Contents
2.1 Project
Components and Layout
2.2 Need and Benefits
of the Project
3. Consideration
of Alternatives
3.3 Selection of Helipad Locations at NAH
3.4 Construction
Method and Alternatives
3.7 Ą§Without ProjectĄ¨ Scenario
4. Summary
of the Environmental Impacts
4.1 Approach to
Environmental Impact Assessment
5. Environmental
Monitoring and Audit Requirements
Figures
Figure 2.1 Project
Site and Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 3.1 Options
for Helipad Location in the NAH
Tables
Table 2.1 Summary
of Project Description
Table 2.2 Tentative
Programme of the Project
Table 2.3 Summary
of Concurrent Projects
Table 3.1 Selection
of Acute Hospitals for the Proposed Helipad
Table
3.2 Summary
of Outcome of Options Evaluation of Helipad Siting in NAH
Table 4.1 Summary
of Environmental Impacts
Table 5.1 Summary
of EM&A Requirements
1.1.1.1 The Kai Tak Development (KTD) is a major development project covering
the ex-Kai Tak Airport located in Kowloon City and Kwun Tong. The New Acute Hospital (NAH) will be a
major acute hospital in central Kowloon, providing a comprehensive range of
acute hospital services, with modern service models, technology and facilities,
comprising an Accident & Emergency Department (AED), an oncology centre and
providing enhanced neuroscience services. In order to provide a rapid and seamless
transfer of patients and survivors for prompt and appropriate treatment, it is
proposed to construct and operate a helipad on the roof of the Acute Block of
the NAH (Ą§the ProjectĄ¨) to further enhance the overall efficiency and
effectiveness of the emergency response of the NAH. The location of the
proposed helipad and its environs are shown in Figure 1.1.
1.1.1.2 In September 2017, HA commissioned Wong Tung & Partners Ltd. (WTPL)
as the Architectural Consultant for the design of the NAH and the proposed
helipad. Meinhardt Infrastructure
and Environment Limited (MIEL) was simultaneously appointed by WTPL to provide
consultancy services in respect of this Project, including preparation of this
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study. The Project is a Designated Project by
virtue of Item B.2 of Schedule 2, Part I of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance (EIAO), which specifies Ą§A helipad within 300 m of existing or
planned residential developmentĄ¨. Hence, an Environmental Permit (EP) is
required for the construction and operation of the Project and an EIA Report
has to be prepared for application for an EP.
1.1.1.3 The EIA Study has been conducted for the Project in accordance with the
requirements in the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-311/2019, issued for the Project
and the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
(TM-EIAO). This EIA Report is
prepared on behalf of the Hospital Authority (HA), who is the Project
Proponent, for seeking approval under the EIAO.
1.1.1.4
This executive summary
(ES) summarises the key findings, recommendations and conclusions of the EIA
Report for the proposed helipad.
2.1.1.1 The project details of the proposed
Helipad are summarised in Table 2.1.
The erection of a helipad on the rooftop of the Acute Block of NAH will provide
a permanent facility to facilitate helicopter emergency medical services. The Government
Flying ServiceĄŚs (GFS) helicopters can land at NAH directly using the proposed helipad,
with no onward transfer of patients by ambulance being required. The location and
surroundings of the Project are shown in Figure 1.1 and Figure 2.1.
Table 2.1 Summary
of Project Description
|
Project Information |
Details |
|
Project Location |
Roof of the Acute Block of NAH |
|
Helipad Height |
19m above the roof of Acute Block (+119.15
mPD) |
|
Helipad Size |
30m in diameter |
|
Major Components of the Project |
Helipad structure, Covered safety
walkway, Access ramp, Staircase |
2.2.1.1
The
New Acute Hospital (NAH) in the Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA) will be a new
major acute general hospital located in central Kowloon region, serving not
only the community of the Kai Tak area, but also, providing support to the
adjacent districts such as Kowloon City, Wong Tai Sin, Kwun Tong and Yau Tsim
Mong.
2.2.1.2
According
to the Clinical Services Plan for the Kowloon Central Cluster (KCC) formulated
by the HA in 2016, the NAH will have a planned capacity of around 2,400 numbers
of in-patient and day beds, with the objectives of meeting the long-term rising
demand for healthcare services and facilities in Kowloon arising from the growing
and ageing population. The NAH will
be established as an acute hospital to provide 24-hour Accident and Emergency,
in-patient, out-patient, ambulatory and rehabilitation services, in addition to
being a designated trauma centre, which will be relocated from its current
location at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH). The trauma centre, to be housed in the
Acute Block, will be integrated with other hospital functional units comprising
critical care areas in order to provide a full range of comprehensive care for
critically ill/ injured patients.
