K. Wah Materials Limited
Environmental Impact Assessment Study
for Cement Silos Addition Work in Tai Po Cement Depot
content
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives of the
Environmental Impact Studies
2.1 Background
2.2 Design of the
Project
2.3 Scenarios with
or without the Project
2.4 Demerit of
other Alternatives
2.5 Construction
Methodology and Programme
2.6 Interactions
with Other Projects
3 Relevant environmental Ligistation
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)
3.3 Air
3.4 Noise
3.5 Water
3.6 Visual Impact Assessment
3.7 Waste Management
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Assessment
Criteria
4.3 Air Sensitive
Receivers
4.4 Methodology
4.5 Emission
Factors
4.6 Air Quality
Impact
4.6.1 Construction Phase
4.6.2 Operational Phase
4.7 Conclusion
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Assessment
Criteria
5.2.1 Construction Noise
5.2.2 Operational Noise
5.3 Noise Sensitive
Receivers
5.4 Methodology
5.5 Construction
Noise Impact
5.5.1 Unmitigated Case
5.5.2 Mitigation Measures
5.6 Operational
Noise Impacts
5.6.1 Ocean Going Vessel
5.6.2 On site Activities
5.6.3 Off-site Activitie
5.7 Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Assessment Criteria
6.3 Water Sensitive Receivers
6.4 Description of
Environmental Baseline Conditions
6.5 Water Quality
Impact
6.6 Mitigation
Measures
6.7 Conclusion
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Assessment Criteria
7.3 Assessment
Methodology
7.3.1 Baseline Survey
7.3.2 Visual Impact Assessment
7.4 Methodology for
Determination of Mitigation Measures
7.5 Residual Impact
7.6 Review of
Planning and Development Control Framework
7.7 Assessment
Results
7.7.1 Existing Visual Context and Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs)
7.7.2 Visual Impact
7.8 Recommended
Mitigation Measures
7.9 Conclusion
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Assessment
Criteria and Methodology
8.3 Prediction and
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
8.3.1 Construction Phase
8.3.2 Operational Phase
8.3.3 Mitigation Measures
8.4 Conclusion
9 Ecology
12 environmental
monitoring & audit requirement
12.1 Air Quality
12.2 Noise
12.3 Water Quality
14 CONCLUSION
TABLES
Table
2.1: Tentative construction schedule
Table 4.1: Air Quality Objectives
Table 4.2: Air Sensitive Receivers
Table 4.3: Average Diameter and percentage of each class in TSP and RSP
modelling
Table 4.4: Daily operation program of the cement
plant during construction period
Table 4.5: Daily operation program of the cement
plant during operational period
Table 5.1: Construction Noise Guidelines (Leq(30min) dB(A))
within non-restricted hours
Table 5.2: TM-EIA
Industrial Noise Guidelines for different Area Sensitive Rating (ASR)
Table 5.3: TM-EIA Traffic Noise Guideline
Table 5.4: Noise sensitive
receivers in the vicinity of the project site
Table 5.5: Off-site noise sensitive receivers
Table 5.6: Sound
power level of the powered mechanical equipment
Table
5.7: Noise Inventory for the
concrete batching plant activities and the existing/ Proposed cement works
Table 5.8: Predicted
Façade Noise Levels without mitigation measures at NSRs
Table 5.9: Proposed Mitigation Measures for
Construction Phase
Table 5.10: Predicted Façade Noise Levels at NSRs with quieter powered
mechanical equipment
Table
5.11: Predicted
Façade Noise Levels at NSRs due to the operation of the ocean going vessel
Table 5.12: Predicted Façade Noise
Levels without mitigation measures at NSRs
Table 5.13: Characteristics of the proposed noise
mitigation measures
Table 5.14: Predicted Façade Noise Levels at NSRs with mitigation measure
Table 5.15 Traffic Noise due to off-site transportation
Table 6.1: Water Quality Objectives – Tolo Harbour
and Channel Water Control Zone
Table
6.2: Summary statistics of 1999
water quality of Tolo Harbour and Channel WCZ
Table 7.1: Impact Matrix
Table 7.2: Overall
evaluation of visual impact.
Table 7.3: Summary of Visually Sensitive Receivers
Table 7.4: Summary of Visual Impact
Table 14.1:
Major Mitigation Measures for Construction and Operational Phases
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Site Location Plan
Figure 2.2 Existing Cement Depot and Ocean
Going Vessel
Figure 2.3 Schematic Diagram for Existing
Cement Work Process
Figure 2.4 Site Layout Plan
Figure 2.5 Schematic Diagram for the planned
Cement Work Process
Figure 4.1 Predicted Traffic Flow in 2018
Figure 4.2 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers
Figure 4.3 Cumulative 1-hr TSP Contour at 5m in
Daytime (Construction)
Figure 4.4 Cumulative 24-hr TSP Contour at 5m
(Construction)
Figure 4.5 Cumulative 24-hr TSP Contour at 1.5m
(Operation)
Figure 4.6 Cumulative 24-hr RSP Contour at 1.5m
(Operation)
Figure 5.1 Location of Noise Sensitive
Receivers in the Vicinity of Project Site
Figure 5.2a Location of off site Noise Sensitive
Receivers in Pak Shek Kok, Ma On Shan and planned Whitehead
Figure 5.2b Site Plan of Ma Shi Chau
Figure 5.3a Location of Operational Noise Sources
and Construction Site Boundary
Figure 5.3b Location of Noise Sources and NSRs
Figure 5.4 Vertical Barrier below Silos
Figure 5.5 Extension of Noise Barriers for
Cement Silos
Figure 5.6 Proposed location of Vessel
Anchorage Region
Figure 5.7 Constraints within Tolo Harbour
Figure 6.1a Locations of Water Sensitive
Receivers and Monitoring Stations
Figure 6.1b Locations of Ecological Sensitive
Receivers
Figure 6.2 Schematic Diagram of Site Drainage
Figure 7.1 Visual Envelope and VSR
Figure 7.2 Side View of Cement Depot from Casa
Marina III
Figure 7.3 Elevation View of Cement Depot from
Tolo Harbour
Figure 7.4 Photomontage of View from Casa
Marina III
Figure 7.5 Photomontage of View from Fortune
Garden
Figure 7.6 Photomontage of View from Tolo
Harbour
Figure 7.7 Photomontage of View from Ting Kok
Road
APPENDICES
Appendix 4a Emission Factors during Construction and Operational Phases
Appendix 4b Detail
Calculation for Emission Factors of Proposed Cement Depot
Appendix 4c Emission Factors of adjacent Concrete
Batching Plants and Cement Depot
Appendix 4d1 Relevant pages of Air Pollution Control Plan
for K. Wah Concrete Batching Plant
Appendix 4e Emission
Factors for Road Traffic
Appendix 4f Predicted
cumulative1-hr and 24-hr TSP during construction phase
Appendix 4g Predicted
cumulative 24-hr TSP for On-site Activities during Operational Phase
Appendix 4h Predicted
cumulative 24-hr RSP during Operational Phase
Appendix 4i Sample FDM Output
File for 1-hr in day time and 24-hr TSP
(Construction Phase)
Appendix 4j Sample FDM Output
File for 24-hr TSP (Operational Phase)
Appendix 4k Sample FDM Output
File for 24-hr RSP (Operational Phase)
Appendix 4l Sample CALINE4
Output File for 1-hr RSP in day and evening time
Appendix 4m Event Contingency
Plan for Silo Explosion Accident
Appendix 4n Specification for
the Dust Collectors
Appendix 5a Sound Power Level (SWL) Measurement for
Concrete Lorry Mixer and Cement Tankers
Appendix 5b Sound
Power Level (SWL) Measurement for Pumping Barge
Appendix 5c Sound Power Level (SWL) Measurement for
the Electric Screw Conveyor
Appendix 5d Sound
Power Level (SWL) Measurement for Cement Unloading
Appendix 5e Sound
Power Level (SWL) Measurement for the Ocean Vessel
Appendix 5f Construction
Noise Impact
Appendix 5g Operational
Noise Impact – No Mitigation Measure
Appendix 5h Operational
Noise Impact – With Mitigation Measure
Appendix 5i Measurement Detail of the Prevailing Noise Level
Appendix 5j Measurement Detail of the off- site Prevailing Noise Level
Appendix 5k Traffic noise output file
ABBREVIATIONS
|
ANLs |
Acceptable Noise Levels |
|
APCO |
Air
Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
APCP |
Air
Pollution Control Plan |
|
Arup |
Ove Arup
and Partners |
|
ASR |
Air
Sensitive Receptors |
|
AQO |
Air
Quality Objectives |
|
CED |
Civil
Engineering Department |
|
CNP |
Construction
Noise Permit |
|
DEP |
Director
of Environmental Protection |
|
DO |
Dissolved
Oxygen |
|
EIA |
Environmental
Impact Assessment |
|
EIAO |
Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance |
|
EM&A |
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit |
|
EP |
Environmental
Permit |
|
EPD |
Environmental
Protection Department |
|
HKPSG |
Hong Kong
Planning Standards and Guidelines |
|
NCO |
Noise
Control Ordinance |
|
NSRs |
Noise
Sensitive Receivers |
|
PME |
Powered
Mechanical Equipment |
|
SPME |
Specified
Powered Mechanical Equipment |
|
SWL |
Sound
Power Level |
|
TMs |
|
|
TM-GW |
Technical
Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling |
|
TM-DA |
Technical
Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas |
|
TM-PP |
Technical
Memorandum on Noise from Percussive Piling |
|
TM-EIA |
Technical
Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process |
|
TM-IND |
Technical
Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places other than Domestic
Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites |
|
TM-Water |
|
|
VSR |
Visual
Sensitive Receiver |
|
WCZ |
Water
Control Zone |
|
WDO |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance |
|
WQO |
Water Quality
Objectives |
The existing Tai Po cement depot has been operated by K. Wah Materials
Ltd. (hereafter refer to as the Project Proponent). It covers approximately
5,900 m2 and consists of 6 cement silos of total capacity at 8,500
MT. Currently, cement is delivered to the depot through cement barges. Existing
cement silo capacity is not capable of storing all the cement from a single
shipment load. Current practice is to unload the cement from the silos by
cement tankers for immediate delivery to the client, thus free up the silos for
further storage. As a result, the barge is required to berth alongside the
shore for a period of time and uploading of cement can only be operated in
batch mode.
In order to reduce potential nuisance of the
barge operation, the only way is to increase the depot storage capacity. K. Wah
plans to construct three additional cement silos of total capacity at 7,500 MT.
With the three additional silos, the total capacity of the depot will be
increased to 16,000MT.
As the depot capacity involves cement works
greater than 10,000MT, it is classified as a designated project under item K.5
of Part I of Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)
(Cap. 499). An Environment Permit is
therefore required for the construction and operation of the cement depot. K.
Wah has commissioned Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd (Arup) to provide
environmental consultancy services for this application. A study brief
(ESB-084/2001) was issued on 30 October 2001 outlining the requirements of the
EIA Study.
The objective of
this report is to provide an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the
proposed project. This report presents the assessment criteria, methodologies,
and results for the potential noise, dust, water quality and visual impacts,
during construction and operational phases, with and without mitigation
measures.
1.2
Objectives of the Environmental Impact Studies
The main
objectives of this EIA report are summarized as follows:
·
To give an
account of the considerations given to different alternative sites
·
To identify
and describe the elements of the community and environment likely to be
affected by the Project
·
To identify
and quantify emission sources and determine the significant of impacts on sensitive
receivers and potential affected uses
·
To propose
mitigation measures so as to minimize pollution, environmental disturbance and
nuisance arising from the Project
·
To
identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts and the
cumulative effects expected to arise from the construction and the operation of
the Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses
·
To
identify, assess and specify methods, measures and standards, to be included in
the detailed design, construction and operation of the Project, which are
necessary to mitigate these environmental impacts and reducing them to
acceptable levels
·
To
investigate the extent of side-effects of proposed mitigation measures that may
lead to other forms of impacts and to identify the constraints associated with
the mitigation measures
·
To
identify, design and specify the environmental monitoring and audit
requirements, to ensure the implementation and the effectiveness of the
environmental protection control measures adopted
The proposed project site is within the
existing site of cement depot, which is located at 18 Yu On Street, Sam Mun
Tsai, Tai Po. The present site is owned and has been operated by Project
Proponent since 1992. A location plan of the site is shown in Fig 2.1. The
existing cement depot consists of 6 cement silos of total capacity at 8,500 MT-
four at 1,500 MT and two at 1,250 MT (Fig. 2.2). The silos are located at about
13 - 24 m from the existing seawall. Average daily cement dispatching rate is
1,400 – 1,500 MT.
In the existing depot, amongst the six
silos, two of the 1,500MT cement silos and two of the 1,250MT cement silos are
interconnected. This allows the existing six silos to be connected to four dust
collectors. In addition, another three dust collectors are installed at the
three loading points for the cement tankers. A total of seven dust collectors
are employed in the existing plant to mitigate any fugitive emissions
(Fig.2.3). In normal situation, only two loading points are operated. The
remaining loading point is for backup purpose.
Cement is delivered to the depot by cement
barges (loading capacity of 400 MT) from the ocean going vessel (not owned by
project proponent but of loading capacity 10,000 MT, Fig. 2.2), which is
located in Tolo Harbour Channel. Cement unloading from the ocean going vessel
to the barge is through enclosed pipelines. The barge then travels to the depot
and the cement is uploaded to the cement silos via enclosed pipelines and Bucket
Elevator. The entire uploading process is performed within a totally enclosed
system in order to suppress dust emissions (Fig. 2.3). Cement is stored inside
the silos until unloading to cement tankers for delivery. This process is also
conducted in totally enclosed connections.
