Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal

Scotland’s dirtiest waste incinerator to be barred from operating

Aug 27th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

27 August 2013

The operating licence for Scotland’s dirtiest waste incinerator is to be revoked on 23 September, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) has announced.

Scotgen’s ailing energy-from-waste plant in Dumfries, which has breached pollution limits hundreds of times and recently suffered a major fire, is now almost certain to close. The company recently told the Court of Session that it was planning to go into administration.

Sepa’s highly unusual move follows Scotgen’s failure to comply with an legal enforcement notice requiring 800 tonnes of partially burnt waste to be removed from the plant so that it didn’t stink and attract rats.

According to Sepa, the waste plant was guilty of “persistent non-compliance with the requirements of the permit.” It had also failed to maintain enough resources to pay for cleaning up the mess it had made, and had failed in its main aim of recovering energy efficiently.

Ian Conroy, Sepa’s technical support manager in the southwest, pointed out that the Scotgen plant had not been able to demonstrate that it could abide by the rules meant to protect the environment.

“The facility started operations more than four years ago, and in that time has never achieved a level of compliance which would give Sepa any degree of confidence that future operation would be any different,” he said.

“The facility has consistently failed to meet any reasonable expectation of environmental performance and the predicted level of energy recovery at approximately 3% is particularly disappointing and unsatisfactory. Sepa has taken this serious and unusual action of revoking the permit following careful consideration and assessment of the regulatory options available.”

The revocation notice was issued on 23 August, but couldn’t be disclosed until Sepa was certain that it had been received by Scotgen. The company is entitled to appeal to Scottish ministers, which could delay closure.

This story was also run by the BBC.

Alternatives to waste strategy are necessary

Aug 22nd, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Online comments:

dynamco Aug 22nd 2013  8:51am

43% of HK daily MSW is 90% wet non-combustible food waste <3 MJ/kg calorific value
It contaminates dry MSW, stinks, emits methane & hinders recycling
It should be mandatorily separated, collected as Green bin waste, pulped & sent thru the sewage system to Stonecutters (SC) for treatment
By 2016 SC can handle 2.4 million m3 per day vs current load of 1.4m m3 so 3.300 m3 of pulped food waste per day is inconsequential loading
HK Govt includes foreign imported MSW in its opaque 40+% recycling figures which are now hit by ‘Operation Green Fence’ blocking its re-export (recycling)
California’s mandatory recycling rates R in excess of 70%. Remove our food waste as above & open local recycling centres here
We need no incinerator with killer toxic emissions & residue ash lagoons in the sea
Copy San Francisco’s plan for their current 77% recycling rate & consign ENB’s retrograde bury burn waste plan to the ‘bin’
www.sfrecycles.org/

www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/2011/20111122/s2011112203-G.htm

Santa Monica 2010: 70+% recycling rate – Zero Waste initiative

www.smgov.net/Departments/PublicWorks/ContentRecycling.aspx?id=16222

Green-bin free collection

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpJBhZCS7YE

Flash dance

www.goldmanprize.org/recipient/rossano-ercolini

40 incinerators closed/Zero waste plan adopted

Meanwhile reverse-mine our landfills to create land for public housing
www.r3magazine.co.uk/2011/06/advanced-plasma-power-and-group-machiels-join-forces/

Why Santa Monica ? clean air, a proper recycling and  waste disposal system

http://www.interiordesign.net/article/483700-It_s_A_Breeze_pix.php

see who chose a house there ……………

Thursday, 22 August, 2013, 12:00am

Comment› Letters

Alternatives to waste strategy are necessary

In his letter (“Cement plan not yet viable refuse solution [1]“, August 16), Elvis Au, assistant director of environmental protection, criticised a trial by Green Island Cement of a project to develop a waste incineration facility.

Mr Au is instead a staunch advocate of a waste incinerator he likes to describe as a “waste-to-energy” scheme. Yet while the government aims to build one of the world’s largest waste incinerators, he conveniently omits to mention that there have been no trials whatsoever of such a facility in Hong Kong – that’s unless you count Hong Kong’s former waste incinerators, which were shut down last century for being too filthy.

In Mr Au’s view, a “thorough environmental impact assessment study” is required for the Green Island Cement plan. Yet such a study is also lacking for the proposed Shek Kwu Chau incinerator scheme. All that I am aware of is an assessment focusing on selecting an incinerator site. This was commissioned by the Environmental Protection Department, which, conveniently, was also responsible for passing the study.

