Contents

Page

3 AIR QUALITY 1

3.1 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines 1

3.2 Air Sensitive Receivers 3

3.3 Baseline Conditions 9

3.4 Construction Dust Assessment 40

3.5 Operational Air Quality Assessment 106

3.6 Conclusion 211

Figures

Figure 3.1 Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Sheet 1 of 6)

Figure 3.1a Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Sheet 2 of 6)

Figure 3.1b Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Sheet 3 of 6)

Figure 3.1c Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Sheet 4 of 6)

Figure 3.1d Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Sheet 5 of 6)

Figure 3.1e Locations of Air Sensitive Receivers (Sheet 6 of 6)

Figure 3.2 Locations of Concerned PATH Grids

Figure 3.3 Construction Dust Impact Assessment Area

Figure 3.4a Unmitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.4b Unmitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.4c Unmitigated Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.4d Unmitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.4e Unmitigated Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.5a Unmitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.5b Unmitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.5c Unmitigated Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.5d Unmitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.5e Unmitigated Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.6a Unmitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.6b Unmitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.6c Unmitigated Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.6d Unmitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.6e Unmitigated Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.7a Unmitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.7b Unmitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.7c Unmitigated Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.7d Unmitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.7e Unmitigated Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.8a Mitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.8b Mitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.8c Mitigated Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.8d Mitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.8e Mitigated Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.9a Mitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.9b Mitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.9c Mitigated Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.9d Mitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.9e Mitigated Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.10a Mitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.10b Mitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.10c Mitigated Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.10d Mitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.10e Mitigated Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.11a Mitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.11b Mitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.11c Mitigated Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.11d Mitigated Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.11e Mitigated Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations (Tier 1) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.12a Mitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations (Tier 2) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2021)

Figure 3.12b Mitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations (Tier 2) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2024)

Figure 3.12c Mitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations (Tier 2) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2025)

Figure 3.12d Mitigated Cumulative Maximum 1-hour TSP Concentrations (Tier 2) at 1.5m above Ground (Year 2027)

Figure 3.13 Operational Air Quality Impact Assessment Area

Figure 3.14 Locations of Open Road, Tunnel Portals, Ventilation Buildings and Idling Emission Source

Figure 3.15 Locations of Chimney, Proposed Marina and Existing Local Vessel

Figure 3.16 Locations of Sewage Pumping Stations (Sheet 1 of 3)

Figure 3.16a Locations of Sewage Pumping Stations (Sheet 2 of 3)

Figure 3.16b Locations of Sewage Pumping Stations (Sheet 3 of 3)

Figure 3.17 Contours of Cumulative 19^th highest 1-hour NO₂ Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground

Figure 3.18 Contours of Cumulative Annual NO₂ Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground

Figure 3.19 Contours of Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground

Figure 3.20 Contours of Cumulative Annual RSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground

Figure 3.21 Contours of Cumulative 10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground

Figure 3.22 Contours of Cumulative Annual FSP Concentrations at 1.5m above Ground

Appendices

Appendix 3.1 Detailed Existing Air Quality Conditions in Year 2010

Appendix 3.2 Dust Emission Source Locations

Appendix 3.3 Calculations of Dust Emission

Appendix 3.4 Hourly Composite Vehicular Emission Factor (for Construction Dust Assessment)

Appendix 3.5 Calculations of Idling Emission and Tunnel Portal / Ventilation Building (for Construction Dust Assessment)

Appendix 3.6 Detailed Construction Dust Assessment Results (Unmitigated)

Appendix 3.7 Justification of Dust Suppression Efficiency

Appendix 3.8 Detailed Construction Dust Assessment Results (Mitigated)

Appendix 3.9 Traffic Forecast

Appendix 3.10 EMFAC-HK Key Model Assumptions

Appendix 3.11 Hourly Composite Vehicular Emission Factor (for Operational Air Quality Assessment)

Appendix 3.12 Calculations of Emission from Tunnel Portal and Ventilation Building

Appendix 3.13 Calculation of Idling Emission (for Operation Air Quality Assessment)

Appendix 3.14 Details of Emission from OWTF Phase 1

Appendix 3.15 Details of Emission from Marine Vessels

Appendix 3.16 Detailed Operational Air Quality Assessment Results

3 AIR QUALITY

3.1 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

3.1.1 General

3.1.1.1 The relevant legislations, standards and guidelines applicable to the present study for the assessment of air quality impacts include:

· Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311);

· Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation;

· Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG); and

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499), Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO), Annex 4 and Annex 12.

3.1.2 Air Quality Objectives

3.1.2.1 The principal legislation for controlling air pollutants is the APCO (Cap 311) and its subsidiary regulations, which defines statutory Air Quality Objectives (AQOs).

3.1.2.2 The APCO (Cap.311) provides the power for controlling air pollutants from a variety of stationary and mobile sources and encompasses a number of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs). In addition to the APCO, the following overall policy objectives are laid down in Chapter 9 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) as follows:

· Limit the contamination of the air in Hong Kong, through land use planning and through the enforcement of the APCO to safeguard the health and well-being of the community; and

· Ensure that the AQOs for 7 common air pollutants are met as soon as possible.

3.1.2.3 The principal legislation for controlling air pollutants is the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311) which provides a statutory framework for establishing the AQOs and stipulating the anti-pollution requirements for air pollution sources. Current AQOs are set out in the table below.

Table 3.1 Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives (HKAQOs)

Pollutant	Limits on Concentration, µg/m^3 [1] (Number of Exceedance per year allowed in brackets)
	10-min	1-hour	8-hour	24-hour ^[2]	Annual ^[2]
Sulphur Dioxide	500 (3)			125 (3)
Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) ^[3]				100 (9)	50 (0)
Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP) ^[4]				75 (9)	35 (0)
Carbon Monoxide		30,000 (0)	10,000 (0)
Nitrogen Dioxide		200 (18)			40 (0)
Ozone			160 (9)
Lead					0.5 (0)

Notes:

[1] Measured at 293K and 101.325kPa.

[2] Arithmetic mean.

[3] Respirable suspended particulates means suspended particulates in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometres or smaller.

[4] Fine suspended particulates means suspended particulates in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometres or smaller.

3.1.3 Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation

3.1.3.1 The Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation specifies processes that require special dust control. The Contractors are required to inform the EPD and adopt proper dust suppression measures while carrying out “Notifiable Works” (which requires prior notification by the regulation) and “Regulatory Works” to meet the requirements as defined under the regulation.

3.1.4 Total Suspended Particulate Criterion

3.1.4.1 There is no criterion on TSP under the AQOs. In accordance with Annex 4 of TM-EIAO, a limit of 500μg/m³ for 1-hour TSP concentration at any sensitive receivers should be adopted for evaluating air quality impacts.

3.1.5 Odour Criterion

3.1.5.1 In accordance with Annex 4 of TM-EIAO, a limit of 5 odour units based on a time-averaging period of 5 seconds should not be exceeded at any sensitive receivers.

3.2 Air Sensitive Receivers

3.2.1 In accordance with Annex 12 of the TM-EIAO, Air Sensitive Receivers (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 with which, in terms of duration or number of people affected, has a similar sensitivity to the air pollutants as the aforelisted premises and places would also be considered as a sensitive receiver.

3.2.2 Representative ASRs within the Project Site and a distance of 500m from the boundary of the Potential Development Areas (PDAs) and the works of the Project within the Study Area have been identified. These ASRs include both the existing and planned developments. Existing ASRs are identified by means of reviewing topographic maps, aerial photos, land status plans, supplemented by site inspections. They include scattered village houses generally in 1 to 3-storeys high, as well as residential/commercial developments in Tung Chung/North Lantau.

3.2.3 Planned/committed ASRs are identified by making reference to relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZP), Layout Plans and other published plans in relation to the development on North Lantau, including:

· Tung Chung Town Centre Area OZP (No. S/I-TCTC/19);

· Tung Chung Town Centre Area Layout Plan - Lantau Island (No. L/I-TCTC/1G);

· North Lantau New Town Phase IIB Area (Part) Layout Plan (No. L/I-TCIIB/1D).

3.2.4 The locations of representative ASRs for air quality impact assessment are summarized in Table 3.2 and their locations are shown in Figure 3.1.

Table 3.2 Representative air sensitive receivers

ASR ID	Description	No. of Storey (approx.)	Land use [1]	Separation distance from project boundary (approx.) (m)
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	5	Com	360
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	3	Gov	410
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	7	Edu	400
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	7	Edu	350
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	7	Edu	330
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	7	Edu	420
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	33	Res	240
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	30	Res	90
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	43	Res	60
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	35	Res	20
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	35	Res	270
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1	Rec	360
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1-3	Res	Within project boundary
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	10	Hos	70
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	47	Res	310
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	51	Res	470
A17	Ho Yu College	7	Edu	280
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	7	Edu	300
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	50	Res	620
A20	La Rossa B	56	Res	660
A21	LeBleu No.1	1-3	Res	580
A22	LeBleu Deux	15	Res	570
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	49	Res	600
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	7	Edu	570
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	7	Edu	630
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	30	Com	500
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1	Rec	490
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1-3	Res	400
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kindergarden	1	Edu	450
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1-3	Res	290
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1	Edu	260
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1-3	Res	160
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1-3	Res	50
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	8	Edu	50
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1	Wor	Within project boundary
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1-3	Res	Within project boundary
A37	Ngan Au	1-3	Res	Within project boundary
A38	Shek Lau Po	1-3	Res	Within project boundary
A39	Mo Ka	1-3	Res	Within project boundary
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1-3	Res	Within project boundary
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1-3	Wor	130
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	4	Gov	520
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1	Rec	680
A44	Pak Mong	1-3	Res	440
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	32	Res	210
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	38	Res	100
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	28	Res	60
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	33	Res	190
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	7		100
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	49	Res	400
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	52	Res	530
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	51	Res	600
A53	La Mer House 1	1	Res	410
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1	Res	540
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1	Res	460
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	15	Res	470
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	50	Res	620
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	4	Gov	<10
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	8	Gov	<10
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	3	Res	180
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	7	Edu	50
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	37	Res	<10
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	37	Res	10
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	37	Res	20
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	37	Res	20
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	3	Res	<10
A67	Wong Ka Wai	3	Res	<10
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	13 ^[2]	Com	190
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	30 ^[2]	Res	40
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	26	Res	180
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	7	Edu	100
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	40	Res	90
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	39	Res	30
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project)
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	34	Com	Within project boundary
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	5	Gov	Within project boundary
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	35	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	35	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	36	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	39	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	38	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	30	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	18	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	18	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	18	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	18	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	18	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	25	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	31	CDA	Within project boundary
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	25	CDA	Within project boundary
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	31	CDA	Within project boundary
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	30	CDA	Within project boundary
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	32	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	29	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	32	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	29	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	34	Com	Within project boundary
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	28	Com	Within project boundary
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	16	Gov	Within project boundary
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	9	Gov	Within project boundary
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	21	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	11	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	32	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	32	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	36	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	36	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-36	Proposed International School	11	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	31	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	25	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	25	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	10	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	31	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	18	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	10	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	6	Com	Within project boundary
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	10	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	10	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	13	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	6	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	10	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	10	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	10	Res	Within project boundary
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	8	Edu	Within project boundary
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	5	Rec	Within project boundary
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	5	Rec	Within project boundary
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project)
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	18	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	18	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-3	Village Type Development	3	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	38	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	38	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	32	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	17	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	17	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	4	Gov	Within project boundary
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	5	Com	Within project boundary
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	3	Com	Within project boundary
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	3	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	3	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	3	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	3	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	3	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	3	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	6	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	6	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	6	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	6	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	6	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	3	Res	Within project boundary
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	3	Res	Within project boundary

Note:

[1] Res – Residential; Com – Commercial; CDA – Comprehensive Development Area; Gov – Government use; Edu –Education; Wor – Worship; Hos – Hospital/ Clinic; Rec – Park/ Recreational.

[2] Only maximum building heights are available for these ASRs. Number of storey is therefore estimated by assuming the floor height as 3m.

[3] No such information is available during the preparation of this report.

3.3 Baseline Conditions

3.3.1 Description of the Existing Environment

3.3.1.1 Historical air quality monitoring data from the nearest Tung Chung Air Quality Monitoring Station (AQMS) operated by the EPD has been examined. This AQMS is located at the roof top of Tung Chung Health Centre (approx. 27.5m above ground), which is about 70m away from the North Lantau Highway (NLH). Vehicular emissions from the NLH is therefore considered as one of the key contributors to the air quality monitored at Tung Chung AQMS.

3.3.1.2 The latest 5 published years of air quality monitoring data, i.e. 2010 to 2014 are described in the sections below. Meteorological data for the same period measured at the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) by Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) have also been presented to indicate the prevailing wind direction that contributes the highest recorded 1-hour concentration beyond the allowed exceedance (if applicable).

3.3.1.3 In addition, the average percentage time distribution of short-term pollutant concentrations range over the past 5 years have also be summarised in the sections below in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the past background air quality conditions. Only the short-term pollutant concentrations (i.e. 1-hour NO₂/ SO₂/ CO, 24-hour RSP/FSP, and 8-hour O₃) are summarised. Air quality data from other general Air Quality Monitoring Station (AQMS) operated by EPD in Hong Kong have also be summarised for comparison.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂)

3.3.1.4 General monitoring records of 1-hour NO₂ concentrations for the latest 5 years in various AQMSs in Hong Kong are presented in Table 3.3a, and the detailed records of NO₂ concentrations at Tung Chung AQMS are tabulated in Table 3.3b.

Table 3.3a Percentage time distribution of 1-hour NO₂ concentration (2010 – 2014)

Category	AQMS	Percentage Time Distribution in various Concentration Range
		0 – 50% of AQOs	50 – 75% of AQOs	75 – 100% of AQOs	>100% of AQOs
1-hour NO2		(0 – 100 µg/m^3)	(100 – 150 µg/m^3)	(150 – 200 µg/m^3)	(>200 µg/m^3)
New Town	Tung Chung	93.1%	5.9%	0.9%	0.1%
	Yuen Long	94.5%	4.8%	0.6%	0.1%
	Sha Tin	94.7%	4.5%	0.7%	0.1%
	Tai Po	96.3%	3.5%	0.2%	0.0%
	Tuen Mun ^[1]	92.5%	6.4%	0.9%	0.1%
	Average	94.2%	5.0%	0.7%	0.1%
Urban	Central / Western	92.6%	6.4%	0.9%	0.1%
	Eastern	94.4%	4.9%	0.6%	0.1%
	Kwai Chung	87.6%	9.9%	2.1%	0.4%
	Kwun Tong	92.2%	6.1%	1.2%	0.5%
	Sham Shui Po	84.8%	13.4%	1.5%	0.3%
	Tsuen Wan	90.2%	8.5%	1.0%	0.2%
	Average	90.3%	8.2%	1.2%	0.3%
Rural	Tap Mun	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Average	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

Note:

[1] Tuen Mun AQMS commenced operation in Year 2014, hence only 1 year air quality monitoring data is available.

Table 3.3b Air quality monitoring data – NO₂ (Tung Chung Station, 2010 – 2014)

Pollutant	Year	19^th highest 1-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Max. 24-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
NO2	2010	203 {160^o}	149	44
	2011	184 {270^o}	137	51
	2012	166 {330^o}	124	43
	2013	177 {60^o}	140	49
	2014	198 {280^o}	141	45
	5-year mean	186 [93%]	138	46 [116%]
	AQOs	200 (18)	N/A	40

Notes:

N/A - Not applicable since there are no AQOs for this parameter.

[1] Number of exceedance allowed under the AQOs is shown in ( ), % of the AQOs is shown in [ ], and wind direction measured at HKIA is given in { }.  The 5-year mean is the average of the yearly maximum.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQOs are underlined.

3.3.1.5 It can be seen in Table 3.3a that the majority of the time of a year (i.e. >90%) that the 1-hour NO₂ concentrations in Tung Chung are at a very low concentrations (below 50% of its AQOs i.e. 100μg/m³), which is similar to those of other New Towns and slightly better than the average in Urban area. And there is only 0.1% time of a year that the 1-hour NO₂ concentrations would exceed its criteria, which is however also found similar to those in Urban area. From Table 3.3b, it shows that the 19^th highest 1-hour NO₂ complied with the AQOs of 200μg/m³ in the past 5 years except for Year 2010. There was no obvious trend for the 19^th highest 1-hour NO₂ concentration and the range was from 166μg/m³ in 2012 to 203μg/m³ in 2010. By correlating the 19^th highest 1-hour NO₂ concentrations with the wind directions measured at HKIA, the NO₂ episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from northwest, northeast, southeast and west, which indicated that these NO₂ episodes were likely contributed by various sources adjacent to the TC AQMS.

3.3.1.6 Similarly, there was no pattern observed for the 24-hour NO₂ concentration, which had its maximum at 149μg/m³ in 2010 and minimum at 124μg/m³ in 2012.  The annual NO₂ remained relatively steady in the range of 43 - 51μg/m³, all exceeding the AQOs of 40μg/m³.

Particulates (including RSP and FSP)

3.3.1.7 General monitoring records of 24-hour RSP/ FSP concentrations for the latest 5 years in various AQMSs in Hong Kong are presented in Table 3.3c, and the detailed records of RSP/ FSP concentrations at Tung Chung AQMS are tabulated in Table 3.3d.

Table 3.3c Percentage time distribution of 24-hour RSP/FSP concentration (2010 – 2014)

Category	AQMS	Percentage Time Distribution in various Concentration Range
		0 – 50% of AQOs	50 – 75% of AQOs	75 – 100% of AQOs	>100% of AQOs
24-hour RSP		(0 – 50 µg/m^3)	(50 – 75 µg/m^3)	(75 – 100 µg/m^3)	(>100 µg/m^3)
New Town	Tung Chung	64.4%	20.9%	10.3%	4.4%
	Yuen Long	56.3%	24.1%	13.2%	6.4%
	Sha Tin	67.3%	22.2%	8.5%	2.0%
	Tai Po	66.3%	22.4%	9.1%	2.1%
	Tuen Mun ^[1]	61.3%	23.5%	9.6%	5.6%
	Average	63.1%	22.6%	10.1%	4.1%
Urban	Central / Western	59.1%	25.7%	11.6%	3.6%
	Eastern	69.3%	22.2%	7.2%	1.3%
	Kwai Chung	65.2%	23.6%	8.7%	2.4%
	Kwun Tong	59.4%	26.6%	10.4%	3.5%
	Sham Shui Po	62.6%	26.0%	9.0%	2.4%
	Tsuen Wan	64.9%	23.9%	9.2%	2.0%
	Average	63.4%	24.7%	9.4%	2.5%
Rural	Tap Mun	65.0%	23.1%	8.9%	3.0%
	Average	65.0%	23.1%	8.9%	3.0%
24-hour FSP		(0 – 37.5 µg/m^3)	(37.5 - 56.3µg/m^3)	(56.3 – 75 µg/m^3)	(>75 µg/m^3)
New Town	Tung Chung	73.1%	17.2%	7.2%	2.5%
	Yuen Long	62.9%	23.4%	9.8%	3.9%
	Sha Tin	71.9%	19.6%	6.5%	1.9%
	Tai Po	71.5%	19.5%	7.3%	1.6%
	Tuen Mun ^[1]	66.2%	23.2%	6.6%	4.0%
	Average	69.1%	20.6%	7.5%	2.8%
Urban	Central / Western	67.7%	21.7%	7.9%	2.7%
	Eastern	75.4%	20.3%	3.7%	0.7%
	Kwai Chung	68.9%	20.9%	7.3%	2.8%
	Kwun Tong	70.4%	21.8%	5.5%	2.2%
	Sham Shui Po	66.3%	26.4%	5.7%	1.6%
	Tsuen Wan	70.3%	22.2%	6.3%	1.2%
	Average	69.8%	22.2%	6.1%	1.9%
Rural	Tap Mun	75.1%	18.4%	5.0%	1.5%
	Average	75.1%	18.4%	5.0%	1.5%

Table 3.3d Air quality monitoring data – RSP/FSP (Tung Chung Station, 2010 – 2014)

Pollutant	Year	Max. 1-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	10^th highest 24-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
RSP	2010	640 ^[3]{90^o}	111	45
	2011	250 {260^o}	109	47
	2012	274 {280^o}	106	45
	2013	234 {310^o}	108	42
	2014	247 {320^o}	101	39
	5-year mean	329	107 [107%]	44 [88%]
	AQOs	N/A	100 (9)	45
FSP	2010	209 {320^o}	79	29
	2011	174 {270^o}	78	32
	2012	210 {280^o}	74	28
	2013	158 {310^o}	76	26
	2014	169 {320^o}	65	24
	5-year mean	184	74 [99%]	28 [80%]
	AQOs	N/A	75 (9)	35

Notes:

N/A - Not applicable since there are no AQOs for this parameter.

[1] Number of exceedance allowed under the AQOs is shown in ( ), % of the AQOs is shown in [ ], and wind direction measured at HKIA is given in { }.  The 5-year mean is the average of the yearly maximum.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQOs are underlined.

[3] The value was recorded during a dust plume originated from the northern part of China in March 2010, which was an abnormal event, and hence has not been used in the calculation of the 5-year mean.

3.3.1.8 It can be seen in Table 3.3c that the majority of the time of a year (i.e. ~65%) the 24-hour RSP concentrations in Tung Chung are at a very low concentrations (below 50% of its AQOs i.e. 50μg/m³), which is similar to those of other New Towns and Urban areas. And there is about 4% time of a year that the 24-hour RSP concentrations would exceed its criteria and is however also similar to those in Urban area and Rural area. Similarly, there is about 75% time of a year the 24-hour FSP concentrations in Tung Chung are below 50% of the criteria, and only 2.5% time the criteria is exceeded, which are similar to those in Urban and Rural areas. From Table 3.3d, it showed that the 10^th highest 24-hour RSP exceeded with the AQOs of 100μg/m³ in the past 5 years. The 10^th highest 24-hour RSP concentration is gradually decreasing from the value of 111μg/m³ in 2010 to 101μg/m³ in 2014. In addition, a dust plume that originated from northern part of Mainland China in March 2010 resulted in an abnormal hourly RSP concentration.

3.3.1.9 The 10^th highest daily FSP concentrations is gradually decreasing from the value of 79μg/m³ in 2010 to 65μg/m³ in 2014 and complied with the AQOs limit for years 2012 and 2014. By correlating the highest 1-hour RSP/FSP concentrations with the wind directions, the majority highest RSP /FSP episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from northwest to west. According to the “2010 Airport Operational Air Quality Study” prepared by the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology (hereinafter called “the HKUST Study”), the impact of HKIA emissions on local RSP levels was concluded negligible and the RSP/FSP concentrations would likely influenced by marine shipping, road transport and regional emission source located northwest from the TC AQMS.

3.3.1.10 Annual RSP concentrations also showed a general decreasing trend, from 45μg/m³ in 2010 to 39μg/m³ in Year 2014, and all complied with the AQOs limit. And the annual FSP concentrations in past 5 years remained steady, ranging from 24 to 32μg/m³, all complying with the AQOs of 35μg/m³.

3.3.1.11 As presented above, exceedances of 24-hour RSP/FSP concentrations were generally observed in Tung Chung over the past 5 years. In order to understand if there is a pattern of high concentration episode over the year, the total exceedance record over the past 5 years in each month have been investigated and are illustrated in the Diagrams 3.1 – 3.2 below. Exceedance records in other general AQMS operated by EPD in Hong Kong have also be presented for comparison.

Diagram 3.1 Number of Exceedance of 24-hour RSP (2010-2014)

Diagram 3.2 Number of Exceedance of 24-hour FSP (2010-2014)

3.3.1.12 As indicated in Diagrams 3.1 and 3.2, it is found that exceedance of 24-hour RSP/FSP concentrations generally occurred in January and December (and in October for some stations as well) when the prevailing winds were from north and northeasterly, accounting for about 60% and 70% of the recorded RSP and FSP exceedances in the past 5 years from 2010 to 2014 respectively. The patterns were found very similar to all stations, indicating that the episodes were affecting air quality throughout the whole territory during winter season, which are likely originated from regional sources, particularly from the northwest. Anthropogenic primary sources (coal combustion, vehicular exhaust, and residue oil combustion) showed the highest contributions associated with northwesterly wind, indicating the strong influence of the more urbanized areas to the northwest of Hong Kong in the Pearl River Delta region ^[Ref-[1]].  It was also found that non-local contributions exhibited relatively higher contributions in winter (77%) compared to summer (48%) ^[Ref-[2]].

Ozone (O₃)

3.3.1.13 General monitoring records of 8-hour O₃ concentrations for the latest 5 years in various AQMSs in Hong Kong are presented in Table 3.3e, and the detailed records of O₃ concentrations at Tung Chung AQMS are tabulated in Table 3.3f.

Table 3.3e Percentage time distribution of 8-hour O₃ concentration (2010 – 2014)

Category	AQMS	Percentage Time Distribution in various Concentration Range
		0 – 50% of AQOs	50 – 75% of AQOs	75 – 100% of AQOs	>100% of AQOs
8-hour O3		(0 – 80 µg/m^3)	(80 – 120 µg/m^3)	(120 – 160 µg/m^3)	(>160 µg/m^3)
New Town	Tung Chung	66.6%	22.1%	6.9%	4.4%
	Yuen Long	71.9%	19.4%	5.6%	3.1%
	Sha Tin	57.7%	29.1%	10.5%	2.7%
	Tai Po	64.9%	27.2%	6.5%	1.4%
	Tuen Mun ^[1]	76.4%	14.2%	6.0%	3.3%
	Average	67.5%	22.4%	7.1%	3.0%
Urban	Central / Western	76.9%	17.7%	3.9%	1.4%
	Eastern	79.9%	16.6%	2.7%	0.7%
	Kwai Chung	86.9%	11.6%	1.3%	0.3%
	Kwun Tong	74.9%	22.5%	2.4%	0.2%
	Sham Shui Po	87.1%	10.5%	2.0%	0.4%
	Tsuen Wan	83.0%	14.2%	2.2%	0.7%
	Average	81.4%	15.5%	2.4%	0.6%
Rural	Tap Mun	37.4%	33.2%	22.7%	6.7%
	Average	37.4%	33.2%	22.7%	6.7%

Note:

[1] Tuen Mun AQMS commenced operation in Year 2014, hence only 1 year air quality monitoring data is available.

Table 3.3f Air quality monitoring data –O₃ (Tung Chung Station, 2010 – 2014)

Pollutant	Year	Max. 1-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	10^th highest 8-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Max. 24-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
O3	2010	341 {290^o}	164	115	44
	2011	312 {260^o}	189	144	44
	2012	383 {260^o}	197	158	47
	2013	314 {270^o}	171	129	44
	2014	355 {290^o}	175	152	46
	5-year mean	341	179 [112%]	140	45
	AQOs	N/A	160 (9)	N/A	N/A

Note:

N/A - Not applicable since there are no AQOs for this parameter.

[1] Number of exceedance allowed under the AQOs is shown in ( ), % of the AQOs is shown in [ ], and wind direction measured at HKIA is given in { }.  The 5-year mean is the average of the yearly maximum.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQOs are underlined.

3.3.1.14 It can be seen from Table 3.3e that more than 60% time of a year that the 8-hour O₃ concentrations in Tung Chung are relatively low (<50% of its AQOs), the time percentage is similar to that of other new towns but less than that in Urban area. And there is only 5% time of a year the 8-hour O₃ concentrations would exceed its criteria, which is higher than those in Urban area. As NOx emission from motor vehicles and other sources can react with and remove O₃ in the air, regions with heavier traffic normally have lower O₃ levels than areas with lighter traffic. Hence, in Tap Mun (i.e. Rural area) where air pollution sources are far less than those in New Towns and Urban areas, there are only about 36% time a year the 8-hour O₃ concentrations are less 50% of its criteria and about 7% time a year the criteria is exceeded. And the O₃ concentrations in Urban area is generally lower that those in New Towns and Rural area.