The operation of depot will be powered by
mains. There are no additional gaseous emissions from the mechanical plant
(e.g. generators).
Due to the limited capacity of existing silos, 3
additional silos of total capacity at 7,500MT are proposed to be constructed.
The new silos are located adjacent to the existing silos and occupy a floor
area of approximately 400m2 (Fig 2.4). Each planned silo will be
fitted with a dust collector. Besides, the planned silos are also
interconnected to the existing unloading points. Fig.2.5 shows the schematic
diagram of the planned process. There will not be any increased
throughput or operational capacity to the existing operations as a result of
the increased silo capacity.
A Concrete Batching Plant and a Stone Plant,
operated by other companies are identified within 500m of the proposed
development (Fig. 2.1). The Concrete Batching Plant consists of 2 legs,
hereafter referred to as East Wing Concrete Batching Plant and West Wing
Concrete Batching Plant respectively.
These plants will contribute to cumulative impacts of noise and fugitive
dust emissions on the nearby sensitive receivers. As the proposed project site is within
the existing industrial premises, there will not be any impacts on local
ecology, landscaping, site of cultural importance or listed buildings.
2.3
Scenarios
with or without the Project
The existing
operation requires uploading from the ocean going vessel to be stopped when the
silos are full. Until space inside the silos is freed from cement dispatched by
the cement tankers, the barge will have to remain at berth. This causes long
lag time and frequent startup of the pumping barge, which results in
intermittent transient noise nuisance to the nearby sensitive receivers.
By increasing
the silo capacity, cement uploading from the barge can be completed in one
batch. The proposed additional silos will therefore eliminate the intermittent
transient noise due to the frequent startup of the pumping barge. Also, the berthing
time of the ocean vessel will be shortened, thus reducing the marine traffic impact in Tolo Harbour.
2.4
Demerit of
other Alternatives
In arriving at the selected option,
different alternative locations including outside the existing depot area
(off-site) have been evaluated from the environmental point of view. The
demerits of the alternative options are summarized as follows.
(i)
The
construction of a new cement depot off site would require a new jetty and a
large site formation area. This will introduce impact on marine water quality,
marine ecology and air quality.
(ii)
More cement
barges will need to be deployed for serving the two depots at different
locations, thus leading to an increase in air quality (such as dark smoke
emission from generator), noise and marine traffic impacts.
(iii)
Additional
cement unloading bays will be required, which will give rise to dust emission,
visual and noise impact and safety concerns.
(iv)
There is
also a need to introduce a new conveyor system for cement unloading which will
increase the risk of accidental leakage.
(v)
Locating
the additional silos at further distance from the existing silos will also give
rise to demerits of an offsite location as described in (iii) and (iv).
2.5
Construction
Methodology and Programme
The construction of the new cement silos
will consist of three stages: ground excavation, setting of foundation and the
silo erection works. Ground excavation work will employ excavator mounted
breaker and drilling rig. Foundation works will employ concrete lorry mixer,
concrete pump and vibratory poker. Silos erection works will employ sky-crane
and arc welders. The proposed new silos will be fabricated off-site and
transport to the existing depot by barge such that the transportation and
construction noise nuisance can be reduced. The tentative construction
programme is shown in Table 2.1
Table 2.1: Tentative construction schedule
|
Description |
Commencement Date |
Completion Date |
|
Construction of addition 3 silos |
Feb 2003 |
Nov 2003 |
During the construction period, the existing
cement depot will continue operation. Therefore, the cumulative impact due to
the operation of the existing cement depot is taken into account in this study.
The addition three silos will start immediately operation upon completion of
works in November 2003.
2.6
Interactions
with Other Projects
There are no other projects likely to
interface with this proposed project. As the construction of the Casa Marina
III is nearly finished, it will not cause cumulative impact on the environment.
This section presents a summary of current and relevant environmental
legislation, which relate to the assessment of potential environmental impacts
from the proposed development.
3.2
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Preparation of the EIA itself has been undertaken in accordance with the
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) and associated Technical
Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIA) (EIAO, Cap.499,
S.16).
The Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) provides the statutory
authority for controlling air pollutants from a variety of stationary and
mobile sources, including fugitive dust emissions from construction sites. It
encompasses a number of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) which stipulate concentrations
for a range of pollutants including Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2), Respirable Suspended Particulars (RSP) and Total
Suspended Particulates (TSP).
In addition to the AQOs, Annex 4 of TM-EIA also outlines criteria for
evaluating the construction dust and odour impacts.
The Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulations will also be
relevant during the construction phase of the development.
With reference to Table 1B of the TM-EIA regarding noise standards for
daytime construction activities, a limit of 75 dB(A) in Leq(30 min) has been
proposed for all domestic premises including temporary housing accommodation,
hotels and hostels. For schools, a daytime noise level of 70 dB(A) in Leq(30
min), lowered to 65 dB(A) during examination periods is recommended.
Subsidiary regulations of the NCO include the Noise Control (Hand Held
Percussive Breakers) and Noise Control (Air Compressors) Regulations, which
require compliance with relevant noise emission standards and the fixing of noise
emission labels to hand-held percussive breaker and air compressor
respectively.
The control of construction noise during restricted periods (anytime for
percussive piling) is carried out under the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and
three subsidiary Technical Memoranda (TMs) covering Noise from Percussive
Piling (TM-PP), Noise from Construction Work Other Than Percussive Piling
(TM-GW) and Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (TM-DA). The TMs
establish the permitted noise levels for construction work depending upon
working hours and the existing noise climate.
A Construction Noise Permit (CNP) is required by the regulations of the
NCO for the use of all PME during restricted hours. The procedures set out in
TM-GW, TM-PP, TM-DA are used by EPD to determine whether or not a CNP should be
issued. CNPs will not automatically be granted and will be assessed on a case
by case basis by the Authority. Nothing in this report will bind the Noise
Control Authority in the assessment of an application for a Construction Noise
Permit pursuant to the NCO. Instead, the Authority will consider each
application based on the contemporary conditions/situations.
Noises from fixed sources, including that from industrial-type
establishments, is governed by the TM-EIAO and Technical Memorandum for the
Assessment of Noise from Places Other Than Domestic Premises, Public Places or
Construction Site (TM-IND).
For the operational traffic noise, annex 5 of “Criteria for Evaluating
Noise Impact” of the TM-EIA defines the L10 (1 hr) at various NSRs.
The principal legislation governing marine water quality in Hong Kong is
the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap 358), 1980 (WPCO). Under an
amendment to the original Ordinance of 1980, the Territorial Waters of Hong
Kong Waters have been subdivided into 10 Water Control Zones (WCZs) with each
WCZ being assigned a designated set of statutory Water Quality Objectives
(WQOs). These WQOs relate to the Beneficial Uses (BU) and assimilative capacity
of the particular water body or part thereof. The WCZ relevant to this study is
the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone.
Effluents generated during the construction and operational phases
requiring disposal must comply with the discharge standards stipulated within
the Technical Memorandum on Standards for Effluents (TM-Water) into Drainage
and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters prior to entering the receiving
water.
The assessment will be conducted in accordance with the study brief and
Annex 18 of the TM-EIA. The evaluation of landscape and visual impact will be
classified into five levels of significance, beneficial, acceptable, acceptable
with mitigation measures, unacceptable and determined in accordance with Annex
10 of the TM-EIA.
The assessment will be
conducted in accordance with the Annex 7 & 15 of the TM-EIA. Under the
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354), construction waste is classified as a
trade waste. The Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap.
354) stipulates the special handling, storage and subsequent disposal
requirements for chemical waste. The Dumping at Sea Ordinance (Cap. 466)
stipulates the requirements for permits for dumping at sea as well as
designating areas within Hong Kong waters as a marine dumping area. The Land
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28) requires that dumping licenses
are obtained by individuals or companies who deliver C&D waste to public
filling areas. The Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulations
under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap 132) provides a
further control on the illegal tipping of wastes on unauthorized sites.
Other guideline documents, which detail how the
waste-related regulations shall be complied with during the construction of the
works are as follows:
This section
evaluates the likely air quality impact associated with the construction and
operation of additional cement silos in the existing Tai Po cement depot.
During the construction phase, the potential emission sources are identified
as:
·
Construction
works : material handling, excavation of material and wind erosion
·
Emission
from dust collectors of existing cement silos and barge
·
On-site
vehicle movement
·
Emission
from the adjacent concrete batching plants, Stone Plant and associated
facilities
During normal
operation of the additional silos, the potential emission in the vicinity
include:
·
Emission
from dust collectors of existing cement silos and barge
·
Emission
from dust collectors of planned cement silos
·
Emission
from adjacent concrete batching plants, Stone Plant and associated facilities
·
On site
movement of the heavy vehicles
·
Off site
road traffic emission in 2018 (Fig.4.1 shows the predicted traffic flow in
2018)
Cement from the ocean going vessel is
unloaded onto the cement barges in Tolo Harbour. The process is either through
enclosed air slide or enclosed pneumatic system. Three dust collectors are
equipped on the barge to reduce the dust emission. In normal case, activation
of one dust collector will be adequate. The emission limit of the dust
collectors are all in compliance with the ‘Guidance note on the Best
Practicable Means BPM 3/1’ and the specification of the dust collectors is given
in Appendix 4n. Given the long distance (greater than 500m) from the anchorage
position to the planned and existing air sensitive receivers (ASRs), no adverse
air quality impact is anticipated (Fig 5.6).
The barge will carry the cement to the
cement depot. Cement in the barge is discharged by screw conveyor to the
enclosed Bucket Elevator through an enclosed Barge Air Slide. The Bucket
Elevator then uploads the cement to the top of the silo for storage. The entire
uploading process is totally enclosed. Fig. 2.5 shows the schematic diagram of the planned process. The
emission points will be from the dust collectors on top of the silos and the
unloading points , which will be designed for compliance with the ‘Guidance
note on the Best Practicable Means BPM 3/1’.
According to the APCO, the relevant AQOs for this study are listed in
Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Air quality
objectives
|
|
Concentration in micrograms per cubic
metre (i) |
||
|
Pollutant |
1 Hour (ii) |
24 Hours (iii) |
1 Year (iv) |
|
Total Suspended
Particulates |
500(v) |
260 |
80 |
|
Respirable Suspended
Particulates |
----- |
180 |
55 |
Notes:
(i) Measured at 298K(25 oC) and
101.325 kPa (one atmosphere).
(ii) Not to be exceeded more than three times
per year.
(iii) Not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
(iv) Arithmetic means.
(v) Not stipulated in AQO but provide from
the EPD guidelines for construction dust assessment.
The corresponding guidelines for air quality
assessment is laid down in Annex 12 of the TM-EIA, respectively.
For the operation of the cement depot, a
specified process licence under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance is
required. The “Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works
(Cement Depot) BPM 3/1” issued by the EPD will provide general guidelines for
the depot operation.
The existing and planned air sensitive
receivers (ASR) in the vicinity of the project site have been identified
(Fig.4.2). The details of the ASR are tabulated in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Air sensitive receivers
|
ASR |
Air Sensitive Receivers |
Description |
Distance[2] (m) |
|
1 |
Fortune
Garden |
Residential |
274 |
|
2 |
Tycoon
Place |
Residential |
372 |
|
3 |
Village
House |
Residential |
184 |
|
4 |
Sha
Lan Villa |
Residential |
184 |
|
5 |
Wu
York Yu Care and Attention Home |
Home for the aged |
504 |
|
6 |
TWGHs
Pao Siu Loong Care & Attention Home |
Home for the aged |
592 |
|
7 |
Casa
Marina III1 |
Residential |
50 |
|
8 |
Shipyard |
Industrial |
40 |
|
9 |
Tai
Po Marine Office |
Commercial |
64 |
|
10 |
Wholesale
Fish Market |
Commercial |
172 |
Note 1: Planned Receiver
Note 2: Distance are measured to the site boundary
Dispersion
modeling has been taken using USEPA approved Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) to
assess potential dust impacts arising from construction activities and fugitive
dust sources. In order to assess the traffic emissions impact, the USEPA approved
CALINE4 dispersion method was used.
In the TSP and
RSP modelling, particle size distribution was estimated based on the most
appropriate particle size multipliers as stated in the Appendix B of AP42. In
the modelling exercise, 9 particle size classes were used in the FDM model.
Table 4.3 shows the average diameters and percentage of each class for TSP and
RSP.
Table 4.3: Average diameter and percentage of each
particle class in TSP and RSP modelling
|
Particle range (mm) |
Average Particle Size (mm) |
TSP (%) |
RSP (%) |
|
0 – 1 |
0.5 |
4 |
7.84 |
|
1 – 2 |
1.5 |
7 |
13.73 |
|
2 – 2.5 |
2.25 |
4 |
7.84 |
|
2.5 – 3 |
2.75 |
3 |
5.89 |
|
3 – 4 |
3.5 |
7 |
13.73 |
|
4 – 5 |
4.5 |
5 |
9.80 |
|
5 – 6 |
5.5 |
4 |
7.84 |
|
6 – 10 |
8 |
17 |
33.33 |
|
10 – 30 |
20 |
49 |
--- |
According to the
Guideline on Choice of Models and Model Parameters, the meteorological
parameter used in FDM and CALINE4 modelling are:
FDM Modelling
Surface Roughness : 100cm
Terrain :
Rural
Meteorological Data : Meteorological data in Tai Mei Tuk
Automatic Weather Station in 2001
CALINE 4
modelling
Mixing height : 500m
Stability Class : D (day time); F (night time)
Surface Roughness : 100cm
Terrain :
Rural
Wind Direction : Worst case wind angle (in 1° interval)
Wind Speed : 1m/s (10m height)
Background
concentrations of TSP and RSP in Tai Po were taken to be 63 mg/m3 and 45 mg/m3 according to Air Quality
in Hong Kong 2000.
