Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

April, 2012:

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.”

HK$25b price tag for new facilities to tackle waste

SCMP

Cheung Chi-fai
Jan 19, 2011

Environmental officials put a price tag yesterday on their proposed solutions to Hong Kong’s mounting waste problem: HK$25 billion to build new facilities and an additional HK$950 million a year in operating costs.

The amount, set out in a submission to lawmakers, includes the combined capital costs of a mega-incinerator capable of burning 3,000 tonnes of waste each day; two organic waste treatment facilities; and extending landfills in Tseung Kwan O, Tuen Mun and North District.

The Environmental Protection Department provided no breakdown of the costs yesterday. It is not yet known how the expenditures will be funded.

Hong Kong is racing against time to prevent a waste crisis after the government ditched one of three proposals for extending landfills amid strong public opposition.

Officials have said they plan to step up recycling and waste reduction through financial incentives or other policy moves – but an urgent need remains for new waste disposal options besides landfills.

Despite the huge spending, which would be more than enough to build and operate the whole West Kowloon Cultural District, officials have dropped strong hints that the city’s waste incineration capability might have to be doubled in the long term.

Recycling efforts will fall short by 8,000 tonnes of municipal waste by 2015, officials estimate – even under the unrealistic assumption that waste generation were to show no growth in the next five years.

In the past decade, waste produced by Hong Kong people and their visitors grew by 21 per cent, from 5.3 million tonnes in 2001 to 6.4 million tonnes in 2009.

“Having regard to the volume of waste that we generate today, we consider there may be a need for one further integrated-waste management facility of the capacity of 3,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste per day and some more organic waste treatment facilities,” the Environment Protection Department said.

“We would launch a site search for this purpose while looking into the potential of private sector projects that can provide the waste treatment services.”

The public will soon be consulted about the proposed site for the first waste incinerator in 13 years. The last old-waste burning chamber was closed in 1997.

The two shortlisted sites are Tsang Tsui in Tuen Mun, and Shek Kwu Chau south of Lantau. The latter site would take longer to complete as it would involve sea reclamation.

Apart from the two places, Green Island Cement, a subsidiary of Cheung Kong group controlled by tycoon Li Ka-shing, has been promoting its waste-to-cement technology, which it claims could be much cheaper and faster to build than conventional incineration.

Green Island says the facility would require no more than four years to plan, build and commission, and the capital cost would be only around HK$2 billion, with annual running costs estimated at HK$200 million a year.

The company is unhappy that its cement production plan at Tap Shek Kok in Tuen Mun is excluded from the government’s site selection process for waste incineration.

Environment officials say they would consider the project in the longer term if the company can demonstrate the technical viability of the technology, satisfy environmental impact assessment requirements, and consult district councils.

Michelle Au Wing-tze, a senior environmental affairs officer said it was vital for the government to make sure the tendering process was fair and that it should be “open to all to bid”.

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

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

lantaubovine@gmail.com )

Grappling With a Garbage Glut

  • The Wall Street Journal
  • ESSAY
  • Updated April 18, 2012, 12:23 p.m. ET

Grappling With a Garbage Glut

We toss out 7 pounds of trash a day each, spending billions to manage it

By EDWARD HUMES

Each week, we push our trash to the curb, and it seemingly disappears. But where does it all go: the spent cartons of milk, the computer keyboard fried by spilled coffee, those empty dog food cans?

A team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology decided to find out. In 2009, they began attaching transmitter chips to thousands of pieces of ordinary garbage. They tossed this “smart trash” into the bin, sat back and watched the tortuous, disturbing path that our garbage often takes: the meanderings of electronic waste as it headed for distant shores, of ratty old sneakers that ran the equivalent of a dozen marathons, of printer cartridges that traversed the continent not once but twice on the road to recycling.

GARBOLOGY4

GARBOLOGY4

Corbis ImagesAn estimated $20 billion in valuable resources is locked up inside landfills each year.

This clever experiment threw a spotlight on the biggest, costliest, dirtiest secret about our garbage: our ignorance of how much we produce, what it contains and what happens to it once it leaves our hands.

Take the nation’s official trash tally—used alike by environmentalists, businesses and policy makers—which maintains that the average American tosses out 4.4 pounds of trash a day, with about a third getting recycled and the rest going to landfills. These numbers are found in the Environmental Protection Agency’s exhaustive annual compendium “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States”—America’s trash Bible—and are determined by an array of byzantine estimates and simulations, based on manufacturing data and the life expectancy of products.

