1.1 Background of the Project

1.2 Purpose of the EIA

1.3 Scope of the EIA

1.4 Report Structure

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Alternatives

2.2 Project Location

2.3 Project Schedule

2.4 Description of Project Facilities, Components and Activities

3 ECOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

3.3 Baseline Conditions and Background

3.4 Identification and Evaluation of Impacts

3.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures

3.6 Conclusion and Recommendations

4 AIRBORNE OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACT

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

4.3 Noise Sensitive Receiver

4.4 Identification and Evaluation of Impact

4.5 Conclusion

5 AIR QUALITY

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

5.3 Baseline Conditions

5.4 Study Area and Identification of Air Sensitive Receivers

5.5 Identification of Impacts

5.6 Evaluation of Impacts

5.7 Conclusion and Recommendations

6 WASTE MANAGEMENT

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

6.3 Identification of Impacts

6.4 Prediction and Evaluation of Impacts

6.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures

6.6 Conclusion and Recommendations

7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Water quality

7.2 Landscape and Visual

7.3 Other Environmental Media from XRL EIA

7.4 Conclusion and Recommendations

8 HAZARD TO LIFE

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Legislation Requirement and Evaluation Criteria

8.3 Study Objectives and Methodology

8.4 Facility Details

8.5 Base Case and Worst Case for Quantitative Risk Assessment

8.6 Population data

8.7 Hazard Identification

8.8 Summary of Risks

8.9 Conclusion and Recommendations

8.10 References

9 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & AUDIT REQUIREMENTS

9.1 Operation and Decommissioning of the Project

9.2 Upon Completion of the Project

10 CONCLUSION

10.1 Environmental Benefits of the Project and the Environmental Protection Measures Recommended

10.2 Population Protection

10.3 Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas

10.4 Key Environmental Problems Avoided

10.5 Compensation Areas

10.6 Conclusion

AnnexES

Annex 2A – Decommissioning Plan (KEY DETAILS)

ANNEX 3A –APPROVED XRL EIA (NO.EP-349/2009) VEGETATION SURVEY REPORT FOR TAI SHU HA ROAD WEST (REV 1) [16 AUGUST 2010] (KEY DETAILS)

ANNEX 3B – APPROVED XRL EIA (NO.EP-349/2009) TREE PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN TLP-10:WORKS IN YUEN LONG DISTRICT (TAI SHU HA) (REVISION 1-ADDENDUM PAGES) [27 OCTOBER 2010] (KEY DETAILS)

Annex 8A - FULL HAZARD TO LIFE/ QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT (REV 3) [AUGUST 2015]

Annex 9A –IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE OF RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

Annex 10A –COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST FOR EIA STUDY BRIEF NO. ESB-280/2014

Annex 10B –COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST FOR EIA REPORT (BRIEF NO. ESB-280/2014) AGAINST TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ANNEX 11: CONTENTS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) REPORT

Annex 10C –COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST FOR EIA REPORT (BRIEF NO. ESB-280/2014) AGAINST TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ANNEX 20: GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEW OF AN EIA REPORT

Annex 10RtC –RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED MINUTES OF RELEVANT DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETINGS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Project

The existing Tai Lam Explosives Magazine (Tai Shu Ha, Yuen Long District, New Territories, Land Allocation GLA-TYL 1288, forthwith known as ‘TLEM’) has been licensed and is currently in use by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC) for the construction of the Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) until end of 2015 (Environmental Permit No. EP-349/2009/L), being used by the MTR XRL 824 Contractor.

This Project is for the continued operation of the existing TLEM at Tai Shu Ha, Yuen Long for the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point (BCP) project (hereafter ‘HKLTH’) tunnel construction works. The TLEM will be available for use from late 2015 or early 2016 (expected January 2016) to December 2017 and Dragages Hong Kong Limited (DHK), contracted by Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), intends to continue using it for HKLTH.

1.2 Purpose of the EIA

The Project is classified as a Designated Project under Schedule 2, Part I, item K.10 of the Environmental Impact Assessment ordinance (EIAO) as “an explosives depot or explosives manufacturing plant in a stand-alone, purpose built building”, and art II, Item 11 of the EIAO as ”decommissioning of an explosives depot”.

MTRC will use the TLEM up to end 2015. DHK intends to then continue using it for HKLTH therefore an application for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study Brief under section 5(1)(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) was submitted on 11 September 2014 with a project profile (No. PP-516/2014) (the Project Profile), to enable the continued operation of TLEM.

This EIA Report presents the results of the EIA study as detailed in the EIA Study Brief ESB-280/2014 and provides information on the nature and extent of any environmental impacts arising from the operation and decommissioning of the Project and any related activities that take place concurrently.

1.3 Scope of the EIA

The EIA study covers the Project and associated works proposed in PP-516/2014 and addresses any likely key issues. This covers:

· the use of the existing TLEM from late 2015 or early 2016 (expected January 2016) to December 2017 with the same operation as current users;

· Explosives transport from the existing TLEM to the three worksites by DHK, using trucks approved by Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD)’s Mines Division (Mines); and

· Decommissioning of the existing TLEM after operation.

The approved Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) EIA Report (No. AEIAR-143/2009) (hereafter ‘XRL EIA’) has been reviewed specifically for the environmental impacts arising from operation of the Tai Lam Explosive Magazine (TLEM). The scope of the XRL EIA was far broader than just the TLEM and after review it is considered that as well as the Hazard to Life assessment the various environmental media relevant to the TLEM are Ecology, Airborne Noise, Air Quality and Waste Management and these are elaborated upon further in the remainder of this EIA report. Other media covered in the XRL EIA but considered either of minor importance or not relevant to the current Project, are generally discussed in one collective chapter which includes Water Quality, Landscape and Visual, Cultural Heritage, Fisheries, Ground-borne Noise, Land Contamination, Landfill Gas Hazard and Impacts on the Restored Ngau Tam Mei Landfill.

This EIA study also covers the potential Hazard to Life caused by explosive storage and transport during operation of the Project.

Finally the EIA study also considers cumulative impacts of the Project, through interaction or in combination with other existing, committed and planned projects in the vicinity of the Project.

1.4 Report Structure

The structure of this EIA Report is as follows:

· Chapter 1 presents the introduction to the EIA Study;

· Chapter 2 presents the description of the Project including the alternatives that have been considered for the Project;

· Chapter 3 presents potential ecological impacts arising from the Project;

· Chapter 4 presents potential airborne noise impacts arising from the Project;

· Chapter 5 presents potential air quality impacts arising from the Project;

· Chapter 6 presents potential waste management impacts arising from the Project;

· Chapter 7 discusses other potential environmental impacts arising from the Project such as water quality and landscape and visual resources and justifies why other environmental media considered in the XRL EIA are not necessary for this EIA;

· Chapters 8 presents the findings of the hazard to life study.

· Chapters 9 lists all the environmental monitoring and audit requirements of the Project.

· Chapters 10 summarises the overall outcomes of the EIA report and provides the conclusion.

In addition a number of Annexes provide information supporting the main EIA Report, as detailed in the Table of Contents.

An Executive Summary of the EIA report is also provided separately.

3 ECOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the potential ecological impacts associated with the operation and decommissioning of the Project in accordance with the requirement stated in Section 3.4.2 of the EIA Study Brief.

The ecological findings of the previously approved XRL EIA report (No. AEIAR-143/2009) are reviewed and updated on the understanding that the Project Site is currently being used as an explosive magazine site for the construction of the XRL and therefore there will be no construction phase of this project, with no land conversion. Operation of the site is also intended to remain similar to the current operating procedure described in the approved XRL EIA.

3.2 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

Legislative requirements concerning the protection of species and habitats of terrestrial ecological importance such as the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170), and Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap 586) are not considered of key importance to this study given there is no construction phase and operation will remain similar to existing.

The XRL EIA does include mitigation measures to be carried out at the site upon completion of the XRL project and carrying out planting in the TLEM site. Therefore overall the following is considered the key legislation for this Study.

· Environment Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) and Environmental Impact Assessment Process under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO-TM), Annexes 16 and 8;

· Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap 96); and

· DEVB TCW No. 10/2013 – Tree Preservation.

Details on each of the above are presented below.

3.2.1 Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO-TM)

The criteria for evaluating terrestrial ecological impacts are laid out in the EIAO-TM. Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM sets out the general approach and methodology for the assessment of impacts to ecological resources arising from a project or proposal, to allow a complete and objective identification, prediction and evaluation of the potential ecological impacts. Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM recommends the criteria that can be used for evaluating such ecological impacts.

3.2.2 Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap 96)

The Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap 96) prohibits the felling, cutting, burning or destroying of trees and growing plants in forests and plantations on Government land. The subsidiary Forestry Regulations prohibit the picking, felling or possession of listed rare and protected plant species. The list of protected species in Hong Kong which comes under the Forestry Regulations was last amended on 11 June 1993 under the Forestry (Amendment) Regulation 1993 made under Section 3 of the Forests and Countryside Ordinance.

3.2.3 DEVB TCW No. 10/2013 – Tree Preservation

DEVB TCW No. 10/2013 – Tree Preservation supersedes ETWB TC(W) No. 3/2006 and sets out the policy on tree preservation from feasibility, planning, design, construction to post-construction stages of a development, the procedures for control of tree felling, transplanting and pruning in Government projects, and departmental responsibilities in handling proposals on tree preservation and removal. It also covers the reporting of unauthorised tree removal or damage of trees, on both private and unleased Government land and its Appendix A details the requirements for compensatory planting.

3.3 Baseline Conditions and Background

Figure 3.1 gives an overview of the Project Study Area, 500 m from the Project Site boundary. The Project falls within the Tai Tong East Borrow Area and the statutory Tai Tong Outline Zoning Plan (S/YL-TT/16) Conservation Area (CA). It is also near (approximately 300 m from) the Tai Lam Country Park.

The Tai Tong East Borrow Area was excavated in the 1990s and then subjected to reinstatement and management. To restore the borrow area, fast growing exotic species (e.g. Acacia spp., Melaleuca quinquenervia) were planted extensively in the area and it has been maintained by AFCD from 2003 until 2015. More recently, native species (e.g. Machilus spp., Reevesia thyrsoidea, Schefflera heptaphylla, and Phyllanthus emblica) were planted to increase diversity.

This CA is zoned to protect and retain the existing natural landscape, ecological or topographical features of the area for conservation, educational and research purposes. The zoning ordinances also separate sensitive natural environments, such as the Tai Lam Country Park, from the adverse effects of development.

The habitat map in Figure 3.2 is taken from the approved XRL EIA (No. AEIAR-143/2009) with minor revisions following a site visit in November 2014 and shows the approach to the TLEM as an existing tarmacked road and the area around the TLEM to be dominated by plantation with a stream flowing nearby to the south. The key change to baseline condition since the XRL EIA is that the area now occupied by the TLEM was previously relatively mature plantation habitat dominated by exotic plant species with some native species in the understorey (e.g. Melastoma candidum, Psychotria asiatica) and this area was cleared for the construction of the TLEM.

3.4 Identification and Evaluation of Impacts

The construction of the TLEM was conducted under the EP from the approved XRL EIA and there will be no construction phase for this Project.

Operation of the existing facility will remain similar to the existing operation as described in the XRL EIA and the decommissioning works will only affect the existing TLEM which classified as developed areas of negligible ecological value, and therefore is not considered to cause any direct ecological impacts to habitats including streams or to species.

Given the loss of a small plantation area under the XRL project that was part of the restoration planting in the Tai Tong East Borrow area within the CA, the XRL EIA made provision for reinstatement planting at the TLEM that would be carried out upon completion of the XRL project. As part of the XRL EIA and EP (latest XRL EP no . : EP-349/2009/L) requirements, a detailed Vegetation Survey Report for Tai Shu Ha Road West have been submitted under XRL EP condition 2.12(iii) and Tree Planting and Landscape Plan TLP-10: Works in Yuen Long District (Tai Shu Ha), submitted under XRL EP condition 2.14, has been drawn up including details of the reinstatement of the TLEM site. These reports under the XRL project are publically available at the following sites http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/english/permit/ep3492009/documents/vsrr1/pdf/vsrr1.pdf and http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/english/permit/vep3232010/documents/tplpyldtsh/pdf/tplpyldtsh.pdf, and for ease of reference, the key details of these reports are provided as Annexes 3A & 3B to this report.

The current Project extends the operating time of the TLEM. The XRL project use of the TLEM was due to be up to the end of 2014 and has been extended until end 2015. Under the proposed Project the TLEM site will remain in operation up to December 2017 i.e. reinstatement planting will be postponed by three years.

The reinstatement of the TLEM is principally in order to restore the habitat back to borrow area reinstatement plantation and relative to the whole borrow area reinstatement plantation, it is a very small area. With respect to fauna, the area is ecologically connected to nearby Country Parks and Conservation Areas and may host a number of woodland species. The XRL EIA baseline surveys recorded six species of conservation interest with the Study Area including Little Egret Egretta garzetta, Chinese Pont Heron Ardeola bacchus, Red-Throated Pipit Anthus cervinus, Eurasian Jay Garrulus glandarius, Pale Palm Dart Telicota colon stinga and Chinese Pangolin Manis pentadactyla auritus. All these species were recorded outside the direct TLEM footprint area and with the exception of the Chinese Pangolin all to the west off the Study Area in habitats separated from the TLEM by the Tai Shu Ha Road West. The Chinese Pangolin was recorded in grassland to the south of the TLEM site but across the watercourse from the site. Though the area near the TLEM is dominated by plantations with a canopy of mainly introduced species, it is possible that fauna from nearby woodland habitats would occasionally use this plantation habitat once it was reinstated but it is not considered to be a key habitat to any particular species of conservation interest. Since there is also a relatively large area of existing plantation in the surrounding area, to postpone the reinstatement by three years is therefore not thought to have any adverse impact on fauna that will use this area in the future.

With regard to the impact of postponing the reinstatement planting by three years on habitat, this time period is relatively small with regards to vegetation succession and establishment of soils. Therefore assuming that the same reinstatement plan as set out in the XRL EIA Vegetation Survey Report for Tai Shu Ha Road West and Tree Planting and Landscape Plan TLP-10: Works in Yuen Long District (Tai Shu Ha) can be adhered to, no adverse impact is expected on habitats.

