|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
This report takes into account the particular It is not intended for and should
not be relied Job number |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ove Arup & Partners
Hong Kong Ltd 80 Tat Chee Avenue Kowloon Tong Kowloon Hong Kong |
General
4.1.1 The relevant legislations, standards and guidelines
applicable to the present study for the assessment of air quality impacts
include:
(1)
Air Pollution Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311);
(2)
Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation; and
(3)
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499), Technical
Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO), Annex 4 and
Annex 12.
4.1.2 The APCO (Cap.311) provides the power for controlling air pollutants from a variety of stationary and mobile sources and encompasses a number of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs).
Air Quality
Objectives
4.1.3 In 2007, EPD commissioned a
comprehensive study to review the AQOs. The study considered various factors
e.g. protection of public health and socio-economic etc., and devised a new set
of AQOs and developed a long-term air quality management strategy for Hong
Kong. The new AQOs are adopted with effect from 1 January 2014 in respect of
the Air Pollution Control (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 and EIAO. Table 4.1 below summarizes the new AQOs.
Table 4.1:Hong
Kong Air Quality Objectives
|
Pollutant |
Limits on Concentration,
΅g/m3 [1] (Number of Exceedance
per year allowed in brackets) |
||||
|
10-min |
1-hr |
8-hr |
24-hr [2] |
Annual [2] |
|
|
SO2 |
500 (3) |
|
|
125 (3) |
|
|
TSP |
|
500 [5] |
|
|
|
|
RSP (PM10) [3] |
|
|
|
100 (9) |
50 (0) |
|
FSP (PM2.5) [4] |
|
|
|
75 (9) |
35 (0) |
|
CO |
|
30,000 (0) |
10,000 (0) |
|
|
|
NO2 |
|
200 (18) |
|
|
40 (0) |
|
O3 |
|
|
160 (9) |
|
|
|
Pb |
|
|
|
|
0.5 (0) |
Note:
[1]
Measured at 293K and 101.325 kPa.
[2]
Arithmetic mean.
[3]
Respirable suspended particulates (RSP) means suspended particulates in
air with a nominal aerodynamic
diameter of 10 micrometres or smaller.
[4]
Fine suspended particulates (FSP) means suspended particulates in air
with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometres or smaller.
[5]
Not an AQO but is a criteria for evaluating air quality impacts as
stated in Annex 4 of TM-EIAO.
Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation
4.1.4 The Air Pollution Control
(Construction Dust) Regulation specifies processes that require special dust
control. The Contractors are required to inform the EPD and adopt proper dust
suppression measures while carrying out Notifiable Works (which requires
prior notification by the regulation) and Regulatory Works to meet the
requirements as defined under the regulation.
4.1.5 In accordance with Annex 4
of TM-EIAO, the limit of 5 odour units (OU) based on an averaging time of 5
seconds for odour prediction assessment should not be exceeded at any
receivers.
4.1.6 In accordance with Section 3.3.9
of Chapter 9 of HKPSG, some small community uses (i.e. crematoria, livestock
yards, stock wagon washing areas and wholesale fishes and poultry markets) can
cause significant air pollution nuisance, primarily due to odour. Wherever,
practicable, these uses should be sited away from the main urban centres.
Usually a buffer distance of at least 200m from nearby sensitive uses is
required. Acceptable uses in the buffer area include industrial areas, godowns,
cold storages, carparks and amenity areas. Open space uses may be also be
tolerated.
4.2
Description
of Existing Environment
4.2.1 Historical air quality monitoring data from
Kwun Tong Air Quality Monitoring Station (AQMS) has been examined. The latest 5
years of air quality monitoring data published, i.e. 2008 to 2012 are tabulated in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2:Air
Quality Monitoring Data (Kwun Tong AQMS, 2008-2012)
|
Pollutant |
Year |
Highest |
|||
|
SO2 |
2008 |
258 |
N/M |
69 |
17 |
|
2009 |
168 |
N/M |
57 |
11 |
|
|
2010 |
99 |
N/M |
34 |
10 |
|
|
2011 |
115 |
N/M |
42 |
12 |
|
|
2012 |
98 |
N/M |
53 |
11 |
|
|
5-year mean |
148 |
- |
51 [41%][5] |
12 |
|
|
AQO[3] |
N/A |
N/A |
125 (9) |
N/A |
|
|
NO2 |
2008 |
243 (11)[2] |
N/M |
139 |
59 |
|
2009 |
249 (24)[2] |
N/M |
134 |
58 |
|
|
2010 |
242 (9)[2] |
N/M |
123 |
59 |
|
|
2011 |
285 (41)[2] |
N/M |
155 |
63 |
|
|
2012 |
398 (78)[2] |
N/M |
179 |
59 |
|
|
5-year mean |
283 [142%][5] |
- |
146 |
60 |
|
|
AQO[3] |
200 (18) |
N/A |
N/A |
40 |
|
|
RSP (PM10) |
2008 |
238 |
N/M |
136 (11)[2] |
47 |
|
2009 |
226 |
N/M |
169 (8)[2] |
48 |
|
|
2010 |
785 [8] |
N/M |
681 (9)[2][6] |
47 |
|
|
2011 |
205 |
N/M |
117 (6)[2] |
49 |
|
|
2012 |
N/M |
169 (8)[2] |
|||
|
5-year mean |
220 |
- |
148 [148%][5] |
47 |
|
|
AQO[3] |
N/A |
N/A |
100 (9) |
50 |
|
|
FSP (PM2.5) |
2008 |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
|
2009 |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
|
|
2010 |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
|
|
2011 |
124 |
N/M |
83 (3)[2] |
N/M |
|
|
2012 |
150 |
N/M |
78 (3)[2] |
28 |
|
|
5-year mean |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
AQO[3] |
N/A |
N/A |
75 (9) |
35 |
|
|
TSP |
2008 |
N/M |
N/M |
160 |
72 |
|
2009 |
N/M |
N/M |
186 |
70 |
|
|
2010 |
N/M |
N/M |
142 |
67 |
|
|
2011 |
N/M |
N/M |
176 |
74 |
|
|
2012 |
N/M |
N/M |
132 |
62 |
|
|
5-year mean |
- |
- |
159 |
69 |
|
|
AQO |
500 [5] |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
O3 |
2008 |
185 |
142 |
103 |
33 |
|
2009 |
242 |
158 |
128 |
37 |
|
|
2010 |
143 |
132 |
110 |
33 |
|
|
2011 |
181 |
146 |
126 |
37 |
|
|
2012 |
206 |
155 |
|||
|
5-year mean |
191 |
147 [91%][5] |
122 |
36 |
|
|
AQO[3] |
N/A |
160 (9) |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
CO |
2008 |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
|
2009 |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
|
|
2010 |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
|
|
2011 |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
|
|
2012 |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
N/M |
|
|
5-year mean |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
AQO |
30,000 |
10,000 |
N/A |
N/A |
Note:
[1]
Bolded values mean exceedance of the AQOs.
[2]
Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedance against the AQOs.
[3]
Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedances allowed.
[4]
Percentage (%) of the AQO is shown in [ ]. The 5-year mean is the
arithmetic average.
[5]
Not an AQO but is a criteria for evaluating air quality impacts as
stated in Annex 4 of TM-EIAO.
[6]
The value was recorded during a dust plume originated from northern part
of China in March 2010 which was an abnormal event and hence has not been taken
to calculate the 5-year mean.
[7]
N/A Not applicable since there are no AQOs for these parameters.
[8]
N/M Not Measured.
4.2.2 The SO2 concentrations in Kwun Tong were relatively low.
The 24-hour SO2 concentrations are well within the AQO.
4.2.3 It can be
seen from the above table that there was no obvious
trend in the highest 1-hour,
24-hour and annual NO2 concentrations. The
highest 1-hour NO2 concentrations
ranged from 242 μg/m3 in 2010 to 398 μg/m3 in
2012, and the highest 24-hour NO2 concentrations
ranged from 123 μg/m3 in 2010 to 179 μg/m3 in
2012. The annual NO2 concentration
remained relatively steady in the range of 58 to 63 μg/m3. Exceedances
of 1-hour and annual NO2 concentration of AQOs were recorded.
4.2.4 For RSP concentrations in Kwun Tong area, the
highest 1hour and 24-hour concentration of 785 μg/m3
and 681 μg/m3,
respectively, were recorded in 2010. Nevertheless, these exceedances were due
to the dust plume originated from the northern part of China in March 2010,
which is an abnormal event. Excluding this year, there was a general decreasing
trend of 1-hour RSP concentration. The 24-hour RSP concentrations ranged from
117 μg/m3 to 169 μg/m3. Exceedances of 24-hour
RSP concentrations of AQO were recorded. For annual RSP concentration, it remained
steady in the range of 43 to 49 μg/m3, and no exceedance of the
AQO was recorded.
4.2.5 EPD has recently commenced the regular monitoring
of fine suspended particulate (FSP, i.e. PM2.5). However, only limited FSP data are reported
during the preparation of this report. Hence, the data set is not sufficient to
establish the annual averages over years.
4.2.6 The 8-hour averaged O3 concentrations ranged from 132
μg/m3 to 158 μg/m3, and no exceedance of the
AQO was recorded.
4.2.7 It should be noted that Kwun
Tong AQMS is located within the urban center of the Kwun Tong District (i.e. on
the rooftop of building next to Kwun Tong Road), where the ambient pollutants
concentration is significantly influenced by the near field vehicular emission
raised from the nearby busy roads include Kwun Tong Road. On the other hand, the
Study Area is located more than 1.3 km from Kwun Tong AQMS, and the altitude difference
between Kwun Tong District and the Study Area is more than 150m (i.e. Kwun Tong
District at approx. +10mPD and Study Area at approx. +180mPD). Besides, the local
traffic flow near the Study Area is relatively low in compared with that within
the urban center of Kwun Tong District. In view of the differences between Kwun
Tong District and the Study Area in terms of geographical and traffic
conditions, a more site-specific background air pollutants concentration from PATH model, instead of the air quality monitoring data of Kwun Tong
AQMS, is therefore adopted for both construction phase and operational phase air quality
assessment. Details of PATH model for construction and operational phase air
quality assessment is given in Section
4.6.17 and 4.6.73 respectively.
4.3
Study
Area &Air Sensitive Receivers
Study Area
4.3.1 The Study Area, as delineated in Figure 227724/E/0001, is located on the south-western slopes of the
Tai Shueng Tok Hill at the far north-eastern edge of urban East Kowloon, and lies
close to the major population centres of Kwun Tong, Lam Tin and Sau Mau Ping.
Specifically, the Study Area covers an area of about 86 ha, which includes a
platform area of about 40 ha.
Sensitive Receivers
4.3.2 In accordance to Annex 12 of the TM-EIAO, Air Sensitive
Receivers (ASRs) includes any domestic premises, hotel, hostel, hospital,
clinic, nursery, temporary housing accommodation, school, educational
institution, office, factory, shop, shopping centre, place of public worship,
library, court of law, sports stadium or performing arts centre. Any other
premises or places with which, in terms of duration or number of people
affected, has a similar sensitivity to the air pollutant as the aforelisted
premises and places would also be considered as a sensitive receiver.
4.3.3 ASRs within a distance of 500m from the Project site have
been identified. These ASRs include both the existing and planned developments.
Existing ASRs are identified by means of reviewing topographic maps, aerial
photos, land status plans, supplemented by site inspections. They mainly
include developed residential buildings, educational institutions, hospitals
and scattered village houses, etc.
4.3.4 Planned/committed ASRs are identified by making reference
to relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZP), Layout Plans and other published plans
in vicinity of the development, including:
·
Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay Outline Zoning Plan (No. S/K13/27);
·
Kwun Tong North Outline Zoning Plan (No. S/K14N/13);
·
Kwun Tong South Outline Zoning Plan (No. S/K14S/18);
·
Tseng Lan Shue Outline Zoning Plan (No. S/SK_TLS/8); and
·
Tseung Kwan O Outline Zoning Plan (No. S/TKO/20).
4.3.5 For the planned land uses within the Study Area,
potential ASRs have been identified subject to the plan and development design.
It is understood the population intake for the possible developments may be
implemented in phases. Hence, developments in earlier phase have been also being
considered as ASRs where appropriate for assessment of the construction dust
impact due to the subsequent development phases. These ASRs have been
identified based on RODP.
4.3.6 The location of the representative
ASRs for air quality assessment are illustrated in Figure 227724/E/1010 - Figure 227724/E/1040 and summarized in Table 4.3a and Table
4.3b below.
