4.
Air Quality Impact Assessment
4.1.1
This section identifies potential impacts on air quality that may arise
from the construction and operation of the Project. Construction dust impact and operational
air quality impact associated with the Project have been assessed. Where necessary, appropriate mitigation
measures have been recommended to reduce the impacts from the Project to the
identified Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) and to satisfy the corresponding
environmental legislations and guidelines.
4.2.1
The EIA Study Brief No. ESB-245/2012 for this Project requires an air
quality impact assessment of the proposed offices-cum-vehicle depot building to
be conducted. The assessment would
include the potential air quality impacts during both construction and
operational phases of this Project.
4.2.2
This study would follow the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and
assessing the air quality impact as stated in Section 1 of Annexes 4 and 12
respectively of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment
Process (EIAO-TM).
4.2.3
The study area for the air quality impact assessment would be defined
with a distance of 500 metres from the boundary of the Project site. The assessment would include the
existing, planned and committed sensitive receivers within the study area, as
well as areas where air quality may be potentially affected by the
Project. The assessment has been
conducted, based on the best available information at the time of the
assessment.
4.2.4
The assessment of air quality impacts arising from the construction and
operation of the Project would follow the detailed technical requirements in
Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief.
The air pollutant concentrations would be assessed with reference to
Appendices A-1 to A-3 of the EIA Study Brief.
4.3
Environmental Legislation and
Guidelines
4.3.1 The establishment of the air quality impact assessment criteria of this EIA study has make reference to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG), Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311), and Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM.
4.3.2 The APCO provides a regulatory framework for controlling air pollutants from a variety of stationary and mobile sources and encompasses a number of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs). Moreover, the Government’s overall policy objectives for air pollution are laid down in Chapter 9 of the HKPSG as follows:
·
Limit the contamination of the air in Hong Kong,
through land use planning and through the enforcement of the APCO, to safeguard
the health and well-being of the community; and
·
Ensure that the AQOs for 7 common air pollutants
are met as soon as possible.
4.3.3 The AQOs stipulate the concentrations for a range of pollutants, namely sulphur dioxide (SO2), total suspended particulates (TSP), respirable suspended particulates (RSP), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), photochemical oxidants (as ozone) and lead (Pb). The AQOs are summarised in Table 4‑1.
Table 4‑1 Hong
Kong Air Quality Objectives
|
Pollutant |
Concentration(i)
mg/m3 Averaging Time |
||||
|
1
Hour(ii) |
8
Hours(iii) |
24
Hours(iii) |
3
Months(iv) |
1
Year(iv) |
|
|
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) |
800 |
– |
350 |
– |
80 |
|
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) |
– |
– |
260 |
– |
80 |
|
Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)(v) |
– |
– |
180 |
– |
55 |
|
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) |
300 |
– |
150 |
– |
80 |
|
Carbon Monoxide (CO) |
30,000 |
10,000 |
– |
– |
– |
|
Photochemical Oxidants (as ozone(vi)) |
240 |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Lead (Pb) |
– |
– |
– |
1.5 |
– |
(i) Measured
at 298K (25oC) and 101.325 kPa (one atmosphere)
(ii) Not
to be exceeded more than 3 times per year
(iii) Not to be
exceeded more than once per year
(iv) Arithmetic
means
(v) RSP
means suspended particulates in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 20
micrometres and smaller
(vi) Photochemical
oxidants are determined by measurements of ozone only
4.3.4 The EIAO-TM stipulates that the 1-hour TSP level should not exceed 500µg/m3 (measured at 25oC and one atmosphere) for the construction dust impact assessment. Mitigation measures for construction sites are specified in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. Notifiable and regulatory works are, also, under the control of the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation.
4.4.1
The Depot is planned to be constructed on a reclaimed land at Yen
Ming Road, which was recently occupied by three site offices and associated
storage areas associated with the Civil Engineering and Development
Department’s (CEDD) Landslip Prevention and Mitigation works contracts (being returned).
4.4.2
Existing environment in the
study area comprises a combination of urban residential, institutional and
commercial areas in South West Kowloon in the Yau Tsim Mong District. According to the
latest South West Kowloon Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/K20/28, the
Site is zoned as “Government, Institution and Community (G/IC)” and is
designated as “Government” and “Cable / Drainage / WSD /MTRC Reserve” on the
draft South West Kowloon (Central Section) Outline Development Plan (ODP) No.
D/K20B/D.
4.4.3 As shown in the location plan of Figure 1-1, Project site is situated adjacent to CLP Tai Kok Tsui Substation, Yuen Fat Building and Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Food and Fish Markets, and is bounded by Yen Ming Street, Yen Chow Street West, Lin Cheung Road and Hoi Fan Road. The adjacent developments are identified and summarised as follows:
·
To the south: Yuen Fat Building, cargo area, open
sea, etc
·
To the east: CLP Tai Kok Tsui Substation, Sir Ellis
Kadoorie Secondary School, Tai Kok Tsui Catholic Primary School, Nam Cheong
Park, etc
·
To the north: Nam Cheong Station, Nam Cheong
Estate, Fu Cheong Estate, etc
·
To the west: Cheung Sha Wan Wholesales Fish Market,
Cheung Sha Wan Wholesales Food Market, etc
Existing Air Quality
4.4.4 The study area as shown in Figure 4-1 and the existing air quality, as measured by Environmental Protection Department’s (EPD) Air Quality Monitoring Station (AQMS) in study area, are discussed below.
4.4.5 The Project is located within Sham Shui Po airshed. The land uses within the assessment area consists predominately of residential buildings, industrial establishments and recreational facilities. Traffic emissions from nearby roads (e.g. West Kowloon Highway and Lin Cheung Road) would be the major pollutant sources within the study area. No chimney is identified within 500 metres of the study area.
4.4.6 The nearest EPD’s AQMS is Sham Shui Po Air Quality Monitoring Station. Where the monitoring station is located at rooftop of Sham Shui Po Police Station, 37A Yen Chow Street, which is closed to the project site and similar in nature of neighbourhood, it is therefore considered the pollutant levels are representative to the project area. Its air quality statistics from 2007 to 2011 are summarised in Table 4-4 to represent the background air quality in the study area.
4.5
Identification of Air Sensitive
Receivers
4.5.1 With reference to Section 3.4.3 of EIA Study Brief, study area for the air quality impact assessment should be defined by a distance of 500 metres from the boundary of the Project site. Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) are identified in accordance with Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM, including any domestic premises, hotels, hostels, hospitals, medical clinics, nurseries, temporary housing accommodation, schools, educational institutions, offices, factories, shops, shopping centres, places of public worship, libraries, courts of law, sports stadiums or performing arts centres.
4.5.2 The existing ASRs have been identified with reference to the latest information showing on the survey maps, topographic maps, aerial photos and land status plans. Various site surveys have been undertaken to verify and confirm with the above desk-top studies.
4.5.3 The planned ASRs have been identified with reference to the latest information including those earmarked on the South West Kowloon Outline Zoning Plan (S/K20/28), and other relevant published land use plans, including plans and drawings published by Lands Department and any land use and development applications approved by the Town Planning Board.
4.5.4 The existing ASRs include those at Nam Cheong Estate, Fu Cheong Estate, Sir Ellis Kadoorie Secondary School, Tai Kok Tsui Catholic Primary School, the office of Yuen Fat Building, etc. The assessment shall take into account the impacts of emission sources from nearby concurrent projects, if any.
4.5.5 In addition, planned ASRs, including residential development on Nam Cheong Station and the proposed FEHD Office are identified in this stage. Details of the identified representative ASRs are shown in Figure 4-1 and summarised in Table 4‑2.
Table 4‑2 Representative
Air Sensitive Receivers
|
ID |
Description |
Approx.
Horizontal Distance from the Site (m) |
Approx.
