Chapter Title Page

10. Air Quality Impact 10-1

10.1 Introduction_ 10-1

10.2 Environmental Legislations, Standards and Guidelines_ 10-1

10.2.1 Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO-TM) 10-1

10.2.2 Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation_ 10-2

10.2.3 Air Pollution Control (Specified Processes) Regulations_ 10-2

10.3 Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers_ 10-3

10.3.1 Assessment Area_ 10-3

10.3.2 Representative Air Sensitive Receivers_ 10-3

10.4 Description of the Environment/ Background Air Quality 10-7

10.5 Assessment Methodology 10-8

10.5.1 Potential Sources of Environmental Impact 10-8

10.5.2 Emission Inventory 10-14

10.5.3 Dispersion Model 10-15

10.5.4 Particle Size Distribution_ 10-16

10.5.5 Meteorological Data_ 10-16

10.5.6 Modelling Approach_ 10-16

10.5.7 Predicted TSP Levels_ 10-16

10.6 Identification, Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental Impact 10-17

10.6.1 Unmitigated Results_ 10-17

10.6.2 Mitigation Measures_ 10-29

10.6.3 Mitigated Results_ 10-31

10.7 Evaluation of Residual Impact 10-46

10.8 Environmental Monitoring and Audit 10-46

10.9 Conclusion_ 10-46

Tables

Table 10.1:__ Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives_ 10-1

Table 10.2:__ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in Admiralty 10-3

Table 10.3:__ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites at Nam Fung Portal and Viaduct Section_ 10-4

Table 10.4:__ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in Ocean Park and Viaduct Section_ 10-4

Table 10.5:__ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in Wong Chuk Hang and Viaduct Section_ 10-5

Table 10.6:__ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in Ap Lei Chau Bridge and Lei Tung_ 10-5

Table 10.7:__ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in South Horizons_ 10-6

Table 10.8:__ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Telegraph Bay Barging Point 10-7

Table 10.9:__ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Lee Nam Road Barging Point 10-7

Table 10.10:_ Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site_ 10-7

Table 10.11:_ 5-Year-Averaged Annual Background Air Quality 10-8

Table 10.12_ Potential Emission Sources from Works Sites_ 10-8

Table 10.13: Major Construction Works at Lei Tung Portal & Tunnel 10-12

Table 10.14:_ Potential Emission Sources from EPIW and Concurrent Projects_ 10-13

Table 10.15:_ Assumptions for Calculation of Dust Emission Factors_ 10-15

Table 10.16:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Unmitigated) 10-17

Table 10.17:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Unmitigated) 10-18

Table 10.18:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Unmitigated) 10-18

Table 10.19:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Unmitigated) 10-19

Table 10.20: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Unmitigated) 10-20

Table 10.21:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Unmitigated) 10-20

Table 10.22:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Unmitigated) 10-21

Table 10.23:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Unmitigated) 10-21

Table 10.24:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Unmitigated) 10-21

Table 10.25:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Unmitigated) 10-21

Table 10.26:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Unmitigated) 10-22

Table 10.27:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Unmitigated) 10-22

Table 10.28:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Unmitigated) 10-23

Table 10.29: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Unmitigated) 10-23

Table 10.30:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Unmitigated) 10-24

Table 10.31:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Unmitigated) 10-24

Table 10.32:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Unmitigated) 10-25

Table 10.33:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Unmitigated) 10-25

Table 10.34:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Unmitigated) 10-25

Table 10.35:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Unmitigated) 10-26

Table 10.36:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Unmitigated) 10-26

Table 10.37:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Unmitigated) 10-27

Table 10.38: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Unmitigated) 10-27

Table 10.39:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Unmitigated) 10-28

Table 10.40:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Unmitigated) 10-28

Table 10.41:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Unmitigated) 10-29

Table 10.42:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Unmitigated) 10-29

Table 10.43:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Tier 1) 10-31

Table 10.44:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Tier 1) 10-32

Table 10.45:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Tier 1) 10-32

Table 10.46:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 1) 10-32

Table 10.47: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Tier 1) 10-33

Table 10.48:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Tier 1) 10-34

Table 10.49:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Tier 1) 10-34

Table 10.50:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Tier 1) 10-34

Table 10.51:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Tier 1) 10-35

Table 10.52:_ Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang at 30% active area nearest to selective ASR (Tier 2) 10-35

Table 10.53:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Tier 1) 10-36

Table 10.54:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Tier 1) 10-37

Table 10.55:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Tier 1) 10-37

Table 10.56:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 1) 10-38

Table 10.57:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Tier 1) 10-38

Table 10.58:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Tier 1) 10-39

Table 10.59:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Tier 1) 10-39

Table 10.60:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Tier 1) 10-40

Table 10.61:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Tier 1) 10-40

Table 10.62:_ Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang at 30% active area nearest to selective ASR (Tier 2) 10-41

Table 10.63: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Mitigated) 10-42

Table 10.64:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Mitigated) 10-42

Table 10.65:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Mitigated) 10-43

Table 10.66:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations Wong Chuk Hang (Mitigated) 10-43

Table 10.67:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Mitigated) 10-44

Table 10.68:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Mitigated) 10-44

Table 10.69:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Mitigated) 10-45

Table 10.70:_ Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Mitigated) 10-45

Table 10.71: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Mitigated) 10-45

Figures

Figure 10.1 Study Area for the Air Quality Impact Assessment

Figure 10.2 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers in Admiralty

Figure 10.3 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers at Nam Fung Portal and Ocean Park

Figure 10.4 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers in Wong Chuk Hang

Figure 10.5 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers in Lei Tung

Figure 10.6 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers in South Horizons and Lee Nam Road Barging Point

Figure 10.7 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site and Telegraph Bay Barging Point

Figure 10.8 Zoning for Site Formation Works and Structure/ Fitting Out Works at WCH Depot

Figure 10.9 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Admiralty (1) (Tier 1)

Figure 10.10 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Admiralty (2) (Tier 1)

Figure 10.11 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Nam Fung and Ocean Park (Tier 1)

Figure 10.12 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 1)

Figure 10.13 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Ap Lei Chau and Lei Tung (Tier 1)

Figure 10.14 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in South Horizons (Tier 1)

Figure 10.15 Locations of Dust Emission Sources at Lee Nam Road Barging Points (Tier 1)

Figure 10.16 Locations of Dust Emission Sources at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site and Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Tier 1)

Figure 10.17 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 2 for ASR – WCH14)

Figure 10.18 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 2 for ASR – WCH2)

Figure 10.19 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 2 for ASR – WCH3)

Figure 10.20 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 2 for ASR – WCH5)

Figure 10.21 Locations of Dust Emission Sources in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 2 for ASR – WCH6)

Figure 10.22 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above G/F during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 77.4mg/m³, AQO = 500mg/m³) - Admiralty

Figure 10.23 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above G/F during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 500mg/m³) - Nam Fung Portal and Ocean Park

Figure 10.24 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier1 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above G/F during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 500mg/m³) – Wong Chuk Hang

Figure 10.25 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above G/F during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 500mg/m³) – Lei Tung

Figure 10.26 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above G/F during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 500mg/m³) – South Horizons and Lee Nam Barging Point

Figure 10.27 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier1hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m3) at 1.5m above G/F (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m3, AQO = 500mg/m3) - Telegraph Bay

Figure 10.28 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above G/F during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 500mg/m³) - Chung Hom Shan

Figure 10.29 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 2 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2g mg/m3, AQO = 500mg/m3) – Wong Chuk Hang for ASR – WCH14

Figure 10.30 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 2 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2g mg/m3, AQO = 500mg/m3) – Wong Chuk Hang for ASR – WCH2

Figure 10.31 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 2 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2g mg/m3, AQO = 500mg/m3) – Wong Chuk Hang for ASR – WCH3

Figure 10.32 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 2 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2g mg/m3, AQO = 500mg/m3) – Wong Chuk Hang for ASR – WCH5

Figure 10.33 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 2 hourly TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2g mg/m3, AQO = 500mg/m3) – Wong Chuk Hang for ASR – WCH6

Figure 10.34 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 77.4/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) - Admiralty

Figure 10.35 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) – Nam Fung Portal and Ocean Park

Figure 10.36 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) - Wong Chuk Hang

Figure 10.37 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) – Lei Tung

Figure 10.38 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) – South Horizons and Lee Nam Barging Point

Figure 10.39 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) - Telegraph Bay

Figure 10.40 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 1 daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) – Chung Hom Shan

Figure 10.41 Not used.

Figure 10.42 Not used.

Figure 10.43 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 2 daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) - Wong Chuk Hang for ASR – WCH3

Figure 10.44 Not used.

Figure 10.45 Cumulative Result - Contours of tier 2 daily TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 260mg/m³) - Wong Chuk Hang for ASR – WCH6

Figure 10.46 Cumulative Result - Contours of annual TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 77.4mg/m³, AQO = 80mg/m³) - Admiralty

Figure 10.47 Cumulative Result - Contours of annual TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 80mg/m³) – Nam Fung Portal and Ocean Park

Figure 10.48 Cumulative Result - Contours of annual TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 80mg/m³) – Wong Chuk Hang

Figure 10.49 Cumulative Result - Contours of annual TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground (during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 80mg/m³) – Lei Tung

Figure 10.50 Cumulative Result - Contours of annual TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 80mg/m³) – South Horizons and Lee Nam Barging Point

Figure 10.51 Cumulative Result - Contours of annual TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 80mg/m³) - Telegraph Bay

Figure 10.52 Cumulative Result - Contours of annual TSP Concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during Construction Phase (Include Background Concentration = 73.2mg/m³, AQO = 80mg/m³) – Chung Hom Shan

Appendices

Appendix 10.1 The construction programme of the concurrent projects

Appendix 10.2 Detailed Calculations of Emission Factors for FDM Model

Appendix 10.3 Input information of dust sources

Appendix 10.4 Calculations for percentage active area and watering efficiency

10. Air Quality Impact

10.1 Introduction

This section assesses the potential air quality impacts associated with construction of the Project. Dust emission in the processes of construction of stations and viaducts, material handling, storage of materials, spoil disposal, crushing, concrete batching and barging activities are the major sources of dust emission during the construction phase. Representative Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) within 500m of the study area have been identified and extended to include those areas that are potentially affected along the proposed SIL(E) alignment. Appropriate mitigation measures, where necessary, have been recommended to protect the ASRs and to ensure that the legislative criteria and guidelines would be complied with.

