Three-Runway System Environmental Impact Assessment Report ... · MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001), is used to demonstrate the meteorology at the project site in 2012. 5.1.3.3 The seasonal windroses

308875/ENL/ENL/03/07/D May 2014 P:\Hong Kong\ENL\PROJECTS\308875 3rd runway\03 Deliverables\07 Final EIA Report\Ch 5 - Air Quality.doc

5-1

Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System Environmental Impact Assessment Report

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Overview

5.1.1.1 This section presents the assessment of potential air quality impacts associated with the

construction and operation phases of the project, which has been conducted in accordance with

the criteria and guidelines as stated in section 1 of Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the Technical

Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) as well as the

requirements given in Clause 3.4.3 and Section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-

250/2012).

5.1.2 Air Quality Legislations, Standards and Guidelines

5.1.2.1 The assessment is carried out following the relevant criteria and standards as specified in the

following legislation and guidelines for evaluating air quality impacts:

� Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499.S16), EIAO-TM, Annexes 4

and 12;

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

� Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation;

� Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant)

BPM 3/2 (93);

� Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic

Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94); and

� Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants)

BPM 11/1 (95).

Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process

5.1.2.2 The criteria and guidelines for evaluating air quality impacts are set out in Section 1 of Annex 4

and Annex 12 respectively of the EIAO-TM. Section 1 of Annex 4 stipulates the criteria for

evaluating air quality impacts. This includes meeting the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) and other

standards established under the APCO, as well as meeting the hourly Total Suspended

Particulate (TSP) concentration of 500 µg/m3. Annex 12 provides the guidelines for conducting air

quality assessments under the EIA process, including determination of Air Sensitive Receivers

(ASRs), assessment methodology as well as impact prediction and assessment.

Air Pollution Control Ordinance

Air Quality Objectives

5.1.2.3 The principal legislation for the management of air quality is the APCO. It specifies AQOs which

stipulate the statutory limits of air pollutants and the maximum allowable numbers of exceedance

over specific periods. The AQOs are listed in Table 5.1.1.

5. Air Quality Impact


5-2


Table 5.1.1 Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant Averaging Time AQO concentration (µg/m³)

Allowable exceedances

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 10 minute 500 3

24 hour 125 3

Respirable Suspended Particulates (PM10)

24 hour 100 9

Annual 50 0

Fine Suspended Particulates (PM2.5) 24 hour 75 9

Annual 35 0

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 200 18

Annual 40 0

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 30,000 0

8 hour 10,000 0

Ozone (O3) 8 hour 160 9

Lead Annual 0.5 0

Specified Processes

5.1.2.4 Under the APCO, a number of major stationary air pollution sources are classified as Specified

Processes, which are subject to stringent emission control. A licence is required for the operation

of these processes under the APCO. Three of the Specified Processes, namely, Cement Works

(Concrete Batching Plant), Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) and Mineral Works

(Stone Crushing Plants), which involve particulate matter emissions, would be relevant to this

project as concrete and asphalt batching plants as well as stone crushing plant would be used

during the construction phase (see Section 5.2.3). The relevant requirements of the three

Specified Processes are described in Sections 5.1.2.9 to 5.1.2.15.

Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation

5.1.2.5 The Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation enacted under the APCO defines

notifiable and regulatory works activities that are subject to construction dust control, as listed

below:

5.1.2.6 Notifiable Works:

1. Site formation

2. Reclamation

3. Demolition of a building

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

5. Construction of the foundation of a building

6. Construction of the superstructure of a building

7. Road construction work

5.1.2.7 Regulatory Works:


5-3


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

roof of a building

2. Road opening or resurfacing work

3. Slope stabilisation work

4. Any work involving any of the following activities:

a. Stockpiling of dusty materials

b. Loading, unloading or transfer of dusty materials

c. Transfer of dusty materials using a belt conveyor system

d. Use of vehicles

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

f. Debris handling

g. Excavation or earth moving

h. Concrete production

i. Site clearance

j. Blasting

5.1.2.8 Notifiable works require that advance notice of activities shall be given to EPD. The Air Pollution

Control (Construction Dust) Regulation also requires the works contractor to ensure that both

notifiable works and regulatory works are conducted in accordance with the Schedule of the

Regulation, which provides dust control and suppression measures. The project includes land

formation, site formation, demolition of building structures, construction of the foundation of

buildings, construction of the superstructure of buildings and road construction work; and is

therefore notifiable. The project also includes: stockpiling of dusty materials; loading, unloading or

transfer of dusty materials; use of vehicles; excavation or earth moving, and; site clearance and is

therefore regulatory.

Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching

Plant) BPM 3/2 (93)

5.1.2.9 This Guidance Note lists the minimum requirements for meeting the best practicable means for

Cement Works (Concrete Batching Plant) in which the total silo capacity exceeds 50 tonnes and

in which cement is handled or argillaceous and calcareous materials are used in the production of

cement clinker, and works in which cement clinker is ground. The Guidance Note includes:

emission limits; fugitive emission control recommendations; monitoring requirements;

commissioning details, and; operation and maintenance provisions.

5.1.2.10 The concentration limits for air pollutant emissions as stipulated for this Specified Process are

reproduced in Table 5.1.2.

Table 5.1.2: Concentration Limit for Emission from Cement Work

Air Pollutant Concentration Limit (mg/m3)*

Particulates 50

*Note: (a) The air pollutant concentration is expressed at reference conditions of 0°C temperature, 101.325 kPa pressure, and

without correction for water vapour content. Introduction of diluted air to achieve the emission concentration limit shall not be permitted.

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


5-4


Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic

Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94)


Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) in which the processing capacity exceeds

250 kg per hour and in which:

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

(b) any product of the distillation of gas tar or coal tar or bitumen is distilled or heated in any

process involving the evolution of any noxious or offensive gas.

5.1.2.12 The Guidance Note includes: emission limits; chimney design requirements, fugitive emission

control recommendations; monitoring requirements; commissioning details, and; operation and

maintenance provisions.



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


Bitumen fumes 5 (not applicable to the vents of bitumen decanters)

Particulates 50

*Notes: (a) For combustion gases, the concentration limits are expressed at dry, 0°C temperature, 101.325 kPa pressure and 3%

oxygen content conditions. (b) For non-combustion gases, the concentration limits are expressed at 0°C temperature, 101.325 kPa pressure

conditions, and without correction for water vapour or oxygen content. The introduction of dilution air to achieve the emission limits is not permitted.

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

Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants)

BPM 11/1 (95)


Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) in which the processing capacity exceeds 5,000 tonnes

per annum, and in which stones are subject to any size reduction or grading by a process giving

rise to dust, not being any works described in any other specified process. The Guidance Note

includes: emission limits; fugitive emission control recommendations; monitoring requirements;

commissioning details, and; operation and maintenance provisions.



Table 5.1.4: Concentration Limit for Emission from Stone Crushing Plants


Particulates 50

*Note: (a) The air pollutant concentration is expressed at reference conditions of 0°C temperature, 101.325 kPa pressure, and

without correction for water vapour content. Introduction of diluted air to achieve the emission concentration limit shall not be permitted.

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


5-5


5.1.3 Baseline Conditions

Site Description and Surrounding Environment

5.1.3.1 The proposed land formation area of about 650 ha is to the north of the existing airport island.

Land-uses generally immediately surrounding the subject site are: shipping channel and open

water to the west, north and east, and the existing airport and residential, recreational / park and

worship to the south (see Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001). The key emission sources in the

vicinity of the airport are listed in Table 5.1.5 below.

Table 5.1.5: Emission Sources in the vicinity of the Airport

Emission Sources Direction to the Airport

Marine emission from shipping channel, CLP power plants, emission from PRD

North

Vehicular Emission from road network in Tung Chung Town and NLH East

Emission from PRD West

Nil South

Historical Meteorology and Background Air Quality

5.1.3.2 Meteorological data measured at the Hong Kong Observatory Airport Meteorological Office

(HKOAMO), located in the middle of the existing airport island (see Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001), is used to demonstrate the meteorology at the project site in 2012.

5.1.3.3 The seasonal windroses as obtained from the HKOAMO are for an anemometer height of 9 m

above ground and are shown in Graph 5.1.1. At the project site, winds from the East (E) are

dominant for most of the year, particularly so for autumn, winter and spring. During the summer,

winds are mainly from the East South-East (ESE) and South-West (SW).

Air Quality Monitoring Data (AAHK and EPD)

5.1.3.4 There are several air quality monitoring stations (AQMSs) located in the vicinity of the airport,

including three AQMSs operated by AAHK at Lung Kwu Chau (LKC), North Station (PH1) and

South Station (PH5) and the Tung Chung (TC) AQMS operated by EPD. The latest air quality

monitoring data from these AQMSs (up to Year 2012) of various air pollutants are shown in Table

5.1.6 to Table 5.1.9 and have been compared with the AQOs for reference. The locations of

these AQMSs are illustrated in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001.

5.1.3.5 The North Station and South Station are located on the airport. The Lung Kwu Chau Station is

located on Lung Kwu Chau, which is to the North of the Airport. Since July of 2012, the station is

re-located to Sha Chau. Tung Chung Station is operated by EPD and is located in Tung Chung

Town Centre.

5.1.3.6 The LKC monitoring station is positioned up-stream of the airport, but downstream of potential

high level of pollution being transported from further north of the airport’s position. The data

obtained in this station is critical in differentiating the airports emissions from those of the PRD.

The PH1 and PH5 Stations are positioned on the airport island close to the north and south

runways respectively. These stations are useful in monitoring airport emissions impact locally.


5-6


The TC station is located at the South-East direction of the airport, this station may pick up

emissions from the airport when the winds are from the West or the North.

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

(HKOAMO) for 2012


5-7


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

Pollutant Year Highest 1-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)

Highest Daily Conc. (µg/m3)

Highest 8-hour Conc. (µg/m3)

Annual Conc.

(µg/m3)

NO2

2008 268 (21) [5] [175°] [6] 142 N/A 46

2009 202 (1) [5] [89°] [6] 110 N/A 37

2010 195 [154°] [6] 129 N/A 34

2011 156 [286°] [6] 105 N/A 29

2012[7] 197 [230°] [6] 93 N/A 28

AQO 200 (18) [4] N/A N/A 40

RSP

(PM10)

2008 273 [300°] [6] 167 (46) [5] N/A 58

2009 221 [354°] [6] 170 (15) [5] N/A 48

2010 668 [267°] [6] 543 (20) [5] N/A 50

2011 254 [316°] [6] 152 (20) [5] N/A 53

2012[7] 253 [360°] [6] 149 (8) [5] N/A 41

AQO N/A 100 (9) [4] N/A 50

FSP

(PM2.5)

2008 N/M N/M N/M N/M




2012[7] 155 [312°] [6] 82 (4) [5] N/M 32

AQO N/A 75 (9) [4] N/A 35

O3

2008 333 [320°] [6] 166 247 (28) [5] 51

2009 303 [329°] [6] 150 244 (22) [5] 54

2010 332 [320°] [6] 127 260 (14) [5] 35

2011 374 [283°] [6] 141 286 (16) [5] 44

2012[7] 290 [229°] [6] 121 220 (14) [5] 31

AQO N/A N/A 160 (9) [4] N/A

SO2

2008 300 [323°] [6] 99 N/A 27

2009 341 [3°] [6] 84 N/A 19

2010 145 [306°] [6] 69 N/A 17

2011 98 [321°] [6] 62 N/A 16

2012[7] 130 [173°] [6] 43 N/A 12

AQO 500 (3) for 10 min average [3] 125 (3) [4]

N/A N/A

CO

2008 2,541 [320°] [6] N/M 2,115 563

2009 2,049 [320°] [6] N/M 1,661 501

2010 2,894 [323°] [6] N/M 2,453 559

2011 2,271 [316°] [6] N/M 2,239 552

2012[7] 2,577 [320°] [6] N/M 2,412 492

AQO 30,000 (0) [4] N/A 10,000 (0) [4] N/A


5-8


Note:

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

[2] Monitoring results exceeding the AQO are underlined.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Annual Conc.

(µg/m3)

NO2

2008 279 (14) [167°] [5][6] 142 N/A 44

2009 217 (1) [179°] [5][6] 98 N/A 33

2010 236 (3) [97°] [5][6] 121 N/A 40

2011 200 [313°] [6] 117 N/A 38

2012 161 [141°] [6] 75 N/A 31

AQO 200 (18) [4] N/A N/A 40

RSP

(PM10)

2008 264 [321°] [6] 152 (41) [5] N/A 55

2009 219 [321°] [6] 168 (13) [5] N/A 48

2010 704 [282°] [6] 568 (22) [5] N/A 48

2011 271 [313°] [6] 147 (27) [5] N/A 52

2012 282 [278°] [6] 150 (10) [5] N/A 39

AQO N/A 100 (9) [4] N/A 50

FSP

(PM2.5)




2011 167 [218°] [6] 88 (6) [5] N/M 53

2012 219 [278°] [6] 109 (2) [5] N/M 24

AQO N/A 75 (9) [4] N/A 35

O3

2008 387 [319°] [6] 182 287 (32) [5] 57

2009 325 [212°] [6] 149 254 (25) [5] 51

2010 311 [320°] [6] 122 256 (14) [5] 37

2011 416 [238°] [6] 143 280 (22) [5] 44

2012 365 [229°] [6] 144 267 (25) [5] 39

AQO N/A N/A 160 (9) [4] N/A

SO2

2008 285 [323°] [6] 88 N/A 17

2009 165 [318°] [6] 75 N/A 12

2010 152 [306°] [6] 79 N/A 14

2011 114 [321°] [6] 62 N/A 12

2012 104 [205°] [6] 49 N/A 16


5-9





Annual Conc.

(µg/m3)

AQO 500 (3) for 10 min average [3]

125 (3) [4] N/A N/A

CO

2008 2,440 [4°] [6] N/M 2,071 442

2009 1,918 [320°] [6] N/M 1,476 472

2010 2,838 [323°] [6] N/M 2,229 467

2011 2,034 [323°] [6] N/M 1,610 434

2012 2,458 [323°] [6] N/M 1,920 396

AQO 30,000 (0) [4] N/A 10,000 (0) [4] N/A

Note:







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




Annual Conc.

(µg/m3)

NO2

2008 250 (8) [183°] [5][6] 139 N/A 48

2009 204 (1) [142°] [5][6] 115 N/A 49

2010 244 (11) [230°] [5][6] 143 N/A 53

2011 217 (3) [155°] [5][6] 122 N/A 56

2012 272 (5) [135°] [5][6] 119 N/A 49

AQO 200 (18) [4] N/A N/A 40

RSP

(PM10)

2008 295 [300°] [6] 156 (42) [5] N/A 54

2009 205 [325°] [6] 156 (12) [5] N/A 45

2010 589 [279°/282°] [6] 463 (17) [5] N/A 45

2011 236 [276°] [6] 153 (21) [5] N/A 52

2012 291 [230°] [6] 134 (13) [5] N/A 43

AQO N/A 100 (9) [4] N/A 50

FSP

(PM2.5)




2011 160 [58°] [6] 91 (7) [5] N/M 52

2012 222 [230°] [6] 92 (11) [5] N/M 29

AQO N/A 75 (9) [4] N/A 35

O3

2008 226 [320°] [6] 67 148 18

2009 256 [309°] [6] 105 202 (4) [5] 23

2010 169 [320°] [6] 56 124 10

2011 353 [238°] [6] 105 213 (11) [5] 24


5-10





Annual Conc.

(µg/m3)

2012 360 [303°] [6] 122 279 (23) [5] 34

AQO N/A N/A 160 (9) [4] N/A

SO2

2008 278 [323°] [6] 89 N/A 15

2009 167 [345°] [6] 71 N/A 10

2010 96 [295°] [6] 40 N/A 7

2011 113 [320°] [6] 34 N/A 7

2012 84 [178°] [6] 39 N/A 10


125 (3) [4] N/A N/A

CO

2008 2,141 [319°] [6] N/M 1,750 575

2009 1,823 [320°] [6] N/M 1,542 513

2010 2,009 [325°] [6] N/M 1,859 511

2011 1,595 [319°/320°] [6] N/M 1,547 566

2012 2,610 [310°] [6] N/M 2,492 567

AQO 30,000 (0) [4] N/A 10,000 (0) [4] N/A

Note:







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




Annual Conc.

(µg/m3)

NO2

2008 256 (16) [5] [280°] [6] 134 N/A 49

2009 221 (6) [5] [152°] [5][6] 119 N/A 45

2010 255 (20) [5] [293°] [5][6]

149 N/A 44

2011 228 (5) [5] [206°] [5][6] 137 N/A 51

2012 236 (4) [5] [278°] [5][6] 124 N/A 43

AQO 200 (18) [4] N/A N/A 40

RSP

(PM10)

2008 243 [330°] [6] 146 (37) [5] N/A 52

2009 210 [320°] [6] 162 (11) [5] N/A 46

2010 640 [238°] [6] 475 (16) [5] N/A 45

2011 250 [313°] [6] 142 (21) [5] N/A 47

2012 274 [278°] [6] 162 (18) [5] N/A 45

AQO N/A 100 (9) [4] N/A 50

FSP 2008 168 [316°/313°] [6] 110 (35) [5] N/A 37


5-11





Annual Conc.

(µg/m3)

(PM2.5) 2009 168 [323°/172°] [6] 134 (8) [5] N/A 30

2010 209 [324°] [6] 119 (12) [5] N/A 29

2011 174 [268°] [6] 96 (13) [5] N/A 32

2012 210 [278°] [6] 103 (9) [5] N/A 28

AQO N/A 75 (9) [4] N/A 35

O3

2008 310 [319°] [6] 146 217 (14) [5] 41

2009 325 [269°] [6] 148 217 (13) [5] 47

2010 341 [319°] [6] 110 246 (10) [5] 44

2011 312 [238°] [6] 144 228 (18) [5] 44

2012 383 [224°] [6] 158 268 (24) [5] 47

AQO N/A N/A 160 (9) [4] N/A

SO2

2008 266 [323°] [6] 91 N/A 18

2009 158 [302°/340°] [6] 63 N/A 13

2010 113 [314°] [6] 59 N/A 12

2011 90 [321°] [6] 52 N/A 13

2012 91 [292°] [6] 38 N/A 13


125 (3) [4] N/A N/A

CO

2008 2820 [319°] [6] N/M 2,566 860

2009 2020 [320°] [6] N/M 1,864 635

2010 2910 [324°] [6] N/M 2,469 737

2011 2290 [309°] [6] N/M 2,188 660

2012 2660 [202°] [6] N/M 2,461 671

AQO 30,000 (0)[4] N/A 10,000 (0) [4] N/A

Note:







HKUST 2010 Airport Operational Air Quality Study Findings

5.1.3.7 The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) was engaged by AAHK in 2010

to assess the operational air quality impact of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA). This

study analysed the data from the three AAHK AQMSs and EPD Tung Chung AQMS, together

with other available and relevant information, to help better understand and quantify the relative

importance of emissions from HKIA and regional emissions on North Lantau air receivers over

the period March 2006 to February 2010. Their findings were summarised in the “2010 Airport

Operational Air Quality Study” report.


5-12


5.1.3.8 Three separate and independent analysis techniques were adopted in analysing the pollutant and

meteorological data. The techniques are (i) Circular Pollution Wind Mapping (CPWM); (ii) Positive

Matrix Factorization Receptor Analysis; and (iii) Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model

(CMAQ) / Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) for modeling of

photochemical species that feature complex non-linear reactions.

5.1.3.9 According to the HKUST study, the NO2 values at TC and particularly PH5 were comparable to

other general AQMSs across HK and significantly lower than the levels at roadside stations. The

four NO2 CPWMs around the airport showed elevated level of NO2 associated with different wind

directions. In particular, TC showed highest average NO2 level when the wind was medium to

strong northwesterly, while LKC and PH1 showed higher NO2 level when the wind was weak

southeasterly, and PH5 showed higher NO2 level when the wind was weak to moderate easterly.

These observations suggest that a fair degree of locally emitted NO2 is contributed by HKIA

related sources.

5.1.3.10 The RSP CPWMs for all stations showed elevated RSP levels particularly at LKC and PH1.

Although medium / high values were noted to the northwest of monitoring stations, unlike other

pollutants there was no discernable relatively hot spot evident. PH5’s CPWM showed the lowest

levels, this is possibly because of being the furthest away from major sources such as marine

shipping, road transport and regional emission sources. The levels at LKC and PH1 were the

highest, possibly due to the proximity of the shipping channels and regional emission sources.

5.1.3.11 For O3, all stations showed the same medium / high pollution, with dispersed source signature to

the northwest. This may indicate that land / sea breeze plays a part in bringing O3 from the PRD

to receptors at the airport and in TC. The O3 CPWMs for all stations appeared mottled and not

smooth, this was potentially caused by severe pollution episodes that could have a large impact

on a single sector of the wind rose. TC looked to have generally, slightly elevated levels of O3.

This was not necessarily due to sources within TC, but may partly be related to fewer NO sources

which can result in lower O3 levels (due to photochemical effects).

5.1.3.12 All SO2 CPWMs showed a strong signal to the north east of the monitoring sites. This directly

correlates to the heavily industrialised areas to the north and around the Pearl River Delta (PRD).

There was also a noticeable signal in the direction of HK’s heavily urbanised centres and the

Kwai Chung cargo terminal. It could also be observed that during moderate to strong

northwesterly wind conditions, SO2 levels seen at the airport sites were notably higher than at

other sites across HK, including the roadside sites. However, the fact that SO2 concentrations

were even higher at LKC than PH1 or PH5 during such northwesterly wind conditions suggested

that the high SO2 levels were most likely transported not from the HKIA but from further upstream

in the north/northwest direction.

5.1.3.13 CO showed the typical dispersed, high pollution zone with medium strong winds from the

northwest, potentially indicating sources in the Shenzhen / PRD region.

5.1.3.14 In summary, the study concluded:

NOx / NO2 / NO:

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

- The impact of HKIA emissions were weakest at Lung Kwu Chau, slightly greater at the North


5-13


Station and notable at the South Station and Tung Chung;

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

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

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

O3: - O3 is not an emitted pollutant as such, but is formed in reactions between primary

pollutants and/or atmospheric components;

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

SO2 / CO / VOC: - The airport’s contribution to these pollutants did not appear to have an appreciable impact

on local pollution concentrations around the airport, and was negligible for other receptors in Hong Kong.

Further Analysis of Air Quality Monitoring Data

Nitrogen Dioxides

5.1.3.15 For the LKC Station, it can be seen from Table 5.1.6 that NO2 concentrations show a decreasing

trend. The highest 1-hour NO2 concentration was reduced from 268 µg/m3 to 156 µg/m

3, the

highest daily NO2 concentration was reduced from 142 µg/m3 to 93 µg/m

3, and the annual NO2

concentration was reduced from 46 µg/m3 to 28 µg/m

3 for the period from Year 2008 to Year

2012. The measured 1-hr and annual NO2 concentrations comply with the AQO requirements of

200 µg/m3 and 40 µg/m

3 respectively. By correlating the 1-hr NO2 concentrations with the wind

direction, the majority high NO2 episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from southern

to western (154o to 286

o).

5.1.3.16 For the North Station, it can be seen from Table 5.1.7 that NO2 concentrations also show a

decreasing trend. The highest 1-hr NO2 concentration was reduced from 279 µg/m3 to 161 µg/m

3,

the highest daily NO2 concentration was reduced from 142 µg/m3 to 75 µg/m

3, and the annual

NO2 concentration was reduced from 44 µg/m3 to 31 µg/m

3 for the period from Year 2008 to Year

2012. The measured 1-hr and annual NO2 concentrations comply with the AQO requirements. By

correlating the 1-hr NO2 concentrations with the wind direction, the majority high NO2 episodes

were corresponding to the wind direction from southern to north western (141 o to 313

o).

5.1.3.17 For the South Station, it can be seen from Table 5.1.8 that there is no obvious reduction in NO2

concentrations for the period from Year 2008 to Year 2012. The highest 1-hr NO2 concentrations

varied between 204 µg/m3 and 272 µg/m

3. As the number of exceedance is less than the

allowable frequency of 18 times, there was no non-compliance of 1-hr NO2 AQO. The highest

daily NO2 concentrations were between 115 µg/m3 and 143 µg/m

3 during the same period. The

annual NO2 concentrations were between 48 µg/m3 and 56 µg/m

3, exceeded the AQO of

40 µg/m3. By correlating the 1-hr NO2 concentrations with the wind direction, the high NO2


5-14


episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from south eastern to south western (135o to

230o).

5.1.3.18 For the Tung Chung Station, it can be seen from Table 5.1.9 that there was a slight reduction in

NO2 concentrations. The highest 1-hr NO2 concentration was reduced from 256 µg/m3 to

236 µg/m3 for the period from Year 2008 to Year 2012. The exceedance frequencies of 1-hr NO2

AQO are below the allowable limit of 18 times for most years except Year 2010. The highest

daily NO2 concentration was reduced from 134 µg/m3 to 124 µg/m

3 for the period. The annual

NO2 concentration was reduced from 49 µg/m3 to 43 µg/m

3, but still exceed the AQO limit of

40 µg/m3. By correlating the 1-hr NO2 concentrations with the wind direction, the high NO2

episodes were corresponding to the wind direction from south eastern to north western (152o to

293o).

5.1.3.19 The above observations are consistent with the HKUST study findings, which stated that a fair

degree of locally emitted NO2 is contributed by HKIA related sources. The higher level of annual

NO2 concentration measured at the South Station (49 µg/m3) than that measured at North Station

(31 µg/m3) for Year 2012 may reflect the higher utilisation of the south runway for the landing and

take-off operation.

5.1.3.20 To determine the contribution of different sources, a near field modeling has been conducted for

TC Station under the North Western to Northern wind. Table 5.1.10 summarises the breakdown

of NO2 concentration at TC Station for the average hour and the highest episode hour under N

/NW direction. In average hour under N / NW condition (around 15% of time), the NO2

contribution from airport is around 17%, which is in line with HKUST findings. In the highest

episode hour, the NO2 contribution can be up to around 51%. The increase in NO2 is due to the

high background ozone associated in the high episode hour, which converts the NOx from airport

related activities to NO2. Nevertheless, according to Year 2012 record, the number of high

episode hour is around 4 hours (i.e. < 0.1%) within a year.

Table 5.1.10: NO2 Concentration Breakdown based on Near field Model

Sources NO2 Percentage

Average N / NW Condition Highest episode day

Airport 17% 51%

Vehicular Emission 31% 33%

Background 52% 17%

Total 100% 100%

RSP

5.1.3.21 It can be observed from Table 5.1.6 to Table 5.1.9 that the measured annual RSP concentrations

at all four AQMSs show a general decreasing trend and the RSP levels for Year 2012 are in the

range of 39-45 µg/m3, which comply with the AQO limit of 50 µg/m

3.

5.1.3.22 However, the highest daily RSP concentrations recorded at all four AQMSs exceeded the AQO

during the period between Year 2008 and Year 2012. The frequencies of exceedance were also

higher than the allowable limit of 9 times.


5-15


5.1.3.23 By correlating with the wind direction, the highest RSP episodes were corresponding to the wind

direction from south western to northern (230o to 360

o). This is consistent with the HKUST study

findings that RSP is mainly influenced by regional emission sources.

5.1.3.24 To determine the contribution of different sources, a near field modeling has been conducted for

Tung Chung station under the North Western to Northern wind. Table 5.1.11 summarises the

breakdown of RSP concentration in Tung Chung Station for the average hour and the highest

episode hour under N /NW direction. In average hour under N / NW condition (around 15% of

time), the RSP contribution from airport is less than 4%. In the highest episode hour, the RSP

contribution can be up to around 17%. Nevertheless, according to Year 2012 record, the high

RSP episode days occurred 18 times (around 5%) within a year in Tung Chung Station.

Table 5.1.11: RSP Concentration Breakdown based on Near field Model

Sources RSP Percentage

Average N / NW Condition Highest episode day

Airport 4% 17%

Vehicular Emission 2% 1%

Background 95% 82%

Total 100% 100%

FSP

5.1.3.25 FSP was not monitored at LKC Station between Year 2008 and Year 2011. Highest daily FSP

concentration in Year 2012 was 82 µg/m3. The number of exceedance was 4, which still complied

with the AQO of 75 µg/m3. The annual FSP concentration of 32 µg/m

3 complied with the AQO of

35 µg/m3.

5.1.3.26 Monitoring of FSP at PH1 Station began in late Year 2011. In Year 2012, the highest daily

concentration was 109 µg/m3. The number of exceedance for daily FSP is 2, which still complies

with the AQO. The annual FSP concentration was 24 µg/m3, which complied with the annual

AQO of 35 µg/m3.

5.1.3.27 Monitoring of FSP at PH5 Station began in late Year 2011. In Year 2012, the highest daily

concentration was 92 µg/m3. The number of exceedance for daily FSP is 11, which exceeded the

allowance stipulated in the AQO. The annual FSP concentration was 29µg/m3 and complied with

the annual AQO of 35µg/m3.

5.1.3.28 The highest daily FSP concentrations recorded at TC Station varied between 96 µg/m3 and

134 µg/m3. Exceedance in the AQO was observed in Year 2008, Year 2010 and Year 2011. The

annual FSP concentrations varied between 28 and 37 µg/m3. Exceedance in the AQO was

observed in Year 2008. The annual FSP concentrations showed a general decreasing trend,

reducing from 37 µg/m3 in 2008 to 28 µg/m

3 in Year 2012, though exceeded the AQO of 35 µg/m

3

in Year 2008.

5.1.3.29 By correlating the 1-hr FSP with the wind direction, the majority highest FSP episodes were

corresponding to the wind direction from western to north western (268o to 324

o). Similar to RSP,

the measured FSP concentrations is mainly influenced by regional emission sources.


5-16


Ozone

5.1.3.30 It can be observed from Table 5.1.6 to Table 5.1.9 that the majority measured 8-hr O3

concentrations at all four AQMSs are of similar levels and exceeded the AQO limit of 160 µg/m3

during the period between Year 2008 and Year 2012 (except for PH5 station between Year 2008

and Year 2010). The frequencies of exceedance were also higher than the allowable limit of 9

times.

5.1.3.31 By correlating the O3 concentration with the wind direction, the highest O3 episodes were

corresponding to the wind direction from south western to north western (212o to 329

o). This is

consistent with the HKUST study findings that majority of O3 measured at the airport and Lantau

were formed due to regional emission sources in the upstream of the airport.

5.1.3.32 Table 5.1.12 shows the O3 monitoring data at different AQMs under the highest O3 episode at TC

Station. This highest O3 occurred under western wind. The Table suggests that the high ozone in

Tung Chung is due to regional contribution. Moreover, the decrease in O3 across the PH1 Station

to TC Station is due to the reaction of ozone by the NOx emission generated from the airport

related activities.

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

O3 Concentration of the corresponding hour (µg/m3)

Wind Direction (Degree)

LKC PH1 PH5 Tung Chung CLK

The highest O3 episode at TC Station in Yr 2011

367 416 353 312 260

SO2 and CO

5.1.3.33 Monitoring records of SO2 and CO in the four monitoring stations indicated that these two

pollutants were at relatively low concentration levels. Both pollutants were well within the AQOs.

By correlating the SO2 and CO concentration with the wind direction, the majority highest SO2

and CO episodes are corresponding to the north-western to northern wind. This is consistent with

the HKUST study findings, which stated the major SO2 and CO sources would be due to the

heavily industrialised areas to the north and around the PRD.

Existing Ambient Air Quality in Areas Surrounding the Airport

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

- NO2 contribution would be from regional emission sources, vehicular emission sources and

airport related activities emission sources. Regional emission sources are the major

contributor. 1-hr NO2 complies with AQO whilst non-compliance is observed for annual NO2;

- Majority of RSP and FSP contribution would be from regional emission sources. Non-

compliance is observed for daily RSP whilst compliance is observed for annual RSP.

However, compliance is observed for daily FSP and annual FSP;


5-17


- Majority of O3 contribution would be from regional emission sources. The airport would

consume ozone to a certain extent. Nevertheless, non-compliance is still observed for 8-hr

ozone;

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

observed for SO2 / CO.

5.1.3.35 While the above monitoring results are indicative of the present background air quality in the

study area, they are not considered to be representative of the future background air quality in the

year of assessment that corresponds to the highest aircraft emission scenario. On consideration

of the air quality-related control programmes to be implemented in the region, it is anticipated that

Hong Kong's air quality is expected to improve over the years and such could be captured /

simulated in the PATH (Pollutants in the Atmosphere and their Transport over Hong Kong) model.

It is proposed to adopt the PATH model to simulate the background air quality in future years in

the operation air quality assessment.

5.2 Construction Phase Assessment

5.2.1 Overview

5.2.1.1 This section presents the assessment of potential air quality impacts associated with the

construction phase of the project, which has been conducted in accordance with the requirements

given in Clause 3.4.3 together with Section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-

250/2012).

5.2.2 Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers

5.2.2.1 According to Clause 3(ii) under Section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief, the air quality

impact during the construction phase at ASRs within 500 m from the project boundary should be

assessed. Therefore, the assessment area is defined as 500 m outside the combined boundary

of the existing airport island and the proposed land formation footprint (i.e., the expanded airport

island) as well as 500 m outside the boundary of Sheung Sha Chau Island where the submarine

fuel pipeline will be daylighted. The assessment area is illustrated in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001. It should be noted that for the diversion of submarine fuel pipeline and

submarine 11 kV cable, construction dust would only be generated by the land-based works on

the existing airport island and the Sheung Sha Chau Island whereas installation of the submarine

pipeline and cable will be carried out at respectively sub-seabed rock level and seabed level,

hence no dust emissions would be generated from such installation works (see Sections 5.2.3.20

– 5.2.3.24). Therefore, the 500 m assessment area does not cover areas along the pipeline and

cable alignments.

5.2.2.2 In accordance with Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM, ASRs include domestic premises, hotel, hostel,

hospital, clinic, nursery, temporary housing accommodation, school, educational institution, office,

factory, shop, shopping centre, place of public worship, library, court of law, sports stadium or

performing arts centre. Any other premises or places which, in terms of duration or number of

people affected, have similar sensitivity to the air pollutants as the abovementioned premises and

places are also considered as a sensitive receiver.


