New World First Bus Services Limited
Environmental Impact Assessment
New World First Bus Permanent Depot
at Chai Wan
Volume 1
Environmental Impact Assessment Report
Prepared by:
Westwood Hong & Associates Ltd
Supported by
ERM-Hong Kong Ltd
DECEMBER 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION *
1.1 Background of the Project *
2. project description *
2.1 Site Selection *
2.2 Site Location and Site History *
2.3 Design of the Depot *
3. Scope of the assessment *
3.1 Purpose of the Study *
3.2 Broad Study Objectives *
3.3 Structure of the Report *
3.4 Project Implementation Programme *
4. air quality *
4.1 Introduction *
4.2 Legislation and Standards *
4.3 Baseline Conditions *
4.4 Representative Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) *
4.5 Dust Dispersion Assessment *
4.6 Depot Emission Assessment *
4.7 Road Traffic Vehicular Emission Assessment *
4.8 Cumulative Impacts *
4.9 Mitigation Measures *
4.10 Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) Requirements *
4.11 Summary and Conclusions *
5. Noise *
5.1 Introduction *
5.2 Legislation and Standards *
5.3 Baseline Conditions *
5.4 Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers *
5.5 Construction Noise Assessment *
5.6 Operational Noise Sources *
5.7 Depot Operational Noise Assessment *
5.8 On-Site Vehicular Noise Assessment *
5.9 Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment *
5.10 Mitigation Measures *
5.11 Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) Requirements *
5.12 Summary and Conclusions *
6. waste management *
6.1 Introduction *
6.2 Legislation and Standards *
6.3 Construction Waste *
6.4 Evaluation of Construction Waste Impacts *
6.5 Operational Waste *
6.6 Evaluation of Operation Waste Impacts *
6.7 Waste Management Plan *
6.8 Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) Requirements *
6.9 Summary and Conclusions *
7. land contamination *
7.1 Introduction *
7.2 Legislation and Standards *
7.3 Baseline Conditions *
7.4 Potential Sources of Land Contamination *
7.5 Contamination Avoidance Plan *
7.6 Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) Requirements *
7.7 Summary and Conclusions *
8. Hazard ASSESSMENT *
8.1 Introduction *
8.2 Proposed New World First Bus Permanent Depot *
8.3 CRC Chai Wan Oil Terminal *
8.4 Hazard Identification *
8.5 Consequence Modelling *
8.6 Risk Assessment *
8.7 Base Case Results *
8.8 Analysis of Mitigation Measures *
8.9 Conclusions *
8.10 Recommendations *
8.11 References *
9. Summary of Environmental outcome *
9.1 Introduction *
9.2 Environmental Benefits *
10. overall conclusion and recommendation *
10.1 Introduction *
10.2 Air Quality Assessment *
10.3 Noise Assessment *
10.4 Waste Management Impact Assessment *
10.5 Land Contamination Assessment *
10.6 Hazard Assessment *
10.7 Recommendations *
10.8 EM&A Requirements *
10.9 EMS Requirements *
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.3.1 Maximum No. of persons present within the proposed depot building *
Table 2.3.2 Facility Provisions of the proposed depot *
Table 4.2.1 Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives *
Table 4.4.1 Representative ASRs closest to the project site *
Table 4.5.1 Predicted Maximum 1-hour and 24-hour TSP concentrations at ground floor level *
Table 4.6.1 Bus Flow Data within the Depot *
Table 4.6.2 Emission factors for Buses *
Table 4.6.3 Predicted Depot Vehicular Emission Rates for NO2, CO, RSP and SO2 *
Table 4.6.4 Background Concentrations for NO2, CO, RSP and SO2 *
Table 4.6.5 Predicted Maximum 1-hr NO2, CO and SO2 and, 24-hr RSP concentrations *
Table 4.7.1 Parameters employed in CALINE4 model *
Table 4.7.2 Traffic flow at Nearby Roads for Year 2016 *
Table 4.7.3 Annual Average Air Pollutant Concentrations for NO2, CO and RSP *
Table 4.7.4 Predicted maximum 1-hr NO2, CO and 24-hr RSP concentrations at 9mPD level *
Table 4.8.1 Predicted maximum cumulative 1-hr NO2, CO and 24-hr RSP concentrations *
Table 5.2.1 Acceptable Noise Levels for day, evening and night periods *
Table 5.2.2 ANLs for Construction other than Percussive Piling, dB(A) *
Table 5.2.3 ANLs for daytime, evening and night-time periods *
Table 5.4.1 Representative NSRs closest to the project site *
Table 5.5.1 Inventory of PMEs during Foundation Construction *
Table 5.5.2 Inventory of PMEs during Superstructure Construction *
Table 5.5.3 Predicted Corrected Noise Levels at NSRs due to construction works *
Table 5.7.1 Inventory of Operational Activities within the Depot *
Table 5.7.2 Predicted Facade Noise Levels at NSRs due to Depot Operations *
Table 5.8.1 Bus Flow Data within the Depot *
Table 5.8.2 Predicted Facade Noise Levels at NSRs due to On-Site Vehicular Noise *
Table 5.9.1 Traffic flow Data at Nearby Roads for Year 1999 (All Traffic) *
Table 5.9.2 Traffic flow Data at Nearby Roads for Year 2016 (All Traffic) *
Table 5.9.3 Traffic flow Data at Nearby Roads (Buses only) *
Table 5.9.4 Predicted Noise Levels due to Off-Site Traffic during Night Return *
Table 5.9.5 Predicted Noise Levels due to Off-Site Traffic during Morning Leaving *
Table 5.10.1 Listing of Quiet PME items *
Table 5.11.1 Major Noise Sources *
Table 6.4.1 Estimated Volumes of Excavated Material *
Table 6.4.2 Estimated C&D Material Production *
Table 6.5.1 Chemicals to be Used for the Operation of the Depot *
Table 6.5.2 Waste Produced from the Operation of the Depot *
Table 7.4.1 Chemicals to be Used at the Bus Depot *
Table 8.2.1 Maximum Number of People Present in the Proposed Bus Depot *
Table 8.3.1 Storage capacities and Dangerous Goods Classification of Fuel Oils *
Table 8.4.1b Physical Properties of Kerosene 77
Table 8.4.2a Summary of Hazards in CRC Oil Terminal Identified in HAZOP Study 78
Table 8.4.3a Summary of Hazards at New World First Bus Permanent Depot Identified 80
Table 8.5.2a Pool Fire Dimensions 84
Table 8.5.3a Consequence Modelling Results from CRC Oil Terminal 86
Table 8.5.3b Consequence Modelling Results of Diesel Storage 92
Table 8.6.1a Summary of Significant Hazards to New World First Bus Permanent Depot 95
Table 8.6.2a Frequency Estimation for Scenarios B1-3, P1 and F1: Major fires at the oil terminal 97
Table 8.6.2b UK Petrol Spills – Historical Data 99
Table 8.6.2c Frequencies of Spills 100
Table 8.6.2d Frequencies of Hazardous Event Outcomes for FB2 100
Table 8.6.2e Frequency of Hazardous Event Outcome for FB1 101
Table 8.6.2f Frequency Estimation for Scenarios FB1 and FB2: Major fires at the NWFB Depot 101
Table 8.6.3a Assessment of Impact of Smoke Ingress into Bus Depot 104
Table 8.6.3b Assessment of Impact of Fire on Government Depot 104
Table 8.7.1a Risk Results affecting the Bus Depot 107
Table 8.7.1b Risk Results from Bus Depot 107
Table 8.7.1c Individual Risks Results 107
Table 8.8a Risk Mitigation Measures 109
Table 9.2.1 Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Population Protected 115
Table 9.2.2 Summary of Environmental Benefits 116
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 |
Site Location |
Figure 4.1 |
Locations of Representative Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) |
Figure 4.2a |
Predicted 1-hour TSP concentrations at Ground Level (Dust Emission) |
Figure 4.2b |
Predicted 1-hour TSP concentrations at 4.5m above Ground Level (Dust Emission) |
Figure 4.2c |
Predicted 24-hour TSP concentrations at Ground Level (Dust Emission) |
Figure 4.2d |
Predicted 24-hour TSP concentrations at 4.5m above Ground Level (Dust Emission) |
Figure 4.3a |
Predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations at Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.3b |
Predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 5m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.3c |
Predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 15m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.3d |
Predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 30m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.4a |
Predicted 1-hour CO concentrations at Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.4b |
Predicted 1-hour CO concentrations at 5m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.4c |