During construction, major sources of dust
on site are expected to be from excavation, materials handling and wind
erosion. The dust emission during construction was modelled as heavy
construction according to USEPA, AP42 S13.2.3.
The emission
factors for the operation of existing cement depot, construction and operation
of the planned silos are tabulated in Appendix 4a. The detailed calculations of
the air emission factors are shown in Appendix 4b. In existing cement works operation, the cement depot is in compliance
with the requirement listed in the Specific Process Licence (Licence No. L –
3-070(2)).
On gaining
the additional silo capacity, all cement in each barge shipment can be
transferred into the additional silos for storage within one batch. The
corresponding number of vehicles and emission duration from the emission points
are estimated and summarized in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4: Estimated vehicle number and emission
duration of the planned process
|
Description |
Quantity |
|
No. of Cement Tanker Use |
|
|
The planned normal worst unloading rate to cement tanker in
daytime (DR1) |
3300 MT |
|
The planned normal worst unloading rate to cement tanker in
evening time (DR2) |
700 MT |
|
The planned normal worst unloading rate to cement tanker per day
(DR = DR1 + DR2) |
4000 MT |
|
The capacity of one cement tanker for offsite delivery (CT) |
26 MT |
|
Day operation hour (OT1) |
12 hr (0700 –1900) |
|
Evening operation hour (OT2) |
4 hr (1900 – 2300) |
|
The number of cement
tanker per hour in daytime N1 = DR1 / CT /OT1 |
11 veh /hr[1] |
|
The number of cement
tanker per hour in evening time N2 = DR2 / CT /OT2 |
7 veh /hr[2] |
|
Emission Duration |
|
|
The unloading rate for each vehicle (ULR) |
6 min / veh |
|
No. of unloading points operating per time (S) |
2 |
|
The cement unloading point emission duration per day OD = (OT1 ´ N1+OT2 ´ N2) ´ ULR/ S /60] |
8 hr |
|
The planned uploading cement into silos per day (PR = DR) |
4000 MT |
|
The hourly uploading rate from Pumping Barge(UPR) |
400 MT / hr |
|
The uploading duration from Pumping Barge per day (LR = PR /UPR) |
10 hr |
Note [1]: In daytime, among the 11 vehicles, 4
vehicles will serve for West Wing and East Wing Concrete Batching Plants
[2]:
In evening time, among the 7 vehicles, 2 vehicles will serve for West Wing and
East Wing Concrete Batching Plants
Apart from the
dust sources from the cement depot, other dust sources from the east wing and
west wing of the 2-leg concrete batching plants and stone plant (operated by
other companies) also contribute to the cumulative impact. The emission factors
of the adjacent concrete batching plant and stone plant were obtained from the
Air Pollution Control Plan submitted for the specific process licence
application. Appendix 4c and 4d summarize the details.
In determining
the traffic emission, the vehicles were divided into different categories,
namely Car/PV, LGV, HGV and Bus/Coach. Vehicle emission factors were taken from
the Fleet Average Emission Factors – EURO3 Model provided by EPD. The fleet
average emission factors of year 2011 (the last future year forecast) were
adopted in this assessment as conservative estimates for the emissions 15 years
after the operation estimated at year 2018. The highest emission factors among
the vehicle types included in each vehicle category were taken for conservative
assessment. In this study, the fleet average emission factors for RSP for
different vehicle categories are summarized in Appendix 4e.
The normal daily operation of the cement
depot during construction phase is listed in Table 4.5. The operation of the
cement depot is controlled by BPM 3/1. The specification of the dust collector
is shown in Appendix 4n for reference. K. Wah Concrete Ltd. agreed that their West
Wing Concrete Batching Plant will not be operated during the construction
phase.
The present site is equipped with an
automated water spraying system. Water will be sprayed to wet the ground in
every 30 mins. Hence, the dust removal efficiency will exceed 85% (“Control Techniques for Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources: Volume 1”, September, 1992, 450381005A,
USEPA).
Table 4.5: Daily operation schedule of the cement
plant during construction period
|
Activities |
0700 – 1900 (Daytime, 12 hrs) |
1900
– 2300 (Evening
Time, 4 hrs) |
2300
–0700 (Night
Time, 8 hrs) |
|
Emission Duration of Existing Cement Work (include on-site traffic) |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
Emission Duration of East Wing Concrete Batching Work (include on-site
traffic) |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
Operation of West Wing Concrete Batching Plant |
No operation during
construction period |
||
|
Construction work (Foundation) |
Ö |
|
|
|
Wind Erosion |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
As there is no construction in evening time,
only the 1-hr TSP cumulative impact in daytime is present. The daytime
meteorological data (i.e. 0700 – 1900) in Tai Mei Tuk in 2001 is extracted for
the 1-hr TSP modelling. The predicted cumulative 1-hr TSP concentrations in
daytime (0700-1900) due to construction at the ASRs are summarized in Appendix
4f. Maximum 1-hr TSP is predicted at 5m above ground at ASR8 and the pollution
contour is shown in Fig. 4.3.
Based on the meteorological data in Tai Mei
Tuk in 2001, the predicted cumulative 24-hr TSP concentrations due to
construction at the ASRs are summarized in Appendix 4f. Maximum 24-hr TSP is
predicted at 5m above the ground. Hence, the pollution contour of cumulative
24-hr TSP at 5m is plotted and shown in Fig.4.4. The FDM output files are
listed in Appendix 4i.
As shown in Appendix 4f and the pollution
contours, the predicted cumulative 1-hr and 24-hr TSP concentrations at all the
air sensitive receivers will comply with the 1 hr and 24 hr TSP limits. No
adverse air quality impact during construction phase is anticipated.
Apart from regular watering the site by an
automated watering system at an interval of every 30 minutes, the contractor is
still required to implement the mitigation measures stipulated in the Air
Pollution Control Regulation (Construction Dust) as far as practical. The
mitigation measures shall be incorporated in the Contract Specification in
order to minimize any potential dust nuisance arising from the construction
activities of the project that are in excess of the acceptable levels.
On site operation
During the operational phase of the cement
silos, additional dust emission sources are identified as follows:
·
Emissions from vents (EP8, EP9, EP10) of the proposed silos. The vents
will be housed with dust collector to achieve the particulate emission limit of
50mg/m3 as specified in the BPM 3/1. The specification for these
dust collectors are shown in Appendix 4n.
·
Off site road traffic emission at 2018
The normal daily operation of the cement
depot during operational phase is listed in Table 4.6. The operation of the
cement depot is controlled by BPM 3/1. The present site is equipped with an
automated water spraying system. Water will be sprayed in every 30 mins. Hence,
the dust removal efficient will exceed 85% (“Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources: Volume 1”, September, 1992, 450381005A, USEPA).
Table 4.6: Daily operation schedule of the cement
plant during operational period
|
Activities |
0700 – 1900 (Daytime, 12 hrs) |
1900
– 2300 (Evening
Time, 4 hrs) |
|
Emission Duration of Proposed Cement Work (include on-site traffic) |
Ö |
Ö |
|
Emission Duration of East Wing Concrete Batching Work (include on-site
traffic) |
Ö |
Ö |
|
Emission Duration of West Wing Concrete Batching Plant (include on-site
traffic) |
Ö |
Ö |
The 24-hour TSP due to the on-site
activities is predicted based on meteorological data in Tai Mei Tuk in 2001 and
shown in Appendix 4g.The FDM output file is listed in Appendix 4j.
Maximum 24-hr TSP is predicted at 1.5m above
the ground and the pollution contour is shown in Fig 4.5. Results indicate that
the predicted 24-hr TSP at all ASRs will comply with the 24-hr TSP limit of 260
mg/m3 as stipulated in AQO.
Procedures to prevent silo explosion
accident
The cement uploading process will be
operated by mechanically means, which is different from the pneumatic mode
system used in the concrete batching plant explosion accident in Yuen Long area
several years ago. Additional safety mechanisms and procedures have also been
introduced to offer further protection as follows.
a. Installation of a
dual sensors alarm system: The dual sensors act as a back up for each other.
They will be activated when the cement reaches the safety level during
uploading and triggered the termination of screw conveyor pump operation
immediately to prevent overflow. Should the two sensors be not functioning, the
system will also stop when the cement are jammed inside the screw convey system
due to blockage of the screw conveyor outlet by the cement.
b. Audio alarm and
automatic stop interlocking system: The audio alarm will be activated when the
cement reaches the safety level and this will trigger the automatic stop
interlocking system to stop the screw conveyor from further uploading of
cement.
c. Water pipe and
water spraying system: The system will be operated manually when bursting of
dust collectors occurs.
d. Routine system
checking, maintenance and drills: Routine check, maintenance and drills will be
performed regularly to ensure the system function properly.
An event contingency plan for silo explosion
accident has also been established for enhancing safety and it is given in
Appendix 4m.
Off Site Traffic on Pubic Road
CALINE4 dispersion modelling was used to
predict the air quality impact due to traffic emission in 2018. As the major
impact in this study will be from the cumulative impact of RSP from the on-site
activities and off-site traffic, only RSP concentration is modelled. The RSP
output from the CALINE4 file is in 1-hr average. A multiple factor of 0.4 is
used to convert to 24hr RSP.
The predicted 24-hr RSP due to traffic flow
in 2018 and the cumulative impact with the on-site operation are shown in
Appendix 4h.
The cumulative 24-hour RSP is calculated as
follows:
RSP (24-hour) = [RSP (24-hour, on site
activities)] + RSP(24-hour, traffic) +
Background RSP
The output file of the FDM and CALINE 4 are
shown in Appendix 4k and 4l. Maximum RSP level is predicted at 1.5m above
ground at ASR8 and the pollution contour is shown in Fig.4.6.
The predicted cumulative 24-hr RSP at ASR
will comply with the AQO limits of 180mg/m3.
Other than watering by an automated watering system at an interval of every 30
minutes, those measures specified under the Guidance Note on the Best Available
Means for Cement Works (Cement Depot) BPM 3/1 have to be strictly followed.
However, the operator is required to apply
for a revised licence for the Specified Process (cement works) operation. The
licensing conditions should be strictly followed to ensure that there is no
environmental impact on the nearby sensitive receivers.
During the
construction and operational phases, adverse air quality impact is not
anticipated provided that the following mitigation measures are incorporated:
Construction Phase
·
No
operation of the West Wing Concrete Batching Plant
·
Regular
watering of the site by an automated watering system at an interval of every 30
minutes
Operational Phase
·
Regular
watering of the site by an automated watering system at an interval of every 30
minutes
In addition, the
requirements stipulated in the Best Practical Means Requirement for Cement
Works (Cement Depot) BPM 3/1 and the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation for dust control should be strictly followed.
This
section presents an assessment for the noise impacts arising from construction
and operation of the additional cement silos in Tai Po Cement Depot (Tai Po
Town Lot No. 102). During the construction phase, noise is generated from the
Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME), together with the operational noises from
existing cement works and the adjacent concrete batching plants, owned by another
company.
During
the operational phase, both on-site and off-site operational noises are
identified. On-site operational noises are generated from the operation of
cement works and the adjacent concrete batching plants, running by another
company. The off-site operational noise is originated from the unloading
activities from the ocean going vessels and the vehicles travelling on the
public road.
Reference to Table 1B of the TM-EIA regarding noise
standards for daytime construction activities, the noise limits are tabulated
in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Construction noise guidelines (Leq(30min)
dB(A)) within non-restricted hours
Land Uses |
Noise Standards Leq(30min) dB(A) |
|
Domestic premises |
75 |
|
Educational institutions (normal period) |
70 |
|
Educational institutions (during examination) |
65 |
The control of construction noise during restricted
periods is enforced under the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and three
subsidiary Technical Memoranda (TMs) covering Noise from Percussive Piling
(TM-PP), Noise from Construction Work Other Than Percussive Piling (TM-GW) and
Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (TM-DA). The TMs establish the
permissible noise levels for construction works in regard to working time
period and the area sensitivity use.
For fixed noise sources, the operational noise limit
stipulated in TM-EIA is :
·
5 dB(A) below the appropriate Acceptable Noise Levels (ANL) shown in
Table 3 of the Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places
Other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites, (TM-IND).
Table 5.2 shows the area sensitivity rating and the corresponding recommended
noise standard
Table
5.2: TM-EIA industrial noise guidelines for
different Area Sensitivity Ratings (ASR)
|
Time Period |
SPL dB(A) |
||
|
ASR C |
ASR B |
ASR A |
|
|
Day and Evening (0700 – 2300) |
65 |
60 |
55 |
|
Night (2300 - 0700) |
55 |
50 |
45 |
or
·
the prevailing background noise level (for quiet area with level 5dB
below ANL)
In
any event, the Area Sensitivity Rating (ASR) assumed in this EIA Report is for
indicative assessment only. It should
be noted that fixed noise sources are controlled under section 13 of the
NCO. At the time of investigation, the
Noise Control Authority shall determine noise impact from concerned fixed noise
sources on the basis of prevailing legislation and practices being in force,
and taking account of contemporary conditions/ situations of adjoining land
uses. Nothing in this EIA Report shall
bind the Nose Control Authority in the context of law enforcement against all
the fixed noise sources being assessed.