Building Height (m) |
Assessment
Height (Above the Ground) (m) |
Land
use |
|
ASR1 |
Cheung
Sha Wan Wholesale Food Market Office1 |
340.8 |
21.8 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Commercial |
|
ASR2 |
Cheung
Sha Wan Wholesale Food Market Office2 |
239.6 |
24.0 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Commercial |
|
ASR3 |
Yuen Fat
Building |
11.0 |
39.2 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Industrial |
|
ASR4 |
Sir
Ellis Kadoorie Secondary School |
82.6 |
23.6 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Institution |
|
ASR5 |
Tai Kok
Tsui Catholic Primary School |
162.4 |
33.5 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Institution |
|
ASR6 |
Marine
Police Operation Base |
131.0 |
14.9 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Government |
|
ASR7 |
Hampton
Place Tower 1 |
276.5 |
159.4 |
11.3#a, 14.8, 19.8 |
Residential |
|
ASR8 |
Hampton
Place Tower 2 |
288.3 |
159.4 |
11.3#a, 14.8, 19.8 |
Residential |
|
ASR9 |
Hampton
Place Tower 3 |
302.8 |
159.4 |
11.3#a, 14.8, 19.8 |
Residential |
|
ASR10 |
The Long
Beach Tower 9 |
370.1 |
159.1 |
16.6#b, 20.1, 25.1 |
Residential |
|
ASR11 |
The Long
Beach Tower 8 |
397.8 |
158.4 |
16.6#b, 20.1, 25.1 |
Residential |
|
ASR12 |
The Long
Beach Tower 7 |
419.6 |
159.1 |
19.8#b, 23.3, 28.3 |
Residential |
|
ASR13 |
The Long
Beach Tower 6 |
454.3 |
158.6 |
22#b, 25.5, 30.5 |
Residential |
|
ASR14 |
The Long
Beach Tower 5 |
467.1 |
159.1 |
24.8#b, 28.3, 33.3 |
Residential |
|
ASR15 |
Island
Harbourview Block 1 |
446.9 |
113.0 |
5.3#c, 8.8, 13.8 |
Residential |
|
ASR16 |
Island
Harbourview Block 2 |
482.5 |
113.0 |
5.3#c, 8.8, 13.8 |
Residential |
|
ASR17 |
Harbour
Green Tower 3 |
475.5 |
157.4 |
9.4#b, 12.9, 17.9 |
Residential |
|
ASR18 |
Harbour
Green Tower 5 |
450.4 |
163.0 |
9.4#b, 12.9, 17.9 |
Residential |
|
ASR19 |
Harbour
Green Tower 6 |
429.2 |
163.0 |
9.4#b, 12.9, 17.9 |
Residential |
|
ASR20 |
West
Kowloon Disciplined Services Quarters Block 2 |
435.5 |
117.3 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Government |
|
ASR21 |
West
Kowloon Disciplined Services Quarters Block 1 |
416.0 |
117.3 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Government |
|
ASR22 |
Nam
Cheong Park |
144.3 |
5.7 |
1.5 |
Open
Space |
|
ASR23 |
Chui Yu
Road Garden |
318.7 |
5.1 |
1.5 |
Open
Space |
|
ASR24 |
Tung
Chau Street Park |
323.0 |
5.2 |
1.5 |
Open
Space |
|
ASR25 |
Metro
Harbour View Tower 4 |
477.0 |
155.0 |
23.2#a, 26.7, 31.7 |
Residential |
|
ASR26 |
Metro
Harbour View Tower 3 |
441.8 |
155.0 |
23.2#a, 26.7, 31.7 |
Residential |
|
ASR27 |
Metro
Harbour View Tower 2 |
404.8 |
154.8 |
23.2#a, 26.7, 31.7 |
Residential |
|
ASR28 |
Tung
Chau Street Basketball Court |
440.1 |
5.2 |
1.5 |
Open
Space |
|
ASR29 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 6 |
263.9 |
47.9 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR30 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 5 |
253.8 |
48.0 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR31 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 1 |
333.0 |
47.9 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR32 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 2 |
387.0 |
47.8 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR33 |
Nam Cheong
Estate Block 4 |
290.8 |
47.8 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR34 |
Nam
Cheong Community Centre |
374.8 |
19.9 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Community |
|
ASR35 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 3 |
346.4 |
48.2 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR36 |
Tung Chau
Street Tennis Court |
435.6 |
4.7 |
1.5 |
Open
Space |
|
ASR37 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Basketball Court |
358.9 |
5.3 |
1.5 |
Open
Space |
|
ASR38 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Yuet House |
338.4 |
118.0 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR39 |
Fu Cheong
Estate Fu Ying House |
368.8 |
118.0 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR40 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Yee House |
397.3 |
67.4 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR41 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Hoi House |
469.8 |
67.3 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR42 |
Fu Cheong
Estate Fu Wen House |
421.5 |
118.0 |
1.5,
5, 10 |
Residential |
|
ASR43 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Yun House |
269.6 |
34.0 |
12#d, 15.5, 20.5 |
Residential |
|
ASR44 |
Fu
Cheong Shopping Centre |
273.9 |
22.0 |
12#, 15.5, 20.5 |
Commercial |
|
ASR45 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T3 |
188.8 |
169.7 |
25.2#e, 28.7, 33.7 |
Residential |
|
ASR46 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T4 |
203.5 |
169.7 |
25.2#e, 28.7, 33.7 |
Residential |
|
ASR47 |
Planned Residential
at Nam Cheong Station T5 |
258.0 |
181.7 |
25.1#e, 28.6, 33.6 |
Residential |
|
ASR48 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T6 |
292.5 |
181.7 |
25.1#e, 28.6, 33.6 |
Residential |
|
ASR49 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T9 |
349.2 |
181.7 |
24.1#e, 27.6, 32.6 |
Residential |
|
ASR50 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T10 |
412.7 |
169.7 |
24.1#e, 27.6, 32.6 |
Residential |
|
ASR51 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T11 |
441.7 |
169.7 |
24.1#e, 27.6, 32.6 |
Residential |
|
ASR52 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L1 |
112.7 |
67.5 |
25.2#e, 28.7, 33.7 |
Residential |
|
ASR53 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L2 |
140.1 |
67.5 |
25.2#e, 28.7, 33.7 |
Residential |
|
ASR54 |
Planned Residential
at Nam Cheong Station L3 |
167.7 |
67.5 |
25.2#e, 28.7, 33.7 |
Residential |
|
ASR55 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L5 |
227.2 |
67.5 |
25.1#e, 28.6, 33.6 |
Residential |
|
ASR56 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L6 |
259.4 |
67.5 |
25.1#e, 28.6, 33.6 |
Residential |
|
ASR57 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L8 |
325.8 |
61.1 |
25.4#e, 28.9, 33.9 |
Residential |
|
ASR58 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L9 |
359.3 |
61.1 |
25.4#e, 28.9, 33.9 |
Residential |
|
ASR59 |
Planned
FEHD Office Fresh Air Intake1 |
N/A |
34 |
31.45 * |
Office |
|
ASR60 |
Planned
FEHD Office Fresh Air Intake2 |
N/A |
34 |
32.8 * |
Office |
|
ASR61 |
Planned
FEHD Office Fresh Air Intake3 |
N/A |
34 |
33.6 * |
Office |
Notes:
# First
Assessment Height is set to include height of Podium.
a
– shopping arcade with non-openable window façade
b
– car parking with solid wall façade
c
– ground floor lobby
d
– shopping centre with non-openable window façade
e
– train station with non-openable window façade
* Height
of Fresh Air Intakes
4.6
Potential Sources of Impacts
Construction Phase
Operational Phase
4.6.2 During operation of the Project, potential sources of the Project would be air pollutant emissions from vehicular movement and idling vehicles with their started engines within the Depot. In addition, potential air quality impacts during the operational phase of this Project would be dominated by the vehicular emissions from surrounding open roads.
4.6.3 Vehicular emission comprises a number of pollutants, including Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP), Sulphur Dioxides (SO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead (Pb), Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs) etc. Motor vehicles are the main causes of high concentrations of Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) at street level in Hong Kong and are considered as key air quality pollutants for road projects. For other pollutants, due to the low concentration in vehicular emission, they are not considered as key pollutants for the purpose of this study.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
4.6.4 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are major pollutants from fossil fuel combustion. According to the 2011 Environmental Performance Report published by EPD, road transport is the second largest NOx contributor which accounted for 22% of the total emission. Increasing traffic flow would inevitably increase the NOx emission and subsequently the roadside NO2 concentration. Hence, NO2 is one of the key pollutants for the operational air quality impact assessment of the Project. 1-hour, 24-hour and annual averaged NO2 concentrations at each identified ASRs would be assessed and compared with the relevant AQOs to determine the compliance.
Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)
4.6.5 Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) refers to suspended particulates with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10µm or less. According to the 2011 Environmental Performance Report published by EPD, road transport is the second largest RSP contributor which accounted for 29% of the total emission. Increasing traffic flow would inevitably increase the roadside RSP concentration. Hence, RSP is also one of the key pollutants for the operational air quality assessment of the Project. The 24-hour and annual averaged RSP concentrations at each identified ASRs would be assessed and compared with the relevant AQOs to determine the compliance.
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
4.6.6 Sulphur dioxide (SO2) is formed primarily from the combustion of sulphur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 emission from vehicular exhaust is due to the sulphur content in diesel oil. According to EPD’s “Cleaning the Air at Street Level”, ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) with a sulphur content of only 0.005% has been adopted as the statutory minimum requirement for motor vehicle diesel since April 2002, which is 3 years ahead of the European Union. With the use of ULSD, according to the 2011 Environmental Performance Report released by EPD, road transport is the smallest share of SO2 emission sources in 2009 and only constitutes 0.5% of the total SO2 emission. From 1 July 2010, EPD has tightened the statutory motor vehicle diesel and unleaded petrol specifications to Euro V level, which further tightens the cap on sulphur content from 0.005% to 0.001%.
4.6.7 Road transport is therefore anticipated only a very small amount of SO2 emission contribution, relatively low measured concentrations and the adoption of low-sulphur and ultra-low-sulphur fuel under the existing government policy, SO2 would not be a critical air pollutant of concern.
4.6.8 Due to the negligible contribution of vehicular emission of SO2 from this Project, insignificant change in the cumulative results of SO2 concentrations is expected. SO2 is therefore not considered as a key pollutant for quantitative assessment for this road project.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
4.6.9 Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a typical pollutant emitted from fossil fuel combustion and comes mainly from vehicular emissions. With reference to the “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2011”, measured the highest 1-hour average (4,030µg/m3) and the highest 8-hour average (3,309µg/m3) were both recorded at the Causeway Bay roadside station; these values were around one seventh and one third of the respective AQOs limits. In view that there is still a large margin to the AQOs, CO would not be a critical air pollutant of concern.
Ozone (O3)
4.6.10 Ozone (O3) is produced from photochemical reaction between NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight, which will not be generated by this project. Concentration of O3 is governed by both precursors and atmospheric transport from other areas. When precursors transport along under favorable meteorological conditions and sunlight, ozone will be produced. This explains why higher ozone levels are generally not produced in the urban core or industrial area but rather at some distance downwind after photochemical reactions have taken place. In the presence of large amounts of NOx in the roadside environment, O3 reacts with NO to give NO2 and thus results in O3 removal. O3 is therefore not considered as a key air pollutant for the operational air quality assessment of a road project.
Lead (Pb)
4.6.11 The sale of leaded petrol has been banned in Hong Kong since April 1999. According to the “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2011”, the measured ambient lead concentrations were ranging from 20ng/m3 to 104ng/m3. The measured concentrations were well below the AQOs limits. Therefore, lead is not considered as a critical air pollutant of concern.
4.6.12 To conclude, only 1-hour, 24-hour and annual concentrations of NO2 and RSP have been calculated.
4.6.13 On the other hand, in order to assess cumulative air quality impact, cumulative pollutant-emitting activities within the study area have been reviewed in the air quality impact assessment, including:
·
Traffic emissions from all road traffic emission
within the study boundary of 500m, including nearby road carriageway including
Yen Ming Road, Yen Chow Street West, West Kowloon Highway and Corridor, etc.;
·
Vehicular gaseous emissions within the Depot;
·
Idling gaseous emission within the Depot during
maintenance;
·
Site surveys have been carried out to confirm that
no chimneys are present within the study area; and
·
Odorous emissions from the Depot and nearby sources
including Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Fish Market.
