Wednesday 29 May 2013

How effective will the new Proposals to Enhance Dark Smoke Control on Marine Vessels be?

On 27 May 2013 the Transport and Housing Bureau  briefed the Legislative Council Panel on Economic Development on “Proposals to Enhance Dark Smoke Control on Marine Vessels” (Paper CB(1) 1073/12-13(05) refers). See the link below:


Proposed new legislation

Paragraph 8 of this briefing states:

“In line with overseas practice, we propose that Cap.548 and Cap.313 be amended to make it an offence for a vessel, that is a local vessel in respect of Cap.548 and an OGV in respect of Cap.313, to emit dark smoke which is as dark as or darker than shade 2 on the Ringelmann Chart for 3 minutes or more continuously at any one time”.

New proposals already in effect through Code of Practice

In fact, the Marine Department has already implemented this proposal. In the Code of Practice - Safety Standards for Class IV Vessels (issued under Section 8 of the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) Ordinance, Cap 548), Section 3.15 on Machinery Installations states:

Any engine fitted on a vessel should be properly maintained at all time free from dark smoke emission. In this regard, during the final inspection for initial and periodic survey, engine performance condition check would include smoke emission test using Ringelmann Chart. When the dark smoke emitted is as dark as or darker than Shade 2 of the Ringelmann Chart and is emitted for a continuous period of more than 3 minutes, the emission is considered not acceptable”.

See the link below:


What effect has this “Code of Practice” had on New World First Ferry?

On 31 January 2013, Hong Kong Coast Watch contacted New World First Ferry asking them when they were going to clean up dark smoke pollution caused by their ferries. Included in their response on 7 February 2013, New World First Ferry Services stated:

“Currently, every First Ferry vessel will undergo annual docking to ensure that the black smoke emitted is below level two of Ringelmann smoke chart for three minutes, that is stipulated by the Marine Department”.

Comment

Far from using the Code of Practice to reduce vessel pollution, New World First Ferry is using it as a benchmark to measure what is tolerated.

In response to a reporter’s query on the briefing given to LegCo, “A spokeswoman for New World First Ferry said the company is committed to follow the law when the amendments are introduced”. (Smoke detector benchmark will aid crackdown on dirty vessels. SCMP. Johnny Tam. 28 May 2013).

Given this attitude, it is clear that the proposed new legislation will have no effect on the behavior of New World First Ferry, who even when complying with the Code of Practice, still has the dubious distinction of being one of Hong Kong’s worst dark smoke polluters. 

Tuesday 28 May 2013

Where is the best place to photograph vessels emitting dark smoke pollution in Hong Kong?

Subject: Best location to photograph vessels emitting dark smoke pollution in Hong Kong.

Timings

New World First Ferry operate some of the world’s most polluting ferries. The best time for viewing scenes such as this one below are between 0630 to 0830 am (in the morning) and 1600 to 1830 pm (in the early evening):


Viewing location

The best place to view New World First Ferry vessels polluting Hong Kong is the area between Pier 4 and Pier 5 on the Central Waterfront. The ferries berth at Pier 5. The Government has conveniently put a “You are here” sign to help you find the best viewing location. See map below:


No Smoking

A gentle reminder – please abide by the rules and don’t smoke in this area – it could be hazardous to the health of your fellow citizens!


Comments on: LegCo Panel on Economic Development - Proposals to Enhance Dark Smoke Control on Marine Vessels on 27 May 2013.

The following is a review of the briefing on “Proposals to Enhance Dark Smoke Control on Marine Vessels” given by the Transport and Housing Bureau to the Legislative Council Panel on Economic Development on 27 May 2013 (Paper CB(1) 1073/12-13(05) refers).

See link below:


Comments are made on the following paragraphs:

PARA 2 – DEFINITION OF “NUISANCE”

“The law, however, does not define the extent of emission which shall constitute a “nuisance”. Without a clear or objective definition, whether the emission has caused a nuisance is more a matter of subjective judgment to be proven to the Court on a case by case basis”.

