Three-Runway System Environmental Impact Assessment Report

308875/ENL/ENL/03/07/D May 2014 P:\Hong Kong\ENL\PROJECTS\308875 3rd runway\03 Deliverables\07 Final EIA Report\Ch 7 - Noise Impact.doc

7-1

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

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1.1 This section presents the assessment of potential noise impact associated with the construction

and operation phases of the project, which has been conducted in accordance with Annexes 5

and 13 of EIAO-TM as well as the technical requirements stipulated in Clause 3.4.5 and section I

of Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-250/2012).

7.2 Noise Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

7.2.1 Aircraft Noise

7.2.1.1 The principal legislation for controlling aircraft noise in Hong Kong is the Civil Aviation (Aircraft

Noise) Ordinance (Cap. 312) and Civil Aviation (Aircraft Noise) (Certification) Regulations. In line

with the international practice in phasing out noisier aircraft, the Ordinance stipulates that all

subsonic jet aircraft flying in and out of Hong Kong shall meet the noise standard specified in

Chapter 3 of Annex 16 Volume I, Part II to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The

Regulations require all subsonic jet aircraft departing or landing in Hong Kong to be certified in

accordance with international established procedures.

7.2.1.2 On the other hand, the EIAO provides the fundamental legislation with established noise criteria

for evaluating noise impact of designated projects and these include aircraft noise. Annex 5 of

the EIAO-TM published under the EIAO sets out the criteria for evaluating the noise impact of

designated projects. It prescribes the appropriate noise metrics and noise planning criteria for

various types of noise sources and land uses. For aircraft noise, Annex 5 specifies the use of the

Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) metric for evaluating noise impact. Table 7.2.1 presents the

noise criteria for various land uses, considering NEF in noise contour increments of 25 or 30

NEF.

Table 7.2.1: Aircraft Noise Standards for Planning Purposes

Common Uses NEF

All domestic premises including temporary housing accommodation 25

Hotel and hostels 25

Offices 30

Educational institutions including kindergartens, nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required

25

Places of public Worship and courts of laws 25

Hospitals, clinics, convalescences and homes for the aged, diagnostic rooms, wards 25

Notes: 1. The above standards apply to uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

Source: Adapted from Table 1A of Annex 5 in EIAO-TM.

7.2.2 Fixed Noise

7.2.2.1 For the fixed noise impact assessments, the Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) for the Noise

Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) are determined with consideration of the Area Sensitivity Rating

(ASR), which is defined in the Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places

other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM) issued under the

Noise Control Ordinance (NCO). The ASR depends on the type of area and the degree of impact

7. Noise Impact


7-2


that Influencing Factors (IFs) have on the NSRs as illustrated in Table 7.2.2. Industrial areas,

major roads (i.e. North Lantau Highway with annual average daily traffic flow in excess of 30,000)

or the area within the boundary of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) shall be considered

to be an IF.

Table 7.2.2: Area Sensitivity Rating

Degree to which NSR is affected by IF

Type of Area Containing NSR Not Affected(c) Indirectly Affected(d) Directly Affected(e)

(i) Rural area, including country parks(a) or village type developments

A B B

(ii) Low density residential area consisting of low-rise or isolated high-rise developments

A B C

(iii) Urban area(b) B C C

(iv) Area other than those above B B C

Definitions: (a) "Country park" means an area that is designated as a country park pursuant to section 14 of the Country Parks

Ordinance. (b) "Urban area" means an area of high density, diverse development including a mixture of such elements as

industrial activities, major trade or commercial activities and residential premises. (c) "Not Affected" means that the NSR is at such a location that noise generated by the IF is not noticeable at the

NSR. (d) "Indirectly Affected" means that the NSR is at such a location that noise generated by the IF, whilst noticeable at

the NSR, is not a dominant feature of the noise climate of the NSR. (e) "Directly Affected" means that the NSR is at such a location that noise generated by the IF is readily noticeable at

the NSR and is a dominant feature of the noise climate of the NSR.

7.2.2.2 Fixed noise sources excluding aircraft taxiing and auxiliary power units (APUs) noise, are

controlled under the NCO and shall comply with the ANLs laid down in the Table 2 of the IND-TM.