2.2.1.3 The transfer of patients from the helipad will
be via a pair of dedicated Ą§hot liftsĄ¨ with override controls for
expedition. With the helipad
located on the roof top of the Acute Block building and the AED being directly
located on the ground level of the same block, critically ill/ injured patients
will be able to receive a continuum of high quality, efficient and effective emergency
response services. Furthermore, the
proposed NAH helipad will, also, serve emergency services by incorporating the
advantages discussed in the sections below.
Location Advantages
2.2.1.4 The NAH is strategically located in the heart of Kowloon which is a better
location than the existing helipads at Tuen Mun Hospital (TMH), Pamela Youde
Nethersole Eastern Hospital (PYNEH) and the planned Queen Mary Hospital (QMH) for
serving the public in the Kowloon, the outlying islands and some remote country
park areas in the north-eastern part of the New Territories.
Multiple Casualty Transfer
2.2.1.5 The proposed rooftop helipad at NAH can be operated in conjunction with
GFSĄŚs Kai Tak Division when major disasters occur involving a large number of
patients. This helps to cater for multiple casualty transfers when multiple
helicopters are involved, by serving as the primary landing site or as an
emergency support landing site.
Weather Alternatives
2.2.1.6 The helipads at the PYNEH or the proposed New Block of QMH may not be
available for operational use due to adverse weather conditions such as poor
visibility, low cloud base or strong wind conditions. Therefore, it is
necessary to provide alternative sites for the emergency rescue team to
consider. The proposed rooftop helipad at NAH provides a primary and secondary
landing point for air ambulance and rescue missions with critically ill/
injured patients or survivors by sharing part of the landings for emergency
services with the PYNEH and the QMH, ensuring the most optimal flights and
effective use of resources.
Environmental Benefits and Dis-benefits
2.2.1.7 The helipad is proposed to be constructed on the rooftop of the Acute
Block of the NAH. As the provision
of the helipad has been taken account of in the early planning stage, there
will be no additional foundation and superstructure implications of the Project
to the Acute Block. Thus, the potential environmental impacts arising from the
construction and operation of helipad will be small. In addition, the helipad
could share the air ambulance traffic among helicopter landings at the PYNEH, TMH and future QMH, which alleviate the potential
noise and disturbance to residents nearby these hospitals. Potential adverse
noise would be anticipated to Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) without the
implementation of noise mitigation measures.
2.3.1.1
The operation, management and maintenance of the
helipad will be undertaken by HA, while the GFS will be the user of this
helipad, solely be used for emergency patients, causalities
and emergency medical transportation and there will be no commercial and
planned flights except trial flights.
2.3.1.2
The tentative planning and implementation programme
for Project are shown in Table 2.2
below:
Table 2.2 Tentative Programme of the Project
|
Activities |
Key Milestone Dates |
|
Construction of the Helipad |
Q4 2023 to Q4 2024 |
|
Commissioning / Operation of
the Helipad |
2025 |
2.4.1.1
Key concurrent projects in
the vicinity of the Project are identified and summarised in Table 2.3. Potential cumulative impacts from these
concurrent projects (if any) have been assessed in this EIA Study, and
mitigation measures if found necessary will be implemented.Ą¨
Table 2.3 Summary of Concurrent Projects
|
Project Name |
Target Works Commencement Dates |
Target Work Completion Dates |
|
Government Flying Service
Kai Tak Division and the cross-boundary heliport by CEDD |
Fourth quarter of 2018 |
First quarter of 2021 |
|
Kai Tak Development -
Stage 3 Infrastructure Works for Developments at the Southern Part of the
Former Runway by CEDD |
2015 |
2020 |
|
Central Kowloon Route -
Slip Road S5 by HyD |
2023 |
2024 |
|
Kai Tak Development -
Trunk Road T2 and Infrastructure at South Apron by CEDD |
2020 |
2026 |
|
Kai Tak Development -
Remaining Infrastructure works for Developments at the Former Runway and
South Apron, Road L10 & L18 by CEDD by CEDD |
2019 |
2026 |
|
New Acute Hospital at Kai
Tak Development Area by Hospital Authority |
2018 |
2024 |
3.1.1.1 The key
rationale to locate a helipad at an acute hospital is to enable point-to-point
transfer of patients under critical conditions to the AED swiftly under various
emergency circumstances including trauma incidents (e.g. disasters).