3.3.1.15 From Table 3.3f, the O₃ concentrations were found consistently high in Tung Chung from Years 2010 to 2014. The 10^th highest 8-hour O₃ concentration in Tung Chung was in the range of 164 – 197µg/m³, all in excess of the AQOs. By correlating the highest 1-hour O₃ concentrations with the wind directions, the majority highest O₃ episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from northwest to southwest. According to the HKUST Study, O₃ is not an emitted pollutant but is formed by reactions between primary pollutant and/or atmospheric components. It is also identified that part of the O₃ contribution is carried from the Pearl River Delta (PRD) to Tung Chung by land / sea breeze. Hence, O₃ is a regional air pollutant.

3.3.1.16 Since exceedances of 8-hour concentrations were consistently observed in Tung Chung over the past 5 years, the total exceedance record over the past 5 years in each month have been investigated and are illustrated in the Diagram 3.3 below to understand if there is a pattern of high concentration episode over the year. Exceedance records in other general AQMS operated by EPD in Hong Kong have also be presented for comparison.

Diagram 3.3 Number of exceedance of 8-hour O₃ (2010-2014)

3.3.1.17 High O₃ days were mainly found in hot season from July to October (Diagram 3.3), accounting for about 70% of the recorded exceedances in the past 5 years from 2010 to 2014. During this season, meteorological conditions such as high temperature, intense solar radiation, low wind speed and low relative humidity were favorable for the formation of O₃. Transboundary transport induced by tropical cyclones would bring air mass of O₃ as well as its precursors from polluted areas and it plays a critical role in these episodes.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO₂)

3.3.1.18 General monitoring records of 24-hour SO₂ concentrations for the latest 5 years in various AQMSs in Hong Kong are presented in Table 3.3g, and the detailed records of SO₂ concentrations at Tung Chung AQMS are tabulated in Table 3.3f.

Table 3.3g Percentage time distribution of 24-hour SO₂ concentration (2010 – 2014)

Category	AQMS	Percentage Time Distribution in various Concentration Range
		0 – 50% of AQOs	50 – 75% of AQOs	75 – 100% of AQOs	>100% of AQOs
24-hour SO2		(0 – 62.5 µg/m^3)	(62.5–93.8µg/m^3)	(93.8 – 125µg/m^3)	(>125 µg/m^3)
New Town	Tung Chung	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Yuen Long	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Sha Tin	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Tai Po	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Tuen Mun ^[1]	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Average	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Urban	Central / Western	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Eastern	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Kwai Chung	98.1%	1.8%	0.2%	0.0%
	Kwun Tong	99.9%	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%
	Sham Shui Po	99.0%	1.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Tsuen Wan	99.9%	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%
	Average	99.5%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%
Rural	Tap Mun	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Average	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

Note:

[1] Tuen Mun AQMS commenced operation in Year 2014, hence only 1 year air quality monitoring data is available.

Table 3.3h Air quality monitoring data – SO₂ (Tung Chung Station, 2010 – 2014)

Pollutant	Year	Max. 1-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	4^th highest 24-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
SO2 ^[3]	2010	113 {290^o}	46	12
	2011	90 {280^o}	38	13
	2012	91 {270^o}	33	13
	2013	96 {310^o}	39	14
	2014	82 {320^o}	35	13
	5-year mean	94	38 [31%]	13
	AQOs	N/A	125 (3)	N/A

Notes:

N/A - Not applicable since there are no AQOs for this parameter.

[1] Number of exceedance allowed under the AQOs is shown in ( ), % of the AQOs is shown in [ ], and wind direction measured at HKIA is given in { }.  The 5-year mean is the average of the yearly maximum.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQOs are underlined.

[3] Monitoring data based on the AQOs of 10-min SO₂ is currently not publicly available.

3.3.1.19 According to the monitoring records presented in Table 3.3g and Table 3.3h, it can be seen that the SO₂ concentrations in Tung Chung, as well as in other areas in Hong Kong, were in very low level, whereas 100% time of a year the 24-hour SO₂ concentrations were under 50% of the respective criteria (i.e. 62.5μg/m³). By correlating the highest 1-hour SO₂ concentrations with the wind directions, the majority highest SO₂ episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from northwest to west. According to the HKUST Study, SO₂ and CO would be due to the heavily industrialised areas to the north and around PRD.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

3.3.1.20 General monitoring records of 1-hour CO concentrations for the latest 5 years in various AQMSs in Hong Kong are presented in Table 3.3i, and the detailed records of CO concentrations at Tung Chung AQMS are tabulated in Table 3.3j.

Table 3.3i Percentage time distribution of 1-hour CO concentration (2010 – 2014)

Category	AQMS	Percentage Time Distribution in various Concentration Range
		0 – 50% of AQOs	50 – 75% of AQOs	75 – 100% of AQOs	>100% of AQOs
1-hour CO		(0 – 15,000 µg/m^3)	(15,000–22,500µg/m^3)	(22,500 – 30,000µg/m^3)	(>30,000 µg/m^3)
New Town	Tung Chung	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Yuen Long	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Sha Tin	CO is not measured at this AQMS.
	Tai Po	CO is not measured at this AQMS.
	Tuen Mun ^[1]	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Average	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Urban	Central / Western	CO is not measured at this AQMS.
	Eastern	CO is not measured at this AQMS.
	Kwai Chung	CO is not measured at this AQMS.
	Kwun Tong	CO is not measured at this AQMS.
	Sham Shui Po	CO is not measured at this AQMS.
	Tsuen Wan	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Average	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Rural	Tap Mun	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Average	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

Note:

[1] Tuen Mun AQMS commenced operation in Year 2014, hence only 1 year air quality monitoring data is available.

Table 3.3j Air quality monitoring data – CO (Tung Chung Station, 2010 – 2014)

Pollutant	Year	Max. 1-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Max. 8-hour Conc. (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
CO	2010	2910 {320^o}	2469	737
	2011	2290 {10^o}	2188	660
	2012	2660 {300^o}	2461	671
	2013	1810 {330^o}	1640	665
	2014	2230 {320^o}	1692	546
	5-year mean	2380 [8%]	2090 [21%]	656
	AQOs	2910 {320^o}	10,000 (0)	N/A

Notes:

N/A - Not applicable since there are no AQOs for this parameter.

[1] Number of exceedance allowed under the AQOs is shown in ( ), % of the AQOs is shown in [ ], and wind direction measured at HKIA is given in { }.  The 5-year mean is the average of the yearly maximum.

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQOs are underlined.

3.3.1.21 According to the monitoring records presented in Table 3.3i and Table 3.3j, it can be seen that the CO concentrations in Tung Chung, as well as in other areas in Hong Kong, were in very low level, whereas 100% time of a year that the 1-hour CO concentrations were under 50% of the respective criteria (i.e. 15,000μg/m3). By correlating the highest 1-hour CO concentrations with the wind directions, the majority highest CO episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from northwest to west. According to the HKUST Study, CO would be due to the heavily industrialised areas to the north and around PRD.

3.3.2 Existing Air Quality Conditions at Air Sensitive Receivers

3.3.2.1 According to Appendix B, Clause 1 (iii) of the EIA Study Brief for the Project, the cumulative air quality impact during construction and operation stage of the Project shall be compared with the existing baseline conditions and quantify any change in air quality levels. To this end, existing air quality conditions in Year 2010 at each identified existing ASRs as given in Table 3.2 are predicted based on the methodologies as mentioned in Section 3.5.4 and the emission inventories for Year 2011 as presented in the approved EIA Study “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (AEIAR-185/2014) (hereinafter called the “3RS EIA”) are referenced. As discussed in Section 3.5.4, since the hourly meteorological data for Year 2010 extracted from EPD’s PATH model are adopted, establishing the existing air quality conditions in Year 2010 using this set of meteorological data is therefore considered reasonable. Key air pollutants of concern in this air quality assessment include NO₂, RSP and FSP, as discussed in Section 3.5.3.

3.3.2.2 In general, for near-field sources, CALINE4 is adopted to assess the vehicular emission impact. Airport emission from the Hong Kong International Airport (under two-runway system) for Year 2011 as presented in the approved 3RS EIA has been directly adopted and are modelled by AERMOD for the prediction of existing air quality conditions. Marine emission from existing local vessel connecting Tuen Mun, Tung Chung, Sha Lo Wan and Tai O are also modelled by AERMOD.

3.3.2.3 For far-field sources contributions, including those from marine vessels, power plants, industries etc., PATH model for Year 2010 has been obtained from EPD and the model results are adopted as the background air quality level in Year 2010.

3.3.2.4 The predicted 19^th highest 1-hour and annual NO₂ concentrations, and 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP/ FSP concentrations in Year 2010 are presented in Table 3.4a. Detailed results are presented in Appendix 3.1. Moreover, the contributions to annual NO₂ / RSP / FSP at each identified ASRs from airport related emission, vehicular emission, other proximity (including marine emission), and ambient background are presented in Tables 3.4b-d. It should be noted that the predictions at 1.5m above ground are presented, which is identified as the worst affected level. These predictions are subsequently compared with the cumulative air quality impacts during construction and operational phase and the change in air quality levels are quantified in Section 3.4.8 and Section 3.5.6 respectively.

Table 3.4a Cumulative NO₂, RSP and FSP concentrations in Year 2010

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	NO2 Conc. (µg/m^3)		RSP Conc. (µg/m^3)		FSP Conc. (µg/m^3)
			1-hour (19^th highest)	Annual	24-hour (10^th highest)	Annual	24-hour (10^th highest)	Annual
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	218	63	86	43	65	31
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre ^[1]	1.5m	203	51	85	42	64	30
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	197	50	85	41	64	30
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	190	49	85	41	64	29
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	190	51	84	41	64	29
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	196	52	85	41	64	30
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	189	49	84	41	63	29
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	206	53	84	41	63	29
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	223	60	85	42	64	30
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	173	42	84	41	63	29
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	172	43	84	41	63	29
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	221	67	86	44	65	31
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	173	42	84	41	63	29
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	187	49	84	41	63	29
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	215	59	86	42	64	30
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	216	60	86	42	64	30
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	214	53	86	42	64	30
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	214	54	86	42	64	30
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	216	60	86	42	64	30
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	221	64	85	43	64	30
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	219	59	85	43	64	30
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	220	60	85	43	64	30
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	222	64	85	43	65	31
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	229	72	86	43	65	31
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	228	72	86	43	65	31
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	230	71	86	43	65	31
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	235	71	87	44	65	31
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	173	39	84	41	63	29
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	172	40	85	41	64	29
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	170	39	84	41	63	29
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	168	39	84	41	63	29
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	172	40	84	41	63	29
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	154	34	81	39	60	28
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	157	35	82	40	61	28
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	161	40	85	40	64	29
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	171	39	84	41	63	29
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	157	35	81	40	61	28
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	156	34	81	40	61	28
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	149	33	81	40	61	28
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	149	33	81	40	60	28
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	149	33	81	40	60	28
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	228	72	86	43	65	31
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	220	69	86	43	64	31
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	191	42	83	41	62	29
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	197	51	84	41	63	29
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	196	55	84	41	63	29
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	203	63	84	42	63	30
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	195	52	84	41	63	29
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	209	66	85	42	64	30
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	215	59	86	42	64	30
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	216	60	86	42	64	30
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	217	59	86	42	64	30
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	214	53	86	42	64	30
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	218	58	85	43	64	30
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	212	53	86	42	64	30
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	215	57	85	43	64	30
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	223	65	85	43	64	31
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	206	58	85	42	64	30
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	204	60	85	42	64	30
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	168	38	84	41	63	29
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	172	42	84	41	63	29
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	171	41	84	41	63	29
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	177	47	85	41	64	29
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	171	42	84	41	63	29
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	172	41	84	41	63	29
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	172	40	85	41	64	29
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	171	40	84	41	63	29

Note: Bolded value means exceedance of its respective AQOs.

[1] Predicted pollutant concentrations at the Tung Chung AQMS in Year 2010 are in general comparable to the actual monitored concentrations presented in Section 3.3.1.

Table 3.4b 19^th highest 1-hour NO₂, and annual NO₂ concentrations breakdown (for Year 2010)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	19^th highest 1-hour NO2 Contribution (µg/m^3)					Annual NO2 Contribution (µg/m^3)
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Ambient Background	Cumulative
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	<1	29	<1	189	218	2	20	<1	42	63
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	18	101	<1	84	203	1	17	<1	33	51
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	<1	11	<1	186	197	1	16	<1	33	50
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	<1	4	<1	186	190	1	15	<1	33	49
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	10	37	<1	143	190	1	17	<1	33	51
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	15	94	<1	87	196	1	18	<1	33	52
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	<1	55	<1	133	189	1	15	<1	33	49
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	19	114	<1	72	206	1	19	<1	33	53
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	14	124	<1	85	223	1	26	<1	33	60
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	18	25	<1	129	173	1	8	<1	33	42
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	<1	42	<1	130	172	1	9	<1	33	43
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	18	2	202	221	2	23	<1	42	67
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	16	17	<1	139	173	1	7	<1	33	42
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	20	52	<1	115	187	1	14	<1	33	49
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	<1	54	<1	160	215	1	20	<1	38	59
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	37	8	2	168	216	1	21	<1	38	60
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	<1	35	<1	178	214	1	13	<1	38	53
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	<1	13	<1	201	214	1	15	<1	38	54
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	<1	35	<1	181	216	1	20	<1	38	60
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	<1	18	<1	202	221	2	20	<1	42	64
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	<1	9	<1	210	219	2	16	<1	42	59
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	<1	15	1	203	220	2	16	<1	42	60
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	<1	12	<1	210	222	2	20	<1	42	64
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	<1	19	<1	210	229	1	29	<1	42	72
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	<1	23	<1	204	228	1	28	<1	42	72
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	136	80	<1	14	230	2	28	<1	42	71
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	17	1	216	235	2	27	<1	42	71
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	7	58	<1	108	173	1	5	<1	33	39
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	171	172	1	6	<1	33	40
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	24	26	<1	121	170	1	5	<1	33	39
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	16	13	<1	139	168	1	4	<1	33	39
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	17	26	<1	129	172	1	6	<1	33	40
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	153	154	1	6	<1	27	34
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	157	157	2	5	<1	28	35
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	160	161	2	7	<1	32	40
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	<1	4	<1	167	171	1	5	<1	33	39
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	157	157	2	4	<1	28	35
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	156	156	2	4	<1	28	34
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	149	149	2	3	<1	28	33
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	149	149	2	3	<1	28	33
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	148	149	2	3	<1	28	33
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	<1	19	<1	209	228	2	28	<1	42	72
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	<1	18	<1	201	220	1	30	<1	38	69
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	190	191	<1	5	<1	36	42
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	15	67	<1	115	197	1	16	<1	33	51
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	<1	28	<1	168	196	1	20	<1	33	55
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	<1	68	<1	134	203	1	28	<1	33	63
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	18	70	<1	108	195	1	18	<1	33	52
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	<1	126	1	82	209	1	31	<1	33	66
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	<1	54	<1	160	215	1	20	<1	38	59
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	<1	37	<1	178	216	1	20	<1	38	60
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	<1	15	<1	201	217	1	20	<1	38	59
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	<1	44	<1	170	214	1	13	<1	38	53
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	<1	15	<1	202	218	2	15	<1	42	58
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	<1	55	<1	157	212	1	14	<1	38	53
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	215	215	2	14	<1	42	57
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	5	91	<1	126	223	2	21	<1	42	65
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	19	48	<1	139	206	1	23	<1	33	58
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	<1	82	<1	121	204	1	25	<1	33	60
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	168	168	<1	3	<1	33	38
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	<1	5	<1	167	172	1	7	<1	33	42
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	<1	5	<1	167	171	1	6	<1	33	41
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	<1	5	<1	171	177	1	12	<1	33	47
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	<1	41	<1	130	171	1	7	<1	33	42
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	18	24	<1	129	172	1	6	<1	33	41
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	15	28	<1	129	172	1	6	<1	33	40
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	<1	11	<1	160	171	1	5	<1	33	40

Notes:

Bolded value means exceedance of its respective AQOs.

[1] “Other Proximity” includes contributions from marine emission.

Table 3.4c 10^th highest 24-hour RSP, and annual RSP concentrations breakdown (for Year 2010)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	10^th highest 24-hour RSP Contribution (µg/m^3)					Annual RSP Contribution (µg/m^3)
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Ambient Background	Cumulative
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	<1	2	<1	84	86	<1	1	<1	42	43
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	<1	2	<1	83	85	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	85	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	85	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	85	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	85	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	2	<1	84	86	<1	2	<1	42	44
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	<1	2	<1	82	85	<1	<1	<1	42	43
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	<1	2	<1	82	85	<1	<1	<1	42	43
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	<1	2	<1	82	85	<1	<1	<1	42	43
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	<1	3	<1	82	85	<1	<1	<1	42	43
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	<1	3	<1	82	86	<1	2	<1	42	43
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	<1	3	<1	82	86	<1	2	<1	42	43
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	<1	4	<1	82	86	<1	1	<1	42	43
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	87	87	<1	2	<1	42	44
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	85	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	80	81	<1	<1	<1	39	39
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	6	<1	<1	76	82	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	85	85	<1	<1	<1	40	40
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	81	81	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	81	81	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	81	81	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	81	81	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	81	81	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	<1	4	<1	82	86	<1	2	<1	42	43
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	1	<1	41	43
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	2	1	<1	79	83	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	85	<1	1	<1	41	42
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	<1	2	<1	82	85	<1	<1	<1	42	43
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	86	86	<1	<1	<1	41	42
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	1	2	<1	82	85	<1	<1	<1	42	43
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	<1	2	<1	82	85	<1	<1	<1	42	43
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	<1	2	<1	83	85	<1	1	<1	41	42
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	<1	2	<1	83	85	<1	1	<1	41	42
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	85	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	1	<1	83	85	<1	<1	<1	41	41
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	83	84	<1	<1	<1	41	41

Notes:

Bolded value means exceedance of its respective AQOs.

[1] “Other Proximity” includes contributions from marine emission.

Table 3.4d 10^th highest 24-hour FSP, and annual FSP concentrations breakdown (for Year 2010)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	10^th highest 24-hour FSP Contribution (µg/m^3)					Annual FSP Contribution (µg/m^3)
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Ambient Background	Cumulative
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	<1	2	<1	63	65	<1	1	<1	30	31
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	<1	2	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	<1	1	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	<1	1	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	<1	1	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	2	<1	63	65	<1	1	<1	30	31
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	1	1	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	1	2	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	1	1	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	1	1	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	1	2	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	<1	2	<1	62	64	<1	<1	<1	30	30
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	<1	2	<1	62	64	<1	<1	<1	30	30
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	<1	2	<1	62	64	<1	<1	<1	30	30
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	<1	2	<1	62	65	<1	<1	<1	30	31
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	<1	3	<1	62	65	<1	1	<1	30	31
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	<1	3	<1	62	65	<1	1	<1	30	31
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	65	65	<1	1	<1	30	31
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	65	65	<1	1	<1	30	31
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	<1	1	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	60	60	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	60	61	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	<1	1	<1	62	64	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	61	61	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	60	61	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	61	61	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	60	60	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	60	60	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	<1	3	<1	62	65	<1	1	<1	30	31
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	64	64	<1	1	<1	29	31
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	62	62	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	<1	1	<1	63	64	<1	1	<1	29	30
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	1	2	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	1	2	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	64	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	1	1	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	<1	2	<1	62	64	<1	<1	<1	30	30
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	1	1	<1	61	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	<1	2	<1	62	64	<1	<1	<1	30	30
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	<1	2	<1	62	64	<1	<1	<1	30	31
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	<1	2	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	<1	2	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	30
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	<1	1	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	1	<1	63	64	<1	<1	<1	29	29
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	63	63	<1	<1	<1	29	29

Notes:

Bolded value means exceedance of its respective AQOs.

[1] “Other Proximity” includes contributions from marine emission.

3.3.2.5 It can be seen from Table 3.4a that exceedances of both 1-hour and annual NO₂ criteria are predicted at most existing ASRs in Year 2010. In particular, annual NO₂ concentrations of more than 70µg/m³ at 1.5m above ground are predicted at ASRs located near the North Lantau Highway (NLH), such as A24 (Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School), A25 (Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School), A26 (Novotel Citygate Hong Kong ), A27 (Man Tung Road Park), and A42 (Tung Chung Public Library). However, for some existing ASRs located in a relatively remote area near Tung Chung West which is far away from the NLH, such as A30 (Sheung Ling Pei), A32 (Ha Ling Pei), A36 (Sha Tsui Tau), A37 (Ngan Au), A38 (Shek Lau Po), A39 (Mo Ka), and A40 (Shek Mun Kap) etc., compliances with AQOs could be achieved as there are no major air pollution sources in these area and the air quality impacts from sources located far away become less significant due to distance attenuation.

3.3.2.6 According to Tables 3.4b-d, it is observed that ambient background contributed the most of the cumulative air quality levels, while vehicular emission is the second largest contributor.

3.3.2.7 As discussed in above section, the pollutant concentrations presented in Tables 3.4a-d are predicted at 1.5m above ground, which is identified as the worst affected level to the air sensitive uses. In general, cumulative air quality impact gradually decreases as the receivers’ height increase. For example, cumulative annual NO₂ concentration at ASR A26 (Novotel Citygate Hong Kong), the predicted concentrations from 1.5m to 80m above ground decreased from 71µg/m³ to 46µg/m³. It further indicated that there is relatively significant impact from vehicular emission at ground level.

3.3.3 Future Air Quality

3.3.3.1 It should be noted that the general ambient air quality conditions described in Section 3.3.1 are the historical data in the past. During the 12^th Hong Kong-Guangdong Joint Working Group Meeting on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection (Nov 2012), the Hong Kong and Guangdong Governments jointly endorsed a Major Air Pollutant Emission Reduction Plan for the Pearl River Delta Region up to year 2020. Key emission reduction measures to be implemented by Hong Kong and PRDEZ include:

Hong Kong Government

· 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 sulphur fuel while at berth;

· tightening the permissible sulphur 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.

Pearl River Delta Economic Zone

· installing desulphurization and denitrification systems at large-scale coal-fired power generating units;

· closing down small-scale power generating units;

· phasing out heavily polluting cement plants as well as iron and steel plants;

· installing vapour recovery systems at petrol filling stations, oil depots and on tanker trucks;

· implementing new pollutant emission standards for boilers as well as specific industries such as cement, furniture manufacturing, printing, shoe-making and surface coating (automobile manufacturing) industries;

· installing denitrification systems at new dry-type cement kilns;

· tightening the emission standards for newly registered petrol vehicles to Guangdong IV standard; and

· progressively supplying diesel at National IV standard and petrol at Guangdong IV standard.

3.3.3.2 EPD has developed a regional air quality model, PATH (Pollutants in the Atmosphere and their Transport over Hongkong), to simulate air pollution in Hong Kong. To estimate the background concentrations in future year, EPD has also compiled the emission inventory for Year 2020 taking into account the abovementioned emission reduction measures and adopted in the PATH model.

3.3.3.3 The project involves 13 grids in the PATH, including 11_24, 11_25, 12_24, 12_25, 12_26, 13_25, 13_26, 13_27, 14_26, 14_27, 15_26, 15_27 and 16_27. The hourly pollutant concentration data predicted by PATH for Year 2020 are provided by EPD and are summarised in the following table. Figure 3.2 illustrates the locations of concerned PATH grids.

Table 3.5 Future ambient air quality for concerned PATH grids (Year 2020)

Pollutant	PATH Grids	Highest 1-hour Conc. beyond the allowed exceedance (μg/m^3)	Highest 24-hour Conc. beyond the allowed exceedance (μg/m^3)	Highest 8-hour Conc. beyond the allowed exceedance (μg/m^3)	Annual Conc. (μg/m^3)
SO2 ^[3]	11_24	163 ^[1]	33	-	-
	11_25	170 ^[1]	38	-	-
	12_24	136 ^[1]	32	-	-
	12_25	160 ^[1]	36	-	-
	12_26	177 ^[1]	38	-	-
	13_25	155 ^[1]	34	-	-
	13_26	160 ^[1]	35	-	-
	13_27	133 ^[1]	36	-	-
	14_26	156 ^[1]	34	-	-
	14_27	127 ^[1]	33	-	-
	15_26	120 ^[1]	31	-	-
	15_27	126 ^[1]	31	-	-
	16_27	126 ^[1]	31	-	-
	AQOs	500 (3)	125 (3)	N/A	N/A
NO2 ^[3]	11_24	121	-	-	22
	11_25	131	-	-	25
	12_24	111	-	-	21
	12_25	125	-	-	24
	12_26	159	-	-	29
	13_25	119	-	-	22
	13_26	141	-	-	27
	13_27	146	-	-	27
	14_26	133	-	-	26
	14_27	143	-	-	26
	15_26	130	-	-	25
	15_27	130	-	-	26
	16_27	135	-	-	26
	AQOs	200 (18)	N/A	N/A	40
CO	11_24	1274	-	1128	-
	11_25	1318	-	1137	-
	12_24	1260	-	1107	-
	12_25	1265	-	1127	-
	12_26	1449	-	1124	-
	13_25	1277	-	1106	-
	13_26	1419	-	1094	-
	13_27	1349	-	1068	-
	14_26	1413	-	1080	-
	14_27	1310	-	1069	-
	15_26	1428	-	1063	-
	15_27	1287	-	1056	-
	16_27	1314	-	1074	-
	AQOs	30,000 (0)	N/A	10,000 (0)	N/A
O3 ^[3]	11_24	-	-	116	-
	11_25	-	-	110	-
	12_24	-	-	121	-
	12_25	-	-	115	-
	12_26	-	-	105	-
	13_25	-	-	122	-
	13_26	-	-	109	-
	13_27	-	-	112	-
	14_26	-	-	114	-
	14_27	-	-	116	-
	15_26	-	-	114	-
	15_27	-	-	118	-
	16_27	-	-	115	-
	AQOs	N/A	N/A	160 (9)	N/A
RSP ^[3]	11_24	-	78	-	39
	11_25	-	78	-	39
	12_24	-	76	-	38
	12_25	-	78	-	39
	12_26	-	79	-	40
	13_25	-	76	-	39
	13_26	-	78	-	40
	13_27	-	79	-	40
	14_26	-	77	-	39
	14_27	-	79	-	40
	15_26	-	77	-	39
	15_27	-	78	-	40
	16_27	-	78	-	39
	AQOs	N/A	100 (9)	N/A	50
FSP ^[3] [4]	11_24	-	59	-	27
	11_25	-	59	-	27
	12_24	-	57	-	27
	12_25	-	59	-	28
	12_26	-	59	-	28
	13_25	-	57	-	27
	13_26	-	59	-	28
	13_27	-	59	-	28
	14_26	-	58	-	28
	14_27	-	59	-	28
	15_26	-	58	-	28
	15_27	-	59	-	28
	16_27	-	59	-	28
	AQOs	N/A	75 (9)	N/A	35

Notes:

N/A – Not applicable since there are no AQOs for this parameter.

“-“ – Since there are no AQOs for this parameter, no value is presented in this table.

