Environmental Impact Assessment

for Development of an EcoPark

in Tuen Mun Area 38

Final EIA Report

Volume 1 – Main Text and Appendices A to C


 

Environmental Protection Department

April 2005

in association with

 


 

VOLUME 1

 

 

CONTENTS

1       INTRODUCTION

1.1         General

1.2         Background of the Project

1.3         Purpose of the EIA Study

1.4         Approach to the EIA Study

1.5         Report Structure

2       DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

2.1         Key Project Requirements

2.2         Consideration of Alternatives

2.3         Site Location and Site History

2.4         Nature, Scope and Benefits of the Project

2.5         Size, Scale, Shape and Design of the Project

2.6         Project Implementation, Timetable and Phasing

3       AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.1         Introduction

3.2         Relevant Guidelines, Standards & Legislation

3.3         Baseline Conditions

3.4         Air Sensitive Receivers

3.5         Construction Phase Impact Assessment

3.6         Operational Phase Impact Assessment

3.7         Conclusions and Recommendations

4       NOISE ISSUES

4.1         General

4.2         Construction and Operation Noise

4.3         Road Traffic Noise

5       WATER QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1         Introduction

5.2         Environmental Legislation

5.3         Existing Conditions

5.4         Key Issues

5.5         Water Quality Impact Assessment

5.6         Mitigation Measures

5.7         Conclusions

6       WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

6.1         Introduction

6.2         Objectives

6.3         Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria

6.4         Assessment Methodology

6.5         Analysis of Activities and Waste Generation During the Construction Phase

6.6         Analysis of Activities and Waste Generation During the Operation Phase

6.7         Proposal for Waste Management During the Construction Phase

6.8         Proposal for Waste Management During the Operation Phase

6.9         Conclusions

7       LAND CONTAMINATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT

7.1         Introduction

7.2         Possible Sources of Contamination

7.3         Operational Practices to Prevent Contamination

7.4         Conclusions

8       LANDFILL GAS HAZARD ASSESSMENT

8.1         Introduction

8.2         Objectives

8.3         Potential Hazards Associated with LFG

8.4         Landfill Gas Risk Assessment Methodology

8.5         Description and History of Siu Lang Shui Landfill

8.6         Description of EcoPark Works Within the Landfill Consultation Zone

8.7         Landfill Gas Risk Assessment

8.8         Conclusions

9       LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ISSUES

9.1         General

9.2         Sensitive Receivers

9.3         Potential Impacts

9.4         Mitigation Measures

9.5         Conclusions

10     HAZARD TO LIFE ASSESSMENT

10.1        Substances Posing A Potential Risk

10.2        Hazard to Life Assessment

10.3        Process Review

10.4        Building Height Restriction

10.5        Conclusions

11     SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES

11.1        Population and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Protected

11.2        Environmentally Friendly Designs Recommended

11.3        Key Environmental Problems Avoided

11.4        Compensation Areas Included

11.5        Environmental Benefits of Environmental Protection Measures Recommended

12     ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND AUDIT

12.1        Introduction

12.2        Process Review

12.3        Environmental Management Plan

12.4        EM&A Manual

12.5        Air Quality

12.6        Water Quality

12.7        Waste Management

12.8        Landfill Gas

13     DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS FOR "BASE CASE" ASSESSMENT

13.1        General

13.2        Air Quality

13.3        Water Quality

13.4        Waste Management

13.5        Prevention of Land Contamination

13.6        Landfill Gas

13.7        Hazard to Life

14     CONCLUSIONS

14.1        The Project

14.2        Air Quality Impact

14.3        Noise Issues

14.4        Water Quality Impact

14.5        Waste Management Implications

14.6        Land Contamination Impact

14.7        Landfill Gas Hazard Assessment

14.8        Landscape and Visual Issues

14.9        Hazard to Life

14.10      Environmental Outcomes

14.11      Summary of Environmental Impacts

14.12      Environmental Monitoring and Audit

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

A          PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS

B          INITIALLY PROPOSED PROCESSES, THROUGHPUTS AND MATERIAL FLOWS WITHIN THE ECOPARK

C          IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

 

 

 

VOLUME 2

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

D          AIR QUALITY MODELLING

D.1       Recovery Processes Remaining After Initial Screening

D.2       Detailed Emission Rate Calculations for AQIA (Unmitigated)

D.3       Detailed Emission Rate Calculations for AQIA Scenario 2 (Mitigated)

D.4       AQIA Results (Unmitigated)

D.5       AQIA Results for Scenario 2 (Mitigated)

D.6       Dust Impact from Ecopark for Scenarios 2 and 3

D.7       Contour Plots of the Major Pollutants for Scenario (Mitigated)

D.8       Contour Plots of the Major Pollutants for Scenario 3

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table 1.1           Utilisation Rates

Table 1.2           Area Required for Buffered Material Throughputs

 

Table 2.1           Calculation of Growth Factors

Table 2.2           Calculation of Buffered Material Throughputs

Table 2.3           Area Allocation for EcoPark Components Within Conceptual Design

 

Table 3.1           Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives

Table 3.2           List of Recovery Processes Controlled under APC (Specified Processes) and (Furnaces, Ovens and Chimneys) Regulations for Initial Consideration

Table 3.3           Air Quality Standards for TAPs not Listed in AQOs and EIAO

Table 3.4           Health Risk Guidelines for Exposure to Air Toxics

Table 3.5           Inhalation Unit Risk Factor for the Assessment of Cancer Risk

Table 3.6           Indicative Background Air Quality at the Site

Table 3.7           Air Sensitive Receivers

Table 3.8           Summary of Initial Screening of Processes

Table 3.9           Potential Air Quality Impacts from Processes to be Assessed

Table 3.10         Sources of Cumulative Air Emissions

Table 3.11         Air Quality Criteria for the Assessment

Table 3.12         Chimney and Modelling Parameters

Table 3.13         Representative ASRs for the Assessment

Table 3.14         Air Pollutant Emissions from the Processes for the Assessment

Table 3.15         Major Assumptions of Different Assessment Scenarios

Table 3.16         Summary of Assessment Results at Existing/Planned Off-site ASRs – Scenario 1 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.17         Summary of Assessment Results at Internal ASRs Within EcoPark – Scenario 1 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.18         Summary Assessment of Findings – Scenario 1 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.19         Summary of Assessment Results at Existing/Planned Off-site ASRs – Scenario 2 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.20         Summary of Assessment Results at Internal ASRs Within EcoPark – Scenario 2 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.21         Summary of Assessment Findings – Scenario 2 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.22         Summary of Assessment Results at Existing/Planned Off-site ASRs – Scenario 3 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.23         Summary of Assessment Results at Internal ASRs Within EcoPark  – Scenario 3 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.24         Summary of Assessment Findings – Scenario 3 (Unmitigated)

Table 3.25         Summary of Assessment Results at Existing/Planned Off-site ASRs – Scenario 2 (Mitigated)

Table 3.26         Summary of Assessment Results at Internal ASRs Within EcoPark – Scenario 2 (Mitigated)

Table 3.27         Summary of Assessment Results at Existing/Planned Off-site ASRs – Scenario 3 (Mitigated)

Table 3.28         Summary of Assessment Results at Internal ASRs Within EcoPark – Scenario 3 (Mitigated)

 

Table 5.1           Water Quality Objectives for the NWWCZ

Table 5.2           Standards for Effluents Discharged into Foul Sewers Leading into Government Sewage Treatment Plants

Table 5.3           Standards for Effluents Discharged into the Inshore Waters of NWWCZ

Table 5.4           Water Quality at Selected EPD Monitoring Stations in NWWCZ

Table 5.5           Recovery Process and Generation of Wastewater

Table 5.6           Contaminant Concentration of the Effluents Entering the WTF, Based on Best Practical Control Technology

Table 5.7           Processes with a High Risk of Accidental Contamination

 

Table 6.1           Estimate of Solid Waste Arisings from Recycling Activities

Table 6.2           Summary of Solid Waste Arisings from Recycling Activities

Table 6.3           Estimate of Overall Waste Arisings

 

Table 7.1           Possible Sources of Land Contamination

 

Table 8.1           Classification of Risk Category

Table 8.2           Methane Concentrations at SLSL Monitoring Locations (% v/v)

Table 8.3           Carbon Dioxide Concentrations at SLSL Monitoring Locations (% v/v)

Table 8.4           Qualitative LFG Risk Assessment

 

Table 10.1         Substances Posing a Potential Risk (“Base Case” Scenario)

Table 10.2         Building Height Restrictions Within EcoPark

 

Table 11.1         Material Types / Processes and Throughputs Modified Through Application of the EIAO Process

 

Table 13.1         Air Quality “Base Case” Assumptions

Table 13.2         Building Height Restrictions Within EcoPark

 

Table 14.1         Summary of Operational Environmental Impacts / Mitigation

 

Table B.1          Initially Proposed Processes and Throughputs

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Figure 2.1         Location of the Proposed EcoPark and Other Users in Area 38

Figure 2.2         Potential Vertical Integration within EcoPark

Figure 2.3a       Conceptual Internal Layout – Landscaping and Infrastructure

Figure 2.3b       Boundary Planting

Figure 2.3c       Median Strip Planting

Figure 2.3d       Roadside Treatment

Figure 2.4a       Conceptual Internal Layout – Lot Distribution and Utility Connections

Figure 2.4b       Utility Connections – Detail Schematic

Figure 2.5         Proposed Programme for EcoPark and Other Nearby Projects

 

Figure 3.1         Locations of Emission Sources within EcoPark

Figure 3.2         Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers

Figure 3.3         Proposed Chimney Restricted Area (for fuel combustion emissions under Scenario 2)

 

Figure 4.1         Distances Between EcoPark, NSRs in the “Holiday Camp” and Lung Mun Road        

 

Figure 5.1         Location of Water Sensitive Receivers

 

Figure 8.1         EcoPark and Siu Lang Shui Landfill

 

Figure 9.1         Photomontage – Elevated Vantage Point

Figure 9.2         Computer-generated 3D Rendering –  Typical Internal View

 

Figure 12.1       Flowchart for Process Review

 

Figure A.1         Typical Process Diagram for Electrical and Electronic Waste and CRT Recovery

Figure A.2         Typical Process Diagram Fluorescent Lamp Processing

Figure A.3         Typical Process Diagram for Glass Recovery/Recycling (Pre-treatment)

 

Figure A.4         Typical Process Diagram for Glass Recovery/Recycling (Refining/Shaping)

Figure A.5         Typical Process Diagram for In-Vessel Composting

Figure A.6         Typical Process Flow for Inedible Rendering

Figure A.7         Typical Process Diagram for Secondary Steel

Figure A.8         Typical Process Diagram for Secondary Aluminium Processing (Pre-treatment)

Figure A.9         Typical Process Diagram for Secondary Aluminium Processing (Melting / Refining)

Figure A.10       Typical Process Diagram for Lead-acid Battery Processing / Secondary Lead Melting (Pre-treatment)

Figure A.11       Typical Process Diagram for Secondary Lead Melting (Melting)

Figure A.12       Typical Process Diagram for Secondary Zinc Processing (Pre-treatment)

Figure A.13       Typical Process Diagram for Secondary Zinc Processing (Melting)

Figure A.14       Typical Process Diagram for Secondary Zinc Processing (Refining and Alloying)

Figure A.15       Typical Flow Diagram for Secondary Fibre Processing

Figure A.16       Typical Flow Diagram for Paper Production Using Secondary Fibre

Figure A.17       Typical Process Diagram for Tyre Processing (Ambient and Cryogenic)

Figure A.18       Typical Process Diagram for Tyre Processing (Retreading)

 

 

1                       INTRODUCTION

1.1                  General

1.1.1             The Chief Executive announced in his 2005 Policy Address that the Government will formulate a policy to provide concessions to assist the development of the environmental industry.  He has pledged to build an EcoPark in Tuen Mun for exclusive use by recycling industries.  The first phase of EcoPark will be commissioned in late-2006.

