| http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/news.htm?hightlight&20120420&56&834549
The government has failed to win support from lawmakers for its plan to build an incinerator off Shek Kwu Chau, south of Lantau Island. Most members at a Legco panel meeting voiced their opposition to the proposal. They also raised doubts over whether the incoming government would back it. The chief executive-elect, C Y Leung, has said there’s no need for an incinerator, if waste reduction is carried out properly. However, the Environment Secretary, Edward Yau, assured councillors that Mr Leung’s election platform was in line with government plans.
|
Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal
Lawmakers oppose incinerator plan
Minister throws down incineration challenge
| Edward Yau says lawmakers opposed to the government’s waste reduction plans should explain why the city must wait longer for a solution | |||||
| Cheung Chi-fai Apr 20, 2012 |
|
||||
|
Lawmakers opposing the government’s waste incineration plans owed the public an explanation on why a city facing a mounting waste crisis must wait longer for a solution – and should offer their practical alternatives – the environment minister says. In an exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements,news) , Edward Yau Tang-wah said the waste issue deserved rational and objective discussion but had been politicised as major political parties expressed reservations about it. But he refrained from saying if chief executive-elect Leung Chun-ying had meddled in his waste policy after Leung announced a “zero” quota for mainland mothers giving birth in Hong Kong private hospitals from next year. Both policies have implications for the transition of the old and new administrations and legislatures. Yau said those politicians who delayed or disapproved of his plans should explain to the public why they would need to put up with more landfilling of waste equivalent to seven Exchange Square towers a year. “Will waiting a few more months solve the problem?” he asked. “Why do we have to wait? Is it just because of a single remark by the chief executive-elect? Is it because of the election? Or is it due to the fact Hong Kong has not achieved the highest recycling rate in the world … society deserves a reason why we have to wait.” Yau said the city could not afford any further delay, as the quest for waste solutions had started more than a decade ago and there had been intensive discussion already. He also said he had never heard of instructions from the chief executive-elect to halt the projects. He would not say if he had met Leung on the issue, but stressed that Leung’s platform focused on waste reduction, as the current policy did, and did not exclude incineration. “It is a task of necessity no matter who is in charge,” said Yau, adding that he “hoped and was confident” that the next administration would respect the fact. He warned that further delays might put Hong Kong in a similar situation to the Italian city of Naples, where insufficient waste facilities resulted in rubbish being dumped in the streets. “The longer we put it off, the longer we have to ask what method will we adopt, the more likely we will be of living the example of what Naples faced,” he said. While the government was willing to give more in-depth explanations for the need for the facilities, site selection for the incinerator and its waste reduction policies, Yau said lawmakers should explain to the public why they must wait for the government’s multi-pronged waste solution that includes incineration, landfill and recycling. Yau admitted he had no contingency plan if the funding request for the HK$15 billion incineration project at Shek Kwu Chau was blocked. “Do we really have a plan B, when there is already a three-pronged strategy? Perhaps the plan B is just waiting to see the landfill becoming full. Everyone opposing our plan should ask themselves what is their plan B.” Yau said there was no magic wand for the situation as relying solely on waste reduction was unrealistic. Even Germany, whose recycling rate was now more than 60 per cent, still relied on incineration. He said the limited capacity of the first incinerator meant only 17 per cent of the city’s waste would be burnt, with the remainder needing other forms of disposal, including landfill. He also believed it was impractical to build the incinerator after waste charging was introduced. Yau felt encouraged that more than half of the people in a public consultation on charging supported the idea, but did not commit himself to a road map or timetable on it, only agreeing to take the issue further. He refused to say if he had been approached to stay in the next government or if he had any interest in doing so. |
|||||
Funding call for waste burner
SCMP
| Edward Yau faces an uphill task in trying to convince lawmakers to approve the HK$15 billion needed to build controversial incinerator off Shek Kwu Chau | |||||
| Cheung Chi-fai, Peter So and Tanna Chong Apr 19, 2012 |
|
||||
|
