appendix 18 - environmental protection department · 2008. 11. 26. · appendix 18.1 key assessment...

Appendix 18.1 Key Assessment Assumptions and Methodologies

1

Appendix 18.1 Key Assessment Assumptions and Methodologies

Prior Agreements with EPD/OtherAuthorities

Assessment Methodologies Assessment Assumptions Limitations of Assessment Methodologies /Assumptions EIA Study Brief

Clause ReferenceRelevant

Documentation

Air Quality Impact

Construction Phase

The major potential air qualityimpact during the constructionphase of the project will be dustarising from haul road emissions,open site erosion, excavation andfilling activities. Civil worksrelated to the demolition ofexisting structures andconstruction of infrastructure willalso cause emissions. Theconcurrent works for the SCL,CKR, Road T2 project andAnderson Projects have also beentaken into account in assessing theimpacts.Quantitative assessment wasconducted for determination ofconstruction dust impact due to theProject. Fugitive Dust Model(FDM) (1993 version) wasadopted to assess potential dustimpact from the constructionworks. The 1-hour and 24-houraverage TSP concentrations atrepresentative discrete ASRs in thevicinity of the construction siteswere predicted. The assessmentlevel for ASRs were at 1.5maboveground.

Dusty construction activities and programme were basedon information provided by the Engineer. Twoscenarios which represent the worst case scenarios overthe whole construction period of the Project wereidentified for assessment.

As a conservative assessment approach, heavyconstruction emission rate was adopted for all types ofconstruction activities in the assessment.

ConstructionActivities

EmissionRate (g/m2/s)

Remark

Allconstructionwork

E =1.49684E-05

- 50% of works area withactive dust emittingconstruction activities

- 87.5% reduction by watersuppression (watering eighttimes a day)

- USEPA AP-42 5th ED.,S.13.2.3.3

Barging pointserving theDevelopmentat AndersonRoad Project

E =2.04236E-05

- USEPA AP-42 5th ED., S.13.2.4

- Information for emission ratecalculation was provided byAnderson Road ProjectEngineer

- 75% reduction by watersuppression for eachunloading

Wind Erosionfor allconstructionwork(includingbarge point)

E =1.34767E-06

- 50% of works area withactive construction activities

- AP-42 5th ED., S.11.9 Table11.9.4

Project still in planning stage. It is difficult to obtain thedetail information for estimation of emission rates ofdifferent dusty construction activities, heavy constructionemission rate which is higher emission rate was thereforeadopted in the model run. The predicted dustconcentrations at the ASRs may be higher than the actualsituation.

S3.4.5.2S3.4.5.3 (i)S3.4.5.3 (vi) (a)S3.4.5.3 (iii) (b)

N/AThe assessmentwas accordancewith AppendicesB-1 to B-3 of EIAStudy BriefThe assumptionfor constructiondust assessmentwas agreed withProjectProponent.

2




Documentation

The emission rates for differentconstruction activities consideredin the model were based on theUSEPA Compilation of AirPollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), 5th edition.

Agreed with the Project Proponent, 50% of work areawould be active during construction and the workingperiod at the construction site would be 12 hours per dayand 26 working days per month. Theses twoassumptions have been considered in the assessment.Wind erosion of open sites (i.e. 50% of work area) wasassumed to take place over the whole day in the model.

The requirement of the Air Pollution Control(Construction Dust) Regulation such as watering withcomplete coverage of active construction area eighttimes a day was considered in the assessment and 87.5%reduction of dust emission was assumed in the modelwith the implementation of this dust suppressionmeasure in accordance with USEPA guideline.One year sequential meteorological data for the year2006 from the South East Kowloon Weather Stationwere used to predict the 1-hour and 24-hour averageTSP concentrations.

The background pollutant values adopted for thisassessment are derived based on EPD’s “Guideline onAssessing the ‘TOTAL’ Air Quality Impacts”. Theannual average concentrations of the pollutantsmeasured at EPD’s Sham Shui Po and Kwun Tong airquality monitoring stations in the latest five years (Year2002 to 2006) are adopted as the background air qualityas their locations are within and adjacent to the Projectarea. As most of the monitoring data in Year 2002 atKwun Tong air quality station was missing, therefore thedata of Year 2002 recorded at this station has not beentaken into account in the calculation of backgroundconcentration. The five years TSP average monitoringdata recorded at EPD’s Kwun Tong and Sham Shui Po

3




Documentation

air quality monitoring stations are 78 g/m3 and79 g/m3 respectively. For this assessment, 79 g/m3

was taken as the TSP background concentration.

Operational Phase (Vehicle Emission include open road and ventilation building)

Vehicular Emission Impact (openroad sections) from the Projectincluding open road emission andportal emissions, planneddeckovers was assessed.

HK-EMFAC Model was adoptedto calculate the fleet averageemission factors.

Portal emissions were modelled inaccordance with “PermanentInternational Association of RoadCongress Report (PIAR, 1991).

The cumulative air pollutantconcentrations at ASRs werepredicted using CALINE4 modeland ISCST3 model. the predictedvalues from the CALINE4 and theISCST3 models are added togetherwith the background pollutantconcentrations.