3.1.1.2 Key considerations in selecting the site for a helipad included the type
of hospitals and medical services, location constraints, space availability and
the environmental benefit / dis-benefit. It
is necessary to consider existing or future hospitals in Kowloon with trauma
centres to meet, not only the strategic and geographical objectives of the new
facility, but to integrate with an acute hospital with trauma facilities. In
addition, the designated trauma centre at the QEH is planned to close once the
trauma centre at the NAH is put into service. Hence, NAH has been selected as the
optimum location for installation of the helipad.
3.2.1.1
Table 3.1
summarize the key considerations for the selection of a helipad location at two
suitable acute hospitals in Kowloon, including QEH
and NAH.
Table 3.1 Selection
of Acute Hospitals for the Proposed Helipad
|
Considerations |
Queen Elizabeth Hospital |
New Acute Hospital |
|
Type of Hospital and medical services |
ĄP A Major Acute Hospital ĄP 24-hour A&E Service ĄP Current trauma centre (planned to be relocated) |
ĄP A Major Acute Hospital ĄP 24-hour A&E Service ĄP Proposed trauma centre |
|
Site Location |
ĄP Kowloon Central Cluster ĄV Gascoigne Road, KingĄŚs Park |
ĄP Former South Apron area of KTDA. Space is
available. |
|
Space availability |
ĄP No extra space at both ground and roof level for a helipad ĄP Existing buildings may not have spare structural loading for helipad
and rooftop helicopter landing; need additional structural support to cater
the loading |
ĄP No extra space at ground level for a helipad ĄP The main building works of NAH have not been commenced and the
structural loading of a proposed rooftop helipad can be accommodated |
|
Flight Path |
ĄP High rise residential buildings are found to the north and northeast,
so flight sector is limited ĄP Recreation developments and facilities to the south are comparably
low-rise, which is preferred in terms of accessible flight path |
ĄP
High rise residential
buildings are found to the east. ĄP Three flight paths are available, southeast, south and northwest of
the hospital(1) |
|
Environmental Benefit/ Dis-benefit |
Benefit: ĄP Extensive and complicated construction activities involved for a
retrofit Dis-benefit: ĄP NSRs at all directions ĄP NSRs are very close to the hospital |
Benefit ĄP Minor construction activities involved\ ĄP Existing NSRs for construction stage are far away Dis-benefit: ĄP NSRs at southwest and southeast of the hospital |
|
Distances of the Nearest Sensitive Receivers |
22m to Methodist School from the main building
block of QEH |
150m from helipad to the nearest planned
residential zone |
Note:
1. There are high rise buildings
near NAH but not within the designated flight paths. Besides, the main roof
levels of the high rise buildings are lower than the helipad deck level.
3.2.1.2 Based on the consideration in the above table, QEH
is not preferred for helipad operations. In addition, HA propose to transfer
the trauma facilities at the QEH to the NAH once the latter is operational.
3.2.1.3 Notwithstanding the above, suitable land in the Kowloon area is
available at the former Kai Tak Airport in the KTDA. However, a Government
Flying Service Kai Tak Division (GFS KTD) will be established at the tip of the
Ex-Kai Tak Runway in KTDA, which is around 1.5km to the southeast of the NAH
site. Additional travelling time is required from GFS KTD to the NAH.
Furthermore, if ambulances are not available, it would cause further delays in
transferring patients to the NAH. Therefore,
NAH is considered as the most preferred acute hospital for helipad operations
in Kowloon.
3.3.1.1
Six alternative within
the NAH have been proposed for the location of the helipad at the NAH. The six options are as follows:
ĄP
Option 1: South corner
on the roof of the proposed Acute Block of NAH in Site A;
ĄP
Option 2: West corner on
the roof of the proposed Acute Block of NAH in Site A;
ĄP
Option 3: Roof of the
proposed Administration Block of NAH in Site A;
ĄP
Option 4: Roof of the
proposed Education Block of NAH in Site A;
ĄP
Option 5: Roof of the
proposed Oncology Block of NAH in Site B; and
ĄP
Option 6: Roof of the
proposed Specialist Out-Patient Clinic Block of NAH in Site B.
