Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499),

Section 5(7)

Environmental Impact Assessment Study Brief No. ESB-128/2005

Project Title : Proposed Development Phase IV at CRC Oil Terminal, Tsing Yi – Refrigerated Storage Tanks for Liquefied Gas

(hereinafter known as the "Project")

Name of Applicant : China Resources Petrochems (Group) Co Ltd

(hereinafter known as the "Applicant")

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 An application (No. ESB-128/2005) for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study brief under section 5(1) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) was submitted by the Applicant on 7 July 2005 with a Project Profile (No. PP-251/2005) (the Project Profile).

1.2 The Project will involve the construction and operation of two refrigerated LPG storage tanks of total capacity of 60,000m³ and upgrading the associated facilities for gas distribution, installation of loading facilities at existing jetty and the additional mixing and pre-heating plants located within boundary of the CRC Oil Terminal on south side of Tsing Yi Island. Liquefied gas carriers will deliver liquefied propane and butane to the receiving CRC Oil Terminal at Tsing Yi South where it is transferred and stored in refrigerated LPG storage tanks at the subject site. A plan showing the location of the site is in Fig 1 of Appendix A and the potential marine routes for the transportation of the liquefied gas are illustrated in Fig. 2 of Appendix A of this Study Brief.

1.3 The scope of the Project includes the followings:

i) Two refrigerated LPG storage tanks at the existing CRC site;

ii) Minor land based piping works;

iii) Installation and upgrading of ancillary facilities including heat exchange component, boil-off gas compressors and condensers, refrigerated gas loading pumps and unloading arm, vapour return blowers & return line, and smokeless, sightless ground thermal combustor; and

iv) All associated installations and pipeworks connecting the loading and unloading jetty, pumping, storage facilities, and LPG gas refilling stations.

1.4 The Project is classified as Designated Projects under section L.1 Part 1 of Schedule 2 “A storage, transfer and trans-shipment of liquefied petroleum gas with a storage capacity of not less than 200 tonnes” of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) (EIAO).

1.5 Pursuant to section 5(7)(a) of the EIAO, the Director of Environmental Protection (the Director) issues this EIA study brief to the Applicant to carry out an EIA study.

1.6 The purpose of this EIA study is to provide information on the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of the Project and related activities that take place concurrently. This information will contribute to decisions by the Director on:

(i) the overall acceptability of any adverse environmental consequences that is to arise as a result of the Project and the associated activities of the Project;

(ii) the conditions and requirements for the detailed design, construction and operation of the Project to mitigate against adverse environmental consequences; and

(iii) the acceptability of residual impacts after the proposed mitigation measures are implemented.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE EIA STUDY

2.1 The objectives of the EIA study are as follows:

(i) to review the existing risks associated with the operations of the proposed Project including the extent to which any incident on the proposed Project could affect any of the other potential hazardous installations at Tsing Yi South. If the risk levels has exceed the acceptable risk levels in Annex 4 of the EIAO TM, proposals of how to reduce the associated risks and mitigation measures shall be studied for the Project;

(ii) to describe the Project and associated works together with the requirements for carrying out the Project;

(iii) to provide information on the intended uses of the LPG and justify the proposed capacity of the facilities;

(iv) to identify the types of Designated Projects under Part I Schedule 2 of the EIAO to be covered in the Project;

(v) to identify and describe the elements of the community and environment likely to be affected by the Project, and/or to cause adverse impacts to the Project, including both the natural and man-made environment and the associated environmental constraints;

(vi) to provide information on the consideration of alternatives including, but not limited to, scale of development, design layout, with a view to avoiding and minimizing the potential environmental impacts; to compare the environmental benefits and dis-benefits of each of the different options; to provide reasons for selecting the preferred option(s) and to describe the part of environmental factors played in the selection;

(vii) to identify the risk to environmental sensitive receivers due to LPG leakage and the consequential fire hazard and to propose measures to minimize the potential risk;

(viii) to identify and quantify emission source and determine the significance of the impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

(ix) to identify and quantify the potential hazard to life impacts due to the transportation, handling, loading & unloading and storage of LPG and to propose measures to mitigate the impacts;

(x) to identify any potential landscape and visual impacts and to proposed measures to mitigate these impacts;

(xi) to compare the environmental merits and demerits of marine transport routes options;

(xii) to propose the provision of mitigation measures to minimize pollution, environmental disturbance and nuisance during construction and operation of the Project;

(xiii) to investigate the feasibility, practicability, effectiveness and implications of the proposed mitigation measures;

(xiv) to identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts (i.e. after practicable mitigation) and the cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operation phases of the Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

(xv) to identify, assess and specify methods, measures and standards, to be included in the detailed design, construction and operation of the Project which are necessary to mitigate these risks, environmental impacts and cumulative effects and reduce them to acceptable levels;

(xvi) to investigate the extent of the secondary environmental impacts that may arise from the proposed mitigation measures and to identify constraints associated with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIA study, as well as the provision of any necessary modification; and

(xvii) to design and specify the environmental monitoring and audit requirements to ensure the effective implementation of the recommended environmental protection and pollution control measures.

3. DETAILED REQUIREMENTS OF THE EIA STUDY

3.1 The Purpose

The purpose of this study brief is to scope the key issues of the EIA study and to specify the environmental issues that are required to be reviewed and assessed in the EIA report. The Applicant has to demonstrate in the EIA report that the criteria in the relevant sections of the Technical Memorandum on the Environmental Impact Assessment Process of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as “the TM”) are met.

