Highways Department

Works Division

 

Agreement No. WD 7/2007

Upgrading of Remaining Sections of Kam Tin Road & Lam Kam Road

 

 

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Volume 1 of 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Document No. C1022/EIA/001

Issue 3

 

February 2009

 

 

 

Mannings (Asia) Consultants Ltd

in association with BMT Asia Pacific Ltd


 

 

C1022//EIA/001

Issue 3

February 2009

 

Construction Agreement No. WD 7/2007

Upgrading of Remaining Sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road

 

 

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

 

 

 

 

 

Approved for Issue by:

 

 

 

 

Mark Cheung

 

 

 

 

Position:

Project Director

 

 

 

 

Date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highways Department

Works Division

16/F Skyline Tower

39 Wang Kwong Road

Kowloon Bay,

Kowloon.

Mannings (Asia) Consultants Ltd

in association with BMT Asia Pacific Ltd

Units A-B, 14/F, Skyline Tower,

18 Tong Mei Road,

Mongkok,

Kowloon


 

Agreement No. WD 7/2007

Upgrading of Remaining Sections of

 Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road

 

 

 

Environmental Impact assessment report

Volume 1 of 2

 

CONTENT

 

 

 

1.0             INTRODUCTION

 

2.0             PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

3.0             AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 

4.0             NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 

5.0             WATER QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 

6.0             WASTE MANAGEMENT

 

7.0             ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 

8.0             CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 

9.0             LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 

10.0         IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE OF RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

 

11.0         CONCLUSIONS

 

 

 

 


APPENDICES

 

Appendix A1 –   Link ID, Hourly Traffic Profile of Kam Tin Road in 2008, Hourly Peak Traffic Flow in 2030, % of Heavy Vehicle and Traffic Compositions in Year 2030

Appendix A2 –   Letter of Acceptance of the Traffic Forecast by Transport Department

 

Appendix B1 –   The Adjusted Exhaust Technology Fractions

Appendix B2 –   2015 Vehicle Population

Appendix B3 –   Daily Trips and Vehicle-Mile-Travelled (VMT) in Year 2030

Appendix B4 –   Speed Fraction

Appendix B5 –   Sensitivity Test for Peak Hour Traffic Flow and Speed Fraction

Appendix B6 –   Comparison of the Total Emission from Year 2015 to 2030

Appendix B7 –   Calculation of Hourly Fleet Emission for different Vehicle Classes

Appendix B8 –   Calculation of Composite Emission Factors from EMFAC-HK Fleet Average Emission Factors

Appendix B9 –   Predicted Worst Case Averaging Pollutant Concentrations at ASRs

 

Appendix C1 –   Photos of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

Appendix C2 –   Letters of Confirmation from the Government Secretariat

Appendix C3 –   Letters of Confirmation from the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden

Appendix C4 –   Letters of Confirmation from the Pat Heung Division Police Station and Pat Heung Fire Station

 

Appendix D1 –   Construction Plant Inventory

Appendix D2 –   Letter of Confirmation from Project Proponent

Appendix D3 –   Calculations of Construction Noise Levels

Appendix D4 –   As-built Drawings for Noise Barriers along Kam Tin Bypass and Tung Wui Road

Appendix D5 –   Sample RoadNoise input file and the Road-Plot

 

Appendix E1 –   Water Supplies Department (WSD) Guidelines on Protection of Water Gathering Ground

 

Appendix F1 –    Photo-documentation of Site Inspection

Appendix F2 –    Historical Aerial Photographs

Appendix F3 –    Response from the Feoso Oil Company

Appendix F4 –    Incident Records for Petrol Filling Stations at Kam Tin Road

Appendix F5 –    Photo-documentation of the identified Petrol Filling Stations and Car Repairing Workshops

 

Appendix G1 –   Photos of Ecological Habitats

Appendix G2 –   Species Recorded for Vegetation Survey

Appendix G3 –   Bird Species Recorded at the Lower Part of KFBG from 1995 to 2005

Appendix G4 –   Bird Species Recorded from Territory-wide Long-term Monitoring Survey by AFCD from 2002 to 2008

Appendix G5 –   Bird Species Recorded for Avifauna Survey

Appendix G6 –   Herpetofauna Species Recorded in KFBG from 1995 to 2005

Appendix G7 –   Amphibian Species Recorded from Territory-wide Long-term Monitoring Survey by AFCD from 2002 to 2008

Appendix G8 –   Fish Species Recorded in KFBG from 1995 to 2005

Appendix G9 –   Fish Species Recorded from Territory-wide Long-term Monitoring Survey by AFCD from 2002 to 2008

Appendix G10 – Herpetofauna Species Recorded for Stream Fauna Survey

Appendix G11 – Site Photos of Stream Fauna Survey

Appendix G12 – In-stream Fauna Recorded for Stream Fauna Survey

Appendix G13 – Butterfly Species Recorded for Invertebrate Survey

Appendix G14 – Insect Species Recorded at/ adjacent to Streams of the Site

Appendix G15 – Mammal Species Recorded in KFBG from 1995 to 2005

Appendix G16 – Photos of Short-nosed Fruit Bat and the Roosting Chinese Fan-palm

Appendix G17 – Selected Photos of CA Areas to be Marginally Encroached by Proposed Road / Slope Works

Appendix G18 – Typical Section of the Gabion Retaining Wall

Appendix G19 – Photographs of the Trees Aquilaria sinensis

Appendix H1 – Drawings of Existing Utilities along the Project Boundary

Appendix I1 – Tree Survey Schedule

 


1.0           INTRODUCTION

 

Project Background

 

1.1

Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road together form a critical route serving the local areas in Yuen Long east and Tai Po south.  Sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road have been upgraded under the following projects:

 

(a)       Lam Kam Road Improvement Stage I and II, completed in 1986 and 1994 respectively, upgraded the section between Kadoorie Farm and Lam Kam Road Interchange;

 

(b)       Improvement to Kam Tin Road Stage I, completed in 2002, widened the section of Kam Tin Road between Au Tau Roundabout and Ko Po Tsuen from single two-lane carriageway to dual two-lane carriageway; and

 

(c)       Kam Tin Bypass, completed in 2004, constructed dual two-lane carriageway to bypass traffic from Kam Tin Road between Ko Po Tsuen and Kiu Tau Tsuen.

 

1.2

The remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road are located at Kam Tin Road between Kam Tin Bypass and Lam Kam Road, and Lam Kam Road between Kam Tin Road and Kadoorie Farm.  These sections comprise a substandard single two-lane carriageway.  Road safety problems are compounded by fast vehicular traffic, sharp bends, hidden accesses, sub-standard gradients, inadequate lateral clearance, frequent usage of heavy vehicles, insufficient pedestrian crossing facilities, significant jay-walking and lack of bus-bays.  On road safety grounds, the project titled “Upgrading of Remaining Sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road” (hereinafter known as the “Project”) was initiated in 2007.

 

1.3

Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road are rural roads.  The Project does not include 100 m long road bridge or 800 m long road tunnel.  In addition, it does not have any additional traffic lane or long road extension.  However, it encroaches upon existing conservation areas.  Hence, the Project is a Designated Project (DP) under item Q.1 of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the EIAO: “All projects including new access roads, railways, sewers, sewage treatment facilities, earthworks, dredging works and other building works partly or wholly in an existing or gazetted proposed country park or special area, a conservation area, an existing or gazetted proposed marine park or marine reserve, a site of cultural heritage, and a site of special scientific interest.”

 

1.4

The Highways Department (HyD) submitted an application for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study brief with a project profile in September 2007.  Pursuant to Section 5(7)(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO), the Environmental Protection Department issued the EIA study brief (ESB-170/2007) for the Project in October 2007.

 

1.5

In March 2008, Mannings (Asia) Consultants Limited in association with BMT Asia Pacific Limited was employed by the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, represented by HyD, to undertake the EIA for the Project.

 

1.6

This report presents the approach and findings of the EIA study which conducted in accordance with the requirements in the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-170/2007.

