Content

Chapter Title

5. Air Quality Impact

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Overview

5.1.2 Air Quality Legislations, Standards and Guidelines

5.1.3 Baseline Conditions

5.2 Construction Phase Assessment

5.2.1 Overview

5.2.2 Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers

5.2.3 Identification of Pollution Sources and Key Pollutants

5.2.4 Construction Phase Air Quality Assessment Methodology

5.2.5 Evaluation and Assessment of Construction Phase Air Quality Impact

5.2.6 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

5.2.7 Evaluation of Construction Phase Residual Impact

5.3 Operation Phase Assessment

5.3.1 Overview

5.3.2 Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers

5.3.3 Identification of Pollution Sources and Key Pollutants

5.3.4 Compilation of Emission Inventory

5.3.5 Operation Phase Air Quality Assessment Methodology

5.3.6 Evaluation and Assessment of Operational Phase Air Quality Impact

5.3.7 Operation Phase Air Quality Enhancement Measures

5.3.8 Evaluation of Operation Phase Residual Impact

5.4 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

5.4.1 Construction Phase

5.4.2 Operation Phase

5.5 Conclusion

5.5.1 Construction Phase

5.5.2 Operation Phase

5.6 References

Tables

Table 5.1.1_ Air Quality Objectives 5-2

Table 5.1.2:_ Concentration Limit for Emission from Cement Work 5-3

Table 5.1.3:_ Concentration Limit for Emission from Tar and Bitumen Works 5-4

Table 5.1.4:_ Concentration Limit for Emission from Stone Crushing Plants 5-4

Table 5.1.5:_ Emission Sources in the vicinity of the Airport 5-5

Table 5.1.6:_ Air Quality Monitoring Data (Lung Kwu Chau station (LKC), Year 2008-2012)^[1][2]7] 5-7

Table 5.1.7:_ Air Quality Monitoring Data (North Station (PH1), Year 2008-2012) ^[1][2] 5-8

Table 5.1.8:_ Air Quality Monitoring Data (South Station (PH5), Year 2008-2012) ^[1][2] 5-9

Table 5.1.9:_ Air Quality Monitoring Data (Tung Chung station (TC), Year 2008-2012) ^[1][2] 5-10

Table 5.1.10: NO₂ Concentration Breakdown based on Near field Model 5-14

Table 5.1.11:RSP Concentration Breakdown based on Near field Model 5-15

Table 5.1.12:O₃ Monitoring Data at Different AQM Stations in Year 2011_ 5-16

Table 5.2.1:_ Representative ASRs Identified for Assessment of Construction Phase Air Quality Impacts 5-18

Table 5.2.2:_ Land Formation Work Sequence and Potential Dust Emission Sources 5-20

Table 5.2.3:_ Peak Production Rates of Concrete and Asphalt Batching Plants during Different Phases 5-22

Table 5.2.4:_ Key Dust Emission Factors Adopted in the Assessment 5-27

Table 5.2.5:_ Annual RSP Emissions from Various Major Dust Emission Sources 5-28

Table 5.2.6:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative Maximum Hourly Average TSP Concentrations (Tier 1 Unmitigated and Mitigated) 5-33

Table 5.2.7:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative 10^th Highest Daily Average RSP Concentrations (Tier 1 Unmitigated and Mitigated) 5-33

Table 5.2.8:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative 10^th Highest Daily Average FSP Concentrations (Tier 1 Unmitigated and Mitigated) 5-34

Table 5.2.9:_ Summary of Predicted Cumulative 10^th Highest Daily Average RSP Concentrations (Tier 2 Mitigated) 5-35

Table 5.2.10: Summary of Predicted Cumulative Annual Average RSP Concentrations for all ASRs (Unmitigated and Mitigated) 5-35

Table 5.2.11: Summary of Predicted Cumulative Annual Average FSP Concentrations for all ASRs (Unmitigated and Mitigated) 5-36

Table 5.3.1:_ Representative Existing and Planned Air Sensitive Receivers 5-45

Table 5.3.2:_ List of Proximity Infrastructure Emissions in Lantau Area_ 5-51

Table 5.3.3:_ List of Proximity Infrastructure Emissions in Tuen Mun Area_ 5-51

Table 5.3.4:_ List of Key Airport Operation Air Emission Sources 5-52

Table 5.3.5: Ozone concentration for with and without airport scenario under northern wind direction_ 5-54

Table 5.3.6: Ozone concentration for with and without airport scenario under southern wind direction_ 5-54

Table 5.3.7: Ozone concentration for with and without airport scenario under western wind direction_ 5-54

Table 5.3.8:_ Aircraft - LTO Emission Input Parameters 5-56

Table 5.3.9:_ Adjustment to Local Conditions 5-58

Table 5.3.10:Emission Trend of Different Pollutants under Average Local Conditions 5-60

Table 5.3.11:Approach for Determination of the Aircraft Emission Inventory 5-61

Table 5.3.12:Monthly Profile_ 5-61

Table 5.3.13:Average Daily Profile_ 5-62

Table 5.3.14:Busiest Dates Profile_ 5-62

Table 5.3.15:Busiest Dates Profile applied on Year 2010 Meteorological Data_ 5-62

Table 5.3.16: Annual Emission Inventory for Aircraft in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS (Reference to local average conditions) 5-63

Table 5.3.17: Annual Emission Inventory for Aircraft in Year 2031_ 5-64

Table 5.3.18: Business Helicopter - Emission Input Parameters 5-64

Table 5.3.19: Annual Emission Inventory for Business Helicopter in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-65

Table 5.3.20: Compression Ignition (CI) Engines (i.e. those Running on Diesel) 5-66

Table 5.3.21: Spark Ignition (SI) Engines, i.e. those Running on Petrol or LPG_ 5-66

Table 5.3.22: Summary for Determination of the GSE Emission Inventory 5-66

Table 5.3.23: GSE - Emission Input Parameters 5-66

Table 5.3.24:Annual Emission Inventory for GSE in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-67

Table 5.3.25:Summary for Determination of the Non-GSE Emission Inventory 5-68

Table 5.3.26: Non-GSE - Emission Input Parameters 5-68

Table 5.3.27:Annual Emission Inventory for Non-GSE in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-68

Table 5.3.28:Summary for Determination of the APU Emission Inventory 5-69

Table 5.3.29: APU - Emission Input Parameters 5-69

Table 5.3.30:Annual Emission Inventory for APU at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-70

Table 5.3.31:Summary of Approach for Determination of the GFS Emission Inventory 5-70

Table 5.3.32: GFS - Emission Input Parameters 5-71

Table 5.3.33:Annual Emission Inventory for GFS at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-72

Table 5.3.34:Summary for Determination of the Aviation Fuel Farm Emission Inventory 5-72

Table 5.3.35:Aviation Fuel Tank - Emission Input Parameters 5-72

Table 5.3.36:Annual Emission Inventory for Aviation Fuel Tank at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-73

Table 5.3.37:Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission for Fire Training Activities 5-73

Table 5.3.38:Fire Training - Emission Input Parameters 5-73

Table 5.3.39:Annual Emission Inventory for Fire Training Activities at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-74

Table 5.3.40:Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission for ERUF_ 5-74

Table 5.3.41:Engine Run Up Facilities - Emission Input Parameters 5-74

Table 5.3.42:Annual Emission Inventory for ERUF in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-75

Table 5.3.43:Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission from Aircraft Maintenance Centre_ 5-76

Table 5.3.44:Aircraft Maintenance Centre - Emission Input Parameters 5-76

Table 5.3.45:Annual Emission Inventory for Aircraft Maintenance Centre in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-76

Table 5.3.46:Summary of Assumptions for Determination of the Emission for Catering_ 5-77

Table 5.3.47:Catering - Emission Input Parameters 5-77

Table 5.3.48:Annual Emission Inventory for Catering at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-77

Table 5.3.49:Fuel Efficiencies for Different Vehicles Types 5-78

Table 5.3.50:Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission from Car Parks / Truck Parks 5-79

Table 5.3.51:Annual Emission Inventory for Car Park/ Truck Park in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-80

Table 5.3.52:Road Categories for Airport Island assumed in EMFAC-HK_ 5-80

Table 5.3.53: Summary of approach for determination of the landside vehicular emission on airport island_ 5-81

Table 5.3.54 Annual emission Inventory for landside motor vehicles on the airport island at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS 5-81

Table 5.3.55: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Marine Vessels Emission at SkyPier and CKS_ 5-82

Table 5.3.56:Marine Navigation - Emission Input Parameters 5-82

Table 5.3.57: Annual Emission Inventory for the Airport Island Marine Activities in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-82

Table 5.3.58: Annual Emission Inventory for Brake and Tire Wear 5-83

Table 5.3.59: Summary of Emission Inventory for Airport Related Activities in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS_ 5-83

Table 5.3.60: List of Proximity Infrastructure Emissions in Lantau and Tuen Mun Areas 5-84

Table 5.3.61:Road Categories in Lantau assumed in EMFAC-HK_ 5-85

Table 5.3.62:Summary of Approach for Determination of the Vehicular Emission on Lantau_ 5-86

Table 5.3.63: Annual Emission Inventory for Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Lantau at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS 5-86

Table 5.3.64:Idling Emission Factors for different Vehicles/Fuel Types 5-87

Table 5.3.65:Summary of Approach for Determination of the Idling Emission from HKBCF_ 5-87

Table 5.3.66: Annual Emission Inventory for Idling Emission from BCF at Year 2031_ 5-88

Table 5.3.67: Summary of approach for determination of the emission from other industrial sources in Lantau_ 5-88

Table 5.3.68:Annual Emission Inventory for Lantau at Year 2031_ 5-88

Table 5.3.69: Road Categories for Existing Roads in Tuen Mun Area assumed in EMFAC-HK_ 5-88

Table 5.3.70: Road Categories for Planned Roads in Tuen Mun Area assumed in EMFAC-HK_ 5-89

Table 5.3.71: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Vehicular Emission in Tuen Mun Area_ 5-89

Table 5.3.72: Annual Emission Inventory for Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Tuen Mun in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS 5-89

Table 5.3.73: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission from other Industrial and Marine Sources in Tuen Mun area 5-90

Table 5.3.74: Annual Emission Inventory for Existing and Planned/ Committed Industrial and Marine Sources in Year 2031 5-91

Table 5.3.75:Summary of Emission Reduction Targets in PRDEZ_ 5-91

Table 5.3.76:Summary of 2010 Hong Kong Emission Inventory 5-92

Table 5.3.77 Approach and Methodology of Emission Projection for HKSAR at Year 2031_ 5-93

Table 5.3.78:Summary of 2031 Hong Kong Emission Inventory for the PATH Model 5-95

Table 5.3.79:Modelling Techniques Adoped to Assess the Operation Air Quality Impacts 5-95

Table 5.3.80:Emission Characteristics of different Time-in-Modes 5-96

Table 5.3.81:Runway Utilisation Modes 5-97

Table 5.3.82:Emission Characteristics of other Emission Sources 5-97

Table 5.3.83:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Aircraft 5-98

Table 5.3.84:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for GSE equipment 5-98

Table 5.3.85:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for APU_ 5-99

Table 5.3.86:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Open Space Car Parks 5-99

Table 5.3.87:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Multi-storey Car Parks 5-99

Table 5.3.88:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Underground Car Parks 5-99

Table 5.3.89:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Catering_ 5-100

Table 5.3.90:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Fire Training_ 5-100

Table 5.3.91:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Engine Run-up Testing_ 5-100

Table 5.3.92:Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Marine Vessel 5-101

Table 5.3.93:Conversion Factor for RSP/FSP_ 5-104

Table 5.3.94:Conversion Factors for 1-hour to 10-minutes SO₂ Concentrations 5-104

Table 5.3.95: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and Annual Average NO₂ Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations) 5-105

Table 5.3.96:The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 1-hour, 19^th Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and Annual Average NO₂ Concentrations at Representative ASRs 5-109

Table 5.3.97: 1-hr NO₂ concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-109

Table 5.3.98: 19^th highest 1-hr NO₂ concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-110

Table 5.3.99: Annual NO₂ concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-110

Table 5.3.100: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average RSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations) 5-111

Table 5.3.101: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 24-hour, 10^th Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average RSP Concentrations at Key ASRs 5-114

Table 5.3.102: 24-hr RSP concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-115

Table 5.3.103: 10^th highest 24-hr RSP concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-115

Table 5.3.104: Annual RSP concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-115

Table 5.3.105: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average FSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations) 5-116

Table 5.3.106: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 24-hour, 10^th Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average FSP Concentrations at Key Areas 5-120

Table 5.3.107: 24-hr FSP concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-120

Table 5.3.108: 10^th highest 24-hr FSP concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-120

Table 5.3.109: Annual FSP concentration breakdown at representative areas 5-121

Table 5.3.110: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 10-minute , 4^th Maximum Cumulative 10-minute, Maximum 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations and 4^th Maximum 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations) 5-121

Table 5.3.111: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 10-min, 4^th Maximum Cumulative 10-min, Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and 4^th Maximum Cumulative 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations at Representative ASRs 5-125

Table 5.3.112: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and 8-hour Average CO Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations) 5-126

Table 5.3.113: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and 8-hour Average CO Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations) 5-130

Table 5.5.1:_ Emission Inventory for 2011 scenario, 2031 (3RS) scenario and 2031 (2RS) scenario_ 5-133

Table 5.5.2:_ Concentration Breakdown for the Cumulative Annual NO₂ Impact at the Key Sensitive Area under the 3RS scenario 5-135

Drawings

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001 Locations of Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001 Construction Phase Air Quality Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-002 Not used

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plants and their Stockpiles and Haul Roads During Phase 1 (Q1of 2017 to Q3 of 2019)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-004 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plants and their Stockpiles and Haul Roads During Phase 2 (Q4 of 2019 to Q3 of 2020)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-005 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plants and their Stockpiles and Haul Roads During Phase 3 (Q4 of 2020 to Q4 of 2021)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-006 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Concrete Batching Plants and their Stockpiles and Haul Roads During Phase 4 (Q1 of 2022 to Q4 of 2022)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-007 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Temporary Barging Points

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-008 Locations of Potential Crushing Plant and Floating Concrete Batching Plant

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-009 Indicative Locations of Construction Works on Existing Airport Island and Sheung Sha Chau Island

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-010 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Area for the Advanced Works of the T2 Expansion, ITT and NCD Works (Tier 1)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-011 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Area for T2 Expansion (Including Car Park North and Lounge Limo), Emergency Vehicular Access, APM Interchange Station, Baggage Hall and New APM Depot (Tier 1)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-012 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Proposed Elevated Road Network Improvement for Concept F Option 3 and ITT Works (Tier 1)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-013 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Airside Tunnels, Cargo Areas Road Improvement Works, Submarine Fuel Pipelines and Cable, Midfield Freighter Apron, Boundary Crossing Facilities and Hong Kong Link Road (Tier 1)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-014 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Land Formation and Existing Airport Island Work Areas (Tier 1)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-015 Not used

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-016 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for the Advanced Works of the T2 Expansion, ITT and NCD Works (Tier 2) for Year 2015

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-017 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from ITT Works (Tier 2) for Year 2015

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-018 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Submarine Fuel Pipelines and Cable, Boundary Crossing Facilities and Hong Kong Link Road (Tier 2) for Year 2015

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-019 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for the Advanced Works of the T2 Expansion, ITT and NCD Works (Tier 2) for Year 2016

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-020 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from ITT Works (Tier 2) for Year 2016

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-021 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Submarine Fuel Pipelines and Cable and Boundary Crossing Facilities (Tier 2) for Year 2016

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-022 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Land formation (Tier 2) for Year 2016

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-023 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for the Advanced Works of the T2 Expansion, ITT and NCD Works (Tier 2) for Year 2017

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-024 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for T2 Expansion (Including Car Park North and Lounge Limo), Emergency Vehicular Access, APM Interchange Station, Baggage Hall and New APM Depot (Tier 2) for Year 2017

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-025 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Proposed Elevated Road Network Improvement for Concept F Option 3 and ITT Works (Tier 2) for Year 2017

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-026 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Cargo Areas Road Improvement Works (Tier 2) for Year 2017

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-027 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Land formation and Existing Airport Island Work Areas (Tier 2) for Year 2017

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-028 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for the Advanced Works of the T2 Expansion, ITT and NCD Works (Tier 2) for Year 2018

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-029 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for T2 Expansion (Including Car Park North and Lounge Limo), Emergency Vehicular Access, APM Interchange Station, Baggage Hall and New APM Depot (Tier 2) for Year 2018

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-030 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Proposed Elevated Road Network Improvement for Concept F Option 3 and ITT Works (Tier 2) for Year 2018

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-031 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Cargo Areas Road Improvement Works and Midfield Freighter Apron (Tier 2) for Year 2018

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-032 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Land formation and Existing Airport Island Work Areas (Tier 2) for Year 2018

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-033 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for T2 Expansion (Including Car Park North and Lounge Limo), Emergency Vehicular Access, APM Interchange Station, Baggage Hall and New APM Depot (Tier 2) for Year 2019

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-034 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Proposed Elevated Road Network Improvement for Concept F Option 3 (Tier 2) for Year 2019

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-035 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Cargo Areas Road Improvement Works and Midfield Freighter Apron (Tier 2) for Year 2019

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-036 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Land formation and Existing Airport Island Work Areas (Tier 2) for Year 2019

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-037 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for T2 Expansion (Including Car Park North and Lounge Limo), Emergency Vehicular Access, APM Interchange Station, Baggage Hall and New APM Depot (Tier 2) for Year 2020

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-038 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Midfield Freighter Apron (Tier 2) for Year 2020

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-039 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Land formation (Tier 2) for Year 2020

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-040 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Proposed Elevated Road Network Improvement for Concept F Option 3 (Tier 2) for Year 2021

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-041 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Airside Tunnels and Midfield Freighter Apron (Tier 2) for Year 2021

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-042 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Land formation and Existing Airport Island Work Areas (Tier 2) for Year 2021

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-043 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Indicative Areas for Airside Tunnels (Tier 2) for Year 2022

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-044 Locations of Potential Construction Dust Sources from Land formation and Existing Airport Island Work Areas (Tier 2) for Year 2022

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-045 Not used

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-046 Not used

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-047 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Maximum Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-048 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Maximum Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-049 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Maximum Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-050 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Maximum Hourly TSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-051 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Tenth Maximum Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-052 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Tenth Maximum Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-053 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Tenth Maximum Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-054 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Tenth Maximum Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-055 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Tenth Maximum Daily FSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-056 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Tenth Maximum Daily FSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-057 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Tenth Maximum Daily FSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-058 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 1 Tenth Maximum Daily FSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-059 Not used

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-060 Not used

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-061 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Tenth Maximum Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-062 Cumulative Result – Contour of Tier 2 Tenth Maximum Daily RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-063 Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual Average RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-064 Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual Average RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-065 Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual Average RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-066 Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual Average RSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-067 Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual Average FSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-068 Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual Average FSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (unmitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-069 Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual Average FSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2018 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-070 Cumulative Result – Contour of Annual Average FSP Concentration (µg/m³) at 1.5m above ground at year 2021 during construction phase (mitigated)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-001 Operation Phase Air Quality Assessment Area

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Lantau West)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-003 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Lantau East)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Siu Ho Wan)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-005 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Tuen Mun)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-006 Locations of Proximity of Infrastructure Emission Sources (Lantau)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-007 Locations of Proximity of Infrastructure Emission Sources (Tuen Mun)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-008 Contours of Cumulative Max. 1-Hour NO₂ Concentration at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-009 Contours of Cumulative 19th Highest 1-Hour NO₂ Concentration at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-010 Contours of Cumulative Annual NO₂ Concentration at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-011 Contours of Cumulative Max. 1-Hour NO₂ Concentration at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-012 Contours of Cumulative 19th Highest 1-Hour NO₂ Concentration at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-013 Contours of Cumulative Annual NO₂ Concentration at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-014 Contours of Cumulative Max. 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-015 Contours of Cumulative 10th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-016 Contours of Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-017 Contours of Cumulative Max. 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-018 Contours of Cumulative 10th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-019 Contours of Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-020 Contours of Cumulative Max. 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-021 Contours of Cumulative 10th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-022 Contours of Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-023 Contours of Cumulative Max. 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-024 Contours of Cumulative 10th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-025 Contours of Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-026 Contours of Cumulative Max. 10-min SO₂ Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-027 Contours of Cumulative Max. 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-028 Contours of Cumulative 4th Highest 24-hour  SO₂ Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Lantau Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-029 Contours of Cumulative Max. 10-min SO₂ Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-030 Contours of Cumulative Max. 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-031 Contours of Cumulative 4th Highest 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Tuen Mun Area)

Appendices

Appendix 5.2.1 Land Formation Sequence 2016-2021

Appendix 5.2.2 Photo of Indicative Floating Concrete Batching Plant

Appendix 5.2.3 Estimation of Particle Size Distribution

Appendix 5.2.4 Estimation of Surface Roughness

Appendix 5.2.5 Projection of Background RSP and FSP Concentrations during Construction Phase

Appendix 5.2.6 Programme for Various Potential Dust-emitting Activities

Appendix 5.2.7 Details of Dust Emission Sources for 1-hour TSP, Daily RSP and Daily FSP (Tier 1)

Appendix 5.2.8 Estimations of Active Area Percentages for Key Construction Activities (Hourly/Daily and Annual)

Appendix 5.2.9 Tier 2 TSP, RSP and FSP Emission Rates

Appendix 5.2.10 Data Input File for Hourly TSP Assessment (Tier 1)

Appendix 5.2.11 Data Input file for Daily RSP Assessment (Tier 1)

Appendix 5.2.12 Data Input file for Daily FSP Assessment (Tier 1)

Appendix 5.2.13 Data Input file for Hourly TSP Assessment (Tier 2)

Appendix 5.2.14 Data Input file for Daily RSP Assessment (Tier 2)

Appendix 5.2.15 Details of Dust Emission Sources for Annual RSP and Annual FSP

Appendix 5.2.16 Data Input file for Annual RSP Assessment

Appendix 5.2.17 Data Input file for Annual FSP Assessment

Appendix 5.2.18 Summary Result Table for Hourly TSP, Daily RSP and Daily FSP (Tier 1 Unmitigated)

Appendix 5.2.19 Summary Result Table for Hourly TSP, Daily RSP and Daily FSP (Tier 1 Mitigated)

Appendix 5.2.20 Summary Result Table for Hourly TSP and Daily RSP (Tier 2 Mitigated)

Appendix 5.2.21 Summary Result Table for Annual RSP and Annual FSP (Unmitigated)

Appendix 5.2.22 Summary Result Table for Annual RSP and Annual FSP (Mitigated)

Appendix 5.2.23 Calculation of Dust Suppression Efficiency

Appendix 5.3.1-1 Aircraft LTO Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.1-2a Emission Indices and Fuel Consumption Rates

Appendix 5.3.1-2b IATA Emission Forecast Report_Arup Methodology Paper for EPD-IATA

Appendix 5.3.1-3 Aircraft LTO Time-In-Mode

Appendix 5.3.1-4 Aircraft LTO Emission Inventory (Sample) and Daily Scaling Factor for the Busy Day

Appendix 5.3.1-5 Sample Calculation of Aircraft LTO Emission

Appendix 5.3.2-1 Business Helicopter Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.2-2 Business Helicopter Emission Indices

Appendix 5.3.2-3 Business Helicopter Time-In-Mode

Appendix 5.3.2-4 Sample Calculation of Business Helicopter Emission

Appendix 5.3.3-1 GSE Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.3-2 GSE Emission Factors

Appendix 5.3.3-3 GSE Operation Time

Appendix 5.3.3-4 GSE Emission Rates for Aircraft (Arrival and Departure)

Appendix 5.3.3-5 Sample Calculation of GSE Emission

Appendix 5.3.3-6 Non-GSE Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.3-7 Non-GSE Information provided by Operators

Appendix 5.3.3-8 Calculation of Non-GSE Average Travelling Speed

Appendix 5.3.3-9 Non-GSE Emission Factors

Appendix 5.3.3-10 Sample Calculation of Non-GSE Emission

Appendix 5.3.4-1 APU Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.4-2 APU Emission Indices

Appendix 5.3.4-3 APU Emission Inventory (Sample)

Appendix 5.3.4-4 Sample Calculation of APU Emission

Appendix 5.3.5-1 GFS Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.5-2 GFS Emission Indices

Appendix 5.3.5-3 GFS 2011 Flight Schedule and Hong Kong Helicopter Flight Route within 5km Assessment Area

Appendix 5.3.5-4 GFS Time-In-Mode

Appendix 5.3.5-5 Sample Calculation of GFS Emission

Appendix 5.3.5-6 Aviation Record and Information

Appendix 5.3.6-1 Aviation Fuel Tank Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.6-2 Aviation Fuel Tank Emission Inventory

Appendix 5.3.6-3 Sample Calculation of Aviation Fuel Tank Emission

Appendix 5.3.7-1 Fire Training Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.7-2 Fire Training Record from FSD

Appendix 5.3.7-3 Fire Training Emission Factors

Appendix 5.3.7-4 Fire Training Emission Inventory

Appendix 5.3.7-5 Sample Calculation of Fire Training Emission

Appendix 5.3.8-1 ERUF Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.8-2 Engine Testing Activities (Year 2031)

Appendix 5.3.8-3 Engine Emission Indices adopted for Calculation of ERUF Emission

Appendix 5.3.8-4 Engine Mode Lookup Table

Appendix 5.3.8-5 Sample Calculation of Engine Run Up Emission

Appendix 5.3.9-1 Aircraft Maintenance Centre Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.9-2 Aircraft Maintenance Centre Emission Inventory

Appendix 5.3.9-3 Sample Calculation of Aircraft Maintenance Centre Emission

Appendix 5.3.10-1 Catering Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.10-2 Catering Emission Inventory

Appendix 5.3.10-3 Sample Calculation of Catering Emission

Appendix 5.3.11-1 EmFAC-HK Key Model Assumptions (for Three-runway System)

Appendix 5.3.11-2 EmFAC-HK Key Model Assumptions (for Two-runway System)

Appendix 5.3.12-1 Marine Emission Input Parameters

Appendix 5.3.12-2 Marine Traffic Activities provided by Operators

Appendix 5.3.12-3 Marine Emission Factors

Appendix 5.3.12-4 Marine Vessels Time-In-Mode

Appendix 5.3.12-5 Sample Calculation of Marine Emission

Appendix 5.3.13 Calculations of Idling Emission in HKBCF

Appendix 5.3.14-1 Calculations of Proximity Infrastructure Emission (Industrial)

Appendix 5.3.14-2 Calculations of Proximity Infrastructure Emission (Marine Vessel)

Appendix 5.3.15-1 AERMOD Modelling Parameters

Appendix 5.3.15-2 Source Locations (Airport Related)

Appendix 5.3.15-3 Hourly Composite Vehicular Emission Factors for All Open Roads

Appendix 5.3.15-4 Detailed Calculations of Emissions from Tunnel Portal and Ventilation Buildings

Appendix 5.3.15-5 Details of Idling Emission at Kiosks and Loading/ Unloading Bays in HKBCF

Appendix 5.3.15-6 Proximity Infrastructure Emission Inventory

Appendix 5.3.15-7 PATH Concentrations for Year 2031

Appendix 5.3.16-1 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (NO2) - Three Runway System

Appendix 5.3.16-2 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (RSP) - Three Runway System

Appendix 5.3.16-3 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (FSP) - Three Runway System

Appendix 5.3.16-4 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (SO2) - Three Runway System

Appendix 5.3.16-5 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (CO) - Three Runway System

Appendix 5.3.17-1 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (NO2) - Two Runway System

Appendix 5.3.17-2 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (RSP) - Two Runway System

Appendix 5.3.17-3 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (FSP) - Two Runway System

Appendix 5.3.17-4 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (SO2) - Two Runway System

Appendix 5.3.17-5 Detailed Results of the Operational Air Quality Assessment (CO) - Two Runway System

Appendix 5.3.18 PATH Emission

Appendix 5.3.19-1 Year 2011 Simulation Scenario

Appendix 5.3.20-1 Brake and Tire Gear Emissions from Aircraft LTO

5. Air Quality Impact

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Overview

5.1.1.1 This section presents the assessment of potential air quality impacts associated with the construction and operation phases of the project, which has been conducted in accordance with the criteria and guidelines as stated in section 1 of Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) as well as the requirements given in Clause 3.4.3 and Section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-250/2012).

5.1.2 Air Quality Legislations, Standards and Guidelines

5.1.2.1 The assessment is carried out following the relevant criteria and standards as specified in the following legislation and guidelines for evaluating air quality impacts:

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

§ Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap. 311):

§ Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation;

§ Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2 (93);

§ Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94); and

§ Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) BPM 11/1 (95).

Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process

5.1.2.2 The criteria and guidelines for evaluating air quality impacts are set out in Section 1 of Annex 4 and Annex 12 respectively of the EIAO-TM. Section 1 of Annex 4 stipulates the criteria for evaluating air quality impacts. This includes meeting the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) and other standards established under the APCO, as well as meeting the hourly Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) concentration of 500 µg/m³. Annex 12 provides the guidelines for conducting air quality assessments under the EIA process, including determination of Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs), assessment methodology as well as impact prediction and assessment.

Air Pollution Control Ordinance

Air Quality Objectives

5.1.2.3 The principal legislation for the management of air quality is the APCO. It specifies AQOs which stipulate the statutory limits of air pollutants and the maximum allowable numbers of exceedance over specific periods. The AQOs are listed in Table 5.1.1.

Table 5.1.1 Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant	Averaging Time	AQO concentration (µg/m³)	Allowable exceedances
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)	10 minute	500	3
	24 hour	125	3
Respirable Suspended Particulates (PM10)	24 hour	100	9
	Annual	50	0
Fine Suspended Particulates (PM2.5)	24 hour	75	9
	Annual	35	0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)	1 hour	200	18
	Annual	40	0
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	1 hour	30,000	0
	8 hour	10,000	0
Ozone (O3)	8 hour	160	9
Lead	Annual	0.5	0

*Note: The criterion under EIAO-TM (i.e., not an AQO)

Specified Processes

5.1.2.4 Under the APCO, a number of major stationary air pollution sources are classified as Specified Processes, which are subject to stringent emission control. A licence is required for the operation of these processes under the APCO. Three of the Specified Processes, namely, Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant), Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) and Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants), which involve particulate matter emissions, would be relevant to this project as concrete and asphalt batching plants as well as stone crushing plant would be used during the construction phase (see Section 5.2.3). The relevant requirements of the three Specified Processes are described in Sections 5.1.2.9 to 5.1.2.15.

Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation

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

5.1.2.6 Notifiable Works:

1. Site formation

2. Reclamation

3. Demolition of a building

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

5. Construction of the foundation of a building

6. Construction of the superstructure of a building

7. Road construction work

5.1.2.7 Regulatory Works:

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

2. Road opening or resurfacing work

3. Slope stabilisation work

4. Any work involving any of the following activities:

a. Stockpiling of dusty materials

b. Loading, unloading or transfer of dusty materials

c. Transfer of dusty materials using a belt conveyor system

d. Use of vehicles

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

f. Debris handling

g. Excavation or earth moving

h. Concrete production

i. Site clearance

j. Blasting

5.1.2.8 Notifiable works require that advance notice of activities shall be given to EPD. The Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation also requires the works contractor to ensure that both notifiable works and regulatory works are conducted in accordance with the Schedule of the Regulation, which provides dust control and suppression measures. The project includes land formation, site formation, demolition of building structures, construction of the foundation of buildings, construction of the superstructure of buildings and road construction work; and is therefore notifiable. The project also includes: stockpiling of dusty materials; loading, unloading or transfer of dusty materials; use of vehicles; excavation or earth moving, and; site clearance and is therefore regulatory.

Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2 (93)

5.1.2.9 This Guidance Note lists the minimum requirements for meeting the best practicable means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) in which the total silo capacity exceeds 50 tonnes and in which cement is handled or argillaceous and calcareous materials are used in the production of cement clinker, and works in which cement clinker is ground. The Guidance Note includes: emission limits; fugitive emission control recommendations; monitoring requirements; commissioning details, and; operation and maintenance provisions.

5.1.2.10 The concentration limits for air pollutant emissions as stipulated for this Specified Process are reproduced in Table 5.1.2.

Table 5.1.2: Concentration Limit for Emission from Cement Work

Air Pollutant	Concentration Limit (mg/m^3)*
Particulates	50

*Note:

(a) The air pollutant concentration is expressed at reference conditions of 0°C temperature, 101.325 kPa pressure, and without correction for water vapour content. Introduction of diluted air to achieve the emission concentration limit shall not be permitted.

(b) The concentration limit may be updated during future application of the Specified Process Licence.

Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94)

5.1.2.11 This Guidance Note lists the minimum requirements for meeting the best practicable means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) in which the processing capacity exceeds 250 kg per hour and in which:

(a) gas tar or coal tar or bitumen is distilled or is heated in any manufacturing process; or

(b) any product of the distillation of gas tar or coal tar or bitumen is distilled or heated in any process involving the evolution of any noxious or offensive gas.

5.1.2.12 The Guidance Note includes: emission limits; chimney design requirements, fugitive emission control recommendations; monitoring requirements; commissioning details, and; operation and maintenance provisions.

5.1.2.13 The concentration limits for air pollutant emissions as stipulated for this Specified Process are reproduced in Table 5.1.3.

Table 5.1.3: Concentration Limit for Emission from Tar and Bitumen Works

Air Pollutant	Concentration Limit (mg/m^3)*
Bitumen fumes	5 (not applicable to the vents of bitumen decanters)
Particulates	50

*Notes:

(a) For combustion gases, the concentration limits are expressed at dry, 0°C temperature, 101.325 kPa pressure and 3% oxygen content conditions.

(b) For non-combustion gases, the concentration limits are expressed at 0°C temperature, 101.325 kPa pressure conditions, and without correction for water vapour or oxygen content. The introduction of dilution air to achieve the emission limits is not permitted.

(c) The concentration limits may be updated during future application of the Specified Process Licence.

Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) BPM 11/1 (95)

5.1.2.14 This Guidance Note lists the minimum requirements for meeting the best practicable means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) in which the processing capacity exceeds 5,000 tonnes per annum, and in which stones are subject to any size reduction or grading by a process giving rise to dust, not being any works described in any other specified process. The Guidance Note includes: emission limits; fugitive emission control recommendations; monitoring requirements; commissioning details, and; operation and maintenance provisions.

5.1.2.15 The concentration limits for air pollutant emissions as stipulated for this Specified Process are reproduced in Table 5.1.4.

Table 5.1.4: Concentration Limit for Emission from Stone Crushing Plants

Air Pollutant	Concentration Limit (mg/m^3)*
Particulates	50

*Note:

(a) The air pollutant concentration is expressed at reference conditions of 0°C temperature, 101.325 kPa pressure, and without correction for water vapour content. Introduction of diluted air to achieve the emission concentration limit shall not be permitted.

(b) The concentration limit may be updated during future application of the Specified Process Licence.

5.1.3 Baseline Conditions

Site Description and Surrounding Environment

5.1.3.1 The proposed land formation area of about 650 ha is to the north of the existing airport island. Land-uses generally immediately surrounding the subject site are: shipping channel and open water to the west, north and east, and the existing airport and residential, recreational / park and worship to the south (see Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001). The key emission sources in the vicinity of the airport are listed in Table 5.1.5 below.

Table 5.1.5: Emission Sources in the vicinity of the Airport

Emission Sources	Direction to the Airport
Marine emission from shipping channel, CLP power plants, emission from PRD	North
Vehicular Emission from road network in Tung Chung Town and NLH	East
Emission from PRD	West
Nil	South

Historical Meteorology and Background Air Quality

5.1.3.2 Meteorological data measured at the Hong Kong Observatory Airport Meteorological Office (HKOAMO), located in the middle of the existing airport island (see Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001), is used to demonstrate the meteorology at the project site in 2012.

5.1.3.3 The seasonal windroses as obtained from the HKOAMO are for an anemometer height of 9 m above ground and are shown in Graph 5.1.1. At the project site, winds from the East (E) are dominant for most of the year, particularly so for autumn, winter and spring. During the summer, winds are mainly from the East South-East (ESE) and South-West (SW).

Air Quality Monitoring Data (AAHK and EPD)

5.1.3.4 There are several air quality monitoring stations (AQMSs) located in the vicinity of the airport, including three AQMSs operated by AAHK at Lung Kwu Chau (LKC), North Station (PH1) and South Station (PH5) and the Tung Chung (TC) AQMS operated by EPD. The latest air quality monitoring data from these AQMSs (up to Year 2012) of various air pollutants are shown in Table 5.1.6 to Table 5.1.9 and have been compared with the AQOs for reference. The locations of these AQMSs are illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001.

5.1.3.5 The North Station and South Station are located on the airport. The Lung Kwu Chau Station is located on Lung Kwu Chau, which is to the North of the Airport. Since July of 2012, the station is re-located to Sha Chau. Tung Chung Station is operated by EPD and is located in Tung Chung Town Centre.

5.1.3.6 The LKC monitoring station is positioned up-stream of the airport, but downstream of potential high level of pollution being transported from further north of the airport’s position. The data obtained in this station is critical in differentiating the airports emissions from those of the PRD. The PH1 and PH5 Stations are positioned on the airport island close to the north and south runways respectively. These stations are useful in monitoring airport emissions impact locally. The TC station is located at the South-East direction of the airport, this station may pick up emissions from the airport when the winds are from the West or the North.

Graph 5.1.1: Seasonal Windroses for the Project Area from Hong Kong Observatory Airport Meteorological Office (HKOAMO) for 2012

Table 5.1.6: Air Quality Monitoring Data (Lung Kwu Chau station (LKC), Year 2008-2012)^[1][2]7]

Pollutant	Year	Highest 1-Hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Highest Daily Conc. (μg/m^3)	Highest 8-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
NO2	2008	268 (21)^[5][175°]^[6]	142	N/A	46
	2009	202 (1)^[5] [89°]^[6]	110	N/A	37
	2010	195 [154°] ^[6]	129	N/A	34
	2011	156 [286°]^[6]	105	N/A	29
	2012^[7]	197 [230°]^[6]	93	N/A	28
	AQO	200 (18)^[4]	N/A	N/A	40
RSP (PM10)	2008	273 [300°] ^[6]	167 (46)^[5]	N/A	58
	2009	221 [354°] ^[6]	170 (15)^[5]	N/A	48
	2010	668 [267°] ^[6]	543 (20)^[5]	N/A	50
	2011	254 [316°] ^[6]	152 (20)^[5]	N/A	53
	2012^[7]	253 [360°] ^[6]	149 (8)^[5]	N/A	41
	AQO	N/A	100 (9)^[4]	N/A	50
FSP (PM2.5)	2008	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2009	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2010	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2011	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2012^[7]	155 [312°] ^[6]	82 (4)^[5]	N/M	32
	AQO	N/A	75 (9)^[4]	N/A	35
O3	2008	333 [320°] ^[6]	166	247 (28)^[5]	51
	2009	303 [329°] ^[6]	150	244 (22)^[5]	54
	2010	332 [320°] ^[6]	127	260 (14)^[5]	35
	2011	374 [283°] ^[6]	141	286 (16)^[5]	44
	2012^[7]	290 [229°] ^[6]	121	220 (14)^[5]	31
	AQO	N/A	N/A	160 (9)^[4]	N/A
SO2	2008	300 [323°] ^[6]	99	N/A	27
	2009	341 [3°] ^[6]	84	N/A	19
	2010	145 [306°] ^[6]	69	N/A	17
	2011	98 [321°] ^[6]	62	N/A	16
	2012^[7]	130 [173°] ^[6]	43	N/A	12
	AQO	500 (3) for 10 min average ^[3]	125 (3)^[4]	N/A	N/A
CO	2008	2,541 [320°] ^[6]	N/M	2,115	563
	2009	2,049 [320°] ^[6]	N/M	1,661	501
	2010	2,894 [323°] ^[6]	N/M	2,453	559
	2011	2,271 [316°] ^[6]	N/M	2,239	552
	2012^[7]	2,577 [320°] ^[6]	N/M	2,412	492
	AQO	30,000 (0) ^[4]	N/A	10,000 (0)^[4]	N/A

Note:

[1] N/M - Not Measured; N/A - Not applicable since there is no AQO for this parameter.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQO are underlined.

