Page 65 of 126
111
110
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
plastic bags which will ultimately contain the septic liquid or toxic gases inside. God knows exactly when and where these bags may suddenly burst due to subterranean pressure or movement and the septic liquid would then leak to pollute the underground water below and the toxic gases emit to pollute the open air above. This is the reason why the EPD have to busily engage consultants to monitor the existence and movements of toxic gases and septic liquids by boring test devices etc..., in all the landfill sites and to ensure that the hazardous factors have really gone before they can be released for open space uses. Isn't it a mockery that an originally-devised environmental protection measure had ultimately turned out to be a nasty pollutant itself?
Secondly, there is no need to make such a claim that the revenue generated by electricity production would make the use of incinerator cheaper, because by simple comparison, if one adds the land-use cost to the bill of using landfill, one should be able to immediately detect that landfill should become 100 times more expensive than the incinerator.
Landfill takes up huge amount of land areas and cripples their future use. Look at the tragedies created in the Gin Drinkers' Bay, Sai Cho Wan, Ngau Chi Wan and Jordan Valley ... etc. which are mostly, if not totally still lying idle. The methane produced by Sai Cho Wan is said to be not good enough for industrial use for the surrounding factories but dangerous enough to human life! These previous landfill sites are not even good enough to be used as cemeteries as no one would like to bury their parents or ancestors in rubbish dumps especially in the predominantly Chinese societies of Confucius teachings. No high density development can be proposed because the differential settlement are likely to occur within the 20 to 30 metres deep of rubbish in plastic bags. Piling and foundation construction in these sites will be very expensive if not totally impossible due to the unusual sub-soil conditions. This is the reason why all these landfill sites will be used only as open space and nothing else even after the emission of methane has stopped.
If the land premiums of all these landfill sites can be collected after putting them into the development market, there should be no problem in acquiring 2 or 3 modern incinerators of the latest model by a fraction of the astronomical figure resulted from the land auction. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to join the Council in appealing to the Government to stop the landfill policy and revert immediately to the use of modern incinerators in disposing our growing quantities of city wastes!
With the above words, Sir, I support the motion.
Ms. CARLYE TSUI WAI-LING (in English):—Mr. Chairman, being one of the last few speakers, I find that most of my points of argument had been put forward by my colleagues before me. However, I shall try to follow the style of the Chairman of Public Health Select Committee and attempt to be more forceful in putting forward my deliberation.
Page 65 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
In recent years we have seen a great increase in public concern on environmental matters. Nevertheless, we have only to look around us to see the effects of past and indeed continuing neglect.
This Council has played a leading role in the struggle to set matters right. With the reaching of the milestone of the 20th anniversary of the Clean Hong Kong Campaign, it is particularly fitting at this time that we should build on our past excellent record by promoting a modern, environmentally-friendly approach to waste disposal.
Incinerators generally have gained a bad reputation, but this arises largely from poor design and inadequate concern for the pollution they can generate. We have only to look around us in Hong Kong to find clear evidence of this. Our old incinerators produce dirty, stinking smoke that is the bane of the lives of nearby residents. Measures to correct the problem, such as the installation of electrostatic precipitators in the chimney stacks have helped to reduce, but have not eliminated the pollution. Some of the more dangerous emissions cannot, in fact, be trapped by the precipitators. These old incinerators are a health hazard to our citizens, and an eyesore that can only generate a bad impression with the tourists who are so important to our economy. Rubbish disposal in landfills has little, if anything, to recommend it.
While landfill sites may eventually be used for other purposes, it takes many years for such land to become ready for development. In the longer term, the landfill solution also presents the ever-growing problem of finding new sites.
Garbage disposed of by dumping in this manner also introduces many other problems. For example, contamination of surrounding land and the water table, and the production of the greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide, as well as other toxic emissions. Experience has shown that, in some cases, the level of contamination seriously limits the future possible uses of filled land.
Experiments have been conducted in some countries into the collection and use of the methane as a fuel, but the technology is still far from perfect, and efficiency of disposal is low. A paper presented at the Second Annual International Speciality Conference on Waste Disposal in Florida last year, estimated that, even after the methane has been recovered and converted to electricity, a modern waste-to-energy plant still has an advantage estimated at 3 to 1 over landfill disposal of waste.
Modern and I emphasise 'modern'—incineration methods represent a much more attractive option. Properly designed plant minimizes the emission of harmful gases into the atmosphere, and the heat produced by the combustion process is used as a valuable resource in the generation of electricity.
Moreover, the amount of solid waste remaining is relatively modest compared with the volume of untreated waste involved in landfill operations. It is likely to decrease further as new uses for it, such as inclusion in construction and road-building materials, are developed.
Page 65 of 126
Page 65
Page 66
Page 66 of 126
112
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Members who visited Vancouver's Burnaby Incinerator learned that its control of air pollution achieves more than 99.9% efficiency, while on and near-site nuisances are also very successfully controlled by careful design, construction and operation. Vigorous external and internal monitoring procedures show that Burnaby Incinerator has no effect on the air, ground or vegetation surrounding the plant.
Energy produced by combustion is sold, in the form of steam, to a neighbouring paper recycling mill. The steam could just as well be used to generate electricity, an important consideration in power-hungry Hong Kong. It is possible that the power generated could be sold to HKE or CLP.
Against the last point, it may be argued that the amount of power so produced and the amount of fuel saved, would be quite small in relation to Hong Kong's needs. No doubt that would be true at the outset, but surely it is better to make a start in a relatively small way, in the knowledge that our capacity to produce power from garbage is certain to grow. In any case, power generation is not the main issue, it is a bonus that gives incineration a distinct economic advantage over waste disposal by landfill.
In fact, cost analyses show that, when the power generation capability of a modern incineration plant is taken into consideration, the incinerator option is cheaper than landfill from the very beginning. This along gives us sufficient reason for recommending that the Government gives modern incineration methods serious consideration.
We are all concerned that, whatever method of waste disposal is adopted, protection of the environment must have a very high priority. Incineration has, quite rightly, been severely criticised in the past. In the course of visits to modern facilities overseas, members have indeed seen that standards vary, but they have also seen that at its best, incineration has great advantages over landfill, not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of environmental impact and pollution of the atmosphere.
It is too easy to think of waste management in terms only of the disposal of unwanted materials. By its very nature, 'waste' is a pejorative term. Dumping unrecyclable garbage is literally a waste. Safely burning it to produce energy and potentially useable by-products is a form of recycling of the discarded material and of conservation of fuel and other resources for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, I beg to support the motion.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I remember that in 1986, I was one of those who strived for the closing down of incinerators in Hong Kong. The first one to be closed down was the one in Kennedy Town. Apart from the comments made by colleagues on incinerators and their applications on environmental pollution, I would like to say that we have had two incinerators, one in Kennedy Town and the other one in Kwai Chung and they
Page 66 of 126