3.3.1.2
The pros and cons for
each of these options are examined in Table
3.2 below and the locations of the helipad for each of the options are
shown in Figure
3.1.
Table 3.2 Summary of Outcome of Options Evaluation of Helipad
Siting in NAH
|
Options of
Helipad Siting |
Height as
stipulated in OZP |
Pros |
Cons |
Preferable
Option? |
|
Option 1: South corner on the roof of Acute Block |
ĄP 100mPD |
ĄP Maximize the overall efficiency and effectiveness of NAHĄŚs emergency
response services |
ĄP
Likely adverse noise impact to
the adjacent residential zone |
No |
|
Option 2: West corner on the roof of Acute Block |
ĄP 100mPD |
ĄP
Smaller noise impact compared
with Option 1 ĄP Increase the separation distance while maintaining immediate access to
critical care units of NAH |
ĄP
Potential adverse noise impact
to NSRs |
Yes |
|
Option 3: Roof of the Administration Block |
ĄP 100mPD |
ĄP High distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad |
ĄP Operational constraints from helipad to hospital and increased risks
to critically ill/ injured patient |
No |
|
Option 4: Roof of the Education Block |
ĄP 100mPD |
ĄP High distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad |
ĄP Operational constraints from helipad to hospital and increased risks
to critically ill/ injured patient |
No |
|
Option 5: Roof of the Oncology Block |
ĄP 60mPD |
ĄP High distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad |
ĄP Operational constraints from helipad to hospital and increased risks
to critically ill/ injured patient |
No |
|
Option 6: Roof of the Specialist Out-Patient Clinic
Block |
ĄP 60mPD |
ĄP High distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad |
ĄP Operational constraints from helipad to hospital and increased risks
to critically ill/ injured patient |
No |
3.3.1.3
Option 2 is considered
technically feasible and the most preferred as it matches with the medical
planning, helicopter flight path and distance attenuation for reducing helicopter
noise implications.
3.4.1.1
Based on the latest
design development, three methods for constructing the proposed helipad have
been considered, which are listed below:
ĄP
Helipad deck and
associated supporting structural frame constructed by in-situ concrete (Option
A);
ĄP
Helipad deck constructed
by in-situ concrete and associated supporting structural frame by prefabricated
steelwork (Option B); and
ĄP
Helipad deck and
associated supporting structural frame constructed by steel/ aluminium
structure prefabricated off-site outside Hong Kong territories (Option C).
3.4.1.2
The environmental
impacts associated with the proposed construction methods are considered to be
similar for the three, with Option C having the benefit of the shorter period
of noise generation during construction and smaller amount of waste generation.
With the preferred construction method, the sequence of construction works will
be the construction of supporting structural frame, followed by the
construction of proposed helipad, the safety walkway and the access ramp.
3.4.1.3
According to the
preferred construction method (Option C), the main structure of the proposed
helipad will be constructed by in-situ aluminum, steel and formworks. The safety walkway and access ramp will
be formed by prefabricated steel members and aluminum of a suitable size and
weight and to be assembled on site by welding or bolting.
3.5.1.1
As advised by GFS, the
Airbus H-175 have been in operation since April 2020 and replaced all of the
helicopters. According to the noise measurement carried out under this Study, the
Airbus H-175s
have operating noise levels significantly
lower (with a range of 7-10 dB(A) of different non-lateral movements) than the previous
helicopters (Super Puma AS332 L2 /
EC155 B1), in general.
The operating noise levels of the Airbus
H-175 helicopters
have been adopted in the noise assessment for
the EIA Study.
3.6.1.1
The helipad will be
designed as a circular shape of about 30m in diameter plus 1.5m safety net
along its outer perimeter. The size of the helipad was based on the needs of
the new helicopters (Airbus H-175) with less room required as compared to the
previous helicopters used by GFS. Thus, 30m in diameter for the proposed
helipad is adopted.
3.6.1.2
The helipad will
solely be used for emergency patients, causalities and emergency medical transportation
and there will be no commercial and planned flights except trial flights. The
patient will be transferred to the AED directly at the same block via the
dedicated Ą§hot liftsĄ¨.