Predicted 1-hour CO concentrations at 15m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.4d |
Predicted 1-hour CO concentrations at 30m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.5a |
Predicted 1-hour SO2 concentrations at Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.5b |
Predicted 1-hour SO2 concentrations at 5m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.5c |
Predicted 1-hour SO2 concentrations at 15m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.5d |
Predicted 1-hour SO2 concentrations at 30m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.6a |
Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.6b |
Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at 5m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.6c |
Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at 15m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.6d |
Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at 30m above Ground Level (Depot Emission) |
Figure 4.7a |
Predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 5.5mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.7b |
Predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 9mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.7c |
Predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 19mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.8a |
Predicted 1-hour CO concentrations at 5.5mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.8b |
Predicted 1-hour CO concentrations at 9mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.8c |
Predicted 1-hour CO concentrations at 19mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.9a |
Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at 5.5mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.9b |
Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at 9mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.9c |
Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at 19mPD Level (Vehicular Emission – Night-time) |
Figure 4.10a |
Predicted Cumulative 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 5.5mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 4.10b |
Predicted Cumulative 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 9mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 4.10c |
Predicted Cumulative 1-hour NO2 concentrations at 19mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 4.11a |
Predicted Cumulative 1-hour CO concentrations at 5.5mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 4.11b |
Predicted Cumulative 1-hour CO concentrations at 9mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 4.11c |
Predicted Cumulative 1-hour CO concentrations at 19mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 4.12a |
Predicted Cumulative 24-hour RSP concentrations at 5.5mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 4.12b |
Predicted Cumulative 24-hour RSP concentrations at 9mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 4.12c |
Predicted Cumulative 24-hour RSP concentrations at 19mPD Level (Depot and Vehicular Emissions) |
Figure 5.1a |
Existing Bus Ingress/Egress Routeing |
Figure 5.1b |
Year 1999 Traffic Flows (At Early Morning Peak (0545-0645) and Mid-Night Peak (2300-0000) |
Figure 5.1c |
Existing Bus Ingress/Egress Flows at Mid-Night Peak (2300 - 0000) |
Figure 5.1d |
Existing Bus Ingress/Egress Flows at Early Morning Peak (0545 - 0645) |
Figure 5.2 |
Locations of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) |
Figure 5.3 |
Proposed Bus Ingress/Egress Routeing |
Figure 5.4 |
Year 2016 Forecast Flows (At Early Morning Peak (0545-0645) and Mid-Night Peak (2300-0000) |
Figure 5.5 |
Bus Ingress/Egress Flows at Mid-Night Peak (2300 - 0000) |
Figure 5.6 |
Bus Ingress/Egress Flows at Early Morning Peak (0545-0645) |
Figure 8.1 |
Layout Plan of CRC Oil Terminal |
Figure 8.2a |
Event Tree of Major Fires at oil Terminal – Base Case |
Figure 8.2b |
Event Tree of Major Fires at oil Terminal – Mitigated Case |
Figure 8.3 |
Event Tree of Major Fires at Bus Depot |
Figure 8.4a |
FN Curve: Hazards posed by the CRC Oil Terminal – Base Case |
Figure 8.4b |
FN Curve: Hazards posed by the CRC Oil Terminal After Mitigation Measures |
Figure 8.5 |
FN Curve: Hazards posed by Diesel Storage |
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A |
Preliminary Layout plans |
Appendix B |
A Typical FDM Output File at 4.5m above Ground Level |
Appendix C |
Details of Depot Emission Rates Calculation |
Appendix D |
A Typical ISCST Output File at 15m above Ground Level |
Appendix E |
A Typical CALINE4 Output File at 9mPD Level |
Appendix F |
Details of Construction Noise Assessment |
Appendix G |
Details of Depot Operation Noise Assessment (Day-time) |
Appendix H |
Details of Depot Operation Noise Assessment (Night-time) |
Appendix I |
Details of On-Site Vehicular Noise Assessment (Night Return) |
Appendix J |
Details of On-Site Vehicular Noise Assessment (Morning Leaving) |
Appendix K |
Endorsement of Traffic Data |
Appendix L1 |
Details of Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment (All Traffic - Night Return) (Year 1999) |
Appendix L2 |
Details of Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment (All Traffic - Night Return) (Year 2016) |
Appendix M1 |
Details of Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment (All Traffic - Morning Leaving) (Year 1999) |
Appendix M2 |
Details of Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment (All Traffic - Morning Leaving) (Year 2016) |
Appendix N1 |
Details of Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment (Buses Only - Night Return) (Existing Scenario) |
Appendix N2 |
Details of Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment (Buses Only - Night Return) (Future Scenario) |
Appendix O1 |
Details of Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment (Buses Only - Morning Leaving) (Existing Scenario) |
Appendix O2 |
Details of Off-Site Traffic Noise Assessment (Buses Only - Morning Leaving) (Future Scenario) |
Appendix P |
Details of Calculations of Noise Contribution |
Appendix Q |
HAZOP Work Sheets |
Appendix R |
Past Incidents |
Appendix S |
Assessment of Smoke Ingress |
Appendix T |
Pool Fire Analysis |
Table .1 Maximum No. of persons present within the proposed depot building
Time |
Works / Maintenance Area |
Office |
Day (08:00 – 18:00) |
320 |
180 |
Evening & night (18:00 – 02:00) |
140 |
20 |
Night (02:00 – 08:00) |
120 |
5 |
Table .2 Facility Provisions of the proposed depot
Facilities |
Location |
Bus parking |
1/F, 2/F, 4/F, 6/F & 8/F |
Re-fueling and washing area |
G/F |
Test lanes |
G/F |
Engine/gear box/axle assembly workshop |
G/F |
Battery charging |
G/F |
Workshop |
G/F |
Shower and changing facilities |
G/F |
Maintenance area (including sunken pit, steaming & painting) |
G/F & 1/F |
Tyre changing workshop |
G/F |
Air valve and air-con workshop |
1/F |
Fibre glass workshop |
1/F |
Maintenance office |
1/F |
Training rooms |
3/F |
Canteen & kitchen |
4/F |
Staff recreational area |
5/F & 6/F |
Function room |
6/F |
Administration office |
7/F |
Air Quality
Noise
Waste Management
Land Contamination
Hazard
Background
Purpose and Objectives
Air Pollution Control Ordinance
Table .1 Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives
Concentration in micrograms per cubic metre (i) |
||||||||||
Pollutant |
1 Hour (ii) |
8 Hours (iii) |
24 Hours (iii) |
3 Months (iv) |
1 Year (iv) |
|||||
Sulphur Dioxide |
800 |
350 |
80 |
|||||||
Total Suspended Particulate |
260 |
80 |
||||||||
Respirable Suspended Particulate (v) |
180 |
55 |
||||||||
Carbon Monoxide |
30000 |
10000 |
||||||||
Nitrogen Dioxide |
300 |
150 |
80 |
|||||||
Photochemical Oxidants (as ozone) (vi) |
240 |
|||||||||
Lead |
1.5 |
Notes : (i) Measured at 298K(25o C) and 101.325 kPa (one atmosphere).
(ii) Not to be exceeded more than three times per year.
(iii) Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
(iv) Yearly and three monthly figures calculated as arithmetic means.
(v) Respirable suspended particulate means suspended particles in air with nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometres and smaller.
(vi) Photochemical oxidants are determined by measurement of ozone only.