The conversion factor from NOx toNO2 for all roads and portalemissions of tunnels andventilation building was based onthe Ambient Ratio Method(assuming 20% of NOx to be NO2)

Traffic forecast Year 2031, the peak hour traffic flowwithin 15 years after operation of the Project, wasadopted for assessment; the highest vehicle emissionfactors for different vehicle classes, Year 2016, wereused in the model run.

Meteorological conditions assumed in the CALINE4model:

Wind speed : 1 m s-1

Wind direction: 360 wind directionsResolution: 1Wind variability : 24Stability class : DSurface roughness :1 mMixing height : 500 m

A conversion factor of 0.4 was used to convert the 1-hour average concentrations to 24-hour averageconcentrations with reference to the “ScreeningProcedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact ofStationary Source (EPA-454/R-92-019).”

Emission from ventilation buildingsAs there is no detailed information for the proposedRoad T2 & CKR at the time of carrying out of this EIA,the following ventilation design was adopted for thisstudy. On the KTD side, it is assumed that the 40%traffic emission from Road T2 Tunnel westbound wouldbe expelled from the portal and another 60% would be

The highest traffic forecast year and the highest vehicleemission factor year were adopted in the model run. Avery worst case scenario was considered in theassessment and may overestimate the vehicle emissionimpact (open road).

3.4.5.3 (v) (b)3.4.5.3 (v) (c)S3.4.5.3 (vi) (a)

Acceptancememo wasobtained fromEPD (see Annex18.1)The forecasttraffic flow andspeed fraction foryear 2031 with 16vehicle classeshave beensubmitted to theTransportDepartment (TD)and received noobjection fromTD for using theforecasted trafficflow for the EIA.

Annex 18.1shown all therelateddocuments.

4




Documentation

which is one acceptable approachas stipulated in EPD “Guidelineson Choice of Models and ModelParameters”.

Secondary air quality impactsarising from implementation ofroadside noise barriers/semi-enclosures were also incorporatedin the air quality model.

extracted and discharged at the northern vent shaft ofRoad T2 Tunnel. On the southern portal side (KwunTong side), it is also assumed that 50% of the trafficemissions from Road T2 Tunnel eastbound would beexpelled from the portal and another 50% emissionwould be extracted and discharged at the southern ventshaft of Road T2 Tunnel next to the TunnelAdministration Building.For the proposed CKR, the assumption of ventilationdesign was made reference to the approved SEKDCFSEIA Report. It has been assumed that all the tunnelemissions would be exhausted from the vent shafts andthere would be no portal emission at the KTD exit. 50%of the total tunnel emission would be emitted from theEast Vent Building in KTD. Letter from HyD (Ref.(6FU4) in HMW 461TH/1/7/7 dated 19 Feb 2008)mentioned no detailed ventilation information for CKR.For the emissions of Kai Tak Tunnel VentilationBuilding, 50% of the traffic emissions from the tunnelwould be expelled from the portal and 50% of the tunnelemissions would be extracted and discharged at the ventshaft of Kai Tak Tunnel Ventilation Building.One year sequential meteorological data for the year2006 from the South East Kowloon Weather Station wasadopted.The background pollutant values adopted for thisassessment are derived based on EPD’s “Guideline onAssessing the ‘TOTAL’ Air Quality Impacts”. Theannual average concentrations of the pollutantsmeasured at EPD’s Sham Shui Po and Kwun Tong airquality monitoring stations in the latest five years (Year2002 to 2006) are adopted as the background air qualityas their locations are within and adjacent to the Projectarea. As most of the monitoring data in Year 2002 atKwun Tong air quality station was missing, therefore thedata of Year 2002 recorded at this station has not been

5




Documentation

taken into account in the calculation of backgroundconcentration. For the purpose of this assessment, RSP,NO2 and SO2 concentration of 57, 67 and 24 g/m3

respectively are taken as background concentration forthe operational phase assessment.

Operational Phase (In tunnel)

Air Quality inside Road L1 Tunneland Deckover at Road D2The air quality under the Road L1tunnel and deckover at Road D2was calculated based on theempirical formulas of fluiddynamics. Two scenarios wereconsidered for the deckover, i.e.normal traffic flow condition andcongested traffic flow condition.The assessment results shouldachieve the EPD recommendedstandard of 1ppm NO2concentration

Two scenarios were assessed, it was assumed that undernormal traffic flow condition, the vehicles are at a speedof 50 kph, whereas under congested mode, theseparation between vehicles is assumed to be 1 m.

There is no any structure wall between the Road D2. Theair quality under the planned deckover would be mixedbut not fully mixed due to large separate distancebetween the roads. However, the predicted air qualityunder the proposed deckover may be overestimated.

3.4.5.3 (v) (c) N/ANo ventilationsystem in RoadL1 tunnel andDeckover at RoadD2

Operational Phase (Cruise Emission)

The Industrial Source ComplexShort Term (ISCST3) dispersionmodel was used to predict thechimney emissions.

For the purpose of this assessment, berthing include allthe manoeuvring motions of the cruise vessel from thenavigation channel to near the cruise terminal (for aperiod of 15 minutes), final manoeuvring around theberth (for a period of 15 minutes) and 30 minuteshotelling before connecting to / after disconnecting fromthe on-shore power supply if required. It is assumed thatthe berthing of two cruise vessels will not happenconcurrently. Based on the vessel track simulationresults, the entire manoeuvring motions of cruise vesselsbetween the navigation channel and the berth would becompleted within 30 minutes including the necessaryturn and berth motions. Besides, with reference to a

An auxiliary load of 9.5MW for Panamax, Post-Panamaxand Super Post-Panamax cruise vessels during hotellingwas adopted for the air quality impact assessment as areasonable and conservative estimate.A number of sensitivity tests to evaluate the worst casescenario. A worst case scenario was considered in theassessment.