The environment minister is in last-ditch lobbying to reverse opposition to his bureau’s request for HK$15 billion to build a waste incinerator – a plan about which even pro-government lawmakers have reservations. Edward Yau Tang-wah (pictured) has been working hard over the past two days – ahead of a meeting of the Legislative Council’s environment panel tomorrow – to convince lawmakers that the HK$15 billion facility off Shek Kwu Chau is essential. The panel meeting is crucial to a decision whether the funding requests will go to the public works subcommittee as scheduled in May and the finance committee in June. Yau also plans to seek HK$8.3 billion for landfill extensions in Tseung Kwan O and Ta Kwu Ling, and HK$33 million for a feasibility study on expansion of another in Tuen Mun. If the requests are delayed or rejected, the decade-long debate on the incinerator could go back to square one after the election of the new legislature in September. Further doubts have been cast by a pledge by chief executive-elect Leung Chun-ying, before his election, to review the role of incineration. The incinerator is due to open in 2018, by which time all the landfills, without extensions, will have run out of space. While Yau says Leung has not deviated from the direction of the current administration, the pan-democrats, citing the next leader’s remarks, doubt the continuity of the present waste policy. “It doesn’t make any sense [going ahead] if the next chief executive says we don’t need an incinerator,” Civic Party lawmaker Tanya Chan said. Party members met senior environment officials on Tuesday but were unhappy with the responses on site selection, safety and emissions standards, and waste separation and reduction policies. The Democratic Party’s Lee Wing-tat said he doubted that incineration was a desirable way to resolve the waste problem. Even the pro-government Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, which met Yau last night, had reservations. “The incinerator might be a necessary evil but it should not be considered until waste reduction at source is adequately done,” said the party’s spokesman on environmental affairs, Gary Chan Hak-kan. Lawmaker Ip Wai-ming, from the Federation of Trade Unions, plans to abstain from voting on the issue, saying the union group believed officials had misplaced priorities on waste strategy. The only party that supports waste burning is the Liberals. But the party, with three votes, will not support landfill extensions, its leader Miriam Lau Kin-yee said. Asked if Leung favoured the funding request, a spokeswoman for the Chief Executive-Elect’s office only said they were having “ongoing communication” with the current Chief Executive’s Office on various issues. |
|||||
Two locations eyed for waste incinerator
The Standard
| Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon in Tuen Mun and Shek Kwu Chau in south Lantau have been identified as potential sites for a HK$4 billion incinerator to ease the pressure on landfills that are close to saturation point, the Environment Bureau said yesterday.
UnaSo Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon in Tuen Mun and Shek Kwu Chau in south Lantau have been identified as potential sites for a HK$4 billion incinerator to ease the pressure on landfills that are close to saturation point, the Environment Bureau said yesterday. In addition, the public may be asked to pay for the waste it creates. Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah said the current landfill areas will be full within four to eight years and there is a pressing need to seek an alternative solution to waste disposal. The new facility, while benefiting the general public, will also affect those who live in close proximity, he warned. “We have to strike a balance, and we will be consulting residents’ organizations during the study,” Yau said. The 53-hectare Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon is near China Light and Power’s Black Point power station and has been used by the company to store pulverized fuel ash since the 1980s. It is also next to the Western New Territories landfill. Department sources said it would be convenient to dispose of ash residue from the incinerator into the landfills while the surplus energy generated can easily be fed into the power grid. The second option, Shek Kwu Chau, is located away from population clusters with only a drug rehabilitation center housing about 200 people the only nearby building. However, reclamation will be needed and this may have an impact on the marine ecology. The final location will be decided in 18 to 24 months after engineering studies and site assessments are taken in conjunction with district councils and concern groups. The facility aims to be operational by 2014 with a capital cost of HK$4 billion and an annual operation cost of HK$250 million. The proposed facility will comprise an incinerator to handle 3,000 tonnes of waste daily, an organic waste treatment facility for 200 tonnes daily, a facility to separate organic waste and a sorting and recycling plant for mixed municipal solid waste. The projected amount of carbon dioxide to be released from the incinerator is about 0.001 nanogram per cubic meter, while the European Union standard is 0.1 nanogram. Last year the city produced 17,000 tonnes of waste, which is 30 percent more than 10 years ago. Friends of the Earth environment affairs officer Michelle Au Wing-tsz said Hong Kong should not rely solely on re-introducing incinerators to solve the waste problem. Instead the government should speed up its 2006 target to reduce waste through a polluters’ responsibility scheme, waste charges and recycling. Tuen Mun residents are far from pleased with the latest development, with lawmaker and Tuen Mun District Council chairman Lau Wong-fat urging the government to reconsider the location. “We already have a power plant and landfills, why can’t they pick another spot for the incinerator?” he asked. “The people are concerned about their health and quality of life.” |
Legal challenge over incinerator plan
18 April, 2012
| A veteran activist has lodged a legal challenge over the government’s plan to build a HK$14.96 billion waste incinerator on an island west of Cheung Chau.