Construction Dust Criteria
Table .1 Representative ASRs closest to the project site
Representative ASRs |
Horizontal Distance from ASRs to the site boundary (m) (approximately) |
|
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
210 |
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
180 |
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
230 |
HFC2 |
Block 15, Heng Fa Chuen |
770 |
HFC3 |
Block 17, Heng Fa Chuen |
660 |
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
430 |
TWE2 |
Tsui Hong House, Tsui Wan Estate |
450 |
TC1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) |
200 |
I1 |
"I" zone located to the south-west of the site |
0 |
I2 |
"I" zone located to the further south-west of the site |
80 |
Methodology
Predicted Dust Dispersion Concentrations
Table .1 Predicted Maximum 1-hour and 24-hour TSP concentrations at ground floor level
Predicted concentrations*(in m gm-3) |
|||
Representative ASRs |
1-hour TSP |
24-hour TSP |
|
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
170 |
97 |
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
182 |
100 |
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
160 |
92 |
HFC2 |
Block 15, Heng Fa Chuen |
<120 |
<90 |
HFC3 |
Block 17, Heng Fa Chuen |
<120 |
<90 |
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
120 |
<90 |
TWE2 |
Tsui Hong House, Tsui Wan Estate |
120 |
<90 |
TC1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) |
180 |
102 |
I1 |
"I" zone located to the south-west of the site |
240 |
145 |
I2 |
"I" zone located to the further south-west of the site |
210 |
124 |
* Background concentration level of 84 m gm-3 is included
Pollutant Emission Sources within the Depot
Dispersion Modeling Program
Bus Flow data
Table .1 Bus Flow Data within the Depot
Number of Buses/hour |
||||
During Night Return |
During Morning Leaving |
|||
Floor Levels |
Entering |
Leaving |
Entering |
Leaving |
G/F |
143 |
74 |
98 |
98 |
2/F |
69 |
55 |
78 |
98 |
4/F |
55 |
41 |
58 |
78 |
6/F |
41 |
27 |
38 |
58 |
8/F |
27 |
- |
- |
38 |
Emission Factors
Table .2 Emission factors for Buses
Emission factors |
||||
Buses Activities |
NOX |
CO |
SO2 |
RSP |
Idling (g/min/vehicle) |
2.0 |
2.0 |
- |
0.042 |
Traveling (g/km) |
11.71 |
8.89 |
1.36 |
1.38 |
Emission Rates from the Depot Operations
Table .3 Predicted Depot Vehicular Emission Rates for NO2, CO, RSP and SO2
Emission Rates |
||||
Floor Levels |
NO2 |
CO |
SO2 |
RSP |
G/F |
0.0196 g/s |
0.0856 g/s |
0.0056 g/s |
6.8 x 10-3 g/s |
1/F |
0.0144 g/s |
0.0628 g/s |
0.0042 g/s |
5.2 x 10-3 g/s |
2/F |
0.0096 g/s |
0.0424 g/s |
0.0028 g/s |
3.2 x 10-3 g/s |
4/F |
0.0076 g/s |
0.0328 g/s |
0.0021 g/s |
2.4 x 10-3 g/s |
6/F |
0.0052 g/s |
0.0232 g/s |
0.0015 g/s |
2.0 x 10-3 g/s |
Roof |
0.0060 g/s |
0.0256 g/s |
0.0023 g/s |
2.4 x 10-3 g/s |
Background Pollutant Concentrations
Table .4 Background Concentrations for NO2, CO, RSP and SO2
Air Pollutants |
||||
NO2 |
CO |
SO2 |
RSP |
|
Background concentrations (µgm-3 ) |
58 (a) |
1095 (b) |
18 (c) |
51 (d) |
Notes : (a) NO2 – annual average at Central/Western area
(b) CO – annual average at Mong Kok area
Predicted Depot Emission Concentrations
Table .5 Predicted Maximum 1-hr NO2, CO and SO2 and, 24-hr RSP concentrations
Predicted maximum concentrations* (in m gm-3) |
|||||
Representative ASRs |
1-hr NO2 |
1-hr CO |
1-hr SO2 |
24-hr RSP |
|
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
67 (30)† |
1133 (30) |
21 (30) |
51.7 (30) |
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
68 (30) |
1139 (30) |
21 (30) |
51.6 (30) |
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
66 (30) |
1131 (30) |
20.5 (30) |
51.5 (30) |
HFC2 |
Block 15, Heng Fa Chuen |
< 65 (30) |
1110 (30) |
19 (30) |
51.3 (30) |
HFC3 |
Block 17, Heng Fa Chuen |
< 65 (30) |
1115 (30) |
19.5 (30) |
51.3 (30) |
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
< 65 (30) |
1118 (30) |
< 20 (30) |
51.2 (30) |
TWE2 |
Tsui Hong House, Tsui Wan Estate |
65 (30) |
1118 (30) |
< 20 (30) |
51.3 (30) |
TC1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) |
68 (30) |
1138 (30) |
21 (30) |
51.6 (30) |
I1 |
"I" zone located to the south-west of the site |
115 (15) |
1340 (15) |
34 (15) |
54.4 (15) |
I2 |
"I" zone located to the further south-west of the site |
79 (30) |
1190 (30) |
24 (30) |
52 (30) |
*Background concentrations are included
† 67 (30) - Predicted concentration level of 67m gm-3 at 30m above ground level
Dispersion Modeling Program
Methodology
Table .1 Parameters employed in CALINE4 model
Parameters employed in CALINE4 |
Value |
Wind Speed |
1m/s |
Stability Class |
F |
Ambient Temperature |
25 degree C |
Mixing Height |
500m |
Wind Direction Standard Deviation |
6 degree |
Aerodynamic Roughness Coefficient |
100cm |
Pollutant Settling Velocity |
0 cm/s |
Pollutant Deposition Velocity |
0 cm/s |
Traffic Flow Data
Table .2 Traffic flow at Nearby Roads for Year 2016
During night return |
During Morning Leaving |
|||
Veh/hr |
% HGV |
Veh/hr |
% HGV |
|
Island East Corridor |
1940 |
42% |
2575 |
30% |
Shing Tai Road |
511 |
48% |
234 |
79% |
Chong Fu Road |
46 |
6% |
147 |
74% |
Wing Tai Road |
1171 |
22% |
749 |
43% |
Table .3 Annual Average Air Pollutant Concentrations for NO2, CO and RSP
Pollutants |
|||
NO2 |
CO |
RSP |
|
Background concentrations (µgm-3 ) |
58 (a) |
1095 (b) |
51 (c) |
Notes : (a) NO2 – annual average at Central/Western area
(b) CO – annual average at Mong Kok area
(c) RSP – annual average at Central/Western area
Predicted Road Traffic Vehicular Emission Concentrations
Table .4 Predicted maximum 1-hr NO2, CO and 24-hr RSP concentrations at 9mPD level
Predicted maximum concentrations* (in m gm-3) |
||||
Representative ASRs |
1-hr NO2 |
1-hr CO |
24-hr RSP |
|
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
120 |
1610 |
62 |
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
120 |
1610 |
62 |
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
96 |
1410 |
58 |
HFC2 |
Block 15, Heng Fa Chuen |
130 |
1620 |
63 |
HFC3 |
Block 17, Heng Fa Chuen |
145 |
1850 |
68 |
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
97 |
1430 |
59 |
TWE2 |
Tsui Hong House, Tsui Wan Estate |
98 |
1440 |
59 |
TC1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) |
150 |
1850 |
68 |
I1 |
"I" zone located to the south-west of the site |
115 |
1410 |
61 |
I2 |
"I" zone located to the further south-west of the site |
110 |
1550 |
61 |
*Background concentrations are included
Table .1 Predicted maximum cumulative 1-hr NO2, CO and 24-hr RSP concentrations
Predicted concentrations* (in m gm-3) |
||||
Representative ASRs |
1-hr NO2 |
1-hr CO |
24-hr RSP |
|
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
129 |
1648 |
62.7 |
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
130 |
1654 |
62.6 |
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
104 |
1446 |
58.5 |
HFC2 |
Block 15, Heng Fa Chuen |
137 |
1635 |
63.3 |
HFC3 |
Block 17, Heng Fa Chuen |
152 |
1870 |
68.3 |
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
104 |
1453 |
59.2 |
TWE2 |
Tsui Hong House, Tsui Wan Estate |
105 |
1463 |
59.3 |
TC1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) |
160 |
1893 |
68.6 |
I1 |
"I" zone located to the south-west of the site |
172 |
1655 |
64.4 |
I2 |
"I" zone located to the further south-west of the site |
131 |
1645 |
62 |
*Background concentrations are included
Construction Phase
Operational Phase
EM&A Requirements
EMS Requirements
Construction Phase
Operational Phase
Background
Purpose and Objectives
Construction Noise Criteria
Table .1 Acceptable Noise Levels for day, evening and night periods
|
Noise Standards, dB(A), Leq (30 mins) |
|
Uses |
0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday |
1900 to 0700 hours or any time on Sundays or general holiday |
All domestic premises including temporary housing accommodation |
75 |
(see Note 3) |
Hotels and hostels |
75 |
(see Note 3) |
Educational institutions including kindergartens, nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required |
70 65 (during exam.) |
(see Note 3) |
Note 3: The criteria laid down in the relevant technical memoranda under the Noise Control Ordinance for designated areas and construction works other than percussive piling may be used for planning purpose. A Construction Noise Permit (CNP) shall be required for the carrying out of the construction work during the period.
