Contents

Chapter    Title                                                                                                                           Page

3.1                  Introduction________________________________________________________________ 3-1

3.2                  Air Quality Legislations, Standards and Guidelines__________________________________ 3-1

3.3                  Baseline Conditions__________________________________________________________ 3-4

3.4                  Identification of Pollution Sources______________________________________________ 3-32

3.5                  Air Quality Modelling Methodology______________________________________________ 3-40

3.6                  Evaluation and Assessment of the Air Quality Impacts_______________________________ 3-70

3.7                  Mitigation Measures_________________________________________________________ 3-87

3.8                  Evaluation of Residual Impacts________________________________________________ 3-92

3.9                  Environmental Monitoring and Audit____________________________________________ 3-97

3.10                Conclusion_______________________________________________________________ 3-98

 

Tables

Table 3.1:__ Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives 3-2

Table 3.2:__ Limits of air pollutant concentrations inside car parks and vehicle tunnels 3-3

Table 3.3:__ Representative ASRs Identified for the Assessment 3-7

Table 3.4:__ Average Background TSP Concentrations from EPD’s Urban Air Monitoring Stations (Year 2007-2011)      3-32

Table 3.5:__ Air Quality Monitoring Results for Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link relevant to WKCD (March 2010 – December 2012) 3-33

Table 3.6:__ Average Background Air Pollutant Concentrations from EPD’s Urban Air Monitoring Stations (Year 2007-2011) 3-33

Table 3.7:__ Average Background Air Pollutant Concentrations from EPD’s Local Monitoring Station at WKCD Site (September 2011 – August 2012) 3-34

Table 3.8:__ Number of Odour Complaints against NYMTTS Received by EPD (2006-2013) 3-34

Table 3.9:__ Summary of concurrent projects during construction phase_ 3-36

Table 3.10:_ Key Dust Emission Factors Adopted in the Assessment 3-42

Table 3.11:_ Summary of tentative active area calculations for Tier 2 and Annual TSP assessment 3-44

Table 3.12:_ Vehicle Classification in the EMFAC-HK Model 3-48

Table 3.13:_ Estimated Emission Rates of Barges at NYPCWA_ 3-59

Table 3.14:_ Estimated Emission Rates of Fast Ferries at China Ferry Terminal 3-60

Table 3.15:_ Estimated Emission Rates of Cruise Ships at Ocean Terminal 3-61

Table 3.16: Summary of 2015 and 2020 Hong Kong Emission Inventory for the PATH Model 3-62

Table 3.17:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations for All ASRs (Tier 1 Unmitigated & Mitigated) 3-70

Table 3.18:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations for ASRs with Exceedance (Tier 1 Mitigated)     3-71

Table 3.19:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations for All ASRs (Tier 1 Unmitigated & Mitigated) 3-72

Table 3.20:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations (Tier 2 Mitigated) 3-72

Table 3.21:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations for All ASRs (Unmitigated & Mitigated) 3-73

Table 3.22:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative RSP, SO2 and NO2 Concentrations for All ASRs 3-74

Table 3.23:_ Breakdown of Predicted Cumulative NO2 Concentrations by Sources for ASRs with Potential Exceedance_ 3-75

Table 3.24:_ Breakdown of Predicted Cumulative Hourly NO2 Concentrations by Sources for Selected ASRs (for the Worst Case Year of 2015) 3-76

Table 3.25:_ Breakdown of Predicted Cumulative Hourly NO2 Concentrations by Sources for Selected ASRs (for Year 2020) 3-77

Table 3.26 _ Estimated Odour Emission Rates for NYMTTS_ 3-80

Table 3.27__ Summary of Odour modelling Results 3-82

Table 3.28  Breakdown of Odour modelling Results under Current Scenario_ 3-85

Table 3.29  Breakdown of Odour modelling Results under Mitigated Scenario A_ 3-85

Table 3.30  Breakdown of Odour modelling Results under Mitigated Scenario B_ 3-86

Table 3.31__ Summary of Recommended Odour Mitigation Measures for NYMTTS_ 3-91

 

Figures

Figure 3.1a                    Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Outside WKCD Site)

Figure 3.1b                    Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Within WKCD Site)

Figure 3.2                       Locations of XRL Air Monitoring Stations Close to the WKCD Site  

Figure 3.3a                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plant and its Haul Road in Year 2013

Figure 3.3b                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 1) in Year 2013

Figure 3.3c-1                 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plant (Phase 1) and its Haul Road in Year 2014

Figure 3.3c-2                 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plant (Phase 2) and its Haul Road in 2014

Figure 3.3c-3                 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 1) in Year 2014

Figure 3.3d                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plant and its Haul Road in Year 2015 – 2016

Figure 3.3e                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 1) in Year 2015

Figure 3.3f                     Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 1) in Year 2016

Figure 3.3g                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plant and its Haul Road in Year 2017 – 2020

Figure 3.3h                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 1) in Year 2017

Figure 3.3i                      Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 1) in Year 2018

Figure 3.3j                      Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 1) in Year 2019

Figure 3.3k                     Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 1) in Year 2020

Figure 3.4a                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 2) for P01d-1 at the end of Year 2015

Figure 3.4b                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 2) for ASR P53-1 at the end of Year 2015

Figure 3.4c                     Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 2) for ASR P01a-1, P01b-1, P01c-1 and P01d-1 at the end of Year 2016

Figure 3.4d                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 2) for ASR P53-1 at the end of Year 2016

Figure 3.4e                    Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 2) for ASR P39-1 and P52-1 at the end of Year 2017

Figure 3.4f                     Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources (Tier 2) for ASR P52-1 at the end of Year 2018

Figure 3.5.1a                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Key Plan)

Figure 3.5.1b                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 1 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1c                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 2 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1d                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 3 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1e                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 4 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1f                  Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 5 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1g                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 6 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1h                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 7 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1i                  Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 8 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1j                  Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 9 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1k                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 10 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1l                  Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 11 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1m                       Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 12 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1n                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 13 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1o                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 14 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1p                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 15 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1q                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 16 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1r                  Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 17 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1s                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 18 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1t                  Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 19 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1u                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 20 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1v                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 21 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1w                Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 22 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1x                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 23 of 24)

Figure 3.5.1y                 Road Links within 500m Assessment Area for 2015 (Sheet 24 of 24)

Figure 3.6                       Location of Emission Sources for ISCST model

Figure 3.7                       Location of Marine Emission Sources

Figure 3.8                       PATH grid

Figure 3.9                       Odour Sampling Grids and Discharge Points

Figure 3.10                    (not used)

Figure 3.11a                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2013 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.11b                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2014 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.11c                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2015 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.11d                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2016 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.11e                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2017 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.11f                   Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.11g                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2019 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.11h                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2020 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.12a                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2013 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.12b                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2014 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.12c                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2015 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.12d                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2016 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.12e                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2017 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.12f                   Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.12g                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2019 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.12h                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2020 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.13a                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2013 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.13b                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2014 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.13c                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2015 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.13d                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2016 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.13e                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2017 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.13f                   Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.13g                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2019 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.13h                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2020 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.14a                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2013 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.14b                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2014 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.14c                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2015 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.14d                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2016 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.14e                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2017 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.14f                   Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.14g                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2019 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.14h                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2020 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.15a                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground for dust sources near ASR P01d-1 at year 2015 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.15b                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground for dust sources near ASR P53-1 at year 2015 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.15c                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground for dust sources near ASR P01a-1, P01b-1, P01c-1 and P01d-1 at year 2016 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.15d                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground for dust sources near ASR P53-1 at year 2016 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.15e                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground for dust sources near ASR P39-1, P52-1 at year 2017 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.15f                   Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground for dust sources near ASR P52-1 at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.16                    Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Daily TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground for dust sources near ASR P01b-1 and P01c-1 at year 2016 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.17a                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2013 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.17b                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2014 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.17c                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2015 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.17d                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2016 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.17e                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2017 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.17f                   Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.17g                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2019 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.17h                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2020 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Figure 3.18a                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2013 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.18b                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2014 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.18c                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2015 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.18d                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2016 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.18e                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2017 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.18f                   Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.18g                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2019 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.18h                  Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual TSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground at year 2020 during construction phase (mitigated)

Figure 3.19                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through portal

Figure 3.20                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through portal

Figure 3.21                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through portal

Figure 3.22                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through portal

Figure 3.23                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.24                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through stack

Figure 3.25                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through stack

Figure 3.26                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through stack

Figure 3.27                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through portal

Figure 3.28                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through portal

Figure 3.29                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through portal

Figure 3.30                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through portal

Figure 3.31                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.32                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through stack

Figure 3.33                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through stack

Figure 3.34                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through stack

Figure 3.35                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through portal

Figure 3.36                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through portal

Figure 3.37                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through portal

Figure 3.38                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through portal

Figure 3.39                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.40                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through stack

Figure 3.41                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through stack

Figure 3.42                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through stack

Figure 3.43                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through portal

Figure 3.44                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through portal

Figure 3.45                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through portal

Figure 3.46                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through portal

Figure 3.47                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.48                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through stack

Figure 3.49                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through stack

Figure 3.50                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through stack

Figure 3.51                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through portal

Figure 3.52                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through portal

Figure 3.53                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through portal

Figure 3.54                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through portal

Figure 3.55                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.56                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 2 through stack

Figure 3.57                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 3 through stack

Figure 3.58                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase for scenario 4 through stack

Figure 3.59                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.60                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.61                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.62                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 12m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.63                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 12m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.64                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 12m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.65                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 12m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.66                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 12m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.67                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 12m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.68                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 12m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.69                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 12m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.70                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 40m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.71                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 40m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.72                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 40m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.73                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 40m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.74                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 40m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.75                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 40m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.76                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 40m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.77                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 40m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.78                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 50m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.79                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 50m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.80                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 50m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.81                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 50m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.82                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 50m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.83                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 50m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.84                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 50m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.85                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 50m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.86                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 60m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.87                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 60m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.88                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 60m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.89                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 60m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.90                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3) at 60m above ground during operational phase for scenario 1 through stack

Figure 3.91                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Hourly SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 60m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.92                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Daily SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 60m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.93                    Cumulative Results - Contour of Annual SO2 Concentration (µg/m3) at 60m above ground during operational phase

Figure 3.94                    Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Background Scenario)

Figure 3.95                    Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Current Scenario)

Figure 3.96                    Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Mitigated - A 1:1 Scenario)

Figure 3.97                    Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Mitigated - A 1:0.75 Scenario)

Figure 3.98                    Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Mitigated - A 1:0.50 Scenario)

Figure 3.99                    Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Mitigated - A 1:0.25 Scenario)

Figure 3.100                  Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Mitigated - B 1:1 Scenario)

Figure 3.101                  Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Mitigated - B 1:0.75 Scenario)

Figure 3.102                  Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Mitigated - B 1:0.50 Scenario)

Figure 3.103                  Contour of 5-s Odour Concentration (ou/m3) at 1.5m above ground during operation phase (Mitigated - B 1:0.25 Scenario)

 

Appendices

Appendix 3.1        Details of Dust Emission Sources for 1-hour and Daily TSP Assessment (Tier 1) from Year 2013 – 2020

Appendix 3.2        Details of Dust Emission Sources for 1-hour and Daily TSP Assessment (Tier 2) from Year 2015 – 2020

Appendix 3.3        Details of Dust Emission Sources for Annual TSP Assessment from Year 2013 – 2020

Appendix 3.4        Data Input of Tier 1 Dust Sources for Unmitigated and Mitigated Scenario including their Coordinates, Dimensions and Estimated Emission Rates

Appendix 3.5        Data Input of Tier 2 Dust Sources including their Coordinates, Dimensions and Estimated Emission Rates

Appendix 3.6        Data Input of Annual Dust Sources for Unmitigated and Mitigated Scenario including their Coordinates, Dimensions and Estimated Emission Rates

Appendix 3.7        Detailed Estimation of the Percentages Active Work Areas

Appendix 3.8        Calculation of Dust Suppression Efficiency

Appendix 3.9        Letter from Traffic Department regarding Traffic Forecast Data

Appendix 3.10     24-Hour Traffic Pattern

Appendix 3.11     Vehicle Age Distribution in Base Year 2010

Appendix 3.12     Lengths of Individual Road Links of Connecting Road

Appendix 3.13     24-hour VKT values for All Vehicle Classes in each of the Model years 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030

Appendix 3.14     Trip Estimation

Appendix 3.15     24-hour variations of Annual Averages of Temperature and Relative Humidity

Appendix 3.16     24-hour speed fractions

Appendix 3.17     Calculation of Emission Factors for Each Model Year

Appendix 3.18a   Calculation of emission rate for scenario 1 through portal for ISCST3 model input (for 2015 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.18b   Calculation of emission rate for scenario 2 through portal for ISCST3 model input (for 2015 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.18c   Calculation of emission rate for scenario 3 through portal for ISCST3 model input (for 2015 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.18d   Calculation of emission rate for scenario 4 through portal for ISCST3 model input (for 2015 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.18e   Calculation of emission rate for scenario 1 through stack for ISCST3 model input (for 2015 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.18f    Calculation of emission rate for scenario 2 through stack for ISCST3 model input (for 2015 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.18g   Calculation of emission rate for scenario 3 through stack for ISCST3 model input (for 2015 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.18h   Calculation of emission rate for scenario 4 through stack for ISCST3 model input (for 2015 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.19     Calculation of emission rate for scenario 1 through stack for ISCST3 model input (for 2020 traffic forecast)

Appendix 3.20     Summary data for EPD's WKCD air quality monitoring station

Appendix 3.21     (not used)

Appendix 3.22     (not used)

Appendix 3.23     Composition Emission factor in Year 2015

Appendix 3.24     Composition Emission factor in Year 2020

Appendix 3.25     Marine emission calculations

Appendix 3.26a   Odour Patrol Report

Appendix 3.26b   Report on Expert Review of New Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter (NYMTTS) Odour Source Measurement

Appendix 3.26c   Estimation of Odour Emission Rates

Appendix 3.27     XRL EM&A TSP monitoring data

Appendix 3.28     Tier 1 TSP Screening Results for Unmitigated and Mitigated Scenarios including Background Contribution

Appendix 3.29     Tier 2 TSP Results for Mitigated Scenario including Background Contribution

Appendix 3.30     Annual TSP Results for Unmitigated and Mitigated Scenarios including Background Contribution

Appendix 3.31     Modelling results for SO2, NO2 and RSP during operation phase (for traffic forecast and background concentrations in 2015)

Appendix 3.32     Modelling results for NO2 during operation phase (for traffic forecast and background concentrations in 2020)

Appendix 3.33     Estimation of Odour Emission Reduction by Improvement of DWFI Interception Efficiency

Appendix 3.34     Estimated Odour Emission Rates for Background, Current, Mitigated Scenario A and Mitigated Scenario B

Appendix 3.35     Odour Modelling Results for Background, Current, Mitigated Scenario A and Mitigated Scenario B

Appendix 3.36     Review of Government’s Existing and Planned Measures for New Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter

3.          Air Quality Impact

3.1          Introduction

This section presents the assessment of potential air quality impacts associated with the construction and operational phase of the proposed Core Arts and Cultural Facilities (CACFs), other Arts and Cultural Facilities (OACFs) and Infrastructure and Support Facilities. Dust generated from various construction activities is the primary concern during the construction phase. During the operation phase the major sources of air pollution include, but are not limited to, vehicular emissions in the vicinity of and within the project area including from open roads, ventilation shafts, tunnel portals and from the nearby Western Harbour Crossing (WHC) portal; marine emissions relating to the nearby China Ferry Terminal, Ocean Terminal and New Yau Ma Tei Public Cargo Working Area (NYPCWA), and; odours from the adjacent New Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter (NYMTTS). Representative Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) within 500 m of the subject site have been identified and the worst case impacts on these receivers will be assessed. Suitable mitigation measures, where necessary, have been recommended to protect the nearby sensitive receivers and to achieve the legislative criteria and guidelines.

 

3.2          Air Quality Legislations, Standards and Guidelines

The following legislation and regulations provide the standards and guidelines for evaluation of air quality impacts and the type of works that are subject to air pollution control:

·         Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499.S16), EIAO-TM, Annexes 4 and 12;

·         Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap. 311) and the Air Quality Objectives (AQO);

·         Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation;

·         Control of Air Pollution in Car Parks (ProPECC PN 2/96);

·         Practice Note on Control of Air Pollution in Vehicle Tunnels, and;

·         Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2

3.2.1        Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process

The criteria and guidelines for evaluation of air quality impacts are laid out in Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). Annex 4 stipulates the criteria for evaluating air quality impacts. This includes meeting the Air Quality Objectives and other standards established under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance, as well as meeting the hourly Total Suspended Particulate concentration of 500 µg/m3 and the 5-second average odour concentration of 5 odour units (ou). Annex 12 provides the guidelines for conducting air quality assessments under the EIA process, including determination of air sensitive receivers, assessment methodology and impact prediction and assessment.

3.2.2        Air Pollution Control Ordinance

The principal legislation for the management of air quality is the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311). The APCO specific Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) which stipulate the statutory limits of air pollutants and the maximum allowable numbers of exceedance over specific periods. The AQOs are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1:      Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant

Averaging Time

AQO concentration (µg/m³)

Allowable exceedances

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1 hour

800

3

24 hours

350

1

Annual

80

0

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

1 hour(1)

500(1)

 

24 hours

260

1

Annual

80

0

Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)

24 hours

180

1

Annual

55

0

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

1 hour

300

3

24 hours

150

1

Annual

80

0

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

1 hour

30,000

3

8 hours

10,000

1

Ozone (O3)

1 hour

240

3

Lead

3 months

1.5

0

Note        (1)           The criterion under EIAO-TM not an AQO

3.2.3        Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation

The Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation enacted under the APCO defines notifiable and regulatory works activities that are subject to construction dust control, as listed below:

Notifiable Works:

1.   Site formation

2.   Reclamation

3.   Demolition of a building

4.   Work carried out in any part of a tunnel that is within 100 m of any exit to the open air

5.   Construction of the foundation of a building

6.   Construction of the superstructure of a building

7.   Road construction work

Regulatory Works:

1.   Renovation carried out on the outer surface of the external wall or the upper surface of the roof of a building

2.   Road opening or resurfacing work

3.   Slope stabilisation work

4.   Any work involving any of the following activities:

a.               Stockpiling of dusty materials

b.   Loading, unloading or transfer of dusty materials

c.   Transfer of dusty materials using a belt conveyor system

d.   Use of vehicles

e.   Pneumatic or power-driven drilling, cutting and polishing

f.   Debris handling

g.   Excavation or earth moving

h.   Concrete production

i.   Site clearance

j.   Blasting

Notifiable works require that advance notice of activities shall be given to EPD. The Regulation also requires the works contractor to ensure that both notifiable works and regulatory works are conducted in accordance with the Schedule of the Regulation, which provides dust control and suppression measures.

3.2.4        Practice Note on Control of Air Pollution in Car Parks and in Vehicle Tunnels

The practice note for professional persons ProPECC PN 2/96 and the Practice Note on Control of Air Pollution in Vehicle Tunnels prepared by EPD provide guidance on the control of air pollution in car parks and vehicle tunnels, respectively.  These two practice notes include air quality guidelines required for the protection of public health and factors that should be considered in the design and operation of car parks and vehicle tunnels in order to achieve the required air quality. The limits for air pollutants as recommended by the two practice notes are summarised in Table 3.2.  As there will be fully enclosed vehicle roads and car parks inside the proposed WKCD basement, the air quality within the basement will need to comply with the relevant air pollutant limits as given in the Table.

Table 3.2:      Limits of air pollutant concentrations inside car parks and vehicle tunnels

Air Pollutant

Averaging Time

Maximum Concentration (μg/m3)*

Parts Per Million (ppm)

Remark

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

5 minutes

115,000

100

Applicable to both car parks and vehicle tunnels

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

5 minutes

1,800

1

Ditto

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

5 minutes

1,000

0.4

Applicable to vehicle tunnels only

* Concentrations at reference conditions of 298K and 101.325kPa.

3.2.5        Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2

This note lists the minimum requirement for meeting the best practicable means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant). The guidance note includes: emission limits; fugitive emission control recommendations; monitoring requirements; commissioning details, and; operation and maintenance provisions.  This guidance note is relevant because concrete batching plant currently used by the adjacent XRL project would be handed over to and used by the WKCD Project during the construction phase.

 

3.3          Baseline Conditions

3.3.1        Site Description

The project lies on the south-western tip of the Kowloon Peninsula with Victoria Harbour to the west and south of the site and the existing urbanised areas to the north and east. The New Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter (NYMTTS) is adjacent to the site to the north.

Land uses surrounding the project are mainly comprised of residential, commercial and government/institution/community (GIC) use. The WKCD boundary is flanked by primary distributor roads: Austin Road West, running immediately adjacent to the northern edge of the WKCD boundary; Canton Road, running adjacent to the eastern boundary; Lin Cheung Road, perpendicular to the mid-northern boundary, and; the Western Harbour Crossing on the northwest boundary. The Ocean Terminal and China Ferry Terminal are to the south-east of the site.

The site for the proposed development is flat to undulating with a ground level of 5 to 23 mPD, the surrounding terrain is flat.

3.3.2        Meteorology

The PATH (Pollutants in the Atmosphere and their Transport over Hong Kong) model, a regional air quality prediction model developed by EPD, is used to predict the meteorology at WKCD. The PATH model is also used to predict background air quality as a result of various sources in Hong Kong and the surrounding regions including the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone (PRDEZ).

Features of the wind profile that are significant for WKCD are both the wind speed and wind direction. Low wind speeds are significant for dispersion of non buoyant area sources, such as odours, as low wind speeds can allow for accumulation of odour which may be swept off site when the wind speed increases. At high wind speeds, dust emissions can become significant.

At the WKCD site, winds from the northeast are frequent in the autumn and winter. Significant sources that lay to the northeast of the site include Austin Road West and Lin Cheung Road. Easterly winds are dominant in spring. Kowloon Peninsula lays to the east of the site. During summer the winds are predominately from the southeast to the southwest. The major source from the southwest is marine emissions in transit to and from the China Ferry; the China Ferry and Ocean Terminals, the southern tip of the Kowloon Peninsula and Victoria Harbour to the southeast of WKCD.

Graph 3.1 shows seasonal windroses for WKCD from PATH data at grid (28, 27). PATH uses wind data based on meteorology information from 2010.

 

Graph 3.1:             Seasonal windroses for WKCD from 2010 PATH data at grid (28, 27)

3.3.3        Air Sensitive Receivers

The existing and planned representative Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) that could be effected by the WKCD Project within 500 m from its site boundary have been identified and are summarised in Table 3.3. The final use of each of the parcels may change in the future; therefore, ASRs have been assessed at a variety of intervals up to the proposed maximum height of the buildings that are currently planned. Receptors are located every four metres from 4 m to 20 m above ground and every 10 metres from 20 m to the maximum height of the proposed building. A bias is generated towards the lower levels as this is where the maximum pollutant concentrations are expected to occur.

A field study of the selected existing ASRs external to WKCD was undertaken and the fresh air intake and residential levels were estimated based on a visual survey. Fresh air intakes for low level commercial property were assumed to be at podium level or where ventilation ducts were identified. Residential receptors were assessed every four metres from the lowest residential level up to 20 metres and then every 10 metres above that.

All the ASRs as listed in Table 3.3 are subject to air quality impact during the operation phase of WKCD. Construction of the WKCD Project is scheduled to complete in phases from 2013 to 2020 when the majority of the site works and superstructures are expected to be completed. The planned ASRs representing facilities/buildings within the WKCD site that will be completed at the early stage of the Project will be subject to air quality impact due to construction of the facilities/buildings at a later stage. Hence, the years in which the planned ASRs will be subject to the construction phase air quality impacts are detailed in Table 3.3 and shown in Figures 3.1a and 3.1b. Shaded cells in Table 3.3 are indicative of residential ASRs.

Table 3.3:              Representative ASRs Identified for the Assessment

No.

ASR

Description

Horizontal distance from WKCD site boundary (m)

Height (mPD)

Height above ground (m)

No. of storeys

Year subject to construction phase impact

Notes

1

SRT-1

Sorrento – Tower 1

Residential

(Existing ASR)

404

24

19

65

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

2

SRT-2

28

23

8m above podium

3

SRT-3

32

27

12m above podium

4

SRT-4

36

31

16m above podium

5

SRT-5

40

35

20m above podium

6

SRT-6

50

45

30 m above podium

7

SRT-7

60

55

40 m above podium

8

SRT-8

70

65

50 m above podium

9

SRT-9

80

75

60 m above podium

10

SRT-10

90

85

70 m above podium

11

SRT-11

100

95

80 m above podium

12

SRT-12

110

105

90 m above podium

13

SRT-13

120

115

100 m above podium

14

SRT-14

130

125

110 m above podium

15

SRT-15

140

135

120 m above podium

16

SRT-16

150

145

130 m above podium

17

SRT-17

160

155

140 m above podium

18

SRT-18

170

165

150 m above podium

19

SRT-19

180

175

160 m above podium

20

SRT-20

190

185

170 m above podium

21

SRT-21

200

195

180 m above podium

22

SRT-22

210

205

190 m above podium

23

SRT-23

220

215

200 m above podium

24

SRT-24

230

225

210 m above podium

25

SRT-25

240

235

220 m above podium

26

SRT-26

250

245

230 m above podium

27

SRT-27

260

255

240 m above podium

28

CLS-1

The Cullinan – Lunar Sky

Serviced Apartment

(Existing ASR)

194

59.8

54.8

33

2013 – 2020

lowest possible fresh air intake (1st floor above podium)

29

CLS-2

62.6

57.6

2nd lowest possible fresh air intake (2nd floor above podium)

30

CLS-3

127.0

122

24th floor inlet

31

CLS-4

129.8

124.8

25th floor inlet

32

CLS-5

163.4

158.4

37th floor inlet

33

CLS-6

166.2

161.2

38th floor inlet

34

WF3-1

The Waterfront – Tower 3

Residential

(Existing ASR)

158

36.2

31.2

 

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

35

WF3-2

40.2

35.2

8m above podium

36

WF3-3

44.2

39.2

12m above podium

37

WF3-4

48.2

43.2

16m above podium

38

WF3-5

58.2

53.2

20m above podium

39

WF3-6

68.2

63.2

30 m above podium

40

WF3-7

78.2

73.2

40 m above podium

41

WF3-8

88.2

83.2

50 m above podium

42

WF3-9

98.2

93.2

60 m above podium

43

WF3-10

108.2

103.2

70 m above podium

44

WF3-11

118.2

113.2

80 m above podium

45

WF3-12

128.2

123.2

90 m above podium

46

WF3-13

138.2

133.2

100 m above podium

47

WF6-1

The Waterfront – Tower 6

Residential

(Existing ASR)

309

36.1

31.1

 

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

48

WF6-2

40.1

35.1

8m above podium

49

WF6-3

44.1

39.1

12m above podium

50

WF6-4

48.1

43.1

16m above podium

51

WF6-5

58.1

53.1

20m above podium

52

WF6-6

68.1

63.1

30 m above podium

53

WF6-7

78.1

73.1

40 m above podium

54

WF6-8

88.1

83.1

50 m above podium

55

WF6-9

98.1

93.1

60 m above podium

56

WF6-10

108.1

103.1

70 m above podium

57

WF6-11

118.1

113.1

80 m above podium

58

WF6-12

128.1

123.1

90 m above podium

59

WF6-13

138.1

133.1

100 m above podium

60

ICC-1

International Commerce Centre(i)

Office

(Existing ASR)

142

61.3

56.3

>100

2013 – 2020

5th floor inlet

61

ICC-2

64.1

59.1

6th floor inlet

62

ICC-3

66.9

61.9

7th floor inlet

63

ICC-4

69.7

64.7

8th floor inlet

64

ICC-5

72.5

67.5

9th floor inlet

65

ICC-6

75.3

70.3

10th floor inlet

66

ICC-7

145.3

140.3

35th floor inlet

67

ICC-8

148.1

143.1

36th floor inlet

68

ICC-9

150.9

145.9

37th floor inlet

69

ICC-10

153.7

148.7

38th floor inlet

70

ICC-11

156.5

151.5

39th floor inlet

71

ICC-12

159.3

154.3

40th floor inlet

72

ICC-13

220.9

215.9

62nd floor inlet

73

ICC-14

223.7

218.7

63rd floor inlet

74

ICC-15

226.5

221.5

64th floor inlet

75

ICC-16

229.3

224.3

65th floor inlet

76

ICC-17

285.3

280.3

85th floor inlet

77

ICC-18

288.1

283.1

86th floor inlet

78

ICC-19

290.9

285.9

87th floor inlet

79

ICC-20

293.7

288.7

88th floor inlet

80

ICC-21

302.1

297.1

91st floor inlet

81

ICC-22

335.7

330.7

103rd floor inlet

82

HT2-1

The HarbourSide – Tower 2

Residential

(Existing ASR)