[3] Monitoring data for the AQO of 10-minute SO₂ is currently not publicly available.

[4] Numbers in ( ) indicate the number of exceedance allowed to comply with the AQO.

[5] Numbers in ( ) indicate the number of exceedance recorded.

[6] Numbers in [ ] indicate the wind direction in Lung Kwu Chau / Sha Chau.

[7] The LKC station was relocated in Sha Chau from July 2012.

Table 5.1.7: Air Quality Monitoring Data (North Station (PH1), Year 2008-2012) ^[1][2]

Pollutant	Year	Highest 1-Hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Highest Daily Conc. (μg/m^3)	Highest 8-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
NO2	2008	279 (14)[167°]^[5][6]	142	N/A	44
	2009	217 (1)[179°]^[5][6]	98	N/A	33
	2010	236 (3)[97°]^[5][6]	121	N/A	40
	2011	200 [313°] ^[6]	117	N/A	38
	2012	161 [141°] ^[6]	75	N/A	31
	AQO	200 (18)^[4]	N/A	N/A	40
RSP (PM10)	2008	264 [321°] ^[6]	152 (41)^[5]	N/A	55
	2009	219 [321°] ^[6]	168 (13)^[5]	N/A	48
	2010	704 [282°] ^[6]	568 (22)^[5]	N/A	48
	2011	271 [313°] ^[6]	147 (27)^[5]	N/A	52
	2012	282 [278°] ^[6]	150 (10)^[5]	N/A	39
	AQO	N/A	100 (9)^[4]	N/A	50
FSP (PM2.5)	2008	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2009	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2010	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2011	167 [218°] ^[6]	88 (6)^[5]	N/M	53
	2012	219 [278°] ^[6]	109 (2)^[5]	N/M	24
	AQO	N/A	75 (9)^[4]	N/A	35
O3	2008	387 [319°] ^[6]	182	287 (32)^[5]	57
	2009	325 [212°] ^[6]	149	254 (25)^[5]	51
	2010	311 [320°] ^[6]	122	256 (14)^[5]	37
	2011	416 [238°] ^[6]	143	280 (22)^[5]	44
	2012	365 [229°] ^[6]	144	267 (25)^[5]	39
	AQO	N/A	N/A	160 (9)^[4]	N/A
SO2	2008	285 [323°] ^[6]	88	N/A	17
	2009	165 [318°] ^[6]	75	N/A	12
	2010	152 [306°] ^[6]	79	N/A	14
	2011	114 [321°] ^[6]	62	N/A	12
	2012	104 [205°] ^[6]	49	N/A	16
	AQO	500 (3) for 10 min average ^[3]	125 (3)^[4]	N/A	N/A
CO	2008	2,440 [4°] ^[6]	N/M	2,071	442
	2009	1,918 [320°] ^[6]	N/M	1,476	472
	2010	2,838 [323°] ^[6]	N/M	2,229	467
	2011	2,034 [323°] ^[6]	N/M	1,610	434
	2012	2,458 [323°] ^[6]	N/M	1,920	396
	AQO	30,000 (0) ^[4]	N/A	10,000 (0)^[4]	N/A

Note:

[1] N/M - Not Measured; N/A - Not applicable since there is no AQO for this parameter.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQO are underlined.

[3] Monitoring data for the AQO of 10-minute SO₂ is currently not publicly available.

[4] Numbers in ( ) indicate the number of exceedance allowed to comply with the AQO.

[5] Numbers in ( ) indicate the number of exceedance recorded.

[6] Numbers in [ ] indicate the wind direction in Lung Kwu Chau / Sha Chau.

Table 5.1.8: Air Quality Monitoring Data (South Station (PH5), Year 2008-2012) ^[1][2]

Pollutant	Year	Highest 1-Hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Highest Daily Conc. (μg/m^3)	Highest 8-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
NO2	2008	250 (8) [183°]^[5][6]	139	N/A	48
	2009	204 (1)[142°]^[5][6]	115	N/A	49
	2010	244 (11)[230°]^[5][6]	143	N/A	53
	2011	217 (3) [155°]^[5][6]	122	N/A	56
	2012	272 (5)[135°]^[5][6]	119	N/A	49
	AQO	200 (18)^[4]	N/A	N/A	40
RSP (PM10)	2008	295 [300°] ^[6]	156 (42)^[5]	N/A	54
	2009	205 [325°] ^[6]	156 (12)^[5]	N/A	45
	2010	589 [279°/282°] ^[6]	463 (17)^[5]	N/A	45
	2011	236 [276°] ^[6]	153 (21)^[5]	N/A	52
	2012	291 [230°] ^[6]	134 (13)^[5]	N/A	43
	AQO	N/A	100 (9)^[4]	N/A	50
FSP (PM2.5)	2008	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2009	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2010	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
	2011	160 [58°] ^[6]	91 (7)^[5]	N/M	52
	2012	222 [230°] ^[6]	92 (11)^[5]	N/M	29
	AQO	N/A	75 (9)^[4]	N/A	35
O3	2008	226 [320°] ^[6]	67	148	18
	2009	256 [309°] ^[6]	105	202 (4)^[5]	23
	2010	169 [320°] ^[6]	56	124	10
	2011	353 [238°] ^[6]	105	213 (11)^[5]	24
	2012	360 [303°] ^[6]	122	279 (23)^[5]	34
	AQO	N/A	N/A	160 (9)^[4]	N/A
SO2	2008	278 [323°] ^[6]	89	N/A	15
	2009	167 [345°] ^[6]	71	N/A	10
	2010	96 [295°] ^[6]	40	N/A	7
	2011	113 [320°] ^[6]	34	N/A	7
	2012	84 [178°] ^[6]	39	N/A	10
	AQO	500 (3) for 10 min average ^[3]	125 (3)^[4]	N/A	N/A
CO	2008	2,141 [319°] ^[6]	N/M	1,750	575
	2009	1,823 [320°] ^[6]	N/M	1,542	513
	2010	2,009 [325°] ^[6]	N/M	1,859	511
	2011	1,595 [319°/320°] ^[6]	N/M	1,547	566
	2012	2,610 [310°] ^[6]	N/M	2,492	567
	AQO	30,000 (0) ^[4]	N/A	10,000 (0)^[4]	N/A

Note:

[1] N/M - Not Measured; N/A - Not applicable since there is no AQO for this parameter.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQO are underlined.

[3] Monitoring data for the AQO of 10-minute SO₂ is currently not publicly available.

[4] Numbers in ( ) indicate the number of exceedance allowed to comply with the AQO.

[5] Numbers in ( ) indicate the number of exceedance recorded.

[6] Numbers in [ ] indicate the wind direction in Lung Kwu Chau / Sha Chau.

Table 5.1.9: Air Quality Monitoring Data (Tung Chung station (TC), Year 2008-2012) ^[1][2]

Pollutant	Year	Highest 1-Hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Highest Daily Conc. (μg/m^3)	Highest 8-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
NO2	2008	256 (16)^[5][280°]^[6]	134	N/A	49
	2009	221 (6)^[5][152°]^[5][6]	119	N/A	45
	2010	255 (20)^[5][293°]^[5][6]	149	N/A	44
	2011	228 (5)^[5][206°]^[5][6]	137	N/A	51
	2012	236 (4)^[5] [278°]^[5][6]	124	N/A	43
	AQO	200 (18)^[4]	N/A	N/A	40
RSP (PM10)	2008	243 [330°]^[6]	146 (37)^[5]	N/A	52
	2009	210 [320°]^[6]	162 (11)^[5]	N/A	46
	2010	640 [238°]^[6]	475 (16)^[5]	N/A	45
	2011	250 [313°]^[6]	142 (21)^[5]	N/A	47
	2012	274 [278°]^[6]	162 (18)^[5]	N/A	45
	AQO	N/A	100 (9)^[4]	N/A	50
FSP (PM2.5)	2008	168 [316°/313°]^[6]	110 (35)^[5]	N/A	37
	2009	168 [323°/172°]^[6]	134 (8)^[5]	N/A	30
	2010	209 [324°]^[6]	119 (12)^[5]	N/A	29
	2011	174 [268°]^[6]	96 (13)^[5]	N/A	32
	2012	210 [278°]^[6]	103 (9)^[5]	N/A	28
	AQO	N/A	75 (9)^[4]	N/A	35
O3	2008	310 [319°]^[6]	146	217 (14)^[5]	41
	2009	325 [269°]^[6]	148	217 (13)^[5]	47
	2010	341 [319°]^[6]	110	246 (10)^[5]	44
	2011	312 [238°]^[6]	144	228 (18)^[5]	44
	2012	383 [224°]^[6]	158	268 (24)^[5]	47
	AQO	N/A	N/A	160 (9)^[4]	N/A
SO2	2008	266 [323°] ^[6]	91	N/A	18
	2009	158 [302°/340°]^[6]	63	N/A	13
	2010	113 [314°]^[6]	59	N/A	12
	2011	90 [321°]^[6]	52	N/A	13
	2012	91 [292°]^[6]	38	N/A	13
	AQO	500 (3) for 10 min average ^[3]	125 (3)^[4]	N/A	N/A
CO	2008	2820 [319°]^[6]	N/M	2,566	860
	2009	2020 [320°]^[6]	N/M	1,864	635
	2010	2910 [324°]^[6]	N/M	2,469	737
	2011	2290 [309°]^[6]	N/M	2,188	660
	2012	2660 [202°]^[6]	N/M	2,461	671
	AQO	30,000 (0)^[4]	N/A	10,000 (0)^[4]	N/A

Note:

[1] N/M - Not Measured; N/A - Not applicable since there is no AQO for this parameter.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQO are underlined.

[3] Monitoring data for the AQO of 10-minute SO₂ is currently not publicly available.

[4] Numbers in ( ) indicate the number of exceedance allowed to comply with the AQO.

[5] Numbers in ( ) indicate the number of exceedance recorded.
[6] Numbers in [ ] indicate the wind direction in Lung Kwu Chau / Sha Chau.

HKUST 2010 Airport Operational Air Quality Study Findings

5.1.3.7 The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) was engaged by AAHK in 2010 to assess the operational air quality impact of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA). This study analysed the data from the three AAHK AQMSs and EPD Tung Chung AQMS, together with other available and relevant information, to help better understand and quantify the relative importance of emissions from HKIA and regional emissions on North Lantau air receivers over the period March 2006 to February 2010. Their findings were summarised in the “2010 Airport Operational Air Quality Study” report.

5.1.3.8 Three separate and independent analysis techniques were adopted in analysing the pollutant and meteorological data. The techniques are (i) Circular Pollution Wind Mapping (CPWM); (ii) Positive Matrix Factorization Receptor Analysis; and (iii) Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) / Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) for modeling of photochemical species that feature complex non-linear reactions.

5.1.3.9 According to the HKUST study, the NO₂ values at TC and particularly PH5 were comparable to other general AQMSs across HK and significantly lower than the levels at roadside stations. The four NO₂ CPWMs around the airport showed elevated level of NO₂ associated with different wind directions. In particular, TC showed highest average NO₂ level when the wind was medium to strong northwesterly, while LKC and PH1 showed higher NO₂ level when the wind was weak southeasterly, and PH5 showed higher NO₂ level when the wind was weak to moderate easterly. These observations suggest that a fair degree of locally emitted NO₂ is contributed by HKIA related sources.

5.1.3.10 The RSP CPWMs for all stations showed elevated RSP levels particularly at LKC and PH1. Although medium / high values were noted to the northwest of monitoring stations, unlike other pollutants there was no discernable relatively hot spot evident. PH5’s CPWM showed the lowest levels, this is possibly because of being the furthest away from major sources such as marine shipping, road transport and regional emission sources. The levels at LKC and PH1 were the highest, possibly due to the proximity of the shipping channels and regional emission sources.

5.1.3.11 For O₃, all stations showed the same medium / high pollution, with dispersed source signature to the northwest. This may indicate that land / sea breeze plays a part in bringing O₃ from the PRD to receptors at the airport and in TC. The O₃ CPWMs for all stations appeared mottled and not smooth, this was potentially caused by severe pollution episodes that could have a large impact on a single sector of the wind rose. TC looked to have generally, slightly elevated levels of O₃. This was not necessarily due to sources within TC, but may partly be related to fewer NO sources which can result in lower O₃ levels (due to photochemical effects).

5.1.3.12 All SO₂ CPWMs showed a strong signal to the north east of the monitoring sites. This directly correlates to the heavily industrialised areas to the north and around the Pearl River Delta (PRD). There was also a noticeable signal in the direction of HK’s heavily urbanised centres and the Kwai Chung cargo terminal. It could also be observed that during moderate to strong northwesterly wind conditions, SO₂ levels seen at the airport sites were notably higher than at other sites across HK, including the roadside sites. However, the fact that SO₂ concentrations were even higher at LKC than PH1 or PH5 during such northwesterly wind conditions suggested that the high SO₂ levels were most likely transported not from the HKIA but from further upstream in the north/northwest direction.

5.1.3.13 CO showed the typical dispersed, high pollution zone with medium strong winds from the northwest, potentially indicating sources in the Shenzhen / PRD region.

5.1.3.14 In summary, the study concluded:

NO_x / NO₂ / NO:

- There was a well-defined and clear contribution of HKIA emissions to local NO_x levels (NO_x, NO₂ & NO) of 3-20%;

- The impact of HKIA emissions were weakest at Lung Kwu Chau, slightly greater at the North Station and notable at the South Station and Tung Chung;

- Within this group of pollutants there was a significant contribution to local NO levels of 4-20%, with the highest value (20%) being observed in Tung Chung;

- This contribution was apparent only for local receptors near the airport and not for receptors in Kowloon and Hong Kong Island, where the observed pollution levels were up to twice as high as those at Tung Chung during pollution episodes.

RSP:

- The impact of HKIA emissions on local RSP levels was considered negligible.

O₃:

- O₃ is not an emitted pollutant as such, but is formed in reactions between primary pollutants and/or atmospheric components;

- NO emissions from the HKIA may slightly reduce the O₃ concentration at nearby receptors, including Tung Chung, through photochemical processes.

SO₂ / CO / VOC:

- The airport’s contribution to these pollutants did not appear to have an appreciable impact on local pollution concentrations around the airport, and was negligible for other receptors in Hong Kong.

Further Analysis of Air Quality Monitoring Data

Nitrogen Dioxides

5.1.3.15 For the LKC Station, it can be seen from Table 5.1.6 that NO₂ concentrations show a decreasing trend. The highest 1-hour NO₂ concentration was reduced from 268 μg/m³ to 156 μg/m³, the highest daily NO₂ concentration was reduced from 142 µg/m³ to 93 µg/m³, and the annual NO₂ concentration was reduced from 46 μg/m³ to 28 μg/m³ for the period from Year 2008 to Year 2012. The measured 1-hr and annual NO₂ concentrations comply with the AQO requirements of 200 μg/m³ and 40 μg/m³ respectively. By correlating the 1-hr NO₂ concentrations with the wind direction, the majority high NO₂ episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from southern to western (154^o to 286^o).

5.1.3.16 For the North Station, it can be seen from Table 5.1.7 that NO₂ concentrations also show a decreasing trend. The highest 1-hr NO₂ concentration was reduced from 279 μg/m³ to 161 μg/m³, the highest daily NO₂ concentration was reduced from 142 μg/m³ to 75 μg/m³, and the annual NO₂ concentration was reduced from 44 μg/m³ to 31 μg/m³ for the period from Year 2008 to Year 2012. The measured 1-hr and annual NO₂ concentrations comply with the AQO requirements. By correlating the 1-hr NO₂ concentrations with the wind direction, the majority high NO₂ episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from southern to north western (141 ^o to 313 ^o).

5.1.3.17 For the South Station, it can be seen from Table 5.1.8 that there is no obvious reduction in NO₂ concentrations for the period from Year 2008 to Year 2012. The highest 1-hr NO₂ concentrations varied between 204 µg/m³ and 272 µg/m³. As the number of exceedance is less than the allowable frequency of 18 times, there was no non-compliance of 1-hr NO₂ AQO. The highest daily NO₂ concentrations were between 115 µg/m³ and 143 µg/m³ during the same period. The annual NO₂ concentrations were between 48 µg/m³ and 56 µg/m³, exceeded the AQO of 40 µg/m³. By correlating the 1-hr NO₂ concentrations with the wind direction, the high NO₂ episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from south eastern to south western (135^o to 230^o).

5.1.3.18 For the Tung Chung Station, it can be seen from Table 5.1.9 that there was a slight reduction in NO₂ concentrations. The highest 1-hr NO₂ concentration was reduced from 256 µg/m³ to 236 µg/m³ for the period from Year 2008 to Year 2012. The exceedance frequencies of 1-hr NO₂ AQO are below the allowable limit of 18 times for most years except Year 2010. The highest daily NO₂ concentration was reduced from 134 µg/m³ to 124 µg/m³ for the period. The annual NO₂ concentration was reduced from 49 µg/m³ to 43 µg/m³, but still exceed the AQO limit of 40 µg/m³. By correlating the 1-hr NO₂ concentrations with the wind direction, the high NO₂ episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from south eastern to north western (152^o to 293^o).

5.1.3.19 The above observations are consistent with the HKUST study findings, which stated that a fair degree of locally emitted NO₂ is contributed by HKIA related sources. The higher level of annual NO₂ concentration measured at the South Station (49 µg/m³) than that measured at North Station (31 µg/m³) for Year 2012 may reflect the higher utilisation of the south runway for the landing and take-off operation.

5.1.3.20 To determine the contribution of different sources, a near field modeling has been conducted for TC Station under the North Western to Northern wind. Table 5.1.10 summarises the breakdown of NO₂ concentration at TC Station for the average hour and the highest episode hour under N /NW direction. In average hour under N / NW condition (around 15% of time), the NO₂ contribution from airport is around 17%, which is in line with HKUST findings. In the highest episode hour, the NO₂ contribution can be up to around 51%. The increase in NO₂ is due to the high background ozone associated in the high episode hour, which converts the NO_x from airport related activities to NO₂. Nevertheless, according to Year 2012 record, the number of high episode hour is around 4 hours (i.e. < 0.1%) within a year.

Table 5.1.10: NO₂ Concentration Breakdown based on Near field Model

Sources	NO2 Percentage
	Average N / NW Condition	Highest episode day
Airport	17%	51%
Vehicular Emission	31%	33%
Background	52%	17%
Total	100%	100%

RSP

5.1.3.21 It can be observed from Table 5.1.6 to Table 5.1.9 that the measured annual RSP concentrations at all four AQMSs show a general decreasing trend and the RSP levels for Year 2012 are in the range of 39-45 µg/m³, which comply with the AQO limit of 50 µg/m³.

5.1.3.22 However, the highest daily RSP concentrations recorded at all four AQMSs exceeded the AQO during the period between Year 2008 and Year 2012. The frequencies of exceedance were also higher than the allowable limit of 9 times.

5.1.3.23 By correlating with the wind direction, the highest RSP episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from south western to northern (230^o to 360^o). This is consistent with the HKUST study findings that RSP is mainly influenced by regional emission sources.

5.1.3.24 To determine the contribution of different sources, a near field modeling has been conducted for Tung Chung station under the North Western to Northern wind. Table 5.1.11 summarises the breakdown of RSP concentration in Tung Chung Station for the average hour and the highest episode hour under N /NW direction. In average hour under N / NW condition (around 15% of time), the RSP contribution from airport is less than 4%. In the highest episode hour, the RSP contribution can be up to around 17%. Nevertheless, according to Year 2012 record, the high RSP episode days occurred 18 times (around 5%) within a year in Tung Chung Station.

Table 5.1.11: RSP Concentration Breakdown based on Near field Model

Sources	RSP Percentage
	Average N / NW Condition	Highest episode day
Airport	4%	17%
Vehicular Emission	2%	1%
Background	95%	82%
Total	100%	100%

FSP

5.1.3.25 FSP was not monitored at LKC Station between Year 2008 and Year 2011. Highest daily FSP concentration in Year 2012 was 82 μg/m³. The number of exceedance was 4, which still complied with the AQO of 75 μg/m³. The annual FSP concentration of 32 μg/m³ complied with the AQO of 35 μg/m³.

5.1.3.26 Monitoring of FSP at PH1 Station began in late Year 2011. In Year 2012, the highest daily concentration was 109 μg/m³. The number of exceedance for daily FSP is 2, which still complies with the AQO. The annual FSP concentration was 24 μg/m³, which complied with the annual AQO of 35 μg/m³.

5.1.3.27 Monitoring of FSP at PH5 Station began in late Year 2011. In Year 2012, the highest daily concentration was 92 μg/m³. The number of exceedance for daily FSP is 11, which exceeded the allowance stipulated in the AQO. The annual FSP concentration was 29μg/m³ and complied with the annual AQO of 35μg/m³.

5.1.3.28 The highest daily FSP concentrations recorded at TC Station varied between 96 μg/m³ and 134 μg/m³. Exceedance in the AQO was observed in Year 2008, Year 2010 and Year 2011. The annual FSP concentrations varied between 28 and 37 μg/m³. Exceedance in the AQO was observed in Year 2008. The annual FSP concentrations showed a general decreasing trend, reducing from 37 μg/m³ in 2008 to 28 μg/m³ in Year 2012, though exceeded the AQO of 35 μg/m³ in Year 2008.

5.1.3.29 By correlating the 1-hr FSP with the wind direction, the majority highest FSP episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from western to north western (268^o to 324^o). Similar to RSP, the measured FSP concentrations is mainly influenced by regional emission sources.

Ozone

5.1.3.30 It can be observed from Table 5.1.6 to Table 5.1.9 that the majority measured 8-hr O₃ concentrations at all four AQMSs are of similar levels and exceeded the AQO limit of 160 µg/m³ during the period between Year 2008 and Year 2012 (except for PH5 station between Year 2008 and Year 2010). The frequencies of exceedance were also higher than the allowable limit of 9 times.

5.1.3.31 By correlating the O₃ concentration with the wind direction, the highest O₃ episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from south western to north western (212^o to 329^o). This is consistent with the HKUST study findings that majority of O₃ measured at the airport and Lantau were formed due to regional emission sources in the upstream of the airport.

5.1.3.32 Table 5.1.12 shows the O₃ monitoring data at different AQMs under the highest O₃ episode at TC Station. This highest O₃ occurred under western wind. The Table suggests that the high ozone in Tung Chung is due to regional contribution. Moreover, the decrease in O₃ across the PH1 Station to TC Station is due to the reaction of ozone by the NO_x emission generated from the airport related activities.

Table 5.1.12: O₃ Monitoring Data at Different AQM Stations in Year 2011

	O3 Concentration of the corresponding hour (µg/m^3)				Wind Direction (Degree)
	LKC	PH1	PH5	Tung Chung	CLK
The highest O3 episode at TC Station in Yr 2011	367	416	353	312	260

SO₂ and CO

5.1.3.33 Monitoring records of SO₂ and CO in the four monitoring stations indicated that these two pollutants were at relatively low concentration levels. Both pollutants were well within the AQOs. By correlating the SO₂ and CO concentration with the wind direction, the majority highest SO₂ and CO episodes are corresponding to the north-western to northern wind. This is consistent with the HKUST study findings, which stated the major SO₂ and CO sources would be due to the heavily industrialised areas to the north and around the PRD.

Existing Ambient Air Quality in Areas Surrounding the Airport

5.1.3.34 The existing emission sources and compliances in Tung Chung are summarised below:

- NO₂ contribution would be from regional emission sources, vehicular emission sources and airport related activities emission sources. Regional emission sources are the major contributor. 1-hr NO₂ complies with AQO whilst non-compliance is observed for annual NO₂;

- Majority of RSP and FSP contribution would be from regional emission sources. Non-compliance is observed for daily RSP whilst compliance is observed for annual RSP. However, compliance is observed for daily FSP and annual FSP;

- Majority of O₃ contribution would be from regional emission sources. The airport would consume ozone to a certain extent. Nevertheless, non-compliance is still observed for 8-hr ozone;

- Majority of SO₂ and CO contribution would be from regional emission sources; Compliance is observed for SO₂ / CO.

5.1.3.35 While the above monitoring results are indicative of the present background air quality in the study area, they are not considered to be representative of the future background air quality in the year of assessment that corresponds to the highest aircraft emission scenario. On consideration of the air quality-related control programmes to be implemented in the region, it is anticipated that Hong Kong's air quality is expected to improve over the years and such could be captured / simulated in the PATH (Pollutants in the Atmosphere and their Transport over Hong Kong) model. It is proposed to adopt the PATH model to simulate the background air quality in future years in the operation air quality assessment.

5.2 Construction Phase Assessment

5.2.1 Overview

5.2.1.1 This section presents the assessment of potential air quality impacts associated with the construction phase of the project, which has been conducted in accordance with the requirements given in Clause 3.4.3 together with Section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-250/2012).

5.2.2 Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers

5.2.2.1 According to Clause 3(ii) under Section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief, the air quality impact during the construction phase at ASRs within 500 m from the project boundary should be assessed. Therefore, the assessment area is defined as 500 m outside the combined boundary of the existing airport island and the proposed land formation footprint (i.e., the expanded airport island) as well as 500 m outside the boundary of Sheung Sha Chau Island where the submarine fuel pipeline will be daylighted. The assessment area is illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001. It should be noted that for the diversion of submarine fuel pipeline and submarine 11 kV cable, construction dust would only be generated by the land-based works on the existing airport island and the Sheung Sha Chau Island whereas installation of the submarine pipeline and cable will be carried out at respectively sub-seabed rock level and seabed level, hence no dust emissions would be generated from such installation works (see Sections 5.2.3.20 – 5.2.3.24). Therefore, the 500 m assessment area does not cover areas along the pipeline and cable alignments.

5.2.2.2 In accordance with Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM, ASRs include domestic premises, hotel, hostel, hospital, clinic, nursery, temporary housing accommodation, school, educational institution, office, factory, shop, shopping centre, place of public worship, library, court of law, sports stadium or performing arts centre. Any other premises or places which, in terms of duration or number of people affected, have similar sensitivity to the air pollutants as the abovementioned premises and places are also considered as a sensitive receiver.

5.2.2.3 The representative ASRs (existing / planned) that could be affected by the project within the 500 m assessment area have been identified based on the latest and relevant Outline Zoning Plans (e.g. Chek Lap Kok OZP No. S/I-CLK/12 and Tung Chung Town Centre Area OZP No. S/I-TCTC/18), Sha Lo Wan Village Layout Plan - Lantau Island (No. L/I-SLW/1), Development Permission Area Plans, Outline Development Plans, Layout Plans and other relevant published land use plans. Based on the aforementioned requirements of the EIA Study Brief, all the identified ASRs within the 500 m assessment area are outside the combined boundary of the expanded airport island or outside the boundary of Sheung Sha Chau Island where the submarine fuel pipeline will be daylighted.

5.2.2.4 These representative ASRs are summarised in Table 5.2.1 and their locations are shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001.

5.2.2.5 The existing or planned ASRs are assessed at 1.5 m, 5 m and 10 m above ground level and then every 10 m above that until the top of the buildings.

Table 5.2.1: Representative ASRs Identified for Assessment of Construction Phase Air Quality Impacts

ASR ID	Location		Relevant PATH Grid		Landuse^(1^)	No. of Storeys	Approximate Separation Distance from Project Boundary^(2) (m)	Years Subject to Construction Phase Impact
Tung Chung
TC-13	Seaview Crescent Block 1			(12, 26)	R	50	380	2015-2023
TC-14	Seaview Crescent Block 3			(12, 26)	R	49	470	As above
TC-45	Village house at Ma Wan Chung			(12, 25)	R	1-3	570	As above
TC-P2	Planned Park near One Citygate			(12, 26)	P	1	350	As above
TC-P5	Tung Chung West Development			(11, 25)	N/A	N/A	320	As above
TC-P6	Tung Chung West Development			(12, 25)	N/A	N/A	210	As above
TC-P7	Tung Chung West Development			(12, 26)	N/A	N/A	190	As above
San Tau
ST-1	Village house at Tin Sum			(11, 25)	R	1-3	400	2015-2023
ST-2	Village house at Kau Liu			(11, 25)	R	1-3	480	As above
Sha Lo Wan
SLW-1	Sha Lo Wan House No.1			(09, 26)	R	1-3	260	2015-2023
SLW-2	Sha Lo Wan House No.5			(09, 26)	R	1-3	470	As above
SLW-4	Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan			(09, 25)	W	1-3	470	As above
Sheung Sha Chau Island
SC-01		Sheung Sha Chau Pier		(08, 30)	N/A	1	-	2015-2023

Notes: (1) R – Residential; C – Commercial; E – Educational; I – Industrial; H – Clinic/ Home for the Aged/Hospital;

W – Worship; G/IC – Government, Institution and Community; P – Recreational/Park; OS – Open Space;

N/A – Not Available.

(2) Site boundary refers to the combined site boundary of the proposed land formation area and the existing airport island.

5.2.3 Identification of Pollution Sources and Key Pollutants

Overview

5.2.3.1 In accordance with the EIA Study Brief, Appendix A, Clause 3 (ii) under Section I, a quantitative assessment shall be carried out to evaluate the construction dust impact if it is anticipated that the project will give rise to construction dust impacts likely to exceed recommended limits, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures, at the identified ASRs. In accordance with EPD’s Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters (section 3.6), suitable dust size categories relevant to the dust sources concerned with reasonable breakdown in TSP and RSP compositions should be used in evaluating the impacts of dust-emitting activities. Therefore, it is considered that the air pollutants of concerns during the construction phase of the project are TSP and RSP from dust emitting activities. However, as FSP is a newly added criteria pollutant under the AQOs, FSP is also assessed as part of the construction dust impact assessment for the project. Due to the substantial size of the project, quantitative construction dust modelling has been undertaken as a prudent approach to the assessment. The key activities that would potentially result in dust emissions during construction phase of the project have been identified as follows:

§ Land formation works

§ Construction works on the newly formed land

§ Construction works on the existing airport island as part of the project

§ Concrete batching plants, asphalt batching plants and barging points

§ Rock crushing plants

§ Diversion of submarine fuel pipeline

§ Diversion of submarine 11 kV cable

§ Modifications to existing outfall

5.2.3.2 The potential emission sources associated with the above key activities are described below.

Land Formation Works

5.2.3.3 It is planned that the land formation work would be undertaken from start of late 2015 / early 2016 to mid-2022, noting that the third runway and taxiway sections (which accounts for the majority of the land formation) would be completed by 2020 for closure of the existing north runway and opening of the third runway by 2021. Based on the construction planning, the land formation works have been primarily divided into three main stages. The 3-stage land formation areas and the tentative programme are illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-014 and Appendix 4.2 respectively. The works for each stage are described below:

5.2.3.4 Stage 1 has a T-shaped footprint and consists mainly of the land formation works for the third runway, the associated west taxiways, the western support area and other supporting facilities.

5.2.3.5 Stage 2 consists of land formation works for the new third runway concourse and aprons supported by facilities within the east support area.

5.2.3.6 Stage 3 is the land formation area at both ends of the existing north runway associated with the new wrap-around taxiways, whereby construction activities are restricted by the need to maintain operation of the existing north runway until completion of the third runway.

5.2.3.7 For each stage of the land formation, the general work sequence would be similar, which is presented in Table 5.2.2. As identified in the table, the marine-based works refer to those activities that would take place at the seabed and/or within the marine water and therefore they are not anticipated to generate any major dust emissions to air. On the contrary, the land-based works refer to those activities that would be carried out above the high water mark, and hence they are identified as potential dust emission sources. For the land-based work of marine sand filling, that is filling above the high water mark, the filling activity itself is not anticipated to give rise to any major dust emission as the sand fill is generally wet, but the sand filled area would be subject to wind erosion after it has become dry.

Table 5.2.2: Land Formation Work Sequence and Potential Dust Emission Sources

Work Sequence	Marine-based or Land-based Works	Potential Dust Emission Sources
1. Placement of sand blanket (2 m in thickness) on the seabed	Marine-based	No
2. Application of the appropriate non-dredged ground improvement methods to improve the engineering properties of the seabed	Marine-based	No
3. Modification of existing seawall and/or construction of new seawall on the pre-improved foundation	Partly marine-based (during marine sand filling) and partly land-based (during placement of rock fill and rock armour)	No for the marine-based part Yes for the land-based part
4. Marine sand filling up to +2.5 mPD (not including settlement), which is above high water mark	Partly marine-based (during filling below high water mark) and partly land-based (during filling above high water mark)	No for the marine-based part Yes for the land-based part
5. Land filling (using sand fill or public fill materials) with vibrocompaction from +2.5 mPD to +6.5 mPD (not including settlement)	Land-based	Yes
6. Application of surcharge and subsequent removal	Land-based	Yes

5.2.3.8 Based on the land formation sequence during the period from 2016 to 2021, the key dust emissions sources are identified for the land-based filling works on a quarterly basis for individual years, which are given in Appendix 5.2.1.

5.2.3.9 Deep cement mixing (DCM) will be adopted as one of the ground improvement methods for the proposed land formation works. During the DCM process, cement slurry will be injected into the seabed through the base of a vertical tube to improve the ground conditions. Cement powder required by the DCM barges working at the sea will be replenished from time to time by a supporting vessel. During the replenishment, cement powder will be transferred from the supporting vessel to a DCM barge through piping in closed loop or a totally enclosed manner. There will be no open storage of cement on the DCM barges or the supporting vessels. Hence, no fugitive dust emission is anticipated during the cement transfer or storage.

Construction Works on the Newly Formed Land

5.2.3.10 Upon formation of different parcels of land in the proposed sequence (See Appendix 5.2.1), the newly formed land will be handed over for subsequent construction of the necessary infrastructure and superstructure facilities. During such construction works, the major activities that would generate construction dust emissions include the following:

§ Excavation works for constructing basements, tunnels for automated people mover (APM) and baggage handling system, airside tunnels, etc.

§ Foundation works for the superstructure

5.2.3.11 Based on the construction programme in Appendix 4.2, dust emissions from the above key construction works are identified on a quarterly basis for individual years.

Construction Works on the Existing Airport Island

5.2.3.12 As part of the project, there will be construction works on the existing airport island for:

§ Expanding part of the midfield freighter apron on the existing airport island;

§ Expanding the existing passenger Terminal 2 (T2) on the existing airport island and the associated improvement of elevated road network;

§ Extending the APM from the existing airport island to the passenger concourses of the proposed third runway;

§ Relocating the existing APM depot on the airport island;

§ Extending the baggage handling system from the existing airport Island to the aprons of the proposed third runway;

§ Improving the cargo areas road on the existing airport island;

§ Extending the airside tunnels from the existing airport Island to the aprons of the proposed third runway;

§ Extending the South Perimeter Road; and

§ Modifying foul water and grey water networks on the existing airport island.

5.2.3.13 The indicative locations of the above works are given in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-009. During such construction works, the major activities that would generate construction dust emissions include the following:

§ Excavation works

§ Foundation works

5.2.3.14 Based on the construction programme in Appendix 4.2, dust emissions from the above key construction works are identified on a quarterly basis for individual years.

Concrete and Asphalt Batching Plants, Stockpiles and Haul Roads

5.2.3.15 To support the construction works at the newly formed land and the existing airport island, it is anticipated that concrete and asphalt batching plants would be required during the construction of the project. The batching plants will be located near the west of the land formation area (referred to as the Western Batching Plant) and/or near the east of the land formation area (referred to as the Eastern Batching Plant) at different periods of the construction programme in order to maintain the airport operations. The peak production rates of these batching plants at different periods from Q1 2017 to Q4 2022 are summarised in Table 5.2.3. Indicative locations of these batching plants, the associated stockpiles and the haul roads are shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-006.

Table 5.2.3: Peak Production Rates of Concrete and Asphalt Batching Plants during Different Phases

Phase	Duration	Western Batching Plant	Eastern Batching Plant
Period 1	Q1 of 2017 – Q3 of 2019	Concrete batching plants: 500 ton/hr Asphalt batching plant: 150 ton/hr	Not in operation
Period 2	Q4 of 2019 to Q3 of 2020	As above	Concrete batching plants: 500 ton/hr Asphalt batching plant: 150 ton/hr
Period 3	Q4 of 2020 to Q4 of 2021	As above	Concrete batching plants: 1500 ton/hr Asphalt batching plant: 150 ton/hr
Period 4	Q1 of 2022 to Q4 of 2022	As above	As above

5.2.3.16 In addition, one floating concrete batching plant, i.e., concrete batching plant housed on a vessel, will be deployed to support construction of the box culverts for relocating the present outfalls on the northern seawall of the existing airport island. Appendix 5.2.2 shows a photo illustrating the indicative floating concrete batching plant. The peak daily production of the floating concrete batching plant will be about 950 ton/day (or about 39.6 ton/hr assuming 24 hours per day of operation), and is anticipated to be in operation from 2016 to 2018. During such a period, the floating batching plant will be stationed at different locations within the sea area to the north of the existing airport island. In order to assess the worst case cumulative impact due to emissions from the floating plant, it is assumed in the model that the floating plant is located around the northeast corner of the existing airport island that is close to the major works areas on the island (i.e., T2 expansion area, new APM depot works area, etc.), as illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-008.

Barging Points

5.2.3.17 Barging points would be required during the construction phase of the project, and therefore any loading or unloading of dusty materials at the barging points would generate dust emissions. Indicative locations of the barging points are given in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-007.

Crushing Plant

5.2.3.18 A crushing plant is needed for breaking down existing rock armours into material grade suitable for the proposed seawall structures. The maximum processing capacity of the crushing plant is about 700 ton/hr. Due to the early demand of rockfill material, the crushing plant will be served by a barge outside the Scheduled Runway Closure Zone from 2016 to 2017. After that, the plant will be located on land close to the first temporary barging point until the handover to the superstructure contractor.  Demand for the crushing plant after mid 2017, is expected to be small. The location of crushing plant both on barge and on land as well as the anticipated durations are indicated in the Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-008.

Stockpiles of Excavated Construction and Demolition Materials

5.2.3.19 To allow for on-site reuse of construction and demolition (C&D) materials to be excavated during the construction activities of the project for the land formation work, it is anticipated that temporary stockpiling of such materials would be required during the period from 2015 to 2016. The tentative locations of these stockpiles are as shown in the Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-013.

Diversion of Submarine Fuel Pipeline

5.2.3.20 As part of the Land Formation Scheme Design, the preferred option selected for diversion of the submarine fuel pipelines is by horizontal directional drill (HDD) method. The HDD method will be deployed to install the pipeline directly from west side of the existing airport island to the Sheung Sha Chau Island by underground drilling, which will take place mostly at sub-seabed rock level without any disturbance to the seabed (see the pipeline alignment in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001).

5.2.3.21 Therefore, the underground drilling work at sub-seabed rock level will not generate any dust emissions to air. However, potential dust emissions will arise from the drilling works on either ends of the pipeline, i.e., on west side of the existing airport (near North Perimeter Road) and on the Sheung Sha Chau Island, the indicative locations of which are given in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-009. As illustrated in the tentative programme in Appendix 4.2, the pipeline diversion work would commence in 2015 and complete by 2016.

5.2.3.22 In order to provide necessary geotechnical information for subsequent detailed design of the submarine fuel pipeline work, detailed geological information on the proposed alignment of the HDD would be needed. One option for obtaining geotechnical information would involve drilling site investigation (SI) boreholes at several locations along the proposed alignment of the pipeline passing underneath the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau (SCLKC) Marine Park. The proposed SI works for the pipelines involves setting up drilling vessels / platforms at specific locations along or near to the proposed HDD alignment. A total of four boreholes are anticipated for the SI within the SCLKC Marine Park as illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-009. As the proposed borehole drilling works at all four locations will be carried out in marine environment, there will be no dust emission to air from the drilling works.

Diversion of Submarine 11 kV Cable

5.2.3.23 As part of the Land Formation Scheme Design, the preferred option for diversion of the submarine 11 kV cable has been identified. Under the preferred option, the proposed cable will be laid below the seabed by water jetting method from the west side of the existing airport island to the south of SCLKC Marine Park where the proposed cable will be connected to the existing cable via a field joint (see the cable alignment in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001). Excavation of the seabed at the proposed field joint area will need to be carried out to expose the existing cable, which will then be lifted up to a barge for forming the field joint.