3.2 The Scope

The scope of this EIA study shall cover the Project scope as proposed in the Project Profile and shall include the relevant works and facilities mentioned in above Sections 1.2 and 1.3. The Applicant shall review and consider the previous relevant planning studies, including earlier hazard assessments of the existing CRC plant at Tsing Yi, and identify issues, public opinion and study findings as being of relevance to the Project. The EIA study shall address the key issues described below, together with any other key issues identified during the course of the EIA study and the cumulative environmental impacts of the Project, through interaction or in combination with other existing, committed, planned and known potential developments in the vicinity of the Project:

i) The potential hazard to life on the general public due to the construction and operation of the proposed refrigerated LPG storage tanks and the associated activities; transfer and marine transportation of LPG, particularly the residents including Rambler Crest and Mayfair Garden and any potentially affected residents in Tsing Yi. The risks associated with construction and operation of the Project to the affected industries including Tien Chu Industrial Centre, Chemical Waste Treatment Facility, adjacent Potentially Hazard Installations (PHIs) namely the CRC Oil Depot and ExxonMobil East Terminal shall also be assessed. The risks associated with land based transportation by vehicles and marine based transportation by marine vessels during operation of the Project shall also be assessed. Furthermore, mitigation proposals of how to reduce the risks such as decommissioning of existing pressurised LPG storage tanks and re-arrangement of installations, piping, gas filling facilities shall be identified for implementation for the Project;

ii) The potential cumulative environmental impacts of the Project, through interaction, consequential or in combination with other existing, committed and planned developments in the vicinity of the Project, and those impacts resulted from leakage of LPG gas and/or any other harmful pollutants releasing to the surrounding site environment that may have a bearing on the environmental acceptability of the Project. Considerations shall be given to account for the impacts arising from likely concurrent projects and installations;

iii) The potential impacts of various types of wastes to be generated from the construction and operation of refrigerated LPG storage, in particular the demolition of the old 4-storey office building for the Project;

iv) The potential landscape and visual impacts caused by refrigerated LPG storage and associated facilities, including storage tanks, infrastructures, structures, LPG carriers and associated works, in particular the proposed colour and height of the LPG storage tanks to make sure no adverse visual impact and is compatible with nearby existing infrastructure during the construction and operation of the Project;

v) The potential air pollution impacts to sensitive receivers including Tien Chu Industrial Centre, Dow Chemical Works, other sensitive receivers and potentially affected population may identify during the EIA study for construction and operation of the Project.

3.3 Consideration of Location, Alternative Layout and Construction Methods for the Project

3.3.1 Need for the Project

The Applicant shall present in the EIA the information on the need for the Project and the Project’s implementation programme.

3.3.2 Consideration of different layouts and design options

The Applicant shall present in the EIA report the considerations of alternative layouts and internal layout and design (such as location of various infrastructures and facilities) of the facilities, including options to the type, size and above and below ground and different configurations of the storage tanks, with regard to avoiding or minimising the associated environmental impacts. In addition, the applicant shall consider adopting a design including the decommissioning of the existing pressurised LPG bullet type tanks on site in order to avoid the adverse environmental impacts to the surrounding environment of the preferred layout. Furthermore, the applicant shall consider reducing the risks due to the possibility of the increase in refilling frequency of LPG re-filling stations and the number of refilling gas stations during operation of the Project.

The Applicant shall present information on the requirement on the size of the facility in relation to ship delivery frequency, with regard to optimise the size of the facility.

3.3.3 Consideration of alternative construction methods and sequence of works

Having regard to the cumulative effects of the construction period and the severity of the construction impacts to the adjacent hazard installations and affected sensitive receivers, the EIA study shall explore alternative construction methods and sequences of works for the Project, with a view to avoiding adverse environmental impacts to the maximum practicable extent. A comparison of the environmental benefits and dis-benefits of applying different construction methods and sequence of works shall be made with a view to recommending the preferred option to avoid adverse on-site and off-site environmental impact to the maximum practicable extent

3.3.4 Selection of preferred scenario

Taking into consideration of the findings in above Section 3.3.2 to 3.3.3, the Applicant shall provide justifications and recommend the preferred layout, method and design of the facility that will avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects arising from the Project and shall adequately describe the part that environmental factors played in arriving at the final selection.

3.4 Technical Requirements for the Project

The Applicant shall conduct the EIA study to address the environmental aspects as described in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 above. The assessment shall be based on the best and latest information available during the course of the EIA study. The Applicant shall assess the cumulative environmental impacts from the Project with other interacting projects and or installations. The Applicant shall include in the EIA report details of the construction programme and methodologies.

3.4.1 Hazard To Life

3.4.1.1 The risk to life due to construction of the Project and the risk to life due to the LPG terminal operation, including jetty transfer, berthing navigation, LPG tank storage, mixing and pre-heating plants, filling of LPG cylinders and tankers vehicles, pipeline transfer of LPG, and its associated activities shall be assessed. The risk due to operation of the Project that include the risk associated with a number of accidental events and its interactive and/or consequential hazards to adjacent PHIs including CRC Oil Depot and Exxon-Mobil Terminal and any other affected industries arising from the operation of the Project. The risk due to the transportation of LPG by land transport of all types of tankers and marine vessels within the study boundary as defined in s.3.4.1.2 below. The Applicant shall follow the criteria for evaluating hazard to life as stated in Annexes 4 and 22 of the TM in conducting hazard assessment and include the followings in the assessment.

3.4.1.2 In particular to land based LPG transportation that include all types of LPG tankers and vehicles, the study area shall be within the Project site. For marine based LPG transportation, the study area shall generally be defined by a distance of 500 metres fronting the sea of the boundary of the Project site. The applicant shall also identify the need of extending the area to include major affected establishment and population that may have a bearing on the environmental acceptability of the Project. Such assessment shall be based on the best available information at the time of the assessment.

(i) identification of all credible hazardous scenarios, which may cause fatalities;

(ii) execution of a Quantitative Risk Assessment expressing population risks in both individual and societal term;

(iii) comparison of individual and societal risks with the Criteria for Evaluating Hazard to Life stipulated in Annex 4 of the TM;

(iv) identification and assessment of practicable and cost effective risk mitigation measures as appropriate;

(v) identification of all LPG leakage scenarios and propose a safety management system for the operational phase of the project with an aim to contain any accidental leakage in short notice and to prevent and/or minimize any leakage.

3.4.1.3 All the fundamental assumptions that might affect the conclusion of the quantitative risk assessment shall be listed out and clearly presented. The assumptions could be presented in a table form and should include all the planning assumptions, population figures, planned and committed developments, height of the fire plume, number of marine transits, type and size of tankers, vessel, and scenarios being considered.

