RUBBISH disposal is a lucrative business in urban areas, so much so that we have companies that are eager to propose incinerators to help us deal with the problem.

After all, Japan and Germany are big-time users of this technology, so it has to be good right?

In 2004, the Kuantan Municipal Council built an incinerator for research and development purpose.

That incinerator design consumed about 120 litres of diesel to incinerate only one tonne of waste, due to the high water content of local waste.

That is essentially the difference between Japan and us when it comes to incinerator technology — Japan does not waste good diesel to burn rubbish like we would.

In order to utilise this technology properly, we really need to separate our rubbish first. Otherwise, burning wet rubbish requires adding fuel to the waste and that means we are burning money to dispose of waste.

It should be no problem to force Malaysians to start separating their rubbish, as a provision has been included under the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act for this purpose.

The clause just has not been activated by the Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister.

However, rubbish separation is not just a responsibility for households but markets, restaurants, factories, shopping malls and office towers too.

Most businesses would not have the means to enforce rubbish separation, and there is that tricky issue about being held responsible for the mess if someone decides to dump unsorted rubbish into your wastebin.

This is a headache our Government will have no answer for because there are only so many things laws can deal with.

People’s attitudes need to be changed for rubbish separation to work, and we just do not have that sort of civic consciousness in our society.

So, we have a problem separating rubbish at source but our Government is still keen on incinerators. Will that be a problem?

Well, we already have several incinerators operating in Malaysia — located in Langkawi, Pangkor, Tioman, Labuan and Cameron Highlands, to name a few.

According to a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) study on incinerators done in 2013, incinerators “had failed due to faulty design, improper operation, poor maintenance, high diesel usage and waste characteristics, due to high moisture content of 60% to 70%.”

The existing incinerator operators know this is a huge problem and seek to mitigate it by separating the rubbish as best they can.

For example, the Pangkor incinerator operator segregates moist food waste and dispose of it at an adjacent landfill but the process is not perfect as the waste is already mixed by the time it gets to the incinerator.

This in turn causes the burning to be imperfect and smog is released into the air.

When it comes to incinerators in general, of equal concern is the residual ash from the burning process with possible by-products of toxins depending on what sort of rubbish got burnt (we would not know since rubbish segregation does not happen here). Does our Government have a programme to store and contain such waste in a safe area?

The same UKM study actually notes the following: “research has shown that in communities where incinerator plants are built, its long-term effects come in the form of reproductive dysfunction, neurological damage and other health effects are known to occur at very low exposures to many of the metals, and other pollutants released by incineration facilities.”

Are the authorities and all the proponents for incinerators really sure this sort of technology is suitable for the Klang Valley given the problem we have of even separating and sorting our rubbish?

What do we do when the incinerator has reached its capacity and unable to cater to escalating waste due to population growth?

Do we build more incinerators or do we advocate a sustainable method of reducing waste through Zero Waste Management when the amount of waste is reduced significantly and substantially?

There are private companies that are eager to explore such methods of turning our waste into useful products if they are given the chance.

Example technology includes anaerobic digestion that is a simple, natural breakdown of organic matter, which produces biogas — a fuel that can be burned to produce both heat and electricity — and methane, a substance that can be used as vehicle fuel.

The process produces a by-product called digestate, which can be used as fertiliser as it is rich in nutrients.

Indeed a whole new industry can be spawned from such recycling initiatives, which can be equally lucrative, as the by-products are actually useful.

But such possibilities are being overlooked in favour of implementing incinerator technology where we will be using fuel to burn away the rubbish.

Whatever it is, so long as the process is not looked at in detail and the issues I have highlighted not resolved, our Government can expect to face resistance from each and every resident group where the project is proposed next.

> Mak Khuin Weng cannot afford to send our politicians overseas for ‘lawatan sambil belajar’ trips, so he hopes this article would suffice in terms of his advocacy for recycling.

Authorities unveiled a new mobile incinerator that will be used to destroy unwanted or expired prescription pills in the future.

State Police Lt. Michael Baylous, Putnam Sheriff Steve Deweese and U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin hoisted large orange buckets filled to the brim with a mixed assortment of pills and dumped them, one by one, into the smoking maw of the black incinerator Tuesday afternoon at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

The pills were from the 2.5 tons collected Saturday as part of the National Prescription Drug Take Back Day.

Saturday’s event was the last event sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Goodwin said. The federal agency has conducted take-back days since 2010 because there weren’t any rules on properly disposing of unwanted or expired medications.

The DEA began working toward safe disposal rules after the first take-back day. The final rule was issued this year, allowing DEA-registered hospitals, pharmacies, long-term care facilities and others dealing in pharmaceuticals to modify their registrations to become authorized collection sites, according to the DEA’s website. Law enforcement agencies also may continue collecting pills.

