Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal

Standard: ‘Biased’ panel chairman under fire over landfill move

Apr 21st, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

by Eddie Luk, The Standard:

A decision on the government’s landfill- incinerator proposal has been put on the back burner for another month after the chairman of the Legislative Council’s public works subcommittee was accused of bias.

The chairman, Lo Wai-kwok, had told panel members that discussion on the expansion of the Tseung Kwan O landfill and construction of an incinerator would be grouped together but they would be voted on separately.

Lo, who represents the engineering functional constituency, said he had decided to do so since the landfill and incinerator were related to waste management tactics.

But the announcement stirred an immediate uproar among the pan-democrats who accused him of favoring the government.

Neo Democrat Gary Fan Kwok-wai referred to a WhatsApp message Lo had sent before the Legco environmental affairs panel meeting in late March reminding pro- establishment lawmakers to make sure of their attendance.

“You seem to have your own agenda on the issue,” Fan yelled.

Lo hit back, saying that as a member of the panel he was entitled to express his opinion.

People Power lawmaker Albert Chan Wai-yip accused Lo of not conducting the meeting in a fair manner.

Lo stressed he would remain neutral while chairing the meeting.

The debate was put off until early next month. Democratic Party and Civic Party lawmakers made clear they would not support the funding applications.

Outside Legco, a group of Tseung Kwan O residents held a protest against the plan.

The government has been pressing lawmakers to support the landfill extension and the waste incinerator plant as all three landfills are projected to be full between 2015 and 2019.

17 Apr 2014

PDI: Green groups in QC hit council bid to lift incinerator ban

Apr 21st, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

by Jeannette I. Andrade of the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

Quezon City-based environmentalists are up in arms over a local council resolution asking Congress to lift the ban on incinerators to pave the way for the setup of waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities in the city.

Green advocacy leaders and Quezon City residents Von Hernandez, Sonia Mendoza, Joey Papa and Shally Vitan—who represent different groups—denounced the councilors’ move as a “death blow” to waste prevention and recycling initiatives, pointing out that incineration is a “lazy man’s dangerous technology.”

They warned that lifting the ban by amending two laws—the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000—would lead to further ecological degradation.

Hernandez, EcoWaste Coalition president and Greenpeace Southeast Asia executive director, said the resolution was “a regressive and despicable move on the part of the city council. Not only does it betray the Quezon City government’s utter inability to implement real solutions already prescribed in law, it also shows that these politicians would not hesitate to burn and waste taxpayers’ money on polluting facilities.”

“What is being presented as a ‘quick fix’ is actually a scheme to increase the already stratospheric costs of waste management and disposal in Quezon City,” Hernandez said, pointing out that the public should ask who stands to benefit from the setup of a WTE facility.

Papa, president of Bangon Kalikasan Movement, stressed that incineration as a means to dispose of solid waste would only compete with recycling which is environmentally and economically beneficial.

“Instead of being fixated with this lazy man’s dangerous technology, our city officials should focus on optimizing recycling and providing incentives for households to separate their discards at source, to recycle and to compost,” he said.

These “burn proponents,” Papa said, would “negate the best practices of a good number of Quezon City residents,” like those in barangays that had succeeded in reducing their waste output through segregation and recycling.

Vitan said a quick-fix measure such as the WTE facility would only compound the city’s waste-management problem and add health hazards to the mix.

“What Quezon City needs to do is to aggressively reduce the garbage it produces by securing the cooperation of residents,” said Vitan, Asia-Pacific coordinator for Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “It may be long and slow but it is sustainable.”

Mother Earth Foundation president Sonia Mendoza reminded the city councilors of the danger of incinerators which, she said, emit cancer-causing dioxins.

“Incinerator peddlers would always say there’s ‘nothing to worry about, it’s zero emission.’ But even the most technologically advanced waste burners with expensive, high-tech emission-control devices still emit various contaminants, often failing emission standards.”

The council recently asked the House of Representatives, through former Quezon City mayor and now Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., to amend the two laws and lift the ban.

The councilors maintained that a WTE facility would be necessary in view of the city’s growing population and economic development which had increased solid waste generation and posed trash disposal problems.

