Development of
Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase 2
Environmental Impact Assessment Report
Chapter Title
Figure 2.1 Location
of Proposed Site
Figure 2.2 Preliminary
Site Layout
Figure 2.3a Process
Flow Diagram Biogas Option A (CHP)
Figure 2.3bI Process
Flow Diagram Biogas Option BI (Gas Export)
Figure 2.3bII Process
Flow Diagram Biogas Option BII (CHP / Gas Export)
Figure 2.4 Comparison of Initial and Further Site Layout
Plans
Appendices
Appendix 2.1 Environmental Performance of Biogas
Utilisation Options
Appendix 2.2 Evaluation of Compost Options
The OWTF 2 Project is a key part of the Hong Kong
Government’s drive to increase the sustainability of waste management in the
HKSAR. The purpose of the facility is to treat large volumes of
source-separated organic waste (principally food waste) from Commercial,
Institutional and Industrial facilities in order to recover reusable materials
and energy, such as compost and biogas, and minimise the volume of waste
disposed of at
The construction of the Project will involve demolition and removal of the existing above ground structures of the Sha Ling Livestock Waste Composting Plant (SLCP), construction of superstructure for an administration building and enclosed waste reception area, installation of treatment facilities including waste pre-treatment equipment, digesters, biogas holding tanks, composting, wastewater treatment, air treatment systems, and facilities for biogas processing, utilisation and transmission, etc.
When operational, the plant will process around 300 tonnes of organic waste per day to produce biogas and soil enhancement products (e.g. soil conditioner / compost). The organic waste will be source separated and delivered to the OWTF 2 by road directly from the producers. The plant will either supply biogas directly to the gas network, or use it to generate renewable electricity on site. Surplus power may be exported to the grid. Treated wastewater will be discharged to the local sewerage network.
The Project is located at Sha Ling in the North District, within the Frontier Closed Area (see Figure 2.1). The Site has an area of around 2.5 hectares, of which roughly 1.5 hectares has been previously developed. The former Sha Ling Livestock Waste Composting Plant currently occupies the site; although this facility was decommissioned in 2010. The Site is zoned as Government, Institution or Community (G/IC) landuse in the approved Fu Tei Au and Sha Ling Outline Zoning Plan No. S/NE-FTA/12 dated October 2010. EPD has use of the site by way of Temporary Government Land Allocation (TGLA) No. TDN 265.
The Site consists of a platform located adjacent to
Table
2.1
shows the quantity of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW),
that is Domestic and Commercial and Industrial (C&I), waste arising in Hong
Kong in 2011 in each of its main regions.
Of the approximately 9 million tonnes of MSW arising in that year,
around 52% was estimated to be recovered. The remaining 3.27 million tonnes of
MSW was sent to
Table 2.1: Waste to Landfill in Hong Kong, by Region
and by Type in 2011, Tonnes
|
|
Domestic |
C&I |
MSW |
|
Hong Kong Island |
1,190 |
418 |
1,608 |
|
Kowloon |
1,864 |
914 |
2,779 |
|
NT- Mainland Sub-total |
2,794 |
1,550 |
4,344 |
|
NT-Outlying |
124 |
140 |
264 |
|
All |
5,973 |
3,023 |
8,995 |
Source: EPD (2011) Monitoring Solid Waste in Hong Kong
Organic waste represented the largest portion of the MSW horizon in 2011, accounting for around 4,000 tonnes per day, or 44% of total material disposed of to landfills by weight. C&I Waste accounted for 34% of total MSW arisings, with around 3,023 tonnes per day. Of this amount, around 1,126 tonnes was organic waste (28% of all organic waste). More than 88% of the organic waste in MSW is food waste, with the remainder made up from yard waste and other organic materials. Special Wastes such as animal, agricultural, and grease trap waste, and sewage sludge are treated separately, and further add to the quantity of organic wastes requiring disposal.
The Hong Kong Government recognises a pressing need to pursue
more sustainable alternatives to present waste treatment and disposal practices
in Hong Kong. Continuation of the
current disposal system in
In December 2005, EPD published ‘A Policy Framework for the
Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Hong Kong (2005-2014)’ (Policy
Framework), setting out policy tools and initiatives to be implemented for the
sustainable management of MSW in
The OWTFs are to be developed in two phases, with Phase 1 located at Siu Ho Wan in Northern Lantau Island, and Phase 2 (OWTF2, this project) at Sha Ling, Northern New Territories, on the site of the former Sha Ling Livestock Waste Composting Plant. The two phases of OWTF facilities are planned to use anaerobic digestion with composting to treat a combined 500 tonnes of organic waste daily, 300 tonnes of which will be treated at OWTF 2. The OWTF projects will reduce the volume of material requiring disposal, and together could reduce the quantity of C&I waste requiring landfill by more than 16%, at present rates.
OWTF 2 is important, not only to mitigate the depletion of available landfill space, but also in order to conserve resources through the recovery of compost and biogas that would be otherwise unused. Compost (or other soil improvement products) can be used as a sustainable input for landscaping, farming and horticulture, while biogas is a source of renewable energy. The OWTF 2 will therefore represent a valuable contributor to Hong Kong Government’s climate change and energy security objectives.
Various organic waste treatment options have been assessed for their feasibility and suitability to the project site. A combination of Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and composting has been selected as the most appropriate waste treatment solution for the project. This is an established and cost-effective process, with minimal environmental impacts, which maximises energy and resource recovery. The AD process breaks down pre-treated organic waste, in the absence of oxygen, releasing biogas and converts other material to digestate. The solid fraction of the digestate can then be composted. By this process, biodegradable organic wastes are converted to energy while the digestate is recycled and reused as a soil improver/compost. Biogas generated will be supplied directly to the gas network, or used to generate renewable electricity on site, and/or to supply surplus power to the power network.
The
preliminary design includes the following main elements listed in Table 2.2 and shown in Figure 2.2.
Table 2.2: Main Project Facilities and Systems
|
Aspect |
System / facility |
|
Main structure |
· Waste reception and preparation area · Administration area · Environmental Education Centre · Pre-treatment system |
|
Composting |
· Composting tunnels · Maturation, treatment / storage area |
|
Anaerobic Digestion |
· Buffer Tank · Digesters · Separator / Dewatering Unit · Hygieneisation Unit |
|
Biogas Use |
· Gas Cleaning · Gas Holders · Compressors · Flare stack · Combined Heat and Power Unit (if required); |
|
Water system |
· Water supply system · Wastewater Treatment Plant · Effluent retention tank · Connection to the main sewer · Drainage system |
|
Emissions/Odour Treatment |
· CHP Exhaust treatment system · Odour treatment system · Chimney |
|
Ancillary Facilities |
· Weighbridge · Vehicle Washing Facilities · Maintenance Workshop and Utility Area · Continuous Emission Monitoring System · Power Supply System · Instrumentation, Control and Monitoring System · Security / registration |
The
preliminary design is based on the best available information. The assessment
adopts the conservative approach in terms of the design options presented [1].