[1] Values are given as highest 10-minute SO₂ concentrations, which are estimated in accordance with EPD’s “Guidelines on the Estimation of 10-minute Average SO₂ Concentration for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”.

[2] Values in ( ) indicate number of exceedance allowed under the AQOs.

[3] In consideration of the number of exceedance allowance of the AQOs, the values presented indicate the concentration levels beyond the AQOs allowance limit, details as below:

· 4^th highest concentration for 24-hour SO₂;

· 19^th highest concentration for 1-hour NO₂; and

· 10^th highest concentration for 8-hour O₃, 24-hour RSP and 24-hour FSP.

[4] FSP concentrations are estimated in accordance with EPD’s “Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”.

3.3.3.4 It can be seen from the above tables that, with the implementation of the emission reduction measures by both the Hong Kong and Guangdong Governments, future air quality in Year 2020 would be significantly improved from recent existing conditions and would fully comply with the AQOs. In particular, the highest ambient background contribution to annual NO₂ concentration in Tung Chung would be reduced from 42µg/m³ in 2010 (see Table 3.4b) to 29µg/m³ in Year 2020.

3.4 Construction Dust Assessment

3.4.1 Assessment Area

3.4.1.1 With reference to Clause 3.4.1.2 of the EIA Study brief, the study area for air quality impact assessment should be defined by a distance of 500m from the boundary of the PDAs and the works of the Project within the Study Area. Figure 3.3 illustrates the extent of the study area for construction dust assessment.

3.4.2 Identification of Pollution Sources and Emission Inventory

3.4.2.1 The key air pollution sources in the vicinity of the Project that may bear upon the air quality during construction phase include dust emission associated with the construction activities due to the Project, the vehicular emission from the neighbouring roads such as North Lantau Highway (NLH), airport emission from the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) and due to the concurrent projects (e.g. HKLR, HKBCF, TMCLKL etc.).

3.4.2.2 Other far-field emission sources further beyond which would also have certain influence on the background air quality level include territory wide vehicular emission, power plants, marine emission, as well as regional emission from PRD.

3.4.2.3 Specifically, the existing and potential near-field sources are described in the following sections:

Dust Emission associated with the Project

3.4.2.4 A review on the construction methodology and tentative implementation programme has been conducted. In general, construction dust as the representative pollutants will be generated mainly from the at-grade construction works (as presented in Appendix 3.2) including the following activities:

· Reclamation;

· Site clearance;

· Soil excavation;

· Backfilling;

· Site formation; and

· Wind erosion of open sites.

3.4.2.5 Since reclamation, excavation and backfilling activities will involve large quantities of earthworks and silty material handling, it is anticipated that there may be dust impact as a result of these activities if mitigation measures are not implemented. It should be noted that there are construction of new rising main in TCE connecting to the Siu Ho Wan Sewage Treatment Works (SHWSTW) and upgrading of existing rising main in TCW. However, it is anticipated that there will only be very small scale of work for the construction / upgrading of rising main as compared with the construction works in TCE and TCW, adverse cumulative construction dust impact from such work is therefore not anticipated.

3.4.2.6 In addition, during the reclamation works in TCE, barges will be used to carry out the underwater filling activities between Years 2017 and 2022. Fugitive dust emission from these barges might therefore cause cumulative dust impact. According to the current marine traffic estimation, the number of barges will be ranged from 6 trips per day to 56 trips per day (which is equivalent to maximum 1 trips per hour to 5 trips per hour) throughout the construction period, whereas the usage of barge will peak during the period between July 2018 and December 2019 while all Phases 1 to 4 of TCE are being constructed. However, as compared with the construction dust emission due to dusty above water construction activities which will be peaked during Year 2021 and 2022 in TCE (see Table 3.8 for details), there will be no overlapping of peak marine traffic and the peak at-grade construction works. Moreover, barges will not concentrate at the one place but spanning all over the TCE reclamation site, of which the separate distance between nearby ASRs and barges ranges from about 70m to 1,350m. Hence, it is anticipated that there will no adverse dust impact from the construction barges.

3.4.2.7 Fugitive dust impact assessments have been carried out based on conservative assumptions of general construction activities which include the following:

· Heavy construction activities including site clearance, ground excavation, construction of the associated facilities, haul road, etc.;

· Wind erosion of all active open sites;

· Construction programme as provided by the Engineer is adopted in order to assess the reasonable situation;

· Construction working periods of 26 days a month and 12 hours a day from 7:00am to 7:00pm, except Sundays and public holidays.

Dust Emission associated with the Construction of Concurrent Projects

3.4.2.8 The tentative commencement year for the construction of this Project is 2017 with target full completion in Year 2030. Concurrent projects in the vicinity of this Project, which may have cumulative environmental impacts, have been discussed in Section 1.9. Key concurrent projects of air quality concern during the construction phase of this Project have been identified and are summarised in the table below. The implementation programmes of these concurrent projects are provided by the respective project proponents. Where information is not available, references have been made to the best available information such as EIA reports.

Table 3.6 Key concurrent projects for construction dust assessment

Key Concurrent Projects	Tentative Commissioning Year
Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Boundary Cross Facilities (HZMB-HKBCF)	End-2016 ^[1]
Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road (HZMB-HKLR)	End-2016 ^[1]
Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL) – Southern Section	End-2016 ^[1]
Organic Waste Treatment Facilities (OWTF) Phase 1	End-2016
Proposed Home Ownership Scheme Development at Tung Chung Area 27	2019/2020
Proposed Public Housing Development at Tung Chung Area 39	2018
Planned Hotel Development at Tung Chung Area 53a	No information
Planned Residential use in Tung Chung Area 54	No information
Committed Developments in Tung Chung Areas 55a and 55b	Under construction ^[2]
Committed Public Housing Development at Tung Chung Area 56	2016
Construction of Addition Sewage Rising Main and Rehabilitation of the Existing Sewage Rising Main between Tung Chung and Siu Ho Wan	2025
Three-runway System (3RS) of Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA)	2023
Proposed marina at TCE	2030
Proposed sports ground at TCE	2030
Proposed railway stations at Tung Chung East and Tung Chung West	2024 (Tung Chung West Station) 2026 (Tung Chung East Station)
Possible Lantau Logistic Park	No information

Notes:

[1] Date for substantial completion of key construction activities.

[2] The committed developments in Tung Chung Area 55a and 55b would likely commence their flat intakes in end-2015 and end-2016 respectively, whilst any associated construction activities would have been completed. Hence, cumulative dust impact during construction phase of the Project is not anticipated.

3.4.2.9 It can be seen from the above table that the construction of some of the key concurrent project would have been completed before the construction phase of this Project, except the:

1) Proposed Home Ownership Scheme Development at Tung Chung Area 27;

2) Proposed Public Housing Development at Tung Chung Area 39;

3) Planned Hotel Development at Tung Chung Area 53a;

4) Planned Residential use in Tung Chung Area 54;

5) Construction of Addition Sewage Rising Main and Rehabilitation of the Existing Sewage Rising Main between Tung Chung and Siu Ho Wan;

6) Planned Three-runway System (3RS) of Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA);

7) Proposed marina at TCE;

8) Proposed sports ground at TCE;

9) Proposed railway stations at TCE and TCW; and

10) Possible Lantau Logistic Park.

3.4.2.10 There is no information on the implementation programmes for the possible Lantau Logistic Park (LLP), planned residential use in Tung Chung Area 54, and the possible hotel development at Tung Chung Area 53. Potential cumulative air quality impact during construction stage is therefore not included.

Proposed Home Ownership Scheme Development at Tung Chung Area 27

3.4.2.11 The proposed development at Tung Chung Area 27, with an area of only about 0.88 ha, comprises of 2 residential blocks only. Given the limited scale of the residential development, it is unlikely to generate significant cumulative dust impact during its construction stage. In addition, it is understood that its target population intake year will be Year 2019/2020, whereas the major construction activities will have been completed before the commencement of construction works in TCW.

Proposed Public Housing Development at Tung Chung Area 39

3.4.2.12 For the proposed public housing development at Tung Chung Area 39, the site formation has been completed and the remaining works would be the construction of superstructures based on pre-cast concrete, which is expected less dusty. Hence, cumulative dust impact during construction phase is not anticipated.

Construction of Addition Sewage Rising Main and Rehabilitation of the Existing Sewage Rising Main between Tung Chung and Siu Ho Wan

3.4.2.13 It is anticipated that there will only be very small scale of work for the construction / upgrading of sewage rising main as compared with the construction works in TCE and TCW, adverse cumulative construction dust impact from such work is therefore not anticipated.

Planned 3RS of HKIA

3.4.2.14 For the construction of 3RS of HKIA, the construction sites would be located at about 2.6km away from the boundary of the PDAs and the works of the Project. In addition, according to the approved EIA Study “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (AEIAR-185/2014), water spraying over all active works area would be implemented once every two hours for 24-hour working in order to minimise the potential dust impact. Given the large separation distance between the construction site of 3RS and the Project, and implementation of sufficient dust suppression measures, adverse cumulative dust impact from the construction of 3RS during construction phase of the Project is therefore not anticipated.

Proposed Marina at TCE

3.4.2.15 It is anticipated that the construction of the proposed marina will be carried out by others at the time of TCE Phase 4 construction. Hence, potential cumulative construction dust impact from the concurrent construction with the Project is anticipated and is therefore included in the construction dust assessment.

3.4.2.16 It must be noted that this marina is a Designated Project under Item O.2 of Schedule 2 of TM-EIAO. A separate EIA study would be conducted by the future operator to fulfil all the statutory requirements and procedures under the EIAO.

Proposed Sports Ground at TCE

3.4.2.17 It is anticipated that the construction of the proposed sports ground will be carried out by others at the time of TCE Phase 4 construction. Hence, potential cumulative construction dust impact from the concurrent construction with the Project is anticipated and is therefore included in the construction dust assessment.

3.4.2.18 This sports ground is a Designated Project under Item O.7 of Schedule 2 of TM-EIAO, and a separate EIA study would be conducted by the future operator to fulfil all the statutory requirements and procedures under the EIAO.

Proposed Railway Stations at TCE and TCW

3.4.2.19 According to the tentative implementation programme, the construction periods of TCE and TCW railway stations are 2023 – 2026 and 2021 – 2024 respectively. Hence, potential cumulative construction dust impact from the concurrent construction with the Project is anticipated and is therefore included in the construction dust assessment.

3.4.2.20 Nevertheless, as these 2 proposed railway stations and the related rail tunnel extension is a Designated Project under Item A.2 of Schedule 2 of TM-EIAO, a separate EIA study would be conducted by the future rail operator to fulfil all the statutory requirements and procedures under the EIAO.

Dust Emission associated with the Operation of Concurrent Projects

3.4.2.21 Apart from the dust emissions generated from the construction of concurrent projects as listed in Table 3.6 above, dust emissions would also be generated during their operation, including the open road network, idling vehicles at HKBCF (including kiosks and loading / unloading bays) induced traffic, chimneys at the OWTF Phase 1, and airport operation in 3RS. The operations of concurrent projects have also been considered in the cumulative dust impact assessment during construction phase of the Project.

Dust Emission associated with Operation of Concurrent Sources (i.e. Open Roads and Hong Kong International Airport)

3.4.2.22 Particulate emissions, which are generally RSP and FSP with aerodynamic diameters less than 10μm and 2.5μm, are also generated from road traffic along open road and airport operations. These concurrent sources have also been considered in the cumulative dust impact assessment during construction phase of the Project.

3.4.3 Key Representative Pollutants

3.4.3.1 According to Section 13.2.4.3 of USEPA AP-42, among all aerodynamic particle sizes (i.e. TSP), there are 47% of particles with an aerodynamic diameter of <10 μm (i.e. RSP). Hence, TSP and RSP are the most representative pollutants for construction phase assessment. However, upon the effect of the AQO from 1 January 2014, a new criteria pollutant, FSP, has been included in the AQO. As a conservative approach, FSP has also been assessed, notwithstanding that it only constitutes 7% of the total particles in fugitive dust. Hence, the 1-hour TSP, 24-hour RSP/ FSP, and annual RSP/ FSP concentrations at each identified ASR have been assessed and compared with the AQO or the requirements of TM-EIAO to determine their compliance.

3.4.3.2 Fuel combustion from the use of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) during construction works could be a source of NO₂, SO₂ and CO. To improve air quality and protect public health, EPD has introduced the Air Pollution Control (Non-road Mobile Machinery) (Emission) Regulation, which came in operation on 1 June 2105, to regulate emissions from machines and non-road vehicles. Starting from 1 December 2015, only approved or exempted non-road mobile machinery are allowed to be used in construction sites. Hence, with the effect of the Regulation, the emissions from PMEs are considered relatively small as compared with the tailpipe emissions from vehicles.

3.4.3.3 In addition, there is no source of Pb and O₃ emission during the construction phase. Hence, NO₂, SO₂, CO, Pb and O₃ are not considered as the key pollutants for quantitative dust assessment.

3.4.4 Assessment Methodology

Dust Emission associated with the Project

3.4.4.1 The prediction of dust emissions is based on typical values and emission factors from United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), 5th Edition. References of the dust emission factors for different dust generating activities are listed in Table 3.7 below. Details are discussed in the following sections. Appendix 3.3 presents the calculation of dust emission factors.

Table 3.7 Reference of dust emission factors for different activities

Operating Site	Activities	Equations and Assumptions	Reference
All construction and excavation sites	Heavy construction activities including land clearance, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, construction of the facilities, haul road, etc	E(TSP) = 1.2 tons/acre/month of activity or = 2.69 Mg/hectare/month of activity E(RSP) = E(TSP) x 0.47 = 1.26 Mg/hectare/month of activity E(FSP) = E(TSP) x 0.07 = 0.19 Mg/hectare/month of activity	USEPA AP42, S.13.2.3.3
All construction sites	Wind Erosion	E(TSP) = 0.85 Mg/hectare/year E(RSP) = E(TSP) x 0.47 = 0.40 Mg/hectare/year E(FSP) = E(TSP) x 0.07 = 0.06 Mg/hectare/year (24-hour emission)	USEPA AP42, S.11.9, Table 11.9.4

3.4.4.2 Dust emission from construction vehicle movement will generally be limited within the confined worksites and the emission factor given in AP-42 S.13.2.3.3 has taken this factor into account. Watering facilities will be provided at every designated vehicular exit point. Since all vehicles will be washed at exit points and vehicle loaded with the dusty materials will be covered entirely by clean impervious sheeting before leaving the construction site, dust nuisance from construction vehicle movement outside the worksites is unlikely to be significant.

Determination of Worst Assessment Year

3.4.4.3 Based on the current Recommended Outline Development Plan (RODP), construction sites associated with Tung Chung East (TCE) PDA and Tung Chung West (TCW) PDA are located about 1.3km from each other. Potential dust impact from construction of each PDAs would likely be of local-scale and may not cause significant cumulative impact to each other. Worst assessment year for constructions of each PDAs is therefore identified to evaluate their individual worst impact on nearby ASRs.

3.4.4.4 Quantities of dust generation during construction period associated with the Project for each year have been estimated to identify the worst assessment year and results are tabulated as in Table 3.8 below. It can be seen that the highest dust generation would occur in Year 2022. However, it should also be noted that, given the construction period is spanning more than 10 years, construction sites would be moving around and potential dust impact on different existing and planned ASRs would therefore be changing from time to time. Hence, Years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2027 and 2028 are selected for construction dust impact assessment to evaluate the potential dust impact. For planned ASRs to be in place in Years 2029 and 2030, since there will only be superstructure works in these years, significant dust emission and adverse construction dust impact are not anticipated.

3.4.4.5 Appendix 3.3 presents the calculations of estimated dust emission.

Table 3.8 Estimated dust emissions from TCE and TCW during construction period

Year	Estimated Dust Emission from various Construction Activities (ton per year)						Total Dust Emission (ton per year)
	Tung Chung East			Tung Chung West
	Heavy Construction	Wind Erosion	Sub-Total	Heavy Construction	Wind Erosion	Sub-Total
2017	Note [1]			Note [2]			Notes [1,2]
2018	Note [1]			107	3	109	109
2019	379	11	390	336	9	345	734
2020	631	32	663	419	11	430	1093
2021	1935	58	1993	353	9	362	2355
2022	2545	93	2638	100	3	103	2740
2023	473	76	549	202	5	207	756
2024	671	74	745	236	6	242	987
2025	1149	64	1213	272	7	279	1493
2026	1214	44	1257	257	7	263	1521
2027	915	24	939	280	7	287	1226
2028	96	3	98	207	5	213	311
2029	Note [3]			Note [3]			Note [3]
2030	Note [3]			Note [3]			Note [3]

Notes:

Values in bold are the maximum within the construction period.

[1] There are only under water construction works for Tung Chung East in Years 2017 and 2018. Dust emission is therefore not anticipated.

[2] No construction works for Tung Chung West are scheduled in Year 2017.

[3] Major heavy construction works, including reclamation, site formation, slope works and road works will tentatively be completed in end-2028, while there will only be superstructure works in 2029 and 2030. Significant dust emission is not anticipated.

Dust Dispersion Modelling Approach

3.4.4.6 With reference to EPD’s “Guidelines on Assessing the ‘Total’ Air Quality Impacts”, the chemical transport modelling system-based approach is adopted. Hourly meteorological data (including wind direction, wind speed, temperature and mixing height) for Year 2010 extracted from the PATH model are used. Since there is no stability data available from PATH, PCRAMMET model has been used to predict the stability classes. In addition, the mixing heights from the PATH which are lower than the minimum mixing height recorded by the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) in Year 2010 (i.e. 121m) are capped at 121m. For the treatment of calm hours, the approach recommended in the "Guideline on Air Quality Models Version 05" (US EPA) is followed.

3.4.4.7 Dust impact assessment is undertaken using the EPD approved Fugitive Dust Model (FDM). It is a well-known Gaussian Plume model designed for computing air dispersion for fugitive dust sources. Modelling parameters including dust emission factors, particles size distributions, surface roughness, etc. are referred to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters” and USEPA AP-42. The density of dust is assumed to be 2.5g/m³. Owing to the limitation of the FDM model, worksites located higher than 20m above ground level are set to the maximum height of 20m in the model as the worst-case assumption.

3.4.4.8 The surface roughness height is closely related to the land use characteristics, and the surface roughness is estimated as 10 percent of the average height of physical structures within 1km study area. A surface roughness of 50cm is assumed for Grids 11_24, 11_25, 12_24, 13_27, 14_26, 14_27, 15_26 and 15_27 to represent the relatively rural characteristic and low-rise developments in the Lantau areas, while 100cm is assumed for Grids 12_25, 12_26, 13_25 and 13_26 to represent the urbanized and high-rise developments in Tung Chung Town.

3.4.4.9 Particle size distribution is estimated based on S13.2.4.3 of USEPA AP-42. Table 3.9 presents the particle size distribution of TSP, RSP and FSP adopted in the assessment.

Table 3.9 Particle size distribution in FDM

Particle Size (µm)	Average Particle Size (µm)	Particle Size Distribution
		TSP	RSP	FSP
0 – 2.5	1.25	7%	15%	100%
2.5 – 5	3.75	20%	42%	-
5 – 10	7.5	20%	43%	-
10 – 15	12.5	18%	-	-
15 - 30	22.5	35%	-	-
Total		100%	100%	100%

3.4.4.10 During daytime working hours (7am to 7pm), it is assumed that dust emissions would be generated from all dust generating activities and wind erosion. During night-time non-working hours (7pm to 7am of the next day), Sunday and public holidays, dust emission source would include wind erosion only as construction activities during these hours are ceased.

3.4.4.11 Fugitive dust impacts are modelled for ASR heights at 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 15m and 20m above ground. Since all the dust generating sources associated with the Project are located on ground level, these assessment levels would therefore cover the worst-case scenario. Both the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios are presented. A 100x100m grid is used to generate the pollution contours in order to investigate the pollutant dispersion.

3.4.4.12 A summary of FDM modelling parameters that has been adopted in the construction dust assessment are given in Table 3.10 below:

Table 3.10 Modelling parameters in FDM

Parameters	Input	Remarks
Background Concentration	Hourly RSP concentrations predicted by PATH model	Provided by EPD
Modelling mode	Flatted terrain	-
Meteorological data	Hourly meteorological data adopted in PATH	Provided by EPD
Anemometer Height	10m	-
Surface Roughness	50cm or 100cm	-
Emission period	General construction activities during daytime working hours (7 am to 7 pm) Wind erosion during both day-time (7am to 7pm) and night-time (7pm to 7am of the next day)	-
Assessment height	1.5m, 5m,10m, 15m and 20m	-

3.4.4.13 It is understood that construction activities will not be taken place on the entire work sites at the same time, but to be undertaken at moving multiple work fronts spread across the work sites. Notwithstanding this, a “Two Tiers” assessment approach has been adopted. An initial screening test, namely, “Tier 1 Screening Test”, which assumed that all the worksites would be active, has been undertaken. The Tier 1 screening test is conservative and has represented the worst case situation.

3.4.4.14 The purpose of the Tier 1 screening test is identifying the potentially affected areas where construction dust may accumulate. The hot spot areas identified in the Tier 1 assessment have been subsequently assessed by a more focused Tier 2 test. Under the Tier 2 test, an active construction site with a size of 100m x 100m (or 10,000m²) is assumed to be positioned closest to the potentially affected ASRs, while all other construction sites located relatively further away from the ASRs remain unchanged as per Tier 1. The active construction site is assumed based on the advice from Engineer that any active construction at any one time in each phase would not be more than 100m x 100m.

Dust Emission associated with the Construction of Concurrent Projects

3.4.4.15 As discussed in Section 3.4.2, there is potential cumulative construction dust impact from the possible MTR stations at TCE and TCW. Since there is currently no details of dust emission as well as the detailed implementation programme available, the dust assessment methodology adopted in the Project is therefore referenced. In addition, given the requirement stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and good site practices for dust control shall be implemented by the Contractor, it is assumed that mitigation measures will be provided during the construction of the possible MTR Stations at TCE and TCW. Appendix 3.3 presents the details of dust emission.

Dust Emission from the Operations of Concurrent Projects and Concurrent Sources

3.4.4.16 Approach for prediction of vehicular emissions from open road and idling vehicles at HKBCF are the same as operational phase assessment as described in Section 3.5.4, in which the dispersion model, CALINE4 is used to assess the vehicular emission impact. Vehicular emissions from open road are determined using the latest EMFAC-HK based on the projected traffic data for Years 2030 coupled with emission factors for Year 2022. Traffic data in Year 2030, which is the final year of construction period, is considered to be conservative as it would be the highest within the construction phase, while emission factor for Year 2022 is adopted as it is the year that the dust emission would be highest (refer to Table 3.8). Appendix 3.4 presents the hourly RSP and FSP emission factors for each road link. It should be noted that using traffic data in Year 2030 and emission factors in Year 2022 is a very conservative approach and would not occur in reality.

3.4.4.17 Idling emission at HKBCF are estimated in accordance with Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC) based on the projected traffic data for Years 2030 coupled with emission factors for Year 2022, and the methodology is described in Section 3.5.4. In addition, emission from tunnel portal and ventilation buildings associated with HKLR, TMCLKL and HKBCF are also included in the cumulative assessment. Appendix 3.5 presents the detailed calculations of idling emissions and tunnel portal/ventilation building.

3.4.4.18 For the emissions from airport operation, the prediction approach is the same as the operational air quality assessment as described in Section 3.5.4, in which the dispersion model, AERMOD and CALINE4 are used to assess the airport related emission impact. As part of the operational air quality assessment, the airport related emission inventory under the future three-runway system (3RS) in Year 2031 has been adopted, which made reference to the approved 3RS EIA report, for a conservative assessment.

3.4.4.19 Marine emission from the existing local vessels and industrial emission from OWTF Phase 1 are also assessed in accordance with the methodology described in Section 3.5.4, whereas the dispersion model AERMOD is used to simulate the emission impact.

Far-field Source Contribution (i.e. Future Background Air Quality)

3.4.4.20 Details are given in Section 3.5.3. Hourly pollutant concentration data predicted by PATH for Year 2020, which are provided by EPD, are directly adopted as the background concentration.

3.4.4.21 Only RSP concentrations are available from PATH model. According to EPD’s “Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”, the conservative correction as shown in Table 3.11 are adopted to determine the background FSP concentrations. For hourly background TSP concentrations, it is considered reasonable to assume the hourly RSP concentrations from PATH as the ambient TSP background concentrations, since the particulates of sizes larger than 10μm generated from far-field dust sources would have been largely settled before reaching the ASRs, and hence most of the particulates contributed from far-field sources affecting the ASRs will likely be of less than or equal to 10μm in size (i.e. RSP).

Table 3.11 Conversion factors for RSP/FSP

Annual (µg/m^3)	Daily (µg/m^3)
FSP = 0.71 x RSP	FSP = 0.75 x RSP

Prediction of the Cumulative Construction Dust Impact

3.4.4.22 The cumulative construction dust impact is a combination of the emission impacts contributed from the near field and far field sources (i.e. at local scale and background air quality impact from other concurrent and regional sources) on hourly basis.

3.4.4.23 In consideration of the number of exceedance allowance of the daily AQOs (refer to Table 3.1), the pollutant concentrations beyond the AQO’s allowance limits (i.e. the 10th highest 24-hour RSP/ FSP concentrations) are presented. The annual predicted RSP/ FSP concentrations are also assessed and all predicted levels are then compared with the AQOs. Besides, the 1-hour TSP concentration as stipulated under Annex 4 of TM-EIAO is also determined at each ASR.

3.4.5 Assessment Results (Unmitigated)

3.4.5.1 The predicted maximum unmitigated 1-hour TSP concentrations, 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP concentrations among Years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2027 and 2028 are presented in the Table 3.12 below and detailed in Appendix 3.6. Exceedances of the TSP, RSP and/or FSP criteria are predicted at almost all ASRs. Mitigation measures are therefore required to reduce the potential air quality impact during construction phase. It should be noted that the predicted concentrations are based on very conservative assumptions, such as assuming 100% active area, adopting airport emission in Year 2031 and vehicular emission in Year 2022 (but using traffic data in Year 2030).

3.4.5.2 Based on the detailed results presented in Appendix 3.6, it is observed that the worst construction dust impact would likely occur in Years 2021, 2024, 2025 and 2027, and the worst affected height is identified at 1.5m above ground. To this end, contours for the cumulative unmitigated 1-hour TSP concentrations, and 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP concentrations at 1.5m above ground in these years, are plotted in Figures 3.4 – 3.7.

