Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal

Incinerator firm ‘fixed result of site selection’

http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/from-the-wires/wire-news-display/1681747785.html

Cheryl Livingstone
Aberdeen Press and Journal
June 7, 2012
A DEVELOPMENT company was accused yesterday of “fixing the result” of a site-selection exercise as it planned to build a £43million waste-to-energy incinerator.

The claim was made as a public inquiry opened into Combined Power and Heat (Highlands) Ltd’s (CPH) proposals to build in the Highlands.

The company denied the allegation – but admitted that it had not looked at some possible alternative sites because they were deemed inappropriate.

About 30 residents attended the inquiry at Invergordon, with local councillors and multimillionaire and former Harrods boss Mohamed Al Fayed, who has been helping the community fight the plans for two years.

The inquiry was called after CPH appealed against Highland Council’s decision to reject its bid for planning permission in 2010.

The inquiry heard Mr Al Fayed’s company, Ross Estates, and the local authority raised concerns that other sites had not been examined, including Nigg and the former landfill at the Longman Industrial Estate in Inverness.

Ian Crummack, a technical adviser for CPH, said other sites had been considered but were not thought to be appropriate.

He said there were engineering problems with the Longman site and it was not big enough for the development.

He also raised concerns that the development would be visible from the Kessock Bridge entrance to the Highland capital.

During cross-examination, however, advocate James Findlay, representing Highland Council, asked whether a full assessment of the site had been carried out.

Mr Crummack said the team looking at potential locations did not fully assess the Longman site and its decision was based on knowledge of what problems were usually associated with former landfills.

Mr Findlay queried why other sites on the Longman Industrial Estate had been marked as unavailable in a report from 2008, and said another company, Shore Energy, had since been granted planning permission to build a recycling centre on land belonging to Inverness Harbour Trust on the estate.

He asked: “Was the harbour trust land included in the assessment of the Longman Industrial Estate for possible sites?”

Mr Crummack said that, from his recollection, it had not been included.

Mr Findlay said: “Was the Inverness Harbour Trust ever approached about using their land?” Mr Crummack said he was not aware of that having happened.

Douglas Armstrong QC, representing Ross Estates, also raised concerns about alternative sites and accused the company of fixing the site-selection process.

He said the environmental statement had listed five sites that had been considered, while only one had been available for development – the Invergordon site on Cromarty Firth Industrial Estate.

Mr Armstrong said: “That is not site-selecting – this is fixing the result before it’s even begun. It’s like entering a horse race knowing your horse is going to win.

“You have said the Longman site didn’t qualify but presented no evidence why it wasn’t suitable. That is not acceptable in any process.”

Mr Crummack said he did not agree with that. He added: “I think it is unfair to criticise us simply for recording the process we went through at the time. We would be criticised if we hadn’t included any other sites in the report.”

The inquiry continues.

Copyright 2012 Aberdeen Journals LtdAll Rights Reserved

Aberdeen Press and Journal

Wire News provided by

Ash from incinerator is hazardous

SCMP letter – June 7, 2012

I refer to the letter by Wolfgang Ehmann (“Residual waste cannot be eliminated”, May 23). Since 2007, through these columns, your correspondent has promoted the use of incineration.

In a submission to a Legco panel in March, Mr Ehmann, on behalf of the German Chamber of Commerce, said: “In 2007 our office led a delegation of senior [Environmental Protection Department] staff and stakeholders to Germany to attend the Waste to Energy Trade Fair and visit waste to energy plants in Hamburg and Frankfurt.” So he is doing his job to promote German incineration technology and point out the lack of local legislation to mandate recycling.

Germany, thanks to at-source recycling legislation, has a 70per cent recycling rate, so it now imports waste from around the world to keep its incinerators operational.

What he and the outgoing environment minister sidestep is that incineration thermally converts waste and leaves 23 per cent bottom ash and 6 per cent fly ash by weight, which are hazardous waste, with no landfills left here to take the ash. That means building mega islands to receive the ash.

Last month, a company called Solena Fuels was in town. It uses plasma gasification of waste to produce biofuel for jets and boats, bio-naphtha and biodiesel. Its partners are 15 world airlines and Maersk. There are no ash or emissions from a plasma plant, just a molten slag that can be used as road aggregate.

Incineration and its airborne/soil pollutants have long been associated with dioxins.

The only incinerator of the size proposed here is in Detroit, Michigan, in the US. According to one report, it has cost the city an estimated US$1.2 billion, and has caused increased pollution levels. It says that “asthma death rates in Detroit are two times that for the state”.

Meanwhile the Environmental Protection Department did not mention in a recent environmental impact assessment that three incinerators are planned in Shenzhen from 2015 (burning 6,300 tonnes of waste a day), with predominant northerly winds blowing into Hong Kong.

James Middleton, chairman, Clear the Air

Don’t rubbish our waste alternatives; By Glosvain campaigner Sue Oppenheimer ; THE BIG ISSUE

The Citizen
June 6, 2012
http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/from-the-wires/wire-news-display/1680928184.html

WE all agree we can’t keep on landfilling our waste.