For a given ASR, the ANL is given by Table 7.2.3 below:

Table 7.2.3: Acceptable Noise Level for Fixed Noise Source

Area Sensitivity Rating

Time Period A B C

Day (0700 to 1900 hours) 60 65 70

Evening (1900 to 2300 hours)

Night (2300 to 0700 hours) 50 55 60

7.2.2.3 As stipulated in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM, the noise standard for planning purposes for fixed noise

source are (a) 5 dB(A) below the appropriate ANL, or (b) the prevailing background noise levels

(For quiet areas with level 5 dB(A) below the ANL).

7.2.2.4 In addition, it is noted that while Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM specifies that fixed noise sources

include airport facilities and hence the noise criteria set out in the EIAO-TM have also been

applied to ground running of aircraft (taxing), engine run-up facilities and APU in the current fixed

noise impact assessment, it should be noted that aircraft noise, including nuisance caused by

aircraft and aircraft engines on aerodromes, are under the control of the Civil Aviation (Aircraft

Noise) Ordinance in airport operation. Section 10 of the Civil Aviation (Aircraft Noise) Ordinance

specifies that regulations made under the Ordinance may regulate the conditions under which

noise and vibration may be caused by aircraft or aircraft engines on aerodromes. On the other

hand, while 5 dB(A) below the appropriate ANL or prevailing background noise level (For quiet


7-3


areas with 5dB(A) below ANL) has been adopted in assessing the potential noise impact from

planned fixed noise sources including new ground noise sources, the ANL stipulated in the IND-

TM has been adopted in the evaluation of potential cumulative fixed noise impact assessment

from existing and new fixed noise sources. Similar approaches have been adopted in for

example the approved Lamma Power Station Units L4 & L5 Flue Gas Desulphurization Plant

Retrofit Project EIA report (Register No.: AEIAR-098/2006).

Ground-borne Noise from Automated People Mover (APM)

7.2.2.5 Since ground-borne noise is transmitted through the building structure and will affect the NSR

inside building, ground-borne noise assessment should be carried out at an internal location

representative of normal occupancy of the building of interest. Hence, the proposed ground-

borne noise criteria adopted in assessing the potential noise impact from the planned / cumulative

APMs shall be 10 dB(A) less than the planned airborne fixed noise criteria as stipulated in Annex

5 of the EIAO-TM / the cumulative airborne fixed noise criteria (i.e. the ANL stipulated in the IND-

TM), respectively.

7.2.3 Construction Noise

7.2.3.1 Control over the generation of construction noise from designated projects under EIAO in Hong

Kong is governed by the EIAO and the NCO. The NCO is to provide statutory controls to the

carrying out of construction work using powered mechanical equipment and prescribed

construction works during the restricted hours and the noise standards for daytime construction

activities in Table 1B of EIAO-TM for construction noise of DP shall be met as far as practicable.

The TMs applicable to the control of noise from construction activities of proposed construction

works are:

� TM on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM)

� TM on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling (GW-TM)

These TMs prescribe the maximum permitted noise levels for the use of Powered Mechanical

Equipment (PME) and certain construction activities and processes, according to the type of

equipment or activity, the perceived noise climate of the area, and the working hours of

equipment operation and usage.

General Construction Activities during Non-Restricted Hours

7.2.3.2 Noise impact arising from general construction activities other than percussive piling during the

daytime period (07:00-19:00 hours of any day not being a Sunday or general holiday) would be

assessed against the noise standards tabulated in Table 7.2.4 below. Practicable direct

mitigation measures will be evaluated and exhausted to maximise the protection of NSRs.

Table 7.2.4: Noise Standards for Daytime Construction Activities

Noise Sensitive Uses 0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday, Leq(30 min), dB(A)

All domestic premises including temporary housing accommodation

75

Hotels and hostel


7-4


Noise Sensitive Uses 0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday, Leq(30 min), dB(A)

Educational institution including kindergarten, nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required

70

65 during examination

Source: EIAO-TM, Annex 5, Table 1B – Noise Standards for Daytime construction Activities

Note: The above noise standards apply to uses, which rely on opened windows for ventilation

The above standards shall be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at 1 m from the

external facade

General Construction Activities during Restricted Hours

7.2.3.3 Noise impacts arising from general construction activities (excluding percussive piling) conducted

during the restricted hours (19:00-07:00 hours on any day and anytime on Sunday or general

holiday) and percussive piling during anytime are governed by the NCO.