47

30.8

25.8

63

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

83

HT2-2

34.8

29.8

8m above podium

84

HT2-3

38.8

33.8

12m above podium

85

HT2-4

42.8

37.8

16m above podium

86

HT2-5

46.8

41.8

20m above podium

87

HT2-6

56.8

51.8

30 m above podium

88

HT2-7

66.8

61.8

40 m above podium

89

HT2-8

76.8

71.8

50 m above podium

90

HT2-9

86.8

81.8

60 m above podium

91

HT2-10

96.8

91.8

70 m above podium

92

HT2-11

106.8

101.8

80 m above podium

93

HT2-12

116.8

111.8

90 m above podium

94

HT2-13

126.8

121.8

100 m above podium

95

HT2-14

136.8

131.8

110 m above podium

96

HT2-15

146.8

141.8

120 m above podium

97

HT2-16

156.8

151.8

130 m above podium

98

HT2-17

166.8

161.8

140 m above podium

99

HT2-18

176.8

171.8

150 m above podium

100

HT2-19

186.8

181.8

160 m above podium

101

HT2-20

196.8

191.8

170 m above podium

102

HT2-21

206.8

201.8

180 m above podium

103

HT2-22

216.8

211.8

190 m above podium

104

HT2-23

226.8

221.8

200 m above podium

105

HT2-24

236.8

231.8

210 m above podium

106

HT2-25

246.8

241.8

220 m above podium

107

HT2-26

256.8

251.8

230 m above podium

108

HT2-27

266.8

261.8

240 m above podium

109

WKTA1-1

Topside Developments at West Kowloon Terminus Site A(ii) (iii)

Commercial (Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

31

28.0

23

15

2015 – 2020

4m above podium

110

WKTA1-2

32.0

27

8m above podium

111

WKTA1-3

36.0

31

12m above podium

112

WKTA1-4

40.0

35

16m above podium

113

WKTA1-5

44.0

39

20m above podium

114

WKTA1-6

54.0

49

30 m above podium

115

WKTA1-7

64.0

59

40 m above podium

116

WKTA1-8

74.0

69

50 m above podium

117

WKTA1-9

84.0

79

60 m above podium

118

WKTA2-1

Topside Developments at West Kowloon Terminus Site A(ii) (iii)

Commercial (Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

198

28.0

23

21

2015 – 2020

4m above podium

119

WKTA2-2

32.0

27

8m above podium

120

WKTA2-3

36.0

31

12m above podium

121

WKTA2-4

40.0

35

16m above podium

122

WKTA2-5

44.0

39

20m above podium

123

WKTA2-6

54.0

49

30 m above podium

124

WKTA2-7

64.0

59

40 m above podium

125

WKTA2-8

74.0

69

50 m above podium

126

WKTA2-9

84.0

79

60 m above podium

127

WKTA2-10

94.0

89

70 m above podium

128

WKTA2-11

104.0

99

80 m above podium

129

WKTA3-1

Topside Developments at West Kowloon Terminus Site A(ii) (iii)

Commercial (Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

404

28.0

23

15

2015 – 2020

4m above podium

130

WKTA3-2

32.0

27

8m above podium

131

WKTA3-3

36.0

31

12m above podium

132

WKTA3-4

40.0

35

16m above podium

133

WKTA3-5

44.0

39

20m above podium

134

WKTA3-6

54.0

49

30 m above podium

135

WKTA3-7

64.0

59

40 m above podium

136

WKTA3-8

74.0

69

50 m above podium

137

WKTA3-9

84.0

79

60 m above podium

138

WKTA4-1

Topside Developments at West Kowloon Terminus Site A(ii) (iii)

Commercial (Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

182

28.0

23

25

2015 – 2020

4m above podium

139

WKTA4-2

32.0

27

8m above podium

140

WKTA4-3

36.0

31

12m above podium

141

WKTA4-4

40.0

35

16m above podium

142

WKTA4-5

44.0

39

20m above podium

143

WKTA4-6

54.0

49

30 m above podium

144

WKTA4-7

64.0

59

40 m above podium

145

WKTA4-8

74.0

69

50 m above podium

146

WKTA4-9

84.0

79

60 m above podium

147

WKTA4-10

94.0

89

70 m above podium

148

WKTA4-11

104.0

99

80 m above podium

149

WKTA4-12

114.0

109

90 m above podium

150

WKTA4-13

124.0

119

100 m above podium

151

AMT-1

The Arch – Moon Tower

Residential

(Existing ASR)

95

42.0

37

52

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

152

AMT-2

46.0

41

8m above podium

153

AMT-3

50.0

45

12m above podium

154

AMT-4

54.0

49

16m above podium

155

AMT-5

58.0

53

20m above podium

156

AMT-6

68.0

63

30 m above podium

157

AMT-7

78.0

73

40 m above podium

158

AMT-8

88.0

83

50 m above podium

159

AMT-9

98.0

93

60 m above podium

160

AMT-10

108.0

103

70 m above podium

161

AMT-11

118.0

113

80 m above podium

162

AMT-12

128.0

123

90 m above podium

163

AMT-13

138.0

133

100 m above podium

164

AMT-14

148.0

143

110 m above podium

165

AMT-15

158.0

153

120 m above podium

166

AMT-16

168.0

163

130 m above podium

167

AMT-17

178.0

173

140 m above podium

168

AMT-18

188.0

183

150 m above podium

169

AMT-19

198.0

193

160 m above podium

170

AMT-20

208.0

203

170 m above podium

171

AMT-21

218.0

213

180 m above podium

172

AMT-22

228.0

223

190 m above podium

173

PB1-1

Residential Developments at Austin Station(iii)

Residential (Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

 

326

15.8

10.8

23

2015 – 2020

4m above podium

174

PB1-2

30.1

25.1

8m above podium

175

PB1-3

34.1

29.1

12m above podium

176

PB1-4

38.1

33.1

16m above podium

177

PB1-5

42.1

37.1

20m above podium

178

PB1-6

46.1

41.1

30 m above podium

179

PB1-7

56.1

51.1

40 m above podium

180

PB1-8

66.1

61.1

50 m above podium

181

PB1-9

76.1

71.1

60 m above podium

182

PB1-10

86.1

81.1

70 m above podium

183

PB1-11

96.1

91.1

80 m above podium

184

PB2-1

Residential Developments at Austin Station(iii)

Residential (Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

222

15.8

10.8

21

2015 – 2020

4m above podium

185

PB2-2

30.1

25.1

8m above podium

186

PB2-3

34.1

29.1

12m above podium

187

PB2-4

38.1

33.1

16m above podium

188

PB2-5

42.1

37.1

20m above podium

189

PB2-6

46.1

41.1

30 m above podium

190

PB2-7

56.1

51.1

40 m above podium

191

PB2-8

66.1

61.1

50 m above podium

192

PB2-9

76.1

71.1

60 m above podium

193

PB2-10

86.1

81.1

70 m above podium

194

PB3-1

Residential Developments at Austin Station(iii)

Residential (Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

182

30.6

25.6

26

2015 – 2020

4m above podium

195

PB3-2

34.6

29.6

8m above podium

196

PB3-3

38.6

33.6

12m above podium

197

PB3-4

42.6

37.6

16m above podium

198

PB3-5

46.6

41.6

20m above podium

199

PB3-6

56.6

51.6

30 m above podium

200

PB3-7

66.6

61.6

40 m above podium

201

PB3-8

76.6

71.6

50 m above podium

202

PB3-9

86.6

81.6

60 m above podium

203

PB3-10

96.6

91.6

70 m above podium

204

PB4-1

Residential Developments at Austin Station(iii)

Residential (Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

39

49.5

44.5

20

2015 – 2020

4m above podium

205

PB4-2

53.5

48.5

8m above podium

206

PB4-3

57.5

52.5

12m above podium

207

PB4-4

61.5

56.5

16m above podium

208

PB4-5

65.5

60.5

20m above podium

209

PB4-6

75.5

70.5

30 m above podium

210

PB4-7

85.5

80.5

40 m above podium

211

PB4-8

95.5

90.5

50 m above podium

212

PB4-9

105.5

100.5

60 m above podium

213

PB4-10

115.5

110.5

70 m above podium

214

WOB-1

Wai On Building – Block A

Residential

(Existing ASR)

47

11.8

6.8

16

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

215

WOB-2

15.8

10.8

8m above podium

216

WOB-3

19.8

14.8

12m above podium

217

WOB-4

23.8

18.8

16m above podium

218

WOB-5

27.8

22.8

20m above podium

219

WOB-6

37.8

32.8

30 m above podium

220

WOB-7

47.8

42.8

40 m above podium

221

WOB-8

57.8

52.8

50 m above podium

222

VT1-1

The Victoria Towers – Tower 1

Residential

(Existing ASR)

31

49.3

44.3

52

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

223

VT1-2

53.3

48.3

8m above podium

224

VT1-3

57.3

52.3

12m above podium

225

VT1-4

61.3

56.3

16m above podium

226

VT1-5

65.3

60.3

20m above podium

227

VT1-6

75.3

70.3

30 m above podium

228

VT1-7

85.3

80.3

40 m above podium

229

VT1-8

95.3

90.3

50 m above podium

230

VT1-9

105.3

100.3

60 m above podium

231

VT1-10

115.3

110.3

70 m above podium

232

VT1-11

125.3

120.3

80 m above podium

233

VT1-12

135.3

130.3

90 m above podium

234

VT1-13

145.3

140.3

100 m above podium

235

VT1-14

155.3

150.3

110 m above podium

236

VT1-15

165.3

160.3

120 m above podium

237

VT1-16

175.3

170.3

130 m above podium

238

VT1-17

185.3

180.3

140 m above podium

239

VT1-18

195.3

190.3

150 m above podium

240

VT1-19

205.3

200.3

160 m above podium

241

VT1-20

215.3

210.3

170 m above podium

242

VT1-21

225.3

220.3

180 m above podium

243

VT1-22

235.3

230.3

190 m above podium

244

VT1-23

 

 

13.0

8

 

 

Fresh Air Intake

245

LCS-1

Lai Chak Middle School

Educational

(Existing ASR)

31

11.2

6.2

7

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

246

LCS-2

15.2

10.2

8m above podium

247

CHC1-1

China HK City  – Tower 3(i)

Commercial

(Existing ASR)

15

23.1

18.1

11

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

248

CHC1-2

27.1

22.1

8m above podium

249

CHC1-3

31.1

26.1

12m above podium

250

CHC1-4

35.1

30.1

16m above podium

251

CHC1-5

39.1

34.1

20m above podium

252

CHC1-6

49.1

44.1

30 m above podium

253

CHC2-1

China HK City  – Tower 5(i)

Commercial

(Existing ASR)

7

23.1

18.1

11

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

254

CHC2-2

27.1

22.1

8m above podium

255

CHC2-3

31.1

26.1

12m above podium

256

CHC2-4

35.1

30.1

16m above podium

257

CHC2-5

39.1

34.1

20m above podium

258

CHC2-6

49.1

44.1

30 m above podium

259

RPH-1

The Royal Pacific Hotel(i)

Hotel

(Existing ASR)

119

23.1

18.1

15

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

260

RPH-2

27.1

22.1

8m above podium

261

RPH-3

31.1

26.1

12m above podium

262

RPH-4

35.1

30.1

16m above podium

263

RPH-5

39.1

34.1

20m above podium

264

RPH-6

49.1

44.1

30 m above podium

265

PCK-1

Pacific Club Kowloon

Recreational

(Existing ASR)

317

24.0

19

4

2013 – 2020

4m above podium

266

P01a-1

Parcel 01

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

7

2015 – 2020

See Note (vi)

267

P01a-2

17.4

8.0

 

268

P01a-3

21.4

12.0

 

269

P01a-4

25.4

16.0

 

270

P01a-5

29.4

20.0

 

271

P01a-6

39.4

30.0

 

272

P01a-7

49.4

40.0

 

273

P01b-1

Parcel 01

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

7

2015 – 2020

See Note (vi)

274

P01b-2

17.4

8.0

 

275

P01b-3

21.4

12.0

 

276

P01b-4

25.4

16.0

 

277

P01b-5

29.4

20.0

 

278

P01b-6

39.4

30.0

 

279

P01b-7

49.4

40.0

 

280

P01c-1

Parcel 01

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

7

2015 – 2020

See Note (vi)

281

P01c-2

17.4

8.0

 

282

P01c-3

21.4

12.0

 

283

P01c-4

25.4

16.0

 

284

P01c-5

29.4

20.0

 

285

P01c-6

39.4

30.0

 

286

P01c-7

49.4

40.0

 

287

P01d-1

Parcel 01

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

7

2015 – 2020

See Note (vi)

288

P01d-2

17.4

8.0

 

289

P01d-3

21.4

12.0

 

290

P01d-4

25.4

16.0

 

291

P01d-5

29.4

20.0

 

292

P01d-6

39.4

30.0

 

293

P01d-7

49.4

40.0

 

294

P01e-1

Parcel 01

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

 

49.4

40.0

7

2015 – 2020

 

295

P02-1

Parcel 02

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment /Residential

(Planned ASR from 2030 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

Phase 2 construction, not complete until 2030

See Note (vi)

296

P02-2

17.4

8.0

 

297

P02-3

21.4

12.0

Lowest residential floor

298

P02-4

25.4

16.0

 

299

P02-5

29.4

20.0

 

300

P02-6

39.4

30.0

 

301

P02-7

49.4

40.0

 

302

P02-8

59.4

50.0

 

303

P03-1

Parcel 03

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment /Residential

(Planned ASR from 2030 onwards)

 

N/A

11.2

4.0

8

 

Phase 2 construction, not complete until 2030

 

304

P03-2

15.2

8.0

 

305

P03-3

19.2

12.0

Lowest residential floor

306

P03-4

23.2

16.0

 

307

P03-5

27.2

20.0

 

308

P04-1

Parcel 04

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment

(Planned ASR from 2030 onwards) 

N/A

9.0

4.0

5

Phase 2 construction, not complete until 2030

See Note (vi)

309

P04-2

13.0

8.0

 

310

P04-3

17.0

12.0

 

311

P04-4

21.0

16.0

 

312

P04-5

25.0

20.0

 

313

P04-6

35.0

30.0

 

314

P05-1

Parcel 05

Office/ Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

 

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

315

P05-2

17.4

8.0

 

316

P05-3

21.4

12.0

 

317

P05-4

25.4

16.0

 

318

P05-5

29.4

20.0

 

319

P05-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

320

P05-7

49.4

40.0

 

321

P06-1

Parcel 06

Office(v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

14

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

322

P06-2

17.4

8.0

 

323

P06-3

21.4

12.0

 

324

P06-4

25.4

16.0

 

325

P06-5

29.4

20.0

 

326

P06-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

327

P06-7

49.4

40.0

 

328

P07-1

Parcel 07

Office(v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

N/A

13.4

4.0

14

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

329

P07-2

17.4

8.0

 

330

P07-3

21.4

12.0

 

331

P07-4

25.4

16.0

 

332

P07-5

29.4

20.0

 

333

P07-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

334

P07-7

49.4

40.0

 

335

P08-1

Parcel 08

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

5

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

336

P08-2

17.4

8.0

 

337

P08-3

21.4

12.0

 

338

P08-4

25.4

16.0

 

339

P08-5

29.4

20.0

 

340

P09-1

Parcel 09

Office(v)/ Residential (vi)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

 

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

341

P09-2

17.4

8.0

 

342

P09-3

21.4

12.0

 

343

P09-4

25.4

16.0

 

344

P09-5

29.4

20.0

 

345

P09-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

346

P09-7

49.4

40.0

 

347

P10-1

Parcel 10

Office+ Retail/ Dining/  Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

 

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

348

P10-2

17.4

8.0

 

349

P10-3

21.4

12.0

 

350

P10-4

25.4

16.0

 

351

P10-5

29.4

20.0

 

352

P10-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

353

P10-7

49.4

40.0

 

354

P10-8

59.4

50.0

 

355

P11-1

Parcel 11

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

356

P11-2

17.4

8.0

 

357

P11-3

21.4

12.0

Lowest residential floor

358

P11-4

25.4

16.0

 

359

P11-5

29.4

20.0

 

360

P11-6

39.4

30.0

 

361

P11-7

49.4

40.0

 

362

P11-8

59.4

50.0

 

363

P12-1

Parcel 12

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from beyond 2020)

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

Beyond 2020

See Note (vi)

364

P12-2

17.4

8.0

 

365

P12-3

21.4

12.0

 

366

P12-4

25.4

16.0

 

367

P12-5

29.4

20.0

 

368

P13-1

Parcel 13

Office+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

369

P13-2

17.4

8.0

 

370

P13-3

21.4

12.0

 

371

P13-4

25.4

16.0

 

372

P13-5

29.4

20.0

 

373

P13-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

374

P13-7

49.4

40.0

 

375

P13-8

59.4

50.0

 

376

P14-1

Parcel 14

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

12

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

377

P14-2

17.4

8.0

 

378

P14-3

21.4

12.0

 

379

P14-4

25.4

16.0

 

380

P14-5

29.4

20.0

 

381

P14-6

39.4

30.0

 

382

P14-7

49.4

40.0

 

383

P15-1

Parcel 15

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv) Office(iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

12

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

384

P15-2

17.4

8.0

 

385

P15-3

21.4

12.0

 

386

P15-4

25.4

16.0

 

387

P15-5

29.4

20.0

 

388

P15-6

39.4

30.0

 

389

P15-7

49.4

40.0

 

390

P16-1

Parcel 16

 

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

 

N/A

13.4

4.0

8

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

391

P16-2

17.4

8.0

 

392

P16-3

21.4

12.0

 

393

P16-4

25.4

16.0

 

394

P16-5

29.4

20.0

 

395

P16-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

396

P16-7

49.4

40.0

 

397

P16-8

59.4

50.0

 

398

P17-1

Parcel 17

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment +

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

 

 

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

399

P17-2

17.4

8.0

 

400

P17-3

21.4

12.0

 

401

P17-4

25.4

16.0

 

402

P17-5

29.4

20.0

 

403

P17-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

404

P17-7

49.4

40.0

 

405

P18a-1

Parcel 18

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD

 (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

8

2020

See Note (vi)

406

P18a-2

17.4

8.0

 

407

P18a-3

21.4

12.0

 

408

P18a-4

25.4

16.0

 

409

P18a-5

29.4

20.0

 

410

P18a-6

39.4

30.0

 

411

P18a-7

49.4

40.0

 

412

P18b-1

Parcel 18

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD

 (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

8

2020

See Note (vi)

413

P18b-2

17.4

8.0

 

414

P18b-3

21.4

12.0

 

415

P18b-4

25.4

16.0

 

416

P18b-5

29.4

20.0

 

417

P18b-6

39.4

30.0

 

418

P18b-7

49.4

40.0

 

419

P18c-1

Parcel 18

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD

 (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

8

2020

See Note (vi)

420

P18c-2

17.4

8.0

 

421

P18c-3

21.4

12.0

 

422

P18c-4

25.4

16.0

 

423

P18c-5

29.4

20.0

 

424

P18c-6

39.4

30.0

 

425

P18c-7

49.4

40.0

 

426

P18d-1

Parcel 18

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD

 (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

8

2020

See Note (vi)

427

P18d-2

17.4

8.0

 

428

P18d-3

21.4

12.0

 

429

P18d-4

25.4

16.0

 

430

P18d-5

29.4

20.0

 

431

P18d-6

39.4

30.0

 

432

P18d-7

49.4

40.0

 

433

P18e

Parcel 18

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD

 (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2030 onwards)

N/A

49.4

40.0

8

Phase 2 construction, not complete until 2030

 

434

P19-1

Parcel 19

Hotel

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

14

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

435

P19-2

17.4

8.0

 

436

P19-3

21.4

12.0

 

437

P19-4

25.4

16.0

 

438

P19-5

29.4

20.0

 

439

P19-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

440

P19-7

49.4

40.0

 

441

P19-8

59.4

50.0

 

442

P20-1

Parcel 20

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

13

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

443

P20-2

17.4

8.0

 

444

P20-3

21.4

12.0

 

445

P20-4

25.4

16.0

 

446

P20-5

29.4

20.0

 

447

P20-6

39.4

30.0

 

448

P20-7

49.4

40.0

 

449

P20-8

59.4

50.0

 

450

P21-1

Parcel 21

Office

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

13

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

451

P21-2

17.4

8.0

 

452

P21-3

21.4

12.0

 

453

P21-4

25.4

16.0

 

454

P21-5

29.4

20.0

 

455

P21-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

456

P21-7

49.4

40.0

 

457

P22-1

Parcel 22

GIC

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

13

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

458

P22-2

17.4

8.0

 

459

P22-3

21.4

12.0

 

460

P22-4

25.4

16.0

 

461

P22-5

29.4

20.0

Lowest residential floor

462

P22-6

39.4

30.0

 

463

P22-7

49.4

40.0

 

464

P22-8

59.4

50.0

 

465

P23a-1

Parcel 23

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

8

2020

See Note (vi)

466

P23a-2

17.4

8.0

 

467

P23a-3

21.4

12.0

 

468

P23a-4

25.4

16.0

 

469

P23a-5

29.4

20.0

 

470

P23a-6

39.4

30.0

 

471

P23a-7

49.4

40.0

 

472

P23b-1

Parcel 23

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

8

2020

See Note (vi)

473

P23b-2

17.4

8.0

 

474

P23b-3

21.4

12.0

 

475

P23b-4

25.4

16.0

 

476

P23b-5

29.4

20.0

 

477

P23b-6

39.4

30.0

 

478

P23b-7

49.4

40.0

 

479

P23c-1

Parcel 23

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

8

2020

See Note (vi)

480

P23c-2

17.4

8.0

 

481

P23c-3

21.4

12.0

 

482

P23c-4

25.4

16.0

 

483

P23c-5

29.4

20.0

 

484

P23c-6

39.4

30.0

 

485

P23c-7

49.4

40.0

 

486

P23d-1

Parcel 23

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

8

2020

See Note (vi)

487

P23d-2

17.4

8.0

 

488

P23d-3

21.4

12.0

 

489

P23d-4

25.4

16.0

 

490

P23d-5

29.4

20.0

 

491

P23d-6

39.4

30.0

 

492

P23d-7

49.4

40.0

 

493

P23e

Parcel 23

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

49.4

40.0

8

2020

 

494

P24-1

Parcel 24

Office

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

14

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

495

P24-2

17.4

8.0

 

496

P24-3

21.4

12.0

 

497

P24-4

25.4

16.0

 

498

P24-5

29.4

20.0

 

499

P24-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

500

P24-7

49.4

40.0

 

501

P24-8

59.4

50.0

 

502

P25-1

Parcel 25

Pavilion (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

1

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

503

P25-2

17.4

8.0

 

504

P25-3

21.4

12.0

 

505

P25-4

25.4

16.0

 

506

P25-5

29.4

20.0

 

507

P26-1

Parcel 26

Office

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

508

P26-2

17.4

8.0

 

509

P26-3

21.4

12.0

 

510

P26-4

25.4

16.0

 

511

P26-5

29.4

20.0

 

512

P26-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

513

P26-7

49.4

40.0

 

514

P26-8

59.4

50.0

 

515

P27-1

Parcel 27

Office

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

516

P27-2

17.4

8.0

 

517

P27-3

21.4

12.0

 

518

P27-4

25.4

16.0

 

519

P27-5

29.4

20.0

 

520

P27-6

39.4

30.0

 

521

P27-7

49.4

40.0

Lowest residential floor

522

P27-8

59.4

50.0

 

523

P28-1

Parcel 28

Office

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

21

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

524

P28-2

17.4

8.0

 

525

P28-3

21.4

12.0

 

526

P28-4

25.4

16.0

 

527

P28-5

29.4

20.0

 

528

P28-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

529

P28-7

49.4

40.0

 

530

P28-8

59.4

50.0

 

531

P28-9

69.4

60.0

 

532

P28-10

79.4

70.0

 

533

P29-1

Parcel 29

Office

+ Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (v)

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

23

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

534

P29-2

17.4

8.0

 

535

P29-3

21.4

12.0

 

536

P29-4

25.4

16.0

 

537

P29-5

29.4

20.0

 

538

P29-6

39.4

30.0

Lowest residential floor

539

P29-7

49.4

40.0

 

540

P29-8

59.4

50.0

 

541

P29-9

69.4

60.0

 

542

P29-10

79.4

70.0

 

543

P30a-1

Parcel 30

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from beyond 2020)

N/A

13.4

4.0

6

Beyond 2020

See Note (vi)

544

P30a-2

17.4

8.0

 

545

P30a-3

21.4

12.0

 

546

P30a-4

25.4

16.0

 

547

P30a-5

29.4

20.0

 

548

P30b-1

Parcel 30

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from beyond 2020)

 

13.4

4.0

6

Beyond 2020

See Note (vi)

549

P30b-2

17.4

8.0

 

550

P30b-3

21.4

12.0

 

551

P30b-4

25.4

16.0

 

552

P30b-5

29.4

20.0

 

553

P30c-1

Parcel 30

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from beyond 2020)

 

13.4

4.0

6

Beyond 2020

See Note (vi)

554

P30c-2

17.4

8.0

 

555

P30c-3

21.4

12.0

 

556

P30c-4

25.4

16.0

 

557

P30c-5

29.4

20.0

 

558

P30d-1

Parcel 30

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from beyond 2020)

 

13.4

4.0

6

Beyond 2020

See Note (vi)

559

P30d-2

17.4

8.0

 

560

P30d-3

21.4

12.0

 

561

P30d-4

25.4

16.0

 

562

P30d-5

29.4

20.0

 

563

P30e

Parcel 30

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from beyond 2020)

 

29.4

20.0

6

Beyond 2020

 

564

P31-1

Parcel 31

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

Office(iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

22

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

565

P31-2

17.4

8.0

 

566

P31-3

21.4

12.0

 

567

P31-4

25.4

16.0

 

568

P31-5

29.4

20.0

 

569

P31-6

39.4

30.0

 

570

P31-7

49.4

40.0

 

571

P31-8

59.4

50.0

 

572

P31-9

69.4

60.0

 

573

P31-10

79.4

70.0

 

574

P31-11

89.4

80.0

 

575

P32-1

Parcel 32

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment +

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

15

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

576

P32-2

17.4

8.0

 

577

P32-3

21.4

12.0

Lowest residential floor

578

P32-4

25.4

16.0

 

579

P32-5

29.4

20.0

 

580

P32-6

39.4

30.0

 

581

P32-7

49.4

40.0

 

582

P34-1

Parcel 34

Office

+

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

21

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

583

P34-2

17.4

8.0

 

584

P34-3

21.4

12.0

 

585

P34-4

25.4

16.0

 

586

P34-5

29.4

20.0

 

587

P34-6

39.4

30.0

 

588

P34-7

49.4

40.0

 

589

P34-8

59.4

50.0

 

590

P34-9

69.4

60.0

 

591

P34-10

79.4

70.0

 

592

P35a-1

Parcel 35

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

7

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

593

P35a-2

17.4

8.0

 

594

P35a-3

21.4

12.0

 

595

P35a-4

25.4

16.0

 

596

P35a-5

29.4

20.0

 

597

P35b-1

Parcel 35

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

7

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

598

P35b-2

17.4

8.0

 

599

P35b-3

21.4

12.0

 

600

P35b-4

25.4

16.0

 

601

P35b-5

29.4

20.0

 

602

P35c-1

Parcel 35

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

7

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

603

P35c-2

17.4

8.0

 

604

P35c-3

21.4

12.0

 

605

P35c-4

25.4

16.0

 

606

P35c-5

29.4

20.0

 

607

P35d-1

Parcel 35

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

7

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

608

P35d-2

17.4

8.0

 

609

P35d-3

21.4

12.0

 

610

P35d-4

25.4

16.0

 

611

P35d-5

29.4

20.0

 

612

P35e-1

Parcel 35

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

 

29.4

20.0

7

2017 – 2020

 

613

P36-1

Parcel 36

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

11.4

4.0

15

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

614

P36-2

15.4

8.0

 

615

P36-3

19.4

12.0

 

616

P36-4

23.4

16.0

 

617

P36-5

27.4

20.0

 

618

P36-6

37.4

30.0

 

619

P36-7

47.4

40.0

 

620

P36-8

57.4

50.0

 

621

P36-9

67.4

60.0

 

622

P36-10

77.4

70.0

 

623

P37-1

Parcel 37

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

11.4

4.0

15

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

624

P37-2

15.4

8.0

 