3.4.1.4 The approach and methodology to be used in the hazard assessment shall take into account relevant previous studies (including any international practices and studies), and to be agreed with the Director.

3.4.2 Waste Management Implications

3.4.2.1 The Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing waste management implications as stated in Annexes 7 and 15 of the TM.

3.4.2.2 The assessment of waste management implications shall cover the following:

(i) Analysis of Activities and Waste Generation

The Applicant shall identify the quantity, quality and timing of the waste (including chemical waste) arising as a result of the construction activities in particular the demolition of the old 4-storey office building of the Project, based on the sequence and duration of these activities. The Applicant shall adopt the design, general layout, construction methods and programme that will minimize the generation of the C&D Material.

(ii) Proposal for Waste Management

(a) Prior to considering the disposal options for various types of wastes, opportunities for reducing waste generation, on-site or off-site re-use and recycling shall be fully evaluated. Measures that can be taken in the planning and design stages e.g. by modifying the design approach and in the construction stage for maximizing waste reduction shall be separately considered.

(b) After considering the opportunities for reducing waste generation and maximizing re-use, the types and quantities of the wastes required to be disposed of as a consequence shall be estimated and the disposal options for the wastes shall be described in detail. The disposal options recommended for each type of wastes shall take into account the result of the assessment in item (c) below. The EIA report shall also state clearly the transportation routings and the frequency of the trucks/ vessels involved, any barging point or conveyor system to be used, the stockpiling areas and the disposal outlets for the wastes identified; and

(c) The impact caused by handling (including stockpiling, labelling, packaging & storage), collection, transportation and disposal of wastes shall be addressed in detail and appropriate mitigation measures shall be proposed. This assessment shall cover the following areas :

- potential hazard;

- air and odour emissions;

- noise;

- wastewater discharge;

- public transport; and

- landscape and visual impacts, if any.

3.4.3 Landscape and Visual Impact

3.4.3.1 The Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing landscape and visual impacts as stated in Annexes 10 and 18 of the TM respectively. In particular, information regarding design, dimensions and colour of the proposed storage facilities shall be provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not have adverse landscape and visual impacts during operation phase of the Project.

3.4.3.2 The Applicant shall address the potential landscape and visual impacts, including but not limited to the following major areas of concern:

(i) the potential impacts on areas of high landscape value during the construction and operation of the Project,

(ii) the potential visual impacts and obstruction with the key views to the sensitive receivers.

3.4.3.3 The assessment area for the landscape impact assessment shall include all areas within a 500 metres distance from the boundary of the Project. The assessment area for the visual impact assessment shall be defined by the visual envelope of the Project.

3.4.3.4 The Applicant shall review relevant outline zoning plans, outline development plans, layout plans, planning briefs and studies, which may identify areas of high landscape value. Any guidelines on landscape strategies, landscape frameworks, designated view corridors, open space networks, landscape links and urban design concepts that may affect the appreciation of the Project shall also be reviewed. The aim is to gain an insight to the future outlook of the area so as to assess whether the project can fit into surrounding setting. Any conflict with published land use plans shall be highlighted and appropriate follow-up action shall be recommended.

3.4.3.5 The Applicant shall describe, appraise, analyse and evaluate the existing and future landscape resources and character of the assessment area. A system shall be derived for judging the impact significance as required under the TM. The sensitivity of the landscape framework and its ability to accommodate change shall be particularly focused on. The Applicant shall identify the degree of compatibility of the Project with the existing and planned landscape settings. The assessment shall quantify the potential landscape impacts as far as possible. Clear mapping of the landscape impact is required.

3.4.3.6 The Applicant shall assess the visual impacts of the Project. A system shall be derived for judging visual impact significance as required under the TM. Clear illustrations of visual impact assessment are required. The assessment shall include the following:

(i) identification and plotting of visibility envelope of the Project within the assessment area;

(ii) identification of the key groups of sensitive receivers within the visibility contours and their views at both ground level/sea level and elevated vantage points;

(iii) description of the visual compatibility of the Project with the surrounding, the existing and the planned setting, and its obstruction and interference with the key views of the adjacent areas.

(iv) description of the severity of visual impacts in terms of distance, nature and number of sensitive receivers. The visual impacts of the Project with and without mitigation measures shall also be included so as to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

3.4.3.7 The Applicant shall evaluate the merits of preservation in totality, in parts or total destruction of existing landscape and the establishment of a new landscape character area if it will be affected by the Project. Alternative layout, design and construction methods that would avoid or reduce the identified landscape and visual impacts shall be evaluated for comparison before adopting other mitigation or compensatory measures to alleviate the impacts. The Applicant shall recommend mitigation measures to minimize the adverse effects identified above, including provision of a landscape design. The mitigation measures proposed shall not only be concerned with damage reduction but shall also include consideration of potential enhancement of existing landscape and visual quality.

3.4.3.8 The mitigation measures shall include preservation of vegetation and natural coastline, provision of screen planting, amenity areas and open spaces, re-vegetation of disturbed land, compensatory planting, sensitive design of structures, colour scheme and texture of materials used and any measures to mitigate the impact on existing land uses. Parties shall be identified for the on going management and maintenance of the proposed mitigation works to ensure their effectiveness throughout the operation phase of the Project. A practical programme and funding proposal for the implementation of the recommended measures shall be provided.

3.4.3.9 Annotated illustration such as coloured perspective drawings, plans and section/elevation diagrams, oblique aerial photographs, photographs particularly taken at vantage points and computer-generated photomontage shall be adopted to fully illustrate the landscape and visual impacts of the Project to the satisfactory of Director.

3.4.3.10 All computer graphics shall be compatible with Microstation DGN file format. The Applicant shall record the technical details such as system set-up, software, data files and function in preparing the illustration that may need to be submitted for verification of the accuracy of the illustrations.

3.4.4 Air Quality Impact

3.4.4.1 The Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines as stated in Section 1 of Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the TM for evaluating and assessing the air quality impact due to the construction and operation of the Project, as stipulated in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 above.

