environmental impact assessment report · appendix 3.11b sensitivity test on contribution from...

MTR Corporation Limited Proposed Comprehensive Residential and Commercial Development atop Siu

Ho Wan Depot Environmental Impact Assessment Report

248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017

G:\ENV\PROJECT\248118\12 REPORTS DELIVERABLES\017 EIA REPORT\04 FINAL\HTML\SHW TOPSIDE DEVELOPMENT\EIA\PDF\TEXT\CH 3 - AIR QUALITY.DOCX

Contents

Page

3 Air Quality 1

3.1 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines 1

3.2 Description of the Environment 3

3.3 Air Sensitive Receivers 9

3.4 Construction Dust Assessment 14

3.5 Operational Air Quality Assessment 39

3.6 Air Quality Impact Assessment Conducted by SHO and SHD Replanning Works 87

3.7 Conclusion 88

3.8 References 88

Appendices

Appendix 3.1 Calculations of Dust Emission and Active Area Appendix 3.1a Routing of Construction Vehicles Appendix 3.2 AERMET Surface Characteristic Parameters Appendix 3.3 Hourly Composite Vehicular Emission Factor (for Construction

Dust Assessment) Appendix 3.4 Detailed Construction Dust Assessment Results (Unmitigated) Appendix 3.5 Justification of Dust Suppression Efficiency Appendix 3.6 Detailed Construction Dust Assessment Results (Mitigated) Appendix 3.7 Traffic Forecast Appendix 3.8 EMFAC-HK Key Model Assumptions Appendix 3.9 Hourly Composite Vehicular Emission Factor (for Operational

Air Quality Assessment) Appendix 3.10 Details of Criteria Pollutant and Odourous Emission Inventory Appendix 3.11 Detailed Operational Air Quality Assessment Results Appendix 3.11a Detailed Air Quality Assessment Results Extracted from SHO

and SHD Replanning Works EIA Appendix 3.11b Sensitivity Test on Contribution from TM-CLK Link Appendix 3.12 Detailed Odour Assessment Results

Figures

Figure 3.1 Locations of Concerned PATH Grids

Figure 3.2 Location of Representative Air Sensitive Receivers

Figure 3.3 Construction Dust Impact Assessment Area Figure 3.4a Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated Maximum 1-Hour TSP

Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase) Figure 3.4b Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated 10th Highest 24-Hour RSP

Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase) Figure 3.4c Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated Annual RSP

Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase) Figure 3.4d Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated 10th Highest 24-Hour FSP

Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

../../html/Appendix/Appendix%203.1.pdf

../../html/Appendix/Appendix%203.1a.pdf












../../html/Appendix/Appendix%203.11b.pdf


../../html/Figure/Figure%203.1.pdf



../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4a.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4b.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4c.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4d.pdf



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Figure 3.4e Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated Annual FSP Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.4f Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated Maximum 1-Hour TSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.4g Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated 10th Highest 24-Hour RSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.4h Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated Annual RSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.4i Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated 10th Highest 24-Hour FSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.4j Contours of Cumulative Unmitigated Annual FSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.5a Contours of Cumulative Mitigated Maximum 1-Hour TSP Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase )

Figure 3.5b Contours of Cumulative Mitigated 10th Highest 24-Hour RSP Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase )

Figure 3.5c Contours of Cumulative Mitigated Annual RSP Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase )

Figure 3.5d Contours of Cumulative Mitigated 10th Highest 24-Hour FSP Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase )

Figure 3.5e Contours of Cumulative Mitigated Annual FSP Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Construction Phase )

Figure 3.5f Contours of Cumulative Mitigated Maximum 1-Hour TSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.5g Contours of Cumulative Mitigated 10th Highest 24-Hour RSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.5h Contours of Cumulative Mitigated Annual RSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.5i Contours of Cumulative Mitigated 10th Highest 24-Hour FSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.5j Contours of Cumulative Mitigated Annual FSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Construction Phase)

Figure 3.6 Not Used Figure 3.7 Operational Air Quality Assessment Area

Figure 3.8 Locations of Potential Emission Sources Figure 3.9a Contours of Cumulative 19th Highest 1-Hour NO2

Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Operational Phase) Figure 3.9b Contours of Cumulative Annual NO2 Concentration at 1.5m

Above Ground (Operational Phase) Figure 3.10a Contours of Cumulative 10th Highest 24-Hour RSP

Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Operational Phase) Figure 3.10b Contours of Cumulative Annual RSP Concentration at 1.5m

Above Ground (Operational Phase) Figure 3.11a Contours of Cumulative 10th Highest 24-Hour FSP

Concentration at 1.5m Above Ground (Operational Phase) Figure 3.11b Contours of Cumulative Annual FSP Concentration at 1.5m

Above Ground (Operational Phase) Figure 3.12a Contours of Cumulative 19th Highest 1-Hour NO2

Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Operational Phase) Figure 3.12b Contours of Cumulative Annual NO2 Concentration at 13.6m

Above Ground (Operational Phase)

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4e.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4f.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4g.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4h.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4i.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.4j.pdf





../../html/Figure/Figure%203.5e.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.5f.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.5g.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.5h.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.5i.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.5j.pdf













248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Figure 3.13a Contours of Cumulative 10th Highest 24-Hour RSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Operational Phase)

Figure 3.13b Contours of Cumulative Annual RSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Operational Phase)

Figure 3.14a Contours of Cumulative 10th Highest 24-Hour FSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Operational Phase)

Figure 3.14b Contours of Cumulative Annual FSP Concentration at 13.6m Above Ground (Operational Phase)

Figure 3.15a Contours of Cumulative 5-Second Maximum Odour Concentration at 5 m Above Ground

Figure 3.15b Contours of Cumulative 5-Second Maximum Odour Concentration at 10 m Above Ground

Figure 3.15c Contours of Cumulative 5-Second Maximum Odour Concentration at 13.6 m Above Ground

Figure 3.15d Contours of Cumulative 5-Second Maximum Odour Concentration at 50 m Above Ground











248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-1

3 Air Quality

3.1 Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

3.1.1 General

3.1.1.1 The relevant legislations, standards and guidelines applicable to the

present study for the assessment of air quality impacts include:

Air Pollution Ordinance (APCO) (Cap 311);

Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation;

Air Pollution Control (Non-road Mobile Machinery) (Emission)

Regulation; and

EIAO (Cap. 499), Technical Memorandum on Environmental

Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM), Annex 4 and Annex 12.

3.1.1.2 The APCO (Cap.311) provides the power for controlling air pollutants

from a variety of stationary and mobile sources and encompasses a

number of Air Quality Objectives (AQOs).

3.1.2 Air Quality Objectives

3.1.2.1 The air quality impact assessment criteria shall make reference to the

Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG), the APCO

(Cap.311), and Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM.

3.1.2.2 The APCO (Cap.311) provides the power for controlling air pollutants

from a variety of stationary and mobile sources and encompasses a

number of AQOs. In addition to the APCO, the following overall policy

objectives are laid down in Chapter 9 of the HKPSG as follows:

Limit the contamination of the air in Hong Kong, through land

use planning and through the enforcement of the APCO to

safeguard the health and well-being of the community; and

Ensure that the AQOs for seven common air pollutants are met as

soon as possible.

3.1.2.3 Currently, the AQOs stipulate limits on concentrations for seven

pollutants including sulphur dioxide (SO2), Respirable Suspended

Particulates (RSP), Fine Suspended Particulates (FSP), Nitrogen

Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), photochemical oxidants, and

Lead (Pb). The prevailing AQOs are listed in Table 3.1 below.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-2

Table 3.1 Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives (AQOs)

Pollutant

Limits on Concentration, µg/m3 [1]

(Number of exceedances allowed per year in brackets)

10-min 1-hr 8-hr 24-hr [2] Annual [2]

Sulphur Dioxide

(SO2)

500

(3)

125

(3)

Respirable Suspended

Particulates (RSP) [3]

100

(9)

50

(0)

Fine Suspended

Particulates (FSP) [4]

75

(9)

35

(0)

Carbon Monoxide

(CO)

30,000

(0)

10,000

(0)

Nitrogen Dioxide

(NO2)

200

(18)

40

(0)

Ozone (O3) 160

(9)

Lead (Pb) 0.5

(0)

Notes:

[1] Measured at 293K and 101.325kPa.

[2] Arithmetic mean.

[3] Respirable suspended particulates means suspended particulates in air with a

nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometres or smaller.

[4] Fine suspended particulates means suspended particulates in air with a nominal

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometres or smaller.

3.1.3 Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation

3.1.3.1 The Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation specifies

processes that require special dust control. The Contractors are required

to inform the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and adopt

proper dust suppression measures while carrying out “Notifiable

Works” (which requires prior notification by the regulation) and

“Regulatory Works” to meet the requirements as defined under the

regulation.

3.1.4 Air Pollution Control (Non-road Mobile Machinery)

(Emission) Regulation

3.1.4.1 Air Pollution Control (Non-road Mobile Machinery) (Emission)

Regulation specifies that all Non-road Mobile Machinery (NRMMs),

except those exempted, used in specified activities and locations

including construction sites, container terminals and back up facilities,

restricted areas of the airport, designated waste disposal facilities and

specified processes are required to comply with the prescribed emission

standards.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-3

3.1.5 Total Suspended Particulate Criteria

3.1.5.1 There is no criterion on Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) under the

AQO. In accordance with Annex 4 of EIAO-TM, a limit of 500μg/m3

for 1-hour TSP concentration at any sensitive receivers should be

adopted for evaluating air quality impacts.

3.1.6 Odour Criterion

3.1.6.1 In accordance with Annex 4 of EIAO-TM, the limit of 5 odour units

based on an averaging time of 5 seconds for odour prediction

assessment should not be exceeded at any receivers.

3.1.7 Practice Note on Control of Air Pollution in Semi

Confined Public Transport Interchanges

3.1.7.1 The Practice Note on Control of Air Pollution in Semi-Confined Public

Transport Interchanges (ProPECC PN 1/98) specifies guidelines on air

quality within public transport interchanges (PTIs), the design of PTIs

(including the layout and ventilation system) and operation procedures.

3.2 Description of the Environment

3.2.1 Existing Ambient Air Quality Conditions

3.2.1.1 There is no Air Quality Monitoring Station (AQMS) within the

assessment area. The nearest AQMS operated by EPD to the assessment

area is located at Tung Chung. The average air quality monitoring data

at Tung Chung from the past 5 years (i.e. 2012 – 2016) has been

reviewed and is summarised in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 Air quality monitoring data against prevailing AQO (Tung Chung Station, 2012-2016)

Pollutant Parameter

Concentration (µg/m3)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 5-year

Average

AQO (No. of

Exceedances

allowed)

SO2

4th highest

10-minute N/A N/A 86 88 63

79

[16%] 500 (3)

4th highest

24-hour 33 39 35 22 20

30

[24%] 125 (3)

NO2

19th highest

1-hour 166 177 198 162 150

171

[86%] 200 (18)

Annual 43 49 45 40 36 43

[107%] 40 (0)

CO

Highest 1-

hour 2660 1810 2230 1780 2260

2148

[7%] 30,000 (0)

Highest 8-

hour 2461 1640 1692 1416 1581

1758

[18%] 10,000 (0)



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-4

Pollutant Parameter

Concentration (µg/m3)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 5-year

Average

AQO (No. of

Exceedances

allowed)

O3 10th highest

8-hour 197 171 175 176 142

172

[108%] 160 (9)

RSP

10th highest

24-hour 106 108 101 93 92

100

[100%] 100 (9)

Annual 45 42 39 36 33 39

[78%] 50 (0)

FSP

10th highest

24-hour 74 76 65 65 63

69

[92%] 75 (9)

Annual 28 26 24 22 21 24

[69%] 35 (0)

Note:

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

[2] Number of exceedance allowed under the AQO is shown in ( ), % of the AQO is shown in [ ].

[3] Monitoring results exceeding the AQO are bolded.

[4] Only monitoring data based on the AQO of 10-min SO2 for 2014 and 2015 is publicly available.

3.2.1.2 The 4th highest 10-minute and the 4th highest daily SO2 levels were well

within the corresponding AQOs.

3.2.1.3 The 19th highest 1-hour NO2 levels were ranged from 150 to 198μg/m3,

which were within the AQO of 200μg/m3. The annual NO2 level

exhibited a downward trend, decreased from 49μg/m3 in 2013 to within

the AQO of 40μg/m3 in 2016.

3.2.1.4 The highest 1-hour and 8-hour CO levels were also well within the

corresponding AQOs.

3.2.1.5 The highest 8-hour O3 levels were ranged from 142 to 197μg/m3, with

an average level of 172 μg/m3 which exceeds the AQO by about 8%.

3.2.1.6 The 10th highest daily RSP levels had decreased from 108μg/m3 in

2013 to 92μg/m3 in 2016, as compared with the AQO of 100μg/m3. The

annual RSP levels also exhibited a downward trend from 45μg/m3 in

2012 to 33μg/m3 in 2016, which were all within the AQO of 50μg/m3.

3.2.1.7 The 10th highest daily FSP levels were within the AQO of 75μg/m3 in

the past 5 years except Year 2013 (i.e. 76μg/m3). The annual FSP level

also exhibited a downward trend, decreased from 28μg/m3 in 2012 to

21μg/m3 in 2016 which were all within the AQO of 35μg/m3.

3.2.2 Future Ambient Air Quality Condition

3.2.2.1 The future ambient air quality is influenced by various sources in Hong

Kong including territory wide vehicular emission, power plants and

marine emission, the Hong Kong International Airport, as well as

regional emission from Pearl River Delta (PRD), etc.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-5

3.2.2.2 In 2002, the HKSAR jointly agreed regional air emission reduction

targets to be achieved by 2010 with the Guangdong Provincial

Government. The figures for the Year 2010 (Table 3.3) show that

emissions of SO2, NOx, RSP and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

have been reduced beyond the agreed targets. This is a result of setting

caps on emissions from power plants (under the First Technical

Memorandum (December 2008) and the power companies retrofitting

their coal fired generation units with air pollution reduction equipment),

introduction of cleaner motor vehicle fuels and motor vehicles in Hong

Kong and the Pearl River Delta (PRD), and phasing out highly polluting

industrial plants in the PRD. Table 3.3 Progress in achieving the 2010 emissions reduction targets

Pollutant

Emission

Level 1997

(tonnes)

Emission

Level 2010

(tonnes)

Change in

Emission Level

1997-2010

Emission

Reduction

Target for 2010

SO2 82,000 35,500 -57% -40%

NOX 154,000 108,600 -29% -20%

RSP 15,500 6,340 -59% -55%

VOC 81,700 33,700 -59% -55%

Note:

[1] Referenced from “Air Pollutant Emission Reduction Plan up to 2020”, ACE

Briefing Paper 12/2012

(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/boards/advisory_council/files/ACE_Paper

_12_2012.pdf).

3.2.2.3 In 2007, EPD had also commissioned a comprehensive study to review

Hong Kong's AQOs and develop a long-term air quality management

strategy. The study has identified a host of comprehensive emission

reduction measures for improving Hong Kong’s air quality, including:

capping the emissions from power plants;

advancing the earlier replacement of more polluting vehicles;

promoting the use of more environmentally-friendly vehicles;

further tightening the control of emissions from vessels and other sources;

introducing suitable traffic management measures to reduce roadside emissions (such as low emission zones, etc.); and

expanding rail/tram network, promoting energy efficiency.

3.2.2.4 Together with the joint effort of the Guangdong Provincial

Government, the regional emission is expected to be further reduced

and the background air quality impacts would be much improved in the

near future.

3.2.2.5 During the 12th Hong Kong-Guangdong Joint Working Group Meeting

on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection (Nov 2012),

the Hong Kong and Guangdong Governments jointly endorsed a Major

Air Pollutant Emission Reduction Plan for the Pearl River Delta Region



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-6

up to year 2020. Key emission reduction measures to be implemented

by Hong Kong and Pearl River Delta Economic Zone (PRDEZ) include:

Hong Kong Government

tightening of vehicle emission standards;

phasing out highly polluting commercial diesel vehicles;

retrofitting Euro II and Euro III franchised buses with selective

catalytic reduction devices;

strengthening inspection and maintenance of petrol and liquefied

petroleum gas vehicles;

requiring ocean-going vessels to switch to using low sulphur fuel

while at berth;

tightening the permissible sulphur content level of locally

supplied marine diesel;

controlling emissions from off-road vehicles/equipment;

further tightening of emission caps on power plants and

increasing use of clean energy for electricity generation; and

controlling VOC contents of solvents used in printing and

construction industry.

Pearl River Delta Economic Zone

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

3.2.2.6 The two governments endorsed the emission reduction targets for Year

2015, and agreed to set emission reduction ranges for Year 2020. The



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-7

reduction targets for the four major air pollutants in Hong Kong and

PRDEZ for Year 2015 and Year 2020 are shown in Table 3.4 and Table

3.5 respectively. Table 3.4 Summary of emission reduction targets in Hong Kong

Year Pollutants (Thousand Tonnes)

References SO2 NOx RSP VOC

2010 35.5 108.6 6.34 33.7 The Hong Kong-Guangdong Joint

Working Group on Sustainable

Development and Environmental

Protection (JWGSDEP) 12th meeting,

2012

2015 26.6 97.7 5.71 32.0

2020 23.1 86.9 5.39 28.6

Note:



(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/boards/advisory_council/files/ACE_Pape

r_12_2012.pdf)

Table 3.5 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

Note:



(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/boards/advisory_council/files/ACE_Pape

r_12_2012.pdf)

3.2.2.7 The future ambient air quality (i.e. Year 2020) within the study

boundary has been predicted by the Pollutants in the Atmosphere and

the Transport over Hong Kong (PATH, a regional air quality prediction

model developed by EPD) in this study. The committed and planned

control measures to be implemented by the Hong Kong Government

and PRDEZ outlined above are accounted for in PATH, which was last

updated in January 2016. The 500m assessment area involves 9 grids in

the PATH (as shown in Figure 3.1). The future ambient air quality

within each PATH grid, based on the most up-to-date results from EPD

(January 2016), is summarized in the table below.


