Solid Waste Management

Solid Waste Management Treatment in HK Problems in HK Solutions i) incineration ii) EcoPark Pros and cons Case news in other region

Waste Redution and Management in Hong Kong

Waste Redution and Management in Hong Kong 2645 tonnes per day

Waste Reduction and Management in Hong Kong • Growing Waste loads The population has grown by more than one million people and each person is throwing away more waste. The per capita level of domestic waste has risen from 0.95 kg per person per day in 1990, to 1.11 kg in 2002. • Landfills The remaining landfill space will last only for 6 to 10 years if waste levels continue to increase at current levels. New landfill sites must be identified. However, the community has become more resistant to having waste facilities near their neighbourhoods. The government have already started to consult the public on the options. Cost is always a consideration. It costs $125 per tonne to build and operate landfills. Some 7.7 million tonnes were landfilled in 2002 so the total capital and operating cost spent since the commissioning of the landfills was up to $9 billion.

Waste Reduction and Management in Hong Kong

Waste Reduction and Management in Hong Kong • Three sources of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Hong Kong: Domestic solid waste, which comes from households and public areas, including waste collected from residential buildings, litter bins, streets, marine areas and country parks. Commercial solid waste, which comes from shops, restaurants, hotels, offices and markets in private housing estates. Industrial solid waste, which is generated by all industries, but does not include construction and demolition waste, chemical waste or other special waste. The amount of municipal solid waste generated each year in Hong Kong is enormous, given that the city houses almost 7 million people and is a regional centre of commerce. In 2006 alone, 6.2 million tonnes were generated, of which 45% was recycled and the rest went to landfills. • Disposal at Landfills More than half of all municipal solid waste in Hong Kong is disposed of in the following landfills: West New Territories Landfill at Tuen Mun (WENT) North East New Territories Landfill at Ta Kwu Ling (NENT) South East New Territories Landfill at Tseung Kwan O (SENT)

Integrated Waste Management Facilities (IWMF) • How can we solve the PROBLEMS in Hong Kong? • Adoption of more sustainable waste treatment technologies: Biological treatment ( composting, anaerobic digestion) Mechanical-Biological treatment Thermal treatment – Incineration • IWMF Site selection Consideration: • Areas with compatible with neighboring activities • Marine access • Sheltered bay (less exposed to wave or typhoon)

Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoons

Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoons • Location NWNT adjacent to the WENT Landfill and China Light and Black Point Power Station of Power Company Ltd.'s (CLP). Ash lagoons have not yet been full due to periodic mining of ash from the site for commercial use. • Locational advantages • Operational adv of sharing of existing infrastructure (berthing facilities and waste container storage area) • Efficient disposal of ash residues to the WENT • Close to power plant • Marine and land transport is available • No major pop clustering -> no sig. visual impact • Locational disadvantages • Cumulative air quality impact from the power plant, landfill and incinerator • Impact on air quality, natural costal landscape, marine ecology, water quality and fishery

Incinerators in England • Today there are 7000 incinerators in England and Wales only 12 of which burn municipal waste • The rest burn chemicals, wood, waste oil, clinical waste, sewage sludge, and 3000 of the incinerators are small farm units • With all these incinerators, the national capacity for incineration is 2.8 million tonnes/year, still not enough to fulfill the upcoming EU landfill directive without additional waste diversion

Waste Treatment by Region in the UK

Incineration • Case e.g. • The Belvedere Incineratoris a proposed incinerationfacility in Bexley managing waste from the Western Riverside Waste Authorityand other local authorities in Londonwith a capacity of 575,000 tonnes waste per annum.The facility was finally given permission by the Department of Trade and Industry or constructing to begin in June 2006,in spite of widespread local opposition. • This incinerator is opposed for a variety of reasons: Air pollution: People are concerned about the potential impact incineration may have on their health. Although modern incinerators are designed to reduce polluting emissions, they still emit chemicals that cause concern. Smoke, gases and toxic ash can contain dioxins which are harmful even at very low levels. Dioxins are known to cause cancer. Toxic ash from the burning also needs to be disposed of in landfill sites, where it can release harmful chemicals into rivers and streams to pollute the water table.

