Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal

Submitted by admin on Nov 8th 2012, 12:00am

Business

LAI SEE HOWARD WINN

Howard Winn

Will the incinerator re-emerge?

Australia’s Northern Territory government has shut down its quarantine incineration facility at East Arm Wharf in Darwin because of pollution concerns, ABC News reports. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) says there has been a continuing problem with the incinerator ever since it was set up six years ago.

Transport Minister Adam Giles says the government decided to shut the facility because it failed to meet new environmental standards. EPA chairman Bill Freeland says the incinerator was found to be emitting dioxins into the surrounding soil.

The incinerator was set up in 2006 to treat waste from commercial shipping and international flights. We hear the Hong Kong government has abandoned plans to build a monster HK$23 billion incinerator – or waste management facility as it prefers to call it – in the scenic environs of the island of Shek Kwu Chau off South Lantau.

However, the project’s official status is that it has been shelved, so there is still the possibility it will re-emerge. It was, after all, carefully nurtured by the previous secretary of the environment, Edward Yau Tang-wah, during Donald Tsang’s administration.

After his stellar career in this capacity he now rejoices in the title of Director of Office of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, where hopefully environmental policy is spared his attentions.

Bursting population bubbles

Interesting to see the government’s appointment of 11 non-official members to the Steering Committee on Population Policy.

According to the government’s announcement: “The committee will identify the main social, economic, and policy challenges which require further study regarding changes to Hong Kong’s population profile in the next 30 years. It will recommend strategies and practical measures for pursuing the objectives of Hong Kong’s population policy, and advise on the priority of these measures.”

This is presumably a polite way of saying it wants to bring some sense to the ludicrous population assumptions that have been underpinning government infrastructure projects.

Readers will recall that the Census and Statistics Department recently lowered its projected population from 8.89 million to 8.47 million for 2041 – a 26 per cent decline – and justified it by using C.Y. Leung’s decision to ban mainland women without local partners from giving birth at local hospitals from next year.

But the government population projections have been way out of line for years, rather like John Tsang’s budget surplus projections. The latest forecast for this year is a population of 7.13 million and we are not expected to reach 8.3 million until 2036.

The Transport Department needs to pay attention to this since the “Third Comprehensive Transport Study” still appears to be using a forecast of 8.9 million to 10 million for 1997-2016. The closest we can get to this is 2041 when Hong Kong is forecast to have a population of 8.5 million.

Have you got any stories that Lai See should know about? E-mail them to howard.winn@scmp.com [1]

Topics:

Illegal structures

Buildings Department

Environmental Protection Authority

Incinerators

Steering Committee on Population Policy

http://www.timeout.com.hk/feature-stories/features/54386/christine-loh-kung-wai.html

Air pollution, overflowing landfills, incinerators, reclamation and now the controversial Tai Po artificial beach: the new Undersecretary for the Environment, Christine Loh Kung-wai, sure has got her work cut out

Words by Shirley Zhao; photography by Calvin Sit

Wearing a pair of nerdy glasses, speaking in a calm, modest manner and emanating a composed, thoughtful air, Christine Loh Kung-wai shows little sign of her manic new life as Undersecretary for the Environment. Until she starts talking about it, that is. “My days are filled with meetings,” confesses the 56-year-old during our exclusive Time Out interview, offering up an overwhelmingly packed magazine-sized 8am-11pm itinerary of her daily engagements as proof. “On my busier days, I can have up to seven meetings,” she adds.

Indeed, Loh is a busy woman – but this is hardly a new development. As the former chief executive of think tank Civic Exchange, founder of the now defunct Citizens Party and member of LegCo on and off between 1992 and 2000, Loh has always led a demanding life in the public eye. But with her recent – and somewhat unexpected – appointment in CY Leung’s government as the Undersecretary for the Environment, her schedule has reached a whole new level.