MTR Corporation Limited Proposed Comprehensive Residential and Commercial Development atop Siu Ho Wan Depot

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-8

Table 3.6 Future ambient air quality in PATH grids within the assessment area in Year 2020

Pollutant Parameter 20_31 20_32 21_31 21_32 21_33 22_32 22_33 23_32 23_33

AQO (No. of

Exceedances

allowed)

SO2

4th highest 10-minute 114 125 107 106 115 107 112 109 112 500 (3)

4th highest 24-hour 29 30 29 30 31 30 31 30 31 125 (3)

NO2 19th highest 1-hour 96 97 94 96 104 98 103 98 104 200 (18)

Annual 18 18 17 18 20 18 20 18 20 40 (0)

CO Highest 1-hour 1004 1006 1002 1008 1009 1005 1008 999 1004 30,000 (0)

Highest 8-hour 822 823 825 828 830 828 831 832 840 10,000 (0)

O3 10th highest 8-hour 159 159 159 160 160 154 155 158 157 160 (9)

RSP 10th highest 24-hour 77 79 77 77 80 79 77 80 79 100 (9)

Annual 33 33 33 32 33 34 33 34 34 50 (0)

FSP 10th highest 24-hour 58 59 58 58 60 59 58 60 59 75 (9)

Annual 23 23 23 23 24 24 23 24 24 35 (0)

Notes:

[1] Values are given as highest 10-minute SO2 concentrations, which are estimated based on EPD’s “Guidelines on the Estimation of 10-minute Average SO2

Concentration for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”.

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

[3] In accordance to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters” (dated September 2016), 26.5 μg/m3 and 15.6 μg/m3 are added to PATH data in

determination of 10th highest daily and the annual RSP concentrations respectively.

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



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-9

3.2.2.8 It can be seen from the above table that, with the implementation of the

emission reduction measures by both the Hong Kong and Guangdong

Governments, future background air quality in Year 2020 would be

significantly improved. Concentrations of all criteria pollutants comply

with AQO. In particular, the annual background NO2 concentration in

the assessment area would be significantly reduced to 17 – 20μg/m3 in

Year 2020.

3.2.2.9 The O3 level, which is a regional air pollutant, is also expected to be

complied with the AQO. This would be achieved through implementing

measures, as agreed by the Hong Kong and Guangdong Governments,

to control emission of O3 precursors such as NOx and VOC.

3.3 Air Sensitive Receivers

3.3.1.1 In accordance with Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM, Air Sensitive Receivers

(ASRs) include any domestic premises, hotel, hostel, hospital, clinic,

nursery, temporary housing accommodation, school, educational

institution, office, factory, shop, shopping centre, place of public

worship, library, court of law, sports stadium or performing arts centre.

Any other premises or places with which, in terms of duration or

number of people affected, has a similar sensitivity to the air pollutant

as the aforelisted premises and places would also be considered as a

sensitive receiver.

3.3.1.2 With reference to Clause 3.4.4.2 of the EIA Study Brief, the assessment

area for air quality impact assessment should be defined by a distance

of 500m from boundary of the Project and the works of the Project

within the Study Area, including eastern connection access on Sham

Shui Kok Drive, western access via Tai Ho Interchange, and

construction of pumping station and associated utilities. The assessment

area is shown in Figure 3.2.

3.3.1.3 Representative ASRs within a distance of 500m from the Project area

have been identified. These ASRs include both the existing and planned

developments (i.e. proposed development under the Project). Existing

ASRs are identified by means of reviewing topographic maps, aerial

photos, land status plans, supplemented by site inspections. They

include the Discovery Bay Tunnel Administration Building and Siu Ho

Wan Government Maintenance Depot.

3.3.1.4 Planned/committed ASRs are identified by making reference to

relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZP), Layout Plans and other published

plans in vicinity of the development, including:




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-10

Approved Tung Chung Extension Area Outline Zoning Plan (No.

S/I-TCE/2); and

Draft Tai Ho Outline Zoning Plan (NO.S/I-TH/1).

3.3.1.5 As stated in the above plans, the land uses within 500m from the

boundary of the Project are mainly Agriculture, Green Belt, Country

Park and Government/Institution/Community.

3.3.1.6 It is understood the population intake for the possible developments

may be implemented in phases. Hence, developments in earlier stage

will also be considered as ASRs where appropriate for assessment of

the construction dust impact due to the subsequent development phases.

These ASRs will be identified based on the latest layout. As discussed

in Section 3.4.4, the construction period for this Project will be 2023-

2025 and 2036-2038. Thus construction dust impact on air quality will

be evaluated for both existing and planned ASRs.

3.3.1.7 The locations of the representative ASRs are illustrated in Figure 3.2

and summarized in Table 3.7 below.

Table 3.7 Representative ASRs

ASR

ID Description

Land

Use[1]

Number

of

Storeys

Approximate

Distance from

Closest Emission

Source (m) [2]

Existing ASRs

A1 Discovery Bay Tunnel

Administration Building C 2

80 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

160 (Odour)

A2 Siu Ho Wan Government

Maintenance Depot GIC 3

150 (Construction)

20 (Operational)

190 (Odour)

A3

Siu Ho Wan Sewage

Treatment Works

Administration Building

GIC 2

30 (Construction)

100 (Operational)

90 (Odour)

A4

Siu Ho Wan Water

Treatment Works

Administration Building

GIC 2

240 (Construction)

180 (Operational)

200 (Odour)

A5

Organic Waste

Treatment Facilities

Main Building

GIC N/A

170 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

40 (Odour)

A6 North Lantau Refuse

Transfer Station Office GIC 3

90 (Construction)

80 (Operational)

50 (Odour)

Planned ASRs

A101

Proposed development

atop Siu Ho Wan Depot

(Phase 1a)

R 17

450 (Construction)

50 (Operational)

1060 (Odour)




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-11

ASR

ID Description

Land

Use[1]

Number

of

Storeys

Approximate

Distance from

Closest Emission

Source (m) [2]

A104



(Phase 1a) R 18

520 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

990 (Odour)

A107



(Phase 1a) R 18

580 (Construction)

50 (Operational)

930 (Odour)

A108



(Phase 1a) R 18

620 (Construction)

50 (Operational)

890 (Odour)

A113



(Phase 1a) R 18

740 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

780 (Odour)

A115



(Phase 1a) R 18

730 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

730 (Odour)

A118



(Phase 1a) R 19

660 (Construction)

50 (Operational)

660 (Odour)

A125



(Phase 1b)

R 16

150 (Construction)

50 (Operational)

1370 (Odour)

A128



(Phase 1b)

R 16

230 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

1290 (Odour)

A131



(Phase 1b)

R 17

300 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

1220 (Odour)

A135



(Phase 1b)

R 17

380 (Construction)

50 (Operational)

1130 (Odour)

A136



(Phase 1c)

R 19

620 (Construction)

50 (Operational)

620 (Odour)

A139



(Phase 1c) R 19

560 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

560 (Odour)

A142



(Phase 1c) R 20

490 (Construction)

60 (Operational)

490 (Odour)

A143



(Phase 1c) R 20

410 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

410 (Odour)



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-12

ASR

ID Description

Land

Use[1]

Number

of

Storeys

Approximate

Distance from

Closest Emission

Source (m) [2]

A146



(Phase 1c) R 20

350 (Construction)

30 (Operational)

350 (Odour)

A149



(Phase 1c) R 21

280 (Construction)

40 (Operational)

280 (Odour)

A209



(Phase 2a)

R 18

370 (Construction)

220 (Operational)

1180 (Odour)

A211



(Phase 2b)

R 17

400 (Construction)

130 (Operational)

1120 (Odour)

A212



(Phase 2b)

R 17

500 (Construction)

100 (Operational)

1020 (Odour)

A215



(Phase 2b)

R 17

600 (Construction)

180 (Operational)

930 (Odour)

A219



(Phase 2b)

R 19

530 (Construction)

220 (Operational)

1020 (Odour)

A303



(Phase 3a)

R 19

670 (Construction)

120 (Operational)

670 (Odour)

A307



(Phase 3a)

R 19

540 (Construction)

100 (Operational)

540 (Odour)

A308



(Phase 3a)

R 21

560 (Construction)

200 (Operational)

560 (Odour)

A310



(Phase 3b)

R 18

630 (Construction)

120 (Operational)

890 (Odour)

A313



(Phase 3b)

R 20

660 (Construction)

210 (Operational)

880 (Odour)

A318



(Phase 3b)

R 20

700 (Construction)

210 (Operational)

700 (Odour)

A402



(Phase 4a)

R 23

220 (Construction)

30 (Operational)

230 (Odour)



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-13

ASR

ID Description

Land

Use[1]

Number

of

Storeys

Approximate

Distance from

Closest Emission

Source (m) [2]

A404



(Phase 4a) R 23

160 (Construction)

30 (Operational)

170 (Odour)

A407



(Phase 4a) R 23

90 (Construction)

30 (Operational)

100 (Odour)

A409



(Phase 4b)

R 22

400 (Construction)

110 (Operational)

400 (Odour)

A412



(Phase 4b)

R 24

400 (Construction)

200 (Operational)

400 (Odour)

A414



(Phase 4b)

R 20

340 (Construction)

80 (Operational)

340 (Odour)

A417



(Phase 4c)

R 25

260 (Construction)

130 (Operational)

260 (Odour)

A419



(Phase 4c)

R 25

170 (Construction)

90 (Operational)

170 (Odour)

A422



(Phase 4c)

R 26

80 (Construction)

70 (Operational)

70 (Odour)

A501



(Phase 2a)

E 7

250 (Construction)

90 (Operational)

1270 (Odour)

A601



(Phase 3b)

E 7

690 (Construction)

80 (Operational)

820 (Odour)

A701



(Phase 4c)

E 7

240 (Construction)

60 (Operational)

240 (Odour)

Notes:

[1] C – Commercial; GIC – Government, institution and community; R – Residential;

E – Education

[2] The distance for construction phase refers to the distance from the closest works

area considered in the construction dust assessment associated with the Project.

The distance for operational phase refers to the distance to the closest road,

chimney or marine source. The distance for odour refers to the distance from

closest odour source including existing and planned source.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-14

3.4 Construction Dust Assessment

3.4.1 Assessment Area

3.4.1.1 As discussed in Section 3.3, the assessment area for air quality impact

assessment should be defined by a distance of 500m from boundary of

the Project Area and the works of the Project within the Study Area.

Figure 3.3 illustrates the extent of the study area for construction dust

assessment.

3.4.2 Identification of Pollution Sources and Emission

Inventory

Pollution Sources

3.4.2.1 According to the latest implementation strategy, site clearance,

construction of concrete slab for podium deck of Stage 1 to 4,

foundation of podium deck, SHD replanning works, SHO Station and

associated trackworks as well as local access roads and emergency

vehicular access would be implemented by the SHO and SHD

Replanning Works and the associated impacts will be addressed in the

Railway EIA.

3.4.2.2 Superstructures works for proposed SHD Topside Development for

Stage 1 to 4 would be constructed under this Project. Construction of

superstructures works will be carried out with insignificant construction

dust emission.

3.4.2.3 Construction activities taken into account in this EIA include

construction of access road to Tai Ho Interchange, sewage pumping

station (SPS) and associated utilities connecting to existing Siu Ho Wan

Sewage Treatment Works, and road widening works along Sham Shui

Kok Drive. Construction dust (i.e. TSP, RSP and FSP) as the

representative pollutants, will be potentially generated mainly from the

at-grade construction works including the following activities:

Foundation works for SPS;

Utility construction; and

Road Widening.

3.4.2.4 In addition, dust emissions from existing and future sources (e.g.

OWTF Phase 1) and the construction work for SHO and SHD

Replanning Works would also have potential dust impact on ASRs and

the cumulative impact is assessed.

Dust Emission associated with the Concurrent Projects / Dust

Sources

3.4.2.5 For any concurrent projects with overlapping construction works, such

as those shown in Table 3.8, the associated dust emission sources and




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-15

emission strength are referenced to their respectively approved EIA

Studies and/or the best available information.

Table 3.8 Key concurrent projects for construction dust assessment

Concurrent Project[1] Commissioning Year Approximate

Distance

Tung Chung New Town

Extension[2]

2023 – 2030 1.3 km

Hong Kong Zhuhai-Macau

Bridge (HZMB) Hong

Kong Boundary Crossing

Facilities (HKBCF)[3][9]

2017 2.5 km

Topside Development at

HKBCF[4][9]

Subject to confirmation 2.5 km

Expansion of Hong Kong

International Airport into a

Three-Runway System[5][9]

2023 4.5 km

Development of North

Commercial District on

Airport Island[9]

First phase of NCD is

targeted for completion

in 2021

3.9 km

Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok

Link (TM-CLK Link)[6]

2020 at the earliest

(Northern Section)

1st Half of 2019 at the

earliest (Southern

Section)

2.8 km (Northern

Section)

In the vicinity

(Southern Section)

Hong Kong Zhuhai-Macau

Bridge (HZMB) Hong

Kong Link Road

(HKLR)[7][9]

2017 3.7 km

Addition Sewage Rising

Main and Rehabilitation of

the Existing Sewage Rising

Main between Tung Chung

and Siu Ho Wan [8]

2025 In the vicinity

Notes:

[1] As advised by CEDD, Siu Ho Wan (SHW) Reclamation and Road P1 (SHW

Section) are in feasibility stage and has no implementation programme, thus not

considered as concurrent project.

[2] As per Tung Chung New Town Extension EIA (AEIAR-196/2016)

(http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2332015/html/EIA/Te

xt/General/Combined_html%20version.htm), the development would start in

2017 and would be completed by 2030. Tung Chung Extension phases 1 to 4

would be approximately 1.3 km away from site boundary of this Project. No

significant impact would be anticipated. The Road P1 (Tung Chung – Tai Ho

Section) and Tai Ho Interchange would be near but it is anticipated that the road

will be completed by 2024 and before the first population intake of the Project

in 2026. Cumulative impact on vehicular emissions will be incorporated. In

addition, the Sewerage Network proposed will be completed between 2024 and

2027. Construction dust impact from such work is not anticipated due to the

small scale of construction works.

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2332015/html/EIA/Text/General/Combined_html%20version.htm

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2332015/html/EIA/Text/General/Combined_html%20version.htm



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-16

[3] Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities

EIA (AEIAR-145/2009)

(http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1732009/Contents%2

0Page.htm). The construction of the development will be completed before

construction phase of this Project.

[4] Planning, Engineering and Architectural Study for Topside Development of

Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge

Study Brief (ESB-290/2015)

(http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/study/latest/esb-290.pdf). The

commissioning year of this project is still subject to confirmation.

[5] Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System

EIA (AEIAR-185/2014)

(http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2232014/html/Master

%20Content%20v1.htm) This project will be completed by 2023 before the first

population intake in 2026.

[6] Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link EIA (AEIAR-146/2009)

(http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1742009/html/EIA%2

0Table%20of%20Contents.htm). According to latest information from HyD

(http://tm-clkl-c1.hk/hy201207web/eng/introduction.html), the commissioning

year of the Southern Section is 1st Half of 2019 at the earliest. Cumulative impact

from induced traffic will be incorporated.

[7] Hong Kong - Zhuhai - Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road EIA (AEIAR-

144/2009)

(http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1722009/Contents%2

0Page.htm). The construction of the development will be completed before

construction phase of this Project. Nevertheless, cumulative impact from

induced traffic will be incorporated.

[8] Drainage Services Department, Projects

(http://www.dsd.gov.hk/EN/Our_Projects/All_Projects/4381DS.html). This

project will be completed by 2025 before the first population intake in 2026.

[9] These projects are over 1 km away. Except induced traffic flow and the

associated air emissions, it is anticipated that other cumulative impacts would

not be significant given the distance. The induced traffic flow would be taken

into account in the assessment for assessments.

3.4.2.6 It can be seen from the above table that the construction of some of the

key concurrent project would have been completed before construction

phase of this Project, except the following:

Tung Chung New Town Extension;

Development of North Commercial District on Airport Island;

SHD Replanning Works and SHO Station; and

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

3.4.2.7 With reference to the approved EIA for Tung Chung New Town

Extension (AEIAR-196/2016), construction works associated with

Tung Chung New Town Extension during the construction phase of the

Project (2023-2025) are located >1.5km away from the Project

boundary. Given the large separation distance between the construction

site of this concurrent project and the Project, adverse cumulative dust

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1732009/Contents%20Page.htm


http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/study/latest/esb-290.pdf

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2232014/html/Master%20Content%20v1.htm

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2232014/html/Master%20Content%20v1.htm

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1742009/html/EIA%20Table%20of%20Contents.htm

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1742009/html/EIA%20Table%20of%20Contents.htm

http://tm-clkl-c1.hk/hy201207web/eng/introduction.html



http://www.dsd.gov.hk/EN/Our_Projects/All_Projects/4381DS.html



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-17

impact from the construction activities of this concurrent project during

construction phase of the Project is therefore not anticipated.

3.4.2.8 The HKBCF, Topside Development at HKBCF, Development of North

Commercial District on Airport Island and HKLR are located >2km

away from the Project boundary. Given the large separation distance

between the construction site of above concurrent projects and the

Project, adverse cumulative dust impact from the construction activities

of these concurrent projects during construction phase of the Project is

therefore not anticipated.

3.4.2.9 It is anticipated that there only very small scale of work would be

involved for the construction / upgrading of Addition Sewage Rising

Main and Rehabilitation of the Existing Sewage Rising Main between

Tung Chung and Siu Ho Wan, adverse cumulative construction dust

impact from such work is therefore not anticipated.

3.4.3 Key Representative Pollutants

3.4.3.1 According to Section 13.2.4.3 of USEPA AP-42, most of the particles

in fugitive dust have an aerodynamic diameter of <30 μm and 47% of

particles have an aerodynamic diameter of <10 μm. Hence, it is

appropriate to adopt Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) (with

aerodynamic diameter ≦30 μm) and Respirable Suspended Particulates

(RSP) (with aerodynamic diameter ≦10 μm) as the representative

pollutant for construction phase. As a conservative approach, FSP will

also be assessed under the construction dust assessment,

notwithstanding that it only constitutes 7% of the total particles in

fugitive dust.

3.4.3.2 Fuel combustion from the use of Powered Mechanical Equipment

(PME) during construction works could be a source of Nitrogen

Dioxide (NO2), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Carbon Monoxide (CO). To

improve air quality and protect public health, EPD has introduced the

Air Pollution Control (Non-road Mobile Machinery) (Emission)

Regulation, which came in effect on 1 June 2015, to regulate emissions

from machines and non-road vehicles. Starting from 1 December 2015,

only approved or exempted non-road mobile machinery are allowed to

be used in construction sites. Hence, with the effect of the Regulation,

the emissions from PMEs are considered relatively small as compared

with the tailpipe emissions from vehicles.