 

Objectives of the EIA Study

 

1.7

According to the EIA study brief, the objectives of the study are to:

 

 

(a)

Describe the Project and associated works together with the requirements for carrying out the Project;

 

(b)

Identify and describe elements of community and environment likely to be affected by the Project and/or likely to cause adverse impacts to the Project, including natural and man-made environment and the associated environmental constraints;

 

 

(c)

Provide information on the consideration of alternatives to avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and other sensitive uses; to compare the environmental benefits and dis-benefits of each of different options; to provide reasons for selecting the preferred option(s) and to describe the part environmental factors played in the selection of preferred option(s);

 

 

(d)

Identify and quantify all environmental sensitive receivers, emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

 

 

(e)

Identify and quantify any potential losses or damage to flora, fauna and natural habitats;

 

 

(f)

Identify and quantify any potential landscape and visual impacts and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;

 

 

(g)

Identify any negative impacts on sites of cultural heritage and propose measures to mitigate these impacts;

 

 

(h)

Propose provision of mitigation measures so as to minimize pollution, environmental disturbance & nuisance during construction & operation of Project;

 

 

(i)

Investigate the feasibility, practicability, effectiveness and implications of the proposed mitigation measures;

 

 

(j)

Identify, within the study area, any individual project(s) that fall under Schedule 2 and/or Schedule 3 of the EIAO; to ascertain whether the findings of this EIA study have adequately addressed the environmental impacts of those projects; and where necessary, to identify the outstanding issues that need to be addressed in any further detailed EIA study;

 

 

(k)

Identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts (i.e. after practicable mitigation) and the cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operation phases of the Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;

 

 

(l)

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 cumulative effects and reduce them to acceptable levels;

 

 

(m)

Investigate the extent of the secondary environmental impacts that may arise from the proposed mitigation measures and to identify constraints associated with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIA study, as well as the provision of any necessary modification; and

 

 

(n)

Design and specify environmental monitoring and audit requirements to ensure the effective implementation of the recommended environmental protection and pollution control measures.

 

Structure of the Report

 

1.8

The structure of the EIA Report is as follows:

 

Section 2 – Project Background and Description

 

Section 3 – Air Quality

 

Section 4 – Noise

 

Section 5 – Water Quality

 

Section 6 – Waste Management

 

Section 7 – Ecology

 

Section 8 – Cultural Heritage

 

Section 9 – Landscape and Visual

 

Section 10 – Implementation Schedule of Recommended Mitigation Measures

 

Section 11 – Conclusions

 

 

 


2.0           PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

Key Requirements of the Project

 

2.1           The Project is to upgrade the remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road from a substandard single two-lane carriageway into a standard 7.3 m wide carriageway, with the associated improvement of pedestrian facilities and public transport laybys.

 

Scope of the Project

 

2.2           The scope of the Project comprises:

 

(a) Upgrading of about 5.2 km long road section into standard width single two-lane carriageway;

 

(b) Provision of laybys and crossing facilities; and

 

(c) Associated slope and drainage works, traffic aids and street lighting modification, landscaping works and environmental mitigation measures if required.

 

The Need for the Project

 

2.3           The need to upgrade the remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road is recognized in the Project Definition Statement (PDS) issued by the Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) in January 2007.  These remaining sections are single two-lane carriageway with sub-standard width.  Road safety problems are compounded by fast vehicular traffic, sharp bends, hidden accesses, sub-standard gradients, inadequate lateral clearance, frequent usage of heavy vehicles, insufficient pedestrian crossing facilities and lack of bus-bays.

 

Encroachment of the Conservation Areas                                                          

 

2.4           The Project is a DP since part of its boundary encroaches upon the Conservation Area (CA) zoning as defined on relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs), and as referred in Section 1.3 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-170/2007.  There are four encroachment areas which are shown in Figure 2.2, and described below:

 

CA at north of section between Chainage CHB 28+70 and CHB 30+10 of Kam Tin Road

·           The proposed works within CA are construction of an earth retaining wall and reconstruction of existing footway.  The concerned works are not arising from change of road alignment.  The earth retaining wall is to upgrade an existing road side slope which is assessed to be below the current safety standards.  The footway reconstruction is required from maintenance viewpoint.

 

CA at south of section between Chainage CHB 44+30 to CHB 44+80 of Lam Kam Road

·           The proposed works within CA are widening of existing carriageway, and reconstruction of existing footway and carriageway.  Options of road alignment have been explored at this section and the current alignment is the preferred option.  Although it slightly encroaches upon CA, it can overall preserve more mature trees and reduce environmental impacts.  More detailed description of the subject option comparison is at Section 2.5.  As for the reconstruction works, they are required from maintenance viewpoint.

 

CA at south of section between Chainage CHB 48+00 to CHB 52+30 of Lam Kam Road

·           The proposed works within CA are soil nailing of existing slopes and construction of 2m high retaining wall.  The concerned works are not arising from change of road alignment.  The proposed soil nailing is to upgrade the existing road side slopes which are assessed to be below the current safety standards.  The proposed retaining wall is a safety measure to protect road users against the identified potential natural terrain hazards.

 

CA at north of section between Chainage CHB 50+20 to CHB 52+40 of Lam Kam Road

·           The proposed works within CA are widening of existing footway and carriageway, soil nailing of an existing slope, and re-compaction of an existing slope.  Options of road layout have been explored at this section and the current scheme is the preferred option which can minimise CA encroachment and geotechnical works.  The proposed soil nailing and slope re-compaction are to upgrade an existing slope which is assessed to be below current safety standards.  As revealed on site, there is a layer of waste materials on the concerned slope surface and hence a rather large scale re-compaction is considered necessary from safety viewpoint.

 

Alternatives for the Proposed Project                                                                   

 

2.5           The sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road to be upgraded are rural roads serving many road side developments.  Hence, the proposed road alignment follows closely with the existing alignment.  In addition, the proposed road alignment is designed based on the principle of minimising land resumption and environmental impacts.  The following measures have been taken to minimise the environmental impacts.

 

·           In section between Chainage CHA17+10 and CHA 18+90 of Kam Tin Road, the existing single carriageway is proposed to be widened by converting it to dual carriageway.  Although it involves resumption of larger area of private land, the adoption of this option can preserve 4 numbers of mature trees, 2 numbers of which are of 1m trunk diameter.

 

·           In section between Chainage CHB41+90 and CHB49+30 of Lam Kam Road, two options have been considered.  Option A is to widen the carriageway northwards to avoid encroachment of the CA thereat while Option B is to widen southwards.  The sections forming the two alternative options are shown on Figures 9.15 M & N.  Upon a detailed comparison, Option B is adopted as the preferred option.  A brief summary of the assessment findings is described below:

 

(i)       The preferred option can overall preserve 65 more mature trees.  In particular, three numbers of trees of over 1m trunk diameter can be preserved.

(ii)     The preferred option can avoid affecting the existing slopes at the north of the concerned road section.  The reduced geotechnical works give rise to less waste, noise, air quality, landscape and visual impacts.

(iii)   The preferred option slightly encroaches upon CA.  However, the concerned area is a paved footway with isolated trees, and hence the potential impact to habitat loss/vegetation clearance is considered to be low.  Detailed ecological impact assessment is in Section 7.

(iv)    Apart from CA encroachment, another disadvantage of the preferred option is the need to resume larger area of private land.

 

·           In section between Chainage CHB48+00 and CHB48+80 of Lam Kam Road, the southern footway is proposed to be set back in order to preserve the existing road side trees thereat.

 

·           In section between Chainage CHB49+10 and CHB52+90 of Lam Kam Road, the preferred option upgrades the carriageway and the northern footway, but does not add footway at the southern sides of the carriageway.  Such arrangement is to minimise the extent of CA encroachment.  Besides, considering that extensive geotechnical works will be required for adding the concerned footway, such arrangement can reduce waste, noise, air quality, landscape and visual impacts.

                                                                                                                                           

Construction Program and Methodology

 

2.6           The construction programme is to commence works in the first quarter of 2011 for completion in the third quarter of 2015.  The upgrading works are to be carried out by conventional open excavation method. The construction sequence is to upgrade in stages with two-way traffic maintained throughout the construction period.                                                                                                   

 

Consideration of Alternatives Construction Methods and Sequences of Works

 

2.7           The upgrading of at-grade road sections is a straight forward construction process that will not involve complicated construction sequences and activities.  For the purpose of the EIA Study, the construction sequences that have been reviewed are briefly described as follows:

 

(A) Upgrading both bounds of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road simultaneously:

·           The most distinct advantage of this construction method is that a shorter construction period can be achieved thus resulting construction impacts of shorter term.  However, there are drawbacks as follows:

 

-          Higher impacts on noise and air quality during construction period;

-          Complicated diversion schemes for traffic and utilities; and

-          Higher risks to road users.

