom blasted not only the four representatives of Entech-REM who attended, but the municipality’s council and staff, accused of not having the best interest of the residents in mind.

“We’re now in the middle of a billion-dollar (radioactive waste) cleanup, when the leaders of Port Hope simply were not aware of the dangers,” resident Terry Hickey said, referring to the historic low-level radioactive waste left behind by Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. “This council, our current leadership, cannot be unaware of the multiple dangers this project brings to Port Hope. To allow REM to proceed, flies in the face of the phrase once bitten, twice shy, or in this case, stunned.”

Throughout the night, many residents challenged the director of planning’s latest report on the matter, which supported the applications.

Ron Warne and the planning staff’s first recommendation was to defer the applications until the provincial environment screening review has been completed, with the second advising council to approve the applications and place a holding provision on the lands, which suspends any development until the health reports and Ministry of Environment studies are completed.

“Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development represents an appropriate use of the subject lands,” Mr. Warne wrote in the report.

At this point, the future of Wesleyville is still up in the air.

“Go to the OMB, I’m not afraid,” resident Siobahn Kenny said at the public meeting. “The only people who should be afraid of the OMB are the four men (of Entech-REM) sitting at that table.”

http://www.northumberlandnews.com/news-story/4727142-port-hope-council-denies-garbage-incinerator-applications/

Jersey’s toxic waste problem a warning

Thursday, 28 August, 2014

I refer to the letter by Chan Fung-chun (“Superficial platitudes on waste [1]”, August 26) berating Elvis W. K. Au, assistant director of environmental protection, on the limited landfill space in Hong Kong.

Having just returned from my home in Jersey, in the Channel Islands, for a summer holiday, I was perplexed and interested in the similar situation there regarding a recently constructed energy-from-waste incinerator. The disposal of the waste ash does not seem to have been properly addressed.

A report in the Jersey Evening Post [in 2012] said the island may require an additional reclamation site “if a solution is not found to deal with the island’s toxic ash”.

This ash came from burning waste in the incinerator. It was buried in lined pits that were close to capacity.

The paper said that “the move has sparked strong criticism from environmental campaign groups, who fear that the toxic substance could eventually leak into the sea”.

This is becoming a major problem for the tiny island of Jersey, and I have been following the for-and-against arguments for our own incinerator here in Hong Kong with the proposed siting in Shek Kwu Chau.

For Jersey, it may well be that there will be two islands soon, one for the inhabitants and one, getting increasingly large every year, for the toxic waste.

Peter Keeping, Causeway Bay

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1581270/letters-editor-august-28-2014

dynamco Aug 28th 2014
6:33am

Jersey
www.gov.je/News/2013/pages/IncineratorAshExport.aspx

In September TTS started the tender process for the export of air pollution control residue (APCr), this is now well underway. Jersey will be exporting both IBA and APCr, thereby reducing the harmful elements stored in the ground. The Transport & Technical Services Minister, Deputy Kevin Lewis, said “When I became Minister I said I did not want to leave this material at La Collette as a legacy for future generations.” (HINT!)
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-17117050

“Plans to invest in increasing recycling/pursuing the option of exporting Guernsey’s waste have been approved”
HKG ENB officials were impressed with NIMBY incineration method in Sweden- which imports trash to burn to keep its incinerators operational, then it ships the toxic ash back to the trash origin.
In HKG’s case, we are repeatedly told our landfills are almost full. Yet we have no source separation of waste legislation, we have no Govt organised collection of voluntarily separated recyclables o/s housing estates, our alleged recycling figures are ‘cooked’ as revealed when Operation Green Fence stranded imported transit trash ‘recycling stats’ intended for China,here.
So our Govt will have to beg for the building of HKG’s own ‘Pulau Semakau’ island in the sea as the new ash lagoons. Unlike Singapore, HKG is in a typhoon area & no doubt the future super typhoons will wash everything into the sea.
Great thinking – NOT.

Approval for Invergordon waste incinerator quashed

Mohamed Al Fayed Mohamed Al Fayed opposed the incinerator

A decision to approve plans for a controversial £43m waste incinerator in Invergordon has been quashed following a legal challenge.