5.2.3.24 As the cable laying and field joint excavation works will take place at the seabed, no dust emissions to air from such works are anticipated. However, modification of a small portion of the seawall on the west side of the existing airport island (near South Perimeter Road) will be required for installation of a cable duct for cable drawing. The modification work will involve excavation of fill material from the existing seawall section above the seabed and subsequent backfilling to reinstate the seawall after installing the cable duct. Potential dust emissions will therefore be generated by such excavation and backfilling activities. The indicative location of the seawall modification (i.e., the cable landing location) is given in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-009. As illustrated in the tentative programme in Appendix 4.2, the cable diversion work would commence in 2015 and complete by 2016.

Cumulative Impacts

5.2.3.25 Construction of the key elements for the project is scheduled to begin as early as 2015 (see Appendix 4.2). The following concurrent projects within or in the vicinity of the 500 m assessment area have been identified for potential cumulative impact assessment. These include the following:

§ Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (Construction Period: Year 2011 - 2015);

§ HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) (Construction Period: third quarter of Year 2010 - end 2016);

§ New Contaminated Mud Marine Disposal Facility at HKIA East / East Sha Chau Area (Construction Period: Year 2007 - 2015);

§ North Commercial District (Construction period: Year 2015 - 2019);

§ Intermodal Transfer Terminus (Construction period: Year 2014 – 2017);

§ Other airport facilities related works consisting of the modification of existing airport facilities and the development of additional airport car parks, coach station, vehicular staging and Terminal 1 (T1) check-in facilities (Construction period: Year 2016 – 2019); and

§ Tung Chung New Town Extension (TCNTE) Study (Proposed commencement of construction in 2018 for first population intake in Year 2023/24).

5.2.3.26 For all the aforementioned concurrent projects, cumulative dust impacts have been included where information is available. For the Tung Chung New Town Extension Study, the relevant details of its construction activities including the detailed construction programmes (except the proposed commencement year of construction) are not yet available, therefore that project is not able to be included in the cumulative dust impact assessment.

5.2.4 Construction Phase Air Quality Assessment Methodology

Model Description

5.2.4.1 The Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) is a computerised air quality model specifically designed for computing the concentration and deposition impacts from fugitive dust sources. The model is generally based on the Gaussian Plume formulation for computing concentrations, but the model has been specifically adapted to incorporate an improved gradient transfer deposition algorithm. FDM is one of the air quality models listed as commonly used for EIA studies by EPD in Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters. Gaussian models are designed for use in simple terrain under uniform flow.

5.2.4.2 Steady-state Gaussian plume models have been shown to produce conservative results for short (less than 100 m) or low level sources. Gaussian plume models are more likely to over-predict rather than under-predict ground-level concentrations^[1].

5.2.4.3 It should be noted that FDM and all Gaussian based dispersion models have limited ability to predict dispersion in the following situations.

Causality effects

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

Low wind speeds

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

Straight-line trajectories

5.2.4.6 Gaussian models will typically overestimate terrain impingement effects during stable conditions because they do not account for turning or rising wind caused by the terrain itself. This effect is not considered to be important for the project as the subject site and surrounding terrain within the 500 m assessment area is flat.

Spatially uniform meteorological conditions

5.2.4.7 Gaussian models assume that the atmosphere is uniform across the entire modelling domain, and that transport and dispersion conditions exist unchanged long enough for the material to reach the receptor even if this is several kilometres away. In the atmosphere, truly uniform conditions rarely occur. As the subject site and surrounding assessment area is not too large with no significant terrain features, hence uniform meteorological conditions are considered appropriate.

No memory of previous hour’s emissions

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

Assumptions and Inputs

Dust Emission Factors

5.2.4.9 Prediction of dust emissions is based on emissions factors from the Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), 5th Edition published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The emission factor for a typical heavy construction activity is 2.69 megagrams (Mg)/hectare/month according to Section 13.2.3.3 of AP-42. Based on Table 11.9-4 of AP-42, the emission factor for wind erosion of 0.85 megagrams (Mg)/hectare/year is adopted. The key dust emission factors adopted in the FDM for the various key dust emission activities identified in Section 5.2.3 are summarised in Table 5.2.4.

5.2.4.10 According to the EIA Study Brief, Appendix A-1, Clause 3.6, suitable dust size categories relevant to the dust sources concerned with reasonable breakdown in TSP and RSP compositions should be used in evaluating the impacts of dust-emitting activities. With reference to the USEPA document Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, 1999, a typical ratio of 0.3:1 is used for RSP:TSP. Therefore, the RSP emission rates for heavy construction activities and wind erosion are estimated as 30% of the corresponding TSP emission rates. Based on the USEPA’s Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM_2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions from PM₁₀, April 2005, FSP emission from heavy construction activities and wind erosion can be estimated as 3% of the corresponding TSP emissions. Details of these emission factors are given in Table 5.2.4.

5.2.4.11 TSP, RSP and FSP emissions rates for paved haul roads as well as for loading and unloading of dusty materials for stockpiles, barging points and various facilities are estimated by the relevant formulae based on respectively Section 13.2.1 and Section 13.2.4.3 of the USEPA AP-42, as detailed in Table 5.2.4.

5.2.4.12 TSP emissions from the concrete batching plants, asphalt batching plants and crushing plant are estimated based on the relevant air pollutant concentration limits as specified respectively in the Guidance Notes BPM 3/2(93), BPM 15(94) and BPM 11/1 (95) (see Table 5.1.2, Table 5.1.3, and Table 5.1.4) and the relevant design capacities of the plants. With reference to the Particulate matter and Elemental Emission from a Cement Kiln, published by Fuel Processing Technology in 2012, it can be estimated that RSP and FSP emissions from concrete batching plants would be respectively 37% and 14% of the corresponding TSP emissions. Asphalt batching plants use the same raw input materials as those of the concrete batching plants, therefore the particulate size distribution is assumed to be the same as that for concrete batching plants. The RSP and FSP proportions for crushing plant are assumed to be the same as those for heavy construction activities, i.e., respectively 30% and 3% of TSP, as the materials processed by crushing plant would be similar in nature to those handled during heavy construction activities. Details of the emission factors from these plants are given in Table 5.2.4.

Table 5.2.4: Key Dust Emission Factors Adopted in the Assessment

Key Activities	Dust Emission Factors	Reference
Heavy construction activities including all land-based filling works (except marine sand filling activity), above ground and open construction works, excavation/drilling and earth works	TSP Emission Factor = 2.69 Mg/hectare/month RSP Emission Factor = 2.69 x 30% Mg/hectare/month FSP Emission Factor = 2.69 x 3% Mg/hectare/month	Section 13.2.3.3 AP-42, 5th Edition USEPA document Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, 1999 Thompson G. Pace, USEPA. Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions from PM10, April 2005
Wind erosion from heavy construction, open area, stockpile or surcharge area	TSP Emission Factor = 0.85 Mg/hectare/year RSP Emission Factor = 0.85 x 30% Mg/hectare/month FSP Emission Factor = 0.85 x 3% Mg/hectare/month	Table 11.9-4 AP-42, 5th Edition USEPA document Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, 1999 Thompson G. Pace, USEPA. Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions from PM10, April 2005
Paved haul road	TSP or RSP or FSP Emission Factor = k x (sL)^0.91 x (W) ^1.02 g/VKT where k is particle size multiplier^a sL is road surface silt loading W is average truck weight	Section 13.2.1, AP-42, 5th Edition (Jan 2011 edition)
Loading or unloading of dusty materials for stockpiles, barging points and concrete/ asphalt batching plant	TSP or RSP or FSP Emission Factor = k*0.0016*[(U/2.2)^1.3/(M/2)^1.4] kg/Mg k is particle size multiplier^b U is Average wind speed M is Moisture content	Section 13.2.4.3 AP-42, 5th Edition
Concrete batching plant	TSP emission estimated based on the emission limit of 50 mg/m^3 RSP emission = 37% of TSP FSP emission = 14% of TSP	Guidance Notes BPM 3/2(93) R.K. Gupta, et al., Particulate matter and Elemental Emission from a Cement Kiln, Fuel Processing Technology, 2012
Asphalt batching plant	TSP emission estimated based on the emission limit of 50 mg/m^3 RSP emission = 37% of TSP FSP emission = 14% of TSP	Guidance Notes BPM 15(94) RSP and FSP proportions assumed to be the same as those for concrete batching plants due to use of the same input materials
Crushing plant	TSP emission estimated based on the emission limit of 50 mg/m^3 RSP emission = 30% of TSP FSP emission = 3% of TSP	Guidance Notes BPM 11/1 (95) RSP and FSP proportions assumed to be the same as those for heavy construction activities given the similar nature of materials handled by the plant

a. The particle size multipliers for TSP, RSP and FSP are made reference to Section 13.2.1(Table 13.2.1-1) of the USEPA Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), 5^th Edition (Jan 2011 edition).

b. The particle size multipliers for TSP, RSP and FSP are made reference to Section 13.2.4.3 of the USEPA Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), 5^th Edition (Jan 2011 edition).

5.2.4.13 The particulate size distributions of the dust emissions from all the aforementioned construction activities and facilities are estimated based on the relevant references as given in Table 5.2.4. Details of the estimated particle size distributions are given in Appendix 5.2.3.

Working Hours and Days

5.2.4.14 It is assumed that the land formation works as well as all the key construction works on the newly formed land, the existing airport island and the Sheung Sha Chau Island will be carried out 24 hours per day and 7 days per week throughout the relevant construction years. For the barging points, western and eastern concrete / asphalt paving plants and crushing plant, the assumed working hours and days would be taken as respectively 12 hours per day (7am to 7pm) and 6 days per week (Monday to Saturday), i.e., no operation of these facilities is expected on Sundays and public holidays. For the floating concrete batching plant, the working hours and days are subject to future detailed design, therefore they are conservatively assumed as 24 hours per day and seven days per week in the model.

Emission Inventory

5.2.4.15 As summarised in Table 5.2.5, the annual total RSP emission for each construction year of the project has been determined based on the aforementioned emission factors, working hours and days, and estimated active construction areas (see Appendix 5.2.8). It can be seen from the table that the largest contribution to RSP emissions would be from paved haul roads. Based on such information, it is found that the annual total RSP emission (and the RSP emission from paved haul roads) would be the highest in 2021.

Table 5.2.5: Annual RSP Emissions from Various Major Dust Emission Sources

Year	Heavy Construction Activities and Wind Erosion of Active Construction Areas (including concurrent projects) (ton/year)	Crushing Plant and Wind Erosion of Stockpiles (ton/year)	Concrete and Asphalt Batching Plants, Barging Points and Stockpiles (ton/year)	Paved Haul Roads (ton/year)	Annual Total (ton/year)
2015	13.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	13.3
2016	6.8	0.1	0.1	54.5	61.5
2017	0.8	0.1	4.0	145.4	150.3
2018	10.9	0.1	5.1	145.4	161.5
2019	2.2	0.1	5.2	110.9	118.4
2020	0.4	0.1	3.6	128.5	132.6
2021	0.1	0.2	4.4	164.1	168.8
2022	0.2	0.2	4.4	133.5	138.3
2023	0.0	0.0	1.5	0.0	1.5

Meteorological Data

5.2.4.16 Hourly meteorological data in Year 2010 as extracted from the relevant grids of PATH model where the ASRs are located (see Table 5.2.1) is used to represent the meteorology within the 500 m assessment area. The PATH meteorological data is adopted as input to FDM as the PATH model is used to predict the far-field contributions to background air quality as detailed in the following paragraphs. Since no stability class information is available from PATH, such information is generated using the program PCRAMMET, which uses location specific meteorological information to generate stability classes.

Roughness factor

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

5.2.4.18 Within a 3 km distance from the project boundary, the percentage areas of sea, Lantau Island and reclaimed land (including the existing airport island, newly formed land and proposed HKBCF) in different construction years are estimated, as detailed in Appendix 5.2.4. The typical surface roughness values for sea and new development areas such as Lantau Island are respectively 0.01 cm and 100 cm. Reclaimed land, however, does not have a typical roughness value published and is estimated as the area-weighted average of the roughness for flat land and the roughness for land occupied by physical structures. Flat land is assumed to have a roughness of 0.8 cm, which is the roughness of “fairly level grass plain” as defined in Figure 1 of the USEPA’s User Guide for the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) (Revised), EPA-910/9-88-202R, January 1991. For land occupied by physical structures, its roughness factor is estimated as 3% of the approximate average height of physical structures, i.e., 40 m. Therefore, the roughness factor of reclaimed land can be estimated by the following formula:

Roughness of reclaimed land (RRL) = ST x 4000 cm x 3% + FL x 0.8 cm

where ST is the % of reclaimed land occupied by physical structures with approximate average height of 40 m; and

FL is the % of reclaimed land not occupied by physical structures, i.e., flat land.

5.2.4.19 Based on the aforementioned roughness factors for different types of land, the area-weighted average surface roughness of the 3 km area can be estimated for different construction years as follows:

Roughness of the entire 3-km area = S x 0.01 cm +TRL x RRL + L x 100 cm

where S is the % of sea area;

TRL is the % of reclaimed land; and

L is the % of Lantau Island

5.2.4.20 Details of the surface roughness estimation are given in Appendix 5.2.4.

Background RSP and FSP Levels

5.2.4.21 The PATH model has been used to predict far-field contributions to the background RSP levels on an hour-by-hour basis within the 500 m assessment area during the construction phase of the project. The hourly RSP levels as predicted by PATH are then multiplied by a factor of 0.75 to conservatively estimate the corresponding FSP levels according to EPD’s Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong. CALINE4 and AERMOD are used to estimate the near-field contributions to the background RSP and FSP levels due to vehicular emission at local scale (i.e. the road networks within the assessment area) and emissions from the airport operation (two-runway system) respectively. The 2010 meteorological data as extracted from the relevant grids of PATH is used for running both CALINE4 and AERMOD. The modelling results of PATH, CALINE4 and AERMOD can then be added together to predict the future background RSP and FSP levels for the purpose of construction phase dust impact assessment. The key input parameters adopted for PATH, CALINE4 and AERMOD are described as follows.

5.2.4.22 PATH model is run for Year 2015, i.e., the planned commencement year of construction, as this will give conservative far-field modelling results at the ASRs. To run the PATH model, the vehicular and airport emissions have been removed from the PATH grids corresponding to the 500 m assessment area in order to avoid double counting with the near-field modelling results. The PATH grids where the RSP modelling results are extracted for individual ASRs are as given in Table 5.2.1.

5.2.4.23 Running of CALINE4 is based on the predicted traffic flows in Year 2031 under the two-runway system of the airport coupled with the average fleet emission factors estimated by EMFAC-HK v2.6 for Year 2021. The traffic flows in Year 2031 are considered to be conservative as they are higher than those during any of the constructions years from 2015 to 2023. Year 2021 is chosen for estimating the emission factors because that particular year represents the construction year when the total RSP emissions would be the highest (see Table 5.2.5). Details of the EMFAC-HK results and associated key assumptions are given in Appendix 5.2.5.

5.2.4.24 As part of the operation phase air quality impact assessment, the airport island emission inventory under the existing two-runway scenario in Year 2011 has been compiled. Therefore, this Year 2011 emission inventory has been used to run AERMOD and then to scale up the modelling results by a factor of 1.26 in order to predict the RSP and FSP concentrations at the ASRs when the two-runway system has reached its practical maximum capacity, i.e., 420,000 ATMs per year. The factor of 1.26 is calculated as the ratio of 420,000 ATMs per year to 334,000 ATMs per year (i.e., the ATM in 2011). This will give conservative estimates of the near-field contributions to the background air quality due to emissions from the airport operation. Details of the 2011 emission inventory for airport island and associated key assumptions are given in Appendix 5.2.5.

5.2.4.25 The background concentrations for PATH, AERMOD and CALINE4 are summarised in Appendix 5.2.5.

Background TSP Levels

5.2.4.26 As the PATH model does not generate TSP results, the PATH RSP results are taken to represent the far-field contributions to background TSP at the ASRs. This is considered as a reasonable assumption because particulate matter of sizes larger than RSP from far-field sources would have been largely settled before reaching the ASRs. Near-field contributions to background TSP levels from vehicular and airport operation emissions would be the same as their corresponding RSP contributions as particulate matter from such emission sources are RSP. Therefore, the background hourly TSP levels can be reasonably estimated as the total of the aforementioned RSP modelling results from PATH, CALINE4 and AERMOD for the purpose of estimating the cumulative 1-hour TSP levels due to the construction activities of the project.

Modelling Methodology

5.2.4.27 Based on the construction programme / sequences of the various key dust-emitting activities as detailed in Section 5.2.3, the dust sources, including their locations, work areas and emission rates, have been identified on a year-to-year basis from Year 2015 to 2023 until majority of the key construction works that would have potential dust emissions are anticipated to be completed. The dust impact is assessed for each construction year to determine the worst case impacts. Details of the key dust-emitting activities are presented in Appendix 5.2.6.

5.2.4.28 For hourly TSP, daily RSP and daily FSP, a tiered modelling approach is adopted. A hypothetical Tier 1 screening for a given year assumes 100% of the work areas as active areas that are emitting TSP, RSP and FSP. This Tier 1 scenario (i.e. assuming 100% active area for the project and the concurrent project) is hypothetical and used for screening purposes to identify which ASRs may be subject to concentrations above the relevant standards. For the purpose of the Tier 1 screening, the dust mitigation measures as detailed in Section 5.2.6 (such as frequent water spraying, covering stockpiles with impervious sheets, etc.) are taken into account when estimating the dust emission rates from the construction activities. The Tier 1 hourly TSP, daily RSP and daily FSP levels at all the ASRs are then predicted for both scenarios of with and without the dust mitigation measures in place. Locations of the Tier 1 dust sources are given in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-010 to 5-2-014. Appendix 5.2.7 presents the TSP, RSP and FSP emission rates of the Tier 1 dust sources estimated based on details of the construction programme and the relevant emission factors as given in Table 5.2.4.

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

5.2.4.30 For the Tier 2 assessment, the percentage active areas for individual work areas are estimated based on the construction plant inventories of each works areas and planned construction activities for each year. The maximum of the estimated percentage active areas for all work areas is obtained for each year and is then applied to all work areas for that year. Details of the estimated percentage active areas for hourly TSP and daily RSP / FSP assessment are given in Appendix 5.2.8.

5.2.4.31 It is assumed in the Tier 2 assessment that the maximum percentage active area for each year and the corresponding active areas of the relevant concurrent project would be located closest to the ASR being assessed. The Tier 2 hourly TSP, daily RSP or daily FSP levels at each of these ASRs are then predicted with the dust mitigation measures in place. Appendix 5.2.9 presents the TSP, RSP and FSP emission rates of the Tier 2 dust sources estimated based on details of the construction programme and the relevant emission factors as given in Table 5.2.4.

5.2.4.32 Under normal circumstances, construction activities for the project and the concurrent projects would likely spread over the whole work areas. As such, the maximum percentage active area obtained from and applied to all works areas, and the corresponding active areas of the relevant concurrent project to be located closest to a particular ASR at any one time during the Tier 2 assessment is a conservative approach.

5.2.4.33 For the assessment of annual RSP and FSP concentrations, the percentage active work area over the entire year would be less than that for a typical working hour or a typical working day. The percentage active area averaged over each construction year is estimated for each work area. Similar to the Tier 2 assessment of hourly TSP and daily RSP / FSP, the annual RSP and FSP assessment is based on the maximum of the estimated percentage active areas for all work areas, which is applied to all the areas. The annual RSP and FSP levels are predicted at all the ASRs for both scenarios of with and without the dust mitigation measures in place. Details of the estimated percentage active areas for annual RSP and FSP assessment are given in Appendix 5.2.8.

5.2.4.34 All the model input files for Tier 1 and Tier 2 of TSP, RSP and FSP are given in Appendix 5.2.10 to Appendix 5.2.14. Appendix 5.2.15 presents the RSP and FSP emission rates of the annual dust sources estimated based on details of the construction programme and the relevant emission factors as given in Table 5.2.4. Appendix 5.2.16 to 5.2.17 shows all the model input files for annual assessment of TSP, RSP and FSP.

5.2.5 Evaluation and Assessment of Construction Phase Air Quality Impact

Tier 1 Screening Results

5.2.5.1 The Tier 1 hourly TSP, daily RSP and daily FSP screening results for both unmitigated and mitigated scenarios including the background contributions are tabulated in Appendix 5.2.18 and Appendix 5.2.19. The Tier 1 pollutant contours for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios in Years 2018 and 2021 are presented in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-047 to 5-2-058, which can represent the worst case contour plots because there would be substantially more major dust-emitting activities (such as land-based works for land formation, heavy construction works, haul roads, etc.) during these two years (see Appendix 5.2.6). The mitigated results are summarised as follows.

Hourly TSP

5.2.5.2 The Tier 1 hourly TSP results under unmitigated and mitigated scenario including the background contributions are summarised in Table 5.2.6. There would be no exceedances of the hourly TSP limit of 500 µg/m³ under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario in any years. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.7.

Table 5.2.6: Summary of Predicted Cumulative Maximum Hourly Average TSP Concentrations (Tier 1 Unmitigated and Mitigated)

Year	Tier 1 Unmitigated Scenario Range of Predicted Maximum Cumulative Hourly TSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 500 µg/m^3]	Tier 1 Mitigated Scenario Range of Predicted Maximum Cumulative Hourly TSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 500 µg/m^3]
2015	347 - 1844	141 - 313
2016	175 - 1431	141 - 204
2017	642 - 2101	160 - 332
2018	901 - 3091	179 - 440
2019	679 - 3081	160 - 435
2020	418 - 1892	150 - 312
2021	701 - 2501	160 - 378
2022	547 - 1987	160 - 308
2023	141 - 166	141 - 166

5.2.5.3 It should be noted that as explained in Section 5.2.4, the Tier 1 scenario represents a hypothetical worst case where 100% of the work areas are assumed as active areas that are generating dust and the Tier 1 results are only for screening purposes so that the ASRs of concerns (i.e., with exceedance under the hypothetical Tier 1 scenario) would be identified for undergoing the Tier 2 assessment. The estimated percentage active areas for individual work areas are actually much less than 100%, which are taken into account during the Tier 2 assessment.

Daily RSP

5.2.5.4 The Tier 1 daily RSP results under unmitigated and mitigated scenario including the background contributions are summarised in Table 5.2.7. There would be non-compliance with the AQO for daily RSP (i.e., exceeding 100 µg/m³ for more than 9 times per year) at some of the ASRs in Years 2017, 2018 and 2021 only, but compliance at all ASRs would be achieved in all other years under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.7.

Table 5.2.7: Summary of Predicted Cumulative 10^th Highest Daily Average RSP Concentrations (Tier 1 Unmitigated and Mitigated)

Year	Tier 1 Unmitigated Scenario Range of Predicted 10^th Maximum Cumulative Daily RSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 100 µg/m^3]	Tier 1 Mitigated Scenario Range of Predicted 10^th Maximum Cumulative Daily RSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 100 µg/m^3]
2015	84 - 148	79 - 89
2016	82 - 115	78 - 86
2017	88 - 268	79 - 101
2018	93 - 329	79 - 105
2019	89 - 282	79 - 97
2020	86 - 184	79 - 92
2021	88 - 278	79 - 102
2022	87 - 222	79 - 96
2023	78 - 84	78 - 84

Daily FSP

5.2.5.5 The Tier 1 daily FSP results under unmitigated and mitigated scenario including the background contributions are summarised in Table 5.2.8. It can be seen from the table that all ASRs would comply with the AQO for daily FSP under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario throughout the construction period. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.7.

Table 5.2.8: Summary of Predicted Cumulative 10^th Highest Daily Average FSP Concentrations (Tier 1 Unmitigated and Mitigated)

Year	Tier 1 Unmitigated Scenario Range of Predicted 10^th Maximum Cumulative Daily FSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 75 µg/m^3]	Tier 1 Mitigated Scenario Range of Predicted 10^th Maximum Cumulative Daily FSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 75 µg/m^3]
2015	59 - 66	58 - 64
2016	59 - 65	58 - 64
2017	59 - 77	58 - 64
2018	59 - 85	58 - 65
2019	59 - 76	58 - 64
2020	59 - 70	58 - 64
2021	59 - 79	58 - 64
2022	59 - 76	58 - 65
2023	58 - 63	58 - 63

Tier 2 Modelling Results

5.2.5.6 The Tier 2 mitigated results including the background contributions are tabulated in Appendix 5.2.20. The Tier 2 pollutant contours for mitigated scenario in Years 2018 and 2021 are presented in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-061 to 5-2-062, which can represent the worst case contour plots because there would be substantially more major dust-emitting activities (such as land-based works for land formation, heavy construction works, haul roads, etc.) during these two years (see Appendix 5.2.6).The mitigated results are also summarised as follows.

Hourly TSP

5.2.5.7 As all ASRs would comply with the hourly TSP limit of 500 µg/m³ under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario throughout the construction period, no Tier 2 modelling is required for hourly TSP.

Daily RSP

5.2.5.8 Table 5.2.9 summarises the range of predicted cumulative concentration for daily RSP under the Tier 2 mitigated scenario from Year 2015 to 2023. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-016 to 5-2-044 as well as in Appendix 5.2.9. It can be seen from the table that the cumulative daily RSP levels at all the ASRs would comply with the corresponding AQO under the Tier 2 mitigated scenario.

Table 5.2.9: Summary of Predicted Cumulative 10^th Highest Daily Average RSP Concentrations (Tier 2 Mitigated)

Year	No. of ASRs with Tier 1 Mitigated Exceedances	Range of Predicted 10^th Maximum Cumulative Daily RSP under Tier 2 Scenario (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 100 µg/m^3]
2015	0	Not modelled as no Tier 1 exceedance
2016	0	Not modelled as no Tier 1 exceedance
2017	1	82
2018	3	82*
2019	0	Not modelled as no Tier 1 exceedance
2020	0	Not modelled as no Tier 1 exceedance
2021	3	82*
2022	0	Not modelled as no Tier 1 exceedance
2023	0	Not modelled as no Tier 1 exceedance

*Note: The concentrations at all modelled ASR are equal to the value stated.

Daily FSP

5.2.5.9 As all ASRs would comply with the AQO for daily FSP under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario throughout the construction period, no Tier 2 modelling is required for daily FSP.

Annual Results

5.2.5.10 The annual RSP and FSP results for both unmitigated and mitigated scenarios including the background contributions are tabulated in Appendix 5.2.21 and Appendix 5.2.22. The annual pollutant contours for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios in Years 2018 and 2021 are presented in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-063 to 5-2-070, which can represent the worst case contour plots because there would be substantially more major dust-emitting activities (such as land-based works for land formation, heavy construction works, haul roads, etc.) during these two years (see Appendix 5.2.6).The results are summarised as follows.

Annual RSP

5.2.5.11 Table 5.2.10 summarises the annual RSP results under the mitigated scenario from Year 2015 to 2023. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.15. It can be seen from the table that the cumulative annual RSP levels at all the ASRs would comply with the corresponding AQO under the mitigated scenario.

Table 5.2.10: Summary of Predicted Cumulative Annual Average RSP Concentrations for all ASRs (Unmitigated and Mitigated)

Year	Annual Unmitigated Scenario	Annual Mitigated Scenario
	Range of Predicted Cumulative Annual RSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 50 µg/m^3]	Range of Predicted Cumulative Annual RSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 50 µg/m^3]
2015	39 - 43	39 - 42
2016	39 - 46	39 - 42
2017	39 - 42	39 - 42
2018	39 - 44	39 - 42
2019	39 - 43	39 - 42
2020	39 - 42	39 - 42
2021	39 - 42	39 - 42
2022	39 - 42	39 - 42
2023	39 - 42	39 - 42

Annual FSP

5.2.5.12 Table 5.2.11 summarises the annual FSP results under the mitigated scenario from Year 2015 to 2023. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.15. It can be seen from the table that the cumulative annual FSP levels at all the ASRs would comply with the corresponding AQO under the mitigated scenario.

Table 5.2.11: Summary of Predicted Cumulative Annual Average FSP Concentrations for all ASRs (Unmitigated and Mitigated)

Year	Annual Unmitigated Scenario	Annual Mitigated Scenario
	Range of Predicted Cumulative Annual FSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 35 µg/m^3]	Range of Predicted Cumulative Annual FSP (µg/m^3) [Criterion – 35 µg/m^3]
2015	29 - 31	29 - 31
2016	29 - 32	29 - 31
2017	29 - 31	29 - 31
2018	29 - 32	29 - 31
2019	29 - 31	29 - 31
2020	29 - 31	29 - 31
2021	29 - 31	29 - 31
2022	29 - 31	29 - 31
2023	29 - 31	29 - 31

Bitumen Fumes from Asphalt Batching Plants

5.2.5.13 Apart from dust emissions, there would also be potential emission of bitumen fumes from the proposed asphalt batching plants. The shortest horizontal distance between the proposed asphalt batching plant (in the Western Batching Plant) and the nearest ASR (i.e., SLW-1) is about 3.1 km. Given the large separation distances from ASRs and with implementation of the various emission control measures as given in the Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94), adverse air quality impacts due to the bitumen fume emission are not anticipated.

5.2.6 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

Dust Control Measures

5.2.6.1 To ensure compliance with the TSP, RSP and FSP criteria during the construction phase, the relevant requirements stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2(93), EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94), EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) BPM 11/1 (95) as well as the good practices for dust control should be implemented to reduce the dust impact. The dust control measures are detailed as follows:

5.2.6.2 Dust emissions could be suppressed by regular water spraying on site. In general, water spraying twice a day could reduce dust emission from active construction area by 50%. However, for this project, more frequent water spraying, i.e., 12 times a day or once every two hours for 24-hour working, is required for heavy construction activities at all active works area in order to achieve an adequate dust suppression efficiency of 91.7% to reduce the dust impacts to acceptable levels. A watering intensity of 12 times a day (or once every two hours for 24-hour working) is predicted to achieve 91.7% dust suppression efficiency as detailed in Appendix 5.2.23. Heavy construction activities include construction of roads, drilling, ground excavation, cut and fill operations (i.e., earth moving), etc.

5.2.6.3 For stockpiling activities, it is recommended that 80% of the stockpiling area should be covered by impervious sheets and all dusty materials should be sprayed with water immediately prior to any loading transfer operation so as to keep the dusty material wet during material handling at the stockpile areas.

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

Good Site Management

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

Disturbed Parts of the Roads

§ Main temporary access points should be paved with concrete, bituminous hardcore materials or metal plates and be 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 onto the debris so that it remains wet when it is dumped.

Transport of Dusty Materials

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

Wheel washing

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

Use of vehicles

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

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

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

Site hoarding

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

Best Practices for Concrete Batching Plant

5.2.6.5 It is recommended that the relevant best practices for dust control as stipulated in the Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2 as well as in the future Specified Process licence should also be adopted to further reduce the construction dust impacts of the project. The best practices are recommended to be applied to both the land based and floating concrete batching plants. Best practices include:

Cement and other dusty materials

§ The loading, unloading, handling, transfer or storage of cement, pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and/or other equally dusty materials shall be carried in a totally enclosed system acceptable to EPD. All dust-laden air or waste gas generated by the process operations shall be properly extracted and vented to fabric filtering system to meet the required emission limit.

§ Cement, PFA and/or other equally dusty materials shall be stored in a storage silo fitted with audible high level alarms to warn of over-filling. The high-level alarm indicators shall be interlocked with the material filling line such that in the event of the silo approaching an overfilling condition, an audible alarm will operate, and after one minute or less the material filling line will be closed.

§ Vents of all silos shall be fitted with fabric filtering system to meet the required emission limit.

§ Vents of cement/PFA weighing scale shall be fitted with fabric filtering system to meet the required emission limit.

§ Seating of pressure relief valves of all silos shall be checked, and the valves re-seated if necessary, before each delivery.

Other raw materials

§ The loading, unloading, handling, transfer or storage of other raw materials which may generate airborne dust emissions such as crushed rock, sand, stone aggregate, shall be carried out in such a manner to prevent or minimise dust emissions.

§ The materials shall be adequately wetted prior to and during the loading, unloading and handling operations. Manual or automatic water spraying system shall be provided at all unloading areas, stock piles and material discharge points.

§ All receiving hoppers for unloading relevant materials shall be enclosed on three sides up to 3 m above the unloading point. In no case shall these hoppers be used as the material storage devices.

§ The belt conveyor for handling materials shall be enclosed on top and two sides with a metal board at the bottom to eliminate any dust emission due to wind-whipping effect. Other type of enclosure will also be accepted by EPD if it can be demonstrated that the proposed enclosure can achieve same performance.

§ All conveyor transfer points shall be totally enclosed. Openings for the passage of conveyors shall be fitted with adequate flexible seals.

§ Scrapers shall be provided at the turning points of all conveyors to remove dust adhered to the belt surface.

§ Conveyors discharged to stockpiles of relevant materials shall be arranged to minimise free fall as far as practicable. All free falling transfer points from conveyors to stockpiles shall be enclosed with chute(s) and water sprayed.

§ Aggregates with a nominal size less than or equal to 5 mm should be stored in totally enclosed structure such as storage bin and should not be handled in open area. Where there is sufficient buffer area surrounding the concrete batching plant, ground stockpiling may be used.

§ The stockpile shall be enclosed at least on top and three sides and with flexible curtain to cover the entrance side.

§ Aggregates with a nominal size greater than 5 mm should preferably be stored in a totally enclosed structure. If open stockpiling is used, the stockpile shall be enclosed on three sides with the enclosure wall sufficiently higher than the top of the stockpile to prevent wind whipping.

§ The opening between the storage bin and weighing scale of the materials shall be fully enclosed.

Loading of materials for batching

§ Concrete truck shall be loaded in such a way as to minimise airborne dust emissions. The following control measures shall be implemented:

(a) Pre-mixing the materials in a totally enclosed concrete mixer before loading the materials into the concrete truck is recommended. All dust-laden air generated by the pre-mixing process as well as the loading process shall be totally vented to fabric filtering system to meet the required emission limit.

(b) If truck mixing batching or other types of batching method is used, effective dust control measures acceptable to EPD shall be adopted. The dust control measures must have been demonstrated to EPD that they are capable to collect and vent all dust-laden air generated by the material loading/mixing to dust arrestment plant to meet the required emission limit.

§ The loading bay shall be totally enclosed during the loading process.

Vehicles

§ All practicable measures shall be taken to prevent or minimise the dust emission caused by vehicle movement.

§ All access and route roads within the premises shall be paved and adequately wetted.

Housekeeping

§ A high standard of housekeeping shall be maintained. All spillages or deposits of materials on ground, support structures or roofs shall be cleaned up promptly by a cleaning method acceptable to EPD. Any dumping of materials at open area shall be prohibited.

Best Practices for Asphaltic Concrete Plant

5.2.6.6 It is recommended that the relevant best practices for dust control as stipulated in the Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94) as well as in the future Specified Process licence should also be adopted to further reduce the construction dust impacts of the project. These include:

Design of Chimney

§ The chimney shall not be less than three metres plus the building height or eight metres above ground level, whichever is the greater

§ The efflux velocity of gases from the main chimney shall not be less than 12 m/s at full load condition

§ The flue gas exit temperature shall not be less than the acid dew point

§ Release of the chimney shall be directed vertically upwards and not be restricted or deflected

Cold feed side

§ The aggregates with a nominal size less than or equal to 5 mm shall be stored in totally enclosed structure such as storage bin and shall not be handled in open area.

§ Where there is a sufficient buffer area surrounding the plant, ground stockpiling may be used. The stockpile shall be enclosed at least on top and three sides and with flexible curtain to cover the entrance side. If these aggregates are stored above the feeding hopper, they shall be enclosed at least on top and three sides and be wetted on the surface to prevent wind-whipping.

§ The aggregates with a nominal size greater than 5 mm should preferably be stored in totally enclosed structure. Aggregates stockpile that is above the feeding hopper shall be enclosed at least on top and three sides. If open stockpiling is used, the stockpiles shall be enclosed on three sides with the enclosure wall sufficiently higher than the top of the stockpile to prevent wind whipping.

§ Belt conveyors shall be enclosed on top and two sides and provided with a metal board at the bottom to eliminate any dust emission due to the wind-whipping effect. Other type of enclosure will also be accepted by EPD if it can be demonstrated that the proposed enclosure can be achieve the same performance.

§ Scrapers shall be provided at the turning points of all belt conveyors inside the chute of the transfer points to remove dust adhered to the belt surface.

§ All conveyor transfer points shall be totally enclosed. Openings for the passages of conveyors shall be fitted with adequate flexible seals.

§ All materials returned from dust collection system shall be transferred in enclosed system and shall be stored inside bins or enclosures.

Hot feed side

§ The inlet and outlet of the rotary dryer shall be enclosed and ducted to a dust extraction and collection system such as a fabric filter. The particulate and gaseous concentration at the exhaust outlet of the dust collector shall not exceed the required limiting values.

§ The bucket elevator shall be totally enclosed and the air extracted and ducted to a dust collection system to meet the required particulates limiting value.

§ All vibratory screens shall be totally enclosed and dust tight with close-fitted access inspection opening. Gaskets shall be installed to seal off any cracks and edges of any inspection openings.

§ Chutes for carrying hot material shall be rigid and preferably fitted with abrasion resistant plate inside. They shall be inspected daily for leakages.

§ All hot bins shall be totally enclosed and dust tight with close-fitted access inspection opening. Gaskets shall be installed to seal off any cracks and edges of any inspection openings. The air shall be extracted and ducted to a dust collection system to meet the required particulates limiting value.

§ Appropriate control measures shall be adopted in order to meet the required bitumen emission limit as well as the ambient odour level (two odour units).

Material transportation

§ The loading, unloading, handling, transfer or storage of other raw materials which may generate airborne dust emissions such as crushed rocks, sands, stone aggregates, reject fines, shall be carried out in such a manner as to minimise dust emissions.

§ Roadways from the entrance of the plant to the product loading points and/or any other working areas where there are regular movements of vehicles shall be paved or hard surfaced.

§ Haul roads inside the Works shall be adequately wetted with water and/or chemical suppressants by water trucks or water sprayers.

Control of emissions from bitumen decanting

§ The heating temperature of the particular bitumen type and grade shall not exceed the corresponding temperature limit of the same type listed in Appendix 1 of the Guidance Note.

§ Tamper-free high temperature cut-off device shall be provided to shut off the fuel supply or electricity in case the upper limit for bitumen temperature is reached.

§ Proper chimney for the discharge of bitumen fumes shall be provided at high level.

§ The emission of bitumen fumes shall not exceed the required emission limit.

§ The air-to-fuel ratio shall be properly controlled to allow complete combustion of the fuel. The fuel burners, if any, shall be maintained properly and free from carbon deposits in the burner nozzles.

Liquid fuel

§ The receipt, handling and storage of liquid fuel shall be carried out so as to prevent the release of emissions of organic vapours and/or other noxious and offensive emissions to the air.

Housekeeping

§ A high standard of housekeeping shall be maintained. Waste material, spillage and scattered piles gathered beneath belt conveyors, inside and around enclosures shall be cleared frequently. The minimum clearing frequency is on a weekly basis.

Best Practices for Rock Crushing Plant

5.2.6.7 It is recommended that the relevant best practices for dust control as stipulated in the Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) BPM 11/1 (95) as well as in the future Specified Process licence should also be adopted to further reduce the construction dust impacts of the project. These include:

Crushers

§ The outlet of all primary crushers, and both inlet and outlet of all secondary and tertiary crushers, if not installed inside a reasonably dust tight housing, shall be enclosed and ducted to a dust extraction and collection system such as a fabric filter.

§ The inlet hopper of the primary crushers shall be enclosed on top and three sides to contain the emissions during dumping of rocks from trucks. The rock while still on the trucks shall be wetted before dumping.

§ Water sprayers shall be installed and operated in strategic locations at the feeding inlet of crushers.

§ Crusher enclosures shall be rigid and be fitted with self-closing doors and close-fitting entrances and exits. Where conveyors pass through the crusher enclosures, flexible covers shall be installed at entries and exits of the conveyors to the enclosure.