Table 4.3a: Representative ASRs
within assessment
area (outside ARQ site boundary)
|
Description |
ASR ID |
Land use [1] |
Building Height Above Ground (approx.) (m) |
Separation Distance between ASR and the
Site Boundary (approx.) (m) |
Assessment Year
[2] |
|
|
Construction |
Operation Phase |
|||||
|
2017 |
2026 |
|||||
|
Existing
ASRs |
||||||
|
Kwun Tong Government Secondary School |
AKTG-01 |
E |
28.0 |
445 |
ό |
ό |
|
AKTG-02 |
E |
28.0 |
415 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Shun Wah House |
ASCC-01 |
R |
50.0 |
410 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Mei House |
ASCC-02 |
R |
50.0 |
415 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Shing House |
ASCC-03 |
R |
50.0 |
455 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Tai House |
ASCC-04 |
R |
50.0 |
490 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Fung House |
ASCC-05 |
R |
50.0 |
375 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Lung House |
ASCC-06 |
R |
50.0 |
380 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Chi Court Podium |
ASCC-07 |
R |
16.0 |
375 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Fai House |
ASCC-08 |
R |
50.0 |
370 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASCC-09 |
R |
50.0 |
360 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Shun Cheung House |
ASCC-10 |
R |
50.0 |
315 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Lee Community Centre |
ASCC-11 |
GIC |
20.0 |
280 |
ό |
ό |
|
Lee Yip House |
ASLE-01 |
R |
45.0 |
455 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASLE-02 |
R |
45.0 |
460 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Shun Lee Shopping Centre (Phase 1) |
ASLE-03 |
C |
18.0 |
460 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASLE-04 |
C |
18.0 |
485 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Lee Yat House |
ASLE-05 |
R |
50.0 |
365 |
ό |
ό |
|
Lee Hong House |
ASLE-06 |
R |
47.0 |
415 |
ό |
ό |
|
Lee Hong House |
ASLE-07 |
R |
47.0 |
380 |
ό |
ό |
|
Lee Foo House |
ASLE-08 |
R |
50.0 |
290 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Lee General Out - Patient Clinic |
ASLE-09 |
H |
4.0 |
285 |
ό |
ό |
|
Lee Foo House |
ASLE-10 |
R |
50.0 |
260 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASLE-11 |
R |
50.0 |
265 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Shun Lee Shopping Centre (Phase 2) |
ASLE-12 |
C |
25.0 |
325 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Lee Tsuen Park (Football Field) |
ASLE-13 |
P |
1.5 |
475 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Lee Tsuen Park |
ASLE-14 |
P |
1.5 |
430 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASLE-15 |
P |
1.5 |
395 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Shun Lee Tsuen Sports Centre |
ASLE-16 |
P |
30.0 |
415 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Lee Tsuen Park (Tennis Court) |
ASLE-17 |
P |
4.0 |
460 |
ό |
ό |
|
Carmel Leung Sing Tak School |
ALST-01 |
E |
32.0 |
480 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun On Kindergarten |
ASOE-01 |
E |
8.0 |
400 |
ό |
ό |
|
On Chung House |
ASOE-02 |
R |
80.0 |
355 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASOE-03 |
R |
80.0 |
305 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASOE-04 |
R |
80.0 |
320 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Shui On Nursing Centre |
ASOE-05 |
H |
4.0 |
380 |
ό |
ό |
|
On Yat House |
ASOE-06 |
R |
80.0 |
395 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASOE-07 |
R |
80.0 |
425 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Shin Yat Tong On Yat Kindergarten |
ASOE-08 |
E |
8.0 |
465 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tin Wing House |
ASTE-01 |
R |
69.0 |
460 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tin Lok House |
ASTE-02 |
R |
69.0 |
330 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tin Wan House |
ASTE-03 |
R |
61.0 |
250 |
ό |
ό |
|
Shun Tin Estate Basketball Court |
ASTE-04 |
P |
1.5 |
220 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tin Kam House |
ASTE-05 |
R |
61.0 |
385 |
ό |
ό |
|
Ning Po No.2 College |
ANPC-01 |
E |
28.0 |
255 |
ό |
ό |
|
ANPC-02 |
E |
28.0 |
320 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
United Christian Hospital |
AUCH-01 |
H |
112.0 |
415 |
ό |
ό |
|
AUCH-02 |
H |
24.0 |
470 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
AUCH-03 |
H |
24.0 |
470 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Ming Road Park |
ASMR-01 |
P |
1.5 |
290 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMR-02 |
P |
1.5 |
240 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMR-03 |
P |
1.5 |
265 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMR-04 |
P |
1.5 |
305 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMR-05 |
P |
1.5 |
285 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMR-06 |
P |
1.5 |
280 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Mau Ping Road Safety Town |
ASST-01 |
P |
1.5 |
280 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASST-02 |
P |
1.5 |
310 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Nga House |
ASMP-01 |
R |
112.0 |
225 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Nga
House |
ASMP-02 |
R |
112.0 |
255 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-03 |
R |
112.0 |
275 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Yee House |
ASMP-04 |
R |
112.0 |
215 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-05 |
R |
112.0 |
265 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMP-06 |
R |
112.0 |
235 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Hong House |
ASMP-07 |
R |
101.0 |
205 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Hong House |
ASMP-08 |
R |
101.0 |
265 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Lok House |
ASMP-09 |
R |
101.0 |
200 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-10 |
R |
101.0 |
260 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
The Mission Covenant Church Holm Glad Primary
School |
AGPS-01 |
E |
28.0 |
270 |
ό |
ό |
|
AGPS-02 |
E |
28.0 |
215 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Mau Ping Shopping Centre |
ASMP-11 |
C |
15.0 |
240 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-12 |
C |
15.0 |
320 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMP-13 |
C |
15.0 |
305 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMP-14 |
C |
15.0 |
405 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Ming School |
ASMS-01 |
E |
32.0 |
265 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMS-02 |
E |
32.0 |
310 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMS-03 |
E |
32.0 |
275 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Mau Ping (Central) Estate Community
Centre |
ASMP-15 |
GIC |
18.0 |
485 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Wah House |
ASMP-16 |
R |
112.0 |
435 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-17 |
R |
112.0 |
400 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Yat House |
ASMP-18 |
R |
112.0 |
450 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-19 |
R |
112.0 |
495 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Ching House |
ASMP-20 |
R |
112.0 |
285 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-21 |
R |
112.0 |
290 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Wai House |
ASMP-22 |
R |
112.0 |
340 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-23 |
R |
112.0 |
370 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Yin House |
ASMP-24 |
R |
112.0 |
280 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Mau Ping Estate Ancillary Facilities
Block |
ASMP-25 |
GIC |
25.0 |
265 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-26 |
GIC |
25.0 |
240 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Yue House |
ASMP-27 |
R |
112.0 |
400 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-28 |
R |
112.0 |
410 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau King House |
ASMP-29 |
R |
112.0 |
395 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Chi House |
ASMP-30 |
R |
112.0 |
350 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-31 |
R |
112.0 |
320 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Fai House |
ASMP-32 |
R |
58.0 |
250 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-33 |
R |
58.0 |
290 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ASMP-34 |
R |
58.0 |
255 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
St. Matthew Lutheran School |
AMLS-01 |
E |
32.0 |
425 |
ό |
ό |
|
St. Matthew
Lutheran School |
AMLS-02 |
E |
32.0 |
470 |
ό |
ό |
|
St. Matthew Lutheran School Playground |
AMLS-03 |
E |
1.5 |
450 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Wong House |
ASMP-35 |
R |
112.0 |
390 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-36 |
R |
112.0 |
435 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Mau Ping South Estate Playground |
ASMP-37 |
P |
1.5 |
325 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Sin House |
ASMP-38 |
R |
112.0 |
485 |
ό |
ό |
|
Sau Mei House |
ASMP-39 |
R |
112.0 |
455 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASMP-40 |
R |
112.0 |
425 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Tat Cheung House |
APTE-01 |
R |
80.0 |
170 |
ό |
ό |
|
APTE-02 |
R |
80.0 |
200 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
APTE-03 |
R |
80.0 |
255 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Sau Mau Ping Catholic Primary School |
ACPS-01 |
E |
32.0 |
145 |
ό |
ό |
|
ACPS-02 |
E |
1.5 |
160 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Po Tat Estate Badminton Court |
APTE-04 |
P |
1.5 |
100 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Hong House |
APTE-05 |
R |
112.0 |
205 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Fu House |
APTE-06 |
R |
112.0 |
210 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Fung House |
APTE-07 |
R |
112.0 |
175 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Chui House |
APTE-08 |
R |
112.0 |
130 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Yan House |
APTE-09 |
R |
112.0 |
85 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Yi House |
APTE-10 |
R |
112.0 |
75 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Hei House |
APTE-11 |
R |
122.0 |
305 |
ό |
ό |
|
APTE-12 |
R |
122.0 |
320 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
CNEC Kei Shek Church |
APTE-13 |
W |
15.0 |
285 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Kai House |
APTE-14 |
R |
122.0 |
265 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat Hin House |
APTE-15 |
R |
122.0 |
215 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tat On House |
APTE-16 |
R |
122.0 |
175 |
ό |
ό |
|
Chung Hong House |
AHWC-01 |
R |
104.0 |
490 |
ό |
ό |
|
Yee Hong House |
AHWC-02 |
R |
104.0 |
485 |
ό |
ό |
|
AHWC-03 |
R |
104.0 |
500 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Tin Hau Temple |
ATHT-01 |
W |
10.0 |
175 |
ό |
ό |
|
ATHT-02 |
W |
10.0 |
185 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Kwun Yam Temple |
AKYT-01 |
W |
10.0 |
120 |
ό |
ό |
|
Fat Yuen Temple |
AFYT-01 |
W |
6.0 |
210 |
ό |
ό |
|
Star Legend Terrace |
ASTT-01 |
R |
9.0 |
40 |
ό |
ό |
|
ASTT-02 |
R |
9.0 |
70 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Ma Yau Tong Village |
AMYT-01 |
R |
9.0 |
275 |
ό |
ό |
|
AMYT-02 |
R |
9.0 |
210 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
AMYT-03 |
R |
9.0 |
145 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
AMYT-04 |
R |
9.0 |
20 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
AMYT-05 |
R |
6.0 |
40 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Haven of Hope Sunnyside School |
AHSC-01 |
E |
12.0 |
130 |
ό |
ό |
|
Siu To Yuen Village |
ASTY-01 |
R |
9.0 |
125 |
ό |
ό |
|
Chi Yum Ching She |
ACYC-01 |
W |
3.0 |
120 |
ό |
ό |
|
Lung Wo Tsuen |
ALWT-01 |
R |
6.0 |
180 |
ό |
ό |
|
ALWT-02 |
R |
6.0 |
205 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
ALWT-03 |
R |
3.0 |
130 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Man King Terrace |
AMKT-01 |
R |
9.0 |
395 |
ό |
ό |
|
AMKT-02 |
R |
9.0 |
435 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
AMKT-03 |
R |
9.0 |
470 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Hong Kong Lp Gas (Holding) Limited |
AHKG-01 |
C |
10.0 |
340 |
ό |
ό |
|
Denon Terrace |
ADET-01 |
R |
9.0 |
345 |
ό |
ό |
|
Village House near Denon Terrace |
AVDT-01 |
R |
3.0 |
290 |
ό |
ό |
|
AVDT-02 |
R |
3.0 |
280 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Anderson Road No.11 - Leighton Pavillion |
ALEP-01 |
R |
15.0 |
305 |
ό |
ό |
|
ALEP-02 |
R |
15.0 |
260 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Tai Pan Court 1 - 3 |
ATPC-01 |
R |
9.0 |
490 |
ό |
ό |
|
ATPC-02 |
R |
9.0 |
475 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Tan Shan Village |
ATSV-01 |
R |
9.0 |
335 |
ό |
ό |
|
Tseng Lan Shue |
ATLS-01 |
R |
9.0 |
485 |
ό |
ό |
|
Planned
ASRs |
||||||
|
Monkey King Temple (under construction) |
AMKT-01 |
W |
10.0 |
160 |
ό |
ό |
|
AMKT-02 |
W |
10.0 |
165 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
City God Temple (under construction) |
ACGT-01 |
W |
10.0 |
135 |
ό |
ό |
|
Block 1, DAR Site A |
DARA-01 |
R |
85.2 |
140 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARA-02 |
R |
85.2 |
190 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARA-03 |
R |
85.2 |
210 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARA-04 |
R |
85.2 |
185 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 2, DAR Site A |
DARA-05 |
R |
93.4 |
110 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARA-06 |
R |
93.4 |
150 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Planned School, DAR Site A |
DARA-07 |
E |
32.0 |
85 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARA-08 |
E |
32.0 |
90 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARA-09 |
E |
32.0 |
95 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARA-10 |
E |
32.0 |
100 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARA-11 |
E |
32.0 |
135 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARA-12 |
E |
32.0 |
160 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARA-13 |
E |
32.0 |
170 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARA-14 |
E |
32.0 |
140 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 3, DAR Site B |
DARB-01 |
R |
87.9 |
170 |
ό |
ό |
|
Basketball Court, DAR Site B |
DARB-02 |
P |
1.5 |
190 |
ό |
ό |
|
Block 4, DAR Site B |
DARB-03 |
R |
87.9 |
220 |
ό |
ό |
|
Block 4,
DAR Site B |
DARB-04 |
R |
87.9 |
275 |
ό |
ό |
|
Block 5, DAR Site B |
DARB-05 |
R |
90.7 |
315 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARB-06 |
R |
90.7 |
300 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARB-07 |
R |
90.7 |
260 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 6, DAR Site B |
DARB-08 |
R |
87.9 |
220 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARB-09 |
R |
87.9 |
190 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 9, DAR Site B |
DARB-10 |
R |
96.2 |
90 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARB-11 |
R |
96.2 |
40 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARB-12 |
R |
96.2 |
70 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 8, DAR Site B |
DARB-13 |
R |
96.2 |
115 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARB-14 |
R |
96.2 |
140 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 7, DAR Site B |
DARB-15 |
R |
87.9 |
170 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARB-16 |
R |
87.9 |
195 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 10, DAR Site C1 |
DARC-01 |
R |
76.9 |
80 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARC-02 |
R |
76.9 |
60 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-03 |
R |
76.9 |
40 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 11, DAR Site C1 |
DARC-04 |
R |
76.9 |
120 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARC-05 |
R |
76.9 |
150 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Badminton Court, DAR Site C1 |
DARC-06 |
P |
1.5 |
135 |
ό |
ό |
|
Planned Clinic and Community Centre, DAR Site C2 |
DARC-07 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
85 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARC-08 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
50 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-09 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
15 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-10 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-11 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-12 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-13 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-14 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-15 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-16 |
H / GIC |
27.6 |
10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Planned School, DAR Site C2 |
DARC-17 |
E |
32.0 |
85 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARC-18 |
E |
32.0 |
10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-19 |
E |
32.0 |
100 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-20 |
E |
32.0 |
90 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-21 |
E |
32.0 |
90 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-22 |
E |
32.0 |
85 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-23 |
E |
32.0 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-24 |
E |
32.0 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-25 |
E |
32.0 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-26 |
E |
32.0 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Planned Park, DAR Site C2 |
DARC-27 |
P |
1.5 |
80 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARC-28 |
P |
1.5 |
75 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Planned Park, DAR Site C2 |
DARC-29 |
P |
1.5 |
70 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARC-30 |
P |
1.5 |
65 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-31 |
P |
1.5 |
65 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-32 |
P |
1.5 |
65 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-33 |
P |
1.5 |
65 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-34 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-35 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-36 |
P |
1.5 |
15 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-37 |
P |
1.5 |
15 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-38 |
P |
1.5 |
15 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-39 |
P |
1.5 |
15 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARC-40 |
P |
1.5 |
15 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 4, DAR Site D |
DARD-01 |
R |
115.4 |
85 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARD-02 |
R |
115.4 |
130 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Badminton Court, DAR Site D |
DARD-03 |
P |
1.5 |
90 |
ό |
ό |
|
Basketball Court, DAR Site D |
DARD-04 |
P |
1.5 |
85 |
ό |
ό |
|
Block 3, DAR Site D |
DARD-05 |
R |
115.4 |
100 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARD-06 |
R |
115.4 |
140 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 2, DAR Site D |
DARD-07 |
R |
115.4 |
185 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARD-08 |
R |
115.4 |
135 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Basketball Court, DAR Site D |
DARD-09 |
P |
1.5 |
150 |
ό |
ό |
|
Block 1, DAR Site D |
DARD-10 |
R |
82.4 |
135 |
ό |
ό |
|
Block 1, DAR Site D |
DARD-11 |
R |
82.4 |
85 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARD-12 |
R |
82.4 |
90 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Public Open Space, DAR Site D |
DARD-13 |
P |
1.5 |
105 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARD-14 |
P |
1.5 |
125 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARD-15 |
P |
1.5 |
110 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Public Open Space, DAR Site E |
DARE-01 |
P |
1.5 |
701 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-02 |
P |
1.5 |
80 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARE-03 |
P |
1.5 |
95 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARE-04 |
P |
1.5 |
70 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 5, DAR Site E |
DARE-05 |
R |
115.4 |
55 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-06 |
R |
115.4 |
35 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 6, DAR Site E |
DARE-07 |
R |
115.4 |
50 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-08 |
R |
115.4 |
25 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARE-09 |
R |
115.4 |
20 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Badminton Court, DAR Site E |
DARE-10 |
P |
1.5 |
30 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-11 |
P |
1.5 |
45 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 7, DAR Site E |
DARE-12 |
R |
115.4 |
45 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-13 |
R |
115.4 |
20 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARE-14 |
R |
115.4 |
25 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 8, DAR Site E |
DARE-15 |
R |
126.4 |
60 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-16 |
R |
126.4 |
20 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 9, DAR Site E |
DARE-17 |
R |
126.4 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
Open Plaza, DAR Site E |
DARE-18 |
P |
5.0 |
95 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-19 |
P |
5.0 |
95 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Block 11, DAR Site E |
DARE-20 |
R |
112.7 |
95 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-21 |
R |
112.7 |
70 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Basketball Court, DAR Site E |
DARE-22 |
P |
1.5 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
Block 10, DAR Site E |
DARE-23 |
R |
112.7 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-24 |
R |
112.7 |
25 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
Planned School, DAR Site E |
DARE-25 |
E |
32.0 |
60 |
ό |
ό |
|
DARE-26 |
E |
32.0 |
15 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARE-27 |
E |
32.0 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARE-28 |
E |
32.0 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARE-29 |
E |
32.0 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
|
DARE-30 |
E |
32.0 |
< 10 |
ό |
ό |
|
Note:
[1]
R Residential; E Education; H Clinic / Home for the aged /
Hospital; GIC Government, institution and community; P Recreational / Park; W Worship; C Commerical.