625

P37-3

19.4

12.0

 

626

P37-4

23.4

16.0

 

627

P37-5

27.4

20.0

 

628

P37-6

37.4

30.0

 

629

P37-7

47.4

40.0

 

630

P37-8

57.4

50.0

 

631

P37-9

67.4

60.0

 

632

P37-10

77.4

70.0

 

633

P38-1

Parcel 38

Office +

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

21

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

634

P38-2

17.4

8.0

 

635

P38-3

21.4

12.0

 

636

P38-4

25.4

16.0

 

637

P38-5

29.4

20.0

 

638

P38-6

39.4

30.0

 

639

P38-7

49.4

40.0

 

640

P38-8

59.4

50.0

 

641

P38-9

69.4

60.0

 

642

P38-10

79.4

70.0

 

643

P39-1

Parcel 39

Office +

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

11

2020

See Note (vi)

644

P39-2

17.4

8.0

 

645

P39-3

21.4

12.0

 

646

P39-4

25.4

16.0

 

647

P39-5

29.4

20.0

 

648

P39-6

39.4

30.0

 

649

P39-7

49.4

40.0

 

650

P39-8

59.4

50.0

 

651

P39-9

69.4

60.0

 

652

P39-10

79.4

70.0

 

653

P40a-1

Parcel 40

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

6

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

654

P40a-2

17.4

8.0

 

655

P40a-3

21.4

12.0

 

656

P40a-4

25.4

16.0

 

657

P40a-5

29.4

20.0

 

658

P40a-6

39.4

30.0

 

659

P40a-7

49.4

40.0

 

660

P40b-1

Parcel 40

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

6

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

661

P40b-2

17.4

8.0

 

662

P40b-3

21.4

12.0

 

663

P40b-4

25.4

16.0

 

664

P40b-5

29.4

20.0

 

665

P40b-6

39.4

30.0

 

666

P40b-7

49.4

40.0

 

667

P40c-1

Parcel 40

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

6

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

668

P40c-2

17.4

8.0

 

669

P40c-3

21.4

12.0

 

670

P40c-4

25.4

16.0

 

671

P40c-5

29.4

20.0

 

672

P40c-6

39.4

30.0

 

673

P40c-7

49.4

40.0

 

674

P40d-1

Parcel 40

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

 

13.4

4.0

6

2018 – 2020

See Note (vi)

675

P40d-2

17.4

8.0

 

676

P40d-3

21.4

12.0

 

677

P40d-4

25.4

16.0

 

678

P40d-5

29.4

20.0

 

679

P40d-6

39.4

30.0

 

680

P40d-7

49.4

40.0

 

681

P40e

Parcel 40

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

 

49.4

40.0

6

2018 – 2020

 

682

P41-1

Parcel 41

Pavilion (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2030 onwards)

N/A

13.4

4.0

1

Phase 2 construction, not complete until 2030

See Note (vi)

683

P41-2

17.4

8.0

 

684

P41-3

21.4

12.0

 

685

P41-4

25.4

16.0

 

686

P41-5

29.4

20.0

 

687

P43a-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

688

P43a-2

20.5

8.0

 

689

P43a-3

24.5

12.0

 

690

P43a-4

28.5

16.0

 

691

P43b-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

692

P43b-2

20.5

8.0

 

693

P43b-3

24.5

12.0

 

694

P43b-4

28.5

16.0

 

695

P43b-5

32.5

20.0

 

696

P43c-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

697

P43c-2

20.5

8.0

 

698

P43c-3

24.5

12.0

 

699

P43c-4

28.5

16.0

 

700

P43c-5

32.5

20.0

 

701

P43d-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

702

P43d-2

20.5

8.0

 

703

P43d-3

24.5

12.0

 

704

P43d-4

28.5

16.0

 

705

P43d-5

32.5

20.0

 

706

P43d-6

42.5

30.0

 

707

P43d-7

52.5

40.0

 

708

P43e-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

709

P43e-2

20.5

8.0

 

710

P43e-3

24.5

12.0

 

711

P43e-4

28.5

16.0

 

712

P43e-5

32.5

20.0

 

713

P43e-6

42.5

30.0

 

714

P43e-7

52.5

40.0

 

715

P43e-8

62.5

50.0

 

716

P43f-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

717

P43f-2

20.5

8.0

 

718

P43f-3

24.5

12.0

 

719

P43f-4

28.5

16.0

 

720

P43f-5

32.5

20.0

 

721

P43f-6

42.5

30.0

 

722

P43f-7

52.5

40.0

 

723

P43f-8

62.5

50.0

 

724

P43g-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

725

P43g-2

20.5

8.0

 

726

P43g-3

24.5

12.0

 

727

P43g-4

28.5

16.0

 

728

P43g-5

32.5

20.0

 

729

P43g-6

42.5

30.0

 

730

P43g-7

52.5

40.0

 

731

P43h-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

732

P43h-2

20.5

8.0

 

733

P43h-3

24.5

12.0

 

734

P43h-4

28.5

16.0

 

735

P43h-5

32.5

20.0

 

736

P43h-6

42.5

30.0

 

737

P43h-7

52.5

40.0

 

738

P43i-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

739

P43i-2

20.5

8.0

 

740

P43i-3

24.5

12.0

 

741

P43i-4

28.5

16.0

 

742

P43i-5

32.5

20.0

 

743

P43i-6

42.5

30.0

 

744

P43j-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

745

P43j-2

20.5

8.0

 

746

P43j-3

24.5

12.0

 

747

P43j-4

28.5

16.0

 

748

P43j-5

32.5

20.0

 

749

P43k-1

Parcel 43

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.5

4.0

13

2020

See Note (vi)

750

P43k-2

20.5

8.0

 

751

P43k-3

24.5

12.0

 

752

P43k-4

28.5

16.0

 

753

P46a-1

Parcel 46

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

16.4

4.0

5

2020

See Note (vi)

754

P46a-2

20.4

8.0

 

755

P46a-3

24.4

12.0

 

755

P46a-4

28.4

16.0

 

756

P46a-5

32.4

20.0

 

757

P46a-6

42.4

30.0

 

758

P46b-1

Parcel 46

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.4

4.0

5

2020

See Note (vi)

759

P46b-2

20.4

8.0

 

760

P46b-3

24.4

12.0

 

761

P46b-4

28.4

16.0

 

762

P46b-5

32.4

20.0

 

763

P46b-6

42.4

30.0

 

764

P46c-1

Parcel 46

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.4

4.0

5

2020

See Note (vi)

765

P46c-2

20.4

8.0

 

766

P46c-3

24.4

12.0

 

767

P46c-4

28.4

16.0

 

768

P46c-5

32.4

20.0

 

769

P46c-6

42.4

30.0

 

770

P46d-1

Parcel 46

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

16.4

4.0

5

2020

See Note (vi)

771

P46d-2

20.4

8.0

 

772

P46d-3

24.4

12.0

 

773

P46d-4

28.4

16.0

 

774

P46d-5

32.4

20.0

 

775

P46d-6

42.4

30.0

 

776

P46e-1

Parcel 46

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

 

42.4

30.0

5

2020

 

777

P50-1

Parcel 50

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

N/A

9.0

4.0

NA

2020

See Note (vi)

778

P50-2

13.0

8.0

 

779

P50-3

17.0

12.0

 

780

P50-4

21.0

16.0

 

781

P50-5

25.0

20.0

 

782

P51-1

Parcel 51

Freespace

(Planned ASR from 2016 onwards)

 

N/A

9.0

4.0

NA

2016 – 2020

See Note (vi)

783

P51-2

13.0

8.0

 

784

P51-3

17.0

12.0

 

785

P51-4

21.0

16.0

 

786

P51-5

25.0

20.0

 

787

P52-1

Parcel 52

Pavilion (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2016 onwards)

N/A

9.0

4.0

2

2016 – 2020

See Note (vi)

788

P52-2

13.0

8.0

 

789

P52-3

17.0

12.0

 

790

P52-4

21.0

16.0

 

791

P52-5

25.0

20.0

 

792

P53-1

Parcel 53

Pavilion (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2014 onwards)

N/A

9.0

4.0

2

 

2014 – 2020

See Note (vi)

793

P53-2

13.0

8.0

 

794

P53-3

17.0

12.0

 

795

P53-4

21.0

16.0

 

796

P53-5

25.0

20.0

 

797

P54-1

Parcel 54

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD (iv)

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

9.0

4.0

1

2017 – 2020

See Note (vi)

798

P54-2

13.0

8.0

 

799

P54-3

17.0

12.0

 

800

P54-4

21.0

16.0

 

801

P54-5

25.0

20.0

 

802

OP

Open space

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

N/A

6.5

1.5

0

2017-2020

 

Notes      (i) Estimated locations of the fresh air takes of these developments are taken as the ASRs.

                (ii) The locations and no. of storeys of the planned ASRs representing the topside development at West Kowloon Terminus (WKT) Site A are based on the approved EIA for Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou – Shenzhen – Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL).

                (iii) According to the approved EIA for Road Works at West Kowloon, these planned ASRs will be occupied upon completion of construction of the Road Works at West Kowloon project in 2014.

            (iv) The planned ASRs represent the indicative fresh air intake locations of these planned developments.

                        (v) Selected assessment height is the indicative location of fresh air intake at podium level.

(vi) The planned ASRs at 4m above ground level are assessment points for reference only, but are not fresh air intake or openable window locations.

 

3.4          Identification of Pollution Sources

3.4.1        Background Air Quality

The WKCD is located on the Kowloon Peninsula and is surrounded by the sea on two of its four sides. In accordance with the Guidelines in Assessing the ‘TOTAL’ Air Quality Impacts, WKCD is categorised as an urban area. There is no EPD general air quality monitoring station located in this area, the recent five years (2007 –2011) annual average monitoring data recorded at five of EPD’s general air quality monitoring stations in urban areas is used to estimate the background TSP concentration. Using this average allows for the harbour setting of the site to be considered and provides more representative estimation of the background concentrations than by using any one station only.

With reference to EPD’s Air Quality Annual Report, the EPD’s general air quality monitoring stations in urban areas that can be considered as an indication of the background concentration include Central/Western, Kwun Tong, Sham Shui Po, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Chung. The average TSP concentration of all these five monitoring stations is detailed in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4:      Average Background TSP Concentrations from EPD’s Urban Air Monitoring Stations (Year 2007-2011)

Urban Stations

Distance from WKCD Boundary (km)

Annual Average TSP Concentration (μg/m3)

5-year Average Concentration (μg/m3)

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Tsuen Wan

8.65

79

67

63

63

69

68.2

Kwai Chung

6.46

85

79

70

71

71

75.2

Sham Shui Po

2.83

79

81

77

76

79

78.4

Kwun Tong

6.10

82

72

70

67

74

73.0

Central /Western

1.91

77

78

73

76

78

76.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average

74.2

Note:      Monitoring results that exceeded AQO are shown in bold characters.

Dust monitoring has been undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed West Kowloon Terminus (WKT) from March 2010 to December 2012 inclusive as part of the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) works for XRL project. The air monitoring stations considered to be most relevant to WKCD are AM16 and AM17, as both stations are in close proximity to the WKCD site (see Figure 3.2). The annual average TSP concentration during that construction period of WKT has been calculated, as shown in Table 3.5 (see Appendix 3.27 for details).

Table 3.5:      Air Quality Monitoring Results for Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link relevant to WKCD (March 2010 – December 2012)

Monitoring Station

Location

Annual Average TSP Concentration (μg/m3)

3-year Average  Concentration (μg/m3)

 

2010(1)

2011

2012

AM16

Tower 3, The Waterfront

74.2

73.4

54.3

67.1

AM17

The Victoria Towers

74.7

79.3

55.5

69.7

 

 

 

 

Average

68.4

Note:      (1)           Monitoring results from March 2010 to December 2010.

As the air quality monitoring stations AM16 and AM17 border the XRL site boundary, it is reasonable to assume that the average TSP concentration of these two stations can represent XRL generated dust concentrations plus prevailing background dust concentrations at the WKCD area. While the 5‑year average TSP concentration in urban areas as obtained from EPD’s urban air quality monitoring stations (74.2 µg/m3 from Table 3.4) is comparable to that from the XRL data (68.4 µg/m3 from Table 3.5), it is considered that using the XRL monitoring data is a more reasonable estimate for the WKCD TSP assessment.  This is because there is a sufficient amount of XRL data (about 3 years’ data) and the XRL monitoring stations are in close proximity to the WKCD site whereas the EPD’s monitoring stations are at much larger distances (1.91 km to 8.65 km) from the site.

Operational air quality contaminants of significance to the Project area include: SO2, from marine; NO2, from vehicles and marine; and RSP, from vehicles and marine. The 5-year average concentrations for these pollutants are detailed in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6:      Average Background Air Pollutant Concentrations from EPD’s Urban Air Monitoring Stations (Year 2007-2011)

Pollutant

Urban Stations and 5-year Average Concentration (μg/m3)

AQO criteria (μg/m3)

5-year Average Concentration (μg/m3)

Tsuen Wan

Kwai Chung

Sham Shui Po

Kwun Tong

Central/ Western

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

19.8

24.4

17.4

13.8

17.6

80

18.6

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

63.2

64.6

68.4

60.4

52.8

80

61.9

Respirable Suspended Particulate (RSP/PM10)

51.2

50.4

51.2

48.8

49.6

55

50.2

In addition to the urban air quality monitoring stations, EPD had operated a local air quality monitoring station at the WKCD site to record background air pollutant concentrations from September 2011 to August 2012. Although the monitoring data is only for a single year, the recorded information is useful as a direct indication of the onsite air quality. Table 3.7 shows the background air quality data for the WKCD site for 2011-2012 (see details in Appendix 3.20).

Table 3.7:      Average Background Air Pollutant Concentrations from EPD’s Local Monitoring Station at WKCD Site (September 2011 – August 2012)

Pollutant

Annual Average Concentration (μg/m3)

AQO criteria (μg/m3)

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

11.4

80

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

46.7

80

Respirable Suspended Particulate (RSP/PM10)

45.0

55

By comparing the EPD’s onsite monitoring results at WKCD with the 5-year average from the urban monitoring stations, it can be seen that the onsite monitoring results are significantly lower – approximately 39% lower for SO2, 25% lower for NO2, and 10% lower for RSP.

The future background air pollutant concentrations to be used for predicting the total air quality impact due to operational phase for NO2, RSP and SO2 are as extracted from the PATH model (for year 2015) released by EPD in December 2012.

The New Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter (NYMTTS) is located adjacent to the north of the WKCD site. Due to its proximity, any odour emissions from NYMTTS could potentially affect the future development of WKCD. Based on the information provided by EPD, the number of odour complaints against NYMTTS received by EPD from 2006 to 2013 are as summarised in Table 3.8.

 

Table 3.8:              Number of Odour Complaints against NYMTTS Received by EPD (2006-2013)

Year

No. of Odour Complaints against NYMTTS

2006

1

2007

3

2008

Nil

2009

Nil

2010

2

(not including a complaint against suspected malodour from ships)

2011

Nil

2012

Nil

2013 (till 28 April 2013)

Nil

The locations where the above complaints were lodged are as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix 3.26a. It can be seen from the above that:

·         There were only one to three odour complaints against NYMTTS per year in 2006, 2007 and 2010, and none in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013 (up to April 2013).

·         The few complaints were lodged from residents located on the north end of NYMTTS; these locations are over 1,500 m from the WKCD site boundary. In other words, no complaints were received from occupants within the 500 m assessment area of the WKCD site in the past seven years.

An odour patrol along the watercourse boundary of the NYMTTS was carried out in March 2011 to identify any malodour.  The odour patrol route and the patrol results are documented in Appendix 3.26a.  According to the odour patrol, malodour was only detected surrounding the northern portion of the boundary of NYMTTS, i.e., along the route from P2 to P3 in Figure 1 in Appendix 3.26a whereas no malodour was detected along the patrol route from P1 to P2.

3.4.2        Construction Phase

Construction of the WKCD facilities will be carried out in phases, with construction of Phase 1 aimed at commencement in 2013 for completion in 2020 (see Appendix 2.4 for the tentative construction programme). During construction, the major activities that would generate construction dust emissions include the following:

·         Excavation activities;

·         Foundation works;

·         Concrete batching plant and barging points (assumed to be handed over from the XRL project to WKCD);

·         Site Formation, and;

·         Movement of mobile plant and vehicles on haul roads.

Based on a review of the construction methods adopted for the WKCD Project, construction dust will be potentially generated from the aforementioned land-based construction activities and is therefore identified as the representative pollutants. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to adopt total suspended particulate (TSP) as the key pollutant during the construction phase. According to the “2011 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report” published by EPD[1] in March 2013, which is the latest available information at the time of preparing this Report, the top 3 major sources of RSP include navigation, road transport and public electricity generation, which collectively accounted for about 72% of the total RSP emission in 2011 whereas non-combustion sources only constituted about 15% of the total emission. Since construction dust is only one of the various non-combustion sources, it is considered that RSP would not be a representative pollutant of construction dust.

Construction of the critical elements of WKCD is scheduled to begin in 2013. Due to construction of concurrent projects in the vicinity, cumulative impacts are expected. Table 3.9 summarises the concurrent projects that may contribute to cumulative construction dust impacts.

Table 3.9:      Summary of concurrent projects during construction phase

Project

Construction Period

Possible Cumulative Impact

Included in Cumulative Impact Assessment

Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou – Shenzhen – Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL)

Jan 2010 – 2015

 

Dust emissions from construction of the West Kowloon Terminus and operation of the concrete batching plant and barging points

Yes

 

Road Works at West Kowloon

2011 – 2014

According to the EIA, major dusty construction activities and excavation works are to be completed by March 2012. Minor dust emissions may arise from the remaining road works and movement of mobile plant and vehicles

No

Road Improvement Works in West Kowloon Reclamation Development – Phase I

Late 2013 / early 2014 – end 2015

Dust emissions from the roadworks construction and movement of mobile plant and vehicles

Yes

Central Kowloon Route

2015 – end 2020

Dust emissions from construction works.

Yes

As an updated schedule of construction works for the WKT of the XRL project is not available for 2013-2015, it is not possible to incorporate realistic dust emission sources of WKT into the FDM model for assessment of cumulative impacts. As such, relevant EM&A monitoring data of the XRL project is used to assess the potential cumulative impacts as described Section 3.4.1.

With reference to the dust monitoring results from the two air quality monitoring stations (AM16 and AM17) in the vicinity of the WKCD site from March 2010 to December 2012 inclusive, the average TSP concentration during that construction period of WKT has been calculated, as shown in Appendix 3.27. It is reasonable to assume that the average TSP concentration from these two dust monitoring stations can represent XRL generated dust concentrations plus prevailing background dust concentrations at the WKCD area. The background concentration used for the TSP assessment for WKCD is therefore taken as 68.4 µg/m3 (Table 3.5).

For the Central Kowloon Route (CKR) project, its construction dust impact assessment area overlaps part of the corresponding assessment area for WKCD.  Therefore, the relevant TSP modelling results from the published EIA of CKR project have been added to those of the WKCD for ASRs that are within the overlapped portion of both assessment areas in order to assess the cumulative effects.

3.4.3        Operation Phase – Vehicular Emissions

During the operation phase, there will be cumulative air quality impacts on the ASRs due to vehicular emissions from:

·         Existing and proposed open roads outside the WKCD area but within the 500 m assessment area;

·         Proposed underpasses/landscape decks along the Austin Road West and Lin Cheung Road and the associated top openings under the Road Works at West Kowloon project, which is within the 500 m assessment area;

·         Portal of the existing Western Harbour Crossing (WHC) which is in the vicinity of the WKCD site, and;

·         Ventilation exhausts and portals serving the planned underground roads within the WKCD area.

It should be noted that all of the above vehicular emission sources, except the planned underground roads within WKCD, are due to the current and planned road networks serving the West Kowloon area.  Therefore, it is anticipated that the WKCD development itself would only have a relatively small contribution to the total vehicular emissions in the area.  On the contrary, the WKCD development would be subject to potential air quality impacts that are largely generated by the existing/planned road traffic in the area.

The air quality inside the WKCD basement where the underground vehicle roads are located should meet the air pollutant standards as recommended by the EPD’s Practice Note on Control of Air Pollution in Vehicle Tunnels (see Table 3.2). Therefore, the basement ventilation system should be properly designed by WKCDA’s consultant/engineer to adequately remove or dilute vehicle emissions and the basement air quality should be monitored to ensure compliance with the relevant air quality standards.

3.4.4        Operation Phase – Marine Traffic Emissions

There are existing marine activities within the 500 m assessment area, which include:

·         Fast ferry traffic movements, based on scheduled sailings of up to 170 daily movements (ferry going to is one movement, ferry leaving is a second movement) at the China Ferry Terminal;

·         Tugs associated with Derrick lighter barge movements in the NYMTTS;

·         Derrick lighter barges operating at the New Yau Ma Tei Public Cargo Working Area (NYPCWA), and;

·         Ocean Cruise Ship berthing at the Ocean Terminal.

Although emissions from all the above current marine activities are not attributable to the WKCD development, the development itself would be subject to potential air quality impacts caused by such marine emissions.

Under the current development of marine traffic planning at the WKCD site, it is intended that marine services at WKCD will primarily be provided for visitor or leisure activities. In terms of traffic volume, the support on the need of the possible piers has been a key outcome from the public consultation in view of general public's opinions and needs. No precedence case or similar scale of development as the WKCD has been developed in the Victoria Harbour and therefore no realistic marine traffic forecast can be developed at this stage of the Project.  However, as the possible piers would only be used by visitors or for leisure purposes without any planning for routine uses, it is anticipated that the marine traffic to be generated at the two possible piers would be insignificant when compared to the aforementioned existing marine activities.  No vessel landing will be included at the optional viewing platform and for the proposed landing steps of WKCD, and therefore they are being designed as features of the development and will not serve any marine traffic.

3.4.5        Operation Phase – Odour Emissions

3.4.5.1      New Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter

The NYMTTS is located adjacent to the north of the WKCD site. Due to its proximity, any odour emissions from NYMTTS could potentially affect the future development of WKCD.  It should be noted that similar to the emissions from surrounding marine activities the WKCD development does not contribute to any odour emissions from NYMTTS. As the first step to identify such potential odour issues, the historical complaints against the odour from NYMTTS received by EPD have been reviewed (see Section 3.4.1).  In addition, odour patrols and odour source monitoring were also conducted for NYMTTS, the results of which are presented in Section 3.6.3.

3.4.5.2      Optional Waste and Wastewater Facilities

The air quality impacts due to potential odour emissions from the optional automatic waste collection facility has been reviewed and assessed in a qualitative manner.

3.4.6        Operation Phase – Industrial Emissions

Chimney survey and desktop study have been conducted to identify any existing or planned chimneys of industrial operations within the 500m assessment area.  Based on the survey and desktop study findings, no existing or planned chimneys were identified within the assessment area.

3.4.7        Operation Phase – Identification of Key Air Pollutants of Concern

As presented in Section 3.2.2, under the APCO, AQOs are stipulated for seven criteria air pollutants, namely, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), total suspended particulates (TSP), respirable suspended particulates (RSP), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone and lead.  As identified in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, during the operation phase, the WKCD development would be subject to potential air quality impacts due to emissions from the road traffic within and in the vicinity of WKCD as well as the surrounding marine traffic/vessels.  Each of the seven criteria pollutants has been reviewed for its relevance to such major air pollution sources of the Project as follows.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

According to the “2011 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report” published by EPD in March 2013, navigation and road transport are the top two major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) generated in Hong Kong, constituting respectively about 33% and 29% of the total NOx emission in 2011.   NOx would be transformed to NO2 in the presence of O3 under sunlight.  As summarised in Table 3.6, the latest 5-year average of the annual NO2 concentration in the urban areas (i.e., Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung, Sham Shui Po, Kwun Tung and Central/Western) is about 77% of the corresponding AQO.  Therefore, NO2 has been identified as a key air pollutant of the emissions from both road traffic and marine traffic/vessels, and has been assessed against the relevant AQOs for this Project.

Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)

According to the latest statistics of “2011 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report”, navigation and road transport are the top two major sources of RSP in Hong Kong, accounting for respectively about 37% and 19% of the total RSP emissions in 2011.  As summarised in Table 3.6, the latest 5-year average of the annual RSP concentration in the urban area is about 91% of the corresponding AQO.  Therefore, RSP has been identified as a key air pollutant of the emissions from both road traffic and marine traffic/ vessels, and has been assessed against the relevant AQOs for this Project.

 

 

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

According to the latest statistics of “2011 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report”, 54% of total SO2 emission in Hong Kong is attributed to navigation whereas only below 1% of the total emission is due to road transport.   The introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel for vehicle fleet in 2000 has also helped reducing the SO2 emission from road transport in Hong Kong.   As summarised in Table 3.6, the latest 5-year average of the annual SO2 concentration in the urban area is about 23% of the corresponding AQO.  While the 5-year average SO2 level appears to be well below the relevant AQO with a large margin, a number of the future ASRs within WKCD (such as those at Parcels 02, 03, 10, 11, 13, 15, etc.) are close to the potential marine traffic emission sources from the ferry/cruise ship terminals. Therefore, SO2 has been identified as a key air pollutant of the emissions from marine traffic/vessels (but not from road transport), and has been assessed against the relevant AQOs for this Project.

Ozone

According to the “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2011” published by EPD[2], ozone is a major constituent of photochemical smog. It is not a pollutant directly emitted from man-made sources but formed by photochemical reactions of primary pollutants such as NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) under sunlight. As it takes several hours for these photochemical reactions to take place, ozone recorded in one place could be attributed to VOC and NOx emissions from places afar. Hence, ozone is a regional air pollution problem.  In other words, unlike such air pollutants as NOx, RSP and SO2, ozone is not a pollutant directly attributable to emissions from nearby marine or road traffic.  As a result, ozone is not identified as a key air pollutant for air quality impact assessment for this Project, though it is one of the criteria pollutants under the AQO.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

According to the latest statistics of “2011 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report”, road transport and navigation are the top two major sources of CO emissions in Hong Kong, contributing to respectively about 67% and 18% of the total CO emission in 2011.  However, based on the “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2012 Preliminary Report” published by EPD[3], the highest 1-hour CO level and the highest 8-hour CO concentration in Mong Kok are respectively 3,590 μg/m3 and 2,755 μg/m3, which are only 12% and 28% of the corresponding AQO respectively.  Given that the ambient CO levels are well below the relevant AQO with large margins as opposed to the other pollutants such as RSP and NO2, it is considered appropriate to select RSP and NO2, but not CO, as the key pollutants for air quality impact assessment against the AQO for this Project.

Lead

Since leaded petrol was banned in Hong Kong on 1 April 1999, it is no longer considered as a primary source in Hong Kong.  According to the “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2011” published by EPD, the ambient lead concentrations continued to linger at very low levels during 2011 as in previous years, and the overall 3-month averages, ranging from 0.02 μg/m3 (in Kwun Tong and Tung Chung) to 0.104 μg/m3 (in Yuen Long), were well below the AQO limit of 1.5 μg/m3.  Therefore, it is not considered as a key air pollutant for the operation phase air quality impact assessment.

Identified Key Air Pollutants

Based on the above review results, the following key air pollutants of concerns are identified for the purpose of air quality impact assessment during the operation phase of WKCD:

·         For road traffic emissions – NO2 and RSP; and

·         For marine traffic/vessel emissions  – SO2, NO2 and RSP.

3.5          Air Quality Modelling Methodology

3.5.1        Construction Phase

3.5.1.1      Introduction

To assess the construction phase through air quality modelling, use of the air quality model Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) was required. In accordance with the EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters, FDM was used to predict the air pollutant concentrations due to fugitive and open dust source impacts, which are shown in Figures 3.3a to k and 3.4a to f. Details of the emission rates from the activities are given in Appendices 3.1 to 3.3.

3.5.1.2      Model Description – FDM

FDM is a computerised air quality model specifically designed for computing the concentration and deposition impacts from fugitive dust sources. The model is generally based on the well-known Gaussian Plume formulation for computing concentrations, but the model has been specifically adapted to incorporate an improved gradient transfer deposition algorithm. FDM is one of the air quality models listed as commonly used for EIA studies by EPD in Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters.

It should be noted that FDM and all Gaussian based dispersion models have limited ability to predict dispersion in the following situations[4]:

§  Causality effects

     Gaussian plume models assume pollutant material is transported in a straight line instantly (like a beam of light) to receptors that may be several hours or more in transport time away from the source. The model takes no account for the fact that the wind may only be blowing at 1 m/s and will have only travelled 3.6 km in the first hour. This means that Gaussian models cannot account for causality effects, where the plume may meander across the terrain as the wind speed or direction changes. This effect is not considered to be significant for the WKCD site as the site is small.