Vibratory screens and grizzlies

§ All vibratory screens shall be totally enclosed in a housing. Screenhouses shall be rigid and reasonably dust tight with self-closing doors or close-fitted entrances and exits for access. Where conveyors pass through the screenhouse, flexible covers shall be installed at entries and exits of the conveyors to the housing. Where containment of dust within the screenhouse structure is not successful then a dust extraction and collection system shall be provided.

§ All grizzlies shall be enclosed on top and three sides and sufficient water sprayers shall be installed at their feeding and outlet areas.

Belt conveyors

§ Except for those conveyors which are placed within a totally enclosed structure such as a screenhouse or those erected at the ground level, all conveyors shall be totally enclosed with windshield on top and two sides.

§ Effective belt scrapers such as the pre-cleaner blades made by hard wearing materials and provided with pneumatic tensioner, or equivalent device, shall be installed at the head pulley of designated conveyor as required to dislodge fine dust particles that may adhere to the belt surface and to reduce carry-back of fine materials on the return belt. Bottom plates shall also be provided for the conveyor unless it has been demonstrated that the corresponding belt scraper is effective and well maintained to prevent falling material from the return belt.

§ Except for those transfer points which are placed within a totally enclosed structure such as a screenhouse, all transfer points to and from conveyors shall be enclosed. Where containment of dust within the enclosure is not successful, then water sprayers shall be provided. Openings for any enclosed structure for the passage of conveyors shall be fitted with flexible seals.

Storage piles and bins

§ Where practicable, free falling transfer points from conveyors to stockpiles shall be fitted with flexible curtains or be enclosed with chutes designed to minimise the drop height. Water sprays shall also be used where required.

§ The surface of all surge piles and stockpiles of blasted rocks or aggregates shall be kept sufficiently wet by water spraying wherever practicable.

§ All open stockpiles for aggregates of size in excess of 5 mm shall be kept sufficiently wet by water spraying where practicable.

§ The stockpiles of aggregates 5 mm in size or less shall be enclosed on three sides or suitably located to minimise wind-whipping. Save for fluctuations in stock or production, the average stockpile shall stay within the enclosure walls and in no case the height of the stockpile shall exceed twice the height of the enclosure walls.

§ Scattered piles gathered beneath belt conveyors, inside and around enclosures shall be cleared regularly.

Rock drilling equipment

§ Appropriate dust control equipment such as a dust extraction and collection system shall be used during rock drilling activities.

5.2.7 Evaluation of Construction Phase Residual Impact

5.2.7.1 With the recommended mitigation measures in place, all ASRs would comply with the hourly TSP criterion as well as the AQO for daily RSP, daily FSP, annual RSP and annual FSP throughout the construction period. Hence, no adverse residual TSP, RSP or FSP impacts are anticipated at all ASRs during the construction phase of the project.

5.3 Operation Phase Assessment

5.3.1 Overview

5.3.1.1 This section presents an assessment of potential air quality impacts on the air sensitive receivers arising from operation of the project, which has been conducted in accordance with the requirements given in Clause 3.4.3 together with section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-250/2012).

5.3.2 Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers

5.3.2.1 According to Clause 4(i) under Section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief, the air quality impact during the operational phase at ASRs within 5 km from the project boundary should be assessed. Therefore, the assessment area is defined as 5 km outside the combined boundary of the existing airport island and the proposed land formation footprint (i.e., the expanded airport island). The assessment area is illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-001.

5.3.2.2 The assessment area generally covers the entire area of Tung Chung, San Tau, Sha Lo Wan, San Shek Wan, Siu Ho Wan and Sham Wat Wan in Lantau North, and Tap Shek Kok and areas adjacent to Butterfly Beach in Tuen Mun.

Air Sensitive Receivers

5.3.2.3 The above-mentioned Clause 4(i) in Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief specifies that the expected air pollutant concentrations at ASRs within the 5 km assessment area as defined in Section 5.3.2.1 shall be quantified in the operation air quality assessment, and this shall be based on the highest aircraft emission scenario under normal operating conditions with the project.

5.3.2.4 In accordance with Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM, ASRs include domestic premises, hotel, hostel, hospital, clinic, nursery, temporary housing accommodation, school, educational institution, office, factory, shop, shopping centre, place of public worship, library, court of law, sports stadium or performing arts centre. Any other premises or places which, in terms of duration or number of people affected, have a similar sensitivity to the air pollutants as the abovementioned premises and places are also considered as a sensitive receiver.

5.3.2.5 Representative ASRs within the 5 km assessment area have been identified. Existing ASRs, which mainly include residential buildings with different storey heights, educational institution and hotels etc., have been identified by reviewing topographic maps, aerial photos, land status plans, and supplemented by site inspections. Planned/committed ASRs have been identified by making reference to the relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZP), Outline Development Plans, Layout Plans and other published plans in the study area. They include:

§ Chek Lap Kok OZP (No. S/I-CLK/12);

§ Tung Chung Town Centre Area Layout Plan – Lantau Island (L/I-TCTC/1F);

§ North Lantau New Town Phase IIB Area (Part) Layout Plan (L/I-TCIIB/1C);

§ Tung Chung Town Centre Area OZP (S/I-TCTC/18);

§ Siu Ho Wan Layout Plan (No. L/I-SHW/1) and

§ Tuen Mun OZP (No. S/TM/31)

§ Sha Lo Wan Village Layout Plan - Lantau Island (No. L/I-SLW/1)

5.3.2.6 It is understood that a Planning and Engineering Study on the remaining development in Tung Chung is being undertaken by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). The objective of the Planning and Engineering Study is to assess the feasibility of the remaining development in the east and west of Tung Chung. Since the Recommended Outline Development Plan from CEDD is not available, representative planned ASRs has been selected at the site boundary in the current air quality study.

5.3.2.7 The locations of the representative existing and planned ASRs for the operation air quality assessment are illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002 to MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-005 and summarised in Table 5.3.1.

Table 5.3.1: Representative Existing and Planned Air Sensitive Receivers

ASR ID	Location	Land use ^[1]	No. of Storey	Approx. Separation Distance from Project Boundary (m)
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004)
BCF-1	Planned Passenger Building^[2]	GIC	-	560
Tung Chung (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004)
TC-1	Caribbean Coast Block 1	R	47	1,400
TC-2	Caribbean Coast Block 6	R	51	1,280
TC-3	Caribbean Coast Block 11	R	52	1,140
TC-4	Caribbean Coast Block 16	R	51	1,050
TC-5	Ho Yu College	E	7	1,110
TC-6	Ho Yu Primary School	E	7	1,230
TC-7	Coastal Skyline Block 1	R	50	950
TC-8	Coastal Skyline Block 5	R	50	850
TC-9	La Rossa Block B	R	56	750
TC-10	Le Bleu Deux Block 1	R	15	580
TC-11	Le Bleu Deux Block 3	R	15	630
TC-12	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	R	15	710
TC-13	Seaview Crescent Block 1	R	50	380
TC-14	Seaview Crescent Block 3	R	49	470
TC-15	Seaview Crescent Block 5	R	49	580
TC-16	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	E	7	820
TC-17	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	E	7	900
TC-18	Tung Chung Public Library	GIC	4	720
TC-19	Tung Chung North Park	P	1	1,140
TC-20	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	C	30	580
TC-21	One Citygate	C	15	570
TC-22	One Citygate Bridge	C	5	590
TC-23	Fu Tung Shopping Centre	C	4	740
TC-24	Tung Chung Health Centre and Air Quality Monitoring Station	GIC	3	840
TC-25	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	E	7	870
TC-26	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	E	7	860
TC-27	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	E	7	1,000
TC-28	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	E	7	1,000
TC-29	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	R	33	970
TC-30	Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House	R	36	1,000
TC-31	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	R	30	790
TC-32	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	R	30	820
TC-33	Tung Chung Crescent Block 1	R	28	730
TC-34	Tung Chung Crescent Block 3	R	30	670
TC-35	Tung Chung Crescent Block 5	R	33	580
TC-36	Tung Chung Crescent Block 7	R	39	510
TC-37	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	R	43	510
TC-38	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	R	35	800
TC-39	Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House	R	36	1,080
TC-40	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	R	35	1,200
TC-41	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	R	35	1,210
TC-42	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	R	35	1,210
TC-43	Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House	R	35	1,080
TC-44	Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House	R	35	820
TC-45	Village house at Ma Wan Chung	R	3	570
TC-46	Ma Wan New Village	R	3	1,420
TC-47	Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarten	E	1	1,430
TC-48	Sheung Ling Pei	R	3	1,400
TC-49	Tung Chung Public School	E	1	1,440
TC-50	Ha Ling Pei	R	3	1,370
TC-51	Lung Tseung Tau	R	3	1,590
TC-52	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	E	8	1,610
TC-53	Hau Wong Temple	W	1	1,130
TC-54	Sha Tsui Tau	R	3	1,050
TC-55	Ngan Au	R	3	1,600
TC-56	Shek Lau Po	R	3	1,820
TC-57	Mo Ka	R	3	2,200
TC-58	Shek Mun Kap	R	3	2,320
TC-59	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	W	3	2,650
TC-P1	Planned North Lantau Hospital	H	8	1,020
TC-P2	Planned Park near One Citygate	P	1	350
TC-P5	Tung Chung West Development	N/A	N/A	320
TC-P6	Tung Chung West Development	N/A	N/A	210
TC-P7	Tung Chung West Development	N/A	N/A	190
TC-P8	Tung Chung East Development	N/A	N/A	1,000
TC-P9	Tung Chung East Development	N/A	N/A	1,330
TC-P10	Tung Chung East Development	N/A	N/A	1,610
TC-P11	Tung Chung East Development	N/A	N/A	1,920
TC-P12	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	C	N/A	800
TC-P13	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	R	N/A	900
TC-P14	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	R	N/A	1,110
TC-P15	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	E	N/A	1,420
TC-P16	Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School	E	N/A	1,700
TC-P17	Tung Chung Area 39	N/A	N/A	1,380
San Tau (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002)
ST-1	Village house at Tin Sum	R	1-3	400
ST-2	Village house at Kau Liu	R	1-3	480
ST-3	Village house at San Tau	R	1-3	570
Sha Lo Wan (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002)
SLW-1	Sha Lo Wan House No.1	R	1-3	260
SLW-2	Sha Lo Wan House No.5	R	1-3	470
SLW-3	Sha Lo Wan House No.9	R	1-3	550
SLW-4	Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan	W	1-3	470
San Shek Wan (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002)
SSW-1	San Shek Wan	R	1-3	1,350
Sham Wat (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002)
SW-1	Sham Wat House No. 39	R	1-3	2,080
SW-2	Sham Wat House No. 30	R	1-3	2,420
Siu Ho Wan (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004)
SHW-1	Village house at Pak Mong	R	1-3	3,360
SHW-2	Village house at Ngau Kwu Long	R	1-3	3,890
SHW-3	Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen	R	1-3	4,210
SHW-4	Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot	I	1-3	3,990
SHW-5	Tin Liu Village	R	1-3	4,240
Proposed Lantau Logistic Park (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004)
LLP-P1	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1	N/A	N/A	3,470
LLP-P2	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 2	N/A	N/A	3,120
LLP-P3	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 3	N/A	N/A	3,350
LLP-P4	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 4	N/A	N/A	3,530
Tuen Mun (Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-005)
TM-7	Tuen Mun Fireboat Station	GIC	1	3,970
TM-8	DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works	GIC	1	4,170
TM-9	EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station	GIC	1	4,240
TM-10	Pillar Point Fire Station	GIC	3	4,330
TM-11	Butterfly Beach Laundry	I	5	4,740
TM-12	River Trade Terminal	I	2	3,860
TM-13	Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank	GIC	N/A	4,330
TM-14	EcoPark Administration Building	C	1	3,900
TM-15	Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building	C	1	4,460
TM-16	Customs and Excise Department Harbour River Trade Division	I	6	3,950
TM-17	Saw Mil Number 61-69	I	1	4,140
TM-18	Saw Mil Number 35-49	I	1	4,220
TM-19	Ho Yeung Street Number 22	I	1	4,330

Notes:

[1] R– residential; C – Commercial; E – educational; I – Industrial; H – clinic/ home for the aged/hospital; W – worship; G/IC – government, institution and community; P – Recreational/Park; OS – Open Space; N/A – Not Available

[2] Fresh air intakes of buildings on BCF island is at 15 m above ground

5.3.3 Identification of Pollution Sources and Key Pollutants

Airport Related Activities Emission Inventory

5.3.3.1 The existing airport has two 3.8 km parallel runways, namely 07L-25R and 07R-25L, for aircraft arrivals and departures. The two terminal buildings (T1 and T2) are separated by the Airport Station. T1 comprises the north, south, central, northwest and southwest concourse in a Y-shape between the two runways. The cargo handling area, aircraft maintenance centre and commercial district are located at the southern, western and north eastern parts of the airport island respectively.

5.3.3.2 Under the proposed three-runway system (3RS), the major developments include:

§ Land formation of about 650 ha to the north of the existing airport island, including a portion over the Contaminated Mud Pit;

§ Construction of a third runway, related taxiway systems and navigation aids, and airfield facilities;

§ Construction of the third runway aprons and passenger concourses;

§ Expansion of part of the midfield freighter apron on the existing airport island;

§ Expansion of the existing passenger Terminal 2 (T2) on the existing airport island;

§ Extension of the Automated People Mover (APM) from the existing airport island to the passenger concourses of the third runway;

§ Extension of the Baggage Handling System from the existing airport island to the aprons of the third runway;

§ Improvement of the road network in the passenger and cargo areas and new landside transportation facilities including new car parks on the existing airport island;

§ A grey water recycling system at the proposed airport expansion area (with a capacity of not more than 15,000 m³ per day);

§ Necessary modifications to existing marine facilities including the underwater aviation fuel pipelines and 11 kV submarine cable between HKIA and the off-airport fuel receiving facilities, sea rescue facilities and aids to navigation; and

§ Any other modification, reconfiguration, and/or improvement of the existing facilities on the existing airport island as a result of the third runway.

5.3.3.3 There are various air emission sources due to the airport operation. The key air emission related activities that need to be accounted for in this operation air quality assessment are associated with the following:

§ Aircraft landing take-off (LTO) cycle (including Business jets at the Hong Kong Business Aviation Centre (HKBAC));

§ Aircraft maintenance centre;

§ Airport ferry at SkyPier;

§ Auxiliary Power Units (APUs);

§ Airside vehicles (including Ground Service Equipment (GSE) and Non-GSE);

§ Aviation fuel farm (in both airport island and Tuen Mun area);

§ Hong Kong Business Aviation Centre (HKBAC) (including helicopter LTO cycle);

§ Car park operation;

§ Catering facilities;

§ Engine testing facilities;

§ Fire training activities;

§ Government Flying Service (GFS) including fixed wing aircraft and helicopter LTO cycle; and

§ Motor vehicles on the airport island.

Proximity Infrastructure Emission Inventory

5.3.3.4 The air emission sources associated with the concurrent infrastructural projects / emission sources (both existing and future projects and emission sources with planned or committed implementation programme) within 5 km from the project boundary for inclusion in the operation air quality assessment are located in two areas, namely Lantau and Tuen Mun.

5.3.3.5 Table 5.3.2 and Table 5.3.3 summarise the emission sources associated with the proximity infrastructure in Lantau and Tuen Mun respectively. Their locations are shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-006 and MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-007. These air emission sources include the concurrent infrastructure projects (only those future projects with planned or committed implementation programme) and concurrent emission sources in proximity of the sensitive receivers/uses within the study area.

Table 5.3.2: List of Proximity Infrastructure Emissions in Lantau Area

Project / Sources	Existing/ Planned Commissioning Year	Description
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF)	2016	Vehicular emissions from its road network, and idling at kiosks and loading/unloading bay
Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR)	2016	Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building
Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL) (Lantau section)	2016	Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building
North Lantau Highway (NLH) and other roads in Tung Chung	Existing	Vehicular emissions from road network
Tung Chung Remaining Development	Not available	Vehicular emissions from its road network and induced traffic
Organic Wastes Treatment Facilities (OWTF) Phase 1	2016	Chimney emissions
Proposed Lantau Logistics Park (LLP)^[1]	Not available	Only vehicular emissions from induced traffic are considered
Proposed Cross Boundary Transport Hub above MTR Siu Ho Wan Depot^[1]	Not available	Only vehicular emissions from induced traffic are considered
Proposed Leisure and Entertainment Node at Sunny Bay^[1]	Not available	Only vehicular emissions from induced traffic are considered
Columbarium development for Tsuen Wan District at Sham Shui Kok Drive, Siu Ho Wan, Lantau	Not available	The project is in the feasibility and initial stage. Hence, it was not considered in the assessment.
Proposed Road P1	Not available	Only vehicular emissions from induced traffic are considered

Note [1]: The detailed layout of the proposed developments was not available. The only available information is the employment and population data. Hence, the vehicular emissions from the induced traffic were considered.

Table 5.3.3: List of Proximity Infrastructure Emissions in Tuen Mun Area

Project / Sources	Existing/ Planned Commissioning Year	Description
Tuen Mun Western Bypass (TMWB)	2018-2019	Vehicular emissions from its road network and induced traffic
TM-CLKL (Tuen Mun section)	2016	Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building
Other roads in Tuen Mun	Existing	Vehicular emissions from road network
Shiu Wing Steel Mill	Existing	Chimney emissions
Green Island Cement (GIC)	Existing	Chimney emissions
Castle Peak Power Plant (CPPP)	Existing	Chimney emissions
EcoPark in Tuen Mun Area 38	Existing	Chimney emissions
Butterfly Beach Laundry	Existing	Chimney emissions
Flare at Pillar Point Valley Landfill (PPVL)	Existing	Chimney emissions
Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility (PAFF)	Existing	Chimney emissions
River Trade Terminal (RTT)	Existing	Marine exhaust and land-based equipment emissions

Ambient Emission Inventory

5.3.3.6 Other far-field air emissions (i.e. those outside the 5 km assessment area from the airport boundary) are collectively considered as background emissions that contribute to the ambient air pollutant concentrations in the study area. The background contributions will be modelled by PATH and comprise various sources covering the Guangdong Province (super-regional sources), Pearl River Delta Economic Zone (PRDEZ, regional sources) and the Hong Kong SAR (local sources) and including the following:

§ Power stations	§ VOC containing products
§ Marine Vessels	§ Waste Incineration (e.g. IWMF, STF, etc.)
§ Aviation	§ Stationary Source Fuel Combustion
§ Motor Vehicles	§ Offsite Mobile and Machinery Source
§ Road Transportation related activities	§ Crematorium
§ Industry (e.g. manufacture, mining/ mineral extraction, food and beverage, construction industry, crude oil production)	§ Agriculture

Identification of Key Pollutants

5.3.3.7 Table 5.3.4 shows the key pollutants of the major air emission sources identified for existing and future operation scenarios. In general, the emission loads for aircraft operations have been referenced to the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) software v5.1.4.1 developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the United States Air Force (USAF). The EDMS v5.1.4.1 is the latest version updated in August 2013. More detailed discussions are given in Section 5.3.4.

Table 5.3.4: List of Key Airport Operation Air Emission Sources

Sources	Key Pollutants	Description
Aircraft and business jets	· NOx · SO2 · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Exhaust products and the quantity of emission vary with different aircraft engine combinations, types, power settings, modes and periods of operation [e.g. LTO]. · Fuel conservation measures have a dampening effect on emissions released
Airside Vehicles (including GSE and Non-GSE)	· NOx · SO2 · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Exhaust products of fuel combustion from catering service trucks, aircraft tractors, hi-loaders, conveyor belt loaders and other mobile self-propelled handling equipment. Levels of exhaust emission vary with the fuel type and operation time.
Helicopter	· NOx · SO2 · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Exhaust products and the quantity of emission vary with different helicopters engine combination, types, power settings, modes and periods of operation.
Aviation Fuel Farm	· VOC	· Emission from the evaporation and vapour displacement of fuel from storage tanks and fuel transfer facilities.
Fire Training Activities	· NOx · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Emission from combustion of fuel in open air.
Engine Testing Facilities	· NOx · SO2 · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Same as the emission from aircraft.
Catering	· NOx · SO2 · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Exhaust products of fuel combustion from furnaces.
Marine Vessels	· NOx · SO2 · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Exhaust products of fuel combustion from marine engine.
Vehicles Parking	· NOx · SO2 · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Exhaust emission from vehicle tailpipe during movement inside car parks. · Engine will be turned off inside car parks and hence idling emission is negligible.
Motor Vehicles	· NOx · SO2 · CO · RSP and FSP · VOC	· Exhaust emission of fuel combustion from on-site and off-site traffic. Emissions vary depending on vehicle type, technology, age, mileage and speed.
Greywater Treatment Plant	· Odour	· Since the proposed greywater treatment plant will be fully enclosed and will be over 3.3 km away from the nearest ASR (i.e., TC-P10), no adverse odour impact from the treatment plant is anticipated.

5.3.3.8 Based on the above table, the key criteria pollutants of interest arising from the operation of the project will include NO₂, RSP, FSP, SO₂ and CO. The emission inventory of these pollutants was determined by EDMS.

5.3.3.9 Unlike other air pollutants such as NO_x, ozone (O₃) is not a pollutant directly emitted from man-made sources but formed by photochemical reactions of primary pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) under sunlight. As the photochemical reactions take place in the presence of solar radiation in minutes and could accumulate over several hours, ozone recorded in one place could be attributed to VOC and NO_x emissions from places afar.

5.3.3.10 A hypothetical sensitivity test was conducted based on PATH model to compare the simulated ozone concentrations in downwind areas for the 3RS scenario and the without airport scenario. Table 5.3.5 to Table 5.3.7 summarise the results under different wind directions.

Table 5.3.5: Ozone concentration for with and without airport scenario under northern wind direction

Area	Ozone under the with airport case (3RS), µg/m^3	Ozone under the without airport case, µg/m^3	Difference (with airport – without airport), µg/m^3
Lung Kwu Chau PATH grid (8,30)	361	361	0
PH1(Airport North Station) PATH grid (12,28)	316	325	- 9
PH5 (Airport South Station) PATH grid (11,26)	287	321	- 34
Tung Chung Air Quality Monitoring Station PATH grid (12,25)	277	302	- 25
Lantau Central PATH grid (12,23)	269	272	- 4
Lantau South PATH grid (12,21)	244	244	0

Table 5.3.6: Ozone concentration for with and without airport scenario under southern wind direction

Area	Ozone under the with airport case (3RS), µg/m^3	Ozone under the without airport case, µg/m^3	Difference (with airport – without airport), µg/m^3
Lantau Central PATH grid (12,23)	128	128	0
Tung Chung Air Quality Monitoring Station PATH grid (12,25)	121	122	- 1
PH5 (Airport South Station) PATH grid (11,26)	106	111	- 5
PH1(Airport North Station) PATH grid (12,28)	75	79	- 4
Lung Kwu Chau PATH grid (8,30)	93	103	- 10
Yuen Long Air Quality Monitoring Station (18,38)	133	133	0

Table 5.3.7: Ozone concentration for with and without airport scenario under western wind direction

Area	Ozone under the with airport case (3RS), µg/m^3	Ozone under the without airport case, µg/m^3	Difference (with airport – without airport), µg/m^3
Lung Kwu Chau PATH grid (8,30)	162	162	0
PH1 (Airport North Station) PATH grid (12,28)	115	225	- 110
Central Western Air Quality Monitoring Station PATH grid (27, 25)	146	174	- 28

5.3.3.11 There are no ASRs to the west of the airport. Hence, the ozone concentration under the eastern wind direction was not considered.

5.3.3.12 On comparing the ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the airport area under downwind direction, the ozone concentrations under the with-airport case (3RS) is in general lower than that of the hypothetical “without-airport” case within 5 km. According to the analysis in the 2010 Airport Operational Air Quality Study Final Report conducted by HKUST, NO emissions from HKIA may slightly reduce the O₃ concentration at nearby receptors, including Tung Chung through photochemical processes. Hence, ozone is not considered as a key air pollutant of interest in the related operation air quality study and for evaluating the potential air quality impact from the operation of the project.

5.3.3.13 There is no significant Lead (Pb) emission sources associated with the airport operation. Ambient Lead concentrations were measured at very low levels during 2010. The overall 3-month averages ranged from 20 ng/m³ (Kwun Tong and Tung Chung) to 104 ng/m³ (Yuen Long), and are well below the annual AQO limit of 500 ng/m³. Hence, Lead is not considered a key air pollutant in this study and pollutant concentration has not been modelled for this assessment.

Potential Odour Impact from Greywater Treatment Plant

5.3.3.14 Based on the current scheme design, it is proposed to establish an additional greywater treatment plant for the 3RS project with a handling capacity of 700 m³/day, subject to the detailed design. Wastewater collected from kitchens, washroom sinks, and aircraft catering and cleaning activities from the new facilities associated with the airport expansion will be treated by the proposed plant for reuse in landscape irrigation or cleansing related activities. The greywater treatment plant would be located inside a plant building in the eastern support area (see Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/4-002). Since the proposed greywater treatment plant will be fully enclosed and will be over 3.3 km away from the nearest ASR (i.e., TC-P10), no adverse odour impact from the treatment plant is anticipated.

5.3.4 Compilation of Emission Inventory

Determination of worst year for aircraft emission

5.3.4.1 Emission inventories of aircraft in the vicinity of airports are traditionally calculated by using International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) engine exhaust emission data and the ICAO reference Landing-Take-off (LTO) cycle (LTO nominally up to 3,000 feet or 914.4 metres above ground level). The latter is comprised of the four time-in-modes (TIMs): take-off, climb-out, approach and taxiing (sometimes referred to as idling) and are the major pollutant emission sources in airports. The four TIMs are defined as follows:

§ Take-off mode: the elapsed time of aircraft acceleration start on the runway to 300 m above ground level;

§ Climb-out mode: the elapsed time of aircraft ascendant from 300 m above ground level to the mixing height;

§ Approach mode: the elapsed time of aircraft descendant from mixing height to the ground level; and

§ Taxiing mode: the period of deceleration on the runway, taxi time and queue time.

5.3.4.2 Aircraft LTO cycle emission is determined by the product of emission indices, fuel flow rate, TIMs and number of engines. Also, adjustments such as busy day ratio, meteorological data and pollutants conversion factor are included in the calculations for a localised result. These parameters are adopted in the aircraft LTO emission calculations and are summarised in Table 5.3.8, Table 5.3.9 and Appendix 5.3.1-1.

Table 5.3.8: Aircraft - LTO Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Emission indices	EDMS database for certified engines and IATA estimates for future engines
Approach time	Default value from EDMS in relation to mixing height
Taxi-in time	TAAM model results from NATS in relation to wind direction
Taxi-out time	TAAM model results from NATS in relation to wind direction
Take-off time	Record value from radar data and site surveys in relation to mixing height
Climb-out time	Default value from EDMS in relation to mixing height
Aircraft LTO schedule	HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA
Aircraft type	HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA
Busy day ratio	Based on typical monthly and daily profile recorded in 2011
Aircraft engine model	HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA
Meteorological data	PCRAMMET results
Pollutants conversion factor	EDMS database
Number of engines	HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA

5.3.4.3 The future aircraft engine emission indices of HC, CO and NO_x under the LTO cycle have been determined by International Air Transport Association (IATA), which was appointed by AAHK to determine the future flight schedule and emission indices. The IATA is the trade association for the world’s airlines, representing some 240 airlines or 84% of total air traffic. They support many areas of aviation activity and help formulate industry policy on critical aviation issues such as the environment. The IATA is the authority in aviation industry and was appointed to undertake projection of aircraft movement and emission factor determination for Hong Kong 3RS to ensure the representative of data.

5.3.4.4 In general, the future engine emission prediction was derived from the emissions certification of current aircraft engines and a comprehensive set of assumptions on future engines developed by IATA based on current engines, regulation and inputs of engine manufacturers. According to IATA, the emission prediction captures the future trends known at the time including the future stringency levels defined by ICAO, the introduction of new technologies in future aircraft / engines, the projected engine efficiency gains, the possible use of sustainable alternative fuels and fuel conservation measures implemented by the airlines. Appendix 5.3.1-2 shows the flight schedules, fuel flow, NO_x emission factor, CO emission factor and HC emission factor determined by IATA. Appendix 5.3.1-2 also shows the methodology adopted by IATA in determining the future engine type and emission. Also, Appendix 5.3.1-2 shows fuel flow and emission indices for different engines forecast by IATA and together with the engine emission forecasting assumptions.

5.3.4.5 Graph 5-3-1 illustrates the emission trend from Year 2012 to Year 2038 at “the busy day” based on time-in-modes (TIMs) under ICAO’s definition. ICAO has defined a specific reference LTO cycle, which consists of four modal phases chosen to represent approach, taxi/idle, take-off and climb-out:

§ Take-Off: 0.7 minutes

§ Climb-Out: 2.2 minutes

§ Approach: 4 minutes

§ Taxi/Idle: In: 7 minutes; Taxi - Out: 19 minutes

5.3.4.6 In addition, the busy day is defined as the second busiest day in an average week during the peak month according to IATA, and the busiest day to busy day ratio is around 1.13 according to Year 2011 data.

Graph 5-3-1 : Emission indices trend for CO and NO_x under LTO cycle on the busy day scenario

Notes:

[1] Emission loadings for CO and NO_x are 13,762 kg / busy day, and 24,226 kg/ busy day respectively.

[2] CO, NO_x, and the passenger and cargo indices are predicted with Year 2012 as the base reference year.

5.3.4.7 According to IATA’s survey and research (Appendix 5.3.1-2), it is found that airlines in general tend to replace their ageing aircraft by larger and more recent equivalent. However, with continuous improvement on engine technology and more stringent emission standards, overall emissions are expected to increase at a much slower pace than traffic.

5.3.4.8 In addition to the emission prediction of HC, CO and NO_x by IATA, an approximation method was used to determine the SO₂ and RSP / FSP emissions, as precise sulfur content for jet fuel deliveries into the airport was not available. The method details are listed as follows:

§ SO₂ emission is determined based on the fuel sulfur content. According to ICAO Air Quality Manual 2011, a conservative fuel sulfur content of 0.068 weight percentage is recommended in the absence of more specific fuel sulfur content data. This is also in line with findings from discussion with the tank farm operator (Aviation Fuel Supply Company Operation Limited) which revealed that the sulfur content of aviation fuel is in the range of 0.05 – 0.1%. Hence, a default fuel sulfur content of 0.068 weight percentage is adopted in this study. The computed SO₂ emission indices are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-2

§ Emissions of RSP and FSP are determined through EDMS v5.1.4.1, which is based on First Order Approximation V3.0 Method (FOA3). According to EDMS v5.1.4.1, the ratio of RSP to FSP for aircraft emission is 1. The computed RSP and FSP emission indices are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-2.

§ These emission indices of SO₂, RSP and FSP are confirmed by IATA for application in this study.

5.3.4.9 Similar to the report “Emissions Methodology for Future LHR Scenarios” (AEA, 2007), to assess the sensitivity of local condition effects on the determination of the worst assessment year, the following parameters have been adjusted accordingly.

Table 5.3.9: Adjustment to Local Conditions

Parameters

Local conditions

Fuel flow

The fuel flow has been adjusted to account for the engine air bleed for aircraft based on the Boeing Method 2 Fuel Flow Methodology (Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992: Database Development and Analysis, NASA Contractor Report 4700, 1996). The correction factors are listed below:

· Take-off: 1.010

· Climb-out: 1.013

· Approach: 1.020

· Idle: 1.100

Take-off Time

Total take-off time consists of 2 components, the groundborne time for aircraft acceleration and airborne time required to ascend from ground level to 300 m. Based on site observation and Year 2011 radar data provided by the Civil Aviation Department (CAD), the total take-off time required for each size of passenger/cargo aircraft is summarised in the following:

ICAO Size Class	Passenger / Cargo (P/C)	IATA Aircraft Sub-Type (Example)	Ground-borne Time (s)	Airborne Time (s)	Total Take-off Time (s) / (min)
F	P	388	39	48	87 / 1.44
	C	74N	45	39	84 / 1.40
E	P	744	35	29	65 / 1.08
	C	33F / 74Y	40	31	71 / 1.19
D	P	763	28	18	46 / 0.77
	C	M1F	33	32	65 / 1.08
C	P	320 / 738	33	23	56 / 0.94
	C	73F	33	30	64 / 1.06
A+B	P	GR5	23	23	46 / 0.76

Note:

Ground-borne take-off times were based on on-site observation of each aircraft class and the airborne take-off times were derived from the radar data, which included the position and altitude of each flight using HKIA.

Climb-out Time

The average climb-out time derived from Year 2011 radar data and the ICAO defined climb-out time are about 1.5 minutes and 2.2 minutes respectively. It is considered that the latter is more conservative and hence 2.2 minutes is adopted as the climb-out time.

Approach Time

The average approach time derived from Year 2011 radar data and the ICAO defined approach time are both 4 minutes. Hence, 4 minutes is adopted as the approach time.

Taxi-in and Taxi-out Time

Based on TAAM model output. The average Taxi- in and Taxi-out time for 3RS is 7.0 minutes and 13.9 minutes respectively in Year 2031.

Reverse Thrust

Reverse thrust will be adopted during landing. Discussions with pilots indicated that low idle power thrust (i.e. 7% of full power) would normally be adopted as reverse thrust. This normally has been catered in the taxi-in time simulation. Hence, no additional correction on the emission was made.

Forward Speed

When an aircraft is moving, there is an effect on the engine as air is pushed into the intake as a result of the forward speed. This effect changes the engine operating parameters compared to static conditions and as a result may also change the emissions production.

According to CAEP Working Group 6th meeting, it was recommended by Working Group 3 that "the effect of forward speed was small due to the manner of operation of the engine control system and did not need to be included". Hence, no forward speed was considered in this study. In addition, the model verification result (Appendix 5.3.19-1) also did not support the inclusion of forward speed since it would make the result unreasonably conservative.

Meteorological Condition

The EDMS adopted the following default parameters for emission calculation:

· Temperature: 15°C

· Relative humidity: 60%

· Mean Sea Level Pressure: 101,325Pa

· Mixing height: 914.4m

To cater for the local conditions, the annual average of meteorological data at Hong Kong International Airport station in Year 2010 are adopted for the assessment, which are listed as follow:

· Temperature: 24.1°C

· Relative humidity: 72.8%

· Mean Sea Level Pressure: 101,298Pa

· Mixing height: 1,103m (determined from PCRAMMET)

5.3.4.10 According to the ICAO Air Quality Manual 2011, airlines will take precautions to keep deterioration effects to a minimum by establishing routine maintenance programmes as a cost saving measure. Based on analyses of theoretical and actual airline data, the magnitude of engine deterioration effects applicable on a fleet-wide basis can be assumed as follows:

§ Fuel consumption: +3% (applied on whole period)

§ NO_x emissions: +3% (applied on whole period)

§ CO emissions: no change

§ HC emissions: no change

§ Smoke number: no change.

5.3.4.11 Table 5.3.10 illustrates the emission trend under average local conditions from Year 2028 to 2035. Detailed discussion on determination of aircraft emission inventory is given in the sections below. It can be seen that the worst assessment year of all criteria pollutants will occur in Year 2031. Hence, Year 2031 is selected as the worst assessment year as it is the peak year for total emission under both ICAO and local conditions.

Table 5.3.10: Emission Trend of Different Pollutants under Average Local Conditions

Year	Daily Movement	Total Emission at Busy Day (kg)
		Fuel	CO	NOX	SO2	PM10	PM2.5
2028	1,661	1,614,500	12,500	26,000	2,140	111	111
2029	1,720	1,651,000	12,700	26,400	2,190	112	112
2030	1,758	1,669,800	12,600	26,900	2,220	113	113
2031	1,787	1,697,000	12,700	27,200	2,250	114	114
2032	1,800	1,670,000	12,100	26,500	2,220	110	110
2033	1,800	1,657,800	11,600	26,200	2,200	108	108
2034	1,800	1,648,400	11,400	26,000	2,190	107	107
2035	1,800	1,636,600	11,100	25,800	2,170	105	105

Note: Values in bold are the maximum values among Years 2028 – 2035 under each category.

Compilation of Emission Inventory

5.3.4.12 The approach, methodologies and assumptions adopted in compiling the emission inventories of the pollution sources are summarised in the following sub-sections.

Aircraft Emission (including business jet in the Business Aviation Centre)

5.3.4.13 Hourly air traffic movement schedule during “the busy day” have been forecasted by IATA and adopted in this assessment. The forecast is based on the information obtained from numbers of sources, including AAHK, CAD, ICAO, IATA’s own database and airline surveys. The airline surveys covered 40 airlines representing about 80% of ATM on the Year 2011 busy day. The approach for determination of the aircraft emission at the busy day in Year 2031 in this Study is summarised in Table 5.3.11. It is also noted that the aircraft engine emission will vary with the meteorological conditions, such as ambient temperature, relative humidity and inlet pressure. These factors have also been taken into account in the emission load estimation in accordance with the Boeing Fuel Flow Method 2 (BFFM2), which is adopted in the EDMS v5.1.4.1 developed by FAA.

5.3.4.14 Aircraft engine emissions are affected by ambient conditions such as humidity, temperature and pressure. The EDMS model adopted in the present study was developed by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the estimation of aircraft emissions. The effect of changes in ambient conditions on aircraft emissions has been considered in the EDMS model..

Table 5.3.11: Approach for Determination of the Aircraft Emission Inventory

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Aircraft	IATA	· The hourly air traffic movement schedule during the busy day provided by IATA. · Approach and climb-out times are estimated based on survey-verified ICAO definition. The hourly mixing heights are determined from PCRAMMET. · Take-off times will be based on site observation and Year 2011 radar data provided by CAD. For future aircraft types, the take-off times as presented in Table 5.3.9 were determined according to their respective ICAO Size Classes. · Emissions for existing engines were derived from the ICAO emissions database of certified engines, while emissions for future engines were predicted by IATA. When multiple sub-versions were available for a same engine model, IATA selected the version still in-production (if possible) and with the most recent date of certification. · Emissions for future engines were estimated based on (i) current emissions, (ii) future stringency levels enforced by ICAO, (iii) engine efficiency gains; (iv) alternative bio-fuels; and (v) fuel conservation measures. (See Appendix 5.3.1-2). · The hourly aircraft emission, including NOx, Hydrocarbon (HC) and CO, RSP, etc. has been determined based on the future engine emission, forecast hourly aircraft fleet mix and engine mix by IATA. SO2 has been predicted based on the fuel consumption and the fuel sulfur content (i.e. 0.068%).

5.3.4.15 The annual LTO emission was determined based on the typical monthly and daily profiles for HKIA analysed by IATA for commercial aviation flights in Year 2011, which are summarised in Table 5.3.12 and Table 5.3.13 below.

Table 5.3.12: Monthly Profile

Month	Number of Air Traffic Movement
1	8.2%
2	7.3%
3	8.4%
4	8.3%
5	8.4%
6	8.1%
7	8.7%
8	8.7%
9	8.3%
10	8.5%
11	8.4%
12	8.8%

Table 5.3.13: Average Daily Profile

	Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
ATM	14.3%	13.9%	13.7%	14.0%	14.7%	15.0%	14.5%

5.3.4.16 According to Year 2011 record, the identified busy day (i.e. the second busiest day in an average week during the peak month, excluding special events such as religious festivals, trade fairs, conventions and sports events) is the 19^th busiest day within Year 2011. Table 5.3.14 summarises the corresponding activities of the 18 busiest days and their corresponding ATM ratio with respect to the busy day. Since the meteorological data in Year 2010 was adopted as the typical year for modelling, scale factors at the busiest days were determined and were applied in the Year 2010 activities. Table 5.3.15 summarises the factors applied on the Year 2010 activities. Detailed daily scaling factors are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-4.