5-18


5.2.2.3 The representative ASRs (existing / planned) that could be affected by the project within the

500 m assessment area have been identified based on the latest and relevant Outline Zoning

Plans (e.g. Chek Lap Kok OZP No. S/I-CLK/12 and Tung Chung Town Centre Area OZP No. S/I-

TCTC/18), Sha Lo Wan Village Layout Plan - Lantau Island (No. L/I-SLW/1), Development

Permission Area Plans, Outline Development Plans, Layout Plans and other relevant published

land use plans. Based on the aforementioned requirements of the EIA Study Brief, all the

identified ASRs within the 500 m assessment area are outside the combined boundary of the

expanded airport island or outside the boundary of Sheung Sha Chau Island where the

submarine fuel pipeline will be daylighted.

5.2.2.4 These representative ASRs are summarised in Table 5.2.1 and their locations are shown in

Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001.

5.2.2.5 The existing or planned ASRs are assessed at 1.5 m, 5 m and 10 m above ground level and then

every 10 m above that until the top of the buildings.

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

ASR ID Location Relevant PATH Grid

Landuse(1) No. of Storeys

Approximate Separation Distance from Project Boundary(2) (m)

Years Subject to Construction Phase Impact

Tung Chung

TC-13 Seaview Crescent Block 1 (12, 26) R 50 380 2015-2023

TC-14 Seaview Crescent Block 3 (12, 26) R 49 470 As above

TC-45 Village house at Ma Wan Chung

(12, 25) R 1-3 570 As above

TC-P2 Planned Park near One Citygate

(12, 26) P 1 350 As above

TC-P5 Tung Chung West Development

(11, 25) N/A N/A 320 As above


(12, 25) N/A N/A 210 As above


(12, 26) N/A N/A 190 As above

San Tau

ST-1 Village house at Tin Sum (11, 25) R 1-3 400 2015-2023

ST-2 Village house at Kau Liu (11, 25) R 1-3 480 As above

Sha Lo Wan

SLW-1 Sha Lo Wan House No.1 (09, 26) R 1-3 260 2015-2023

SLW-2 Sha Lo Wan House No.5 (09, 26) R 1-3 470 As above

SLW-4 Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan

(09, 25) W 1-3 470 As above

Sheung Sha Chau Island

SC-01 Sheung Sha Chau Pier (08, 30) N/A 1 - 2015-2023


5-19


Notes: (1) R – Residential; C – Commercial; E – Educational; I – Industrial; H – Clinic/ Home for the Aged/Hospital; W – Worship; G/IC – Government, Institution and Community; P – Recreational/Park; OS – Open Space; N/A – Not Available. (2) Site boundary refers to the combined site boundary of the proposed land formation area and the existing airport island.

5.2.3 Identification of Pollution Sources and Key Pollutants

Overview

5.2.3.1 In accordance with the EIA Study Brief, Appendix A, Clause 3 (ii) under Section I, a quantitative

assessment shall be carried out to evaluate the construction dust impact if it is anticipated that

the project will give rise to construction dust impacts likely to exceed recommended limits, despite

the incorporation of mitigation measures, at the identified ASRs. In accordance with EPD’s

Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters (section 3.6), suitable dust size

categories relevant to the dust sources concerned with reasonable breakdown in TSP and RSP

compositions should be used in evaluating the impacts of dust-emitting activities. Therefore, it is

considered that the air pollutants of concerns during the construction phase of the project are

TSP and RSP from dust emitting activities. However, as FSP is a newly added criteria pollutant

under the AQOs, FSP is also assessed as part of the construction dust impact assessment for

the project. Due to the substantial size of the project, quantitative construction dust modelling has

been undertaken as a prudent approach to the assessment. The key activities that would

potentially result in dust emissions during construction phase of the project have been identified

as follows:

� Land formation works

� Construction works on the newly formed land

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

� Concrete batching plants, asphalt batching plants and barging points

� Rock crushing plants

� Diversion of submarine fuel pipeline

� Diversion of submarine 11 kV cable

� Modifications to existing outfall

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

Land Formation Works

5.2.3.3 It is planned that the land formation work would be undertaken from start of late 2015 / early 2016

to mid-2022, noting that the third runway and taxiway sections (which accounts for the majority of

the land formation) would be completed by 2020 for closure of the existing north runway and

opening of the third runway by 2021. Based on the construction planning, the land formation

works have been primarily divided into three main stages. The 3-stage land formation areas and

the tentative programme are illustrated in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-014 and Appendix

4.2 respectively. The works for each stage are described below:

5.2.3.4 Stage 1 has a T-shaped footprint and consists mainly of the land formation works for the third

runway, the associated west taxiways, the western support area and other supporting facilities.


5-20


5.2.3.5 Stage 2 consists of land formation works for the new third runway concourse and aprons

supported by facilities within the east support area.

5.2.3.6 Stage 3 is the land formation area at both ends of the existing north runway associated with the

new wrap-around taxiways, whereby construction activities are restricted by the need to maintain

operation of the existing north runway until completion of the third runway.

5.2.3.7 For each stage of the land formation, the general work sequence would be similar, which is

presented in Table 5.2.2. As identified in the table, the marine-based works refer to those

activities that would take place at the seabed and/or within the marine water and therefore they

are not anticipated to generate any major dust emissions to air. On the contrary, the land-based

works refer to those activities that would be carried out above the high water mark, and hence

they are identified as potential dust emission sources. For the land-based work of marine sand

filling, that is filling above the high water mark, the filling activity itself is not anticipated to give rise

to any major dust emission as the sand fill is generally wet, but the sand filled area would be

subject to wind erosion after it has become dry.

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

Work Sequence Marine-based or Land-based Works

Potential Dust Emission Sources

1. Placement of sand blanket (2 m in thickness) on the seabed Marine-based No

2. Application of the appropriate non-dredged ground improvement methods to improve the engineering properties of the seabed

Marine-based No

3. Modification of existing seawall and/or construction of new seawall on the pre-improved foundation

Partly marine-based (during marine sand filling) and partly land-based (during placement of rock fill and rock armour)

No for the marine-based part

Yes for the land-based part

4. Marine sand filling up to +2.5 mPD (not including settlement), which is above high water mark

Partly marine-based (during filling below high water mark) and partly land-based (during filling above high water mark)

No for the marine-based part

Yes for the land-based part

5. Land filling (using sand fill or public fill materials) with vibrocompaction from +2.5 mPD to +6.5 mPD (not including settlement)

Land-based Yes

6. Application of surcharge and subsequent removal Land-based Yes

5.2.3.8 Based on the land formation sequence during the period from 2016 to 2021, the key dust

emissions sources are identified for the land-based filling works on a quarterly basis for individual

years, which are given in Appendix 5.2.1.

5.2.3.9 Deep cement mixing (DCM) will be adopted as one of the ground improvement methods for the

proposed land formation works. During the DCM process, cement slurry will be injected into the

seabed through the base of a vertical tube to improve the ground conditions. Cement powder

required by the DCM barges working at the sea will be replenished from time to time by a

supporting vessel. During the replenishment, cement powder will be transferred from the

supporting vessel to a DCM barge through piping in closed loop or a totally enclosed manner.

There will be no open storage of cement on the DCM barges or the supporting vessels. Hence,

no fugitive dust emission is anticipated during the cement transfer or storage.


5-21


Construction Works on the Newly Formed Land

5.2.3.10 Upon formation of different parcels of land in the proposed sequence (See Appendix 5.2.1), the

newly formed land will be handed over for subsequent construction of the necessary

infrastructure and superstructure facilities. During such construction works, the major activities

that would generate construction dust emissions include the following:

� Excavation works for constructing basements, tunnels for automated people mover (APM) and

baggage handling system, airside tunnels, etc.

� Foundation works for the superstructure

5.2.3.11 Based on the construction programme in Appendix 4.2, dust emissions from the above key

construction works are identified on a quarterly basis for individual years.

Construction Works on the Existing Airport Island

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

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

� Expanding the existing passenger Terminal 2 (T2) on the existing airport island and the

associated improvement of elevated road network;

� Extending the APM from the existing airport island to the passenger concourses of the

proposed third runway;

� Relocating the existing APM depot on the airport island;

� Extending the baggage handling system from the existing airport Island to the aprons of the

proposed third runway;

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

� Extending the airside tunnels from the existing airport Island to the aprons of the proposed

third runway;

� Extending the South Perimeter Road; and

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

5.2.3.13 The indicative locations of the above works are given in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-009.

During such construction works, the major activities that would generate construction dust

emissions include the following:

� Excavation works

� Foundation works

5.2.3.14 Based on the construction programme in Appendix 4.2, dust emissions from the above key

construction works are identified on a quarterly basis for individual years.

Concrete and Asphalt Batching Plants, Stockpiles and Haul Roads

5.2.3.15 To support the construction works at the newly formed land and the existing airport island, it is

anticipated that concrete and asphalt batching plants would be required during the construction of


5-22


the project. The batching plants will be located near the west of the land formation area (referred

to as the Western Batching Plant) and/or near the east of the land formation area (referred to as

the Eastern Batching Plant) at different periods of the construction programme in order to

maintain the airport operations. The peak production rates of these batching plants at different

periods from Q1 2017 to Q4 2022 are summarised in Table 5.2.3. Indicative locations of these

batching plants, the associated stockpiles and the haul roads are shown in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-006.

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

Phase Duration Western Batching Plant Eastern Batching Plant

Period 1 Q1 of 2017 – Q3 of 2019 Concrete batching plants: 500 ton/hr

Asphalt batching plant: 150 ton/hr

Not in operation

Period 2 Q4 of 2019 to Q3 of 2020 As above Concrete batching plants: 500 ton/hr


Period 3 Q4 of 2020 to Q4 of 2021 As above Concrete batching plants: 1500 ton/hr


Period 4 Q1 of 2022 to Q4 of 2022 As above As above

5.2.3.16 In addition, one floating concrete batching plant, i.e., concrete batching plant housed on a vessel,

will be deployed to support construction of the box culverts for relocating the present outfalls on

the northern seawall of the existing airport island. Appendix 5.2.2 shows a photo illustrating the

indicative floating concrete batching plant. The peak daily production of the floating concrete

batching plant will be about 950 ton/day (or about 39.6 ton/hr assuming 24 hours per day of

operation), and is anticipated to be in operation from 2016 to 2018. During such a period, the

floating batching plant will be stationed at different locations within the sea area to the north of the

existing airport island. In order to assess the worst case cumulative impact due to emissions

from the floating plant, it is assumed in the model that the floating plant is located around the

northeast corner of the existing airport island that is close to the major works areas on the island

(i.e., T2 expansion area, new APM depot works area, etc.), as illustrated in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-008.

Barging Points

5.2.3.17 Barging points would be required during the construction phase of the project, and therefore any

loading or unloading of dusty materials at the barging points would generate dust emissions.

Indicative locations of the barging points are given in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-007.

Crushing Plant

5.2.3.18 A crushing plant is needed for breaking down existing rock armours into material grade suitable

for the proposed seawall structures. The maximum processing capacity of the crushing plant is

about 700 ton/hr. Due to the early demand of rockfill material, the crushing plant will be served by

a barge outside the Scheduled Runway Closure Zone from 2016 to 2017. After that, the plant will

be located on land close to the first temporary barging point until the handover to the

superstructure contractor. Demand for the crushing plant after mid 2017, is expected to be small.

The location of crushing plant both on barge and on land as well as the anticipated durations are

indicated in the Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-008.


5-23


Stockpiles of Excavated Construction and Demolition Materials

5.2.3.19 To allow for on-site reuse of construction and demolition (C&D) materials to be excavated during

the construction activities of the project for the land formation work, it is anticipated that

temporary stockpiling of such materials would be required during the period from 2015 to 2016.

The tentative locations of these stockpiles are as shown in the Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-

013.

Diversion of Submarine Fuel Pipeline

5.2.3.20 As part of the Land Formation Scheme Design, the preferred option selected for diversion of the

submarine fuel pipelines is by horizontal directional drill (HDD) method. The HDD method will be

deployed to install the pipeline directly from west side of the existing airport island to the Sheung

Sha Chau Island by underground drilling, which will take place mostly at sub-seabed rock level

without any disturbance to the seabed (see the pipeline alignment in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001).

5.2.3.21 Therefore, the underground drilling work at sub-seabed rock level will not generate any dust

emissions to air. However, potential dust emissions will arise from the drilling works on either

ends of the pipeline, i.e., on west side of the existing airport (near North Perimeter Road) and on

the Sheung Sha Chau Island, the indicative locations of which are given in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-009. As illustrated in the tentative programme in Appendix 4.2, the pipeline

diversion work would commence in 2015 and complete by 2016.

5.2.3.22 In order to provide necessary geotechnical information for subsequent detailed design of the

submarine fuel pipeline work, detailed geological information on the proposed alignment of the

HDD would be needed. One option for obtaining geotechnical information would involve drilling

site investigation (SI) boreholes at several locations along the proposed alignment of the pipeline

passing underneath the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau (SCLKC) Marine Park. The proposed SI

works for the pipelines involves setting up drilling vessels / platforms at specific locations along or

near to the proposed HDD alignment. A total of four boreholes are anticipated for the SI within the

SCLKC Marine Park as illustrated in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-009. As the proposed

borehole drilling works at all four locations will be carried out in marine environment, there will be

no dust emission to air from the drilling works.

Diversion of Submarine 11 kV Cable

5.2.3.23 As part of the Land Formation Scheme Design, the preferred option for diversion of the

submarine 11 kV cable has been identified. Under the preferred option, the proposed cable will

be laid below the seabed by water jetting method from the west side of the existing airport island

to the south of SCLKC Marine Park where the proposed cable will be connected to the existing

cable via a field joint (see the cable alignment in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-001).

Excavation of the seabed at the proposed field joint area will need to be carried out to expose the

existing cable, which will then be lifted up to a barge for forming the field joint.

5.2.3.24 As the cable laying and field joint excavation works will take place at the seabed, no dust

emissions to air from such works are anticipated. However, modification of a small portion of the

seawall on the west side of the existing airport island (near South Perimeter Road) will be

required for installation of a cable duct for cable drawing. The modification work will involve


5-24


excavation of fill material from the existing seawall section above the seabed and subsequent

backfilling to reinstate the seawall after installing the cable duct. Potential dust emissions will

therefore be generated by such excavation and backfilling activities. The indicative location of the

seawall modification (i.e., the cable landing location) is given in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-

009. As illustrated in the tentative programme in Appendix 4.2, the cable diversion work would

commence in 2015 and complete by 2016.

Cumulative Impacts

5.2.3.25 Construction of the key elements for the project is scheduled to begin as early as 2015 (see

Appendix 4.2). The following concurrent projects within or in the vicinity of the 500 m

assessment area have been identified for potential cumulative impact assessment. These include

the following:

� Hong Kong – Zhuhai – Macao Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Link Road (Construction Period:

Year 2011 - 2015);

� HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) (Construction Period: third quarter

of Year 2010 - end 2016);

� New Contaminated Mud Marine Disposal Facility at HKIA East / East Sha Chau Area

(Construction Period: Year 2007 - 2015);

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

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

� Other airport facilities related works consisting of the modification of existing airport facilities

and the development of additional airport car parks, coach station, vehicular staging and

Terminal 1 (T1) check-in facilities (Construction period: Year 2016 – 2019); and

� Tung Chung New Town Extension (TCNTE) Study (Proposed commencement of construction

in 2018 for first population intake in Year 2023/24).

5.2.3.26 For all the aforementioned concurrent projects, cumulative dust impacts have been included

where information is available. For the Tung Chung New Town Extension Study, the relevant

details of its construction activities including the detailed construction programmes (except the

proposed commencement year of construction) are not yet available, therefore that project is not

able to be included in the cumulative dust impact assessment.

5.2.4 Construction Phase Air Quality Assessment Methodology

Model Description

5.2.4.1 The Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) is a computerised air quality model specifically designed for

computing the concentration and deposition impacts from fugitive dust sources. The model is

generally based on the Gaussian Plume formulation for computing concentrations, but the model

has been specifically adapted to incorporate an improved gradient transfer deposition algorithm.

FDM is one of the air quality models listed as commonly used for EIA studies by EPD in

Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters. Gaussian models are designed for use

in simple terrain under uniform flow.


5-25


5.2.4.2 Steady-state Gaussian plume models have been shown to produce conservative results for short

(less than 100 m) or low level sources. Gaussian plume models are more likely to over-predict

rather than under-predict ground-level concentrations1.

5.2.4.3 It should be noted that FDM and all Gaussian based dispersion models have limited ability to

predict dispersion in the following situations.

Causality effects

5.2.4.4 Gaussian plume models assume pollutant material is transported in a straight line instantly (like a

beam of light) to receptors that may be several hours or more in transport time away from the

source. The model takes no account for the fact that the wind may only be blowing at 1 m/s and

will have only travelled 3.6 km in the first hour. This means that Gaussian models cannot account

for causality effects, where the plume may meander across the terrain as the wind speed or

direction changes. This effect is not considered to be significant for the project as the subject site

is not too large and is flat.

Low wind speeds

5.2.4.5 Gaussian-plume models ‘break down’ during low wind speed or calm conditions due to the

inverse speed dependence of the steady state plume equation. These models usually set a

minimum wind speed of 0.5 or 1.0 m/s and ignore or overwrite data below this limit.

Straight-line trajectories

5.2.4.6 Gaussian models will typically overestimate terrain impingement effects during stable conditions

because they do not account for turning or rising wind caused by the terrain itself. This effect is

not considered to be important for the project as the subject site and surrounding terrain within

the 500 m assessment area is flat.

Spatially uniform meteorological conditions

5.2.4.7 Gaussian models assume that the atmosphere is uniform across the entire modelling domain,

and that transport and dispersion conditions exist unchanged long enough for the material to

reach the receptor even if this is several kilometres away. In the atmosphere, truly uniform

conditions rarely occur. As the subject site and surrounding assessment area is not too large with

no significant terrain features, hence uniform meteorological conditions are considered

appropriate.

No memory of previous hour’s emissions

5.2.4.8 In calculating each hour’s ground-level concentrations, Gaussian models have no memory of the

contaminants released during the previous hours. This limitation is especially important for the

proper simulation of morning inversion break-up, fumigation and diurnal recycling of pollutants.

_________________________

1 Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand, Good Practice Guide for Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling, June 2004


5-26


Assumptions and Inputs

Dust Emission Factors

5.2.4.9 Prediction of dust emissions is based on emissions factors from the Compilation of Air Pollution

Emission Factors (AP-42), 5th Edition published by the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA). The emission factor for a typical heavy construction activity is 2.69 megagrams

(Mg)/hectare/month according to Section 13.2.3.3 of AP-42. Based on Table 11.9-4 of AP-42, the

emission factor for wind erosion of 0.85 megagrams (Mg)/hectare/year is adopted. The key dust

emission factors adopted in the FDM for the various key dust emission activities identified in

Section 5.2.3 are summarised in Table 5.2.4.

5.2.4.10 According to the EIA Study Brief, Appendix A-1, Clause 3.6, suitable dust size categories relevant

to the dust sources concerned with reasonable breakdown in TSP and RSP compositions should

be used in evaluating the impacts of dust-emitting activities. With reference to the USEPA

document Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, 1999, a typical

ratio of 0.3:1 is used for RSP:TSP. Therefore, the RSP emission rates for heavy construction

activities and wind erosion are estimated as 30% of the corresponding TSP emission rates.

Based on the USEPA’s Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust

Emissions from PM10, April 2005, FSP emission from heavy construction activities and wind

erosion can be estimated as 3% of the corresponding TSP emissions. Details of these emission

factors are given in Table 5.2.4.

5.2.4.11 TSP, RSP and FSP emissions rates for paved haul roads as well as for loading and unloading of

dusty materials for stockpiles, barging points and various facilities are estimated by the relevant

formulae based on respectively Section 13.2.1 and Section 13.2.4.3 of the USEPA AP-42, as

detailed in Table 5.2.4.

5.2.4.12 TSP emissions from the concrete batching plants, asphalt batching plants and crushing plant are

estimated based on the relevant air pollutant concentration limits as specified respectively in the

Guidance Notes BPM 3/2(93), BPM 15(94) and BPM 11/1 (95) (see Table 5.1.2, Table 5.1.3, and

Table 5.1.4) and the relevant design capacities of the plants. With reference to the Particulate

matter and Elemental Emission from a Cement Kiln, published by Fuel Processing Technology in

2012, it can be estimated that RSP and FSP emissions from concrete batching plants would be

respectively 37% and 14% of the corresponding TSP emissions. Asphalt batching plants use the

same raw input materials as those of the concrete batching plants, therefore the particulate size

distribution is assumed to be the same as that for concrete batching plants. The RSP and FSP

proportions for crushing plant are assumed to be the same as those for heavy construction

activities, i.e., respectively 30% and 3% of TSP, as the materials processed by crushing plant

would be similar in nature to those handled during heavy construction activities. Details of the

emission factors from these plants are given in Table 5.2.4.


5-27


Table 5.2.4: Key Dust Emission Factors Adopted in the Assessment

Key Activities Dust Emission Factors Reference

Heavy construction activities including all land-based filling works (except marine sand filling activity), above ground and open construction works, excavation/drilling and earth works

TSP Emission Factor = 2.69 Mg/hectare/month

RSP Emission Factor = 2.69 x 30% Mg/hectare/month

FSP Emission Factor = 2.69 x 3% Mg/hectare/month

Section 13.2.3.3 AP-42, 5th Edition USEPA document Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, 1999

Thompson G. Pace, USEPA. Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions from PM10, April 2005

Wind erosion from heavy construction, open area, stockpile or surcharge area

TSP Emission Factor = 0.85 Mg/hectare/year

RSP Emission Factor = 0.85 x 30% Mg/hectare/month

FSP Emission Factor = 0.85 x 3% Mg/hectare/month

Table 11.9-4 AP-42, 5th Edition

USEPA document Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from Construction Operations, 1999

Thompson G. Pace, USEPA. Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions from PM10, April 2005

Paved haul road TSP or RSP or FSP Emission Factor =

k x (sL) 0.91 x (W) 1.02 g/VKT

where

k is particle size multipliera

sL is road surface silt loading

W is average truck weight

Section 13.2.1,

AP-42, 5th Edition

(Jan 2011 edition)

Loading or unloading of dusty materials for stockpiles, barging points and concrete/ asphalt batching plant

TSP or RSP or FSP Emission Factor = k*0.0016*[(U/2.2)1.3/(M/2)1.4] kg/Mg

k is particle size multiplierb

U is Average wind speed

M is Moisture content

Section 13.2.4.3

AP-42, 5th Edition

Concrete batching plant TSP emission estimated based on the emission limit of 50 mg/m3

RSP emission = 37% of TSP

FSP emission = 14% of TSP

Guidance Notes BPM 3/2(93)

R.K. Gupta, et al., Particulate matter and Elemental Emission from a Cement Kiln, Fuel Processing Technology, 2012

Asphalt batching plant TSP emission estimated based on the emission limit of 50 mg/m3



Guidance Notes BPM 15(94)

RSP and FSP proportions assumed to be the same as those for concrete batching plants due to use of the same input materials

Crushing plant TSP emission estimated based on the emission limit of 50 mg/m3



Guidance Notes BPM 11/1 (95)

RSP and FSP proportions assumed to be the same as those for heavy construction activities given the similar nature of materials handled by the plant

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

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


5-28


5.2.4.13 The particulate size distributions of the dust emissions from all the aforementioned construction

activities and facilities are estimated based on the relevant references as given in Table 5.2.4.

Details of the estimated particle size distributions are given in Appendix 5.2.3.

Working Hours and Days

5.2.4.14 It is assumed that the land formation works as well as all the key construction works on the newly

formed land, the existing airport island and the Sheung Sha Chau Island will be carried out

24 hours per day and 7 days per week throughout the relevant construction years. For the

barging points, western and eastern concrete / asphalt paving plants and crushing plant, the

assumed working hours and days would be taken as respectively 12 hours per day (7am to 7pm)

and 6 days per week (Monday to Saturday), i.e., no operation of these facilities is expected on

Sundays and public holidays. For the floating concrete batching plant, the working hours and

days are subject to future detailed design, therefore they are conservatively assumed as 24 hours

per day and seven days per week in the model.

Emission Inventory

5.2.4.15 As summarised in Table 5.2.5, the annual total RSP emission for each construction year of the

project has been determined based on the aforementioned emission factors, working hours and

days, and estimated active construction areas (see Appendix 5.2.8). It can be seen from the

table that the largest contribution to RSP emissions would be from paved haul roads. Based on

such information, it is found that the annual total RSP emission (and the RSP emission from

paved haul roads) would be the highest in 2021.

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

Year Heavy Construction Activities and Wind Erosion of Active Construction Areas (including concurrent projects) (ton/year)

Crushing Plant and Wind Erosion of Stockpiles (ton/year)

Concrete and Asphalt Batching Plants, Barging Points and Stockpiles (ton/year)

Paved Haul Roads (ton/year)

Annual Total (ton/year)

2015 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3

2016 6.8 0.1 0.1 54.5 61.5

2017 0.8 0.1 4.0 145.4 150.3

2018 10.9 0.1 5.1 145.4 161.5

2019 2.2 0.1 5.2 110.9 118.4

2020 0.4 0.1 3.6 128.5 132.6

2021 0.1 0.2 4.4 164.1 168.8

2022 0.2 0.2 4.4 133.5 138.3

2023 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5

Meteorological Data

5.2.4.16 Hourly meteorological data in Year 2010 as extracted from the relevant grids of PATH model

where the ASRs are located (see Table 5.2.1) is used to represent the meteorology within the

500 m assessment area. The PATH meteorological data is adopted as input to FDM as the PATH

model is used to predict the far-field contributions to background air quality as detailed in the

following paragraphs. Since no stability class information is available from PATH, such


5-29


information is generated using the program PCRAMMET, which uses location specific

meteorological information to generate stability classes.

Roughness factor

5.2.4.17 According to the EPD guideline on Choice of Models and Model Parameters, the selection of rural

or urban dispersion coefficients in a specific application should follow a land use classification

procedure. If the land use types including industrial, commercial and residential uses account for

50% or more of an area within a 3 km radius from the source, the site is classified as urban;

otherwise it is classified as rural. The surface roughness height is closely related to the land use

characteristics of a study area and associated with the roughness element height. As a first

approximation, the surface roughness can be estimated as 3 % to 10 % of the average height of

physical structures. Typical values used for urban and new development areas are 370 cm and

100 cm, respectively.

5.2.4.18 Within a 3 km distance from the project boundary, the percentage areas of sea, Lantau Island

and reclaimed land (including the existing airport island, newly formed land and proposed

HKBCF) in different construction years are estimated, as detailed in Appendix 5.2.4. The typical

surface roughness values for sea and new development areas such as Lantau Island are

respectively 0.01 cm and 100 cm. Reclaimed land, however, does not have a typical roughness

value published and is estimated as the area-weighted average of the roughness for flat land and

the roughness for land occupied by physical structures. Flat land is assumed to have a

roughness of 0.8 cm, which is the roughness of “fairly level grass plain” as defined in Figure 1 of

the USEPA’s User Guide for the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) (Revised), EPA-910/9-88-202R,

January 1991. For land occupied by physical structures, its roughness factor is estimated as 3%

of the approximate average height of physical structures, i.e., 40 m. Therefore, the roughness

factor of reclaimed land can be estimated by the following formula:

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

where ST is the % of reclaimed land occupied by physical structures with approximate average

height of 40 m; and

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

5.2.4.19 Based on the aforementioned roughness factors for different types of land, the area-weighted

average surface roughness of the 3 km area can be estimated for different construction years as

follows:

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

where S is the % of sea area;

TRL is the % of reclaimed land; and

L is the % of Lantau Island

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


5-30


Background RSP and FSP Levels

5.2.4.21 The PATH model has been used to predict far-field contributions to the background RSP levels

on an hour-by-hour basis within the 500 m assessment area during the construction phase of the

project. The hourly RSP levels as predicted by PATH are then multiplied by a factor of 0.75 to

conservatively estimate the corresponding FSP levels according to EPD’s Guidelines on the

Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong. CALINE4 and AERMOD are used

to estimate the near-field contributions to the background RSP and FSP levels due to vehicular

emission at local scale (i.e. the road networks within the assessment area) and emissions from

the airport operation (two-runway system) respectively. The 2010 meteorological data as

extracted from the relevant grids of PATH is used for running both CALINE4 and AERMOD. The

modelling results of PATH, CALINE4 and AERMOD can then be added together to predict the

future background RSP and FSP levels for the purpose of construction phase dust impact

assessment. The key input parameters adopted for PATH, CALINE4 and AERMOD are

described as follows.

5.2.4.22 PATH model is run for Year 2015, i.e., the planned commencement year of construction, as this

will give conservative far-field modelling results at the ASRs. To run the PATH model, the

vehicular and airport emissions have been removed from the PATH grids corresponding to the

500 m assessment area in order to avoid double counting with the near-field modelling results.

The PATH grids where the RSP modelling results are extracted for individual ASRs are as given

in Table 5.2.1.

5.2.4.23 Running of CALINE4 is based on the predicted traffic flows in Year 2031 under the two-runway

system of the airport coupled with the average fleet emission factors estimated by EMFAC-HK

v2.6 for Year 2021. The traffic flows in Year 2031 are considered to be conservative as they are

higher than those during any of the constructions years from 2015 to 2023. Year 2021 is chosen

for estimating the emission factors because that particular year represents the construction year

when the total RSP emissions would be the highest (see Table 5.2.5). Details of the EMFAC-HK

results and associated key assumptions are given in Appendix 5.2.5.

5.2.4.24 As part of the operation phase air quality impact assessment, the airport island emission

inventory under the existing two-runway scenario in Year 2011 has been compiled. Therefore,

this Year 2011 emission inventory has been used to run AERMOD and then to scale up the

modelling results by a factor of 1.26 in order to predict the RSP and FSP concentrations at the

ASRs when the two-runway system has reached its practical maximum capacity, i.e., 420,000

ATMs per year. The factor of 1.26 is calculated as the ratio of 420,000 ATMs per year to

334,000 ATMs per year (i.e., the ATM in 2011). This will give conservative estimates of the near-

field contributions to the background air quality due to emissions from the airport operation.

Details of the 2011 emission inventory for airport island and associated key assumptions are

given in Appendix 5.2.5.

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

5.2.5.

Background TSP Levels

5.2.4.26 As the PATH model does not generate TSP results, the PATH RSP results are taken to represent

the far-field contributions to background TSP at the ASRs. This is considered as a reasonable


5-31


assumption because particulate matter of sizes larger than RSP from far-field sources would

have been largely settled before reaching the ASRs. Near-field contributions to background TSP

levels from vehicular and airport operation emissions would be the same as their corresponding

RSP contributions as particulate matter from such emission sources are RSP. Therefore, the

background hourly TSP levels can be reasonably estimated as the total of the aforementioned

RSP modelling results from PATH, CALINE4 and AERMOD for the purpose of estimating the

cumulative 1-hour TSP levels due to the construction activities of the project.

Modelling Methodology

5.2.4.27 Based on the construction programme / sequences of the various key dust-emitting activities as

detailed in Section 5.2.3, the dust sources, including their locations, work areas and emission

rates, have been identified on a year-to-year basis from Year 2015 to 2023 until majority of the

key construction works that would have potential dust emissions are anticipated to be completed.

The dust impact is assessed for each construction year to determine the worst case impacts.

Details of the key dust-emitting activities are presented in Appendix 5.2.6.

5.2.4.28 For hourly TSP, daily RSP and daily FSP, a tiered modelling approach is adopted. A hypothetical

Tier 1 screening for a given year assumes 100% of the work areas as active areas that are

emitting TSP, RSP and FSP. This Tier 1 scenario (i.e. assuming 100% active area for the project

and the concurrent project) is hypothetical and used for screening purposes to identify which

ASRs may be subject to concentrations above the relevant standards. For the purpose of the

Tier 1 screening, the dust mitigation measures as detailed in Section 5.2.6 (such as frequent

water spraying, covering stockpiles with impervious sheets, etc.) are taken into account when

estimating the dust emission rates from the construction activities. The Tier 1 hourly TSP, daily

RSP and daily FSP levels at all the ASRs are then predicted for both scenarios of with and

without the dust mitigation measures in place. Locations of the Tier 1 dust sources are given in

Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-010 to 5-2-014. Appendix 5.2.7 presents the TSP, RSP and

FSP emission rates of the Tier 1 dust sources estimated based on details of the construction

programme and the relevant emission factors as given in Table 5.2.4.

5.2.4.29 The ASRs identified with hourly TSP, daily RSP or daily FSP non-compliance under Tier 1

screening, where mitigation measures are in place, are then selected for the subsequent Tier 2

assessment.

5.2.4.30 For the Tier 2 assessment, the percentage active areas for individual work areas are estimated

based on the construction plant inventories of each works areas and planned construction

activities for each year. The maximum of the estimated percentage active areas for all work areas

is obtained for each year and is then applied to all work areas for that year. Details of the

estimated percentage active areas for hourly TSP and daily RSP / FSP assessment are given in

Appendix 5.2.8.

5.2.4.31 It is assumed in the Tier 2 assessment that the maximum percentage active area for each year

and the corresponding active areas of the relevant concurrent project would be located closest to

the ASR being assessed. The Tier 2 hourly TSP, daily RSP or daily FSP levels at each of these

ASRs are then predicted with the dust mitigation measures in place. Appendix 5.2.9 presents

the TSP, RSP and FSP emission rates of the Tier 2 dust sources estimated based on details of

the construction programme and the relevant emission factors as given in Table 5.2.4.


5-32


5.2.4.32 Under normal circumstances, construction activities for the project and the concurrent projects

would likely spread over the whole work areas. As such, the maximum percentage active area

obtained from and applied to all works areas, and the corresponding active areas of the relevant

concurrent project to be located closest to a particular ASR at any one time during the Tier 2

assessment is a conservative approach.

5.2.4.33 For the assessment of annual RSP and FSP concentrations, the percentage active work area

over the entire year would be less than that for a typical working hour or a typical working day.