4.7.1 There are several concurrent projects in the vicinity of the Site, as summarised in Table 4-3. At this stage, only those concurrent projects available with implementation programmes would be considered as concurrent projects for cumulative environmental impacts. Potential cumulative impacts of various environmental aspects, if any, from the planned major concurrent projects, are assessed in the individual sections of this EIA study.
Table 4‑3 List
of Potential Concurrent Projects
|
Concurrent Projects |
Potential Cumulative Impacts |
|
|
Construction Phase |
Operation Phase |
|
|
Planned ffootbridge across the junction of Sham Mong Road/Tonkin
Street West by CEDD (construction
works are scheduled to commence in late 2014 and to complete in 2018) |
X |
X |
|
Planned Hong Kong
section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong
Express Rail Link along Sham Mong Road (several works area within our study
area
are under construction in between our project
implementation programme) |
✓ |
X |
|
Nam Cheong Station Property Development (construction has been
commenced currently and to complete from 2017 to 2019 by phases) |
✓ |
X |
4.7.2 As
discussed in Section 4.6.1 in this EIA
report, dust generated during construction of the Project would be expected as
minimal. In particular, with the
implementation of sufficient dust suppression measures as stipulated under the
Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and good site practices,
significant dust generated from the construction of the planned developments is
not anticipated. Therefore, adverse
cumulative dust impact during the construction phase of the Project would not
be anticipated.
4.7.3 As no
concurrent projects during the operational phase of the Project, adverse
cumulative air quality impact during the operation phase of the Project would
not be anticipated.
Construction Phase Assessment Methodology
4.8.1 With
the implementation of sufficient dust suppression measures as stipulated under
the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and good site practices,
significant dust generation from the construction of the Project is not
anticipated. Therefore, adverse
impact would not be anticipated at the ASRs. As such, a quantitative dust impact
assessment has not been considered as being required.
Operational Phase Assessment Methodology
General
4.8.2 The
overall methodology for the operational phase air quality impact assessment
within the 500m study area in Nam Cheong is as follows:
·
Adopt the latest five years of EPD’s Air Quality
Monitoring Data at Sham Shui Po Air Quality Monitoring Station (i.e. 2007 to
2011) as the background air quality as shown in Table 4‑4; and
·
Use near field dispersion models, i.e. CALINE4 for
line sources and ISCST3 for discrete point and area sources, to quantify the
air quality impacts at the local scale from sources including emissions from
open roads, and the Project.
Table 4‑4 Background Air Quality
(2007 to 2011)
|
Sham Shui Po Air Quality
Monitoring Station |
|
|
Pollutant |
5-year Annual Average Concentration 2007 to 2011 (µg/m3) |
|
NO2 |
68.4 |
|
RSP |
51.2 |
4.8.3
The process for operational air modelling is as follows and the detailed
methodology and assumptions of each phase are discussed in the sections below:
·
format of traffic figures;
·
determination of assessment year using EMFAC-HK;
·
calculation of total vehicular tailpipe emissions
from open roads using EMFAC-HK;
·
using CALINE4 to assess air quality impacts from
open roads; and
·
using ISCST3 to assess air quality impacts from the
Depot site.
4.8.4
The hourly emission rate calculated by EMFAC-HK and the traffic data have
been used for the CALINE4 modelling, in order to evaluate the 1-hour average of
pollutants (i.e. NO2 and RSP) emitted from the open roads within
500m study area.
4.8.5
The working hours of the Project are from 0700 to 1900 every day. It should be noted
that traffic
is required for off-site operation other than the normal operation period (i.e.
throughout a day). The
average daily in/out traffic volumes would be equal to 323 vehicles, where the
breakdowns of hourly in/out traffic volumes had been agreed
with FEHD and shown
in Appendix 4-1. The travelling distance of the
vehicles within the Site is assumed as longest travelling distance of 420m at
maximum speed of 5kph.
Meteorological
Conditions
4.8.6
The characteristics of the Hong
Kong Observatory King’s Park Meteorological Station would be representative of
the Study Area and, therefore, the weather conditions obtained from this
station for the year 2010 are adopted in the model. It is confirmed that this data has at
least 98% valid data for the year. Adopted meteorological data is summarised
as below,
· Wind
speed: hourly record from King’s Park Weather Station meteorological data;
· Wind
direction: hourly record from King’s Park Weather Station meteorological data;
· Stability
class: hourly record from meteorological data at the King’s Park Weather
Station. It should be noted that
the stability class G obtained from the HKO has been combined with class F for
the purposes of the modelling and stability classes A-F applied;
· Mixing
height: daily record from meteorological data at King’s Park Weather Station in
Year 2011; and
· Temperature:
hourly record from meteorological data at King’s Park Weather Station.
4.8.7 In respect of calm conditions where wind speed are 1.0 m/s or less, wind speeds have been assumed to be a minimum of 1.0 m/s in accordance with “Guideline on Air Quality Models Version 05”.
4.8.8 For the hourly meteorological data which is not available, the results of the related hours have not been considered.
Open Road
Emission model (CALINE4)
4.8.9 The modelling of impacts from open stretches of road has been undertaken using the CALINE4 model. The hourly emission rates of each vehicle class (in grams per mile per vehicle) have been determined by dividing the emissions of the various road categories calculated with the EMFAC-HK model by the hourly traffic flow and the distance travelled. The composite emission factors in CALINE4 model have then been calculated.
4.8.10
In order to predict 1hr, 24hrs
and annual average of pollutant levels, 8760 hourly meteorological data had
been considered in CALINE4 modelling. Wind speeds at each hour had been
corrected to 5m. Directional variability: calculated
according to the stability class; (Stability Class A, Standard Deviation of
Wind Direction (sA) = 22.5o; Stability Class B, sA = 22.5o;
Stability Class C, sA = 17.5o; Stability Class D, sA = 12.5o;
Stability Class E, sA = 7.5o; Stability Class F, sA = 3.8o; A surface roughness factor of (z0/15 cm)0.2
was adopted where z0 is the surface roughness in cm. 370cm of
surface roughness is adopted in this study.
4.8.11 In view of the constraints of the CALINE4 model in modelling elevated roads higher than 10m, the road heights of elevated road sections in excess of 10m high above local ground or water surface, such as the viaduct of West Kowloon Highway, have been set to 10m in the CALINE4 model as a worst-case assumption.
4.8.12 The Ambient Ratio Method (ARM) has been adopted for the conversion of NOx to NO2 for all vehicle emissions, which is assumed to be 20%.
Fixed
Emission (ISCST3)
4.8.13
The predicted hourly NO2 and RSP concentrations have been
derived from the ISCST3 modelling. The hourly emission rates calculated by
EMFAC-HK have been used for the vehicular emission from travelling within the
Depot (Refer to Section 4.10).
4.8.14
In order to predict 1hr, 24hrs
and annual average of pollutant levels, 8760 hourly meteorological data had
been considered in ISCST3 modelling. 370cm of surface
roughness is adopted in this study.
Determination of 1-hour Emissions
4.8.15
A worst case scenario has been assumed for the determination of emissions
at the Project site:
·
Vehicles are travelling in the Project site in 1
hour; and
·
Idling vehicles with engines running for 900
seconds in the Project site in 1 hour (no more than 7 idling vehicles per
hour).
4.8.16
The total emission rate of the Project has
been calculated based
on the above assumptions and the details will be shown in the following
sections. The calculated emission
rates have been used for the input of each operating hour of the Project in a
year to allow for the fact that this situation cannot be specified to a
particular hour and, thus could occur in any operating hour of the year. As such, the cumulative 1-hour average
of pollutants has been calculated, and the highest cumulative 1-hour average of
pollutants determined.
4.8.17
It should be noted that, when the workshop is not operating, the idling
and travelling emissions have not been included in the calculation of the cumulative
impact assessment.
4.8.18 The traffic figures for this EIA study have been obtained from a traffic survey endorsed by the Transport Department (TD) (taken into account surrounding planned developments including the one in Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Food Market Phase 2 site, Appendix 4-2 refers) and taken into account the latest layout of the Project. The traffic forecasts have been prepared for the years 2017, 2022, 2027 and 2032. Hourly forecasts of weekday traffic flows, including a breakdown of sixteen vehicle categories, on major roads related to the Project as shown in Figure 4-2. These have been used for the EMFAC-HK modelling for calculating the emission factors of vehicle movements on the open roads for CALINE4 assessment.
Determination of Assessment Year
4.8.19 The potential air pollution impacts of future road traffic have been calculated based on the highest emission strength from the road vehicles within the operation years, after the completion of construction of the Project. Sensitivity tests have been conducted to determine the worst-case scenario given the combination of vehicular emission factors and the projected traffic flow for selected years within 15 years after the commencement of the Project operation, namely 2017, 2022, 2027 and 2032. As NO2 is the pollutant of primary concern of vehicular emissions, the worst assessment year has been determined based on the highest NOx emission scenario using the EMFAC-HK.
4.8.20 Based on the emission control schemes in the selected years, together with the varied Vehicle-Mile-Travelled (VMT), sets of emission inventories with emission factors have been produced for each year. Vehicles travelling at travelling speeds for these years have been adopted, which are calculated based on the traffic flow of the corresponding year and the volume/capacity (V/C) ratios.
4.8.21 Emission factors in the year that has been shown to have the largest emission inventory for the roads have been used as the model year for the air quality impacts assessment as it would represent the worst-case scenario prediction associated with vehicular gaseous emission.
4.9
Determination of Vehicular Emissions
from Open Roads
Vehicular Classes
4.9.1 In accordance with Appendix I of EMFAC-HK Guideline, all vehicles operating on roads included in the assessment are categorised into 16 vehicle classes as shown in Table 4‑5.
