Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap.
499), Section 5(7)
Environmental Impact Assessment Study Brief No. ESB
- 131/2005
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
An application (No. ESB-131/2005) for an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study brief under section 5(1)(a) of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) was submitted by the captioned
Applicant on 5 August 2005 with a project profile (No. PP-257/2005).
1.2
The Applicant proposes to develop the site into two
major uses: residential development and associated infrastructure and wetland
restoration. The project site occupies about 21 ha site area. The proposed
domestic Gross Floor Area on the Project is about 82,960m2 (with a
maximum height of 6 storeys including car park). The location plan of the
Project showing the approximate project boundary is given as Figure 1.
1.3
The following
elements of the Project addressed in this Project Profile are classified as
Designated Projects under the Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) (EIAO).
․ proposed residential development,
other than New Territories exempted houses within Deep Bay Buffer Zone 2 (item P1 of Part I of Schedule 2 of
EIAO)
․ an activity for
the reuse of treated sewage effluent from a treatment plant (item F.4 of Part I of Schedule 2 of EIAO)
․ engineering
feasibility study of urban development projects with a study area covering more
than 20 ha (item 1 of Schedule 3 of EIAO)
1.4
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.
1.5
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 taking place
concurrently. 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 Project and associated works
together with the requirements for carrying out the Project;
(ii)
to identify and describe the elements of the
community and environment likely to be affected by the Project and/or likely to
cause adverse impacts to the Project, including both the natural and man-made
environment;
(iii)
to identify and quantify all environmental sensitive
receivers, emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on
sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
(iv)
to identify and quantify any potential losses or
damage to flora, fauna and wildlife habitats;
(v)
to identify any negative impacts on sites of
cultural heritage and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;
(vi)
to identify and quantify any potential landscape and
visual impacts and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;
(vii)
to propose the provision of infrastructure or
mitigation measures so as to minimize pollution, environmental disturbance and
nuisance during construction and operation of the Project;
(viii)
to identify, predict and evaluate the residual (i.e.
after practicable mitigation) environmental impacts 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;
(ix)
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 environmental
impacts and reducing them to acceptable levels;
(x)
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;
(xi)
to identify, within the study area, any individual
project(s) that fall under Schedule 2 and/or Schedule 3 of the EIA Ordinance;
to ascertain whether the findings of this EIA study have adequately addressed
the environmental impacts of those projects; and where necessary, to identify
the outstanding issues that need to be addressed in any further detailed EIA
study; and
(xii)
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.
3. DETAILED
REQUIREMENTS OF THE EIA STUDY
3.1 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 Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the TM) are fully
complied with.
The Scope
3.2 The
scope of this EIA study shall cover the Project and associated works mentioned
in section 1.2 above. The EIA study
shall cover the combined impacts of all the Project and the cumulative impacts
of the existing, committed and planned developments in the vicinity of the Project
in accordance with the requirements laid down in section 3.4 of the TM. The environmental impacts of on-site and
off-site works and facilities associated with the Project shall be addressed. The EIA study shall address the likely
key issues described below, together with any issues identified during the
course of the EIA study:
(i) noise
impacts arising from construction and operation of the Project to the nearby village areas;
(ii) dust impact
arising from construction of the Project to the nearby air sensitive receivers
(ASRs) and odor impact from the existing and planned sewage treatment plants to
the development and nearby ASRs;
(iii) landscape
and visual impacts during construction and operation of the Project;
(iv) the
potential water quality impacts caused by site formation, pond draining and
filling, drainage diversion, and any other works activities during
construction; the potential water quality impacts caused by the operation of
the Project;
(v) potential
impacts on historical buildings/architectures and monuments;
(vi) terrestrial
and aquatic ecological impacts, in particular the potential impacts of
disturbance and fragmentation to the adjacent recognized sites of conservation
importance including, for example, the Mai Po Nature Reserve,
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Mai Po Village Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI), Mai Po Marshes SSSI, Inner Deep Bay SSSI, Wetland Conservation
Area and Wetland Buffer Area (both were defined under Town Planning Board
Guidelines TPB PG-No. 12B) and important habitats such as fishponds and
egretries, due to the construction and operation of the Project;
(vii) fisheries impacts
during construction and operation of the Project;
(viii) collection and disposal
of potentially contaminated dredged spoil arising from the Project; and
(ix) the short
term and long term management of the proposed wetland restoration within the
project area including trust and financial arrangement.
Consideration
of Alternatives
3.3 The Need
of the Project
The
Applicant shall study and review the need of the Project as mentioned in
sub-section 1.2 above, and provide information to justify the need. The
Applicant shall explain clearly the purpose and objectives of the Project and
describe the scenarios with and without the Project.
3.4 Consideration
of Alternative Layout Options and Building Height Profiles
The
Applicant shall consider alternative layout options and building height
profiles (below 6 storeys including car park) for the Project, provide
justification regarding how the proposed layout option and building height
profiles are arrived at, including the descriptions of the environmental
factors considered in the option selection. A comparison of the environmental
benefits and dis-benefits of alternative layout options and building height
profiles shall be made with a view to recommending the preferred option to
avoid/minimize adverse environmental effects to the maximum practicable
extent. In particular,
consideration shall be given to avoid or minimize the disturbance to the
adjacent recognized sites of conservation importance and important habitats
during the construction and operation of the Project.
3.5 Consideration
of Alternative Construction Methods and Sequences of Works
Taking
into consideration the combined effect with respect to the severity and
duration of the construction impacts to the affected sensitive receivers, the
EIA study shall explore alternative construction methods and sequences of works
for the Project, with a view to avoid prolonged 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.