Last year, the city government held exploratory talks with the group of businessman Manny V. Pangilinan for a possible joint venture, wherein the city would be supplying the trash while the MVP group would construct and run a WTE facility.

China Daily: Incinerating Paradise

Apr 7th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

by Doug Meigs, writing for China Daily (Asia Weekly):

Shek Kwu Chau is an idyllic, almost pristine island on the southern edge of Hong Kong waters. Few people actually live there, though the island provides a quiet retreat for recovering substance abusers. But the tranquility of the place is soon to disappear. The island has been chosen as the site for a new waste incinerator.

It’s 20 minutes by ferry from Cheung Chau to Shek Kwu Chau, a picturesque island in the southernmost part of Hong Kong territory. It’s off-limits to most people. Visitors need special permission from SARDA — the group that operates a big drug rehab center on the island. So, I felt privileged to have been invited to the island now swept up in a battle over government plans to build a giant waste incinerator.

Most of those on the ferry are staff and recovering addicts.

Among our fellow passengers is longtime Cheung Chau resident Martin Williams, He’s an avid naturalist, writer and an opponent of the incinerator. He wears a field scientist getup, floppy safari hat and hiking sandals.

Williams had visited Shek Kwu Chau a few times before, tagging along with US biologist James Lazell, who had discovered two snakes known to exist only on the island — Hollinrake’s Racer and a subspecies of Jade Vine Snake.

“The island has some unique wildlife. Lots of things: bugs, snakes, lizards, sea eagle nests, and the big one is the finless porpoise, which uses Shek Kwu Chau for breeding,” he says.

Upon arriving at the island, Williams steps onto the pier and immediately admires the clarity of the water— “much better than Cheung Chau,” he says, pointing at small schools of corral fish.

The island’s superintendent, Patrick Wu, is waiting. He offers a hearty greeting at the pier. He is a retired corrections officer, dressed in casual business attire-short-sleeved shirt and khakis.

Shek Kwu Chau is laden with intriguing relics of the past.

At the end of the pier we pass through a giant Chinese city gate, past a mural depicting a scene of Qing Dynasty officials dumping opium, and then a menagerie filled with peacocks. Buildings fashioned with Neoclassical and Baroque facades give way to pagodas and shrines. There is a Roman bath, a Taoist temple, a Buddhist temple and a Christian Church. There are white statues of martial artists striking kung fu poses, standing in contrast to emotive female and male nudes reminiscent of Renaissance masters.

The air here is notably fresh.

Tourists would love the place, if it weren’t restricted.

Only family members of recovering addicts, and a few locals from Cheung Chau who visit the graves of ancestors buried here, make occasional trips on the twice-daily ferry.

The island is part of Hong Kong’s largest drug rehab facility, managed by the government-funded Society for the Aid and Rehabilitation of Drug Users (SARDA).

The superintendent ushers us into his white SUV with the license plate “SKC 1”. He cruises the narrow road meandering up and around Shek Kwu Chau’s dual peaks.

More than 10 buildings appear scattered throughout the thick trees and overgrowth. A total population of nearly 250 lives on the island — that’s 50 staff and 200 rehab clients.

Compared to the island’s residents, we are all overdressed, in the sweltering heat. Most of the rehab clients are half-naked and barefoot. All are men, aged from their early-20s through middle-aged. There’s a work crew deepening the reservoir. Some are walking dogs, part of an animal therapy program. Everybody is sweating profusely.

What has drawn the scientist and superintendent together in common cause was the decision of the Town Planning Board, rezoning adjacent waters to allow construction of a massive grate incinerator. Hong Kong, hard pressed to find a solution to its massive waste problems, plans to burn 3,000 tons of waste here every day. A 150-meter-tall tower is planned to be built on an artificial island. The reclaimed land on which the tower will sit, will cover over the habitat of the finless porpoise, a species that the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List identifies as “vulnerable”.

The isolation of the island is helpful for the therapy of recovering addicts. Some may experience withdrawal pangs. They can suffer here amid the quiet and solitude, away from the distractions of the busy city.