The percentage active area averaged over each construction year is estimated for each work

area. Similar to the Tier 2 assessment of hourly TSP and daily RSP / FSP, the annual RSP and

FSP assessment is based on the maximum of the estimated percentage active areas for all work

areas, which is applied to all the areas. The annual RSP and FSP levels are predicted at all the

ASRs for both scenarios of with and without the dust mitigation measures in place. Details of the

estimated percentage active areas for annual RSP and FSP assessment are given in Appendix

5.2.8.

5.2.4.34 All the model input files for Tier 1 and Tier 2 of TSP, RSP and FSP are given in Appendix 5.2.10

to Appendix 5.2.14. Appendix 5.2.15 presents the RSP and FSP emission rates of the annual

dust sources estimated based on details of the construction programme and the relevant

emission factors as given in Table 5.2.4. Appendix 5.2.16 to 5.2.17 shows all the model input

files for annual assessment of TSP, RSP and FSP.

5.2.5 Evaluation and Assessment of Construction Phase Air Quality Impact

Tier 1 Screening Results

5.2.5.1 The Tier 1 hourly TSP, daily RSP and daily FSP screening results for both unmitigated and

mitigated scenarios including the background contributions are tabulated in Appendix 5.2.18 and

Appendix 5.2.19. The Tier 1 pollutant contours for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios in Years

2018 and 2021 are presented in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-047 to 5-2-058, which can

represent the worst case contour plots because there would be substantially more major dust-

emitting activities (such as land-based works for land formation, heavy construction works, haul

roads, etc.) during these two years (see Appendix 5.2.6). The mitigated results are summarised

as follows.

Hourly TSP

5.2.5.2 The Tier 1 hourly TSP results under unmitigated and mitigated scenario including the background

contributions are summarised in Table 5.2.6. There would be no exceedances of the hourly TSP

limit of 500 µg/m3 under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario in any years. The locations of the dust

sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014

as well as in Appendix 5.2.7.


5-33


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

and Mitigated)

Year Tier 1 Unmitigated Scenario Range of Predicted Maximum Cumulative Hourly TSP (µg/m3) [Criterion – 500 µg/m3]

Tier 1 Mitigated Scenario Range of Predicted Maximum Cumulative Hourly TSP (µg/m3) [Criterion – 500 µg/m3]

2015 347 - 1844 141 - 313

2016 175 - 1431 141 - 204

2017 642 - 2101 160 - 332

2018 901 - 3091 179 - 440

2019 679 - 3081 160 - 435

2020 418 - 1892 150 - 312

2021 701 - 2501 160 - 378

2022 547 - 1987 160 - 308

2023 141 - 166 141 - 166

5.2.5.3 It should be noted that as explained in Section 5.2.4, the Tier 1 scenario represents a

hypothetical worst case where 100% of the work areas are assumed as active areas that are

generating dust and the Tier 1 results are only for screening purposes so that the ASRs of

concerns (i.e., with exceedance under the hypothetical Tier 1 scenario) would be identified for

undergoing the Tier 2 assessment. The estimated percentage active areas for individual work

areas are actually much less than 100%, which are taken into account during the Tier 2

assessment.

Daily RSP

5.2.5.4 The Tier 1 daily RSP results under unmitigated and mitigated scenario including the background

contributions are summarised in Table 5.2.7. There would be non-compliance with the AQO for

daily RSP (i.e., exceeding 100 µg/m3 for more than 9 times per year) at some of the ASRs in

Years 2017, 2018 and 2021 only, but compliance at all ASRs would be achieved in all other years

under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.7.

Table 5.2.7: Summary of Predicted Cumulative 10th

Highest Daily Average RSP Concentrations (Tier 1 Unmitigated

and Mitigated)

Year Tier 1 Unmitigated Scenario Range of Predicted 10th Maximum Cumulative Daily RSP (µg/m3) [Criterion – 100 µg/m3]

Tier 1 Mitigated Scenario Range of Predicted 10th Maximum Cumulative Daily RSP (µg/m3) [Criterion – 100 µg/m3]

2015 84 - 148 79 - 89

2016 82 - 115 78 - 86

2017 88 - 268 79 - 101

2018 93 - 329 79 - 105

2019 89 - 282 79 - 97

2020 86 - 184 79 - 92

2021 88 - 278 79 - 102

2022 87 - 222 79 - 96

2023 78 - 84 78 - 84


5-34


Daily FSP

5.2.5.5 The Tier 1 daily FSP results under unmitigated and mitigated scenario including the background

contributions are summarised in Table 5.2.8. It can be seen from the table that all ASRs would

comply with the AQO for daily FSP under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario throughout the

construction period. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.7.


Highest Daily Average FSP Concentrations (Tier 1 Unmitigated

and Mitigated)

Year Tier 1 Unmitigated Scenario Range of Predicted 10th Maximum Cumulative Daily FSP (µg/m3) [Criterion – 75 µg/m3]

Tier 1 Mitigated Scenario Range of Predicted 10th Maximum Cumulative Daily FSP (µg/m3) [Criterion – 75 µg/m3]

2015 59 - 66 58 - 64

2016 59 - 65 58 - 64

2017 59 - 77 58 - 64

2018 59 - 85 58 - 65

2019 59 - 76 58 - 64

2020 59 - 70 58 - 64

2021 59 - 79 58 - 64

2022 59 - 76 58 - 65

2023 58 - 63 58 - 63

Tier 2 Modelling Results

5.2.5.6 The Tier 2 mitigated results including the background contributions are tabulated in Appendix

5.2.20. The Tier 2 pollutant contours for mitigated scenario in Years 2018 and 2021 are

presented in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-061 to 5-2-062, which can represent the worst

case contour plots because there would be substantially more major dust-emitting activities (such

as land-based works for land formation, heavy construction works, haul roads, etc.) during these

two years (see Appendix 5.2.6).The mitigated results are also summarised as follows.

Hourly TSP

5.2.5.7 As all ASRs would comply with the hourly TSP limit of 500 µg/m3 under the Tier 1 mitigated

scenario throughout the construction period, no Tier 2 modelling is required for hourly TSP.

Daily RSP

5.2.5.8 Table 5.2.9 summarises the range of predicted cumulative concentration for daily RSP under the

Tier 2 mitigated scenario from Year 2015 to 2023. The locations of the dust sources are shown in

Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-2-008 and 5-2-016 to 5-2-044 as well as in Appendix

5.2.9. It can be seen from the table that the cumulative daily RSP levels at all the ASRs would

comply with the corresponding AQO under the Tier 2 mitigated scenario.


5-35



Highest Daily Average RSP Concentrations (Tier 2 Mitigated)

Year No. of ASRs with Tier 1 Mitigated Exceedances

Range of Predicted 10th Maximum Cumulative Daily RSP under Tier 2 Scenario (µg/m3)

[Criterion – 100 µg/m3]

2015 0 Not modelled as no Tier 1 exceedance


2017 1 82

2018 3 82*



2021 3 82*



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

Daily FSP

5.2.5.9 As all ASRs would comply with the AQO for daily FSP under the Tier 1 mitigated scenario

throughout the construction period, no Tier 2 modelling is required for daily FSP.

Annual Results

5.2.5.10 The annual RSP and FSP results for both unmitigated and mitigated scenarios including the

background contributions are tabulated in Appendix 5.2.21 and Appendix 5.2.22. The annual

pollutant contours for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios in Years 2018 and 2021 are presented

in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-063 to 5-2-070, which can represent the worst case contour

plots because there would be substantially more major dust-emitting activities (such as land-

based works for land formation, heavy construction works, haul roads, etc.) during these two

years (see Appendix 5.2.6).The results are summarised as follows.

Annual RSP

5.2.5.11 Table 5.2.10 summarises the annual RSP results under the mitigated scenario from Year 2015 to

2023. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-

2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.15. It can be seen from the table that

the cumulative annual RSP levels at all the ASRs would comply with the corresponding AQO

under the mitigated scenario.

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

Mitigated)

Year Annual Unmitigated Scenario Annual Mitigated Scenario

Range of Predicted Cumulative Annual RSP (µg/m3)




2015 39 - 43 39 - 42

2016 39 - 46 39 - 42

2017 39 - 42 39 - 42

2018 39 - 44 39 - 42


5-36







2019 39 - 43 39 - 42

2020 39 - 42 39 - 42

2021 39 - 42 39 - 42

2022 39 - 42 39 - 42

2023 39 - 42 39 - 42

Annual FSP

5.2.5.12 Table 5.2.11 summarises the annual FSP results under the mitigated scenario from Year 2015 to

2023. The locations of the dust sources are shown in Drawings No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-2-003 to 5-

2-008 and 5-2-010 to 5-2-014 as well as in Appendix 5.2.15. It can be seen from the table that

the cumulative annual FSP levels at all the ASRs would comply with the corresponding AQO

under the mitigated scenario.

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

Mitigated)


Range of Predicted Cumulative Annual FSP (µg/m3)


Range of Predicted Cumulative Annual FSP (µg/m3)


2015 29 - 31 29 - 31

2016 29 - 32 29 - 31

2017 29 - 31 29 - 31

2018 29 - 32 29 - 31

2019 29 - 31 29 - 31

2020 29 - 31 29 - 31

2021 29 - 31 29 - 31

2022 29 - 31 29 - 31

2023 29 - 31 29 - 31

Bitumen Fumes from Asphalt Batching Plants

5.2.5.13 Apart from dust emissions, there would also be potential emission of bitumen fumes from the

proposed asphalt batching plants. The shortest horizontal distance between the proposed

asphalt batching plant (in the Western Batching Plant) and the nearest ASR (i.e., SLW-1) is about

3.1 km. Given the large separation distances from ASRs and with implementation of the various

emission control measures as given in the Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar

and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94), adverse air quality impacts due to

the bitumen fume emission are not anticipated.


5-37


5.2.6 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

Dust Control Measures

5.2.6.1 To ensure compliance with the TSP, RSP and FSP criteria during the construction phase, the

relevant requirements stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation,

EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works (Concrete Batching

Plant) BPM 3/2(93), EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen

Works (Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94), EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable

Means for Mineral Works (Stone Crushing Plants) BPM 11/1 (95) as well as the good practices

for dust control should be implemented to reduce the dust impact. The dust control measures are

detailed as follows:

5.2.6.2 Dust emissions could be suppressed by regular water spraying on site. In general, water spraying

twice a day could reduce dust emission from active construction area by 50%. However, for this

project, more frequent water spraying, i.e., 12 times a day or once every two hours for 24-hour

working, is required for heavy construction activities at all active works area in order to achieve an

adequate dust suppression efficiency of 91.7% to reduce the dust impacts to acceptable levels. A

watering intensity of 12 times a day (or once every two hours for 24-hour working) is predicted to

achieve 91.7% dust suppression efficiency as detailed in Appendix 5.2.23. Heavy construction

activities include construction of roads, drilling, ground excavation, cut and fill operations (i.e.,

earth moving), etc.

5.2.6.3 For stockpiling activities, it is recommended that 80% of the stockpiling area should be covered

by impervious sheets and all dusty materials should be sprayed with water immediately prior to

any loading transfer operation so as to keep the dusty material wet during material handling at the

stockpile areas.

5.2.6.4 In addition to implementing the recommended dust control measures mentioned above, it is

recommended that the relevant dust control practices as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control

(Construction Dust) Regulation should also be adopted to further reduce the construction dust

impacts of the project. These practices include:

Good Site Management

� Good site management is important to help reduce potential air quality impact down to an

acceptable level. As a general guide, the Contractor should maintain high standards of

housekeeping to prevent emissions of fugitive dust. Loading, unloading, handling and storage

of raw materials, wastes or by-products should be carried out in a manner so as to minimise

the release of visible dust emission. Any piles of materials accumulated on or around the work

areas should be cleaned up regularly. Cleaning, repair and maintenance of all plant facilities

within the work areas should be carried out in a manner minimising generation of fugitive dust

emissions. The material should be handled properly to prevent fugitive dust emission before

cleaning.

Disturbed Parts of the Roads

� Main temporary access points should be paved with concrete, bituminous hardcore materials

or metal plates and be kept clear of dusty materials; or


5-38


� Unpaved parts of the road should be sprayed with water or a dust suppression chemical so as

to keep the entire road surface wet.

Exposed Earth

� Exposed earth should be properly treated by compaction, hydroseeding, vegetation planting

or seating with latex, vinyl, bitumen within six months after the last construction activity on the

site or part of the site where the exposed earth lies.

Loading, Unloading or Transfer of Dusty Materials

� All dusty materials should be sprayed with water immediately prior to any loading or transfer

operation so as to keep the dusty material wet.

Debris Handling

� Any debris should be covered entirely by impervious sheeting or stored in a debris collection

area sheltered on the top and the three sides.

� Before debris is dumped into a chute, water should be sprayed onto the debris so that it

remains wet when it is dumped.

Transport of Dusty Materials

� Vehicles used for transporting dusty materials/spoils should be covered with tarpaulin or

similar material. The cover should extend over the edges of the sides and tailboards.

Wheel washing

� Vehicle wheel washing facilities should be provided at each construction site exit. Immediately

before leaving the construction site, every vehicle should be washed to remove any dusty

materials from its body and wheels.

Use of vehicles

� The speed of the trucks within the site should be controlled to about 10 km/hour in order to

reduce adverse dust impacts and secure the safe movement around the site.

� Immediately before leaving the construction site, every vehicle should be washed to remove

any dusty materials from its body and wheels.

� Where a vehicle leaving the construction site is carrying a load of dusty materials, the load

should be covered entirely by clean impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty materials do

not leak from the vehicle.

Site hoarding

� Where a site boundary adjoins a road, street, service lane or other area accessible to the

public, hoarding of not less than 2.4 m high from ground level should be provided along the

entire length of that portion of the site boundary except for a site entrance or exit.


5-39


Best Practices for Concrete Batching Plant

5.2.6.5 It is recommended that the relevant best practices for dust control as stipulated in the Guidance

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

well as in the future Specified Process licence should also be adopted to further reduce the

construction dust impacts of the project. The best practices are recommended to be applied to

both the land based and floating concrete batching plants. Best practices include:

Cement and other dusty materials

� The loading, unloading, handling, transfer or storage of cement, pulverised fuel ash (PFA)

and/or other equally dusty materials shall be carried in a totally enclosed system acceptable to

EPD. All dust-laden air or waste gas generated by the process operations shall be properly

extracted and vented to fabric filtering system to meet the required emission limit.

� Cement, PFA and/or other equally dusty materials shall be stored in a storage silo fitted with

audible high level alarms to warn of over-filling. The high-level alarm indicators shall be

interlocked with the material filling line such that in the event of the silo approaching an

overfilling condition, an audible alarm will operate, and after one minute or less the material

filling line will be closed.

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

� Vents of cement/PFA weighing scale shall be fitted with fabric filtering system to meet the

required emission limit.

� Seating of pressure relief valves of all silos shall be checked, and the valves re-seated if

necessary, before each delivery.

Other raw materials

� The loading, unloading, handling, transfer or storage of other raw materials which may

generate airborne dust emissions such as crushed rock, sand, stone aggregate, shall be

carried out in such a manner to prevent or minimise dust emissions.

� The materials shall be adequately wetted prior to and during the loading, unloading and

handling operations. Manual or automatic water spraying system shall be provided at all

unloading areas, stock piles and material discharge points.

� All receiving hoppers for unloading relevant materials shall be enclosed on three sides up to

3 m above the unloading point. In no case shall these hoppers be used as the material

storage devices.

� The belt conveyor for handling materials shall be enclosed on top and two sides with a metal

board at the bottom to eliminate any dust emission due to wind-whipping effect. Other type of

enclosure will also be accepted by EPD if it can be demonstrated that the proposed enclosure

can achieve same performance.

� All conveyor transfer points shall be totally enclosed. Openings for the passage of conveyors

shall be fitted with adequate flexible seals.

� Scrapers shall be provided at the turning points of all conveyors to remove dust adhered to

the belt surface.


5-40


� Conveyors discharged to stockpiles of relevant materials shall be arranged to minimise free

fall as far as practicable. All free falling transfer points from conveyors to stockpiles shall be

enclosed with chute(s) and water sprayed.

� Aggregates with a nominal size less than or equal to 5 mm should be stored in totally

enclosed structure such as storage bin and should not be handled in open area. Where there

is sufficient buffer area surrounding the concrete batching plant, ground stockpiling may be

used.

� The stockpile shall be enclosed at least on top and three sides and with flexible curtain to

cover the entrance side.

� Aggregates with a nominal size greater than 5 mm should preferably be stored in a totally

enclosed structure. If open stockpiling is used, the stockpile shall be enclosed on three sides

with the enclosure wall sufficiently higher than the top of the stockpile to prevent wind

whipping.

� The opening between the storage bin and weighing scale of the materials shall be fully

enclosed.

Loading of materials for batching

� Concrete truck shall be loaded in such a way as to minimise airborne dust emissions. The

following control measures shall be implemented:

(a) Pre-mixing the materials in a totally enclosed concrete mixer before loading the materials

into the concrete truck is recommended. All dust-laden air generated by the pre-mixing

process as well as the loading process shall be totally vented to fabric filtering system to

meet the required emission limit.

(b) If truck mixing batching or other types of batching method is used, effective dust control

measures acceptable to EPD shall be adopted. The dust control measures must have

been demonstrated to EPD that they are capable to collect and vent all dust-laden air

generated by the material loading/mixing to dust arrestment plant to meet the required

emission limit.

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

Vehicles

� All practicable measures shall be taken to prevent or minimise the dust emission caused by

vehicle movement.

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

Housekeeping

� A high standard of housekeeping shall be maintained. All spillages or deposits of materials on

ground, support structures or roofs shall be cleaned up promptly by a cleaning method

acceptable to EPD. Any dumping of materials at open area shall be prohibited.

Best Practices for Asphaltic Concrete Plant


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


5-41


15 (94) as well as in the future Specified Process licence should also be adopted to further

reduce the construction dust impacts of the project. These include:

Design of Chimney

� The chimney shall not be less than three metres plus the building height or eight metres

above ground level, whichever is the greater

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

condition

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

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

Cold feed side

� The aggregates with a nominal size less than or equal to 5 mm shall be stored in totally

enclosed structure such as storage bin and shall not be handled in open area.

� Where there is a sufficient buffer area surrounding the plant, ground stockpiling may be used.

The stockpile shall be enclosed at least on top and three sides and with flexible curtain to

cover the entrance side. If these aggregates are stored above the feeding hopper, they shall

be enclosed at least on top and three sides and be wetted on the surface to prevent wind-

whipping.

� The aggregates with a nominal size greater than 5 mm should preferably be stored in totally

enclosed structure. Aggregates stockpile that is above the feeding hopper shall be enclosed at

least on top and three sides. If open stockpiling is used, the stockpiles shall be enclosed on

three sides with the enclosure wall sufficiently higher than the top of the stockpile to prevent

wind whipping.

� Belt conveyors shall be enclosed on top and two sides and provided with a metal board at the

bottom to eliminate any dust emission due to the wind-whipping effect. Other type of

enclosure will also be accepted by EPD if it can be demonstrated that the proposed enclosure

can be achieve the same performance.

� Scrapers shall be provided at the turning points of all belt conveyors inside the chute of the

transfer points to remove dust adhered to the belt surface.

� All conveyor transfer points shall be totally enclosed. Openings for the passages of conveyors

shall be fitted with adequate flexible seals.

� All materials returned from dust collection system shall be transferred in enclosed system and

shall be stored inside bins or enclosures.

Hot feed side

� The inlet and outlet of the rotary dryer shall be enclosed and ducted to a dust extraction and

collection system such as a fabric filter. The particulate and gaseous concentration at the

exhaust outlet of the dust collector shall not exceed the required limiting values.

� The bucket elevator shall be totally enclosed and the air extracted and ducted to a dust

collection system to meet the required particulates limiting value.


5-42


� All vibratory screens shall be totally enclosed and dust tight with close-fitted access inspection

opening. Gaskets shall be installed to seal off any cracks and edges of any inspection

openings.

� Chutes for carrying hot material shall be rigid and preferably fitted with abrasion resistant plate

inside. They shall be inspected daily for leakages.

� All hot bins shall be totally enclosed and dust tight with close-fitted access inspection opening.

Gaskets shall be installed to seal off any cracks and edges of any inspection openings. The

air shall be extracted and ducted to a dust collection system to meet the required particulates

limiting value.

� Appropriate control measures shall be adopted in order to meet the required bitumen emission

limit as well as the ambient odour level (two odour units).

Material transportation

� The loading, unloading, handling, transfer or storage of other raw materials which may

generate airborne dust emissions such as crushed rocks, sands, stone aggregates, reject

fines, shall be carried out in such a manner as to minimise dust emissions.

� Roadways from the entrance of the plant to the product loading points and/or any other

working areas where there are regular movements of vehicles shall be paved or hard

surfaced.

� Haul roads inside the Works shall be adequately wetted with water and/or chemical

suppressants by water trucks or water sprayers.

Control of emissions from bitumen decanting

� The heating temperature of the particular bitumen type and grade shall not exceed the

corresponding temperature limit of the same type listed in Appendix 1 of the Guidance Note.

� Tamper-free high temperature cut-off device shall be provided to shut off the fuel supply or

electricity in case the upper limit for bitumen temperature is reached.

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

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

� The air-to-fuel ratio shall be properly controlled to allow complete combustion of the fuel. The

fuel burners, if any, shall be maintained properly and free from carbon deposits in the burner

nozzles.

Liquid fuel

� The receipt, handling and storage of liquid fuel shall be carried out so as to prevent the

release of emissions of organic vapours and/or other noxious and offensive emissions to the

air.

Housekeeping

� A high standard of housekeeping shall be maintained. Waste material, spillage and scattered

piles gathered beneath belt conveyors, inside and around enclosures shall be cleared

frequently. The minimum clearing frequency is on a weekly basis.


5-43


Best Practices for Rock Crushing Plant


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

well as in the future Specified Process licence should also be adopted to further reduce the

construction dust impacts of the project. These include:

Crushers

� The outlet of all primary crushers, and both inlet and outlet of all secondary and tertiary

crushers, if not installed inside a reasonably dust tight housing, shall be enclosed and ducted

to a dust extraction and collection system such as a fabric filter.

� The inlet hopper of the primary crushers shall be enclosed on top and three sides to contain

the emissions during dumping of rocks from trucks. The rock while still on the trucks shall be

wetted before dumping.

� Water sprayers shall be installed and operated in strategic locations at the feeding inlet of

crushers.

� Crusher enclosures shall be rigid and be fitted with self-closing doors and close-fitting

entrances and exits. Where conveyors pass through the crusher enclosures, flexible covers

shall be installed at entries and exits of the conveyors to the enclosure.

Vibratory screens and grizzlies

� All vibratory screens shall be totally enclosed in a housing. Screenhouses shall be rigid and

reasonably dust tight with self-closing doors or close-fitted entrances and exits for access.

Where conveyors pass through the screenhouse, flexible covers shall be installed at entries

and exits of the conveyors to the housing. Where containment of dust within the screenhouse

structure is not successful then a dust extraction and collection system shall be provided.

� All grizzlies shall be enclosed on top and three sides and sufficient water sprayers shall be

installed at their feeding and outlet areas.

Belt conveyors

� Except for those conveyors which are placed within a totally enclosed structure such as a

screenhouse or those erected at the ground level, all conveyors shall be totally enclosed with

windshield on top and two sides.

� Effective belt scrapers such as the pre-cleaner blades made by hard wearing materials and

provided with pneumatic tensioner, or equivalent device, shall be installed at the head pulley

of designated conveyor as required to dislodge fine dust particles that may adhere to the belt

surface and to reduce carry-back of fine materials on the return belt. Bottom plates shall also

be provided for the conveyor unless it has been demonstrated that the corresponding belt

scraper is effective and well maintained to prevent falling material from the return belt.

� Except for those transfer points which are placed within a totally enclosed structure such as a

screenhouse, all transfer points to and from conveyors shall be enclosed. Where containment

of dust within the enclosure is not successful, then water sprayers shall be provided.

Openings for any enclosed structure for the passage of conveyors shall be fitted with flexible

seals.

Storage piles and bins


5-44


� Where practicable, free falling transfer points from conveyors to stockpiles shall be fitted with

flexible curtains or be enclosed with chutes designed to minimise the drop height. Water

sprays shall also be used where required.

� The surface of all surge piles and stockpiles of blasted rocks or aggregates shall be kept

sufficiently wet by water spraying wherever practicable.

� All open stockpiles for aggregates of size in excess of 5 mm shall be kept sufficiently wet by

water spraying where practicable.

� The stockpiles of aggregates 5 mm in size or less shall be enclosed on three sides or suitably

located to minimise wind-whipping. Save for fluctuations in stock or production, the average

stockpile shall stay within the enclosure walls and in no case the height of the stockpile shall

exceed twice the height of the enclosure walls.

� Scattered piles gathered beneath belt conveyors, inside and around enclosures shall be

cleared regularly.

Rock drilling equipment

� Appropriate dust control equipment such as a dust extraction and collection system shall be

used during rock drilling activities.

5.2.7 Evaluation of Construction Phase Residual Impact

5.2.7.1 With the recommended mitigation measures in place, all ASRs would comply with the hourly TSP

criterion as well as the AQO for daily RSP, daily FSP, annual RSP and annual FSP throughout

the construction period. Hence, no adverse residual TSP, RSP or FSP impacts are anticipated at

all ASRs during the construction phase of the project.

5.3 Operation Phase Assessment

5.3.1 Overview

5.3.1.1 This section presents an assessment of potential air quality impacts on the air sensitive receivers

arising from operation of the project, which has been conducted in accordance with the

requirements given in Clause 3.4.3 together with section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief

(ESB-250/2012).

5.3.2 Assessment Area and Air Sensitive Receivers

5.3.2.1 According to Clause 4(i) under Section I of Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief, the air quality

impact during the operational phase at ASRs within 5 km from the project boundary should be

assessed. Therefore, the assessment area is defined as 5 km outside the combined boundary of

the existing airport island and the proposed land formation footprint (i.e., the expanded airport

island). The assessment area is illustrated in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-001.

5.3.2.2 The assessment area generally covers the entire area of Tung Chung, San Tau, Sha Lo Wan,

San Shek Wan, Siu Ho Wan and Sham Wat Wan in Lantau North, and Tap Shek Kok and areas

adjacent to Butterfly Beach in Tuen Mun.


5-45


Air Sensitive Receivers

5.3.2.3 The above-mentioned Clause 4(i) in Appendix A of the EIA Study Brief specifies that the

expected air pollutant concentrations at ASRs within the 5 km assessment area as defined in

Section 5.3.2.1 shall be quantified in the operation air quality assessment, and this shall be

based on the highest aircraft emission scenario under normal operating conditions with the

project.

5.3.2.4 In accordance with Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM, ASRs include domestic premises, hotel, hostel,

hospital, clinic, nursery, temporary housing accommodation, school, educational institution, office,

factory, shop, shopping centre, place of public worship, library, court of law, sports stadium or

performing arts centre. Any other premises or places which, in terms of duration or number of

people affected, have a similar sensitivity to the air pollutants as the abovementioned premises

and places are also considered as a sensitive receiver.

5.3.2.5 Representative ASRs within the 5 km assessment area have been identified. Existing ASRs,

which mainly include residential buildings with different storey heights, educational institution and

hotels etc., have been identified by reviewing topographic maps, aerial photos, land status plans,

and supplemented by site inspections. Planned/committed ASRs have been identified by making

reference to the relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZP), Outline Development Plans, Layout Plans

and other published plans in the study area. They include:

� Chek Lap Kok OZP (No. S/I-CLK/12);

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

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

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

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

� Tuen Mun OZP (No. S/TM/31)

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

5.3.2.6 It is understood that a Planning and Engineering Study on the remaining development in Tung

Chung is being undertaken by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). The

objective of the Planning and Engineering Study is to assess the feasibility of the remaining

development in the east and west of Tung Chung. Since the Recommended Outline Development

Plan from CEDD is not available, representative planned ASRs has been selected at the site

boundary in the current air quality study.

5.3.2.7 The locations of the representative existing and planned ASRs for the operation air quality

assessment are illustrated in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002 to MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-005

and summarised in Table 5.3.1.

Table 5.3.1: Representative Existing and Planned Air Sensitive Receivers

ASR ID Location Land use [1]

No. of Storey

Approx. Separation Distance from Project Boundary (m)

Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004)

BCF-1 Planned Passenger Building[2] GIC - 560


5-46



No. of Storey


Tung Chung (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004)

TC-1 Caribbean Coast Block 1 R 47 1,400




TC-5 Ho Yu College E 7 1,110

TC-6 Ho Yu Primary School E 7 1,230

TC-7 Coastal Skyline Block 1 R 50 950

TC-8 Coastal Skyline Block 5 R 50 850

TC-9 La Rossa Block B R 56 750

TC-10 Le Bleu Deux Block 1 R 15 580



TC-13 Seaview Crescent Block 1 R 50 380



TC-16 Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School E 7 820

TC-17 Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School E 7 900

TC-18 Tung Chung Public Library GIC 4 720

TC-19 Tung Chung North Park P 1 1,140

TC-20 Novotel Citygate Hong Kong C 30 580

TC-21 One Citygate C 15 570

TC-22 One Citygate Bridge C 5 590

TC-23 Fu Tung Shopping Centre C 4 740

TC-24 Tung Chung Health Centre and Air Quality Monitoring Station

GIC 3 840

TC-25 Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School E 7 870

TC-26 Po On Commercial Association Wan Ho Kan Primary School

E 7 860

TC-27 Po Leung Kuk Mrs. Ma Kam Min Cheung Fook Sien College

E 7 1,000

TC-28 Wong Cho Bau Secondary School E 7 1,000

TC-29 Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House R 33 970

TC-30 Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House R 36 1,000

TC-31 Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House R 30 790

TC-32 Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House R 30 820

TC-33 Tung Chung Crescent Block 1 R 28 730


5-47



No. of Storey






TC-38 Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House R 35 800

TC-39 Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House R 36 1,080

TC-40 Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House R 35 1,200

TC-41 Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House R 35 1,210

TC-42 Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House R 35 1,210

TC-43 Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House R 35 1,080

TC-44 Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House R 35 820

TC-45 Village house at Ma Wan Chung R 3 570

TC-46 Ma Wan New Village R 3 1,420

TC-47 Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarten E 1 1,430

TC-48 Sheung Ling Pei R 3 1,400

TC-49 Tung Chung Public School E 1 1,440

TC-50 Ha Ling Pei R 3 1,370

TC-51 Lung Tseung Tau R 3 1,590

TC-52 YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College E 8 1,610

TC-53 Hau Wong Temple W 1 1,130

TC-54 Sha Tsui Tau R 3 1,050

TC-55 Ngan Au R 3 1,600

TC-56 Shek Lau Po R 3 1,820

TC-57 Mo Ka R 3 2,200

TC-58 Shek Mun Kap R 3 2,320

TC-59 Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery W 3 2,650

TC-P1 Planned North Lantau Hospital H 8 1,020

TC-P2 Planned Park near One Citygate P 1 350

TC-P5 Tung Chung West Development N/A N/A 320



TC-P8 Tung Chung East Development N/A N/A 1,000





5-48



No. of Storey


TC-P12 Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel C N/A 800

TC-P13 Tung Chung Area 54 - Planned Residential Development

R N/A 900

TC-P14 Tung Chung Area 55a - Planned Residential Development

R N/A 1,110

TC-P15 Tung Chung Area 89 - Planned Primary / Secondary School

E N/A 1,420

TC-P16 Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School E N/A 1,700

TC-P17 Tung Chung Area 39 N/A N/A 1,380

San Tau (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002)

ST-1 Village house at Tin Sum R 1-3 400

ST-2 Village house at Kau Liu R 1-3 480

ST-3 Village house at San Tau R 1-3 570

Sha Lo Wan (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002)

SLW-1 Sha Lo Wan House No.1 R 1-3 260



SLW-4 Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan W 1-3 470

San Shek Wan (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002)

SSW-1 San Shek Wan R 1-3 1,350

Sham Wat (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-002)

SW-1 Sham Wat House No. 39 R 1-3 2,080

SW-2 Sham Wat House No. 30 R 1-3 2,420

Siu Ho Wan (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004)

SHW-1 Village house at Pak Mong R 1-3 3,360

SHW-2 Village house at Ngau Kwu Long R 1-3 3,890

SHW-3 Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen R 1-3 4,210

SHW-4 Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot I 1-3 3,990

SHW-5 Tin Liu Village R 1-3 4,240

Proposed Lantau Logistic Park (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-004)

LLP-P1 Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1 N/A N/A 3,470




Tuen Mun (Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-005)

TM-7 Tuen Mun Fireboat Station GIC 1 3,970


5-49



No. of Storey


TM-8 DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works GIC 1 4,170

TM-9 EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station GIC 1 4,240

TM-10 Pillar Point Fire Station GIC 3 4,330

TM-11 Butterfly Beach Laundry I 5 4,740

TM-12 River Trade Terminal I 2 3,860

TM-13 Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank GIC N/A 4,330

TM-14 EcoPark Administration Building C 1 3,900

TM-15 Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building C 1 4,460

TM-16 Customs and Excise Department Harbour River Trade Division

I 6 3,950

TM-17 Saw Mil Number 61-69 I 1 4,140

TM-18 Saw Mil Number 35-49 I 1 4,220

TM-19 Ho Yeung Street Number 22 I 1 4,330

Notes:

[1] R– residential; C – Commercial; E – educational; I – Industrial; H – clinic/ home for the aged/hospital; W – worship; G/IC –

government, institution and community; P – Recreational/Park; OS – Open Space; N/A – Not Available

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

5.3.3 Identification of Pollution Sources and Key Pollutants

Airport Related Activities Emission Inventory

5.3.3.1 The existing airport has two 3.8 km parallel runways, namely 07L-25R and 07R-25L, for aircraft

arrivals and departures. The two terminal buildings (T1 and T2) are separated by the Airport

Station. T1 comprises the north, south, central, northwest and southwest concourse in a Y-shape

between the two runways. The cargo handling area, aircraft maintenance centre and commercial

district are located at the southern, western and north eastern parts of the airport island

respectively.

