595
No.
29
1901
HONGKONG.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.
DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT OF PROVIDING A REFUSE DESTRUCTOR, at a Meeting held on the 29th July, 1901.
Laid before the Legislative Council by Command of His Excellency the Governor.
A Special Meeting of the Public Works Committee of the Legislative Council, in conjunction with representatives of the Sanitary Board, was held on the 29th July, 1901. Honourable W, CHAT- HAM, Acting Director of Public Works, presided, and the other Members present were: Honourables C. P. CHATER, J. THURBURS, Dr. Ho Kar and C. McI. MESSER. Dr. CLARK, Mr. E. OSBORNE and
Honourable F. H. MAY were present as representing the Sanitary Board.
The Chairman said His Excellency the Governor had directed that the question of providing a refuse destructor should be considered in conjunction with representatives of the Sanitary Board, as the Board had again recommended that such provision should be made.
The minutes of previous meetings of the Public Works Committee, relating to refuse destructors, dated the 31st August. 1899, 23rd July, 1900, 23rd August, 1900, and 23rd January, 1901, were read. The Chairman pointed out that the estimates given in the minutes of the 23rd July, 1900, appeared to be at variance, as it was stated that the proposed expenditure of $60,000 would provide 4 cells which could only deal with one-third of the refuse. It was obvious that, if 4 cells could only deal with one-third, 12 cells would be required to deal with the whole, and the cost would be somewhere about $180,000 instead of $110.000 as stated.
He then referred to Mr. Crook's elaborate Report on the subject. in which it was recommended that a destructor on the Horsfail systein should be obtained, and read a letter, dated the 25th Febru- ary, 1901, from Messrs. GARLICK & Co. of Bombay, who were themselves the patentees of a refuse destructor, stating that the original members of their firm had introduced Horsfall's Incinerator into Calcutta and. after exhausting every possible means to make it work, had to abandon it and it stands there to-day a perfect failure. The letter went on to state that the rubbish of Europe is vastly different from that of Eastern Cities, and the English type of destructor is not in the least adapted for Eastern refuse, adding that they (Messrs. GARLICK & Co.) had devoted several years to the subject and their furnaces were the only ones, so far as they were aware, that successfully destroyed the rubbish.
With regard to the latter part of Messrs. GARLICK & COMPANY'S letter, an extract was read from a report of the Municipal Cominissioner of Bombay stating that a Garlick Incinerator was erected in that City by the Patentees, for which a sum of $15,000 was paid. The consumption of coal was about a ton per day: oil, waste, water, etc. cost about Rs. 500 per annum. There was always smoke (or vapour) during combustion, which was much complained of by the residents in the locality. The Corporation, after considering the various methods of disposing of refuse, finally decided to transport it outside the City for reclamation purposes, and the use of the incinerators has been practically dis- continued.
It appeared, however, from a report received from Singapore that the Garlick Destructor worked successfully there, but very inadequate information was supplied regarding the cost of working it. It was stated that 25 loads were dealt with per cell per day, or 100 loads in all, the Incinerator con- taining 4 cells. The actual quantity of refuse dealt with was not given, the only information being that the carts were of large size, fairly well filled. No fuel was used in the furnaces, but steam for a blower engine was raised from fire-wood. Here again no information was given as to the quantity of fire-wood consumed. The capital outlay was stated to have been from $9,000 to $10,000 per cell, exclusive of land. The labour required at the destructor cost ten cents per load or $2.50 for each cell per day. The baskets and tools were found by the Municipality, but no particulars were given of the cost of these. The sum of $108 per month was paid for the staff required to supervise operations. No details were given as to the cost of repairs or stores of any description.
Taking the figures given, however, and estimating for the items not supplied, the annual cost of working was as follows:-
Labour in dealing with rubbish @ $10 per day, Supervising Staff @ $108 per month,
Coals say
ton per day @ $10,
Repairs, &c., say,
.$3,650.00
1,296.00
912.00
800.00
Total,
$6,658.00