Table 5.3.14: Busiest Dates Profile

Day rank	ATM	Date		Cause	Notes
Busiest day	1,099	30-Sep-11	Friday	Typhoon	The day after typhoon No.8
2nd busiest	997	22-Apr-11	Friday	Holiday	First day of Easter public holiday
3rd busiest	991	11-Aug-11	Thursday	Summer	Thursday of second week in August
4th busiest	986	23-Dec-11	Friday	Holiday	Two days before Christmas
5th busiest	985	22-Dec-11	Thursday	Holiday	Three days before Christmas
6th busiest	981	28-Oct-11	Friday	Holiday	Friday of forth week in October
7th busiest	978	8-Jul-11	Friday	Summer	Friday of second week in July
8th busiest	978	18-Aug-11	Thursday	Summer	Thursday of third week in August
9th busiest	978	24-Dec-11	Saturday	Holiday	Christmas Eve
10th busiest	976	28-Jul-11	Thursday	Typhoon	Typhoon No.3
11th busiest	976	15-Dec-11	Thursday	Holiday	Thursday of third week in December
12th busiest	976	16-Dec-11	Friday	Holiday	Friday of third week in December
13th busiest	975	30-Jun-11	Thursday	Holiday	One day before the Hong Kong SAR Government Establishment Day
14th busiest	975	16-Jul-11	Saturday	Summer	Saturday of third week in July
15th busiest	975	1-Oct-11	Saturday	Holiday	National Day
16th busiest	972	17-Dec-11	Saturday	Holiday	Saturday of third week in December
17th busiest	971	19-Aug-11	Friday	Summer	Friday of third week in August
18th busiest	971	26-Aug-11	Friday	Summer	Friday of fourth week in August

Table 5.3.15: Busiest Dates Profile applied on Year 2010 Meteorological Data

Date		Cause	Notes	ATM Ratio^[1]
21-Jul-10	Wednesday	Typhoon	Typhoon No.3	1.133
2-Apr-10	Friday	Holiday	First day of Easter public holiday	1.028
12-Aug-10	Thursday	Summer	Thursday of second week in August	1.022
23-Dec-10	Thursday	Holiday	Two days before Christmas	1.016
22-Dec-10	Wednesday	Holiday	Three days before Christmas	1.015
9-Jul-10	Friday	Summer	Friday of second week in July	1.008
19-Aug-10	Thursday	Summer	Thursday of third week in August	1.008
24-Dec-10	Friday	Holiday	Christmas eve	1.008
20-Sep-10	Monday	Typhoon	Typhoon No.3	1.133
16-Dec-10	Thursday	Holiday	Thursday of third week in December	1.006
17-Dec-10	Friday	Holiday	Friday of third week in December	1.006
30-Jun-10	Wednesday	Holiday	One day before the Hong Kong SAR Government Establishment Day	1.005
17-Jul-10	Saturday	Summer	Saturday of third week in July	1.005
1-Oct-10	Friday	Holiday	National Day	1.005
18-Dec-10	Saturday	Holiday	Saturday of third week in December	1.002
20-Aug-10	Friday	Summer	Friday of third week in August	1.001
27-Aug-10	Friday	Summer	Friday of fourth week in August	1.001
21-Oct-10	Thursday	Typhoon	Typhoon No.3	1.133

Note [1]: Reference to the ATM at busy day.

5.3.4.17 Sources of the aircraft emission input parameters are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-1. Emission indices and fuel consumption rates corresponding to the different TIMs as provided by IATA are listed in Appendix 5.3.1-2. Samples of TIMs corresponding to take-off, climb-out and approach for each individual different aircraft model with respect to hourly mixing heights derived by PCRAMMET are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-3. The hourly emission inventory was generated by summation of individual LTO cycle emissions that occurred in the particular runway routes. Sample aircraft emission outputs on the busy day of Year 2031 are given in Appendix 5.3.1-4. A sample calculation on aircraft LTO emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.1-5. Repeated calculations are performed for the entire 365 days of Year 2031 for the 6 pollutants based on the busiest days, weekly profile, and monthly profile. The annual emission inventory for the total aircraft LTO in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.16.

Table 5.3.16: Annual Emission Inventory for Aircraft in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS (Reference to local average conditions)

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP^[^1^]
Aircraft LTO (3RS)	4,229,712	486,566	8,738,427	740,596	37,336	37,336
Aircraft LTO (2RS)	2,346,661	296,008	6,168,272	489,574	24,761	24,761

Note:

[1] FSP/RSP emission conversion factors = 1.00 according to EDMS manual

[2] The total emission from climb-out and approach mode is determined based on the hourly mixing height.

Business Aviation Centre (Business helicopters only)

5.3.4.18 Apart from business jet emission associated with the HKBAC (as discussed in above sections), business helicopter operated by HKBAC is also a source of pollutant emission, which has been determined separately. Information on annual LTO, TIMs, engine type used for actual Year 2011 and future scenarios were obtained from HKBAC through questionnaires and site visit. According to the information provided by HKBAC, there were on average two flights going to Macau and 2 flights going to Kowloon per month in Year 2011. Discussion with HKBAC indicates that a decreasing trend in helicopter flight is anticipated for future years. It is therefore assumed in this assessment that four flights per month will be maintained in Year 2031 as a conservative assumption. Table 5.3.17 summarises the approach in determining the emission of business helicopter.

Table 5.3.17: Annual Emission Inventory for Aircraft in Year 2031

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Business helicopter	Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions published by Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA)	· Assumption of using the same annual LTO as Year 2011 based on discussion with HKBAC. · Emission indices, approach time, take-off time and climb-out time are based on the “Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions” published by Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA). · Taxi-in, taxi-out and hovering time are based on site survey. · The default value on climb-out mode is the elapsed time or aircraft ascendant from 1,000 feet above ground level to 3,000 feet. The approach mode is the elapsed time or aircraft descendant from 3,000 feet to the ground level. The climb-out and approach time periods are adjusted to the local hourly mixing height derived from 2011 King’s Park mixing height data by PCRAMMET in determining the emission. For modelling purposes, the source distribution will be extended to 10,000ft above ground to cater for the maximum altitude of the mixing height.

5.3.4.19 Sources of the business helicopter emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.18 and Appendix 5.3.2-1.

Table 5.3.18: Business Helicopter - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Business Helicopter LTO	Provided by Hong Kong Business Aviation Centre (HKBAC)
Helicopter Type	Operator's Website (Heliservices (HK) Ltd)
Helicopter Engine Model and Number of Engine	FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions
Emission Indices	FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions
Time-in-mode	Made reference to normal practices of GFS, Hong Kong Helicopter Flight Route and Height Limit, and FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions in relation to mixing height
Flight Route Distance	Hong Kong Helicopter Flight Route provided by GFS in relation to the destination location
Meteorological data	PCRAMMET results
Pollutants conversion factor	EDMS database

5.3.4.20 Emission indices and fuel consumption rates corresponding to the different TIMs are listed in Appendix 5.3.2-2. Samples of TIMs corresponding to take-off, climb-out and approach with respect to hourly mixing heights derived by PCRAMMET are summarised in Appendix 5.3.2-3. Appendix 5.3.2-4 illustrates a sample calculation of helicopter NO_x emission. The annual emission inventory for total business helicopter operation in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.19.

Table 5.3.19: Annual Emission Inventory for Business Helicopter in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP^[^1^]
Business helicopter (3RS)	48	42	6	2	0.23	0.23
Business helicopter (2RS)	48	42	6	2	0.23	0.23

Note:

[1] FSP/RSP emission conversion factors = 1.00 according to EDMS

[2] The total emission from climb-out and approach mode is determined based on the hourly mixing height.

Airside Vehicles Emission (including Business Aviation Centre)

5.3.4.21 Airside vehicles consist of two types: GSE Vehicles and Non-GSE Vehicles

GSE Vehicles

5.3.4.22 GSE comprises of a diverse range of vehicles and equipment to service the aircraft after landing and before take-off. Major services include aircraft towing, cargo loading and unloading, baggage loading and unloading, passenger loading and unloading, potable water storage, lavatory waste tank drainage, aircraft refuelling and food and beverage catering.

5.3.4.23 The GSE emissions per LTO cycle is the product of the EDMS emission indices, operating time, and the number of GSE for a particular aircraft type. Questionnaires were sent to the operator to collect the load factor, fuel consumption, age, operation time and engine power of their GSE for the determination of emissions. However, the response rate for some of the parameters (e.g. load factor, operation time, engine power) was low. Hence, the default emission factor in the EDMS was adopted as the best available information. Site surveys were also conducted to establish GSE operation characteristics, including the operating time and type of GSE to be used, with respect to the categorised aircraft types for the actual Year 2011. Information from survey data has been adopted to determine the GSE emission.

5.3.4.24 According to AAHK policy, all idling engines on the airside have been banned since 1 June 2008, except for certain vehicles and equipment that are exempt due to safety and operation considerations. This policy has been taken into account in determining the emission loading. In addition, from Year 2014 all aircraft parking at stand will be required to connect to the fixed ground power. Hence, the use of heaters / air power / air conditioning units will be minimal.

5.3.4.25 According to the discussion with AAHK, the newly registered GSE will follow the latest US / EU / Japan standards. Hence, the GSE emission standard implementation programme in the EDMS, which is based on US Non-road emission standard, has been adopted. Based on “A Proposal to Control Emissions of Non-road Mobile Sources” by EPD in May 2010, the proposed standard for the newly imported or manufactured GSE for placing on the local market (for sale, lease or use) are listed in Table 5.3.20 and Table 5.3.21. The future emission of GSE predicted by EDMS has been checked to comply with the following emission standards proposed by EPD.

Table 5.3.20: Compression Ignition (CI) Engines (i.e. those Running on Diesel)

Machinery with engine power (P) in kW	Proposed standards adopted (on considerations of similar stringency)
130 ≤ P ≤560	EU Stage IIIA, US Tier 3 or Japan MoE Stage 2
75 ≤ P < 130	EU Stage IIIA, US Tier 3 or Japan MoE Stage 2
37 ≤ P < 75	EU Stage IIIA, US Tier 3 or Japan MoE Stage 2
19 < P < 37	EU Stage IIIA, US Tier 3 or Japan MoE Stage 2

Table 5.3.21: Spark Ignition (SI) Engines, i.e. those Running on Petrol or LPG

Machinery with engine power (P) in kW	Proposed standards adopted (on considerations of similar stringency)
19 < P ≤560	US Tier 2

5.3.4.26 AAHK required that ultra-low sulfur diesel (0.005%) shall be used for airside GSE. Discussion with HAECO further indicated that they have adopted Euro V diesel with 0.001% sulfur content for their GSE. Hence, for conservative assessment, fuel sulfur content of 0.005% has been adopted for the diesel used in GSE inside the airport.

5.3.4.27 The approach for determination of the GSE emission for this Study is summarised in Table 5.3.22.

Table 5.3.22: Summary for Determination of the GSE Emission Inventory

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
GSE	EDMS	· Diesel fuel type as advised by the operators. · The type of GSE to be assigned to a particular category of aircraft is based on on-site survey. · The operation characteristics of GSE assigned for different category of aircraft type and their operation time are based on on-site survey · Load factors are based on EDMS default value and questionnaires. · Emission indices from EDMS, which is based on USEPA NONROAD model.

5.3.4.28 Sources of the GSE emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.23 and Appendix 5.3.3-1.

Table 5.3.23: GSE - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Operating duration	Site survey
Engine horsepower	HAECO, HAS, JATS, PAPAS, SATS. Where unavailable, horsepower is selected based on EDMS value.
Age of GSE	HAECO, HAS, JATS, PAPAS, SATS.
Fuel type of GSE	HAECO, HAS, JATS, PAPAS, SATS.
GSE used by aircraft	Site survey
Emission indices	EDMS
Load factor	HAECO, HAS, JATS, PAPAS, SATS. Where unavailable, horsepower is selected based on EDMS value.

5.3.4.29 Horsepower, load factors and emission factors of GSE provided by operators and adopted by EDMS are listed in Appendix 5.3.3-2. GSE operation times for different aircraft types are summarised in Appendix 5.3.3-3. Derived emission rates of all GSE operations for individual aircraft arrival and departure LTO cycle are given in Appendix 5.3.3-4. A sample calculation on GSE NO_x emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.3-5. The annual emission inventory for total GSE operation in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.24.

Table 5.3.24: Annual Emission Inventory for GSE in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP^[^1^]
GSE (3RS)	35,174	29,615	168,121	2,577	12,601	12,223
GSE (2RS)	24,385	20,476	114,322	1,783	8,538	8,282

Note:

[1] FSP/RSP emission conversion factors = 0.97 according to EDMS

Non-GSE Vehicles

5.3.4.30 Non-GSE comprises saloon vehicles, van, light bus, light goods vehicles, crew bus, passenger bus, etc. According to AAHK, the vehicular emission standard of non-GSE vehicles shall follow the vehicle emission implementation standard in Hong Kong. Hence, non-GSE emission is calculated by the product of the emission indices generated from EMFAC-HK v2.6 (Emfac mode) and the mileage travelled by each type of non-GSE vehicle. Questionnaires have been sent to the operators and AAHK to collect the number of non-GSE vehicles, their fuel type and consumption, age, mileage, operation time and engine type for the determination of emission. For those operators who did not provide the mileage information, the distance travelled has been calculated based on the yearly operation time and the travelling speed limit allowed within airside. For those operators who could not provide any information on their non-GSE, the missing data is made reference to that of other operators as the best available information.

5.3.4.31 Future non-GSE activities have been predicted based on the growth rate of LTO cycles. According to the survey findings, the average age of the non-GSE is around 1-9 years (based on Year 2011) and the average retirement period for non-GSE is around 10-15 years. Hence, by Year 2031, all the non-GSE will likely be changed to Euro V standard. According to AAHK policy, by 2017 all saloon vehicles on the airside will be electric. Hence there will be no saloon vehicles emission at the assessment year of 2031.

5.3.4.32 The approach for determination of the non-GSE emission for this Study is summarised in Table 5.3.25.

Table 5.3.25: Summary for Determination of the Non-GSE Emission Inventory

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Non-GSE	EMFAC-HK V.2.6	· The number of GSE, mileage, operation time, fuel type and fuel consumption from operators. · Adopt Euro V standard for engine in Year 2031. · Emission indices from EMFAC-HK v2.6. · Prevailing policy is factored in.

5.3.4.33 Sources of non-GSE emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.26 and Appendix 5.3.3-6.

Table 5.3.26: Non-GSE - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
General Vehicles Information	AAHK and operators
Fuel Usage in 2011	AAHK and operators
Mileage Travelled in 2011	AAHK and operators
Vehicles Travelling Speed	AAHK and operators
Emission indices and Fuel Efficiency	EMFAC / EMSD

5.3.4.34 Information on mileage and age provided by operators and AAHK are listed in Appendix 5.3.3-7. Non-GSE average speed is summarised in Appendix 5.3.3-8. Derived emission rates of all non-GSE from EMFAC-HK v2.6 are given in Appendix 5.3.3-9. A sample calculation for non-GSE NO_x emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.3-10. The annual emission inventory for total non-GSE operation in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.27.

Table 5.3.27: Annual Emission Inventory for Non-GSE in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Non-GSE (3RS)	85,513	9,013	102,891	276	6,383	5,874
Non-GSE (2RS)	57,928	6,106	69,700	187	4,324	3,979

Note:

[1] Emission rates of all pollutants are derived from EMFAC-HK v2.6

Auxiliary Power Unit

5.3.4.35 Auxiliary power units (APUs) are the on-board generators. They are gas turbine engines, generally one per aircraft, used primarily during aircraft ground operation to provide electricity, compressed air, and/or shaft power for main engine start, air conditioning, electric power and other aircraft systems. APUs can also provide backup electric power during in-flight operation. The APU emissions generated per LTO cycle are the product of the emission indices, operating time, and the number of APUs for a particular aircraft type. The types and emission indices of APU for future aircraft have been determined by IATA. EDMS v5.1.4.1 has been adopted to determine the RSP and FSP emissions. The approach for determination of APU emission is summarised in Table 5.3.28 and Appendix 5.3.1-2.

5.3.4.36 Future generation APUs will incorporate new technologies and design improvements that will increase reliability, maintainability and performance so as to meet the airline objective of low total cost of ownership and high reliability. APUs is an important source of emissions at airports. There are initiatives to reduce emissions of this source; either through reduction at source (more efficient APU, less emissions), operation restrictions (reduction of operating hours) or alternative systems (e.g. replacement of APU operations by ground power or other means).

5.3.4.37 According to AAHK policy, from 2014, all aircraft parking at stand will be required to connect to the fixed ground power and the use of APU will be prohibited. Nevertheless, the APU will still be operated before the aircraft reach the gate and after the aircraft leaving the gate, when the main engine is not yet started. According to the site survey, the APU operation time is listed as follows:

§ APU operation time before reaching the gate (communicated with the Pilot): around 1 minute

§ APU operation time after the aircraft leaving the stand when the main engine is not yet started: around 5 minutes

5.3.4.38 The above surveyed times are in line with the international practice. According to the study by IATA (Appendix 5.3.1-2), in total the APU will be running 3-4 minutes for a 2-engine aircraft and 5-6 minutes for a four-engine aircraft. In addition, APU would also be operated during movements between the stand and the times for these movements have been determined from TAAM model.

Table 5.3.28: Summary for Determination of the APU Emission Inventory

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
APU	IATA	§ The type of APU assigned for different category of aircraft type has been based on IATA input (See Appendix 5.3.1-2). § APU Operation time before reaching the stand: ~ 1minute (communication with Pilot). § APU Operation time after the aircraft leaving the stand when the main engine not yet started: ~ 5 minutes (site Survey). § APU Operation time during movements between stands: Based on TAAM model output § Prevailing AAHK policy is factored in.

5.3.4.39 Sources of the APU emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.29 and Appendix 5.3.4-1.

Table 5.3.29: APU - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
APU Model	HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA
APU Operating Time	IATA estimates, information from pilot, site surveys
Emission Indices	EDMS database, IATA estimates

5.3.4.40 Emission indices of APU (CO, HC and NO_x) adopted by IATA are summarised in Appendix 5.3.4-2. The RSP emission determined from EDMS is also summarised in Appendix 5.3.4-2. Derived emission rates of APU operations for aircraft arrival and departure LTO cycle are given in Appendix 5.3.4-3. A sample calculation for APU NO_x emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.4-4. The annual emission inventory for the total APU operation in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.30.

Table 5.3.30: Annual Emission Inventory for APU at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP ^[1]
APU (3RS)	29,582	3,118	59,332	6,492	5,638	5,638
APU (2RS)	23,403	2,602	58,810	5,887	4,720	4,720

Note:

[1] FSP/RSP emission conversion factors = 1.00 according to EDMS

Government Flying Services (GFS)

5.3.4.41 Aviation activities generated by GFS are separated in the analysis from commercial aircraft LTO. Information on annual LTO and engine types, take-off time, taxiing time and hovering time for helicopters used in Year 2011 has been provided from GFS and verified by site survey through measurement. There are two types of aircraft (Jetstream 41 and ZLIN Z242L) and two types of helicopters (Eurocopter EC 155 and Eurocopter Super Puma) operated by GFS. The EDMS v5.1.4.1 has only the ICAO emission index for Jetstream 41. The emission indices for ZLIN Z242L, Eurocopter EC 155 and Eurocopter Super Puma have therefore been made reference to the “FOCA Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report” and “Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions” published by Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the best available information.

5.3.4.42 As advised by GFS, the GFS operation activities are not directly related to the LTO growth or any other airport activities. Their operation is mainly for emergency purposes (such as search and rescue, air ambulance, etc.) and it was advised that the future flying hours will remain roughly the same as Year 2011 (Appendix 5.3.5-6). As advised by GFS, ZLIN Z242L will probably be replaced by a Diamond DA42NG with 2 x Austro Engine A300 and Jetstream 41 will be replaced by Bombardier Challenger 605 with General Electric CF 34-3B engines in near future. The emission load simulation at Year 2031 has therefore taken these changes into account.

5.3.4.43 The approach for determination of the GFS emission this Study is summarised in Table 5.3.31.

Table 5.3.31: Summary of Approach for Determination of the GFS Emission Inventory

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
GFS - Aircraft	EDMS and FOCA Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report”	· Assumed same annual LTO as Year 2011, but ZLIN Z242L is replaced by a Diamond DA42NG with 2 x Austro Engine A300 and Jetstream 41 is replaced by Bombardier Challenger 605 with General Electric CF 34-3B engines. · The default value in the Guidance on climb-out mode (which is the elapsed time or aircraft ascendant from 1,000 feet above ground level to 3,000 feet) and the approach mode (which is the elapsed time or aircraft descendant from 3,000 feet to the ground level) were adopted. The climb-out and approach time periods are adjusted to the MM5 local hourly mixing height data. Nevertheless, for the sake of modelling, the sources distribution is extended to 10,000 feet above ground to cater for the maximum altitude of the mixing height. · Take-off time based on the site survey in GFS. · Taxiing time based on TAAM model output. · Emission indices from EDMS and “FOCA Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report”.
GFS - Eurocopter EC 155 and Eurocopter Super Puma	Guidance on Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions published by Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA)	· Assumed same annual LTO as Year 2011. · No data in EDMS. Reference has been made to “Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions”. · Taxiing time, hovering time, idling time and take-off time based on the site survey in GFS. · The default value in the Guidance on climb-out mode (which is the elapsed time or aircraft ascendant from 1,000 feet above ground level to 3,000 feet) and the approach mode (which is the elapsed time or aircraft descendant from 3,000 feet to the ground level) were adopted. The climb-out and approach time periods are adjusted to the MM5 local hourly mixing height data. Nevertheless, for the sake of modelling, the sources distribution is extended to 10,000 feet above ground to cater for the maximum altitude of the mixing height. · Emission indices based on “Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions”.

5.3.4.44 Sources of the GFS aircraft and helicopter emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.32 and Appendix 5.3.5-1.

Table 5.3.32: GFS - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
GFS Flight Record in 2011	Provided by Government Flying Service (GFS)
Aircraft and Helicopter type	Provided by Government Flying Service (GFS)
Aircraft and Helicopter Engine Model and Number of Engine	Provided by Government Flying Service (GFS)
Emission Indices and Pollutant Conversion Factor	EDMS Database, FOCA's Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report and FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions
Time-in-mode	EDMS Database, FOCA's Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report, FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions and Site Survey at GFS in relation to the mixing height
Meteorological data	PCRAMMET results
Runway usage (for aircraft)	The runway used by GFS aircrafts are distributed among the six runways according to the hourly runway fraction used by commercial jets
Flight Route Distance	Hong Kong Helicopter Flight Route provided by GFS in relation to the destination location
Aviation Record and Information	Provided by Government Flying Service (GFS)

5.3.4.45 Emission indices and fuel rates corresponding to different TIMs as determined by EDMS and FOCA are listed in Appendix 5.3.5-2. The flight route of helicopter within 5 km assessment area is summarised in Appendix 5.3.5-3. TIMs corresponding to different helicopters and aircraft are summarised in Appendix 5.3.5-4. Sample calculation for aircraft emission can be referred to Appendix 5.3.1-5. Sample calculation of helicopter emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.5-5. The annual emission inventory for GFS operation is summarised in Table 5.3.33.

Table 5.3.33: Annual Emission Inventory for GFS at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP ^[1]
GFS (3RS)	9,001	5,856	2,598	549	83	83
GFS (2RS)^[2]	9,382	5,900	2,624	559	84	84

Note:

[1] FSP/RSP emission conversion factors = 1.00 according to EDMS

[2] The flight route for 3RS and 2RS scenario is slightly different (Appendix 5.3.5). Hence the emission is slightly different though the LTO is the same.

[3] The total emission from climb-out and approach mode is determined based on the hourly mixing height.

Aviation Fuel Farm

5.3.4.46 Breathing, displacement and air saturation are the primary states for pollutant emissions from aviation fuel tanks. The assessment of emission was calculated by USEPA AP-42, Chapter 7.1 based on the tank size, fuel storage height, tank roof design etc. Information on fuel type, tank dimension, annual fuel used, average and maximum height of fuel in the storage tank were obtained from the tank farm operators (Aviation Fuel Supply Company and AFSC Operations Ltd) through questionnaire. Emission indices of aviation fuel are derived from USEPA AP-42 (5^th edition), Chapter 7.1. No expansion of the existing aviation fuel farm on the airport island is proposed. It is noted that the emission from aviation fuel farm will vary with the meteorological conditions, such as ambient temperature and relative humidity. These factors have also been taken into account in the emission load estimation.

5.3.4.47 The approach for determination of the emission from aviation fuel farm is summarised in Table 5.3.34.

Table 5.3.34: Summary for Determination of the Aviation Fuel Farm Emission Inventory

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Aviation Fuel Tank Farm	USEPA AP42 Chapter 7.1	· No expansion of existing tank farm at Year 2031 · Tank size and dimension, fuel type, annual fuel consumption, average and maximum height of fuel in the storage tank from operators · Emission factors based on AP-42 (5^th edition), Chapter 7.1

5.3.4.48 Sources of the aviation fuel tank farm emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.35 and Appendix 5.3.6-1.

Table 5.3.35: Aviation Fuel Tank - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Tank size and dimension	AFSC, EIA for "Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport"
Fuel Type	AFSC, EIA for "Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport"
Annual Fuel Consumption	AFSC, EIA for "Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport"
Average and Maximum height of fuel in storage tank	AFSC, EIA for "Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport"
Meteorological Data	PCRAMMET results
Emission indices	AP-42, Chapter 7.1

5.3.4.49 The breakdowns of emissions from each tank are shown in Appendix 5.3.6-2. A sample fuel tank emission working calculation is shown in Appendix 5.3.6-3. The annual emission inventory for the aviation fuel tank is summarised in Table 5.3.36.

Table 5.3.36: Annual Emission Inventory for Aviation Fuel Tank at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Aviation Fuel Tank (3RS)	0	110,119	0	0	0	0
Aviation Fuel Tank (2RS)	0	103,922	0	0	0	0

Fire Training Activities

5.3.4.50 Fire training is periodically performed at HKIA by the Fire Services Department (FSD). The emissions are the product of the emission indices and the quantity of fuel burnt in fire training. Information on fuel type and amount of fuel burnt for future activities and plan has been obtained from FSD through questionnaire. According to the latest airport layout, there will be one additional fire training activity in the western supporting area. Hence, the future activities provided by the FSD will be shared by the existing and future training centre. Table 5.3.37 summarises the approach for determination of the emission from fire training activities.

Table 5.3.37: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission for Fire Training Activities

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Fire Training Activities	EDMS	· Information on future activities and plan provided from FSD. · Emission indices from EDMS

5.3.4.51 Sources of the emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.38 and Appendix 5.3.7-1.

Table 5.3.38: Fire Training - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Number of training	Provided by Fire Services Department (FSD)
Dates of training	Provided by FSD
Training Duration	Provided by FSD
Fuel Type used for training	Provided by FSD
Fuel consumption	Provided by FSD
Emission indices	EDMS database

5.3.4.52 Emission factors of different fuel types are listed in Appendix 5.3.7-3 . The breakdown emission inventory is given in Appendix 5.3.7-4. A sample calculation for emission for the fire training is shown in Appendix 5.3.7-5. The annual emission inventory for the fire training activities is summarised in Table 5.3.39.

Table 5.3.39: Annual Emission Inventory for Fire Training Activities at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP ^[1]
Fire Training Activities (3RS)	23,067	702	175	35	5,240	5,240
Fire Training Activities (2RS)	23,067	702	175	35	5,240	5,240

Note:

[1] FSP/RSP emission conversion factors = 1.00 according to EDMS manual

Engine Run-up Facilities (ERUF)

5.3.4.53 Engine testing is performed at HKIA by Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company Limited (HAECO). The activity emission depends on the type and number of engine to be tested, power setting of the test engine, duration of testing as well as the product of the emission indices. Information on the type of engine, power setting, test duration, number of engine tested for actual Year 2011 has been obtained from HAECO through questionnaire via AAHK. The number of engine run-up tests to be conducted is related to the number of total LTO. In Year 2011, the total air traffic movement was around 335,000. To cater for the growth of the air traffic movement (i.e. 617,000 at Year 2031) and potential increase in numbers of engine test required, an additional ERUF will be constructed for the 3RS. According to the latest Master Plan 2030, the new ERUF will be located in the northern end of the western supporting area. The usage of this new ERUF is assumed to be the same as the current facility as advised by AAHK.

5.3.4.54 The emission indices for the aircraft under test have been based on the engine types forecasted by IATA. It should be noted that some of the old engine models adopted in Year 2011 would be phased out. According to the engine testing record in Year 2011, it was found that 70% of the total engine tests were conducted by Cathay Pacific Airways and Hong Kong Dragon Airlines. Aircraft engine models to be used by these airlines during Year 2031 projected by IATA were extracted and the weighted average engine emission indices were calculated based on their forecasted LTO at Year 2031. Appendix 5.3.8-3 presented the detailed calculations of weighted average engine emission indices. In addition, it is noted that the emission from engine run-up facilities will vary with the meteorological conditions, such as ambient temperature and relative humidity. These factors will also be taken into account in the emission load simulation. Table 5.3.40 summarises the approach for determination of the emission for ERUF.

Table 5.3.40: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission for ERUF

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Engine run-up testing	EDMS	· According to AAHK, there will be one additional ERUF for the 3RS. · The operation characteristic of the future ERUFs are assumed to be the same as those of the Year 2011 as advised by AAHK. · Emission factors have been based on new engine model provided by IATA.

5.3.4.55 Sources of the engine testing emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.41 and Appendix 5.3.8-1.

Table 5.3.41: Engine Run Up Facilities - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Testing date and time	Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO
Testing duration	Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO
Aircraft tested	Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO
Engine model tested	Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO
Engine testing power	Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO
Number of engine tested	Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO
Emission indices	Database from IATA constrained schedule
Engine mode look up table	In accordance with ICAO exhaust database
Meteorological data	PCRAMMET results
Pollutants conversion factor	EDMS database

5.3.4.56 Emission indices and fuel consumption rates corresponding to the different TIMs as determined by EDMS are included in Appendix 5.3.1-2. The calculated ERUF emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.8-3. The engine mode lookup table is shown in Appendix 5.3.8-4. The emission forecast for aircraft engine testing in Year 2031 is shown in Appendix 5.3.8-4. The annual emission inventory for engine run-up facility in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.42.

Table 5.3.42: Annual Emission Inventory for ERUF in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP ^[1]
ERUF (3RS)	3,754	1,106	188,230	10,496	550	550
ERUF (2RS)	2,494	742	129,047	6,924	336	336

Note:

[1] FSP/RSP emission conversion factors = 1.00 according to EDMS

Aircraft Maintenance Centre

5.3.4.57 Paint spraying inside the aircraft maintenance centre will generate VOC. The amount of VOC emission has been calculated by EDMS based on the paint usage rate. A dedicated extraction and ventilation system was installed in the hanger paint bay to remove the paint particles. The removal efficiency of the scrubber is around 98% according to the information from HAECO. In addition, HAECO advised that paint spraying activities were not directly related to the LTO growth and also paint spraying was not a regular activity in the aircraft maintenance centre. The paint spraying activities undertaken in Year 2011 provided by HAECO correspond to the total ATM of about 335,000. According to the master plan of airport, an additional aircraft maintenance centre will be constructed in the western supporting area of the 3RS. Discussion with AAHK indicated that the operation characteristics of the new maintenance centre would be the same as that of the existing one. With two aircraft maintenance centre of same operation characteristics, they can serve around 670,000 ATM, which exceeds the capacity of the 3RS. Table 5.3.43 summarises the approach for determination of the emission from paint spraying from aircraft maintenance centre.

Table 5.3.43: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission from Aircraft Maintenance Centre

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Aircraft maintenance centre	EDMS	· One additional aircraft maintenance centre in Western Supporting Area · Assume same paint usage rate as Year 2011 as advised by AAHK · Emission indices from EDMS. · Scrubber removal efficiency (i.e. 98%) from operator.

5.3.4.58 Sources of the aircraft maintenance centre emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.44 and Appendix 5.3.9-1.

Table 5.3.44: Aircraft Maintenance Centre - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Chemical Consumption	Adopted from 2011 record provided by HAECO
Scrubber Removal Efficiency	Information provided by HAECO
Emission Indices	EDMS database, info provided by HAECO

5.3.4.59 Annual emission inventory is listed in Appendix 5.3.9-2. Sample calculation for aircraft maintenance centre emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.9-3. The annual emission inventory for aircraft maintenance centre in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.45.

Table 5.3.45: Annual Emission Inventory for Aircraft Maintenance Centre in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Aircraft Maintenance Centre (3RS)	0	10,745	0	0	0	0
Aircraft Maintenance Centre (2RS)	0	5,372	0	0	0	0

Catering

5.3.4.60 The use of the diesel furnace is the major air pollutant emission source from catering facilities. There are three existing catering operators at HKIA, including Cathay Pacific Catering Services (H.K.) Ltd., Gate Gourmet Hong Kong Ltd and LSG Lufthansa Service Hong Kong Ltd. Questionnaires were sent to the three catering operators on the existing fuel use and chimney information (e.g. the type of diesel furnace used, fuel sulfur content, annual fuel consumption for future years, stack height, stack diameter, exit temperature and exit velocity of the stack). Based on the responses, only Cathay Pacific Catering Services (HK) Ltd. uses diesel (plus towngas) as the fuel. The other two operators use electricity and town gas for food production, which are not considered as a major air pollutant emission source.

5.3.4.61 It is proposed that there will be an extra catering facility in the North Eastern Supporting area to cater for the additional 200,000 ATM for the proposed 3RS (i.e. 620,000 (3 runway maximum ATM ) – 420,000 (2 runway maximum ATM)). As a conservative approach, diesel fuel is assumed for the new catering facility. The emission indices of NO_x and RSP are based on standards listed in the Air Pollution Control (Fuel Restriction) (Amendment) Regulation 2008. The emission factor for SO₂ was determined according to the fuel sulfur content provided by the operator, which complies with the Air Pollution Control (Fuel Restriction) (Amendment) Regulation 2008. The emission factors for CO, and HC have been derived from USEPA AP-42 (5^th edition), Chapter 1.3-1.4. Table 5.3.46 summarises the approach for determination of the emission for catering.

Table 5.3.46: Summary of Assumptions for Determination of the Emission for Catering

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Catering	EDMS	· Information on future activities and plan provided from operator and latest airport master plan. · Emission indices of NOx and RSP: APCO · Emission indices of SO2: sulfur content provided by operator, which comply with APCO · Emission indices of CO and HC: AP-42 (5^th Edition), Chapter 1.3-1.4

5.3.4.62 Sources of the catering emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.47 and Appendix 5.3.10-1.

Table 5.3.47: Catering - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Fuel consumption	Information provided by Cathay Pacific Catering Services (CPCS)
Furnace Type	Information provided by CPCS
Emission indices	AP-42, Ch. 1.3 and 1.4

5.3.4.63 The fuel consumption and emission indices for emission calculation are shown in Appendix 5.3.10-3. The emission inventory for the catering industry is summarised in Table 5.3.48. Sample calculation for catering emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.10-3.

Table 5.3.48: Annual Emission Inventory for Catering at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Catering (3RS)	6,758	664	27,030	192	1,352	338
Catering (2RS)	3,875	381	15,498	110	775	194

Vehicle Parking

5.3.4.64 There are currently seven major car parks and four major truck parks within HKIA premises. Five car parks (CP1 – CP4 and SkyPlaza) are operated by AAHK, and the remaining two passenger car parks are operated by Airport Freight Forwarding Centre Co Ltd (AFFC) and Tradeport Hong Kong Ltd. The operators for the four truck parks are AFFC, Asia Airfreight Terminal Co Ltd (AAT), Hong Kong Air Cargo Terminals (HACTL) and Tradeport Hong Kong Ltd. It is proposed that car parks CP3 and CP4 will be removed due to the planned Terminal 2 (T2) expansion and the North Commercial District (NCD) development. Three additional car parks will be provided: a multi-storey car park in T2 expansion, an underground car park beneath the NCD development and one multi-storey car park to the south of NCD to provide around 2,000 spaces in total.

5.3.4.65 Vehicle movements inside car parks / truck parks will generate exhaust air emission. Since all vehicles are expected to switch off their engine after parking, idling emission inside car parks / truck parks is considered negligible. The amount of emission exhausts from vehicle movements inside the car parks / truck parks depends on the number of vehicles, vehicle mix, distance travelled, etc. and these are modelled by EMFAC-HK v2.6. Questionnaires were issued to the car park / truck park operators to collate the operation details in actual Year 2011 and future assessment years. Since information on Year 2031 is not available from the operators, the number of vehicle movements has been projected based on the passenger traffic and cargo freight growth factors. The latest implementation programme of the vehicle emission standards in Hong Kong as published and available in EPD’s website (i.e. updated as at 2 January 2014) has been adopted in the assessment. The exhaust technology fractions have been made reference to the technology group fractions listed in EPD’s website (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/guide_ref/emfac.html). It is assumed that the fuel properties will also be in line with the implementation of these standards. In EMFAC-HK v2.6, a vehicle population forecast function has been incorporated in the model with 2010 as its base year. The default vehicle populations forecast in EMFAC-HK v2.6 have been used for assessment purpose in this study.

5.3.4.66 Since the EMFAC-HK cannot be used for calculation of SO₂ emission, an alternative method is therefore adopted. The SO₂ emission factor is derived based on the assumption that 98% of the sulfur in the fuel is emitted as SO₂. This is in line with the assumption used in the USEPA PART5 program (refer to USEPA PART5 Model User Guide – 1995) for calculating emissions from motor vehicles. Using this assumption, the emission factor is calculated from the following equation:

EfSO₂ [g/km] = 1.96 x (Sf/100) x (Df x 1,000) x (Ef/100)

Where

1.96	=	Factor to account for fraction emitted (98% of sulfur content in fuel) and weight ratio of SO2 to S (2.0)
Sf	=	Fuel sulfur content (weight percentage)
Df	=	Density of fuel (0.73 kg/L for gasoline; 0.845 kg/L for diesel fuel)
Ef	=	Vehicle fuel efficiency (in L/100 km)

5.3.4.67 The vehicle fuel efficiencies for different types of vehicle can be extracted from the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) Primary Indicator Values, and they are listed in Table 5.3.49. References shall be made to the EMSD’s websites.

Table 5.3.49: Fuel Efficiencies for Different Vehicles Types

Subgroup ID	Vehicle Type	Fuel Type	Engine Size (cc)	Gross Vehicle Weight (tonnes)	Fuel Efficiency (L/100km)
Principal Group 1 – Private Car and Motorcycle
V1	Motorcycle	Petrol	--	--	4.2
V2	Private Car	Diesel	--	--	11.8
V3	Private Car	Petrol	<=1,000	--	8.1
V4	Private Car	Petrol	1,001-1,500	--	9
V5	Private Car	Petrol	1,501-2,500	--	11.5
V6	Private Car	Petrol	2,501-3,500	--	14
V7	Private Car	Petrol	3,501-4,500	--	16.3
V8	Private Car	Petrol	>4,500	--	17.3
Principal Group 2 – Bus and Light Bus
V11	Private Bus (Double Deck)	Diesel	--	--	47
V12	Private Bus (Single Deck)	Diesel	--	--	23.9
V13	Non-franchised Public Bus (Double Deck)	Diesel	--	--	59.3
V14	Non-franchised Public Bus (Single Deck)	Diesel	--	--	24.9
V15	Private Light Bus	Diesel	--	--	16
V16	Public Light Bus	Diesel	--	--	15.4
V17	Private Light Bus	LPG	--	--	29.7
V18	Public Light Bus	LPG	--	--	20.5
Principal Group 3 – Taxi
V21	Taxi LPG (Urban)	LPG	--	--	14.3
V22	Taxi LPG (Lantau Island)	LPG	--	--	14.5
V23	Taxi LPG (NT)	LPG	--	--	12.6
Principal Group 4 – Vehicle – Light Goods Vehicle (LGV)
V31	Light Goods Vehicle	Petrol	--	<=1.9	11.4
V32	Light Goods Vehicle	Petrol	--	>1.9	12.2
V33	Light Goods Vehicle	Diesel	--	<=2.5	11
V34	Light Goods Vehicle	Diesel	--	2.51-4	11.3
V35	Light Goods Vehicle	Diesel	--	4.01-5.5	15.6
Principal Group 5 – Vehicle – Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV)
V36	Medium Goods Vehicle, Tractors	Diesel	--	5.51-24	47.9
V37	Medium Goods Vehicle, Non-tractors	Diesel	--	5.51-10	19.3
V38	Medium Goods Vehicle, Non-tractors	Diesel	--	10.01-15	25.8
V39	Medium Goods Vehicle, Non-tractors	Diesel	--	15.01-20	28.5
V40	Medium Goods Vehicle, Non-tractors	Diesel	--	20.01-24	41.5
Principal Group 6 – Vehicle – Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV)
V41	Heavy Goods Vehicle	Diesel	--	24.01-38	46.2

Note: 

Referenced from EMSD Website: http://ecib.emsd.gov.hk/en/indicator_trp.htm

5.3.4.68 Table 5.3.50 summarises the approach for determination of emission from car parks / truck parks.

Table 5.3.50: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission from Car Parks / Truck Parks

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Car park / Truck park	EMFAC-HK V2.6 USEPA PART5 program for SO2 emission	· Future activities of the existing and planned car park / truck park have been determined based on current activities, the passenger and cargo growth factors, capacity of the car park / truck park and existing utilisation rate (if available) · Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as at 2 January 2014) has been adopted. · The exhaust technology fractions available in EPD’s website have been adopted. · Default vehicle populations forecast in EMFAC-HK v2.6 have been adopted. · SO2 emission estimation has been based on EMSD Primary Indicator Values and in accordance with USEPA PART5 program.