 

§  Low wind speeds

     Gaussian-plume models ‘break down’ during low wind speed or calm conditions due to the inverse speed dependence of the steady state plume equation. These models usually set a minimum wind speed of 0.5 m/s or 1.0 m/s and ignore or overwrite data below this limit.

§  Straight-line trajectories

     Gaussian models will typically overestimate terrain impingement effects during stable conditions because they do not account for turning or rising wind caused by the terrain itself. This effect is not considered to be important for WKCD as the site and surrounding terrain is flat.

§  Spatially uniform meteorological conditions

     Gaussian models assume that the atmosphere is uniform across the entire modelling domain, and that transport and dispersion conditions exist unchanged long enough for the material to reach the receptor even if this is several kilometres away. In the atmosphere, truly uniform conditions rarely occur. As the WKCD site and surrounding assessment area is sufficiently small with no significant terrain features, uniform meteorological conditions are considered appropriate.

§  No memory of previous hour’s emissions

     In calculating each hour’s ground-level concentrations, Gaussian models have no memory of the contaminants released during the previous hours. This limitation is especially important for the proper simulation of morning inversion break-up, fumigation and diurnal recycling of pollutants.

3.5.1.3      Assumptions and Inputs – FDM

During the construction stage, the study area will not have many tall buildings. As such, the "Guideline on Air Quality model (revised), EPA - 450/2-78-027R, July 1986" is used to calculate the roughness length for use in FDM.

The EPD guideline on "Choice of Models and Model Parameters" states: the selection of rural or urban dispersion coefficients in a specific application should follow a land use classification procedure. If the land use types including industrial, commercial and residential uses account for 50% or more of an area within a 3 km radius from the source, the site is classified as urban; otherwise it is classified as rural. The surface roughness height is closely related to the land use characteristics of a study area and associated with the roughness element height. As a first approximation, the surface roughness can be estimated as 3 to 10 percent of the average height of physical structures. Typical values used for urban and new development areas are 370 cm and 100 cm, respectively.

Within a three kilometre radius of the site 55% is classified as urban and the remaining 45% is sea. As the sea roughness is typically given a value of 0.01 cm and urban is assumed to be 370 cm, an area averaged roughness height of 205 cm is used. This is to take account of the low turbulence over the sea water, and also the very large turbulence generated due to nearby large structures.

Hourly meteorological data for a full year as extracted from the PATH model released by EPD in December 2012 (meteorological data year 2010, grid 28, 27) has been adopted for use in the FDM. The data is considered to be the most up to date data available. PATH data has been observed to have a lower mixing height for some hours, when compared to the measured mixing height. The minimum mixing height recorded by HKO in 2010 is 121.3 m, whereas the PATH minimum mixing height is 40 m. The HKO minimum mixing height of 121.3 m is used to replace any PATH mixing height below this value. This approach is considered appropriate as it will minimise over-estimation due to lower mixing heights and also will minimise under-estimation due to high stacks being excluded in the mixing volume. The PATH data with the above modification is considered to be representative of the site wind data at WKCD.

Prediction of dust emissions is based on emissions factors from the Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), 5th Edition published by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The emission factor for a typical heavy construction activity is 2.69 megagrams (Mg)/hectare/month according to Section 13.2.3.3 of AP-42. The number of working days for a month and number of working hours per day of the project are anticipated to be 26 days and 12 hours respectively. No construction work is anticipated to be carried out on Sundays. Based on Table 11.9-4 of AP-42, the emission factor of wind erosion is 0.85 megagrams (Mg)/hectare/year. The locations of assumed dust sources are given in Figures 3.3a to 3.3k. The key dust emission factors adopted in FDM are summarised in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10:    Key Dust Emission Factors Adopted in the Assessment

Activities

Emission Factors

Reference

Heavy construction activities including all above ground and open construction works, excavation and slope cutting works

 2.69 Mg/hectare/month

Section 13.2.3.3

AP-42, 5th Edition

Wind erosion from heavy construction

0.85 Mg/hectare/year

Table 11.9-4

AP-42, 5th Edition

Paved haul road within concrete batching plant

Emission Factor =

k x (sL) 0.91  x (W) 1.02 g/VKT

where

k is particle size multiplier *

sL is road surface silt loading

W is average truck weight

Section 13.2.1

AP-42, 5th Edition

(Jan 2011 edition)

* The particle size distribution was made reference to Section 13.2.1(Table 13.2.1-1) of the USEPA Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), 5th Edition (Jan 2011 edition).

For the mitigated scenario, the active construction areas have ground watering applied once per hour or 12 times per day. This gives rise to dust suppression of 91.7%, as estimated in Appendix 3.8. The unmitigated scenario does not employ any watering for dust suppression.

For the concrete batching plant, it is assumed that the plant will be handed over from the XRL project to the WKCD Project, and therefore the emissions from the plant will be the same as those given in the approved EIA for XRL. All assumptions and calculations are extracted from the Specified Process (SP) License issued to the XRL for the concrete batching plant. The concrete batching plant and haul roads within the site are modelled as having operation hours of 12 hours per day, that is, from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.

No stockpile is modelled as excavated material is anticipated to be transported out of the site immediately after generation. Barging points are assumed to be handed over from the XRL project to the WKCD Project, and therefore the emissions from the plant will be the same as those given in the approved EIA for XRL.

The emission inventory and calculation of emission factors for the construction activities are detailed in Appendices 3.1 to 3.3.

With addition of the average background TSP concentration of two monitoring stations as described in Section 3.4.1, i.e., 68.4 μg/m3, the hourly, daily and annual TSP concentrations at the identified ASRs have been predicted and compared with the hourly, daily and annual average TSP criteria of 500 µg/m3, 260 µg/m3 and 80 µg/m3 respectively.

 

3.5.1.4      Methodology – FDM

Construction on the WKCD site is to be completed in stages; as such the FDM assessment has been completed for each construction year from 2013 to 2020, when the majority of the site works and superstructures are expected to be completed.

For hourly and daily TSP, a tiered modelling approach has been adopted. Tier 1 assumes 100% active area for a given year is emitting TSP. This Tier 1 scenario (i.e. assuming 100% active area for the WKCD Project and the concurrent project) is hypothetical and for screening purposes to identify which ASRs may be subject to TSP concentrations above the relevant standards. For the purpose of the Tier 1 screening, the dust mitigation measures, including frequent water spraying, as detailed in Section 3.5.1.3, are taken into account when estimating the dust emission rates from the construction activities.  Details of the Tier 1 dust sources including their coordinates, dimensions and estimated emission rates are detailed in Appendix 3.4. Locations of the assumed dust sources for the Tier 1 assessment are shown in Figures 3.3a to 3.3k. The Tier 1 hourly and daily TSP levels at all the ASRs are then predicted for both scenarios of with and without the dust mitigation measures in place.

The ASRs identified with hourly or daily TSP non-compliance under Tier 1 screening, where mitigation measures are in place, are selected for the subsequent Tier 2 assessment.

The entire works area is broken into a number of zones for construction timetabling purposes. Based on the assumed construction plant inventory of individual zones and planned construction activities for each year, the percentage active areas for different zones are calculated, as summarised in Table 3.11. The maximum percentage active area for each year is taken from all zones and applied to the entire site.

It is assumed in the Tier 2 assessment that the maximum percentage active area of the WKCD site for each zone, and the corresponding active areas of the relevant concurrent project, would be located closest to the ASR being assessed. The Tier 2 hourly or daily TSP levels at each of these ASRs are predicted with the dust mitigation measures in place.

Under normal circumstances, construction activities for the proposed Project and the concurrent projects would likely spread over the whole work sites and zones. As such, the maximum percentage active area calculated from all zones, applied to the entire WKCD site, and the corresponding active areas of the relevant concurrent project to be located closest to a particular ASR at any one time during the Tier 2 assessment is a conservative approach. Details of the Tier 2 dust sources including their coordinates, dimensions and estimated emission rates are given in Appendix 3.5. Locations of the assumed dust sources for Tier 2 assessment are shown in Figures 3.4a to 3.4f.

For the assessment of annual TSP concentrations, the active work area over the entire year would be less than that for a typical working hour or a typical working day. The percentage active area averaged over each construction year has been estimated for each zone as summarised in Table 3.11.  The annual TSP assessment is based on the percentage active areas for individual zones. The annual TSP levels are predicted at all the ASRs for both scenarios of with and without the dust mitigation measures in place. Details of the dust sources for annual TSP assessment including their coordinates, dimensions and estimated emission rates are given in Appendix 3.6. Locations of assumed dust sources for annual assessment are shown in Figures 3.3a to 3.3k.

Based on project-specific information, the percentages of active work areas for heavy construction activities for hourly, daily and annual TSP assessment have been estimated and are summarised in Table 3.11. Detailed estimation of the percentages of active work areas are provided in Appendix 3.7.

Table 3.11:    Summary of tentative active area calculations for Tier 2 and Annual TSP assessment

Construction Year

Zone

Percentage Active Area

Hourly

Daily

Annually

2013

1

47.1%

47.1%

18.4%

 

2a

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

2b

17.8%

17.8%

6.1%

 

3

21.1%

21.1%

3.5%

 

4

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

5

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

The Park (A, B, C)

1.4%

1.4%

0.8%

 

Maximum

47.1%

47.1%

18.4%

2014

1

3.7%

3.7%

1.3%

 

2a

66.1%

66.1%

44.6%

 

2b

13.4%

13.4%

9.0%

 

3

16.1%

16.1%

9.6%

 

4

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

5

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

The Park (A, B, C)

9.9%

9.9%

9.9%

 

Maximum

66.1%

66.1%

44.6%

2015

1

0.9%

0.9%

0.8%

 

2a

6.5%

6.5%

5.7%

 

2b

4.5%

4.5%

3.9%

 

3

5.1%

5.1%

2.2%

 

4

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

5

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

The Park (A, B, C)

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

 

Maximum

6.5%

6.5%

5.7%

2016

1

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

 

2a

1.3%

1.3%

0.7%

 

2b

0.6%

0.6%

0.3%

 

3

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

 

4

22.9%

22.9%

16.7%

 

5

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

The Park (A, B, C)

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

 

Maximum

22.9%

22.9%

16.7%

2017

1

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

2a

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

 

2b

0.7%

0.7%

0.7%

 

3

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

 

4

13.0%

13.0%

3.7%

 

5

3.1%

3.1%

1.8%

 

The Park (A, B, C)

2.4%

2.4%

1.6%

 

Maximum

13.0%

13.0%

3.7%

2018

1

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

2a

6.2%

6.2%

6.2%

 

2b

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

 

3

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

 

4

1.9%

1.9%

1.9%

 

5

1.8%

1.8%

1.1%

 

The Park (A, B, C)

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

 

Maximum

6.2%

6.2%

6.2%

2019

1

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

2a

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

2b

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

 

3

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

4

1.9%

1.9%

1.9%

 

5

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

 

The Park (A, B, C)

1.5%

1.5%

0.6%

 

Maximum

1.9%

1.9%

1.9%

2020

1

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

2a

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

2b

1.4%

1.4%

1.2%

 

3

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

4

0.8%

0.8%

0.3%

 

5

0.4%

0.4%

0.2%

 

The Park (A, B, C)

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

Maximum

1.4%

1.4%

1.2%

Note:       (a) The Tier 2 assessment for hourly and daily TSP uses the maximum percentage active area for all zones.

                (b) The assessment of annual TSP uses zone specific percentage active area.

3.5.2        [MCD1] Operation Phase – Vehicular Emissions

3.5.2.1      Introduction

To assess the operational air quality, a variety of models were required. In accordance with the EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters, the following air dispersion models have been employed to predict the cumulative NO2 and RSP levels at the identified ASRs:

·         EMFAC-HK V2.5.1 (I and M) model has been used to determine the fleet average emission factors, for all the planned and existing roads within the 500 m assessment area, including planned underpass roads within WKCD site, and the proposed Central Kowloon Route (CKR). The model has included the effect of Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program and is applicable for calendar years between 2013 and 2040.

·         CALINE4 has been used to predict the air pollutant concentrations due to vehicular emissions from all open road links within the 500 m assessment area, which are as shown in Figures 3.5.1a to 3.5.1y.

·         ISCST3 has been used to predict the air pollutant concentrations due to vehicular emissions from the Western Harbour Crossing (WHC) portal (modelled as volume sources); the proposed underpasses/landscape deck portals (modelled as volume sources) and the associated top openings (modelled as area source) under the Road Works at West Kowloon project; as well as from the assumed ventilation serving the planned underground roads within the WKCD site (modelled as volume or point sources). The locations of all such pollution sources are as shown in Figure 3.6.

·         Pollutants in the Atmosphere and the Transport over Hong Kong (PATH) has been used to predict the current background air pollution due to sources outside the project boundary. Sources include, but are not limited to: the Pearl River Deltas Economic Zone (PRDEZ); the Hong Kong International Airport; power plants in HKSAR; roads beyond the WKCD, and; marine emissions. Background data predicted by PATH for year 2015 represents the worst case year relevant to the assessment of the Project.

The localised impacts due to the vehicle emissions within the 500 m assessment area of WKCD have been separately modelled by the near-field models (CALINE4 and ISCST3) in which the vehicular emission factors have been calculated from the EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 model.

The cumulative hourly maximum NOx and RSP concentrations are predicted by the above models by using the corresponding MM5 hourly meteorological data in 2010 as extracted from the PATH model released by EPD in December 2012.

3.5.2.2      Model Description – EMFAC-HKV2.5.1

EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 is an emissions inventory model that calculates emissions inventories for motor vehicles operating on roads in Hong Kong. The model is used for estimating vehicular tailpipe emissions including RSP and NOx. The model can take into account both vehicle technologies and driving conditions. The model follows that of the California Air Resources Boards’ EMFAC model but with modifications to cater for local factors, including the substantial reduction of the smoky vehicle problem in recent years.

3.5.2.3      Assumptions and Inputs – EMFAC-HK

For all the planned and existing roads within the 500 m assessment area including those planned underpass roads within WKCD site and the proposed CKR, the EMFAC-HK V2.5.1 model (I and M), which is the latest version at the time of preparing this report, has been used to determine the fleet average emission factors.

The Burden mode, used for calculating area-specific emission factors, has been selected in the model. Under this mode, the total emissions of pollutants such as RSP and NOx were computed for each type of vehicle class based on temperature, relative humidity, speed corrected emission factors and vehicle activity. Hourly output was selected.

The assumptions and input parameters on modelling of vehicle emission factors are presented in the following sections. The traffic data used for the assessment includes the hourly traffic flows of 16 vehicle classes at various road links and the speed fractions of various vehicle classes in four model years. The model years are: 2015 (the year when operation of the Project was originally planned to commence); intermediate years 2020 and 2025, and 2030 (15 years after commencement of operation of the Project).  According to the recently updated Project programme (see Appendix 2.4), the planned commencement of operation of the Project has been changed to 2017.  Despite the change, the EMFAC results as presented in Graph 3.2 show that year 2015 represents the worst case scenario where the total traffic emission is the highest among all model years of 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030.  In other words, the total traffic emission in year 2017 when the Project is planned to commence operation is anticipated to be lower than that in year 2015.  Therefore, use of the emission estimates in 2015 for air quality impact assessment is a conservative approach.

Traffic data is provided by the Traffic Consultant, and are presented in the following sections. The traffic forecast data has been submitted to the Transport Department (TD) for review. TD has no objection in principle to the traffic data. The correspondence from TD is provided in Appendix 3.9 for reference. The 24-hour traffic patterns are given in Appendix 3.10.

Vehicle Emission Standards

The emission standards, according to the latest implementation programme (as of November 2012) have been adopted in EMFAC-HK V2.5.1 model for vehicles registered in Hong Kong. In this model, the latest European Union (EU) emission standard, Euro VI, for all vehicle classes can be applied, with the exception of motorcycles which do not have applicable new EU emission standards.

Road Grouping

The road links for assessment have been grouped into five types. Emission factors for the following five road types have been calculated:

Road Type 1 - Expressway (Design speed limit: 100kph);

Road Type 2 - Trunk Road (Design speed limit: 80kph);

Road Type 3 - Trunk Road (Design speed limit: 50kph);

Road Type 4 - Local Roads (Design speed limit: 50kph), and;

Road Type 5 - Trunk Road (Design speed limit: 70kph).

The five road types are characterised by continuous and interrupted flow with different design speed limits. It is assumed that there is continuous traffic flow in Expressway and Trunk Roads (Road Types 1, 2, 3 & 5), whereas there is interrupted flow in Local Roads (Road Type 4). The road type classification of individual road links in the assessment area are as shown in Figures 3.5.1a to 3.5.1y.  Road Type 5 is associated with the CKR and will not be present in 2015 or 2020, but will be present in 2025 and 2030, as CKR is anticipated to be in operation in 2021.

Vehicle Classes

Vehicles operating on open roads have been categorised into 16 vehicle classes according to the Guideline on Modelling Vehicle Emission – Appendix I for EMFAC-HK V2.5.1, and is presented in Table 3.12.

Table 3.12:    Vehicle Classification in the EMFAC-HK Model

Index

Description

Notation in EMFAC-HK Model

Fuel Type

Gross Vehicle Weight

1

Private Cars (PC)

PC

ALL

ALL

3

Taxi

taxi

ALL

ALL

4

Light Goods Vehicles (<=2.5t)

LGV3

ALL

<=2.5ton

5

Light Goods Vehicles (2.5-3.5t)

LGV4

ALL

>2.5-3.5ton

6

Light Goods Vehicles (3.5-5.5t)

LGV6

ALL

>3.5ton

7

Medium & Heavy Goods Vehicles (5.5-15t)

HGV7

ALL

>5.5ton-15ton

8

Medium & Heavy Goods Vehicles (>=15t)

HGV8

ALL

>15ton

11

Public Light Buses

PLB

ALL

ALL

12

Private Light Buses (<=3.5t)

PV4

ALL

<=3.5ton

13

Private Light Buses (>3.5t)

PV5

ALL

>3.5ton

14

Non-franchised Buses (<6.4t)

NFB6

ALL

<=6.4ton

15

Non-franchised Buses (6.4-15t)

NFB7

ALL

>6.4ton – 15ton

16

Non-franchised Buses (>15t)

NFB8

ALL

<=15ton

17

Single Deck Franchised Buses

FBSD

ALL

ALL

18

Double Deck Franchised Buses

FBDD

ALL

ALL

19

Motor Cycles

MC

ALL

ALL

Exhaust / Evaporation Technology Fraction

Vehicle classes are grouped with different exhaust technology indexes and technology fractions. Each technology group represent a distinct emission control technologies. The EMFAC-HK V2.5.1 model has a set of default exhaust technology fractions which best represents the scheduled implementation of new vehicle emission standards as of November 2012. As there is no update to the planned emission control measures since the release of the guideline in November 2012, the default exhaust technology fractions are considered to be applicable in this assessment.

Vehicle Population

According to the Guideline on Modelling Vehicle Emissions, the vehicle population forecast function in EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 used 2010 as the base year. Natural replacement of vehicles and a set of annual growth rates and survival rates for different vehicles are assumed for 2011 to 2040. In particular, vehicles including private cars, motorcycles, and goods vehicles are assumed to grow by a varying percentage (from 0% - 2.5% annual) during the period whereas the number of franchised buses, public light buses and taxis are assumed to have no growth.

There have been some minor policy change from April 2012 to November 2012. The changes include moving two diesel taxis (TAXI) to the private car (PC) category and moving 4 LPG Private light buses (PV4) to the PV5 category. These changes, however, are considered to be insignificant and therefore have been excluded from the assessment. The default populations from the April 2012 population information have been adopted for the model years (2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030). The vehicle age distributions, in the base year 2010, are presented in Appendix 3.11 for reference.

The use of electric vehicles (EVs), which do not have tailpipe emissions, has been promoted by the government in the recent years. By April 2012, there were more than 310 EVs in Hong Kong. The introduction of EVs will have an impact on the future vehicle fleet composition, although the effect is still unknown. Impacts will vary with policy in the future and the successful application of EVs as an alternative to the traditional vehicles. As a conservative approach, this assessment does not take into account the presence of EVs and any programme on the promotion of EVs.

Accrual Rate

Default values and compositions have been adopted with reference to in the EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 Guideline.

Diurnal Variation of Daily Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT)

For each vehicle class, the Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) of individual hours is calculated by multiplying the hourly number of vehicles with the length of the corresponding road link (in kilometres). Diurnal (24-hour) traffic pattern has been provided by Traffic Consultant. The lengths of individual road links of the connecting road are given in Appendix 3.12. The 24-hour VKT values for all vehicle classes in each of the model years 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 together with a graphical plot, are provided in Appendix 3.13.

Daily Trips

The daily trips were used to estimate the cold start emissions of the petrol and LPG vehicles only, as is prescribed by the model. Therefore, trips for vehicles other than petrol or LPG type vehicles would be assumed to be zero. Different road types have different number of trips as follows.

Expressway and Trunk Road (Road Types 1, 2 & 3)

Zero trips are assumed in Expressway and Trunk Roads since there will be no cold start under normal circumstances.

Local Road (Road Type 4)

For Local Roads, the number of trips in the assessment area, Trip within assessment area, has been estimated as:

Trip within assessment area = (Trip within HK/VKT within HK) x VKT within assessment area

Trip within HK is the default data of EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 model. VKT within HK is the VKT of local roads in Hong Kong, which is estimated based on the default VKT data of EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 model and the relevant data as published in the Annual Traffic Census 2010 by TD. Details of the trip estimation are as shown in Appendix 3.14. According to the Mobile Source Group of EPD, the default VKT and trips in the model are based on EPD’s estimated data for Hong Kong. VKT within assessment area is calculated as mentioned above. The trips in each year are provided in Appendix 3.13.

While the number of trips is dependent on vehicle population, no project-specific vehicle population data can be identified for the assessment area according to the Traffic Consultants. However, project-specific VKT has been estimated based on the traffic forecast in the assessment area. Moreover, it can be argued that VKT is related to vehicle population in such a way that a higher vehicle population would generally result in a higher VKT. As a result, it has been proposed to estimate the number of trips in the assessment area on the basis of the project-specific VKT and the assumption that the number of trips per VKT in the assessment area would be similar to the number of trips per VKT in Hong Kong. It is considered that this proposed approach is based on best available data and reasonable assumption. This approach for estimating the number of trips together with the results of estimation has been submitted to TD for review. TD has no objection in principle to the method and the correspondence from TD is provided in Appendix 3.9 for reference.

Hourly Temperature and Relative Humidity Profile

Annual and monthly hourly average ambient temperature and relative humidity obtained from the meteorological data as extracted from the 2010 HKO’s King’s Park meteorology station (with at least 90% valid data) have been adopted. The 24-hour variations of the annual averages of temperature and relative humidity are presented graphically in Appendix 3.15.

Speed Fractions

The 24-hour speed fractions for different road types and individual vehicle classes are provided by the Traffic Consultant, and are calculated based on the 24-hour traffic flow in each model year and the volume/capacity ratio of different road types. For each vehicle class, the VKT of each road link was grouped into sub-groups with speed bins of 8 km/h (0 - 8 km/h, 8 - 16 km/h, 16 - 24 km/h, etc.). The speed fraction of each sub-group was derived by the summation of the total VKT of road link within this sub-group divided by the total VKT of all road links. The estimated speed fractions provided by the Traffic Consultant are given in Appendix 3.16.

The maximum speed for Heavy Goods Vehicles, Franchised Buses and Non-franchised Buses has been restricted to 70 km/h and for Public Light Buses to 80 km/h.

Predicted Emission Factors by EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 model

To determine the emissions with 15 years after commencement of the Project, emission rates were modelled for years 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030. Upon modelling with EMFAC-HKV2.5.1, the emissions for each vehicle class at different hours are then divided by the corresponding VKT to obtain 24-hr emission factors in grams/vehicle-kilometre (g/veh-km). The calculations of emission factors for each model year are shown in Appendix 3.17. By comparing the total emissions in different model years as shown in Graph 3.2, year 2015 represents the worst case scenario where the total emission is the highest among all model years. Even with addition of the traffic due to the CKR project after 2020, the worst-case year is still predicted to be 2015.  This is because despite the increased traffic volume, the total emissions are expected to decrease as a result of the retirement of older and more polluting vehicles in the fleet, which would be replaced with newer vehicles with lower emissions. Therefore, it is proposed to use the emission factors of this worst case year 2015 for the prediction of air quality impacts due to vehicular emissions in order to arrive at conservative impact assessment results. 

Although the planned commencement year of operation of the Project has been updated from 2015 to 2017, use of the emission factors in 2015 represents conservative emissions for the assessment.  This is because the total traffic emission in year 2017 is anticipated to be lower than that in year 2015 as illustrated in Graph 3.2. 

Graph 3.2:     Comparison of RSP and NOx EMFAC results for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030

3.5.2.4      Model Description – ISCST3

The Industrial Source Complex – Short Term version 3 (ISCST3) dispersion model was used to model the air pollutant concentrations due to vehicular emissions from the Western Harbour Crossing (WHC) portal (modelled as volume sources); the proposed underpasses/landscape deck portals (modelled as volume sources) and the associated top openings (modelled as area source) under the Road Works at West Kowloon project; as well as from the assumed ventilation serving the planned underground roads within the WKCD site (modelled as point or volume sources).

ISCST3 is a steady state Gaussian plume model which can be used to assess pollutant concentrations from sources associated with an industrial source complex. ISCST3 is one of the models prescribed by the EPD Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters. ISCST3 is considered an appropriate model to use for this situation as meteorological conditions will not vary greatly over the site, as the site is relatively flat and small and no significant effects are expected due to terrain variations.

It should be noted that ISCST3 and all Gaussian based dispersion models have limited ability to predict dispersion in the situations as described previously in Section 3.5.1.2.

3.5.2.5      Assumptions and Inputs – ISCST3

The operational sources for ISCST3 modelling (shown in Figure 3.6) include:

·           Proposed underpasses/landscape decks along the Austin Road West and Lin Cheung Road and the associated top openings under the Road Works at West Kowloon project, which is within the 500 m assessment area;

·           Portal of the existing WHC which is in the vicinity of the WKCD site; and

·           Ventilation exhausts and portals serving the planned underground roads within the WKCD area.

EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 and the traffic modelling data from the Traffic Consultants were used to generate the inputs for use in ISCST3.

Hourly meteorological data for a full year as extracted from the PATH model released by EPD in December 2012 (meteorological data year 2010, grid 28, 27) has been adopted for use in ISCST3. The data is considered to be the most up to date data available. PATH data has been observed to have a lower mixing height for some hours, when compared to the measured mixing height. The minimum mixing height recorded by HKO in 2010 is 121.3 m, whereas the PATH minimum mixing height is 40 m. The HKO minimum mixing height of 121.3 m is used to replace any PATH mixing height below this value. This approach is considered appropriate as it will minimise over-estimation due to lower mixing heights and also will minimise under-estimation due to high stacks being excluded in the mixing volume. The PATH data with the above modification is considered to be representative of the site wind data at WKCD.

Ventilation Exhausts/Portals Serving WKCD Basement

The basement will be ventilated through stacks; however the proportion released through stacks and through the portals cannot be determined until a comprehensive ventilation study is carried out during the detailed design phase. Two scenarios were therefore considered for the ventilation of the WKCD basement:

Scenario I – 100% of the vehicle emissions generated within the basement is ventilated through a series of stack exhausts and 0% through the basement entry and exit points

Under this Scenario, the exhausts are assumed to be attached to buildings within the WKCD and were modelled as 6 m tall point sources with an exit air velocity of 2.0 m/s. The stack diameter was dependant on the ventilation area. The basement is broken into three areas, namely B1 Road, B1 Loading and B2 Carpark, for the purpose of the ventilation calculations. The areas are shown in Figures 3.5.1n, 3.5.1r, 3.5.1s and 3.5.1t;

Standard practice is to model ventilation shafts as point sources. As the final dimensions of the exhaust louvres are yet to be known at this stage, it is considered appropriate to model the basement ventilation louvres as stacks. A single stack is used at approximately the horizontal centre of the proposed louvre area to allow the greatest flexibility in the final stack location.

The Practice Note ADM-2 recommends MTR ventilation exhausts should be located not closer than 5 m to any opening such as an openable or fixed window, doorway, building ventilation system intake or exhaust and the like in any building irrespective of whether such ventilation shaft is freestanding or is accommodated in a building. Although there is no such practice note for underground roads and tunnels, this basis has been used to adopt a minimum stack height of 6 m. This is considered to give worst case results at the ground level and allows for flexibility of the final design and the ventilation to be located at this level.