S3.4.5.2S3.4.5.3 (i)S3.4.5.3 (vi) (a)

N/AThe assessmentwas accordancewith AppendicesB-1 to B-3 of EIAStudy Brief.

6




Documentation

literature “Going Cold Iron in Alaska, R.Maddison &D.H. Smith”, connecting to on-shore power supply forvessels equipped with cold-ironing would normally becompleted within 30 minutes.The emission rate estimation is based on CurrentMethodologies and Best Practices in Preparing PortEmission Inventories, Final Report, January 2006prepared by ICF Consulting for USEPA and applied thecorrection factor of 1.41 for average 3.8% fuel oilsulphur content in Hong Kong.The emission rate estimation is based on the auxiliaryengine power of cruise ship is estimated to be 9.5MW /0.64 or equal to 14.8MW and applied the correctionfactor of 1.41 for average 3.8% fuel oil sulphur contentin Hong Kong.In this assessment, it is also assumed that the cruisevessel will be assisted by two tug boats during the 30minutes berthing in or berthing out motions. Theemission rates of the tug boats were also estimated inaccordance with the Current Methodologies and BestPractices in Preparing Port Emission Inventories, FinalReport based on average engine power (1532kW) andload factor for tug boats (31%).

Operational Phase (Emission from typhoon shelter)

The Industrial Source ComplexShort Term (ISCST3) dispersionmodel was used to predict thechimney emissions.

The loading/unloading are the major activities withintyphoon shelters. Based on the site observation, around40 & 20 barges were parking within Kwun TongTyphoon Shelter and To Kwa Wan Typhoon Shelter,respectively. Around 20 barges have loading /unloading activities at Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter.For those barges parked in the To Kwa Wan TyphoonShelter, it was observed no loading / unloading activitiesand without started engine. For this assessment, weassumed 60 barges at both typhoon shelters forconservative assessment.

The loading/unloading are the major activities withintyphoon shelters. This assessment assumed 60 barges atboth typhoon shelters should be conservative side andwould be overestimate.

S3.4.5.2S3.4.5.3 (i)S3.4.5.3 (vi) (a)


7




Documentation

The emission rates of air pollutants from the operation ofthe auxiliary engine of barges were estimated based onthe approach stipulated in Current Methodologies andBest Practices in Preparing Port Emission Inventories,Final Report, January 2006 prepared by ICF Consultingfor USEPA. The power rating of 82 kW for auxiliaryengine and emission height of the barges were about 5mabove water surface were adopted for this assessment.

Operational Phase (Industrial Emission)

The Industrial Source ComplexShort Term (ISCST3) dispersionmodel was used to predict thechimney emissions. Since theinventory of industrial chimneyscannot be obtained from EPD, it isextracted from the previousapproved EIA report of SEKDCFSand verified by site survey.

The industrial chimneys emissions were made referenceto the approved report of SEKDCFS. The emission ratefor those new chimneys not listed in the SEKDCFS EIAreport, the averaged fuel consumption for those validchimneys was adopted to assess the impacts from theindustrial chimney emissions on the ASRs within theProject area.For the emission for Hong Kong & China Gas Co. Ltd.at To Kwa Wan, the emission data was made referenceto the Specified Process Licence.

Since the inventory of industrial chimneys cannot beobtained from EPD, the emission rate may beoverestimated based on the pervious approved SEKDCFSEIA report.

S3.4.5.2S3.4.5.3 (i)S3.4.5.3 (vi) (a)


Operational Phase (Emission from Heliport)

The emission impact from theheliport was modelled as pointsource by employing the ISCST3model. The emission rate wasmade reference to the approvedHFMFT EIA report.

NO2 Emission Rate:based on the HFMFT EIA Report (Register No.:AEIAR-095/2006)SO2 & RSP Emission Rate:Helicopter Safety Advisory Conference (HSAC)2001. Helicopter safety advisory conference (HSAC)Gulf of Mexico offshore helicopter operations andsafety reviewFlight frequency:Assume 4 flight/hr for both daytime and nighttime asa worst case scenario.

At this stage, it would be hard to make the assumptions(e.g. frequency of flights, type of helicopters, etc.) ofhelicopter services for the assessment.

S3.4.5.2S3.4.5.3 (i)S3.4.5.3 (vi) (a)


8




Documentation

Operational Phase (Odour Impact)

Odour impact were assessed usingISCST3 model. The predicted 1-hour average concentrations ofodour at the receivers wereconverted to 5-second averagingtime in accordance with ApprovedMethods for Modelling andAssessment of Air Pollutants inNew South Wales” published bythe Department of Environmentand Conservation, New SouthWales, Australia (NSW ApprovedMethod).