Comment

The Marine Department has misinterpreted the law. The question of whether an emission has caused a nuisance is not a matter of subjective judgment to be proven to the Court on a case by case basis.

For legislative purposes there are two types of nuisance, public nuisance and private nuisance.

A public nuisance is an act or omission that obstructs, damages, or inconveniences the rights of the community. Public nuisances may interfere with public health, through acts such as causing pollution. A public nuisance interferes with the public as a class, not merely one person or a group of citizens.

The legislative intent of Section 51 of CAP 548 and Section 50 of CAP 313 is that the nuisance caused is a public nuisance, affecting society as a whole. The way to “objectively” prove this is through producing evidence of the levels of local particulate pollution and the effects that it is having on public health, both of which are well documented in Hong Kong.

Instead of correctly or rigorously enforcing the law, the Marine Department choose to use the “private nuisance” test – how were you, or other people in the vicinity discomforted by the emission.

Question

What is the reason for this misinterpretation? Is it intentional, through inexperience or because of poor leadership?

PARA 3 - LENGTH OF EMISSION

“The standards used by MD in this regard is that if the intensity of emission is found to be comparable to or exceeding Shade 2 on the Ringelmann Chart and such emission has lasted for three minutes or more, it will be used as supporting evidence that a nuisance has been caused”.

Comment

The Marine Department has consistently briefed LegCo and other bodies that best practice in the UK and USA is use of the Ringelmann Chart and that  “… such emission has lasted for three minutes or more”.

This is incorrect!

In the UK, Section 3 (1) (b) of the Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations, 1958 states: “in no case shall black smoke be emitted for more than 3 minutes in the aggregate in any period of 30 minutes”.

See link below:


This is a substantially different and weakened interpretation of these regulations.

It should also be noted that these regulations are now considered redundant by the UK Government and it is proposed they be scrapped. See Page 24 of link below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69584/pb13728-ed-tape-environment.pdf

Question

Have the Marine Department intentionally misled LegCo and other bodies in their briefings, or is this a genuine mistake in interpretation? Irrespective of the answer, why is Marine Department seeking to introduce weakened legislation to Hong Kong?

PARA 5 – VISIBLE EMISSIONS RECORDED

The number of vessels with visible emission as noted in the monitoring surveys conducted by MD has dropped from 40.8% in 2007 to 1.2% in 2012.

Comment

In their briefing to the Local Vessels Advisory Committee in February 2013 (LVAC Paper 1/2013) the Marine Department stated in Paragraph 5:  Only one ocean going vessel in 2011 and one local vessel in 2012 were observed with smoke emission of as dark as or darker than shade 2 on the Ringelmann Chart for a continuous period of 3 minutes or more”.

See link below:


Question

If the proposed legislation is only going to affect 1 or 2 vessels in a year, why is it being enacted?

In its current form, the proposed new legislation is going to have no impact on vessel pollution in Hong Kong whatsoever!

PARA 8 – OVERSEAS PRACTICE

“In line with overseas practice, we propose that Cap.548 and Cap.313 be amended to make it an offence for a vessel, that is a local vessel in respect of Cap.548 and an OGV in respect of Cap.313, to emit dark smoke which is as dark as or darker than shade 2 on the Ringelmann Chart for 3 minutes or more continuously at any one time”.

Comment

The Marine Department are already doing this, so why is it being discussed. In the CODE OF PRACTICE -- Safety Standards for Class IV Vessels (issued under Section 8 of the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) Ordinance, Cap 548), Section 3 on Machinery Installations states:

3.15 “Any engine fitted on a vessel should be properly maintained at all time free from dark smoke emission. In this regard, during the final inspection for initial and periodic survey, engine performance condition check would include smoke emission test using Ringelmann Chart. When the dark smoke emitted is as dark as or darker than Shade 2 of the Ringelmann Chart and is emitted for a continuous period of more than 3 minutes, the emission is considered not acceptable”.

3.16 “Any vessel if found or reported emitting excessive dark smoke, owners would be requested to present vessel’s engine(s) for special inspection and smoke test to ensure compliance. Any non-compliance will be pursued in accordance with relevant legislation requirement”.