7.2.3.4 For carrying out of any general construction activities involving the use of any PME within the

restricted hours, a Construction Noise Permit (CNP) issued by the Authority must be obtained

under the NCO. The noise criteria and the assessment procedures for issuing a CNP are

specified in GW-TM published under the NCO.

7.2.3.5 Regardless of any description or assessment made in this EIA report, in assessing a filed

application for a CNP the Authority will be guided by the relevant Technical Memoranda. The

Authority will consider all the factors affecting their decision taking contemporary situations/

conditions into account. Nothing in this EIA report shall pre-empt the Authority in making their

decisions, and there is no guarantee that a CNP will be issued. If a CNP is to be issued, the

Authority may include any conditions they consider appropriate and such conditions are to be

followed while the works covered by the CNP are being carried out. Failing to do so may lead to

cancellation of the CNP and prosecution action under the NCO.

7.2.3.6 The land formation works of the project is assumed to be carried out 24 hours per day and 7 days

per week throughout the relevant construction years, and it would be the Contractor’s

responsibility to ensure compliance with the NCO and the relevant TMs. The Contractor will be

required to submit CNP application to the Noise Control Authority and abide by any conditions

stated in the CNP, should any be issued.

7.2.4 Road Traffic Noise

7.2.4.1 The EIAO-TM published under Section 16(5) of the EIAO is the fundamental legislation of noise

criteria for evaluating noise impact of designated projects with respect to road traffic noise. The

summary of noise criteria is given in Table 7.2.5 below.

Table 7.2.5: Relevant Noise Standard for Planning Purposes

Uses Road Traffic Noise Peak Hour Traffic L10 (1 hour), dB(A)

All domestic premises including temporary housing accommodation

70

Educational institutions including kindergartens, nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required

65

Notes: (i) The above standards apply to uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation


7-5


(ii) The above standards should be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at 1m from the

external façade

7.2.5 Marine Traffic Noise

7.2.5.1 Potential marine traffic noise impacts from operation activities on the moored vessels in the ferry

piers in the vicinity and the manoeuvring of vessels during the operation phase of the project has

been evaluated. Moored vessels in the ferry piers will be an existing noise source in fixed noise

impact assessment. For the manoeuvring of vessels, there is no specific control on noise under

the NCO nor objective noise criteria in the EIAO-TM for evaluating noise impact of marine traffic.

In this regard, reference has been made to an approved EIA study having marine traffic noise

issue, namely "Proposed Joint User Complex and Wholesale Fish Market at Area 44, Tuen Mun

(Register No.: AEIAR-070/2003)". In this study, more stringent criteria, i.e., 10 dB(A) below

measured prevailing background noise levels have been proposed for determining the marine

traffic noise impact assessment area. As described in BS-4142:19971, if the rating noise level of

the new source is more than 10 dB(A) below the measured background noise level then it is a

positive indication that no adverse noise impact is anticipated.

7.3 Aircraft Noise Impact Assessment

7.3.1 Assessment Area

7.3.1.1 Clause 2.2.1 in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief specifies that the proposed assessment area

for aircraft noise impact shall include area of existing, committed and planned NSRs under or

near to the flight tracks or in the vicinity of the HKIA, such as Ma Wan, Tuen Mun, Tsing Lung

Tau, Shatin, Ma On Shan, Tsuen Wan, Sham Tseng, Tsing Yi, Tung Chung, Tai Kok Tsui, Siu

Lam, Yuen Long, Kwai Chung, and Sha Lo Wan in association with the proposed project. The

EIA Study Brief also requires in Clause 2.3.3 of Appendix C the presentation of predicted aircraft

noise impact in NEF contours with reference to Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM.