Apart from being very expensive (because of landfill tax), it’s smelly, unsightly, releases harmful methane into the atmosphere and wastes useful resources.

So what should we do instead? Gloucestershire County Council thinks we should burn it and produce some electricity.

It plans to contract with Urbaser Balfour Beatty (UBB) to build a large waste incinerator at Javelin Park in Haresfield, on the outskirts of Gloucester. Each year it would burn 190,000 tonnes of waste left after recycling.

At a cost of half a billion, the council estimates it would save £150million on landfill charges over 25 years. This all sounds very plausible until you start to dig down and realise that the project does not stack up.

GCC has assumed household waste will increase year-on-year, but in reality it has been falling for the past six years. It predicted that waste would be 25 per cent higher in 2011/12 than it actually was. It over estimated by at least 70,000 tonnes – a large margin of error over a four-year period. Despite this, it still predicts waste will continue to rise, and uses this to justify its project. A report published last month by leading waste analysts, Eunomia, asserts waste will flat-line until at least 2020. Waste nationally has de-coupled from economic growth, so will not necessarily rise even if the economy picks up. Last week, the European Union, which states at least 80 per cent of our waste is recyclable or compostable, agreed a motion to ban this waste from incinerators by 2020.

Gloucestershire has a target to recycle and compost only 60 per cent of household waste by 2020. That means over half of our black bag waste will still be recyclable or compostable, and we won’t be able to burn it after 2020 – so there will be even less waste for the giant incinerator. The Eunomia report predicts that, by 2015, there will be between 1.2 and 4.6 million tonnes of surplus residual waste capacity in the UK, so why are we building more? They point to Germany, Denmark and Holland where overcapacity has led to incinerators being closed and waste being imported to keep the burners going.

We already know UBB will supplement household waste with commercial and industrial waste. The incinerator has to operate 24/7, and if household waste reduces, more and more commercial waste will be brought in, probably from far beyond Gloucestershire.

GCC made the business case for the project by comparing the costs of incineration against landfill costs, using their over-inflated prediction figures. With waste falling, landfill costs will be much less, and we estimate the incinerator will no longer save any money – indeed it may even cost more.

We can’t be sure because GCC won’t release the figures due to ‘commercial confidentiality’ so there can be no public scrutiny of their decision.

However, even the council’s waste champion, Councillor Stan Waddington, has admitted the business case may need reviewing. What are the alternatives? Other proven technologies exist that are cheaper and more flexible. Bristol uses mechanical biological treatment, which provides second-chance recycling of black bag waste.

It also separates out organic waste for composting in an anaerobic digester to produce syngas for the gas network. The truly residual waste can be processed in a modern, efficient and less harmful gasification/plasma arc plant, creating electricity.

None of us has a crystal ball to predict waste levels in the future, and this solution would provide the necessary flexibility.

Rather than Javelin Park hosting a huge inflexible power station that would be a blot on the landscape, it could become a state-of-the-art resource recovery park: modestly sized, economically sustainable and something to be proud of.

Tackling our rubbish ¦ 2006: Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) begins looking for a solution for dealing with residual waste ¦ 2008: GCC produces an outline business case using Javelin Park and incineration as model ¦ 2009: GCC purchases Javelin Park site for £7.3m ¦ 2010: The Government withdraws the £93m Private Finance Initiative funding from Gloucestershire because the project “will no longer be needed” ¦ March 2011: After a review, GCC decides to go ahead with the project ¦ December 2011: GCC chose Urbaser Balfour Beatty as its ‘preferred bidder’ ¦ March 2012: UBB submits its planning application ¦ May 2012: The EU passes motion to ban recyclable and compostable waste from incineration by 2020 ¦ Autumn 2012: The planning application will be considered by GCC ¦ 2013/14: If permission is granted, construction starts ¦ 2015: The incinerator becomes operational

Copyright 2012 The Citizen All Rights Reserved

The Citizen

Eastday-High-tech incinerator fix for mountains of garbage

http://english.eastday.com/e/120601/u1a6594813.html
High-tech incinerator fix for mountains of garbage2012-06-01 09:16
CONSTRUCTION is done on a high-tech garbage incinerator along the East
China Sea in Pudong, and it will be working on a trial basis before year’s
end to ease Shanghai’s looming shortfall in garbage treatment capacity.

The first phase of the incinerator will start burning waste in the second
half of this year, the Shanghai Greenery and Public Sanitation Bureau said
yesterday. It is built inside the Laogang landfill compound, now the city’s
primary garbage treatment center.

The new facility will be able to incinerate up to 3,000 tons of garbage
every day, about 15 percent of the city’s current total daily waste. The
second phase of the project, to open soon, will have the same capacity.

Officials said incineration produces much less odor and doesn’t impact land
use as much by turning most wastes into ash, compared with traditional
landfills.

The Laogang incinerator facility will be the largest in terms of treatment
capacity in China, said project managers.

Heat from the incinerator will produce electricity. It will produce up to
100 million kilowatt hours annually, enough to supply about 100,000 local
families, according to the managers.

Some of the cinders will also be processed into bricks while ashes will be
buried. Both the waste liquid and gas would be treated to meet safety
standards before being discharged, the project authority said.