1.1.2             Prior to this announcement, in October 2003, Scott Wilson Limited, in association with BMT Asia Pacific, and supported by The Dougherty Group, David C Lee Surveyors Limited and Cheung Macpherson Consultants Limited, was appointed by the Waste Facilities Business Unit (WFBU) of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) to conduct further studies into the development of EcoPark (formerly the Recovery Park) in Tuen Mun Area 38.

1.1.3             The EcoPark is a Designated Project (DP) under G.4(b) of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the EIAO.  As a DP under Schedule 2, EcoPark requires an Environmental Permit (EP)  to allow a range of recycling processes to be undertaken within the facility.

1.1.4             The further studies under the current agreement include conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study to obtain the EP and a zoning amendment submission that includes a Road Traffic Impact Assessment (RTIA) and Marine Traffic Impact Assessment (MTIA) to secure approval for the necessary zoning amendment.

1.1.5             This Report presents the approach to and findings of the EIA study for EcoPark, and follows the requirements of the EIA Study Brief (ESB) No. ESB-104/2002.

 

1.2                  Background of the Project

1.2.1             Hong Kong's landfills are filling up faster than expected and society is producing much more waste now than 15 years ago, when the landfills were being planned.  Government provides facilities for collecting waste plastic bottles, aluminium cans, paper and mobile ‘phone batteries.  These materials, together with electronics, glass, food waste, ferrous metals, textiles, rubber tyres and wood can be recycled into new products.  These recycling operations not only reduce the amount of waste to be disposed of in landfills but also provide employment and stimulate the economy.

1.2.2             Government has devoted considerable effort to encouraging people to reduce waste. A Waste Reduction Committee was formed in 1999 to introduce new initiatives and in May 2001 the Chief Secretary Committee endorsed a package of measures to further promote the prevention, separation and recycling of municipal solid waste.  Recycling programmes have been set up in housing estates, schools, hospitals, hotels, the airport, public transport facilities and public places and venues. Short-term land has been set aside for use by recyclers and businesses have been encouraged to initiate waste reduction activities through the Wastewi$e scheme, which recognises their efforts.

1.2.3             The challenge facing Hong Kong is similar to that in many developed cities. Increasing wealth has brought increasing wastage. Over the past 15 years, municipal waste has increased by about 50% while the population has increased by just 20%, and by the end of 2003 although Hong Kong was recycling 41% of municipal waste, less than 4% was being recycled locally.  Thus, further measures need to be taken to improve the level of recycling.

1.2.4             The long-term availability of affordable land provided with basic infrastructure has been identified as one such measure to promote the growth of the waste recycling industry in Hong Kong.  To this end, EcoPark in Tuen Mun Area 38 is to be established, and in his 2005 Policy Address the Chief Executive committed to its commissioning in late-2006.

1.2.5             A Preliminary Study on the Development of a Recovery Park in Tuen Mun Area 38 (the Preliminary Study) was completed by Scott Wilson in October 2002 and presented an outline master plan for developing EcoPark in two phases, including provision of basic infrastructure and common facilities. The site also includes 460m of marine frontage for transporting recyclable materials and goods into and out of EcoPark by barge.

1.2.6             It should be noted that during the course of this Study the boundary of EcoPark was modified from that in the Preliminary Study.  This Study now uses the new boundary that was provided by PlanD in late-2004, and a new conceptual layout (see Section 2.5).

 

1.3                  Purpose of the EIA Study

1.3.1             The purpose of this EIA Study is to provide information on the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising from the Project and other concurrent works. This information will contribute to decisions by the Director of EPD on :

·     The overall acceptability of any adverse environmental consequences that are likely to arise as a result of the proposed Project.

·     The conditions and requirements for the detailed design, construction and operation of the proposed Project to mitigate against adverse environmental consequences wherever practicable.

·     The acceptability of residual impacts after implementation of proposed mitigation measures.

1.3.2             Satisfying the aims of the EIA Study has been managed by achieving a number of more specific objectives as listed in the ESB.  The objectives of the EIA study are to :

(i)          Describe the Project and associated works together with the requirements for carrying out the Project;

(ii)        Identify and describe elements of community and environment likely to be affected by the Project and/or likely to cause adverse impacts on the Project, including natural and man-made environment and the associated environmental constraints;

(iii)       Describe the considerations given in selecting the proposed site, layout design (including recycling processes to be adopted for the recycling plants), and to provide reasons for selecting the preferred option and to describe the part environmental factors played in the selection process;

(iv)       Identify and quantify emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

(v)         Identify and quantify waste management requirements and propose measures to mitigate or prevent impacts, and measures to be adopted to avoid introducing land contamination at the Project site;

(vi)       Identify and quantify water quality impact on nearby sensitive waters arising from the construction and operation of the Project and requirements for a contingency plan to deal with accidental spillage of chemicals into nearby waters;

(vii)      Identify any negative impacts and propose the provision of mitigation measures so as to minimise pollution, environmental disturbance and nuisance during construction and operation of the Project;

(viii)     Investigate the feasibility, practicability, effectiveness and implications of the proposed mitigation measures;

(ix)       Identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts (i.e. after practicable mitigation) and the cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operation phases of the Project in relation to sensitive receivers and potential affected users;

(x)         Identify, assess and specify methods, measures and standards, to be included in the detailed design, construction and operation of the Project which are necessary to mitigate the identified environmental impacts and cumulative effects and reduce them to acceptable levels;

(xi)       Identify constraints associated with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIA Study, as well as the provision of any necessary modifications; and

(xii)      Design and specify environmental monitoring and audit requirements to ensure the effective implementation of the recommended environmental protection and pollution control measures.

 

1.4                  Approach to the EIA Study

1.4.1             The environmental impacts arising at EcoPark from the operation of the various recycling businesses will be directly related to :

·     The type of materials processed.

·     The recycling processes used.

·     The throughput of each process.

·     The transportation of materials into and out of EcoPark.

1.4.2             This EIA for EcoPark is unique in that the future scope of operation of EcoPark cannot be determined at this stage.  While the Preliminary Study identified an initial mix of tenants (and corresponding processes), these will not remain static but will change in response to market demands of the recycling industry. Thus, the EIA will need to demonstrate that the environmental impacts of all future recycling processes have been fully considered.  Furthermore, it is intended that the EP for EcoPark should be all-encompassing and that individual tenants will not normally need to apply for their own EP.

1.4.3             To achieve this, three key approaches have been incorporated into this EIA, and are described in the following sub-sections :

·     The Umbrella Approach to include as wide a range of processes as possible, based on the best available information available at this time.

·     The Process Review Approach to allow for inclusion within EcoPark any future processes not covered by this EIA.

·     Continuous Public Involvement to ensure that the community and stakeholders are fully aware of the proposals for EcoPark and can make positive contributions to its development.

The Umbrella Approach

1.4.4             To address the requirements of ESB Section 3.3, a comprehensive range of recycling methods and throughputs has been assessed, such that whatever EcoPark configuration is adopted in the future, and whatever types of processes are used, the EIA has already taken these into consideration – this has been termed the “umbrella” approach.

1.4.5             To ensure that this approach is comprehensive, it needs to address the “worst case” scenario of possible recycling activities. Therefore, we have adopted “buffered” throughputs in which the original throughputs determined in the Preliminary Study have been increased by a growth factor (see Section 2.5) and have assessed these as the “worst case”.

1.4.6             It should also be noted that, based on the Phase II utilisation rates (i.e. throughput per unit area – see Table 1.1, below) the area required to accommodate the “worst case” buffered throughputs can be calculated.

Table 1.1 : Utilisation Rates

Material Type

Hong Kong  Utilisation Rates (Generally Lower) (tpa/m2)

International Utilisation Rates (Generally Higher) (tpa/m2)

Hong Kong Rates as a %age of International Rates

Phase I Utilisation Rates (Tending to Lower Hong Kong Rates) (tpa/m2)

Phase II Utilisation Rates (Tending to Higher International Rates) (tpa/m2)

Batteries

-

0.07

-

-

0.1

Electronics / Appliances

-

4.05

-

-

4.1

Glass

0.35

33.91

1%

0.4

33.9

Organic Food Waste

-

1.89

-

-

1.9

Ferrous Metals

12.86

-

-

12.9

12.9

Non-ferrous Metals

2.15

-

-

2.2

2.2

Paper

8.0

17.2

47%

8.0

17.2

Plastics

0.28

3

9%

0.3

3.0

Textiles

9.6

9.29

103%

9.6

9.6

Rubber Tyres

0.38

1.79

22%

0.4

1.8

Wood

4.0

4.11

97%

4.0

4.1

Spent Copper Etchant*

 

 

 

 

10.0

Source :  Table 8.3 from the Final Report of the Preliminary Study.

Note :      *   The Preliminary Study did not include Spent Copper Etchant as a material type. The utilisation rate shown is based on a very conservative estimate (i.e. a relatively small area required for a large throughput, hence, a larger throughput resulting in potentially greater impacts to be assessed).

 

 

1.4.7             The physical area required to achieve the “buffered” throughputs is shown in Table 1.2, below.  From this table, it can be seen that to accommodate all of the “buffered” throughput within EcoPark would require an area of some 206,000m2 to be allocated to tenants, compared to the 141,300m2 that is actually available for recycling activities (see Section 2.5), and so the “worst case” is not physically achievable within EcoPark.