Total four scenario were assumed:Mitigated Scenario A1:Decking of KTN within apron area + full mitigation ofKTN and JVC headspace + desilting enhancement +localised maintenance dredging + 600m gap opening +in-situ bioremediation to achieve further 80% odourremoval efficiencyMitigated Scenario A2:Decking of KTN within apron area + full mitigation ofKTN and JVC headspace + desilting enhancement +localised maintenance dredging + 600m gap opening +in-situ bioremediation to achieve further 90% odourremoval efficiencyMitigated Scenario B1:Reconstruct KTN into Kai Tak River within apron area+ full mitigation of KTN and JVC headspace + desiltingenhancement + localised maintenance dredging + 600mgap opening + in-situ bioremediation to achieve further80% odour removal efficiencyMitigated Scenario B2:Reconstruct KTN into Kai Tak River within apron area+ full mitigation of KTN and JVC headspace + desiltingenhancement + localised maintenance dredging + 600mgap opening + in-situ bioremediation to achieve further90% odour removal efficiency.Two desilting compounds are proposed for KTN (at Site1D6 and Site 1P1) and a dry weather flow interceptor(DWFI) compound is proposed for JVC (at Site 3A3) tocontain pollution in drainage systems entering theKTAC and KTTS by interception facilities until theultimate removal of the pollution sources. It is notedthat under the Project “Upgrading of Central & EastKowloon Sewerage - Packages 1 to 4”, upgrading and

It is difficult to obtain a quantitative value of odourreduction efficiency in future scenario for modelling runas it cannot ensure that no expedient connection to KTNafter rectification. A conservative assumption for odourremoval efficiency was therefore used in the assessmentfor future scenario.

3.4.5.3 (v) (d)S3.4.5.3 (vi) (a)S3.4.5.3 (vii)

Acceptancememo wasobtained fromEPD. (see Annex18.1)

9




Documentation

construction of about 21km long sewers and associatedsewerage works would be carried out for the central andeast Kowloon region. This will include upgrading of theexisting DWFIs for the drainage catchment of KTN. Itis expected that these existing DWFIs at the upstream ofKTN can effectively control the polluted flows afterupgrading. In addition, under the “Kai Tak ApproachChannel – Expedient Connection Survey Study”,surveys will be undertaken to identify expedientconnections in public drains/sewers and domesticbuildings in Kowloon City, Ngau Tau Kok, KowloonBay, Wong Tai Sin and Choi Hung, for subsequentrectification.

Tidal barriers and desiliting facilities will form part ofthe compounds to prevent any accumulation of sedimentwithin the downstream section of KTN and JVC andhence fully mitigate the potential odour emissions fromthe headspace of KTN and JVC near the existingdischarge locations. The odour generating operationswithin the proposed desilting compounds and DWFIcompound will be fully enclosed and the odorous air willbe collected and treated by high efficiency deodorizersbefore discharge to the atmosphere.

Hourly meteorological data for the year 2006 (includingwind speed, wind direction, air temperature, Pasquillstability class and mixing height) Hong KongObservatory were employed for the model run. Thestudy area is in an urban area, “Urban” model wasadopted in the model.

10




Documentation

Noise Impact

Construction Noise

To assess the potential noiseimpacts due to the Project, thenoise sources are identified andthe impacts have been quantified.The assessment methodologyfollows Technical Memorandumon Noise From Construction Workother than Percussive Piling.

Construction noise impact assessment has been carriedout on a monthly basis and assessed on existing NSRsfrom the commencement of the Project. Cumulativenoise impact was considered within 300m of the NSRsfrom the construction tasks of the Project taking placeconcurrently. Noise sources from the areas greater thanthis 300m distance have been excluded from thisassessment.In accordance with the EIAO, the methodology outlinedin the GW-TM has been used for this assessment ofconstruction noise (excluding percussive piling). Soundpower level (SWL) of the equipment was taken fromTable 3 of TM and BS5228 was referenced for thosewithout information provided.It was assumed that all PME items required for aparticular construction activity would be located at thenotional or probable source position of the segmentwhere such activity is to be performed. The assessmentis based on the cumulative SWL of PME likely to beused for each location, taking into account theconstruction period in the vicinity of the receiverlocation. To predict the noise level, PME was dividedinto groups required for each discrete construction task.The objective was to identify the worst case scenariorepresenting those items of PME that would be in useconcurrently at any given time. The sound pressurelevel of each construction task was calculated,depending on the number of plant and distance fromreceivers. The noise levels at NSRs were then predictedby adding up the SWLs of all concurrent constructiontasks.

The prediction of construction noise impact was based onthe methodology described in the GW-TM under theNCO. There would be limitations of the methodologysuch as the accuracy of the predictive base data for future(e.g. plant inventory for proposed construction works).Quantitative uncertainties in this assessment of impactsshould be considered when drawing conclusions from theassessment.In carrying out the assessment, realistic worst caseassumptions have been made in order to provide aconservative assessment of noise impacts. Theconstruction noise impact was assessed based onconservative estimates for the types and quantities ofplant and construction methods.

3.4.6.2 (i)3.4.6.2 (iii) (b)3.4.6.2 (iv) (a)3.3.6.2 (v) (d)

Acceptancememo wasobtained fromEPD (See Annex18.2)

It was stated inEIA Report thatthe constructionplant inventoryhas been vettedand confirmed bythe Engineer asbeing practicablein completing theworks withinscheduledtimeframe.

