XN000022-1995-02-22 — Page 49

Reply:

· 36 ·

Mr President,

(a)

-

The Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme - or the SSDS for short is a 10- year capital programme for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage in Hong Kong. As we have frequently made clear, this scheme is an essential, even critical component of our proposals to abate very serious water pollution and to protect public health. The present form of the SSDS is the result of a 2-year intensive study, completed in 1989, of over 1,000 possible disposal arrangements. An independent group of consultants confirmed, in 1993, that the scheme would be cost-effective and environmentally robust. Members of this Council have been kept informed of the progress of the scheme and the related engineering studies on a regular basis.

The Finance Committee on 4 February 1994 was asked to approve the injection of $6.8 billion to the Sewage Services Trading Fund to finance Stage I of the SSDS. We usually refer to Stage I as the High Priority Programme (HPP) as it will curtail up to 70% of harbour pollution when completed in 1997. We have assured Members that Stage I of the SSDS will form the fundamental building block for any system of higher level treatment that may be required. This still holds good. We have also made clear to Members our intention to review the oceanic outfall proposal - or Stage II of the SSDS together with other alternatives, including secondary treatment processes, in parallel with the construction of the Stage I projects; and in doing so to take account of new technologies in sewage treatment and disposal that may have emerged since the first SSDS study in 1989.

-

We have also undertaken to report to the Environmental Affairs (EA) Panel of this Council the findings and recommendations of the Review of Stage II options within a few weeks of the formulation of its initial findings. This has already been done. The consultants' preliminary draft report became available to us in December 1994 and members of the EA Panel were briefed on the shortlisted options for Stage II by the consultants and the International Panel of Three Experts on 18 January 1995. This Review, may I point out, has not said that the original outfall proposal is not feasible, but that a shorter outfall could be considered if a higher level of treatment was provided for. The consultants recommended nine options for consideration as alternatives to the original Stage II outfall option and the Government is now examining these in detail. Neither the Government nor the Experts have taken a final view on the options identified in the Review or how this might affect the oceanic outfall proposal. Upon completion of the Report, it is our intention that the public should be consulted on the Stage II options.

+

+