8. A Member
said that the screeching noise from trams when approaching
a station was annoying and asked whether the proposed standards
would help improve the situation. In response, PEPO(NP)/EPD
explained that the proposals would be applied to newly registered
motor vehicles only. However, the Administration was aware
of the problem mentioned by Mr. Lau and had been liaising
with the Hong Kong Tramways Limited (HKTL) on possible improvement
measures. PAS(C)1/EFB supplemented that the major source
of tram noise came from frictions with the tracks. The HKTL
had implemented improvement measures like smoothening the
joints on the track and spraying water on sharp bends. He
said that a copy of SEF's recent reply to a question related
to tram noise raised by a LegCo Member would be sent to Members
for reference.
9. A Member
said that noise nuisance was also created by air brakes of
trucks. The situation would be particularly bad when a number
of trucks were queuing. PEPO(NP)/EPD explained that
the present proposal dealt with noise emitted by vehicle engines
and tyres only. As regards excessive noise generated by air
brakes, he said that EPD could follow up with the Transport
Department (TD) and the trade on the possibility of improving
the situation. Another Member said that the noise created
by the air brake of trucks had been reducing with improvements
in vehicle design.
10. A Member
asked about the life expectancy of the current fleet of public
light buses (PLBs). He also enquired about the estimated noise
reduction to be brought about by the present proposal. In
reply, PEPO(NP)/EPD said that the normal life expectancy
of a PLB was seven to ten years. Based on some literature
in Japan, noise reduction of about 1dBA could be expected
over five to ten years' time as a result of improvements in
vehicle design.
11. A Member
said that the noise made by PLBs was particularly annoying
in the early morning. The Chairman asked if the Administration
could make it a requirement that PLB operators had to use
vehicles with automatic gearbox as such vehicles were quieter.
Another Member said that vehicles with automatic gearboxes
were indeed quieter, but that the major road noise in fact
came from tyre friction with the road surface. PAS(C)1/EFB
said that apart from the natural phasing out of old vehicle
models, proper driving habits could also reduce noise nuisance.
TD could remind the transport trade through their regular
liaison meetings with the trade associations.
12. A Member
was in support of the proposed amendments. He asked about
the comparison of the new and existing standards with regard
to heavy vehicles. He also enquired how the vehicle noise
level was measured. In reply, PEPO(NP)/EPD referred
to Japanese large goods vehicles as an example and said that
the existing noise standard was 83dBA whereas the new standard
would be 80-81dBA depending on the exact type of vehicle.
As for the measurement of the noise level, he said it followed
internationally recognized testing methodology in which the
vehicle under test would run in conditions simulating movement
in urban traffic.
13. A Member
said that in view of the economic hardship experienced by
Hong Kong, it was not the right time to introduce new standards
which would have financial burden on vehicle manufacturers.
He considered that noise reduction should be achieved through
other measures like better road design. In response, PAS(C)1/EFB
said that the Government would consider the potential economic
impacts of any policy proposal before implementation. In the
present case, the Administration was following the standards
already adopted in major vehicle manufacturing countries.
He agreed that the Administration should continue to explore
other means to reduce road noise. In this regard, the Administration
had briefed Members on a package of measures that dealt with
the noise impacts of existing roads.
14. A Member
welcomed the proposal. She asked about the monitoring mechanism
on the compliance of standards and actions to be taken upon
receiving complaints from the public. Another Member
said that since the newly imported vehicles would comply with
the proposed standards, the Administration should pay more
attention to abating noise pollution from in-use vehicles.
He pointed out that the mufflers of some vehicles were illegally
modified and emitted very loud noises.
15. PAS(C)1/EFB
explained that noise emission standards for new vehicles were
enforced through the type-approval process. As regards in-use
vehicles, all commercial vehicles and older petrol vehicles
were subject to annual inspections by the Transport Department.
Also, the Police would be responsible for carrying out on-street
enforcement actions against vehicles with illegally modified
mufflers.
16. DEP
supplemented that in countries where fitting of non-standard
noisy mufflers was a major problem, the authorities would
introduce legislation to ban the sale of the noisy equipment
or vehicle parts. At present, he did not think that this had
become a significant problem in Hong Kong. Further action
could be considered if the problem became a genuine concern
of the community at large.
17. A Member
said that the legislation on noise control in Japan and Europe
was not in any way more advanced than that in Hong Kong. He
suggested that it might be possible to install noise meters
at specific locations to detect non-compliance of noise emission
from vehicles passing by. In response, DEP said that
measuring noise emission from a particular vehicle in the
stream of traffic would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
He had worked on the design of such tests some years ago and
was convinced that it was not practicable.
18. Noting that
it would take up to 10 years to phase out the existing vehicle
fleet, a Member was concerned that the reduction in
noise would be offset by the increase in the number of vehicles
during the period. He was in support of expediting the implementation
of the proposal despite the current economic hardship. Another
Member clarified that the number of vehicles had not been
increasing as fast as one might think and many in-use vehicles
already complied with the proposed standards. The remaining
problem was to find a suitable and a quieter engine for PLBs.
He noted that a new Euro III turbo engine was being tested
in Europe and hoped it could reduce the noise problem.
19. The Chairman
concluded that the Council was in favour of the proposal.
Agenda Item
4 : Water Pollution Control Ordinance, Chapter 358 - Proposed
Amendments to the Technical Memorandum on Effluent Standards
(ACE Paper 40/2001)
20. The Chairman
welcomed PAS(B)1/EFB, AD(WW)/EPD and SEPO(WP)/EPD to the meeting.
AD(WW)/EPD briefed Members on the proposed amendments.
21. In response
to the Chairman, AD(WW)/EPD confirmed that apart from
an introductory briefing on the proposed amendments, a number
of meetings had been convened for different groups of stakeholders.
During one of those meetings, the catering industry made a
counter proposal to further relax oil & grease standards for
discharges of less than 100 m3/day. Such a view was supported
by academics and wastewater treatment professionals. EPD considered
the proposal acceptable and included it in the present package.
22. SEF
noted that the bleaching & dyeing trade had objected to the
proposal to extend the case-by-case assessment to flows between
1,000 m3/day and 6,000 m3/day. She enquired about the effect
of the proposal on the trade. AD(WW)/EPD pointed out
that the proposed revision would not be a problem for a new
factory because the operator would seek technical assistance
and expert advice during the setting up process. However,
for existing factories, the case-by-case assessment might
bring uncertainties on the additional investment required
of their wastewater treatment facilities. In view of that,
the Authority would not change the standards on existing factories
when their licence was renewed for the first time after the
new TM came into operation. That would allow sufficient lead-time
for the licensees to adjust their facilities if necessary.
23. On SEF's follow-up
questions, AD(WW)/EPD said that a licence was valid
for five years and there were about 10 to 20 bleaching & dyeing
factories which discharged effluents of over 1,000 m3 per
day.
24. A Member
was in support of the proposed amendments but he noted that
the nutrient standards would be tightened significantly. He
urged the Authority to provide assistance to small enterprises
to enable them to comply with the revised standards. AD(WW)/EPD
said that a similar point was raised during the consultation
stage and EPD had already taken that into account when coming
up with the present proposal. The new standards would affect
mainly the discharges from private sewage treatment plants
of residential development. While application of the new standards
would be considered for existing discharges, ample time would
be allowed on a case-by-case basis for the plant upgrading.
25. A Member
pointed out that more and more factories were moving out of
Hong Kong. He said that the Government should assist small
manufacturing enterprises rather than tightening the effluent
standards which might increase their operating costs as a
result. In response, AD(WW)/EPD explained that the
new proposal would not necessarily tighten the standards.
In fact, some standards that were relevant to small enterprises
would be relaxed. In addition, the Authority had organized
more than 20 seminars to explain the proposed requirements
to the trade concerned and help them to comply with the new
standards. DS(B)/EFB supplemented that the Administration
did appreciate the economic hardship of the community in general
but at the same time there was a need to fulfill environmental
obligations. He emphasized that in adjusting the standards,
the Administration had taken into account the views of the
stakeholders to reduce their difficulties, if any, in complying
with the revised standards.
26. A Member
commented that the tightening of standards for discharging
total suspended solids, chemical Oxygen demand and surfactants
on the one hand and the relaxation on the discharge of petroleum
hydrocarbon to sewers on the other was a good example of balancing
environmental improvement with commercial viability. He said
that operators of petrol filling stations might not even be
aware of the impacts of discharging harmful substances into
the sewers and hence there was a need to educate them. In
Australia and other countries, the government provided petrol
filling stations with separate collection bins for ethylene
glycol which could be recycled. He asked the Authority to
give some thoughts to such practice as a further means to
improve the water quality in the territory.
27. A Member
supported the proposal but cautioned that it might not be
the right time for implementation when the community as a
whole was facing an economic downturn. In response, AD(WW)/EPD
said that the stakeholders considered the proposal acceptable
in general. The catering trade even welcomed the proposal
because the oil & grease standards would be relaxed.
28. A Member
said that Green Power and he personally supported the proposal.
There was no doubt that some trades would be under pressure
to upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities but the ultimate
outcome of the proposal would be beneficial to the environment
in particular to the fisheries industry. However, he was a
little bit disappointed that only the TM would be amended
because in his view the definition of water pollution should
be elaborated more clearly in the Ordinance to avoid disputes.
In response, AD(WW)/EPD said that he was not in a position
to comment on the point about the definition of water pollution
because a court case was under trial at the moment. However,
he said that the Authority was reviewing the Water Pollution
Control Ordinance in the light of past experience.
29. A Member
said that it was high time to review the effluent standards
having regard to the changes in industries operating in Hong
Kong. Simplifying the grouping of receiving waters would have
positive impacts on the water quality of the territory. She
supported the proposal despite the economic downturn and felt
strongly that the interest of the trades concerned should
not override the general living environment of Hong Kong.
She enquired how much further the metal loadings in the discharged
effluent was expected to drop, and whether any risk assessment
had been carried out to ensure that the slight relaxation
of the standards would not have any adverse impact on the
water quality.
30. In reply to
a Member's questions, AD(WW)/EPD said that the metal
loading had been significantly reduced from 7000 kg/day to
the present level of 500 kg/day. Upon commissioning of Stage
1 of the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme, he would expect another
100-200 kg/day reduction, but the precise figure would depend
on the performance of the chemically enhanced primary treatment.
He said that the standards were adopted taking into account
its effect on the marine environment and the slight relaxation
was unlikely to have an adverse impact on the water quality.
31. The Chairman
said that the proposal had balanced the interest of the community
and the stakeholders as a whole and trusted that the standards
would be fine-tuned as changes took place. He concluded that
the Council was generally in support of the proposal.
Agenda Item
5 : Briefing on Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line(ACE
Paper 41/2001)
32. The Chairman
welcomed DS(1)/TB and SD(CP)/KCRC and their presentation team
to the meeting. DS(1)/TB gave a brief introduction
on the new tunnel option of the Spur Line followed by a detailed
description of the project by SD(CP)/KCRC and EM/KCRC.
33. A Member
praised the project proponent for the quick action to work
out a new option for the Spur Line as the congestion at Lo
Wu had further deteriorated. He asked about the completion
date of the project and whether the fares would be increased
due to the expenses incurred for the appeal. In reply, SD(CP)/KCRC
said that the EIA report was expected to be finalized and
submitted to the Director of Environmental Protection by the
end of the year. If the report was approved and the environmental
permit obtained around March or April 2002 and all went on
smoothly, it was anticipated that the project would be completed
by 2007 with a possibility for an early completion by the
end of 2006. As regards fares, they would be set at a competitive
level as compared with other forms of transport. Regarding
the congestion at Lo Wu, DS(1)/TB said that the Administration
would, before the completion of the Spur Line, carry out measures
to relieve the situation. Measures would include prolonging
the opening hours of the border crossing and increasing the
manpower of the Immigration Department. However, the long-term
solution would be to provide another border crossing between
Shenzhen and Hong Kong.