In accordance with the Section 3.4.7 of the EIA Study Brief, the air quality impact in the construction phase has been assessed. Air quality impact assessment in operation phase is not required. Similar to other existing electricified railways in Hong Kong, the operational air quality impact of the SIL(E) on the environment is insignificant since no significant pollution source was identified.

10.2 Environmental Legislations, Standards and Guidelines

10.2.1 Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO-TM)

Assessment criteria for aerial emission is based on the Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives (“AQO”) for air pollutants given in Chapter 9, "Environment", of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) for air pollution control and are listed in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1: Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant	Concentration in micrograms per cubic metre (i)
	Averaging Time
	1 hour (ii)	8 hours (iii)	24 hours (iii)	3 Months (iv)	1 year (iv)
Sulphur Dioxide	800	N.A.	350	N.A.	80
Total Suspended Particulates	500*	N.A.	260	N.A.	80
Respirable (v) Suspended Particulates	N.A.	N.A.	180	N.A.	55
Nitrogen Dioxide	300	N.A.	150	N.A.	80
Carbon Monoxide	30000	10000	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.
Photochemical Oxidants (as Ozone) (vi)	240	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.
Lead	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	1.5	N.A.

Legend:

(i) Measured at 298K (25^oC) and 101.325 kPa (one atmosphere).

(ii) Not to be exceeded more than three times per year;

(iii) Not to be exceeded more than once per year;

(iv) Arithmetic means

(v) Respirable suspended particulates means suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometres and smaller.

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

* Acceptable criteria under the EIAO-TM for construction dust impact assessment.

For impacts during the construction phase, fugitive dust in particular, Section 1, Annex 4 of EIAO-TM stipulates the hourly average Total Suspended Particulate (“TSP”) concentration of 500 mg/m³ measured at 298 K (25°C) and 101.325 kPa (1 atmosphere) for construction dust impacts. Mitigation measures for construction sites specified in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation shall be followed.

10.2.2 Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation

The APCO’s subsidiary regulation Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation defines notifiable and regulatory works activities that are subject to construction dust control.

10.2.2.1 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 or

7. Road construction work

10.2.2.2 Regulatory Works:

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

9. Road opening or resurfacing work

10. Slope stabilisation work or

11. Any work involving any of the following activities:

¡ Stockpiling of dusty materials

¡ Loading, unloading or transfer of dusty materials

¡ Transfer of dusty materials using a belt conveyor system

¡ Use of vehicles

¡ Pneumatic or power-driven drilling, cutting and polishing

¡ Debris handling

¡ Excavation or earth moving

¡ Concrete production

¡ Site clearance or

¡ Blasting

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

10.2.3 Air Pollution Control (Specified Processes) Regulations

A stringent emission control for the operation of the following facility, which is classified as Specified Processes (SP) in the APCO.

¡ Operation of Cement Works in which the total silo capacity exceeds 50 tonnes and in which cement is handled or in which argillaceous and calcareous materials are used in the production of cement clinker, and works in which cement clinker is ground.

¡ Operation of Minerals Works in which the processing capacity exceeds 5000 tonnes per annum and in which stones are subjected to any size reduction or grading by a process giving rise to dust, not being any works described in any other specified process.

A licence is required for the operation of the concrete batching plant and stone crushing plant under Part IV of the Ordinance. Application for licence shall be made to EPD. EPD may either grant or refuse to grant a licence subject to whether the applicant can fulfil the environmental standards to avoid causing air pollution. If EPD decides to grant the licence, a set of conditions will be imposed to ensure the adequate prevention of the discharge of air pollutant emissions.

10.3 Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers

10.3.1 Assessment Area

The assessment area within 500m of the proposed SIL(E) alignment had been studied, the proposed SIL(E) alignment would start from the Admiralty (ADM) Station, Ocean Park (OCP) Station, Wong Chuk Hang (WCH) Station, Lei Tung (LET) Station and South Horizon (SOH) Station. All the potential construction activities of the Project that are subject to dust emission have be taken into account in the assessment. The assessment area for the Project is shown in Figure 10.1.

10.3.2 Representative Air Sensitive Receivers

Representative ASRs have been selected in the vicinity of the identified works areas and barging points according to Annex 12 of EIAO-TM through the on-site inspection and a review of the latest land use plans. Lists of selected ASRs along the proposed SIL(E) alignment are presented in Tables 10.2 to 10.10 and locations of representative ASRs are shown in Figures 10.2 to 10.7. Height of fresh air intake above ground level had been specified for ASRs in the vicinity of work sites in Admiralty in Table 10.2 as the use of the ASRs in Admiralty are mainly hotels, office, G/IC or commercial which are dependent on central air conditioning and their fresh air intake are located at specific height Sensitive use above ground level had been specified for ASRs in the vicinity of work sites in Wong Chuk Hang and Lee Nam Road Barging Point in Tables 10.5 and 10.9 as some of the ASRs in Wong Chuk Hang and Lee Nam Road Barging Point are of industrial use with car parks at the first few levels.

Table 10.2: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in Admiralty

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)	Fresh Air Intake Height/Sensitive Use Above Ground Level (m)
ADM1	Island Shangri-La Hotel	Hotel	Existing	18	>20
ADM2	Tennis Court	Recreational	Existing	5	N/A
ADM3	Jockey Club New Life Hostel	Residential	Existing	76	Approximately 1.5
ADM4	Hong Kong Park	Open Space	Existing	11	N/A
ADM8	United Centre	Office	Existing	74	>20
ADM9	Admiralty Centre – Office Tower II	Office	Existing	5	>20
ADM10	Arsenal House (West Wing)	G/IC	Existing	3	>20
ADM11	Caine House	G/IC	Existing	21	>5
ADM12	Hong Kong Red Cross Headquarter	G/IC	Existing	42	Approximately 1.5
ADM13	British Council	G/IC	Existing	9	>5
ADM14	Conrad Hotel	Hotel	Existing	28	>20
ADM15	Academy of Performing Arts	G/IC	Existing	9	>20
ADM16	Fleet Arcade	Commercial	Existing	45	>10
ADM17	Citic Tower	Office	Existing	70	>20
ADM18	Queensway Government Office	G/IC	Existing	21	>20
ADM19	Regent on the Park	Residential	Existing	56	Approximately 1.5
ADM20	Montgomery Block	Office	Existing	107	Approximately 1.5
ADM21	Office of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China	G/IC	Existing	123	>20

Table 10.3: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites at Nam Fung Portal and Viaduct Section

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)
NFP1	St. Paul’s Co-educational Primary School	Educational	Existing	55
NFP2	HKUGA College	Educational	Existing	26
NFP3	Wong Chuk Hang Services for the Elderly	Elderly Centre	Existing	38
NFP4	Wong Chuk Hang Hospital	Hospital	Existing	79
NFP5	Wong Chuk Hang Complex for the Elderly	Convalescent Home	Existing	16
NFP6	Wong Chuk Hang San Wai – No. 4C	Residential	Existing	4
NFP7	Country Villa	Residential	Existing	87
NFP8	Springfield Gardens	Residential	Existing	109
NFP9	Shouson Hill Nursery	Open space	Existing	80

Table 10.4: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in Ocean Park and Viaduct Section

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)
OCP1	Grantham Hospital	Hospital	Existing	157
OCP2	Wong Chuk Hang Sport Centre	Open Space	Existing	8
OCP3	Aberdeen Sports Ground	Open Space	Existing	11
OCP4	Police College – Tactic Training Complex	Educational	Existing	1
OCP6	Ocean Park Entrance	Recreation	Existing	80
OCP7	Ocean Park Entry Plaza	Recreation	Planned	31
OCP8	Operational Force Training Area	Open Space	Existing	1

Table 10.5: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in Wong Chuk Hang and Viaduct Section

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)	Fresh Air Intake Height/Sensitive Use Above Ground Level (m)
WCH1	Police College – Tactical Training Complex	Educational	Existing	21	Approximately 1.5
WCH2	Police College – Police Quarters	Residential	Existing	22	Approximately 1.5
WCH3	San Wui Commercial Society of Hong Kong Chan Pak Sha School	Educational	Existing	17	Approximately 1.5
WCH4	Little Sisters of the Poor St. Mary’s Home for the Aged – Chapel	Worship	Existing	52	Approximately 1.5
WCH5	Tai Wong Ye Temple	Worship	Existing	1	Approximately 1.5
WCH6	Gee Luen Hing Industrial Building	Industrial	Existing	3	Approximately 1.5
WCH7	Wah Ming Building	Industrial	Existing	6	>5
WCH8	TWGHs Jockey Club Rehabilitation Complex – Block A	Convalescent Home	Existing	3	Approximately 1.5
WCH9	Express Industrial Building	Industrial	Existing	17	>5
WCH10	Holy Spirit Seminary – Chapel	Worship	Existing	28	Approximately 1.5
WCH11	Holy Spirit Seminary	Educational	Existing	3	Approximately 1.5
WCH12	Ocean Court – Tower 3	Residential	Existing	55	Approximately 1.5
WCH13	Aberdeen Tennis Square	Recreational	Existing	32	N/A
WCH14	(Planned) Singapore International School of Hong Kong (Extension)	School	Planned	19	Approximately 1.5
WCH16	Grandview Garden	Residential	Existing	52	>10
WCH17	Pao Yue Kong Swimming Pool Complex	Recreational	Existing	17	N/A
WCH18	Nam Long Shan Road Cooked Food Market	Open Space	Existing	1	Approximately 1.5
WCH21	Heung Yip Road Sitting-out Area	Open Space	Existing	21	N/A
WCH22	Aberdeen Police Station	G/IC	Existing	40	Approximately 1.5

Table 10.6: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in Ap Lei Chau Bridge and Lei Tung

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)
LET1	Ap Lei Chau Park	Open Space	Existing	21
LET2	Sham Wan Towers – Tower	Residential	Existing	13
LET3	Sun Ming Building	Residential	Existing	42
LET4	The Hong Kong Harbour Mission Church	Worship	Existing	35
LET5	Shan On House	Residential	Existing	4
LET6	Tung Sing House	Residential	Existing	5
LET7	Tung Mau House	Residential	Existing	1
LET8	Sunny Court	Residential	Existing	3
LET9	Yen Ching Building	Residential	Existing	8
LET10	Lei Tung Comercial Centre (Phase 1)	Shopping Centre	Existing	1
LET11	Lei Tung Comercial Centre (Phase 2)	Shopping Centre	Existing	1
LET12	Aplichau Kaifong Primary School	Educational	Existing	126
LET13	Tung Hing House	Residential	Existing	50
LET14	Ap Lei Chau Service Reservoir Playground	Recreational	Existing	32
LET15	Sham Wan Towers Tower 3	Residential	Existing	25
LET19	Yue On Court - Pik On House	Residential	Existing	28
LET20	St. Peter's Catholic Primary School	School	Existing	102
LET21	Ap Lei Chau Park – Football field	Recreational	Existing	46