5.3.4.69 Appendix 5.3.11 presents the traffic forecast inside each car park/ truck park, key model assumptions adopted in EMFAC-HK V2.6 and derived emission factors. The annual emission inventory for all car and truck parks in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.51.

Table 5.3.51: Annual Emission Inventory for Car Park/ Truck Park in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Vehicle Parking (3RS)	34,830	2,477	10,120	69	589	543
Vehicle Parking (2RS)	26,908	1,863	7,476	53	450	414

Note:

[1] Emission rates of all pollutants are derived from EMFAC-HK v2.6

Roads on the airport island

5.3.4.70 Roads on the airport island can be classified into two types: airside and landside roads.

Airside roads

5.3.4.71 The emission from airside traffic has been detailed in Sections 5.3.4.21 – 5.3.4.34.

Landside roads

5.3.4.72 Vehicular tailpipe emissions from all roads in the airport island were calculated by the EMFAC-HK v2.6. The traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. for Year 2031 were predicted and forecasted by traffic model. Planned roads on the airport island including connecting roads to HKBCF have been included in the Year 2031 scenario. EMFAC-HK model has been separately run for different road categories of similar nature and driving pattern as shown in Table 5.3.52.

Table 5.3.52: Road Categories for Airport Island assumed in EMFAC-HK

Group	Roads	Justification
Group 1	Roads of design speed of 80km/h and without cold start (Expressway / Trunk Road)	· Design speed of 80kph · No cold start trips
Group 2	Roads of design speed of 50km/h and without cold start (Trunk Road / District Distributor/ Primary Distributor)	· Design speed of 50kph · No cold start trips
Group 3	Roads of design speed of 50km/h and with cold start (Local Distributor)	· Design speed of 50kph · With cold start trips

5.3.4.73 The latest implementation programme of vehicle emission standards, vehicle population, vehicle population forecast function, exhaust technology fractions and the calculations of SO₂ emission are described in Sections 5.3.4.64 – 5.3.4.68. Table 5.3.53 summarises the approach for determination of the landside vehicular emission on the airport island.

Table 5.3.53: Summary of approach for determination of the landside vehicular emission on airport island

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Vehicular emission	EMFAC-HK v2.6 USEPA PART5 program for SO2 emission	· Future traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. have been forecasted by traffic model. · Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as of 2 January 2014) has been adopted. · The exhaust technology fractions available in EPD’s website have been adopted. · Default vehicle populations forecast in EMFAC-HK v2.6 have been adopted. · SO2 emission estimation has been based on EMSD Primary Indicator Values and in accordance with USEPA PART5 program.

5.3.4.74 Appendix 5.3.11 presented the traffic forecast for roads on the airport island, detailed methodology and key model assumptions on EMFAC-HK and results (including emission factors). The annual emission inventory for the motor vehicles on the airport island is summarised in Table 5.3.54.

Table 5.3.54 Annual emission Inventory for landside motor vehicles on the airport island at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Vehicles on the airport island (3RS)	288,515	11,604	69,848	1,549	4,107	3,784
Vehicles on the airport island (2RS)	273,553	11,016	66,616	1,456	3,878	3,573

Note:

[1] Emission rates of all pollutants are derived from EMFAC-HK v2.6

Marine Vessels Emission

5.3.4.75 There are two marine vessels emission sources at the airport: SkyPier and the Chu Kong Shipping Enterprises (Group) Co Ltd (CKS). SkyPier provides high speed ferry services for transit passengers from HKIA to eight ports in the PRD and Macau. CKS provides river trade services for air cargo between Hong Kong and the PRD. Questionnaires were sent to the operators to gather information on the ferry types and weight, on board marine engines type and engine loading, daily and annual trips, etc. Only CKS provided responses on their existing activities.

5.3.4.76 For the ferry activities of SkyPier, their latest schedules were collected on site. A site survey was also conducted at SkyPier to determine the ferry idling, manoeuvring and cruising time. The engine emission factors were determined based on “Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory” published by EPD.

5.3.4.77 For projection of marine activities to the future assessment year at Year 2031, the growth factor determined in the Marine Traffic Impact Assessment (MTIA) Report as prepared under the Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment study for Airport Master Plan 2030 was adopted. Table 5.3.55 summarises the approach for determination of the marine emission at SkyPier and CKS.

Table 5.3.55: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Marine Vessels Emission at SkyPier and CKS

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Ferry at Sky Pier	EPD’s Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory (2012)	· Ferry activities based on existing schedules · Idling, manoeuvring and cruising time based on site survey · Emission factors based on “Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, EPD”. · Forecast projection by growth factor listed in MTIA report
Barge at CKS	EPD’s Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory (2012)	· Barge activities based on questionnaires · Idling, manoeuvring and cruising time based on questionnaires · Emission factors based on “Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, EPD”. · Forecast projection by growth factor listed in MTIA report

5.3.4.78 Sources of the marine vessels emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.56 and Appendix 5.3.12-1.

Table 5.3.56: Marine Navigation - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter	Source
Ferry/Barge Engine Type	Turbojet Website, CKAS and EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory
Engine Power and Number of Engines	Turbojet Website, CKAS and EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory
Load factor	CKAS and EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory
Time-in-mode	CKAS and EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory
Operating duration and profile	Operators' Website and CKAS
Emission Indices	EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory
Fuel Sulphur Content	CKAS for barge. Assume 0.5% for ferry.

5.3.4.79 The marine traffic activities from the operator are shown in Appendix 5.3.12-2. The engine power and load factors are shown in Appendix 5.3.12-3. The Time-in-mode of marine vessels are summarised in Appendix 5.3.12-4. A sample calculation on marine traffic activities is shown in Appendix 5.3.12-5. The annual emission inventory for the marine activities on the airport island is summarised in Table 5.3.57.

Table 5.3.57: Annual Emission Inventory for the Airport Island Marine Activities in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Marine Navigation (3RS)	9,930	2,888	92,266	18,993	2,813	2,525
Marine Navigation (2RS)	9,930	2,888	92,266	18,993	2,813	2,525

Note:

[1] Emission rates of all pollutants are based on “Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, EPD”

Aircraft Brake and Tire Wear

5.3.4.80 Aircraft brake and tire emissions are reported on a per LTO basis. Much like vehicles, aircraft tire and break emissions estimates contain large uncertainties and vary depending on the type of aircraft and the landing conditions. According to London Luton Airport – Air Quality Assessment Methodology 2012, estimation of PM emissions arising from brake and tire wear were based on the methodology developed by Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow (PSDH). For brake wear, an emission factor of 2.51 x 10^-7 kg PM10 per kg MTOW was assumed. For tire wear, the following relationship was used:

PM₁₀ (kg) per landing = 2.23 x 10-6 x (MTOW kg) – 0.0874 kg

where MTOW is the maximum take-off weight.

5.3.4.81 In this study, the methodology developed by Luton Airport was adopted to determine the brake and tire wear emission. According to ACRP Report 9 - Summarising and Interpreting Aircraft Gaseous and Particulate Emissions Data. Nearly all tire wear emissions are larger than PM_2.5. For brakes, a study conducted by Sanders et al. (2003) observed that between 50% and 90% of brake emissions become airborne particles (mass mean diameter is 6 µm and the number-weighted mean is between 1 µm to 2 µm). Hence, no PM_2.5 emission was assumed for tire wear emission. For brake emission, PM₂.₅ would contribute 100% of PM₁₀ emission for conservative assessment purpose.

5.3.4.82 The brake and tire wear for different aircraft were shown in Appendix 5.3.20-1. A sample calculation on brake and tire wear emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.20-1. The annual emission inventory for the brake and tire wear emission on the airport island is summarised in Table 5.3.58.

Table 5.3.58: Annual Emission Inventory for Brake and Tire Wear

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Brake and Tire Wear (3RS)	-	-	-	-	143,750	17,146
Brake and Tire Wear (2RS)	-	-	-	-	107,208	12,641

Summary of Airport Related Emission Inventory

5.3.4.83 Table 5.3.59 summarises the emission inventories of airport related activities.

Table 5.3.59: Summary of Emission Inventory for Airport Related Activities in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

	Annual Emission (kg)
Source	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
3RS
Aircraft LTO	4,229,712	486,566	8,738,427	740,596	37,336	37,336
Business Helicopter	48	42	6	2	0.23	0.23
Airside Vehicles	120,687	38,628	271,012	2,853	18,984	18,097
APU	29,582	3,118	59,332	6,492	5,638	5,638
GFS	9,001	5,856	2,598	549	83	83
Aviation Fuel Tank	0	110,119	0	0	0	0
Fire Training Activities	23,067	702	175	35	5,240	5,240
ERUF	3,754	1,106	188,230	10,496	550	550
Aircraft Maintenance Centre	0	10,745	0	0	0	0
Catering	6,758	664	27,030	192	1,352	338
Car park / Truck Park	34,830	2,477	10,120	69	589	543
Vehicles on the airport island	288,515	11,604	69,848	1,549	4,107	3,784
Marine Navigation	9,930	2,888	92,266	18,993	2,813	2,525
Brake and Tire Wear	0	0	0	0	143,750	17,146
2RS
Aircraft LTO	2,346,661	296,008	6,168,272	489,574	24,761	24,761
Business Helicopter	48	42	6	2	0.23	0.23
Airside Vehicles	82,313	26,582	184,022	1,970	12,862	12,261
APU	23,403	2,602	58,810	5,887	4,720	4,720
GFS	9,382	5,900	2,624	559	84	84
Aviation Fuel Tank	0	103,922	0	0	0	0
Fire Training Activities	23,067	702	175	35	5,240	5,240
ERUF	2,494	742	129,047	6,924	336	336
Aircraft Maintenance Centre	0	5,372	0	0	0	0
Catering	3,875	381	15,498	110	775	194
Car park / Truck Park	26,908	1,863	7,476	53	450	414
Vehicles on the airport island	273,553	11,016	66,616	1,456	3,878	3,573
Marine Navigation	9,930	2,888	92,266	18,993	2,813	2,525
Brake and Tire Wear	0	0	0	0	107,208	12,641

Proximity Infrastructure Emission

5.3.4.84 The proximity infrastructure emission sources accounted for in the air quality assessment included the concurrent infrastructural projects / emission sources (both existing and future projects and emission sources with planned or committed implementation programme) in proximity of the sensitive receivers and uses within the study area (i.e. 5 km from the boundary of the project site). Table 5.3.60 below lists the proximity infrastructure emission sources in the Lantau and Tuen Mun areas. Except for CPPP at Black Point and Castle Peak, these specific emission sources have been modelled by a near-field dispersion model.

Table 5.3.60: List of Proximity Infrastructure Emissions in Lantau and Tuen Mun Areas

Source		Description
Lantau Area
HKBCF	Future source		Vehicular emissions from its road network, and idling at kiosks and loading/unloading bay
HKLR	Future source		Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building
TM-CLKL (Lantau section)	Future source		Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building
NLH and other roads in Tung Chung	Existing source		Vehicular emissions from road network
Tung Chung Remaining Development	Future source		Vehicular emissions from induced traffic
OWTF Phase 1	Future source		Chimney emissions
Proposed LLP	Future source		Vehicular emissions from induced traffic
Proposed Cross Boundary Transport Hub above MTR Siu Ho Wan Depot	Future source		Vehicular emissions from induced traffic
Proposed Leisure and Entertainment Node at Sunny Bay	Future source		Vehicular emissions from induced traffic
Tuen Mun
Tuen Mun Western Bypass (TMWB)	Future source		Vehicular emissions from its road network and induced traffic
TM-CLKL (Tuen Mun section)	Future source		Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building
Other roads in Tuen Mun	Existing source		Vehicular emissions from road network
Shiu Wing Steel Mill	Existing source		Chimney emissions
Green Island Cement (GIC)	Existing source		Chimney emissions
Castle Peak Power Plant (CPPP)	Existing source		Chimney emissions
EcoPark in Tuen Mun Area 38	Existing source		Chimney emissions
Butterfly Beach Laundry	Existing source		Chimney emissions
Flare at Pillar Point Valley Landfill (PPVL)	Existing source		Chimney emissions
Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility (PAFF)	Existing source		Chimney emissions
River Trade Terminal (RTT)	Existing sources		Emissions from marine vessels and land-based equipment

Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Lantau

5.3.4.85 Vehicular tailpipe emissions from all roads in Lantau were calculated by the EMFAC-HK v2.6. The traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. for Year 2031 has been predicted and forecasted. Planned roads in Lantau including HKLR, HKBCF associated road networks, Road P1 etc., and induced traffic due to this project has been included for Year 2031. The EMFAC-HK V2.6 model has been separately run for the different road categories which are grouped according to their similarity of nature and driving pattern as shown in Table 5.3.61. The extent of road networks included in the proximity infrastructure emissions for Lantau area is shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-006.

Table 5.3.61: Road Categories in Lantau assumed in EMFAC-HK

Group	Roads
Group 1	Roads with design speed of 110km/h and without cold start (Expressway)
Group 2	Roads with design speed of 80km/h and without cold start (Expressway)
Group 3	Roads with design speed of 50km/h and without cold start (Trunk Road/ District Distributor)
Group 4	Roads with design speed of 50km/h and with cold start (Local Distributor/ Rural Road)

5.3.4.86 The latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards, vehicle population, vehicle population forecast, exhaust technology fractions and the calculations of SO₂ emission are described in in Sections 5.3.4.64 – 5.3.4.68. Table 5.3.62 summarises the approach for determination of the vehicular emission in Lantau.

Table 5.3.62: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Vehicular Emission on Lantau

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Vehicular emission	EMFAC-HK V2.6 USEPA PART5 program for SO2 emission	· Existing roads and future planned roads and/or induced traffic include HKLR, HKBCF associated road networks, Road P1, and Tung Chung Remaining Development, etc. have been included. · Future traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. have been forecasted by traffic model. · Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as at 2 January 2014) has been adopted. · The exhaust technology fractions available in EPD’s website have been adopted. · Default vehicle populations forecast in EMFAC-HK v2.6 have been adopted. · SO2 emission estimation has been based on EMSD Primary Indicator Values and in accordance with USEPA PART5 program.

5.3.4.87 Appendix 5.3.11 presents the traffic forecast for roads in Lantau area (including both existing and planned roads), key model assumptions on EMFAC-HK and derived emission factors. The annual emission inventory for the vehicular emission from existing and planned road in Lantau is summarised in Table 5.3.63.

Table 5.3.63: Annual Emission Inventory for Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Lantau at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Vehicular emission in Lantau (3RS)	1,007,664	35,257	251,996	5,934	21,522	19,819
Vehicular emission in Lantau (2RS)	943,403	32,119	239,565	5,712	20,868	19,215

Note: Excluding those on the airport island

Idling Emission from HKBCF

5.3.4.88 Emission from idling vehicles at kiosks and loading / unloading bays at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) have been included for the assessment year at Year 2031. The emission rates have been determined based on the number of vehicles, the waiting and processing time at the kiosks and the loading / unloading bays. According to the latest HKBCF layout and design provided by Highways Department (HyD). The idling emission estimation has been based on the emission factors for different Euro engine types under different travelling speeds and gradients in accordance with the latest report on “Road Tunnels: Vehicle Emissions and Air Demand for Ventilation” published by the Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC, 2012), taking into account the mass factor for HGVs and air-conditioning loading factor.

5.3.4.89 Table 5.3.64 summarises the basic idling emission factors extracted from the PIARC 2012 report. The latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (updated as at 2 January 2014), latest 2010 vehicle population and technology fraction have been adopted in the calculation. Table 5.3.65 summarises the approach for determination of the idling emission from HKBCF.

Table 5.3.64: Idling Emission Factors for different Vehicles/Fuel Types

Euro Standard	Pollutant Emission Factors (g/h)
	NOx			CO			PM
	PC	LDV	HGV	PC	LDV	HGV	PC	LDV	HGV
Gasoline
Pre-Euro	6.97	11.73	-	130.83	49.50	-	-	-	-
Euro 1	2.14	3.60	-	2.21	0.63	-	-	-	-
Euro 2	1.70	2.86	-	1.51	0.43	-	-	-	-
Euro 3	0.41	0.68	-	0.48	0.24	-	-	-	-
Euro 4	0.32	0.54	-	1.30	0.77	-	-	-	-
Euro 5	0.30	0.50	-	1.30	0.77	-	-	-	-
Euro 6	0.28	0.50	-	1.30	0.77	-	-	-	-
Diesel
Pre-Euro	9.45	13.63	119.60	6.46	9.07	78.62	0.60	2.58	14.70
Euro 1	9.31	13.42	99.41	4.29	6.02	32.49	0.70	3.00	11.05
Euro 2	9.73	14.03	97.84	2.18	3.06	18.92	0.66	2.85	1.81
Euro 3	6.11	8.81	98.52	0.84	1.18	14.04	0.32	1.35	1.72
Euro 4	5.78	8.33	52.42	0.62	0.88	1.23	0.25	1.07	0.86
Euro 5	4.35	6.27	36.37	0.58	0.82	1.23	0.02	0.11	0.86
Euro 6	1.92	2.77	36.37	0.58	0.82	1.23	0.02	0.09	0.86

Note:

PC – Passenger Car; LDV – Light Duty Vehicle; HGV – Heavy Goods Vehicle

Table 5.3.65: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Idling Emission from HKBCF

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Idling emission	PIARC, 2012 USEPA PART5 program for SO2 emission	· Latest HKBCF layout and design obtained from HyD. · Future traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. forecast by Traffic Engineer based on the latest HKBCF layout and design. · Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as at 2 January 2014) has been adopted. · The exhaust technology fractions available in EPD’s website have been adopted. · Mass factor for HGVs and air-conditioning loading factor has been taken into account. · SO2 emission estimation has been based on EMSD Primary Indicator Values and in accordance with USEPA PART5 program.

5.3.4.90 Detailed calculation of idling emission in HKBCF is presented in Appendix 5.3.13. The annual emission inventory for the idling emission from HKBCF is summarised in Table 5.3.66.

Table 5.3.66: Annual Emission Inventory for Idling Emission from BCF at Year 2031

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Idling emission from HKBCF (3RS)	93,347	30,578	71,487	73	1,579	1,579
Idling emission from HKBCF (2RS)	91,166	27,725	63,915	67	1,403	1,403

Note:

[1] Emission rates of all pollutants are derived from EMFAC-HK v2.6

Emission from Planned/ Committed Industrial Sources in Lantau

5.3.4.91 The emission inventories associated with the planned and committed emission sources, i.e. OWTF Phase 1 has been derived from the approved EIA report. Table 5.3.67 summarises the approach to determine idling emission from OWTF Phase 1.

Table 5.3.67: Summary of approach for determination of the emission from other industrial sources in Lantau

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
OWTF Phase 1	Approved EIA Study (AEIAR-149/2010)	Extracted directly from the EIA.

5.3.4.92 Appendix 5.3.14-1 presented the calculation of industrial emissions in Lantau area. The annual emission inventory for Lantau is summarised in Table 5.3.68.

Table 5.3.68: Annual Emission Inventory for Lantau at Year 2031

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP ^[1]
OWTF Phase 1	60,405	701,212	39,641	7,875	7,657	7,657

Note:

[1] FSP emission data is not available. Hence, it is assumed that all RSP emission would be FSP (i.e. 100%) as conservative assumption.

Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Tuen Mun

5.3.4.93 Similarly, vehicular tailpipe emissions from all roads in Tuen Mun area were also calculated by the EMFAC-HK v2.6. The traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. for future assessment years were predicted and forecasted by traffic model. Planned roads in Tuen Mun area including TM-CLKL (entire section) and TMWB have been included for this assessment. The EMFAC-HK model has been separately run for the different road categories which are grouped according to their similarity of nature and driving pattern as shown in Table 5.3.69 and Table 5.3.70. The extent of road networks included in the proximity infrastructure emission for Tuen Mun area is shown in Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-007.

Table 5.3.69: Road Categories for Existing Roads in Tuen Mun Area assumed in EMFAC-HK

Group	Roads
Group 1	Roads with design speed of 70km/h and without cold start (Local Distributor)
Group 2	Roads with design speed of 50km/h and without cold start (District Distributor)
Group 3	Roads with design speed of 50km/h and with cold start (Local Distributor)
Group 4	Roads with design speed of 50km/h and with cold start (Rural Road)

Table 5.3.70: Road Categories for Planned Roads in Tuen Mun Area assumed in EMFAC-HK

Group	Roads
Group 1	Roads with design speed of 80 km/h and without cold start (Expressway / Trunk Road)
Group 2	Roads with design speed of 50 km/h and with cold start (Local Distributor)

5.3.4.94 The latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards, vehicle population, vehicle population forecast, exhaust technology fractions and the calculations of SO₂ emission are described in Sections 5.3.4.64 – 5.3.4.68.

5.3.4.95 Table 5.3.71 summarises the approach for determination of the vehicular emission in Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.71: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Vehicular Emission in Tuen Mun Area

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
Vehicular emission	EMFAC-HK V2.6 USEPA PART5 program for SO2 emission	For existing roads and future planned roads and/or induced traffic including TM-CLKL (entire section) and TMWB (section falls within the study area). Future traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. has been forecasted by traffic model. Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as at 2 January 2014) has been adopted. The exhaust technology fractions available in EPD’s website have been adopted. The default vehicle populations forecast in EMFAC-HK v2.6 has been adopted. SO2 emission estimation has been based on EMSD Primary Indicator Values and in accordance with USEPA PART5 program.

5.3.4.96 Appendix 5.3.11 presented the traffic forecast on roads on Tuen Mun area (including both existing and planned roads), key model assumptions on EMFAC-HK and results and derived emission factors. The annual emission inventory for the vehicular emission from existing and planned road in Tuen Mun is summarised in Table 5.3.72.

Table 5.3.72: Annual Emission Inventory for Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Tuen Mun in Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS

Source	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Vehicular emission in Tuen Mun (3RS)	159,382	9,106	39,701	720	3,391	3,122
Vehicular emission in Tuen Mun (2RS)	156,739	8,908	38,712	708	3,308	3,045

Note:

[1] Emission rates of all pollutants are derived from EMFAC-HK v2.6

Emission from Existing and Planned/ Committed Industrial and Marine Sources in Tuen Mun

5.3.4.97 The emission inventories associated with the existing emission sources such as Shiu Wing Steel Mill, and planned and committed emission sources i.e. EcoPark have been derived from either the relevant approved EIA Studies or the SP Licences, except for PAFF. For PAFF, the same approach as described in earlier section that is by EDMS has been adopted to determine the emission inventory from the PAFF. Table 5.3.73 summarises the approach for determination of the emission from all industrial and marine sources in Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.73: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission from other Industrial and Marine Sources in Tuen Mun area

Emission Sources	Determination Approach	Data required and assumptions
PAFF ^[1]	USEPA AP42 SP licence	· Tank size and dimension, fuel type, annual fuel consumption, average and maximum height of fuel in the storage tank for future years from operators · Fuel tank emission from USEPA AP42 · Extracted directly from the SP licence. · CO and VOC emissions derived from USEPA AP42, assuming CO-to-NOx and VOC-to-NOx ratio are equal to ratio from AP42 Ch.1.3 · Boilers assumed to be industrial distillate oil fired
Shiu Wing Steel Mill	SP licence	· Extracted directly from the SP licence.
Green Island Cement	SP licence USEPA AP42	· Extracted directly from the SP licence. · CO and VOC emissions derived from USEPA AP42, assuming CO-to-NOx and VOC-to-NOx ratio are equal to ratio from AP42 Ch.1.3 · Boilers assumed to be industrial distillate oil fired
Flare at PPVL	Approved EIA Study (AEIAR-146/2009) USEPA AP42	· Extracted directly from the EIA. · CO and VOC emissions derived from USEPA AP42, assuming CO-to-NOx and VOC-to-NOx ratio are equal to ratio from AP42 Ch.13.5 · All RSP emission would be FSP
Butterfly Beach Laundry	Approved EIA Study (AEIAR-146/2009) USEPA AP42	· Extracted directly from the EIA. · VOC emissions derived from USEPA AP42, assuming VOC-to-NOx ratio is equal to ratio from AP42 Ch.1.3 · Boilers assumed to be industrial distillate oil fired
EcoPark	Approved EIA Study (AEIAR-129/2009)	· Extracted directly from the EIA.
Marine-based Emission from RTT	Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, Final Report (EPD, 2012) Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (USEPA, 2009)	· Operation characteristics and existing operating capacity based on questionnaires to the operator and site survey · Emission indices based on Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, EPD, 2012 and Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, USEPA, 2009
Land-based Emission from RTT	USEPA Non-road emission standards	· Operational characteristics based on questionnaires to the operator · Emission indices based on USEPA Tier 4 Non-road emission standards

Note:

[1] VOC emissions from fuel tanks in PAFF are modelled by PATH.

[2] The nearest sensitive receiver is the administrative building underneath the chimney of CPPP. To include the high buoyancy effect of the exhaust for higher accuracy, the chimney emission from CPPP has been incorporated into the PATH model.

5.3.4.98 Appendix 5.3.14-1 and Appendix 5.3.14-2 present the calculation of industrial emissions and marine emissions (from river trade terminal) in Tuen Mun Area respectively. The annual emission inventory for existing and planned / committed industrial and marine sources is summarised in Table 5.3.74.

Table 5.3.74: Annual Emission Inventory for Existing and Planned/ Committed Industrial and Marine Sources in Year 2031

Sources	Annual Emission (kg)
	CO	VOC	NOx	SO2	RSP	FSP
Shiu Wing Steel Mill	2,192,260	215,671	154,264	5,375	150,256	146,256^[2]
Green Island Cement	880,643 ^[3]	44,384 ^[3]	3,522,571	998,745	291,409	194,335 ^[2]
EcoPark	39,420	44,932	189,216	54,873	18,309	18,309 ^[2]
Butterfly Beach Laundry	10,370	523	41,480	1470	2,070	520
Flare at PPVL	7,550 ^[3]	2,857 ^[3]	1,388	454	1,135	1,135 ^[2]
PAFF	63,072 ^[3]	3,179	252,288	473	2,803	2,803 ^[2]
River Trade Terminal	43,943	3,414	60,092	11,890	2,153	2,091

Note:

[1] The extent of the road networks included in the proximity infrastructure emission shall be referred to Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-006 for Lantau area and Drawing No MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-007 for Tuen Mun area.

[2] FSP emission data is not available. Hence it is assumed that all RSP emission would be FSP (i.e. 100%) as conservative assumptions.

[3] Projected VOC and CO based on AP-42 S1.3 VOC to NO_x and CO to NO_x ratios for Industrial distillate oil fired boilers respectively

Pearl River Delta Economic Zone (PRDEZ) Emission

5.3.4.99 The PATH emission inventory for PRDEZ (including emission inventory for Macau) has been recently updated by EPD for Years 2015 and 2020, with consideration of all committed and planned control measures in PRDEZ. According to the 12^th meeting of the Hong Kong-Guangdong Joint Working Group on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection (JWGSDEP) on 23 November 2012, both Hong Kong Government and Guangdong Government endorsed a major air pollutant emission reduction plan for the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region up to 2020 and agreed on key environmental cooperation actions for Year 2013.

5.3.4.100 With respect to the next phase of the emission reduction plan, the two governments endorsed the emission reduction targets for Year 2015, and agreed to set emission reduction ranges for Year 2020. The reduction targets for the four major air pollutants in PRDEZ for Year 2015 and Year 2020 are shown in Table 5.3.75, relative to the emission levels in Year 2010.

Table 5.3.75: Summary of Emission Reduction Targets in PRDEZ

Year	Pollutants (Thousand Tonnes)				References
	SO2	NOx	RSP	VOC
2010	507	889	637	903	The Hong Kong-Guangdong Joint Working Group on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection (JWGSDEP) 12^th meeting, 2012
2015	426	729	573	813
2020	406	711	541	768

5.3.4.101 To achieve the emission reduction targets set for 2015 and 2020, the two governments will implement additional reduction measures focusing on major emission sources with a view to bringing continuous improvement to regional air quality. Key emission reduction measures to be implemented by PRDEZ include:

§ requiring thermal power plants to install low-NO_x and denitrification systems;

§ promoting conversion of oil-fired generating units into gas generating units;

§ enhancing RSP emission control at power plants;

§ promoting the use of National IV standard motor fuels (including petrol and diesel) and tightening diesel vehicle emission standards;

§ phasing out yellow-label vehicles (i.e. petrol vehicles of pre-National emission standard or below and diesel vehicles of National II emission standard or below);

§ phasing out highly polluting industries with low energy efficiency;

§ enhancing emission control on industrial boilers as well as for specific industries (including petrochemical, cement, ceramic, furniture manufacturing, printing, etc.); and

§ setting up a registration and reporting system on the usage and emission control of organic solvents at major enterprises with a view to strengthening VOC emission control.

5.3.4.102 Given that reduction plans beyond Year 2020 for Guangdong Province and PRDEZ are not available, but in view of the continued efforts on reducing emission loadings (as shown in Table 5.3.75 above), further tightening on the emission targets in future years beyond Year 2020 are anticipated. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the emissions will be capped at Year 2020 for a conservative assessment of Year 2031.

HKSAR Emissions

5.3.4.103 The Hong Kong emission inventories in Year 2010 are summarised in the following Table 5.3.76.

Table 5.3.76: Summary of 2010 Hong Kong Emission Inventory

Emission Group	Annual Emission (2010) Tonnes per year
	SO2	NOX	RSP	VOC
Public Electricity Generation	17,800	27,000	1,010	413
Road Transport	286	32,700	1,340	7,900
Navigation	16,900	35,000	2,260	3,660
Civil Aviation	299	4,350	54	396
Other Fuel Combustion	285	9,040	772	818
Non-combustion	N/A	N/A	898	20,100
Total	35,500	108,000	6,290	33,300

Reference: EPD 2010 Emission Inventory (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html)

5.3.4.104 The PATH emission inventory for Hong Kong has been recently updated by EPD for Years 2015 and 2020 based on the emission inventory in Year 2010, with consideration of all committed and planned control measures in Hong Kong. According to the Hong Kong and Guangdong Governments during the 12^th meeting of JWGSDEP, the key emission reduction measures to be implemented by Hong Kong include:

§ tightening of vehicle emission standards;

§ phasing out highly polluting commercial diesel vehicles;

§ retrofitting Euro II and Euro III franchised buses with selective catalytic reduction devices;

§ strengthening inspection and maintenance of petrol and liquefied petroleum gas vehicles;

§ requiring ocean-going vessels to switch to using low sulfur fuel while at berth;

§ tightening the permissible sulfur content level of locally supplied marine diesel;

§ controlling emissions from off-road vehicles/equipment;

§ further tightening of emission caps on power plants and increasing use of clean energy for electricity generation; and

§ controlling VOC contents of solvents used in printing and construction industry.

5.3.4.105 For the worst assessment year at 2031, the Hong Kong emission is estimated based on the best available information or projected with respect to the historical growth trend of the respective activity data for the particular source sector. In general, the emission inventory is projected separately under five main source categories: power generation, industry, transportation, VOCs containing product and others. During the study, TPEDM 2011 was released by PlanD. On comparing the planning parameters between TPEDM 2009 and TPEDM 2011, the TPEDM 2009 would provide a more conservative result and thus was maintained in the present assessment. The approach and methodology of emission projection is summarised in Table 5.3.77.

Table 5.3.77 Approach and Methodology of Emission Projection for HKSAR at Year 2031

Sector grouping	Sources	Approach to Emission projection	Remarks
Power Generation	Power plants	The emission is capped through Specific Licences under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 311).	The emission is assumed capped at Year 2020.
Industry	IDO combustion in Furnace	Forecast is based on population growth as conservative approach.	Based on the historical trend from Census and Statistics Department, there is no increase in manufacturing industries.
	Towngas combustion	Forecast is based on population growth as conservative approach.	Based on the historical trend from Census and Statistics Department, there is no increase in manufacturing industries.
	Chemical / rubber / plastics; Printing; Manufacture light industry; Food and beverage; Mining / mineral extraction; Non-metallic mineral product	Forecast is based on population growth as conservative approach.	Based on the historical trend from Census and Statistics Department, there is no increase in manufacturing industries.
	Petrol distribution and handling	Forecast is based on population growth as conservative approach.	It is assumed that the use of petrol will co-relate with the number of vehicles, which is related to population.
	Construction Industry	Forecast is based on population growth as conservative approach.	Although there is growth in Consumption of materials and supplies, fuels, electricity and water, and maintenance services in recent year, the long term trend is decreasing (from Census and Statistics Department).
Transportation	Motor vehicles	Emissions from motor vehicles are predicted using EPD’s EMFAC-HK V 2.6. The VKTs for future years is forecasted using Arup’s in-house Territory Transport Model (i.e. CTS model). The road network assumptions adopted is based on committed government highway development plan, recommendations from various planning studies and advices from Transport Department.	-
	Tyre Wear and Petrol evaporation	Forecast is based on population growth as conservative approach.	It is assumed that tyre wear and petrol evaporation will co-relate with the number of vehicles, which is related to population.
	Marine vessel	Emission is projected using marine growth rate as projection surrogate taking into account the latest emission control strategy.	The growth trend on marine vessels was determined from Port of Hong Kong Statistic, Marine Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared under the Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment study for Airport Master Plan 2030 (See Appendix 5.3.18-1 for details)
	Off road mobile sources and machinery	Forecast is based on population growth as conservative approach.	For off road mobile sources and machinery, the emission will be capped since there is only limited number of off road mobile sources and machinery (diesel locomotives) operated in HKSAR
VOC containing product	Domestic and commercial aerosols; Paint application	Emission was projected with respect to the forecast population growth in Hong Kong, taking into account the latest VOC control policy.	-
Miscellaneous	Commercial and domestic fuel consumption Waste incineration Pesticide application	Same as methodology for VOC containing product.	-

Note [1]: The planning assumptions of 2009-based TPEDM have been compared with the 2011-based TPEDM and were found slightly conservative. Hence, the vehicular emission developed under 2009-based TPEDM was maintained in this air quality assessment

5.3.4.106 The above mentioned approach of emission projection is adopted in this assessment and the Year 2031 Hong Kong emission inventory is summarised in Table 5.3.78 and the detailed breakdown of the inventory is shown in Appendix 5.3.18:

Table 5.3.78: Summary of 2031 Hong Kong Emission Inventory for the PATH Model

Emission Group	Annual Emission (2031) Tonnes per year
	SO2	NOX	RSP	VOC
Public Electricity Generation	10,399	25,950	750	397
Road Transport (3RS)	231	4,360	261	929
Navigation	3,710	33,897	933	4,323
Other Fuel Combustion^[1]	309	10,993	898	980
Non-combustion	0	0	1,037	23,673

Note [1]: Exclude IWMF, STF and Proximity Infrastructure Emissions listed in Table 5.3.74.

5.3.5 Operation Phase Air Quality Assessment Methodology

General Approach

5.3.5.1 The modelling techniques adopted to assess the operation air quality impacts at the representative ASRs are shown in Table 5.3.79:

Table 5.3.79: Modelling Techniques Adoped to Assess the Operation Air Quality Impacts

ASR	Airport Related Activities	Proximity Infrastructures (Tung Chung)	Proximity Infrastructures (Tuen Mun)	Ambient
Lantau area	AERMOD	CALINE4 / AERMOD	PATH	PATH
Tuen Mun area	PATH	PATH (incl. CPPP)	CALINE4 / AERMOD (except CPPP)	PATH

5.3.5.2 Modelling details are summarised in the following sections.

Airport Related Emissions

5.3.5.3 For the ASRs at the airport and in Lantau area, AERMOD model (Version 12345) and CALINE4 model for vehicular emissions have been used to assess the air quality impact from major airport related activities. The AERMOD models basically allow three types of sources: Point, Area and Volume. Hence, the emission sources at HKIA are modelled as one of the three sources according to their source emission characteristics.

5.3.5.4 With the proposed 3RS in operation, there would be about 141,000 workers working in the airport island in Year 2030 (Airport Master Plan 2030). The total population in Tung Chung will be more than 200,000 in Year 2031. Due to the high population among the area, the airport related emission sources was considered as urban in the AERMOD model.

5.3.5.5 Grid-specific composite meteorological data extracted from the EPD’s PATH model is adopted in AERMOD model, including relevant temperature, wind speed, wind direction, etc. Mixing heights deduced from AERMET that are lower than the lowest mixing height recorded by the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) in Year 2010 (i.e. 121 m) is capped at 121 m to align with the real meteorological data. Similarly, mixing heights deduced from AERMET that are higher are capped at 1667 m as per the highest mixing height recorded. Surface roughness is separated into 12 zones with heights correspond to the land use characteristics.

5.3.5.6 Given the chemical reaction in long distance transportation for the ASRs in Tuen Mun, the airport related emission has been modelled by the PATH model.

5.3.5.7 The LTO cycle, which consists of four modes, has been modelled according to their source emission characteristics as summarised in Table 5.3.80.

Table 5.3.80: Emission Characteristics of different Time-in-Modes

Time in Modes	Emission characteristics and modelling
Take-off	· Hourly emission load at Year 2031 has been spatially distributed as area sources according to the respective take-off runways and flight paths determined from 2011 radar data and site survey, subject to the head wind direction and operation constraint from noise mitigation measures listed in Section 7.3.5. · The ICAO definition for the take-off mode is the time elapsed of aircraft acceleration start on the runway to 300 m above the ground level. Emission is thus elevated from groundborne to airborne. · Airborne and groundborne portions of emissions are distributed according to their time ratio. Details are given in Appendix 5.3.1-3.
Climb-out	· Hourly emission load at Year 2031 has been spatially distributed as area sources according to the respective climb-out flight paths starting from around 300 m above ground to mixing height, subject to the head wind direction and operation constraint from noise mitigation measures listed in Section 7.3.5.
Approach	· Hourly emission load at Year 2031 has been spatially distributed as area sources according to the respective approach runways and approach angle from mixing height to wheel touch down, subject to head wind direction and operation constraint from noise mitigation measures listed in Section 7.3.5.
Taxiing	· Hourly emission load at Year 2031 has been distributed evenly amongst the taxiways as area sources. The taxi-in and taxi-out times were determined from TAAM models and the runway direction basing on head wind direction and operation constraint from noise mitigation measures listed in Section 7.3.5.

5.3.5.8 Regular maintenance on each runway under the 3RS will be undertaken during 1:00am to 8:00am every day. Three runway utilisation modes (Table 5.3.81) were thus proposed by AAHK to handle the aircraft traffic during the maintenance period. Under Scenario 1, aircraft arrivals and departures during 0100 am - 0759 am will occur at the northern runway which is relatively closer to the air sensitive uses in Tuen Mun area. Under Scenario 2, aircraft arrival and departure will occur at the centre runway during 0100am-0759am and south runway which is relatively closer to the air sensitive uses in Tung Chung area. Under Scenario 3, the runway utilisation is similar to that of the scenario 2, except that the aircraft arrival will also occur at the Northern runway during 0700am-0759am.

5.3.5.9 On comparing the sensitive uses in Tuen Mun and Tung Chung area, the sensitive uses in Tuen Mun area are mainly industrial type (i.e. majority of workers with working hours of around 8 - 12 hours per day). Given the sensitive uses in Tung Chung are of residential type, Scenario 2 is therefore selected as the worst case scenario for the purpose of this operation air quality impact assessment.