Table 4‑5 Vehicle Classifications in
EMFAC – HK
|
Index |
Vehicle
Class Description |
EMFAC
Code |
Gross
Vehicle Weight |
|
1 |
Private
Cars (PC) |
PC |
ALL |
|
3 |
Taxi |
Taxi |
ALL |
|
4 |
Light
Goods Vehicles (<= 2.5t) |
LGV3 |
<=2.5t |
|
5 |
Light
Goods Vehicles (2.5 – 3.5t) |
LGV4 |
>2.5-3t |
|
6 |
Light
Goods Vehicles (3.5 – 5.5t) |
LGV6 |
>3.5-5.5t |
|
7 |
Medium
& Heavy Goods Vehicles (5.5 – 15t) |
HGV7 |
>5.5-15t |
|
8 |
Medium
& Heavy Goods Vehicles (>=15t) |
HGV8 |
>15t |
|
11 |
Public
Light Buses |
PLB |
ALL |
|
12 |
Private
Light Buses (<=3.5t) |
PV4 |
<=3.5t |
|
13 |
Private
Light Buses (>3.5t) |
PV5 |
>3.5t |
|
14 |
Non-franchised
Buses (<6.4t) |
NFB6 |
<=6.36t |
|
15 |
Non-franchised
Buses (6.4 – 15t) |
NFB7 |
>6.36-15t |
|
16 |
Non-franchised
Buses (>15t) |
NFB8 |
>15t |
|
17 |
Single
Deck Franchised Buses |
FBSD |
ALL |
|
18 |
Double
Deck Franchised Buses |
FBSD |
ALL |
|
19 |
Motor
Cycles |
MC |
ALL |
4.9.2 Details of vehicle classification in this Project have been incorporated in the traffic forecast methodology, and Transport Department has expressed no adverse comment on this issue on date of 9 May 2013. Relevant correspondence is attached in Appendix 4-2.
4.9.3 Traffic forecast was prepared and based on the traffic survey conducted in the study area. To convert the vehicle types used in the traffic forecast into the 16 classes defined in EMFAC-HK, the procedure and breakdown matrix are detailed in Appendix 4-2a.
4.9.4
Based on the road types and the
speed limit as shown in Table 4‑6,
roads within the Study Area (as shown in Figure
4-2) are grouped into 3 categories.
Table 4‑6 Road Groupings
|
Road Types |
Descriptions |
|
Urban
Local Distributor |
Roads with speed
limit of 50 kph and with capacity limited by waiting vehicles and etc. |
|
Urban
District Distributor |
Roads with speed
limit of 50 kph and with junctions, pedestrian crossing and bus stop, etc. |
|
Urban
Trunk Road |
High capacity roads
with no frontage access or development, pedestrians segregated, widely spaced
grade separated junctions. 24 hour stopping restrictions. |
Exhaust Technology Fractions
4.9.5
EMFAC-HK v2.5.1 has already
included as default all the existing vehicle emission control programmes. The implementation dates of the emission
standards for various vehicle classes are adopted in accordance with Appendix
II of the EMFAC-HK Guideline.
4.9.6
Since this Project only
involves activities of parking and regular maintenance works, no additional
emission control programme will be imposed, default values of exhaust
technology fractions are considered as representative of this environmental
assessment study.
4.9.7
The vehicle population forecast
function in EMFAC-HK is only for natural replacement, no policy change can be
reflected in this function. As this
Project will not change the age distribution, the default vehicle populations
forecast in EMFAC-HK will be adopted.
4.9.8
As there is an absence of
forecast information in the model year, “Default values and compositions” have
been adopted in accordance with the EMFAC-HK Guideline.
4.9.9
With reference to the EMFAC-HK
Guideline, the diurnal variation of daily trips is used to estimate the cold
start emission of petrol and LPG vehicles.
Hence, trips for vehicles other than petrol type vehicles are assumed to
be zero. Estimations on the number
of trips for petrol and LPG type vehicles in different road sections are
assumed the followings:
Urban Trunk Road
4.9.10
It is assumed that number of
trips on urban trunk road would be zero as no cold start would be reasonably
expected on this road section under normal circumstances.
Urban District Distributor and
Urban Local Distributor
4.9.11 It is assumed that the number of trips would be equal to the number of cold starts in the road sections, including urban district distributor and urban local distributor. It is also assumed that the number of trips is directly proportional to Vehicle-Mile-Travelled (VMT) and that the pattern would be similar throughout the Hong Kong territory. The number of trips in this Study area has been estimated by multiplying VMTwithin Study Area and Trips per VMTwithin Hong Kong as follows:
4.9.12
Trips per VMTwithin
Hong Kong are calculated based on the default data of EMFAC-HK, whereas
VMTwithin Study Area have been calculated by multiplying the number
of vehicles by the length of road travelled in this Study Area.
Daily Vehicle Mile Travelled (VMT)
4.9.13
VMTs are inputted in the model
to represent the total distance travelled on a typical weekday. The area specific VMTs have been
calculated by multiplying vehicle flow by the road section length.
4.9.14
The diurnal traffic pattern
would be input to simulate the effect of different traffic patterns on the
emissions. In order to determine
the proportion of the estimated daily traffic flow variation, hourly traffic
survey of the roads were conducted by the traffic consultant. Transport Department expressed no
comment on traffic forecast methodology, and on date of 9 May 2013. Relevant
correspondence is attached in Appendix
4-2.
Hourly Temperature and Relative Humidity
4.9.15
The characteristics of the Hong
Kong Observatory King’s Park Meteorological Station would be representative of
the Study Area and, therefore, the hourly averaged ambient temperature and
relative humidity obtained from this station for the year 2010 are adopted
in the model. It is confirmed that
this data has at least 98% valid data for the year.
4.9.16
In order to simulate the effect
of different road speeds during rush and non-rush hours, sensitivity tests
would be carried out. The design road
speed limits would be assumed as representing the situation during non-rush
hours, while the vehicle speeds of the peak hour flows have been adopted to
represent the situation during the rush hour. The estimated speed fractions
have been estimated using travelling speeds provided in the approved traffic
data.
4.9.17
The peak flow hour travel
speeds are calculated based on the peak traffic flows in each year and the
volume/capacity ratios of the different road types. In order to obtain the speed fractions of
each vehicle type, the vehicle speeds of each road are firstly calculated and
weighed by the VMT.
4.9.18
In the model, the same
travelling speeds are applied to all vehicles for each type to demonstrate the
effect of using peak flow speed and design speed. However, the diurnal variation of VMT
for each vehicle is, also, considered in the travelling speed estimation. In accordance with Road Traffic
Ordinance, Cap 374 Section 40, medium goods vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, and
bus shall travel on any road at 70 km an hour. Therefore, such vehicles are assumed to
travel at speeds not exceeding 70 kph on all roads. The worst emission factors are selected
for predicting the vehicle emissions.
Scenario Type
4.9.19 The “Emfac Mode” of EMFAC-HK is adopted to take into account of the diurnal variations of vehicle-kilometer travelled (VKT), trips, ambient temperature, relative humidity and speed.
Output Frequency
4.9.20
Hourly emission factors have
been derived for 24hr hour diurnal variation.
Calculation of Emission Factors
4.9.21 Emission inventories and VMT have been extracted from the model. In respect of the urban trunk road sections, only “Run Exhaust” has been considered as it characterizes continuous flow, whereas both “Start Exhaust” and “Run Exhaust” have been considered for the urban local distributor and urban district distributor for the need to take into account cold start emissions. The “Start Exhaust” is confined to petrol vehicles and LPG vehicles only.
4.9.22 Generic emission factors for each of the vehicle categories in different temperature, relative humidity and speed are directly extracted from the data file. Composite emission factors are then calculated for each road sections in 24 hours diurnal traffic flows.
4.9.23 The calculated hourly emission factors in grams per miles per vehicle have been selected for the use in the modelling of the open roads using CALINE4 and summarized in Appendix 4-3.
4.10
Determination of Vehicular Emissions
within the
Depot
Emissions by
Vehicular Travelling within the Car Depot
4.10.1
The predicted hourly NO2 and RSP concentrations have been
derived from the ISCST3 modelling at 1.5m, 5m, and 10m above ground at the
representative ASRs in the study area.
The hourly emission rates calculated by EMFAC-HK have been used for the
vehicular emission from travelling within the Depot. Hourly in/out traffic volumes over 24-hr
period are adopted in the estimation and details are shown in Appendix 4-1. The travelling distance of the vehicles
within the Site is assumed as longest travelling distance of 420m. Travelling
speed is assumed to be 5kph and 1 cold start is included for each trip.
Emission rate by EMFAC-HK, including running exhaust and start exhaust, is
adopted.
4.10.2
No mechanical ventilation would be provided in car park area of the Depot
as it is designed for natural ventilation through louvers at sidewalls. Hence, the emissions in the car park
area have been estimated as total emission in grams by EMFAC-HK at hourly basis
in accordance with the hourly traffic data, which is then assumed to be
released as volume sources through each opening in proportion to size of
opening area. Details of emission
rate calculation are shown in Appendix 4-4.
Idling Emission
4.10.3
Most of the vehicles under repair only require engine run when the
maintenance works need operating the hydraulic moving parts (tailgate, packer
plate, ejector plate, etc) of the Specialized Vehicles such as Refuse
Collection Vehicles (RCVs) and for air brake system, brake test, emission test,
etc. The engine on-time duration is
about 5 to 15 minutes for preparing the aforesaid repairing works. After that, engine would be turned off
for carrying out the repair works and no need to turn on the engine for the
rest of the maintenance / repair time in general. On average, such engine run would be
repeated at an interval of two to three hours during the 12 hours of major
maintenance works (from 0700 to 1900 hours).
4.10.4
As the maintenance works involving idling emission would be come-and-go basis,
maximum engine on-time per each vehicle is assumed to be maximal 15 minutes for
conservative approach. The number
vehicle under maintenance is assumed to be 3 at each time as it is limited by the 3
number of maintenance bay.