The responseletter from EPDon assessmentmethodology forground-bornenoise wasobtained fromEPD. (See Annex18.2)

11




Documentation

A positive 3 dB(A) façade correction was added to thepredicted noise levels in order to account for the facadeeffect at each NSR.Appropriate on-time percentage for PMEs werereasonably assumed, such as poker vibrator, crane andexcavator.

Rail Noise

The noise impact assessment forthe Project follows Annex 5 andAnnex 13 of the EIAO-TM.

The proposed Shatin to Central Link (SCL) and itsstations would be at the Site 1F (Kai Tak Station) andSite 2D (To Kwan Wan Station). The SCL line wouldbe underground and hence operational railway noiseimpact is not expected.EFTS is proposed to be introduced to operate as a majorinternal mode of transport within Kai Tak Development.It is proposed to provide feeder services between SCLKai Tak Station, SCL To Kwa Wan Station and theTourism Node. The alignment of EFTS is shown inFigure 7.2. Several modes of EFTS, including light railtransit (LRT), trolley bus, automatic people mover(APM), monorails, and electric / LPG bus, wereinvestigated during feasibility study. For conservativenoise assessment, the rail base of EFTS was assumed forthe assessment. Below are list out the tentative trainoperation mode.• Operation Hour: 6am to 12mid-night• Train frequency: 14 train/hr for peak hour and 4

train/hr for non-peak hour

As no detailed specification for the proposed EFTS, thepredicted buffer zone would be subject to the finaldecision on selection of EFTS.

3.4.6.2 (vi) (a1) Acceptancememo wasobtained fromEPD. (see Annex18.2)

Road Traffic Noise


The roads proposed under the Project are scheduled toopen in 2016. Therefore, the traffic data for year 2031,which was agreed by Transport Department, wasadopted for the assessment.

There would be some limitations of methodology such asthe accuracy of the predictive base data for future (e.g.traffic flow forecast). Besides, traffic noise levels arepredicted based on free flow condition. Traffic

3.4.6.2 (i)3.4.6.2 (iii) (b)3.4.6.2 (iv) (a)

Acceptancememo wasobtained fromEPD (see Annex

12




Documentation

Traffic noise was predicted usingthe methodology provided in theUK Department of TransportCalculation of Road Traffic Noise(CRTN) 1988. The assessmentwas based on projected peak hourflows for the worst year within 15years after opening of the road.

The existing noise screening structures and mitigationmeasures on the Prince Edward Road East and KwunTong Bypass was taken into account in the assessment.• Low noise surfacing on the existing Prince Edward

Road East and Kwun Tong Bypass;• 4m high barrier along N/B of Kwun Tong Bypass

and its slip road; and• Semi-enclosures along Kwun Tong Bypass near

Richland Gardens and Choi Hung Estate.

The building layout plan with mitigation measures (1.5mvertical fins) for Site 1A1 and 1B1 are provided by theHousing Department and to be adopted in thisassessment as a unmitigated scenario.

congestion and hence reduced traffic speed are not takeninto account in the noise model. Quantitativeuncertainties in the assessment of impacts should beconsidered when drawing conclusions from theassessment.

In carrying out the assessment, realistic worst caseassumptions have been made in order to provide aconservative assessment of noise impacts. For theassessment of road traffic noise impact, peak hourlytraffic flows representing the worst case scenario wereadopted.

3.4.6.2 (vi) (c1)3.4.6.2 (vi) (c3)

18.2)

TransportDepartment’sagreement on useof 2031 trafficdata for this EIAis presented inAnnex 18.1

Fixed Noise Sources


Calculate the maximum allowable Sound Power Level(SWL) as the compliance criteria for each fixed noisesources has been determined.

Fans and damper arrangement at each ventilation buildingmay be refined in detailed design. The worst casecondition that all duty exhaust fans are operated at eachventilation building was adopted for assessment.Screening corrections from other buildings / structuresand directivity were excluded in the assessment.

3.4.6.2 (vi) (b2) All noise matters(except Noisefrom open airentertainmentactivities)addressed in EIAreport areincluded in Table1A of Annex 5 ofthe TM.

Noise from Open Air Entertainment Activities

Noise level from the activity(including set up, rehearsal, mainevent and stage dismantling etc.)should not be more than 5 dB(A)above the background noise level,as measured at one metre from theexterior building facade of the

Noise measurements from concerts in Hong KongStadium previously showed that the typical noise levelsin Leq(15mins) of about 170 m away from Hong KongStadium was 73-75dB(A). It is likely that noise from theproposed stadium would affect nearby NSRs ifmitigation measures such as retractable roof or enclosurewere not adopted. The SEKDCFS EIA Report also

The location of loudspeaker and the roof design would berefined in detailed design stage. The worst caseassessment was made reference to the noise measurementfrom concerts in Hong Kong Stadium. The correction ofdirectivity was excluded in the assessment.

3.4.6.2 (vi) (b2) Acceptancememo wasobtained for theagreement ofNoise from openair entertainmentactivities (Annex

13




Documentation

most affected noise sensitivereceivers, during day time andevening period, i.e. 0700 – 2300hours. For the night time, i.e.2300 – 0700 hours, noise shouldnot be audible within nearby noisesensitive receivers

proposed retractable roof to mitigate the noise event andit can achieve about 25dB(A) reduction. Forconservative approach, 10dB(A) reduction was adoptedfor assessment.