Our Annual Waste

19 billion pounds of polystyrene peanuts

40 billion plastic knives, forks and spoons

28 billion pounds of food

Enough steel to level and restore Manhattan

Enough plastic film to shrink-wrap Texas

Source: ‘Garbology’

But the EPA’s “materials flow analysis” dates back to the bad old days when there were 10 times the number of town dumps and many more illegal ones, with little actual weighing and regulation. Today the business model of the landfill and recycling business depends on precise measurement (and billing per ton), so we have much more real-world data. Using these sources, the most recent survey conducted by Columbia University and the trade journal BioCycle found that Americans actually throw out much more than the EPA estimates, a whopping 7.1 pounds a day, and that less than a quarter of it gets recycled.

So how does America’s trash weigh in? Here are some key numbers from the emerging science of garbology:

Related Video

David Steiner, CEO of Waste Management talks about how some of his trucks are fueled off the trash they collect.

• At 7.1 pounds of trash a day, each of us is on track to produce a staggering 102 tons of waste in an average lifetime.

• Trash has become America’s leading export: mountains of waste paper, soiled cardboard, crushed beer cans and junked electronics. China’s No. 1 export to the U.S. is computers, according the Journal of Commerce. The United States’ No. 1 export to China, by number of cargo containers, is scrap.

• American communities on average spend more money on waste management than on fire protection, parks and recreation, libraries or schoolbooks, according to U.S. Census data on municipal budgets.

As these snapshots suggest, garbage costs are staggering. New York City alone spent $2.2 billion on sanitation in 2011. According to the city’s department of sanitation, more than $300 million of that was just for transporting its citizens’ trash by train and truck—12,000 tons a day—to out-of-state landfills, some as far as 300 miles away. How much is 12,000 tons a day? That’s like throwing away 62 Boeing 747 jumbo jets daily, or driving 8,730 new Honda Civics into a landfill each morning.

On the opposite coast, Los Angeles has opted to construct a garbage mountain 500 feet high, taller than most of the city’s high-rises. This is Puente Hills Landfill—trash as geologic feature, so full of 60 years’ worth of decomposing garbage that the methane it produces is pumped into generators that provide enough power for 70,000 homes.

At the landfill’s flat and dusty summit, a dozen bulldozers and graders swarm every day, backing and turning and mashing and shaping. “More people should see what I see here,” says Michael “Big Mike” Speiser, whose job is to sculpt trash into a mountain with the blade of a bulldozer. “Everything that’s advertised on TV ends up [here] sooner or later, and a lot sooner that most people think.”

Puente Hills is just the largest of the 1,900 municipal landfills operating nationwide. The chief executive of Waste Management, the world’s largest trash company, estimates that there is at least $20 billion in valuable resources locked inside the materials buried in U.S. landfills each year, if only we had the technology to recover it cost effectively.

The U.S. doesn’t have to handle trash this way. Other countries with big economies and high standards of living have rejected the disposable products that make up so much of America’s garbage—in part because European countries hold manufacturers, not taxpayers, responsible for the costs of packaging waste. With that sort of incentive, toothpaste tubes need not come in redundant cardboard boxes and television sets can leave the store with no boxes at all. The average Dane makes four pounds of trash a day, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; the average Japanese generates 2.5 pounds.

Other countries also are shunning landfills. Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark all send less than 4% of their garbage to landfills; Germany does no landfilling at all. Recycling rates there are two to three times America’s, and the rest of their trash goes to waste-to-energy plants.

The preferred mode in Europe is to build not a few hugely expensive incineration behemoths but a larger number of smaller, community-based utilities that burn trash to provide electricity and heat through underground conduits. The technology in the newest plants limits toxic emissions of dioxins, a major issue with incinerators of the past, to levels similar to a backyard barbecue’s. Methane and carbon emissions combined are less than those emanating from landfills. One facility being built in Denmark will be hidden beneath a community ski park featuring three different slopes of various difficulties.

Both L.A. and New York City are considering major waste-to-energy projects, and Waste Management is experimenting with new technologies, including a test facility in Arlington, Ore., that uses a process known as plasma gasification. The technology vaporizes (but doesn’t burn) garbage with arcs of electrical energy that heat matter inside their beam to 25,000 degrees. The process takes place in the absence of oxygen, so many of the normal, noxious byproducts of combustion aren’t produced. Instead, out comes a synthetic gaseous fuel and a lump of shiny rock, not unlike volcanic glass, with toxins locked up inside in relative safety. This garbage death ray reduces trash volume by 99%, not even leaving ash behind—just 20 pounds of obsidian for every ton of trash disintegrated. The process is still too expensive to be commercial, but it shows promise.

