The Problems of Incinerators in Taiwan
George Chen, Executive Director, Taiwan Watch Institute
Herlin Hsieh, Assistant Researcher, Taiwan Watch Institute
Threaten from Burning Policy
Owing to the limited land areas and the high density of population, as well as the
long-term principle adopted by the government’s policy that the economic
development is always the first priority, Taiwan has become a linear society that has
been subjected to the values of mass consumption. Furthermore, with mass production
and mass consumption, it generates mass of waste. In order to dispose of the
unwanted and dislikeful waste, with the difficulty of finding possible sites for landfills,
and the pressure coming from garbage wars between townships that caused pile of
garbage on the street, our government decided to use the most simple and fastest way
of waste treatment to meet the urgent need of Taiwan. Hence, in 1986, on a technical
meeting held by Executives Yuan, it was decided to adopt incineration as the first
priority for waste treatment and landfills as the secondary one. And the incineration
was deemed as a long-term waste disposal method. Consequently, in 1990, a plan
called “Construction Project for MSW Resource Recovery Plants”, for building 21
large-capacity MSW incinerators, was proposed by the EPA. Again in 1996, another
plan was proposed to encourage the public owned and private enterprises to build
another 15 large capacity MSW incinerators in BOO/BOT. Hence, the EPA planned to
build a total of 36 large capacity of MSW incinerators, of which 4 plants that their
building projects have been abandoned by the government due to the great objection
from the communities. If it proceeds as the EPA’s expectation that the projects of
building 32 large capacity incinerators can be finished by 2008, then the total design
capacity of all the incinerators in Taiwan, including 11 small capacity MSW
incinerators , 17 medical waste incinerators, and 63 industrial waste incinerators, will
reach 27,300 tons per day. If the national waste generation is kept at 20,000 tons per
day, which is the current national daily waste generation, then by 2008, another
miracle will happen again in Taiwan, that is the incineration rate of waste would reach
100%, and will be another world number one.
Heavy Burden from Too Many Incinerators
We don’t have enough garbage to afford it, not to mention the sufficiency of the
money and health to afford the toxics generated by the incineration.
The “Construction Project for MSW Resource Recovery Plants” proposed by the EPA
in 1990 is based on the assumption of 5% annual growth rate of MSW, and calculated
from 1990 with a national waste generation of 18,753 tons per day that year. In this
case, the national waste generation would reach 26,378 tons/day in the year 1997. On
the other hand, not only did the annual national waste generation stop growth, but it
also decrease since 1998, from 24,331 tons per day in the year 1997 down to 19,886
tons per day in the year 2001. It shows a great discrepancy between the expectations
of the so-called “fix (already decided) policy” and the actuality. (Please refer to Table
1)
Currently there are 19 large capacity MSW incinerators in operation. The total design
capacity of these 19 incinerators is 21,000 tons per day, which is over the current
national waste generation of 19,886 tons per day. Furthermore, there are less than
9,000 tons per day of waste sent to the incinerators. It results in a surplus capacity of
12,000 tons per day, which is 29% more than the 9,300 tons per day of the general
industrial waste that was planned by the EPA for sending to the MSW incinerators for
disposal. Now many of the incinerators has been short of garbage, such as: Chayi
Lutsao (嘉義鹿草) incinerator, which has a design capacity of 900 tons per day, has
two furnace and only one of which is in operation; several months ago, Hsinchu City
(新竹市)government publicly solicit the other city government to send their garbage
to the Hisnchu incinerator; Pingtung Kenting (屏東崁頂)incinerator, with a design
capacity of 900 tons per day, only burns 600 tons per day of garbarge; neither of the
three incinerators in Taipei city do operate in full capacity, and Baitou(北投)
incinerator, one the three incinerators, only use half of its capacity to burn garbage. In
addition, the incinerators in South Kaohsiung City(高市南區)、Changhua Hsichou(彰
化溪洲)、Kaohsiung Nengwu(高雄仁武)、Kaohsiung Gangshan(高雄岡山) all have
the problems of not enough garbage for burning (Please refer to Table 2).