For the traffic noise, according to the TM-EIAO, the L10,
1 hr limits for road traffic noise at various NSRs are summarized in
Table 5.3
Table 5.3 TM-EIA traffic noise guideline
|
Noise
sensitive Use |
Peak Hour Traffic
L10 (1-hr) dB(A) |
|
All domestic premises including
temporary housing accommodation |
70 |
|
Educational institutions including
kindergartens, nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is
required |
65 |
|
Hospitals, clinics, convalescences
and homes for aged, diagnostic rooms, ward |
55 |
The noise generated from ocean going vessel in public
place is governed under Section 4 and 5 of the Noise Control Ordinance. There
is no acceptable noise limit under NCO. However the operation of the ocean
going vessel involves the pumping of cement into small barges. Due to the
industrial nature of the operation, it is proposed to adopt the fixed noise
limit as stipulated in TM-EIA.
The existing and planned noise sensitive receivers
(NSRs) in the vicinity of the project site have been identified and are
tabulated in Table 5.4. The locations of the NSRs are shown in Fig 5.1.
Table 5.4:
Noise sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the project site
|
NSR |
Noise Sensitive Receivers |
Description |
Distance[1] (m) |
ASR |
Prevailing Noise Level[3] Leq(30min)
|
|
1 |
Fortune
Garden |
Residential |
274 |
A |
60 – 68 |
|
2 |
Tycoon
Place |
Residential |
372 |
A |
61 – 69 |
|
3 |
Village
House |
Residential |
184 |
A |
58 – 67 |
|
4 |
Sha
Lan Villa |
Residential |
184 |
A |
55 – 59 |
|
5 |
Wu
York Yu Care and Attention Home |
Home
for the aged |
504 |
A |
55 – 60 |
|
6 |
TWGHs
Pao Siu Loong Care & Attention Home |
Home
for the aged |
592 |
A |
55 – 60 |
|
7 |
Casa
Marina III[2] |
Residential |
50 |
B |
65 – 73 |
|
7a |
Casa
Marina III[2] |
Residential |
44 |
B |
60 – 70 |
Note [1]: Distance is
measured from the sensitive receivers to the site boundary of the depot
[2]: Planned Receivers.
Due to the contribution of the traffic noise in Ting Kok Road and Sam Mun Tsai
Road, the existing cement depot and concrete batching plant (IF) are not the
dominant feature of the noise climate of the NSR. According to TM-IND, Casa
Marina III will be “indirectly affected” by the IF and hence, ASR “B” is
adopted.
[3]: Measurement details
of Prevailing Level is shown in Appendix 5i
The
potential NSRs along the coastal area of Ma On Shan, planned Whitehead
development and planned Pak Shek Kok Development which are likely affected by
the operation of the ocean going vessel are tabulated in Table 5.5 and shown in
Fig.5.2.
Table 5.5: Off-site noise sensitive receivers
|
NSR |
Noise Sensitive Receivers |
Description |
Distance[1]
(m) |
ASR |
Prevailing Noise Level[3] Leq(30min) dB(A) |
|
13 |
Villa Oceania |
Residential |
1500 |
B |
59
– 65 |
|
14 |
Bayshore Tower |
Residential |
1500 |
B |
59
– 66 |
|
15 |
Fok On Garden |
Residential |
1500 |
B |
58
– 65 |
|
16 |
Chung On Estate |
Residential |
1500 |
B |
60
– 66 |
|
17 |
Planned whitehead development |
Residential |
1340 |
A |
59
– 67 |
|
18 |
Planned Pak Shek Kok development |
Residential |
2100 |
B[2] |
59
– 67 |
Note [1]: Distance is measured from the sensitive
receivers to the anchorage of the vessel. The anchorage of the vessel was
assigned by Marine Department.
[2]: The planned Pak Shek Kok Reclamation will be
affected by Tolo Highway, which is an influence Factor as considered in the TM
[3]: Measurement detail of the prevailing noise
level is shown in Appendix 5j.
The
noise prediction methodology was undertaken according to the TM-GW and TM-IND.
Additional information was obtained from “A Practical Guide to Reduction of
Noise from Construction Work” and BS5228 Part I: 1997 “Noise and Vibration
Control on Construction and Open Sites”
In order to minimize the construction noise impact, the
additional cement silos will be fabricated off-site and transported to the
depot by barge for installation. Therefore, major on-site noisy construction
activities will be from the ground excavation, setting of foundation and silos
erection. The construction time will be from 0700 – 1900. No evening and night
time work are expected. Table 5.6 summarizes the powered mechanical equipment
to be used for each stage of work. The location of the construction site is
shown in Fig.5.3a and Fig5.3b.
Table 5.6: Sound power level of the powered
mechanical equipment in construction phase
|
Equipment |
CNP Code |
Number |
Sound Power Level
dB(A) |
Total Sound Power
Level dB(A) |
|
Ground
Excavation |
||||
|
Excavator (Breaker mounted) |
CNP 028 |
1 |
122 |
122 |
|
Dumper |
CNP 066 |
1 |
106 |
106 |
|
Drilling Rig |
CNP 167 |
1 |
114 |
114 |
|
Total |
122.7 |
|||
|
Setting of Foundation |
||||
|
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP 044 |
2 |
109 |
112 |
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP 047 |
1 |
109 |
109 |
|
Electric Vibratory Poker |
CNP 173 |
3 |
102 |
107 |
|
Total |
115 |
|||
|
Silos Erection |
||||
|
Sky Crane |
CNP 048 |
1 |
112 |
112 |
|
Electric Saw |
CNP 205 |
1 |
101 |
101 |
|
Arc Welders |
---- |
1 |
--- |
--- |
|
Total |
112 |
|||
The predicted maximum façade noise levels at the
sensitive receivers without mitigation are shown in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7:
Predicted façade noise levels without mitigation measures at NSRs
|
NSR |
Noise Sensitive Receiver |
Construction Noise Leq (30min) dB(A) |
|
1 |
Fortune
Garden |
68.1 |
|
2 |
Tycoon
Place |
65.5 |
|
3 |
Village
House |
61.4 |
|
4 |
Sha
Lan Villa |
58.7 |
|
5 |
Wu
York Yu Care and Attention Home |
51.9 |
|
6 |
TWGHs
Pao Siu Loong Care & Attention Home |
50.5 |
|
7 |
Casa
Marina III |
75.6 |
|
7a |
Casa
Marina III |
74.1 |
Note : Detail calculation of the construction noise are shown in Appendix 5f
Bold values
indicate the exceedance in noise criterion
Almost all NSRs,
except NSR7, will comply with the construction noise limit. In case that there
is no resident in Casa Marina III during construction period, no mitigation
measures are required. Should there be residents in Casa Marina III during the
construction period, construction noise impact shall be alleviated by the use
of quieter construction Power Mechanical Equipment and the use of portable
barrier.
Table 5.8 summarizes the proposed mitigation measures
and the sound power level of the PME after attenuation.
Table 5.8: Proposed mitigation
measures for construction phase
|
Equipment |
CNP Code |
Number |
Barrier |
Total Sound Power
Level dB(A) |
|
Ground
Excavation |
||||
|
Excavator (Breaker mounted) |
BS 5228: C8.13 |
1 |
--- |
110 |
|
Dumper |
CNP066 |
1 |
--- |
106 |
|
Drilling Rig |
CNP 167 |
1 |
5 |
109 |
|
Total |
|
113 |
||
|
Setting of Foundation |
||||
|
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP 044 |
2 |
--- |
112 |
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP 047 |
1 |
--- |
109 |
|
Electric Vibratory Poker |
CNP 173 |
3 |
--- |
107 |
|
Total |
|
115 |
||
|
Silos Erection |
||||
|
Sky Crane |
CNP 048 |
1 |
--- |
112 |
|
Electric Saw |
CNP 205 |
1 |
--- |
101 |
|
Arc Welders |
---- |
1 |
--- |
--- |
|
Total |
|
112 |
||
With the use of quieter excavator and the use of
portable barrier for Drilling Rig, the maximum sound power level will drop to
115 dB(A). The predicted maximum façade noise levels at the sensitive receivers
are shown in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9:
Predicted façade noise levels at NSRs with quieter powered mechanical
equipment and other mitigation measures
|
NSR |
Noise Sensitive Receiver |
Construction Noise Leq (30min) dB(A) |
|
1 |
Fortune
Garden |
59.9 |
|
2 |
Tycoon
Place |
57.4 |
|
3 |
Village
House |
53.2 |
|
4 |
Sha Lan Villa |
50.5 |
|
5 |
Wu
York Yu Care and Attention Home |
43.7 |
|
6 |
TWGHs
Pao Siu Loong Care & Attention Home |
42.3 |
|
7 |
Casa
Marina III |
67.4 |
|
7a |
Casa
Marina III |
65.9 |
Note: Detail calculation of the
construction noise are shown in
Appendix 5f
Bold values indicate the exceedance in noise
criterion
Predicted results indicate that the façade noise levels
at NSR7 will comply with the day-time construction noise limit.
Apart from the above proposed mitigation measures, the
contractors shall adopt good site practices and noise management to reduce the
impact of the construction site activities on nearby NSRs. The following measures are recommended to
incorporate into the contract specifications.
·
Only well maintained plants shall be operated on-site and plant should be
serviced regularly during the construction period.
·
Machines and plants used intermittently shall be shut down between work
periods or should be throttled down to a minimum.
·
Silencers or mufflers on construction equipment shall be utilized and
should be properly maintained during the construction period.
·
Existing structures shall be effectively utilized to screen the noise.
·
Portable noise barriers shall be positioned within a few metres of noisy
plant items.
An
ocean going vessel (not owned by the project proponent) will be used by the
cement supplier in Japan / Philippines to deliver cement to the project
proponent once or twice a week. As the vessel movement is transient, it will
not have significant impact on the nearby NSRs.
Due
to the limited capacity of the existing jetty, the ocean going vessel cannot be
berthed to the existing cement depot to upload the cement into the silos. The
ocean going vessel is thus anchored at a location inside Tolo Harbour assigned
by Marine Department. Small barge (owned by project proponent) is then used to
deliver the cement from the ocean going vessel to the depot. The operation time
of the cement depot is from 0700 to 2300. There is no nighttime work (2300 to
0700) for the cement depot. It is proposed that all barges will be berthed on
shore at 2300hr and the barge operator will report to the plant manager
afterwards. This can ensure that the ocean going vessel will not be operated
during nighttime.
The
most significant noise source identified will be from the unloading of cement
from the vessel to the barge. On board measurement (Appendix 5e) on the
ocean-going vessel during its unloading to the barge indicated that the
dominant noise source is from the pumping facilities and engine room of cement
unloading side (measurement position G in Appendix 5e) with maximum sound
pressure level of 97.6 dB (A) at the most outer edge of the ocean going vessel.
On the other hand, the maximum sound pressure level of the opposite side
(measurement position C in Appendix 5e) of the ocean going vessel is 91 dB(A).
As there is no NSR along the shore of Ma Shi Chau facing the Tolo Harbour
(Fig.5.2b), in order to minimize the noise nuisance towards the existing and
planned noise sensitive receivers, it is proposed that the cement unloading
side of the cement vessel (measurement position G) should be faced away from
the sensitive receivers in Ma On Shan and the planned Whitehead development
such that the unloading part of the ocean vessel do not have a direct line of
sight from the sensitive receivers.
The
predicted minimum distances required by the vessel to comply with the noise
limits at the nearby noise sensitive receivers are shown in Table 5.10.
Table 5.10:
Predicted façade noise
levels at NSRs due to the operation of the ocean going vessel
|
NSR |
Noise Sensitive
Receiver |
Noise Limit Leq (30min) dB(A) |
Air Absorption[3] dB(A) |
Façade Correction dB(A) |
Predicted distance required m |
|
13 |
Villa Oceania[1] |
59 |
-2.8 |
3 |
>
920 m |
|
14 |
Bayshore Tower[1] |
59 |
-2.8 |
3 |
>
920 m |
|
15 |
Fok On Garden[1] |
58 |
-3 |
3 |
>
1000 m |
|
16 |
Chung On Estate[1] |
60 |
-2.5 |
3 |
>
845 m |
|
17 |
Planned Whitehead development[2] |
55 |
-2.1 |
3 |
>
710 m |
|
18 |
Planned
Pak Shek Kok Reclamation[1] |
59 |
-2.8 |
3 |
> 920 m |
Note [1]: As these
locations are not directly facing away from the unloading side of the vessel,
the maximum SPL of 97.6 dB(A) is adopted for calculation.
[2]: As this location is directly
facing away from the unloading side of the vessel, the maximum SPL of 91dB(A)
is adopted for calculation.
[3]: The dominant frequency during
operation is at 500Hz. Assuming typical Relative humidity is at 70% and
Temperature is at 25°C, based on ANSI S1.26
–1995 “Method for calculation of the Absorption of Sound By the Atmosphere”,
the air absorption is ~3dB / km
Figure
5.6 shows the proposed anchorage region for the ocean going vessel. With the
maximum sound pressure level at the outermost boundary of the vessel facing
towards the Planned Whitehead Development less than 91 dB(A), the proposed
anchorage region will fulfill the distance requirement as listed in Table 5.10.
Double anchoring will be applied on the vessel in order to prevent its swing.
Alternative anchorage positions were also
explored. However, different constraints were identified and those positions
are not suitable for ocean vessel anchorage (Fig.5.7). To the west of the
proposed anchorage position (Region 1 in Fig.5.7), according to the BA chart
1915 published by Marine Department, the water depth (7 – 9m) is not deep
enough for the anchorage of ocean vessel (which will require water depth of 9 –
10m). To the north of the proposed anchorage position (Region 2 in Fig.5.7), an
oil pipeline was identified under the seabed. Anchorage near the oil pipeline
may have potential to cause damage on the pipeline and increase the risk of oil
spill. To the east of the proposed anchorage position (Region 3 in Fig.5.7),
coral were identified on the seabed (Fig.6.1b and reported by “Apple Daily” on
4, Nov, 2002). Vessel anchorage may, thus, cause damage to the coral. In
addition, due to the 500m near-shore constraints, Regions 4 and 5 (Fig.5.7) are
also not suitable for anchorage. Therefore, the present proposed anchorage
region is the most suitable position in term of environmental and operational
constraints.
Noise from a trade/activities in public places, e.g. cement
loading in Tolo Harbour, causing annoyance to any person is an offence under Section
4 and 5 of NCO which is enforced by HK Police Force and Marine Department
despite the assessment in this EIA.
During normal operation, the major
on-site noise sources in the vicinity of the proposed project site will be from
the operation of the proposed cement works, the traffic noise due to the
on-site cement tankers movement, the adjacent concrete batching plants (run by
another company) and the adjacent shipyards.
The noise sources
generated from the operation of the planned cement works and the concrete
batching plant (as advised by project proponent) are summarized in Table 5.11.
The locations of the noise sources are shown in Fig.5.3a and Fig.5.3b.
Table 5.11 Noise inventory for the concrete
batching plant activities and the proposed cement works
|
Equipment |
CNP
Code |
Number |
Source Height [2] (m) |
Sound Power Level dB(A) |
Total Sound Power Level dB(A) |
|
Adjacent Concrete Batching Plant Activities (operated
by another company) |
|||||
|
Concrete Batching Plant |
CNP022 |
2 |
0.5 |
108 |
111 |
|
Concrete Lorry Mixing
Bay |
CNP044 |
1
Lorry each time |
0.5 |
109 |
109 |
|
Derrick Barge |
CNP061 |
1 |
3 |
104 |
104 |
|
Concrete Lorry Mixer
Travelling |
On-site Measurement[1] |
31
vehicles / hour |
0.5 |
101.5 |
---- |
|
Concrete Lorry Washing
Bay |
CNP044 |
2 |
0.5 |
109 |
112 |
|
Proposed Cement Works |
|||||
|
Pumping Barge |
On-site Measurement[1] |
1 |
0[3] |
116.0 |
116 |
|
Cement Unloading
Facilities (Blowers) |
On-site Measurement[1] |
2 |
8 |
108.0 |
111 |
|
Cement Tanker Travelling |
On-site Measurement[1] |
11
[4] vehicles / hour |
0.5 |
98.5 |
---- |
Note: 1. The measurement details are
shown in Appendix 5a –5d
2. The source height is relative to the local ground
level
3. The engine room in the barge is at the similar level
of the ground
4. Please refer to Table 4.4 for detailed calculation
For the adjacent shipyards, the measured
noise levels were 57 – 65 dB(A) at a distance of ~10m from the site boundary.
The predicted noise level at Casa Marina III from the shipyards is 51 – 59
dB(A), which were far below the prevailing noise level (65 – 73 dB(A)) at Casa
Marina III, which is 40m from the site boundary of shipyards. Therefore, the
cumulative effect of the shipyards is considered as insignificant.
The predicted sound pressure levels at
the NSRs are summarized in Table 5.12. Detailed calculations for the
un-mitigated case and the location of the noise sources are shown in Appendix
5h and Fig. 5.3 respectively.
Table 5.12: Predicted façade noise levels without mitigation measures at NSRs
|
NSR |
Noise Sensitive
Receivers |
Operational Noise Leq(30min) dB(A) |
|||
|
|
|
Proposed Cement Work |
Concrete Batching Plants |
Cumulative |
Criterion |
|
1 |
Fortune Garden |
60.5 |
60.0 |
63.2 |
55 |
|
2 |
Tycoon Place |
58.4 |
58.2 |
61.3 |
55 |
|
3 |
Village House |
55.0 |
54.3 |
57.7 |
55 |
|
4 |
Sha Lan Villa |
53.9 |
54.6 |
57.3 |
55 |
|
5 |
Wu York Yu Care and Attention Home |
46.5 |
47.4 |
50.0 |
55 |
|
6 |
TWGHs Pao Siu Loong Care &
Attention Home |
45.4 |
46.3 |
48.9 |
55 |
|
7 |
Casa Marina III |
71.7 |
73.6 |
75.8 |
60 |
|
7a |
Casa Marina III |
69.9 |
74.1 |
75.5 |
60 |
Note: Detail calculation are shown in Appendix 5g
Bold values indicate
the exceedance of noise criterion
From Table 5.12, only the predicted
cumulative noise levels at NSR5 & NSR6 will comply with the operational
noise limit. However, the predicted cumulative noise levels at other NSRs are
~2 - 16 dB(A) higher than the operational noise criterion.
As shown in Table 5.12, the contribution
due to the operation of the adjacent concrete batching plants (owned by another
company) is quite significant. At some NSRs, the predicted noise levels due to
the concrete batching plants will exceed the operational noise limit. As the
concrete batching plants belong to another company, several negotiations on
imposing noise mitigation measure on their site were unsuccessful. The target
is to reduce the noise level of the proposed work to an acceptable level, i.e,
·
The operation noise level due to the proposed activities is below the
noise limit listed in TM-EIAO, and
·
The contribution due to the operation of the proposed activities on the
cumulative noise level is limited to within 1dB.
Table 5.13 summarizes the proposed noise
mitigation measures and their predicted noise reduction.
Table 5.13 Characteristics of the Proposed Noise Mitigation Measures
|
Noise Source |
Mitigation Measures |
Attenuation Level dB(A) |
Dimension |
Remark |
|
|
Proposed Cement Depot |
|||||
|
Pumping Barge |
Replaced by electric
driven Screw conveyor Barge, |
14[1] |
--- |
Please refer to Appendix 5c for the measurement data |
|
|
Unloading Facilities |
Vertical Barrier below the silos |
10 |
16m high |
Please refer to Fig.5.4 - 5.5 for the design |
|
Note [1]: Onsite measurement. For a typical pumping barge,
the SWL is 116 dB (Appendix 5b). However for the proposed Screw Conveyor Barge,
in which the screw conveyor will be operated by electricity from the shore, the
measured noise level is 102 dB(A) (Appendix 5c). Hence, the attenuation is 14
dB(A).
With the incorporation of the noise
mitigation measures, the predicted façade noise levels at all NSRs are shown in
Table 5.14. Appendix 5i shows the detailed calculations.
Table
5.14:
Predicted Façade Noise Levels with Mitigation Measure at NSRs
|
NSR |
Noise Sensitive
Receiver |
Operational Noise Leq(30min) dB(A) |
||||
|
|
|
Proposed Cement Work (P) |
Concrete Batching Plants (E) |
Cumulative (C) |
Criterion |
(C) – (E) |
|
1 |
Fortune Garden |
50.2 |
60.2 |
60.6 |
55 |
0.4 |
|
2 |
Tycoon Place |
48.5 |
58.4 |
58.8 |
55 |
0.4 |
|
3 |
Village House |
43.8 |
54.6 |
54.9 |
55 |
--- |
|
4 |
Sha Lan Villa |
42.6 |
55.0 |
55.2 |
55 |
0.2 |
|
5 |
Wu York Yu Care and Attention Home |
36.7 |
47.6 |
48.0 |
55 |
--- |
|
6 |
TWGHs Pao Siu Loong Care &
Attention Home |
35.9 |
46.5 |
46.9 |
55 |
--- |
|
7 |
Casa Marina III |
59.6 |
74.2 |
74.3 |
60 |
0.1 |
|
7a |
Casa Marina III |
57.8 |
74.5 |
74.5 |
60 |
~
0 |
Note:
Please refer to Appendix 5h for detailed calculation
Bold values indicate the exceedance of noise criterion
With
the proposed mitigation measure incorporated, the predicted noise levels due to
the proposed cement works are within an acceptable noise limit. In addition,
its contribution on predictive cumulative noise impact due to the proposed
cement work is within 1 dB(A).
The project proponent has committed that
the operational hour of the cement depot is restricted from 7am to 11pm. EPD
and HK Police are able to check the status of the cement silo site easily by
visiting the site outside the restricted hour. Should the project proponent
violates the condition of NCO, EPD or HK Police could take necessary action
against the project proponent according to the ordinance after investigation.
The off-site activity will consist of the
noise generated by the on road traffic vehicles. The traffic flow in 2018 is
shown in Fig.4.1. The number of cement tankers for off-site delivery will be 7
veh /hour. Table 5.15 shows the traffic noise due to the cement tankers from
the cement depot and the road traffic noise (excluding those from cement
tankers) from existing road. Only the NSRs that are likely affected are
considered. The roadplot and output file are shown in Appendix 5j.
Table 5.15
Predicted Traffic Noise due to off-site transportation
As shown in Table 5.15, the predicted
cumulative traffic noise at Fortune Garden and Tycoon Place are within the
traffic noise criteria of 70 dB(A). The predicted cumulative noise levels at
the Casa Marina III will exceed the operational traffic noise limit. However,
the breakdown analysis indicates that the cumulative noise level is dominated
by the traffic from existing roads. The noise due to the cement tankers is well
below the noise limit. It only contributes less than 1 dB(A) on the overall
noise level, which is considered as insignificant to the overall noise level.
Any mitigation measures on the vehicles will not be effective on the cumulative
road noise level. Therefore, no mitigation measures on the cement tankers are
recommended.
During the construction phase, assessment
results indicate that the un-mitigated noise level at Casa Marina III due to
the construction activity will exceed the noise limit. In case that there is
resident in the Casa Marina III, mitigation measures inside the cement depot
such as the use of quieter equipment in ground excavation and portable barriers
for Drilling Rig will be adopted.
For
the operational phase, assessment results indicate that the predicted noise
levels without mitigation measures at Casa Marina III due to the on-site
activity will exceed the noise limit. Different noise mitigation measures inside
the cement depot are proposed, which include:
·
Adoption of
quieter electric- driven screw conveyor barge for the cement depot
·
Barriers
for the cement unloading bay
With the recommended mitigation measures
implemented, the predicted construction and operational noise impacts on all
the neighbouring NSRs will comply with the relevant standards and requirements.
In order to reduce the noise impact from
the ocean going vessel, the anchorage position of the ocean vessel shall refer
to Fig.5.6. In addition, the unloading part of the ocean vessel shall be
positioned to face away from the existing and planned noise sensitive receivers
in Ma On Shan and the planned Whitehead development.
The potential water quality impact
associated with the construction and operation of the proposed cement works are
investigated in this section. If necessary, mitigation measures are proposed to
ensure that all residual impacts are in compliance with the relevant
environmental legislation, standard and guideline.
The Water Control Zone (WCZ) relevant to
this study is the Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone. All Water
Quality Objectives parameters, unless specified, refer to subzones including
Harbour, Buffer and Channel subzones. The corresponding Water Quality
Objectives are shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Water
Quality Objectives – Tolo Harbour and Channel Water Control Zone
|
Parameters |
Criterion |
|
Aesthetic Appearance |
a. Odours,
taints and colors Waste
discharges shall cause no noxious or offensive odour or offensive taint or
colour in either waters or edible aquatic organisms in the subzone to be
present in concentrations detectable by bioassay or organoleptic tests b. Visible
matter Waste
discharges shall cause no visible foam, oil, grease, scum, litter or other
objectable matter in waters of the subzone. |
|
Bacteria |
Secondary contact recreation sub zone and Fish culture
subzone The level of E coli shall not exceed 610 / ml, calculated as the
geometric mean of all samples collected in one calendar year |
|
Chlorophyll – a |
Harbour Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the level of Chlorophyll-a in waters
of the subzone to exceed 20mg/m3, calculated as a running
arithmetic mean of 5 daily measurements for any single location and depth Buffer Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the level of Chlorophyll-a in waters
of the subzone to exceed 10mg/m3, calculated as a running
arithmetic mean of 5 daily measurements for any single location and depth Channel Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the level of Chlorophyll-a in waters
of the subzone to exceed 6mg/m3, calculated as a running
arithmetic mean of 5 daily measurements for any single location and depth |
|
Dissolved Oxygen |
Harbour Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the level of dissolved oxygen in
waters of the subzone to be less than 2 mg/L within 2m of the bottom, or to
be less than 4mg/L in the reminder of the water column Buffer Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the level of dissolved oxygen in
waters of the subzone to be less than 3 mg/L within 2m of the bottom, or to
be less than 4mg/L in the reminder of the water column Channel Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the level of dissolved oxygen in
waters of the subzone to be less than 4 mg/L at any point in the water column |
|
Light Penetration |
Harbour Subzone No changes in turbidity, suspended material, colour or other parameters
arising from waste discharges shall reduce light transmission by more than
20% of the normal level in the subzone at any location or any time Buffer Subzone No changes in turbidity, suspended material, colour or other parameters
arising from waste discharges shall reduce light transmission by more than
15% of the normal level in the subzone at any location or any time Channel Subzone No changes in turbidity, suspended material, colour or other parameters
arising from waste discharges shall reduce light transmission by more than
10% of the normal level in the subzone at any location or any time |
|
pH |
Harbour Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the normal pH range of any waters of
the subzone to be extended by greater than ± 0.5 pH units at
any time Buffer Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the normal pH range of any waters of
the subzone to be extended by greater than ± 0.3 pH units at
any time Channel Subzone Waste discharges shall not cause the normal pH range of any waters of
the subzone to be extended by greater than ± 0.1 pH units at
any time |
|
Salinity |
Waste discharges shall not cause the normal salinity range of any
waters of the subzone to be extended by greater than ±
3 parts per thousand at any time |
|
Settleable material |
Waste discharges shall give rise to no bottom deposits or submerged
objects which adversely influence bottom-living communities, alter the basic
Harbour geometry or shipping channels, prevent any harzard to shipping or
diving activities, or affect any other beneficial use of the waters of the
subzone |
|
Temperature |
Waste discharges shall not cause the natural daily temperature change
shall not exceed 0.5°
per hour at any location, unless due to natural phenomena. |
|
Toxicants |
Waste discharges
shall not cause the toxicants in waters of the subzone to attain such a level
as to produce significant toxic effects in humans, fish or any aquatic
organism, which due regard to biologically cumulative effects in food chains
and to toxicant inter-actions with each other. |
Fig. 6.1a and 6.1b show the locations of the
water and ecological sensitive receivers. The potential water and ecological
sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the project site include:
·
Fish Culture Zone in Sam Mun Tsai (including those in Yim Tin Tsai &
Yim Tin Tsai (East))
·
Sea water abstraction point for flushing in Tai Po Industrial Estate and
other uses
·
Secondary contact recreation zone
·
Typhoon shelter in Shuen Wan
·
Non Gazetted Beaches along Plover Cove (near Sha Lan and Lung Mei)
6.4
Description
of Environmental Baseline Conditions
The existing ambient marine water quality in
the area was established based on the EPD routine monitoring data for year 1999
at marine water quality monitoring stations TM2-TM8 and Typhoon shelter water
sampling station. Table 6.2 summarizes the key monitoring data in different
sub-zones within Tolo Harbour. Locations of the monitoring locations are shown
in Fig. 6.1. The marine water quality data in 1998, which can be found in
‘Marine Water Quality in Hong Kong in 98’, is not present here.
Table 6.2 Summary statistics of 1999 water quality of Tolo
Harbour and Channel WCZ
|
|
Harbour Subzone |
Buffer Subzone |
Channel Subzone |
Typhoon Shelter |
||||
|
TM2 |
TM3 |
TM4 |
TM5 |
TM6 |
TM7 |
TM8 |
PT3 |
|
|
DO (mg/L) |
5.8 (2.7 – 7.7) |
6.5 (3.4 –8.3) |
6.0 (2.4 –9.0) |
6.1 (3.6 – 9.7) |
5.8 (2.6 – 7.8) |
5.8 (3.0-7.2) |
5.7 (3.0 – 7.8) |
6.7 (5.8 – 8.3) |
|
DO (mg/L) Bottom |
5.6 (1.9 – 7.7) |
5.9 (2.2 – 8.3) |
5.2 (1.0- 7.8) |
5.9 (2.9-8.5) |
4.9 (1.1 – 6.9) |
5.1 (1.2-7.2) |
5.0 (1.5 – 7.2) |
6.8 (6.3 – 7.3) |
|
SS (mg/L) |
7.5 (2.7 – 24.0) |
3.6 (2.1 – 8.0) |
3.1 (1.7 – 5.8) |
16.9 (1.6 – 120) |
2.7 (1.0 – 5.6) |
2.9 (1.1 – 6.1) |
3.4 (0.7 – 11.1) |
4.2 (0.5 – 9.7) |
|
BOD (mg/L) |
2.1 (1.5 – 2.9) |
2.0 (1.2 – 3.3) |
1.7 (1.1 – 2.5) |
1.9 (0.7 – 3.2) |
1.5 (0.9 –2.2) |
1.0 (0.7 –1.4) |
1.1 (0.3 – 5.4) |
0.7 (0.1 – 1.4) |
|
TIN (mg/L) |
0.21 (0.08 – 0.55) |
0.13 (0.06–0.34) |
0.11 (0.04-0.30) |
0.07 (0.03-0.15) |
0.09 (0.03-0.18) |
0.08 (0.03-0.15) |
0.07 (0.02-0.11) |
0.03 (0.01 –0.09) |
|
Unionized Ammonia (mg/L) |
4 (1-10) |
5 (2-12) |
3 (1-6) |
3 (1-10) |
30 (1-80) |
2 (<1 – 7) |
2 (<1 – 5) |
2 (< 1 – 6) |
|
E. Coli (cfu/100mL) |
220 (27-2200) |
17 (3-140) |
6 (1-80) |
4 (1-740) |
3 (1-20) |
1 (1-3) |
1 (1-1) |
1 (1-1) |
Note: All water Quality Objectives parameters, unless specified, refer to
subzones including Harbour, Buffer and Channel subzones.
It is
observed that:
·
Full compliance with E. coli WQO was achieved at all sampling stations.
The E Coli concentrations at all
stations in 1999 are found lower than those in 1998.
·
The compliance with the DO WQO ranged from 83% - 95%. There is a slightly
lower DO at all stations in 1999 as compared with 1998.
·
The annual mean ammonia nitrogen in the Harbour showed a decrease of 34 –
59% and total nitrogen a decrease of 59 – 66% as compared with 1998
·
However, the annual mean SS showed a significant increase in stations TM3
·
The Yim Tin Tsai Typhoon Shelter was characterized by high DO and low
faecal bacteria and nutrients.
Although the existing cement depot is
located adjacent to Tolo Harbour, no wastewater will be generated from normal
plant operation. Water collected from surface drainage in the works site will
be re-used onsite after sedimentation.
During the excavation works, soil surfaces
would be exposed. Suspended particles will be present in the surface runoff. As
the construction site is located near Tolo Harbour, the coastal waters could be
potentially be impacted by sediment laden and polluted runoff if the
construction runoff is not properly controlled. Pollution sources will include
the excavated material with rain wash, wash water from dust suppression sprays.
No fuel, oil and other lubricants from maintenance of construction vehicles and
mechanical equipment will be allowed. In addition, uncontrolled discharge of
debris and rubbish, such as packaging and used construction materials, could
result in floating refuse with associated impacts on the aesthetic quality of
the coastal waters.
Domestic
sewage would be generated from the site workforce during the construction
phase. It is unlikely that sewage generated from the site would have a
significant water quality impact, provided that sewage is not discharged
directly into storm water drains adjacent to the site.
During
operational phase, there is no effluent discharge to the adjacent water body.
Adverse water quality impact is not anticipated.
Since only land based construction
activities will be undertaken, minimal water quality impact arising from the
project is anticipated. However, in
order to ensure that no adverse environmental impacts will arise during
construction, good practices outlined in ProPECC PN 1/94 “Construction Site
Drainage” shall be followed:
Effluent generated from construction
activities and surface runoff will be recirculated or recycle as far as
practical.
Surface run-off will be collected by the
site drainage (Figure 6.2). The collected water shall be re-used on site via
adequately designed sand/silt removal facilities and pH adjustment such as sand
traps, silt traps and sediment basins. Channel or earth bunds or sand bag
barriers shall be provided on site to properly direct stormwater to such silt
removal facilities.
The excavated materials and open stockpile
of construction material shall be covered by tarpaulin to prevent storm runoff
from washing across exposed soil surface.
Earthworks final surfaces shall be well
compacted and the subsequent permanent work or surface protection should be
carried out as soon as practical after the final surfaces are formed to prevent
erosion caused by rainstorms.
Water used in ground boring and drilling
shall be recirculated as far as practicable after sedimentation. When there is
need for final disposal, the wastewater shall be discharged into storm drains via
silt removal facilities.
All vehicles shall be kept clean before they
leave a construction site to ensure no earth, mud, debris is deposited on
roads. A wheel washing facilities shall be provided at the site exit, if
practicable, and wash water shall have sand and silt settled out or removed
before being discharged into the storm drains.
Debris and rubbish generated on-site shall
be collected, handled and disposed of properly to avoid entering the nearby
coastal waters. All fuel tanks and storage area should be provided with locks
and be sited on sealed areas, within bunds of a capacity equal to 110% of the
storage capacity of the largest tank.
The
site workforce shall use the properly maintained portable chemical toilets is
on-site.
During operation, regular environmental
audit shall be conducted to check the environmental performance of daily
operation to ensure that no effluents will be discharged into Tolo Harbour
illegally.
The potential
water quality impact arising from the construction and operation of the
proposed cement silos addition works have been assessed. No wastewater will be
discharged from the plant during operation. Therefore, there will have no
operation phase water quality impact. It is considered that construction
run-off and drainage generated during the construction works for the project
will have minimal impacts on the receiving waters provided that mitigation
measures are implemented. With the adoption and incorporation of the
recommended mitigation measures for the construction phase, adverse residual
impacts on water quality are not anticipated.
This section assesses the likely visual
impact of the new cement silos and proposes mitigation measures to alleviate
the impact caused.
The existing cement depot is located at
the junction of Ting Kok Road and Yu On Street, Tai Po. It is located at the edge of a rocky shore,
facing Tolo Harbour to the south and surrounded by hills and residential developments
on the other sides. The Shuen Wan Golf
Driving Range is located to the west of the shore. Several workplaces, e.g. a wholesale fish market, a shipyard and
a government Marine Department office, are located adjacent to the cement
depot.
7.2
Assessment Criteria
The visual impact evaluation
and assessment have been carried out in accordance with the project study
brief, criteria and guidelines stated in Annexes 10 and 18 of the TM-EIA.
The assessment of the
potential visual impact of the proposed works has two distinct stages:
l
Baseline
survey and,
l
Visual
impact assessment.
The baseline survey of
views towards the proposed development is carried out by identifying:
l
The visual
envelope within which the proposed development maybe contained either wholly or
partially within views. This also
includes indirect effects such as temporary construction activities.
l
The
visually sensitive receivers (VSRs) within the visual envelope whose views will
be affected by the scheme. The
sensitivity of each VSR group is also influenced by the distance and direction
of view to the proposed development.
The potential receivers include the following three groups:
(a)
Views from
residences – the most sensitive receivers due to the potential of intrusion on
the visual amenity and quality of life;
(b)
View from
workplaces – less sensitive than above due to visual amenity being less
important within the work environment, and;
(c)
View from
public areas – including all areas apart from the above, e.g. public parks,
recreation grounds, footpaths, roads etc.
Sensitivity of this group is relatively low and will depend on the
transitory nature of the receiver with views being typically glimpsed rather
than sustained for long periods.
The baseline survey described and
recorded by photograph typical views from within each of the visual envelope
form the basis of the visual character and quality of the sites. The
sensitivity of each receiver group and quality of views are classed in
accordance to the following criteria:
l
High – for
example, residential properties;
l
Medium –
for example, recreational facilities or partially screened views; and,
l
Low – for
example, workplaces, school etc.
7.3.2
Visual
Impact Assessment
The assessment of
potential visual impact was based on:
l
Identification
of the sources of visual impact and their magnitude that would be generated
during construction and operation.
l
Identification
of the principal visual impact with particular consideration given to the
degree of change to the baseline conditions.
The impact assessment comprises the
comparison of the typical existing views identified in the baseline survey of
the key receiver groups and the potential views after construction works are
completed. Both present and future VSRs are considered. The visual impact results
from the consideration of the following factors:
l
character
of existing view;
l
quality of
existing view;
l
context,
location and distance of the VSR;
l
duration of
the potential impacts;
l
visual
receiver group sensitivity;
l
number of
viewers at VSR group;
l
degree of
change to existing views; and
l
other views
available to visual receiver group and cumulative effects on views of this and
other neighboring developments.
The magnitude of change to the views is
classified as follows:
l
High – for
example, the majority of viewers affected / major changes in view;
l
Medium –
for example, many viewers affected / moderate change in view; and,
l
Low – for
example, few viewers affected / minor change in view.
The degree of impact is considered as
follows:
l
Significant
– adverse/ beneficial impact where the proposal would cause significant
deterioration or improvement in existing landscape quality;
l
Moderate –
adverse / beneficial impact where the proposal would cause a noticeable
deterioration or improvement in existing landscape quality;
l
Slight –
adverse / beneficial impact where the proposal would cause a barely perceptible
deterioration or improvement in the existing landscape quality; and
l
Negligible
– no discernible change in the existing landscape quality.