Table 10.7: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Work Sites in South Horizons

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)
SOH1	South Horizons Phase 3 – Block 23A Mei Ka Court	Residential	Existing	3
SOH2	South Horizons Phase 4 (The Oasis) – Block 25 Dover Court	Residential	Existing	3
SOH3	South Horizons Phase 3 – Block 20 Mei Cheung Court	Residential	Existing	3
SOH4	South Horizons Phase 4 (The Oasis) – Block 33A Cambridge Court	Residential	Existing	1
SOH5	Marine Square (East Wing)	Shopping Centre	Existing	3
SOH6	Precious Blood Primary School (south Horizons)	Educational	Existing	46
SOH8	South Horizons Phase 3 Block 17 Mei Fai Court	Residential	Existing	14
SOH9	South Horizons Phase 3 Block 23 Mei Hin Court	Residential	Existing	21
SOH11	South Horizons Phase 4 Block 32 Albany Court	Residential	Existing	21
SOH13	Hong Kong South District Primary School	School	Existing	81
SOH14	Ap Lei Chau Fire Station	G/IC	Existing	46
SOH15	Lei Fook House	Residential	Existing	61
SOH16	Yuk Kwai Shan Service Reservoir Sitting Area	Open Space	Existing	105

Table 10.8: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Telegraph Bay Barging Point

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)
TGB1	Magnolia Villas	Residential	Existing	268
TGB2	Lower Baguio Villa	Residential	Existing	316
TGB3	ISF Academy Primary School	Educational	Existing	232
TGB4	Aegean Terrace House K	Residential	Existing	156
TGB5	Le Meridien Cyberport	Hotel	Existing	84
TGB6	The Cyberport Arcade	Shopping Centre	Existing	108

Table 10.9: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Lee Nam Road Barging Point

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)	Fresh Air Intake Height/ Sensitive Use Above Ground Level (m)
LNB1	Oceanic Industrial Centre	Industrial	Existing	11	>5
LNB2	Harbour Industrial Centre	Industrial	Existing	11	>5
LNB3	Dah Chong Hong (Motor Service Centre) Ltd.	Industrial	Existing	63	>5
LNB4	Horizon Plaza	Office	Existing	39	Approximately 1.5
LNB5	HK School of Motoring (1)	Office	Existing	23	Approximately 1.5
LNB6	HK School of Motoring (2)	Office	Existing	17	Approximately 1.5

Table 10.10: Representative Air Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity of Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site

ASR ID	Description	Type of Use	Existing/ Planned ASRs	Separation Distance between ASR and the works boundary (m)
CHK1	Cheshire Home Chung Hom Shan	Residential	Existing	500
CHK2	The Jockey Club Cheshire Home	Residential	Existing	524
CHK3	Royal Bay	Residential	Existing	240
CHK5	Chung Hom Kok Beach Children's Playground	open space	Existing	300

10.4 Description of the Environment/ Background Air Quality

The proposed SIL(E) alignment starts from Admiralty, which passes through the tunnel to the Nam Fung Portal, via a number of viaduct sections in Ocean Park, Wong Chuk Hang, and flies over the Ap Lei Chau Bridge to the tunnel at Lei Tung and ends at South Horizons.

There are currently 11 general and 3 roadside air quality monitoring stations operated by EPD and the purposes of which is to provide background air quality information. The EPD monitoring data at Central/Western monitoring station was chosen to provide background air quality for the Project in Admiralty area. The EPD monitoring data at Shatin, Tai Po, Yuen Long and Tung Chung were averaged to provide the background air quality for the Project in Island South, as Island South should be categorised as “rural/new development” site in EPD’s Guidelines on Assessing the 'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts. Similar approach was adopted in the approved Repositioning and Long Term Operation Plan of Ocean Park EIA Report (EIA-212/2006) in which the EPD monitoring data at Shatin, Tai Po, Yuen Long and Tung Chung were averaged to provide the background air quality of the Project in Island South.

The background concentrations of major air pollutants in the previous five years were recorded and the latest 5-year-averaged annual concentration from 2005 to 2009 at the monitoring stations is presented in Table 10.11. It is noted that the annual background TSP level adopted for Admiralty approaches the annual AQO.

Table 10.11: 5-Year-Averaged Annual Background Air Quality

Pollutants	5-year-averaged Annual Background Concentration (μg/m^3)	HKAQO (μg/ m^3)
TSP (adopted in Admiralty)	77.4	80
TSP (adopted in Island South)	73.2	80

10.1 Assessment Methodology

10.1.1 Potential Sources of Environmental Impact

The construction work for the proposed SIL(E) alignment includes the construction of the five stations, namely Admiralty (ADM) Station, Ocean Park (OCP) Station, Wong Chuk Hang (WCH) Station, Lei Tung (LET) Station and South Horizon (SOH) Station, the tunnel construction for sections from Admiralty to Nam Fung Portal and section from Ap Lei Chau Bridge to South Horizons and construction of viaduct section from Nam Fung Portal to Aberdeen Channel.

There are also other construction activities associated with the construction of the proposed SIL(E) alignment. Two crushing plants would be located near Nam Fung Portal and in the WCH Depot, respectively. Two barging points would be provided at Telegraph Bay and Lee Nam Road and a magazine site at Chung Hom Shan. Summary of the construction activities for the identified works sites are described below and summarized in Table 10.12.

Table 10.12 Potential Emission Sources from Works Sites

Location	Works Areas	Construction Activities
Admiralty	Harcourt Garden*	¡ Heavy construction activities including the open excavation on the cut-and-cover station, ventilation shafts and station entrance ¡ Material handling and temporary stockpiles ¡ Wind erosion of open active area ¡ Spoil transportation to the temporary stockpile area within the site
	Hong Kong Park	¡ Heavy construction on ventilation shaft and ancillary building ¡ Wind erosion of open active area
Nam Fung	ex-Canadian Hospital site	¡ Heavy construction on tunnel excavation, construction of ventilation building and tunnel box ¡ Wind erosion of open active area ¡ Operation of rock crushing plant ¡ Loading of crushed materials to the temporary stockpile ¡ Slope stabilization works
	Nam Fung portal to Ocean Park	¡ Heavy construction on viaduct sections ¡ Wind erosion of open active area
Ocean Park	Ocean Park Station	¡ Heavy construction on station ¡ Wind erosion of active area
	Ocean Park viaduct	¡ Heavy construction on viaduct section ¡ Wind erosion of open active area
Wong Chuk Hang	Wong Chuk Hang station	¡ Heavy construction on station ¡ Wind erosion of open active area
	Wong Chuk Hang depot*	¡ Heavy construction of site formation by open excavation and foundation work (installation of a mixture of pipe piles and bored piles or pad footing) ¡ Heavy construction of station depot, ventilation shafts and cooling towers ¡ Operation of rock crushing plant ¡ Loading of crushed materials to the temporary stockpiles ¡ Spoil transportation within the site (i.e. earth moving activity) ¡ Wind erosion of active area ¡ Concrete batching activity
	Wong Chuk Hang viaduct	¡ Heavy construction on pier and viaduct sections ¡ Wind erosion of active area
Lei Tung	Aberdeen Channel bridge	¡ Heavy construction of Aberdeen Channel Bridge ¡ Wind erosion of active area
	Lei Tung tunnel	¡ Heavy construction of cut-and-cover tunnel including open excavation and ventilation facilities ¡ Wind erosion of active area
	Lei Tung station	¡ Heavy construction of station entrances ¡ Slope stabilization work ¡ Wind erosion of active area
South Horizons	South Horizon station	¡ Heavy construction of station, entrances and ventilation building including excavation and foundation work ¡ Site formation and slope stabilization work at the existing hillside facing the Lee Nam Road ¡ Wind erosion of active area
Telegraph Bay	Telegraph Bay barging point*	¡ Material handling and stockpiling ¡ Unloading of spoils to barge
Lee Nam Road	Lee Nam Road barging point*	¡ Heavy construction of ventilation building ¡ Slope stabilization works ¡ Transportation of spoil materials to barge at Barging Point 6 (Figure 10.15) ¡ Material handling and wind erosion of open active area ¡ Construction of berths and tipping halls
Chung Hom Shan	Magazine site	¡ Slope stabilization works

* The paved road dust emissions were considered insignificant because of the high frequency of watering exercise in the construction area. All construction vehicles should pass through the wheel-washing facility at site exit(s). See mitigation measure in Section 10.6.2 for details.

The construction activities that are subject to dust emissions from the proposed stations, barging points and magazine site are described below:

10.1.1.1 Admiralty (ADM) Station

Two major work sites, namely Harcourt Road and Hong Kong Park have been assigned for the construction of the ADM station.

Most areas of the Harcourt Garden would be occupied for the construction for the station. The eastern side of Harcourt Garden is proposed for the works areas (e.g. site offices, material storage and plant occupied areas). Over half of the area on the western side of the garden would be occupied for the construction of the cut-and-cover box for SIL(E) and Shatin Central Link (SCL-NSL). Spoil generated from the excavation will be stored at stockpiling area within the work sites.

A site access road connecting Rodney Street and Harcourt Road would be constructed between the works site and works area. Spoil generated from the works would be initially transported to the temporary stockpile area, and then to the barging point for disposal.

Two sites would also be assigned for the shaft construction. The main ventilation shaft for the tunnel would be constructed at the works site at Hong Kong Park on Supreme Court Road.

10.1.1.2 Nam Fung Portal

The ex-Canadian Hospital site at Nam Fung Road allocated for the portal connecting the 3.5km tunnel running from ADM station, a significant amount of spoil would be generated from the tunnel excavation. Three work areas in the vicinity of the portal would be provided for the spoil stockpile areas. The works sites also support the construction of the tunnel box and the viaduct section towards Ocean Park.

Due to the large amount of rock generated from the tunnel, a rock crushing plant would be operated in the site near the Nam Fung Portal, and the crushed rocks would be transported to barging point for disposal. Crushing activities include the crushing loading, secondary crushing, screening and unloading from crushing plant to the stockpile area. Licence for Specified Processes as described in Section 10.2.3 is required if the capacity of the crushing plant exceeds the capacity as described in Section 10.2.3. There are also slope stabilization works behind the Nam Fung Road.

