1. Introduction
1.1
At
present aviation fuel is delivered to the
1.2
A
preferred location for the strategically important permanent facility has been
identified on existing reclaimed land at Tuen Mun Area 38, see Figure 1.
1.3
The
project is a designated project under the terms of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance and, as such, an Environmental Impact Assessment is required
to support an application for an Environmental Permit. An EIA of the PAFF
facility (EIAO Register Number AEIAR-062-2002), was prepared and submitted
under the EIAO in May 2002 and subsequently, Environmental Permit EP-139/2002
was granted on the 28th August 2002. However, the decision by EPD to grant
the Environmental Permit was subject to a Judicial Review and the Court of
Final Appeal quashed the Environmental Permit in its judgment of July 2006.
1.4
Thus, while some construction
works for the PAFF have been undertaken from November 2005, they were suspended following
the Judgement of the Court of Final Appeal of July 2006, in order to continue
with the development of the project, the project needs to once again go through
the statutory procedures under the EIAO in order to obtain a new environmental
permit.
1.5
Thus,
the EIA report of April 2002 has been revised per the Judgment of the Court of
Final Appeal and its statutory interpretation of the EIAO and updated to take
into account subsequent changes to the site layout and the surrounding area
including additional sensitive receivers. The key issues, findings and
conclusions are presented in this Executive Summary.
2. Site
Selection and Comparison of Alternatives
2.1
The
search for a suitable site for the permanent aviation fuel facility and related
comparative assessment has taken place over more than a 10 year period in full
consultation with the regulatory authorities.
2.2 A
number of potential sites including Sham Shui Kok, Sham Wat, Bluff Point, Kau
Yi Chau, East of Sokos, Tsing Yi and those near the airport and in the Tuen Mun
area, have been considered. The
proposed location at Tuen Mun Area 38 is considered to be the environmentally
most preferred of all these sites.
This site is zoned for special industrial use and is located in a
heavily industrialised setting, adjacent to Castle Peak Power Station, Shiu
Wing Steel Mill and the proposed EcoPark.
2.3 Aviation
fuel would be transported from the proposed jetty via a tank farm at Tuen Mun
Area 38 to the airport by means of twin subsea pipelines. Alternative routings
for this pipeline have been compared.
The options include one in which construction of a pipeline ties into
the Aviation Fuel Receiving Facility at Sha Chau, in order to make use of the
existing twin subsea pipelines from Sha Chau to the airport. Another option comprises a longer route
involving a completely new pipeline running directly between Tuen Mun Area 38
and the airport. The
environmentally preferred choice has been determined to be that which ties into
the facility at Sha Chau.
2.4
The
requirements for dredging and pipelaying are substantially reduced if continued
use is made of the existing pipelines, whose lifespan is sufficient to meet the
need for the airport’s anticipated operational life. Disturbance to dolphins during
construction would also be lessened and there are benefits for operational
aspects. Usage of this pipeline
will eliminate the need for routine offloading of aviation fuel at the back up
facility at Sha Chau (to flush the pipeline and maintain the aviation fuel in
an acceptable state).
However, about 400m of twin pipelines will need to be constructed within
the
3.
Description of the Project
3.1
The
permanent facility at Tuen Mun Area 38 will consist of the following major
elements:
¨
a
jetty to accommodate aviation fuel tankers;
¨
a
tank farm for storage of aviation fuel;
¨
on-site
operational facilities including offices; and
¨
twin
sub-sea pipelines to transfer the aviation fuel to the airport.
3.2
The
project including planning, design,
construction and commissioning is targeted to be completed for 2009. The
PAFF and its surrounding area is shown in Figure 2.
3.3
About
6.75 ha of land are required to house the aviation fuel tank farm and
associated facilities taking up a small part of Tuen Mun Area 38. The proposed site is zoned for
industrial use. The closest residential development Lung Kwu Tan is located
approximately 2 km away, and comprises low-rise village type housing. The nearest major population centre is
the Melody Garden Estate in Tuen Mun, some 3 kilometres distant. There is, also, a planned Holiday Camp
to the north-east of the site along
3.4
The
tank farm will initially house eight storage tanks each providing a storage
capacity of between 22,000m3 to 35,000m3. Thereafter additional tanks would
need to be constructed to provide an ultimate design capacity of about 388,000m3. The tank farm will be provided with
bundwalls and contained drainage.
3.5
Other
tank farm facilities include an office building for administrative and security
control, leak detection instrumentation, fire fighting and emergency spill
equipment, workshops and basic infrastructure including roads,
telecommunications, drains, power supply and lighting.