The Laogang landfill currently handles 70 percent of Shanghai’s daily
waste. Over two decades, three huge landfill sites have been used up and a
quarter of the fourth section is already full.

Incinerators are the main way Shanghai plans to ease its garbage headache,
officials said.

Some local scientists have raised concerns about pollution from
incinerators, however. Shen Jianhua, a local environmental scientist,
yesterday warned that the operator and government watchdogs must strictly
monitor every day to ensure trash is always fully burned.

Insufficient incineration causes the discharged gas to contain pollutants
including cancer-inducing chemicals, Shen said.

“It’s crucially important for the watchdog to make sure the garbage
incineration always meets safe discharge standards. The government should
not be too keen on having such a project generating profits by producing
electricity.

“They need to focus on avoiding environmental pollution from such plants,”
Shen said.

Source:Shanghai Daily

How is Shek Kwu Chau fairest pick?

SCMP letters

I refer to the report in Health Post (“Burning issue”, May 29).

Elvis Au, assistant director of the Environmental Protection Department, says that the Shek Kwu Chau site was chosen for the proposed incinerator after a “very objective, vigorous, systematic site search process” and “in an attempt to more fairly distribute unwanted facilities across Hong Kong”.

How come a “more fair” distribution of “unwanted facilities” was never a criterion of either of the department’s consultations?

It was first mentioned after a meeting with the Heung Yee Kuk concerning the site beyond Tuen Mun.

Following this line of thought would be like proposing a landfill for Hong Kong Island.

This would be ridiculous, just like the department’s justification of Shek Kwu Chau.

What Hong Kong first needs is more recycling at source.

Once that’s well in place, then let’s review all other means of waste disposal.

Patrick Wilson, Pok Fu Lam

China’s Largest Waste-To-Energy System Heads For Shenzhen

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/profile/latest/esb250/esb250.pdf

for comments

ensure that valid points like the following are included in their EIA that they must address

http://titan-machinery.com/en/industry-news/shenzhen-waste-incinerator/

Description: Description: shenzhen

The second phase of the Bao’an Waste-to-Energy Plant, which is invested in by Shenzhen Energy and Environment Company, is expected to be the largest of its kind in China with a daily production capacity of 4,200 tons.

It is learned that Shenzhen produces 12,074 tons of waste are being yielded in Shenzhen every day. Though city has set up seven waste incineration power plants with a total capacity of 4,875 tons per day, it can still not meet the increasing demand.

At present, SEEC incinerates 2,450 tons of waste each day, which accounts for 50% of the city’s total waste incineration. In addition, the company has three projects under construction which are expected to add a daily capacity of 6,300 tons for the city.

Set up in 1997, SEEC is one of the major waste disposal companies in Shenzhen.

China’s Incinerators Loom as a Global Hazard

Description: Description: Description: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/12/world/12incinerate01-600.jpg

A worker shoveled trash at the Baoan incinerator in Shenzhen, which also generates power.

O

By KEITH BRADSHER

Published: August 11, 2009

SHENZHEN, China— In this sprawling metropolis in southeastern China stand two hulking brown buildings erected by a private company, theLonggang trash incinerators. They can be smelled a mile away and pour out so much dark smoke and hazardous chemicals that hundreds of local residents recently staged an all-day sit-in, demanding that the incinerators be cleaner and that a planned third incinerator not be built nearby.

Enlarge This Image

Timothy O’Rourke for The New York Times

A truck delivering trash to the Baoan incinerator in Shenzhen, China. The incinerator is relatively clean, but is also costly.

Enlarge This Image

Timothy O’Rourke for The New York Times

Zhong Rigang, the chief engineer at the Baoan incinerator, saw little enthusiasm among the public for recycling.

Enlarge This Image

Timothy O’Rourke for The New York Times

The Longgang incinerators in Shenzhen were the focus of a recent all-day sit-in by hundreds of local residents.

A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.

Go to Blog »

After surpassing the United States as the world’s largest producer of household garbage, China has embarked on a vast program to build incinerators as landfills run out of space. But these incinerators have become a growing source of toxic emissions, from dioxin to mercury, that can damage the body’s nervous system.

And these pollutants, particularly long-lasting substances like dioxin and mercury, are dangerous not only in China, a growing body of atmospheric research based on satellite observations suggests. They float on air currents across the Pacific to American shores.

Chinese incinerators can be better. At the other end of Shenzhen from Longgang, no smoke is visible from the towering smokestack of the Baoanincinerator, built by a company owned by the municipal government. Government tests show that it emits virtually no dioxin and other pollutants.

But the Baoan incinerator cost 10 times as much as the Longgang incinerators, per ton of trash-burning capacity.

The difference between the Baoan and Longgang incinerators lies at the center of a growing controversy in China. Incinerators are being built to wildly different standards across the country and even across cities like Shenzhen. For years Chinese government regulators have discussed the need to impose tighter limits on emissions. But they have done nothing because of a bureaucratic turf war, a Chinese government official and Chinese incineration experts said.