Table 1.2 : Area Required for Buffered Material Throughputs

Material Type

Buffered Material Throughput1 (tpa)

Utilisation Rate2 (tpa/m2)

Area3 Required for Buffered Material (m2)

Batteries

2,240

0.1

22,400

Electronics

25,100

4.1

6,122

Glass

42,680

33.9

1,259

Organic Food Waste

82,180

1.9

43,253

Ferrous Metals

270,380

12.9

20,960

Non-ferrous Metals

57,100

2.2

25,955

Paper

507,590

17.2

29,511

Plastics

102,740

3.0

34,247

Textiles

8,010

9.6

834

Rubber Tyres

20,020

1.8

11,122

Wood

41,260

4.1

10,063

Spent Copper Etchant

3,290

10.0

329

Totals

1,162,590

 

206,055

Notes :  1.   From Table 2.2.

             2.   From Table 1.1 (for Phase II).

             3.   From “Shape and Design of the Project” in Section 2.5, the area within Phase I is 83,316m2 and within Phase II is 111,904m2, giving a total of 195,220m2, i.e. just under 20ha – this site area is not finalised and is subject to further discussion with PlanD and LandsD.  Subtracting the areas required for infrastructure the areas remaining for allocation to tenants are 47,000m2 in Phase I and 94,300m2 in Phase II, giving a total of 141,300m2, which represents a utilisation rate of 72.4% of the total EcoPark area.  This is considerably less (just over two-thirds) than the 206,055m2 required to accommodate all of the buffered material throughput.

 

1.4.8             The benefit of the “umbrella” approach, however, means that all combinations of recovery processes that can be accommodated within EcoPark (within “buffered” throughputs) have therefore been assessed, even though the exact configuration is not known (and cannot be known) at this time.

The Process Review Approach

1.4.9             To ensure that this EIA and the EP remain valid for new processes or greater throughputs that have not been included within the “umbrella” assessment, it is recommended that a review of all recycling processes is carried out so as to ensure compliance with the EIA Report and EP.  This is an important safeguard to ensure that the conditions of the EP will be met in the future and is discussed in detail in Section 12.2 of this report.

1.4.10          As the Process Review will be implemented through the EM&A programme, this is also discussed in the EM&A Manual.

Continuous Public Involvement

1.4.11          EPD is keen to promote Continuous Public Involvement (CPI), a concept that allows on-going public participation in the EIA process. Through CPI, people can see how information is gathered, how different models of prediction are chosen and what alternatives are considered. Most importantly, they can contribute their knowledge and views at any stage in the process, thereby helping to ensure that the outcome is acceptable.

1.4.12          WFBU is fully aware of the expectations of the local community in Tuen Mun with regard to the development of EcoPark and CPI has been implemented (as per ETWB TC No. 13/2003) to ensure that the views of key stakeholders have been considered from the earliest stage of the EIA process.

1.4.13          Through initial, formal public consultation with key stakeholders, such as the Tuen Mun District Council (TMDC), the benefits of developing EcoPark, including job creation, have been acknowledged by the local community. As the EIA has progressed, TMDC has again been formally consulted on other issues, such as the appearance of EcoPark.

1.4.14          Informal discussions have also been held with the Hong Kong Waste Management Association (HKWMA), Hong Kong’s premier professional organisation representing waste management professionals.  The HKWMA are very supportive of the development of EcoPark and may provide more formal support during the public consultation stage.

1.4.15          In terms of more formal consultation, EPD provided a progress paper to TMDC in September 2003, and in November 2001, November 2004 and March 2005 ETWB and EPD gave further briefings to TMDC on the development of the Project.

1.4.16          Based on the CPI, the scope of processes and layout of EcoPark have been examined with this in mind and have resulted in a number of changes to the design so as to meet the expectations of the public.  These are discussed in Section 11.2.

 

1.5                  Report Structure

1.5.1             Following this introductory section, this EIA Report is organised as follows :

·        Section 2 – Description of the Project.

·        Section 3 – Air Quality Impact Assessment.

·        Section 4 – Noise Issues.

·        Section 5 – Water Quality Impact Assessment.

·        Section 6 – Waste Management Implications.

·        Section 7 – Contaminated Land Impact Assessment.

·        Section 8 – Landfill Gas Hazard Assessment.

·        Section 9 – Landscape and Visual Issues.

·        Section 10 – Hazard to Life Assessment.

·        Section 11 – Summary of Environmental Outcomes.

·        Section 12 – Environmental Monitoring and Audit.

·        Section 13 – Operational Design Assumptions For "Base Case" Assessment.

·        Section 14 – Conclusions.

 

 

2                       DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

2.1                  Key Project Requirements

2.1.1             As referred under Clause 1.2 of the EIA Study Brief, the development and operation of the proposed EcoPark will comprise the following :

·        Provision of infrastructure including marine loading/unloading areas, roads, drains, sewers, utilities, etc.

·        Construction of buildings and facilities for accommodating office and recycling operations.

·        Provision of on-site wastewater treatment facility or pumping facility for transmitting wastewater to other government facilities for treatment.

·        Allocation of lots to tenants for construction of their facilities.

·        Delivery and unloading of recyclable materials, recycling operations and loading and transportation of finished products by road and sea.

·        Maintenance of infrastructure, office buildings, recycling facilities, etc.

·        Environmental monitoring and audit as well as implementation of mitigation measures.

 

2.2                  Consideration of Alternatives

2.2.1             Section 1.2 has described the background to EcoPark project, i.e., why EcoPark is needed in Hong Kong, in terms of it helping to meet policy objectives and to provide  appropriate incentives to the local recycling industry. The alternatives considered under this sub-section, however, relate to the different locations within Hong Kong that have been examined in terms of their availability and suitability for development as EcoPark.  This addresses “the considerations given in selecting the proposed site” required under item 3.3 of the ESB (see para.1.3.2(iii)).

2.2.2             Please note that “the considerations given in selecting the … recycling processes to be adopted for the recycling plants” together with the “reasons for selecting the preferred option” required under item 3.3 of the ESB (see para.1.3.2(iii)) are discussed in Section 3 on air quality.  The reason for this is that air quality issues, rather than other environmental issues, are considered to be the limiting factor in terms of developing EcoPark. The preferred option, in terms of the range of recycling processes and proposed throughputs, will be determined by the conclusions and recommendations of the air quality impact assessment. As such, environmental factors (predominantly air quality) dominate the option selection process for EcoPark.

2.2.3             The idea for an EcoPark was first raised in the late-1990s as one of the means for helping achieve the targets in the Waste Reduction Framework Plan.  In subsequent years, EPD carried out extensive site searches for the preferred location for an EcoPark and these focused on utilising the restored closed landfill sites in Hong Kong.

2.2.4             Whilst most of the closed old landfills are being restored for recreational uses, materials recycling is another way of making good use of these restored landfills. As compared to the current short term tenancy sites for accommodating recycling activities, the closed old landfill sites provide suitable land with potentially longer tenure to meet the demand of the recycling industry and hence give the tenants an added incentive to invest in their operations. Also, recycling activities are compatible with the engineering nature and the inherent development constraints of restored landfill sites.

2.2.5             An assessment of the potential use of the restored landfill sites for accommodating materials recycling activities was conducted by EPD. The factors considered in the assessment included location of the site, programme of the restoration work, committed afteruse, progress in determining the afteruse and implementation programme, potential usable area for recycling activities and compatibility with the neighbouring land use.

2.2.6             The results of that assessment indicated that Pillar Point Valley Landfill (PPVL), Ma Yau Tong Central Landfill (MYTCL), Tseung Kwan O Stage lI/III Landfill (TKOL-II/III) and Siu Lang Shui Landfill (SLSL) had potential for accommodating materials recycling activities.  The appropriateness of these sites for an EcoPark will be considered briefly below.

2.2.7             The construction and operation of materials recycling facilities at PPVL, MYTCL, TKOL-II/III and SLSL sites was not anticipated to have unacceptable environmental impacts to  neighbouring developments. The existing road network provides good access to the sites and the traffic generated by the recycling operations at these sites was not expected to put significant extra burden on the existing roads. Through appropriate layout and architectural design, it was anticipated that the materials recycling activities would not cause adverse visual impact to the surroundings.

Pillar Point Valley Landfill

2.2.8             The location of PPVL, in relation to the industrial and residential areas in Tuen Mun (sources of recyclable materials), West New Territories (WENT) LandfiIl (a major waste disposal site) and the border with the Mainland (an outlet for recovered materials), made this site suitable for recycling operations. The materials recycling activities at the PPVL site would also be compatible with neighbouring industrial and non-­residential developments.

2.2.9             PPVL is currently being restored under a Design-Build-Operate (DBO) contract, which includes a 30-year aftercare period. The management of the materials recycling activities and the provision of related infrastructure and installations was included in PPVL DBO Contract albeit subject to excision.  In the event, this option was excised from the Contract and restoration works are proceeding without the provision for an EcoPark.

2.2.10          The PPVL site is currently zoned “GB” (Green Belt). Rezoning a platform identified as a potential area for materials recycling activities within PPVL, to “OU” (Other Specified Uses) would be required due to the specific nature of EcoPark activities. The PPVL site at its southern end also encroaches partly onto site zoned "OU" annotated "Crematorium, Columbarium, Funeral Services Centre and Open Space” which, being at a distance from the platform of PPVL, would not be affected by EcoPark development.

2.2.11          As no serious interest had been shown in developing PPVL for recreational use, the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) had no objection to the use of PPVL. However, the Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau (HPLB) expressed the view that recycling activities deviated from the original planning intention and pointed out that there would be a shortfall of open space in the locality.  In this regard, rezoning of the site would require a cautious decision.

Ma Yau Tong Central Landfill

2.2.12          The location of MYTCL, in relation to the industrial and residential areas in Kwun Tong (sources of recyclable materials), South East New Territories (SENT) Landfill (a major waste disposal site) and the Kwun Tong Public Cargo Handling Area (KTPCHA) (a major point for export of recovered materials), made this site very suitable for materials recycling. It was understood that the KTPCHA may be relocated under the "South East Kowloon Development" to Tseung Kwan O Area 131, which is also considered a suitable point for export of the recovered materials.

2.2.13          MYTCL has been restored and is being monitored and maintained by the landfill restoration contractors for up to 30 years. The potential area considered suitable for materials recycling activities was an area of 0.4ha on the lower platform and which is zoned "O" (Open Space). Rezoning of this area from "O" to "OU" would be required.

2.2.14          HAB did not support the proposed EcoPark at the MYTCL site because there is a shortage of open space provision in the Kwun Tong District and the proposal could have affected the “Lam Tin Park Phase II” project, which was then under planning. They were also concerned about the compatibility of recycling activities with the Lam Tin Park. HPLB expressed similar concerns as for PPVL stating that rezoning of the site would require a cautious decision.