3.6
Aviation
fuel will be offloaded at a twin berth jetty sited approximately 200m offshore
in about 17m of water. The jetty will be constructed on tubular piles. Tankers with capacity ranging from
10,000 to 80,000 dwt are expected to berth at the jetty typically three times
per week initially, rising to an average of about three and a half larger
tankers per week over the life of the facility. Aviation fuel will run to shore
through submarine pipes protected by rock armour which would not protrude above
the existing seabed.
3.7
Defensive
fenders will be provided on the shore side of the jetty to protect against
possible collision from small craft straying into the area. Coupling points on the vessels would be
provided with slop trays to catch minor spills of aviation fuel during coupling
and de-coupling.
3.8
Aviation
fuel will be delivered to the airport site by means of buried 500mm diameter
twin sub-sea pipelines which will connect to the existing facility at Sha
Chau. The length of the twin subsea
pipelines will be about 4.8km.
The pipelines will be installed in a dredged trench and protected with
rock armour not protruding above the existing seabed.
4. Key
Issues
4.1
There
are a number of important environmental issues associated with the
project. These have all been
thoroughly addressed in this EIA and those that require special mitigation
measures and controls are highlighted below.
4.2
The
proposed pipeline requires dredging and other marine works, a very small
portion of which will be within the marine park. Sediment released to the water column
could have an adverse impact on the natural marine ecology, fisheries and other
users of the sea including leisure and industrial activities. Ecological receivers of particular
concern include fish, dolphins and corals.
4.3
The
proposed pipeline crosses a seabed which has a rich maritime history. Care is required to avoid works
encroachment on any hitherto unidentified historical relics of cultural
heritage value.
4.4
It
has been identified in this EIA that routine operations at the facility will
not pose particular concern. With
careful design and management, no significant adverse impacts are expected. Nevertheless, handling bulk quantities
of aviation fuel presents concerns associated with any accident or incident
which could have an impact including that on human life. Hazard to life and the impact of
aviation fuel spills on the land and marine environment were therefore identified
as some of the most important issues considered in this EIA.
5. Approach
to Assessment
5.1
The
study scope and assessment requirements were defined in detail in the study
brief issued by EPD under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance. In addition, the assessment has followed
the guidelines issued by EPD within the EIAO Technical Memorandum.
5.2
The
assessment approach was based on the following process:
¨
scoping
key environmental media that could potentially be affected by the project;
¨
identifying
regulatory requirements characterising the existing environment;
¨
identifying
sensitive receivers and key environmental issues;
¨
assessment
of the likely extent of adverse impacts;
¨
identification
of mitigation and monitoring measures; and
¨
conclusions
on acceptability of any residual impacts.
5.3
Assessments
of the extent of adverse impacts of particular concern have been addressed
quantitatively as far as practicable.
These calculations have been undertaken by means of mathematical
modelling for air quality, odour, water quality, oil spill dispersion and
hazard to life, using methodologies in accordance with the EIAO Technical
Memorandum (EIAO-TM) and the Study Brief.
6. EIA
Findings
6.1
With
the implementation of standard good working site practices to control dust emissions,
no adverse impacts on air quality are expected during construction. There will be low level fugitive
emissions of aviation fuel vapours during operations. Concentrations of vapour
reaching open air will be low and projections show that they will be unlikely
to impact on air quality. Odours from aviation fuel vapours would be barely
detectable at the site boundary and would not significantly affect the
surrounding environment.
6.2
There
are no airborne noise sensitive receivers in the study area of the site which
is in a heavy industrial setting and thus airborne noise is not identified as a
key issue for this project.
Nevertheless, good practice mitigation measures have been recommended to
keep noise levels to a practical minimum.
Water
Quality, Marine Ecology and Fisheries
6.3
The
project will involve dredging, pipelaying and backfilling in open waters. There is a weight of evidence to
indicate that the sediments to be dredged for the pipeline are largely not
contaminated such that they might reasonably be expected to not exert any
significant ecotoxicological impact if disturbed during the course of the
Project. Similarly dredging would not result in appreciable nutrient enrichment
of marine waters. Sediment plume
modelling demonstrates that sediment released to the water column is likely to
settle rapidly and is unlikely to affect compliance with the statutory Water
Quality Objectives for key water quality parameters such as suspended sediment
and dissolved oxygen. In addition, adverse impacts from dissolved contaminant
levels in the water column are not to be expected and will remain well below
those set for long term exposure for the preservation of marine life. With the implementation of a range of
recommended mitigation measures no sensitive flora and fauna are expected to be
impacted as of result of disturbances to water quality or deposition of
suspended sediment.
6.4
Site
works will be controlled to prevent erosive losses during ground works and
discharge of polluted effluents such that no adverse impact of water quality
would be expected.