3.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures

For the XRL EM&A no water monitoring points were proposed for the watercourses within the TLEM Study Area. Since operation activities will remain similar to existing it is therefore not considered necessary to carry out any monitoring of the watercourses. Chapter 7 provides further detail on the potential impacts to water quality from this Project.

Upon completion of the Project at the end of 2017 and the removal of the TLEM, reinstatement planting should be carried out at the site according to the XRL EIA Vegetation Survey Report for Tai Shu Ha Road West (hereafter Vegetation Survey Report) and the Tree Planting and Landscape Plan TLP-10: Works in Yuen Long District (Tai Shu Ha) (hereafter TLP).

The Vegetation Survey Report and the TLP detail criteria for selection of suitable vegetation species for this planting and the selected species are listed in Table 3.1 below. Six tree species were recommended to compensate for the loss of trees and four shrub species for the loss of understorey species, all being species that existed previously in the TLEM site before the magazine construction.

Table 3.1 Recommended Species for Reinstatement Planting at TLEM

Scientific Name	Growth Form	Native / Exotic to Hong Kong
Castanopsis fissa	Tree	Native
Celtis sinensis	Tree	Native
Cinnamomum parthenoxylon	Large Tree	Native
Litsea rotundifolia	Shrub	Native
Mallotus paniculatus	Tree	Native
Melastoma sanguineum	Shrub	Native
Psychotria asiatica	Tree or shrub	Native
Reevesia thyrsoidea	Tree	Native
Rhodomyrtus tomentosa	Shrub	Native
Schefflera heptaphylla	Tree	Native

Other native trees/shrubs that are generally well self-established and suitable for mitigation planting can also be considered to further promote the flora biodiversity of TLEM site, as recommended in Table 3.2

Table 3.2 Additional Recommended Species for Reinstatement Planting at TLEM

Scientific Name	Growth Form	Native / Exotic to Hong Kong
Bischofia favanica	Tree	Native
Elaeocarpus sylvestis	Tree	Native
Gordonia axillaris	Shrub or tree	Native
Schima suberba	Tree	Native
Viburnum odoratissimum	Shrub or tree	Native

In addition, the TLP provides a list of general tree/ palm species that are suitable for Native Woodland Planting (not on SIMAR Slopes). Those not listed already in Table 3.1 or Table 3.2, are listed in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Additional Species generally suitable for Native Woodland Planting (not on SIMAR Slopes)

Scientific Name	Common Name	Native / Exotic to Hong Kong
Ailanthus fordii	Ailanthus	Native
Broussonetia papyrifera	Paper Mulberry	Native
Choerospondias axillaris	Hog Plum	Native
Cinnamomum burmannii	Cinnamon tree	Native
Cleistocalyx operculatus	Water Banyan	Native
Ficus microcarpa	Chinese banyan	Native
Ficus superba var. japonica	Superb fig	Native
Ficus variegata var. chlorocarpa	Common red-stem	Native
Ficus virens var. sublanceolata	Big-leaved fig	Native
Liquidambar formosana	Sweet gum	Native
Litsea glutinosa	Pond spice	Native
Litsea monopetala	Persimmon–leaved Litsea	Native
Machilus chekiangensis	Chekiang Machilus	Native
Machilus chinensis	Hong Kong Machilus	Native
Machilus pauhoi	Many-nerved Machilus	Native
Machilus thunbergii	Red Machilus	Native
Phoenix hanceana	Spiny date-palm	Native
Sapium discolor	Mountain tallow	Native
Sapium sebiferum	Tallow-tree	Native
Sterculia lanceolata	Scarlet Sterculia	Native

Figure3.3a and b taken from the Vegetation Survey Report and TLP show the proposed location of tree and shrub planting respectively and include the proposed number of individuals to be planted. These plans should be adopted for the future reinstatement planting process.

Vegetation Survey Report, Appendix C and TLP Appendix V also provide relevant specification for the site restoration works at the TLEM, including restoration of the soil, to ensure suitable conditions for planting are reached once operation of the TLEM stops and prior to planting starting. This Vegetation Survey Report, Appendix C and TLP Appendix V should also be adhered to for the future reinstatement planting process.

Under the Project Implementation Schedule of the approved XRL EIA (provided in the XRL EIA Report Appendix A), MTR are the party responsible for the reinstatement planting works. For the proposed Project, DHK should liaise with MTR and will take over the responsibility of this reinstatement planting works (as laid out in the Vegetation Survey Report as well as the TLP,) including application for a Further Environmental Permit (FEP) of XRL, to cover the planting obligation.

3.6 Conclusion and Recommendations

Reinstatement planting at the TLEM site will be carried out upon completion of the Project in 2017 and the removal of the TLEM. Assuming that this reinstatement planting is carried out by DHK as recommended in the approved XRL EIA report (according to the Vegetation Survey Report and the TLP, which both fall under the requirements of the XRL EIA study, with approval from DEP as necessary for any revisions to these approved documents), no adverse impacts on ecology are expected from this Project.

4 AIRBORNE OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACT

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the potential noise impacts to the identified Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) associated with the decommissioning and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirement stated in Section 3.4.2 of the EIA Study Brief. The findings of the previously approved XRL EIA report (No. AEIAR-143/2009) XRL) are reviewed and updated as necessary.

4.2 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

4.2.1 Operation Phase

Fixed Plant Noise

The EIAO-TM and Technical Memorandum on Noise From Places Other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM) specifies the applicable ANLs for the fixed noise sources from the Project. The ANLs are dependent on the ASR and the time of the day and are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Acceptable Noise Levels

Time Period	L_Aeq_30min (dB(A))
	ASR “A”	ASR “B”	ASR “C”
Day-time (i.e. 07:00-19:00 hrs)	60	65	70
Evening (i.e. 19:00-23:00 hrs)	60	65	70
Night-time (i.e. 23:00-07:00 hrs of the next day)	50	55	60

Fixed plant noise is controlled under Section 13 of the NCO and the predictions will be undertaken in accordance with the IND-TM. The noise criteria stipulated in the IND-TM are also dependent on the ASR of the NSR. As the Project Site is located in a rural area and no influencing factors affect the NSRs, an ASR of “A” has been assigned.

Road Traffic Noise

The traffic noise standards for planning purposes specified in Table 1 under Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM was employed as the noise limits for the road traffic noise impact assessment. The applicable road traffic noise standards are 70dB(A) L_{10, 1hr}for domestic premises and 65dB(A) L_{10, 1hr} for education institutions and church, respectively. These noise limits were applied for the peak hour traffic flows and for uses that rely on opened windows for ventilation.

4.2.2 Decommissioning of the Magazine Site

The principal legislation relating to the control of construction noise is the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499). The Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM), issued under the EIAO, stipulates assessment standards of L_eq₍_30
minutes) 75 dB(A) for all domestic premises and 70/65 dB(A) for educational institutions during normal school term/examination periods for daytime (i.e. 0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday) construction activities ⁽[1]⁾. These criteria apply to Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) relying only on openable windows for ventilation.

The Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) (Cap 400) also provides means to assess construction noise impacts. Various Technical Memoranda (TMs), which stipulate control approaches and criteria during the restricted hours, have been issued under the NCO. The following TMs are applicable to the control of noise from construction activities:

· Technical Memorandum on Noise from Percussive Piling (PP-TM);

· Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling (GW-TM); and

· Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM).

The NCO provides statutory controls on general construction works during the restricted hours (i.e. 19:00 – 07:00 hrs of the next day, Monday to Saturday and any time on Sundays and public holidays). The use of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) for the carrying out of demolition or construction works during the restricted hours requires a Construction Noise Permit (CNP). The EPD is guided by the GW-TM and DA-TM when assessing such an application.

Percussive piling is prohibited at any time on Sundays and public holidays and during the weekday evening and night-time hours (19:00-07:00 hrs of the next day, Monday through Saturday). A CNP is required for such works during the weekday daytime hours (07:00 – 19:00 hrs, Monday through Saturday). The EPD is guided by the PP-TM in considering applications of a CNP for such works.

The Noise Control Authority will consider a well-justified CNP application, for construction works within restricted hours as guided by the relevant TMs issued under the NCO. The Noise Control Authority will take into account adjoining land uses and any previous complaints against construction activities at the site before making a decision. Nothing in this EIA Report shall bind the Noise Control Authority in making its decision. The Noise Control Authority may include any conditions in a CNP that it considers appropriate. Failure to comply with any such conditions may lead to cancellation of the CNP and prosecution action under the NCO.

4.3 Noise Sensitive Receiver

In accordance with Table 5.5 of the XRL EIA Report, one representative Noise Sensitive Receiver (NSR) was identified within the Study Area (i.e. within 300m of the Project boundary) and is listed in Table 4.2. No new or planned NSRs were identified since the approval of the XRL EIA Report. The location of the identified NSR is presented in Figure 4.1.

Table 4.2 Identified NSRs

NSR No.	Description	Type	Distance from the Magazine Site	No. of Storey
TS1	Village House next to Tai Shu Ha Road West	Residential	297 m ⁽¹⁾	1
Note: (1) The distance between the magazine site and the NSR was reported as 244 m in approved XRL EIA Report. This distance is further reviewed in this ERR and is found to be approximately 297 m.

NSR No.

Description

Type

Distance from the Magazine Site

No. of Storey

TS1

Village House next to Tai Shu Ha Road West

Residential

297 m ⁽¹⁾

Note:

(1) The distance between the magazine site and the NSR was reported as 244 m in approved XRL EIA Report. This distance is further reviewed in this ERR and is found to be approximately 297 m.

4.4 Identification and Evaluation of Impact

4.4.1 Decommissioning Phase

The magazine site comprises two magazine structures storing 400kg of explosives each, a secure fence, CCTV system, guard house, street fire hydrant tank (245m³) and two water pumps. Layout plan of the magazine site is presented in Figure 4.2.

The major activities are summarised as follows:

· Dismantle and remove E&M, fire services, CCTV and lighting installed for the two explosive stores;

· Demolish the earth bunds and the two explosive stores;

· Frame cut the re-bar and remove the concrete debris;

· Remove all fire service facilities and all ground services including guard house, road furniture and lighting;

· Remove fire hydrant water tank (245m³);

· Remove the container guard house and any temporary steel works; and

· Demolish the paved road for reinstatement planting.

The normal working hours of the Contractor will be between 07:00 and 19:00 hrs from Monday to Saturday (except public holidays). Construction activities during restricted hours are not expected. Should evening and night works between 19:00 and 07:00 hrs or on public holidays (including Sundays) be required, the Contractor will submit a CNP application which will be assessed by the Noise Control Authority.

It is envisaged that major noise sources will be associated with various PME including lorries, dump trucks, drills/grinders and breakers etc to be used for the decommissioning of the magazine site.

It is recommended that the general noise control measures as listed in Recommended Clauses for Construction Contracts – Section 3 - Noise Control (available on EPD website at http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/eia_planning/guide_ref/rpc_3.html), should also be incorporated in the works contract to ensure that the Contractor will adopt good site practices and minimise noise generation. Given that the decommissioning works will only last for 4 weeks, the nearest NSR is located at ~297 m from the magazine site, and good site practices to minimise noise generation will be adopted, no adverse noise impact is anticipated from the decommissioning works.

4.4.2 Operational Phase

Operation of the magazine site will remain the same as the current XRL project. Potential sources of noise include fixed plant noise impact from the operation of the water pumps and street fire hydrant tank. The nearest NSR is located at approximately 297 m from the fixed plant noise sources. As such, no adverse noise impact to the NSR is expected.

The operational activities involve the delivery of explosives to the Magazines by Mines Division on a daily basis and the transfer of the explosives to the work areas by the contractors daily. Traffic generated from the site is insignificant as a total of two to eight (2 – 8) deliveries per day will be carried out to the worksites. Three proposed explosive transport routes have been identified for this Project, i.e. Proposed Routes R1, R2 and R3, from the magazine site to the three worksites (i.e. Mid-Ventilation Adit, North Portal and South Portal). Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show the proposed explosive transport routes R1, R2 and R3 respectively. With consideration of the low traffic arising from the Project, no traffic noise impact is anticipated.

4.5 Conclusion

No adverse noise impacts are anticipated during operation or decommissioning, assuming general noise control measures, as listed in Recommended Clauses for Construction Contracts – Section 3 - Noise Control, are adopted during decommissioning. Noise monitoring at the NSR is not required as part of the EM&A programme during operation and decommissioning.

5 AIR QUALITY

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an assessment of the potential air quality impacts associated with the operation of the Project in accordance with the requirement stated in Sections 3.4.2 of the EIA Study Brief. The findings of the previously approved Hong Kong Section of the XRL EIA report (No. AEIAR-143/2009) were reviewed and updated in this assessment.

5.2 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

The principal legislation for the management of air quality in Hong Kong is the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311). The APCO Amendment was passed in July 2013 and a set of new Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) has been effective from 1 January 2014. The new AQOs stipulate statutory ambient limits for air pollutants and the maximum allowable number of exceedances over specific averaging periods. The new AQOs are presented in Table 5.1 and they were used as the evaluation criteria for this assessment. As stipulated in Annex 4 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM), the AQOs and other relevant standards established under the APCO should be met.

Table 5.1 Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives (mg m^-3) ^(a)

Air Pollutant	Averaging Time	Concentration (mgm^-3) ^(a)	No. of Exceedances Allowed per Year
Sulphur Dioxide (SO₂)	10 minute	500	3
	24-hours	125	3
Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) ^(b)	24-hours	100	9
Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) ^(b)	Annual	50	-
Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP) ^(c)	24-hours	75	9
Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP) ^(c)	Annual	35	-
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂)	1-hour	200	18
	Annual	40	-
Ozone (O₃)	8-hours	160	9
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	1-hour	30,000	-
	8-hours	10,000	-
Lead	Annual	0.5	-
Notes: (a) Measured at 293K and 101.325 kPa. (b) Suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less (c) Suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less

Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM also stipulates that any predictive assessment of the odour impact should meet 5 odour units based on an averaging time of 5 seconds.