The viaduct section between OCP Station and the former Canadian Hospital site will be constructed crossing the Aberdeen Tunnel Approaches. The major construction work includes the foundation work and the erection of deck segments over roads.

10.1.1.3 Ocean Park (OCP) Station

The proposed development site would be a major works site for the construction of the OCP station. Most of the site area would be used for site office, plant and material storage, and the remaining areas would be occupied for the construction of viaduct sections. The major construction activities include the installation of bored piles, construction of viaduct sections.

Access to the works site would be along the Ocean Park Road and spoils generated would be transported to barging point for disposal.

10.1.1.4 Wong Chuk Hang (WCH) Station

WCH Station would be situated to the north of the WCH Depot. The proposed construction work includes the construction of the station and the approaching viaducts.

The construction of the station would interface with the re-construction works of Staunton Creek Nullah in Wong Chuk Hang, where a section of about 600m between the Ocean Park Road Roundabout and Tai Wong Ye Temple will be decked.

Viaduct section between Aberdeen Channel Bridge and WCH Station will be constructed parallel to a steep slope and the nullah. Due to the complex topography, existing slopes will be modified.

The construction of the piers and foundation for the viaduct will divert existing roads and footpaths and will need to slightly modify building structures such as Nam Long Shan Road Cooked Food Market, Nam Long Shan Road Children’s Playground.

10.1.1.5 Wong Chuk Hang (WCH) Depot

The majority of Wong Chuk Hang Estate works site would be excavated for the construction of the WCH station and the depot. A number of the major construction works including site formation, piling, piling caps and footings and structure work is found within Zone A to Zone E of the depot, with similar works undertaken within each zone. According to the construction programme, the construction works would be carried out simultaneously at each zone. The worst case scenario, based on the construction programme, is that three zones (Zones C, D and E) are for site formation, one zone (Zone A) is for piling, one zone (Zone E) is for crushing works and no major construction works in Zone B, since these works would occupy the largest works areas and thus are of the largest dust emissions in the modelling exercise. Details on zoning for site formation and structure/ fitting out works are shown in Figure 10.8.

Minor blasting activities for site formation would be carried out at the ground level of the depot, once per day. Dust generation from the minor blasting works was considered as one of the activities of the “heavy construction work” assumed in the modelling exercise as for the minor blasting at WCH Depot, tarpaulin covers would be provided on wire mesh covered steel cages to contain the dust. Rock crushing would be carried out in the works site to crush the larger rock fragments produced from blasting process and the rocks would be moved to the stockpiles for temporary storage and then transported to the barging point for disposal. Licence for Specified Processes as described in Section 10.2.3 is required if the capacity of the crushing plant exceeds the capacity as described in Section 10.2.3.

A small concrete batching plant (production rate approximately 500 tons/hr) is also located in the depot. However, it would be only operating during the construction of the super structure, i.e. after the completion of site formation and piling works. As its operation would not be cumulated with other dusty construction works, site formation and piling works, the dust contribution / impact would be minimal. The assessment results presented in the later Sections are already represented the worst case scenario. Licence for Specified Processes as described in Section 10.2.3 is required if the capacity of the concrete batching plant exceeds the capacity as described in Section 10.2.3. If license is applied and granted, relevant conditions as imposed by the license will be followed.

10.1.1.6 Lei Tung (LET) Station

Lei Tung would be a deep underground station with entrances, vent shafts and fireman’s access provided at ground level. After passing through the Ap Lei Chau Bridge, the viaducts section would enter to the cut-and-cover tunnel at Ap Lei Chau Drive. A fan chamber will be situated adjacent to Sham Wan Tower.

The construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel and the portal would be carried out in two stages. The first stage would be carried out within the work site at the existing Harbour Mission School on Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road. Upon the completion of first stage of works, Ap Lei Chau Drive would be shifted eastwards on the reinstated work site to allow the second stage of open excavation work. Details of the construction works at Lei Tung portal and tunnel are summarized in Table 10.13.

Table 10.13: Major Construction Works at Lei Tung Portal & Tunnel

Construction Stage	Construction Works
Stage 1	Demolition of Harbour Mission School Excavation of for construction of cut-and-cover tunnel Clearance of existing planter area
Stage 2	Installation of pipe pile wall Excavation for construction of remaining cut-and cover tunnel Installation of bored piles

There are also a few works sites for the construction of the entrances and the stabilization of slope work.

10.1.1.7 South Horizon (SOH) Station

The SOH station would be underground and constructed by the cut-and-cover method, while the section under Yuk Kwai Shan would be constructed by drill and blast method. The proposed works areas would be founded by mini-bored piles socketed in rock and bounded by screen walls. There would also be construction of the entrances at the works areas at Yi Nam Road.

A Lee Wing Street Plant building will be constructed at the existing slope along Lee Nam Road, which is opposite to the Lee Nam Road barging point to accommodate some of the station and tunnel plants to minimize the possible disturbance to the sensitive receivers.

There are also some modification works to the existing deck structure at the east of South Horizon and the widening of the footpath at all three entrances, however, dust emission is considered to be insignificant.

Major mucking out activities would be carried out via the construction adit at the portal connecting the tunnel and the spoils would be further transported to the Lee Nam Road barging point through a fully-enclosed conveyor belt although conventional method by trucks is also a viable alternative for spoil removal from the adit to the barging point.

10.1.1.8 Telegraph Bay Barging Point

Telegraph Bay Barging Point is situated on the seafront, where barging activities will mainly be carried out for the eastern portion of the site. The site would mainly handle the spoil materials transported from WCH depot and Nam Fung portal.

Major construction activities that would generate adverse dust impacts include the material handling in the stockpile areas, road traffic within the site and the unloading activities to the barge.

10.1.1.9 Lee Nam Road Barging Point

Lee Nam Road barging point is located at the south western portion of Ap Lei Chau. It comprises Lee Nam Road Sitting Out Area and the existing Highway Department’s depot works area. It mainly handles the spoil materials generated and transported from Lei Tung and South Horizons.

The spoil generated by the excavation of LET station and the approach tunnel could be disposed from an access adit at Lee Wing Street to the barging point via a temporary conveyor belt. Spoil generated from the works sites at South Horizons and tunnel section at Sham Wan Towers would be delivered to the barging point by the road traffic. No queuing area could be provided due to the limited area of the site.

Major construction activities from the site include the temporary spoil disposal, and road traffic within the site and unloading activities to the barges from the trucks and the conveyor belt.

10.1.1.10 Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site

The area is located to the south of Chung Hom Shan, in a disused quarry located at the end of a road that passes a PCCW satellite receiving station. Paved access road with slight overgrowth is closed to the public from Chung Hom Shan. The site is situated at a disused platform at the end of the road.

10.1.1.11 Concurrent Projects

There is also a number of Essential Public Infrastructure Works (EPIW) to be carried out during the construction of the subject Project. They were all considered as concurrent works and included in the dust impact assessment. Construction activities are described in Table 10.14. The construction programme of the concurrent projects was given in Appendix 10.1.

Dust source from the Wan Chai Development Phase II and Central-Wan Chai Bypass project and Harbour Area Treatment Scheme Stage 2A project were included. Another project, Shatin to Central Link (SCL), is also proposed by the Project Proponent. The enabling works of SCL at Admiralty will be carried out under SIL(E) at the time of the ADM construction. All plants to be involved in the ADM construction have been included in the dust impact assessment. It is considered that the cumulative impact from the SCL project had been taken into account in the assessment.

For the Central Reclamation Phase III project, according to the latest project programme available from the project website (http://www.criii-cedd.com/), the progress of reclamation works which may potentially cause dust emissions have been completed at least 95% in mid 2009. The construction of the Central Reclamation Phase III project will cease in November 2011. The concurrent period between the subject Project and Central Reclamation Phase III project is about 6 months only which is considered to be short. The remaining works in these 6 months will only include finishing works which would not include heavy construction and are therefore unlikely to be dusty. As such, the Central Reclamation Phase III project was not included in the quantitative dust assessment since dust emissions from the Central Reclamation Phase III project contribute insignificantly when the subject Project commences.

The Tamer Development project adjacent to Admiralty Station will be completed in May 2011. The Tamar Development project would unlikely be a concurrent project with the subject Project. According to the latest available construction works programme as presented in the Paper “Legislative Council Panel on Development Progress Report on the Tamar Development Project”, the remaining works will only include snagging inspection and handover upon commencement of the subject Project. As such, dust emission from this work will not be anticipated. Therefore the cumulative dust impact due to the Tamar Development project is considered to be insignificant.

For the Drainage Improvement in Northern Hong Kong Island – Hong Kong West Drainage Tunnel project, the works in Admiralty and operation of barging point at Cyberport are anticipated to be completed by early 2012. Based on the findings in Section 6.5 of the associated approved EIA report, minimal dust impacts were expected from the project provided that the recommended dust mitigation measures were undertaken. Nevertheless, the intake construction works in Admiralty and operation of barging point at Cyberport were regarded as a concurrent project with the subject Project and dust emissions from the intake construction works have been assumed and included in the quantitative assessment as a worst case scenario.

Table 10.14: Potential Emission Sources from EPIW and Concurrent Projects

Location	Construction Activities
EPIW
Wong Chuk Hang	¡ Widening of Heung Yip Road and associated road improvement works; ¡ Public Transport Interchange (PTI) underneath Wong Chuk Hang (WCH) Station; ¡ Footbridge connecting to Heung Yip Road and WCH Road; and
Ap Lei Chau	¡ Footbridge connecting to Ap Lei Chau Estate.
Other Concurrent Projects
Admiralty	¡ Wan Chai Development Phase II and Central-Wan Chai Bypass ¡ Drainage Improvement in Northern Hong Kong Island – Hong Kong West Drainage Tunnel
Cyber Port	¡ Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (HATS) Stage 2A ¡ Drainage Improvement in Northern Hong Kong Island – Hong Kong West Drainage Tunnel
Wong Chuk Hang	¡ Re- provisioning of PTI

10.1.2 Emission Inventory

The assessment of construction dust impacts has been carried out based on the following assumptions of the general construction activities:

§ All construction activities at all work sites and areas would be undertaken concurrently in order to assess the worst case situation

§ Heavy construction activities would include site clearance, excavation, foundation works, cut and cover operations, construction of the associated facilities, slope stabilization works, and construction traffic and hauling over the sites

§ For the minor blasting at WCH Depot, tarpaulin covers would be provided on wire mesh covered steel cages to contain the dust. Therefore, the heavy construction emission factor is considered adequate for the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) in the air quality assessment to address the dust generated from this activity

§ Wind erosion area of 30% has been assumed at any time for the hourly and daily TSP predictions and 6% at any time for annual TSP. However, to be conservative a 100% active area screening test has been undertaken initially for the short term hourly and daily TSP assessment as detailed in Section 10.5.6

§ Active operating areas of 30% have been assumed at any time for the hourly and daily TSP predictions and 6% active operating area at any time for annual TSP predictions for all sites. However, to be conservative a 100% active area screening test has been undertaken initially for the short term hourly and daily TSP assessment as detailed in Section 10.5.6

§ Construction periods are assumed to be 26 working days per month and 12 operation hours per day from 0700 to 1900. as the worst case scenario

Dust emission factors for different construction activities had been extracted from the USEPA “Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42)”, 5^th edition. The key assumptions for the calculation of dust emission factors are summarised in Table 10.15 below.