Information in the impact assessment report is often scant. For instance, emissions including particulates are a major concern, yet what little data there is has evidently been plucked out of thin air, rather than from trials involving Hong Kong waste.

I noticed no mention of studies finding links between proximity to incinerators and increased risks of birth defects and cancer. When it comes to its own project, the department seems unperturbed by data that is lacking or muddled.

Previous letters have noted issues with figures on waste, which should be crucial to determining strategies. The picture is hazy, thanks to varying methods of estimation.

Mr Au says Hong Kong’s waste strategy needs “the joint efforts of the entire community”, yet the government remains fixated on an outmoded strategy centred on dumping and burning waste, whilst showing no interest in considering alternatives and holding meaningful, open discussions.

Martin Williams, director, Hong Kong Outdoors

Links:
[1] http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1297010/letters-editor-august-16-2013

‘March of the incinerators’ threatens drive to recycle more rubbish

Aug 18th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/18/march-of-the-incinerators-recycling

‘March of the incinerators’ threatens drive to recycle more rubbish

Rise in number of plants burning waste may be disincentive to greener methods of disposal

Workers sort recycling at Greenstar Recycling

Workers sort recycling at Greenstar Recycling facility at Aldridge near Walsall. Building more incinerators could be a disincentive to such efforts. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian

A rush to build incinerators to burn waste and break the UK’s reliance on landfill is threatening the country’s commitment to increase its recycling rates.

As new figures reveal that recycling rates have fallen for the first time in 30 years, experts warn that the UK is in danger of building far more incineration capacity than it needs. The controversial waste disposal systems are used to produce electricity and heat for homes and industry. But there are fears that the “march of the incinerators”, as some have called it, will act as a disincentive for councils to recycle waste.

Historically, the UK has used landfill as its preferred method for waste disposal and, as a result, has been slower to adopt incineration than other EU states. However, an obligation to meet EU directives has meant that in recent years the UK has been forced to find alternative means of disposal. The directives are yielding results. Just under 47 million tonnes of waste was sent to landfill last year, compared with just over 84 million tonnes in 2001.

This has given a significant fillip to the incineration industry both in the UK and abroad. Much of the UK’s waste that ends up being incinerated currently goes to Germany or the Netherlands, where it is burned and used to heat homes. The process is often cheaper than seeking landfill sites in the UK.

Experts said the use of incinerators had consequences for recycling as local authorities were forced to divert waste to feed the plants. “The choice to invest in thermal treatment can hold back recycling efforts,” Adam Baddeley, principal consultant at Eunomia, said. “At one level, the money invested in such plant simply isn’t available to put into building recycling plants or collection infrastructure. And once you’ve built an incinerator or gasifier, there’s a strong incentive to keep it fed with waste, even if that means keeping on collecting as ‘black bag’ rubbish, material that would be economically practicable to collect separately for recycling.”

Charmian Larke, technical adviser for Cornwall Waste Forum, which unsuccessfully opposed a large incinerator in the south-west, questioned the planning process that resulted in incinerators being approved. “Some of them [planning officers] have spent their entire careers trying to get this incinerator so they are wedded to the idea,” Larke said. “But if the council members understood how bad these contracts were, the officers would lose their jobs.”

Larke claimed that many of the incinerators were built in poorer areas. “There’s a feeling that people who are downtrodden have a harder time getting their act together to object, and hence it’s easier to place nasty things next to them.”

Julian Kirby, waste resources campaigner at Friends of the Earth, described incinerators as a 19th-century technology used to treat a 20th-century problem. “The growing success of recycling and food waste collections – and the potential to redesign products to cut waste and boost reuse and recycling even more – mean there are few things more pointlessly parasitic on cash-strapped councils than incinerators,” Kirby said.

There are now 39 incineration plants in the UK that have either been built are under construction or are at the planning stage, and there are concerns about overcapacity.

“The UK needs sufficient infrastructure to treat our residual waste and divert it from landfill,” said Baddeley. “However, with a recycling target of 50% by 2020 and a decline in waste arising, if the large number of planned [incineration] facilities become operational, there is a real risk of us building excess thermal treatment capacity, something we already see in various northern European countries. They over-invested in treatment facilities and are now importing a growing amount of waste, particularly from the UK and Ireland, to fill them.”

A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said sending waste to landfill or incineration should be the last resort. “We have been clear with local authorities that incineration must not compete with recycling or ways of reducing the amount of waste we produce.”