Tseung Kwan O Stage lI/III Landfill

2.2.15          The TKOL II/III site is very suitable for materials recycling activities. It is close to the sources of recyclable materials, i.e. the industrial and residential areas in Kwun Tong and the residential area in Tseung Kwan O. The site is also close to SENT Landfill and the KTPCHA. The proposed reprovisioning site at Tseung Kwan O Area 131 for the KTPCHA could continue to be a point for export of the recovered materials.

2.2.16          TKOL II/III has been restored and is being monitored and maintained by the landfill restoration contractor for up to 30 years. The potential area considered suitable for materials recycling activities was an area of 0.7ha on the lower platform and is zoned "O". Rezoning of this area from "O" to "OU" would be required.

2.2.17          As no serious interest had been shown in developing TKOL II/III for recreational use, HAB had no objection to the use of TKOL II/III. HPLB expressed similar concerns as for PPVL, stating that rezoning of the site would require a cautious decision.

Siu Lang Shui Landfill

2.2.18          The location of SLSL, in relation to the industrial and residential areas in Tuen Mun (sources of recyclable materials), WENT Landfill and the border with the Mainland (an outlet for recovered materials), made this site suitable for recycling operations. The materials recycling activities at the SLSL site would also be compatible with the neighbouring industrial and non-residential developments.

2.2.19          SLSL has been restored and is being monitored and maintained by the landfill restoration contractor for up to 30 years. The potential area considered suitable for materials recycling activities was an area of 0.6ha on three platforms and are zoned "GB". Rezoning of these area from "GB" to "OU" would be required.

2.2.20          HPLB expressed similar concerns as for PPVL, stated that rezoning of the site would require a cautious decision.

Tuen Mun Area 38

2.2.21          Tuen Mun Area 38 is currently zoned as "Other Specified Uses" annotated "Special Industries Area” on the outline zoning plan and was previously earmarked for the development of the 4th Industrial Estate (4IE) following ExCo’s in principle approval to the establishment of the 4IE in 1996. However, it is now considered more attractive to develop 4IE at Tseung Kwan O Area 137 as an extension to the existing 3rd Industrial Estate already located there.

2.2.22          With the relocation of the 4IE to Tseung Kwan O, a large piece of land thus became available at Tuen Mun Area 38.  Compared to the use of the old restored landfill sites, the 21ha of land at Tuen Mun Area 38 provided a much larger area for the development of EcoPark.  It also avoided the difficult road-only access, especially at PPVL and SLSL, both of which had steep, narrow access roads that would make bulk transport of materials difficult.  Furthermore, Area 38 had direct marine access, unlike the landfill sites, and this would facilitate the bulk marine transport of materials, especially to the more accessible Pearl River Delta Region. Finally, Tuen Mun Area 38 was already zoned as “OU” annotated “Special Industries Area” and it would therefore only require an amendment to the Column 1 description – this would be in keeping with the planning intent of the already industrialised area, thus alleviating some of the concerns expressed by HPLB on locating EcoPark at the restored landfill sites.

2.2.23          Based on the above considerations, it was very clear that the site in Tuen Mun Area 38 possessed all of the advantages of the restored landfill sites but had few of the limitations.  Thus, Tuen Mun Area 38 was considered to be the preferred location for EcoPark and was identified as such by Government prior to commencement of the Preliminary Study.

2.2.24          In summary, the advantages of developing Tuen Mun Area 38 for EcoPark are :

·        Remote from existing residential developments and environmental impacts to local residents will be further reduced by the distance to EcoPark from built-up areas.

·        Planning constraints are minimal as the site is already zoned as “OU” annotated “Special Industries Area” and would therefore only require an amendment to the Column 1 description.

·        Close to areas that are already used informally by the recycling trade therefore tenants will not need to move a great distance to enjoy the benefits offered by EcoPark and will still be able to maintain their existing recycling network in the locality.

·        Synergy with existing and planned developments in Area 38, such as Shiu Wing Steel, Castle Peak Power Station, CEDD’s C&D Materials facilities, etc. – EcoPark will be able to integrate with adjacent waste management and/or industrial facilities, which will reduce the need to transport materials over long distances.  Further integration of recycling activities for the recycling of “waste products” from the adjacent users may also be possible.

·        Proximity to Siu Lang Shui Landfill (which has already been restored) and Pillar Point Valley Landfill (which is currently being restored) both generate usable quantities of landfill gas, which could provide an alternative eco-friendly source of power for tenants within EcoPark.  The feasibility of this option may be examined in the future.

·        Proximity to Tuen Mun Sewage Pumping Station and Pillar Point Sewage Treatment Works, both of which have sufficient capacity to deal with the effluents (domestic sewage + treated effluent from the on-site industrial wastewater treatment facility) from EcoPark.

·        Location on the main haulage route to the West New Territories (WENT) landfill will allow waste vehicles to drop off recyclable materials and pick-up un-recyclable waste from EcoPark en route to WENT landfill and so will not result in additional vehicle trips through Tuen Mun or Yuen Long.

·        The provision of adequate (460m) marine frontage will allow recyclable materials to be brought on-site in bulk allowing the re-manufactured products to be taken off-site in bulk without increasing traffic flows on the local road network.  The location of EcoPark in proximity to the River Trade Terminal and the Pearl River allows materials to be transported to and from the Pearl River Delta region by barge, thereby enhancing the value of the site to tenants and so benefiting the recycling industry as a whole.

 

2.3                  Site Location and Site History

Site Location

2.3.1             The proposed EcoPark is situated on the outskirts of Tuen Mun, adjacent to a number of industrial premises and existing industrial uses (see Figure 2.1). The site is remote from existing residential developments, with the nearest being village houses at Lung Kwu Tan (>2km to the west) and Melody Gardens (>2km to the east).

2.3.2             The site is bounded to the north by Lung Mun Road, north of which is the restored Siu Lang Shui Landfill.  To the southeast is the Tuen Mun Fill Bank and River Trade Terminal and to the northwest is Shiu Wing Steel Mill. To the south are coastal waters.  The site is currently zoned “Other Specified Uses” (“OU”) and annotated “Special Industries Area” (“SIA”) on the latest approved Tuen Mun OZP No. S/TM/20, gazetted on 21 January 2005.

2.3.3             In addition to the uses described above, other existing uses of Tuen Mun Area 38 include a C&D Material Fill Bank (including tipping halls for East Sha Chau and Penny’s Bay Stage 2) and a Pilot C&D Material Recycling Facility, all of which are managed by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD).  The Tuen Mun Sewage Pumping Station (TMSPS) is located to the north of the Fill Bank.

2.3.4             Planned uses of Tuen Mun Area 38 include the PAFF, to be constructed adjacent to the northwest boundary of EcoPark, the Fill Bank Expansion, a Crushing Facility, a Temporary Mixed Construction Waste Sorting Facility and a C&D Materials Handling Facility.  A “holiday camp” to the north of the site, on the other side of Lung Mun Road is also planned. All existing and planned uses are shown on Figure 2.1.

2.3.5             This EIA is required to consider relevant existing, committed and planned projects, such as those described above. Proposed future uses (post-2009) for Area 38 will likely include additional facilities related to waste management, but no approved projects, programmes or site particulars are available for these uses at this time.

Site History

2.3.6             The site for EcoPark is land recently reclaimed under the Tuen Mun Area 38 Reclamation project.  Other than a tipping hall for East Sha Chau associated with CEDD’s Area 38 Fill Bank, the land for Phase I has not been used since reclamation.  The land for Phase II is currently occupied by the Fill Bank (and its planned extension) and by the Pilot C&D Material Recycling Facility (soon to be replaced by a proposed Crushing Facility).

 

2.4                  Nature, Scope and Benefits of the Project

Nature

2.4.1             In simple terms an EcoPark is an area of land set aside for use by the recycling industry in general, within which individual recycling operators can acquire an area of land suitable for their particular recycling operation at an affordable price and with a length of tenure sufficient to fully justify their investment in the buildings, plant and machinery necessary for their operations to be carried out in an efficient,  effective and sustainable manner.

2.4.2             A follow-on D&C consultancy will prepare the detailed design of EcoPark and its infrastructure and this will be constructed as a Public Works project by a Works Contractor.  Under a Management Contract the Operator will then take possession of EcoPark and manage the facility on behalf of EPD.  Thus, each individual tenant will need capital investment only for the provision of his own particular requirements. Although each tenant will need to pay for use of common facilities, this approach will ensure that costs are kept to a minimum and should make EcoPark more financially attractive to tenants than the alternative of having to meet the full costs of providing facilities themselves.

2.4.3             In order to gain public acceptance of EcoPark, the facility will be developed along the lines of a business park or retail park, hence the designation of EcoPark.  The EcoPark will make extensive use of landscaping to provide an “oasis of green” in an otherwise industrial setting and thereby provide a more aesthetically pleasing environment in which tenants can work. Furthermore, by requiring tenants to adopt appropriate measures to control and mitigate the environmental effects of their activities, environmental impacts can be minimised such that statutory environmental protection objectives can be met.

Scope

2.4.4             The land on which EcoPark is proposed to be developed is already formed and already has a seawall in place, therefore further reclamation works are not necessary.  Although a conceptual layout for EcoPark has been developed (see Section 2.5), the detailed design of EcoPark will be developed by under the follow-on D&C consultancy. 

2.4.5             Construction of EcoPark (by the Works Contractor) will involve the following activities :

·     Construction of basic infrastructure, including roads, drainage, sewers, utilities, etc.

·     Provision of empty, serviced lots (initially grassed, open ground) to be developed by qualifying tenants for their own use.

·     Construction of an Administration Building containing management offices, a visitor centre, etc., and facilities for management of the marine frontage.

·     On-site Wastewater Treatment Facility (WTF) and waste collection/storage facilities.

·     Berthing facilities (e.g. bollards) for loading/unloading at the marine frontage.

·     Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) and implementation of necessary mitigation measures to meet any EP conditions.

2.4.6             Operation of EcoPark (by the Operator) will comprise the following activities :

·     Development of promotional and advertising materials.

·     Preparation of contractual/leasing arrangements with individual tenants and allocation of lots to tenants for construction of their facilities.

·     Preparation and implementation of management procedures/emergency procedures.

·     Management of the marine frontage allocated to EcoPark.

·     Maintenance of common infrastructure, plant, management office, etc.

·     EM&A and implementation of necessary mitigation measures to meet any EP conditions.

