Page 99 of 241
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. FORSGATE:--For your information, Mr. Chairman, there have been very bitter complaints in the paper quite recently, when you were sojourning in bonny Scotland. But I would like to suggest that the Department make on-the-spot observations. The second part is a rather technical one. It is said that studies are now being made with the view to raising the discharge plume-what does that mean and who is making the studies and when are they going to be completed?
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS:-Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could answer that question. The solution to this is to narrow down the size of the chimney and vent at the top of the chimney, which will help to project the discharge plume upwards-the same sort of approach has been done in other chimney stacks. Whether this will be successful in this particular case, we don't know yet. Investigations are proceeding with a view to increasing the velocity, which will give a higher level of dispersal. If this can be done on the existing chimney it will also be done in connexion with the new one.
MR. FORSGATE:---Thank you for that answer to that supplementary. The second part, the amount of rubbish burnt daily in the incinerator- it is obvious that the hoped-for daily total is well below that advertised by the people who sold the incinerator to us-there's a short fall of at least 100 tons per day on that quoted in the Government release the other day--what has caused this shortfall between 750 and the admitted 650, which is being burnt daily?
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS:-Sir, perhaps I can attempt to answer that question. I think the short fall is largely a result of the composition of the refuse. It is, as mentioned in the reply, very wet refuse, which is typical of Hong Kong apparently. It is extremely wet, and it is this that is largely the cause of the reduction in the capacity. I don't think it was a reduction quite as much as Mr. FORSGATE mentioned.
MR. FORSGATE:-I'm merely quoting from the Government release, which said that the second Lai Chi Kok incinerator is going to burn 750 tons per day, and this paper the answer to my question-says an average of 650 tons. So there is a short fall of 100 tons a day.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Yes, there is a short fall at the moment, but it is hoped to burn 750 tons eventually.
MR. FORSGATE:—I see. My final supplementary is a question of siting incinerators. I certainly deplore the fact that another incinerator is going to be sited at Lai Chi Kok. There is going to be this tremendous plume; obnoxious or not is a matter of opinion when you live down wind from it. Could not another investigation be carried out to see an entirely new approach of siting the incinerators in the future in an outlying island, to which admittedly the refuse would have to be taken by sea, but that would at least relieve the roads of an impossible situation and possibly solve the problem for the future. Could this be investigated?
CHAIRMAN:-There have been considerable investigations into locations of suitable sites for refuse dumps. Believe me, the Public Works Department have gone out of their way to try and find sites, and I think they are still doing so, but I wouldn't like to suggest that they go and look at an island, which would involve double or even treble handling. And indeed we abandoned the barge method of disposal two years, I think, ago so that we could get the stuff there more easily.
MR. FORSGATE:--With due respect, Mr. Chairman, you have not abandoned the barge process-you are using a great deal more barges now than you anticipated many years ago when I asked this question first. I suggest that possibly now is the time to use the sea, which is a very inexpensive form of transportation-you don't have to renew the surface every two or three years and have a good, hard look at it again, that's merely what I am suggesting. Maybe a new approach is required.
CHAIRMAN: Doubtful, Mr. FORSGATE, but I will certainly look at the papers again. You know the reason we use these barges is because the incinerators are not burning quite as much we expected they would because of the wetness of the refuse. And again, Mr. FORSGATE, this only applies to Kennedy Town.
MR. FORSGATE:-Thank you very much.
(5) MR. PETER C. K. CHAN asked the following question:-
I learned that on the 8th August, 1970 there were 4,450 U.S.D. summonses for Kowloon area pending hearing by Courts and about 55% of which are summonses regarding food & food premises and I further understand that it is normal for a summons to wait 3 months before it is being heard by the Court.
Can this Council be informed whether this information is correct?
MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD AND FOOD PREMISES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:
It is correct that on the 8th August, there were 4,450 Urban Council summonses for Kowloon pending hearing by the
178
11
H
180
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 100 of 241