Table 5.3.81: Runway Utilisation Modes

Time Period	North Runway	Centre Runway	South Runway
Scenario 1
00:00 – 00:59	Arrival	Departure	Stand-by
01:00 – 01:59	Arrival and Departure	Maintenance	Stand-by
02:00 – 05:59	Arrival and Departure	Maintenance	Stand-by
06:00 – 06:59	Arrival and Departure	Maintenance	Stand-by
07:00 – 07:59	Arrival	Maintenance	Departure
08:00 – 22:59	Arrival	Departure	Arrival and Departure
23:00 – 23:59	Arrival	Departure	Stand-by
Scenario 2
00:00 – 00:59	Arrival	Departure	Stand-by
01:00 – 01:59	Maintenance	Arrival and Departure	Stand-by
02:00 – 05:59	Maintenance	Arrival and Departure	Stand-by
06:00 – 06:59	Maintenance	Arrival and Departure	Stand-by
07:00 – 07:59	Maintenance	Departure	Arrival
08:00 – 22:59	Arrival	Departure	Arrival and Departure
23:00 – 23:59	Arrival	Departure	Stand-by
Scenario 3
00:00 – 00:59	Arrival	Departure	Stand-by
01:00 – 01:59	Stand-by	Arrival and Departure	Maintenance
02:00 – 05:59	Stand-by	Arrival and Departure	Maintenance
06:00 – 06:59	Stand-by	Arrival and Departure	Maintenance
07:00 – 07:59	Arrival	Departure	Maintenance
08:00 – 22:59	Arrival	Departure	Arrival and Departure
23:00 – 23:59	Arrival	Departure	Stand-by

5.3.5.10 For other source types including GSE, APU, car parks, engine testing, fuel tanks, fire training, catering and helicopter, the modelling emission characteristics are summarised in Table 5.3.82 below.

Table 5.3.82: Emission Characteristics of other Emission Sources

Sources	Emission characteristics and Modelling
GSE and APU	· GSE emission from cargo freight and passenger flight emission loads have been distributed as area sources to the aircraft stand location and along taxiways for stand movement.
Vehicle Parking	· Emission from single storey open space car park has been distributed into an area source. · Emission from multi storey car park with roof has been distributed as volume source on all 4 sides of the car park façade surfaces.
Engine Testing	· Engine run up testing emission has been modelled as area source at their respective designated location.
Fuel Tank	· Each fuel tank has been modelled as an individual point source.
Fire Training	· The fire pit has been modelled as point source.
Catering	· Chimney emission generated from catering has been modelled as point source.
GFS Helicopter	· Typical helicopter emission load has been spatially distributed along the helicopter flight paths in Hong Kong provided by GFS as area sources.
Marine Vessels	· Marine emission generated has been modelled as point source based on the navigation routes identified site survey and in Marine Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared under the Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment study for Airport Master Plan 2030.
Roads on the Airport Island	· Vehicular emission has been modelled as line source according to the road layout

Note:

[1] The height of the aircraft sources (e.g. APU, GFS helicopter, Engine Testing) has been determined from the physical dimension, together with the plume rise based from FAA-AEE -04-01 “Final Report on the Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume Width”.

5.3.5.11 Table 5.3.83 to Table 5.3.92 summarise the assumptions and input parameters for different modelling sources. Details of the modelling parameters are given in Appendix 5.3.15-1. The airport related emission source locations are shown in Appendix 5.3.15-2.

Table 5.3.83: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Aircraft

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Area
Plume Spread Width	73.16 m ^[^1^]
Vertical Plume Spread	4.1 m ^[2]
Emission Variation	AERMOD Hourly Emission files
Height of Source	14.93 m ^[3] above the flight Path

Note:

[1] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume Width”, the standard derivation (SD) for horizontal plume width is 10.5m for each engine regardless of aircraft type. Plume spread width for aircraft is therefore determined by summation of the distance between two outermost engines of B747-400 (41.66 m) and 3 x SD, corresponding to 99% confidence level.

[2] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume width”, SD for vertical plume spread is 4.1 m regardless of aircraft type.

[3] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume Width”, the plume rise is 12 m regardless of aircraft type. The engine height is 2.93m. Summation of plume rise and engine height (14.93m) is the height of source.

Table 5.3.84: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for GSE equipment

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Area
Emission Area	Individual Stand and Taxiway areas
Vertical Plume Spread	3 m (EDMS Technical Manual)
Emission Variation	AERMOD Hourly Emission files
Height of Source	0.5 m above ground

Table 5.3.85: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for APU

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Area
Emission Area	Individual Stand and Taxiway Areas
Vertical Plume Spread	3 m (EDMS Technical Manual)
Emission Variation	AERMOD Hourly Emission files
Height of Source	17 m above ground ^[1]

Note:

[1] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume width”, plume rise is 12 m regardless of aircraft type. The APU height above ground is 5 m

Table 5.3.86: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Open Space Car Parks

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Area
Emission Area	Actual car park area
Vertical Plume Spread	3 m (EDMS Technical Manual)
Emission Variation	Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles
Height of Source	0.5 m above ground

Table 5.3.87: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Multi-storey Car Parks

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Volume
Plume Spread Width	5.81 - 11.16 m ^[1]
Vertical Plume Spread	6.25 – 12 m ^[2]
Model length	12.5 - 24 m ^[3]
Emission Variation	Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles where available
Height of Source	The middle storey of the car park building

Note:

[1] According to AERMOD’s User’s Guide Table 3-1, plume spread width is determined by centre-to-centre distance between 2 adjoining volume sources divided by 2.15.

[2] According to AERMOD’s User’s Guide Table 3-1, vertical plume spread is determined from building height divided by 2.15.

[3] Model length is equal to the building height of the car park.

Table 5.3.88: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Underground Car Parks

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Point
Temperature	303 K ^[1]
Gas velocity	5 m/s ^[1]
Diameter	5.8 m ^[1]
Emission Variation	Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles where available
Height of Source	5 m above around ^[1]

Note:

[1] Exit temperature, gas velocity, ventilation building diameter and height are based on information from approved EIAs for "Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities”

Table 5.3.89: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Catering

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Point
Temperature	373 K ^[1]
Gas velocity	6 m/s[^[1]
Diameter	0.65m
Emission Variation	Flat Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles
Height of Source	35.9m above ground

Note:

[1] Since gas velocity and temperature are not available from the operator, these parameters are based on the “Guidelines on Estimating Height Restriction and Position of Fresh Air Intake Using Gaussian Plume Models” by EPD.

Table 5.3.90: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Fire Training

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Point
Temperature	116 K above ambient ^[1]
Gas velocity	11.2 m/s ^[1]
Diameter	25 m ^[^2^]
Emission Variation	Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles
Height of Source	19.2 m above ground ^[^3^]

Note:

[1] Gas velocity and temperature are determined by equations derived from fire dynamics. Fire size in kW is calculated according to CIBSE TM19: 1995. Details on the parameters adopted are given in Appendix 5.3.15-1.

[2] Based on size of the fire training simulator: http://www.hkfsd.gov.hk/home/eng/airport/.

[3] Based on height of the fire training simulator and B747-400 and various external and internal fire scenarios in FSD website: http://www.hkfsd.gov.hk/home/eng/airport/.

Table 5.3.91: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Engine Run-up Testing

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Area
Emission Area	100 m x 440 m ^[1]
Vertical Plume Spread	4.1m ^[^2^]
Emission Variation	Hourly Emission ^[^3^]
Height of Source	14.93m above ground^[^4^]

Note:

[1] Width = 100 m is based on the size of the engine run up test facility. Length = 440 m is on the weighted average of the distance extracted from jet engine exhaust velocity contour for the 8 most tested aircraft types, which weighs more than 90% of the total aircrafts tested.

[2] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume width” , SD for vertical plume spread is 4.1 m regardless of aircraft type.

[3] Hourly emission rates are calculated for each hour based on engine run up test records provided by AAHK and HAECO for Year 2011.

[4] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume width”, plume rise is 12m regardless of aircraft type with assumed engine height at 2.93 m above ground based on B747-400.

Table 5.3.92: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Marine Vessel

Field	Assumption and Input Parameters
Sources Type	Point
Temperature	588 – 773 K ^[1]
Gas Velocity	8 m/s ^[^2^]
Diameter	0.2 – 0.7 m ^[^3^]
Emission Variation	Daily Profile
Height of Source	6.2 – 11 m ^[^4^]

Note:

[1] According to information from approved EIAs for "Expansion of Heliport Facilities at Macau Ferry Terminal" and “Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase I”, exit temperature for passenger ferries and barges are 773 K and 588 K respectively.

[2] According to information from approved EIAs for “Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase I”, gas velocity is 8 m/s.

[3] According to information from approved EIAs for "Expansion of Heliport Facilities at Macau Ferry Terminal" and “Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase I”, chimney diameter for passenger ferries and barges are 0.7 m and 0.2 m respectively.

[4] According to information from approved EIAs for "Expansion of Heliport Facilities at Macau Ferry Terminal" and “Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase I”, exit temperature for passenger ferries and barges are 6.2 m and 11 m respectively.

Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads

5.3.5.12 For the ASRs on the airport island and in North Lantau, CALINE4 model has been used to predict air pollutants impact at ASRs near open roadways by taking into account the composite emission factor generated from EMFAC-HK v2.6 model. The composite vehicular emission factor for each road link in the assessment Year 2031 is given in Appendix 5.3.15-3. Roadways are divided into a series of segments from which individual concentrations are computed and then summed to give the cumulative concentration at the ASRs.

5.3.5.13 Grid-specific composite real meteorological data extracted from EPD’s PATH model are adopted in the CALINE4 model, including relevant temperature, wind speed, direction and mixing height. The stability classes were obtained from a separate PCRAMMET model. The mixing height was capped to 121 m corresponding to the real meteorological data. To handle the hours with calm wind during modelling, the approach recommended in the "Guideline on Air Quality on Air Quality Models Version 05" has been adopted.

5.3.5.14 The surface roughness height is closely related to the land use characteristics and it will affect the mixing of the pollutants. The surface roughness, together with the wind standard deviation, were estimated in accordance with the “Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), 1986”.

5.3.5.15 The spatial distribution of the road works has been modelled as line sources. Owing to the constraint of the CALINE4 model in modelling elevated roads higher than 10 m, the road heights of elevated road sections in excess of 10 m high above local ground or water surface are set to 10 m in the model as the worst-case assumption. For barriers along roads (e.g. the existing noise barriers along the NLH near existing Tung Chung area), the source height has been modelled at the tip of the barrier and the mixing width will be limited to the actual road width. The road type of the concerned sections is set to the “fill” option.

Vehicular Emission from Tunnel Portals / Ventilation Building

5.3.5.16 For tunnels (e.g. section of TM-CLKL, airside tunnel), the effect of portal emission and emission from ventilation building have been considered. The hourly emission rate was obtained by multiplying the emission strength (g/mile/veh) by the products of traffic flow (veh/hr) and tunnel/enclosure length (mile). The portal emission was modelled in accordance with the PIARC guideline. The emission was then modelled as volume sources by AERMOD.  For the emission from ventilation building, it was modeled as point or volume sources according to the design.Detailed calculation of emissions from tunnel portal and ventilation buildings is provided in Appendix 5.3.15-4.

Vehicular Emission from Idling Vehicles

5.3.5.17 Vehicular emission at kiosks and loading / unloading bays at the HZMB-HKBCF were also considered. The emission rates were related to the number of vehicles, the waiting and processing time at the kiosks and the loading / unloading bays. With reference to the approved EIA for HZMB-BCF, the idling emission was estimated based on the emission factors for different Euro engine types under different travelling speeds and gradients presented in the latest report “Road Tunnels: Vehicle Emissions and Air Demand for Ventilation” published by the Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC, 2012). The emission was modelled by CALINE4. Details of idling emissions at kiosks and loading / unloading bays are given in Appendix 5.3.15-5.

5.3.5.18 For the ASRs in Tuen Mun, the vehicular emission from existing and planned roads in North Lantau has been included as input to the PATH model for dispersion modelling.

Emission from Existing and Planned/ Committed Industrial Sources

5.3.5.19 Potential chimney emission sources in the vicinity, including, Green Island Cement Plant and Shiu Wing Steel Mill etc., have been included in proximity infrastructure emission (i.e. modelled by near-field dispersion model). The emission characteristics are based on available reference from EIA reports and EPD modelling guideline. AERMOD model has been adopted for the pollutant dispersion modelling. A summary of the industrial emissions from proximity infrastructures is given in Appendix 5.3.15-6. For the chimney from CLP Castle Peak Power Plant, potential affected ASRs in the vicinity (apart from the administrative building inside the CPPP site) are beyond 500 m from the CPPP chimneys. Given that the plume from the chimney will be dispersed at height above 200 m and this will have less influence on the administrative building inside the CPPP site, the effect of chimney is thus incorporated in the PATH model for modelling.

Emission from Existing Marine Sources

5.3.5.20 Potential marine sources in the vicinity include the vessels emission in the River Trade Terminal. The marine emission has been modelled as point sources in the AERMOD model. Summary of marine emissions from proximity infrastructures is given in Appendix 5.3.15-6.

Ambient Air Quality Impact

5.3.5.21 The PATH model was used to quantify the background air quality during the operational phase of the project. An emission inventory for PATH has been projected for Year 2031, which has been agreed with EPD. It should be noted that vehicular emissions at local scale (i.e. the road networks within the study area) and airport emissions are modelled by near-field dispersion models CALINE and AERMOD respectively. Another set of PATH model has been re-run, with the above mentioned emission sources removed from the concerned grids to avoid over-estimation. With the updated PATH model, the background concentrations of all concerned pollutants (NO₂, O₃, CO, RSP, and SO₂) for the concerned grids which cover the study areas of this project at Year 2031 are extracted in Appendix 5.3.15-7.

Cumulative Impact

5.3.5.22 Modelling results from PATH, AERMOD and CALINE4 models have been combined hour by hour to compute cumulative concentrations. The applicable 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour and annual concentrations of pollutants at each ASR corresponding to 10 different levels (1.5 m, 5 m, 10 m, 20 m, 30 m, 40 m, 50 m, 60 m, 70 m and 80 m above ground) are determined. The conversion of NO₂, FSP and 10-min SO₂ are discussed in the following sub-sections. The predicted cumulative impact was then compared with the prevailing and AQOs for compliance checking.

Nitrogen Dioxide

5.3.5.23 Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) has been adopted to determine the NO₂ levels at the ASRs. OLM has been applied to major sources (including airport operation emissions as a whole, and proximity infrastructural development) for NO₂ calculation. The NO_x concentrations at the receivers from respective grouped sources are calculated from the AERMOD and CALINE4 models. The hourly ozone concentrations at the receivers are determined from PATH. The hourly NO_x concentrations are then converted to NO₂ according to method proposed by the USEPA draft paper on “Use of the OLM for estimating NO₂ concentration”. The conversion formulas are listed below:

Aircraft related emission sources (grouped)

[NO₂]_pred = R_i x [NO_X]_pred + MIN {(1-R_i) x [NO_X]_pred , or (46/48) x [O₃]_bkgd}

where

Mode	Ri - Initial NO2 / NOx ratio from aircraft engine exhaust
Take-off^[1]	5.3 %
Climb-out	5.3%
Approach	15%
Taxi- in and Taxi-out	37.5%

Source: Revised Emissions Methodology for Heathrow - Base year 2002, 2007

Note [1]: According to Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow - Report of the Air Quality

Technical Panels (2006), the NO₂ / NO_x for take-off mode is 4.5%. In our assessment, take-off and climb-out modes are in the same group for OLM processing. Hence, 5.3% was adopted are both mode for conservative assessment purpose

Industrial/ marine emission sources:

[NO₂]_pred = 0.1 x [NO_X]_pred + MIN {0.925 x [NO_X]_pred , or (46/48) x [O₃]_bkgd}

Vehicular emission sources (grouped)

[NO₂]_pred = 0.075 x [NO_X]_pred + MIN {0.925 x [NO_X]_pred , or (46/48) x [O₃]_bkgd}

where

[NO₂]_pred is the predicted NO₂ concentration

[NO_X]_pred is the predicted NO_X concentration

MIN means the minimum of the two values within the brackets

[O₃]_bkgd is the representative O₃ background concentration (The ozone concentration has been determined from PATH model with airport emission incorporated)

(46/48) is the molecular weight of NO₂ divided by the molecular weight of O₃

Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP)

5.3.5.24 In accordance with EPD guidelines, the following conservative formulae in Table 5.3.93 are adopted to determine the ambient concentration for FSP. In respect of proximity infrastructure and airport related activities, the FSP concentrations are determined by the near-field model.

Table 5.3.93: Conversion Factor for RSP/FSP

Annual (µg/m^3)	Daily (µg/m^3)
FSP = 0.71 x RSP	FSP = 0.75 x RSP

Sulfur Dioxides

5.3.5.25 The SO₂ (10 minutes) are computed according to EPD guideline. The following stability class-dependent multiplicative factors from Duffee et al. (1991) have been widely used and adopted.

Table 5.3.94: Conversion Factors for 1-hour to 10-minutes SO₂ Concentrations

Stability Class	A	B	C	D	E	F
Conversion Factor	2.45	2.45	1.82	1.43	1.35	1.35

5.3.5.26 Hourly stability classes as determined by the PCRAMMET are adopted for calculating the 10-minutes average SO₂ concentrations.

Model Validation

5.3.5.27 The above mentioned modelling parameters, assumptions and approaches of the operational phase air quality assessment have been incorporated into the dispersion models to simulate the Year 2011 scenario. The details of the model validation are shown in Appendix 5.3.19-1. The modelling results were compared with the monitoring results at Airport PH5 Air Quality Monitoring Station under the North / North Western Wind direction in Year 2011. Modelling results were found in general higher than the monitoring data. This further supports that the above modelling assumptions and parameters as a whole are conservative and would not underestimate the prediction.

5.3.6 Evaluation and Assessment of Operational Phase Air Quality Impact

5.3.6.1 The maximum cumulative NO₂, RSP, FSP, SO₂ and CO concentrations for 3RS scenario at each ASR, the incremental change with 2RS scenario at key areas and the detailed breakdown at representative ASRs at the worst hit level have been assessed and the results are presented in Table 5.3.95 to Table 5.3.113. Detailed results at each ASR and air assessment point level under 3RS scenario and 2RS scenario are presented in Appendix 5.3.16-1 to Appendix 5.3.17-5.

Table 5.3.95: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and Annual Average NO₂ Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations)

ASR ID	Location	Max. 1-hour NO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	19th Max. 1 hr Concentration (µg/m^3)	Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)
AQO (Number of exceedances allowed)		200 (18)	200	40
HKBCF
BCF-1	Planned Passenger Building	197 (0)	161	39
Tung Chung
TC-1	Caribbean Coast Block 1	225 (2)	128	28
TC-2	Caribbean Coast Block 6	220 (2)	126	28
TC-3	Caribbean Coast Block 11	218 (2)	126	28
TC-4	Caribbean Coast Block 16	219 (2)	127	28
TC-5	Ho Yu College	230 (3)	130	27
TC-6	Ho Yu Primary School	226 (2)	130	27
TC-7	Coastal Skyline Block 1	215 (2)	126	28
TC-8	Coastal Skyline Block 5	206 (1)	132	29
TC-9	La Rossa Block B	209 (1)	136	29
TC-10	Le Bleu Deux Block 1	220 (1)	137	28
TC-11	Le Bleu Deux Block 3	219 (1)	134	28
TC-12	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	217 (1)	133	27
TC-13	Seaview Crescent Block 1	216 (1)	141	29
TC-14	Seaview Crescent Block 3	215 (1)	142	29
TC-15	Seaview Crescent Block 5	213 (1)	141	29
TC-16	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	208 (1)	134	31
TC-17	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	207 (1)	133	31
TC-18	Tung Chung Public Library	209 (1)	137	31
TC-19	Tung Chung North Park	217 (2)	127	32
TC-20	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	210 (1)	140	30
TC-21	One Citygate	211 (2)	142	30
TC-22	One Citygate Bridge	221 (4)	151	33
TC-23	Fu Tung Shopping Centre	245 (1)	117	27
TC-24	Tung Chung Health Centre and Air Quality Monitoring Station	267 (1)	120	27
TC-25	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	255 (1)	116	26
TC-26	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	232 (1)	116	26
TC-27	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	219 (1)	114	26
TC-28	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	243 (1)	114	27
TC-29	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	219 (1)	114	26
TC-30	Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House	224 (1)	115	26
TC-31	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	222 (1)	115	26
TC-32	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	245 (1)	120	27
TC-33	Tung Chung Crescent Block 1	231 (1)	118	30
TC-34	Tung Chung Crescent Block 3	225 (1)	115	27
TC-35	Tung Chung Crescent Block 5	230 (1)	115	26
TC-36	Tung Chung Crescent Block 7	243 (1)	120	27
TC-37	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	267 (1)	123	29
TC-38	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	198 (0)	111	24
TC-39	Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House	188 (0)	112	25
TC-40	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	180 (0)	112	25
TC-41	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	171 (0)	112	24
TC-42	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	165 (0)	112	24
TC-43	Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House	170 (0)	112	24
TC-44	Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House	186 (0)	112	24
TC-45	Village house at Ma Wan Chung	216 (1)	112	24
TC-46	Ma Wan New Village	214 (1)	112	23
TC-47	Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarden	187 (0)	111	23
TC-48	Sheung Ling Pei	173 (0)	110	23
TC-49	Tung Chung Public School	166 (0)	110	23
TC-50	Ha Ling Pei	170 (0)	111	24
TC-51	Lung Tseung Tau	221 (1)	110	22
TC-52	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	241 (2)	125	26
TC-53	Hau Wong Temple	170 (0)	121	26
TC-54	Sha Tsui Tau	173 (0)	112	23
TC-55	Ngan Au	228 (2)	123	26
TC-56	Shek Lau Po	230 (2)	121	25
TC-57	Mo Ka	214 (2)	121	25
TC-58	Shek Mun Kap	218 (2)	121	25
TC-59	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	206 (2)	121	25
TC-P1	Planned North Lantau Hospital	199 (0)	112	25
TC-P2	Planned Park near One Citygate	209 (1)	143	31
TC-P5	Tung Chung West Development	223 (1)	130	28
TC-P6	Tung Chung West Development	234 (1)	114	25
TC-P7	Tung Chung West Development	203 (1)	147	30
TC-P8	Tung Chung East Development	230 (2)	131	26
TC-P9	Tung Chung East Development	222 (2)	134	25
TC-P10	Tung Chung East Development	207 (1)	134	27
TC-P11	Tung Chung East Development	187 (0)	135	27
TC-P12	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	221 (2)	134	28
TC-P13	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	237 (3)	137	27
TC-P14	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	223 (2)	128	27
TC-P15	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	232 (2)	133	27
TC-P16	Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School	224 (2)	128	27
TC-P17	Tung Chung Area 39	171 (0)	112	23
San Tau
ST-1	Village house at Tin Sum	218 (2)	152	31
ST-2	Village house at Kau Liu	222 (2)	155	31
ST-3	Village house at San Tau	204 (2)	143	30
Sha Lo Wan
SLW-1	Sha Lo Wan House No.1	304 (18)	196	36
SLW-2	Sha Lo Wan House No.5	310 (11)	188	33
SLW-3	Sha Lo Wan House No.9	278 (9)	176	30
SLW-4	Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan	312 (9)	178	31
San Shek Wan
SSW-1	San Shek Wan	212 (2)	153	27
Sham Wat
SW-1	Sham Wat House No. 39	201 (1)	125	22
SW-2	Sham Wat House No. 30	227 (3)	139	21
Siu Ho Wan
SHW-1	Village house at Pak Mong	248 (2)	123	24
SHW-2	Village house at Ngau Kwu Long	200 (1)	124	24
SHW-3	Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen	247 (6)	148	23
SHW-4	Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot	186 (0)	133	30
SHW-5	Tin Liu Village	201 (1)	121	24
Proposed Lantau Logistic Park
LLP-P1	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1	194 (0)	132	28
LLP-P2	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 2	166 (0)	134	27
LLP-P3	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 3	166 (0)	131	26
LLP-P4	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 4	166 (0)	131	27
Tuen Mun
TM-7	Tuen Mun Fireboat Station	209 (3)	155	34
TM-8	DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works	216 (4)	156	37
TM-9	EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station	217 (7)	149	38
TM-10	Pillar Point Fire Station	216 (3)	154	38
TM-11	Butterfly Beach Laundry	210 (2)	148	33
TM-12	River Trade Terminal	218 (4)	151	38
TM-13	Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank	208 (2)	134	35
TM-14	EcoPark Administration Building	211 (3)	138	36
TM-15	Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building	214 (4)	136	33
TM-16	Customs and Excise Department Harbour River Trade Division	216 (4)	159	37
TM-17	Saw Mil Number 61-69	213 (5)	161	37
TM-18	Saw Mil Number 35-49	209 (5)	158	36
TM-19	Ho Yeung Street Number 22	209 (2)	149	34

Note:

[1] Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedance against the AQO.

[2] Bolded values mean exceedance of the relevant AQO.

Table 5.3.96:The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 1-hour, 19^th Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and Annual Average NO₂ Concentrations at Representative ASRs

Area	Max. 1-hour NO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	19th Max. 1-hour NO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)
BCF	(-3)	5	1
Tung Chung	(-11) – 39	0 - 17	0 - 1
Tung Chung West	(-17) - 41	1 - 9	0
Tung Chung East	(-4) - 38	1 - 10	0
Sha Lo Wan	(-3) - 93	8 - 21	(-3) - 0
Siu Ho Wan	(-1) - 83	(-1) - 15	0 - 1
Tuen Mun	(-1) - 5	0 - 3	0

5.3.6.2 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 1-hour NO₂ concentrations at the representative ASRs are in the range of 165 to 312 µg/m³ with the highest 1-hour NO₂ concentration found at ASR SLW-4 (Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan). The predicted number of exceedance against the AQO is around 0 - 18. No non-compliance against the AQO is predicted at all identified ASRs.

5.3.6.3 The predicted cumulative annual NO₂ concentrations at ASRs are in the range of 21 to 39 µg/m³. The highest annual cumulative NO₂ concentration is found at BCF-1 (Planned Passenger Building). No non-compliance against the AQO is predicted at the ASRs. It should be noted that the assessment point of BCF is located at 15 m above ground as the fresh air intake will be located at 15 mAG.

5.3.6.4 The cumulative NO₂ concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-1. The incremental changes of concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are minor for majority of ASRs and the results are shown in Table 5.3.96. The predicted maximum incremental concentration changes for 1-hr NO₂, 19^th highest NO₂ and annual NO₂ are 93, 21 and 1 µg/m³ respectively. Except Sha Lo Wan, the incremental change of annual concentration between 3RS and 2RS is less than 1 µg/m³, indicating that the impact of 3RS is not significant. For Sha Lo Wan, there is a net benefit (i.e. -3 µg/m³) due to the 3RS and the contributing factors include:

§ Shifting of dominant aircraft departure from the south runway (2RS scenario) to the centre runway (3RS scenario); and

§ Assigning the existing south runway as standby mode wherever practicable during the night-time period between 2300 and 0659.

5.3.6.5 Table 5.3.97 to Table 5.3.99 further illustrate the breakdown of 1-hr NO₂, 19^th highest 1-hr NO₂ and annual NO₂ concentrations at different areas.

Table 5.3.97: 1-hr NO₂ concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	92	1	104	197
Tung Chung	TC-24	175	59	33	267
Tung Chung West	TC- P6	184	17	33	234
Tung Chung East	TC-P13	123	18	96	237
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-4	269	4	39	312
Tuen Mun	TM-12	2[1]	7	209	218

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.98: 19^th highest 1-hr NO₂ concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	48	5	108	161
Tung Chung	TC-22	85	7	59	151
Tung Chung West	TC-P7	97	44	6	147
Tung Chung East	TC-P13	65	16	56	137
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	183	7	6	196
Tuen Mun	TM-17	4[1]	4	153	161

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.99: Annual NO₂ concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	4	11	24	39
Tung Chung	TC-22	2	9	22	33
Tung Chung West	TC-P7	2	6	22	30
Tung Chung East	TC-P12	2	4	22	28
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	12	4	20	36
Tuen Mun	TM-10	2[1]	9	27	38

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

5.3.6.6 Based on Table 5.3.97 and Table 5.3.98, the major NO₂ contributor to the cumulative 1-hr NO₂ depends on the location and wind direction. Based on Table 5.3.99, the dominant emission sources are from the ambient emission, which contributes in most cases more than 60% of the total concentration. This is followed by proximity infrastructure emission (10 – 30%) and airport emission (< 10%), except for Sha Lo Wan. For Sha Lo Wan, the contribution due to ambient, airport related emission and proximity infrastructure emission are around 56%, 33% and 11%.

5.3.6.7 Contours of cumulative maximum 1-hour, 19^th highest 1-hour, and annual NO₂ concentrations in Lantau area and Tuen Mun area at 1.5 m above ground are illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132A/EIA/5-3-008 – 013. No air sensitive uses within the assessment area with exceedance of the AQOs are observed.

5.3.6.8 Nevertheless exceedances of NO₂ criteria are observed within the airport boundary, in part of BCF island and Tap Shek Kok industrial area for 19^th highest NO₂ and annual NO₂. Those exceedance inside the airside is due to the airport related emission (such as aircraft, GSE, APU, etc.). The exceedance in BCF island is due to the vehicular emission during vehicle running and idling. The exceedance in Tap Shek Kok Area is due to the industrial, vehicular and marine emission in the vicinity of these areas. Based on the latest available information, no air sensitive development is identified within these areas and adverse residual air quality impact is thus not anticipated.

Table 5.3.100: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average RSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations)

ASR ID	Location		Max. 24-hour RSP Concentration (µg/m^3)	10^th Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m^3)	Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m^3)
AQO (Number of exceedances allowed)			100 (9)	100	50
HKBCF
BCF-1		Planned Passenger Building	122 (1)	81	40
Tung Chung
TC-1		Caribbean Coast Block 1	116 (1)	77	39
TC-2		Caribbean Coast Block 6	116 (1)	78	39
TC-3		Caribbean Coast Block 11	116 (1)	77	39
TC-4		Caribbean Coast Block 16	116 (1)	77	39
TC-5		Ho Yu College	116 (1)	78	39
TC-6		Ho Yu Primary School	116 (1)	78	39
TC-7		Coastal Skyline Block 1	116 (1)	78	39
TC-8		Coastal Skyline Block 5	117 (1)	78	39
TC-9		La Rossa Block B	117 (1)	78	39
TC-10		Le Bleu Deux Block 1	117 (1)	78	39
TC-11		Le Bleu Deux Block 3	117 (1)	78	39
TC-12		Le Bleu Deux Block 7	117 (1)	78	39
TC-13		Seaview Crescent Block 1	117 (1)	78	39
TC-14		Seaview Crescent Block 3	117 (1)	78	39
TC-15		Seaview Crescent Block 5	117 (1)	78	39
TC-16		Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	117 (1)	78	39
TC-17		Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	117 (1)	78	39
TC-18		Tung Chung Public Library	117 (1)	78	39
TC-19		Tung Chung North Park	116 (1)	77	39
TC-20		Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	117 (1)	78	39
TC-21		One Citygate	117 (1)	78	39
TC-22		One Citygate Bridge	117 (1)	78	39
TC-23		Fu Tung Shopping Centre	112 (1)	77	39
TC-24		Tung Chung Health Centre and Air Quality Monitoring Station	112 (1)	77	39
TC-25		Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	112 (1)	77	39
TC-26		Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	112 (1)	77	39
TC-27		Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	112 (1)	77	39
TC-28		Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	112 (1)	77	39
TC-29		Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-30		Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-31		Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	113 (1)	77	39
TC-32		Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	113 (1)	77	39
TC-33		Tung Chung Crescent Block 1	113 (1)	77	39
TC-34		Tung Chung Crescent Block 3	112 (1)	77	39
TC-35		Tung Chung Crescent Block 5	112 (1)	77	39
TC-36		Tung Chung Crescent Block 7	113 (1)	77	39
TC-37		Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	113 (1)	77	39
TC-38		Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-39		Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-40		Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-41		Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-42		Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-43		Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-44		Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House	112 (1)	77	39
TC-45		Village house at Ma Wan Chung	112 (1)	77	39
TC-46		Ma Wan New Village	112 (1)	77	38
TC-47		Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarden	112 (1)	77	39
TC-48		Sheung Ling Pei	112 (1)	77	39
TC-49		Tung Chung Public School	112 (1)	77	38
TC-50		Ha Ling Pei	112 (1)	77	39
TC-51		Lung Tseung Tau	110 (1)	74	38
TC-52		YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	111 (1)	76	38
TC-53		Hau Wong Temple	112 (1)	78	38
TC-54		Sha Tsui Tau	112 (1)	77	39
TC-55		Ngan Au	111 (1)	76	38
TC-56		Shek Lau Po	111 (1)	76	38
TC-57		Mo Ka	111 (1)	76	38
TC-58		Shek Mun Kap	111 (1)	76	38
TC-59		Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	111 (1)	76	38
TC-P1		Planned North Lantau Hospital	112 (1)	77	39
TC-P2		Planned Park near One Citygate	117 (1)	78	39
TC-P5		Tung Chung West Development	112 (1)	78	39
TC-P6		Tung Chung West Development	112 (1)	77	39
TC-P7		Tung Chung West Development	117 (1)	78	39
TC-P8		Tung Chung East Development	116 (1)	77	39
TC-P9		Tung Chung East Development	116 (1)	77	39
TC-P10		Tung Chung East Development	119 (1)	79	39
TC-P11		Tung Chung East Development	119 (1)	79	39
TC-P12		Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	116 (1)	78	39
TC-P13		Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	116 (1)	78	39
TC-P14		Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	116 (1)	77	39
TC-P15		Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	116 (1)	77	39
TC-P16		Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School	116 (1)	77	39
TC-P17		Tung Chung Area 39	112 (1)	77	39
San Tau
ST-1		Village house at Tin Sum	112 (1)	79	39
ST-2		Village house at Kau Liu	112 (1)	80	39
ST-3		Village house at San Tau	112 (1)	79	39
Sha Lo Wan
SLW-1		Sha Lo Wan House No.1	117 (1)	82	40
SLW-2		Sha Lo Wan House No.5	116 (1)	81	40
SLW-3		Sha Lo Wan House No.9	115 (1)	78	39
SLW-4		Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan	115 (1)	79	39
San Shek Wan
SSW-1		San Shek Wan	114 (1)	77	39
Sham Wat
SW-1		Sham Wat House No. 39	113 (1)	75	38
SW-2		Sham Wat House No. 30	117 (1)	77	39
Siu Ho Wan
SHW-1		Village house at Pak Mong	116 (1)	76	39
SHW-2		Village house at Ngau Kwu Long	114 (1)	76	38
SHW-3		Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen	111 (1)	74	38
SHW-4		Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot	117 (1)	76	39
SHW-5		Tin Liu Village	114 (1)	76	38
Proposed Lantau Logistic Park
LLP-P1		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1	117 (1)	76	39
LLP-P2		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 2	117 (1)	76	39
LLP-P3		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 3	117 (1)	76	39
LLP-P4		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 4	117 (1)	76	39
Tuen Mun
TM-7		Tuen Mun Fireboat Station	118 (1)	81	41
TM-8		DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works	120 (1)	80	40
TM-9		EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station	120 (1)	79	40
TM-10		Pillar Point Fire Station	120 (1)	80	41
TM-11		Butterfly Beach Laundry	118 (1)	81	41
TM-12		River Trade Terminal	120 (1)	80	40
TM-13		Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank	123 (1)	80	41
TM-14		EcoPark Administration Building	129 (1)	79	41
TM-15		Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building	122 (1)	79	44
TM-16		Customs and Excise Department Harbour River Trade Division	120 (1)	80	40
TM-17		Saw Mil Number 61-69	119 (2)	81	42
TM-18		Saw Mil Number 35-49	119 (2)	81	42
TM-19		Ho Yeung Street Number 22	119 (1)	81	41

Note:

[1] Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedance against the AQO.

Table 5.3.101: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 24-hour, 10^th Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average RSP Concentrations at Key ASRs

Area	Max. 24-hour RSP Concentration (µg/m^3)	10^th Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m^3)	Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m^3)
BCF	0.3	1.1	(-0.2)
Tung Chung	(-0.2) – 0.4	(-0.1) - 0.6	0.0 – 0.1
Tung Chung West	(-0.1) – 0.3	(-0.4) – 0.1	0.0
Tung Chung East	(-0.3) – 0.4	(-0.1) - 0.6	0.0
Sha Lo Wan	(-0.4) - 0.0	(-0.9) – 0.8	0.0 - 0.2
Siu Ho Wan	0.0 - 0.2	(-2.0) - 0.0	0.0 – 0.1
Tuen Mun	(-0.3) – 0.1	(-0.4) – 0.1	0.0

5.3.6.9 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 24-hour RSP concentrations at the above representative ASRs are in the range of 110 to 129 µg/m³ with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-14 (EcoPark Administration Building). The predicted number of exceedance against the AQO is around 1 - 2. No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASR is predicted.

5.3.6.10 The predicted cumulative annual RSP concentrations at the above representative ASRs are in the range of 38 to 44 µg/m³ with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-15 (Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASRs is predicted.

5.3.6.11 The cumulative RSP concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-2. The predicted maximum incremental concentration changes for 24-hr RSP, 10th highest 24-hr RSP and annual RSP are 0.4, 1.1 and 0.2 µg/m³ respectively. The incremental changes of concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are minor.

5.3.6.12 Table 5.3.102 to Table 5.3.104 further illustrate the breakdown of 24-hr RSP, 10^th highest 24-hr RSP and annual RSP concentrations at different areas.

Table 5.3.102: 24-hr RSP concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	1	<1	120	122
Tung Chung	TC-20	1	1	115	117
Tung Chung West	TC-P7	1	1	115	117
Tung Chung East	TC-P10	1	<1	118	119
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	<1	1	116	117
Tuen Mun	TM-14	<1[1]	8	121	129

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.103: 10^th highest 24-hr RSP concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	2	1	79	81
Tung Chung	TC-22	<1	1	77	78
Tung Chung West	TC-P5	<1	<1	78	78
Tung Chung East	TC-P11	<1	1	78	79
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	10	2	71	82
Tuen Mun	TM-17	<1[1]	2	79	81

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.104: Annual RSP concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	<1	<1	39	40
Tung Chung	TC-22	<1	1	38	39
Tung Chung West	TC-P7	<1	<1	38	39
Tung Chung East	TC-P11	<1	<1	39	39
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	1	1	38	40
Tuen Mun	TM-15	<1[1]	5	40	44

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

5.3.6.13 Based on Table 5.3.102 to Table 5.3.104, the major RSP contributor to the cumulative daily and annual RSP is the background emission.

5.3.6.14 Contours of cumulative maximum 24-hour, 10^th highest 24-hour, and annual RSP concentrations in Lantau area and Tuen Mun area are illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132A/EIA/5-3-014-019. No air sensitive uses with exceedance of the AQOs are observed.

