Architectural Services Department

Client logo(s) —>
Provision of Cremators at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium
Photograph(s) —>	Environmental Impact Assessment Report Volume 1 of 2 (Main Text and Figures) February 2008 Report no: 01256R0043
Joint Venture or Associate logo(s) —>

Architectural Services Department

Client logo(s) —>
Provision of Cremators at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium
Environmental Impact Assessment Report Volume 1 of 2 (Main Text and Figures)
Author:	Various
Checker:	Alexi BHANJA
Approver:	Dr Guiyi LI
Report no:	01256R0043	Date:		February 2008
This report has been prepared for Architectural Services Department in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Draft Environmental Impact Assessment. Hyder Consulting Ltd (COI Number 126012) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.
Hyder Consulting Ltd COI Number 126012 47th Floor, Hopewell Centre, 183 Queens Road East, Wanchai, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2911 2233 Fax: +852 2805 5028 www.hyderconsulting.com

Contents

1 Introduction.. 1

1.1 Background. 1

1.2 Purpose of the EIA Study. 2

1.3 Objectives of the EIA Study. 2

1.4 Key Environmental Issues and Study Approach. 3

1.5 Structure of EIA Report 4

2 Project Description.. 5

2.1 The Need and Justification for the Project 5

2.2 Consideration of Alternative Options. 6

2.3 Consideration of Different Transportation Routes. 10

2.4 Selection of Preferred Scenario. 11

2.5 Project Description. 15

2.6 Benefits of the Project 18

2.7 Cremation Technology. 18

2.8 Air Pollution Control Technology. 20

2.9 Interactions with Other Projects. 21

3 Air Quality Impact Assessment 23

3.1 Introduction. 23

3.2 Project Background. 23

3.3 Air Quality Legislation, Policies, Plans, Standards and Criteria. 24

3.4 Description of Existing Environment 26

3.5 Air Pollution Sources. 31

3.6 Assessment Methodology. 33

3.7 Assessment Results. 42

3.8 Contaminated Materials inside Cremators, Flues and Chimneys. 53

3.9 Asbestos Investigation. 53

3.10 Mitigation Measures. 55

3.11 Residual Impact 57

3.12 References. 57

4 Noise Impact Assessment 59

4.1 Introduction. 59

4.2 Environmental Legislation, Policies, Plans, Standards and Criteria. 59

4.3 Noise Sensitive Receivers and Baseline Condition. 61

4.4 Construction Noise Impact Assessment 62

4.5 Operation Noise Impact Assessment 66

4.6 Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirement 69

4.7 Conclusions. 70

5 Land Contamination Assessment 71

5.1 Introduction. 71

5.2 Site Appraisal 72

5.3 Contamination Sources and Potential Contamination. 72

5.4 Site Investigation. 73

5.5 Assessment Criteria. 75

5.6 Assessment Results. 75

5.7 Remediation Action Plan. 76

5.8 Further Site Investigation. 77

5.9 Potential Contamination due to Future Operation. 78

6 Waste Management Implications. 79

6.1 Introduction. 79

6.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria. 79

6.3 Project Phases and Timetable. 80

6.4 Assessment Methodology. 81

6.5 Activities and Waste Generation During Construction and Demolition Phases. 82

6.6 Activities and Waste Generation During Operation Phases. 86

6.7 Proposals for Waste Management during Construction and Demolition Phases. 88

6.8 Proposals for Waste Management during Operation Phase. 93

6.9 Impacts Caused by Handling, Collection and Disposal of Waste. 102

6.10 Cumulative Impacts due to Concurrent Projects. 107

6.11 Further Asbestos/Dioxin Investigations. 107

6.12 Conclusion. 108

7 Landscape and Visual Impact assessment 110

7.1 Introduction. 110

7.2 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines. 111

7.3 Assessment Methodology. 111

7.4 Review of Planning and Development Control Framework. 112

7.5 Landscape Baseline Conditions. 112

7.6 Landscape Impact Assessment 116

7.7 Visual Baseline Conditions. 120

7.8 Visual Impact Assessment 124

7.9 Recommended Landscape and Visual Impact Mitigation Measures. 128

7.10 Residual Landscape Impacts. 131

7.11 Residual Visual Impacts. 133

7.12 Provisional Programme of Landscape Works. 139

7.13 Funding, Implementation, Management and Maintenance of Landscape Works. 139

7.14 Summary and Conclusions. 139

8 Water Quality Impact Assessment 140

8.1 Introduction. 140

8.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria. 140

8.3 Assessment Methodology. 140

8.4 Baseline Condition. 141

8.5 Water Quality Sensitive Receivers. 141

8.6 Impact Prediction and Evaluation. 141

8.7 Mitigation Measures. 143

8.8 Cumulative Impact due to Concurrent Project 145

8.9 Residual Impact 145

8.10 Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirement 145

8.11 Conclusion. 146

8.12 References. 146

9 Ecological Impact Assessment 147

9.1 Introduction. 147

9.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria. 147

9.3 Assessment Methodology. 149

9.4 Baseline Condition. 152

9.5 Ecological Value of the Habitats. 156

9.6 Identification of Potential Impacts. 161

9.7 Evaluation of Potential Impacts. 161

9.8 Mitigation Measures. 167

9.9 Cumulative Impact due to Concurrent Project 172

9.10 Residual Impact 172

9.11 Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirement 174

9.12 Conclusion. 174

9.13 References. 175

10 Environmental Outcomes. 176

10.1 The Project 176

10.2 Key Environmental Impacts. 176

10.3 Key Environmental Outcomes. 178

11 Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements. 182

11.1 Introduction. 182

11.2 EM&A Requirements for Construction Phase. 182

11.3 EM&A Requirements for Operation Phase. 187

11.4 Summary for All Monitoring Parameters. 189

11.5 Implementation Schedule of Mitigation Measures. 191

12 Conclusion and Recommendations. 192

12.1 Air Quality Impact 192

12.2 Noise Impact 192

12.3 Land Contamination Impact 193

12.4 Waste Management Implications. 193

12.5 Landscape and Visual Impact 194

12.6 Water Quality Impact 194

12.7 Ecological Impact 195

12.8 Overall 195

Tables

Table 2-1 Environmental Benefits and Dis-benefits of Feasible Extension Options 14

Table 2-2 Development Schedule 16

Table 3-1 List of Relevant Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives 24

Table 3-2 Concentration Limits for Emission from Cremators 25

Table 3-3 Chronic and Acute Criteria for Toxic Air Pollutants 26

Table 3-4 Health Risk Guidelines for Exposure to Toxic Air Pollutants 26

Table 3-5 Background Air Pollutant Concentration 27

Table 3-6 Air Sensitive Receivers within the Study Area 29

Table 3-7 Comparison of Existing and New Cremators 30

Table 3-8 Summary of Measurement and Analytical Results of Stack Air Sampling for Existing Skeletal Cremator 34

Table 3-9 Worst-case Scenario of Construction Phase 35

Table 3-10 Operation Details of the New Cremators 36

Table 3-11 Target Emission Level of New Cremators and Overseas Emission Standards 38

Table 3-12 Air Pollutant Emission Rate of New Cremators 39

Table 3-13 Odour Emission Rates 40

Table 3-14 Conversion Factor for Odour 41

Table 3-15 Modelling Assumptions 42

Table 3-16 Maximum Predicted Cumulative TSP Levels at ASR – Scenario A 45

Table 3-17 Maximum Predicted Cumulative TSP Levels at ASR – Scenario B 46

Table 3-18 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Air Pollutant Concentration at ASR 48

Table 3-19 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Air Pollutant Concentration at ASR 49

Table 3-20 Maximum Predicted Odour Unit of Different Stability Class 50

Table 3-21 Maximum Predicted Odour Unit Under Stability Class E, F 51

Table 3-22 Calculation of Burning Material of Joss Paper Burner 52

Table 4-1 EIAO-TM Noise Standard for Construction Activities Undertaken During Non-Restricted Hours 60

Table 4-2 Acceptable Noise Levels in Leq(30 min) dB(A) 60

Table 4-3 EIAO-TM Noise Standards for Construction Activities Undertaken During Restricted Hours 61

Table 4-4 Details of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers 62

Table 4-5 Predicted (Unmitigated) Noises Levels of Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase Construction Works 64

Table 4-6 Predicted (Mitigated) Noises Levels of Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase Construction Works 65

Table 4-7 Sound Power Levels of Fixed plant 67

Table 4-8 Sound Power Levels of Fixed plant inside Cremator Plant Room 67

Table 4-9 Prevailing Noise Level 68

Table 4-10 Predicted Operation Noise Level at the Representative NSR 69

Table 5-1 Summary of Potential Contamination 73

Table 5-2 Details of Sampling Regime 75

Table 5-3 Testing Parameters for Further Site Investigation 78

Table 6‑1 Quantity of Bone Ash and Non-combustible Residues 86

Table 6‑2 Daily Fly Ash Generated from APC Equipment 88

Table 6‑3 Recommended Waste Management During Demolition and Construction Phase 93

Table 6‑4 Recommended Waste Management During Operation Phase 102

Table 6‑5 Proposed contamination Classification for Ash Waste with DCM/HMCM 103

Table 6‑6 Future Contamination Investigation Requirements 108

Table 7-1 LR 1: Sensitivity to Potential Change 113

Table 7-2 LR 2: Sensitivity to Potential Change 113

Table 7-3 LR 3: Sensitivity to Potential Change 114

Table 7-4 LR 4: Sensitivity to Potential Change 114

Table 7-5 LCA 1: Sensitivity to Potential Change 115

Table 7-6 LCA 2: Sensitivity to Potential Change 115

Table 7-7 Impacts on Landscape Resources before Mitigation 118

Table 7-8 Impacts on Landscape Character Areas before Mitigation 119

Table 7-9 VSR 1: Sensitivity to Potential Change 120

Table 7-10 VSR 2: Sensitivity to Potential Change 121

Table 7-11 VSR 3: Sensitivity to Potential Change 122

Table 7-12 VSR 4: Sensitivity to Potential Change 122

Table 7-13 VSR 5: Sensitivity to Potential Change 123

Table 7-14 VSR 6: Sensitivity to Potential Change 124

Table 7-15 Impacts on Visually Sensitive Receivers before Mitigation 127

Table 7-16 Residual Impacts on Landscape Resources 132

Table 7-17 Residual Impacts on Landscape Character Areas 133

Table 7-18 Residual Impact on Visual Sensitive Receivers 135

Table 7-19 Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule 138

Table 9-1 Area of Habitat 153

Table 9-2 Ecological Value of Semi-Natural Woodland 156

Table 9-3 Ecological Value of Urbanized Area 157

Table 9-4 Ecological Value of Woodland 157

Table 9-5 Ecological Value of Scrubland 158

Table 9-6 Ecological Value of Abandoned Land 158

Table 9-7 Ecological Value of Orchard 159

Table 9-8 Ecological Value of the Two Streams 159

Table 9-9 Evaluation of Species with Ecological Interest within the Project Site 160

Table 9-10 Overall Impact Evaluation for Semi-Natural Woodland 163

Table 9-11 Overall Impact Evaluation for Scrubland 164

Table 9-12 Summary of Potential Ecological Impact and Mitigation Measures 174

Table 10‑1 Summary of Key Environmental Impacts 178

Table 11‑1 Proposed Monitoring Location 183

Table 11‑2 Limit Level of Air Quality Monitoring for Construction Phase 183

Table 11‑3 Testing Parameters for Further Site Investigation 185

Table 11‑4 Supplementary Site Investigation 185

Table 11‑5 Summary for all Monitoring Parameters 191

Figures

Figure 1-1 Location Plan

Figure 2-1 Alternative Extension Options at Adjacent Sites

Figure 2-2 Alternative Chimney Locations

Figure 2-3 Transportation Routes during Construction and Operation Phases

Figure 2-4 Transportation Routes during Construction and Operation Phases

Figure 2-5 Location Plan and Chimney Location

Figure 2-6 Locations of Concurrent Project

Figure 3-1 Site Location, Study Area and Air Sensitive Receiver

Figure 3-2 Site Location of Concurrent Project

Figure 3-3 1-hour Average TSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level) – Scenario A (Unmitigated)

Figure 3-4 24-hour Average TSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level) – Scenario A (Unmitigated)

Figure 3-5 1-hour Average TSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level) – Scenario B (Unmitigated)

Figure 3-6 24-hour Average TSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level) – Scenario B (Unmitigated)

Figure 3-7 1-hour Average TSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level) – Scenario A (Mitigated)

Figure 3-8 24-hour Average TSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level) – Scenario A (Mitigated)

Figure 3-9 1-hour Average TSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level) – Scenario B (Mitigated)

Figure 3-10 24-hour Average TSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level) – Scenario B (Mitigated)

Figure 3-11 24-hour Average RSP Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-12 1-hour Average CO Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-13 8-hour Average CO Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-14 1-hour Average NO2 Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-15 24-hour Average NO₂ Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-16 1-hour Average NO₂ Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-17 24-hour Average NO₂ Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-18 1-hour Average SO₂ Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-19 24-hour Average SO₂ Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-20 1-hour Average SO₂ Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-21 24-hour Average SO₂ Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-22 1-hour Average TOC Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-23 24-hour Average TOC Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-24 1-hour Average TOC Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-25 24-hour Average TOC Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-26 1-hour Average Hg Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-27 Annual Average Hg Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-28 1-hour Average Hg Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-29 Annual Average Hg Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-30 1-hour Average HCl Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-31 Annual Average HCl Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-32 1-hour Average HCl Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-33 Annual Average HCl Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-34 Annual Average Dioxins Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-35 Annual Average Dioxins Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 3-36 5-second Average Odour Concentration Contour at 1.4mAG (Ground Level)

Figure 3-37 5-second Average Odour Concentration Contour at 71.4mAG (23rd Floor)

Figure 4-1 Site Location, Study Area and Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

Figure 6-1 Waste Management Hierarchy and Categorisation of Soild Waste in Hong Kong

Figure 6-2 Locations of Further Contaminatioin Investigation

Figure 6-3 Locations of Further Inspectin of ACM

Figure 7-1 Aerial Photo of the Project Site

Figure 7-2 Landscape Resources Plan

Figure 7-3 Landscape Character Plan

Figure 7-4 Location and Visual Envelope of Visual Sensitive Receivers

Figure 7-5 Summary of Impacts on Landscape Resources

Figure 7-6 Summary of Impacts on Landscape Characters

Figure 7-7 Summary of Impacts on Visual Sensitive Receivers

Figure 7-8 Photomontage View from VSR2 – Wah Sum Estate

Figure 7-9 Photomontage View from VSR5 – Kiu Tau Road

Figure 7-10 Preliminary Landscape Plan

Figure 8-1 Water Sensitive Receivers

Figure 9-1 Habitat Map inside Study Boundary

Figure 9-2 Habitat Map inside Site Boundary

Figure 9-3 Location Plan for Transplantation and Compensatory Planting

Annexes

Annex 2‑a Floor Plans

Annex 3‑a Air Sampling and Analytical Results for the Existing Skeletal Cremator

Annex 3‑b Study on Alternative Fuels

Annex 3‑c Rules Governing Coffins Used in Cremation

Annex 3‑d Emission Rate of New Cremators

Annex 3‑e Major Roads within Study Area and Traffic Forecast

Annex 3‑f Vehicular Emission Rate and Sensitivity Test

Annex 3‑g Air Quality Modelling Results (Construction Phase)

Annex 3‑h Air Quality Modelling Results (Operation Phase)

Annex 3‑i Asbestos Investigation Report

Annex 4-a Photographs of Representative NSRs

Annex 4-b Details of Construction Plant Inventories (Unmitigated)

Annex 4-c Prediction of Noise Levels for Construction Works (Unmitigated)

Annex 4-d Details of Construction Plant Inventories (Mitigated)

Annex 4-e Prediction of Noise Levels for Construction Works (Mitigated)

Annex 4-f Prediction of Cumulative Noise Levels

Annex 4-g Calculations of Fixed-noise Source

Annex 4-h Prevailing Noise Levels at Representative NSRs

Annex 5-a Contamination Assessment Plan

Annex 5-b Interim Contamination Assessment Report

Annex 5-c Technical Note for Further Site Investigation Works for Underground Fuel Oil Tank

Annex 7-a Photographs of Landscape Resources

Annex 7-b Tree Survey Report

Annex 7-c Photographs of Landscape Characters

Annex 7-d Photographs of Visual Sensitive Receivers

Annex 9-a Photos of Surveyed Habitats

Annex 9-b Aerial Photos

Annex 9-c Plant Species Recorded within Study Area

Annex 9-d Bird Species Recorded within Study Area

Annex 9-e Butterfly and Dragonfly Species Recorded within Study Area

Annex 9-f Tree Species for Tree Compensation

Annex 11‑a Implementation Schedule

List of Abbreviations

AADT Annual average daily traffic

AAP Asbestos Abatement Plan

ACM Asbestos Containing Materials

AFCD Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department

AIR Asbestos Investigation Report

ANL Acceptable Noise Levels

APC Air Pollution Control (equipment)

APCO Air Pollution Control Ordinance

AQO Air Quality Objectives

ArchSD Architectural Services Department

ASR Area Sensitivity Rating

ASRs Air Sensitive Receivers

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

BPM Best Practicable Means

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene

C&C Crematorium and columbarium

CAP Contamination Assessment Plan

CAR Contamination Assessment Report

CARB California Air Resources Board

CEDD Civil Engineering and Development Department

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CNP Construction Noise Permit

CO Carbon monoxide

COP Code of Practice

CWTC Chemical Waste Treatment Centre

DA-TM Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling

DCM Dioxin Contaminated Materials

ER Engineer’s Representative

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIAO Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

EIAO-TM Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Technical Memorandum

EM&A Environmental Monitoring and Audit

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPD Environmental Protection Department

ET Environmental Team

ETWB Environment, Transport and Works Bureau

FEHD Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

GFA Gross Floor Area

GPA Government Property Agency

GW-TM Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling

HCl Hydrogen chloride

HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air

Hg Mercury

HKPC Hong Kong Productivity Council

HKPSG Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines

HMCM Heavy Metal Contaminated Materials

HOKLAS Hong Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme

HTML Hyper Text Markup Language

HVS High Volume Sampler

IEC Independent Environmental Checker

IND-TM Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites

ISCST Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (Air Pollution Modelling)

IUCN World Conservation Union

LCA Landscape Character Areas

LR Landscape Resources

NCO Noise Control Ordinance

NO₂ Nitrogen dioxide

NO_x Nitrogen oxides

NSRs Noise Sensitive Receivers

OU Odour Unit

OZP Outline Zoning Plan

PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

PAHCM Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons Contaminated Materials

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PME Powered Mechanical Equipment

PP-TM Technical Memorandum on Noise from Percussive Piling

PRC Peoples’ Republic of China

ProPECC Practice Note for Professional Persons

PVA Polyvinyl acetate

RAP Remediation Action Plan

RBRGs Risk-Based Remediation Goals

RSP Respirable Suspended Particulates

SO₂ Sulphur dioxide

SP Specified Process

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SWL Sound Power Level

T&C Testing and commissioning

TC Technical Circular

TCLP Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure

TD Transport Department

TEQ Toxicity equivalent (for dioxin species)

TFS Technical Feasibility Study

TM Technical Memorandum

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon

TPHCM Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Containing Materials

TPO Town Planning Ordinance

TSP Total Suspended Particulates

ULSD Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel

USEPA United State Environmental Protection Agency

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

VSRs Visual Sensitive Receivers

WCZ Water Control Zone

WHO World Health Organisation

WMP Waste Management Plan

WPCO Water Pollution Control Ordinance

WQO Water Quality Objectives

WSRs Water Sensitive Receivers

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 The existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium is a coffin crematorium with two twin cremators. A skeletal cremator building with a single cremator operates nearby for the cremation of skeletal remains from burial. The skeletal cremator and the coffin cremators were commissioned in the 1960’s and 1991 respectively.

1.1.2 As the five existing cremators are approaching the end of their serviceable life, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) proposes to demolish the existing coffin crematorium and the skeletal cremator building and to construct in-situ a new crematorium in the same site. This proposal forms the proposed Project “Provision of Cremators at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium” (hereafter referred to as the ‘Project’).

1.1.3 The locations and site boundaries of the existing and new crematorium are shown in Figure 1-1.

1.1.4 The demolition and construction works will be undertaken in the three phases outlined below:

Phase I (Year 2009 to Year 2011)

1.1.5 Phase I works include the demolition of the existing coffin crematorium building, transformer room and pump room, construction of three service halls and one cremation plant room with sufficient space for housing nine single cremators and other ancillary facilities, and the provision of seven new cremators including five coffin cremators, one skeletal cremator and one dual purpose cremator.

Phase II (Year 2012)

1.1.6 The existing skeletal cremator building will be demolished upon completion of Phase I works (i.e. there will be no overlapping between Phases I and II).

Phase III: Future Expansion Phase (for completion by around 2014)

1.1.7 This Phase comprises the construction of one additional service hall and provision of two additional cremators to the cremator plant room as future expansion.

1.1.8 Detailed descriptions of the three phases are provided in Section 2.4 of this Report.

1.1.9 The Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) is the works agent and the Project Proponent for implementing the Project. The new cremators will be handed over to FEHD for operation after completion of construction works.

1.1.10 The proposed Project is classified as a Designated Project (DP) under Category N.4 – A crematorium of Part I in Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO).

1.1.11 Pursuant to Section 5(7)(a) of the EIAO, the Director of Environmental Protection issued the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-140/2006 to the Project Proponent for carrying out an EIA Study of the Project.

1.1.12 Hyder Consulting Limited has been appointed by ArchSD as the Consultant to undertake the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with the EIAO, Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) as well as the EIA Study Brief.

1.2 Purpose of the EIA Study

1.2.1 The purpose of this EIA Study is to provide information on the nature and extent of environmental impacts likely to arise from the demolition/ construction and operation stages of the Project and related activities taking place concurrently. The information provided by this EIA Study will contribute to the decision on:

§ The overall acceptability of any adverse environmental consequences that are likely to arise as a result of the Project and the associated activities of the Project;

§ The conditions and requirements for the detailed design, demolition/ construction and operation stages of the Project to mitigate against adverse environmental consequences wherever practicable; and

§ The acceptability of residual impacts after the proposed mitigation measures are implemented.

1.3 Objectives of the EIA Study

1.3.1 The objectives of this EIA study are to:

§ Describe the Project and associated works together with the need for the Project;

§ Identify and describe elements of the community and environment likely to be affected by the Project and/or likely to cause adverse impacts to the Project;

§ Give consideration to selecting alternative Project options, sites, layouts, designs and construction methods with a view to avoiding and minimizing the potential environmental impacts;

§ Provide reasons for selecting the preferred option(s) and describe the environmental considerations taken into account in the selection;

§ Identify and quantify key environmental issues/impacts and determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

§ Propose mitigation measures so as to minimize pollution, environmental disturbance and nuisance during demolition/construction and operation stages of the Project;

§ Investigate the feasibility, practicability, effectiveness and implications of the proposed mitigation measures;

§ Identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts and the cumulative effects expected to arise during the demolition/ construction and operation stages of the Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

§ Identify, assess and specify methods, measures and standards, to be included in the detailed design, demolition/construction and operation stages of the Project which are necessary to mitigate these environmental impacts and cumulative effects and reduce them to acceptable levels;

§ Investigate the extent of the secondary environmental impacts (if any) 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

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

1.4 Key Environmental Issues and Study Approach

1.4.1 The EIA Study addresses the following key issues:

§ The potential air quality impact to the air sensitive receivers during the demolition/construction and operation stages of the Project;

§ The potential noise impact to the noise sensitive receivers during the demolition/construction and operation stages of the Project;

§ The potential impacts of various types of wastes to be generated from the demolition/construction and operation stages of the Project, in particular the land contamination issues arising from the Project;

§ The potential water quality impact arising from the operation stage of the Project, if there is to be effluent discharge from the new cremators or associated air pollution control/scrubbing systems;

§ The potential landscape and visual impacts caused by the Project during demolition/construction and operation stages;

§ The potential terrestrial ecological impacts arising from the demolition/construction and operation stages of the Project, including the loss of habitats, removal of vegetation and disturbance to wildlife; and

§ The potential cumulative environmental impacts of the Project, through interaction or in combination with other existing, committed and planned developments in the vicinity of the Project, and that those impacts may have a bearing on the environmental acceptability of the Project.

1.4.2 The EIA Study covers the combined impacts of the Project as well as the cumulative impacts of existing, committed and planned developments in the vicinity of the Project for Phases I and II as well as the Future Expansion Phase.

1.4.3 The EIA Report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). This covers relevant project information, relevant legislation, existing environmental conditions, assessment criteria and methods, assessment findings and proposed mitigation measures.

1.5 Structure of EIA Report

1.5.1 This EIA Report consists of the following 12 sections:

§ Section1: Introduction

§ Section2: Project Description

§ Section 3: Air Quality Impact Assessment

§ Section 4: Noise Impact Assessment

§ Section 5: Land Contamination Impact Assessment

§ Section 6: Waste Management Implications

§ Section 7: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

§ Section 8: Water Quality Impact Assessment

§ Section 9: Ecological Impact Assessment

§ Section 10: Environmental Outcomes

§ Section 11: Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements

§ Section 12: Conclusion and Recommendations

2 Project Description

2.1 The Need and Justification for the Project

Air Emissions from Old Cremators

2.1.1 The existing skeletal and coffin cremators in Wo Hop Shek Crematorium have been in use since 1960’s and 1991, respectively, and are approaching the end of their serviceable life. There have been local concerns on possible air pollution caused by emissions of the existing cremators. As such, the existing cremators should be replaced.

2.1.2 The existing cremators are beyond economic repair and further restoration work is not considered cost-effective or sustainable.

2.1.3 Replacement of the old cremators and provision of additional cremators at the same site will be cost-effective, sustainable and ultimately remove the potential adverse impact on the environment from continued use of the old cremators.

2.1.4 The new cremators are designed to be capable of meeting the newly revised requirements described in “A Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Incinerators (Crematoria)” BPM 12/2 (06).

Insufficient Crematorium Facilities to Meet Rising Public Demand

2.1.5 At present, the Government provides all the crematorium facilities that are open for public use. The number of cremations has been rising steadily in the last 30 years and the existing public cremators in the territory are operating at almost their full capacities. In 2006, out of the total number of deaths of 37,415 in Hong Kong, 32,215 (i.e. 86%) dead bodies were cremated. Although the pledge of undertaking cremation within a maximum waiting time of 15 days after application could be fully met, the present provisions would not be sufficient to cater for any increase in demand of cremation in the coming years.

2.1.6 The old cremators at Wo Hop Shek should be replaced in the public interest and the capacity of the crematorium facilities should be expanded to meet the increasing public demand.

2.1.7 The current Wo Hop Shek site is already established and the use of an existing site is a more sustainable approach than using a greenfield site. Due to environmental concerns and general public’s resistance against the presence of cremators in their neighbourhood, it is extremely difficult to identify suitable land for crematorium development. It often takes a long lead time to go through the public consultation process while at the same time the demand for new cremation service is rising.

2.1.8 Due to insufficient crematorium facilities to meet rising public demand and the long lead time in developing new sites, it is therefore necessary to allow for maximum flexibility for future expansion at existing crematorium sites, whenever possible. As such, there is a need to reserve space at the Wo Hop Shek Crematorium site to allow for future expansion to meet the future demand for cremations.

2.1.9 In addition, new cremation technology will be deployed to enhance the handling capacity of cremators and to improve the control on air emissions from the cremators.

2.1.10 It is envisaged that the annual cremation capacity of some 40,000 sessions will be available by 2012 upon commissioning of the six new coffin cremators (excluding one skeletal cremator) at Wo Hop Shek (under Phase I development) together with the four cremators to be re-provisioned at Cape Collinson Crematorium. This capacity will be barely adequate to meet the expected cremation demand of around 40,000 sessions at that time.

2.1.11 Improvement in waiting time is not expected until the remaining two cremators at Wo Hop Shek (under the future expansion phase) together with another six cremators at Cape Collinson, are commissioned in 2014. By then, the total annual cremation capacity will be increased to some 50,000 sessions and the waiting time could probably be shortened from the current 15 days to 13 days.

2.1.12 If the existing cremators are not replaced and upgraded in time, or if sufficient numbers of additional cremators are not provided for commissioning by 2012 and 2014, a majority of the applications for cremation sessions will not be met within the present pledge of 15 days. An extended waiting time for the bereaved family would not be acceptable to the community. In addition, it is envisaged that the air quality in the vicinity of the Wo Hop Shek Crematorium cannot be improved and the public concern on air emission cannot be addressed unless and until the new cremation facilities are provided.

2.2 Consideration of Alternative Options

New Sites in More Remote Areas

2.2.1 Alternative project sites within Hong Kong have been considered. These have included more remote locations as it is appreciated that locations in remote areas are less likely to invite public objections. Also, as developments at new sites will not be constrained by existing building structures or establishments, there is more scope for more flexible planning. However, these sites are likely to be non-accessible to the general public.

2.2.2 It is acknowledged that there will be some forms of environmental dis-benefits arising from crematorium developments in new sites. Some of these dis-benefits may include newly-introduced traffic noise, visual impact of a new facility, air emissions, environmental impact due to tree felling, site formation works, construction traffic movements and associated vehicular pollution and noise. Yet, these dis-benefits are either transitional or, when suitably mitigated, should not undermine the development potential of these sites.

2.2.3 Nonetheless, it would take many years to develop adequate supporting transport network and infrastructural facilities in these areas before they are ready for development. Depending on the land use zoning, it would also take time to resolve the non-compatibility of crematorium development with the planning intention of these areas, assuming that they have not previously been zoned for crematoria. As such, new sites in remote areas are not able to meet the current and increasing demand for public cremation service.

Alternative Site at Tuen Mun

2.2.4 The unallocated government land in Tuen Mun Area 46 is zoned for crematorium and columbarium (C&C) development and is probably the only remaining zoned land in Tuen Mun that is not yet developed to its planning intention. The Planning Department advised that it is probably the only suitable new site within Hong Kong for new C&C facilities.

2.2.5 Parts of the site are currently leased to a private operator as a golf driving range and to the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) as a works area and site office. The latter lease will expire by 2009 and so this is a potential site for planning of crematorium development. The Government is considering the possibility of inviting non-Government and/or private sector to participate in C&C developments and it is therefore expected to take time to come to a view. It is likely that the development scale, delivery schedule and mode of operation for any C&C development at this potential site can only be drawn up at a later stage. As such, the site is regarded as a potential site for planning of cremation in the long-term but not at present.

Alternative Extension at Other Existing Crematorium Sites

2.2.6 All the eight cremators at Kwai Chung and Fu Shan Crematoria were replaced by more efficient ones in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Six re-provisioned cremators at Diamond Hill Crematorium were commissioned in June 2007. Plans are in hand to upgrade and provide, by phases, a total of ten new cremators at Cape Collinson Crematorium by 2014. All the existing crematoria have either already been developed to the maximum site utilization (except for the Cheung Chau Crematorium, the usage rate of which has been very low because of accessibility issues), or else have development plans in hand. Further extension would be hindered by physical constraints. Very limited expansion may be possible at certain sites but would not be sufficient to meet the rising public demand for cremation services.

2.2.7 Human activities and activities relating to the operation of crematoria already exist in these current crematoria sites. The impact on the local environment arising from further extension in these existing sites will therefore be marginal compared with a new development on a greenfield site.

Expansion of the Existing Wo Hop Shek Site

2.2.8 Even if other suitable new sites in the Territory could be identified, it is not expected that new crematorium facilities in these areas could be developed within a short time. On the other hand, the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium site is a developed site with the necessary transport network and infrastructure and, notwithstanding a slight expansion of the existing crematorium into adjacent land, is on government land. In other words, the proposed project at the existing site can start at the earliest opportunity, thereby meeting the prime objective of upgrading the cremation service as soon as possible.

2.2.9 As described above, the development of new crematorium facility at a new or remote site would have environmental dis-benefits. By comparison, the impact of such dis-benefits is relatively less significant for development of the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium and will result in additional environmental benefits.

2.2.10 Human activities already exist at the current site in Wo Hop Shek and in the vicinity. As such, the impact of the proposed Project on the local environment should only be marginal, compared with a new development on a greenfield site. The presence of a crematorium building and associated chimney will not be new to the Wo Hop Shek area. Given that the nearest air sensitive receivers are located approximately 300m away from the proposed site and the majority of the new crematorium building bulk will be screened by natural topography, the visual impact of the proposed project will not be significant.

2.2.11 The upgrading of the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium would not introduce a new source of air emissions into the area, as the site has been used for skeletal and coffin cremation since the 1960’s and 1991, respectively. The existing cremators can only meet old emission standards, whereas new cremators will meet the more stringent new standards. Therefore, the project will result in an environmental benefit in terms of improved control of air emissions. The air quality assessment indicates no unacceptable impact from the expanded facility.

2.2.12 The noise assessment also indicates no adverse noise impact from upgrading the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium.

2.2.13 Therefore, the existing cremators should be upgraded at the soonest possible time, addressing the local concerns on air quality, and additional cremators should be made available in the near future to meet the rising public demand for cremation service.

2.2.14 In-situ development to expand the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium site to accommodate the re-provisioned / additional cremators under the Project is therefore proposed.

Alternative Extension Options

2.2.15 In addition to the proposed extension arrangement at the existing crematorium site, other possible alternative extension options for the Project have been explored. These include extension to adjacent sites near the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium as shown in Figure 2-1, and as briefly described below.

2.2.16 A site to the west of the existing crematorium and skeletal cremator building (Site A) is not considered feasible because it has been allocated as private lots and is not available for public projects. There are also many new graves on site.

2.2.17 A narrow strip of land to the east of the existing crematorium (Site B) is also eliminated because there is insufficient flat area upon which to construct a crematorium. Besides, part of the land will overlap with the larger site at Kiu Tau Road which has been identified for construction of a columbarium, described as a concurrent project under Section 2.8.

2.2.18 Another site to the northeast of the existing site (Site C) was dismissed due to limited access (along an unmade 3.3 metre-wide road). The access road would require widening if this site was chosen. This would have associated additional noise, dust and ecological impact.

2.2.19 The use of alternative in-situ extension arrangements such as retaining of the existing crematorium building to minimise the construction impact, setting back of the building from the main road, locating of chimneys to the opposite ends of the site (Locations A and B) as shown in Figure 2-2, and sinking of the whole building below ground were also explored. However, these options are less preferable in view of the following:

§ Although there will be less environmental impact due to less demolition works, retaining of the existing crematorium is not practicable in view of the additional large building area required to accommodate the air filtration system of the new cremator design. It is not feasible to incorporate the new facilities within the existing building envelope.

§ Setting back of the building from the main road would result in extensive cutting of natural slope at the southern boundary of the site and undesirable disturbance to the existing trees and natural streams abutting the site.

§ Locating the chimneys at the opposite ends either Location A or Location B of the site would make them nearer and visually more conspicuous to the sensitive receivers.

§ A high water table was noted at the development site and so sinking the whole building below ground to reduce visual impact would cause significant engineering difficulties, such as grouting and major dewatering works, which would increase overall environmental impacts.

2.2.20 The topography of Wo Hop Shek Cemetery is rather hilly with a majority of the area already occupied by graves, urns and other existing C&C facilities. Levelled sites within the Cemetery that are sufficiently sized for construction of a crematorium with nine cremators, four service halls and other ancillary facilities are extremely limited. Choice of sites is further restricted as areas up the hillside lack the basic infrastructural provisions such as electricity and water supply and drainage which are essential for early development of the Project. There is also the competing need for sites for construction of additional columbaria. Another site in the Cemetery has already been earmarked for columbarium development described as a concurrent project under Section 2.8. In the circumstances, the existing crematorium site with its boundary suitably extended is considered the only feasible and suitable option to enable early implementation of the Project.

2.2.21 It should be noted that if the proposed crematorium is to be operated from two separate sites with the additional cremators / service halls in a new separate location, operational efficiency will be adversely affected, resulting in inconvenience to the facility users. Furthermore, more sensitive receivers would be affected due to the spreading out of the facilities in two different sites.

2.3 Consideration of Different Transportation Routes

2.3.1 Kiu Tau Road and Ming Yin Road are the major and current access roads to the Site, and will be used for transportation during the demolition/construction and operation stages.

2.3.2 The transportation routes (Route 1 to Route 6) via Kiu Tau Road and Ming Yin Road to and from the Site during construction and operation phases are shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.

2.3.3 Wo Ka Lau Road and Wo Hing Road are possible access roads to the Site. However, Kiu Tau Road and Ming Yin Road provide the most direct and shortest routes from either Fanling Highway or Tai Wo Services Road West to the Site. Wo Ka Lau Road and Wo Hing Road will not normally be used as access roads to the Site because they are relatively narrow.

2.3.4 As advised by ArchSD, approximately 15,100m³ of excavated materials will be generated. All the excavated materials will be stockpiled and re-used on site. As the fill requirement for the site formation is approximately 15,300m³, it is anticipated that all excavated materials will be re-used and backfilled on site and approximately 200m³ of fill will need to be imported.

2.3.5 The estimated quantity of C&D materials to be generated is approximately 327 m³. It is estimated that around 90% (294 m³) of the remaining C&D materials generated from the Project will be categorised as public fill and the remainder (33 m³) of the C&D materials will be categorised as C&D waste.

2.3.6 The surplus public fill and C&D waste requiring disposal will be minor and therefore any extra demand on public filling areas and landfills will be minimal. Any potential nuisance, such as noise impact and dust emission from haul vehicles during transportation of the surplus public fill and C&D waste on road is also anticipated to be minimal.

2.3.7 The demolition/construction stage will not result in a significant increase in the traffic volume on the local roads. Vehicles from the south-bound of Fanling Highway can access to the Project Site via Tai Wo Service Road East, Kiu Tau Bridge, Tai Wo Service Road West and Kiu Tau Road (Route 1). Vehicles from the north-bound of Fanling Highway can access the Site via Fanling Highway Slip Road at Wo Hop Shek Interchange and Ming Yin Road (Route 2). Since Kiu Tau Road is accessible to Fanling Highway (both north- and south- bound) via Tai Wo Service Road West (Route 3 and Route 6), this would provide an easier transportation route for vehicles leaving the site as compared with the Ming Yin Road (Route 2 and Route 4) in particular for the heavy-duty vehicles.

2.3.8 During the operation stage, it is anticipated that current transportation routes (Route 1 to Route 6, i.e. Kiu Tau Road and Ming Yin Road), shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4, will be used as these are the only practicable access routes. The increase in traffic is insignificant when compared with the overall traffic within the Study Area.

2.3.9 Within the Study Area, there are no sensitive receivers along Kiu Tau Road and only some sensitive receivers near Tai Wo Service Road West. There are more sensitive receivers in the vicinity of Wo Hop Shek Interchange. As such, advice will be given to vehicle drivers that Kiu Tau Road (Routes 1, 3, 4 and 6) should be utilised to avoid and minimize environmental nuisance to the sensitive receivers along other routes within the Study Area.

2.3.10 In this regard, administrative measures will be implemented to ensure Routes 1, 3, 4 and 6 will be used as access roads to and from the Site during both construction and operation phases. Requirements will be set out in the contract documents for the demolition and construction contractors, such that Routes 1, 3, 4 and 6 shall be the transportation routes for the demolition and construction works. On the other hand, guidelines on using Routes 1, 3, 4 and 6 as the transportation routes to and from the new crematorium will be provided (via the cremation booking service of FEHD) to the relatives and drivers of hearses and coaches.

2.3.11 The amount of traffic generated solely by the expanded crematorium is expected to be low. Only limited parking (only one coach parking, one private car parking and one mortuary car park are provided for each hall in the new crematorium) is to be provided by the development. As such the public visitors are expected to continue to use buses and coaches as present.

2.3.12 According to the information provided by the Project Proponent, the daily traffic introduced by the Project is estimated to be 97 vehicles (48 hearse, 48 coaches and 1 private car). Assuming these vehicles enter/leave the Site within 8 hours each day, about 12 vehicles per hour will be introduced by the Project. Based on the traffic forecast for the vehicular emission assessment in Section 3 (Annex 3-e), the peak hour traffic flows of Ming Yin Road and Kiu Tau Road will be around 500 vehicles. The variation of traffic flow during the peak hour and off peak hour within the cemetery area is not expected to be significant.

2.3.13 Assuming the off peak hourly traffic flow is about 70% of the peak hour flow, the off peak traffic road of Ming Yin Road and Kiu Tau Road will be around 350 vehicles. Thus, the increase of traffic introduced by the Project is about 7% (24 vehicles including return traffic), and is insignificant as compared with the traffic flows along the major access roads. Therefore, the impact due to the increase of traffic would be insignificant in view of the low traffic flow generated by the new crematorium.

2.4 Selection of Preferred Scenario

2. 4.1 The environmental benefits and dis-benefits of different possible options as detailed in Section 2.2 have been taken into consideration in the selection of the preferred option for the Project. Table 2-1 summarises the environmental benefits and dis-benefits of the afore-mentioned alternative extension options.

Extension Options	Environmental Benefits	Environmental Dis-benefits	Reasons for Not Selected as Preferred Option
New sites in more remote areas outside the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery	The development will not be constrained by existing building structures or establishments. There is more scope for more flexible planning.	Main environmental dis-benefits are identified as follows: 1 Depending on site location, potential impact to environment would be imposed on a greenfield site; 2 Vehicular emission and traffic noise brought about by construction traffic movement during construction phase; 3 Traffic noise and vehicular emissions brought about by traffic generated during operation phase; 4 New air emission source into the remote area; 5 Potential visual impact by a new crematorium; and 6 Access road construction, site formation and tree felling work may be involved.	It would take many years to develop adequate supporting transport network and infrastructural facilities in these areas before they are ready for development. Depending on the land use zoning, it would also take time to resolve the non-compatibility of crematorium development proposal with the planning intention of these areas, assuming that they have not previously been zoned for crematoria. Not able to meet the current and increasing demand for public cremation service.
Alternative site at Tuen Mun Area 46	Same as above.	Main environmental dis-benefits are identified as follows: 1 Potential visual impact by a new crematorium; 2 Vehicular emission and traffic noise brought about by construction traffic movement during construction phase; 3 Traffic noise and vehicular emissions brought about by traffic during operation phase; and 4 New air emission source into the area.	Parts of the site are currently on lease as a private golf driving range and an EPD works site. The latter lease will expire by 2009. The Government is considering the possibility of inviting non-Government and/or private sector to participate in C&C developments and it is therefore expected to take time to come to a view. It is likely that the development scale, delivery schedule and mode of operation for any C&C development at this potential site can only be drawn up at a later stage. As such, the site is regarded as a potential site for planning of cremation in the long–term but not at present.
Further extension in other existing crematoria at Kwai Chung, Fu Shan, Diamond Hill and Cape Collinson in addition to the already implemented / being implemented development plans	Human activities and activities relating to the operation of crematoria already exist in these sites. Impact on the local ecosystem arising from further extension will be marginal.	Air and noise emissions to these areas brought about by increasing traffic and cremation emissions will be increased though marginally.	Most of the existing crematoria were developed to the maximum site utilization. Further extension would be hindered by physical constraints. Very limited expansion may be possible at certain sites but not sufficient to meet the rising public demand for cremation service.
Expansion of the existing Wo Hop Shek Site
Site to the west of the existing crematorium site (Site A)	---	---	It has been allocated as private lots and is not available for public project.
Narrow strip of land to the east of the existing crematorium (Site B)	Improve local air quality with the replacement of new cremators with advanced emission control technology.	Insufficient flat area and requires extensive site formation works. Generation of noise and air quality impacts during construction.	Part of the site overlaps with the concurrent project site.
Site to the northeast of the existing crematorium (Site C)	Improve local air quality with the replacement of new cremators with advanced emission control technology.	Access road widening will be required. This would have associated noise, air quality and ecological impacts during the construction phase as this site is closer to the sensitive receivers.	The site is smaller and does not meet the requirements.
Expansion by in-situ development of the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium Site
Preferred Option in this EIA study	Improve local air quality with the replacement of new cremators with advanced emission control technology. Environmental assessment indicates that there would be no adverse air quality and noise impacts due to the construction and operation of the new crematorium. Human disturbance already exist in the Wo Hop Shek Site, impact of the proposed new crematorium in the current site on the local environment will be marginal.	Some site formation works will be required but environmental impact can be minimised to acceptable levels through mitigation measures.	Not applicable
Alternative in-situ extension arrangements
Retaining of the existing crematorium building	Less demolition works.	This will make the planning of the building inflexible and resulting in a bigger site area required. Consequently, giving rise to a larger extent of construction dust impacts and disturbance to the existing trees.	It is not feasible in view of the additional large building area required to accommodate the air filtration system of the new cremator design. It is not possible to incorporate the new facilities within the existing building envelope.
Setting back of the building from the main road	Emissions and bulk buildings further away from sensitive receivers. However, given the nearest air sensitive receivers are located approximately 330m away from the site and the majority of the building bulk will be screened by natural topography, the benefits will be marginal.	This requires more extensive cutting of natural slope at the southern boundary of the site and undesirable disturbance to the existing trees and natural streams abutting the site.	The dis-benefits will significantly outweigh the minor benefits.
Locating of chimneys to the opposite end of the site (Figure 2-2)	No obvious benefit	This would make the chimneys nearer and visually more conspicuous to the sensitive receivers.	Visual impact to high rise visual sensitive receivers due to existing topography would be imposed if chimneys are located at Location A, as shown in Figure 2-2, and a more bulky appearance viewed from pedestrian level would be caused if chimneys are located at Location B, as shown in Figure 2-2.
Sinking of the whole building below ground	Reduce visual impact to the surrounding. However, given the majority of visual impact will be screened by natural topography, the benefits will be marginal.	Deep basement construction involving grouting and major dewatering works would impose significant engineering difficulties and would increase overall environmental impact during construction phase.	The dis-benefits (in terms of engineering difficulties and environmental impact) will significantly outweigh the minor visual benefits.

Table 2-1 Environmental Benefits and Dis-benefits of Feasible Extension Options

2. 4.2 Based on the findings as described above, the preferred scenario is re-provision of existing cremators and development of additional cremators at the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium site by expanding into its adjoining area so that the overall site area can accommodate nine cremators and other ancillary facilities by 2014. It is selected for the following reasons:

§ It is the most suitable option ready for early implementation to meet the current rising demand for cremation service as soon as possible;

§ Human disturbance already exist in the current site and its vicinity, therefore the environmental impact of the expanded project on the local environment is marginal compared with a new development on a greenfield site;

§ In-situ expansion in the existing site has a much less significant environmental impact in regard to introducing a new source of air emission and visual impact of a new crematorium facility to a new site;

§ The existing cremators can be upgraded using the latest cremation technology as soon as possible, thereby addressing the local concern and achieving the environmental benefit of improving the air quality;

§ The existing crematorium site is fully enclosed by hillside and the surrounding landform. This helps to reduce the visual impact to the surrounding sensitive receivers compared to other more urban and open sites; and

§ If the new crematorium were to be operated in two separate sites with the additional cremators / service halls in a new separate location, operational efficiency would be adversely affected, and resulting in inconvenience to the facility users. More sensitive receivers would be affected due to the spreading out of the facilities in two different sites.

2.5 Project Description

2.5.1 The Project seeks to re-provision four existing coffin cremators and one existing skeletal cremator in-situ and to provide four additional coffin / dual-purpose cremators by three phases at the same site.

Project Location

2.5.2 The Project Site is an expanded site of the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium. It falls within Wo Hop Shek Cemetery area which has been allocated to FEHD under a Government Land Allocation No. DN 81. The Site does not currently fall into any Outline Zoning Plan or any other relevant plan. As stated in the revised Technical Feasibility Statement (TFS), the Government Property Agency (GPA) has no comment on the Project from the site utilization viewpoint.

