12 Land Contamination

12.1 Introduction

12.1.1 This Section presents a land contamination assessment for the Project. The aim of this land contamination assessment is to identify major concerns pertaining to potential land contamination in the Project Site Boundary (“Assessment Area”), which include the Proposed Development Area (PDA) and the works areas for the associated infrastructure works.

12.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

12.2.1 The relevant legislations, standards and guidelines applicable to the present study for the assessment of land contamination include:

a) Annex 19 of the EIAO-TM, Guidelines for Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage and Other Impacts (Section 3: Potential Contaminated Land Issues) issued by Environment Protection Department (EPD);

b) Guidance Manual for Use of Risk-based Remediation Goals for Contaminated Land Management (the Guidance Manual) issued by EPD;

c) Guidance Note for Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation (the Guidance Note); and

d) Practice Guide for Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Land (the Practice Guide) issued by EPD.

12.2.2 The following legislation, documents and guidelines may cover or have some bearing upon the assessment of contamination and the handling, treatment and disposal of contaminated materials for the Project:

a) Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) (Cap 358);

b) Waste Disposal Ordinance (WDO) (Cap 354);

c) Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap 354C); and

d) Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.

Selection of Risk-Based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) Land Use Scenario

12.2.3 In accordance with Section 2 of the Guidance Manual, the site’s future land use and the appropriate set of RBRGs corresponding to the land use scenarios shall be determined prior to site appraisal. The Hong Kong RBRGs are developed for four different post-restoration land use scenarios, namely urban residential, rural residential, industrial, and public parks.

12.2.4 Site appraisal has been conducted at areas within the works boundary and potential contaminated sites were identified. The future land use of areas covered in this Project mainly comprises high-rise housing development, social welfare facility development, school development and road works (including pedestrian walkways), therefore the RBRGs conceptual site model under Urban Residential, Rural Residential and Lower of Industrial or Public Park land use scenario will be adopted for housing development, school development and road works, respectively. For sites which may have more than one type of land use, the more stringent RBRGs shall be adopted for comparison with the laboratory analytical results obtained from those sites.

12.3 Assessment Methodology

12.3.1 The Assessment Area of land contamination assessment of this EIA Study covers the area within the Project Site Boundary proposed for the PDA and the associated infrastructure works, as shown in Figures 12.1 and 12.2.

12.3.2 The key procedures of land contamination assessment is given below:

· Site appraisal comprising site walkover, review of historical aerial photographs and maps, review of historical spillage and leakage records and review of previous intrusive site investigation undertaken at the Project Site;

· Prepare Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) for EPD’s agreement;

· Propose Environmental Site Investigation (SI) for soil and groundwater sampling and testing;

· Interpret the laboratory test results and evaluate the contamination level;

· Prepare Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) to summarise the assessment findings for EPD’s agreement;

· If contamination is confirmed, proposed remediation method and prepare Remediation Action Plan (RAP) for EPD’s agreement; and

· Submission of Remediation Report (RR) for EPD’s endorsement.

12.4 Site Appraisal

Review of Current Land Use and Site Survey

12.4.1 A review of available information and site inspections has been conducted to identify and evaluate the potential land contamination within the Project Site Boundary comprising the HPR Site, SHR Site, SHR Site Extension and associated infrastructure works, with reference to the Practice Guide.

12.4.2 With reference to the Final Preliminary Environmental Review (PER) Report (July 2017) under Agreement No. CE 56/2013 (CE) (hereafter “2017 PER”), 14 potential sites with land contamination within the development area namely Site A to R were identified. The current land use of these 14 potential contaminated sites were reviewed and updated in this Assignment.

12.4.3 Site walkovers covering the development area were conducted on 15 June 2018, 20 August 2018, 8 April 2019, 30 April 2019, 10 June 2019 and 16 February 2020 to verify existing land uses and to identify potential sources and signs of contamination, such as presence of industrial activities, chemicals, oil and hazardous waste handling and storage locations, bulk storage tanks, sumps, pipelines, staining, decolouration, abnormal odours, distressed vegetation, etc.

12.4.4 However, detailed site appraisal at each individual premise within the development area was restricted as the majority of the sites surveyed consisted of i) private land of which most were still in operation and ii) government land but was occupied and operated by private owners at the time of the site visits. Therefore, access to these premises was infeasible for both inspection and site investigation (SI) during the course of the EIA Study due to the ongoing operations of these private premises. Peripheral inspection (i.e. from the entrance and/or boundary of the premises) was conducted as far as possible in order to identify the nature of use.

12.4.5 Further to the observations of the site visits, the area of all potential contamination areas identified in the 2017 PER (except Areas A and B) are slightly updated. New Area IDs are assigned to such updated potential contamination areas. In addition, based on the number of the premises observed with the potential contamination areas, Area E is divided into 5 sub-areas (Areas E1 to E5); Area D is divided into 2 sub-areas (Areas D1 & D2); Area N is divided into 2 sub-areas (Areas N1 & N2); Area L is divided into 3 sub-areas (Area L1 to L3). Therefore, these 14 potential contamination areas identified in the 2017 PER are divided into 22 identified areas in this CAP. These 22 identified areas are indicated in Figure 12.3.

12.4.6 The Project Site covers more areas than that in the 2017 PER. Site visit at those areas which are not covered by previous studies were carried out to fill up the information gap. Based on the observations of the site visits, the remaining areas within the Assessment Area are divided into 60 identified areas (namely Area 01 to 60). The locations of these 60 identified areas are shown in Figure 12.3.

12.4.7 The whole Assessment Area are divided into a total of 82 identified areas based on the site reconnaissance. Table 12.1 below summaries accessibility of areas during the site visits.

Table 12.1 Summary of Accessibility of Identified Areas During Site Visits

Extent of Site Visits	No. of Areas
Accessible for both site inspection and SI	0
Accessible for site inspection but SI is not permitted / infeasible	10
Inaccessible for both site inspection and SI, and only peripheral inspection was conducted	55
Inaccessible for both site inspection and SI, and peripheral inspection was not conducted	17

12.4.8 It was observed from the site visits that the Assessment Area consisted of residential, agricultural and various industrial activities such as vehicle maintenance/ repair workshops, repair workshops of machineries, open storage areas, truck parking, godowns etc.

12.4.9 Due to site access issues, only peripheral inspections were undertaken for most of the areas. Thus, for the open storage areas and godowns, the site inspections were unable to determine the type of goods stored within these areas and hence the contamination potential. Moreover, for the open storage areas and the godowns, the majority of these areas are usually kept for the storage of goods, while only a small part within the area is for chemical storage. The source of potential land contaminating activities at the identified sites mainly relates to the spillage and accidents associated with the storage and use of chemicals. Once these areas can be accessed (e.g. after the completion of the land resumption), the site re-appraisal for the whole Assessment Area should be conducted to access the site conditions and the latest land uses. The findings of the site re-appraisal should be reported in the supplementary Contaminated Assessment Plan (CAP) for EPD’s endorsement.

12.4.10 Appendix A of the CAP is given in Appendix 12.1 which presents the summary of the site appraisal with photographs taken during the site visits. As mentioned previously, some areas are inaccessible during the course of the EIA Study, the site walkover checklist presented in Appendix J of the CAP in Appendix 12.1. are provided for those accessible areas only. The observation of the site visits for the 82 identified areas are summarised in Table 12.2.