Although, the maintenance period for each vehicle is about 2 to 3 hours,
15 minutes of idling emissions were assumed in each hour of the maintenance period of
each vehicle throughout all working hours every day as conservative approach.
4.10.5
For washing of RCVs, engine needs to be turned on twice for each vehicle
washing to up-lift the tailgate (rear hopper) before the washing and lower down
the tailgate after each vehicle washing.
The total engine on-time would be 5 minutes for each vehicle washing
which last for about 30 minutes.
4.10.6 The number of RCVs being manually washed is assumed to be 2 at the same time as limited by the 2 number of washing bays. Assuming each washing will last for 30 minutes, each washing bay could serve 2 RCV in every hour. It leads to total of 4 RCV to be assumed in each hour throughout all working hours every day as conservative approach.
4.10.7 The maintenance and washing areas are serviced by three exhaust fans. The extracted idling vehicular emissions are therefore assumed to be release thought the louvers as volume sources and have been modelled by ISCST3. Locations of the sources are shown in Appendix 4-5.
4.10.8 With reference to the “Road Tunnels: Vehicle Emissions and Air Demand for Ventilation” published by PIARC Technical Committee on Road Tunnel Operation (C5) on November 2004, the emission factors for different Euro type engines are presented with different travelling speeds (including idling mode). Therefore, these emission factors have been adopted for the calculation of the emission rates of NOx and RSP of the idling vehicles. The vehicle speed has been assumed as 0 km/hr for the idling vehicles with engines running. Appendix 4-5 presents the detailed calculations of emission rates and locations of the sources assumed.
4.11
Determination of Odour Emissions
4.11.2
Before entering the Depot, all collected refuse has been unloaded in the
specified refuse disposal points. Only washing and
maintenance of RCVs will be then taken place within the Depot. Daily operation includes tipping of
compactor, washing, hammering, and repairing. After 19:00, little washing and no major
maintenance would be undertaken.
Therefore, potential minimal odour emissions from the Depot are limited
to the period during the washing activities during the said operating hours.
4.11.3
During washing of RCVs, clearance of refuse residual in compactor may be taken place, however the amount
of refuse residual would be very limited.
By on-site observation of operation of other similar existing FEHD
depots, the refuse spread flat
on the floor would not be larger than 2 metres
by 2 metres. Since all RCVs would
be well washed and rinsed at the first stop of refuse transfer station prior to
entering the Depot before carrying out other maintenance activities, all
odorous substances should have been removed from the RCVs within the washing
bays without leaving to other areas of the Depot. In other words, odour emission is
anticipated to be localised only in the washing bays, and would be
insignificant outside the washing bays.
4.11.4
The washing bays and maintenance workshops will be enclosed on 3 sides within space, served with mechanical ventilations to maintain all the time with proper negative air pressure to avoid air pollutants and minimal odour
from emitting to the adjacent atmosphere.
In addition, deodorisation system such as active carbon filters or chemical scrubber (or equivalent) will be applied at the ventilation duct prior to
discharging to the atmosphere, having odour removal efficiency of 85% or above
at normal operation, and under regular and proper maintenance and replacement.
Commissioning test
requirement should be incorporated in the specification to ensure at least 85% odour removal efficiency of the proposed odour
removal unit.
4.11.5
In order to evaluate the potential odour emission emitted from the
washing bays, although the quantity of refuse residual and potential odour
emission is expected to be very low and on a conservative basis, it is assumed
that the odour emission rate from washing activities is the same as at the
active tipping face of the existing NENT Landfill. The estimated odour emission
rate is summarised in Table 4‑7 as shown below, taking into account
also the odour control measures as described in Section 4.11.4.
Table 4‑7 Summary of Odour Emission
|
Parameters |
Remarks |
||
|
Area of
Refuse Spread |
8 |
m2 |
2m x 2 m
rubbish spread flat for
each RCV washing (maximum
2 washing at once) i.e. 2m x 2m x 2 |
|
Odour
Emission Rate, SOER |
3.91 |
OU/m2/s |
With reference to the approved NENT Landfill Extension EIA Report, the
average measured SOER at tipping face is 3.91 OU/m2/s for MSW
mixed with construction waste (Please refer to Section 3.6.2.3.3. and Table
3.28 of EIA Report (AEIA-111/2007)). |
|
Odour
Emission Rate |
31.28 |
OU/s |
Calculated (i.e. 8 x 3.91) |
|
Removal
Efficiency |
85 |
% |
|
|
Odour
Emission Rate |
4.692 |
OU/s |
Calculated (i.e. 31.28 x (1-85%)) |
4.11.6
In accordance with the
estimation shown in Table 4-7, odour emission is relatively
low with the provision of adequate odour removal system prior to discharging to the
atmosphere, which is lower than the 5OU in 5 second standard.
4.11.7
Taking into account the dilution of odour level when it reaches the
nearest ASRs outside Site Area, which is Yuen Fat at 11m away from the Depot,
the resultant odour level at the ASRs are anticipated to be lower than 1 OU/m3
in 5sec averaging time.
4.11.8
The odorous activities of Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Fish
Market, involving the wholesale activities associated with loose
chilled fish, would
be 03:00 to 06:00, whereas major operation time of FEHD Depot would
be 07:00 to 19:00. The potential odour from Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Fish Market would
cease during operation time of FEHD Depot. In this connection, the contribution
from Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Fish Market is not anticipated.
4.12 Construction Phase Impact Assessment
4.12.1 The potential dust emission sources would be mainly
from the construction work activities of the excavation and wind erosion at the
work site. As the size of the work
site is limited and the excavation is minor such that the amount of excavated materials generated would be small, no adverse dust
impact would be anticipated at the ASRs with the implementation of sufficient
dust suppression measures as stipulated under the Air Pollution Control
(Construction Dust) Regulation and good site practices.
Mitigation Measures
4.12.2 The
implementation of sufficient dust suppression measures as stipulated under the
Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and good site practices
should be carried out in order to further minimise the construction dust
generated.
·
Use of regular watering, to reduce dust emissions
from exposed site surfaces and unpaved roads, particularly during dry weather;
·
Use of frequent watering for particularly dusty
construction areas close to ASRs;
·
Side enclosure and covering of any aggregate or
dusty material storage piles to reduce emissions. Where this is not practicable owing to
frequent usage, watering should be applied to aggregate fines;
·
Open temporary stockpiles should be avoided or
covered. Prevent placing dusty
material storage plies near ASRs;
·
Tarpaulin covering of all dusty vehicle loads
transported to, from and between site locations;
·
Establishment and use of vehicle wheel and body
washing facilities at the exit points of the site;
·
Imposition of speed controls for vehicles on
unpaved site roads. 8 km/hr is the recommended limit;
·
Routing of vehicles and positioning of construction
plant should be at the maximum possible distance from ASRs;
·
Every stock of more than 20 bags of cement or dry
pulverised fuel ash (PFA) , if applicable, should be covered entirely by
impervious sheeting or placed in an area sheltered on the top and the 3-sides;
and
·
Loading, unloading, transfer, handling or storage
of large amount of cement or dry PFA should be carried out in a totally
enclosed system or facility, and nay vent or exhaust should be fitted with the an effective fabric
filter or equivalent air pollution control system.
4.13 Operation Phase Impact Assessment
Assessment Year
4.13.1 Composite emission factors for the road links of the roads have been calculated by the weighted average of the emission factors of sixteen vehicle types. The total emission inventory of NOx and RSP in Years 2017, 2022, 2027 and 2032 with Project are respectively demonstrated in Table 4‑8 and Table 4‑9 for comparison.
Table 4‑8 Total NOx Emission
Inventory for the Selected Years
|
NOX Emission Inventory (g/s) |
2017
WOP |
2017
WP |
2022
WP |
2027
WP |
2032
WP |
|
Urban
District Distributor |
0.315 |
0.320 |
0.177 |
0.120 |
0.079 |
|
Urban
Local Distributor |
0.503 |
0.508 |
0.302 |
0.200 |
0.136 |
|
Urban
Trunk Road |
2.569 |
2.577 |
1.447 |
0.928 |
0.669 |
|
Total |
3.387 |
3.404 |
1.926 |
1.248 |
0.884 |
Note:
WP - With Project
WOP - WithOut Project
Table
4‑9 Total PM10 Emission Inventory for the Selected Years
|
PM10 Emission Inventory (g/s) |
2017 WOP |
2017 WP |
2022 WP |
2027 WP |
2032 WP |
|
Urban District Distributor |
0.0094 |
0.0097 |
0.0065 |
0.0048 |
0.0037 |
|
Urban Local Distributor |
0.0254 |
0.0257 |
0.0160 |
0.0107 |
0.0080 |
|
Urban Trunk Road |
0.0956 |
0.0959 |
0.0728 |
0.0563 |
0.0463 |
|
Total |
0.1304 |
0.1314 |
0.0953 |
0.0718 |
0.0580 |
4.13.2 Based on the sensitivity test results shown in Table 4‑8 and Table 4‑9 the highest emission inventory for NOx and RSP would be in Year 2017; therefore, it can be concluded that the total emission inventory in rush hours in Year 2017 will be selected for the use in this Project.
4.13.3 The total emission inventories of NOx and RSP with Project and without Project in year 2017 are demonstrated in Table 4‑8 and Table 4‑9.Referring to the results of estimated emission inventory for this Project, the change of the emission due to project would be less than 2% of increase. In this connection, insignificant adverse air quality impact due to this Project is anticipated.
Calculated Emission
Factors Year 2017
Open Road Sources
4.13.4
The calculated emission factors for different vehicle categories for the
Year 2017 are listed in Appendix 4-3. The whole set of the calculated emission
factors (Hour 1 to Hour 24) were used for the calculation of the composite emission factors for the
CALINE4 modelling.