It was the isolation of the island that drew the attention of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), when staff began seeking a site to build a waste incinerator.

Environmentalists responded with fierce opposition to the Shek Kwu Chau plan.

While most criticism for the incinerator hinges on environmental concern. SARDA’s position is different. The organization is more worried about its clients, the recovering addicts.

“Drug abusers tend to be quite passive and don’t think very highly of their own status. If you move an incinerator there, they might feel like it’s because they’re rubbish. I’ve heard that sentiment expressed,” says May Cho, a SARDA assistant superintendent of social service, who joined China Daily on the fast ferry from Central to Cheung Chau for the connecting boat.

Today, amid legal challenges, the incinerator project has been “officially” stalled for months.

In favor of Shek Kwu Chau, an alternative site for the incinerator had been passed over — at the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoons — a barren part of Tuen Mun, situated beside a power station, landfill and existing infrastructure. According to the EPD’s Environmental Impact Assessment, the more-expensive island reclamation option carried more ecological risks, but lower risk of damaging air quality of the neighbors.

The Legislative Council on Environmental Affairs rejected funding for the proposed Integrated Waste Management Facilities in April, and the Court of First Instance accepted an application for a Judicial Review of the EPD’s Environmental Impact Assessment in June.

While the legal battle drags on, management of Shek Kwu Chau’s rehabilitation center hangs in limbo. They await a decision of the judicial review, which will open hearings on November 14. The island’s superintendent says his organization has shared its concerns with the EPD, only to receive assurances that the incinerator technology does not pose a health hazard.

May Cho is a former social worker for SARDA. She used to commute to the island daily and fondly remembers walking past the island’s dragonflies, before she took a promotion to SARDA’s Wan Chai headquarters. Williams says a nearby incinerator would disrupt the island’s insect life, too.

Wu explains SARDA’s concerns while continuing our tour of the island: “There could be air pollution, the smell of garbage, noise pollution, and even light pollution when the plant is lit up at night.”

The EPD actually predicted the incinerator would become a tourist attraction, drawing about 300 visitors a day to the artificial island. Wu bristles at the prospects, “That’s the last thing I want.” After all, the island is restricted.

Incinerator construction is estimated at five years. Once it goes into operation, the disruption of the island’s peaceful serenity would be even greater.

“The noise would be terrible,” says Wu. “Even the motor of a small boat passing nearby is very clear. Who knows how noisy five years of construction will be. They say, ‘Oh, it’s all right, (the construction crews) won’t do it at night time.’ So they will only do it in the daytime? Well, most our clients sleep during the daytime when they are undergoing detoxification, then they suffer insomnia and walk around at night.”

Wu says SARDA communicated its concerns to the EPD, and the department went ahead with obtaining rezoning permission anyway.

SARDA began operating in Hong Kong in 1961. It opened the Shek Kwu Chau facility in 1963. It has three additional rehab centers around Hong Kong.

Before SARDA began managing the island, Wu said it was like the uninhabited “backyard” of Cheung Chau. It also contains the grave of a British captain’s wife who died at sea in 1845.

Wu gives credit to JB Hollinrake (a superintendent from 1972-1990) for defining the peculiar flavor of the architecture, which appears a surreal hodgepodge of classic Western and Chinese influences.

The late Princess Diana of Wales even visited Shek Kwu Chau twice while in Hong Kong. Wu says he believes the princess’ parents had some relation to Hollinrake’s family. A free standing archway, with plaques and photos on either side, commemorates her visit near the sculpture garden.

Wu laments that no drug rehab facilities are comparable to Shek Kwu Chau in Hong Kong or abroad. He once visited Bath in England just to see their ancient Roman baths. “I think ours are more spectacular,” he says with a big grin. He knows the island’s kitsch is only part of Shek Kwu Chau’s irreplaceable formula for success.

“You are a free man on the island,” he beams. “Unlike other rehab facilities — where the client will be locked up in a building, here, you can walk along the trail, or go to other houses to visit. This is a community, and it would be very difficult to find a replacement.”

We continue driving and stop at the buildings nearest to where the incinerator island would appear.