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

� Land formation of about 650 ha to the north of the existing airport island, including a portion

over the Contaminated Mud Pit;

� Construction of a third runway, related taxiway systems and navigation aids, and airfield

facilities;

� Construction of the third runway aprons and passenger concourses;

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

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

� Extension of the Automated People Mover (APM) from the existing airport island to the

passenger concourses of the third runway;


5-50


� Extension of the Baggage Handling System from the existing airport island to the aprons of

the third runway;

� Improvement of the road network in the passenger and cargo areas and new landside

transportation facilities including new car parks on the existing airport island;

� A grey water recycling system at the proposed airport expansion area (with a capacity of not

more than 15,000 m3 per day);

� Necessary modifications to existing marine facilities including the underwater aviation fuel

pipelines and 11 kV submarine cable between HKIA and the off-airport fuel receiving facilities,

sea rescue facilities and aids to navigation; and

� Any other modification, reconfiguration, and/or improvement of the existing facilities on the

existing airport island as a result of the third runway.

5.3.3.3 There are various air emission sources due to the airport operation. The key air emission related

activities that need to be accounted for in this operation air quality assessment are associated

with the following:

� Aircraft landing take-off (LTO) cycle (including Business jets at the Hong Kong Business

Aviation Centre (HKBAC));

� Aircraft maintenance centre;

� Airport ferry at SkyPier;

� Auxiliary Power Units (APUs);

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

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

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

� Car park operation;

� Catering facilities;

� Engine testing facilities;

� Fire training activities;

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

� Motor vehicles on the airport island.

Proximity Infrastructure Emission Inventory

5.3.3.4 The air emission sources associated with the concurrent infrastructural projects / emission

sources (both existing and future projects and emission sources with planned or committed

implementation programme) within 5 km from the project boundary for inclusion in the operation

air quality assessment are located in two areas, namely Lantau and Tuen Mun.

5.3.3.5 Table 5.3.2 and Table 5.3.3 summarise the emission sources associated with the proximity

infrastructure in Lantau and Tuen Mun respectively. Their locations are shown in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-006 and MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-007. These air emission sources include the

concurrent infrastructure projects (only those future projects with planned or committed


5-51


implementation programme) and concurrent emission sources in proximity of the sensitive

receivers/uses within the study area.

Table 5.3.2: List of Proximity Infrastructure Emissions in Lantau Area

Project / Sources Existing/ Planned Commissioning Year

Description

Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF)

2016 Vehicular emissions from its road network, and idling at kiosks and loading/unloading bay

Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) 2016 Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building

Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL) (Lantau section)

2016 Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building

North Lantau Highway (NLH) and other roads in Tung Chung

Existing Vehicular emissions from road network

Tung Chung Remaining Development Not available Vehicular emissions from its road network and induced traffic

Organic Wastes Treatment Facilities (OWTF) Phase 1

2016 Chimney emissions

Proposed Lantau Logistics Park (LLP)[1] Not available Only vehicular emissions from induced traffic are considered

Proposed Cross Boundary Transport Hub above MTR Siu Ho Wan Depot[1]

Not available Only vehicular emissions from induced traffic are considered

Proposed Leisure and Entertainment Node at Sunny Bay[1]

Not available Only vehicular emissions from induced traffic are considered

Columbarium development for Tsuen Wan District at Sham Shui Kok Drive, Siu Ho Wan, Lantau

Not available The project is in the feasibility and initial stage. Hence, it was not considered in the assessment.

Proposed Road P1 Not available Only vehicular emissions from induced traffic are considered

Note [1]: The detailed layout of the proposed developments was not available. The only available information is the employment and

population data. Hence, the vehicular emissions from the induced traffic were considered.

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


Description

Tuen Mun Western Bypass (TMWB) 2018-2019 Vehicular emissions from its road network and induced traffic

TM-CLKL (Tuen Mun section) 2016 Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building

Other roads in Tuen Mun Existing Vehicular emissions from road network

Shiu Wing Steel Mill Existing Chimney emissions

Green Island Cement (GIC) Existing Chimney emissions

Castle Peak Power Plant (CPPP) Existing Chimney emissions

EcoPark in Tuen Mun Area 38 Existing Chimney emissions

Butterfly Beach Laundry Existing Chimney emissions

Flare at Pillar Point Valley Landfill (PPVL) Existing Chimney emissions

Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility (PAFF) Existing Chimney emissions


5-52



Description

River Trade Terminal (RTT) Existing Marine exhaust and land-based equipment emissions

Ambient Emission Inventory

5.3.3.6 Other far-field air emissions (i.e. those outside the 5 km assessment area from the airport

boundary) are collectively considered as background emissions that contribute to the ambient air

pollutant concentrations in the study area. The background contributions will be modelled by

PATH and comprise various sources covering the Guangdong Province (super-regional sources),

Pearl River Delta Economic Zone (PRDEZ, regional sources) and the Hong Kong SAR (local

sources) and including the following:

� Power stations � VOC containing products

� Marine Vessels � Waste Incineration (e.g. IWMF, STF, etc.)

� Aviation � Stationary Source Fuel Combustion

� Motor Vehicles � Offsite Mobile and Machinery Source

� Road Transportation related activities � Crematorium

� Industry (e.g. manufacture, mining/ mineral extraction, food and beverage, construction industry, crude oil production)

� Agriculture

Identification of Key Pollutants

5.3.3.7 Table 5.3.4 shows the key pollutants of the major air emission sources identified for existing and

future operation scenarios. In general, the emission loads for aircraft operations have been

referenced to the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) software v5.1.4.1

developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the United States Air

Force (USAF). The EDMS v5.1.4.1 is the latest version updated in August 2013. More detailed

discussions are given in Section 5.3.4.

Table 5.3.4: List of Key Airport Operation Air Emission Sources

Sources Key Pollutants Description

Aircraft and business jets • NOx

• SO2

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

• Exhaust products and the quantity of emission vary with different aircraft engine combinations, types, power settings, modes and periods of operation [e.g. LTO].

• Fuel conservation measures have a dampening effect on emissions released

Airside Vehicles

(including GSE and Non-GSE)

• NOx

• SO2

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

• Exhaust products of fuel combustion from catering service trucks, aircraft tractors, hi-loaders, conveyor belt loaders and other mobile self-propelled handling equipment. Levels of exhaust emission vary with the fuel type and operation time.

Helicopter • NOx • Exhaust products and the quantity of emission vary with different helicopters engine combination, types, power


5-53


Sources Key Pollutants Description

• SO2

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

settings, modes and periods of operation.

Aviation Fuel Farm • VOC • Emission from the evaporation and vapour displacement of fuel from storage tanks and fuel transfer facilities.

Fire Training Activities • NOx

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

• Emission from combustion of fuel in open air.

Engine Testing Facilities • NOx

• SO2

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

• Same as the emission from aircraft.

Catering • NOx

• SO2

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

• Exhaust products of fuel combustion from furnaces.

Marine Vessels • NOx

• SO2

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

• Exhaust products of fuel combustion from marine engine.

Vehicles Parking • NOx

• SO2

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

• Exhaust emission from vehicle tailpipe during movement inside car parks.

• Engine will be turned off inside car parks and hence idling emission is negligible.

Motor Vehicles • NOx

• SO2

• CO

• RSP and FSP

• VOC

• Exhaust emission of fuel combustion from on-site and off-site traffic. Emissions vary depending on vehicle type, technology, age, mileage and speed.

Greywater Treatment Plant

• Odour • Since the proposed greywater treatment plant will be fully enclosed and will be over 3.3 km away from the nearest ASR (i.e., TC-P10), no adverse odour impact from the treatment plant is anticipated.

5.3.3.8 Based on the above table, the key criteria pollutants of interest arising from the operation of the

project will include NO2, RSP, FSP, SO2 and CO. The emission inventory of these pollutants was

determined by EDMS.

5.3.3.9 Unlike other air pollutants such as NOx, ozone (O3) is not a pollutant directly emitted from man-

made sources but formed by photochemical reactions of primary pollutants such as nitrogen

oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) under sunlight. As the photochemical


5-54


reactions take place in the presence of solar radiation in minutes and could accumulate over

several hours, ozone recorded in one place could be attributed to VOC and NOx emissions from

places afar.

5.3.3.10 A hypothetical sensitivity test was conducted based on PATH model to compare the simulated

ozone concentrations in downwind areas for the 3RS scenario and the without airport scenario.

Table 5.3.5 to Table 5.3.7 summarise the results under different wind directions.

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

Area Ozone under the with airport case (3RS), µg/m

3

Ozone under the without airport case, µg/m

3

Difference (with airport – without airport), µg/m

3

Lung Kwu Chau

PATH grid (8,30)

361 361 0

PH1(Airport North Station)

PATH grid (12,28)

316 325 - 9

PH5 (Airport South Station)

PATH grid (11,26)

287 321 - 34

Tung Chung Air Quality Monitoring Station PATH grid (12,25)

277 302 - 25

Lantau Central

PATH grid (12,23)

269 272 - 4

Lantau South

PATH grid (12,21)

244 244 0

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


3


3


3

Lantau Central

PATH grid (12,23)

128 128 0

Tung Chung Air Quality Monitoring Station

PATH grid (12,25)

121 122 - 1

PH5 (Airport South Station)

PATH grid (11,26)

106 111 - 5

PH1(Airport North Station)

PATH grid (12,28)

75 79 - 4

Lung Kwu Chau PATH grid (8,30) 93 103 - 10

Yuen Long Air Quality Monitoring Station (18,38)

133 133 0

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


3


3


3

Lung Kwu Chau

PATH grid (8,30)

162 162 0

PH1 (Airport North Station)

PATH grid (12,28)

115 225 - 110

Central Western Air Quality 146 174 - 28


5-55



3


3


3

Monitoring Station

PATH grid (27, 25)

5.3.3.11 There are no ASRs to the west of the airport. Hence, the ozone concentration under the eastern

wind direction was not considered.

5.3.3.12 On comparing the ozone concentrations in the vicinity of the airport area under downwind

direction, the ozone concentrations under the with-airport case (3RS) is in general lower than that

of the hypothetical “without-airport” case within 5 km. According to the analysis in the 2010 Airport

Operational Air Quality Study Final Report conducted by HKUST, NO emissions from HKIA may

slightly reduce the O3 concentration at nearby receptors, including Tung Chung through

photochemical processes. Hence, ozone is not considered as a key air pollutant of interest in the

related operation air quality study and for evaluating the potential air quality impact from the

operation of the project.

5.3.3.13 There is no significant Lead (Pb) emission sources associated with the airport operation. Ambient

Lead concentrations were measured at very low levels during 2010. The overall 3-month

averages ranged from 20 ng/m3

(Kwun Tong and Tung Chung) to 104 ng/m3 (Yuen Long), and

are well below the annual AQO limit of 500 ng/m3. Hence, Lead is not considered a key air

pollutant in this study and pollutant concentration has not been modelled for this assessment.

Potential Odour Impact from Greywater Treatment Plant

5.3.3.14 Based on the current scheme design, it is proposed to establish an additional greywater

treatment plant for the 3RS project with a handling capacity of 700 m3/day, subject to the detailed

design. Wastewater collected from kitchens, washroom sinks, and aircraft catering and cleaning

activities from the new facilities associated with the airport expansion will be treated by the

proposed plant for reuse in landscape irrigation or cleansing related activities. The greywater

treatment plant would be located inside a plant building in the eastern support area (see Drawing

No. MCL/P132/EIA/4-002). Since the proposed greywater treatment plant will be fully enclosed

and will be over 3.3 km away from the nearest ASR (i.e., TC-P10), no adverse odour impact from

the treatment plant is anticipated.

5.3.4 Compilation of Emission Inventory

Determination of worst year for aircraft emission

5.3.4.1 Emission inventories of aircraft in the vicinity of airports are traditionally calculated by using

International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) engine exhaust emission data and the ICAO

reference Landing-Take-off (LTO) cycle (LTO nominally up to 3,000 feet or 914.4 metres above

ground level). The latter is comprised of the four time-in-modes (TIMs): take-off, climb-out,

approach and taxiing (sometimes referred to as idling) and are the major pollutant emission

sources in airports. The four TIMs are defined as follows:

� Take-off mode: the elapsed time of aircraft acceleration start on the runway to 300 m above

ground level;


5-56


� Climb-out mode: the elapsed time of aircraft ascendant from 300 m above ground level to

the mixing height;

� Approach mode: the elapsed time of aircraft descendant from mixing height to the ground

level; and

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

5.3.4.2 Aircraft LTO cycle emission is determined by the product of emission indices, fuel flow rate, TIMs

and number of engines. Also, adjustments such as busy day ratio, meteorological data and

pollutants conversion factor are included in the calculations for a localised result. These

parameters are adopted in the aircraft LTO emission calculations and are summarised in Table

5.3.8, Table 5.3.9 and Appendix 5.3.1-1.

Table 5.3.8: Aircraft - LTO Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

Emission indices EDMS database for certified engines and IATA estimates for future engines

Approach time Default value from EDMS in relation to mixing height

Taxi-in time TAAM model results from NATS in relation to wind direction

Taxi-out time TAAM model results from NATS in relation to wind direction

Take-off time Record value from radar data and site surveys in relation to mixing height

Climb-out time Default value from EDMS in relation to mixing height

Aircraft LTO schedule HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA

Aircraft type HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA

Busy day ratio Based on typical monthly and daily profile recorded in 2011

Aircraft engine model HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA

Meteorological data PCRAMMET results

Pollutants conversion factor

EDMS database

Number of engines HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA

5.3.4.3 The future aircraft engine emission indices of HC, CO and NOx under the LTO cycle have been

determined by International Air Transport Association (IATA), which was appointed by AAHK to

determine the future flight schedule and emission indices. The IATA is the trade association for

the world’s airlines, representing some 240 airlines or 84% of total air traffic. They support many

areas of aviation activity and help formulate industry policy on critical aviation issues such as the

environment. The IATA is the authority in aviation industry and was appointed to undertake

projection of aircraft movement and emission factor determination for Hong Kong 3RS to ensure

the representative of data.

5.3.4.4 In general, the future engine emission prediction was derived from the emissions certification of

current aircraft engines and a comprehensive set of assumptions on future engines developed by

IATA based on current engines, regulation and inputs of engine manufacturers. According to

IATA, the emission prediction captures the future trends known at the time including the future

stringency levels defined by ICAO, the introduction of new technologies in future aircraft /

engines, the projected engine efficiency gains, the possible use of sustainable alternative fuels

and fuel conservation measures implemented by the airlines. Appendix 5.3.1-2 shows the flight


5-57


schedules, fuel flow, NOx emission factor, CO emission factor and HC emission factor determined

by IATA. Appendix 5.3.1-2 also shows the methodology adopted by IATA in determining the

future engine type and emission. Also, Appendix 5.3.1-2 shows fuel flow and emission indices

for different engines forecast by IATA and together with the engine emission forecasting

assumptions.

5.3.4.5 Graph 5-3-1 illustrates the emission trend from Year 2012 to Year 2038 at “the busy day” based

on time-in-modes (TIMs) under ICAO’s definition. ICAO has defined a specific reference LTO

cycle, which consists of four modal phases chosen to represent approach, taxi/idle, take-off and

climb-out:

� Take-Off: 0.7 minutes

� Climb-Out: 2.2 minutes

� Approach: 4 minutes

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

5.3.4.6 In addition, the busy day is defined as the second busiest day in an average week during the

peak month according to IATA, and the busiest day to busy day ratio is around 1.13 according to

Year 2011 data.

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

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

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

5.3.4.7 According to IATA’s survey and research (Appendix 5.3.1-2), it is found that airlines in general

tend to replace their ageing aircraft by larger and more recent equivalent. However, with

continuous improvement on engine technology and more stringent emission standards, overall

emissions are expected to increase at a much slower pace than traffic.


5-58


5.3.4.8 In addition to the emission prediction of HC, CO and NOx by IATA, an approximation method was

used to determine the SO2 and RSP / FSP emissions, as precise sulfur content for jet fuel

deliveries into the airport was not available. The method details are listed as follows:

� SO2 emission is determined based on the fuel sulfur content. According to ICAO Air Quality

Manual 2011, a conservative fuel sulfur content of 0.068 weight percentage is recommended

in the absence of more specific fuel sulfur content data. This is also in line with findings from

discussion with the tank farm operator (Aviation Fuel Supply Company Operation Limited)

which revealed that the sulfur content of aviation fuel is in the range of 0.05 – 0.1%. Hence, a

default fuel sulfur content of 0.068 weight percentage is adopted in this study. The computed

SO2 emission indices are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-2

� Emissions of RSP and FSP are determined through EDMS v5.1.4.1, which is based on First

Order Approximation V3.0 Method (FOA3). According to EDMS v5.1.4.1, the ratio of RSP to

FSP for aircraft emission is 1. The computed RSP and FSP emission indices are summarised

in Appendix 5.3.1-2.

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

study.

5.3.4.9 Similar to the report “Emissions Methodology for Future LHR Scenarios” (AEA, 2007), to assess

the sensitivity of local condition effects on the determination of the worst assessment year, the

following parameters have been adjusted accordingly.

Table 5.3.9: Adjustment to Local Conditions

Parameters Local conditions

Fuel flow The fuel flow has been adjusted to account for the engine air bleed for aircraft based on the Boeing

Method 2 Fuel Flow Methodology (Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992: Database

Development and Analysis, NASA Contractor Report 4700, 1996). The correction factors are listed

below:

• Take-off: 1.010

• Climb-out: 1.013

• Approach: 1.020

• Idle: 1.100

Take-off Time Total take-off time consists of 2 components, the groundborne time for aircraft acceleration and

airborne time required to ascend from ground level to 300 m. Based on site observation and Year

2011 radar data provided by the Civil Aviation Department (CAD), the total take-off time required for

each size of passenger/cargo aircraft is summarised in the following:

ICAO Size

Class

Passenger / Cargo (P/C)

IATA Aircraft Sub-Type (Example)

Ground-borne Time

(s)

Airborne Time

(s)

Total Take-off Time

(s) / (min)

F P 388 39 48 87 / 1.44

C 74N 45 39 84 / 1.40

E P 744 35 29 65 / 1.08

C 33F / 74Y 40 31 71 / 1.19

D P 763 28 18 46 / 0.77

C M1F 33 32 65 / 1.08


5-59


Parameters Local conditions

C P 320 / 738 33 23 56 / 0.94

C 73F 33 30 64 / 1.06

A+B P GR5 23 23 46 / 0.76

Note:

Ground-borne take-off times were based on on-site observation of each aircraft class and the airborne

take-off times were derived from the radar data, which included the position and altitude of each flight

using HKIA.

Climb-out Time The average climb-out time derived from Year 2011 radar data and the ICAO defined climb-out time

are about 1.5 minutes and 2.2 minutes respectively. It is considered that the latter is more

conservative and hence 2.2 minutes is adopted as the climb-out time.

Approach Time The average approach time derived from Year 2011 radar data and the ICAO defined approach time

are both 4 minutes. Hence, 4 minutes is adopted as the approach time.

Taxi-in and Taxi-

out Time

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

minutes respectively in Year 2031.

Reverse Thrust Reverse thrust will be adopted during landing. Discussions with pilots indicated that low idle power

thrust (i.e. 7% of full power) would normally be adopted as reverse thrust. This normally has been

catered in the taxi-in time simulation. Hence, no additional correction on the emission was made.

Forward Speed When an aircraft is moving, there is an effect on the engine as air is pushed into the intake as a result

of the forward speed. This effect changes the engine operating parameters compared to static

conditions and as a result may also change the emissions production.

According to CAEP Working Group 6th meeting, it was recommended by Working Group 3 that "the

effect of forward speed was small due to the manner of operation of the engine control system and did

not need to be included". Hence, no forward speed was considered in this study. In addition, the model

verification result (Appendix 5.3.19-1) also did not support the inclusion of forward speed since it

would make the result unreasonably conservative.

Meteorological

Condition

The EDMS adopted the following default parameters for emission calculation:

• Temperature: 15°C

• Relative humidity: 60%

• Mean Sea Level Pressure: 101,325Pa

• Mixing height: 914.4m

To cater for the local conditions, the annual average of meteorological data at Hong Kong International

Airport station in Year 2010 are adopted for the assessment, which are listed as follow:

• Temperature: 24.1°C

• Relative humidity: 72.8%

• Mean Sea Level Pressure: 101,298Pa

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

5.3.4.10 According to the ICAO Air Quality Manual 2011, airlines will take precautions to keep

deterioration effects to a minimum by establishing routine maintenance programmes as a cost


5-60


saving measure. Based on analyses of theoretical and actual airline data, the magnitude of

engine deterioration effects applicable on a fleet-wide basis can be assumed as follows:

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

� NOx emissions: +3% (applied on whole period)

� CO emissions: no change

� HC emissions: no change

� Smoke number: no change.

5.3.4.11 Table 5.3.10 illustrates the emission trend under average local conditions from Year 2028 to

2035. Detailed discussion on determination of aircraft emission inventory is given in the sections

below. It can be seen that the worst assessment year of all criteria pollutants will occur in Year

2031. Hence, Year 2031 is selected as the worst assessment year as it is the peak year for total

emission under both ICAO and local conditions.

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

Year Daily Movement

Total Emission at Busy Day (kg)

Fuel CO NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2028 1,661 1,614,500 12,500 26,000 2,140 111 111

2029 1,720 1,651,000 12,700 26,400 2,190 112 112

2030 1,758 1,669,800 12,600 26,900 2,220 113 113

2031 1,787 1,697,000 12,700 27,200 2,250 114 114

2032 1,800 1,670,000 12,100 26,500 2,220 110 110

2033 1,800 1,657,800 11,600 26,200 2,200 108 108

2034 1,800 1,648,400 11,400 26,000 2,190 107 107

2035 1,800 1,636,600 11,100 25,800 2,170 105 105

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

Compilation of Emission Inventory

5.3.4.12 The approach, methodologies and assumptions adopted in compiling the emission inventories of

the pollution sources are summarised in the following sub-sections.

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

5.3.4.13 Hourly air traffic movement schedule during “the busy day” have been forecasted by IATA and

adopted in this assessment. The forecast is based on the information obtained from numbers of

sources, including AAHK, CAD, ICAO, IATA’s own database and airline surveys. The airline

surveys covered 40 airlines representing about 80% of ATM on the Year 2011 busy day. The

approach for determination of the aircraft emission at the busy day in Year 2031 in this Study is

summarised in Table 5.3.11. It is also noted that the aircraft engine emission will vary with the

meteorological conditions, such as ambient temperature, relative humidity and inlet pressure.

These factors have also been taken into account in the emission load estimation in accordance


5-61


with the Boeing Fuel Flow Method 2 (BFFM2), which is adopted in the EDMS v5.1.4.1 developed

by FAA.

5.3.4.14 Aircraft engine emissions are affected by ambient conditions such as humidity, temperature and

pressure. The EDMS model adopted in the present study was developed by the US Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) for the estimation of aircraft emissions. The effect of changes in

ambient conditions on aircraft emissions has been considered in the EDMS model..

Table 5.3.11: Approach for Determination of the Aircraft Emission Inventory

Emission Sources

Determination Approach

Data required and assumptions

Aircraft IATA • The hourly air traffic movement schedule during the busy day provided by IATA.

• Approach and climb-out times are estimated based on survey-verified ICAO definition. The hourly mixing heights are determined from PCRAMMET.

• Take-off times will be based on site observation and Year 2011 radar data provided by CAD. For future aircraft types, the take-off times as presented in Table 5.3.9 were determined according to their respective ICAO Size Classes.

• Emissions for existing engines were derived from the ICAO emissions database of certified engines, while emissions for future engines were predicted by IATA. When multiple sub-versions were available for a same engine model, IATA selected the version still in-production (if possible) and with the most recent date of certification.

• Emissions for future engines were estimated based on (i) current emissions, (ii) future stringency levels enforced by ICAO, (iii) engine efficiency gains; (iv) alternative bio-fuels; and (v) fuel conservation measures. (See Appendix 5.3.1-2).

• The hourly aircraft emission, including NOx, Hydrocarbon (HC) and CO, RSP, etc. has been determined based on the future engine emission, forecast hourly aircraft fleet mix and engine mix by IATA. SO2 has been predicted based on the fuel consumption and the fuel sulfur content (i.e. 0.068%).

5.3.4.15 The annual LTO emission was determined based on the typical monthly and daily profiles for

HKIA analysed by IATA for commercial aviation flights in Year 2011, which are summarised in

Table 5.3.12 and Table 5.3.13 below.

Table 5.3.12: Monthly Profile

Month Number of Air Traffic Movement

1 8.2%

2 7.3%

3 8.4%

4 8.3%

5 8.4%

6 8.1%

7 8.7%

8 8.7%

9 8.3%

10 8.5%

11 8.4%

12 8.8%


5-62


Table 5.3.13: Average Daily Profile

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

ATM 14.3% 13.9% 13.7% 14.0% 14.7% 15.0% 14.5%

5.3.4.16 According to Year 2011 record, the identified busy day (i.e. the second busiest day in an average

week during the peak month, excluding special events such as religious festivals, trade fairs,

conventions and sports events) is the 19th busiest day within Year 2011. Table 5.3.14

summarises the corresponding activities of the 18 busiest days and their corresponding ATM ratio

with respect to the busy day. Since the meteorological data in Year 2010 was adopted as the

typical year for modelling, scale factors at the busiest days were determined and were applied in

the Year 2010 activities. Table 5.3.15 summarises the factors applied on the Year 2010 activities.

Detailed daily scaling factors are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-4.

Table 5.3.14: Busiest Dates Profile

Day rank ATM Date Cause Notes

Busiest day 1,099 30-Sep-11 Friday Typhoon The day after typhoon No.8

2nd busiest 997 22-Apr-11 Friday Holiday First day of Easter public holiday

3rd busiest 991 11-Aug-11 Thursday Summer Thursday of second week in August

4th busiest 986 23-Dec-11 Friday Holiday Two days before Christmas

5th busiest 985 22-Dec-11 Thursday Holiday Three days before Christmas

6th busiest 981 28-Oct-11 Friday Holiday Friday of forth week in October

7th busiest 978 8-Jul-11 Friday Summer Friday of second week in July

8th busiest 978 18-Aug-11 Thursday Summer Thursday of third week in August

9th busiest 978 24-Dec-11 Saturday Holiday Christmas Eve

10th busiest 976 28-Jul-11 Thursday Typhoon Typhoon No.3

11th busiest 976 15-Dec-11 Thursday Holiday Thursday of third week in December

12th busiest 976 16-Dec-11 Friday Holiday Friday of third week in December

13th busiest 975 30-Jun-11 Thursday Holiday

One day before the Hong Kong SAR Government Establishment Day

14th busiest 975 16-Jul-11 Saturday Summer Saturday of third week in July

15th busiest 975 1-Oct-11 Saturday Holiday National Day

16th busiest 972 17-Dec-11 Saturday Holiday Saturday of third week in December

17th busiest 971 19-Aug-11 Friday Summer Friday of third week in August

18th busiest 971 26-Aug-11 Friday Summer Friday of fourth week in August

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

Date Cause Notes ATM Ratio[1]

21-Jul-10 Wednesday Typhoon Typhoon No.3 1.133

2-Apr-10 Friday Holiday First day of Easter public holiday 1.028

12-Aug-10 Thursday Summer Thursday of second week in August 1.022

23-Dec-10 Thursday Holiday Two days before Christmas 1.016


5-63


Date Cause Notes ATM Ratio[1]

22-Dec-10 Wednesday Holiday Three days before Christmas 1.015

9-Jul-10 Friday Summer Friday of second week in July 1.008

19-Aug-10 Thursday Summer Thursday of third week in August 1.008

24-Dec-10 Friday Holiday Christmas eve 1.008

20-Sep-10 Monday Typhoon Typhoon No.3 1.133

16-Dec-10 Thursday Holiday Thursday of third week in December 1.006

17-Dec-10 Friday Holiday Friday of third week in December 1.006

30-Jun-10 Wednesday Holiday One day before the Hong Kong SAR Government Establishment Day

1.005

17-Jul-10 Saturday Summer Saturday of third week in July 1.005

1-Oct-10 Friday Holiday National Day 1.005

18-Dec-10 Saturday Holiday Saturday of third week in December 1.002

20-Aug-10 Friday Summer Friday of third week in August 1.001

27-Aug-10 Friday Summer Friday of fourth week in August 1.001

21-Oct-10 Thursday Typhoon Typhoon No.3 1.133

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

5.3.4.17 Sources of the aircraft emission input parameters are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-1. Emission

indices and fuel consumption rates corresponding to the different TIMs as provided by IATA are

listed in Appendix 5.3.1-2. Samples of TIMs corresponding to take-off, climb-out and approach

for each individual different aircraft model with respect to hourly mixing heights derived by

PCRAMMET are summarised in Appendix 5.3.1-3. The hourly emission inventory was generated

by summation of individual LTO cycle emissions that occurred in the particular runway routes.

Sample aircraft emission outputs on the busy day of Year 2031 are given in Appendix 5.3.1-4. A

sample calculation on aircraft LTO emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.1-5. Repeated

calculations are performed for the entire 365 days of Year 2031 for the 6 pollutants based on the

busiest days, weekly profile, and monthly profile. The annual emission inventory for the total

aircraft LTO in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.16.

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

conditions)

Source Annual Emission (kg)

CO VOC NOx SO2 RSP FSP[1]

Aircraft LTO (3RS) 4,229,712 486,566 8,738,427 740,596 37,336 37,336

Aircraft LTO (2RS) 2,346,661 296,008 6,168,272 489,574 24,761 24,761

Note:

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

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


5-64


Business Aviation Centre (Business helicopters only)

5.3.4.18 Apart from business jet emission associated with the HKBAC (as discussed in above sections),

business helicopter operated by HKBAC is also a source of pollutant emission, which has been

determined separately. Information on annual LTO, TIMs, engine type used for actual Year 2011

and future scenarios were obtained from HKBAC through questionnaires and site visit. According

to the information provided by HKBAC, there were on average two flights going to Macau and 2

flights going to Kowloon per month in Year 2011. Discussion with HKBAC indicates that a

decreasing trend in helicopter flight is anticipated for future years. It is therefore assumed in this

assessment that four flights per month will be maintained in Year 2031 as a conservative

assumption. Table 5.3.17 summarises the approach in determining the emission of business

helicopter.

Table 5.3.17: Annual Emission Inventory for Aircraft in Year 2031

Emission Sources



Business helicopter

Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions published by Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA)

• Assumption of using the same annual LTO as Year 2011 based on discussion with HKBAC.

• Emission indices, approach time, take-off time and climb-out time are based on the “Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions” published by Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA).

• Taxi-in, taxi-out and hovering time are based on site survey.

• The default value on climb-out mode is the elapsed time or aircraft ascendant from 1,000 feet above ground level to 3,000 feet. The approach mode is the elapsed time or aircraft descendant from 3,000 feet to the ground level. The climb-out and approach time periods are adjusted to the local hourly mixing height derived from 2011 King’s Park mixing height data by PCRAMMET in determining the emission. For modelling purposes, the source distribution will be extended to 10,000ft above ground to cater for the maximum altitude of the mixing height.

5.3.4.19 Sources of the business helicopter emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.18

and Appendix 5.3.2-1.

Table 5.3.18: Business Helicopter - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

Business Helicopter LTO Provided by Hong Kong Business Aviation Centre (HKBAC)

Helicopter Type Operator's Website (Heliservices (HK) Ltd)

Helicopter Engine Model and Number of Engine

FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions

Emission Indices FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions

Time-in-mode Made reference to normal practices of GFS, Hong Kong Helicopter Flight Route and Height

Limit, and FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions in relation to

mixing height

Flight Route Distance Hong Kong Helicopter Flight Route provided by GFS in relation to the destination location


Pollutants conversion factor EDMS database

5.3.4.20 Emission indices and fuel consumption rates corresponding to the different TIMs are listed in

Appendix 5.3.2-2. Samples of TIMs corresponding to take-off, climb-out and approach with


5-65


respect to hourly mixing heights derived by PCRAMMET are summarised in Appendix 5.3.2-3.

Appendix 5.3.2-4 illustrates a sample calculation of helicopter NOx emission. The annual

emission inventory for total business helicopter operation in Year 2031 is summarised in Table

5.3.19.

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



Business helicopter (3RS) 48 42 6 2 0.23 0.23

Business helicopter (2RS) 48 42 6 2 0.23 0.23

Note:

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


Airside Vehicles Emission (including Business Aviation Centre)

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

GSE Vehicles

5.3.4.22 GSE comprises of a diverse range of vehicles and equipment to service the aircraft after landing

and before take-off. Major services include aircraft towing, cargo loading and unloading, baggage

loading and unloading, passenger loading and unloading, potable water storage, lavatory waste

tank drainage, aircraft refuelling and food and beverage catering.

5.3.4.23 The GSE emissions per LTO cycle is the product of the EDMS emission indices, operating time,

and the number of GSE for a particular aircraft type. Questionnaires were sent to the operator to

collect the load factor, fuel consumption, age, operation time and engine power of their GSE for

the determination of emissions. However, the response rate for some of the parameters (e.g. load

factor, operation time, engine power) was low. Hence, the default emission factor in the EDMS

was adopted as the best available information. Site surveys were also conducted to establish

GSE operation characteristics, including the operating time and type of GSE to be used, with

respect to the categorised aircraft types for the actual Year 2011. Information from survey data

has been adopted to determine the GSE emission.

5.3.4.24 According to AAHK policy, all idling engines on the airside have been banned since 1 June 2008,

except for certain vehicles and equipment that are exempt due to safety and operation

considerations. This policy has been taken into account in determining the emission loading. In

addition, from Year 2014 all aircraft parking at stand will be required to connect to the fixed

ground power. Hence, the use of heaters / air power / air conditioning units will be minimal.

5.3.4.25 According to the discussion with AAHK, the newly registered GSE will follow the latest US / EU /

Japan standards. Hence, the GSE emission standard implementation programme in the EDMS,

which is based on US Non-road emission standard, has been adopted. Based on “A Proposal to

Control Emissions of Non-road Mobile Sources” by EPD in May 2010, the proposed standard for

the newly imported or manufactured GSE for placing on the local market (for sale, lease or use)


5-66


are listed in Table 5.3.20 and Table 5.3.21. The future emission of GSE predicted by EDMS has

been checked to comply with the following emission standards proposed by EPD.