Vehicular Emissions
within the Depot
4.13.5 The predicted hourly NO2
and RSP concentrations have been derived from the ISCST3 modelling at 1.5m, 5m,
and 10m above ground at the representative ASRs in the study area.
Fixed
Sources Emissions
4.13.6 The vehicle repairing and maintenance activities, including small scale and infrequent touch-up painting and welding activities, would be carried out in the Depot and road carriage ways in the vicinity of the Depot. In consideration of the small scale and low in frequency, adverse impact is considered as insignificant.
4.14.1
The predicted overall cumulative 1-hour, 24-hour and annual average
concentrations of NO2 and 24-hour and annual average concentrations
of RSP have been calculated and are shown in Table 4‑10 and Table 4‑11 below.
Apart from the results at individual ASR, the contour plots at 1.5m, 5m,
10m, 20m, 25m and 30m can be seen in Figure 4-3 for hourly average
concentrations of NO2, Figure 4-4 to Figure 4-5 for
24-hour average concentrations of NO2 and RSP respectively and Figure
4-6 to Figure 4-7 for annual average concentrations of NO2
and RSP respectively.
Table 4‑10 Summary of NO2 Concentrations
|
ID |
Description |
Assessment
Height (mAG) |
Highest 1-hr Concentration (µg/m3) |
24-hr Concentration (µg/m3) |
Annual Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
ASR1 |
Cheung
Sha Wan Wholesale Food Market Office 1 |
1.5 |
109.32 |
87.21 |
76.14 |
|
5 |
108.41 |
86.83 |
75.98 |
||
|
10 |
107.03 |
85.65 |
75.48 |
||
|
ASR2 |
Cheung
Sha Wan Wholesale Food Market Office 2 |
1.5 |
107.37 |
85.67 |
76.51 |
|
5 |
106.96 |
85.27 |
76.31 |
||
|
10 |
105.63 |
84.16 |
75.72 |
||
|
ASR3 |
Yuen
Fat Building |
1.5 |
118.23 |
92.65 |
77.68 |
|
5 |
117.16 |
92.11 |
77.59 |
||
|
10 |
111.75 |
87.49 |
76.00 |
||
|
ASR4 |
Sir
Ellis Kadoorie Secondary School |
1.5 |
112.94 |
85.04 |
75.18 |
|
5 |
111.91 |
84.61 |
75.02 |
||
|
10 |
108.60 |
83.22 |
74.47 |
||
|
ASR5 |
Tai
Kok Tsui Catholic Primary School |
1.5 |
106.87 |
82.43 |
74.07 |
|
5 |
106.18 |
82.15 |
73.94 |
||
|
10 |
104.08 |
81.24 |
73.52 |
||
|
ASR6 |
Marine
Police Operation Base |
1.5 |
111.53 |
83.62 |
74.05 |
|
5 |
111.27 |
83.84 |
74.27 |
||
|
10 |
106.76 |
81.92 |
73.36 |
||
|
ASR7 |
Hampton
Place Tower 1 |
11.3 |
101.17 |
79.74 |
72.41 |
|
14.8 |
99.24 |
78.95 |
72.08 |
||
|
19.8 |
96.08 |
77.73 |
71.58 |
||
|
ASR8 |
Hampton
Place Tower 2 |
11.3 |
101.06 |
79.79 |
72.52 |
|
14.8 |
99.05 |
78.92 |
72.14 |
||
|
19.8 |
95.85 |
77.66 |
71.59 |
||
|
ASR9 |
Hampton
Place Tower 3 |
11.3 |
100.96 |
79.91 |
72.67 |
|
14.8 |
98.77 |
78.97 |
72.21 |
||
|
19.8 |
95.68 |
77.70 |
71.62 |
||
|
ASR10 |
The
Long Beach Tower 9 |
16.6 |
98.02 |
79.01 |
71.76 |
|
20.1 |
95.88 |
77.99 |
71.28 |
||
|
25.1 |
92.68 |
76.55 |
70.74 |
||
|
ASR11 |
The
Long Beach Tower 8 |
16.6 |
101.27 |
79.82 |
71.61 |
|
20.1 |
96.57 |
78.55 |
71.17 |
||
|
25.1 |
93.19 |
76.89 |
70.68 |
||
|
ASR12 |
The
Long Beach Tower 7 |
19.8 |
96.27 |
78.49 |
71.10 |
|
23.3 |
93.67 |
77.40 |
70.74 |
||
|
28.3 |
90.54 |
75.94 |
70.32 |
||
|
ASR13 |
The Long Beach Tower 6 |
22.0 |
94.90 |
78.73 |
70.71 |
|
25.5 |
92.75 |
77.41 |
70.42 |
||
|
30.5 |
89.63 |
75.77 |
70.06 |
||
|
ASR14 |
The
Long Beach Tower 5 |
24.8 |
92.44 |
77.17 |
70.41 |
|
28.3 |
90.48 |
76.18 |
70.15 |
||
|
33.3 |
87.58 |
74.88 |
69.84 |
||
|
ASR15 |
Island
Harbourview Block 1 |
5.3 |
112.59 |
83.55 |
73.01 |
|
8.8 |
110.75 |
82.76 |
72.72 |
||
|
13.8 |
106.80 |
81.11 |
72.12 |
||
|
ASR16 |
Island
Harbourview Block 2 |
5.3 |
109.99 |
82.25 |
72.52 |
|
8.8 |
108.49 |
81.63 |
72.28 |
||
|
13.8 |
105.25 |
80.34 |
71.79 |
||
|
ASR17 |
Harbour
Green Tower 3 |
9.4 |
106.93 |
80.52 |
71.68 |
|
12.9 |
104.94 |
79.61 |
71.20 |
||
|
17.9 |
101.33 |
77.97 |
70.58 |
||
|
ASR18 |
Harbour
Green Tower 5 |
9.4 |
108.88 |
80.67 |
71.83 |
|
12.9 |
106.96 |
79.77 |
71.29 |
||
|
17.9 |
103.46 |
78.16 |
70.62 |
||
|
ASR19 |
Harbour
Green Tower 6 |
9.4 |
108.95 |
81.38 |
72.30 |
|
12.9 |
105.67 |
79.87 |
71.60 |
||
|
17.9 |
101.27 |
77.68 |
70.71 |
||
|
ASR20 |
West
Kowloon Disciplined Services Quarters Block 2 |
1.5 |
112.36 |
81.98 |
71.67 |
|
5 |
111.53 |
81.82 |
71.64 |
||
|
10 |
108.97 |
80.48 |
71.30 |
||
|
ASR21 |
West
Kowloon Disciplined Services Quarters Block 1 |
1.5 |
113.42 |
83.57 |
71.75 |
|
5 |
112.53 |
83.48 |
71.76 |
||
|
10 |
109.93 |
81.96 |
71.42 |
||
|
ASR22 |
Nam
Cheong Park |
1.5 |
107.79 |
80.10 |
73.28 |
|
ASR23 |
Chui
Yu Road Garden |
1.5 |
117.18 |
83.03 |
72.64 |
|
ASR24 |
Tung
Chau Street Park |
1.5 |
103.34 |
81.10 |
73.01 |
|
ASR25 |
Metro
Harbour View Tower 4 |
23.2 |
93.43 |
75.66 |
70.26 |
|
26.7 |
91.13 |
74.94 |
70.02 |
||
|
31.7 |
88.12 |
74.01 |
69.72 |
||
|
ASR26 |
Metro
Harbour View Tower 3 |
23.2 |
93.28 |
75.97 |
70.34 |
|
26.7 |
91.02 |
75.20 |
70.09 |
||
|
31.7 |
87.97 |
74.19 |
69.78 |
||
|
ASR27 |
Metro
Harbour View Tower 2 |
23.2 |
93.30 |
76.02 |
70.40 |
|
26.7 |
91.57 |
75.23 |
70.15 |
||
|
31.7 |
89.16 |
74.20 |
69.83 |
||
|
ASR28 |
Tung
Chau Street Basketball Court |
1.5 |
99.92 |
79.10 |
72.69 |
|
ASR29 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 6 |
1.5 |
110.93 |
81.85 |
73.01 |
|
5 |
110.22 |
81.48 |
72.88 |
||
|
10 |
108.04 |
80.35 |
72.45 |
||
|
ASR30 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 5 |
1.5 |
109.77 |
83.60 |
73.21 |
|
5 |
108.87 |
83.20 |
73.09 |
||
|
10 |
106.01 |
81.95 |
72.70 |
||
|
ASR31 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 1 |
1.5 |
100.44 |
78.73 |
72.74 |
|
5 |
99.95 |
78.58 |
72.65 |
||
|
10 |
98.45 |
78.11 |
72.38 |
||
|
ASR32 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 2 |
1.5 |
102.10 |
78.73 |
73.26 |
|
5 |
101.53 |
78.57 |
73.17 |
||
|
10 |
99.76 |
78.03 |
72.86 |
||
|
ASR33 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 4 |
1.5 |
110.97 |
84.13 |
74.14 |
|
5 |
108.60 |
83.04 |
73.85 |
||
|
10 |
102.66 |
80.29 |
73.07 |
||
|
ASR34 |
Nam
Cheong Community Centre |
1.5 |
111.20 |
83.45 |
75.17 |
|
5 |
107.59 |
82.29 |
74.80 |
||
|
10 |
99.46 |
78.82 |
73.51 |
||
|
ASR35 |
Nam
Cheong Estate Block 3 |
1.5 |
102.85 |
79.51 |
73.72 |
|
5 |
102.02 |
79.21 |
73.60 |
||
|
10 |
99.54 |
78.31 |
73.15 |
||
|
ASR36 |
Tung
Chau Street Tennis Court |
1.5 |
101.46 |
78.84 |
73.89 |
|
ASR37 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Basketball Court |
1.5 |
111.39 |
79.03 |
73.85 |
|
ASR38 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Yuet House |
1.5 |
119.51 |
80.38 |
73.70 |
|
5 |
118.87 |
80.04 |
73.56 |
||
|
10 |
116.99 |
79.00 |
73.15 |
||
|
ASR39 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Ying House |
1.5 |
122.91 |
80.62 |
73.44 |
|
5 |
122.23 |
80.26 |
73.32 |
||
|
10 |
120.12 |
79.16 |
72.94 |
||
|
ASR40 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Yee House |
1.5 |
127.61 |
80.98 |
73.30 |
|
5 |
126.41 |
80.81 |
73.28 |
||
|
10 |
122.63 |
79.74 |
72.91 |
||
|
ASR41 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Hoi House |
1.5 |
126.63 |
81.15 |
73.04 |
|
5 |
125.58 |
81.08 |
73.06 |
||
|
10 |
122.08 |
80.04 |
72.73 |
||
|
ASR42 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Wen House |
1.5 |
106.85 |
78.06 |
73.56 |