3.7.1.1
Currently, there is
no helipad at any of the hospitals, including the QEH which is a designated
trauma centre, in the Kowloon Central Cluster (KCC). Without the Project, emergency patients
and casualties requiring air transportation will have to be transferred to the
PYNEH, the TMH, or the planned helipad at QMH, but those landings may be
precluded or restricted due to adverse weather or safety considerations. In addition, the TMH helipad cannot be
used during evening and night-time due to flight safety reasons. The above arrangements are undesirable
to the helicopter medical emergency services and emergency patients, especially
for the patients in the New Territories and
Kowloon region.
3.7.1.2
As such, if the
Project is not implemented, there would be an undesirable situation as the
transfer of the critically ill/ injured patients to hospital may be
unnecessarily prolonged, causing impacts on the emergency response services to
patients with life-threatening conditions.
4.1.1.1
EIA process provides
a means of scoping, assessing and reporting the environmental impacts and
benefits of the Project. It is an
iterative process that has been followed in parallel with the design process to
identify the potential environmental effects of various design options, and
develop alternatives as well as mitigation measures to be incorporated into the
design, construction and operation of the helipad. Mitigation measures have
been proposed to avoid the potential environmental impacts, or to minimise or
mitigate to acceptable levels.
4.1.1.2
This EIA report has
assessed the following parameters for potential environmental impacts during
the construction and operation stages of the proposed helipad, in accordance
with the EIAO Study Brief:
ĄP
Air quality impact;
ĄP
Hazard to life impact;
ĄP
Noise impact;
ĄP
Waste management;
ĄP
Visual impact; and
ĄP
Water quality impact.
4.1.1.3
A summary of the
findings of the assessments are detailed in the sections below.
4.2.1.1 Potential air quality impacts associated with the Project have been
assessed in accordance with Clause 3.4.3 and Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief,
as well as Annex 4 and Annex 12 of TM-EIAO to ensure compliance of the Hong
Kong Air Quality Objectives (HKAQOs) and relevant criteria and guidelines. The
assessment area for air quality impact assessment is within 500m from the
boundary of the Project site.
Construction Stage
4.2.1.2 Fugitive dust during the construction of proposed helipad would be expected
to be insignificant with the implementation of good site practice stipulated under the Air Pollution Control (Construction
Dust) Regulation. No adverse residual impacts are anticipated.
Operation Stage
4.2.1.3 According to the previous flight records, the average daily emergency
helicopter flights for the helipad of the PYNEH between 2015 and 2019 is less
than one, with flights occurring about once every one to two days on average in
the daytime period. The duration of the Landing and Take-off cycles of the
helicopter are short, being less than 10 minutes. In order to verify the air
quality impact induced by the proposed helipad and the helicopter on air
sensitive receivers, the cumulative SO2 (10-mins) air quality impact
for both scenarios of Ą§without barrierĄ¨ and Ą§with barrierĄ¨ for helicopter
emission have been assessed under a conservative approach. In addition to the
helicopter emission, marine emission within 500m from the boundary of project
site and emission from Kai Tak Cruise Terminal are also included in the cumulative
assessment. The predicted SO2 (10-mins) value should be in the range
of 112 to 215 Łggm-3 and no adverse operation phase impacts are
expected to occur.
4.2.1.4 Given the
minor emissions due to the non-scheduled, infrequent and short-term nature of
the emergency helicopter movements, and the large margin from AQO for NO2
(1-hour), SO2 (24-hour) and RSP and FSP (24 hours and annual) in the
local area, it is not anticipated that the Project would cause AQO exceedance
for these parameters. That said, air quality enhancement measures,
including the use of electric vehicles and the NOx-neutralising
paver, would be incorporated in the design of NAH to enhance air quality in the
vicinity of the Project. With the air quality enhancement measures in
place, it is not anticipated that the Project would cause adverse air quality
impact at the nearby air sensitive receivers.
4.3.1.1
Potential hazard to
life impacts associated with the Project have been assessed in accordance with
Clause 3.4.4 and Appendix B of the EIA Study Brief, as well as Annexes 4 of TM-EIAO
to ensure compliance of relevant standard and guidelines.