18.2)

Helicopter Noise


A number of SWL of helicopter have been reviewed andidentified Eurocopter AS-332 L2 adopted or the worstcase assessment. There will be no designated approachroute and take-off route for the proposed helipad. Thehelicopters will generally fly along the coastline toapproach the landing pad.

The noise assessment was carried out based on the bestavailable information. With reference to a number of EIAreport, the measured Lmax for Eurocopter AS-332 L2(Super Puma) was adopted for assessment. Theassessment was undertaken based on the noise levelassociated with an AS 332 L2 helicopter as aconservative approach.At this stage, it would be hard to make the assumptions(e.g. frequency of flights, type of helicopters, etc.) ofcommercial helicopter services for noise assessment.However, in view of the considerable buffer distancebetween the NSRs and the helipad (i.e. about 700m),adverse helicopter noise impact would not be anticipated.

3.4.6.2 (vi) (d1) Noise mattersaddressed in EIAreport areincluded in Table1A of Annex 5 ofthe TM.

Marine Traffic Noise Impact


Noise impacts arising from operation activities on themoored vessels in typhoon shelters and manoeuvering ofvessels at the proposed cruise terminal from the typhoonshelters may vary with the composition and type of thevessels. The potential noise impact is likely come fromthe engine noise and operation activities of individualvessel in operation. It is similar to noise from publicplace which vessels are free to move around andimplementation control measures are not possible.

Marine traffic noise sources, such as marine traffic noisefrom operation activities on the moored vessels intyphoon shelters and manoeuvring of vessels includingcruise vessels during operational phase of the proposeddevelopment. It is similar to noise from public placewhich vessels are free to move around andimplementation control measures are not possible. It isnot even possible to quantify accurately or compare toexisting standard. No objective noise standard for marinetraffic noise (include noise from typhoon shelters) in thisEIA.

3.4.6.2 (vi) (e1) Acceptancememo wasobtained for theagreement ofNoise from openair entertainmentactivities (Annex18.2)

14




Documentation

Water Quality

The water quality impactassessment for the Project followsAnnex 6 and Annex 14 of theEIAO-TM.

To assess the potential waterquality impacts due to the Project,the sources and natures of waterpollution to be generated havebeen identified and their impactshave been quantified usingmathematical model.

Appropriate mitigation measureshave been recommended tominimize any adverse waterquality impacts.

The maximum dredging rates, construction sequences,coastline configurations (including the layout of theproposed runway opening and pile deck configurations)assumed in the EIA were developed based on bothengineering and environmental considerations.

Quantitative uncertainties in the modelling need to beconsidered when making an evaluation of the modellingpredictions. The worst case conditions were adopted asmodel input to indicate the maximum extent of thepotential environmental impacts. The input data tended tobe conservative to provide a margin of tolerance. Themaximum dredging rates were applied to the modelcontinuously during the entire dredging period. In reality,the peak rates would not occur continuously and theaverage rates should be smaller. The following approachhas been adopted to enhance the model performance:

The computational grid of the detailed South EastKowloon (SEK) Model was refined along thecoastline of KTAC, KTTS and Kowloon Bay torepresent the coastal features under differentconstruction and operational scenarios;Use of a fully calibrated and validated regionalUpdate Model to provide boundary and initialconditions to the detailed SEK Model;The performance of the detailed SEK Model wasextensively calibrated and validated with reference tothe field data to ensure that reliable predictions ofhydrodynamics are provided for the Study area.The simulation comprises a sufficient spin up periodso that the initial conditions do not affect the results.The level of uncertainties on the water qualitypredictions inside the marine embayments would alsodepend on the accuracy of the pollution loading inputinto the embayed areas. The storm pollution loadingdischarged into the embayment areas along thecoastline of KTD area including the KTAC, KTTSand Kowloon Bay was derived from detailed fieldinvestigation to provide accurate information for

3.4.7.6 (g)3.4.7.6 (h)3.4.7.6 (p)Appendix D

Acceptancememo wasobtained (otherthan water qualityassessmentmethodology foraccidentalspillage). (Annex18.3)

15




Documentation

model input. The loading input to the water qualitymodel under various future assessment scenarios hasalso taken into account the future development andpopulation growth in order to provide conservativepredictions.

Waste Management

The method for assessing potentialwaste management impacts for theProject follow those presented inAnnex 7 and Annex 15 of theEIAO-TM.

Marine site investigation andlaboratory testing were carried outto determine the level ofcontamination in the sedimentswithin the proposed dredging areain accordance with ETWB TCWNo. 34/2002 Management ofDredge/Excavated Sediment.

Appropriate mitigation measureshave been recommended tominimize any adverse wasteimpacts.

The waste quantities to be generated from the Projectwere estimated based on the engineering assessment andthe information provided in the Construction andDemolition Material Management Plan (C&DMMP)prepared for the Project.

The waste quantities estimated under this EIA are subjectto further detailed site survey and design. However,further refinement of the estimated waste quantitieswould not affect the assessment conclusion provided thatall the recommended mitigation measures areimplemented properly.