3.6 Selection
of Preferred Scenario
Taking
into consideration of the findings in sub-section 3.4 and 3.5 above, the
Applicant shall recommend/justify the adoption of the preferred scenario will
avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects arising from the Project, and
adequately describe the part that environmental factors played in arriving at
the final selection.
Technical
Requirements
3.7 The
Applicant shall conduct the EIA study to address all environmental aspects of
the works and activities as described in the scope set out above.
3.8 The
EIA study shall take into consideration and compare clearly and objectively the
environmental impacts of different development options considered in the
study. In formulating the preferred
development option, the Applicant shall seek to avoid adverse environmental
effects to the maximum practice extent.
It is important to describe adequately in the report the part
environmental factors played in the selection of the preferred option(s).
3.9 The EIA
study shall include the following technical requirements on specific impacts.
3.9.1 Air
Quality Impact
3.9.1.1 The Applicant shall follow the criteria and
guidelines for evaluating and assessing air quality impact as stated in section
1 of Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the TM respectively. The
assessment shall be based on the best available information at the time of the
assessment.
3.8.1.2
3.9.1.2 The study area for air quality impact assessment shall generally be
defined by a distance of 500 m from the boundary of the project site (including
the access road) as shown in Figure 1, yet it may be extended depending on the
circumstances and the scale of the project. In particular, the assessment for
the operational stage shall take into account the impacts of major emission
sources such as the existing and planned sewage treatment plants, San Tin
Highways and
3.9.1.3 The Applicant shall assess the air pollutant
concentrations with reference to the Guidelines for Local-Scale Air Quality
Assessment Using Models given in Appendices 1 to 3 or other methodology as
agreed by the Director.
3.9.1.4 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.
(b)
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 should
consider alternative construction methods/phasing programmes and alternative
modes of operation to minimize the constructional and operational air quality
impact respectively.
(c)
Present the background air quality levels in the
assessment area for the purpose of evaluating the cumulative constructional and
operational air quality impacts.
(ii)
Identification of ASRs and Examination of Emission/Dispersion
Characteristics
(a)
Identify and describe representative existing and
planned/ committed air sensitive receivers (ASRs) that would likely be affected
by the project, including those earmarked on the
relevant Outline Zoning Plans, Development Permission Area Plans, Outline
Development Plans, Layout Plans and other relevant published land use plans. The
Applicant shall select the assessment points of the identified ASRs such that
they represent the worst impact point of these ASRs. A map showing the location
and description including the name of the 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 should review the development programme, and where
appropriate, to include occupiers of early phases as ASRs if they may be
affected by works of later phases.
(b)
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 constructional and operational
activities of the project in 3.9.1.4 i above. Examples of constructional stage
emission sources include stock piling, blasting, concrete batching and
vehicular movements on unpaved haul roads on site, etc. Examples of operational
stage emission sources include exhaust emissions from sewage treatment works
and vehicles, etc. Confirmation of the validity of the assumptions and the
magnitude of the activities (e.g. volume of construction materials handled
etc.) shall be obtained from the relevant government department/authorities and
documented.
(iii)
Constructional Phase Air Quality Impact
(a)
The Applicant shall follow the requirements of the
Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation to ensure constructional
dust impacts are controlled within the relevant standards as stipulated in
section 1 of Annex 4 of the TM. An audit and
monitoring program during constructional stage shall be devised to verify the
effectiveness of the control measures and to ensure that the construction dust
levels be brought under proper control.
(b)
If the Applicant anticipates a significant
construction dust impact that will likely cause exceedance of the recommended
limits in the TM at the ASRs despite incorporation of the dust control measures
stated in 3.9.1.4 iii a above, a quantitative assessment shall be carried out
to evaluate the constructional dust impact at the identified ASRs. The
Applicant shall follow the methodology set out in subsection 3.9.1.4 v below
when carrying out the quantitative assessment.
(iv)
Operational Phase Air Quality Impact
The Applicant shall assess the expected air
pollutant impacts at the identified ASRs based on an assumed reasonably
worst-case scenario under normal operating
conditions. If the assessment indicates likely exceedances of the
recommended limits in the TM at the development and the nearby ASRs, a
quantitative impact evaluation following the methodology in 3.9.1.4 v below shall
be carried out.
(v)
Quantitative Assessment Methodology
(a)
The Applicant shall conduct the quantitative
assessment with reference to relevant sections of the modeling guidelines
stated in 3.9.1.3 above or any other methodology as agreed with the Director. The
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. Detailed calculations of the pollutant emission
rates and a map showing all the road links for input to the modeling shall be
presented in the EIA 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 modeling details shall be sought.
(b)
The Applicant shall identify the key/representative
air pollutant parameters (types of pollutants and the averaging time concentrations)
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 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, to be evaluated against the relevant air quality standards
and examination of the land use implications of these impacts. Plans of
suitable scale should be used for presentation of pollution contour to allow proper determination of buffer distance
requirements.
(vi)
Mitigating 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. These measures and any constraints on future land use planning
shall be agreed with the relevant government departments/authorities and
documented. The Applicant shall demonstrate quantitatively that the resultant
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
(i)
All input and
output file(s) of the model run(s) shall be submitted to the Director in
electronic format.
3.9.2 Noise
Impacts
3.9.2.1 The
Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing
noise impact as stated in Annexes 5 and 13 of the TM respectively.
3.9.2.2 The noise impact assessment shall include the
following:
(i) Determination
of Assessment Area
The “Assessment Area” for the noise impact
assessment shall include all areas within 300m from the boundary of the Project
(including the access road) as shown in Figure 1. Subject to the agreement of the
Director, the assessment area could be reduced accordingly if the first layer
of noise sensitive receivers, closer than 300m from the boundary of the Project
(including the access road) as shown in Figure 1, provides acoustic shielding
to those receivers at further distance behind. Subject to the agreement of the
Director, the area shall be expanded to include NSRs at larger distance, which
would be affected by the construction and operation of the Project.