4.3.1.2
A Quantitative Risk
Assessment has been conducted to evaluate the risk associated with the proposed
helipad at the Acute Hospital from the Kerry Dangerous Goods Warehouse (Kowloon
Bay) (KDGW) and the LPG Filling Station at Cheung Yip Street. A sensitivity
check has been performed assuming that all helicopter movements will be via
only the flight path closest to the above mentioned potentially hazardous
facilities with their maximum crash rates. The risk, both in terms of
individual risk and societal risk, has been found to be in compliance with the
risk criteria stipulated in Section 2 of Annex 4 of the TM-EIAO, i.e. the
off-site individual risk level does not exceed 1ĄŃ10-5 / year
and the societal risk falls into the Ą§AcceptableĄ¨ region. In terms of Potential
Loss of Life (PLL), the helicopter crash scenario contributes to only 1.5% of
the total PLL of 2.01ĄŃ10-5 per year for the LPG filling station. For
KDGW, the helicopter crash scenario contributes to about 6.1% of the total of
6.82 ĄŃ10-6 per year. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.4.1.1
Potential noise
impacts associated with the Project have been assessed in accordance Clause
3.4.5 and Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief, as well as Annexes 5 and 13 of TM-EIAO
to ensure compliance of relevant standards and guidelines. The assessment area for noise impact assessment is
within 300m from the boundary of the Project site.
Construction Stage
4.4.1.2
The noise impacts
arising from daytime construction activities for the Project have been
evaluated, with no evening or nighttime works will be scheduled. Cumulative
construction noise impacts with concurrent projects have also been considered.
It is shown that the predicted noise levels at the one representative noise
sensitive receiver (NSR) (NSR ID. P03 Proposed Residential
Development at KDGW) (NKIL 5813) (61 dB(A) Leq 30mins) will comply
with the relevant construction noise criterion and no specific mitigation
measures will be required. Nonetheless,
the adoption of good site practices and use of quieter PMEs have been
recommended to minimise the construction noise impacts. Hence, no adverse
construction noise impacts are anticipated.
Operation Stage
4.4.1.3
The noise impacts
arising from GFSĄŚs helicopter operation associated with the Project have been
evaluated. The helicopter noise impact assessment was conducted using a conservative
approach under the worst-case scenario. All practicable measures, including carefully
chosen flight sectors and one-way-direction for approaching and take-off
subject to flight condition, and maintaining buffer distance for flight paths
to fly away from NSRs, have been proposed for the helicopter operation. In
addition, the emergency medical helicopter operation occurs randomly over the
year and it is anticipated that the average helipad usage will be less than
once per day, while the duration of each emergency use will be about 7 minutes.
With the implementation of direct noise mitigation measures, including setback
of helipad and installation of noise barrier and noise reducers, the helicopter
noise impacts have been minimized, and the predicted helicopter noise levels at
the representative NSRs are within the criteria (with the range of 78 to 85
dB(A) Lmax).
4.5.1.1
Waste management
implications associated with the Project have been assessed in accordance with
Clause 3.4.6 and Appendix D of the EIA Study Brief, as well as the criteria and
guidelines stipulated in Annexes 7 and 15 of TM-EIAO.
4.5.1.3
Insignificant amounts
of general refuse would be generated from regular cleaning of the proposed rooftop
helipad area. With the implementation of mitigation measures (such as proper
storage, collection and transport of waste) and good site practices, no adverse
impacts in relation to waste management are anticipated during the operation of
the Project.
4.6.1.1
Potential visual
impacts associated with the Project have been assessed in accordance with
Clause 3.4.7 and Appendix E of the EIA Study Brief, EIAO Guidance Note No.
8/2010, and Annexes 10 and 18 of the TM-EIAO.
4.6.1.2
During the
operational stage, the presence of the noise barrier and helipad structure would
be compatible with the surroundings and would not decrease the visual amenity Although
the helicopter landing lights, apron lights and perimeter lights on the helipad
have the potential to cause visual impacts, the operation timings of these
lights will be short and infrequent. Moreover, as the project is located in an
urban commercial area, the introduction of this lighting would be considered to
be largely masked by the illuminated surrounding area. In addition, many of the
surrounding buildings are for commercial use and would not have significant
numbers of occupants, if any, at nighttime.
4.6.1.3
Considering the
distances and altitudes of the identified VSRs compared to the helipad and with
the implementation of good practice and design measures (such as perimeter
lights to be inset into the helipad emitting upward) to minimise the light nuisance of the nighttime operations of the helipad, no significant visual impact is anticipated
during the construction and operation phases of the Project. No adverse residual
impacts are expected.
4.7.1.1
Potential
water quality impacts associated with the Project have been assessed in
accordance with Clause 3.4.8 of the EIA Study Brief, Annexes 6 and 14 of the
TM-EIAO to ensure compliance of relevant standards and guidelines. The assessment area for
water quality impact assessment covered Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter within 300m
from the boundary of the Project site.
