Media OutReach<\/a>\u00a0– 7 June 2021 –
\n<\/i><\/b>China Concrete Company Limited (the “Company”) filed an
\nappeal with the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) mid last month
\nregarding the Department’s decision to reject license renewal application for its
\nYau Tong cement storage facility. The Company mentions that the EPD’s recent rejection
\nnot only lacked sound justification, but the procedure also deviated from its
\nusual practice. The Company will keep on improving the operation conditions of its
\nplant and strive to get its license renewed. The Company also expresses its readiness
\nto build a high-tech non-polluting concrete plant and abandon the existing
\nplant after identifying a suitable site.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
The Company mentions
\nthat upon receiving the EPD’s notice of April 29 regarding the rejection of
\nlicense renewal for the cement storage facility of its Yau Tong plant, it filed
\nan appeal on May 18 and will shortly submit further documents to the appeal
\ncommittee. The EPD’s rejection procedure did not follow previous similar
\nrenewal rejections received by the industry. In its rejection notice, the EPD
\nonly stated that “the plant has records of poor environmental performance
\nin the past. It failed to submit sufficient information on the application to
\nprove that it has the ability to provide, install and operate feasible measures
\nrequired for effective operation.” Yet such justification was far-fetched
\nand was different from the usual practice of providing solid evidence. The EPD
\nused to issue a warning before subsequently turning down renewal applications, yet
\nthe Company received a straight rejection without any prior warning. The Company
\nbelieves the EPD made such decision under pressure from opposition from a
\nminority of the public.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Being a local
\ncompany deeply rooted in Hong Kong for over three decades, the Company operates
\nits production plant by the side of a luxury housing site being developed by
\nthree Chinese-funded property developers (Minmetals Land, Yuexiu Property and Qingjian
\nRealty). The Company believes the EPD’s decision was made under pressure from
\nopposition voice driven by developers, and the decision was neither impartial nor
\njustified. The Company has been manufacturing concrete materials essential for
\nHong Kong’s infrastructure and building construction over the years. The Company
\nexpresses its disappointment for the lack of more support from the government.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Bono Tsang of
\nChina Concrete Company Limited adds that the plant is still in operation and
\nwill continue to improve its production procedures, with particular attention
\non the prevention of dust leakage and cleanliness of the nearby roads. The
\nplant has also planned future measures on the following: further reduction of
\nair pollution; more effective sewage and waste treatment; keeping cement trucks
\ndry and clean when departing from the plant; and hiring an independent
\nthird-party environmental manager to oversee the company’s operations.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Bono Tsang admits
\nthat improving the operation of the existing plant is only a temporary fix. A
\npermanent solution is to relocate the plant to another site. “As early as
\nMay last year, we expressed to the government our willingness of relocating the
\nplant despite a huge investment cost, and we proactively proposed tentative locations.
\nOur idea is to build a high-tech, advanced pollution-free and environmentally
\nfriendly indoor concrete plant. It will become a model for similar plants around
\nthe world.”<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Incidentally, the Company
\nwill publish an open letter on newspaper tomorrow (June 8) (please refer to the
\nattachment for details) in response to concerns from residents, politicians and
\nmedia about the operation of the Company’s concrete production plant in Yau
\nTong. The “Open Letter to Hong Kong Citizens” entitled “Our Love
\nfor Hong Kong Planted on Concrete” stated that the Company’s concrete
\nplant in Yau Tong was constructed in the mid-1980s. The Company reminisced: Yau
\nTong was deserted and there were no residential homes by then. There were only
\na few ship repair factories about to wind down. Concrete was an indispensable
\nmaterial for construction projects, and it must be used within two hours of
\nproduction. Therefore, Yau Tong, by then, was ideal for concrete production, a
\nplace far away from residential areas and near the sea.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
The Company believed
\nthat the recent controversy arising from the operation of the Yau Tong plant was
\na legacy from the past, as the plant had been erected in Yau Tong much earlier
\nthan homes were built. The government was obliged to devise a long-term
\nsolution to address the issue. The Company shared Yau Tong residents’ concerns
\nover health and living environment, and was willing to comply with and meet public
\nexpectations. Having said that, the plant has been in operation for 20 years.
\nDespite our best effort, there are still limitations on how well we can upgrade
\nfacilities. That means as long as the plant is still in operation here, it is incapable
\nof fulfilling public expectations in full.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
The Company also made
\ntwo clarifications regarding descriptions about the plant on media reports:<\/p>\n
\n- That
\nthe operation of the plant has caused pollution of nearby sea water, and
\ntherefore disappearance of fishes. In reality, a fish wholesale market operated
\nby the Fish Marketing Office next to the plant pumps seawater there every day
\nto feed fresh fish. This proves normal water quality there.<\/li>\n - Criticism
\nabout cement trucks turning roads slippery, posing dangers and causing traffic
\ncongestion. Such problems and further pollution issues can also be created by
\nbuses, container trucks, fish-carrying vehicles and transportation of recycled
\nwastes that are using the same roads. It is therefore unfair to lay all blames
\non cement trucks.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
The Company states
\nthat it will keep on attending to the feedback of all parties on the operation
\nof the concrete plant and it firmly believes in working together with the
\ngovernment and the public to achieve a win-win solution.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
#ChinaConcreteCompanyLimited<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"HONG KONG SAR –\u00a0Media OutReach\u00a0– 7 June 2021 –
China Concrete Company Limited (the “Company”) filed an
appeal with the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) mid last month
regarding the Department’s decision to reject license renewal application for its
Yau Tong cement storage facility. The Company mentions that the EPD’s recent rejection
not only lacked sound …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[60],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15335"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eodishasamachar.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}