|
5 |
106.44 |
77.91 |
73.46 |
||
|
10 |
105.05 |
77.44 |
73.13 |
||
|
ASR43 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Yun House |
12 |
119.88 |
79.59 |
73.27 |
|
15.5 |
117.03 |
78.16 |
72.69 |
||
|
20.5 |
112.81 |
76.31 |
71.91 |
||
|
ASR44 |
Fu
Cheong Shopping Centre |
12 |
122.07 |
79.27 |
73.02 |
|
15.5 |
118.50 |
77.79 |
72.48 |
||
|
20.5 |
113.38 |
76.23 |
71.80 |
||
|
ASR45 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T3 |
25.2 |
108.19 |
75.92 |
71.44 |
|
28.7 |
103.98 |
74.88 |
70.91 |
||
|
33.7 |
100.67 |
73.81 |
70.31 |
||
|
ASR46 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T4 |
25.2 |
113.27 |
76.25 |
71.53 |
|
28.7 |
110.75 |
75.35 |
70.99 |
||
|
33.7 |
107.10 |
74.21 |
70.38 |
||
|
ASR47 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T5 |
25.1 |
124.03 |
76.95 |
71.59 |
|
28.6 |
120.72 |
76.00 |
71.07 |
||
|
33.6 |
115.87 |
74.78 |
70.46 |
||
|
ASR48 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T6 |
25.1 |
126.31 |
77.03 |
71.54 |
|
28.6 |
122.73 |
76.09 |
71.03 |
||
|
33.6 |
117.43 |
74.85 |
70.45 |
||
|
ASR49 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T9 |
24.1 |
124.76 |
77.10 |
71.44 |
|
27.6 |
120.75 |
76.10 |
70.99 |
||
|
32.6 |
114.95 |
74.77 |
70.46 |
||
|
ASR50 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T10 |
24.1 |
121.59 |
77.06 |
71.34 |
|
27.6 |
117.66 |
76.09 |
70.91 |
||
|
32.6 |
111.88 |
74.79 |
70.42 |
||
|
ASR51 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station T11 |
24.1 |
119.16 |
77.20 |
71.30 |
|
27.6 |
115.15 |
76.21 |
70.88 |
||
|
32.6 |
109.37 |
74.91 |
70.40 |
||
|
ASR52 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L1 |
25.2 |
122.37 |
79.03 |
71.33 |
|
28.7 |
115.41 |
77.17 |
70.73 |
||
|
33.7 |
107.21 |
75.19 |
70.14 |
||
|
ASR53 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L2 |
25.2 |
128.01 |
79.24 |
71.49 |
|
28.7 |
120.75 |
77.36 |
70.85 |
||
|
33.7 |
111.99 |
75.36 |
70.23 |
||
|
ASR54 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L3 |
25.2 |
132.11 |
79.41 |
71.61 |
|
28.7 |
124.70 |
77.52 |
70.96 |
||
|
33.7 |
115.63 |
75.48 |
70.32 |
||
|
ASR55 |
Planned Residential at Nam Cheong Station L5 |
25.1 |
137.56 |
79.79 |
71.85 |
|
28.6 |
129.89 |
77.95 |
71.17 |
||
|
33.6 |
120.49 |
75.93 |
70.50 |
||
|
ASR56 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L6 |
25.1 |
137.98 |
80.38 |
71.94 |
|
28.6 |
130.27 |
78.48 |
71.25 |
||
|
33.6 |
120.91 |
76.39 |
70.56 |
||
|
ASR57 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L8 |
25.4 |
133.47 |
81.45 |
71.98 |
|
28.9 |
126.25 |
79.44 |
71.31 |
||
|
33.9 |
117.53 |
77.20 |
70.63 |
||
|
ASR58 |
Planned
Residential at Nam Cheong Station L9 |
25.4 |
130.05 |
81.98 |
71.96 |
|
28.9 |
123.06 |
79.92 |
71.32 |
||
|
33.9 |
114.74 |
77.63 |
70.67 |
||
|
ASR59 |
Planned FEHD Office
Fresh Air Intake1 |
31.45 |
95.87 |
77.57 |
71.33 |
|
ASR60 |
Planned FEHD Office
Fresh Air Intake2 |
32.8 |
93.69 |
75.83 |
70.81 |
|
ASR61 |
Planned FEHD Office
Fresh Air Intake3 |
33.6 |
91.74 |
75.96 |
71.23 |
Table 4‑11 Summary
of RSP Concentrations
|
ID |
Description |
Assessment
Height (mAG) |
24-hr Concentration (µg/m3) |
Annual Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
ASR1 |
Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale
Food Market Office1 |
1.5 |
55.41 |
52.93 |
|
5 |
55.30 |
52.88 |
||
|
10 |
54.98 |
52.75 |
||
|
ASR2 |
Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale
Food Market Office2 |
1.5 |
55.10 |
53.05 |
|
5 |
55.00 |
52.99 |
||
|
10 |
54.69 |
52.83 |
||
|
ASR3 |
Yuen Fat Building |
1.5 |
57.27 |
53.29 |
|
5 |
57.14 |
53.29 |
||
|
10 |
55.61 |
52.79 |
||
|
ASR4 |
Sir Ellis Kadoorie
Secondary School |
1.5 |
54.47 |
52.49 |
|
5 |
54.38 |
52.46 |
||
|
10 |
54.08 |
52.35 |
||
|
ASR5 |
Tai Kok Tsui Catholic
Primary School |
1.5 |
53.96 |
52.28 |
|
5 |
53.90 |
52.25 |
||
|
10 |
53.72 |
52.16 |
||
|
ASR6 |
Marine Police Operation
Base |
1.5 |
54.26 |
52.30 |
|
5 |
54.33 |
52.36 |
||
|
10 |
53.87 |
52.15 |
||
|
ASR7 |
Hampton Place Tower 1 |
11.3 |
53.46 |
51.97 |
|
14.8 |
53.29 |
51.90 |
||
|
19.8 |
53.03 |
51.80 |
||
|
ASR8 |
Hampton Place Tower 2 |
11.3 |
53.48 |
51.99 |
|
14.8 |
53.29 |
51.91 |
||
|
19.8 |
53.03 |
51.80 |
||
|
ASR9 |
Hampton Place Tower 3 |
11.3 |
53.51 |
52.02 |
|
14.8 |
53.30 |
51.92 |
||
|
19.8 |
53.04 |
51.80 |
||
|
ASR10 |
The Long Beach Tower 9 |
16.6 |
53.35 |
51.82 |
|
20.1 |
53.14 |
51.73 |
||
|
25.1 |
52.84 |
51.62 |
||
|
ASR11 |
The Long Beach Tower 8 |
16.6 |
53.56 |
51.79 |
|
20.1 |
53.29 |
51.70 |
||
|
25.1 |
52.93 |
51.61 |
||
|
ASR12 |
The Long Beach Tower 7 |
19.8 |
53.27 |
51.69 |
|
23.3 |
53.04 |
51.63 |
||
|
28.3 |
52.73 |
51.55 |
||
|
ASR13 |
The Long Beach Tower 6 |
22.0 |
53.37 |
51.62 |
|
25.5 |
53.08 |
51.56 |
||
|
30.5 |
52.72 |
51.50 |
||
|
ASR14 |
The Long Beach Tower 5 |
24.8 |
53.01 |
51.57 |
|
28.3 |
52.80 |
51.52 |
||
|
33.3 |
52.53 |
51.46 |
||
|
ASR15 |
Island Harbourview Block
1 |
5.3 |
54.31 |
52.04 |
|
8.8 |
54.14 |
51.98 |
||
|
13.8 |
53.80 |
51.87 |
||
|
ASR16 |
Island Harbourview Block
2 |
5.3 |
54.00 |
51.95 |
|
8.8 |
53.87 |
51.90 |
||
|
13.8 |
53.61 |
51.81 |
||
|
ASR17 |
Harbour Green Tower 3 |
9.4 |
53.53 |
51.79 |
|
12.9 |
53.36 |
51.71 |
||
|
17.9 |
53.04 |
51.61 |
||
|
ASR18 |
Harbour Green Tower 5 |
9.4 |
53.58 |
51.82 |
|
12.9 |
53.41 |
51.73 |
||
|
17.9 |
53.09 |
51.62 |
||
|
ASR19 |
Harbour Green Tower 6 |
9.4 |
53.74 |
51.93 |
|
12.9 |
53.42 |
51.80 |
||
|
17.9 |
52.98 |
51.64 |
||
|
ASR20 |
West
Kowloon Disciplined Services Quarters Block 2 |
1.5 |
53.82 |
51.83 |
|
5 |
53.79 |
51.83 |
||
|
10 |
53.53 |
51.76 |
||
|
ASR21 |
West Kowloon Disciplined
Services Quarters Block 1 |
1.5 |
54.19 |
51.86 |
|
5 |
54.18 |
51.86 |
||
|
10 |
53.88 |
51.79 |
||
|
ASR22 |
Nam Cheong Park |
1.5 |
53.49 |
52.14 |
|
ASR23 |
Chui Yu Road Garden |
1.5 |
54.11 |
52.09 |
|
ASR24 |
Tung Chau Street Park |
1.5 |
53.74 |
52.24 |
|
ASR25 |
Metro Harbour View Tower
4 |
23.2 |
52.66 |
51.58 |
|
26.7 |
52.50 |
51.52 |
||
|
31.7 |
52.30 |
51.46 |
||
|
ASR26 |
Metro Harbour View Tower
3 |
23.2 |
52.68 |
51.59 |
|
26.7 |
52.52 |
51.54 |
||
|
31.7 |
52.32 |
51.47 |
||
|
ASR27 |
Metro Harbour View Tower
2 |
23.2 |
52.69 |
51.61 |
|
26.7 |
52.53 |
51.55 |
||
|
31.7 |
52.32 |
51.49 |
||
|
ASR28 |
Tung Chau Street
Basketball Court |
1.5 |
53.36 |
52.18 |
|
ASR29 |
Nam Cheong Estate Block
6 |
1.5 |
53.87 |
52.16 |
|
5 |
53.80 |
52.14 |
||
|
10 |
53.60 |
52.05 |
||
|
ASR30 |
Nam Cheong Estate Block
5 |
1.5 |
54.14 |
52.15 |
|
5 |
54.07 |
52.12 |
||
|
10 |
53.84 |
52.05 |
||
|
ASR31 |
Nam Cheong Estate Block
1 |
1.5 |
53.15 |
52.08 |
|
5 |
53.13 |
52.06 |
||
|
10 |
53.04 |
52.00 |
||
|
ASR32 |
Nam Cheong Estate Block
2 |
1.5 |
53.12 |
52.17 |
|
5 |
53.09 |
52.15 |
||
|
10 |
53.00 |
52.09 |
||
|
ASR33 |
Nam Cheong Estate Block
4 |
1.5 |
53.85 |
52.24 |
|
5 |
53.70 |
52.20 |
||
|
10 |
53.35 |
52.08 |
||
|
ASR34 |
Nam Cheong Community
Centre |
1.5 |
53.89 |
52.44 |
|
5 |
53.68 |
52.38 |
||
|
10 |
53.16 |
52.17 |
||
|
ASR35 |
Nam Cheong Estate Block
3 |
1.5 |
53.20 |
52.24 |
|
5 |
53.15 |
52.21 |
||
|
10 |
53.00 |
52.13 |
||
|
ASR36 |
Tung Chau Street Tennis