2.5.3 The location and boundary of the existing and new crematorium are shown in Figure 2-5.

Development Schedule

2.5.4 The site area of the new crematorium is approximately 9,390 m². The Gross Floor Area (GFA) is approximately 2,185 m² with site coverage of approximately 48%. Details of the development schedule is shown in Table 2-2.

Site Area	Approx. 9,390 m^2
Gross Floor Area	Approx. 2,185 m^2
Site Coverage	Approx. 48% (i.e. approx. 4,500 m^2)
Plot Ratio	Approx. 0.23
Permitted Building Height	35 m from mean formation level
Proposed Building Height	Approx. 10.2 m from mean formation level
Number of Chimney Shafts	Two
Chimney Shaft Heights	Approx. 32m and 27m from mean formation level

Table 2-2 Development Schedule

2.5.5 Floor plans showing the location, boundary and facilities of the new crematorium are provided in Annex 2-a.

Chimney Location

2.5.6 The chimneys of the new crematorium will be located at south-eastern side of the Site (Location C) as shown in Figure 2-2. This location is as far away as possible from the majority of air sensitive receivers located to the northeast of the Site and thus, the air quality impact could be minimised. On the other hand, chimneys at Location C could be screened off by hillside from the high rise visual sensitive receivers. Moreover, as the chimneys are set back from Kiu Tau Road 40m, they would be further screened off by the crematorium building and would appear to be 10m lower, since the lower portion of chimneys would be embedded in the portion of crematorium building. The air quality and visual impacts are considered to be minimised by locating the chimneys at Location C.

Construction and Demolition Programme

2.5.7 The Project will be carried out in three phases.

Phase I (Year 2009 to Year 2011)

2.5.8 Demolition of the existing coffin crematorium building, transformer room and pump room including the existing coffin cremators;

2.5.9 Construction of one cremation plant room with sufficient space for housing nine single cremators. Provision of five new coffin cremators, one dual-purpose cremator for handling both coffin and skeleton cremations, one new skeletal cremator. The new crematorium will provide seven cremators upon completion of Phase I with an estimated total installed capacity in the region of 890kg/hr to 1,025kg/hr; and

2.5.10 Construction of multi-purpose service halls (3 nos.) for funeral ceremony each with ancillary facilities including clergyman room, waiting room and catafalques for transportation of coffins to the cremator plant room;

2.5.11 Provision of a full range of ancillary facilities required for the operation of a crematorium including:

§ Space for future provision of an additional service hall;

§ One Mortuary;

§ One Bone Storage Room and one Pulverization Room with a bone cremulator and dust proof cabinets;

§ Office accommodation with ancillary facilities such as staff toilets;

§ Building services and E&M installations including (i) coffin transportation and insertion equipment, (ii) anti-burglary devices and anti-bumping devices, (iii) automatic pulverising devices, (iv) CCTV and Public Address system, (v) Mechanical Ventilation and Air Conditioning system, (vi) fire fighting facilities, and (vii) emergency generator;

§ Ancillary service rooms including fork lift re-charging room(s), transformer and switch room(s), emergency generator room, dangerous goods store(s), refuse storage chambers and store room(s) etc;

§ Public Toilets for visitors;

§ Landscaping;

§ Joss Paper Burners;

§ Vehicular access for coffin vans and coaches, etc. to the Crematorium; and

§ Parking spaces.

2.5.12 During the demolition/construction stage of the Project, the existing four coffin cremators will be closed down due to the following reasons:

§ There is no other available flat land with sufficient land space for the construction of the replacement crematorium and thus it has to be built in-situ at the current crematorium site;

§ Extensive site formation works would be required to enlarge the site area if the existing cremators are to remain operational during the construction period. Such site formation works are costly and will inflate the project cost and prolong the construction period;

§ It is not advisable on site safety and management grounds to open a venue for public use when construction works are underway; and

§ With the commissioning of new cremators at Kwai Chung Crematorium in 2003, Fu Shan Crematorium in 2004 and Diamond Hill Crematorium in 2007, service need at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium during the construction period will be temporarily met by adjusting the operating hours of these crematoria as and when required.

2.5.13 The skeletal cremator will remain in operation during Phase I construction stage but will cease operation upon commencement of the testing and commissioning (T&C) stage for the seven new cremators.

Phase II (Year 2012)

2.5.14 After the satisfactory commissioning of the new cremators under Phase I, the existing skeletal cremator building will be demolished and landscaping works for the Site will be provided. Phase I will be completed prior to commencement of Phase II. No overlapping of construction/demolition works between Phases I and II will occur.

Future Expansion Phase (For completion by around 2014)

2.5.15 Installation of two additional coffin cremators in the cremator plant room and the construction of one additional service hall will be allowed for future expansion. The estimated total installed capacity of the two new cremators will be approximately 360kg/hr.

2.6 Benefits of the Project

2.6.1 The major benefits of the Project include the following:

§ The existing cremators can be upgraded within the shortest possible time to, address the local concern on air emissions;

§ Replacement of the existing crematorium by a new one with cremators of improved design and Air Pollution Control (APC) technologies would improve the air quality in the vicinity of the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery;

§ In order to further reduce emissions of air pollutants from fuel combustion, thereby to be more environmentally-friendly, Towngas has been selected as burning fuel for the new cremators instead of ULSD which has been using for existing cremators, despite the higher operation cost of using Towngas; and

§ The Project will help meet the increasing public demand for cremation service. The total annual public cremation capacity in the territory will be increased by 2014 and this will ensure that the current pledge of a maximum waiting time of 15 days be met.

2.7 Cremation Technology

2.7.1 Cremation is commonly adopted as a means to dispose of the dead. Cremation is a process of burning the dead body at high temperature to decompose organic matters. Incombustibles, such as bone ash would remain after cremation. A complete cremation normally takes about two to two and a half hours. During cremation, exhaust flue gas, containing air pollutants, is discharged into the surrounding air after passing through APC equipment. In recent years, cremators have been designed with two combustion chambers, namely the primary chamber and secondary chamber, to enhance the combustion efficiency and to reduce air pollutant emissions.

2.7.2 Cremators of flat-bed type and free falling type are most commonly used, due to their high combustion efficiency. High combustion efficiency cremators enhance the decomposition of organic matter more completely, and consequently reducing emissions of air pollutants generated from the cremation process.

2.7.3 Flat-bed cremators consist of a furnace slide door, primary combustion chamber, secondary combustion chamber, a cease-burning chamber and an ash cooling zone. The combustion chambers are made of high quality fire-bricks and insulating materials. The primary and secondary chambers are located one on top of the other in a compact configuration, achieving optimum heat exchange between the two combustion chambers.

2.7.4 Free-falling cremators consist of a primary combustion chamber at a higher level and a secondary chamber at a lower level. The “cremains” (a portmanteau of "cremated" and "remains”) will fall from the primary chamber to the secondary chamber (cremains collection chamber). When the cremains are transferred to the secondary combustion chamber, another coffin can be fed into the primary chamber for cremation. The operations of the primary and secondary combustion chambers are independent.

2.7.5 The selection of cremation technology to be adopted will be subject to the tendering process. Notwithstanding, the new cremators will be designed with equivalent specifications as the recent crematoria projects at Fu Shan and Diamond Hill, with adoption of the latest technology for flue gas filtering and emission monitoring. The new cremators will be fully capable of meeting all the BPM12/2 (06) requirements, at full load conditions.

Design of the Cremators

2.7.6 A total of nine cremators will be provided in the new crematorium. Seven cremators will be of 170kg capacity and the remaining two cremators will be of 100kg and 250kg capacity. The total operating capacity of the cremators will be about 1.385 tonnes/hour under full load conditions. As confirmed by ArchSD, the design of the new cremators will make reference to the cremators at the new Fu Shan Crematorium and Diamond Hill Crematorium. The flue gas volumetric flow rates of the 170kg and 250kg cremators are 2500m³/hour (at 6.3% oxygen, 15.5% moisture, 200^oC) and 4,600m³/hour (at 11% oxygen, 12.7% moisture, 200^oC), respectively. As ArchSD is still in the process of developing the design with the suppliers, there is currently no detailed information of the volumetric flow rate for the 100kg skeletal cremator. As agreed with ArchSD and FEHD, it has been assumed that the volumetric flow rate of 100kg skeletal cremator to be the same as 170kg cremator as the worst-case scenario.

2.7.7 Based on the findings of a fuel study carried out during the preliminary design stage for cremator installation, average air pollutants emissions data of the Kwai Chung Crematorium and Fu Shan Crematorium using ULSD and Towngas respectively could meet all the BPM12/2(06) emissions requirements. However, in order to further reduce emissions of air pollutants from fuel combustion, and thereby to be more environmentally-friendly, the Project Proponent has selected Towngas as burning fuel, instead of ULSD despite the higher operation cost of using Towngas.

2.7.8 Chimney diameters will be 0.22m for 100kg and 170kg cremators and 0.3m for 250kg cremator. The design efflux velocity at full load condition will comply with the minimum requirement of 10m/s as required in BPM12/2(06). Nine chimneys will be grouped into two stacks and the chimney heights of two groups are 32m and 27m above local ground level. The locations of chimneys are shown in Figure 2-5.

2.7.9 The temperature of the combustion gas from the primary combustion zone will be raised to 850^oC (after the last injection of combustion air) in a controlled and homogeneous fashion such that even under the most unfavourable conditions at least two seconds residence time in the secondary combustion zone is achieved in the presence of at least 6% oxygen.

2.7.10 Although the final selection of cremators would be subject to open tendering procedure, the performance and specifications of the new cremators shall fully comply with the BPM12/2(06).

2.8 Air Pollution Control Technology

2.8.1 Air pollutants, such as particulate matter, heavy metals, organic gases, acidic gases, dioxins, etc., will be generated by the combustion process within the flue emissions from the new crematorium. Installation of an APC equipment is required to reduce the emissions of such air pollutants to acceptable levels. Applicable APC technologies are described below.

Wet Scrubbing

2.8.2 Wet scrubbing removes air pollutants in flue gas through dissolution and chemical absorption by scrubbing solution. The solution may be water or other chemical solutions. Common scrubbing solutions include sodium hydroxide, acidified potassium permanganate, hypochlorite and other acidic solutions.

Carbon Injection

2.8.3 Carbon injection removes organic air pollutants in flue gas. Fine charcoal powder is injected into the flue gas ducting and organic air pollutants in flue gas adsorbed by the charcoal powder. The fine charcoal powder is then collected with bag filter. This technology is commonly adopted to control the emissions of dioxins and is a dry APC process.

Neutralization with Chemicals

2.8.4 Neutralization is adopted if the flue gas is highly acidic or alkaline. For acidic gases, neutralization is accomplished by spraying of lime or soda lime solution to the flue gas. Inorganic acids are usually used to neutralize highly alkaline flue gas. Spray nozzle or jet nozzles are used to spray neutralizing solution to the flue gas stream.

Electrostatic Precipitation

2.8.5 Electrostatic precipitators are used to collect fine particulate matter in flue gas. The electrostatic precipitator maintains an electric field of several kilowatts to charge up the fine particulates. The charged particulates are collected with the oppositely charged collector plates. Collected particulates are easily handled and disposed of. This is a dry APC process.

Bag Filters

2.8.6 Bag filters are commonly adopted to collect particulate matter. Particulate matter is collected in the filter medium. The filter bags may be made of cotton or fabric material. This is a dry APC process.

Rapid Quenching

2.8.7 Dioxin formation and reformation is known to occur at low combustion temperatures, in the range of 200 to 450^OC, when there is sufficient residence time. At this temperature, atoms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and chlorine re-combine to form dioxins, as these are the most thermodynamically favourable chemical species – this is the dioxin “formation window”. To minimise this window, and hence minimise the potential for dioxin formation, the latest combustion technology will be used, which is rapid quenching to <200^OC in a very short period (two seconds or less) to cool down the flue gas.

Flue Gas Cleaning System to be Adopted in the New Crematorium

2.8.8 After passing through the heat exchanger, the flue gas will be rapidly quenched to minimise the formation of dioxins and will enter the flue gas filtering plant, such that specific pollutants in the gas stream will be trapped. The flue gas filtering plant comprises a cyclone (for separation of large particles and sparks in the flue gas downstream of heat exchanger), a chemical addition system (with calcium hydroxide and furnace coke for neutralizing acidic pollutants such as hydrogen chloride and removing dioxin radicals in flue gas stream), a conditioning rotor (for recycling unused additives) and a flat bag filter (for filtering out fine carbon particulates with compressed air jet).

2.8.9 To further enhance the environmental performance of new cremators against emission of mercury and residual dioxins, chemo-absorption equipment using non-toxic additives is under design and will be added downstream of the flat bed filter, whenever practicable, to ensure compliance with emission limits as stipulated in BPM12/2 (06).

2.9 Interactions with Other Projects

2.9.1 According to the latest plan, there will be one concurrent project, under preliminary planning, to be constructed and operated in the vicinity of the Project. Subject to the outcome of the feasibility study, it is planned to construct a new columbarium of about 30,000 to 40,000 niches plus a garden of remembrance (GoR) at Kiu Tau road. The proposed project is to meet the public demand for niches and to provide a new-style Garden of Remembrance (GoR) for wider and environmentally-friendly use as an alternative to disposing the ashes in the columbaria. Tentatively, construction of the work will commence in 2010 and scheduled for completion in 2012.

2.9.2 Figure 2-6 shows the location of the concurrent project in the vicinity of Wo Hop Shek Crematorium.

3 Air Quality Impact Assessment

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This Section details the air quality impact assessment for the construction, demolition and operation phases of the Project.

3.1.2 Impacts due to fugitive dust from the demolition and construction activities and gaseous emissions from the cremators during operation phases may affect air sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the Site. Cumulative impacts due to interactions with concurrent projects during the construction phases and vehicular emission during the operation phases are also addressed.

3.2 Project Background

3.2.1 The existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium is a coffin crematorium with two twin cremators. A skeletal cremator building with a single cremator operates nearby for the cremation of skeletal remains from burial. The skeletal cremator and the coffin cremators were commissioned in the 1960’s and 1991, respectively. As the five existing cremators are approaching the end of their serviceable life, replacement is required to up-grade the cremation facilities. The opportunity is also taken to provide two more cremators under the same project to meet the increasing demand for cremation services. Moreover, to allow flexibility for future expansion, space would be reserved in the same site for the provision of two more cremators.

3.2.2 The Project will be separated into three phases, namely Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase. Phase I will include demolition of the existing coffin crematorium and its associated facilities, construction of main facilities of the new crematorium and provision of ancillary facilities required for the operation of a crematorium. Upon completion of Phase I, there will be five coffin cremators, one dual-purpose cremator and one skeletal cremator. The estimated maximum cremation capacity of these seven cremators will be approximately 1,025kg/hr. During Phase I construction works, the four existing coffin cremators will be closed down. The existing skeletal cremator will remain in operation but will cease operation upon commencement of the testing and commissioning (T&C) stage for the seven new cremators.

3.2.3 Phase II will include demolition of the existing skeletal cremator building after the satisfactory commissioning of the new replacement under Phase I and provision of landscaping for the Site.

3.2.4 Future Expansion Phase include installation of two additional cremators in the cremation plant room and one additional service hall. The estimated maximum cremation capacity of these two cremators will be approximately 360kg/hr.

3.2.5 The total maximum operating capacity of the nine cremators will be 1.385 tonne/hr, which exceeds the exempted capacity (0.5tonne/hr) of Specified Process – Incinerators under Part IV of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO). Thus, a Specified Process (SP) license for the operation of the new cremators will be required.

3.2.6 Air pollutants, such as particulate matter, heavy metals, organic gases, acidic gases, dioxins, etc., will be emitted from the cremation process. Dioxins are highly toxic and are suspected to be carcinogenic to humans. Special APC equipment shall be installed to reduce the emissions of these air pollutants to acceptable levels.

3.2.7 Although the design of the new crematorium is still in progress, it has been confirmed that dry type APC units will be adopted.

3.2.8 Apart from nine new cremators, there will be four joss paper burners. Air pollutants will be emitted from joss paper burning, potentially affecting the nearby environment.

3.3 Air Quality Legislation, Policies, Plans, Standards and Criteria

3.3.1 The criteria for evaluating air quality impacts and the guidelines for air quality assessment are laid out in Annexes 4 and 12, respectively of the EIAO-TM. “A Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Incinerators (Crematoria) BPM12/2 (September 2006)” (BPM 12/2) governs the stack emission of the Project.

3.3.2 The Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) provides the statutory authority for controlling air pollutants from a variety of sources. The Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) stipulate the maximum allowable concentrations for typical pollutants, of which total suspended particulates (TSP), respirable suspended particulates (RSP), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and carbon monoxide (CO) are relevant to this EIA Study. The relevant AQOs are listed in Table 3-1.

Pollutant	Concentration, mg/m^3 ^(1) Averaging Time
	1 Hour^(2)	8 Hours^(3)	24 Hours^(3)	1 Year ^(5)
Sulphur Dioxide	800		350	80
Total Suspended Particulates^(5)			260	80
Respirable Suspended Particulates^(5)			180	55
Nitrogen Dioxide	300		150	80
Carbon Monoxide	30,000	10,000

Notes:

1. Measured at 298K (25ºC) and 101.325 kPa (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 means suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometres and smaller.

Table 3-1 List of Relevant Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives

3.3.3 The EIAO-TM stipulates that the construction dust impact assessment should not lead to an hourly TSP level exceeding 500mg/m³ (measured at 25^oC and one atmosphere pressure). Mitigation measures for construction sites have been specified in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation.

3.3.4 In accordance with the EIAO-TM, odour level at a sensitive receiver shall not exceed 5 odour units (OU) based on an average time of 5 seconds for odour prediction assessment.

3.3.5 Under the Air Pollution Control (Specified Process) Regulation, an incinerator (including cremator) with an installed capacity exceeding 0.5 tonnes per hour, is classified as a specified process, and requires a Specified Process license to operate.

3.3.6 “A Guidance Note on the Best Practical Means for Incinerators (Crematoria)” BPM12/2 (06) published by the EPD sets out the basic requirement for providing and maintaining the best practicable means for the prevention of the emission of air pollutants from crematoria classified as SP. BPM12/2 (06) specifies the emission limits of air pollutants from the cremation process as shown in Table 3-2.

Air Pollutants (One-hourly average value except for mercury and dioxins)	Concentration Limit^(1)
Particulates	40 mg/m^3
Gaseous and vaporous organic substances, expressed as total organic carbon	20 mg/m^3
Hydrogen chloride (HCL)	30 mg/m^3
Carbon monoxide (CO)	100 mg/m^3
Mercury and its compounds, expressed as mercury (Hg)^(2)	0.05 mg/m^3
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans^(2)	0.1 ng I-TEQ/m^3

Notes:

1. All pollutant concentrations are expressed at reference conditions of 273K, 101.325kPa, 11% O₂ and dry conditions.

2. Average time of mercury and dioxins emissions limit: a minimum of three complete cremation cycles or the requisite number of complete cremation cycles to cover a minimum period of six hours, whichever is the longer duration.

Table 3-2 Concentration Limits for Emission from Cremators

3.3.7 The APCO also provides legislative control on the removal of asbestos-containing materials. Under the APCO, the owner of premises which contain, or are reasonably suspected of containing, asbestos containing material shall engage a registered asbestos consultant to carry out an asbestos investigation report (AIR). If asbestos containing material is found, an asbestos abatement plan (AAP) must be submitted to EPD at least 28 days before the commencement of the asbestos abatement work. EPD endorses the AIR and AAP prepared in accordance with the relevant codes of practice by the registered asbestos consultant. The AAP specifies the proper asbestos abatement procedure that has incorporated mitigation measures to check the asbestos fibre release and hence to minimises the potential impact. Moreover, the APCO requires registered professionals to supervise, audit and air-monitor the asbestos abatement work.

3.3.8 For air pollutants not established under the APCO or EIAO, the standards stipulated by recognised international organizations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) or United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are adopted.

3.3.9 Chronic and acute criteria for toxic air pollutants from international organizations, including WHO, USEPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB) are also adopted. Dioxins, hydrogen chloride (HCl) and mercury (Hg) are also the concerned toxic air pollutants of concern in this EIA study. The acute/chronic criteria of these toxic air pollutants are shown in Table 3-3.

Parameter	Unit	Criteria
		1-hour	Annual
Dioxins	pg I-TEQ/m^3	N/A	1^(1)
HCL	mg/m^3	2,100^(2)	20^(3)
Hg	mg/m^3	1.8^(2)	1^(4)

Notes:

1. Primary Ambient Air Quality Standard for Dioxin, Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut, USA, http://dep.state.ct.us/air2/regs/mainregs.htm.

2. Reference Exposure Limits, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California, USA

3. Integrated Risk Information System, USEPA.

4. WHO Air Quality Guideline.

Table 3-3 Chronic and Acute Criteria for Toxic Air Pollutants

3.3.10 Health risk guidelines that make reference to WHO, USEPA and CARB are used as the air quality criteria for the health risk of toxic air pollutants. Cancer risk guidelines for the assessment of health risk from exposures to toxic air pollutants as referred to CARB are shown in Table 3-4.

Acceptability of Cancer Risk	Estimated Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk Level*
Significant	>10^-4
Risk shall be reduced to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)	>10^-6 – 10^-4
Insignificant	10^-6

Note: *The estimated individual lifetime cancer risk level is assumed as 70 years as recommended by WHO.

Table 3-4 Health Risk Guidelines for Exposure to Toxic Air Pollutants

3.4 Description of Existing Environment

3.4.1 The project site is at the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium. It falls within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery area which has been allocated to FEHD under a Government Land Allocation No. DN 81. The site does not currently fall into any Outline Zoning Plan or any other relevant plan. As stated in the revised Technical Feasibility Study (TFS), the Government Property Agency (GPA) has no comment on the Project from the site utilization viewpoint.

3.4.2 According to the Study Brief, the study area of the air quality impact assessment is 1km from the site boundary of the Project. The location and boundary of the existing and new crematorium and the study area are shown in Figure 3-1.

3.4.3 The nearest air quality monitoring station to the Project site is Tai Po air monitoring station. The available monitoring results of different air pollutants of the past five years are summarized in Table 3-5.

Pollutant	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	Average
Sulphur Dioxide, SO2 ^(1) (mg/m^3)	19	19	N/A	14	11	13	15
Nitrogen Dioxide, NO2 ^(1) (mg/m^3)	57	49	N/A	52	48	50	51
Carbon Monoxide, CO ^(2) (mg/m^3)	581	660	661	N/A	783	1,051	747
Total Suspended Particulates, TSP ^(1) (mg/m^3)	66	61	N/A	71	61	68	65
Respirable Suspended Particulates, RSP ^(1) (mg/m^3)	51	51	N/A	54	46	50	50
Dioxins ^(2) (pg l-TEQ/ m^3)	0.066	0.071	0.055	0.071	0.063	0.055	0.064
Mercury, Hg (mg/m^3)	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.00022^(3)

Notes:

1. Monitoring data of SO₂, NO₂, TSP and RSP from Tai Po Station are presented.

2. There were only two monitoring stations for toxic air pollutants monitoring, i.e. Central/Western station and Tsuen Wan station, and no monitoring data of CO from Tai Po Station. Comparing the two stations, the topographical features of Tsuen Wan is more similar to Fanling. Therefore monitoring data of dioxins and CO from Tsuen Wan station were presented.

3. Air quality monitoring data from Air Quality in Hong Kong 2000 by EPD.

Source: Air Quality in Hong Kong, EPD, HKSAR

Table 3-5 Background Air Pollutant Concentration

3.4.4 With reference to the Outline Zoning Plans of Fanling / Sheung Shui, Lung Yeuk Tak & Kwan Tei South and Kau Lung Hang (Nos. S/FSS/14, S/NE-LYT/12 and S/NE-KLH/11), land uses within the study area include Residential (Group A) (R(A)), Village Type Development (V), Industrial (I), Government, Institution or Community (G/IC), Open Space (O), Other Specified Uses (OU) and Green Belt (GB). Apart from the study area falling within the OZP, other land uses within the study area include villages, public transport (e.g. Fanling Highway and the former Kowloon-Canton Railway line), cemetery and crematorium.

3.4.5 Table 3-6 lists the identified Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) within the study area and Figure 3-1 shows the ASRs within the study area.

3.4.6 Apart from the ASRs identified in Table 3-6, there are two G/IC zones found within the study area according to the Fanling/Sheung Shui OZP No. S/FSS/14 (April 2007) and approved Kau Lung Hang OZP No. S/NE-KLH/11 (October 2006) and are shown in Figure 3-1. There is currently no information of any planned development in these zones. However, according to “uses always permitted” under Column 1 of the OZPs, these two possible G/IC zones could be ASRs and they are included in Table 3-6.

ID	Name of ASR	Zonings on OZP	Type of Sensitive Receivers	OZP Nos.	No. of Storey	Local Ground Level, mPD	Distance from the Site Boundary
A1	Yung Shing Court	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	40	25.5	920
A2	S W Chan Memorial College	G/IC	Education	S/FSS/14	6	26	970
A3	Pentecostal Yu Leung Fat Primary School	G/IC	Education	S/FSS/14	6	25.5	860
A4	Cheong Shing Court	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	40	26	820
A5	Yan Shing Court	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	35	21	940
A6	Wai Ming Street Garden	O	Landscape Garden	S/FSS/14	N/A	22	960
A7	Wah Ming Estate	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	32	22	550
A8	Wa Mei Shan Village	V & GB	Village house	S/FSS/14	1	28	670
A9	Pak Fok Tin Sum Playground	O	Landscape Garden with Children Playground	S/FSS/14	N/A	22	1170
A10	Fung Kai Liu Yun Sum Secondary School	R(A)	Education	S/FSS/14	6	22	840
A11	King Shing Court	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	38	19	940
A12	Fong Shu Chuen Primary School	R(A)	Education	S/FSS/14	6	22	660
A13	Flora Plaza	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	38	22	710
A14	Ma Kam Ming College	G/IC	Education	S/FSS/14	6	24	600
A15	Buddhist Ching Kok Lin Association School	G/IC	Education	S/FSS/14	6	19	880
A16	Fanling Assembly of God Church Primary School	G/IC	Education	S/FSS/14	6	20	650
A17	Avon Park	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	25	18	820
A18	Dawning Views	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	29	20	640
A19	Wah Sum Estate	R(A)	High-rise residential buildings	S/FSS/14	36	19	650
A20	Fanling Government Secondary School	G/IC	Education	S/FSS/14	6	18.2	660
A21	Wo Hing Indoor Recreation Centre	G/IC	Active Recreation Uses	S/FSS/14	1	20	580
A22a	Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen	V	Village Houses	S/FSS/14	3	29	330
A22b	Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen	V	Village Houses	S/FSS/14	3	28	300
A23	Wo Hing Tsuen	V	Village Houses	S/FSS/14	3	18	440
A24	Wo Him School	V	Education	S/FSS/14	1	24.1	340
A25	Regalia Villa	V	Village House	S/FSS/14	3	14.3	530
A26	Tong Hang	AGR	Village Houses	S/NE-LYT/12	1	20	790
A27	Tong Hang Tung Chuen	ARG	Village Houses	S/NE-LYT/12 & S/NE-KLH/11	1	18	800
A28a	Nam Wa Po	V	Village Houses	S/NE-KLH/11	3	34	670
A28b	Nam Wa Po	V	Village Houses	S/NE-KLH/11	3	25	910
A29	Kiu Tau	AGR	Village Houses	S/NE-KLH/11	1	18	700
A30	Kau Lung Hang San Wai	ARG	Village Houses	S/NE-KLH/11	3	21.5	830
A31	Yuen Leng	ARG	Village Houses	S/NE-KLH/11	1	27	1010
A32	N/A	G/IC	N/A	S/FSS/14	N/A	23	315
A33*	N/A	G/IC	N/A	S/NE-KLH/11	N/A	19	655

Notes: N/A – Not Available

* Information provided by Planning Department indicates that this G/IC site mainly serves the waterworks installation thereat.

Table 3-6 Air Sensitive Receivers within the Study Area

3.4.7 The new cremators, which are designed with equivalent specifications as for the recent crematoria projects at Fu Shan and Diamond Hill and adopt the latest technology for flue gas filtering and emission monitoring, are capable meeting all the BPM12/2 (06) requirements, at full load conditions. Compared to the existing crematorium and skeletal cremator, of which no APC units are equipped and no statutory air pollutants emission limits are required to comply with, the air pollutant emissions from the new crematorium would be much lower than the existing crematorium and skeletal cremator.

3.4.8 Air emission data of the existing crematorium are not available as there is no requirement for regular air pollutant emission measurement for the existing cremators. Nevertheless, a qualitative comparison of the existing and new cremators in terms of cremator design, control of air pollutant emissions, monitoring requirement and type of fuel used for cremation process is given in Table 3-7.

Item		Existing Cremators	New Cremators
Cremator Design	Combustion chambers	Primary Chamber Only	Primary, and Secondary Chamber
	Combustion temperature	Around 800^oC	850^oC at Secondary Chamber
	Monitoring of sufficient combustion air in combustion zone	Nil	Continuous monitoring of temperature
Control of Air Pollutant Emissions	APC equipment	Nil	Flue gas filtering plant comprises of a cyclone, a chemical addition system, a conditioning rotor and a flat bag filter will be installed to treat the flue gas before discharge to the air. A chemo-absorption equipment with non-toxic additives is under design and will be installed downstream of the flat bed filter whenever practicable to enhance the control of emissions of mercury and dioxins.
	Design of Chimney		Locating of chimneys as far as possible from the air sensitive receiver and maximizing the height of chimneys to optimize the dispersion of air pollutants.
Monitoring Requirements	Emission monitoring	Nil	Continuous monitoring of temperature, oxygen content, CO and gas opacity will be carried out. Periodic measurement of particulates, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, gaseous and vaporous organic substances, mercury and dioxins will be carried out.
	Compliance with BPM emission limits	Not applicable	Comply with BPM 12/2 (06)
Fuel for Cremation Process		Diesel	Towngas

Table 3-7 Comparison of Existing and New Cremators

3.4.9 The above table demonstrates that the new cremators are of better design and equipped with improved APC equipment. In addition, the BPM12/2 (06) requirements will be fully complied with. Monitoring requirements as set out in BPM12/2 (06) will be carried out to ensure the cremation process is properly operated and the air pollutant emissions can be minimized to meet the air emission limits. Thus, it is anticipated that the existing environment will be much improved in terms of the air quality related to the emissions from the new crematorium, compared to the existing crematorium.

3.5 Air Pollution Sources

Existing Pollution Sources

3.5.1 The major existing pollution sources within the study area are the vehicular emissions from public roads, such as Fanling Highway and Pak Wo Road. Although the area located to the east of Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen is zoned as “Industrial”, there are mainly small-scale industrial activities, such as stone factories for the carving and trimming of gravestone, and garages. Air pollution from these industrial activities is insignificant.

Construction Phase of the Project

3.5.2 The tentative time frame for the construction work is as follows:

§ Phase I: Year 2009 to Year 2011

§ Phase II: Year 2012

§ Future Expansion Phase: Year 2012 to Year 2014 (tentative programme only subject to the review on the needs of the cremation capacity in the future)

3.5.3 Fugitive dust emission is anticipated when the following activities are undertaken:

§ Phase I: Demolition of existing crematorium, site clearance, excavation, foundation works, material handling, wind erosion and emission from skeletal cremator; and

§ Phase II: Demolition of existing skeletal cremator, site clearance, material handling and wind erosion.

§ Future Expansion Phase: Excavation, foundation works, site formation works, material handling and wind erosion.

3.5.4 Dust containing dioxins contaminated materials, which are potentially concentrated in chimneys, flue and cremators, will be emitted to the air if removal and handling of dioxins contaminated materials are not carried out properly during demolition works.

3.5.5 Phase II will only include the demolition of the existing small skeletal cremator room and cremator where fugitive dust is the major air pollutant. If general dust control measures are implemented, fugitive dust impact during Phase II will be insignificant in view of the small-scale demolition works. If dioxin-contaminated materials are found inside the chimney, flue gas piping or cremator, special removal/handling of dioxins contaminated materials will be implemented. Details of sampling and testing of the dioxins contaminated materials and removal/handling of such materials is provided in Section 6.

3.5.6 The Future Expansion Phase will include the provision of two additional coffin cremators to the space reserved inside the cremator plant room and the construction of an additional single storey service hall of approximately 300m². As no deep foundation will be required, construction dust impact is anticipated to be insignificant with the implementation of standard air pollution control measures.

3.5.7 The existing skeletal cremator will remain in operation during Phase I construction stage but will cease operation upon commencement of the T&C stage.

Concurrent Projects

3.5.8 According to the latest plan, there will be one concurrent project under preliminary planning to be constructed and operated in the vicinity of the Study Area of the Project. Subject to the outcome of the feasibility study, it is planned to construct a new columbarium of about 30,000 to 40,000 niches plus a GoR at Kiu Tau Road. The proposed project is to meet the public demand for niches and to provide a new style GoR for wider use as an alternative to disposing the ashes in the columbaria. Tentatively, construction of the work will commence in 2010 and is scheduled for completion in 2012.

3.5.9 Figure 3-2 shows the location and site area of the abovementioned concurrent project within the study area.

Operation Phase

3.5.10 With reference to BPM12/2 (06), major air pollutant emissions of concern from the cremation process are particulates, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, total organic carbon, mercury and dioxins.

3.5.11 As Towngas will be used as the primary burning fuel for the new cremators, the other air pollutant of concern will be nitrogen dioxide. Moreover, sulphur dioxide generated from the combustion of coffins and matter inside the coffins may be of concern.

3.5.12 Thus, the gaseous emissions from the operation of the proposed crematorium (with nine cremators in total) in this assessment includes particulates, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, total organic carbon, mercury, dioxins, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide.

3.5.13 Vehicular emissions including particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide from Fanling Highway are the other major air pollutant emission sources within the study area.

3.5.14 In order to provide a better understanding of the air pollution sources within the study area, chimney emission information within the study area was obtained from EPD. Information from EPD shows that except for the chimneys from the existing crematorium, there are no other chimneys in the vicinity (1,000m) of the crematorium.

3.5.15 Furthermore, a site survey was carried out on 5 November 2007 to confirm the validity of the information mentioned above. Apart from the chimneys of the existing coffin cremators and skeletal cremator at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium, no other chimney was identified during the site survey.

3.5.16 Subject to the needs of future expansion, air pollutants would be emitted from a maximum of nine cremators.

3.5.17 During the operation phase, odour generated from the dead bodies and cremation process may affect the nearby ASRs.

3.5.18 In addition, air pollutant emission will be generated from the joss paper burning activities in the proposed crematorium.

3.5.19 As APC equipment will be installed to remove air pollutants from the new columbarium under a preliminary plan at Kiu Tau Road, the effect of air pollutant emission would be insignificant.

3.6 Assessment Methodology

Construction Phase of the Project

3.6.1 The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST3) developed by USEPA was used for the simulation of the dispersion of construction dust within the study area.

3.6.2 The emission factors of fugitive dust were determined with reference to the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, USEAP AP-42, 5^th Edition, published by USEPA in January 1995.

3.6.3 The emission factors of 2.69 Mg/hectare/month for general construction activities which will generate fugitive dust and 0.85 Mg/hectare/year for wind erosion of open site as provided in USEPA AP-42 Chapter 13 and Chapter 11, respectively, were adopted for estimating the emission rates of construction dust. The general construction activities, which will generate fugitive dust, include demolition, site clearance, excavation works, foundation works, handling of dusty materials. These emission factors were applied to both construction sites of the proposed crematorium and the planned columbaria in order to assess the cumulative dust impact.

3.6.4 The emission rates were determined with the assumption that there will be 30 working days a month with 12 working hours per day for general construction activities and 365 days a year with 24 hours of dust emission for wind erosion.

3.6.5 Thus, the emission rates were estimated to be 2.076x10^-4 g/s/m² and 2.695x10^-6 g/s/m² for general construction activities and wind erosion respectively.

3.6.6 Meteorological data monitored at King’s Park (for the information of mixing height only) and Ta Kwu Ling weather stations of Hong Kong Observatory for the year 2006 were input into the air quality model.

3.6.7 Throughout the construction period of Phase I, the existing skeletal cremator will remain in operation. However, its operation will be ceased upon commencement of the T&C phase of the new cremators. The emission from the skeletal cremator was taken into account for the dust impact during the construction of the proposed crematorium under Phase I.

3.6.8 In order to estimate the emission rate of particulates from the skeletal cremator, air samples were taken from the existing chimney of the skeletal cremator and the flue gas flow rate was measured throughout November 2006. A temporary chimney extension that complies with USEPA Method 2 was built side by side with the existing chimney and connected to the cremator. A cap was placed at the outlet of the existing chimney so that all flue gas from the cremator was emitted via the new temporary chimney. Volumetric flow rate measurement at the new chimney was carried out and the isokinetic condition was ascertained.

3.6.9 Three air samples were collected with one each for the three skeletal processes. Each skeletal process lasted for about 120 minutes. Samples were sent to the HOKLAS laboratory for analysis of the concentration of particulate matter.

3.6.10 Air sampling exercises were carried out in compliance with the standard testing methods (USEPA Method 2) by Hong Kong Productivity Council (HKPC). The air samples were analyzed by HOKLAS accredited laboratory (HKPC).

3.6.11 Details of the air sampling and analytical results are presented in Annex 3-a. The flue gas velocities, stack temperatures and concentrations and estimated emission rates of particulate matter of the three samples are shown in Table 3-8.

Sample	Sampling Date	Measured Flue Gas Velocity (m/s)	Stack Temperature (K)	Measured Concentration of Particulate matter (mg/dscm)	Estimated Emission Rate (kg/hr)
1	24-Nov-06	2.3	503	22.7	0.024
2	27-Nov-06	2.2	506	27.8	0.026
3	27-Nov-06	1.9	491	23.2	0.020

Table 3-8 Summary of Measurement and Analytical Results of Stack Air Sampling for Existing Skeletal Cremator

3.6.12 As a conservative approach, the emission rate of 0.026kg/hr of particulate matter with flue gas velocity of 2.2m/s and stack temperature of 506K was adopted in the air quality model for assessing the cumulative impact due the dust emission from the existing skeletal cremator.

3.6.13 According to the information provided by FEHD, the operation time of the existing skeletal cremator is 0830 to 1530 everyday (excluding 1200 to 1300). Therefore, the air quality model considers particulate matter from the existing skeletal cremator to be emitted during this time period only.

3.6.14 With the concurrent project mentioned in Section 3.5, the worst-case scenarios during the construction phases of the Project are shown in Table 3-9. 24-hr and 1-hr average TSP levels at the representative ASRs for these scenarios have been predicted to evaluate the construction dust impact.

Scenario	Dust Emission Source	Period
A	Phase I construction works of the Project. Dust emission from existing skeletal cremator. Construction of new columbarium at Kiu Tau Road.	2010 to 2011
B	Phase II demolition of existing skeletal cremator of the Project. Construction of new columbarium at Kiu Tau Road.	2012

Table 3-9 Worst-case Scenario of Construction Phase

3.6.15 As confirmed by ArchSD and FEHD, general construction activities which would generate fugitive dust will be confined to 50% of the areas of the construction site of a new columbarium at Kiu Tau Road to be undertaken concurrently and the site activities will be randomly distributed over the site. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the emission rate of general construction activities for the construction of the new columbarium at Kiu Tau Road could be multiplied by a factor of 0.5 in the construction dust model. It is considered that this is an assumed “reasonably worst-case scenario” for construction dust assessment.

Operation Phase of the Project

Chimney Emissions

3.6.16 The ISCST3 developed by USEPA was used for the simulation of the dispersion of the chimney emission within the Study Area.

3.6.17 The emission rates of the air pollutants from the Project depend on different operation elements of the cremators. Table 3-10 below shows the best available information at this stage on the operation details of the new cremators as confirmed by FEHD and ArchSD.

Description	Details
Total maximum operating capacity (i.e. 9 cremators)	1.385 tonne/hour (≈ 6x170kg/70minx60min/hr + 1x250kg/70minx60min/hr + 1x170kg/70minx60min/hr + 1x100kg/40minx60min/hr)
The maximum capacity of each cremator	6 nos. 170kg (for coffin) 1 no. 250kg (for coffin) 1 no. 170kg (for dual-purpose, 170kg for normal coffin and 100kg for skeleton) 1 no. 100kg (skeleton)
Estimated average duration of cremation (the actual duration depends on the mass and material of cremation input)	70 mins between successive insertion (for coffin cremation) 40 to 60 mins between successive insertion (for skeleton cremation)
Flue gas volumetric flow rates of cremators (estimated based on suppliers’ information and performance of the nearly commissioned cremators)	For 100kg skeletal cremator: 1,798 m^3/hr (at 11% oxygen, 1atm, 273K, dry) (assume the worst case scenario as data for 170kg coffin cremator since detail figure for 100kg skeletal cremator is not available in this stage) For 170kg coffin cremators and 170kg dual-purpose cremator: 1,798 m^3/hr (at 11% oxygen, 1atm, 273K, dry) For 250kg coffin cremator: 2,318 m^3/hr (at 11% oxygen, 1atm, 273K, dry)
Design exit temperature of flue gas emission to atmosphere	Minimum 120ºC (design exit temperature after passing through air pollution control system)
Design efflux velocity	15m/s (> 10 m/s (for full load condition) – minimum required efflux velocity in BPM 12/2 (06)) > 7 m/s (minimum)
Stack exit diameter (reference data based on previous crematoria project and this may be revised)	0.22 m for 100kg and 170kg cremators; 0.3 m for 250kg cremator. Stack exit diameters are estimated as follows: For 100kg and 170kg cremators at 393K: = 2 x [2500m^3/hr / 3600s/hr x 393K / 473K / 15m/s / p]^0.5 = 0.22m For 250kg cremator at 393K: = 2 x [4600m^3/hr / 3600s/hr x 393K / 473K / 15m/s / p]^0.5 = 0.3m
Fuel for Cremation Process	Towngas

Table 3-10 Operation Details of the New Cremators

3.6.18 The volumetric flow rates of the 170kg and 250kg cremators were estimated on the basis of the EIA reports for Fu Shan Crematorium and Diamond Hill Crematorium. As ArchSD is still in the process of developing the design with the suppliers, there is currently no detailed information of the volumetric flow rate for the 100kg skeletal cremator. As such, it is assumed that the volumetric flow rate of 100kg skeletal cremator to be the same as 170kg cremator as the worst-case scenario. This assumption has been agreed with ArchSD and the Project Proponent.

3.6.19 A fuel study to evaluate the use of ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD), gas supplied by Town Gas and natural gas for the cremation process, has been undertaken. The study covered various considerations such as fuel availability, emission performance, engineering feasibility and past operation data. Average emissions data show that both Kwai Chung Crematorium and Fu Shan Crematorium, which use ULSD and Town Gas, respectively, fully meet the emission limits of BPM12/2 (06) as well as target emission limits as mentioned in Section in 3.6.23. It was also found that, in general, the emission levels of air pollutants from Towngas are lower than those from ULSD. In order to further reduce emissions of air pollutants from fuel combustion, and thereby to be more environmentally-friendly, the Project Proponent has selected Towngas as burning fuel, instead of ULSD, despite the higher operation cost of using Towngas. Further details of the fuel study and average emissions data of Kwai Chung Crematorium and Fu Shan Crematorium are given in Annex 3-b.

3.6.20 The emission rates of the pollutants may not be the same in each cremation process due to different size/make/content of coffins.

3.6.21 The new cremators will be designed with equivalent specifications as for the recent crematoria projects at Fu Shan and Diamond Hill, with the adoption of latest technology for flue gas filtering. Furthermore, average emission data of Kwai Chung and Fu Shan Crematoria under normal operation were reviewed and it was found that the data generally met the BPM 12/2 (06) emission requirements. It is anticipated that the new cremators for this Project will fully meet the BPM 12/2 (06) emission requirements under normal operation. Thus, the emission limits as required in the BPM12/2 (06) will be taken as the target emission levels (TEL) for the new cremators.

3.6.22 There is no emission limit for NO₂ and SO₂ set out in the BPM12/2 (06). However, the new cremators will be equipped with the latest technology flue gas filtering and emission monitoring system to control/reduce emission of air pollutants during the cremation process. This will be in accordance with the emission limits of NOx and SO₂ from the Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General, British Columbia, Canada – Crematorium Operations and Emissions. This emission limit is set as TEL for NO₂.

3.6.23 The TEL for the new cremators is shown in Table 3-11, below. Emission standards of UK and Australia for cremation process are also shown in Table 3-11 for comparison purposes. In general, the proposed TEL are the same as the emission standards of UK, except the TEL of CO, which is lower than that of UK. Moreover, all the proposed TEL are lower than the emission standards of Australia. Neither the emission standards of UK nor Australia include SO₂.

Air Pollutants	Target Emission Level (One-hourly average value except for mercury and dioxins)	Overseas Emission Standards
		UK^(4)	Australia^(5)
Particulate matter	40 mg/m^3	40 mg/m^3	250 mg/m^3
Organic compounds (excluding particulate matter and expressed as total carbon)	20 mg/m^3	20 mg/m^3	226 mg/m^3
Hydrogen chloride (excluding particulate matter)	30 mg/m^3	30 mg/m^3	200 mg/m^3
Carbon monoxide	100 mg/m^3	200 mg/m^3	150 mg/m^3
Mercury	0.05 mg/m^3	0.05 mg/m^3	3 mg/m^3
Dioxins	0.1 ng I-TEQ/m^3	0.1 ng I-TEQ/m^3	-
Sulphur Dioxide^(3)	180 mg/m^3	-	-
Nitrogen Oxides^(3)	380 mg/m^3	-	500 mg/m^3

Notes:

1. All pollutant concentrations are expressed at reference conditions of 273K, 101.325kPa, 11% O₂ and dry conditions.

2. Average time of mercury and dioxins emissions limit: a minimum of three complete cremation cycles or the requisite number of complete cremation cycles to cover a minimum period of six hours, whichever is the longer duration.

3. Emission limits from the Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General, British Columbia, Canada – Crematorium Operations and Emissions.

4. Emission limits from the Process Guidance Note 5/2 (04) – Secretary of State’s Guidance for Crematoria 2004, Cremation Society of Great Britain.

5. Emission standards for Crematorium Furnace Facilities, Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators, April 2004, Australasian Cemeteries & Crematoria Association.

Table 3-11 Target Emission Level of New Cremators and Overseas Emission Standards

3.6.24 The above TEL were applied for the calculation of maximum air pollutant emission rates of the cremators under an “assumed reasonably worst-case scenario”. In this regard, the “assumed reasonably worst-case scenario” refers to normal operation of the cremators, where cremation inputs generally follow the requirements laid down in the code of practice issued by FEHD to the funeral trade/bereaved (given in Annex 3-c) without serious violation and where there is proper operation and maintenance of the cremators.

3.6.25 In order to assess the air quality impacts on the nearby ASRs under a worst-case scenario, it is assumed that the nine cremators will be operated concurrently. For the purpose of the air modelling, it was assumed that the nine cremators would be operated for a maximum of 17 hours a day starting from 0930 each day. The exact daily operation hours will be adjusted in response to actual demand and other operational considerations while maintaining a daily maximum of 17 hours for each cremator.

3.6.26 The estimated emission rates of the air pollutants are shown in Table 3-12. Detailed calculation of the emission rates are provided in Annex 3-d.

Parameter	Emission Rate (g/s)
	100kg cremator	170kg cremator	250kg cremator
Particulate matter (Regarded as 100% Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP))	0.01998	0.01998	0.02576
Hydrogen Chloride (excluding particulate matter)	0.01498	0.01498	0.01932
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	0.04994	0.04994	0.06439
Organic compounds (excluding particulate matter and expressed as total carbon)	0.00999	0.00999	0.01288
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)*	0.0899	0.0899	0.1159
Nitrogen Oxides*	0.18979	0.18979	0.24468
Mercury	2.4972 x 10^-5	2.4972 x 10^-5	3.2194 x 10^-5
Dioxins	4.9944 x 10^-11	4.9944 x 10^-11	6.4389 x 10^-11

Note: * The emission rates of SO₂ and NO_x are estimated based on the emission limits from the Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General, British Columbia, Canada – Crematorium Operations and Emissions.