Official Illegal Dumping of Hazardous Ash
There will be 20% of ash left after the garbage is burned in addition to the emission of
toxins from the stack and the wastewater. Among the ashes, 90% of which is bottom
ash, 10% is the fly ash that is filtered and collected by the air pollution control devices.
No matter how strict the dioxin emission standard set by the EPA for large capacity
incinerators on August 6, 1997, which is 0.1 ng-iTEQ/Nm3, there is a lot of ash
containing high level of heavy metals and dioxins, which is sent to landfills by
authorities without proper treatment. Furthermore, the EPA revised the regulation in
order to solve the problem of the inability of many incinerators to treat the ash
properly.
The article 15 paragraph 4 of the regulation “The Methodologies and Facilities
Standard for Storage, Cleaning and Treatment of General Waste” says: “The fly ash
shall be stored and collected separately and shall not be mixed with the bottom ash.”.
The fly ash is regarded as hazardous industrious waste in this regulation and shall be
solidified and then sent to the specified landfills for the hazardous ash. But the article
20 paragraph 2 of the same regulation, which is revised on May 1999, says: “Fly ash
that is mixed with the bottom ash, is used as covering materials on the landfills with 2
layers of water proof cloth underlain and reinforced pollution control devices, is
regarded as a reuse activity.” It is revised for those incinerators without solidification
facility. Now the two conflicted paragraphs coexist in the same regulation, a very
ridiculous phenomenon.
Furthermore, the authorities never care about the fact that some of the bottom ash
examined by the TCLP(Toxic Chemicals Leaching Procedure) has exceeded the
standards and shall be regarded as hazardous industrial waste, not only the fly ash.
(Please refer to the attachments concerning the analysis reports of the incineration
ash.) They neglect the fact and ignore their responsibility of protecting the health and
safety of the people by saying that their procedure for treating the incineration ash is
in accordance with the regulation, in which the bottom ash is regarded as
non-hazardous.
Even for those incinerators with solidification facilities, their actual procedure of the
solidification is very casual. For instance, the solidified ash of the 4 incinerators in
Kaohsiung area, which is sent to Yanchao(燕巢)landfills, is so fragile that it can not
stand the slight tread of a person. According to our regulation, the solidified fly ash
shall be capable of bearing over 10 kg/cm2 (around 10 atm) of pressure, which is high
above the tread of a person. Make things more worse, around Yanchao(燕巢)landfills,
there are orchards that grows fruits such as pamgranit(芭樂) and dates(棗子). Due to
the unreliable solidification, the dioxin-contaminated dust from the crushed particles
can be transferred by rain and wind, and then severely contaminate the fruits and
crops nearby.
The incineration ash, no matter solidified or not solidified, is dumped on the landfills
without caution, and cannot reach the loose standard set by the authority. At Shulin(樹
林) landfill, where the incineration ash from the three incinerators of Taipei County
was buried, there’s no water proof cloth covering the soil, thus the incineration ash is
directly dumped on the soil. It would contaminate the soil and the underground water.
As for the ash from Baitou incinerator, the largest and newest one of the three
incinerators in Taipei City but without solidification facility, it shall be, after mixing,
used as covering materials on the landfills with 2 layers of water proof cloth underlain
and reinforced pollution control devices, according to the regulation. But it was found
that the mixed ash was not used as covering materials but buried in a specified area of
the Shanzhuku(山豬窟) landfill, with dust floating all over the air. Not only did it
violate the regulation, but it has also caused great threat to the health of the workers.
In south Tauyuan, the operator of the incinerator has been sending the incineration ash
back to each township, which doesn’t have any ability to dispose of the incinerator, by
the ratio of the waste they send to the incinerator. The result is that the incineration
ash has been dumped all over the county.
Smuggling of Hazardous Waste into the MSW Incinerator
MSW incinerator is designed to burn the household waste, which component is
simple, not so much toxic; the pollution generated is less severe. But the EPA allows
the non-hazardous industrious waste to be burned in the MSW incinerators, it opens a
way for the hazardous industrious waste to be smuggled into the MSW incinerator
because it is impossible for operators to check so many garbage trucks in detail to see
if there’s hazardous industrious waste mixed inside. It would create severe
environmental pollution. In December 2001, some of the residents in Baitou(北投), as
they cannot stand the stink from the incinerator in almost every night, made an
un-notified inspection of the garbage trunk and found some medical waste was mixed
inside.