Table 10.15: Assumptions for Calculation of Dust Emission Factors

Activities	Reference ^[1]	Operating Sites	Equations and Assumptions ^[1]
Heavy construction activities including site clearance, excavation, foundation works, cut and cover operations, construction of the associated facilities, slope stabilization works, and construction traffic and hauling over the sites ^[2]	S.13.2.3.3	All above ground and open construction and excavation sites	E=1.2tons/acre/month of activity or 2.69Mg/hectare/month of activity
Wind erosion	S11.9. Table 11.9.4	Area of 30% for the hourly and daily TSP prediction and 6% for annual TSP	E = 0.85 Mg/hectare/yr (24 hour emission)
Loading and unloading at barging point	S.13.2.4	Barging point	E=k*0.0016*(U/2.2)^1.3/(M/2)^1.4 kg/Mg k is particle size multiplier U is average wind spped M is material moisture content
Unloading of rock materials at the receiving point of rock crushing facilities	S11.19.2, Table 11.19.2-1	Rock crushing facilities	E= 0.000008 kg/Mg
Crushing at rock crushing facilities	S11.19.2, Table 11.19.2-1	Rock crushing facilities	E = 0.0027 kg/Mg
Screening at rock crushing facilities	S11.19.2, Table 11.19.2-1	Rock crushing facilities	E = 0.0125 kg/Mg

[1] USEPA Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42)

[2] For the minor blasting at WCH Depot, tarpaulin covers would be provided on wire mesh covered steel cages to contain the dust and therefore, the emission factors associated with heavy construction has been used for the modelling.

The emission factors used for each scenario in the FDM model were provided in Appendix 10.2. The potential dust emission sources are shown in Figures 10.9 to 10.16.

The major dust generating activities at the rock crushing facilities at Nam Fung Portal and Wong Chuk Hang Depot would be assumed to mainly originate from the unloading of rock materials, crushing and screening processes. The rock crushing facilities are assumed to have maximum daily output of over 1000m³ per day and would be assumed to be equipped with the following measures:

¡ A dust enclosure with fabric baghouse/cartridge filter type dust extraction and collection system or equivalent system with 99% or more dust removal efficiency for the rock crushing facilities including unloading location.

10.1.3 Dispersion Model

The air pollutant concentrations were assessed in accordance with the Guidelines for Choice of Models and Model Parameters in Air Quality Assessment published by EPD. The extent of dust impacts arising from the construction of the proposed SIL(E) alignment were predicted using the USEPA approved model Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) in conjunction with the construction programme.

Emission factors for various fugitive dust sources were determined based on the USEPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 5th Edition (AP-42), Sections 11.9 and 13.2.3. Calculation of the emission factors was detailed in Appendix 10.2. The input information of dust sources were detailed in Appendix 10.3.

10.1.4 Particle Size Distribution

In the FDM model runs, the particle size distribution was made reference to the USEPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors 5th Edition, Section 13.2.4 November 2006.

10.1.5 Meteorological Data

Sequential meteorological data includes wind speed, wind direction, Pasquill stability class, temperature and mixing height from meteorological stations for the year 2008 were used in the FDM model to obtain hourly, daily and annual average TSP concentration at the identified locations. Meteorological data obtained from the Hong Kong Observatory Headquarter in Tsim Sha Tsui have been used for the dust impact assessment in Admiralty and data obtained from Wong Chuk Hang (WCH) station have been used for the dust impact assessment in the Island South.

It is noted that valid data was found to be less than 90% in 2008 (and 2007) for the original WCH meteorology dataset. As such, treatment has been made for those hourly meteorology data with missing/invalid wind direction recorded. The treatment method was made reference to Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Environment (2009).

According to the guideline, the missing wind direction found in WCH station was filled with data from a nearby station with similar climatology. In this case, Cheung Chau station was selected. Missing wind directions last longer than six consecutive hours have been left as "missing" data. Hours with calm or very low wind speeds (<1 m/s) were set to a minimum speed of 1m/s.

10.1.6 Modelling Approach

For hourly and daily TSP, it is assumed that 30% of total works area would be active at any one time. Detailed calculation of the assumed percentage of active area is provided in Appendix 10.4. As active construction activities would be undertaken at moving multiple works faces spread across the site, works activities would not be concentrated in certain areas of the site close to ASRs at any time. However, notwithstanding that such a scenario would not be expected to occur, for hourly and daily TSP predictions, to be conservative, a hypothetical Tier 1 screening that assumes 100% active area of construction site with mitigation measures in place was carried out. The purpose is to highlight the ASRs where construction dust may potentially become an issue. However, it should be emphasized that Tier 1 scenario (i.e. assuming 100% active area for the subject Project and all other concurrent projects) is a hypothetical one which does not occurred in reality.

The Tier 1 results have allowed a more focused Tier 2 assessment to be undertaken at specific ASRs with TSP non-compliance in the Tier 1 screening. For each of these selected ASRs, it is assumed that 30% active area for the subject Project and other concurrent projects are located closest to the particular ASR. The TSP level at the particular ASR is subsequently predicted and presented. The Tier 2 assessment is also a very conservative approach as it assumed 30% active area for the subject Project and all concurrent projects located closest to the particular ASR at any one time, which as noted above, is unlikely to occur in reality

For annual TSP, 6% of active area for the subject Project and all concurrent projects has been assumed. Detailed calculation of the assumed percentage of active area is provided in Appendix 10.4.

10.1.7 Predicted TSP Levels

The highest 1-hour, highest daily and annual TSP levels plus the background TSP concentrations are compared with the criteria of 500μg/m³, 260 μg/m³ and 80 μg/m³ stipulated in EIAO-TM.

10.2 Identification, Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental Impact

10.2.1 Unmitigated Results

The predicted unmitigated hourly, daily and annual average TSP concentrations to the representative ASRs are evaluated at the height of 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 15m and 20m Above Ground Level (AGL). The assessment results are summarized in Tables 10.16 to 10.42. The results showed that exceedances of the relevant Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for a number of sensitive receivers are predicted to occur. Mitigation measures are therefore required to control dust impacts.

Table 10.16: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
ADM1	-	-	-	-	217
ADM2	1056	535	394	296	215
ADM3	459	458	382	297	224
ADM4	603	582	448	316	219
ADM8	-	-	-	-	226
ADM9	-	-	-	-	240
ADM10	-	-	-	-	224
ADM11	-	1044	481	313	196
ADM12	1602	834	461	285	225
ADM13	-	522	410	297	211
ADM14	-	-	-	-	212
ADM15	-	-	-	-	192
ADM16	-	-	358	252	190
ADM17	-	-	-	-	205
ADM18	-	-	-	-	215
ADM19	432	421	336	249	194
ADM20	411	412	351	281	218
ADM21	-	-	-	-	228

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 77.4 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values; only the results at specific heights above ground level were presented for those ASRs which are dependent on central air-conditioning.

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.17: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
NFP1	1530	1224	906	784	669
NFP2	977	1019	909	770	623
NFP3	1101	1150	1032	883	724
NFP4	1144	1191	1062	903	735
NFP5	1561	1561	1281	1022	810
NFP6	3377	2440	1490	1047	781
NFP7	1333	1330	1076	874	715
NFP8	1353	1356	1113	896	726
NFP9	1343	1339	1083	873	713

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.18: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
OCP1	1438	1462	1237	970	712
OCP2	2041	2016	1600	1181	839
OCP3	3651	2714	1680	1112	781
OCP4	3957	2051	1586	1101	714
OCP6	1159	1200	1050	866	677
OCP7	1753	1645	1204	944	739
OCP8	3156	1768	1303	997	712

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.19: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
WCH1	4039	3310	1770	1126	826
WCH2	6024	3038	1637	1030	749
WCH3	6983	3259	1686	1080	845
WCH4	4760	3592	1705	1146	782
WCH5	5441	3301	1602	1052	773
WCH6	7692	3060	1558	997	767
WCH7	-	2760	1436	1048	742
WCH8	3961	2834	1752	1040	789
WCH9	-	2861	1690	1024	773
WCH10	2293	2194	1651	1141	754
WCH11	3069	2197	1651	1145	766
WCH12	1639	1646	1361	1055	787
WCH13	2120	1976	1443	1030	742
WCH14	5929	3003	1599	1049	825
WCH16	-	-	1720	1092	837
WCH17	5934	3530	1709	1071	853
WCH18	6547	3304	1579	1052	812
WCH21	3784	2884	1582	1037	805
WCH22	1918	1871	1457	1034	692

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.20: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LET1	2246	1442	1025	813	655
LET2	2015	1358	977	849	711
LET3	1825	1484	1097	843	673
LET4	2664	2064	1220	868	688
LET5	3427	1232	852	752	642
LET6	1192	773	716	643	561
LET7	1127	779	693	622	543
LET8	2167	1080	951	801	656
LET9	1622	1122	982	822	670
LET10	1858	793	735	663	582
LET11	1621	817	758	682	596
LET12	1036	951	684	609	538
LET13	1009	848	708	639	563
LET14	1226	762	710	643	567
LET15	3501	1140	1027	886	732
LET19	2515	1759	857	750	642
LET20	1331	1150	690	617	536
LET21	1568	1365	1047	815	648

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.21: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
SOH1	3608	1264	632	552	489
SOH2	3529	1126	590	531	472
SOH3	2778	1436	646	544	481
SOH4	3628	1133	621	561	497
SOH5	2805	1203	639	584	521
SOH6	1851	914	653	599	538
SOH8	1760	1137	715	544	485
SOH9	2824	1366	731	579	504
SOH11	1926	889	654	598	535
SOH13	1194	941	678	609	534
SOH14	922	840	730	624	522
SOH15	866	786	726	651	568
SOH16	1916	1229	710	637	564