Cement plan not yet viable refuse solution

Aug 16th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Friday, 16 August, 2013, 12:00am

Comment›Letters

Cement plan not yet viable refuse solution

We refer to the letters by Charlie Chan (“Come clean on waste disposal strategy [1]“, August 13) and Frank Lee (“Viable waste management plan snubbed [2]“, August 5), regarding the proposal by Green Island Cement (Holdings) to develop a waste incineration facility in Tuen Mun.

Since the early 2000s, this firm has asked the government to adopt eco-co-combustion technology and develop a facility at its cement plant to treat 4,800 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) each day. The Environmental Protection Department reviewed the technology and findings and made its conclusions known to the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) and the Legislative Council (relevant papers are available online). This technology has not been used for MSW treatment anywhere in the world for large tonnages.

Although the company had conducted a trial at a scale of several tonnes per day for about two months in 2005, it did not cover all the eco-co-combustion process. Also, potential market risk associated with the demand for cement will affect its reliability as a means of waste treatment.

The recommendation not to adopt this technology for the Integrated Waste Management Facilities Phase 1 was endorsed by the ACE in December 2009.

Since there are a number of existing emission sources in the vicinity of the cement plant and it is not far from the population clusters in Tuen Mun, the company should first conduct a thorough environmental impact assessment study to address concerns about the cumulative air quality impact of the proposal if it is to be considered further. This has not been done. Green Island Cement would also need to address the land-use issue and public acceptability of its proposal.

We have told the firm that if it is serious about this project, it must first deal with technical feasibility and reliability, environmental acceptability and planning issues. At this stage, it is premature to state that the company’s proposal is a viable solution readily available to assist in alleviating Hong Kong’s pressing MSW problem.

The government’s “Hong Kong: Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022” points out the value of resources that can be recovered from waste.

It maps out a comprehensive strategy and action plans for waste reduction, reuse, recovery, waste-to-energy (modern incineration) and land filling. Each waste management initiative contributes to the whole strategy. We need the joint efforts of the entire community and co-operation with the business sector for the benefit of Hong Kong.

Elvis W. K. Au, assistant director of environmental protection

HK’s wasteful habits filling up landfills

It is ironic that in Hong Kong we are struggling to find places to dispose of our refuse, but we continue to enjoy a life of consumerism.

We face a dilemma when it comes to dealing with increasing volumes of municipal solid waste.

Few Hongkongers seem to appreciate that it is their wasteful habits which have left our landfills near capacity.

At least we take comfort in the fact that the waste-charging scheme is on the way and I hope it will raise people’s awareness about the need to reduce volumes of waste at source.

We must all accept responsibility for this problem.

Leung Kit-yan, Diamond Hill


Links:
[1] http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1296268/letters-editor-august-13-2013
[2] http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1294371/letters-editor-august-5-2013

3,000 TONNES PER DAY INCINERATED ASH & HIGHLY TOXIC FLYASH TO LANDFILL

Aug 13th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

cartoon0812.jpg

Download PDF : ENBFLAWEDWASTEPLAN

Protests predicted at Beijing’s plan to add incinerators

Aug 13th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Published on South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com)

Home > Protests predicted at Beijing’s plan to add incinerators


Protests predicted at Beijing’s plan to add incinerators

Tuesday, 13 August, 2013, 12:00am

News›China

ENVIRONMENT

Government says sector will be worth trillions but activists warn move to burn mainland’s rubbish mountains will leave residents fuming

The number of waste incinerators will rise sharply under a national plan to boost investment in environmental protection industries, but environmental activists warn the move could lead to more mass protests as the public grows increasingly concerned about health impacts.

https://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/236w/public/2013/08/13/nlzkjsgfkldfgsdfg35.gif?itok=0dLOJ6njThe State Council announced on Sunday the environmental sector would become a “pillar industry”. It set a 15 per cent annual growth target for energy-saving and environmental protection industries that would see turnover reach 4.5 trillion yuan (HK$5.7 trillion) by 2015.

Promising government subsidies, tax breaks, and stricter environmental standards, the plan also details key technologies that will be championed by authorities to improve energy efficiency and tackle pollution.

Large-scale incinerators with a daily burning capacity above 300 tonnes are on the shopping list to tackle a looming garbage crisis in many cities. The central government aims to incinerate up to 35 per cent of household waste by 2015, up from about 18 per cent in 2011.