3.4.3.3 There is also no source of Lead (Pb) and Ozone (O3) during the

construction phase. Hence, NO2, SO2, CO, Pb and O3 are therefore not

considered as the key pollutants for quantitative assessment for the

construction dust assessment.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-18

3.4.4 Assessment Methodology

Dust Emission associated with the Project

3.4.4.1 Fugitive dust impact assessments is carried out based on conservative

assumptions of general construction activities which include the

following:

Heavy construction activities including soil excavation, road widening works of Sham Shui Kok Drive, construction of sewage pumping station and associated utilities connecting to existing Siu Ho Wan Sewage Treatment Works, construction of western access to Tai Ho Interchange, etc.;

Wind erosion of all active open sites;

All construction activities at all work sites would be undertaken concurrently in order to assess the worst-case situation;

Construction working periods of 12 hours a day from 7:00am to 7:00pm. It is assumed that construction works will be carried out on all the public holidays and weekend as well as normal working days as a very conservative case scenario.

3.4.4.2 The prediction of dust emissions is based on typical values and emission

factors from United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42), 5th Edition.

References of the calculations of dust emission factors for different dust

generating activities are listed below. Detailed descriptions are also

discussed in the following sections.

Table 3.9 References of dust emission factors for different activities

Operating

Sites Activities

Equations and

Assumptions Reference

All

construction

sites

Heavy construction

activities including

site formation, site

clearance, soil

excavation,

backfilling,

temporary storage,

handling and

transportation of

material, land

clearance, cut and fill

operations, haul road,

etc.

E(TSP) = 1.2

tons/acre/month of activity

or

= 2.69Mg/hectare/month

of activity

E(RSP) = E(TSP) x 0.47

= 1.26 Mg/hectare/month

of activity

E(FSP) = E(TSP) x 0.07 =

0.19 Mg/hectare/month of

activity

USEPA

AP42,

S.13.2.3.3



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-19

Operating

Sites Activities

Equations and

Assumptions Reference

All

construction

sites

Wind Erosion

E(TSP) = 0.85

Mg/hectare/yr (24 hour

emission)

E(RSP) = E(TSP) x 0.47


of activity

E(FSP) = E(TSP) x 0.07


of activity

USEPA

AP42,

S.11.9,

Table

11.9.4

Determination of Worst Assessment Year

3.4.4.3 The construction period of SPS and associated utilities will be from

2023 to 2025, western access road will be from 2024 to 2025 and Sham

Shui Kok Road widening will be from 2036 to 2038.

3.4.4.4 As a conservative approach, the secondary impacts (vehicular emission

impacts) would adopt the highest emission burden year in the

assessment. Vehicular emission burden for RSP and FSP was calculated

by EMFAC-HK v3.1.1 model, using the traffic forecast for Year 2038,

which is the year with the highest traffic volume within the construction

period (2023-2025, 2036-2038) and thus adopted for a conservative

assessment. The results are tabulated in Table 3.10 below. It can be

seen that the highest secondary contribution would occur in Year 2023

and hence it is selected as the worst assessment year.

Table 3.10 Summary of Total Daily Pollutant Emissions within Assessment Area

Year Total RSP emission

(gram/day)

Total FSP emission

(gram/day)

2023 16,568 15,250

2024 15,970 14,701

2025 15,374 14,153

2036 4,856 4,480

2037 4,861 4,484

2038 4,911 4,530

Notes:

[1] RSP and FSP emission are based on traffic forecast for Year 2038 and emission

factor for respective years.

[2] Value in bold is the maximum among all years.

Dust Dispersion Modelling Approach

3.4.4.5 Dust impact assessment is undertaken using the EPD approved

AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). It is a well-known model

designed for computing air dispersion. Modelling parameters including

dust emission factors, particles size distributions, surface roughness,

etc. are referred to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model

Parameters” and USEPA AP-42. Construction activities include heavy

construction activities (including site clearance, soil excavation, etc.)

and wind erosion of all active open sites. Particle size distribution is



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-20

estimated based on S13.2.4.3 of USEPA AP-42. Table 3.11 presents the

particle size distribution of TSP, RSP and FSP adopted in the assessment.

Table 3.11 Particle size distribution in AERMOD Particle Size

(μm)

Average Particle

Size (μm)

Particle Size Distribution

TSP RSP FSP

0 – 2.5 1.25 7% 15% 100%

2.5 – 5 3.75 20% 42% -

5 – 10 7.5 20% 43% -

10 – 15 12.5 18% - -

15 - 30 22.5 35% - -

Total 100% 100% 100%

3.4.4.6 With reference to EPD’s “Guidelines on Assessing the ‘Total’ Air

Quality Impacts”, the chemical transport modelling system-based

approach is adopted. As the construction period for this Project will be

2023-2025 and 2036-2038, hourly air quality data from the PATH

model for Year 2020 is used as the background concentrations for

conservative assessment. Hourly meteorological data (including wind

direction, wind speed, temperature and mixing height) for Year 2010

extracted from the PATH model are used. In addition, the mixing

heights from the PATH which are lower than the minimum mixing

height recorded by the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) in Year 2010

(i.e. 121m) are capped at 121m. For the treatment of calm hours, the

wind speed is capped at 1 m/s for wind speed from PATH which are

lower than 1 m/s.

3.4.4.7 During daytime working hours (7am to 7pm), it is assumed that dust

emissions would be generated from all dust generating activities and

wind erosion. During night-time non-working hours (7pm to 7am of the

next day), dust emission source would include wind erosion only as

construction activities during these hours are ceased.

3.4.4.8 A summary of AERMOD modelling parameters that has been adopted

in the construction dust assessment are given in Table 3.12 below:

Table 3.12 Modelling parameters in AERMOD

Parameters Input Remark

Land Use Open water, grassland and urban,

specific to each grid

Refer to

Appendix 3.2 for

surface

characteristic

parameters (e.g.

Albedo, Bowen

ratio, grid-specific

surface

roughness)

Meteorological data Year 2010 MCIP data extracted

from PATH model

Provided by EPD




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-21

Parameters Input Remark

Mixing Height Year 2010 MCIP data extracted

from PATH model and is capped to

between 121m and 1667m as per

the real metrological data recoded

by Hong Kong Observatory in Year

2010

-

Anemometer Height 9m -

Emission period General construction activities

during daytime working hours (7

am to 7 pm)

Wind erosion during both day-time

(7am to 7pm) and night-time (7pm

to 7am of the next day)

-

Assessment heights 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 13.6m (lowest

podium level), 20m, 30m, 40m,

50m, 60m, 70m, 80m above ground

3.4.4.9 It is understood that construction activities will not be taken place on

the entire work sites at the same time, but to be undertaken at moving

multiple work fronts spread across the work sites. For a conservative

assessment, all construction works are assumed to be concurrent and all

works area are assumed to be active at the same time.

3.4.4.10 As discussed in Section 2.6.4, marine transportation for construction

material for the proposed development would be avoided. Dust

emission from construction vehicle movement, estimated to be about

40 per hour, will generally be limited within the confined worksites area

and the emission factor given in AP-42 S.13.2.3.3 has taken this factor

into account. Watering facilities will be provided at every designated

vehicular exit point. Construction vehicles will not assess the

construction site in within the proposed development via podium level

of the proposed development. All vehicles will be washed at exit points

and vehicle loaded with the dusty materials will be covered entirely by

clean impervious sheeting before leaving the construction site.

3.4.4.11 Upon leaving the construction site, construction vehicles will enter the

North Lantau Highway (NLH) westbound, turn around at Tung Chung

Interchange and enter Tuen Mun- Chek Lap Kok (TM-CLK) Link, or

enter the NLH eastbound and heading to Tsing Yi. It is anticipated that

construction vehicles would not enter the existing Tung Chung New

Town and the planned extension. Thus dust nuisance from construction

vehicle movement outside the worksites is unlikely to be significant.

The routing of construction vehicles is illustrated in Appendix 3.1a.

Prediction of Vehicular Emission from Open Road

3.4.4.12 Vehicular tailpipe emissions from within the 500m assessment area,

such as North Lantau Highway and Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link, are

calculated by EMFAC-HK v3.1.1, based on the projected traffic data

for Year 2038 coupled with emission factors for Year 2023. Traffic data




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-22

in Year 2038 is considered to be conservative as it would be the highest

within the construction period (2023-2025, 2036-2038), while emission

factor for Year 2023 is adopted as it is the year that the dust emission

would be highest (refer to Table 3.10). Appendix 3.3 presents the

hourly RSP and FSP emission factors for each road link. RSP emission

from vehicles has been adopted as the TSP contribution during

construction phase. It should be noted that using traffic data in Year

2038 and emission factors in Year 2023 is a very conservative approach

and would not occur in reality. Detailed model parameters, assumptions

for EMFAC-HK are given in Appendix 3.8.

3.4.4.13 The maximum number of construction vehicles for the Project would

be about 40 veh/hr during the peak construction hours. The daily

construction period would be 7am to 7pm. Those construction vehicles

will access the construction site via North Lantau Highway which has

an AADT of 68,930 in 2015. Hence, the amount of additional traffic

induced on NLH is insignificant (i.e. less than 1% of minimum hourly

traffic along NLH between 7am to 7pm).

3.4.4.14 The emission factors are then used for input to CALINE4 model to

assess vehicular emissions impact from all existing and planned open

road network. The details are given in Section 3.5.4.

Airport, Industrial and Marine Emission

3.4.4.15 For the emissions from airport operation, the prediction approach is the

same as the operational air quality assessment as described in Section

3.5.4, in which the dispersion model, AERMOD and CALINE4 are

used to assess the airport related emission impact. As part of the

operational air quality assessment, the airport related emission

inventory under the future three-runway system (3RS) in Year 2031 has

been adopted, which made reference to the approved 3RS EIA report,

for a conservative assessment.

3.4.4.16 Site survey and a review of Specified Process (SP) were carried out on

May 2016. No SP or existing chimney is found in the vicinity of the

proposed development. The previous concrete batching plant located

120m from the Project Boundary was found removed during site survey

in May 2016.

3.4.4.17 Industrial emission from OWTF Phase 1 and marine emission from

North Lantau Refuse Transfer Station (NLRTS) are also assessed in

accordance with the methodology described in Section 3.5.4, whereas

the dispersion model AERMOD is used to simulate the emission

impact.

Dust Emission associated with the Concurrent Projects

3.4.4.18 As discussed in Chapter 2, the SHD Replanning Works will be carried

out in 4 stages. Construction dust contribution for each stage of SHD

Replanning Works are addressed in the Railway EIA.

../Appendix/Appendix%203.3.pdf




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-23

3.4.4.19 The mitigated construction dust contribution for each stage of SHD

Replanning Works is summarized in Appendix 3.11a. At each ASR,

the maximum mitigated concentration among the 4 stages is adopted as

the contribution from SHD Replanning Works (In case Tier 2

assessment results are available, they would be adopted, or otherwise

Tier 1 results would be adopted).

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

Quality)

3.4.4.20 Since construction period (Years 2023-2025, 2036-2038) is beyond the

Year 2020, the hourly pollutant concentration data predicted by PATH

for Year 2020 are directly adopted for as a conservative approach.

3.4.4.21 According to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model

Parameter”, RSP concentrations should be adjusted to account for the

limited information on pollutant emissions on a larger scale. Thus

cumulative RSP concentrations have been adjusted as follows:

10th highest daily RSP concentration: include 26.5 μg/m3 for correction; and

Annual RSP concentration: include 15.6 μg/m3 for correction.

3.4.4.22 No hourly FSP concentrations available form PATH model. According

to EPD’s “Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality

Assessment in Hong Kong”, the conservative corrections from RSP

concentrations to FSP concentrations are as follows:

Daily: FSP = 0.75 * RSP (in µg/m3)

Annual: FSP = 0.71 * RSP (in µg/m3)

3.4.4.23 For hourly background TSP concentrations, it is considered reasonable

to assume the hourly RSP concentrations from PATH as the ambient

TSP background concentrations, since the particulates of sizes larger

than 10μm generated from far-field dust sources would have been

largely settled before reaching the ASRs, and hence most of the

particulates contributed from far-field sources affecting the ASRs will

likely be of less than or equal to 10μm in size (i.e. RSP).

Prediction of the Cumulative Construction Dust Impact

3.4.4.24 The cumulative construction dust impact is a combination of the

emission impacts contributed from the near field and far field sources

(i.e. at local scale and background air quality impact from other

concurrent and regional sources) on hourly basis.

3.4.4.25 In consideration of the number of exceedance allowance of the daily

AQO (refer to Table 3.1), the pollutant concentrations beyond the

AQO’s allowance limits (i.e. the 10th highest 24-hour RSP/FSP

concentrations) are presented. The annual predicted RSP/FSP

concentrations are also assessed and all predicted levels are then

compared with the AQOs. Besides, the 1-hour TSP concentration as

stipulated under Annex 4 of EIAO-TM is also determined at each ASR.




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-24

3.4.5 Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

3.4.5.1 The predicted maximum unmitigated 1-hour TSP concentrations, 10th

highest 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP concentrations are presented in

the Table 3.13 below and detailed in Appendix 3.4. Exceedances of

the TSP criteria are predicted at almost all existing ASRs. Mitigation

measures are therefore required to reduce the potential air quality

impact during construction phase. It should be noted that the predicted

concentrations are based on very conservative assumptions, such as

assuming 100% active area, assuming all construction works to be

concurrent, adopting airport emission in Year 2031 and vehicular

emission in Year 2023 (but using traffic data in Year 2038).

3.4.5.2 Based on the detailed results presented in Appendix 3.4, it is observed

that the worst affected height is identified at 1.5m above ground for

existing ASRs and at the lowest podium level for planned ASRs. To

this end, contours for the cumulative unmitigated 1-hour TSP

concentrations, and 10th highest 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP

concentrations the worst affected level for existing and planned ASRs

(i.e. 1.5m and 13.6m above ground), are plotted in Figure 3.4.

Table 3.13 Unmitigated cumulative TSP, RSP and FSP concentrations at ASRs

ASR ID

Worst Affected

Height Above

Ground (m)

Concentrations (µg/m3)

TSP RSP FSP

Highest

1-hour

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

AQO 500 100 50 75 35

Existing ASRs

A1 1.5 647 97 37 62 25

A2 1.5 1715 105 37 63 25

A3 1.5 584 86 36 61 25

A4 1.5 489 84 35 61 25

A5 1.5 1198 90 36 59 25

A6 1.5 838 87 36 58 24

Planned ASRs

A101 20 262 79 33 58 23

A104 20 258 79 33 58 23

A107 20 260 79 33 58 23

A108 20 259 79 33 58 23

A113 20 253 79 33 58 23

A115 20 251 79 33 58 23

A118 20 250 79 33 58 23

A125 20 228 80 34 60 24

A128 20 228 80 34 60 24

A131 20 263 79 33 58 23






248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-25

ASR ID

Worst Affected

Height Above

Ground (m)


TSP RSP FSP

Highest

1-hour

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

AQO 500 100 50 75 35

A135 20 263 79 33 58 23

A136 20 248 79 33 58 23

A139 20 244 79 33 59 23

A142 20 247 79 33 58 23

A143 20 250 79 33 58 23

A146 20 251 79 33 58 23

A149 20 258 79 33 58 23

A209 13.6 279 78 33 58 23

A211 20 245 78 33 58 23

A212 20 245 79 33 58 23

A215 20 256 78 33 58 23

A219 13.6 274 79 33 58 23

A303 20 241 78 33 58 23

A307 20 249 79 33 58 23

A308 13.6 253 78 33 58 23

A310 20 254 79 33 58 23

A313 13.6 271 79 33 58 23

A318 13.6 251 78 33 58 23

A402 20 261 79 33 58 23

A404 20 268 79 33 58 23

A407 20 280 79 33 58 23

A409 20 251 78 33 58 23

A412 13.6 238 78 33 58 23

A414 20 258 78 33 58 23

A417 20 224 78 33 58 23

A419 20 227 78 33 58 23

A422 20 263 78 34 58 23

A501 40 221 80 34 60 24

A601 20 247 79 33 58 23

A701 20 262 78 33 58 23

Note: Bold values indicate exceedance of AQO or EIAO-TM.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-26

3.4.6 Mitigation Measures

3.4.6.1 In order to reduce the dust emission from the Project and achieve

compliances of relevant criteria at ASRs, the following specific

mitigation measures are recommended:

Regular watering under a good site practice should be adopted. In

accordance with the “Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources”

(USEPA AP-42) as given in Appendix 3.5, watering once per hour

on exposed worksites is proposed to achieve dust removal

efficiency of 91.7%. These dust suppression efficiencies are

derived based on the average construction site traffic of 40 per hour,

average evaporation, etc. (see Appendix 3.5). Any potential dust

impact and watering mitigation would be subject to the actual site

conditions. For example, for a construction activity that produces

inherently wet conditions or in cases under rainy weather, the above

water application intensity may not be unreservedly applied. While

the above watering frequencies are to be followed, the extent of

watering may vary depending on actual site conditions. The dust

levels would be monitored and managed under an Environmental

Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme as specified in the

EM&A Manual.

3.4.6.2 In addition, the Contractor is also obliged to follow the procedures and

requirements given in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)

Regulation. It stipulates the construction dust control requirements for

both Notifiable (e.g. site formation) and Regulatory (e.g. road opening)

Works to be carried out by the Contractor. The following dust

suppression measures should be incorporated by the Contractor to

control the dust nuisance throughout the construction phase:

Water spraying on any dusty materials before loading and uploading, stockpile of dusty materials, area where demolition work is carried out, area where excavation or earth moving activities are carried out, and any unpaved main haul road;

Adoption of side enclosure and covering of any aggregate or dusty material storage piles to reduce emissions. Where this is not practicable owing to frequent usage, watering shall be used to aggregate fines;

Use of regular watering to reduce dust emissions from exposed site surfaces, unpaved roads, dusty construction areas;

Provide hoarding of not less than 2.4m high from ground level along site boundary which is next to a road or other public area;

Provide effective dust screens, sheeting, or netting to enclose any scaffolding built around the perimeter of a building;

Prevent placing dusty material storage piles near ASRs;

Cover or shelter any stockpile of dusty materials;





248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-27

Provide vehicle washing facilities at all site exits to wash away any dusty materials from vehicle body and wheels before they leave the site;

Cover any dusty load on vehicles before they leave the site; and

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

Properly treat any exposed earth, such as by compacting or hydroseeding, within 6 months after the last construction activity.