7.3.1.2 Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-001 shows the assessment area of the aircraft noise impact

assessment agreed with EPD in December 2012 prior to commencement of the assessment and

this covers the entire territory of Hong Kong and includes the above-named regions/areas, which

are also shown in Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-001. While preliminary aircraft noise analysis of

Third Runway Alternatives (see Section 7.3.2.11 for further details) undertaken in the preparation

of HKIA MP2030 has already revealed that most of the regions named in the EIA Study Brief

would be beyond the projected NEF contours in the operation of the HKIA three-runway system

and would hence unlikely to be impacted by aircraft noise exceeding the aircraft noise criteria

stipulated in the EIAO–TM, this would be further assessed and visualised by the NEF contours

developed under the current EIA study. In accordance with the EIA Study Brief requirements, the

extent of aircraft noise impact would be determined based on the criteria set out in Annex 5 of the

EIAO-TM, which are as summarised in Table 7.2.1.

_________________________

1 BS-4142: 1997 “Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas”


7-6


Noise Sensitive Receivers

7.3.1.3 Following the guidelines given in Annexes 5 and 13 of the EIAO-TM, potential NSRs include

domestic premises, temporary housing accommodation, educational institutions, nurseries,

hospitals, medical clinics, homes for the aged, convalescent homes, places of public worship,

libraries, courts of law, performing arts centres, auditoria, amphitheatres, hostels, hotels, offices

and country parks. Based on the preliminary aircraft noise analysis of Third Runway Alternatives

undertaken in the preparation of HKIA MP2030 which is described in Section 7.3.2.11, the

representative NSRs that could be of interest in the aircraft noise impact assessment have been

identified accordingly and these are as listed in Table 7.3.1 and their locations are as illustrated in

Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-002. The above-mentioned regions/areas are also included in

Table 7.3.1 and in Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-002.

7.3.1.4 In accordance with the requirements set out in Clause 2.3.5 in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief,

based on the developed NEF contours, maps at an adequately detailed scale are to be presented

to show the NEF contours, the HKIA and its environs, including information on relevant NSRs

under or near to the flight tracks. The total number of dwellings, classrooms and other NSRs that

will be exposed to noise impact exceeding the aircraft noise criteria will also be estimated.

Table 7.3.1: Aircraft Noise Concerned Areas and Key Representative Aircraft Noise Sensitive

Receivers

Ref. Areas named in the EIA Study Brief and Key Representative Aircraft Noise Sensitive Receivers

Landuse Type No. of Storeys

Approximate Distance from the Project Site (m)

1 Ma Wan Various Multi > 10,000

2 Tuen Mun Various Multi 8,000

3 Tsing Lung Tau Various Multi > 10,000

4 Shatin Various Multi > 10,000

5 Ma On Shan Various Multi > 10,000

6 Tsuen Wan Various Multi > 10,000

7 Sham Tseng Various Multi > 10,000

8 Tsing Yi Various Multi > 10,000

9 Tung Chung Various Multi 1,800

10 Tai Kok Tsui Various Multi > 10,000

11 Siu Lam Various Multi > 10,000

12 Yuen Long Various Multi > 10,000

13 Kwai Chung Various Multi > 10,000

14 Sha Lo Wan Various Multi 1,200

15 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Sha Lo Wan and San Shek Wan

Residential 1-3 1,200

16 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Kau Liu, Tin Sam and San Tau


17 Seaview Crescent Residential 49 1,800

18 Coastal Skyline Residential 50 2,000

19 Caribbean Coast Residential 50 2,100

20 Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School Institutional 6 1,900

21 Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School Institutional 6 2,000

22 Tung Chung Crescent Residential 40 1,700


7-7


Ref. Areas named in the EIA Study Brief and Key Representative Aircraft Noise Sensitive Receivers

Landuse Type No. of Storeys

Approximate Distance from the Project Site (m)

23 Fu Tung Estate Residential 30 2,000

24 Yu Tung Court Residential 50 2,050

25 Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School Institutional 6 1,950

26 Wan Ho Kan Primary School Institutional 6 1,950

27 Wong Cho Bau School Institutional 6 2,050

28 PLK Mrs. Ma Kam Ming Cheung Fook Sien College Institutional 6 2,050

29 Planned Developments in Tung Chung Seafront Residential -- 2,000

30 Planned Developments in Tung Chung New Town Development Extension

Residential / Institutional

-- 1,500

31 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Tai Ho and Pak Mong


32 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Luk Keng Tsuen


33 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Ma Wan Residential 1-3 > 10,000