4.7.1.2
The main construction
works would be the installation of the prefabricated metal structures of the
elevated helipad, elevated covered walkway and other associated structures on
the rooftop of NAH. The project would not involve any soil excavation nor
marine works. Only land-based activities would be
undertaken during the construction of the structure of the helipad. Potential
water pollution sources would include surface runoff and effluent arising from
the construction site activities including general construction works, sewage
from the construction workforce, storage of construction materials and accidental
spillage due to the use of the mechanical plant. With the implementation of good site
practices and adoption of the mitigation measures, no adverse impacts are
anticipated during the construction stage.
4.7.1.3
During the operation
phase, no wastewater generation and potential chemical or oil spillage will be
expected. Fire-fighting system either in the form of water or foam system, is
still under consideration for fire protection purposes at the helipad for
emergency situations.
4.7.1.4
If the foam system is
used for fire-fighting purpose, the foam to be used will be biodegradable. In
the worst-case scenario, foam system is selected for assessment purpose. With
the automatic switching system, it diverts the foam-based wastewater to foul
water system. The foam utilised will be discharged to, and combined with, the
daily sewage from the NAH and ultimately flow to the sewage treatment plant for
treatment. The foam discharge would comprise only around 1% of the total
discharge per day from the NAH and no significant adverse water quality impact
caused to the environment is expected during the operational phase.
4.8.1.1
A summary of the environmental impacts for
individual aspects in the EIA report is present in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts
|
Sensitive
Receivers / Assessment Points |
Impact
Prediction Results (Without
Mitigation) |
Key
Relevant Standards / Criteria |
Extent
of Exceedance (Without Mitigation) |
Impact
Avoidance Measures / Mitigation Measures |
Residual
Impacts (After Implementation of Mitigation Measures) |
|
Air Quality Impact |
|||||
|
Construction Phase |
|||||
|
ASRs
located within 500m from the Project boundary |
ĄP
Insignificant dust Impact |
ĄP
Annexes 4 and 12 of the TM-EIAO ĄP
Air Quality Objectives (AQO) |
ĄP
N/A |
ĄP
Implementation of dust control
measures as recommended in Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation ĄP
Incorporation of Guidelines stipulated
in EPDĄŚs Recommended Pollution Control Clauses for Construction Contracts |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Operation Phase |
|||||
|
ASRs
located within 500m from the Project boundary |
ĄP
No exceedances of AQO at the ASRs
would be caused by the Project |
ĄP
AQO |
ĄP
N/A |
ĄP
Air quality enhancement measures
including the use of electric vehicles and the NOx-neutralising paver in the
design of NAH |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Hazard to Life Impact |
|||||
|
KDGW
and the LPG Filling Station at Cheung Yip Street |
ĄP
Acceptable for both individual risk
and societal risk |
ĄP
Annex 4 of the TM-EIAO |
ĄP
N/A |
ĄP
Professional trainings and guidelines
should be provided to the helicopter pilots |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Noise Impact |
|||||
|
Construction Phase |
|||||
|
NSRs
located within
300m from
the project boundary |
ĄP
No noise exceedances at the NSRs |
ĄP
Annex 5 of TM-EIAO: 75 dB(A) Leq(30mins)
stipulated in TM-EIAO for domestic premises from 0700 to 1900 hours on
any day not being a Sunday or general holiday. |
ĄP
N/A |
Good site
practices: ĄP
Quiet powered mechanical equipment
(QPME) shall be used and serviced regularly during the construction
programme; ĄP
Only well maintained plants shall be used
in the project; and ĄP
Machines and plant that may be in
intermittent use should be shut down between works periods or throttled down
to a minimum between work periods. |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Operation Phase |
|||||
|
NSRs
located within
300m from
the project boundary
and areas
potentially affected
by the flight
paths of helicopter |
ĄP
Predicted helicopter noise levels at
the NSRs are in the range of Lmax 78 to 86 dB(A) |
ĄP
Annex 5 of TM-EIAO: Lmax
85dB(A) for domestic premises, hostels, educational institutions, places of
public worship, convalescences and home for aged, etc. from 0700 to 1900
hours |
ĄP
Exceedance of the criterion by 1 dB(A) |
ĄP
Setback of helipad; ĄP