 

(B) Upgrading both bounds of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road in stages:

·           Under this option, the remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road will be upgraded in stages, i.e. bound by bound.  Though the construction period will be longer, the following advantages can be achieved:

 

-          Less noise and air quality impacts during construction period thus more manageable;

-          Less complicated diversion schemes for traffic and utilities; and

-          Less disturbance to existing road side developments.

 

2.8           In conclusion, the impacts and risks under the latter option, i.e. to upgrade the remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road bound by bound, are more manageable and therefore this option is adopted.

 

Concurrent Project and Potential Cumulative Impacts

 

2.9           One Designated Project defined by the EIAO, namely, Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou - Shenzhen - Hong Kong Express Rail Link will be implemented and within 500m of the Project boundary.  According to the Project Profile of this railway project (application no.: ESB-197/2008), the construction works is tentatively scheduled to commence in the 4th quarter of 2009 and complete by 2015 which would coincide with the construction period of the proposed Project.  As the EIA study of this railway project is in progess, there is no detailed construction methods and programme can be reviewed.  As such, the EIA study of this railway project should take into account the potential cumulative impacts arising from the proposed Project.  In addition, the Project Contractor is required to ensure close liaison with relevant interfacing parties to avoid or minimise concurrent works activities and potential cumulative impacts.

 

2.10      Two other Designated Projects defined by the EIAO, namely, Yuen Long, Kam Tin, Ngau Tam Mei & Tin Shui Wai Drainage Improvement Stage 1,  Phase  2B  -  Kam Tin Secondary Drainage Channel KT13 (CE 67/98) and Drainage Improvement in Sha Tin and Tai Po Design and Construction (CE 50/2001) will be implemented.  However, no cumulative impacts are anticipated from these two projects as both are scheduled to be completed before the commencement of the Project, and both are located over 1 km from the proposed Project.

 

2.11      Table 2.1 summarises other non-designated projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project.

 

2.12      For item (i), minor works will be undertaken during or after 2010 along a 50m section of Kam Tin Road close to the junction of Fan Kam Road. As such, the cumulative environmental impacts of such minor activities shall be minimal.

 

2.13      For item (ii), mains laying works shall be at least 1 km away from the Project and hence cumulative impacts shall also be minimal.

 

Table 2.1       Concurrent Non-designated Projects      

Item

Agreement No.

Project Title

Implementation

(i)

CE 1/2005

Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 2; Mains in New Territories West – Investigation, Design and Construction

2007 - 2011

(ii)

CE 6/2005

Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 2; Mains in New Territories East – Investigation, Design and Construction

2007 - 2011

(iii)

CE 10/2008

Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 4; Mains in New Territories – Investigation, Design and Construction

Mid 2010 - 2015

(iv)

PWP 337WF

Alternative Raw Water Supply to Yau Kom Tau Water Treatment Works from Au Tau Raw Water Pumping Station

End 2010 - 2014

(v)

PWP 4235DS

Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal

See text

 

2.14      For item (iii), minor works will be undertaken during or after 2010.  Total six active site area in small local-scale within the Project boundary.  There shall be only one active construction site within 300 m due to necessary traffic management arrangements.  Therefore, there will not increase the total number of active construction site along am Tin Road and Lam Kam Road.  As such, it is recommended that the Project Contractor ensures close liaison with relevant interfacing parties and that the works be scheduled to avoid or otherwise control cumulative environmental impacts to within acceptable limits.

 

2.15      For item (iv), no significant cumulative environmental impacts are anticipated as these water mains laying works are anticipated to be implemented at least 300 metres from the western end of the Project area.

 

2.16      For item (v), the laying of sewerage pipes along Kam Tin Road and Kam Sheung Road is anticipated from 2010 which would coincide with the construction period of the proposed Project.  There shall be only one active construction site within 300 m due to necessary traffic management arrangements.  Therefore, there will not increase the total number of active construction site along am Tin Road and Lam Kam Road.  As such, the Project Contractor is required to ensure close liaison with relevant interfacing parties to avoid or minimise concurrent works activities and potential cumulative impacts.

 

Operational Traffic Forecast

 

2.17      Traffic flow predictions for the year 2030 (i.e. 15 year after Project commencement) have been adopted to support the operational air quality and noise impact assessment studies in Sections 3 and 4, respectively, as appropriate. Full details of the adopted traffic forecast data accepted by the Transport Department is presented in Appendix A1.  The letter of acceptance by the Transport Department is provided in Appendix A2.

 


3.0           Air Quality Impact Assessment

 

Introduction

 

3.1           The air quality impacts during the construction and operational phases of the Project have been assessed in accordance with the guidelines referred in Annex 12 of the Technical Memorandum of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIA-TM).

 

3.2           Representative air sensitive receivers within the Project area have been identified, and following assessment by modelling techniques, mitigation measures shall be proposed as appropriate to control impacts to within acceptable levels.

 

Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

 

3.3           The criteria to evaluate the air quality impacts are set out in Annex 4 of the EIA-TM specify the compliance of the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs).  Table 3.1 presents the applicable AQOs for the impact assessment.

 

Table 3.1       Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant

Concentration (mg/m3)(1) Averaging Time

1 Hour(2)

8 Hours(3)

24 Hours(3)

3 Months(4)

1 Year(4)

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

800

-

350

-

80

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

-

-

260

-

80

Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)(5)

-

-

180

-

55

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

300

-

150

-

80

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

30000

10000

-

-

-

Photochemical Oxidants (as ozone(6))

240

-

-

-

-

Lead

-

-

-

1.5

-

Notes:

(1)             Measured at 298 K and 101.325 kPa (one atmosphere).

(2)             Not to be exceeded more than three times per year.

(3)             Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

(4)             Arithmetic means.

(5)             Respirable suspended particulates means suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less.

(6)             Photochemical oxidants are determined by measurement of ozone only.

 

3.4           The EIAO-TM stipulates that the hourly TSP level should not exceed 500 µgm-3 (measured at 25°C and one atmosphere) for construction dust impact assessment.


Baseline Conditions

 

3.5           The major pollution sources of the study area are the vehicle emissions of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road.  By considering the geographical constituency to which the site belongs, TSP, RSP and NO2 concentrations were extracted from the EPD’s Tai Po Air Quality Monitoring Station (AQMS), instead of the EPD’s Yuen Long AQMS.  According to the EPD’s “Guideline on Assessing the ‘Total’ Air Quality Impact”, the latest five years (i.e., 2003 – 2007) average monitoring data should be adopted as the background concentration.  Table 3.2 summarizes the annual average concentrations of the pollutants (NO2, RSP and TSP) in the latest five years. 

 

Table 3.2       Annual Average Concentrations of Pollutants in the Latest Five Years (Year 2003 - 2007) at Tai Po Air Quality Monitoring Station

Pollutant

Annual Average Concentration in the Latest Five Years (µg/m-3)

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

53

Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)

52

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

68

 

Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs)

 

3.6           Representative existing ASRs, within the study area (i.e. 500 m from the proposed Project boundary), have been identified according to Annex 12 of the EIA-TM.

 

3.7           For future ASRs, all planned sensitive uses within the study area as referred on each relevant Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) have been identified.  The relevant OZPs are referred to Shek Kong (Plan no.: S/YL-SK/9), Pat Heung (Plan no.: S/YL-PH/11), Lam Tsuen (Plan no.: S/NE-LT/11), Kam Tin North (Plan no.: S/YL-KTN/7) and Kam Tin South (Plan no.: S/YL-KTS/11).  As there is no detailed layout of the planned ASRs during the preparation of the EIA report, the assessment points of the planned ASRs is located at the site boundary to simulate the worst-case scenario.

 

3.8           Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1 summarize the description and location of the ASRs for impact assessment.