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

Machinery with engine power (P) in kW Proposed standards adopted

(on considerations of similar stringency)

130 ≤ P ≤560 EU Stage IIIA, US Tier 3 or Japan MoE Stage 2

75 ≤ P < 130 EU Stage IIIA, US Tier 3 or Japan MoE Stage 2

37 ≤ P < 75 EU Stage IIIA, US Tier 3 or Japan MoE Stage 2

19 < P < 37 EU Stage IIIA, US Tier 3 or Japan MoE Stage 2

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

Machinery with engine power (P) in kW Proposed standards adopted

(on considerations of similar stringency)

19 < P ≤560 US Tier 2

5.3.4.26 AAHK required that ultra-low sulfur diesel (0.005%) shall be used for airside GSE. Discussion

with HAECO further indicated that they have adopted Euro V diesel with 0.001% sulfur content for

their GSE. Hence, for conservative assessment, fuel sulfur content of 0.005% has been adopted

for the diesel used in GSE inside the airport.

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

5.3.22.

Table 5.3.22: Summary for Determination of the GSE Emission Inventory

Emission Sources



GSE EDMS • Diesel fuel type as advised by the operators.

• The type of GSE to be assigned to a particular category of aircraft is based on on-site survey.

• The operation characteristics of GSE assigned for different category of aircraft type and their operation time are based on on-site survey

• Load factors are based on EDMS default value and questionnaires.

• Emission indices from EDMS, which is based on USEPA NONROAD model.

5.3.4.28 Sources of the GSE emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.23 and Appendix

5.3.3-1.

Table 5.3.23: GSE - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

Operating duration Site survey

Engine horsepower HAECO, HAS, JATS, PAPAS, SATS. Where unavailable, horsepower is selected based on

EDMS value.

Age of GSE HAECO, HAS, JATS, PAPAS, SATS.

Fuel type of GSE HAECO, HAS, JATS, PAPAS, SATS.

GSE used by aircraft Site survey


5-67


Parameter Source

Emission indices EDMS

Load factor HAECO, HAS, JATS, PAPAS, SATS. Where unavailable, horsepower is selected based on

EDMS value.

5.3.4.29 Horsepower, load factors and emission factors of GSE provided by operators and adopted by

EDMS are listed in Appendix 5.3.3-2. GSE operation times for different aircraft types are

summarised in Appendix 5.3.3-3. Derived emission rates of all GSE operations for individual

aircraft arrival and departure LTO cycle are given in Appendix 5.3.3-4. A sample calculation on

GSE NOx emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.3-5. The annual emission inventory for total GSE

operation in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.24.

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



GSE (3RS) 35,174 29,615 168,121 2,577 12,601 12,223

GSE (2RS) 24,385 20,476 114,322 1,783 8,538 8,282

Note:


Non-GSE Vehicles

5.3.4.30 Non-GSE comprises saloon vehicles, van, light bus, light goods vehicles, crew bus, passenger

bus, etc. According to AAHK, the vehicular emission standard of non-GSE vehicles shall follow

the vehicle emission implementation standard in Hong Kong. Hence, non-GSE emission is

calculated by the product of the emission indices generated from EMFAC-HK v2.6 (Emfac mode)

and the mileage travelled by each type of non-GSE vehicle. Questionnaires have been sent to the

operators and AAHK to collect the number of non-GSE vehicles, their fuel type and consumption,

age, mileage, operation time and engine type for the determination of emission. For those

operators who did not provide the mileage information, the distance travelled has been calculated

based on the yearly operation time and the travelling speed limit allowed within airside. For those

operators who could not provide any information on their non-GSE, the missing data is made

reference to that of other operators as the best available information.

5.3.4.31 Future non-GSE activities have been predicted based on the growth rate of LTO cycles.

According to the survey findings, the average age of the non-GSE is around 1-9 years (based on

Year 2011) and the average retirement period for non-GSE is around 10-15 years. Hence, by

Year 2031, all the non-GSE will likely be changed to Euro V standard. According to AAHK policy,

by 2017 all saloon vehicles on the airside will be electric. Hence there will be no saloon vehicles

emission at the assessment year of 2031.

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

5.3.25.


5-68


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

Emission Sources



Non-GSE

EMFAC-HK V.2.6

• The number of GSE, mileage, operation time, fuel type and fuel consumption from operators.

• Adopt Euro V standard for engine in Year 2031.

• Emission indices from EMFAC-HK v2.6.

• Prevailing policy is factored in.

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

5.3.3-6.

Table 5.3.26: Non-GSE - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

General Vehicles Information AAHK and operators

Fuel Usage in 2011 AAHK and operators

Mileage Travelled in 2011 AAHK and operators

Vehicles Travelling Speed AAHK and operators

Emission indices and Fuel Efficiency EMFAC / EMSD

5.3.4.34 Information on mileage and age provided by operators and AAHK are listed in Appendix 5.3.3-7.

Non-GSE average speed is summarised in Appendix 5.3.3-8. Derived emission rates of all non-

GSE from EMFAC-HK v2.6 are given in Appendix 5.3.3-9. A sample calculation for non-GSE

NOx emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.3-10. The annual emission inventory for total non-GSE

operation in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.27.

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


CO VOC NOx SO2 RSP FSP

Non-GSE (3RS) 85,513 9,013 102,891 276 6,383 5,874

Non-GSE (2RS) 57,928 6,106 69,700 187 4,324 3,979

Note:

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

Auxiliary Power Unit

5.3.4.35 Auxiliary power units (APUs) are the on-board generators. They are gas turbine engines,

generally one per aircraft, used primarily during aircraft ground operation to provide electricity,

compressed air, and/or shaft power for main engine start, air conditioning, electric power and

other aircraft systems. APUs can also provide backup electric power during in-flight operation.

The APU emissions generated per LTO cycle are the product of the emission indices, operating

time, and the number of APUs for a particular aircraft type. The types and emission indices of

APU for future aircraft have been determined by IATA. EDMS v5.1.4.1 has been adopted to

determine the RSP and FSP emissions. The approach for determination of APU emission is

summarised in Table 5.3.28 and Appendix 5.3.1-2.


5-69


5.3.4.36 Future generation APUs will incorporate new technologies and design improvements that will

increase reliability, maintainability and performance so as to meet the airline objective of low total

cost of ownership and high reliability. APUs is an important source of emissions at airports. There

are initiatives to reduce emissions of this source; either through reduction at source (more

efficient APU, less emissions), operation restrictions (reduction of operating hours) or alternative

systems (e.g. replacement of APU operations by ground power or other means).

5.3.4.37 According to AAHK policy, from 2014, all aircraft parking at stand will be required to connect to

the fixed ground power and the use of APU will be prohibited. Nevertheless, the APU will still be

operated before the aircraft reach the gate and after the aircraft leaving the gate, when the main

engine is not yet started. According to the site survey, the APU operation time is listed as follows:

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

� APU operation time after the aircraft leaving the stand when the main engine is not yet

started: around 5 minutes

5.3.4.38 The above surveyed times are in line with the international practice. According to the study by

IATA (Appendix 5.3.1-2), in total the APU will be running 3-4 minutes for a 2-engine aircraft and

5-6 minutes for a four-engine aircraft. In addition, APU would also be operated during movements

between the stand and the times for these movements have been determined from TAAM model.

Table 5.3.28: Summary for Determination of the APU Emission Inventory

Emission Sources



APU IATA � The type of APU assigned for different category of aircraft type has been based on IATA input (See Appendix 5.3.1-2).

� APU Operation time before reaching the stand: ~ 1minute (communication with Pilot).

� APU Operation time after the aircraft leaving the stand when the main engine not yet started: ~ 5 minutes (site Survey).

� APU Operation time during movements between stands: Based on TAAM model output

� Prevailing AAHK policy is factored in.

5.3.4.39 Sources of the APU emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.29 and Appendix

5.3.4-1.

Table 5.3.29: APU - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

APU Model HKIA future constrained schedules from IATA

APU Operating Time IATA estimates, information from pilot, site surveys

Emission Indices EDMS database, IATA estimates

5.3.4.40 Emission indices of APU (CO, HC and NOx) adopted by IATA are summarised in Appendix

5.3.4-2. The RSP emission determined from EDMS is also summarised in Appendix 5.3.4-2.

Derived emission rates of APU operations for aircraft arrival and departure LTO cycle are given in

Appendix 5.3.4-3. A sample calculation for APU NOx emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.4-4.

The annual emission inventory for the total APU operation in Year 2031 is summarised in Table

5.3.30.


5-70


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


CO VOC NOx SO2 RSP FSP [1]

APU (3RS) 29,582 3,118 59,332 6,492 5,638 5,638

APU (2RS) 23,403 2,602 58,810 5,887 4,720 4,720

Note:


Government Flying Services (GFS)

5.3.4.41 Aviation activities generated by GFS are separated in the analysis from commercial aircraft LTO.

Information on annual LTO and engine types, take-off time, taxiing time and hovering time for

helicopters used in Year 2011 has been provided from GFS and verified by site survey through

measurement. There are two types of aircraft (Jetstream 41 and ZLIN Z242L) and two types of

helicopters (Eurocopter EC 155 and Eurocopter Super Puma) operated by GFS. The EDMS

v5.1.4.1 has only the ICAO emission index for Jetstream 41. The emission indices for ZLIN

Z242L, Eurocopter EC 155 and Eurocopter Super Puma have therefore been made reference to

the “FOCA Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report” and “Guidance on the

Determination of Helicopter Emissions” published by Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation

(FOCA), which is the best available information.

5.3.4.42 As advised by GFS, the GFS operation activities are not directly related to the LTO growth or any

other airport activities. Their operation is mainly for emergency purposes (such as search and

rescue, air ambulance, etc.) and it was advised that the future flying hours will remain roughly the

same as Year 2011 (Appendix 5.3.5-6). As advised by GFS, ZLIN Z242L will probably be

replaced by a Diamond DA42NG with 2 x Austro Engine A300 and Jetstream 41 will be replaced

by Bombardier Challenger 605 with General Electric CF 34-3B engines in near future. The

emission load simulation at Year 2031 has therefore taken these changes into account.

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

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

Emission Sources



GFS - Aircraft EDMS and FOCA Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report”

• Assumed same annual LTO as Year 2011, but ZLIN Z242L is replaced by a Diamond DA42NG with 2 x Austro Engine A300 and Jetstream 41 is replaced by Bombardier Challenger 605 with General Electric CF 34-3B engines.

• The default value in the Guidance on climb-out mode (which is the elapsed time or aircraft ascendant from 1,000 feet above ground level to 3,000 feet) and the approach mode (which is the elapsed time or aircraft descendant from 3,000 feet to the ground level) were adopted. The climb-out and approach time periods are adjusted to the MM5 local hourly mixing height data. Nevertheless, for the sake of modelling, the sources distribution is extended to 10,000 feet above ground to cater for the maximum altitude of the mixing height.

• Take-off time based on the site survey in GFS.

• Taxiing time based on TAAM model output.

• Emission indices from EDMS and “FOCA Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report”.


5-71


Emission Sources



GFS - Eurocopter EC 155 and Eurocopter Super Puma

Guidance on Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions published by Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA)

• Assumed same annual LTO as Year 2011.

• No data in EDMS. Reference has been made to “Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions”.

• Taxiing time, hovering time, idling time and take-off time based on the site survey in GFS.

• The default value in the Guidance on climb-out mode (which is the elapsed time or aircraft ascendant from 1,000 feet above ground level to 3,000 feet) and the approach mode (which is the elapsed time or aircraft descendant from 3,000 feet to the ground level) were adopted. The climb-out and approach time periods are adjusted to the MM5 local hourly mixing height data. Nevertheless, for the sake of modelling, the sources distribution is extended to 10,000 feet above ground to cater for the maximum altitude of the mixing height.

• Emission indices based on “Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions”.

5.3.4.44 Sources of the GFS aircraft and helicopter emission input parameters are summarised in Table

5.3.32 and Appendix 5.3.5-1.

Table 5.3.32: GFS - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

GFS Flight Record in 2011 Provided by Government Flying Service (GFS)

Aircraft and Helicopter type Provided by Government Flying Service (GFS)

Aircraft and Helicopter Engine Model and Number of Engine

Provided by Government Flying Service (GFS)

Emission Indices and Pollutant Conversion Factor

EDMS Database, FOCA's Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report and

FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions

Time-in-mode EDMS Database, FOCA's Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions Summary Report,

FOCA's Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions and Site Survey

at GFS in relation to the mixing height


Runway usage (for aircraft) The runway used by GFS aircrafts are distributed among the six runways

according to the hourly runway fraction used by commercial jets

Flight Route Distance Hong Kong Helicopter Flight Route provided by GFS in relation to the destination

location

Aviation Record and Information Provided by Government Flying Service (GFS)

5.3.4.45 Emission indices and fuel rates corresponding to different TIMs as determined by EDMS and

FOCA are listed in Appendix 5.3.5-2. The flight route of helicopter within 5 km assessment area

is summarised in Appendix 5.3.5-3. TIMs corresponding to different helicopters and aircraft are

summarised in Appendix 5.3.5-4. Sample calculation for aircraft emission can be referred to

Appendix 5.3.1-5. Sample calculation of helicopter emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.5-5. The

annual emission inventory for GFS operation is summarised in Table 5.3.33.


5-72


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



GFS (3RS) 9,001 5,856 2,598 549 83 83

GFS (2RS)[2] 9,382 5,900 2,624 559 84 84

Note:


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

though the LTO is the same.


Aviation Fuel Farm

5.3.4.46 Breathing, displacement and air saturation are the primary states for pollutant emissions from

aviation fuel tanks. The assessment of emission was calculated by USEPA AP-42, Chapter 7.1

based on the tank size, fuel storage height, tank roof design etc. Information on fuel type, tank

dimension, annual fuel used, average and maximum height of fuel in the storage tank were

obtained from the tank farm operators (Aviation Fuel Supply Company and AFSC Operations Ltd)

through questionnaire. Emission indices of aviation fuel are derived from USEPA AP-42 (5th

edition), Chapter 7.1. No expansion of the existing aviation fuel farm on the airport island is

proposed. It is noted that the emission from aviation fuel farm will vary with the meteorological

conditions, such as ambient temperature and relative humidity. These factors have also been

taken into account in the emission load estimation.

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

5.3.34.

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

Emission Sources



Aviation Fuel Tank Farm

USEPA AP42 Chapter 7.1

• No expansion of existing tank farm at Year 2031

• Tank size and dimension, fuel type, annual fuel consumption, average and maximum height of fuel in the storage tank from operators

• Emission factors based on AP-42 (5th edition), Chapter 7.1

5.3.4.48 Sources of the aviation fuel tank farm emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.35

and Appendix 5.3.6-1.

Table 5.3.35: Aviation Fuel Tank - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

Tank size and dimension AFSC, EIA for "Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport"

Fuel Type AFSC, EIA for "Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport"

Annual Fuel Consumption AFSC, EIA for "Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport"

Average and Maximum height of fuel in storage tank

AFSC, EIA for "Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport"

Meteorological Data PCRAMMET results


5-73


Parameter Source

Emission indices AP-42, Chapter 7.1

5.3.4.49 The breakdowns of emissions from each tank are shown in Appendix 5.3.6-2. A sample fuel tank

emission working calculation is shown in Appendix 5.3.6-3. The annual emission inventory for

the aviation fuel tank is summarised in Table 5.3.36.

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



Aviation Fuel Tank (3RS) 0 110,119 0 0 0 0

Aviation Fuel Tank (2RS) 0 103,922 0 0 0 0

Fire Training Activities

5.3.4.50 Fire training is periodically performed at HKIA by the Fire Services Department (FSD). The

emissions are the product of the emission indices and the quantity of fuel burnt in fire training.

Information on fuel type and amount of fuel burnt for future activities and plan has been obtained

from FSD through questionnaire. According to the latest airport layout, there will be one additional

fire training activity in the western supporting area. Hence, the future activities provided by the

FSD will be shared by the existing and future training centre. Table 5.3.37 summarises the

approach for determination of the emission from fire training activities.

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

Emission Sources



Fire Training Activities

EDMS • Information on future activities and plan provided from FSD.

• Emission indices from EDMS

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

1.

Table 5.3.38: Fire Training - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

Number of training Provided by Fire Services Department (FSD)

Dates of training Provided by FSD

Training Duration Provided by FSD

Fuel Type used for training Provided by FSD

Fuel consumption Provided by FSD

Emission indices EDMS database

5.3.4.52 Emission factors of different fuel types are listed in Appendix 5.3.7-3. The breakdown emission

inventory is given in Appendix 5.3.7-4. A sample calculation for emission for the fire training is

shown in Appendix 5.3.7-5. The annual emission inventory for the fire training activities is

summarised in Table 5.3.39.


5-74


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



Fire Training Activities (3RS) 23,067 702 175 35 5,240 5,240

Fire Training Activities (2RS) 23,067 702 175 35 5,240 5,240

Note:

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

Engine Run-up Facilities (ERUF)

5.3.4.53 Engine testing is performed at HKIA by Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company Limited

(HAECO). The activity emission depends on the type and number of engine to be tested, power

setting of the test engine, duration of testing as well as the product of the emission indices.

Information on the type of engine, power setting, test duration, number of engine tested for actual

Year 2011 has been obtained from HAECO through questionnaire via AAHK. The number of

engine run-up tests to be conducted is related to the number of total LTO. In Year 2011, the total

air traffic movement was around 335,000. To cater for the growth of the air traffic movement (i.e.

617,000 at Year 2031) and potential increase in numbers of engine test required, an additional

ERUF will be constructed for the 3RS. According to the latest Master Plan 2030, the new ERUF

will be located in the northern end of the western supporting area. The usage of this new ERUF is

assumed to be the same as the current facility as advised by AAHK.

5.3.4.54 The emission indices for the aircraft under test have been based on the engine types forecasted

by IATA. It should be noted that some of the old engine models adopted in Year 2011 would be

phased out. According to the engine testing record in Year 2011, it was found that 70% of the

total engine tests were conducted by Cathay Pacific Airways and Hong Kong Dragon Airlines.

Aircraft engine models to be used by these airlines during Year 2031 projected by IATA were

extracted and the weighted average engine emission indices were calculated based on their

forecasted LTO at Year 2031. Appendix 5.3.8-3 presented the detailed calculations of weighted

average engine emission indices. In addition, it is noted that the emission from engine run-up

facilities will vary with the meteorological conditions, such as ambient temperature and relative

humidity. These factors will also be taken into account in the emission load simulation. Table

5.3.40 summarises the approach for determination of the emission for ERUF.

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

Emission Sources



Engine run-up testing

EDMS • According to AAHK, there will be one additional ERUF for the 3RS.

• The operation characteristic of the future ERUFs are assumed to be the same as those of the Year 2011 as advised by AAHK.

• Emission factors have been based on new engine model provided by IATA.

5.3.4.55 Sources of the engine testing emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.41 and

Appendix 5.3.8-1.

Table 5.3.41: Engine Run Up Facilities - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source


5-75


Parameter Source

Testing date and time Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO

Testing duration Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO

Aircraft tested Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO

Engine model tested Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO

Engine testing power Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO

Number of engine tested Adopted 2011 Record provided by HAECO

Emission indices Database from IATA constrained schedule

Engine mode look up table In accordance with ICAO exhaust database


Pollutants conversion factor EDMS database

5.3.4.56 Emission indices and fuel consumption rates corresponding to the different TIMs as determined

by EDMS are included in Appendix 5.3.1-2. The calculated ERUF emission is shown in

Appendix 5.3.8-3. The engine mode lookup table is shown in Appendix 5.3.8-4. The emission

forecast for aircraft engine testing in Year 2031 is shown in Appendix 5.3.8-4. The annual

emission inventory for engine run-up facility in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.42.

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



ERUF (3RS) 3,754 1,106 188,230 10,496 550 550

ERUF (2RS) 2,494 742 129,047 6,924 336 336

Note:


Aircraft Maintenance Centre

5.3.4.57 Paint spraying inside the aircraft maintenance centre will generate VOC. The amount of VOC

emission has been calculated by EDMS based on the paint usage rate. A dedicated extraction

and ventilation system was installed in the hanger paint bay to remove the paint particles. The

removal efficiency of the scrubber is around 98% according to the information from HAECO. In

addition, HAECO advised that paint spraying activities were not directly related to the LTO growth

and also paint spraying was not a regular activity in the aircraft maintenance centre. The paint

spraying activities undertaken in Year 2011 provided by HAECO correspond to the total ATM of

about 335,000. According to the master plan of airport, an additional aircraft maintenance centre

will be constructed in the western supporting area of the 3RS. Discussion with AAHK indicated

that the operation characteristics of the new maintenance centre would be the same as that of the

existing one. With two aircraft maintenance centre of same operation characteristics, they can

serve around 670,000 ATM, which exceeds the capacity of the 3RS. Table 5.3.43 summarises

the approach for determination of the emission from paint spraying from aircraft maintenance

centre.


5-76


Table 5.3.43: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission from Aircraft Maintenance Centre

Emission Sources



Aircraft maintenance centre

EDMS • One additional aircraft maintenance centre in Western Supporting Area

• Assume same paint usage rate as Year 2011 as advised by AAHK

• Emission indices from EDMS.

• Scrubber removal efficiency (i.e. 98%) from operator.

5.3.4.58 Sources of the aircraft maintenance centre emission input parameters are summarised in Table

5.3.44 and Appendix 5.3.9-1.

Table 5.3.44: Aircraft Maintenance Centre - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

Chemical Consumption Adopted from 2011 record provided by HAECO

Scrubber Removal Efficiency Information provided by HAECO

Emission Indices EDMS database, info provided by HAECO

5.3.4.59 Annual emission inventory is listed in Appendix 5.3.9-2. Sample calculation for aircraft

maintenance centre emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.9-3. The annual emission inventory for

aircraft maintenance centre in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.45.

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



Aircraft Maintenance Centre (3RS) 0 10,745 0 0 0 0

Aircraft Maintenance Centre (2RS) 0 5,372 0 0 0 0

Catering

5.3.4.60 The use of the diesel furnace is the major air pollutant emission source from catering facilities.

There are three existing catering operators at HKIA, including Cathay Pacific Catering Services

(H.K.) Ltd., Gate Gourmet Hong Kong Ltd and LSG Lufthansa Service Hong Kong Ltd.

Questionnaires were sent to the three catering operators on the existing fuel use and chimney

information (e.g. the type of diesel furnace used, fuel sulfur content, annual fuel consumption for

future years, stack height, stack diameter, exit temperature and exit velocity of the stack). Based

on the responses, only Cathay Pacific Catering Services (HK) Ltd. uses diesel (plus towngas) as

the fuel. The other two operators use electricity and town gas for food production, which are not

considered as a major air pollutant emission source.

5.3.4.61 It is proposed that there will be an extra catering facility in the North Eastern Supporting area to

cater for the additional 200,000 ATM for the proposed 3RS (i.e. 620,000 (3 runway maximum

ATM ) – 420,000 (2 runway maximum ATM)). As a conservative approach, diesel fuel is assumed

for the new catering facility. The emission indices of NOx and RSP are based on standards listed

in the Air Pollution Control (Fuel Restriction) (Amendment) Regulation 2008. The emission factor

for SO2 was determined according to the fuel sulfur content provided by the operator, which

complies with the Air Pollution Control (Fuel Restriction) (Amendment) Regulation 2008. The


5-77


emission factors for CO, and HC have been derived from USEPA AP-42 (5th edition), Chapter 1.3-

1.4. Table 5.3.46 summarises the approach for determination of the emission for catering.

Table 5.3.46: Summary of Assumptions for Determination of the Emission for Catering

Emission Sources



Catering EDMS • Information on future activities and plan provided from operator and latest airport master plan.

• Emission indices of NOx and RSP: APCO

• Emission indices of SO2: sulfur content provided by operator, which comply with APCO

• Emission indices of CO and HC: AP-42 (5th Edition), Chapter 1.3-1.4

5.3.4.62 Sources of the catering emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.47 and

Appendix 5.3.10-1.

Table 5.3.47: Catering - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

Fuel consumption Information provided by Cathay Pacific Catering Services (CPCS)

Furnace Type Information provided by CPCS

Emission indices AP-42, Ch. 1.3 and 1.4

5.3.4.63 The fuel consumption and emission indices for emission calculation are shown in Appendix

5.3.10-3. The emission inventory for the catering industry is summarised in Table 5.3.48. Sample

calculation for catering emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.10-3.

Table 5.3.48: Annual Emission Inventory for Catering at Year 2031 for 3RS and 2RS



Catering (3RS) 6,758 664 27,030 192 1,352 338

Catering (2RS) 3,875 381 15,498 110 775 194

Vehicle Parking

5.3.4.64 There are currently seven major car parks and four major truck parks within HKIA premises. Five

car parks (CP1 – CP4 and SkyPlaza) are operated by AAHK, and the remaining two passenger

car parks are operated by Airport Freight Forwarding Centre Co Ltd (AFFC) and Tradeport Hong

Kong Ltd. The operators for the four truck parks are AFFC, Asia Airfreight Terminal Co Ltd (AAT),

Hong Kong Air Cargo Terminals (HACTL) and Tradeport Hong Kong Ltd. It is proposed that car

parks CP3 and CP4 will be removed due to the planned Terminal 2 (T2) expansion and the North

Commercial District (NCD) development. Three additional car parks will be provided: a multi-

storey car park in T2 expansion, an underground car park beneath the NCD development and

one multi-storey car park to the south of NCD to provide around 2,000 spaces in total.

5.3.4.65 Vehicle movements inside car parks / truck parks will generate exhaust air emission. Since all

vehicles are expected to switch off their engine after parking, idling emission inside car parks /

truck parks is considered negligible. The amount of emission exhausts from vehicle movements

inside the car parks / truck parks depends on the number of vehicles, vehicle mix, distance


5-78


travelled, etc. and these are modelled by EMFAC-HK v2.6. Questionnaires were issued to the car

park / truck park operators to collate the operation details in actual Year 2011 and future

assessment years. Since information on Year 2031 is not available from the operators, the

number of vehicle movements has been projected based on the passenger traffic and cargo

freight growth factors. The latest implementation programme of the vehicle emission standards in

Hong Kong as published and available in EPD’s website (i.e. updated as at 2 January 2014) has

been adopted in the assessment. The exhaust technology fractions have been made reference to

the technology group fractions listed in EPD’s website (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/

environmentinhk/air/guide_ref/emfac.html). It is assumed that the fuel properties will also be in

line with the implementation of these standards. In EMFAC-HK v2.6, a vehicle population forecast

function has been incorporated in the model with 2010 as its base year. The default vehicle

populations forecast in EMFAC-HK v2.6 have been used for assessment purpose in this study.

5.3.4.66 Since the EMFAC-HK cannot be used for calculation of SO2 emission, an alternative method is

therefore adopted. The SO2 emission factor is derived based on the assumption that 98% of the

sulfur in the fuel is emitted as SO2. This is in line with the assumption used in the USEPA PART5

program (refer to USEPA PART5 Model User Guide – 1995) for calculating emissions from motor

vehicles. Using this assumption, the emission factor is calculated from the following equation:

EfSO2 [g/km] = 1.96 x (Sf/100) x (Df x 1,000) x (Ef/100)

Where

1.96 = Factor to account for fraction emitted (98% of sulfur content in fuel) and weight ratio of SO2 to S (2.0)

Sf = Fuel sulfur content (weight percentage)

Df = Density of fuel (0.73 kg/L for gasoline; 0.845 kg/L for diesel fuel)

Ef = Vehicle fuel efficiency (in L/100 km)

5.3.4.67 The vehicle fuel efficiencies for different types of vehicle can be extracted from the Electrical and

Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) Primary Indicator Values, and they are listed in Table

5.3.49. References shall be made to the EMSD’s websites.

Table 5.3.49: Fuel Efficiencies for Different Vehicles Types

Subgroup ID

Vehicle Type Fuel Type

Engine Size (cc)

Gross Vehicle Weight (tonnes)

Fuel Efficiency (L/100km)

Principal Group 1 – Private Car and Motorcycle

V1 Motorcycle Petrol -- -- 4.2

V2 Private Car Diesel -- -- 11.8

V3 Private Car Petrol <=1,000 -- 8.1

V4 Private Car Petrol 1,001-1,500 -- 9

V5 Private Car Petrol 1,501-2,500 -- 11.5

V6 Private Car Petrol 2,501-3,500 -- 14

V7 Private Car Petrol 3,501-4,500 -- 16.3

V8 Private Car Petrol >4,500 -- 17.3

Principal Group 2 – Bus and Light Bus

V11 Private Bus (Double Deck) Diesel -- -- 47


5-79


Subgroup ID

Vehicle Type Fuel Type

Engine Size (cc)

Gross Vehicle Weight (tonnes)

Fuel Efficiency (L/100km)

V12 Private Bus (Single Deck) Diesel -- -- 23.9

V13 Non-franchised Public Bus (Double Deck)

Diesel -- -- 59.3

V14 Non-franchised Public Bus (Single Deck)

Diesel -- -- 24.9

V15 Private Light Bus Diesel -- -- 16

V16 Public Light Bus Diesel -- -- 15.4

V17 Private Light Bus LPG -- -- 29.7

V18 Public Light Bus LPG -- -- 20.5

Principal Group 3 – Taxi

V21 Taxi LPG (Urban) LPG -- -- 14.3

V22 Taxi LPG (Lantau Island) LPG -- -- 14.5

V23 Taxi LPG (NT) LPG -- -- 12.6

Principal Group 4 – Vehicle – Light Goods Vehicle (LGV)

V31 Light Goods Vehicle Petrol -- <=1.9 11.4

V32 Light Goods Vehicle Petrol -- >1.9 12.2

V33 Light Goods Vehicle Diesel -- <=2.5 11

V34 Light Goods Vehicle Diesel -- 2.51-4 11.3

V35 Light Goods Vehicle Diesel -- 4.01-5.5 15.6

Principal Group 5 – Vehicle – Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV)

V36 Medium Goods Vehicle, Tractors Diesel -- 5.51-24 47.9

V37 Medium Goods Vehicle, Non-tractors

Diesel -- 5.51-10 19.3


Diesel -- 10.01-15 25.8


Diesel -- 15.01-20 28.5


Diesel -- 20.01-24 41.5

Principal Group 6 – Vehicle – Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV)

V41 Heavy Goods Vehicle Diesel -- 24.01-38 46.2

Note:

Referenced from EMSD Website: http://ecib.emsd.gov.hk/en/indicator_trp.htm

5.3.4.68 Table 5.3.50 summarises the approach for determination of emission from car parks / truck

parks.

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

Emission Sources



Car park / Truck park

EMFAC-HK V2.6

USEPA PART5 program for SO2 emission

• Future activities of the existing and planned car park / truck park have been determined based on current activities, the passenger and cargo growth factors, capacity of the car park / truck park and existing utilisation rate (if available)

• Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as at 2


5-80


Emission Sources



January 2014) has been adopted.

• The exhaust technology fractions available in EPD’s website have been adopted.

• Default vehicle populations forecast in EMFAC-HK v2.6 have been adopted.

• SO2 emission estimation has been based on EMSD Primary Indicator Values and in accordance with USEPA PART5 program.

5.3.4.69 Appendix 5.3.11 presents the traffic forecast inside each car park/ truck park, key model

assumptions adopted in EMFAC-HK V2.6 and derived emission factors. The annual emission

inventory for all car and truck parks in Year 2031 is summarised in Table 5.3.51.

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



Vehicle Parking (3RS) 34,830 2,477 10,120 69 589 543

Vehicle Parking (2RS) 26,908 1,863 7,476 53 450 414

Note:


Roads on the airport island

5.3.4.70 Roads on the airport island can be classified into two types: airside and landside roads.

Airside roads

5.3.4.71 The emission from airside traffic has been detailed in Sections 5.3.4.21 – 5.3.4.34.

Landside roads

5.3.4.72 Vehicular tailpipe emissions from all roads in the airport island were calculated by the EMFAC-HK

v2.6. The traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. for Year 2031 were predicted and forecasted by

traffic model. Planned roads on the airport island including connecting roads to HKBCF have

been included in the Year 2031 scenario. EMFAC-HK model has been separately run for different

road categories of similar nature and driving pattern as shown in Table 5.3.52.

Table 5.3.52: Road Categories for Airport Island assumed in EMFAC-HK

Group Roads Justification

Group 1 Roads of design speed of 80km/h and without cold start (Expressway / Trunk Road)

• Design speed of 80kph

• No cold start trips

Group 2 Roads of design speed of 50km/h and without cold start (Trunk Road / District Distributor/ Primary Distributor)

• Design speed of 50kph

• No cold start trips

Group 3 Roads of design speed of 50km/h and with cold start (Local Distributor) • Design speed of 50kph

• With cold start trips

5.3.4.73 The latest implementation programme of vehicle emission standards, vehicle population, vehicle

population forecast function, exhaust technology fractions and the calculations of SO2 emission


5-81


are described in Sections 5.3.4.64 – 5.3.4.68. Table 5.3.53 summarises the approach for

determination of the landside vehicular emission on the airport island.

Table 5.3.53: Summary of approach for determination of the landside vehicular emission on airport island

Emission Sources



Vehicular emission

EMFAC-HK v2.6


• Future traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. have been forecasted by traffic model.

• Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as of 2 January 2014) has been adopted.




5.3.4.74 Appendix 5.3.11 presented the traffic forecast for roads on the airport island, detailed

methodology and key model assumptions on EMFAC-HK and results (including emission factors).

The annual emission inventory for the motor vehicles on the airport island is summarised in Table

5.3.54.

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



Vehicles on the airport island (3RS)

288,515 11,604 69,848 1,549 4,107 3,784

Vehicles on the airport island (2RS)

273,553 11,016 66,616 1,456 3,878 3,573

Note:


Marine Vessels Emission

5.3.4.75 There are two marine vessels emission sources at the airport: SkyPier and the Chu Kong

Shipping Enterprises (Group) Co Ltd (CKS). SkyPier provides high speed ferry services for transit

passengers from HKIA to eight ports in the PRD and Macau. CKS provides river trade services

for air cargo between Hong Kong and the PRD. Questionnaires were sent to the operators to

gather information on the ferry types and weight, on board marine engines type and engine

loading, daily and annual trips, etc. Only CKS provided responses on their existing activities.

