Japans incinerators still stoke concerns

From the name and appearance of the Asahi Clean Center building, one would have no inkling as to what lies beneath.

Asahi - which means 'morning sun' in Japanese - is actually a municipal waste incineration facility located in Kawaguchi city, which neighbours Tokyo city.

The facility is owned by Kawaguchi city, and Ebara Corporation was given the contract to build and operate it. The city is paying an annual 'operation fee' to Ebara.

According to Greenpeace Japan campaigner, Junichi Sato, Kawaguchi city was paid to 'buy' the facility from Ebara because the central government subsidised 99 percent of the total cost of the facility.

Hence the economics is: government decides to build it, taxpayers did not have a say but pay a bomb for it, and Ebara reaps the profits for building and operating it.

Where is the remaining one percent coming from?

Generating income

As indicated by the official there, a loan is involved. Since a loan has to be serviced, the facility is expected to generate income. The next question is how?

Asahi Clean Center is supposed to use the excessive energy to heat up waters in a community swimming pool, public bath and saunas that are located right next to the incinerator within the same building.

However, statistics shows that the public amenities are under-utilised. The incinerator is also supposed to profit from selling electricity generated by the steam turbine heated by the incinerator.

When visitors to the 'clean center' asked how much is the income from the electricity sale. The official, guiding the tour, did not provide a definite answer. So, if the facility cannot generate enough money to service the loan, who will end up paying for a facility owned by a city?

One of the reasons why the incinerator was built is because Kawaguchi city had a serious pollution problem due to the operation of about 3,000 small furnaces around the city. The small furnaces served as a waste disposal for the small and medium industries in the city.

They are now banned (since last year) and the refuse is delivered to the giant incinerator.

The Asahi Clean Center incinerates 420 tonnes of rubbish a day, using the fluidised-bed gasification and ash-melting technology, the same technology proposed for the incinerator in Broga, Semenyih.

There is no doubt that the incinerator burns more efficiently than those small furnaces but exhaust released through the funnel still contains dust, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and dioxin.

The official brochure claimed that the emission is within the acceptable level.

However, there is no continuous monitoring of the emission of dioxin and other chemicals. Ebara only checks four times a year and they claim that they have done more than enough, as the law requires only two inspections a year.

But locals argue that the legal requirement is appalling. The best practice now is in Belgium where samples are taken every two weeks, hence 26 times a year.

Asked why Ebara is not using the Belgium method that will yield more accurate answers to assure public safety, the official said it is too expensive. This a clear sign of a corporation putting profits before public health.

Even while Ebara is operating within a legal boundary, there are still numerous issues. Does Malaysia have such a law to begin with?

The official seemed to focus on the 'cleanliness' of the facility by highlighting filtering devices i.e. wet scrubber (to remove hydrogen chloride, sulphur oxide and mercury), bag filter (to remove dust), and selective catalytic reactor (to remove nitric acid and dioxin).

However, according to Greenpeace's Junichi Sato, they did not mention what will happen to those toxic compounds collected. He indicated that there are no devices to stop evaporating heavy metals and the bag filters will be put back to the burner to be incinerated again.

The fluidised-bed gasification and ash-melting technology involves combustion in two stages. First stage is the low temperature combustion (500 to 600 degrees celcius) in the fluidised-bed gasification furnace where aluminium and ferrous is recovered in non-oxidised form.

The ashy gas with dioxin created at the first stage is sent to the circular type ash-melting furnace, which burns at 1350 degrees celsius.

The official brochure claimed that dioxin is "greatly" reduced by the combustion and the melted ash is recovered as slag. The toxicity of the slag was not mentioned but it was stated that it will be recycled as supplementary asphalt for road paving work etc.

Meanwhile the heavy metals contained in the fly ash are 'stabilised' and solidified using cement and 'a' chemical agent. The solidified fly ash will then be sent to landfills.

According to Junichi Sato, the official claim was that "the hazardous materials are captured inside of the slag, and do not come out."

This is dubbed as a big issue at the moment, and the civil society is demanding for more information to ensure the safety of the by-products.

The above clearly shows that the technology was still under scrutiny by the civil society in Japan. From basic economics and public safety, to complex technical issues, it remains a technology trying to prove itself to be the 'clean' solution.

Shouldn't Malaysia wait until it is proven safe and, while waiting, do something to reduce and recycle municipal waste to minimise the stress to the public and the environment?

If the authorities cannot put their act together, it is time for the local communities to take action to prove that alternatives are possible before it is too late.