[2]
ό The ASR is present at
the assessment year and has been assessed;
O - The ASR is not present at the assessment year and has not
been assessed.
Table 4.3b: Representative ASRs
within assessment
area (within ARQ site boundary)
|
Description |
ASR ID |
Land use [1] |
Building Height Above Ground (approx.) (m) |
Separation Distance between ASR and the
Nearest Polluting Source |
Assessment Year
[2] |
|
|
Construction |
Operation Phase |
|||||
|
2017 |
2026 |
|||||
|
Planned
ASRs |
||||||
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-1 |
ARQR-01 |
R |
68.0 |
65 |
O |
ό |
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-1 |
ARQR-02 |
R |
68.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-03 |
R |
68.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-04 |
R |
68.0 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-05 |
R |
68.0 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-06 |
R |
68.0 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-07 |
R |
68.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-08 |
R |
68.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-09 |
R |
68.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-10 |
R |
68.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-11 |
R |
68.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-12 |
R |
68.0 |
55 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-2 |
ARQR-13 |
R |
48.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-14 |
R |
48.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-15 |
R |
48.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-16 |
R |
48.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-17 |
R |
48.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-18 |
R |
48.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-19 |
R |
48.0 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-20 |
R |
48.0 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-2 |
ARQR-21 |
R |
48.0 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-2 |
ARQR-22 |
R |
48.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-23 |
R |
48.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-24 |
R |
48.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-25 |
R |
48.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-26 |
R |
48.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-27 |
R |
48.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-28 |
R |
48.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-29 |
R |
48.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-30 |
R |
68.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-31 |
R |
68.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-32 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-33 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-34 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-35 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-36 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-37 |
R |
68.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-38 |
R |
68.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-39 |
R |
68.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-40 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-41 |
R |
68.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-3 |
ARQR-42 |
R |
40.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-3 |
ARQR-43 |
R |
40.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-44 |
R |
40.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-45 |
R |
40.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-46 |
R |
40.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-47 |
R |
35.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-48 |
R |
35.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-49 |
R |
35.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-50 |
R |
35.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-51 |
R |
35.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-52 |
R |
35.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-53 |
R |
35.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-54 |
R |
35.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-55 |
R |
40.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-56 |
R |
40.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-4 |
ARQR-57 |
R |
30.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-58 |
R |
30.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-59 |
R |
30.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-60 |
R |
30.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-61 |
R |
30.0 |
55 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-4 |
ARQR-62 |
R |
30.0 |
65 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-63 |
R |
30.0 |
85 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-64 |
R |
30.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-4 |
ARQR-65 |
R |
30.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-66 |
R |
30.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-67 |
R |
30.0 |
85 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-68 |
R |
30.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-69 |
R |
80.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-70 |
R |
80.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-71 |
R |
80.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-72 |
R |
80.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-73 |
R |
80.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-74 |
R |
80.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-75 |
R |
80.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-76 |
R |
80.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-77 |
R |
80.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-78 |
R |
80.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-5 |
ARQR-79 |
R |
50.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-80 |
R |
50.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-81 |
R |
50.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-5 |
ARQR-82 |
R |
50.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-83 |
R |
50.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-84 |
R |
50.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-85 |
R |
50.0 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-86 |
R |
50.0 |
120 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-5 |
ARQR-87 |
R |
50.0 |
130 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQR-88 |
R |
50.0 |
105 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-89 |
R |
50.0 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-90 |
R |
50.0 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-91 |
R |
50.0 |
85 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-92 |
R |
68.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-93 |
R |
68.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-94 |
R |
68.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-95 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-96 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-97 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-98 |
R |
68.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQR-99 |
R |
68.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-01 |
R |
68.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-02 |
R |
68.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Primary School, ARQ Site E-1 |
ARQE-01 |
E |
32.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQE-02 |
E |
32.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-03 |
E |
32.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-04 |
E |
32.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-05 |
E |
32.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-06 |
E |
32.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Commercial Building, ARQ Site C-1 |
ARQC-01 |
C |
15.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
Commercial Building, ARQ Site C-1 |
ARQC-02 |
C |
15.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQC-03 |
C |
15.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-04 |
C |
15.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-6 |
ARQS-03 |
R |
33.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-04 |
R |
33.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-05 |
R |
33.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-06 |
R |
33.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-07 |
R |
33.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-08 |
R |
33.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-09 |
R |
33.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-10 |
R |
33.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-11 |
R |
78.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-12 |
R |
78.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-6 |
ARQS-13 |
R |
78.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-14 |
R |
78.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-15 |
R |
98.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-16 |
R |
98.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-17 |
R |
98.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-18 |
R |
98.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-19 |
R |
98.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-20 |
R |
98.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-7 |
ARQS-21 |
R |
35.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-7 |
ARQS-22 |
R |
35.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-23 |
R |
35.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-24 |
R |
35.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-25 |
R |
55.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-26 |
R |
55.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-27 |
R |
55.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-28 |
R |
55.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-29 |
R |
55.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-30 |
R |
55.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Commercial Building, ARQ Site C-2 |
ARQC-05 |
C |
20.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQC-06 |
C |
20.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Commercial Building, ARQ Site C-2 |
ARQC-07 |
C |
20.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQC-08 |
C |
20.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-09 |
C |
20.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-10 |
C |
20.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Sports and Recreational Facilities, ARQ Site G-1 |
ARQG-01 |
GIC |
16.0 |
105 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQG-02 |
GIC |
16.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-03 |
GIC |
16.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-04 |
GIC |
16.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-05 |
GIC |
16.0 |
55 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-06 |
GIC |
16.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-07 |
GIC |
16.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Sports and Recreational Facilities, ARQ Site G-1 |
ARQG-08 |
GIC |
16.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQG-09 |
GIC |
16.0 |
120 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-10 |
GIC |
16.0 |
120 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-11 |
GIC |
16.0 |
140 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Commercial Building, ARQ Site C-4 |
ARQC-11 |
C |
18.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQC-12 |
C |
18.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-13 |
C |
18.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-14 |
C |
18.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-15 |
C |
18.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Commercial Building, ARQ Site C-4 |
ARQC-16 |
C |
18.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQC-17 |
C |
18.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-18 |
C |
18.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-19 |
C |
18.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Commercial Building, ARQ Site C-5 |
ARQC-20 |
C |
21.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQC-21 |
C |
21.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-22 |
C |
21.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-23 |
C |
21.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-24 |
C |
21.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-25 |
C |
21.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQC-26 |
C |
21.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-8 |
ARQS-31 |
R |
63.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-32 |
R |
63.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-8 |
ARQS-33 |
R |
63.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-34 |
R |
63.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-35 |
R |
63.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-36 |
R |
63.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-37 |
R |
63.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-38 |
R |
63.0 |
23 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-39 |
R |
43.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-8 |
ARQS-40 |
R |
43.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-41 |
R |
43.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-42 |
R |
43.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-43 |
R |
43.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-44 |
R |
43.0 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-45 |
R |
43.0 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-46 |
R |
43.0 |
110 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-47 |
R |
43.0 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-48 |
R |
43.0 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-49 |
R |
43.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-50 |
R |
43.0 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-51 |
R |
83.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-52 |
R |
83.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Community Hall, ARQ Site GIC-1 |
ARQG-23 |
GIC |
23.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQG-24 |
GIC |
23.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Community Hall, ARQ Site GIC-1 |
ARQG-25 |
GIC |
23.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQG-26 |
GIC |
23.0 |
65 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Police Station, ARQ Site G-2 |
ARQG-12 |
GIC |
38.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQG-13 |
GIC |
38.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-14 |
GIC |
38.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Police Station, ARQ Site G-2 |
ARQG-15 |
GIC |
38.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQG-16 |
GIC |
38.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-17 |
GIC |
38.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-18 |
GIC |
38.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Subsidized Housing , ARQ Site RS-1 |
ARQS-53 |
R |
108.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-54 |
R |
108.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-55 |
R |
108.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-56 |
R |
108.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-57 |
R |
108.0 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-58 |
R |
108.0 |
105 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-59 |
R |
108.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-60 |
R |
108.0 |
55 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-61 |
R |
108.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-62 |
R |
108.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-63 |
R |
108.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-64 |
R |
108.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Fire Station, ARQ Site G-3 |
ARQG-19 |
GIC |
38.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
Fire Station, ARQ Site G-3 |
ARQG-20 |
GIC |
38.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQG-21 |
GIC |
38.0 |
45 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQG-22 |
GIC |
38.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Primary School, ARQ Site E-2 |
ARQE-07 |
E |
1.5 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQE-08 |
E |
1.5 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-09 |
E |
32.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-10 |
E |
32.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-11 |
E |
32.0 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-12 |
E |
32.0 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-13 |
E |
32.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Secondary School, Site E-3 |
ARQE-14 |
E |
1.5 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQE-15 |
E |
1.5 |
120 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-16 |
E |
32.0 |
85 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-17 |
E |
32.0 |
65 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-18 |
E |
32.0 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-19 |
E |
32.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQE-20 |
E |
32.0 |
55 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-9 |
ARQS-65 |
R |
95.0 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-66 |
R |
95.0 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-67 |
R |
95.0 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-68 |
R |
95.0 |
105 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-69 |
R |
95.0 |
115 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-9 |
ARQS-72 |
R |
95.0 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-9 |
ARQS-73 |
R |
95.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-74 |
R |
95.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-75 |
R |
70.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-76 |
R |
70.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Private Housing, ARQ Site R2-10 |
ARQS-70 |
R |
95.0 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQS-71 |
R |
95.0 |
85 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-77 |
R |
70.0 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-78 |
R |
70.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-79 |
R |
70.0 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-80 |
R |
70.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-81 |
R |
70.0 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-82 |
R |
70.0 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQS-83 |
R |
70.0 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Quarry Park, ARQ |
ARQP-01 |
P |
1.5 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQP-02 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-03 |
P |
1.5 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-04 |
P |
1.5 |
5 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-05 |
P |
1.5 |
5 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-06 |
P |
1.5 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-07 |
P |
1.5 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-08 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Quarry Park, ARQ |
ARQP-09 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQP-10 |
P |
1.5 |
15 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-11 |
P |
1.5 |
65 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-12 |
P |
1.5 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-13 |
P |
1.5 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-14 |
P |
1.5 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-15 |
P |
1.5 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-16 |
P |
1.5 |
40 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-17 |
P |
1.5 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-18 |
P |
1.5 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-19 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-20 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-21 |
P |
1.5 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-22 |
P |
1.5 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-23 |
P |
1.5 |
135 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-24 |
P |
1.5 |
160 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-25 |
P |
1.5 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-26 |
P |
1.5 |
105 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-27 |
P |
1.5 |
80 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-28 |
P |
1.5 |
60 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-29 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-30 |
P |
1.5 |
55 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Quarry Park, ARQ |
ARQP-31 |
P |
1.5 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQP-32 |
P |
1.5 |
100 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-33 |
P |
1.5 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-34 |
P |
1.5 |
70 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-35 |
P |
1.5 |
180 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-36 |
P |
1.5 |
180 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-37 |
P |
1.5 |
145 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-38 |
P |
1.5 |
130 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-39 |
P |
1.5 |
150 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-40 |
P |
1.5 |
130 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-41 |
P |
1.5 |
5 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-42 |
P |
1.5 |
5 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-43 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-44 |
P |
1.5 |
25 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-45 |
P |
1.5 |
75 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-46 |
P |
1.5 |
130 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-47 |
P |
1.5 |
130 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-48 |
P |
1.5 |
90 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-49 |
P |
1.5 |
30 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-50 |
P |
1.5 |
65 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-51 |
P |
1.5 |
105 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-52 |
P |
1.5 |
95 |
O |
ό |
|
|
Quarry Park, ARQ |
ARQP-53 |
P |
1.5 |
55 |
O |
ό |
|
ARQP-54 |
P |
1.5 |
10 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-55 |
P |
1.5 |
50 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-56 |
P |
1.5 |
55 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-57 |
P |
1.5 |
35 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-58 |
P |
1.5 |
20 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-59 |
P |
1.5 |
5 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-60 |
P |
1.5 |
5 |
O |
ό |
|
|
ARQP-61 |
P |
1.5 |
5 |
O |
ό |
|
Note:
[1]
R Residential; E Education; H Clinic / Home for the aged /
Hospital; GIC Government, institution and community; P Recreational / Park; W Worship; C
Commerical.
[2] ό
The ASR is present at the assessment year and has been assessed; O - The
ASR is not present at the assessment year and has not been assessed.
Construction
Phase
Dust Emission from the Construction Activities
of the Project
4.4.1 During the construction phase,
at-grade heavy construction activities and daily loading / unloading activities
at the proposed stockpiling area at the north side of the study area would
generate fugitive dust with potential impacts on neighbouring ASRs from various
construction activities, including site clearance, soil excavation, backfilling,
transportation of materials, and wind erosion.
4.4.2 Potential dust impact from other construction activities
such as laying of utilities and building superstructure works are considered to
be minor and no associated adverse dust impact is anticipated.
4.4.3 According to the
implementation programme, the Project will be implemented in two phases,
namely:
(1)
Phase 1 development; and
(2)
Phase 2 development.
4.4.4 Since the air quality impact
due to different construction phases varies, the assessment identifies the
worst case scenario over the entire construction phase to address the specific impacts
arising from the different works areas. This two-phases development and the
concurrent projects comprises 10 works contracts (WC).
4.4.5 Locations of the dust emission
sources and the construction programme of the heavy construction activities are
shown in Appendix 4.1 and Appendix 4.2, respectively.
Vehicular
Emission from Open Road
4.4.6 Particulate matter generated
from road traffic within 500m study area would also have cumulative air quality
impact on nearby ASRs during construction phase. The associated cumulative air
quality impacts (i.e. TSP, RSP and FSP) due to the vehicular emissions have
been assessed.
Industrial Emission
4.4.7 A total of 7 chimneys were
identified within the 500m air quality assessment area including the 4 chimneys
of the two Chinese restaurants in Shun Lee Estate and Shun On Estate, and 3
chimneys of United Christian Hospital. The locations of these 7 chimneys are
shown in Figure 227724/E/1050 and
the emission inventory of these chimneys is shown in Appendix 4.3. The associated cumulative air quality impacts due to
the chimney emissions during construction phase have been assessed.
Operational
Phase
Vehicular
Emission
4.4.8 Upon completion of the
Project, additional traffic would likely be generated. The associated air
quality impact from vehicular emission from the induced traffic would be
unavoidable. The associated cumulative air quality impacts due to the vehicular
emissions have been assessed.