3.4.4.2 The study area for air quality impact assessment shall generally be defined by a distance of 500 metres from the boundary of the project site, and it shall be extended to include major emission sources such as large industrial establishment that may have a bearing on the environmental acceptability of the Project. For this Project, the assessment shall include the existing and planned/ committed air sensitive receivers within the study area as well as areas where the air quality may be potentially affected by the Project. Such assessment shall be based on the best available information at the time of the assessment.

3.4.4.3 The air quality impact assessment shall include the following:

(i) Background and Analysis of Activities

(a) Provide background information relating to air quality issues relevant to the Project, e.g. description of the types of activities of the Project that may affect air quality during both construction and operation stages;

(b) Present background air quality levels in the assessment area for the purpose of evaluating cumulative constructional and operational air quality impacts;

(c) Consider alternative construction methods/phasing programmes and alternative modes of operation to minimize the constructional and operational air quality impact;

(ii) Identification of Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) and Examination of Emission/ Dispersion Characteristics

(a) Identify and describe representative existing and planned/committed ASRs that would be affected by the Project, including those indicated on the relevant Outline Zoning Plans, Development Permission Area Plans, Outline Development Plans and Layout Plans. The Applicant shall select the assessment points of the identified ASRs that represent the worst impact point of these ASRs. A map showing the location and description such as name of buildings, their uses and height of the selected assessment points shall be given. The separation distances of these ASRs from the nearest emission sources shall also be given. For phased development, the Applicant shall review the development programme against the different construction stages to assess whether the occupiers of the early phases could become ASRs to be affected by the construction works of later phases;

(b) Provide an exhaustive list of air pollutant emission sources, which are to have impact related to the Project based on the analysis of constructional and operational activities in Section 3.4.4.3(i) above. Besides, if the likely concurrent projects are identified relevant, its possible emissions shall also be taken into account in the air quality impact assessment. Examples of construction stage emission sources include thermal combustor, stockpiling, blasting, concrete batching, marine construction plant and vehicular movements on unpaved haul roads on site. Confirmation of validity of the assumptions and magnitude of the activities (e.g. volume of construction material handled) shall be obtained from the relevant government departments/authorities and documented.

(iii) Construction Phase Air Quality Impact

(a) The Applicant shall follow the requirements stipulated under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation in dust control to ensure that construction dust which may arise as a result of the works are controlled within the relevant standards as stipulated in Section 1 of Annex 4 of the TM. A monitoring and audit programme for the construction phase shall be devised to verify the effectiveness of the control measures;

(b) If the Applicant anticipates that the Project will give rise to significant construction dust impacts likely to exceed recommended limits in the TM at the ASRs despite the incorporation of the dust control measures proposed in accordance with item (a) above, a quantitative assessment should be carried out to evaluate the construction dust impact at the identified ASRs. The Applicant shall follow the methodology set out in Section 3.4.4.3(v) below when carrying out the quantitative assessment.

(iv) Operational Phase Air Quality Impact

The Applicant shall assess the expected air pollutant impacts, such as odour, gaseous emission and dust, at the identified ASRs based on an assumed reasonably worst-case scenario under normal operating conditions. The evaluation shall be based on the strength of the emission sources identified in Section 3.4.4.3(ii)(b) above. The Applicant shall follow Section 3.4.4.3(v) below when carrying out the quantitative assessment, should it is found necessary during the EIA study.

(v) Quantitative Assessment Methodology

(a) The Applicant shall apply the general principles enunciated in the modelling guidelines in Appendices B-1 to B-3 while making allowance for the specific characteristics of the Project. This specific methodology must be documented in such level of details (preferably with tables and diagrams) to allow the readers of the assessment report to grasp how the model is set up to simulate the situation at hand without referring to the model input files. Details of the calculation of the emission rates of air pollutants for input to the modelling shall be presented in the report. The Applicant must ensure consistency between the text description and the model files. In case of doubt, prior agreement between the Applicant and the Director on the specific modelling details should be sought;

(b) The Applicant shall identify the key/representative air pollutant parameters (types of pollutants and the averaging time concentration) to be evaluated and provide explanation for choosing these parameters for the assessment of the impact of the Project;

(c) The Applicant shall calculate the overall cumulative air quality impact at the identified ASRs identified under Section 3.4.4.3(ii) above and compare these results against the criteria set out in Section 1 of Annex 4 in the TM. The predicted air quality impacts (both unmitigated and mitigated) shall be presented in the form of summary table and pollution contours, to be evaluated against the relevant air quality standards and on any effect they may have on the land use implications. Plans of a suitable scale should be used to present pollution contour to allow buffer distance requirements to be determined properly.

(vi) Mitigation Measures for Non-compliance

The Applicant shall propose remedies and mitigating measures where the predicted air quality impact exceeds the criteria set in Section 1 of Annex 4 in the TM. If these measures will result in any constraints on future land use planning outside the project site, the Applicant shall liaise with the relevant government departments/authorities and document the agreement in the EIA report in order to demonstrate that the proposed measures are feasible and practicable. The Applicant shall demonstrate quantitatively that the residual impacts after incorporation of the proposed mitigating measures will comply with the criteria stipulated in Section 1 of Annex 4 in the TM.

(vii) Submission of Model Files

Input and output file(s) of the model run(s) shall be submitted to the Director in electronic format.

3.4.5 Summary of Environmental Outcomes

The EIA report shall contain a summary of the key environmental outcomes arising from the EIA study, including the population and environmentally sensitive areas protected, environmentally friendly designs recommended, key environmental problems avoided, compensation areas included and the environmental benefits of environmental protection measures recommended.

3.4.6 Summary of Environmental Performance Comparison

The EIA report shall contain a summary table comparing the Environmental Performance of the Project. The table shall compare the key design parameters, the key sensitive receivers and the environmental impacts.

3.4.7 Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements

3.4.7.1 The Applicant shall identify and justify in the EIA study whether there is any need for EM&A activities during construction and operation phases of the Project and, if affirmative, to define the scope of EM&A requirements for the Project.