Table 3.12 Unmitigated cumulative TSP, RSP and FSP concentrations

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Year	Worst affected Height above ground	TSP Conc. (μg/m^3)	RSP Conc. (μg/m^3)		FSP Conc. (μg/m^3)
				Max. 1-hour	24-hour (10^th highest)	Annual	24-hour (10^th highest)	Annual
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1220	119	51	63	30
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1161	128	51	63	30
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1087	128	50	63	30
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1068	126	50	63	30
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	941	128	49	63	30
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	986	132	50	63	30
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	868	124	49	62	29
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	939	115	50	61	30
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	1390	112	52	61	30
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	2020	1.5	1493	141	63	66	31
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	623	104	51	61	30
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1088	118	51	62	30
A13	Ma Wan Chung	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1172	101	50	59	30
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	986	108	51	62	30
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2481	169	60	70	31
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2131	153	54	68	30
A17	Ho Yu College	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2263	168	58	69	31
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2129	166	58	69	31
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1843	133	51	64	30
A20	La Rossa B	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2714	143	52	65	30
A21	LeBleu No.1	2021/ 2022	5	2616	147	53	65	30
A22	LeBleu Deux	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1618	139	53	65	30
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1259	127	52	64	30
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2534	134	51	66	30
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2382	144	51	65	30
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1329	126	51	64	30
A27	Man Tung Road Park	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1168	122	51	63	30
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	787	110	51	61	30
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kindergarden	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	735	107	53	61	30
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	991	101	54	61	30
A31	Tung Chung Public School	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1939	101	55	61	30
A32	Ha Ling Pei	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1538	102	55	61	30
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	2020	1.5	4027	168	81	67	34
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	2020/ 2024/ 2025	1.5	2666	178	70	70	32
A35	Hau Wong Temple	2022/ 2024	1.5	3356	275	104	68	38
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	2022	1.5	1526	125	61	63	31
A37	Ngan Au	2025	1.5	2881	289	101	83	37
A38	Shek Lau Po	2020/ 2021/ 2025	1.5	3036	180	68	69	32
A39	Mo Ka	2027/ 2028	1.5	4101	267	98	78	36
A40	Shek Mun Kap	2021/ 2027	1.5	3794	225	87	78	35
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	2027/ 2028	1.5/ 5	2026	151	50	66	29
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2337	131	51	65	30
A43	Tung Chung North Park	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1811	134	50	65	30
A44	Pak Mong	2021/ 2022	5	2379	124	47	62	29
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1089	117	50	61	30
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	842	121	49	62	29
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1075	110	51	61	30
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1375	111	51	61	30
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1515	114	51	61	30
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2277	160	56	69	31
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1929	142	52	67	30
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1830	136	51	65	30
A53	La Mer House 1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2269	151	54	67	30
A54	Le Bleu House 23	2021/ 2022	5	2956	153	54	66	31
A55	Le Bleu House 99	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2304	150	53	66	30
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2625	160	56	66	31
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	1448	132	52	64	30
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	756	119	49	62	30
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	817	119	49	62	30
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	813	109	51	61	30
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	930	114	53	61	30
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	2022/ 2024	1.5	2104	163	69	68	32
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	1222	118	53	63	30
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	764	103	51	61	30
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	2024	1.5	1787	142	58	64	31
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	723	105	54	61	30
A67	Wong Ka Wai	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	1148	105	61	61	31
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2743	209	65	71	32
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	2022	1.5/ 5	4342	256	74	79	33
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2822	203	63	71	32
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	2583	216	79	74	34
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	2020/ 2024	1.5/ 5	1625	118	56	62	30
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	2021	1.5	3522	316	123	88	41
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project)
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	2024	1.5	5608	342	113	90	39
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	2024	1.5/ 5	2254	195	72	71	33
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	1086	121	53	63	30
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	1584	157	64	65	32
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	2024	1.5/ 5	1786	169	65	66	32
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	2077	184	72	69	33
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	2024	1.5	3721	290	106	84	38
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	2024	1.5	4855	261	100	75	37
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	2025	1.5/ 5	974	111	50	60	30
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	1393	122	55	62	30
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	2025	1.5/ 5	1004	112	50	61	30
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	2122	133	58	62	31
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	3292	193	74	69	33
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	2025	1.5	6345	303	103	86	38
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	2959	158	67	65	32
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	2025	1.5/ 5	1093	114	51	61	30
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	2025	1.5/ 5	1393	122	55	62	30
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	2070	152	51	66	30
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	1862	134	49	63	30
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	2715	151	58	67	31
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	1962	127	52	63	30
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	2628	172	55	68	30
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	2027	1.5	5037	285	66	85	32
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	2027	1.5	5917	341	90	91	36
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	2027	1.5	4893	327	74	88	33
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	1154	129	52	65	30
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	2027	1.5/ 5	1364	144	57	66	31
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	2027	1.5	3681	274	89	79	36
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	Note [1]
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	2028	1.5/ 5	706	82	40	58	28
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	Note [1]
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	2028	1.5/ 5	466	83	40	58	28
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	2028	1.5/ 5	806	88	41	60	28
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	2028	1.5/ 5	615	82	40	58	28
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	2028	1.5/ 5	1126	85	41	59	28
TCE-36	Proposed International School	2028	1.5/ 5	787	82	40	58	28
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	2028	1.5/ 5	503	85	41	59	28
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	2028	1.5/ 5	625	89	42	59	28
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	2028	1.5/ 5	706	92	42	59	28
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	2028	1.5/ 5	509	88	41	59	28
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	2028	1.5/ 5	829	98	43	61	29
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	Note [1]
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	Note [1]
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	Note [1]
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	Note [1]
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	Note [1]
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	Note [1]
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [1]
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [1]
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [1]
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	Note [1]
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	Note [1]
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [1]
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [1]
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	Note [1]
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [1]
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	Note [1]
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	2025	1.5/ 5	917	109	49	60	29
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	Note [1]
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project)
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	429	87	43	59	29
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	455	85	44	59	29
TCW-3	Village Type Development	2020	1.5	1168	123	61	61	31
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	2025/ 2027	1.5	2941	137	56	62	30
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	2024/ 2025/ 2027	1.5/ 5	1665	103	46	60	28
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	2025/ 2027	1.5/ 5	1510	113	44	59	28
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	2025	1.5/ 5	460	84	45	59	29
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	2025	1.5/ 5	580	85	46	59	29
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	2025	1.5/ 5	975	112	55	62	30
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	2025	1.5/ 5	1089	94	49	59	29
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	2025	1.5/ 5	973	115	58	62	31
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	609	93	47	61	29
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	2027/ 2028	1.5/ 5	1138	96	48	60	29
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	1560	121	55	61	30
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	1219	102	50	59	29
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	Note [1]
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	Note [1]
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [1]
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [1]
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [1]
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [1]
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	Note [1]
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	2028	1.5/ 5	563	83	45	59	29
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	2028	1.5/ 5	407	82	43	59	28

Notes:

Value in bold means exceedance of its respective criteria.

[1] The planned ASRs will be in place in Years 2029 or 2030. Since there will only be superstructure works in these years, adverse construction dust impact are not anticipated.

3.4.6 Recommended Mitigation Measures

3.4.6.1 In order to reduce the dust emission from the Project and achieve compliances of relevant criteria at ASRs, the following specific mitigation measures are recommended:

· Regular watering under a good site practice should be adopted. In accordance with the “Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources” (USEPA AP-42) as given in Appendix 3.7, watering once per hour on exposed worksites and haul road is proposed to achieve dust removal efficiency of 91.7%. These dust suppression efficiencies are derived based on the average haul road traffic of 35 per hour, average evaporation, etc. (see Appendix 3.7). Any potential dust impact and watering mitigation would be subject to the actual site conditions.  For example, for a construction activity that produces inherently wet conditions or in cases under rainy weather, the above water application intensity may not be unreservedly applied.  While the above watering frequencies are to be followed, the extent of watering may vary depending on actual site conditions.  The dust levels would be monitored and managed under an Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme as specified in the EM&A Manual.

3.4.6.2 In addition, the Contractor is also obliged to follow the procedures and requirements given in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. It stipulates the construction dust control requirements for both Notifiable (e.g. site formation) and Regulatory (e.g. road opening) Works to be carried out by the Contractor. The following dust suppression measures should be incorporated by the Contractor to control the dust nuisance throughout the construction phase:

· Any excavated or stockpile of dusty material should be covered entirely by impervious sheeting or sprayed with water to maintain the entire surface wet and then removed or backfilled or reinstated where practicable within 24 hours of the excavation or unloading;

· Any dusty materials remaining after a stockpile is removed should be wetted with water and cleared from the surface of roads;

· A stockpile of dusty material should not be extended beyond the pedestrian barriers, fencing or traffic cones;

· The load of dusty materials on a vehicle leaving a construction site should be covered entirely by impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty materials do not leak from the vehicle;

· Where practicable, vehicle washing facilities with high pressure water jet should be provided at every discernible or designated vehicle exit point. The area where vehicle washing takes place and the road section between the washing facilities and the exit point should be paved with concrete, bituminous materials or hardcores;

· When there are open excavation and reinstatement works, hoarding of not less than 2.4m high should be provided as far as practicable along the site boundary with provision for public crossing. Good site practice shall also be adopted by the Contractor to ensure the conditions of the hoardings are properly maintained throughout the construction period;

· The portion of any road leading only to construction site that is within 30m of a vehicle entrance or exit should be kept clear of dusty materials;

· Surfaces where any pneumatic or power-driven drilling, cutting, polishing or other mechanical breaking operation takes place should be sprayed with water or a dust suppression chemical continuously;

· Any area that involves demolition activities should be sprayed with water or a dust suppression chemical immediately prior to, during and immediately after the activities so as to maintain the entire surface wet;

· Where a scaffolding is erected around the perimeter of a building under construction, effective dust screens, sheeting or netting should be provided to enclose the scaffolding from the ground floor level of the building, or a canopy should be provided from the first floor level up to the highest level of the scaffolding;

· Any skip hoist for material transport should be totally enclosed by impervious sheeting;

· Every stock of more than 20 bags of cement or dry pulverised fuel ash (PFA) should be covered entirely by impervious sheeting or placed in an area sheltered on the top and the 3 sides;

· Cement or dry PFA delivered in bulk should be stored in a closed silo fitted with an audible high level alarm which is interlocked with the material filling line and no overfilling is allowed;

· Loading, unloading, transfer, handling or storage of bulk cement or dry PFA should be carried out in a totally enclosed system or facility, and any vent or exhaust should be fitted with an effective fabric filter or equivalent air pollution control system; and

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

3.4.7 Assessment Results (Mitigated)

Tier 1 Screening Test

3.4.7.1 With implementation of the abovementioned mitigation measures, the maximum mitigated 1-hour TSP concentrations, and 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP concentrations among Years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2027 and 2028 are calculated and presented in Table 3.13 below and detailed in Appendix 3.8. Results indicate that there are no exceedances of respective criteria predicted at all ASRs, except the exceedance of 1-hour TSP criterion at ASR P7 (Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development) in Year 2021, TCE-1 (Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)) in Year 2024, TCE-14 (Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)) in Year 2025 and TCE-24 (Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)) in Year 2027. Since the Tier 1 screening test adopted very conservative assumption that all the worksite would be active, which would unlikely occur in practice, a more focused Tier 2 assessment is therefore conducted for these ASRs in order to predict the construction dust impact under more practicable assumption.

3.4.7.2 According to the detailed assessment results presented in Appendix 3.8 and as indicated in Table 3.13, worst construction dust impact on each identified ASRs generally occurs at ground level (i.e. 1.5m above ground), which is closest to the at-grade construction site. ASRs located at higher level would generally less affected by construction dust impact as particulates would likely settled or being settled before reaching the ASRs. For example, at ASR TCE-1 (Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)), the predicted mitigated 1-hour TSP concentrations at 1.5m above ground in Year 2024 is 517µg/m³, while that significantly dropped to 279µg/m³, 193µg/m³ and 147µg/m³ at 10m, 20m and 50m above ground respectively.

3.4.7.3 Hence, contours of mitigated 1-hour TSP concentrations, and 10^th highest and annual RSP / FSP concentrations at 1.5m above ground for Years 2021, 2024, 2025 and 2027 are illustrated in Figures 3.8 – 3.11. Contours also indicate that there are no exceedances at other ASRs except the abovementioned.

Table 3.13 Mitigated cumulative TSP, RSP and FSP concentrations (Tier 1)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Year	Worst affected Height above ground	TSP Conc. (μg/m^3)	RSP Conc. (μg/m^3)		FSP Conc. (μg/m^3)
				Max. 1-hour	24-hour (10^th highest)	Annual	24-hour (10^th highest)	Annual
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	153	82	42	60	29
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	153	81	41	59	28
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	154	80	41	59	28
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	148	80	41	59	28
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	161	80	41	59	28
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	165	81	41	59	28
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	155	80	40	59	28
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	147	80	41	59	28
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	166	79	41	59	28
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	2020	1.5	174	82	42	59	28
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	150	81	41	59	28
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	159	82	42	59	29
A13	Ma Wan Chung	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	164	79	41	59	28
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	157	81	41	59	28
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	288	86	42	60	29
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	237	83	41	60	29
A17	Ho Yu College	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	245	87	42	60	28
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	264	85	42	60	28
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	200	81	41	59	28
A20	La Rossa B	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	252	83	42	60	29
A21	LeBleu No.1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	244	83	42	60	29
A22	LeBleu Deux	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	184	82	42	60	29
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	180	82	42	60	29
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	237	83	42	60	29
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	224	84	42	60	29
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	160	82	42	60	29
A27	Man Tung Road Park	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	168	82	42	60	29
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	152	80	40	59	28
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kindergarden	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	156	80	41	59	28
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	166	80	41	59	28
A31	Tung Chung Public School	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	189	81	41	59	28
A32	Ha Ling Pei	2021	1.5/ 5	246	81	42	59	28
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	404	81	43	57	28
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	2020/ 2024/ 2025	1.5	289	84	43	58	28
A35	Hau Wong Temple	2022/ 2024	1.5/ 5	349	84	48	60	29
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	2022/ 2024	1.5/ 5	184	81	43	59	28
A37	Ngan Au	2025	1.5	307	91	45	58	28
A38	Shek Lau Po	2020/ 2021/ 2025	1.5	316	85	42	58	28
A39	Mo Ka	2027/ 2028	1.5	404	89	45	58	28
A40	Shek Mun Kap	2021/ 2027	1.5	396	88	44	60	28
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	2021/ 2027/ 2028	1.5/ 5	252	81	40	59	27
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	221	83	42	60	29
A43	Tung Chung North Park	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	198	81	41	59	29
A44	Pak Mong	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	298	80	40	59	28
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	147	80	41	59	28
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	153	80	40	59	28
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	153	79	41	59	28
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	165	79	41	59	28
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	177	79	41	59	28
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	257	84	42	60	29
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	210	82	41	60	28
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	199	81	41	59	28
A53	La Mer House 1	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	236	83	41	59	28
A54	Le Bleu House 23	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	272	84	42	60	29
A55	Le Bleu House 99	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	239	83	41	59	28
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	244	84	42	60	29
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	170	82	42	60	29
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	146	80	41	59	28
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	151	80	41	59	28
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	156	80	40	59	28
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	2020/ 2024	1.5/ 5	175	80	41	59	28
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	2022/ 2024	1.5	336	88	45	59	29
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	150	83	41	59	28
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	164	81	41	59	28
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	2024	1.5	316	86	44	59	29
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	151	80	41	59	28
A67	Wong Ka Wai	2020/ 2021	1.5/ 5	224	82	42	59	28
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	292	87	43	60	29
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	387	89	44	59	29
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	281	88	42	60	29
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	382	91	44	60	29
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	2020/ 2022/ 2024	1.5/ 5	182	84	43	60	28
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	2021	1.5	526	97	50	61	30
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project)
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	2024	1.5	517	99	50	60	30
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	2024	1.5/ 5	258	89	45	60	29
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	2024/ 2027	1.5/ 5	147	81	42	59	28
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	193	84	43	59	29
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	2024	1.5/ 5	221	86	44	59	29
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	2024	1.5/ 5	228	86	44	59	29
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	2024	1.5	383	94	48	60	30
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	2024	1.5	436	89	48	59	29
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	2024/ 2025/ 2027	1.5/ 5	147	79	41	59	28
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	180	81	42	59	28
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	2024/ 2027	1.5/ 5	147	80	41	59	28
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	209	81	43	59	29
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	312	85	44	59	29
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	2024/ 2025	1.5	553	94	48	59	29
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	280	84	44	59	29
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	147	80	41	59	28
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	2024/ 2025	1.5/ 5	180	81	42	59	28
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	219	81	41	59	28
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	174	81	41	59	28
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	252	83	42	59	29
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	189	82	41	59	29
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	266	83	41	59	28
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	2027	1.5	466	89	42	60	29
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	2027	1.5	545	92	45	61	29
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	2027	1.5	454	92	43	60	29
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	150	82	41	58	29
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	2027	1.5/ 5	165	82	42	59	29
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	2027	1.5	353	91	45	59	29
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	Note [1]
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	2028	1.5/ 5	149	78	40	58	28
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	Note [1]
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	2028	1.5/ 5	151	78	40	58	28
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	2028	1.5/ 5	150	78	40	58	28
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	2028	1.5/ 5	149	78	40	58	28
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	2028	1.5	151	78	40	58	28
TCE-36	Proposed International School	2028	1.5/ 5	149	78	40	58	28
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	2028	1.5	148	78	40	59	28
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	2028	1.5	148	79	40	59	28
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	2028	1.5	147	79	40	59	28
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	2028	1.5/ 5	148	79	40	59	28
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	2028	1.5	157	81	40	60	28
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	Note [1]
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	Note [1]
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	Note [1]
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	Note [1]
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	Note [1]
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	Note [1]
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [1]
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [1]
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [1]
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	Note [1]
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	Note [1]
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [1]
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [1]
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	Note [1]
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [1]
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	Note [1]
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	2024/ 2025/ 2027	1.5/ 5	147	79	41	59	28
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	Note [1]
Planned ASRs (Tung Chung West under this Project)
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	2020/ 2024/ 2027	1.5/ 5	147	79	40	59	28
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	2024	1.5/ 5	150	79	40	59	28
TCW-3	Village Type Development	2020/ 2021/ 2022	1.5/ 5	164	80	42	59	28
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	2025/ 2027	1.5	309	79	40	57	27
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	2024/ 2025/ 2027	1.5/ 5	213	78	39	57	27
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	2024/ 2027	1.5/ 5	195	78	39	57	27
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	2025	1.5/ 5	149	78	40	59	28
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	2025	1.5/ 5	149	78	40	59	28
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	2025	1.5/ 5	164	81	41	59	28
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	2025	1.5/ 5	160	79	40	59	28
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	2025	1.5/ 5	169	81	41	59	28
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	143	80	40	59	28
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	2027	1.5/ 5	169	78	40	58	28
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	185	80	41	58	28
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	2027	1.5/ 5	155	78	40	58	28
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	Note [1]
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	Note [1]
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [1]
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [1]
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [1]
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [1]
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	Note [1]
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	2028	1.5/ 5	143	79	40	59	28
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	2028	1.5/ 5	143	79	39	59	28

Note:

Value in bold means exceedance of its respective criteria.

[1] The planned ASRs will be in place in Years 2029 or 2030. Since there will only be superstructure works in these years, adverse construction dust impact are not anticipated.

Tier 2 Assessment

3.4.7.4 As discussed in previous section, exceedance of 1-hour TSP concentrations are predicted at ASR P7 (Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development) in Year 2021, TCE-1 (Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)) in Year 2024, TCE-14 (Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)) in Year 2025 and TCE-24 (Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)) in Year 2027 under Tier 1 screening test, in which very conservative assumption has been adopted. Hence, a more focused Tier 2 assessment has been conducted for these ASRs. Tier 2 assessment adopts a more practicable assumption that any active construction site at any one time in each phase would not be more that 100m x 100m (or 10,000m²) in size. This assumption is provided and confirmed by the Engineer as a more practicable assumption. The maximum Tier 2 1-hour TSP concentrations are presented in the following table and details are presented in Appendix 3.8. Results show that the predicted 1-hour TSP concentrations would comply with the criterion of 500μg/m³ and as such, adverse short-term construction dust impact is not anticipated.

Table 3.14 Mitigated cumulative TSP concentrations (Tier 2)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Year	Worst affected Height above ground	Max. 1-hour TSP Concentration (μg/m^3)
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	2021	1.5m	372
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project)
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	2024	1.5m	352
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	2025	1.5m	411
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	2027	1.5m	341

3.4.7.5 Worst affected level under Tier 2 assessment at all concerned ASRs is 1.5m above ground as the TSP concentrations decreased with increasing height above ground. For example, the predicted Tier 2 1-hour TSP concentrations at TCE-1 (Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)) has reduced from 352μg/m³ at 1.5m above ground to 218μg/m³, 179μg/m³ and 147μg/m³ at 10m, 20m and 50m above ground. Contours of Tier 2 1-hour TSP concentrations at 1.5m above ground are therefore plotted and presented in Figure 3.12. Contour plots also indicated that there are no active air sensitive uses located within the area of exceedance, and hence adverse short-term dust impact is not anticipated.

3.4.8 Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Changes in Air Quality Conditions in Future Year

3.4.8.1 The predicted maximum mitigated 1-hour TSP, and 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP project contributions throughout the construction period are therefore summarised in the Table 3.15a-c below. Breakdown of contributions from various source groups (i.e. Airport operation, vehicular emission and ambient background) have also been presented for comparison.

3.4.8.2 1-hour TSP, 10^th 24-hour RSP/FSP project contributions ranged from <1 – 414µg/m³, <1 – 38µg/m³ and <1 – 5µg/m³, while annual RSP/FSP project contributions ranged from <1 – 10µg/m³ and <1 – 2µg/m³ respectively. High project contributions of TSP and RSP in future year are generally found at the ASRs located near or within TCE as there are still on-going heavy construction works (such as reclamation and site formation) at area adjacent to those ASRs when they are occupied.

3.4.8.3 However, it must be noted that the predicted project contributions are based on the very conservative assumption that all the worksites would be active (i.e. Tier 1), which is anticipated unlikely in practice. If taking into account this more practicable assumption under Tier 2, the 1-hour TSP project contributions at P7 (Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development), TCE-1 (Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)), TCE-14 (Proposed Residential Development (D2-2), and TCE-24 (Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)) have been decreased to 278 / 278 / 385 / 320µg/m³ (Tier 2) respectively. In addition, it must also be noted that the construction activities will not be taken place on the same place throughout the construction period, but to be undertaken at moving work fronts spreading across the work sites. Hence, it is anticipated that high TSP project contribution episodes would be relatively occasional. Once the construction works located immediately adjacent to the affected air sensitive use have been completed and moved on to further away, project contributions would then be reduced.

3.4.8.4 Contributions on 1-hour TSP from other sources are comparatively small and it is considered that the background contributions is the second highest contributor to the cumulative construction dust impact. On the other hand, background contributions from far-field sources are identified as the major contributor of 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP concentrations. In particular, FSP contributions are small at all ASRs, indicating that construction works are not major source of FSP.

Table 3.15a Breakdown of mitigated Max. 1-hour TSP concentrations

ASR ID	Location	Max. 1-hour TSP Contribution (µg/m^3)
		Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	97	<1	<1	4	<1	<1	52	153
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	88	<1	<1	4	<1	<1	61	153
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	63	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	90	154
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	57	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	90	148
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	71	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	90	161
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	74	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	90	165
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	65	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	90	155
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	6	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	147
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	111	<1	<1	3	<1	<1	52	166
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	121	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	50	174
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	15	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	128	150
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	89	<1	<1	3	<1	<1	67	159
A13	Ma Wan Chung	22	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	142	164
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	53	<1	26	2	<1	<1	76	157
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	251	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	34	288
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	201	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	34	237
A17	Ho Yu College	208	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	34	245
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	228	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	34	264
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	149	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	51	200
A20	La Rossa B	223	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	28	252
A21	LeBleu No.1	215	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	28	244
A22	LeBleu Deux	130	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	52	184
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	111	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	67	180
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	208	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	28	237
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	195	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	28	224
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	106	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	52	160
A27	Man Tung Road Park	100	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	67	168
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	12	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	152
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	17	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	156
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	91	166
A31	Tung Chung Public School	38	53	<1	<1	<1	<1	97	189
A32	Ha Ling Pei	58	90	<1	<1	<1	<1	97	246
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	328	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	404
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	179	<1	4	<1	<1	<1	105	289
A35	Hau Wong Temple	226	36	<1	<1	<1	<1	86	349
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	125	184
A37	Ngan Au	234	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	71	307
A38	Shek Lau Po	246	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	70	316
A39	Mo Ka	335	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	70	404
A40	Shek Mun Kap	299	<1	30	1	<1	<1	65	396
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	161	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	88	252
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	192	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	28	221
A43	Tung Chung North Park	146	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	51	198
A44	Pak Mong	189	<1	12	2	<1	<1	95	298
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	6	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	147
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	62	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	90	153
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	12	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	153
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	110	<1	<1	4	<1	<1	52	165
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	121	<1	<1	4	<1	<1	52	177
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	221	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	34	257
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	174	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	34	210
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	148	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	51	199
A53	La Mer House 1	184	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	51	236
A54	Le Bleu House 23	243	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	28	272
A55	Le Bleu House 99	187	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	51	239
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	215	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	28	244
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	116	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	52	170
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	55	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	90	146
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	60	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	90	151
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	16	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	156
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	33	17	<1	<1	<1	<1	125	175
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	160	127	<1	<1	<1	<1	49	336
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	15	6	<1	<1	<1	<1	128	150
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	21	14	<1	<1	<1	<1	128	164
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	69	159	22	1	<1	<1	65	316
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	11	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	151
A67	Wong Ka Wai	25	152	10	3	<1	<1	36	224
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	223	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	67	292
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	358	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	27	387
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	230	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	51	281
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	345	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	34	382
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	17	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	90	182
P7 ^[2]	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	490 (278)	<1 (<1)	<1 (4)	2 (1)	<1 (<1)	<1 (<1)	34 (89)	526 (372)
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project)
TCE-1 ^[2]	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	482 (278)	<1 (6)	<1 (<1)	1 (2)	<1 (<1)	<1 (<1)	34 (66)	517 (352)
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	207	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	51	258
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	147	147
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	115	14	<1	2	<1	<1	63	193
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	153	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	66	221
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	160	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	66	228
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	331	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	51	383
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	403	13	<1	2	<1	<1	18	436
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	147	147
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	106	10	<1	2	<1	<1	63	180
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	147	147
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	175	14	<1	2	<1	<1	18	209
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	285	7	<1	2	<1	<1	18	312
TCE-14 ^[2]	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	527 (385)	6 (6)	<1 (<1)	2 (2)	<1 (<1)	<1 (<1)	18 (18)	553 (411)
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	245	16	<1	2	<1	<1	18	280
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	145	147
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	106	10	<1	2	<1	<1	63	180
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	168	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	51	219
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	153	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	20	174
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	223	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	27	252
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	160	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	27	189
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	214	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	51	266
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	414	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	51	466
TCE-24 ^[2]	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	486 (320)	<1 (<1)	<1 (<1)	2 (2)	<1 (<1)	<1 (<1)	56 (20)	545 (341)
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	402	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	51	454
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	<1	<1	18	2	<1	<1	131	150
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	109	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	55	165
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	301	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	49	353
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	Note [3]
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	<1	<1	17	1	<1	<1	131	149
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	Noted [3]
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	<1	<1	19	2	<1	<1	131	151
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	<1	<1	19	1	<1	<1	131	150
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	<1	<1	18	1	<1	<1	131	149
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	150	151
TCE-36	Proposed International School	<1	<1	17	1	<1	<1	131	149
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	145	148
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	145	148
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	145	147
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	145	148
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	156	157
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	Note [3]
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	Note [3]
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	Note [3]
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	Note [3]
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	Note [3]
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	Note [3]
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [3]
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [3]
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [3]
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	Note [3]
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	Note [3]
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [3]
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [3]
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	Note [3]
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [3]
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	Note [3]
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	147	147
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	Note [3]
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project)
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	14	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	125	147
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	6	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	150
TCW-3	Village Type Development	22	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	142	164
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	238	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	71	309
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	131	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	81	213
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	70	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	125	195
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	9	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	149
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	9	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	149
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	33	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	131	164
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	35	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	125	160
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	37	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	131	169
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	143	143
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	65	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	104	169
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	87	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	98	185
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	16	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	139	155
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	Note [3]
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	Note [3]
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [3]
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [3]
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [3]
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [3]
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	Note [3]
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	143	143
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	143	143

Note:

[1] Dust concentrations contribution by construction of concurrent projects (i.e. possible MTR stations at TCE and TCW)

[2] For ASR P7, TCE-1, TCE-14 and TCE-24, the 1-hour TSP contributions under Tier 2 test are presented in ( ).

