Appendix

Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499)

Section 5 (7)

Environmental Impact Assessment Study Brief No. ESB-098/2002

Project Title : South East Kowloon Development – Kai Tak

Approach Channel Reclamation

Name of Applicant : Kowloon Development Office,

Territory Development Department

(hereinafter known as the “Applicant”)

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 An application (No. ESB-098/2002) 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 14 March 2002 with a Project Profile (No. PP-162/2002).

1.2 The Schedule 2 Designated Projects as defined in the EIAO covered under this study brief includes the works as described in Section 1.4(3) of the Project Profile (PP) for the formation of approximately 28 ha of land (at the Kai Tak Approach Channel (KTAC)), which constitutes a Designated Projects by virtue of Item C.1 of Schedule 2 of the EIAO for reclamation works of more than 5 ha in size and the associated dredging works. The works described in section 1.4(1) of the PP to clean up the contaminated sediment in the KTAC and to elimination odours resulting from the anaerobic decomposition of the organics in the sediment are integral parts of the reclamation and dredging works in the context of this EIA study brief. These works are hereinafter referred as the “Project”. The location of the Project is shown in Figure 1.

1.3 For the avoidance of doubt, the performance of the pilot tests for sediment treatment as detailed in section 1.4(2) of the PP, the extension and widening of Kai Tak Nullah and laying of the Jordan Valley box culvert as detailed in section 1.4(4) of the PP, the construction of advance portions of the planned road tunnels underneath the extended box culverts (part of Roads D4 and D5) as detailed in section 1.4(5) of the PP and demolition works for the former airport taxiway bridge across KTAC as detailed in section 1.4(6) of the PP are not considered Designated Projects, and are not covered within the scope of this EIA study brief.

1.4 The SEKDCFS is a Designated Project under Item 1 in Schedule 3 of the EIAO for “Major Designated Projects Requiring EIA Reports”. On 11 June 2001, the Applicant submitted the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report for the SEKDCFS [EIA Report (Volume 1 & 2) – July 2001; EIA Executive Summary – July 2001 and Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual – July 2001] (SEKDCFS-EIA) to the Director for approval under the EIAO. Under the EIAO, the SEKDCFS-EIA was exhibited for public inspection from 31 July 2001 to 29 August 2001 during which no public comments were received. The findings of the SEKDCFS-EIA were presented to the Advisory Council of the Environment (ACE) and the report was endorsed by the ACE on 17 September 2001 as a Schedule 3 EIA without conditions. On 25 September 2001, the SEKDCFS-EIA was approved as a Schedule 3 EIA by the Director under the EIAO (EIAO Register Ref: AEIAR-044/2001).

1.5 Based on a preliminary design concept, the SEKDCFS-EIA established the broad environmental feasibility of the various development packages under SEKD and their cumulative impacts on the existing, committed and planned land-uses in the redevelopment as well as new development areas within SEKD. A number of Schedule 2 Designated Projects are covered under the SEKDCFS-EIA, including the Designated Projects described in section 1.2 above. It is recommended in the SEKDCFS-EIA that during the detailed design stage and prior to the application of the Environmental Permit for the construction and operation of the Schedule 2 Designated Projects, detailed EIAs be undertaken. These EIAs shall make reference to the SEKDCFS-EIA for those assessed impacts, and shall complete any further studies on outstanding environmental issues or on new environmental issues that may emerge during the design stage of the project. In general, the scope for these works is expected to be consistent with that of the SEKDCFS-EIA and that in the Outline Master Development Plan for the SEKDCFS.

1.6 Pursuant to section 5(7)(a) of the EIAO, the Director issues this EIA study brief to the Applicant to carry out an EIA study for the Project as detailed in section 1.2 above.

1.7 In setting out the scope of the issues to be addressed in this EIA study, the Director has considered the findings and recommendations of the SEKDCFS-EIA, and that the work scope detailed in section 1.2 above is generally consistent with that covered under the SEKDCFS-EIA. The purpose of this study brief is to scope the key issues of this EIA study and to specify the environmental issues that are required to be reviewed, updated and assessed, as appropriate, in the EIA report in the light of the availability of additional information during the design and construction stage of the project.