Laundry is hung up outside a small white-washed dormitory building. A herd of goats is rummaging for scraps. Some of the men come outside to say hello.

Samuel, a 35-year-old from Mei Foo, says he has four months left on the island. “It’s not good to destroy the environment here. It’s hard to find air as fresh as this.”

Williams points at some small boats and construction workers. “That drilling platform is doing a seabed exploration ready for the incinerator island.” The ocean opens before us. The Soko Islands appear small on the horizon.

The EPD proposed a 300-acre marine reserve across the waters to mitigate the loss of porpoise habitat. He wonders if the artificial island construction and subsequent waste-laden barge traffic would have already ruined the area for the marine mammals.

Wu is interested in conserving the local natural environment, but his professional obligation is ensuring the center maintains its ability to rehabilitate drug addicts.

SARDA has served as custodian of Shek Kwu Chau for half a century. He says they don’t have any plans to abandon their work on the island now.

He drives us down the mountain and we board a ferry headed back to Cheung Chau. The boat departs, and after a moment, the remote island has shrunk back onto the horizon, off-limits once again.

24 Aug 2012

Standard: Team to liaise with public on landfill issues

Mar 24th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

from Hillary Wong of the Standard:

A public liaison team has been set up to help ease concerns over landfill expansion, Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing said.

“The issue has been dragging for a long time and needs to be dealt with, or it will affect the hygiene of the community,” Wong said. “We also understand the people are affected in this issue. So we’ve set up a public liaison team, with the government officers to negotiate with citizens so as to relieve their anxiety over the issue,” he told TVB talk show On the Record.

Wong also said his visit to Europe to observe relevant infrastructure will help enhance “everyone’s understanding of the issue.”

Wong and nine legislators visited Europe earlier this month to learn about waste management strategies in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Wong said giving subsidies to people living near landfills was rarely done overseas.

“For example, having an established incinerator, there might be some community education center nearby. For infrastructure that produces heat, some relevant facilities will be built like a heated pool,” he said.

Subsidies need further discussion with the public liaison team, he added.

Residents living within 300 meters of landfills in South Korea were given a subsidy, however.

“This mechanism was also controversial in South Korea because there were no subsidies for residents outside 300 meters,” Wong said.

But he added that in Hong Kong, the nearest residents are about three kilometers away.

He said that while the government is open-minded, the question should be studied carefully.

“For our case in Shek Kwu Chau [incinerator], its distance to Cheung Chau reaches three to five kilometers – 10 times more than in South Korea. Also, ships will mainly be used to transport refuse from Island East and West, and Kowloon West to Shek Kwu Chau, which does not make a great impact on the environment,” he said.

Wong also said he remained open-minded about suggestions by the Council for Sustainable Development’s Bernard Charnwut Chan on plans to give some assistance to nearby residents.

Wong said expanding the landfill in phases is not feasible as it involves tender and technical issues. He added public money would not be put to good use.

24 Mar 2014

Burnabynow: Incinerator creates toxic mess for region

Jan 23rd, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

from Hildegard Bechler of New Westminster, published on Burnabynow:

An incinerator fouls not only our airshed, with thousands of unknown toxins and a ton of greenhouse gases for every ton burned.  It fouls our rivers, lakes, and groundwater.  Toxic ash landfills foul the soil (25 per cent of our waste – by weight, 10 per cent by volume – remains as toxic ash).  Incineration fouls our health.  Only the unknowable toxic synergies are “unpredictable”; the other impacts are a sure thing.

The Fraser Valley Regional District is only one of many local governments opposing the incinerator: one-third of Metro Vancouver directors voted against it.  Native Nations, community organizations and hundreds of individuals in both regions opposed it.

An incinerator would burn our kids’ resources, waste their fossil fuels, for 50 years.  Long before 2070, the Earth’s 10 billion people will be desperate for resources. Products that are difficult to recycle will be a folly of the past.  Like the costly destruction systems Metro Vancouver is now building, which will be shut down – wasted.  Will our grandchildren have to mine landfills, fish the Pacific gyre?