 

Table 3.3       Identified ASRs for Construction and Operational AQIA

ASR

Description

Sensitive Use

Horizontal Distance from the Nearest Work Site Boundary (m)

A4

Village house near Petrol Station

Residential

24

A6

Kam Tin Clinic

Clinical

7

A8

Quarter of Shek Kong Barrack

Residential

13

A10

Village house of Shek Kong San Tsuen

Residential

11

A11

Education Centre of Shek Kong Barrack

Educational

7

A13

Village house near Season Villas

Residential

3

A14

Church of Shek Kong Barrack

Place of worship

13

A18

Village house, Chung Ying Yuen

Residential

19

A19

Village house, Ching Yuen

Residential

7

A24

Village house, Lee Ka Yuen

Residential

13

A27

Village house near Petrol Station (under construction)

Residential

6

A31

Village house, 30, Wang Toi Shan Lo Uk Tsuen

Residential

15

A32

Block 9, Evergreen Intl Hong Kong Association

Home for Aged

25

A33

Village house

Residential

19

A34

Village house, Fau Wan Court

Residential

26

A35

Village house near Pine Hill Villa

Residential

29

A38

Village house

Residential

24

A39

Village house near Pat Heung Old Temple

Residential

3

A40

Pat Heung Rural Committee

Office

18

A43

Village house

Residential

22

A45

Village house

Residential

27

A49

Village house

Residential

12

A50

Village house

Residential

27

A51

Village house (No. 151 Lam Kam Road)

Residential

22

A53

Village house (No. 70 Lam Kam Road)

Residential

7

A54

Village house (opposite Kadoorie Experimental Farm)

Residential

11

P01

Planned village development (V Zone)

Residential

34

P02

Planned residential development (R(D) Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P03

Planned village house

Residential

36

P04

Planned residential development (R(D) Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P05

Planned village development (V Zone)

Residential

75

P06

Planned village development (V Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P07

Planned residential development (R(D) Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P08

Planned residential development (R(C)2 Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P09

Planned village development (V Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P10

Planned village development (V Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P11

Planned residential development (R(D) Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P12

Planned village development (V Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

P13

Planned village development (V Zone)

Residential

At Project Boundary

 

3.9           Three elevations of 1.5 m above local ground level (which is the average height of the human breathing zone), 4.5 m and 7.5 m above local ground level have been chosen for the assessment.

 

Construction Air Quality Impact Assessment

 

Impacts Identification and Evaluation

 

3.10      Fugitive dust may be generated from works activities including site clearance, excavation, handling of construction materials, concrete breaking and from minor wind erosion.  Due to site constraints and road traffic management arrangements for Kam Tin Road section between CH0+00 and CH19+00, each active construction activity location shall occupy about 50 m in length of the Project alignment at any one time, and with a distance separation more than 300m between each location.  The area of the work front would be about 175 m2 (50 m x 3.5 m).  The total volume of generated C&D materials is estimated to be 45,000 m3.  The construction programme is about 54 working months and 26 working days for each working month are assumed for this Project.  Therefore, the amount of excavated/handled materials for all work fronts per day is about 32 m3, which is small amount of excavated materials.  Given that each works area and the amount of excavated/handled materials for all work fronts is small, dust impacts during the construction phases are anticipated to be insignificant with the adoption of mitigation measures stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation.  As such, a quantitative dust impact assessment is not necessary.

 

3.11      In addition, activities that may induce significant dust emissions such as extensive site formation and blasting are not required for Project development.

 

3.12      Small amount of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and smoke shall be emitted from the diesel-powered construction equipment, Under normal operation, however, such properly maintained equipment shall not contribute any significant smoke or gaseous emissions.  As such, it is not anticipated that Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for these pollutants would be exceeded during the construction phase.

 

Potential Cumulative Impacts

 

3.13      As stated in Section 2, there is only one designated project within 500m of the Project boundary (i.e., Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou - Shenzhen - Hong Kong Express Rail Link) and will potentially be constructing concurrently with this project.  As the EIA study of this railway project is in progess, there is no detailed construction methods and programme can be reviewed.  As such, the EIA study of this railway project should take into account the potential cumulative impacts arising from the proposed Project.  According to the Project Profile of this railway project (application no.: ESB-197/2008), most of the construction works would be carried out in underground condition.  Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated.  Concurrent non-designated projects have been summarized in Section 2, and specifically Table 2.1.  Only minor local-scale dust impacts arising from the construction activities of these projects are anticipated.  For the concurrent water mains and sewerage projects undertaken along the Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road, there shall be only one active construction site within 300 m due to necessary traffic management arrangements.  Regarding the water mains laying works near Au Tau (PWP 337WF), these shall be at 300 m from the proposed Project.  In general, the construction works of water and sewerage project will likely be constructed section by section in small work front areas within a short period.  Therefore, the quantity of the spoil materials from the concurrent water mains and sewerage projects unlikely to be large enough to cause a significant dust nuisance.  As such, the cumulative dust impacts as a result of concurrent works within the study area are not expected given the large distance separation and provided that the recommended dust suppression measures are implemented.

 

Mitigation Measures

 

3.14      Although no adverse construction phase air quality impacts are anticipated, as a best practice measure to ensure compliance with the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation it is suggested that the following control measures be incorporated into contract documentation:

·           Works area for site clearance shall be sprayed with water before, during and after the operation so as to maintain the entire surface wet;

·           All dusty materials shall be sprayed with water immediately prior to any loading, unloading or transfer operation so as to maintain the dusty materials wet;

·           Hoarding of not less than 2.4 m above ground shall be provided, as far as practicable, along the site boundary which is next to the public areas;

·           Restricting heights not higher than 1.5m above ground from which materials are to be dropped, as far as practicable to minimise the fugitive dust arising from unloading/ loading;

·           Any stockpile of dusty materials shall be covered entirely by impervious sheeting; and/ or placed in an area sheltered on the top and 4 sides;

·           Immediately before leaving a construction site, all vehicles shall be washed to remove any dusty materials from its body and wheels; and

·           Where a vehicle leaving a construction site is carrying a load of dusty materials, the load shall be covered entirely by clean impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty materials do not leak from the vehicle.

 

Residual impacts

3.15        No adverse residual impacts are anticipated during the construction phase.

Operational Air Quality Impact Assessment

 

Impact Identification

 

3.16      Vehicular emissions from open road sections of the existing and widened Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road are the potential air impact to the surrounding ASRs during Project operation.

 

Methodology

 

3.17      Fuel combustion of road vehicles generate air pollutants such as Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP).  Owing to much higher AQO limit comparing with other major parameters of air quality impact, non-compliance of CO is not envisaged in general given that the NO2 concentrations are below the AQO standards.  Therefore, NO2 and RSP are considered as the key air pollutant parameters and the averaging time of the 1-hour concentration of NO2 and 24-hour concentrations of NO2 and RSP were selected for the assessment of air quality impact associated with vehicular emission and compared against the AQO limits.

 

3.18      The EPD recommended air dispersion model, CALINE4, was adopted to predict the pollution of vehicle exhaust from the Project and surrounding roads.  All major roads within the study area were included in the model.

 

3.19      The completion of the Project would be in Year 2015.  The predicted peak traffic flows in year 2030 is the highest compared to those within the next 15 years after the operation of the Project.  As such, the morning and afternoon peak traffic flows in year 2030 is adopted to represent the worst-case scenario and is given in Appendix A1.

 

3.20      The hourly profile in year 2008 was adopted and assumed as the hourly profile of all roads within the Study Area.  The same traffic breakdown was applied for all hours.

 

3.21      The methodology and assumptions of producing the hourly profile in 2008, traffic flow and traffic breakdown in 2030 were accepted by Transport Department (see Appendix A2).

 

Fleet Average Emission Factors

 

3.22      The emission model EMFAC-HK was adopted to calculate the vehicle emission factors of NOx and RSP.  The following details the input assumptions of the model.

 

Vehicle Classes

 

3.23      The vehicle composition of the roads was broken down into 16 vehicle classes according to the EMFAC-HK model.  The vehicle classifications as detailed in Appendix I – EMFAC-HK Vehicle Classification (July 2005) have been provided by EPD.