34. The Chairman
observed that the process of checking identification at the
side of the Mainland appeared to be faster. He asked whether
the Administration could speed up the checking process at
the Hong Kong side. In reply, DS(1)/TB said that the
issue was within the remit of the Security Bureau. He considered
an additional border crossing the ultimate solution.
35. A Member
asked whether the affected fishponds in Lok Ma Chau would
be retained as fishponds or enhanced as wetland. In reply,
EM/KCRC said that the existing commercial fishponds
had limited attraction to the majority of birds. The KCRC
would change the character of the ponds to enhance their values
as habitats for birds and other species. In reply to that
Member's follow-up question, SD(CP)/KCRC confirmed
that KCRC would take up the responsibility of maintaining
and managing the 28.5 ha of wetland compensation area.
36. A Member
considered it more appropriate and effective for AFCD to take
over the management of the wetland compensation area. In response,
SD(CP)/KCRC said that they had undertaken to keep the
compensation area in satisfactory environmental conditions
and they always welcomed advice and suggestions from the Administration
in that respect. AD(Cons)/AFCD supplemented that KCRC's
commitment was in line with the polluter-pays principle.
37. The Chairman
asked from the public education's point of view, whether it
would be possible for the public to gain access to the enhanced
wetland area. SD(CP)/KCRC said that it would be difficult
because the wetland was located within the closed area. To
gain access, the public would require a permit issued by the
Police. However, KCRC intended to design the train terminal
in such a way that passengers could view the area from the
station. AD(Cons)/AFCD supplemented that access to
the wetland area was also controlled under the Wild Animals
Protection Ordinance. As far as conservation education was
concerned, he informed Members that AFCD had completed phase
I of the Hong Kong Wetland Park project. An exhibition pavilion
was open to the public free of charge in December 2000.
38. A Member
thanked TB and KCRC for the briefing. However, he had doubts
on the purpose of the briefing and the implications of Members'
comments on the EIA study which was being undertaken. The
Chairman clarified that the briefing only provided an
opportunity for Members to voice out their concerns at an
early stage of the project. The discussion would not pre-empt
the Council's decision on the EIA report when it was formally
submitted under the statutory EIA process.
39. A Member
was concerned as to whether KCRC could obtain sufficient land
for the wetland compensation area. He considered that Members
would have more confidence in the proposed mitigation measures
if KCRC could demonstrate their adequacy in the EIA report.
In response, SD(CP)/KCRC said that compared to the
previous report, the new EIA report would include far more
information and present a comprehensive picture of the proposed
option to the public.
40. The Chairman
recalled that he had requested KCRC to provide the Council
with a list of questions raised by DEP with regard to the
previous EIA report. He asked whether the list could also
be made available to interested parties such as the academics
who might use it as a case study. In reply, SD(CP)/KCRC
said that he had no problem with the request provided that
DEP would consent to it. He pointed out that the information
which had been made open during the appeal was already in
the public domain.
41. A Member
expressed concern that similar to the last EIA study, KCRC
only provided one option in building the Spur Line. She hence
doubted whether the present option was the result of a fair
re-assessment. While noting the success in using the tunnel-boring
machine for the construction of the West Rail, she queried
whether a risk assessment had been undertaken to ascertain
its suitability for the Spur Line project in view of the different
earth conditions of the two locations. She also asked how
the increase of HK$2 billion in the project estimate was worked
out and how KCRC could ensure that violations of the environmental
permit conditions as in the case of the West Rail would not
occur again. Finally, she asked when detailed information
such as the findings of the ecological studies could be made
available to the concerned groups at an early stage.
42. In response
to that Member's questions, SD(CP)/KCRC said that when
conducting the first EIA study, the viaduct option was considered
the most reasonable and practical option for the Spur Line.