Benefits

2.4.7             Organised recycling is a relatively new industry in Hong Kong and is one which is growing rapidly and demonstrating that it is capable of producing benefits to the community at large, not just in economic terms but also in environmental terms.  Some recycling activities, such as the collection and recycling of waste paper and scrap metal, have been carried out in Hong Kong for many years.  But in recent years the range of waste and used materials that are collected for recycling and which are capable of being processed for reuse on an economically viable basis has grown considerably.

2.4.8             Given the comparative costs of the Hong Kong and Guangdong Province economies, and the low profit margins that generally prevail within the sector, most of the value-added processing to-date has taken place on the Mainland rather than locally in Hong Kong.  Of the 41% of Hong Kong’s waste that was recycled in 2003, less than 4% was recycled locally, compared to more than 37% that was exported for recycling. The purpose of EcoPark, therefore, is to provide the necessary environment to encourage the growth of Hong Kong’s recycling and environmental industry and to promote value-added recycling in Hong Kong, and within EcoPark in particular.

2.4.9             The continuing development of new technologies to make recycling viable (when in the past it was not) will ensure that the recycling industry in Hong Kong has a viable future and that it will make an increasingly important contribution to the economic life and environmental well-being of the community.

2.4.10          At present, recycling generally takes place in premises built primarily for other purposes, on parcels of government land that have been let under short term tenancy, or on parcels of undeveloped land in the New Territories where there is a little or no means of imposing effective measures to control the environmental impact of recycling activities. 

2.4.11          Where recycling takes place in existing developments in the urban area, it can be generally considered as an unacceptable use because the premises in which these operations are housed were not originally built for such purposes and their use for recycling activities is generally not welcomed by adjoining owners and occupiers who regard such uses as “bad neighbours”.

2.4.12          In the New Territories, in particular, the uncontrolled spread of recycling activities has led to many areas being degraded, both visually and environmentally, because the processes that are undertaken are not properly controlled and premises often do not have the basic infrastructure needed to ensure that the work is carried out in a clean and efficient manner. This is an undesirable situation and one that generally detracts from the environmental aspirations of Hong Kong.

2.4.13          It is also important to note that with the more advanced techniques and processes that are now available, a greater investment is required in terms of plant and machinery and for handling waste products in greater bulk.  These developments in the recycling industry generally mean that the type of premises that have been used for recycling in the past would no longer be appropriate or acceptable.

2.4.14          Developing EcoPark with basic infrastructure, proper vehicular access, mains supplies of potable and non-potable water, connections to foul sewers and sewage treatment facilities which are capable of dealing with toilet waste together with process effluents, will ensure that any adverse environmental impact of recycling is greatly reduced.  The provision of these facilities, together with long land tenure being available reasonable prices, will allow recycling operators to make the investment in plant and machinery necessary to use the most up-to-date and efficient and effective methods that not only would make recycling profitable, but would also significantly reduce their adverse impact effect on the environment of Hong Kong.

2.4.15          Where existing recycling operations move to EcoPark from previously unsuitable locations, there would be immediate benefits to the owners and occupiers of premises near those premises which have been vacated. 

2.4.16          The growth of the recycling industry has also contributed, and will continue contribute to, a reduction in the amount of waste materials and discarded products that would otherwise have to be disposed of in landfills.  Instead of being disposed of in this way, materials can be recycled. Not only will there be economic benefits through the sale of recycled materials and/or remanufactured products, but there will also be social benefits from increased employment and environmental benefits from waste reduction and a reduction in the amount of waste required for disposal.

 

2.5                  Size, Scale, Shape and Design of the Project

Size and Scale of the Project
Range of Materials to be Recycled

2.5.1             Based on a review of the current recycling industry in Hong Kong and the recycling industry overseas, and taking into consideration Government’s ongoing initiatives in the waste recycling industry, the Preliminary Study identified a number of material types within the existing waste stream that could be recycled within EcoPark :

·        Batteries.

·        Electronics.

·        Glass.

·        Organic Food Waste.

·        Ferrous Metals.

·        Non-ferrous Metals.

·        Paper.

·        Plastics.

·        Textiles.

·        Rubber Tyres.

·        Wood.

2.5.2             Spent Copper Etchant was not identified in the Preliminary Study but has been included in this Study.  For each of these material types, a range of processes were identified, shown in Figures A.1 to A.18 in Appendix A.  Based on the anticipated throughputs of these materials and processes, Table B.1 (in Appendix B) identifies those processes and throughputs initially proposed to be included within EcoPark.

Range of Processes to be Used

2.5.3             From the process flow schematics shown in Figures A.1 to A.18 (in Appendix A) it can be seen that there are various technologies available to carry out the same or similar processes.  For the purpose of this assessment, the emission, wastewater generation and waste generation rates (where available) of these technologies have been compared and evaluated to determine the “worst case” technology, which has then been taken to form the basis of the technical assessments.

Growth Factors and Buffered Throughput

2.5.4             Nominal material throughputs being diverted into EcoPark were calculated in the Preliminary Study on the basis of forecasted waste arisings for 2006, the expected date of commencement of operations at EcoPark – these are the figures shown in Table B.1 (in Appendix B).  However, there remains the potential for waste arisings to increase over the operational life of EcoPark due to any one or a combination of the following factors :

·     Changes in economical and social trends, both locally and internationally.

·     Changes in Government policy in relation to waste management in Hong Kong (e.g. introduction of landfill charging for municipal solid wastes, mandating recycling of materials, implementation of producer responsibility scheme, etc.).

·     Expiry of Government contracts for existing waste treatment facilities (e.g. Chemical Waste Treatment Centre (CWTC), etc.) and potential for resuming annual increases in user charges may force producers to consider other alternatives to disposal.

·     Shortened lifespan of strategic landfills.

2.5.5             The forecasted waste data presented in the Study on the Waste Management Plan - Collection and Forecast of Waste Data  (“CFWD Study”) for the years 2006 and 2021 (base data), except for spent copper etchant, have been used to determine an appropriate growth factor. Table 2.1, below, presents the increase in volumes for each of the twelve main material types and their corresponding Growth Factor :

               Table 2.1 : Calculation of Growth Factors

Material Type

Forecast Waste Arisings (tpa)1

 Growth Factor (between 2006 & 2021)

2006

2021

Batteries

6,261

15,586

2.489

Electronics

66,767

167,609

2.510

Glass

140,614

283,120

2.013

Organic Food Waste

1,273,484

1,980,625

1.555

Ferrous Metals

823,494

1,433,896

1.741

Non-ferrous Metals

131,310

228,641

1.741

Paper

1,945,929

3,220,125

1.655

Plastics

936,269

1,440,418

1.538

Textiles

166,456

289,839

1.741

Rubber Tyres

21,989

38,287

1.741

Wood

208,386

326,882

1.569

Spent Copper Etchant2

12,849

17,585

1.369

Notes :  1. All waste arising values for 2006 and 2021 have been obtained from the Study on the Waste Management Plan - Collection and Forecast of Waste Data - Final Waste Data Report and Resource Document Volume II (BMT, 2000).

             2. Volumes for spent copper etchant (from 1999 (12,849tpa) and 2007 (17,585tpa)) are based on the assumption that under the renewed CWTC contract Government will gradually divert all spent copper etchant away from the CWTC to recycling operations, including to EcoPark.  Moreover, it is assumed that the industry will continue to operate under the same trend as shown between 1999 to 2007 (for the lack of any information from Government or the Industry to suggest otherwise).

 

2.5.6             Given the lack of information from Government and Industry (to suggest otherwise), the CFWD Study projected a no-growth scenario (beyond 2007) for spent copper etchant.  However, with the upcoming expiry of the CWTC contract in 2007 and the potential for resuming annual increases in user charges, these factors may cause producers to consider other alternatives to disposal. Moreover, with the existing CWTC contract set to expire in 2007, it is assumed that under the renewed CWTC contract, Government will gradually divert Hong Kong's spent copper etchant from the CWTC to recycling operations elsewhere in Hong Kong, including at EcoPark.  As such, to allow for a “worst case” growth in spent etchant, it has been assumed that given this combination of influencing factors, the industry will continue to operate under the same trend as shown between 1999 to 2007.

2.5.7             Table 2.2, below, shows the Growth Factor applied to the estimated material throughput (from Table B.1 in Appendix B) and the resulting “buffered” material throughput that will be used in the individual assessments :

   Table 2.2 : Calculation of Buffered Material Throughputs

Material Type

Estimated Material Throughput (tpa)1

Growth Factor

“Buffered” Material Throughput (tpa)2

Batteries

900

2.489

2,240

Electronics

10,000

2.510

25,100

Glass

21,200

2.013

42,680

Organic Food Waste3

52,850

1.555

82,180

Ferrous Metals

155,300

1.741

270,380

Non-ferrous Metals

32,800

1.741

57,100

Paper

306,700

1.655

507,590

Plastics

66,800

1.538

102,740

Textiles

4,600

1.741

8,010

Rubber Tyres

11,500

1.741

20,020

Wood

26,300

1.569

41,260

Spent Copper Etchant4

2,400

1.369

3,290

Totals

691,350

1.595

1,162,590

Notes :  1. From Table B.1 in Appendix B.

             2. Increases have been rounded to the nearest tens.

             3. In the Preliminary Study, the estimated throughput of organics was 12,700tpa, which consisted of domestic, commercial and industrial organic food waste and organic waste from the agriculture industry.  However, given that pork is a regular staple in Hong Kong people’s diet, a lard refinery was included as a sub-category of organic waste processing in this Study.

             4. With the CWTC contract set to expire in 2007 and the possibility of resuming annual increases in user charges, there is great uncertainty over the future operation of this facility.  Spent copper etchant recycling operation is therefore included in EcoPark to provide an additional outlet for this waste material in the event of changes in the existing operational and cost structure of the CWTC.

 

Integration of EcoPark Activities

2.5.8             Based on the Preliminary Study, it was identified that the current arrangement by Government to lease out land plots to recyclers, is insufficient to provide a suitable environment to attract long-term investment by the recycling industry.  This has had a significant impact on the long-term volume of materials that can be handled and processed locally, as well as the future growth of the business.

2.5.9             The purpose of EcoPark, as stated in the Preliminary Study, is to provide the necessary environment to encourage the growth of Hong Kong’s recycling industry and to promote value-added recycling in Hong Kong.  As the tenants situated in EcoPark will be handling various material types, it is intended that they are encouraged to reuse and recycle wastes that are generated by their own recycling processes such that within a business the redisual recyclable materials from one process can be used as the feedstock of another process, thereby reducing the overall quantity of waste requiring disposal.

2.5.10          It is also intended that this concept should be further expanded so that businesses form symbiotic links with each other, such that the "waste" product from one business can be used as the feedstock of another business – this is termed "vertical integration".  Figure 2.2 shows the potential vertical integration between material-types within EcoPark. 