Urban rubbish treatment capacity will be expanded to 870,000 tonnes a day by 2015, from 513,000 tonnes per day at the end of 2011, based on statistics from the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development.

According to rough estimates, the number of incinerators on the mainland could double to about 300 to meet such targets.

Mao Da, a researcher at Beijing Normal University of solid-waste treatment, said the waste incineration industry had been on fast track in recent years, but authorities were still turning a blind eye to public concerns over such projects.

Waste incineration is often associated with high emissions of dioxin gases, which are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and cause cancer, according to the World Health Organisation.

Chen Liwen , of the Beijing-based green organisation Nature University, pointed out that mainland incinerators had been the subject of protests.

Last month, Guangzhou residents staged three rallies against a proposed refuse incinerator in the city’s Huadu district, with the largest meeting attracting more than 10,000 protestors.

“There is a prevailing public mistrust towards the government over incinerators,” said Chen, who has surveyed residents living close to incinerators in Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Hangzhou .

Their greatest area of doubt is governments’ safety claims regarding incinerators, Chen said. Residents were concerned about operational and management loopholes that could lead to emissions of toxic gases, even though operators of most of the mainland’s incinerators insist they’re using technologies on par with developed countries.

The reluctance of operators and the authorities overseeing them to publish data on emissions only heightened the public’s fears, she added.

Residents living close to two incinerators, in Hangzhou and Guangzhou, were already blaming them for rising cancer rates, but the local governments had not launched public inquiries into the claims.

“As long as authorities fail to address these public concerns, the new push for the industry may lead to more mass protests in the years to come,” Chen said.

Mao said the lack of adequate supervision of incinerators said big new investment in them could result in a surge in emissions of dioxins and heavy metals, such as mercury. Some studies already confirmed such a trend of rising dioxin emissions between 2004 and 2010.

“This actually violates the nation’s pledge under various international environmental treaties to gradually cut emissions of dioxin and mercury,” Mao said.


Come clean on waste disposal strategy

Aug 13th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

dynamco Aug 13th 2013 8:00am

Charlie Chan is naïve: “Netherlands is at the forefront of safe & eco-friendly methods of waste disposal” How can burning trash that could be recycled be deemed Eco friendly when peer reviewed reports show increases in child deaths, birth abnormalities & cancer increases with proximity to incinerators?
Recently the ENB paraded a panel of pro incinerator individuals whose businesses or funding relied on same. An executive on the panel from Netherlands based W2E Afval Energie Bedriff was inflamed when it was revealed his organization was the 484th most polluting enterprise in the whole of the EU.
43% of our daily MSW is food waste at 80-90% water content with less than 4 MJ/kg calorific value, the wettest in the world whereas Europe food waste is 30% water. Combustion needs >7 MJ/kg so needs to add feedstocks w/ higher calorific value thus defeating recycling. Stonecutters plant (2.7 million m3 per day capacity by 2016) could handle all of HKG’s 3,300 m3 daily food waste if pulped before adding to the sewage system.
To build the intended 3 incinerators a confirmed longterm quantity of daily feedstock is required hence the ENB reticence to share the fuel for the bonfire. Dioxin emissions from burn temperature drop are highest on burner startup & shutdown hence the need to ‘keep on burning’. Of course once we have waste charging & source separation laws & a viable local recycling setup we might have to import MSW to keep the burners burning & manmade islands as ash lagoons.

South China Morning Post

Published on South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com)

Home > Letters to the Editor, August 13, 2013

Letters to the Editor, August 13, 2013

Tuesday, 13 August, 2013, 12:00am

Comment› Letters

Come clean on waste disposal strategy

I agree with Frank Lee (“Viable waste management plan snubbed [4]”, August 5) that the government’s waste disposal plans leave much to be desired both in transparency and positive action.

Green Island Cement’s offer to incorporate waste disposal into the production cycle at its plant in Tuen Mun is infinitely better than expanding landfills, and is obviously ecologically preferable to the ill-considered Shek Kwu Chau reclamation.

I was also alerted by your report highlighting Cheung Kong Infrastructure’s acquisition of a stake in the largest producer of electricity by waste burning in the Netherlands (“CKI eager to enter new industries as profit grows [5]”, July 26).

The Netherlands is at the forefront of safe and eco-friendly methods of waste disposal.

This begs the most obvious question – why is Li Ka-shing’s Power Assets (formerly Hongkong Electric) not burning waste (or planning to) at its Lamma power station?