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.22: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
TGB1	198	218	211	204	195
TGB2	226	249	241	231	220
TGB3	192	211	204	197	189
TGB4	204	224	217	209	200
TGB5	321	246	238	229	219
TGB6	236	261	252	242	231

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.23: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LNB1	-	655	492	421	381
LNB2	-	751	528	445	405
LNB3	-	918	560	515	465
LNB4	1829	1188	624	565	502
LNB5	1883	1234	626	543	483
LNB6	1891	1283	610	555	495

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.24: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
CHK1	310	309	263	209	194
CHK2	298	300	258	209	183
CHK3	564	530	380	239	184
CHK5	528	501	371	243	183

Table 10.25: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
ADM1	-	-	-	-	108
ADM2	296	178	144	125	109
ADM3	132	132	123	111	101
ADM4	153	151	134	116	102
ADM8	-	-	-	-	109
ADM9	-	-	-	-	117
ADM10	-	-	-	-	103
ADM11	-	366	220	140	118
ADM12	331	263	153	122	104
ADM13	-	185	160	134	114
ADM14	-	-	-	-	113
ADM15	-	-	-	-	103
ADM16	-	-	156	118	103
ADM17	-	-	-	-	104
ADM18	-	-	-	-	104
ADM19	168	164	145	127	112
ADM20	125	126	118	109	100
ADM21	-	-	-	-	102

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 77.4 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values; only the results at specific heights above ground level were presented for those ASRs which are dependent on central air-conditioning.

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.26: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
NFP1	378	287	203	176	158
NFP2	239	239	214	188	166
NFP3	268	261	229	199	174
NFP4	306	288	230	200	175
NFP5	530	340	263	211	177
NFP6	684	484	313	235	193
NFP7	260	249	221	194	168
NFP8	284	279	234	197	168
NFP9	263	249	223	195	169

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.27: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
OCP1	293	280	246	213	181
OCP2	480	392	302	246	205
OCP3	791	563	379	283	216
OCP4	763	455	354	281	220
OCP6	259	246	220	198	175
OCP7	413	316	260	217	186
OCP8	567	355	300	252	208

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.28: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
WCH1	793	684	445	286	205
WCH2	1320	835	456	302	224
WCH3	2030	1078	476	295	227
WCH4	891	711	469	301	240
WCH5	1131	792	431	298	246
WCH6	2119	1062	443	310	237
WCH7	-	720	444	301	222
WCH8	999	568	399	282	216
WCH9	-	509	380	283	224
WCH10	405	379	322	262	211
WCH11	711	420	335	267	214
WCH12	306	309	272	232	197
WCH13	472	406	308	247	205
WCH14	1463	880	433	280	219
WCH16	-	-	469	281	219
WCH17	1224	820	425	284	219
WCH18	1974	1083	474	321	249
WCH21	781	576	388	295	230
WCH22	403	327	268	222	194

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.29: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LET1	725	311	194	160	142
LET2	449	253	173	139	125
LET3	404	286	199	156	136
LET4	383	292	194	154	130
LET5	447	293	172	138	126
LET6	270	165	139	131	123
LET7	202	151	138	130	121
LET8	494	201	168	149	134
LET9	541	199	163	146	133
LET10	454	203	145	132	124
LET11	380	190	142	135	126
LET12	177	173	149	128	121
LET13	204	165	147	136	126
LET14	212	162	141	131	122
LET15	727	313	177	143	126
LET19	261	218	170	144	128
LET20	162	157	141	132	123
LET21	407	278	204	164	142

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.30: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
SOH1	891	382	197	143	122
SOH2	1031	384	197	143	123
SOH3	663	408	218	157	125
SOH4	927	348	223	164	130
SOH5	687	328	213	169	138
SOH6	408	248	184	149	133
SOH8	347	255	188	147	123
SOH9	551	344	197	156	132
SOH11	441	283	196	153	133
SOH13	233	210	156	142	128
SOH14	249	231	173	141	130
SOH15	184	174	158	142	128
SOH16	359	285	175	142	127

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.31: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
TGB1	90	91	90	89	88
TGB2	91	93	92	92	91
TGB3	90	93	92	91	90
TGB4	92	91	90	89	89
TGB5	126	109	91	90	89
TGB6	94	94	92	90	89

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.32: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LNB1	-	138	124	111	104
LNB2	-	153	131	116	107
LNB3	-	209	164	132	115
LNB4	378	308	193	140	124
LNB5	278	242	179	143	129
LNB6	433	342	216	150	122

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.33: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
CHK1	104	104	99	93	87
CHK2	94	94	90	86	83
CHK3	98	97	90	87	86
CHK5	114	112	100	89	84

Table 10.34: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
ADM1	-	-	-	-	78
ADM2	79	78	78	78	78
ADM3	79	79	78	78	78
ADM4	78	78	78	78	78
ADM8	-	-	-	-	79
ADM9	-	-	-	-	79
ADM10	-	-	-	-	78
ADM11	-	82	80	79	79
ADM12	79	79	79	79	78
ADM13	-	79	78	78	78
ADM14	-	-	-	-	78
ADM15	-	-	-	-	78
ADM16	-	-	79	79	78
ADM17	-	-	-	-	78
ADM18	-	-	-	-	78
ADM19	78	78	78	78	78
ADM20	78	78	78	78	78
ADM21	-	-	-	-	78

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 77.4 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values; only the results at specific heights above ground level were presented for those ASRs which are dependent on central air-conditioning.

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.35: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
NFP1	83	79	75	75	74
NFP2	86	83	78	76	75
NFP3	83	80	77	75	75
NFP4	84	81	78	76	75
NFP5	85	81	77	76	75
NFP6	96	81	77	75	75
NFP7	78	77	76	75	75
NFP8	76	76	75	75	74
NFP9	78	77	76	75	75

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.36: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
OCP1	78	78	77	76	75
OCP2	82	81	78	76	75
OCP3	83	80	78	76	75
OCP4	87	79	77	76	75
OCP6	77	77	76	75	74
OCP7	79	78	76	75	75
OCP8	81	78	76	75	75

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.37: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
WCH1	82	80	78	76	75
WCH2	84	81	78	76	75
WCH3	101	92	82	77	76
WCH4	100	94	85	80	77
WCH5	125	110	92	83	79
WCH6	107	94	83	78	76
WCH7	-	100	89	83	79
WCH8	93	87	82	79	77
WCH9	-	84	81	79	77
WCH10	81	80	78	77	76
WCH11	85	80	78	77	76
WCH12	77	77	77	76	75
WCH13	80	79	77	76	75
WCH14	89	84	79	76	75
WCH16	-	-	80	77	75
WCH17	101	94	83	78	76
WCH18	191	136	93	82	78
WCH21	91	87	83	80	78
WCH22	80	80	78	77	76

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.38: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LET1	82	78	76	75	75
LET2	78	76	75	75	74
LET3	80	78	76	75	74
LET4	80	78	76	75	74
LET5	77	75	75	74	74
LET6	75	75	74	74	74
LET7	75	75	74	74	74
LET8	78	75	75	74	74
LET9	82	76	75	74	74
LET10	83	75	74	74	74
LET11	76	75	74	74	74
LET12	74	74	74	74	74
LET13	75	75	74	74	74
LET14	75	75	74	74	74
LET15	81	77	75	75	74
LET19	75	75	75	74	74
LET20	75	75	74	74	74
LET21	80	78	76	75	75

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.39: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
SOH1	91	81	76	75	74
SOH2	87	79	76	75	74
SOH3	87	79	76	75	74
SOH4	84	78	76	75	74
SOH5	84	77	75	75	74
SOH6	79	76	75	74	74
SOH8	78	77	76	75	74
SOH9	82	79	76	75	74
SOH11	78	76	75	75	74
SOH13	77	77	75	75	74
SOH14	76	75	75	74	74
SOH15	76	75	75	74	74
SOH16	77	76	75	75	74

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.40: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
TGB1	74	74	74	74	74
TGB2	74	74	74	74	74
TGB3	74	74	74	74	74
TGB4	75	75	74	74	74
TGB5	76	75	74	74	74
TGB6	75	75	74	74	74

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.41: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LNB1	-	77	74	74	74
LNB2	-	77	74	74	74
LNB3	-	76	75	74	74
LNB4	78	76	75	74	74
LNB5	79	78	76	75	74
LNB6	85	77	75	74	74

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.42: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Unmitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
CHK1	73	73	73	73	73
CHK2	73	73	73	73	73
CHK3	73	73	73	73	73
CHK5	73	73	73	73	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

10.2.2 Mitigation Measures

The following specific mitigation measures and proposed dust removal efficiencies that have been assumed in the modelling exercise to reduce dust generation from the Project to comply with the 1-hour, 24-hour and annual TSP AQO criteria of 500μg/m³, 260 μg/m³ and 80 μg/m³ at ASRs have been applied for both Tier 1, Tier 2 and annual TSP predictions:

¡ For the unloading of spoil from trucks at barging point, installation of 3-sided screen with top and the provision of water sprays at the discharge point would be provided for an assumed 50% dust suppression. This assumption is based upon USEPA AP-42 Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources Part 2 which states that watering alone would have 50% dust removal efficiency. This is considered to be very conservative as the barging point would also be provided with a 3 sided-enclosure, which would provide additional dust containment and control

¡ Watering every working hour for 12 hours a day on exposed soil areas on active works areas and paved haul roads to reduce dust emissions by 91.7%, which is with reference to the “Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources” (USEPA AP-42). It is assumed that the amount of water to be applied would be 1.8L/m²; and

¡ The rock crushing facilities with maximum daily output of over 1000m³ per day would be enclosed including unloading locations and a fabric baghouse/cartridge filter type dust extraction and collection system or equivalent system with 99% or more dust removal efficiency would be installed for the treatment of the emissions from rock crushing and screening processes. The dust removal efficiency of fabric baghouse/cartridge filter type dust extraction and collection system or equivalent for rock crushing activities within an enclosure is assumed to be 99%, with reference to USEPA AP-42 Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources – Volume 2, Section 9.7.1.2.1 Emission Control Techniques – Dry Collection on page 9.7-18.

In addition to those measures mentioned above under the auspices of the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, the Contractor would be required to ensure that dust control measures stipulated in the Regulation should be implemented to control dust emissions.