Table .2 ANLs for Construction other than Percussive Piling, dB(A)
Area Sensitivity Rating (ASR) |
|||
Time Period |
A |
B |
C |
All days during the evening (1900 to 2300 hours), and general holidays (including Sundays) during the day-time and evening (0700 to 2300 hours) |
60 |
65 |
70 |
All days during the night-time (2300 to 0700 hours) |
45 |
50 |
55 |
Table .3 ANLs for daytime, evening and night-time periods
|
Area Sensitivity Rating (ASR) |
||
Time Period |
A |
B |
C |
Day (0700 to 1900 hours) and evening (1900 to 2300 hours) |
60 |
65 |
70 |
Night (2300 to 0700 hours) |
50 |
55 |
60 |
Table .1 Representative NSRs closest to the project site
Representative NSRs |
Floors |
|
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters (western facades) |
G/F - 25/F |
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters (western facades) |
G/F - 25/F |
SQ3 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters (eastern facades*) |
G/F - 25/F |
SQ4 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters (eastern facades*) |
G/F - 25/F |
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
G/F - 20/F |
HFC2 |
Block 15, Heng Fa Chuen |
G/F - 20/F |
HFC3 |
Block 17, Heng Fa Chuen |
G/F - 20/F |
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
G/F - 30/F |
TWE2 |
Tsui Hong House, Tsui Wan Estate |
G/F - 30/F |
TC1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) |
G/F - 8/F |
Note: * Eastern facades of the HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters were installed with fixed windows
Construction Noise Prediction Procedure
i) To identify the affected NSRs within the Study Area;
ii) To identify the phasing of construction work and, locations and required number of the construction plant items;
iii) To obtain the sound power levels in dB(A) of the construction equipment from the GW-TM;
iv) To determine the distance from the effective noise source location (or "notional source position") to the NSRs and distance attenuations (from geometric spreading and other absorption effects where appropriate), barrier corrections and reflection corrections at the NSR as prescribed in the GW-TM;
v) To calculate the Corrected Noise Level (CNL) which will be generated by the construction work at the NSRs;
vi) To propose direct mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimise the impact by the construction work in order to comply with the stipulated noise limits.
Construction Schedule
Plant Inventory of Construction Equipment (PMEs)
Table .1 Inventory of PMEs during Foundation Construction
Element |
Equipment |
Reference |
SWL (dB(A)) |
No. of units |
Foundation |
Bored Piling (Oscillator) |
165 |
115 |
9 |
Generator, silenced |
102 |
100 |
2 |
|
Excavator |
081 |
112 |
2 |
|
Lorry |
141 |
112 |
4 |
|
Crawler Crane |
048 |
112 |
12 |
|
Reverse Circulation Driller |
166 |
100 |
6 |
|
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
044 |
109 |
2 |
|
Dump Truck |
067 |
117 |
1 |
|
Poker |
170 |
113 |
1 |
|
Compactor |
050 |
105 |
1 |
|
Sub-SWL = 128 dB(A) |
Table .2 Inventory of PMEs during Superstructure Construction
Element |
Equipment |
Reference |
SWL (dB(A)) |
No. of units |
Group 1 |
Compressor < 10 m3/min |
001 |
100 |
2 |
Concrete pump |
047 |
109 |
1 |
|
Generator, silenced |
102 |
100 |
2 |
|
Compactor |
050 |
105 |
2 |
|
Excavator |
081 |
112 |
3 |
|
Lorry |
141 |
112 |
3 |
|
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
044 |
109 |
1 |
|
Sub-SWL = 121 dB(A) |
||||
Group 2 |
Tower Crane |
049 |
95 |
1 |
Hoist |
122 |
95 |
1 |
|
Sub-SWL = 98 dB(A) |
||||
Group 3 |
Bar Bender |
021 |
90 |
2 |
Saw |
201 |
108 |
2 |
|
Planer |
171 |
117 |
2 |
|
Sub-SWL = 121 dB(A) |
||||
Group 4 |
Poker |
170 |
113 |
2 |
Sub-SWL = 116 dB(A) |
Predicted Construction Noise Impacts
Table .3 Predicted Corrected Noise Levels at NSRs due to construction works
Representative NSRs |
Distance to Notional Source Position (m) |
Predicted CNLs (dB(A)) |
|
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
206 |
67 |
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
209 |
67 |
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
267 |
75 |
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
466 |
69 |
TC1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) |
200 |
70 |
Noise Prediction Procedure
i) To identify the affected NSRs within the Study Area;
ii) To identify the noise sources and multiple number of the activity operating;
iii) To obtain the sound power levels in dB(A) of the each activity based on the measurement at the existing bus depot;
iv) To determine the distance from the noise source location to the NSRs and distance attenuations (from geometric spreading and other absorption effects where appropriate), barrier corrections and reflection corrections at the NSR as prescribed in the IND-TM;
v) To calculate the Corrected Noise Level (CNL) which will be generated by the operational activities at the NSRs;
vi) To propose direct mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimise the impact by the construction work in order to comply with the stipulated noise limits.
Inventory of Operational Activities
Table .1 Inventory of Operational Activities within the Depot
SWL |
SPL(int) |
No. of Sources |
|||
Activities |
Floor |
(dB(A)) |
(dB(A)) |
Day-time |
Night-time |
Bus/car wash |
G/F |
88.4 |
- |
2 |
4 |
Test lane |
G/F |
87.9 |
- |
2 |
1 |
Battery charging |
G/F |
- |
74.1 |
1 |
1 |
Workshop |
G/F |
- |
82.6 |
1 |
1 |
Maintenance area/ engine testing |
G/F |
- |
77.8 |
10 |
5 |
Blacksmith workshop |
G/F |
- |
73.6 |
1 |
1 |
Tyre changing lane |
G/F |
97.6 |
- |
1 |
1 |
Bus refueling |
G/F |
82.0 |
- |
1 |
4 |
Engine axle workshop |
1/F |
- |
83.6 |
1 |
0 |
Workshop |
1/F |
- |
82.6 |
1 |
0 |
Maintenance area/ engine testing |
1/F |
- |
77.8 |
1 |
0 |
Bus parking |
2/F |
87.8 |
- |
2 |
2 |
Bus parking |
4/F |
87.8 |
- |
2 |
2 |
Bus parking |
6/F |
87.8 |
- |
2 |
2 |
Bus parking |
Roof |
87.8 |
- |
2 |
2 |
Predicted Operational Noise Impact
Table .2 Predicted Facade Noise Levels at NSRs due to Depot Operations
Predicted Noise Levels (dB(A)) |
|||||
Representative NSRs |
Floors |
Day-time |
Night-time |
||
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
G/F – 25/F |
40 |
36 |
|
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
G/F – 25/F |
39 - 40 |
36 |
|
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
G/F – 20/F |
53 |
50 |
|
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
G/F – 30/F |
42 |
38 |
|
TC1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) |
G/F – 8/F |
40 |
- |
Bus Flow data
Table .1 Bus Flow Data within the Depot
Number of Buses/hour |
||||
During Night Return |
During Morning Leaving |
|||
Floor Levels |
Entering |
Leaving |
Entering |
Leaving |
G/F |
143 |
74 |
98 |
98 |
1/F |
69 |