1.8 The purpose of this EIA report is to provide information on the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of the project and related activities taking place concurrently, with reference to the relevant findings and recommendations of the SEKDCFS-EIA. This information will contribute to decisions by the Director on:-

(i) the overall acceptability of any adverse environmental consequences that are likely to arise as a result of the Project;

(ii) the conditions and requirements for the detailed design, construction and operation of the Project to mitigate against adverse environmental consequences wherever practicable; 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 describe the proposed project and associated works together with the requirements for carrying out the proposed project;

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

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

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

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

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

(vii) to identify, assess and specify methods, measures and standards, to be included in the detailed design and construction of the project which are necessary to mitigate these environmental impacts and reducing them to acceptable levels;

(viii) to investigate the extent of 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

(ix) to design and specify the environmental monitoring and audit requirements, if required, to ensure the implementation and the effectiveness of the environmental protection and pollution control measures adopted; and

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. 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 EIAO (hereinafter referred to as “the TM”) are fully complied with.

3.2 The Scope

The scope of this EIA study shall cover the Project as detailed in sections 1.2 above. The EIA study shall address the likely key issues described below, together with any other key issues identified during the course of the EIA study:-

(i) identify, with suitable justifications and rationale behind the selection, as based on the results of sediment investigation, assessment and pilot tests, a preferred sediment remediation strategy and reclamation method for KTAC with reference to, but not limited to no dredged reclamation with in situ treatment, dredge reclamation with ex situ treatment, and minimum dredge reclamation with a combination of in situ and/or ex situ treatments;

(ii) the potential odour impact arising from the reclamation works at the KTAC, including any impact that may arise from associated dredging and sediment treatment works;

(iii) the potential risks associated with biogas, the handling of contaminated sediment during construction as affecting construction site workers; and risk of biogas and residual contaminants as affecting future occupants of the formed land over the KTAC;

(iv) the potential water quality impacts during reclamation, due to in situ and ex situ treatments of contaminated sediments, dredging, reclamation runoff and effluent discharge;

(v) if ex situ treatment method for the contaminated KTAC sediment is recommended, the environmental nuisances such as dust, odour, noise and water that would be associated with the treatment method and the feasibility of reusing the treated sediment, including any potential for associated land contamination impact;

(vi) the potential impacts associated with waste generation during construction both in quantity and quality;

(vii) the details of the construction programme, the construction methodologies and an assessment of the extent to which the technology(ies) to be employed for treatment of the contaminated sediment is(are) proven technology(ies); and

Cumulative impact

(viii) the cumulative construction impacts from the Project and other potentially concurrent activities within the vicinity at SEKD, including but not limiting to the “Construction and demolition materials recycling facility at Kai Tak” by CED, “Temporary public filling barging point at Kai Tak” by CED, “Kai Tak North Apron Early Development Package by TDD, works relating to temporary reprovision of existing facility along runway (e.g., DG Ferry Pier and public cargo working area), extension and widening of the Kai Tak Nullah, laying of the Jordan Valley box culvert, and other drainage outfalls into KTAC as detailed in section 1.4(4) of the PP, the construction of advance portions of the road tunnels underneath the extended box culvert (part of Roads D4 and D5) as detailed in section 1.4(5) of the PP, and demolition of the former taxiway bridge across KTAC as detailed in section 1.4(6) of the PP.

3.3 Consideration of Alternative Technologies for Treatment of Contaminated Sediment and Alternative Dredging Methods

3.3.1 The EIA shall present the rationale behind selecting certain sediment treatment and reclamation methods and any alternative methods that have been considered in the light of any additional information available during the design stage. A review of available technologies for the treatment of contaminated sediment and how these technologies compare for factors including but not limited to their effectiveness, implementability and environmental advantages for the KTAC reclamation works.

3.3.2 The EIA shall present the rationale behind selecting certain dredging methods and any alternative methods that have been considered in the light of any additional information available during the design stage, and how the preferred methods serve to minimize adverse environmental effects.

3.4 Technical Requirements

The Applicant shall conduct the EIA study to address all environmental aspects of the activities as described in the scope as set out above. The EIA study shall include the following technical requirements on specific impacts.

3.4.1 Construction Methodologies and Programme

3.4.1.1 The Applicant shall include in the EIA report details of the construction programme and methodologies.

3.4.2 Sediment Contamination Impact

3.4.2.1 The Applicant shall make reference to the SEKDCFS-EIA, extract and present all relevant information from the SEKDCFS-EIA on the Project to address the sediment contamination impacts as detailed in sections 1.2 above. A review shall be carried out to identify for any information gap and to carry out further investigations as necessary. Any new and additional information arising from the construction and operation of the Project shall also be presented.