Industrial
Emission
4.4.9 A total of 7 chimneys were
identified within the 500m air quality assessment area including the 4 chimneys
of the two Chinese restaurants in Shun Lee Estate and Shun On Estate, and 3
chimneys of United Christian Hospital. The locations of these 7 chimneys are
shown in Figure 227724/E/1050 and
the emission inventory of these chimneys is shown in Appendix 4.3. The associated cumulative air quality impacts due to
the chimney emissions have been assessed.
Odour
Emission
4.4.10 One pig farm at Lung Wo Tsuen is identified as a potential odour source
within 500m from the boundary of the Project. The location of pig farm is
illustrated in Figure
227724/E/1060. As shown in Figure 227724/E/1060, the Quarry Park
(ASQP), a passive open space and odour tolerated ASR, is the nearest ASR in ARQ
development to the pig farm, and the shortest horizontal distance between
northern boundary of Quarry Park and the pig farm is about 210m. In addition, the distance between the pig
farm and the nearest odour sensitive ASR (i.e. Proposed Permanent Residential
Building) is about 420m, which fully complied with the 200m Buffer Zone
requirement in Section 3.3.9 of Chapter 9 of HKPSG that a buffer distance of at
least 200m is required for odour sources from nearby sensitive uses. Furthermore, there is a hill
with height of approximately 270 mPD located right between the pig farm (i.e.
approximately 204 mPD) and the nearest odour sensitive ASR (i.e. approximately
204 mPD at ground level), which will minimize any odour nuisance, if any, from
the pig farm. In view of the long horizontal distance (i.e. over 400m) between
the pig farm and the odour sensitive ASRs, and the present of a hill located
between the pig farm and odour sensitive ASRs (i.e. over 60m vertical
difference), odour nuisance from the pig farm on the proposed development is
therefore not anticipated.
4.4.11 On the other hand, two restored landfills, Ma Yau Tong (Central) and Ma
Yau Tong (West), are also identified as potential odour sources within 500m
from the boundary of the Project. Both of these 2 restored landfills are
located over 350m from the boundary of the Project. These two landfills were
closed in 1986 and 1981, respectively. After restoration, both landfills have
been developed into a sitting-out area for recreational uses in 2011. Hence, odour nuisances from these two restored landfills are not anticipated.
The locations of 2 restored landfills are illustrated in Figure
227724/E/1060. Since adverse odour impact from the
potential odour sources (i.e. a pig farm and 2 restored landfills) are not
anticipated, quantitative odour impact assessment is considered unnecessary.
4.5
Potential Concurrent Projects/ Sources
4.5.1 In order to assess the
cumulative impacts, it is critical to identify the implementation programme and
details of concurrent projects in the vicinity that would have an environmental
bearing on the air sensitive receivers for the Project.
4.5.2 After collating the
information available in the public domain (e.g. approved EIA reports, LegCo
paper etc.), the project proponents of these concurrent projects has been
approached to verify the best available information for incorporation into the
report. Referring to Section 3.8,
there are four major concurrent projects including the Development at Anderson
Road (DAR); Road improvement works at J/O Lin Tak Road and Sau Mau Ping Road,
at J/O New Clear Water Bay Road and Anderson Road, as well as at the merging
lane at Clear Water Bay Road near Shun Lee Tsuen Road; proposed rock cavern
development within ARQ, and pedestrian connection. Locations of the concurrent
projects are shown in Figure 227724/E/0008. Each concurrent projects are
discussed in the following.
Development at Anderson Road (DAR)
4.5.3 DAR is located in the East
Kowloon District. It is bounded by Anderson Road to the north, the realigned
Sau Mau Ping Road to the south, Po Lam Road to the east, and Lee On Road and
Shun On Road to the west. The scope of works of DAR includes construction of
site formation, roads, drains and upgrading of existing infrastructure to
provide usable land of about 20 hectares for housing and associated government,
institution or community uses at the site between existing Anderson Road Quarry
and Sau Mau Ping Road in Kwun Tong District. The construction works of DAR has
commenced in early-2008 and is scheduled for completion in early-2017 according
to the latest programme advised by Housing Department. As mentioned in Section 3.8, the tentative major
construction work of ARQ is envisaged to commence in mid-2016.
Although there may have half year overlapping period from late 2016 to early
2017, the major construction works of DAR including site formation and building
foundation would be completed in 2016, and the remaining works would be minor
building works. As
such, the cumulative construction dust impact from DAR is unlikely and is not
included in the assessment. However, vehicular emission due to the induced
traffic from DAR would have cumulative air quality impact on nearby ASRs. As
such the vehicular emission from the induced traffic has been considered in both
construction and operational air quality assessment.
Road Improvement Works
4.5.4 Road improvement works at J/O
Lin Tak Road and Sau Mau Ping Road, at J/O New Clear Water Bay Road and
Anderson Road, as well as at the merging lane at Clear Water Bay Road near Shun
Lee Tsuen Road are located within the 500m assessment area of Study Area. The
construction of these road improvement works is scheduled from 2017 to 2022.
Cumulative construction dust impact from these concurrent projects is expected
and has been included in the assessment. In addition, vehicular emission form the
induced traffic has also been considered in both construction and operational
air quality assessment.
Proposed Rock Cavern Development within ARQ and Pedestrian Connectivity
4.5.5 The proposed rock cavern with
the ARQ and pedestrian connectivity are located within the 500m assessment
area. The construction phase of these projects ranged from 2016 to 2018. As
such, cumulative dust impact from these projects has been considered in the
construction dust assessment.
Construction
Phase
Identification of Pollution
Sources and Representative Pollutants
4.6.1 A review on the construction
methodology has been conducted. Construction of the Project would inevitably
generate fugitive dust with potential impacts on neighbouring ASRs. In general,
construction dust, as the representative pollutants, will be potentially
generated mainly from the land-based at-grade heavy construction works
including site
clearance, soil excavation, backfilling, temporary storage, handling and
transportation of material, and wind erosion of open sites.
4.6.2 According to Section
13.2.4.3 of USEPA AP-42, most of the particles in fugitive dust have an
aerodynamic diameter of <30 μm and 47% of particles have an aerodynamic
diameter of <10 μm. Hence, it is
appropriate to adopt Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) (with aerodynamic
diameter ≦30 μm) and Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) (with
aerodynamic diameter ≦10 μm) as the representative pollutant for construction phase. Fine
Suspended Particulates (FSP) has been added in the new AQOs with effect from 1
January 2014,. As a conservative approach, FSP will also be assessed under the
construction dust assessment, notwithstanding that it only constitutes 7% of
the total particles in fugitive dust. Therefore, 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP, annual RSP,
24-hour FSP and annual FSP concentrations would be assessed.
Emission Inventory of Dust Emission from Construction Activities
4.6.3 Potential air quality impact is anticipated during the
construction of the Project and has been assessed based on the following
conservative assumptions of the construction activities:
(1)
Heavy construction activities including site clearance, ground
excavation, backfilling, road construction, retaining wall construction;
(2)
Daily loading and unloading activities at stockpiling area;
(3)
Wind erosion of all active open sites;
(4)
Construction working periods of 26 days a month and 12 hours a day from
7:00am to 7:00pm, except Sundays and public holidays.
4.6.4 The prediction of dust
emissions is based on the typical values and emission factors obtained from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Compilation of Air
Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42, 5th edition. References of
calculations of dust emission factors of TSP for different dust generating
activities are listed in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Reference of the calculation of dust emission factor
(TSP)
|
Operating Sites |
Activities |
Equations and
Assumptions |
Reference |
|
All construction and excavation sites |
Heavy construction activities including land clearance, ground
excavation, cut and fill operations, construction of the facilities, haul
road, etc |
E = 1.2
tons/acre/month of activity or = 2.69Mg/hectare/month of activity |
USEPA AP42, S.13.2.3.3 |
|
All construction sites |
Wind Erosion |
E = 0.85 Mg/hectare/yr (24 hour emission) |
USEPA AP42, S.11.9, Table 11.9.4 |
|
Stockpiles |
Loading/Unloading at stockpile |
k is particle size multiplier U is average wind
speed M is material
moisture content |
USEPA AP42, S13.2.4 |
4.6.5 RSP and FSP emission factors
for heavy construction and wind erosion are estimated based on the particle
size distribution stated in Section 13.2.4.3 of USEPA. According to the
particle size distribution, RSP (aerodynamic diameter ≦10 μm) and FSP (aerodynamic diameter ≦2.5 μm) constitute 47%
and 7% of the TSP (aerodynamic
diameter ≦30 μm), respectively. Hence, conversion factors of 0.47 and 0.07
are adopted to estimate the RSP and FSP emissions from TSP emission,
respectively. The particle size distribution is tabulated in Table
4.5.
Table 4.5: Particle size distribution of
construction dust
|
AQO
Parameters |
Particle
Size (΅m) |
Particle
Size Multiplier (k) in AP42 |
Conversion
Factor (Based on TSP emission) |
|
|
FSP |
< 2.5 |
0.053 |
= FSP /
TSP = 0.053 / 0.74 |
|
|
RSP |
< 10 |
0.35 |
= RSP /
TSP |
|
|
TSP |
< 30 |
0.74 |
-- |
4.6.6 Dust emission from
construction vehicle movement will generally be limited within the confined
worksites area and the heavy construction emission factor given in AP-42 Section
13.2.3.3 has taken this factor into account. Watering facilities will be
provided at every designated vehicular exit point. Effective from September
2009, all grab-mounted dump trucks travelling into and out of the construction
sites should be equipped with suitable covers before the trucks leaving the
sites. Since all vehicles will be washed at exit points and vehicle loaded with
the dusty materials will be covered entirely by clean impervious sheeting
before leaving the construction site, dust nuisance from construction vehicle
movement outside the worksites is unlikely to be significant.
Determination of Assessment Year
4.6.7 The construction programme of
heavy construction activities of the Project has been reviewed to identify the
assessment years to be adopted.
4.6.8 TSP
emissions from the Project during the construction phase are calculated based
on the dust emission factors in AP-42 with the active operating area and
construction programme. The detail calculation of the TSP emission inventory is
presented in Appendix 4.4. Table 4.6 below
summarise the TSP emission during the construction phase.
Table 4.6: Annual TSP emission from the
Project during the construction phase
|
Year |
Annual TSP Emission (tonnes/year) |
|
2016 |
12 |
|
2017 |
43 |
|
2018 |
28 |
|
2019 |
36 |
|
2020 |
25 |
|
2021 |
4 |
|
2022 |
0 |
4.6.9 According to Table 4.6, the TSP emissions from the
Project reach maximum at year 2017 during the construction phase. As mentioned
in Section 4.6.5, conversion factors
of 0.47 and 0.07 are applied to estimate RSP and FSP from TSP emissions,
respectively. Therefore, maximum RSP and FSP emissions are also found in Year
2017. As such, year 2017 is assumed as the worst assessment year. The extents
of work areas of the Project and concurrent projects are illustrated in the Appendix 4.1.
4.6.10 The construction of the public
housing of Phase 1 development will be completed in October 2022. As revealed from
the construction programme given in the Appendix
4.2, all major dust generating activities will be completed before October
2022. Therefore, no additional assessment year for the planned ASRs of Phase 1
development is considered necessary.
4.6.11 The assessment year with
respective works contracts included are summarised in Table 4.7 below.
Table 4.7: Dust emission sources for
dust impact assessment
|
Assessment Year |
Works Contract |
Description |
|
2017 |
WC01_PL5A |
Pedestrian Connectivity
- PL5A (SMP Estate to Kwun Tong MTR) |
|
WC01_PL5B |
Pedestrian
Connectivity - PL5B (SMP Estate to Kwun Tong MTR) |
|
|
WC02_PL7 |
Pedestrian
Connectivity _ PL7 (Po Tat Estate To BBI at Tsueng Kwan O Tunnel Road) |
|
|
WC03_PH1 |
Site
Formation and Engineering Infrastructure at Main Site - Phase 1 area |
|
|
WC03_PLR |
Access Road
to Po Lam Road (Connection between Main Site and Po Lam Road) |
|
|
WC05 |
Drainage
Retention Tank |
|
|
WC06_LTRW |
Road
Improvement Works - Area 2 (Lin Tak Road Widening) |
|
|
WC07_A3 |
Road Improvement
Works - Area 3 (Clear Water Bay Road) |
|
|
WC07_A4 |
Road
Improvement Works - Area 4 (Shun Lee Tsuen Road) |
Vehicular Emission from Open Road (Construction Phase)
4.6.12 Major roads in the vicinity of the Study Area at assessment year (i.e.
Year 2017) are illustrated in Figure 227724/E/1065 to
Figure 227724/E/1067.
4.6.13 EmFAC-HK v2.6 was used to calculate the
vehicular tailpipe emission in lieu of the traditional fleet average emission
factors. The road grouping, traffic flows and key assumptions for the EmFAC-HK v2.6
in Year 2017 are shown in Appendix 4.5.
Vehicular Emission from Tunnel Portal (Construction Phase)
4.6.14 The tunnel portal of the Tseung Kwan O Tunnel on the Kowloon side is
located within the 500m boundary of the Project. Therefore, the tunnel portal
emission from Tseung Kwan O Tunnel at Kowloon side has been included in the
near field model. Although the tunnel portal of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel on Tseung
Kwan O side is located outside of the study area, the emission of this tunnel
portal has also been included in the assessment due to the significant amount
of vehicular emission within the tunnel. As Tseung Kwan O Tunnel uses jet fans
for ventilation, all the vehicular emission is assumed at the exit of the
tunnel.
4.6.15 Detailed calculations of the portal emission are given in Appendix 4.6. The locations of portals are illustrated in Figure 227724/E/1065 to Figure 227724/E/1067.
Industrial Emission
4.6.16 A total of 7 chimneys were identified within the 500m air
quality assessment area including the 4 chimneys of the two Chinese restaurants
in Shun Lee Estate and Shun On Estate, and 3 chimneys of United Christian
Hospital. The locations of these 7 chimneys are shown in Figure 227724/E/1050 and the emission inventory of these chimneys
is given in Appendix 4.3. The
associated cumulative air quality impacts due to the chimney emissions are
assessed.
Background Pollutant Concentration PATH Model
4.6.17 PATH model was used to quantify the background air quality during the construction phase of the Project. The emission sources including those in Pearl River Delta Economic Zone, roads, marine, airport, power plants and industries within Hong Kong were all considered in the PATH model. The hourly data of background concentration predicted by the PATH model provided by EPD were for Year 2015. As presented in Sections 4.6.9, Year 2017 was selected as the assessment year for the construction phase air quality impact assessment. Therefore, as a conservative assumption, Year 2015 background concentration were adopted in the calculation of the cumulative results. The PATH background concentrations for the concerned grids for Year 2015 are presented in Appendix 4.7.
4.6.18 It is understood that only
hourly RSP concentrations are available from PATH model. According to EPDs Guideline on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air
Quality Assessment in Hong Kong, the conservative correction factors of
0.71 and 0.75 are applied on the annual and daily RSP concentration to generate
annual and daily FSP concentration, respectively. For hourly background TSP
concentration, it is considered reasonable to adopt hourly RSP concentrations
from PATH as the ambient TSP background concentrations, since the particulate
of sizes larger than 10 ΅m generated from far-field dust sources would have
been largely settled before reaching the ASRs, which in turn most of the
particulates from far-field sources affecting ASRs will likely be those less
than or equal to 10 ΅m (i.e. RSP).