 

3.24      Table 3.4 summarizes the 16 vehicle classes to be modelled using EMFAC-HK.

 

Table 3.4               Vehicle Classes in EMFAC-HK Model

Vehicle Class*

Description

Fuel

Gross Weight

MC1

Petrol Private Cars (PC) & Light Goods Vehicles (LGV)

Petrol

all

MC3

Diesel PC & LGV

Diesel

<=2.5t

MC4

Diesel PC & LGV 

Diesel

>2.5-3.5t

MC5

Public Light Buses (PLB)

LPG, Diesel

all

MC6

LGV

Diesel

>3.5-5.5t

MC7

Medium & Heavy Goods Vehicles (MGV & HGV)

Diesel

>5.5-15t

MC8

MGV & HGV

Diesel

>15t

MC10

Double Deck Franchised Buses (DDFB)

Diesel

all

MC11

Motor Cycles (MC)

Petrol

all

Taxi3

Taxi

LPG

all

Taxi4

Private Light Buses (PrLB)

LPG, Diesel

<=3.5t

Taxi5

PrLB

LPG, Diesel

>3.5t

Taxi6

Non-franchised Buses (NFB)

Diesel

<=6.4t

Taxi7

NFB

Diesel

>6.4-15t

Taxi8

NFB

Diesel

>15t

Taxi10

Single Deck Franchised Buses (SDFB)

Diesel

all

* MC/Taxi – Sub-model of EMFAC – HK: EMFAC – HK MC v1.2/ EMFAC – HK Taxi v1.2; e.g. MC1 – Vehicle Class 1 defined in the sub-model EMFAC – HK MC v1.2

Road Grouping

 

3.25      As the road characteristics within the study area is similar and the speed limit of the road was 50kph except a portion of Kam Tin Bypass (as shown in Appendix A1) was 70kph.  Only single road type was assumed and a single set of emission factors were calculated.

 

Modelling Modes

 

3.26      As suggested in EPD guideline, “Burden mode” was selected. Vehicular emissions for each hour and for daily totals were output.  

 

Technology Fractions

 

3.27      In different years each vehicle class has a different exhaust technology group index and technology fraction.  Each technology group represents a distinct emission control technology.  The technology fractions input to the model are based on the “Up to Date Vehicle Licensed Number by Age and Technology Group Fractions” provided by EPD.  Since the exhaust technology fractions are only presented up to the year 2003, those after this time have been projected in accordance with the EPD Guideline on Modelling Vehicle Emissions Appendix II - “The Implementation Schedule of Vehicle Emission Standards in Hong Kong (Updated as at 17 August 2005)” and Appendix III - “The Technology Group Indexes”.

 

3.28      Since sufficient information is not available for the projected breakdown in percentage of the exhaust technology fractions for petrol PC & LGV, diesel PC & LGV and PrLB (> 3.5t, diesel & LPG) from Year 2004 to 2030, the projected breakdowns have been made reference to the default values of the EMFAC-HK model. It is justified that the existing vehicle emission control programs were included in the model according to the EPD’s “Guideline on Modeling Vehicle Emissions”. 

 

3.29      For SDFB, the Euro II emission standards were assumed in Year 2001 – 2005. The emission standards after Year 2005 have been followed the “Implementation Schedule of Vehicle Emission Standards in Hong Kong”. 

 

3.30      The technology fractions adopted have been presented in Appendix B1. The fractions for the period 2025 – 2030 were assumed to be the same as those for the year 2024.

 

3.31      Default values were used for the evaporative technology fraction.

 

Vehicle Population

 

3.32      As recommended in EPD’s “Guideline on Modelling Vehicle Emissions”, the latest vehicle age distribution data provided in the EPD’s website (i.e. the Vehicle Population in 2003) was adopted, except the population of private car and taxi.  Corresponding population has been calculated and shown in Appendix B2.  Details on the rationales adopted for the abovementioned vehicle population are presented below.

 

Private Car

3.33      As the implementation of Vehicle Emission Standards, there was no new registration of diesel private car in Hong Kong after 1998.  Hence, population of private car is considered 100% using petrol fuel in this Study, and number of diesel private car subsequent to year 1998 is regrouped into petrol type.

 

Taxi

3.34      As the implementation of Vehicle Emission Standards, new registration of diesel taxi was banned in Hong Kong on from 2001.  100% of LPG taxi was therefore assumed in this study and diesel taxi subsequent to year 2001 was regrouped into LPG fuel type.

 

Light Bus

3.35      Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) implemented an incentive scheme to encourage the early replacement of diesel light buses with LPG or electric ones since 2002.  As a conservative approach, the incentive scheme for light buses would not be considered in this assessment as a conservative approach.

 

Accrual Rate

 

3.36      The “Default values and compositions” were adopted referred to EMFAC-HK Guideline.

 

Diurnal Variation of Daily Trips

 

3.37      The daily trips were used to estimate the cold start emissions of the petrol vehicles only. Hence, trips for vehicle other than petrol type vehicle would be assumed zero.  The number of vehicle trips in the study area was calculated by the following equation:

 

Vehicle Trip of Class 1 in the Study Area at hour 1 = VMT for vehicle Class 1           in the Study Area at hour 1 x Vehicle trip of Class 1 in the territory / VMT for vehicle Class 1 in the territory.*

 

* Default data of EMFAC-HK model

 

Diurnal Variation of Daily Vehicle Mile-Travelled (VMT)

 

3.38      The VMT was calculated by multiplying the number of vehicles from the forecast hourly traffic flow in Year 2030 by the length of road travelled. The adopted daily trips and VMT are summarized in Appendix B3.

 

Hourly Temperature and Relative Humidity Profile

 

3.39      According to the information provided by Hong Kong Observatory (HKO), Shek Kong meteorological station was the nearest station of the Project and was adopted for the model input.  As Year 2007 meteorological data from the Shek Kong meteorological station more than 10% data are invalid, Year 2006 meteorological data for hourly temperature and relative humidity profiles were adopted.

 

Speed Fraction

 

3.40      The speed limits of all roads within the Study Area (except a portion of Kam Tin Bypass) would be 50kph, whereas the speed limit of the portion of Kam Tin Bypass would be 70kph.  It was assumed that all vehicle classes had the same speed profile in the model.

 

3.41      To simulate the effect of different road speed during the rush and non-rush hour, sensitivity test had been carried out.  The design road speed limits were assumed for representing the situation during non-rush hour; while the vehicle speed of peak hour flow in Year 2030 was adopted representing the situation during the rush hour.  The estimated speed fractions provided by the traffic consultant were shown in Appendix B4 and the acceptance by the Transport Department is provided in Appendix A2.

 

3.42      In the model, same road speeds were applied to all hours to demonstrate the effect of using peak flow speed and design speed.  A sensitivity test based on 2015 model year has been conducted to compare the total emission for all vehicle classes using design road speed limits and peak hour speed profile at morning peak and afternoon peak traffic flow respectively.

 

3.43      From the results of the sensitivity test shown in Appendix B5, it indicated that higher total daily NOx and RSP emissions would be obtained at morning peak hour traffic flow.  Therefore, the emission factor at morning peak traffic flow was considered worse than that of afternoon peak traffic flow.

 

3.44      In addition, the results of the sensitivity test indicated a higher total daily NOx and RSP emissions would be obtained at a lower road speed.  Therefore, the peak hour flow speed at speed limit of 50kph of roads was applied to all hours for predicting the total hourly emissions in this assessment as a conservative approach.

 

Model Year

 

3.45      For the purpose of finding the worst emission year, a sensitivity test has been conducted to calculate the vehicle exhaust emissions in different year by using the same VMT and the flow speed fractions.  By using the peak hour flow speed at speed limit of 50kph of roads at all hours and Year 2030 morning peak VMT, the total daily NOx an RSP emissions by 16 vehicle classes in different vehicle exhaust emission year from 2015 to 2030 are summarized in Appendix B6.

 

3.46      Comparing the total daily NOx and RSP emissions under different vehicle exhaust emission years from Year 2015 to 2030, the highest vehicle emissions were found in Year 2015 and were decreased from Year 2015 to 2030.  Therefore, as a conservative approach, the emissions using emission control scenario in Year 2015 were adopted for this Project.

 

Predicted Emission Factors by EMFAC-HK

 

3.47      As the output hourly emissions from the EMFAC-HK model are in tonnes per hour, they were firstly divided by the 2030 morning VMT to obtain the emission factors in grams per mile per vehicle.  The calculated hourly maximum vehicle emission factors, as displayed by Table 3.5, at particular hours were then selected for incorporation into the air dispersion model as a conservative approach.  These factors were adopted together with the forecasted morning peak traffic flow for year 2030 for the assessment.  The calculation of fleet vehicle emission by 16 vehicle classes is provided in Appendix B7.