With a reputation for being a progressive politician – and with a strong track record of campaigning for the environment – Loh’s appointment to the government has been deemed a breath of fresh air. And just as she settles into the hot seat – and as the controversial artificial beach plan in Tai Po gains huge public attention – Loh sits down with us to discuss how she plans to battle Hong Kong’s environmental dilemmas over her five-year term.

So, let’s start with the hot topic: Tai Po’s Lung Mei Beach. Why did you agree the government should go on with its artificial beach plan?
The idea for the beach arose following a request from the Tai Po District Council more than a decade ago. It had been through many procedures, including obtaining funding for building the beach earlier this year from LegCo. We believe that development and conservation can go hand-in-hand and there could be a win-win solution. By taking proactive initiatives to preserve the ecological environment of the Ting Kok coastline and parts of Tolo Channel, the longstanding decision for the Lung Mei Beach project would go ahead.

Environmental groups say Lung Mei’s waters include harmful elements so it’s not suitable for an artificial beach. They are also planning a judicial review because they say the government didn’t include the quality of Lung Mei’s waters in its environmental assessment report. What’s your response?
The government is providing a new sewage network in Lung Mei and its vicinity to improve water quality. The construction is underway and will be completed next year. The water quality of Lung Mei has improved from Grade 4 to Grade 2 in recent weeks. It’s a marked improvement. We are confident that, in 2015, when Lung Mei Beach is open to the public, the water quality will meet the required standard. We will continue to monitor its water quality and publish the monitoring results regularly. More recently, NGOs have raised the issue that there is dumped mud in the water with heavy metals. We are looking into that right now.

The Lung Mei beach issue is the talk of the moment. But there’s lots more to talk about as well. What else are you working on?
Topics such as air pollution, water quality, energy, conservation and waste are all within our range of responsibilities. Actually I’m doing all of these. We will put a lot of effort in dealing with air pollution and waste because there is great public demand. Hong Kong has a fantastic biodiversity and Hong Kong people are very interested in our natural assets. I hope, during this term of the government, we will have a much more robust policy on protecting nature and restoring areas where we have damaged. Actually everything is important in our portfolio – but there are major initiatives to be launched for air quality, waste and conservation.

What are those initiatives?
For example, there is public and expert consensus on dealing with air pollution. In the coming year we will announce policy initiatives on roadside pollution, emissions from ships and regional co-operations between Hong Kong and Guangdong. On roadside pollution we will have measures to reduce emissions from diesel commercial vehicles like vans and buses–they are the major polluters, as well as commercial vehicles like minibuses and taxis. I can’t disclose the details yet because we need to battle for money for our policies. No money no talk, right?

Former environment secretary Sarah Liao Sau-tung wanted to introduce road pricing to cut traffic but top civil servants persuaded her not to do so. Will you be as easily persuaded?
I will look at it from a different angle. There are different types of methods to deal with roadside pollution. One is to deal with the emissions source – the vehicles. If you can make the vehicles pollute less – for example through switching to a cleaner fuel or buying a cleaner vehicle – it will be a very fast way of lowering pollution. The second type involves urban planning such as pedestrianising areas so people are separated from vehicles. That requires you to design a whole area and reroute all the traffic. It’s an effective method, if you can do it, but it’s very complicated. The third method is financial planning and that is Electronic Road Pricing. You have to design the system and then put in place an electronic foundation. If you ask me which of these is the low-hanging fruit, I would say the vehicles. That’s the fastest way to have some beneficial changes.

Hong Kong has been criticised as having an air quality standard much lower than the international standard. Will you work on that as well?
The last government had already announced the tightening of the standards. We’re going to put it in legislation. That will be coming soon.

How soon?
In less than six months.

