The Chairman welcomed Mr. Loh Ah Tuan,
Director of Environmental Policy & Management, Ministry of
the Environment from Singapore. While he appreciated that
Mr. Loh could not be able to attend every meeting, he welcomed
Mr. Loh to suggest issues of common interest for discussion
in future meetings.
Agenda Item 1 : The Way Forward for
Sewage Treatment for the Harbour Area
(ACE Paper 8/2001)
2. The Chairman welcomed AD(WW)/EPD
and AD(SS)/DSD to the meeting. DS(B)/EFB highlighted
to Members the Administration's initial responses to the recommendations
made by the International Review Panel (IRP) on the review
of the way forward for the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme
(SSDS) [now renamed as Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (HATS)].
He said that the Administration would strongly welcome Members'
views on the proposed way forward for HATS and invited the
Council to nominate four Members to join the Monitoring Group
to be chaired by the SEF to oversee the proposed studies and
trials.
3. The Chairman was glad to know from
Chart 1 on P.5 of the booklet "A Clean Harbour for Hong Kong"
that toxic metal loading in Victoria Harbour had reduced significantly
over the past few years. However, he was concerned about the
overall pollution loading in the Harbour and in typhoon shelters
such as the one in Causeway Bay where untreated pollutants
were seen floating.
4. AD(WW)/EPD said that it was anticipated
that toxic metal loading in the Harbour would reduce from
1.5 tonnes/day to about 600 kg/day after completion of Stage
I of the HATS. HATS's main focus had been to provide a suitable
level of treatment and disposal method for wastewater collected
from sewage system. The Administration was aware that wastewater
that discharged into storm water drains was a source of pollution
for the Harbour. EPD and DSD were working on that front through
pollution source control and engineering solutions. As regards
the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter, DDEP said and AD(SS)/DSD
confirmed that works were being undertaken in that area to
improve the sewerage system under the Sewerage Master Plan.
5. The Chairman said that the Water
Quality Objectives (WQOs) had been set some years ago. The
Administration should review them having taken into account
public aspirations for the future of the Harbour. AD(WW)/EPD
said that the consultant of the HATS had consulted the public
when the environmental impact assessment (EIA) study of HATS
was conducted. EPD would further consult the public and interest
groups on the criteria to be used in assessing the acceptability
of discharging treated effluent in the Harbour.
6. A Member recalled that according
to IRP, the marine environment of the Harbour would still
suffer from problems like algae bloom even if the WQOs were
met. He urged the Administration to revise the WQOs so as
to make the marine environment sustainable.
7. In response to a Member's question, DS(B)/EFB
said that the proposed trials and studies were necessary for
the Government to ascertain whether the BAF technology and
the IPR options were technically and economically viable,
and to address other key questions such as the availability
of land, the capital and recurrent costs and timeframe for
the constructing the system.
8. Noting that only 70% of the total sewage
would be treated by chemically enhanced primary treatment
(CEPT) upon completion of Stage I of HATS and the long time
gap between the commissioning of Stage I and the subsequent
stages of HATS, a Member was concerned about the adverse
impact caused by the sewage on the marine environment during
the interim period. DS(B)/EFB said that it was estimated
that the suspended solids loading, the biochemical oxygen
demand loading and the E. coli loading in the Harbour would
be reduced by 55%, 50% and 30% respectively after commissioning
of HATS Stage I. The Administration fully recognized that
more needed to be done to improve the marine environment and
the proposed studies were to provide solutions to this problem.
9. A Member echoed the Chairman's view
on inviting public comments on WQOs. He added that through
the consultation process, the public would then gain a better
understanding of the sewage problem and that they needed to
pay a price to achieve those objectives.
10. SEF reiterated Government's commitment
to provide proper sewage treatment for the Harbour. She pointed
out that it would be important to build a community consensus
on the way forward before we undertook further work on subsequent
stages of HATS. She hoped the Council could support the Administration's
proposal to undertake trials and studies as recommended by
the IRP. With the Council's support, approval for the necessary
funds would be sought from the Legislative Council (LegCo).
SEF also took the opportunity to invite the Council
to nominate four Members to join the monitoring group. She
added that the three local members of the IRP had also been
invited to sit on the monitoring group and the Council's representatives
could report progress made to the Council.
11. The Chairman said that the Biological
Aerated Filters (BAF) technology was new to Hong Kong and
agreed with the Government that trials should be undertaken
to test its effectiveness in treating saline sewage in Hong
Kong.
12. A Member said that the Green Power
supported the Administration's funding request for the proposed
trials and studies. In the interest of time, he urged the
Administration to work on other parts of the HATS in parallel
with the trials and studies, and plan for contingency should
it prove that the IRP recommendations were not suitable for
Hong Kong. Another two Members said that their organisations
(i.e. the Friend of the Earth and Conservancy Association
respectively) also supported the Administration's proposal
to undertake trials and studies as recommended by the IRP.