Goodwin said when the events began there were no standalone drop boxes for medications. Now, both Kanawha and Putnam sheriff’s offices operate collection sites in Charleston and Winfield.

“We’ll continue on,” Deweese said. “We’ll support ourselves on it.”

The Putnam Sheriff’s Office collected some 221 pounds of medications in the last event.

Goodwin said the five mobile incinerator units were purchased with funds from the 2004 settlement with Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin…

A Mayo Clinic employee is scheduled to make his first appearance in Mower County District Court on Thursday after being charged with killing his two pets and attempting to burn the bodies at the Mayo Clinic incinerator.

Daniel Joseph Carlson, 61, of Grand Meadow, was charged Sept. 10 with two felony counts of overwork/mistreat animals-torture based on an incident that allegedly occurred on Aug. 21.

According to the criminal complaint, an unnamed motorist informed an Olmsted County deputy at 8:18 a.m. Aug. 22 that Carlson, who works at the Mayo Clinic Waste Management Incinerator, had brought in a dog and cat that he’d killed in order to burn the bodies. The motorist claimed that Carlson said he’d “beat the dog to death with a stick and shot the cat” before placing the carcasses in a Mayo Clinic freezer.

Since Carlson lives in Grand Meadow, the incident report was forwarded to the Mower County Sheriff’s Office on Aug. 25 for investigation; Sheriff Terese Amazi has expressed frustration that Olmsted County shared the incident with local media prior to sending her office the report in question.

During the ensuing investigation, Carlson told a Mower County deputy that he’d “had enough” with his pets urinating in his house and shot them both outside his home on Aug. 21. The cat had been experiencing “medical issues” for about a year and he’d been unable to house train his 5-year-old poodle, according to the criminal complaint.

Carlson told authorities that he put the dead animals in the incinerator’s freezer storage area. The deputy seized the animal’s bodies, which were stored in a black garbage bag, from the freezer as evidence.

On Aug. 26, the Austin Veterinary Clinic examined the dead animals. According to the criminal complaint, a single bullet wound was observed on each, but there was no other damage. The vet disposed of the bodies.

The Mayo Clinic released the following statement Tuesday on Carlson: “Mayo Clinic is aware of the charges and is fully cooperating with law enforcement. We cannot provide further comment on private, personnel issues, or issues involving legal proceedings in progress.”

If convicted, Carlson faces a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $5,000 fine for each charge.

The United States is days away from settling the critical question of how hospitals should handle and dispose of medical waste from Ebola patients, a government official said on Wednesday.

Experts have warned that conflicting U.S. regulations over how such waste should be transported could make it very difficult for U.S. hospitals to safely care for patients with Ebola, a messy disease that causes diarrhea, vomiting and in some cases, bleeding from the eyes and ears.

Safely handling such waste presents a dual challenge for regulators, who want to both prevent the accidental spread of the deadly disease and avert any deliberate attempts to use it as a bioweapon.

Most U.S. hospitals are not equipped with incinerators or large sterilizers called autoclaves that could accommodate the large amounts of soiled linens, contaminated syringes and virus-spattered protective gear generated from the care of an Ebola patient, said Dr. Jeffrey Duchin, chair of the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Public Health Committee.

Sterilizing Ebola waste before it is transported is important not only to protect waste haulers but to guard against someone using the waste “for nefarious purposes,” said Sean Kaufman, ‎president of Behavioral-Based Improvement Solutions, an Atlanta-based biosafety firm. “It’s not just a safety issue,” he said.

The matter, which was first reported by Reuters last month, may pose a significant challenge for Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, which is now treating the first Ebola patient to be diagnosed on U.S. soil.

Duchin said he is not aware of whether the hospital has its own incinerator or large autoclave, but if it does not, “they are going to have to find a temporary solution for managing infectious waste. That puts the hospital in a very difficult situation.”

Cynthia Quarterman, administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, which oversees dangerous shipments, said her agency is “working on how we can clarify even further for hospitals, for the public, what the appropriate transportation should be.”

Another official said that news could come within days.

The issue centers on guidance over handling Ebola-contaminated waste. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises hospitals to treat items infected with the Ebola virus in leak-proof containers and discard them as they would other biohazards that fall into the category of “regulated medical waste.”

But the DOT deems Ebola a Category A infectious agent, meaning it is capable of killing people and animals, and not “regulated medical waste,” a category in which pathogens are not capable of causing harm.

Waste management contractors who normally handle hazardous hospital waste say they cannot legally haul the material, which leaves hospitals stuck without a way to dispose of the waste.