The Chinese government is struggling to cope with the rapidly rising mountains of trash generated as the world’s most populated country has raced from poverty to rampant consumerism. Beijing officials warned in June that all of the city’s landfills would run out of space within five years.

The governments of several cities with especially affluent, well-educated citizens, including Beijing and Shanghai, are setting pollution standards as strict as Europe’s. Despite those standards, protests against planned incinerators broke out this spring in Beijing and Shanghai as well as Shenzhen.

Increasingly outspoken residents in big cities are deeply distrustful that incinerators will be built and operated to international standards. “It’s hard to say whether this standard will be reached — maybe the incinerator is designed to reach this benchmark, but how do we know it will be properly operated?” said Zhao Yong, a computer server engineer who has become a neighborhood activist in Beijing against plans for an incinerator there.

Yet far dirtier incinerators continue to be built in inland cities where residents have shown little awareness of pollution.

Studies at the University of Washington and the Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Ill., have estimated that a sixth of the mercury now falling on North American lakes comes from Asia, particularly China, mainly from coal-fired plants and smelters but also from incinerators. Pollution from incinerators also tends to be high in toxic metals like cadmium.

Incinerators play the most important role in emissions of dioxin. Little research has been done on dioxin crossing the Pacific. But analyses of similar chemicals have shown that they can travel very long distances.

A 2005 report from the World Bank warned that if China built incinerators rapidly and did not limit their emissions, worldwide atmospheric levels of dioxin could double. China has since slowed its construction of incinerators and limited their emissions somewhat, but the World Bank has yet to do a follow-up report.

Airborne dioxin is not the only problem from incinerators. The ash left over after combustion is laced with dioxin and other pollutants. Zhong Rigang, the chief engineer at the Baoan incinerator here, said that his operation sent its ash to a special landfill designed to cope with toxic waste. But an academic paper last year by Nie Yongfeng, a Tsinghua University professor and government adviser who sees a need for more incinerators, said that most municipal landfills for toxic waste lacked room for the ash, so the ash was dumped.

Trash incinerators have two advantages that have prompted Japan and much of Europe to embrace them: they occupy much less real estate than landfills, and the heat from burning trash can be used to generate electricity. The Baoan incinerator generates enough power to light 40,000 households.

And landfills have their own environmental hazards. Decay in landfills also releases large quantities of methane, a powerful global warming gas, said Robert McIlvaine, president of McIlvaine Company, an energy consulting firm that calculates the relative costs of addressing disparate environmental hazards. Methane from landfills is a far bigger problem in China than toxic pollutants from incinerators, particularly modern incinerators like those inBaoan, he said.

China’s national regulations still allow incinerators to emit 10 times as much dioxin as incinerators in the European Union; American standards are similar to those in Europe. Tightening of China’s national standards has been stuck for three years in a bureaucratic war between the environment ministry and the main economic planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, said a Beijing official who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the subject publicly.

The agencies agree that tighter standards on dioxin emissions are needed. They disagree on whether the environment ministry should have the power to stop incinerator projects that do not meet tighter standards, the official said, adding that the planning agency wants to retain the power to decide which projects go ahead.

Yan Jianhua, the director of the solid waste treatment expert group in Zhejiang province, a center of incinerator equipment manufacturing in China, defended the industry’s record on dioxin, saying that households that burn their trash outdoors emit far more dioxin.

“Open burning is a bigger problem according to our research,” Professor Yan said, adding that what China really needs is better trash collection so that garbage can be disposed of more reliably.

Critics and admirers of incinerators alike call for more recycling and reduced use of packaging as ways to reduce the daily volume of municipal garbage. Even when not recycled, sorted trash is easier for incinerators to burn cleanly, because the temperature in the furnace can be adjusted more precisely to minimize the formation of dioxin.

Yet the Chinese public has

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/business/energy-environment/12incinerate.html?pagewanted=all

shown little enthusiasm for recycling. As Mr. Zhong, the engineer at the Baoan incinerator, put it, “No one really cares.”

Keppel Seghers is currently one of the leading providers for imported WTE solutions in China. Its in-house technology is supplied for the expansion of an existing WTE plant in Shenzhen, Guangdong.

Keppel Seghers’ technology will enable the facility to treat an additional 3,000 tonnes to the existing 1,200 tonnes of municipal waste per day. When completed, the WTE plant will be the largest in China with an eventual capacity to treat 4,200 tonnes of municipal waste per day.

The existing WTE plant’s key components were also provided by Keppel Seghers in 1999, when it was built. Back then, the plant was also the largest WTE plant in China.

Heated opposition feared for city’s incinerator plan

Updated: 2011-09-17 08:06

By Zheng Caixiong (China Daily)

Print Mail Large Medium Small 0

SHENZHEN, Guangdong – The government of the special economic zone is having trouble finding a location for the construction of a gigantic garbage incinerator.

Lu Ruifeng, executive deputy mayor of Shenzhen, said the city plans to build the world’s largest garbage incinerator, with a designed capacity to handle more than 5,000 tons of garbage a day.

“But it is really a headache to choose the right location for the project,” Lu said.

Lu made the remarks while meeting with Chen Xiaochuan, vice-chairwoman of the Guangdong Provincial People’s Congress, who was leading a group of deputies from the province’s legislative body to inspect the city’s environmental protection work early this week.