5.3 Baseline Conditions

The Project Site is located in rural area and no major air emission source is identified in the area. Since the continued operation of the magazine site for the HKLTH will commence in 2015, the hourly ambient pollutant concentration data predicted by the PATH (Pollutants in the Atmosphere and their Transport over Hong Kong) model for Year 2015 has been adopted to reflect the future background air quality in the Project Site area during the operation of the Project. Table 5.2 summarizes the annual average concentrations of the air pollutants in 2015 predicted by the PATH model.

Table 5.2 Annual Averaged Concentrations of Air Pollutants in 2015 Predicted by the PATH Model

Air Pollutant	Annual Averaged Concentration (mg m^-3)
Air Pollutant	PATH Background in 2015 ^(a)	Annual AQO
SO₂	7	- ^(c)
NO₂	21	40
RSP	42	50
FSP ^(b)	30	35
Notes: (a) The annual averaged concentrations of the air pollutants were extracted from PATH grid (19, 35) in which the Project Site is located. (b) FSP data are not available in the hourly PATH background concentration results. A recommended FSP to RSP ratio of 0.71 is applied for the estimation of annual FSP results according to EPD’s “Guidelines on the Estimation of PM_2.5 for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”. (c) No annual AQO for SO₂.

According to the PATH-predicted background air quality in the Project Site area in 2015, the annual averaged concentrations of all concerned air pollutants after commencement of operation of the magazine site are anticipated to be below their respective AQOs.

5.4 Study Area and Identification of Air Sensitive Receivers

The Study Area for the air quality impact assessment is generally defined by a distance of 500m from the boundary of the Project Site as shown in Figure 5.1. Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) were identified based on the landuses, latest Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) and with reference to Table 12.5 of the XRL EIA Report. Four ASRs were identified which are presented in Table 5.3 and their locations are shown in Figure 5.1.

Table 5.3 Air Sensitive Receivers

ASR	Description	Type of Use	Approximate Separation Distance from the nearest site boundary (m)	No. of storey(s)
TSA1	Village House next to Tai Shu Ha Road West	Residential	54	1
HKMEC	Hong Kong Model Engineering Club	Recreational	200	N/A
NHT1	Temple at Nam Hang Tsuen	Temple	338	1
NHT2	Village House at Nam Hang Tsuen	Residential	332	1

5.5 Identification of Impacts

The magazine site comprises two magazine structures storing 400kg of explosives each, a secure fence, CCTV system, guard house, street fire hydrant tank (245m³) and two pumps.

Operation of the magazine site will remain the same as the current XRL project. The operational activities involve the delivery of explosives to the Magazines by Mines Division on a daily basis and the transfer of the explosives to the work areas by the contractors daily.

Potential sources of air quality impacts include dust emissions from the operation of explosives delivery vehicles. About two to eight trips per day are expected for the transportation of explosives to the work areas.

The magazine site will be decommissioned after the completion of the construction works for the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point (BCP) project. Potential dust emissions may also arise during the decommissioning works.

5.6 Evaluation of Impacts

With reference to Section 12.45 of the XRL EIA Report, the major activities causing dust impacts during operation would be the vehicles entering or leaving the magazine site. As the roads to/from and within the magazine site will be paved, dust impact from the operation of the magazine sites is anticipated to be insignificant. Hence, adverse air quality impact from the operation of the Project is not anticipated. Cumulative impact during the operation of the Project is also not anticipated as no significant air pollution source is identified within the Study Area. Since no adverse air quality impact is anticipated during the operation of the Project, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.

The works for the decommissioning of the magazine site will only involve dismantling, demolition and removal of the existing structures and reinstatement of site. The decommissioning work is expected to take about one month. The decommissioning works may cause potential dust emissions. With respect to the nature and the small scale of the decommissioning works, the number of mobile plant to be used on site at any one time will be small, and all works will be conducted on a paved site. Since the site is concrete paved and no excavation or filling works would be required for the reinstatement of site. Therefore, the potential air quality impact to the identified ASRs is expected to be minimal. With the implementation of dust suppression measures stipulated under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and the adoption of good site practice, which includes covering of dusty stockpiles with impervious sheeting and regular watering of any exposed excavated soil surfaces during breaking activities, no adverse air quality impact associated with the decommissioning works is expected.

5.7 Conclusion and Recommendations

Operation of the magazine site will remain the same as the current XRL project. The operational activities involve the delivery of explosives to and from the Project Site on a daily basis. Potential sources of air quality impact include dust emissions from the operation of explosives delivery vehicles from the magazine to the work areas, with about two to eight trips per day. Roads to/from and within the Project Site will be paved, thus dust impact from the operation of the magazine site is anticipated to be insignificant. Decommissioning of the magazine site has the potential to cause dust emissions. Since the decommissioning works will be small scale, the potential air quality impact is expected to be minimal with the implementation of proper dust control measures. Air quality monitoring and audit is not considered necessary during the operation of the Project as no adverse air quality impact is anticipated.

6 WASTE MANAGEMENT

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the potential impacts from waste generated by the operation and decommissioning of the Project. While the previously approved Hong Kong Section of the XRL EIA report (No. AEIAR-143/2009) XRL) covers waste management implications of the whole XRL Project, it does not include details specifically for the TLEM site and therefore an independent assessment of the operational and decommissioning waste implications for the current Project have been undertaken.

6.2 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

The following legislation covers the handling, treatment and disposal of wastes in Hong Kong, and has been considered in the assessment.

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

· Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation (Cap 354N);

· Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap 354C);

· Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 28); and

· Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap 132) - Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation.

6.2.1 Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354)

The Waste Disposal Ordinance (WDO) prohibits the unauthorised disposal of wastes, with waste defined as any substance or article which is abandoned. Construction waste is not directly defined in the WDO but is considered to fall within the category of ‘trade waste’. Trade waste is defined as waste from any trade, manufacturer or business, wasted building, civil engineering materials, but does not include animal waste. Under the WDO, wastes can only be disposed of at a licensed site. A breach of these regulations can lead to the imposition of a fine and/or a prison sentence. The WDO also provides for the issuing of licences for the collection and transport of wastes. Licences for the collection and transport of construction waste or trade waste, however, are not issued currently. For general waste there is no charge and this needs to be disposed in a licensed facility.

6.2.2 Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation (Cap 354N)

The Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation (Cap 354N) defines construction waste as any substance, matters or things that is generated from construction work and abandoned, whether or not it has been processed or stockpiled before being abandoned. It does not include any sludge, screening or matter removed in or generated from any desludging, desilting or dredging works. The Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme entered into operation on 1 December 2005. Starting from 1 December 2005, a main contractor who undertakes construction work with a contract value of HK$1 million or above is required to open a billing account solely for the contract for waste disposal. Depending on the percentage of inert C&D materials in the waste, it can be disposed of at public fill reception facilities. However mixed construction waste can be disposed of at construction waste sorting facilities, landfills and Outlying Islands Transfer Facilities which have different disposal costs. The scheme encourages reducing, reusing and sorting of construction waste such that the waste producer can reduce their disposal fee. Table 8.2 summarises the government construction and demolition waste disposal facilities and types of waste accepted.

Table 6.1 Government Facilities for Disposal of Construction & Demolition Waste

Government Waste Disposal Facilities	Type of Construction & Demolition (C&D) Waste Accepted
Public fill reception facilities	Consisting entirely of inert C&D materials
Sorting facilities	Containing more than 50% by weight of inert C&D materials
Landfills	Containing not more than 50% by weight of inert C&D materials
Outlying Islands Transfer Facilities	Containing any percentage of inert C&D materials

6.2.3 Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation

Chemical waste as defined under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation includes any substance being scrap material, or unwanted substances specified under Schedule 1 of the Regulation, if such a substance or chemical occurs in such a form, quantity or concentration so as to cause pollution or constitute a danger to health or risk of pollution to the environment.

Chemical waste producers shall register with the EPD. Any person who contravenes this requirement commits an offence and is liable to a fine and imprisonment. Producers of chemical wastes must treat their wastes, utilising on-site plants licensed by the EPD or have a licensed collector take the wastes to a licensed facility. For each consignment of wastes, the waste producer, collector and disposer of the wastes must sign all relevant parts of a computerised trip ticket. The system is designed to allow the transfer of wastes to be traced from cradle-to-grave.

The Regulation prescribes the storage facilities to be provided on site including labelling and warning signs. To minimise the risks of pollution and danger to human health or life, the waste producer is required to prepare and make available written procedures to be observed in the case of emergencies due to spillage, leakage or accidents arising from the storage of chemical wastes. He/she must also provide employees with training in such procedures.

6.2.4 Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 28)

The inert C&D materials (also called public fill) may be taken to public fill reception facilities. Public fill reception facilities usually form part of land reclamation schemes and are operated by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) and others. The Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance requires that individuals or companies who deliver public fill to the public fill reception facilities to obtain Dumping Licences. The licences are issued by CEDD under delegated authority from the Director of Lands.

Individual licences and windscreen stickers are issued for each vehicle involved. Under the licence conditions, public fill reception facilities will only accept earth, soil, sand, rubble, brick, tile, rock, boulder, concrete, asphalt, masonry or used bentonite. In addition, in accordance with paragraph 11 of DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2010 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition Materials”, the Public Fill Committee will advise on the acceptance criteria (e.g. no mixing of construction waste, nominal size of the materials less than 250mm, etc). The material will, however, be free from marine mud, household refuse, plastic, metal, industrial and chemical wastes, animal and vegetable matter and any other materials considered unsuitable by the public fill reception facility supervisor.

6.2.5 Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation

This Regulation provides further control on the illegal dumping of wastes on unauthorised (unlicensed) sites. The illegal dumping of wastes can lead to a fine and/or imprisonment.

6.2.6 Other Relevant Guidelines

Other 'guideline' documents, which detail how the Project Proponent or Contractor should comply with the local regulations, are as follows:

· Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes (1992), EPD, Hong Kong Government;

· New Disposal Arrangements for Construction Waste (1992), EPD & CED, Hong Kong SAR Government;

· WBTC No. 2/93, Public Dumps, Works Branch, Hong Kong Government;

· WBTC No. 2/93B, Public Filling Facilities, Works Branch, Hong Kong Government;

· WBTC Nos. 25/99, 25/99A and 25/99C, Incorporation of Information on Construction and Demolition Material Management in Public Works Sub-committee Papers; Works Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government;

· WBTC No. 12/2000, Fill Management; Works Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government;

· ETWBTC(W) No. 33/2002, Management of Construction and Demolition Material Including Rock, Environment, Transport and Works Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government;

· ETWB TC(W) No. 19/2005 Environmental Management on Construction Site, Environment, Transport and Works Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government.

· DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2010, Trip Ticket for Disposal of Construction and Demolition Materials;

· DEVB TC(W) No. 8/2010, Enhanced Specification for Site Cleanliness and Tidiness;

· DEVB TC(W) No.2/2011, Encouraging the Use of Recycled and Other Green Materials in Public Works Projects; and

· DEVB TC(W) No. 9/2011, Enhanced Control Measures for Management of Public Fill.

6.3 Identification of Impacts

6.3.1 Operation Phase

The major types of solid waste likely to be generated from the operation of the Project at the magazine site, is general refuse. The operation works will involve only a very small amount of equipment including delivery vehicles for explosives transport and two pumps for the Street Fire Hydrant Water Tank.

The quantities of chemical waste to be generated from regular maintenance of equipment will be minimal. Table 6.2 indicates the different waste types and estimated quantities generated throughout the operation of the Project and how these will be handled and disposed of. All chemical waste will be handled in accordance with the EPD’s Code of Practice on the Packaging Labelling and Storage of Chemical Waste and a licenced collector will be employed for the collection of the chemical waste generated to the licenced disposal facilities. Hence, no adverse environmental impact is anticipated due to the management of a small quantity of chemical waste to be generated from the Project.

Table 6.2 Waste Types Generated throughout Operation and Decommissioning of the Project

Waste Type	Quantity Generated	Handling & Disposal Options
Operation
General refuse	Up to 5 kg per day	As per (2)
C&D materials	None	n/a
Chemical waste	Minimal (< 1kg/month) (regular maintenance of equipment will be carried out offsite)	As per (3)

Decommissioning
General refuse	Up to 5 kg per day	As per (2)
C&D materials	Total 350 m³	As per (1) & (2)
- Inert	325m³
- Non-inert	25m³
Chemical waste	Minimal (< 10kg) (maintenance of equipment will be carried out offsite)	As per (3)

(1) Inert C&D materials will be disposed of at Tuen Mun Area 38 Fill Bank

(2) Non-insert C&D materials will be disposed of at WENT Landfill

(3) General refuse will be disposed of at WENT Landfill or via transfer station

(4) All chemical waste will be handled in accordance with the EPD’s Code of Practice on the Packaging Labelling and Storage of Chemical Waste. Employ a licenced collector for collection of chemical waste and disposal at the licenced disposal facilities (eg Chemical Waste Treatment Facility at Tsing Yi)

6.3.2 Decommissioning Phase

The major types of solid waste likely to be generated from the decommissioning works include construction and demolition (C&D) materials (both inert and non-inert materials), chemical wastes and general refuse. No decommissioning materials will be considered for reuse except: metal scrap/re-bar collected by the recycler; fire extinguishers collected by the fire service provider; and fire hydrant water tank and water pumps. Negligible amount of rock or spoil will be generated, and only small amount of metal will be generated from the decommissioning works. Owing to the small scale of works, the amount of C&D materials generated will be limited, approximately 350 m³.

Currently the TLEM is operated under Contract CV/2012/08, and all non-inert waste will be disposed at NENT landfill using the existing billing account of the Contract i.e. NENT landfill is the designated disposal site of the Contract. Table 6.2 indicates the different waste types and estimated quantities generated from the decommissioning of the Project and how these will be handled and disposed of.

Based on the above, the potential impacts associated with the handling and disposal of C&D materials due to the decommissioning works are considered minor.

6.4 Prediction and Evaluation of Impacts

With proper housekeeping measures and refuse collection in place, minimal or no impact is expected to result from refuse generated during the operational phase.