Three Tiers
Assessment Approach
4.6.19 Due to the size of the work
sites and the need for orderly sequencing of construction activities, active
construction activities will occur in different locations of the work site at
different period of time. Therefore, it is not possible to pinpoint the exact
locations of the individual dust emission sources over the entire work site in
any short-term period (i.e. 1-hour and 24-hour). Nevertheless, a conservative
Three Tiers assessment approach has been adopted including an initial Tier 1
and Tier 2 screening test and the subsequent Tier 3 assessment.
Tier
1 Screening Assessment
4.6.20 Tier 1 screening assessment
aims to establish a theoretical worst case scenario for identifying hot spot
areas with potential short term 1-hour and 24-hour impacts on the ASRs. A
flatted terrain is assumed for the worst-case scenario assessment that all dust
emission sources and ASRs are located at the same height level and theoretical
maximum TSP, RSP and FSP concentrations at ASRs have been assessed for
screening purpose for subsequent Tier 2 and Tier 3 assessment. The basis of the
Tier 1 screening assessment for short term impact has assumed a 100% active
works area for all work sites. Hot spot locations where the criteria have been
exceeded are subjected to a Tier 2 assessment.
Tier
2 Screening Assessment
4.6.21 Based on engineers
estimation, there would be no more than 10% of active works areas in each work
site during any short period of time. Hence the chance of having all 10% active
works areas is unlikely within an individual work site. Appendix 4.8 presents the justifications for the percentage of
active areas.
4.6.22 In Tier 2 assessment, each hot
spot area identified in Tier 1 screening assessment is assumed to have a 10%
active works area occurring nearest to the potentially worst affected ASRs,
while the active works area of the concurrent projects are assumed as 100% for
worst-case scenario assessment. In addition, a flatted terrain is also assumed
for the worst-case scenario assessment that all dust emission sources and
identified hot spot ASRs are located at the same height level and theoretical
maximum TSP, RSP and FSP concentration at the ASRs have been assessed for
screening purpose for subsequent Tier 3 assessment. Nevertheless, Tier 2 assessment is still
considered to be conservative as it assumes that all works activities within
that 10% active works area will take place at the same time in the closest
proximity to the potentially affected ASRs which, in reality, is unlikely to
occur.
Tier
3 Assessment
4.6.23 For Tier 1 and Tier 2
assessment, a flatted terrain is assumed for the worst-case scenario assessment
for screening purpose that results are unlikely to occur in real situation.
4.6.24 In Tier 3 assessment, the
local terrain effect on the fugitive dust dispersion in each hotspot areas has
been considered. The heights above datum of emission sources and ASRs are incorporated
in the dust dispersion model. Assumption on the active works area of the
Project and the concurrent projects is the same as Tier 2 assessment, 10% for
site under the Project and 100% for sites under the concurrent projects,
respectively. Results of Tier 3 assessment serves a representation of the
detailed construction dust impact prediction for the study.
Long-term Annual Predictions
4.6.25 Dust modelling assessment for
long term annual predictions assumes that all the active construction
activities would likely be moving work fronts spreading across the whole work
site. On this basis, it is assumed that the dust emission would be distributed
across the whole area of each site to reasonably represent this mode of
construction works. As the annual average active operating area is less than
10%, 10% of daily dust emission rates are adopted to produce this effect in the
assessment. A flatted terrain is assumed for the worst-case scenario assessment
that all dust emission sources and ASRs are located at the same height level
and theoretical maximum TSP concentrations at ASRs have been assessed. Appendix 4.8 presents the
justifications for the percentage of active areas.
Dust
Dispersion Model for Emission from Construction Activities - FDM
4.6.26 Dust
impact assessment has been undertaken using the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM)
developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
approved by EPD. It is a Gaussian plume model for computing air dispersion due
to fugitive dust emission. Modelling parameters including dust emission
factors, particle size distributions, surface roughness, etc. can be referred
to in EPD guideline entitled Guideline on Choice of Models and model
parameters in Air Quality Assessment and the USEPA AP-42. The density of dust
was assumed to be 2.5g/m3.
4.6.27 As mentioned in Section 4.6.5, particle size
distribution is estimated based on Section 13.2.4.3 of USEPA AP-42. The
particle size distribution of TSP, RSP and FSP are presented in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Particle size distribution of
FDM
|
Particle
Size (΅m) |
Average
Particle Size (΅m) |
Particle
Size Multiplier (k) in AP42 |
Relative Particle Size Fraction |
Particle
Size Distribution |
||
|
TSP |
RSP |
FSP |
||||
|
0 2.5 |
1.25 |
0.053 |
0.053 |
7% |
15% |
100% |
|
2.5 - 5 |
3.75 |
0.20 |
0.147 |
20% |
42% |
- |
|
5 -10 |
7.5 |
0.35 |
0.150 |
20% |
43% |
- |
|
10 15 |
12.5 |
0.48 |
0.130 |
18% |
- |
- |
|
15 - 30 |
22.5 |
0.74 |
0.260 |
35% |
- |
- |
|
Total |
100% |
100% |
100% |
|||
4.6.28 During
daytime working hours (7am to 7pm), it is assumed that dust emissions would be
generated from all dust generating activities and site erosion. During
night-time non-working hours (7pm 7am the next day), Sunday and public
holidays, dust emission would be from site erosion only as there would not
normally be any construction activities during these hours.
4.6.29 Fugitive
dust impacts have been modelled for ASR heights at 1.5m, 5m and 10m above
ground for Tier 1 and Tier 2 assessment. Since all the dust generating sources
associated with the Project are at ground level only, these assessment levels
would therefore represent the worst-case scenario.
4.6.30 For Tier
3 assessment, the terrain effect on the dust dispersion has been considered, in
which the heights above datum of emission sources and the ASRs are incorporated
in the assessment. In view of the limitation of the model (FDM), elevated
sources higher than 20m were set to the maximum height of 20m to represent the
condition, albeit in a more conservative manner. Fugitive dust impacts have
been modelled for ASR heights at 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 15m, 20m, 25m and 30m above
ground to include ASRs at height from 1.5m above ground to 10m above ground of
local elevated sources.
4.6.31 Both the
unmitigated and mitigated scenarios for the Project are presented. The
dispersion of the pollutants has also been investigated using contours
generated from 100x100m grid.
4.6.32 The key
modelling parameters are summarized in Table
4.9.
Table 4.9: Modelling parameters
|
Parameters |
Input |
Remark |
|
Particle size
distribution |
Refer to Table 4.8. |
Reference from
S13.2.4.3 of USEPA AP-42 |
|
Modelling mode |
Flatted terrain
Elevated terrain |
For
Tier 1 and Tier 2 assessment For Tier 3 assessment |
|
Meteorological data |
MM5 data extracted
from PATH Model |
- |
|
Anemometer height |
10m above ground |
- |
|
Surface roughness |
100 cm |
- |
|
Emission period |
General
construction activities during daytime working hours (7am to 7pm) Wind erosion during
both day-time (7am to 7pm) and night-time (7pm to 7am of the next day) |
- |
|
Assessment height |
1.5m, 5m and 10m above ground of local dust emission sources |
- |
Model for Vehicular Emission
from Open Roads CALINE4
4.6.33 Model
parameters adopted are the same as the operational phase assessment. Details
are given in Section 4.6.74 to Section 4.6.77.
4.6.34 A 24-hour
daily profile in terms of total traffic flow has been assumed for all vehicle
classes. Appendix 4.5 and Appendix 4.9 present the detailed
estimation of the vehicular emission factors and the composite emission factors
from open roads for RSP and FSP within the assessment area.
Model for Portal Emission ISCST3
4.6.35 Model
parameters and hourly emission rates calculation method adopted are the same as
the operational phase assessment. Details are given in Section 4.6.78 to Section
4.6.81.
4.6.36 The
portal emission factors are summarised in Appendix
4.6.
Model for
Chimney Emission ISCST3
4.6.37 Model
parameters and hourly emission rates calculation method adopted are the same as
the operational phase assessment. Details are given in Section 4.6.82 to Section
4.6.84. The assumptions, chimney configuration and emission rates are
presented in Appendix 4.3.
Cumulative Impact of Criteria Air Pollutants
4.6.38 The PATH model outputs based on Year
2015 emission inventories were added to the sum of the FDM, CALINE4
and ISCST3 model results sequentially on an hour-by-hour basis to derive the
short-term and long-term cumulative impacts at each ASR. As particulate matters from vehicular emission
and small industrial/commercial boiler using light fuel oil are RSP, the
near-field contribution to cumulative TSP level from these sources is
considered the same as their RSP contribution. The highest pollutant concentration
predicted at an ASR amongst the 8760 hours (i.e. 24 hours x 365 days) is taken
as the worst predicted hourly pollutant concentration for that ASR. The maximum
24-hour average pollutant concentration at an ASR amongst the 365 days is the
highest predicted daily average concentration. The annual average pollutant
concentration at an ASR is the average of 8760 hourly concentrations. The maximum predicted 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP,
annual RSP, 24-hour FSP and annual FSP concentrations at each assessment level of
each ASR therefore represent the worst-case scenario and are then compared with
the respective AQOs.
Operational Phase
Identification of Pollution Sources and Representative Pollutants
4.6.39 As
mentioned in Section 4.4, induced
road traffic emission from proposed and existing road network is the major
emission source generated by the Project. Existing chimney emissions from two
Chinese restaurants and United Christian Hospital are also assessed for the
cumulative operational air quality impact.
4.6.40 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. Accordingly to An Overview on Air
Quality and Air Pollution Control in Hong Kong published by EPD, motor vehicles
are the main causes of high concentrations of respirable suspended particulates
(RSP) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) at street level in Hong Kong. As induced traffic flow raised from the Project
is the major source of the operational air quality impact, RSP and NOx
are considered
as key air quality pollutants. In addition, FSP is one of the compositions of RSP, and has also been assessed in the operational air quality assessment
in this Project. 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)
4.6.41 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) is known to be one of
the pollutants emitted by vehicles. According to the 2011 Environmental
Performance Report published by EPD (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/misc/er/er2011/eg/contents_04_01.html), the dominant source of NOx generated in
HK is the electricity generation which constitutes about 45% of the total in
2009. Road transport is the second largest NOx emission group,
accounting for about 22% of the total in the same year.
4.6.42 Together with VOC and in the presence of O3
under sunlight, NOx would be transformed to NO2. The
operation of the Project would inevitably increase the traffic flow and hence
the NOx emission and subsequently the NO2 concentrations
near to the roadside. Hence, NO2 is one of the key / representative
pollutants for the operational air quality assessment of the Project. 1-hour
and annual averaged concentrations at each identified ASRs have been assessed
and compared with the AQOs to determine the compliance.
Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP or PM10) and Fine
Suspended Particulates (FSP or PM2.5)
4.6.43 Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP or PM10)
refers to suspended particulates with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of
10μm or less. According to the EPDs data
(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/misc/er/er2011/eg/contents_04_01.html), road
vehicles, particularly diesel vehicles, are one of the sources of RSP in Hong
Kong. According to the statistics of EPDs 2011 Environmental Performance
Report(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/misc/er/er2011/eg/contents_04_01.html), road transport is the second largest source of
RSP accounting for 29% of the total emissions.
4.6.44 The
operation of the Project would inevitably increase the traffic flow and hence the RSP concentrations near to the
roadside. Hence, RSP is also one of the key representative pollutants for the
operational air quality assessment of the Project. The 24-hour and annual
averaged concentrations at each identified ASRs have been assessed and compared
with the AQOs to determine the compliance.
4.6.45 Fine
Suspended Particulates (FSP or PM2.5) refers to suspended particulates with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of
2.5μm or less. As FSP is one of the compositions of RSP that has been
identified as one of the key pollutants for this Project, FSP should also be
assessed in the operational air quality assessment in this Project. The 24-hour
and annual averaged concentrations at each identified ASRs have been assessed
and compared with the AQOs to determine the compliance.
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
4.6.46 According
to the statistics of EPDs 2011 Environmental Performance Report(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/misc/er/er2011/eg/contents_04_01.html), the
dominant source of Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) in Hong Kong is electricity
generation which constitutes the majority of the emissions (about 92%).
Although SO2 is also one of the pollutants emitted by vehicles, road
transport is the smallest emission source of SO2 and only
constitutes 0.5% of the total SO2. The introduction of ultra low
sulphur diesel for vehicle fleet in Year 2000 has also helped reducing the SO2
emission in Hong Kong. Similarly, the airport contribution to the total SO2
emission is also very little compared to the electricity generation.
4.6.47 Under the Air Pollution Control (Fuel Restriction)
Regulations, only ultra-low sulphur fuel (sulphur content not more than 0.005%
by weight) is allowed for chimney operation. As discussed in Section 4.2, the latest 5-year average of annual SO2
concentrations in Kwun Tong is only 18% of the prevailing AQO. This clearly
indicates that the AQOs for SO2 could be well achieved with great
margin in the assessment area. Given that road transport only contributes a
very small amount of SO2 and there is still a large margin to the
AQO compared to the other pollutants such as RSP and NO2.
Therefore, SO2 is not
considered as key pollutants for quantitative assessment for the operational
phase of the project.
Ozone (O3)
4.6.48 O3 is not a primary
pollutant emitted from man-made sources but is formed by a set of complex chain
reactions between various chemical species, including NOx and VOC,
in the presence of sunlight. Concentration of O3 is governed by both
precursors and atmospheric
transport from other areas. When precursors transport along under favourable
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 this project.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
4.6.49 Carbon Monoxide (CO) is one of the primary
pollutants emitted by road transport. According to the 2007 statistics
published in EPD website (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html),
CO emissions from road transport contributed about 82% of total CO emission in
2007. It is understood that road transportation is the dominant source of CO
emission; nevertheless, the air quality impact due to CO is still relatively
minor considering its existing concentrations. It is clearly indicated that the AQOs
for CO would be well achieved with great margin in the assessment area. The
highest 1-hour CO concentration and highest 8-hour concentration in Causeway
Bay (i.e. the highest CO recorded location) are only 13% and 33% of their
respective prevailing AQOs, which are far below the criteria. Given that there
is still a large margin to the AQO compared to the other pollutants such as RSP
and NO2, CO is not considered as the key pollutants for quantitative
assessment for the operational air quality assessment.
Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs)
4.6.50 There are six kinds of Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs)
routinely monitored in HK, including diesel particulate matters,
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbonyls, and toxic elemental
species.
4.6.51 Dioxins,
carbonyls, PCBs and most toxic elemental species are not considered primary sources of vehicular emissions
(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/assessment_of_tap_measurements.html
&
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR5/Sources_of_PCB_emissions.pdf/view),
and hence, these three TAPs are not considered as key / representative air
pollutants for the operational air quality assessment.
4.6.52 Vehicular
emissions may be a source of diesel particulate matters, PAHs and VOCs.
Elemental carbon, which constitutes a large portion of diesel particulate matters
mass, is commonly used as a surrogate for diesel particulate matter. According
to the data from EPD, the elemental carbon
showed a significant decrease in concentration in Mong Kok by 47.5% from 2001
to 2009, and Tsuen Wan by 51.3% from 1999 to 2009. This is because the
implementation of EURO III vehicle emission standard to goods vehicle and bus
in 2001 and EURO IV standard to all types of vehicle in 2006-2007
(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html).
It is not considered as a key air pollutant for the operational air quality
assessment.