Metro’s own waste plan (financial implications, page 32) points out that diverting resources from the waste stream has economic benefits.

“There is considerable economic activity that takes place in the process of recycling the collected materials into new goods as an alternative to virgin feed stocks.  Although difficult to estimate, the economy associated with the remanufacturing of recycled materials into new products exceeds the costs for collection, transportation and processing.  Net expenditures associated with disposal more closely reflect the entire disposal economy since there is little economic activity that occurs following disposal.”

So why choose incineration?  Metro Vancouver’s plan states that we can’t recycle more than 80 per cent unless distant markets remain stable; that they are looking for contingencies.  Asian markets fail when the price of oil gets too high, as happened in 2008 when we had to pay to burn or bury our recycled materials.

What contingency could there be besides local remanufacture?  According to Metro Vancouver’s director of policy and planning for waste management in 2011, “The contingency is waste-to-energy”.  (Global incinerator corporations have deep pockets, plenty lobbyists.) This raises the question: what happens to the 80 per cent we’ll be recycling when markets fail?

It pays Asian corporations to buy, ship and remanufacture our recovered resources and ship new products back.  These are cheaper not only because of low wages and poor to no environmental protection.  These industries avoid the cost of extracting and refining virgin resources.

Instead of wasting billions of our tax dollars on massive systems for burning, on garbage transport and ash landfills, we need to use public money to develop diversion and remanufacturing capacity today: to build industries, business, jobs: local economic renewal, for public and private profit.

Metro Vancouver taxpayers can own a paper recycling plant and other remanufacturing industries, the way we own the incinerator.  We can partner with private industry and municipalities as we do with the Cache Creek landfill.  We can work with private recycling industries and publicly owned facilities too, to meet everyone’s needs for resources, as we already do with the various waste management companies.

Each municipality can build a bottle washing plant; facilities to convert textiles to rags and paper, construction waste to lumber, firewood and wood chips, demolition waste to product recovery and building deconstruction.  Reuse and repair community centres for appliances, furniture, bikes, can include a free store to make items available to people who can’t afford even thrift stores, taking the social justice dimension of waste into account.

Diversion options are virtually unlimited.  Most such developments are profitable industries and businesses.  Some cost the region (as does incineration) but are profitable in the long run because they conserve resources and share our wealth-ethical imperatives.    All are better outcomes for our taxes than toxic ash and destruction of our life support ecosystems.

This necessary reconfiguration of our industrial consumer society is happening all over the world.  It can happen here.   We can profit today by protecting our children’s future.

9 Jan 2014

FOTE: Dirty Truths – Incineration and Climate Change

Jan 23rd, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Tackling climate change is the major environmental challenge of our times. Friends of the Earth believes that all government policies should be examined for their climate change impacts, from transport policy to waste policy.

At the same time, other environmental challenges must not be ignored – climate change may be the most immediate environmental crisis, but we should not ignore the possibility of others following on from it. For example, in the case of waste policy, it is vital that we also focus on maximising resource efficiency and on minimising pollution.

Waste policy has important climate change impacts, from, at one end, the emission savings by waste prevention or from recycling, to at the other end, the problem of methane emissions from landfill.

Waste prevention is the most beneficial option from a climate point of view, followed by reuse and recycling; landfill and incineration are worse options.

The UK Government is currently reviewing England’s waste policy, and is proposing to process 25% through energy from waste.

But what is energy from waste? In reality this catch-all term refers to a wide range of technologies, with a whole range of impacts on climate change. In order to better understand the impacts of these technologies, Friends of the Earth commissioned Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd to examine the climate impacts of the different options.

In addition, in order to improve understanding of the climate impacts of different methods of dealing with residual waste (what is left after reuse, recycling and composting), we also asked Eunomia to examine this complex issue.

This summary report takes the results of the Eunomia research and puts them in context. The full report, A changing climate for energy from waste? is available at Friends of the Earth’s web site.

May 2006

resource: Incinerator correspondence to be made public

Jan 23rd, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

by Alex Blake, for resource:

Environment Agency (EA) concerns over the Moorwell incinerator on the Isles of Scilly will become available to the public thanks to a Freedom of Information request.