3.4.7.6 (k)3.4.9.2 (iii)

Acceptancememo wasobtained for theagreement ofSedimentSampling andTesting Plan(SSTP) for VC1and VC2 at publiclanding steps cumfireboat berth(Annex 18.4)

Land ContaminationThe approach for landcontamination assessment for theProject follows those presented inProPECC PN3/94, the GuidanceNote and Annex 19 of the EIAO-TM as all the CAPs preparedunder this EIA study weresubmitted and approved by the

In regard to Section 3.4.10.2 of the EIA Study Brief No.ESB-152/2006, the assessment area for landcontamination impact has included all areas within theboundary of the former Kai Tak International Airportand all the developments proposed within the boundaryof the Project.

None 3.4.10.1 None

16




Documentation

EPD before 15 August 2007,

The relevance and validity ofprevious contaminationassessment report was confirmedwith EPD

Approval of CAP prior tocontamination investigation

Estimation of soil contaminationextent is based on the nature ofcontaminants, the contaminationlevel as well as the consultant’sprofessional gained from othersimilar nature of landcontamination projects

The information and findings of the land contaminationassessment in the “Decommissioning of the Former KaiTak Airport other than the North Apron EIA (EIAORegister No.: AEIAR- 114/2007)” are still valid for thisEIA study.The CAPs of ex-Government Flying Services buildingand Radar Station were submitted and approved by EPDin August 2007. Due to site constraints in Radar Stationand ex-GFS building, only limited site investigationworks could be carried out. EPD has requested asubmission of revised CAP in October 2007. The revisedCAP of the Radar Station has been approved in May2008 whereas the revised CAP of ex-GFS building ispending for approval.

The CAP for Hong Kong Aviation Club was approved inJanuary 2008.

Organic Contaminated SoilRegarding organic (TPH and PAHs (Phenanthrene,Benzo(a)pyrene, Fluoranthene andPyrene) )contamination, the extent of contaminationfound at borehole GFSA-18 and GFSB-01 at the ex-GFSbuilding has been estimated based on the a 6m X 6msquare centered at the sampling location. This approachwas justified by considering the contaminated soil fromthese sampling location were due to localized / discretesources.

Metals Contaminated SoilRegarding metals (copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, nickeland cobalt)contamination, the extent of contaminationfound at borehole GFSA-20, GFSD-03 to 04, GFSA-17,

None

None

The actual soil contamination extent should be subject tosite specific conditions. In order to ensrure that all theidentified contaminated soil has been excavated from thesite, confirmation sampling and testing are proposed to beconducted.

3.4.10.2

3.4.10.4

None

Annex 18.5

Annex 18.5

None

17




Documentation

GFSA-22 at ex-GFS building have been estimated basedon the approach of a 6m X 6m square centered at thesampling location. This approach for metalcontamination was justified by considering theimmobility of metals, the contamination level, and thespatial distribution of the sampling locations as well asthe consultant’s professional experience gained fromother land contamination projects.

Hazard to life

Evaluation and assessment of potentialrisk impact was conducted inaccordance with the criteria andguidelines specified in Annex 4 andAnnex 22 of the EIAO-TM. TheMethodology Statement of HazardAssessment submitted in December2007 was approved by EPD.

List of Assumptions have been agreed upon by relevant paritiesand government departments for Ma Tau Kok Gas Works andits associated North Plant Facilities, Kwun Tong DG VehicularFerry Pier and Petrol cum LPG stations / dedicated LPGstations. The hazard assessments were carried out based oncurrent best available information obtained from relevantparties and government authorities.Population estimation using 2003-based Territorial Populationand Employment Data matrix (TPEDM) was adopted for theassessment based on prior agreement with PlanningDepartment.

The hazard assessments conducted were based on the site surveydata and current best available information provided by therelevant parties and government departments. Current situationmay not apply to future scenarios in some cases.

The individual risk and societal risk associated with all thehazardous installations were found to be acceptable inaccordance with the criteria stipulated in Annex 4 of the EIAOTM except the risk level for the dedicated LPG filling station atCheung Yip Street (Station 7) at Year 2021. The risk level ofStation 7 at Year 2012 and Year 2016 would fall within“acceptable” but “As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)”at Year 2021. Given that the dedicated LPG filling station is anexisting installation and has no agreeable mitigation measurescurrently, the risk is therefore considered to be tolerable.

3.4.11.1 Acceptance memofrom EPD wasobtained for theMethodology ofHazard Assessmentdated21 December 2007.(Ref (17_ in Ax(13)to EP2/K19/S3/10Pt 5))(Annex 18.6)

Impact Cultural Heritage

Evaluation and assessment ofpotential impacts to culturalheritage resources was conductedin accordance with the Study BriefESB 152/2006. The Study adheredto the requirements as listed inAnnexes 10 and 19 of the TM(EIAO) and also the relevantguidelines for Cultural heritageImpact Assessment as issued by

The assessment was based on the existing informationavailable from previous investigations in the study areaand supplemented through built heritage and terrestrialarchaeological field surveys.

Based upon the findings of previous surveys thearchaeological potential of the study area was determinedto not have been adequately examined in previousinvestigations. The terrestrial archaeological investigationof the current study was limited by the presence of waterin the trenches and further archaeological investigationhas been recommended with the provision that a moresophisticated water management programme be set up forthe duration of the excavation.

N/A N/A

18




Documentation

the AMO for TerrestrialArchaeological ImpactAssessment, MarineArchaeological ImpactAssessment and Built HeritageImpact Assessment.