(ii) Provision
of Background Information and Existing Noise Levels
The Applicant shall provide all
background information relevant to the Project, e.g. relevant previous or
current studies. Unless involved in
the planning standards, no existing noise levels are particular required.
(iii) Identification
of Noise Sensitive Receivers
(a)
The Applicant shall refer to Annex 13 of the TM when identifying the noise
sensitive receivers (NSRs). The
NSRs shall include all existing NSRs and all planned/committed noise sensitive
developments and uses earmarked on the relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZP),
Outline Development Plans and Layout Plans and other relevant published land
use plans.
(b)
The Applicant shall select assessment points to
represent all identified NSRs for carrying out quantitative noise assessment
described below. The assessment
points shall be agreed with the Director prior to the quantitative noise
assessment. 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. For planned noise sensitive land uses
without committed site layouts, the Applicant should use the relevant planning
parameters to work out site layouts for operational noise assessment purpose.
(iv) Provision
of an Emission Inventory of the Noise Sources
The
Applicant shall provide an inventory of noise sources including representative
construction equipment for construction noise assessment, and traffic
flow/fixed plant equipment, as appropriate, for operational noise
assessment. Confirmation of the
validity of the inventory shall be obtained from the relevant government
departments/authorities and documented in the EIA report.
(v) Construction
Noise Assessment
(a) The
Applicant shall carry out assessment of noise impact from all construction
(excluding percussive piling) works of all the concurrent projects in the area
during day time, i.e. 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., on weekdays other than general holidays
in accordance with the methodology stipulated in paragraphs 5.3. and 5.4 of
Annex 13 of the TM. The criteria in
Table 1B of Annex 5 of the TM shall be adopted in the assessment.
(b) To
minimise the construction noise impact, alternative construction methods to
replace percussive piling shall be proposed as far as practicable.
(c) If
the unmitigated construction noise levels are found exceeding the relevant
criteria, the Applicant shall propose practicable direct mitigation measures
(including movable barriers, enclosures, quieter alternative methods,
re-scheduling and restricting hours of operation of noisy task) to minimise the
impact. If the mitigated noise levels
still exceed the relevant criteria, the duration of the noise exceedance shall
be given.
(d) In case the
Applicant would like to evaluate whether construction works in restricted hours
as defined under the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) are feasible or not in the
context of programming construction works, reference should be made to the
relevant technical memoranda issued under the NCO. Regardless of the results of the
construction noise impact assessment for restricted hours, the Noise Control
Authority will process the Construction Noise Permit (CNP) application, if
necessary, based on the NCO, the relevant technical memoranda issued under the
NCO, and the contemporary conditions/situations. This aspect should be explicitly stated
in the noise chapter and the conclusions and recommendations chapter in the EIA
report.
(vi) Operational
Noise Assessment
(a) Road
Traffic Noise
The Applicant shall assess any adverse traffic noise impact on the
development of the Project. The
following assessment requirements shall be followed.
(a1) Calculation of
Noise Levels
The
Applicant shall calculate the expected road traffic noise using methods
described in the U.K. Department of Transport's “Calculation of Road Traffic
Noise” (1988). Calculations of
future road traffic noise shall be based on the peak hour traffic flow in
respect of the maximum traffic projection within the expected operation years
of the Project.
The
EIA shall contain sample calculations as considered necessary and requested by
the Director, and drawings of appropriate scale to show the road segments,
topographic barriers (if any) and assessment points input into the traffic
noise model. The Applicant shall
provide input data sets of traffic noise prediction model adopted in the EIA
study.
The data shall be in electronic text file (ASCII format) containing road
segments, barriers (if any) and NSRs’ information. The data structure of the above file
shall be agreed with the Director.
CD-ROM(s) containing the above data shall be attached in the EIA report.
(a2) Presentation of
Noise Levels
The Applicant shall present the future noise levels in L10 (1
hour) at the NSRs on tables and plans of suitable scale for the scenarios for
the Project.
A
quantitative assessment at the NSRs shall be carried out and compared against
the criteria set out in Table 1A of Annex 5 of the TM. The
potential noise impact of the Project shall be quantified by estimating the
total number of dwellings and other noise sensitive elements that will be
exposed to noise levels exceeding the criteria set in Table 1A of Annex 5 in
the Technical Memorandum.
(a3) Proposals for
Noise Mitigation Measures
After
rounding of the predicted noise levels according to the U.K. Department of
Transport's “Calculation of Road Traffic Noise” (1988), the Applicant shall
propose noise mitigation measures in all situations where the predicted traffic
noise level exceeds the criteria set in Table 1A of Annex 5 in the TM. Specific reasons for not adopting
certain noise mitigation measures in the design to reduce the traffic noise to
a level meeting the criteria in the TM or to maximize the protection for the
NSRs as far as possible should be clearly quantified and laid down.
The
total number of dwellings and other noise sensitive element that will be
benefited by the provision of noise mitigation measures should be
provided. In
order to clearly present the extents/locations of the recommended noise
mitigation measures, plans prepared from 1:1,000 or 1:2,000 survey maps showing
the mitigation measures (e.g. barriers) shall be included in the EIA
report. The total number of
dwellings and other noise sensitive elements that will still be exposed to
noise above the criteria with the implementation of all recommended noise
mitigation measures shall be quantified.
(b) Fixed Noise Sources
(b1) The Applicant shall
identify any fixed noise sources within the “Assessment Area”, including all
activities within the residential development, any sewage collection, sewage
treatment plant, pumping stations, any pump houses, electricity sub-station
etc. 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.