Further, the EPA made an excuse for building more MSW incinerators by claiming
that the 19 MSW incinerators has been operated in full capacity, based on a
calculation of summing up the total quantities of the household waste and industrial
waste. In this way, taxpayer have to pay money for building incinerators that is
actually for the disposal of the waste generated by the industries, which, according to
the regulation, shall be paid by the industries themselves. Isn’t it an official collusion
with the business?
Shrinking the Budget for the Incineration Alternatives
The EPA has been repeatedly saying that their waste management policy of current
stage is recycling, reduction (both are just cloaks) and “incineration”(it is the point).
However, after years past, we could not find there’s any change in the 1986’s waste
treatment policy, that is, the first priority of the EPA’s consideration is still
incineration. In less than 12 years, they has built nearly 20 large capacity MSW
incinerators, consumed nearly 100 billion NT$ (=3 billion USD) of the taxpayer’s
money. But for the promotion of composting, one of the important incineration
alternatives, there is still not a complete program, such as the standard models of the
composting system for the urban area and the rural area. They have only been
budgeting 200 or 300 millions NT$ (6 or 9 million UD$) each year for all the local
governments’ composting programs. With so many programs to share the budget,
there’s not so much left for each program. Under this circumstance, plus the lack of
thoughtful executing program, the local governments have only been muddling
through their work. Hence, the taxpayers’ precious money was consumed without
efficiency.
In the “National Environmental Protection Program”, there are only 2 or 3 sentences
describing how they will promote the treatment of the compostable that is over 25%
(weight percent) of the household garbage. On the contrary, there are several pages
describing how they will promote the building of incinerators. In addition, there are
action plans and building programs that make the incineration policy implemented.
As for the resource recycling, there is a Resource Recycling Management Fund setup
by the EPA, which is suffering a loss due to the poor management. For instance, this
fund raises money from PET bottle makers and importers according to the quantities
of PET bottles they have input to the markets, and then subsidize the recyclers based
on the quantities of the PET bottles they have recycled. Now the PET bottles recycled
are more than the PET bottles input into the market, thus cause a loss to fund. Facing
this problem, the EPA decided to cancel the subsidy for PET bottles, without
considering improving the real flaws in this practice. Not only does it threat the
livelihood of the people relying on the subsidies of PET bottles recycling, but it will
also reduce the recycling rate of PET bottles. Is it because there are so many
incinerators eager for garbage, the recycling rate is not the point anymore? We cannot
help but suspect that it maybe the real consideration behind the decision of the EPA.
We remembered in 2001, when the incumbent head of EPB (environmental protection
bureau) of Taipei City, Mr. S.H Shen, went with the Taipei City mayor Mr. E.J. Ma to
visit the South Korea. When he is asked about the impression of the large-scale plan
of collecting the organics for composting in South Korea, he boasted of the large
capacity of the incinerators in Taipei that he didn’t have to worry about the treatment
of the compostable.
A Dirty Collusion with the Syndicate
When there was news that the incinerators in Kaohsiung were competing for the
garbage by reducing the charge of the treatment cost, the EPA claimed that the
deficiency of garbage was not the problem of burning policy, but a result of the
garbage market; In other word, the EPA still persist in the burning policy, and will
finish the building of the total 32 MSW incinerators by the year 2008; then Taiwan
would become the world number one burning country with incineration rate higher
than 90%.
The “fix” burning policy set up many preferences to attract the investment of the
syndicates. The 20 years contract to guarantee the definite amount of garbage is to
guarantee the income of the business for 20 years, the refund of all the investment
cost, as well as a quite high profit. The bid for the Yulin Linnai (雲林林內)
incinerator with 600 tons/day of capacity was won by Daho company in 2001. In this
company’s financial planning proposal, they estimated the pre-tax net profit during
the operating period of 20 years would reach 4.47 billion NT$ (around 135.5 million
US$), that is, 223.5 million NT$ every year, while the bid they won was 5.96 billion
NT$, of which 3.01 billion NT$ was construction cost.