3.4.2.2 The EIA report shall cover the followings:-

(i) an overview of the sediment quality of the KTAC based on findings of previous investigations made under the SEKDCFS-EIA and any additional investigations found necessary as a result of the review required under section 3.4.2.1 above. This shall include a historic review of polluting land uses upstream of the KTAC and their associated pollutants, site and sediment characterization, investigation methodology, investigative results with presentation of all relevant field and laboratory investigation results, including the results of the bench-scale and pilot-scale sediment treatability tests recommended in the SEKDCFS-EIA;

(ii) a detailed review of currently available sediment treatment methods and dredging methods (including but not limited to descriptions of the technologies and a comparison of their effectiveness and implementability, environmental advantages and disadvantages.);

(iii) an assessment of the results from section 3.4.2.2(i) and (ii) above and, based on these results, review the applicability of the recommendations on the sediment treatment and reclamation options for the KTAC in the SEKDCFS-EIA;

(iv) A presentation of the findings of bench scale tests and pilot tests for sediment treatment as recommended in the SEKDCFS-EIA and review of currently available reclamation and sediment treatment methods as mentioned in section 3.4.2.2(i) and (ii) above; the tests shall be conducted with a view to determining the followings:-

(a) treatability of the contaminated sediment by in-situ methods;

(b) treatability of the contaminated sediment by ex-situ methods;

(c) the risk of any harmful bi-products that may be created in the sediment remediation process, such as hexavalent chromium;

(d) characteristics and quantity of wastewater generated during ex situ treatment, if recommended;

(e) release of chemicals and mobilization of contaminants to the water column for in situ treatment, if recommended;

(f) the potential for biogas production; and

(g) engineering design requirements for application of in-situ treatment method including but not limited to well size, spacing and construction and water quality monitoring requirements.

(v) an assessment of the potential risk associated with biogas and any risk from residual contaminants on future occupants of the formed land at KTAC; and risk to workers associated with biogas and handling of contaminated sediment during the construction stage;

(vi) based on the results of sediment investigation, assessment and pilot tests as detailed in sections 3.4.2.2(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) above, identify a preferred sediment remediation strategy and reclamation method for KTAC with reference to, but not limited to, the following three options considered in the SEKDCFS-EIA:-

Ÿ no-dredge reclamation with in situ treatment;

Ÿ dredge reclamation with ex situ treatment; and

Ÿ minimum dredged reclamation with in situ and/or ex situ treatment.

The reclamation and sediment remediation strategy shall be selected with a view to minimize dredging requirements, with due consideration to the acceptability of the final land use following sediment treatment and reclamation of the KTAC area and adjacent lands. The feasibility of the preferred reclamation and sediment remediation strategy for application on a full-scale level for KTAC shall be clearly demonstrated; and

(vii) detailed engineering design of the reclamation and sediment remediation methodologies shall be presented, together with a reasonable estimate of the volume of contaminated sediment.

(viii) If in-situ treatment is to be adopted (leaving sediment in place), the monitoring of biogas emission at KTAC reclamation should be included. The EIA shall also include the followings:-

(a) a proposal on collection and analysis of representative samples for the agreement of the Director; and

(b) a proposal, with justifications, on monitoring, mitigation and protection measures on proposed developments, if found necessary.

3.4.3 Water Quality Impact

3.4.3.1 The Applicant shall make reference to the SEKDCFS-EIA, extract and present all relevant information from the SEKDCFS-EIA on the Project as detailed in sections 1.2 above, and incorporate any new and additional information to address the water quality impacts arising from the construction and operation of the Project. The Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing water pollution as stated in Annexes 6 and 14 of the TM, respectively.