(b2) The Applicant shall
present the noise levels in Leq(30min) or other unit(s) as agreed by the
Director, at the NSRs at various representative floor levels (in m P.D.) on
tables and plans of suitable scale.
(b3) A quantitative assessment
at the NSRs for the fixed noise source(s) shall be carried out and compared
against the criteria set out in Table 1A of Annex 5 of the TM.
(b4) The Applicant shall
propose direct mitigation measures within the project limits in all situations
where the predicted noise level exceeds the criteria set out in Table 1A of
Annex 5 of the TM to protect the affected NSRs.
(vii) Assessment
of Side Effects and Constraints
The
Applicant shall identify, assess and propose means to minimize any side effects
and to resolve any potential constraints due to the inclusion of any
recommended direct technical remedies.
(viii) Evaluation of
Constraints on Planned Noise Sensitive Developments/Land Uses
For
planned noise sensitive uses which will still be affected even with all
practicable direct technical remedies in place, the Applicant shall propose,
evaluate and confirm the practicality of additional measures within the planned
noise sensitive uses and shall make recommendations on how these noise sensitive
uses will be designed for the information of relevant parties.
The
Applicant shall take into account agreed environmental requirements /
constraints identified by the study to assess the development potential of
concerned sites which shall be made known to the relevant parties.
3.9.3 Water
Quality Impact
3.9.3.1 The
Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing
water quality impact during the construction and operation phases as stated in
Annexes 6 and 14 of the TM respectively.
3.9.3.2 The
Applicant shall conduct the following detailed water quality assessment.
Water
Quality Impact Assessment
3.9.3.3 The Study Area for the water quality impact
assessment hall
cover all relevant sensitive receivers in Wo Shang Wai and the surrounding areas, in particular the fishponds surrounding the
study area and in the larger Deep Bay Catchment Area
of the Deep Bay Water Control Zone (WCZ), the Ramsar Site, and Mai Po Nature Reserve. This study area could be extended to cover other
areas if they are found also being impacted during the course of EIA study and
have a bearing on the environmental acceptability of the Project.
3.9.3.4 The
Applicant shall identify and analyze all physical, chemical and biological
disruptions of water system(s) arising during the construction and operation of
the Project (including the impacts arising from
emergency discharge from sewage pumping stations and sewer bursting discharge).
The Applicant shall address the following:
General
(i)
collection
and review of background information on the existing water system(s) and the
respective catchment(s);
(ii)
characterization
of water and sediment quality of the natural/artificial water courses and
manmade fishponds based
on existing information or site surveys/ tests as appropriate;
(iii)
identification
and analysis of all existing and planned future activities and beneficial uses
related to the water system(s) and identification of all water sensitive
receivers including inshore water protection/recreation areas, in particular the fishponds surrounding the
study area, the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site and Mai Po Nature Reserve;
(iv)
identification
of pertinent water quality objectives and establishment of other appropriate
water quality and sediment criteria or standards for the water system(s) and
all sensitive receivers affected by the Project;
(v)
identification
of any alteration of natural/artificial
water
course,
manmade fishponds, wetlands, change of water courses/drainage channel, change of water
holding/flow regimes; change of ground water levels, change of catchment types
or areas;
(vi)
identification,
analysis and quantification of all existing and likely future water and
sediment pollution sources, including point discharges and non-point sources to
surface water runoff,
storm water effluent and pond water discharges.
Field investigation and laboratory tests shall be conducted as
appropriate;
(vii)
establishment
and provision of an emission inventory on the quantities and characteristics of
all these pollution sources;
Impact
Predictions
(viii)
prediction
and quantification by mathematical modelling or other technique approved by the
Director, of the impacts on the water system(s) and the sensitive receivers due
to those alterations and changes identified in (v) and the pollution sources
identified in (vi) above. Possible impacts include changes in hydrology, flow
regime, sediment erosion or deposition, water and sediment quality and the
effects on the aquatic organism due to such changes. The prediction shall take into account and include
different construction stages or sequences, different operation stages. Cumulative impacts due to other related concurrent and planned project(s), activities or pollution sources within a
boundary around the Study Area to be agreed by the Director shall also be
predicted and quantified;
(ix)
assessment
and evaluation of water quality impacts on the sensitive receivers due to the
operation of the Project
and the wetland restorations. Among other receivers, the impact on the
operation of the wetland habitats on or near the northern part of Wo Shang Wai, the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Mai Po Nature Reserve and the Deep Bay Wetland Conservation
Area/Buffer Area shall be included.
Waste Water
Pollution
(x)
analysis
on the adequacy of existing and planned future sewerage infrastructure to
receive point discharges of waste water identified in (vi) above;
(xi)
analysis
on the provision and adequacy of existing and planned future facilities to
reduce pollution arising from the non-point sources identified in (vi) above;
(xii)
identification
and quantification of the residual pollution load from the proposed treatment
facilities for treating all point/non-point sources of waste water;
(xiii)
identification
of the alignment, volume and possible pollutants contained in pond water and storm water discharges;
(xiv)
analysis
on the characteristics of sewage nature;
(xv)
identification
and quantification of the pond
water, stormwater,
treated effluent discharge and other point/non-point sources pollution loads to
the wetlands
in the study site, the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Mai Po Nature Reserve
and
the other surrounding water courses/bodies;
(xvi)
evaluation
and quantification of residual impacts on the water system(s) and the sensitive
receivers with regard to the appropriate water and sediment quality criteria,
standards and guidelines; and
(xvii)
analysis
and assessment of the impacts due to additional sewage discharge from the Project to the existing/planning sewerage system and sewage
treatment works in North West New territories ;
(xviii)
assessment
on the impacts of using ozone or chlorine as disinfectants in the Project, in particular on the potential of generation
of carcinogenic and toxic organic chlorides; and
(xix) identification and assessment of the residual
impacts of any fertilizer, pesticides and/or herbicides (if applied) on the
drainage channel, groundwater, or other inland water courses/bodies.