Naturally the same question could be asked about CLP Power’s operations.

On the one hand the Environmental Protection Department appears to be weak-kneed in the face of hostile opposition, while on the other hand it seems to be stubbornly empire-building and bureaucratically avoiding systems outside its own direct day-to-day control.

I think it is overdue for the department to come clean on the matter of waste disposal.

Charlie Chan, Mid-Levels

Source URL (retrieved on Aug 13th 2013, 7:16am): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1296268/letters-editor-august-13-2013

Links:
[1] http://www.scmp.com/business/money/markets-investing/article/1294823/hong-kong-taxi-licences-hit-record-high-almost-us1m
[2] http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1266267/letters-editor-june-22-2013
[3] http://SCMP.com
[4] http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1294371/letters-editor-august-5-2013
[5] http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/1290764/cki-eager-enter-new-industries-profit-grows

https://e02.optimix.asia/trackingdata?imgtag=1&opxUid=0&opxEventID=2022&opxClientID=87&opxcounter=1

Veolia’s Hazardous Waste Incinerator in China Received Penalty

Aug 10th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

索 引 号: 000014672/2013-01280

分类: 环境管理业务信息\环境行政处罚和行政复议

发布机关: 环境保护部

生成日期: 2013年08月01日

名　　称: 责令改正违法行为决定书（惠州东江威立雅环境服务有限公司违反危险废物经营许可证管理制度）

文　　号: 环法[2013]69号

主 题 词:

责令改正违法行为决定书（惠州东江威立雅环境服务有限公司违反危险废物经营许可证管理制度）

惠州东江威立雅环境服务有限公司：


Written decision shall be ordered to correct violations (Huizhou Dongjiang Veolia Environmental Services Ltd. violated hazardous waste operating license management system)

Huizhou Dongjiang Veolia Environmental Services Ltd:

Business license registration number: 441300400008332

Organization Code :77402216-6

Legal representative: Zhang Wei Yang

Address: Huidong County, Guangdong Province town of stone Laos Nam Leung

Huizhou Dongjiang Veolia Environmental Services Limited environmental law case, I commissioned to investigate China Environmental Monitoring Station, is now reviewing end.

First, the facts and evidence of environmental law

My Department issued your company’s “hazardous waste operating license” (ID: G4413230016) Annex Article 22 requires incinerator flue gas treatment must take comprehensive measures should be consistent with its flue gas emissions, “hazardous waste incineration pollution control standards” ( GB18484-2001), Article 24 requires the plant noise should follow the “industrial enterprises environmental noise emission standards” (GB12348-2008).

September 2012, the China Environmental Monitoring Station of your company perform “hazardous waste operating license” supervisory monitoring the situation and found that your company’s waste incinerator dioxin concentration 2.0ng/m3, exceeding 3 times; mercury and its compounds emission concentration of 0.24mg/m3, exceeding 1.4 times; arsenic, nickel and its compounds emission concentration of 2.77mg/m3, exceeding 1.8 times; boundary daytime excessive noise 4.7dB (A).

The above facts, there is China National Environmental Monitoring Center March 25, 2013 “on the submitted 2012 <hazardous waste management units supervisory monitoring work report> Letter” (terminus of Han [2013] No. 50) 2013 June 3 Day “2007-2012 hazardous waste management units supervisory monitoring results are summarized and analysis” as evidence.

Your company the violation of the “hazardous waste operating license management approach” Article 15 of the Covenant.

Second, make corrections based, species

“Hazardous waste operating license management approach” pursuant to article XVII, people’s governments above the county level environmental protection departments found that hazardous waste management units in business activities in non-compliance with the conditions of the original issuing circumstances should be ordered to deadline for correction.

According to the above provisions, the ministry decided to instruct your company on September 30, 2013 to complete the rectification to ensure your company in accordance with the “hazardous waste operating license” provisions in the relevant business activities.

Third, be ordered to correct the performance

I commissioned the China Environmental Monitoring terminus and the Guangdong Provincial Environmental Protection Office of your company to correct violations of the situation after the implementation of administrative enforcement inspectors. Please your company on September 30, 2013 will be reported in writing to correct my department.

If your company fails to rectify or after rectification still fails to meet the original licensing conditions, the Department will be based on “hazardous waste operating license management approach” the provisions of Article 28 to impose administrative penalties on your company.