The plan to build an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau has stirred up much controversy as well. What do you think of the plan?
Does Hong Kong need an incinerator? I think the answer is clearly yes. Right now, all the waste goes to our landfills. It’s not sustainable. If we can reduce the amount of waste we produce, will we still need an incinerator? The answer is yes. Hong Kong does not have an incinerator [for disposed waste] right now. We can argue about whether we need two or three but I think we need one. Some people may be objecting to the location or prefer this technology rather than that technology – but they are not saying no to an incinerator. So we need to be very clear about what people are supporting and objecting to.

Where’s the incinerator plan on your agenda?
It’s not just about the incinerator. It’s about waste management. Waste is a huge issue. We have waste that can be reused quite easily. We have food waste which is really challenging to deal with. We also have electronic waste, construction and demolition waste, and very difficult waste like clinical waste. Right now they all go to the landfills but they all require some different handlings. For the first time, Hong Kong is talking about investing in a comprehensive, foundational waste handling and disposal system. For such a rich city as Hong Kong, we are doing it rather late. It’s just so important to Hong Kong, because this defines how we’re going to deal with different types of waste. Hong Kong now has a sludge treatment plant being built in Tuen Mun [set to be completed next year]. This is a big scale incinerator to deal with sludge. We also need to build an organic waste treatment plant. At the same time, we need to reduce waste. The next thing we are going to do is consult the public again on how the charging system could work. This is another major piece of work that will come in the next year.

Do you mean the government has set its mind and will go on with the waste charging plan?
The last government had one round of consultation on whether we should have a waste charging plan and I think the answer is yes. We are some years away from actually charging but we are definitely very committed to moving towards it.

How long will it take for the comprehensive waste treatment plan to be completed?
Actually, it will take way beyond the time that I’m in the government. We are talking about a 10-year plan.

What do you think will be the biggest challenges to seeing your policies work effectively?
I’ll put it this way. I’ll tell you what I would like to do. First of all, I would like to help people see the broad picture of environmental infrastructure. Everything has a cost and people may not like it. In the coming year I want to show Hong Kong people what the investments are and how it will make their lives different. I want to spend a lot of time engaging with the media, stakeholders, experts and the public. We’ve already had one round of engagement with experts as well as environmental groups on air quality. I’d like to compare Hong Kong’s development in this field with other places so that people can see what cities have moved before us and what cities are behind us. With our level of development, we are lucky because we can afford to invest in building an infrastructure [to protect the environment]. We need successive generations of government to be committed to it, otherwise we won’t make it.

But currently Hong Kong people don’t seem to trust the government. Will that be one of the challenges?
I think people in Hong Kong are reasonable. If you put out a clear plan and if you are able to explain what the plan is for and why we need it, Hong Kong people are willing to listen. I do want to explain to people very carefully and in great depth ‘why’, so people understand [our policies]. I think we owe them that explanation. So hopefully, in the environment, with clear, well-explained and hopefully well-designed policies, we will get public support.

Do you think your inclusion into the government means that Beijing has realised the SAR needs to draw on a bigger pool of talent –
even including people from the broad pro-democratic camp?
I didn’t talk to Beijing so I don’t know what Beijing thinks. My discussions have initially been with the Chief Executive Mr CY Leung and subsequently with the Secretary for the Environment, Mr KS Wong. I accepted the offer to join the government because I think they are serious about doing something for the environment and I think I can help.

Do you think we will see more people from the pro-democratic camp joining the government?
I don’t know.

Do you hope so?
I don’t know. I’m looking at just my area where I can do something

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-06/east-arm-quarantine-incinerator-shut-down/4356552?section=nt

East Arm quarantine incinerator shut down

The Northern Territory Government has shut down its quarantine incineration facility at East Arm Wharf in Darwin because of pollution concerns.

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) says there has been an ongoing problem with the incinerator for the past six years.

Transport Minister Adam Giles says the Government decided to shut the facility because it fails to meet new environmental standards.

The incinerator was set up in 2006 to treat waste from commercial shipping and international flights.

EPA chairman Dr Bill Freeland says the incinerator was found to be emitting dioxins into the surrounding soil.

