bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

A steel mill is seeking a judicial review of Airport Authority plans to build a fuel facility next to its premises, claiming it poses a high risk of explosion and could endanger the mill's 300 workers.

Shiu Wing Steel says in its 23-page High Court writ that the director of the Environmental Protection Department failed to address potential risks when granting approval for the aviation fuel facility.

The department approved an environment assessment report prepared by the Airport Authority, which applied to build a permanent aviation fuel complex next to the mill in Area 38 of the Tuen Mun Planning Area.

The writ says the director erred on August 28 in granting the application for an environmental permit.

It says the Airport Authority submitted an application for planning permission to the Town Planning Board in June to build the facility to supply fuel to the airport. The authority then lodged an environmental impact assessment report with the Environmental Protection Department.

The department chief informed the authority on June 11 that the report satisfied requirements under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance.

But the plaintiff contends the report failed to mention the close proximity of the proposed fuel facility to the mill, and failed to specifically address safety issues concerning the workers and property at the mill.

The plaintiff claims the facility could be unsafe and cause potential explosions and fires if aviation fuel vapours are emitted adjacent to furnaces at the mill.

The writ says the mill has a furnace heated to a maximum temperature of 1,300 degrees Celsius on a 24-hour basis.

It says the mill commissioned Macinnis Engineering Associates to prepare an independent report on October 16, that suggested the environmental impact assessment submitted by the Airport Authority had failed to address 'all reasonable hazardous scenarios'.

The writ says: 'Should failure occur at the tank farm, the furnace or hot materials from the mill may not be cooled down to a safe threshold instantaneously, and hence continue to provide a source for ignition.'



Review sought over fuel facility 'danger'