Already the issue has created problems. When Emory University Hospital in Atlanta was preparing to care for two U.S. missionaries infected with Ebola in West Africa in its high-security biocontainment unit, their waste hauler, Stericycle, initially refused to handle it.

Bags of Ebola waste quickly began piling up until the hospital worked out the issues with the help of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said the waste management problem has not been resolved yet, but he has said previously that the CDC is meeting with officials at the DOT to resolve the matter.

Duchin said he has heard that the discussion “has been elevated at the fed to decision makers who can solve the problem.”

A DOT official said the CDC and DOT will likely issue joint guidance by next week.

Protests against a proposed waste incinerator power plant involving thousands of residents took place in southern China over two weekends in mid-September.

The demonstrations, in Boluo county, Guangdong province, were the largest yet against a project that has caused numerous smaller demonstrations since its environmental impact assessment was formally released two years ago. A government plan detailing the likely site for the plant was released in June this year, increasing opposition to the proposal.

Investment in waste incinerators is seen as a solution to the inability of China’s infrastructure to handle the mountains of trash the country produces. The number of incineration projects has risen steadily and by last year between 15% and 20% of the country’s household waste was burned. The government intends to double this to 35% by 2015.

As in Boluo, many of these projects also double as power generation plants. On the surface this seems ideal for a country that is not only the world’s largest consumer of energy but also its largest producer of rubbish, at about 300m tonnes per year. Because they generate power, the enthusiasm for waste incineration plants is also driven by financial incentives. One 2012 analysis said such plants could earn profits for up to 22 years. The Gao’antun plant in Beijing, the report said, earns up to US$16m from electricity sales annually.

Burning anger

But this energy source comes with other costs – and waste incinerator plants are meeting growing resistance. Based on my social media analysis, at least 20 projects have sparked protests across China over the past three years, although the actual number may be even higher. Protesters’ primary grievance is pollution. In Boluo, residents fear that emissions will cause cancer and that the local water source, the Dongjiang River, would be polluted. Their concerns are warranted.

Globally, the environmental impact of incinerators is somewhat debatable. In Sweden, where the government has said 99% of all household waste is recycled, of which 50% is burned at waste incineration plants to produce energy, the plants are not controversial. But in the US, proposals for new plants face significant hurdles due to opponents who argue they may worsen air pollution and harm recycling efforts.

Even if there was a consensus that such projects in well-regulated environments are safe, “well-regulated” is not guaranteed in China. Many of the country’s waste incinerators are built to extremely low standards and are run by operators who fail to properly dispose of toxic by-products. And while some facilities may be installed with the proper air-pollution control systems, these are expensive to operate and many plants do not use them. As a result, Chinese waste incinerators might serve no purpose other than to trade one waste pollution problem off for another.

Calls for transparency

In response to the recent protests, Boluo officials promised to listen to public opinion and have allowed the public three months to suggest alternative locations. However, because local residents have opposed the plant since the first public consultation period in November 2012, it seems unlikely that the new process will change things significantly.

Officials have offered guarantees to residents that the proposed plant at Boluo will be safe but residents question the government’s honesty, a situation that is indicative of a much wider issue in China: a fundamental lack of trust in officialdom. For environmental protests, much of the distrust toward government claims stems from a lack of transparency on the controversial projects.

The central government at least recognises transparency is an issue, and vice environmental minister Li Ganjie has called on local authorities to share more information with the public.

However, such “sharing” is only effective if the information is truly transparent. Boluo officials have arguably released enough information regarding the project and have gone through the motions of a public consultation process, but locals still do not trust the government’s word.

Added to this is the issue of conflicting environmental priorities between central and local government. For the central government, maintaining social stability is closely linked to the Communist Party’s legitimacy, whereas local government officials tend to prioritise social stability when it impacts on economic stability. Therefore local governments have a strong incentive to push ahead with controversial projects if they can rely on them as even a short-term source of revenue.

The ongoing events in Boluo, and similar protests elsewhere, are certainly disruptive in the short-term but their long-term effectiveness is more questionable. Even if protesters succeed in forcing a project’s suspension, they rarely force an outright cancellation. In the end the Boluo project may be relocated, possibly to an area where equally disgruntled villagers have less power. A solution of sorts, but one that leaves the fundamental issues unresolved.

The only way to persuade the public that projects such as waste incinerators do not pose environmental and health hazards is to start meeting higher standards. Perhaps this process has already started. In January this year, the government released revised emissions standards for major industries, including pollution control at municipal solid waste incineration plants.

Even so, this may not be enough to undermine unrest. Until China’s local governments prioritise the environment and social stability over short-term economic gain, the problems will persist and the proliferation of environmental protest will likely continue.