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.

¡ For the minor blasting at WCH Depot, tarpaulin covers would be provided on the steel screens to prevent the dust from spreading out.

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 provided at each construction site exit.

Stone crushing plants

¡ The control measures listed in EPD’s A Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) (BPM 11/1) should be followed, where appropriate.

Concrete Batching Plant

¡ The loading, unloading, handling, transfer or storage of dusty materials shall be carried in a totally

¡ enclosed system. All dust-laden air or waste gas generated by the process operations should be properly extracted and vented to fabric filtering system. The control measures listed in EPD’s A Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) (BPM 3/2) should be followed, where appropriate.

Good Site Practices

¡ 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 minimize 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 minimizing generation of fugitive dust emissions. The material should be handled properly to prevent fugitive dust emission before cleaning.

The mitigation measures as specified above are also detailed in the Implementation Schedule of Mitigation Measures in Section 14.

10.2.3 Mitigated Results

The predicted mitigated hourly average TSP concentrations to the representative ASRs are evaluated at the height of 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 15m and 20m Above Ground Level (AGL). The assessment results of Tier 1 are summarized in the Tables 10.43 to 10.51. Tier 1 contours of cumulative hourly TSP concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during construction phase are shown in Figures 10.22 to 10.28. As discussed in Section 10.3.2, the use of the ASRs in Admiralty are mainly hotels, office, G/IC or commercial which are dependent on central air conditioning and their fresh air intakes are located at specific height only as detailed in Table 10.2 while some of the ASRs in Wong Chuk Hang and Lee Nam Road Barging Point are of industrial use with car parks at the first few levels as detailed in Tables 10.5 and 10.9. Therefore, dust levels are presented at specific heights for the respective ASRs to represent the worst-case scenario.

Table 10.43: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
ADM1	-	-	-	-	150
ADM2	263	219	194	171	148
ADM3	224	229	210	186	162
ADM4	254	257	229	197	167
ADM8	-	-	-	-	174
ADM9	-	-	-	-	174
ADM10	-	-	-	-	157
ADM11	-	345	268	202	172
ADM12	419	407	322	234	177
ADM13	-	241	216	187	160
ADM14	-	-	-	-	163
ADM15	-	-	-	-	192
ADM16	-	-	356	252	190
ADM17	-	-	-	-	205
ADM18	-	-	-	-	169
ADM19	217	221	203	180	157
ADM20	215	221	203	182	160
ADM21	-	-	-	-	-155

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 77.4 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values; only the results at specific heights above ground level were presented for those ASRs which are dependent on central air-conditioning.

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.44: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
NFP1	208	179	150	138	128
NFP2	158	162	152	139	125
NFP3	168	172	161	147	132
NFP4	172	176	164	150	134
NFP5	210	210	184	160	140
NFP6	380	292	204	162	138
NFP7	190	190	166	148	133
NFP8	192	191	169	148	133
NFP9	191	191	167	147	133

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.45: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
OCP1	201	204	182	157	133
OCP2	254	252	213	174	143
OCP3	403	317	221	167	139
OCP4	435	256	212	168	132
OCP6	174	178	164	147	129
OCP7	229	219	178	154	135
OCP8	361	231	187	159	132

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.46: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
WCH1	438	370	228	170	142
WCH2	637	353	220	162	136
WCH3	738	373	227	169	146
WCH4	483	383	220	170	139
WCH5	574	373	216	163	137
WCH6	791	351	212	159	137
WCH7	-	321	200	162	135
WCH8	435	327	227	162	139
WCH9	-	332	222	160	138
WCH10	278	268	218	171	136
WCH11	352	270	219	172	137
WCH12	219	219	193	164	139
WCH13	263	250	200	162	135
WCH14	619	351	217	164	143
WCH16	-	-	229	169	145
WCH17	657	407	225	169	147
WCH18	655	374	211	161	140
WCH21	424	331	212	162	141
WCH22	245	241	202	163	131

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.47: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LET1	276	200	161	142	127
LET2	254	193	158	146	133
LET3	237	205	168	145	129
LET4	315	259	180	147	130
LET5	386	181	146	137	127
LET6	178	138	133	126	119
LET7	171	139	131	124	117
LET8	268	167	155	141	127
LET9	219	171	158	143	129
LET10	240	140	135	128	121
LET11	193	143	137	130	122
LET12	135	138	130	123	116
LET13	160	146	132	126	119
LET14	181	138	133	126	119
LET15	393	173	162	149	135
LET19	301	230	147	137	126
LET20	190	174	131	124	117
LET21	213	193	164	142	126

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.48: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
SOH1	352	171	125	118	112
SOH2	396	172	121	116	110
SOH3	304	180	123	117	111
SOH4	405	172	124	119	113
SOH5	328	179	126	121	115
SOH6	239	152	127	122	117
SOH8	231	159	125	117	112
SOH9	284	185	134	120	113
SOH11	246	149	128	122	116
SOH13	178	154	130	123	116
SOH14	149	143	135	125	115
SOH15	144	140	134	127	119
SOH16	245	181	132	126	119

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.49: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
TGB1	100	98	89	85	85
TGB2	101	99	90	88	87
TGB3	118	112	95	85	84
TGB4	141	124	92	86	85
TGB5	309	162	106	88	87
TGB6	163	134	93	89	88

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.50: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LNB1	-	145	109	106	102
LNB2	-	131	111	108	104
LNB3	-	131	119	114	110
LNB4	199	150	125	119	113
LNB5	188	152	125	117	111
LNB6	196	146	123	118	113

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

Table 10.51: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
CHK1	95	95	91	86	85
CHK2	94	94	90	86	83
CHK3	119	116	102	89	84
CHK5	116	113	101	89	83

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

The results showed that under Tier 1 screening, a number of sensitive receivers at Wong Chuk Hang could be subject to construction dust impacts. The sensitive receivers with non-compliance under Tier 1 screening were selected to undergo Tier 2 testing. Although the contour plot in Figure 10.22 for the Admiralty works area showed exceedance of cumulative hourly average TSP levels at 1.5 above ground level at ADM15, 16 and 17 and area to the east of ADM16 when compared with the AQO criteria, as the use of these ASRs and other ASRs if any in the area to the east of ADM16 are mainly hotels, office, G/IC or commercial which are dependent on central air conditioning and their fresh air intakes are located at specific height above 5m, adverse impacts to these ASRs were therefore not anticipated.

Construction works in Wong Chuk Hang are divided into several phasing and zones as indicated in Figure 10.8. According to the construction programme, the construction works would be carried out simultaneously at each zone. The locations of the 30% of active area nearest to the ASRs with non-compliance under Tier 1 screening for each zone which represents the worst case scenario are shown in Figures 10.17 to 10.21.

The assessment results of Tier 2 are summarized in the Tables 10.52.Tier 2 Contours of cumulative hourly TSP concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during construction phase are shown in Figures 10.29 to 10.33.

Table 10.52: Predicted Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang at 30% active area nearest to selective ASR (Tier 2)

ASRs	Cumulative Hourly Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
WCH2	444	236	127	111	100
WCH3	467	234	151	115	104
WCH5	293	219	146	116	100
WCH6	436	206	133	110	99
WCH14	406	210	139	111	99
WCH16	-	-	145	116	98
WCH17	391	219	144	113	102
WCH18	479	238	143	118	104

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 1-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 500 μg/m³

The results showed that under Tier 2 testing, the predicted cumulative hourly average TSP concentrations at all ASRs complied with the 1-hour Average TSP levels criterion even assuming a conservative scenario.

The predicted mitigated daily average TSP concentrations to the representative ASRs are evaluated at the height of 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 15m and 20m AGL. The assessment results of Tier 1 are summarized in the Tables 10.53 to 10.61. Tier 1 contours of cumulative daily TSP concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during construction phase are shown in Figures 10.34 to 10.40. As discussed in Section 10.3.2, the use of the ASRs in Admiralty are mainly hotels, office, G/IC or commercial which are dependent on central air conditioning and their fresh air intakes are located at specific height only as detailed in Table 10.2 while some of the ASRs in Wong Chuk Hang and Lee Nam Road Barging Point are of industrial use with car parks at the first few levels as detailed in Tables 10.2, 10.5 and 10.9. Therefore, dust levels are presented at specific heights for the respective ASRs to represent the worst-case scenario.

Table 10.53: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
ADM1	-	-	-	-	94
ADM2	118	107	102	97	93
ADM3	99	99	97	94	91
ADM4	103	104	100	96	92
ADM8	-	-	-	-	94
ADM9	-	-	-	-	94
ADM10	-	-	-	-	103
ADM11	-	157	139	119	103
ADM12	131	129	118	105	95
ADM13	-	114	108	102	96
ADM14	-	-	-	-	98
ADM15	-	-	-	-	103
ADM16	-	-	156	118	103
ADM17	-	-	-	-	104
ADM18	-	-	-	-	92
ADM19	110	111	107	102	97
ADM20	97	98	96	93	90
ADM21	-	-	-	-	90

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 77.4 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values; only the results at specific heights above ground level were presented for those ASRs which are dependent on central air-conditioning.