[3] The planned ASRs will be in place in Years 2029 or 2030. Since there will only be superstructure works in these years, only insignificant project contributions are anticipated.

Table 3.15b Breakdown of mitigated 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP concentrations

ASR ID	Location	10^th highest 24-hour RSP Contribution (µg/m^3)								Annual RSP Contribution (µg/m^3)
		Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	2	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	78	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	2	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	77	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	2	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	77	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	<1	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	77	79	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	82	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A13	Ma Wan Chung	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	79	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	25	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	60	86	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	14	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	69	83	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A17	Ho Yu College	26	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	60	87	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	25	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	60	85	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	78	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A20	La Rossa B	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	83	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A21	LeBleu No.1	1	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	80	83	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A22	LeBleu Deux	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	82	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	80	83	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	80	84	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A27	Man Tung Road Park	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	80	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	80	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A31	Tung Chung Public School	2	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	81	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A32	Ha Ling Pei	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	81	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	19	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	62	81	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	43
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	3	5	<1	1	<1	<1	74	84	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	43
A35	Hau Wong Temple	14	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	67	84	8	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	48
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	81	2	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	43
A37	Ngan Au	19	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	72	91	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	45
A38	Shek Lau Po	9	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	74	85	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	42
A39	Mo Ka	16	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	71	89	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	45
A40	Shek Mun Kap	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	85	88	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	44
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	11	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	69	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	40
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	83	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	78	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A44	Pak Mong	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	80	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	79	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	79	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	79	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	82	84	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A53	La Mer House 1	14	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	69	83	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A54	Le Bleu House 23	12	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	72	84	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A55	Le Bleu House 99	22	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	60	83	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	16	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	68	84	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	78	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	78	80	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	80	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	7	6	2	<1	<1	<1	73	88	3	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	45
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	6	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	83	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	5	8	<1	<1	<1	<1	72	86	2	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	44
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	80	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
A67	Wong Ka Wai	2	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	82	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
Planned ASRs (under other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	16	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	71	87	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	43
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	18	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	70	89	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	44
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	82	88	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	21	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	70	91	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	44
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	6	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	84	2	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	43
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	91	97	10	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	50
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project)
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	38	2	1	1	<1	<1	56	99	8	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	50
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	82	89	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	45
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	81	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	84	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	43
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	12	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	86	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	44
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	82	86	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	44
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	90	94	8	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	48
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	82	89	8	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	48
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	79	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	81	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	3	<1	3	<1	<1	<1	73	80	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	<1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	78	81	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	43
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	18	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	66	85	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	44
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	15	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	94	8	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	48
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	7	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	73	84	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	44
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	3	<1	3	<1	<1	<1	73	80	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	81	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	<1	<1	2	1	<1	<1	78	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	<1	<1	2	1	<1	<1	78	81	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	2	<1	2	1	<1	<1	78	83	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	13	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	70	83	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	25	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	64	89	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	18	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	92	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	45
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	25	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	67	92	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	43
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	10	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	72	82	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	7	<1	1	1	<1	<1	73	82	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	85	91	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	45
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-36	Proposed International School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	79	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	79	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	79	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	79	81	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	2	<1	3	<1	<1	<1	73	79	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	Note [2]								Note [2]
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project)
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	79	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	79	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCW-3	Village Type Development	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	80	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	42
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	79	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	40
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	81	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	79	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	81	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	41
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	78	80	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	40
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	16	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	63	80	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	41
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	40
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	79	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	40
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	79	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39

Note:

[1] Dust concentrations contribution by construction of concurrent projects (i.e. possible MTR stations at TCE and TCW)

[2] The planned ASRs will be in place in Years 2029 or 2030. Since there will only be superstructure works in these years, only insignificant project contributions are anticipated.

Table 3.15c Breakdown of mitigated 10^th highest 24-hour and annual FSP concentrations

ASR ID	Location	10^th highest 24-hour FSP Contribution (µg/m^3)								Annual FSP Contribution (µg/m^3)
		Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	<1	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	<1	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A13	Ma Wan Chung	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A17	Ho Yu College	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A20	La Rossa B	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A21	LeBleu No.1	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A22	LeBleu Deux	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A27	Man Tung Road Park	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A31	Tung Chung Public School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A32	Ha Ling Pei	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
A35	Hau Wong Temple	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	60	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	29
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A37	Ngan Au	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	53	58	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
A38	Shek Lau Po	<1	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	56	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
A39	Mo Ka	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
A40	Shek Mun Kap	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A43	Tung Chung North Park	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A44	Pak Mong	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A53	La Mer House 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A54	Le Bleu House 23	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A55	Le Bleu House 99	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
A67	Wong Ka Wai	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
Planned ASRs (under other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	61	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	30
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project)
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	60	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	30
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	30
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	61	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	29
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-36	Proposed International School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	60	60	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	Note [2]								Note [2]
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project)
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCW-3	Village Type Development	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	28	28
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	59	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	Note [2]								Note [2]
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28

Notes:

[1] Dust concentrations contribution by construction of concurrent projects (i.e. possible MTR stations at TCE and TCW)

[2] The planned ASRs will be in place in Years 2029 or 2030. Since there will only be superstructure works in these years, only insignificant project contributions are anticipated.

Changes in Air Quality Conditions from Existing Year 2010

3.4.8.5 In accordance with the Appendix B, Section 1 (iii) of the EIA Study Brief, any change in air quality levels as compared with the existing baseline conditions shall be quantified. Existing air quality conditions in Year 2010 at existing ASRs are presented in Section 3.3.2, and the change in air quality levels under various source groups at these ASRs during construction phase are presented in the following Table 3.16a-b. It should be noted that there are no information on 1-hour TSP concentrations in Year 2010. Comparing 1-hour TSP concentrations with 24-hour RSP/FSP concentrations is also considered inappropriate due to their differences in particle size and averaging time. Hence changes in RSP and FSP concentrations are only presented.

3.4.8.6 In summary, changes in annual RSP and FSP concentrations range from -2µg/m³ to 7µg/m³ and from -2µg/m³ to <1µg/m³ as compared to the concentrations estimated for Year 2010. Reduction in RSP and FSP concentrations are generally predicted at most of the existing ASRs, except some locations in the TCW area, including ASR A33 –A40, A62 and A65. Despite the increase in RSP and FSP concentrations due to construction work, the predicted cumulative RSP and FSP concentrations comply with the AQOs requirements.

3.4.8.7

Table 3.16a Changes in cumulative RSP concentrations from existing air quality conditions in Year 2010

ASR ID	Location	10^th highest 24-hour RSP Contribution (µg/m^3)								Annual RSP Contribution (µg/m^3)
		Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	2	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-4	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	2	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-2	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	4	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-4	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A13	Ma Wan Chung	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-3	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	25	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-26	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	14	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-17	-3	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A17	Ho Yu College	26	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-26	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	25	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-26	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1	<1	2	<1	<1	<1	-8	-5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A20	La Rossa B	4	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-2	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A21	LeBleu No.1	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A22	LeBleu Deux	3	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-3	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	2	<1	-1	-2	<1	<1	-4	-4	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	<1	<1	1	-2	<1	<1	-2	-3	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1	<1	<1	-2	<1	<1	-2	-2	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	2	<1	-1	-3	<1	<1	-4	-5	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A27	Man Tung Road Park	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-10	-5	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	3	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-7	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	2	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-5	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-5	-4	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A31	Tung Chung Public School	2	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-3	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A32	Ha Ling Pei	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-3	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	19	<1	-1	<1	<1	<1	-17	<1	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	4
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	3	5	-6	<1	<1	<1	-1	2	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	3
A35	Hau Wong Temple	14	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	-17	-1	8	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	7
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-3	2	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	2
A37	Ngan Au	19	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-8	11	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	5
A38	Shek Lau Po	9	<1	<1	1	<1	<1	-6	4	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	2
A39	Mo Ka	16	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	-9	8	7	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	5
A40	Shek Mun Kap	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	4	7	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	4
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	11	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-12	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	3	<1	<1	-3	<1	<1	-4	-4	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	-8	-5	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A44	Pak Mong	3	<1	-2	-1	<1	<1	-3	-3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-5	-5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-5	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-2	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	4	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-5	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A53	La Mer House 1	14	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-17	-2	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A54	Le Bleu House 23	12	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-11	-1	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A55	Le Bleu House 99	22	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-26	-3	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	16	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-14	-1	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	3	<1	-1	-2	<1	<1	-4	-3	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-1
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	3	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-7	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	<1	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-4	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	7	6	2	<1	<1	<1	-11	4	3	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	4
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	6	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-2	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-3	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	5	8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-11	2	2	3	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	3
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	2	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-5	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1
A67	Wong Ka Wai	2	1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-5	-2	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	1

Note:

[1] Predicted 10^th highest 24-hour RSP concentrations during construction phase and during Year 2010 may not occur at the similar meteorological conditions (such as wind speed, wind direction, etc.), hence, large differences in contributions under various source groups are anticipated.

Table 3.16b Changes in cumulative FSP concentrations from existing air quality conditions in Year 2010

ASR ID	Location	10^th highest 24-hour FSP Contribution (µg/m^3)								Annual FSP Contribution (µg/m^3)
		Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Project Contribution	Dust (Other Projects) ^[1]	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-5	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-2	-2
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-5	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	<1	<1	<1	-2	<1	<1	-4	-6	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-2	-2
A13	Ma Wan Chung	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A17	Ho Yu College	1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	<1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-2
A20	La Rossa B	2	<1	<1	-2	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-2	-2
A21	LeBleu No.1	2	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-2	-2
A22	LeBleu Deux	<1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-2	-2
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	<1	<1	-1	-2	<1	<1	-3	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-2	-2
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	2	<1	<1	-3	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-2	-2
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	2	<1	<1	-3	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-2	-2
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-2	-2
A27	Man Tung Road Park	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-2	-2
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A31	Tung Chung Public School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A32	Ha Ling Pei	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-3	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	<1
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-3	-2	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	<1
A35	Hau Wong Temple	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	<1
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A37	Ngan Au	5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-8	-2	1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	<1
A38	Shek Lau Po	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-2	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	<1
A39	Mo Ka	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-3	1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	<1
A40	Shek Mun Kap	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	<1
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-2	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	<1	<1	<1	-3	<1	<1	-3	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-2	-2
A43	Tung Chung North Park	2	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-1	-2
A44	Pak Mong	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-4	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-1	-1
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-1	-2
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	<1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-2
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-2
A53	La Mer House 1	<1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A54	Le Bleu House 23	2	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-2	-2
A55	Le Bleu House 99	<1	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	2	<1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-2	-2
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1	<1	-1	-2	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-2	-2
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-1	-2
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	-1	0	<1	-1	-2
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	<1
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	<1	<1	<1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1
A67	Wong Ka Wai	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	0	<1	-1	-1

Note:

[1] Predicted 10^th highest 24-hour FSP concentrations during construction phase and during Year 2010 may not occur at the similar meteorological conditions (such as wind speed, wind direction, etc.), hence, large differences in contributions under various source groups are anticipated.

3.4.9 Residual Impacts (Construction Phase)

3.4.9.1 With the implementation of the mitigation measures as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, dust control measures, including watering once per hour on exposed worksites and haul road, and good site practices, the predicted 1-hour TSP, 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP concentrations on area in the vicinity of the construction sites would comply with the respective criteria. Hence, no adverse residual air quality impact during construction phase is anticipated.

3.5 Operational Air Quality Assessment

3.5.1 Assessment Area

3.5.1.1 With reference to Clause 3.4.1.2 of the EIA Study brief, the assessment area for operational air quality impact assessment should be defined by a distance of 500m from the boundary of the PDAs and the works of the Project within the Study Area. Figure 3.13 illustrates the extent of the study area for operational air quality assessment.

3.5.2 Identification of Pollution Source

3.5.2.1 The key existing air pollution sources within the assessment area that may bear upon the air quality during operational phase include the vehicular emission from the neighbouring roads such as North Lantau Highway. Airport operation located outside 500m assessment area is also considered as a key air pollution source. For conservative assessment, this major emission source is also considered in the near-field dispersion model for assessment the cumulative air quality impact.

3.5.2.2 Other far-field emission sources outside the assessment area which would also have certain influence on the background air quality level include territory wide vehicular emission, power plants, marine emission, as well as regional emission from Pearl River Delta (PRD). These sources are included in far-field modelling.

3.5.2.3 Other than the existing air pollution sources, it is anticipated that the future infrastructure developments in the vicinity of the Project would induce additional traffic and hence incur additional emission burden which may also cause potential air quality impacts on the ASRs. In particular, vehicular emissions due to the HKLR, HKBCF and TMCLKL are considered as major emission sources and therefore are included in the near-field dispersion model for assessment the cumulative air quality impact.

3.5.2.4 Specifically, the existing and potential near-field sources are described in the following sections below:

Vehicular Emission from Open Road

3.5.2.5 Major air pollution source in the vicinity of the Project during operational phase would be tailpipe emission generated from traffic along open road. Vehicular emissions from the existing road networks, and those arising from the concurrent projects, including the HKLR, HKBCF, TMCLKL, LLP, etc. (see details in Sections 3.5.2.16 to 3.5.2.18) that would have cumulative air quality impact on nearby ASRs have also been addressed. Figure 3.14 illustrates the road networks considered as near-field sources in the operational air quality assessment.

Vehicular Emission from Tunnel Portal and Ventilation Building

3.5.2.6 Other than vehicular emission along open road, those emitted from the tunnel portals and ventilation buildings for the HKLR and TMCLKL would also cause cumulative air quality impact. Figure 3.14 illustrates the locations of tunnel portals and ventilation buildings (as listed below) to be considered in the near-field model:

· HZMB – Eastern tunnel portal and ventilation building;

· Scenic Hill Tunnel (SHT) – Eastbound and westbound tunnel portal and ventilation building;

· HKBCF to Airport Tunnel (HAT) – Tunnel portal only; and

· TMCLKL – Southern tunnel portal and ventilation building.

Vehicular Emission from Idling Vehicles at HKBCF

3.5.2.7 Emission from idling vehicles at kiosks and loading / unloading bays at the HKBCF would also cause cumulative air quality impact. Figure 3.14 illustrates the locations of idling vehicles.

Airport Emission

3.5.2.8 Key air emission sources associated with the operation of Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) include the following:

· Aircraft Landing Take Off (LTO) cycle;

· Airport ferry at SkyPier;

· Auxiliary Power Unit (APU);

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

· Engine Run Up Facility (ERUF)

3.5.2.9 According to the approved EIA study “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System” (AEIAR-185/2014) (hereinafter called “3RS EIA”), the full operation of 3RS will commence in Year 2023 which would cause potential cumulative air quality impact.

Industrial Emission

3.5.2.10 Site survey revealed that there is no existing chimney found within 500m of the Project boundary. Based on the latest available information, there is also no industrial emission from the chimney at the North Lantau Hospital in Area 25. Hence, no cumulative air quality impact from the North Lantau Hospital is anticipated.

3.5.2.11 Committed Organic Waste Treatment Facilities (OWTF) Phase 1 would commence its operation in Year 2016. Its associated chimney emissions would therefore cause cumulative air quality impact and hence are included in this assessment. Figure 3.15 illustrates the locations of chimneys associated with OWTF Phase 1.

Marine Emission from the Proposed Marina at TCE

3.5.2.12 A proposed marina with maximum 95 numbers of berths for pleasure vessels is located at the north of TCE. Based on the currently best available information, the marina is designed for a mix of 40 and 45 berths for vessels of Length Overall (LOA) ≤10m and 10-15m respectively, while the remaining 10 berths will be reserve for other vessels of similar size. Figure 3.15 illustrates the location of the proposed marina. It must be noted that this marina is a Designated Project under Item O.2 of Schedule 2 of TM-EIAO. A separate EIA study would be conducted by the future operator to fulfil all the statutory requirements and procedures under the EIAO.

3.5.2.13 Since the operation characteristic of this proposed marina would be similar to that of the existing marina at the Hong Kong Gold Coast with about 200 berths in Tuen Mun, site surveys have therefore been conducted to identify the typical operation of the existing marina and pleasure vessels in Hong Kong Gold Coast.

3.5.2.14 According to site observations at the Hong Kong Gold Coast in May / June 2013, and January 2014, there was no regular pleasure vessel movement but a maximum of 4 pleasure vessels travelling in and out of the marina within an hour. Each pleasure vessel took less than 5 minutes for manoeuvring before leaving or entering the marina. And there were only less than 5 minutes hotelling activities in the marina.

3.5.2.15 Based on the current marine traffic forecast for the proposed marina at TCE, there will be a maximum of 6 pleasure vessel movements per hour during summer day time (i.e. 8:00am to 7:00pm). Potential cumulative air quality impact from the proposed marina is included in this assessment.

Marine Emission from Existing Local Vessels

3.5.2.16 Apart from the proposed marina, there is also gaseous emission from the existing local vessels operating at the Tung Chung Development Pier for the transportation between Tuen Mun, Tung Chung, Sha Lo Wan and Tai O. Site surveys have been conducted to identify the typical operation of the local vessels. It is observed that the vessels will hotel at the pier for less than about 5 minutes for loading/unloading of passengers and will depart immediately once the loading/unloading activities completed. According to the current operation timetable, there was only 12 trips of vessels operating at the pier from 07:30 to 19:30 in one day (i.e. approximately once per hour). As advised by the Transport Department, currently there is no change in ferry schedule for the abovementioned ferry service.

3.5.2.17 Potential cumulative air quality impact is included in this assessment. Figure 3.15 illustrates the marine route of the existing local vessel.

Odour Emission from Proposed Sewage Pumping Stations

3.5.2.18 According to the current development plan, there are a total of 5 proposed sewage pumping stations (SPSs) under this Project with the proposed design capacities ranging from 278 – 45,732m³ per day. Their locations are given in Figure 3.16. The separation distance between these SPSs and nearest planned air sensitive uses ranges from less than 10m to about 30m.

3.5.2.19 It is anticipated that with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures commonly adopted in other existing SPSs in Hong Kong, such as enclosing the odourous facilities, maintaining negative pressure to prevent foul air from escaping the building, and provision of odour removal system (e.g. activated carbon type deodourisation units) at the ventilation exhaust to control odour impacts, potential odour impact from these proposed SPSs at nearby air sensitive uses could be properly controlled.

3.5.2.20 To this end, site visits have been conducted to some typical SPSs in Hong Kong (including Tsing Lung Tau SPS, Sham Tseng SPS, and Casam Beach SPS near Sham Tseng area; and Jordan Valley Box Culvert SPS near Kowloon Bay area) in June / August 2015, of which their design capacities range from about 10,500 – 43,200m³ per day. Each of these SPS are provided with odour removal system (with odour removal efficiency of at least 95%) and all the potential odour sources are enclosed within the plant buildings. Vertical exhausts of the odour removal system are all located at the roof-top of each SPS, with the shortest horizontal separation distance between their site boundaries less than 10m. Site observations revealed that odour was not noticed at their site boundaries, and the similar situation is anticipated on the planned ASRs located in close proximity with the proposed SPSs under this Project.

3.5.2.21 Adverse odour nuisance exceeding the 5 odour units limit arising from the operations of the proposed SPSs under this Project is therefore not anticipated if the following at-source mitigation measures are implemented:

· Potential odour sources should be enclosed;

· Negative pressure should be maintained within the facilities;

· Installation of deodouriser with an odour removal efficiency of at least 95% to control odour emission via ventilation exhaust;

· Exhaust of the deodouriser should be oriented away from sensitive receivers and vertically upwards to avoid direct facing to any sensitive receivers; and

· Maintenance of deodouriser should be regularly conducted to ensure good condition.

Concurrent Projects

3.5.2.22 Section 1.9 has identified a number of potential concurrent projects in the vicinity of the Project. Among them, it is considered the following projects would cause induced traffic and hence would likely cause cumulative air quality impact during the operational phase:

· Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities;

· Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road;

· Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link;

· Possible Lantau Logistic Park;

· Three-runway System of Hong Kong International Airport;

· Planned Developments on Airport Island;

· Cross Boundary Hub in Siu Ho Wan; and

· Proposed Leisure and Entertainment Node at Sunny Bay.

3.5.2.23 The traffic forecast has already taken into account the induced traffic from these concurrent projects.

Summary of Projects/ Sources included in the Operational Air Quality Assessment

3.5.2.24 A summary of emissions from concurrent projects and sources included in the operational air quality assessment and their associated air quality impact are tabulated below:

Table 3.17 Projects/ sources for operational air quality assessment

Project / Sources	Associated Air Quality Impact
Sources included in Near-field Modelling
Existing road network (including those in Airport Island and Lantau Island)	Vehicular emission from all open roads
Planned road network within the PDAs under this Project and Road P1	Vehicular emission from the new road network
Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road	Vehicular emission from its road network, tunnel portal and ventilation building
Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities	Vehicular emission from its road network, tunnel portal, and idling emission from kiosks and loading/unloading bays
Tuen Mun Chek Lap Kok Link (Southern Section)	Vehicular emission from its road network, tunnel portal and ventilation building
Three-runway System of Hong Kong International Airport	Airport emission from its related activities
Organic Waste Treatment Facilities (OWTF) Phase 1	Industrial emission from its chimneys
Proposed Marina at TCE	Marine emission from vessels
Existing Local Vessels between Tuen Mun, Tung Chung, Sha Lo Wan and Tai O	Marine emission from vessels
Induced Traffic from Concurrent Projects
Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic
Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic
Tuen Mun Chek Lap Kok Link	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic
Three-runway System of Hong Kong International Airport	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic
North Commercial District (NCD) of Hong Kong International Airport	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic only
Topside Development at Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic only
Possible Lantau Logistic Park	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic only
Cross Boundary Hub in Siu Ho Wan	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic only
Proposed Leisure and Entertainment Node at Sunny Bay	Vehicular emission from its induced traffic only
Sources included in Far-field Modelling
Public Electricity Generation	Various emission from Hong Kong and Pearl River Delta contributing to background air quality
Road Transport
Navigation
Other Fuel Combustion
Non-combustion

3.5.3 Determination of Representative Air Pollutants

3.5.3.1 As discussed in Section 3.1, the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311) and its subsidiary regulations define statutory AQOs for 7 common air pollutants including NO₂, SO₂, RSP, FSP, CO, O₃ and lead. According to Appendix B, Clause 5 (ii) of the EIA Study Brief, the key / representative air pollutant parameters for the project shall be identified, including the types of pollutants and the averaging time concentration.

3.5.3.2 The air quality pollutant source during the operational phase of the project would be the emission from the vehicles travelling on the new and existing roads. The tailpipe emission would comprise a number of pollutants, including Nitrogen Oxides (NO_X), Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP), Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP), Sulphur Dioxides (SO₂), Toxic Air Pollutants (TAP), Lead (Pb) etc. Determination of representative air pollutants for this Project is discussed in the following:

i) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂)

3.5.3.3 Nitrogen oxides (NO_X) is known to be one of the pollutants emitted by vehicles. Together with VOC and in the presence of O₃ under sunlight, NO_x would be transformed to NO₂. According to the 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report published by EPD ^[3-[1]] which is the latest available information at the time of preparing this report, the dominant sources of NOx generated in HK are the public electricity generation and the navigation which both constitute about 31% of the total in 2013. Road transport is the third largest NOx emission group, accounting for about 23% of the total while other fuel combustion including for industrial purposes accounted for 10% of the total (see table below).

Table 3.18 The emission percentage and the amount of NOx in Hong Kong (2013)

Pollutant Source Categories	NOx Emission (%) ^[1]	NOx Emission (tons) ^[1]
Public Electricity Generation	31%	34,580
Road Transport	23%	25,740
Navigation	31%	35,630
Civil Aviation	6%	6,240
Other Fuel Combustion	10%	11,040
Total	100%	113,220

Note:

[1] Figures extracted from 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report

3.5.3.4 Upon population intake of the proposed development, there would be an increase in the traffic flow and hence the NOx emission and subsequently the NO₂ concentrations near to the roadside.

3.5.3.5 NO₂ is one of the key representative pollutants for the operational air quality assessment of the Project. The 1-hour and annual average concentrations at each identified ASR have been assessed and compared with the AQOs to determine their compliance.

ii) Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) and Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP)

3.5.3.6 Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) refers to suspended particulates with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10µm or less. According to the EPD’s data ^[3-1], and other research studies (Tian et al., 2011 & Wie-Zhen et al., 2008), road vehicles, particularly diesel vehicles, are one of the sources of RSP in Hong Kong.

3.5.3.7 According to the latest statistics of 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report ^[3-1], road transport is the second largest source of RSP and FSP accounting for 18% and 21% of the total emissions respectively.

Table 3.19 The emission percentage and the amount of RSP and FSP in Hong Kong (2013)

Pollutant Source Categories	RSP		FSP
	Emission (%)	Emission (tons)	Emission (%)	Emission (tons)
Public Electricity Generation	16%	940	9%	430
Road Transport	18%	1,090	21%	1,000
Navigation	36%	2,160	42%	2,000
Civil Aviation	<1%	60	1%	60
Other Fuel Combustion	14%	850	16%	780
Non-combustion	16%	950	10%	480
Total	^[2]	6,040	100%	4,740

Notes:

[1] Figures extracted from 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report

[2] Figures are directly extracted from the report and may not be added to 100% or the total sum of the emission from all source categories.

3.5.3.8 Upon population intake of the proposed development, there would an increase in the traffic flow and hence the RSP concentrations near to the roadside.

3.5.3.9 RSP is also one of the key representative pollutants for the operational air quality assessment of the Project. The 24-hour and annual average concentrations at each identified ASR would be assessed and compared with the AQOs to determine their compliance.

3.5.3.10 Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP) refers to suspended particulates with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. Similar to RSP, FSP is sourced from road vehicles, etc, and is also considered as one of the key representative pollutants for the operational air quality assessment of the Project. The 24-hour and annual average concentrations at each identified ASR would be assessed and compared with the AQOs to determine their compliance.

iii) Sulphur Dioxide (SO₂)

3.5.3.11 According to the latest statistics of 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report ^[3-1], the dominant source of SO₂ in Hong Kong is from navigation, which constitutes about 50% of the total emissions. Only a combined of less than 2% of the total emissions comes from road transport and other fuel combustions including for industrial purposes. The introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel for vehicle fleet has reduced the SO₂ emission from road transport in Hong Kong. In addition, with effect from 1^st April 2014, the Air Pollution Control (Marine Light Diesel) Regulation stipulates that the sulphur content of marine light diesel (MLD) used in marine vessels shall not exceed 0.05% by weight. This regulation will therefore reduce 90% of SO₂ emission by navigation from the previous sulphur content of about 0.5%.

Table 3.20 The emission percentage and the amount of SO₂ in Hong Kong (2013)

Pollutant Source Categories	SO2 Emission (%) [1]	SO2 Emission (tons) [1]
Public Electricity Generation	47%	14,680
Road Transport	<1%	50
Navigation	50%	15,740
Civil Aviation	2%	540
Other Fuel Combustion	<1%	280
Total	^[2]	31,280

Note:

[1] Figures extracted from 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report

[2] Figures are directly extracted from the report and may not be added to 100% or the total sum of the emission from all source categories.

