Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal

Landfill mining

Oct 3rd, 2012

http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/video.html?bcpid=1191332490001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEheacc~,POub7blnBC8lYO4iHBnEdNa3xpNg8nR-&bclid=1876577096001&bctid=1877017583001

No Incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau

Sep 25th, 2012

by Editor.

No comments yet

Submitted by admin on Sep 25th 2012, 12:00am

Business

LAI SEE

Howard Winn

No Incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
We hear that the previous government’s proposed monster incinerator – which it suggested siting near the scenic island of Shek Kwu Chau – will not go ahead. It will be recalled that this controversial project involved building the incinerator on reclaimed land next to the island which is off south Lantau. The total project was expected to cost about HK$23 billion and was anticipated to handle a daily capacity of 3,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste.

When the Environmental Protection Department sought funding from the Legislative Council earlier this year, the project was shelved. However, there are a number of outstanding judicial reviews with respect to the project to be heard later this year. The original preferred site for the project was Tang Tsui near the landfill in Tuen Mun.

The project raised controversy after Donald Tsang’s government decided that the political cost of locating it in Heung Yee Kuk leader Lau Wong Fat’s fief was too great and Shek Kwu Chau “emerged” as the government’s favoured location. Although it has been shelved, mysterious forces have been at work to advance the project. Groups such as the Hong Kong Islands District Association, a United Front organisation, was able to access government environmental funds to organise subsidised trips to Singapore and Taiwan to study incinerators. It is not known how the government proposes to deal with the problem of waste disposal.

Green groups spar with AAHK
The sparring between the green groups and the Airport Authority over a study to consider the social return on investment (SROI) of the third runway rumbles on. The green groups and the legislative council want the authority to carry out this study. The authority, which talks of wanting to become the greenest airport in the world, is prevaricating by saying that it, too, wants to study the social and environmental impact of the runway, but says it has yet to find the best method. It has so far ignored the SROI that was conducted for a third runway at London’s Heathrow airport which contributed to the shelving of the project. This is not the outcome the authority is seeking. The green groups intend to hold their own meeting to discuss the carbon emission audit and the SROI, and to invite the authority to attend.

Description: 2ef6f23ccf7d1da2e518beb839cb4395.jpg

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

Topics:

Director of Public Prosecutions

Shek Kwu Chau

Waste disposal

Environmental Protection Department

Airport Authority

Social return on investment

Source URL (retrieved on Sep 25th 2012, 6:40am): http://www.scmp.com/business/article/1046361/who-will-be-hong-kongs-next-director-public-prosecutions

Links:
[1] mailto:howard.winn@scmp.com

‘Incinerators are junk and they kill’ – air pollution expert claims

Sep 19th, 2012

by Editor.

No comments yet

www.EnvironmentalHealthNews.org

Incinerators kill says toxicologist. Emissions from waste incinerators are to blame for child deaths, birth defects, increased cancer rates and heart attacks, according to an air pollution expert who spoke at Hardwicke Village Hall on Wednesday, September 5. Stroud News and Journal, United Kingdom. 19 September 2012.

11:54am Wednesday 19th September 2012 in News By Chris Warne, SNJ reporter for Stonehouse and Chalford. Twitter @ChrisWarneSNJ

EMISSIONS from waste incinerators are to blame for child deaths, birth defects, increased cancer rates and heart attacks, according to an air pollution expert who spoke at Hardwicke Village Hall on Wednesday, September 5.

Retired GP Dr Dick van Steenis, who has spent 17 years working in toxicology, urged residents to ‘rise up’ and oppose plans for a £500 million incinerator at Javelin Park, near Haresfield.

He said lax regulations in the UK meant populations living downwind of the facilities were being exposed to hazardous levels of PM1 and PM2.5 particles, which he claims are responsible for causing premature infant deaths as well as a host of other illnesses and diseases.

Dr van Steenis, who in the past has given evidence to a House of Commons select committee on air quality, said incinerator operators are putting ‘company profits before public health’ because they are burning waste at temperatures which are too low to fully break down refuse.

Alternative waste disposal technologies, like plasma arc gasification, treat waste at higher temperatures and are cheaper and cleaner, Dr van Steenis said.

“It is now up to the people to rise up and say enough is enough. We do not want any extra deaths. These incinerators are junk and they kill,” he said.

Dr van Steenis was invited to talk by parish councillors from Hardwicke and Quedgeley who are opposed to the incinerator.

Ian Butler, chairman of Hardwicke Parish Council, said he felt it was important that residents were given the opportunity to hear an alternative viewpoint on the issue.

The Health Protection Agency announced in January that it had commissioned a major new study to look at the potential threat incinerators posed to public health.

Preliminary results from that study are not due back until 2014 however – a year after building work is scheduled to start on the Javelin Park incinerator.

Cllr Stan Waddington, GCC cabinet champion for waste, said: “The Health Protection Agency’s position on energy from waste facilities is clear.

“Well run and regulated modern municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health. Energy from waste is a tried and tested technology and there are currently more than 350 operating throughout Europe.”

Javier Peiro, project director for Urbaser Balfour Beatty – the company hoping to build the plant – said: “We were disappointed that no representative was invited from UBB to provide a balanced discussion of the topics at the recent meeting.

“Dr van Steenis has raised his concerns at a number of public inquiries in the country where his evidence on health effects and alternative technologies has been considered but not accepted.

“All thermal treatment facilities, including energy from waste and gasification plants preferred by van Steenis, must comply with the same stringent emissions limits.

“Had we have been invited to Dr van Steenis’ presentation we would have been able to provide the alternative perspective on energy from waste, which is based on credible evidence rather than scaremongering.”