3.4.3.2 The EIA report shall cover the following:-

(i) the water quality impacts arising from the reclamation works at the KTAC during the construction stage, including any associated dredging and sediment treatment works based on the preferred reclamation method and sediment remediation strategy recommended in accordance with section 3.4.2.2(vi) above. The treatment and disposal requirement for the wastewater generated due to ex situ sediment treatment shall be assessed. If the quantity of the wastewater generated is outside the flow band as stipulated in the Technical Memorandum – Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Water under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO-TM), or there are substances in the wastewater that are not covered in the WPCO-TM, the impacts due to the wastewater disposal shall be quantitatively assessed. The methodology of assessment shall be agreed with the Director;

(ii) the cumulative water quality impacts due to the construction of the Project and other concurrent projects within SEKD as detailed in sections 3.2 (viii) above;

(iii) recommendation of a water quality monitoring programme based on section 3.4.3.2(i) & (ii) above. Particular attention shall be given to the design of the monitoring programme to detect whether the applied chemicals / by-products / pollutants attached to the sediment will be released / mobilised to the water column.

3.4.3.3 The study area shall include all areas within and 300m beyond the boundary of the Project, plus the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone (WCZ), the Eastern Buffer WCZ and the Western Buffer WCZ as declared under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance.

3.4.3.4 The Applicant shall review and update the construction water quality impacts assessment of the SEKDCFS-EIA on the reclamation works at the KTAC as detailed in sections 3.4.3.2(i) above, taking on board additional information on the preferred reclamation method and sediment remediation strategy recommended in accordance with section 3.4.2.2(vi) above. For this purpose, the Applicant shall carry out the assessment making reference to similar methodologies adopted in the SEKDCFS-EIA. Additional information on the water and sediment quality of the KTAC collected from recent investigation, including data from the bench-scale and pilot-scale tests for sediment remediation assessment as recommended in the SEKDCFS-EIA shall be incorporated in the assessment.

3.4.4 Air Quality Impact

3.4.4.1 The Applicant shall make reference to the SEKDCFS-EIA, extract and present all relevant information from the SEKDCFS-EIA on the Project as detailed in sections 1.2 above, and incorporate any new and additional information to address the air quality impacts arising from the construction of the Project. The Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing air pollution as stated in section 1 of Annexes 4 and 12 of the TM, respectively.

3.4.4.2 The EIA report shall cover the followings:-

(i) the dust and odour impact arising from the reclamation works at the KTAC, including any associated dredging and sediment treatment works. If ex situ treatment method for the contaminated KTAC sediment is recommended, the associated emissions including dust and odour;

(ii) the cumulative impacts due to the construction of the Project, including the cumulative construction dust impacts from the Project and other concurrent projects within SEKD as detailed in sections 3.2 (viii) above.

3.4.4.3 The study area for air quality impact assessment shall generally be defined by a distance of 500 metres from the boundary of the Project and any work sites proposed under the Project, but shall be extended to include any major emission sources that may have a bearing on the environmental acceptability of the Project. The Applicant shall review and update the information as included in the SEKDCFS-EIA with regards to the existing and planned / committed air sensitive receivers (ASRs) within the study area at the time of the Project works, including those earmarked on the relevant Outline Zoning Plans, Outline Development Plans and Layout Plans. In identifying planned ASRs, reference shall also be made to the Outline Master Development Plan for the SEKDCFS and development proposals approved by Town Planning Board. The Applicant shall select the assessment points of the identified ASRs that represent the worst point of these ASRs. A map showing the location and description such as the name of building, use 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.

3.4.4.4 The Applicant shall assess the odour impact from the reclamation works at the KTAC (including any associated dredging and sediment treatment works) in accordance with section 3.4.4.6 below.

3.4.4.5 The EIA report shall cover the construction dust impacts arising from all construction works associated with the Project and any concurrent works within the study area and in accordance with section 3.4.4.6 below.

3.4.4.6 The air quality impact assessment shall include the following:-

Background and analysis of activities

(i) Provide background information relating to air quality issues relevant to the project, e.g. description of the types of activities during construction stage of the project such as reclamation that will likely give rise to dust emissions.

(ii) Give an account, where appropriate, of the consideration/measures that had been taken into consideration in the planning of the project to abate the air pollution impact. That is, the Applicant shall consider alternative construction methods/phasing programmes to minimise the constructional air quality impact. Examples include use of marine access routes for transportation of construction materials to avoid dust impact on ASRs due to haul road transport during construction.

(iii) Present the background air quality levels in the assessment area for the purpose of evaluating the cumulative constructional air quality impacts.

Identification of ASRs and examination of emission/dispersion characteristics

(iv) Identify and describe representative existing and planned/committed air sensitive receivers (ASRs) that would likely be affected by the project as indicated in section 3.4.4.3 above.