4.6.53 Currently, no ambient air quality standards have
been set for PAHs. However, with reference to US and European Community air
quality guidelines, the European commission has a very stringent guideline
concentration for PAHs. According to the latest EPD study report in 2011 -
Annual Air Quality Monitoring Results - Air Quality in Hong Kong 2011
(http://www.epdasg. gov.hk/english/report/files/AQR2011e_final.pdf), the
concentration of PAHs level (Benzo[a]pyrene, BaP) in Hong Kong was 0.22 ng/m3
monitored at both the Tsuen Wan and Central/Western stations respectively in
2011 which was still much lower than the guidelines of European Communities of
1 ng/m3.
4.6.54 There are different standards for different VOC
compounds. According to the latest EPD study report in 2011 Annual Air
Quality Monitoring Results Air Quality in Hong Kong 2011 (http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/english/report/files/AQR2011e_final.pdf),
benzene, 1-3 butadiene, formaldehyde and
perchloroethlene are the VOCs that may have more health concern, and the USEPA
also identified benzene and 1-3 butadiene are carcinogenic.
Table 4.10: Comparison of VOCs concentration in Hong
Kong (2011) and the EU Air Quality Standards
|
TAP |
Guidelines / Standards (΅g/m3) |
Highest average concentration at Tsuen Wan
Station (΅g/m3) |
Highest average concentration at
Central/Western Station (΅g/m3) |
Compliance |
|
Benzene |
5 (Annual Average) [1] |
1.62 |
1.53 |
Well Achieved |
|
1-3
butadiene |
2.25 (Running Annual) [1] |
0.13 |
0.13 |
Well Achieved |
|
Formaldehyde
[2] |
9 (Annual Average) [3] |
- |
3.61 |
Well Achieved |
|
Perchloroethylene |
40 (Annual Average) [4] |
0.47 |
0.51 |
Well Achieved |
Note:
[1] Referenced from the UK National Air Quality
Strategy (NAQS) (http://www.medway.gov.uk/environmentandplanning/environmentalhealth/airquality/airqualityfordevelopers.aspx)
[2] The measurement of formaldehyde was affected
by influence from renovation works at Princess Alexandra Community Centre as
well as nearby buildings of Tsuen Wan Station. Hence, only formaldehyde concentration
at the Central/Western station is reported.
[3] Referenced from the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Toxicity Criteria Database, California, USA (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/tcdb/index.asp)
[4] Referenced from the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), USEPA (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0106.htm)
4.6.55 As shown in
the Table 4.10, the measured VOCs
concentration in Hong Kong urban
area is far below the UK and US standards. Also, according to Hong Kong Air
Pollutants Emission Inventory
(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html),
the VOCs level has dropped by approximately 50% in 2007 since 1990 due to the
EPD progressive improvement of EURO standard vehicles over the past two
decades. With reference to the EPDs 2011 Environmental Performance Report
(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/misc/er/er2011/eg/contents_04_01.html), vehicular
emission is also not the primary source of VOCs, accounting for about 27% of
the total in Hong Kong. Besides, according to another study - Seasonal and
diurnal variations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere of
Hong Kong, benzene, and 1-3 butadiene only contributed about 6-13% of overall
vehicular emission VOCs. In other words, only 1.6-3.5% of the overall VOC
emissions in Hong Kong are benzene and 1-3 butadiene contributed by vehicular
emission.
4.6.56
The historical
monitoring data showed that the concentrations of PAHs and VOCs were only in small amount. It is also
reasonably believed that the emission of PAHs and VOCs should be significantly
decreased after the implementation of EURO V standard vehicles in 2013; and the
elimination of most of the pre-EURO standard and EURO I vehicles. The TAPs is
also not specified under the current AQO. Based on above reasons, TAPs is not
considered as a key air pollutant for the operational air quality assessment.
Lead (Pb)
4.6.57 As leaded petrol had been banned in Hong Kong in
1999, it is no longer considered as a primary source in Hong Kong. According to
the Annual Air Quality Monitoring Results - Air Quality in Hong Kong 2011
from EPD (http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/english/report/files/AQR2011e_final.pdf),
the measured 3-month averaged lead level was 0.020 μg/m3 in
Kwun Tong. The measured concentration is much lower than the 3-month AQO of 1.5
μg/m3. Therefore, lead is not considered as a key /
representative air pollutant for the operational air quality assessment.
4.6.58 As discussed in the above sections, NO2,
RSP and FSP have been concluded to be the representative air pollutants. These
three pollutants are stipulated in the AQOs.
Emission Inventory
4.6.59 As discussed
in Section 4.6.40 to Section 4.6.58, NO2, RSP and FSP are the air pollutants
of primary concern during operational phase of the Project and hence are
assessed in the study.
4.6.60 In assessing the operational air quality impact to
the ASRs, contributions from emission sources, including vehicular emission
from open road and tunnel portal, and industrial emission, have been
considered.
Vehicular Emission from Open
Road
4.6.61 Major sources of vehicular
emission include:
(1)
Vehicular emission from proposed internal road network within the Study
Area;
(2)
Vehicular emission from existing road networks within 500m from the
Study Area boundary;
(3)
Cumulative vehicular emission impacts from concurrent projects as
detailed in Section 4.5.
4.6.62 Upon completion of the ARQ
development, vehicular emissions would be generated from the additional road
network in the study area. Additional traffic flow would also be induced on the
existing roads and therefore a corresponding increase in vehicular emissions is
anticipated. Major roads in the vicinity of the Study Area are illustrated in Figure 227724/E/1070 to Figure 227724/E/1090.
4.6.63 EmFAC-HK
v2.6 was used to calculate the vehicular tailpipe emission in lieu of the
traditional fleet average emission factors. The road grouping for this
assessment is shown in Appendix 4.5.
4.6.64 Preliminary
traffic flows in each assessment year (i.e. Year 2022, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2031,
2036 and 2041) have been reviewed and the peak traffic flows for each
assessment years have been selected to represent the worst case. Appendix 4.5 presents the key
assumptions for the EmFAC-HK modelling.
Vehicular Emission from Tunnel
Portal
4.6.65 The tunnel portal of the
Tseung Kwan O Tunnel on the Kowloon side is located within the 500m boundary of
the Project. Therefore, the tunnel portal emission from Tseung Kwan O Tunnel at
the Kowloon side has been included in the near field model. Although the tunnel
portal of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel on the Tseung Kwan O side is located outside of
the study area, the emission of this tunnel portal has been included in the
assessment due to the significant amount of vehicular emission within the
tunnel. As Tseung Kwan O Tunnel uses jet fans for ventilation, all the
vehicular emission is assumed at the exit of the tunnel.
4.6.66 During the operation of the
ARQ, a short portion of local road will go beneath a landscape deck. In
addition, an underpass has been proposed at the access road to the Po Lam Road.
The portal emissions from the landscape deck and the proposed underpass have
been included in the near field model. As no detail design of the landscape
deck and proposed underpass is available at this moment, all the vehicular
emission is assumed at the exits of the landscape deck and the proposed underpass
by considering that no ventilation building is required for the short length of
road go beneath the landscape deck and short length of the proposed underpass.
4.6.67
Detailed calculations of the
portal emission are given in Appendix 4.10.
The locations of portals are illustrated in Figure 227724/E/1070 to Figure
227724/E/1090.
Industrial Emission
4.6.68 A total of 7 chimneys were
identified within the 500m air quality assessment area including the 4 chimneys
of the two Chinese restaurants in Shun Lee Estate and Shun On Estate, and 3
chimneys of United Christian Hospital. The locations of these 7 chimneys are
shown in Figure 227724/E/1050 and
the emission inventory of these chimneys is given in Appendix 4.3. The associated cumulative air quality impacts due to
the chimney emissions are assessed.
Determination
of Assessment Year
4.6.69 According
to Section 4(i) of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief for the Project, the air
pollution impacts of future road traffic impacts at the identified ASRs should be assessed
based on assumed reasonably worst-case scenario under the normal operating
conditions. The highest emission strength from road within the next 15 years
upon full population intake year is used for assessing the air pollutant
impacts from the future road traffic.
4.6.70 Vehicular
tailpipe emissions from open roads are calculated based on EPD EmFAC-HK v2.6. The
assessment year was determined based on the highest vehicular emission from the
roads in the Study Area using the EmFAC-HK model. Appendix 4.5 presents the methodology and assumptions adopted in
estimating the emission factors and the calculated results. Table 4.11 below summarise the total
emission of NOx, RSP and FSP for Year 2022, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2031,
2036 and 2041.
Table 4.11: Total Emission of NOx, RSP and FSP for Year 2022, 2025, 2026, 2027,
2031, 2036 and 2041
|
Year |
Annual Emission (kg/year) |
||
|
NOx |
RSP |
FSP |
|
|
2022 |
72,525 |
2,865 |
2,633 |
|
2025 |
86,036 |
3,922 |
3,607 |
|
2026 |
98,612 |
4,614 |
4,245 |
|
2027 |
94,625 |
4,556 |
4,192 |
|
2031 |
69,512 |
3,465 |
3,190 |
|
2036 |
54,098 |
2,907 |
2,677 |
|
2041 |
54,492 |
3,065 |
2,823 |
4.6.71 As shown
in Table 4.11, it was concluded that
the highest vehicular emissions will be found in Year 2026. Therefore,
Year 2026 was selected as the assessment year for the operational phase air
quality impact assessment. The hourly emission of NOx, RSP and FSP
were divided by the number of vehicles and the distance travelled to obtain the
emission factors in gram per miles per vehicle. The calculated 24-hour emission
factors of 16 vehicle classes for different road types in Year 2026 adopted in
this air quality impact assessment are presented in Appendix 4.11.
4.6.72 Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 developments will be completed
in Year 2026, which means that all ASRs and emission sources of ARQ development
would be presented in year 2026. As year 2026 has been selected as assessment
year and operational phase air quality impacts of all ASRs have been assessed,
therefore, additional assessment year is considered not required.
Background
Pollutant Concentration PATH Model
4.6.73 PATH model was used to quantify the background air
quality during the operational phase of the Project. The emission sources
including those in Pearl River Delta Economic Zone, roads, marine, airport,
power plants and industries within Hong Kong were all considered in the PATH
model. The hourly data of background concentration predicted by the PATH
model provided by EPD were for Year 2020. As presented in Sections
4.6.71, Year 2026 was selected as the assessment year for the operation
phase air quality impact assessment.
Therefore, as
a conservative assumption, Year 2020 background concentration were adopted in the
calculation of the cumulative results. The PATH background concentrations for the
concerned grids for Year 2020 are presented in Appendix 4.12.
Model for Vehicular Emission
from Open Roads CALINE4
4.6.74 The air
dispersion model, CALINE4 developed by the California Department of Transport
and approved by USEPA was used to assess vehicular emission impacts from the
existing and planned road network. In view of the limitation of the model,
elevated roads higher than 10m were set to the maximum height of 10m to
represent the condition, albeit in a more conservative manner. Meteorological
data extracted from PATH model was adopted for the dispersion modelling.
4.6.75 The surface roughness height is closely related to the
land use characteristics, and the surface roughness is estimated as 3 to 10
percent of the average height of physical structure within 1 km of study area.
Surface roughness of 100cm was assumed to represent the urbanized terrain. The
wind standard deviation is estimated in accordance with the Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Revised), 1986, as summarised in Table 4.12. For barriers along roads, the line source was
modelled at the tip of the barrier and the mixing width is limited to the
actual uncovered road width in order to address the associated secondary
environmental impact. The road type of the concerned road type was set to
fill option in CALINE4.
Table 4.12: Summary of Wind Standard Deviation for Surface Roughness
of 100cm
|
Stability Class |
Wind Standard
Deviation (degrees) |
|
A |
33 |
|
B |
33 |
|
C |
26 |
|
D |
18 |
|
E |
11 |
|
F |
5.6 |
4.6.76 Ozone
Limiting Method (OLM) was adopted for the conversion of NOx to NO2,
using the predicted O3 and NO2 levels from the PATH
model. According to EPDs Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters,
the vehicular tailpipe NO2 emission was assumed to be 7.5% of NOx.
The NO2/NOx conversion was calculated as follows:
[NO2]pred
= 0.075x[NOx]pred + MIN {0.925x[NOx]pred, or (46/48) x [O3]bkgd}
where
[NO2]pred is the predicted NO2
concentration
[NOx]pred is the predicted NOx
concentration
MIN means the minimum of the two values
within the brackets
[O3]bkgd
is the representative O3 background concentration
(46/48)
is the molecular weight of NO2 divided by the molecular
weight of O3
4.6.77 A 24-hour
daily profile in terms of total traffic flow has been assumed for all vehicle
classes. Appendix 4.5 and Appendix 4.11 present the detailed
estimation of the vehicular emission factors and the composite emission factors
from open roads for NO2, RSP and FSP within the assessment area.
Model for Portal Emission ISCST3
4.6.78 The USEPA
approved model, ISCST3, has been adopted to model the vehicular emission from
tunnel portals and portals of landscape deck. The modelling parameters are
listed in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Modelling parameters for
ISCST3
|
Parameters |
Input |
|
Modelling mode |
Urban with terrain effect |
|
Meteorological data |
MM5 data extracted from PATH Model |
4.6.79 The
hourly emission rates of the tunnel portal of the Tseung Kwan O Tunnel, portals
of Landscape Deck and portals of the proposed underpass at the access road to
Po Lam Road were obtained by multiplying the emission strength (g/mile/veh to
be determined from EmFAC-HK as described in previous sections) by the products
of traffic flow (veh/hr) and tunnel length (km). Since the Tseung Kwan O Tunnel
uses jet fans for ventilation, all the vehicular emission was assumed at the
exit of the tunnel.
4.6.80 The
portal emission was modelled in accordance with the Permanent International
Association of Road Congress Report (PIARC) assuming a jet effect to discharge
to the first 100-250m of the open road section in the direction of the
vehicular, with 2/3 of the total emission strength for the first 50% sources
and 1/3 of the total emission strength for the remaining 50% sources. The
emission was modelled as volume sources by ISCST3.
4.6.81 The
portal emission factors are summarised in Appendix
4.10.
Model for
Chimney Emission ISCST3
4.6.82 Gaseous
emissions from the identified existing chimneys identified have been assessed
by using ISCST3 model. The modelling parameters are listed in Table 4.14. The assumptions, chimney
configuration and emission rates are presented in Appendix 4.3.
Table 4.14: Modelling parameters for
ISCST3
|
Parameters |
Input |
|
Modelling mode |
Urban with terrain effect |
|
Meteorological data |
MM5 data extracted from PATH Model |
4.6.83 Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) was adopted for the conversion of NOx to NO2 based on
the predicted O3 level from PATH. The rural dispersion mode in
ISCST3 model was selected depending on the
land uses where the ASRs are located. The NO2/NOx
conversion is calculated as follows:
[NO2]pred =
0.1x[NOx]pred + MIN {0.9x[NOx]pred, or (46/48)x[O3]bkgd}
where
[NO2]pred is the predicted NO2
concentration
[NOx]pred is the predicted NOx
concentration
MIN means the minimum of the two values within the
brackets
[O3]bkgd
is the representative O3 background concentration
(46/48) is the molecular weight of NO2
divided by the molecular weight of O3
Cumulative Impact of Criteria Air Pollutants
4.6.84 The PATH model outputs based on Year
2020 emission inventories were added to the sum of the CALINE4 and
ISCST3 model results sequentially on an hour-by-hour basis to derive the
short-term and long-term cumulative impacts at each ASR. The highest pollutant concentration predicted
at an ASR amongst the 8760 hours (i.e. 24 hours x 365 days) is taken as the
worst predicted hourly pollutant concentration for that ASR. The maximum
24-hour average pollutant concentration at an ASR amongst the 365 days is the
highest predicted daily average concentration. The annual average pollutant
concentration at an ASR is the average of 8760 hourly concentrations. Based on
the chimney emission results, the highest concentrations of pollutants were
found at the height of less than 30m above ground. Since all the vehicular emissions associated with
the Project are from ground level only, the worst hit levels are predicted less
than 30m above ground. The maximum predicted 1-hour, 24-hour and annual NO2,
RSP, and FSP concentrations at each ASR at 7 levels (including 1.5m, 5m, 10m,
15m, 20m, 25m and 30m) therefore represent the worst-case scenario and are then
compared with the respective AQOs.
4.7
Construction Dust
Assessment
Assessment Result Unmitigated Scenario
4.7.1 For cumulative fugitive dust
impacts, the environmental performance of the unmitigated scenario would likely
to exceed the criterion at majority of ASR locations. Therefore, mitigation
measures are needed to reduce the potential adverse dust impacts. Appendix 4.13 shows the results of
unmitigated scenarios and Table 4.15
summarizes the assessment results. Figure
227724/E/1100 to Figure 227724/E/1106
show the contours of unmitigated cumulative 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP, annual
RSP, 24-hour FSP and annual FSP concentrations in the Study Area.
Table 4.15: Summary of TSP, RSP and FSP
concentrations under unmitigated scenario
|
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
AQOs / Criteria of TM-EIAO (΅g/m3)[1] |
Concentration at Various Height (΅g/m3)[2][3] |
||
|
1.5m |
5m |
10m |
|||
|
TSP |
1-hour |
500 |
629
- 7372 |
664
- 4456 |
592
- 3100 |
|
RSP |
24-hour |
100 (9) |
119 1005 (4 10) |
121 660 (4 10) |
120 477 (4 10) |
|
Annual |
50 |
43 - 323 |
43 - 207 |
43 - 157 |
|
|
FSP |
24-hour |
75 (9) |
82 183 (1 10) |
82 - 129 (1 10) |
82 103 (1 10) |
|
Annual |
35 |
29 - 72 |
29 - 53 |
29 - 46 |
|
Note:
[1]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedances allowed.
[2]
Values which exceeded the AQO or criterion
of TM-EIAO are shown as bolded characters
[3]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedance against the AQOs.
Mitigation
Measures
4.7.2 In order to reduce the dust impact and achieve
compliances of TSP, RSP and FSP criteria at ASRs, mitigation measures in the
form of regular watering under good site practice should be adopted.
4.7.3 In accordance with the
Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources (USEPA AP-42), watering once per hour
on exposed worksites and haul road is recommended to achieve dust removal
efficiency of 91.7%. Appendix 4.8 presents the
calculation of the dust removal efficiency. The dust suppression efficiency is
derived based on the following conservative assumptions:
· Maximum haul road traffic of 70 vehicles/hour as estimated by Engineer:
· Average evaporation rate obtained from Hong Kong Observatory; and
· Hourly application intensity of 1.75 L/m2 for respective watering.
4.7.4 For the loading/unloading
activities at stockpiling area, a conservative assumption of 50%
dust suppression is adopted. Appendix
4.8 presents the justification of the dust removal efficiency that could be
achieved with hourly application intensity of 1.75 L/m2.
4.7.5 Any potential dust impact
and watering mitigation would be subject to the actual site conditions. For
example, a construction activity that produces inherently wet conditions or in
cases during rainy weather, the above water application intensity may not be
unreservedly applied. While the above watering frequency is to be followed, the
extent of watering may vary depending on actual site conditions but should be
sufficient to maintain an equivalent intensity of no less than 1.75 L/m2 to
achieve the respective dust removal efficiencies. For example, water sprinkler
and watering truck with flow control should be installed and applied to ensure
of no less than 1.75 L/m2 of water spraying on site. The dust levels
would be monitored and managed under an EM&A programme as specified in the
EM&A Manual.
4.7.6 In addition to the watering and required intensity, the
Contractor will also be obliged to follow the procedures and requirements given
in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. This stipulates
the construction dust control requirements for both Notifiable (e.g. site
formation) and Regulatory (e.g. road opening) Works to be carried out by the
Contractor. The following dust suppression measures should be incorporated by
the Contractor to control the dust nuisance throughout the construction phase:
(1)
Any excavated or stockpile of dusty material should be covered entirely
by impervious sheeting or sprayed with water to maintain the entire surface wet
and then removed or backfilled or reinstated where practicable within 24 hours
of the excavation or unloading;
(2)
Any dusty material remaining after a stockpile is removed should be
wetted with water and cleared from the surface of roads;
(3)
A stockpile of dusty material should not extend beyond the pedestrian
barriers, fencing or traffic cones;;
(4)
The load of dusty materials on a vehicles leaving a construction site
should be covered entirely by impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty
materials do not leak form the vehicle;
(5)
Where practicable, vehicles washing facilities including a high pressure
water jet should be provided at every discernible or designated vehicle exit
point. The area where vehicle washing takes place and the road section between
the washing facilities and the exit point should be paved with concrete,
bituminous materials or hardcores;
(6)
When there are open excavation and reinstatement works, hoarding of not
less than 2.4m high should be provided as far as practicable along the site boundary
with provision for public crossing. Good site practice shall also be adopted by
the Contractor to ensure the conditions of the hoardings are properly
maintained throughout the construction period;
(7)
The portion of any road leading only to construction site that is within
30m of a vehicle entrance or exit should be kept clear of dusty materials;
(8)
Surfaces where any pneumatic or power-driven drilling, cutting,
polishing or other mechanical breaking operation takes place should be sprayed
with water or a dust suppression chemical continuously;
(9)
Any area that involves demolition activities
should be sprayed with water or a dust suppression chemical immediately prior
to, during and immediately after the activities so as to maintain the entire
surface wet;
(10)
Where a scaffolding is erected around the
perimeter of a building under construction, effective dust screens, sheeting or
netting should be provided to enclose the scaffolding from the ground floor
level of the building, or a canopy should be provided from the first floor
level up to the highest level of the scaffolding;
(11)
Any skip hoist for material transport should be
totally enclosed by impervious sheeting;
(12)
Every stock of more than 20 bags of cement or
dry pulverised fuel ash (PFA) should be covered entirely by impervious sheeting
or placed in an area sheltered on the top and the three sides;
(13)
Cement or dry PFA delivered in bulk should be stored in a closed silo
fitted with an audible high level alarm which is interlocked with the material
filling line and no overfilling is allowed; and
(14)
Exposed earth should be properly treated by
compaction, turfing, hydroseeding, vegetation planting or sealing with latex,
vinyl, bitumen, shortcrete or other suitable surface stabiliser within six
months after the last construction activity on the construction site or part of
the construction site where the exposed earth lies.
4.7.7 These requirements should be incorporated into the
contract specification for the civil work. In addition, a monitoring and audit programme
during the construction phase should be implemented by the project proponent to
ensure that the construction dust impacts are controlled to within the required
criteria. Detailed requirements for the monitoring and audit programme are
given separately in the EM&A Manual.
Assessment Result Mitigated Scenario
Short-term Assessment (Tier
1) Year 2017
4.7.8 The maximum 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP and 24-hour FSP concentrations from Tier 1 screening assessment have
been predicted. Appendix 4.13 shows
the assessment results and Table 4.16 below
summarise the cumulative 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP and 24-hour FSP impact (Tier
1) at the concerned ASRs, respectively. The results indicate that, for most of
the ASRs, non-compliance of criteria would not be anticipated even with this
theoretical worst case situation, whereby the entire worksites were assumed
active (i.e. 100%). However, for the ASRs near the worksites (e.g. Ma Yau Tong
Village, Site C2 and Site E of DAR), non-compliance of 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP
and 24-hour FSP are still predicted. As the Tier 1 assessment is for screening
purposes only and does not reflect the actual on-site activities, a more
focused Tier 2 assessment has been undertaken.
4.7.9
Figure 227724/E/1160 to Figure 227724/E/1164 show the contours of Tier 1 1-hour TSP,
24-hour RSP and 24-hour FSP concentrations.
Table 4.16: Tier 1 assessment
Summary of 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP and 24-hour FSP concentration results under
mitigated scenario in Year 2017
|
Pollutant |
Averaging time |
AQOs / Criteria of TM-EIAO (΅g/m3)[1] |
Concentration at Various Height (΅g/m3)[2][3] |
||
|
1.5m |
5m |
10m |
|||
|
TSP |
1-hour |
500 |
148
- 640 |
148
- 445 |
148
- 281 |
|
RSP |
24-hour |
100 (9) |
110 135 (1 10) |
110 129 (1 9) |
110 123 (1 3) |
|
FSP |
24-hour |
75 (9) |
82 125 (1 10) |
82 102 (1 10) |
82 98 (1 9) |
Note:
[1]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedances allowed.
[2] Non-compliance of AQO or
criterion of TM-EIAO are shown as bolded characters
[3]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedance against the AQOs.
Short-term Assessment (Tier
2) Year 2017
4.7.10 A more focused Tier 2 assessment has been conducted with
the assumed 10% active works areas for the adjacent construction site
positioned nearest to the potentially worst affected ASRs, while the active
area of worksites of concurrent project is assumed still 100%. As mentioned in Section 4.6, the Tier 2 assessment is
also very conservative and will lead to over prediction of the dust impacts.
4.7.11 The 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP and 24-hour FSP concentrations
from Tier 2 screening assessment have been predicted. Appendix 4.13 shows the assessment results and Table 4.17 to Table 4.19 below
summarises the cumulative 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP and 24-hour FSP impact (Tier
2) at the concerned ASRs. Results show that, the cumulative 1-hour TSP, 24-hour
RSP and 24-hour FSP concentrations would comply with the respective criterion except Planned Park at Site C2 of DAR. As such, adverse
short-term construction dust impact is not anticipated.
4.7.12 Contours have been presented in Figure 227724/E/1179 to Figure
227724/E/1189 for 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP and 24-hour FSP (Tier 2) at 1.5m
above the ground to illustrate the short-term dust impact on the ASRs.
Table 4.17: Tier 2 assessment
Summary of 1-hour TSP concentrations of concerned ASRs under mitigated scenario
in Year 2017
|
Locations |
ASR |
1-hour TSP concentrations at various
height (΅g/m3) |
||
| 1.5m | 5m | 10m | ||
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-32 |
354 |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-33 |
571 |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-38 |
466 |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-39 |
455 |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-40 |
507 |
- |
- |
|
Planned School, Site E |
DARE-27 |
412 |
219 |
154 |
|
Planned School, Site E |
DARE-28 |
326 |
203 |
146 |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-36 |
324 |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-37 |
487 |
- |
- |
|
Ma Yau Tong Village |
AMYT-04 |
470 |
281 |
204 |
|
Ma Yau Tong Village |
AMYT-05 |
421 |
279 |
203 |
Note:
[1] Non-compliance of criterion
of 500 ΅g/m3 are shown as bolded characters
Table 4.18: Tier 2 assessment
Summary of 24-hour RSP concentrations of concerned ASRs under mitigated
scenario in Year 2017
|
Locations |
ASR |
24-hour RSP concentrations at various
height (΅g/m3) (AQO = 100 ΅g/m3 (9))[1] |
||
|
1.5m[2] |
5m[2] |
10m[2] |
||
|
Planned
Park, Site C2 |
DARC-32 |
112
(1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned
Park, Site C2 |
DARC-33 |
113 (10) |
- |
- |
|
Planned
Park, Site C2 |
DARC-38 |
113 (10) |
- |
- |
|
Planned
Park, Site C2 |
DARC-39 |
116 (10) |
- |
- |
|
Planned
Park, Site C2 |
DARC-40 |
128 (10) |
- |
- |
|
Block
5, Site E |
DARE-06 |
113 (5) |
112
(1) |
111 (1) |
|
Planned
School, Site E |
DARE-27 |
115 (6) |
113
(1) |
112 (1) |
|
Planned
School, Site E |
DARE-28 |
113
(1) |
112
(1) |
111 (1) |
|
Planned
School, Site E |
DARE-29 |
113
(1) |
112
(1) |
111 (1) |
|
Planned
Park, Site C2 |
DARC-36 |
119 (3) |
- |
- |
|
Planned
Park, Site C2 |
DARC-37 |
118 (4) |
- |
- |
Note:
[1]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedances allowed.
[2]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedance against the AQOs.
[3]
Non-compliance of AQO is shown as bolded characters.
Table 4.19: Tier 2 assessment
Summary of 24-hour FSP concentrations of concerned ASRs under mitigated
scenario in Year 2017
|
Locations |
ASR |
24-hour FSP concentrations at various
height (΅g/m3) (AQO = 75 ΅g/m3 (9))[1] |
||
|
1.5m[2] |
5m[2] |
10m[2] |
||
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-30 |
83 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-31 |
83 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-32 |
83 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-33 |
83 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-38 |
83 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-39 |
84 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-40 |
85 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Public Open Space, Site E |
DARE-01 |
83 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Block 5, Site E |
DARE-05 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Block 5, Site E |
DARE-06 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Block 6, Site E |
DARE-08 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Block 8, Site E |
DARE-16 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Block 9, Site E |
DARE-17 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Block 11, Site E |
DARE-21 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Basketball Court, Site E |
DARE-22 |
83 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Block 10, Site E |
DARE-23 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Block 10, Site E |
DARE-24 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site E |
DARE-25 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site E |
DARE-26 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site E |
DARE-27 |
84 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site E |
DARE-28 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site E |
DARE-29 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site E |
DARE-30 |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
83 (1) |
|
Planned Clinic and Community Centre, Site C2 |
DARC-10 |
88 (1) |
88 (1) |
87 (1) |
|
Planned Clinic and Community Centre, Site C2 |
DARC-11 |
88 (1) |
88 (1) |
87 (1) |
|
Planned Clinic and Community Centre, Site C2 |
DARC-12 |
88 (1) |
88 (1) |
87 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site C2 |
DARC-23 |
88 (1) |
88 (1) |
87 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site C2 |
DARC-24 |
88 (1) |
88 (1) |
87 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site C2 |
DARC-25 |
88 (1) |
88 (1) |
87 (1) |
|
Planned School, Site C2 |
DARC-26 |
88 (1) |
88 (1) |
87 (1) |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-34 |
88 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-35 |
88 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-36 |
88 (1) |
- |
- |
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-37 |
88 (1) |
- |
- |
Note:
[1]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedances allowed.
[2] Values in ( ) mean the
number of exceedance against the AQOs.
Short-term Assessment (Tier
3) Year 2017
4.7.13 Based on the Tier 2 assessment which is a reasonable
conservative assessment, 1-hour TSP non-compliance at two ASRs and 24-hour RSP
non-compliance at four ASRs are predicted. However, a flatted terrain is
assumed for worst case scenario assessment for Tier 1 and Tier 2 assessment. A
more focused Tier 3 assessment has been conducted with the consideration of
height above datum of emission sources and concerned ASRs. The active area
assumption for construction site of the Project and concurrent project
remaining the same as Tier 2 assessment.