3.4.6.3 With the implementation of the abovementioned mitigation measures,

the maximum mitigated 1-hour TSP concentrations, and 10th highest

24-hour and annual RSP / FSP concentrations are calculated and

presented in Table 3.14 below and detailed in Appendix 3.6. Results

indicate that there are no exceedances of respective criteria predicted at

existing ASRs.

3.4.6.4 According to the detailed assessment results presented in Appendix

3.6, the worst construction dust impact on each identified existing ASRs

generally occurs at ground level (i.e. 1.5m above ground), which is the

closest location to the at-grade construction site. ASRs located at higher

level would generally be less affected by construction dust impact as

particulates would likely settled or being settled before reaching the

ASRs.

Table 3.14 Mitigated cumulative TSP, RSP and FSP concentrations at ASRs

ASR ID

Worst Affected

Height Above

Ground (m)


TSP RSP FSP

Highest

1-hour

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

AQO 500 100 50 75 35

Existing ASRs

A1 1.5 425 96 36 62 25

A2 1.5 358 95 35 62 24

A3 1.5/5 227 81 35 60 24

A4 1.5/5 226 80 34 60 24

A5 1.5/20 454 78 34 59 25

A6 1.5 220 78 34 58 24

Planned ASRs

A101 20 254 79 33 58 23

A104 20 249 79 33 58 23

A107 20 250 79 33 58 23

A108 20 249 79 33 58 23






248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-28

ASR ID

Worst Affected

Height Above

Ground (m)


TSP RSP FSP

Highest

1-hour

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

AQO 500 100 50 75 35

A113 20 241 79 33 58 23

A115 20 238 79 33 58 23

A118 20 237 79 33 58 23

A125 20 228 80 34 60 24

A128 20 228 80 34 60 24

A131 20 257 79 33 58 23

A135 20 255 79 33 58 23

A136 20 234 79 33 58 23

A139 20 227 79 33 58 23

A142 20 228 79 33 58 23

A143 20 228 79 33 58 23

A146 20 229 79 33 58 23

A149 20 228 79 33 58 23

A209 13.6 249 78 33 58 23

A211 20 240 78 33 58 23

A212 20 245 79 33 58 23

A215 20 252 78 33 58 23

A219 13.6 257 79 33 58 23

A303 20 232 78 33 58 23

A307 20 237 79 33 58 23

A308 13.6 249 78 33 58 23

A310 20 254 79 33 58 23

A313 13.6 268 79 33 58 23

A318 13.6 247 78 33 58 23

A402 20 229 79 33 58 23

A404 20 219 78 33 58 23

A407 20 219 78 33 58 23

A409 20 238 78 33 58 23

A412 13.6 226 78 33 58 23

A414 20 237 78 33 58 23

A417 20 219 78 33 58 23

A419 20 219 78 33 58 23

A422 20 221 78 33 58 23

A501 20 221 80 33 60 24



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-29

ASR ID

Worst Affected

Height Above

Ground (m)


TSP RSP FSP

Highest

1-hour

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

10th

highest

24-hour

Annual

AQO 500 100 50 75 35

A601 20 241 79 33 58 23

A701 20 230 78 33 58 23

3.4.6.5 Hence, contours of mitigated 1-hour TSP concentrations, and 10th

highest and annual RSP / FSP concentrations at the worst affected level

(i.e. 1.5m above ground) are illustrated in Figure 3.5. Contours of

pollutant concentrations at 13.6m above ground are also given in

Figure 3.5 to illustrate the construction dust impact on the lowest

podium level of the planned ASRs under this Project. Contours also

indicate that there are no exceedances at all ASRs. For planned ASRs

located above 13.6m above ground, according to the detailed

assessment results presented in Appendix 3.6, pollutant concentrations

will generally decrease with increasing height above ground. For

example, the predicted cumulative 1-hour TSP concentrations at A313

(Proposed development atop Siu Ho Wan Depot (Phase 3b)) has

reduced from 268μg/m3 at 13.6m above ground to 243μg/m3 and

219μg/m3 at 20m and 50m above ground. Therefore, since the contours

plot at 13.6m above ground would represent the worst case scenario for

all the planned ASRs and there are no exceedance at all planned ASRs,

the planned ASRs at higher level would also comply with the AQOs.

Incremental Air Quality Impact in Future Year

3.4.6.6 The predicted maximum mitigated 1-hour TSP, and 10th highest 24-

hour and annual RSP / FSP project contributions throughout the

construction period are therefore summarised in the Table 3.15a-c

below. Breakdown of contributions from various source groups (i.e.

Airport operation, vehicular emission and ambient background) have

also been presented for comparison.

Table 3.15a Breakdown of mitigated highest 1-hour TSP concentrations

ASR

ID

Highest 1-hour TSP Concentrations (µg/m3)

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 <1 316 2 4 <1 <1 103 425

A2 <1 293 6 2 <1 <1 56 358

A3 <1 <1 <1 <1 3 <1 224 227






248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-30

ASR

ID


Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

A4 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 <1 224 226

A5 67 333 4 <1 <1 <1 49 454

A6 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 220 220

Planned ASRs

A101 <1 54 1 <1 <1 <1 197 254

A104 <1 49 2 <1 <1 <1 197 249

A107 <1 50 2 <1 <1 <1 197 250

A108 <1 49 2 <1 <1 <1 197 249

A113 1 40 2 <1 <1 <1 197 241

A115 1 37 2 <1 <1 <1 197 238

A118 1 36 2 <1 <1 <1 197 237

A125 <1 57 <1 <1 <1 <1 171 228

A128 <1 57 <1 <1 <1 <1 171 228

A131 <1 57 2 <1 <1 <1 197 257

A135 <1 55 2 <1 <1 <1 197 255

A136 1 32 2 <1 <1 <1 197 234

A139 <1 53 <1 <1 <1 <1 174 227

A142 2 27 2 <1 1 <1 197 228

A143 2 25 2 <1 1 <1 197 228

A146 <1 54 <1 <1 <1 <1 174 229

A149 <1 54 <1 <1 <1 <1 174 228

A209 <1 50 <1 <1 <1 <1 197 249

A211 <1 41 <1 <1 <1 <1 197 240

A212 <1 63 <1 <1 <1 <1 181 245

A215 <1 54 <1 <1 <1 <1 197 252

A219 <1 58 <1 <1 <1 <1 197 257

A303 <1 33 1 <1 <1 <1 197 232

A307 1 37 1 <1 <1 <1 197 237

A308 <1 50 <1 <1 <1 <1 197 249

A310 <1 73 <1 <1 <1 <1 181 254

A313 <1 69 <1 <1 <1 <1 197 268

A318 <1 48 <1 <1 <1 <1 197 247

A402 <1 54 <1 <1 <1 <1 174 229



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-31

ASR

ID


Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

A404 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 219 219

A407 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 219 219

A409 1 38 1 <1 <1 <1 197 238

A412 <1 12 <1 <1 <1 <1 213 226

A414 2 35 2 <1 1 <1 197 237

A417 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 219 219

A419 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 219 219

A422 <1 47 <1 <1 <1 <1 174 221

A501 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 221 221

A601 <1 59 <1 <1 <1 <1 181 241

A701 3 26 2 <1 1 <1 197 230

Note:

[1] Refer to the contributions from OWTF Phase 1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-32

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

ASR

ID

10th Highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations (µg/m3) Annual RSP Concentrations (µg/m3) P

roje

ct

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 1.5 1.0 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 92.6 95.9 0.2 1.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 33.8 35.8

A2 1.3 14.5 1.7 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 95.1 0.4 1.4 0.9 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 35.3

A3 1.2 0.6 0.7 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 78.0 80.8 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 33.8 34.5

A4 1.0 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 78.0 80.0 0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 33.8 34.4

A5 1.4 <0.1 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 76.0 78.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 32.8 34.2

A6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.7 77.7 0.3 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 32.8 33.8

Planned ASRs

A101 <0.1 3.6 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 79.1 <0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A104 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 79.0 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A107 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 79.2 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A108 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 79.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A113 <0.1 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 79.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A115 <0.1 4.0 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 79.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A118 <0.1 4.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 79.4 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-33

ASR

ID

10th Highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations (µg/m3) Annual RSP Concentrations (µg/m3)

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

A125 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 78.6 79.8 <0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.9 33.6

A128 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 78.6 80.2 <0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.9 33.6

A131 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 79.1 <0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.1

A135 <0.1 3.7 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 79.1 <0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.1

A136 <0.1 3.9 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 79.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A139 <0.1 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 79.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A142 <0.1 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 79.3 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A143 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 79.0 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A146 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.8 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A149 <0.1 3.3 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 78.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A209 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.2 <0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.3

A211 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.5 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A212 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.6 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A215 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.4 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A219 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.6 <0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.3

A303 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.2 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-34

ASR

ID


Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

A307 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.7 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A308 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.3 <0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.2

A310 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.6 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A313 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.7 <0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.2

A318 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.1 <0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.2

A402 <0.1 3.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 78.8 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A404 <0.1 3.0 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 78.4 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A407 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 77.4 77.8 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A409 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.2 <0.1 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A412 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.8 <0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.3

A414 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.2 <0.1 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A417 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.7 <0.1 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A419 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 77.4 77.7 <0.1 0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

A422 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 77.4 77.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9

A501 <0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 79.4 79.9 <0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.9 33.5

A601 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.8 <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.9



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-35

ASR

ID


Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

A701 <0.1 2.8 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 78.2 <0.1 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.0

Note:


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

ASR

ID

10th Highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations (µg/m3) Annual FSP Concentrations (µg/m3)

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 <0.1 1.2 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 59.2 61.6 <0.1 0.2 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 24.0 24.8

A2 0.3 0.7 2.3 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.2 61.6 <0.1 0.2 0.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 24.2

A3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 59.1 60.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 24.0 24.4

A4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 59.0 59.8 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 24.0 24.4

A5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.3 58.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 23.3 24.6



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-36

ASR

ID


Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

A6 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 57.5 58.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 23.3 24.0

Planned ASRs

A101 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A104 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A107 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A108 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A113 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A115 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A118 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A125 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.9 59.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.8

A128 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.9 59.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.8

A131 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A135 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A136 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A139 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A142 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-37

ASR

ID


Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

A143 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A146 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A149 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A209 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A211 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A212 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A215 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A219 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A303 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A307 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A308 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A310 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A313 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A318 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A402 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A404 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-38

ASR

ID


Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

Pro

ject

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Veh

icle

s

Air

po

rt

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

]

Ma

rin

e

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

To

tal

A407 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A409 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.5

A412 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.4

A414 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A417 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A419 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A422 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A501 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 58.9 59.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.7

A601 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

A701 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3

Note:




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-39

3.4.6.7 Maximum 1-hour TSP, 10th highest 24-hour RSP/FSP project

contributions ranged from 1 – 67 μg/m3, 0.1 – 1.5 μg/m3 and 0.1 - 0.3

μg/m3, while maximum annual RSP/FSP project contributions are 0.4

μg/m3 and 0.1 μg/m3.

3.4.6.8 Contributions on 1-hour TSP from other sources are comparatively

small and it is considered that the background contributions is the major

contributor to the cumulative construction dust impact. On the other

hand, background contributions from far-field sources are identified as

the major contributor of 10th highest 24-hour and annual RSP / FSP

concentrations. In particular, FSP contributions are small at all ASRs,

indicating that construction works are not major source of FSP.

3.4.7 Residual Environmental Impacts

3.4.7.1 With the implementation of the mitigation measures as stipulated in the

Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, dust control

measures, including watering once per hour on exposed worksites and

haul road, and good site practices, the predicted 1-hour TSP, 24-hour

and annual RSP / FSP concentrations on area in the vicinity of the

construction sites would comply with the respective criteria. Hence,

adverse residual air quality impacts during construction phase are not

anticipated.

3.5 Operational Air Quality Assessment

3.5.1 Assessment Area

3.5.1.1 As stated in the Section 3.3, the assessment area for operational air

quality impact assessment should also be generally defined by a

distance of 500m from the boundary of the Project. Figure 3.7

illustrates the extent of assessment area. The three tier source

contributions from near-field and far-field pollution sources should be

predicted using local-scale and regional-scale models for cumulative

impact assessment.

3.5.2 Identification of Pollution Sources within the Study Area

Vehicular Emission from Open Road

3.5.2.1 As discussed in Section 3.5.3, the NO2, RSP and FSP are the key air

pollutants generated from road traffic emissions during operational

phase of the Project. Other than vehicular emissions from the

concurrent projects, such as the HKLR, HKBCF, TM-CLK Link,

Development of North Commercial District on Airport Island, Topside

Development at HKBCF, Road P1 as part of Tung Chung New Town

Extension, as well as all the induced traffic from planned developments

would also have cumulative air quality impact on nearby ASRs.




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-40

Industrial Emission

3.5.2.2 The Organic Waste Treatment Facility (OWTF) under construction is

located 670m away from the proposed development, as illustrated in

Figure 3.8. Site survey and a review of Specified Process (SP) were

carried out on May 2016. No SP or existing chimney is found in the

vicinity of the proposed development. The previous concrete batching

plant located 120m from the Project Boundary was found removed

during site survey in May 2016.

Marine Emission

3.5.2.3 There are emissions from marine vessels at the North Lantau Refuse

Transfer Station for transferring refuse from NLRTS, located 100m

away from the Project Boundary and illustrated in Figure 3.8, to West

New Territories Landfill (WENT).

Odour Emission

3.5.2.4 The SHW Sewage Treatment Works (SHWSTW), North Lantau Refuse

Transfer Station (NLRTS) and the Organic Waste Treatment Facility

(OWTF) under construction, as illustrated in Figure 3.8, are the major

odour source within 500m of the Project Boundary. Odour impact from

SHWSTW, NLTRS and OWTF was assessed in the approved EIA for

Organic Waste Treatment Facilities Phase I (AEIAR-149/2010). The

emission information has therefore been included in this odour impact

assessment. Where applicable, the information presented in the VEP

(i.e. Application No. VEP-488/2015) for OWTF have been adopted for

purpose of cumulative air quality impact assessment

Emission from Construction of SHD and SHO

3.5.2.5 Dust emission (i.e. RSP and FSP) will be generated from construction

activities associated with SHO and SHD Replanning Works, located in

close proximity of the SHD Topside Development.

3.5.3 Key Representative Pollutants

3.5.3.1 As discussed in Section 3.1, the APCO (Cap 311) and its subsidiary

regulations define statutory AQOs for 7 common air pollutants

including NO2, SO2, RSP, FSP, CO, O3 and lead. According to

Appendix B of the EIA Study Brief, the key / representative air

pollutant parameters for the Project shall be identified, including the

types of pollutants and the averaging time concentration.

3.5.3.2 The Project is to plan for new development areas. No major polluting

emission is anticipated except the associated new roads for supporting

the new development. The air quality pollutant source during the

operational phase of the Project would therefore be the emission from

the induced traffic travelling on the new and existing roads. The

tailpipe emission would comprise a number of pollutants, including

NOx, RSP, SO2, CO, etc. As discussed in the following sections, only






248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-41

the NO2, RSP and FSP are considered the key air quality pollutant for

the project and the concentrations of the other pollutants are very low

and hence are not considered as the key pollutants for the purposes of

this air quality assessment. The issue on O3 which is highly influenced

by the regional situation would also be discussed.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

3.5.3.3 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) is known to be one of the pollutants emitted by

vehicles. According to the 2015 Hong Kong Emission Inventory

Report published by EPD, which is the latest available information by

the time of preparing this report, the dominant source of NOx generated

in HK is the navigation which constitutes about 37% of the total in 2015.

Road transport is the third largest NOx emission group, accounting for

about 18% of the total while other combustion including for industrial

purposes accounted for 11% of the total (see table below).

Table 3.16 The emission percentage and the amount of NOx in Hong Kong (2015)

Pollutant Source

Categories NOx Emission % [1]

NOx Emission (tonnes)

[1]

Public Electricity Generation 28% 26,090

Road Transport 18% 16,200

Navigation 37% 33,900

Civil Aviation 5% 5,000

Other Combustion 11% 10,450

Non-combustion N/A N/A

Biomass Burning <1% 60

Total 100% 91,700

Note:

[1] Figures extracted from 2015 Hong Kong Emission Inventory Report

(http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/2015_EI_Report_Eng_v2.pdf)

3.5.3.4 Together with VOC and in the presence of O3 under sunlight, NOx

would be transformed to NO2. As discussed in Section 3.2, the latest

5-year average of annual NO2 concentrations in Tung Chung is about

107% of the prevailing AQO.

3.5.3.5 The operation of the Project would inevitably increase the traffic flow

and hence the NOx emission and subsequently the NO2 concentrations

near to the roadside. Hence, NO2 is one of the key / representative

pollutants for the operational air quality assessment of the Project. 1-

hour and annual averaged concentrations at each identified ASRs would

be assessed and compared with the AQO to determine the compliance.

1-hour and annual averaged concentrations at each identified ASRs

would be assessed.

Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP or PM10) and Fine

Suspended Particulates (FSP or PM2.5)

3.5.3.6 Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP or PM10) refers to suspended

particulates with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10µm or less.

According to the EPD’s data, and other research studies (Tian et al.,

2011 & Wie-Zhen et al., 2008), road vehicles, particularly diesel



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-42

vehicles, are one of the sources of RSP in Hong Kong. Fine Suspended

Particulates (FSP or PM2.5) refers to suspended particulates with a

nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less.

3.5.3.7 According to the latest statistics of 2015 Hong Kong Emission

Inventory Report, road transport only accounted 9% and 10% of the

total RSP / FSP emissions while navigation accounted for 34% and 39%

respectively. As discussed in Section 3.2, the latest 5-year average of

the annual RSP an FSP concentrations in Tung Chung are about 78%

and 69% of the respective prevailing AQOs. Table 3.17 The emission percentage and the amount of RSP in Hong Kong (2015)

Pollutant Source

Categories

RSP FSP

Emission

(%)

Emission

(tonnes)

Emission

(%)

Emission

(tonnes)

Public Electricity

Generation 11% 580 7% 290

Road Transport 9% 490 10% 450

Navigation 34% 1,860 39% 1,690

Civil Aviation 1% 50 1% 50

Other Combustion 15% 800 17% 740

Non-combustion 17% 910 11% 470

Biomass Burning 14% 740 14% 600

Total 100% 5,430 100% 4,300

Note:



3.5.3.8 The operation of the Project would inevitably increase the traffic flow

and hence the RSP and FSP concentrations near to the roadside. Hence,

RSP and FSP are also key representative pollutants for the operational

air quality assessment of the Project. The 24-hour and annual averaged

concentrations at each identified ASRs are assessed and compared with

the prevailing AQOs to determine the compliance.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

3.5.3.9 According to the latest statistics of 2015 Hong Kong Emission

Inventory Report, the dominant source of Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) in

Hong Kong is navigation, which constitutes the majority of the

emissions (about 59%). Given the Air Pollution Control (Marine Light

Diesel) Regulation came in force from 1 April 2014, the sulphur content

of the Marine Light Diesel (MLD) is limited to 0.05%. In addition,

according to the Legislative Council Brief (file ref: Annex 4 to EP

150/NV/24), the sulphur content of marine petrol has a limit of 0.001%.