Table 3-12 Air Pollutant Emission Rate of New Cremators

Vehicular Emissions

3.6.27 In consideration of the cumulative impact during the operation of the crematorium, gaseous emissions including RSP, NO₂ and CO from vehicles on Fanling Highway, Pak Wo Road and other major roads within the study area were included in the assessment.

3.6.28 The assessment for the vehicular emission was carried out with the aid of the Gaussian dispersion model “CALINE4”, which is an EPD recommended software package for dispersion modelling.

3.6.29 Annex 3-e lists the major roads and traffic forecast that were incorporated into the model. As the full operation of the Project (including the future expansion phase) is anticipated to be 2014, the air quality modelling is based on the traffic forecast of the above road sections for years 2014, 2019, 2024 and 2029 provided by the traffic consultant. Traffic forecast up to year 2016 has been endorsed by Transport Department (TD). The traffic consultant has confirmed that the traffic forecasting beyond year 2016 was carried out in accordance with the same relevant standards and guidelines, as for year 2016 which fully satisfy the requirements of TD.

3.6.30 Vehicular emission rates were estimated according to the latest EPD fleet emission factors, which were based on EURO IV emission standards. The emission rates for the road sections incorporated into the model are included in Annex 3-f.

3.6.31 A sensitivity test of the traffic forecast as presented in Annex 3-f indicates that the overall emission strength from the traffic fleets for the year 2029 is the highest compared to the other time horizons. It is considered that year 2029 will be the worst scenario in terms of overall vehicular emissions of either RSP, NO₂ and CO. Thus, the year 2029 traffic forecast was used for the dispersion modelling.

Odour

3.6.32 Emission rates of odour from the new cremator were estimated based on an odour measurement undertaken in January 2003 at the Kwai Chung Crematorium, during the commissioning test when the cremators were running at design conditions. Three consecutive 15-minute flue gas samples were collected from the flue gas ductwork downstream of the APC equipment during the normal operation of the cremator. The maximum 15-minute average odour level of flue gas emission was 325 odour units (OU).

3.6.33 Although Fu Shan Crematorium came into operation after the Kwai Chung Crematorium, no odour measurement was carried out for Fu Shan Crematorium. On the other hand, during this study, the new Diamond Hill Crematorium had not yet come into operation. Thus, only the odour measurement result of Kwai Chung Crematorium was available.

3.6.34 Although the odour measurement was a commissioning test, the measured odour unit is considered to be representative of actual conditions as the flue gas sampling was taken under the normal cremation process. Moreover, the new cremators of the proposed crematorium will be designed and built with the latest technology for the flue gas filtering and emission monitoring system, with reference to Kwai Chung Crematorium. Thus, it is considered that the odour level measured at Kwai Chung Crematorium can represent the worst-case scenario of the odour emission at the new Wo Hop Shek Crematorium.

3.6.35 With reference to the current available layout of the new crematorium, dead bodies will be delivered to the crematorium and immediately stored in the refrigerated mortuary in order to control the odours. Other odour emission sources are unlikely. Thus, the present EIA study adopted the maximum odour concentration of 325OU.

3.6.36 Odour emission rates as shown in Table 3-13 were estimated based on maximum odour concentration of 325OU which were measured at 25^oC and 1 atmospheric pressure and the volumetric flow rates of the new cremators under the same conditions. Detailed calculation of the emission rates is given in Annex 3-f.

Parameter	Emission Rate (OU-m^3/s)
	100kg cremator	170kg cremator	250kg cremator
Odour	142.2	142.2	261.7

Table 3-13 Odour Emission Rates

3.6.37 Odour assessment was carried out using the ISCST3 model with different stability classes (A&B, C, D and E&F) of the meteorological data.

3.6.38 The hourly odour levels were assumed to equate to a 15-minute average (Engel et al 1997). Conversion factors of 15-minute to 3-minute average and 3-minute to 5-second average for different stability classes as shown in Table 3-14 were applied to obtain the 5-second average odour concentration.

Stability Class	Conversion Factor from 15-minute to 3-minute	Conversion Factor from 3-minute to 5-second average	Overall Conversion Factor from 15-minute to 5-second average
A, B	2.23	10	22.3
C	1.7	5	8.5
D	1.38	5	6.9
E, F	1.31	5	6.55

Table 3-14 Conversion Factor for Odour

Modelling Assumptions

3.6.39 The ISCST3 was used for the simulation of the dispersion of air pollutants within the study area. The modelling assumptions are presented in Table 3-15.

Input Items	Construction Phase	Operation Phase
Meteorological data	King’s Park (for the information of mixing height only) Ta Kwu Ling weather stations of Hong Kong Observatory (Year 2006), height of anemometer – 15.6mAG
Dispersion option	Rural
Elevation of emission point	1m above local ground for general construction activities and wind erosion Approximate 6.5m above local ground for the chimney of skeletal cremator	27m above local ground for chimneys of 250kg cremator, 100kg cremator and three 170kg cremators 32m above local ground for chimneys for four 170kg cremators
Chimney Diameters	0.56m – existing skeletal cremator	0.3m^(1) – stack for 250kg cremator 0.22m^(1) – stack for 170kg and 100kg cremators
Flue gas characteristics	Efflux velocity – 2.2m/s Exit temperature – 506K	Efflux velocity – 15m/s* (>10m/s – minimum requirement in BPM12/2 (06)) Exit temperature – 393K*
Operation Hours	0830 to 1530 hours (excluding 1200 to 1300 hours)	0930 to 0230 hours
Elevation of discrete receptors	1.4m above local ground (the lowest ground level within the study area is approx. 20mPD), then from 30mPD to the height of top floor of the highest building within the study area with interval of 10m.	1.4m above local ground (the lowest ground level within the study area is approx. 20mPD), then from 30mPD, to the height of top floor of the highest building within the study area with interval of 10m.
Uniform Cartesian grid – distance between points	50m
Elevation of contours of the concentration of pollutant	Ground level and/or worst hit level	Ground level and/or worst hit level

Note: *Reference was made to Appendix A1 of the EIA Report for Diamond Hill Crematorium.

Table 3-15 Modelling Assumptions

3.6.40 Modelling assumptions for predicting the air pollutant concentrations due to the vehicular emissions using CALINE4 are listed below:

§ Wind speed: 1 m/s

§ Surface roughness: 100 cm

§ Mixing height: 500 m

§ Standard deviation of wind: 18^o

§ Stability class: D

3.6.41 Due to an intrinsic limitation of the CALINE4 model, only 1-hr pollutant concentrations could be predicted. Reference was made to Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, USEPA, October 1992 for estimating longer-term maximum concentrations of air pollutants. The daily average RSP and NO₂ concentrations were estimated by multiplying the hourly maximum levels by 0.4 and the 8-hr average CO concentrations were estimated by multiplying the hourly maximum levels by 0.7.

Health Risk Assessment

3.6.42 The major health risk arising from the operation of the Project would be from the toxic air pollutants. Dioxins emitted from the chimneys would be the major toxic air pollutant. Cancer risk due to dioxins has been assessed based on the unit cancer risk factor (38(mg/m³)^-1) for dioxins as identified by CARB and the highest annual dioxins concentrations at ASRs due to emissions from cremators. The inventory for dioxins in g I-TEQ/yr and mercury in g/yr has been estimated based on the emission concentration and annual volumetric flow.

3.7 Assessment Results

Construction Phase

3.7.1 The maximum predicted cumulative 1-hr and 24-hr TSP levels without any dust control measures for Scenarios A and B are summarised in Tables 3-16 and 3-17, respectively. All predictions were corrected with the background concentration of TSP as shown in Table 3-5.

3.7.2 Cumulative impact due to the chimney emission of the existing skeletal cremator was also included for Scenario A. Cumulative impact due to the concurrent project (i.e. new columbarium at Kiu Tau Road) was included in both Scenarios A and B.

3.7.3 The maximum predicted 1-hr average TSP levels were found to be 3,315.1mg/m³ at A22b (1.4mAG) for both Scenarios A and B. The maximum predicted 24-hr average TSP levels were found to be 551.9mg/m³ and 554.5mg/m³ for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively, at A22b (1.4mAG). Detailed results of the TSP levels are shown in Annex 3-g.

3.7.4 The assessment results indicate that the predicted cumulative 1-hr average TSP levels at all the identified ASRs and 24-hr average TSP levels at some of the identified ASRs exceed the assessment criteria under the conditions without dust control measures.

3.7.5 Water spraying is the commonly adopted dust control measure for suppressing fugitive dust emission from the construction sites. With reference to “Overview of Fugitive dust Emissions, May 2000” by Mary Hewitt Daly and Jennifer and “Summary of Minimum Dust Control Parameter” by Mine Safety and Health Administration, Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Centre, when sufficient water spraying applied to the construction site, the fugitive dust emission from general construction activities would be reduced by 90%.

3.7.6 During holidays and night time, when there are no construction activities, water spraying, in general, would not be applied. As a conservative approach, it is assumed that dust removal efficiency of 90% by water spraying as abovementioned is applicable for the general construction activities only but not for wind erosion. Thus, a factor of 0.1 is multiplied to the emission rates for general construction activities for the air quality models with dust control measures.

3.7.7 As water spraying is a common dust control measure implemented to the construction site in Hong Kong, it is reasonably assumed that dust control measures with the same dust control efficiency would be implemented to the concurrent construction site of new columbarium at Kiu Tau Road.

3.7.8 The maximum predicted cumulative 1-hr and 24-hr average TSP levels with dust control measures are summarised in Tables 3-16 and 3-17. The results indicate that both 1-hr and 24-hr average TSP levels at all ASRs are in compliance with the respective assessment criteria.

3.7.9 As the worst hit levels were found to be 1.4mAG (ground level), concentration isopleths of this elevation have been plotted and shown in Figures 3-3 to 3-10. The concentration isopleths in Figures 3-3 to 3-10 have included the average background TSP concentration as shown in Table 3-5. Under the mitigated scenarios, no identified ASRs are located within the pollutant contours of exceeding the assessment criteria.

3.7.10 With the implementation of water spraying as the dust control measure for the dusty construction works and unpaved haul roads and areas, it is anticipated that there would be no unacceptable construction dust impact to the nearby ASRs during the construction phases of the Project.

Air Pollutants	TSP (mg/m^3) (Unmitigated)				TSP (mg/m^3) (Mitigated)
Criteria	1-hr (500mg/m^3)		24-hr (260mg/m^3)		1-hr (500mg/m^3)		24-hr (260mg/m^3)
ASR ID	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.
A1	1.4	1363.1	1.4	180.7	1.4	210.2	1.4	80.5
A2	1.4	1273.7	1.4	134.4	1.4	208.7	1.4	73.9
A3	1.4	1359.7	1.4	142.3	1.4	222.4	1.4	76.0
A4	1.4	1226.3	1.4	222.9	1.4	207.6	1.4	83.7
A5	1.4	1104.0	1.4	187.8	1.4	180.9	1.4	82.0
A6	1.4	762.2	1.4	161.8	1.4	150.6	1.4	78.1
A7	1.4	1748.1	1.4	356.1	1.4	271.6	1.4	100.1
A8	1.4	2030.2	1.4	215.7	1.4	285.8	1.4	82.5
A9	1.4	952.6	1.4	129.7	1.4	174.0	1.4	74.7
A10	1.4	1268.0	1.4	223.9	1.4	212.7	1.4	84.0
A11	1.4	1014.8	1.4	154.8	1.4	170.9	1.4	78.0
A12	1.4	1148.7	1.4	205.1	1.4	187.0	1.4	83.5
A13	10.4	996.5	10.4	167.2	10.4	179.4	10.4	78.7
A14	1.4	1568.3	1.4	194.2	1.4	248.4	1.4	84.0
A15	1.4	964.8	1.4	153.2	1.4	165.4	1.4	78.2
A16	1.4	1394.1	1.4	216.7	1.4	228.2	1.4	84.5
A17	10.4	952.3	10.4	130.6	10.4	173.9	10.4	74.8
A18	10.4	926.0	10.4	153.6	10.4	170.7	10.4	76.6
A19	1.4	1536.3	1.4	233.1	1.4	245.6	1.4	89.3
A20	1.4	1614.2	1.4	179.8	1.4	255.2	1.4	83.4
A21	1.4	1635.5	1.4	264.2	1.4	257.8	1.4	92.1
A22a	1.4	2490.7	1.4	508.0	1.4	362.8	1.4	123.2
A22b	1.4	3315.1	1.4	551.9	1.4	464.0	1.4	138.5
A23	1.4	1999.1	1.4	377.8	1.4	302.5	1.4	109.4
A24	1.4	2638.4	1.4	453.7	1.4	380.9	1.4	123.3
A25	1.4	1858.5	1.4	290.4	1.4	285.2	1.4	94.3
A26	1.4	1457.1	1.4	216.7	1.4	235.2	1.4	84.6
A27	1.4	1850.1	1.4	248.8	1.4	283.9	1.4	86.5
A28a	1.4	1240.1	1.4	398.2	1.4	209.3	1.4	107.3
A28b	1.4	1003.1	1.4	230.3	1.4	180.2	1.4	85.3
A29	1.4	2476.3	1.4	277.1	1.4	361.0	1.4	92.8
A30	1.4	1483.2	1.4	148.3	1.4	239.1	1.4	78.4
A31	1.4	925.9	1.4	121.7	1.4	161.1	1.4	72.3
A32	1.4	2613.5	1.4	301.4	1.4	349.2	1.4	97.3
A33	1.4	1878.8	1.4	174.1	1.4	287.7	1.4	82.7

Notes: 1. Underlined and bolded values indicate exceedance of assessment criteria.

2. There are podiums at Flora Plaza (A13), Avon Park (A17) and Dawning Views (A18) and podium height of 9m is assumed. Thus, the first assessment level for these ASRs was assumed to be 10.4mAG.

Table 3-16 Maximum Predicted Cumulative TSP Levels at ASR – Scenario A

Air Pollutants	TSP (mg/m^3) (Unmitigated)					TSP (mg/m^3) (Mitigated)
Criteria	1-hr (500mg/m^3)			24-hr (260mg/m^3)		1-hr (500mg/m^3)		24-hr (260mg/m^3)
ASR ID	mAG	conc.		mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.
A1	1.4		1093.8	1.4	125.0	1.4	191.3	1.4	73.2
A2	1.4		859.1	1.4	109.5	1.4	162.5	1.4	71.2
A3	1.4		1219.2	1.4	130.0	1.4	206.7	1.4	74.2
A4	1.4		1223.7	1.4	167.9	1.4	207.3	1.4	77.6
A5	1.4		849.6	1.4	162.7	1.4	161.3	1.4	78.6
A6	1.4		762.2	1.4	158.8	1.4	150.6	1.4	77.5
A7	1.4		1748.1	1.4	219.0	1.4	271.6	1.4	83.9
A8	1.4		1263.5	1.4	135.8	1.4	212.1	1.4	73.7
A9	1.4		952.6	1.4	117.8	1.4	174.0	1.4	73.3
A10	1.4		1268.0	1.4	180.4	1.4	212.7	1.4	79.2
A11	1.4		679.3	1.4	150.9	1.4	140.4	1.4	77.8
A12	1.4		1058.4	1.4	149.0	1.4	187.0	1.4	78.5
A13	10.4		996.5	10.4	152.4	10.4	179.4	10.4	78.1
A14	1.4		1464.9	1.4	160.4	1.4	236.9	1.4	76.7
A15	1.4		784.0	1.4	151.2	1.4	153.3	1.4	78.0
A16	1.4		1394.1	1.4	186.0	1.4	228.2	1.4	83.8
A17	10.4		952.3	10.4	120.1	10.4	173.9	10.4	74.4
A18	10.4		926.0	10.4	128.9	10.4	170.7	10.4	75.8
A19	1.4		1536.3	1.4	228.9	1.4	245.6	1.4	88.8
A20	1.4		1614.2	1.4	162.7	1.4	255.2	1.4	82.7
A21	1.4		1635.5	1.4	264.0	1.4	257.8	1.4	91.3
A22a	1.4		2490.7	1.4	451.4	1.4	362.8	1.4	116.6
A22b	1.4		3315.1	1.4	554.5	1.4	464.0	1.4	136.8
A23	1.4		1999.1	1.4	322.5	1.4	302.5	1.4	102.9
A24	1.4		2638.4	1.4	443.7	1.4	380.9	1.4	122.2
A25	1.4		1858.5	1.4	290.1	1.4	285.2	1.4	94.1
A26	1.4		1411.5	1.4	189.9	1.4	230.3	1.4	82.1
A27	1.4		1825.9	1.4	224.6	1.4	281.2	1.4	84.6
A28a	1.4		1240.1	1.4	286.4	1.4	209.3	1.4	94.9
A28b	1.4		1003.1	1.4	166.0	1.4	180.2	1.4	77.7
A29	1.4		2476.1	1.4	277.1	1.4	361.0	1.4	92.8
A30	1.4		1483.2	1.4	144.7	1.4	239.1	1.4	78.0
A31	1.4		798.4	1.4	121.7	1.4	155.0	1.4	72.3
A32	1.4		2138.3	1.4	195.6	1.4	319.6	1.4	85.1
A33	1.4		1878.8	1.4	172.5	1.4	287.7	1.4	82.5

Notes: 1. Underlined and bolded values indicate exceedance of assessment criteria.

2. There are podiums at Flora Plaza (A13), Avon Park (A17) and Dawning Views (A18) and podium height of 9m is assumed. Thus, the first assessment level for these ASRs was assumed to be 10.4mAG.

Table 3-17 Maximum Predicted Cumulative TSP Levels at ASR – Scenario B

Operation Phase (including T&C Stage)

3.7.11 The maximum predicted cumulative concentrations of RSP, CO, NO₂, SO₂, HCl, Hg, TOC and dioxins at each of the identified ASRs are summarised in Tables 3-18 and 3-19.

3.7.12 All predictions were corrected as appropriate with the background concentrations of air pollutants as shown in Table 3-5. The cumulative impact due to the vehicular emissions of RSP, NO₂ and CO was included.

3.7.13 The assessment results indicate that the predicted cumulative concentrations of all the concerned air pollutants at the identified ASRs at all the selected elevations within the assessment area are in compliance with the respective assessment criteria. The detailed assessment results are given in Annex 3-h.

3.7.14 Due to the contribution of vehicular emissions, the worst hit level of RSP (24-hour average), NO₂ (1-hour and 24-hour average) and CO (1-hour and 8-hour average) was found at ground level (1.4mAG) of A33.

3.7.15 The worst hit level of other air pollutants SO₂ (1-hour and 24-hour average), Hg (1-hour and annual average), HCl (1-hour and annual average), TOC (1-hour and 24-hour average) and dioxins (annual average) was found at 71.4mAG (approximate on 23^rd floor) of A32. Concentration isopleths of air pollutants on ground level and worst hit levels were plotted and shown in Figures 3-11 to 3-35. Concentration isopleths as shown in Figures 3-11 to 3-35 have included, if any, the average background air pollutants concentrations in Table 3-5. No identified ASRs are located within the pollutant contours of exceeding the assessment criteria except for the ASR A24 (Wo Him School) which is located within the pollutant contour at 71.4mAG of exceeding the assessment criteria of hourly average NO₂ and SO₂. As this ASR is of single storey, no impact would be imposed.

3.7.16 As all predicted air pollutant concentrations at all the ASRs within the study area are in compliance with the assessment criteria, it is anticipated that there would be no adverse impact to the nearby ASRs due to the chimney emissions from the Project.

Air Pollutants	RSP (mg/m^3)		CO (mg/m^3)				NO2 (mg/m^3)				SO2 (mg/m^3)
Assessment Criteria	24-hr		1-hr		8-hr		1-hr		24-hr		1-hr		24-hr
	180		30,000		10,000		300		150		800		350
ASR ID	mAG	conc.	mAG	Conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.
A1	71.4	56.4	71.4	1002.1	1.4	910.5	71.4	166.4	71.4	63.8	71.4	256.9	71.4	36.7
A2	1.4	53.5	21.4	869.0	1.4	830.3	1.4	74.6	1.4	59.2	21.4	28.1	21.4	17.0
A3	1.4	53.9	1.4	984.0	1.4	911.0	1.4	77.3	1.4	60.1	21.4	29.0	1.4	17.7
A4	71.4	57.0	1.4	1098.2	1.4	990.6	71.4	140.8	71.4	65.1	71.4	196.5	71.4	38.7
A5	71.4	57.9	1.4	1212.4	1.4	1071.1	71.4	163.6	1.4	68.8	71.4	241.5	71.4	40.5
A6	1.4	57.1	1.4	1097.2	1.4	990.8	1.4	95.3	1.4	67.7	1.4	26.7	1.4	17.5
A7	1.4	59.1	1.4	1217.2	1.4	1072.5	1.4	111.5	1.4	72.9	71.4	86.6	71.4	26.1
A8	1.4	54.3	1.4	988.4	1.4	912.4	1.4	82.1	1.4	61.0	1.4	36.7	1.4	18.2
A9	1.4	60.1	1.4	1328.4	1.4	1149.1	1.4	115.0	1.4	74.4	1.4	30.4	1.4	16.2
A10	1.4	55.4	1.4	1098.7	1.4	990.4	1.4	87.0	1.4	63.7	21.4	31.3	21.4	17.5
A11	71.4	59.5	21.4	1100.8	1.4	989.7	71.4	143.3	71.4	70.3	81.4	195.4	71.4	45.1
A12	1.4	55.6	1.4	1101.4	1.4	991.3	1.4	89.5	1.4	64.2	1.4	34.2	21.4	17.8
A13	10.4	57.2	10.4	1100.4	10.4	992.2	10.4	97.7	10.4	68.0	70.4	69.2	70.4	21.6
A14	1.4	55.4	1.4	989.1	1.4	912.6	1.4	89.0	1.4	63.9	1.4	38.0	21.4	19.6
A15	1.4	56.8	21.4	1101.2	1.4	989.5	1.4	96.2	1.4	67.3	21.4	33.6	21.4	16.6
A16	1.4	59.0	1.4	1215.3	1.4	1072.7	1.4	109.3	1.4	72.6	1.4	33.1	21.4	18.5
A17	10.4	56.4	10.4	1098.3	10.4	989.5	10.4	92.5	10.4	65.8	70.4	47.2	80.4	21.2
A18	10.4	57.7	10.4	1215.6	10.4	1070.0	10.4	103.1	10.4	69.2	80.4	66.8	80.4	23.2
A19	71.4	64.3	1.4	1102.0	1.4	991.1	81.4	204.2	71.4	78.8	81.4	347.9	71.4	70.2
A20	1.4	57.4	1.4	1101.6	1.4	989.9	1.4	101.1	1.4	68.3	1.4	34.5	1.4	16.5
A21	1.4	58.4	1.4	1217.4	1.4	1073.5	1.4	106.6	1.4	71.1	1.4	36.9	1.4	18.9
A22a	1.4	56.7	11.4	1107.7	11.4	991.7	1.4	100.4	1.4	66.9	21.4	45.6	21.4	17.6
A22b	1.4	55.4	1.4	1104.2	1.4	989.7	1.4	92.1	1.4	64.0	21.4	43.0	21.4	16.8
A23	1.4	59.6	1.4	1216.9	11.4	1070.6	1.4	115.9	1.4	74.2	21.4	36.1	21.4	16.8
A24	1.4	55.9	1.4	1103.8	1.4	989.6	1.4	95.0	1.4	65.2	1.4	38.6	1.4	16.5
A25	1.4	61.4	11.4	1329.9	11.4	1149.4	1.4	125.8	1.4	78.3	11.4	33.4	11.4	16.2
A26	1.4	59.4	1.4	1327.9	1.4	1150.1	1.4	110.3	1.4	72.8	1.4	29.7	1.4	16.6
A27	1.4	59.8	1.4	1328.1	1.4	1150.4	1.4	112.3	1.4	73.7	1.4	30.1	1.4	16.8
A28a	1.4	54.0	1.4	990.6	1.4	909.9	1.4	82.6	1.4	60.0	1.4	40.6	1.4	16.9
A28b	1.4	53.2	1.4	869.7	11.4	829.0	1.4	73.8	1.4	58.2	1.4	29.2	1.4	16.4
A29	1.4	74.3	1.4	2361.6	1.4	1872.9	1.4	197.4	1.4	107.1	1.4	35.8	1.4	17.7
A30	1.4	58.1	1.4	1212.8	1.4	1069.4	1.4	102.3	1.4	69.7	1.4	28.6	1.4	16.2
A31	1.4	61.1	21.4	1442.6	21.4	1229.3	1.4	120.9	1.4	76.7	1.4	30.1	1.4	15.9
A32	71.4	64.3	21.4	1106.3	21.4	993.9	71.4	240.4	71.4	78.9	71.4	434.1	71.4	72.1
A33	1.4	85.4	1.4	3162.4	1.4	2432.2	1.4	262.0	1.4	132.7	81.4	395.6	81.4	34.5

Note: 1. There are podiums at Flora Plaza (A13), Avon Park (A17) and Dawning Views (A18) and podium height of 9m is assumed. Thus, the first assessment level for these ASRs was assumed to be 10.4mAG.

Table 3-18 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Air Pollutant Concentration at ASR

Air Pollutants	Dioxins (pg I-TEQ/m^3)		Hg (mg/m^3)				HCl (mg/m^3)				TOC (mg/m^3)
Assessment Criteria	Annual		1-hr		Annual		1-hr		Annual		1-hr		24-hr
	1.0		1.8		1.0		2,100		20		N/A		N/A
ASR ID	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.	mAG	conc.
A1	71.4	0.0655	71.4	0.071	71.4	0.00095	71.4	42.2	71.4	0.439	71.4	28.1	71.4	2.5
A2	1.4	0.0642	21.4	0.004	21.4	0.00030	21.4	2.3	21.4	0.050	21.4	1.5	21.4	0.2
A3	1.4	0.0642	1.4	0.004	21.4	0.00033	21.4	2.4	21.4	0.067	1.4	1.6	1.4	0.3
A4	71.4	0.0658	71.4	0.053	71.4	0.00110	71.4	31.6	71.4	0.527	71.4	21.1	71.4	2.7
A5	71.4	0.0664	71.4	0.066	71.4	0.00141	71.4	39.5	71.4	0.711	71.4	26.4	71.4	2.9
A6	1.4	0.0642	1.4	0.004	1.4	0.00030	1.4	2.0	1.4	0.046	1.4	1.4	1.4	0.3
A7	71.4	0.0657	71.4	0.021	71.4	0.00104	71.4	12.3	71.4	0.494	71.4	8.2	71.4	1.2
A8	1.4	0.0642	1.4	0.006	1.4	0.00033	1.4	3.7	1.4	0.065	1.4	2.5	1.4	0.4
A9	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.005	1.4	0.00025	1.4	2.7	1.4	0.016	1.4	1.8	1.4	0.1
A10	21.4	0.0644	21.4	0.005	21.4	0.00040	21.4	2.8	21.4	0.105	21.4	1.9	21.4	0.3
A11	71.4	0.0654	81.4	0.053	71.4	0.00092	81.4	31.5	71.4	0.420	81.4	21.0	81.4	3.5
A12	1.4	0.0644	1.4	0.006	21.4	0.00043	1.4	3.3	21.4	0.127	1.4	2.2	1.4	0.3
A13	70.4	0.0650	70.4	0.016	10.4	0.00073	70.4	9.4	70.4	0.303	70.4	6.2	70.4	0.8
A14	21.4	0.0644	1.4	0.007	21.4	0.00040	1.4	3.9	2.4	0.106	1.4	2.6	1.4	0.5
A15	1.4	0.0641	21.4	0.006	21.4	0.00026	21.4	3.2	21.4	0.023	21.4	2.2	21.4	0.2
A16	21.4	0.0643	1.4	0.005	21.4	0.00035	1.4	3.1	21.4	0.076	1.4	2.1	1.4	0.4
A17	70.4	0.0643	70.4	0.009	80.4	0.00038	70.4	5.5	80.4	0.095	70.4	3.7	80.4	0.7
A18	70.4	0.0644	80.4	0.015	70.4	0.00043	80.4	8.9	70.4	0.126	80.4	5.9	80.4	0.9
A19	71.4	0.0666	81.4	0.096	71.4	0.00150	81.4	57.3	71.4	0.769	81.4	38.2	81.4	6.3
A20	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.006	21.4	0.00025	11.4	3.4	21.4	0.018	1.4	2.2	1.4	0.2
A21	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.006	1.4	0.00029	1.4	3.8	1.4	0.039	1.4	2.5	1.4	0.4
A22a	1.4	0.0641	11.4	0.009	11.4	0.00028	21.4	5.2	21.4	0.033	11.4	3.5	1.4	0.3
A22b	21.4	0.0641	11.4	0.008	11.4	0.00024	21.4	4.7	21.4	0.014	11.4	3.2	11.4	0.2
A23	1.4	0.0641	11.4	0.006	11.4	0.00025	21.4	3.6	21.4	0.018	11.4	2.4	11.4	0.2
A24	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.007	1.4	0.00024	1.4	4.0	1.4	0.014	1.4	2.7	1.4	0.2
A25	1.4	0.0640	11.4	0.005	11.4	0.00023	11.4	3.2	11.4	0.008	1.4	2.1	1.4	0.1
A26	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.004	1.4	0.00024	1.4	2.6	1.4	0.013	1.4	1.7	1.4	0.2
A27	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.005	1.4	0.00026	1.4	2.6	1.4	0.021	1.4	1.7	1.4	0.2
A28a	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.008	21.4	0.00025	1.4	4.4	11.4	0.016	1.4	2.9	1.4	0.2
A28b	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.004	21.4	0.00025	1.4	2.5	11.4	0.020	1.4	1.6	1.4	0.2
A29	1.4	0.0641	1.4	0.006	1.4	0.00025	1.4	3.6	1.4	0.019	1.4	2.4	1.4	0.3
A30	1.4	0.0640	1.4	0.004	1.4	0.00024	1.4	2.4	1.4	0.009	1.4	1.6	1.4	0.1
A31	1.4	0.0640	1.4	0.005	1.4	0.00024	1.4	2.6	1.4	0.009	1.4	1.8	1.4	0.1
A32	71.4	0.0687	71.4	0.119	71.4	0.00254	71.4	71.3	71.4	1.394	71.4	47.6	71.4	6.4
A33	71.4	0.0643	81.4	0.110	81.4	0.00037	81.4	65.6	81.4	0.090	81.4	43.7	81.4	2.2

Note: 1. There are podiums at Flora Plaza (A13), Avon Park (A17) and Dawning Views (A18) and podium height of 9m is assumed. Thus, the first assessment level for these ASRs was assumed to be 10.4mAG.

Table 3-19 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Air Pollutant Concentration at ASR

3.7.17 Air quality modelling of odour was carried out for different stability classes (A&B, C, D and E&F) of the meteorological data. Table 3-20 presents the predicted maximum odour unit of different stability classes.

Stability Class	ASR with Predicted Max. Odour Unit	15-minute Average Odour Unit (OU)	Multiplying Factor	5-second Average Odour Unit (OU)
Assessment Criterion for Odour Assessment – 5-second Average OU				5
A, B	A32 (61.4mAG)	0.06	22.3	1.41
C	A32 (61.4mAG)	0.07	8.5	0.58
D	A32 (71.4mAG)	0.33	6.9	2.25
E, F	A32 (71.4mAG)	0.73	6.55	4.75

Table 3-20 Maximum Predicted Odour Unit of Different Stability Class

3.7.18 The modelling results indicate that the predicted maximum odour concentration at A32 (71.4mAG) under stability classes E, F is 4.74OU. The maximum 5-second average odour units under stability class E, F at all the ASRs shown in Table 3-21 are in compliance with the assessment criterion of 5 OU.

3.7.19 Concentration isopleths of odour on the ground level and worst hit level are shown in Figures 3-36 to 3-37. No identified ASRs are located within the pollutant contour at ground level, exceeding the assessment criterion. It was found that ASRs A22a & A22b (Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen) and A24 (Wo Him School) are located within the pollutant contour at 71.4mAG, exceeding the assessment criterion. As these ASRs are of low-rise buildings (from single storey to 3-storey), no odour impact would be imposed as all buildings are below 71.4mAG.

3.7.20 It is anticipated that there would be no adverse odour impact to the nearby ASRs due to the operation of the Project.

Air Pollutants	Odour (OU)
Assessment Criterion	5-second
	5
ASR ID	mAG	conc.
A1	71.4	2.77
A2	21.4	0.02
A3	21.4	0.02
A4	71.4	2.10
A5	71.4	2.61
A6	1.4	0.00
A7	71.4	0.38
A8	1.4	0.00
A9	1.4	0.01
A10	21.4	0.02
A11	81.4	2.09
A12	21.4	0.01
A13*	70.4	0.42
A14	21.4	0.01
A15	21.4	0.02
A16	21.4	0.00
A17*	80.4	0.36
A18	80.4	0.60
A19	81.4	3.80
A20	21.4	0.01
A21	1.4	0.00
A22a	1.4	0.00
A22b	1.4	0.00
A23	1.4	0.00
A24	1.4	0.00
A25	1.4	0.00
A26	1.4	0.00
A27	1.4	0.00
A28a	11.4	0.01
A28b	11.4	0.01
A29	1.4	0.00
A30	1.4	0.00
A31	1.4	0.00
A32	71.4	4.75
A33	81.4	4.30

Note: * There are podiums at Flora Plaza (A13), Avon Park (A17) and Dawning Views (A18) and podium height of 9m is assumed. Thus, the first assessment level for these ASRs was assumed to be 10.4mAG.

Table 3-21 Maximum Predicted Odour Unit Under Stability Class E, F

Health Risk Assessment

3.7.21 Health risk assessment has been carried out by evaluating the excess cancer risk due to exposure to dioxins at the ASRs. Cancer risk due to dioxins has been assessed based on the unit cancer risk factor (38(mg/m³)^-1) and the highest annual dioxins concentrations at ASRs due to emissions from cremators.

3.7.22 The assessment results summarised in Table 3-19 indicate that the highest annual dioxins concentration is 0.0687pg I-TEQ/m³. With the background dioxins concentration of 0.064 pg I-TEQ/m³, the excess cancer risk is estimated to be 1.767x10^-7, which is lower than the insignificant risk level of 1x10^-6. This reveals that the cancer risk due to the operation to the Project will be insignificant at all ASRs.

3.7.23 The inventory of dioxins and mercury was estimated based on the emission concentration and annual volumetric flow.

3.7.24 The annual volumetric flow rate is estimated to be 103.64Mm³ (i.e. (1,798m³/hr x 8 + 2,318m³/hr) x 17hr/day x 365day/year). Emission limits of dioxins and mercury are 0.1ng I-TEQ/m³ and 0.05mg/m³ respectively. Thus, the annual emissions of dioxins and mercury are estimated to be 0.0104g I-TEQ and 5,180g, respectively.

3.7.25 The temperature inside the secondary combustion chamber of the new cremators will be 850^OC, which is sufficient to destroy all pathogens – this has been confirmed by numerous authorities, including the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, USA. As such, the risk of transmitting infectious diseases through aerial emissions from the cremation process (at 850^oC) is zero.

Joss Paper Burner

3.7.26 According to the latest design of the Project, there will be four joss paper burners located at the new crematorium. Burning of joss paper and joss sticks usually generates smoke. According to the information provided by FEHD, there will be about six cremation time slots available everyday. The duration of a typical joss burning memorial ceremony is 10 minutes and the burning material is assumed to be 0.5kg per ceremony. Thus, the maximum operation time for each joss paper burner is two hour a day. Thus, 6kg of burning material will be combusted for each joss paper burner per day. Calculations are given in Table 3-22, below. This is the worst-case scenario, as some memorial ceremonies do not burn joss paper and joss stick.

Number of Cremators	8 (1 for bone cremation is not counted)
Number of sessions each day	6 x 8 = 48
Total burning time each day	48 x 10 = 480 minutes
Burning time of each burner each day	480 / 4 = 120 minutes = 2 hours
Burning material per burner each day	120 / 10 x 0.5 = 6kg

Table 3-22 Calculation of Burning Material of Joss Paper Burner

3.7.27 In general, joss paper burners used comprise a simple combustion chamber without air pollution control. The air pollutant emission from the joss paper burners may affect the nearby ASRs.

3.7.28 However, as confirmed by ArchSD, advanced joss paper burners with high dust and smoke removal efficiency will be used in the new crematorium. Sufficient fresh air will be supplied to the joss paper burners by smoke discharge fans to ensure complete combustion. The burners will also be integrated with air washers and electrostatic precipitators for removing the large and fine smoke particles, respectively, generated from joss paper burning. As, the nearest ASR is located far away from the new crematorium (approximately 300m), the air quality impact to the nearby ASRs is considered insignificant.

3.7.29 In order to further minimise possible nuisance due to joss paper burning, FEHD will limit joss paper burning activities through the following administrative procedures:

§ Joss paper burners will be allowed for use in memorial ceremonies upon request only;

§ Other usage of joss paper burners will not be allowed;

§ Guidance will be provided to the users to advise them to minimise the quantity of burning materials; and

§ FEHD staff will advise users to ensure better combustion of the joss papers in order to reduce smoke emission.

3.7.30 With the adoption of the above measures, nuisance arising from joss paper burning is anticipated to be negligible.

3.8 Contaminated Materials inside Cremators, Flues and Chimneys

3.8.1 The existing coffin crematorium and skeletal cremator has been operating for more than 15 years and 46 years, respectively. The interior surface of the chimney, flue gas ducting and combustion chambers may be contaminated with heavy metals, dioxins and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Demolition of the existing coffin crematorium and skeletal cremator may generate fugitive emissions of toxic air pollutants to the atmosphere. Since the existing coffin crematorium and skeletal cremator are still in operation, no sample of surface deposition could be collected in this study to identify any contaminants deposited on the interior surface of the chimney, flue and cremators.

3.8.2 Confirmatory testing of heavy metal, dioxins and PAH in the depositions on the interior surface of chimneys, flue gas ducting and combustion chambers of the cremators shall be carried out after decommissioning of the existing crematorium and skeletal cremator but prior to the demolition. Classifications of contamination levels of the contaminated materials inside cremators, flues and chimneys are detailed in Section 6. Subject to the levels of contamination, appropriate mitigation measures for handling, transportation, treatment and disposal are also recommended in Section 6. As the demolition waste will be properly handled to avoid potential fugitive emission of dioxins, according to the waste management practices as detailed in Section 6, it is anticipated that the air quality impact from the fugitive emission of contaminated dust during demolition of the existing coffin crematorium and skeletal cremator will be insignificant.

3.9 Asbestos Investigation

3.9.1 An asbestos investigation for the existing crematorium was carried out. An AIR prepared by a registered asbestos consultant is given in Annex 3-i. The AIR has been submitted to EPD for approval. The AIR indicates that there are no asbestos containing materials (ACM) present in the existing crematorium. Therefore, no AAP was prepared.

3.9.2 As the incense burner, coffin and skeletal crematorium are still in operation they could not be adequately inspected or sampled. However, these areas shall be thoroughly investigated prior to commencing any demolition work to ascertain the presence of any ACM. The additional findings could be submitted as supplementary information to this EIA report.

3.9.3 If any ACM is identified in the existing crematorium, an AAP shall be submitted to EPD prior to any asbestos abatement works.

3.9.4 Under the APCO, the following precautionary and mitigation measures shall be implemented during the removal of ACM:

§ Enclosure of the works area;

§ Containment and sealing for the asbestos containing waste;

§ Provision of personal decontamination facilities;

§ Use of personal respiratory/protection equipment;

§ Use of vacuum cleaner equipped with high-efficiency air particulate (HEPA) filter for cleaning up the works area; and

§ Carrying out air quality monitoring during the asbestos abatement works.

3.9.5 Apart from the above precautionary and mitigation measures, APCO requires the appointment of qualified personnel to carry out the asbestos abatement works:

§ Registered asbestos contractor for carrying out the asbestos removal works;

§ Registered asbestos supervisor for supervising the asbestos abatement works;

§ Registered asbestos laboratory for monitoring the air quality during the asbestos abatement works; and

§ Registered asbestos consultant for supervising and certifying the asbestos abatement works.

3.9.6 The impact of asbestos exposure due to decommissioning of the existing crematorium would be insignificant if the above precautionary and mitigation measures are implemented during the demolition works.

Other Site Management

3.9.7 The asbestos materials in each building/premise must be abated before other contractors/trades are allowed to work in the building/premises.

3.9.8 Tight security measures shall be taken at the asbestos abatement works site to prevent any disturbance to ACM that may result from the stealing of valuable items such as electrical cable and copper pipes. Moreover, it is recommended that priority shall be given for the abatement of all friable ACM.

3.9.9 As different contractors may be working on-site at the same time, the following measures shall be considered:

§ If there is a sensitive receptor around the area, conduct air monitoring at this off-site receptor; and

§ Submit to EPD a completion report, including photos and air monitoring results, immediately after completion of asbestos abatement work for every work zone.

3.10 Mitigation Measures

Construction Phase

3.10.1 The dust arising from the construction phase of the project is controlled under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. The Regulation defined several major dust emitting activities as ‘notifiable works’ and such activities relevant to the project are as follows:

§ Construction of the foundation of a building; and

§ Construction of the superstructure of a building.

3.10.2 It shall be noted that the contractor has a responsibility to notify EPD for undertaking any notifiable works prior to the commencement of such works. In addition, the contractor is also required to fulfil specific dust control requirements given in the Regulation’s Schedule for specific jobs.

Construction Works (Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase)

3.10.3 The following good site management / practices are recommended to avoid / minimise incidences of dust emissions:

Site Boundary and Entrance

§ Vehicle washing facilities including a high pressure water jet shall be provided at every discernible or designated vehicle exit point; and

§ The area at which vehicle washing takes place and the section of the road between the washing facilities and the exit point shall be paved with concrete, bituminous or hardcore material.

Access Haul Roads and Unpaved Areas

§ Each and every main haul road shall be paved with concrete, bituminous hardcore materials or metal plates, and kept clear of dusty materials; or

§ Unpaved haul roads and areas shall be sprayed with water so as to keep the entire road surface wet.

Excavated Materials

§ Any stockpile of dusty material shall be either: (a) covered entirely by impervious sheeting; (b) placed in an area sheltered on the top and the three sides; or (c) sprayed with water or a dust suppression chemical so as to maintain the entire surface wet.

Exposed Earth

§ Exposed earth shall be properly treated by compaction, hydroseeding, vegetation planting or seating with latex, vinyl, bitumen within six months after the last construction activity on the site or part of the site where the exposed earth lies.

Loading, Unloading or Transfer of Dusty Materials

§ All dusty materials shall be sprayed with water immediately prior to any loading or transfer operation so as to keep the dusty material wet.

Debris Handling

§ Any debris shall be covered entirely by impervious sheeting or stored in a debris collection area sheltered on the top and the three sides;

§ Before debris is dumped into a chute, water shall be sprayed so that it remains wet when it is dumped.

Transport of Dusty Materials

§ Vehicles used for transporting dusty materials/spoils shall be covered with tarpaulin or similar material. The cover shall extend over the edges of the sides and tailboards.

Site Clearance

§ The working area for the uprooting of trees, shrubs, or vegetation or the removal of boulders, pole, pillars shall be sprayed with water immediately before, during and immediately after the operation so as to maintain the entire surface wet;

§ All demolished items shall be covered by impervious sheeting or placed in a spot with shelters on top and three sides within a day of the demolition.

3.10.4 Workers at all levels shall be co-operative to avoid dust generation and dispersion to the surrounding environment.

3.10.5 With the implementation of the above mitigation measures and adequate water spraying to the unpaved haul roads and areas and for general construction activities (e.g. site clearance, excavation, dusty materials loading/unloading and debris handling), the dust emission from the construction sites would be reduced by 90% as mentioned in Sections 3.7.5 to 3.7.6 and no adverse construction dust impact would be expected at the nearby ASRs.

3.10.6 During demolition of the existing crematorium and existing skeletal cremator building, special attention shall be given to the interior deposition of the chimneys, flue gas piping and cremation chambers. Special demolition and handling methods for the contaminated materials, as detailed in Section 6, shall be adopted to avoid fugitive emission of dioxins and toxic air pollutants.

Operation Phase

3.10.7 The cremators of equivalent specifications equipped with the latest technology for flue gas filtering and emission monitoring system that would meet the BPM12/2 (06) emission requirements will be adopted for this Project. The air quality impact assessment indicates no adverse impact from the emissions from the Project. However, proper operation and maintenance of the new crematorium and APC equipment of the cremators shall be ensured in order to avoid any un-controlled emissions due to malfunctioning of the cremators or APC equipment.

3.11 Residual Impact

3.11.1 There will be no residual air quality impact due to the demolition of the existing crematorium and skeletal cremator building, and construction of the new crematorium, provided that the mitigation measures recommended in Section 3.10 are properly implemented.

3.11.2 The cremators of equivalent specifications equipped with the latest technology for flue gas filtering and emission monitoring system that will meet the BPM12/2 (06) emission requirements will be adopted for the new crematorium. The air quality impact assessment indicates no adverse impact from imposed due to the emissions from the new crematorium. With the proper operation and maintenance of the new crematorium and APC equipment of the cremators, no residual impact is anticipated.

3.12 References

1. A Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Incinerators (Crematoria) BPM12/2, EPD, September 2006.

2. Air Quality in Hong Kong, EPD, HKSAR, 2001 to 2006.

3. Project Profile for the Provision of Cremators at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium, Hyder Consulting Limited prepared for Architectural Services Department of HKSAR, January 2006.

4. Technical Feasibility Statement for Reprovisioning of Cremators at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium, Architectural Services Department of HKSAR, September 2005.

5. Approved Kau Lung Hang Outline Zoning Plan No. S/NE-KLH/10, Town Planning Board of HKSAR, October 2006

6. Draft Fanling/Sheung Shui Outline Zoning Plan No. S/FSS/13, Town Planning Board of HKSAR, March 2006.

7. Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process, Environmental Protection Department of HKSAR, September 1997.

8. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, USEAP AP-42, 5^th Edition, United State Environmental Protection Agency, January 1995.

9. Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, USEPA, Office of Air and Radiation, October 1992.

10. A Concise Guide to the Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Environmental Protection Department of HKSAR, May 2005.

11. Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters, Environmental Protection Department of HKSAR, March 2000.

12. Guidelines on Assessing the “TOTAL” Air Quality Impacts, Environmental Protection Department of HKSAR, March 2000.

13. Guidelines on the Use of Alternative Computer Models in Air Quality Assessment, Environmental Protection Department of HKSAR, March 2000.

14. Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Reprovisioning of Diamond Hill Crematorium, Hong Kong Productivity Council prepared for Architectural Services Department, 2004.

15. Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Replacement of Cremators at Fu Shan Crematorium.

16. Technical Feasibility Statement for New Columbarium at FEHD Carpark Site at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery.

17. Primary Ambient Air Quality Standard for Dioxin, Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut, USA, http://dep.state.ct.us/air2/regs/mainregs.htm.

18. Reference Exposure Limits, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California, USA.

19. Integrated Risk Information System, USEPA.

20. WHO Air Quality Guideline.

21. Crematorium Operations and Emissions Emission Criteria for Biomedical Waste Incinerators, Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General, British Columbia, Canada, 2005.

22. Process Guidance Note 5/2 (04) – Secretary of State’s Guidance for Crematoria 2004, Cremation Society of Great Britain.

23. Emission standards for Crematorium Furnace Facilities, Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators, April 2004, Australasian Cemeteries & Crematoria Association.