Ho Loy, who previously protested against the demolition of the Star Ferry and Queen’s piers, filed an application for judicial review with the High Court on Monday. The government plans to build an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, located south of Lantau and west of Cheung Chau, as part of its waste strategy. It would be capable of handling 3,000 tonnes of waste per day. Ho is asking the court to reject the decision to approve Shek Kwu Chau as the site for the incinerator. She also wants the approval already given to an environmental impact assessment on the project to be suspended. The application names the Town Planning Board and the Environmental Protection Department as respondents. Ho is not being represented by a lawyer. She previously took part in protests over the demolition of the piers and ran, unsuccessfully, in a Legislative Council by-election. Further details on her application were not available in her court filing. The Legislative Council’s environmental affairs panel will discuss the project on Friday. The city deposits 18,000 tonnes of waste into landfills per day – 2.7kg per person – according to government figures, and relies mainly on landfill sites for waste disposal. Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah said last week that an incinerator could burn 3,000 tonnes of rubbish per day, reducing the burden on landfill sites by one million tonnes a year. However, green groups have argued against building an incinerator. WWF says Shek Kwu Chau is home to rare species of wildlife, including the white-bellied sea eagle. And it says the waters surrounding the island provide a core habitat for the finless porpoise. |
||
(Ho Loy contact
Fresh call to halt incinerator work following report of health hazards
http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk
http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/trade_directory/
9:37am Wednesday 18th April 2012
By Chris Warne
CALLS to scrap plans for a £500 million incinerator have been renewed after a national magazine reported US research claiming the facilities caused deaths and cancer.
An article in this month’s edition of the current affairs magazine Private Eye said research published in academic journals in the US had found a ‘strong association’ between incinerators and ‘overall mortality, cardiovascular deaths and lung cancer’.
Sue Oppenheimer, chairman of GlosVAIN (Gloucestershire Vale Against Incineration), said the article laid bare the threat posed by incinerators to the public.
She also accused Gloucestershire County Council, which is hoping to site a waste burner in Haresfield, of turning a blind eye to the dangers of emissions and said the authority was ‘playing with the public’s health’.
In response, GCC said that it followed advice issued by the Health Protection Agency, which says that incinerators are ‘not a significant risk’ to public safety.
The investigative piece printed in Private Eye said the dangers presented by incinerator emissions to human health were ‘undeniable’ however.
It also highlighted the contrasting approaches of the US and UK authorities to monitoring the levels of potentially hazardous PM2.5 particles emitted by incinerators.
According to the article, tough laws were passed in the US as far back as 1997 to ensure that levels of PM2.5 particles released into the atmosphere by incinerators are kept to a minimum.
But, the magazine claims similar precautions to protect public health in this country have not been taken.
Earlier this year Dr Van Steenis, an air pollution expert who has given evidence to a House of Commons select committee on air pollution, told the SNJ that tiny PM1 and PM2.5 particulates produced by incinerators are responsible for high numbers of premature infant and child deaths in the UK.
He also claimed the particles, which are small enough to be absorbed straight into the blood, caused birth defects, childhood cancers, respiratory illnesses and heartattacks.
The report in Private Eye also cited the findings of a House of Commons environmental audit committee which stated: “The costs and health impact of fine particle, PM2.5, air pollution is almost twice that of obesity and physical inactivity.”
In 2009-2010 obesity was costing the health service £10.7 billion, while PM2.5 was estimated to cost around £20.2 billion, it said.
Speaking to the SNJ last week Dr Van Steenis said the financial burden placed on the health system by PM2.5 emissions made incineration a highly expensive form of waste disposal.
“Billions of pounds could be saved because so many people are getting ill,” he said.
“In the US they have realised this and they have only built one incinerator in the last six years.
“In Los Angeles they have said they are not going to use incineration. They are going to use plasma gassification because it is cheaper and safer.”
The Private Eye article concludes by saying it is ‘surely time to start following the stricter monitoring policies of the US’.
Mrs Oppenheimer said: “The US is usually pretty lax on environmental regulations so if even they feel strongly about PM2.5 particles then they must be convinced by the evidence of the dangers.