5.3.4.76 For the ferry activities of SkyPier, their latest schedules were collected on site. A site survey was

also conducted at SkyPier to determine the ferry idling, manoeuvring and cruising time. The

engine emission factors were determined based on “Study on Marine Vessels Emission

Inventory” published by EPD.

5.3.4.77 For projection of marine activities to the future assessment year at Year 2031, the growth factor

determined in the Marine Traffic Impact Assessment (MTIA) Report as prepared under the

Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment study for Airport Master Plan 2030 was

adopted. Table 5.3.55 summarises the approach for determination of the marine emission at

SkyPier and CKS.


5-82


Table 5.3.55: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Marine Vessels Emission at SkyPier and CKS

Emission Sources



Ferry at Sky Pier

EPD’s Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory (2012)

• Ferry activities based on existing schedules

• Idling, manoeuvring and cruising time based on site survey

• Emission factors based on “Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, EPD”.

• Forecast projection by growth factor listed in MTIA report

Barge at CKS

EPD’s Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory (2012)

• Barge activities based on questionnaires

• Idling, manoeuvring and cruising time based on questionnaires

• Emission factors based on “Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, EPD”.

• Forecast projection by growth factor listed in MTIA report

5.3.4.78 Sources of the marine vessels emission input parameters are summarised in Table 5.3.56 and

Appendix 5.3.12-1.

Table 5.3.56: Marine Navigation - Emission Input Parameters

Parameter Source

Ferry/Barge Engine Type Turbojet Website, CKAS and EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory

Engine Power and Number of Engines

Turbojet Website, CKAS and EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory

Load factor CKAS and EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory

Time-in-mode CKAS and EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory

Operating duration and profile Operators' Website and CKAS

Emission Indices EPD's Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory

Fuel Sulphur Content CKAS for barge. Assume 0.5% for ferry.

5.3.4.79 The marine traffic activities from the operator are shown in Appendix 5.3.12-2. The engine power

and load factors are shown in Appendix 5.3.12-3. The Time-in-mode of marine vessels are

summarised in Appendix 5.3.12-4. A sample calculation on marine traffic activities is shown in

Appendix 5.3.12-5. The annual emission inventory for the marine activities on the airport island

is summarised in Table 5.3.57.

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



Marine Navigation (3RS) 9,930 2,888 92,266 18,993 2,813 2,525

Marine Navigation (2RS) 9,930 2,888 92,266 18,993 2,813 2,525

Note:

[1] Emission rates of all pollutants are based on “Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, EPD”

Aircraft Brake and Tire Wear

5.3.4.80 Aircraft brake and tire emissions are reported on a per LTO basis. Much like vehicles, aircraft tire

and break emissions estimates contain large uncertainties and vary depending on the type of

aircraft and the landing conditions. According to London Luton Airport – Air Quality Assessment

Methodology 2012, estimation of PM emissions arising from brake and tire wear were based on


5-83


the methodology developed by Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow (PSDH).

For brake wear, an emission factor of 2.51 x 10-7

kg PM10 per kg MTOW was assumed. For tire

wear, the following relationship was used:

PM10 (kg) per landing = 2.23 x 10-6 x (MTOW kg) – 0.0874 kg

where MTOW is the maximum take-off weight.

5.3.4.81 In this study, the methodology developed by Luton Airport was adopted to determine the brake

and tire wear emission. According to ACRP Report 9 - Summarising and Interpreting Aircraft

Gaseous and Particulate Emissions Data. Nearly all tire wear emissions are larger than PM2.5.

For brakes, a study conducted by Sanders et al. (2003) observed that between 50% and 90% of

brake emissions become airborne particles (mass mean diameter is 6 µm and the number-

weighted mean is between 1 µm to 2 µm). Hence, no PM2.5 emission was assumed for tire wear

emission. For brake emission, PM2.5 would contribute 100% of PM10 emission for conservative

assessment purpose.

5.3.4.82 The brake and tire wear for different aircraft were shown in Appendix 5.3.20-1. A sample

calculation on brake and tire wear emission is shown in Appendix 5.3.20-1. The annual emission

inventory for the brake and tire wear emission on the airport island is summarised in Table

5.3.58.

Table 5.3.58: Annual Emission Inventory for Brake and Tire Wear



Brake and Tire Wear (3RS)

- - - - 143,750 17,146

Brake and Tire Wear (2RS)

- - - - 107,208 12,641

Summary of Airport Related Emission Inventory

5.3.4.83 Table 5.3.59 summarises the emission inventories of airport related activities.

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

Annual Emission (kg)

Source CO VOC NOx SO2 RSP FSP

3RS

Aircraft LTO 4,229,712 486,566 8,738,427 740,596 37,336 37,336

Business Helicopter 48 42 6 2 0.23 0.23

Airside Vehicles 120,687 38,628 271,012 2,853 18,984 18,097

APU 29,582 3,118 59,332 6,492 5,638 5,638

GFS 9,001 5,856 2,598 549 83 83

Aviation Fuel Tank 0 110,119 0 0 0 0

Fire Training Activities 23,067 702 175 35 5,240 5,240

ERUF 3,754 1,106 188,230 10,496 550 550


5-84


Annual Emission (kg)

Source CO VOC NOx SO2 RSP FSP


0 10,745 0 0 0 0

Catering 6,758 664 27,030 192 1,352 338

Car park / Truck Park 34,830 2,477 10,120 69 589 543

Vehicles on the airport island

288,515 11,604 69,848 1,549 4,107 3,784

Marine Navigation 9,930 2,888 92,266 18,993 2,813 2,525

Brake and Tire Wear 0 0 0 0 143,750 17,146

2RS

Aircraft LTO 2,346,661 296,008 6,168,272 489,574 24,761 24,761

Business Helicopter 48 42 6 2 0.23 0.23

Airside Vehicles 82,313 26,582 184,022 1,970 12,862 12,261

APU 23,403 2,602 58,810 5,887 4,720 4,720

GFS 9,382 5,900 2,624 559 84 84

Aviation Fuel Tank 0 103,922 0 0 0 0

Fire Training Activities 23,067 702 175 35 5,240 5,240

ERUF 2,494 742 129,047 6,924 336 336


0 5,372 0 0 0 0

Catering 3,875 381 15,498 110 775 194

Car park / Truck Park 26,908 1,863 7,476 53 450 414

Vehicles on the airport island

273,553 11,016 66,616 1,456 3,878 3,573

Marine Navigation 9,930 2,888 92,266 18,993 2,813 2,525

Brake and Tire Wear 0 0 0 0 107,208 12,641

Proximity Infrastructure Emission

5.3.4.84 The proximity infrastructure emission sources accounted for in the air quality assessment

included the concurrent infrastructural projects / emission sources (both existing and future

projects and emission sources with planned or committed implementation programme) in

proximity of the sensitive receivers and uses within the study area (i.e. 5 km from the boundary of

the project site). Table 5.3.60 below lists the proximity infrastructure emission sources in the

Lantau and Tuen Mun areas. Except for CPPP at Black Point and Castle Peak, these specific

emission sources have been modelled by a near-field dispersion model.

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

Source Description

Lantau Area

HKBCF Future source Vehicular emissions from its road network, and idling at kiosks and loading/unloading bay

HKLR Future source Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building

TM-CLKL (Lantau section) Future source Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building


5-85


Source Description

NLH and other roads in Tung Chung Existing source Vehicular emissions from road network

Tung Chung Remaining Development Future source Vehicular emissions from induced traffic

OWTF Phase 1 Future source Chimney emissions

Proposed LLP Future source Vehicular emissions from induced traffic

Proposed Cross Boundary Transport Hub above MTR Siu Ho Wan Depot

Future source Vehicular emissions from induced traffic

Proposed Leisure and Entertainment Node at Sunny Bay

Future source Vehicular emissions from induced traffic

Tuen Mun

Tuen Mun Western Bypass (TMWB) Future source Vehicular emissions from its road network and induced traffic

TM-CLKL (Tuen Mun section) Future source

Vehicular emissions from its road network, tunnel portals and ventilation building

Other roads in Tuen Mun Existing source Vehicular emissions from road network

Shiu Wing Steel Mill Existing source Chimney emissions

Green Island Cement (GIC) Existing source Chimney emissions

Castle Peak Power Plant (CPPP) Existing source Chimney emissions

EcoPark in Tuen Mun Area 38 Existing source Chimney emissions

Butterfly Beach Laundry Existing source Chimney emissions

Flare at Pillar Point Valley Landfill (PPVL)

Existing source Chimney emissions

Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility (PAFF)

Existing source Chimney emissions

River Trade Terminal (RTT) Existing sources Emissions from marine vessels and land-based equipment

Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Lantau

5.3.4.85 Vehicular tailpipe emissions from all roads in Lantau were calculated by the EMFAC-HK v2.6.

The traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. for Year 2031 has been predicted and forecasted.

Planned roads in Lantau including HKLR, HKBCF associated road networks, Road P1 etc., and

induced traffic due to this project has been included for Year 2031. The EMFAC-HK V2.6 model

has been separately run for the different road categories which are grouped according to their

similarity of nature and driving pattern as shown in Table 5.3.61. The extent of road networks

included in the proximity infrastructure emissions for Lantau area is shown in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-006.

Table 5.3.61: Road Categories in Lantau assumed in EMFAC-HK

Group Roads

Group 1 Roads with design speed of 110km/h and without cold start (Expressway)

Group 2 Roads with design speed of 80km/h and without cold start (Expressway)

Group 3 Roads with design speed of 50km/h and without cold start (Trunk Road/ District Distributor)

Group 4 Roads with design speed of 50km/h and with cold start (Local Distributor/ Rural Road)

5.3.4.86 The latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards, vehicle population, vehicle

population forecast, exhaust technology fractions and the calculations of SO2 emission are


5-86


described in in Sections 5.3.4.64 – 5.3.4.68. Table 5.3.62 summarises the approach for

determination of the vehicular emission in Lantau.

Table 5.3.62: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Vehicular Emission on Lantau

Emission Sources



Vehicular emission

EMFAC-HK V2.6


• Existing roads and future planned roads and/or induced traffic include HKLR, HKBCF associated road networks, Road P1, and Tung Chung Remaining Development, etc. have been included.

• Future traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. have been forecasted by traffic model.

• Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as at 2 January 2014) has been adopted.




5.3.4.87 Appendix 5.3.11 presents the traffic forecast for roads in Lantau area (including both existing

and planned roads), key model assumptions on EMFAC-HK and derived emission factors. The

annual emission inventory for the vehicular emission from existing and planned road in Lantau is

summarised in Table 5.3.63.

Table 5.3.63: Annual Emission Inventory for Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Lantau at Year

2031 for 3RS and 2RS



Vehicular emission in Lantau (3RS) 1,007,664 35,257 251,996 5,934 21,522 19,819

Vehicular emission in Lantau (2RS) 943,403 32,119 239,565 5,712 20,868 19,215

Note: Excluding those on the airport island

Idling Emission from HKBCF

5.3.4.88 Emission from idling vehicles at kiosks and loading / unloading bays at the Hong Kong Boundary

Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) have been included for the assessment year at Year 2031. The

emission rates have been determined based on the number of vehicles, the waiting and

processing time at the kiosks and the loading / unloading bays. According to the latest HKBCF

layout and design provided by Highways Department (HyD). The idling emission estimation has

been based on the emission factors for different Euro engine types under different travelling

speeds and gradients in accordance with the latest report on “Road Tunnels: Vehicle Emissions

and Air Demand for Ventilation” published by the Permanent International Association of Road

Congresses (PIARC, 2012), taking into account the mass factor for HGVs and air-conditioning

loading factor.

5.3.4.89 Table 5.3.64 summarises the basic idling emission factors extracted from the PIARC 2012 report.

The latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (updated as at 2 January

2014), latest 2010 vehicle population and technology fraction have been adopted in the

calculation. Table 5.3.65 summarises the approach for determination of the idling emission from

HKBCF.


5-87


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

Euro Standard Pollutant Emission Factors (g/h)

NOx CO PM

PC LDV HGV PC LDV HGV PC LDV HGV

Gasoline

Pre-Euro 6.97 11.73 - 130.83 49.50 - - - -

Euro 1 2.14 3.60 - 2.21 0.63 - - - -

Euro 2 1.70 2.86 - 1.51 0.43 - - - -

Euro 3 0.41 0.68 - 0.48 0.24 - - - -

Euro 4 0.32 0.54 - 1.30 0.77 - - - -

Euro 5 0.30 0.50 - 1.30 0.77 - - - -

Euro 6 0.28 0.50 - 1.30 0.77 - - - -

Diesel

Pre-Euro 9.45 13.63 119.60 6.46 9.07 78.62 0.60 2.58 14.70

Euro 1 9.31 13.42 99.41 4.29 6.02 32.49 0.70 3.00 11.05

Euro 2 9.73 14.03 97.84 2.18 3.06 18.92 0.66 2.85 1.81

Euro 3 6.11 8.81 98.52 0.84 1.18 14.04 0.32 1.35 1.72

Euro 4 5.78 8.33 52.42 0.62 0.88 1.23 0.25 1.07 0.86

Euro 5 4.35 6.27 36.37 0.58 0.82 1.23 0.02 0.11 0.86

Euro 6 1.92 2.77 36.37 0.58 0.82 1.23 0.02 0.09 0.86

Note:

PC – Passenger Car; LDV – Light Duty Vehicle; HGV – Heavy Goods Vehicle

Table 5.3.65: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Idling Emission from HKBCF

Emission Sources



Idling emission

PIARC, 2012


• Latest HKBCF layout and design obtained from HyD.

• Future traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. forecast by Traffic Engineer based on the latest HKBCF layout and design.

• Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as at 2 January 2014) has been adopted.


• Mass factor for HGVs and air-conditioning loading factor has been taken into account.


5.3.4.90 Detailed calculation of idling emission in HKBCF is presented in Appendix 5.3.13. The annual

emission inventory for the idling emission from HKBCF is summarised in Table 5.3.66.


5-88


Table 5.3.66: Annual Emission Inventory for Idling Emission from BCF at Year 2031



Idling emission from HKBCF (3RS)

93,347 30,578 71,487 73 1,579 1,579

Idling emission from HKBCF (2RS)

91,166 27,725 63,915 67 1,403 1,403

Note:


Emission from Planned/ Committed Industrial Sources in Lantau

5.3.4.91 The emission inventories associated with the planned and committed emission sources, i.e.

OWTF Phase 1 has been derived from the approved EIA report. Table 5.3.67 summarises the

approach to determine idling emission from OWTF Phase 1.

Table 5.3.67: Summary of approach for determination of the emission from other industrial sources in Lantau

Emission Sources Determination Approach Data required and assumptions

OWTF Phase 1 Approved EIA Study (AEIAR-149/2010) Extracted directly from the EIA.

5.3.4.92 Appendix 5.3.14-1 presented the calculation of industrial emissions in Lantau area. The annual

emission inventory for Lantau is summarised in Table 5.3.68.

Table 5.3.68: Annual Emission Inventory for Lantau at Year 2031



OWTF Phase 1 60,405 701,212 39,641 7,875 7,657 7,657

Note:

[1] FSP emission data is not available. Hence, it is assumed that all RSP emission would be FSP (i.e. 100%) as conservative

assumption.

Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Tuen Mun

5.3.4.93 Similarly, vehicular tailpipe emissions from all roads in Tuen Mun area were also calculated by

the EMFAC-HK v2.6. The traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. for future assessment years were

predicted and forecasted by traffic model. Planned roads in Tuen Mun area including TM-CLKL

(entire section) and TMWB have been included for this assessment. The EMFAC-HK model has

been separately run for the different road categories which are grouped according to their

similarity of nature and driving pattern as shown in Table 5.3.69 and Table 5.3.70. The extent of

road networks included in the proximity infrastructure emission for Tuen Mun area is shown in

Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-007.

Table 5.3.69: Road Categories for Existing Roads in Tuen Mun Area assumed in EMFAC-HK

Group Roads

Group 1 Roads with design speed of 70km/h and without cold start (Local Distributor)


5-89


Group Roads

Group 2 Roads with design speed of 50km/h and without cold start (District Distributor)

Group 3 Roads with design speed of 50km/h and with cold start (Local Distributor)

Group 4 Roads with design speed of 50km/h and with cold start (Rural Road)

Table 5.3.70: Road Categories for Planned Roads in Tuen Mun Area assumed in EMFAC-HK

Group Roads

Group 1 Roads with design speed of 80 km/h and without cold start (Expressway / Trunk Road)

Group 2 Roads with design speed of 50 km/h and with cold start (Local Distributor)

5.3.4.94 The latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards, vehicle population, vehicle

population forecast, exhaust technology fractions and the calculations of SO2 emission are

described in Sections 5.3.4.64 – 5.3.4.68.

5.3.4.95 Table 5.3.71 summarises the approach for determination of the vehicular emission in Tuen Mun

area.

Table 5.3.71: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Vehicular Emission in Tuen Mun Area

Emission Sources



Vehicular emission

EMFAC-HK V2.6


For existing roads and future planned roads and/or induced traffic including TM-CLKL (entire section) and TMWB (section falls within the study area).

Future traffic flow data, fleet mix, speed etc. has been forecasted by traffic model.

Latest implementation programme for vehicle emission standards (i.e. as at 2 January 2014) has been adopted.

The exhaust technology fractions available in EPD’s website have been adopted.

The default vehicle populations forecast in EMFAC-HK v2.6 has been adopted.

SO2 emission estimation has been based on EMSD Primary Indicator Values and in accordance with USEPA PART5 program.

5.3.4.96 Appendix 5.3.11 presented the traffic forecast on roads on Tuen Mun area (including both

existing and planned roads), key model assumptions on EMFAC-HK and results and derived

emission factors. The annual emission inventory for the vehicular emission from existing and

planned road in Tuen Mun is summarised in Table 5.3.72.

Table 5.3.72: Annual Emission Inventory for Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads in Tuen Mun in Year

2031 for 3RS and 2RS



Vehicular emission in Tuen Mun (3RS)

159,382 9,106 39,701 720 3,391 3,122

Vehicular emission in Tuen Mun (2RS)

156,739 8,908 38,712 708 3,308 3,045

Note:


Emission from Existing and Planned/ Committed Industrial and Marine Sources in Tuen Mun


5-90


5.3.4.97 The emission inventories associated with the existing emission sources such as Shiu Wing Steel

Mill, and planned and committed emission sources i.e. EcoPark have been derived from either

the relevant approved EIA Studies or the SP Licences, except for PAFF. For PAFF, the same

approach as described in earlier section that is by EDMS has been adopted to determine the

emission inventory from the PAFF. Table 5.3.73 summarises the approach for determination of

the emission from all industrial and marine sources in Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.73: Summary of Approach for Determination of the Emission from other Industrial and Marine Sources in

Tuen Mun area

Emission Sources Determination Approach Data required and assumptions

PAFF [1] USEPA AP42

SP licence

• Tank size and dimension, fuel type, annual fuel consumption, average and maximum height of fuel in the storage tank for future years from operators

• Fuel tank emission from USEPA AP42

• Extracted directly from the SP licence.

• CO and VOC emissions derived from USEPA AP42, assuming CO-to-NOx and VOC-to-NOx ratio are equal to ratio from AP42 Ch.1.3

• Boilers assumed to be industrial distillate oil fired

Shiu Wing Steel Mill

SP licence • Extracted directly from the SP licence.

Green Island Cement

SP licence

USEPA AP42

• Extracted directly from the SP licence.



Flare at PPVL Approved EIA Study (AEIAR-146/2009)

USEPA AP42

• Extracted directly from the EIA.


• All RSP emission would be FSP

Butterfly Beach Laundry

Approved EIA Study (AEIAR-146/2009)

USEPA AP42

• Extracted directly from the EIA.

• VOC emissions derived from USEPA AP42, assuming VOC-to-NOx ratio is equal to ratio from AP42 Ch.1.3


EcoPark Approved EIA Study (AEIAR-129/2009) • Extracted directly from the EIA.

Marine-based Emission from RTT

Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, Final Report (EPD, 2012)

Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (USEPA, 2009)

• Operation characteristics and existing operating capacity based on questionnaires to the operator and site survey

• Emission indices based on Study on Marine Vessels Emission Inventory, EPD, 2012 and Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, USEPA, 2009

Land-based Emission from RTT

USEPA Non-road emission standards • Operational characteristics based on questionnaires to the operator

• Emission indices based on USEPA Tier 4 Non-road emission standards

Note:

[1] VOC emissions from fuel tanks in PAFF are modelled by PATH.

[2] The nearest sensitive receiver is the administrative building underneath the chimney of CPPP. To include the high buoyancy

effect of the exhaust for higher accuracy, the chimney emission from CPPP has been incorporated into the PATH model.


5-91


5.3.4.98 Appendix 5.3.14-1 and Appendix 5.3.14-2 present the calculation of industrial emissions and

marine emissions (from river trade terminal) in Tuen Mun Area respectively. The annual emission

inventory for existing and planned / committed industrial and marine sources is summarised in

Table 5.3.74.

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

2031

Sources Annual Emission (kg)


Shiu Wing Steel Mill 2,192,260 215,671 154,264 5,375 150,256 146,256 [2]

Green Island Cement 880,643 [3] 44,384 [3] 3,522,571 998,745 291,409 194,335 [2]

EcoPark 39,420 44,932 189,216 54,873 18,309 18,309 [2]

Butterfly Beach Laundry

10,370 523 41,480 1470 2,070 520

Flare at PPVL 7,550 [3] 2,857 [3] 1,388 454 1,135 1,135 [2]

PAFF 63,072 [3] 3,179 252,288 473 2,803 2,803 [2]

River Trade Terminal 43,943 3,414 60,092 11,890 2,153 2,091

Note:

[1] The extent of the road networks included in the proximity infrastructure emission shall be referred to Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-006 for Lantau area and Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/5-3-007 for Tuen Mun area.

[2] FSP emission data is not available. Hence it is assumed that all RSP emission would be FSP (i.e. 100%) as conservative

assumptions.

[3] Projected VOC and CO based on AP-42 S1.3 VOC to NOx and CO to NOx ratios for Industrial distillate oil fired boilers

respectively

Pearl River Delta Economic Zone (PRDEZ) Emission

5.3.4.99 The PATH emission inventory for PRDEZ (including emission inventory for Macau) has been

recently updated by EPD for Years 2015 and 2020, with consideration of all committed and

planned control measures in PRDEZ. According to the 12th meeting of the Hong Kong-

Guangdong Joint Working Group on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection

(JWGSDEP) on 23 November 2012, both Hong Kong Government and Guangdong Government

endorsed a major air pollutant emission reduction plan for the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region up

to 2020 and agreed on key environmental cooperation actions for Year 2013.

5.3.4.100 With respect to the next phase of the emission reduction plan, the two governments endorsed the

emission reduction targets for Year 2015, and agreed to set emission reduction ranges for Year

2020. The reduction targets for the four major air pollutants in PRDEZ for Year 2015 and Year

2020 are shown in Table 5.3.75, relative to the emission levels in Year 2010.

Table 5.3.75: Summary of Emission Reduction Targets in PRDEZ

Year Pollutants (Thousand Tonnes)

References SO2 NOx RSP VOC

2010 507 889 637 903 The Hong Kong-Guangdong Joint Working Group on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection (JWGSDEP) 12th meeting, 2012

2015 426 729 573 813

2020 406 711 541 768


5-92


5.3.4.101 To achieve the emission reduction targets set for 2015 and 2020, the two governments will

implement additional reduction measures focusing on major emission sources with a view to

bringing continuous improvement to regional air quality. Key emission reduction measures to be

implemented by PRDEZ include:

� requiring thermal power plants to install low-NOx and denitrification systems;

� promoting conversion of oil-fired generating units into gas generating units;

� enhancing RSP emission control at power plants;

� promoting the use of National IV standard motor fuels (including petrol and diesel) and

tightening diesel vehicle emission standards;

� phasing out yellow-label vehicles (i.e. petrol vehicles of pre-National emission standard or

below and diesel vehicles of National II emission standard or below);

� phasing out highly polluting industries with low energy efficiency;

� enhancing emission control on industrial boilers as well as for specific industries (including

petrochemical, cement, ceramic, furniture manufacturing, printing, etc.); and

� setting up a registration and reporting system on the usage and emission control of organic

solvents at major enterprises with a view to strengthening VOC emission control.

5.3.4.102 Given that reduction plans beyond Year 2020 for Guangdong Province and PRDEZ are not

available, but in view of the continued efforts on reducing emission loadings (as shown in Table

5.3.75 above), further tightening on the emission targets in future years beyond Year 2020 are

anticipated. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the emissions will be capped at Year 2020 for

a conservative assessment of Year 2031.

HKSAR Emissions

5.3.4.103 The Hong Kong emission inventories in Year 2010 are summarised in the following Table 5.3.76.

Table 5.3.76: Summary of 2010 Hong Kong Emission Inventory

Emission Group

Annual Emission (2010) Tonnes per year

SO2 NOX RSP VOC

Public Electricity Generation 17,800 27,000 1,010 413

Road Transport 286 32,700 1,340 7,900

Navigation 16,900 35,000 2,260 3,660

Civil Aviation 299 4,350 54 396

Other Fuel Combustion 285 9,040 772 818

Non-combustion N/A N/A 898 20,100

Total 35,500 108,000 6,290 33,300

Reference: EPD 2010 Emission Inventory (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html)

5.3.4.104 The PATH emission inventory for Hong Kong has been recently updated by EPD for Years 2015

and 2020 based on the emission inventory in Year 2010, with consideration of all committed and

planned control measures in Hong Kong. According to the Hong Kong and Guangdong


5-93


Governments during the 12th meeting of JWGSDEP, the key emission reduction measures to be

implemented by Hong Kong include:

� tightening of vehicle emission standards;

� phasing out highly polluting commercial diesel vehicles;

� retrofitting Euro II and Euro III franchised buses with selective catalytic reduction devices;

� strengthening inspection and maintenance of petrol and liquefied petroleum gas vehicles;

� requiring ocean-going vessels to switch to using low sulfur fuel while at berth;

� tightening the permissible sulfur content level of locally supplied marine diesel;

� controlling emissions from off-road vehicles/equipment;

� further tightening of emission caps on power plants and increasing use of clean energy for

electricity generation; and

� controlling VOC contents of solvents used in printing and construction industry.

5.3.4.105 For the worst assessment year at 2031, the Hong Kong emission is estimated based on the best

available information or projected with respect to the historical growth trend of the respective

activity data for the particular source sector. In general, the emission inventory is projected

separately under five main source categories: power generation, industry, transportation, VOCs

containing product and others. During the study, TPEDM 2011 was released by PlanD. On

comparing the planning parameters between TPEDM 2009 and TPEDM 2011, the TPEDM 2009

would provide a more conservative result and thus was maintained in the present assessment.

The approach and methodology of emission projection is summarised in Table 5.3.77.

Table 5.3.77 Approach and Methodology of Emission Projection for HKSAR at Year 2031

Sector grouping Sources Approach to Emission projection Remarks

Power Generation

Power plants The emission is capped through Specific Licences under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 311).

The emission is assumed capped at Year 2020.

Industry

IDO combustion in Furnace

Forecast is based on population growth as conservative approach.

Based on the historical trend from Census and Statistics Department, there is no increase in manufacturing industries.

Towngas combustion



Chemical / rubber / plastics;

Printing;

Manufacture light industry;

Food and beverage;




5-94


Sector grouping Sources Approach to Emission projection Remarks

Mining / mineral extraction;

Non-metallic mineral product

Petrol distribution and handling


It is assumed that the use of petrol will co-relate with the number of vehicles, which is related to population.

Construction Industry


Although there is growth in Consumption of materials and supplies, fuels, electricity and water, and maintenance services in recent year, the long term trend is decreasing (from Census and Statistics Department).

Transportation Motor vehicles

Emissions from motor vehicles are predicted using EPD’s EMFAC-HK V 2.6. The VKTs for future years is forecasted using Arup’s in-house Territory Transport Model (i.e. CTS model). The road network assumptions adopted is based on committed government highway development plan, recommendations from various planning studies and advices from Transport Department.

-

Tyre Wear and Petrol evaporation


It is assumed that tyre wear and petrol evaporation will co-relate with the number of vehicles, which is related to population.

Marine vessel Emission is projected using marine growth rate as projection surrogate taking into account the latest emission control strategy.

The growth trend on marine vessels was determined from Port of Hong Kong Statistic, Marine Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared under the Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment study for Airport Master Plan 2030 (See Appendix 5.3.18-1 for details)

Off road mobile sources and machinery


For off road mobile sources and machinery, the emission will be capped since there is only limited number of off road mobile sources and machinery (diesel locomotives) operated in HKSAR

VOC containing product

Domestic and commercial aerosols;

Paint application

Emission was projected with respect to the forecast population growth in Hong Kong, taking into account the latest VOC control policy.

-

Miscellaneous Commercial and domestic fuel consumption

Waste incineration

Pesticide application

Same as methodology for VOC containing product.

-


5-95


Note [1]: The planning assumptions of 2009-based TPEDM have been compared with the 2011-based TPEDM and were found

slightly conservative. Hence, the vehicular emission developed under 2009-based TPEDM was maintained in this air quality

assessment

5.3.4.106 The above mentioned approach of emission projection is adopted in this assessment and the

Year 2031 Hong Kong emission inventory is summarised in Table 5.3.78 and the detailed

breakdown of the inventory is shown in Appendix 5.3.18:

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

Emission Group

Annual Emission (2031) Tonnes per year

SO2 NOX RSP VOC

Public Electricity Generation 10,399 25,950 750 397

Road Transport (3RS) 231 4,360 261 929

Navigation 3,710 33,897 933 4,323

Other Fuel Combustion[1] 309 10,993 898 980

Non-combustion 0 0 1,037 23,673

Note [1]: Exclude IWMF, STF and Proximity Infrastructure Emissions listed in Table 5.3.74.

5.3.5 Operation Phase Air Quality Assessment Methodology

General Approach

5.3.5.1 The modelling techniques adopted to assess the operation air quality impacts at the

representative ASRs are shown in Table 5.3.79:

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

ASR Airport Related Activities

Proximity Infrastructures (Tung Chung)

Proximity Infrastructures (Tuen Mun) Ambient

Lantau area AERMOD CALINE4 / AERMOD PATH PATH

Tuen Mun area PATH PATH (incl. CPPP) CALINE4 / AERMOD (except CPPP)

PATH

5.3.5.2 Modelling details are summarised in the following sections.

Airport Related Emissions

5.3.5.3 For the ASRs at the airport and in Lantau area, AERMOD model (Version 12345) and CALINE4

model for vehicular emissions have been used to assess the air quality impact from major airport

related activities. The AERMOD models basically allow three types of sources: Point, Area and

Volume. Hence, the emission sources at HKIA are modelled as one of the three sources

according to their source emission characteristics.

5.3.5.4 With the proposed 3RS in operation, there would be about 141,000 workers working in the airport

island in Year 2030 (Airport Master Plan 2030). The total population in Tung Chung will be more

than 200,000 in Year 2031. Due to the high population among the area, the airport related

emission sources was considered as urban in the AERMOD model.


5-96


5.3.5.5 Grid-specific composite meteorological data extracted from the EPD’s PATH model is adopted in

AERMOD model, including relevant temperature, wind speed, wind direction, etc. Mixing heights

deduced from AERMET that are lower than the lowest mixing height recorded by the Hong Kong

Observatory (HKO) in Year 2010 (i.e. 121 m) is capped at 121 m to align with the real

meteorological data. Similarly, mixing heights deduced from AERMET that are higher are capped

at 1667 m as per the highest mixing height recorded. Surface roughness is separated into 12

zones with heights correspond to the land use characteristics.

5.3.5.6 Given the chemical reaction in long distance transportation for the ASRs in Tuen Mun, the airport

related emission has been modelled by the PATH model.

5.3.5.7 The LTO cycle, which consists of four modes, has been modelled according to their source

emission characteristics as summarised in Table 5.3.80.

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

Time in Modes Emission characteristics and modelling

Take-off • Hourly emission load at Year 2031 has been spatially distributed as area sources according to the respective take-off runways and flight paths determined from 2011 radar data and site survey, subject to the head wind direction and operation constraint from noise mitigation measures listed in Section 7.3.5.

• The ICAO definition for the take-off mode is the time elapsed of aircraft acceleration start on the runway to 300 m above the ground level. Emission is thus elevated from groundborne to airborne.

• Airborne and groundborne portions of emissions are distributed according to their time ratio. Details are given in Appendix 5.3.1-3.

Climb-out • Hourly emission load at Year 2031 has been spatially distributed as area sources according to the respective climb-out flight paths starting from around 300 m above ground to mixing height, subject to the head wind direction and operation constraint from noise mitigation measures listed in Section 7.3.5.

Approach • Hourly emission load at Year 2031 has been spatially distributed as area sources according to the respective approach runways and approach angle from mixing height to wheel touch down, subject to head wind direction and operation constraint from noise mitigation measures listed in Section 7.3.5.

Taxiing • Hourly emission load at Year 2031 has been distributed evenly amongst the taxiways as area sources. The taxi-in and taxi-out times were determined from TAAM models and the runway direction basing on head wind direction and operation constraint from noise mitigation measures listed in Section 7.3.5.

5.3.5.8 Regular maintenance on each runway under the 3RS will be undertaken during 1:00am to

8:00am every day. Three runway utilisation modes (Table 5.3.81) were thus proposed by AAHK

to handle the aircraft traffic during the maintenance period. Under Scenario 1, aircraft arrivals and

departures during 0100 am - 0759 am will occur at the northern runway which is relatively closer

to the air sensitive uses in Tuen Mun area. Under Scenario 2, aircraft arrival and departure will

occur at the centre runway during 0100am-0759am and south runway which is relatively closer to

the air sensitive uses in Tung Chung area. Under Scenario 3, the runway utilisation is similar to

that of the scenario 2, except that the aircraft arrival will also occur at the Northern runway during

0700am-0759am.

5.3.5.9 On comparing the sensitive uses in Tuen Mun and Tung Chung area, the sensitive uses in Tuen

Mun area are mainly industrial type (i.e. majority of workers with working hours of around 8 - 12

hours per day). Given the sensitive uses in Tung Chung are of residential type, Scenario 2 is

therefore selected as the worst case scenario for the purpose of this operation air quality impact

assessment.