24. The Detroit News, http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage.

25. Overview of Fugitive dust Emissions, May 2000, Mary Hewitt Daly and Jennifer

26. Summary of Minimum Dust Control Parameter, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Centre

4 Noise Impact Assessment

4.1 Introduction

4.2.1 This Section presents the assessment methodology and results of the potential noise impacts arising from the construction and operation of the Project and recommendations of mitigation measures where appropriate to alleviate the adverse impacts.

4.2 Environmental Legislation, Policies, Plans, Standards and Criteria

General Criteria

4.2.2 Noise impacts for the Project were assessed in accordance with the criteria and methodology stipulated in the Technical Memoranda made under the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) (Cap 400), and EIAO-TM.

4.2.3 The NCO provides the statutory framework for noise control. It defines statutory limits applicable to equipment used during the construction and operation phases of Project. The NCO invokes four Technical Memoranda, which stipulate the control approaches and technical means for noise assessment:

§ Technical Memorandum on Noise from Percussive Piling (PP-TM);

§ Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling (GW-TM);

§ Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM); and

§ Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM).

Construction Noise Criteria

Construction Works During Non-restricted Hours

4.2.4 The noise standards for the assessment of construction activities during non-restricted hours are provided in Table 1B of Annex 5 of EIAO-TM and are summarised in Table 4-1. Restricted hours are the time period between 07:00 and 19:00 on any day not being a Sunday or a general holiday.

Uses	Construction Noise Standards, Leq(30 mins), dB(A)
Domestic Premises	75
Educational Institutions (normal periods)	70
Educational Institutions (during examination periods)	65

Table 4-1 EIAO-TM Noise Standard for Construction Activities Undertaken During Non-Restricted Hours

Construction Works During Restricted Hours

4.2.5 The NCO provides statutory controls on general construction works during restricted hours (i.e. 1900 to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and at any time on Sundays and public holidays). The use of PME for the carrying out of construction works during the restricted hours would require a Construction Noise Permit (CNP). The Noise Control Authority is guided by the GW-TM when assessing such an application.

4.2.6 When assessing a CNP application for the use of PME, the Noise Control Authority will compare the Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) as promulgated in the GW-TM, and the Corrected Noise Levels (CNLs) (after accounting for factors such as barrier effects and reflections) associated with the agreed PME operations. The CNP may be issued if the CNL is equal to or less than the ANL. The ANLs are related to the noise sensitivity of the area in question and the Noise Control Authority will judge these at the time of the CNP application.

4.2.7 As conditions may vary between the time of the EIA for a project and the time of a CNP application, the assignment of any Area Sensitivity Ratings (ASRs) in the EIA is not binding upon the Noise Control Authority. The relevant ANL is shown in Table 4-2.

Time Period	Area Sensitivity Rating
	A	B	C
All days during the evening (1900-2300) and general holidays (including Sundays) during the day and evening (0700-2300)	60	65	70
All days during the night-time (2300-0700)	45	50	55

Table 4-2 Acceptable Noise Levels in Leq(30 min) dB(A)

4.2.8 Despite any description or assessment made in the subsequent paragraphs, the Noise Control Authority will be guided by the technical memoranda in assessing an application, once filed, for a CNP. The Authority will consider all the factors affecting their decision taking contemporary situations/conditions into account. Nothing in the EIA report shall bind the Authority in making their decision. There is no guarantee that a CNP will be issued. If a permit is to be issued, the Authority shall include any condition it thinks fit, and such conditions shall be followed while the works covered by the permit are being carried out. Failure to comply with any conditions could result in the cancellation of the permit and prosecution action under the NCO.

Operation Noise Criteria

4.2.9 Operation noise emitted from the crematorium is controlled under the IND-TM. According to the Table 2 of IND-TM, the level of the intruding noise at the façade of the nearest sensitive use should be at least 5 dB(A) below the appropriate ANL shown in Table 2 of the IND-TM or, in the case of the background being 5 dB(A) lower than the ANL, the predicted noise level should not exceed the background. The ANLs for different ASRs are summarized in Table 4-3.

Area Sensitivity Ratings Time Period	ASR A	ASR B	ASR C
Day and Evening (0700-2300 hrs)	55 (60)	60 (65)	65 (70)
Night (2300-0700 hrs)	45 (50)	50 (55)	55 (60)

Note: Figures in brackets indicate the noise standards stipulated in IND-TM.

Table 4-3 EIAO-TM Noise Standards for Construction Activities Undertaken During Restricted Hours

4.2.10 In any event, the ASR assumed in the EIA is for indicative assessment only. It should be noted that fixed noise sources are controlled under Section 13 of the NCO. The Authority shall assess the noise impacts based on the contemporary conditions / situations. Nothing in the EIA report shall bind the Noise Control Authority in the context of law enforcement against all the fixed noise sources being assessed.

4.3 Noise Sensitive Receivers and Baseline Condition

Description of Existing Noise Environment

4.3.1 The Project Site is located within an active crematorium area and this area has been used for such purposes for many decades. The Site is located on a hillside with its location being screened by the existing topography of the surroundings. The existing noise climate of the Study Area is quiet with abandoned land and natural vegetation surrounding the Site. To the north of the Site is the village development where Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen is located.

Identification of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

4.3.2 The spatial scope of the noise assessment for both construction and operation phases is 300 metres from the boundary of the Project in accordance with Clause 3.4.5.2 (i) of the Study Brief.

4.3.3 Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) were selected to represent both the existing and future land uses which are potentially affected by the Project. Thorough review of all the latest Outline Zoning Plans, Outline Development Plans were conducted in order to identify the committed land uses. Site visits were conducted to identify the existing NSRs as well as any noise sensitive structures that no longer exist.

4.3.4 Representative NSRs, as detailed in Table 4-4, were identified for the noise assessment. The representative NSR1, located at approximately 25mPD, is screened from the Site that is located at 48mPD, by the natural hillslope with a highest point of approximately 60mPD. In addition, there is an existing columbarium at Kiu Tau Road of about 19m at the top of the hillslope right opposite to the existing crematorium. Therefore, the representative NSR1 has no direct line of sight to the Site. There is one G/IC zone, identified as representative NSR2, found within the Study Area according to the approved Fanling/Sheung Shui OZP No. S/FSS/14. However, there is currently no information of any planned development in this zone. This planned NSR, located at approximately 23mPD, is also screened from the Site by the natural hill.

Representative NSRs		No. of Storey	Slant Distance to Notional Source, m			Land Use
ID	Location		Phase I	Phase II	Future Expansion
NSR1a	Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen	3	293	346	293	Village
NSR1b	Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen	3	327	303	327	Village
NSR2 (Planned NSR)	G/IC Zone	Assumed to be 3	385	293	385	G/IC

Note: Bold figure indicates representative NSR with a slant distance to the notional source more than 300m.

Table 4-4 Details of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

4.3.5 The Site, Study Area and the geographical location of the representative NSRs are shown in Figure 4-1. Notional noise source points for both phases are also indicated in Figure 4-1. Photographs of the representative NSRs are shown in Annex 4-a.

4.4 Construction Noise Impact Assessment

Assessment Methodology

4.4.1 The construction noise assessment was conducted based on standard acoustic principles and the methodology stated in the GW-TM. The assessment procedures are as below:

§ Identify the location of the representative NSRs likely to be affected by the construction works;

§ Identify the items and Sound Power Levels (SWL) of the various Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) to be used during the works;

§ Apply corrections for distance attenuation, barrier corrections, facade reflection and directivity where appropriate to determine the Predicted Noise Level (PNL) at the NSRs; and

§ Compare the PNL with the corresponding criteria.

Potential Sources of Impact and Emission Inventory

4.4.2 The construction works of the Project are divided into three phases – Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase, as detailed in Section 2. A summary of key construction activities is provided as below:

Phase I

§ Demolition of the existing coffin crematorium building, transformer room and pump room including the existing coffin cremators;

§ Construction of the new crematorium building; and

§ Provision of a full range of ancillary facilities required for the operation of a crematorium.

Phase II

§ Demolition of the existing skeletal cremator building; and

§ Landscaping works.

Future Expansion Phase

§ Install two additional cremators in the cremator plant room of the new crematorium; and

§ Construct one additional service hall.

4.4.3 Construction activities under different phases will be carried out at different periods of time. Also, construction works for each type of activity under the particular phase are scheduled to be carried out in series but not concurrently to reduce the potential noise impact.

4.4.4 The tentative inventory of the PMEs to be used during each stage of the construction works are summarized in Annex 4-b. Validity of the tentative inventory of the PMEs has been agreed with the Project Proponent. Since no percussive piling and piling works will be undertaken (as confirmed with the ArchSD and Project Proponent) the tentative inventory of the PMEs does not include PMEs for percussive piling and piling works.

4.4.5 The assessment was undertaken based on the assumption that all construction equipment are located on a notional noise source point for each phase of works and that all equipment are operating simultaneously, to represent the worst case scenario.

Assessment Results

4.4.6 The PNLs at the identified representative NSRs at each stage are summarized in Table 4-5. Detailed calculations are shown in Annex 4-c.

RNSRs	Predicted (Unmitigated) Noise Levels of Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase Construction Works							Daytime Noise Standard (EIAO-TM), dB(A)
	Phase I				Phase II		Future Expansion
	Demolition	Site Formation	General Construction	Landscaping Works	Demolition	Landscaping Works	E&M Works
NSR1a	67.9	68.2	64.6	59.1	66.4	57.6	52.7	75
NSR1b	66.9	67.2	63.7	58.1	67.6	58.8	51.7
NSR2	65.5	65.8	62.3	56.7	67.8	59.0	50.3	70 (65)

Notes:

1. Daytime noise standard for planned NSR2 is 70dB(A), as a worst case scenario such that the G/IC zone maybe developed into educational institution according to the OZP No. S/FSS/14. Figures in brackets indicate daytime noise standard for educational institution during examination periods.

2. Bold figure indicates exceedance to daytime noise standard.

Table 4-5 Predicted (Unmitigated) Noises Levels of Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase Construction Works

4.4.7 The assessment results indicate that all the PNLs at NSR1a and NSR1b comply with the daytime noise standard. No construction activity in any phase of the construction works will cause adverse noise impact.

4.4.8 The daytime noise standard for educational institutions has been assumed for the planned G/IC zone at NSR2, as a worst case scenario. Under this circumstance, the PNLs at NSR2 exceed the daytime noise standard during examination periods when the daytime noise criterion is 65 dB(A) for the construction, demolition and site formation works during Phase I, and demolition works during Phase II. Noise mitigation measures are recommended in the following sections.

Proposed Noise Mitigation Measures

4.4.9 Good site practice as described below is recommended to adopt to further minimise the noise nuisance.

Good Site Practice

§ Only well-maintained plant should be operated on site and the plant should be regularly serviced during the construction works;

§ Plant that is used intermittently, should be turned off or throttled down when not in active use;

§ Plant that is known to emit noise strongly in one direction should be oriented to face away from NSRs;

§ Silencers, mufflers and enclosures for plant should be used where possible and maintained adequately throughout the works;

§ Where possible mobile plant should be sited away from NSRs; and

§ Stockpiles of excavated materials and other structures such as site buildings should be used effectively to screen noise from the works.

4.4.10 Inadequate maintenance and improper use of the PMEs will result in a deterioration of the plant performance and will generate excessive noise. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to maintain and to ensure good performance of the PMEs.

4.4.11 If the G/IC zone at NSR2 is developed into a educational institution, the use of quiet plant for demolition and site formation of Phase I and demolition of Phase II is recommended as a mitigation measure. Details of plant inventory are provided in Annex 4-d. Predicated noise levels after implementing mitigation of using quiet plant are summarised in Table 4-6, below, and detailed in Annex 4-e.

RNSRs	Predicted (Mitigated) Noise Levels of Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase Construction Works							Daytime Noise Standard (EIAO-TM), dB(A)
	Phase I				Phase II		Future Expansion
	Demolition	Site Formation	General Construction	Landscaping Works	Demolition	Landscaping Works	E&M Works
NSR1a	65.0	64.7	64.6	59.1	63.6	57.6	52.7	75
NSR1b	64.1	63.7	63.7	58.1	64.7	58.8	51.7
NSR2	62.7	62.3	62.3	56.7	65.0	59.0	50.3	70 (65)

Note: Daytime noise standard for planned NSR2 is 70dB(A), as a worst case scenario such that the G/IC zone maybe developed into educational institution according to the OZP No. S/FSS/14. Figure in bracket indicates daytime noise standard for educational institution during examination periods.

Table 4-6 Predicted (Mitigated) Noises Levels of Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase Construction Works

4.4.12 After using quiet plant as the mitigation measure, there is no exceedance of daytime noise standards at all representative NSRs.

Cumulative Impacts from Concurrent Projects

4.4.13 There will be one concurrent project, under preliminary planning, to be constructed and operated in the vicinity of the Study Area of the Project. This is a columbarium at Kiu Tau Road, which is planned to commence construction in 2010 and be completed in 2012. Details of the concurrent project are provided in Section 2 of this EIA Report.

4.4.14 There will be an overlapping construction period between the later stage of Phase I, Phase II of the Project and the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road. Cumulative construction noise impact is anticipated. The future expansion phase of the Project may also overlap with the later stage of the concurrent project. The plant inventories, as confirmed with the Project Proponent, for the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road were used to assess the cumulative impact of construction noise. Plant inventories and calculations of the cumulative construction noise for the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road are detailed in Annexes 4-b and 4-f, respectively.

4.4.15 The assessment results (as shown in Annex 4-f) indicate that the cumulative PNLs comply with the daytime noise standard for NSR1a and NSR1b without any mitigation measures. No adverse noise impact is likely to arise from the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road at these NSRs.

4.4.16 Without any mitigation measures, the cumulative PNLs will exceed the daytime noise standard during examination periods of an educational institution planned in the G/IC zone at NSR2. After implementing the recommended noise mitigation measure of using quiet plant, all cumulative PNLs comply with the daytime noise standard at NSR2.

4.4.17 The Future Expansion Phase of the Project may overlap with the later stage of the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road. Given that the predicted construction noise generated from Future Expansion Phase are far below the noise standards, the cumulative noise impact from the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road at the representative NSRs will not be significant.

Residual Impacts

4.4.18 The PNLs for Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion Phase of the Project comply with the noise standards after implementing the mitigation measures of as recommended in the above sections. There will be no residual noise impact.

4.4.19 Nevertheless, mitigation measures as recommended in the above sections should be undertaken to further minimise the noise nuisance.

4.5 Operation Noise Impact Assessment

Potential Sources of Impact and Emission Inventory

4.5.1 According to the information provided by the Project Proponent, the fixed plant to be installed for the crematorium includes condensers of split air conditioning units, radiators for cremators, general exhaust air fans and exhaust fans for APC equipment of the cremators. As confirmed with the Project Proponent, the sound power levels of the proposed plants that were adopted in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Reprovisioning of Diamond Hill Crematorium[1] were extracted for the noise assessment. The operation plants actually installed in the Diamond Hill Crematorium and their corresponding sound power levels are equivalent to that assumed in the EIA submission stage of the Diamond Hill Crematorium as confirmed by the Project Proponent. The sound power levels of the plant to be included for the Project are summarised in Table 4-7, below.

Fixed Plant during Operation	Sound Power Level, dB(A)
Condensers of Split Air-conditioning Units	90
Radiators for Cremators	63
General Exhaust Air Fans	63
Exhaust Fans for APC Equipment	72

Table 4-7 Sound Power Levels of Fixed plant

4.5.2 Fixed plant will also be present inside the cremator plant rooms. As confirmed with the Project Proponent, the major noise generating fixed plant inside the cremator plant rooms include crematory furnace, cooling water pump and air compressor. The fixed plant installed inside the cremator plant rooms will be similar to those equipped in the new Diamond Hill Crematorium as confirmed with the Project Proponent. Noise measurement at the cremator plant room in new Diamond Hill Crematorium was undertaken to provide a general picture of the noise environment inside the cremator plant room. Major noise generating fixed plant inside the cremator plant room in new Diamond Hill Crematorium and the noise levels measured inside the cremator plant room are shown in Table 4-8 below.

Fixed Plant inside Cremator Plant Room	Sound Pressure Level, dB(A)
Crematory Furnace	83.6
Cooling Water Pump
Air Compressor

Table 4-8 Sound Power Levels of Fixed plant inside Cremator Plant Room

4.5.3 Since the fixed plant inside the cremator plant rooms are fully enclosed inside concrete structures, a minimum of 20dB(A) of screening correction is expected from the concrete structures. It has been taken into account that there might have windows/openings. With the nearest NSR locating approximate 280m away from the new crematorium, noise level would be further reduced about 57dB(A) due to distance attenuation. Thus, the noise contribution due to fixed plant inside the cremator plant rooms at the nearest NSR will not be more than 10dB(A) with reference to the measured noise level inside the cremator plant room at new Diamond Hill Crematorium, as mentioned in Section 4.5.2. As such, the noise impact from the fixed plant inside the cremator plant rooms at the representative NSRs is anticipated to be insignificant.

4.5.4 The new crematorium will be operated for a maximum of 17 hours starting at 9:30a.m. every day.

Assessment Methodology

4.5.5 The fixed plant noise of the proposed crematorium is assessed based on standard acoustic principles with reference to the Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places Other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction site (IND-TM).

4.5.6 In order to allow flexibility for plant locations at the detailed design stage, as the worst cast scenario, it is assumed that all fixed plant are located at the site boundary and will be operated simultaneously.

4.5.7 According to the IND-TM, a correction factor for tonality, impulsiveness and intermittency shall be applied in assessing the fixed plant noise. It is anticipated that the operation of the proposed fixed plant will not involve any rapid changes in operating mode. Therefore, the factor for impulsiveness and intermittency were not applied in the calculations. For the tonal effect of the plants, as information is not available, a tonality correction of 6dB(A) was applied in the calculations to represent the worst case scenario.

4.5.8 Noise measurement was undertaken in the vicinity of the representative NSRs to study the prevailing noise level. The measurement results are summarised in Table 4-9.

Representative NSRs	ASR ^(1)	Time Period	ANL – 5 Leq (30min) dB(A)	Prevailing Noise Level LAeq (30min) dB(A)^(2)
NSR1 Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen	A	Day and Evening (0700 to 2300 hours)	55	51.7
		Night (2300-0700 hours)	45	49.8
NSR2 G/IC Zone	A	Day and Evening (0700 to 2300 hours)	55	57.0
		Night (2300-0700 hours)	45	49.9

Notes:

(1) The suggested classifications are determined based on the following factors as stipulated in IND-TM:

(i) NSR1 is located in a village type development of a rural area. NSR2 is located in a low density residential area.

(ii) Influencing factor - Fanling Highway is considered to be the Influencing Factor. The NSRs are located at approximately 300m from Fanling Highway, which is classified as Expressway. According to the Annual Traffic Census 2005 issued by the Transport Department on June 2006, the annual average daily traffic (AADT) of Fanling Highway in year 2005 is 61,400. This road is thus considered not affect the representative NSR as recommended by the IND-TM.

Under such circumstances, the Area Sensitivity Ratings (ASR) for the representative NSRs is hence classified as “A” hereby for the conservative assessment. In any event, the ASR assumed here is for indicative assessment only.

(2) Average of the measured prevailing noise levels as shown in Annex 4-h.

Table 4-9 Prevailing Noise Level

4.5.9 It was found that the prevailing noise level was lower than the “ANL-5 dB(A)” during day time period (0700-1900 hours) but higher than that during night time (2300-0700 hours) period for Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen. Therefore, according to the EIAO-TM, the prevailing noise levels of 51.7 dB(A) (during day / evening time) and the “ANL-5 dB(A)” (during night time period) were adopted as the noise criteria for the day / evening time period and night time period, respectively for Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen. While for the G/IC zone, the prevailing noise levels, both during day / evening time and night time period, were higher than the “ANL-5 dB(A)”. Therefore, according to the EIAO-TM, the “ANL-5 dB(A)” was adopted as the noise criteria for both the day / evening time period and night time period for the G/IC zone.

Assessment Results

4.5.10 The assessment results are presented in Table 4-10 which demonstrate that the predicted operation noise levels are far below the noise criteria. The detailed noise calculations are shown in Annex 4-g.

Representative NSR	Slant Distance (m)	Predicted Operation Noise Level LAeq (30min) dB(A)	ANL – 5 Leq (30min) dB(A)	Prevailing Noise Level LAeq (30min) dB(A)^(1)
NSR1a	278.4	40.5	Day and Evening (0700-2300 hrs)
			55	51.7
NSR1b	286.2	40.2	Night (2300-0700 hrs)
			45	49.8
NSR2	317.4	39.3	Day and Evening (0700-2300 hrs)
			55	57.0
			Night (2300-0700 hrs)
			45	49.9

Notes:

(1) Average of the measured prevailing noise levels as shown in Annex 4-h.

(2) Bold figure indicates representative NSR with a slant distance more than 300 metres which is outside the Study Area for the noise impact assessment.

Table 4-10 Predicted Operation Noise Level at the Representative NSR

Proposed Noise Mitigation Measures

4.5.11 Although the noise assessment reveals that there will be no adverse operation noise impact from the new crematorium, the noise level generated from the plant can be further reduced by locating them as far as practical from the NSRs within the Site, and / or by orientating the noise emission points away from the NSRs, and / or by the application of silencers, acoustic barriers or enclosures to the concerned equipment.

Residual Impacts

4.5.12 There will be no residual impact during the operation phase of the Project.

4.6 Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirement

4.6.1 The noise assessment results demonstrate that the unmitigated noise levels during the construction and operation phases comply with the relevant noise criteria for existing NSRs. There is only exceedance to daytime noise criterion during examination periods for educational institutions (should the G/IC zone at NSR2 developed into educational institutions). Use of quiet plant is recommended as the mitigation measure. The unmitigated noise levels during operation phase comply with the relevant noise criteria for all NSRs. No noise monitoring is considered necessary during both construction and operation phases. However, in order to ensure that the construction noise is controlled to minimum, it is recommended that an environmental audit to be carried out in order to ensure the construction activities are undertaken in a manner to minimise the noise nuisance. The details of the audit requirement are presented separately in the Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual.

4.7 Conclusions

Construction Noise Impact

4.7.1 The use of PME during the construction phase of the Project is not expected to cause any adverse construction noise impact on the representative NSRs at Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen. Exceedance of daytime noise criterion during examination periods is anticipated for the G/IC zone (should the G/IC zone developed into educational institutions).

4.7.2 The use of quiet PME during construction phase of the Project is recommended. No adverse construction noise impact on the representative NSRs is anticipated.

Operation Noise Impact

4.7.3 The predicted unmitigated noise levels comply with the noise criteria and no adverse impact is anticipated.

5 Land Contamination Assessment

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This Section describes the results and findings of the land contamination assessment, which was undertaken for the purpose of evaluating the condition of the underlying ground. Such an assessment was undertaken due to the existing installations and previous land uses, such as underground fuel tanks, cremators, places for dangerous goods storage, etc., within the Project site area.

5.1.2 A Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) was prepared and endorsed by EPD. Site investigation (SI) in accordance with the endorsed CAP was undertaken in 2006, but it was recognised that further investigation would be required once the demolition and redevelopment programme commences. The results, findings and necessary remedial works were presented in an Interim Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) and Remediation Action Plan (RAP) and submitted to EPD separately. The CAP, CAR and RAP, provided, in Annexes 5-a and 5-b, were prepared in accordance with following documents:

§ Annex 19 of the EIAO-TM;

§ Practice Note for Professional Persons (ProPECC) PN 3/94 “Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation”;

§ EPD’s Guidance Notes for Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, such as Petrol Filling Stations, Boatyards and Car Repair/Dismantling Workshops (GN); and

§ Study Brief of the EIA study of the Project.

5.1.3 A further SI at alternative locations for the underground fuel oil tank at coffin crematorium to confirm the potential land contamination was carried out in January 2008. Details of the further SI are presented in a Technical Note for Further Site Investigation Works for Underground Fuel Oil Tank (TN) in Annex 5-c.

5.1.4 It should be noted that a new Guidance Note for Contaminated land Assessment and Remediation which supersedes ProPECC PN 3/94 and the Risk Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs), which were introduced by EPD for soil and groundwater assessment on 15 August 2007.

5.1.5 This Section summarises the work undertaken, findings and recommendations of the CAP, CAR and RAP and the TN. It is noted that the CAR and RAP are considered to be interim because the full investigation of the Site has not been completed. Further investigation will have to be undertaken when the demolition and redevelopment of the site commences, as detailed in Section 5.8. The results of the further investigation will then need to be incorporated into a revised CAR and RAP report which supplements the existing interim report.

5.1.6 This Section also identifies the possible sources of contamination in the new crematorium and formulates appropriate operational practices, waste management strategies and precautionary measures for prevention of future land contamination due to the operation of the new facility.

5.2 Site Appraisal

5.2.1 Site visits were conducted on 10 and 30 August 2005 and on 7 March 2006. The entire site area, including both the existing crematorium and skeletal cremator building, was inspected.

5.2.2 The main facilities of Wo Hop Shek Crematorium include coffin cremators, service hall, carpark, office and dangerous goods store. An underground fuel tank and two rooms (housing a day tank and fuel pumps)are also present on the site.

5.2.3 In addition to the above, an underground fuel tank and a dangerous goods store for storing diesel oil drums are located next to the skeletal cremator building.

5.2.4 The main objectives of the site visits was to assess the daily operation of the crematorium and to determine the current land uses in order to identify potentially contaminating land uses that may be occurring at the site. Site operators were interviewed during the site visits in order to obtain verbal information on current and previous site practices, land uses, spillage records, modification works, chemicals and diesel oil storage, dangerous goods store and hazardous installations.

5.2.5 Historical land uses were determined by examination of historical aerial photos and site plans, and by interviews with the site operators. A total of six aerial photos taken in 1963, 1975, 1986, 1991, 1995 and 2004 have been examined.

5.2.6 A number of drawings dating from 1987 to 1988 have been provided by ArchSD. These drawings indicate the locations of the coffin crematorium, the underground fuel storage tank and the dangerous goods store. The drawings indicate that earthworks and disturbance of the natural topography would have occurred during the construction of these structures.

5.2.7 Details of the findings are described in the CAP.

5.3 Contamination Sources and Potential Contamination

5.3.1 Based on the historical information and current practices of the crematorium, and following the site visits, potential sources of contamination have been identified and are listed in Section 5.3.2.

5.3.2 Potential sources of contamination associated with the crematorium operation include:

§ Underground fuel tanks for both the coffin crematorium and the skeletal cremator;

§ Dangerous goods stores and day tank room, the fuel pump room and sunken fuel pipes at coffin crematorium;

§ Cremators at coffin crematorium and skeletal cremator;

§ Transformer room; and

§ Surrounding areas possibly impacted by aerial deposition from stack emissions.

5.3.3 A summary of the potential soil contamination at the areas of concern within the Site is given in Table 5-1.

Location	Potential Contaminant(s)	Potential of Soil Contamination
Coffin Crematorium
Underground fuel tank	§ Petroleum hydrocarbons § Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)	Uncertain
Dangerous goods store	§ Petroleum hydrocarbons § PAH	Unlikely
Daily tank room, fuel pump room and sunken fuel pipe	§ Petroleum hydrocarbons § PAH	Unlikely
Cremators	§ PAH § Dioxins § Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)	Unlikely
Transformer room	§ Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)	Uncertain
Area within site boundary impacted by aerial deposition from stack emissions	§ PAH § Dioxins § Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)	Possible
Skeletal Cremator Building
Underground fuel tank	§ Petroleum hydrocarbons § Simple aromatics (e.g. Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene (BTEX)) § PAH	Uncertain
Dangerous goods store	§ Petroleum hydrocarbons § PAH	Unlikely
Cremator	§ PAH § Dioxins § Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)	Unlikely

Table 5-1 Summary of Potential Contamination

5.4 Site Investigation

5.4.1 In accordance with the endorsed CAP, sampling was carried out at the designated locations (BH1, BH2 and BH3), shown in Table 5-2, by means of borehole. In addition, two surface samples were taken from location SS1 and SS2

5.4.2 The SI works was carried out between 8 June 2006 and 22 June 2006.

5.4.3 In the case of BH1 and BH2 boreholes were drilled to a depth of 3.6m (BH1) below ground level (m.b.g.l.) and 3.0m.b.g.l. (BH2) respectively. A concrete mass was found at these depths which resulted in drilling being stopped. Trial pits (0.5m x 0.5m) were excavated at both borehole locations in order to extend the visual inspection area. These excavations and the lack of any other information, such as drawing, failed to determine the extent of the concrete mass or its purpose.

5.4.4 It was considered that if drilling continued, pipeworks or other structures in vicinity of the concrete mass might be damaged and the operation of the crematorium could be affected as a result of damage to the concrete mass. Options for open excavation of the areas were explored but found to be impractical because the occupation of the access road for excavation, would eventually affect the day to day operation of the crematorium.

5.4.5 Since the continuing operation of the cremators could not be disturbed in view of the current heavy commitments, no further drilling work has been carried out at this stage. No soil samples were collected from either boreholes (i.e. BH1 and BH2), however, groundwater was encountered and samples were collected for analysis.

5.4.6 A further SI for the underground fuel oil tank at alternative locations designated BH1A and BH2A to confirm the potential land contamination in January 2008. Sampling depths and testing parameters were same as proposed in the CAP. Details of the further SI including the alternative locations, analytical results and findings are presented in the TN in Annex 5-c.

5.4.7 For BH3, three soil samples were collected but groundwater was not encountered during the SI works in 2006.

5.4.8 Overall, a total of eleven soil samples and four groundwater samples were collected. The contaminants analysed at the different locations are shown in Table 5-2. The sampling locations are shown in Annex 5-b.

Item	Location (Depth below ground)	Sampling Depth below Ground Level	Parameters Analysed
Underground Fuel Tank at the existing Crematorium	BH1 (7m) BH2 (7m) BH1A (7m) BH2A (7m)	No soil sample could taken at BH1 and BH2 due to unknown concrete structures underground. 4m, 5.5m and 7m at BH1A and BH2A Groundwater were encountered and collected for analysis from all locations.	Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) PAH
Underground Fuel Tank at Skeletal Cremator Building	BH3 (3m below the base of the fuel tank)	2m, 3.5m and 5m (base of the fuel tank at ~1.5m)	TPH PAH BTEX
Area impacted by Aerial Deposition from Stack Emissions	SS1 (0.1m) SS2 (0.1m)	0.1m 0.1m	Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb) Dioxin PAH

Table 5-2 Details of Sampling Regime

5.5 Assessment Criteria

5.5.1 In accordance with the CAP and ProPECC Note PN3/94, the Dutch A, B, C Classification system was used as the assessment criteria for the interpretation of analytical results of soil and groundwater samples collected from the SI works in 2006.

5.5.2 For metals, TPH and PAH, Dutch B Levels were used as the assessment criteria for soil samples. These values are used to determine if pollution is present and whether further investigation should be undertaken.

5.5.3 In accordance with the new Guidance Note for Contaminated land Assessment and Remediation, the RBRGs were used to interpret the analytical results of soil and groundwater samples collected from the further SI works in 2008.

5.5.4 It is noted that the Dutch Classification system is designed to protect a heavily utilised and shallow groundwater resource. As such the Dutch values are considered to be very stringent, especially because groundwater is not used as potable water in Hong Kong. It is considered that alternative methods of assessment such as the requirements of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance and Technical Memorandum on Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters (TM) or RBRGs are more suitable to ensure protection of the environment.

5.5.5 For dioxins in soil, 1ng/g Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ) is used as the assessment criteria^[2].

5.6 Assessment Results

5.6.1 As can be seen in the interim CAR report and the TN, see Annexes 5-b and 5-c, no soil contamination was identified in the soil samples collected.

5.6.2 Only the concentration of arsenic (As) at SS1, of 30 mg/kg was elevated to the Dutch B level. The concentration detected is not considered significant and the higher arsenic level could be explained by the high natural background levels[3] in this area of the New Territories.

5.6.3 Water was detected at BH1 and BH2. The TPH concentrations of the water samples from BH1 and BH2 are 253mg/L and 731mg/L respectively. Although the TPH fractions analysed do not correspond exactly with the RBRG fractions, the total TPH is less than the minimum value for any RBRG fraction.

5.6.4 TPH was not detected in water sample collected from BH1A while TPH concentration for fraction (C17 – C35) only in 0.6mg/L, which is below the corresponding RBRG limit of 4.93mg/L and solubility limit of 2.8mg/L, was detected in water sample collected BH2A.

5.6.5 PAH was not detected in the groundwater samples.

5.6.6 Therefore, it is considered that the groundwater is not considered to be contaminated.

5.7 Remediation Action Plan

5.7.1 According to the findings of site appraisal, there is no historical evidence indicating that there were any contaminating landuses on the site prior to the existing crematorium operations. In addition, based on the information available it is considered that soil contamination is unlikely at most of the areas of the site, except potentially around the underground fuel tanks and transformer room.

5.7.2 However, as explained in paragraph 5.1.2, the CAR is considered to interim due to the on going operations at the site. Although, further site investigation is required to confirm the status of contamination on-site, it is not anticipated (based on current information) that widespread soil contamination across the site is likely to be present. Thus, large quantities of contaminated soil are not anticipated. If large amounts of contaminated soil (say 500m³) are found following further site investigation after the decommissioning of the crematorium, remediation options such as bioremediation for organics should be considered. Although disposal of small amount of contaminated soil to landfills might be considered as an economic and acceptable option for remediation, it should be considered as the last resort if all remediation options including reuse are considered to be inappropriate or infeasible.

5.7.3 If disposal to landfill is chosen as the remediation option due to the low volumes of contaminated soils requiring disposal, the criteria set primarily of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) limits as stated in Annex E in the GN should be met. At least three soil samples should be taken from the most contaminated area(s) and tested for TCLP for a full suite of parameters (16 metals) as stated in Table E1 in Annex E in the GN. If the testing result shows that any of the TCLP limits cannot be met, the soil should be treated by cement stabilisation and further tested for TCLP prior to landfill disposal or treated as chemical waste and disposed of at the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre (CWTC).

5.7.4 It should be noted that all soil treated as a chemical waste should be collected by a registered chemical waste contractor and the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) Regulations under the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap.354) should be observed. Reference should be made to Guide to the Registration of Chemical Waste Producers and Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes, issued by EPD.

5.7.5 Residual materials inside the cremators, flues and chimneys shall be properly handled and disposed of. Details are discussed in Section 6.

Confirmatory Soil Sampling

5.7.6 In order to confirm the extent of the soil contamination and all the contaminated soil should removed or treated, confirmatory soil sampling whether shall be carried out during the remediation works. This shall consist of five to six samples in each location where soil contamination is identified from SI works. The locations will be to the north, south, east and west of the location where contaminated soil is found. Two locations should also be above and below the location (in terms of elevation) where contaminated soil is found. If analytical results exceed the Dutch B Levels or other agreed remedial target suggested in a supplementary CAR, such as RBRGs, the contaminated area shall be extended and further confirmatory sampling shall be carried out until no further contamination is encountered.

5.8 Further Site Investigation

5.8.1 Further site investigations in areas that are currently in use and cannot be accessed are required. These areas include the transformer room, dangerous goods stores, day tank room, fuel pump room, sunken fuel pipe and cremator.

5.8.2 Further site investigations shall be carried out by the demolition contractor after the decommissioning of the existing crematorium and skeletal cremator building.

5.8.3 Potential contaminants in the soils have been identified in CAP and the parameters to be analysed for soils at different locations are summarised in Table 5-3.

Location	Parameters
Existing Crematorium
Underground fuel tank (underneath the tank)	TPH PAH
Dangerous goods store	TPH PAH
Daily tank room, fuel pump room and sunken fuel pipe	TPH PAH
Cremators (residual inside the cremator, flue and chimneys)	PAH Dioxins Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)
Transformer room	PCB
Skeletal Cremator Building
Underground fuel tank (underneath the tank)	TPH PAH
Dangerous goods store	TPH PAH
Cremator (residual inside the cremator, flue and chimneys)	PAH Dioxins Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)

Table 5-3 Testing Parameters for Further Site Investigation

5.8.4 Sampling and analysis plans for these investigations shall be prepared and submitted to EPD for approval prior to any of these investigation works. Supplementary CAR and RAP shall be prepared to describe the results and findings of these site investigations and, if necessary, any remedial works.

5.8.5 The underground fuel tanks will be removed during the demolition phase of the Project. After removal of the underground fuel tanks, confirmatory soil samples should be collected and tested in accordance with Section 5.7.6 to ensure that no contamination due to fuel leakage.

5.8.6 The new EPD Guidance Note for Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation and RBRGs for soil and groundwater contamination assessment shall be adopted for any further site investigation to determine the extent, level, and necessity of soil or groundwater remediation works.

5.9 Potential Contamination due to Future Operation

5.9.1 The only source of potential land contamination from the new crematorium will be aerial deposition of metals and dioxins from the emissions of the new cremators.

5.9.2 Since the new crematorium will comply with the emission limits as stipulated in “A Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Incinerators (Crematoria) BPM12/2 (September 2006)” (BPM12/2(06)), the quantities of metals and dioxins emitted from the cremators would be very small. Moreover, most of the area of the new crematorium will be concrete paved and it is very unlikely that aerial deposition would give rise to significant land contamination.

5.9.3 Therefore, potential contamination due to future operation of the new crematorium is unlikely.

6 Waste Management Implications

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This Section identities the possible waste arising from the construction, demolition and operation phases of the cremators, evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the handling, collection, treatment, transportation and disposal of wastes and recommends appropriate mitigation measures and good site practice to minimise the identified environmental impacts.

6.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria

6.2.1 The following legislation covers the handling, treatment and disposal of waste in the Hong Kong Special Administration Region (HKSAR), and will be considered in the assessment.

§ Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354) and subsidiary Regulations;

§ Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28); and

§ Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132).

6.2.2 Other ‘guideline’ documents that detail how the contractor should comply with the regulations are as follows:

§ A Guide to the Registration of Chemical Waste Producers, Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong;

§ A Guide to the Chemical Waste Control Scheme, Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong;

§ Environmental Guidelines for Planning In Hong Kong (1990), Hong Kong Planning and Standards Guidelines, Hong Kong Government;

§ Code of Practice on Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes (1992), Environmental Protection Department;

§ Code of Practice on the Handling, Transportation and Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Waste;

§ Code of Practice on the Handling, Transportation and Disposal of Asbestos Waste;

§ Code of Practice on Asbestos Control: Preparation Work Using Full Containment or Mini Containment Method;

§ Code of Practice on Asbestos Control: Asbestos Work Using Glove Bag Method;

§ Code of Practice on Asbestos Control: Safe Handling of Low Risk Asbestos Containing Material;

§ Code of Practice on Asbestos Control: Preparation of Asbestos Investigation Report, Asbestos Management Plan and Asbestos Abatement Plan;

§ ProPECC PN2/97 Handling of Asbestos Containing Materials in Buildings;

§ ProPECC PN3/94, Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation;

§ Works Branch Technical Circular 32/92, The Use of Tropical Hard Wood on Construction Sites; Works Branch, Hong Kong Government;

§ Works Branch Technical Circular No. 2/93 & 2/93B, Public Dumps;

§ Works Branch Technical Circular No. 16/96, Wet Soil in Public Dumps;

§ Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 4/98 & 4/98A, Use of Public Fill in Reclamation and Earth Filling Projects;

§ Works Branch Technical Circular No. 19/2001, Metallic Site Hoardings and Signboards;

§ Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 33/2002, Management of Construction/Demolition Materials including Rock;

§ Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 31/2004, Trip-ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition Material; and

§ Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 19/2005, Environmental Management on Construction Sites.

6.3 Project Phases and Timetable

Phase I: Year 2009 to Year 2011

6.3.1 During Phase I, construction and demolition works include:

§ Demolition of the existing coffin crematorium building, transformer room and pump room including the existing coffin cremators;

§ Provision of five new coffin cremators, one dual-purpose cremator for both coffin and skeleton cremations, one new skeletal cremator and one cremation plant room with sufficient space for housing nine single cremators;

§ Provision of a full range of ancillary facilities required for the operation of a crematorium.

Phase II: Year 2012

6.3.2 After the satisfactory commissioning of the new cremators under Phase I, the existing skeletal cremator building will be demolished and landscaping works for the Site will be provided.

Future Expansion Phase: for completion by around 2014

6.3.3 Two additional cremators in the cremator plant room of the new crematorium and one additional service hall will be provided to allow future expansion.

6.3.4 Section 2.4 describes the above phases in detail.

6.4 Assessment Methodology

6.4.1 The assessment of waste management impacts arising from this Project during construction and operation has been assessed in accordance with the EIA ESB and with the criteria given in Annexes 7 and 15 of the EIAO TM.

6.4.2 The waste management hierarchy has been applied in the assessment and development of mitigation measures for waste. The waste management hierarchy, shown in Figure 6-1, is a concept that shows the desirability of various waste management methods. Also shown is the classification of solid waste used in Hong Kong.

6.4.3 All opportunities for reducing waste generation have been assessed based upon the following factors:

§ Avoiding or minimising waste generation through changes in the design;

§ Adopting better management practices to promote segregation of waste materials;

§ Reuse and recycling; and

§ Diverting waste to public filling areas or other construction sites.

6.4.4 The types and quantities of waste have been estimated and disposal options for each category of waste identified, taking into account the existing or future spare capacities of the waste disposal facilities and the environmental implications of the handling, collection and disposal of waste material.

6.4.5 The assessment comprises:

§ Analysis of activities and waste generation during the Construction and Demolition Phase for:

– Excavated materials and C&D materials from site preparation

– Contaminated Materials

– Chemical waste from maintenance of plant and equipment

– General waste from daily activities

§ Analysis of activities and waste generation during the Operation Phase for:

– Waste from cremation processes

– Waste from maintenance of plant and equipment

– General waste from daily activities

§ Proposals for Waste Management during Construction Phase and Operation Phases for their respective sources of waste, in terms of:

– Reduction, reuse and recycling

– Disposal options

– Impacts and mitigation

§ Impacts caused by handling, collection and disposal of waste, in terms of:

– Potential hazard

– Air and noise emissions

– Noise

– Wastewater discharge

– Public transport

6.5 Activities and Waste Generation During Construction and Demolition Phases

6.5.1 The following types of waste will be generated from the construction and demolition works during Phase I and Phase II:

§ Excavated materials;

§ Construction and demolition (C&D) materials;

§ Contaminated materials including ash waste, building structures and contaminated soil;

§ Chemical waste (Chemical waste is defined under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulations, and includes any substance being scrap material, or unwanted substances specified under Schedule 1 of the Regulation); and

§ General refuse.

6.5.2 Since the construction activities for Future Expansion Phase are considered small scale, the types of waste potentially generated from the construction works during Future Expansion Phase will be C&D materials, chemical waste and general refuse.

6.5.3 If the wastes generated from the construction and demolition activities are not properly managed, these may cause environmental impact and nuisance. The potential impact from these wastes is discussed below and the mitigation measures are proposed in Section 6.7.

Excavated Materials

6.5.4 During Phase 1, excavation and demolition materials will be generated and fill material will be required for site formation, foundation works and basement structures of the new coffin crematorium. Further materials will be excavated during the demolition of the existing skeletal cremator building during Phase II. As advised by ArchSD, approximately 15,100m³ of excavated materials will be generated from the entire excavation works. The excavated materials will be used immediately for site formation or foundation works. Thus, there will be no stockpiling of excavated materials on-site in any significant quantity.

6.5.5 As the fill requirement for the site formation is approximately 15,300m³, it is anticipated that all excavated materials will be re-used and backfilled on site and approximately 200m³ of fill will need to be imported – there will be no surplus of excavated material requiring off-site disposal, unless significant volumes of contaminated soils are detected. Based on the results available there is the potential for contaminated soils to be present on site, mainly expected to be around the fuel tanks. No generation of excavated materials is anticipated during the Future Expansion Phase.

6.5.6 The potential environmental impact from excavated materials is anticipated to be insignificant provided that the mitigation measures discussed in Section 6.7 are implemented and materials exported off site for disposal are correctly dealt with.

Construction and Demolition Materials

6.5.7 The inert portion of C&D materials, such as rock and concrete that can be used as fill material for reclamation and earth filling projects, is termed public fill. The non-inert portion of C&D materials such as timber, glass, steel and plastic, is termed C&D waste. Some C&D waste can be reused or recycled prior to disposal at a landfill site.

6.5.8 During Phases I and II, the following construction and demolition (C&D) materials will be generated:

§ Former structures such as concrete, rock, steel, bricks, glass, wood, and plastic from the crematorium;

§ Timber from formwork and falsework;

§ Materials and equipment wrappings; and

§ Surplus concrete or grouting mixes.

6.5.9 According to the architectural drawings and the information provided by ArchSD, the gross floor area (GFA) of the existing crematorium and new crematorium are approximately 1,085m² and 2,185 m² respectively. Based on the generation rate of 0.1 m³ per m² of GFA ^[4], the estimated quantity of C&D materials to be generated is approximately 327m³. However, this may vary depending on the exact demolition methods adopted.

6.5.10 It is estimated that around 90% (294m³) of the C&D materials generated from the Project will be categorised as public fill and about the remainder (33m³) of the C&D materials will be categorised as C&D waste.

6.5.11 The surplus public fill and C&D waste requiring disposal will be minor and therefore any extra demand on public filling areas and landfills will be minimal. Any potential nuisance, such as noise impact and dust emission from haul vehicles during transportation of the surplus public fill and C&D waste on road is also anticipated to be minimal.

6.5.12 If the mitigation measures discussed in Section 6.7 are applied, the potential environmental impact from the C&D materials are considered to be insignificant.

Contaminated Materials

6.5.13 Contaminated materials will be generated during the demolition of the coffin crematorium and skeletal cremator building during Phase I and II. The major types of contaminated materials include:

§ Asbestos containing materials (ACM) from building structures;

§ Dioxin contaminated materials (DCM) from ash wastes and contaminated soil;

§ Heavy metal contaminated materials (HMCM) from ash wastes and from contaminated soil;

§ Hydrocarbon contaminated materials: polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from ash waste and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) from contaminated soil; and

§ Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) contaminated materials from contaminated soil and transformer rooms.

6.5.14 All the abovementioned are classified as chemical waste under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste)(General) Regulation. Asbestos is classified as a special waste.

6.5.15 The contaminated materials are expected to be concentrated around cremators, flues and chimney. Since the existing crematorium is still in operation, thorough investigation for the areas suspected to contain contaminated materials cannot be accessed.

Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM)

6.5.16 An asbestos investigation has been carried out at accessible areas of the crematorium by a registered asbestos consultant. No ACM was found in the investigation. Since the incense burner, the coffin cremator and the skeletal cremator building were still operating during the investigation, thorough investigation for the areas suspected to contain ACM, illustrated in the Asbestos Assessment Report (Annex 3-i), shall be undertaken prior to any demolition work to ascertain the presence of ACM. Details of recommended further investigations are provided in Section 6.11.

6.5.17 Environmental impacts associated with ACM are anticipated to be minimal, provided that the mitigation measures detailed in Section 6.7 are implemented.

Dioxin Contaminated Materials (DCM)/Heavy Metal Contaminated Materials (HMCM)/Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminated Materials (PAHCM) from Demolition of the Existing Crematorium

6.5.18 It is not currently possible to conduct inspection and sampling within the cremators, chimney and flues to assess the levels of contamination due to the operation of the crematorium. It is therefore recommended that samples should be collected from the potential areas of contamination for testing of dioxin, heavy metal and PAH after decommissioning and prior to the demolition of the existing crematorium.

6.5.19 The associated environmental impacts from these chemical wastes are expected to be minimal provided the mitigation measures in Section 6.7 are implemented.

