18. In response to the Chairman's enquiry,
DS(C)/EFB undertook to re-circulate the paper on the
progress of the work done by the Joint Working Group on Sustainable
Development and Environmental Protection.
19. The Chairman concluded that the
Council supported the proposal.
Agenda Item 5 : Update on the Progress
of the Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International
Airport
(ACE Paper 50/2001)
20. The Chairman welcomed GM(AF)/AA
and his presentation team to the meeting. GM(AF)/AA
briefed Members on the updates of the site selection for the
permanent aviation fuel facility (PAFF). He said that a visit
to Tuen Mun Area 38 and other relevant sites would be arranged
for Members in due course if they were interested.
21. The Chairman said that, based on
the information presented, he would agree that Tuen Mun Area
38 would be the most suitable site for the PAFF. However,
he asked if the possibility of using the ash lagoons of the
China Light and Power Co Ltd for the PAFF had been explored.
In response, GpM(AF)/AA said that the Airport Authority
(AA), in collaboration with the Government, had discussed
with China Light & Power and its major shareholder for Castle
Peak Power Station, Exxon Mobil, on the feasibility of co-locating
the PAFF with the Castle Peak Power Station. However, based
on the findings of an one-year study, the two facilities were
incompatible for co-location. In response, the Chairman said
that the AA should be fully prepared to answer queries from
the public in that regard.
22. A Member noted that the Mainland
would build its largest oil refinery plant in southern China
and asked whether that would affect the choice of aviation
fuel supply and in turn the routes of the barges carrying
the fuel. She also asked whether the forecast of marine traffic
in that area had taken into account future port development
and whether the risk arising from all relevant future developments
had been assessed. She was also concerned whether the impacts
arising from the future expansion of the Airport had been
considered.
23. In response to a Member's enquiries, GpM(AF)/AA
explained that at present 85% of the aviation fuel came from
Singapore while the remaining 15% from the Mainland. It was
anticipated that the ratio would remain unchanged in the foreseeable
future. As regards marine traffic, EM/AA said that
a quantitative risk assessment had been conducted on the routing
of vessels to the jetty at Tuen Mun Area 38. The forecast
of marine traffic up to 2011 and throughout the estimated
life span of the PAFF (50 years) was covered in the assessment.
It was expected that the aviation fuel traffic frequency in
Ma Wan Channel would reduce due to the increased capacity
of vessels. A marine traffic impact assessment would be undertaken
very shortly. EM/AA also confirmed that the capacity
and the design of the PAFF had made allowance for the future
expansion of the Airport and port developments.
24. A Member asked whether the impacts
on fuel supply after China joined the World Trade Organisation
had been considered. In response, GpM(AF)/AA said that
currently the fuel price was US$1.4 per gallon in the Mainland
and US$0.8 per gallon in Hong Kong. Due to increasing demand,
the Mainland might in future have to rely on imported fuel
for its own use. Hence, the Mainland's fuel supply to Hong
Kong was expected to drop. GM(AF)/AA supplemented that
the AA adopted an "open access system" for the purchase of
aviation fuel. In other words, an airline could buy its own
fuel from any source it wished.
25. Considering the risk to the residents
living near Tuen Mun Area 38, a Member asked whether
AA had considered making use of the proposed bridge linking
Zhuhai and Lantau for transporting aviation fuel across the
border and then locating the PAFF in the Mainland. In response,
GM(AF)/AA explained that the Government had decided
that the PAFF should be located within the boundary of Hong
Kong. The AA had exhausted all possible sites within Hong
Kong waters, details of which had been presented to ACE in
the past few years. In addition, since the handling capacity
of the temporary facility at Sha Chau would reach saturation
by the end of 2005, it would be too late to build the PAFF
after the details of the proposed bridge had been confirmed.
GpM(AF)/AA supplemented that the current aviation fuel
demand was 12,000 m3/day. The estimated ultimate demand would
increase to 30,000 m3/day. It would be impracticable to meet
the fuel demand by land transport even if the proposed bridge
would allow transportation of dangerous goods on it.
26. A Member pointed out that the temporary
facility at Sha Chau was originally intended to operate for
two and a half years only. He agreed that the PAFF should
be set up as soon as possible.
27. Noting that Sha Chau was within a Marine
Park, a Member wondered why AA proposed to keep the
facility there for emergency use, and why backup facility
could not be incorporated in the PAFF. In reply, GM(AF)/AA
said that the purpose of the backup facility was to ensure
uninterrupted supply of aviation fuel to the Airport in case
the PAFF broke down or the aviation fuel was contaminated.
EM/AA supplemented that the jetty at the PAFF might
be temporarily put out of service in the event of an accident
and therefore it was necessary to have available a backup
facility in another location.
28. A Member asked how often aviation
fuel was contaminated and what had been done to address the
risk of using contaminated fuel. She also enquired about the
life span of the existing pipeline and whether any maintenance
would be needed during its life and if so, the impact on the
seabed. In response, GpM(AF)/AA said that there were
two cases of contaminated fuel in 1995 and one in 1998. If
the fuel were found to be contaminated, it would be discharged
through the backup facility. The life span of the existing
pipeline was 50 years which was approximately the same as
that of the PAFF. EM/AA supplemented that it was most
unlikely that any maintenance would be needed to the buried
subsea pipeline during its life span.
29. A Member agreed with EM/AA's point
that the vessels might hit and damage the jetty by accident
at any time and such accidents did occur in the past. He said
that since the 1980s such type of facilities had been planned
for Tuen Mun area and the site selected was not an unreasonable
one having balanced all factors involved. He also agreed that
transporting large quantities of aviation fuel on the road
was impracticable. He considered that for goods of strategic
importance like aviation fuel, there was a need to diversify
the sources of supply rather than relying on one or two major
sources.
30. The Chairman invited the views of green
group representatives on whether they considered it reasonable
to retain the facility at Sha Chau for backup purpose. A Member
said that personally he considered that relocating the facility
might necessitate the building of a new pipeline which might
cause more impacts to the marine environment. Another Member
wished to reserve her comments until a full EIA report was
available. However, she recalled that when the area was designated
as a Marine Park, the understanding was that the fuel facility
at Sha Chau was temporary in nature.
31. A Member referred to para. 21 of
the paper and enquired about the actions taken by AA to "fast-track"
the project. Regarding the pipeline for the PAFF, she asked
whether there were other construction methods that would have
minimum impacts on the marine environment and whether the
operation of the fuel facility would require regular maintenance
dredging. Lastly, she wondered whether the overall weighting
for Sham Shui Kok in Table 4 of the paper should be of positive
value.
32. In response, GM(AF)/AA said that
the word "fast-tracking" was slightly misleading. He ensured
Members that the actions taken were in line with the established
procedures and all statutory requirements. He also confirmed
that the figure in Table 4 should be positive. EM/AA
said that the current proposed method for pipeline construction
was trench and cover with rock armour. Other methods like
horizontal directional drilling, and ploughing the pipe into
marine mud were being explored and it was concluded with respect
to ploughing, that this method would not allow rock armour
protection to be provided.
33. The Chairman thanked AA for the
updates and urged them to pay attention to the risk assessment
of the cumulative impacts of the project on marine traffic.
Agenda Item 6 : Any Other Business
Report on ACE's visit to Europe
34. The Chairman said that the study
visit to Europe was a useful exercise to foster exchanges
among Members and recommended that the Council should continue
to organize similar activities in the future. He then highlighted
the conclusions of the visit findings as follows:
|