1                                  introduction

1.1                            Background

In support of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSARG)’s regional air quality improvement initiative, the Castle Peak Power Company Limited (CAPCO), a joint venture between CLP Power Hong Kong Limited (CLP Power) and Exxon Mobil Energy Limited (EMEL), proposes to install additional emissions control facilities on their Castle Peak Power Station “B” Units (CPB) to further reduce air emissions from the operations of these units.

CPB units use pulverised coal as the primary fuel.  All CPB units were commissioned during 1986 to 1990 with a unit size of 677 MW (gross).

It is CAPCO’s objective to responsibly manage the environmental impacts of their operations and to meet HKSARG's environmental license requirements while providing reliable electricity supply.  Since its full commissioning, CPB has been retrofitted with low nitrogen oxide (NOx) burners for the boilers, flue gas conditioning systems, and upgrades to the electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) in addition to boiler optimisation improvements in recent years for improved particulates and NOx control.  As a result of these measures and together with the introduction of natural gas in the mid 1990s and increased utilisation of ultra low sulphur coal, emissions of NOx, sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulates from all CAPCO facilities have already been reduced by 77%, 44% and 70% respectively over the 1990 to 2005 period when the total electricity demand has grown by about 80%.

Based on the CPB emissions control project description included in CAPCO and CLP Power’s 2005 Financial Plan which was accepted by HKSAR Government, the following additional emissions control facilities are currently proposed for implementation at CPB:

·       Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for NOx reduction; and

·       Limestone Flue Gas Desulphurisation (LS FGD) for SO2 reduction.

While there are several other emission control technologies available for NOx reduction, final NOx control facility will be subject to design optimisation.  For the purpose of this EIA Study, SCR has been selected as the most conservative process with respect to environmental impact.  This is due to the fact that the SCR system encompasses the facilities and elements associated with the other available NOx reduction technologies.

A power station is a designated project (DP) under Category D (Energy Supply), Item D.1 (Public Utility Electricity Power Plant) of Schedule 2, Part I under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)(Cap 499).  As Castle Peak Power Station (CPPS) has been in operation before the EIAO came into force, it is exempted under Section 9(2) of the EIAO.

As indicated in Section 1.3 of EIA Study Brief No. ESB 134/2005 (the Study Brief) issued for the above-mentioned Emissions Control Project (the Project), the Project is a Material Change, as defined under Section 9 (4) of the EIAO, as a result of the changes introduced by the SCR and the LS FGD operations to the types and quantities of wastes, emissions and effluents.  The Project also includes the following elements which would qualify as DPs in their own right under Schedule 2 of the EIAO:

·       demolition of the CPB 4,600-tonne Fuel Oil Day Tank (FODT) [Item 16 (Decommissioning of a store for oil with a storage capacity exceeding 200 tonnes) of Schedule 2, Part II];

·       construction and operation of urea storage facility, dissolvers, urea solution storage tanks and urea-to-ammonia reactors for SCR operations [Category K (Industrial Activities), Item K.6 (A chemical plant with a storage capacity of more than 500 tonnes and in which substances are processed or produced) of Schedule 2, Part I]; and

·       construction and operation of gypsum storage and handling facilities for FGD operations [Category G (Waste Storage, Transfer and Disposal Facilities), Item G.6 (A waste disposal facility for gypsum) of Schedule 2, Part I].

1.2                            Site Location and Site History

The Castle Peak Power Station (CPPS) is located at Tap Shek Kok in Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong.  The site was established mainly by reclamation with rock excavated from the adjacent hillside with a total area of approximately 62 ha.  Castle Peak ‘B’ units (CPB) (each of 677MW) occupy the southern portion of the site, and were commissioned during the period from 1986 to 1990.  The Project will be located within the existing CPPS and will only occupy a small portion of the total site area of CPPS.

1.3                            Objectives of the Study

This EIA Study is conducted in accordance with the Study Brief.  The objectives of the EIA Study, as stated in the Study Brief, are:

·       to describe the Project and associated works together with the requirements for carrying out the Project;

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

·       to provide information on the consideration of alternatives to avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts to ecologically sensitive areas and other sensitive uses; to compare the environmental benefits and drawbacks of each of different options; to provide reasons for selecting the preferred option(s) and to describe the part environmental factors played in the selection of preferred option(s);

·       to identify and quantify emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

·       to identify and quantify any potential landscape and visual impacts and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;

·       to identify and quantify any potential losses or damage to flora, fauna and natural habitats and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;

·       to propose the provision of mitigation measures so as to minimise pollution, environmental disturbance and nuisance during construction and operation of the Project;

·       to investigate the feasibility, practicability, effectiveness and implications of the proposed mitigation measures;

·       to identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts (ie after practicable mitigation) and the cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operation phases of the Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

·       to 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 these environmental impacts and cumulative effects and reduce them to acceptable levels;

·       to investigate the extent of the secondary environmental impacts that may arise from the proposed mitigation measures and to identify constraints associated with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIA study, as well as the provision of any necessary modification; and

·       to design and specify environmental monitoring and audit requirements to ensure the effective implementation of the recommended environmental protection and pollution control measures.

The Project has no impact on cultural heritage, agriculture and fisheries, and therefore these aspects are not assessed in the EIA Study.

1.4                            Approach to the Study

The assessments in this EIA Study are conducted using well-proven and internationally accepted methods based on the worst-case conditions associated with the construction and operation of the Project.

1.5                            Structure of the Report

The remainder of this EIA Report is organised as follows:

·       Section 2 presents a description of the Project and the considerations given to alternatives in the process of choosing the preferred option;

·       Section 3 presents the air quality assessment for the Project;

·       Section 4 presents the noise assessment for the Project;

·       Section 5 presents the water quality assessment for the Project;

·       Section 6 discusses the waste management issues associated with the Project;

·       Section 7 presents the land contamination assessment undertaken for the Project;

·       Section 8 discusses the ecological assessment for the Project;

·       Section 9 provides a visual illustration for the Project;

·       Section 10 outlines the requirements for environmental monitoring and audit during the construction and operation of the Project and presents an environmental mitigation implementation schedule; and

·       Section 11 concludes the report with a summary of the environmental outcomes associated with the construction and operation of the Project.