The decommissioning works will involve only a very small number of construction equipment. The quantities of chemical waste generated will also be minimal. All chemical wastes will be handled in accordance with the EPD’s Code of Practice on the Packaging Labelling and Storage of Chemical Waste and a licenced collector will be employed for the collection of the chemical waste generated to the licenced disposal facilities (eg Chemical Waste Treatment Facility at Tsing Yi). Hence, no adverse environmental impact is anticipated due to the management of a small quantity of chemical waste to be generated from the Project. With proper housekeeping measures and refuse collection in place, minimal or no impact is expected to result from refuse generated (up to about 5 kg per day) during the decommissioning works. The inert and non-inert C&D materials will be disposed of at Tuen Mun Area 38 Fill Bank and WENT Landfill, respectively. The general refuse will be disposed of at WENT Landfill or via transfer station.

6.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures

To minimise the amount of waste, careful design, comprehensive planning and good site management practice will be adopted by the contractors of the Project and waste on-site will be properly segregated to increase the potential for reuse and recycling. Chemical waste generated from equipment operation and demolition works will be properly stored in accordance with Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Waste published by the EPD before collection for disposal by a licensed Chemical Waste Collector. The quantity of general refuse generated on-site will be minimal owing to the nature of the operation activities and the small number of workers involved during decommissioning.

6.6 Conclusion and Recommendations

The amount of general refuse generated from the operation and decommissioning of the magazine site is expected to be small. General refuse will be stored and disposed of separately from chemical waste. C&D materials from the decommissioning will also be handled and disposed of appropriately. Provided that general refuse is removed from the Project Site regularly during operation and decommissioning (e.g. once per day) and C&D materials is disposed of appropriately, no adverse environmental impact related to handling and disposal of wastes is expected.

7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Water quality

This section presents the potential impacts from the operation and decommissioning of the Project on water quality. While the previously approved Hong Kong Section of the XRL EIA report (No. AEIAR-143/2009) XRL) covers the implication of potential water quality impacts from the whole XRL Project, this does not include details specifically at the TLEM site. Section 3 Ecology of the XRL EIA addresses impacts to two watercourses in the TLEM project site, watercourse 4 and watercourse 5, and equally these are addressed in Chapter 3 Ecology of this report.

7.1.1 Relevant Environmental Regulatory Framework

The following relevant legislation and associated guidance are applicable to the evaluation of water quality impacts associated with the Project:

· Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO);

· Technical Memorandum for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters (TM- ICW);

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499. S.16) and the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM), Annexes 6 and 14.

Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO)

The Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) is the primary legislation for the control of water pollution and water quality in Hong Kong. Under the WPCO, Hong Kong waters are divided into 10 Water Control Zones (WCZs). Each WCZ has a designated set of statutory Water Quality Objectives (WQOs).

Technical Memorandum for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters (TM- ICW)

All discharges during both the operation phase of the proposed Project are required to comply with the Technical Memorandum for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters (TM-ICW) issued under Section 21 of the WPCO.

The TM-ICW defines acceptable discharge limits to different types of receiving waters. Under the TM-ICW, effluents discharged into the drainage and sewerage systems, inshore and coastal waters of the WCZs are subject to pollutant concentration standards for specified discharge volumes. These are defined by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and are specified in license conditions for any new discharge within a WCZ.

Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499. S.16) and the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM), Annexes 6 and 14

Under Section 16 of the EIAO, Environmental Protection Department (EPD) issued the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) which specifies the assessment methods and criteria for environmental impact assessment. This section follows the EIAO-TM to assess the potential water quality impacts that may arise during the operation and decommission phases of the Project. Sections in the EIAO-TM relevant to the water quality impact assessment include: Annex 6 - Criteria for Evaluating Water Pollution; and Annex 14 - Guidelines for Assessment of Water Pollution.

7.1.2 Baseline Water Quality Conditions

The Project is located in Tai Shu Ha, which is within the water catchment of the Yuen Long Creek. As shown in Figure 7.1, there are two minor watercourses within 500 m from the Project boundary. Both of these watercourses run into a tributary of Yuen Long Creek, which is continuously monitored by EPD at YL2 and YL3 as also shown in Figure 7.1. The 2013 river water quality at EPD monitoring stations YL2 and YL3 downstream of the Project Site is summarized below in Table 7.1.

Yuen Long Creek’s overall compliance rate in 2013 was 51%, compared with 53% in 2012. The compliance rate for the more upstream YL2 station (which is still downstream of the Project Site) was 60% in 2013 as compared 62% in 2012. The compliance rate for the YL3 station in the middle of Yuen Long township was 42% in 2013 as compared with 42% in 2012. This river is subject to discharges from livestock farms, unsewered village houses and industrial establishments.

Table 7.1 River Water Quality at Yuen Long Creek Downstream to the Project Site in 2013

Parameter	Unit	Yuen Long Creek
Parameter	Unit	YL2	YL3
Dissolved oxygen	mg/L	6.7 (3.0 - 9.6)	5.0 (2.6 - 6.9)
pH		7.3 (7.2 - 7.6)	7.6 (7.1 - 8.4)
Suspended solids	mg/L	10 (4 - 27)	27 (9 - 140)
5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand	mg/L	9 (4 - 40)	38 (4 - 82)
Chemical Oxygen Demand	mg/L	29 (11 - 69)	45 (9 - 180)
Oil & grease	mg/L	0.6 (<0.5 - 1.6)	1.3 (<0.5 - 5.0)
Faecal coliforms	cfu/ 100mL	<130,000 (<1,000 - 740,000)	870,000 (250,000 - 2,800,000)
E. coli	cfu/ 100mL	<93,000 (<1,000 - 630,000)	330,000 (71,000 - 1,200,000)
Ammonia-nitrogen	mg/L	13.50 (0.76 - 20.00)	2.90 (0.36 - 11.00)
Nitrate-nitrogen	mg/L	1.85 (0.19 - 6.40)	<0.01 (<0.01 - 1.30)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen	mg/L	16.00 (1.30 - 23.00)	4.10 (0.87 - 14.00)
Ortho-phosphate	mg/L	2.40 (0.22 - 3.10)	0.35 (<0.01 - 1.10)
Total phosphorus	mg/L	2.45 (0.28 - 3.40)	0.56 (0.21 - 1.90)
Total sulphide	mg/L	<0.02 (<0.02 - 0.05)	<0.02 (<0.02 - 0.07)
Aluminium	μg/L	110 (70 - 330)	355 (134 - 520)
Cadmium	μg/L	<0.1 (<0.1 - 1.0)	0.2 (<0.1 - 1.0)
Chromium	μg/L	<1 (<1 - <1)	<1 (<1 - 8)
Copper	μg/L	4 (3 - 7)	5 (2 - 10)
Lead	μg/L	<1 (<1 - 8)	5 (1 - 17)
Zinc	μg/L	31 (20 - 120)	45 (18 - 96)
Flow	L/s	18 (10 - 504)	450 (135 - 1,100)

Notes:

1. Data presented are in annual medians of monthly samples; except those for faecal coliforms and E. coli which are in annual geometric means.

2. Figures in brackets are annual ranges.

3. cfu - colony forming unit.

4. Values at or below laboratory reporting limits are presented as laboratory reporting limits.

5. Equal values for annual medians (or geometric means) and ranges indicate that all data are the same as or below laboratory reporting limits

7.1.3 Identification and Evaluation of Impacts

The Project Site is currently being used as an explosive magazine site for the construction of the XRL. As such, there will not a construction phase for this Project.

The operation of the magazine site is expected to be similar to the previous operation under the XRL, which involves only storage of explosive within Project Site and transportation of explosive to / from the Project Site. Such operation activities are not expected to involve any discharges or effluent to streams. Appropriate surface drainage has been provided by the previous occupant of the site following the requirements stipulated under ProPECC PN 5/93 “Drainage Plans subject to Comment by the Environmental Protection Department” and storm water would be discharged into the surface drainage system. The nearby roads connecting the Project Site are already paved and adverse water quality impact from storm runoff from unpaved roads is not expected. There will not be a significant number of staff staying at the Project Site, with the exception of only a few security guards. One chemical toilet would be provided on site and night soil would be regularly collected by a licensed contractor. No adverse water quality impact is expected from the operation of the proposed magazine site.

A brief description on the decommissioning works required is provided in Annex 2A. The decommissioning works that may have the potential to generate silty surface runoff are expected to include minor dismantling, demolition and removal of temporary structures. No major civil works would be required. Adverse water quality impact is therefore not expected with the implementation of proper site runoff control measures considering the small scale and short duration of works activities. Water quality impact on other fresh water courses from the works is also unlikely. Any discharge from the site would be expected to be in compliance with the requirements of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance.

Appropriate measures will be implemented in accordance with the guidelines stipulated in EPD’s Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site Drainage (ProPECC PN1/94) during the decommissioning works to properly control site run-off and drainage and to minimise potential water quality impacts. Major relevant measures include those listed below

· Surface run-off from construction site should be discharged into storm drains via adequately designed sand/silt removal facilities such as sand traps, silt traps and sediment basins. Channels or earth bunds or sand bag barriers should be provided on site to properly direct stormwater to such silt removal facilities. Perimeter channels at site boundaries should be provided where necessary to intercept storm run-off from outside the site so that it will not wash across the site. Catchpits and perimeter channels should be constructed in advance of site formation works and earthworks.

· Silt removal facilities, channels and manholes should be maintained and the deposited silt and grit should be removed regularly, at the onset of and after each rainstorm to ensure that these facilities are functioning properly at all times.

· Earthworks final surfaces should be well compacted and the subsequent permanent work or surface protection should be carried out immediately after the final surfaces are formed to prevent erosion caused by rainstorms. Appropriate drainage like intercepting channels should be provided where necessary.

· Manholes (including newly constructed ones) should always be adequately covered and temporarily sealed so as to prevent silt, construction materials or debris from getting into the drainage system, and to prevent storm run-off from getting into foul sewers. Discharge of surface run-off into foul sewers must always be prevented in order not to unduly overload the foul sewerage system.

· Precautions and actions, as stipulated in Appendix A2 of ProPECC PN1/94, should be taken at any time of year when rainstorms are likely, when a rainstorm is imminent or forecast, or during and after rainstorms.

In addition, to minimize erosion of exposed soil in between the removal of paved area and the re-vegetation / plantation, exposed soil should be covered with geotextile promptly after the removal works.

7.2 Landscape and Visual

This section presents the potential impacts from the operation and decommissioning of the Project on landscape and visual elements.

The Project Site is currently being used as an explosive magazine site for the construction of the XRL and therefore there will be no change to the current landscape and visual elements. The TLEM site, as well as the two one-storey stores, is largely shielded by topography and trees in the area which Figure2.9b helps illustrate, with Figures 2.7 and 3.1 collectively illustrating the surrounding topography and extent of trees. No adverse landscape and visual impacts are anticipated from the operation and decommissioning of the proposed magazine site.

The previously approved Hong Kong Section of the XRL EIA report (No. AEIAR-143/2009) XRL) proposed that the magazine site be re-planted upon completion of the XRL project, to help compensate for the felling of trees that had been necessary initially to construct this magazine site. Chapter 3 Ecology of this report addresses this matter.

7.3 Other Environmental Media from XRL EIA

The scope of the approved XRL EIA was far broader than just the TLEM since it covered a much larger area. This EIA included assessments on impacts to Cultural Heritage, Fisheries, Ground-borne Noise, Land Contamination, Landfill Gas Hazard and Impacts on the Restored Ngau Tam Mei Landfill. None of these media are considered relevant to this Project giving its situation and size, absence of any tunnelling work nor generation of significant waste.

7.4 Conclusion and Recommendations

No adverse water quality or landscape and visual impacts from operation and decommissioning of the Project are anticipated. Mitigation measures and environmental monitoring and audit during the operational and decommissioning phase are not considered necessary for landscape and visual impacts. Additional mitigation measures are proposed under section 7.1.3 to minimize any potential water quality impact from the decommissioning works under this Project.

This Project is also considered to have no impacts on certain environmental media covered in the XRL EIA, namely Cultural Heritage, Fisheries, Ground-borne Noise, Land Contamination, Landfill Gas Hazard and the Restored Ngau Tam Mei Landfill.

8 HAZARD TO LIFE

8.1 Introduction

This chapter of the EIA presents a summary of the analysis and findings of the Hazard to Life Assessment (also referred as Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)) undertaken for the proposed operation of the existing TLEM for this Project, in accordance with the EIA Study Brief (ESB-280/2014), Section 3.4.3.

The TLEM operation will remain the same as the current MTR XRL 824 Contractor with explosives delivered by DHK to three worksites located at Sha Tau Kok Road – Wo Hang Section (North Portal), Po Kat Tsai Road (Mid Ventilation Portal) and Tong Hang Tung Chuen (South Portal). Mines will deliver explosives and initiation devices (detonators) to the Magazine on a daily basis and these will be withdrawn by the contractors as required. The transportation of explosives by Mines either to the Magazine or directly to sites is under Mines’ responsibility and falls outside the scope of this EIA study.

The Hazard to Life/ QRA assessment under this chapter of the EIA, addresses, in particular, the following:

· Storage of explosives at the proposed magazine (cartridged emulsion, detonating cord, cast boosters and detonators) including handling of explosives within the magazine site; and

· Transport of explosives to the three worksites.

Further details of the QRA for the Project are presented in the Annex 8A.

8.2 Legislation Requirement and Evaluation Criteria

The key legislation and guidelines that are considered relevant to the Project are as follows:

· Dangerous Goods Ordinance, Chapter 295; and

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO), Chapter 499.

8.2.1 EIAO Technical Memorandum (EIAO-TM)

The requirement for a QRA of projects that involve the storage and transport of dangerous goods where a risk to life is a key issue with respect to the Hong Kong Government Risk Guidelines (HKRG) is specified in Section 12 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Technical Memorandum (EIAO-TM).

The relevant authority for a QRA study relating to an explosives magazine storage facility and the transport of the explosives is the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), as specified in Annex 22 of the EIAO-TM.

Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM specifies the Individual and Societal Risk Guidelines.

8.2.2 Hong Kong Government Risk Guidelines (HKRG), EIAO TM Annex 4

Individual risk is the predicted increase in the chance of fatality per year to an individual due to a potential hazard. The individual risk guidelines require that the maximum level of individual risk should not exceed 1 in 100,000 per year i.e. 1 × 10^-5 per year.

Societal risk expresses the risks to the whole population. The HKRG is presented graphically in Figure 8.1. It is expressed in terms of lines plotting the frequency (F) of N or more deaths in the population from incidents at the installation. Two F-N risk lines are used in the HKRG that demark “acceptable” or “unacceptable” societal risks. The intermediate region indicates the acceptability of societal risk is border-line and should be reduced to a level which is “as low as is reasonably practicable” (ALARP). It seeks to ensure that all practicable and cost effective measures that can reduce risk will be considered.

Figure 8.1 Societal Risk Criteria in Hong Kong

fig_3

8.2.3 Statutory / Licensing Requirements with Respect to Explosives

The statutory / licensing requirements with respect to the explosives (Cat. 1 Dangerous Goods) or the oxidizing substances (Cat. 7 Dangerous Goods) used to prepare explosives at the construction work area as well as relevant government departments/ authorities’advice and practice on the proposed transport and storage of explosives for the blasting activities are summarized below.

Category 1 Explosives and Blasting Agents

The Commissioner of Mines Division is the responsible authority for this and applicable regulations/ guidance notes include:

· Supply of detonators, cast boosters and cartridged emulsion explosives (under the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Cap. 295B);

· Approved explosives for blasting in Hong Kong (under the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Cap. 295B);

· Blast design (under the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Cap. 295B);

· Blast loading and execution (under the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Cap. 295B);

· Removal of explosives (under Regulation 4 of the Dangerous Goods (General) regulations Cap. 295B);

· Approval of an explosives delivery vehicle (under CEDD’s “Guidance Note on Requirements for Approval of an Explosive Delivery Vehicle” (ref.34));

· Explosive delivery vehicle design features and safety requirements (under CEDD’s “Guidance Note on Requirements for Approval of an Explosive Delivery Vehicle”(ref.34);

· Explosive magazine (under CEDD’s document “How to Apply for a Mode A Explosives Store Licence” (ref.35));

· Explosives produced at site (under Regulation 31A of the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Cap. 295B); and

· Explosives load per truck (in accordance with the Removal Permit under the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Cap. 295B).

Category 7 Strong Supporters of Combustion

The Fire Services Department is the responsible authority for this and applicable regulations include:

· Storage of oxidizing agents (under Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Cap. 295B)

8.3 Study Objectives and Methodology

The objective of the QRA study is to assess the risk to life of the general public from the hazards that arise from the storage and transport of the explosives of the Project. The results of the QRA are then compared with the HKRG.

The detailed requirements of the study are given in Section 3.4.3 of the EIA Study Brief. The main requirements are:

· Identify hazardous scenarios associated with the storage and transport of explosives and then determine a set of relevant scenarios to be included in a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA);

· Execute a QRA of the set of hazardous scenarios, expressing population risks in both individual and societal terms;

· Compare individual and societal risks with the criteria for evaluating hazard to life stipulated in Annex 4 of the TM; and

· Identify and assess practicable and cost-effective risk mitigation measures.

The methodology used in the hazard assessment is consistent with previous studies having similar issues (e.g. Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) EIA report (Register No. AEIAR-143/2009)).

The elements of the QRA study are shown schematically in Figure 8.2 and include:

· Collection and review of relevant data for the TLEM Site, the transport from TLEM Site, as well as population and vulnerable receptors, such as slopes, retaining walls etc., in the vicinity of the worksites and proposed transport routes;

· Hazard identification. A review of literature and accident databases was undertaken and updated. These formed the basis for identifying all the hazardous scenarios for the QRA study;

· Frequency estimation. The frequencies, or the likelihood, of the various outcomes that result from the hazards associated with the storage and transport of explosives was taken primarily from previous EIA studies that have been accepted by the relevant authorities;

· For all identified hazards, the frequency assessment has been documented and the consequences of the event has been modelled;

· The consequence model employed in this study is the ESTC model (ESTC, 2000) developed by the UK Health and Safety Commission (HSC). Although, there have been a number of recent studies suggesting that the ESTC (2000) models should be reviewed for applicability to explosive stores and transport, these models are still the recommended models in the UK and have been adopted in previous Hong Kong EIA studies;

· The same frequency model was adopted in this study as that of ERM (2009) study, which has been derived to reflect the current Transport Department statistics, Fire Services Department statistics, specific design features applicable for the project and current knowledge of explosives;

· The consequence and frequency data were subsequently combined using ERM’s in-house Explosive Transport GIS Risk Assessment tool (E-TRA), which has been developed to account for three-dimensional blast effects on buildings and the effect of accidental explosions on elevated roads. It also accounts for traffic jam scenarios which could occur in some accidental scenarios as reported in the DNV (1997) study. The model is summarised in the next section and has been validated against ERM in-house proprietary software Riskplot ^TM. This risk assessment tool has been employed in the ERM (2009) study; and

· Finally, the results from the risk assessment were compared to the EIAO-TM Criteria. Recommendations have been made where required to ensure compliance with EIAO-TM Criteria, relevant best practice, and work to reduce the overall risk levels.

Figure 8.2 Schematic Diagram of the QRA Process

8.4 Facility Details

The TLEM site and transport route options are described in Chapter 2 Project Description and the estimated project period for explosives storage and transport would be from late 2015 or early 2016 (expected January 2016) to December 2017.

8.4.1 TLEM site

The TLEM is designed to store sufficient quantities of explosives for two days so as to allow blasting to be carried out 24 hours per day and provide a buffer in the event of delivery interruption to the Magazine by Mines Division.

The magazine at Tai Lam (Tai Lam Explosives Magazine or TLEM) serves three worksites in the Northern New Territories. The site comprises two individual magazine stores, each with a single structure storing 400 kg of explosives such as cartridged emulsion, cast boosters and detonating cord. A storage chamber for detonators holding 1900 detonators, equivalent to two days’ supply, is provided next to each explosives chamber. The detonators have a very low explosive mass and contain less than 1 gram of high explosives per detonator. Therefore, the net explosive quantity within the detonator chamber is less than 2 kg.

Each of the magazine buildings is a single-storey, detached and bunded structure, which is fenced and secured in accordance with the Commissioner of Mines’ requirements. Details of the requirements are defined in the CEDD document “How to Apply for a Mode A Explosives Store Licence” (ref.35). Surface road access suitable for 11-tonne trucks is also provided for delivery of explosives. Mines Division will deliver explosives to the Magazine on a daily basis, from where explosives will be transferred to the work areas by the contractors for the daily or twice-daily blasts depending on requirements for construction. Loads will be limited to a maximum of 200 kg per truck or less in accordance with the Removal Permit issued by Mines Division.

8.4.2 Transport

The proposed explosives transport routes to the three worksites are shown in Figure 8.3 (Route Option R1, Route Option R2 and Route Option R3 respectively).

In Route Options R1 and R3, the explosives delivery truck will pass through Pok Oi Interchange and Shap Pat Heung Interchange. During the Fourth Meeting of Traffic and Transport Committee under Yuen Long District Council on 24 July 2014 (Thursday), members expressed concerns on the traffic conditions of Pok Oi Interchange. Currently there is road improvement work which leads to serious traffic jams, thus temporary road diversion and traffic control measures are enforced. The road improvement work is expected to be completed in 2015 but may be delayed due to the flyover foundation. Therefore, members generally did not prefer the use of Pok Oi Interchange by the explosives delivery truck during the road improvement work, and recommended to use Tong Yan San Tsuen Interchange and Yuen Long Road, which is Route Option R2.

The explosives delivery routes will be:

· At early stage of this project, during road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange (expected to be completed in 2015 but may be delayed), Route Option R2 will be used. Route Options R1 and R3 are not feasible since they both route via Pok Oi Interchange.

· After road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange is completed, all three routes will be available for use. The Route Option with minimum transport risk will be used.

In addition to cartridged emulsion, cast boosters and detonating cord, detonators will also be transported. Detonators will be transported in a separate and dedicated licenced vehicle.

The licensed explosives delivery vehicles (LGV pick-up trucks) for delivery of explosives from the Magazine to the worksites, used as the basis for this QRA, will have the following safety features:

· Diesel powered;

· Driver’s cabin is separated by a distance of not less than 150 mm from the cargo compartment of the vehicle;

· Manual fuel isolation switch;

· The exhaust system is located as far from the cargo compartment as possible. The modification of the exhaust system will be approved by the Transport Department;

· All electrical wiring and fittings will be shrouded in fire resisting conduits;

· Fuel tank will be protected from accidental damage, and designed to prevent accumulation of spilt fuel on any part of the vehicle;

· The required number of fire extinguishers shall be agreed with Mines Division;

· Fire resistant material shall be fitted between the wheel arches and the goods compartment;

· Hand-held lightning detector provided in the vehicle for lightning detection during loading and unloading of explosives;

· Lockable wood lined steel or aluminium receptacles mounted on the vehicle tray; and

· Fold down / up explosives warning signs and red strobe beacons.

In addition to the minimum requirements, a fire screen will be fitted between the cab and the load compartment, both between the cab and the load compartment and underneath the load compartment. The fire screen shall be 3 mm; extend to 150 mm above [all sides of] and run completely under the load compartment; to at least 100 mm behind the cab of the vehicle.

The explosives to be stored and transported from the Magazine to the worksites will include detonators, detonating cord, cast boosters and cartridged emulsion.

Cartridged emulsion, cast boosters and detonating cord will be delivered from the explosives Magazine to the worksites by the appointed contractor (i.e. DHK) using Mines Division licenced trucks. These explosives are classified as an explosive Class 1.1D under United Nation (UN) Classification (ref.7) and as a Category 1 (Explosive and Blasting Agents) Dangerous Goods under the Hong Kong Dangerous Goods Ordinance.

Detonators will also be used to initiate the blast at the working face. They are classified as Class 1.4B or 1.4S explosives under the UN classification system and Category 1 (Explosives and Blasting Agents) under the Hong Kong Dangerous Goods Ordinance, and will be transported from the Magazine to worksites by a dedicated truck, which is identical to, but independent of the truck carrying the emulsion explosives and detonating cord.

8.5 Base Case and Worst Case for Quantitative Risk Assessment

The actual explosives requirements will depend on the construction programme and the detailed design. It may also depend on the actual achievable progress rates which may vary due to specific site conditions (e.g. geology). To consider the uncertainty in the envisaged construction programme, a Base Case, which accounts for expected programme variations, and a Worst Case, which presents the worst programme scenario (i.e. a 20% increase in the number of deliveries compared to the Base Case scenario), have been considered for the assessment.

In this study, three Route Options have been presented as the Base Case as summarised in Section 2.1.2 with details found in Annex 8A Full Hazard Assessment Report.

8.5.1 Base Case Programme for Hazard to Life Assessment

Based on the envisaged construction programme and sequence of works, the annual travel distance by explosive vehicles, carrying cartridged emulsion, cast boosters and detonating cord, will reach a peak in the period between March 2016 and February 2017. Within this period, taking Route Option R1 as an example, the annual number of deliveries is 2,100 while the explosive trucks travel distance is around 53,165 km. This period is referred to as the peak explosive delivery period which is taken to represent the Base Case scenario for the Hazard to Life Assessment. The delivery frequency has been estimated on the basis that, for a given delivery point, each delivery will be made to each worksite independently of the other worksites even if the load could be transported on the same truck. This approach, although slightly conservative, accounts for expected delivery variations during the peak delivery period, within which, separate deliveries will be generally undertaken.

In the Base Case, it was considered that explosives delivery could be carried out at any time of the day depending on the blasting programme to allow for flexibility to the blasting programme.

In this project, for a particular delivery point, it is possible that the explosive load required for each delivery will be higher than that indicated in the envisaged programme due to particular site conditions and blasting requirements; however, the truck load is conservatively assumed to be 200 kg in each trip. The actual truck load is 42 – 83 kg for North Portal, 43 – 65 kg for Mid-Ventilation Portal and 84 – 132 kg for South Portal, which are significantly lower than the maximum truck load of 200 kg.

In this Project, explosives transport will be scheduled with a total of two to six deliveries per day to the three worksites (explosives are required at two to three worksites per day) and maximum seven (7) days per week. CEDD Mines Division will supply the explosives to the magazine site on weekdays (Monday to Friday) and on Saturday if necessary.

The Base Case programme is summarized in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Summary of Explosives Deliveries and Transport Quantities (Base Case)

Works Area	Delivery Point	Blast Face	Explosive Deliveries in Peak Period (trips/yr)	Explosive Load (kg/trip)
North Portal	Sha Tau Kok Road	Dual two-lane trunk road connecting the BCP with Tolo/Fanling Highway	570	200 (Actual load is 42 – 83 kg/trip)

Mid-Ventilation Portal	Po Kat Tsai Road	Dual two-lane trunk road connecting the BCP with Tolo/Fanling Highway	450	200 (Actual load is 43 – 65 kg/trip)

South Portal	Tai Wo Service Road East	Dual two-lane trunk road connecting the BCP with Tolo/Fanling Highway)	1080	200 (Actual load is 84 – 132 kg/trip)

8.5.2 Worst Case Programme for Hazard to Life Assessment

The Hazard to Life Assessment also covers the Worst Case scenario. It addresses the possibility that, due to construction uncertainties or contractors’ methods of working, the contractors propose an actual construction programme which differs from the envisaged construction programme. Such a case may result in a higher number of delivery trips. Return trips loaded with explosives will generally be avoided, however, due to some construction uncertainties, a number of return trips could be made. Overall, in the worst case, a 20% increase in the number of deliveries compared to the Base Case scenario may result based on previous project experience.