The analysis of the visual significance threshold, the correlation
between magnitude of change and sensitivity / quality, is based on the matrix
detailed in Table 7.1
Table
7.1: Impact matrix
|
Magnitude of Change |
Sensitivity / Quality |
||
|
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
|
Low |
Slight Impact |
Slight /
Moderate Impact |
Moderate
Impact |
|
Medium |
Slight /
Moderate Impact |
Moderate
Impact |
Moderate /
Significant Impact |
|
High |
Moderate
Impact |
Moderate /
Significant Impact |
Significant
Impact |
7.4
Methodology
for Determination of Mitigation Measures
The
identification of the visual impacts will highlight those sources of conflict
requiring design solutions or modifications to reduce the impacts and, if
possible, blend the development with the surrounding visual context. The proposed visual mitigation measures are
described and illustrated by means of simple photomontage and will take into
account factors including;
l
Selection
of location by taking into account the shielding effect of existing silos;
l
Shape of
the proposed silos shall be compatible with the existing silos;
l
Make use of
suitable colour scheme, which will be compatible with the surrounding
environment.
Residual
impact is the impact remaining after the proposed mitigation measures have been
implemented.
The level of impact is derived from the
magnitude of change which the proposals will cause to the view which would have
existed during this period if the proposed scheme had not been constructed and
its ability to tolerate change. The ability to tolerate change is described as
its quality and sensitivity, taking into accounts the beneficial effects of the
proposed mitigation. The level of residual impacts can be derived from the
matrix provided in Table 7.1 above.
The overall evaluation of visual impact
will be classified into five levels of significance, beneficial, acceptable,
acceptable with mitigation measures, unacceptable and determined in accordance
with Annex 10 of the TM-EIA as shown in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Overall
evaluation of visual impact.
|
Beneficial |
Acceptable |
Acceptable with mitigation measures |
Unacceptable |
Undetermined |
|
The project
will complement the visual character of its setting, will follow the relevant
planning objectives and will improve overall visual quality |
There will
be no significant visual effects caused by the appearance of the project or
no interference with key view |
There are
some adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a
large extent by specific measures |
The adverse
effects are considered too excessive and would not be reduced to an
acceptable level by mitigation |
Significant
adverse effects are likely but the extent to which they may occur or may be
mitigated cannot be determined from the study. Further detailed study will be required for the specific
effects in question. |
7.6
Review of
Planning and Development Control Framework
The existing cement depot
and its adjacent waterfront area is neither covered by the draft Tai Po Outline
Zoning Plan No. S/TP/16 nor the approved Ting Kok Outline Zoning Plan No.
S/NE-TK/8. On the draft Tai Po Area 27 (Part) Layout Plan No. L/TP 27/1A, the
cement depot site is zoned “Other Specified Uses” annotated ‘Sand / Cement /
Aggregate Depot and /or Marine-related
industries’.
7.7.1
Existing
Visual Context and Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs)
The
proposed additional cement silos are located adjacent to the existing
silos. Within the visual envelope, the
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) have been identified.
A low-rise villa, Casa Marina III, which located 100m away from the centre of
the project site, is under construction and was identified as VSR 1. Two other residential areas, the Fortune Garden and Tycoon Place, were
identified as VSR 2 and VSR3 respectively.
All these residents are currently enjoying the bay view of the Tolo
Harbour with a partial view of the existing cement depot.
VSRs other than
residential area within the visual envelope were also identified. The Tolo Harbour marine traffic was
identified as VSR 4. The pedestrians,
cyclists and road users of Ting Kok Road were identified as VSR 5.
The visual envelope
and visually sensitive receivers are shown on Fig. 7.1. Other features within the visual envelope,
for example the fish wholesale market and the Tai Po Sheun Wan Temporary Golf
Diving Range, were identified having very low visual sensitivity and therefore
not included in the visual impact assessment.
Details of VSRs are summarized in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Summary of visually sensitive receivers
|
VSR Number |
Location |
Type of viewers |
Existing View |
Distance to
nearest visual impact source |
Sensitivity to
Change and Visual Intrusion |
|
VSR 1 |
Casa Marina III |
Resident |
Bay view with a partial view of the existing cement depot, which is
partially shaded by roadside village trees. |
100 m |
High |
|
VSR 2 |
Fortune Garden |
Resident |
Bay view with the existing cement depot in a long distance. |
400 m |
Medium |
|
VSR 3 |
Tycoon Place |
Resident |
Bay view with the existing cement depot in a long distance |
500 m (from high level) |
Medium |
|
VSR 4 |
Tolo Harbour marine traffic |
Local commuters, fishing boats,
tourist vessels, transitory views |
Residential development and the existing cement depot can be seen along
the shore. |
Adjacent |
Low |
|
VSR 5 |
Ting Kok Road and the associated cycling track |
Pedestrian, cyclist, road users, transitory views |
Mainly shaded by roadside landscape. Existing cement depot can be seen
in small section of the road. |
Adjacent |
Low |
In
this study, different silo locations are considered. The proposed silo is located adjacent to the existing silos and
is considered as the best position within the site. The present position helps to reduce the visual impact from
different angles by making use of the screening effect of existing silos. In addition, as the proposed silos is
located closer to the cement tankers loading bay. There is no need to construct a long conveyor for cement
unloading, which could cause additional visual intrusion.
The
visual impact on each VSR were carried out as following:
VSR 1 Casa Marina III
Fig. 7.2 shown the
side view of the cement depot from Casa Marina III at ground level. Two of the proposed silos will be nearly
shielded off by the existing silos and leaving only one additional silo will be
seen from some of the residents in Casa Marina III. Village trees and other landscape features will further shield
this additional silo. The magnitude of
change is low and the sensitivity of the viewer groups is
high. Moderately adverse visual impact is predicted during construction and
operation.
VSR 2 Fortune Garden
A small portion of the resident has a
partial view of the cement depot. As
the bay view is in front of the cement depot, it will not be obstructed by the
proposed silos. The visual impact is
further reduced with the long distance between the VSR and the depot. The magnitude of change is low and the
sensitivity of the viewer group is medium.
Slight / moderate adverse visual impact is predicted during construction
and operation.
VSR 3 Tycoon Place
Tycoon Place
located at a higher level and is 500 m away from the project. The magnitude of change is low and the sensitivity of the VSR is
also low. Slight visual impact is
predicted during construction and operation.
VSR
4 Tolo Harbour Marine traffic
The marine traffic in the adjacent Tolo
Harbour water is mainly local commuters, fishing boat, tourist vessels and
transitory viewers. These activities
have relatively low sensitivity to potential visual impact. The elevation view from the Harbour is shown
in Fig. 7.3 and only one additional silo will be seen form that view. The magnitude of change is low and slight
visual impact is predicted during construction and operation.
VSR
5 Ting Kok Road and the associated cycling
track
The existing trees planted along the Ting
Kok Road will shield off the view of road users and cyclist towards the cement
depot. It is predicted that the
magnitude of change is low and slight visual impact is predicted during
construction and operation.
Table
7.4: Summary of visual
impact
|
VSR number |
Location |
Type of viewer group |
Magnitude of change and source of
impact |
Sensitivity to change and visual
intrusion |
Significance threshold of visual impact
during construction (refer to Table 7.1) |
Significance threshold of visual impact
during operation (assuming no mitigation measures)(refer to Table 7.1) |
|
VSR 1 |
Casa Marina III |
Resident |
Low |
High |
Moderate
adverse |
Moderate
adverse |
|
VSR 2 |
Fortune Garden |
Resident |
Low |
Medium |
Slightly /
Moderate adverse |
Slightly /
Moderate adverse |
|
VSR 3 |
Tycoon Place |
Resident |
Low |
Medium |
Slightly /
Moderate adverse |
Slightly /
Moderate adverse |
|
VSR 4 |
Tolo Harbour Marine Traffic |
Local commuters, fishing boats tourist vessels, transitory views |
Low |
Low |
Slightly
adverse |
Slightly
adverse |
|
VSR 5 |
Ting Kok Road and the associated cycling track |
Cyclist, road users, transitory views |
Low |
Low |
Slightly
adverse |
Slightly
adverse |
7.8
Recommended
Mitigation Measures
During construction stage,
it will not be possible to totally screen the construction works for the
silos. As the proposed silos will be
located inside the existing site boundary, the existing site boundary wall will
screen the ground level work site.
Permanent mitigation measures are not required as the construction
period is temporary.
In the operational phase, the following
recommended mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the visual impact. The
photomontages showing views from Casa Marina III, Fortune Garden, Tolo Harbour
and Ting Kok Road are shown in Fig. 7.4 to 7.7 respectively.
l
The height and shape of the additional silos should be similar to those
of the existing silos in order to be compatible with the existing baseline
situation.
l
Two options are proposed. One option is to paint all silos in deep green
colour, which is more compatible with the surrounding environment (hilly
mountain) when viewing from the sea and VSRs from Fortune garden (Fig 7.5 and
7.6). Another option is to leave the surface of the silos in non-reflective
grey white (Fig. 7.4). This scheme will be more compatible to the background
when viewing from Casa Marina III. As Casa Marina III is the major affected
sensitive receiver, the second scheme is recommended.
l
The proposed noise barrier around the cement
unloading bay should be painted deep green in order to provide screening effect
and reduce the visual impact (Fig.7.7).
With the mentioned design options, the
proposed new silos should blend in satisfactorily into the surrounding visual
content. The visual impact caused by
the proposed silos is reduced and all VSRs will only have slightly or negligible
visual impact.
The proposed additional
cement silos will locate adjacent to the existing silos and within
the existing depot boundary.
Several visually sensitive receivers are
identified and slightly to moderate visual impact will be induced by the
project.
To reduce the
visual impact on those VSRs, mitigation measures regarding the design details
are recommended. The height and shape of the additional
silos will be constructed similar
to those of the existing silos. Proposed noise barrier under the silos will be
erected. It will provide screening effect. The surface of the barrier will also
be painted deep green, while the surface of the silo is left in non-reflective
grey white colour. With these measures, the proposed silos will be more compatible with the surrounding environment
and planned setting.
It is concluded
that with the recommended mitigation measures incorporated, the visual impact
will be mimimised. The overall evaluation of visual impact will be acceptable with the mitigation
measures.
This section identifies the types of wastes that
are likely to be generated during the construction and operation of the
additional silos. Potential environmental impacts associated with the handling
and disposal of these waste arising are then assessed.
Mitigation measures and good site practices,
including waste handling, storage and disposal, are
recommended with reference to the applicable legislation and guidelines.
8.2
Assessment
Criteria and Methodology
The criteria for evaluating the potential waste
management implications are set out in Annex 7 of the EIAO-TM. The
method for assessing potential waste management impacts during construction and
operational phases follows that presented in Annex 15 of EIAO-TM and
includes the following:
·
estimation of the
types and quantities of wastes generated;
·
assessment of
potential secondary environmental impacts from the management of solid waste
with respect to potential hazards, air and odour emissions, noise, wastewater
discharges and traffic; and
·
impact on the
capacity of waste collection, transfer and disposal facilities.
If not properly managed, the handling and
disposal of waste materials may cause environmental nuisance and impact. The
nature of each type of waste arising is discussed below, together with an
evaluation of the potential environmental impacts associated with the
management of these waste arisings.
8.3
Prediction
and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The proposed site is within the existing cement
depot boundary and no site clearance or demolition works are required. Small
quantities of excavated material will be generated from the minor earthworks
required for the foundation of the cement silos
and this will mainly consist of fill material. The volume of excavated material
is estimated to be approximately 1000m3. In order to maximize
landfill life, Government policy prohibits the disposal of C&D materials to
landfill if it contains more than 20% inert materials by volume. Considering
the inert nature of the excavated material, the materials can be directed to
the public filling area at Tuen Mun Area 38 for reclamation purpose.
Throughout
construction, the workforce will generate general refuse comprising food
scraps, waste paper, empty containers etc. The storage, handling and disposal
of general refuse have the potential to give rise to some environmental impacts
if not properly managed. These include odour if waste is not collected
frequently, windblown litter, water quality impact if waste enters water
bodies, and visual impact. Rapid and effective collection of site wastes will
therefore be required. With the implementation of good site practices and the
recommended mitigation measures on disposal arrangements, adverse environmental
impact are not expected to arise during the construction works.
The additional cement silos are purely
for storage purpose only. Therefore no cement waste is anticipated during the
silo operation. In addition, maintenance of
cement tankers is not allowed in the Depot, therefore no chemical waste
will be generated. The only waste generated
on-site will be the sediment from sediment tank and the general refuse from
workforce.
The following recommended measures in
minimization, storage, transportation and disposal should be incorporated into
an on-site waste management plan for the construction and operational phase.
Site Planning
Good site planning and design shall be adopted
to reduce over-ordering and waste generation. The work site shall be arranged and
managed to facilitate the proper management of waste and materials.
Storage, Collection and Transport of Waste
Permitted waste hauliers should be used to
collect and transport waste to the appropriate disposal points. The following
measures to minimise adverse impacts are proposed:
·
Where practicable,
different types of waste should be segregated, stockpiled and stored in
different containers or skips to enhance, reuse or recycle of materials and
their proper disposal;
·
Handle and store
waste in a manner which ensures that it is held securely without loss or
leakage, thereby minimising the potential for pollution;
·
Use authorized or
licensed waste hauliers to collect specific categories of waste;
·
Remove waste in a
timely manner;
·
Maintain and clean
waste storage areas regularly;
·
Minimise windblown
litter and dust during transportation by either covering trucks or transporting
waste in enclosed containers;
·
Obtain the
necessary waste disposal permits from the appropriate authorities, if they are
required, in accordance with the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap 354), the Land
(Miscellaneous Provision) Ordinance (Cap 28);
·
Dispose of waste
at licensed waste disposal facilities;
·
Develop procedures
such as a ticketing system to facilitate tracking of loads, and to ensure that
illegal disposal of waste does not occur; and
·
Maintain records
of the quantities of waste generated, recycled and disposed.