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

Table 10.54: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
NFP1	100	94	87	84	82
NFP2	90	90	87	85	82
NFP3	92	92	89	86	83
NFP4	95	94	89	86	83
NFP5	119	100	92	86	83
NFP6	135	114	97	89	85
NFP7	91	90	87	85	83
NFP8	94	93	88	85	82
NFP9	92	91	88	85	83

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-Hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

Table 10.55: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
OCP1	95	94	91	87	84
OCP2	114	105	95	90	86
OCP3	145	120	103	94	87
OCP4	141	110	101	94	87
OCP6	92	91	87	85	83
OCP7	107	98	91	87	84
OCP8	121	102	96	91	86

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-Hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

Table 10.56: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
WCH1	146	135	110	94	86
WCH2	199	151	110	95	88
WCH3	271	173	114	95	88
WCH4	160	140	113	96	89
WCH5	180	142	109	95	90
WCH6	275	169	109	96	89
WCH7	-	138	109	95	88
WCH8	163	121	105	94	88
WCH9	-	117	103	94	89
WCH10	108	103	97	91	86
WCH11	136	107	98	92	87
WCH12	96	96	92	89	85
WCH13	112	105	96	90	86
WCH14	218	156	109	94	87
WCH16	-	-	113	94	87
WCH17	195	150	108	94	87
WVH18	249	169	112	97	90
WCH21	146	123	105	96	89
WCH22	107	99	93	88	86

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-Hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

Table 10.57: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LET1	135	96	85	82	80
LET2	111	92	83	80	78
LET3	106	95	86	82	79
LET4	105	95	85	81	79
LET5	113	96	83	79	78
LET6	93	82	80	79	78
LET7	84	81	80	79	78
LET8	118	86	83	81	79
LET9	119	86	82	81	79
LET10	112	86	80	79	78
LET11	101	82	80	79	78
LET12	80	80	79	79	78
LET13	86	82	81	79	78
LET14	86	82	80	79	78
LET15	140	98	83	80	78
LET19	92	87	82	80	78
LET20	82	82	80	79	78
LET21	108	94	86	82	80

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-Hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

Table 10.58: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
SOH1	155	101	84	79	77
SOH2	165	100	84	79	77
SOH3	129	103	86	80	78
SOH4	154	98	85	80	78
SOH5	131	96	84	81	78
SOH6	104	88	81	79	78
SOH8	100	90	83	80	78
SOH9	118	97	84	80	78
SOH11	111	89	81	79	78
SOH13	89	85	80	79	78
SOH14	86	84	81	79	79
SOH15	83	82	81	79	78
SOH16	99	91	81	78	77

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-Hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

Table 10.59: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
TGB1	79	79	77	76	75
TGB2	77	77	76	75	75
TGB3	78	78	76	75	75
TGB4	81	80	77	75	75
TGB5	108	92	79	77	75
TGB6	82	80	77	75	75

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-Hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

Table 10.60: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LNB1	-	87	77	76	76
LNB2	-	88	78	77	76
LNB3	-	83	79	78	77
LNB4	94	87	80	78	77
LNB5	88	85	81	79	78
LNB6	99	91	82	78	77

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-Hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

Table 10.61: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Tier 1)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
CHK1	76	76	76	75	75
CHK2	75	75	75	74	74
CHK3	76	76	75	75	74
CHK5	78	77	76	75	74

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-Hour Average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

The results showed that under Tier 1 screening, a two sensitive receivers at Wong Chuk Hang could be subject to construction dust impacts. The sensitive receivers with non-compliance under Tier 1 screening were selected to undergo Tier 2 testing. Although the contour plot in Figure 10.34 for the Admiralty works area showed exceedance of cumulative daily average TSP levels at 1.5 above ground level at ADM 16 and area to the east of ADM16 when compared with the AQO criteria, as the use of this ASR and other ASRs if any in the area to the east of ADM16 are mainly hotels, office, G/IC or commercial which are dependent on central air conditioning and their fresh air intakes are located at specific height above 5m, adverse impacts to these ASRs were therefore not anticipated.

Construction works in Wong Chuk Hang are divided into several phasing and zones as indicated in Figure 10.8. According to the construction programme, the construction works would be carried out simultaneously at each zone. The locations of the 30% of active area nearest to the ASRs with non-compliance under Tier 1 screening for each zone which represents the worst case scenario are shown in Figures 10.17 to 10.21.

The assessment results of Tier 2 are summarized in the Table 10.62. Tier 2 contours of cumulative daily TSP concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during construction phase are shown in Figures 10.43 and 10.45.

Table 10.62: Predicted Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in Wong Chuk Hang at 30% active area nearest to selective ASR (Tier 2)

ASRs	Cumulative Daily Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
WCH3	181	126	91	83	79
WCH6	141	106	87	81	78

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the 24-hour average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 260 μg/m³

The results showed that under Tier 2 testing, the predicted cumulative daily average TSP concentrations at all ASRs complied with the 24-hour Average TSP levels criterion even assuming a conservative scenario.

The predicted mitigated annual average TSP concentrations to the representative ASRs are evaluated at the height of 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 15m and 20m AGL. The assessment results are summarized in the Tables 10.35 to 10.43. Contours of cumulative annually TSP concentration (mg/m³) at 1.5m above ground during construction phase are shown in Figures 10.46 to 10.52. As discussed in Section 10.3.2, the use of the ASRs in Admiralty are mainly hotels, office, G/IC or commercial which are dependent on central air conditioning and their fresh air intakes are located at specific height only while some of the ASRs in Wong Chuk Hang and Lee Nam Road Barging Point are of industrial use with car parks at the first few levels as detailed in Tables 10.2, 10.5 and 10.9. Therefore, dust levels are presented at specific heights for the respective ASRs to represent the worst-case scenario.

Table 10.63: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Admiralty (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
ADM1	-	-	-	-	78
ADM2	78	78	78	78	78
ADM3	78	78	78	78	78
ADM4	78	78	78	78	78
ADM8	-	-	-	-	78
ADM9	-	-	-	-	78
ADM10	-	-	-	-	78
ADM11	-	79	79	78	78
ADM12	79	79	79	78	78
ADM13	-	78	78	78	78
ADM14	-	-	-	-	78
ADM15	-	-	-	-	78
ADM16	-	-	79	79	78
ADM17	-	-	-	-	78
ADM18	-	-	-	-	78
ADM19	78	78	78	78	78
ADM20	78	78	78	78	78
ADM21	-	-	-	-	78

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 77.4 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values; only the results at specific heights above ground level were presented for those ASRs which are dependent on central air-conditioning.

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.64: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Nam Fung (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
NFP1	74	73	73	73	73
NFP2	74	74	74	73	73
NFP3	74	74	73	73	73
NFP4	74	74	73	73	73
NFP5	74	74	73	73	73
NFP6	76	74	73	73	73
NFP7	74	74	73	73	73
NFP8	73	73	73	73	73
NFP9	74	74	73	73	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.65: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Ocean Park (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
OCP1	74	74	74	73	73
OCP2	74	74	74	73	73
OCP3	74	74	74	73	73
OCP4	75	74	74	73	73
OCP6	74	74	73	73	73
OCP7	74	74	73	73	73
OCP8	74	74	73	73	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.66: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations Wong Chuk Hang (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
WCH1	74	74	74	73	73
WCH2	74	74	74	73	73
WCH3	76	75	74	74	73
WCH4	75	75	74	74	74
WCH5	76	75	74	74	74
WCH6	76	75	74	74	73
WCH7	-	75	74	74	74
WCH8	75	74	74	74	74
WCH9	-	74	74	74	74
WCH10	74	74	74	74	73
WCH11	74	74	74	73	73
WCH12	74	74	74	73	73
WCH13	74	74	74	73	73
WCH14	75	74	74	73	73
WCH16	-	-	74	73	73
WCH17	76	75	74	74	73
WCH18	78	76	74	74	74
WCH21	75	74	74	74	74
WCH22	74	74	74	74	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.67: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in Lei Tung (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LET1	74	74	73	73	73
LET2	74	74	73	73	73
LET3	74	74	73	73	73
LET4	74	74	73	73	73
LET5	74	73	73	73	73
LET6	73	73	73	73	73
LET7	73	73	73	73	73
LET8	74	73	73	73	73
LET9	74	73	73	73	73
LET10	74	73	73	73	73
LET11	74	73	73	73	73
LET12	73	73	73	73	73
LET13	74	73	73	73	73
LET14	73	73	73	73	73
LET15	74	74	73	73	73
LET19	73	73	73	73	73
LET20	73	73	73	73	73
LET21	74	74	73	73	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.68: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in South Horizons (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
SOH1	75	74	74	73	73
SOH2	75	74	74	73	73
SOH3	75	74	74	73	73
SOH4	74	74	74	73	73
SOH5	74	74	74	73	73
SOH6	74	74	73	73	73
SOH8	74	74	73	73	73
SOH9	74	73	73	73	73
SOH11	74	74	74	73	73
SOH13	74	74	74	73	73
SOH14	74	74	73	73	73
SOH15	73	74	73	73	73
SOH16	74	73	73	73	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.69: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Telegraph Bay Barging Point (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
TGB1	74	74	73	73	73
TGB2	73	73	73	73	73
TGB3	73	73	73	73	73
TGB4	74	74	73	73	73
TGB5	74	74	74	73	73
TGB6	74	74	73	73	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.70: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Lee Nam Road Barging Point (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
LNB1	-	75	74	73	73
LNB2	-	75	73	73	73
LNB3	-	74	74	73	73
LNB4	74	74	74	73	73
LNB5	74	74	74	74	73
LNB6	75	74	74	73	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

Table 10.71: Predicted Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations at Chung Hom Shan Magazine Site (Mitigated)

ASRs	Cumulative Annual Average TSP Concentrations in μg/m^3
	1.5m AGL	5m AGL	10m AGL	15m AGL	20m AGL
CHK1	73	73	73	73	73
CHK2	73	73	73	73	73
CHK3	73	73	73	73	73
CHK5	73	73	73	73	73

Note: The background TSP concentration level of 73.2 μg/m³ have been included in the predicted values

Bold: The predicted value exceeds the annual average TSP levels criterion, i.e. 80 μg/m³

With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the results in Table 10.63 and Table 10.71 indicated that there is no TSP exceedance at all assessment levels for all identified ASRs. As such, no adverse dust impact was predicted at all the ASRs. The contour plot in Figure 10.46 for the Admiralty works area and Figure 10.50 for the South Horizons and Lee Nam Road Barging Point works area showed exceedance of cumulative annual average TSP levels at 1.5 above ground level at ADM 16 and area to the east of ADM16 and LNB 1 respectively when compared with the AQO criteria.

For Admiralty, however, as the use of this ASR and other ASRs if any in the area to the east of ADM16 are mainly hotels, office, G/IC or commercial which are dependent on central air conditioning and their fresh air intakes are located at specific height above 5m, adverse impacts to these ASRs were therefore not anticipated.

For Lee Nam Road Barging Point, however, as the use of this ASR is an industrial building in which sensitive use are located at a height of above 5m, adverse impact to this ASR is therefore not anticipated.

10.3 Evaluation of Residual Impact

With the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures and good site practice as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, the predicted cumulative 1-hour, 24-hour and annual average TSP concentrations at the ASRs in the vicinity of the works area would fully comply with the TSP criterion stipulated in EIAO-TM and AQO. No residual air quality impact is anticipated.

10.4 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

The predicted TSP levels at all works sites compiled with the hourly, daily and annual average TSP criteria with the implementation of dust suppression measures stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. Dust monitoring is considered necessary during the construction phase and regular site audits are required to ensure that the dust control measures are properly implemented.

10.5 Conclusion

During construction, it is anticipated that the construction activities should be controlled in accordance with appropriate mitigation measures stipulated under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulations. With the proper implementation of dust suppression measures, adverse dust impacts would not be anticipated.