The introduction of sulphur content limit would therefore help reducing

the SO2 emission from navigation in Hong Kong.

3.5.3.10 Although SO2 is also one of the pollutants emitted by vehicles, road

transport is the smallest emission source of SO2 and only constitutes

<1% of the total SO2 (see the following table). The introduction of ultra-

low sulphur diesel for vehicle fleet in Year 2000 has also helped

reducing the SO2 emission in Hong Kong.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-43

Table 3.18 The emission percentage and the amount of SO2 in Hong Kong (2015)

Pollutant Source Categories SO2 Emission % [1] SO2 Emission (tonnes)

[1]


Road Transport <1% 40


Civil Aviation 3% 510

Other Combustion 1% 240


Biomass Burning <1% 10

Total 100% 19,540

Note:



3.5.3.11 As discussed in Section 3.2, the latest 5-year average of the 4th-highest

10-minute and 24-hour SO2 concentrations in Tung Chung are only

16% and 24% of the respective prevailing AQOs. This clearly indicates

that the AQOs for SO2 could be well achieved with great margin in the

study area. Given that road transport and airport only contribute a very

small amount of SO2, sulphur content of the MLD are controlled under

the Air Pollution Control (Marine Light Diesel) Regulation, and there

is still a large margin to the AQO compared to the other pollutants such

as RSP and NO2, it is considered appropriate to select RSP and NO2,

but not SO2 as the key pollutants for quantitative assessment for the

operational phase of the Project.

Ozone (O3)

3.5.3.12 Unlike other pollutants such as NOx, O3 is not a primary pollutant

emitted from man-made sources but is formed by a set of complex chain

reactions between various chemical species, including NOx and VOC,

in the presence of sunlight. According to Sun et al. [3-1, 3-2] the rate of

formation of O3, also known as Ozone Production Efficiency, depends

not only on NOx and VOC levels, but atmospheric oxidation,

temperature, radiation, and other meteorological factors in the

atmosphere of different regions. The formation of O3 generally takes

several hours to proceed (EPD, 2015) and therefore O3 recorded locally

could be attributed to emissions generated from places afar.

3.5.3.13 According to “A Study to Review Hong Kong’s Air Quality

Objectives”, due to the abundance of its precursors (VOC and NOx)

from a great variety of sources such as motor vehicles, industries, power

plants and consumer products, etc., ozone can be widely formed in the

region and can be transported over long distance. The general rising

trend of ozone levels in Hong Kong over the past years reflects an

aggravation in the photochemical smog problem on a regional scale. All

these indicate that local traffic emission is not a dominant controlling

factor in O3 formation.

3.5.3.14 In addition, the EPD’s “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2015” report [3-3]

stated that NOx emissions from motor vehicles and chimneys have the



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-44

potential to react with and remove O3 in the air, and regions with heavy

traffic normally have lower ozone levels than areas with light traffic. It

is therefore possible that the Project may contribute to a decrease in O3

in the immediate area along main roads. O3 is therefore not considered

as a key parameter in this assessment.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

3.5.3.15 Carbon Monoxide (CO) is one of the primary pollutants emitted by road

transport. According to the latest 2015 Hong Kong Emission Inventory

Report published by EPD, CO emissions from road transport

contributed about 51% of total CO emission in 2015 (see the table

below).

Table 3.19 The emission percentage and the amount of CO in Hong Kong (2015)

Pollutant Source Categories CO Emission % [1] CO Emission (tonnes)

[1]


Road Transport 51% 29,700


Civil Aviation 7% 3,950

Other Combustion 10% 5,920


Biomass Burning 3% 1,720

Total 100% 58,150

Note:



3.5.3.16 It is understood that road transportation is the dominant source of CO

emission; nevertheless, the air quality impact due to CO is still

relatively minor considering its existing concentrations (see Table

3.21).

3.5.3.17 It is clearly indicated that the AQOs for CO could be well achieved with

great margin in the study area. The highest 1-hour CO concentration

and highest 8-hour average CO concentration in Tung Chung are only

7% and 18% of their respective prevailing AQOs, which are both far

below the criteria. Given that there is still a large margin to the AQO

compared to the other pollutants such as RSP and NO2, it is considered

appropriate to select RSP and NO2, but not CO as the key pollutants for

quantitative assessment for the operational phase of the Project.

Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs)

3.5.3.18 There are six kinds of Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs) routinely monitored

in HK, including diesel particulate matters, polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs), dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile

organic compounds (VOCs), carbonyls, and toxic elemental species.

While there is no AQO for these TAPs, discussion on whether TAPs

are considered as representative air pollutions are presented in

previously approved EIAs, including EIA for Tung Chung New Town

Extension(AEIAR-196/2016).



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-45

3.5.3.19 Dioxins, carbonyls, PCBs and most toxic elemental species are not

considered primary sources of vehicular emissions, and hence, these

three TAPs are not considered as key / representative air pollutants for

the operational air quality assessment.

3.5.3.20 Vehicular emissions may be a source of diesel particulate matters,

PAHs and VOCs. Elemental carbon, which constitutes a large portion

of diesel particulate matters mass, is commonly used as a surrogate for

diesel particulate matter. According to the data from EPD, the elemental

carbon showed a significant decrease in concentration in Mong Kok by

47.5% from 2001 to 2009, and Tsuen Wan by 51.3% from 1999 to 2009.

This is because the implementation of EURO III vehicle emission

standard to goods vehicle and bus in 2001 and EURO IV standard to all

types of vehicle in 2006-2007 [3-9]. It is not considered as a key air

pollutant for the operational air quality assessment.

3.5.3.21 Currently, no ambient air quality standards have been set for PAHs.

However, with reference to US and European Community air quality

guidelines, the European commission has a very stringent guideline

concentration for PAHs. According to the latest EPD study report in

2015 - “Air Quality in Hong Kong 2015”, the concentration of PAHs

(Benzo[a]pyrene, BaP) at the Tsuen Wan and Central/Western

monitoring stations was 0.12 and 0.06 ng/m3 respectively in 2015 which

was still much lower than the guidelines of European Communities of

1ng/m3.

Table 3.20 Comparison of TAPs concentration in Hong Kong (2015) and the EU

Air Quality Standards

Air

Pollutants

Guidelines

/

Standards

(ng/m3)

Highest Avg

Conc at

Tsuen Wan

station of

Hong Kong

(ng/m3)

Highest Avg

Conc at

Central/Western

station of Hong

Kong

(ng/m3)

Compliance

EU EU

PAHs (BaP) 1 (Annual

Average)[1]

0.12

(Annual

Average)[2]

0.06

(Annual

Average)[2]

Well

Achieved

Note:

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

[2] Referenced from

http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/api_history/english/report/files/AQR2015e_final.pdf.

3.5.3.22 There are different standards for different VOC compounds. According

to the latest EPD study report in 2015 – “Air Quality in Hong Kong

2015”, benzene, 1-3 butadiene, formaldehyde and perchloroethylene

are the VOCs that may have more health concern, and the USEPA also

identified benzene and 1-3 butadiene are carcinogenic.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-46

Table 3.21 Comparison of VOCs concentration in Hong Kong (2015) and the EU

Air Quality Standards

TAP

Guidelines /

Standards

(μg/m3)

Highest Avg

Conc at

Tsuen Wan

station

(μg/m3)

Highest Avg

Conc at

Central/West

ern station

(μg/m3)

Compliance

Benzene 5 (Annual

Average) [1] 2.21 1.11

Well

Achieved

1-3 butadiene

2.25

(Running

Annual

Average) [1]

0.12 0.07 Well

Achieved

Formaldehyde [2] 9 (Annual

Average) [3] 3.73 -

Well

Achieved

Perchloroethylene 40 (Annual

Average) [4] 0.46 0.64

Well

Achieved

Note:

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

(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69

336/pb12654-air-quality-strategy-vol1-070712.pdf).

[2] The measurement of formaldehyde was affected by influence from renovation

works at Princess Alexandra Community Centre as well as nearby buildings of

Tsuen Wan Station. Hence, only formaldehyde concentration at the Central/Western

station is reported.

[3] Referenced from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)

Toxicity Criteria Database, California, USA

(http://www.oehha.ca.gov/tcdb/index.asp).

[4] Referenced from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), USEPA

(https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=106).

3.5.3.23 As shown in the above table, the measured VOCs concentration in

Hong Kong urban area is far below the UK and US standards. Also,

according to 2015 Hong Kong Air Pollutants Emission Inventory, the

VOCs level in 2015 was 65% lower compared to 1997 level due to the

EPD progressive improvement of EURO standard vehicles over the

past two decades. With reference to the EPD’s 2015 Hong Kong

Emission Inventory Report, vehicular emission is also not the primary

source of VOCs, accounting for about 18% of the total in Hong Kong.

Besides, according to another study - “Seasonal and diurnal variations

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere of Hong

Kong”, benzene, and 1-3 butadiene only contributed about 6-13% of

overall vehicular emission VOCs. In other words, only 1.1-2.3% of the

overall VOC emissions in Hong Kong are benzene and 1-3 butadiene

contributed by vehicular emission.

3.5.3.24 The historical monitoring data showed that the concentrations of PAHs

and VOCs were only in small amount. It is also reasonably believed

that the emission of PAHs and VOCs should be significantly decreased

after the implementation of EURO V standard vehicles in 2013; and the

elimination of most of the pre-EURO standard and EURO I vehicles.

The TAPs is also not specified under the current AQO. Based on above

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69336/pb12654-air-quality-strategy-vol1-070712.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69336/pb12654-air-quality-strategy-vol1-070712.pdf

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/tcdb/index.asp

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=106



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-47

reasons, TAPs is not considered as a key air pollutant for the operational

air quality assessment.

Lead (Pb)

3.5.3.25 As leaded petrol had been banned in Hong Kong in 1999, it is no longer

considered as a primary source in Hong Kong. According to the “Air

Quality in Hong Kong 2015” report from EPD, the highest measured 3-

month averaged lead level within Hong Kong was recorded in Yuen

Long at 0.024 μg/m3. The measured concentration is much lower than

the 3-month AQO of 1.5 μg/m3. Therefore, lead is not considered as a

key / representative air pollutant for the operational air quality

assessment.

3.5.3.26 As discussed in the above sections, NO2, RSP and FSP have been

concluded to be the representative air pollutants. These three pollutants

are stipulated in the existing HKAQO.

3.5.4 Assessment Methodology

General

3.5.4.1 The area for air quality impact assessment should be generally defined

by a distance of 500m from the boundary of the Subject Site and

associated area for utilities.

3.5.4.2 The assessment has evaluated the impacts arising from three classes of

emission sources depending on their distance from the project site,

including:

(1) Project induced contribution;

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

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

3.5.4.3 All sources within 500m assessment area (i.e. (1) and (2)) are

considered as near-field source impacts and are predicted using local-

scale models. These sources include vehicular emission from existing

road network. Although the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA)

is located outside 500m assessment area, it has been included in the

near-field assessment in this EIA.

3.5.4.4 Other far-field pollution source impacts (3) which are beyond 500m

from the Project (i.e. background concentration), are predicted using

regional scale model – Pollutant in the Atmosphere and the Transport

over Hong Kong, PATH. In PATH model, all major emission sources

including public electricity generation, civil aviation, road transport,

navigation, industries, other fuel combustion and non-combustion

sources covering both HKSAR and PRDEZ are considered

3.5.4.5 The cumulative operational air quality impact is then a combination of

the contributions from the near-field and far-field sources.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-48

Determination of Assessment Year

3.5.4.6 According to Appendix B, Clause 5 (iv) of the EIA Study Brief for the

Project, the air pollution impacts of future road traffic shall be

calculated based on the highest emission strength from road within the

next 15 years after the first population intake year of the Project or

within the next 5 years after the full population intake of the Project,

whichever is later. The selected assessment year should represent the

highest emission scenario, given the combination of emission factors

and traffic flow for the selected year.

3.5.4.7 Vehicular tailpipe emissions have been calculated by the EMFAC-HK

provided by EPD. The EMFAC-HK v.3.1.1 published in February 2016

has been employed. The emission refers to vehicular emission from

road networks within 500m of the site boundary (e.g. NLH, TM-CLK

Link).

3.5.4.8 Based on the tentative programme, the first population intake of the

Project will commence in Year 2026 and full commissioning in Year

2038. EMFAC-HK models are carried out for Year 2026, 2030, 2034,

2038 (full population intake), 2041 (15 years after first commissioning)

and 2043 (5 years after full population intake) to determine the highest

emission and hence the worst assessment year. The traffic forecast data

is given Appendix 3.7. The methodology, key model assumptions and

results (including emission factors) are presented in Appendix 3.8.

3.5.4.9 The total NOx, RSP and FSP emissions from nearby road networks

predicted by EMFAC-HK based on the traffic forecast are summarized

in the table below. Results indicate that the highest NOx, RSP and FSP

emission scenarios would likely occur in Year 2026 and hence is taken

as the worst assessment year for the purpose of this operational air

quality assessment. In addition, it can also be seen from Table 3.22 that,

despite the continuous increase in the Vehicle-km Travelled (VKT), a

progressive decrease in NOx, RSP and FSP emissions from vehicle

tailpipe is observed up to 2034, 2038 and 2038 respectively, which is

anticipated as a result of the implementation of emission reduction

measures over motor vehicles by the Hong Kong Government, e.g.

introductions of Euro V vehicle emission standards in 2012 and Euro

VI tentatively in 2016, phasing out pre-Euro IV diesel commercial

vehicles by end 2019, etc. These measures on controlling vehicular

emission would progressively reduce roadside air pollution.

Table 3.22 Summary of Total Daily Pollutant Emissions within Assessment Area

Year Total NOx

Emission

(gram/day)

Total RSP

Emission

(gram/day)

Total FSP

Emission

(gram/day)

Total Veh-km

Travelled

(VKT/day)

2026 219,258 9,245 8,511 790,387

2030 187,099 7,749 7,138 959,781

2034 158,841 4,869 4,490 1,105,696

2038 171,791 4,911 4,530 1,196,262

2041 180,800 5,519 5,091 1,216,520





248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-49

Year Total NOx

Emission

(gram/day)

Total RSP

Emission

(gram/day)

Total FSP

Emission

(gram/day)

Total Veh-km

Travelled

(VKT/day)

2043 183,009 5,587 5,153 1,228,729

Note:

[1] Values in bold are the maximum values among the Scenario Years.

3.5.4.10 Results from Table 3.22 indicates that the Year 2026 is the worst

scenario year for proposed SHD Topside Development. It should be

noted that the Railway EIA has conducted quantitative construction

dust impact assessment for 4 stages, which covers 2019-2034 while the

operational air quality assessment was conducted qualitatively. During

operational stage of the SHD Topside Development, the SHD

replanning works would still be under Stage 2 to 4 construction, thus

the cumulative air quality impacts have been included. Given the nature

of the SHD replanning works, the key pollutants relevant to the Railway

EIA are TSP, RSP and FSP.

3.5.4.11 EMFAC-HK model has been adopted in both the SHD Topside

Development EIA and the Railway EIA to determine the vehicular

emission factors for RSP and FSP, which are based on the same set of

traffic forecast prepared by the Traffic Consultant. By adoption of the

assumptions in Railway EIA, the assessment results showed that the

RSP and FSP levels at ASRs due to vehicular emission impact would

only have minor difference by less than 1μg/m3. Since the pollutant

concentration contribution from vehicle emissions is not significant and

there are still large margin for the respective AQOs, it is also considered

that the difference would not affect the compliance against AQO.

Prediction of Vehicular Emission from Open Road

3.5.4.12 The EMFAC-HK calculates the hourly vehicular emission (in tonne)

for each road category. The hourly emission rates for each vehicle class

(in gram per mile per vehicle) are obtained by dividing the hourly

emissions calculated in the EMFAC-HK by the VKT for the respective

hour. The calculation of the NOx, RSP and FSP emission factors for

different road groups are given in Appendix 3.9.

3.5.4.13 Since population intake years for Phase 2, 3, 4a and 4b/c are 2030, 2034,

2035 and 2038 respectively, in which there will be an improving trend

in air quality conditions in Years beyond 2026. As a conservative

approach, it is assumed the planned ASRs in Phases 2, 3 and 4 would

be existed in the assessment year, Year 2026, and all the proposed roads

are assumed to be exist in the assessment year so that the predicted

operational air quality impact on these ASRs would be on the high side.

3.5.4.14 The USEPA approved near field air dispersion model, CALINE4

developed by the California Department of Transport is used to assess vehicular emissions impact from all existing and planned open road

network.

3.5.4.15 Grid-specific meteorological data for Year 2010 extracted from EPD’s

PATH model is adopted in CALINE4 model, including relevant




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-50

temperature, wind speed, direction and mixing height. The stability

classes are estimated from PCRAMMET model. The mixing height is

capped to between 121m and 1667m as per the real meteorological data.

For the treatment of calm hours, the wind speed is capped at 1 m/s for

wind speed from PATH which are lower than 1 m/s.

3.5.4.16 The surface roughness height is closely related to the land use

characteristics, and the surface roughness is estimated as 10 percent of

the average height of physical structures within 1km study area. The

wind standard deviation is estimated in accordance with the “Guideline

on Air Quality Models (Revised), 1986”, as summarized in the table

below.

Table 3.23 Summary of wind standard deviation for surface roughness

Period / Location/ Parameters Assumptions

Proposed

Development

(Grid 21_32)

Surface roughness (cm) 100

Wind standard deviation

(degrees)

1) 32.9 for A & B Stability

Classes;

2) 25.6 for C Stability Class;

3) 18.3 for D Stability Class;

4) 11 for E Stability Class; and

5) 5.6 for F Stability Class.

Outside Proposed

Development

(Grids 20_31,

20_32, 21_31,

22_32, 22_33)

Surface roughness (cm) 50

Wind standard deviation

(degrees)

1) 28.6 for A & B Stability

Classes;

2) 22.3 for C Stability Class;

3) 15.9 for D Stability Class;

4) 9.5 for E Stability Class; and

5) 4.8 for F Stability Class.