The request, submitted by Radio Scilly, will see around 400 pages of emails and letters being released. The material details correspondence between the EA and the Chief Technical Officer of the Council of the Isles of Scilly between June 2010 and earlier this year.

Councillor Steve Sims, Chairman of the General Purpose Committee on the isles, stated that the documents would be available to view in the Council’s One-Stop Shop, but that making copies would not be permitted.

It has since been reported that during the sampling periods, levels of dioxins (which the World Health Organization describes as ‘highly toxic’) at the site reached 65 times the permitted levels.

However, the Council took steps to reassure the public that there was ‘no clear risk to human health’ posed by the dioxins.

Andy Street from consultants SLR also commented: “Regarding public health, it is true that the emissions were high on occasion from this incinerator, which was first commissioned in the 1970’s. Initial assessment of the impact of emissions to air was undertaken in 2009 under the instruction of the Environment Agency, which in turn consulted with the Food Standards Agency.

“These investigations indicated that, even with monitored emissions at their highest, there was no clear risk to human health, because of the small scale of the plant and low volume of waste incinerated.”

EA officials brought in consultants SLR to consult with the council and the agency on the site, and according to the group, found that the incinerator was being overloaded and was burning too much unsorted, off-island plastic waste. However, dioxin levels have now reportedly returned to within ‘safe’ limits.

Incineration problems not the first

This is not the first time incineration plants have been in the news over environmental and health concerns. Less than one month ago, Scotgen (Dumfries) Ltd saw its permit revoked for its Dargavel incinerator after the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) declared it had failed ‘to comply with the requirements of [its] permit’.

The revocation notice, served on 23 August, cited the following permit breaches:

  • persistent non-compliance with the requirements of the permit;
  • failure to comply with an enforcement notice;
  • failure to maintain financial provision and resources to comply with the requirements of the permit;
  • failure to recover energy with a high level of efficiency.

According to Ian Conroy, Technical Support Manager in the South West for SEPA: “Since the plant come [sic] into operation we have provided support and assistance to Scotgen (Dumfries) Limited including affording them considerable time and opportunity to demonstrate that this facility can meet the Best Available Techniques, and the specific requirements of European Directives designed to protect the environment. Unfortunately despite this, they have not done so.”

The Dargavel site has suffered a litany of problems. In 18 July 2013 a fire broke out at the site, requiring 30 firefighters to bring it under control. Scotgen is also under investigation by the Health and Safety Executive following a “pipe burst” in August, which damaged nearby pipework and a roof.

Incineration could become ‘obsolete’

In relation to these latest incidents, Shlomo Dowen, National Coordinator of United Kingdom Without Incineration (UKWIN), stated his belief that incinerators would become ‘obsolete’: “I understand that many of the problems at the facility arose from changes in feedstock composition and difficulties in obtaining combustible material.

“These are issues that I expect will become more prevalent across the UK in the coming years as increases in recycling, waste minimisation, and separate collection of food waste render residual waste treatment unnecessary and show incineration to be obsolete.”

Read more about incineration and the full statement regarding the Moorwell site from the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

11 Sep 2013

IPS: Dioxin Levels Soar on Icelandic Farms (2011)

Jan 23rd, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

by Lowana Veal, for the Inter Press Service:

In the northwestern Icelandic town of Isafjordur, milk is causing pandemonium. A local milk marketing board recently tested one farm’s milk for the presence of harmful chemicals. Dioxin, and dioxin-like compounds, were found to be present in amounts higher than the recommended maximum levels, threatening the future of local farmers, and angering residents.

Dioxins are highly toxic compounds produced as a byproduct in some manufacturing processes, notably herbicide production and paper bleaching. They are a serious and persistent environmental pollutant.

The milk that was tested came from a farm called Efri-Engidalur, located in a valley only 1.5 kilometres from a waste-burning incinerator that was closed by the authorities last year due to consistently high levels of pollutants.

“Usually, measurements are done by the authorities, but we decided to test for dioxin because we were concerned about the incinerator,” said Einar Sigurdsson, of MS Iceland Dairies.