The Worst Case programme is summarized in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2 Summary of Explosives Deliveries and Transport Quantities (Worst Case)

Works Area	Delivery Point	Blast Face	Explosive Deliveries in Peak Period (trips/y)	Explosive Load (kg/trip)
North Portal	Sha Tau Kok Road	Dual two-lane trunk road connecting the BCP with Tolo/Fanling Highway	684	200 (Actual load is 42 – 83 kg/trip)

Mid-Ventilation Portal	Po Kat Tsai Road	Dual two-lane trunk road connecting the BCP with Tolo/Fanling Highway	540	200 (Actual load is 43 – 65 kg/trip)

South Portal	Tai Wo Service Road East	Dual two-lane trunk road connecting the BCP with Tolo/Fanling Highway)	1296	200 (Actual load is 84 – 132 kg/trip)

8.6 Population data

Population within the vicinity of the Magazine is estimated based on site surveys and information gathered from Geographic Information System (GIS) database 2014 data (ref.22) and aerial maps. There are no known (current or future) buildings or any other structures in the hazard zone of the proposed Magazine.

Population data used for the transport risk assessment have been collected by a combination of site survey, Annual Traffic Census 2013 (ref.26), Centamap (2015) and GIS tools. For areas where information is not available, assumptions have been used consistently with the previously approved studies. Three types of population have been considered.

· Pedestrian population on footpaths and pavements next to delivery routes;

· Road population; and

· Building population.

The approach to modelling the risks during transport of explosives is fully 3-dimensional and GIS based. It also accounts for the potential increased risk when explosives truck travel on elevated roads.

The population data adopted in the QRA is detailed in Annex 8A.

8.7 Hazard Identification

Hazard identification consisted of a review of the following:

· Explosives properties;

· Scenarios presented in previous relevant studies;

· Historical accidents; and

· Discussions with explosives and blasting specialists.

8.7.1 Hazards of Explosives

Explosives present a hazard to both property and people. This hazard manifests itself in the following ways:

· Blast and pressure wave;

· Flying fragments or missiles;

· Thermal radiation; and

· Ground shock.

In the case of explosions, the biggest damage is usually caused by the blast effects. The blast and pressure waves can cause injury to sensitive human organs such as the ears and lungs. However, considerable overpressures are required for fatalities to occur, and consequently people need to be fairly close to the scene of the direct explosion effects to be significant.

Other effects due to the blast or overpressure are associated with damage to buildings and other structures/ objects or the impact of debris and fragments from damaged building structure, and the vehicle or container in which the explosives are held. Moreover, injury may occur when people are displaced or swept away, or due to the violent movement of internal organs within the body.

An explosion may result in the formation of a short duration fireball since the fuel content of the emulsion is oxidised. However, although it is generally the case that the thermal hazards from an explosives detonation event is of less concern than the blast and fragment hazards.

An explosion may produce a shock wave in the solid material with significant confinement such as rock excavation. Considering explosive transport and storage will be carried out aboveground with much less confinement than rock excavation, consequence of ground shock induced by explosion should not be of much concern compared to the hazards posed by the overpressure wave and debris generated.

8.7.2 Review of Incidents

A review of reported safety incidents involving storage, transport and disposal of explosives (in industrial applications) was carried out. Records were retrieved mainly from the UK Health and Safety Executive (UK HSE)’s Explosives Incidents Database Advisory Service (EIDAS) , US Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and Western Australia’s Department of Consumer and Employment Protection (DOCEP). The records provided are also supplemented with information obtained from various sources. An analysis of accident data is provided in Annex 8A, Sections 5 and Section 6.

8.7.3 Scenarios for Hazard Assessment

The following Table 8.3 provides a summary of the scenarios considered in this QRA.

Table 8.3 Scenarios Considered in the QRA study

Tag	Scenario
Storage of Explosives
01	Detonation of full load of explosives in one store in the Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site
02	Detonation of full load of explosives in one contractor truck on the access road within Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site boundary
Transport of Explosives
03	Detonation of full load of explosives in one contractor truck on public roads – from Tai Lam Explosives Magazine site to Mid Ventilation Adit delivery point
04	Detonation of full load of explosives in one contractor truck on public roads – from Tai Lam Explosives Magazine site to North Portal delivery point
05	Detonation of full load of explosives in one contractor truck on public roads – from Tai Lam Explosives Magazine site to South Portal delivery point

8.7.4 Frequency Analysis

Deflagration or detonation explosion may occur during the transportation of explosives from the Magazine to the worksites. This accidental explosion can be caused by spontaneous fire (non-crash fire), fire after a vehicle crash (crash fire), impact initiation in crash (crash impact), or spontaneous explosion during the normal condition of transport which may occur if the cargo load contains ‘unsafe explosives’.

In this study, a fault tree has been developed to assess the overall explosion frequency as applicable to the Project contractors’ trucks based on the latest information available on the explosives properties, vehicle incident frequencies provided by the Transport Department and Fire Services Department, and the specific explosive transport vehicle design and operation to be used as part of the Project. The details of the frequency assessment are provided in Annex 8A, Section 6. The frequency analysis is consistent with the approved XRL EIA QRA study.

Frequency Analysis for Transport of Explosives

Based on Hong Kong vehicle accident data, the frequencies of explosives initiation during road transport are estimated as 7.69 x 10^-10/km for the truck on non-expressway and 6.87 x 10^-10/km on expressway, using a fault tree approach. The fault tree model has considered the frequencies of non-crash fire, crash fire, crash impact and unsafe explosive. Adjustment factors were applied to the model to account for the probabilities of explosive initiation due to thermal stimulus or crash impact.

Frequency Analysis for Storage of Explosives

The overall initiating event frequency within the storage magazine is based upon the UK HSE recommended value of 1 x 10^-4 per storehouse year. Additional risk due to manual transfer of explosives, lightning strike, aircraft crash, hill/ vegetation fire, earthquake and other site specific considerations to this project were also considered but their contribution was negligible (see Annex 8A, Section 6).

8.7.5 Consequence Analysis

The probability of fatality due to blast over-pressure, have been estimated using the method detailed by the UK HSE Explosives Storage and Transport Committee (ESTC) (ref.9). The fatality contours are calculated at 90%, 50%, 10%, 3% and 1% fatality. Details of the model and the results are given in Annex 8A, Section 7.

Special features such as slopes and service reservoirs along the transport routes or near the Magazine site were identified with respect to the potential secondary hazards. These aspects of risk were evaluated separately, and were found either insignificant or already covered by applying the blast overpressure-fatality model (i.e. ESTC model (ref.9)).

8.8 Summary of Risks

8.8.1 Individual Risk Results

The individual risk (IR) contours associated with the Project are shown in Figure 8.4, Figure 8.5, Figure 8.6 and Figure 8.7. In Figure 8.7, the ‘indoor’ refers to the population located inside buildings, and the ‘outdoor’ refers to the population located outside buildings i.e. in open area. At the same distance from a potential explosion, persons located inside buildings are more vulnerable to explosion than persons located outside buildings as they are exposed to more hazards such as debris from broken windows, etc. This explains a higher individual risk for indoor population.

For the delivery routes, the IR data represent the highest individual risk, occurring on the road in the same lane as the explosives delivery truck. It is observed that the maximum IR is about 1.8×10^-7 per year. This is a low risk when compared to Hong Kong Risk Guidelines which require the offsite IR from a fixed installation to be below 1×10^-5 per year.

The Magazine is in remote areas. The individual risk contours of 1 x 10^-5 per year extend outside the site boundary. However this impacts only on woodland areas where there is no continuous presence of people. The presence of people in these areas will be rare and only temporary leading to a very small presence factor. The most exposed population group will be people potentially present adjacent to the Magazine site fence. Such persons are not expected to be present more than 1% of the time. Therefore, no member of the public will be exposed to an IR of 1×10^-5 per year. The actual risk to any individual will be much less than 1×10^-5 per year and is deemed to be acceptable.

8.8.2 Societal Risk Results

The societal risk results for explosives storage and transport have been combined to produce the overall societal risk results for the Base Case and the Worst Case (Figure 8.8, Figure 8.9 and Figure 8.10 ). These include the Magazine site at Tai Lam and the associated transport routes to the three worksites.

The Base Case represents the risks associated with the envisaged blasting programme. It can be seen that the risks lie in the upper ALARP region.

The Worst Case represents the maximum risks associated with the worst blasting scenario, i.e. a 20% increase in the number of deliveries compared to the Base Case scenario. The risks, as expected, are higher than the base case but still within the ALARP region.

Figure 8.11, Figure 8.12 and Figure 8.13 show the F-N curves for the Base Case with a breakdown by storage and transport. It is observed that risks from the Magazine are negligible compared to the transport risks since the Magazine is located in remote area with very low population density nearby.

The F-N curves for both Base Case and Worst Case are within the As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) Region as per HK EIAO-TM. Therefore, mitigation measures need to be considered to reduce the risk. The ALARP assessment is provided in Annex 8A, Section 9.

The potential Loss of Life (PLL) for the base case and the worst case are given in Table 8.4, Table 8.5, Table 8.6 and Table 8.7, Table 8.8, Table 8.9 respectively. The PLL for Base Case has been evaluated at 6.75´10^‑4/year, 1.30´10^‑3/year, 7.83´10^‑4/year for Route Option R1, Route Option R2 and Route Option R3 respectively. The PLL value for the Worst Case is estimated at 8.10´10^‑4/year, 1.56´10^‑3/year, 9.40´10^‑4/year for Route Option R1, Route Option R2 and Route Option R3 respectively.

Figure 8.8 F-N Curve for Storage and Transport of Explosives (Route Option R1)

Figure 8.9 F-N Curve for Storage and Transport of Explosives (Route Option R2)

Figure 8.10 F-N Curve for Storage and Transport of Explosives (Route Option R3)

Figure 8.11 F-N Curve for the Base Case with Breakdown by Storage and Transport (Route Option R1)

Figure 8.12 F-N Curve for the Base Case with Breakdown by Storage and Transport (Route Option R2)

Figure 8.13 F-N Curve for the Base Case with Breakdown by Storage and Transport (Route Option R3)

Table 8.4 PLL for Base Case Route Option R1

Case: Base Case	PLL (per year)	Contribution (%)
Storage of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site	9.03E-09	0.001%
Transport of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to Mid-Ventilation Adit	1.68E-04	24.90%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to North Portal	2.13E-04	31.55%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to South Portal	2.94E-04	43.55%
Total	6.75E-04	100.00%

Table 8.5 PLL for Base Case Route Option R2

Case: Base Case	PLL (per year)	Contribution (%)
Storage of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site	9.03E-09	0.001%
Transport of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to Mid-Ventilation Adit	2.83E-04	21.83%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to North Portal	3.58E-04	27.61%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to South Portal	6.56E-04	50.55%
Total	1.30E-03	100.00%

Table 8.6 PLL for Base Case Route Option R3

Case: Base Case	PLL (per year)	Contribution (%)
Storage of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site	9.03E-09	0.001%
Transport of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to Mid-Ventilation Adit	1.73E-04	22.04%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to North Portal	2.18E-04	27.84%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to South Portal	3.93E-04	50.12%
Total	7.83E-04	100.00%

Table 8.7 PLL for Worst Case Route Option R1

Case: Worst Case	PLL (per year)	Contribution (%)
Storage of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site	9.03E-09	0.001%
Transport of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to Mid-Ventilation Adit	2.02E-04	24.90%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to North Portal	2.56E-04	31.55%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to South Portal	3.53E-04	43.55%
Total	8.10E-04	100.00%

Table 8.8 PLL for Worst Case Route Option R2

Case: Worst Case	PLL (per year)	Contribution (%)
Storage of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site	9.03E-09	0.001%
Transport of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to Mid-Ventilation Adit	3.40E-04	21.83%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to North Portal	4.30E-04	27.61%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to South Portal	7.87E-04	50.55%
Total	1.56E-03	100.00%

Table 8.9 PLL for Worst Case Route Option R3

Case: Worst Case	PLL (per year)	Contribution (%)
Storage of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site	9.03E-09	0.001%
Transport of Explosives
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to Mid-Ventilation Adit	2.07E-04	22.04%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to North Portal	2.62E-04	27.84%
Tai Lam Explosives Magazine Site to South Portal	4.71E-04	50.12%
Total	9.40E-04	100.00%

8.8.3 ALARP Assessment

Since the risks posed by the project, for both Base and Worst Cases considered, are within the ALARP region specified in EIAO-TM Annex 4, this implies that risk reduction measures and/ or alternate options should be explored for the Project.

It was found that the risks arising from explosives transport are much more significant than that of explosives storage; hence the ALARP assessment focuses on the transportation aspects of explosives.

Where the risk falls into the ALARP region, the risks associated with each probable hazardous event should be reduced to a level ‘as low as reasonably practicable’. This firstly requires the identification of any ‘practicable’ options regardless of their cost. A mitigation option is considered ‘practicable’ if an engineering solution exists and can be implemented on the Project regardless of the cost without affecting the project construction programme. Secondly, the extent to which the risk should be reduced is usually measured as a trade-off between the risk reduction, i.e. the safety benefits and the cost of the risk reduction measure. A mitigation option is considered ‘reasonable’ if the cost of implementing the option is not grossly disproportionate to the achieved safety benefits.

Risk mitigation measures may take the form of engineered measures, controls in the zones most impacted by the hazardous scenarios presented by this project, or operation and procedural controls.

Approach to ALARP Assessment

The approach consists of identifying potential justifiable mitigation measures, assessing their practicability for this project and evaluating their cost and comparing with the safety benefits of implementing the measures. Combinations of mitigation measures are also considered.

The safety benefits are evaluated as follows:

Safety Benefits = Value of Preventing a Fatality x Aversion Factor × Reduction in PLL value × Design Life of Mitigation Measure

The Value of Preventing a Fatality (VPF) reflects the tolerability of risk by the society and therefore the monetary value that the society is ready to invest to prevent a fatality. For the purpose of this assessment and for consistency with previous studies, the Value of Preventing a Fatality is taken as HK$33M per person, which is the same figure as used in previous XRL EIA QRA study.