4.7.14 The cumulative 1-hour TSP and 24-hour RSP concentrations
from Tier 3 assessment have been predicted. Appendix 4.13 shows the assessment results and Table 4.20 and Table 4.21 below
summarises the cumulative 1-hour TSP and 24-hour RSP impacts (Tier 3) at the
concerned ASRs. Results show that, the cumulative 1-hour TSP and 24-hour RSP
concentrations would comply with the respective criteria and as such, adverse
short-term construction dust impact is not anticipated.
4.7.15 Contours have been presented in Figure 227724/E/1210 to Figure
227724/E/1212 for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour RSP concentrations at 1.5m above
ground (i.e. the maximum level) to illustrate the short-term dust impact on
ASRs.
Table 4.20: Tier 3 assessment
Summary of 1-hour TSP concentrations of concerned ASRs under mitigated scenario
in Year 2017
|
Locations |
ASR [1] |
1-hour TSP concentrations at various
height (΅g/m3) |
||||||
|
1.5m |
5m |
10m |
15m |
20m |
25m |
30m |
||
|
Planned Park, Site
C2 |
DARC-33 |
363 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
DARC-40 |
291 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Note:
[1]
All concerned ASRs for Tier 3 assessment are planned park. There is no
ASR above the height higher than 1.5m. Therefore, only results of height at
1.5m are shown in the above table.
Table 4.21: Tier 3 assessment
Summary of 24-hour RSP concentrations of concerned ASRs under mitigated
scenario in Year 2017
|
Locations |
ASR [1] |
24-hour RSP concentrations at various
height (΅g/m3) (AQO = 100 ΅g/m3 (9))[2] |
||||||
|
1.5m[3] |
5m |
10m |
15m |
20m |
25m |
30m |
||
|
Planned Park, Site C2 |
DARC-33 |
112 (5) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
DARC-38 |
111 (1) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
DARC-39 |
115 (1) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
DARC-40 |
125 (3) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Note:
[1]
All concerned ASRs for Tier 3 assessment are planned park. There is no
ASR above the height higher than 1.5m. Therefore, only results of height at
1.5m are shown in the above table.
[2]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedances allowed.
[3] Values in ( ) mean the
number of exceedance against the AQOs.
Long-term Assessment Year
2017
4.7.16
The annual RSP and FSP
concentrations from long-term assessment have been predicted. Appendix 4.13 shows the assessment
results and Table 4.22 below
summarises the cumulative annual RSP
and FSP impacts at the concerned ASRs. In summary, the predicted annual RSP and FSP
concentrations at all ASRs would comply with the AQOs, hence, no adverse
long-term impact is anticipated. Contour of annual RSP and FSP concentrations
at 1.5m above ground is shown in Figure
227724/E/1231 and Figure
227724/E/12321 respectively.
Table 4.22: Long term assessment
Summary of Annual RSP and FSP concentration results under mitigated scenario in
Year 2017
|
Pollutant |
Averaging time |
AQOs (΅g/m3) |
Concentration at
Various Height (΅g/m3) |
||
|
1.5m |
5m |
10m |
|||
|
RSP |
Annual |
50 |
39 - 43 |
39 - 42 |
39 - 41 |
|
FSP |
Annual |
35 |
28 - 32 |
28 - 30 |
28 - 30 |
4.8
Operational Air Quality Assessment
Assessment Result Worst Assessment Year (2026)
4.8.1 The maximum cumulative 1-hour, 24-hour and annual NO2
concentrations; and 24-hour and annual RSP and FSP concentrations at each representative ASRs have been
assessed. For 1-hour NO2, 24-hour RSP, annual RSP, 24-hour FSP and
annual FSP, all representative ASRs within the 500m assessment area comply with
relevant AQOs and the assessment results are presented in Table 4.22, Table 4.24 and
Table 4.25, and detailed in Appendix
4.14.
4.8.2 For Annual NO2, all
representative ASRs within the 500m assessment area, except 1.5m of ASMP-34
(Sau Fai House), comply with relevant AQO. For 1.5m of ASMP-34 (Sau Fai House),
a marginal exceedance (i.e. 41 ΅g/m3) is recorded. However, the ground level of this
single aspect building was intentionally designed not for residential purpose,
but only for non-sensitive uses such as machinery and transformers plant rooms
etc. The assessment result at 1.5m of this ASR is therefore for reference only.
The floors occupied by residences are at least 5m above the ground level, and
all assessment results at 5m and other higher levels of this ASR comply with
the AQOs. Therefore, adverse cumulative air quality impact within and in the
vicinity of ARQ during the operational phase is not anticipated. The annual NO2
assessment results, except 1.5m of ASMP-34 are presented in Table 4.23 and detailed in Appendix 4.14. Photos of ground floor
of Sau Fai House are given in Appendix
4.15.
Table 4.23: Cumulative maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations at maximum level at worst assessment year (2026)
|
|
NO2 Concentration (΅g/m3) |
|
1-hour |
|
|
Cumulative
NO2 |
229 - 281 |
|
AQO Compliance |
Yes |
Note:
[1] Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedance
against the AQO.
[2]
The cumulative concentrations
include the background concentration from PATH model.
Table 4.24: Cumulative annual NO2 concentrations
at maximum level at worst assessment
year (2026)
|
|
NO2 Concentration (΅g/m3) |
|
Annual |
|
|
Cumulative
NO2 |
18 - 39 |
|
AQO Compliance |
Yes |
Note:
[1] Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedance against the AQO.
[2]
The cumulative concentrations include the background concentration from
PATH model.
[3] The result at 1.5m of ASMP-34 (Sau Mei House) is
excluded in the table.
[4]
A marginal exceedance (i.e. 41 ΅g/m3) is recorded at 1.5m of ASMP-34
(Sau Fai House). However, the ground level of this single aspect building was
intentionally designed not for residential purpose, but only for non-sensitive
uses such as machinery and transformers plant rooms etc. The assessment result
at 1.5m of this ASR is therefore for reference only. The floors occupied by
residences are at least 5m above the ground level, and all assessment results
at 5m and other higher levels of this ASR comply with the AQOs. Therefore, no
adverse impact is anticipated.
Table 4.25: Cumulative maximum RSP concentrations at maximum level at
worst assessment year (2026)
|
|
RSP Concentration (΅g/m3) |
|
|
24-hour |
Annual |
|
|
Cumulative
RSP |
107 - 115 |
39 - 41 |
|
|
Yes |
|
Note:
[1]
Values in ( ) mean the number of
exceedance against the AQO.
[2]
The cumulative concentrations
include the background concentration from PATH model.
Table 4.26: Cumulative maximum FSP concentrations at maximum level at
worst assessment year (2026)
|
|
FSP Concentration (΅g/m3) |
|
|
24-hour |
Annual |
|
|
Cumulative
RSP |
80 - 86 |
28 - 29 |
|
AQO Compliance |
Yes |
Yes |
Note:
[1] Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedance against the AQO.
[2] The cumulative concentrations
include the background concentration from PATH model.
4.8.3 As shown in Appendix 4.14,
the max concentration of pollutants is found at 1.5m above ground. Contours of
1-hour NO2, annual NO2, 24-hour RSP, annual RSP, 24-hour
FSP and annual FSP concentrations at 1.5m above the ground are therefore
plotted. In addition, contours of annual NO2 at 5m above the ground
is also plotted for justification of environmental acceptability of schedule 2 designated projects (refer to Section 4.10 for the details).
4.8.4 The contours are shown in Figure 227724/E/1300 to Figure 227724/E/1360 as listed below:
(1)
Figure
227724/E/1300 Contours of Cumulative Max. 1-hour NO2
Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
(2)
Figure
227724/E/1301 Contours of Cumulative 19th Highest
1-hour NO2 Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
(3)
Figure
227724/E/1320 Contours of Cumulative Annual-average NO2
Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
(4)
Figure
227724/E/1321 Contours of Cumulative Annual-average NO2
Concentration at 5m above ground in Year 2026
(5)
Figure
227724/E/1330 Contours of Cumulative Max. 24-hour RSP
Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
(6)
Figure
227724/E/1331 Contours of Cumulative 10th Highest
24-hour RSP Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
(7)
Figure
227724/E/1340 Contours of Cumulative Annual-average RSP
Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
(8)
Figure
227724/E/1350 Contours of Cumulative Max. 24-hour FSP
Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
(9)
Figure
227724/E/1351 Contours of Cumulative 10th Highest
24-hour FSP Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
(10)
Figure
227724/E/1360 Contours of Cumulative Annual-average FSP
Concentration at 1.5m above ground in Year 2026
Mitigation Measure
4.8.5 Based on
the assessment result, adverse cumulative air quality impact within assessment
area not anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required
during the operational phase.
Construction Phase
4.9.1 With the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures and the dust suppression measures stipulated in
Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, no adverse residual air
quality impact is anticipated during the construction phase.
Operational Phase
4.9.2 No adverse residual air
quality impact is anticipated during the operational phase.
4.10
Environmental Acceptability of Schedule 2 Designated Projects
4.10.1 The engineering feasibility study of the proposed ARQ development is a
Schedule 3 Designated Project (DP) under the EIAO, whilst there will be two
Schedule 2 DPs; i.e. road improvement works and rock cavern developments under
the ARQ project. Details of these two Schedule 2 DPs are provided in Section 1.5 and shown in Figure 227724/E/0002.
Road Improvement Works
4.10.2 Three road improvement works were proposed at junction of (J/O) Lin Tak
Road and Sau Mau Ping Road, at J/O Clear Water Bay Road and Road L1 of
Development of Anderson Road (DAR), as well as at the new merging lane at New
Clear Water Bay Road near Shun Lee Tsuen Road. The operation year of these
three road improvement works are 2022, 2021 and 2019, respectively.
4.10.3 The vehicular emission is
considered as the major source to the ASRs surrounding the road improvement
works areas as there is no additional chimney is identified within 500m of road
improvement works boundary. In general pollutants concentration of vehicular
emission will decrease with both the distance from road network and the height
from road surface.
4.10.4 For 1-hour NO2,
24-hour RSP, annual RSP, 24-hour FSP and annual FSP, all the air sensitive uses
are outside the non-compliance zone of the relevant AQOs at 1.5m as shown in Figure 227724/E/1301, Figure
227724/E/1331, Figure 227724/E/1340, Figure 227724/E/1351 and Figure 227724/E/1360, respectively.
As mentioned in Section 4.10.3, the maximum concentrations of
pollutants are found at the ground level. Therefore, non-compliance of relevant
AQOs is not anticipated at the ASR at the height above the ground level.
4.10.5 For annual NO2
concentration, all the air sensitive uses of road improvement works at junction of (J/O) Lin Tak Road and Sau Mau Ping Road and at J/O Clear
Water Bay Road and Road L1 of DAR are
outside the non-compliance zone of the relevant AQOs at 1.5m as shown in Figure 227724/E/1320. For road
improvement works at the new merging lane at New Clear Water Bay Road near Shun
Lee Tsuen Road, all the air
sensitive uses, except Shun Lee Disciplined Services Quarter, are outside the
non-compliance zone of the relevant AQOs at 1.5m. Nevertheless, as shown in Figure 227724/E/1321, all the air sensitive uses, include
Shun Lee Disciplined Services Quarter, are outside the non-compliance zone of
the relevant AQOs at 5m. As there are no residential or other air sensitive
uses below 5m at the portion of the Shun Lee Disciplined Services Quarter those
within the non-compliance zone at 1.5m and all sensitive use above 5m comply
with the relevant AQO, therefore, adverse air quality impact of annual NO2
concentration is also not anticipated.
4.10.6 Nevertheless, the detailed air quality impacts of this Schedule 2 DP
will be further investigated in a separate EIA under the EIAO.
Rock Cavern Developments
4.10.7 The proposed cavern developments are located on the hillside of the
proposed ARQ Development.
4.10.8 There will be no air pollutant emission sources present in the rock
cavern development based on the best
available information at this stage (e.g. commercial use such as food and
beverage, as well as museum). Therefore, the rock cavern
developments are considered as ASRs only.
4.10.9 According to the best available
information at this stage, the caverns are proposed for commercial use (e.g.
food and beverage) as well as museum. In view of its operational nature, adverse
air quality impact is not anticipated. Nevertheless,
the air quality impact of this Schedule 2 DP will be further investigated when the future use of the cavern is
confirmed, and submitted as separated EIA
report in next stage of study.
4.10.10 According to the assessment result as shown in Appendix 4.14, the rock cavern near the proposed landscape deck (i.e.
ARQC-05 to ARQC-10 are shown in Figure
227724/E/1030) would comply with the relevant AQOs of NO2, RSP
and FSP. Therefore, adverse air quality impact at this rock cavern is not
anticipated. The locations of these ASRs are shown in Figure 227724/E/1030.
4.10.11 According to the Figure
227724/E/0002, there is another rock cavern at the eastern side of the rock
cavern near the proposed landscape deck. Since this rock cavern is located at
higher altitude and further away from the pollutant sources, the pollutants
level at this rock cavern would be lower than that at the rock cavern near the
proposed landscape deck. Therefore, adverse air quality impact at this rock
cavern is not anticipated.
4.10.12 The rock cavern at the northern side of the Quarry Park, is located near
the 2 ASRs of Quarry Park (i.e. ARQP-34 and ARQP-37 as shown in Figure 227724/E/1030). As shown in Appendix 4.14, all these 2 ASRs of
Quarry Park comply with relevant AQOs of NO2, RSP and FSP, therefore,
adverse air quality impact at this rock cavern is also not anticipated.
4.10.13 Nevertheless, the detailed air quality impacts of this Schedule 2 DP
will be further investigated in a separate EIA under the EIAO.
Construction Phase
4.11.1 Potential dust impact would be
generated from the soil excavation activities, backfilling, site erosion,
storage of spoil on site, and transportation of soil during the construction
phase. Quantitative fugitive dust assessments have therefore been conducted for
the construction of ARQ in accordance with Annex 12, Guidelines for Air Quality
Assessment, of the TM-EIAO. The assessment result concluded that watering once
per hour with hourly equivalent intensity of no less
than 1.75 L/m2 to on
all exposed worksites during working hours (7am 7pm) will be required to
control the fugitive dust impact. With the implementation of recommended
mitigation measures, no exceedance of criteria provided by Annex 4, Criteria
for Air Quality Assessment, of the TM-EIAO is anticipated during the
construction phase.
Operational Phase
4.11.2 Cumulative
air quality impact arising from the vehicular emissions from the open roads,
tunnel portals and chimney emissions within the assessment area has been
assessed according to Annex 12, Guidelines for Air Quality Assessment of the
TM-EIAO. The assessment results concluded that all the predicted cumulative
1-hour NO2, 24-hour and annual RSP and FSP concentrations would
comply with the AQOs and Annex 4, Criteria for Air Quality Assessment, of the
TM-EIAO during the operational phase.
4.11.3 For
annual NO2, a marginal exceedance (i.e. 41 ΅g/m3) is recorded at 1.5m of ASMP-34
(Sau Fai House). The
ground level of this single aspect building was intentionally designed not for
residential purpose, but only for non-sensitive uses such as machinery and
transformers plant rooms etc. The assessment result at 1.5m of this ASR is
therefore for reference only. The floors occupied by residences are at least 5m
above the ground level, and all assessment results at 5m and other higher
levels of this ASR comply with the AQOs. Therefore, adverse cumulative air
quality impact within and in the vicinity of ARQ during the operational phase
is not anticipated.