Dredging
and Pond Draining and Filling
(xx)
identification
and quantification of all dredging, pond draining and filling, site leveling,
sediment/ mud transportation and disposal activities and requirements.
Potential fill source, if required and dumping ground to be involved shall also
be identified. Field investigation,
sampling and laboratory tests to characterize the pond water quality and sediment/mud
concerned shall be conducted as appropriate. The
ranges of parameters to be analyzed; the number, type and methods of sampling;
sample preservation; chemical and biological laboratory test method to be used
shall be subject to the approval of the Director. The categories of sediments which are to
be disposed of in accordance with a permit granted under the Dumping at
Sea Ordinance shall be identified by both chemical and
biological tests, and their quantities estimated. If the presence of any seriously
contaminated sediment which requires special treatment or disposal is
confirmed, the Applicant shall identify the most appropriate treatment and/or
disposal arrangement and demonstrate its feasibility;
(xxi)
prediction,
quantification and assessment of impacts on the physical regime, water and
sediment quality of the water systems(s) and the nearby sensitive receivers due
to the activities identified in section (xx) above. The prediction and quantification of
impacts caused by sediment re-suspension and contaminants release shall be
carried out by mathematical modelling or other techniques approved by the
Director;
(xxii)
identification
and evaluation of the best practicable dredging and pond filling methods to
minimize dredging and dumping requirements and demand for fill sources based on
the criterion that existing pond mud/stream sediment shall be left in place and
not be disturbed as far as possible;
(xxiii)
evaluation
of the impacts due to release of the interstitial water and associated
contaminants to the water column, if wick drain installation is employed to
speed up consolidation of mud;
(xxiv)
prediction and quantification of cumulative
impacts due to other dredging, filling or dumping activities within a boundary
around the study area to be agreed by the Director; and
(xxv)
among other sensitive receivers, impact on the
habitats and ecological mitigation measures of the nearby Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Wetland Conservation Area, Wetland Buffer Area, Mai Po Nature Reserve and the fishponds
surrounding the study area shall
be addressed.
Potential
Problem of Biogas on Reclamation (Pond Filling)
(xxvi)
Investigation
of the potential biogas problem arising from leaving pond mud in place,
including:
(a)
a
proposal on collection and analysis of representative samples in various depths
for the agreement of the Director;
(b)
carrying
out the actual sampling and testing as agreed by the Director; and
(c)
a
proposal, with justifications, on monitoring, mitigation and precautionary
measures on the
Project,
if found necessary.
Mitigation
(xxvii)
proposal of effective infrastructure upgrading
or provision, water pollution prevention and mitigation measures to be
implemented during the construction, operation stages so as to reduce the water
and sediment quality impacts to within acceptable levels of standards. Best management practices to reduce pond water, storm water, pesticides and herbicides and
non-point source pollution shall be investigated and proposed as
appropriate;
(xxviii)
formulate
the mitigation measures to offset the residual pollution load identified in
section (xii) above in order to achieve the requirement of no net increase of
pollution load to Deep Bay from the Project; and
(xxix)
provide
adequate monitoring programme to assess the effectiveness of the proposed
offsetting measures identified in
section (xxviii).
3.9.4 Sewerage and Sewage Treatment
Implications
3.9.4.1 The
Applicant shall follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing
impacts on the downstream public sewerage, sewage treatment and disposal
facilities as stated in section 6.5 in Annex 14 of the TM.
3.9.4.2 The Applicant shall investigate and
determine the need and the feasibility of having central pre-treatment
facilities and/or a separate sewage treatment plant within the study area.
3.9.4.3 The
Applicant shall study and assess the need and impacts of discharging sewage to the
existing/planning sewerage systems in North West New Territories. The assessment shall include the
following:
(i)
investigate and review the adequacy of the
existing/planned sewerage and treatment facilities for absorbing part or all of
the sewage discharge from the Project within the scope of EIA study as defined
in section 3.2 above. The Applicant
shall confirm in the EIA report that whether the existing/planning sewerage
systems and sewage treatment works in North West New Territories will provide
adequate capacity for the Project. The
appropriate treatment level of interim discharge, if required, shall be
assessed;
(ii)
the assessment should take into account any
additional sewage flows and flow projections from other existing/planned
developments to be connected to the existing/planning sewerage systems and
sewage treatment works in North West New Territories. The water quality impacts arising from
the interim and ultimate effluent discharge, if any, shall be assessed in
accordance with section 3.5.3 above.
(iii)
based on the above items (i) and (ii), if the
existing/planned sewerage layout or capacities cannot cope with the maximum
discharges, the Applicant shall propose an optimal and cost-effective upgrading
works to improve the existing/planned
sewerage and sewage treatment facilities or to provide new sewerage and
sewage treatment facilities to receive and transport the sewage arising during
the construction and operation of the Project. Any proposed sewerage system and/or
on-site sewage treatment facility should be designed to meet the current government
standards and requirements. Computerised analysis techniques such as HYDRO
WORKS/INFORWORKS may be used in the preliminary design if necessary.
(iv)
identify and quantify the water quality and
ecological impacts due to the emergency discharge from on-site sewage treatment
plant/pumping stations and sewer bursting discharge, and to propose measures to
mitigate these impacts;
(v)
identify the appropriate alignment and layouts of
the new sewerage to connect to the existing/planned/future sewerage system in
North West New Territories; investigate and assess the technical feasibility of
connection (e.g. technical feasibility and details for direct connection to
public sewer and sewage pumping station);
(vi) set
out the design, operation and maintenance requirements and identify the party responsible
for the construction and maintenance of any proposed sewerage and sewage
treatment facilities, such as pumping station(s) and central pre-treatment
facilities for food catering effluent (if recommended), including electrical
and mechanical components to eliminate the problem of septicity incurred in
long rising main(s) during low flows and to facilitate maintenance. The above shall be agreed by DSD and EPD
(Twin rising mains for each pumping station should be provided to make sure
that the proposed sewage rising mains are maintainable without shutting down
and discharging untreated sewage into the natural stream/drainage channel
directly).