3.5.3.12 As discussed in Section 3.2, the latest 5-year average of 4^th highest 24-hour SO₂ concentration in Tung Chung is only 33% of the AQOs, and future predicted 24-hour SO₂ background concentrations in the study area would be only about 30% of the AQOs in Year 2020. This clearly indicates that the AQOs for SO₂ could be well achieved with great margin in the study area. Given that road transport is not a major emission source of SO₂, the sulphur content of MLD is regulated to not exceeding 0.05% and there is still a large margin to the AQOs compared to the other pollutants such as RSP, FSP and NO₂, it is appropriate to consider that SO₂ is not the key representative pollutants for quantitative assessment for the operational phase of the Project.

iv) Carbon Monoxide (CO)

3.5.3.13 Carbon Monoxide (CO) is one of the primary pollutants emitted by road transport. According to the latest statistics of 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report ^[3-1] CO emissions from road transport contributed about 59% of total CO emission in 2013 (see the table below).

Table 3.21 The emission percentage and the amount of CO in Hong Kong (2013)

Pollutant Source Categories	CO Emission (%) ^[1]	CO Emission (tons) ^[1]
Public Electricity Generation	6%	3,930
Road Transport	59%	35,840
Navigation	19%	11,670
Civil Aviation	5%	3,320
Other Fuel Combustion	10%	6,040
Total	100%	60,790

Note:

[1] Figures extracted from 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report

3.5.3.14 Despite road transportation is the dominant source of CO emission, the air quality impact from CO is relatively minor according to the historical data record of monitoring stations. In Year 2013, the highest 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations were 4,070µg/m³ and 2,860µg/m³ at the roadside monitoring station in Causeway Bay ^[3-4], both of which were far below the AQOs standard of 30,000 (1-hour) and 10,000 (8-hour), respectively. It is therefore considered that CO is not a representative key parameter for assessment.

v) Ozone (O₃)

3.5.3.15 Unlike other pollutants such as NOx, O₃ is not a primary pollutant emitted from man-made sources but is formed by a set of complex chain reactions between various chemical species, including NOx and VOC, in the presence of sunlight. According to Sun et al. ^{[3-[2]] & [3-[3]]} the rate of formation of O₃, also known as Ozone Production Efficiency, depends not only on NOx and VOC levels, but atmospheric oxidation, temperature, radiation, and other meteorological factors in the atmosphere of different regions. The formation of O₃ generally takes several hours to proceed (EPD, 2013) ^[3-[4]] and therefore O₃ recorded locally could be attributed to emissions generated from places afar.

3.5.3.16 According to “A Study to Review Hong Kong’s Air Quality Objectives” ^[3-[5]], due to the abundance of its precursors (VOC and NOx) from a great variety of sources such as motor vehicles, industries, power plants and consumer products, etc., ozone can be widely formed in the region and can be transported over long distance. The general rising trend of ozone levels in Hong Kong over the past years reflects an aggravation in the photochemical smog problem on a regional scale. All these indicate that local traffic emission is not a dominant controlling factor in O₃ formation.

3.5.3.17 Moreover, as discussed in Section 3.3.1, NO_x emission from motor vehicles can react with and remove O₃ in air. Regions with heavy traffic (i.e. urban area) normally have lower ozone levels than areas with light traffic (i.e. rural area). Table 3.22 below summaries the ozone concentrations recorded in various EPD AQMSs for past 5 years. It can be seen that no exceedance of 10^th highest 8-hour O₃ concentrations were recorded in the past 5 years, while exceedances were generally recorded in New Towns (except Tai Po) and in Tap Mun (i.e. Rural area). Annual O₃ concentrations recoded in Tap Mun were also the highest (i.e. 75µg/m³ in Year 2013) in Hong Kong, and Sham Shui Po recorded the lowest (i.e. 27µg/m³ in Year 2012).

Table 3.22 Summary of Ozone concentrations (2010 – 2014)

Monitoring Station	Ozone Concentrations (µg/m^3)
	10^th highest 8-hour ^[1]					Annual
	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Urban Area
Central/Western	127	136	152	144	147	37	36	37	41	43
Sham Shui Po	108	115	134	113	132	28	31	27	31	35
Eastern	119	126	130	115	132	42	46	40	39	43
Kwun Tong	100	113	120	127	133	33	37	40	44	46
Kwai Chung	105	105	117	109	115	28	28	30	30	36
Tsuen Wan	104	111	125	117	142	30	31	32	33	39
New Town
Tai Po	119	144	143	156	144	38	48	34	47	52
Sha Tin	142	149	167	167	164	45	43	47	48	51
Tung Chung	164	189	197	171	175	44	44	47	44	46
Yuen Long	136	163	185	163	177	34	39	39	37	41
Tuen Mun	Note [2]				168	Note [2]				41
Rural Area
Tap Mun	166	188	189	180	181	67	71	71	75	72

Notes:

[1] Bolded values mean exceedance of the criterion of 160µg/m³.

[2] Tuen Mun air quality monitoring station commenced operation in Year 2014, hence there is no data available for the period between 2010 and 2013.

3.5.3.18 As discussed in Section 3.3, ozone is not a primary pollutant and high ozone episodes happened in Tung Chung area occasionally under the influence of regional pollutants transportation. Moreover, traffic emissions due the Project may reduce the O₃ concentrations in the immediate area along main roads. Ozone is therefore not considered as a key parameter in this assessment.

vi) Lead (Pb)

3.5.3.19 As leaded petrol has been banned in Hong Kong since in 1999, it is no longer considered as a primary source in Hong Kong. According to the “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2013” from EPD, the measured 3-month averaged lead level ranged from 4ng/m³ (Tung Chung) to 100ng/m³ (Yuen Long). The measured concentrations are much lower than annual AQOs limit of 500ng/m³. Therefore, lead is not considered as a key representative pollutant for the operational air quality assessment.

vii) Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs)

3.5.3.20 There are six kinds of Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs) routinely monitored in HK, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbonyls, and toxic elemental species.

3.5.3.21 Dioxins, carbonyls, PCBs and most toxic elemental species are not considered primary sources of vehicular emissions (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/ english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/assessment_of_tap_measurements.html & http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR5/Sources_of_PCB_emissions.pdf/view), and hence, these three TAPs are not considered as key / representative air pollutants for the operational air quality assessment.

3.5.3.22 Vehicular emissions may be a source of diesel particulate matters, PAHs and VOCs. Elemental carbon, which constitutes a large portion of diesel particulate matters mass, is commonly used as a surrogate for diesel particulate matter. According to the data from EPD, the elemental carbon showed a significant decrease in concentration in Hong Kong by 47.5% from 2001 to 2009, and Tsuen Wan by 51.3% from 1999 to 2009. This is because the implementation of EURO III vehicle emission standard to goods vehicle and bus in 2001 and EURO IV standard to all types of vehicle in 2006-2007 (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/ environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html). It is not considered as a key air pollutant for the operational air quality assessment.

3.5.3.23 Currently, no ambient air quality standards have been set for PAHs. However, with reference to US and European Community air quality guidelines, the European commission has a very stringent guideline concentration for PAHs. According to the “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2013” published by EPD, the concentration of PAHs level (Benzo[a]pyrene, BaP) in Hong Kong were 0.15ng/m³ and 0.12ng/m³ monitored at the Tsuen Wan and Central/Western stations respectively in 2013 which was still much lower than the guidelines of European Communities of 1ng/m³.

Table 3.23 Comparison of TAPs concentration in Hong Kong (2013) and the EU Air Quality Standards

Air Pollutants	Guidelines / Standards (ng/m^3)	Highest Avg Conc at Tsuen Wan station (ng/m^3)	Highest Avg Conc at Central/Western station (ng/m^3)	Compliance
	EU			EU
PAHs (BaP)	1 (Annual Average)^[1]	0.15 (Annual Average)^[2]	0.12 (Annual Average)^[2]	Well Achieved

Notes:

[1] Referenced from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm

[2] Referenced from http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/api_history/english/report/files/AQR2013e_final.pdf

3.5.3.24 There are different standards for different VOC compounds. According to the “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2013” published by EPD, benzene, 1-3 butadiene, formaldehyde and perchloroethylene are the VOCs that may have more health concern, and the USEPA also identified benzene and 1-3 butadiene are carcinogenic.

Table 3.24 Comparison of VOCs concentration in Hong Kong (2013) and the EU Air Quality Standards

TAP	Guidelines / Standards (μg/m^3)	Highest Avg Conc at Tsuen Wan station (μg/m^3)	Highest Avg Conc at Central/Western station (μg/m^3)	Compliance
Benzene	5 (Annual Average) ^[1]	1.81	1.62	Well Achieved
1-3 butadiene	2.25 (Running Annual Average) ^[1]	0.06	0.12	Well Achieved
Formaldehyde	9 (Annual Average)^[3]	- ^[2]	5.21	Well Achieved
Perchloroethylene	40 (Annual Average)^[4]	0.60	0.57	Well Achieved

Notes:

[1] Referenced from the UK National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS)

(http://www.medway.gov.uk/environmentandplanning/environmentalhealth/airquality/airqualityfordevelopers.aspx)

[2] The measurement of formaldehyde was affected by influence from renovation works at Princess Alexandra Community Centre as well as nearby buildings of Tsuen Wan Station. Hence, only formaldehyde concentration at the Central/Western station is reported.

[3] Referenced from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Toxicity Criteria Database, California, USA (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/tcdb/index.asp)

[4] Referenced from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), USEPA (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0106.htm)

3.5.3.25 As shown in the above table, the measured VOCs concentration in Hong Kong urban area is far below the UK and US standards. Also, according to 2013 Hong Kong Air Pollutants Emission Inventory, the VOCs level has dropped by approximately 50% in 2007 since 1990 due to the EPD progressive improvement of EURO standard vehicles over the past two decades. With reference to the EPD’s 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report, vehicular emission is also not the primary source of VOCs, accounting for about 23% of the total in Hong Kong. Besides, according to another study - “Seasonal and diurnal variations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere of Hong Kong”, benzene, and 1-3 butadiene only contributed about 6-13% of overall vehicular emission VOCs. In other words, only 1.6-3.5% of the overall VOC emissions in Hong Kong are benzene and 1-3 butadiene contributed by vehicular emission.

3.5.3.26 The historical monitoring data showed that the concentrations of PAHs and VOCs were only in small amount. It is also reasonably believed that the emission of PAHs and VOCs should be significantly decreased after the implementation of EURO V standard vehicles in 2013 and the phasing out of the pre-EURO IV diesel commercial vehicles. The TAPs is also not specified under the current AQOs. Based on above reasons, TAPs is not considered as a key air pollutant for the operational air quality assessment.

viii) Conclusion

3.5.3.27 As discussed in the above sections, NO₂, RSP and FSP are considered the key air quality pollutant for this project and the concentrations of the other pollutants are very low and hence are not considered as the key pollutants for the purposes of this air quality assessment.

3.5.4 Assessment Methodology

General

3.5.4.1 The area for air quality impact assessment should be generally defined by a distance of 500m from the boundary of the PDAs and the works of the Project within the Study Area.

3.5.4.2 The assessment has evaluated the impacts arising from three classes of emission sources depending on their distance from the project site, including:

(1) Project induced contribution;

(2) Pollutant-emitting activities in the immediate neighbourhood; and

(3) Other contributions from pollution not accounted for by (1) and (2).

3.5.4.3 All sources within 500m assessment area (i.e. (1) and (2)) are considered as near-field source impacts and are predicted using local-scale models. These sources include vehicular emission from existing road network and proposed roads within the PDAs. Although the HKIA is located outside 500m assessment area, it has been included in the near-field assessment in this EIA.

3.5.4.4 Other far-field pollution source impacts (3) which are beyond 500m from the Project (i.e. background concentration), are predicted using regional scale model – Pollutant in the Atmosphere and the Transport over Hong Kong, PATH. In PATH model, all major emission sources including public electricity generation, civil aviation, road transport, navigation, industries, other fuel combustion and non-combustion sources covering both HKSAR and Pearl River Delta Economic Zone (PRDEZ) are considered.

3.5.4.5 The cumulative operational air quality impact is then a combination of the contributions from the near-field and far-field sources.

Determination of Assessment Year

3.5.4.6 According to Appendix B, Clause 5 (iv) of the EIA Study Brief for the Project, the air pollution impacts of future road traffic shall be calculated based on the highest emission strength from road within the next 15 years upon commencement of operation of the proposed road. The selected assessment year should represent the highest emission scenario, given the combination of emission factors and traffic flow for the selected year.

3.5.4.7 Vehicular tailpipe emissions from open roads are calculated based on the latest EMFAC-HK model available at the time of preparing this report.

3.5.4.8 Based on the current tentative implementation programme as presented in Section 2.9, population intake will be in phases in Years 2023, 2024, 2025, 2027, 2029 and 2030. As advised by the Engineer, proposed road commencement would be in the same commencement year of each phase. Therefore, EmFAC-HK models have been carried out for Year 2023 (first commissioning), 2024, 2025, 2027, 2029, 2030 and 2038 (15 years after first commissioning) to determine the highest emission scenario and the worst assessment year. The traffic forecast data is given Appendix 3.9. The methodology, key model assumptions and results (including emission factors) are presented in Appendix 3.10.

3.5.4.9 According to the existing air quality conditions as presented in Section 3.3, NO₂ is considered as the most critical air pollutant for this Project, given its continuous non-compliance of annual AQO criterion from Years 2010 to 2014. To this end, the total NOx emission from nearby road networks predicted by EMFAC-HK based on the traffic forecast are summarized in the table below. Results indicate that the highest NO_x emission scenario would likely occur in Year 2023 and hence is taken as the worst assessment year for the purpose of this operational air quality assessment. In addition, it can also be seen from Table 3.25 that, despite the continuous increase in the Vehicle-Km Travelled (VKT), a progressive decrease in NOx emission from vehicle tailpipe is observed, which is anticipated as a result of the implementation of emission reduction measures over motor vehicles by the Hong Kong Government, e.g. introductions of Euro V vehicle emission standards in 2012 and Euro VI tentatively in 2016, phasing out pre-Euro IV diesel commercial vehicles by end 2019, etc. These measures on controlling vehicular emission would progressively reduce roadside air pollution.

Table 3.25 Summary of total daily pollutant emissions and vehicle-km travelled

Year	Total NOx Emission (gram/day)	Total Vehicle-km Travelled (VKT/day)
2023	1,120,653	2,708,307
2024	1,089,154	2,795,648
2025	1,076,949	2,976,127
2027	1,073,913	3,139,358
2029	956,421	3,616,030
2030	879,322	3,866,166
2038	603,735	4,333,149

Note:

Values in bold are the maximum among Years 2023, 2024, 2025, 2027, 2029, 2030 and 2038.

Vehicular Emission from Open Road

3.5.4.10 The EMFAC-HK will calculate the hourly vehicular emission (in tonne) for each road category. The hourly emission rates for each vehicle class (in gram per mile per vehicle) are obtained by dividing the hourly emissions calculated in the EMFAC-HK by the VMT for the respective hour. The calculation of the NO_x, RSP and FSP emission factors for different road groups are given in Appendix 3.10.

3.5.4.11 However, it should be noted that some planned ASRs would still be under construction and there would be no traffic flow in theirs nearby road networks. In order to conduct a conservative operational air quality impact assessment, it is assumed that the traffic data and emission factors of the population intake year of each phase beyond Year 2023 are adopted in the assessment as a reasonable worst case scenario, notwithstanding that this would overestimate the air quality at some existing ASRs. The composite vehicle emission factors for each road link are given in Appendix 3.11.

3.5.4.12 The USEPA approved near field air dispersion model, CALINE4 developed by the California Department of Transport is used to assess vehicular emissions impact from all existing and planned open road network.

3.5.4.13 Grid-specific meteorological data for Year 2010 extracted from EPD’s PATH model is adopted in CALINE4 model, including relevant temperature, wind speed, direction and mixing height. The stability classes are estimated from PCRAMMET model. The mixing height is capped to 121m as per the real meteorological data. For the treatment of calm hours, the approach recommended in the "Guideline on Air Quality on Air Quality Models Version 05" is adopted.

3.5.4.14 The surface roughness height is closely related to the land use characteristics, and the surface roughness is estimated as 10 percent of the average height of physical structures within 1km study area. A surface roughness of 50cm is assumed for Grids 11_24, 11_25, 12_24, 13_27, 14_26, 14_27, 15_26 and 15_27 to represent the relatively rural characteristic and low-rise developments in the Lantau areas, while 100cm is assumed for Grids 12_25, 12_26, 13_25 and 13_26 to represent the urbanized and high-rise developments in Tung Chung Town. The wind standard deviation is estimated in accordance with the “Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), 1986”, as summarized in the table below.

Table 3.26 Summary of Wind Standard Deviation

Stability Class	Wind Standard Deviation (roughness = 50cm)	Wind Standard Deviation (roughness = 100cm)
A	28.6	32.9
B	28.6	32.9
C	22.3	25.6
D	15.9	18.3
E	9.5	11.0
F	4.8	5.6

3.5.4.15 Owing to the limitation of the CALINE4 model, elevated road higher than 10m above local ground or water surface are set to the maximum height of 10m in the model as the worst-case assumption. For barriers along roads or any proposed noise barriers as a noise mitigation measures, the line source is modelled at the tip of the barrier and the mixing width is limited to the actual uncovered road width in order to address the associated secondary environmental impact.

3.5.4.16 Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) is adopted for conversion of NOx to NO₂, using the predicted O₃ and NO₂ levels from PATH model. According to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters”, the vehicular tailpipe NO₂ emission is assumed to be 7.5% of NOx.

3.5.4.17 Since the vehicular emission sources are at local ground level, the impact on ASRs at 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 15m and 20m above ground would therefore cover the worst hit level. However, assessment heights of 50m and 80m above ground are also included to confirm the compliance of AQOs at a higher level.

Vehicular Emission from Tunnel Portal and Ventilation Building

3.5.4.18 The USEPA approved model, AERMOD, is adopted to model the vehicular emission from tunnel portals and ventilation buildings. Portal emissions are modeled in accordance with the Permanent International Association of Road Congress Report (PIARC, 1991), where it is assumed that the pollutant will be ejected from the portal as a portal jet such that 2/3 of the total emission will be dispersed within first 50m from the portal, and 1/3 of the total emission within the second 50m. To take into account the horizontal jet effect, portal emission is modeled as “Volume” source. On the other hand, emissions from the ventilation buildings are modeled as “Point” source in AERMOD. The pollution sources that are covered in the near field dispersion AERMOD model include the following:

i) Emission from HZMB tunnel portal and associated ventilation building

3.5.4.19 Assumption on the emission split between ventilation building and tunnel portal (i.e. 70/30%) has been made with reference to the approved EIA Study “Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road” (AEIAR-144/2009) (HKLR EIA) and the emissions are calculated based on the Year 2023’s projected traffic flow and vehicular emission factors. Appendix 3.12 presents the calculations for the emission from HZMB tunnel portal and its associated ventilation building. Details on the release height, exit temperature, exit velocity and stack diameter for the ventilation building assumed in the model are also given in Appendix 3.12.

ii) Emission from HKLR tunnel portals and associated ventilation building

3.5.4.20 Assumption on the emission split between ventilation building and tunnel portal (i.e. 70/30%) has been made with reference to the approved EIA Study “Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road” (AEIAR-144/2009) (HKLR EIA) and the emissions are calculated based on the Year 2023’s projected traffic flow and vehicular emission factors. Appendix 3.12 presents the calculations for the emission from HKLR tunnel portals and its associated ventilation building. Details on the release height, exit temperature, exit velocity and stack diameter for the ventilation building assumed in the model are also given in Appendix 3.12.

iii) Emission from HAT tunnel portal

3.5.4.21 The HAT tunnel is ventilated only by horizontal jet fans according to the HKLR EIA study and hence all emission will be discharged from tunnel exit only. Its tunnel emission are calculated based on the Year 2023’s projected traffic flow and vehicular emission factors. Appendix 3.12 presents the relevant calculations of the emission and information.

iv) Emission from TMCLKL tunnel portal and associated ventilation building

3.5.4.22 Assumption on the emission split between ventilation building and tunnel portal (i.e. 90/10%) has been made with reference to the approved EIA Study “Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link” (AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKL EIA) and the emissions are calculated based on the Year 2023’s projected traffic flow and vehicular emission factors. Appendix 3.12 presents the relevant calculations of the emission and information.

3.5.4.23 OLM is adopted for conversion of NOx to NO₂, using the predicted O₃ and NO₂ levels from PATH model. According to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters”, the vehicular tailpipe NO₂ emission is assumed to be 7.5% of NOx.

Vehicular Emission from Idling Vehicles at HKBCF

3.5.4.24 The USEPA approved near field air dispersion model, CALINE4 developed by the California Department of Transport is used to assess vehicular emissions impact from idling vehicles. Emissions are calculated based on the emission factors for different EURO engines types as of Year 2023 in accordance with the latest report “Road Tunnels: Vehicle Emissions and Air Demand for Ventilation” published by the PIARC in 2012, taking into account the mass factor for HGVs and air-conditioning loading factor of 1.3 (referenced from the approved EIA Study “Liantang / Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point and Associated Works” (AEIAR-161/2011)). In addition, the processing times of each vehicle type have been predicted based on the latest traffic forecast by the Traffic Engineer. Appendix 3.13 presents the relevant calculations of idling emission.

Airport Emission from HKIA

3.5.4.25 In the approved 3RS EIA Study, the worst assessment year was determined based on the highest aircraft emission scenario, and it was identified to be occurred in Year 2031. Emissions from airport operation presented in the approved 3RS EIA have been directly adopted for the cumulative air quality impact in Year 2023 as a conservative approach.

3.5.4.26 Details on emissions strengths, emission characteristics and modelling parameters shall be referred to the approved 3RS EIA Study. CALINE4 (for airside vehicles) and AERMOD (for sources other than airside vehicles) models have been used to assess the air quality impact from airport related activities.

3.5.4.27 Grid-specific meteorological data for Year 2010 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 HKO in Year 2010 (i.e. 121 m) are capped at 121 m to align with the real meteorological data. Similarly, mixing heights deduced from AERMET that are higher than the highest recorded mixing height in Year 2010 (i.e. 1667m) are capped at 1667 m as per the highest mixing height recorded. Surface roughness is separated into 12 zones with heights corresponding to the land use characteristics.

3.5.4.28 OLM has also been adopted for conversion of NO_x to NO₂ concentrations. With reference to the approved 3RS EIA, the following initial NO₂/NO_x ratios for various emission sources have been adopted:

Table 3.27 Summary of initial NO₂/NO_x ratios (referenced from the 3RS EIA)

Source	Initial NO2 / NOx Ratio
Aircraft LTO (Take-off)	5.3%
Aircraft LTO (Climb-out)	5.3%
Aircraft LTO (Approach)	15%
Aircraft LTO (Taxi-in and Taxi-out)	37.5%
Vehicular Tailpipe	7.5%
Other sources (e.g. ERUF, etc.)	10%

Industrial Emission from OWTF Phase 1

3.5.4.29 Chimney emissions from the committed OWTF Phase 1 have been referenced to the approved EIA Study “Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase I” (AEIAR-149/2010). It is understood that a variation of Environmental Permit has been approved in February 2013 (Application No. VEP-394/2013) and May 2013 (Application No. VEP-403/2013) due to changes in reference design of OWTF. As presented in the supporting document, it is found that the stack locations and stack heights are changed from those in the approved OWTF Phase 1 EIA, while the chimney emission rates remain unchanged. However, given the committed OWTF Phase 1 is location at more than 3km away from the nearest existing ASRs in Pak Mong and planned ASRs in TCE, changes in stack location and height would only cause negligible change in air quality impact. Hence, the information presented in the approved OWTF Phase 1 EIA is considered applicable for the purpose of cumulative air quality impact assessment. Appendix 3.14 presents the details of emission and chimney information.

3.5.4.30 Emissions from the chimneys are modeled as “Point” source in AERMOD. OLM is adopted for conversion of NOx to NO₂, using the predicted O₃ and NO₂ levels from PATH model. According to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters”, the industrial NO₂ emission is assumed to be 10% of NOx.

Marine Emission from the Proposed Marina and Existing Local Vessel

3.5.4.31 Marine emissions from the proposed Marina and existing local vessel have been referenced to the EPD’s “Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, Final Report” published in February 2012. Appendix 3.15 presents the detailed calculation of emission.

3.5.4.32 Emissions from the marine vessels are modeled as “Point” sources in AERMOD. OLM is adopted for conversion of NOx to NO₂, using the predicted O₃ and NO₂ levels from PATH model. According to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters”, the gaseous NO₂ emission is assumed to be 10% of NOx.

Far-field Source Contribution (i.e. Future Background Air Quality)

3.5.4.33 PATH (Pollutants in the Atmosphere and their Transport over Hongkong) is a regional air quality model developed by EPD to simulate air quality over Hong Kong against the Pearl River Delta (PRD) as background. It simulates wind field, pollutant emissions, transportation and chemical transformation and outputs pollutant concentrations over Hong Kong and the PRD region at a fine grid size of 1.5km.

3.5.4.34 As a conservative approach, the Hong Kong emission inventory for Year 2031 as presented in the approved 3RS EIA Study has been adopted as the basis, except for emissions from public electricity generation and road transport. Since the approval of 3RS EIA Study in 2014, the “Fourth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences” (4^th TM) has been published to further tighten the emissions from the power generation section in 2019 and beyond. The emission inventory for this operational air quality assessment has therefore been referenced to the annual emission allowances stipulated in the 4^th TM.

3.5.4.35 For road transport emission, the latest EMFAC-HK v2.6 has been adopted to determine the territory wide vehicular emission based on the 2023 territory wide VKT and associated speed fraction forecasted by the Traffic Engineer.

3.5.4.36 The following Table 3.28 summaries the Hong Kong emission inventory for the PATH model for this operational air quality assessment.

Table 3.28 Summary of Hong Kong Emission Inventory for the PATH Model (for this operational air quality assessment)

Emission Group	Annual Emission (Tonnes per year)				Reference
	SO2	NOx	RSP	VOC
Public Electricity Generation	9,220	25,480	700	393	Fourth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences
Road Transport	127	8,847	334	1,781	EMFAC-HK v2.6 for Year 2023
Navigation	3,710	33,897	933	4,323	Approved 3RS EIA
Civil Aviation ^[1]	782	9,459	220	675	Approved 3RS EIA
Other Fuel Combustion	309	10,993	898	980	Approved 3RS EIA
Non-combustion	N/A	N/A	1,037	23,673	Approved 3RS EIA

Note:

[1] Emission from civil aviation (i.e. airport related emission) has been included in the PATH model for determination of background O₃ concentration.

3.5.4.37 PATH model is used to quantify the future background air quality. Far-field emission sources including roads, marine, airports, power plants and industries within the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone and Hong Kong were considered in the PATH model.

3.5.4.38 Since the vehicular emission and airport emission are modelled by the near-field dispersion models, the respective emissions have been removed from the concerned grids to avoid overestimation.

3.5.4.39 PATH model has been re-run based on the abovementioned, and the hourly concentrations of NO₂, RSP and O₃ predicted by this updated PATH model have been directly adopted in the calculation of cumulative air quality impact for Year 2023.

3.5.4.40 It is understood that only hourly RSP concentrations are available from PATH model. According to EPD’s “Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”, the conservative corrections as shown in the following table are adopted to determine the background FSP concentrations.