3.4.7.2 Subject to confirmation of EIA findings, the Applicant shall comply with requirements as stipulated in Annex 21 of the TM. The Applicant shall also propose real-time reporting of monitoring data for the Project through a dedicated internet website.

3.4.7.3 The Applicant shall prepare a project implementation schedule (in the form of a checklist as shown in Appendix C to this EIA study brief) containing the EIA study recommendations and mitigation measures with reference to the implementation programme.

4. DURATION OF VALIDITY

4.1 This EIA study brief is valid for 36 months from the date of issue. If the EIA study does not commence within this period, the Applicant shall apply to the Director for a fresh EIA study brief before commencement of the EIA study.

5. REPORT REQUIREMENTS

5.1 In preparing the EIA report, the Applicant shall refer to Annex 11 of the TM for the contents of an EIA report. The Applicant shall also refer to Annex 20 of the TM, which stipulates the guidelines for the review of an EIA report.

5.2 The Applicant shall supply the Director with the following number of copies of the EIA report and the executive summary:

(i) 50 copies of the EIA report in English and 80 copies of the executive summary (each bilingual in both English and Chinese) as required under section 6(2) of the EIAO to be supplied at the time of application for approval of the EIA report.

(ii) when necessary, addendum to the EIA report and the executive summary submitted in 5.2 (i) above as required under section 7(1) of the EIAO, to be supplied upon advice by the Director for public inspection.

(iii) 20 copies of the EIA report in English and 50 copies of the executive summary (each bilingual in both English and Chinese) with or without Addendum as required under section 7(5) of the EIAO, to be supplied upon advice by the Director for consultation with the Advisory Council on the Environment.

5.3 The Applicant shall, upon request, make additional copies of above documents available to the public, subject to payment by the interested parties of full costs of printing.

5.4 In addition, to facilitate public inspection of the EIA report via the EIAO Internet Website, the Applicant shall provide electronic copies of both the EIA report and the executive summary prepared in HyperText Markup Language (HTML) (version 4.0 or later) and in Portable Document Format (PDF version 4.0 or later), unless otherwise agreed by the Director. For the HTML version, a content page capable of providing hyperlink to each section and sub-section of the EIA report and the executive summary shall be included in the beginning of the document. Hyperlinks to all figures, drawings and tables in the EIA report and executive summary shall be provided in the main text from where the respective references are made. All graphics in the report shall be in interlaced GIF format unless otherwise agreed by the Director.

5.5 The electronic copies of the EIA report and the executive summary shall be submitted to the Director at the time of application for approval of the EIA report.

5.6 When the EIA report and the executive summary are made available for public inspection under s.7(1) of the EIAO, the content of the electronic copies of the EIA report and the executive summary must be the same as the hard copies and the Director shall be provided with the most updated electronic copies.

5.7 To promote environmentally friendly and efficient dissemination of information, both hardcopies and electronic copies of future EM&A reports recommended by the EIA study shall be required and their format shall be agreed by the Director.

6. OTHER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

6.1 If there is any change in the name of Applicant for this EIA study brief during the course of the EIA study, the Applicant must notify the Director immediately.

6.2 If there is any key change in the scope of the Project mentioned in Section 1.2 and 1.3 of this EIA study brief and in Project Profile (No. PP- 251/2005), the Applicant must seek confirmation from the Director in writing on whether or not the scope of issues covered by this EIA study brief can still cover the key changes, and the additional issues, if any, that the EIA study must also address. If the changes to the Project fundamentally alter the key scope of the EIA study brief, the Applicant shall apply to the Director for a fresh EIA study brief.

--- END OF EIA STUDY BRIEF ---

August 2005

Environmental Assessment Division,

Environmental Protection Department

Appendix B-1

Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters

[The information contained in this Appendix is only meant to assist the Applicant in performing the air quality assessment. The Applicant must exercise professional judgment in applying this general information for the Project.]

1. Introduction

1.1 To expedite the review process by the Authority and to assist project proponents or environmental consultants with the conduct of air quality modelling exercise which are frequently called for as part of environmental impact assessment studies, this paper describes the usage and requirements of a few commonly used air quality models.

2. Choice of Models

2.1 The models which have been most commonly used in air quality impact assessments, due partly to their ease of use and partly to the quick turn-around time for results, are of Gaussian type and designed for use in simple terrain under uniform wind flow. There are circumstances when these models are not suitable for ambient concentration estimates and other types of models such as physical, numerical or mesoscale models will have to be used. In situations where topographic, terrain or obstruction effects are minimal between source and receptor, the following Gaussian models can be used to estimate the near-field impacts of a number of source types including dust, traffic and industrial emissions.

Model Applications

FDM for evaluating fugitive and open dust source impacts (point, line and area sources)

CALINE4 for evaluating mobile traffic emission impacts (line sources)

ISCST3 for evaluating industrial chimney releases as well as area and volumetric sources (point, area and volume sources); line sources can be approximated by a number of volume sources.

These frequently used models are also referred to as Schedule 1 models (see attached list).

2.2 Note that both FDM and CALINE4 have a height limit on elevated sources (20 m and 10m, respectively). Source of elevation above these limits will have to be modelled using the ISCST3 model or suitable alternative models. In using the latter, reference should be made to the 'Guidelines on the Use of Alternative Computer Models in Air Quality Assessment' in Appendix B-3.

2.3 The models can be used to estimate both short-term (hourly and daily average) and long-term (annual average) ambient concentrations of air pollutants. The model results, obtained using appropriate model parameters (refer to Section 3) and assumptions, allow direct comparison with the relevant air quality standards such as the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for the relevant pollutant and time averaging period.

3. Model Input Requirements

3.1 Meteorological Data

3.1.1 At least 1 year of recent meteorological data (including wind speed, wind direction, stability class, ambient temperature and mixing height) from a weather station either closest to or having similar characteristics as the study site should be used to determine the highest short-term (hourly, daily) and long-term (annual) impacts at identified air sensitive receivers in that period. The amount of valid data for the period should be no less than 90 percent.