69 |
98 |
98 |
2/F |
69 |
55 |
78 |
98 |
4/F |
55 |
41 |
58 |
78 |
6/F |
41 |
27 |
38 |
58 |
Roof |
27 |
- |
- |
38 |
Predicted Noise Impact due to On-Site Vehicular Noise
Table .2 Predicted Facade Noise Levels at NSRs due to On-Site Vehicular Noise
Predicted Noise Levels (dB(A)) |
|||||
Representative NSRs |
Floors |
Night Return |
Morning Leaving |
||
SQ1 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
G/F – 25/F |
25 – 29 |
25 – 30 |
|
SQ2 |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters |
G/F – 25/F |
30 |
31 – 32 |
|
HFC1 |
Block 50, Heng Fa Chuen |
G/F – 20/F |
42 |
42 |
|
TWE1 |
Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate |
G/F – 30/F |
26 - 29 |
23 - 28 |
Off-Site Traffic (All Traffic)
Table .1 Traffic flow Data at Nearby Roads for Year 1999 (All Traffic)
During night return |
During Morning Leaving |
|||
Veh/hr |
% HGV |
Veh/hr |
% HGV |
|
Island East Corridor |
1887 |
41 |
2133 |
30 |
Shing Tai Road |
428 |
49 |
189 |
75 |
Chong Fu Road |
32 |
6 |
100 |
74 |
Wing Tai Road |
1072 |
22 |
625 |
43 |
Table .2 Traffic flow Data at Nearby Roads for Year 2016 (All Traffic)
During night return |
During Morning Leaving |
|||
Veh/hr |
% HGV |
Veh/hr |
% HGV |
|
Island East Corridor |
1940 |
42% |
2575 |
30% |
Shing Tai Road |
511 |
48% |
234 |
79% |
Chong Fu Road |
46 |
6% |
147 |
74% |
Wing Tai Road |
1171 |
22% |
749 |
43% |
Off-Site Traffic (Buses only)
Table .3 Traffic flow Data at Nearby Roads (Buses only)
Traffic Flow Data (vehicles per hour) |
|||||
During Night Return |
During Morning Leaving |
||||
Existing |
Future |
Existing |
Future |
||
Island East Corridor |
144 |
171 |
28 |
85 |
|
Shing Tai Road |
245 |
217 |
62 |
116 |
|
Road 20/10 (run-in) |
0 |
143 |
0 |
18 |
|
Road 20/4 (run-out) |
0 |
74 |
0 |
98 |
|
Wing Tai Road |
101 |
46 |
34 |
31 |
Predicted Noise Impact
Table .4 Predicted Noise Levels due to Off-Site Traffic during Night Return
PNLs (dB(A)) during Night Return |
Noise Contribution [a] (dB(A)) |
||||||
NSRs |
All Traffic (Year 1999) |
Buses Only (Year 1999) |
All Traffic (Year 2016) |
Buses Only (Year 2016) |
Year 1999 |
Year 2016 |
Maximum Difference |
SQ1 |
69 - 73 |
61 - 64 |
69 - 73 |
62 - 65 |
0.71 - 0.75 |
0.83 - 0.87 |
0.1 |
SQ2 |
58 - 71 |
50 - 64 |
58 - 71 |
51 - 64 |
0.77 – 1.19 |
0.89 - 1.16 |
0.1 |
SQ3 |
64 - 65 |
59 - 60 |
66 - 67 |
59 - 60 |
1.75 - 1.80 |
1.07 - 1.10 |
-0.7 |
SQ4 |
65 - 66 |
62 - 63 |
67 - 68 |
61 - 62 |
2.49 - 2.57 |
1.36 - 1.40 |
-1.2 |
HFC1 |
63 - 64 |
57 |
67 - 69 |
57 - 58 |
1.04 - 1.29 |
0.23 - 0.53 |
-0.6 |
HFC2 |
73 - 75 |
65 - 67 |
73 - 75 |
65 - 67 |
0.75 |
0.85 - 0.87 |
0.1 |
HFC3 |
74 - 77 |
65 - 69 |
74 - 77 |
66 - 70 |
0.73 |
0.85 - 0.87 |
0.1 |
TWE1 |
70 - 72 |
65 - 67 |
70 - 72 |
64 - 65 |
1.70 - 1.80 |
0.97 - 1.10 |
-0.6 |
TWE2 |
71 - 72 |
64 - 67 |
71 - 72 |
65 - 67 |
1.10 - 1.52 |
1.22 - 1.70 |
0.2 |
Note: [a] Noise Contribution from buses to overall noise levels, L10 (1 hr)
Table .5 Predicted Noise Levels due to Off-Site Traffic during Morning Leaving
PNLs (dB(A)) during Morning Leaving |
Noise Contribution [a] (dB(A)) |
||||||
NSRs |
All Traffic (Year 1999) |
Buses Only (Year 1999) |
All Traffic (Year 2016) |
Buses Only (Year 2016) |
Year 1999 |
Year 2016 |
Maximum Difference |
SQ1 |
69 - 72 |
54 - 57 |
70 - 73 |
59 - 62 |
0.15 |
0.38 - 0.4 |
0.2 |
SQ2 |
58 - 70 |
43 - 57 |
58 - 71 |
48 - 61 |
0.16 - 0.28 |
0.42 - 0.53 |
0.3 |
SQ3 |
63 - 64 |
52 - 53 |
64 - 65 |
56 - 58 |
0.42 - 0.44 |
0.79 - 0.85 |
0.4 |
SQ4 |
64 - 65 |
55 - 56 |
65 - 66 |
58 - 59 |
0.57 - 0.60 |
0.94 - 0.97 |
0.4 |
HFC1 |
63 - 64 |
50 - 51 |
65 - 66 |
54 - 55 |
0.20 - 0.24 |
0.25 - 0.40 |
0.2 |
HFC2 |
72 - 74 |
58 - 60 |
73 - 75 |
62 - 64 |
0.15 |
0.39 - 0.40 |
0.2 |
HFC3 |
73 - 77 |
58 - 61 |
74 - 77 |
63 - 66 |
0.13 - 0.15 |
0.37 - 0.39 |
0.2 |
TWE1 |
70 - 72 |
60 - 62 |
70 - 72 |
62 - 63 |
0.48 - 0.53 |
0.56 - 0.61 |
0.1 |
TWE2 |
71 - 72 |
60 - 62 |
72 - 73 |
63 - 66 |
0.34 - 0.47 |
0.70 – 0.94 |
0.5 |
Note: [a] Noise Contribution from buses to overall noise levels, L10 (1 hr)
Construction Phase
Table .1 Listing of Quiet PME items
Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) |
Maximum SWL, dB(A) (or SPL at 7m) |
Reference |
Excavator |
104 |
BS 5228: Part 1: 1997 Table 7 |
Lorry |
105 |
BS 5228: Part 1: 1997 Table 7 |
Concrete Pumps |
106 |
BS 5228: Part 1: 1997 Table 9 |
Concrete Mixers |
92 |
BS 5228: Part 1: 1997 Table 9 |
Compressors |
96 |
BS 5228: Part 1: 1997 Table 10 |
Generators |
75 |
GW - TM CNP102 |
Operational Phase
EM&A Requirements
EMS Requirements
Level |
Noise Sources |
G/F |
Workshops, Maintenance area, Re-fueling & washing area, Transformer room, Pump rooms, Coin counting, Compressor room, Water Treatment Plant |
1/F |
Workshops, Maintenance area, Fan rooms, PAU room |
2/F |
Bus parking space, Fan rooms, AHU room, PAU room, Kitchen |
3/F |
Upper part of car port, PAU room |
4/F |
Bus parking space, Fan rooms, PAU room |
5/F |
PAU room, Upper part of carport |
6/F |
PAU room, Bus parking space, Fan rooms |
7/F |
PAU room, Upper part of carport |
8/F |
Chiller room, Pump rooms, Generator rooms, Lift machine rooms, Bus parking space |
Construction Phase
Operational Phase
Waste Disposal Ordinance
Waste Disposal (Chemical) (General) Waste Regulation
Crown Land Ordinance
Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances by-laws
Additional Guidelines
Construction Activities
Potential Sources of Impact
Excavated Material
Construction and Demolition Waste
Chemical Waste
General Refuse
Excavated Material
Table .1 Estimated Volumes of Excavated Material
Areas involving Excavation |
Volumes of Excavated Material (m3) |
Sunken Pits |
5,500 |
Underground Fuel Storage Tanks |
600 |
Piles |
45,000 |
Pile Caps |
4,500 |
Ground Slab |
4,000 |
Construction and Demolition Waste
Table .2 Estimated C&D Material Production
Building |
Dimension (m) |
No. of Storey |
GFA (m2) |
C&D Materials (m3) [a] |
Main Depot Building |
117 x 106 |
8 |
99,216 |
9,922 |
Underground Fuel Storage Tanks |
N/A |
Underground |
N/A |
Detailed design information is not available and the likely quantity of C&D materials cannot be determined at this stage |
Note: [a] Generation rate for C&D materials assumed to be 0.1m3m-2 (source reference: Reduction of Construction Waste Final Report, Hong Kong Polytechnic, 1983)
Chemical Waste
General Refuse
Identification of Waste Generation Activities
Potential Sources of Impact
Industrial Waste
Chemical Waste
Table .1 Chemicals to be Used for the Operation of the Depot
Facility |
Chemical |
Quantity stored on-site |
Maintenance Area / Workshop |
|
100 litres 50 litres 50 litres |
Fuel Storage Tanks |
|
(Storage Capacity) 100,000 litres |
Dangerous Goods Stores |
|
Insignificant |
|
||
- Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide |
Insignificant |