Let’s take another examples. Meilong(美濃) township has to provide 50 tons of
guaranteed garbage to the Meilong small-capacity MSW incinerators, which charges
3,715 ND$ per ton for treatment cost. But now the actual amount of garbage from
Meilong is less than 35 tons, that is, they have to pay the additional treatment cost of
more than 15 tons per day continuously for 4 years; but the operator of a nearby
incinerator, Nengwu (仁武) large-capacity MSW incinerator, they not only didn’t
charge the treatment cost, but they also pay back to the Kaohsiung county government
147 ND$ for each tons of garbage treated. Both the incinerators mentioned above
belonged to the Kaohsiung County. If the government think that the garbage has to be
incinerated, why don’t they send the Meilong township’s garbage to the Nengwu
incinerator?
Furthermore, in the contract of the under-construction Taidong MSW incinerator,
which is designed with capacity of 300 tons per day for the garbage from both
Taidong City and Taidong County, the guaranteed amount of garbage from Taidong
City is 167 tons per day, while their actual amount of garbage is less than 100 tons per
day. If this incinerator is built, then during the 20 years of operating period, they have
to pay an additional treatment cost of 67 tons per day, with the treatment cost charged
2300 NT$ per ton. That is, they have to waste 154,100 NT$ per day, which equals to
56.25 million NT$ per year, or 1.12493 billion for 20 years.
When the syndicates win the bid for the incinerators, under the guaranteed contract,
they don’t have to worry about the raising of money for the building and operation.
Within 20 years of contract period, no matter how the market varies, the money will
flow in continuously. Isn’t it a governmental guarantee that the syndicates can legally
“rob” the taxpayer of their hard-working money? This policy is a “guarantee” to the
syndicates, but a “ tyranny” for the people.
Sustainable Burning Policy
Before the planning and construction of the incinerators, the government should have
known there will be 20% or 30% incineration ash left; and even the EPA secretary
manager Mr. Y.N.Chen has pointed out, that according to the judge of USA supreme
court, the incineration ash shall be regarded as hazardous industrious waste.
Especially the fly ash is public recognized as containing high level of dioxins and
heavy metals. But in the stage of the planning and construction, they didn’t consider
and assess carefully the impact of the incineration ash at all, and the EPA pretended
not see that the incinerators construction authorities or vendors didn’t attach the
industrious waste disposal proposal for the approval of the local government before
the application to the EPA for building the incinerator. It is a violation of the
regulation. Now all the incinerators didn’t follow the regulation during the stage of
EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment). The EPA, as the direct supervision authority,
obviously has neglected its duty by not correcting the violation of the construction
authorities and vendors in the long-term.
And now the EPA tell us that they have to treat the ash properly after building so
many incinerators. In May 2002, it was reported that the EPA would budget 15 billion
NT$ (We believe it is an initial budget) for a incineration ash separation plant and a
fly ash melting plant in each county with incinerators, in order to merchandise the fly
ash and bottom ash. What a “sustainable” burning policy. In their logics, because
mass of waste is produced, thus a lot of incinerators shall be built. And then a lot of
ash is produced, which would cause a secondary environmental pollution, hence the
facilities for disposal of the ash shall be built.
The EPA’s decision in the waste management is guided by the business, at first, they
told us the incinerator is “resource recycling plant” that can generate electricity, and
then, they told us the incineration ash can be merchandized. In their consideration,
there would be a lot of money flowing in. It’s a sustainable burning policy. Who must
be mournful, is us the taxpayer, that the hard-working money has been wasted and
sucked into the purses of the syndicates and the foreign consortium.
We have to ask: Is the EPA’s burning policy to punish the people who are responsible
in the waste reduction, and to encourage people to generate more garbage to afford the
incinerators?