“It seems that GCC are turning a blind eye to the science around small particles. They seem to be playing with our health.”
She added: “The article in Private Eye undoubtedly lays bare the threat to the public.”
Councillor Stan Waddington, GCC’s cabinet champion for waste, said: “The UK Health Protection Agency’s (HPA’s) position is very clear – modern well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk.
“The HPA is the national independent body set up by government in the UK to protect the public from threats to health and we will be guided by their advice.”
Urbaser Balfour Beatty, GCC’s preferred bidder, is currently hoping to build a mass burn incinerator at Javelin Park near to the M5 motorway junction in Haresfield.
A consultation on the proposed development at Haresfield ended yesterday (Tuesday, April 17) but anyonec wishing to object to the facility can still do so by writing to GCC before Monday, May 21.
Green Island waste system is cheaper option to Shek Kwu Chau incinerator
SCMP – 17 April 2012
Edwin Lau notes (“Costly incinerator will be a waste of money”, April 2) that the government has opted for a very expensive solution to Hong Kong’s waste management problem by choosing to build an incinerator on reclaimed land at Shek Kwu Chau. I could not agree more.
According to media reports, the government is seeking nearly HK$15 billion to fund the construction of this incinerator.
For the past decade, Green Island Cement has proposed using the Eco-Co-Combustion System, a cost-efficient and environmentally friendly waste management solution for the treatment of rubbish. The system would treat municipal solid waste and use it as fuel at our cement plant. Due to synergies with our plant, this system would only cost HK$4 billion upfront, or 27 per cent of the government’s spending for its proposed plant.
Extensive studies have demonstrated that emissions would be significantly less than the limits set by the government. Furthermore, with municipal solid waste being used to replace at least 40 per cent of coal used in the cement plant, there would be a net improvement in total emissions.
Any disturbance to the environment and community would also be minimised as we could use our existing cement plant site and no additional land or premises would be required. And, unlike the government’s proposal, which would generate residue ash to be dumped in our landfills, our system would use the ash as clinker to manufacture cement.
Despite the obvious economic and environmental benefits of our proposal, the government has refused to give Green Island Cement a chance to help with Hong Kong’s waste management problem. We hope that the government will reconsider the cost-effectiveness as well as environmental and community friendliness of our system.
Don Johnston, executive director, Green Island Cement
Small community suffers big cancer rate
http://www.humanrights-china.org/zt/photogallery/2004120041019102225.htm
|
|
|
BEIJING, Oct.9, 2004 (Xinhuanet) — Last Thursday, the long–awaited climate–monitoring system from the Shenzhen Environmental Bureau finally rolled into Gangwan suggesting that the local government has begun investigating the environmental hazards reported by local residents from the cancer-ridden community.
Smoke billows from a Mawan Power House chimney. [YNET] The cancer report Eight–year–old He Chaoow lies in a hospital bed fighting cancer. On July 15 he was diagnosed with leukemia. His doctor told Nanfang Daily, a Guangdong-based newspaper, that the patient had to face several rounds of chemotherapy and that his liver, kidneys and other organs would be greatly damaged during the process. Even if the chemotherapy is a success, He will have to undergo a marrow transplant, which has a 50–percent success rate. He was born in Gangwan community, a living compound for employees of Nanshan Development Group in Nanshan District, Shenzhen, where his parents work. According to Zhu, vice-president of the group’s trade union, the number of cancer patients in Gangwan community is significant. “The are six adults and children with leukemia, and five of them got it in the past six years,” she said. Zhu’s records show that, altogether, 20 employees who work for the group have been diagnosed with cancer since 1998 The percentage of cancer patients is also surprisingly high in Chiwan village, which is adjacent to Gangwan community. There are seven cancer patients in this small village, which has less than 3,000 people. Wu Li is 46 years old and had just retired from Nanshan Group, was the only one to survive after being diagnosed with colorectal cancer. She has been living in the village for more than 20 years. In 2002, Wu’s sister-in-law, also from Gangwan community, died of gastric cancer. According to hospital records, neither Wu nor her sister-in-law carried the cancer gene.