See link below:


For anyone questioning how effective this has been in curbing dark smoke pollution by vessels in Hong Kong waters, please refer to other posts in this blog under New World First Ferry.

Question

On whose authority have Marine Department given local vessel companies license to not comply with Section 51 of CAP 548 and Section 50 of CAP 313?

It should be noted, at least one local ferry company is not complying with the law as it stands, suggesting there is no reason to do so, as its vessels are not emitting levels of pollution in excess of these “guidelines”, as is stipulated by the Marine Department.

SUMMARY

Rather than strengthen enforcement against dark smoke emissions from vessels in Hong Kong waters, the Proposals to Enhance Dark Smoke Control on Marine Vessels will seriously weaken Hong Kong’s ability to combat such pollution.

These proposals should be reviewed!

Sunday 26 May 2013

My Take (Alex Lo) in today’s South China Morning Post (27 May 2013) comments on our objection to the construction of additional pier floors at Central Piers Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Our objection submitted to the Legislative Panel on Transport regarding the construction of additional pier floors at Central Piers Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (tabled for discussion on 24 May 2013) has been picked up by Alex Lo in his My Take column in today’s South China Morning Post, with the following comments on the polluting ways of our local ferry companies:

“… the piers are berths to some of the world’s worst polluting ferries.”

“… the choking exhaust fumes of the vessels operated by New World First Ferry and Hong Kong and Kowloon Ferry.”



Smoke pollution in Hong Kong harbour caused by New World First Ferry vessel Xin Fei on 27 May 2013

Company: New World First Ferry Services Limited
Location: Central Outlying Islands Ferry Pier 5, Hong Kong.
Vessel: Xin Fei
Time: 0643 hours
Date: 27 May 2013









Friday 24 May 2013

Lai See in today’s South China Morning Post (25 May 2013) comments on our objection to the construction of additional pier floors at Central Piers Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Our objection submitted to the Legislative Panel on Transport regarding the construction of additional pier floors at Central Piers Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (tabled for discussion on 24 May 2013) has been picked up by Howard Winn in his Lai See column in today’s South China Morning Post.

Wednesday 22 May 2013

Are New World First Ferry and Star Ferry in breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Ordinance?

Subject: Occupational Health and Safety Ordinance, CAP 509, Laws of Hong Kong.

Section 6: Employers to ensure safety and health of employees

The law

Section 6 of the Occupational Health and Safety Ordinance states - Every employer must, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure the safety and health at work of all the employer's employees.

Offences

Cases in which an employer fails to comply with this law can include:

1.  Failure to maintain the workplace in a condition that is, so far as reasonably practicable without risks to health; or

2. Failure to provide or maintain a working environment for the employer's employees that is, so far as reasonably practicable, without risks to health.

Penalties

An employer who fails to comply with these subsections commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of $200000, whilst an employer who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly commits fails to comply with these subsections commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of $200000 and to imprisonment for 6 months.

See also the Labour Department guidelines on Air Impurities in the Workplace:


CASE STUDY 1 – New World First Ferry at Pier 5


The smoke cone left by ferries berthing at Pier 5 


Ferry departing - the wind is blowing the dark smoke towards the ferry terminal
 


As the ferry pulls away, the smoke is blown into the terminal - you can "smell" the fumes
Smoke that isn't blown into Pier 7 blows into adjacent piers, some operated by New World First Ferry



CASE STUDY 2 – Star Ferry at Pier 7


Star Ferries berthing or departing Pier 7 - from the outside





Star Ferries berthing at Pier 7 - from the inside






The spotless railings at Star Ferry Pier 7 - always "clean and shiny"



The clean glove test - conducted on 20 February 2013, by brushing a railing with the glove

Glove before the test


Gloves after four separate tests.
Is this what they call "Particulate Matter"? 





The question is, are New World First Ferry and Star Ferry complying with the law in ensuring the provision of a working environment without health risks to their employees, or are they breaking the law?