(v) Provide an exhaustive list of air pollutant emission sources, including any nearby emission sources which are likely to have impact on the project based on the analysis of the construction activities of the project in (i) above. Example of construction stage emission sources include stock piling, blasting, concrete batching, vehicular movements on unpaved haul roads on site and odour associated with dredging and sediment treatment works, etc. Confirmation of the validity of the assumptions and the magnitude of the activities shall be obtained from the relevant government department/authorities and documented.

Constructional air quality impact

(vi) The Applicant shall follow the requirements of the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation in dust control to ensure construction dust impacts are controlled within the relevant standards as stipulated in section 1 of Annex 4 of the TM. The Applicant shall also initiate an audit and monitoring program during constructional stage to verify the effectiveness of the control measures and to ensure that the construction dust levels be brought under proper control when such program is identified to be necessary.

(vii) If the Applicant anticipates a significant construction dust impact that will likely cause exceedance of the recommended limits in the TM at the ASRs apart from the incorporation of the dust control measures stated in (vi) above, a quantitative assessment should be carried out to evaluate the construction dust impact at the identified ASRs based on the emission strength of the emission sources identified in (v) above. The Applicant shall follow (ix) to (xii) below when carrying out the quantitative assessment.

(viii) The Applicant shall follow (ix) to (xii) below to assess the impact (including odour) arising from the reclamation works at the KTAC, including any associated dredging and sediment treatment works.

Quantitative Assessment Methodology

(ix) The Applicant shall apply the general principles enunciated in the modelling guidelines (Guidelines for Local-Scale Air Quality Assessment Using Models issued by the Modelling Section, Air Policy Group, Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR dated March, 2000) in Appendices A-1, A-2 and A-3 attached, while making allowance for the specific characteristic of each 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 and a map showing all the road links for input to the modelling shall be presented in the report. The Applicant must ensure consistency between the text description and the model files at every stage of submission. In case of doubt, prior agreement between the Applicant and the Director on the specific modelling details is advised.

(x) The Applicant shall, based on the nature of the activities analysed in (v) above, 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.

(xi) The Applicant shall calculate the expected cumulative air pollutant concentrations at the identified ASRs 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, for comparison with relevant air quality standards and examination of the land use implications of these impacts. Plans of suitable scale shall be used for presentation of pollution contour to allow proper determination of buffer distances requirements.

Submission of model files

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

3.4.5 Noise Assessment

3.4.5.1 The noise assessment is required only if ex situ sediment treatment is recommended for the KTAC reclamation works in accordance with section 3.4.2.2(vi) above and that the sediment treatment facility is within 300m of any existing noise sensitive receivers.

3.4.5.2 The Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing the construction noise impacts arising from the project as stated in Annexes 5 and 13 of the TM, respectively.

3.4.5.3 The study area for the noise impact assessment shall include all areas within 300m from the Project boundary. For the purpose of assessing the noise impact, the Applicant shall include all existing noise sensitive receivers (NSRs). The Applicant shall select assessment points to represent all identified NSRs for carrying out quantitative noise assessment for construction noise impacts. A map showing the location and description such as name of building, use, and floors of each and every selected assessment point shall be given.

3.4.5.4 The fixed source noise impacts due to operation of sediment treatment facility shall be assessed as follows:-

(i) The Applicant shall calculate the expected noise using standard acoustics principles. Calculations for the expected noise shall be based on assumed plant inventories and utilization schedule for the worst-case scenario. The Applicant shall calculate the noise levels taking into account of correction of tonality, impulsiveness and intermittence in accordance with the Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites.

(ii) The Applicant shall present the noise levels in L_{eq (30 min)} at the NSRs at various representative floor levels (in m P.D.) on tables and plans of suitable scale.

(iii) A quantitative assessment at the NSRs for the fixed noise source shall be carried out and compared against the criteria set out in Table 1A of Annex 5 of the TM.

(iv) The Applicant shall propose direct mitigation measures within the project limits in all situations where predicted noise level exceeds criteria set out in Table 1A of Annex 5 of TM to protect affected NSRs.

3.4.6 Waste Management Implications

3.4.6.1 The Applicant shall make reference to the SEKDCFS-EIA, present all relevant information from the SEKDCFS-EIA on the Project as detailed in sections 1.2 above, and incorporate any new and additional information to address the waste impacts arising from the construction and operation of the Project. 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, respectively.