Of course, the best way to reduce trash is to waste less in the first place. Cut out disposable plastic bags or bottled water. Buy used or refurbished electronics. Consider whether that thing you’re buying will be treasured for years to come or discarded in a few months. The real sacrifice, even when it is invisible to most of us, is accumulating ever more things that quickly find their way to our costly, growing mountains of garbage.

—Adapted from “Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash” by Edward Humes, by arrangement with Avery, a member of the Penguin Group (USA). Copyright © 2012 by Edward Humes.Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that in modern waste-to-energy plants, carbon emissions alone are less than those emanating from landfills.

A version of this article appeared April 14, 2012, on page C3 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Grappling With a Garbage Glut.

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.

HK losing out as expat locale due to pollution: ECA

http://business.asiaone.com/print/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20120417-340400.html

Singapore is the most liveable city in the world for Asian expatriates.

Tue, Apr 17, 2012
Reuters

SINGAPORE – Singapore is the most liveable city in the world for Asian expatriates, ranking well ahead of regional rival Hong Kong where the air quality is now among the worst in the world, human resources consultancy ECA International said on Tuesday.

“Air pollution remains a major issue (in Hong Kong),” Lee Quane, ECA’s regional director for Asia, said in a statement.

“It has the third worst score for this of any Asian city after Beijing and New Delhi, and is up among some of the worst locations in the world for air quality including Santiago, Mexico City and Cairo.”

ECA ranked Singapore as the top destination globally for Asian expatriates in 2012, unchanged from a year ago, with Sydney coming in at number two for the second year running.

Other Australian cities dominated the rankings, with Adelaide and Brisbane tied for third, Perth in sixth and Canberra in seventh.

Hong Kong ranked 11th, up from 14th in the previous survey, as Tokyo and Yokohama’s infrastructure have suffered from the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit parts of Japan last year.

Quane, who is based in Hong Kong, told Reuters that while Singapore has overtaken the former British territory in terms of the cost of living, the higher expenses may not be borne by employers.

“Companies are less likely to provide location allowances to attract people to accept a posting in Singapore,” he said.

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.

Description: http://www.humanrights-china.org/zt/photogallery/pic/2004101910.jpg

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.

Description: http://www.humanrights-china.org/zt/photogallery/pic/2004101911.jpg
A masked father watches over his sick child in hospital. [YNET]

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.
Local residents welcomed the monitoring initiatives. Many came up to the work station and asked when they would receive the results, expressing hope that the government would help them improve the polluted air.

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.
(Beijing Today)

Plans for incinerator in Chieveley refused

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2012/04/13/58716-plans-for-incinerator-in-chieveley-refused/

Description: http://www.clydeandforthmedia.co.uk/output/300/img/2012/04/13/proposed_ch_c583472_111118_.jpg

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.

Cheung Chau residents will be affected

SCMP letter

I refer to the letter by Elvis W.K. Au, of the Environmental Protection Department (“Incinerator will meet the world’s most stringent green operating standards”, April 10).

It is tiresome to have to read the department yet again trying to justify its irrational decision to build a giant incinerator in the heart of Islands district.

First comes the bizarre statement that “a more balanced spatial distribution” is achieved by locating this project at Shek Kwu Chau, instead of at the obvious brownfield site. The idea is that since places in the west, north and east of the SAR have now been trashed, it is only “fair” to trash the south as well. Apart from the violation of common-sense planning practices this implies, readers should be aware that the department is planning a second giant incinerator at Tsang Tsui ash lagoons anyway. It is marked on a map presented to Legco’s environmental panel.

Mr Au says the Shek Kwu Chau site is nearer to Victoria Harbour’s waste transfer stations. This is not true if you take into account the shipment of the 30 per cent of highly toxic residue of incineration back to the landfill at Tsang Tsui.

He also claims Shek Kwu Chau is more acceptable because it is “downwind” of the Cheung Chau population of 30,000. The statement is equally true for the Tsang Tsui location. When the wind is blowing in the opposite direction (at least 25 per cent of the time) Cheung Chau will be affected whereas there are shielding mountains at Tsang Tsui. Also, if the incinerator is as green as officials claim, what does wind direction matter?

The unacceptable aspect of the incinerator controversy is that attention has been distracted from the department’s failure to implement the waste management strategy originally drawn up in 2005, with its emphasis on waste reduction and recycling. The amount of waste generated in Hong Kong is still rising and there are virtually no separation and recycling facilities available to households.

The claim that the SAR recycles 52 per cent of municipal solid waste is misleading. Firms export waste to the mainland for recycling. We believe that the percentage of government-collected waste that is recycled is in reality still very small. Changing this should be the department’s priority, not another expensive vanity project.

John Schofield, Living Islands Movement