 

Table 3.5       Emission Factors for Year 2015 for Different Vehicle Classes

Vehicle Class

Description

2015 Emission Factors (grams/mile/vehicle)

NOx

RSP

MC1

PC & LGV

0.1846

0.0099

MC3

Diesel PC & LGV<2.5t

0.5041

0.2159

MC4

Diesel PC & LGV 2.5-3.5t

0.3198

0.1234

MC5

PLB

0.4030

0.3769

MC6

LGV>3.5t

2.7024

0.2785

MC7

MGV & HGV 5.5-15t

5.5289

0.4734

MC8

MGV & HGV >=15t

6.8559

0.4344

MC10

DDFB

3.8658

0.1683

MC11

MC

1.0838

0.0703

Taxi3

Taxi

0.2987

0.0415

Taxi4

PrLB <3.5t

0.3525

0.2783

Taxi5

PrLB >3.5t

0.4467

0.3955

Taxi6

NFB <6.4t

2.0539

0.1411

Taxi7

NFB 6.4-15t

4.7710

0.3132

Taxi8

NFB >15t

4.9947

0.2675

Taxi10

SDFB

0.0000*

0.0000*

* The value is zero since there is no single deck franchised bus (SDFB) travelled within the study area

 

Inputs for CALINE4 Model

 

3.48      The composite fleet emission factors for the road links were calculated based on the Year 2030 morning peak hour traffic flow, vehicle composition and the fleet vehicle emission factors as presented in Table 3.5.  The detailed calculation of the composited fleet average emission factors as inputs to the CALINE4 model are provided in Appendix B8.

 

3.49      The following are the meteorological conditions as inputs to the CALINE4 model:

 

·                 Wind speed: 1 m/s

·                 Wind direction: worst case wind directions

·                 Stability class: D

·                 Wind variability: 12°

·                 Surface roughness: 1 m

·                 Mixing height: 500 m

 

3.50      Since CALINE4 model can only predict maximum hourly concentrations, the 24-hour average pollutants levels have been calculated by multiplying the 1-hour pollutants levels by a factor of 0.4, which is suggested by “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, USEPA, EPA-454/R-92-019”.  NO2 has been modelled by the ambient ratio method which assumes 20% of NOx to be NO2.

 

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

 

3.51      Taking into account vehicle emissions from open road networks and the background pollutant concentrations, the predicted 1-hour average NO2, 24-hour average NO2 and 24-hour average RSP concentrations were predicted and the highest pollutant concentrations at each ASR under the worst wind directions were calculated.  Table 3.6 summarized the predicted maximum 1-hour average NO2, 24-hour average NO2 and 24-hour average RSP concentrations and the detailed predicted pollutant concentrations at different assessment levels are provided in Appendix B9.

 

Table 3.6       Predicted Maximum Pollutiant Concentrations at the ASRs (Background Concentration Included)

ASR

Pollutant Concentration (µg/m3)

NO2 (1-hour)

NO2 (24-hour)

RSP (24-hour)

AQO

300

150

180

A4

75

62

57

A6

133

85

69

A8

90

68

60

A10

79

63

58

A11

93

69

61

A13

126

82

68

A14

90

68

60

A18

87

67

59

A19

110

76

64

A24

80

64

57

A27

113

77

64

A31

81

64

57

A32

76

62

57

A33

80

64

57

A34

68

59

55

A35

78

63

57

A38

70

60

55

A39

107

75

63

A40

78

63

57

A43

85

66

58

A45

66

58

55

A49

86

66

59

A50

66

58

55

A51

68

59

55

A53

70

60

56

A54

73

61

56

P01

85

66

59

P02

91

68

60

P03

74

62

56

P04

106

74

62

P05

117

79

66

P06

144

89

72

P07

128

83

68

P08

77

63

57

P09

119

79

65

P10

111

76

63

P11

116

78

64

P12

110

76

63

P13

114

77

66

                                                                                                               

3.52      Based on the assessment results presented above, the predicted concentrations of the key air pollutant parameters (i.e., 1-hour average NO2, 24-hour average NO2 and 24-hour average RSP) would comply with the AQO.

 

3.53      From the results shown in Appendix B9, it is found that the maximum pollutant concentrations would occur at 1.5m above ground.  The predicted maximum hourly average NO2, 24-hour average NO2 and 24-hour average RSP concentration contours at 1.5m above local ground are shown in Figures 3.2 to 3.4 respectively.  As illustrated in Figures 3.2 to 3.4, there is no ASR within the contours of exceeding AQO limits.

 

3.54      As all the predicted NO2 and RSP concentrations comply with the AQOs, no mitigation measure is required.

 

Residual impacts

 

3.55      No adverse residual impact is predicted during the operational phase of the Project.

 

Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A)

 

3.56      It is recommended that construction phase EM&A is carried out with details provided in the separate EM&A manual.

 

3.57      Operational phase EM&A is considered not necessary as AQO are predicted to be achieved at all representative ASRs.

 

Conclusion

 

3.58      With proper implementation of dust control measures as required under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, construction dust can be controlled to acceptable levels and no significant impacts are anticipated.  Gaseous emissions from the construction equipment are expected to be minimal. Operational air quality impacts are also expected to be insignificant.

 

 

 

 


4.0           Noise Impact Assessment

 

Introduction

 

4.1           This section addresses the noise impacts during the construction and operational phases of the Project.  The noise impacts have been evaluated and assessed in accordance with Annexes 5 and 13 of the EIA-TM.

 

Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

 

4.2           Relevant environmental legislations governing noise control are Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) (Cap 400) and Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499).  Relevant assessment criteria and guidelines of the assessment approaches have been given in the following Technical Memoranda issued under the NCO and EIAO:

 

·           Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling (GW-TM);

·           Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM); and

·           Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIA-TM).

 

Construction Noise

 

4.3           Construction noise criteria for daytime hours of 07:00-19:00 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday are stipulated in Annex 5 of EIA-TM and shown in Table 4.1 below. 

 

Table 4.1       Noise Criteria for Daytime Construction Activities

Uses / Noise Sensitive Receivers

0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday Leq(30 min) dB(A)

Domestic Premises

75

Educational institutions including kindergartens, nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required

70 (65 During Examinations)

Note: The above standards apply to uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

 

Operational Noise

 

4.4           Annex 5 of the EIA-TM stipulates the traffic noise criteria during the operational phase, as shown in Table 4.2. 

 

Table 4.2       Relevant Road Traffic Noise Criteria

Uses / Noise Sensitive Receivers

Peak Hour Traffic L10 (1 hour) dB(A)

Domestic Premises

70

Educational institutions, Places of Public Worship

65

Clinics, homes for the aged

55

Note: The above standards apply to uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

 

4.5           The above noise criteria shall be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at 1m from the external façade of the noise sensitive uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

 

4.6           For the operational noise impact assessment on road traffic, roads within 300 m from the Project boundary have been included.  Traffic noise impacts for the following scenarios are predicted:

 

1.        Original Scenario: assessment based on the peak hour traffic flow at the design year, i.e., maximum traffic projection within a 15 years period without the Project;

2.        Unmitigated Scenario: assessment based on the maximum traffic projection within 15 years of the design year after completion of the modification works;

3.        Mitigated Scenario: assessment with the proposed mitigation measures, only necessary when significant traffic noise impact is predicted; and

4.        Prevailing Scenario: assessment on existing traffic noise level only necessary when residual impact is predicted.

 

4.7           Given Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road (i.e., rural roads) are not within the meaning of Item A.1 of Schedule 2 of EIAO, the traffic noise impact is significant if the following conditions are met:

·           Predicted unmitigated traffic noise level (i.e., “Unmitigated Scenario”) at the representative NSRs exceeds the noise criteria as listed in Table 4.2 by 1.0 dB(A) or more; and

·           Predicted unmitigated traffic noise level at the representative NSRs with the Project is greater than that without the Project (i.e., “Original Scenario”) by 1.0 dB(A) or more.

 

4.8           If any of the NSR cannot be protected by the proposed direction noise mitigation measures, indirect technical remedies for those NSR may be adopted provided that the residual impacts satisfy all three criterion below:

1.          Predicted overall traffic noise level at the NSR must be above the specified noise level as listed in Table 4.2;

2.          Predicted overall noise level is at least 1.0 dB(A) more than the prevailing traffic noise level; and

3.          Noise contribution from the proposed road project (i.e. the new road) to the increase in predicted overall noise level is at least 1.0 dB(A).