|
- Acetone |
Insignificant |
|
|
Insignificant |
Facility |
Waste |
Estimated Annual Quantity |
Maintenance Area / Workshop |
|
250 litres 2,000 litres 100,000 litres 300 batteries 20,000 litres 2,500 litres |
Sewage
General Refuse
Industrial Waste
Chemical Waste
Sewage
General Refuse
Solid Waste Management
Wastewater Management
Records of Wastes
Training
Site Inspection
Site History
Possible Impacts
Potential Contamination Sources (from Chemical and Waste Inventories)
Table .1 Chemicals to be Used at the Bus Depot
Facility |
Chemical |
Annual Consumption |
Quantity stored on-site |
Dangerous Goods / |
Paint |
NA |
100 litres |
Chemicals |
Thinner |
NA |
50 litres |
Turpentine |
NA |
50 litres |
|
Oxygen |
NA |
Insignificant |
|
Acetylene |
NA |
Insignificant |
|
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide |
NA |
Insignificant |
|
Acetone |
NA |
Insignificant |
|
Sulphuric Acid |
NA |
Insignificant |
|
Maintenance Area / |
Used engine oil |
100,000 litres |
6,600 litres |
Workshop |
Spent battery |
300 batteries |
50 batteries |
Waste lube oil |
20,000 litres |
1,400 litres |
|
Hydraulic fluids and waste fuel |
2,500 litres |
1,200 litres |
|
Diesel Fuel Storage Tank |
Diesel |
NA |
100,000 litres |
Note: [a] NA means data are not available
Potential Contamination Sources (from Facilities)
Prevention Measures for Diesel Fuel Spillage
Tank Construction
Operation Procedures
Tank Filling Operation
Handling Oily Waste and Sludge from Oil/Petrol Interceptor
Training
General Procedures
Spillage During Tank Filling Operations
Diesel Fuel Spill Along the Pipelines
Prevention Measures for Chemical Spillage
Storage of Chemicals and Chemical Wastes
Emergency Procedures
Spillage/Leakage of Liquid Chemical/Waste at Storage Area
Spillage/Leakage at Other Areas
Recording of Incidents
Procedures for Disposal of Waste
Background
Objectives
Structure of the Hazard Assessment
Table .1 Maximum Number of People Present in the Proposed Bus Depot
Time |
Works/Maintenance Area |
Office |
Day (08:00-18:00) |
320 |
180 |
Evening(18:00-02:00) |
140 |
20 |
Night(02:00-08:00) |
120 |
5 |
Tank Farm
Table .1 Storage capacities and Dangerous Goods Classification of Fuel Oils
Fuel Oil Type |
Storage Tank Capacity, m3 |
No. of Tanks |
Hong Kong Dangerous Goods Classification (UN Classification) |
ADO |
1000 |
2 |
Cat. 5 Class 3 (Class 3.4) |
IDO |
1000 |
2 |
Cat. 5 Class 3 (Class 3.4) |
kerosene |
500 |
1 |
Cat. 5 Class 2 (Class 3.3) |
LPG Storage
Distribution of Fuel Oils
Distribution of LPG
Tank Overfill Protection
Spill Containment
Jetty
Filling Stations
Fire-Fighting Facilities
· scrap yard approximately 6
· sand depot approximately 4
· parking area approximately 5
LPG
Diesel Oils
Table 8.4.1a Physical Properties of a Typical Diesel Oil
Property |
Value |
Molecular Weight |
125 |
Liquid Density |
805 - 890 kg/m3 @ 150C |
Boiling Point |
160 - 3850C |
Vapour Pressure |
4 mbar @ 400C |
Flash Point |
55 - 700C |
Kerosene
Table 8.4.1b Physical Properties of Kerosene
Property |
Value |
Molecular Weight |
110 |
Liquid Density |
780 kg/m3 @ 150C |
Boiling Point |
150 - 3000C |
Flash Point |
380C |
Table 8.4.2a Summary of Hazards in CRC Oil Terminal Identified in HAZOP Study
Plant area/ operation |
Hazardous Scenario |
Cause |
|
|
Ref |
Description |
|
Jetty |
J1 |
Pool fire at jetty |
Barge strikes berth Fire/explosion on barge Ranging (unloading hose detaches) Hose connection/disconnection errors Hose leak Dropped object Barge breaks away from berth Leak from fixed pipework Barge struck by another vessel Lightning strike |
|
J2 |
Explosion in fuel tank on barge |
Local heating/ignition of flammable vapours |
Tank farm |
B1 |
Rim fire |
Lightning strike Burning embers from fire on adjacent site Local heating/ignition of flammable vapour |
|
B2 |
Bund fire |
Spill from tank/tank connections Lightning strike |
|
B3 |
Fire outside bund |
Spill followed by bund overtopping Subsidence/earthquake/aircrash |
|
B3 |
Explosion in tank |
Heating/ignition of tank residues |
Pump Farm/ Dye marker storage and injection |
P1 |
Pool fire |
Pump failure Spontaneous tank/pipework failure Overfilling of dye marker tank External impact Lightning strike |
|
P2 |
Dye marker drums explode/rocket in fire |
Flammable liquid spill/fire engulfing drums |
|
P3 |
Explosion in covered pipe trench |
Flammable liquid spill with local heating/ignition |
Bulk Filling Station |
F1 |
Pool fire |
Spontaneous failure of pipework/fittings Human error during tanker filling operation Overfilling of tanker Tanker struck by another vehicle Vehicle fire Lightning strike |
|
F2 |
Explosion in tanker |
Generation of aerosol/static discharge Local heating/ignition of flammable vapour Lightning strike |
Drum filling station |
D1 |
Pool fire |
Damage to hose External impact drum filling equipment Human error during filling of drums Dead mans handle jams open Package truck impacted buy another vehicle Vehicle fire Lightning strike |
|
D2 |
Product containers explode/rocket in fire possible leading to secondary fires |
Spillage/fire at drum filling station Vehicle fire |
Table 8.4.3a Summary of Hazards at New World First Bus Permanent Depot Identified
Plant area/ operation |
Ref |
Scenario Description |
Causes |
Spill during vehicle refuelling |
FB1 |
Pool fire |
Incorrect nozzle placement Hose rupture Hose leak Overfill |
Spill during tanker unloading |
FB2 |
Pool fire |
Bad Connection Hose leak Hose rupture Early disconnection Driveaway Spontaneous tanker leak Tanker truck collision |
Spill from storage |
FB3 |
Groundwater contamination/ possible fire in remote location |
Corrosion of tanks Incorrect material of construction Wear out Accidental damage |
Vehicle fires and accidents |
FB4 |
Pool fire |
Spontaneous vehicle fire Spontaneous tanker fire Vehicle crash Vehicle impact with pump Vehicle impact with filling point |
Spill During Vehicle Refuelling, FB1
Spill During Tanker Unloading, FB2
Spill from Storage, FB3
Vehicle Fires and Accidents, FB4
Atmospheric Storage of Diesels Oils and Kerosene
Drums
Road tankers/Barges
· Pool fire
· Pool spread / dense gas dispersion
· Thermal radiation impact
Hydrocarbon Pool Fires Model (Society of Fire Protection Engineers)
Table 8.5.2a Pool Fire Dimensions
Ref |
Site |
Location |
Dimensions |
Notes |
F1 D1 |
CRC |
Filling station |
15.2mx6.8m |
Dimensions of area enclosed by drainage channels at filling station |
B1* B2 |
CRC |
Bund |
25mx25m |
Dimensions of tank farm bund |
B3 P1 |
CRC |
Outside bunded area |
54mx41m |
Dimensions of CRC site |
FB1 |
NWFB |
Re-filling area |
42mx29.4m |
Dimensions of area enclosed by drainage channels on ground floor |
FB2 |
NWFB |
Road |
19mx19m |
Dimensions of the pool fire, cannot extend the distance between drains and road width. |
* worst cases used.