DCM/HMCM/PAHCM/TPHCM/Polychlorinated Biphenyl Contaminated Materials (PCBCM) from Soil Remediation at the Project Site

6.5.20 An Interim Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) and Remediation Action Plan (RAP) have been prepared as part of the EIA study. Soil contamination is not confirmed at this stage. Soil samples could not be collected in most of the identified areas where sources of contamination are suspected. It is recommended that further site investigation should be undertaken after decommissioning of these facilities and prior to any demolition work.

6.5.21 Soil contamination has been assessed in detail under Land Contamination in Section 5 of this report and is not further discussed in this Section.

Chemical Waste

6.5.22 Generation of chemical waste, including cleaning fluids, solvents, lubrication oil and fuel is anticipated throughout the construction and demolition phases. Relatively small amounts of chemical wastes, including lubricating oil and solvents, will be produced from the regular maintenance and servicing of construction plant and equipment.

6.5.23 Chemical waste is likely to pose serious environmental, health and safety hazards if it is not properly managed in accordance with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation and the Code of Practice on Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes. These hazards may include:

§ Toxic effects to workers;

§ Adverse effects on water quality from spills; and

§ Fire hazards.

6.5.24 The majority of chemical waste generated from the construction and demolition of the project is anticipated during Phase I and Phase II. Minimal chemical waste will be generated during the Future Expansion Phase. Should any chemical waste be generated, the Contractor must register with the EPD as a chemical waste producer.

6.5.25 The contractor should provide a detailed, quantitative account of chemical waste generation during preparation of the site Waste Management Plan.

6.5.26 The potential environmental impacts associated with the storage, handling and disposal of the chemical wastes will be minimal provided that the relevant mitigation measures in Section 6.7 are implemented.

General Refuse

6.5.27 Generation of general refuse by site staff working at the construction site is anticipated throughout all construction and demolition phases. General refuse generated will include food wastes, aluminium cans, plastic bottles and waste paper. Storage of general refuse on site will generate adverse environmental impacts. These include deterioration of water quality (if waste enters nearby water bodies), odour nuisance and visual impact if waste is stored on site without frequent collection for disposal. The Site may also attract pests and vermin if the waste storage areas are not well maintained and cleaned regularly. The amount of general refuse generated by the site workers during construction and demolition activities will not be significant.

6.5.28 The potential environmental impacts will be insignificant provided the mitigation measures and good practices in Section 6.7 are implemented.

6.6 Activities and Waste Generation During Operation Phases

6.6.1 During the operation phase of the new crematorium, the major types of the waste to be generated are as follows:

§ Bottom ash and non-combustible residues generated by cremators during the combustion process of the new cremators;

§ Chemical waste generated from equipment and machinery maintenance and servicing;

§ Fly ash generated from the APC equipment; and

§ General refuse generated by the visitors and staff during daily operation.

6.6.2 The potential impact from these wastes is discussed below and the mitigation measures are proposed in Section 6.8.

Bottom Ash and Non-combustible Residues

6.6.3 Remains after cremation include bone ash and non-combustible residues. The weight of bone ash and non-combustible residue remaining after each cremation are about 1.6kg and 2.0kg, respectively. There will not be any non-combustible residue from the skeletal cremator, since only skeletal remains will be cremated (without coffin). Estimated quantities are provided in Table 6-2, accordingly. The maximum generation of bone ash and non-combustible residues per day are 245kg and 233kg, respectively.

Cremator Type	Number of Cremators	Cremation Time (Min)	No. of Cremations per Day	Bone Ash @1.6kg per Cremation (kg/day)	Non-combustible @ 2kg per Cremation (kg/day)	Total Residues (kg/day)
Coffin Cremator (170kg)	6	70	14.6	140	175	315
Coffin Cremator (250kg)	1	70	14.6	23	29	52
Skeletal Cremator (20-100kg)	1	40	25.5	41	0	0
Dual-purpose Cremator (170kg coffin) (25-50kg skeleton)	1	70 coffin 40 skeleton	14.6 coffin 25.5 skeleton	23 coffin 41 skeleton	29 coffin	52 coffin 41 skeleton
Maximum Quantity				245	233	419

Table 6‑1 Quantity of Bone Ash and Non-combustible Residues

6.6.4 Bone ash will be stored in robust plastic bags to be collected by the deceased’s relatives within the first two months free of charge and the non-combustible residues will be collected in polyethylene bags and disposed of to landfill. Therefore, only a small quantity of other waste will require disposal.

6.6.5 The associated environmental impacts anticipated will be minimal provided the mitigation measures in Section 6.8 are implemented.

Chemical Waste

6.6.6 A small amount of chemical waste in the form of cleaning fluids, solvents, lubrication oil and fuel would be generated during regular maintenance and servicing of the battery forklift, transformer and switch room, emergency generator room and hydraulic lifts. It is not possible to quantify the amount of chemical waste generated during operation since this depends on the type of plant/equipment used and the maintenance schedule adopted. However, given the proposed numbers of plant/equipment, the quantity of chemical waste is not considered to be significant.

6.6.7 Chemical waste is likely to pose a serious environmental, health and safety hazard if it is not properly managed in accordance with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation and the Code of Practice on Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.

6.6.8 The environmental impacts associated with the storage, handling and disposal of the chemical wastes will be minimal provided the relevant mitigation measures in Section 6.8 are implemented.

Fly Ash

6.6.9 The fly ash generated by Wo Hop Shek Crematorium is the finely divided residue resulting from the combustion of coffins and skeletal remains. Fly ash consists of used activated carbon, un-reacted lime and inorganic, incombustible matter that has been fused during combustion into a glassy, amorphous structure. Fly ash material solidifies while suspended in the exhaust gases and is collected by electrostatic precipitators or filter bags, which form part of the Air Pollution Control (APC) equipment.

6.6.10 The assumed fly ash generation rate of 3.0kg per cremator per day is based on operational experience from Kwai Chung Crematorium and Fu Shan Crematorium and has been used to estimate the amount of fly ash that will be produced by the APC equipment at the new crematorium. As shown in Table 6‑2, below, the estimated maximum generation of chemical wastes is just 27kg/day.

Cremator Type	Number of Cremators	Fly Ash Generated @ 3.0kg per Cremator (kg/day)
Coffin Cremator (170kg)	6	18
Coffin Cremator (250kg)	1	3
Skeletal Cremator (20-100kg)	1	3
Dual-purpose Cremator (170kg coffin) (25-50kg skeleton)	1	3
Maximum Quantity of Fly Ash (kg/day)		27

Table 6‑2 Daily Fly Ash Generated from APC Equipment

6.6.11 The environmental impacts associated with the storage, handling and disposal of fly ash are discussed in Section 6.8.

General Refuse

6.6.12 The quantity of general refuse generated by visitors and staff during daily operation at the new crematorium is anticipated to be minimal because human access to the Site is only frequent during festivals and for the cremation ceremony.

6.6.13 The potential environmental impacts induced by the handling and disposal of general refuse is considered negligible provided the mitigation measures in Section 6.8 are implemented.

6.7 Proposals for Waste Management during Construction and Demolition Phases

6.7.1 Proposals for waste management during the construction and demolition phases comprise:

§ Reduction, reuse and recycling;

§ Disposal options; and

§ Impacts and mitigation.

6.7.2 These three proposals will be examined in terms of the five major sources of waste generation during the construction phase, namely :

§ Excavated materials;

§ Construction and demolition (C&D) materials;

§ Contaminated materials including ash waste, building structures and contaminated soil;

§ Chemical waste (Chemical waste is defined under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulations, and includes any substance being scrap material, or unwanted substances specified under Schedule 1 of the Regulation); and

§ General refuse.

6.7.3 To enhance waste management during construction, the works contract shall prepare and implement a Waste Management Plan in accordance with the requirements of WBTC No.15/2003, to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

Reduction, Reuse and Recycling

Excavated Materials

6.7.4 Rock and soil generated from excavation shall be reused for site formation and excavated material from foundation work reused for landscaping as far as practicable to avoid disposal off-site.

Construction and Demolition Materials

6.7.5 Reuse of public fill and C&D waste shall be practiced on site as far as practicable.

6.7.6 Careful design, planning and good site management can minimise over-ordering and generation of materials, such as concrete, mortar and cement grouts. The design of formwork should maximise the use of standard wooden or metal panels so that high reuse levels can be achieved. Alternatives such as steel formwork, plastic fencing and reusable site office structures should be considered to increase the potential for reuse and minimise C&D waste generation.

6.7.7 The contractor should use as much of the C&D material as possible on-site. Proper segregation of waste types on site will increase the feasibility of certain components of the waste stream by recycling contractors.

Contaminated Materials

6.7.8 In terms of existing contaminated materials, reduction, reuse and recycling are not applicable. The aim is to fully remove contaminated materials and to dispose of them in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner.

Chemical Waste

6.7.9 Plant/equipment maintenance schedules should be designed to optimise maintenance and thereby minimise the generation of chemical wastes – contractors will generally adopt this approach as a matter of course because of the corresponding cost savings.

6.7.10 Chemical waste that is collected will be transported off-site for treatment by a licensed collector. The Contractor will need to register with EPD as a chemical waste producer. Where possible, chemical wastes (e.g. waste lubricants) should recycled at an appropriate facility, e.g. at Dunwell’s oil re-refinery.

General Refuse

6.7.11 The Contractor should implement an education programme for workers relating to avoiding, reducing, reusing and recycling general waste. This should include provision of three-colour recycling bins throughout the site (to allow paper, plastic and aluminium to be collected separately) and posters and leaflets advising on the correct use of recycling bins.

Disposal Options

Excavated Materials

6.7.12 It is not expected that any significant quantities of excavated C&D materials will require disposal, as most can be reused on-site.

6.7.13 However, should any surplus excavated materials require disposal, the trip-ticket system should be put in place in accordance with ETWB TC(W) No.31/2004 and the Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme. Waste should be delivered to a public fill reception facility. Copies/counterfoils from trip tickets (showing the quantities of excavated materials taken off-site) shall be kept for record purposes.

Construction and Demolition Materials

6.7.14 The Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme came into operation on 1 December 2005 (Waste Disposal (Changes for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation). Under this scheme, construction waste producers, such as construction contractors, renovation contractors or premises owners, prior to using government waste disposal facilities, need to open a billing account with EPD and pay for the construction waste disposal charge.

6.7.15 Through the Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme, construction waste producers are encouraged to reduce, sort and recycle construction waste so that their disposal costs can be minimised and our valuable landfill space can be preserved.

6.7.16 For the minor quantities of C&D materials predicted, the trip-ticket system should be put in place in accordance with ETWB TC(W) No.31/2004 and the Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme. Waste should be delivered to a public fill reception facility. Copies/counterfoils from trip tickets (showing the quantities of excavated materials taken off-site) shall be kept for record purposes.

Contaminated Materials

6.7.17 Since asbestos is listed in Part A of Schedule 1 to the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) Regulation, notification has to be given to EPD for its disposal. EPD will normally require ten working days notice of the intention to dispose of any quantity of asbestos waste. After processing the notification, EPD will issue specific instructions and directions for disposal of the waste. The waste producer or his agent must strictly follow these directions.

6.7.18 In terms of DCM/HMCM/PAHCM arising from demolition of the existing crematorium, low and moderately contaminated material can be directly disposed of to landfill site, providing proper handling and packaging procedures are followed (see Section 6.9 for details).

6.7.19 Severely contaminated DCM/HMCM/PAHCM arising from demolition of the existing crematorium shall be placed in polyethylene lined steel drums for disposal at landfill. The drums shall clearly be marked with “DANGEROUS CHEMICAL WASTE” in English and Chinese. Prior agreement of the disposal criteria must be obtained from EPD and the landfill operator. If the landfill disposal criteria cannot be met after proper treatment, disposal at the CWTC shall be considered.

Chemical Waste

6.7.20 Solid and liquid chemical wastes liquid that cannot be recycled (or re-refined in the case of waste lubricants) should be disposed at an appropriate facility, such as the CWTC on Tsing Yi. Landfilling of chemical waste should be avoided.

6.7.21 Copies/counterfoils from collection receipts issued by the licensed chemical waste collector (showing the quantities and types of chemical waste taken off-site, and details of the treatment facility) shall be kept for record purposes.

General Refuse

6.7.22 Residual, non-recyclable, general waste should be stored in appropriate containers prior to collection and off-site disposal at NENT landfill, which is the nearest landfill to Wo Hop Shek.

6.7.23 Copies/counterfoils from collection receipts issued by the nominated general waste collector (showing the quantities and types waste taken off-site, and details of the disposal facility) shall be kept for record purposes.

Impacts and Mitigation

6.7.24 It is recommended that the following good site practices should be included in the Contract documents for the Project to minimise waste management impacts:

§ Obtain the necessary waste disposal permits from the appropriate authorities, in accordance with the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354), Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation and the Land (Miscellaneous Provision) Ordinance (Cap. 28);

§ Obtain a billing account with EPD for disposal of construction waste (Waste Disposal (Changes for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation).

§ A Waste Management Plan (WMP), incorporated within an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), should be prepared and submitted to the Engineer/Supervising Officer for approval. Reference should be made to Environment, Transport and Works Bureau Technical Circular (Works) (ETWB TCW) 19/2005.

§ Nomination of an approved person to be responsible for good site practice, arrangements for collection and effective disposal to an appropriate facility of all wastes generated at the site;

§ Use of a waste haulier licensed to collect specific category of waste;

§ A trip-ticket system should be included as one of the contractual requirements and implemented by the Environmental Team to monitor the disposal of C&D and solid wastes at public filling facilities and landfills, and to control fly tipping. Reference should be made to ETWB TCW No. 31/2004.

§ Training of site personnel in proper waste management and chemical waste handling procedures;

§ Separation of chemical wastes for special handling and appropriate treatment at a licensed facility;

§ Routine cleaning and maintenance programme for drainage systems, sumps and oil interceptors;

§ Provision of sufficient waste disposal points and regular collection for disposal;

§ Adoption of appropriate measures to minimize windblown litter and dust during transportation of waste, such as covering trucks or transporting wastes in enclosed containers;

§ Implementation of a recording system for the amount of wastes generated, recycled and disposed of (including the disposal sites).

6.7.25 Good management and control can prevent the generation of significant amounts of waste. Inclusion of the following practices in the Contract documents is recommended to ensure waste reduction:

§ Segregation and storage of different types of waste in different containers, skips or stockpiles to enhance reuse or recycling of materials and their proper disposal;

§ Encourage collection of aluminium cans, plastic bottles and packaging material (e.g. carton boxes) and office paper by individual collectors. Separate labelled bins should be provided to help segregate this waste from other general refuse generated by the work force;

§ Any unused chemicals or those with remaining functional capacity should be reused as far as practicable;

§ Reuse C&D materials when possible to reduce the amount of C&D material/waste;

§ Wood, steel and other metals should be separated for reuse and / or recycling prior to disposal of C&D waste at landfill;

§ Minimise the potential for damage or contamination of construction material by having proper storage and site practices;

§ Plan and stock construction materials carefully to minimize the amount of surplus materials.

6.7.26 In addition to the above good site practices and waste reduction measures, specific mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts during handling, transportation and disposal of wastes generated from the Project are discussed in Section 6.9.

6.7.27 General refuse shall be stored in enclosed bins or compaction units separate from C&D and chemical wastes. A reputable waste collector should be employed by the contractor to remove general refuse from the site, separately from C&D and chemical wastes, on a daily or every second day basis to minimize odour, pest and litter impacts.

6.7.28 Individual collectors often recover aluminium cans from the waste stream if these are segregated or easily accessible. Therefore, separately labelled bins for their deposit should be provided if feasible. Similarly, plastic bottles and carton package material generated on site shall be separated for recycling as far as possible. Site office waste shall be reduced through recycling of paper if volumes are large enough to warrant collection. Participation in a local collection scheme shall be considered if one is available.

6.7.29 There will be no surplus excavated materials to be disposed of and, in fact, some 200m³ fill material will need to be imported. About 327m³ C&D materials will be generated. The AIR as appended in Annex 3-i indicates that there are no ACM present the existing crematorium. Although ACM may be found during the demolition phase of the existing crematorium, the quantity of ACM should be limited. Although DCM/HMCM/PAHCM in ash waste from the existing crematorium could not be quantified at this stage, it is not anticipated that large amount of contaminated materials will be present, as these materials will only be found with the residual ash waste inside the cremators, flue and chimneys.

6.7.30 Given the relatively small scale of the Project, the chemical waste and general refuse generated from the construction works should also be limited. See Section 6.9 for impacts relating to the handling, collection and disposal of this material.

6.7.31 Stockpiling areas and storage areas within the Site for excavated materials and waste materials should be subject to the actual site construction works and programme. A WMP should be prepared by the demolition and construction contractors. The stockpiling and storage areas should be clearly stated in the WMP.

6.7.32 Table 6-3, below, summarises the recommended disposal outlets of different types of waste materials generated from the demolition and construction works.

Type of Waste	Recommended Disposal Outlets
Excavated Materials	N/A – All excavated materials will be re-used on site for site formation and foundation works
C&D Materials (Public Fill)	Reuse on site of disposal at Public Fill Reception Facility
C&D Materials (C&D Waste)	Reuse or recycle as much as possible before disposal at NENT Landfill
ACM	Follow the Code of Practice on the Handling, Transportation and Disposal of Asbestos to dispose of at landfill site
Low Contaminated DCM/HMCM/PAHCM	Disposal at landfill
Moderately and Severely Contaminated DCM/HMCM/PAHCM	Disposal at landfill if meets landfill site disposal criteria after proper treatment. Otherwise disposal at CWTC
Chemical Waste	Recycle at licensed facility (e.g. Dunwell) or disposal at CWTC
General Refuse	Reuse or recycle as much as possible before disposal at NENT Landfill

Table 6‑3 Recommended Waste Management During Demolition and Construction Phase

6.8 Proposals for Waste Management during Operation Phase

6.8.1 Proposals for waste management during the operation phase comprise:

§ Reduction, reuse and recycling;

§ Disposal options; and

§ Impacts and mitigation.

6.8.2 These three proposals will be examined in terms of the four major sources of waste generation during the operation phase, namely :

§ Bottom ash and non-combustible residues generated by cremators during the combustion process of the new cremators;

§ Chemical waste generated from machinery maintenance and servicing;

§ Fly ash generated from the APC equipment; and

§ General refuse generated by the visitors and staff during daily operation.

Reduction, Reuse and Recycling

Bottom Ash and Non-combustible Residues

6.8.3 The quantity of bottom ash and non-combustible residues depends primarily on the throughput of the cremators and how the cremators are operated.

6.8.4 In terms of throughput, the only opportunity to reduce the quantity waste on a per cremation basis is to encourage the use of more environmentally friendly coffins, i.e., coffins that are constructed from a smaller amount of material. Obviously, there can be no reuse or recycling of ash and non-combustible residues as these are collected by relatives of the deceased.

6.8.5 In terms of operation, it should be noted that combustion gas temperature, residence time, air supply and gas turbulence of the new cremators will be properly and adequately controlled to optimise the effectiveness of combustion during cremation process, thereby minimising the generation of bottom ash.

Chemical Waste

6.8.6 Plant/equipment maintenance schedules should be designed to optimise maintenance and thereby minimise the generation of chemical wastes – contractors will generally adopt this approach as a matter of course because of the corresponding cost savings.

6.8.7 Chemical waste that is collected will be transported off-site for treatment by a licensed collector. The Contractor will need to register with EPD as a chemical waste producer. Where possible, chemical wastes (e.g. waste lubricants) should recycled at an appropriate facility, e.g. at Dunwell’s oil re-refinery.

Fly Ash

6.8.8 The quantity of fly ash depends primarily on the throughput of the cremators, the efficiency of the APC equipment and how the cremators are operated.

6.8.9 In terms of throughput, the only opportunity to reduce the quantity waste on a per cremation basis is to encourage the use of more environmentally friendly coffins, as discussed above. However, this will have less impact on the quantity of fly ash than on the quantity of bottom ash.

6.8.10 In terms of the efficiency of the APC equipment, lowering the efficiency would reduce the quantity of fly ash collected, but this would also increase the level of air pollution. This is not an acceptable trade-off and so there is no opportunity to reduce the quantity of fly ash by reducing the efficiency of the APC equipment.

6.8.11 In terms of operation, it should be noted that combustion gas temperature, residence time, air supply and gas turbulence of the new cremators will be properly and adequately controlled to optimise the effectiveness of combustion during cremation process, thereby minimising the generation of fly ash. Also, by controlling the combustion and gas treatment process (e.g. through rapid quenching – as discussed in Section 2.8.7) the window for dioxin formation can be minimised, thereby minimising the opportunity for dioxin formation.

6.8.12 The temperature of the combustion gas from the primary combustion zone will be raised to 850^oC (after the last injection of combustion air) in a controlled and homogeneous fashion such that even under the most unfavourable conditions at least two seconds residence time in the secondary combustion zone is achieved in the presence of at least 6% oxygen. Subsequent to this, rapid quenching will be used to cool the flue gas down to below 200^OC in a very short period (two seconds or less) thereby minimising the opportunity for dioxin formation.

6.8.13 In the past, fly ash was simply taken up by flue gases and dispersed into the atmosphere. Now, however, fly ash is collected by the APC equipment, which is designed to maximise the collection of fly ash.

6.8.14 In Hong Kong, for example, all of the pulverised fuel ash (fly ash) from coal-fired power stations is fully utilised, the majority for cement production. However, fly ash from crematoria in Hong Kong is generally not used but is disposed of to landfill.

6.8.15 In terms of recycling, fly ash is generally not recycled per se but if vitrified, solidified or stabilised (as part of a treatment/disposal process), the resultant material can be used for other purposes, such as road sub-base, fill material or use in low-grade concrete applications. However, fly ash from crematoria in Hong Kong is generally not recycled but is disposed of to landfill (see below).

Disposal Options

Bottom Ash and Non-combustible Residues

6.8.16 The disposal of bottom ash and non-combustible residues shall be properly collected and handled to avoid dust emissions. In line with current practices, the bone ash shall be stored in robust plastic bags to be collected by the deceased’s relatives within the first two months free of charge and the non-combustible residues shall be collected in polyethylene bags and disposed of to landfill.

Chemical Waste

6.8.17 Solid and liquid chemical wastes that cannot be recycled (or re-refined in the case of waste lubricants) should be disposed at an appropriate facility, such as EPD’s Chemical Waste Treatment Centre on Tsing Yi. Landfilling of chemical waste should be avoided.

6.8.18 Copies/counterfoils from collection receipts issued by the licensed chemical waste collector (showing the quantities and types of chemical waste taken off-site, and details of the treatment facility) shall be kept for record purposes.

Fly Ash

6.8.19 In most countries, any fly ash, subject to the dioxin content, is stored in sealed containers and disposed of in landfills, or in ash monofills, that are designed specifically for disposal of fly ash. In Hong Kong, crematoria fly ash is landfilled unless it contains >1ppb of dioxins, in which case it is treated at the CWTC before it is landfilled. At overseas crematoria, there is no specific treatment for fly ash containing dioxins.

6.8.20 Fly ash, like soil, contains trace concentrations of many heavy metals that are known to be detrimental to health in sufficient quantities. These include nickel, vanadium, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, lead, selenium, uranium, thorium, and radium. Though these elements are found in extremely low concentrations in fly ash, their mere presence has prompted concern in some quarters.

6.8.21 Dioxin content has been detected in fly ash collected under the flat bed filter of cremators at Kwai Chung and Fu Shan Crematoria.

6.8.22 The presence of dioxin is attributed to the dioxins absorbed by the chemical additives used in the APC equipment, which remove dioxin from flue gas emissions. The chemical additives are discharged from the flat bed filter together with the fine particles during the purging of filter by compressed air.

6.8.23 According to the information provided by ArchSD, the suppliers/contractors of cremators, including the German contractors of Kwai Chung and Fu Shan Crematoria, the APC with latest technology simply prevents the fly ash from entering the atmosphere but does not treat the fly ash. For example, in Germany the fly ash is stored in sealed containers and disposed of directly to landfills/underground salt mines.

6.8.24 Globally, fly ash is usually used in concrete as a replacement for part of the Portland Cement (as is done in Hong Kong with PFA from coal-fired power stations). As such, there appears to be no widespread use of equipment/systems specialized for the treatment of fly ash from crematoria – comprehensive research on this topic has not identified any reference to fly ash treatment plant for crematoria.

6.8.25 There are, however, a number of on-site methods for treating wastes, other than fly ash from crematoria, that contain significant quantities of heavy metals and/or dioxins. While fly ash from Wo Hop Shek may contain heavy metals and dioxins, it should be noted that these treatment methods are not specifically for fly ash from crematoria.

6.8.26 The following methods have been identified. Consideration of their applicability in treating the fly ash from cremators at Wo Hop Shek is discussed below.

§ Bioremediation. Using white-rot fungus (Ceriporia sp.) to degrade dioxins in a trial study. Concerns relate to potential problem of introducing a biohazard (the fungus) into the surrounding natural ecosystem. No proven commercial application.

§ Detoxification. Contacting the contaminated incineration ash with an aqueous solution of an alkaline earth metal hydroxide at 100^OC. A patented process but with no proven commercial application.

§ Thermal Desorption. Considered feasible as the first stage in separating and concentrating the dioxin from the contaminated soil. However, the residue from thermal desorption requires treatment. Thermal desorbtion was used in Hong Kong to initially treat dioxin-contaminated soil from Penny’s Bay, but the residue from the process still had to be treated at the CWTC.

§ Base Catalytic Dechlorination and Gas Phase Chemical Reduction. Non-incineration Methods for Dioxin Removal. Have been previously examined for use in Hong Kong but rejected due to concerns that BCD will generate a more toxic form of dioxin in the event of incomplete dechlorination. Besides, the need to import and test the feasibility of BCD technology, which is not readily available in Hong Kong. LegCo Paper #PWSC109/01-02 refers.

§ Ultraviolet Photolysis. This process volatilizes organic compounds from the soil matrix; collects the desorbed organics in a solvent; and, destroys the contaminants with high-intensity ultraviolet light. So far only a research project with no proven commercial application.

§ Solidification. Generally implies the physical encapsulation of APC residues with cement or pozzolanic (cement-like) materials to reduce the leaching of constituents.

§ Stabilisation. Generally defined as the addition of reagents to chemically transform soluble contaminants into a less soluble form, making use of both the precipitation of metals in new minerals as well as the binding of metals to minerals by sorption.

§ Vitrification. Involves the mixing of residues with glass precursor materials such as silica at high temperatures (1,300 to 1,500^OC) to form a single-phase amorphous glassy material. This results in chemical bonding of inorganic species in the residues with glass-forming materials and encapsulation of residue constituents in a layer of glassy material.

6.8.27 Of the above methods, only solidification, stabilisation and vitrification are considered as potentially applicable for treating the fly ash from cremators at Wo Hop Shek. The other methods are either only at the pilot plant/demonstration stage or else have no proven commercial application. The only treatment method previously accepted for use in Hong Kong – thermal desorption – still requires residues to be treated at the CWTC.

6.8.28 Fly ash treatment by solidification, stabilisation or vitrification will not destroy the dioxin in the fly ash but will only reduce its concentration (through the addition of other materials). If the concentration can be reduced to <1ppb then the resulting waste can be disposed of directly to landfill. If the dioxin concentration remains >1ppb after treatment, then the solidified/stabilised/vitrified fly ash will need to be treated at the CWTC to destroy the dioxin before being landfilled. Thus, the provision of fly ash treatment is only worthwhile if the concentration of dioxin can be reduced to <1ppb.

6.8.29 In determining whether the provision of fly ash treatment plant (using solidification, stabilisation or vitrification processes) at the crematorium site is approprate, the following issues have been considered:

§ Increased Hazard. The operation of a vitrification plant would involve high temperature thermal treatment. The operation of a stabilisation plant would require the transportation, storage, handling and use of chemical reagents within the Site. Both types of treatment would therefore increase the hazard risk. Given that the crematorium is used by the public, the increase in hazard posed by the operation of vitrification or stablilsation plant increases the risk to the public.

§ Increase in Waste Quantity. One of the key requirements of the waste management assessment (and a requirement of the EIA Study Brief) is to identify and implement opportunites to reduce the quantity of waste for disposal. By adding material to the fly ash, solidification, stabilisation and vitrification will all result in a larger volume of waste requiring disposal than the fly ash alone. The increase in waste volume could be substantial if the concentration of dioxin is significantly more than 1ppb.

§ Impact on Existing Waste Treatment/Disposal Facilities. If fly ash is treated on-site to reduce the concentration to <1ppb then it can be directly landfilled. However, to achieve this concentration when the initial concentration is significantly higher than 1ppb will result in a significantly greater quantity of solidified/stabilised/vitrified fly ash going to landfill. It is currently accepted that landfill space is at a premium and Government is taking a number of measures to reduce the quantity of waste going in to landfills in an attempt to extend the life of these facilities. Conversely, the CWTC currently has spare capacity and could therefore treat the fly ash without any impact to its existing throughput.

§ Adverse Public Opinion. Past experience has shown that the Hong Kong public is highly sensitive to the dioxin issue. To carry out treatment to reduce dioxin concentrations of fly ash within the Wo Hop Shek site is therefore unlikely to find support from either the crematorium users or from local residents. As such, inclusion of such treatment plant may result in adverse public opinion on the Project as a whole.

§ Increase in Traffic. There will be additional vehicle movements in bringing materials/reagents to the Site for use in the fly ash treatment process, and also additional vehicle movements in taking away the increased volume of treated fly ash. In both cases, the additional vehicle movements will generate additional traffic-related environmental impacts.

§ Adverse Visual Impact. The addition of a fly ash treatment plant will require the construction of a new building structure, which will increase the visual impact of the site. A vitirification plant will occupy a larger building (and will also require additional chimneys as it is a thermal process) than a stabilisation plant or a solidification plant.

§ Larger Building Footprint. The addition of a fly ash treatment plant will require additional space to be allocated within the Wo Hop Shek site. As described elsewhere in this report, the site is relatively small and the Project Proponent does not consider that any additional space within the site can be made available without compromising existing and future operations. Without a design for a fly ash handling plant it is not possible to quantify the additional area that would be occupied. Nevertheless, a vitirification plant will occupy a larger footprint than a stabilisation plant or a solidification plant.

§ Additional Cost. Without a design for a fly ash handling plant it is not possible to quantify the additional costs that would be incurred. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that the addition of fly ash treatment plant would result in additional capital and operational costs. There are also cost issues related to the treatment of smaller quantites of fly ash at the CWTC versus the disposal of greater quantites of solidified/stabilised/vitrified fly ash at landfill.

6.8.30 Given the above, it can be concluded that none of the three fly ash treatment technologies are considered to be appropriate or practicable for use at Wo Hop Shek. Instead, it is proposed that the handling of fly ash from the cremators follows the practice currently adopted at other crematoria in Hong Kong. Fly ash that contains <1ppb of dioxin shall be sent directly to landfill for disposal, provided that is meets landfill disposal criteria. For fly ash that contains >1ppb of dioxin, the following procedures shall be carried out:

§ Fly ash is collected and stored in sealed drums provided by the CWTC.

§ Sealed drums are stored in a secure designated area and are periodically collected by CWTC (normally two to three weeks interval). The designated area shall be sufficiently large to store additional drums in case of any delays to the scheduled collection.

§ Drums are taken to CWTC where they are incinerated and rendered harmless – this includes the complete destruction of dioxins.

§ Residues are then disposed of at SENT Landfill in Tseung Kwan O.

6.8.31 This approach is considered to be environmentally sound, follows existing practice, uses appropriate existing Government waste treatment facilities and minimises the environmental impacts at the crematorium site. This approach allows for the safe treatment and disposal of fly ash, irrespective of the concentration of dioxins or other contaminants. See Section 6.9 for impacts relating to the handling, collection and disposal of this material.

6.8.32 For reference, the U.S. EPA has confirmed that fly ash from oil and gas combustion does not need to be regulated as a hazardous waste (Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, USEPA 40 CFR Part 261, [FRL–6588–1], RIN 2050–AD91). Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey conclude that fly ash compares with common soils or rocks and should not be the source of alarm (Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-163-97).

Chemical wastes

6.8.33 All the chemical wastes arising from the APC equipment, machinery maintenance and servicing shall be collected by drum type container and removed by the licensed chemical waste contractor under the provisions of the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulations and in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.

General Refuse

6.8.34 The general refuse shall be separated from any chemical wastes and stored in covered waste skips. FEHD shall remove general refuse from the site, separately from chemical wastes, on daily basis to minimise odour, pest and litter impacts. Burning of refuse is prohibited.

6.8.35 Waste generated in offices shall be reduced through segregation and collection of recyclable waste materials (such as paper and carton packages) if the volumes are large enough to warrant collection. Participation in a local collection scheme shall be considered if one is available.

6.8.36 To promote recycling of waste paper, aluminium cans and plastic bottles by the visitors clearly labelled recycling bins should be placed at convenient locations within the new crematorium. A reliable waste-recycling agent should be used to collect the items on a regular basis.

6.8.37 Copies/counterfoils from collection receipts issued by the nominated general waste collector (showing the quantities and types waste taken off-site, and details of the disposal facility) shall be kept for record purposes.

Impacts and Mitigation

6.8.38 It is recommended that the following good operational practices should be adopted to minimise waste management impacts:

§ Obtain the necessary waste disposal permits in accordance with the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354), Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation and the Land (Miscellaneous Provision) Ordinance (Cap. 28);

§ Nomination of an approved person to be responsible for good operational practice, arrangements for collection and effective disposal to an appropriate facility of all wastes generated at the site;

§ Use of a waste haulier licensed to collect specific category of waste;

§ A trip-ticket system should be included as one of the contractual requirements and implemented to monitor the disposal of wastes at landfills, and to control fly tipping. Reference should be made to ETWB TCW No. 31/2004.

§ Training of personnel in proper waste management and chemical waste handling procedures;

§ Separation of chemical wastes for special handling and appropriate treatment at a licensed facility;

§ Routine cleaning and maintenance programme for drainage systems, sumps and oil interceptors;

§ Provision of sufficient waste disposal points and regular collection for disposal;

§ Adoption of appropriate measures to minimize windblown litter and dust during transportation of waste, such as covering trucks or transporting wastes in enclosed containers;

§ Implementation of a recording system for the amount of wastes generated, recycled and disposed of (including the disposal sites).

6.8.39 Good management and control can prevent the generation of significant amounts of waste. It is recommended that the following good operational practices should be adopted to ensure waste reduction:

§ Segregation and storage of different types of waste in different containers, to enhance reuse or recycling of materials and their proper disposal;

§ Encourage collection of aluminium cans, plastic bottles and packaging material (e.g. carton boxes) and office paper by individual collectors. Separate labelled bins should be provided to help segregate this waste from other general refuse generated by the work force;

§ Any unused chemicals or those with remaining functional capacity should be reused as far as practicable;

6.8.40 In addition to the above good operational practices and waste reduction measures, specific mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts during handling, transportation and disposal of wastes generated from the Project are discussed in Section 6.9.

6.8.41 General refuse shall be stored in enclosed bins or compaction units separate from C&D and chemical wastes. A reputable waste collector should be employed by the contractor to remove general refuse from the site, separately from C&D and chemical wastes, on a daily or every second day basis to minimize odour, pest and litter impacts.

6.8.42 Individual collectors often recover aluminium cans from the waste stream if these are segregated or easily accessible. Therefore, separately labelled bins for their deposit should be provided if feasible. Similarly, plastic bottles and carton package material generated on site shall be separated for recycling as far as possible. Site office waste shall be reduced through recycling of paper if volumes are large enough to warrant collection. Participation in a local collection scheme shall be considered if one is available.

6.8.43 Table 6-4 below summarises the recommended disposal outlets of different types of waste materials generated from the operation of the new crematorium.

Type of Waste	Recommended Disposal Outlets
Bottom Ash and Non-Combustible Residues	Collected in polyethylene bags and disposed of to landfill
Chemical Waste	Recycle at licensed facility (e.g. Dunwell) or disposal at CWTC
Fly Ash	Stored in appropriate drum and disposed of at CWTC
General Refuse	Reuse or recycle as much as possible before disposal at NENT Landfill

Table 6‑4 Recommended Waste Management During Operation Phase

6.9 Impacts Caused by Handling, Collection and Disposal of Waste

Potential Hazard

Chemical Wastes

6.9.1 Should any chemical waste be generated, the contractor must register with the EPD as chemical waste producer.

6.9.2 All chemical waste shall be handled according to the Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes. Chemical waste shall be stored and collected by an approved contractor for disposal at a licensed facility in accordance with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation.

6.9.3 Containers used for the storage of chemical waste shall:

§ Be suitable for the substance they are holding, resistant to corrosion, maintained in good condition, and securely closed;

§ Have a capacity of less than 450 litres unless the specifications have been approved by the EPD; and

§ Display a label in English and Chinese in accordance with instructions in Schedule 2 of the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation.

6.9.4 The storage area for chemical waste shall:

§ Be clearly labelled and used solely for the storage of chemical waste;

§ Be enclosed on at least 3 sides;

§ Have an impermeable floor and bunding, of capacity to accommodate 110% of the volume of the largest container or 20% by volume of the chemical waste stored in that area, whichever is the greatest;

§ Have adequate ventilation;

§ Be covered to prevent rainfall entering (water collected within the bund must be tested and disposed as chemical waste if necessary); and

§ Be properly arranged so that incompatible materials are adequately separated.

6.9.5 Disposal of chemical waste shall be:

§ Via a licensed waste collector; and

§ A facility licensed to receive chemical waste, such as the CWTC, which offers a chemical waste collection service and can supply the necessary storage containers; or

§ A waste recycling plant approved by EPD.

Asbestos

6.9.6 While the Air Pollution Control Ordinance requires registered professionals to undertake the abatement work, the Waste Disposal Ordinance provides control on the packaging, labelling, storage, collection and disposal of asbestos waste. Asbestos wastes shall be handled in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Handling, Transportation and Disposal of Asbestos Waste issued by the Environment and Food Bureau.

6.9.7 Asbestos waste, by definition under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) Regulation, is categorized as chemical waste of which the arrangement of production, collection and disposal will follow the ‘trip-ticket’ system as with other chemical wastes. The registered asbestos contractor shall appoint a licensed asbestos waste collector to collect the packaged asbestos waste and deliver it to the designated landfill for disposal.

DCM / HMCM / PAHCM from Demolition of the Existing Crematorium

6.9.8 Different contamination classifications based on the levels of DCM/HMCM/PAHCM in ash waste are proposed in Table 6‑5 and their corresponding mitigation measures for the handling, transportation, treatment and disposal are described in the subsequent paragraphs^[5], [6]^, [7].

Classification of Contamination	Dioxin Level in ash waste	Heavy Metal Level / Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon in Ash Waste
Low Contaminated DCM/HMCM/PAHCM	<1 ppb TEQ	< Dutch “B” List
Moderately/Severely Contaminated HMCM/PAHCM	<1 ppb TEQ	> Dutch “B” List
Moderately Contaminated DCM	> 1 and < 10 ppb TEQ	Any Level
Severely contaminated DCM	>10 ppbTEQ	Any Level

Table 6‑5 Proposed contamination Classification for Ash Waste with DCM/HMCM

Low Contaminated DCM / HMCM / PAHCM from Demolition of Existing Crematorium

6.9.9 Where the ash waste contains low contaminated DCM/HMCM/PAHCM, the contractor shall avoid ash waste becoming airborne during demolition. General dust suppression measures shall be followed.

Moderately/Severely Contaminated DCM and Moderately/Severely Contaminated HMCM/PAHCM from Demolition of the Existing Crematorium

6.9.10 Site preparation procedures:

§ Except the cremators/flue/chimney, all removable contaminated items shall be removed as far as practicable to avoid obstructing the decontamination activities.

§ Preliminary site decontamination of all debris shall be carried out using a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) vacuum cleaner.

§ A chamber with three layers of polyethylene sheets shall enclose the top portion of the chimney above the roof.

§ A 3-chamber decontamination unit shall be constructed at the entrance to the cremators/flues/chimney for entry and exit from the work area. It shall comprise a dirty room, a shower room and a clean room of at least 1m x 1m base with 3 layers of fire retardant polyethylene sheet.

§ Workers shall carry out decontamination procedures before leaving the work area.

§ All workers should wear full protective equipment, disposable protective overalls, nitrile gloves, rubber boots, and a full-face positive pressure respirator.

§ Warning signs in both Chinese and English shall be put up in conspicuous areas.

6.9.11 Site preparation procedures specific to severely contaminated DCM:

§ The walls, floor and ceiling of the cremator room shall be lined with 3-layers of fire retardant polyethylene sheets.

§ Air movers shall be installed at the cremator room, and at the bottom of the chimney to exhaust air from the work area. A stand by air mover shall also be installed with each of the air movers. Sufficient air movement shall be maintained to give a minimum of 6 air changes per hour to the work area.

§ New pre-filters and HEPA filters shall be used on the air movers.

§ Before commencement of the decommissioning work a smoke test with non-toxic smoke shall be carried out to ensure the air tightness of the containment.

6.9.12 Demolition and handling procedures:

§ The cremators/flue/chimney shall be removed from top down.

§ Scrubbing and HEPA vacuuming shall be used to remove any ash or residues attached to the cremators, flue, chimney and other building structures.

§ Wastes generated from the contaminant or decontamination unit including the workers protection clothing shall be disposed of at landfill site.

§ After removal, all surfaces shall be decontaminated by HEPA vacuum.

§ If any contaminated wastewater needs to be discharged from the site, it shall be properly treated to Water Pollution Control Ordinance requirements with prior agreements with EPD on discharge standards.

6.9.13 Demolition and handling procedures specific to severely contaminated DCM:

§ The contaminated detached sections of the building structures shall be wrapped with 2 layers of fire retardant polyethylene sheets. A third layer shall d be wrapped and secured with duct tape. Wet wiping shall be used to decontaminate the outer layer.

§ After completion of removal and decontamination, spray the innermost layer of the fire retardant polyethylene sheet with PVA. Upon drying, peel off and dispose of at landfill site. Repeat for the other 2 layers disposing the final layer as contaminated wastes.

6.9.14 Treatment and disposal procedures:

§ Immobilise ash waste by mixing with cement in the correct ratio as determined by pilot mixing and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.

§ Place material in polyethylene lined steel drums for disposal at landfill. The drums shall clearly be marked with “DANGEROUS CHEMICAL WASTE” in English and Chinese. Prior agreement of the disposal criteria must be obtained from EPD and the landfill operator.

§ If the landfill disposal criteria cannot be met, disposal at the CWTC should be considered.

Air and Odour Emissions

6.9.15 An air quality assessment for the Project has been presented in Section 3. Air and odour emissions resulting from the handling, collection and disposal of waste during the from the construction and demolition phase and the operation phase were discussed. A number of mitigation measures were recommended. It was concluded that there would be minimal impact from the handling, collection and disposal of waste in terms of air and odour.

Noise

6.9.16 A noise assessment for the Project has been presented in Section 4. Noise resulting from vehicular (road) transport was not identified as a significant noise source and no significant impact is anticipated from the handling, collection and disposal of waste during the construction and demolition phase or operation phase.

Wastewater Discharge

6.9.17 A water quality assessment for the Project has been presented in Section 8. Discharge of wastewater resulting from contact with solid waste during the from the construction and demolition phase was discussed and a number of mitigation measures were recommended. It was concluded that there would be minimal impact from the handling, collection and disposal of waste.

6.9.18 During the operation phase, there will be no significant wastewater impacts from the handling, collection and disposal of waste as the proposed APC utilises a “dry” process and all other wastewater meets WPCO standards for discharge to foul sewer.

Public Transport

6.9.19 The transportation of all waste material will, in the immediate vicinity of the site, follow the route shown in Figure 2.4. Subsequent to this the route will depend on the final destination of the waste.

6.9.20 For waste disposed at NENT landfill, in Ta Kwu Ling, vehicles from Wo Hop Shek will likely follow Fanling Highway, Sha Tau Kok Road and Wo Keng Shan Road. The number of vehicle trips is estimated to be very low, only one or two trips per day, as the quantity of C&D waste and general refuse to be disposed of is very low.

6.9.21 There will be no surplus excavated materials and the quantity of surplus public fill is estimated to be relatively small (<300m³). The nearest public fill reception facility to Wo Hop Shek is the Fill Bank in Tuen Mun Area 38. Vehicles from Wo Hop Shek will likely follow Fanling Highway, San Tin Highway, Castle Peak Road, Hoi Wing Road, Wu Shan Road and Ling Mun Road. Throughout the construction and demolition period this will average at less than one vehicle trip per day.

6.9.22 For chemical wastes to be recycled at the Dunwell facility in Yuen Long, vehicles from Wo Hop Shek will likely follow Fanling Highway, San Tin Highway, Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long On Lok Road and Wang Lok Street. Throughout the construction and demolition phase and the operation phase the number of vehicle trips will depend on the quantity of chemical waste to be recycled, but is unlikely to exceed one vehicle trip per week, on average.

6.9.23 For chemical wastes to be disposed of at the CWTC in Tsing Yi, vehicles from Wo Hop Shek will likely follow Fanling Highway, Tolo Highway, Shing Mun Tunnel, Texaco Road, Tsing Tsuen Road and Tsing Yi Road West. Throughout the construction and demolition phase and the operation phase the number of vehicle trips will depend on the quantity of chemical waste to be disposed of, but is unlikely to exceed one vehicle trip per week, on average.

Construction and Demolition Phase

6.9.24 Surplus excavated material and C&D material will be transported in vehicles that shall be covered in tarpaulin or similar material such that there will be no dust impact.

6.9.25 Contaminated materials and chemical waste (including asbestos, DCM, HMCM and PAHCM) from the construction and demolition phase shall be stored on-site in accordance with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation, and as described above. Drums will be transported to the designated disposal facility by a waste collector licensed by EPD for the particular waste type. The licensed waste collector will transport the waste using equipment and in a manner approved by EPD and, as such, no significant impacts are deemed to occur.

6.9.26 Alternatively, if the CWTC is the designated disposal facility for the waste, the CWTC operator, Enviropace, provides a collection service using 20 to 200 litre capacity containers for chemical waste. A fleet of licensed chemical waste collection vehicles ranging from 5.5 to 16 tonnage lorries to bulk tankers and barges conveys the chemical waste. All chemical waste collected are delivered to the CWTC for treatment. This collection service is closely monitored by EPD and, as such, no significant impacts are deemed to occur.

6.9.27 General waste will be collected by a licensed waste collector and taken to landfill in a Refuse Collection Vehicle (RCV) for disposal. No significant impacts are considered to arise from the operation of RCVs, which are used throughout Hong Kong.

Operation Phase

6.9.28 The key wastes generated during the operation phase are bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash contains the un-combusted components of the object that have been incinerated, whereas fly ash contains the particulates trapped by the APC.

6.10 Cumulative Impacts due to Concurrent Projects

6.10.1 There will be one concurrent project, under preliminary planning, to be constructed and operated in the vicinity of the Study Area of the Project. A columbarium at Kiu Tau Road is planned to be constructed with commencement of works in 2010 and completion in 2012. Details of the concurrent project are provided in Section 2.

6.10.2 There will be an overlapping construction period between the later stage of Phase I, Phase II of the Project and the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road. The future expansion phase of the Project may also overlap with the later stage of the concurrent project.

6.10.3 Nevertheless, the new columbarium is not a designated project under the EIAO, and the waste management impacts induced by this concurrent project are anticipated to be minimal.

6.11 Further Asbestos/Dioxin Investigations

6.11.1 After decommissioning, but prior to demolition, of the existing crematorium, further contamination investigation should be carried out to confirm the quality and quantity of ash waste and building structures requiring treatment and disposal. Future contamination investigation requirements are summarised in Table 6-6 and described below. Figure 6-2 indicates the locations of where further contamination investigation will be required.