Incineration • Disadvantages (Dioxin) Dioxin is created in many different processes, such as in incinerators which burn regular household garbage or medical waste, as well as power companies that burn fuel to produce electricity. (Modern WTE incinerators use a cooling device in the smoke stack and under ideal conditions, the temperature would change instantly and no dioxin would be formed. However, dioxin is formed as those ideal conditions are not always achieved.) Studies suggest that a modern incinerator, (which removes 99.9 per cent dioxins and other pollutants), burning 416 000 tonnes of garbage per year (four and a half times what Barbados is likely to burn) will produce about 0.431 grams of dioxin per year. The cost of installing pollution control devices was too high

Incineration • Waste creation: Rather than reduce waste, incinerators can actually create a demand for it. They need a minimum amount of waste to operate, and a long term supply to make a profit on the plant's investment. Building an incinerator demands long-term waste delivery because it takes 15-25 years for a waste management company to make a return on their capital investment; the contract between a council and a waste management company requires the council to provide an agreed amount of waste for at least 25 years. • It doesn't save energy: The incinerator is promoted as a "waste to energy" plant because they can generate electricity. But it is not an energy saving option. Reusing waste and recycling saves more energy because it means that fewer new products have to be made and fewer raw materials have to be used.

Advantages • The volume of the solid waste is reduced by approximately 55%; the high temperature kills disease-causing organisms; there is no risk of groundwater pollution (as in the case of landfills) . • The heat produced can be used as a source of energy. Some incinerators in the United States also havefacilities to recover valuable metals like iron and aluminum from the incinerator waste (the ash). The hot flue gas from the incinerators can also generateelectricity in the turbine. In 1995, about 700 tonnes of municipal waste had been incinerated daily at the Kwai Chung incinerator.

Incineration (adv) vs Landfills • Proponents argue that incineration is cheaper in the long term. A 250-tonne per day incinerator can generate about 6.5 megawatts of electricity daily and can save about $3 million to $5 million in fuel annually. • Incineration reduces the volume of garbage by about 90 per cent. The ten per cent of ash is usually buried in a landfill • Incineration of Waste , studying emissions of greenhouse gases, confirmed that landfills were responsible for much more air emissions with adverse global consequences than incineration. (higher emissions of hydrocarbons, non-methane organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, nitrogen oxides and dioxin and furans from the landfill than from the incinerator) • Studies suggest that a modern incinerator, (which removes 99.9 per cent dioxins and other pollutants), burning 416 000 tonnes of garbage per year (four and a half times what Barbados is likely to burn) will produce about 0.431 grams of dioxin per year.

EcoPark • Located at Tuen Mun Area 38 • Occupies 20 hectares of land • provides a total of 14 hectares of rentable land to recycling and environmental industries.

Infrastructure of EcoPark • site formation, internal roads, drains and sewers • water supply, power supply, fire service installations, and other utilities • waste collection and wastewater treatment/pumping facilities • marine loading/unloading areas and cargo handling facilities • an Administration Building and other buildings/ ancillary facilities for management and recycling operations • green features, fencing and landscaping • environmental monitoring and mitigation measures

Benefits of Ecopark • Long-term exclusive land with marine frontage and basic infrastructure • Services by Operator and built-in environmental protection measures  reduce tenants' pollution control costs • Creating synergy among clusters of similar industries • Vertical integration to create a "circular economy" • More job opportunities for recycling and related industries • Prestige associated with business based in EcoPark

Criticism of EcoPark • Out of 40% of recyclable wastes, 90% of them are exported to other places for further processing only about 10% remainssupply of recyclable wastes is still limitedcannot alleviate the waste problem • Reasons : Not enough support of government’s policy- recycling system is not efficient- not enough supportive services e.g. loan, promotion,

Solid Waste Management