|
Press
Releases - 2000
EPD
meets Greenpeace to discuss dredged mud at CT9 site
The Assistant
Director of Environmental Protection (Waste and Water), Mr
Benny Wong, today (September 8) met the representatives of
Greenpeace to discuss the disposal of sediment dredged from
the Container Terminal 9 (CT9) site.
In response
to the claim subsequently made to the media by Greenpeace
that there was only a verbal agreement with the State Oceanic
Administration (SOA) regarding the disposal of dredged mud,
a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Department (EPD)
clarified that the verbal agreement referred only to the SOA's
agreement for the EPD to disclose the fact that additional
testing had been carried out by the SOA in assessing the dumping
application.
"For
application to dump in mainland waters, the decision of whether
to grant a permit rests entirely with the SOA and they do
not need the EPD's agreement," the spokesman said.
The spokesman
strongly rejected the claim by Greenpeace that the EPD was
unduly helpful to the contractor.
"Such
a claim is totally unfounded and ludicrous," the spokesman
noted.
He added
that Greenpeace had not put forward a request during the meeting
for the EPD to test any sediment sample.
Mr Wong
explained to Greenpeace that under the London Convention (the
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and Other Matters), mud transfer between contracting
parties for dumping was not prohibited provided that there
was previous consent between parties.
In cases
where dredged spoil is to be dumped outside Hong Kong waters
a permit is required under the Dumping at Sea Ordinance for
loading of the spoil onto a barge or other vessel.
Before
such a permit is issued, the applicant is required to obtain
a permit issued by the appropriate authority outside Hong
Kong permitting the marine dumping.
In the
case of CT9, the appropriate authority outside Hong Kong is
the SOA and a permit is issued by the EPD to the contractor
after it has obtained a permit from the SOA.
"China
is a contracting party of the London Convention and the SOA
has an obligation to protect marine waters under the convention.
We have no reason to doubt the mainland's intention of fulfilling
its obligation.
"We understand
that the SOA has tested sediment samples of the project and
issued a permit for the contractor to dispose of the dredged
mud at a designated area near Erzhou Island based on its testing
results," the spokesman said.
In response
to another assertion made by Greenpeace that the SOA permit
did not apply to contaminated mud, the spokesman said the
SOA used the terms "dredged mud" in all its dumping permits
regardless of the level of contamination of the mud and issued
a permit when it was satisfied that the mud in question could
safely be disposed of.
Over
100 sediment samples were collected by the project proponent
and tested by an accredited laboratory in 1992/93.
Under
the EPD's classification system, the mud at the CT9 site is
classified as Class C - seriously contaminated material.
If it
is to be disposed of in Hong Kong, it would have to go to
the contaminated mud pits in East Sha Chau where monitoring
work is in place to ensure that no unacceptable environmental
risk is associated with the daily operations. Because of the
scale of dredging in the CT9 project, the EPD passed the sediment
test results to the SOA for their reference.
Details
of the test results, which were sent to the SOA previously,
are made available to the media today.
End/Friday,
September 8, 2000
|