As more information had been collected over the last two years,
he assured Members that the re-assessment of the project would
be a fair one and that the proposed option was the best one
after taking into account all relevant considerations. As
for the tunnel boring methodology, SD(CP)/KCRC said
that KCRC had tailor-made a hydrological modeling for the
Spur Line project and details would be included in the EIA
report. Regarding the revised cost estimate, he explained
that the increase was due to the excavation works for the
tunnel and the volume of materials to be disposed as well
as the greater volume of concrete, etc. They could provide
detailed figures if needed.
43. EM/KCRC
clarified that KCRC had not violated any permit conditions
in the case of the West Rail. There were only incidents in
which their contractors did not dispose of certain waste materials
properly. In future, the KCRC would tighten the contract conditions
on disposal of waste materials. EM/KCRC further said
that the original EIA data which were still valid for the
new option would be re-visited in the light of new information
available. He assured Members that all relevant information
would be included in the EIA report for public scrutiny.
44. A Member
said that if relevant information could be made available
before the completion of the EIA report, problems could be
identified and resolved earlier thereby smoothening the statutory
consultation process. In response, SD(CP)/KCRC undertook
to consult the EIA Subcommittee on the preliminary findings
of the EIA study at an early stage.
45. The Chairman
agreed that subject to the views of DEP, discussion at an
early stage would smoothen the EIA process. DEP responded
that he had no objection to the proponent having an informal
discussion with the Subcommittee before the submission of
the EIA report.
46. A Member
pointed out the importance of maintaining the transparency
of information and having early dialogues with interest groups.
He suggested the proponent to consult the Bird Watching Society
(BWS) as the project went along. SD(CP)/KCRC said that
they had already briefed all interest groups including the
BWS.
47. In response
to a Member's concern about where the excavated materials
of the tunnel would be disposed of, SD(CP)/KCRC said
that upon the advice of the Civil Engineering Department,
most of the spoils would be used in the Tseung Kwan O Reclamation.
48. In response
to a Member's enquiry, EM/KCRC said that upon receiving
the environmental permit for the project, KCRC would start
creating the wetland compensation area. They would create
the wetland on a progressive basis starting farthest away
from the construction site. The target was to create about
10 ha of wetland before the construction works for the Lok
Ma Chau station would commence.
49. The Chairman
thanked the presentation team and looked forward to receiving
the EIA report as soon as possible.[The presentation team
left the room at this juncture.]
50. A Member
asked whether the Government had a long-term conservation
policy for Long Valley. The Chairman shared that Member's
concern having regard to the future development of the North
West New Territories. In response, DS(C)/EFB said that
EFB was reviewing the nature conservation policy and measures.
The focus of the review was on whether the existing measures
were effective in providing adequate protection over sites
of high ecological value including those that fell within
private land. As land matters such as landowners' development
rights and the land use planning systems were involved, EFB
would need to examine the issues thoroughly in conjunction
with other bureaux/departments concerned like the Planning
and Lands Bureau and the Planning Department.
51. Noting that
there were patches of private land in Long Valley, a Member
asked whether there were means to prevent damage to those
sites. DS(C)/EFB said that those private lots were
mainly zoned as agricultural land. The owners would have to
apply to the Town Planning Board if they wished to change
the land use. A Member remarked that there was at present
no agricultural policy in Hong Kong. It would be about time
for the Government to consider this issue in greater detail.
52. The Chairman
said that the issue would be a matter of sustainable development.
He asked whether there was a more definite timing for the
inception of the Sustainable Development Council. In response,
DS(C)/EFB said that sustainable development was within
the schedule of the Chief Secretary of Administration but
not EFB. As far as he was aware, it was likely that the Council
for Sustainable Development would be set up by the end of
the year.
Agenda Item
6 : Any Other Business
Meeting with
Mr. Haakma, Consul-General of the Netherlands on 30 October
2001
53. The Chairman
informed the meeting that two Members and he had met Mr. Haakma
on that morning to discuss about the Council's visit to Europe
in August. The topics discussed included the work of EIA Commission
in the Netherlands, the E-test, cross-border pollution, environmental
education and the polluter-pays principle.
Report on ACE's
visit to Europe
|