Location	Parameter	Investigation Period	Responsible Party
Cremators/flue/chimney and surrounding areas	Asbestos (building structures)	After decommissioning but prior to demolition of the Existing Crematorium	The Contractor
Cremators/flue/chimney and surrounding areas	Dioxins, heavy metals, PAH (ash waste)

Table 6‑6 Future Contamination Investigation Requirements

Asbestos

6.11.2 The incense burner, coffin and skeletal crematorium were still operational during the asbestos assessment and could not be adequately inspected or sampled. These areas contain materials suspected to contain ACM and are detailed in Section 4.2 of the Asbestos Investigation Report (Annex 3-i). Figure 6-3 indicates the locations of where further inspection of ACM will be required after decommissioning but prior to demolition.

6.11.3 Prior to any demolition work commencing, these areas should be further inspected by a registered asbestos consultant to determine the presence of any ACM. These areas should be thoroughly investigated and the additional findings submitted as supplementary information to the Asbestos Investigation Report.

6.11.4 Samples should be analysed for the presence and type of asbestos according to testing procedures at a HOKLAS-accredited laboratory. If the findings of the investigation indicate ACM materials present on the premises an Asbestos Abatement Plan must be prepared prior to commencement of demolition works.

Dioxin Contaminated Materials (DCM) / Heavy Metal Contaminated Materials (HMCM) / Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminated Materials (PAHCM) from Demolition of the Existing Crematorium

6.11.5 It is not currently possible to conduct inspection and sampling within the cremators, chimney and flues to assess the levels of contamination due to the operation of the crematorium. It is therefore recommended that samples should be collected from the potential areas of contamination for testing of dioxin, heavy metal and PAH after decommissioning and prior to the demolition of the existing crematorium.

6.12 Conclusion

6.12.1 This assessment has considered the waste management implications of the demolition of existing crematorium as well as the construction and operation of new crematorium. The potential environmental impacts arising from the handling and disposal of various types of waste materials have also been identified.

6.12.2 With effective implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, it is anticipated that the associated impacts on the environment and the potential impacts on the capacity of waste collection, transfer and disposal facilities will be insignificant.[8] [9]

Figure 6-1 Waste Management Hierarchy and Categorisation of Solid Waste in Hong Kong

7 Landscape and Visual Impact assessment

7.1 Introduction

Study Aim

7.1.1 This Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) assesses the potential landscape and visual impacts that might occur as a result of this Project.

7.1.2 The LVIA is necessitated due to the expected landscape and visual impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the proposed crematorium. Therefore, the impact assessment considers both phases. Since there are sensitive receivers that will be affected, this Section also describes mitigation measures that would lessen the magnitude of impacts.

7.1.3 The aim of this LVIA is to identify and describe the expected landscape and visual impacts that might occur as a result of the construction and operation of the Project and to define the significance and magnitude of these impacts before and after mitigation.

Study Area

7.1.4 Figure 7-1 illustrates the location of the proposed cremators at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium.

7.1.5 Landscape Impact Assessment (LIA): In accordance with the Study Brief and EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002, the landscape impact assessment includes all areas that are within 500m from the Project. This extent is illustrated in Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3 (see LIA Study Boundary).

7.1.6 Visual Impact Assessment (VIA): The Study Area of the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) includes all terrestrial and aquatic areas within the visual envelope from the Project. The visual envelope is defined as the visual zone of influence according to the EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002. This extent is illustrated in Figure 7-4.

Purpose of this LVIA

7.1.7 The purpose of this LVIA is to:

§ Define the existing landscape and visual quality in the LVIA Study Area;

§ Evaluate the landscape and visual impacts associated with the Project;

§ Propose mitigation measure; and

§ Establish if the levels of impacts resulting from the development are higher, lower or the same as the existing conditions.

7.1.8 To achieve this purpose, the following goals are set out for this LVIA as illustrated in the approved Method Statement.

§ Carry out landscape and visual baseline studies and to describe the existing and future conditions;

§ Identify and describe the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development for both the construction and operation phases;

§ Define the significance and magnitude of these impacts;

§ Propose mitigation measures by taking local conditions and experience in consideration and to describe the maintenance and management of these mitigation measures; and

§ Illustrate the residual impacts after mitigation.

7.2 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines

7.2.1 The methodology for undertaking the landscape and visual impact assessment is in accordance with Annexes 10 and 18 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process, the EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002 and the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-140/2006. Legislation, standards and guidelines applicable to this assessment are as follows:

§ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499, Section 16);

§ Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process – Annexes 10 and 18;

§ EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002 – Preparation of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment;

§ Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines;

§ Outline Zoning Plans No. S/FSS/14;

§ ETWB TCW No. 3/2006 – Tree Preservation;

§ ETWB TCW No. 2/2004 – Maintenance of Vegetation and Hard Landscape Features; and

§ WBTC No. 7/2002 - Tree Planting in Public Works; and

§ ETWB TCW No. 11/2004 – Cyber Manual for Greening – Procedures, Requirements and Specifications for Preservation of Existing Trees/ Old and Valuable Trees

7.3 Assessment Methodology

7.3.1 According to the EIAO-TM (Annex 10), the Study Brief and the approved Method Statement, two main elements were implemented when conducting the visual impact assessment for the Project. They include:

§ Desktop Survey; and

§ Field Survey.

7.4 Review of Planning and Development Control Framework

7.4.1 A review of the existing and future development framework that encompasses or will be influenced by the Project has been undertaken and the results of this review are described below. The aims of this review are to:

§ Gain insight into the planned functions of the study area and its context;

§ Identify any issue of conflict with the neighbouring planned land uses;

§ Describe how the Project fits in the planning and development context; and

§ Determine future sensitive receivers (SRs).

7.4.2 The Outline Zoning Plans (OZP) of Approved Fanling and Sheung Shui (OZP No. S/FSS/14) illustrates the development intensions of nearby areas. The Project site is surrounded by greenbelts (GB) particularly in the North. The green belts and topography act as a barrier and screens off most of the visual impacts that might arise from the Project.

7.4.3 There will be one concurrent project, under preliminary planning, to be constructed and operated in the vicinity of the Study Area of the Project. A columbarium at Kiu Tau Road is planned to be constructed with commencement of works in 2010 and completion in 2012. Details of the concurrent project are provided in Section 2.

7.5 Landscape Baseline Conditions

7.5.1 This section describes the landscape baseline conditions of all areas that are within the Study Area. Descriptions are on the properties of the landscape resources and character areas.

7.5.2 Most of the study area is covered by woodland and scrubland/grassland. A small portion of the area at the North of the site is developed area. The landscape character of the study area is characterised by the hillside covered with dense vegetation. These are illustrated in Figure 7-2 and 7-3.

Landscape Resources (LR)

LR 1 – Scrubland and Grassland

7.5.3 Scrubland and grassland covers are recorded within the Study area. These are typically characterised by tall grasses, shrubs and small trees. Species include: Bridelia tomentosa, Lantana camera, Litsea rotundifolia var. oblongifolia and Alocasia odora. Table 7-1 shows the sensitivity to potential change of LR1. The sensitivity of them is medium. Typical photo of this LR refer to Photo 1of Annex 7-a.

Sensitivity of LR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Quality of landscape resource	Medium
Importance and rarity	Medium
Ability to accommodate change	Medium
Local significance of potential change	Medium
Regional significance of potential change	Medium
Maturity	Medium
Area	2.5ha
Sensitivity Rating	Medium

Table 7-1 LR 1: Sensitivity to Potential Change

LR 2 – Woodland

7.5.4 Trees within the LIA Study Area are generally comprised of a mixed of native and introduced tree species. Most of the trees within the site boundary are common trees except Aquilaria sinensis (土沉香) which is protected as Category II in Mainland China. Other species include: Ficus hispida, Schefflera heptaphylla, Acacia confusa and Eucalyptus citriodora. Table 7-2 shows the sensitivity to potential change of LR2. The sensitivity of them is medium. Typical photo of this LR refer to Photo 2 of Annex 7-a.

7.5.5 The individual tree survey has recorded a total number of 240 trees within the tree survey boundary as in the Tree Survey Report Please refers to Annex 7-b for details.

Sensitivity of LR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Quality of landscape resource	High
Importance and rarity	Medium
Ability to accommodate change	Medium
Local significance of potential change	High
Regional significance of potential change	Medium
Maturity	Medium
Area of woodland	68ha
Individual trees within tree survey boundary	240
Sensitivity Rating	Medium

Table 7-2 LR 2: Sensitivity to Potential Change

LR 3 – Urban / Developed Area

7.5.6 The Urban / Developed area composes the residential buildings in Wah Ming Estate, Wah Sum Estate, Wah Sum Estate etc. These are very typical development in this part of Hong Kong. Table 7-3 shows the sensitivity to potential change of LR3. The sensitivity of them is medium. Typical photo of this LR refer to Photo 3 of Annex 7-a.

Sensitivity of LR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Quality of landscape resource	Medium
Importance and rarity	Low
Ability to accommodate change	High
Local significance of potential change	Low
Regional significance of potential change	Low
Area	24ha
Sensitivity Rating	Medium

Table 7-3 LR 3: Sensitivity to Potential Change

LR 4 – Stream

7.5.7 Two streams have been identified in the Study Area. Table 7-4 shows the sensitivity to potential change of LR4. The sensitivity of them is medium. Typical photo of this LR refer to Photo 4 of Annex 7-a.

Sensitivity of LR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Quality of landscape resource	Medium
Importance and rarity	Medium
Ability to accommodate change	Low
Local significance of potential change	Medium
Regional significance of potential change	Low
Maturity	Low
Running length of the two streams	Approximate 259m
Sensitivity Rating	Medium

Table 7-4 LR 4: Sensitivity to Potential Change

Landscape Character Areas (LCA)

LCA 1 – Urban / Developed Area

7.5.8 Urban / Developed area composes the residential buildings in Wah Ming Estate, Wah Sum Estate, Wah Sum Estate, etc. This quality of the area is medium and has high ability to accommodate change. The rating of this LCA’s sensitivity to change and ratings of sensitivity parameters are recorded in Table 7-5 below. Typical photo of this LCA refer to Photo 1 of Annex 7-c.

Sensitivity of LCA at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Quality of landscape character	Medium
Quality of landscape resources	Medium
Importance and rarity	Low
Ability to accommodate change	High
Local significance of potential change	Low
Regional significance of potential change	Low
Area	24ha
Sensitivity Rating	Medium

Table 7-5 LCA 1: Sensitivity to Potential Change

LCA 2 – Hillside

7.5.9 Approximate 80% of the Study Area falls into this character. This character comprises of woodland, scrubland, grassland and scattered graveyard in-between. Table 7-6 shows the sensitivity to potential change of LCA2. Typical photo of this LCA refer to Photo 2 of Annex 7-c.

Sensitivity of LCA at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Quality of landscape character	Medium
Quality of landscape resources	Medium
Importance and rarity	Low
Ability to accommodate change	Medium
Local significance of potential change	Medium
Regional significance of potential change	Low
Maturity of Landscape	Medium
Area	70.5ha
Sensitivity Rating	Medium

Table 7-6 LCA 2: Sensitivity to Potential Change

7.6 Landscape Impact Assessment

Impacts on Landscape Resources

7.6.1 The largest impact on landscape resources will occur during the construction phase, when large areas of land will be cleared for site formation works. These impacts are described in Table 7-7, below:

Impacts on Landscape Character Areas

7.6.2 The impacts on landscape character areas are summarized in Table 7-8, below:

LR Ref.	LR Notation	Sensitivity to Change	Impact Description#		Source of Impact		Magnitude of Change		Significance Threshold
LR1	Scrubland and grassland	Medium	Construction:		Construction:		Construction:		Construction:
			I	§ Loss of vegetation: 0.28ha § Baseline vegetation is 2.5 ha	I	§ Site formation works; and § Clearance of vegetation.	I	Intermediate	I	Moderate adverse
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
			Operation:		Operation:		Operation:		Operation:
			I	§ Loss of vegetation	I	§ New cremators and ancillary facilities	I	Intermediate	I	Moderate adverse
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
LR 2	Woodland	Medium	Construction:		Construction:		Construction:		Construction:
			I	§ Loss of trees: 126 no. within the tree survey boundary (felled and transplanted trees). § Baseline tree numbers are in the order of 230 no. within the tree survey boundary.	I	§ Site formation works; and § Clearance of vegetation.	I	Intermediate	I	Moderate adverse
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
			Operation:		Operation:		Operation:		Operation
			I	§ Loss of trees	I	§ New Cremators and ancillary facilities	I	Intermediate	I	Moderate adverse
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
LR 3	Developed Area	Medium	Construction:		Construction:		Construction:		Construction:
			I	§ Demolition of existing coffin crematorium building, transformer room and cremator; § Construction of coffin cremators; § Construction of ancillary facilities.	I	§ Demolition of buildings; § Vegetation clearance; Site formation works; and § Construction of new cremators and ancillary facilities.	I	Small	I	Slight/ moderate adverse
			II	§ Demolition of existing skeletal cremator building.	II	§ Demolition of buildings;	II	Small	II	Slight/ moderate adverse
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
			Operation:		Operation:		Operation:		Operation:
			I	§ New cremators and ancillary facilities.	I	§ New cremators and ancillary facilities.	I	Small	I	*Slight/ moderate beneficial
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	*Slight/ moderate beneficial
			2. 4.3 F	§ Nil.	2. 4.4 F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
LR 4	Stream	Medium	Construction:		Construction:		Construction:		Construction:
			I	§ No direct impact is expected as no works will be carried out within the stream. Silting from water runoff during construction phase may however occur.	I	§ Demolition of buildings; § Site formation works; and § Construction of new cremators and ancillary facilities.	I	Small	I	Slight/ moderate adverse
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
			Operation:		Operation:		Operation:		Operation:
			I	§ Nil.	I	§ Nil.	I	Negligible	I	Negligible
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible

#Notes: “I” refers to Phase I construction

“II” refers to Phase II construction

“F” refers to Future Expansion Phase construction

*Notes: The new facilities will have an improved aesthetic outlook/ landscape area compared within the existing one to be demolished.

Table 7-7 Impacts on Landscape Resources before Mitigation

LCA Ref.	LR Notation	Sensitivity to Change	Impact Description#		Source of Impact		Magnitude of Change		Significance Threshold
LCA 1	Urbanized Area	Medium	Construction:		Construction:		Construction:		Construction:
			I	§ Demolition of existing coffin crematorium building, transformer room and cremator; § Construction of coffin cremators; § Construction of ancillary facilities.	I	§ Demolition of buildings; § Vegetation clearance; § Site formation works; and § Construction of new cremators and ancillary facilities.	I	Small	I	Slight moderate adverse
			II	§ Demolition of existing skeletal cremator building.	II	§ Demolition of buildings;	II	Small	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Small	F	Negligible
			Operation:		Operation:		Operation:		Operation:
			I	§ New cremators and ancillary facilities	I	§ New cremators and ancillary facilities	I	Small	I	* Slight moderate beneficial
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	* Slight moderate beneficial
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
LCA 2	Hillside	Medium	Construction:		Construction:		Construction:		Construction:
			I	§ Loss of vegetation: 0.28ha. § Existing LCA size is 70.5 ha.	I	§ Demolition of buildings; § Vegetation clearance; § Site formation works; and § Construction of new cremators and ancillary facilities.	I	Intermediate	I	Moderate adverse
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible
			Operation:		Operation:		Operation:		Operation:
			I	§ Loss of vegetation:	I	§ New cremators and ancillary facilities	I	Intermediate	I	Moderate adverse
			II	§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible	II	Negligible
			F	§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible	F	Negligible

#Notes: “I” refers to Phase I construction

“II” refers to Phase II construction

“F” refers to Future Expansion Phase construction

*Notes: The new facilities will have an improved aesthetic outlook/ landscaping area compared within the existing one to be demolished.

Table 7-8 Impacts on Landscape Character Areas before Mitigation

7.7 Visual Baseline Conditions

Introduction

7.7.1 This section describes the visual baseline conditions of all visually sensitive receiver (VSR) groups within and outside the visual envelope. Descriptions are on the visual properties enjoyed by these VSRs.

7.7.2 Figure 7-4 illustrates the site boundaries, the visual envelope and the location of VSRs.

Visual Baseline Conditions

VSR 1 – Wah Ming Estate

7.7.3 This VSR group consists of high-rise residential buildings located at the Northwest edge of the LVIA boundary.

7.7.4 Table 7-9 shows the sensitivity to potential change of VSR1. Most of the visual impact from the Project will be screened by the small hill located between the VSR and the Project site. Therefore, sensitivity rating of this VSR is considered to be low. Minimum distance from the VSR to the Project is 350m. For a typical photo of this VSR refer to Photo 1 of Annex 7-d.

Sensitivity of VSR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Value of existing views	Medium
Quality of existing views	Medium
Availability of alternative views	High
Amenity of alternative views	Medium
Number of VSRs in group	High
Duration of views to new Project	Medium
Frequency of views to new Project	Low
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity Rating	Low

Table 7-9 VSR 1: Sensitivity to Potential Change

VSR 2 – Wah Sum Estate

7.7.5 Table 7-10 shows the sensitivity to potential change of VSR2. This VSR group represents high-rise residential buildings located Northwest of the Project. Similar to VSR1, most of the visual impact from the Project will be screened by the small hill located between it and the proposed cremators. The sensitivity rating of this VSR is considered to be low. Minimum distance from the VSR to the Project is 450m. For a typical photo of this VSR refer to Photo 2 of Annex 7-d.

Sensitivity of VSR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Value of existing views	Medium
Quality of existing views	Medium
Availability of alternative views	High
Amenity of alternative views	Medium
Number of VSRs in group	High
Duration of views to new Project	Medium
Frequency of views to new Project	Low
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity Rating	Low

Table 7-10 VSR 2: Sensitivity to Potential Change

VSR 3 – Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen

7.7.6 Table 7-11 shows the sensitivity to potential change of VSR3. This VSR group represent low density village locating at the Northeast of the Project. Most of the visual impact from the Project will be screened by the small hill located between it and the proposed cremators. The visual impact to this VSR is considered to be low. Minimum distance from the VSR to the Project is 300m. For a typical photo of this VSR refer to Photo 3 of Annex 7-d.

Sensitivity of VSR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Value of existing views	Medium
Quality of existing views	Medium
Availability of alternative views	High
Amenity of alternative views	Medium
Number of VSRs in group	Medium
Duration of views to new Project	Medium
Frequency of views to new Project	Low
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity Rating	Low

Table 7-11 VSR 3: Sensitivity to Potential Change

VSR 4 – Ming Yin Road

7.7.7 Table 7-12 shows the sensitivity to potential change of VSR4. From its location directly North of the proposed cremators, VSRs receive visual impact from both the construction and operation of the proposed cremators. Since the minimal distance between the VSR and the proposed cremators is less than 40 meters, visual impact to this VSR is considered high. However, the average number of receivers (visitors) is quite low. Minimum distance from the VSR to the Project is 50m. For a typical photo of this VSR refer to Photo 4 of Annex 7-d.

Sensitivity of VSR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Value of existing views	Medium
Quality of existing views	Medium
Availability of alternative views	Low
Amenity of alternative views	Medium
Number of VSRs in group	Low
Duration of views to new Project	Short
Frequency of views to new Project	Low
Degree of visibility	High
Sensitivity Rating	Medium

Table 7-12 VSR 4: Sensitivity to Potential Change

VSR 5 – Kiu Tau Road

7.7.8 Table 7-13 shows the sensitivity to potential change of VSR5. This VSR group represents users of the Kiu Tau Road. Pedestrian and drivers using the road will receive the impact from the Project. Similar to VSR4, the number of VSRs in this group is quite low in average. Minimum distance from the VSR to the Project is 50m. For a typical photo of this VSR refer to Photo 5of Annex 7-d.

Sensitivity of VSR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Value of existing views	Medium
Quality of existing views	Medium
Availability of alternative views	Low
Amenity of alternative views	Medium
Number of VSRs in group	Low
Duration of views to new Project	Short
Frequency of views to new Project	Low
Degree of visibility	High
Sensitivity Rating	Medium

Table 7-13 VSR 5: Sensitivity to Potential Change

VSR 6 – Sitting Out Area

7.7.9 Table 7-14 shows the sensitivity to potential change of VSR6. This VSR locates at a highpoint and part of the proposed cremator can be seen from this VSR. Minimum distance from the VSR to the Project is 150m. For a typical photo of this VSR refer to Photo 6 of Annex 7-d.

Sensitivity of VSR at Baseline Conditions
Sensitivity Parameter	Rating
Value of existing views	Medium
Quality of existing views	Medium
Availability of alternative views	High
Amenity of alternative views	High
Number of VSRs in group	Low
Duration of views to new Project	Medium
Frequency of views to new Project	Medium
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity Rating	Low

Table 7-14 VSR 6: Sensitivity to Potential Change

7.8 Visual Impact Assessment

Impacts on VSRs

7.8.1 Table 7-15, below, describes the impact of the proposed Project on the visually sensitive receivers.

VSR Ref	VSR Notation	Sensitivity Rating	Impact Description#			Source of Impact		Magnitude of Change			Significance Threshold
VSR 1	Wah Ming Estate	Low	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:			Construction:
			I	§ Visual impact will be screened by natural topography.		I	§ Nil.	I	Negligible		I		Negligible
			II	§ Nil.		II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible		II		Negligible
			F	§ Nil.		F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible		F		Negligible
			Operation:			Operation:		Operation:			Operation:
			I	§ Visual impact will be screened by natural topography.		II	§ Nil.	I	Negligible		I		Negligible
			II	§ Nil.		II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible		II		Negligible
			F	§ Nil.		F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible		F		Negligible
VSR 2	Wah Sum Estate	Low	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:			Construction:
			I		§ Visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	I	§ Nil.	I	Negligible		I	Negligible
			II		§ Nil.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible		II	Negligible
			F		§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible		F	Negligible
			Operation:			Operation:		Operation:			Operation:
			I	§ Visual impact will be screened by natural topography.		I	§ Nil.	I		Negligible	I		Negligible
			II	§ Nil.		II	§ Nil.	II		Negligible	II		Negligible
			F	§ Nil.		F	§ Nil.	F		Negligible	F		Negligible
VSR 3	Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen	Low	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:			Construction:
			I		§ Nil. As the visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	I	§ Nil.	I		Negligible	I		Negligible
			II		§ Nil. As the visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	II	§ Nil.	II		Negligible	II		Negligible
			F		§ Nil. As the visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	F	§ Nil.	F		Negligible	F		Negligible
			Operation:			Operation:		Operation:			Operation:
			I		§ Nil. As the visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	I	§ Nil.	I	Negligible		I	Negligible
			II		§ Nil. As the visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	II	§ Nil.	II	Negligible		II	Negligible
			F		§ Nil. As the visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	F	§ Nil.	F	Negligible		F	Negligible
VSR 4	Ming Yin Road	Medium	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:			Construction:
			I	§ Change of view quality and character by demolition and site formation works that will be carried within less than 50m from viewpoint.		I	§ Demolition of buildings; § Vegetation clearance; § Movement of construction vehicles; § Site formation works; and § Construction of new cremators and ancillary facilities.	I		Large	I	Moderate/ significant adverse
			II	§ Change of view quality and character by demolition works that will be carried within less than 100m from viewpoint.		II	§ Demolition of buildings;	II		Large	II	Moderate/ significant adverse
			F	§ Nil.		F	§ Nil	F		Negligible	F	Negligible
			Operation:			Operation:		Operation:			Operation:
			I		§ Change of visual character from the existing crematorium to the new crematorium.	I	§ New cremators and ancillary facilities.	I		Intermediate	I	*Moderate beneficial
			II		§ Change of visual character by removal of skeletal cremator building and implementation of landscape works	II	§ New landscape area	II		Intermediate	II	*Moderate beneficial
			F		§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F		Negligible	F	Negligible
VSR5	Kiu Tau Road	Medium	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:			Construction:
			I		§ Change of view quality and character by demolition and site formation works that will be carried within less than 50m from viewpoint	I	§ Demolition of buildings; § Vegetation clearance; § Movement of construction vehicles; § Site formation works; and § Construction of new cremators and ancillary facilities.	I	Large		I	Moderate/ significant adverse
			II		§ Change of view quality and character by demolition works that will be carried within less than 100m from viewpoint.	II	§ Demolition of buildings;	II	Large		II	Moderate/ significant adverse
			F		§ Nil.	F	§ Nil	F	Negligible		F	Negligible
			Operation:			Operation:		Operation:			Operation:
			I		§ Change of visual character from the existing crematorium to the new crematorium.	I	§ Demolition of buildings; § Vegetation clearance; § Movement of construction vehicles; § Site formation works; and § Construction of new cremators and ancillary facilities.	I		Large	I		*Moderate beneficial
			II		§ Change of visual character by removal of skeletal cremator building and implementation of landscape works	II	§ Demolition of buildings;	II		Large	II		*Moderate beneficial
			F		§ Nil.	F	§ Nil	F		Negligible	F		Negligible
VSR6	Sitting out Area	Low	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:			Construction:
			I		§ Change of view quality and character by site formation works that will be carried within less than 150m from viewpoints.	I	§ Demolition of buildings; § Vegetation clearance; § Site formation works; and § Construction of new cremators and ancillary facilities.	I		Small	I	Slight adverse
			II		§ Nil. As the visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	II	§ Demolition of buildings;	II		Negligible	II	Negligible
			F		§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F		Negligible	F	Negligible
			Operation:			Operation:		Operation:			Operation:
			I		§ Change of visual character from the existing crematorium to the new crematorium.	I	§ New cremators and ancillary facilities	I		Small	I			Small
			II		§ Nil. As the visual impact will be screened by natural topography.	II	§ Nil.	II		Negligible	II			Negligible
			F		§ Nil.	F	§ Nil.	F		Negligible	F			Negligible

#Notes: “I” refers to Phase I construction

“II” refers to Phase II construction

“F” refers to Future Expansion Phase construction

*Note: The new facilities will have an improved aesthetic outlook/landscape area compared within the existing one to be demolished.

Table 7-15 Impacts on Visually Sensitive Receivers before Mitigation

7.9 Recommended Landscape and Visual Impact Mitigation Measures

Introduction

7.9.1 In order to mitigate landscape and visual impacts, mitigation measures will be implemented. These can be categorised in the following groups:

§ Construction areas;

§ Tree planting;

§ Shrub and groundcover planting; and

§ Buildings: Chimneys, halls, cremation plant room and etc.

Mitigation Measures

7.9.2 Mitigation Measures for Construction (MC):

§ MC 1: Site offices and construction yards:

§ Site offices shall have olive green roof and façade coating or colour matches with existing environment; and

§ Site offices and the construction yard shall be decommissioned after construction.

§ MC 2: Height of site offices:

§ The height of site offices, including the rooftop shall not exceed 10m; and

§ Building services equipment such as antennas may exceed 10m and should be coated in black.

§ MC 3: Hoarding and screening:

§ Where practical the site offices areas, construction yards and storage areas shall be screened using colour in harmony with surrounding environment around the peripheries of the works area until the completion of relevant construction phases.

§ MC 4: Construction plant and building material:

§ Shall be orderly and carefully stored in order to appear neat and avoid visibility from outside where practical;

§ Excess materials shall be removed from site as soon as practical; and

§ All construction plants shall be removed from site upon completion of construction works.

§ MC 5: Construction light:

§ To be oriented away from the viewing location of VSRs; and

§ All lighting facing sensitive receiver shall have frosted diffusers and reflective covers.

§ MC 6: Construction effluent, site runoff and sewage should be properly collected and/or treated.

7.9.3 Mitigation Measures for Tree Preservation and Planting (MT):

§ MT 1: Compensation for losses:

The tree compensation to tree loss ratio shall be at least 1:1 in term of quantity. A total of about 100 trees will be planted to compensate for the loss of 54 trees. They will be planted on site and on other locations within the vicinity. For further details please refer to Figure 9-4 and Annex 9-f; and

§ MT 2: A total of 126 trees require removal, 54 of which will require felling 72 may be transplanted (please refer to the Tree Survey Report in Annex 7-b). Where practical, trees that require removal shall be transplanted on Site. Other tree transplant receptor locations are illustrated in Figure 9-4.

§ MT 3: Amenity planting:

§ Planting works shall be carried out under the supervision of a specialist landscape sub-contractor;

§ The rooftop of the cremation plant room shall be planted with lawn where appropriate;

§ Open spaces shall be included in the Project;

§ Screen planting such as planting a roll of trees along the site boundary butting Kiu Tau Road shall be carried out; and

§ New trees, shrubs and groundcover shall be carefully selected and designed to homogenize with the environment.

§ MT 4: Woodland mix planting:

§ Woodland mix, comprising of tree seedlings and shrubs, shall be planted within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery to enhance the ecological value and compensatory of tree loss.

§ MT 5: Preservation:

§ No tree shall be transplanted or felled without prior approval by relevant Government departments;

§ All trees that are marked for retention shall be fenced off with a 1.2m high fence around the dripline of trees or larger area as far as feasible;

§ Transplant preparation works shall be carried as soon as possible after commencement of construction. Over-pruning such as hard pruning of tree crown, pollarding or topping shall be avoided. Rootball and crown pruning shall be carried out over at least 3 months; and

§ Existing shrub and ground cover planting areas that will not be removed will be maintained in good condition and enhanced where practical. A preliminary concept plan for the main site is proposed by the project proponent. It is included in the report as Figure 7-10. It illustrates the proposed mitigation measures for tree preservation and amenity planting.

7.9.4 Mitigation Measures for Crematorium building (MB):

§ MB 1: The 10m height headroom cremation plant room shall be half sunken to reduce the visual impact to pedestrians.

§ MB 2: The chimneys shall be designed to have sculptural outlook and articulated. The scale of the chimneys shall also be in proportion with the rest of the building. The chimneys shall be setback from the public road, which will reduce the scale of the chimneys as compared to the main building when viewed from the public road. Justification on the chimney height and bulk is provided as follows:

§ A minimum of 9 numbers of independent steel chimneys are required for the 9 separate cremators. These would be housed inside two chimney shafts, which also form the structures of the tall chimneys.

§ Options of using a one, three or more chimney shafts have been considered. A single chimney shaft housing all nine steel chimneys would be very bulky and so is not adopted. Three chimney shafts would look like joss sticks and would not be acceptable under Chinese Tradition - complaints would likely be received from the general public, and so is not adopted. Four or more chimney shafts would create a wall effect and would adversely affect the surrounding natural environment. The option of two chimney shafts is therefore adopted.

§ Although lower chimneys will have less visual impact to the sensitive receivers, they will at the same time produce air pollution impact to the air sensitive receivers in the vicinity, which is considered to be the prime environmental consideration of the Project. To strike a balance between the visual and emission impacts, the heights of approx. 32m and 27m are proposed for the two chimney shafts.

§ The slight difference in height of the two shafts is proposed to reduce the visual impact and to make the chimneys look less ”industrial”. The lower portion of the chimneys are also designed to be embedded inside the building podium and reducing their visual heights.

§ The independent steel chimneys are already closely packed inside the shafts to minimize the shaft dimension. Minimum maintenance platforms are squeezed into the shaft to achieve the smallest shaft dimensions.

§ MB 3: The chimney stacks shall be designed to locate at the least conspicuous location of the site to VSRs.

7.10 Residual Landscape Impacts

7.10.1 This section describes the landscape impacts that will remain after the implementation of mitigation measures.

Residual Landscape Resource Impacts

7.10.2 Table 7-16 below describes the residual impacts on landscape resources and Figure 7-5 illustrates the impacts on landscape resources before and after mitigation.

LR Ref.	LR Notation	Impact Before Mitigation#				Proposed Mitigation Measures		Impact After Mitigation
LR 1	Scrubland and grassland	Construction:				Construction:		Construction:
		I		Moderate adverse		I	MT3 MT4	I	Slight /Moderate adverse
		II		Negligible		II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:				Operation:		Operation:
		I		Moderate adverse		I	MT3	I	Slight /Moderate adverse
		II		Negligible		II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
LR 2	Woodland	Construction:				Construction:		Construction:
		I		Moderate adverse		I	MT1 to MT5	I	Slight /Moderate adverse
		II		Negligible		II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:				Operation:		Operation:
		I		Moderate adverse		I	MT3 MT4	I	Slight /Moderate adverse
		II		Negligible		II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
LR 3	Urban / Developed Area	Construction:				Construction:		Construction:
		I			Slight moderate adverse	I	MC1 to MC5 within site boundary	I	Slight /Moderate adverse
		II			Slight /Moderate adverse	II	MC1 to MC5 within site boundary	II	Slight /Moderate adverse
		F			Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:				Operation:		Operation:
		I			* Slight/ Moderate beneficial	I	Nil.	I	* Slight /Moderate beneficial
		II			* Slight /Moderate beneficial	II	Nil.	II	* Slight/ Moderate beneficial
		F			Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
LR 4	Stream	Construction:				Construction:		Construction:
		I		Slight/ Moderate adverse		I	MC6	I	Slight adverse
		II		Negligible		II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:				Operation:		Operation:
		I	Negligible			I	Nil.	I	Negligible
		II	Negligible			II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F	Negligible			F	Nil.	F	Negligible

*Notes: The new facilities will have an improved aesthetic outlook compared within the existing one to be demolished

Table 7-16 Residual Impacts on Landscape Resources

Residual Landscape Character Area Impacts

7.10.3 Table 7-17 below describes the residual impacts on landscape character areas. Figure 7-6 illustrates the impacts on landscape character area before and after mitigation.

LCA Ref.	LR Notation	Impact Before Mitigation#		Proposed Mitigation Measures		Impact After Mitigation
LCA 1	Urban / Developed area	Construction:		Construction:		Construction:
		I	Slight/ Moderate adverse	I	MC1-MC6	I	Slight adverse
		II	Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F	Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:		Operation:		Operation:
		I	* Slight/ Moderate beneficial	I	Nil.	I	* Slight/ Moderate beneficial
		II	* Slight moderate beneficial	II	Nil.	II	* Slight Moderate beneficial
		F	Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
LCA 2	Hillside	Construction:		Construction:		Construction:
		I	Moderate adverse	I	MC1-MC5	I	Slight/ Moderate adverse
		II	Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F	Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:		Operation:		Operation:
		I	Moderate adverse	I	MT3 MT4	I	Slight/ Moderate adverse
		II	Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F	Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible

#Notes: “I” refers to Phase I construction

“II” refers to Phase II construction

“F” refers to Future Expansion Phase construction

*Notes: The new facilities will have an improved aesthetic outlook compared within the existing one to be demolished.

Table 7-17 Residual Impacts on Landscape Character Areas

7.11 Residual Visual Impacts

7.11.1 This section describes the visual impacts that will remain after the implementation of mitigation measures.

Residual Visual Impacts

7.11.2 Table 7-18 below describes the residual impacts on Visual Sensitive Receivers and Figure 7-7 illustrate the impacts on visual sensitive receivers before and after mitigation. Figure 7-8 and 7-9 are the photomontages illustrating the visual impact before and after mitigation measures for a distant VSR at VSR2, and a close VSR at VSR5. Cumulative impacts from any concurrent project have been incorporated into the photomontages.

VSR Ref.	LR Notation	Impact Before Mitigation#			Proposed Mitigation Measures		Impact After Mitigation
VSR 1	Wah Ming Estate	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:
		I		Negligible	I	Nil.	I	Negligible
		II		Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:			Operation:		Operation:
		I		Negligible	I	Nil.	I	Negligible
		II		Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
VSR 2	Wah Sum Estate	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:
		I		Negligible	I	Nil.	I	Negligible
		II		Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:			Operation:		Operation:
		I		Negligible	I	Nil.	I	Negligible
		II		Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
VSR 3	Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:
		I		Negligible	I	Nil.	I	Negligible
		II		Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:			Operation:		Operation:
		I	Negligible		I	Nil.	I	Negligible
		II	Negligible		II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F	Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
VSR 4	Ming Yin Road	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:
		I	Moderate/ Significant adverse		I	MC1-MC5	I	Moderate adverse
		II	Moderate/ Significant adverse		II	MC1-MC5	II	Moderate adverse
		F	Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:			Operation:		Operation:
		I	*Moderate beneficial		I	MB1 MB2 MB3	I	*Moderate beneficial
		II	*Moderate beneficial		II	Nil.	II	*Moderate beneficial
		F	Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
VSR 5	Kiu Tau Road	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:
		I	Moderate/ Significant adverse		I	MC1-MC5	I	Moderate adverse
		II	Moderate/ Significant adverse		II	MC1-MC5	II	Moderate adverse
		F	Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:			Operation:		Operation:
		I	*Moderate beneficial		I	MB1 MB2 MB3	I	*Moderate beneficial
		II	*Moderate beneficial		II	Nil.	II	*Moderate beneficial
		F	Negligible		F	Nil.	F	Negligible
VSR 6	Sitting out area	Construction:			Construction:		Construction:
		I		Slight adverse	I	MC1-MC5	I	Negligible
		II		Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible
		Operation:			Operation:		Operation:
		I		Slight adverse	I	MB1 MB2	I	Negligible
		II		Negligible	II	Nil.	II	Negligible
		F		Negligible	F	Nil.	F	Negligible

#Notes: “I” refers to Phase I construction

“II” refers to Phase II construction

“F” refers to Future Expansion Phase construction

*Note: The new facilities will have an improved aesthetic outlook compared within the existing one to be demolished.

Table 7-18 Residual Impact on Visual Sensitive Receivers

Environmental Monitoring and Audit

7.11.3 Table 7-19 below is the Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule which briefly summarises the mitigation measures for landscape and visual impact while details of the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) program will be illustrated in Section 11 and the EM&A Manual.

EIA Ref#	Environmental Protection Measures	Location / Timing	Implementation Agent	Implementation Stage*			Relevant Legislation & Guidelines
				D	C	O
S.7.9.2 MC 1	Site offices and construction yards: § Site offices shall have olive green roof and façade coating or colour matches with existing environment; and § Site offices and the construction yard shall be decommissioned after construction.	All site offices / Design and construction phases	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö
S.7.9.2 MC 2	Height of site offices: § The height of site offices, including the rooftop shall not exceed 10m; and § Building services equipment such as antennas may exceed 10 m and shall be coated in black.	All site offices / Design and construction phases	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö
S.7.9.2 MC 3	Hoarding and screening: § Where practical the site offices areas, construction yards and storage areas shall be screened using colour in harmony with the surrounding environment around the peripheries of the works area until the completion of relevant construction phases.	All site offices and construction yard areas / Design and construction phases	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö
S.7.9.2 MC 4	Construction plant and building material: § Shall be orderly and carefully stored in order to appear neat and avoid visibility from outside where practical; § Excess materials shall be removed from site as soon as practical; and § All construction plants shall be removed from site upon completion of construction works.	Works site / Design and construction phases	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö
S.7.9.2 MC 5	Construction light: § To be oriented away from the viewing location of VSRs; and § All lighting facing sensitive receiver shall have frosted diffusers and reflective covers.	All construction lights / Design and construction phases	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö
S.7.9.2 MC 6	Silting trap § Silting traps shall be installed to minimize silting to streams.	Streams / Construction phase	ArchSD’s Contractor		Ö
S.7.9.3 MT 1	Compensation for losses: § The tree compensation to tree loss ratio shall be at least 1:1 in term of quantity. § About 147 will be planted to compensate for the loss of 75 trees. 100 trees will be planted on site and others, in locations within the vicinity approved by the Architect.	Within the Wo Hop Shek Crematorium	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö		ETWB TCW No. 2/2004 ETWB TCW No. 3/2006
S.7.9.3 MT 2	§ Where practical, trees that require removal shall be transplanted on Site. If not practical, these trees will be transplanted in locations within the vicinity as approved by the Architect.	Work site / Design and construction phases	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö		ETWB TCW No. 2/2004 ETWB TCW No. 3/2006
S.7.9.3 MT 3	Amenity planting: § Planting works shall be carried out under the supervision of a specialist landscape sub-contractor; § The rooftop of the cremation plant room shall be planted with lawn where appropriate; § Open spaces shall be included in the Project; § Screen planting such as planting a roll of trees along the site boundary butting Kiu Tau Road shall be carried out; and § New trees, shrubs and groundcover shall be carefully selected and designed to homogenize with the environment.	As shown on mitigation measure plans / All phases	ArchSD’s & FEHD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö	Ö	ETWB 2/2004
S.7.9.3 MT 4	Woodland mix planting: § Woodland mix, comprising of tree seedlings and shrubs, shall be planted within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery to enhance the ecological value and compensatory of tree loss.	Within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery / All phases	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö		ETWB TCW No. 2/2004 ETWB TCW No. 3/2006
S.7.9.3 MT 5	Preservation: § No tree shall be transplanted or felled without prior approval by relevant Government departments; § All trees that are marked for retention shall be fenced off with a 1.2m high fence around the dripline of trees or larger area as far as feasible; § Transplant preparation works shall be carried as soon as possible after commencement of construction. Over-pruning such as hard pruning of tree crown, pollarding or topping shall be avoided. Rootball and crown pruning shall be carried out over at least 3 months; and § Existing shrub and ground cover planting areas that will not be removed shall be maintained in good condition and enhanced where practical.	Work site / All phases	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö		ETWB TCW No. 2/2004 ETWB TCW No. 3/2006
S.7.9.4 MB 1	§ The 10m height headroom cremation plant room shall be half sunken to reduce the visual impact to pedestrians.	Cremation plant room / Design phase	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö
S.7.9.4 MB 2	§ The chimney shall be designed to have sculptural outlook and articulated. It shall also be kept in proportion with the rest of the building.	Chimney / Design phase	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö
S.7.9.4 MB 3	§ The chimney stacks shall be designed to locate at the least conspicuous location of the site to VSRs.	Chimney / Design phase	ArchSD’s Contractor	Ö	Ö

Table 7-19 Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule

7.12 Provisional Programme of Landscape Works

7.12.1 The construction for Phase I will commence in the second quarter of 2008 and is scheduled for completion in fourth quarter of 2010. Phase II will commence in late 2010 and will be completed in the second quarter of 2011. Details of Project Description refer to Section 2 of the EIA report.

7.12.2 Tree felling and transplantation works will commence in 2008.

7.12.3 Tree planting works and other planting works will commence in third quarter of 2010.

7.13 Funding, Implementation, Management and Maintenance of Landscape Works

7.13.1 The Project is funded by FEHD and ArchSD acts as the works agent for FEHD. ArchSD will employ a main contractor to carry out the construction works together with its specialist domestic and nominated sub-contractors. The maintenance of landscape works will be by FEHD.

7.14 Summary and Conclusions

7.14.1 The overall impact of the Project on the landscape and visual environments is acceptable provided mitigation measures are implemented properly.

7.14.2 The impact on landscape resources after mitigation is in general acceptable. Impacts on landscape resources are mainly due to the removal of trees. Amenity planting, woodland mix planting and tree compensation will mitigate the impact to an acceptable level.

7.14.3 The landscape character will be benefited by the better aesthetic outlook of the proposed crematorium.

7.14.4 Since the majority of visual impact will be screened by natural topography, the most adverse visual impact will be to occasional visitors of the cemetery during the construction phase. However, the impact will be moderate adverse after mitigation.

8 Water Quality Impact Assessment

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 This section provides an assessment for the potential water quality impact associated with the demolition of the existing skeletal and coffin cremators and the construction and operation of the new crematorium at Wo Hop Shek, in accordance with the Study Brief and Annexes 6 and 14 of the EIAO-TM.

8.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria

8.2.1 The following relevant legislation and associated guidance are applicable to the evaluation of water quality impacts associated with the construction and operation phases of the Project:

§ Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) (Cap. 358);

§ Technical Memorandum (TM) – Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters; and

§ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499 S. 16), Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM), Annexes 6 and 14.

8.2.2 The WPCO provides the major statutory framework for the protection and control of water quality in Hong Kong. According to the Ordinance and its subsidiary regulations, all Hong Kong waters are divided into ten main Water Control Zones (WCZ). Each WCZ has a designed set of statutory Water Quality Objectives (WQOs). For this Study, the waters of the Deep Bay WCZ are applicable.

8.2.3 All discharges during the construction phase are required to comply with the TM – Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters issued under Section 21 of the WPCO, which defines acceptable discharge limits to different types of receiving waters. Under the TM, effluents discharged into foul sewers, storm water drains, inland and coastal waters are subject to pollutant concentration standards for particular volumes of discharge. These are defined by EPD and specified in licence conditions for any new discharge within a WCZ.

8.2.4 Apart from the above statutory requirements, the Practice Note for Professional Persons, Construction Site Drainage (ProPECC PN 1/94), issued by EPD, also provides useful guidance on the management of construction site drainage and prevention of water pollution associated with construction activities.

8.3 Assessment Methodology

8.3.1 The evaluation criteria and guidelines presented in Annexes 6 and 14 of EIAO-TM were followed where applicable for the study.

8.3.2 Potential sources of water quality impact that may arise during construction and operation phases of the Project are described. All the identified sources of potential water quality impact are then be evaluated and their impact significance determined. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce any identified impact to acceptable level.

8.4 Baseline Condition

8.4.1 Two streams, S1 and S2, are located south to the Site (as shown in Figure 8-1). The two streams are collected by manmade culverts and an underground drain system. The lower end of the stream (S1) was also channelised and only a small quantity of water was observed flowing along S1. The stream (S2) was found to be dry during the survey and is likely to be ephemeral, with water flowing only during heavy rain. Except for these two streams, no major water bodies are found in or close to the Site and, in general, the project is solely land-based. No water quality monitoring data for these two streams are available.

8.5 Water Quality Sensitive Receivers

8.5.1 The only water bodies of concern are the two streams to the south of the Site (as shown in Figure 8-1). These water bodies may be affected during the construction phase of the Project, particularly during Phase I and are therefore considered to be water sensitive receivers (WSRs). However, since the two streams are ephemeral, the potential water quality impact likely to be induced during the construction phase of the Project is anticipated to be minimal. During the operation phase, all the sewage shall be diverted to sewer and therefore the receiving water body of the sewage treatment facility (i.e. Deep Bay) will be the WSR. Details of the time frame and construction works of different phases of the Project, (Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion), are illustrated in the project description in Section 2.

8.6 Impact Prediction and Evaluation

Construction Phase

8.6.1 Potential sources of water quality impacts associated with the construction phase of the Project include:

§ Demolition and construction runoff and drainage;

§ General demolition and construction activities;

§ Sewage generated from the on-site construction workers; and

§ Groundwater.

Construction Runoff and Drainage

8.6.2 The majority of the construction runoff associated with the construction phase of the Project is anticipated to arise from Phase I and Phase II, as the construction activities for Future Expansion Phase are anticipated to be small scale in nature and hence construction runoff generated will be minimal. Runoff and drainage from the Site may contain suspended solids and contaminants. Potential sources of water pollution from Site runoff comprise:

§ Runoff and erosion of exposed bare soil and earth, drainage channels and stockpiles;

§ Release of grouting and cement materials with rain wash;

§ Waste from any concrete batching plant;

§ Wash water from dust suppression sprays and vehicle wheel washing bays; and

§ Fuel, oil and lubricant from maintenance of construction vehicles and mechanical equipment.

8.6.3 The Site is located on a sloping topography where the two streams are located on an slope uphill from the Site. Therefore, any construction runoff and drainage likely to be generated from the Project will have minimal impact on these two streams.

8.6.4 Nevertheless, mitigation measures shall be implemented to control construction runoff, and to minimise the chance of introducing silt and pollutants into the storm water drainage system and off-site. With the implementation of adequate site drainage and the provision of silt removal facilities (see below), no unacceptable water quality impacts are anticipated.

General Construction Activities

8.6.5 General construction activities have the potential to cause water pollution as a result of stockpile, debris and rubbish, concrete dust and demolish materials entering the water body, particularly during Phase I where the area of the existing coffin crematorium is in close proximity to the two streams. Spillage of chemicals, such as oil and diesel from construction and demolition equipment, could also result in water quality impacts if they enter the soil or the two streams.