3.1.2 Alternatively, the meteorological conditions as listed below can be used to examine the worst case short-term impacts:

Day time: stability class D; wind speed 1 m/s (at 10m height); worst-case wind angle; mixing height 500 m

Night time: stability class F; wind speed 1 m/s (at 10m height); worst case wind angle; mixing height 500 m

This is a common practice with using the CALINE4 model due to its inability to handle lengthy data set.

3.1.3 For situations where, for example, (i) the model (such as CALINE4) does not allow easy handling of one full year of meteorological data; or (ii) model run time is a concern, the followings can be adopted in order to determine the daily and annual average impacts:

(i) perform a frequency occurrence analysis of one year of meteorological data to determine the actual wind speed (to the nearest unit of m/s), wind direction (to the nearest 10^o) and stability (classes A to F) combinations and their frequency of occurrence;

(ii) determine the short term hourly impact under all of the identified wind speed, wind direction and stability combinations; and

(iii) apply the frequency data with the short term results to determine the long term (daily / annual) impacts.

Apart from the above, any alternative approach that will capture the worst possible impact values (both short term and long term) may also be considered.

3.1.4 Note that the anemometer height (relative to a datum same for the sources and receptors) at which wind speed measurements were taken at a selected station should be correctly entered in the model. These measuring positions can vary greatly from station to station and the vertical wind profile employed in the model can be grossly distorted from the real case if incorrect anemometer height is used. This will lead to unreliable concentration estimates.

3.1.5 An additional parameter, namely, the standard deviation of wind direction, σ_Θ, needs to be provided as input to the CALINE4 model. Typical values ofσ_Θ range from 12^o for rural areas to 24^o for highly urbanised areas under 'D' class stability. For semi-rural such as new development areas, 18^o is more appropriate under the same stability condition. The following reference can be consulted for typical ranges of standard deviation of wind direction under different stability categories and surface roughness conditions.

Ref.(1): Guideline On Air Quality Models (Revised), EPA-450/2-78-027R, United States Environmental Protection Agency, July 1986.

3.2 Emission Sources

All the identified sources relevant to a process plant or a study site should be entered in the model and the emission estimated based on emission factors compiled in the AP-42 (Ref. 2) or other suitable references. The relevant sections of AP-42 and any parameters or assumptions used in deriving the emission rates (in units g/s, g/s/m or g/s/m²) as required by the model should be clearly stated for verification. The physical dimensions, location, release height and any other emission characteristics such as efflux conditions and emission pattern of the sources input to the model should also correspond to site data.

If the emission of a source varies with wind speed, the wind speed-dependent factor should be entered.

Ref.(2): Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 5^th Edition, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1995.

3.3 Urban/Rural Classification

Emission sources may be located in a variety of settings. For modelling purposes these are classed as either rural or urban so as to reflect the enhanced mixing that occurs over urban areas due to the presence of buildings and urban heat effects. The selection of either rural or urban dispersion coefficients in a specific application should follow a land use classification procedure. If the land use types including industrial, commercial and residential uses account for 50% or more of an area within 3 km radius from the source, the site is classified as urban; otherwise, it is classed as rural.

3.4 Surface Roughness Height

This parameter is closely related to the land use characteristics of a study area and associated with the roughness element height. As a first approximation, the surface roughness can be estimated as 3 to 10 percent of the average height of physical structures. Typical values used for urban and new development areas are 370 cm and 100 cm, respectively.

3.5 Receptors

These include discrete receptors representing all the identified air sensitive receivers at their appropriate locations and elevations and any other discrete or grid receptors for supplementary information. A receptor grid, whether Cartesian or Polar, may be used to generate results for contour outputs.

3.6 Particle Size Classes

In evaluating the impacts of dust-emitting activities, suitable dust size categories relevant to the dust sources concerned with reasonable breakdown in TSP (< 30 μm) and RSP (< 10 μm) compositions should be used.

3.7 NO₂ to NO_x Ratio

The conversion of NO_x to NO₂ is a result of a series of complex photochemical reactions and has implications on the prediction of near field impacts of traffic emissions. Until further data are available, three approaches are currently acceptable in the determination of NO₂:

(a) Ambient Ratio Method (ARM) - assuming 20% of NO_x to be NO₂; or

(b) Discrete Parcel Method (DPM, available in the CALINE4 model); or

(c) Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) - assuming the tailpipe NO₂ emission to be 7.5% of NO_x and the background ozone concentration to be in the range of 57 to 68 μg/m³ depending on the land use type (see also the EPD reference paper 'Guidelines on Assessing the 'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts' in Appendix B-2).

3.8 Odour Impact

In assessing odour impacts, a much shorter time-averaging period of 5 seconds is required due to the shorter exposure period tolerable by human receptors. Conversion of model computed hourly average results to 5-second values is therefore necessary to enable comparison against recommended standard. The hourly concentration is first converted to 3-minute average value according to a power law relationship which is stability dependent (Ref. 3) and a result of the statistical nature of atmospheric turbulence. Another conversion factor (10 for unstable conditions and 5 for neutral to stable conditions) is then applied to convert the 3-minute average to 5-second average (Ref. 4). In summary, to convert the hourly results to 5-second averages, the following factors can be applied:

Stability Category 1-hour to 5-sec Conversion Factor

A & B 45

C 27

D 9

E & F 8

Under ‘D’ class stability, the 5-second concentration is approximately 10 times the hourly average result. Note, however, that the combined use of such conversion factors together with the ISCST results may not be suitable for assessing the extreme close-up impacts of odour sources.

Ref.(3): Richard A. Duffee, Martha A. O’Brien and Ned Ostojic, ‘Odor Modeling – Why and How’, Recent Developments and Current Practices in Odor Regulations, Controls and Technology, Air & Waste Management Association, 1991.

Ref.(4): A.W.C. Keddie, ‘Dispersion of Odours’, Odour Control – A Concise Guide, Warren Spring Laboratory, 1980.

3.9 Plume Rise Options

The ISCST3 model provides by default a list of the U.S. regulatory options for concentration calculations. These are all applicable to the Hong Kong situations except for the 'Final Plume Rise' option. As the distance between sources and receptors are generally fairly close, the non-regulatory option of 'Gradual Plume Rise' should be used instead to give more accurate estimate of near-field impacts due to plume emission. However, the 'Final Plume Rise' option may still be used for assessing the impacts of distant sources.