Depending on the level of risk, the value of preventing a fatality may be adjusted to reflect people’s aversion to high risks or scenarios with potential for multiple fatalities. The methodology for application of the ‘aversion factor’ follows that developed by EPD (ref.25), in which the aversion factor is calculated on a sliding scale from 1 (risks at the lower boundary of the ALARP region of the Risk Guidelines) up to a maximum of 20 (risks at the upper boundary of the ALARP region). The adjusted VPF using the aversion factor of 20 is HK$660M. This value is a measure of how much the society is willing to invest to prevent a fatality, where there is potential for an event to cause multiple fatalities.

The maximum justifiable expenditure for this Project is calculated as HK$ 2.1M assuming the design life of mitigation measure is 2 years (Jan 2015 to Dec 2017, 24 months) based on the Project during which storage and transport of explosives will be involved, with the maximum PLL of 1.56 x 10^-3 per year, which is obtained from the Worst Case.

For an ‘achievable’ mitigation measure to be potentially justifiable, its cost should be less than the Maximum Justifiable Expenditure.

Potential Justifiable Mitigation Measures

The potential options that have been examined in the ALARP assessment include the following categories.

· Options eliminating the need for a Magazine or eliminating the risk (eg. Use of alternative methods of construction (‘hard rock’ TBMs));

· Options reducing significantly the quantities of explosives to be used such as use of ‘hard rock’ TBM or alternatives to cartridged emulsion;

· Options significantly reducing the distance run by contractors’ explosive trucks such as closer magazine site and alternative routes. The magazine and route options considered are summarised below:

- The alternative magazine sites to Tai Lam have been considered by DHK but they are not available for the Project. The existing TLEM is the best option considering the shortest transportation distance, stakeholders’ acceptance situation and its availability with the blasting schedule of the project.

- On-site magazines were also considered (at the Mid Ventilation Portal and North Portal). DHK had preliminary consultation with CEDD Mines Division. After review with the necessary site setups and subsequent application process, Mines Divisions advised that it would not be feasible in managing interfaces with adjacent construction activities, safety of the site could be compromised and match with the program of project.

- Based on the review of the possible transport routes for this project and discussion with Yuen Long District Council, due to limitation imposed by the current road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange, (1) At early stage of this project with road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange (expected to be completed in 2015 but may be delayed), Route Option R2 will be used. Route Options R1 and R3 are not feasible during this period since they both route via Pok Oi interchange. (2) After road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange is completed, all three routes will be available for use, thus further cost-benefit evaluation is conducted. The Route Option with minimum transport risk, i.e. Route Option R1, will be used. Route Option R3 can only be used as a contingency alternative route in the event that Route Option R1 is infeasible due to road blockage by traffic accidents.

· Options reducing significantly the number of trips to be carried out by contractors’ explosive trucks;

· Options considering improved explosive truck design; and

· Options considering better risk management systems and procedures.

In summary, various options have been either recommended for implementation or assessed comparing the implementation cost with the maximum justifiable expenditure for the safety benefit gained.

ALARP Assessment Results

The PLL for Route Option R1, Route Option R2 and Route Option R3 are presented in Table 8.10. These were used as the basis for the cost-benefit analysis/ ALARP assessment presented in Table 8.11.

Various options considered practicable have been either recommended for implementation or assessed comparing the implementation cost with the maximum justifiable expenditure. The evaluation for each option is shown in Table 8.11. More details are available in Annex 8A, Section 9.

By adopting the feasible explosives delivery routes with the lowest risk, the risk has been reduced as low as practicable considering the impact of road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange. The risk will be further reduced by implementation of the other selected mitigation measures.

Table 8.10 Potential Loss of Life for all three Route Options

Case	PLL (Per Year)
Route Option R1 (Worst Case)	8.10 x 10^-4
Route Option R2 (Worst Case)	1.56 x 10^-3
Route Option R3 (Worst Case)	9.40 x 10^-4

Table 8.11 ALARP Assessment Results

Option Description	Practicability	Implementation Cost	Safety Benefits or Justifiable Expenditure	ALARP Assessment Result
Use of alternative methods of construction (TBMs)	Not Practicable	> HK$ 100M	HK$ 2.1M	Neither practicable nor justified.
Use of Magazine Closer to the Worksites	Not Practicable	-	-	Closest practicable Magazine site to the worksites has been selected
Use of different explosive types (different types of detonating cord)	Pose some limitations	HK$ 2.4M	No safety benefit	Not justified
Alternative Routes (at early stage of this project with road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange)	Not Practicable	-	-	Neither practicable nor justified.
Alternative Routes (after road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange is completed)	Practicable	< HK$ 10k	Negative	Route Option R1 is the preferred option. Route Option R3 can only be used as a contingency alternative route.
Use of Smaller Explosives Quantities	Not Practicable	-	-	Neither practicable nor justified.
Safer explosive truck (reduced fire load)	Practicable	-	-	This option has been directly incorporated in recommendations
Reduction of Accident Involvement Frequency (training programme etc.)	Practicable	-	-	This option has been directly incorporated in recommendations
Reduction of Fire Involvement Frequency (better emergency response, extinguisher types etc.)	Practicable	-	-	This option has been directly incorporated in recommendations

8.9 Conclusion and Recommendations

A QRA has been carried out to assess the hazard to life issues arising from the storage and transport of explosives from Tai Lam Explosives Magazine site to the three blasting worksites.

The criterion of Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM for Individual Risk is met. The assessment results show that the societal risk lies within the ALARP region when compared to the criteria stipulated in the EIAO-TM. A detailed ALARP assessment has been undertaken considering a wide range of mitigation measures and the results show compliance with the ALARP principles provided that the following recommendations are followed.

8.9.1 General Recommendations

Following the ALARP principles, the following recommendations are justified and should be implemented to meet the EIAO-TM requirements.

· The truck design should comply with the Requirements for Approval of an Explosives Delivery Vehicle (CEDD 2) and limit the amount of combustibles in the cabin. The fuel carried in the fuel tank should also be minimised to reduce the duration of any fire;

· The explosive truck accident frequency should be minimized by implementing a dedicated training programme for both the driver and his attendants, including regular briefing sessions, implementation of a defensive driving attitude. In addition, drivers should be selected based on good safety record, and medical checks;

· The contractor should as far as practicable combine the explosive deliveries for a given work area;

· Only the required quantity of explosives for a particular blast should be transported to avoid the return of unused explosives to the Magazine.

· Whenever practicable, a minimum headway between two consecutive truck convoys of 10 min is recommended;

· The explosive truck fire involvement frequency should be minimized by implementing a better emergency response and training to make sure the adequate fire extinguishers are used and attempt is made to evacuate the area of the incident or securing the explosive load if possible. All explosive vehicles should be equipped with the required amount and type of fire extinguishers and shall be agreed with Mines Division; and

The following general recommendation should also be considered for the storage and transport of explosives:

· The security plan should address different alert security level to reduce opportunity for arson/ deliberate initiation of explosives. The corresponding security procedure should be implemented with respect to prevailing security alert status announced by the Government.

· Emergency plans (i.e. magazine operational manual) shall be followed and amended if necessary to address uncontrolled fire in magazine area and transport. The case of fire near an explosive carrying truck in jammed traffic should also be covered. Drill of the emergency plan should be carried out at regular intervals.

· Adverse weather working guideline should be followed and amended if necessary to clearly define procedures for transport explosives during thunderstorm.

· The Magazine storage quantities need to be reported on a monthly basis to ensure that the two day storage capacity is not exceeded.

Specific recommendations for storage and transport of explosives are given below.

8.9.2 For Storage of Explosives in the Magazine Store

The Magazine should be operated and maintained in accordance with Mines Division guidelines and appropriate industry best practice. In addition, the following recommendations should be implemented:

· A suitable work control system should be followed and amended if necessary, such as an operational manual including Permit-to-Work system, to ensure that work activities undertaken during the operation of the Magazine are properly controlled.

· There should be good house-keeping within the Magazine to ensure that combustible materials are not allowed to accumulate.

· The Magazine shall be without open drains, traps, pits or pockets into which any molten ammonium nitrate could flow and be confined in the event of a fire.

· The Magazine building shall be regularly checked for water seepage through the roof, walls or floor.

· Caked explosives shall be disposed of in an appropriate manner.

· Delivery vehicles shall not be permitted to remain within the secured fenced off magazine store area.

· Good housekeeping outside the Magazine stores to be followed to ensure combustibles (including vegetation) are removed.

· A speed limit within the magazine area should be enforced to reduce the risk of a vehicle impact or incident within the Magazine area.

· Traffic Management should be implemented within the Magazine site, to ensure that no more than 1 vehicle will be loading/loaded at any time, in order to avoid accidents involving multiple vehicles within the site boundary.

8.9.3 For Transport of Explosives

General Recommendations:

The following measures should be considered for safe transport of explosives:

· Detonators shall not be transported in the same vehicle with other Class 1 explosives.

· Separation of vehicles should be maintained during the whole trip.

· Location for stopping and unloading from truck to be provided as close as possible to shaft, free from dropped loads, hot work, etc. during time of unloading.

· Develop procedure to ensure that parking space on the site is available for the explosive truck. Confirmation of parking space should be communicated to truck drivers before delivery. If parking space on site cannot be secure, delivery should not commence.

· Ensure lining is provided within the transportation box on the vehicle and in good condition before transportation.

· Ensure that packaging of detonators remains intact until handed over at blasting site.

· Emergency plan to include activation of fuel and battery isolation switches on vehicle when fire breaks out to prevent fire spreading and reducing likelihood of prolonged fire leading to explosion.

· Use only experienced driver(s) with good safety record.

· Ensure that cartridged emulsion packages are damage free before every trip.

· Ensure that explosives will be offloaded and stored away from the railway protection area according to the MTRCL railway protection area plan.

Contractors Licenced Vehicle Recommended Safety Requirements:

· Battery isolation switch;

· Front mounted exhaust with spark arrestor;

· Fuel level should be kept as far as possible to the minimum level required for the transport of explosives;

· Minimum 1 × 9 kg water based AFFF fire extinguisher to be provided;

· Minimum 1 × 9 kg dry chemical powder fire extinguisher to be provided;

· Horizontal fire screen on cargo deck and vertical fire screen mounted at least 150mm behind the drivers cab and 100mm from the steel cargo compartment, the vertical screen shall protrude 150mm in excess of all three (3) sides of the steel cargo compartment;

· Cigarette lighter removed;

· Two (2) battery powered torches for night deliveries;

· Vehicles shall be dedicated explosive transport vehicles and should be maintained in good operating condition;

· Daily checks on tyres and vehicle integrity;

· Regular monthly vehicle inspections;

- Fuel system

- Exhaust system

- Brakes

- Electrics

- Battery

- Cooling system

- Engine oil leaks

· Vehicle log book in which monthly inspections and maintenance requirements are recorded; and

· Mobile telephone equipped.

Recommended Requirements for the Driver of the Explosive Vehicles:

The driver shall:

· be registered by the Commissioner of Mines and must be over the age of 25 years with proven accident free records and more than 7 year driving experience without suspension.

· hold a Driving License for the class of vehicle for at least one (1) year;

· adopt a safe driving practice including having attended a defensive driving course;

· pass a medical check and is assessed as fit to drive explosives vehicles; and

· not be dependent on banned substances;

Some of the following requirements may also apply to the vehicle attendant(s).

· The driver is required to attend relevant training courses recognized by the Commissioner of Mines. The training courses should include the following major subjects, but not limited to:

- the laws and Regulations relating to the transport of explosives;

- security and safe handling during the transport of explosives;

· Attend training courses provided by the explosives manufacturer or distributor, covering the following:

- explosives identification;

- explosion hazards; and

- explosives sensitivity;

- the dangers which could be caused by the types of explosives;

- the packaging, labelling and characteristics of the types of explosives;

- the use of fire extinguishers and fire fighting procedures; and

- emergency response procedures in case of accidents.

The driver should additionally be responsible for the following:

· The driver shall have a full set of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each individual explosive aboard the vehicle for the particular journey;

· The MSDS and Removal Permit (where applicable) shall be produced to any officer of the Mines Division of CEDD upon request;

· A card detailing emergency procedures shall be kept on board and displayed in a prominent place on the driver’s door;

· Before leaving the magazine the driver together with and/or assisted by the shotfirer shall check the following:

- Packaging integrity and labelling;

- Check that the types and quantities of explosives loaded onto the vehicle are as stipulated in the Removal Permit(s);

- Check that the explosive load does not exceed the quantities stated in the removal permit;

- Check the condition and integrity of the cargo compartment or box;

- Check that detonators are not loaded in the explosives cargo compartment and vice versa;

- Check that the cargo is secured and cannot be damaged during the delivery;

- Ensure that the appropriate placards and a red flag are displayed before leaving the magazine;

- Be competent to operate all equipment on board the vehicle including fire extinguishers and the vehicle emergency cut-off switches;

- Prohibit smoking when the vehicle is loaded with explosives;

- When explosives are loaded, ensure the vehicle is not left unattended;

- Be conversant with emergency response procedures.

Specific Recommended Requirements for the Explosive Vehicle Attendants:

When the vehicle is loaded with explosives, it shall be attended by the driver and at least one (1) other person authorized by the Commissioner of Mines. The vehicle attendant shall:

· Be the assistant to the driver in normal working conditions and in case of any emergency

· Be conversant with the emergency response procedures

· Be competent to use the fire extinguishers and the vehicle emergency cut-off switches

· One of the vehicle attendant(s) should be equipped with mobile phones and the relevant MSDS and emergency response plan.

Type of Explosives & their Disposal

For explosive selection, the following should be considered

· Cartridged Emulsions with perchlorate formulation should be avoided;

· Cartridged Emulsions with high water content should be preferred.

Disposal Recommendations:

If disposal is required for small quantities, disposal should be made in a controlled and safe manner by a Registered Shotfirer.