Table 3.29 Conversion factors for RSP/FSP

Annual (µg/m^3)	Daily (µg/m^3)
FSP = 0.71 x RSP	FSP = 0.75 x RSP

Prediction of Cumulative Operational Air Quality Impact

3.5.4.41 The cumulative operational air quality is a combination of the emission impacts contributed from the near-field and far-field sources (i.e. at local scale and background air quality impact from other concurrent and regional sources) on hourly basis.

3.5.4.42 In consideration of the number of exceedance allowance of the hourly and daily AQOs (refer to Table 3.1), the pollutant concentrations after the AQOs allowance limits (i.e. the 19^th highest 1-hour NO₂ concentrations and 10^th highest 24-hour RSP/ FSP concentrations) are determined at each ASR at 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 15m, 20m, 50m and 80m above ground. The annual predicted concentrations are also assessed and all predicted levels are then compared with the AQOs.

3.5.5 Without Project Scenario

3.5.5.1 In order to determine the change in air quality level with this Project in place in the assessment year 2023, an additional assessment has been conducted for the without project scenario in the same year. Under this scenario, same methodologies as mentioned in Section 3.5.4 except the traffic forecast for without project have been adopted. EMFAC-HK is used to predicted the vehicular emission under the without project scenario and CALINE4 is adopted to assess the vehicular emission impact. Hourly pollutant concentrations from the PATH model is adopted as the background for the cumulative air quality impact.

3.5.6 Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Assessment Results

3.5.6.1 The 19^th highest 1-hour and annual NO₂ concentrations, and 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP/ FSP concentrations predicted under “with Project” scenario are presented in Table 3.30. Detailed results are presented in Appendix 3.16. It can be seen from the table below that all the predicted NO₂/ RSP/ FSP concentrations are within the respective criteria. In addition, it should also be noted that this operational air quality impact assessment has adopted numbers of conservative assumptions, such as using airport emission in Year 2031 while the assessment year of 2023 is identified, included the vehicular emission in areas that would not be existed in Year 2023 (e.g. road network in Tung Chung East), etc.

Table 3.30 Cumulative NO₂, RSP and FSP concentrations (with project scenario)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above Ground	Pollutant Concentration (μg/m^3)
			NO2		RSP		FSP
			1-hour (19^th highest)	Annual	24-hour (10^th highest)	Annual	24-hour (10^th highest)	Annual
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	161	32	77	39	58	28
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	132	28	77	39	58	27
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	131	28	77	39	58	27
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	127	27	77	39	58	27
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	125	28	77	39	58	27
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	127	29	77	39	58	27
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	123	27	77	39	58	27
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	130	28	77	39	58	27
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	154	33	77	39	58	27
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	118	25	76	38	57	27
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	115	25	76	38	57	27
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	161	33	78	39	58	28
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	118	25	76	38	57	27
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	118	27	77	38	57	27
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	149	30	77	39	58	27
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	144	30	77	39	58	28
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	151	28	77	39	58	27
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	148	28	77	39	58	27
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	145	31	77	39	58	27
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	152	30	77	39	58	28
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	150	29	77	39	58	28
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	155	29	77	39	58	28
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	158	30	77	39	58	28
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	150	32	77	39	58	28
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	148	32	77	39	58	28
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	155	32	77	39	58	28
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	163	32	77	39	58	28
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	119	24	76	38	57	27
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	116	24	76	38	57	27
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	113	24	76	38	57	27
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	114	24	76	38	57	27
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	115	24	76	38	57	27
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	112	23	73	38	55	27
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	127	27	75	38	56	27
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	131	27	77	38	58	27
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	116	24	76	38	57	27
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	131	27	75	38	56	27
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	126	27	75	38	56	27
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	126	26	75	38	56	27
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	122	26	75	38	56	27
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	124	25	75	38	56	27
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	152	32	77	39	58	28
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	150	34	77	39	58	28
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	148	25	76	39	57	27
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	125	27	77	39	57	27
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	129	30	77	39	58	27
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	133	30	77	39	58	27
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	130	28	77	39	58	27
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	143	36	77	39	58	28
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	144	30	77	39	58	27
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	145	30	77	39	58	27
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	146	31	77	39	58	27
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	150	29	77	39	58	27
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	156	29	77	39	58	28
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	147	29	77	39	58	27
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	151	29	77	39	58	28
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	153	31	77	39	58	28
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	136	34	77	39	58	28
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	131	34	77	39	58	28
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	115	23	76	38	57	27
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	117	25	76	38	57	27
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	117	25	76	38	57	27
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	122	27	77	39	57	27
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	114	25	76	38	57	27
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	114	25	76	38	57	27
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	115	24	76	38	57	27
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	115	24	76	38	57	27
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	1.5m	157	29	77	39	58	28
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	158	28	77	39	58	27
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	146	28	77	39	58	27
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	1.5m	148	28	77	39	57	27
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	1.5m	114	24	76	38	57	27
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	1.5m	150	28	76	39	57	27
Planned ASRs (Tung Chung East under this Project)
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	143	30	76	39	57	28
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	1.5m	147	29	76	39	57	27
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	152	28	77	39	57	27
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	148	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	148	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	151	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	142	29	76	39	57	27
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	153	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	151	28	77	39	57	27
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	154	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	152	28	77	39	57	27
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	1.5m	154	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	1.5m	158	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	1.5m	153	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	1.5m	155	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	152	28	77	39	57	27
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	154	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	146	29	77	39	57	27
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	142	30	76	39	57	28
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	146	30	77	39	58	28
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	141	30	76	39	57	28
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	1.5m	157	29	76	39	57	27
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	1.5m	155	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	1.5m	156	29	77	39	57	27
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	1.5m	155	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	152	30	76	39	57	28
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	1.5m	147	30	76	39	57	28
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	1.5m	153	31	76	39	57	28
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	1.5m	154	31	76	39	57	28
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	1.5m	151	30	76	39	57	28
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	1.5m	151	30	76	39	57	28
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	154	28	76	39	57	28
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	161	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	1.5m	155	29	76	39	57	28
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	1.5m	158	29	76	39	57	28
TCE-36	Proposed International School	1.5m	154	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	1.5m	157	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	154	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	158	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	1.5m	156	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	1.5m	163	30	78	39	59	28
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	1.5m	162	30	78	39	59	28
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	1.5m	162	30	78	39	59	28
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	1.5m	156	30	78	39	59	28
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	1.5m	156	28	76	39	57	27
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	1.5m	161	30	78	39	59	28
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	1.5m	161	30	78	39	59	28
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	158	29	78	39	59	28
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	158	29	78	39	59	28
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	158	29	76	39	57	28
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	1.5m	158	29	76	39	57	28
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	1.5m	168	29	78	39	59	28
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	162	29	78	39	59	28
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	159	29	78	39	59	28
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	1.5m	161	29	76	39	57	28
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	161	29	76	39	57	28
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	1.5m	160	29	76	39	57	28
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	1.5m	153	28	77	39	57	27
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	1.5m	159	29	78	39	59	28
Planned ASRs (Tung Chung West under this Project)
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	118	26	77	38	57	27
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	122	26	77	39	57	27
TCW-3	Village Type Development	1.5m	118	25	76	38	57	27
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	111	22	73	38	55	27
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	112	23	73	38	55	27
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	1.5m	111	22	73	38	55	27
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	116	25	76	38	57	27
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	116	24	76	38	57	27
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	1.5m	130	27	77	38	58	27
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	115	24	76	38	57	27
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	130	27	77	38	58	27
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	129	27	77	38	58	27
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	129	28	75	38	56	27
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	127	28	75	38	57	27
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	128	27	75	38	56	27
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	1.5m	128	26	75	38	56	27
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	1.5m	127	26	75	38	56	27
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	126	26	75	38	56	27
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	123	26	75	38	56	27
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	111	22	73	38	55	27
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	126	26	75	38	56	27
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	1.5m	125	26	75	38	56	27
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	130	27	77	38	58	27
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	131	27	77	38	58	27

3.5.6.2 High pollutant concentrations (e.g. annual NO₂) are generally predicted at existing ASRs located adjacent to the North Lantau Highway, such as ASR A1 (One Citygate), A12 (Tat Tung Road Park), A24 (Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School), A25 (Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School), A26 (Novotel Citygate Hong Kong), A27 (Man Tung Road Park), A42 (Tung Chung Public Library), A43 (Tung Chung North Park), A49 (Tung Chung Swimming Pool), A58 (Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot) and A59 (Lantau District Police Headquarters). Nevertheless, the predicted annual NO₂ concentrations for these existing ASRs are in the range of 31 to 35μg/m³, still complying with the criterion of 40μg/m³.

3.5.6.3 For planned ASRs in Tung Chung East Reclamation Area under this Project, sufficient setback distance between the North Lantau Highway (i.e. major polluting source) has already been considered in the layout design, the predicted pollutant concentrations are generally lower than the existing ASRs, whereas the predicted annual NO₂ concentrations are ranging from 27 to 30μg/m³. For existing and planned ASRs near Tung Chung West area, such as A40 (Shek Mun Kap), A60 (Shan Ha (Pa Mei)), A63 (Yat Tung Estate – Kui Yat House), TCW-4 (Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)), etc., which are all located further away from the major highways, the predicted pollutant concentrations are relatively low, only ranging from 22 to 28μg/m³.

3.5.6.4 According to the assessment results, the worst affected level is identified at 1.5m above ground, while the pollutant concentrations gradually decrease with increasing height. For example, the predicted annual NO₂ concentration at A63 (Yat Tung Estate – Kui Yat House) reduced from 27µg/m³ at 1.5m above ground to 25µg/m³, 24µg/m³ and 23µg/m³ at 10m, 20m, and 50m above ground respectively. This indicated that the key contributing pollution source is located at ground level, which is the tailpipe emission along open road.

3.5.6.5 Contours of 19^th highest 1-hour and annual NO₂ concentrations, 10^th highest 24-hour and annual RSP/FSP concentrations (with Project Scenario) at the worst affected level (i.e. 1.5m above ground) are therefore plotted in Figures 3.17 – 3.22. It is also found that there are no exceedances at all air sensitive uses. Hence, no adverse air quality impact on all air sensitive uses is anticipated during the operational phase of this Project.

Changes in Air Quality Conditions in Future Years

3.5.6.6 Pollutant contributions associated with the Project are generated from its induced traffic and the planned road network in TCE and TCW. By comparing the assessment results under “with” and “without” project scenarios, project contribution in future year (i.e. Year 2023) could then be quantified. Detailed results under “without” project scenario are presented in Appendix 3.16.

3.5.6.7 According to the assessment results (for both with and without Project Scenarios) as summarised in Tables 3.31a-b, 3.32a-b and 3.33a-b, maximum contributions of annual NO₂ on existing and planned ASRs are 2µg/m³ and 3µg/m³ respectively, while the maximum contributions of annual RSP / FSP concentrations on both existing and planned ASRs are both 1µg/m³ only, which are considered relatively small as compared to the AQOs.

3.5.6.8 Maximum changes in cumulative 19^th highest 1-hour NO₂ concentration at existing ASRs, planned ASRs in TCE and TCW are 9µg/m³, 24µg/m³, and 8µg/m³ respectively, while the maximum changes in 10^th highest 24-hour RSP / FSP concentration are only 1µg/m³. Results indicated that the Project would only cause relative small air quality impact on both existing and planned ASRs during its operational phase.

3.5.6.9 Small project contributions of NO₂ / RSP / FSP are generally found at ASRs located near the newly proposed road network as well as near major existing road (e.g. North Lantau Highway) where induced traffic would be travelled. For area with lesser new population allocated (i.e. Tung Chung West), induced traffic is anticipated lesser and hence the project contributions. In addition, from the breakdown of annual NO₂ / RSP / FSP, it is observed that ambient background constitutes the largest contribution of the cumulative air quality impact.

Table 3.31a Breakdown of 19^th highest 1-hour NO₂ concentrations (with and without project scenarios)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	19^th highest 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (µg/m^3)
			With Project						Without Project ^[1]						Change in Concentration (µg/m^3) [With – Without]
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	128	29	<1	<1	5	161	128	28	<1	<1	5	161	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	84	42	<1	<1	6	132	84	42	<1	<1	6	132	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	<1	21	<1	<1	110	131	<1	18	<1	<1	110	128	0	3	<1	0	0	3
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	55	18	<1	<1	55	127	55	17	<1	<1	55	127	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	<1	74	<1	1	50	125	<1	65	<1	1	50	116	0	9	<1	0	0	9
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	48	20	<1	<1	59	127	48	20	<1	<1	59	127	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	54	14	<1	<1	55	123	54	14	<1	<1	55	123	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	52	23	9	<1	46	130	52	21	4	<1	46	123	0	1	6	0	0	7
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	41	48	<1	<1	64	154	41	44	<1	<1	64	150	0	4	<1	0	0	4
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	<1	8	<1	<1	110	118	<1	7	<1	<1	110	117	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	3	3	<1	<1	110	115	3	3	<1	<1	110	115	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	54	55	<1	<1	52	161	54	55	<1	<1	52	161	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	97	19	<1	<1	1	118	97	19	<1	<1	1	118	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	<1	3	<1	<1	114	118	<1	3	<1	<1	114	117	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	99	41	<1	<1	9	149	99	37	<1	<1	9	144	0	5	<1	0	0	5
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	50	33	6	<1	56	144	50	30	2	<1	56	138	0	2	4	0	0	6
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	98	45	<1	<1	9	151	98	39	<1	<1	9	145	0	6	<1	0	0	6
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	98	42	<1	<1	9	148	98	37	<1	<1	9	144	0	5	<1	0	0	5
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	65	24	5	<1	51	145	65	24	2	<1	51	142	0	<1	3	0	0	3
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	54	42	6	<1	50	152	54	41	2	<1	50	148	0	<1	4	0	0	4
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	68	39	10	<1	33	150	68	38	4	<1	33	144	0	<1	6	0	0	7
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	59	36	9	<1	50	155	59	36	4	<1	50	149	0	<1	6	0	0	6
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	58	38	12	<1	50	158	58	38	4	<1	50	150	0	<1	7	0	0	7
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	114	30	<1	<1	6	150	114	30	<1	<1	6	150	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	64	43	<1	<1	41	148	64	42	<1	<1	41	147	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	<1	13	<1	<1	141	155	<1	8	<1	<1	141	150	0	5	<1	0	0	5
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	106	44	<1	<1	14	163	106	44	<1	<1	14	163	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	40	20	<1	<1	59	119	40	20	<1	<1	59	119	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	3	3	<1	<1	110	116	3	3	<1	<1	110	116	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	94	18	<1	<1	1	113	94	17	<1	<1	1	113	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	27	10	<1	<1	77	114	27	10	<1	<1	77	114	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	114	115	<1	<1	<1	<1	114	115	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	<1	5	<1	<1	107	112	<1	4	<1	<1	107	111	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	<1	6	<1	<1	120	127	<1	<1	<1	<1	120	121	0	6	<1	0	0	6
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	111	18	<1	<1	2	131	111	18	<1	<1	2	131	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	3	3	<1	<1	110	116	3	3	<1	<1	110	116	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	85	12	<1	<1	34	131	85	12	<1	<1	34	131	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	60	9	<1	<1	58	126	60	8	<1	<1	58	126	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	91	12	<1	<1	22	126	91	12	<1	<1	22	126	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	63	27	<1	<1	31	122	63	23	<1	<1	31	118	0	4	<1	0	0	4
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	90	15	<1	<1	19	124	90	15	<1	<1	19	124	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	114	32	<1	<1	6	152	114	32	<1	<1	6	152	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	102	40	<1	<1	8	150	102	36	<1	<1	8	146	0	4	<1	0	0	4
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	44	3	<1	<1	101	148	44	2	<1	<1	101	147	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	80	38	<1	<1	6	125	80	37	<1	<1	6	124	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	89	34	<1	<1	6	129	89	32	<1	<1	6	127	0	2	<1	0	0	2
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	89	38	<1	<1	6	133	89	36	<1	<1	6	131	0	2	<1	0	0	2
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	3	2	<1	<1	124	130	3	2	<1	<1	124	130	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	54	36	<1	<1	52	143	54	36	<1	<1	52	143	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	58	27	7	<1	53	144	58	25	3	<1	53	139	0	2	4	0	0	5
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	69	20	6	<1	51	145	69	18	2	<1	51	140	0	1	3	0	0	5
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	58	25	6	<1	56	146	58	25	2	<1	56	142	0	<1	4	0	0	4
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	56	33	8	<1	53	150	56	30	3	<1	53	142	0	4	4	0	0	8
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	<1	15	<1	<1	141	156	<1	7	<1	<1	141	148	0	8	<1	0	0	8
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	56	30	8	<1	53	147	56	30	3	<1	53	142	0	<1	5	0	0	5
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	<1	10	<1	<1	141	151	<1	4	<1	<1	141	146	0	6	<1	0	0	6
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	55	41	7	<1	50	153	55	41	3	<1	50	149	0	<1	4	0	0	5
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	88	45	<1	<1	3	136	88	43	<1	<1	3	133	0	3	<1	0	0	3
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	124	131	2	4	<1	<1	124	131	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	110	115	2	2	<1	<1	110	115	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	<1	6	<1	<1	110	117	<1	6	<1	<1	110	116	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	60	6	<1	<1	52	117	60	5	<1	<1	52	117	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	<1	31	<1	<1	90	122	<1	29	<1	<1	90	119	0	2	<1	0	0	2
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	<1	1	<1	<1	112	114	<1	1	<1	<1	112	113	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	28	9	<1	<1	77	114	28	9	<1	<1	77	114	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	27	12	<1	<1	75	115	27	11	<1	<1	75	114	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	<1	6	<1	<1	109	115	<1	5	<1	<1	109	115	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	1.5m	6	8	<1	<1	143	157	6	8	<1	<1	143	157	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	63	29	<1	<1	66	158	63	29	<1	<1	66	157	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	64	22	8	<1	53	146	64	21	3	<1	53	141	0	<1	5	0	0	5
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	1.5m	69	19	7	<1	53	148	69	17	3	<1	53	142	0	2	4	0	0	7
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	1.5m	37	22	<1	<1	53	114	37	20	<1	<1	53	111	0	2	<1	0	0	3
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	1.5m	73	17	7	<1	53	150	73	15	3	<1	53	144	0	2	4	0	0	6
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project) ^[2]
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	30	1	<1	111	143	<1	23	1	<1	111	136	0	7	<1	0	0	7
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	1.5m	110	32	<1	<1	5	147	110	28	<1	<1	5	144	0	3	<1	0	0	3
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	11	6	<1	<1	135	152	11	5	<1	<1	135	151	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	110	30	<1	<1	9	148	110	28	<1	<1	9	147	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	112	31	<1	<1	5	148	112	30	<1	<1	5	147	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	110	36	<1	<1	5	151	110	28	<1	<1	5	144	0	7	<1	0	0	7
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	82	39	<1	<1	20	142	82	37	<1	<1	20	140	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	41	36	17	<1	60	153	41	25	6	<1	60	133	0	10	10	0	0	21
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	56	29	<1	<1	66	151	56	29	<1	<1	66	151	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	11	7	<1	<1	135	154	11	5	<1	<1	135	152	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	11	6	<1	<1	135	152	11	4	<1	<1	135	150	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	1.5m	91	43	<1	<1	20	154	91	43	<1	<1	20	154	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	1.5m	44	29	25	<1	60	158	44	29	10	<1	60	142	0	<1	16	0	0	16
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	1.5m	11	7	<1	<1	135	153	11	6	<1	<1	135	152	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	1.5m	112	34	<1	<1	9	155	112	28	<1	<1	9	148	0	7	<1	0	0	7
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	11	6	<1	<1	135	152	11	4	<1	<1	135	150	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	11	7	<1	<1	135	154	11	5	<1	<1	135	152	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	78	47	<1	<1	20	146	78	35	<1	<1	20	134	0	12	<1	0	0	12
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	78	44	<1	<1	20	142	78	34	<1	<1	20	133	0	10	<1	0	0	10
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	1	9	<1	<1	135	146	1	9	<1	<1	135	146	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	62	13	<1	<1	66	141	62	12	<1	<1	66	140	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	1.5m	42	40	16	<1	60	157	42	26	6	<1	60	133	0	14	10	0	0	24
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	1.5m	42	38	15	<1	60	155	42	25	6	<1	60	133	0	13	9	0	0	23
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	1.5m	44	39	13	<1	60	156	44	24	5	<1	60	132	0	15	8	0	0	23
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	1.5m	43	38	14	<1	60	155	43	25	5	<1	60	133	0	14	9	0	0	23
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	18	15	15	<1	104	152	18	7	2	<1	104	131	0	9	13	0	0	22
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	1.5m	53	39	4	<1	50	147	53	33	4	<1	50	141	0	6	<1	0	0	6
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	1.5m	50	2	<1	<1	101	153	50	2	<1	<1	101	153	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	1.5m	50	3	<1	<1	101	154	50	2	<1	<1	101	153	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	1.5m	110	37	<1	<1	4	151	110	32	<1	<1	4	146	0	5	<1	0	0	5
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	1.5m	109	38	<1	<1	4	151	109	31	<1	<1	4	144	0	7	<1	0	0	7
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	58	41	5	<1	50	154	58	32	5	<1	50	145	0	9	<1	0	0	9
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	83	20	5	<1	53	161	83	12	2	<1	53	151	0	7	3	0	0	11
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	1.5m	52	2	<1	<1	101	155	52	2	<1	<1	101	154	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	1.5m	115	11	4	<1	29	158	115	7	1	<1	29	152	0	4	2	0	0	6
TCE-36	Proposed International School	1.5m	81	16	4	<1	53	154	81	12	2	<1	53	148	0	3	3	0	0	6
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	1.5m	41	3	<1	<1	113	157	41	3	<1	<1	113	157	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	86	54	<1	<1	14	154	86	51	<1	<1	14	152	0	3	<1	0	0	3
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	87	56	<1	<1	14	158	87	51	<1	<1	14	152	0	5	<1	0	0	5
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	1.5m	127	20	<1	<1	10	156	127	19	<1	<1	10	156	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	1.5m	97	15	<1	<1	51	163	97	14	<1	<1	51	161	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	1.5m	96	15	<1	<1	51	162	96	13	<1	<1	51	160	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	1.5m	82	18	9	<1	53	162	82	12	3	<1	53	150	0	6	5	0	0	12
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	1.5m	120	30	<1	<1	6	156	120	28	<1	<1	6	154	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	1.5m	40	3	<1	<1	113	156	40	3	<1	<1	113	156	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	1.5m	96	14	<1	<1	51	161	96	14	<1	<1	51	161	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	1.5m	80	14	10	<1	57	161	80	14	4	<1	57	155	0	<1	6	0	0	6
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	82	15	8	<1	53	158	82	12	3	<1	53	149	0	4	5	0	0	9
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	101	33	17	<1	6	158	101	24	3	<1	6	135	0	9	14	0	0	23
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	113	14	5	<1	27	158	113	12	5	<1	27	156	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	1.5m	116	8	4	<1	29	158	116	7	2	<1	29	154	0	1	3	0	0	4
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	1.5m	51	2	<1	<1	115	168	51	2	<1	<1	115	168	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	125	31	<1	<1	6	162	125	31	<1	<1	6	161	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	84	12	11	<1	53	159	84	11	3	<1	53	151	0	<1	8	0	0	8
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	1.5m	103	16	15	<1	27	161	103	15	3	<1	27	148	0	<1	13	0	0	13
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	118	8	5	<1	29	161	118	7	2	<1	29	156	0	1	3	0	0	4
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	1.5m	62	24	7	<1	66	160	62	24	7	<1	66	159	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	1.5m	58	29	<1	<1	66	153	58	29	<1	<1	66	153	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	1.5m	<1	6	2	<1	151	159	<1	6	2	<1	151	159	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project) ^[2]
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	8	<1	<1	109	118	<1	7	<1	<1	109	117	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	45	19	<1	<1	59	122	45	19	<1	<1	59	122	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-3	Village Type Development	1.5m	37	27	<1	<1	53	118	37	26	<1	<1	53	117	0	1	<1	0	0	2
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	50	6	<1	<1	56	111	50	4	<1	<1	56	110	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	2	<1	<1	110	112	<1	2	<1	<1	110	112	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	1.5m	47	3	<1	<1	60	111	47	3	<1	<1	60	110	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	59	5	<1	<1	52	116	59	5	<1	<1	52	116	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	110	116	2	3	<1	<1	110	116	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	1.5m	93	33	<1	<1	5	130	93	33	<1	<1	5	130	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	29	8	<1	<1	77	115	29	8	<1	<1	77	115	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	93	33	<1	<1	5	130	93	32	<1	<1	5	130	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	110	17	<1	<1	2	129	110	17	<1	<1	2	129	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	8	<1	<1	120	129	<1	<1	<1	<1	120	121	0	7	<1	0	0	8
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	60	9	<1	<1	58	127	60	8	<1	<1	58	127	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	61	9	<1	<1	58	128	61	9	<1	<1	58	128	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	1.5m	93	13	<1	<1	22	128	93	13	<1	<1	22	128	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	1.5m	92	13	<1	<1	22	127	92	13	<1	<1	22	127	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	95	10	<1	<1	20	126	95	10	<1	<1	20	125	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	2	<1	<1	121	123	<1	<1	<1	<1	121	122	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	1	<1	<1	109	111	<1	1	<1	<1	109	111	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	125	126	<1	<1	<1	<1	125	125	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	1.5m	95	10	<1	<1	20	125	95	10	<1	<1	20	124	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	27	<1	1	102	130	<1	26	<1	1	102	130	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	27	<1	1	102	131	<1	27	<1	1	102	130	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1

Notes:

[1] Predicted 1-hour NO₂ concentrations at the same hour as those under “With Project “scenario is presented.

[2] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs in TCE and TCW under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.