8.6.6 However, it is considered that the impact of these activities upon the two streams will be minimal provided that the works area are well maintained. Good construction and site management practices, such as sediment barriers, site drainage and proper waste disposal, will also limit the sediment and pollutants to acceptable levels.

Sewage generated from On-site Workforce

8.6.7 Sewage effluents will arise from temporary sanitary facilities for on-site workers. Sewage is characterized by high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia and E. coli bacteria. Water quality impacts in terms of sewage from on-site workers will be insignificant provided that adequate sewage collection and disposal facilities, such as portable chemical toilets, are properly installed and maintained.

Groundwater

8.6.8 The existing water table was investigated and water was detected perched above a concrete slab in BH1 and BH2 at 2m below ground level (see Section 5). No water was detected in BH3 and thus the underlying groundwater regime is unknown. Pumping out of groundwater during the dewatering process of construction activities (including basement formation) during Phase I construction is possible. The impact of lowering of the underground water level may be expected should there be no mitigation measures implemented. There will unlikely be any construction activities affecting the groundwater during Phase II and Future Expansion Phase, and so no adverse impact on groundwater is anticipated.

Operation Phase

Wastewater from APC Equipment

8.6.9 No effluent will be discharged from the APC equipment in the new crematorium as “dry” process will be adopted. Hence, adverse water quality impact is not expected.

Sewage from Public and General Cleaning Activities

8.6.10 Only small amount of sewage will be generated by visitors and workers, as well as wastewater from cleaning activities, at the new crematorium. Sewage for the new crematorium will be diverted to a public sewer connected to government sewage treatment facilities. It is considered that the public sewerage system will be able to accommodate the small amount of wastewater will be generated from the crematorium and thus no adverse impact would be anticipated.

8.7 Mitigation Measures

Construction Phase

Construction Runoff and Drainage

8.7.1 Any effluent discharge from the Site is subject to the control of the WPCO discharge licence. Wastewater shall properly be treated to meet the discharge standards set out in the relevant discharge licence. No direct discharge of site runoff into the two streams shall be allowed.

8.7.2 Runoff and drainage shall be prevented or minimised in accordance with the following guidelines in ProPECC PN 1/94:

§ Provision of perimeter channels to intercept storm runoff from outside the Site. These shall be constructed in advance of site formation works and earthworks.

§ Sand/silt removal facilities such as sand traps, silt traps and sediment basins shall be provided to remove sand/silt particles from runoff to meet the requirements of the TM standard under the WPCO. These facilities shall be properly and regularly maintained.

§ Careful programming of works to minimise soil excavation works during rainy seasons.

§ Exposed soil surface shall be protected by paving as soon as possible to reduce the potential of soil erosion.

§ Temporary access roads shall be protected by crushed gravel and exposed slope surfaces shall be protected when rainstorms are likely to occur.

§ Trench excavation shall be avoided in the wet season as far as practicable, and, if necessary, these trenches shall be excavated and backfilled in short sections.

§ Open stockpiles of construction materials on Site shall be covered with tarpaulin or similar fabric during rainstorms.

8.7.3 Sand and silt in the wash water from the wheel from the wheel washing facility, which ensures no earth, mud and debris is deposited on the road, shall be settled out and removed before discharging into the storm drain. A section of the road between the wheel washing bay and the public road shall be paved with a back-fall to prevent wash water or other site runoff from entering the public area.

8.7.4 Oil receptors shall be provided in the drainage system at potential oil generating sources and regularly emptied to prevent the release of oil and grease into the storm drainage system after accidental spillage. The interceptor shall have a bypass to prevent flushing during periods of heavy rainfall.

General Construction Activities

8.7.5 Debris and rubbish generated on Site shall be collected, handled and disposed of properly to avoid them entering the two streams. All fuel tanks and storage areas shall be provided with locks and be sited on sealed areas, within bunds of a capacity equal to 110% of the storage capacity of the largest tank. Open storm water drains and culverts near the works area shall be covered to block the entrance of large debris and refuse.

Sewage Generated from On-site Workforce

8.7.6 The sewage from construction work force is expected to be handled by portable chemical toilets if the existing toilets in the Site are not adequate. Appropriate and adequate portable toilets shall be provided by licensed contractors who shall be responsible for appropriate disposal of collected sewage and maintenance of these facilities.

Groundwater

8.7.7 It is possible a quantity of groundwater will require pumping out during construction works, particularly for basement formation during Phase I. Sheet piling shall be provided at suitable location around the basement excavation to reduce the effect of lowering the water table from any dewatering process. The underground water level shall be monitored to ensure no excessive lowering of the water table affecting the streams. Any discharge of groundwater pumped out from any dewatering process of the construction works shall be treated to comply with the standards set in the relevant discharge licence prior discharge. No discharge of the groundwater shall be allowed into the two streams. Besides, Stream S1 is regarded as ephemeral with only massive water flow anticipated only during and after heavy rain and Stream S2 is far away from basement excavation area, hence the effect of lowering of water table due to the basement work is considered to be negligible.

Operation Phase

8.7.8 Since no effluent will be discharged from the APC equipment and scrubbing system in the new crematorium, no adverse water quality impact is expected. Only a small amount of sewage will be generated by visitors and workers, as well as wastewater from cleaning activities, at the new crematorium. Sewage for the new crematorium will be diverted to public sewer connected to government sewage treatment facilities. It is considered that the public sewerage system will be able to accommodate the small amount of wastewater will be generated from the crematorium and thus no adverse impact would be anticipated.

8.8 Cumulative Impact due to Concurrent Project

8.8.1 There will be one concurrent project, under preliminary planning, to be constructed and operated in the vicinity of the Study Area of the Project. A columbarium at Kiu Tau Road is planned to be constructed with commencement of works in 2010 and completion in 2012. Details of the concurrent project are provided in Section 2.

8.8.2 There will be an overlapping construction period between the later stage of Phase I, Phase II of the Project and the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road. The future expansion phase of the Project may overlap with the later stage of the concurrent project.

8.8.3 This new columbarium is not a designated project under the EIAO and the Preliminary Environmental Review (PER) for this project is not available at this stage.

8.8.4 Since there is no water body found in the vicinity of the site of the new columbarium at Kiu Tau Road, no environmental impact in terms of water quality impact is anticipated and, hence, no cumulative impact is expected from this project.

8.9 Residual Impact

8.9.1 After the proper implementation of proposed mitigation measures, no residual impact is expected.

8.10 Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirement

8.10.1 As there is no water body within the Site and no adverse environmental impact to the water quality will be induced by the Project, and water quality monitoring shall only be confined to the relevant effluent discharge licensing requirements to be issued by EPD under WPCO. Implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures for water quality shall be inspected during the site audit through an EM&A programme, which is described in Section 11.

8.11 Conclusion

8.11.1 This assessment has considered the water quality impacts from the demolition of the existing crematorium as well as the construction and operation of the new crematorium. No significant residual impact related to water quality is anticipated, provided that the mitigation measures described above are properly implemented.

8.12 References

Environmental Protection Department (EPD, 2005). River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2004. EPD, HKSAR.

9 Ecological Impact Assessment

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This section presents the ecological impact assessment for the Project. The Project Site is located within an active crematorium area and this area has been used for such purpose for decades. Human access to the Site is only frequent during festivals and for cremation ceremonies. The majority of the existing Site and its surroundings comprises woodland and scrubland, which is mature and can potentially provide habitats for some animal species, such as avi-fauna. Thus, an ecological impact assessment is necessary to address any possible ecological impact and to propose mitigation measures to address this impact.

9.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria

9.2.1 Guidelines, standards, documents and HKSAR Government ordinances and regulations listed in the following sections were referred to during the course of the ecological impact assessment.

§ Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) and its subsidiary legislation the Forestry Regulations;

§ Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170);

§ Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131);

§ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586);

§ Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG), Chapter 10 ‘Conservation’;

§ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499), the associated Technical Memorandum (EIAO-TM) (Annex 8 and Annex 16) and Guidance Notes;

§ Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Register;

§ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES);

§ Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the Ramsar Convention);

§ United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (1992);

§ IUCN Red Data Books, and

§ PRC Wild Animal Protection Law.

9.2.2 The Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) prohibits felling, cutting, burning or destroying of trees and growing plants in forests and plantations on Government land. Related subsidiary Regulations prohibit the selling or possession of listed restricted and protected plant species. The list of protected species in Hong Kong that come under the Forestry Regulations was last amended on 11 June 1993 under the Forestry (Amendment) Regulation 1993 made under Section 3 of the Forests and Countryside Ordinance.

9.2.3 Under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170), designated wild animals are protected from being hunted, whilst their nests and eggs are protected from injury, destruction and removal. All birds and most mammals, including marine cetaceans, are protected under this Ordinance. The Second Schedule of the Ordinance, which lists all the animals protected, was last revised in June 1992.

9.2.4 According to the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO) (Cap. 131), the Town Planning Board shall undertake the preparation and amendments to statutory plans. The statutory plans may show of making provision for, among others, country parks, coastal protection areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, green belts or other specified uses that promote conservation or protection of the environment.

9.2.5 The Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) gives effect to CITES in Hong Kong. The Ordinance requires a licence to be issued in advance by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) for the import, introduction from the sea, export, re-export, and possession of specimens of scheduled species.

9.2.6 Chapter 10 of the HKPSG covers planning considerations relevant to conservation. This section details the principles of conservation, the conservation of natural landscape and habitats, historic buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities. It also describes enforcement issues. The appendices list the legislation and administrative controls for conservation, other conservation related measures in Hong Kong and government departments involved in conservation.

9.2.7 Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM sets out the general approach and methodology for assessment of ecological impacts arising from a project or proposal, to allow a complete and objective identification, prediction and evaluation of the potential ecological impacts. Annex 8 recommends the criteria that can be used for evaluating habitat and ecological impact.

9.2.8 EIAO Guidance Note No. 6/2002 clarifies the requirements of ecological assessments under the EIAO.

9.2.9 EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2002 provides general guidelines for conducting ecological baseline surveys in order to fulfil requirements stipulated in the EIAO-TM.

9.2.10 EIAO Guidance Note No. 10/2004 provides general guidelines for conducting terrestrial and freshwater ecological baseline surveys in order to fulfil requirements stipulated in the EIAO-TM.

9.2.11 SSSIs are designated according to a site's special faunal, floral, ecological or geographical features. SSSIs are designated for protection under the TPO. These are less well protected than country parks and are not actively managed. A register of sites is held by AFCD.

9.2.12 CITES is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

9.2.13 The Ramsar Convention is the Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international co-operation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. There are presently 133 Contracting Parties to the Convention, with 1,224 wetland sites, totalling 105.8 million hectares, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance.

9.2.14 The Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) is a Contracting Party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992. The Convention requires signatories to make active efforts to protect and manage their biodiversity resources. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has stated that it will be “committed to meeting the environmental objectives” of the Convention.

9.2.15 The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Data Books (and Red List) is an inventory of the global conservation status of plants and animals. It uses a set of criteria to evaluate the extinction risk of species. These criteria are relevant to all species and regions of the world.

9.2.16 In 1988 the PRC ratified the Wild Animal Protection Law of the PRC, which lays down basic principles for protecting wild animals. The Law prohibits killing of protecting animals, controls hunting, and protects the habitats of wild animals, both protected and non-protected. The Law also provides for the creation of lists of animals protected at the state level, under Class I and Class II. There are 96 animal species in Class I and 156 in Class II. Class I provides a higher level of protection for animals considered to be more threatened.

9.3 Assessment Methodology

9.3.1 According to the EIAO-TM (Annex 16), the Study Brief and the submitted Method Statement for EPD’s advisory comment, two main elements shall be implemented when conducting the ecological impact assessment for the Project. They include:

§ Literature Review; and

§ Field Survey.

Literature Review

9.3.2 Literature regarding the past and existing conditions within the Study Area was reviewed to identify habitats and species of potential importance that may be affected by the Project. Ecological chapters of relevant EIA reports were also examined. Only one EIA report – “Investigation Assignment for Widening of Tolo Highway/ Fanling Highway between Island House Interchange and Fanling (Mott Connell, 2000)” (hereafter called “EIA for Fanling”) – included an ecological impact assessment for part of the Study Area was reviewed.

9.3.3 Other key documents and publications that provide information on fauna and flora were reviewed and are listed below:

§ Porcupine! – Newsletter of the Department of Ecology and Biodiversity. (The University of Hong Kong);

§ “Hong Kong Biodiversity” – Newsletter of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD);

§ The Species composition, distribution and population size of Hong Kong bats. Memoirs of The Hong Kong Natural History Society. No. 22: 183-209.

§ Lost mammals, the reportage of Hong Kong wild mammalian. (郭良蕙新事業有限公司).

§ Composition and distribution of Hong Kong Amphibian fauna. Memoirs of The Hong Kong Natural History Society. No. 22: 1-80.

Field Survey

9.3.4 An extensive field survey has been conducted to obtain updated ecological information within the Study Area.

9.3.5 According to the Study Brief, habitat type, flora and fauna within the Study Area shall be surveyed. The proposed faunal groups to be surveyed include avifauna, mammal, herpetofauna, butterfly, odonate and stream organisms. Based on the Study Brief, a four-month survey (covering wet season) was recommended. Thus, a four-month survey (March 2006 to June 2006) was conducted.

9.3.6 Survey methodology for local terrestrial and freshwater ecological assessment has been recommended in the EIAO Guidance Note – Methodologies for Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecological Baseline Surveys (EIAO Guidance Note No. 10/2004). Methodologies presented in this report were thus largely based on those recommended in this Guidance Note. The Study Area was defined as the area within 500m from the site boundary of the land based works areas.

Habitat and Vegetation

9.3.7 Physical environment of the Study Area was assessed and described. Habitats within the Study Area were mapped based on recent aerial photos and ground truthing. Photos were taken for each habitat type encountered during the survey (as appended in Annex 9-a). Based on the collected information, a habitat map of a scale of 1:5,000 showing the types and locations of habitats in the Study Area was produced and shown in Figure 9-1. The habitat map within the site boundary is shown in Figure 9-2.

9.3.8 Habitat and vegetation surveys were conducted two times, once in March 2006 and once in May 2006, to capture dry season and wet season conditions respectively.

9.3.9 Representative areas of each habitat type were surveyed on foot. Plant species were recorded in each habitat type. Special attention was given to rare and protected species and the location, which would be directly affected by the proposed development. Nomenclature and protection status of the plant species followed those documented in the AFCD website (www.hkherbarium.net), Hong Kong Herbarium (2004) and Xing et al. (2000).

Fauna

9.3.10 Avifauna surveys were conducted in each habitat type on a monthly basis during the whole survey period. Special attention was given to those wooded areas. In general, the avifauna survey was taken in the morning. Transect count was used for the survey. Besides numerical abundance and species identity, notable behaviour, such as feeding, nesting and breeding was also recorded. Nomenclature and protection status of the species followed those documented in the AFCD website (www.hkbiodiversity.net) and Carey et al. (2001).

9.3.11 Herpetofauna in the Study Area was surveyed on a monthly basis. Active searching was the main method used. Night survey was also conducted two times during the wet season (April and June 2006) when amphibians and reptiles become active and mating calls of amphibians could be detected. Suitable habitats, such as stream banks, abandoned agricultural land, small ponds, crevices, leaf litter and rotten logs were actively searched for the eggs and tadpoles of amphibians (in aquatic habitats) or to reveal the presence of the amphibians and reptiles hiding under cover. Parameters recorded for the survey included numerical abundance, species identity and notable behaviour. Nomenclature and protection status of the species followed those documented in the AFCD website (www.hkbiodiversity.net), Lau et al. (2005) and Karsen et al. (1998).

9.3.12 Odonate and butterfly surveys were conducted in each habitat type on a monthly basis. Special attention was given to the stream and wooded areas. Transect count was used for the survey. In general, all captured fauna were released immediately after on-site identification or taking photographs. Nomenclature and protection status of the species followed those documented in the AFCD website (www.hkbiodiversity.net), Young and Yiu (2002) and Wilson (2003).

9.3.13 The two streams to the south of the Site were surveyed in April and June 2006. Two sampling points, one at the low stream area and one at the middle reach (which is the highest accessible elevation of the stream), were designated at each stream to collect necessary fauna information. Three replicates for stream benthos were taken at each sampling point. Direct count and hand netting were the main survey methodologies for stream organisms, both for fish and invertebrates. Parameters recorded for the survey included numerical abundance, species identity and notable behaviour. Nomenclature and protection status of the species followed those documented in the AFCD website (www.hkbiodiversity.net). Kick sampling was used to survey benthic invertebrates for the survey. A D-frame hand net with fine mesh size was placed in the water with the net mouth facing the water current. Invertebrates dislodged from the stream bed during kicking of the substrate were trapped in the net. Contents in the net were preserved and brought back to the laboratory for sorting, identification and counting.

9.3.14 Mammal surveys were taken on a monthly basis. Special attention was given to the traits of mammal, such as dung, feeding signs, footprints, burrows and dens during other surveys. Wild mammals sighted during other surveys were also recorded. Night time mammal surveys were conducted at the same time of bat surveys, which were conducted on a bi-monthly basis, in April and June 2006. Nomenclature and protection status of the species followed those documented in the Ma et al. (2001) and Suen (2002).

9.3.15 Bat surveys were conducted during dusk and at night time using direct count method and a bat detector (ultrasonic device) once every two months, in April and June 2006. Mist-netting was not conducted as this method is intrusive to the bat. Numerical abundance, species identity and notable behaviour were noted. Nomenclature and protection status of the fauna species followed those documented in the AFCD website (www.hkbiodiversity.net) and Ades (1999).

9.4 Baseline Condition

Description of the Site

9.4.1 The Site and surrounding region have functioned as a Cemetery area for decades. According to the aerial photo from1963 (Photo no.1, Annex 9-b), the hillside areas at Wo Hop Shek, including the Site, were completely covered with grave-like structures and were not heavily covered with trees. Nevertheless, tree clumps developed gradually on the hillsides as shown in aerial photos taken in later years (Photo nos. 2 to 5, Annex 9-b). Currently, part of the Site and the hillside area to the immediate south of the Site are covered with trees, and the areas to the north of the Site are covered with green areas and urbanised areas, such as Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen, Wo Hing Tsuen and Wah Ming Estate (Photo no. 6, Annex 9-b).

9.4.2 The Study Area is not located within any Country Parks and does not contain any SSSIs. However, green belt areas and a small piece of Woodland are situated within the Study Area. Nevertheless, they are not located within the Site according to the latest Project layout plan. Two natural streams, designated S1 and S2 (refer to Figure 9-1) are located to the south of the Site. The two streams are collected by manmade culverts and an underground drain system. The lower end of the stream S1 was also channelised. Only ponds of water were observed at stream S1 during the survey. The stream S2 was found to be dry during the survey period. The two streams are regarded as ephemeral with only massive water flow anticipated during and after heavy rainfall.

9.4.3 Although the Study Area includes woodland areas, Woodland and green belt, these are considered to be already disturbed by the existing crematorium, columbarium and Cemetery and their associated human activities.

9.4.4 Based on the EIA for Fanling (Highway Department, HKSAR (2000)), the Site and surrounding area were not considered as important habitats for avifauna, herpetofauna, odonate, mammal or butterfly.

9.4.5 According to Note 2, Appendix A, Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM, important habitat around the Site includes:

§ Over 100m of natural stream courses; and

§ Over one hectare of woodland.

9.4.6 Table 9-1 lists the area of each habitat type recorded within the Study Area and the number of plant species recorded in each habitat type. Figure 9-1 illustrates the extent of these habitats. Plant species recorded within the Study Area is tabulated in Annex 9-c.

Habitat	Area within Study Area (ha)	Number of Plant Species Recorded
Semi-natural Woodland	~59.3	84
Woodland	~10.9	92
Scrubland	~2.9	43
Urbanised Area	~30.2	133
Orchard	~0.2	21
Abandoned Land	~1.5	2
Stream	Total length ~259 m	5

Table 9-1 Area of Habitat

Habitat and Vegetation

9.4.7 Characteristics and details of each of the habitat found within the Study Area are described in the following sections.

Semi-natural Woodland

9.4.8 The Site and surrounding areas have been used as a Cemetery for decades and the first presence of large-scale grave areas can be dated back to the 1960’s. Based on the aerial photos (Photo no. 2, Annex 9-b), no tree clumps appeared at and around the Site at that time and the woodland encountered at present appears to have developed in the late 1980’s. As such, this woodland is not considered to be mature. As indicated by the plant species recorded, this woodland has likely developed from a former plantation area. Acacia confusa and Eucalyptus tereticornis were the most abundant tree species found in this woodland (Photo 1, Annex 9-a). These two exotic species have been used widely as plantation species in Hong Kong for many years. This strongly suggests that the area was a plantation in the past. Other exotic tree species commonly found included Lophostemon confertus, Eucalyptus citriodora, Melaleuca quinquenervia and Acacia mangium.

9.4.9 Notwithstanding, this plantation area has undergone natural succession and at present, has become a semi-natural woodland. Many native species have also been identified and recorded in the woodland including: Alangium chinense, Alocasia odora, Schefflera heptaphylla, Macaranga tanarius, Bridelia tomentosa, Cinnamomum camphora, Litsea glutinosa, Ficus spp., etc. A population of Fraxinus spp. is well established at the Site, comprising of a few large specimens with diameter over 0.5m and over 15m in height. Since no fruits or flowers were successfully collected for species identification at the time of the survey, this population cannot be identified to species level. Nevertheless, the tree species does belong to the genus of Fraxinus (梣屬). It is not a protected species, either in Hong Kong or the Mainland. In review of the land use history of the woodland, no vegetation should have existed during grave operation period. Therefore, the Fraxinus spp. is unlikely to be a primary established species at the Site and the population found was likely planted during the operation period or after the graves were demolished.

9.4.10 Two floral species of ecological interest, Aquilaria sinensis and Cibotium barometz (both are protected as Category II on the Mainland and under The Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586); and are listed on Appendix II under CITES), were identified. Although these species are protected on the Mainland, they are fairly common in Hong Kong. These two species were also found within the Site boundary.

Woodland

9.4.11 Two patches of woodland (Photo 2, Annex 9-a) are located behind Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen and Nan Wa Po Tsuen. A total of 92 flora species were recorded along the survey transect woodlands. Cinnamomum camphora is a dominated species. No rare/protected species were recorded in this habitat.

Scrubland

9.4.12 The scrubland (Photo 3, Annex 9-a) is mainly distributed within the Site and south fringe area of the Study Area. Generally, scrubland covers hilltops and abandoned land. A total of 43 species were recorded. The most abundant species found in the scrubland was Rhodomyrtus tomentosa. This species is very common in the scrubland of Hong Kong. Other abundant species recorded included Dicranopteris pedata and Litsea rotundifolia. No protected and rare species were found.

Urbanised Area

9.4.13 The urbanised area (Photo 4, Annex 9-a) consists mainly of village houses, roads, shops, graves and residential areas. About 45% of the vegetation recorded within this habitat were exotic species, likely planted for landscaping purposes. Species commonly found included trees such as Bauhinia sp. This habitat was highly disturbed in nature with limited ecological interest. No rare or protected plant species were recorded.

Abandoned Land

9.4.14 The abandoned land (Photo 5, Annex 9-a) is located adjacent to Kau Tau Road. It was part of a grave area some time ago. Currently, the abandoned land is predominantly covered by Wedelia trilobata. Moreover, only two species of common plants were recorded within the abandoned land. The ecological value is quite low compared with other habitats.

Orchard

9.4.15 There are two small orchards (Photo 6, Annex 9-a) at the northern side of the Study Area. These orchards were well managed as no weeds or climbers were present with the fruit trees. Major fruit trees included Artocarpus macrocarpus, Citrus maxima, Clausena lansium and Musa paradisiaca. No rare or protected plant species were recorded.

Stream Course

9.4.16 There are two small stream courses (Photo 7, Annex 9-a) within the Study Area. These stream courses are located on south side of the Site and flow from south to north outside the Site. Only ponds of water were observed in stream S1 and the water was not of good quality as observed during the survey. Since stream S2 was dry during survey period, no sampling could be conducted in this stream course. Both streams are regarded as ephemeral with massive water flow anticipated only during and after heavy rain. As such, it is unlikely to support any viable populations of aquatic fauna. Generally, Microstegium ciliatum was the dominant species in stream course. In total, five common species was recorded. No rare or protected species were recorded.

Fauna

Avifauna

9.4.17 Birds at the Site were surveyed on a monthly basis during the survey period. Woodland, semi-natural Woodland and scrubland along transect was surveyed.

9.4.18 A total of 18 species of birds were recorded within the Study Area. Results indicted that bird species/ abundance recorded at semi-natural Woodland and Woodland is far more than scrubland. The Study Area supports a small size of avifauna comprised of common species found in Hong Kong. Birds commonly seen at the Site include Pycnonotus jocosus, Pycnonotus sinensis and Passer montanus. Bird species recorded within the Study Area are summarised in Annex 9-d.

Herpetofauna

9.4.19 Five amphibian species, including the Asian Common Toad Bufo melanostictus, Gunther’s Frog Rana guentheri, Short-legged Toad Xenophrys brachykolos. Brown Tree Frog Polypedates megacephalus and Asiatic Painted Frog Kaloula pulchra pulchra were recorded near the stream sampling location in the Semi-natural woodland during night surveys. No amphibian species were recorded in the daytime. All recorded amphibian species are common and widespread in Hong Kong (Lau et al., 2005). Two reptile species, the Changeable Lizard Calotes versicolor and Chinese Gecko Gekko chinensis, were also recorded at the semi-natural woodland. Both reptiles are also common species and widespread in Hong Kong (Karsen et al., 1999). No reptile species were recorded in the daytime surveys.

Insects

9.4.20 A total of six butterfly species were recorded within the Study Area. All species recorded were very common locally (Young and Yiu, 2002). More butterfly species were recorded at the end of the survey period as the weather was getting warmer. Only one dragonfly species, the Wandering Glider Pantala flavescens, was recorded within Study Area during the survey. This species is a common and abundant species in Hong Kong (Wilson, 2003). Butterfly and dragonfly species recorded within the Study Area are shown in Annex 9-e.

Stream Organisms

9.4.21 The stream S1 fauna mainly comprised crustaceans with rather low species diversity. A few benthic species in small numbers belonging to the family of Chironomidae were recorded at the stream, which indicated that organic enrichment in the stream/channel is low. The faunal species abundance was low.

Mammal

9.4.22 Except for bats, no other mammals were observed within Study Area. However, some vestige of ground digging was found within the Site. These scars may have been caused by wild boar. In addition, some droppings were also recorded. According to the texture of the droppings, these may have been from the Leopard Cat. Both wild boar and Leopard Cat are believed to be foraging and passing through the Site only. No breeding sites were found within / adjacent to the Site.

Bat

9.4.23 Only two individuals suspected to be Pipistrellus sp. were recorded at the semi-natural woodland behind the existing crematorium. No ultra sonic sounds were recorded on Site since the bats were observed for only a short period of time. No roosting sites were found inside the semi-natural woodland. The recorded bats were likely to be occasionally foraging at the survey site. All bats, including the recorded species, are protected under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170).

9.5 Ecological Value of the Habitats

9.5.1 Based on the information presented above, the ecological value of the habitats has been evaluated following the criteria set in the EIAO-TM Annex 8 (Table 2). The ecological evaluation of each type of habitat is given separately and summarised in Tables 9-2 to 9-8, which are shown in order of decreasing areas. Photographs of each of the habitat are shown in Annex 9-a.

Criteria	Semi-Natural Woodland
Naturalness	Semi-natural
Size	Large; ~59.3 ha
Diversity	Moderate diversity of plants and structural complexity. Dominated by exotic species
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Can be recreated by compensatory planting and transplantation
Fragmentation	Highly fragmented by roads, highway and urbanized areas
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity
Potential Value	Moderate
Nursery/Breeding Ground	This area is likely to support nursery/breeding ground for avifauna, herpetofauna and invertebrates
Age	Young (most likely less than 40 years)
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Low to Moderate
Overall Value	Moderate

Table 9-2 Ecological Value of Semi-Natural Woodland

Criteria	Urbanised Area
Naturalness	Man-made, all vegetation is planted
Size	Medium to Large; ~30.2 ha
Diversity	Moderate diversity of plants, low structural complexity and fauna diversity
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	N.A.
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity
Potential Value	Low
Nursery/Breeding Ground	No
Age	N.A.
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Low
Overall Value	Low

Table 9-3 Ecological Value of Urbanized Area

Criteria	Woodland
Naturalness	Semi-natural
Size	Small to Medium; ~10.9 ha
Diversity	Moderate
Rarity	Uncommon habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Not readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	Fragmented by roads, highway and urbanised areas
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity
Potential Value	Moderate to high
Nursery/Breeding Ground	This area is likely to support nursery/ breeding ground for avifauna, herpetofauna and invertebrates
Age	Mature (more than 50 years)
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Moderate
Overall Value	Moderate to High

Table 9-4 Ecological Value of Woodland

Criteria	Scrubland
Naturalness	Natural
Size	Small; ~2.9 ha
Diversity	Low
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	Fragmented by roads, highway and urbanized areas
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity.
Potential Value	Low to moderate
Nursery/Breeding Ground	This area is likely to support nursery/ breeding ground for avifauna and invertebrates.
Age	Young
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Low
Overall Value	Low

Table 9-5 Ecological Value of Scrubland

Criteria	Abandoned Land
Naturalness	Semi-natural
Size	Small; ~1.5 ha
Diversity	Low, dominated by exotic species of Wedelia trilobata
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	Highly fragmented by roads, highway and urbanised areas
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity
Potential Value	Low
Nursery/Breeding Ground	No
Age	N.A.
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Low
Overall Value	Low

Table 9-6 Ecological Value of Abandoned Land

Criteria	Orchard
Naturalness	Man-made
Size	Small; ~0.2 ha
Diversity	Low
Rarity	Common Habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	N.A.
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity
Potential Value	Low
Nursery/Breeding Ground	No
Age	Young
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Low
Overall Value	Low

Table 9-7 Ecological Value of Orchard

Criteria	Stream
	S1	S2
Naturalness	Natural, ephemeral stream (only with massive water flow anticipated during and after heavy rainfall)
Size	Total length approximately 145m; Small size	Total length approximately 114m; Small size
Diversity	Low
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Not readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	N.A.
Ecological Linkage	Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity.
Potential Value	Low to moderate	Low
Nursery/Breeding Ground	For amphibian and stream invertebrates	No
Age	N.A.
Abundance/Richness of Wildlife	Low
Overall Value	Low to moderate	Low to moderate

Table 9-8 Ecological Value of the Two Streams

9.5.2 The list and evaluation of the species of ecological interest and their protection status recorded within the Project Site are given in Table 9-9.

Species	Type	Location	Conservation Status	Distribution	Rarity
Cibotium barometz	Fern	Semi-natural woodland within the Site	§ Protected under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) § Protected as Category II on the Mainland § Protected and listed in CITES Appendix II* § ‘Near Threatened’ in the China Plant Red Data Book § Listed in Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong (Hu et al., 2003)	At hillside in Hong Kong	Common
Aquilaria sinensis	Tree	Semi-natural woodland within/adjacent to the Site	§ Protected as Category II on the Mainland § ‘Vulnerable’ in the China Plant Red Data Book § Protected and listed in CITES Appendix II* § Listed in Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong (Hu et al., 2003) § Protected under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586)	Widely distributed in Hong Kong	Common
Fraxinus spp.	Tree	Semi-natural woodland within/adjacent to the Site	§ Not protected	Only recorded within study area	Uncommon within the study area
Pipistrellus sp.	Bat	Within/adjacent to semi-natural woodland	§ Protected under Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap.170)	Widely distributed in Hong Kong	Common

Note: * CITES Appendix II – Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Appendix II. (Source: http://www.cites.org/)

Table 9-9 Evaluation of Species with Ecological Interest within the Project Site

9.6 Identification of Potential Impacts

9.6.1 Details of the time frame and construction works of different phases of the Project, (Phase I, Phase II and Future Expansion), are illustrated in the project description in Section 2. The potential terrestrial ecological impact arising from the Project, based on the Project layout and the time frame of the Project, have been identified and described as below.

Construction Phase

9.6.2 The potential terrestrial ecological impacts arising from construction activities may include direct impacts due to habitat loss (i.e. loss of woodland vegetation) and indirect impacts induced by construction activities, such as increased human activities or disturbance (including noise, air quality, water quality impacts, increased risk of hill fires, etc.). These include:

§ Site land-take resulting in habitat loss;

§ Site land-take resulting in habitat fragmentation;

§ Site land-take resulting in loss of inactive/ less mobile/ habitat-specific wildlife nesting/ inhabiting the affected area;

§ Construction resulting in wastes, pollutants, excavated materials or construction discharges that may pose direct and indirect impacts to watercourses; and

§ Indirect impacts to the surrounding habitats and associated wildlife due to physical disturbance of the habitat including noise, increased human activity, inappropriate storage or dumping of construction materials.

Operation Phase

9.6.3 Impacts to the surrounding habitat and associated wildlife may arise from increased human activities/ disturbance associated with the operation of the proposed Project.

9.7 Evaluation of Potential Impacts

9.7.1 This section assesses the direct and indirect, primary and secondary, as well as on-site and off-site impacts likely to occur during the demolition, construction and operation phases of the Project; and also the potential cumulative impact associated with any concurrent projects. The significance of ecological impacts has been evaluated based primarily on the criteria set in Table 1 of Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM:

§ Habitat quality;

§ Species affected;

§ Size/abundance of habitat/organism affected;

§ Duration of impacts;

§ Reversibility of impacts; and

§ Magnitude of environmental changes.

9.7.2 Impacts are generally ranked as "minor", "moderate" or "severe". The ranking of a given impact will vary based on the criteria listed above. For example, an impact might be ranked as "minor" if it affected only common species and habitats, or if it affected only small numbers of individuals or small areas, whereas it might be ranked as "severe" if it affected rare species or habitats, large numbers of individuals or large areas. As noted in Annex 16 of the EIO TM, a degree of professional judgment is involved in the evaluation of impacts.

9.7.3 This assessment is based on the latest Master Layout Plan (MLP) of the Project. Estimates of habitat loss and identification of areas to be affected by the development have been examined and are as accurate as possible.

9.7.4 The proposed Project is generally within the alignment of the existing semi-natural woodland and scrubland area. Most of the areas are regularly disturbed and with moderate ecological value.

Demolition and Construction Phases Impacts

Habitat and Vegetation Loss

9.7.5 The proposed Project would require site formation and construction of infrastructure and buildings. Direct impact would include loss of habitats within the subject Site. This impact would be permanent and irreversible. However, this impact is only anticipated during the demolition of the existing coffin crematorium building in Phase I of the Project, in particular a loss of approximately 0.25 ha of semi-natural woodland and approximately 0.3 ha of scrubland. While the area of the skeletal cremator is already urbanised, with little ecological value, no direct loss of natural habitat is anticipated during the demolition of the skeletal cremator building in Phase 2. No habitat loss is anticipated during the Future Expansion Phase, when additional cremators and service hall are provided.

9.7.6 According to the vegetation survey conducted for this assessment, there were some species with ecological interest (A. sinensis, Fraxinus spp. and C. barometz) inside the Study Area. Both A. sinensis and C. barometz are protected as Category II on the Mainland and under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586). A. sinensis and C. barometz are also listed in Appendix II under CITES. These species are common in Hong Kong, but they are considered as species of conservation concern. The construction of the Project will remove an individual of A. sinensis and a colony of C. barometz within the Site. Measures shall be implemented for the protection of these species. In addition, Fraxinus spp. appears to have formed a small population in the semi-natural woodland. Although, Fraxinus spp. is not a protected species in Hong Kong, they were considered as species of conservation concern due to their limited distribution. Some individual of Fraxinus spp. will be affected within the Site. Suitable measures shall be performed for minimising the effect from construction.

9.7.7 In view of the naturalness of the semi-natural woodland within and surrounding the Site of the Project, the layout of the buildings for the Projects has been carefully designed and reviewed such that the new crematorium is constructed by extending from the existing coffin crematorium, thereby reducing the area of land or habitat to be affected or encroached upon by the extension. In total, a small piece of semi-nature woodland would be lost due to the Project. The size of this loss, as compared to the size of the woodland within the Study Area, is considered as small (~ 0.42%). The loss of the semi-nature woodland within the Site shall be mitigated by compensation of the loss of greenery and amenity value, which is detailed in Section 7 of the EIA Report.

9.7.8 It should be noted that the natural part of the two streams to the south of the Site (streams S1 and S2) will not be directly affected since no construction activity will likely encroach these streams. Hence no natural stream habitat loss would be anticipated.

9.7.9 The Woodlands are outside the Site but are found within the Study Area. They are sheltered by the semi-natural woodland and are far from the Site, separated from the Site by Kiu Tau Road. It is anticipated that no direct loss of this habitat will occur.

9.7.10 Evaluation of potential impacts on the above habitats is in accordance with Table 1 of Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM. Table 9-10 and Table 9-11 present the evaluation of the habitat loss due to the Project.

Evaluation Criteria	Semi-Natural Woodland
Habitat quality	Medium as the habitat is transiting from plantation woodland to natural woodland
Species	Flora - Aquilaria sinensis, Fraxinus spp., and Cibotium barometz affected Fauna - Pipistrellus sp. affected
Size/Abundance	Approximate 0.25 ha will be affected
Duration	The impact will persist during the construction and operation phases
Reversibility	The impact of this direct habitat loss is irreversible
Magnitude	The scale of the proposed works and the habitat loss and disturbance is small and restricted in 0.25ha in terms of affected area
Overall Impact Conclusion	Low

Table 9-10 Overall Impact Evaluation for Semi-Natural Woodland

Evaluation Criteria	Scrubland
Habitat quality	Low
Species	Direct impacts to the vegetation species in the areas, however, neither rare nor protected species will be affected
Size/Abundance	Approximately 0.3 ha of the habitat will be lost
Duration	The impact will persist during the construction and operation phases
Reversibility	The habitat loss could be irreversible
Magnitude	The scale of the habitat loss is small in the context of the surrounding similar habitats
Overall Impact Conclusion	Low

Table 9-11 Overall Impact Evaluation for Scrubland

9.7.11 Overall, the area lost due to the Project is small compared to the size of the whole woodland within the Study Area. Two individuals of Pipistrellus sp. was found foraging at the semi-natural woodland. No nesting site for Pipistrellus sp. was recorded within the Site. Thus, Pipistrellus sp. is unlikely affected by the works. No other fauna species were found. As such, no rare fauna is likely to be affected. Two plant species of conservation value, Aquilaria sinensis and Cibotium barometz were found within the Site and these will be transplanted to a similar habitat nearby.

9.7.12 Other trees in the semi-natural woodland within the project area will also be transplanted if applicable. Felled trees will be compensated for by planting trees within or outside Study Area as part of mitigation measures proposed for the Project. Details of the mitigation measures are provided in the following sections.

9.7.13 As such, the loss of this vegetation and habitat is considered as low impact. Notwithstanding, compensatory planting and transplantation programme will be submitted separately in the tree felling application to compensate the loss of greenery and amenity value as detailed in Section 7 of the EIA Report.

Habitat Fragmentation

9.7.14 Indirect ecological impacts of the Project on the existing habitats includes habitat fragmentation.

9.7.15 Fragmentation of habitats, such as woodlands, is known to bring about isolation of the existing habitat areas and a reduction in numbers of faunal species. Phase I of the Project extends from the existing coffin crematorium. Concrete roads as well as abandoned and active grave areas already surround the existing Site. Hence, the existing area is already fragmented and encroached by urbanised areas. Furthermore, the actual size of semi-natural woodland to be affected is approximately 0.25 ha which is about 0.42% of the total area of semi-natural woodland surveyed (500m outside the site boundary of the new crematorium and the skeletal cremator building (site boundary)).

9.7.16 The fragmentation effect on the existing semi-natural woodland is minimal. Since the whole area of the skeletal cremator is already an urbanised area and no construction activity will likely be extended outside the site boundary of the skeletal cremator, no additional habitat fragmentation is anticipated during Phase II. Similarly, no additional habitat fragmentation is also anticipated during the Future Expansion Phase, when additional cremators and service hall are provided.

9.7.17 Overall, the Project is not likely to cause additional fragmentation of the habitats nearby.

Construction Runoff

9.7.18 Large areas of bare earth will be created during the construction phase, particularly during Phase I, when the existing coffin cremator building is demolished. Storm runoff from the Site is likely to carry sediment eroded from these bare areas. If this runoff enters the streams, it could impact aquatic ecology by increasing turbidity, causing physical damage to plants and animals and covering benthic organisms with a layer of silt. Waste oil and other contaminants from the construction site may also reach the streams, causing significant primary and secondary impacts such as increased mortality and bioaccumulation due to the increased toxic substance level.

9.7.19 All these impacts may lower the habitat value of the streams. Therefore, unmitigated construction runoff is considered to be of moderate impact.

9.7.20 Construction runoff is also likely to be created during Phase II, however, the effect of construction runoff onto the two stream courses is insignificant since the skeletal cremator and the two streams are separated by Kiu Tau Road. Although construction activities of the Future Expansion Phase are considered small scale, unmitigated construction runoff would also pose environmental impact onto the two stream courses. While the Site is confined on the southern side of Kiu Tau Road, no ecologically important habitat on the northern side of Kiu Tau Road will likely be adversely impacted from construction runoff from the Project.

Groundwater

9.7.21 The existing water table was investigated and water was found to be perched on concrete 2m below ground level at BH1 And BH2. No groundwater was struck in BH3 and thus the groundwater regime at the site is unknown. However, there would be a potential for pumping out of groundwater during the dewatering process of construction activities, such as basement formation during Phase I. Hence an impact from lowering the groundwater level may be anticipated should there be no mitigation measures implemented.

9.7.22 The habitats surrounding the Site are mainly semi-natural woodland grown with non-wetland species. In addition, almost all vegetation grows on the slope. As such, lowering the groundwater level should not have significant impact on the existing vegetation. Moreover, the stream S1 is regarded as ephemeral with massive water flow anticipated only during and after heavy rainfall, and sheet piling will also be provided at suitable location around the basement excavation to reduce the effect of lowering of water table due to dewatering, hence, insignificant ecological impact would be anticipated.

9.7.23 Since no construction works affecting the water table will be undertaken at the area close to the stream S2, no ecological impact at this habitat due to change of the existing water table would be anticipated. No adverse environmental impact during Phase II and Future Expansion Phase is anticipated.

Noise and Other Disturbance

9.7.24 Disturbance to wildlife due to construction works, such as noise nuisance, are anticipated for the three phases of construction programme. Increased human activities may also degrade the habitat quality nearby. Uncontrolled dumping, such as dumping of construction waste, would cause unacceptable impact on those habitats aforementioned. Vegetation, such as the hillside woodland, would be impacted significantly if no control is implemented.

9.7.25 On the other hand, unmitigated construction works, if allowed to be carried out, would cause dust re-suspension and air pollution. This may cause moderate impacts, such as vegetation damage, on the woodland fringe.

9.7.26 Noise and disturbance impacts are, however, considered minor in view of the existing disturbance. The Site is located within the crematorium area in Wo Hop Shek and this area has been used for such purpose for decades. This indicates that the area has been constantly subjected to human disturbance. In fact, hill fires are frequent in this area due to the uncontrolled burning of joss paper. Thus, the only significant impacts are uncontrolled construction works and associated impacts, such as illegal dumping and dust re-suspension. These impacts are considered moderate, especially to the nearby stream habitats if no mitigation measures to be implemented.

Operation Phase Impacts

Ecological Barrier

9.7.27 Concrete roads as well as abandoned and active grave areas already surround the whole Site. No new urbanised area will be produced to further fragment the semi-natural woodland. Also, no tall buildings will be constructed in the area. Thus, the Project is not likely to cause additional barrier effects on the habitats nearby.

Storm Water Runoff

9.7.28 Runoff from the development may be contaminated with a variety of pollutants including metals and organics (e.g. oils, gasoline, solvents etc.). These may cause impact on the streams if this runoff is not discharged into appropriate facilities, in particular the storm water runoff from the coffin crematorium, which is in closer proximity to the two stream courses. Due to the sensitivity of this habitat, storm water runoff, if uncontrolled, would cause minor to moderate impact.

Impact on Wildlife by Increased Human Disturbance

9.7.29 Disturbance to adjacent habitats may arise due to noise and activity associated with an increased number of visitors. Increased numbers of visitors to the countryside and increased noise from road traffic are among the potential sources of disturbance.

9.7.30 Although the larger visitor number in the area after the development has the potential to cause disturbance to wildlife, the Site and surrounding areas have already been subjected to considerable human disturbance due to the presence of graves and crematoriums. Thus, the Project is not likely to cause any significant additional disturbance impact on the valuable habitats within and around the Site.

9.8 Mitigation Measures

Demolition and Construction Phases

9.8.1 Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM states that the general policy for mitigation of significant ecological impacts, in order of priority, is:

§ Avoidance: Potential impacts shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable by adopting suitable alternatives;

§ Minimisation: Unavoidable impacts shall be minimised by taking appropriate and practicable measures such as constraints on intensity of works operations or timing of works operations; and

§ Compensation: The loss of important species and habitats may be provided for elsewhere as compensation. Enhancement and other conservation measures shall always be considered whenever possible.

9.8.2 As discussed in the previous sections, no major ecological impacts are anticipated. Mitigation measures illustrated in the water quality, noise and air quality sections will relieve any potential disturbance to faunal and floral species. Ecological mitigation measures proposed in the following sections shall be adopted as a precautionary approach.

Habitat and Vegetation Loss

9.8.3 There is only a small area of semi-natural woodland (~0.25 ha) and approximately 0.3 ha of scrubland to be affected directly in terms of habitat loss due to the Project during Phase I of the construction phase. The ecological impact on the loss of small fringe of semi-natural woodland is considered low. Nevertheless, the framework of 'Avoidance' and 'Minimisation' of habitat loss has been carefully considered during Project layout design process to minimise any ecological impact.

9.8.4 It is considered that the design of the extension from the existing crematorium is the best way to avoid and reduce ecological impact. While the Site is constrained by the existing land use (e.g., access road and existing Cemetery facility) and topography, only the proposed area including part of the semi-natural woodland area is allowed for extension works.

9.8.5 The layout has been carefully revised to allow most trees in the semi-natural woodland area to be retained and transplanted as far as practicable, in particular for Fraxinus spp. and the protected species A. sinensis, so as to minimise any ecological impact. No construction will affect the two natural streams and hence their potential ecological integrity can be preserved.

9.8.6 To minimise any impact on the greenery and amenity value due to the loss of the semi-natural woodland, a full tree survey report (as shown in Annex 7-b of Section 7 of this EIA Report) and tree felling application has been submitted separately for approval by relevant government departments in accordance with the Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 3/2006 issued by Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB). All trees shall be retained where possible. Efforts shall be made to retain groups of trees. However, those that will inevitably be affected by the Project, will be transplanted as far as practicable.

9.8.7 If transplantation is not applicable, compensatory planting will be carried out using native species and species commonly found in the Project area. Replanting for the formation of the landscape area for the subject Site will also be considered. Potential sites for transplantation and compensatory planting within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery have been surveyed and reviewed in order to select suitable locations for this purpose. Detailed transplantation and compensatory planting proposal have been given in the tree felling application.

9.8.8 In particular, two A. sinensis individuals are present in the semi-natural woodland within the Study Area, but only one was found within the Site and would be affected. Transplantation of the individual within the Site is proposed while that outside the Site will be retained to minimise any potential impact on this species due to the Project.

9.8.9 In addition, there was also a small colony of C. barometz located within the Site. Transplantation of these plant species to a nearby suitable location is proposed as far as feasible. Transplanting plants to a location with conditions similar to their original location ensures a higher survival rate of the species after transplantation. A few individuals of Fraxinus spp. within the semi-natural woodland were generally large in size and so are not suitable for transplantation due to typically low transplantation survival rate.