Although Lu did not reveal what the problems were, insiders said the city government worried the project could meet opposition from people living near any chosen location.

In Guangzhou, about 100 kilometers away from Shenzhen, the city government had to postpone construction of a similar project in its Panyu district last year because of residents’ strong opposition.

After the Guangzhou government chose a site in the Panyu district to build its garbage incinerator in late 2009, the overwhelming majority of nearby residents signed a petition to oppose the project. They were worried it would pollute the environment and harm their health.

As a result, the Guangdong provincial government had to make concession and announced it would postpone construction.

The Guangzhou garbage incinerator project had also stirred controversy among environmental experts and scholars.

Zhao Zhangyuan, a retired researcher for the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, said incineration will cause pollution.

“Burning garbage produces many poisonous gases, even when advanced technology and equipment are used,” said Zhao, who strongly opposed construction of the project.

Guangzhou authorities are now looking for a different site to build their garbage incinerator.

But Xu Haiyun, chief engineer with the China Urban Construction Design and Research Institute, said garbage incinerators will not pose health risks because the gases discharged would be strictly in line with the country’s standards.

“There is a garbage incinerator in downtown Bonn, Germany, and similar facilities have been constructed in Japan,” Xu said.

Lu Ruifeng promised Shenzhen’s garbage incinerator would use the world’s most advanced technologies, equipment and management system and uphold the strictest discharge standards to avoid polluting the environment.

“Shenzhen, a densely populated city that lacks land resources, will treat its waste mainly through burning in the future, in addition to burying and composting,” Lu said.

According to Lu, Shenzhen’s treatment rate of consumer waste will exceed 80 percent in 2015.

In addition, a number of garbage treatment facilities will be built or expanded in the coming years.

Yin Qingwei, a Shenzhen white-collar worker, said the city needs to build a big garbage incinerator to deal with its growing garbage problem.

“But the government should carefully consider the public opinion and seek suggestions from residents to choose the right location,” he said.

Construction should not start before the majority of residents have reached an agreement with the government, he added.

China Daily

http://news.newclear.server279.com/?p=3958

Shenzhen plans world’s largest incinerator

Apr 6th, 2012

by Editor.

Choi Chi-yuk and Cheung Chi-fai

Sep 15, 2011

Shenzhen plans to build the “world’s largest” rubbish incinerator, capable of processing 5,000 tonnes a day, in an effort to cope with the almost five million tonnes of domestic waste produced by the city each year.

Lu Ruifeng, the city’s executive vice-mayor, told a group of Guangdong provincial People’s Congress delegates on Tuesday that because its landfills could no longer cope with the growing trash pile produced by its 13 million residents, the city was planning to build the world’s largest incinerator, the Guangzhou-based Nanfang Daily reported yesterday.

Lu said public consultations had been held on site selection. He admitted that where to put the incinerator was one of the most challenging problems for the project.

The Nanfang Daily said Shenzhen planned to build three waste incinerators by 2015 to burn 80 per cent of the city’s rubbish. It said two of the plants would be in Laohukeng andNanshandistrict, both in the west of the city, with the third to be built at an unspecified site in the city’s east.

A report in the Guangzhou Daily said Shenzhen had three waste incineration plants in the pipeline, capable of processing a total of 6,300 tonnes of rubbish a day.

Lu said that in order to meet environmental protection standards for the incinerator’s emissions – smell, liquid, ash residue and airborne ash particles – it would make use of mechanical grate technology to improve combustion. It would also adopt advanced management and stick to the highest global air quality standards, the Nanfang Daily reported.

It said Shenzhen was dealing with 4.8 million tonnes of trash a year.

Michelle Au Wing-tze, senior environmental affairs officer at Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong), said Shenzhen was taking a wrong path in waste management.

“Guangzhou has just started to ask people to separate and recycle waste, but Shenzhen is heading in the opposite direction,” she said.

“It is definitely not an image boost to tell others the incinerator will be the world’s largest.”

Au said that if the incinerator had any adverse environmental impacts, like dioxin pollution, it would not just hit Shenzhen and Hong Kong but could spread far beyond the region.

Last year, the daily per capita waste disposal rate in Shenzhen was 1.26kg, compared to 1.28kgin Hong Kong and 0.77kg in Guangzhou.

Hong Kong is also planning to build a large incinerator, with a capacity of 3,000 tonnes a day, on a reclaimed site at Shek Kwu Chau, south of Lantau Island. Environment officials have not ruled out the need to build an extra incinerator to cope with mounting waste.

Waste incineration projects are a sensitive issue in Guangdong, with proposals for new plants often met by fierce local demonstrations, forcing plans to be put on hold. In January, more than 1,000 residents from two districts of Guangzhou staged separate protests against incinerator projects near their neighbourhoods.

Growing environmental awareness among mainlanders as living standards have improved in recent years have fuelled more protests over environmental concerns.

Copyright (c) 2011. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved

Burmese python gobbles up island goat, no kidding

No meal is too big for a hungry python. That is what staff at the Shek Kwu Chau Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre discovered when they came upon a four- meter-long Burmese python that swallowed their resident goat.

