There are currently 84 factories in Pingnan Industrial Park, of which 43 of them are subject to control of fixed pollution sources, 32 of them are not subject to the control, 7 of them suspend their operation, and 2 of them are under installation.
There have been 343 inspections carried out in the industrial park and 30 abnormality or defect cases were identified during the inspection. Of those, 1 of them was pollution of the road surface, 4 of them indicated particular smells, 12 of them showed malfunction of the equipment, 3 of them showed unusual emission, and 10 of them were dust emissions. After deduction of 2 cases involving the same factories but different abnormalities/defects, there were 28 abnormality/defect cases, which occupied 8.2% of the total inspection cases. As for the reported cases, 2 of them were occupational cases, 1 of them was unusual emission, 1 case showed the equipment leakage audit defect defined by the Environmental Protection Bureau, and 1 case showed illegal construction. All of these cases have been recorded for tracking and control. Except for Xingwei Co., Ltd., which did not make improvement completely due to application for change of the permit, all factories have made thorough improvements. There are 9 accusation and punishment cases among the factories in Pingnan Industrial Park as summarized in 2016, and currently the improvement of Xingwei and change of its permit have not been approved yet. There were 24 inspections on the holiday and 33 night inspections have been executed. 15 of them showed particular smells and the sources might be Dachan, Ching Hung, Hong Heng, Yin Yu, Enrestec, and Yi Yang. In addition to exhortation for improvement, perimeters were inspected for particular smells or supporting measures were taken for improvement. Continuous follow-up actions are still required.
The air quality monitoring was conducted for 4 quarters. The concentration of all the pollutants changed insignificantly except NMHC, which could be affected by the industrial park and had significant change in the concentration. The change of the concentration developed mainly under the variation of the overall air quality in the Kaoshiung and Pintung Area.
As for the 4-quarter air quality inspection of the perimeter, the average value of the dioxin in the air was 0.056 (standard deviation: 0.030, excluding PCBs) pg I-TEQ/m3. The average concentration of the total toxic equivalent was about 0.053 pg WHO2005-TEQ/m3 (including PCBs) after conversion with WHO2005-TEF. The value is much less than the annual average concentration of 0.6 pg WHO2005-TEQ/m3 as specified in the Japanese environmental quality and air standard. PCBs occupied 2.2~12.1% of the total toxic equivalent and the influence was insignificant. The main source of the total PCDDs/Fs concentration and toxic equivalent was PCDFs. Dong Hai Elementary School, which is located at the highest position among the three measuring points, was affected more seriously by the pollution sources of the industrial zone and peripheral environment. The range of the concentration was similar to the monitoring result of the Pingtung Air Quality Monitoring Station, Environmental Protection Administration (EPA). The average value of the 4-quarter sediment samples was 1.119 (standard deviation: 0.454) ng I-TEQ/kg. All the samples complied with the lower limit value of 6.82 ng I-TEQ/kg as specified in the “Regulations for Classified Management of Sediment Quality Indicators and Application Control” established by the EPA, Executive Yuan.
There were 5 units of secondary flue PSN inspections, 3 units of secondary dioxin inspections, 1 unit of secondary VOC reduction rate, and 2 units of secondary PM2.5 and TSP sampling analyses have been executed. All inspection results complied with the regulations and standards.
The sensory evaluation of odour was executed at 12 points and the perimeter odour inspection of the factories outside the Pingnan Industrial Park with respect to the complaint cases with the Environmental Protection Bureau was executed at 1 point. The result of the inspection showed incompliance and the Environmental Protection Bureau issued a ticket for a fine. Perimeter inspections in the industrial part were executed at 9 points and 2 units of secondary flue inspections were executed. No factories subject to the inspection did not show any excess of the standard value except Xiang Fa, which was identified with odour on the perimeter exceeded the standard value. The Environmental Protection Bureau issued a ticket to punish Xiang Fa.