Table 1：Statistics of Garbage Generation in Taiwan
Years Actual Value
Predicted Value
Annual
Daily
Daily
Annual Annual
Garbage Garbage Garbage Growth Garbage
Generation Generation Generation Rate Generation
(MT)
(MT)
Per person
(MT)
(kg)
19801
8,736
0.60
19812
9,761
0.63
1982
10,589
0.65
1983
11,0742
0.662
19842
11,725
0.67
2
1985
13,233
0.74
19862
13,954
0.77
3.61
2
14,475
0.78
2.00
2
1988
16,116
0.86
9.51
19892
17,147
0.90
4.18
2
1990
18,753
0.96
7.48
1991
19,8332
1.002
3.86
19922
21,861
1.09
8.68
2
1993
24,549
1.10
1.25
19942
24,797
1.12
1.84
2
23,857
1.14
1.47
4
1996
23,870
1.135
-0.26
19974
24,331
1.143
0.77
19984
24,330
1.135
-0.75
19994
23,468
1.082
-4.63
2000
21,5324
0.9774
-9.724
0.895
-8.39
2
1987
1995
20015 7,258,236 19,886
Daily
Daily
Garbage Garbage
Generation Generation
(MT)
Per person
(kg)
11,0743
0.663
20,0003
0.953
8,340,0006 22,855.46 1.126
26,3877
10,640,0006 29,1696
1.436
28,0003
12,320,0006 33,7676
1.203
1.656
Data Resouce：
1. 《環境保護新論》，莊進源(1984 年衛生署環保局長)，1993，P199
2. 《環境保護統計年報》
，環保署，1996，P168
3. 《都市垃圾處理方案》
，經建會，1984，P2
*三.一 垃圾量之成長：今後二十年，台灣地區垃圾清運量平均每年成長約為 5.3%。 P3
*肆、基本政策 四 …….. 惟在都市化地區，人口已達 30 萬以上者，宜設置焚化爐。 P5
4. 《環境保護統計年報》
，環保署，2001，P2-118
5. 《資源回收四合一計畫執行成果》
，2002，環保署廢管處提供
6. 《環境保護年鑑》，1993，環保署，表 4-2-3，P214
7. 《 台 灣 地 區 垃 圾 資 源 回 收 廠 興 建 工 程 計 劃 》 ， 1990， 環 保 署 ， P2
Table 2: The Operating Data of Incinerators in Taiwan
Garbage
The location of
Incinerated Incineration
Ash
Electricity
Produced
Generated
The rate of
Electricity that Design LHV
Incinerators
(MT)
Rate (%)
(MT)
(kw-hr)
was sold (%)
(kcal/kg)
台北市木柵
24102
67.51%
3635
6224.9
53.59%
1600
台北市內湖
13879
64.79%
2181
3060
44.25%
1350
台北市北投
30874
72.07%
6640
13792.94
67.39%
2400
台中市南屯
17439
81.41%
3533
7437.04
78.52%
1500
台南市安南
18288
85.38%
3212
8470.8
61.97%
1600
收廠
16340
76.28%
2649
6121.74
57.43%
1400-2400
高雄市南區
31645
73.87%
7596
18529.68
74.96%
2500
台北縣新店
19849
92.67%
3285
9823.3
78.92%
1552
台北縣樹林
29074
90.49%
5734
14883.4
81.89%
1553
桃園縣
37212
115.82%
12317
19999.8
88.24%
2300
嘉義市
6547
91.69%
1062
1631.1
68.02%
1350
台中縣后里
22874
106.79%
5508
14215.4
83.69%
2300
源回收(焚化廠
19045
88.91%
4651
10247.7
75.07%
2300
新竹市
18725
87.42%
2721
11216.54
78.24%
2300
高雄縣岡山
12435
38.70%
3109
5637
69.47%
2500
高雄縣仁武
13537
42.13%
3248
7807.2
79.49%
2300
屏東縣崁頂
20215
94.37%
4765
10828.8
75.85%
1540
台北縣八里
37353
116.26%
6280
22198.01
83.76%
2305
嘉義縣鹿草鄉
12350
57.66%
3738
4940.1
71.37%
2500
高雄市中區資源回
彰化縣溪州垃圾資