As a result of the findings, the Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority (IFVA) decided to test samples of milk, meat, and hay from several farms in the surrounding area.

The findings revealed increased levels of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in the majority of the samples. Dioxin-like compounds are polychlorinated biphenyls, commonly known as dioxin-like PCBs, which behave like dioxin, so are generally classified with it in terms of toxicity.

(more…)

Howard Winn: Government needs to rethink its waste management policy

Jan 18th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

from Howard Winn’s Lai See column on the SCMP:

We see that the forces in favour of building a large incinerator near Shek Kwu Chau are coming together for another push at getting the project approved by the Legislative Council. A South China Morning Post story recently reported that a group of academics and professionals were calling on the government to scale back landfill and get on with building the incinerator.

“We need to act now, or this will end with rubbish piling up on the streets,” said Professor Poon Chi-sun, of Polytechnic University’s civil and environmental engineering department and spokesman for the new Alliance for Promoting Sustainable Waste Management for Hong Kong. Poon says the government is right to adopt moving-grate technology – in which waste goes through a combustion chamber – in its incinerator plan, adding that the technology is used in 2,000 plants around the world.

What he doesn’t say, however, is that the number of operating incinerators and the installation of new ones is declining. In the United States, the number of moving-grate incinerators dropped from 186 in 1990 to 87 in 2010. In Japan, it fell 25 per cent between 1998 and 2005. In Europe, there is an overcapacity of incinerators because of successful recycling efforts. Not so long ago, New York City issued a tender for a waste management facility specifying that it did not want offers using traditional moving-grate technology.

Professor Irene Lo Man-chi, of the University of Science and Technology’s department of civil and environmental engineering, said the technology had been proved to be a reliable option that was safe in terms of emissions. This is a moot point, and there are peer-reviewed reports showing abnormally high death rates and incidence of cancer among people living near incinerators. We accept that modern incinerators produce less emissions but that is not to say they are safe.

One technology that is known to produce far less emissions than incineration is plasma gasification. However this is dismissed as the wrong choice by Lo, who says it wouldn’t be able to cope with Hong Kong’s volume of waste. And by way of support, she says that problems with plasma technology had led to the closure of a 10-year-old plant in Japan. She omits to say that the plant was closed because it ran out of feedstock. She also appears oblivious to the number of plasma gasification projects that are springing up all over the world.

Ever since the incinerator project was introduced, the Environment Bureau has refused to budge from its insistence that it must be built, even with the change of leadership at the bureau. It also continues with the politically expedient reasons for locating the incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau rather than at Tsang Tsui near Tuen Mun. But it is clear to many people that if any progress is to be made on this, then some aspects of the plan have to be rethought. About 42 per cent of Hong Kong’s waste that goes to landfills is food waste and is between 70 and 90 per cent water.

Clear the Air chairman James Middleton has spoken to three engineers who say it is perfectly feasible for food waste to be shredded at source using garburators and disposed of down the drain and handled by the Stonecutters water treatment plant, which is currently operating at 50 per cent capacity. This idea has been incorporated into the thinking of the New Territories Concern Group, which, after visiting various waste treatment plants, including plasma gasification projects in Europe, produced a report supporting the use of plasma technology. The group is politically significant and includes Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, who, in addition to being a former president of the Hong Kong Law Society, also has the distinction of having deposed Heung Yee Kuk chairman Lau Wong-fat as chairman of the Tuen Mun Rural Committee.

In addition to its support for disposing of food waste at source, the report suggests gasification as a more mature and appropriate technology to meet Hong Kong’s present and future waste management needs. It recommends the establishment of one or more pilot plants to determine the suitability of gasification technology for Hong Kong. This approach would give Hong Kong considerable breathing space for it to take another look at the options available rather than its current approach, which is making little progress.