Kenneth Foo

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

No meal is too big for a hungry python. That is what staff at the Shek Kwu Chau Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre discovered when they came upon a four- meter-long Burmese python that swallowed their resident goat.

A staff member, surnamed Kwan, said the snake was seen about 7am yesterday in the middle of a grassy patch with a huge bulge in its mid-section.

It was immediately suspected of swallowing the goat kept by the center to provide a form of animal therapy for recovering male addicts.

“The snake was bloated and couldn’t move at all, so it was easy for a few of us to trap it with a dog cage,” Kwan said.

The python was made to purge itself of the dead goat, which was the size of a Golden Retriever.

Police soon arrived at the scene with a snake-catcher and together they transported the culprit to nearby Cheung Chau police station.

It is now awaiting transfer to an animal management center run by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department in Sheung Shui.

A department spokeswoman said after assessing its physical condition, the reptile – Burmese pythons are protected under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance – will be released to the countryside.

Growing up to six meters in length and 80 kilograms in weight, the python feeds mostly on birds and small mammals, but has been known to attack pets on rare occasions.

However, there is minimal public safety risk, as pythons are not known to attack humans, intrepid snake handler William Sargent said.

Burning issue

South Lantau families are worried about the potential impact an incinerator to be built on Shek Kwu Chau will have on their children’s already fragile health
Charley Lanyon (charley.lanyon@scmp.com)
May 29, 2012

Last year, Rosa Ma and her eight-year-old daughter boarded the ferry in Mui Wo and headed into town for a ballet lesson. As soon as they disembarked at the Central ferry terminal, Ma’s daughter, Sun-yi, became uncomfortable. “She said she felt attacked by the dust on her face,” says Ma.

By the end of the lesson, Sun-yi was having trouble breathing. Racing against a full-blown asthma attack, they boarded the ferry home, where, in south Lantau’s clean air, the little girl was finally able to regain her breath.

Sun-yi, who suffers from asthma and eczema, has been diagnosed with an elevated immunoglobulin level that makes her 17 times more sensitive to the environment than other children her age. Ma monitors the air quality index every morning to ensure it’s safe for her daughter to venture outdoors.

Yumi Yeung, another Mui Wo resident, moved to the area from Aberdeen with her family seven years ago to seek relief for her youngest son, who suffered serious asthma attacks every two to three months that required being admitted to hospital. Doctors seemed powerless to help and medication offered no relief. After the move, however, the boy’s condition improved rapidly. The asthma attacks stopped and within six months he was off medication.

For families such as these, south Lantau offers more than a pretty beach: it represents a chance for normality and a childhood free of debilitating health problems. But with the government’s plan to build a mass burn incinerator just six kilometres away on Shek Kwu Chau island, parents such as Ma and Yeung feel their children’s health is under attack.

For now, the plan is on hold. Last month, the Environment Bureau was forced to abandon its HK$23 billion funding request for the incinerator, leaving the decision of whether to move ahead with construction up to the next government. But it seems inevitable it will be built because the city’s three major landfills are forecast to be exhausted by 2014, 2016 and 2018.

The effects of the new incinerator have been debated since 2008, when a shortlist of sites was announced. But such controversy is not limited to Hong Kong; incineration has been a hot topic worldwide for decades. There’s even a Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance (GAIA), founded in 2010 and with a membership of more than 650 grass-roots groups, NGOs, and individuals in 90 countries.

Dr Kenneth Tsang Wah-tak, a respiratory medicine specialist in Hong Kong, says incinerators pose two main dangers: dioxins and airborne particulate matter.

“Dioxins are basically fumes that, depending on wind flow, can cause worsening cases of asthma in children,” says Tsang. Dioxins are also known carcinogens. “[Although] we don’t know of a direct relationship between instances of cancer and incinerators, it would be easy to extrapolate that dioxins could expose kids to a risk of the development of cancer later on.”

According to the World Health Organisation, experiments have shown that dioxins affect a number of organs and systems. Dioxins that enter the body – typically through food – endure a long time because of their chemical stability and their ability to be absorbed and stored by fat tissue. Dioxins have a half-life of an estimated seven to 11 years.

Meanwhile, particulate matter, Tsang says, goes directly into the lungs and is associated with the deterioration of lung function.

A 2008 report, “The health effects of waste incinerators” by the British Society for Ecological Medicine, says two large cohort studies in the United States have shown that fine particulate air pollution causes increases in death from cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, among others. It also says that higher levels of fine particulates have been associated with an increased prevalence of asthma.

Nitrogen dioxide, another pollutant produced by incinerators, has been shown to inflame the lining of the lungs, increase the susceptibility to lung infection, and increase the likelihood of respiratory problems. Tsang says there are many other chemicals from incinerators whose dangers we are as yet unaware of.

Elvis Au, an assistant director at the Environmental Protection Department who is spearheading the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator project, says the plant will “showcase the best technology in the world” and be “totally different” to the old incinerator that closed down 20 years ago.