 

Baseline Conditions

 

4.9           The assessment area is rural in nature. The dominant existing source comes from the road traffic on Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road.

 

Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs)

 

4.10      Existing and planned NSRs within 300 m from the Project boundary were identified in accordance with Section 3 in Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM. 

 

4.11      In addition, it is confirmed that no noise sensitive uses within Pat Heung Division Police Station and Pat Heung Fire Station (refer to Appendix C4).

 

4.12      With reference to the confirmation from the Government Secretariat (refer to Appendix C2), there is no development schedule on the change of uses in the Shek Kong Barracks.  In addition, the Government Secretariat also confirmed that there are some dormitory exists within the Shek Kong Barracks.  According to the survey map published by Lands Department, “Church” and “Education Centre” was labelled within the Shek Kong Barracks.  As confirmed by the Government Secretariat (refer to Appendix C2), the premises labelled as “Church” and “Education Centre” is currently used as office/recreational centre and warehouse, respectively, which is not considered as a NSR according to Annex 13 of EIAO-TM.  Therefore, only the dormitory has been included in this assessment.

 

4.13      According to the map of the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (KFBG) provided in the KFBG’s website and the site survey had been conducted within the KFBG in November 2008.  No noise sensitive uses were found within the farm and only reception, office and animal exhibit were identified at nearby the Project boundary.  As confirmed by the KFBG (refer to Appendix C3), there is no noise sensitive uses within KFBG.

 

4.14      Besides, planned NSRs on relevant published land use plans, including plans and drawings published by Lands Department has been checked and identified.  These NSRs include all existing NSRs as well as potential planned/ committed noise sensitive uses earmarked on the relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs), Outline Development Plans (ODPs) and layout plans. 

 

4.15      According to Planning Department’s record, there is no Outline Development Plan (ODP) within 300 m study area.  With reference to the information in the Statutory Planning Portal of the Town Planning Board (TPB), all planned sensitive uses of all approved planning applications within the study area have been identified.

 

4.16      Representative NSRs considered to be potentially most affected by noise were selected for the assessment.  In order to assess the worst-case scenario of the noise impacts upon the planned NSRs, representative assessment locations for the planned NSRs have been selected at the site / zoning boundary facing the Project.  Even though a new NSR have been constructed and occupied before the commencement of the road works within the zoning, the selected planned NSRs already representing as the worst-case scenario.  The representative NSRs for the construction and operational noise impact assessment are summarised in Table 4.3 below, with their locations illustrated in Figure 4.1.  Photographs of the identified existing representative NSRs are provided in Appendix C1.

 

Table 4.3       Summary of the Identified Representative NSRs

NSR

Description

No. of Storeys

Assessment Level

mPD

Sensitive Use

N1

Kam Kwong Nepali Christian Church

1

1F

8.9

Place for Worship

N2

Village house at Kong Tai Road

1

1F

7.4

Residential

N3

Village house near Shek Kong

2

1F

2F

10.1

12.9

Residential

N4

Village house near Petrol Station

2

1F

2F

10.0

12.8

Residential

N5

Residential development near Kiu Tau Tsuen (under construction)

3

1F

2F

3F

9.9

12.9

15.9

Residential

N6

Kam Tin Clinic

2

1F

2F

10.1

13.1

Medical

N7

Village house, 18E, Shek Kong San Tsuen

1

1F

10.8

Residential

N8

Dormitory of Shek Kong Barrack

3

1F

2F

3F

11.7

14.5

17.3

Residential

N9

Village house of Shek Kong San Tsuen

1

1F

11.6

Residential

N10

Village house of Shek Kong San Tsuen

1

1F

10.9

Residential

N12

Low-rise residential building, 136, Season Villas

2

1F

2F

12.7

15.5

Residential

N13

Village house near Season Villas

2

1F

2F

14.6

17.4

Residential

N15

Village house near Season Villas

2

1F

2F

12.3

15.1

Residential

N16

Village house, 265, Kam Tin Road

2

1F

2F

13.0

15.8

Residential

N17

Village house near Shek Kong Vegetable Marketing Cooperation Society Limited

2

1F

2F

16.0

18.8

Residential

N18

Village house, Chung Ying Yuen

2

1F

2F

16.8

19.6

Residential

N19

Village house, Ching Yuen

2

1F

2F

17.2

20.0

Residential

N20

Village house, Lin Yuen

3

1F

2F

3F

18.0

20.8

23.6

Residential

N21

Village house near Pat Heung Police Station

2

1F

2F

18.2

21.0

Residential

N22

Village house, 82, Green Villa

3

1F

2F

3F

19.7

22.5

25.3

Residential

N24

Village house, Lee Ka Yuen

2

1F

2F

19.8

22.6

Residential

N25

Village house, 28A – 28B, Wang Toi Shan Yau Uk Tsuen

3

1F

2F

3F

21.9

24.7

27.5

Residential

N26

Yan Wo Home for Aged

3

1F

2F

3F

23.0

25.8

28.6

Home for Aged

N27

Village house near Petrol Station (under construction)

3

1F

2F

3F

23.0

25.8

28.6

Residential

N28

Village house, 94B, Wang Toi Shan San Tsuen

3

1F

2F

3F

23.9

26.7

29.5

Residential

N29

Village house, 46 – 47, Wang Toi Shan Lo Uk Tsuen

3

1F

2F

3F

24.3

27.1

29.9

Residential

N30

Shun Fook Home for Aged

3

1F

2F

3F

23.6

26.4

29.2

Home for Aged

N31

Village house, 30, Wang Toi Shan Lo Uk Tsuen

2

1F

2F

25.0

27.8

Residential

N32

Block 9, Evergreen International Hong Kong Association

3

1F

2F

3F

26.0

28.8

31.6

Home for Aged

N33

Village house

2

1F

2F

29.4

32.2

Residential

N34

Village house, Fau Wan Court

3

1F

2F

3F

38.8

41.6

44.4

Residential

N35

Village house near Pine Hill Villa

2

1F

2F

43.0

45.8

Residential

N36

Village house opposite to Pine Hill Villa

2

1F

2F

42.6

45.4

Residential

N37

Village house, Pine Hill Villa

3

1F

2F

3F

47.7

50.5

53.3

Residential

N38

Village house

3

1F

2F

3F

47.7

50.5

53.3

Residential

N39

Village house near Pat Heung Old Temple

2

1F

2F

45.0

47.8

Residential

N41

Village house of Kiu Court

3

1F

2F

3F

45.8

48.6

51.4

Residential

N42

Village house near Pat Heung Rural Committee

2

1F

2F

47.8

50.6

Residential

N43

Village house

3

1F

2F

3F

51.0

53.8

56.6

Residential

N44

Village house near Route Twisk

3

1F

2F

3F

52.4

55.2

58.0

Residential

N45

Village house

1

1F

54.1

Residential

N46

Cheung Chau Court

5

1F

2F

3F

4F

5F

59.9

62.9

65.9

68.9

71.9

Residential

N47

4, Shropshire Road

2

1F

2F

71.4

74.4

Residential

N48

Village house

1

1F

61.8

Residential

N49

Village house

1

1F

71.5

Residential

N50

Village house

2

1F

2F

84.1

86.9

Residential

N51

Village house (No. 151 Lam Kam Road)

1

1F

99.2

Residential

N52

Village house

2

1F

2F

135.7

138.5

Residential

N53

Village house (No. 70 Lam Kam Road)

1

1F

151.6

Residential

N54

Village house (opposite side of Kadoorie Experimental Farm)

1

1F

158.7

Residential

P01 (1)

Planned village development (V Zone) at Kam Tin South OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTS/11]

3*

1F

2F

3F

9.0

11.8

14.6

Residential

P02 (1)

Planned residential development [R(D) Zone] at Kam Tin South OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTS/11]

2*

1F

2F

9.1

12.1

Residential

P03

Planned village house [Planning Application Case No.: A/YL-PH/540]

3**

1F

2F

3F

29.7

32.5

35.3

Residential

P04 (1)

Planned residential development [R(D) Zone] at Pat Heung OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-PH/11]

2*

1F

2F

54.8

57.8

Residential

P05 (1)