4 Jan 2014

Time Out Hong Kong: Hong Kong’s new Air Quality Health Index

Jan 15th, 2014
by Editor.
1 comment

written by Anna Cummings, posted on Time Out Hong Kong:

Hong Kong’s air quality is, put simply, bad. That’s not really news for those of us who have little choice but to breathe in our city’s sometimes pungently noxious atmosphere. The Hedley Environmental Index shows that only 50 days throughout last year were registered as ‘clear’ – that’s the lowest number in the past four years. More shockingly, around nine preventable deaths and more than 400 hospitalisations occur each day in the city as a devastatingly direct result of this pollution.

It’s a perfect time, then, for the introduction of the government’s brand new Air Quality Objectives and Air Quality Health Index, which replaces the Air Pollution Index. They came into force on January 1 as part of the the ongoing Clean Air Plan, which was introduced back in March last year. The new AQHI monitors concentrations of four major pollutants on a three-hour moving average and alerts residents to the potential health risks posed by the air on a scale ranging from one (low health risk) to 10+ (serious health risk). Our new, stricter, Air Quality Objectives replace ones that hadn’t been updated since 1987.

This is certainly a positive step for the current administration, which is promising to make our air a top priority in coming years. Earlier in 2013, it was announced that $10 billion will be set aside for the retirement of old diesel-powered vehicles, although this will take some years to come into full effect. A Hong Kong NGO, Clean Air Network, has tentatively welcomed the government’s new-found enthusiasm as ‘encouraging’, claiming that concern for the air was ‘rarely seen during the previous administration’.

However, the government continues to be lambasted for what many feel has been a continuously lacklustre response to our choking problem. Andrew Lai, deputy director of the Environmental Protection Department, has insisted that the AQHI will ‘provide more timely and useful air pollution information to the public’, with its accompanying mobile app providing residents with real-time pollution information. But others claim they would prefer to see more direct action. “It’s pointless having an index saying that you’re going to die,” asserts James Middleton, chairman of city charity Clear the Air. “What they should be doing is stopping the reasons that you’re going to die.”

The new AQHI app. (Time Out HK)

Melonie Chau, senior environmental affairs officer at Friends of the Earth Hong Kong, agrees. “The change to the API system wasn’t the most urgent issue the public needed for the time being, because it’s no more than a tool to raise public awareness,” she says. “It’s not a measure to curb the problem.”Perhaps unsurprisingly, within only a few days of its launch, the AQHI reached levels of 10 or 10+ in Causeway Bay, Central and Mong Kok, prompting the government to advise children and the elderly to remain indoors.

Many residents would be surprised to discover that marine vessels are the largest contributor to our air woes, rather than idling engines or power plants. To highlight this fact, take a glance at AQHI readings from the remote, vehicle-less island of Tap Mun, located near Mirs Bay in Shenzhen. The pollution there is frequently as high as roadside stations in Central or Causeway Bay. “Our winds are mainly from the east or northeast, for most of the year,” points out Middleton. “Tap Mun is shrouded in nitrogen oxides and sulphur all year… it’s covered in gunk. And that comes from the ships. The wind blows it there.”

Almost inconceivably, the sulphur emissions given off by just 16 ‘supercarrier’ cargo ships are equivalent to that of all the cars in the entire world. The sulphur content of the super-viscous, low-grade bunker fuel used by cargo ships is up to 2,000 times higher than that used in motor vehicles. With such boats trundling around our small territory, it’s hardly suspiring that there is a problem. Even worse, these ships are already carrying low-sulphur fuel – but they don’t use it here. Such fuel is required by law inside Emission Control Areas that are set within 200 nautical miles offshore of many countries in Europe and the Americas. But in Hong Kong, there is no such scheme.

“We have all these vessels going into Shenzhen – and all these vessels are polluting Hong Kong,” says Middleton. “But they’re doing nothing about it! The government just says the waters are under Chinese control. Well, go and speak to China about it then! [If there was an ECA], there’d be an immediate improvement in people’s health and in the whole situation in Hong Kong. But who owns the container ports in Shenzhen, in Hong Kong, in Yantian? Li Ka-shing! I wonder why they haven’t done anything?” The Clean Air Plan does acknowledge this issue, and has promised to ‘begin discussions… on the feasibility of mandating fuel switch for ocean going vessels berthed in Hong Kong’.

(more…)

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →