Expertise advice
28. A Member suggested that the Council
should consider setting up a mechanism to invite experts to
brief Members on specific issues such as dioxin decontamination.
The EIA Subcommittee Chairman saw the merits of Mrs.
Ng's suggestion and said that such advice could be sought
from independent experts on a case-by-case basis. In response,
the Chairman said that it was difficult to ascertain
the objectivity of experts. He would rather look upon EPD
as the unbiased agency to offer expert advice to the Council
when required provided that the department would keep abreast
of new developments in different technologies. In response,
AD(EA)/EPD confirmed that EPD kept in touch with overseas
counterparts and was aware of new technologies being developed
in other countries.
Agenda Item 5: Inviting Expressions
of Interest in Providing Integrated Waste Treatment Facility(ies)
(ACE Paper 8/2002)
29. The Chairman welcomed PAS(B)2/EFB
and AD(WF)/EPD to the meeting. PAS(B)2/EFB briefed
Members on the paper.
Provision of information
30. A Member said that it was highly
unusual for an Expressions of Interest to provide detailed
commercial and financial information as it would not be binding
as in the formal tender. He queried whether such information
could be relied upon in the short listing exercise. The
Chairman commented that those who responded to the invitation
might be reluctant to disclose detailed commercial and financial
information on the proposed technology/facility. In response,
PAS(B)2/EFB said that the invitation document would
set out clearly information that should be provided by interested
parties for assessment purpose. Respondents would be asked
to state clearly if there was any information in their submissions
that should be kept confidential.
31. A Member considered that the Administration
might have difficulty in verifying the financial information.
Another Member suggested that the parties should be
required to provide references of the proposed technologies/facilities
so that the Administration could check the proposal against
similar technologies/facilities in operation. In response,
PAS(B)2/EFB explained that though the provision of
financial information was not mandatory, such information
was essential for assessing the cost-effectiveness of the
proposals. The Administration was aware of the difficulties
in verifying the financial information provided but would
try to do so through contact with other related parties.
Integrated facilities
32. A Member was concerned that the
term "integrated" would mean a combination of technologies/facilities
to handle all kinds of wastes and that single treatment technology(ies)
would not be welcomed. In response, PAS(B)2/EFB said
that the Expression of Interest (EoI) exercise aimed to gather
information on technologies that could handle large quantities
of waste, whether they were single or integrated technologies.
At this early stage of technology search, it would be desirable
to allow a higher degree of flexibility. AD(WF)/EPD
supplemented that there were overseas examples of integrated
waste facilities which comprised mechanical sorting of wastes,
organic treatment, energy recovery, and recycling of residues.
Different combinations of technologies and facilities would
be considered.
33. A Member urged the Administration
to select different companies that specialized in recycling
different materials instead of just one company so as to ensure
cost effectiveness. In response, PAS(B)2/EFB clarified
that the EoI exercise was not limited to recycling facilities.
Also, the EoI exercise was not a tender exercise and no companies
would be selected for construction and operation of the facilities
at the present stage. However, to ensure cost effectiveness,
the economic viability of the proposals would be one of the
assessment criteria.
34. In response to a Member's enquiry, PAS(B)2/EFB
said that there were integrated waste treatment facilities
in the Unites States, Europe, Australia, Japan and other countries.
The invitation would thus be extended to the international
waste management industry.
35. The Chairman urged the Administration
to keep an open mind in the exercise to avoid ruling out innovative
proposals.
36. A Member supported the EoI approach,
as it was an effective way to gather information on the latest
technologies for handling wastes.
37. A Member also supported the EoI
exercise. He suggested that to encourage innovative proposals,
the Administration should make it very clear that the exercise
was not confined to big integrated waste treatment technologies/facilities
but would also welcome non-integrated types of treatment technologies.
38. A Member suggested that the Government
should provide a kick-off grant and set up a non-profit-making
recycling board to co-ordinate the collection and recycling
of different kinds of waste. The board should include representatives
from the recycling industries. In response, DS(B)/EFB
said that we could not count on any single measure to deal
with the waste problem. The Government recognized that the
importance of recycling and had already introduced a series
of measures last year to encourage and facilitate recycling.
However, we could not count on recycling alone and hence we
now invited the waste management industry to offer us proposals
to treat the large volume of unrecyclable waste. As regards
possible collaboration with the recycling industries, DS(B)/EFB
pointed out that EPD and various working groups under the
Waste Reduction Committee were keeping close contact with
the industry for exchange of information on the latest development
of technology and for identifying areas for cooperation.
Legislative support
39. A Member said that from the Council's
study visit to Europe last year, he noted that good technologies
could not be implemented without legislative support. He suggested
that the interested parties should be encouraged to propose
amendments to related legislation if that could facilitate
the implementation of their proposals. Echoing that Member's
point, the Chairman said that in addition to legislative
support, community acceptance was also crucial to the successful
implementation of waste treatment proposals.
Timetable
40. Noting that the estimated earliest commencement
time for the selected facilities was 2012, a Member
expressed concern that they might not help address the landfill
problem to a significant extent. In response, PAS(B)2/EFB
explained that the timetable only served as a rough indication.
Upon the completion of the EoI exercise, a number of processes
like public consultation, funding application, EIA, tendering,
detailed design and construction of the facilities would follow
and the Administration would try to shorten the time required
for each process.
41. In response to a Member's enquiry, PAS(B)2/EFB
said that the tendering exercise would take place after the
EIA process. That Member commented that it would seem
unfair to the tenderers if the selected technology/facility
was patented. AD(WF)/EPD responded that a technology/facility
was unlikely to be patented though a particular process or
material used in a technology might be, but that would not
do the tenderers any injustice.
42. SEF informed Members that when
the Waste Reduction Framework Plan was released in 1998, the
recommended approach was to adopt waste-to-energy as the bulk
waste reduction method. However, in the light of rapid development
of waste treatment technologies and the changing aspirations
of the community in environmental protection, the Administration
considered it appropriate to search for a suitable technology
or combination of technologies that would best suit Hong Kong
through the EoI exercise. She agreed that the word "integrated"
might cause confusion. As regards the assessment mechanism,
an Advisory Group would be set up to evaluate the submissions
with assistance provided by EPD. She appreciated Members'
concern about the proposed timetable but pointed out that
the site selection process might take up a great deal of time
given the public sentiment on the location of waste treatment
facilities. That said, the timetable required adjustment and
the Administration would try to expedite the whole process
as far as practicable.
Landfill charging scheme
43. A Member enquired about the implementation
date of the proposed landfill charging scheme and expressed
concern about the difficulties in charging operators of ad-hoc
renovation work. In response, PAS(B)2/EFB said that
they would submit the proposed landfill charging scheme to
the Legislative Council in the coming months. Upon Legislative
Council's agreement to the proposal, the scheme could be implemented
within 12 to 16 months. Regarding ad hoc renovation work,
PAS(B)2/EFB pointed out that it was impossible to identify
the waste producers due to the ad-hoc and diverse nature of
such work. Therefore, a charge could only be levied at the
landfill gate.
44. On renovation waste, a Member said
that residents/waste producers had to pay for the collection
and disposal of the waste even now. Hence, the waste haulers'
concern of bad debts was not justified.
45. The Chairman asked whether the
landfill charge of $125 per tonne was based on the value of
agricultural or residential land. In reply, PAS(B)2/EFB
said that the figure included only the capital and operating
costs of the three landfills and no land cost had been included.
The charge would amount to $205 per tonne if the value of
agricultural land was included.
46. The Chairman thanked PAS(B)2/EFB
and AD(WF)/EPD for the briefing and concluded that the Council
fully supported the EoI exercise and the landfill charging
scheme. [The Chairman handed over the chair to Prof. Lam Kin-che
and left the meeting at this juncture.]
Agenda Item 6: Study on Planning for
Pedestrians
(ACE Paper 11/2002)
47. The Acting Chairman welcomed CTP(SS)/PlanD,
C/Townland and C2/Toweland to the meeting. CTP(SS)/PlanD
introduced the Study and C/Townland gave a presentation on
the details of the study.
48. A Member noted that trees were
proposed as part of street furniture but pointed out that
Hong Kong was short of trees. He suggested that greater emphasis
should be given for the provision of trees in the proposed
pedestrian planning standards and guidelines to be developed
in the study.
49. The Acting Chairman enquired about
the difficulties in adopting a holistic approach for pedestrian
planning. In response, C/Townland said that the major difficulty
was that too many agencies were involved in the process. Hence,
successful pedestrian planning would hinge on the availability
of a single body which had a clear mission of the objective
and would coordinate the efforts of all agencies concerned.
It was anticipated that the second stage of the study would
come up with a more definite proposal on how pedestrian planning
would be carried out.
50. A Member welcomed the study but
commented that to present a full picture of the issue to the
public, not only the benefits of pedestrian planning but also
the trade-offs of parties concerned should be included in
the consultation document. C/Townland agreed with that
Member's comments and said that the possible impacts of pedestrian
planning to stakeholders would be set out in the second stage
of the study.
51. In response to the Acting Chairman's question,
CTP(SS)/PlanD confirmed that the public and the relevant
stakeholders would be consulted on the implementation in the
second stage of the study.
52. A Member welcomed the study and
urged Plan D to look at the subject in a broader context to
include areas other than pavements. She suggested better planning
and management of road repairs which were usually a source
of noise and odour nuisance; better management of bus stops
to minimize the impacts of emissions from idling vehicles
on pedestrians; visual enhancement of refuse transfer stations
and parking lots; setting up city information signposts at
strategic locations; more thoughts be given to the colour
scheme of pavements; and better management of urban tree planting
and maintenance.
53. A Member suggested that Plan D
should conduct a pilot scheme on selected sites to demonstrate
the planning concept so that the public and the stakeholders
could have a better understanding of the benefits and trade-offs
of pedestrian planning. Another Member suggested that
a task force should be set up to co-ordinate the pilot scheme.
54. In response to the first Member's question,
C/Townland said that the second stage of the study
was expected to be completed in November 2002.
55. The Acting Chairman asked whether
the potential use of underground space had been explored in
the study. In response, C/Townland said that the study
had looked into that aspect and had made reference to successful
cases in Japan.
56. The Acting Chairman thanked the
team for the briefing and for the opportunity to comment on
the study.
Agenda Item 7 : Proposed Clinical Waste
Control Scheme
57. The Acting Chairman suggested and
Members agreed to defer the item to the next meeting.
Agenda Item 8 : Any Other Business
Tentative items for discussion at the next
meeting
58. The Acting Chairman informed the
meeting that the Annual Report of the Waste Reduction Committee
and a briefing by the Green Council on the operation of the
Hong Kong Green Label Scheme were tentatively scheduled for
discussion at the next meeting.
Agenda Item 9 : Date of Next Meeting
59. The next meeting was scheduled for Monday,
29 April 2002.
|