6.5
Construction
of the pipeline would result in temporary loss of seabed habitat. However this is essentially
insignificant within the context of the large amount of adjacent heterogeneous
benthic habitat. Recolonisation is
expected to be reasonably rapid thereby returning the habitat and prey items
important for fish. Fish of the
type found in the study area are tolerant to temporary elevations of suspended
sediment concentrations and overall it is considered that the impact of the
project on fisheries resources is likely to be insignificant.
6.6 The study area is frequented
by marine mammals, particularly the Chinese White Dolphin. This species is very mobile and would be
likely to avoid areas subjected to general water quality and marine traffic
disturbance during activities such as dredging and pipelaying. However,
percussive piling activities for the construction of the jetty have already
been undertaken in accordance with the then valid Environmental Permit
EP-139/2002/A and further marine piling activities that could generate noise
impacts to the dolphins are not required.
6.7 Nevertheless, an exclusion
zone will be implemented during dredging activities in the
6.8 Routine
operations at the site would not result in discharge of polluting
effluents. The potential for minor
losses and spills will be mitigated through design of plant and provision of
containment facilities such that no residual impacts on water quality or biota
are expected.
6.9
The
potential hazardous scenarios from the initial development and final
development phases of the PAFF tank farm, jetty, marine approach and subsea
pipeline have been identified. A quantitative risk analysis has been carried
out to assess individual and societal risks associated with these scenarios.
6.10
The
PAFF will store Jet A1, which is used in commercial airliners around the world
and is similar in character to domestic
kerosene. Jet A1 behaves
very differently to fuels such as gasoline or LPG in that it does not generally
produce a flammable vapour Without heating, Jet A1 spill is much more difficult
to ignite.
6.11
The
operation of the PAFF will reduce the overall marine transport collision risk
because less vessels will be required and the route will be shorter.
Additionally, the tankers will all be double hulled and make use of marine pilots
and tug boats.
6.12 The design of the PAFF will meet or exceed best practice and a range of operational safeguards will be incorporated. Containment systems include a partly sunken bund with greater than usual capacity and additional impervious security walls and landscaping to contain spills. Both the extent of the containment systems and the spacing of the tanks from the site boundary exceed those required under relevant codes of practice. It is not normal practice to control ignition sources off-site and terminal facilities like the PAFF frequently co-exist close to residential areas and other industries as they are not generally seen as presenting a high risk.
6.13
The
major hazards to life from the PAFF operations are from liquid pool fires due
to major spills on the site or to the sea. Jet A1 burns with a very smoky flame
and a significant hazard to life is only predicted for people directly impacted
by the flame, which is unlikely outside the fence even if a major fire occurs
on-site.
6.14
The
risk to life from the identified scenarios at the PAFF site, including 100%
instantaneous tank failure and fire, are concluded to be acceptable according
to the risk criteria set out in Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM.
6.15
Hazards
such as groundings and strikings at the jetty or involving approaching aviation
fuel tankers have also been examined. Jet A1 fuel on the sea surface would be
difficult to ignite. Nevertheless
worst case modelling, assuming surface fires, has been undertaken. The highest
individual risk levels, predicted at the jetty and adjacent to the
stormwater/drainage outlet from the tank farm, also lie within the acceptable
risk criteria of the EIAO-TM. Further, the societal risk lies in the acceptable
region of Annex 4 of the EIAO–TM.
Fuel Spills
6.16
Notwithstanding,
the very low probability of the spill events, there is the potential for spills
into the marine environment to affect marine ecological sensitive
receivers. The worst case scenarios
have, therefore, been evaluated by means of mathematical hydrodynamic and water
quality models to assess the likely spread of a series of credible worst case
spill incidents.
6.17
Aviation
fuel is subject to decay through a number of natural processes including rapid
evaporation, emulsification, sedimentation and biodegradation. The modelling studies indicate that
slicks, from events including grounding of the largest tankers expected to use
the facility, would dissipate rapidly within a matter of days and before
reaching many sensitive receivers and that those sensitive receivers which
might be impacted by the plume, impacts will be of a very short duration (a few
hours hours) unlikely to cause significant ecological impact. However,
comprehensive contingency plans will be drawn up to specify the method by which
to contain and remediate any spilled oil and provide quick and effective
response in the event of an emergency.
Landscape,
Visual and Cultural Heritage
6.18
The
project site is located in a heavily industrialised locality and the proposed facility
is considered compatible with adjacent land uses. No significant landscape
and visual impacts are predicted during either construction or operation
phases. The disturbance to existing trees will be compensated during
construction of the initial phase.
Mitigation measures have been recommended which will reduce the adverse
landscape impacts to “slight” and the adverse visual impacts to a
“slight/moderate” or “slight” level.