Combined Power and Heat (Highlands) was given the go-ahead in November 2012 following a public inquiry.

Highland Council and former Harrods boss Mohamed Al Fayed’s Ross Estates challenged the decision.

Judges have now ruled that the inquiry must be re-opened, but only deal with the issue of what waste is handled.

Mr Al Fayed has spoken out in the past against the incinerator.

Lawyers for both the local authority and the businessman’s Ross Estates had argued that the entire case should be heard again by a public inquiry.

But the Lord President, Lord Gill, who heard the appeal at the Court of Session in Edinburgh with Lord Menzies and Lord Clarke, took the view that was “unnecessary”.

The judges ruled that a condition allowing the plant to accept a maximum of 100,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste from within the Highland Council area, but also some from outside the region, should be examined by a public inquiry.

The condition was one of 16 attached to planning consent granted by a Scottish government planning reporter two years ago.

Combined Power and Heat (Highlands) has offered to place a restriction on the waste, but judges said opponents to the scheme should be given a fair chance to make submissions.

Highland Council has welcomed the ruling.

Councillor Maxine Smith said: “I am delighted that we have the opportunity to go back to inquiry to argue that planning permission should be refused.

“This incinerator is not wanted in Invergordon by the majority of people living here.”

Councillor Martin Rattray added: “I think this is a positive outcome and I am sure the community will welcome this as they have worked so hard and fought with such enthusiasm.”

28 August 2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28967395

Recycling figures: plain rubbish

ENVIRONMENT PANEL Chairman CHAN HAK KAN

2012 – reasons for Panel EA rejection of ENB landfill / incinerator package

www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0527cb1-1079-2-e.pdf
“13. Details of the funding proposals for the three landfill extension projects are set out in LC Paper No. CB(1)1369/11-12(01) which is hyperlinked in the Appendix. According to the Government, IWMF would require some seven years for reclamation, construction and commission, while landfill extension would need a few years for site preparation works
15. The Panel held another special meeting on 20 April 2012 to continue discussion on the funding proposals. Noting that many measures pertaining to the Policy Framework had yet to be implemented , members were opposed to the reliance on landfills for waste disposal in view of the associated environmental nuisances, as well as the long lead time and cost incurred from restoration of landfills. They stressed the need for an holistic package of waste management measures (including waste reduction, separation and recycling) with waste incineration as a last resort and better communication between the two terms of Government on environmental policies, in particular on the need for incineration. They also urged the Administration to identify other suitable outlying islands for IWMF and promote the local recycling industry. In view of the foregoing, members did not support the submission of the funding proposals to the Public Works Subcommittee for consideration.”
Q: WHAT POLICY AND DIRECTION HAS CHANGED AT ENB SINCE THE LAST LEGCO PANEL ENV AFFAIRS REJECTION ?   A: NOTHING !

actually gone backwards as the ‘new’ figures show– the China ‘Operation Green Fence’ blocking of transhipped dirty plastic from overseas to China via HKG exposed this sham of using the plastic trash transhipment figures as ‘local recycling’. ENB/EPD were caught out cheating by ‘Operation Green Fence’. The ENB denied the container loads of blocked plastics were locally landfilled – so what happened to it ?

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/china-green-fence-global-recycling-innovation

SCMP Recycling figures: plain rubbish

CTA says: this only came to light due to China’s ‘Operation Green Fence’
ENB has been using data of containers of trash transhipped through here to China in their local recycling figures
When China blocked the transhipment of unwashed plastic imports the shxt hit the fan + the divisive ‘local recycling’ practice came to light
Still waiting to find out which local landfill they buried the dirty plastic waste in

Recycling figures: plain rubbish?

Wednesday, 29 January, 2014

Cheung Chi-fai

Overhaul of system is promised as officials admit estimates of the amount of waste the city recycles have been drastically overstated

Officials have admitted that estimates of the amount of Hong Kong waste being recycled – once put at over 50 per cent – have been drastically overstated. They said yesterday that the figures were distorted by “external factors” beyond their control and the system for calculating them would be overhauled. The admission came as the Environmental Protection Department reported a slashed recycling rate of 39 per cent in 2012, down from 48 the previous year and a peak of 52 in 2010.

The department blamed fluctuations in the waste trade and irregularities in export declarations for the distortions. In an effort to improve its data collection, it will introduce extra measures, as recommended by a consultant commissioned to look into the problem. But the officials said they did not believe the distortion would affect policy-making or the achievement of targets set out in the waste-management blueprint released last year.

World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping said he was concerned about the “inflation of the recycling rate” and urged the department to set up an expert group to review the system. Friends of the Earth said the public would be confused by the figures. According to the 2012 solid waste monitoring report released by the department yesterday, Hong Kong recycled just 2.16 million tonnes of waste, 860,000 tonnes less than 2011. About 60 per cent of the shortfall was due to a sharp drop in the trade in plastic waste. Last year, a reported 320,000 tonnes of plastic waste was recycled, down from 840,000 tonnes in 2011 and 1.58 million tonnes in 2010. But the amount dumped in landfills largely remained steady at 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes during the same period. Since then, officials have used the disposal rate per person, rather than the recycling rate, as the key indicator to measure policy effectiveness.

In 2012, the former rate rose 3 per cent to 1.27kg. The department said the recycling rate had been calculated from waste export figures compiled by census and customs officers, and the booming trade in recent years might have inflated the figure. It also admitted that the formula could not accurately reflect local recycling efforts since it also included waste imported and then exported after processing. “We believe the 2012 figure is closer to the reality of how the city fared in recycling after a slump in the trade,” said an official, speaking anonymously.

Officials refused to be drawn on whether the admission showed that the recycling rate, used by former environment chiefs to highlight the city’s progress in dealing with its waste problem, had little value. “The public still have expectations for this figure and we will try to give the best estimate,” said an official, adding that the formula was widely adopted elsewhere in the world. Greeners’ Action executive director Angus Ho Hon-wai said the government should set up a registration system for recyclers in order to get first-hand recycling data. Lau Yiu-shing, a local waste recycler, admitted some operators might have wrongly reported export figures to suit their needs. But the scope of doing so had shrunk as mainland customs stepped up checks in recent years.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1415979/recycling-figures-plain-rubbish

Incinerator figures don’t add up

Elvis Au (“Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]”, August 5) continues to weave his tangled web of half-truths.

He revealed that of the HK$18.2 billion requested for the project, HK$12.7 billion is to build the incinerator and HK$5.5 billion (30 per cent of the total cost) to build infrastructure on Shek Kwu Chau.

So we will pay an extra HK$5.5 billion because vested interests do not want the incinerator built near the Tuen Mun landfill, which is the logical site.

The “balanced distribution of waste facilities” Au cites as the reason for selecting Shek Kwu Chau was never raised by the Environmental Protection Department from 2004 to 2010.

It surfaced only in 2011 after Lau Wong-fat, chairman of Tuen Mun District Council, objected to putting the incinerator in Tuen Mun.

The department then created the “balanced distribution” criterion to justify Shek Kwu Chau.

Getting approval for another site takes no more time than obtaining it for Shek Kwu Chau, that is, one year from April 2011 to April 2012.

On the capital cost, Au provides selective data.

A survey of all incinerators constructed shows that economies of scale lead to lower per-tonne capital cost the larger the capacity. Au chose Denmark’s lower-capacity 1,100 tonnes per day incinerator costing HK$4.27 million per tonne to compare to his proposed high-capacity 3,000 tonnes per day incinerator costing HK$4.25 million per tonne.

This is like comparing the per passenger cost of a bus to a Rolls Royce.

An honest comparison is with the per-tonne cost of high-capacity incinerators.

These include – the 2,300 tonnes per day facility in Runcorn, Cheshire, UK, at HK$2 million per tonne; the Afval Energie Bedrijf Waste Fired Power Plant in Holland with 3,800 tonnes per day capacity at HK$1.1 million per tonne; the 3,000 tonnes per day facility in Beijing at HK$1 million per tonne; the 1,600 tonnes per day facility in Riverside, Kent, UK, at HK$2.6 million per tonne.

Nor did Au mention the 1,000 tonnes per day incinerators in Finland, China, England, South Korea and Azerbaijan costing less than HK$3 million per tonne.

The 1,000 tonnes per day plasma gasification plant in Teesside, England, cost HK$3.1 million per tonne, paid by the operator.

If approved by the Legislative Council’s Finance Committee in October, Au’s Rolls Royce incinerator will cost between 100 per cent and 300 per cent more than similar capacity incinerators in the world.

Dr Tom Yam, Lantau

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1574518/letters-editor-august-16-2014

dynamco Aug 16th 2014
8:10am

If Tom Yam is quoting $ numbers then at least he should get them right, upfront.
The Govt and AU especially well know what they asked for:
www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0326cb1-1369-1-e.pdf

CB(1)1369/11-12(01) 1.1.b) sets out the Administration’s request @money-of-the-day prices in March 2012
5177DR: IWMF Phase 1 14.96bn – MOD – now 17bn
5163DR: NENT landfill ext 6.632bn MOD -now 8bn
5164DR: SENT landfill ext 1.76bn MOD -now over 2bn
5165DR: WENT landfill ext 33.4mn – now 36mn
The ‘package’ is at least 27bn!
The building of an incinerator is dependent on the capacity of the landfills being increased to handle the 30% by weight ash produced, so they are a ‘package’
Then need to ADD a Pulau Semakau island as the new ash lagoons (10 bn?)
So even at today’s money of day prices Shek Kwu Chau package is $9m per tonne
but by the time it would be finished (like the fast rail to nowhere) it will be far higher
Then, we have all the peer reviewed evidence showing increase in deaths, cancers, birth defects, orofacial clefts in spatial proximity to incinerators
Only with a Rubber Stamp person I/C EIA approvals could this be allowed to happen & she wears two hats & has never knocked back a Govt EIA to date!

The correct numbers sought in Legco by ENB included ALL the infrastructure as shown here:

5177DR – LEGCO REQUEST FOR FUNDING 2012

IWMF PHASE 1 FUNDING REQUEST 14.96 BN INCLUDES THE ISLAND COST AND MUCH MORE AS SHOWN BELOW

www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0326cb1-1369-1-e.pdf

4.1.1.4 Scope of work

4.1.1.4.1 A plan showing the location of the IWMF Phase 1 at the SKC site is at Annex B1. The IWMF will be built on an artificial island

formed by reclamation to the south-western coast of SKC. The reclaimed island will measure about 11.8 ha including a berth area and storage area

for waste containers. Due to occasionally rough sea condition in the vicinity, the project will include constructing a breakwater of about 4.1 ha

to ensure that loading/ unloading activities can be safely carried out in the berth, and that the safety of facilities can be guaranteed.

4.1.1.4.2 The scope of 5177DR comprises –

(a) design and construction of reclamation to form an artificial island near SKC;

(b) design and construction of an MSW incineration plant of a design capacity of 3 000 tpd employing advanced moving grate waste-to-energy technologies. The incineration plant will comprise the following main components –

(i) waste reception, storage and feeding system;

(ii) moving grate incinerators;

(iii) waste heat recovery, turbine generator and cooling

(iv) boiler feedwater treatment system;

(v) flue gas treatment and discharge system;

(vi) fly ash, bottom ash and residues storage, treatment and handling system;

(vii) bulky waste storage and handling system, reagent

reception and storage system; and

(viii) process control and monitoring system;

(c) design and construction of a mechanical sorting and recycling plant of a design capacity of 200 tpd. The mechanical treatment plant will comprise the installation of the following main components –

(i) waste reception system;

(ii) mechanical sorting and shredding system; and;

(iii) process control and monitoring system;

(d) provision of ancillary and supporting facilities including submarine power cables and electrical system connecting the artificial land to Cheung Sha of Lantau Island, a desalination plant providing water supply to the facility, a wastewater treatment plant, an environmental education centre, community facilities1 and minor supporting facilities for a marine park2; and

(e) environmental monitoring and auditing during the

construction stage.

A layout plan showing the proposed works is at Annex B2. Subject to funding approval of the FC, we plan to commence the design and

construction works in September 2013 and commission the IWMF in 2018/19.

The Govt and AU especially well know what they asked for:
www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0326cb1-1369-1-e.pdf

CB(1)1369/11-12(01) 1.1.b) sets out the Administration’s request @money-of-the-day prices in March 2012
5177DR: IWMF Phase 1 14.96bn – MOD – now 17bn
5163DR: NENT landfill ext 6.632bn MOD -now 8bn
5164DR: SENT landfill ext 1.76bn MOD -now over 2bn
5165DR: WENT landfill ext 33.4mn – now 36mn
The ‘package’ is at least 27bn!

Detroit residents sue incinerator owner over ‘noxious odors and contaminants’

on Mon, Jul 28, 2014

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against the owner of Detroit’s municipal solid waste incinerator Monday, accusing the company of nuisance and gross negligence violations

According to the complaint filed by Detroit-based Liddle & Dubin P.C., “On occasions too numerous to list, Plaintiffs’ property including Plaintiffs’ neighborhood, residences and yards were physically invaded by noxious odors and contaminants

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s’ negligence in operating and/or maintaining the facility, Plaintiffs’ property has been invaded by noxious odors.”

The eight-page complaint charges that local property values have dropped due to the incinerator’s presence, “and has interfered with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property.” The lawsuit, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, seeks a financial award in excess of $25,000 and all costs and attorney fees related to the case.

In an email, a spokesperson for the company says, “Detroit Renewable Power is reviewing the complaint filed today,” but declined further comment.

The suit comes weeks after a Metro Times’ cover story earlier this month found a growing number of odor complaints from nearby residents since Detroit Renewable Power LLC (DRP) took control of the facility in 2010. The investigation found a spike in citations from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for noncompliance related to odor issues, and showed how the incinerator’s odor is the predominant issue for a local enforcement agency. Since last fall, MDEQ ramped up its enforcement and began to craft a consent judgement with DRP that would likely stipulate fines, and lay out a timeline for the company to follow to resolve the alleged odor, officials said.

Attorney Nick Coulson, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case, cited the recent Metro Times cover story as a factor that led to the suit.

“It appears the odors have worsened substantially in the past few years,” Coulson says in an email. “The recent Metro Times article brought to light increased odor complaints and violations. We believe those reflect not only worsening odor emissions, but also increased community concern.

“People are upset, and they want this problem to stop.”

The incinerator was constructed in 1986 by the city of Detroit, which issued $440 million in bonds to finance construction of the facility. Since its inception, the trash-burning machine has been a source of complaints. Soon after, then-Mayor Coleman Young sold it for $54 million to private investors, including tobacco giant Philip Morris.

By 2009, Detroit had spent north of $1.2 billion to retire the incinerator bonds. Vocal opponents called for the city to dump the plan, but the following year, the Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Authority — the quasi-public agency created in 1986 that’s responsible for overseeing disposal of the city’s municipal waste — passed a resolution obligating the city to continue sending trash to the incinerator until 2021. That’s when DRP stepped in.

The facility process as much as 3,300 tons of trash per week at temperatures higher than 2,300 degrees. Its furnaces create steam that’s purchased by DRP’s sister company Detroit Thermal to heat and cool more than 140 buildings between downtown and New Center. The company is permitted to receive as much as 20,000 tons of municipal solid waste per week, according to the state.

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/archives/2014/07/28/detroit-residents-sue-incinerator-owner-over-noxious-odors-and-contaminants

SCMP: Follow best practice on waste incineration, and think local

Friday, 15 August, 2014

Comment›Letters

As project designer of a conservation group on Lantau, I wish to respond to the letter by Elvis W. K. Au, assistant director of environmental protection, regarding the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator (“Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]”, August 5).

I visited the plasma arc gasification plant in Teesside, in northeast England, on June 18, joining its annual open day. Many delegates and big name companies from around the world attended. I was the plant’s first “Hong Kong delegate”.

The day included presentations and a visit to the plant, which was impressive. It is the largest plant in the world and will come into commission by next year.

The most striking part of the visit was the large number of delegates from China, gathering information on plasma. Two out of the three presentations given were by Chinese companies, which have set up plasma gasification plants; it felt as if China was teaching the rest of the world.

I also talked with the British team that met seven Hong Kong government representatives when they visited Britain. They had met in a hotel room in London for an hour: the Hong Kong representatives had said they did not have enough time to visit the Teesside plant. They then visited a small-scale plasma gasification site, in Avonmouth, in southern England, Afval, a company generating electricity from waste in the Netherlands, and then went on to Denmark.

The reaction of the British officials had been the same as mine: surely, if you go on a fact-finding mission, you should go to the best example of whatever that subject is.

Someone senior in the government told me we needed the proposed super incinerator, because, firstly, Hong Kong people were never going to be able to reduce, reuse and recycle their waste in time; and, secondly, plasma would not work.

After my visit to the Teesside plant, my response is to ask: why will plasma arc facilities not work? If the rest of the world is doing it, and it needs to be done, then Hong Kong can do it.

Let’s catch up. Hong Kong always wants everything super-sized, but is that the way of the future?

The workable future is smaller scale and localised. A plasma plant can be constructed quickly, and does not pollute or need landfills, as there is no residue ash waste.

We can set up cluster recycling centres for composting, recycling, plasma arc facilities and education centres where they are needed all over Hong Kong.

The government has already signed contracts so it is reluctant to change tack. But what is really best for Hong Kong?

Jenny Quinton, Ark Eden Foundation, Lantau

More on this:

Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]


Source URL (retrieved on Aug 15th 2014, 5:55am): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1573735/follow-best-practice-waste-incineration-and-think-local

Links:
[1] http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1566561/incinerator-will-adopt-proven-cost-effective-technology-island

Lai See: Garbage in, garbage out

Saturday, 07 January, 2012

Howard Winn

A letter in today’s paper pooh poohs plasma arc technology as a means of disposing of municipal solid waste saying: ‘To demand that the Environmental Protection Department should consider this technology, which is unproven at any commercial scale, for Hong Kong, is about as ludicrous as suggesting to shoot all of our garbage by space rocket into the sun!’ Strong words from Alexander Luedi, who is the general manager of Explosion Power Hong Kong.

A little context of interest here, which Luedi doesn’t mention in his letter, is that his company, according to its website, specialises in cleaning furnaces, boilers, ash hoppers, silos and other vessels. ‘We provide online boiler cleaning equipment and services to thermal power plants, waste-to-energy plants, … to improve thermal efficiencies, reduce downtime, and improve the safety of maintenance workers.’

So it’s not unreasonable to think Luedi’s eyes lit up at the prospect of business opportunities from a monster incinerator that processes some 3,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste a day which, in turn, generates 1,200 tonnes of fly ash.

In his letter, Luedi says plasma arc technology, ‘is neither needed, nor feasible for the disposal of 3,000 tonnes per day of municipal waste.’

His views don’t appear to be shared by authorities in Japan, the UK, Mexico, India and China, which are all using plasma arc technology to process municipal solid waste and to convert it into energy instead of the conventional moving grate technology proposed for Hong Kong. The new technology produces little in the way of emissions of toxic dioxins and less mess for the likes of Luedi and his company to clean up.

http://www.scmp.com/article/989409/lai-see

(letter in question)

Incinerators’ good global track record

South China Morning Post

SCMP Letter   Jan 07 2012

Incinerators’ good global track record

Plasma arc is a suitable and proven method for the disposal of small quantities of hazardous waste. However, for household refuse it would use large quantities of energy, and it is definitely neither needed, nor feasible, for the disposal of 3,000 tonnes per day of municipal household waste.

The “old-fashioned” moving grate technology is fully capable of addressing Lai See’s “noxious chemical cocktail” (“Making a hash of dash to ash”, January 4) and hundreds of plants operate worldwide in highly sensitive areas.

To demand that the Environmental Protection Department considers this technology, which is unproven at any commercial scale, for Hong Kong is about as ludicrous as suggesting shooting all our garbage by space rocket into the sun. What is needed is a plant that meets the highest standards in operational efficiencies. That is where the department could learn from my firm.

Alexander Luedi, general manager, Explosion Power Hong Kong Limited

Residence Near a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator and Cancer Risk: an Analysis Using a Geographic Information System (GIS)

Marcilio, I; Lopes, M; Prado, R; Souza, M; Gouveia, N

Introduction:

Recent studies have evaluated possible health effects of emissions from solid waste incinerators (SWI). Most of these studies have used the spatial distribution of incinerators and health endpoints to analyse exposure and risk. Lung and liver cancers has shown as the ones with the strongest associations with proximity to SWI. The emissions of the incinerator under investigation included lead, arsenic, dioxin and cadmium. The latter two are considered carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Although this incinerator is located in a densely populated area, there has been no study evaluating the impact of its emission on environmental quality and on health of the population living in its vicinity. This study intends to examine health effects possibly associated with emissions from this SWI among the local population through an epidemiologic investigation using spatial analysis.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods:

All liver and lung cancer deaths (ICD-10 C22.0; C22.7; C22.9 and ICD-10 C34.0 – C34.9) from 1998 to 2002 among people aged 40 years and older in an area around the SWI were included. All deaths were geocoded using MapInfo 7.8 ®. Deahts were separated in 3 groups, according to their spacial distribution: the reference group comprised those located within a radius of 2km around the incinerator, while comparison groups were within 5 and 7km around it. Age-adjusted mortality rates in each area were calculated, taking into account the respective area population. The Stone test was used to check if differences among rates were statistically significant.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results:

The area studied included 543.054 people aged 40 years and older. Data about population distribution and number of cancer deaths are presented in Table 01. People living closer to the SWI had a higher risk of dying from lung cancer, and the observed difference was statistically significant, with a Stone test of 1,14 (p=0,04). A gradient was also noted for liver cancer deaths, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0,07). (Table 02)

Table 1

Table 1

Discussion:

These findings suggests a higher risk of death from lung and liver cancer in the proximity of a municipal solid waste incinerator, with a statistically significant association with lung cancer.

http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2006/11001/Residence_Near_a_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Incinerator.1287.aspx#

Waste Incinerator in Atsugi, Japan (US Naval Base/Japanese Company)

Waste Incinerator in Atsugi, Japan

Smoke pouring out of a smokestack

From 1985 to 2001, personnel at Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi in Atsugi, Japan may have been exposed to environmental contaminants from off-base waste incinerators. The Shinkampo Incinerator Complex (SIC) was a combustion waste disposal equipped with incinerators that burned up to 90 tons of industrial and medical waste daily. Emissions included chemicals and other particulate matter.

A private Japanese company owned and operated the business. The U.S. Navy found a potential for increased health risks and worked with the Japanese government to close the SIC. The incinerator was shut down in May 2001.

If you are concerned about exposures at Atsugi, talk to your health care provider or local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.

Health effects from pollution at Atsugi

Short-term health effects could include irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, skin rashes, and sinus problems. These conditions usually went away after the exposure ended. Long-term health effects could include a possible increase in the lifetime risk for cancer.

Since the 1990s, the Navy has informed sailors and their families about the possible long-term health effects of living at Atsugi. Visit the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center website for health information about air quality monitoring and soil testing at Atsugi.

Currently there is no definitive scientific evidence to show that living at NAF Atsugi while the incinerator operated caused additional risk for disease.

Health concerns?

If you are concerned about exposure to environmental contaminants during service at NAF Atsugi, talk to your health care provider or local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.

VA offers a variety of health care benefits to eligible Veterans. Not enrolled in the VA health care system? Find out if you qualify for VA health care.

Compensation benefits for health problems

Veterans may file a claim for disability compensation for health problems they believe are related to exposure to environmental contaminants during service at NAF Atsugi. VA decides these claims on a case-by-case basis. 

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/sand-dust-particulates/atsugi.asp