The
final selection of the process system, facilities and biogas utilisation
options will be determined at the tender stage.
The performance specifications for each element will be set out in the
contract documents and therefore will not impact the assessment outcome.
It is assumed that organic waste is
collected and delivered to the treatment site 7 days a week between 7 am to 9
pm (14 hours). The waste
will be delivered to the site in bags or containers.
The
organic waste will be transported to the treatment facility in dedicated Refuse
Collection Vehicles (RCVs). These
vehicles have typical carrying capacity in the range of 5 to 10 tonnes each. Conservatively, this would translate to a
daily average of about 30-60 vehicles per day.
Each incoming and outgoing RCV will be weighed on a weighbridge for
registration of the amount of organic material delivered to the plant.
Offloading
of organic waste from the RCVs will be undertaken in an enclosed reception building. There will be two reception lanes in
separated sections of the building. The
unloading procedure will take place within the building. The unloading area
will be provided with air extraction equipment to avoid creating odour in the
vicinity of the plant. Extracted air will pass through an odour treatment
system before discharge to the atmosphere. Vehicle washing facilities will be
provided for vehicles exiting the site to avoid contamination of the external
road.
Organic
waste is highly degradable and will be processed immediately it arrives on the
site. Waste will be received continuously in alternate sections of processing
and receiving waste. This will buffer supply to the next stage of the process,
evening out delivered waste (non-continuous) and treatment of waste
(continuous).
The key components for the OWTF 2 facilities
are identified in the Process Flow Diagrams (PFD) (Figure 2.3), that include
potential gas utilisation options. A brief description of each numbered element
in the PFDs is given in Table
2.3
below.
Table 2.3: Description of Key Components and Process
Flow
|
Process Element |
Description |
Scale |
|
1. Reception |
The source-separated organic waste arriving at OWTF 2 is tipped from the organic waste collection vehicles into an enclosed reception pit. |
Gross area 522m2 |
|
2. Preparation |
From the reception pit, the waste is conveyed to a bag opener/shredder so that the material is accessible for the further treatment. |
|
|
3&4. Pre-treatment |
· The waste is then conveyed to a pulper, where the material is combined with water and subject to pulping to separate inorganic and oversized materials, reduce particle size and combine the waste into slurry. · Recirculated process water (i.e. centrifuge and treated waste water) is added to the pulper. · Light and heavy fractions of the waste are separated out in the pulper. · The slurry is passed to a separate tank where grit is settled out from the mixture and removed regularly. |
Gross area 474 m2 |
|
5. Buffer Tank |
The homogenised material is passed from the pulper to a balancing tank with a buffer capacity of one day, in order to stabilise the rate of flow of materials through the system. |
Volume = 1,000m3 |
|
6&7. Heat Exchange |
· Integrated heat exchangers for recovery and heating. · Heat is recovered from the CHP or boiler and used to maintain the temperature of the digesters and process air in the composting plant. |
Gross area 50m2 Height 4m |
|
8. Hygienisation |
Before entering the digesters, the waste is heated to 70 degrees C in three hygieneisation tanks for four hours. |
3 tanks of 4m diameter and 4m height |
|
9. Dewatering (Separator) |
· Outgoing material from the digester is passed into a separator (centrifuge or similar) in order to separate the liquid and solid fractions. · Part of the separated liquid fraction is pumped back to the mixing tank to be recycled in the pre-treatment process. The remaining liquid fraction is pumped to the wastewater treatment system. · The solid fraction is conveyed to the composting system. |
Elevated within composting facility |
|
10. Composting system |
· The digestate from the centrifuge is received in a mixing cell, where it is combined with sludge and fresh and recovered bulking agents. The material is then transferred to enclosed composting tunnels where it is arranged in aerated static piles. · Controlled aeration is provided through a controlled air injection system in the floor of the tunnels, which uses fans to push and/or pull air through the composting mass. · The material resides in the composting tunnels for 8 days. This process takes place continuously, with one row being removed as a new row is added. · The material removed from the tunnels is matured for a further 14 days in a covered area in order to complete the stabilisation process. At the end of the maturation period the compost is taken for final screening. |
Gross area of
composting building = 3,204m2 Building height 16.5m |
|
11&12. Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) |
· The remaining liquid from the separator is pumped to the WWTP. · Treated wastewater is proposed to be discharged to the local sewerage system, and residual biomass/sludge recycled to the process. |
Gross area 729m2 |
|
13. Digestion |
From the pre-treatment phase the waste is conveyed to the digestion tanks. Screw pumps are recommended to convey the material due to its density. It is recommended that the pre-treatment area and digesters are in close proximity to each other to reduce the pumping distance. |
Total volume
of digesters 16,023 m3 Height 25 m |
|
14. Emergency flare |
An emergency gas flare system is in place to safely dispose of biogas from the digesters under extraordinary circumstances. |
Height 20 m |
|
15. Gas cleaning system |
Biogas from the digester is conveyed to a gas cleaning unit where it is treated to remove impurities such as hydrogen sulphide, water and particulates. For export to the gas network, further gas cleaning equipment would be required in order to upgrade the biogas from approximately 62% methane to Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) quality (80%+ methane content). |
Gross area 160 m2 |
|
16. Gasholders |
After the gas cleaning process biogas will be stored in two gasholders as a buffer to even out variations in biogas production/use. |
Storage capacity equal to 1 hours’ production capacity |
|
17. Gas Compressor |
The biogas is compressed to the required supply pressure prior to export or use on site. |
|
|
18. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or Boiler |
· Biogas can be delivered to the gas network and / or used in a CHP plant. The electricity produced in the CHP may be used for the plant process with surplus electricity exported to the power grid. Heat generated can be reused in the process (e.g. maintaining the temperature in the digesters). · Under the gas export option, process heat would be generated in a boiler. |
CHP = 2 stacked Standard Container Units (SCU) (Area 96m2) Boiler (Area 60m2) |
|
19, 20, 21 & 22. Ventilation and Odour treatment |
· All the plant process steps will be enclosed and ventilated so that the operational spaces are under (negative) pressure in the process units, preventing odour escaping to the environment. · Process air is passed through a scrubber to adjust pH. · The ventilation air is directed to and treated in an odour treatment system (e.g. Ozone/UV and carbon filter). |
Equipment mainly located within the composting and treatment buildings |
|
23. Chimney |
· The exhaust from the odour treatment plant and CHP (if required) are discharged from a chimney. The maximum chimney height is assumed to be 30m depending on the requirements of the detailed design and relevant planning approvals. Current planning restrictions at the site restrict the height of structures to 13m above ground level; therefore the height of the chimney requires relaxation of this requirement to be agreed with the Planning Department. In addition, the emissions should be dispersed upwards and the height of the chimney should exceed, by at least 3m, the height of nearby buildings and structures [2]. · If CHP is installed, exhaust gas from may be treated by thermal and catalytic treatment (selective catalytic reduction / catalytic oxidation) and filters (18), to meet emission standards. |
Chimney height 30m |
A composting system will be used to treat
the digestate produced by the AD process, as well as
sludge from the WWTP. To achieve
efficient aerobic digestion the composition of the material transferred to the
composting system should be in accordance with the following criteria:
¡ 30% dry matter Total Solids
(TS),
¡ Carbon: Nitrogen (C:N) ratio of 1: 18-28, and
¡ Density of 650-700 kg/m3.