General Refuse
General refuse should be stored in enclosed bins
or compaction units separated from chemical wastes. A reputable waste collector
should be employed by the contractor to remove general refuse from the site
regularly to minimize odor, pest and litter impacts. The burning of refuse on
construction sites is prohibited by law.
Training
Training shall be provided to all personnel working on site. The
training shall promote the concept of general site cleanliness and encourage
all workers to reduce, reuse and recycle waste.
With
the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures on waste management
practices and pollution control measures for the construction phases of the
additional silos, adverse environmental impacts are not expected. No
unacceptable residual impacts are expected provided that the recommended waste
management mitigation measures for the Project are implemented.
As the proposed project site is within the existing industrial
premises, there will not be any impacts on local ecology.
As the proposed project site is within the existing industrial
premises, there will not be any impacts on site of cultural importance or
listed buildings.
In order to
reduce the potential impact due to the construction and operation of the cement
works, the following tables summarize the implement schedules during the
design, construction and operation of the cement works
Implementation
Schedule of Mitigation Measures for Air Quality Control on the Cement Works
|
Environmental Protection
Measures |
Timing |
Implementation Agent |
Implementation Stage |
Standard / Requirement |
||
|
D |
C |
O |
||||
|
Fully enclosed piping system to transfer cement from barge to
silos |
Throughout the operation of the cement works |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Best Practical Means for Cement
Work BPM 3/1 |
|
The unloading points and silos are equipped with dust collector
in compliance with BPM 3/1 |
Throughout the operation of the cement works |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Best Practical Means for Cement
Work BPM 3/1 |
|
Bucket Elevator are fully enclosed |
Throughout the operation of the cement works |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Best Practical Means for Cement
Work BPM 3/1 |
|
Dust-laden air is filtered through bag filter and vented to the
dust collectors |
Throughout the operation of the cement works |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Best Practical Means for Cement
Work BPM 3/1 |
|
All assess and route roads within the premises shall be paved
and adequately wetted |
Throughout the operation of the cement works |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Best Practical Means for Cement
Work BPM 3/1 |
|
Storage silo fitted with audible high level alarm and
interlocking the material filling line |
Throughout the operation of the cement works |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Best Practical Means for Cement
Work BPM 3/1 |
|
Installation of water spray system beside the dust collector on
top of the silos |
Throughout the operation of the cement works |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Air Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
Emergency Plan for Explosion |
Operational Period |
Plant Operator |
|
|
Ö |
Air Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
Regular watering of the site by an automated watering system at
an interval of every 30 minutes |
Throughout the operation of the cement works |
Constractor / Plant Operator |
|
Ö |
Ö |
TM-EIA, Air Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
Stop the operation of the West Wing Concrete Batching Plant |
Construction Period |
K. Wah Concrete |
|
Ö |
|
TM-EIA, Air Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
Regular water spray on the construction site during excavation
work and material handling |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
TM-EIA, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
Use of tarpaulin to cover the exposed soil in after working hour |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
TM-EIA, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
Vehicle Washing Facilities including a high jet pressure water
jet shall be provided at every desirable or designated vehicle exit point |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
TM-EIA, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
* Note: D-
Design Phase, O- Operational Phase, C- Construction Phase
Implementation
Schedule of Mitigation Measures for Noise Control on the Cement Works
|
Environmental Protection
Measures |
Timing |
Implementation Agent |
Implementation Stage |
Standard / Requirement |
||
|
D |
C |
O |
||||
|
Adoption of quieter Power Mechanical Equipment |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM – EIA |
|
Adoption of moveable noise barrier for Drilling Rig |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
|
Adoption of quieter screw conveyor barge |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM- EIA |
|
Erection of barrier under the silos |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Plant Operator |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
|
Checking that the Cement Depot not operation between 11:00 pm –
7:00 am |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
EPD |
|
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
* Note: D-
Design Phase, O- Operational Phase, C- Construction Phase
Implementation
Schedule of Mitigation Measures for Noise Control for the Ocean Going Vessel
and Barges
|
Environmental Protection
Measures |
Timing |
Implementation Agent |
Implementation Stage |
Standard / Requirement |
||
|
D |
C |
O |
||||
|
Allocate of the anchorage position as shown in Fig.5.6 in EIA
report |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Marine Department / EPD |
|
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
|
Ensure the maximum projected sound pressure level of the vessel
of the non-unloading side not greater than 91 dB(A). |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Plant Operator |
|
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
|
Apply double anchorage to fix the vessel |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Vessel Operator |
|
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
|
Orient the cement unloading part of the ocean vessel away from
the noise sensitive receivers in Ma On Shan and Planned White Head |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Vessel Operator |
|
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
|
Checking that the ocean going vessel is located in proper
position and orientation (the unloading side facing away from the sensitive
receivers in Ma On Shan and Planned Whitehead) |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Marine Department / EPD |
|
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
|
Checking that the ocean vessel not operation between 11:00 pm –
7:00 am |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
EPD |
|
|
Ö |
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 500) and Annex 5 of TM-EIA |
* Note: D-
Design Phase, O- Operational Phase, C- Construction Phase
Implementation
Schedule of Mitigation Measures for Water Quality Control
|
Environmental Protection
Measures |
Timing |
Implementation Agent |
Implementation Stage |
Standard / Requirement |
||
|
D |
C |
O |
||||
|
Works should be programmed to avoid the rainy season whenever
possible to minimize storm runoff. If work during rainy season cannot be
avoided, precautions should be taken to prevent soil erosion |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
Earth bund should be constructed to direct the runoff to
sand/silt removal |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
Sand/silt removal facilities should be checked and cleaned
regularly to ensure these facilities are working in good conditions |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
Earthworks final surfaces should be well
compacted |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
Water used in ground boring and drilling
should be as far as practicable be recirculated after sedimentation. |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
All vehicles should be cleaned before they
leave a construction site |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
Wastewater generated from the washing down
of mixer trucks and drum mixers and similar equipment should be recycled as
far as practicable. Surplus wastewater may be discharged into foul sewers
after treatment in silt removal and pH adjustment facilities. |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
Debris and rubbish generated on-site
should be collected, handled and disposed of properly to avoid entering the
nearby coastal waters. |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
All fuel tanks and storage area should be
provided with locks and be sited on sealed areas, within bunds of a capacity
equal to 110% of the storage capacity of the largest tank. |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
|
The site workforce shall use the properly
maintained portable chemical toilets is on-site |
Construction and Operational Period |
Plant Operator |
|
Ö |
Ö |
Practice Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site
Drainage, Professional Persons, EPD, 1994 (ProPECC PN 1/94) |
* Note: D-
Design Phase, O- Operational Phase, C- Construction Phase
Implementation
Schedule of Mitigation Measures for Waste Management
|
Environmental Protection
Measures |
Timing |
Implementation Agent |
Implementation Stage |
Standard / Requirement |
||
|
D |
C |
O |
||||
|
Maintenance of records of quantities of waste generated,
recycled and disposal, including disposal location |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
|
Where practicable, different types of waste should be
segregated, stockpiled and stored in different containers or skips to
enhance, reuse or recycle of materials and their proper disposal |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
|
Maintain records of the quantities of waste generated, recycle
and disposed. A ticketing system can be develop to facilitate tracking of
loads and ensure illegal disposal of waste does not occur. |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
|
Educate workers on the keeping site cleanliness and appropriate
waste management |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
|
Handle and store waste in a manner which ensures that it is held
securely without loss or leakage, thereby minimizing the potential for
pollutions. |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
|
Use authorized or licensed waste hsuliers to collect specific
categories of waste |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
|
All necessary waste disposal permits should be obtained |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
|
Remove waste and maintain waste storage areas regularly |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
|
General refuse will be collected from lidded bins and delivered
to central collection point and will be stored in containers to prevent
windblown litter, vermin, water pollution and visual impact |
Throughout the construction of the cement work |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Annex 7 of TM-EIA |
* Note: D-
Design Phase, O- Operational Phase, C- Construction Phase
Implementation
Schedule of Mitigation Measures for Visual Impact
|
Environmental Protection
Measures |
Timing |
Implementation Agent |
Implementation Stage |
Standard / Requirement |
||
|
D |
C |
O |
||||
|
The design of the addition silo should be circular to increase
the visual compatibility |
During the design stage |
Engineer |
Ö |
|
|
Annex 10 of TM – EIA |
|
The high of the silo should be the same as the existing silos to
increase the visual compatibility |
During the design stage |
Engineer |
Ö |
|
|
Annex 10 of TM – EIA |
|
The external façade of the silo shall be left in grey white
colour to reduce reflection and increase the visual compatibility |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Plant Operator |
|
|
Ö |
Annex 10 of TM – EIA |
|
Use of deep green noise barrier for the cement unloading bay |
Throughout the operation of the cement work |
Plant Operator |
|
|
Ö |
Annex 10 of TM – EIA |
|
Construction of hoarding surround the site |
Construction Period |
Contractor |
|
Ö |
|
Annex 10 of TM – EIAO |
* Note: D-
Design Phase, O- Operational Phase, C- Construction Phase
Given the small
size of the construction site and low level of construction activities, it is
considered that the air quality monitoring and audit in the construction phase
are not required provided that all proposed air quality mitigation measures are
adopted. During operation, routine monitoring of the depot will be required
under the specific process licence conditions of APCO.
Given the small
number of Power Mechanical Equipment adopted in the construction stage and the
small size of the construction site, it is considered that the noise monitoring
and audit in construction phase are not required provided that all proposed
noise mitigation measures are adopted. During operation, the operational noise
will be controlled by Noise Control Ordinance.
Surface
run-off from construction and operational phase will be collected by existing
drainage system and re-used on site. There will be no discharge to the Tolo
Harbour. It is therefore considered that water quality monitoring and audit are
not required.
The 3 additional
cement
silos will increase the
storage of cement capacity. There will not be any increased throughput or operational
capacity to the existing operations as a result of the increased silo capacity.
Hence, the barge waiting and berthing time, and the operational frequency for cement loading and
unloading will be reduced. In addition,
the duration of nighttime depot operation will be shortened, resulting in
further improvement of air quality and noise nuisance on the nearby sensitive
receivers.
The proposed
anchorage location and the orientation of the ocean going vessel are also
selected to avoid adverse environmental impact. The proposed location of the
ocean going vessel will be located at a distance greater than 710m with the
unloading side of the ocean going vessel facing away from the planned Whitehead
receivers. These implementation will ensure that the noise level due to the
ocean going vessel at the nearby sensitive receivers comply with the noise
limits.
In order to
minimize the visual impact of the planned silos, the planned silos will be
erected close to the existing silos and far away from the major sensitive
receivers (e.g. Casa Marina III). Besides, the height, shape and color of the
proposed silos will be similar to the existing silos to increase the
environmental compatibility.
The proposed
project site is within the existing industrial premises. There will not be any
impacts on local ecology, landscaping, site of cultural importance or listed
buildings.
The following
procedures will be implemented in order to avoid adverse environmental effect:
·
Operation
time restriction (2300 – 0700) is proposed to control the noise from the cement
depot and the ocean vessel within the nighttime noise limit as stipulated in
NCO.
·
In order to
reduce the operational noise due to ocean vessel, the unloading side of the
ocean vessel will be faced away from the sensitive receivers in Ma On Shan and
Planned Whitehead development.
·
The
location of the proposed cement silos will be constructed in the far side away
from Casa Marina III in order to minimize the noise and air quality impact. In
addition, the proposed silos will be located behind the existing silos such
that the visual impact can be reduced.
The major mitigation measures during
construction and operational phases are summarized in Table 14.1.
Table
14.1: Major mitigation measures for
construction and operational phases
|
Environmental Issues |
Mitigation
Measures |
|
|
Air Quality |
Construction
(Dust) |
·
Complied with the Air Pollution Control
Regulation (Construction Dust) |
|
Operation (Fugitive Dust Emission) |
·
Complied with the Guidance Note on the
Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Cement Depot) ·
Application with the new licence for
Specified Process (Cement Works) and observed for the licence conditions |
|
|
Noise |
Construction |
·
Use of Quiet Plant ·
Use of Portable Noise Barrier ·
Good Site Practices |
|
Operation |
·
Use of electric screw conveyor barge ·
Erection of noise barrier under the cement silos ·
Restriction the operation time of the cement depot and
ocean vessel |
|
|
Water Quality |
Construction (Surface run-off) |
·
Complied with ProPECC PN 1/94
“Construction Site Drainage” |
|
Operation |
Not Required |
|
|
Visual Impact |
Construction |
·
Adoption of Hoarding |
|
Operation (Visual intrusion) |
·
Adopted similar height as the existing
silos for additional silos ·
Adopted same shape and colour as existing
silos for additional silos ·
Paint the barrier below the silos into
deep green |
|
|
Waste Management |
Construction |
·
Good storage, collection and transport
practices of Waste ·
Waste dispose at appropriate disposal
areas |
|
Operation |
Not Required |
|
With the above
mitigation measures implemented, no unacceptable residual impacts are anticipated
during the construction and operational phases. Due to the small number of Power
Mechanical Equipment and small size of the construction site, it is considered
that environmental monitoring and auditing are not required provided that all
the proposed mitigation measures listed in the EIA report are implemented.