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Evaluation and assessment of potentialimpact on landscape resources,landscape character areas, visualsensitive receivers was conducted inaccordance with the criteria andguidelines specified in Annex 10 andAnnex 18, respectively, of the EIAO-TM.

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not required Not Applicable

Ecological Impact

Evaluation and assessment of potentialimpact on ecological resources wasconducted in accordance with thecriteria and guidelines specified inAnnex 8 and Annex 16, respectively,of the EIAO-TM.

Development programme as attached in Appendix 2.1.Proposed developments as depicted in Figure 1.1 and 1.2.The assessment and evaluation of ecological impact onterrestrial and marine habitats was undertaken based on theresults of literature review, terrestrial reconnaissance surveys /marine ecological field surveys and water quality impactassessment results (for marine ecological impact assessmentonly).

Limitations and uncertainties of the water quality impactassessment stated under the Water Quality Impact.

Results of terrestrial reconnaissance surveys (e.g. habitat /vegetation and terrestrial wildlife) and marine ecological fieldsurveys (e.g. benthos sampling, intertidal survey, spot-checkdive and REA) conducted for this Project are based on sampling/ survey at several representative locations / transects in andwithin the vicinity of the Project area. In particular, the exactnumber of coral colonies to be directly affected by proposeddredging works is subjected to further detailed pre-translocationcoral survey at the time of the detailed design phase of thisProject. However, further refinement of the exact number ofcoral colonies to be directly impacted would not affect theassessment conclusion in this EIA, provided that all therecommended mitigation measures are implemented properly.

Not required Not Applicable

19




Documentation

Fisheries Impact

Evaluation and assessment of potentialimpact on fisheries was conducted inaccordance with the criteria andguidelines specified in Annex 9 andAnnex 16, respectively, of the EIAO-TM.

Development programme as attached in Appendix 2.1.Proposed developments as depicted in Figure 1.1 and 1.2.The assessment and evaluation of fisheries impact wasundertaken based on the results of literature review and waterquality impact assessment results.

Limitations and uncertainties of the water quality impactassessment are stated under the Water Quality Impact.

3.4.15.4 – Existinginformationregarding theassessment area shallbe reviewed. Basedon the review results,the study shallidentify data gap anddetermine if there usany need for fieldsurveys. If fieldsurveys areconsiderednecessary, the studyshall recommendappropriatemethodology,duration and timingfor the field surveys.The proposed fieldsurvey shall beagreed with theDirector ofAgriculture andFisheries or theDirector prior to thecommencement ofthe survey.

As stated in Section15.3.1 of the EIA,no necessary fieldsurvey is identifiedand conducted inthis assessment.Prior agreementwith the Director ofAFCD or theDirector on detailsof proposed fieldsurvey wastherefore notrequired.

Sewage and Sewage Treatment Implications

The methodology for hydraulicassessment for sewerage systemwas conducted based on “WorkingPaper on Sewerage ImpactAssessment methodology” issuedin Nov 07 and “Working Paper onAssessment of Existing andPlanned Sewerage, Sewage

The flow projections followed to the following manualsand guidelines:

DSD Sewerage Manual (Volume 1 and 2)EPD Guidelines for Estimating Sewage Flows forSewage Infrastructure Planning (GESF)

The sewerage networks model was obtained from EPD

None S3.4.8.2 (ix) Annex 18.7

20




Documentation

Treatment and Disposal Facilities”issued in May 07 under KTDproject.

for the Central and East Kowloon sewerage catchmentsin March 2007 and Oct 2007. The sewerage model wasused and trimmed to a simplified model which containsthe network of the concerned trunk sewer for hydraulicassessment of the existing sewer at Hoi Bun Road.

The population data within KTPTW and TKWPTWexcluding KTD adopted for design scenarios are statedas following table:

Scenario Planning data

2016 TPEDM 2003-based Estimate –Scenario II

2030 HK2030: Planning Vision andStrategy (HK2030 Study)

Ultimate HK2030 Study +5%

The population data within KTD is based on the latestdevelopment schedule of Recommended OutlineDevelopment Plan (May 08)

Catchment inflow factor was based on the GESF andrevised according to the latest findings in the Finalreport on Flow & Load Projections issued in Mar08under HATS project (Agreement No. CE8/2006).

It is proposed to add an extra 10% contingency to thecalculated ADWFs and peak flows. It is assumed thatthe 10% contingency for the uncertainties will bematerialized linearly from year 2006 until 2030.

The Simplified model approach for assessment of theexisting trunk sewer is only applied for this case asadvised by EPD. (i.e. Hoi Bun Road trunk Sewer).

None

None

As mentioned in GESF, the catchment inflow factor willbe updated regularly by EPD. The catchment inflowfactor used in HATS project was developed according tothe recent survey.

None.

N/A

21




Documentation

The Sewage to be collected from the cruise vessel isbased on the number of passengers and crewmembersfor different types of vessel to be berthed in the CruiseTerminal. For estimation of passengers andcrewmemebers of cruise vessels, reference is made tothe existing and being built vessels. The passengers andcrewmembers adopted in flow projection are stated inbelow:

Vessel typePopulation

Super Post-Panamax

Post-Panamax

Passengers 5,400 4,000

Crewmembers 2,000 1,500

Total 7,400 5,500

None

appendix 18 - environmental protection department · 2008. 11. 26. · appendix 18.1 key assessment...

Documents