Pool Fire from Tanker Unloading
Smoke Ingress
Pool Evaporation and Dispersion Models of HGSYSTEM 3.0
Thermal Radiation Probit Function
Pr = -14.9 + 2.56 ln(Q t4/3)
where Q = radiation intensity, kW m-2
t = exposure time, s
Table 8.5.3a Consequence Modelling Results from CRC Oil Terminal
Table 8.5.3b Consequence Modelling Results of Diesel Storage
Ref |
Scenario |
Hazardous Effects |
Relevant Threshold Value |
Hazard Range (m) |
ApproximateDistance to Gov’t Depot (m) |
Significant hazard to Gov’t Depot? |
Notes |
FB1 |
Spill during vehicle refuelling |
Pool fire |
- |
- |
- |
Y |
Small fire, not likely to have significant impact on Gov’t Depot. |
|
|
Smoke ingress at Gov’t Depot |
- |
- |
- |
N |
Smoke will be localised at the refuelling area of the Bus Depot. |
FB2 |
Spill during tanker unloading |
Thermal radiation |
18 kW m-2 (1% fatality) |
23 |
20 |
Y |
|
|
|
Smoke ingress at Gov’t Depot |
10.9 ppm (CO) 0.18% (CO2) for 2 hours |
- |
20m |
N |
|
FB3 |
Spill from storage tanks |
Groundwater contamination / possible fire in remote location |
- |
- |
- |
N |
Underground leak could spread over a large area if it enters into sewers. |
FB4 |
Vehicle fires and accident |
Pool fire |
- |
- |
- |
N |
Fire is not likely. |
CRC Oil Terminal
New World First Bus Depot
Table 8.6.1a Summary of Significant Hazards to New World First Bus Permanent Depot
Plant area |
Scenario Ref |
Description |
Most significant effects |
Tank farm |
B1 |
Rim fire on cone roof tank |
Smoke ingress into Bus Depot, exposure of occupants to toxic combustion products (CO/CO2) |
B2 |
Fire in bund |
As above for B1 |
|
B3 |
Pool fire with overtopping of bund |
As above for B1 Fire escalates to Bus Depot Rocketing of drums |
|
Pump farm/ Dye storage |
P1 |
Pool fire |
As above for B1 Fire escalates to Bus Depot Rocketing of drums/LPG cylinders |
Bulk filling station |
F1 |
Pool fire |
As above for B1 |
Drum filling station |
D1 |
Pool fire |
As above for B1 |
Refuelling area |
FB1 |
Pool fire |
As above for B1 |
Unloading zone |
FB2 |
Pool fire |
Smoke ingress into Gov’t Depot, exposure of occupants to toxic combustion products (CO/CO2) Possible fire effects |
Scenarios B1-3, P1, F1 and D1: Major fires at the oil terminal
Scenarios B1-3, P1 and F1: Major fires at the oil terminal
Table 8.6.2a Frequency Estimation for Scenarios B1-3, P1 and F1: Major fires at the oil terminal
Scenario Ref Description |
Fire Frequency |
Notes |
||
B1 |
Fire on cone roof tank |
1.1x10-4 per tank-year |
Based on Lees [vii], in turn based on historical data for fires in fixed roof storage tanks over a period of 20 years. Other data in Lees [vii] from the American Petroleum Institute suggests no significant difference between the incidence of cone roof tank fires versus fixed roof tank fires. The frequency from Lees [viii] is reduced by a factor of 10, noting the presence of the foam injection system on the tanks at the CRC terminal (not a normal feature of diesel/kerosene storage tanks). |
|
B2 |
Fire in bund |
1.2x10-5 per tank-year |
Based on Davies, et al [] for fires of flammable liquids in bunds. |
|
B3 |
Pool fire with overtopping of bund |
1.2x10-6 per tank-year |
10% of bund fires are assumed to result in significant overtopping of the bund. |
|
P1 |
Pump farm: pool fire |
6.0x10-6 per year |
Pump catastrophic failure frequency of 7.8x10-8 per hour (E & P Forum, 1992) in service multiplied by 5 hours service per day (300 days per year). An ignition probability of 0.05 is assumed. |
|
F1 |
Bulk filling station: pool fire |
3.0x10-4 per year |
Based on 6000 bulk tanker filling operations per year and human error probabilities of 10-3 (initial error, eg loading arm not correctly inserted before prior to starting pump) and 10-2 (failure to recover, eg by stopping pump). An ignition probability of 0.005 is assumed. |
Scenarios FB1 and FB2: Major fires at the New World First Bus Depot
p(x) = l x e-l / x!
where x is a discrete random variable,
p(x) is a the probability function of x and
l is a positive constant
l = ln(1/p(x)) = ln(1/0.5) = 0.7
l = ln(1/0.05) = 3.0
Table 8.6.2b UK Petrol Spills - Historical Data
Spill Quantity (litre) |
Spill Likelihood per delivery |
Ignition Probability (Petrol) |
Ignition Probability (diesel)* |
20-200 |
1.1 x 10-5 |
0.01 |
0.001 |
>200 |
5.5 x 10-6 |
0.03 |
0.003 |
*Ignition probability of diesel is taken to be one-tenth of that of petrol because petrol is a lot more flammable than diesel.
Table 8.6.2c Frequencies of Spills
Spill Size |
Volume (l) |
Spill Frequency (per delivery) |
Proportion |
Small |
200 |
1.1 x 10-5 |
65 % |
Medium |
1,000 |
5.5 x 10-6 |
32 % |
Large |
3,600 |
5.5 x 10-7 |
3 % |
All Spills |
1.7 x 10-5 |
Table 8.6.2d Frequencies of Hazardous Event Outcomes for FB2
Ref |
Initiating Event |
Spill Frequency per delivery |
Delivery per year |
Spill Frequency per year |
Ignition Probability |
Fire Incidents Frequency (per year) |
FB2 |
Spill during tanker unloading |
|||||
-small |
1.1 x 10-5 |
365 x 4 |
1.6 x 10-2 |
0.002 |
3.2 x 10-5 |
|
-medium |
5.5 x 10-6 |
365 x 4 |
8.0 x 10-3 |
0.005 |
4.0 x 10-5 |
|
-large |
5.5 x 10-7 |
365 x 4 |
8.0 x 10-4 |
0.01 |
8.0 x 10-6 |
Table 8.6.2e Frequency of Hazardous Event Outcome for FB1
Ref |
Initiating Event |
Spill Frequency per delivery |
Delivery per year |
Spill Frequency per year |
Ignition Probability |
Fire Incidents Frequency (per year) |
FB1 |
Spill during vehicle refuelling |
1.1 x 10-5 |
365 x 100 |
0.40 |
0.001 |
4.0 x 10-4 |
Table 8.6.2f Frequency Estimation for Scenarios FB1 and FB2: Major fires at the NWFB Depot
Scenario Ref |
Description |
Fire Frequency |
FB1 |
Pool fire due to spill during vehicle refuelling |
4.0 x 10-4 |
FB2 |
Pool fire due to spill during tanker unloading |
8.0 x 10-5 |
Scenarios B1-3, P1,and F1
Scenarios FB1 and FB2
Table 8.6.3a Assessment of Impact of Smoke Ingress into Bus Depot
Scenario |
Fatalities |
||
Ref |
Description |
With FSD Intervention |
Without FSD Intervention |
B1 |
Fire on cone roof storage tank* |
0 |
1 |
B2 |
Fire in bund |
1 |
5 |
B3 |
Pool fire with bund overtopping |
1 |
5 |
P1 |
Pump farm: pool fire |
1 |
5 |
F1 |
Bulk filling station: pool fire |
0 |
0 |
*assumed could spread to other tanks
Table 8.6.3b Assessment of Impact of Fire on Government Depot
Scenario |
Fatalities |
||
Ref |
Description |
With FSD Intervention |
Without FSD Intervention |
FB1 |
Spill during vehicle refuelling |
0 |
1 |
FB2 |
Spill during tanker unloading |
1 |
10 |
i. Societal risk (F-N curves), which expresses the risk to the population as a whole, is independent of geographical location. The F-N curve is a graphical representation of the cumulative frequency of N or more fatalities plotted against N on a log-log scale.
ii. Societal risk (Potential Loss of Life or PLL), which also expresses the risk to the population as a whole and for each scenario and its location. The PLL is an integrated measure of Societal Risk widely used for assessing contributors to risk. The PLL is the sum of the outcome of multiplying each frequency of accident with its associated number of fatalities, as below:
PLL = S F1 N1 + F2 N2 + Fn Nn ....
iii. Individual risk (iso-risk contours), which expresses the risk to a single person in a specific location.
· Individual Risk: The maximum involuntary individual risk of death associated with accidents arising at the hazardous facility should not exceed 1 chance in 100,000 per year (10-5/yr);
· Societal Risk: The societal risk should comply with the F-N diagram shown as Figure 3 in the HKPSG. The figure is a graphical representation of the cumulative frequency, F, of a number, N, or more fatalities resulting from potential accidents at a PHI plotted against N on a log-log scale. Three areas of risk are shown:
- Tolerable where risks are so low that no action is necessary;
- Intolerable where risks are so high that they should usually be reduced regardless of the cost or else the development should not proceed;
- ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) where the risks associated with each probable hazardous event at the hazardous facility should be reduced to a level 'as low as reasonably practicable', usually measured as a trade off between the risk reduction afforded and the cost of that reduction. Risk mitigation measures may take the form of engineered measures at the hazardous facility or development (i.e. population) controls in the vicinity of the facility. In the case of a new development in the vicinity of an existing hazardous facility the onus is on the developer to implement such measures as are necessary to ensure that risk levels at the development site are ALARP.