3.4.6.2 The EIA report shall cover the followings:-

(i) the quantity, quality and timing of the waste arising as a result of the construction and operation activities, based on the sequence and duration of these activities;

(ii) the consideration of the opportunities for reducing waste generation and on-site or off-site re-use prior to considering the disposal options for various types of wastes. Measures which 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;

(iii) having taken into account all the opportunities for reducing waste generation and maximising reuse, the Applicant shall estimate the types and quantities of the wastes required to be disposed of as a consequence and shall describe the disposal options for each type of waste in detail. The disposal method recommended for each type of wastes shall take into account the result of the assessment set out below. The EIA report shall state clearly the disposal outlets for the wastes identified; and

(iv) the impact caused by handling (including labelling, packaging & storage), collection, and disposal of wastes shall be addressed in detail and appropriate mitigation measures proposed.

(a) potential hazard;

(b) air & odour emission;

(d) wastewater discharge; and

(e) public transport.

3.4.7 Impacts Summary

To facilitate easy retrieval of important information, a summary of environmental impacts in the form of a table, or any other form approved by the Director, showing the assessment points, results of impact predictions, relevant standards or criteria, extents of exceedances predicted, mitigation measures proposed and residual impacts, after mitigation measures are implemented, etc., shall be given at the end of every chapter on each individual impact in the EIA report as well as the Executive Summary.

3.4.8 Summary of Environmental Outcomes

The EIA report shall contain a summary of key environmental outcomes with suitable plans and tables as appropriate; 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.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & AUDIT (EM&A) REQUIREMENTS

4.1 The Applicant shall also review the need for EM&A and/or environmental management (EMS) activities during the construction and operation phases of the Project with reference to the SEKDCFS-EIA and with consideration to any new and additional information on the Project and, if affirmative:-

(i) to define the scope of the EM&A requirements for the proposed developments in the EIA study; and/or

(ii) to set out the EMS requirements for the construction and operation of the proposed developments to achieve satisfactory environmental performance.

4.2 Subject to the confirmation of the EIA study findings, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements as stipulated in Annex 21 of the TM.

4.3 The Applicant shall prepare a project implementation schedule (in the form of a check list as shown in Appendix B) containing all the EIA study recommendations and mitigation measures with reference to the implementation programme.

5. DURATION OF VALIDITY

5.1 This EIA study brief is valid for 36 months after 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.

6. REPORT REQUIREMENTS

6.1 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.

6.3 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 (i) above as required under section 7(1) of the EIAO, to be supplied upon advice by the Director for public inspection;

(ii) 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; and

(iii) 5 copies of the EIA report in English and 10 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, for deposition in the Register, if and when the EIA report is approved by the Director, as required under section 8(5) of the EIAO.

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

6.5 In addition, to facilitate the 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 Report prepared in HyperText Markup Language (HTML) (version 4.0 or later) and in DynaDoc Format (version 3.0 or later) [for Chinese documents] and in Portable Document Format (PDF version 3.0 or later) [for English documents], 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 Report shall be included in the beginning of the document, and all graphics in the report shall be in interlaced GIF format.

6.6 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.

6.7 When the EIA report and the Executive Summary are made available for public inspection under section 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.

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

7. OTHER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

7.1 During the EIA study, if there is any change in the name of the Applicant for this EIA study brief, the Applicant mentioned in this study brief must notify the Director immediately.

7.2 If there is any key change in the scope of the project mentioned in section 1.2 of this EIA study brief and in the Project Profile (No.PP-162/2002), 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 another EIA study brief afresh.

---- END OF STUDY BRIEF ----

April 2002

Environmental and Noise Division

Environmental Protection Department

Appendix A-1

Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters

1. Introduction

1.1 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall also correspond to site data.

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

Ref.(2): Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 5thEdition, 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 shall 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 shall 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 reference paper 'Guidelines on Assessing the 'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts' in Appendix B-2).

3.8 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' shall 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.

3.9 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. 3, 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. 4) or any other suitable models subject to prior agreement with EPD. The 'Guidelines on the Use of Alternative Computer Models in Air Quality Assessment' should also be referred to in Appendix B-3.

Ref.(3): XIXth World Road Congress Report, Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC), 1991.

Ref.(4): 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.

3.10 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.

3.11 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

Appendix A-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

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 A-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.

2.3 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).

2.4 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).

2.5 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.

2.6 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.

2.7 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