2.5.11          It should be noted, for the purposes of this EIA, that a more conservative approach has been adopted when interpreting Table B.1 (in Appendix B) and Figure 2.2 in the process of developing a worst-case scenario against which to assess the environmental impacts of EcoPark.  In the case of lead, for example, while it is possible to fully integrate the lead recovered from battery recycling with those recovered in the non-ferrous metal recycling process, it is possible that the lead-acid battery recycler wishes to retain the lead recovery process within his own operations instead of selling it on to the non-ferrous metal (lead) recycler. This also applies to zinc recovery.

2.5.12          Furthermore, this EIA assessment does not assume that all potential vertical integration will actually occur. For example, it has been assumed that plastic from the casings of lead-acid batteries would form part of the feedstock of the various plastics processes, but it has not been assumed that textiles recovered from de-beading tyres would form part of the feedstock for textile processing (because the quality of the textiles recovered from tyres is unlikely to be suitable for the type of textile processing assumed in EcoPark at present).

Shape and Design of the Project

2.5.13          The currently proposed boundary of EcoPark is shown in Figure 2.1. Phase I occupies 83,316m2 and Phase II occupies 111,904m2, giving a total area of some 195,220m2 – this site area is not finalised and is subject to further discussion with PlanD and LandsD.  The dotted line in Figure 2.1 separates Phase I from Phase II and runs to the east of the drainage reserve (i.e. the drainage reserve is entirely in Phase I).

2.5.14          As discussed in Section 2.4, there are a number of constraints (from other existing and planned users in Tuen Mun Area 38) to developing EcoPark and it is intended that EcoPark will developed in stages – first Phase I and then, some time later, Phase II.  As such, Phase I must be able to operate as a self-contained facility that includes all necessary components (described below) to allow EcoPark to function, but also allow seamless expansion into Phase II.

2.5.15          The rationale behind the conceptual design of EcoPark can be summarised in one word – “flexibility”. It is considered that flexibility in providing for a wide range of tenants, ranging from “sole-proprietor” operations to large companies, employing larger numbers of workers, and a wide range of processes will be paramount to the success of EcoPark.

2.5.16          In practical terms, this need for flexibility has manifested itself in the division of lots within EcoPark, which have been designed to balance the costs of providing water, sewerage and utility connections for each lot with the size of each lot and, hence, their number.  Lots have therefore been allocated in a range of sizes, predominantly 800m2 and 1,600m2, but with some smaller lots at 400m2 and larger lots up to 8,200m2.

2.5.17          The benefit of this approach, combined with appropriate allocation of lots, is that tenants can rent lots in a modular fashion, and expand their presence in EcoPark by acquiring more lots (subject to availability) as their businesses expand. This approach provides maximum support to the tenants and flexibility to the Operator during the initial occupation of Phase I and Phase II.

2.5.18          Figures 2.3 and 2.4 propose a conceptual layout for EcoPark that allows for the components identified in Table 2.3, below, and described more fully in the following sub-sections.  Again, it should be noted that the final boundary is subject to further discussion.

   Table 2.3 : Area Allocation for EcoPark Components Within Conceptual Design

Component

Area Occupied Within Phase I + II (m2)

%age of  Total Phase I + II Area

Marine Frontage Management Office (MFMO)

240m2

0.1%

Solid Waste Collection Point

460m2

0.2%

Car and Coach Park

930m2

0.5%

Wastewater Treatment Facility (WTF)

1,200m2

0.6%

Administration Building

1,800m2

0.9%

Landscaping (Perimeter and Internal)

11,800m2

6.1%

Marine Frontage

12,420m2

6.4%

Internal Road System

25,070m2

12.8%

Empty Serviced Lots in Phase I

47,000m2

24.1%.

Empty Serviced Lots in Phase II

94,300m2

48.3%

Totals

195,220m2

100.0%

Notes : Empty serviced lots in Phase I + II occupy 141,300m2 out of  195,220m2, giving a utilisation rate of 72.4%.

This site area is not finalised and is subject to further discussion with PlanD and LandsD.

 

2.5.19          It should be noted that consultants to be engaged under the follow-on D&C consultancy will be responsible for developing the detailed design of EcoPark and that this suggested conceptual layout is not to be considered a constraint or binding in any way on the subsequent detailed design.

Administration Building

2.5.20          The Administration Building will be a two- or three-storey building occupying an area of some 1,800m2.  The design of the Administration Building, with a first-floor terrace area on its southern side, complies with building height restrictions recommended in Section 10, that relate to risk to life from a fire at the adjacent PAFF.

2.5.21          The landscaped area surrounding the Administration Building will include lawns and flowerbeds to provide an attractive setting as this will be the “public face” of EcoPark and will be visible from Lung Mun Road and. This will be the most prominent feature of EcoPark and therefore needs to make a positive statement, both architecturally and visually.

2.5.22          The Administration Building will contain the Management Office (for both the Operator and EPD Staff) and a Visitor Centre (including a resource/education/product display centre), toilet, canteen, etc.

Marine Frontage and Management Office

2.5.23          An integral and important part of EcoPark will be the 460m of marine frontage. The marine frontage will permit incoming materials and outgoing products (baled materials/ remanufactured goods) to be transported by sea. The marine frontage comprises a 30m deep paved area that runs east to west along the southern boundary of EcoPark.  This size allows 12m containers to be stacked lengthways along the edge of the seawall.  A 10m wide access road, connecting to the primary north-south road, runs east-west along the north of the marine frontage.  This road permits two-way traffic and is provided with two turning circles (one at each end) to allow vehicles to change direction.

2.5.24          Located on the western side of the entrance to the marine frontage, amidst landscaped gardens, is the single-storey Marine Frontage Management Office (MFMO). Running alongside is a lay-by for waiting vehicles to park without obstructing the flow of the main road. The MFMO will be responsible for all issues relating to the use of the marine frontage by EcoPark-related users, who would be expected make arrangements with the MFMO for the trans-shipment of their incoming materials and/or outgoing products.

2.5.25          It is proposed that the marine frontage be managed through the MFMO by the Operator for use by EcoPark-related users. It is not proposed that MFMO purchase or maintain plant/equipment for use at the marine frontage, e.g., fork-lifts, cranes, etc.  It is expected that users would make their own arrangements with the Operator should they require these facilities. 

Internal Roads, Footpaths, Parking and Security Fencing

2.5.26          In order to provide access to each of the lots within EcoPark, an internal road network has been designed and comprises a primary dual carriageway road with central reserve, secondary roads and a number of roundabouts, all lighted as required.  Each lot has one run-in (driveway) connecting it to the adjacent road network.  All roads will be surfaced and provided with road markings, signage and other traffic control measures.

2.5.27          The primary road runs in a north-south direction from EcoPark entrance to the marine frontage, above the 26m-wide drainage reserve. The primary road is dual carriageway (each direction is 7.3m wide) with a central reservation comprising a median planting strip (6m wide). At either side of the primary road is a pedestrian footpath (1.3m wide), punctuated by run-ins to individual lots.

2.5.28          The secondary roads run north-south and east-west and connect to the primary road at a number of locations.  The secondary roads are single carriage way (total road width is 7.4m) with road markings delineating direction. At either side of the secondary road is a pedestrian footpath (1.3m wide), punctuated by run-ins to individual lots.  Within the main body of EcoPark there are three roundabouts and two turning circles (11m in diameter).

2.5.29          The primary and secondary roads intersect at a number of junctions.  These junctions are either T-junctions or cross-roads.  Given the low traffic flows forecast in the RTIA (see Zoning Amendment Report), none of these junctions are expected to be signalised.  Instead, rights of way will be clearly indicated through signage and road markings, provided in accordance with standard Transport Department requirements.

2.5.30          A car/coach park is located adjacent to the Administration Building and provides delineated car parking spaces and for Administration Building staff and visitors.  The parking area also provides delineated parking spaces for coaches and light goods vehicles. Individual tenants would be expected to park their vehicles within their own lots.

2.5.31          Fencing will be provided around the entire perimeter of EcoPark, except for the marine frontage. This fencing will be of robust construction and will form part of site security measures. The proposed boundary planting on the northern perimeter of EcoPark will be located inside the perimeter fencing.

Landscaping

2.5.32          One of the most important aspects of EcoPark is provision of landscaped area and open space.  In order to provide a high lot utilisation rate, there are no large open areas of land designated within EcoPark, although individual tenants would be encouraged to provide “green” areas within their lots.  Wide planting strips have been included throughout EcoPark to provide, from a user’s or visitor’s perspective, a lush, green environment.  These planting strips also act as buffers between individual lots and footpaths and between lots and common infrastructure (such as the Administration Building, MFMO, WTF and refuse collection point).

2.5.33          There are four basic types of landscaping within EcoPark – Roadside Landscape Treatment (comprises a 1m wide strip between the footpath and the boundary of the adjacent lot),  Boundary Planting (comprises a 2 to 5m wide strip around the perimeter of EcoPark), Median Planting Strip (comprises a 6m wide strip separating the direction of traffic flow along the primary road) and lawns and flowerbeds (comprises more formal landscaping located in the centres of the roundabouts, turning circles, around the Administration Building, etc.).

2.5.34          In the first three types, the width of planting areas (1m, 2 to 5m and 6m respectively) is sufficient to provide for the development of a ”natural woodland”, albeit linear. These landscaped areas will be vegetated with native tree and shrub species and provide a refuge for wildlife, thus improving the low ecological value of the site. Figure 2.3 provides a visualisation of these landscape types, and overall conceptual landscaping for EcoPark.

Empty Lots

2.5.35          In order to provide the optimum level of flexibility to tenants, lots within EcoPark are provided as bare lots to be developed by the tenant, at his own cost. The lease conditions will specify what type of development is not permitted but other than that, it is expected that tenants will develop their own lots in accordance with their particular needs.  It is envisaged that the majority of tenants will erect some type of structure to enclose offices and workshops and will likely allocate space for vehicle parking and the storage of materials, possibly open-air or undercover, depending on the nature of the material.

2.5.36          As shown on Figure 2.4, the proposed sizes of individual lots will range from 400m2 to 8,200m2, with the majority sized at 800m2 and 1,600m2. Larger lots (4,700m2 to 8,200m2) have been provided for known users with large land area requirements.  Smaller lots can be combined to create larger lots, subject to availability.

2.5.37          Each lot will be provided as grassed open ground and a simple chain-link fence will initially separate unused lots – the tenant would be allowed to erect more sturdy fencing around the perimeter of his lot(s) if desired.  Access to each lot will be provided by a run-in from the adjacent road and each lot will also be provided with a telecommunications connection point, electricity supply, potable/non-potable water supply and connections to foul sewer. A perimeter drainage system (with stop-logs to isolate contaminated liquids) will be provided and connected to the stormwater drainage system.

Wastewater Treatment Facility

2.5.38          The Preliminary Study recommended that a Wastewater Treatment Facility (WTF) be provided, since some processes will generate greater quantities of effluent, or effluent that is more difficult to treat. It was recommended that the WTF should have a minimum standard of influent quality that must be met.  Each tenant would therefore be allowed to discharge, at a specified rate, effluent with specified maximum pollutant parameters.

2.5.39          The WTF should be of modular design, as this would prevent over-sizing during Phase I and under-sizing during Phase II – expansion should be able to match expansion of EcoPark without the need to modify sewerage infrastructure. Furthermore, the WTF should occupy a small footprint, require low maintenance, be cost effective yet be able to consistently achieve WPCO Discharge Licence conditions with a given influent standard.  Further discussions on the suggested WTF are presented in Section 5.

2.5.40          The WTF building could be single-storey (subject to design requirements) and will be surrounded and isolated by a 3m wide planting area, similar to the roadside landscape treatment, to form a visual buffer between the plant and adjoining lots.

Solid Waste Collection Point

2.5.41          A solid waste collection point will be provided.  This is envisaged to be a simple structure, enclosed on three sides, with a roof to prevent rainwater ingress. Various bins would be provided inside the collection point for storing waste materials prior to collection.  Water drained from within this structure will be diverted to the WTF as it may be contaminated. Similar to the WTF, the solid waste collection point will be surrounded and isolated by a 3m wide planting area, similar to the roadside landscape treatment, to form a visual buffer between the collection point and adjoining lots.

2.5.42          Given that the primary function of EcoPark is to recycle materials, the quantities of waste requiring disposal are expected to be minimal, hence the simple design of the waste collection point.

 

2.6                  Project Implementation, Timetable and Phasing

2.6.1             It has been decided that EcoPark is to be constructed as a Public Works project. The completed infrastructure would then be awarded through open tender to a Management Contractor who would be responsible for the daily operation and marketing activities. The Design and Construction (D&C) consultancy to develop the detailed design, implement the Works Contract and develop the Management Contract is due to be awarded in early-2005.

2.6.2             The construction period for Phase I will commence in early-2006 and is expected to last around 10 months, with EcoPark opening for business in late-2006, towards the end of the construction period. At the southeast portion of the Phase I site, CEDD currently operate a tipping hall for transferring public fill to East Sha Chau. It is understood that the tipping hall will be removed in late-2005, prior to commencement of Phase I construction works.

2.6.3             The construction period for Phase II is expected to last up to 12 months. The land for Phase II is currently occupied by the Fill Bank (and its planned extension) and by the Pilot C&D Material Recycling Facility (which will soon be replaced by a proposed Crushing Facility).  Within the area to be occupied by Phase II, these facilities will operate until end-2008, after which  Phase II of EcoPark can be developed, subject to user demand.  The Fill Bank will, however, continue within the remaining area until March 2009. 

2.6.4             Notwithstanding, for the purposes of assessment under this Study, a 10-month (Phase I) plus 12-month (Phase II) = up to 22-month (non-contiguous) construction period has been assumed to encompass both Phase I and Phase II construction works.  Figure 2.5 shows a proposed programme for development of EcoPark and other nearby projects for which a timeframe has been established.

 

 


Figure 2.1 : Location of the Proposed EcoPark and Other Users in Tuen  Mun Area 38

 


EcoPark

Siu Lang Shui (SLSL) Closed Restored Landfill (Existing)

Holiday Camp (Planned)                    

PAFF (Planned)                                 

TMSPS (Existing)                               

Pilot C&D Material Recycling Facility (Existing)

Crushing Facility (Planned)               

Fill Bank (Existing)                              

3.2ha Fill Bank Expansion (Planned)

Tipping Hall for East Sha Chau (Existing)

C&D Materials Handling Facilities (indicative boundary) (Planned)

Penny’s Bay Stage 2 Sorting Facility & Barging  (Existing)

Temporary Mixed Construction Waste Sorting Facility (Planned)

Key

Location Map

N

Shiu Wing Steel Mill

China Cement Plant

River Trade Terminal

Phase I

Phase II

Scale :

100m

 

Figure 2.2 : Potential Vertical Integration within EcoPark

 

 

… Can Be Used As Feedstock When Processing These Material-types

 

 

By-products From Processing These Material-types …

Batteries

Electronics

Glass

Organic Food Waste*

Ferrous Metals

Non-Ferrous Metals

Paper

Plastics

Textiles

Rubber Tyres

Wood

Spent Copper Etchant

 

 

Batteries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electronics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organic Food Waste*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ferrous Metals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Ferrous Metals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paper

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plastics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Textiles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rubber Tyres

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wood

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spent Copper Etchant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes :

Potential vertical integration of by products and feedstock.

Vertical Integration of by products and feedstock included in the assessment of waste arising from recycling activities.

*

Only the processing of Organic Food Waste does not integrate with any other material types within EcoPark.

 

 

 


2 to 5m

1.2m

Boundary Fence

Lot

Figure 2.3b : Boundary Planting

6m

Dual Carriageway

Concrete Profile Barrier

Figure 2.3c : Median Strip Planting

Figure 2.3d : Roadside Treatment

1m

1.3m

Lot Fence

Fig.2.3c

Fig.2.3b

Empty Serviced Lot

Refuse Collection Point

Marine Frontage

Turning Circle

Phase I

Phase II

Car/Coach Parking

N

    Scale :

   0m                          100m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administration Building

Wastewater Treatment Facility

Marine Frontage Management Office

Fig.2.3d

Main Entrance

Figure 2.3a : Conceptual Internal Layout – Landscaping and Infrastructure

Notes :

Potential vertical integration of by products and feedstock.

Vertical Integration of by products and feedstock included in the assessment of waste arising from recycling activities.

*

Only the processing of Organic Food Waste does not integrate with any other material types within EcoPark.

 

 

Figure 2.4b : Utility Connections – Detail Schematic

Wastewater to WTF

Non-potable

Potable Water Water

Telecommunications

Pedestrian Footpath

Stormwater Drain

Sewer

Utilities

Perimeter Drainage

Roadside Landscaping

Access Road Centreline

Gate

Electricity

Stop-log

Perimeter Fencing

Run-in

Key

DSD Drainage Reserves

Approximate Lot Sizes

400m2

700m2

800m2

1,000m2

1,200m2

1,400m2

1,600m2

1,700m2

2,100m2

As Indicated

Utilities

Electricity/Telecommunications/Water (Potable/Non-potable)

Recyclers’ Effluent to WTF

WTF Effluent to PPSTW

Uncontaminated Stormwater Drainage

Phase I

Phase II

    Scale :

   0m                          100m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

5,000m2

4,700m2

8,200m2

Fig.2.4b

Figure 2.4a : Conceptual Internal Layout – Lot Distribution and Utility Connections


Figure 2.5 : Proposed Programme for EcoPark and Other Nearby Projects

 

Project

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Pilot C&D Material Recycling Facility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuen Mun Fill Bank

 

 

 

                

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2ha Fill Bank Extension

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crushing Facility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Temp Mixed Construction Waste Sorting Facility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Penny’s Bay Stage 2 Sorting Facility & Barging

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tipping Hall for East Sha Chau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EcoPark – Phase I Construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EcoPark – Phase I Operation (end-2006)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TWGH Holiday Camp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EcoPark – Phase II Construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EcoPark – Phase II Operation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C&D Materials Handling Facilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PAFF1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Future Uses2 (No Approved Programme)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes :   1.     According to the tentative programme shown in the PAFF EIA Report,

             2.     Proposed future uses (post-2009) for Area 38 will likely include facilities related to waste management, but no approved projects, programmes or site particulars are available for these uses at this time.

 

 

 


3                       AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.1                  Introduction

3.1.1             The Air Quality impact assessment has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM, and in accordance with the requirements as set out under Clause 3.4.1 of the EIA Study Brief.  These require the following tasks :

(a)        Background and Analysis of Activities;

(b)        Identification of Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) and Examination of Emission/ Dispersion Characteristics;

(c)        Construction Phase Air Quality Impact;

(d)        Operational Phase Air Quality Impact;

(e)        Quantitative Assessment Methodology; and

(f)          Mitigation Measures for Non-compliance.

 

3.2                  Relevant Guidelines, Standards & Legislation

Air Quality Objectives

3.2.1             The Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) provides the statutory authority for controlling air pollutants from a variety of stationary and mobile sources, including fugitive dust emissions from construction sites.  It encompasses Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for seven air pollutants.  The AQOs are given in Table 3.1 below :

Table 3.1 : Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant

Concentration1 (mg/m3) Averaging Time

1-hr2

8-hr3

24-hr3

3-Mth4

1-yr4

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

800

-

350

-

80

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

-

-

260

-

80

Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)5

-

-

180

-

55

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

300

-

150

-

80

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

30,000

10,000

-

-

-

Photochemical Oxidants (as ozone6)

240

-

-

-

-

Lead (Pb)

-

-

-

1.5

-

 

Notes :   1.     Measured at 298K and 101.325kPa (one atmosphere).

             2.     Not to be exceeded more than three times per year.

             3.     Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

             4.     Arithmetic means.

             5.     Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) means suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less.

             6.     Photochemical oxidants are determined by measurement of ozone only.

 

Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation

3.2.2             The APCO subsidiary regulation Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation defines notifiable and regulatory works activities that are subject to construction dust control. 

3.2.3             Notifiable Works :

(a)        Site formation;

(b)        Reclamation;

(c)        Demolition of a building;

(d)        Work carried out in any part of a tunnel that is within 100m of any exit to the open air;

(e)        Construction of the foundation of a building;

(f)         Construction of the superstructure of a building; or

(g)        Road construction work,

3.2.4             Regulatory Works :

(a)        Renovation of outer surface of external wall / upper surface of building roof;

(b)        Road opening or resurfacing work;

(c)        Slope stabilization work; or

(d)        Any work involving any of the following activities:

(i)    Stockpiling of dusty materials;

(ii)    Loading, unloading or transfer of dusty materials;

(iii)   Transfer of dusty materials using a belt conveyor system;

(iv)   Use of vehicles;

(v)    Pneumatic or power-driven drilling, cutting and polishing;

(vi)   Debris handling;

(vii)  Excavation or earth moving;

(viii) Concrete production;

(ix)   Site clearance; or

(x)    Blasting.

3.2.5             Notifiable works require that advance notice of construction activities be given to EPD.  The Regulation also requires the Works Contractor to ensure that both notifiable works and regulatory works be conducted in accordance with the Schedule of the Regulation, which provides dust control and suppression measures.

Recovery Processes Controlled Under APCO for Initial Consideration

3.2.6             Part IV of the APCO provides regulatory control on "Specified Processes" (SPs) described in Schedule 1 of the Ordinance.  A SP License is required to operate the specified process under the APCO.

3.2.7             Designs for the installation and alteration of furnaces, ovens and chimneys exceeding the fuel consumption limited under the Air Pollution Control (Furnaces, Ovens and Chimneys) (Installation and Alteration) Regulations required approval under this regulation.

3.2.8             The initially considered processes within EcoPark that are controlled by the SP Licenses issued under APCO and Air Pollution Control (Furnaces, Ovens and Chimneys) (Installation and Alteration) Regulations are provided in Table 3.2 (below).

Table 3.2 : List of Recovery Processes Controlled under APC (Specified Processes) and (Furnaces, Ovens and Chimneys) Regulations for Initial Consideration

Material-type Input and Potential Processes

Possible Schedule 1 Specified Process & Reference Clause, or Relevant APC Regulations Involved

Glass – Re-manufacturing

Melting cullet in furnace to form new glass products.

30. Glass Works

Works in which the processing capacity exceeds 200 tonnes per annum (expressed as the glass products) and in which manufacturing process for making glass or glass products including mineral fibre and glass fibre is carried out.

Organic Food Waste

Inedible Rendering

28. Rendering Works

Works in which the processing capacity exceeds 250 kg per hour (expressed as the raw material) and in which rendering or reduction or drying through application of heat, or curing by smoking, of animal matter (including feathers, blood, bone, hoof, skin, offal, whole fish, and fish heads and guts and like parts, and organic manures but not including milk or milk products) is carried out.

Ferrous Metals

Secondary metal melting to form ingots

9. Iron and Steel Works

Works in which the installed furnace capacity exceeds 1 tonne, or, if the mode of operation is continuous, 1 tonne per hour, and in which a ferrous metal melting process for casting is carried out

10. Metal Recovery Works

Works in which scrap metals are treated in any type of furnace for recovery of metal with a processing capacity exceeding 50 kg per hour, where this is the primary object of the works.

Non-ferrous Metals

Secondary metal melting to form ingots (for aluminium)

2. Aluminium Works

Works of the following kinds in which the processing capacity exceeds 1 tonne (expressed as aluminium) or, if the mode of operation is continuous, 0.67 tonne (expressed as aluminium) per hour, and in which-

(a)   aluminium swarf is degreased by the application of heat; or

(b)   aluminium or aluminium alloys are recovered from aluminium or aluminium alloy scrap fabricated metal, swarf, skimmings, or other residues by melting under flux cover; or

(c)   molten aluminium or aluminium alloys are treated by chlorine or its compounds; or

(d)   aluminium is extracted from any compound containing aluminium by a process evolving any noxious or offensive gases; or

(e)   oxide of aluminium is extracted from any ore; or

(f)    aluminium is recovered from slag or drosses; or

(g)   materials used in the above processes or the products thereof are treated or handled by methods that cause noxious or offensive gases to be evolved.

10. Metal Recovery Works

Works in which scrap metals are treated in any type of furnace for recovery of metal with a processing capacity exceeding 50 kg per hour, where this is the primary object of the works.

Non-ferrous Metals

Secondary metal melting to form ingots (for lead)

17. Lead Works

Works of the following kinds in which-

(a)   by application of heat-

(i)    lead is extracted or recovered from any material containing lead or its compounds; or

(ii)   lead is refined; or

(iii)  lead is applied as a surface coating to other metals by spraying; or

Non-ferrous Metals

Secondary metal melting to form ingots (for lead)

(continued)

(b)   compounds of lead are manufactured, extracted, recovered or used in processes which give rise to particulates emission, excluding the manufacture of electric accumulators and the application of glazes or vitreous enamels

10. Metal Recovery Works

Works in which scrap metals are treated in any type of furnace for recovery of metal with a processing capacity exceeding 50 kg per hour, where this is the primary object of the works.

Non-ferrous Metals

Secondary metal melting to form ingots (for copper)

6. Copper Works

Works in which the processing capacity exceeds 0.5 tonne (expressed as copper) or, if the mode of operation is continuous, 0.45 tonne (expressed as copper) per hour and in which-

(a)   by the application of heat-

(i)    copper is extracted from any ore or concentrate or from any material containing copper or its compounds; or

(ii)   molten copper is refined; or

(iii)  copper or copper alloy swarf is degreased; or

(iv)  copper alloys are recovered from scrap fabricated metal, swarf or residues; or

(b)   copper or copper alloy is melted and cast.

10. Metal Recovery Works

Works in which scrap metals are treated in any type of furnace for recovery of metal with a processing capacity exceeding 50 kg per hour, where this is the primary object of the works.

Non-ferrous Metals

Secondary metal melting to form ingots (for zinc)

29. Non-ferrous Metallurgical Works

Works in which the processing capacity exceeds 1 tonne per hour and in which melting of any non-ferrous metal, other than aluminium, copper, lead and zinc for galvanising is carried out.

10. Metal Recovery Works

Works in which scrap metals are treated in any type of furnace for recovery of metal with a processing capacity exceeding 50 kg per hour, where this is the primary object of the works

Paper

Chlorine Bleaching and fuel consumption in pulping process

5. Chlorine Works

Works in which chlorine is made or used in any manufacturing process

Air Pollution Control (Furnaces, Ovens and Chimneys) (Installation and Alteration) Regulations

A furnace or oven, or a chimney or flue connected thereto, which exceed the fuel consumption limits specified in the regulation

Wood

Chlorine Bleaching and fuel consumption in pulping process

5. Chlorine Works

Works in which chlorine is made or used in any manufacturing process

Air Pollution Control (Furnaces, Ovens and Chimneys) (Installation and Alteration) Regulations

A furnace or oven, or a chimney or flue connected thereto, which exceed the fuel consumption limits specified in the regulation

Source : APCO Schedule 1 and Air Pollution Control (Furnaces, Ovens and Chimneys) (Installation and Alteration) Regulations

 

Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

3.2.9             Annex 4 of Technical Memorandum on the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) for the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) stipulates the hourly average Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) concentration of 500mg/m3 measured at 298K (25°C) and 101.325kPa (1 atmosphere) for construction dust impacts.

3.2.10          There are potential odour emissions from some of the recovery processes.  Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM stipulates that the criterion for evaluating odour impacts must meet 5 Odour Units (OUs) based upon an averaging time of 5 seconds.

Non-statutory Guidelines

3.2.11          There are no statutory regulations for toxic air pollutants (TAPs), which are those pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, or to cause adverse environmental effects.

3.2.12          It is anticipated that there is potential for mercury emissions from the fluorescent lamp recovery process; and heavy metals, TAPs and other gaseous emissions from the metal recovery processes.  However, no criteria have been established under the APCO.

3.2.13          In the absence of air quality guidelines in Hong Kong for certain pollutants, the assessment makes reference to international guidelines as per Annex 4 of EIAO-TM, such as the Air Quality Guidelines published by the World Health Organisation (WHO,) or those of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The footnotes to Table 3.3 refer.

3.2.14          The air quality standards for the Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs) are summarised in Table 3.3 :

Table 3.3 : Air Quality Standards for TAPs not Listed in AQOs and EIAO

Pollutant (and its compounds)

Concentration (mg/m3) Averaging Time

1-hr

4-hr

8-hr

1-yr

Chlorine (Cl2)

210(3)

 

 

0.2(3)

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

2,100(3)(5)

 

 

20(2)(5)

Fluorine / Fluoride (F)

240(3)

 

 

13(3)

White Phosphorus (P)

 

 

 

0.07(3)

Lead (Pb) (6)

 

 

 

0.5(1)

Beryllium (Be) (6)

 

 

 

0.02(2)

Cadmium (Cd) (6)

 

 

 

0.005(1)

Mercury (Hg)

1.8(3)(5)

 

 

1(1)(5)

Nickel (Ni) (6)

6(3)

 

 

0.05(3)

Arsenic (As) (6)

 

0.19(3)

 

0.03(3)

Tin (Sn)

 

 

40(4)

 

Molybdenum (Mo)

 

 

100(4)

 

Copper (Cu)

100(3)

 

 

2.4(3)

Antimony (Sb)

 

 

 

0.2(3)

Chromium VI (Cr6+) (6)

 

 

 

0.2(3)

Platinum (Pt)

 

 

20(4)

 

Selenium (Se)

 

 

 

20(3)

Rhodium (Rh)

 

 

2(4)

 

Dioxins (TCDD) (6)

 

 

 

1x10-6 I-TEQ(4)(5)

 

Notes :   1.     World Health Organisation (WHO).

             2.     Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), USEPA.

3.       Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of California Air Resources Board, Approved Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) and Target Organs, AB 2588 Air Toxic "Hot Spots" Program.

4.       Connecticut Regulations for the Abatement of Air Pollution issued by the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

5.       Adopted in the approved EIA Report for Re-provisioning of Diamond Hill Crematorium (EIA-092/2003)

6.       Included in the cancer risk assessment

3.2.15          Risk guidelines for the assessment of cancer risk from exposures to air toxics are given by California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines value on acceptability of increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to air toxics have been provided and are summarised in Table 3.4 below :

Table 3.4 : Health Risk Guidelines for Exposure to Air Toxics

Acceptability of Cancer Risk

Estimated Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk Level*

Significant

> 10-4

Risk should be reduced to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)

> 10-6 – 10-4

Insignificant

10-6

Note : * Assumed as 70 years recommended by WHO.

 

3.2.16          The inhalation unit cancer risk factors are from WHO guidelines or, where unavailable, from those factors of OEHHA/ARB - approved inhalation unit cancer risk factors.  The inhalation unit cancer risk factors of pollutants for the assessment of cancer risk level are summarised in Table 3.5 below :

Table 3.5 : Inhalation Unit Risk Factor for the Assessment of Cancer Risk

Pollutant

Inhalation Unit Risk (mg/m3)-1

Arsenic (As)

1.5 ´ 10-3*

Chromium VI (Cr6+)

0.13

Nickel (Ni)

4 ´ 10-4*

Lead (Pb)

1.2 ´ 10-5**

Beryllium (Be)

2.4 ´ 10-3**

Cadmium (Cd)

4.2 ´ 10-3**

Dioxins (TCDD)

38**

Notes :  *    Air Quality Guidelines for Europe”, 2nd edition, WHO, 2000

             **   Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved health values for use in facility health risk assessments conducted for the AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program.

3.3                  Baseline Conditions

Existing Environment

3.3.1             The proposed EcoPark is to be located on reclaimed