http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/boards/advisory_council/files/ACE-183-minutes-web.pdf
Confirmed Minutes of the 183rd
Meeting of the Advisory Council on the Environment held on 30 December 2011 at 2:30 pm
In Attendance for Agenda Item 5:
Mr C W TSE, JP Assistant Director (Environmental Assessment), EPD
Mr Elvis AU, JP Assistant Director (Nature Conservation & Infrastructure Planning), EPD
Agenda Item 5 : Report on the 118th Environmental Impact Assessment Subcommittee Meeting (ACE Paper 19/2011)
47. The Chairman
informed Members that the paper reported on the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Subcommittee
on the EIA report on “Development of Integrated Waste Management Facilities (IWMF) Phase 1” submitted by the Nature Conservation and Infrastructure
Planning Division of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD). The secretariat had received a total of 19 submissions in the weeks leading to the
Council meeting. They were mainly of two concerns: first on the choice of site for accommodating the facilities on an artificial island near Shek Kwu Chau
(SKC), the issue of which had been addressed at the Subcommittee meeting; and secondly about the choice of incineration technology, e.g. whether the plasma arc
gasification technology, which was claimed to be more efficient with lower construction cost by some of the submissions, should be adopted. To ensure all
Members were fully briefed on the latest developments in waste treatment technologies, he invited the project proponent to give a short briefing on the
technology issue before the meeting proceeded to discuss the report of the Subcommittee.
48. Mr Elvis Au
explained that the Council had been kept abreast of the selection of technology of the IWMF project as early as 2006. The first
technology review was conducted from 2002 to 2005 during which an expression of interest was called for, and 59 submissions from local and overseas companies
on all types of waste treatment technology for developing the IWMF, including gasification technology, were received. An advisory group comprising
representatives from different green groups, professionals, academics and business sectors was set up to advise on the selection of appropriate technology and site
selection criteria. The Council first discussed the technology issue in May 2006 upon the completion of the technology review. The Council had also visited a
number of incineration plants in Germany and the Netherlands in 2006 and produced a report which was available on the ACE website. A technology
review was conducted again from 2008 to 2009 for update on the latest development in waste treatment technologies and a paper on “IWMF Technology
Review and Associated Facilities” (re. ACE paper 22/2009 which the secretariat had tabled for Members’ reference) was presented to the Council in December
2009. Due consideration had been given to the plasma arc gasification technology which was covered in detail in the paper. The technology issue had
been fully discussed at that meeting in 2009. The major findings of the review at that time was that the plasma arc gasification technology was mainly used for
treating hazardous waste or low level radioactive waste, and its application in treating municipal solid waste (MSW) had been uncommon and on a small scale.
It was concluded that the plasma arc gasification technology was not suitable for the proposed IWMF development. The Council had no objection to the proposed
use of the moving grate incineration technology for the IWMF in 2009. Nevertheless, in view of comments from the public as well as a number of
submissions from the suppliers, EPD and their consultant had conducted another technology review recently. The previous findings and the conclusion that the
plasma arc gasification technology was not suitable for the IWMF were maintained. Experiences from a number of countries worldwide showed that the
moving grate incineration technology was still the well-proven technology widely used nowadays for large scale treatment of MSW. A number of new waste to
energy plants that had been commissioned since 2009 adopted moving grate incineration technology. EPD’s consultants had given a reply to the objectors on
their review of the plasma arc gasification technology, and had tabled the reply at the Subcommittee meeting on 5 December 2011 for Members’ reference.
49. A Member
sought clarification on the allegation that the consultant, AECOM, had been/would be awarded the Design-Build-and-Operate (DBO)
contract to construct the proposed IWMF near SKC. Mr Elvis Au explained that AECOM, through an open tender exercise, had been awarded the contract for the
preparatory work for the IWMF pre-qualification exercise. This consultant would be excluded from the DBO contract in future. The consultant would
tender independent advice to EPD on the design and technology for the IWMF project.