Review of Past Land Use

12.4.11 Aerial photographs in the years from 1963 to 2017 were obtained from the Lands Department to review the past land use of the Project Site. The referenced aerial photographs are attached in Appendix B of the CAP given in Appendix 12.1.

12.4.12 Observed key changes of site setting were summarised in Table 12.2 for the identified areas.

Table 12.2 Summary of Past and Existing Land Use of Identified Areas

Area ID ^(3), (4)	Area ID in 2017 PER	Past Land Use ^(1)		Current Land Use ^(2)	Site Inspections for this EIA
					Accessibility (Yes/No)	Peripheral Inspection (Yes / No / N/A)
A	A	1963: Agricultural land. 2007: Vacant with natural vegetation. 2011: Natural vegetation removed. 2012: Parking area for a few vehicles. 2013: Area was fenced. Sheltered structures and open storage area were observed.		Vacant land At the time of site inspections, A was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspection, it was observed that majority of A was vacant. The small area of A next to southern boundary was greenery (with banana tress).	No	Yes
B	B	1963: Agricultural land. 1993: Agricultural land was removed. 1994-2017: Open storage area (for cargo containers and materials) and/or truck parking.		Vehicle parking area / container yard At the time of site inspections, B was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, it was observed that a truck and private cars were parked, and skips/ containers/ container office were stored within B.	No	Yes
C1	C	1963-2007: Agricultural land and/or natural vegetation. 2008-2017: Truck parking and storage of truck chassis, sheltered structures for suspected workshop at the west		Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop and logistics company At the time of site inspections, C1 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, C1 was shared with 3 private companies (including two vehicle maintenance / repair companies - Car Fans Pro, Wing Cheong Auto Service Limited, and one logistics company - Golden Logistics Limited). Moreover, it was observed that a part of a fuel station occupied at the southeast of C1.	No	Yes
D1	D	1963: Agricultural land 1983: Sheltered structures 1986: Open storage area 2005: Parking for taxi, open storage area expanded to the east. 2009-2017: Open storage area.		Suspected office and open storage of construction machineries At the time of site inspections, D1 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspection, D1 was operated by TREVI Construction Co. Ltd. (TREVI) and there were some containers, container offices and construction machineries stored at the eastern part of D1.	No	Yes
D2		1963: Agricultural land. 1983: Sheltered structures 1986: Open storage area with sheltered structures. 2005: Parking for taxi. 2008-2017: Open storage area with sheltered structures		Storage of empty drums At the time of site inspections, D2 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspection, it was observed that a number of empty drums were stored in D2. It was also observed that these drums stored previously chemicals (e.g. ethanol) and daily ingredients.	No	Yes
E1	E	1963: Agricultural land. 1990: Open storage area. 2003: Truck parking. 2007-2017: E1 was fenced. Sheltered structures and trucks were observed.		Unknown At the time of site inspections, E1 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspection, one stone house and several containers were observed.	No	Yes
E2		1963: Agricultural land. 1983: Sheltered structures. 1990-2017: Open storage area and sheltered structures.		Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop At the time of site inspections, E2 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of E2 and the peripheral inspection, vehicle repair workshop operated by Wai Shing ("偉成"). occupied at E2. One inspection pit (as hot spot) was observed at the south of E2.	No	Yes
E3		1963: Agricultural land. 1990: Open storage area. 2003: vacant 2008-2017: Suspected workshop with sheltered structures, truck parking and storage of truck chassis.		Truck parking At the time of site inspections, E3 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, it was observed that trucks were parked within E3 and one temporary structure occupied at the west of E3. However, no further information was available to show the use of the temporary structure.	No	Yes
E4		1963: Agricultural land. 1983: Open storage area with sheltered structures. 1994: Suspected workshop with sheltered structures, truck parking and storage of truck chassis. 2003-2017: Suspected workshop with sheltered structures, storage of construction machineries and equipment.		Repair workshop for heavy machineries At the time of site inspections, E4 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of E4 and the peripheral inspection, it was observed that the repair workshop at E4 was operated by Carol Engineering Limited ("卡樂工程"). Moreover, heavy machineries for the construction use were observed within E4.	No	Yes
E5		1963: Agricultural land was observed 1983: Open storage area with sheltered structures were observed. 1994: Suspected workshop with sheltered structures, trucks and truck chassis were observed. 2003-2017: Suspected workshop with sheltered structures, construction machineries and equipment were observed.		Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop At the time of site inspections, E5 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of E5 and the peripheral inspection, it was observed that vehicle maintenance / repair workshop operated by Wan Yip ("宏業") occupied at E5. Moreover, there were a lot of trucks, one inspection pit and oil drums (as hot spots) observed within E5.	No	Yes
F1	F	1963: Agricultural land. 1983-2017: F1 was fenced. Sheltered structures with material stored outside.		Open storage At the time of site inspections, F1 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspections, the same temporary structures shown in 2007 PER still occupied within F1. It is suspected that the land use of F1 remained unchanged.	No	Yes
H1	H	1963: Natural vegetation and agricultural land. 1983-2017: Sheltered structure.		Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop At the time of site inspections, H1 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of H1 and the peripheral inspections, vehicle maintenance / repair workshop operated by Ming Chun ("明駿’) occupied at H1.	No	Yes
I1	I	1963: Natural vegetation and agricultural land. 1983-2017: Sheltered structure with material stored outside.		Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop At the time of site inspections, I1 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of I1 and the peripheral inspections, vehicle maintenance / repair workshop operated by Speedwell Automobile Company Limited occupied at I1.	No	Yes
J1	J	1963-1979: Natural vegetation and agricultural land. 1979-1989: Sheltered structure 1989-2011: Woodworking and Sawmill 2017: Sheltered structure with material stored outside		Ice-making factory At the time of site inspections, J1 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the signboard of J1 and the peripheral inspections, ice-making factory operated by Turbo Ice Company Limited occupied at J1.	No	Yes
K1	K	1963: Sheltered structures. 1992-2017: Ice-making factory		Ice-making factory At the time of site inspections, K1 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of K1 and the peripheral inspections, containers, ice-making factory operated by Turbo Ice Company Limited occupied at K1 also. Transformer room for ice-making factory (as hot spot) was observed at the northwest of K1.	No	Yes
L1	L	1963: Village houses with agricultural land. 1983: Sheltered structures. 1989-2017: Godown.		Godown for storage of materials related to lifting At the time of site inspections, L1 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of L1 and the peripheral inspections, Cheung Hing Lifting Components (H.K.) Ltd, which supply wire ropes, wire rope lubricants, polypropylene ropes, chains and related lifting accessories, occupied at L1 but no wire rope lubricants were observed.	No	Yes
L2		1963: Village houses with agricultural land. 1984-2017: Sheltered structures with suspected workshop/ godown.		Unknown At the time of site inspections, L2 was inaccessible and fenced by the solid concrete wall so peripheral inspections could not be made. No further information was available to show the current land use of L2.	No	Yes
L3		1963: Village houses with agricultural land were observed at south, natural vegetation observed 1984-2017: Sheltered structures were observed.		Suspected godwon and office At the time of site inspections, L3 was inaccessible and fenced by the metal hoarding. Based on the peripheral inspections, container offices were observed within L3 and the suspected godown entrance was at the San Hing Road. Therefore, it is suspected that L3 was used as godown and office.	No	Yes
M1	M	1963: Agricultural land. 1998: Parking of vehicles and trucks. 2000-2017: Suspected workshop with sheltered structures, truck parking and storage of truck chassis.		Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop At the time of site inspections, M1 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of M1 the peripheral inspections, vehicle maintenance / repair workshop operated by Wing Hing ("永興洗車唧油") occupied at M1. At the southeast of M1, it was also observed that two inspection pits (as hot spot) were built, and some oil drums (as hot spot) were stored in the temporary structure.	No	Yes