He says alternative arrangements for the waste are being established.

“There will be waste coming in every day and currently it is being stored, and arrangements are being put in place … to actually get that all sealed up and trucked to a proper facility to South Australia,” he said.

Mr Giles says the Territory receives about one shipping container of bio-hazard waste from international aircraft and ships every day.

“I want to make sure that people see Darwin Port as a clean port,” he said.

http://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/176052791.html

Cache Creek mayor wants toxic incinerator ash gone

http://www.missioncityrecord.com/news/175833161.html

Scrubbers at Metro Vancouver’s waste-to-energy facility remove metals like cadmium before they go up the stack. But the ash collected was found to exceed provincial limits in July and August.

By Jeff Nagel – Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: October 25, 2012 11:00 AM

Fly ash from Metro Vancouver’s garbage incinerator that tested high in toxic cadmium in July and August has been contained at the Cache Creek landfill.

But Metro officials say they’re still trying to determine why waste-to-energy plant operator Covanta Energy was slow to inform the regional district of the test failures.

About 2,000 tonnes of the fly ash, which is particulate collected from scrubbers that keep toxic metals from going up the stack, was trucked to the Interior landfill.

Provincial regulation requires the ash pass two different tests to ensure it can be safely dumped at a landfill.

Solid waste manager Paul Henderson said there was a range of sample results, but the highest cadmium readings were more than double the provincial limit.

“It wasn’t marginally over the limit, they were substantially over the limit,” he said.

The main test, done at the end of each month, usually comes back with results within three weeks.

But Metro wasn’t informed of both failures until Sept. 26 – about a month later than should have happened for the failed July test results and a day after Cache Creek landfill operatorWastech noticed the results were late and demanded the data.

“We’re working closely with Covanta to understand what happened with regard to those communication issues,” Henderson said. “They’ve told us to date there was human error in the communication.”

Cadmium exists in minute quantities in municipal garbage, from sources such as batteries, dyes and some films and plastics, Henderson said.

Environment ministry officials will decide whether the ash that was trucked to Cache Creek can stay there or has to be taken to a special waste facility.

Subsequent tests on it there found most of the sampled material is within provincial limits.

Every truckload of fly ash produced at the Burnaby incinerator since Sept. 25 has been individually tested and found to be within limits, Henderson said.

But Metro took the added precaution of shipping it to a landfill near Hinton, Alberta until more is known.

Henderson said it didn’t make sense to pile in more new ash at Cache Creek if it’s decided the July and August shipments require special treatment.

He said Metro doesn’t believe the local environment or the Wastech workers at Cache Creek were at risk, but added both Metro and the landfill operator want to ensure no ash is ever delivered again that exceeds limits.

It’s the first time in 12 years incinerator fly ash samples failed testing.

Air emissions from the Metro incinerator have always been within operating limits and are not affected by the fly ash incident, Henderson said.

Covanta Energy said in a statement it believes the summer failures were an “aberration” and the fly ash sent to Cache Creek should not be considered hazardous waste.

The firm said it’s checking its ash-conditioning process to ensure it’s working properly and there are no future problems.

“We deeply regret this event and are working to resolve this lapse in communication,” the statement said. “At no time was information related to this issue purposefully withheld.”

Surrey Coun. Marrvin Hunt, who sits on Metro’s zero waste committee, said fly ash from the initial years of the incinerator’s operation went to the long-closed Coquitlam landfill until approval was gained to send it to Cache Creek.

He said fly ash typically hardens into a cement-like material that should pose no hazard at Cache Creek.

“The greatest concern is the lack of timely reporting,” Hunt said.

Washington State landfill operator Rabanco – which has repeatedly tried to land Metro Vancouver as a customer – said its Roosevelt Regional Landfill has a special cell for incinerator ash and could accept Metro ash shipments by rail, eliminating the need for it to be trucked to Alberta.