9.8.10 Thus, some selected Fraxinus spp. trees of only medium to small size will be transplanted to suitable areas, particularly grassland or scrubland, within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery. The locations for transplantation are shown in Figure 9-3. All transplanted species, either native or exotic species commonly found in Hong Kong, will be transplanted to grassland or scrubland within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery. Transplantation and the subsequent management will be undertaken by ArchSD and its contractor. Transplanted trees after establishment will be handed over to FEHD and its contractor for maintenance.

9.8.11 In view of the ETWB Technical Circular (Works) No. 3/2006 concerning the tree compensation in terms of quantity and quality, heavy standard trees as defined in the General Specification for Civil Engineering Works, 2006 Edition issued by Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) will be compensated in grassland or scrubland selected within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery. While details of the tree compensation are given in the tree felling application, the locations for tree compensation, with a total area of approximately 2,800 m², are shown in Figure 9-4.

9.8.12 The tree species selected for tree compensation are generally native species or species commonly found within the Project area in order to maintain uniformity with the surrounding areas which are shown in Annex 9-f. Proposed mitigation measures for tree preservation and planting are presented in the Preliminary Landscape Plan as shown in Figure 7-10.

9.8.13 As there is a total of approximately 0.25 ha loss of semi-natural woodland due to the Project, the compensation of heavy standard trees, in terms of approximately 2,800 m² of total area, will help mitigate the loss of the semi-natural woodland in terms of greenery and amenity value. Although planting heavy standard trees may not totally compensate the lost semi-natural woodland in the short-term, the planting of trees in the selected areas where the habitats are natural grassland or scrubland will enhance the overall integral ecological values of the grassland or scrubland.

Habitat Fragmentation

9.8.14 Habitat fragmentation is unlikely to be a significant impact due to the proposed Project. Landscaping works will also act as adequate mitigation for this impact. Therefore, no specific measure is needed.

Construction Runoff

9.8.15 Guidelines on developing measures for protecting natural streams during the construction stage have been issued recently by ETWB Technical Circular (Works) No. 5/2005. Based on this Circular, several measures are proposed for protecting the streams and nearby habitats from construction runoff:

§ Temporary access to the work sites shall be carefully planned and located to minimise disturbance caused to the streams and nearby habitats;

§ The use of fewer or smaller construction plant may be specified to reduce disturbance to the streams and nearby habitats;

§ A temporary sewage treatment system or portable chemical toilets shall be designed and installed to collect wastewater and prevent it from entering the streams and nearby habitats;

§ The proposed works site inside or in the proximity of the streams and nearby habitats shall be temporarily isolated, such as by placing of sandbags or silt curtains with a lead edge at the bottom and properly supported props, to prevent adverse impacts on these areas. Other protective measures shall also be taken to ensure that no pollution or siltation occurs in the water gathering grounds of the works site;

§ The natural bottom and existing flow in the streams shall be preserved as much as possible to avoid disturbance to the stream habitats. If a temporary access track on streambed is unavoidable, this shall be kept to the minimum width and length. Temporary river crossings shall be supported on stilts above the streambed.

§ Proper locations well away from the streams and nearby habitats for temporary storage of materials (e.g. equipment, filling materials, chemicals and fuel) and temporary stockpiling of construction debris and spoil shall be identified before commencement of the works;

§ Construction debris and spoil shall be covered up and/or properly disposed of as soon as possible to avoid being washed into the streams and nearby habitats by rain;

§ Contractors shall adhere to a strict 'clean site' policy, with all construction waste transported to predetermined sites for safe disposal. Under no circumstances shall there be any disposal of waste oil or other materials on site;

§ Construction effluent and site runoff shall be properly collected and/or treated. Wastewater from a construction site shall be managed with the following approach in order of preference:

(i) minimization of wastewater generation;

(ii) reuse and recycle; and

(iii) treatment.

§ Proper locations for discharge outlets of any wastewater treatment facilities well away from the streams and nearby habitats shall be identified;

§ When disturbance to riparian vegetation is unavoidable, all disturbed areas shall be planted with suitable vegetation to blend in with the natural environment upon completion of works;

§ Adequate lateral support may need to be erected in order to prevent soil/mud from slipping into the streams and nearby habitats but without unduly impeding the flow of the streams during heavy rain;

§ Vehicles and other plant shall be carefully maintained and properly used to minimise the chance for accidental spillage;

§ Any spillages that do occur shall be quickly identified and appropriately cleaned up before they can contaminate streams or groundwater; and

§ Supervisory staff shall be assigned and stationed on site to closely supervise and monitor the works.

9.8.16 Mitigation shall be required to minimise the potential for soil erosion. Several measures are proposed including:

§ Earth bunding of all areas on which soils have been disturbed or from which vegetation has been cleared to ensure that runoff will not move soils off-site;

§ Erection of temporary geotextile silt fences around earth moving works to trap any sediments being washed away and prevent them from entering surrounding areas;

§ Installation of silt traps at points where drainage from the Site enters any temporary sewage system;

§ Covering of any exposed soil or other loose materials with tarpaulins to prevent erosion; and

§ Exposed soil to be covered as quickly as possible following formation works, then seeded and covered with a biodegradable geotextile blanket for erosion control purposes.

9.8.17 The proper adoption of these measures would be sufficient to reduce the impact of construction runoff to acceptable levels.

Groundwater

9.8.18 Areas of any construction activities likely to pump out large quantities of groundwater, such as basement formation during Phase I construction, shall be protected with sheet-piling at suitable locations around the basement footprint, or by any similar method. Any discharge of groundwater pumped out from any dewatering process of the construction works shall comply with the water discharge requirement detailed in the water quality assessment in Section 8. To protect the natural integrity of the stream habitat and the associated organisms, no groundwater shall be pumped back to the two stream courses.

Noise and Other Disturbance

9.8.19 General measures for the control of air and noise pollution are described in relevant sections of this report. These measures are also appropriate for the protection of ecological resources.

9.8.20 The following provisions shall also be included and implemented:

§ The use of sturdy 1.8 metres protective fencing to be located at the edge of the tree canopy but not around the trunk, wherever feasible;

§ Avoidance of works beneath the tree canopy: This includes storage of materials, movement of construction vehicles and washing of equipment such as concrete mixers. If encroachment under the canopy area is unavoidable, adequate protection shall be provided to ensure no damage of any part of the tree will occur due to the encroachment;

§ Tree transplanting and planting works, shall be specified in the contract document and implemented by an approved Landscape Contractor. Quality control of the work shall be undertaken by a qualified Landscape Architect through site audits and approval of works;

§ Minimise disturbance to sensitive ecological areas by careful selection of haul road, storage area and works area;

§ Construction works shall be restricted to works area that are clearly defined;

§ Woodland or other habitats that will be affected by the construction works shall be well-defined and minimised;

§ Avoid human inference to habitats beyond the site boundary and habitats proposed to be retained by providing temporary barricades;

§ Works area shall be reinstated immediately after completion of the construction;

§ Waste and other refuse generated during construction shall be disposed of properly;

§ Carry out regular environmental audit to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures (e.g. Site drainage and proper waste disposal) are effective; and

§ Uncontrolled fire shall be strictly prohibited. Appropriate fire control measures shall be provided in order to protect nearby habitats.

9.8.21 With these measures, disturbance effect due to the construction works will be minimised to acceptable levels.

Operation Phase

Ecological Barrier

9.8.22 As no additional barrier effect is anticipated, no specific ecological mitigation measure is required.

Storm Water Runoff

9.8.23 The surface water drainage system of the Project shall be provided and well managed to collect and divert any storm water runoff into the existing storm drains. With such mitigation, no significant ecological impact is envisaged.

Disturbance to Wildlife from Visitors

9.8.24 In view of the present level of human disturbance, the Project is unlikely to pose a significant ecological impact.

9.9 Cumulative Impact due to Concurrent Project

9.9.1 There will be one concurrent project, under preliminary planning, to be constructed and operated in the vicinity of the Study Area. A new columbarium at Kiu Tau Road is planned to be constructed with commencement of works in 2010 and completion in 2012. Details of the concurrent project are provided in the Section 2.

9.9.1 There will be an overlap of construction period between the later stage of Phase I, Phase II of the Project and the concurrent project at Kiu Tau Road. The Future Expansion Phase of the Project may overlap with the later stage of the concurrent project. This new columbarium is not a designated project under the EIAO. Besides, the existing area for constructing the new columbarium is grassland / scrubland and abandoned land with concrete paving, hence, the ecological impact anticipated is minimal and insignificant cumulative impact is expected from this project.

9.10 Residual Impact

9.10.1 Ecological impacts will be mitigated to acceptable levels provided that the proposed mitigation measures are implemented properly. No significant residual impact is likely. Table 9-12 summarises the potential ecological impacts and their relevant mitigation measures.

Works Period	Potential Impact	Mitigation
Construction Phase	Habitat and Vegetation Loss
	1. 0.25 ha of semi-natural woodland will be lost	1. Not required. Transplantation and compensatory planting within Wo Hop Shek Cemetery is provided for compensation of the loss of greenery and amenity value
	2. Aquilaria sinensis, Cibotium barometz and Fraxinus spp. will be affected	2. Transplant 1 no. of Aquilaria sinensis and one colony of Cibotium barometz to other similar habitat, and transplant 7 nos. of Fraxinus spp. within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery
	3. 0.3 ha of scrubland will be lost, however, neither rare nor protected species will be affected	3. No mitigation measure proposed
	Habitat Fragmentation
	The existing area is already fragmented and encroached by urbanized areas. Fragmentation effect on the existing semi-natural woodland is minimal	Landscaping works will provide adequate mitigations. Therefore, no further measure is proposed
	Construction Runoff
	Un-treated site runoff entering into the stream may greatly affected aquatic ecology in the streams	Control construction runoff based on guideline of ETWB Technical Circular (Works) No. 5/2005
	Groundwater
	Groundwater will be pumping that will lower the groundwater level. However, both streams are regarded as ephemeral with only massive water flow anticipated during and after heavy rain. Thus, insignificant ecological impact would be anticipated	Sheet-piling around construction area during basement formation
	Noise and Other Disturbance
	Noise nuisance and waste dumping may disturb to wildlife during construction works	General control on noise pollution and good site practice are proposed
Operational Phase	Ecological Barrier
	No ecological barrier will occur	No specific measure is proposed
	Storm water Runoff
	Storm water runoff may carry pollutants and flow into the stream habitat nearby	A surface water drainage system for the Project shall be provided
	Human Disturbance on Wildlife
	The surrounding areas have already been subjected to considerable human disturbance due to the presence of graves and crematoria. Thus, the disturbance is considered insignificant	No specific measure is proposed
Whole Project	Cumulative Impact
	Minimal ecological impact is anticipated	No specific measure is proposed
	Residual Impact
	No significant residual impact is anticipated	No specific measure is proposed

Table 9-12 Summary of Potential Ecological Impact and Mitigation Measures

9.11 Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirement

9.11.1 Potential ecological impacts associated with the Project will be monitored through an EM&A programme. The EM&A programme is designed to verify the accuracy of the predictions of the ecological assessment study; to detect any unpredicted ecological impacts arising from the Project; to monitor the effectiveness of the recommended mitigated measures and to recommend action plans in response to unpredicted impacts; and/or failed mitigation. Details and frequency of the recommended ecological monitoring are provided in Section 11 of this EIA Report.

9.12 Conclusion

9.12.1 The only direct habitat loss resulting from the Project will be a small fraction of the semi-natural woodland (~0.25 ha) and scrubland (~0.3 ha) during Phase I of the construction. In particular, two floral species, Aquilaria sinensis and Cibotium barometz, (Both are protected as Category II on the Mainland and under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586); and are listed on Appendix II under CITES), will be affected. Transplantation of A. sinensis inside the Site is proposed to minimise any potential impact. Compensatory planting and mitigation measures for trees are detailed in the tree felling application, submitted separately.

9.12.2 Insignificant cumulative impact is anticipated from concurrent project of constructing additional columbaria since the site area is already an urbanised area with low ecological values.

9.12.3 Since no sensitive faunal species were observed during the survey, no potential impact on faunal species is anticipated. No significant residual impact is expected.

9.12.4 Given full implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, it is unlikely that there will be any significant ecological impact to the Site and its surrounding environment.

9.13 References

Ades, W.J.G. (1999). The Species Composition, Distribution and Population Size of Hong Kong Bats. Memoirs of The Hong Kong Natural History Society. No. 22: 183-209.

Carey, G.J., Chalmers, M.L., Diskin, D.A., Kennerley, P.R., Leader, P.J., Leven, M.R., Lewthwaite, R.W., Melville, D.S., Turnbull, M. and Young, L. (2001). The Avifauna of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, HKSAR.

Dudgeon, D. and Corlett R.T. (1994). Hills and Streams - An Ecology of Hong Kong. Hong Kong University Press.

Highway Department, HKSAR (2000). Investigation Assignment for Widening of Tolo Highway/ Fanling Highway between Island House Interchange and Fanling - Environmental Impact Assessment.

Hong Kong Herbarium (2004). Check List of Hong Kong Plants, HKSAR.

Hu, Q.M., Wu, T.L., Xia, N.H., Xing, F.W., Lai, P.C.C., and Yip, K.L. (2003). Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong 《香港稀有及珍貴植物》. AFCD, Friends of the Country Parks and Cosmos Books Limited.

Karsen, S.J., Michael, L.W.N. and Anthony B. (1998) Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles. The Provisional Hong Kong Urban Council.

Lau & Dudgeon (1999). Composition and distribution of Hong Kong Amphibian fauna. Memoirs of The Hong Kong Natural History Society. No. 22: 1-80.

Lau, W.N.M., Chan, S.K.F., Cheung, K.S., Ho, C.Y., Lam, F.N., Tang, W.S. and Bogadek, A. (2005). A Field Guide to The Amphibians of Hong Kong. Friends of the Country Parks and Cosmos Books Limited.

Ma, S.L., Ma, X.F., Shi, W.Y. (2001) A Guide to Mammal Tracking In China. China Forestry Publishing House.

Suen, K.Y.W. (2002) Lost mammals, the reportage of Hong Kong wild mammalian. 郭良蕙新事業有限公司.

Wilson, D.P.K. (2003). Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Hong Kong, HKSAR.

Xing, F.W., Ng, S.C. and Chau, K.C.L. (2000). Gymnosperms and Angiosperms of Hong Kong. Memoirs of The Hong Kong Natural History Society. No. 23: 21-136.

Young, J.J. and Yiu, V. (2002). Butterfly Watching In Hong Kong, Wan Li Book Co Ltd.

Zhao, E. (1998). China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals: Amphibia and Reptilia. Science Press, Beijing.中國野生動物保護協會 (2002). Atlas of Reptiles of China. 河南科學技術出版社.

10 Environmental Outcomes

10.1 The Project

10.1.1 The existing skeletal and coffin cremators in Wo Hop Shek Crematorium have been in use since 1960’s and 1991 respectively and are approaching the end of their serviceable life. There has been local concern regarding possible air pollution caused by emissions of the existing cremators. This project proposes to demolish the existing coffin crematorium and the skeletal cremator building and to construct a new crematorium on the same site to meet the increasing demands for cremations in Hong Kong. New cremation technology to enhance the handling capacity of cremators and improve control on air emissions will be employed. Their timely replacement will minimise any adverse impact on the environment and should address local concern.

10.1.2 The construction and demolition works will be undertaken in three phases as detailed in Section 2.5.

10.2 Key Environmental Impacts

10.2.1 A summary of the key environmental impacts arising from the Project is provided in Table 10‑1 below.

Key Environmental Impact	Construction and Demolition Phase	Operation Phase	Overall Impact
Air Quality	TSP Without dust control measures, exceedance of assessment criteria at some of the identified ASRs predicted. With dust control measures, no exceedance of assessment criteria predicted at ASRs.	RSP, CO, NO2, SO2, HCl, Hg, TOC, dioxins, odour and cancer risk No exceedance of respective acceptable air quality criteria at the identified ASRs predicted.	No adverse environmental impacts predicted provided that the mitigation measures recommended are properly implemented.
Noise	Predicted Noise Level (PNL) PNLs at the identified NSR comply with the relevant assessment criteria. Cumulative noise impact at the identified NSR from concurrent projects is predicted to be insignificant.	Predicted Noise Level (PNL) PNLs at the identified NSR comply with the relevant assessment criteria.	There will be no adverse environmental impacts.
Land Contamination	Contaminated Soil Large quantities of contaminated soil are not anticipated.* Contaminated Groundwater TPH concentrations in groundwater samples from BH1 and BH2 exceed the Dutch B and C levels respectively. PAH was not detected in the groundwater samples.	Aerial deposition of metals and dioxins. It is anticipated that aerial deposition would not give rise to significant land contamination.	No adverse environmental impacts anticipated provided that the recommended mitigation measures are properly implemented.
Waste Management	Surplus excavated materials: none (unless significant volumes of contaminated soils are detected)* Public Fill: c. 590m^3 C&D waste: c. 65 m^3 ACM: to be confirmed* DCM: to be confirmed* HMCM: to be confirmed* PAHCM: to be confirmed* TPHCM: to be confirmed* PCBCM: to be confirmed* Chemical waste: small amount General refuse: small amount	Bone Ash: 245kg/day Non-combustible Residues: 233kg/day Chemical waste: c. 27kg/day General Refuse: Minimal	No adverse environmental impacts anticipated provided that the mitigation measures recommended are properly implemented.
Landscape and Visual	Scrubland and grassland Loss of 0.28 ha of vegetation. Woodland Loss of 126 trees within the tree survey boundary (felled and transplanted trees). Stream No direct impact is expected. Silting from water runoff during construction phase may occur. Visual Impact Visual impact to the occasional visitors of the cemetery during the construction phase	Visual Impact Majority of visual impact will be screened by natural topography Change of visual character from the existing crematorium to the new crematorium and by removal of skeletal cremators and implementation of landscape works	The overall impact of the Project on the landscape and visual environment is acceptable provided mitigation measures are properly implemented.
Water	Water Quality With the recommended mitigation measures, no adverse impact to WSRs is expected.	Sewage and Wastewater Will be diverted to a sewer and directed to government sewage treatment works resulting in no significant environmental impact.	No adverse environmental impacts anticipated provided that the mitigation measures recommended are properly implemented
Ecology	Habitat Loss Direct habitat loss anticipated by the Project would be a small fraction of the semi-natural woodland (~0.25 ha) and scrubland (~0.3 ha). Two species, Aquilaria sinensis and Cibotium barometz affected. Compensatory planting and transplantation would minimise this impact in terms of loss of greenery and amenity value.	Stream/Storm Water runoff Due to the sensitivity of this habitat, storm water runoff, if uncontrolled, would cause minor to moderate impact. With control no adverse impact will result.	Ecological impacts would be mitigated to acceptable levels provided the proposed mitigation measures are properly implemented.

Notes: * Prior to demolition but after decommissioning of the Existing Crematorium, supplementary site investigation will be carried out at sites currently not accessible. In addition, confirmatory site investigation will also be conducted to confirm the level of contamination before demolition of the Existing Crematorium. Through these supplementary/confirmatory site investigations, the remediation methodology of contaminated soil as well as handling and disposal options for contaminated materials can be confirmed.

Table 10‑1 Summary of Key Environmental Impacts

10.3 Key Environmental Outcomes

Population and Environmental Sensitive Areas Protected

10.3.1 Environmental impacts arising from the Project, if not mitigated properly, could potentially affect the nearby population and sensitive receivers during the construction, demolition and operation periods, for example, dust emission from construction and demolition activities, noise from construction machinery and emissions from chimney of the new crematorium. In addition to the nearby population there will be workers accessing the Project work sites during the construction and demolition phases. With proper implementation of the environmental mitigation measures the surrounding population and sensitive receivers will not be adversely impacted from the Project.

Adoption of Environmentally-Friendly Designs

10.3.2 The preferred scenario is to provide the re-provisioned / additional cremators at the existing Wo Hop Shek Crematorium site by extending its area so that the overall site area can accommodate nine cremators and other ancillary facilities. The preferred scenario has taken into account the environment, incorporating the following environmentally-friendly features into the design to mitigate any adverse impact and benefit the environment as far as practicable:

§ Replacement of the existing crematorium by a new one with cremators of improved design and APC technologies would improve the air quality in the vicinity of the Wo Hop Shek Crematorium;

§ Adoption of APC technology based on ‘dry process’ significantly reduces wastewater production;

§ Adoption of Towngas which is a cleaner fuel with almost no SO₂ emissions and lower NO₂ emissions when compared to ULSD;

§ The existing crematorium site is shielded by hillside and the surrounding landform. This helps to reduce the visual impact to the surrounding sensitive receivers compared to other more urban and open sites;

§ Locating the chimneys at the opposite end of the site would make them visually more conspicuous to the sensitive receivers. The currently proposed location minimises visual impact;

§ Setting back the building from the main road would result in extensive cutting of natural slope at the southern boundary of the site and undesirable disturbance to the existing natural streams abutting the site. The currently proposed layout minimises physical disturbance to the site;

§ Kiu Tau Road and Ming Yin Road are the main access roads that will be used for transportation during the demolition/construction and operation stages. Kiu Tau Road shall be utilised for transportation with a view to avoiding and minimising environmental disturbance to the sensitive receivers within the Study Area;

§ The noise level generated from the plant shall be reduced by locating them as far as practical from the NSRs within the Site, and / or by orientating the noise emission points away from the NSRs, and / or by the application of silencers, acoustic barriers or enclosures to the concerned equipment; and

§ The trees that require removal during the construction phase will be transplanted where possible to minimise the need for tree felling. If transplantation is not applicable, compensatory planting shall be carried out using native species.

Key Environmental Problems Avoided

10.3.3 In order to avoid or minimise the environmental impacts of the Project, a number of preventive measures have been recommended in this report. The key environmental measures and problems avoided are highlighted below:

§ With the implementation of dust suppression measures during the construction and demolition works, the dust emission from the construction sites will be reduced by 90% and no adverse construction dust impact will affect the nearby sensitive receivers;

§ Special demolition and handling methods for the contaminated materials will be adopted to avoid fugitive emission of asbestos and other air pollutants;

§ During the construction and demolition phase, the surplus excavated materials will be reused on site as far as practical to minimise the amount of waste requiring disposal at landfill;

§ Human activities already exist in the current site and its vicinity, therefore the environmental impact of the expanded project on the local ecosystem will be less compared with a new development in a piece of virgin land; and

§ The existing cremators can be upgraded as soon as possible, thereby addressing the local concern and improving the air quality.

Compensation Areas

10.3.4 No compensation area outside of the site boundary will be required for this Project.

Key Environmental Benefits of Environmental Protection Measures Recommended

10.3.5 The key environmental benefits of implementing the recommended preventive and mitigation measures during construction, demolition and operation phases can be summarised as follows:

§ The air, noise, water quality, and visual impacts at the sensitive receivers will all be minimised or mitigated to within the acceptable criteria and standards;

§ The amount of waste materials requiring disposal will be minimised through reduction, reuse and/or recycling of waste;

§ The potential secondary environmental impacts arising from the handling and disposal of various types of waste materials as well as the potential impacts on the capacity of waste collection, transfer and disposal facilities will be controlled to acceptable levels;

§ All the contaminated soil and materials will be handled, treated, and disposed of properly, minimising their associated environmental impacts; and

§ Amenity planting, woodland mix planting and tree compensation will minimise the landscape and ecological impacts. The improved aesthetic outlook of the proposed crematorium will benefit the landscape character.

Potential New Environmental Benefits Due to the Reprovisioning of the Existing Crematorium

10.3.6 The potential new environmental benefits that will be brought about by the Project include the following:

§ The existing cremators will be upgraded, thereby addressing the local concern on air emissions;

§ Towngas will be used as burning fuel for the new cremators. When compared to diesel used for the existing cremators, the emissions of air pollutants from fuel combustion will be much reduced;

§ Replacement of the existing crematorium by a new one with cremators of improved design and APC technologies will lead to an improvement in the local air quality; and

§ The Project will help meet the increasing public demand for cremation service. There will be an increase in the total annual cremation capacity in the territory to some 50,000 sessions and shortening of waiting time from the current pledge of 15 days to 13 days.

11 Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements

11.1 Introduction

11.1.1 This Section details the recommendations for the EM&A programme for the construction and operation phases of the Project, with reference to the findings of this EIA Study. This EM&A programme has been formulated in accordance with the “Environmental Monitoring and Audit Guidelines for Development Projects in Hong Kong” published by EPD in 1998. A separate EM&A Manual has been prepared in accordance with Annex 21 of the EIAO-TM.

11.1.2 The objectives of conducting the EM&A programme for the Project are as follows:

§ To provide a database against which any short- or long-term environmental impacts of the Project can be determined;

§ To provide an early indication should any of the environmental control measures or practices fail to achieve the acceptable standards;

§ To monitor the performance of the Project and the effectiveness of mitigation measures;

§ To verify the environmental impacts predicted in this EIA;

§ To determine project compliance with regulatory requirements, standards and government policies;

§ To take remedial action if unexpected problems or unacceptable impacts arise; and

§ To provide data to enable an environmental audit.

11.1.3 According to assessment results, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated during construction and demolition phases of the existing crematorium nor during the operational phase of the new crematorium. Environmental monitoring measures are recommended to allow monitoring of the environmental performance of the Project. The following sections summarise the recommended EM&A requirements for the construction and operation phases.

11.2 EM&A Requirements for Construction Phase

11.2.1 Air quality, land contamination, ecological, and landscape and visual monitoring are recommended during construction phase of the Project. Further site investigations are recommended for land contamination and waste management after decommissioning but prior to demolition of the Existing Crematorium.

11.2.2 Monitoring is not considered necessary for noise as the environmental assessment results indicated that there will be no adverse environmental impact. Water quality monitoring shall be confined to the relevant effluent discharge licensing requirements to be issued by EPD under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO).

11.2.3 Site audit is recommended to be undertaken routinely to ensure that appropriate environmental protection and pollution control mitigation measures are properly implemented. Details of the EM&A programme are described in a separate EM&A Manual.

Air Quality

11.2.4 The air quality impact assessment reveals that construction dust impacts will occur during the construction phases of the Project if dust control measures (i.e. water spraying) are not implemented properly. EM&A of air quality during the construction phase is recommended.

11.2.5 Total suspended particulates (TSP) monitoring shall be carried out at two representative locations, A22a and A22b. Throughout the construction periods of the Project, 1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring shall be carried out at these two measurement locations at a 6-day frequency to monitor the impact of fugitive dust on the nearby environment. The proposed TSP measurement locations are listed in Table 11-1 and the limit levels of 1-hour and 24-hour TSP levels are summarised in Table 11-2.

Air Sensitive Receiver	Location
A22a	Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen
A22b	Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen

Table 11‑1 Proposed Monitoring Location

Parameter	Limit Level (mg/m^3)
1-hour average TSP	500
24-hour average TSP	260

Table 11‑2 Limit Level of Air Quality Monitoring for Construction Phase

11.2.6 Baseline air quality monitoring shall be carried out for 14 consecutive days prior to the commencement of major construction works to determine the action levels for 1-hour and 24-hour average TSP levels.

11.2.7 Details of the air quality monitoring and audit requirements are provided in a separate EM&A Manual.

Noise

11.2.8 Regular site audit, to be carried out at least once per week during construction phase, is recommended to ensure that appropriate environmental protection and pollution control mitigation measures are properly implemented to minimise any noise nuisance.

Land Contamination

Further Site Investigation

11.2.9 The Interim CAR and RAP recommend that further site investigations are required after decommissioning of the existing crematorium in areas that are currently in use and so cannot be accessed. These areas include the transformer room, dangerous goods stores, day tank room, fuel pump room, sunken fuel pipe and cremator.

11.2.10 No sample could be collected from BH1 and BH2 (as identified in CAP), and so sampling at these locations shall also be included in the future investigation after decommissioning.

11.2.11 The underground fuel tanks shall be removed during the demolition phase of the Project. After removal, a suitably experienced specialist shall inspect the soil beneath the tank in order to determine whether there is any visual or olfactory evidence of contamination due to fuel leakage. If contamination is suspected, confirmatory sample(s) shall be collected from the soil beneath the tank and tested for TPH.

11.2.12 If soil contamination is identified, the extent of contamination shall be confirmed. Contaminated soil will be removed or treated. Confirmatory soil sampling shall be carried out during the remediation works. It will consist of five to six samples in each of the locations where soil contamination is identified from site investigation works. The locations shall be located to the north, south, east and west of the location where contaminated soil is found. Two locations shall also be above and below the depth where contaminated soil is found. If analytical results exceed the relevant RBRGs, the contamination area shall be extended and further confirmatory sampling shall be carried out until no further contamination is encountered.

11.2.13 Potential contaminants in the soils have been identified in CAP. The parameters to be analysed for the soils at different locations are summarised in Table11-3.

Location	Parameters
Existing Crematorium
Underground fuel tank (BH1 and BH2)	§ Total Petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) § Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Dangerous goods store	§ TPH § PAH
Daily tank room, fuel pump room and sunken fuel pipe	§ TPH § PAH
Cremators (residual inside the cremator, flue and chimneys)	§ PAH § Dioxins § Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)
Transformer room	§ Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
Skeletal Cremator Building
Dangerous goods store	§ TPH § PAH
Cremator (residual inside the cremator, flue and chimneys)	§ PAH § Dioxins § Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)

Table 11‑3 Testing Parameters for Further Site Investigation

11.2.14 All further site investigations shall be carried out after the decommissioning of the existing crematorium and skeletal cremator building. Sampling and analysis plans for these investigations shall be prepared and submitted to EPD for approval prior to any of these investigation works. Supplementary CAR and RAP shall be prepared to detail the results and findings of these site investigations and, if any, necessary remedial works. The demolition contractor shall be responsible for any further site investigations.

11.2.15 Details of the further site investigations and the land contamination monitoring and audit requirements are provided in a separate EM&A Manual.

Waste Management

Further Site Investigation

11.2.16 Because of current operations, it is not currently possible to conduct inspection and sampling of asbestos containing materials (ACM) within the cremators, chimney and flues to assess the levels of contamination due to the current operation of the crematorium.

11.2.17 After decommissioning, but prior to demolition of the Existing Crematorium, further contamination investigation shall be carried out to confirm the quality and quantity of ash waste and building structures requiring treatment and disposal. Further site investigation has been recommended in Section 6.7 of this report and details are provided in the EM&A Manual. Table 11-4 summarises the supplementary contamination site investigations that are required.

Location	Investigation Parameter	Investigation Period	Responsible Party
Cremators/flue/chimney and surrounding areas	Asbestos (building structures)	After decommissioning but prior to demolition of the Existing Crematorium	Contractor
Cremators/flue/chimney and surrounding areas	Dioxins, heavy metals, PAH (ash waste)

Table 11‑4 Supplementary Site Investigation

11.2.18 Prior to the sampling works, a supplementary site investigation plan, devised by consultants who are experienced in the abatement of chemical waste, shall be submitted to EPD for approval.

11.2.19 If contamination is found, relevant mitigation measures suggested in Section 6.7 of this report shall be implemented.

11.2.20 To ensure compliance with all appropriate environmental protection and pollution control measures, a waste management audit shall be carried out during Construction Phases I and II of the Project.

11.2.21 Details of the waste management monitoring and audit requirements and are provided in a separate EM&A Manual.

Landscape and Visual

11.2.22 The project landscape architect shall be responsible for inspection of the following:

§ Retained trees are properly fenced off around the dripline of the trees and existing vegetation to be retained are properly maintained throughout construction period;

§ Tree felling and transplanting operations are according to the approved permit by relevant Government departments;

§ The new plantings provide screening effect and blend in with the existing environment;

§ Compensatory tree planting is in the ratio of at least 1:1 in terms of quantity;

§ Site offices and hoarding are properly constructed and located; and

§ The design and finish of the crematorium building shall have the least adverse visual impacts to VSRs, such as locating the chimney at the least conspicuous location.

11.2.23 EM&A shall be undertaken fortnightly for the construction phase of the Project to ensure all the implementation of landscape and visual mitigation measures are carried out.

11.2.24 The monitoring shall, in particular, record existing conditions and changes of each landscape resource, landscape character area and the view conditions of each visually sensitive receiver, including glare. Parameters used to describe changes in each of the above shall be the same as in Sections 7.6 and 7.8 of the EIA Report.

11.2.25 Detail requirements of the environmental monitoring and audit are provided in a separate EM&A Manual.

Water Quality

11.2.26 Water quality monitoring for the construction and operation phases of the Project shall be confined to the relevant effluent discharge licensing requirements to be issued by EPD under the WPCO. Regular site audit, to be carried out at least once per week during construction phase, is recommended to ensure that appropriate environmental protection and pollution control mitigation measures are properly implemented to minimise any water quality impact.

Ecology

11.2.27 According to the assessment in Section 9 of the EIA Report for the Project, the main ecological concern is vegetation clearance and disturbance within the semi-natural woodland. Within this habitat, the assessment in Section 9 identified two plant species of conservation interest, namely Aquilaria sinensis and Cibotium barometz.

11.2.28 General EM&A requirements concerning transplantation of the two species of conservation interest are recommended. Monitoring of tree transplantation should be undertaken as detailed below.

11.2.29 Regular site audit and mitigation measures for good site practice will serve to minimize ecological impacts.

11.2.30 The implementation of mitigation measures recommended in Section 9 of the EIA Report shall be routinely audited, once per week, during the construction phase of the Project.

11.2.31 Detail requirements of the environmental monitoring and audit are provided in a separate EM&A Manual.

Monitoring of Tree Transplantation

11.2.32 At the detailed design stage, individual trees requiring transplantation or protection shall be identified, based on the information provided in the Tree Survey Report, as shown in Annex 7b.

11.2.33 For any transplantation of Aquilaria sinensis or Cibotium barometz individuals, regular monitoring of the plants should be conducted to check on the health and conditions of the plants. It is recommended that the monitoring should cover the 12-month period following transplantation. The monitoring should be conducted by a suitably qualified botanist / horticulturist at least twice a month for the first four months after transplantation, and once a month for the remaining eight months.

11.3 EM&A Requirements for Operation Phase

11.3.1 Air quality monitoring is recommended during operation phase of the Project. Monitoring and Audit is not considered necessary for noise, land contamination, waste management, ecology, landscape and visual and water quality of the Project as the environmental assessment results indicated that there will be no adverse environmental impact. Details of the EM&A programme are described in a separate EM&A Manual.

Air Quality

11.3.2 During the operation of the new crematorium, it is anticipated that the major environmental concern will be the chimney emissions. RSP, CO, HCl, Hg, organic compounds and dioxins will be generated from the cremation process. Cremators, designed with equivalent specifications as for the recent crematoria projects at Fu Shan and Diamond Hill, and equipped with the latest technological flue gas filtering and emission monitoring systems, that meets the latest BPM12/2(06) emission requirements, shall be adopted in the new crematorium.

11.3.3 The results of the air quality impact assessment indicate that the air quality at the nearby ASRs will be in compliance with the relevant air quality guidelines. There will be no odour nuisance from the new crematorium. By limiting joss paper burning activities through administration procedures, nuisance arising from joss paper burning is anticipated to be negligible.

11.3.4 In order to ensure compliance with the legislation requirements, the conditions and the continuous monitoring stipulated in BPM12/2(06) shall be carried out. The monitoring of the above air pollutants shall comply with the requirements of BPM and the future Specified Process License of the new crematorium, to be issued by EPD under the APCO.

11.3.5 Necessary monitoring equipment and techniques shall be provided and used to demonstrate that the combustion process is properly operated and that emissions meet the air pollution control requirements. The scope, manner and frequency of the monitoring shall be sufficient for this purpose and shall be determined by EPD. Monitoring results shall be recorded and presented in a manner specified by EPD. The records shall be retained at the new crematorium for a minimum of two years, or other period specified by EPD, after the date of last entry and shall be made available for examination as and when requested by EPD.

11.3.6 The following parameters of the combustion process shall be monitored and recorded continuously or periodically:

1. Process and Waste Gas Continuous Monitoring

§ Temperature inside the primary combustion zone.

§ Temperature and oxygen content of the gas at the appropriate location(s) to demonstrate that the requirements set out in paragraphs 4.2.2 to 4.2.3 of BPM12/2 are complied with.

§ Carbon monoxide concentration at the outlet from the secondary combustion zone.

§ Gas opacity at the chimney of the cremator.

§ Other essential operating parameter(s) that may affect the performance of air pollution control measures.

2. On-line Monitoring

§ The continuous monitoring data referred to in (1) above shall be transmitted instantaneously to EPD by telemetry system or real time, and logged monitoring data shall be accessible by EPD in such manner and format to be agreed with EPD.

3. Periodic Measurement

§ Periodic measurements of particulates, HCl, CO, gaseous and vaporous organic compounds, Hg and dioxins shall be made to confirm the compliance with the emission limits set out in Annex I of BPM12/2(06). The sampling frequency shall be determined by EPD. All measurement results shall be recorded, processed and presented in a summary report as agreed by EPD. The report shall be submitted to EPD within reasonable time(s) to be agreed with EPD after the source sampling(s) as required is/are completed.

11.3.7 The monitoring equipment to be used shall meet the specifications detailed by EPD. They shall be maintained and calibrated according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Unless otherwise agreed by EPD, zero and span checks shall be carried out every 24 hours and recorded.

11.3.8 The instruments for gas opacity monitoring shall be fitted with audible and visual alarms that shall activate at a trigger level agreed with EPD. Emission events that lead to the alarms being activated shall be properly recorded in such a manner and format agreed with EPD. These instruments shall be checked regularly to ensure that they are functioning correctly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

11.3.9 Smoke emission from the cremator during the normal operations (including start-up and shut down) shall not, when compared in the appropriate manner with the Ringlemann Chart or an approved device, appear to be as dark as, or darker than Shade 1 on the Ringlemann Chart.

11.3.10 Details of the air quality monitoring and audit requirements are provided in the EM&A Manual.

11.4 Summary for All Monitoring Parameters

11.4.1 A summary of all parameters to be monitored and audited during the construction phases and the operational phase of the Project are shown in Table 11-5.

Monitoring Area	Construction and Demolition Phase I and II	Operating Phase
Air	TSP Monitoring § 1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring at 2 measurement locations at a 6-day frequency Site Audit § Site audit of mitigation measures	Continuous Monitoring § Temperature inside primary combustion zone § Temperature and oxygen content of the gas at the appropriate location(s) to demonstrate that the requirements set out in paragraphs 4.2.2 to 4.2.3 of BPM12/2(06) are complied with. § Carbon monoxide concentration at the outlet from the secondary combustion zone § Gas opacity at the chimney of the cremator § Other essential operating parameter(s) that may affect the performance of air pollution control measures. Periodic Measurement § Particulate matter § Hydrogen chloride § Carbon monoxide § Gaseous and vaporous organic substances § Mercury § Dioxins
Noise	Site Audit § Site audit of mitigation measures	Not required
Land Contamination	Existing Crematorium § Underground fuel tank (BH1 and BH2), Dangerous goods store, Daily tank room, fuel pump room and sunken fuel pipe (TPH, PAHs) § Transformer room (PCBs) § Cremators - residual inside the cremator, flue and chimneys (PAH, Dioxins, Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)) Skeletal Cremator Building § Dangerous goods store (TPH, PAH) § Cremator - residual inside the cremator, flue and chimneys (PAH, Dioxins, Metals (Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Mo, Cd, Sn, Ba, Hg, Pb)) Site Audit § Site audit of mitigation measures	Not required
Waste Management	Ash § Cremators / flue / chimney and surrounding areas (dioxins, heavy metals, PAH) Building Structures § Cremators / flue / chimney and surrounding areas (asbestos) Site Audit § Site audit of mitigation measures	Not required
Landscape and Visual	Inspection EM&A shall be undertaken bi-weekly	Not required
Water Quality	Water Quality Monitoring § Confined to the relevant effluent discharge licensing requirements to be issued by EPD WPCO. Site Audit § Site audit of mitigation measures	Water Quality Monitoring § Confined to the relevant effluent discharge licensing requirements to be issued by EPD WPCO
Ecology	Monitoring of Tree Transplantation § Regular monitoring of Aquilaria sinensis and Cibotium barometz for the 12-month period following transplantation. Monitoring conducted at least twice a month for the first four months after transplantation, and once a month for the remaining eight months Site Audit § Site audit of mitigation measures	Not required

Table 11‑5 Summary for all Monitoring Parameters

11.5 Implementation Schedule of Mitigation Measures

11.5.1 A project implementation schedule containing all mitigation measures recommended in this EIA Report has been prepared. The implementation schedule is presented in Annex 11-a.

12 Conclusion and Recommendations

12.1 Air Quality Impact

Construction Phase

12.1.1 The air quality impact assessment reveals that there would be construction dust impact at some of the identified ASRs during the construction phases of the Project if dust control measures (i.e. water spraying) are not properly implemented.

12.1.2 No significant residual air quality impact is predicted from the demolition of the existing crematorium and construction of the new crematorium, provided that the relevant mitigation measures are properly implemented.

Operation Phase

12.1.3 No exceedance of respective air quality criteria at the identified ASRs is predicted during the operation phase. The air quality impact assessment results indicate that no adverse impact at the ASRs would occur due to the emissions from the new crematorium.

12.1.4 With the proper operation and maintenance of the new crematorium and APC equipment of the cremators, the residual air quality impact during the operation of the new crematorium is predicted to be insignificant.

12.2 Noise Impact

Construction Phase

12.2.1 Predicted noise levels at the identified NSR, Wo Hop Shek San Tsuen, comply with the relevant assessment criteria. Only exceedance of daytime noise criterion during examination periods is anticipated for the planned NSR at the G/IC zone, should the G/IC zone developed into educational institutions.

12.2.2 No significant residual noise impact is predicted during the demolition of the existing crematorium and construction of the new crematorium for the existing NSR. Nevertheless, the use of quiet PME during construction phase of the Project is recommended to further minimise the noise nuisance.

Operation Phase

12.2.3 The predicted operation noise levels at the identified NSRs comply with the relevant assessment criteria. No adverse noise impact is predicted from the operation activities.

12.2.4 No significant residual noise impact is predicted during the operation of the new crematorium.

12.3 Land Contamination Impact

Construction Phase

12.3.1 It is anticipated that large quantities of contaminated soil will not be generated from the demolition of the existing crematorium and construction of the new crematorium.

12.3.2 Prior to demolition but after decommissioning of the existing crematorium, supplementary site investigation will be carried out at sites currently not accessible. Confirmatory site investigation will be conducted to confirm the level of contamination.

12.3.3 No significant residual land contamination impacts are predicted from the demolition of the existing crematorium and construction of the new crematorium provided that the recommended mitigation measures are properly implemented.

Operation Phase

12.3.4 It is anticipated that aerial deposition would not give rise to significant land contamination.

12.4 Waste Management Implications

Construction Phase

12.4.1 Minimal amounts of public fill, C&D waste, chemical waste and general refuse will be generated. There will be no surplus of excavated materials unless significant volumes of contaminated soils are detected. Extra demand on public filling areas and landfills will be minimal.

12.4.2 The contaminated materials are expected to be concentrated around cremators, flues and chimney. After decommissioning, but prior to demolition, of the existing crematorium, further contamination investigation shall be carried out to confirm the quality and quantity of ash waste and building structures requiring treatment and disposal.

12.4.3 Waste management implications from the demolition of the existing crematorium and construction of the new crematorium will be insignificant provided the relevant mitigation measures, good site practices and waste reduction measures are implemented.

Operation Phase

12.4.4 The quantity of waste requiring disposal during the operation of the new crematorium will be minimal.

12.4.5 With effective implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, it is anticipated that the associated waste management implications from the operation of the new crematorium on the environment and the potential impacts on the capacity of waste collection, transfer and disposal facilities will be insignificant.

12.5 Landscape and Visual Impact

Construction Phase

12.5.1 The removal/loss of trees is the main landscape impact resulting from the construction phase of the Project. Amenity planting, woodland mix planting and tree compensation will mitigate the impact to an acceptable level.

12.5.2 During the construction phase of the project, visual impact will occur to the occasional visitors of the cemetery. Provided the relevant mitigation measures are implemented, the impact will be acceptable.

12.5.3 No significant residual landscape and visual impact is predicted from the demolition of the existing crematorium and construction of the new crematorium, provided the relevant mitigation measures are properly implemented.

Operation Phase

12.5.4 The majority of visual impact will be screened by natural topography and the landscape character will benefit from the improved aesthetic outlook of the proposed crematorium.

12.5.5 There will be a change of visual character from the existing crematorium building to the new crematorium building and by removal of skeletal cremators.

12.5.6 No significant residual landscape and visual impact is predicted during the operation of the new crematorium provided the relevant mitigation measures are properly implemented.

12.6 Water Quality Impact

Construction Phase

12.6.1 Two WSRs (two streams) have been identified. However, since the two streams are ephemeral with only massive water flow anticipated during and after heavy rainfall, the potential water quality impact likely to be induced during the construction phase of the Project is anticipated to be minimal.

12.6.2 No significant residual water quality impact is predicted from the demolition of the existing crematorium as well as the construction of the new crematorium, provided that the recommended mitigation measures and good construction and site management practices are properly implemented.

Operation Phase

12.6.3 No effluent will be discharged from the APC equipment in the new crematorium.

12.6.4 Sewage and wastewater generated from the new crematorium will be diverted to communal sewer and directed to government sewage treatment facilities.

12.6.5 There will be no significant residual water quality impacts from the operation of the new crematorium.

12.7 Ecological Impact

Construction Phase

12.7.1 The only direct habitat loss resulting from the Project will be a small fraction of the semi-natural woodland and scrubland during Phase I of the construction. In particular, two floral species, Aquilaria sinensis and Cibotium barometz, will be affected. Transplantation of A. sinensis inside the Site and compensatory planting is proposed to minimise any potential impact.

12.7.2 No significant residual ecological impact is predicted from the demolition of the existing crematorium as well as the construction of the new crematorium, provided that the recommended mitigation measures are properly implemented.

Operation Phase

12.7.3 The Project site is located within the crematorium area in Wo Hop Shek and this area has been used for such purpose for decades. In view of the present level of human disturbance, the operation of the new crematorium is unlikely to pose a significant ecological impact.

12.7.4 No significant residual ecological impact is predicted from the operation of the new crematorium provided that the relevant mitigation measures are properly implemented.

12.8 Overall

12.8.1 This assessment has considered the environmental impacts from the demolition of the existing crematorium as well as the construction and operation of the new crematorium.

12.8.2 It has been assessed that the environmental impacts arising from the Project are either considered minimal or can be mitigated to an extent where the impacts on the sensitive receivers are acceptable.

12.8.3 No significant residual impacts are anticipated, provided that the recommended mitigation measures are properly implemented.

12.8.4 An EM&A programme is therefore recommended to ensure that the mitigation measures have been properly implemented and environmental quality has not been seriously affected throughout the Project.

---

[1] EIA Report for the Reprovisioning of Diamond Hill Crematorium, Hong Kong Productivity Council, 2003.

[2] Preliminary Remediation Goal for residential soils, United States Environmental Protection Agency OSWER Directive 9200.4-26 “Approach for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites”, 13 April 1998.

[3] Geochemical Atlas of Hong Kong, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Office, 1999.

[4] Reduction of Construction Waste Final Report (March 1993), Hong Kong Polytechnic.

[5] Demolition of Kwai Chung Incineration Plant EIA Report

[6] Decommissioning and disposal of a Clinical Waste Incinerator at Tang Siu King Hospital

[7] Reprovision of Diamond Hill Crematorium, EIA.

[8]Reprovisioning of Diamond Hill Crematorium, EIA

[9] Proposed Replacement of Cremators at Fu Shan Crematorium, Shatin, EIA.