N1	N	1963: Village houses with agricultural land. 1983-2017: Sheltered structures.		Suspected vehicle maintenance / repair workshop At the time of site inspections, N1 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. Based on the peripheral inspections, tools for vehicle maintenance / repair were observed in N1. Moreover, with reference to Google Map, vehicle maintenance / repair workshop operated by Cow’s Automotive Engineering occupied at N1. Therefore, it is suspected that N1 is vehicle maintenance / repair workshop.	No	Yes
N2		1963: Village houses with agricultural land. 1983-2017: Sheltered structures (metal and plastic workshop in 2017).		Hardware store At the time of site inspections, N2 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of N2 and the peripheral inspections, Kwong Kwan Heung Metal Limited ("廣群香五金有限公司") occupied at N2.	No	Yes
R1	R	1963: Agricultural land. 1979-1994: Sheltered structures. 2017: Unknown storage area		Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop At the time of site inspections, R1 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the signboard of R1, the peripheral inspections and Google Map, vehicle maintenance / repair workshop was observed in R1. Moreover, with reference to Google Map, the vehicle maintenance / repair workshop was operated by Fung Ho Carshop. Moreover, one transformer room and two DGs stores (as hot spots) were observed at southeast of R1 but no information is available to indicate what DGs were stored (no DGs record from FSD for these two DGs stores)	No	Yes
01	-	1963: Village, agricultural lands, natural vegetations and access roads 2013: Private car parking area Parking area in triangular area between Area A and Area 02.	Village, agricultural lands, natural vegetations and access roads During the site inspections, the squatters for residential purpose and abandoned stone houses were observed within Area 01. In additional, farmlands and natural vegetations were observed at the eastern and western portion of Area 01 and there were a few graves along the access road within the Area 01. No potential contamination facilities and activities was observed within Area 01.		Yes	N/A
02	-	1963: Agricultural land. 1993: Agricultural land was removed. 1994-2017: Open storage area (for cargo containers and materials) and/or truck parking.	Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop and truck parking During the site inspections, it was observed that trucks were parked within Area 02 and two-storey container office occupied at the eastern portion of Area 02. A fuel drum, some scrap materials, tools for vehicle maintenance / repair were observed in front of the container office. Moreover, two oil stains (as hot spot) were observed within Area 02 (one in front of the storage area of the fuel drum, some scrap materials, tools; another one at the north of Area 02).		Yes	N/A
03	-	1963: Agricultural land. 1993: Agricultural land was removed. 1994-2017: Open storage area (for cargo containers and materials) and/or truck parking.	Suspected container yard At the time of site inspections, Area 03 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, it was observed that containers and truck chassis were stored within Area 03. Thus, it is suspected that Area 03 was container yard.		No	Yes
04	-	1963: Agricultural land. 1993: Agricultural land was removed. 1994-2017: Open storage area (for cargo containers and materials) and/or truck parking.	Suspected recycled workshop and fuel refilling station During the site inspections, fuel drums and handheld fuel nozzle next to the two-storey container office were observed within Area 04. It was also observed that disused electrical appliances and plastic wastes were stored within Area 04. Therefore, it is suspected that Area 04 was a recycled workshop and a fuel refilling station in very small scale (about 0.5m x 0.5m) (as hot spot).		Yes	N/A
05	-	1963: Natural vegetation. 1983: Sheltered structures. 2004-2017: Open storage of goods outside the sheltered structures.	Open Storage for construction machineries and materials At the time of site inspections, Area 05 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, construction machineries, container offices and construction materials were stored at the western portion of Area 05. Moreover, there are squatters occupied at the eastern portion of Area 05 but no further information was available to show the current land use of them.		No	Yes
06	-	1963: Natural vegetation and agricultural land. 1983: Open storage area with sheltered structures. 1995: Suspected workshop with sheltered structures with construction machineries and vehicles tyres. 2000-2017: Vacant.	Suspected open storage At the time of site inspections, Area 06 was inaccessible and fenced by metal sheets. Based on the peripheral inspection, containers, one parked truck and some goods were observed within Area 06. It is suspected that Area 06 is used as an open storage area. However, no further information was available to show the actual current land use of Area 06.		No	Yes
07	-	1963: Natural vegetation and agricultural land. 1983: Open storage area with sheltered structures. 1995: Suspected workshop and/or open storage area with sheltered structures with construction machineries, equipment and vehicles tyres. 2014: Trucks and chassis parked.	Truck parking At the time of site inspections, trucks and truck chassis were parked within Area 07.		Yes	N/A
08	-	1963: Natural vegetation. 1983: Sheltered structures. 2015: Sheltered structures were removed. 2016: Open storage of construction machineries and cargo containers within Area	Truck parking and open storage of construction machineries & cargo containers At the time of site inspections, it was observed that construction machineries and cargo containers were stored, and a truck was parked in Area 08.		Yes	N/A
09	-	1963: Natural vegetation, agricultural lands and village houses 1990: Some natural vegetation was removed for the construction of Hong Po Road 2017: Natural vegetation, agricultural lands and village houses.	Squatters for residential purpose, agricultural lands and natural vegetation At the time of site inspections, Area 09 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, the squatters surrounding natural vegetation within Area 09 was for residential purpose. Moreover, agricultural lands were observed within Area 09 along Hong Po Road. No potential contamination facilities and activities was observed within Area 09 based on peripheral view.		No	Yes
10	-	1963: Agricultural land. 1984: A village house built with natural vegetation. 1990: Some natural vegetation was removed for the construction of Hong Po Road. 2017: A village house and vegetation.	Bee farm During the site inspections, a bee farm with a squatter were observed within Area 10. No potential contamination facilities and activities was observed within Area 10.		Yes	N/A
11	-	1963: Agricultural land. 1984: A village house built with natural vegetation. 1990: Some natural vegetation was removed for the construction of Hong Po Road. 2017: Village houses and vegetation and suspected open storage.	Stone house with open storage of inert construction materials At the time of site inspections, Area 11 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, one-storey stone house was occupied at Area 11. Although open storage of construction materials was observed from the peripheral inspection of Area 11, there are no further information showing the kinds of material open stored within Area 11. To be conservative, Area 11 is considered likely to have potential land contamination issues as the specific types of stored materials are unknown.		No	Yes
12	-	1963: Agricultural land was observed. 1990: Roadside of the Hong Po Road 2010-2017: Two sheltered structures and suspected open storage.	Open storage of construction materials At the time of site inspections, Area 12 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, two container offices and open storage of inert construction materials, which were wrapped, were observed within Area 12. Although open storage of construction materials was observed from the peripheral inspection of Area 12, there are no further information showing the kinds of material open stored within Area 12. To be conservative, Area 12 is considered likely to have potential land contamination issues as the specific types of stored materials are unknown.		No	Yes
13	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1993: Open storage with cargo container. 2017: Open storage area for construction machineries and equipment.	Suspected open storage of construction materials At the time of site inspections, Area 13 was inaccessible and blocked. Based on the peripheral inspection from afar, huge metal cylinders were stored, and container offices occupied Area 13. Cranes were operated within Area 13. Based on the above-mentioned observations, it was suspected that Area 13 was used for open storage. However, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 13.		No	Yes
14	-	1963: Agricultural land was observed. 1993: Open storage with cargo container observed. 2017: Suspected workshop with sheltered structures and storage of truck chassis.	Container yard / repair workshops of machineries At the time of site inspections, Area 14 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. Based on the signboard of 14, three parties (Haishi Machinery & Equipment Service Centre, Sambo E&C (which is a civil engineering company) and So Kee Transportation Company Limited) shared Area 14. Based on the peripheral inspection, containers and cargos were stored within the western portion of Area 14 and Haishi Machinery & Equipment Service Centre was located at the east of Area 14. It was suspected that the maintenance and repair works of machineries might be conducted within Area 14 but no further information was available to indicate the exact location(s) of the maintenance and repair works.		No	Yes
15	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984: A village house built at the centre of Area 15. 2005: Parking area for private cars were observed at east of the Area. 2008: A fenced car park for private cars was observed at west of the Area.	Private car parking and natural vegetation At the time of site inspections, the eastern and western portions of Area 15 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. However, with reference to aerial photo in 2020 from Google Map, private car parking occupied the western portion of Area 15. Based on the peripheral inspection, Ho King Parking ("好景停車場") occupied the eastern portion of Area 15 and only private cars were parked within Ho King Parking. The small area of the northern part of Area 15 covering with natural vegetation was observed. No potential contamination facilities and activities was found within Area 15 based on peripheral view.		No	Yes
16	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984: Village houses at the east of Area 16. 2000: West of Area 16 was under construction for Villa Pinada. 2003: Access road and planting area observed at west of Area 16.	Residential Use At the time of site inspections, the western portion of Area 16 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, a two-storey village house and a one-storey stone house for residential purpose occupied the western portion of Area 16. For the eastern portion of Area 16, it was observed that Area 16 was planter areas of Villa Pinada. No potential contamination facilities and activities was found within Area 16 based on peripheral view.		No	Yes
17	-	1963: Agricultural lands and natural vegetation. 2017: Natural vegetation was removed to transform Area 17 to Cinderella Carriage Services.	Recreational area At the time of site inspections, Area 17 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of Area 17 and the peripheral inspections, Cinderella Carriage Service, which provides horse riding services, occupied Area 17. It was also observed that a stable and dirt for horse riding were built within Area 17. No potential contamination facilities and activities was found within Area 17 based on peripheral view.		No	Yes
18	-	1963-2017: Villages houses surrounded by natural vegetation and agricultural lands. Also, internal access roads of village were observed.	Village, natural vegetation, agricultural lands and internal access road of village During the site inspections, the squatters for residential purpose, farmlands with the farmhouses and internal access road of the village were observed within Area 18. No potential contamination facilities and activities was found within Area 18.		Yes	N/A
19	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 19 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. No further information was available to show the current land use of Area 19.		No	No
20	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 20 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. No further information was available to show the current land use of Area 20.		No	No
21	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984: A sheltered structure.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 21 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 21.		No	No
22	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983: Natural vegetation. 2003-2017: Open Storage Area with/without trucks parking.	Suspected open storage At the time of site inspections, Area 22 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspections, containers, plastic wires and mental doors were observed at Area 22. It is suspected that 22 was used as open storage.		No	Yes
23	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983: Sheltered structures with materials stored surrounded. 1989: Stored materials were removed. 2002: Elongated sheltered structures with materials stored around. 2016: Stored materials were removed.	Agricultural use During the site inspections, sheltered farming area with irrigation system (e.g. drip lines) was observed within Area 23. No potential contamination facilities and activities was found within Area 23.		Yes	N/A
24	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983: Sheltered structures. 2009: Truck parking and open storage of trucks chassis. 2017: Open storage for cargo containers.	Open storage of construction materials At the time of site inspections, Area 24 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspections, timber products, concrete blocks and construction machineries were stored within Area 24.		No	Yes
25	-	1963-2017: A sheltered structure with natural vegetations.	Open storage of metal materials At the time of site inspections, Area 25 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspections, "永生園" occupied at Area 25 and metal materials were stored within Area 25.		No	Yes
26	-	1963-2017: A sheltered structure with natural vegetations.	Suspected vehicle maintenance / repair workshop At the time of site inspections, Area 26 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspections, discarded private car and tools for vehicle maintenance / repair workshop were observed. Thus, it is suspected that Area 26 was used as vehicle maintenance / repair workshop.		No	Yes
27	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983-2016: Industrial area with consisted of different premises with sheltered structures (including open storage area, parking area for trucks and trucks chassis, suspected maintenance workshops etc.) 2017: Area 27 largely became vacant.	Vacant land At the time of site inspections, Area 27 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspections, Area 27 was vacant.		No	Yes
28	-	1963-2017: Natural vegetation, agricultural lands, village houses and internal access road of village	Village, internal access road of village and natural vegetation During the site inspections, the squatters for residential use within Area 28 were observed. Natural vegetation and the internal access roads were also observed within Area 28.		Yes	N/A
29	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures with natural vegetations.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 29 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. No further information was available to show the current land use of Area 29.		No	No
30	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures with natural vegetations.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 30 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. No further information was available to show the current land use of Area 30.		No	No
31	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures with natural vegetations.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 31 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. No further information was available to show the current land use of Area 31.		No	No
32	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures with natural vegetations.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 32 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. No further information was available to show the current land use of Area 32.		No	No
33	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures with natural vegetations.	Parasol hardware factory At the time of site inspections, Area 33 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of Area 33 and the peripheral inspections, a parasol hardware factory occupied Area 33.		No	Yes
34	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures with natural vegetations.	Godown At the time of site inspections, Area 34 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of Area 34 and the peripheral inspections, a godown of BALtrans International Moving Ltd. (BIM) occupied Area 34. Wrapping material was also observed in Area 34. With reference to the website of BIM, the major serving sections of BIM are household removal, office relocation, fine art moving and storage services.		No	Yes
35	-	1963-1994: Agricultural lands and/ or natural vegetation. 1995-2001: Truck parking and open storage of trucks chassis. 2002: Construction for the drainage maintenance access. 2003: Construction drainage maintenance access completed.	Drainage maintenance access At the time of site inspections, Area 35 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspections, Area 35 was a drainage maintenance access operated by Drainage Services Department. No potential contamination facilities and activities was found within Area 35.		No	Yes
36	-	1963-1995: Agricultural lands and/ or natural vegetation. 1996-2017: Truck parking and open storage of truck chassis with a sheltered structure, suspected workshop.	Trucks and small vehicle parking At the time of site inspections, Area 36 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspections, trucks and small vehicle were parked within Area 36.		No	Yes
37	-	1963-2017: Agricultural lands and vegetation.	Agricultural lands and farmhouse At the time of site inspections, Area 37 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspections, agricultural lands with container farmhouse were observed within Area 37. No potential contamination facilities and activities was found within Area 37.		No	Yes
38	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984-2017: Sheltered structure.	Industrial use At the time of site inspections, Area 38 was inaccessible and fenced by metal hoarding. Based on the signboard of Area 38, Gaodi Asia ("高迪亞洲") occupied Area 38. It is suspected that Area 38 is industrial use. However, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 38.		No	No
39	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984-2017: Area 39 was fenced. Sheltered structure with material stored outside.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 39 was inaccessible and fenced. No further information was available to show the current land use of Area 39.		No	No
40	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984-2017: Area 40 was fenced. Sheltered structure with material stored outside.	Plastic recycling workshop At the time of site inspection, Area 40 was inaccessible and fenced by wall. Based on the signboard of Area 40, HK Bouteille Resources Recycling Business Company Limited ("香港寶德來資源回收企業有限公司"), which is a plastic recycling company, occupied Area 40. Moreover, waste cardboards were observed within Area 40.		No	Yes
41	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984-2017: Sheltered structure.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 41 was inaccessible and fenced. No further information was available to show the current land use of Area 41.		No	No
42	-	1963-2017: Sheltered structures.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 42 was inaccessible and fenced by metal gate. Based on the signboard of Area 42 and the peripheral inspections, ("觀友園") occupied at Area 42 and there were container offices. However, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 42.		No	No
43	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984-1994: Sheltered structure with material stored outside. 1995: Stored material outside the sheltered was removed.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 43 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspections, a concrete structure was observed at Area 43. However, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 43.		No	No
44	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1984-1994: Sheltered structure with material stored outside. 1995: Stored material outside the sheltered was removed.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 44 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the signboard of Area 44, “威力" occupied at Area 44. However, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 44.		No	No
45	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983-2017: Sheltered structure.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 45 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, a concrete structure was observed. However, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 45.		No	No
46	-	1963: Agricultural land. 1984-2017: Area 46 was fenced. Sheltered structure with material stored outside was observed.	Marble supplier company At the time of site inspections, Area 46 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the signboard of Area 46, Kam Sing Marble Company ("錦星雲石") occupied Area 46. From the peripheral inspections, inert construction materials (e.g. Marble) were stored in Area 46.		No	Yes
47	-	1963: Agricultural land. 1984-2017: Area 47 was fenced. Sheltered structure with material stored outside was observed.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 47 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the signboard of Area 47, Mei Ka Pump Engineering Co. ("美加公司"), which provide the maintenance service of pumping systems and swimming pool filtration system, occupied Area 47. However, no further information was available to show the land use of Area 47.		No	No
48	-	1963-2017: Natural vegetation, agricultural land, village houses and internal access road of the village.	Village and agricultural land During the site inspections, the squatters and stone houses for residential purpose were observed at Area 48. Moreover, some farmlands were observed within Area 48. No potential contamination facilities and activities was found within Area 48 based on peripheral view.		No	Yes
49	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983: Sheltered structures at north and west of the Area. 1997-2004: Truck parking. 2012: Truck parking were removed.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 49 was inaccessible. Based on the peripheral inspection, it was observed that two-storey village house occupied, and two tourist buses were parked within Area 49. However, no further information was available to show the land use of Area 49.		No	Yes
50	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983: Area 50 was part of the factory. 1991: The factory was removed. 1999: Truck parking. 2005-2017: The Area was largely remained vacant	Vacant land At the time of site inspections, Area 50 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspections, Area 50 was vacant and covered with natural vegetation.		No	Yes
51	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1996: Vegetation and sheltered structures. 1997: Parking Area for buses. 2006-2017: Trucks and vehicles were parked with storage of material within Area 51 (Suspected workshop).	Vehicle maintenance workshop At the time of site inspections, Area 51 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of Area 51 and the peripheral inspections, Car-One Professional Workshop, which provides car washing and maintenance services, occupied at Area 51.		No	Yes
52	-	1963: Natural vegetation. 1983: Sheltered structure. 1993: Sheltered structure. 1996-2017: Sheltered structure.	Suspected godown of coffee supplier company At the time of site inspections, Area 52 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of Area 52 and the peripheral inspection, it was observed that the suspected warehouse of Wah Lai Hong Trading Limited ("華麗行貿易有限公司"), which is a coffee supplier company, occupied in Area 52.		No	Yes
53	-	1963: Sheltered structure. 1993: Parking area for vehicles. 1996-2017: Sheltered structures with materials stored outside and parking.	Suspected collection point & storage area of unused electrical appliance At the time of site inspections, Area 53 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the signboard of Area 53 and the peripheral inspection, it was observed that "旺泰集運有限公司" occupied at Area 53 and there were unused electrical appliances stored within Area 53 (but no recycling process of the unused electrical appliances observed). It is suspected that Area 53 was used for collecting and storing of unused electrical appliances.		No	Yes
54	-	1963: Factory at north, agricultural land and village houses at south. 1983: The entire Area 54 occupied by the factory. 1997: The factory was removed and regrowth with vegetation. 2010: Truck parking. 2017: Open storage area.	Vacant land At the time of site inspections, Area 54 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspection, Area 54 was vacant and covered with natural vegetation.		No	Yes
55	-	1963: Agricultural land was observed. 1983-2017Sheltered structures were observed with natural vegetations.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 55 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the peripheral inspection, one stone house occupied Area 55. However, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 55.		No	Yes
56	-	1963: Agricultural land. 1983-2017: Sheltered structures with natural vegetations.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 56 was inaccessible and fenced. Based on the signboard of Area 56, "廬蔭剛園" occupied Area 56. However, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 56.		No	No
57	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983-2017: Village houses and access roads	Squatters for residential purpose During the site inspections, the squatters for residential purpose were observed at Area 57.		No	Yes
58	-	1963: Agricultural land was observed. 1983-2017: Sheltered structures were observed.	Vehicle scrapping and repair workshop At the time of site inspections, Area 58 was inaccessible. Based on the signboard of Area 58, Current Auto Service Company ("通行汽車服務公司"), which is a registered vehicle scrapping company, occupied at Area 58. Moreover, from the peripheral inspections, vehicle repairing was observed within Area 58.		No	Yes
59	-	1963: Agricultural lands. 1983-2017: Sheltered structures.	Unknown At the time of site inspections, Area 59 was inaccessible and fenced. Also, no further information was available to show the current land use of Area 59.		No	No
60	-	Before the construction of the access roads within Area 60, the area of access roads covered natural vegetation. 1982/1983: Tsz Tin Road and Tsing Lun Road constructed 1985: Ming Kum Road constructed 1990: Hong Po Road constructed 2002-2003: Access roads upgraded to Tsing Lun Road/ Hong Po Road roundabout.	Access roads Area 60 mainly covers the junction improvement works and infrastructure works areas. During the site inspections, it was observed that Area 60 included Hong Po Road, Tsing Lun Road, Ng Lau Road, San Hing Road, Hing Kwai Street, Ming Kum Road, Tsz Tin Road, light rail, and some vegetation areas. No potential contamination facilities and activities was observed within Area 60.		Yes	N/A

Notes:

(1) To identify any past land uses that may cause potential land contamination issues, the historical land uses of the Assessment Area has been reviewed with the aid of selected historical photographs in the years from 1963 to 2017 available from the LandsD and the 2017 PER. The referenced aerial photographs are attached in Appendix B of the CAP in Appendix 12.1.

(2) The current land use for each identified area is determined based on the site inspection (including the peripheral inspection) and the available information from the internet.

(3) For Area A to R identified in the 2017 PER, new area IDs are assigned to the area in accordance with findings in this CAP. Based on the number of the premises observed within the potential contamination areas, Area E is divided into 5 sub-areas (Areas E1 to E5); Area D is divided into 2 sub-areas (Areas D1 & D2); Area N is divided into 2 sub-areas (Areas N1 & N2); Area L is divided into 3 sub-areas (Area L1 to L3). Although some areas (e.g. Area H1, I1, M1, N1+N2, R1) are slightly reduced (compared with their original one presented in the 2017 PER), the reduced parts were covered in other identified areas for site appraisal. For Area C1, F, J1 and K1, their size are enlarged (compared with the original one presented in the 2017 PER).

(4) Area IDs ‘G’, ‘O’,‘P’,‘Q’ are not used under this CAP to ensure consistent naming of potentially contaminated areas.

Review of Site Geological and Hydro-geological Profile

12.4.13 The relevant ground investigation records within the Project Site were obtained from the Civil Engineering Library (CEL) of CEDD. The information obtained have been reviewed and presented in Section 3.6 and Appendix G of the CAP given in Appendix 12.1 for reference.

12.4.14 The drillhole records revealed that the Assessment Area consists of fill material, alluvium and colluvium and silt. Groundwater table was encountered in a range of around 0m to 8m below ground level (bgl).

12.4.15 HPR Site is underlain by a layer of fill (various from 0m to 3.1m thick), alluvium (various from 0m to 3.5m thick) or colluvium (various from 0.5m to 2.6m thick), completely decomposed Tuffite/Tuff Breccia/Tuff/Siltstone/Meta-Andesite (various from 6.6m to 21.3m thick), and highly decomposed Tuffite/Tuff (various from 0.25m to 1.0m thick). Bedrock is encountered at a depth varying from +37.8mPD to -14.6mPD.

12.4.16 SHR Site Extension is underlain by a layer of fill (various from 2.0m to 2.5m thick), alluvium (various from 0m to 2.0m thick), completely decomposed Tuff/ Siltstone/ Tuffaceous Siltstone/Tuff Breccia/Tuffite (various from 15.6m to 22.0m thick), and highly decomposed Rhyolite/Tuff Breccia/Tuff/Tuffaceous Siltstone (various from 0m to 7.9m thick). Bedrock is encountered at a depth varying from -9.8mPD to -17.8mPD.

12.4.17 SHR Site is underlain by a layer of fill (various from 0m to 9.1m thick), alluvium (various from 1.5m to 6.2m thick), completely decomposed Tuffaceous Siltstone/ Siltstone/Tuff/Tuff Breccia/Tuffite (various from 7.2m to 31.7m thick) and highly decomposed Rhyolite/Tuff Breccia/ Tuff/Tuffaceous Siltstone (various from 0.5m to 6.2m thick). Bedrock is encountered at a depth varying from -4.4mPD to -36.1mPD.

12.4.18 The proposed Road L7 is underlain by a layer of fill (various from 0m to 3.6m thick), alluvium (various from 1.5m to 3.6m thick) or colluvium (various from 1.5m to 5.1m thick), completely decomposed Meta-tuff/ Andesite/Tuff/Tuffite/Tuff Breccia (various from 6.7m to 22.2m thick), and highly decomposed Andesite Meta-tuff/ Tuffite/Tuff/Tuffaceous Siltstone/Rhyolite (various from 0.5m to 5.8m thick). Bedrock is encountered at a depth varying from +15.6mPD to -19.5mPD.

Information from Government Departments

12.4.19 Apart from the above-mentioned information reviewed, the following Government Departments listed in Table 12.3 have been enquired on the latest update on the availability of land use status and records of land contamination and/or spillage at the Assessment Area. A summary of correspondence is presented in Table 12.3 below. Copy of the relevant replies from various Government Departments are included in Appendix C of the CAP given in Appendix 12.1 for reference.

Table 12.3 Enquires and Responses on Land Contamination Related Records

Department	Response Letter Ref.	Response Date	Summary of Responses
Buildings Department (BD)	BD GR/INF/1/2	2 October 2018	- Approved building plans for all private building may be inspected at the Building Information Centre (BIC) of the BD or visit the Building Records Access and Viewing On-line (BRAVO). - From the BRAVO system, two relevant Plans/Documents for Area R1 and part of Area 27 were available within the Development Area, the screen captures on the search results are attached in Appendix I of the CAP given in Appendix 12.1. - With reference to the Approved Plan dated 1996 and 1997 available from BRAVO, part of Area 27 and Area R1 were used for wastewater treatment and there was no chemical storage room. Since no sign of chemical usage was identified, the wastewater treatment facilities at Area 27 and R1 are considered as non-potentially contaminated area. A transformer room and 2 DG stores at Area R1 are considered as potentially contaminated area. -
Environmental Protection Department (EPD)	Via email	13 June 2018	- Four records of registered chemical waste producer are provided (see Appendix C of the CAP given in Appendix 12.1) - Visit to the Territorial Control Office of EPD were paid in August 2018. A total of 9 registered chemical waste producer records within the Assessment Area were identified. Summary of the records is attached in Appendix H of the CAP given in Appendix 12.1.
Fire Services Department (FSD)	(154) in FSD GR 6-5/4 R Pt.19	31 July 2018	- 9 dangerous goods licenses have been issued since 1990 but all are outside the Assessment Area; - No relevant incidents were recorded.
Explosive Ordinance Disposal Bureau, Hong Kong Police Force	(68) in CP OPS EOD 6-20/1 Pt.3	14 September 2018	- No incidents related to Explosive Ordinance Disposal at Assessment Area were recorded.
Lands Department	(2) in DLOTM 230/4/316 Pt.2	21 September 2018	- No relevant records were available to be provided by LandsD
Planning Department	( ) in PDTM 2/1/11	1 June 2020	- Subject site falls within an area zoned “Residential (Group E)” and “Green Belt” on the approved Lam Tei and Yick Yuen OZP No. S/TM-LTYY/10 and “Residential (Group E)1”, “Green Belt”, “Village Type Development” and “Road” on the approved Tuen Mun OZP No. S/TM/35.

12.4.20 Although EPD advised that there are 4 registered chemical waste producers within the Assessment Area, the Consultant has also visited the registry of chemical waste producers maintained in the Territorial Control Office of EPD at Wan Chai in August 2018. The registry record is updated as of 20 June 2018. It was found that there are a total 8 registered chemical waste producers recorded within the Assessment Area (including the 4 registered chemical waste producers advised by EPD) and 1 registered chemical waste with an imprecise address that are potentially within the Assessment Area. The details of the chemical waste producer are provided in Appendix H of the CAP given in Appendix 12.1. The relevant areas of the registered chemical waste producers are listed in Table 12.4. The relevant areas of the registered chemical waste producer are listed in Table 12.4 are considered as potentially contaminated site.

Table 12.4 List of Relevant Chemical Waste Producer

Ref	Company Name	Nature of Business	Relevant Area ID
1	Turbo Ice Company Limited	Ice Production	K1
2	Leung Yat Ming (Wind Kee Metal Co.)	Recycling of Metal Container	Cannot be identified ^(1)
3	Speedwell Automobile Co Ltd.	Motor Car Service	I1
4	Wing Hing Services Company	Car Washing and Lubricating	M1
5	World Power Creation Limited	Recycling	27 ^(2)
6	World Power Creation Limited	Trading	27 ^(2)
7	Sang Fai Trading. Co	Regenerating Ferrous Drums	N2
8	Kuen Kee Godown Trading Company	Trading	07
9	Ming Chun Car Services Company Limited	Car Repair Workshop	H1

Notes

(1) The registered address of this chemical waste producer is in San Hing Tsuen, which covers a large area both within and outside the Assessment Area. The precise location of this chemical waste producer cannot be identified.

(2) Area 27 is vacant now. Thus, it is believed that two registered chemical waste producers no longer existed.

12.4.21 In addition, the Consultant has visited the Geotechnical Information Unit (GIU) in August 2018 and available geotechnical information of the surroundings of or inside the Development Area are obtained from the Civil Engineering Library (CEL). Details have been summarized in Sections 12.4.13 to 12.4.18.

12.4.22 As advised by BD, the Consultant has visited the BRAVO for related approved building plans for the Development Area. There are two available plan/document on BRAVO at SHR site, with BD file reference is 2/9359/93 approved in 1997 for Area 27, and 2/9216/95 approved in 1996 and 1997 for Area R1. After reviewing the approved plans, it was identified that Area 27 and part of Area R1 were used as wastewater treatment plant. and there was no chemical storage room. Since no sign of chemical usage was identified , the wastewater treatment facilities at Area 27 and R1 are considered as non-potentially contaminated. A transformer room and 2 DG stores at Area R1 are considered as potentially contaminated.

12.5 Summary of the Site Appraisal and Identification of Potentially Contaminated Areas

12.5.1 Potentially contaminated areas, non-potentially contaminated areas and unidentifiable areas were identified from site walkovers, review of historical aerial photographs, and available information from Government Departments. A summary of Area identification is summarised in Table 12.5 and their locations are shown in Figure 12.3.

Table 12.5 Summary of Area Identification

Identification (Note 1)	Area ID
Potentially Contaminated Areas	A, B, C1, D1, D2, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, F1, H1, I1, J1, K1, L1, L2, L3, M1, N1, N2 and R1; 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 58
Non-Potentially Contaminated Areas	01, 10, 18, 28, and 60
Unidentifiable Areas	09, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 41, 42, 45, 48, 55, 56, 57 and 59

Note 1:

- Potentially Contaminated Areas: Areas with land type that are potentially contaminating identified during site visit and historical aerial photographs;

- Non-Potentially Contaminated Area: Areas with land type that are not potentially contaminating identified during site visit and historical aerial photos and include residential area, farmland or access road;

- Unidentifiable Site Area: Areas that are inaccessible or with limited view to the site situation during site visit, and not potentially contaminated according to the land use observed from historical aerial photographs.

12.5.2 Specific land uses which were identified as potentially contaminating sources include:

· Open storage;

· Container yard;

· Godown;

· Vehicle maintenance / repair workshop;

· Hardware workshop;

· Recycling workshop;

· Construction materials and equipment storage (except only inert construction materials stored);

· Truck / vehicle parking;

· Factory;

· Chemical store;

· Fuel filling station;

· DG stores; and

· Transformer rooms.

12.5.3 Making reference to the EPD’s Practice Guide for Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Land, the key Chemical of Concerns (COCs) and remediation methods associated with the identified potentially contaminating land uses are identified and summarised in Table 12.6.

Table 12.6 Potential COCs and Possible Remediation Methods for the Identified Potentially Contaminating Land Uses

Identified Potentially Contaminating Landuse	Potentially Contaminating Activities	COCs (Note 1)	Possible Remediation Methods
Chemical/ DG store / chemical waste producer	Spillages and accidents related to storage of chemicals, manufacturing process, equipment maintenance and cleaning, storage, treatment and disposal of wastes	Metals (full list), PCRs, VOCs and SVOCs	Stabilisation/ Solidification, Biopile, Skimming System
Vehicle maintenance and repair workshop / fuel filling station / truck parking	Release of oils and fuels and lubricants from vehicles, vehicle and equipment maintenance and refuelling. Use of chemicals and solvents in maintenance activities. Motor vehicle painting and storage and disposal of wastes	Metals (full list), PCRs, VOCs and SVOCs	Stabilisation/ Solidification, Biopile, Skimming System
Open storage / container yard / godown / construction materials and equipment storage	Loading, unloading and storage of goods, fuel storage and transfer, maintenance of equipment and vehicles	Metals (full list), PCRs, VOCs and SVOCs	Stabilisation/ Solidification, Biopile, Skimming System
Recycling workshop	Use of metals and chemicals for manufacturing, equipment maintenance and cleaning, storage, treatment and disposal of wastes	Metals (full list), PCRs, VOCs, SVOCs and PCBs	Stabilisation/ Solidification, Biopile, Skimming System
Factory / hardware workshop	Spillages and accidents related to storage of chemicals, manufacturing process, equipment maintenance and cleaning, storage, treatment and disposal of wastes	Metals (full list), PCRs, VOCs and SVOCs	Stabilisation/ Solidification, Biopile, Skimming System
Transformer room	Storage, transfer and use of fuels, oils and chemicals, equipment, dielectric fluid spillage/leakage from transformers and other equipment and waste disposal	Metals (full list), PCRs, VOCs, SVOCs and PCBs	Stabilisation/ Solidification, Biopile, Skimming System

Note 1:

- Metals: Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium III, Chromium VI, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Tin, Zinc;

- Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Acetone, Benzene, Bromodichloromethane, 2-Butanone, Chloroform, Ethylbenzene, Methyl tert-Butyl Ether, Methylene Chloride, Styrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Trichloroethene, Xylenes (total);

- Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs): Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g.h.i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Hexachlorobenzene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene;

- Petroleum Carbon Ranges (PCRs): Carbon Ranges C6-C8, C9-C16 and C17-C35;

- PCBs: Polychlorinated Biphenyls.

12.5.4 The land contamination potential of the unidentifiable areas shall be established once access to the Areas become available, e.g. after land resumption. The need for site investigation and key COCs and remediation methods, if required, can only be identified by then.

12.6 Site Investigation Plan

Proposed Site Investigation for Potentially Contaminated Land Use

12.6.1 As discussed in Section 12.5, a number of potentially contaminated sites have been identified within the Project Site. As the majority of the sites within the Assessment Area are still in operation, site access for appraisal is very limited. Sampling should be carried out at these sites once access is available, e.g. during detailed design and construction stage after land resumption. As detailed in the CAP in Appendix 12.1, a total of 582 sampling locations (568 regular grid and 14 hot spot) are proposed at the 57 potentially contaminated areas listed in Table 12.5. Samples will be taken following a regular grid pattern to provide a representation of the extent and nature of contamination at the concerned potentially contaminated areas. Extra sampling points will also be located at or near the identified potential source of contamination (i.e. hot spot).

12.6.2 Details of the proposed sampling locations, sampling methods, parameters proposed for chemical analysis, laboratory analytical methods and reporting limits are described in the CAP in Appendix 12.1. It should be noted, however, that the CAP has determined the approach for SI based on the best available information at the time of assessment and thus the actual sampling and testing strategies could be subject to change based on the detailed site walkover results. A supplementary CAP shall be submitted when these identified areas will become accessible for re-appraisal after land resumption.

Proposed Re-appraisal for Potentially Contaminated Land Use

12.6.3 Further site appraisal will be carried out by the Project Proponent’s appointed consultants once site access is available (e.g. after land resumption), in order to identify the presence of “hot spots” for intrusive site investigation and confirm the evaluation of the contaminated site in initial land contamination assessment.

12.6.4 The Project Proponent’s consultants should prepare a supplementary CAP to summarise the relevant findings of the further site appraisal. After approval of the supplementary CAP and upon completion of the SI works, if any, the Project Proponent should prepare a CAR to present findings of the SI works. If contamination has been identified, a RAP should be prepared to formulate appropriate remedial measures to deal with the contamination identified. Following completion of any necessary remediation works, a Remediation Report (RR) should be prepared to demonstrate adequate clean-up and submit to EPD for approval prior to the commencement of any development works at the contaminated sites.

Proposed Re-appraisal for Unidentifiable Areas and Industrial Sites with No Potential for Contamination and Non-Industrial Land Uses

12.6.5 Re-appraisal would be required for the unidentifiable areas and industrial sites currently with no potential for land contamination and non-industrial uses within the Project Site. As development on these land uses would only commence some years later with potential changes of land usage between now and land resumption, the re-appraisal can capture the potential land contamination arising from the change in land usage.

12.6.6 The Project Proponent should re-appraise these land uses to assess the latest site situation once the land is handed over to the Project Proponent, and prepare a supplementary CAP presenting the findings of the re-appraisal and strategy of the recommended SI, if required, and submit to EPD for review and approval.

12.6.7 After approval of the supplementary CAP and upon completion of the SI works, if any, the Project Proponent should prepare a CAR, to present findings of the SI works. If contamination is identified, a RAP should be prepared to formulate appropriate remedial measures to deal with the contamination identified. Following completion of any necessary remediation works, a RR should be prepared to demonstrate adequate clean-up and submit to EPD for approval prior to the commencement of any development works at the contaminated sites identified.

12.7 Submission Requirements of CAR, RAP and RR

12.7.1 The most relevant RBRGs corresponding to the future land use would be determined when preparing the supplementary CAP and should be adopted in assessing its land contamination level. Laboratory testing results from SI should be compared with correspondent RBRGs for the testing parameters in accordance with the EPD’s Guidance Manual for Use of RBRGs for Contaminated Land Management.

12.7.2 Following the completion of environmental SI and lab testing works, the Project Proponent should prepare the CAR to present the findings of the SI and evaluate the level and extent of potential contamination. The potential environmental and human health impact based on the extent of potential contamination identified would also be evaluated.

12.7.3 If land contamination is identified during the proposed environmental SI and remediation is required, a RAP should then be prepared. The objectives of RAP are:

· To undertake further site investigation where required;

· To evaluate and recommend appropriate remedial measures for the contaminated materials identified in the assessment;

· To recommend good handling practices for the contaminated materials during the remediation works;

· To recommend approximate handling and disposal measures; and

· To formulate optimal and cost-effective mitigation and remedial measures for EPD’s agreement.

12.7.4 A RR should also be prepared to demonstrate that the clean-up works are adequate. No construction / development works should be carried out within the potentially contaminated areas of the Project Site prior to the EPD’s endorsement of the RR.

12.8 Evaluation of Land Contamination Impacts

12.8.1 The contamination problem in the land uses that are identified as potentially contaminated would not be considered insurmountable in the supportive view that any contaminated soil should be remediated by the Project Proponent.

Nature of Land Uses

12.8.2 Based on the site survey and desktop review, the majority of the sites have been identified as open storage, container yards, rural workshops and service yards. These potentially contaminated areas are not large scale pollution installations/facilities such as oil depots and power plants. The source of potential land contaminating activities at the identified sites mainly relates to the spillage and accidents associated with the storage and use of chemicals. As such, it is considered that if there is indeed any land contamination present at these sites, it is expected that it would be localised.

Chemicals of Concern

12.8.3 Based on the COC’s identified in this site appraisal (including metals, VOCs, SVOCs, PCRs and PCBs), it is considered that the remediation measures outlined in Table 12.6 have been demonstrated to effectively treat such contamination, both in soil and groundwater.

Local Remediation Experience

12.8.4 In addition, there are a number of relevant case studies in Hong Kong which can be referred to where these COCs have been effectively remediated, using the techniques in Table 12.6. Such examples range from the decontamination works at the Cheoy Lee Shipyard to the decommissioning of the Kwai Chung Incinerator.

12.9 Conclusion

12.9.1 This land contamination assessment examined the potentially contaminated landuses within the Project Site. Site appraisal comprises site walkover, review of historical aerial photographs and maps, review of historical spillage and leakage records and review of previous intrusive site investigation was undertaken at the Project Site.

12.9.2 Based on the current information, 57 potential contaminated sites have been identified within the Assessment Area. Based on the site survey and desktop review, the majority of the sites have been identified as open storage, container yards, rural workshops and service yards. These potentially contaminated sites are not large scale pollution installations/facilities such as oil depots and power plants. The source of potential land contaminating activities at the identified sites are believed to relate to the spillage and accidents associated with the storage and use of chemicals. As such, it is considered that if there is indeed any land contamination present at these sites, it is expected that it would be localized.

12.9.3 The possible COCs identified at the potentially contaminated sites include VOCs, SVOCs, Metals, PCRs and PCBs. These COCs are readily treatable with proven remediation techniques in local remediation experience, e.g. decontamination works at the Cheoy Lee Shipyard. By implementing the recommended remediation works, any contaminated site(s) identified within the Assessment Area could be cleaned up prior to construction / development. The contamination problem in the land uses that are identified as potentially contaminated would not be considered insurmountable in the supportive view that any contaminated soil should be remediated by the Project Proponent.

12.9.4 The recommended remediation works would not only minimise the health risk to the future occupants arising from the exposure of the contaminated soil and/or groundwater, it would also provide the opportunity to reuse the contaminated materials into useful materials for backfilling, which results in minimising the amount of waste disposing into the depleting landfill in Hong Kong and achieving a more sustainable development. Nonetheless, off-site disposal of contaminated soil into landfill should only be considered as a last resort and the contaminated soil should be remediated and reused onsite as far as practicable.

12.9.5 Since the potentially contaminated areas are located in private land lots, SI is unlikely to be carried out at this stage. In addition, as the sites are still in operation, it is considered not suitable to carry out the SI at this stage as there may be change in landuse prior to construction for both potentially contaminated areas and other surveyed areas. In view of this, further site visits to these potentially contaminated areas are proposed once future development of these areas is confirmed and that site access is available in order to identify the need for SI for any additional hot spots as a result of the on-going land contaminating activities. In addition, re-appraisal would be required for areas within the Project Site to address any change in land use that may give rise to potential land contamination issues.

12.9.6 Findings from the re-appraisal will be presented in a supplementary CAP. Upon approval of the supplementary CAP and completion of the SI works, a CAR would be prepared to present findings of the SI works. If contamination has been identified, a RAP would be prepared to recommend specific remediation measures. Upon completion of the remediation works, if any, a RR would also be prepared to demonstrate that the clean-up works are adequate. The CAR, RAP and RR would be submitted to EPD for endorsement prior to commencement of any construction / development works at the contaminated areas.

END OF TEXT