3.9.5 Waste
Management Implications
3.9.5.1 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,
respectively.
3.9.5.2 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 arising
as a result of the construction and operational activities, based on the
sequence and duration of these activities.
(ii) Proposal
for Waste Management
(a) Prior
to considering the disposal options for various types of wastes, opportunities
for reducing waste generation and on-site or off-site re-use shall be fully
evaluated. Measures which can be taken in the planning and design stages e.g.
by modifying the design approach and in the construction stage for maximising
waste reduction shall be separately considered.
(b)
Having taken into account all the opportunities for
reducing waste generation and maximising reuse, the types and quantities of the
wastes required to be disposed of as a consequence including potentially
contaminated materials shall be estimated and the disposal options for each
type of waste described in detail. The disposal method recommended for each
type of wastes shall take into account the result of the assessment in (c)
below.
(c)
The impact caused by handling (including labelling,
packaging & storage), collection, and disposal of wastes shall be addressed
in detail and appropriate mitigation measures proposed including the prevention
of flytipping during construction. This assessment shall cover but not limited
to the following areas :
- potential
hazard;
- air
and odour emission;
- noise;
-
wastewater discharge; and
- public
transport.
(iii) Land
Contamination
(a)
The Application shall identify all land lots/sites
within the Project boundary which, due to their past or present land uses, are
potentially contaminated sites. A detailed account for the present activities
and past land use history in relation to possible land contamination shall be
provided.
(b)
The list of potential contaminants which are
anticipated to be found in these potentially contaminated sites shall be provided
and the possible remediation options shall be discussed.
3.9.6 Ecological
Impact (Terrestrial and Aquatic)
3.9.6.1 The Applicant shall follow
the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing ecological impact as
stated in Annexes 8 and 16 of the TM respectively during the construction and
operational phases. The assessment
shall include the ecological survey of the “Assessment Area” as defined in
section 3.9.6.2 below
3.9.6.2 The
“Assessment Area” for the purpose of terrestrial ecological assessment shall
include all areas within 500m distance from the boundary of the Project
(including the access road) as shown in Figure 1, or the area likely to be
impacted by the Project.
3.9.6.3 In the ecological impact
assessment, the Applicant shall examine the flora, fauna and other components
of the ecological habitats within the “Assessment Area”. The aim shall be to protect, maintain or
rehabilitate the natural environment.
In particular, the Project shall avoid impacts on recognized sites of
conservation importance and other ecological sensitive areas. The assessment shall identify and
quantify as far as possible the potential ecological impacts associated with
the Project.
3.9.6.4 The assessment shall include
the following major tasks:
(i) review and incorporate
the findings of relevant studies and collate all the available information
regarding the ecological characters of the “Assessment Area”;
(ii) identify any
information gap relating to the assessment of potential ecological impacts to the
terrestrial and aquatic environment;
(iii) carry out any necessary field
surveys, the duration of which shall be at least 12 months covering
the winter migratory bird season from October to March and the ardeid breeding
season from March to August, and investigations to fill in the information gap,
if any, and to fulfil the objectives of the EIA study;
(iv) establish
the general ecological profile and describe the characteristics of each habitat
found within the study boundary, committed ecological measures including those
under the EIA Ordinance or the Town Planning Ordinance (such as the restoration
of fishponds) should be taken into consideration; major information to be
provided shall include:
(a)
description of the physical environment;
(b)
habitat maps of suitable scale (1:1000 to 1:5000)
showing the types and locations of habitats in the “Assessment Area”;
(c)
ecological characteristics of each habitat type such
as size, vegetation type, species present, dominant species found, species
diversity, community structure, inter-dependence of the habitats and species,
and presence of any features of ecological importance;
(d)
representative colour photographs of each habitat
type and any important ecological features identified; and
(e)
species found that are rare, endangered and/or
listed under local legislation or international conventions for conservation of
wildlife/habitats or red data books;
(v) investigate
and describe the existing wildlife uses of various habitats with special
attention to:
(a)
wetlands including fish ponds, wet agricultural land
and marsh;
(b)
roosting, breeding and feeding sites for wetland
birds;
(c)
natural steam courses and man made drainage
channels; and
(d)
any other habitats identified as having special
conservation interests by this study.