In order to achieve the above criteria, a
bulking agent may be added to the digestate at the
start of the composting process.
Reusable bulking materials can be recovered from the downstream
screening stage. Fresh bulking material is required to account for unrecovered
inert materials.
The dewatered digestate will be conveyed from the centrifuge to a mixing cell, where it will be combined with fresh and recovered bulking agents. From the mixing cell the material will be transferred to the composting system, for the final stage of post treatment. An enclosed tunnel composting system with forced aeration is recommended, as this will allow greater environmental and process control. Within the tunnels, controlled aeration is provided through an air injection system in the floor of the tunnels, which forces air through the composting mass. The aeration system is digitally monitored and controlled to allow the temperature (55-70°C) and moisture content to be optimised during the composting process.
The material will reside in the composting tunnels for 8 days. This process takes place continuously, with one row being removed as a new row is added. The material removed from the tunnels is matured for a further 14 days in a covered area in order to complete the stabilisation process. Drying and temperature control will again be achieved through an air injection system. Building ventilation air may be recycled for this purpose.
At the end of the maturation period the compost is taken for final screening. Screened bulking material will be taken to the mixing unit and returned to the composting process. Final storage of the end compost material prior to collection will take place on site, in an area sufficient to hold 14 days’ production.
Table 2.4 below provides an indicative overview of the flow and mass balance of the main elements within the composting system.
Table 2.4: Overview of Material Flow and Mass Balance within
the Composting Process
|
|
Digestate |
Fresh Bulking |
Recovered Bulking |
Composting |
Maturing, Screening |
Final Compost |
|
Air nozzles capacity [m3/m2/h] |
- |
- |
- |
100 |
50 |
- |
|
Air amount needed [m3/h] |
- |
- |
- |
45,000 |
150,000 |
- |
|
Total amount [tonne/year] |
34,310 |
1,716 |
17,155 |
53,181 |
38,843 |
15,321 |
|
Dry matter content [% TS] |
33 |
60 |
65 |
42 |
56 |
65 |
|
Evaporation/conversion [tonne/year] |
- |
- |
- |
14,338 |
6,367 |
- |
|
Process time [days] |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
14 |
- |
|
Storage time [days] |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
14 |
A waste treatment system will be employed at the OWTF 2 to treat the digestate liquid and other effluents such as domestic wastewater, wash water, and leachate arising at the site.
Table
2.5 below shows
average and peak wastewater treatment requirements at the
OWTF 2 by source.
Table 2.5: Estimated
Wastewater Treatment Requirements at the OWTF 2
|
|
Average Flow (m3 / day) |
Peak (L / s) |
|
From separator to WWTP |
229.18 |
5.31 |
|
From other sources to WWTP |
39.40 |
0.91 |
|
Total to WWTP |
268.58 |
6.22 |
There is a lack of information on the characteristics
of incoming wastewater quality to select the most appropriate treatment
technology at this stage. However, digestate produced
from the anaerobic digestion of organic waste are usually high in
nitrates/nitrites/ammonia. In the absence of a market for nitrogen rich digestate liquor, multistage separation (i.e.
ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis (UF & RO)) may not be appropriate [3]. Therefore, it is recommended that a biological
oxidation process such as Sequencing Batch Reactors
(SBR), ANAMMOX or SHARON wastewater treatment technologies are employed.
This will reduce the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and ammonia present
in the digestate liquor and allow effluent
from the OWTF 2 to attain an appropriate standard for discharge to the public
sewer and processing at the Shek Wui Hui Sewage Treatment Works.
The wastewater treatment system at the OWTF
2 has been sized according to a maximum peak flow rate of 6.22l/s. The design wastewater flow shall be confirmed
during the detailed design stage. The
flow rate of effluent though the wastewater treatment system is predicted to be
relatively stable with buffering of inputs to the system of one day, and
buffering of sewage outflows of 6 hours.
In addition to the
elements outlined above, the OWTF 2 facility is planned to incorporate the
following ancillary facilities.
On arrival at OWTF 2,
RCVs will be directed to the weighbridge station, facilitated by the provision
of sign posting, road markings, traffic signals and site traffic controllers.
The weighbridge system will be located at the main entrance of the facilities
but separate from the non-commercial vehicle entrance. The vehicles will be
weighed on both entry and exit. The weighbridges will be cleaned regularly to
ensure materials do not accumulate in the weighbridge pits, leading to odour
nuisance.
An administration
building will be provided for staff including a reception, general
administration area, control room and technical rooms to facilitate daily
operation and control of the plant. The
administration building will be close to the entrance to reduce the need for
any visitors, or wholly office based staff, or vehicles not accessing the
processing area to travel into the site.
Visitors
and Education Facilities
The OWTF 2 may be
opened to the public, for the purposes of education and communicating
sustainable waste management procedures.
The visitors’ centre will be accessible to members of the public while
at the same time restricting access to the active processing areas. Viewing platforms shall be separated from
operational areas, which are accessible via separate clearly marked separate
walkways.
Vehicle washing facilities
will be provided for washing waste vehicles leaving the site, in order to avoid
contamination of the external roadway.
Washing water can be reused and then directed for treatmentIt
is assumed that approximately 90% of washing water could be recirculated per
day.
Maintenance
Workshop and Utility Yard
An area for undertaking
maintenance work for the plant’s equipment and assets will be provided at the
OWTF 2, within the main reception and pre-treatment building.
Continuous
Emission Monitoring System
A Continuous Emission
Monitoring System (CEMS) will be used to monitor air emissions. The CEMS monitors the gaseous atmospheric
discharge and controls operating parameters to ensure continuous compliance of
the emissions standard.
Instrumentation,
Control and Monitoring System
A telemetric system
will be in place to monitor all components of the treatment system in a single
control room on schematic display boards. This will be supported by a
comprehensive instrumentation system to control and monitor the entire
treatment operation.
Electrical
Power Supply System and Electricity Export Equipment
(Option A)
Biogas can be used to
drive a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system producing heat and electrical power.
Subject to agreement, surplus electricity could be exported to the electricity
grid.
More details are
provided in Section 2.5 below
Gas
Power Supply System and Gas Export Equipment
(Option B)
Alternatively, biogas
could be exported directly to the gas network for use as a fuel source. This
option may or may not include on-site generation of power in a CHP to meet
internal demand. The export of surplus
biogas, would involve the construction of a 5.5km pipeline (approx.) connecting
the OWTF 2 to an existing pipeline (to the south of the site) which transports
Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) from NENT Landfill to the Towngas
Tai Po production plant.
More details are
provided in Section 2.5 below.
A fundamental project alternative is the option not to implement the OWTF 2 Project, which is referred to as the “Do-nothing” option. Under the “Do-nothing” scenario, a continuation of the current organic waste management practices would be likely in the absence of alternative proposals. Therefore, the 300 tonnes per day predicted to be treated by the Project would continue to be disposed of by landfill, predominantly at the existing NENT landfill site. The operational capacity of the NENT landfill site will be reached around 2016/17, and other landfills in Hong Kong have a similar capacity issue.
Without the OWTF 2 project, the operational life of the NENT landfill site would be shortened, due to the additional input of approximately 109,500 tonnes per annum, and alternative provisions would need to be provided beyond 2016/17.
The Project is important, not only to mitigate landfill space depletion, but also to conserve resources and create new resource streams such as compost/soil conditioners and biogas (a renewable energy). Capturing landfill gas is considerably less efficient than the production of biogas from AD. Therefore, a significant opportunity for realising benefits for sustainability related to renewable energy production at the OWTF 2 site would be foregone under the “Do-nothing” Scenario. Biogas, if employed to generate electricity, could meet the electricity demand of some 2,000 to 3,000 households, or alternatively could offset around 20,000 to 30,000 m3 of Towngas per day, contributing to a reduction in use of fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, digestate by-product produced at
the OWTF 2 can be used as fertiliser/soil conditioner for landscaping, farming
and/or horticulture. This would offset the use of imported compost products and
artificial fertilisers, thereby contributing to sustainability objectives. Under the “Do-nothing” approach the organic
residues are instead present as leachate, which requires management at landfill
sites to avoid environmental pollution of soils and groundwater.
Therefore, the Project is considered as a positive contribution to the
Hong Kong SAR Government’s MSW Management Policy. The “Do-nothing” option is not considered to
be an environmentally beneficial option to address long-term demand for organic
waste management in
As part of the Project alternative organic waste treatment technologies
were appraised in order to determine the most suitable option for adoption [4]. These alternative organic waste treatment
technologies included:
¡ Incineration;
¡ Pyrolysis/gasification;
¡ Anaerobic digestion;
¡ Composting;
¡ Conversion to solid biofuel
¡ Conversion to liquid biofuel;
and
¡ Conversion to animal/fish
feed.
From the above options, Anaerobic Digestion with biogas generation and composting of digestate was selected as the preferred treatment option. This option was found to be the most suitable for wet biodegradable organic waste, and the option has the greatest potential environmental benefits in terms of diversion of waste from landfill, and recovery of energy and resources from waste through production of compost / soil improvement products and renewable energy from biogas.
Composting is recommended to take place in enclosed tunnels with mechanical aeration, in order to control the process effectively and to minimise impacts to air quality (dust and odour), noise, and vermin.
A summary of the findings of the appraisal is provided in Table 2.6 below, including the benefits, disbenefits and applicability of each option to the project.
Table 2.6: Summary of Appraisal of Organic Waste
Treatment Technology Options
|
Option |
Benefits |
Disbenefits |
Applicability to the
Project |
Suitability |
|
Landfill |
·
Established waste disposal method ·
Suitable for all waste types ·
Recovery of landfill gas, for renewable energy production. |
·
Large area of land required and restricted land availability /
planning restrictions ·
High carbon footprint (methane emissions) ·
Potential contamination of soil and groundwater by leachate ·
Odour control difficult to manage |
· Does not comply with the
objective of the Project to reduce the disposal at landfill · Not a sustainable measure
as land resource is scarce · High moisture content in
the source-separated biodegradable organic waste would increase the amount of
leachate and hence contamination to soil and groundwater · Not strictly a
“controlled” biological treatment technology |
Not suitable |
|
Incineration |
·
Fast process rate ·
Very little residual material
remaining after combustion, particularly when the organic fraction is high,
reducing waste directed to landfill. ·
Renders waste inert. ·
Potential to recover energy
from waste. ·
Reduces greenhouse gas
emissions compared to do nothing approach.
|
·
High capital cost ·
High operation cost: high temperature maintenance ·
Not suitable for waste with high moisture content ·
Likely local opposition on perceived health grounds due to emissions ·
Significant control measures required for pollution control ·
Landscape impacts associated with required chimney can be a
significant issue. ·
Additional waste disposal required for ash residue. ·
Handling of organic wastes requires consideration of odour
mitigation/treatment. |
· Not suitable for source separated
biodegradable organic waste because of the high moisture content · Most of the thermal energy
is used to remove the water content · The energy recovery is
marginal in view of the characteristic of the target waste |
Not Suitable |
|
Pyrolysis/ Gasification |
·
Fast process rate ·
Very little residual material
remaining after combustion, particularly when the organic fraction is high. ·
Renders waste inert. ·
Potential to recover energy
from waste. ·
Reduces greenhouse gas
emissions compared to do nothing approach. |
·
High capital cost ·
High operation cost: high temperature maintenance ·
Not suitable for waste with high moisture content ·
Additional waste disposal
required for char residue. ·
Handling of organic wastes
requires consideration of odour mitigation/treatment |
· Not suitable for source
separated biodegradable organic waste because of the high moisture content · Most of the thermal energy
is used to remove the water content · The energy recovery is
marginal in view of the characteristic of the target waste · Not a biological treatment
technology |
Not Suitable |
|
Anaerobic Digestion |
·
Highly suitable for wet biodegradable organic waste ·
Reduces waste directed to landfill. ·
Production of digestate by-product which can
be used as compost, liquid fertiliser, or other soil improvement product. ·
Production of biogas by-product which can be used to provide heat
and/or power to the facility and excess can be used to provide renewable
energy. ·
Reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to do nothing approach. |
·
Longer start-up
time to develop high biomass inventory ·
Relatively slow process rate ·
Only limited to
biodegradable waste ·
Need to provide phytosanitary provisions for treating animal by-products. ·
Waste water requires on-site
treatment prior to disposal. Associated sludge requires removal and
appropriate treatment and disposal. ·
Handling of organic wastes
requires consideration of odour mitigation/treatment. |
· A promising biological
treatment technologies with wide applications worldwide · Highly suitable for source
separated biodegradable organic waste · Results in useful end
products in the form of compost and biogas · In line with the Policy
Framework |
Suitable |
|
Aerobic Composting |
·
Suitable for various types of biodegradable organic waste. ·
Useful end product in the form of compost. |
·
Longer start-up
time to develop high biomass inventory ·
Relatively slow process rate ·
Limited to biodegradable waste ·
Relatively large area requirement ·
Need to provide phytosanitary provisions for treating animal by-products ·
Waste water requires on-site
treatment prior to disposal. Associated sludge requires removal and
appropriate treatment and disposal. ·
Handling of organic wastes
requires consideration of odour mitigation/treatment. ·
Compost/soil improvement products
from food waste are likely to be of limited quality. No guaranteed market for
compost. ·
No renewable energy produced |
· A promising biological
treatment technologies with wide applications worldwide · Specific treatment process
targeting at biodegradable waste · Result in useful end
products in the form of compost · In line with the HK
Government’s Policy Framework ·
|
Suitable |
|
Conversion to solid biofuel |
·
Energy and resource recovery ·
Can be employed as a supplementary fuel in conventional boilers ·
Very little residual material
remaining after combustion, particularly when the organic fraction is high. ·
Reduces waste directed to
landfill. ·
Reduces greenhouse gas
emissions compared to do nothing approach |
·
High operation cost ·
Not cost effective for source separated biodegradable organic waste ·
No markets identified for refuse derived solid fuels ·
High moisture content of food
waste would require drying/and or addition of dry biomass material, reducing
energy efficiency. ·
Quality control of the
outputs is also a key consideration, as a consistently high quality of
product would be required by end users. ·
The ash residue remaining
after combustion requires disposal at an appropriate facility. ·
The solid biofuel derivative
is relatively inefficient to transport, over long distances. Therefore, the
viability of production is dependent on the availability of end-uses/markets
within economic distances. |
·
Excessive drying required as organic waste has a high moisture
content. · Without local markets to
supply, excessive transport costs, mean that the option would not be
cost-effective · Long transport distances
would also reduce carbon efficiency. |
Not Suitable |
|
Conversion to liquid biofuel |
·
Sustainable use of resources ·
Replacement for fossil transport fuels or used to generate heat and
power on site ·
Reduces waste directed to
landfill. · Reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to do
nothing approach. |
·
High operation cost ·
Not cost effective for source separated biodegradable organic waste ·
Advanced / complex technologies required, some of which are still
experimental ·
Not considered to be an efficient option for recovering energy from
waste as it is process energy intensive and due to distance to end user. ·
Potential storage and use of significant quantities of chemical
substances on site for the biomass to fuel conversion process |
·
Conversion to liquid biofuel is not considered to be viable for the
Project, due to the characteristics of the waste stream, the costs associated
with the technology and the difficulty in attracting contractors for
potentially complicated and unproven technology. |
Not Suitable |
|
Conversion to Animal/ Fish Feed |
· Useful end product in the
form of animal / fish feed ·
Reduces waste directed to landfill. · Reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to do
nothing approach |
·
Potential spreading of infectious
animal diseases and difficulty in managing quality control and phytosanitary standards. ·
Only limited to food waste with known
sources and compositions ·
Long-term market potential uncertain. ·
More suitable for smaller scale organic waste treatment projects. |
· Potential risk of
spreading of infectious animal disease · Limited to food waste which
the sources and compositions are certified with acceptable accuracy · Limited market size for
animal feed in |
Not Suitable |
Two potential biogas use options have been identified in
relation to the OWTF 2:
¡ Combined Heat and Power (CHP) equipment for onsite generation of electricity and heat that can be used for on-site processes and facilities, with export of surplus electricity to the China Light and Power (CLP) electricity network.
¡ The export of biogas directly to the Towngas grid, via a connection to the NENT Landfill gas pipeline. This option requires a biogas cleaning processes to be installed at the site to meet Towngas quality requirements.
Option A comprises onsite generation of electricity (and heat) in a Combined Heat and Power Plant (CHP) for use in on-site processes and facilities, and the export of surplus electricity to the CLP network.
Option B comprises two potential sub-options with regard to
on-site heat and power production, as follows:
¡ Option B (i) – Biogas export with no onsite power production
¡ Option B (ii) – Biogas export with onsite power production to meet internal demand
Option B would involve the construction of a new 5.5 km (250 mm
diameter Polyethylene) pipeline along the
The proposed pipeline is not included in the EPD Study Brief No. ESB-226/2011 and would be the subject of separate permitting for which the pipeline operator Towngas would be the Proponent. Construction of the pipeline is expected to take up to two years and its completion should be timed to coincide with the commencement of operations at the OWTF 2 in 2017. Potential cumulative impacts related to the potential pipeline construction works will be considered in this assessment.
An assessment of Environmental Benefits and disbenefits of each option is presented in Appendix 2.1 and is summarised below.
Air quality impacts
at the OWTF 2 would be slightly higher under Option A as a result of the
exhaust gasses from the CHP plant.
However, it is expected that impacts to ambient air quality will be
minor (i.e. all values for SO2, TSP, RSP, NO2, and CO
etc. are within the allowable range). Impacts
on landscape are likely to be more pronounced under this option as a result of
a flue stack (up to 30m max height) required for dispersion of emissions from
the CHP plant.
Works associated with the development of a new gas pipeline connecting the facility to the NENT gas pipeline may lead to additional environmental impacts during the construction stage (e.g. noise, air quality, waste). However, these impacts are temporary and are likely to be minor.
The environmental
performance between the options is considered to be similar across all
options. However, minor environmental
benefits for Landscape and Air Quality impacts may be achieved for
Options B (i) and B (ii) over Option A.
Either one of the above options may be adopted for OWTF 2. The final biogas utilisation option will be confirmed at later stage of the Project. However, both cases are considered in the EIA as a conservative approach, with the worst case scenario assumed for each assessment.
A number of composting
options were considered for the OWTF 2 site, including, passive piles, turned
windrows, aerated static piles and in-vessel systems. In vessel composting within enclosed tunnels
is proposed for the solid digestate by-product from
Anaerobic Digestion, followed by maturation in aerated static piles (indoor)was
selected as the most appropriate option for the OWTF 2 for the following
reasons:
¡ Good control of composting
process with confinement and automation
¡ Able to handle large volumes
¡ Space-efficient
¡ Effective in controlling odours
¡ Protection from vermin
¡ Good product stabilisation
¡ Uniform product
¡ Protection from climate
¡ Low visibility
¡ Continuous process
The selected approach
is effective when space is limited and the composting process must be completed
quickly. More detail on the appraisal of
composting options is presented in Appendix 2.2.
In the proposed system,
the solid digestate and bulking materials are
composted in aerated tunnels. Material is loaded into the tunnels either by
vehicles or in an automatic conveyor system. To ensure that decomposition
proceeds at high rates, temperature, moisture and oxygen levels must be closely
monitored and controlled.
The residence time for
the tunnels is 8 days. After this time
the composting material is transferred to a maturation area for a further 7
days. Bulking materials are screened and
recovered to be used again in the upstream composting process. Compost storage
for 21 days production is provided at the site.
The compost may require additives (e.g. nutrients, humus etc.) to reach
the required characteristics / standards appropriate for the end user (to be
determined) depending on the quality of the compost produced.
The composting facility
is completely enclosed and mechanically ventilated. An appropriate 2-stage odour control system
such as UV/Ozone and carbon filter system or similar will be in place to treat
ventilation air prior to venting to reduce / avoid odour impacts.
In 2006, EPD conducted a site selection study in conjunction with PlanD to identify appropriate facilities for treating organic wastes.
Prior to the formal site search exercise carried out by PlanD and relevant government departments, a preliminary site selection process was developed by the EPD and conducted to identify unsuitable areas associated with existing, potential and future incompatible uses. Based on the information obtained from site visits, interviews with office / site staff, web search, telephone conversations etc., unsuitable sites were excluded from the preliminary screening process.
A long list of 33 alternative sites was produced by compiling the feasible sites proposed by EPD after preliminary screening and feasible sites as recommended by PlanD. Sites 1-33 were the potential sites proposed by EPD while Sites 30-33 were also identified by PlanD. The long list was then further examined by PlanD to produce a revised long list for scoring and ranking in the Stage 2, Specific Site Selection of the Site Search Study.
The Specific Site Selection stage evaluated the revised long listed sites by applying a scoring system to generate a shortlist comprising the most feasible sites for development of large scale OWTFs (using various biological treatment processes). A ranking system was also developed to prioritize the suitability of sites under evaluation.
The assessment was undertaken by EPD to determine which of the sites would be appropriate for the development of large-scale OWTF, based on the following criteria:
¡ Environmental impact (Air, Noise, Visual and Landscape, Water Quality and Drainage, and Ecology);
¡ Engineering feasibility (e.g. accessibility, site constraints, time availability, etc.);
¡ Financial viability (e.g. capital cost and operational cost);
¡ Operability (e.g. proximity to users/producers, waste disposal and wastewater treatment, etc.); and
¡ Social issues (e.g. compatible with broad planning intention for site and surrounding landuse, etc.).
A score from 1 to 5 representing the suitability (from low to high) for OWTF development against the respective criteria for composting, Anaerobic Digestion and a combination of both technologies were awarded for each site. The highest scoring four sites were recommended for further assessment, as follows:
¡ Siu Ho Wan, North Lantau;
¡ Sha Ling Livestock Waste Composting Plant, Sheung Shui;
¡ EcoPark Phase II, Tuen Mun; and,
¡ Tseung Kwan O Area 137, Tseung Kwan O.
A summary of the results of the evaluation is provided in Table 2.7 below.
Table 2.7: Summary of Assessment Results for Site Selection
|
Potential Site |
Environmental |
Engineering Feasibility |
Financial |
Operability |
Social Issues |
|
Sha Ling Livestock Waste Composting Plant |
** |
** |
* |
** |
** |
|
EcoPark Phase II |
** |
* |
** |
* |
* |
|
Siu Ho Wan |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
TKO Area 137 |
* |
* |
** |
* |
* |
Source: EPD (2010) Pilot Plant Development of Biodegradable Waste Treatment Facilities (BWTF) – Investigation Final Report
Note: * Less Preferable, ** Preferable, *** Highly Preferable
Results of the assessment indicated that the Siu Ho Wan site is the most suitable for the development of OWTF, followed by the SLCP site. These two sites are considered more favourable in view of their relatively low environmental impacts, high engineering feasibility and operability, and less social issues.
The Siu Ho Wan site was chosen for the development of OWTF Phase 1 and the former Sha Ling Livestock Waste Composting Plant (SLCP) site was selected for the OWTF 2. The EIA Report for the Phase 1 project was approved by the Director of Environmental Protection on 24 February 2010, and the preparation works for the project are underway.
As shown in Table 2.7 above, from the remaining sites, both the EcoPark Phase 2 and Sha Ling sites were found to be ‘preferable’ in terms of environmental impact. However, initial consultation with PlanD suggested that the development of large scale OWTF would not qualify as one of the twelve approved categories of recycling process activities assessed under the EIA designated for the EcoPark (Phase II) site. The Tseung Kwan O Area 137 site was considered to be ‘less preferable’ in terms of environmental impact in the assessment (due to potential water quality issues), and despite having a large enough available area, uncertainties about the site in terms of its availability and suitability of its neighbouring land uses, let to this site being recommended only as a ‘fall-back’ option for the development of large-scale OWTF.
The Sha Ling site is remote and does not have large population (and hence air, noise and visual sensitive receives) nearby. The site was used previously as the composting plant and does not encroach into any environmental sensitive areas. With the consideration of alternative layout (as in Section 2.5.2), the OWTF 2 could be constructed within the previously developed area to avoid large number of trees to be felled. Visual envelop is mostly confined by ridgeline of nearby hills with few visual sensitive receivers (as detailed in Section 10.6.3). Hence, there are no major environmental constraints for the development of OWTF 2 at Sha Ling.
As a former livestock waste composting plant, new large-scale facilities for treating organic waste can incorporate some of the existing features of the site, so that development can take place with fewer modifications, thereby reducing design and construction costs. In addition, the SLCP site falls within an area zone of “Government, Institution or Community (G/IC)” on the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) and PlanD has in principal no objection to the development of OWTF at Sha Ling.
Furthermore, the OWTF 2 design is planned to be a state-of-the-art facility, which offers improvements over the former SLCP in terms of visual impact, pollution and odour control. Therefore, it is anticipated that the OWTF 2 would be accepted by the local community.
The initial draft layouts for the OWTF 2 were developed to
satisfy the following criteria:
¡ All OWTF 2 elements accommodated within the site boundary;
¡ The initial processing area adjacent to the digesters – an operations preference;
¡ Vehicle movements around the site to be simple with:
– crossing conflicts minimised;
– complex reversing movements minimised;
– penetration into the site minimised; and
– waiting / queuing areas optimised, given the highly constrained site;
¡ Activities grouped – initial processing, digestion, composting, gas treatment and administration; and
¡ Preferred to have digesters in a linear arrangement from an operations perspective.
Layouts with processing and digestion at the rear of the site and composting at the front were rejected as this increases the numbers of vehicles having to travel to the rear of the site. Therefore the initial layout was designed with the initial processing facilities at the front of the site, and the downstream composting at the rear.
The layout of the facilities on the OWTF 2 Project site was then optimised in the subsequent design development to maximise environmental benefits. In order to minimise the footprint of the OWTF 2 project, the original concept design was redesigned to cover a smaller area, by reducing the number of Digestion tanks from 5 to 3, changing the road layout, and altering the configuration of key structures (refer to Figure 2.4). In this way, the OWTF 2 site occupies the same area as the former SLCP facility, minimising disturbance around the site, including vegetated areas. These design changes have led to a reduction in the number of trees proposed to be felled from 153 trees in the original preliminary layout to around 14 trees in the latest amendment (a 91% reduction).
Other design optimisations included the inclusion of green roofs, vertical greening, and landscape screening to minimise visual impacts and to reduce stormwater runoff, and to increase amenity value for those working at the site.
A number of alternative construction methods have been considered for the development of the OWTF 2 site with the aim of reducing environmental impacts. Piling works are required at the site for the main buildings, the chimney, and the digesters and other heavy tanks. Both the percussion and bored types of piles were considered during the preliminary design.
Percussive piling works would lead to considerable noise impacts, whereas the noise impacts from bored piles are significantly lower. Therefore bored (socketed H-piles) have been recommended for load bearing piling works to minimise the potential noise impacts during the construction.
Programming ‘Concurrent’ construction works (i.e. different construction activities to take place simultaneously) would lead to environmental benefits by reducing the duration of the construction impacts. This strategy would also make the environmental benefits of the project, including renewable energy production and sustainable waste management, available earlier. However, concurrent construction activities could increase the magnitude of environmental impacts (e.g. construction dust, noise, etc.).
‘Phased’ construction activity (i.e. construction works taking place sequentially, one after the other) could also have environmental benefits by reducing the magnitude of environmental impacts, but this would also extend the duration of impacts over a longer construction programme.
In order to minimise the environmental impacts, maximise environmental benefits, and meet the targeted operation date, a balanced approach to the sequencing of construction works will be adopted. This strategy involves planning construction activities to maximise concurrent works where they are appropriate, and phasing construction activities to avoid concurrent activities that cause excessive combined impacts. For example, phased construction will be adopted for noisy construction works (e.g. sheet piling and use of hydraulic jackhammers).
The Project is planned
to be implemented through a Design, Build and Operate (DBO) contract. The
Contractor will be selected through a competitive tendering exercise. Under the
contract, the Contractor will be responsible for:
i.
Detailed
design of facilities for waste reception, treatment and recovery of resources,
and Environmental Education Centre (EEC);
ii.
construction,
provision and installation of facilities;
iii.
testing
and commissioning of equipment and facilities;
iv.
operation
of facilities; and,
v.
monitoring
of operation;
It is anticipated that the construction
works of the OWTF 2 will commence in mid-2015 and be fully
completed by 2017. The construction stages and provisional project
program are shown in Table
2.8.
Table 2.8: Indicative Milestones for Key Project Stages
|
Description |
Tentative Date |
|
Tender Phase |
2014 |
|
Construction Start |
2015 |
|
Construction End |
2017 |
|
Operation Start |
2017 |
Construction works associated
with the Project and outside the Project Area are expected to occur, including
(i) the possible gas pipeline to be carried out by Towngas if the biogas export option stated in Section 2.5.3.1 is chosen, (ii) minor
road widening, (iii) junction improvements, and (iv) construction of rising
main connecting to the existing sewerage network. Impacts associated with these activities have
been assessed in terms of cumulative impact in this
The existing establishments adjacent to the Project include San Uk Ling Holding Centre, Rifle Range, Police Dog Unit and Force Search Unit Training School, Hong Kong Police Force Border District Headquarters, scattered village houses, and temples. Fish ponds, woodlands and plantations, watercourses, and agricultural lands are also located in the vicinity of the OWTF 2 site.
The
OWTF 2 site falls within the Approved Fu Tei Au and Sha Ling Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) (No. S/NE-FTA/12) (see
Figure 2.5). The general
planning intention of the area “is to
promote and conserve the rural character through control on urban sprawl,
minimisation of flood risk and preservation of agricultural land, and to
achieve coherent planning and control of the open storage problem”
(Explanatory Notes attached to the Approved Fu Tei Au
and Sha Ling OZP No. S/NE-FTA/12 refers).
The following committed
and planned nearby developments have been identified within the surrounding
Statutory Planning Areas of Man Kam To Development
Permission Area (DPA), Fu Tei Au and Sha Ling Outline Zoning Plan (OZP), Hung Lung Hang OZP:
¡ Kong Nga Po Comprehensive Development Area;
¡ Hung Lung Hang Residential Development;
¡ Columbarium, Crematorium and Related Facilities at
¡ Cement Plant.
These planned and committed developments are shown in Figure 2.5 and discussed in relation to the project below.
Kong Nga Po Comprehensive Development Area
The Land Use Planning for the Closed Area Study completed in 2010, recommended Kong Nga Po to be zoned as a
Comprehensive Development Area (CDA) to facilitate specific development control
over the future residential development. This zone is intended for
comprehensive development of the area for residential use with the provision of
open space and other supporting facilities.
The zoning is to facilitate appropriate planning control over the
development mix, scale, design and layout of development, taking into account
various environmental, traffic, infrastructural and other constraints.
The planned Kong Nga Po
CDA has a total development area of 18.9 ha, is located to the east of the OWTF
2 site, and is around 150 m away at its closest point. The CDA has a target population of 3,600,
with planned land availability in 2020 and targeted population intake in 2023. A number of
potential infrastructure works related to the Kong Nga Po CDA, are likely to be
relevant for the OWTF 2 site, including widening of Kong Nga Po Road (1.9km),
environmental Mitigation Measures (e.g. noise barriers) along Kong Nga Po Road,
and drainage, sewerage and waterworks provisions along Kong Nga Po Road.
Hung Lung Hang Residential Development
The Land Use Planning for the Closed Area Feasibility Study Report refers to the proposals for residential development at Hung Lung Hang around 500 m to the east of the OWTF2 site and adjacent to the Kong Nga Po CDA, following the release of the Closed Area (see Figure 2.5).
According to the Report, land use and development proposals in the Hung Lung Hang Residential Area will be implemented by the private sector. Such proposals will depend on private initiatives and market circumstances. Therefore, the implementation programme of the Hung Long Hang Development is subject to private development applications under the statutory planning framework, and is yet to be confirmed.
The Approved Hung Lung Hang OZP No. S/NE-HLH/7 also refers to the intention to “designate land for village development and expansion to meet the needs of the indigenous villagers”.
Man Kam To
Development
Corridor
The Land Use Planning for the Closed Area Feasibility Study Report, indicates that following the release of the Closed Area, the area within the Fu Tei Au & Sha Ling OZP adjacent to the southern side of Man Kam To Road, which is currently zoned as agricultural land, is intended to be rezoned as a Development Corridor, subject to Town Planning Board Approval. The Man Kam Development Corridor surrounds the OWTF 2 site to its northern, eastern and western boundary (see Figure 2.5).
According to the Land Use Planning for the Closed Area Feasibility Study Report, the planning intention for the area is to provide for enhancement of the local environment through the provision of non-polluting logistics, warehousing/distribution (including food processing) centres as well as other high-tech and creative industry uses and other services that will support cross-border activities and the local population.
The Study Report also states that land use and development proposals in the Man Kam Development Corridor will be implemented by the private sector. Such proposals will depend on private initiatives and market circumstances. Therefore, the implementation programme of the Man Kam Development Corridor is subject to private development applications under the statutory planning framework, and is yet to be confirmed.
Development of Columbarium, Crematorium and Related
Facilities at
Around 10 hectares of land
are planned for development of columbarium, crematorium and associated facilities
at the
A Feasibility Study has
been undertaken by CEDD on the site formation and associated infrastructural works
for the development of columbarium facilities to provide at least 200,000
niches, a crematorium with 10 cremators, a funeral parlour with 30 service
halls and a visitor service centre at
In September 2012, the
project to undertake the site formation works was included in Category B of the
Public Works Programme as PWP Item No. 5758CL - Site Formation and Associated
Infrastructural Works for Development of Columbarium, Crematorium and Related
Facilities at Sandy Ridge Cemetery. CEDD is currently preparing the new
consultancy engagement for the investigation stage of the Project. The Project Proponent is Land Works Division,
Civil Engineering Office, CEDD. The works of the Project mainly comprises the
following:
i.
site formation of about 10 hectares of land for
development of C&C facilities at
ii. associated environmental mitigation measures, landscaping works, geotechnical works, drainage and sewerage works, waterworks, roadworks including tunnel, viaducts and ancillary works to existing road network in the North District (e.g. road widening works at Choi Yuen Road, Sheung Shui) and other utilities services, etc.; and
iii.
a pedestrian walkway between Lo Wu MTR Station
and the columbarium facilities at
Cement Plant
The Land Use Planning for
the Closed Area Feasibility Study Report recommends a change of zoning for the
existing Cement Plant within the Fu Tei Au & Sha Ling OZP from Agricultural (‘AGR’) to Other Use
(‘OU’). The Cement Plant site is less
than 1 ha is size located at
The site has been operated as a Cement Plant for more than 10 years. Planning applications submitted between 2006 and 2008 (A/NE-FTA/50 and A/NE-FTA/81) to extend the east of the Cement Plant site for Proposed Temporary Asphalt Production Plant for a Period of Three Years have been subsequently ‘not accepted’ or ‘rejected’. No further information on future development or operation of the site is currently available.
To identify potential interfacing issues with the proposed developments in vicinity of the Project Site, letters were sent to relevant stakeholders/project proponents to request information on details of project status, implementation programme and layout drawings. Responses from these stakeholders/ proponents are summarised in Table 2.9 below.
Table 2.9: Responses from Potential Interfacing
Project Proponents
|
Stakeholder |
Project Name |
Summary of Response |
|
Planning
Department |
Land Use
Planning for the Closed Area – Feasibility Study [5] |
· The 500m Assessment Area for the Study has
been included in the scheme boundary of the Draft Man Kam
To Development Permission Area Plan No. DPA/NE-MKT/2, the approved Fu Tei Au and Sha Ling Outline
Zoning Plan (OZP) No. DPA/NE-FTA/12 and the approved Hung Lung Hang OZP No.
S/NE-HLH/7 · Planned / existing developments should make
reference to relevant statutory and departmental plans as appropriate. |
|
Hung Lung
Hang Development |
||
|
CEDD |
Site
Formation and Associated Infrastructural Works for Proposed Development of
Columbarium, Crematorium and Related Facilities at |
· Do not envisage any works within the
Project Area but may be subject to the conclusion and recommendation
including tentative implementation programme in the Feasibility Study |
|
Engineering
Feasibility Study for Kong Nga Po CDA |
· Tentative programme for proposed Kong Nga
Po Development is in 2020 · Potential traffic impacts and need for
road improvements along |
[1] The worst case has been assumed when assessing compliance against the requirements of relevant legislation Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Water Pollution Control Ordinance, Waste Disposal Ordinance, etc.
[2] Refer to Chimney Heights - Third Ed of the 1956 Clean Air Act Memorandum (1981) published by the UK Department of Environment, for guidelines.
[3] Should the production of digestate liquor at OWTF 2 become feasible at a later stage in the design process (i.e. a market is identified), the UF & RO process may be considered as an alternative, as this would offer a more compact wastewater treatment option.
[4] Working Paper 1 - Technology Evaluation and
Key Elements of the OWTF
[5] Land Use Planning for the Closed Area -
Feasibility Study published by Planning Department, Agreement No. CE 60/2005
(TP)