This new generation of incinerator ensures a cleaner burn by burning waste in a highly turbulent environment at 850 degrees Celsius for more than two seconds. This should ensure the complete combustion of all waste and organic material, including the toxic dioxin compounds. Toxic fly ash, a by-product of this process, will be collected, mixed with cement and disposed of in landfills.

To clean the chimney emissions, the facility will also use a combination of filtering technology, including selective catalytic reduction (to remove nitrogen oxides) and activated carbon (to remove dioxins).

The incinerator will be kept up to European Union standards, the most stringent in the world. “That’s why even a distance away, say, in Cheung Chau, about 3.5 kilometres away … it is pretty safe. There is no significant impact at all,” says Au.

An EPD report in December last year notes that with the new incinerator, levels of nitrogen dioxide in Cheung Chau and south Lantau are projected to rise to 17 and 26 micrograms per cubic metre respectively. This is still below the stated government air quality objective of 80 micrograms per cubic metre – and WHO’s recommended healthy level of 40 micrograms per cubic metre.

For the most part, the real impact of modern incinerators on health is still unknown. Most published epidemiological studies relate to older incineration plants. Epidemiology, by its nature, after all, involves retrospective studies.

“Proponents of new facilities tend to dismiss the older research as irrelevant,” writes Professor Vyvyan Howard, a toxico-pathologist with the University of Ulster, in a 2009 statement to the Ringaskiddy Incinerator inquiry in Ireland. “Opponents take a contrary view, arguing, not unreasonably, that similar claims of safety were made in relation to those older facilities when they were operating.”

Howard adds: “The modern incinerators tend to be much larger than those operated historically, so that although the emissions concentrations have reduced, the total mass of pollutant emissions may even increase.”

There’s no doubt that something must be done about Hong Kong’s looming waste crisis. We produce 13,800 tonnes of waste per day – among the world’s most prolific trash producers.

But nobody wants anything potentially unpleasant in their neighbourhood and the “not in my backyard” phenomenon can stall vital public works projects indefinitely.

Yeung says something as small as recent local roadworks were enough to put her son in hospital with an asthma attack.

“I moved into a rural area to avoid the pollution of cities – where my son could have a healthier environment to grow up in,” she says. “There are so few truly ‘rural’ areas in Hong Kong; it is wrong of the government not to protect them.”

Au says the site was chosen only after a “very objective, vigorous, systematic site search process starting with 21 sites all over Hong Kong”. Shek Kwu Chau was chosen over Tuen Mun mainly in an attempt to more fairly distribute unwanted facilities across Hong Kong. Tuen Mun is already home to a landfill and a proposed sludge incinerator.

Au says he has been tirelessly meeting with community members to reassure them. Since 2008, he’s had 120 different consultation engagement activities. But his work does not seem to have had the desired effect.

Says Ma: “[Au] says we’ve been consulted, but is he listening?”

Description: http://www.scmp.com/files/SCMP/Life/Static%20Files/SCM_Tab_Hea_0529_incinerator.ART_1.jpg

Description: A protest against the government's plan to build an incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau

Description: A representative from an environmental group points out the location of the proposed incinerator on a map

3 of 3
A representative from an environmental group points out the location of the proposed incinerator on a map

Burning questions over rubbish trips

SCMP – 26 May 2012

We have more news of freebie overseas trips to push the Hong Kong government’s incinerator agenda. Yesterday we wrote that although government plans for the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator are on hold after being voted down by Legco’s environment panel, the government is quietly trying to advance its agenda with a heavily subsidised trip to Singapore for island residents and environmental groups. The point of the visit is to learn about Singapore’s approach to waste management, which, unsurprisingly, is heavily reliant on incineration. A group called the Hong Kong Islands District Association is organising the trip, which is for 50 people, who are being asked to pay HK$1,000 for four nights and three days. Now we hear that another trip is planned for Taiwan, along the same lines. This time the invitation comes from Professor Jonathan Wong, who is with Baptist University, has received a number of research grants from the Environmental Protection Department in recent years, and is an advocate of incineration for dealing with Hong Kong’s waste. The trip to Taiwan is being funded by the Environment and Conservation Fund (ECF), and Wong sits on the ECF’s funding committee. Should the government be spending money in this way to surreptitiously advance a project whose future is currently uncertain?

Incinerator may be on hold, but jaunts to Lion City are a go
LAI SEE
Howard Winn
May 25, 2012
Readers will be aware, as we keep going on about it, that progress on the government’s plans for an incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau is on hold. So you would have thought that the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) might like to take the opportunity to reconsider its plans. But not so. Lai See has learned that the government is quietly working behind the scenes to advance this project. Recently, various heads of environmental groups based on the islands have received an unusual invitation from the Hong Kong Islands District Association (HKIDA). Noting that the incinerator is a key issue of concern to island residents, it says the HKIDA is organising a trip to Singapore at the end of the month. The purpose of the trip is to study the Lion City’s approach to waste management. Singapore has been chosen for the excursion because it has four incinerators.