(vi) describe
all recognized sites of conservation importance in particular the Wetland
Conservation Area, Wetland Buffer Area, Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Mai
Po Nature Reserve, Mai Po Village SSSI, Mai Po Marshes SSSI and Inner Deep Bay
SSSI in the Project site and its vicinity, and assess whether these sites will
be affected by the Project or not;
(vii) investigate the
impact of residential buildings in the project area on the bird’s flight path
taking into account of daily and seasonal patterns;
(viii) using suitable
methodology, identify and quantify as far as possible any direct, indirect,
on-site, off-site, primary, secondary and cumulative ecological impacts such as
destruction of habitats, reduction of species abundance/diversity, loss of
feeding grounds, reduction of ecological carrying capacity, loss in ecological
linkage and function, habitat fragmentation and other possible disturbances
caused by the Project and the activities of the residents;
(ix) evaluate the
significance and acceptability of the ecological impacts identified using
well-defined criteria;
(x) recommend
all possible alternatives (such as modifications of layout and design) and
practicable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize and/or compensate for the
adverse ecological impacts identified;
(xi) evaluate
the feasibility and effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures and
define the scope, type, location, implementation arrangement, subsequent
management, resources requirement and maintenance of such measures;
(xii) determine
and quantify as far as possible the residual ecological impacts after
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures;
(xiii) evaluate the
severity and acceptability of the residual ecological impacts using
well-defined criteria. If off-site mitigation
measures are considered necessary to mitigate the residual impacts, the
guidelines and requirements laid down in the TM shall be followed;
(xiv) review the need for and
recommend any ecological monitoring programme required; and
(xv) propose a management package for the wetland restoration in the project area with particular attention to :
(a)
the proposed design and layout of the restored
wetland and rationales for such proposed design;
(b)
the habitat management plan and specification of
resources requirement for its implementation;
(c)
the long-term trust management system with
management guidelines;
(d)
the financial arrangement to sustain the management
of the restored wetland;
(e)
the management agents and their responsibility; and
(f)
a contingency plan for the management of the
restored wetland before the well establishment of trust management.
3.9.7 Fisheries
Impacts
3.9.7.1 Fisheries Impact Assessment
shall follow the criteria and guidelines as specified in Annexes 9 and 17 of
the TM respectively. The
“Assessment Area” for the purpose of the fisheries impact assessment shall
include the area within the boundary of the Project (including the access road)
as shown in Figure 1, and especially the adjacent areas of potential
impact. The assessment shall review
and collate existing information to provide adequate and accurate data for
prediction and evaluation of impacts of the Project on fisheries. The assessment shall include the
following:
(i) description
of the physical environmental background;
(ii) description
and quantification as far as possible of the existing pond culture activities,
with special attention on fishponds in the vicinity and around Mai Po;
(iii) description
and quantification as far as possible of the existing pond culture resources;
(iv) identification
of parameters (eg. water quality parameters) and area that are important to pond
culture activities;
(v)
identification and quantification as far as possible
of any direct/indirect and on-site/off-site impacts to pond culture, including
permanent loss and temporary occupation of fishponds and those impacts on pond
culture activities due to sewer bursting and emergency discharge from sewage
pumping stations;
(vi)
evaluation of impacts on pond culture activities
during construction and operation stages in areas around Wo Shang Wai, Mai Po
and other affected areas; and
(vii)
evaluation of cumulative impacts of loss of fishponds
in the North West New Territories.
(viii)
identify practical mitigation measures to
avoid/minimize the potential impacts on the pond culture activities;
(ix)
identify and present an adequate package of measures
fully compensate all the losses due to the Project with details on
justification, description of scope and programme feasibility as well as staff
and financial implications including those related to subsequent management and
maintenance requirements of the proposals. Among others measures, the need to
reinstate temporarily occupied and permanently lost fishponds should be
covered; and
(x)
determine the need, if necessary, make appropriate
recommendation for a monitoring and audit programme during construction and
operation phases of the Project.
3.9.8 Impact
on Cultural Heritage
3.9.8.1 The Applicant shall follow
the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing impacts on cultural
heritage as stated in section 2 of both Annexes 10 and 19 of the TM
respectively.
3.9.8.2 The heritage impact
assessment shall focus on:
(i)
identification of landscape features include sites
of historical events, historical field patterns, tracks and fishponds and
cultural elements such as fung shui
woodlands and clan grave sites which will be affected by the Project;
(ii) evaluation of impacts on cultural
heritage and proposals for any mitigation measures with detailed elaboration on
scope of work.
3.9.8.3 Direct and
indirect impacts on the nearby historic buildings and structures should also be
identified. The impacts include
visual impact, impacts on the fung shui
/ visual corridor of the historic buildings and structures, potential damage to
historic buildings and structures through change of water-table, vibration caused
by the Project. Assessment of
impacts on cultural heritage shall also take full account of, and allow where
appropriate, the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of Annex
18 of the TM.
3.9.9
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.9.9.1 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 Technical Memorandum and
EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002.
3.9.9.2 The assessment
area for the landscape impact assessment shall include all areas within a 500m
distance from the boundary of the Project (including the access road) as shown
in Figure 1. The assessment area
for the visual impact assessment shall be defined by visual envelope of the
proposed project and associated works.
The defined visual envelope should be shown on plan.
3.9.9.3 The Applicant
shall review relevant outline development plans, outline zoning plans, layout
plans, planning briefs and studies which may identify areas of high landscape
value and recommend conservation area, green belt, recreation, open space and
other specified use. Any guidelines
on urban design concept, landscape framework, building height profiles, designated
view corridors that may affect the appreciation of the Project should also be
reviewed. The aim is to gain an
insight to the future outlook of the area so that the Project can fit into
surrounding setting. Any conflict
with statutory town plan(s) and any published land use plans should be
highlighted and appropriate follow-up action should be recommended.
3.9.9.4 The Applicant
shall describe, appraise and analyse the existing landscape resources and
character of the assessment area.
The sensitivity of the landscape framework and its ability to
accommodate change shall be particularly focused on. A system should be derived for judging
impact significance. The Applicant
shall identify the degree of compatibility of the Project with the existing
landscape. The assessment shall
quantify the potential landscape impacts as far as possible, so as to
illustrate the significance of such impacts arising from the Project. Clear
mapping of the landscape impact is required.
3.9.9.5 The Applicant
shall assess the visual impacts of the Project. A system should be derived for judging the
visual impact significance. Clear
illustrations in support of the visual impact assessment are required. The assessment shall include the
following:
(i)
identification and plotting of visual envelop of the
Project;
(ii)
identification of the key groups of visually sensitive
receivers (including planned sensitive receivers if any) within the visual
envelope and their views at ground level and elevated vantage points;
(iii)
description of the visual compatibility of the Project
with the surrounding, and the planned setting and its obstruction and
interference with the key views of the adjacent areas;
the severity of
visual impacts in terms of distance, nature and number of sensitive receivers.