Planned village development (V Zone) at Kam Tin North OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTN/7]

3*

1F

2F

3F

8.8

11.6

14.4

Residential

P06 (1)

Planned village development (V Zone) at Kam Tin North OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTN/7]

3*

1F

2F

3F

9.4

12.2

15.0

Residential

P07 (1)

Planned residential development (R(D) Zone) at Kam Tin North OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTN/7]

2*

1F

2F

11.1

14.1

Residential

P08 (1)

Planned residential development (R(C)2 Zone) at Kam Tin North OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTN/7]

3*

1F

2F

3F

10.3

13.3

16.3

Residential

P09 (1)

Planned village development (V Zone) at Pat Heung OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-PH/11]

3*

1F

2F

3F

21.1

23.9

26.7

Residential

P10 (1)

Planned village development (V Zone) at Pat Heung OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-PH/11]

3*

1F

2F

3F

26.7

29.5

32.3

Residential

P11 (1)

Planned residential development (R(D) Zone) at Pat Heung OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-PH/11]

2*

1F

2F

32.9

35.9

Residential

P12 (1)

Planned village development (V Zone) at Shek Kong OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-SK/9]

3*

1F

2F

3F

47.4

50.2

53.0

Residential

P13 (1)

Planned village development (V Zone) at Shek Kong OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-SK/9]

3*

1F

2F

3F

51.9

54.7

57.5

Residential

Note: 

(1)    For the planned NSR at the land use zoning of “V” or “R”, the calculation of construction noise level is excluded as no information showing the actual location of future noise sensitive development during Project construction.

*     Permitted maximum building height or number of storey stated in the approved Outline Zoning Plan

**    Number of storey stated in the approved planning application

 

Construction Noise Impact Assessment

 

Impact Identification

 

4.17      In order to complete the works within scheduled timeframe, the use of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) is unavoidable.  Therefore, the use of PME in daytime is expected to be the major noise source during the construction of the Project.  No construction works are scheduled to be undertaken during noise control restricted hours of all days during the evening and night-time (i.e. 19:00-07:00 hours); and all time during Sundays and public holidays.  Notwithstanding, it will be the Contractor’s responsibility to apply for a Construction Noise Permit (CNP) for any construction works planned to be undertaken during restricted hours in accordance with the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO).  No percussive piling works will be required within the proposed project area.

 

Assessment Assumptions and Methodology

 

4.18      The Project is scheduled to commence in first quarter of 2011 and to be completed in third quarter of 2015.  All construction tasks would be carried out during unrestricted hours (0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Saturday excluding general holidays).  Details of construction tasks are as follows:

·           Road upgrading (including minor excavation and minor slope works);

·           Road paving;

·           Geotechnical Work (Soil Nailing); and

·           Soldier Pile Wall Construction.

 

4.19      Due to temporary road traffic management is not allowing long road closure on one lane for dual carriageway, each active construction activity location shall be about 50 m in length at one lane of the road alignment at any one time.  Assumed 50 m road work is constructed, the operation duration of each PME is estimated and tabulated in Table 4.4.

 

Table 4.4       Operation Duration of PME for the Construction of Road Work

Construction Stage

Involved PME

Duration

Road Breaking

Breaker + Generator

1 – 2 day(s)

Excavating

Excavator

1 – 2 day(s)

Road Paving

Asphalt Paver

0.5 day

Road Compacting

Vibratory Roller

0.5 day

 

4.20      The geotechnical works and the soldier pile wall construction will only occur at the locations as indicates in Figure 4.1.  There is only one work site for construction of soldier pile wall (as shown in Figure 4.1d).  The geotechnical works have been included in the assessment on NSRs where locates within 100m from the work site.  To represent a reasonable worst-case scenario it has been assumed that the geotechnical works will be undertaken concurrently with road works, unless specified in the later sections. 

 

4.21      The construction of soldier pile wall has been included in the noise impacts assessment on NSRs N33, N34, N35 and P03. It is noted that there will be no concurrent use of PME for road works and construction of soldier pile wall except the use of breaker and generator within each work front.

 

4.22      The exact number and type of PME used for various construction activities will only be known after appointment of the works Contractor. However, assessment has been conducted based on the assumed PME inventory as listed in Appendix D1.  The number for each PME has been assumed to be one within each construction work front.  The percentage on-time for each PME has been assumed to be 100%, based on 30-minute working periods, except 50% on-time assumed for dump truck and lorry and 70% on-time assumed for rotary driller.  The Project Proponent has confirmed that the PME inventory with the percentage on-time is practicable and practical to complete the works within scheduled timeframe and are available in Hong Kong (Appendix D2).

 

4.23      Similar to the assumptions on the PME inventory, the exact staging or phasing of construction arrangement will be determined by the contractor after appointment of the works.  Assessment has been conducted based on the assumption that the length of each active construction site is up to 50m; and the minimum separation of construction sites is 300m.  With reference to the findings in the Traffic Impact Assessment of the Project, the assumption is considered reasonable practicable.  As such, cumulative construction noise from concurrent works of active construction sites is not anticipated.  Accordingly, it is anticipated that each NSR can only be affected by one active construction site at any one time.

 

4.24      The construction noise impact at representative NSRs has been assessed based on standard acoustic principles and the assessment methodology as specified in the GW-TM and Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM.

 

4.25      The Sound Power Level (SWL) of the PME was determined from Table 3 of the GW-TM.  The SWL also made reference to the British Standards BS 5228: Part 1:1997 – “Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites”.

 

4.26      It is assumed that all PME required for a particular construction activity would be located at the notional probable source position of the road section where such activity is to be performed.  To predict the noise level, PME is divided into groups required for each construction task / stage.  The sound pressure level of each construction task is calculated based on the number of PME and distance from the NSR.  The noise levels at NSRs are then predicted by adding up the SWLs of all concurrent construction tasks. 

 

4.27      A positive 3 dB(A) façade correction is added to the predicted noise levels in order to account for the facade effect at each NSR.

 

Potential Cumulative Impacts

 

4.28      As identified in Section 2, two of the designated projects (i.e., Yuen Long, Kam Tin, Ngau Tam Mei & Tin Shui Wai Drainage Improvement Stage 1,  Phase  2B  -  Kam Tin Secondary Drainage Channel KT13 (CE 67/98) and Drainage Improvement in Sha Tin and Tai Po Design and Construction (CE 50/2001)) and one non-designated project (i.e., Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 2; Mains in New Territories East – Investigation, Design and Construction (CE 6/2005)) will be located at more than 1 km from this Project boundary.  And 1 non-designated project (i.e. Alternative Raw Water Supply to Yau Kom Tau Water Treatment Works from Au Tau Raw Water Pumping Station (Agreement No.: PWP 337WF)) will be located at more than 300 m.  Therefore, there should be no cumulative impacts from those projects.

 

4.29      Apart from the above, there are three non-designated projects (i.e., Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 2 (Agreement No.: CE 1/2005), Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 4 (Agreement No.: CE 10/2008) and Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal (Agreement No.: PWP 4235DS)) which will potentially be constructing concurrently with this project.  However, according to the temporary traffic arrangement concerns, the distance separation of more than 300 m should be maintained between the two active construction sites.  Given there will be sufficient distance separation between two construction sites, no cumulative construction noise impacts are anticipated.  In addition, there is one designated project (i.e., Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou - Shenzhen - Hong Kong Express Rail Link) will potentially be constructing concurrently with this project.  As the EIA study of this railway project is in progess, there is no detailed construction methods and programme can be reviewed.  As such, the EIA study of this railway project should take into account the potential cumulative impacts arising from the proposed Project.  According to the Project Profile of this railway project (application no.: ESB-197/2008), most of the construction works would be carried out in underground condition.  Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated.

 

Assessment of Construction Noise Impacts (un-mitigated scenario)

 

4.30      Table 4.5 summarizes the predicted maximum construction noise levels at the representative NSRs under the un-mitigated scenario.  Detailed calculations of the noise levels are provided in Appendix D3.

 

Table 4.5       Predicted Maximum Construction Noise Levels at the Representative NSRs (Un-mitigated Scenario)

NSR

Description

Predicted Noise Levels [Leq (30min)], dB(A)

Noise Criteria, dB(A)

N1

Kam Kwong Nepali Christian Church

70

70

N2

Village house at Kong Tai Road

63