Carefully chosen flight sectors and
one-way-direction for approaching and take-off subject to
flight condition; ĄP
Maintain buffer distance for flight
paths to fly away from NSRs; and ĄP
Noise barrier and noise reducers installation. |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Waste management |
|||||
|
Construction Phase |
|||||
|
Project
area |
Estimated
quantity of waste generation: ĄP
Inert C&D Materials: 0m3
ĄP
Non-inert C&D Materials: 170m3
ĄP
Chemical Waste: <1 m3 ĄP
General Refuse: 6.3m3 |
ĄP
Annex 7 and 15 of TM-EIAO |
ĄP
N/A |
ĄP
The reuse/ recycling of all materials
on-site shall be investigated prior to treatment/ disposal off-site; ĄP
Implementation of good site practices,
waste reduction measures and proper storage, collection and transport of
waste |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Operation Phase |
|||||
|
Helipad |
ĄP
Limited amounts of general refuse |
ĄP
Annex 7 and 15 of TM-EIAO |
ĄP
N/A |
ĄP
Implementation of good site practices,
waste reduction measures and proper storage, collection and transport of
waste |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Visual Impact |
|||||
|
Residential
premises and occupational/ hospitals |
ĄP
No direct line of sight from the VSRs
to the perimeter lights and only
be switched on during approach mode to take-off mode for 7
minutes approximately; ĄP
Landing lights will be switched on to
illuminate the helipad only during approaching and departure. The overall
operation of landing lights takes 2 minutes approximately. |
ĄP
Annex 10 and 18 of TM-EIAO |
ĄP
N/A |
Good practice
measures: ĄP
Landing light of the helicopter would be switched on during
approach and departure only and comprise a focused light used to illuminate
the helipad only; ĄP
Perimeter lights on the helipad will
be switched on during approach mode to take-off mode of the helicopter only; ĄP
Perimeter lights will be inset into
the helipad emitting upward; and ĄP
Minimise the external reflectance of
the noise barrier material with the use of laminated glass. |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Water Quality Impact |
|||||
|
Construction Phase |
|||||
|
Kwun
Tong Typhoon Shelter within 300m Project area |
ĄP
General construction works for the
Project would be land-based only.
Potential water pollution sources include: ĄP
General construction works; ĄP
Sewage; ĄP
Storage of construction materials; and
ĄP
Use of the mechanical plants. |
ĄP
Annexes 6 and 14 of the TM-EIAO |
ĄP
N/A |
ĄP
Mitigation measures and good site
practices in ProPECC PN1/94
Ą§Construction Site DrainageĄ¨ |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
|
Operation Phase |
|||||
|
Kwun
Tong Typhoon Shelter within 300m Project area |
ĄP
The effluent from the emergency
fire-fighting system in the form of foam for the worst-case scenario. |
ĄP
Annexes 6 and 14 of the TM-EIAO |
ĄP
N/A |
ĄP
Automatic switching system to divert
foam-based wastewater to foul water system. ĄP
Discharge license for discharging from
NAH. |
ĄP
No adverse residual impact |
5.1.1.1 In order to
ensure the effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures and compliance
with the statutory requirements during the construction and operation of the proposed
helipad, an Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme will be
implemented. Details of mitigation measures, audit programme and handling of
complaints and documentation are specified in the EM&A Manual under
separate cover.
5.1.1.2
A summary of the
EM&A requirements by each of the environmental parameters is presented in Table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1 Summary
of EM&A Requirements
|
Environmental Aspect |
Construction Phase Inspection/ Audit |
Operational Phase Inspection/ Audit |
|
Air Quality |
ü |
û |
|
Hazard to Life |
û |
û |
|
Noise |
ü |
û |
|
Waste |
ü |
û |
|
Visual Impact |
û |
û |
|
Water Quality |
ü |
û |
Legend:
ü - Required
û - Not Required
N.A. ĄV Not applicable
6.1.1.1 This EIA study
has been conducted in accordance with the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-311/2019)
issued under the EIAO for the Proposed Helipad, covering the following
environmental issues:
ĄP
air quality impact;
ĄP
hazard to life
impact;
ĄP
noise impact;
ĄP
waste management;
ĄP
visual impact; and
ĄP
water quality impact
6.1.1.2 With the
implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the environmental impacts
arising from the construction and operation of the proposed helipad would
comply with the relevant environmental criteria and no significant residual
impacts would be predicted.