3.5.4.17 Owing to the constraint of the CALINE4 model in modelling elevated

roads higher than 10m, the road heights of elevated road sections in

excess of 10m high above local ground or water surface will be set to

10m in the model. However, sections of the TM-CLK Link within the

500m Assessment Area are higher than 10m above ground while all

other roads are lower than 10m above ground. Thus contribution from

the TM-CLK Link and other roads is modelled separately.

3.5.4.18 A sensitivity test has therefore been carried out to identify contribution

from the TM-CLK Link at various heights. For all the relevant

parameters (i.e. 1-hour NO2, 24-hour RSP and FSP, annual NO2, RSP

and FSP), contributions from vehicles on TM-CLK Link at ASR A125,

the ASR closest to the TM-CLK Link, have been calculated at 1.5m,

2m, 3m, and so forth up to 20m above ground. The results are shown in

Appendix 3.11b, which shows that the vehicle emission contribution

from TM-CLK Link for each parameter is the highest at 1.5m above

ground.

3.5.4.19 As a conservative assumption, the maximum contribution (i.e. 1.5m

above ground) from the TM-CLK Link is adopted for all assessment

../../html/Appendix/Appendix%203.11b.pdf



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-51

heights at each ASR. For all other roads, the contribution from vehicle

emissions at each ASR and each assessment height are directly adopted.

3.5.4.20 There are no existing noise barriers along the roads (e.g. NLH) in the

vicinity of the Project. Instead of construction of noise barriers,

mitigation measures to be adopted include single-aspect building design

and fixed windows, which would not cause secondary environment

impact. Thus assessment on secondary environment impact due to

construction of new noise barriers is not required.

3.5.4.21 RSP and FSP emission rates for 2026 are directly adopted as the input

for CALINE4 while NOx emission factors are separated into initial

(tailpipe) NO2 and residual NOx emission rates as follows:

Initial NO2 to NOx (NO2/NOx) ratio for different vehicle and road types, shown in Appendix 3.9, have been calculated from EMFAC-HK results;

Initial NO2 emission factor for individual vehicle types have been derived from initial NO2/NOx ratio, presented in Appendix 3.9; and

Residual NOx emission factor is determined by subtracting the initial NO2 emission factor from total NOx emission factor for individual vehicle types.

3.5.4.22 Initial NO2 and residual NOx, RSP and FSP emission factors, shown in

Appendix 3.9, are inputted to CALINE4 models. Modelling parameters

for CALINE4 are listed in Table 3.24.

Table 3.24 Model parameters for CALINE4

Parameter Input

Meteorological

Data

Year 2010 MCIP data extracted from PATH model

Mixing Height Year 2010 MCIP data extracted from PATH model and is

capped to between 121m and 1667m as per the real

metrological data recoded by Hong Kong Observatory in

Year 2010

Stability Class Estimated from PCRAMMET Model

NOx to NO2 Ratio Ozone Limiting Method (initial NO2/NOx ratios from 0 to 1

were adopted for the initial NO2 and residual NOx models

respectively)

Vehicular Emission from Proposed Public Transport Interchange

(PTI) and Car Parks

3.5.4.23 According to the current development plan, a public transport

interchange (PTI) is proposed under the podium near the SHO. Within

the PTI, engines shall be switched off while waiting as required under

the Motor Vehicle Idling (Fixed Penalty) Ordinance. Furthermore,

adequate ventilation system will be provided to avoid accumulation of

aerial emissions within the PTI. The ventilation system will be designed

in accordance to EPD’s Practice Note on “Control of Air Pollution in






248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-52

Semi-Confined Public Transport Interchanges” (ProPECC PN 1/98).

Specifically, the exhaust air outlets should be located away from nearby

residents or other receptors to avoid causing an air pollutant nuisance.

If necessary, control equipment such as filters or scrubbing units should

be used to minimize the pollution caused to the surroundings. The

ventilation system should also be maintained at regular intervals to

ensure proper operation of the ventilation system. In addition, car parks

are proposed under the podium. A similar ventilation system will be

installed within car parks. By implementing these measures, air quality

impact from the proposed PTI and car parks is not anticipated. As there

is no significant air quality impact during the operation of PTI and car

park, quantitative assessment is not adopted to address the air quality

implications.

Airport Emission from HKIA

3.5.4.24 In the approved 3RS EIA, the worst assessment year was determined

based on the highest aircraft emission scenario, and it was identified to

be occurred in Year 2031. Emissions from airport operation presented

in the approved 3RS EIA are directly adopted for assessing the

cumulative air quality impact as a conservative approach.

3.5.4.25 Details on emissions strengths, emission characteristics and modelling

parameters shall be referred to the approved 3RS EIA Study. CALINE4

(for airside vehicles) and AERMOD (for sources other than airside

vehicles) models are used to assess the air quality impact from airport

related activities.

3.5.4.26 Grid-specific meteorological data for Year 2010 extracted from the

EPD’s PATH model is adopted in AERMOD model, including relevant

temperature, wind speed, wind direction, etc. Mixing heights deduced

from AERMET that are lower than the lowest mixing height recorded

by the HKO in Year 2010 (i.e. 121 m) are capped at 121 m to align with

the real meteorological data. Similarly, mixing heights deduced from

AERMET that are higher than the highest recorded mixing height in

Year 2010 (i.e. 1667m) are capped at 1667 m as per the highest mixing

height recorded. Surface roughness is separated into 12 zones with

heights corresponding to the land use characteristics, as given in

Appendix 3.2.

3.5.4.27 Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) has also been adopted for conversion

of NOx to NO2 concentrations. With reference to the approved 3RS

EIA, the following initial NO2/NOx ratios for various emission sources

have been adopted:

Table 3.25 Summary of initial NO2/NOx ratios (referenced from the 3RS EIA)

Source Initial NO2 / NOx Ratio

Aircraft LTO (Take-off) 5.3%

Aircraft LTO (Climb-out) 5.3%

Aircraft LTO (Approach) 15%

Aircraft LTO (Taxi-in and Taxi-out) 37.5%




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-53

Source Initial NO2 / NOx Ratio

Vehicular Tailpipe 28%

Other sources (e.g. Engine Run-Up Facilities, etc.) 10%

Industrial Emission from OWTF Phase 1

3.5.4.28 Chimney emissions from the committed OWTF Phase 1 have been

referenced to the approved EIA Study “Organic Waste Treatment

Facilities, Phase 1” (AEIAR-149/2010). It is understood that variations

of Environmental Permit has been approved in February 2013

(Application No. VEP-394/2013), May 2013 (Application No. VEP-

403/2013) and November 2015 (Application No. VEP-488/2015) due

to changes in reference design of OWTF. As presented in the supporting

document for the latest VEP (VEP-488/2015), it is found that the stack

locations and stack heights are changed from those in the approved

OWTF Phase 1 EIA, while the chimney emission rates remain

unchanged. Hence, the information presented in the VEP is adopted for

purpose of cumulative air quality impact assessment. The assumptions

are summarized in Appendix 3.10.

3.5.4.29 Emissions from the chimneys are modelled as “Point” source in

AERMOD. OLM is adopted for conversion of NOx to NO2, using the

predicted O3 and NO2 levels from PATH model. According to EPD’s

“Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters”, the industrial

NO2 emission is assumed to be 10% of NOx.

Marine Emission from NLRTS

3.5.4.30 It is noted from site observations that the barges arriving and leaving

the NLRTS would take a generally north bound route towards

Urmstrom Road to leave NLRTS, and vice versa. Further discussion

with the NLRTS operator further confirmed that those marine vessels

will generally take the shortest route and via Urmstrom Road towards

the WENT Landfill, except in rare occasions when this northern route

is temporarily blocked.

3.5.4.31 Reference has also been made to the approved EIA Study “Organic

Waste Treatment Facilities, Phase 1” (AEIAR-149/2010). According to

the variations of Environmental Permit, approved in February 2013

(Application No. VEP-394/2013), May 2013 (Application No. VEP-

403/2013) and November 2015 (Application No. VEP-488/2015).

According to their assessment, marine source locations are aligned in

the southwesterly direction which would represent a more conservative

case as far as the receivers in the Topside Development is concerned.

The current assessment has therefore adopted the southwestern route

instead of the northern route. The assumptions adopted for the current

assessment are summarized in Appendix 3.10.

3.5.4.32 Emissions from the chimneys are modelled as “Point” source in

AERMOD. OLM is adopted for conversion of NOx to NO2, using the

predicted O3 and NO2 levels from PATH model. According to EPD’s





248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-54

“Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model Parameters”, the industrial

NO2 emission is assumed to be 10% of NOx.

Construction Activities at SHD

3.5.4.33 During the operational years (2026-2034) of the Project, Stages 2 to 4

SHD Replanning Works will still be under construction concurrently.

As far as the cumulative air quality impact is concerned, the

construction dust impact arising from the SHD construction works on

planned ASRs in SHD Topside Development has been assessed by the

Railway EIA (i.e. EIA for the SHO and SHD Replanning Works). In

order to achieve a conservative assessment for each ASR and for each

level, the maximum mitigated dust emission contribution (i.e. RSP and

FSP) among Stages 2 to 4 is adopted as the contribution from SHD

Replanning Works (In case Tier 2 assessment results are available, they

would be adopted, or otherwise Tier 1 results would be adopted). The

contribution from SHD Replanning Works are presented in Appendix

3.11a.

Prediction of the Far Field Source Contribution (i.e. Future

Background Air Quality)

3.5.4.34 The PATH will be used to quantify the future background air quality

impacts from various far field sources outside 500m of the site

boundary, including those in PRDEZ, the HKIA, power plants in

HKSAR, marine vessels and road transports over the whole territory

etc. The emission control measures from Section 3.2 have been

incorporated to the PATH.

3.5.4.35 Emission from motor vehicles and the HKIA (2-runway system) are

included in the PATH model. As a conservative approach, the hourly

pollutant concentration data predicted by PATH for Year 2020

provided by EPD are directly adopted in the calculation of cumulative

impact as a conservative assumption.

3.5.4.36 According to EPD’s “Guidelines on Choice of Models and Model

Parameter”, RSP concentrations should be adjusted to account for the

limited information on pollutant emissions on a larger scale. Thus

cumulative RSP concentrations have been adjusted as follows:

10th highest daily RSP concentration: include 26.5 μg/m3 for correction

Annual RSP concentration: include 15.6 μg/m3 for correction

3.5.4.37 No hourly FSP concentrations available form PATH model. According

to EPD’s “Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality

Assessment in Hong Kong”, the conservative corrections from RSP

concentrations to FSP concentrations are as follows:

Daily: FSP = 0.75 * RSP (in µg/m3)

Annual: FSP = 0.71 * RSP (in µg/m3)





248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-55

Prediction of the Cumulative Operational Air Quality Impact

3.5.4.38 The cumulative operational air quality is a combination of the emission

impacts contributed from the near field and far field sources (i.e. at local

scale and background air quality impact from other concurrent and

regional sources).

3.5.4.39 OLM is used for conversion of NOx to NO2 based on the O3 level from

PATH directly on an hourly basis. As a conservative approach, the

OLM is applied separately to the following groups of emission sources:

Group A – All open roads

Group B – All emissions from HKIA

Group C – All emissions from industrial and marine sources

(e.g. chimney emissions from OWTF and marine emissions

from NLRTS)

3.5.4.40 In consideration of the number of exceedance allowance of the hourly

and daily AQOs (refer to Table 3.1), the pollutant concentrations after

the AQOs allowance limits (i.e. the 19th highest 1-hour NO2

concentrations and 10th highest 24-hour RSP/ FSP concentrations) are

determined at each ASR at 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 13.6m (lowest podium

level), 20m, 30m, 40m, 50m, 60m, 70m and 80m above ground. The

annual predicted concentrations are also assessed and all predicted

levels are then compared with the AQOs.

Without Project Scenario

3.5.4.41 In order to determine the incremental air quality impact from this

Project in the assessment year 2026, an additional assessment has been

conducted for the without project scenario in the same year. Under this

scenario, same methodologies as mentioned above the traffic forecast

for without project have been adopted. EMFAC-HK is used to predicted

the vehicular emission under the without project scenario and

CALINE4 is adopted to assess the vehicular emission impact. Hourly

pollutant concentrations from the PATH model is adopted as the

background for the cumulative air quality impact.

Prediction of Odour Emission

3.5.4.42 Odour impact from SHWSTW, OWTF and NLRTS and the proposed

SPS is assessed by the EPD approved dispersion model AERMOD.

Odour emission strengths for SHWSTW and NLRTS are referenced

from the approved EIA study for Organic Waste Treatment Facilities

Phase 1 (AEIAR-149/2010).

OWTF

3.5.4.43 Source locations and emission strengths, shown in Appendix 3.10,

from the variations of Environmental Permit (Application No. VEP-

488/2015), approved in February 2015, are adopted for this assessment.




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-56

NLRTS

3.5.4.44 Within the NLRTS, the refuse collection vehicles remain enclosed

outside the tipping bays. The waste from tipping bays are transferred to

a compactor for compacting before being transferred to landfills. Thus

vehicle tipping bays and compact area are considered potential

odourous sources at NLRTS. Dimensions of the tipping bays and

compact area at similar RTS are adopted in the assessment. Based on

best available information, deodourizers are installed at NLRTS to

reduce odour impact as a general practice. With reference to the

approved EIA for “Reprovisioning of FEHD Sai Yee Street

Environmental Hygiene Offices-cum-vehicle Depot at Yen Ming Road,

West Kowloon Reclamation Area” (AEIAR-177/2013), deodourizng

devices at NLRTS is assumed to have an odour removal efficiency of

85%. The source locations and emission rates are summarized in

Appendix 3.10.

SHWSTW

3.5.4.45 According to the 2014-15 Sustainability Report from the Drainage

Services Department (DSD), installation of covers and deodourizing

devices at the Primary Sedimentation Tanks at SHWSTW was

completed in 2014. According to the conditions stipulated in the

Environmental Permit for Upgrading of Siu Ho Wan Sewege Treatment

Plant (EP-076/2000), the deodourizng devices at SHWSTW have a

minimum odour removal efficiency of 95%. For the purpose of this

EIA, it is assumed that the same odour removal efficiency is achieved.

Proposed Sewage Pumping Station

3.5.4.46 According to the current development plan, a sewage pumping station

(SPS), shown in Figure 3.8, is proposed under this Project. The

following at-source mitigation measures should be implemented at the

proposed sewage pumping stations to control odour emission:

Potential odour sources should be enclosed;

Negative pressure should be maintained within the facilities;

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

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

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

3.5.4.47 The dimension of odour sources at the proposed SPS has been estimated

by the Project Engineer. The emission rate of the inlet works at

SHWSTW (8.79 OU/s/m2) has been adopted as the odour emission rate

at the proposed SPS. With reference to the environmental permit for

Queen’s Hill Sewage Pumping Station (EP-506/2016), the deodourizng





248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-57

devices at the proposed SPS is assumed to have an odour removal

efficiency of 95% as a conservative assumption. The location of

odourous sources and odour emission inventory adopted for assessment

is summarized in Appendix 3.10.

3.5.4.48 All odour sources are modelled as by “Point” sources. Grid-specific

composite meteorological data, including hourly wind speed, wind

direction, temperature, relative humidity, mean sea level pressure,

cloud fraction and cloud base height, extracted from EPD’s PATH

model will be pre-processed by AERMET. The mixing height estimated

by AERMET was capped to between 121m and 1667m as per the real

meteorological data. For the treatment of calm hours, the wind speed

was capped at 1 m/s for wind speed from PATH which are lower than

1 m/s.

3.5.4.49 With reference to the EIAO-TM, the odour criterion is defined as 5 OU

units based on an averaging time of 5 seconds. Hence, it is required to

convert the predicted odour concentration in 1-hour averaging time

from the AERMOD model to 5-second average. Reference is made to

the peak-to-mean ratio stated in the “Approved Methods for Modelling

and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales” published by

the Department of Environment and Conservation, New South Wales,

Australia (NSW Approved Method). In accordance with the NSW

Approved Method, the conversion factors for converting 1-hour

average to 5-second average concentration are adopted directly as a

conservative approach.

3.5.4.50 As stated in the NSW Approved Method, where nearby buildings

interfere with the trajectory and growth of the plume, the source is

called a wake-affected point source. A point source is wake-affected if

stack height is less than or equal to 2.5 times the height of buildings

located within a distance of 5L (where L is the lesser of the height or

width of the building) from each release point.

3.5.4.51 According to layout from the supporting documents for variations of

Environmental Permit (Application No. VEP-488/2015) of OWTF

Phase I, the stack of the central pollution units and ammonia stripping

plants are 25m and 12m high respectively, while the OWTF Site Office

is 11-15.8m high. The deodourizing units at SHWSTW are 6m in

height, while the adjacent facilities, including the Centrifuge Building,

Screen House, Return Liquor Pumping Station and UV disinfection

facility, are 5-10m high. The stacks of deodourizers at NLRTS is

located on top of the tipping hall of NLRTS while the stack at the SPS

is located on top of the SPS. Thus all odour sources at OWTF,

SHWSTW, NLRTS and the proposed SPS are considered wake-

affected point sources.

3.5.4.52 The conversion factors for different types of source and stability classes

are listed in Table 3.26 below. However, given that the stability class

is not included in the AERMOD model, hourly stability class are

estimated from the PCRAMMET model, and the hourly emission rate




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-58

are multiplied by the conversion factor corresponding to the estimated

stability class in order to predict the 5-second average odour

concentrations.

Table 3.26 Conversion factors for 1-hour to 5-second averaged odour concentration

Stability Class Point Source (Wake-affected)

A 2.3

B 2.3

C 2.3

D 2.3

E 2.3

F 2.3

3.5.4.53 The overall modelling parameters are summarised in the table below

for ease of reference.

Table 3.27 Odour modelling parameters in AERMOD

Parameters Input

Background Concentration No

Modelling Mode Flat Terrain

Land Use Open water, grassland and urban, specific to each

grid

Refer to Appendix 3.2 for surface characteristic

parameters (e.g. Albedo, Bowen ratio, grid-specific

surface roughness)

Meteorological Data 2010 meteorological data adopted in PATH

Anemometer Height 9m

3.5.4.54 The maximum 5-second odour concentrations are determined at each

ASR at 1.5m, 5m, 10m, 13.6m (lowest podium level), 20m, 30m, 40m,

50m, 60m, 70m and 80m above ground and compared with the odour

criterion to determine compliance.

3.5.5 Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Assessment Results (Criteria Pollutants)

3.5.5.1 The 19th highest 1-hour and annual NO2 concentrations, and 10th highest

24-hour and annual RSP/FSP concentrations predicted under “with

Project” scenario are presented in Table 3.28. Detailed results are

presented in Appendix 3.11. It can be seen from the table below that

all the predicted NO2/RSP/FSP concentrations are within the respective

criteria. In addition, it should also be noted that this operational air

quality impact assessment has adopted numbers of conservative

assumptions, such as using airport emission in Year 2031 while the

assessment year of 2026 is identified.





248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-59

Table 3.28 Cumulative NO2, RSP and FSP concentrations (with project scenario)

ASR

ID

Worst

affected

Height

above

Ground

(m)

Pollution Concentration (µg/m3)

NO2 RSP FSP

19th

Highest

1-hour

Annual

10th

Highest

24-hour

Annual

10th

Highest

24-hour

Annual

Existing ASRs

A1 1.5 153 28 94 35 61 24

A2 1.5 185 32 93 35 61 24

A3 1.5 134 24 80 34 60 24

A4 1.5/5 128 26 79 34 60 24

A5 20 180 37 78 34 58 25

A6 1.5/5/10 180 30 77 33 58 24

Planned ASRs

A101 20 131 25 79 33 58 23

A104 20 131 25 79 33 58 23

A107 20 130 23 79 33 58 23

A108 20 129 23 79 33 58 23

A113 20 129 23 79 33 58 23

A115 20 129 23 79 33 58 23

A118 20 129 23 79 33 58 23

A125 20/40 145 26 80 33 60 24

A128 20/40 146 26 80 33 60 24

A131 20 132 25 79 33 58 23

A135 20 132 25 79 33 58 23

A136 20 129 23 79 33 58 23

A139 20 130 23 79 33 58 23

A142 20 130 23 79 33 58 23

A143 20 130 23 79 33 58 23

A146 20 132 23 79 33 58 23

A149 20 135 23 79 33 58 23

A209 13.6 133 24 78 33 58 23

A211 20 131 24 78 33 58 23

A212 20 131 24 79 33 58 23

A215 20 131 23 78 33 58 23

A219 13.6 136 24 79 33 58 23

A303 20 131 23 78 33 58 23

A307 20 130 23 79 33 58 23

A308 13.6 135 24 78 33 58 23

A310 20 129 23 79 33 58 23



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-60

ASR

ID

Worst

affected

Height

above

Ground

(m)

Pollution Concentration (µg/m3)

NO2 RSP FSP

19th

Highest

1-hour

Annual

10th

Highest

24-hour

Annual

10th

Highest

24-hour

Annual

A313 13.6 136 24 79 33 58 23

A318 13.6 136 24 78 33 58 23

A402 20 137 23 79 33 58 23

A404 20 137 23 78 33 58 23

A407 20 136 23 78 33 58 23

A409 20 130 23 78 33 58 23

A412 13.6 135 24 78 33 58 23

A414 20 130 23 78 33 58 23

A417 20/30 134 23 78 33 58 23

A419 20/30 134 24 78 33 58 23

A422 20/30 134 23 78 33 58 23

A501 20/40 138 25 80 33 60 24

A601 20 129 23 79 33 58 23

A701 20/30 131 23 78 33 58 23

3.5.5.2 High pollutant concentrations (e.g. annual NO2) are generally predicted

at existing ASRs located adjacent to the North Lantau Highway and

OWTF Phase I, such as A2 (Siu Ho Wan Government Maintenance

Depot). Nevertheless, the predicted annual NO2 concentrations for

these existing ASRs are in the range of 24 to 37μg/m3, still complying

with the criterion of 40μg/m3. While the ASR A5 (Organic Waste

Treatment Facilities) is located in close proximity to industrial

chimneys, the predicted annual NO2 concentration (37μg/m3) also

complies with the criterion of 40μg/m3.

3.5.5.3 According to the assessment results, the worst affected levels for

existing ASRs and planned ASRs are identified at 1.5m and 13.6m

above ground respectively. The pollutant concentrations gradually

decrease with increasing height. For example, the predicted annual NO2

concentration at ASR A2 (Siu Ho Wan Government Maintenance

Depot) reduced from 32μg/m3 at 1.5m above ground to 25μg/m3 at 10m

above ground. This indicated that the key contributing pollution source

is located at ground level, which is the tailpipe emission along open

road.

3.5.5.4 Contours of 19th highest 1-hour and annual NO2 concentrations, 10th

highest 24-hour and annual RSP/FSP concentrations (with Project

Scenario) at the worst affected level for existing and planned ASRs (i.e.

1.5m and 13.6m above ground) are therefore plotted in Figures 3.9 –

3.14. It is also found that there are no exceedances at all air sensitive

uses. Hence, no adverse air quality impact on all air sensitive uses is

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.9-14.pdf

../../html/Figure/Figure%203.9-14.pdf



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-61

anticipated during the operational phase of this Project. For planned

ASRs located above 13.6m above ground, according to the detailed

assessment results presented in Appendix 3.11, pollutant

concentrations will generally decrease with increasing height above

ground. For example, the predicted cumulative annual NO2

concentrations at A409 (Proposed development atop Siu Ho Wan Depot

(Phase 4b)) has reduced from 25μg/m3 at 13.6m above ground to

23μg/m3 and 21μg/m3 at 20m and 50m above ground. Therefore, since

the contours plot at 13.6m above ground would represent the worst case

scenario for all the planned ASRs and there are no exceedance at all

planned ASRs, the planned ASRs at higher level would also comply

with the AQOs.

Incremental Air Quality Impact in Future Years

3.5.5.5 Pollutant contributions associated with the Project are generated from

its induced traffic. By comparing the assessment results under “with”

(i.e. both SHD Topside Development and SHD Replanning Works are

included) and “without” (i.e. both SHD Topside Development and SHD

Replanning Works are excluded) project scenarios, Project contribution

in future year (i.e. Year 2026) could then be quantified. Detailed results

under “without” project scenario are presented in Appendix 3.11.

3.5.5.6 According to the assessment results (for both with and without Project

Scenarios) as summarised in Tables 3.29 – 3.31, maximum total

changes in annual NO2 on existing and planned ASRs are both less than

1μg/m3, while the maximum total changes in annual RSP / FSP

concentrations on both existing and planned ASRs are both less than

2μg/m3 and 1μg/m3 respectively, which are considered relatively small

as compared to the AQOs.

3.5.5.7 Maximum total changes in cumulative 19th highest 1-hour NO2 concentration at existing ASRs and planned ASRs are 2μg/m3 and 1μg/m3 respectively, while the maximum total changes in the 10th highest 24-hour RSP / FSP concentration are 14.5μg/m3 and 2.7μg/m3. Results indicated that the Project would not adversely affect air quality on both existing and planned ASRs during its operational phase.





248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-62

Table 3.29a Breakdown of mitigated 19th highest 1-hour NO2 concentrations under with and without project scenario

ASR

ID

19th Highest 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3)

With Project Without Project [1]

Change in

Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [

2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[2]

[4]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2

]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[2]

[4]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2

]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 48 67 <1 <1 36 151 48 65 <1 <1 36 149 2 2

A2 90 42 <1 <1 53 185 90 41 <1 <1 53 183 2 2

A3 24 5 <1 <1 105 134 24 4 <1 <1 105 134 <1 <1

A4 <1 11 93 <1 25 128 <1 10 93 <1 25 128 <1 <1

A5 141 12 <1 <1 27 180 141 11 <1 <1 27 179 <1 <1

A6 2 <1 <1 162 15 180 2 <1 <1 162 15 180 <1 <1

Planned ASRs [3]

A101 97 18 <1 <1 16 131 97 18 <1 <1 16 131 <1 <1

A104 96 18 <1 <1 16 131 96 18 <1 <1 16 131 <1 <1

A107 96 17 <1 <1 16 130 96 17 <1 <1 16 130 <1 <1

A108 96 17 <1 <1 16 129 96 17 <1 <1 16 129 <1 <1

A113 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 <1 <1

A115 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 <1 <1

A118 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 <1 <1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-63

ASR

ID



Change in

Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [

2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[2]

[4]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2

]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[2]

[4]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2

]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

To

tal

A125 <1 52 65 <1 28 145 <1 51 65 <1 28 144 <1 <1

A128 <1 32 97 <1 17 146 <1 32 97 <1 17 145 <1 <1

A131 97 19 <1 <1 16 132 97 19 <1 <1 16 132 <1 <1

A135 97 18 <1 <1 16 132 97 18 <1 <1 16 132 <1 <1

A136 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 <1 <1

A139 34 7 <1 <1 89 130 34 7 <1 <1 89 130 <1 <1

A142 87 <1 <1 <1 42 130 87 <1 <1 <1 42 130 <1 <1

A143 97 4 <1 <1 29 130 97 4 <1 <1 29 130 <1 <1

A146 36 7 <1 <1 89 132 36 7 <1 <1 89 132 <1 <1

A149 <1 35 36 <1 64 135 <1 34 36 <1 64 134 1 1

A209 90 2 <1 <1 42 133 90 2 <1 <1 42 133 <1 <1

A211 97 18 <1 <1 16 131 97 18 <1 <1 16 131 <1 <1

A212 97 18 <1 <1 16 131 97 18 <1 <1 16 131 <1 <1

A215 34 7 <1 <1 89 131 34 7 <1 <1 89 131 <1 <1

A219 93 1 <1 <1 42 136 93 1 <1 <1 42 136 <1 <1

A303 70 9 <1 <1 52 131 70 9 <1 <1 52 131 <1 <1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-64

ASR

ID



Change in

Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [

2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[2]

[4]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2

]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[2]

[4]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2

]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

To

tal

A307 94 7 <1 <1 29 130 94 7 <1 <1 29 130 <1 <1

A308 92 2 <1 <1 42 135 92 2 <1 <1 42 135 <1 <1

A310 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 <1 <1

A313 93 <1 <1 <1 42 136 93 <1 <1 <1 42 136 <1 <1

A318 93 <1 <1 <1 42 136 93 <1 <1 <1 42 136 <1 <1

A402 86 14 <1 <1 37 137 86 14 <1 <1 37 137 <1 <1

A404 86 14 <1 <1 37 137 86 14 <1 <1 37 137 <1 <1

A407 <1 31 41 <1 64 136 <1 30 41 <1 64 135 1 1

A409 97 4 <1 <1 29 130 97 4 <1 <1 29 130 <1 <1

A412 93 <1 <1 <1 42 135 93 <1 <1 <1 42 135 <1 <1

A414 97 4 <1 <1 29 130 97 4 <1 <1 29 130 <1 <1

A417 39 6 <1 <1 89 134 39 6 <1 <1 89 134 <1 <1

A419 39 6 <1 <1 89 134 39 6 <1 <1 89 134 <1 <1

A422 38 6 <1 <1 89 134 38 6 <1 <1 89 134 <1 <1

A501 83 17 <1 <1 38 138 83 17 <1 <1 38 138 <1 <1

A601 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 96 4 <1 <1 29 129 <1 <1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-65

ASR

ID



Change in

Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [

2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[2]

[4]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2

]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[2]

[4]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2

]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

To

tal

A701 <1 19 41 <1 71 131 <1 18 41 <1 71 130 <1 <1

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

[2] Contribution from Airport, Industrial, Marine and Ambient Background are the same under “With Project “and “Without Project “scenarios. [3] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.

[4] Refer to contributions from OWTF Phase 1.

Table 3.29b Breakdown of mitigated annual NO2 concentrations under with and without project scenario

ASR

ID

Annual NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3)

With Project Without Project

Change in

Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [

1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[1]

[3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1

]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[1]

[3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1

]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 1.4 7.4 0.3 <0.1 18.6 27.7 1.4 7.2 0.3 <0.1 18.6 27.4 0.2 0.2

A2 1.8 11.7 0.4 <0.1 17.7 31.6 1.8 11.3 0.4 <0.1 17.7 31.2 0.4 0.4



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-66

ASR

ID



Change in

Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [

1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[1]

[3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1

]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[1]

[3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1

]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

To

tal

A3 1.2 3.6 0.9 <0.1 18.6 24.4 1.2 3.5 0.9 <0.1 18.6 24.2 0.1 0.1

A4 1.1 2.0 4.0 <0.1 18.6 25.7 1.1 1.9 4.0 <0.1 18.6 25.6 0.1 0.1

A5 1.6 2.7 12.6 <0.1 19.8 36.8 1.6 2.6 12.6 <0.1 19.8 36.7 0.1 0.1

A6 1.7 5.7 2.4 0.9 19.8 30.4 1.7 5.4 2.4 0.9 19.8 30.1 0.2 0.2

Planned ASRs [2]

A101 2.0 4.8 0.2 <0.1 17.7 24.7 2.0 4.7 0.2 <0.1 17.7 24.6 0.1 0.1

A104 1.9 4.7 0.3 <0.1 17.7 24.5 1.9 4.5 0.3 <0.1 17.7 24.4 0.1 0.1

A107 1.9 3.5 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.4 1.9 3.4 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.2 0.1 0.1

A108 1.9 3.3 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.1 1.9 3.1 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.0 0.1 0.1

A113 1.9 2.8 0.3 <0.1 17.7 22.7 1.9 2.7 0.3 <0.1 17.7 22.6 0.1 0.1

A115 1.9 2.8 0.3 <0.1 17.7 22.7 1.9 2.7 0.3 <0.1 17.7 22.5 0.1 0.1

A118 1.8 3.0 0.3 <0.1 17.7 22.9 1.8 2.9 0.3 <0.1 17.7 22.7 0.1 0.1

A125 2.3 5.2 0.6 <0.1 18.2 26.4 2.3 5.0 0.6 <0.1 18.2 26.2 0.2 0.2

A128 2.3 5.3 0.6 <0.1 18.2 26.5 2.3 5.1 0.6 <0.1 18.2 26.3 0.2 0.2

A131 2.0 5.1 0.2 <0.1 17.7 25.1 2.0 5.0 0.2 <0.1 17.7 24.9 0.2 0.2

A135 2.0 5.0 0.2 <0.1 17.7 24.9 2.0 4.9 0.2 <0.1 17.7 24.8 0.2 0.2



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-67

ASR

ID



Change in

Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [

1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[1]

[3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1

]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[1]

[3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1

]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

To

tal

A136 1.8 3.0 0.3 <0.1 17.7 22.8 1.8 2.8 0.3 <0.1 17.7 22.7 0.1 0.1

A139 1.8 2.7 0.4 <0.1 17.7 22.6 1.8 2.6 0.4 <0.1 17.7 22.5 0.1 0.1

A142 1.8 3.1 0.4 <0.1 17.7 22.9 1.8 2.9 0.4 <0.1 17.7 22.8 0.1 0.1

A143 1.8 2.9 0.4 <0.1 17.7 22.8 1.8 2.8 0.4 <0.1 17.7 22.7 0.1 0.1

A146 1.8 2.6 0.4 <0.1 17.7 22.5 1.8 2.5 0.4 <0.1 17.7 22.4 0.1 0.1

A149 1.7 2.7 0.5 <0.1 17.7 22.6 1.7 2.6 0.5 <0.1 17.7 22.5 0.1 0.1

A209 2.0 3.8 0.2 <0.1 17.7 23.8 2.0 3.6 0.2 <0.1 17.7 23.6 0.2 0.2

A211 2.0 4.1 0.2 <0.1 17.7 24.0 2.0 3.9 0.2 <0.1 17.7 23.8 0.2 0.2

A212 2.0 4.2 0.3 <0.1 17.7 24.1 2.0 4.0 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.9 0.2 0.2

A215 1.9 3.4 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.3 1.9 3.3 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.2 0.1 0.1

A219 2.0 3.8 0.2 <0.1 17.7 23.7 2.0 3.6 0.2 <0.1 17.7 23.6 0.2 0.2

A303 1.9 3.5 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.4 1.9 3.3 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.2 0.2 0.2

A307 1.8 3.5 0.4 <0.1 17.7 23.3 1.8 3.3 0.4 <0.1 17.7 23.2 0.2 0.2

A308 1.8 3.8 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.7 1.8 3.7 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.6 0.2 0.2

A310 1.9 3.6 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.5 1.9 3.4 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.3 0.2 0.2

A313 1.9 3.8 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.7 1.9 3.6 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.6 0.2 0.2



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-68

ASR

ID



Change in

Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [

1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[1]

[3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1

]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l

[1]

[3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1

]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

To

tal

A318 1.9 3.8 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.7 1.9 3.6 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.5 0.2 0.2

A402 1.7 2.6 0.5 <0.1 17.7 22.6 1.7 2.5 0.5 <0.1 17.7 22.4 0.1 0.1

A404 1.7 2.7 0.5 <0.1 17.7 22.6 1.7 2.6 0.5 <0.1 17.7 22.5 0.1 0.1

A407 1.7 2.8 0.6 <0.1 17.7 22.7 1.7 2.6 0.6 <0.1 17.7 22.6 0.1 0.1

A409 1.8 3.5 0.4 <0.1 17.7 23.4 1.8 3.4 0.4 <0.1 17.7 23.3 0.2 0.2

A412 1.8 3.9 0.4 <0.1 17.7 23.8 1.8 3.7 0.4 <0.1 17.7 23.7 0.2 0.2

A414 1.8 3.4 0.4 <0.1 17.7 23.3 1.8 3.2 0.4 <0.1 17.7 23.1 0.2 0.2

A417 1.7 3.5 0.5 <0.1 17.7 23.5 1.7 3.4 0.5 <0.1 17.7 23.3 0.2 0.2

A419 1.7 3.6 0.5 <0.1 17.7 23.5 1.7 3.4 0.5 <0.1 17.7 23.4 0.2 0.2

A422 1.7 3.3 0.6 <0.1 17.7 23.3 1.7 3.2 0.6 <0.1 17.7 23.2 0.1 0.1

A501 2.3 4.4 0.5 <0.1 18.2 25.4 2.3 4.2 0.5 <0.1 18.2 25.2 0.2 0.2

A601 1.9 3.5 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.3 1.9 3.3 0.3 <0.1 17.7 23.2 0.2 0.2

A701 1.7 3.3 0.5 <0.1 17.7 23.2 1.7 3.1 0.5 <0.1 17.7 23.0 0.1 0.1

Note: [1] Contribution from Airport, Industrial, Marine and Ambient Background are the same under “With Project “and “Without Project “scenarios. [2] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-69