5-97


Table 5.3.81: Runway Utilisation Modes

Time Period North Runway Centre Runway South Runway

Scenario 1

00:00 – 00:59 Arrival Departure Stand-by

01:00 – 01:59 Arrival and Departure Maintenance Stand-by



07:00 – 07:59 Arrival Maintenance Departure

08:00 – 22:59 Arrival Departure Arrival and Departure


Scenario 2


01:00 – 01:59 Maintenance Arrival and Departure Stand-by



07:00 – 07:59 Maintenance Departure Arrival



Scenario 3


01:00 – 01:59 Stand-by Arrival and Departure Maintenance



07:00 – 07:59 Arrival Departure Maintenance



5.3.5.10 For other source types including GSE, APU, car parks, engine testing, fuel tanks, fire training,

catering and helicopter, the modelling emission characteristics are summarised in Table 5.3.82

below.

Table 5.3.82: Emission Characteristics of other Emission Sources

Sources Emission characteristics and Modelling

GSE and APU • GSE emission from cargo freight and passenger flight emission loads have been distributed as area sources to the aircraft stand location and along taxiways for stand movement.

Vehicle Parking • Emission from single storey open space car park has been distributed into an area source.

• Emission from multi storey car park with roof has been distributed as volume source on all 4 sides of the car park façade surfaces.


5-98


Sources Emission characteristics and Modelling

Engine Testing • Engine run up testing emission has been modelled as area source at their respective designated location.

Fuel Tank • Each fuel tank has been modelled as an individual point source.

Fire Training • The fire pit has been modelled as point source.

Catering • Chimney emission generated from catering has been modelled as point source.

GFS Helicopter • Typical helicopter emission load has been spatially distributed along the helicopter flight paths in Hong Kong provided by GFS as area sources.

Marine Vessels • Marine emission generated has been modelled as point source based on the navigation routes identified site survey and in Marine Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared under the Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment study for Airport Master Plan 2030.

Roads on the Airport Island

• Vehicular emission has been modelled as line source according to the road layout

Note:

[1] The height of the aircraft sources (e.g. APU, GFS helicopter, Engine Testing) has been determined from the physical

dimension, together with the plume rise based from FAA-AEE -04-01 “Final Report on the Use of LIDAR to Characterize the

Aircraft Plume Width”.

5.3.5.11 Table 5.3.83 to Table 5.3.92 summarise the assumptions and input parameters for different

modelling sources. Details of the modelling parameters are given in Appendix 5.3.15-1. The

airport related emission source locations are shown in Appendix 5.3.15-2.

Table 5.3.83: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Aircraft

Field Assumption and Input Parameters

Sources Type Area

Plume Spread Width 73.16 m [1]

Vertical Plume Spread 4.1 m [2]

Emission Variation AERMOD Hourly Emission files

Height of Source 14.93 m [3] above the flight Path

Note:

[1] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume Width”, the standard

derivation (SD) for horizontal plume width is 10.5m for each engine regardless of aircraft type. Plume spread width for aircraft is

therefore determined by summation of the distance between two outermost engines of B747-400 (41.66 m) and 3 x SD,

corresponding to 99% confidence level.

[2] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume width”, SD for vertical

plume spread is 4.1 m regardless of aircraft type.

[3] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume Width”, the plume rise is

12 m regardless of aircraft type. The engine height is 2.93m. Summation of plume rise and engine height (14.93m) is the height

of source.

Table 5.3.84: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for GSE equipment


Sources Type Area

Emission Area Individual Stand and Taxiway areas

Vertical Plume Spread 3 m (EDMS Technical Manual)


Height of Source 0.5 m above ground


5-99


Table 5.3.85: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for APU


Sources Type Area

Emission Area Individual Stand and Taxiway Areas



Height of Source 17 m above ground [1]

Note:

[1] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume width”, plume rise is 12 m

regardless of aircraft type. The APU height above ground is 5 m

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


Sources Type Area

Emission Area Actual car park area


Emission Variation Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles

Height of Source 0.5 m above ground

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


Sources Type Volume

Plume Spread Width 5.81 - 11.16 m [1]

Vertical Plume Spread 6.25 – 12 m [2]

Model length 12.5 - 24 m [3]

Emission Variation Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles where available

Height of Source The middle storey of the car park building

Note:

[1] According to AERMOD’s User’s Guide Table 3-1, plume spread width is determined by centre-to-centre distance between 2

adjoining volume sources divided by 2.15.

[2] According to AERMOD’s User’s Guide Table 3-1, vertical plume spread is determined from building height divided by 2.15.

[3] Model length is equal to the building height of the car park.

Table 5.3.88: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Underground Car Parks


Sources Type Point

Temperature 303 K [1]

Gas velocity 5 m/s [1]

Diameter 5.8 m [1]

Emission Variation Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles where available

Height of Source 5 m above around [1]

Note:

[1] Exit temperature, gas velocity, ventilation building diameter and height are based on information from approved EIAs for "Hong

Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities”


5-100


Table 5.3.89: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Catering


Sources Type Point

Temperature 373 K [1]

Gas velocity 6 m/s[[1]

Diameter 0.65m

Emission Variation Flat Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles

Height of Source 35.9m above ground

Note:

[1] Since gas velocity and temperature are not available from the operator, these parameters are based on the “Guidelines on

Estimating Height Restriction and Position of Fresh Air Intake Using Gaussian Plume Models” by EPD.

Table 5.3.90: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Fire Training


Sources Type Point

Temperature 116 K above ambient [1]

Gas velocity 11.2 m/s [1]

Diameter 25 m [2]

Emission Variation Hourly, Daily and Monthly Profiles

Height of Source 19.2 m above ground [3]

Note:

[1] Gas velocity and temperature are determined by equations derived from fire dynamics. Fire size in kW is calculated according

to CIBSE TM19: 1995. Details on the parameters adopted are given in Appendix 5.3.15-1.

[2] Based on size of the fire training simulator: http://www.hkfsd.gov.hk/home/eng/airport/.

[3] Based on height of the fire training simulator and B747-400 and various external and internal fire scenarios in FSD website:

http://www.hkfsd.gov.hk/home/eng/airport/.

Table 5.3.91: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Engine Run-up Testing


Sources Type Area

Emission Area 100 m x 440 m [1]

Vertical Plume Spread 4.1m [2]

Emission Variation Hourly Emission [3]

Height of Source 14.93m above ground[4]

Note:

[1] Width = 100 m is based on the size of the engine run up test facility. Length = 440 m is on the weighted average of the distance

extracted from jet engine exhaust velocity contour for the 8 most tested aircraft types, which weighs more than 90% of the total

aircrafts tested.

[2] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume width” , SD for vertical

plume spread is 4.1 m regardless of aircraft type.

[3] Hourly emission rates are calculated for each hour based on engine run up test records provided by AAHK and HAECO for

Year 2011.

[4] According to FAA-AEE -04-01” Final Report on The Use of LIDAR to Characterize the Aircraft Plume width”, plume rise is 12m

regardless of aircraft type with assumed engine height at 2.93 m above ground based on B747-400.


5-101


Table 5.3.92: Parameters Adopted in AERMOD for Marine Vessel


Sources Type Point

Temperature 588 – 773 K [1]

Gas Velocity 8 m/s [2]

Diameter 0.2 – 0.7 m [3]

Emission Variation Daily Profile

Height of Source 6.2 – 11 m [4]

Note:

[1] According to information from approved EIAs for "Expansion of Heliport Facilities at Macau Ferry Terminal" and “Organic Waste

Treatment Facilities, Phase I”, exit temperature for passenger ferries and barges are 773 K and 588 K respectively.

[2] According to information from approved EIAs for “Organic Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase I”, gas velocity is 8 m/s.


Treatment Facilities, Phase I”, chimney diameter for passenger ferries and barges are 0.7 m and 0.2 m respectively.


Treatment Facilities, Phase I”, exit temperature for passenger ferries and barges are 6.2 m and 11 m respectively.

Vehicular Emission from Existing and Planned Roads

5.3.5.12 For the ASRs on the airport island and in North Lantau, CALINE4 model has been used to predict

air pollutants impact at ASRs near open roadways by taking into account the composite emission

factor generated from EMFAC-HK v2.6 model. The composite vehicular emission factor for each

road link in the assessment Year 2031 is given in Appendix 5.3.15-3. Roadways are divided into

a series of segments from which individual concentrations are computed and then summed to

give the cumulative concentration at the ASRs.

5.3.5.13 Grid-specific composite real meteorological data extracted from EPD’s PATH model are adopted

in the CALINE4 model, including relevant temperature, wind speed, direction and mixing height.

The stability classes were obtained from a separate PCRAMMET model. The mixing height was

capped to 121 m corresponding to the real meteorological data. To handle the hours with calm

wind during modelling, the approach recommended in the "Guideline on Air Quality on Air Quality

Models Version 05" has been adopted.

5.3.5.14 The surface roughness height is closely related to the land use characteristics and it will affect the

mixing of the pollutants. The surface roughness, together with the wind standard deviation, were

estimated in accordance with the “Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), 1986”.

5.3.5.15 The spatial distribution of the road works has been modelled as line sources. Owing to the

constraint of the CALINE4 model in modelling elevated roads higher than 10 m, the road heights

of elevated road sections in excess of 10 m high above local ground or water surface are set to

10 m in the model as the worst-case assumption. For barriers along roads (e.g. the existing noise

barriers along the NLH near existing Tung Chung area), the source height has been modelled at

the tip of the barrier and the mixing width will be limited to the actual road width. The road type of

the concerned sections is set to the “fill” option.


5-102


Vehicular Emission from Tunnel Portals / Ventilation Building

5.3.5.16 For tunnels (e.g. section of TM-CLKL, airside tunnel), the effect of portal emission and emission

from ventilation building have been considered. The hourly emission rate was obtained by

multiplying the emission strength (g/mile/veh) by the products of traffic flow (veh/hr) and

tunnel/enclosure length (mile). The portal emission was modelled in accordance with the PIARC

guideline. The emission was then modelled as volume sources by AERMOD. For the emission

from ventilation building, it was modeled as point or volume sources according to the

design.Detailed calculation of emissions from tunnel portal and ventilation buildings is provided in

Appendix 5.3.15-4.

Vehicular Emission from Idling Vehicles

5.3.5.17 Vehicular emission at kiosks and loading / unloading bays at the HZMB-HKBCF were also

considered. The emission rates were related to the number of vehicles, the waiting and

processing time at the kiosks and the loading / unloading bays. With reference to the approved

EIA for HZMB-BCF, the idling emission was estimated based on the emission factors for different

Euro engine types under different travelling speeds and gradients presented in the latest report

“Road Tunnels: Vehicle Emissions and Air Demand for Ventilation” published by the Permanent

International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC, 2012). The emission was modelled by

CALINE4. Details of idling emissions at kiosks and loading / unloading bays are given in

Appendix 5.3.15-5.

5.3.5.18 For the ASRs in Tuen Mun, the vehicular emission from existing and planned roads in North

Lantau has been included as input to the PATH model for dispersion modelling.

Emission from Existing and Planned/ Committed Industrial Sources

5.3.5.19 Potential chimney emission sources in the vicinity, including, Green Island Cement Plant and

Shiu Wing Steel Mill etc., have been included in proximity infrastructure emission (i.e. modelled

by near-field dispersion model). The emission characteristics are based on available reference

from EIA reports and EPD modelling guideline. AERMOD model has been adopted for the

pollutant dispersion modelling. A summary of the industrial emissions from proximity

infrastructures is given in Appendix 5.3.15-6. For the chimney from CLP Castle Peak Power

Plant, potential affected ASRs in the vicinity (apart from the administrative building inside the

CPPP site) are beyond 500 m from the CPPP chimneys. Given that the plume from the chimney

will be dispersed at height above 200 m and this will have less influence on the administrative

building inside the CPPP site, the effect of chimney is thus incorporated in the PATH model for

modelling.

Emission from Existing Marine Sources

5.3.5.20 Potential marine sources in the vicinity include the vessels emission in the River Trade Terminal.

The marine emission has been modelled as point sources in the AERMOD model. Summary of

marine emissions from proximity infrastructures is given in Appendix 5.3.15-6.


5-103


Ambient Air Quality Impact

5.3.5.21 The PATH model was used to quantify the background air quality during the operational phase of

the project. An emission inventory for PATH has been projected for Year 2031, which has been

agreed with EPD. It should be noted that vehicular emissions at local scale (i.e. the road networks

within the study area) and airport emissions are modelled by near-field dispersion models

CALINE and AERMOD respectively. Another set of PATH model has been re-run, with the above

mentioned emission sources removed from the concerned grids to avoid over-estimation. With

the updated PATH model, the background concentrations of all concerned pollutants (NO2, O3,

CO, RSP, and SO2) for the concerned grids which cover the study areas of this project at Year

2031 are extracted in Appendix 5.3.15-7.

Cumulative Impact

5.3.5.22 Modelling results from PATH, AERMOD and CALINE4 models have been combined hour by hour

to compute cumulative concentrations. The applicable 1-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour and annual

concentrations of pollutants at each ASR corresponding to 10 different levels (1.5 m, 5 m, 10 m,

20 m, 30 m, 40 m, 50 m, 60 m, 70 m and 80 m above ground) are determined. The conversion of

NO2, FSP and 10-min SO2 are discussed in the following sub-sections. The predicted cumulative

impact was then compared with the prevailing and AQOs for compliance checking.

Nitrogen Dioxide

5.3.5.23 Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) has been adopted to determine the NO2 levels at the ASRs. OLM

has been applied to major sources (including airport operation emissions as a whole, and

proximity infrastructural development) for NO2 calculation. The NOx concentrations at the

receivers from respective grouped sources are calculated from the AERMOD and CALINE4

models. The hourly ozone concentrations at the receivers are determined from PATH. The hourly

NOx concentrations are then converted to NO2 according to method proposed by the USEPA draft

paper on “Use of the OLM for estimating NO2 concentration”. The conversion formulas are listed

below:

Aircraft related emission sources (grouped)

[NO2]pred = Ri x [NOX]pred + MIN {(1-Ri) x [NOX]pred , or (46/48) x [O3]bkgd}

where

Mode Ri - Initial NO2 / NOx ratio from aircraft engine exhaust Take-off

[1] 5.3 %

Climb-out 5.3%

Approach 15%

Taxi- in and Taxi-out 37.5% Source: Revised Emissions Methodology for Heathrow - Base year 2002, 2007 Note [1]: According to Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow - Report of the Air Quality Technical Panels (2006), the NO2 / NOx for take-off mode is 4.5%. In our assessment, take-off and climb-out modes are in the same group for OLM processing. Hence, 5.3% was adopted are both mode for conservative assessment purpose

Industrial/ marine emission sources:


5-104


[NO2]pred = 0.1 x [NOX]pred + MIN {0.925 x [NOX]pred , or (46/48) x [O3]bkgd}

Vehicular emission sources (grouped)

[NO2]pred = 0.075 x [NOX]pred + MIN {0.925 x [NOX]pred , or (46/48) x [O3]bkgd}

where

[NO2]pred is the predicted NO2 concentration

[NOX]pred is the predicted NOX concentration

MIN means the minimum of the two values within the brackets

[O3]bkgd is the representative O3 background concentration (The ozone concentration has been determined from PATH model with airport emission incorporated)

(46/48) is the molecular weight of NO2 divided by the molecular weight of O3

Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP)

5.3.5.24 In accordance with EPD guidelines, the following conservative formulae in Table 5.3.93 are

adopted to determine the ambient concentration for FSP. In respect of proximity infrastructure

and airport related activities, the FSP concentrations are determined by the near-field model.

Table 5.3.93: Conversion Factor for RSP/FSP

Annual (µg/m3) Daily (µg/m3)

FSP = 0.71 x RSP FSP = 0.75 x RSP

Sulfur Dioxides

5.3.5.25 The SO2 (10 minutes) are computed according to EPD guideline. The following stability class-

dependent multiplicative factors from Duffee et al. (1991) have been widely used and adopted.

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

Stability Class A B C D E F

Conversion Factor 2.45 2.45 1.82 1.43 1.35 1.35

5.3.5.26 Hourly stability classes as determined by the PCRAMMET are adopted for calculating the 10-

minutes average SO2 concentrations.

Model Validation

5.3.5.27 The above mentioned modelling parameters, assumptions and approaches of the operational

phase air quality assessment have been incorporated into the dispersion models to simulate the

Year 2011 scenario. The details of the model validation are shown in Appendix 5.3.19-1. The

modelling results were compared with the monitoring results at Airport PH5 Air Quality Monitoring

Station under the North / North Western Wind direction in Year 2011. Modelling results were

found in general higher than the monitoring data. This further supports that the above modelling


5-105


assumptions and parameters as a whole are conservative and would not underestimate the

prediction.

5.3.6 Evaluation and Assessment of Operational Phase Air Quality Impact

5.3.6.1 The maximum cumulative NO2, RSP, FSP, SO2 and CO concentrations for 3RS scenario at each

ASR, the incremental change with 2RS scenario at key areas and the detailed breakdown at

representative ASRs at the worst hit level have been assessed and the results are presented in

Table 5.3.95 to Table 5.3.113. Detailed results at each ASR and air assessment point level under

3RS scenario and 2RS scenario are presented in Appendix 5.3.16-1 to Appendix 5.3.17-5.

Table 5.3.95: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and Annual Average NO2 Concentrations at Representative

ASRs (Including Background Concentrations)

ASR ID Location

Max. 1-hour NO2 Concentration

(µg/m3)

19th Max. 1 hr Concentration

(µg/m3)

Annual NO2 Concentration

(µg/m3)

AQO (Number of exceedances allowed) 200 (18) 200 40

HKBCF

BCF-1 Planned Passenger Building 197 (0) 161 39

Tung Chung

TC-1 Caribbean Coast Block 1 225 (2) 128 28




TC-5 Ho Yu College 230 (3) 130 27

TC-6 Ho Yu Primary School 226 (2) 130 27

TC-7 Coastal Skyline Block 1 215 (2) 126 28


TC-9 La Rossa Block B 209 (1) 136 29

TC-10 Le Bleu Deux Block 1 220 (1) 137 28



TC-13 Seaview Crescent Block 1 216 (1) 141 29



TC-16 Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School 208 (1) 134 31

TC-17 Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School 207 (1) 133 31

TC-18 Tung Chung Public Library 209 (1) 137 31

TC-19 Tung Chung North Park 217 (2) 127 32

TC-20 Novotel Citygate Hong Kong 210 (1) 140 30

TC-21 One Citygate 211 (2) 142 30


5-106


ASR ID Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


TC-22 One Citygate Bridge 221 (4) 151 33

TC-23 Fu Tung Shopping Centre 245 (1) 117 27


267 (1) 120 27

TC-25 Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School 255 (1) 116 26


232 (1) 116 26


219 (1) 114 26

TC-28 Wong Cho Bau Secondary School 243 (1) 114 27

TC-29 Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House 219 (1) 114 26

TC-30 Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House 224 (1) 115 26

TC-31 Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House 222 (1) 115 26

TC-32 Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House 245 (1) 120 27

TC-33 Tung Chung Crescent Block 1 231 (1) 118 30





TC-38 Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House 198 (0) 111 24

TC-39 Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House 188 (0) 112 25

TC-40 Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House 180 (0) 112 25

TC-41 Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House 171 (0) 112 24

TC-42 Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House 165 (0) 112 24

TC-43 Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House 170 (0) 112 24

TC-44 Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House 186 (0) 112 24

TC-45 Village house at Ma Wan Chung 216 (1) 112 24

TC-46 Ma Wan New Village 214 (1) 112 23

TC-47 Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarden 187 (0) 111 23

TC-48 Sheung Ling Pei 173 (0) 110 23

TC-49 Tung Chung Public School 166 (0) 110 23

TC-50 Ha Ling Pei 170 (0) 111 24

TC-51 Lung Tseung Tau 221 (1) 110 22

TC-52 YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College 241 (2) 125 26

TC-53 Hau Wong Temple 170 (0) 121 26

TC-54 Sha Tsui Tau 173 (0) 112 23


5-107


ASR ID Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


TC-55 Ngan Au 228 (2) 123 26

TC-56 Shek Lau Po 230 (2) 121 25

TC-57 Mo Ka 214 (2) 121 25

TC-58 Shek Mun Kap 218 (2) 121 25

TC-59 Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery 206 (2) 121 25

TC-P1 Planned North Lantau Hospital 199 (0) 112 25

TC-P2 Planned Park near One Citygate 209 (1) 143 31

TC-P5 Tung Chung West Development 223 (1) 130 28



TC-P8 Tung Chung East Development 230 (2) 131 26




TC-P12 Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel 221 (2) 134 28


237 (3) 137 27


223 (2) 128 27


232 (2) 133 27

TC-P16 Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School 224 (2) 128 27

TC-P17 Tung Chung Area 39 171 (0) 112 23

San Tau

ST-1 Village house at Tin Sum 218 (2) 152 31

ST-2 Village house at Kau Liu 222 (2) 155 31

ST-3 Village house at San Tau 204 (2) 143 30

Sha Lo Wan

SLW-1 Sha Lo Wan House No.1 304 (18) 196 36



SLW-4 Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan 312 (9) 178 31

San Shek Wan

SSW-1 San Shek Wan 212 (2) 153 27

Sham Wat

SW-1 Sham Wat House No. 39 201 (1) 125 22


5-108


ASR ID Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)



Siu Ho Wan

SHW-1 Village house at Pak Mong 248 (2) 123 24

SHW-2 Village house at Ngau Kwu Long 200 (1) 124 24

SHW-3 Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen 247 (6) 148 23

SHW-4 Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot 186 (0) 133 30

SHW-5 Tin Liu Village 201 (1) 121 24

Proposed Lantau Logistic Park

LLP-P1 Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1 194 (0) 132 28




Tuen Mun

TM-7 Tuen Mun Fireboat Station 209 (3) 155 34

TM-8 DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works 216 (4) 156 37

TM-9 EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station 217 (7) 149 38

TM-10 Pillar Point Fire Station 216 (3) 154 38

TM-11 Butterfly Beach Laundry 210 (2) 148 33

TM-12 River Trade Terminal 218 (4) 151 38

TM-13 Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank 208 (2) 134 35

TM-14 EcoPark Administration Building 211 (3) 138 36

TM-15 Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building

214 (4) 136 33


216 (4) 159 37

TM-17 Saw Mil Number 61-69 213 (5) 161 37

TM-18 Saw Mil Number 35-49 209 (5) 158 36

TM-19 Ho Yeung Street Number 22 209 (2) 149 34

Note:

[1] Values in ( ) mean the number of exceedance against the AQO.

[2] Bolded values mean exceedance of the relevant AQO.


5-109


Table 5.3.96:The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 1-hour, 19th

Maximum

Cumulative 1-hour and Annual Average NO2 Concentrations at Representative ASRs

Area Max. 1-hour NO2 Concentration

(µg/m3)

19th Max. 1-hour NO2 Concentration

(µg/m3)

Annual NO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

BCF (-3) 5 1

Tung Chung (-11) – 39 0 - 17 0 - 1

Tung Chung West (-17) - 41 1 - 9 0

Tung Chung East (-4) - 38 1 - 10 0

Sha Lo Wan (-3) - 93 8 - 21 (-3) - 0

Siu Ho Wan (-1) - 83 (-1) - 15 0 - 1

Tuen Mun (-1) - 5 0 - 3 0

5.3.6.2 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 1-hour NO2

concentrations at the representative ASRs are in the range of 165 to 312 µg/m3 with the highest

1-hour NO2 concentration found at ASR SLW-4 (Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan). The predicted

number of exceedance against the AQO is around 0 - 18. No non-compliance against the AQO is

predicted at all identified ASRs.

5.3.6.3 The predicted cumulative annual NO2 concentrations at ASRs are in the range of 21 to 39 µg/m3.

The highest annual cumulative NO2 concentration is found at BCF-1 (Planned Passenger

Building). No non-compliance against the AQO is predicted at the ASRs. It should be noted that

the assessment point of BCF is located at 15 m above ground as the fresh air intake will be

located at 15 mAG.

5.3.6.4 The cumulative NO2 concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-1. The

incremental changes of concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are minor for majority of ASRs and the

results are shown in Table 5.3.96. The predicted maximum incremental concentration changes

for 1-hr NO2, 19th highest NO2 and annual NO2 are 93, 21 and 1 µg/m

3 respectively. Except Sha

Lo Wan, the incremental change of annual concentration between 3RS and 2RS is less than

1 µg/m3, indicating that the impact of 3RS is not significant. For Sha Lo Wan, there is a net

benefit (i.e. -3 µg/m3) due to the 3RS and the contributing factors include:

� Shifting of dominant aircraft departure from the south runway (2RS scenario) to the centre

runway (3RS scenario); and

� Assigning the existing south runway as standby mode wherever practicable during the night-

time period between 2300 and 0659.

5.3.6.5 Table 5.3.97 to Table 5.3.99 further illustrate the breakdown of 1-hr NO2, 19th highest 1-hr NO2

and annual NO2 concentrations at different areas.

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

Area ASR Airport Related Emission (µg/m3)

Proximity Infrastructure Emission (µg/m3)

Ambient (µg/m3) Cumulative Impact (µg/m3)

BCF BCF-1 92 1 104 197

Tung Chung TC-24 175 59 33 267

Tung Chung West TC- P6 184 17 33 234


5-110


Tung Chung East TC-P13 123 18 96 237

Sha Lo Wan SLW-4 269 4 39 312

Tuen Mun TM-12 2[1] 7 209 218

Note:

[1] Airport related emission is included in ambient in PATH model for Tuen Mun area.

Table 5.3.98: 19th

highest 1-hr NO2 concentration breakdown at representative areas



Ambient (µg/m3)

Cumulative Impact (µg/m3)

BCF BCF-1 48 5 108 161

Tung Chung TC-22 85 7 59 151

Tung Chung West TC-P7 97 44 6 147


Sha Lo Wan SLW-1 183 7 6 196

Tuen Mun TM-17 4[1] 4 153 161

Note:


Table 5.3.99: Annual NO2 concentration breakdown at representative areas



Ambient (µg/m3) Cumulative Impact (µg/m3)

BCF BCF-1 4 11 24 39

Tung Chung TC-22 2 9 22 33



Sha Lo Wan SLW-1 12 4 20 36

Tuen Mun TM-10 2[1] 9 27 38

Note:


5.3.6.6 Based on Table 5.3.97 and Table 5.3.98, the major NO2 contributor to the cumulative 1-hr NO2

depends on the location and wind direction. Based on Table 5.3.99, the dominant emission

sources are from the ambient emission, which contributes in most cases more than 60% of the

total concentration. This is followed by proximity infrastructure emission (10 – 30%) and airport

emission (< 10%), except for Sha Lo Wan. For Sha Lo Wan, the contribution due to ambient,

airport related emission and proximity infrastructure emission are around 56%, 33% and 11%.

5.3.6.7 Contours of cumulative maximum 1-hour, 19th highest 1-hour, and annual NO2 concentrations in

Lantau area and Tuen Mun area at 1.5 m above ground are illustrated in Drawing No.

MCL/P132A/EIA/5-3-008 – 013. No air sensitive uses within the assessment area with

exceedance of the AQOs are observed.

5.3.6.8 Nevertheless exceedances of NO2 criteria are observed within the airport boundary, in part of

BCF island and Tap Shek Kok industrial area for 19th highest NO2 and annual NO2. Those

exceedance inside the airside is due to the airport related emission (such as aircraft, GSE, APU,


5-111


etc.). The exceedance in BCF island is due to the vehicular emission during vehicle running and

idling. The exceedance in Tap Shek Kok Area is due to the industrial, vehicular and marine

emission in the vicinity of these areas. Based on the latest available information, no air sensitive

development is identified within these areas and adverse residual air quality impact is thus not

anticipated.

Table 5.3.100: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average RSP Concentrations at Representative


ASR ID

Location

Max. 24-hour RSP Concentration

(µg/m3)

10th Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)

Annual RSP Concentration

(µg/m3)


HKBCF


Tung Chung





TC-5 Ho Yu College 116 (1) 78 39











TC-16 Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School

117 (1) 78 39





TC-21 One Citygate 117 (1) 78 39




112 (1) 77 39



112 (1) 77 39


5-112


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)



(µg/m3)



112 (1) 77 39























TC-50 Ha Ling Pei 112 (1) 77 39




TC-54 Sha Tsui Tau 112 (1) 77 39

TC-55 Ngan Au 111 (1) 76 38

TC-56 Shek Lau Po 111 (1) 76 38

TC-57 Mo Ka 111 (1) 76 38

TC-58 Shek Mun Kap 111 (1) 76 38







5-113


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)



(µg/m3)









116 (1) 78 39


116 (1) 77 39


116 (1) 77 39

TC-P16 Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School

116 (1) 77 39


San Tau




Sha Lo Wan





San Shek Wan

SSW-1 San Shek Wan 114 (1) 77 39

Sham Wat



Siu Ho Wan











5-114


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)



(µg/m3)



Tuen Mun


TM-8 DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works

120 (1) 80 40








122 (1) 79 44


120 (1) 80 40

TM-17 Saw Mil Number 61-69 119 (2) 81 42

TM-18 Saw Mil Number 35-49 119 (2) 81 42


Note:


Table 5.3.101: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 24-hour, 10th

Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average RSP Concentrations at Key ASRs

Area Max. 24-hour RSP Concentration (µg/m3)


Annual RSP Concentration (µg/m3)

BCF 0.3 1.1 (-0.2)

Tung Chung (-0.2) – 0.4 (-0.1) - 0.6 0.0 – 0.1

Tung Chung West (-0.1) – 0.3 (-0.4) – 0.1 0.0

Tung Chung East (-0.3) – 0.4 (-0.1) - 0.6 0.0

Sha Lo Wan (-0.4) - 0.0 (-0.9) – 0.8 0.0 - 0.2

Siu Ho Wan 0.0 - 0.2 (-2.0) - 0.0 0.0 – 0.1

Tuen Mun (-0.3) – 0.1 (-0.4) – 0.1 0.0

5.3.6.9 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 24-hour RSP

concentrations at the above representative ASRs are in the range of 110 to 129 µg/m3 with the

highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-14 (EcoPark Administration Building). The predicted

number of exceedance against the AQO is around 1 - 2. No non-compliance against the AQO at

all identified ASR is predicted.

5.3.6.10 The predicted cumulative annual RSP concentrations at the above representative ASRs are in the

range of 38 to 44 µg/m3 with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-15 (Castle Peak


5-115


Power Plant Administration Building). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASRs

is predicted.

5.3.6.11 The cumulative RSP concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-2. The

predicted maximum incremental concentration changes for 24-hr RSP, 10th highest 24-hr RSP

and annual RSP are 0.4, 1.1 and 0.2 µg/m3 respectively. The incremental changes of

concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are minor.

5.3.6.12 Table 5.3.102 to Table 5.3.104 further illustrate the breakdown of 24-hr RSP, 10th highest 24-hr

RSP and annual RSP concentrations at different areas.

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



Ambient (µg/m3)


BCF BCF-1 1 <1 120 122

Tung Chung TC-20 1 1 115 117


Tung Chung East TC-P10 1 <1 118 119

Sha Lo Wan SLW-1 <1 1 116 117

Tuen Mun TM-14 <1[1] 8 121 129

Note:


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



Ambient (µg/m3)


BCF BCF-1 2 1 79 81

Tung Chung TC-22 <1 1 77 78

Tung Chung West TC-P5 <1 <1 78 78

Tung Chung East TC-P11 <1 1 78 79


Tuen Mun TM-17 <1[1] 2 79 81

Note:


Table 5.3.104: Annual RSP concentration breakdown at representative areas



Ambient (µg/m3)


BCF BCF-1 <1 <1 39 40



Tung Chung East TC-P11 <1 <1 39 39


Tuen Mun TM-15 <1[1] 5 40 44

Note:


5-116



5.3.6.13 Based on Table 5.3.102 to Table 5.3.104, the major RSP contributor to the cumulative daily and

annual RSP is the background emission.

5.3.6.14 Contours of cumulative maximum 24-hour, 10th highest 24-hour, and annual RSP concentrations

in Lantau area and Tuen Mun area are illustrated in Drawing No. MCL/P132A/EIA/5-3-014-019.

No air sensitive uses with exceedance of the AQOs are observed.

Table 5.3.105: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average FSP Concentrations at Representative


ASR ID

Location

Max. 24-hour FSP Concentration

(µg/m3)

10th Max. 24-hour FSP Concentration

(µg/m3)

Annual FSP Concentration

(µg/m3)


HKBCF


Tung Chung





TC-5 Ho Yu College 87 (1) 58 27











TC-16 Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School 87 (1) 58 28





TC-21 One Citygate 87 (1) 58 28


5-117


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)





85 (1) 58 28



85 (1) 58 28


84 (1) 58 28























TC-50 Ha Ling Pei 84 (1) 58 27




5-118


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)



TC-54 Sha Tsui Tau 84 (1) 58 27

TC-55 Ngan Au 83 (1) 57 27

TC-56 Shek Lau Po 83 (1) 57 27

TC-57 Mo Ka 83 (1) 57 27

TC-58 Shek Mun Kap 83 (1) 57 27













87 (1) 58 28


87 (1) 58 27


87 (1) 58 28

TC-P16 Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School 87 (1) 58 28


San Tau




Sha Lo Wan






5-119


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


San Shek Wan

SSW-1 San Shek Wan 86 (1) 58 27

Sham Wat



Siu Ho Wan











Tuen Mun


TM-8 DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works 90 (1) 60 29








91 (1) 58 31


90 (1) 60 29

TM-17 Saw Mil Number 61-69 89 (2) 61 30

TM-18 Saw Mil Number 35-49 89 (2) 61 30



5-120


Table 5.3.106: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 24-hour, 10th

Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and Annual Average FSP Concentrations at Key Areas

Area Max. 24-hour FSP Concentration (µg/m3)


Annual FSP Concentration (µg/m3)

BCF 0.0 (-0.3) (-0.1)

Tung Chung 0.0 – 0.2 0.0 – 0.3 0.0

Tung Chung West 0.0 – 0.1 0.0 – 0.1 0.0

Tung Chung East 0.0 – 0.1 0.0 - 0.2 0.0

Sha Lo Wan 0.0 (-0.1) – 0.2 0.0

Siu Ho Wan 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 0.0

Tuen Mun 0.1 – 0.2 0.0 – 0.1 0.0 – 0.1

5.3.6.15 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 24-hour FSP

concentrations at the above representative ASRs are in the range of 83 to 96 µg/m3 with the

highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-14 (EcoPark Administration Building). The predicted

number of exceedance against the AQO is around 1 - 2. No non-compliance against the AQO is

predicted at all identified ASRs.