Participants only need to pay HK$1,000, which for four days and three nights in Singapore is not a bad deal. A trip like this would cost at least HK$6,000. There are 50 places available, so let’s assume conservatively it is costing HK$300,000. Who is funding this, you might wonder. Certainly not the HKIDA. The sponsors are the Environment and Conservation Fund (ECF) and Environmental Campaign Committee. These funds are for a wide range of non-profit environmental projects, and for promoting environmental awareness. One member of the ECF funding committee is Professor Jonathan Wong Woon-chung, who is with the department of biology at Baptist University. In the past few years, Wong has been the recipient of funding from the EPD and is periodically wheeled out by the government to promote incineration as a means of dealing with waste. Now there’s a coincidence

HKBU’s subsidised Taiwan jaunt offer

2012/5/15  (Google translate)
Subject: Hong Kong Baptist University  nominates you to participate in the 4 days and three nights of Taiwan’s environmental protection mission
Nominated you to participate in 4 Days 3 Nights of Taiwan’s environmental protection mission
Baptist University, Sino-Forest Pearl River Delta Environmental Applied Research Centre in the period from January 2012 to June waste none of your business “community involvement & public education programs Thanks to the active support of people from all walks of life, the plan was successful. This education program not only reflects the warm attention of the public of Hong Kong’s waste problem, and successfully collected the views of the districts public. In addition, the center will hold on June 25-28, 2012, a four-day and three nights of Taiwan’s environmental protection mission, Thank you for your support of this program, the Centre wishes to nominate you as  a candidate to participate in the event, the organizers and The sponsor will be further screened the participants list. Program “Environment and Conservation Fund”, you only need to pay (HK $ 1,000) will be able to participate in the total value of $ 5,000. Taiwan’s environmental protection mission.
The main purpose of this mission is to see the successful examples of green community as learning, visit the local waste disposal facilities: Taiwan EPA, waste recovery and disposal sites, incinerators, biotechnology, treatment facilities, and so on. In addition, the trip to Taiwan’s famous attractions (please refer to the attached tentative itinerary).
You fill in on or before May 19 of the annex to the reply slip, indicating that you have / are not interested in participating in the event, and pass to this center. Sponsor of the Environment and Conservation Fund “and the final list of this center will be further screening delegation from interested participants. Upon completion of the screening, the center will later notify all invited participants will later be selected for individual contact to arrange the details of activities. This is a golden opportunity! Hope that you will not miss the opportunity and look forward to your reply as soon as possible.
After the mission, each participant (institution) shall submit a brief inspection report within two weeks on personal feelings and views on waste management (about two A4 paper) as a reference to the views of the Hong Kong Government.
If you want to do this mission or have any questions or inquiries, please, and is responsible for contact colleagues Miss Tan (3411-2089/helentam @ hkbu.edu.hk) or Chen (3411-2094/11467169 @ hkbu.edu.hk). Let us work together to build a green community.
Sincerely yours reply. Cis-designate
Sino-Forest director of the Pearl River Delta Environmental Applications Research Center
Professor Jonathan Wong
提名閣下參加

四日三夜之臺灣環保考察團

浸會大學嘉漢林業珠三角環境應用研究中心於2012 年 1 月至 6 月期間的《廢物關你事》社會參與暨公眾教育計劃承蒙得到各界人士的積極支持 ,本計劃才得以順利進行。此教育計劃不但反映了公眾對香港垃圾問題的熱烈的關注,並成功收集了各區市民有關的意見。另外,本中心將於2012 年 6 月25至28日舉辦為期四日三夜的臺灣環保考察團,為感謝閣下對本計劃的支持,本中心欲提名閣下為是次活動的候選參加者,主辦和贊助單位會進一步篩選最後的參加名單。計劃獲得 《環境及自然保育基金》資助,您只需以優惠價(港幣一千元正)便能參與總值五千多元的臺灣環保考察團。

此考察團主要目的是以臺灣的綠色社區成功例子作為借鏡,參觀當地廢物處理設施,例如: 臺灣環保局、廢物回收處理場、垃圾焚化爐、生物科技處理設施等等。此外,還會到臺灣著名景點遊覽 (請參閱附件的暫定行程)。

請閣下於519日或之前填妥附件的回條,表明您有/没有興趣參加是次活動,並傳給本中心。贊助單位《環境及自然保育基金》和本中心會進一步從有興趣的參加者中篩選考察團的最後名單。篩選完成後,本中心會稍後通知所有被邀者,被挑選的參加者會稍後作個別聯絡,以安排活動細節。 這是一個千載難逢的機會!! 希望閣下切勿錯失良機,盼您能盡快回覆。

考察團過後,每位參加者(機構)須於兩週內提交一份簡短的考察報告,闡述個人感受和有關廢物管理的意見 (兩頁A4紙左右),作為給香港政府的意見參考。

如閣下對此考察團有任何疑問或查詢,歡迎與負責同事譚小姐(3411-2089/helentam@hkbu.edu.hk) 或陳小姐 (3411-2094/11467169@hkbu.edu.hk) 聯絡。讓我們攜手共建一個綠色社區。

敬侯回覆。順候

嘉漢林業珠三角環境應用研究中心主任

黃煥忠教授

2012 5 15

Tokyo Waste Management

download PDF : Tokyo Waste Management