There are several ventilation exhausts for the XRL/WKT basement carpark, however this basement does not include an underground road and therefore does not need to be considered as a concurrent source.

Scenario II – 100% of the vehicle emissions generated within the basement is ventilated through the basement entry and exit points and 0% through a series of stack exhausts

Under this Scenario, the basement emissions were considered as a total of the three roads (basements roads A, B and C) as shown in Figures 3.5.1n, 3.5.1r, 3.5.1s and 3.5.1t. The detailed design of the basement and its ventilation system is not yet complete; therefore it has been broadly assumed that the emissions would be evenly distributed among the three entry/exit points to approximate the scenario.  Therefore, one third of the total basement emissions were assumed to be emitted from the western portal near the western tunnel, one third through the eastern portal onto Austin Road West and one third through the northern portal onto Austin Road West.

The basement entry and exit point are not treated as a standard portal as the traffic does not exit directly from the portal, that is the vehicles come to a T-intersection at the entry and exit point for Location A and C as shown in Figure 3.6. The entry and exit points are modelled as volume sources based on the dimensions of the opening.

Underpasses/landscape decks along the Austin Road West and Lin Cheung Road and the associated top openings

The portal emissions are the worst case emissions from portals and other openings of Austin Road West and Lin Cheung Road. EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters recommends portals and similar openings are modelled as volume sources according to the Permanent International of Road Congresses (PIARC) XIXth World Road Congress Report. To obtain worst case emissions from each top opening and portal, using the recommended guideline the following situations were considered:

Scenario 1 - 10% of tunnel emissions released through short top openings, the remainder released through the tunnel portal;

Scenario 2 - 20% of tunnel emissions released through short top openings, the remainder released through the tunnel portal;

Scenario 3 - 30% of tunnel emissions released through short top openings, the remainder released through the tunnel portal, and;

Scenario 4 - Maximum emissions according to PIARC recommendations (which are dependant on top opening lengths – 66% of emissions through top opening if the length is 50m and 100% through top opening if the length is 100m), the remainder of emissions which are not released through the top opening are released through the tunnel portal.

By adopting the traffic forecast in the worst case year of 2015, the emission rates for Scenarios 1 to 4, with 100% of the WKCD basement emission through its portals (Scenario II) are given in Appendix 3.18a – Appendix 3.18d [MCD2] whereas the emission rates for Scenarios 1 to 4, with 100% of the WKCD basement emissions through its stack exhausts (Scenario I) are given in Appendix 3.18e – Appendix 3.18[MCD3] h. All scenarios were modelled to determine the worst case effects. 

By adopting the traffic forecast in 2020, the emission rates for the combination of Scenario I and Scenario 1  are also estimated, as presented in Appendix 3.19.  Based on the comparison of the modeling results for all eight combinations of Scenarios I & II with Scenarios 1-4 for the worst case year of 2015, the results for different combinations differ by a small amount (less than 2%) and yet the combination of Scenario I with Scenario 1 tends to give relatively more conservative results.  Therefore, this combination has been used to estimate the emission rates for year 2020, which are then used to refine the NO2 modelling results for those planned ASRs that will be in operation from 2020 onwards (see Section 3.6.2).

EMFAC-HKV2.5.1 model results and the traffic modelling data from the Traffic Consultants were used to generate the inputs for use in ISCST3.

Existing WHC Portal

The portal emissions are modelled according to EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters, which recommends portals and similar openings are modelled as volume sources according to the PIARC XIXth World Road Congress Report. Details of the assumptions are in Appendix 3.18a – Appendix 3.18h and Appendix 3.19. 

3.5.2.6      Model Description – CALINE4

CALINE4 is a line source air quality model developed by the California Department of Transportation and is one of the models prescribed by the EPD Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters. It is based on the Gaussian diffusion equation and employs a mixing zone concept to characterise pollutant dispersion over the roadway.

The purpose of the model is to assess air quality impacts near transportation facilities. Given source strength, meteorology and site geometry, CALINE4 can predict pollutant concentrations for receptors located within 500 m of a given roadway. As with all Gaussian models, CALINE4 has some limitations, as described in Section 3.5.1.2.

3.5.2.7      Assumptions and Inputs – CALINE4

The predicted traffic flows have taken into account the development of the four concurrent projects, namely: Road Works at West Kowloon; Road Improvement Works in West Kowloon Reclamation; the Hong Kong Section of the XRL, and; Central Kowloon Route (CKR). Appendix 3.10 presents details of the 24-hour traffic forecast for different vehicles and individual road links within the 500 m assessment area (see Figures 3.5.1a to 3.5.1y) as provided by the Traffic Consultants.

Hourly meteorological data for a full year as extracted from the PATH model released by EPD in December 2012 (meteorological data year 2010, grid 28, 27) has been adopted for use in CALINE4. The data is considered to be the most up to date data available. PATH data has been observed to have a lower mixing height for some hours, when compared to the measured mixing height. The minimum mixing height recorded by HKO in 2010 is 121.3 m, whereas the PATH minimum mixing height is 40 m. The HKO minimum mixing height of 121.3 m is used to replace any PATH mixing height below this value. This approach is considered appropriate as it will minimise over-estimation due to lower mixing heights and also will minimise under-estimation due to high stacks being excluded in the mixing volume. The PATH data with the above modification is considered to be representative of the site wind data at WKCD. A roughness coefficient of 370cm is used, as the area is considered to be urban.

Based on the worst case emission factors and the 24-hour traffic flow in 2015, the composite fleet emission factors have been calculated for the road links, as detailed in Appendix 3.23.

By adopting the traffic forecast in 2020, the composite fleet emission factors have also been calculated for the road links, as detailed in Appendix 3.24.  These emission factors have been used to refine the NO2 modelling results for those planned ASRs that will be in operation from 2020 onwards (see Section 3.6.2).

3.5.3        Operation Phase – Marine Emissions

3.5.3.1      Introduction

To assess the operational air quality from marine sources ISCST3 was used to predict the cumulative NOx, RSP and SO2 levels at the identified ASRs in accordance with the EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters,

Under the current development of marine traffic planning at the WKCD site, it is intended that marine services at WKCD will primarily be provided for visitor or leisure activities. In terms of traffic volume, the support on the need of the possible piers has been a key outcome from the public consultation in view of general public's opinions and needs. No precedence case or similar scale of development as the WKCD has been developed in the Victoria Harbour and therefore no realistic marine traffic forecast can be developed at this stage of the Project.  However, as the possible piers would only be used by visitors or for leisure purposes without any planning for routine uses, it is anticipated that the marine traffic to be generated at the two possible piers would be insignificant when compared to the existing marine activities.  No vessel landing will be included at the optional viewing platform and for the proposed landing steps of WKCD, and therefore they are being designed as features of the development and will not serve any marine traffic. 

Marine emissions considered to be important for the assessment are: fast ferry traffic movements, based on scheduled sailings at the China Ferry Terminal; cargo-handling vessel traffic movements along the Yau Ma Tei Fairway at the western edge waterfront of the WKCD site; derrick lighter barges operating at the New Yau Ma Tei Public Cargo Working Area (NYPCWA), and; ocean cruise ship emissions at berth at the Ocean Terminal. As the marine emissions are all from existing marine activities within the surrounding waters and the WKCD development itself does not contribute to any marine traffic emissions, the cumulative SO2 levels due to the various surrounding sources are assessed for the proposed ASRs within the WKCD site only. ISCST3 has been used to predict the air pollutant concentrations due to marine sources. The locations of all such pollution sources are as shown in Figure 3.7. Details of the emissions rates for individual sources are given in Appendix 3.25.

The cumulative hourly maximum NOx, RSP and SO2 concentrations are predicted by the above models by using the corresponding MM5 hourly meteorological data in 2010 as extracted from the PATH model released by EPD in December 2012.

3.5.3.2      Model Description – ISCST3

Gaussian model ISCST3 has been used for modelling potential impacts from the above-mentioned nearby marine emission sources. Refer to Section 3.5.2.4 for model description and limitations.

3.5.3.3      Assumptions and Inputs – ISCST3

Given the lack of realistic marine traffic forecast for the two possible piers and the insignificant contribution to the existing marine traffic in the surrounding waters of WKCD (see Section 3.4.4), it is anticipated that the air quality impact due to potential marine traffic emissions from future operation of the two possible piers of WKCD would not be significant as compared to that due to the existing marine traffic level.  Hence, the marine traffic emissions due to the two possible piers of WKCD are not included in the modelling exercise.

The operational sources for the ISCST3 modelling (shown in Figure 3.7) include:

·             Fast ferry traffic movements, based on scheduled sailings, of up to 170 daily movements (ferry going to is one movement, ferry leaving is a second movement) at the China Ferry Terminal;

·             Tugs associated with derrick lighter barge movements in the NYMTTS;

·             Derrick lighter barges operating at the New Yau Ma Tei Public Cargo Working Area (NYPCWA), and;

·             Ocean cruise ship movements at the Ocean Terminal.

Hourly meteorological data for a full year as extracted from the PATH model released by EPD in December 2012 (meteorological data year 2010, grid 28, 27) has been adopted for use in CALINE4. The data is considered to be the most up to date data available. PATH data has been observed to have a lower mixing height for some hours, when compared to the measured mixing height. The minimum mixing height recorded by HKO in 2010 is 121.3 m, whereas the PATH minimum mixing height is 40 m. The HKO minimum mixing height of 121.3 m is used to replace any PATH mixing height below this value. This approach is considered appropriate as it will minimise over-estimation due to lower mixing heights and also will minimise under-estimation due to high stacks being excluded in the mixing volume. The PATH data with the above modification is considered to be representative of the site wind data at WKCD.

New Yau Ma Tei Public Cargo Working Area (NYPCWA)

The NYPCWA is located on the north-south shoreline of the NYMTTS to the north of WKCD. The area is mainly used for loading and unloading cargo using derrick lighter barges. The shoreline is approximately 1,250 metres long. According to the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Typhoon Shelters) Regulation – Chapter 548E the maximum permitted length for local vessels in the typhoon shelter is 50 metres. For manoeuvring purposes it was assumed that each vessel would need 5 metres at bow and stern. The maximum number of vessels operating at any one time was therefore assumed to be the shoreline length divided by vessel and manoeuvring length, which gives 20 vessels. Although this does not take into account a larger possible vessel density should smaller barges being used, it is still considered realistic estimate, as a visual survey identified a similar number of vessels along the shore front.

The emission rates were estimated with reference to the USEPA Non-Road Diesel Standards and USEPA Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (April 2009), hereafter referred to as “USEPA Methodology”. The barges were assumed to have an engine size of 314.6 kW, which is based on average engine size information from 250 ton cranes. Based on the maximum theoretical loading factor of 43% for gantry cranes[5], a loading factor of 50%, which is considered to be conservative, is assumed for the barges. A visual survey showed the derrick lighters operate approximately 5 minutes out of every 20 minutes, with an on-off sequence of: rigging – 10 minutes; crane operation – 5 minutes; unrigging – 5 minutes. Therefore all engines are assumed to be operating at 50% load and for 25% of the operation hours.

Marine diesel engines are assumed to have an average operating lifetime of 10,000 hours. Derrick lighter barges are assumed to operate during the same period as the NYPCWA, i.e., 7:00 am to 9:00 pm daily or 14 hours per day (Monday to Saturday), with a time-in mode of 25%. Based on these assumptions, it can be estimated that the average life span of the marine engine on a derrick lighter barge is approximately 10 years, which is used to determine the emission rate for the engines by making reference to the emission standards for non-road diesel engines. This estimated engine life span is considered to give a conservative emission rate as the average age of engines is likely to be less than 10 years.  Based on a visual survey, the exhaust height of the derrick lighter engine is assumed to be 8.7m (approximately the height of three shipping containers). Details of estimating the engine emission can be found in Appendix 3.25.

Information provided by the marine sub-consultant estimates 130 small craft movements per day in the NYMTTS (both entering and leaving). It is assumed that all small craft are tugs and are restricted to the same operation period as the NYPCWA, that is, 7:00 am to 9:00 pm daily.

The NOx emission rates for tugs were estimated by using actual engine data sourced from maritime sales information. RSP emission rates are based on Harbour Craft Emission Factors as published in the “USEPA Methodology”. SO2 emission rates were estimated from the Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC Puget Sound Maritime Air Emission Inventory (April 2007). The tugs were assumed to have two 696 kW engines (average engine size from maritime sales information). The RSP emission rates were adjusted according to the Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC Puget Sound Maritime Air Emission Inventory (April 2007) whereas the SO2 emission rates were adjusted based on the fuel sulfur content as given in the reference material, and the actual fuel sulfur content as used in Hong Kong marine vessels. Detailed information can be found in Appendix 3.25.

Engine loading factor for tugs was assumed to be 31% as described in the “USEPA Methodology”. The tug movements were divided evenly among the operating hours and so for modelling purposes there are nine tug movements per operating hour of NYPCWA.

As the tugs are moving, the emissions are modelled as a series of area sources. To allow for variation in the actual vessel route, a width of 30 m is applied. The average hourly area emission rate was calculated by the instantaneous emission rate (g/s) multiplied by the time that it takes for the vessel to move over the length of the route (based on the reported average speed), and then divided by the total route area and 3600 seconds (one hour).

The estimated emission rates are summarised in Table 3.13 and details of the estimation are given in Appendix 3.25.

Table 3.13:    Estimated Emission Rates of Barges at NYPCWA

Pollutant

Vessel type

Estimated Emission Rates

NOx

Barge

0.0799 g/s for each barge

 

Tug

2.30 x 10-6 g/m2.s for each tug

RSP

Barge

0.0022 g/s for each barge

 

Tug

8.81 x 10-8 g/m2.s for each tug

SO2

Barge

0.0136 g/s for each barge

 

Tug

6.07 x 10-7 g/m2.s for each tug

China Ferry Terminal

The China Ferry Terminal is located to the south-east of WKCD. Three main companies operate at the Terminal, which are: CotaiJet, TurboJet and Chu Kong Passenger Transport Limited. Sailing timetables were reviewed for each of the companies and total vessel unloading/loading to the terminal calculated. The total unloading/loading was from one to 14 vessels per hour, between the hours of 7:00am and 11:00pm. Outside of these hours there are no scheduled ferry services and therefore no emissions modelled.

The emission rates were calculated based on the “Institute for the Environment, The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology: Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory”, hereafter referred to as the “HK Inventory”. During berthing, it is assumed that only auxiliary engines are operational. An overall average emission rate for all ferries was calculated for berthing based on the average auxiliary engine information available. The auxiliary engines are assumed to have a loading factor of 45% during cruise and berthing, as stated in the “HK Inventory”. It is also assumed that each unloading/loading takes 30 minutes to complete, including manoeuvring and berthing.

From information available from ferry operators, the exhausts were assumed to emit at water level, as no stack was visible for majority of the ferries surveyed, and stacks for fast ferries are horizontal.  To account for this exhaust position, the stacks were modelled with an efflux velocity of 0.001 m/s and an equivalent stack diameter. This approach is as described in Section 6.1 of the USEPA AERMOD Implementation Guide, 2009 and is considered conservative.

Emissions for the movement of fast ferries to and from the terminal were also modelled. Separate emission factors were calculated for Macau ferries (i.e., fast ferries travelling to/from Macau) and China ferries (i.e., fast ferries travelling to/from cities in Mainland China). Emissions are estimated based on the “HK Inventory”. Slow cruise is defined as 8 – 12 knots, but the marine speed limit within Victoria Harbour is 10 knots. Therefore, all fast ferries are assumed to travel at 10 knots within the study area for the purpose of estimating the engine emission rates.

For Macau ferries, the largest engine power as stated in the “HK Inventory” is 9,280kW and the maximum design cruise speed is 45 knots.  For China ferries, the largest engine power as stated in the “HK Inventory” is 5,490kW and the maximum design cruise speed is 32 knots.  In order to estimate the ferry engine power at the cruise speed of 10 knots, it is assumed that the engine power, which can be estimated as hydrodynamic drag force multiplied by cruise speed, is directly proportional to the cruise speed.    In other words, the hydrodynamic drag force is assumed to be at a constant level that equals to the highest hydrodynamic drag force at maximum engine power.  This is a conservative assumption for estimating the engine power at reduced cruise speed conditions where the hydrodynamic drag force would be lower.  With such a conservative assumption, it can be estimated that the engine power levels for Macau ferries and China ferries travelling at 10 knots are respectively 0.22 (i.e., 10knots / 45knots) x 9,280kW and 0.31 (i.e., 10knots / 32knots) x 5,490kW. Each scheduled travel of a fast ferry is considered to have two vessel trips along the ferry route (one to and one from).  The estimated emission rates are summarised in Table 3.14 and details of the estimation are given in Appendix 3.25.

As the marine traffic emissions are included as part of the emission inventory of the PATH model, there is a certain amount of double counting. The modelling results for the fast ferries are therefore considered to be conservative.

Table 3.14:    Estimated Emission Rates of Fast Ferries at China Ferry Terminal

Pollutant

Mode

Estimated Emission Rates

NOx

Berth

0.12 g/s for each ferry*

 

China Ferry - Transit

8.84 x 10-6 g/m2.s for each ferry

 

Macau Ferry - Transit

1.01 x 10-5 g/m2.s for each ferry

RSP

Berth

0.004 g/s for each ferry*

 

China Ferry - Transit

2.79 x 10-7 g/m2.s for each ferry

 

Macau Ferry - Transit

3.21 x 10-7 g/m2.s for each ferry

SO2

Berth

0.026 g/s for each ferry*

 

China Ferry - Transit

1.88 x 10-6 g/m2.s for each ferry

 

Macau Ferry - Transit

2.15 x 10-6 g/m2.s for each ferry

*Assumed to last for 30 minutes during each hour of operation

Ocean Terminal

The Ocean Terminal is located to the south-east of WKCD. A 40,000-ton ship is berthed at the Ocean Terminal during day-time but leaves for the sea during night-time.  This 40,000-ship is hereafter referred to as the day-time ship. Other cruise ships are also periodically berthed at the Ocean Terminal. There are totally two berths available at the Ocean Terminal.  Therefore, it is assumed for the worst-case scenario that both the day-time ship and another 70,000-ton ship are berthed at the Terminal simultaneously, with the 70,000-ton ship berthing for 24 hours of a day (hereafter referred to as the 24-hour ship). The day-time ship is generally berthed between about 8:00am and 8:00pm, and has been modelled as such.   The 24-hour ship is assumed to be berthed for 24 hours at the Terminal, as when visiting it can be berthed at the Terminal for more than a day. This modelling approach is considered to have captured the worst-case scenario when both cruise ships are at the berths.

Emission rates of the ships berthing at the Ocean Terminal were estimated by using the “USEPA Methodology”, MARPOL regulations, as stated in Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution) Regulation – Chapter 413M, Section 27 (3) (b) and engine information for the auxiliary engines. No information was available as to whether the ship is to cold iron during berth, so it is assumed all auxiliary engines are running for the entire time the cruise ships are berthed at the Ocean Terminal. During berthing, the cruise ships would also be running auxiliary boilers to provide hot water, heating and other services. These services would be provided by exhaust heat exchangers on the main and auxiliary engines during cruising, however during berth the main engines are off and therefore auxiliary boilers are needed. Boiler emissions were estimated based on the  “HK Inventory”. The fuel used during berthing is assumed to be residual oil, with a sulfur content of 2.8%. This is conservative as some ocean going vessels use distillate fuel, which has a lower sulfur content and leads to lower RSP and SO2 emissions. The future projected average fuel sulfur content is 1.98% for auxiliary engines and 2.07% for auxiliary boilers, both of which are lower than the assumed 2.8% sulfur content.  Moreover, the MARPOL regulations will reduce the sulfur content to 0.5% from 2020 onwards.

To prevent over-estimation of the SO2 emissions from the ships berthing at the Ocean Terminal, a calibration exercise was performed with reference to the on-site SO2 data recorded at the EPD’s WKCD monitoring station (see Section 3.4.1).  Historic berthing timetable at the Ocean Terminal during the monitoring period of the WKCD monitoring station (i.e., from Sep 2011 to Aug 2012) was identified. As there are many day-time marine traffic emission sources (e.g., Star Ferries, China ferries, Macau ferries, recreational and cargo vessels) during day-time, the calibration exercise was carried out only for night-tme periods between 9pm and 8am when the 24-hour ship alone is berthed at the Ocean Terminal (the day-time ship is at cruise during night-time) and the emissions from fast ferries and other marine traffic are minimal.  The calibration results were then used to adjust the SO2 emission rate for the 24-hour ship to provide more realistic estimates of the maximum SO2 concentrations at the ASRs.  The SO2 emission rate for the day-time ship, which is smaller in tonnage than the 24-hour ship, is conservatively assumed to be the same as the adjusted emission rate for the 24-hour ship.  Details of the calibration results for estimation of SO2 emission rates are given in Appendix 3.25.

Based on a visual survey and information on the day-time ship, the height of the stacks was assumed to be 50 metres. Based on engine information, there are four auxiliary engines for day-time ship, and it is therefore assumed there are four stacks. The estimated emission rates of the ships are summarised in Table 3.15 and details of the estimation are given in Appendix 3.25. No emissions for vessels sailing to and from the terminal were estimated or modelled as this is considered to be adequately covered by the PATH model and is outside the 500 m assessment area.

Table 3.15:    Estimated Emission Rates of Cruise Ships at Ocean Terminal

Pollutant

Vessel

Estimated Emission Rates (g/s)

NOx

Day-time ship

12.97

 

24-hour ship

14.55

RSP

Day-time ship

1.88

 

24-hour ship

1.97

SO2

Day-time ship

7.62

 

24-hour ship

7.62

3.5.4        Operation Phase – General Emissions

To assess the operational air quality, a variety of models were required. In accordance with the EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters.

3.5.4.1      Model Description - PATH

The PATH model is a numerical air quality modelling system developed specifically for use in Hong Kong. The model comprises of three modules: an emission model; a prognostic meteorological model and an Eulerian transport and chemistry model. These modules are interfaced together and set up on a series of nested domains to account for influences outside of Hong Kong.

3.5.4.2      Assumptions and Inputs – PATH

An updated version of PATH was released by the EPD for general use in December 2012. As there is no significant policy change or inventory update since the release of the latest PATH and the submission of this report, use of the 2012 PATH model in its current state is considered appropriate.

For EIA applications, PATH simulates wind field, pollutant emissions, transportation and chemical transformation and outputs pollutant concentrations over Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region at a fine grid size of 1.5km.

During the 12th Hong Kong-Guangdong Joint Working Group Meeting on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection (Nov 2012), the Hong Kong and Guangdong Governments jointly endorsed a Major Air Pollutant Emission Reduction Plan for the Pearl River Delta Region up to year 2020. A comprehensive emission inventory for Hong Kong and PRD was compiled for year 2010 based on current best estimates and projected to 2015 and 2020 in accordance with the emission reduction measures proposed in the plan. The emission inventory for year 2010 was used in PATH and produced reasonable agreement with air quality measurements. The projected emission inventories for years 2015 and 2020 were also used in PATH to predict air qualities for future years. The emission inventories include the total emissions from six key groups, namely, public electricity generation, road transport (emissions estimated based on VKT forecast provided by TD and EMFAC-HK model version 2.1), navigation, civil aviation (emissions estimated based on forecasted air traffic movements), other fuel combustion (covering emissions from such major facilities as HK & China Gas, Green Island Cement and Integrated Waste Management Facilities) and non-combustion.  The Hong Kong emission inventories of the key air pollutants of concerns for the Project are summarized in Table 3.16.

Table 3.16: Summary of 2015 and 2020 Hong Kong Emission Inventory for the PATH Model

Pollutant

Total Emission in 2015 (ton/year)

Total Emission in 2020 (ton/year)

SO2

26,625

23,075

NOx

98,100

87,200

RSP

5,706

5,389

PATH model was used to quantify the background air quality during the operational phase of the Project. Emission sources including roads, marine, airports, power plants and industries within the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone and Hong Kong were considered in the PATH model. Details of the PATH Model and related emission inventory can be found in EPD’s web site.

The hourly SO2, NOx and RSP concentrations as extracted from the PATH for year 2015 are adopted as the background air pollutant concentrations in the estimation of cumulative impact for the Project during the worst case year of 2015.   The hourly pollutant concentrations as extracted from the PATH for year 2020 have also been used to refine the NO2 modelling results for those planned ASRs that will be in operation from 2020 onwards (see Section 3.6.2).

Since the vehicular and marine traffic emissions at local scale (i.e. within the 500m assessment area) have been modeled by near-field dispersion models, namely, CALINE4 and ISCST (see Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3), adding the PATH background concentrations to the near-field modeling results would lead to certain amount of double counting, and hence conservative cumulative modeling results.

3.5.4.3      Other Assumptions

According to Entec UK Limited: Defra UK Ship Emissions Inventory, 2010 the NOx:NO2 ratio can vary between 0.05 and 0.10. The NOx formed during combustion comprise predominantly of NO, with a small percentage of primary NO2. In the atmosphere the NO oxidises to NO2 which is considered as secondary NO2. For conservative results a conversion factor of 0.10 has been used for NOx to NO2.

The Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) as described in EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters has been adopted to estimate the conversion of NOx to NO2 from both marine and vehicular emissions. The ozone concentrations are based on the future hourly background ozone concentrations for year 2015 or 2020, which were extracted from grid (28, 27) of the most up to date PATH. Grid (28, 27) of the PATH model is used because the majority of the WKCD area falls within this grid (see Figure 3.8).

The NOx/NO2 conversion for vehicular and marine emissions is therefore estimated as follows:

[NO2] = 0.075 x [NOx]vehicle + minimum of {0.925 x [NOx]vehicle or (46/48) x [O3]PATH} + 0.10 x [NOx]marine +         minimum of {0.90 x [NOx]marine or (46/48) x [O3]PATH}

where

[NO2]                is the estimated hourly vehicular NO2 concentration (predicted by CALINE4 and ISCST);

[NOx]vehicle          is the hourly NOx concentration as predicted by CALINE4 and ISCST3 for vehicular emissions at the receptor;

[O3]PATH             is the hourly ozone concentrations as extracted from the             aforementioned grid of the PATH model for year 2015 or 2020; and

[NOx]marine          is the hourly NOx concentration as predicted by ISCST3 for marine emissions at the receptor.

To estimate the total hourly concentrations, the hourly pollutant concentrations as predicted by CALINE4 and ISCST3 (vehicular and marine) are added together with the future hourly background pollutant concentrations as extracted from the relevant grid of the PATH model. Therefore, the total hourly concentrations of NO2 are calculated as follows:

[NO2]total = [NO2] +  [NO2]PATH

where

[NO2]total             is the total hourly NO2 concentration;

[NO2]                is the hourly vehicular and marine NO2 concentration which is first predicted by                                        CALINE4 and ISCST3 as NOx and then converted to NO2 by using OLM; and

[NO2]PATH          is the hourly NO2 concentrations as extracted from the aforementioned grid of the PATH model for year 2015 or 2020.

Similarly, the total hourly RSP (vehicular and marine) and SO2 (marine emissions only) concentrations are also calculated by adding together the hourly results predicted by CALINE4, ISCST3 and PATH.

With the total hourly NO2, RSP and SO2 estimated, the daily results are obtained by taking the arithmetic mean of the 24 hourly results. Similarly, the annual concentrations are calculated as the arithmetic mean of the whole year of hourly results.

3.5.5        Operation Phase – Odour Emissions

3.5.5.1      Odour Source Monitoring

In order to assess the potential odour impacts on WKCD, odour source monitoring was undertaken to identify the key odour emission sources from NYMTTS, and to perform field investigation and laboratory tests to quantify the odour emission rates (OER) of NYMTTS on typical hot days when the air temperature is over 30oC. According to the weather data recorded at the Hong Kong Observatory station in 2010, the mean daily maximum air temperatures in July, August and September were respectively 32.1oC, 31.9oC and 30.5oC, representing the top three hottest months in the year. Therefore, typical hot days are taken as the summer days when the daytime air temperature is over 30oC. 

Odour source monitoring was carried on 21 and 22 August 2012. On both monitoring days, the weather was sunny and the air temperatures were in the range of 30oC to 32oC.  On-site measurements and samplings were performed during the ebb tide periods, with reference to the Hong Kong Observatory’s tidal chart in order to capture the worst case odour emissions when the sea water depth was the shallowest. It is therefore considered that the odour source monitoring results obtained could be used to represent the worst case odour emission scenario for NYMTTS during typical hot days when the air temperature is over 30oC.