Table 3.30a Breakdown of mitigated 10th highest 24-hour RSP concentrations under with and without project scenario

ASR

ID

10th highest 24-hour RSP Concentrations (µg/m3)

With Project Without Project [1] Change in Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

][4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 1.0 92.6 94.1 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 92.6 93.1 <0.1 1.0 1.0

A2 <0.1 1.0 0.1 <0.1 14.5 77.4 93.1 <0.1 1.0 0.1 <0.1 77.4 78.6 <0.1 14.5 14.5

A3 <0.1 0.2 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 78.7 79.6 <0.1 0.2 0.7 <0.1 78.7 79.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A4 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 78.7 79.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 78.7 79.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A5 <0.1 0.3 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 76.7 77.8 <0.1 0.2 0.6 <0.1 76.7 77.6 0.2 <0.1 0.2

A6 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 76.7 77.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 76.7 77.0 0.2 <0.1 0.3

Planned ASRs [3]

A101 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.6 75.1 79.0 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 3.6 3.6

A104 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.5 77.4 79.0 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.5 1.6

A107 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.6 77.4 79.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.6 1.6

A108 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.6 77.4 79.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.6 1.6

A113 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.7 77.4 79.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.7 1.7

A115 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.0 75.1 79.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 4.0 4.0



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-70

ASR

ID



(With – without) A

irp

ort

[2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

][4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A118 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4.1 75.1 79.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 4.1 4.1

A125 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.0 78.6 79.8 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 78.6 78.8 <0.1 1.0 1.0

A128 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.4 78.6 80.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 78.6 78.8 <0.1 1.4 1.4

A131 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.5 77.4 79.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.5 1.5

A135 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.7 75.1 79.0 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 3.7 3.7

A136 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.9 75.1 79.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 3.9 3.9

A139 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.7 77.4 79.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.7 1.7

A142 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.7 77.4 79.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.7 1.7

A143 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.4 77.4 79.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.4 1.4

A146 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.2 77.4 78.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.6 <0.1 1.2 1.2

A149 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.3 75.1 78.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 3.3 3.3

A209 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 77.4 78.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.7 0.7

A211 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.9 77.4 78.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.9 0.9

A212 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 77.4 78.6 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.1 1.1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-71

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

][4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A215 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.9 77.4 78.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.9 0.9

A219 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 77.4 78.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.1 1.1

A303 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 77.4 78.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.7 0.7

A307 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.1 77.4 78.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.1 1.1

A308 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.7 77.4 78.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.7 0.7

A310 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.0 77.4 78.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.0 1.0

A313 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 77.4 78.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.1 1.1

A318 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 77.4 78.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.6 0.6

A402 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.4 75.1 78.7 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 3.4 3.4

A404 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.0 75.1 78.3 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 3.0 3.0

A407 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 77.4 77.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A409 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.6 77.4 78.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.6 0.6

A412 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 77.4 77.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A414 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.6 77.4 78.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 0.6 0.6



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-72

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

][4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A417 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 77.4 77.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A419 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 77.4 77.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.1

A422 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 77.4 77.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.1

A501 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 79.4 79.7 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 79.4 79.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A601 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.2 77.4 78.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 77.4 77.5 <0.1 1.3 1.3

A701 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8 75.1 78.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 75.1 75.3 <0.1 2.8 2.8

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

[2] Contribution from Airport, Industrial, Marine and Ambient Background are the same under “With Project “and “Without Project “scenarios. [3] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-73

Table 3.30b Breakdown of mitigated annual RSP concentrations under with and without project scenario

ASR

ID

Annual RSP Concentrations (µg/m3)


(With – without)

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

][3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 33.8 35.2 0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 33.8 34.2 <0.1 1.1 1.1

A2 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 1.4 32.4 34.5 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 33.1 <0.1 1.4 1.4

A3 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 33.8 34.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 33.8 34.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 33.8 34.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 <0.1 33.8 34.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A5 <0.1 0.2 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.8 34.1 0.0 0.1 1.1 <0.1 32.8 34.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A6 <0.1 0.3 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.8 33.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 <0.1 32.8 33.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1

Planned ASRs [2]

A101 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.9 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.1 0.2

A104 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A107 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A108 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A113 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A115 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-74

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

][3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A118 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A125 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.9 33.4 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.9 33.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A128 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.9 33.4 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.9 33.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A131 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.9 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A135 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.9 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A136 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A139 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A142 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A143 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A146 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A149 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A209 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 32.4 33.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.4 0.4

A211 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A212 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-75

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

][3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A215 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A219 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 32.4 33.0 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.3 0.3

A303 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A307 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A308 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 32.4 33.0 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.3 0.3

A310 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A313 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 32.4 33.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.4 0.4

A318 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 32.4 33.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.4 0.4

A402 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A404 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A407 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A409 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A412 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 32.4 33.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.4 0.4

A414 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-76

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

][3]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A417 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.1 0.2

A419 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A422 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A501 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 32.9 33.4 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 32.9 33.2 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A601 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A701 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 32.4 32.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 32.4 32.7 <0.1 0.2 0.2

Notes: [1] Contribution from Airport, Industrial, Marine and Ambient Background are the same under “With Project “and “Without Project “scenarios. [2] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only. [3] Refer to contributions from OWTF Phase 1.



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-77

Table 3.31a Breakdown of mitigated 10th highest 24-hour FSP concentrations under with and without project scenario

ASR

ID

10th highest 24-hour FSP Concentrations (µg/m3)


(With – without)

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 1.2 59.2 61.0 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 59.2 59.9 <0.1 1.2 1.2

A2 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 2.7 56.3 60.5 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 56.3 57.8 <0.1 2.7 2.7

A3 <0.1 0.2 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 59.1 59.9 <0.1 0.2 0.7 <0.1 59.1 59.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A4 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 59.0 59.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 59.0 59.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A5 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.3 58.5 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 58.3 58.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A6 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 57.5 57.9 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 57.5 57.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Planned ASRs [3]

A101 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A104 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A107 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A108 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A113 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3

A115 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-78

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A118 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A125 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 58.9 59.5 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.9 59.2 <0.1 0.4 0.4

A128 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 58.9 59.7 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.9 59.2 <0.1 0.5 0.5

A131 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A135 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A136 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A139 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3

A142 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.3 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3

A143 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A146 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A149 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A209 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A211 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A212 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-79

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A215 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A219 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A303 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A307 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A308 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.1 0.1

A310 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A313 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A318 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A402 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A404 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A407 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A409 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A412 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A414 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-80

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[2]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [2

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [2

] [4

]

Ma

rin

e [2

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[2]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A417 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A419 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A422 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A501 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 58.9 59.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 58.9 59.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A601 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 58.0 58.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A701 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 58.0 58.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Notes: [1] Predicted 24-hour RSP concentrations at the same day as those under “With Project “scenario is presented. [2] Contribution from Airport, Industrial, Marine and Ambient Background are the same under “With Project “and “Without Project “scenarios. [3] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.

[4] Refer to contributions from OWTF Phase 1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-81

Table 3.31b Breakdown of mitigated annual FSP concentrations under with and without project scenario

ASR

ID

Annual FSP Concentrations (µg/m3)

With Project Without Project Change in Concentration

(With – without)

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

Existing ASRs

A1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 24.0 24.5 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 24.0 24.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A2 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 23.0 23.8 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2

A3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 24.0 24.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 24.0 24.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 24.0 24.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 24.0 24.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A5 <0.1 0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.3 24.5 <0.1 0.1 1.1 <0.1 23.3 24.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A6 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.8 <0.1 0.2 0.2 <0.1 23.3 23.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Planned ASRs [2]

A101 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A104 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A107 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A108 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A113 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A115 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-82

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A118 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A125 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.7 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A128 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.7 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A131 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A135 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A136 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A139 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A142 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A143 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A146 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A149 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A209 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A211 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A212 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-83

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A215 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A219 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A303 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A307 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A308 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A310 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A313 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A318 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A402 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A404 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A407 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A409 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A412 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.3 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A414 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


Page 3-84

ASR

ID




irp

ort

[1]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Air

po

rt [1

]

Veh

icle

s

Ind

ust

ria

l [1

] [3

]

Ma

rin

e [1

]

Am

bie

nt

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

[1]

To

tal

Veh

icle

s

Du

st f

rom

SH

O

an

d S

HD

Rep

lan

nin

g W

ork

s

To

tal

A417 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A419 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A422 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A501 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 23.3 23.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A601 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

A701 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 23.0 23.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Notes: [1] Contribution from Airport, Industrial, Marine and Ambient Background are the same under “With Project “and “Without Project “scenarios. [2] Under without project scenario, planned ASRs under this Project will not be existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose only.




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017

G:\ENV\PROJECT\248118\12 REPORTS DELIVERABLES\017 EIA REPORT\04 FINAL\HTML\SHW TOPSIDE DEVELOPMENT\EIA\PDF\TEXT\CH 3 -

AIR QUALITY.DOCX

Page 3-85

Odour Assessment Results

3.5.5.8 The maximum 5-second odour concentrations are presented in Table

3.33. Detailed results are presented in Appendix 3.12. As the proposed

SPS is the only odour source proposed under this Project, the

incremental odour impact is entirely attributed to the SPS.

Table 3.33 Cumulative odour concentrations

ASR ID

Worst

affected

Height above

Ground (m)

Maximum 5-second Odour Concentration (OU)

With Project Without

Project Difference

Existing ASRs

A1 10 1.5 1.5 <0.1

A2 1.5 0.9 0.9 <0.1

A3 5 2.9 2.9 <0.1

A4 5 1.0 1.0 <0.1

A5 10 3.7 3.7 <0.1

A6 1.5 1.7 1.7 <0.1

Planned ASRs

A101 50 0.6 0.6 <0.1

A104 50 0.6 0.6 <0.1

A107 50 0.6 0.6 <0.1

A108 50 0.7 0.7 <0.1

A113 50 0.7 0.7 <0.1

A115 50 0.7 0.7 <0.1

A118 50 0.8 0.8 <0.1

A125 40 1.6 1.6 <0.1

A128 40 1.6 1.6 <0.1

A131 50 0.5 0.5 <0.1

A135 50 0.6 0.6 <0.1

A136 50 0.9 0.9 <0.1

A139 50 0.9 0.9 <0.1

A142 50 1.0 1.0 <0.1

A143 50 1.0 1.0 <0.1

A146 50 1.1 1.1 <0.1

A149 50 1.1 1.1 <0.1

A209 50 0.5 0.5 <0.1

A211 50 0.6 0.6 <0.1

A212 50 0.7 0.7 <0.1

A215 50 0.6 0.6 <0.1

A219 50 0.6 0.6 <0.1

A303 50 0.8 0.8 <0.1




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


AIR QUALITY.DOCX

Page 3-86

ASR ID

Worst

affected

Height above

Ground (m)

Maximum 5-second Odour Concentration (OU)

With Project Without

Project Difference

A307 50 1.0 1.0 <0.1

A308 50 0.9 0.9 <0.1

A310 50 0.7 0.7 <0.1

A313 50 0.7 0.7 <0.1

A318 50 0.8 0.8 <0.1

A402 50 1.2 1.2 <0.1

A404 50 1.3 1.3 <0.1

A407 50 1.4 1.4 <0.1

A409 50 0.9 0.9 <0.1

A412 13.6 1.1 1.1 <0.1

A414 20 1.2 1.2 <0.1

A417 20 1.2 1.2 <0.1

A419 20 1.4 1.4 <0.1

A422 20 1.7 1.7 <0.1

A501 40 1.3 1.3 <0.1

A601 50 0.8 0.8 <0.1

A701 50 1.3 1.3 <0.1

Note:

Under without project scenario, planned ASRs under this Project will not be

existed. Assessment results for these planned ASRs are for indication purpose

only.

3.5.5.9 It can be seen from the table above that all the predicted odour

concentrations at existing and planned ASRs within the proposed

development comply with the odour criterion. The incremental odour

impact due to the proposed SPS at the existing ASRs is less than 0.1

OU. Thus odour impact due to the SPS is anticipated to be insignificant.

3.5.5.10 Table 3.33 shows that the highest odour concentrations at existing

ASRs is observed at 5m and 10m above ground. Odour concentrations

are generally the highest at 13.6m and 50m above ground for planned

ASRs. Thus contours of highest 5-second odour concentrations at these

worst affected levels above the podium level (i.e. 5m, 10m, 13.6m and

50m above ground) are therefore plotted in Figure 3.15. It is also found

that there are no exceedances at all air sensitive uses within the

proposed development. In addition, no existing air sensitive uses are

located within the area of exceedance at the respective levels (i.e. 5m,

13.6 and 50m above ground). Hence, no adverse odour impact on all

existing and planned ASRs is anticipated during the operational phase

of this Project.

3.5.5.11 As discussed in Section 3.5.4, at-source mitigation measures will be

implemented at the proposed sewage pumping stations to control odour




248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


AIR QUALITY.DOCX

Page 3-87

emission. Thus it is anticipated that odour contribution from the Project

is insignificant.

3.5.6 Mitigation Measures

3.5.6.1 All the predicted criteria pollutant concentrations are in compliance

with the AQO. Hence, no mitigation measures are required.

3.5.6.2 The predicted odour concentrations are in compliance with the odour

criterion. Nevertheless, as discussed in Section 3.5.4, the following at-

source mitigation measures should be implemented at the proposed

sewage pumping stations to control odour emission:

Potential odour sources should be enclosed;

Negative pressure should be maintained within the facilities;

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

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

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

3.5.7 Residual Environmental Impacts

3.5.7.1 According to the operational air quality assessment result, it is indicated

that adverse residual air quality impact during the operational phase is

not anticipated.

3.6 Air Quality Impact Assessment Conducted by SHO and SHD Replanning Works

3.6.1.1 As discussed in Section 1.3, the latest implementation strategy has

recommended the following items in EIA Study Brief ESB-296/2016

will be separately implemented by the SHO and SHD Replanning

Works project which will be addressed in Railway EIA.

Railway depot replanning works within the existing site boundary;

Podium deck and property enabling works for the topside development;

A new SHO and associated track works, as well as local access roads and emergency vehicular access (EVA); and

Provision of the sewerage network with sewage pumping station to cater sewage generated by SHO and SHD Replanning Works.

3.6.1.2 According to Section 3.5.4, construction activities associated with

Stages 2 to 4 of SHD Replanning Works will be carried out during the



248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


AIR QUALITY.DOCX

Page 3-88

operational phase of the Project (2026-2034). As SHD Topside

Development will commence its population intake in the Year 2026, the

assessment of cumulative construction dust impact arising from Stages

2 to 4 SHD Replanning Works on planned ASRs in Topside

Development has been conducted by both the SHD Topside

Development and Railway EIA. The Railway EIA has also

recommended similar mitigation measures as described in Section 3.4.6

to alleviate dust impacts. The assessment results, shown in Appendix

3.11a, have been incorporated to operational phase assessment.

3.7 Conclusion

3.7.1 Construction Phase

3.7.1.1 Potential construction dust impact would be generated from foundation

works for SPS, utility construction and road widening, etc. during

construction phase. Quantitative construction dust impact assessment

has been conducted. Results have concluded that there will not be any

adverse residual air quality impacts during construction phase given

frequent watering on all works area once per hour during working

hours.

3.7.2 Operational Phase

3.7.2.1 Quantitative operational air quality assessment has been conducted

taking into account the vehicular emission impacts associated with the

Project and nearby existing road network, airport emission associated

with the HKIA including its three-runway system, industrial emissions

from OWTF, marine emissions associated with NLRTS and potential

concurrent projects (including, but not limited to, induced traffic due to

TM-CLK Link, etc.) in the vicinity. Cumulative impact from far-field

source contributions, including territory wide vehicular emission,

power plants, marine emission, as well as regional emission from PRD,

have also been taken into account. It is concluded that the predicted

cumulative air quality impacts on all ASRs would comply with the

AQOs during the operational phase, and hence adverse impacts are not

anticipated.

3.7.2.2 Quantitative odour assessment has been conducted taking into account

contribution from existing (e.g. SHWSTW and NLRTS) and planned

(e.g. OWTF and proposed SPS by the Project) odour sources. Adverse

odour impact is not anticipated at all existing air sensitive uses and

planned air sensitive uses within the proposed SHD Topside

Development.

3.8 References

[3-1] Sun Y., Wang L.L., Wang Y.S. (2010) “In situ measurements of SO2, NOx, NOy, and O3 in Beijing, China during August 2008” Science of the Total Environment 409 (2011), P933-940





248118-REP-017-03 | Final | July 2017


AIR QUALITY.DOCX

Page 3-89

[3-2] Sun Y., Wang L.L., Wang Y.S. (2010) “In situ measurements of NO, NO2, NOy, and O3 in Dinghushan (112°E, 23°N), China during autumn 2008”, Atmospheric Environment 44 (2010), P2079-2088

[3-3] Environmental Protection Department (2015), Air Quality in Hong Kong 2015 (http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/api_history/english/report/files/AQR2015e_final.pdf)

[3-4] Environmental Protection Department, A Study to Review Hong Kong’s Air Quality Objectives (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/aqor_report.html)

[3-5] Environmental Protection Department (2013), Assessment of Toxic Air Pollutant Measurements in Hong Kong (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/assessment_of_tap_measurements.html)

[3-6] European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (2005), Sources of Poychlorinated Biphenyls Emissions (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR5/Sources_of_PCB_emissions.pdf/view)

[3-7] Environmental Protection Department (2014), Hong Kong Air Pollutant Emission Inventory (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html

[3-8] Drainage Services Department (2015), 2014-15 Sustainability Report (http://www.dsd.gov.hk/Documents/SustainabilityReports/1415/en/odour_management.html)

[3-9] Environmental Protection Department (2015), Implementation Schedule of Vehicle Emission Standards in Hong Kong (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/Appendix%20III_HK%20std%20%2802-11-2015%29_EMFAC-HK%20%28V3.1%29.pdf)

http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/api_history/english/report/files/AQR2015e_final.pdf

http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/api_history/english/report/files/AQR2015e_final.pdf

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/aqor_report.html

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/aqor_report.html

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/assessment_of_tap_measurements.html

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/studyrpts/assessment_of_tap_measurements.html

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR5/Sources_of_PCB_emissions.pdf/view

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR5/Sources_of_PCB_emissions.pdf/view

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/data/emission_inve.html

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/sites/default/files/epd/Appendix%20III_HK%20std%20%2802-11-2015%29_EMFAC-HK%20%28V3.1%29.pdf