3.10 Portal Emissions

These include traffic emissions from tunnel portals and any other similar openings and are generally modelled as volume sources according to the PIARC 91 (or more up-to-date version) recommendations (Ref. 5, section III.2). For emissions arising from underpasses or any horizontal openings of the like, these are treated as area or point sources depending on the source physical dimensions. In all these situations, the ISCST3 model or more sophisticated models will have to be used instead of the CALINE4 model. In the case of portal emissions with significant horizontal exit velocity which cannot be handled by the ISCST3 model, the impacts may be estimated by the TOP model (Ref. 6) or any other suitable models subject to prior agreement with EPD. The EPD’s 'Guidelines on the Use of Alternative Computer Models in Air Quality Assessment' should also be referred to in Appendix B-3.

Ref.(5): XIXth World Road Congress Report, Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC), 1991.

Ref.(6): N. Ukegunchi, H. Okamoto and Y. Ide "Prediction of vehicular emission pollution around a tunnel mouth", Proceedings 4th International Clean Air Congress, pp. 205-207, Tokyo, 1977.

3.11 Background Concentrations

Background concentrations are required to account for far-field sources which cannot be estimated by the model. These values, to be used in conjunction with model results for assessing the total impacts, should be based on long term average of monitoring data at location representative of the study site. Please make reference to the paper 'Guidelines on Assessing the 'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts' in Appendix B-2 for further information.

3.12 Output

The highest short-term and long-term averages of pollutant concentrations at prescribed receptor locations are output by the model and to be compared against the relevant air quality standards specified for the relevant pollutant. Contours of pollutant concentration are also required for indicating the general impacts of emissions over a study area.

Copies of model files in electronic format should also be provided for EPD's reference.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule 1

Air Quality Models Generally Accepted by

Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department for

Regulatory Applications as at 1 July 1998*

Industrial Source Complex Dispersion Model - Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3) or the latest version developed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

California Line Source Dispersion Model Version 4 (CALINE4) or the latest version developed by Department of Transportation, State of California, U.S.A.

Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) or the latest version developed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* EPD is continually reviewing the latest development in air quality models and will update this Schedule accordingly.

Appendix B-2

Guidelines on Assessing the 'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts

1. Total Impacts - 3 Major Contributions

1.1 In evaluating the air quality impacts of a proposed project upon air sensitive receivers, contributions from three classes of emission sources depending on their distance from the site should be considered. These are:

Primary contributions: project induced

Secondary contributions: pollutant-emitting activities in the immediate neighbourhood

Other contributions: pollution not accounted for by the previous two

(Background contributions)

2. Nature of Emissions

2.1 Primary contributions

In most cases, the project-induced emissions are fairly well defined and quite often (but not necessarily) the major contributor to local air quality impacts. Examples include those due to traffic network, building or road construction projects.

2.2 Secondary contributions

Within the immediate neighbourhood of the project site, there are usually pollutant emitting activities contributing further to local air quality impacts. For most local scale projects, any emission sources in an area within 500m radius of the project site with notable impacts should be identified and included in an air quality assessment to cover the short-range contributions. In the exceptional cases where there is one or more significant sources nearby, the study area may have to be extended or alternative estimation approach employed to ensure these impacts are reasonably accounted for.

2.3 Background contributions

The above two types of emission contributions should account for, to a great extent, the air quality impacts upon local air sensitive receivers, which are often amenable to estimation by the 'Gaussian Dispersion' type of models. However, a background air quality level should be prescribed to indicate the baseline air quality in the region of the project site, which would account for any pollution not covered by the two preceding contributions. The emission sources contributing to the background air quality would be located further afield and not easy to identify. In addition, the transport mechanism by which pollutants are carried over long distances (ranging from 1km up to tens or hundreds of kms) is rather complex and cannot be adequately estimated by the 'Gaussian' type of models.

3. Background Air Quality - Estimation Approach

3.1 The approach

In view of the difficulties in estimating background air quality using the air quality models currently available, an alternative approach based on monitored data is suggested. The essence of this approach is to adopt the long-term (5-year) averages of the most recent monitored air quality data obtained by EPD. These background data would be reviewed yearly or biennially depending on the availability of the monitored data. The approach is a first attempt to provide a reasonable estimate of the background air quality level for use in conjunction with EIA air quality assessment to address the cumulative impacts upon a locality. This approach may be replaced or supplemented by superior modelling efforts such as that entailed in PATH (Pollutants in the Atmosphere and their Transport over Hong Kong), a comprehensive territory-wide air quality modelling system currently being developed for Hong Kong. Notwithstanding this, the present approach is based on measured data and their long term regional averages; the background values so derived should therefore be indicative of the present background air quality. In the absence of any other meaningful way to estimate a background air quality for the future, this present background estimate should also be applied to future projects as a first attempt at a comprehensive estimate until a better approach is formulated.

3.2 Categorisation

The monitored air quality data, by 'district-averaging' are further divided into three categories, viz, Urban, Industrial and Rural/New Development. The background pollutant concentrations to be adopted for a project site would depend on the geographical constituency to which the site belongs. The categorisation of these constituencies is given in Section 3.4. The monitoring stations suggested for the 'district-averaging'(arithmetic means) to derive averages for the three background air quality categories are listed as follows:

Urban: Kwun Tong, Sham Shui Po, Tsim Sha Tsui and Central/Western

Industrial: Kwun Tong, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Chung

Rural/New Development: Sha Tin, Tai Po, Junk Bay, Hong Kong South and Yuen Long

The averaging would make use of data from the above stations wherever available. The majority of the monitoring stations are located some 20m above ground.

3.3 Background pollutant values

Based on the above approach, background values for the 3 categories have been obtained for a few major air pollutants as follows:

POLLUTANT	URBAN	INDUSTRIAL	RURAL / NEW DEVELOPMENT
NO₂	59	57	39
SO₂	21	26	13
O₃	62	68	57
TSP	98	96	87
RSP	60	58	51

All units are in micrograms per cubic metre. The above values are derived from 1992 to 1996 annual averages with the exception of ozone which represent annual average of daily hourly maximum values for year 1996.