Court |
1.5 |
53.14 |
52.28 |
|
ASR37 |
Fu Cheong Estate
Basketball Court |
1.5 |
53.16 |
52.21 |
|
ASR38 |
Fu Cheong Estate Fu Yuet
House |
1.5 |
53.45 |
52.17 |
|
5 |
53.39 |
52.14 |
||
|
10 |
53.22 |
52.08 |
||
|
ASR39 |
Fu Cheong Estate Fu Ying
House |
1.5 |
53.53 |
52.11 |
|
5 |
53.47 |
52.09 |
||
|
10 |
53.28 |
52.03 |
||
|
ASR40 |
Fu Cheong Estate Fu Yee
House |
1.5 |
53.47 |
52.07 |
|
5 |
53.44 |
52.07 |
||
|
10 |
53.24 |
52.01 |
||
|
ASR41 |
Fu Cheong Estate Fu Hoi
House |
1.5 |
53.33 |
52.04 |
|
5 |
53.34 |
52.03 |
||
|
10 |
53.18 |
51.98 |
||
|
ASR42 |
Fu Cheong Estate Fu Wen
House |
1.5 |
52.98 |
52.19 |
|
5 |
52.95 |
52.17 |
||
|
10 |
52.87 |
52.11 |
||
|
ASR43 |
Fu
Cheong Estate Fu Yun House |
12 |
53.19 |
52.09 |
|
15.5 |
52.96 |
52.00 |
||
|
20.5 |
52.69 |
51.87 |
||
|
ASR44 |
Fu Cheong Shopping
Centre |
12 |
53.33 |
52.04 |
|
15.5 |
53.07 |
51.96 |
||
|
20.5 |
52.72 |
51.85 |
||
|
ASR45 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station T3 |
25.2 |
52.70 |
51.80 |
|
28.7 |
52.46 |
51.70 |
||
|
33.7 |
52.17 |
51.58 |
||
|
ASR46 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station T4 |
25.2 |
52.67 |
51.81 |
|
28.7 |
52.44 |
51.71 |
||
|
33.7 |
52.23 |
51.59 |
||
|
ASR47 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station T5 |
25.1 |
52.72 |
51.80 |
|
28.6 |
52.55 |
51.71 |
||
|
33.6 |
52.33 |
51.60 |
||
|
ASR48 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station T6 |
25.1 |
52.77 |
51.79 |
|
28.6 |
52.56 |
51.70 |
||
|
33.6 |
52.34 |
51.59 |
||
|
ASR49 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station T9 |
24.1 |
52.80 |
51.76 |
|
27.6 |
52.60 |
51.68 |
||
|
32.6 |
52.35 |
51.59 |
||
|
ASR50 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station T10 |
24.1 |
52.78 |
51.75 |
|
27.6 |
52.59 |
51.67 |
||
|
32.6 |
52.34 |
51.58 |
||
|
ASR51 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station T11 |
24.1 |
52.81 |
51.74 |
|
27.6 |
52.61 |
51.66 |
||
|
32.6 |
52.36 |
51.58 |
||
|
ASR52 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station L1 |
25.2 |
53.03 |
51.78 |
|
28.7 |
52.70 |
51.66 |
||
|
33.7 |
52.35 |
51.54 |
||
|
ASR53 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station L2 |
25.2 |
53.09 |
51.80 |
|
28.7 |
52.75 |
51.68 |
||
|
33.7 |
52.39 |
51.56 |
||
|
ASR54 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station L3 |
25.2 |
53.15 |
51.82 |
|
28.7 |
52.80 |
51.70 |
||
|
33.7 |
52.42 |
51.57 |
||
|
ASR55 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station L5 |
25.1 |
53.22 |
51.85 |
|
28.6 |
52.88 |
51.73 |
||
|
33.6 |
52.52 |
51.60 |
||
|
ASR56 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station L6 |
25.1 |
53.30 |
51.86 |
|
28.6 |
52.97 |
51.74 |
||
|
33.6 |
52.60 |
51.61 |
||
|
ASR57 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station L8 |
25.4 |
53.49 |
51.86 |
|
28.9 |
53.14 |
51.74 |
||
|
33.9 |
52.75 |
51.62 |
||
|
ASR58 |
Planned Residential at
Nam Cheong Station L9 |
25.4 |
53.58 |
51.85 |
|
28.9 |
53.23 |
51.74 |
||
|
33.9 |
52.83 |
51.62 |
||
|
ASR59 |
Planned FEHD Office
Fresh Air Intake1 |
31.45 |
52.89 |
51.72 |
|
ASR60 |
Planned FEHD Office
Fresh Air Intake2 |
32.8 |
52.61 |
51.64 |
|
ASR61 |
Planned FEHD Office
Fresh Air Intake3 |
33.6 |
52.66 |
51.72 |
4.15.1 With reference to Section 4.14, since there is no adverse air quality impact predicted in association with the operation of the Project as above tabulated, no mitigation measure is considered necessary.
4.16.1
Adverse residual impacts during the
construction or operational phases of the Project would not be anticipated,
provided that the above dust suppression measures mentioned
in Section 4.12 during the
construction phase of the Project are properly implemented.
4.17 Environmental Monitoring and
Audit
Construction Phase
4.17.1 No
adverse dust impact would be anticipated at the ASRs with the implementation of
sufficient dust suppression measures as stipulated under the Air Pollution
Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and good site practices. Regular site environmental audits during
the construction phase of the Project as specified in the EM&A Manual
should be conducted to ensure the recommended dust suppression measures are
implemented.
Operational phase
4.17.2 The
results of the operational air quality impact assessment related to vehicular
emissions indicate that no adverse impact would be expected from the operation of
the Project. Therefore, the EM&A works related to traffic air quality for
the operational phase is not considered as necessary.
4.17.3 In order to ensure at least 85% odour removal efficiency of the proposed odour removal unit, commissioning test requirement should be incorporated in the specification during commissioning period.
4.17.4
Upon commissioning, odour removal efficiency of the proposed odour
removal unit should be tested quarterly for the first year of operation, in
order to ensure adequate maintenance and operation of the unit. If all results fulfil the above minimum
requirement, the monitoring programme would be ceased. If failure, the programme shall be
increased to monthly monitoring and extended until in consecutive 3 times
fulfilling the requirement. Most
importantly, it is critical and necessary to carry out investigation to examine
rationale(s) (e.g. airduct blockage) for failure, suggest and implement
effective rectifying action(s) (e.g. increasing frequency of media
replacement). Since the design is
subject to later modification, it is recommended the Project Proponent to
develop a monitoring and investigation plan, as well as work procedure, prior
to operation of the unit.
4.18.1 Air quality impact and odour analysis have been conducted for the construction and operation of the Depot.
4.18.2 For the construction aspect, there would be no major earthworks carried out for the site formation works for the Project site. With the implementation of sufficient dust suppression measures as stipulated under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, adverse construction dust impact would not be anticipated.
4.18.3 For the operation of the Depot, no adverse air quality impacts would be anticipated as there would be limited vehicular emissions from the repairing and parking activities of the Project, considered with cumulative effect of emissions from open roads networks within the Study Area (500m from Project boundary). Results show that the predicted maximum 1-hour, daily and annual average NO2 and maximum daily and annual average RSP concentrations at the representative ASRs and within the Study Area would comply with the AQOs. No mitigation measures are required.
4.18.4 Lastly, taking into account the fact that potential odour emission and minimal spread in the Depot to be localised only in the washing bay, together with the provision of mechanical ventilation adopting with proper installation and maintenance of deodourisation system, as well as the dilution along considerable buffer distance between the Depot to the adjacent ASRs, potential odour nuisance associated with the operation of the Depot is anticipated to be negligible.