50. Noting that the consultant was commissioned by EPD and had actually started the preparatory planning work for the incineration plant at SKC,
the Member doubted its position in tendering objective opinion on the latest technology. A Member echoed this concern and enquired if it was appropriate
for EPD to engage the same consultant to prepare the pre-qualification documents and the EIA report before the Council had considered the report and the Director
of Environmental Protection (DEP) granted the environmental permit. Besides, AECOM’s views were in conflict with those expressed by its subsidiaries, ENSR,
which advocated the use of the plasma arc gasification technology for MSW treatment.
51. Mr Elvis Au reiterated that consideration of the choice of technology in fact was dated back to 2005 when an independent advisory group
and another consultant came up with the recommendation of the incineration technology after examining different technologies. The current consultant was
commissioned to conduct a review in 2008 to 2009 and came to the same conclusion. The findings were presented to and discussed at the Council in
2009. Recently, an open tender exercise had been conducted to engage a consultant for the pre-qualification preparatory work. He further explained that
same as most major development projects, it was common for different processes to proceed in parallel in consideration of the very tight time schedule. Such
preparatory work was necessary to facilitate the detailed planning and design. It should be noted that the actual construction work could not commence until the
EIA report had been approved and the necessary funding secured.
52. A Member opined that there had been rounds of long debates in the past years on MSW treatment without much headways made. The three landfills
were nearing their handling capacity. The Council should focus on the EIA report and discuss how best MSW treatment could be taken forward for the good
of the community.
53. In response to a Member ’s question that the consultant might have failed to tender its independent findings in respect of the technology review, Mr
Elvis Au explained that EPD did not solely rely on the consultant’s information. EPD had its own professional staff who did an independent research into the latest
technologies and discussed with professional bodies and counterparts outside Hong Kong. The consultant was expected to provide information on MSW
treatment technologies from different perspectives. The overall energy recovery rate was relatively low for the plasma arc gasification technology as it required a
lot of energy input for the gasification process. (CTA comment : this is simply incorrect)
54. A Member enquired why gasification was only applied for small plants. Mr Elvis Au explained that the gasification process was very complicated
and difficult to control. The scale of the plant had to be kept small for safety and management consideration.
55. A Member
asked if the gasification plant could be applied on a larger scale safely by scaling up its modules instead of the plant as a whole. In
response, Mr Elvis Au quoted the gas leakage and explosion incident in a scaled-up gasification plant in Germany back in around 1998, and Germany had
been phasing out the gasification technology since then. The incident suggested that scaling up of the gasification plant was risky.
(CTA comment:)
“Air Products is to build a second 350,000 tonne per year waste to energy plasma gasification facility on Teesside following the signing of a 20 year power purchase agreement with
the UK government’s Cabinet Office”
http://www.waste-management-world.com/news/2013/04/30/early-start-planned-for-energy-plant.html
“EARLY START PLANNED FOR ENERGY PLANT WORK could start on a second Teesside energy-from-waste plant within a few months, bosses at Air Products have confirmed.”
In response to the Member ’s further enquiry, Mr Au replied that the proposed gasification plant in Shanghai which was planned to handle 100 tonnes of waste per day was a demonstration
project. The plant was still at the planning stage.
56. In response to a Member ’s enquiry on costs, Mr Elvis Au said that the operating cost of the plasma arc gasification technology was higher than that
of other technologies. A plasma arc gasification plant in Japan was planning to cease operation in 2013 due to various operational and financial problems. In
response to the Chairman ’s enquiry, Mr Au confirmed that according to the consultant’s and their own study, the moving grate incineration technology was
still the preferred technology for the IWMF.
57. The Chairman informed Members that discussion of the EIA report on the IWMF project would begin. At the request of a member and agreed by
the meeting, Mr Elvis Au stayed for the rest of the meeting to facilitate discussion of the project.
58. A Member declared that her company was involved in a consultancy service for the public engagement exercise related to the development of IWMF.
The meeting agreed that she should abstain from the meeting to avoid any potential conflict of interest as she did at the EIA Subcommittee meeting. She
left the meeting at this juncture.
ACE secretariat
January 2012