All the field sampling and measurement works as well as the laboratory testing works were carried by a laboratory that has been accredited by the Hong Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme (HOKLAS).

Sampling Grids

For the purpose of evaluating odour emission rates, NYMTTS was divided into 30 sampling grids for the odour source monitoring as illustrated in Figure 3.9. The arrangement and sizes of the grids were determined based on the following site-specific information into account:

§  Results of the odour patrol in March 2011. During the odour patrol conducted in March 2011 malodour was only detected surrounding the watercourse boundary of northern portion of NYMTTS, i.e., along the route from P2 to P3 in Figure 1 in Appendix 3.26a whereas no malodour was detected along the patrol route from P1 to P2. The report documenting the results of odour patrol in March 2011 is attached in Appendix 3.26a. Moreover, such odour patrol results are consistent with the records of odour complaint against NYMTTS received by EPD in the past seven years from 2006 to 2013 (see Table 3.8). In view of these findings, more grids are placed on the northern portion (i.e., north of P2) of NYMTTS than in its southern portion.

§  Review of the drainage discharges into NYMTTS. According to drainage records from the Drainage Services Department (DSD), there are two box culvert outfalls (i.e., Cherry Street Box Culvert and Jordan Road Box Culvert) and one drainage pipe discharging into NYMTTS, and their locations are as shown in Figure 3.9. All such outfalls and pipe discharges were observed during the odour patrol and odour sampling works. The two box culvert locations are very close to the locations where elevated odour concentrations (with sewage/rotten-egg odour) were found during the odour patrol in March 2011 (i.e., locations C and F as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix 3.26a). Therefore, it is considered that the malodour should be mainly due to the effluent discharge from the box culverts. Hence, more grids of finer sizes (i.e., grids 5-10, 20-23 and 28-30) were placed in vicinity of the two outfalls in order to capture the emission strength.

As control stations, two locations outside of NYMTTS have also been included in the sampling and testing exercises. Their locations are as shown in Figure 3.9.

On-site Testing and Sampling

At each of the 30 grids, an air sample was collected through a floating ventilated sampling hood located at the water surface of the grid. The design of the floating ventilated sampling hood is based on the specification in the VDI 3880 standard in Germany. The volumetric flow rate of the sampler measured at the sampling days was 5.2 m³/h, which is near the low end of allowable range of the hood and is equivalent to an air flow speed inside the hood of about 0.019 m/s (calculated by dividing the flow rate with the cross-sectional area of the hood, i.e., 0.075 m²). Air drawn into the hood was first passed through an activated carbon filter. This filter was changed at the beginning of each sampling day to prevent saturation.

On the day of sampling it was observed at the grids in the vicinity of Cherry Street Box Culvert (approximately grids 29 and 30) there were fine bubbles coming from the water surface. A low air flow speed was used to allow the odour concentration inside the sampling hood to build up to a high level, which is suitable for the subsequent olfactometry analysis to obtain reliable and conservative results. A higher velocity would increase the dilution volume and therefore lead to lower concentrations. Moreover, wind speed at such a low value is equivalent to a calm wind condition, which is a worst case scenario for atmospheric dispersion of air pollutants. Therefore, it is considered that the odour emission rates determined based on the odour samples collected at this low air flow speed would represent conservative and worst case emission source data for the subsequent modelling exercise.

During the field sampling, the following on-site tests were also carried out:

(a)        Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

During the odour patrol in March 2011, rotten egg and sewage smell was detected at the locations where malodour was perceived (see Tables 11 and 13 of Appendix 3.26a), and elevated hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations were measured at the locations where the odour concentrations were found to be higher (see Tables 14 and 15 of Appendix 3.26a). Therefore, H2S would likely be one of the key odorous chemicals, and hence H2S was measured to provide initial idea about the strength of odour emission.

(b)        Odour intensity and hedonic tone

These parameters were measured to characterise any malodour and to serve as supplementary data for the subsequent laboratory testing odour concentrations.

(c)        Water depth

Water depth was measured to check against the tidal conditions and was also required for the purpose of collecting water samples at various water depths.

(d)        Water temperature, salinity, pH and dissolved oxygen (DO)

These water parameters were measured to collect the necessary marine water quality of NYMTTS on the sampling days so as to identify if and how odour emission would be affected by the water quality, particularly the DO levels.

(e)        Weather data

Ambient air temperature, relative humidity, wind direction and wind speed were measured to capture the weather conditions on the sampling days.

Laboratory Testing of Air Samples

The collected air samples were delivered to the accredited laboratory within 24 hours from sample collection. The odour concentrations were determined by using dynamic olfactometry, according to the European Standard Method BS EN13725:2003, and samples were tested for hydrogen sulfide using UV fluorescence analyzer. For each air sample, 3 rounds of laboratory testing of hydrogen sulfide were conducted to obtain the average testing result.

3.5.5.2      Odour Review

To review the odour monitoring results obtained in August 2012, odour sampling and testing works were carried out on 18 and 20 February 2013 as well as on 18, 20 and 22 March 2013 by a HOKLAS accredited laboratory.  The main purposes of the review are to repeat the odour sampling and testing works at the selected grids 5, 7-11, 14, 17 and 20-30 for comparison with the corresponding odour monitoring results in August 2012; and to determine the key contributors of odour emissions from NYMTTS (i.e., air-bound, water-bound or sediment-bound odour).  The grids selected for the odour review exercise include mainly those grids that were identified with high odour emissions and sewage/rotten egg odour during the monitoring in August 2012.  

At each of the selected grids for the odour review, an air sample was collected by placing the dynamic flux chamber at the water surface of the grid.  Nitrogen is supplied to the chamber as the carrier gas for collecting the sample because nitrogen is odour-free and is expected to provide more realistic odour testing results of the odour generated from the water surface.  The volumetric flow rate of nitrogen gas inside the chamber is 3.5 L/min (or 0.21 m3/h) and is equivalent to an air flow speed inside the chamber of about 0.00044 m/s (calculated by dividing the flow rate with the covered surface area of 0.132 m2).  Such a low air flow speed would allow the odour concentration inside the chamber to build up to a high level and is also equivalent to a calm wind condition, which would give conservative odour testing results. 

All collected air samples were delivered to the accredited laboratory for testing of odour concentrations by using dynamic olfactometry, according to the European Standard Method BS EN13725:2003.  In addition, water and marine sediment samples were also collected for laboratory testing of odour concentrations in order to identify the water-bound and sediment-bound odour levels.

Based on the odour monitoring results in August 2012 as well as the odour review results in February and March 2013, the OERs at each of the 30 grids were estimated. The odour review results together with the odour monitoring results are presented in Appendix 3.26b while details of the estimated OERs are given in Appendix 3.26c. 

3.5.5.3      Model Description – ISCST3

Gaussian model ISCST3 has been used for modelling potential effects from odour due to NYMTTS. Refer to Section 3.5.1.2 for model description and limitations.

3.5.5.4      Inputs and Assumptions – ISCST3

The odour identified for a number of grids during the odour monitoring was perceived as sea water odour with a hedonic tone of zero (i.e., neutral or no odour), which is of the same odour quality at the two control stations (see Table 3.26). An odour with a hedonic tone of zero is considered to be neutral and neither pleasant nor offensive.

Odours from different sources can undergo various phenomena, one of which is masking, whereby the presence of one odour can disguise, or mask, the presence of a second. Different odorants may also interact. This can cause interactive or ‘synergistic’ effects, such that the sum of the odorants may be either greater than or less than the intensity of the odour components. In practice, odours from significantly different sources and with different characters are usually neither additive nor synergistic, but instead one source tends to dominate, or mask, the presence of the other.[6]

Dispersion models assume a conservation of mass of contaminants, that is the odour intensity of a mixture of two different odorous sources are considered to be additive. Odour modelling is not able to predict synergistic or masking effects, and to that effect, modelling a pleasant and offensive odour source in parallel would produce one overall ‘odour’ intensity, which would not be representative of, the different hedonic tones of the individual odours, the relative decrease in intensity of the individual odours or the potential for one odour to mask the other.

Sea-water has a neutral tone and is generally considered to be non-offensive, and is assumed to be masked by the presence of offensive odour.  However, as Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM does not allow for a differentiation between different types of odours, the emissions for all grids of the NYMTTS together with the surrounding sea water within the 500 m assessment area have been modelled in parallel.

The OER values are calculated from low tide, typical hot day emission rates and have been assumed to occur for the entire hour, for every hour for the whole modelling period, i.e., 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.

With the OER determined, the odour emissions have been modelled as area sources by using ISCST3 to predict the odour impact on the proposed WKCD development, i.e., the ASRs identified within WKCD (see Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1b), according to the EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters. Meteorological data as extracted from grid (28, 27) of the PATH model released by EPD in December 2012 has been used for the assessment. 

In the approved EIA for Kai Tak Development (EIA-157/2008), a factor of 2.3 or 2.5 was used to convert the hourly average odour concentration as predicted by ISCST3 into 5-second average concentrations depending on the atmospheric stability class. In this modelling exercise, the factor of 2.5 was adopted for the conversion under all stability classes for conservative estimation. The 5-second average odour concentrations estimated were then compared with the odour criterion of 5 ou in accordance with the EIAO-TM. As odour emissions are existing, only new ASRs within the WKCD boundary are assessed as the WKCD project does not contribute odour emissions to the surrounding 500 m study area.

3.5.5.5      Methodology – ISCST3

The odour impacts on WKCD from the NYMTTS and the surrounding sea water within the 500 m assessment area are modelled and assessed under the following three scenarios:

§  Background odour scenario

§  Current odour scenario

§  Mitigated odour scenarios A and B

Background Odour Scenario

Under this scenario, all the grids of NYMTTS are assumed to be generating sea water odour.  This is considered as the background sea water odour levels even if there were no malodour emissions from the entire NYMTTS, representing the lowest possible odour levels at WKCD.

Current Odour Scenario

Under this scenario, all the grid cells of NYMTTS were modelled using the OER estimated based on the odour source monitoring and review results (see Table 3.26).  This represents the potential current odour impacts on WKCD due to both odour emissions from NYMTTS and sea water odour emissions from the surrounding marine environment.

Mitigated Odour Scenarios A and B

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1, measures have been planned to improve the Dry Weather Flow Interceptors (DWFI) upstream of both Cherry Street and Jordon Road Box Culverts, which will help mitigate the water-bound odour emission from NYMTTS by reducing the amount of effluent discharges or organic matters entering the NYMTTS.  The tender to construct a new DWFI upstream of the Cherry Street Box Culvert has already been launched whereas the improvement works for DWFI upstream of the Jordon Road Box Culvert are yet to be started. In light of the different status of the improvement measures for the two Box Culverts, two mitigated scenarios have been adopted:

Mitigated Scenario A: Under this scenario, the recommended improvement measures for both Cherry Street and Jordon Road Box Culverts are implemented, and therefore the amount of effluent discharges or organic matters entering the NYMTTS via both Box Culverts would be reduced as explained in the Section 3.7.3.1. As there is no sufficient available data to quantify the reduction in water-bound odour emissions that would result from reduction in organic matters, a sensitivity test approach in evaluating the potential reduction in odour impacts due to the DWFI improvement works has been adopted. Under the sensitivity test, four assumed ratios of reduction in organic matters to reduction in water-bound odour emissions, i.e., 1:1, 1:0.75, 1:0.5 and 1:0.25, have been modelled.  For example, the ratio of 1:0.75 refers to the situation where the reduction of water-bound odour emissions is 75% of the reduction in organic matters entering NYMTTS.  The OER for grid cells identified with high odour emissions in the vicinity of both Cherry Street and Jordon Road Box Culverts would be reduced according to each of the four assumed ratios.  The OER for all other grid cells of NYMTTS are the same as those adopted in the current odour scenario. This represents the potential residual odour impacts on WKCD after implementation of the recommended improvement measures for both Cherry Street and Jordon Road Box Culverts.

Mitigated Scenario B: Under this scenario, the recommended improvement measures for only the Cherry Street Box Culvert are implemented, and therefore the amount of effluent discharges or organic matters entering the NYMTTS via the Box Culvert would be reduced as explained in the Section 3.7.3.1.  Similar to the Mitigated Scenario A, the sensitivity test approach has been adopted by using the four assumed ratios of reduction in organic matters to reduction in water-bound odour emissions, i.e., 1:1, 1:0.75, 1:0.5 and 1:0.25. The OER for grid cells identified with high odour emissions in the vicinity of only the Cherry Street Box Culvert would be reduced according to each of the four assumed ratios. The OER for all other grid cells of NYMTTS are the same as those adopted in the current odour scenario. This represents the potential residual odour impacts on WKCD after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures for only the Cherry Street Box Culvert (but not for the Jordon Road Box Culvert).

In all the above ten scenarios, the surrounding 500 metres sea water odour emissions have been included in the modelling exercise.

 

3.6          Evaluation and Assessment of the Air Quality Impacts

3.6.1        Construction Phase

3.6.1.1      Construction Phase Tier 1 Results

The Tier 1 screening results for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios including the background contribution are tabulated in Appendix 3.28.  The unmitigated and mitigated results are summarised as follows.

Hourly

The Tier 1 hourly TSP results under both unmitigated and mitigated scenarios are summarized in Table 3.17.  There would be exceedances of the hourly TSP limit of 500 µg/m3 under the Tier 1 unmitigated scenario from 2014 to 2020.  However, under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario, exceedances of the hourly TSP limit would only occur from 2015 to 2018, but no exceedances in 2013, 2014, 2019 and 2020.

The locations of the dust sources are shown in Figures 3.3a to 3.3k. Figures 3.11a to 3.11h and 3.12a to 3.12h show the Tier 1 hourly TSP concentration contours for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios, respectively.

Table 3.17:    Summary of Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations for All ASRs (Tier 1 Unmitigated & Mitigated)

Year

Tier 1 Unmitigated Scenario

Range of Maximum Hourly TSP  (μg/m3)

[Criterion - 500 µg/m3]

Tier 1 Mitigated Scenario

Range of Maximum Hourly TSP  (μg/m3)

[Criterion - 500 µg/m3]

2013

120 – 422

74 –  147

2014

97 – 1992

75 – 420

2015

150 – 4731

79 – 580

2016

175 – 5296

79 – 623

2017

203 – 5108

81 – 543

2018

207 – 4465

82 – 503

2019

148 – 3760

76 – 429

2020

113 – 3161

73 – 479

Table 3.18 shows the receptors that would breach the hourly TSP limit of 500 µg/m3 under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario for years 2015 to 2018. ASRs that were predicted to exceed the hourly TSP limit of 500 µg/m3 for the Tier 1 mitigated scenario were modelled further under Tier 2 conditions, as described in Section 3.5.1.4.

Table 3.18:    Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations for ASRs with Exceedance (Tier 1 Mitigated)

ASR

Height above ground  (m)

Maximum Hourly TSP  (μg/m3)

[Criterion - 500 µg/m3]

Remark

2015

P01d-1

4

580

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD. It is a possible fresh air intake.

Exceedance subject to Tier 2 assessment.

P53-1

4

575

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD. It is a possible open area.

Exceedance subject to Tier 2 assessment.

2016

P01a-1

4

534

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD. It is a possible fresh air intake.

Exceedance subject to Tier 2 assessment.

P01b-1

4

550

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD. It is a possible fresh air intake.

Exceedance subject to Tier 2 assessment.

P01c-1

4

616

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD. It is a possible fresh air intake.

Exceedance subject to Tier 2 assessment.

P53-1

4

623

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD. It is a possible open area.

Exceedance subject to Tier 2 assessment.

2017

P52-1

4

543

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD. It is a possible open area.

Exceedance subject to Tier 2 assessment

2018

P52-1

4

503

Planned Performance Art Venues within WKCD. It is a possible open area.

Exceedance subject to Tier 2 assessment

 

Daily

The daily TSP results for Tier 1 unmitigated and mitigated scenario including the background contribution are tabulated in Appendix 3.28.  Table 3.19 summarises the Tier 1 results for daily TSP under both unmitigated and mitigated scenarios. There would be exceedances of the daily TSP limit of 260 µg/m3 under the Tier 1 unmitigated scenario from 2014 to 2020.  However, under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario, no ASR are predicted to exceed the daily TSP limit for any of the assessment years.

The locations of the dust sources are shown in Figures 3.3a to 3.3k. Figures 3.13a to 3.13h and Figures 3.14a to 3.14h show the daily TSP concentration contours for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios, respectively.

Table 3.19:    Summary of Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations for All ASRs (Tier 1 Unmitigated & Mitigated)

Year

Tier 1 Unmitigated Scenario

Range of Maximum Daily TSP  (μg/m3)

[Criterion - 260 µg/m3]

Tier 1 Mitigated Scenario

Range of Maximum Daily TSP  (μg/m3)

[Criterion - 260 µg/m3]

2013

73 - 149

69 – 90

2014

74 – 433

69 –132

2015

80 – 1110

70 – 223

2016

86 –1844

70 –  257

2017

84 –1278

70 – 204

2018

91 –1266

71 – 200

2019

82 –1187

70 – 190

2020

75 –1050

69 – 173

3.6.1.2      Construction Phase Tier 2 Results

The Tier 2 results including the background contribution, as described in Section 3.5.1.4 are tabulated in Appendix 3.29, and are discussed below.

Hourly

Tier 2 scenario was performed for those ASR subject to exceedance of the hourly TSP limit under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario. Under the Tier 2 mitigated scenario no ASRs were subject to exceedance of the hourly TSP limit of 500 µg/m³, as summarised in Table 3.20. Detailed results can be found in Appendix 3.29.  The locations of the dust sources are shown in Figures 3.3a to 3.3k. Figures 3.15a to 3.15f show the hourly TSP concentration contours under the Tier 2 mitigated scenario.

Table 3.20:    Summary of Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations (Tier 2 Mitigated)

ASR

Height above ground  (m)

Maximum Hourly TSP  (μg/m3)

[Criterion - 500 µg/m3]

2015

 

 

P01d-1

4

406

P53-1

4

265

2016

 

 

P01a-1

4

343

P01b-1

4

374

P01c-1

4

438

P53-1

4

413

2017

 

 

P52-1

4

247

2018

 

 

P52-1

4

162

 

Daily

There are no ASRs that would be subject to exceedance of the daily TSP limit under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario.  Therefore, it is not necessary to run the Tier 2 mitigated scenario for daily TSP.

3.6.1.3      Construction Phase Annual Results

The annual results for mitigated and unmitigated scenarios including the background contribution are tabulated in Appendix 3.30  and are also summarised in Table 3.21.  There would be exceedances of the annual TSP limit of 80 µg/m3 under the unmitigated scenario for years 2014 and 2016 only.  However, under the mitigated scenario, no ASRs would exceed the annual TSP limit for any of the assessment years.

The locations of the dust sources are shown in Figures 3.3a to 3.3k. Figures 3.17a to 3.17h and Figures 3.18a to 3.18h show the annual TSP concentration contours for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios, respectively.

Table 3.21:    Summary of Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations for All ASRs (Unmitigated & Mitigated)

Year

Unmitigated Scenario

Range of Maximum Annual TSP  (μg/m3)

[Criterion - 80 µg/m3]

Mitigated Scenario

Range of Maximum Annual TSP  (μg/m3)

[Criterion - 80 µg/m3]

2013

68 - 76

68 - 70

2014

69 - 81

68 - 75

2015

68 - 79

68 - 79

2016

69 - 84

68 - 78

2017

68 - 79

68 - 71

2018

68 - 78

68 - 72

2019

68 - 75

68 - 71

2020

68 - 75

68 - 74

 

3.6.2        Operation Phase – Vehicular and Marine Emissions

The predicted air quality results have included the background pollutant levels as extracted from the PATH model for year 2015 based on the latest released model and the cumulative impacts of the following emissions:

§  Existing and proposed open roads within the 500 m assessment area;

§  Proposed underpasses/landscape decks along the Austin Road West and Lin Cheung Road and the associated top openings under the Road Works at West Kowloon project;

§  Existing WHC portal in the vicinity of the WKCD site;

§  Ventilation exhausts/portals serving the planned underground roads within the WKCD area;

§  Emissions from stationary marine sources at NYPCWA, China Ferry Terminal and Ocean Terminal, and;

§  Fast ferry and tug movements within the 500 m assessment area.

Comparison of the predicted cumulative NO2, RSP and SO2 concentrations and any exceedances for individual ASRs under all modelled scenarios during the worst case year of 2015 (see Sections 3.5.2.3 and 3.5.2.5) can be found in Appendix 3.31.  For the planned ASRs that will only be in operation in or after 2020, however, the modelling results that are based on the worst case year of 2015 with the highest total road traffic emissions would be overly conservative because those planned ASRs are yet to exist in 2015.  As a result, the relevant modelling works for road traffic emissions have been refined for such planned ASRs by adopting the traffic forecast in 2020 and the background concentrations as extracted from the PATH for year 2020 in order to obtain more realistic estimates of the predicted maximum cumulative NO2 levels.  Details of the modelling results using the traffic forecast and background concentrations in 2020 are given in Appendix 3.32.  The contours for cumulative NO2, SO2 and RSP at 1.5m, 12m, 40m, 50m and 60m above ground are shown in Figure 3.19 to Figure 3.93.

According to the modelling results as summarised in Table 3.22, all the ASRs would be in compliance with the corresponding AQOs for daily and annual RSP; for hourly, daily and annual SO2; as well as for hourly, daily and annual NO2.  However, the predicted maximum hourly or daily NO2 concentrations at some of the ASRs would exceed the corresponding AQO for up to once per year, which is within the allowable numbers of exceedance for hourly NO2 (3 times per year) and for daily NO2 (once per year). Details of such hourly and daily NO2 exceedances, together with the breakdown of NO2 contributions due to different sources, are summarised in Table 3.23. 

Table 3.22:    Summary of Predicted Cumulative RSP, SO2 and NO2 Concentrations for All ASRs

Air Pollutant

Averaging Time

AQO (μg/m3)

Allowable Exceedances in a Year

Range of Maximum Concentrations  (μg/m3)

Maximum No. of Exceedance in a Year

RSP

Note (1)

24 hours

180

1

114.5 – 117.7

0

1 year

55

0

42.8 – 51.7

0

SO2

Note (1)

1 hour

800

3

84.7 – 619.1

0

24 hours

350

1

31.5 – 89.0

0

1 year

80

0

7.9 – 16.2

0

NO2

Note (2)

1 hour

300

3

259.7 – 314.9

0 – 1

24 hours

150

1

108.0 – 150.3

0 – 1

1 year

80

0

45.0 – 79.7

0

Notes:

(1)     The predicted SO2 and RSP concentrations for all existing and planned ASRs are based on the traffic forecast during the worst-case year of 2015 and the background concentrations as extracted from the PATH for year 2015.

(2)     The predicted NO2 concentrations for existing ASRs and planned ASRs that will  be in operation before 2020 are based on the traffic forecast during the worst-case year of 2015 and the background concentrations as extracted from the PATH for year 2015 whereas the predicted NO2 concentrations for planned ASRs that will be in operation in/after 2020 have been refined based on the traffic forecast in 2020 and the background concentrations as extracted from the PATH for year 2020.

From Table 3.23, four existing ASRs, namely, WOB-1, VT1-23, SRT-1 and SRT-2, would be subject to exceedance of the AQO for hourly NO2 for once a year, which is, however, below the allowable number of exceedances (3 times per year).   At two planned ASRs, namely, P09-1 and P37-1, the cumulative maximum daily NO2 concentrations would marginally exceed the AQO for daily NO2 by only 0.2 to 0.3 μg/m3 (about 0.1% to 0.2% of the AQO for daily NO2) for once per year, which is still within the allowable number of exceedance under the AQO for daily NO2 (once per year).  Therefore, these four existing ASRs and two planned ASRs would still be in compliance with the AQO for hourly NO2 and daily NO2 respectively.   As noted in Table 3.3, ASRs P09-1 and P37-1 are at 4m above ground level, and are therefore assessment points for reference only but not fresh air intake or openable window locations.

It can also be seen from Table 3.23 that majority (some 78%-81%) of the hourly/daily NO2 concentrations would be from the background concentration and the remaining 19%-22% would be due to nearby marine traffic/vessel plus road traffic emissions. Of these 19%-22% contributions, the percentage contributions from nearby road traffic emissions for the four existing ASRs would be around 6%-12%, which are lower than the corresponding percentages (some 18%-19%) for the two planned ASRs.  As the WKCD Project would only contribute to some road traffic emissions (from the underpass road within WKCD and the flyover across WHC portal), the Project is not the key contributor to the exceedance of hourly or daily NO2 limits (only once in a year) at the six ASRs.

Table 3.23:    Breakdown of Predicted Cumulative NO2 Concentrations by Sources for ASRs with Potential Exceedance

ASR

Height above ground (m)

Description

Maximum Cumulative Hourly/Daily NO2 Concentrations (μg/m3)*

 

Background Contribution

Marine Traffic Contribution

Road Traffic Contribution

Total Concentration#

Hourly NO2 (AQO: 300 μg/m3, not to be exceeded for more than 3 times per year)

WOB-1

6.8

Wing On Building – Block A

Residential

(Existing ASR)

246.2

80.6%

39.6

13.0%

19.6

6.4%

305.4 [1]

VT1-23

8

The Victoria Towers – Tower 1

Residential

(Existing ASR)

246.2

80.3%

41.6

13.6%

18.7

6.1%

306.5 [1]

SRT-1

19

Sorrento – Tower 1

Residential

(Existing ASR)

246.2

78.2%

30.0

9.5%

38.7

12.3%

314.9 [1]

SRT-2

23

246.2

81.1%

29.9

9.8%

27.6

9.1%

303.7 [1]

Daily NO2 (AQO: 150 μg/m3, not to be exceeded for more than once per year)

P09-1

4

Office/ Residential  (Planned from 2017 onwards)

118.9

79.1%

2.2

1.5%

29.2

19.4%

150.3 [1]

P37-1

4

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment

(Planned from 2017 onwards)

118.9

79.2%

3.7

2.5%

27.6

18.4%

150.2 [1]

*Percentages in shaded cells represent the percentage share of the total concentrations.

#Numbers in bracket refer to the numbers of exceedance per year.

As explained in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, majority of the vehicular emission sources and all marine emission sources are due to respectively the nearby current/planned road networks serving the West Kowloon area and the existing marine activities in the surrounding waters, but not due to the WKCD development itself.  To illustrate this, breakdown of the predicted maximum hourly NO2 contributions due to different sources has been identified at a number of selected ASRs during the worst case year of 2015, as presented in Table 3.24.   These selected ASRs cover existing ASRs close to but outside the WKCD boundary and planned ASRs representing the various types of future developments (to be operated before 2020) scattering within the entire WKCD area.   It can be seen from the Table that 88%-100% of NO2 contributions would be due to the background concentration plus the surrounding marine traffic emissions, with 12% or less from the nearby road traffic emissions.  As the WKCD Project would only result in some road traffic emissions (from the underpass road within WKCD and the flyover across WHC portal), WKCD itself would have very minor contribution to the predicted air quality impacts at the ASRs.   