Nighttime glare shall be considered in the assessment. 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; and
(iv)
alternative layouts and building height profiles
(below 6 storeys including car park) options should be examined with a view to
selecting the best option to minimize any adverse visual impact.
3.9.9.6 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 of the area. In addition,
alternative design 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 shall include provision of screen planting and road side
berms, revegetation of disturbed land, compensatory planting, provisioning of
amenity areas and open spaces, provision of finishes to structures, deposition
of buildings, colour scheme and texture of material used and any measures to
mitigate the impact on existing and planned land use. 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. The mitigation measures proposed shall
not only be concerned with damage reduction but should also include
consideration of potential enhancement of existing landscape and visual quality.
A practical programme and funding
proposal for the implementation of the recommended measures shall be provided.
3.9.9.7 Annotated illustration materials
such as coloured perspective drawings, plans and section/elevation diagrams,
annotated oblique aerial photographs, photo-retouching and computer-generated
photomontage shall be adopted to fully illustrate the landscape and visual
impacts of the Project to the satisfaction of the Director. In particular, the landscape and visual
impacts of the Project with and without mitigation measures shall also be
properly illustrated in existing and planned setting by computer-generated
photomontage so as to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation
measures. 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 which may need to be submitted for verification of the
accuracy of the illustrations.
3.9.10 Impacts
Summary
To
facilitate easy retrieval of important information, an impacts summary in the
form of a table, or any other form approved by the Director, showing the
assessment points, results of impact predictions, relevant standard or
criteria, extent of exceedance predicted, if any, mitigation measures proposed
and residual impacts, if any, after mitigation measures are implemented, etc.,
should be given at the end of each chapter on individual impact in the EIA
report as well as the Executive Summary.
3.9.11 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.
3.9.12 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
(EM&A) Requirements
3.9.12.1 The
Applicant shall identify and justify in the EIA study whether there is any need
for EM&A and environmental management system (EMS) activities during the
construction and operation phases of the Project and, if affirmative, to define
the scope of the EM&A requirements for the Project in the EIA study.
3.9.12.2 Subject to the
confirmation of EIA study findings, the Applicant shall comply with the
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.
3.9.12.3 The
Applicant shall prepare a Project Implementation Schedule (in the form of a
checklist as shown in Appendix 3 or as approved by the Director) containing all
the EIA study recommendations and mitigation measures with reference to the implementation
programme. The Project
Implementation Schedule shall include the explicit agreement reached between the
Applicant and relevant parties on the responsibility for funding,
implementation, management and maintenance of mitigation measures. Alternatively, the Project
Implementation Schedule shall include an undertaking from the Applicant to
assume the responsibility of all those mitigation measures until an agreement
is reached between the Applicant and relevant parties on the funding,
implementation, management and maintenance of mitigation measures. To facilitate issue of Environmental
Permits (EPs) in future, the implementation schedules shall be grouped under
individual works packages in separate DPs where applicable.
3.9.13 Monitoring
and Audit Requirement of the Project
The
Applicant should note the monitoring and audit requirement stipulated in
paragraph 8.1 of the TM. The
Proponent shall propose an environmental monitoring and audit programme in the
EIA report to verify the predictions and the effectiveness of mitigation
measures including audit on compliance during the operation phase of the Project.
4. DURATION
OF VALIDITY
The
Applicant shall notify the Director of the commencement of the EIA study. If the EIA study does not commence within
36 months after the date of issue of the EIA study brief, the Applicant shall
apply to the Director for a fresh EIA study brief afresh 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 hard copies of
the EIA report and the Executive Summary:
(i) 50
hard copies of the EIA report in English and 80 hard 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, unless advised otherwise by the Director;
(ii) where
necessary, addendum to each copy of the EIA report and the Executive Summary
submitted in sub-section 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 hard
copies of the EIA report in English and 50 hard 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 make additional hard copies of the 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 Report 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 Report 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 section 7(1) of the EIA Ordinance, 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.
5.8 To facilitate public involvement in the EIA
process, the applicant shall produce 3-dimensional electronic visualisations of
the major findings and elements of the EIA report, including baseline
environmental information, the environmental situations with and without the
Project, key mitigated and unmitigated environmental impacts, and key
recommended environmental mitigation measures so that the public can understand
the Project and the associated environmental issues. The visualisations shall be based on the
EIA report and released to the public. The visualisations shall be submitted in
CD-ROM or other suitable means agreed with the Director in commonly readable
formats. Unless otherwise advised
or agreed by the Director, the number of copies of CD-ROM required shall be the
same as that for EIA reports under Section 5.2.
6. OTHER
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
6.1 During the
EIA study, if there is any change in the name of Applicant for this EIA study
brief, the Applicant in this study brief must notify the Director immediately.
6.2 If there is
any key change in the scope of the Project mentioned in section 1.2 of this EIA
study brief and in Project Profile No. PP-257/2005, 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 another EIA study brief afresh.
--- END OF EIA
STUDY BRIEF ---
September
2005
Environmental
Assessment Division,
Environmental
Protection Department
Appendix 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 10o) 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, σΘ, needs to be provided as
input to the CALINE4 model. Typical values ofσΘ range from 12o
for rural areas to 24o for highly urbanised areas under 'D' class
stability. For semi-rural such as new development areas, 18o 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, 5th 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 NOx Ratio
The
conversion of NOx 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 NOx
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 NOx 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 2
Guidelines on Assessing the
'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts
[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. 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 - ESecondary contributions/ETerritory)
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 3
[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. 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.