Doubt haunts residents Among the 27 cancer patients in Gangwan community and Chiwan village, 16 were diagnosed with cancer from 1998 to 2004 – twice as many cases compared to the 1985-97 period. The increasing number of cancer patients has disturbed the peace in Gangwan community. Many local residents believe the region’s environment has been affected by the nearby Mawan Power House, Yueliangwan Power House, Nanshan Solid Waste Incineration Factory, Float Glass Factory and Nanhai Oils & Fats Factory. Lu, director of the Gangwan Community Property Management Committee, said the residents opposed the construction of these factories from the very beginning. When the first chimney of the Mawan Power House was erected in the 1990s, the residents wrote a letter to protest. However, their objections did not stop the construction. Instead, residents were forced to get accustomed to the environmental changes. Most residents are used to closing their windows and, according to Lu, some 100 households have moved to other districts. Xiao Congmin, a local resident of Gangwan community, outlined his living compound to Nanfang Daily: “Our community lies n a plain surrounded by mountains. Whenever the nearby factories discharge wastes, the wind will blow the smoke here.” According to a survey of 50 residents in Gangwan community conducted by Nanfang Daily, 52 percent said they believed the environment was becoming worse and almost one-half cited air pollution as a contributing factor. The cause Local residents doubt that environmental change is the culprit for the cancer. But Shenzhen medical experts cannot furnish a definite answer. Experts at the Chinese Medical Association, Shenzhen branch, told Nanfang Daily that there are so many factors affecting the environment, and that genetics and lifestyle could have contributed to the cancer. Regarding the incidence of cancer in Gangwan community, they said “it is difficult to assert a conclusion. We have to go there to investigate.” The Shenzhen Disease Prevention and Control Center is more concrete, saying it is abnormal for a community to have so many cancer patients in such a short period of time. The national incidence of leukemia is only three in 10,000. Since most cancer patients have lived in Gangwan community for more than 10 years, medical experts from the Disease Prevention and Control Center say there may be so many cancer patients in Guangwan community due to environmental degradation and lifestyle. The monitors’ results Zhang Jun, director of the Environmental Monitoring Station on duty in Gangwan community, told Nanfang Daily: “We have analyzed some data and the results proved that the air (in Gangwan) is quite abnormal, especially the contents of SO2.” However, he emphasized that the data was only a preliminary assessment that needed expert approval. At present, the monitoring systems cannot monitor dioxins. Proposal from the People’s Congress On September 20, 11 members of the Shenzhen People’s Congress submitted a proposal to the government or improving the environment in Gangwan community and surrounding regions. They claimed that in 2002 the minimum pollution index in the community stood at 18 and the maximum reached 165. There were only 144 days with a pollution index below 50. The major pollutants found in the regions’ air were CO2, nitrogen oxides, dust and waste. The members pointed out that the reason for the degraded environment in Gangwan community was due to the incompatibility of government decisions. At the beginning of the 1980s, the city planned to build a “polluted area” in Nanshan District, where Guangwan community is located, installing powerhouses and other factories the region. However, in the 1990s, the city decided to build more residence compounds in the district, which resulted in a clash of factories and living communities. Furthermore, they suggested the government carry out a thorough investigation of the environmental situation in Nanshan District and devise a plan to either relocate the factories or reduce harmful wastes. They also urged the government to work with other departments, such as environmental protection, finance, land resources and energy, to conduct a comprehensive management to address the problem. |
Plans for incinerator in Chieveley refused
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a waste incinerator in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty have gone up in smoke.
Grundon’s proposals for an incinerator complex comprising one 45m (146ft) high building and two 21m (69ft) high buildings with two 75m (246ft) high chimneys at Old Kiln Quarry in Chieveley have been turned down by planning bosses at West Berkshire Council.
In a report on the decision, Gary Lugg, head of planning and countryside, said: “The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development is in the public interest. It is considered that there is an no overriding need for the development, it has not been demonstrated that the development cannot take place outside the AONB.
“The development will generate negative adverse landscape, visual, environmental and recreational impacts and the proposal will not benefit the local economy. It is considered that the proposal does not respect the character of the area and does not conserve or enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the AONB.”
The rejection will come as good news to critics of the plans, which include Newbury MP Richard Benyon and West Berkshire Against Grundon Incinerator (WBAGI) – a campaign group which handed a 2,000-strong protest petition to planning bosses and argued the incinerator would damage the landscape, ruin the view from their homes and even impact on their health.
The proposal was first outlined in January when the waste firm said the plant would provide a safe, efficient and environmentally sustainable way of dealing with residual waste.
For reaction and to find out what Grundon will do next, pick up a Newbury and Thatcham Chronicle next week.