Table 3.24:    Breakdown of Predicted Cumulative Hourly NO2 Concentrations by Sources for Selected ASRs (for the Worst Case Year of 2015)

ASR

Height above ground (m)

Description

Maximum Cumulative Hourly NO2 Concentrations (μg/m3)*

(AQO: 300 μg/m3, not to be exceeded for more than 3 times per year)

 

Background Contribution

Marine Traffic Contribution

Road Traffic Contribution

Total Concentration#

WOB-1

6.8

Wing On Building – Block A

Residential

(Existing ASR)

246.2

80.6%

39.6

13.0%

19.6

6.4%

305.4 [1]

VT1-23

8

The Victoria Towers – Tower 1

Residential

(Existing ASR)

246.2

80.3%

41.6

13.6%

18.7

6.1%

306.5 [1]

SRT-1

19

Sorrento – Tower 1

Residential

(Existing ASR)

246.2

78.2%

30.0

9.5%

38.7

12.3%

314.9 [1]

SRT-2

23

246.2

81.1%

29.9

9.8%

27.6

9.1%

303.7 [1]

P01a-1

4

Planned performance art venue

(Planned ASR from 2015 onwards)

 

246.2

86.0%

40.0

14.0%

0.1

0.0%

286.3

P01a-3

12

246.2

86.1%

39.9

13.9%

0.0

0.0%

286.1

P01a-5

20

246.2

86.1%

39.7

13.9%

0.0

0.0%

285.9

P01a-7

40

246.2

87.5%

35.2

12.5%

0.0

0.0%

281.4

P09-1

4

Office/ Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

246.2

87.3%

35.9

12.7%

0.0

0.0%

282.1

P09-3

12

246.2

87.5%

35.2

12.5%

0.0

0.0%

281.4

P09-5

20

246.2

87.9%

33.8

12.1%

0.0

0.0%

280.0

P09-7

40

277.2

99.2%

2.2

0.8%

0.0

0.0%

279.4

P10-1

4

Office + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

246.2

85.8%

40.9

14.2%

0.0

0.0%

287.1

P10-3

12

246.2

85.8%

40.8

14.2%

0.0

0.0%

287.0

P10-5

20

246.2

85.9%

40.5

14.1%

0.0

0.0%

286.7

P10-8

50

246.2

88.1%

33.4

11.9%

0.0

0.0%

279.6

P16-1

4

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

277.2

99.4%

1.8

0.6%

0.0

0.0%

279.0

P16-3

12

277.2

99.4%

1.7

0.6%

0.0

0.0%

278.9

P16-5

20

277.2

99.4%

1.7

0.6%

0.0

0.0%

278.9

P16-8

50

277.2

99.5%

1.3

0.5%

0.0

0.0%

278.5

P29-1

4

Office + Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment

Residential

(Planned ASR from 2018 onwards)

277.2

99.8%

0.5

0.2%

0.1

0.0%

277.8

P29-3

12

277.2

99.8%

0.5

0.2%

0.0

0.0%

277.7

P29-5

20

277.2

99.8%

0.5

0.2%

0.0

0.0%

277.7

P29-10

70

277.2

99.9%

0.4

0.1%

0.0

0.0%

277.6

P35c-1

4

Planned performance art venue

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

277.2

99.6%

1.1

0.4%

0.0

0.0%

278.3

P35c-3

12

277.2

99.6%

1.1

0.4%

0.0

0.0%

278.3

P35c-5

20

277.2

99.6%

1.1

0.4%

0.0

0.0%

278.3

P37-1

4

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

246.2

88.1%

6.7

2.4%

26.6

9.5%

279.5

P37-3

12

277.2

99.6%

0.1

0.0%

1.0

0.4%

278.3

P37-5

20

277.2

99.7%

0.1

0.0%

0.8

0.3%

278.1

P37-10

70

277.2

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

277.2

P51-1

4

Freespace

(Planned ASR from 2016 onwards)

277.2

99.9%

0.2

0.1%

0.0

0.0%

277.4

P51-3

12

277.2

99.9%

0.2

0.1%

0.0

0.0%

277.4

P51-5

20

277.2

99.9%

0.2

0.1%

0.0

0.0%

277.4

P52-1

4

Pavilion

(Planned ASR from 2016 onwards)

277.2

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

277.2

P52-3

12

277.2

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

277.2

P52-5

20

277.2

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

277.2

OP

1.5

Open Space

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

277.2

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

277.2

*Percentages in shaded cells represent the percentage share of the total concentrations.

#Numbers in bracket refer to the numbers of exceedance per year.

To illustrate the predicted air quality impacts in 2020, breakdown of the predicted maximum hourly NO2 contributions due to different sources has also been identified by adopting the traffic forecast and background concentrations for the year of 2020 at selected ASRs, as presented in Table 3.25.   The selected ASRs cover existing ASRs close to but outside the WKCD boundary and planned ASRs representing the future developments within WKCD, particularly those in the vicinity of the WHC portal.   It can be seen from the Table that 73%-100% of NO2 contributions would be due to the background concentration plus the surrounding marine traffic emissions, with 27% or less from the nearby road traffic emissions.   The NO2 contributions from nearby road traffic for P43d and P43e at not more than 12m above ground (21%-27%) are much higher than those for other ASRs (0.0%-8.9%), chiefly because of their proximity to the WHC portal. Another observation is that the cumulative maximum hourly NO2 concentrations of the existing ASRs in 2020 would be considerably lower than those in 2015 (i.e., Table 3.24), indicating an appreciable extent of improvement in air quality from 2015 to 2020.

Table 3.25:    Breakdown of Predicted Cumulative Hourly NO2 Concentrations by Sources for Selected ASRs (for Year 2020)

ASR

Height above ground (m)

Description

Maximum Cumulative Hourly NO2 Concentrations (μg/m3)*

(AQO: 300 μg/m3, not to be exceeded for more than 3 times per year)

 

Background Contribution

Marine Traffic Contribution

Road Traffic Contribution

Total Concentration

WOB-1

6.8

Wing On Building – Block A

Residential

(Existing ASR)

259.7

97.1%

4.9

1.8%

2.9

1.1%

267.5

VT1-23

8

The Victoria Towers – Tower 1

Residential

(Existing ASR)

214.5

74.5%

61.7

21.4%

11.7

4.1%

287.9

SRT-1

19

Sorrento – Tower 1

Residential

(Existing ASR)

214.5

79.9%

30.0

11.2%

23.8

8.9%

268.3

SRT-2

23

259.7

98.8%

0.0

0.0%

3.1

1.2%

262.8

P37-1

4

Retail/ Dining/ Entertainment

(Planned ASR from 2017 onwards)

259.7

98.8%

0.1

0.0%

3.0

1.1%

262.8

P37-3

12

259.7

98.9%

0.1

0.0%

2.7

1.0%

262.5

P37-5

20

259.7

99.0%

0.1

0.0%

2.4

0.9%

262.2

P37-10

70

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P39-1

4

Office + Planned

performance art venues

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

259.7

99.0%

0.1

0.0%

2.6

1.0%

262.4

P39-3

12

259.7

99.4%

0.1

0.0%

1.5

0.6%

261.3

P39-5

20

259.7

99.7%

0.1

0.0%

0.7

0.3%

260.5

P39-10

70

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43a-1

4

Hotel + Retail/ Dining/

Entertainment

(Planned ASR from 2020 onwards)

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43a-3

12

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43a-4

16

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43b-1

4

Ditto

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43b-3

12

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43b-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43c-1

4

Ditto

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43c-3

12

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43c-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43d-1

4

Ditto

202.8

72.6%

2.7

1.0%

73.9

26.4%

279.4

P43d-3

12

202.8

77.3%

2.7

1.0%

56.7

21.6%

262.2

P43d-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43d-7

40

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43e-1

4

Ditto

202.8

72.2%

3.2

1.1%

74.9

26.7%

280.9

P43e-3

12

202.8

77.5%

3.2

1.2%

55.8

21.3%

261.8

P43e-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43e-8

50

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43f-1

4

Ditto

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43f-3

12

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43f-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43f-8

50

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43g-1

4

Ditto

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43g-3

12

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43g-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43g-7

40

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43h-1

4

Ditto

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.1

0.0%

259.8

P43h-3

12

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.1

0.0%

259.8

P43h-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43h-7

40

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43i-1

4

Ditto

259.7

99.9%

0.0

0.0%

0.2

0.1%

259.9

P43i-3

12

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.1

0.0%

259.8

P43i-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43i-6

30

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.0

0.0%

259.7

P43j-1

4

Ditto

259.7

99.9%

0.0

0.0%

0.3

0.1%

260.0

P43j-3

12

259.7

99.9%

0.0

0.0%

0.2

0.1%

259.9

P43j-5

20

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.1

0.0%

259.8

P43k-1

4

Ditto

259.7

99.9%

0.0

0.0%

0.3

0.1%

260.0

P43k-3

12

259.7

99.9%

0.0

0.0%

0.2

0.1%

259.9

P43k-4

16

259.7

100.0%

0.0

0.0%

0.1

0.0%

259.8

*Percentages in shaded cells represent the percentage share of the total concentrations.

 

3.6.3        Operation Phase – Odour Emissions

3.6.3.1      Odour Patrol Results

The odour patrol was carried out in March 2011 by the HOKLAS accredited laboratory. According to the odour patrol results (as detailed in Appendix 3.26a), malodour was only detected surrounding the watercourse boundary of northern portion of NYMTTS, i.e., along the route from P2 to P3 in Figure 1 in Appendix 3.26a, whereas no malodour was found along the patrol route from P1 to P2 including the adjoining boundary between NYMTTS and WKCD site. During the on-site measurement and odour sampling, calm wind conditions were recorded, which is generally an unfavourable condition for atmospheric dispersion or dilution of air pollutants including odour. Therefore, the malodour detected at various locations along NYMTTS boundary, particularly locations C and F as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix 3.26a, during the odour patrol would likely be due to odour episode from their immediate vicinity, i.e., the two box culvert outfalls as shown in Figure 3.9.

The odour patrol result is consistent with the records of odour complaint against NYMTTS received by EPD from 2006 to 2013 (up to April 2013), during which a total of six odour complaints were received. All the complainants were located around the northern portion of NYMTTS.

3.6.3.2      Odour Source Monitoring Results

Odour Emission Rates

The Odour Emission Rate (OER) estimated for individual grids of NYMTTS based on the odour source monitoring results in August 2012 as well as the odour review results in February and March 2013 are summarised in Table 3.26.  The odour source monitoring and review results are given in Appendix 3.26b, while details of the estimated OERs are documented in Appendix 3.26c.  It can be seen from the Table 3.26 that relatively higher OERs and sewage/rotten egg odour are found in the grids in vicinity of the two box culvert outfalls as shown in Figures 3.9, which are identified as the major source of odour from NYMTTS. Inflammable material odour was detected at some of the grids.  Elevated OERs associated with sewage odour are consistently associated with high H2S level indicating that the odour would mainly be from anaerobic decomposition of organic matters discharged into NYMTTS.

The odour identified for grids 1-4, 6, 11-12, 17-18 and 26 was perceived as sea water odour with a hedonic tone of zero (i.e., neutral or no odour), which is of the same odour quality at the two control stations. An odour with a hedonic tone of zero is considered to be neutral and neither pleasant nor offensive.

The aforementioned OER values are calculated from low tide, typical hot day emission rates and have been assumed to occur for the entire hour, for every hour for the whole modelling period, i.e., 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.

Odours from different sources can undergo various phenomena, one of which is masking, whereby the presence of one odour can disguise, or mask, the presence of a second. Different odorants may also interact. This can cause interactive or ‘synergistic’ effects, such that the sum of the odorants may be either greater than or less than the intensity of the odour components. In practice, odours from significantly different sources and with different characters are usually neither additive nor synergistic, but instead one source tends to dominate, or mask, the presence of the other.

Dispersion models assume a conservation of mass of contaminants, that is the odour intensity of a mixture of two different odorous sources are considered to be additive. Odour modelling is not able to predict synergistic or masking effects, and to that effect, modelling a pleasant and offensive odour source in parallel would produce one overall ‘odour’ intensity, which would not be representative of, the different hedonic tones of the individual odours, the relative decrease in intensity of the individual odours or the potential for one odour to mask the other.

Sea-water has a neutral tone and is generally considered to be non-offensive, and is assumed to be masked by the offensive odour (e.g., sewage/rotten egg odour), however as Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM does not allow for a differentiation between the types of odours, the emissions for all grids have been modelled in parallel.

Table 3.26               Estimated Odour Emission Rates for NYMTTS

Grid No.

Estimated OER (ou/m2/s)

On-site Ambient H2S Concentration (ppm)

Odour Quality [Median Hedonic Tone]

1

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

2

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

3

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

4

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

5

0.997

0.153

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg [-2]

6

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

7

1.322

1.367

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg [-4]

8

0.130

0.022

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg, Seawater [-1]

9

0.205

0.563

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg [-3]

10

0.093

0.117

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg [-1]

11

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

12

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

13

0.520

0.004

Inflammable materials odour [-1]

14

0.033

0.018

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg, Seawater [-1]

15

0.032

<0.003

Inflammable materials odour [-1]

16

0.032

<0.003

Inflammable materials odour [-1]

17

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

18

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

19

0.032

<0.003

Inflammable materials odour [-1]

20

0.175

0.063

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg, Seawater [-1]

21

0.148

0.040

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg, Seawater [-1]

22

0.228

0.433

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg, Seawater [-2]

23

0.830

0.397

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg [-2]

24

0.071

0.038

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg, Seawater [-1]

25

0.032

0.004

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg, Seawater [-1]

26

0.160

<0.003

Sea water [0]

27

0.052

0.006

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg, Seawater [-1]

28

0.113

0.403

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg [-2]

29

1.129

0.983

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg [-3]

30

2.702

1.267

Sewage/Sewage odour - Rotten egg [-4]

Control 1

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

Control 2

0.032

<0.003

Sea water [0]

Note:    Shaded cells indicate the grids with relatively higher OER values and hydrogen sulfide levels.

Major Odour Source

A multi-dimensional analysis of the odour profile from the NYMTTS was performed to determine the major source of odour. As such, the odour concentrations were determined from air-bound, water-bound and sediment-bound sources. The various contributions were normalised against the air-bound odour concentrations. It was found that majority of the odour would be contributed from water and minority from sediment. Unlike other locations that were found to have odour problems such as Kai Tak Nullah and Shing Mun River, the major odour source for NYMTTS is not from its sediment. In other words, the malodour emissions from NYMTTS would mainly be water-bound odour. More information can be found in Appendix 3.26b.

3.6.3.3      Odour Modelling Results

Based on the OERs as presented in Appendix 3.34, the ten scenarios as detailed in Section 3.5.5.5 have been modelled to predict the odour impacts on the planned ASRs within WKCD (see Figure 3.1b). The predicted maximum odour concentrations and numbers of exceedance over the odour criterion (5 ou/m3) for the various scenarios are summarised in Table 3.27.  In the Table, the ASRs are grouped as residential ASRs and non-residential ASRs.  The former refer to those that have been planned for residential use whereas the latter refer to those that have been planned for such non-residential uses as offices, retails, hotels, performance venues, open space, etc.  In other words, most of the non-residential ASRs represent potential fresh air intake locations for such developments, with some representing open space. Full tabular odour modelling results can be found in Appendix 3.35. 

The contours of 5-second odour concentrations within the WKCD site under the ten scenarios are shown in Figures 3.94 to 3.103.

Table 3.27     Summary of Odour modelling Results

 

Current Scenario

Mitigated Scenario A for Different Ratios*

Mitigated Scenario B for Different Ratios*

Back-ground Scenario

 

1:1

1:0.75

1:0.5

1:0.25

1:1

1:0.75

1:0.5

1:0.25

Residential

No. of ASR exceeding 5 ou/m3

22

2

7

12

17

20

20

21

21

0

Total no. of ASR assessed

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

65

Range of predicted maximum odour concentration (ou/m3)

2.6 – 9.1

1.5 – 5.1

1.9 – 6.3

2.1 – 7.3

2.4 – 8.2

2.2 – 8.1

2.4 – 8.5

2.4 – 8.7

2.5 – 8.9

0.6 – 2.0

Predicted maximum no. of exceedance in a year#

33  [0.4%]

6 [0.1%]

18 [0.2%]

27 [0.3%]

32 [0.4%]

28 [0.3%]

28 [0.3%]

29 [0.3%]

33 [0.4%]

0 [0%]

Non-Residential

ASR exceeding 5 ou/m3

355

60

190

260

310

330

338

343

351

0

Total no. of ASR assessed

473

473

473

473

473

473

473

473

473

473

Range of predicted maximum odour concentration (ou/m3)

2.2 – 13.7

1.2 – 8.5

1.5 – 9.8

1.7 – 11.1

1.9 – 12.4

1.7 – 13.7

1.8 – 13.7

1.9 – 13.7

2.1 – 13.7

0.6 – 4.0

Predicted maximum no. of exceedance in a year#

218 [2.5%]

76 [0.9%]

99 [1.1%]

136 [1.6%]

187 [2.1%]

190 [2.2%]

199 [2.3%]

205 [2.3%]

213 [2.4%]

0 [0%]

*Ratios of reduction in effluent discharges or organic matters entering NYMTTS to reduction in water-bound odour emissions.

#Percentages inside bracket represent the % of hours with exceedance in a year.

The background model represents the odour emitted from NYMTTS and the surrounding 500 m of seawater should foul water not enter from the box culverts. The background values are considered to be the lowest possible odour level achievable at the receivers. The background odour scenario modelling results shows a range of 0.6 to 2.0 ou/m3 for residential ASRs and 0.6 to 4.0 ou/m3 for non-residential ASRs. The receivers modelled show that no residential or non-residential ASRs are expected to exceed the 5 ou/m3 criterion.

During the current odour scenario, the predicted maximum results indicate exceedance of the odour criterion of 5 ou/m3 at 22 of the 65 residential receivers and 355 of the 473 non-residential receivers. The range of odour concentrations is from 2.6 to 9.1 ou/m3 for residential receivers and from 2.2 to 13.7 ou/m3 for non-residential receivers. Residential ASRs are expected to exceed the criterion for up to 33 hours per year (or up to 0.4% of the time in a year) and non-residential ASRs for up to 218 hours per year (or up to 2.5% of the time in a year). The values represent a hypothetical worst case scenario where odour from NYMTTS was assumed to be continuously released throughout every day at the same rates as the OERs that were obtained during the sampling on hot summer days.  

The odour patrol results and odour monitoring results have identified that odour emission from NYMTTS is mainly due to discharge from the two box culverts. If the amount of such effluent discharge entering the stormwater system decreases, which ultimately is released into NYMTTS, the water-bound malodour is expected to decrease, and therefore the OER from the NYMTTS would be expected to reduce (Section 3.7.3.1).

The modelling results of mitigated scenario A (reduction of effluent discharge from both Cherry Street and Jordon Road Box Culverts) show that 2 to 17 of the 65 planned residential ASRs are expected to exceed the 5 ou/m3 criterion, and their odour concentrations range from 1.5 to 8.2 ou/m3.  For non-residential ASRs, 60 to 310 of the 473 planned receivers are expected to exceed the odour criterion, and their odour concentrations range from 1.2 to 12.4 ou/m3. Residential ASRs are expected to exceed the criterion for up to 32 hours per year (or up to 0.4% of the time in a year) and non-residential ASRs for up to 187 hours per year (or up to 2.1% of the time in a year).

For the mitigated scenario B (reduction of effluent discharge from only the Cherry Street Box Culvert), the modelling results show that 20 to 21 of the 65 planned residential ASRs are expected to exceed the 5 ou/m3 criterion, and their odour concentrations range from 2.2 to 8.9 ou/m3.  For non-residential ASRs, 330 to 351 of the 473 planned receivers are expected to exceed the odour criterion, and their concentrations range from 1.7 to 13.7 ou/m3. Residential ASRs are expected to exceed the criterion for up to 33 hours per year (or up to 0.4% of the time in a year) and non-residential ASRs for up to 213 hours per year (or up to 2.4% of the time in a year).

The mitigated odour results show decreases in the predicted odour impacts when the Dry Weather Flow Interceptors (DWFI) upstream of NYMTTS are improved to achieve an interception efficiency of 80%, as discussed in Section 3.7.3.1 and Appendix 3.34.   As expected, the mitigated scenario A would generally result in lower odour impacts that the mitigated scenario B.  However, the extent of odour impact reduction would depend on the level of reduction in water-bound odour emission that could be achieved by reducing the organic matters entering the NYMTTS. 

It should be noted that the odour modelling results are considered conservative for a number of reasons as follows:

·             It is expected odour emissions from NYMTTS in night time or non-summer months would be smaller due to lower sea temperatures and hence slower rate of odour release from anaerobic digestion and fermentation of organic matters and therefore the actual rate of exceedance during the current or mitigated scenarios would be lower than the model results.  According to the “Baseline Odour Sampling Report – Executive Summary” completed for the Kai Tak Development project, odour monitoring was carried out to determine the baseline odour emissions from the water surface of the Kai Tak Approach Channel (KTAC) in March 2010 , August 2010 and February 2011 before any implementation of the improvement works.  The OERs obtained in the three months showed substantial seasonal variations.  In particular, the OERs obtained at two sampling locations at northern KTAC in March 2010 and February 2011 (non-summer months) were roughly 7% to 20% of the OERs measured in August 2010 (a summer month);

·             The odour complaints in the previous 7 years as shown in Table 3.8 are low, which also suggests a considerable amount of conservatism within the modelling results, therefore the actual rate of exceedance during the current scenario is expected to be lower than the model results; and

·             Variation in the odour emission rate could be expected due to tidal variation, that is, at high tide the water available for dilution of the stormwater is increased, which would be expected to dilute the odour emission rate. A variation in the OER would also be expected during rainfall periods, due to the dilution and mixing of the stormwater, therefore the actual rate of exceedance during the current scenario would be lower than the model results.

To facilitate further analysis of the modelling results, Table 3.28 to Table 3.30 show the predicted maximum odour concentrations and numbers of exceedance during day-time and night-time of individual months under the current scenario, mitigated scenario A and mitigated scenario B.  It can be seen from the Tables that exceedance of the odour criterion would not occur at any residential ASRs during day-time throughout a year, but would only occasionally happen during night-time (not more than 0.7% of the time in a month).  It should be noted that the OERs at night-time would be lower than those at day-time due to the generally cooler water at night, and hence the odour exceedance at night-time is expected to be even lower than the predicted values in the Tables.  

For non-residential ASRs, there would only be occasional exceedance of the odour criterion at day-time in January, October and December only (not more than 0.8% of the time in a month). While the predicted maximum odour exceedance percentages for non-residential ASRs during the night-time in February, March, April, October, November and December appear to be relatively higher than those in other months, these months are not in summer with generally lower water temperatures.   Therefore, it is anticipated that the odour concentrations or exceedance percentages for the non-residential ASRs in these non-summer months would be lower than the predicted values in Table 3.28 to Table 3.30.

While the mitigated odour modelling results show a number of ASRs to be in exceedance of the 5 ou/m3 criterion, it is important to note that WKCD does not contribute to the odour emitted from NYMTTS.

Table 3.28  Breakdown of Odour modelling Results under Current Scenario

Month

Predicted maximum odour concentration (ou/m3)

Predicted maximum no. of exceedance in a month(3)

 

Residential ASRs

Non-residential ASRs

Residential ASRs

Non-residential ASRs

 

Day-time(1)

Night-time(2)

Day-time

Night-time

Day-time

Night-time

Day-time

Night-time

Jan

1.9

7.2

5.7

9.3

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

1 [0.1%]

8 [1.1%]

Feb

2.3

8.6

4.1

13.7

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

16 [2.4%]

Mar

1.5

7.6

3.2

13.7

0 [0.0%]

2 [0.3%]

0 [0.0%]

19 [2.6%]

Apr

0.7

9.0

3.9

13.2

0 [0.0%]

2 [0.3%]

0 [0.0%]

21 [2.9%]

May

1.3

9.1

3.2

11.9

0 [0.0%]

4 [0.5%]

0 [0.0%]

9 [1.2%]

Jun

2.7

9.0

2.8

10.6

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

Jul

0.6

9.1

1.3

11.3

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

0 [0.0%]

6 [0.8%]

Aug

2.6

8.5

4.2

11.6

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

15 [2.0%]

Sep

2.3

9.1

3.4

13.7

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

0 [0.0%]

18 [2.5%]

Oct

1.7

5.9

5.8

12.3

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

3 [0.4%]

31 [4.2%]

Nov

2.7

9.1

3.8

13.6

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

17 [2.4%]

Dec

2.8

8.7

11.9

13.7

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

6 [0.8%]

43 [5.8%]

Notes:      (1) Day-time means 7am to 7pm.

·                   (2) Night-time means 7pm to 7am.

(3) Percentages inside bracket represent the % of hours with exceedance in a month.

·                   (4) Shaded cells represent results during summer months.

Table 3.29  Breakdown of Odour modelling Results under Mitigated Scenario A

Month

Predicted maximum odour concentration (ou/m3)

Predicted maximum no. of exceedance in a month(3)

 

Residential ASRs

Non-residential ASRs

Residential ASRs

Non-residential ASRs

 

Day-time(1)

Night-time(2)

Day-time

Night-time

Day-time

Night-time

Day-time

Night-time

Jan

1.7

6.5

5.2

8.4

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

1 [0.1%]

8 [1.1%]

Feb

2.1

7.7

3.7

12.4

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

16 [2.4%]

Mar

1.3

6.8

2.9

12.4

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

0 [0.0%]

17 [2.3%]

Apr

0.6

8.1

3.6

12.0

0 [0.0%]

2 [0.3%]

0 [0.0%]

18 [2.5%]

May

1.2

8.1

2.9

10.9

0 [0.0%]

4 [0.5%]

0 [0.0%]

8 [1.1%]

Jun

2.4

8.1

2.6

9.5

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

Jul

0.6

8.2

1.3

10.1

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

Aug

2.4

7.7

3.8

10.7

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

12 [1.6%]

Sep

2.1

8.2

3.1

12.4

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

0 [0.0%]

14 [1.9%]

Oct

1.6

5.3

5.3

11.2

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

2 [0.3%]

20 [2.7%]

Nov

2.4

8.2

3.5

12.3

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

15 [2.1%]

Dec

2.5

7.8

10.8

12.4

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

6 [0.8%]

40 [5.4%]

Notes:      (1) Day-time means 7am to 7pm.

·                   (2) Night-time means 7pm to 7am.

(3) Percentages inside bracket represent the % of hours with exceedance in a month.

·                   (4) Shaded cells represent results during summer months.

Table 3.30  Breakdown of Odour modelling Results under Mitigated Scenario B

Month

Predicted maximum odour concentration (ou/m3)

Predicted maximum no. of exceedance in a month(3)

 

Residential ASRs

Non-residential ASRs

Residential ASRs

Non-residential ASRs

 

Day-time(1)

Night-time(2)

Day-time

Night-time

Day-time

Night-time

Day-time

Night-time

Jan

1.8

7.1

5.7

9.2

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

1 [0.1%]

8 [1.1%]

Feb

2.3

8.4

4.0

13.7

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

16 [2.4%]

Mar

1.4

7.4

3.2

13.7

0 [0.0%]

2 [0.3%]

0 [0.0%]

19 [2.6%]

Apr

0.7

8.7

3.8

13.1

0 [0.0%]

2 [0.3%]

0 [0.0%]

20 [2.8%]

May

1.3

8.8

3.1

11.7

0 [0.0%]

4 [0.5%]

0 [0.0%]

9 [1.2%]

Jun

2.6

8.8

2.7

10.3

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

Jul

0.6

8.9

1.3

11.0

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

0 [0.0%]

6 [0.8%]

Aug

2.6

8.4

4.1

11.2

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

15 [2.0%]

Sep

2.2

8.9

3.4

13.7

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

0 [0.0%]

17 [2.4%]

Oct

1.7

5.8

5.7

12.2

0 [0.0%]

1 [0.1%]

3 [0.4%]

30 [4.0%]

Nov

2.6

8.9

3.8

13.6

0 [0.0%]

3 [0.4%]

0 [0.0%]

16 [2.2%]

Dec

2.7

8.6

11.6

13.7

0 [0.0%]

5 [0.7%]

6 [0.8%]

42 [5.6%]

Notes:      (1) Day-time means 7am to 7pm.

·                   (2) Night-time means 7pm to 7am.

(3) Percentages inside bracket represent the % of hours with exceedance in a month.

·                   (4) Shaded cells represent results during summer months.

3.6.3.4      Optional Waste Facilities

Should the optional automatic waste collection facility be adopted for the WKCD Project, such facility will be located at basement levels to avoid any potential odour issues. In addition, the following odour containment and control measures, where necessary, will be provided:

·             The waste facilities will be totally enclosed. Negative pressure ventilation will be provided within the enclosures to avoid any fugitive odorous emission from the facilities. In addition, any waste storage tanks will be connected to deodorisation facilities directly to eliminate the odour problem.

·             Air inside the enclosures will be collected by air handling equipment for containing and directing odorous gases to deodorisation facilities.

·             Deodorisation facilities by chemical, biological or physical methods (e.g. adsorption by activated carbon) with a minimum odour removal efficiency of 95% will be provided to treat potential odorous emissions from the facilities so as to minimise any potential odour impact to the nearby ASRs.

With the proper locations of the optional waste facility and the above odour containment and control measures in place to substantially confine and reduce the potential odour emissions at sources, it is anticipated that there would not be significant odour impact on the nearby ASRs.

 

3.7          Mitigation Measures

3.7.1        Construction Phase

3.7.1.1      General Dust Control Measures

To ensure compliance with the TSP criteria during the construction phase, the relevant requirements stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2(93) as well as the good practices for dust control should be implemented to reduce the dust impact. The dust control measures are detailed as follows:

Dust emissions could be suppressed by regular water spraying on site. In general, water spraying twice a day could reduce dust emission from active construction area by 50%. However, for this WKCD Project, more frequent water spraying, i.e., 12 times a day or once every hour, is required for heavy construction activities at all active works area in order to achieve a higher dust suppression efficiency of 91.7% to reduce the dust impacts to acceptable levels. A watering intensity of 3.75 L/m2, 12 times a day or once every hour, is predicted to achieve 91.7% dust suppression efficiency. Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix 3.8. Heavy construction activities include construction of roads, drilling, ground excavation, cut and fill operations (i.e., earth moving), etc.