Table 3.31b Breakdown of Annual NO₂ concentrations (with and without project scenarios)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	Annual NO2 Concentrations (µg/m^3)
			With Project						Without Project						Change in Concentration (µg/m^3) [With – Without]
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	2	8	<1	<1	21	32	2	8	<1	<1	21	31	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	20	28	2	6	<1	<1	20	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	20	28	2	5	<1	<1	20	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	20	27	2	5	<1	<1	20	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	20	28	2	5	<1	<1	20	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	20	29	2	6	<1	<1	20	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	20	27	2	5	<1	<1	20	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	20	28	2	6	<1	<1	20	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	2	10	<1	<1	20	33	2	9	<1	<1	20	31	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	20	25	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	20	25	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	2	9	<1	<1	21	33	2	8	<1	<1	21	32	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	20	27	2	4	<1	<1	20	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	22	30	2	6	<1	<1	22	29	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	30	2	6	<1	<1	22	30	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	1
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	31	2	6	<1	<1	22	30	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	21	30	2	6	<1	<1	21	30	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	21	29	2	5	<1	<1	21	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	21	29	2	5	<1	<1	21	29	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	21	30	2	5	<1	<1	21	29	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	2	9	<1	<1	21	32	2	8	<1	<1	21	31	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	2	9	<1	<1	21	32	2	8	<1	<1	21	31	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	2	8	<1	<1	21	32	2	8	<1	<1	21	31	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	2	8	<1	<1	21	32	2	8	<1	<1	21	31	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	1	2	<1	<1	20	24	1	2	<1	<1	20	23	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	1	2	<1	<1	20	24	1	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	23	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	23	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	19	23	2	2	<1	<1	19	22	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	3	3	<1	<1	21	27	3	3	<1	<1	21	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	3	2	<1	<1	22	27	3	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	22	27	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	2	1	<1	<1	22	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	2	2	<1	<1	22	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	2	1	<1	<1	22	25	2	1	<1	<1	22	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	2	8	<1	<1	21	32	2	8	<1	<1	21	31	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	2	11	<1	<1	22	34	2	9	<1	<1	22	33	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	1	2	<1	<1	22	25	1	2	<1	<1	22	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	20	27	2	5	<1	<1	20	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	2	8	<1	<1	20	30	2	7	<1	<1	20	28	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	2	8	<1	<1	20	30	2	7	<1	<1	20	29	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	20	28	2	5	<1	<1	20	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	2	14	<1	<1	20	36	2	13	<1	<1	20	35	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	22	30	2	6	<1	<1	22	29	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	30	2	6	<1	<1	22	29	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	31	2	6	<1	<1	22	29	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	29	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	21	29	2	4	<1	<1	21	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	29	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	0	1	<1	0	0	1
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	21	29	2	4	<1	<1	21	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	2	8	<1	<1	21	31	2	7	<1	<1	21	30	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	2	12	<1	<1	20	34	2	11	<1	<1	20	32	0	2	<1	0	0	2
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	2	13	<1	<1	20	34	2	11	<1	<1	20	33	0	2	<1	0	0	2
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	1	2	<1	<1	20	23	1	1	<1	<1	20	23	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	20	27	2	5	<1	<1	20	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	23	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	21	29	2	4	<1	<1	21	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	2
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	23	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project) ^[1]
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	30	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	29	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	29	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	2
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	1	<1	0	0	2
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	22	29	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	30	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	30	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	3	<1	0	0	3
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	30	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	29	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	29	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	3	<1	0	0	3
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	30	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	1.5m	2	7	<1	<1	22	30	2	5	<1	<1	22	29	0	1	<1	0	0	2
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	1.5m	1	8	<1	<1	22	31	1	6	<1	<1	22	29	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	1.5m	1	8	<1	<1	22	31	1	6	<1	<1	22	29	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	22	30	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	3	<1	0	0	3
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	1.5m	1	7	<1	<1	22	30	1	5	<1	<1	22	29	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	1.5m	2	6	<1	<1	22	29	2	4	<1	<1	22	27	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-36	Proposed International School	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	1	<1	0	0	2
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	30	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	30	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	23	30	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	23	30	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	3	<1	0	0	3
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	23	30	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	30	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	2	5	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	22	28	2	3	<1	<1	22	27	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	23	29	2	3	<1	<1	23	28	0	1	<1	0	0	2
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project) ^[1]
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	20	26	2	4	<1	<1	20	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	2	4	<1	<1	20	26	2	4	<1	<1	20	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-3	Village Type Development	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	2	1	<1	<1	19	22	2	1	<1	<1	19	22	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	19	23	2	2	<1	<1	19	22	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	1.5m	1	1	<1	<1	19	22	1	1	<1	<1	19	22	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	25	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	1.5m	3	4	<1	<1	21	27	3	3	<1	<1	21	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	2	3	<1	<1	20	24	2	2	<1	<1	20	24	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	3	4	<1	<1	21	27	3	3	<1	<1	21	26	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	3	4	<1	<1	21	27	3	3	<1	<1	21	26	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	3	3	<1	<1	22	28	3	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	1	<1	0	0	1
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	3	4	<1	<1	22	28	3	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	2	<1	0	0	2
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	3	3	<1	<1	22	27	3	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	1
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	1.5m	3	2	<1	<1	22	26	3	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	1.5m	3	2	<1	<1	22	26	3	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	2	1	<1	<1	22	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	2	2	<1	<1	22	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	2	1	<1	<1	19	22	2	1	<1	<1	19	22	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	1.5m	2	2	<1	<1	22	26	2	1	<1	<1	22	25	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	3	3	<1	<1	21	27	3	2	<1	<1	21	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	3	3	<1	<1	21	27	3	3	<1	<1	21	26	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1

Notes:

[1] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs in TCE and TCW under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.

Table 3.32a Breakdown of 10^th highest 24-hour RSP concentrations (with and without project scenarios)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	10^th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations (µg/m^3)
			With Project						Without Project ^[1]						Change in Concentrations (µg/m^3) [With – Without]
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project) ^[2]
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-36	Proposed International School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	<1	<1	<1	<1	77	78	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project) ^[2]
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-3	Village Type Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	76	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	<1	<1	<1	<1	73	73	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	<1	<1	<1	<1	75	75	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	<1	<1	<1	<1	76	77	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1

Notes:

[1] Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at the same day as those under “With Project “scenario is presented.

[2] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs in TCE and TCW under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.

Table 3.32b Breakdown of Annual RSP concentrations (with and without project scenarios)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	Annual RSP Concentrations (µg/m^3)
			With Project						Without Project						Change in Concentrations (µg/m^3) [With – Without]
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project) ^[1]
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-36	Proposed International School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	39	39	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project) ^[1]
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	39	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-3	Village Type Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	37	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	<1	<1	<1	<1	38	38	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1

Note:

[1] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs in TCE and TCW under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.

Table 3.33a Breakdown of 10^th highest 24-hour FSP concentrations (with and without project scenarios)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	10^th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations (µg/m^3)
			With Project						Without Project ^[1]						Change in Concentrations (µg/m^3) [With – Without]
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project) ^[2]
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-36	Proposed International School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	59	<1	<1	<1	<1	58	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project) ^[2]
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-3	Village Type Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	57	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	57	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	<1	<1	<1	<1	55	55	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	<1	<1	<1	<1	56	56	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	<1	<1	<1	<1	57	58	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1

Note:

[1] Predicted 24-hour FSP concentrations at the same day as those under “With Project “scenario is presented.

[2] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs in TCE and TCW under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.

Table 3.33b Breakdown of Annual FSP concentrations (with and without project scenarios)

ASR ID	Location	Worst affected Height above ground	Annual FSP Concentrations (µg/m^3)
			With Project						Without Project						Change in Concentrations (µg/m^3) [With – Without]
			Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A13	Ma Wan Chung	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A17	Ho Yu College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A20	La Rossa B	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A21	LeBleu No.1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A22	LeBleu Deux	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A27	Man Tung Road Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A31	Tung Chung Public School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A32	Ha Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A35	Hau Wong Temple	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A37	Ngan Au	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A38	Shek Lau Po	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A39	Mo Ka	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A40	Shek Mun Kap	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A43	Tung Chung North Park	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A44	Pak Mong	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A53	La Mer House 1	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A54	Le Bleu House 23	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A55	Le Bleu House 99	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
A67	Wong Ka Wai	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (under Other Projects)
P1	Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P2	Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P3	Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P4	Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P6	Tung Chung Area 39 – Planned Public Housing Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
P7	Tung Chung Area 56 – Planned Public Rental Housing Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCE under this Project) ^[1]
TCE-1	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-2	Proposed Clinic & GIC Complex	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-3	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-4	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-5	Proposed Residential Development (B1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-6	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-7	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-8	Proposed Residential Development (B1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-9	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-10	Proposed Residential Development (D1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-11	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-12	Proposed Residential Development (D1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-13	Proposed Residential Development (D2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-14	Proposed Residential Development (D2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-15	Proposed Residential Development (D2-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-16	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-17	Proposed Primary School (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-18	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-19	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-20	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-21	Proposed Comprehensive Development (A1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-22	Proposed Residential Development (A2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-23	Proposed Residential Development (A2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-24	Proposed Residential Development (A2-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-25	Proposed Residential Development (A2-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-26	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-27	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-28	Proposed Police Station	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-29	Proposed Fire Station	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-30	Proposed Police Married Quarters	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-31	Proposed Post Secondary Institution	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-32	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-33	Proposed Residential Development (C1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-34	Proposed Residential Development (C2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-35	Proposed Residential Development (C2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-36	Proposed International School	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-37	Proposed Secondary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-38	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-39	Proposed Primary School (E1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-40	Proposed Residential Development (E1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-41	Proposed Residential Development (E1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-42	Proposed Residential Development (E1-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-43	Proposed Residential Development (E1-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-44	Proposed Residential Development (E1-5)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-45	Proposed Residential Development (E3-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-46	Proposed Residential Development (E3-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-47	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-48	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-49	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-50	Proposed Residential Development (F1-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-51	Proposed Residential Development (F1-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-52	Proposed Residential Development (COM-5)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-53	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-54	Proposed Residential Development (F2-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-55	Proposed Residential Development (F2-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-56	Proposed Primary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-57	Proposed Secondary School (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-58	Planned Sports Centre (D)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCE-59	Planned Sports Centre (F)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	28	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
Planned ASRs (TCW under this Project) ^[1]
TCW-1	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-2	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-3	Village Type Development	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-4	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-5	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-6)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-6	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-7)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-7	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-8	Proposed Residential Development (TCW-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-9	Proposed Clinic and GIC Complex	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-10	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-11	Proposed Commercial Development (COM-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-12	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-13	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-1)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-14	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-15	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-2)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-16	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-3)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-17	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-4)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-18	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-19	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-20	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-21	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5a)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-22	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-5b)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-23	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1
TCW-24	Proposed Residential Development (TCV-8)	1.5m	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	<1	<1	<1	<1	27	27	0	<1	<1	0	0	<1

Note:

[1] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs in TCE and TCW under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.

Changes in Air Quality Conditions from Existing Year 2010

3.5.6.10 In accordance with the Appendix B, Section 1 (iii) of the EIA Study Brief, any change in air quality levels as compared with the existing baseline conditions shall be quantified. Existing air quality conditions in Year 2010 at existing ASRs are presented in Section 3.3.2, and the change in air quality levels under various source groups at these ASRs during operational phase of the Project (i.e. Year 2023) are presented in the following Table 3.34a-c.

3.5.6.11 It can be seen that reduction in pollutant concentrations are generally predicted at all the existing ASRs, whereas improvements in annual NO₂, RSP and FSP concentrations from existing air quality conditions range from 7 – 40 µg/m³, 1 – 5 µg/m³ and 1 – 3 µg/m³ respectively.

3.5.6.12 According to the breakdown presented in Table 3.34a-c, the background contribution in future years has been largely decreased from that in Year 2010, especially the annual NO₂ contribution has a maximum improvement of 21µg/m³. Implementation of emission reduction measures by Hong Kong and PRDEZ is considered as the one of the factors on the general improvement in air quality conditions in future years. As discussed in Section 3.3.3, both Hong Kong and PRDEZ would implement numbers of emission reduction measures, such as tightening of vehicle emission standards and emissions from power plant etc., and the future air quality would be significantly improved from recent existing conditions. A comparison of the NOx emission inventory in Year 2010 and that adopted in this operational air quality assessment is given in Diagram 3.4 below. It can be seen that there is a significant reduction (about 70%) in vehicular emission from Year 2010 to Year 2023, and slight reduction in power generation and navigation. NOx emissions from civil aviation and other fuel combustion have however increased from Year 2010.

3.5.6.13 Significant improvements in vehicular emission from existing condition are resulted from control measures on motor vehicles implemented by Hong Kong Government. Introductions of Euro V vehicle emission standards in 2012 and Euro VI tentatively in 2016, phasing out pre-Euro IV diesel commercial vehicles by end 2019, and other measures on controlling vehicular emission would progressively reduce roadside air pollution.

Diagram 3.4 Comparison of NOx Emission Inventory

Note:

Referenced from EPD’s “2010 Hong Kong Emission Inventor Report”

3.5.6.14 Improvement in background air quality in remote area near TCW are found generally smaller (only about 7µg/m³ in annual NO₂). It is anticipated there are only less influences from the far-field emission sources (including power plant, marine vessel and other regional sources) due to very large separation distance, reduced emissions from these sources could therefore have only less improvements on the background air quality in these remote area.

3.5.6.15 For ASRs located relatively near open road, e.g. A12 (Tat Tung Road Park) and A27 (Man Tung Road Park), significant improvement in vehicular contributions of about 70% from existing conditions has been predicted, which is therefore considered as the result of control measures on motor vehicles. In particular, annual NO₂ contributions from vehicular emission have a maximum decrease of 20µg/m³ from existing condition in Year 2010. For ASRs located in remote area near TCW, such as A33 (Lung Tseung Tau) and A40 (Shek Mun Kap), as these ASRs are located far away from major roads and hence is less influenced by vehicular emission, only about 1-4µg/m³ decrease in annual NO₂ contribution are predicted.

3.5.6.16 Airport’s contributions as well as the contributions from marine vessels, however, increased slightly (about max. 1µg/m³ of annual NO₂) from the existing conditions in Year 2010 as the numbers of air traffic movement have been increased and due to the proposed marina. However, they are not major contributors to the cumulative air quality impact.

Table 3.34a Changes in NO₂ concentrations from existing air quality conditions in Year 2010

ASR ID	Location	Changes in Pollutant Concentration under various Source Group (µg/m^3)
		19^th highest 1-hour NO2						Annual NO2
		Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	128	-1	<1	<1	-184	-57	<1	-12	<1	<1	-21	-32
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	66	-59	<1	<1	-78	-71	<1	-10	<1	<1	-13	-23
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	<1	10	<1	<1	-76	-66	<1	-10	<1	<1	-13	-22
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	55	14	<1	<1	-132	-63	<1	-9	<1	<1	-13	-22
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	-9	37	<1	1	-94	-66	<1	-10	<1	<1	-13	-23
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	33	-73	<1	<1	-28	-69	<1	-11	<1	<1	-13	-23
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	54	-41	<1	<1	-78	-65	<1	-9	<1	<1	-13	-22
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	33	-92	9	<1	-26	-76	<1	-12	<1	<1	-13	-25
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	27	-76	<1	<1	-21	-69	<1	-15	<1	<1	-13	-28
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	-18	-17	<1	<1	-19	-55	<1	-4	<1	<1	-13	-17
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	3	-39	<1	<1	-20	-57	<1	-5	<1	<1	-13	-18
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	54	38	-2	<1	-150	-60	<1	-14	<1	<1	-21	-34
A13	Ma Wan Chung	81	2	<1	<1	-138	-55	<1	-4	<1	<1	-13	-17
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	-20	-48	<1	<1	-1	-69	<1	-10	<1	<1	-13	-22
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	99	-13	<1	<1	-152	-66	<1	-13	<1	<1	-16	-29
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	12	24	4	<1	-113	-72	<1	-14	<1	<1	-16	-30
A17	Ho Yu College	98	9	-1	<1	-169	-63	<1	-8	<1	<1	-16	-24
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	98	29	-1	<1	-192	-66	<1	-10	<1	<1	-16	-26
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	65	-11	5	<1	-130	-70	<1	-13	<1	<1	-16	-29
A20	La Rossa B	54	24	5	<1	-152	-69	<1	-13	<1	<1	-21	-33
A21	LeBleu No.1	68	30	10	<1	-177	-68	<1	-11	<1	<1	-21	-31
A22	LeBleu Deux	59	21	8	<1	-153	-65	<1	-10	<1	<1	-21	-30
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	58	26	12	<1	-160	-65	<1	-14	<1	<1	-21	-34
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	114	11	<1	<1	-204	-80	<1	-20	<1	<1	-21	-40
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	63	20	<1	<1	-163	-80	<1	-19	<1	<1	-21	-39
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	-136	-66	<1	<1	127	-75	<1	-19	<1	<1	-21	-39
A27	Man Tung Road Park	106	27	-1	<1	-203	-72	<1	-19	<1	<1	-21	-39
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	33	-38	<1	<1	-49	-54	<1	-3	<1	<1	-13	-15
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	3	3	<1	<1	-62	-56	<1	-3	<1	<1	-13	-16
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	71	-8	<1	<1	-119	-57	<1	-3	<1	<1	-13	-16
A31	Tung Chung Public School	11	-3	<1	<1	-62	-54	<1	-3	<1	<1	-13	-15
A32	Ha Ling Pei	-17	-26	<1	<1	-15	-58	<1	-4	<1	<1	-13	-16
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	<1	4	<1	<1	-47	-42	<1	-4	<1	<1	-8	-11
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	<1	6	<1	<1	-37	-30	<1	-2	<1	<1	-7	-8
A35	Hau Wong Temple	111	17	<1	<1	-159	-30	<1	-3	<1	<1	-11	-14
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	3	-1	<1	<1	-57	-54	<1	-3	<1	<1	-13	-15
A37	Ngan Au	85	12	<1	<1	-123	-26	<1	-2	<1	<1	-7	-8
A38	Shek Lau Po	60	8	<1	<1	-98	-30	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8
A39	Mo Ka	91	12	<1	<1	-127	-23	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8
A40	Shek Mun Kap	63	27	<1	<1	-117	-27	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-7
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	90	15	<1	<1	-130	-25	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-7
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	114	13	-1	<1	-203	-76	<1	-20	<1	<1	-21	-40
A43	Tung Chung North Park	102	22	-1	<1	-193	-69	<1	-19	<1	<1	-16	-35
A44	Pak Mong	44	3	<1	<1	-89	-43	<1	-3	<1	<1	-15	-17
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	65	-29	<1	<1	-109	-72	<1	-11	<1	<1	-13	-24
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	89	6	<1	<1	-162	-67	<1	-12	<1	<1	-13	-25
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	89	-31	<1	<1	-128	-70	<1	-20	<1	<1	-13	-33
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	-14	-67	<1	<1	17	-65	<1	-12	<1	<1	-13	-25
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	53	-89	-1	<1	-29	-66	<1	-17	<1	<1	-13	-30
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	58	-28	7	<1	-108	-70	<1	-14	<1	<1	-16	-30
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	69	-17	5	<1	-127	-71	<1	-13	<1	<1	-16	-29
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	58	10	6	<1	-144	-71	<1	-13	<1	<1	-16	-29
A53	La Mer House 1	56	-11	8	<1	-117	-64	<1	-9	<1	<1	-16	-24
A54	Le Bleu House 23	<1	-1	-1	<1	-61	-62	<1	-10	<1	<1	-21	-30
A55	Le Bleu House 99	55	-24	7	<1	-104	-66	<1	-8	<1	<1	-16	-24
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	<1	9	<1	<1	-73	-64	<1	-9	<1	<1	-21	-29
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	50	-50	7	<1	-76	-69	<1	-14	<1	<1	-21	-34
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	69	-2	<1	<1	-136	-69	<1	-11	<1	<1	-13	-24
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	2	-77	<1	<1	3	-73	<1	-13	<1	<1	-13	-26
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	2	2	<1	<1	-58	-53	<1	-2	<1	<1	-13	-15
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	<1	1	<1	<1	-57	-55	<1	-4	<1	<1	-13	-16
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	60	<1	<1	<1	-115	-54	<1	-3	<1	<1	-13	-16
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	<1	26	<1	<1	-81	-55	<1	-7	<1	<1	-13	-20
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	<1	-40	<1	<1	-18	-57	<1	-4	<1	<1	-13	-17
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	10	-15	<1	<1	-52	-57	<1	-4	<1	<1	-13	-16
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	12	-15	<1	<1	-54	-57	<1	-4	<1	<1	-13	-16
A67	Wong Ka Wai	<1	-6	<1	<1	-50	-56	<1	-3	<1	<1	-13	-16

Table 3.34b Changes in RSP concentrations from existing air quality conditions in Year 2010

ASR ID	Location	Changes in Pollutant Concentration under various Source Group (µg/m^3)
		10^th highest 24-hour RSP						Annual RSP
		Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	<1	-1	<1	<1	-8	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	<1	-1	<1	<1	-8	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A13	Ma Wan Chung	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-10	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A17	Ho Yu College	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A20	La Rossa B	-1	-2	<1	<1	-6	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A21	LeBleu No.1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A22	LeBleu Deux	-1	-2	<1	<1	-6	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	-1	-2	<1	<1	-6	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	<1	-3	<1	<1	-6	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	<1	-2	<1	<1	-6	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	-1	-3	<1	<1	-6	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A27	Man Tung Road Park	<1	<1	<1	<1	-10	-10	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-5
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A31	Tung Chung Public School	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A32	Ha Ling Pei	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	-1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-2
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	-6	<1	<1	<1	-1	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-2
A35	Hau Wong Temple	<1	<1	<1	<1	-8	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A37	Ngan Au	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-2
A38	Shek Lau Po	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-2
A39	Mo Ka	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-2
A40	Shek Mun Kap	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	<1	-3	<1	<1	-6	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A43	Tung Chung North Park	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A44	Pak Mong	-2	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A53	La Mer House 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A54	Le Bleu House 23	-1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A55	Le Bleu House 99	<1	<1	<1	<1	-9	-9	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-3
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	-1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	-1	-2	<1	<1	-6	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-3	-4
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	<1	-1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A67	Wong Ka Wai	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-8	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2

Table 3.34c Changes in FSP concentrations from existing air quality conditions in Year 2010

ASR ID	Location	Changes in Pollutant Concentration under various Source Group (µg/m^3)
		10^th highest 24-hour FSP						Annual FSP
		Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative	Airport	Vehicular	Marine Vessel	Industrial	Ambient Background	Cumulative
Existing ASRs
A1	One Citygate	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A2	Tung Chung Health Centre	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A3	Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A4	Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A5	Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A6	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A7	Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A8	Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A9	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A10	Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A11	Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A12	Tat Tung Road Park	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A13	Ma Wan Chung	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A14	North Lantau Hospital Phase 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A15	Caribbean Coast Block 1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A16	Caribbean Coast Block 6	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A17	Ho Yu College	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A18	Ho Yu Primary School	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A19	Coastal Skyline Block 1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A20	La Rossa B	<1	-2	<1	<1	-4	-6	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A21	LeBleu No.1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A22	LeBleu Deux	<1	-1	<1	<1	-5	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A23	Seaview Crescent Block 1	<1	-2	<1	<1	-5	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A24	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	<1	-2	<1	<1	-5	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A25	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	<1	-2	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A26	Novotel Citygate Hong Kong	<1	<1	<1	<1	-8	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A27	Man Tung Road Park	<1	<1	<1	<1	-8	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A28	New Tung Chung Hang	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A29	Tung Chung Our Lady’s Kinder garden	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A30	Sheung Ling Pei	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A31	Tung Chung Public School	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A32	Ha Ling Pei	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A33	Lung Tseung Tau	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A34	YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A35	Hau Wong Temple	<1	-1	<1	<1	-5	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-2
A36	Sha Tsui Tau	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A37	Ngan Au	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A38	Shek Lau Po	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A39	Mo Ka	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A40	Shek Mun Kap	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A41	Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery	<1	<1	<1	<1	-4	-4	<1	<1	<1	<1	-1	-1
A42	Tung Chung Public Library	<1	-2	<1	<1	-5	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A43	Tung Chung North Park	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A44	Pak Mong	<1	<1	<1	<1	-5	-5	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A45	Fung Tung Estate - Tung Ma House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A46	Yu Tung Court - Heung Tung House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A47	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 1	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A48	Tung Chung Crescent - Block 5	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A49	Tung Chung Swimming Pool	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A50	Caribbean Coast Block 5	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A51	Caribbean Coast Block 10	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A52	Caribbean Coast Block 16	<1	<1	<1	<1	-7	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A53	La Mer House 1	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A54	Le Bleu House 23	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A55	Le Bleu House 99	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-7	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A56	Le Bleu Deux Block 7	-1	-1	<1	<1	-4	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A57	Seaview Crescent Block 5	<1	-2	<1	<1	-4	-6	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-3
A58	Tung Chung Fire Station cum-Ambulance Depot	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A59	Lantau District Police Headquarters	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	-1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A60	Shan Ha (Pa Mei)	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A61	Tung Chung Catholic Secondary School	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A62	Yat Tung Estate - Chui Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A63	Yat Tung Estate - Kui Yat House	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A64	Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A65	Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A66	Sheung Ling Pei	<1	-1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2
A67	Wong Ka Wai	<1	<1	<1	<1	-6	-6	<1	<1	<1	<1	-2	-2

3.5.7 Recommended Mitigation Measures

3.5.7.1 According to the operational air quality assessment results, adverse cumulative air quality impact during operational phase is not anticipated. No mitigation measures are required.

3.5.7.2 For the potential odour impact from the proposed sewage pumping station, as discussed in Section 3.5.2, the following at-source mitigation measures should be implemented to control odour emission:

· Potential odour sources should be enclosed;

· Negative pressure should be maintained within the facilities;

· Installation of deodouriser with an odour removal efficiency of at least 95% to control odour emission via ventilation exhaust;

· Exhaust of the deodouriser should be oriented away from sensitive receivers and vertically upwards to avoid direct facing to any sensitive receivers; and

· Maintenance of deodouriser should be regularly conducted to ensure good condition.

3.5.8 Residual Impacts (Operational Phase)

3.5.8.1 According to the operational air quality assessment result, it is indicated that there is no adverse residual air quality impact during the operational phase of the Project.

3.5.9 Possible Slippage of Concurrent Projects

3.5.9.1 There are numbers of key concurrent projects currently under construction or committed to commence construction in near future, including the 3RS of HKIA, HKLR, HKBCF and the TMCLKL etc.. The traffic forecast has taken into account all the induced traffic from these concurrent projects according to their implementation schedule based on the best available information. In case that the construction schedules of these concurrent projects were slipped, there would be less induced traffic from the concurrent projects at the assessment years compared to the adopted traffic forecast. Thus, the potential impact on the air quality assessment findings presented in above sections due to possible slippage of concurrent projects would be insignificant as the current assessment results are on the conservative side.

3.6 Conclusion

3.6.1 Construction Phase

3.6.1.1 Potential construction dust impact would be generated from reclamation, ground excavation, site formation, etc. during construction phase. Quantitative construction dust impact assessment have been conducted. Results have concluded that there will not be any adverse residual air quality impact during construction phase given frequent watering on all works area once per hour during working hours.

3.6.2 Operational Phase

3.6.2.1 Quantitative operational air quality assessment have been conducted taking into account the vehicular emission impacts associated with the Project and nearby existing road network, airport emission associated with the HKIA including its three-runway system, and potential concurrent projects (including, but not limited to, induced traffic due to HKLR, HKBCF, TMCLKL, etc.) in the vicinity. Cumulative impact from far-field source contributions, including territory wide vehicular emission, power plants, marine emission, as well as regional emission from PRD, have also been taken into account. It is concluded that the predicted cumulative air quality impacts on all air sensitive receivers would comply with the AQOs during the operational phase, and hence no adverse impacts are anticipated.

---

Ref-[1] : Huang, X.F., Yu, J.Z., Yuan, Z., Lau, A.K.H., Louie, P.K.K. (2009) “Source analysis of high particulate matter days in Hong Kong” Atmospheric Environment, 43 (2009), p. 1196–1203

Ref-[2] : Yuan, Z., Yadav, V.,Turner, J.R, Louie, P.K.K., Lau, A.K.H. (2013) “Long-term trends of ambient particulate matter emission source contributions and the accountability of control strategies in Hong Kong over 1998-2008” Atmospheric Environment, 76 (2013) p. 21-31

[3-[1] ] Environmental Protection Department (2013), 2013 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/2013EIReport_eng_1b.pdf)

[3-[2] ] Sun Y.,Wang L.L..,Wang Y.S. (2010) “In situ measurements of SO₂, NOx, NOy, and O₃ in Beijing, China during August 2008” Science of the Total Environment 409 (2011), P933-940

[3-[3] ] Sun Y.,Wang L.L..,Wang Y.S. (2010) “In situ measurements of NO, NO2, NOy, and O₃ in Dinghushan (112oE, 23oN), China during autumn 2008”, Atmospheric Environment 44 (2010), P2079-2088

[3-[4] ] Environmental Protection Department (2013), Air Quality in Hong Kong 2013 (http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/api_history/english/report/files/AQR2013e_final.pdf)

[3-[5] ] Environmental Protection Department, A Study to Review Hong Kong’s Air Quality Objectives (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/aqor_report.html)