Table 5.3.105: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average FSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations)

ASR ID	Location		Max. 24-hour FSP Concentration (µg/m^3)	10^th Max. 24-hour FSP Concentration (µg/m^3)	Annual FSP Concentration (µg/m^3)
AQO (Number of exceedances allowed)			75 (9)	75	35
HKBCF
BCF-1		Planned Passenger Building	91 (1)	60	28
Tung Chung
TC-1		Caribbean Coast Block 1	87 (1)	58	28
TC-2		Caribbean Coast Block 6	87 (1)	58	28
TC-3		Caribbean Coast Block 11	87 (1)	58	28
TC-4		Caribbean Coast Block 16	87 (1)	58	28
TC-5		Ho Yu College	87 (1)	58	27
TC-6		Ho Yu Primary School	87 (1)	58	28
TC-7		Coastal Skyline Block 1	87 (1)	58	28
TC-8		Coastal Skyline Block 5	87 (1)	58	28
TC-9		La Rossa Block B	87 (1)	58	28
TC-10		Le Bleu Deux Block 1	87 (1)	58	28
TC-11		Le Bleu Deux Block 3	87 (1)	58	28
TC-12		Le Bleu Deux Block 7	87 (1)	58	28
TC-13		Seaview Crescent Block 1	87 (1)	58	28
TC-14		Seaview Crescent Block 3	87 (1)	58	28
TC-15		Seaview Crescent Block 5	87 (1)	58	28
TC-16		Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	87 (1)	58	28
TC-17		Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	87 (1)	58	28
TC-18		Tung Chung Public Library	87 (1)	58	28
TC-19		Tung Chung North Park	87 (1)	58	28
TC-20		Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	88 (1)	58	28
TC-21		One Citygate	87 (1)	58	28
TC-22		One Citygate Bridge	87 (1)	59	28
TC-23		Fu Tung Shopping Centre	85 (1)	58	28
TC-24		Tung Chung Health Centre and Air Quality Monitoring Station	85 (1)	58	28
TC-25		Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	85 (1)	58	28
TC-26		Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	85 (1)	58	28
TC-27		Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	84 (1)	58	28
TC-28		Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	85 (1)	58	28
TC-29		Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-30		Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-31		Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	85 (1)	58	27
TC-32		Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-33		Tung Chung Crescent Block 1	84 (1)	58	28
TC-34		Tung Chung Crescent Block 3	85 (1)	58	28
TC-35		Tung Chung Crescent Block 5	85 (1)	58	28
TC-36		Tung Chung Crescent Block 7	85 (1)	58	28
TC-37		Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	85 (1)	58	28
TC-38		Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-39		Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-40		Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-41		Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-42		Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-43		Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-44		Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House	84 (1)	58	27
TC-45		Village house at Ma Wan Chung	84 (1)	58	27
TC-46		Ma Wan New Village	84 (1)	58	27
TC-47		Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarden	84 (1)	58	27
TC-48		Sheung Ling Pei	84 (1)	58	27
TC-49		Tung Chung Public School	84 (1)	58	27
TC-50		Ha Ling Pei	84 (1)	58	27
TC-51		Lung Tseung Tau	83 (1)	56	27
TC-52		YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	83 (1)	57	27
TC-53		Hau Wong Temple	84 (1)	58	27
TC-54		Sha Tsui Tau	84 (1)	58	27
TC-55		Ngan Au	83 (1)	57	27
TC-56		Shek Lau Po	83 (1)	57	27
TC-57		Mo Ka	83 (1)	57	27
TC-58		Shek Mun Kap	83 (1)	57	27
TC-59		Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	83 (1)	57	27
TC-P1		Planned North Lantau Hospital	84 (1)	58	27
TC-P2		Planned Park near One Citygate	87 (1)	58	28
TC-P5		Tung Chung West Development	84 (1)	59	27
TC-P6		Tung Chung West Development	84 (1)	58	28
TC-P7		Tung Chung West Development	87 (1)	58	28
TC-P8		Tung Chung East Development	87 (1)	58	27
TC-P9		Tung Chung East Development	87 (1)	58	27
TC-P10		Tung Chung East Development	89 (1)	59	28
TC-P11		Tung Chung East Development	89 (1)	59	28
TC-P12		Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	87 (1)	58	28
TC-P13		Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	87 (1)	58	28
TC-P14		Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	87 (1)	58	27
TC-P15		Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	87 (1)	58	28
TC-P16		Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School	87 (1)	58	28
TC-P17		Tung Chung Area 39	84 (1)	58	27
San Tau
ST-1		Village house at Tin Sum	84 (1)	59	28
ST-2		Village house at Kau Liu	84 (1)	59	27
ST-3		Village house at San Tau	84 (1)	59	27
Sha Lo Wan
SLW-1		Sha Lo Wan House No.1	88 (1)	60	28
SLW-2		Sha Lo Wan House No.5	87 (1)	59	28
SLW-3		Sha Lo Wan House No.9	86 (1)	58	28
SLW-4		Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan	86 (1)	58	28
San Shek Wan
SSW-1		San Shek Wan	86 (1)	58	27
Sham Wat
SW-1		Sham Wat House No. 39	85 (1)	56	27
SW-2		Sham Wat House No. 30	88 (1)	58	28
Siu Ho Wan
SHW-1		Village house at Pak Mong	87 (1)	57	27
SHW-2		Village house at Ngau Kwu Long	85 (1)	57	27
SHW-3		Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen	83 (1)	55	27
SHW-4		Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot	88 (1)	57	28
SHW-5		Tin Liu Village	85 (1)	57	27
Proposed Lantau Logistic Park
LLP-P1		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1	88 (1)	57	28
LLP-P2		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 2	88 (1)	57	28
LLP-P3		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 3	88 (1)	57	28
LLP-P4		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 4	88 (1)	57	28
Tuen Mun
TM-7		Tuen Mun Fireboat Station	89 (1)	61	29
TM-8		DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works	90 (1)	60	29
TM-9		EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station	90 (1)	60	29
TM-10		Pillar Point Fire Station	90 (1)	61	29
TM-11		Butterfly Beach Laundry	89 (1)	61	29
TM-12		River Trade Terminal	90 (1)	60	29
TM-13		Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank	92 (1)	60	30
TM-14		EcoPark Administration Building	96 (1)	59	29
TM-15		Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building	91 (1)	58	31
TM-16		Customs and Excise Department Harbour River Trade Division	90 (1)	60	29
TM-17		Saw Mil Number 61-69	89 (2)	61	30
TM-18		Saw Mil Number 35-49	89 (2)	61	30
TM-19		Ho Yeung Street Number 22	89 (1)	61	29

Table 5.3.106: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 24-hour, 10^th Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average FSP Concentrations at Key Areas

Area	Max. 24-hour FSP Concentration (µg/m^3)	10^th Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m^3)	Annual FSP Concentration (µg/m^3)
BCF	0.0	(-0.3)	(-0.1)
Tung Chung	0.0 – 0.2	0.0 – 0.3	0.0
Tung Chung West	0.0 – 0.1	0.0 – 0.1	0.0
Tung Chung East	0.0 – 0.1	0.0 - 0.2	0.0
Sha Lo Wan	0.0	(-0.1) – 0.2	0.0
Siu Ho Wan	0.0 - 0.1	0.0	0.0
Tuen Mun	0.1 – 0.2	0.0 – 0.1	0.0 – 0.1

5.3.6.15 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 24-hour FSP concentrations at the above representative ASRs are in the range of 83 to 96 µg/m³ with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-14 (EcoPark Administration Building). The predicted number of exceedance against the AQO is around 1 - 2. No non-compliance against the AQO is predicted at all identified ASRs.

5.3.6.16 The predicted cumulative annual FSP concentrations at the above identified ASRs are in the range of 27 and 31 µg/m³ with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-15 (Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASRs is predicted.

5.3.6.17 The cumulative FSP concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-3. The incremental changes of concentrations are shown in Table 5.3.106. The predicted maximum incremental concentration changes for 24-hr FSP, 10^th highest 24-hr FSP and annual FSP are 0.2, 1.6 and 0.1 µg/m³ respectively. The incremental change of annual concentration between 3RS and 2RS is less than 1 µg/m³, indicating that the impact of 3RS is not significant.

5.3.6.18 Table 5.3.107 to Table 5.3.109 further illustrate the breakdown of 24-hr FSP, 10^th highest 24-hr FSP and annual FSP concentrations at different areas.

Table 5.3.107: 24-hr FSP concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	1	<1	90	91
Tung Chung	TC-20	<1	1	86	88
Tung Chung West	TC-P7	<1	1	86	87
Tung Chung East	TC-P11	<1	<1	88	89
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	<1	<1	87	88
Tuen Mun	TM-14	<1[1]	6	91	96

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.108: 10^th highest 24-hr FSP concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	<1	1	60	60
Tung Chung	TC-22	<1	1	58	59
Tung Chung West	TC-P5	<1	<1	58	59
Tung Chung East	TC-P11	<1	<1	59	59
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	2	2	57	60
Tuen Mun	TM-17	<1[1]	<1	61	61

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.109: Annual FSP concentration breakdown at representative areas

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
BCF	BCF-1	<1	<1	28	28
Tung Chung	TC-22	<1	1	27	28
Tung Chung West	TC-P7	<1	<1	27	28
Tung Chung East	TC-P11	<1	<1	28	28
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	<1	<1	27	28
Tuen Mun	TM-15	<1[1]	2	28	31

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

5.3.6.19 Based on Table 5.3.107 to Table 5.3.109, the major FSP contributor to the cumulative daily and annual FSP is the background emission. For annual FSP, the dominant emission sources are from the ambient emission, which contributes more than 90% of the total concentration. This is followed by proximity infrastructure emission (< 4 - 7%) and airport emission (< 4%).

5.3.6.20 Contours of cumulative maximum 24-hour, 10^th highest 24-hour, and annual FSP concentrations in Lantau area and Tuen Mun area are illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132A/EIA/5-3-020 – 025. No air sensitive uses with exceedance of the AQOs are observed.

Table 5.3.110: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 10-minute , 4^th Maximum Cumulative 10-minute, Maximum 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations and 4^th Maximum 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations)

ASR ID	Location		10-minute SO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	4^th 10-minute SO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	24-hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	4^th 24-hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)
AQO (Number of exceedances allowed)			500 (3)	500	125 (3)	125
HKBCF
BCF-1		Planned Passenger Building	184 (0)	148	62 (0)	34
Tung Chung
TC-1		Caribbean Coast Block 1	135 (0)	124	41 (0)	31
TC-2		Caribbean Coast Block 6	135 (0)	119	41 (0)	31
TC-3		Caribbean Coast Block 11	135 (0)	116	41 (0)	31
TC-4		Caribbean Coast Block 16	134 (0)	116	41 (0)	31
TC-5		Ho Yu College	135 (0)	125	41 (0)	31
TC-6		Ho Yu Primary School	135 (0)	124	41 (0)	31
TC-7		Coastal Skyline Block 1	134 (0)	116	41 (0)	31
TC-8		Coastal Skyline Block 5	150 (0)	123	43 (0)	33
TC-9		La Rossa Block B	151 (0)	124	43 (0)	33
TC-10		Le Bleu Deux Block 1	151 (0)	130	43 (0)	33
TC-11		Le Bleu Deux Block 3	151 (0)	131	43 (0)	33
TC-12		Le Bleu Deux Block 7	151 (0)	132	43 (0)	33
TC-13		Seaview Crescent Block 1	151 (0)	128	43 (0)	33
TC-14		Seaview Crescent Block 3	151 (0)	126	43 (0)	33
TC-15		Seaview Crescent Block 5	151 (0)	125	43 (0)	33
TC-16		Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	151 (0)	120	43 (0)	33
TC-17		Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	150 (0)	120	43 (0)	33
TC-18		Tung Chung Public Library	151 (0)	121	43 (0)	33
TC-19		Tung Chung North Park	134 (0)	114	42 (0)	31
TC-20		Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	151 (0)	122	43 (0)	33
TC-21		One Citygate	151 (0)	121	43 (0)	33
TC-22		One Citygate Bridge	152 (0)	120	43 (0)	33
TC-23		Fu Tung Shopping Centre	137 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-24		Tung Chung Health Centre and Air Quality Monitoring Station	137 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-25		Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	137 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-26		Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	137 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-27		Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	136 (0)	124	41 (0)	30
TC-28		Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	136 (0)	124	41 (0)	30
TC-29		Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	137 (0)	124	41 (0)	30
TC-30		Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House	137 (0)	124	41 (0)	30
TC-31		Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	137 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-32		Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	137 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-33		Tung Chung Crescent Block 1	137 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-34		Tung Chung Crescent Block 3	137 (0)	126	41 (0)	30
TC-35		Tung Chung Crescent Block 5	137 (0)	126	41 (0)	30
TC-36		Tung Chung Crescent Block 7	137 (0)	126	41 (0)	30
TC-37		Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	138 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-38		Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	138 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-39		Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House	138 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-40		Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	138 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-41		Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	138 (0)	123	41 (0)	29
TC-42		Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	139 (0)	121	41 (0)	29
TC-43		Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House	139 (0)	124	41 (0)	29
TC-44		Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House	139 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-45		Village house at Ma Wan Chung	142 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-46		Ma Wan New Village	137 (0)	121	41 (0)	29
TC-47		Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarden	138 (0)	122	41 (0)	29
TC-48		Sheung Ling Pei	138 (0)	120	41 (0)	29
TC-49		Tung Chung Public School	139 (0)	118	41 (0)	29
TC-50		Ha Ling Pei	139 (0)	118	41 (0)	29
TC-51		Lung Tseung Tau	135 (0)	107	40 (0)	30
TC-52		YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	146 (0)	133	43 (0)	31
TC-53		Hau Wong Temple	149 (0)	134	44 (0)	30
TC-54		Sha Tsui Tau	139 (0)	123	41 (0)	29
TC-55		Ngan Au	146 (0)	133	43 (0)	31
TC-56		Shek Lau Po	145 (0)	133	43 (0)	31
TC-57		Mo Ka	146 (0)	133	43 (0)	31
TC-58		Shek Mun Kap	145 (0)	133	43 (0)	31
TC-59		Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	145 (0)	133	43 (0)	31
TC-P1		Planned North Lantau Hospital	138 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-P2		Planned Park near One Citygate	152 (0)	125	43 (0)	33
TC-P5		Tung Chung West Development	150 (0)	135	44 (0)	31
TC-P6		Tung Chung West Development	153 (0)	125	41 (0)	30
TC-P7		Tung Chung West Development	150 (0)	135	42 (0)	33
TC-P8		Tung Chung East Development	142 (0)	132	41 (0)	32
TC-P9		Tung Chung East Development	136 (0)	131	41 (0)	31
TC-P10		Tung Chung East Development	146 (0)	103	47 (0)	31
TC-P11		Tung Chung East Development	132 (0)	100	47 (0)	31
TC-P12		Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	151 (0)	135	43 (0)	33
TC-P13		Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	138 (0)	132	42 (0)	32
TC-P14		Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	135 (0)	127	41 (0)	31
TC-P15		Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	135 (0)	129	41 (0)	31
TC-P16		Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School	135 (0)	126	41 (0)	31
TC-P17		Tung Chung Area 39	139 (0)	118	41 (0)	29
San Tau
ST-1		Village house at Tin Sum	150 (0)	134	44 (0)	30
ST-2		Village house at Kau Liu	150 (0)	139	44 (0)	30
ST-3		Village house at San Tau	150 (0)	134	44 (0)	30
Sha Lo Wan
SLW-1		Sha Lo Wan House No.1	254 (0)	179	48 (0)	37
SLW-2		Sha Lo Wan House No.5	258 (0)	174	47 (0)	36
SLW-3		Sha Lo Wan House No.9	177 (0)	158	48 (0)	34
SLW-4		Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan	195 (0)	163	48 (0)	34
San Shek Wan
SSW-1		San Shek Wan	165 (0)	128	47 (0)	32
Sham Wat
SW-1		Sham Wat House No. 39	119 (0)	107	48 (0)	28
SW-2		Sham Wat House No. 30	144 (0)	129	54 (0)	35
Siu Ho Wan
SHW-1		Village house at Pak Mong	133 (0)	100	45 (0)	29
SHW-2		Village house at Ngau Kwu Long	105 (0)	99	42 (0)	27
SHW-3		Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen	122 (0)	114	46 (0)	28
SHW-4		Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot	111 (0)	106	44 (0)	27
SHW-5		Tin Liu Village	106 (0)	99	42 (0)	27
Proposed Lantau Logistic Park
LLP-P1		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1	113 (0)	106	44 (0)	27
LLP-P2		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 2	118 (0)	105	46 (0)	28
LLP-P3		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 3	110 (0)	106	46 (0)	28
LLP-P4		Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 4	114 (0)	105	46 (0)	27
Tuen Mun
TM-7		Tuen Mun Fireboat Station	142 (0)	130	49 (0)	29
TM-8		DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works	150 (0)	139	49 (0)	32
TM-9		EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station	152 (0)	139	49 (0)	32
TM-10		Pillar Point Fire Station	150 (0)	139	49 (0)	32
TM-11		Butterfly Beach Laundry	176 (0)	157	52 (0)	32
TM-12		River Trade Terminal	163 (0)	140	51 (0)	33
TM-13		Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank	325 (0)	150	54 (0)	31
TM-14		EcoPark Administration Building	193 (0)	149	51 (0)	34
TM-15		Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building	193 (0)	140	50 (0)	33
TM-16		Customs and Excise Department Harbour River Trade Division	150 (0)	140	49 (0)	32
TM-17		Saw Mil Number 61-69	142 (0)	130	48 (0)	28
TM-18		Saw Mil Number 35-49	141 (0)	130	48 (0)	28
TM-19		Ho Yeung Street Number 22	176 (0)	157	52 (0)	32

Note:

[1] Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedance against the AQO.

Table 5.3.111: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 10-min, 4^th Maximum Cumulative 10-min, Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and 4^th Maximum Cumulative 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations at Representative ASRs

Area	10-minute SO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	4^th 10-minute SO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	24-hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)	4^th 24-hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m^3)
BCF	32	6	7	2
Tung Chung	1 – 7	1 – 18	0	0 - 1
Tung Chung West	3 – 17	2 – 22	0	0 - 1
Tung Chung East	3 – 31	1 – 21	0 - 2	0 - 2
Sha Lo Wan	0 - 51	0 - 34	0 - 1	0 - 2
Siu Ho Wan	(-13) - 9	(-1) - 7	(-1) - 3	0
Tuen Mun	0	0	0	0

5.3.6.21 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 10-minute SO₂ concentrations at representative ASRs are in the range of 105 to 325 µg/m³ with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-13 (Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank). No non-compliance against the AQO is predicted.

5.3.6.22 The predicted maximum cumulative 24-hour concentrations at identified ASRs are in the range of 40 and 62 µg/m³ with the highest concentration occurring at ASR BCF-1 (Planned Passenger Building). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASR is predicted.

5.3.6.23 The cumulative SO₂ concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-4. The incremental changes of SO₂ concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are shown in Table 5.3.111. The predicted maximum incremental concentration changes for Maximum Cumulative 10-min, 4^th Maximum Cumulative 10-min, Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and 4^th Maximum Cumulative 24-hour SO₂ Concentrations are 51, 34, 7 and 2 µg/m³ respectively. The incremental changes of annual SO2 concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are minor.

5.3.6.24 Contours of cumulative maximum 10-min, maximum 24-hr SO₂ and 4^th highest 24-hr SO₂ concentrations in Lantau area and Tuen Mun area are illustrated in Drawing No MCL/P132A/EIA/5-3-026 – 031. No air sensitive uses with exceedance of the AQOs are observed.

Table 5.3.112: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and 8-hour Average CO Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations)

ASR ID	Location	1-hour CO Concentration (µg/m^3)	8-hour CO Concentration (µg/m^3)
AQO (Number of exceedances allowed)		30,000 (0)	10,000 (0)
HKBCF
BCF-1	Planned Passenger Building	1,739 (0)	1,121 (0)
Tung Chung
TC-1	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1,574 (0)	1,251 (0)
TC-2	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1,582 (0)	1,230 (0)
TC-3	Caribbean Coast Block 11	1,564 (0)	1,222 (0)
TC-4	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1,584 (0)	1,227 (0)
TC-5	Ho Yu College	1,641 (0)	1,258 (0)
TC-6	Ho Yu Primary School	1,605 (0)	1,246 (0)
TC-7	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1,575 (0)	1,218 (0)
TC-8	Coastal Skyline Block 5	1,520 (0)	1,186 (0)
TC-9	La Rossa Block B	1,536 (0)	1,198 (0)
TC-10	Le Bleu Deux Block 1	1,630 (0)	1,227 (0)
TC-11	Le Bleu Deux Block 3	1,626 (0)	1,219 (0)
TC-12	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1,609 (0)	1,209 (0)
TC-13	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1,584 (0)	1,231 (0)
TC-14	Seaview Crescent Block 3	1,575 (0)	1,231 (0)
TC-15	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1,575 (0)	1,217 (0)
TC-16	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1,490 (0)	1,192 (0)
TC-17	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1,478 (0)	1,184 (0)
TC-18	Tung Chung Public Library	1,511 (0)	1,211 (0)
TC-19	Tung Chung North Park	1,558 (0)	1,217 (0)
TC-20	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1,546 (0)	1,220 (0)
TC-21	One Citygate	1,431 (0)	1,206 (0)
TC-22	One Citygate Bridge	1,449 (0)	1,241 (0)
TC-23	Fu Tung Shopping Centre	1,313 (0)	1,063 (0)
TC-24	Tung Chung Health Centre and Air Quality Monitoring Station	1,434 (0)	1,055 (0)
TC-25	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1,367 (0)	1,049 (0)
TC-26	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1,262 (0)	1,043 (0)
TC-27	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1,260 (0)	1,047 (0)
TC-28	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1,298 (0)	1,055 (0)
TC-29	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1,250 (0)	1,042 (0)
TC-30	Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House	1,248 (0)	1,048 (0)
TC-31	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1,258 (0)	1,048 (0)
TC-32	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1,258 (0)	1,066 (0)
TC-33	Tung Chung Crescent Block 1	1,248 (0)	1,070 (0)
TC-34	Tung Chung Crescent Block 3	1,254 (0)	1,053 (0)
TC-35	Tung Chung Crescent Block 5	1,256 (0)	1,046 (0)
TC-36	Tung Chung Crescent Block 7	1,290 (0)	1,065 (0)
TC-37	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1,318 (0)	1,118 (0)
TC-38	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1,293 (0)	1,040 (0)
TC-39	Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House	1,279 (0)	1,039 (0)
TC-40	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1,267 (0)	1,041 (0)
TC-41	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1,276 (0)	1,042 (0)
TC-42	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1,284 (0)	1,049 (0)
TC-43	Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House	1,286 (0)	1,043 (0)
TC-44	Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House	1,292 (0)	1,041 (0)
TC-45	Village house at Ma Wan Chung	1,305 (0)	1,047 (0)
TC-46	Ma Wan New Village	1,287 (0)	1,041 (0)
TC-47	Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarden	1,343 (0)	1,063 (0)
TC-48	Sheung Ling Pei	1,308 (0)	1,044 (0)
TC-49	Tung Chung Public School	1,302 (0)	1,040 (0)
TC-50	Ha Ling Pei	1,321 (0)	1,052 (0)
TC-51	Lung Tseung Tau	1,285 (0)	1,062 (0)
TC-52	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1,165 (0)	992 (0)
TC-53	Hau Wong Temple	1,197 (0)	983 (0)
TC-54	Sha Tsui Tau	1,319 (0)	1,049 (0)
TC-55	Ngan Au	1,165 (0)	992 (0)
TC-56	Shek Lau Po	1,165 (0)	992 (0)
TC-57	Mo Ka	1,165 (0)	991 (0)
TC-58	Shek Mun Kap	1,165 (0)	991 (0)
TC-59	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1,165 (0)	991 (0)
TC-P1	Planned North Lantau Hospital	1,253 (0)	1,039 (0)
TC-P2	Planned Park near One Citygate	1,475 (0)	1,228 (0)
TC-P5	Tung Chung West Development	1,308 (0)	986 (0)
TC-P6	Tung Chung West Development	1,342 (0)	1,070 (0)
TC-P7	Tung Chung West Development	1,699 (0)	1,326 (0)
TC-P8	Tung Chung East Development	1,624 (0)	1,249 (0)
TC-P9	Tung Chung East Development	1,560 (0)	1,212 (0)
TC-P10	Tung Chung East Development	1,442 (0)	1,013 (0)
TC-P11	Tung Chung East Development	1,412 (0)	1,037 (0)
TC-P12	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	1,632 (0)	1,219 (0)
TC-P13	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	1,719 (0)	1,286 (0)
TC-P14	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	1,599 (0)	1,234 (0)
TC-P15	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	1,594 (0)	1,255 (0)
TC-P16	Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School	1,524 (0)	1,227 (0)
TC-P17	Tung Chung Area 39	1,313 (0)	1,043 (0)
San Tau
ST-1	Village house at Tin Sum	1,384 (0)	1,109 (0)
ST-2	Village house at Kau Liu	1,352 (0)	1,158 (0)
ST-3	Village house at San Tau	1,351 (0)	1,010 (0)
Sha Lo Wan
SLW-1	Sha Lo Wan House No.1	2,133 (0)	1,215 (0)
SLW-2	Sha Lo Wan House No.5	2,068 (0)	1,149 (0)
SLW-3	Sha Lo Wan House No.9	1,545 (0)	988 (0)
SLW-4	Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan	1,558 (0)	988 (0)
San Shek Wan
SSW-1	San Shek Wan	1,343 (0)	981 (0)
Sham Wat
SW-1	Sham Wat House No. 39	1,139 (0)	968 (0)
SW-2	Sham Wat House No. 30	1,409 (0)	1,110 (0)
Siu Ho Wan
SHW-1	Village house at Pak Mong	1,280 (0)	1,120 (0)
SHW-2	Village house at Ngau Kwu Long	1,283 (0)	1,097 (0)
SHW-3	Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen	1,353 (0)	1,196 (0)
SHW-4	Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot	1,494 (0)	1,027 (0)
SHW-5	Tin Liu Village	1,283 (0)	1,064 (0)
Proposed Lantau Logistic Park
LLP-P1	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1	1,506 (0)	1,026 (0)
LLP-P2	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 2	1,476 (0)	1,064 (0)
LLP-P3	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 3	1,504 (0)	1,085 (0)
LLP-P4	Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 4	1,523 (0)	1,052 (0)
Tuen Mun
TM-7	Tuen Mun Fireboat Station	1,365 (0)	1,020 (0)
TM-8	DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works	1,310 (0)	1,016 (0)
TM-9	EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station	1,305 (0)	998 (0)
TM-10	Pillar Point Fire Station	1,313 (0)	1,009 (0)
TM-11	Butterfly Beach Laundry	1,345 (0)	1,095 (0)
TM-12	River Trade Terminal	1,307 (0)	995 (0)
TM-13	Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank	1,319 (0)	995 (0)
TM-14	EcoPark Administration Building	1,315 (0)	1,024 (0)
TM-15	Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building	1,314 (0)	1,022 (0)
TM-16	Customs and Excise Department Harbour River Trade Division	1,314 (0)	1,022 (0)
TM-17	Saw Mil Number 61-69	1,358 (0)	1,032 (0)
TM-18	Saw Mil Number 35-49	1,357 (0)	1,032 (0)
TM-19	Ho Yeung Street Number 22	1,346 (0)	1,098 (0)

Note:

[1] Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedance against the AQO.

Table 5.3.113: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and 8-hour Average CO Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations)

Area	1-hour CO Concentration (µg/m^3)	8-hour CO Concentration (µg/m^3)
BCF-1	322	101
Tung Chung	0 - 263	0 - 60
Tung Chung West	9 - 78	1 - 65
Tung Chung East	48 - 230	1 - 76
Sha Lo Wan	0 - 419	0 - 111
Siu Ho Wan	1 - 229	(-9) - 137
Tuen Mun	(-1) - 2	0 - 1

5.3.6.25 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 1-hour CO concentrations are in the range of 1,139 to 2,133 µg/m³ with the highest concentration occurring at ASR SLW-1 (Sha Lo Wan House No.1). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASR is predicted.

5.3.6.26 The predicted maximum cumulative 8-hour CO concentrations at representative ASRs are in the range of 968 to 1,326 µg/m³ with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TC-P7 (Tung Chung West Development). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASR is predicted.

5.3.6.27 The cumulative CO concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-5. The incremental changes of concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are shown in Table 5.3.113. The predicted maximum incremental concentration changes for maximum cumulative 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations are 419 and 137 µg/m³ respectively.

5.3.6.28 In addition to the predicted cumulative pollutant concentrations during the operation phase of the project, the cumulative pollutant concentrations under without project scenario (i.e. 2RS under business-as-usual scenario) have also been predicted at the ASRs based on the approaches and methodologies detailed in Sections 5.3.4 and 5.3.5. Detailed assessment results are presented in Appendix 5.3.17.

Comparison with Preliminary Air Quality Study of MP2030

5.3.6.29 On comparing the previous air quality report undertaken for Hong Kong International Airport Master Plan (MP2030), there is a reduction in the concentration level at most sensitive receivers. The reasons include:

1. The present spatial emission distribution was spread into a three-runway system; while the preliminary air quality study undertaken under MP2030 was based on a hypothetical approach of assuming that all air emissions associated with the operation of the 3RS could be grouped onto the existing 2RS footprint

2. The present study has taken into account the advancement of technology (e.g. aircraft engine emission control and standards, GSE emission standards, APU technology);

3. The present study has taken into account the committed policy on banning APU at the frontal stands;

4. The present study has taken into account the implementation of latest emission standard for new airside vehicles;

5. The PATH model adopted in this study has been taken into account the emission target agreed between HKSAR and Guangdong Government in Year 2012.

5.3.7 Operation Phase Air Quality Enhancement Measures

5.3.7.1 No non-compliance against the AQO has been predicted at the identified ASRs. Nevertheless, AAHK has been implementing a number of measures and initiatives aimed at further reduction in air emissions from airport activities and operations and air quality will remain a key focus of AAHK’s rolling environmental plan, including:

§ Banned all idling vehicle engines on the airside since 2008, except for certain vehicles that are exempted (This measure has already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

§ Banning the use of APU for all aircraft at frontal stands by end 2014 (This measure has already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

§ Requiring all saloon vehicles as electric vehicles by end 2017 (This measure has already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

§ Increasing charging stations for EVs and electric GSE to a total of 290 by end 2018

§ Conducting review on existing GSE emission performance and explore measures to further control air emissions

§ Exploring with franchisees feasibility of expediting replacement of old airside vehicles and GSE with cleaner ones during tender or renewal of contracts

§ Requiring all new airside vehicles to be fuel-efficient and making it a prerequisite for the licensing process;

§ Providing the cleanest diesel and gasoline at the airfield;

§ Requiring all of the AAHK’s diesel vehicles to use biodiesel (B5);

§ Promoting increased use of electric vehicles and electric ground service equipment at HKIA by provision of charging infrastructure; and

§ Providing a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fuelling point for airside vehicles and ground service equipment.

5.3.7.2 In addition to continuous outdoor air quality monitoring, AAHK also monitors the indoor air quality to maintain a good indoor air quality environment for the passengers and staff. Terminal 1, Terminal 2, SkyPier and North Satellite Concourse have already received “Good Class” Indoor Air Quality Certification from the “IAQ Certification Scheme for Offices and Public Places” of EPD.

5.3.8 Evaluation of Operation Phase Residual Impact

5.3.8.1 Based on the assessment results, no adverse residual air quality impacts are anticipated at all ASRs during the operation phase of the project.

5.4 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

5.4.1 Construction Phase

5.4.1.1 Regular dust monitoring is considered necessary during the construction phase of the project and regular site audits are also required to ensure the dust control measures are properly implemented.

5.4.1.2 Monitoring and audit of daily RSP and daily FSP levels are not proposed. This is because even under the hypothetical worst case Tier 1 mitigated scenario both daily RSP and daily FSP would comply with the corresponding AQO at all ASR throughout the construction period, except the limited non-compliance with the AQO for daily RSP at up to three ASR in three of the nine construction years (see Table 5.2.9). Hence no significant RSP or FSP impacts are anticipated. Therefore, only hourly TSP will be monitored and audited at appropriate locations. Details of the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme are presented in the stand-alone EM&A Manual.

5.4.2 Operation Phase

5.4.2.1 The current airport air quality monitoring stations shall be maintained. No additional air quality monitoring station is required.

5.5 Conclusion

5.5.1 Construction Phase

5.5.1.1 With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures as well as the relevant control requirements as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2(93), Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94) and Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) BPM 11/1 (95), it has been assessed that the hourly TSP criterion would be complied with at all ASRs, and compliance with the AQOs for daily RSP, daily FSP, annual RSP and annual FSP would be achieved at all ASRs.

5.5.1.2 With the recommended mitigation measures in place, no adverse residual TSP, RSP or FSP impacts are anticipated at all ASRs during the construction phase of the project.

5.5.1.3 During the proposed DCM process, cement powder will be transferred from the supporting vessel to DCM barges through piping in closed loop or a totally enclosed manner. There will be no open storage of cement on the DCM barges or the supporting vessels. Hence, no adverse residual dust impacts due to cement transfer or storage are anticipated.

5.5.1.4 There would be potential emission of bitumen fumes from the proposed asphalt batching plants at the airport expansion area. Given their large separation distances from ASRs (at least about 3.1 km from the nearest ASR) and with implementation of the various emission control measures as given in the EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94), adverse residual air quality impacts due to the bitumen fume emission are not anticipated.

5.5.2 Operation Phase

5.5.2.1 The operational air quality assessment has determined the worst year for LTO emission, updated the emission inventory for 2RS (i.e. without project scenario) and 3RS scenarios at the worst year with respect to the forecast activities and technology advancement, assessed the cumulative air quality impact for 3RS and its incremental change with regard to the 2RS scenario and considered a number of initiatives aimed at further reducing air emissions from airport activities and operations.

5.5.2.2 The emission inventories of NO_x, RSP, FSP, SO₂, and CO in the highest aircraft emission year (i.e. Year 2031) from different airport and associated facilities operations have been established. The worst assessment year was determined in Year 2031 under the 3RS scenario. Table 5.5.1 shows a comparison of the key pollutants emission inventory in the Year 2011 scenario, Year 2031 3RS scenario and Year 2031 2RS scenario.

Table 5.5.1: Emission Inventory for 2011 scenario, 2031 (3RS) scenario and 2031 (2RS) scenario

Year	Total Annual Emission (kg)
	NOx	RSP	FSP
2011	~ 7,500,000	~ 220,000	~ 150,000
2031 (3RS)	~ 9,500,000	~ 220,000	~ 91,000
2031 (2RS)	~ 6,700,000	~ 163,000	~ 67,000

Note [1]: Emission inventory based on Table 5.3.59 and Appendix 5.3.19-1

5.5.2.3 It can be noted from the comparison of the emissions inventory presented above that while the number of ATM that may be served at HKIA will be greatly increased (from the existing 970 ATM on the busy day in year 2011 to 1,787 ATM in year 2031) in the presence of the third runway, the associated increase in NO_x emission would be less significant (around 30 %) considering the anticipated technology advancement. Besides, it is anticipated that there would not be any significant change in RSP emissions, and FSP emissions would also be reduced for the same reason of technology advancement and the key factors include the following:

§ Continuous improvement in engine technology to fulfill ICAO aviation emission standard;

§ Improvement in fuel efficiency;

§ Banning the use of APU at the stands; and

§ Adoption of the latest international airside and landside vehicular emission standard.

5.5.2.4 Both the 3RS and 2RS scenarios (i.e. without project) were simulated. A model validation against year 2011 monitoring data at PH5 and TC monitoring station was conducted and the results showed that the current modelling approach is conservative.

5.5.2.5 The assessment findings for Year 2031 3RS scenario indicate that cumulative NO₂, RSP, FSP SO₂, and CO levels (i.e. airport related emission, proximity infrastructure emission and regional emission) comply with the AQOs at all ASRs. On comparing the annual pollutant levels of 3RS scenario with those of the 2RS scenario (i.e. without project case), the increase in annual NO₂, RSP and FSP are less than 1 µg/m³, 0.2 µg/m³ and 0.1 µg/m³ respectively, indicating relatively insignificant changes.

5.5.2.6 With respect to the incremental changes in the annual concentration of NO₂ in Sha Lo Wan (i.e. 3RS – 2RS), which is downwind of the airport (the prevailing wind at the airport is easterly), a decrease in concentration (as shown in Table 5.3.96 and described in Section 5.3.6.4) is predicted. This suggests that the 3RS will bring environmental benefit to the receivers at Sha Lo Wan:

§ Shifting of dominant aircraft departure from the south runway (2RS scenario) to the centre runway (3RS scenario); and

§ Assigning the existing south runway as standby mode wherever practicable during the night-time period between 2300 and 0659.

5.5.2.7 NO_x is the key emission pollutant for airport. The emission sources breakdown for the cumulative annual NO₂ impact at the key sensitive area under the 3RS scenario is shown in Table 5.3.99 and Table 5.5.2. The dominant emission sources are from the ambient emission, which contributes in most cases more than 60% of the total concentration. This is followed by proximity infrastructure emission (10 – 30%) and airport emission (< 10%), except for Sha Lo Wan.

Table 5.5.2: Concentration Breakdown for the Cumulative Annual NO₂ Impact at the Key Sensitive Area under the 3RS scenario

Area	ASR	Airport Related Emission (µg/m^3)	Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m^3)	Ambient (µg/m^3)	Cumulative Impact (µg/m^3)
Tung Chung	TC-22	2	9	22	33
Tung Chung West	TC-P7	2	6	22	30
Tung Chung East	TC-P12	2	4	22	28
Sha Lo Wan	SLW-1	12	4	20	36
Tuen Mun	TM-10	2[1]	9	27	38

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

5.5.2.8 AAHK has been implementing a number of measures and initiatives aimed at further reduction in air emissions from airport activities and operations and air quality will remain a key focus of AAHK’s rolling environmental plan, including:

§ Banned all idling vehicle engines on the airside since 2008, except for certain vehicles that are exempted (This measure has already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

§ Banning the use of APU for all aircraft at frontal stands by end 2014 (This measure has already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

§ Requiring all saloon vehicles as electric vehicles by end 2017 (This measure has already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

§ Increasing charging stations for EVs and electric GSE to a total of 290 by end 2018

§ Conducting review on existing GSE emission performance and explore measures to further control air emissions

§ Exploring with franchisees feasibility of expediting replacement of old airside vehicles and GSE with cleaner ones during tender or renewal of contracts

§ Requiring all new airside vehicles to be fuel-efficient and making it a prerequisite for the licensing process;

§ Providing the cleanest diesel and gasoline at the airfield;

§ Requiring all of the AAHK’s diesel vehicles to use biodiesel (B5);

§ Promoting increased use of electric vehicles and electric ground service equipment at HKIA by provision of charging infrastructure; and

§ Providing a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fuelling point for airside vehicles and ground service equipment.

5.5.2.9 In addition to continuous outdoor air quality monitoring, AAHK also monitors the indoor air quality to maintain a good indoor air quality environment for the passengers and staff. Terminal 1, Terminal 2, SkyPier and North Satellite Concourse have already received “Good Class” Indoor Air Quality Certification from the “IAQ Certification Scheme for Offices and Public Places” of EPD.

5.5.2.10 With the implementation of the above measures and any other measures which AAHK consider effective in the existing and future operation of HKIA, air emissions associated with the operation of the 3RS will be further reduced.

5.6 References

1. Air Quality Consultants, Technical Appendix B: London Luton Airport – Air Quality Assessment Methodology, 2012.

2. AEA Energy & Environment, Emissions Methodology for Future LHR Scenarios, 2007.

3. AXA Energy and Environment, Revised Emissions Methodology for Heathrow - Base year 2002, 2007

4. Curran, R.J., Method for estimating particulate emissions from aircraft brakes and tyres. QINETIQ/05/01827, 2006.

5. Department of Transport, United Kingdom, Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow - Report of the Air Quality Technical Panels, 2006

6. Environmental Protection Department, Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters

7. Environmental Protection Department, Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong

8. Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, The Advanced Emission Model (AEMIII) Version 1.5 Appendices A, B and C to the Validation Report EEC / SEE / 2004 / 004, 2004

9. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) User’s Manual (for Version 5.1.4.1), 2013.

10. HKUST, 2010 Airport Operational Air Quality Study, 2011

11. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand, Good Practice Guide for Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling, June 2004

12. R.K. Gupta, et al., Particulate matter and Elemental Emission from a Cement Kiln, Fuel Processing Technology, 2012

13. Sanders, P., Ning Xu, Dalka, T., and Maricq M. “Airborne Brake Wear Debris: Size Distributions, Composition, and a Comparison of Dynamometer and Vehicle Tests.” Environmental Science and Technology, 2003, Vol. 37, pp. 4060–4069.

14. Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), FOCA Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report, 2007.

15. Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions , 2009.

16. Thompson G. Pace, US Environmental Protection Agency, Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions from PM10, April 2005

17. Transportation Research Board, ACRP Report 9, Summarizing and Interpreting Aircraft Gaseous and Particulate Emissions Data, US, 2008

18. US Environmental Protection Agency, User Guide for the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) (Revised), EPA-910/9-88-202R, January 1991

19. US Environmental Protection Agency, Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, 1999

20. US Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), 5^th Edition, January 2011

---

[1] Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand, Good Practice Guide for Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling, June 2004