6.19
The
high quality landscape of the natural setting of
6.20
There
are no declared monuments in or close to the site and there will be no impacts
on any aspect of terrestrial cultural heritage. However, in respect of marine
archaeology, as the baseline review revealed the study area had marine
archaeological potential and assessment of the potential impacts showed that
the construction of the pipeline trench did have the potential for adverse
impacts, a marine archaeological investigation was undertaken. The survey did
not reveal any material of cultural significance for the above surface
anomalies detected. However, for
two sub surface anomalies detected, a watching brief has been recommended
during dredging within 25m of these objects.
6.21
Waste
management issues have been assessed in line with the principles of the waste
management hierarchy promoted by EPD.
In order of priority these involve :
¨
Avoidance;
¨
Minimisation;
¨
Reuse
and Recycling;
¨
Treatment;
and
¨
Disposal.
6.22
Numerous
recommendations on good practice and mitigation measures have been recommended
to put these principles into effect.
6.23
The
largest waste stream by volume will be dredged mud which will be disposed of
offshore at a disposal site administered by the Civil Engineering and Development
Department. The results of
the sediment testing along the pipeline alignment show that some sediment
samples could be classified as Category M material based on ETWB TWC 34/2002
and special disposal arrangements may be necessary. The actual disposal location will be
determined in due course by DEP in conjunction with the Marine Fill Committee
during the application for a Dumping at Sea Ordinance Permit.
6.24
Construction
and demolition waste arising from excavation and site formation works will be
re-used on site to form a landscape mound for planting. Other waste streams are relatively low
in volume. Types and quantities of all residual wastes expected to arise during
construction and operation have been identified, quantified and suitable disposal
sites identified.
6.25
Measures
have been identified to ensure safe handling of chemicals used on site and to
minimise arisings of chemical waste.
Similarly measures are recommended to ensure safe handling and disposal
of all chemical wastes.
6.26
Measures
for safe disposal of sewage and other effluents including storm drainage in
both the construction and operational phases are recommended.
7. Mitigation and Monitoring
7
The
EIA process has facilitated integration of environmental considerations into
the fundamental design process for the project. The principal mitigation measures
identified are those achieved through siting and plant design. In addition, a number of specific
construction and operational phase measures have been identified to minimise
potential adverse environmental impacts. The most notable of these have been
discussed above. A complete listing
of all recommendations and in-built mitigation measures are detailed in the
form of an Implementation Schedule. These measures will be implemented by the
AAHK (the project proponent) through its Franchisee, and enforced by EPD by
means of the regulatory empowerment of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance.
7.1
A
monitoring and audit programme will be implemented by the proponent to confirm
that all recommended mitigation measures have been implemented or amended, if
subsequently found necessary. A
design audit is recommended to identify measures which are to be integrated
into the design. These items will
include:
¨
land/marine
spill response plan;
¨
pipeline
leak detection and automatic shut-down system;
¨
pipeline
rock armour protection;
¨
tank
high level shut-down;
¨
tank
bunding;
¨
tank
leak drainage isolation and containment system;
¨
on-site
fire fighting equipment;
¨
jetty
protection;
¨
aviation
fuel delivery emergency shut-down valves; and
¨
landscape
design drawings.
7.2
During
the construction phase, ambient water quality will be monitored when marine
construction works are taking place within 1000m of the Sha Chau and
7.3
In
addition, a watching brief will be undertaken by a qualified marine archaeologist
during dredging within 25m either side of two identified sub sea anomalies.
7.4
Regular
site audits will be carried out to confirm that good working practice is
adhered to at all times and the mitigation measures identified in the
Implementation Schedules are being followed.
7.5
During
the operational phase, the following will be undertaken:
¨
monitoring
of landscape works once every 2 months for the first year to ensure the
viability of the planting/replanting;
¨
routine monitoring of water quality in the vicinity of
the PAFF site to check the effectiveness of the proposed precautionary measures
implemented for on-site spill control;
¨
an Environmental Management System is recommended to
be set up for the operational phase of the project to allow regular audits of
the systems and mitigation measures incorporated in the project and the fuel
spill contingency plan; and
¨
a
review of the EIA during the planning of the final phase of the development of
the tank farm would be undertaken if the latest
technology, standards and statutory requirements are deemed at that time to
have changed.
8. Overall
Conclusions
8.1
The
proposed Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility site at Tuen Mun Area 38 and route for
the connecting pipeline to tie in with the existing twin subsea pipelines from
Sha Chau to HKIA represents the best available environmental option which meets
the fundamental requirements of the facility.
8.2
Implementation
of a comprehensive list of mitigation measures as specified in the
Implementation Schedule is recommended along with the environmental management
regime detailed in the Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual.
8.3
With
the adoption of these mitigation measures, the project will not result in any
unacceptable residual environmental impacts. It is also concluded that the individual
and societal risks to life posed by PAFF are all acceptable according to the
criteria of the EIAO-TM and the project will fully comply with all
environmental regulations and standards prevailing in