Wind direction
Occupancy
CRC/FSD or NWFB/FSD Emergency Response
Table 8.7.1a Risk Results Affecting the Bus Depot
Scenario |
PLL |
Individual Risk |
|
Ref |
Description |
(per year) |
(per year) |
B1 |
Fire on cone roof tank |
4.5 x 10-5 |
9.1 x 10-7 |
B2 |
Fire in bund |
3.5 x 10-5 |
7.0 x 10-7 |
B3 |
Pool fire with overtopping of bund |
3.5 x 10-6 |
7.0 x 10-8 |
P1 |
Pump farm: pool fire |
3.5 x 10-6 |
7.0 x 10-8 |
F1 |
Bulk filling station: pool fire |
0 |
0 |
Table 8.7.1b Risk Results from Bus Depot
Scenario |
PLL |
Individual risk |
|
Ref |
Description |
(per year) |
(per year) |
FB1 |
Spill during vehicle refuelling |
4.0 x 10-6 |
4.0 x 10-6 |
FB2 |
Spill during tanker unloading |
4.1 x 10-6 |
4.1 x 10-8 |
Table 8.7.1c Individual Risks Results
Hazards |
Individual Risk |
posed by oil terminal on bus depot |
1.7 x 10-6 |
posed by diesel storage on Gov’t population |
4.1 x 10-8 |
posed by diesel storage on driver |
4.0 x 10-6 |
Table 8.8a Risk Mitigation Measures
Measure ID |
Candidate Risk Mitigation Measure |
Discussion |
Effect of Incorporation |
INCLUDED IN CBA? |
1 |
Building Ventilation |
Local air intakes should not be close to the refuelling area inside the Bus Depot. |
Reduces the chance that smoke from a fire may be drawn into the building. |
No Already incorporated in design |
2 |
Building Design |
Doors and windows on the side of the building facing CRC Oil Terminal should be minimised. All doors and windows should be capable of being effectively sealed and smoke tight. |
Reduces the chance that smoke from a fire may enter the building. |
Yes |
3 |
The materials used for the construction of the exterior of the building on the side facing the CRC oil terminal should be non-combustible. |
Reduces the escalation potential of the building. |
No Already incorporated in design |
|
4 |
Building Layout |
The building design should allow for rapid evacuation of people, via suitably protected routes, to the side of the building facing away from the CRC oil terminal to a safe muster area and thence to public thoroughfares leading away from the oil terminal. There are exits on three sides of the depot, NE, NW and SE. This is thought to be sufficient, and the SW adjoins another building. |
If the building is engulfed by smoke, the population must be able to escape to a safe place as easily as possible. |
No Already incorporated in design |
5 |
Refuelling area is to be segregated by drencher system, which can be activated by the operation of any heat detector along the drencher line of the associated protected compartment plus manual control. |
The drencher system will contain the fire within the depot, and reduce the potential for escalation. |
No Already incorporated in design |
|
6 |
Fire shutters should be used to block fire or smoke from getting into the evacuation routes. The automatic shutter system, specified in the original design, has been replaced by fire rated doors approved by FSD. As the doors will have equivalent fire rating and are required to swing shut, they are considered to be equivalent to the shutters. |
Reduce the probability of escalation into the building. |
No Already incorporated in design |
|
7 |
There should be no exterior storage of dangerous goods on the side of the building facing the CRC oil terminal and flammable materials should be minimised around refuelling area. |
Reduce the probability of escalation of a fire from the CRC Oil Terminal. |
No Measure should be implemented. |
|
8 |
Other |
Road tankers should maintain low speeds in the area around the Bus Depot to avoid collisions with other vehicles, tankers or objects. |
This will reduce the frequency and consequence of tanker collision incidents. |
No Measure should be implemented. |
9 |
Emergency Plan |
Prepare an emergency plan for the office building to ensure the safety of personnel in the event of a fire in the bus depot, or oil terminal. An evacuation plan should be included, to be prepared in liaison with FSD. Proper training in the emergency plan should be carried out. |
This will reduce the frequency and consequence of tanker collision incidents. |
No Measure should be implemented. |
Max. level of justifiable expenditure = PLL per year x value of life (HK$)
x operating lifetime of Depot (years) x aversion factor
Sealing doors and windows against smoke.
The PLL result for the mitigated case is 9.62E-06 per annum, therefore:
Risk Reduction Achieved = 8.71E-05-9.62E-06 = 7.75E-05
7.75E-05 x 33E6 x 50(yrs of operation) x 20 = HK$2.6 M.
CRC Oil Terminal
Tanker Unloading
Vehicle Refuelling
Table 9.2.1 Summary of Environmental Benefits
Environmentally Friendly Measures Recommended |
Key Environmental Problems Avoided & Environmental Benefits |
Buses are not allowed to travel on the section of Shing Tai Road facing Heng Fa Chuen during mid-night return and early morning leaving. |
Avoid noise nuisance to the residents at Heng Fa Chuen during mid-night return and early morning leaving. |
The new bus permanent depot to replace the existing temporary bus servicing/parking site. Buses will state at the new depot overnight instead of driving away to park at other places after cleaning and refueling at the temporary site during mid-night. |
Introduce noise reductions at some of the noise sensitive receivers at Heng Fa Chuen, Tsui Wan Estate and Staff Quarters due to the reduction in road traffic during mid-night return. |
A fleet rejuvenation programme involving 500 new environmentally friendly buses and, a refurbishment programme comprising engine conversion programme and catalytic converter installation to be implemented. |
Reduce bus exhaust emissions and hence benefit the air sensitive receptors along the bus routeing. |
Recycle of wastewater in the bus wash machines |
Reduce amount of wastewater produced. |
The new bus depot are designed with mechanical ventilation system to replace the existing old bus depot at Chai Wan Road, which do not have this kind of system. |
The air emission impacts on the workers working inside the depot can be minimised. |
Table 9.2.2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Population Protected
Environmentally Sensitive Areas |
Estimated Population Protected During Mid-night Return (approximately) |
HK Technical College (Chai Wan) Staff Quarters facing Shing Tai Road |
150 |
Heng Fa Chuen facing Shing Tai Road and Chong Fu Road |
2,400 |
Tsui Wan Estate facing Wing Tai Road |
300 |
Construction Phase
Operational Phase
Construction Phase
Operational Phase
Construction Phase
Although the predicted levels of construction dust are well within the limits stipulated in the HKAQO, continuous surveillance of the implementation of dust mitigation measures will be carried on a weekly basis to ensure effective control of dust emissions.
As the predicted construction noise levels are within the limits stipulated in the EIA-TM, only a limited amount of daytime noise monitoring will be carried out for 30 active minutes on a bi-weekly basis. The preferred locations for noise monitoring will be at the HK Technical College (Chai Wan) and Staff Quarters, Heng Fa Chuen and Tsui Wan Estate.
Auditing will be carried out annually by the Independent Checker (IC) (Environmental) to ascertain whether the waste management procedures have been followed.
EM&A for land contamination and hazard are considered not necessary during the construction phase.
Operational Phase
The predicted off-site traffic noise impacts are insignificant provided that the following measures are taken by NWFB to reduce adverse noise impacts on the NSRs during the operational phase of the bus depot:-
- buses that run through the nearby roads will adhere to the suggested routeing prepared by the Traffic Consultant (MVA (HK) Ltd) (Figure 3.1); and
The predicted operational noise levels caused by the depot are well within the limits stipulated in the EIA-TM. However, monitoring of operational plant will be undertaken to ensure that the source terms derived for the operational noise predictions are achieved both in terms of the vendor’s sound power specifications and the operational and maintenance assumptions.
A waste management plan will be employed to minimise potential adverse impacts associated with the solid waste and wastewater arising from operation of the depot.
Auditing of each waste stream will be carried out annually by an IC (Environmental) to determine if wastes are being managed in accordance with approved procedures and the site waste management plan and to see if waste reduction could be enhanced. The audits will cover all aspects of waste management including waste generation, storage, recycling, transport and disposal.
A contamination avoidance plan will be employed to prevent land contamination associated with contaminants arising from the operation of the depot.
Auditing will be carried out annually by the IC (Environmental) to determine if procedures and instructions in the contamination avoidance plan have been followed. Regular inspection, testing and checks are to be carried out on the following :
The establishment of safety management and emergency response systems for the depot operation will be adequate to reduce the likelihood of undesirable events and provide for their effective management.
With the proper design of the depot and bus routeing, the operation of the depot will not cause adverse air emission impacts on the ASRs. EM&A for air quality is considered not necessary during operational phase.