34 Park Island Residential 27 > 10,000

35 Kei Wai Primary School Institutional 6 > 10,000

36 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in San Po Tsui Residential 1-3 > 10,000

37 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Yi Chuen Residential 1-3 > 10,000

38 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Tso Wan Residential 1-3 > 10,000

39 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Fa Peng Residential 1-3 > 10,000

40 Aqua Blue and Houses in Lok On Pai Residential 10 > 10,000

41 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Siu Lam San Tsuen

Residential 1-3 > 10,000

42 Siu Lam Hospital and Psychiatric Centre Institutional 2 > 10,000

43 Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Tai Lam Chung Tsuen

Residential 1-3 > 10,000

44 Customs and Excise Training School Institutional 3 > 10,000

45 Whole Person Development Education Centre Institutional 1 > 10,000

46 Maritime Services Training Institute Institutional 2 > 10,000

47 Creativity (Tai Lam) Kindergarten Institutional 1 > 10,000

48 Planned Development at Area 59 in Lok On Pai Comprehensive Development Area

-- 8000

49 Planned Housing Sites in So Kwun Wat and Tai Lam Chung

Residential -- > 10,000

Remarks: 1. Ref. 1 to 14 are aircraft noise sensitive areas named in the EIA Study Brief, whilst others in the table are representative NSRs which are identified in these areas. 2. Country parks are within the assessment area and aircraft noise impact assessment to the parks would be addressed. Offices and hotels located on the airport island have been installed with sealed glazing and provided with central air-conditioning. These uses do not rely on opened windows for ventilation and adverse noise impact is not expected. Therefore no assessment point is proposed.

7.3.2 Previous Aircraft Noise Studies and Prevailing Aircraft Noise Environment

7.3.2.1 HKIA commenced operation at Chek Lap Kok in 1998 with a single runway (south runway)

operation. Since the opening of the second runway (the existing north runway) in 1999, the dual


7-8


runway system has been operating primarily under a segregated mode, with the south runway

dedicated to departures and the north runway to arrivals. The previous aircraft noise studies and

prevailing aircraft noise environment may be described by making reference to previous non-

statutory EIA studies and by providing an NEF contour map based on the prevailing aviation

operations data.

Previous EIA Studies and EIA Update

7.3.2.2 Following an administrative approach to the EIA process before the EIA Ordinance was enacted

in 1997, the 1991 New Airport Master Plan - Environmental Impact Assessment (NAMP-EIA) and

the 1992 NAMP-EIA Supplement provided as part of the studies NEF contours for Year 2000 and

for the design year (2030) to represent the potential aircraft noise impact of the initial and final

phases for the existing two-runway system. The studies were undertaken based on the best

available information at that time and were superseded by the NAMP-EIA Update in 1998 prior to

the airport opening, taking into account latest information that were available including revised

flight tracks design and runway operational modes adopted by Civil Aviation Department (CAD)

from the detailed airspace consultancy study it commissioned in 1994, and the then updated

aircraft operational forecast.

7.3.2.3 The EIA Update was not an EIA but a document that accounts for all environmentally significant

modifications to the NAMP. On aircraft noise, it updated that in year 2000, there would be

approximately 200 NSRs within the NEF 25 contour, and as air traffic demand approached

Design Capacity in year 2030, the no. of NSRs within the NEF 25 contour would be reduced to

approximately 150, all located in the village of Sha Lo Wan.

2011 Prevailing Scenario

7.3.2.4 An NEF contour was produced for 2011 based on operational records and daily radar data

provided by CAD to illustrate the prevailing aircraft noise environment. The prevailing scenario in

year 2011 has reflected existing aircraft noise mitigation measures currently in place at HKIA.

Year 2011 is employed to represent the prevailing noise environment because the full-year data

set in 2011 is the latest information available at the commencement of the assessment and is

considered representative of the prevailing aircraft noise environment.