8.10 References

[1] DNV, The Risk Assessment of the Transport of Explosives in Hong Kong QRA Report, Environmental Protection Department Hong Kong Government, 1997, EPD CE63/94 (DNV, 1997)

[2] Maunsell, Hazard to Life Assessment of Explosive Storage and Handling for EIA of Ocean Park Development, 2006 (Maunsell, 2006)

[3] ERM, Penny’s Bay Rail Link: Hazard Assessment of Explosive Magazine, 2001 (ERM, 2001)

[4] ERM, West Island Line: Hazard to Life Assessment for the Transport Storage and Use of Explosives, 2008 (EIA153/2008) (ERM, 2008)

[5] P A Moreton, An Investigation of the Relative Risks from the Road Transport of Blasting Explosives in Maximum Size Loads of 5te and 16te, February 1993, SRD/HSE R596 (Moreton, 1993)

[6] ACDS, Risk from Handling Explosives in Ports, HSC Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances, HMSO, UK, 1995 (ACDS, 1995)

[7] United Nations, Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods – Manual of Tests and Criteria, 5th Revised Edition, 2009 (TDG-Test Manual, 2009)

[8] United Nations, Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods – Model Regulations, 16th Revised Edition, 2009 (TDG-Model Regulation, 2009)

[9] HSC, Selection and Use of Explosion Effects and Consequence Models for Explosives, Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances, 2000 (ESTC, 2000)

[10] FP Lees, Loss Prevention in Process Industries, 2nd Edition, 1996 (Lees, 1996)

[11] US Department of Defense, DoD 6055.9-STD, DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, Oct 2004 (DoD 6055.9-STD).

[12] Health and Safety Executive, The Peterborough Explosion – A report of the investigation by the Health and Safety Executive into the explosion of a vehicle explosives at Fengate Industrial Estate, Peterborough on 22 March 1989, UK, 1990 (Peterborough, 1989).

[13] DOCEP, Incident Log Reports retrieved from http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/resourcesSafety/Content/Dangerous_Goods/Incident_log_reports/index.htm (DOCEP)

[14] DOCEP, WA Government Explosives Incident Log 2001, DGEA 01/01 (DOCEP, 2001)

[15] Richard J. Mainiero and James H. Rowland III, A Review of Recent Accidents Involving Explosives Transport, NIOSH, January 2008 (NIOSH, 2008).

[16] R. Merrifield, P.A. Moreton, An examination of the major-accident record for explosives manufacturing and storage in the UK, Journal of Haz. Mats A63 (1998) 107-118. (Merrifield, 1998)

[17] Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment, TNO Purple Book, CPR18E 1st Ed, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters (TNO Purple Book)

[18] F.D. Wayne, An economical formula for calculating the atmospheric infrared transmissivities, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1991 Volume 4 (Wayne, 1991)

[19] HSE, Safety Report Assessment Guide for HFLs, http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sraghfl/images/hflcriteria.pdf (HSE HFLs)

[20] US Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656 Blasting vibrations and their effects on structures (USBM 656)

[21] ERM / Castle Peak Power Company Limited, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Receiving Terminal and Associated Facilities, EIA Report No. EIA-125/2006, October 2006. (ERM, 2006)

[22] Lands Department, Geographic Information System (GIS) database, http://www.landsd.gov.hk/mapping/en/digital_map/mapprod.htm The latest information on the GIS map of buildings from the Lands Department used in this study comes from 2014 (LD, 2014)

[23] Roger R Holmberg & B Folkesson , Bulk Emulsion Explosive – A Case Study, Bulamac Patlayicilar – Bir Uygulama, 615-629, retrieved from http://www.maden.org.tr/resimler/ekler/1f5738a827405b0_ek.pdf (Holmberg)

[24] P A Moreton, Controlling risks around explosives stores: Review of the requirements on the separation distances, UK HSE 2002 (Moreton, 2002)

[25] EPD, Technical Note: Cost Benefit Analysis in Hazard Assessment, Environmental Protection Department, Rev. January 1996. (EPD, 1996)

[26] Transport Department, Annual Traffic Census 2013 (ATC, 2013).

[27] Byrne, J. P., The calculation of aircraft crash risk in the UK, Health and Safety Executive, HSE\R150, 1997. (Byrne, 1997)

[28] Annual review of aircraft accident data: US General Aviation, Calendar year 2001, National Transport Safety Board. (NTSB, 2001)

[29] GEO, Seismic hazard analysis of the Hong Kong region, GEO Report No. 65, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Government of the Hong Kong SAR, 2002. (GEO Report 65)

[30] GCO, Review of earthquake data for the Hong Kong region, GCO Publication No. 1/91, Civil Engineering Services Dept., Hong Kong Government, 1991. (GCO, 1991)

[31] International Society of Explosives Engineers, Proceedings of the 22^nd Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, 4-8 Feb 1996, (ISEE, 1996)

[32] UK HSE, “Rules of Thumb for Outcomes of Accidents Involving Small Quantities of Explosives in Small Workrooms (of the order 4 m by 4 m). (HSE, Explosion of Small Quantities of Explosives)

[33] CEDD, List of Explosives Approved for Use in Hong Kong, http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/services/mines_quarries/mqd_explosives.html (CEDD 1)

[34] CEDD, Guidance Note on Requirements for Approval of an Explosives Delivery Vehicle, http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/services/mines_quarries/doc/gn_03_edv.pdf (CEDD 2)

[35] CEDD, How to Apply for a Mode A Store Licence for Storage of Blasting Explosives, http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/services/mines_quarries/doc/gn_mode_a_store.pdf (CEDD 3)

[36] CEDD, Guidance Note on Licensing of a Manufacturing Unit for Explosives at a Blast Site, http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/services/mines_quarries/doc/gn_02_lmuebs.pdf (CEDD 4)

[37] Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects, Yellow Book, CPR14E 3rd Ed, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters (Yellow Book)

[38] Expert Review Panel Minutes, 2-3 February 2009 (ERP, 2009)

[39] ERM, Express Rail Link: Hazard to Life Assessment for the Transport and Storage of Explosives, 2009 (ESB-197/2008) (ERM, 2009)

[40] UK Health & Safety Executive, The Explosives Regulations 2014, Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 1638. (ER, 2014)

[41] National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendation, Washington D.C. 20594, 1998, retrieved from http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1998/A98_81_82.pdf (NTSB, 1998)

[42] LegCo, Minutes of LegCo Panel on Environmental Affairs – Aircraft Noise, LC Paper No. CB(1)163/98-99, Legislative Council, Hong Kong, Aug 1998, retrieved from http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr98-99/english/panels/ea/minutes/ea180898.htm (LegCo, 1998a)

[43] LegCo, LegCo Panel on Environmental Affairs – Aircraft Noise, LC Paper No. CB(1)78/98-99(04), Legislative Council, Hong Kong, 1998, retrieved from and http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr98-99/english/panels/ea/papers/78_111.pdf (LegCo, 1998b)

[44] South Island Line (East): Hazard to Life Assessment for the Transport and Storage of Explosives, 2010 (ERM, 2010a)

[45] Kwun Tong Line Extension: Hazard to Life Assessment for the Transport and Storage of Explosives, 2010 (ERM, 2010b)

[46] ERM, Shatin to Central Link: Hazard to Life Assessment for the Transport and Storage of Explosives, 2011 (EIA-200/2011) (ERM, 2011)

Table 10.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts

Assessment Points	Results of Impact Prediction	Relevant Standard/ Criteria	Extent of Exceedances Predicted	Recommended Mitigation including Avoidance	Residual Impacts (after mitigation)
*Ecological Impact (Operation & Completion of Project)*
Ecological Sensitive Receivers within 500 m of the Project Site boundary	To restore the habitat back to borrow area reinstatement plantation, as it was prior to the construction of the TLEM for the MTRC’s use. To ensure the proposed mitigation recommended in the approved XRL EIA for loss of green areas affected by the XRL Project, is implemented.	· EIAO-TM; Annexes 8 & 16 · DEVB TCW No. 10/2013 – Tree Preservation (supersedes ETWB TC(W) No. 3/2006 ) · XRL EIA Vegetation Survey Report for Tai Shu Ha Road West · Tree Planting and Landscape Plan TLP-10: Works in Yuen Long District (Tai Shu Ha)		Reinstatement planting To be carried out at the site following the approved XRL EIA Vegetation Survey Report for Tai Shu Ha Road West, and TLP.	No adverse residual impacts are predicted
*Air Quality Impact (Operation & Decommissioning)*
Air Sensitive Receivers within 500 m of the Project Site boundary	No adverse impacts are predicted	· EIAO-TM Annex 4 & 12 · Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311) · Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation	No exceedances anticipated.	n/a	No adverse residual impacts are predicted
*Noise Impact (Operation & Decommissioning)*
Noise Sensitive Receivers within 300 m of the Project Site boundary	No adverse impacts are predicted	· EIAO-TM; Annexes 5 & 13 · Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) · Technical Memorandum on Noise From Places Other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM) · Technical Memorandum on Noise from Percussive Piling (PP-TM); · Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling (GW-TM); and · Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM). · Recommended Clauses for Construction Contracts – Section 3 - Noise Control	No exceedances anticipated.	For good practice, adopt general noise control measures, as listed in Recommended Clauses for Construction Contracts – Section 3 - Noise Control	No adverse residual impacts are predicted
*Waste Management (Operation Waste & Decommissioning)*
Project Site	No adverse impacts are predicted	· EIAO-TM Annexes 7 & 15 · Waste Disposal Ordinance (WDO) (Cap 354); · Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation (Cap 354N) · Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap 354C); · Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 28) · Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap 132) - Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation. · Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes (1992), EPD, Hong Kong Government	No exceedances anticipated.	For good measure, during regular site inspections, ensure refuse is appropriately treated and that general refuse is removed from the Project Site regularly (e.g. once per day). For decommissioning, during regular site inspections, ensure all waste is properly segregated and different waste (e.g. general waste, chemical waste and C&D materials (both inert and non-inert materials) are handled and disposed of appropriately.	No adverse residual impacts are predicted
*Other (Operation & Decommissioning)*
Water sensitive Receivers within 500 m of the Project Site	No adverse impacts are predicted during operation. During decommissioning, appropriate measures should be implemented to properly control site run-off and drainage and minimise potential water quality impacts.	· EIAO-TM Annexes 6 & 14 · Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) · Technical Memorandum for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters (TM- ICW) · Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site Drainage (ProPECC PN1/94)	No exceedances anticipated.	n/a during operation. For good measure, during decommissioning, regular site inspections ensure appropriate measures are being implemented in accordance with stipulated guidelines. Exposed soil should be covered with geotextile before the re-vegetation / plantation to minimize soil erosion.	No adverse residual impacts are predicted
Landscape resources, landscape character areas and Visual Sensitive Receivers within 500 m of the Project Site	No adverse impacts are predicted	· EIAO-TM Annexes 10 & 18 · DEVB TCW No. 10/2013 – Tree Preservation (supersedes ETWB TC(W) No. 3/2006 )	No exceedances anticipated.	n/a	No adverse residual impacts are predicted
*Hazard to Life (Operation- Storage)*
Risk due to storage of explosives in the Tai Lam Explosives Magazine.	The Individual Risk level is below 1 × 10^-5 per year considering low presence factor; and Societal Risk level is in the acceptable region.	Annex 4 of EIAO-TM	N/A	Mitigation measures are not necessary due to the fact that the societal risk level is in the acceptable region. Although mitigation measures are not required due to the fact that the societal risk level is in the acceptable region, general measures are recommended in keeping with best practice as presented in Section 9 of Annex 8A and summarised in the Project Implementation Schedule in Annex 9A.	Adverse residue impact is not predicted.
*Hazard to Life (Operation - Transport)*
Risk due to transport of explosives from the Tai Lam Explosives Magazine to worksites.	The Individual Risk level is below 1 × 10^-5 per year; and Societal Risk level is in ALARP region.	Annex 4 of EIAO-TM	N/A	Individual risk levels are below the recommended level and societal risk level is in the ALARP region. The following measures are proposed after cost benefit analysis: · Follow the proposed Routes recommended in Chapter 8 of the EIA Report (both before and after completion of road improvement work at Pok Oi Interchange) · Implement improvement measures for safer explosive trucks (e.g. reduced fire load) · Reduce Accident Involvement Frequency (e.g. training programme etc.) · Reduce Fire Involvement Frequency (e.g. ensure appropriate emergency response system, extinguisher types, etc.) Details of above measures are presented in Section 9 of Annex 8A and general measures are also recommended for general best practice in the Project Implementation Schedule in Annex 9A.	The Individual Risk level is below 1 × 10^-5 per year; and Societal Risk level is in ALARP region

([1]) Construction activities in this instance refer to the decommissioning works

Worksite	Transport Distance (km)
Worksite	Route Option R1	Route Option R2	Route Option R3
Mid-Ventilation Adit	27.7	30.9	24.7
North Portal	27.6	30.8	24.6
South Portal	23.2	27.8	21.6

1 INTRODUCTION

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1.1 Alternative Site Locations

3 ECOLOGY

4 AIRBORNE OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACT

Fixed Plant Noise

Road Traffic Noise

4.4 Identification and Evaluation of Impact

4.4.1 Decommissioning Phase

4.4.2 Operational Phase

4.5 Conclusion

5 AIR QUALITY

5.4 Study Area and Identification of Air Sensitive Receivers

6 WASTE MANAGEMENT

6.2.2 Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation (Cap 354N)

6.2.4 Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 28)

6.3.1 Operation Phase

6.3.2 Decommissioning Phase

7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO)

Technical Memorandum for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters (TM- ICW)

Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499. S.16) and the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM), Annexes 6 and 14

8 HAZARD TO LIFE

8.2.3 Statutory / Licensing Requirements with Respect to Explosives

Category 1 Explosives and Blasting Agents

Category 7 Strong Supporters of Combustion

8.5.1 Base Case Programme for Hazard to Life Assessment

8.5.2 Worst Case Programme for Hazard to Life Assessment

8.7.2 Review of Incidents

8.7.4 Frequency Analysis

Frequency Analysis for Transport of Explosives

Frequency Analysis for Storage of Explosives

8.7.5 Consequence Analysis

8.8.3 ALARP Assessment

Approach to ALARP Assessment

Potential Justifiable Mitigation Measures

ALARP Assessment Results

9 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & AUDIT REQUIREMENTS

10 CONCLUSION

10.1.1 Environmental Considerations

10.1.2 Hazard to Life