Fourth, apply for administrative reconsideration or bring an administrative lawsuit route and duration

If your company refuses to accept the decision, you can receive the decision within sixty days from the date of my department to apply for administrative reconsideration; also in receipt of this decision within three months from the date of administrative proceedings according to law.

Fails to apply for administrative reconsideration, nor bring an administrative lawsuit to the people’s court, not the implementation of this decision, the Department will apply for the people’s court for enforcement.

Department of Environmental Protection

August 1, 2013

Cc: Guangdong Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau, China National Environmental Monitoring Center

http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201308/t20130805_256948.htm

The Ministry of Environmental Protection ordered that Veolia must correct its problems by September 30, 2013.

The order shows that in an irregular monitoring in September 2012, the MEP found the gas dioxin emission of Veolia’s hazardous waste plant in Huizhou City, Guangdong Province reached 2.0ng TEQ/m3 (3 times higher than national standard). Mercury and arsenic concentration in gas were also higher than national standard.

索 引 号: 000014672/2013-01280

分类: 环境管理业务信息\环境行政处罚和行政复议

发布机关: 环境保护部

生成日期: 2013年08月01日

名　　称: 责令改正违法行为决定书（惠州东江威立雅环境服务有限公司违反危险废物经营许可证管理制度）

文　　号: 环法[2013]69号

主 题 词:


责令改正违法行为决定书（惠州东江威立雅环境服务有限公司违反危险废物经营许可证管理制度）

惠州东江威立雅环境服务有限公司：

营业执照注册号：441300400008332

组织机构代码：77402216-6

法定代表人：张维仰

详细地址：广东省惠东县梁化镇石屋寮南坑

惠州东江威立雅环境服务有限公司环境违法一案，我部委托中国环境监测总站进行调查，现已审查终结。

一、环境违法事实和证据

我部核发你公司的《危险废物经营许可证》（编号：G4413230016）附件第二十二条要求焚烧炉烟气必须采取综合处理措施,其烟气排放应符合《危险废物焚烧污染控制标准》(GB18484-2001)，第二十四条要求厂区噪声应符合《工业企业厂界环境噪声排放标准》(GB12348-2008)。

2012年9月，中国环境监测总站对你公司执行《危险废物经营许可证》情况进行监督性监测时发现，你公司焚烧炉废气二噁英排放浓度为2.0ng/m3,超标3倍；汞及其化合物排放浓度为0.24mg/m3,超标1.4倍；砷、镍及其化合物排放浓度为2.77mg/m3,超标1.8倍；边界昼间噪声超标4.7dB(A)。

以上事实，有中国环境监测总站2013年3月25日《关于报送2012年度〈危险废物经营单位监督性监测工作报告〉的函》（总站分函〔2013〕50号）、2013年6月3日《2007—2012年危险废物经营单位监督性监测结果汇总与分析》等为证。

你公司的上述行为违反了《危险废物经营许可证管理办法》第十五条第一款的规定。

二、责令改正的依据、种类

《危险废物经营许可证管理办法》第十七条第三款规定，县级以上人民政府环境保护主管部门发现危险废物经营单位在经营活动中有不符合原发证条件的情形的，应当责令其限期整改。

根据上述规定，我部决定责令你公司于2013年9月30日前完成整改，确保你公司按照《危险废物经营许可证》的规定从事有关经营活动。

三、责令改正的履行

我部委托中国环境监测总站和广东省环境保护厅对你公司改正违法行为的情况实施行政执法后督察。请你公司于2013年9月30日前将改正情况书面报告我部。

如你公司逾期不整改或者经整改仍不符合原发证条件，我部将依据《危险废物经营许可证管理办法》第二十八条的规定对你公司实施行政处罚。

四、申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼的途径和期限

你公司如对本决定不服，可以在接到本决定书之日起六十日内向我部申请行政复议；也可以在接到本决定书之日起三个月内依法提起行政诉讼。

逾期不申请行政复议，也不向人民法院提起行政诉讼，又不履行本决定的，我部将依法申请人民法院强制执行。

环境保护部

2013年8月1日

抄送：广东省环境保护厅，中国环境监测总站。

—

毛达

历史学博士（环境史研究方向）

北京师范大学化学学院 博士后

MAO Da

Ph.D (Environmental History)

Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Chemistry, Beijing Normal University

Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects associated with management of solid waste

Aug 6th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download PDF : 1476-069X-8-60

Health and Incinerator

Aug 6th, 2013
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download PDF : incinerator+journal+article

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →