Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal

BBC News – King’s Lynn waste incinerator plan under fire in Commons

Jan 17th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21061614?print=true

Engl

Advertisement

17 January 2013 Last updated at 13:27 GMT

5

Article written by Deborah McGurran Political editor, East of England

King’s Lynn waste incinerator plan under fire in Commons

Comments

Artist’s impression of the proposed incinerator

It’s not every day that a Conservative MP will tear into his local Conservative county council.

But then it’s not every day that you get a row like the the plan for a waste incinerator at King’s Lynn.

As we’ve reported before, this is an issue that’s divided the Conservative Party in Norfolk.

There have been acrimonious exchanges between the local district council and the county council.

Norfolk County Council leader Derrick Murphy has been reported (twice) to the standards committee and has now decided to stand down while he defends himself.

There was a strong turnout for referendum on the plan which was immediately dismissed.

The controversy cost the Tories dearly in last year’s local elections and it could do so again later in the year – and now Conservative MPs from Norfolk are holding debates in parliament to complain about the county council’s actions.

Local people ‘ignored’

“It is wrong for a local authority to ride roughshod over local people when local people have made their views crystal clear,” said Henry Bellingham, MP for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk.

“Localism often requires difficult and tough decisions, but democracy is ill-served if consultation takes place but its findings are ignored, particularly when they are as overwhelming as in this case,” said Mid Norfolk MP George Freeman.

Other MPs from the county nodded in agreement.

“Start Quote

It is wrong for a local authority to ride roughshod over local people when local people have made their views crystal clear”

End Quote Henry Bellingham MP (Con) King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

The proposed incinerator would burn 250,000 tonnes of waste, provide power for the local community and create 200 jobs. But Mr Bellingham finds a lot wrong with the plan.

“The county council couldn’t have picked a more unsuitable site,” he told the debate. “It is upwind of Norfolk’s third largest community and the internationally renowned Wash.”

Support for waste incineration was rapidly diminishing around the world, he claimed. He was also worried the contract did not represent value for money, there could be a risk to health and the uncertainty was blighting the local community.

But his biggest anger was reserved for the developers and the county council who had ignored the results of a local referendum in which nearly 93% of people voted against the plans.

“65,516 people voted no on a turn out of 61.3%,” he said. “Compared with the recent Police and Crime Commissioner elections, when the turnout was around 12%, that must have been one of the most decisive results in British electoral history.

Strength of feeling

“What I am saying to Norfolk County Council is please think again … why not sit down and talk to local MPs – and to the borough council of King’ Lynn and West Norfolk – and look for an alternative solution that could command public support?”

Because the matter is now in the hands of the planning inspector with the final decision being made by the Secretary of State, the Communities Minister Nick Boles couldn’t say much by way of reply.

But he noted that a number of MPs from Norfolk had turned up to the debate, a sign of the strength of feeling on the issue.

He also congratulated Norfolk County Council on having a plan for waste but said he always preferred it if the plan had the support of local people.

After the Prime Minister’s comments that he hoped planners would listen to local people, Mr Bellingham and his colleagues hope this is another sign that things are moving their way

Incinerator health risk ‘unacceptable’

Jan 17th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/if/4375003.stm
Incinerator health risk ‘unacceptable’
By Dr Vyvyan Howard
Head of Research, Developmental Toxico-Pathology Research Group

The pressures of safe waste disposal are mounting, as illustrated by IF’s latest drama-documentary. Toxico-pathologist Dr Vyvyan Howard argues that the threats to human health from toxic emissions mean incinerators are not an acceptable option.

Dr Howard

Dr Howard: We are leaving a toxic legacy for future generations

The past 150 years have seen a significant increase in the toxicity of both domestic and industrial wastes.

The waste stream used to consist mainly of natural products, such as paper, wood and fabrics – neutral wastes which seldom caused problems.

But nowadays, many products include high levels of heavy metals and, in addition, synthetic plastics such as PVC, whose disposal has caused enormous health and environmental problems, plus a toxic legacy for future generations.

IF… THE TOXIC TIMEBOMB GOES OFF

BBC Two

Thursday, 31 March, 2005

1900 BST

Programme summary

Studies of the development of foetuses and young children have led to an understanding of the effects of a number of global environmental pollutants which have their maximal impact during development.

Many of these chemicals are persistent and bio-accumulative, building up in our bodies over time.

Mothers pass these chemicals to their babies, both in the womb and in breast milk.

Some disrupt the action of the hormone systems, affecting babies’ development in many different ways.

A number of well-documented effects have been shown to be happening at current environmental levels of dioxins and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the best studied of the hormone-disrupting chemicals.

Vulnerable

The so-called “background” levels of dioxin-like compounds are almost totally caused by human activities, mainly through combustion of organochlorine products, such as PVC.

Levels of dioxins have been reducing in recent years, but infants still receive many times the dose currently deemed “safe”.

Indeed, recent evidence indicates that there may be no safe dose.

As the effects on the foetus occur at extremely low levels, always in combination with many other manufactured chemicals, dioxin levels need to be reduced as low as possible.

There is no place for incineration in municipal waste management

The foetus is the stage of life which is the most vulnerable to damage from hormone-disrupting chemicals.

These affect the many ways in which hormones regulate development in the womb and early childhood, with effects which can last throughout life.

These effects can range from an increased likelihood of respiratory problems or allergies, to reduced IQ, less efficient kidneys, reproductive problems or a higher probability of contracting cancer.

Effects on the intelligence, immune status and hormonal status of infants have been related quantitatively to the amount of dioxin-like substance in the mother’s body.

Furthermore, many effects, including altered brain function and lung function, appear to persist past the age of seven.

Neurobehavioural and immune system deficits have been shown to be correlated with the level of PCBs and dioxins that infants received from their mothers while in the womb.

Effects on brain development include altered play behaviour as well as general mental and psychomotor development. Other papers also document various reproductive problems.

There is general acceptance that male reproductive health is under threat, and dioxin-like substances have also been related to a reduction in the proportion of male to female births.

‘Toxic cocktail’

It is impossible to accurately cost out the health benefits arising from dioxin reduction, as the potential developmental health effects are so diverse, and can occur in synergy with other chemicals.

It is impossible to calculate the cost to society of, for example, a reduction in IQ levels, or the reduction in quality of life due to foetal kidney growth impairment, immune system or reproductive system, developing less than optimally, causing reduced potential, occasional illness throughout life or a higher risk of cancer.

A precautionary approach would be to reduce human exposure to all chemicals which persist and bioaccumulate or are capable of hormonal disruption, down to the absolutely unavoidable level, especially as mixtures of chemicals may have synergistic effects.

THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW

Incineration is back on the agenda

Professor Chris Coggins

Read full article

Above, I have cited scientific evidence of harm from just one group of persistent chemicals.

However, we are all exposed to a complex mixture of manufactured toxic chemicals and we have no way of testing the effects of such a cocktail.

Many of the components of this mixture come to us via our food as a secondary consequence of waste disposal.

Even the most modern incinerators still emit some dioxins and similar chemicals. These ‘end of pipe’ waste disposal solutions simply encourage manufacturers to continue with ‘business as usual’.

There are two fundamental approaches to handling waste – either reduce the amount and toxicity of inputs to the waste stream; or attempt to deal with wastes once they have been produced.

Substitution of toxic chemicals in products, is the key to reducing health hazards.

For most of the known hormone-disrupting chemicals, there are substitutes which are less obviously problematic.

In summary, my researches have led me to the firm conclusion that there is no place for incineration in municipal waste management.

Policy should instead concentrate on maximal waste minimisation, reuse and recycling, together with substitution of toxic chemicals in products.

Dr Vyvyan Howard is a contributor to BBC Two’s If… The Toxic Timebomb Goes Off, to be broadcast on Thursday, 31 March, 2005, at 1900 BST.

Report on the health impact of the MIWA-waste incinerator in Sint-Niklaas Belgium

Jan 17th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download PDF : Report_health_impact_Belgian_MIWA_waste_incinerator2

Majorcan politicians in bad odour over imported waste

Jan 17th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/expat/tag/dioxin/

January 16th, 2013 9:09

Majorcan politicians in bad odour over imported waste

By annanicholas

There are many things for which Majorca can be proud but being the owner of the largest incinerator in Southern Europe should not be one of them. Recent news that the Balearic regional government deemed it a devilishly good idea to import waste from other European countries to feed the monster Son Reus incinerator north of the capital of Palma has unsurprisingly met with fierce opposition.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/expat/files/2013/01/WASTE-Mallorca.jpg

Local environmental group, GOB, encourages tourists to bring their rubbish to Majorca in ironic photocall in Palma

Environmental groups such as GOB, Zero Waste Europe and Greenpeace, opposition parties, pensioner lobbying groups and local councils have condemned the initiative and just about every Majorcan I’ve approached on the subject, but so far their complaints have fallen on deaf ears.

I might have missed a vital piece of logic along the way but for an island that survives on tourism promoting the concept of clean open spaces, mountains, rural pursuits, sea and sun it seems somewhat bizarre to be welcoming thousands of tons of rubbish along with holidaymakers each year.

When Son Reus was originally built it was apparently capable of burning 300,000 tons of waste and then for some inexplicable reason its capacity was increased first to 432,000 and then in 2011 to 736,000 tons. Why? It is estimated that Majorca creates about 540,000 tons of waste – 84 per cent of all municipal waste generated on the island which basically means that recycling and re-use appears to be of little interest to the authorities. So in order to feed the excess capacity of Majorca’s insatiable metal Minotaur, rubbish must now be imported. Ironically Bunyola, the unlucky town nearest to the incinerator, has been a trailblazer for recycling waste and its council is naturally indignant that piles of rubbish will in effect be dumped at its back door.

The conservative PP party which controls the regional government argues that importing waste is safe, will generate much needed income, create jobs and has full approval from the EU (as if that’s going to garner any confidence locally). Campaigning groups counter that there are potential public health issues and that the burning of so much waste could have a serious environmental impact on the island.

There have been numerous studies of the health dangers associated with living in close proximity to incinerators such as the well documented Saint-Niklaas study in Belgium, which examined the causal link between incinerators and cancer. Dr Vyvyan Howard, a renowned toxico-pathologist claims that “even the most modern incinerators still emit dioxins and similar chemicals”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) asserts that exposure to dioxins and furans, both powerful toxins, may lead to the impairment of the immune system, development of the nervous system, endocrine system and the reproductive functions and recommends that to reduce disease, alternatives to incineration should be found.

The Balearic regional government insists that the waste it will be shipping to Majorca is perfectly safe but local residents understandably would like proof of that. Perhaps José Ramón Bauzà, the island’s president who pushed the policy through, should follow in the footsteps of John Gummer, a former conservative agriculture minister in the UK, who forced his young daughter to eat a beef burger in a public relations photocall during the British mad cow disease fiasco. In the same vein Mr Bauza should be made to relocate with his family to the environs of Son Reus in a public show of faith. It would after all be putting his money where his mouth is.

Find out more about Anna Nicholas here or follow her on Twitter @MajorcanPearls

A real strategy to save Hong Kong’s endangered natural assets

Jan 17th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Submitted by admin on Jan 17th 2013, 12:00am

Comment›Insight & Opinion

Andy Cornish and Michael Lau

Andy Cornish and Michael Lau say we can rally round a biodiversity plan

The proposed beach at Lung Mei, incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, expansion of the Tseung Kwan O landfill into Clear Water Bay Country Park and a potential third runway at the airport have all provoked strong reactions from environmental groups and sectors of the public concerned about their impact on wildlife and the environment.

This is despite some of these projects having undergone environmental impact assessments, which have been accepted by the Environmental Protection Department.

Advocates for new infrastructure, housing and the like mutter that the green groups are anti-development whiners. This glosses over the real reason opinions are divided: there is no common understanding on what our cityscape should look like, or what biodiversity should be conserved in an increasingly crowded Hong Kong.

The proposal by the Civil Engineering and Development Department to reclaim more land illustrates the problem. It should be possible to find sea areas with low ecological value that could be sacrificed for the greater good. But Hong Kong has never discussed, let alone agreed on, the goals for marine conservation or a strategy to achieve that. With only 2 per cent of our waters protected under current arrangements, green groups have little option but to oppose any large-scale projects that will degrade the marine life we do have left.

As highlighted by the chief executive in his policy address, the Environment Bureau has kicked off a process that should address the issue. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was extended to Hong Kong in 2011, the city has to develop biodiversity strategies and action plans in line with internationally agreed goals and targets, and begin implementing them by 2015. Clear guidelines lay out an open and participatory process.

The convention is a key planning tool for sustainable development. Hong Kong, with its dense population and dwindling land supply, needs such planning aids more than most. Through this process, society will learn to offer more informed ideas in decision-making on future development.

As well as potentially lessening conflicts around development, a good biodiversity strategy will ensure the sustainable use of our marine fisheries, freshwater fish farms and vegetable farms. It would recognise the cultural and ecological significance of maintaining fung shui woods, and the importance of protecting the insects that pollinate our plants and crops, the watersheds that minimise our dependence on imported fresh water, and the forests and mangroves that serve as carbon sinks. All these enhance our quality of life.

An example of the value of biodiversity to our crowded city was during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003, when many thousands of people wanting to escape the paranoia of shoulder-to-shoulder living visited our extensive country parks.

A good biodiversity strategy and action plan will not write and implement itself. A key lesson from other countries that signed onto the convention decades ago is that it will only provide lasting real benefits if biodiversity conservation is well understood and implemented across all ministries with impact on the environment, not simply those directly responsible for environmental protection.

It is too early yet to say whether this will be the case in Hong Kong, but the commitment to sustainable development outlined in Leung Chun-ying’s manifesto should lead us to be optimistic.

Andy Cornish is an independent ecologist based in Hong Kong. Michael Lau is acting director of conservation at WWF-Hong Kong

Topics:

Environmental Protection

Landfill

Lung Mei beach

Source URL (retrieved on Jan 17th 2013, 8:06pm): http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1129509/real-strategy-save-hong-kongs-endangered-natural-assets

A spot of fog

Jan 13th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download PDF : TomYam

Why is the Environmental Protection Department Like an Incinerator Salesman?

Jan 12th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download PDF : EPD as incinerator salesman

http://www.abhk.org/why-is-the-environmental-protection-department-like-an-incinerator-salesman/

I’m an environmentalist living on Cheung Chau, so was especially interested when I learned of the Environmental Protection Department’s plans for a huge waste incinerator on an artificial island beside nearby Shek Kwu Chau. This was around two years ago, and I then believed the department’s claims the incinerator would include new technology ensuring emissions were clean and safe; though I was concerned it would blight a beautiful area, and threaten Hong Kong’s small population of the globally endangered finless porpoise.

Since then, I have learned far more about waste treatment and incinerators, including major problems with incinerators. But also, disturbingly, I have found the Environmental Protection Department is extremely biased in favour of the incinerator, and unable to admit drawbacks with incinerators or really consider alternatives.

This intransigence was demonstrated at a meeting on waste last month [[Dec – I anticipate Jan publication]], during which I voiced concerns regarding incineration, and said there are far better alternatives. As the meeting closed, EPD assistant director Elvis Au told the audience he had known me for two years, and my concerns were based on 40-year old incinerator designs.

It’s true that Elvis has known me for close to two years – he serves as the EPD’s front man for the incinerator project, and in several meetings I’ve questioned him and attacked the plans, which remain in place despite strong opposition. But it’s nonsense to assert that my information on incinerators and health issues is outdated.

Elvis did note that newer incinerators produce far less dioxins than early designs. But this ignores a host of other poison emissions and the highly toxic chimney ash – which are of great concern worldwide.Screen Shot 2013-01-02 at 3.26.17 PM

For instance, incinerators belch massive amounts of particulates. Indeed, when Hong Kong closed its three waste incinerators in the 1990s, a key reason was that they contributed around 20 percent of local particulate emissions. Even newer technologies are far from efficient in trapping particulates – particularly the tiniest ones, which can travel hundreds of kilometres, and when inhaled may penetrate deep into the lungs, aggravating asthma, causing lung damage, and increasing risk of premature death. Gases also contain a wide range of organic chemicals, along with metals like cadmium and mercury.

If you still want to believe Elvis’ claims that the emissions will be clean and safe, consider that the design for Shek Kwu Chau incinerator include a 150-metre chimney. Then, I once suggested to Elvis that since the incinerator will be so fabulous, it should be sited beside the new government offices in Central. He replied that the emissions would lead to air pollutants over the harbour exceeding target levels. So, it won’t be so safe after all.

While discussions of incinerators often focus on emissions, the chimney ash is another major problem, as it may contain harmful chemicals that do not go up in the smoke, such as dioxins, mercury and other heavy metals. Indeed, it is listed as absolute hazardous waste in the European Waste Catalogue.

Elvis and others in the EPD have never mentioned this last fact, that I’ve noticed. But they do cite Europe when it suits their salesmanship, asserting that the incinerator emissions will meet European Union standards. If adopting a balanced approach to informing Hong Kong people, they might also highlight the European Parliament’s goal to ensure that, by 2020, there is no incineration of waste that could be recycled or composted.

But the EPD is quiet about this too. In the meeting, Elvis ignored my mention of new research finding significantly more cancers near waste incinerators in Spain. Nor does EPD tell of current research into infant deaths near UK incinerators, or high asthma rates around Detroit’s massive incinerator, or health concerns from badly disposed of chimney ash, or pollution from Singapore incinerators, or many other problems with modern incinerators around the world.

I have asked Elvis why he is such an avid promoter of incineration. It is not based on science; and though he’s an engineer, this does not qualify him to make grand statements regarding human health. As yet, no reply.

Nor have Elvis or other incinerator proponents made informed responses regarding an alternative treatment using plasma arc technology. This involves temperatures of perhaps 4000°C that blast molecules apart, creating a simple gas mixture plus material like solidified lava that seals heavy metals within. This is relatively new for waste treatment, but major facilities are being built and planned worldwide, with some generating electricity, others to make jet fuel and shipping fuel. Maybe similar facilities could be built here, and make Hong Kong a world leader in waste treatment.

With no real answers as to why the EPD remains wedded to incineration, we can only guess at the reasons. My suspicion is that there have been deals made or nearly made behind the scenes, and companies are eagerly expecting their shares of the estimated HK$15 billion for the incinerator and its island, and HK$8 billion to extend the life of landfills during the eight-year construction period.

Then, there’s the sad fact that under director Anissa Wong and former Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau, the EPD seemingly forgot about protecting our environment, and became besotted with building yet another grandiose infrastructure project at taxpayers’ expense.

Dr. Martin Williams

Dr Martin Williams 衛林士 is a writer and photographer specialising in wildlife and conservation, who has lived in Hong Kong for 25 years. Originally from the UK, he has a PhD in physical chemistry, and is a keen birdwatcher with a special interest in migration. Martin believes nature tourism should be promoted in Hong Kong as it can help protect beautiful rural areas and their wildlife, whilst benefitting local people. Dr. Martin Williams

Chinese translation of this article published on 12-January-2013, MPW No. 2305

Exposure assessment of a retrospective cohort of residents near incinerators in Italy: a geographical approach

Jan 9th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download PDF : ISEE_2011_poster%20esposizione2

ISEE_2011_poster%20simulazione

2013%20Cordioli%20et%20al.%20STOTEN

Effects of heat recovery on waste incineration health impact

Jan 9th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Effects of heat recovery for district heating on waste incineration health impact: A simulation study in Northern Italy Original Research Article
Science of The Total Environment, Volume 444, 1 February 2013, Pages 369-380
Michele Cordioli, Simone Vincenzi, Giulio A. De Leo

Highlights

► We estimated the health effect caused by the emission of PM10, PCDD/F, PAH, Cd and Hg from a new waste incinerator. ► We considered the compensation in PM10emission obtained through the activation of a district heating network. ► We found a moderate impact of the incinerator on human health for the exposed population. ► The switch-off of domestic boilers compensates for health impacts caused by PM10emission from the incinerator. ► The degree of self-subsistence of the diet and the consumption habits contributes substantially to risk determination

Dioxins and other U-POPs from test burns of non-POP pesticides in a hazardous waste incinerator

Jan 7th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

” Despite the overall good destruction and removal efficiency of permethrin (better than 90%) the high emission of U-POPs and CBs from the test burn is of another more serious concern. To our best knowledge the findings of this study are the first of this kind for the Southeast Asia. The findings emphasize that if not properly conducted a standard destruction technology of a non-POP chemical can lead to a release of a range of more dangerous U-POPs into the environment.”

Emission of dioxins/furans and other U-POPs from test burns of non-POP pesticides in a hazardous waste incinerator Original Research Article
Waste Management, Available online 21 December 2012, Pages
Thipsukon Khumsaeng, Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh, Karstensen H. Kare, Chongrak Polprasert

Highlights

► Test burns of non-POP obsolete pesticides in high temperature incinerator. ► Profiles of dioxins/furans, dioxin-like PCBs, CBs in discharges and fed wastes. ► Emission factors of U-POPs through stack and other discharges. ► Destruction and removal efficiency of non-POP pesticides.
← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →