Environmental Impact Assessment - Development of Organic Waste Treatment Facilities - Literature review Example

Environmental Impact Assessment: Development of Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase 2 Name Institution Date of Submission Environmental Impact Assessment: Development of Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase 2 Introduction The paper discusses some good and not good enough qualities of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report by MacDonald (2013) in relation to the technical memorandum of a good environmental impact assessment report. Those qualities that are not sufficient will be categorized as ‘not good enough’ and those that fit satisfactorily in the technical memorandum will be characterized as ‘good’. The qualities will be identified based on the assessments of air quality, noise impact and water quality impact respectively. Air Quality Impact Assessment The ‘Goods’ In the presentation of MacDonald (2013) of the air quality impact assessment report in relation to the construction and operational phases of the proposed Organic Waste Treatment Facility –Phase 2 (OWTF 2), dust has been considered a primary concern during the phase of construction. This is generally good and agreed by Carroll and Turpin (2002), when they stipulate that dust is the likely primary concern in the phase of construction. This paper not only embraces the effects at the construction phase but also at the phase of operation which is impressive and inclusive. Besides, Carroll and Turpin (2002) argue that air quality impacts can arise from both operation and construction. At the operation phase, the paper identifies the major air pollution sources including odour treatment unit emissions, flaring emissions, and emissions from biogas burning among others. Additionally, the paper adheres to the legislation, guidelines and standards of the environment. It adheres to the major legislation of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO). This identifies Air Quality Objectives stating the statutory standards of pollutants of air and the maximum exceedence numbers allowed over a certain period of time. This shows that the paper is sensitive to the legislation and guidelines set when it comes to violation of the same which is paramount prior to project execution (Shrivastava, 2003). Moreover, according to Planning Practice Guidance (2014), data collection of air quality is a costly task, thus it is advisable to utilize the available sources of information. This paper entails the description of area under assessment as well as the sensitive receivers. It gathers its information regarding ambient pollutant concentrations from EPD’s Tai Po monitoring station and also from the government’s programmes that are on-going. This helps the project to be cost-effective. The ‘Not Good Enough’ The paper outlines a number of potential pollutants sulphur IV oxide, nitrogen IV oxide, carbon II oxide, ozone, lead, fine suspended particles, respirable suspended particulates, among others. However, it does not categorize the pollutants for easy reporting. According to Barthwal (2002), air pollutants can be classified into particulate pollutants and gaseous pollutants; such that gaseous pollutants entail oxides of nitrogen, sulphur II oxide, carbon II oxide and other formless fluids which have diffusion properties. Particulates on the other side entail matters that are dispersed in the air in form of solid or liquid such as dust. Also, Air Quality Impact Assessment should focus on three important elements including emission source, transport media as well as detectors and receptors (Barthwal, 2002). Air Sensitive Receivers, which likely to be affected by the project, are identified and described by the report. Based on emission sources, the report outlines project emission sources on the phase of construction. These include activities of excavations, mobile plants and vehicles, site clearance, works of foundation among others. On the operation phase, the report outlines project emission sources such as emissions emerging from flaring, existing open roads and proposed open roads beyond the OWTF 2 territory but within the area of study. However, when it comes to transport media, it seems to be at a loss. When it comes to mitigation of dust, the report has suggested various ways of minimizing dust particles and most of them involve the use of excess water. Aside from the fact that damping down particles using water sprays is important in curbing dust during construction, it is also necessary that water be utilized effectively. For instance, temporary stockpiles can be covered using sheeting or such stockpiles can be located far from sensitive places. Also, water-assisted sweepers of dust can be used regularly (Carroll and Turpin, 2002). Noise Impact Assessment The ‘Good’ Regarding the description of the existing environment, the elements in the arena is sufficiently described making it possible to identify and predict environmental effects. That is, the report describes the strategic place of the project in close proximity to a Livestock Waste Conposting Plant. This makes it easier for predicting noise from the plant. In addition, the article describes the proximity of the project to roads including Man Kam and Kong Nga Po. This makes it easier to predict noise from the road as well. Another good thing is that the report identifies the potential impacts in the aspects of both construction and operation phases. It identifies the potential noise source impact from Powered Mechanical Equipment for a variety of activities of construction. This includes demolishing of ground infrastructure of the Sha Ling Livestock Waste Composition Plant, facility of composting among others. it also includes noise impacts at the operation phase. That is the likely noise impact arises from the fixed plant operation such as screw pumps, shredders, power generation systems among others. Morris and Therivel (2009) point out that when it comes to methodology baseline studies ought to identify noise sources in a particular site and characterize noise variations between night and day and between weekends and weekdays. The paper has identified noise sources at daytime, evening time and night-time and this is remarkable. For instance, Inlet Air Louver of Maturation, Screening and Storage Building has been identified as a fixed source of noise at the operation phase and noted that its maximum permissible SWL is at 90 in daytime, 84 at evening and 80 at night. The ‘Not Good Enough’ Given that the paper has characterized its variations of noise sources over time between day, evening and night, it would also be appropriate to include the variations based on the weekends and weekdays. According to Morris and Therivel (2009), every noise potential impact source needs to be identified including both on-site and off-site sources at the operation and construction phases. However, this paper has majorly relied on the on-site sources than off-site sources. Thus, the effects of the off-site sources of noise impact are likely to affect the project. Moreover, monitoring in the sites is usually done in consultation with health officer of the environment and also the local community (Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick, 2013). At the construction stage, since it is predicted that the noise impact at the construction stage can be unmitigated, the paper has recommended the Environmental Monitoring and Audit programme. However, at the operation phase the paper flouts the significance of the environmental monitoring and audit since it predicts lack of noise impact from the project operation. In any case, monitoring will always be conducted despite the predictions made by the project assessments. Besides, the local community is not involved in the site monitoring. Water Quality Impact Assessment The ‘Good’ The mitigation measures of the environmental impact adopted in the paper has employed both remedial and preventive measures. For instance, the construction of site run-off has been employed to minimize erosion and surface run-off. Such measure is categorized as remedial. Covering of manholes adequately would prevent silt, materials of construction or debris directed to the drainage system from being washed into the foul sewers. This measure is preventive. This shows that the mitigation measures are almost all inclusive (Fairfax County Virginia, 2006). When it comes to impact prediction, the paper is very detailed in the negative impacts associated with the project. It thus recommends mitigation measures and good site practices that would help minimize or eliminate the potential negative impacts. For instance, it has identified uncontrolled debris discharge and spillages from stored liquids on-site such as diesel, solvents and oil as activities that would lead to pollution of water. The paper is sensitive of this and proposes observation of good site management and construction practices to avoid the contamination of the drainage system, existing rivers and streams by fuels, solvents and debris. This shows the high value of preparedness, which is an important sector of mitigation in general (Environmental Protection Department, 2011). Additionally, when it comes to area assessment and sensitive receivers, the paper is also sensitive about not only the project site area but also other areas such as courses of water and the water systems associated with it in the area that might be affected by the project. In fact, major water sensitive receivers have been identified including water ponds, fish ponds, streams among others (Fairfax County Virginia, 2013). The ‘Not Good Enough’ In describing the existing environment, the paper has given a significant description of the surrounding such that the predicting the potential impact of the project can be easier. However, it does not consider the benefits and costs from the on-site and off-site environment without the employment of the project. A good assessment paper incorporates the advantages and disadvantages from the site of the project and external environment in the absence of the project. Sometimes, this can be considered a control experiment (Barthwal, 2002). On environmental monitoring and audit, the paper does not consider water quality monitoring necessary. However, given the numerous human activities and activities of the project, the quality of water is still vulnerable and constant monitoring is suitable despite the fact that the predictions of adverse water quality effect are almost nil (Colombo, 1992). Lastly, McDonald (2013) holds that waste water arising from the OWTF 2 operation would be treated adequately in treatment plant on the site before discharging to the public sewerage system. Thus, there is no anticipation of the water quality impact. However, other factors come into play when it comes to contaminating the quality of water including human activities from the local community among others. Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has tried to maximize its ability of fulfilling the requirements of a sound environmental assessment report given its many positive qualities in relation to the technical memorandum by the Environmental Protection Department. However, it still has to adjust some of its ‘not good’ qualities to fit definitely. List of References Barthwal, R 2002, Environmental Impact Assessment, New Age International, New Delhi. Carrol, B and Turpin, T (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook: A Practical Guide for Planners, Developers and Communities, Thomas Telford, London. Colombo, A (1992). Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1. Springer Science & Business Media. Environmental Protection Department, 2011, Technical Memorandum. Reviewed 18th April 2011 from Fairfax County Virginia, 2013, Water Quality Impact Assessment for Water Dependent Development in a Resource Protection Area. Reviewed 13th March 2006. Updated 6th July 2013. Retrieved 5th November 2014 from http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/publications/lti/06_07.htm Glasson J, Therivel R, and Chadwick A 2013, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: Natural and Built Environment Series, Edition 3, Routledge, London. MacDonald, M 2013, Development of Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase 2: Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Retrieved 5th November 2014 from http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2182013/TOC_PDF.htm Morris, P and Therivel, R 2009, Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment: Natural and Built Environment Series, Routledge., London. Planning Practice Guidance (2014). Air Quality: How Detailed Does an Air Quality Assessment Need to be? Revised 6th March 2014. Retrieved 5th November 2014 from http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/air-quality/how-detailed-does-an-air-quality-assessment-need-to-be/ Shrivastava, A (2003). Environment Impact Assessment, APH Publishing, New Delhi. Read More