5.3.6.16 The predicted cumulative annual FSP concentrations at the above identified ASRs are in the

range of 27 and 31 µg/m3 with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TM-15 (Castle Peak

Power Plant Administration Building). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASRs

is predicted.

5.3.6.17 The cumulative FSP concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-3. The

incremental changes of concentrations are shown in Table 5.3.106. The predicted maximum

incremental concentration changes for 24-hr FSP, 10th highest 24-hr FSP and annual FSP are

0.2, 1.6 and 0.1 µg/m3 respectively. The incremental change of annual concentration between

3RS and 2RS is less than 1 µg/m3, indicating that the impact of 3RS is not significant.

5.3.6.18 Table 5.3.107 to Table 5.3.109 further illustrate the breakdown of 24-hr FSP, 10th highest 24-hr

FSP and annual FSP concentrations at different areas.

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



Ambient (µg/m3)


BCF BCF-1 1 <1 90 91


Tung Chung West TC-P7 <1 1 86 87


Sha Lo Wan SLW-1 <1 <1 87 88

Tuen Mun TM-14 <1[1] 6 91 96

Note:


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



Ambient (µg/m3)



5-121




Ambient (µg/m3)


BCF BCF-1 <1 1 60 60





Tuen Mun TM-17 <1[1] <1 61 61

Note:


Table 5.3.109: Annual FSP concentration breakdown at representative areas



Ambient (µg/m3)


BCF BCF-1 <1 <1 28 28




Sha Lo Wan SLW-1 <1 <1 27 28

Tuen Mun TM-15 <1[1] 2 28 31

Note:


5.3.6.19 Based on Table 5.3.107 to Table 5.3.109, the major FSP contributor to the cumulative daily and

annual FSP is the background emission. For annual FSP, the dominant emission sources are

from the ambient emission, which contributes more than 90% of the total concentration. This is

followed by proximity infrastructure emission (< 4 - 7%) and airport emission (< 4%).

5.3.6.20 Contours of cumulative maximum 24-hour, 10th highest 24-hour, and annual FSP concentrations

in Lantau area and Tuen Mun area are illustrated in Drawing No. MCL/P132A/EIA/5-3-020 –

025. No air sensitive uses with exceedance of the AQOs are observed.

Table 5.3.110: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 10-minute , 4th

Maximum Cumulative 10-minute, Maximum 24-hour

SO2 Concentrations and 4th

Maximum 24-hour SO2 Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background

Concentrations)

ASR ID

Location

10-minute SO2 Concentration

(µg/m3)

4th 10-minute SO2 Concentration

(µg/m3)

24-hour SO2 Concentration

(µg/m3)

4th 24-hour SO2 Concentration

(µg/m3)

AQO (Number of exceedances allowed) 500 (3) 500 125 (3) 125

HKBCF

BCF-1 Planned Passenger Building 184 (0) 148 62 (0) 34

Tung Chung

TC-1 Caribbean Coast Block 1 135 (0) 124 41 (0) 31



5-122


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)




TC-5 Ho Yu College 135 (0) 125 41 (0) 31

TC-6 Ho Yu Primary School 135 (0) 124 41 (0) 31

TC-7 Coastal Skyline Block 1 134 (0) 116 41 (0) 31

TC-8 Coastal Skyline Block 5 150 (0) 123 43 (0) 33

TC-9 La Rossa Block B 151 (0) 124 43 (0) 33

TC-10 Le Bleu Deux Block 1 151 (0) 130 43 (0) 33



TC-13 Seaview Crescent Block 1 151 (0) 128 43 (0) 33



TC-16 Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School

151 (0) 120 43 (0) 33

TC-17 Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School

150 (0) 120 43 (0) 33

TC-18 Tung Chung Public Library 151 (0) 121 43 (0) 33

TC-19 Tung Chung North Park 134 (0) 114 42 (0) 31

TC-20 Novotel Citygate Hong Kong 151 (0) 122 43 (0) 33

TC-21 One Citygate 151 (0) 121 43 (0) 33

TC-22 One Citygate Bridge 152 (0) 120 43 (0) 33

TC-23 Fu Tung Shopping Centre 137 (0) 125 41 (0) 30


137 (0) 125 41 (0) 30

TC-25 Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School

137 (0) 125 41 (0) 30


137 (0) 125 41 (0) 30


136 (0) 124 41 (0) 30

TC-28 Wong Cho Bau Secondary School 136 (0) 124 41 (0) 30

TC-29 Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House 137 (0) 124 41 (0) 30

TC-30 Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House 137 (0) 124 41 (0) 30

TC-31 Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House 137 (0) 125 41 (0) 30


5-123


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


TC-32 Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House

137 (0) 125 41 (0) 30

TC-33 Tung Chung Crescent Block 1 137 (0) 125 41 (0) 30





TC-38 Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House 138 (0) 125 41 (0) 30

TC-39 Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House 138 (0) 125 41 (0) 30

TC-40 Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House 138 (0) 125 41 (0) 30

TC-41 Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House 138 (0) 123 41 (0) 29

TC-42 Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House 139 (0) 121 41 (0) 29

TC-43 Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House 139 (0) 124 41 (0) 29

TC-44 Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House 139 (0) 125 41 (0) 30

TC-45 Village house at Ma Wan Chung 142 (0) 125 41 (0) 30

TC-46 Ma Wan New Village 137 (0) 121 41 (0) 29

TC-47 Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarden

138 (0) 122 41 (0) 29

TC-48 Sheung Ling Pei 138 (0) 120 41 (0) 29

TC-49 Tung Chung Public School 139 (0) 118 41 (0) 29

TC-50 Ha Ling Pei 139 (0) 118 41 (0) 29

TC-51 Lung Tseung Tau 135 (0) 107 40 (0) 30

TC-52 YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College

146 (0) 133 43 (0) 31

TC-53 Hau Wong Temple 149 (0) 134 44 (0) 30

TC-54 Sha Tsui Tau 139 (0) 123 41 (0) 29

TC-55 Ngan Au 146 (0) 133 43 (0) 31

TC-56 Shek Lau Po 145 (0) 133 43 (0) 31

TC-57 Mo Ka 146 (0) 133 43 (0) 31

TC-58 Shek Mun Kap 145 (0) 133 43 (0) 31

TC-59 Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery 145 (0) 133 43 (0) 31

TC-P1 Planned North Lantau Hospital 138 (0) 125 41 (0) 30

TC-P2 Planned Park near One Citygate 152 (0) 125 43 (0) 33

TC-P5 Tung Chung West Development 150 (0) 135 44 (0) 31


5-124


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)




TC-P8 Tung Chung East Development 142 (0) 132 41 (0) 32




TC-P12 Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel

151 (0) 135 43 (0) 33


138 (0) 132 42 (0) 32


135 (0) 127 41 (0) 31


135 (0) 129 41 (0) 31

TC-P16 Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School

135 (0) 126 41 (0) 31

TC-P17 Tung Chung Area 39 139 (0) 118 41 (0) 29

San Tau

ST-1 Village house at Tin Sum 150 (0) 134 44 (0) 30

ST-2 Village house at Kau Liu 150 (0) 139 44 (0) 30

ST-3 Village house at San Tau 150 (0) 134 44 (0) 30

Sha Lo Wan

SLW-1 Sha Lo Wan House No.1 254 (0) 179 48 (0) 37



SLW-4 Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan 195 (0) 163 48 (0) 34

San Shek Wan

SSW-1 San Shek Wan 165 (0) 128 47 (0) 32

Sham Wat

SW-1 Sham Wat House No. 39 119 (0) 107 48 (0) 28

SW-2 Sham Wat House No. 30 144 (0) 129 54 (0) 35

Siu Ho Wan

SHW-1 Village house at Pak Mong 133 (0) 100 45 (0) 29

SHW-2 Village house at Ngau Kwu Long 105 (0) 99 42 (0) 27

SHW-3 Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen

122 (0) 114 46 (0) 28


5-125


ASR ID

Location


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


SHW-4 Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot 111 (0) 106 44 (0) 27

SHW-5 Tin Liu Village 106 (0) 99 42 (0) 27


LLP-P1 Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1

113 (0) 106 44 (0) 27


118 (0) 105 46 (0) 28


110 (0) 106 46 (0) 28


114 (0) 105 46 (0) 27

Tuen Mun

TM-7 Tuen Mun Fireboat Station 142 (0) 130 49 (0) 29

TM-8 DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works

150 (0) 139 49 (0) 32

TM-9 EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station

152 (0) 139 49 (0) 32

TM-10 Pillar Point Fire Station 150 (0) 139 49 (0) 32

TM-11 Butterfly Beach Laundry 176 (0) 157 52 (0) 32

TM-12 River Trade Terminal 163 (0) 140 51 (0) 33

TM-13 Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank

325 (0) 150 54 (0) 31

TM-14 EcoPark Administration Building 193 (0) 149 51 (0) 34


193 (0) 140 50 (0) 33


150 (0) 140 49 (0) 32

TM-17 Saw Mil Number 61-69 142 (0) 130 48 (0) 28

TM-18 Saw Mil Number 35-49 141 (0) 130 48 (0) 28

TM-19 Ho Yeung Street Number 22 176 (0) 157 52 (0) 32

Note:


Table 5.3.111: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 10-min, 4th

Maximum

Cumulative 10-min, Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and 4th

Maximum Cumulative 24-hour SO2 Concentrations at

Representative ASRs

Area 10-minute SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

4th 10-minute SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

24-hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

4th 24-hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

BCF 32 6 7 2


5-126


Area 10-minute SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

4th 10-minute SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

24-hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

4th 24-hour SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

Tung Chung 1 – 7 1 – 18 0 0 - 1

Tung Chung West 3 – 17 2 – 22 0 0 - 1

Tung Chung East 3 – 31 1 – 21 0 - 2 0 - 2

Sha Lo Wan 0 - 51 0 - 34 0 - 1 0 - 2

Siu Ho Wan (-13) - 9 (-1) - 7 (-1) - 3 0

Tuen Mun 0 0 0 0

5.3.6.21 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 10-minute

SO2 concentrations at representative ASRs are in the range of 105 to 325 µg/m3 with the highest

concentration occurring at ASR TM-13 (Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank). No non-

compliance against the AQO is predicted.

5.3.6.22 The predicted maximum cumulative 24-hour concentrations at identified ASRs are in the range of

40 and 62 µg/m3 with the highest concentration occurring at ASR BCF-1 (Planned Passenger

Building). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASR is predicted.

5.3.6.23 The cumulative SO2 concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-4. The

incremental changes of SO2 concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are shown in Table 5.3.111. The

predicted maximum incremental concentration changes for Maximum Cumulative 10-min, 4th

Maximum Cumulative 10-min, Maximum Cumulative 24-hour and 4th Maximum Cumulative 24-

hour SO2 Concentrations are 51, 34, 7 and 2 µg/m3 respectively. The incremental changes of

annual SO2 concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are minor.

5.3.6.24 Contours of cumulative maximum 10-min, maximum 24-hr SO2 and 4th highest 24-hr SO2

concentrations in Lantau area and Tuen Mun area are illustrated in Drawing No.

MCL/P132A/EIA/5-3-026 – 031. No air sensitive uses with exceedance of the AQOs are

observed.

Table 5.3.112: Predicted Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and 8-hour Average CO Concentrations at Representative


ASR ID Location 1-hour CO Concentration

(µg/m3)

8-hour CO Concentration

(µg/m3)

AQO (Number of exceedances allowed) 30,000 (0) 10,000 (0)

HKBCF

BCF-1 Planned Passenger Building 1,739 (0) 1,121 (0)

Tung Chung

TC-1 Caribbean Coast Block 1 1,574 (0) 1,251 (0)




TC-5 Ho Yu College 1,641 (0) 1,258 (0)


5-127



(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


TC-6 Ho Yu Primary School 1,605 (0) 1,246 (0)

TC-7 Coastal Skyline Block 1 1,575 (0) 1,218 (0)

TC-8 Coastal Skyline Block 5 1,520 (0) 1,186 (0)

TC-9 La Rossa Block B 1,536 (0) 1,198 (0)

TC-10 Le Bleu Deux Block 1 1,630 (0) 1,227 (0)



TC-13 Seaview Crescent Block 1 1,584 (0) 1,231 (0)



TC-16 Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School 1,490 (0) 1,192 (0)

TC-17 Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School 1,478 (0) 1,184 (0)

TC-18 Tung Chung Public Library 1,511 (0) 1,211 (0)

TC-19 Tung Chung North Park 1,558 (0) 1,217 (0)

TC-20 Novotel Citygate Hong Kong 1,546 (0) 1,220 (0)

TC-21 One Citygate 1,431 (0) 1,206 (0)

TC-22 One Citygate Bridge 1,449 (0) 1,241 (0)

TC-23 Fu Tung Shopping Centre 1,313 (0) 1,063 (0)


1,434 (0) 1,055 (0)

TC-25 Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School 1,367 (0) 1,049 (0)


1,262 (0) 1,043 (0)


1,260 (0) 1,047 (0)

TC-28 Wong Cho Bau Secondary School 1,298 (0) 1,055 (0)

TC-29 Yu Tung Court - Hei Tung House 1,250 (0) 1,042 (0)

TC-30 Yu Tung Court - Hor Tung House 1,248 (0) 1,048 (0)

TC-31 Fu Tung Estate - Tung Ma House 1,258 (0) 1,048 (0)

TC-32 Fu Tung Estate - Tung Shing House 1,258 (0) 1,066 (0)

TC-33 Tung Chung Crescent Block 1 1,248 (0) 1,070 (0)






5-128



(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


TC-38 Yat Tung Estate - Shun Yat House 1,293 (0) 1,040 (0)

TC-39 Yat Tung Estate - Mei Yat House 1,279 (0) 1,039 (0)

TC-40 Yat Tung Estate - Hong Yat House 1,267 (0) 1,041 (0)

TC-41 Yat Tung Estate - Ping Yat House 1,276 (0) 1,042 (0)

TC-42 Yat Tung Estate - Fuk Yat House 1,284 (0) 1,049 (0)

TC-43 Yat Tung Estate - Ying Yat House 1,286 (0) 1,043 (0)

TC-44 Yat Tung Estate - Sui Yat House 1,292 (0) 1,041 (0)

TC-45 Village house at Ma Wan Chung 1,305 (0) 1,047 (0)

TC-46 Ma Wan New Village 1,287 (0) 1,041 (0)

TC-47 Tung Chung Our Lady Kindergarden 1,343 (0) 1,063 (0)

TC-48 Sheung Ling Pei 1,308 (0) 1,044 (0)

TC-49 Tung Chung Public School 1,302 (0) 1,040 (0)

TC-50 Ha Ling Pei 1,321 (0) 1,052 (0)

TC-51 Lung Tseung Tau 1,285 (0) 1,062 (0)

TC-52 YMCA of Hong Kong Christian College 1,165 (0) 992 (0)

TC-53 Hau Wong Temple 1,197 (0) 983 (0)

TC-54 Sha Tsui Tau 1,319 (0) 1,049 (0)

TC-55 Ngan Au 1,165 (0) 992 (0)

TC-56 Shek Lau Po 1,165 (0) 992 (0)

TC-57 Mo Ka 1,165 (0) 991 (0)

TC-58 Shek Mun Kap 1,165 (0) 991 (0)

TC-59 Shek Mun Kap Lo Hon Monastery 1,165 (0) 991 (0)

TC-P1 Planned North Lantau Hospital 1,253 (0) 1,039 (0)

TC-P2 Planned Park near One Citygate 1,475 (0) 1,228 (0)

TC-P5 Tung Chung West Development 1,308 (0) 986 (0)

TC-P6 Tung Chung West Development 1,342 (0) 1,070 (0)

TC-P7 Tung Chung West Development 1,699 (0) 1,326 (0)

TC-P8 Tung Chung East Development 1,624 (0) 1,249 (0)




TC-P12 Tung Chung Area 53a - Planned Hotel 1,632 (0) 1,219 (0)


1,719 (0) 1,286 (0)


5-129



(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)



1,599 (0) 1,234 (0)


1,594 (0) 1,255 (0)

TC-P16 Tung Chung Area 90 - Planned Special School 1,524 (0) 1,227 (0)

TC-P17 Tung Chung Area 39 1,313 (0) 1,043 (0)

San Tau

ST-1 Village house at Tin Sum 1,384 (0) 1,109 (0)

ST-2 Village house at Kau Liu 1,352 (0) 1,158 (0)

ST-3 Village house at San Tau 1,351 (0) 1,010 (0)

Sha Lo Wan

SLW-1 Sha Lo Wan House No.1 2,133 (0) 1,215 (0)

SLW-2 Sha Lo Wan House No.5 2,068 (0) 1,149 (0)

SLW-3 Sha Lo Wan House No.9 1,545 (0) 988 (0)

SLW-4 Tin Hau Temple at Sha Lo Wan 1,558 (0) 988 (0)

San Shek Wan

SSW-1 San Shek Wan 1,343 (0) 981 (0)

Sham Wat

SW-1 Sham Wat House No. 39 1,139 (0) 968 (0)

SW-2 Sham Wat House No. 30 1,409 (0) 1,110 (0)

Siu Ho Wan

SHW-1 Village house at Pak Mong 1,280 (0) 1,120 (0)

SHW-2 Village house at Ngau Kwu Long 1,283 (0) 1,097 (0)

SHW-3 Village house at Tai Ho San Tsuen 1,353 (0) 1,196 (0)

SHW-4 Siu Ho Wan MTRC Depot 1,494 (0) 1,027 (0)

SHW-5 Tin Liu Village 1,283 (0) 1,064 (0)


LLP-P1 Proposed Lantau Logistics Park - 1 1,506 (0) 1,026 (0)




Tuen Mun

TM-7 Tuen Mun Fireboat Station 1,365 (0) 1,020 (0)

TM-8 DSD Pillar Point Preliminary Treatment Works 1,310 (0) 1,016 (0)

TM-9 EMSD Tuen Mun Vehicle Service Station 1,305 (0) 998 (0)


5-130



(µg/m3)


(µg/m3)


TM-10 Pillar Point Fire Station 1,313 (0) 1,009 (0)

TM-11 Butterfly Beach Laundry 1,345 (0) 1,095 (0)

TM-12 River Trade Terminal 1,307 (0) 995 (0)

TM-13 Planned G/IC use opposite to TM Fill Bank 1,319 (0) 995 (0)

TM-14 EcoPark Administration Building 1,315 (0) 1,024 (0)

TM-15 Castle Peak Power Plant Administration Building 1,314 (0) 1,022 (0)


1,314 (0) 1,022 (0)

TM-17 Saw Mil Number 61-69 1,358 (0) 1,032 (0)

TM-18 Saw Mil Number 35-49 1,357 (0) 1,032 (0)

TM-19 Ho Yeung Street Number 22 1,346 (0) 1,098 (0)

Note:


Table 5.3.113: The Incremental Change in Concentration (3RS – 2RS) for Maximum Cumulative 1-hour and 8-hour

Average CO Concentrations at Representative ASRs (Including Background Concentrations)

Area 1-hour CO Concentration (µg/m3) 8-hour CO Concentration (µg/m3)

BCF-1 322 101

Tung Chung 0 - 263 0 - 60

Tung Chung West 9 - 78 1 - 65

Tung Chung East 48 - 230 1 - 76

Sha Lo Wan 0 - 419 0 - 111

Siu Ho Wan 1 - 229 (-9) - 137

Tuen Mun (-1) - 2 0 - 1

5.3.6.25 Under the worst case scenario (i.e. Year 2031), the predicted maximum cumulative 1-hour CO

concentrations are in the range of 1,139 to 2,133 µg/m3 with the highest concentration occurring

at ASR SLW-1 (Sha Lo Wan House No.1). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified

ASR is predicted.

5.3.6.26 The predicted maximum cumulative 8-hour CO concentrations at representative ASRs are in the

range of 968 to 1,326 µg/m3 with the highest concentration occurring at ASR TC-P7 (Tung Chung

West Development). No non-compliance against the AQO at all identified ASR is predicted.

5.3.6.27 The cumulative CO concentration of 2RS scenario is shown in Appendix 5.3.17-5. The

incremental changes of concentrations from 2RS to 3RS are shown in Table 5.3.113. The

predicted maximum incremental concentration changes for maximum cumulative 1-hour and 8-

hour average CO concentrations are 419 and 137 µg/m3 respectively.


5-131


5.3.6.28 In addition to the predicted cumulative pollutant concentrations during the operation phase of the

project, the cumulative pollutant concentrations under without project scenario (i.e. 2RS under

business-as-usual scenario) have also been predicted at the ASRs based on the approaches and

methodologies detailed in Sections 5.3.4 and 5.3.5. Detailed assessment results are presented

in Appendix 5.3.17.

Comparison with Preliminary Air Quality Study of MP2030

5.3.6.29 On comparing the previous air quality report undertaken for Hong Kong International Airport

Master Plan (MP2030), there is a reduction in the concentration level at most sensitive receivers.

The reasons include:

1. The present spatial emission distribution was spread into a three-runway system; while the

preliminary air quality study undertaken under MP2030 was based on a hypothetical

approach of assuming that all air emissions associated with the operation of the 3RS could

be grouped onto the existing 2RS footprint

2. The present study has taken into account the advancement of technology (e.g. aircraft

engine emission control and standards, GSE emission standards, APU technology);

3. The present study has taken into account the committed policy on banning APU at the

frontal stands;

4. The present study has taken into account the implementation of latest emission standard

for new airside vehicles;

5. The PATH model adopted in this study has been taken into account the emission target

agreed between HKSAR and Guangdong Government in Year 2012.

5.3.7 Operation Phase Air Quality Enhancement Measures

5.3.7.1 No non-compliance against the AQO has been predicted at the identified ASRs. Nevertheless,

AAHK has been implementing a number of measures and initiatives aimed at further reduction in

air emissions from airport activities and operations and air quality will remain a key focus of

AAHK’s rolling environmental plan, including:

� Banned all idling vehicle engines on the airside since 2008, except for certain vehicles that are

exempted (This measure has already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario

simulation)

� Banning the use of APU for all aircraft at frontal stands by end 2014 (This measure has

already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

� Requiring all saloon vehicles as electric vehicles by end 2017 (This measure has already

been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

� Increasing charging stations for EVs and electric GSE to a total of 290 by end 2018

� Conducting review on existing GSE emission performance and explore measures to further

control air emissions

� Exploring with franchisees feasibility of expediting replacement of old airside vehicles and

GSE with cleaner ones during tender or renewal of contracts


5-132


� Requiring all new airside vehicles to be fuel-efficient and making it a prerequisite for the

licensing process;

� Providing the cleanest diesel and gasoline at the airfield;

� Requiring all of the AAHK’s diesel vehicles to use biodiesel (B5);

� Promoting increased use of electric vehicles and electric ground service equipment at HKIA

by provision of charging infrastructure; and

� Providing a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fuelling point for airside vehicles and ground

service equipment.

5.3.7.2 In addition to continuous outdoor air quality monitoring, AAHK also monitors the indoor air quality

to maintain a good indoor air quality environment for the passengers and staff. Terminal 1,

Terminal 2, SkyPier and North Satellite Concourse have already received “Good Class” Indoor Air

Quality Certification from the “IAQ Certification Scheme for Offices and Public Places” of EPD.

5.3.8 Evaluation of Operation Phase Residual Impact

5.3.8.1 Based on the assessment results, no adverse residual air quality impacts are anticipated at all

ASRs during the operation phase of the project.

5.4 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

5.4.1 Construction Phase

5.4.1.1 Regular dust monitoring is considered necessary during the construction phase of the project and

regular site audits are also required to ensure the dust control measures are properly

implemented.

5.4.1.2 Monitoring and audit of daily RSP and daily FSP levels are not proposed. This is because even

under the hypothetical worst case Tier 1 mitigated scenario both daily RSP and daily FSP would

comply with the corresponding AQO at all ASR throughout the construction period, except the

limited non-compliance with the AQO for daily RSP at up to three ASR in three of the nine

construction years (see Table 5.2.9). Hence no significant RSP or FSP impacts are anticipated.

Therefore, only hourly TSP will be monitored and audited at appropriate locations. Details of the

environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme are presented in the stand-alone EM&A

Manual.

5.4.2 Operation Phase

5.4.2.1 The current airport air quality monitoring stations shall be maintained. No additional air quality

monitoring station is required.


5-133


5.5 Conclusion

5.5.1 Construction Phase

5.5.1.1 With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures as well as the relevant control

requirements as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, EPD’s

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

3/2(93), Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works (Asphaltic

Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94) and Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Mineral

Works (Stone Crushing Plants) BPM 11/1 (95), it has been assessed that the hourly TSP criterion

would be complied with at all ASRs, and compliance with the AQOs for daily RSP, daily FSP,

annual RSP and annual FSP would be achieved at all ASRs.

5.5.1.2 With the recommended mitigation measures in place, no adverse residual TSP, RSP or FSP

impacts are anticipated at all ASRs during the construction phase of the project.

5.5.1.3 During the proposed DCM process, cement powder will be transferred from the supporting vessel

to DCM barges through piping in closed loop or a totally enclosed manner. There will be no open

storage of cement on the DCM barges or the supporting vessels. Hence, no adverse residual

dust impacts due to cement transfer or storage are anticipated.

5.5.1.4 There would be potential emission of bitumen fumes from the proposed asphalt batching plants at

the airport expansion area. Given their large separation distances from ASRs (at least about

3.1 km from the nearest ASR) and with implementation of the various emission control measures

as given in the EPD’s Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Tar and Bitumen Works

(Asphaltic Concrete Plant) BPM 15 (94), adverse residual air quality impacts due to the bitumen

fume emission are not anticipated.

5.5.2 Operation Phase

5.5.2.1 The operational air quality assessment has determined the worst year for LTO emission, updated

the emission inventory for 2RS (i.e. without project scenario) and 3RS scenarios at the worst year

with respect to the forecast activities and technology advancement, assessed the cumulative air

quality impact for 3RS and its incremental change with regard to the 2RS scenario and

considered a number of initiatives aimed at further reducing air emissions from airport activities

and operations.

5.5.2.2 The emission inventories of NOx, RSP, FSP, SO2, and CO in the highest aircraft emission year

(i.e. Year 2031) from different airport and associated facilities operations have been established.

The worst assessment year was determined in Year 2031 under the 3RS scenario. Table 5.5.1

shows a comparison of the key pollutants emission inventory in the Year 2011 scenario, Year

2031 3RS scenario and Year 2031 2RS scenario.

Table 5.5.1: Emission Inventory for 2011 scenario, 2031 (3RS) scenario and 2031 (2RS) scenario

Year Total Annual Emission (kg)

NOx RSP FSP

2011 ~ 7,500,000 ~ 220,000 ~ 150,000

2031 (3RS) ~ 9,500,000 ~ 220,000 ~ 91,000


5-134


Year Total Annual Emission (kg)

NOx RSP FSP

2031 (2RS) ~ 6,700,000 ~ 163,000 ~ 67,000

Note [1]: Emission inventory based on Table 5.3.59 and Appendix 5.3.19-1

5.5.2.3 It can be noted from the comparison of the emissions inventory presented above that while the

number of ATM that may be served at HKIA will be greatly increased (from the existing 970 ATM

on the busy day in year 2011 to 1,787 ATM in year 2031) in the presence of the third runway, the

associated increase in NOx emission would be less significant (around 30 %) considering the

anticipated technology advancement. Besides, it is anticipated that there would not be any

significant change in RSP emissions, and FSP emissions would also be reduced for the same

reason of technology advancement and the key factors include the following:

� Continuous improvement in engine technology to fulfill ICAO aviation emission standard;

� Improvement in fuel efficiency;

� Banning the use of APU at the stands; and

� Adoption of the latest international airside and landside vehicular emission standard.

5.5.2.4 Both the 3RS and 2RS scenarios (i.e. without project) were simulated. A model validation against

year 2011 monitoring data at PH5 and TC monitoring station was conducted and the results

showed that the current modelling approach is conservative.

5.5.2.5 The assessment findings for Year 2031 3RS scenario indicate that cumulative NO2, RSP, FSP

SO2, and CO levels (i.e. airport related emission, proximity infrastructure emission and regional

emission) comply with the AQOs at all ASRs. On comparing the annual pollutant levels of 3RS

scenario with those of the 2RS scenario (i.e. without project case), the increase in annual NO2,

RSP and FSP are less than 1 µg/m3, 0.2 µg/m

3 and 0.1 µg/m

3 respectively, indicating relatively

insignificant changes.

5.5.2.6 With respect to the incremental changes in the annual concentration of NO2 in Sha Lo Wan (i.e.

3RS – 2RS), which is downwind of the airport (the prevailing wind at the airport is easterly), a

decrease in concentration (as shown in Table 5.3.96 and described in Section 5.3.6.4) is

predicted. This suggests that the 3RS will bring environmental benefit to the receivers at Sha Lo

Wan:

� Shifting of dominant aircraft departure from the south runway (2RS scenario) to the centre

runway (3RS scenario); and

� Assigning the existing south runway as standby mode wherever practicable during the night-

time period between 2300 and 0659.

5.5.2.7 NOx is the key emission pollutant for airport. The emission sources breakdown for the cumulative

annual NO2 impact at the key sensitive area under the 3RS scenario is shown in Table 5.3.99

and Table 5.5.2. The dominant emission sources are from the ambient emission, which

contributes in most cases more than 60% of the total concentration. This is followed by proximity

infrastructure emission (10 – 30%) and airport emission (< 10%), except for Sha Lo Wan.


5-135


Table 5.5.2: Concentration Breakdown for the Cumulative Annual NO2 Impact at the Key Sensitive Area under the

3RS scenario



Ambient (µg/m3)


Tung Chung TC-22 2 9 22 33




Tuen Mun TM-10 2[1] 9 27 38

Note:


5.5.2.8 AAHK has been implementing a number of measures and initiatives aimed at further reduction in

air emissions from airport activities and operations and air quality will remain a key focus of

AAHK’s rolling environmental plan, including:

� Banned all idling vehicle engines on the airside since 2008, except for certain vehicles that are

exempted (This measure has already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario

simulation)

� Banning the use of APU for all aircraft at frontal stands by end 2014 (This measure has

already been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

� Requiring all saloon vehicles as electric vehicles by end 2017 (This measure has already

been incorporated in the model for 2031 3RS scenario simulation)

� Increasing charging stations for EVs and electric GSE to a total of 290 by end 2018

� Conducting review on existing GSE emission performance and explore measures to further

control air emissions

� Exploring with franchisees feasibility of expediting replacement of old airside vehicles and

GSE with cleaner ones during tender or renewal of contracts

� Requiring all new airside vehicles to be fuel-efficient and making it a prerequisite for the

licensing process;

� Providing the cleanest diesel and gasoline at the airfield;

� Requiring all of the AAHK’s diesel vehicles to use biodiesel (B5);

� Promoting increased use of electric vehicles and electric ground service equipment at HKIA

by provision of charging infrastructure; and

� Providing a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fuelling point for airside vehicles and ground

service equipment.

5.5.2.9 In addition to continuous outdoor air quality monitoring, AAHK also monitors the indoor air quality

to maintain a good indoor air quality environment for the passengers and staff. Terminal 1,

Terminal 2, SkyPier and North Satellite Concourse have already received “Good Class” Indoor Air

Quality Certification from the “IAQ Certification Scheme for Offices and Public Places” of EPD.


5-136


5.5.2.10 With the implementation of the above measures and any other measures which AAHK consider

effective in the existing and future operation of HKIA, air emissions associated with the operation

of the 3RS will be further reduced.

5.6 References

1. Air Quality Consultants, Technical Appendix B: London Luton Airport – Air Quality

Assessment Methodology, 2012.

2. AEA Energy & Environment, Emissions Methodology for Future LHR Scenarios, 2007.

3. AXA Energy and Environment, Revised Emissions Methodology for Heathrow - Base year

2002, 2007

4. Curran, R.J., Method for estimating particulate emissions from aircraft brakes and tyres.

QINETIQ/05/01827, 2006.

5. Department of Transport, United Kingdom, Project for the Sustainable Development of

Heathrow - Report of the Air Quality Technical Panels, 2006

6. Environmental Protection Department, Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model

Parameters

7. Environmental Protection Department, Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air

Quality Assessment in Hong Kong

8. Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, The Advanced Emission Model (AEMIII) Version 1.5

Appendices A, B and C to the Validation Report EEC / SEE / 2004 / 004, 2004

9. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy, Emissions and

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) User’s Manual (for Version 5.1.4.1), 2013.

10. HKUST, 2010 Airport Operational Air Quality Study, 2011

11. Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand, Good Practice Guide for Atmospheric

Dispersion Modelling, June 2004

12. R.K. Gupta, et al., Particulate matter and Elemental Emission from a Cement Kiln, Fuel

Processing Technology, 2012

13. Sanders, P., Ning Xu, Dalka, T., and Maricq M. “Airborne Brake Wear Debris: Size

Distributions, Composition, and a Comparison of Dynamometer and Vehicle Tests.”

Environmental Science and Technology, 2003, Vol. 37, pp. 4060–4069.

14. Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), FOCA Aircraft Piston Engine Emissions

Summary Report, 2007.


5-137


15. Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter

Emissions , 2009.

16. Thompson G. Pace, US Environmental Protection Agency, Examination of the Multiplier

Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions from PM10, April 2005

17. Transportation Research Board, ACRP Report 9, Summarizing and Interpreting Aircraft

Gaseous and Particulate Emissions Data, US, 2008

18. US Environmental Protection Agency, User Guide for the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM)

(Revised), EPA-910/9-88-202R, January 1991

19. US Environmental Protection Agency, Estimating Particulate Matter Emissions from

Construction Operations, 1999

20. US Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-

42), 5th Edition, January 2011

Documents

Three-Runway System Environmental Impact Assessment Report ... · MCL/P132/EIA/5-1-001), is used to demonstrate the meteorology at the project site in 2012. 5.1.3.3 The seasonal windroses