13. A Member wondered to what extent
was Hong Kong lagging behind other countries with regard to
sewage treatment. He said that the time and money invested
in HATS would only solve part of the water quality problem
in Hong Kong waters. He considered that the Government should
adopt a holistic approach to address the water pollution problem
in Hong Kong. In response, DS(B)/EFB took New York
City as a comparison and said that about 80% of the total
sewage in New York was treated by at least primary treatment.
In Hong Kong, about 70% of total sewage would be treated by
CEPT or secondary treatment after completion of HATS Stage
I. In terms of sewage treatment level, Hong Kong was not lagging
behind other developed cities. However, the fact that the
population density in Hong Kong was four times that of New
York complicated the problem. Hong Kong had been investing
very heavily in sewage infrastructure in the past 10 years.
The Government had indeed spent twice the amount invested
in HATS Stage I in sewage facilities outside the HATS catchment
area. Tremendous efforts had been put in clearing up the sewerage
infrastructure like removing expedient connections which discharged
domestic sewage through storm drains. Apart from HATS, over
HK$5 billion was earmarked for sewage programme (e.g. the
upgrading of the sewage treatment system in Shatin and North
Lantau) over the next five years.
14. A Member also supported the Administration's
proposals for the trials and studies and setting up a monitoring
group.
15. A Member expressed his support
for the proposed trials and studies. He envisaged that the
task of public education in this case would be immensely difficult.
Unless a sense of urgency to alleviate the water pollution
problem could be created in the community in the same manner
as the air quality issue, the Administration might have difficulties
in securing funding approval from the LegCo for the trials/studies.
He also urged the Administration to keep repeating the message
about the importance of treating sewage and the sense of urgency
to the public in the next two years when the studies and trials
were being conducted or else the sewage problem might become
a backburner issue.
16. In response to Members' questions, DDEP
said that the IRP noted that the CEPT plant on Stonecutters
Island was the most efficient plant of its type in the world,
and also came to the conclusion that the water quality of
the Harbour would be significantly improved after commissioning
of HATS Stage I. He said that in formulating the requirements
for the trials and studies, the Administration would bear
in mind how they could achieve early improvements. DS(B)/EFB
supplemented that apart from funding for trials and studies,
EPD would step up its efforts in promoting public awareness
in collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and the need
to improve water quality at the Harbour.
17. A Member said that the Federation of Hong
Kong Industries welcomed the Administration's expeditious
actions in cleaning up the Harbour. He also added that Hong
Kong should keep in touch with the Mainland as factories in
the Mainland, including many that were owned by Hong Kong
businessmen, had been discharging sewage and the latter could
have an impact on our water quality as well.
18. A Member felt that the Council
had a responsibility to make a strong case to support the
Administration's proposal. The Chairman said that he
would clearly express the Council's support for the Administration
at the press briefing and encouraged Members to convey the
message to LegCo Members as far as possible.
19. A Member said that since the Council
was well represented by green groups and trade organizations,
the Council's explicit support for the Government's proposed
trials/studies should be of help to the Government when it
approached the LegCo for funding for the trials/studies. The
Chairman suggested and Members agreed that the Chairman
would write on behalf of the Council to the LegCo to express
the Council's full support for the proposed trials and studies.
Members noted that the LegCo Panel on Environmental Affairs
would discuss this funding request on 3 April 2001.[Post-meeting
note : The letter was sent to the LegCo on 30 March 2001.]
20. In response to a Member's question on
LegCo the contingency plan in case BAF was proved not suitable
for Hong Kong, DS(B)/EFB said that HATS Stages III
& IV could still provide a system to collect sewage from the
rest of the Hong Kong Island for CEPT treatment at the Stonecutters
Island. If necessary, a separate tertiary treatment plant
could be built at the reserved site at Lamma Island to treat
the effluent discharged from the Stonecutters Island. However,
under such circumstances, a tunnel would be required to convey
sewage from the Stonecutters Island to Lamma Island. DDEP
pointed out that the Administration was reasonably confident
that the BAF would work in Hong Kong as proposed by the IRP.
The key question was whether we could enhance the effectiveness
of the BAF in treating saline sewage in Hong Kong to an extent
whereby all the BAF plants could be accommodated within the
limited space at the Stonecutters Island.
21. Two Members said that the sewage
charging scheme and the HATS should be dealt with separately.
One of the two Members suggested the Administration
to work out the financial implications of the IRP's recommendations
so as to present a full picture to LegCo.
22. A Member shared with Members the
Singaporean experience in cleaning a river in 1977. He said
it would be important to have the political will and support
of the community to bring a project to fruition.
23. Having regard to Members' comments, the
Chairman concluded that the Council gave unanimous support
to the Administration's proposal and urged that the trials
and studies be completed as soon as possible.
24. The Chairman asked whether the
monitoring group would be responsible for issues other than
the proposed trials and studies. A Member reckoned
that the monitoring group should focus on IRP's recommendations
only. DS(B)/EFB said that EPD and DSD were already
looking at issues like sewage from storm drains and would
report to the Council separately.
|