In cases where suitable air quality monitoring data representative of the study site such as those obtained from a nearby monitoring station or on-site sampling are not available for the prescription of background air pollution levels, the above tabulated values can be adopted instead. Strictly speaking, the suggested values are only appropriate for long term assessment. However, as an interim measure and until a better approach is formulated, the same values can also be used for short term assessment. This implies that the short term background values will be somewhat under-estimated, which compensates for the fact that some of the monitoring data are inherently influenced by secondary sources because of the monitoring station location.

Indeed, if good quality on-site sampling data which cover at least one year period are available, these can be used to derive both the long term (annual) and short term (daily / hourly) background values, the latter are usually applied on an hour to hour, day to day basis.

3.4 Site categories

The categories to which the 19 geographical constituencies belong are listed as follows:

DISTRICT	AIR QUALITY CATEGORY
Islands	Rural / New Development
Southern	Rural / New Development
Eastern	Urban
Wan Chai	Urban
Central & Western	Urban
Sai Kung	Rural / New Development
Kwun Tong	Industrial
Wong Tai Sin	Urban
Kowloon City	Urban
Yau Tsim	Urban
Mong Kok	Urban
Sham Shui Po	Urban
Kwai Tsing	Industrial
Sha Tin	Rural / New Development
Tsuen Wan	Industrial
Tuen Mun	Rural / New Development
Tai Po	Rural / New Development
Yuen Long	Rural / New Development
Northern	Rural / New Development

3.5 Provisions for 'double-counting’

The current approach is, by no means, a rigorous treatment of background air quality but aims to provide an as-realistic-as-possible approximation based on limited field data. 'Double-counting' of 'secondary contributions' may be apparent through the use of such 'monitoring-based' background data as some of the monitoring stations are of close proximity to existing emission sources. 'Primary contributions' due to a proposed project (which is yet to be realized) will not be double-counted by such an approach. In order to avoid over-estimation of background pollutant concentrations, an adjustment to the values given in Section 3.3 is possible and optional by multiplying the following factor:

(1.0 - E_{Secondary contributions}/E_Territory)

where E stands for emission.

The significance of this factor is to eliminate the fractional contribution to background pollutant level of emissions due to 'secondary contributions' out of those from the entire territory. In most cases, this fractional contribution to background pollutant levels by the secondary contributions is minimal.

4. Conclusions

4.1 The above described approach to estimating the total air quality impacts of a proposed project, in particular the background pollutant concentrations for air quality assessment, should be adopted with immediate effect. Use of short term monitoring data to prescribe the background concentrations is no longer acceptable.

Appendix B-3

Guidelines on the Use of Alternative Computer Models

in Air Quality Assessment

1. Background

1.1 In Hong Kong, a number of Gaussian plume models are commonly employed in regulatory applications such as application for specified process licences and environmental impact assessments (EIAs). These frequently used models (as listed in Schedule 1 attached; hereafter referred to as Schedule 1 models) have no regulatory status but form the basic set of tools for local-scale air quality assessment in Hong Kong.

1.2 However, no single model is sufficient to cover all situations encountered in regulatory applications. In order to ensure that the best model available is used for each regulatory application and that a model is not arbitrarily applied, the project proponent (and/or its environmental consultants) should assess the capabilities of various models available and adopt one that is most suitable for the project concerned.

1.3 Examples of situations where the use of an alternative model is warranted include:

(i) the complexity of the situation to be modelled far exceeds the capability of the Schedule 1 models; and

(ii) the performance of an alternative model is comparable or better than the Schedule 1 models.

1.4 This paper outlines the demonstration / submission required in order to support the use of an alternative air quality model for regulatory applications for Hong Kong.

2. Required Demonstration / Submission

2.1 Any model that is proposed for air quality applications and not listed amongst the Schedule 1 models will be considered by EPD on a case-by-case basis. In such cases, the proponent will have to provide the followings for EPD's review:

(i) Technical details of the proposed model; and

(ii) Performance evaluation of the proposed model

Based on the above information, EPD will determine the acceptability of the proposed model for a specific or general applications. The onus of providing adequate supporting materials rests entirely with the proponent.

2.2 To provide technical details of the proposed model, the proponent should submit documents containing at least the following information:

(i) mathematical formulation and data requirements of the model;

(ii) any previous performance evaluation of the model; and

(iii) a complete set of model input and output file(s) in commonly used electronic format.

2.2.1 On performance evaluation, the required approach and extent of demonstration varies depending on whether a Schedule 1 model is already available and suitable in simulating the situation under consideration. In cases where no Schedule 1 model is found applicable, the proponent must demonstrate that the proposed model passes the screening test as set out in USEPA Document "Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model" (Ref. 1).

Ref.(1): William M. Cox, ‘Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model’; Publication No. EPA-454/R-92-025; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

2.2.2 For cases where a Schedule 1 model is applicable to the project under consideration but an alternative model is proposed for use instead, the proponent must demonstrate either that

(i) the highest and second highest concentrations predicted by the proposed model are within 2 percent of the estimates obtained from an applicable Schedule 1 model (with appropriate options chosen) for all receptors for the project under consideration; or

(ii) the proposed model has superior performance against an applicable Schedule 1 model based on the evaluation procedure set out in USEPA Document "Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model" (Ref. 1).

2.2.3 Should EPD find the information on technical details alone sufficient to indicate the acceptability of the proposed model, information on further performance evaluation as specified in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 above would not be necessary.

2.2.4 If the proposed model is an older version of one of the Schedule 1 models or was previously included in Schedule 1, the technical documents mentioned in Section 2.2 are normally not required. However, a performance demonstration of equivalence as stated in Section 2.4 (i) would become necessary.

2.2.5 If EPD is already in possession of some of the documents that describe the technical details of the proposed model, submission of the same by the proponent is not necessary. The proponent may check with EPD to avoid sending in duplicate information.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule 1

Air Quality Models Generally Accepted by