3.7.1.2      Best Practices for Dust Control

In addition to implementing the recommended dust control measures mentioned above, it is recommended that the relevant best practices for dust control as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation should also be adopted to further reduce the construction dust impacts of the Project. These best practices include:

Good Site Management

·             Good site management is important to help reducing potential air quality impact down to an acceptable level. As a general guide, the Contractor should maintain high standard of housekeeping to prevent emission of fugitive dust. Loading, unloading, handling and storage of raw materials, wastes or by-products should be carried out in a manner so as to minimise the release of visible dust emission. Any piles of materials accumulated on or around the work areas should be cleaned up regularly. Cleaning, repair and maintenance of all plant facilities within the work areas should be carried out in a manner minimising generation of fugitive dust emissions. The material should be handled properly to prevent fugitive dust emission before cleaning.

Disturbed Parts of the Roads

·             Each and every main temporary access should be paved with concrete, bituminous hardcore materials or metal plates and kept clear of dusty materials; or

·             Unpaved parts of the road should be sprayed with water or a dust suppression chemical so as to keep the entire road surface wet.

Exposed Earth

·             Exposed earth should be properly treated by compaction, hydroseeding, vegetation planting or seating with latex, vinyl, bitumen within six months after the last construction activity on the site or part of the site where the exposed earth lies.

Loading, Unloading or Transfer of Dusty Materials

·             All dusty materials should be sprayed with water immediately prior to any loading or transfer operation so as to keep the dusty material wet.

Debris Handling

·             Any debris should be covered entirely by impervious sheeting or stored in a debris collection area sheltered on the top and the three sides.

·             Before debris is dumped into a chute, water should be sprayed so that it remains wet when it is dumped.

Transport of Dusty Materials

·             Vehicle used for transporting dusty materials/spoils should be covered with tarpaulin or similar material. The cover should extend over the edges of the sides and tailboards.

Wheel washing

·             Vehicle wheel washing facilities should be provided at each construction site exit. Immediately before leaving the construction site, every vehicle should be washed to remove any dusty materials from its body and wheels.

Use of vehicles

·             The speed of the trucks within the site should be controlled to about 10km/hour in order to reduce adverse dust impacts and secure the safe movement around the site.

·             Immediately before leaving the construction site, every vehicle should be washed to remove any dusty materials from its body and wheels.

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

Site hoarding

·             Where a site boundary adjoins a road, street, service lane or other area accessible to the public, hoarding of not less than 2.4m high from ground level should be provided along the entire length of that portion of the site boundary except for a site entrance or exit.

3.7.1.3      Best Practices for Concrete Batching Plant

It is recommended that the relevant best practices for dust control as stipulated in the Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2 should also be adopted to further reduce the construction dust impacts of the Project. These include:

Exhaust from Dust Arrestment Plant

·             Wherever possible the final discharge point from particulate matter arrestment plant, where is not necessary to achieve dispersion from residual pollutants, should be at low level to minimise the effect on the local community in the case of abnormal emissions and to facilitate maintenance and inspection

Emission Limits

·             All emissions to air, other than steam or water vapour, shall be colourless and free from persistent mist or smoke

Engineering Design/Technical Requirements

·             As a general guidance, the loading, unloading, handling and storage of fuel, raw materials, products, wastes or by-products should be carried out in a manner so as to prevent the release of visible dust and/or other noxious or offensive emissions

Detailed mitigation methods and guidance can be found in the stand-alone EM&A Manual.

3.7.2        Operation Phase – Vehicular and Marine Emissions

Since it has been assessed that all the ASRs would be in compliance with all the relevant AQOs for SO2, NO2 and RSP, no mitigation measures for vehicular or marine traffic emissions are required during the operation phase.

 

3.7.3        Operation Phase – Odour Emissions

3.7.3.1      New Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter

Based on the odour source monitoring and review results, it has been ascertained that malodour emissions from NYMTTS are localised at the areas in the vicinity of outfalls from the Cherry Street and Jordon Road Box Culverts and are mainly due to effluent discharges from these two Box Culverts.  As a result, the most effective way to mitigate the malodour emissions is to stop or prevent the effluent discharges from entering the NYMTTS via the two Box Culverts.  For this, a review of the government’s existing and planned measures to improve the water quality of NYMTTS was carried out and the review results are presented in Appendix 3.36.  [MCD4] 

According to the review, the following current measures relevant to NYMTTS have been implemented:

·             Installation of dry weather flow interceptors (DWFI) in the stormwater drainage system along the upstream area of NYMTTS;

·             Regular inspection by EPD to identify and rectify any misconnections of private building sewers to stormwater drains to avoid discharge of foul water into the NYMTTS, and;

·             Regular monitoring of silt levels and desilting for the box culverts that discharge into the NYMTTS by DSD.

In addition, the measures to improve the interception of effluent discharge into the NYMTTS via the two Box Culverts are at the planning stage.  It is recommended to implement these improvement measures in order to mitigate the odour emissions from NYMTTS as detailed below.

Installation of New DWFI for Cherry Street Box Culvert

As detailed in Appendix 3.33, there are three existing DWFIs upstream of the Cherry Street Box Culvert, and their interception efficiencies were found to be in the range of 0.9% to 48.6%.

It has been recommended as one of the short term measures in the EPD Feasibility Study, 2010[7] to improve the existing DWFIs.  According to the information provided by DSD, the upgrading works for the three existing DWFIs upstream of the Cherry Street Box Culvert are included in the project titled “Upgrading of West Kowloon and Tsuen Wan Sewerage”.  Subject to successful bid for funding, the construction works of the project are scheduled for commencement in 2016 and completion in end 2023. 

DSD has engaged consultants to conduct an assignment entitled “Agreement No. CE 1/2012 (DS) Construction of Dry Weather Flow Interceptor at Cherry Street Box Culvert and Other Works – Investigation, Design and Construction”, which involves, among other things, the investigation and design of a new DWFI at the outlet of the Cherry Street Box Culvert (see Figure 1 in Appendix 3.36).  Based on the information provided by DSD, the consultancy commenced in end August 2012 and subject to successful bid for funding in 2013, the construction work is scheduled to start in early 2014 for completion in second half of 2018.

With the existing DWFIs upgraded and the new DWFI installed, it is anticipated that the efficiency of intercepting effluent discharge into NYMTTS via the Cherry Street Box Culvert can be improved to 80%.  As a result, the amount of effluent discharge entering NYMTTS would be reduced by 80%, which would result in reducing the water-bound odour emissions (see Appendix 3.34) from areas in the vicinity of the Box Culvert.  Details of the assumptions and estimation are given in Appendix 3.33. 

Upgrading/Improvement of Existing DWFIs Upstream of Jordan Road Box Culvert

As detailed in Appendix 3.33, there are two existing DWFIs upstream of the Jordan Road Box Culvert that have been recommended for improvement works under the EPD Feasibility Study, 2010.  While no interception efficiencies were measured for these two DWFIs, using the best available information for geographically similar DWFI locations from the Feasibility Study it is reasonable to assume that the current interception efficiencies of the DWFIs upstream of Jordan Rd Box Culvert would be similar to the average values of all other existing DWFI, i.e., 32.4%.  According to the information provided by DSD, the upgrading works for the existing two DWFIs upstream of the Jordan Road Box Culvert are included in the project titled “Upgrading of West Kowloon and Tsuen Wan Sewerage”.  Subject to successful bid for funding, the construction works of the project are scheduled for commencement in 2016 and completion in end 2023.

With the existing DWFIs upgraded, it is anticipated that the interception efficiency of the two existing DWFI upstream of the Jordon Road Box Culvert can be increased to 80% (Appendix 3.34).  As a result, the amount of effluent discharge entering NYMTTS in the vicinity of the Jordan Road Box Culvert would be reduced by about 60.7%, which would result in reducing the water-bound odour emissions from areas in the vicinity of the Box Culvert (Appendix 3.34).  More details of the assumptions and estimation are given in Appendix 3.33.

Other potential mitigation measures

Other potential odour mitigation measures include dredging at the seabed; in-situ bioremediation of marine sediments at the seabed; improvement in aeration or water circulation within NYMTTS.  As marine sediments would only contribute to a small proportion of the odour emission from NYMTTS (see Appendix 3.26b), it is anticipated that dredging or bioremediation which is intended to remove or treat any odorous marine deposit at the seabed, would not be effective measures for reducing odour emission from NYMTTS.  For the potential measures of aerating water or improving water circulation inside a typhoon shelter, the former measure will lead to decrease in water buoyancy while the latter measure will result in increasing water current flow.  The New Yau Ma Tei Public Cargo Working Area is located on the north-south shoreline of the NYMTTS, which is mainly used by barges for loading and unloading of cargo.  Therefore, both of these measures would impose potential safety concerns on the loading/unloading operations of barges using the Cargo Working Area.  As a result, all these potential measures are not effective or feasible for NYMTTS. 

Summary of Recommended Measures

After review of the government’s existing and planned mitigation measures as well as the potential measures, it is recommended to implement the mitigation measures as summarised in Table 3.31.

Table 3.31     Summary of Recommended Odour Mitigation Measures for NYMTTS

Mitigation Measures

Timeframe

Proposed Implementation Agent

Construct a new DWFI at the Cherry Street Box Culvert

Early 2014 to 2nd half of 2018 (subject to successful bid for funding)

DSD

Improve the 3 existing DWFIs upstream of the Cherry Street Box Culvert as part of the project titled “Upgrading of West Kowloon and Tsuen Wan Sewerage”

2016 to end 2023 (subject to successful bid for funding)

DSD

Improve the 2 existing DWFIs upstream of the Jordan Road Box Culvert as part of the project titled “Upgrading of West Kowloon and Tsuen Wan Sewerage”

2016 to end 2023 (subject to successful bid for funding)

DSD

Based on the indicative completion time of the various facilities within WKCD, only a small portion of the facilities in WKCD (17% of the total gross floor area) including Xiqu Phase 1, hotel, office and retail, dining and entertainment (RDE) facilities in the Park area would tentatively be completed by 2016 whereas majority of the facilities in WKCD (58% of the total gross floor area), including residential, offices, hotels and RDE facilities would tentatively be completed in 2018 and beyond.  Therefore, the mitigation measure of constructing the new DWFI at Cherry Street Box Culvert would be near completion when majority of the WKCD facilities are in place. 

3.7.3.2      Optional Waste Facility

Should the optional automatic waste collection facility be adopted for the WKCD Project, such facility will be located at basement levels to avoid any potential odour issues. In addition, the odour containment and control measures as detailed in Section 3.6.3.4, where necessary, will be provided.

With the proper location of the optional waste facility and the odour containment and control measures in place to substantially confine and reduce the potential odour emissions at sources, it is anticipated that there would not be significant odour impact on the nearby ASRs.

 

3.8          Evaluation of Residual Impacts

3.8.1        Construction Phase

It has been assessed that there would neither be exceedance of the hourly TSP limit under the Tier 2 mitigated scenario nor exceedance of the AQO for daily TSP under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario at any of the ASRs throughout the entire construction period.    Similarly, no exceedance of the AQO for annual TSP was predicted at any of the ASRs for the entire construction period under the mitigated scenario.  Hence, no residual impacts are anticipated during the construction phase.

 

3.8.2        Operation Phase – Vehicular and Marine Emissions

According to the modelling results, all the identified ASRs would be in compliance with the corresponding AQO for hourly, daily and annual SO2; for hourly, daily and annual NO2 as well as for daily and annual RSP.    However, during the worst case year of 2015, four existing ASRs, namely, WOB-1, VT1-23, SRT-1 and SRT-2, would be subject to exceedance of the AQO for hourly NO2 (i.e., 300 μg/m3) by about 3.7-14.9 μg/m3 (or about 1.2%-5.0% of the relevant AQO) for once a year, and two planned ASRs, namely, P09-1 and P37-1, would be subject to marginal exceedance of the AQO for daily NO2 (i.e., 150 μg/m3) by about 0.2-0.3 μg/m3 (or about 0.1%-0.2% of the relevant AQO) for once a year.  Since the numbers of such hourly and daily NO2 exceedances are within the respective allowable numbers of exceedances (3 times per year for hourly NO2 and once per year for daily NO2), the AQO for hourly and daily NO2 would still be complied with at the six ASRs.  Hence, no residual impacts are anticipated during the operation phase due to vehicular and marine emissions.

 

3.8.3        Operation Phase – Odour Emissions

3.8.3.1      New Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter

With implementation of the proposed odour mitigation measures, it has been assessed that the current odour impacts on WKCD would be reduced by a considerable extent.  Nevertheless, the predicted mitigated odour impacts at some of the ASRs within WKCD would still exceed the odour criterion of 5 ou/m3 ASRs under worst case scenario.  Therefore, in accordance with EIAO-TM Clause 4.4.3 the predicted residual odour impacts at such WKCD ASRs are assessed as follows:

(i)         Effects on public health and health of biota or risk to life

In terms of human health effects of hydrogen sulphide (a key substance contributing to the malodour emission from NYMTTS), respiratory, neurological, and ocular effects are the most sensitive end-points in humans following inhalation exposures[8].  There are no adequate data on carcinogenicity. Exposure of H2S at 2.0 ppm would cause bronchial constriction in asthmatic individuals; while exposure of 3.6 ppm H2S would cause increase eye complaints for general population; and exposure of 20 ppm H2S would cause fatigue, loss of appetite, headache, irritability, poor memory, and dizziness.

Besides, with reference to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) of USEPA, the reference concentration of H2S for chronic inhalation exposure to human population without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime is 2 x 10-3 mg/m3 (or 0.00142 ppm).

With reference to the measured ambient H2S concentrations (Table 3.26), the maximum ambient H2S concentration within the entire NYMTTS area is 1.367ppm, whereas the ambient concentrations in the grids bordering the WKCD are below the detection limit of 0.003ppm. With air dispersion effects, it is anticipated that the H2S concentrations within the WKCD site would be even lower than such levels measured within NYMTTS.  The anticipated ambient H2S levels within the WKCD site would therefore be well below the threshold concentration for H2S of 2.0 ppm which has adverse health symptom on asthmatic individuals.  

Subject to the extent of air dispersion which largely depends on wind directions, the ambient H2S concentrations within WKCD may be above the reference chronic inhalation exposure concentration (RfC) of 0.00142 ppm as stipulated in the USEPA IRIS. If people are consistently exposed to H2S concentrations over the RfC on a daily basis for the course of their life, some detrimental effects may occur. Although the ambient H2S levels within WKCD may exceed the RfC, the exceedance, if any, would only be expected to occur when wind is blowing from high emission grids in NYMTTS to WKCD, i.e., roughly from the directions between north-west and north-east.  According to the windroses for WKCD in 2010 as extracted from the PATH (see Graph 3.1), wind blowing from such directions would occur for approximately 20% of the year. Therefore, it is expected that the planned ASRs within WKCD would not be subject to adverse human health impact from potential exposure to H2S.

(ii)       The magnitude of adverse environmental impacts

The predicted worst-case odour concentrations at the ASRs under all assessed scenarios are summarized in Table 3.27 and are also tabulated in Appendix 3.35.  The predicted maximum residual odour impacts under mitigated scenarios A or B range from 1.5 to 8.9 ou/m3 for residential ASRs and from 1.2 to 13.7 ou/m3 for non-residential ASRs (i.e., potential fresh air intake locations).  Residential ASRs are expected to exceed the odour criterion for up to 33 hours per year (or up to 0.4% of the time in a year) and non-residential ASRs for up to 213 hours per year (or up to 2.4% of the time in a year). 

(iii)      Geographic extent of the adverse environmental impacts

The modelling results for mitigated scenarios A or B show that 2 to 21 of the 65 planned residential ASRs within WKCD (see Figure 3.1b) are expected to exceed the 5 ou/m3 criterion.  For non-residential ASRs (i.e., potential fresh air intake locations), 60 to 351 of the 473 planned receivers within WKCD are expected to exceed the odour criterion.

(iv)      Duration and frequency of the adverse environmental impacts

The duration and frequency of exceedance of odour criterion at the ASRs under the assessed scenarios are tabulated in Appendix 3.35.  Under the mitigated scenario A or B, exceedances of the odour criterion are predicted to occur for up to 33 hours per year for residential ASRs (or up to 0.4% of the time in a year), and up to 213 hours per year (or up to 2.4% of the time in a year) for non-residential ASRs (i.e., potential fresh air intake locations).

(v)        Likely size of the community or the environment that may be affected by the adverse impacts

As indicated in Section 3.6.3.3, with the implementation of proposed odour mitigation measures, the odour concentrations in the WKCD would be reduced as compared with the current scenario. However, exceedances of the odour criterion are still predicted at a number of ASRs under the mitigated scenarios. Yet the modelling results indicate that the worst-case odour impacts would more likely occur at ASRs near the ground level.

(vi)      Degree to which the adverse environmental impacts are reversible or irreversible

The existing odour nuisance from the NYMTTS will be alleviated with the implementation of the odour mitigation measures proposed.

(vii)     Ecological context

The predicted exceedance would not involve any ecological context.

(viii)    Degree of disruption to sites of cultural heritage

The predicted exceedance would not involve any cultural heritage context.

(ix)      International and regional importance

The predicted exceedance would not involve any international and regional importance.

(x)        Likelihood and degree of uncertainty of adverse environmental impacts

Odour Sampling

The degree of certainty of the predicted odour impacts depends on the accuracy of the estimated odour emission rates and the air dispersion modelling. The number of air samples collected as well as the intrinsic limitations of the air sampling technique and the olfactometry analysis would also affect the accuracy of odour emission rate estimation.

Given that the odour monitoring and review were carried out in a limited number of days, the measured odour concentrations were obtained under worst case conditions with the monitoring exercise carried out on typical hot days in the summer season of 2012 with low tide and high air temperatures (over 30°C). It is believed that the estimated odour emission rates are reasonable worst case conditions.

Odour Concentration

It is expected odour emissions from NYMTTS in winter time would be smaller due to lower sea temperatures. Therefore the actual rate of exceedance during the current or mitigated scenarios would be lower than the predicted values. Variation in the odour emission rate could be expected due to tidal variation, that is, at high tide the relative dilution of the water entering from the box culverts would increase. A variation in the OER would also be expected during rainfall periods, due to the dilution and mixing of the stormwater. 

In the odour modelling, however, the same set of OER obtained, based on the odour monitoring results on typical hot days was adopted for 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.  Therefore, it is considered that the actual extent and frequency of odour exceedance during both the current and mitigated scenarios would be lower than those predicted by the modelling exercise.

Laboratory Methods

Air sampling is an important step in the process of measuring the odour concentrations of the sources; it would affect the quality and reliability of the results.  All the odour sampling was carried out by the HOKLAS accredited laboratories. The potential error associated with odour sampling process is considered to be on the low side.

It should be noted that all the odour concentrations (in ou/m3) and hence area source emission rates (in ou/m2/s) were measured by olfactometry analysis carried out at HOKLAS accredited laboratories. The odour concentrations were determined by using dynamic olfactometry, according to the European Standard Method BS EN13725:2003.

The European Standard Method specifies a method for the objective determination of the odour concentration of a gaseous sample using dynamic olfactometry with human assessors. The detection limit for this European Standard Method is 10 ou/m3. Yet the detection limit of this European Standard Method could vary between laboratories. Therefore, in reviewing the odour concentration results (in ou/m3), it should be noted that a measured low odour concentration value would normally has a higher degree of error due to the inherent properties of the olfactometry analysis method.

Odour Chemistry/Interaction

Odours from different sources can undergo various phenomena, one of which is masking, whereby the presence of one odour can disguise, or mask, the presence of a second. Different odorants may also interact. This can cause interactive or ‘synergistic’ effects, such that the sum of the odorants may be either greater than or less than the intensity of the odour components. In practice, odours from significantly different sources and with different characters are usually neither additive nor synergistic, but instead one source tends to dominate, or mask, the presence of the other.  Sea-water has a neutral tone and is generally considered to be non-offensive, and is assumed to be masked by the presence of odorous substances such as H2S.

Model Restrictions

Dispersion models assume a conservation of mass of contaminants, that is the odour intensity of a mixture of two different odorous sources are considered to be additive. Odour modelling is not able to predict synergistic or masking effects, and to that effect, modelling a pleasant, neutral and/or offensive odour source in parallel would produce one overall ‘odour’ intensity, which would not be representative of, the different hedonic tones of the individual odours, the relative decrease in intensity of the individual odours or the potential for one odour to mask the other.

Conservative Model Results

It should be noted that the odour modelling results are considered conservative for a number of reasons as follows:

·             It is expected odour emissions from NYMTTS in night time or non-summer months would be smaller due to lower sea temperatures and hence slower rate of odour release from anaerobic digestion and fermentation of organic matters and therefore the actual rate of exceedance during the current or mitigated scenarios would be lower than the model results.  According to the “Baseline Odour Sampling Report – Executive Summary” completed for the Kai Tak Development project, odour monitoring was carried out to determine the baseline odour emissions from the water surface of the Kai Tak Approach Channel (KTAC) in March 2010 , August 2010 and February 2011 before any implementation of the improvement works.  The OERs obtained in the three months showed substantial seasonal variations.  In particular, the OERs obtained at two sampling locations at northern KTAC in March 2010 and February 2011 (non-summer months) were roughly 7% to 20% of the OERs measured in August 2010 (a summer month);;

·             The odour complaints in the previous 7 years as shown in Table 3.8 are low, which also suggests a considerable amount of conservatism within the modelling results, therefore the actual rate of exceedance during the current scenario is expected to be lower than the model results; and

·             Variation in the odour emission rate could be expected due to tidal variation, that is, at high tide the water available for dilution of the stormwater is increased, which would be expected to dilute the odour emission rate. A variation in the OER would also be expected during rainfall periods, due to the dilution and mixing of the stormwater, therefore the actual rate of exceedance during the current scenario would be lower than the model results.

As shown in Table 3.28 to Table 3.30, the exceedance of the odour criterion would not occur at any residential ASRs during day-time throughout a year, but would only occasionally happen during night-time (not more than 0.7% of the time in a month).  It should be noted that the OERs at night-time would be lower than those at day-time due to the generally cooler water at night, and hence the odour exceedance at night-time is expected to be even lower than the predicted values in the Tables.  

For non-residential ASRs, there would only be occasional exceedance of the odour criterion at day-time in January, October and December only (not more than 0.8% of the time in a month). While the predicted maximum odour exceedance percentages for non-residential ASRs during the night-time in February, March, April, October, November and December appear to be relatively higher than those in other months, these months are not in summer with generally lower water temperatures.   Therefore, it is anticipated that the odour concentrations or exceedance percentages for the non-residential ASRs in these non-summer months would be lower than the predicted values in Table 3.28 to Table 3.30.

While the mitigated odour modelling results show a number of ASRs to be in exceedance of the 5 ou/m3 criterion, it is important to note that WKCD does not contribute to the odour emitted from NYMTTS.

Considering all the aforementioned information, the predicted residual effects from odour under the mitigated scenarios can be considered to be very conservative and hence the actual residual odour impacts would likely be much lower than the predicted results.

3.8.3.2      Optional Waste Facilities

With the proper locations of the optional waste facility (i.e., automatic waste collection facility) and the odour containment and control measures in place to substantially confine and reduce the potential odour emissions at sources, it is anticipated that there would not be significant odour impact on the nearby ASRs.

 

3.9          Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.9.1        Construction Phase

Regular dust monitoring is considered necessary during the construction phase of the Project and regular site audits are also required to ensure the dust control measures are properly implemented. Details of the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme will be presented in the stand-alone EM&A Manual.

3.9.2        Operation Phase

Since it has been assessed that all the ASRs would be in compliance with all the relevant AQOs for SO2, NO2 and RSP, no residual air quality impacts due to vehicular or marine traffic emissions are anticipated.  Therefore, no monitoring is considered necessary for vehicular or marine traffic emissions.

For the monitoring of odour emission, it is proposed to carry out monthly odour patrol during summer seasons (from July to September) for at least two years.  The key purposes of the odour monitoring are to ascertain the effectiveness of the proposed improvement measures for NYMTTS over time, and to monitor any on-going odour impacts at the ASRs within WKCD. If residual odour impact is still found at the end of the odour monitoring programme, further investigation would be carried out to review the odour problem and to identify the parties responsible for further remedial action.

 

3.10       Conclusion

3.10.1     Construction Phase

With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures as well as the relevant control requirements as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2(93), it has been assessed that there would neither be exceedance of the hourly TSP limit under the Tier 2 mitigated scenario nor exceedance of the AQO for daily TSP under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario at any of the ASRs throughout the entire construction period.    For annual TSP results, no exceedance of the corresponding AQO was predicted at any of the ASRs during the construction phase provided the recommended mitigation measures are in place.

3.10.2     Operation Phase

Vehicle and Marine Emissions

Majority of the vehicular emission sources and all marine emission sources are due to respectively the nearby current/planned road networks serving the West Kowloon area and the existing marine activities in the surrounding waters, but not due to the WKCD development itself.  Therefore, the WKCD Project alone would only have very minor contribution to the predicted air quality impacts at the ASRs.   

According to the modelling results, all the identified ASRs would be in compliance with the corresponding AQO for hourly, daily and annual SO2; for hourly, daily and annual NO2 as well as for daily and annual RSP.    However, during the worst case year of 2015, four existing ASRs, namely, WOB-1, VT1-23, SRT-1 and SRT-2, would be subject to exceedance of the AQO for hourly NO2 (i.e., 300 μg/m3) by about 3.7-14.9 μg/m3 (or about 1.2%-5.0% of the relevant AQO) for once a year, and two planned ASRs, namely, P09-1 and P37-1, would be subject to marginal exceedance of the AQO for daily NO2 (i.e., 150 μg/m3) by about 0.2-0.3 μg/m3 (or about 0.1%-0.2% of the relevant AQO) for once a year.  Since the numbers of such hourly and daily NO2 exceedances are within the respective allowable numbers of exceedances (3 times per year for hourly NO2 and once per year for daily NO2), the AQO for hourly and daily NO2 would still be complied with at the six ASRs. 

In conclusion, no adverse air quality impacts due to vehicular or marine traffic emissions are anticipated during the operation phase of the WKCD Project.

Odour Emissions from NYMTTS

With the recommended improvement measures for NYMTTS in place, it is predicted that the potential odour impacts on all the ASRs within WKCD would be reduced to 1.5 - 8.9 ou/m3 for residential ASRs and to 1.2 -13.7 ou/m3 for non-residential ASRs.  Residential ASRs refer to those ASRs that have been planned for residential uses whereas non-residential ASRs refer to those that have been planned for such non-residential uses as offices, retails, hotels, performance venues, open space, etc.  Under the mitigated scenarios, the predicted numbers of times of exceeding the odour criterion in a year would be up to 33 hours per year (or up to 0.4% of the time in a year) and 213 hours per year (or up to 2.4% of the time in a year) for residential ASRs and non-residential ASRs respectively. 

Potential residual odour impacts are predicted at 2 to 21 of the 65 residential ASRs as well as at 60 to 351 of the 473 non-residential ASRs under the mitigated scenarios.  Nevertheless, the potential residual impacts have been assessed to be acceptable in view of the nature, magnitude, duration and frequency of the impacts as well as the conservative odour modelling results.  It is particularly important to note that WKCD does not contribute to the odour emitted from NYMTTS.

Odour Emissions from Optional Waste Facilities

With the proper locations of the optional waste facility (i.e., automatic waste collection facility) and the odour containment and control measures in place to substantially confine and reduce the potential odour emissions at sources, it is anticipated that there would not be significant odour impact on the nearby ASRs.

 


[1] http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/files/2011HKEIReport.pdf

[2] http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/english/report/files/AQR2011e_final.pdf

[3] http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/english/report/files/AQR2012_prelim_en.pdf

[4] Good Practice Guide for Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand (June 2004)

[5] Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, 2009. Rubber Tired Gantry (RTG) Crane Load Factor Study. Poulsbo: Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC.

[6] Ministry for the Environment, 2003. Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing Odour in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

[7] EPD, 2010. Review of West Kowloon and Tsuen Wan Sewerage Master Plans – Feasibility Study http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/water/studyrpts/twwk_final_rpt.html

[8]World Health Organization, 2003. Concise International Chemical Document 53, Hydrogen Sulfide: Human Health Aspects.

 [MCD1]Put in the appendix? YES

 [MCD2]For 2015

 [MCD3]For 2015

 [MCD4]Delete reference to dredging in Appendix 3.36