7.3.2.5 NEF 25 and 30 contours for the 2011 prevailing scenario were generated using the latest

Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 7.0d released by the US Federal Aviation Administration’s

(FAA) in late May 2013, and with service update (su1) released in September 2013 (the latest

version of the INM model is hereafter referred to as 7.0dsu1). The approach and methodology

and data adopted in preparing the year 2011 prevailing noise contour is detailed in Section 7.3.3

and the associated appendices (see Appendix 7.3.5). In brief, the detailed daily radar data

available for Year 2011 provided by CAD has served as the main source of information on actual

operation, including fleet mix and existing aircraft noise mitigation measures implemented at

HKIA in the aircraft noise modeling for the prevailing scenario. As described on CAD’s website,

these noise mitigation measures and initiatives implemented in the existing two-runway system

operation include:

(i) all noisy jet aircraft which do not comply with the noise standard set out in Chapter 3 of

Annex 16 Volume I, Part II to the Convention on International Civil Aviation are not allowed

to operate at HKIA since July 2002;


7-9


(ii) between midnight and 07:00 am, arriving aircraft are required to land from the southwest,

subject to acceptable wind direction and safety consideration since October 1998;

(iii) aircraft departing to the northeast of the airport between midnight and 07:00 am are

required to use the southbound route via the West Lamma Channel, subject to acceptable

operational and safety consideration since October 1998. The application period was

revised to 11:00 pm to 07:00 am since January 1999;

(iv) aircraft departing to the northeast are required to adopt the noise abatement take-off

procedures stipulated by ICAO so long as safe flight operations permit;

(v) all aircraft on approach to the HKIA from the northeast between 11:00 pm to 07:00 am are

encouraged to adopt the Continuous Descent Approach (CDA).

7.3.2.6 The NEF 25 and 30 contours produced for the 2011 prevailing scenario are presented in

Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-003. From the noise contours, it is estimated that there are about

346 NSRs in the form of village houses/licensed structures that are situated within the NEF 25

contour in view of their close proximity to the existing airport and these affected NSRs are located

in Sha Lo Wan village and some other villages along North Lantau shoreline as shown in Table

7.3.2. Due to the faster-than-expected increase in flight movements and larger-than-expected

proportion of night flights, it is noted that the prevailing NEF 25 noise contour has shifted

southward and expanded slightly when compared with the NEF 25 projection presented in the

non-statutory 1998 NAMP-EIA Update. However, populated areas in Tung Chung New Town

and Ma Wan are situated outside the NEF 25 contour.

Table 7.3.2: Estimated Number of Village Houses/Licensed Structures to be Affected under

Prevailing Scenario

Villages along North Lantau Shoreline Estimated No. of Village Houses/Licensed Structures affected

Sha Lo Wan 170

Luk Keng (incl. Ta Pang Po) 20

San Po Tsui 5

Yi Chuen 3

Tso Wan 70

Fa Peng 10

San Shek Wan 53

San Tau (incl. Tin Sum and Kau Liu) 15

Total 346*

* This includes about 190 existing obsolete village houses/licensed structures estimated based on site observations.

Short-term Mitigation Measures

7.3.2.7 In addition to the existing noise mitigation measures described in Section 7.3.2.5, CAD has been

exploring other measures and new initiatives that could be implemented in the near term with a

view to further reducing the aircraft noise impact arising from the existing operation of HKIA.

Since February 2012, CAD has implemented a set of flight procedures whereby aircraft which are

capable to use satellite-based navigation technology, when departing to the northeast from HKIA,

can adhere closely to the nominal flight track when making the turn to the West Lamma Channel,


7-10


thereby keeping the aircraft at a distance away from the areas in the vicinity of the flight path, and

reducing the noise impact on these areas.

7.3.2.8 As described under item (i) in Section 7.3.2.5 above, all subsonic jet aircraft landing or taking off

in Hong Kong have already been required to meet the noise standards stipulated in Chapter 3 of

Annex 16 Volume I, Part II to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (“Chapter 3

standards”) since July 2002. To further improve the local noise environment and to alleviate the

aircraft noise impact on the local communities, with effect from the end of March 2014, CAD will

not allow airlines to schedule Marginally Compliant Chapter 3 (MCC3) Aircraft, which are defined

as per CAD’s Aeronautical Information Circular 32/13 dated 26 Nov 2013, to operate between

2300 and 0659 (MCC3-Prohibited Period). Besides, upon review of this Phase 1 measure, CAD

would consider extending the MCC3-Prohibited Period to cover the whole day for the existing

two-runway operation.

7.3.2.9 Furthermore, Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) is conducting a detailed study to develop an

environmental charges/ incentives scheme as a means of encouraging airlines to use quieter

aircraft types, and the introduction of any such scheme must follow thorough consultation with the

aviation community. Night flights demand will also be managed at HKIA to ensure that the noise

contour in the remaining years of two-runway operations would not expand into any new NSRs on

top of the villages identified in Table 7.3.2.

7.3.2.10 Having exhausted all practical short-term noise mitigation measures / practices as afore-

mentioned, it is expected that the said 346 village houses/licensed structures in Table 7.3.2

would be unavoidable from situating inside the NEF 25 contour under the two-runway system

due to their close proximity to the aircraft noise. Therefore, indirect mitigation measures would

be required. In line with the indirect mitigation measures already provided to Sha Lo Wan village

at airport opening, AAHK is committed to either the provision of, or to pay for, noise insulation

measures at all domestic houses/structures within the other newly affected villages as named in

Table 7.3.2, be they falling inside or outside the 2011 Prevailing contour. AAHK will offer the

provision of indirect mitigation measures in the form of window insulation and air-conditioning for

those within the affected villages before the operation of the third runway. The indicative extents

of affected villages are indicated on Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-010.

Preliminary Aircraft Noise Analysis for 3RS

7.3.2.11 The 2010 Final Noise Contour Report – Noise Contour Analysis for Third Runway Alternatives

presented a preliminary aircraft noise analysis for the Third Runway project and the focus was to

compare two alternative configurations for the Third Runway from the aircraft noise perspective

by adopting the same set of simplified assumptions. This Report has been presented in the

published Master Plan 2030. Specifically, aircraft operational data for the future conditions were

only extrapolated from the 2007 movement data and aircraft fleet mix was also developed from

the 2007 movement data with modification to simulate the phase out of old noisy aircraft. The

contours were prepared by basic analysis with simplified modelling assumptions. Therefore, as

already acknowledged in the Final Assumptions Report which was presented as Appendix A of

the 2010 Final Noise Contour Report, it is expected that contours produced under a more detailed

analysis, such as that prepared under the current EIA study, would result in differing contour

shape and/or size.


7-11


7.3.3 Aircraft Noise Assessment Methodology

Inventory of Noise Sources

7.3.3.1 Regarding the noise sources inventory, for the prevailing aircraft noise in Year 2011, radar data

provided by the CAD have been analysed. For the future scenarios, data derived from the air

traffic forecast (including numbers of aircraft arriving and departing from HKIA, origination or

destination of each flight, type of aircraft, and cargo or passenger aircraft, etc., projected up to

2038) developed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and Total Airspace and

Airport Modeler (TAAM) simulations undertaken by National Air Traffic Service (NATS) have been

used as the basis for computer modeling, namely the Integrated Noise Model (INM), for the future

NEF environment. Results from TAAM simulations are considered as simulated radar flight track

data. As described in Sections 7.3.3.8 and 7.3.3.9, the assessment years covered for the future

scenarios include years 2021, 2030 and 2032. Appendix 2.1 in Chapter 2 provides details about

how the air traffic forecast, including busy day flight schedules was established by IATA.

Appendix 7.3.1 describes how the busy day flight schedules produced by IATA and used in

TAAM simulation are converted into relevant data on an annual average daily basis for input into

the INM model.

7.3.3.2 INM includes a comprehensive International Aircraft Noise and Performance (ANP) database in

accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Doc 9911 recommendations.

The INM’s ANP stores aircraft noise footprint information in the form of noise-power-distance

(NPD) curves. NPD curves relate aircraft performance and noise level in relation to the distance

between the aircraft and a receiver. The ANP database contained in the current version of INM

(Version 7.0dsu1) has incorporated several updates to the NPD curves database, including

Boeing 747-8F, the Boeing 777-300ER, and the Boeing 787-8, which are aircraft that are

projected to be commonly operating at HKIA in the future. INM includes a standard aircraft

substitution database relating aircraft with similar noise footprints. Appendix 7.3.2 describes

substitution used in the aircraft noise analysis and the associated justification for the substitution.

Computational Model

7.3.3.3 Section 5 Assessment Methodology of Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM, which describes the commonly

adopted approaches and methodologies for assessment of noise impact arising from designated

projects, does not specify a particular aircraft noise prediction methodology or computational

model for the purpose of aircraft noise assessment in Hong Kong. As per Section 2.1.1 in

Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief, the aircraft noise assessment shall be carried out in

accordance with guidelines set out by ICAO and the FAA.

7.3.3.4 The FAA’s INM Version 7.0dsu1, with its associated international accepted aircraft noise

calculation methodologies (ICAO Doc 9911, SAE-AIR-1845, SAE-AIR-5662, SAE-ARP-866A, and

ECAC Doc 29), has been proposed and utilised as the computational model in this aircraft noise

impact assessment. EPD has confirmed its agreement to adopt the INM as the computational

model in the current aircraft noise impact assessment. The INM has been used for the

development of NEF contours associated with the operations of HKIA since 1991.

7.3.3.5 The FAA’s INM is widely used world-wide by the civilian aviation community for evaluating aircraft

noise impacts in the vicinity of airports. INM was developed in the United States by the FAA

specifically for the assessment of aircraft noise exposure. INM is the most suitable computational


7-12


model for aircraft noise assessment at HKIA because of its flexibility and capability to calculate

NEF levels as described in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM. Details of INM are presented in Appendix

7.3.3.

7.3.3.6 The above-mentioned computer modeling and assessment methodology are well established and

in accordance with relevant guidelines and requirements of ICAO and FAA. Also, these are

primarily intended to be applied to civil commercial airports where operations consist mostly of

jet-engine powered or propeller-driven heavy aeroplanes and widely adopted in overseas airports.

Findings indicated that overseas international airports such as San Francisco International Airport,

Oakland International Airport and Memphis International Airport which are comparable to the

HKIA in terms of airport operation and capacity are adopting the methodology and computational

model for aircraft noise assessment. Therefore, it is considered suitable for the use of assessing

aircraft noise for the project.

Assessment Assumptions and Data

Aircraft Noise Study Scenarios

7.3.3.7 Before the aircraft noise impact associated with the future operation of the three-runway system

can be assessed, the assessment years of interest must first be identified. In relation to this, a

number of study scenarios have been specified in Clause 2.3.1 in Appendix C of the EIA Study

Brief, including (a) worst operation mode representing maximum noise emission scenario; (b) the

interim phase operation mode(s) representing the phase during which the existing North Runway

is closed and the proposed Third Runway is operational with the existing South Runway; (c) full

operation of the three-runway system at design capacity representing the operation of the

proposed Third Runway together with the two existing runways at design capacity; and (d) any

other operation modes as confirmed with EPD.

7.3.3.8 To initially screen year to represent worst operation mode for maximum noise emission,

Sequential INM Analysis is performed, evaluating the detailed air traffic forecast data developed

by IATA for each year from years 2023 to 2038, assuming the average-annual daily operational

conditions and corresponding fleet mix unique to each year. The analysis involved development

of a simplified INM model to produce results for comparing the impact of the changes in number

of operations and fleet mix forecast each year in terms of noise contour area. The year with the

largest total area within the NEF 25 contour was identified as the “worst operation mode”, in

accordance with the EIA Study Brief requirement that the worst operation mode should represent

the maximum noise emission scenario. Further details of the aforesaid Sequential INM Analysis

are presented in Appendix 7.3.4, and concluded that 2030 represents the year with maximum

noise emission scenario.

7.3.3.9 In addition to the worst operation mode, the assessment year for the Interim Phase (with the third

runway operational and with closure of the existing north runway) has been determined to be

2021 (as a conservative approach amongst 2021 and 2022 sharing same capacity and similar

fleet mix). Besides, based on the IATA’s forecast developed for each year from 2023 to 2038, it

is predicted that the future operation of the three-runway system may start to reach design

capacity from year 2032. As detailed data including projected change in fleet mix when the three-

runway system starts to operate at design capacity have been forecast by IATA up to year 2038,

the change in fleet mix has also been considered in the above-mentioned Sequential INM


7-13


analysis and this has indicated that year 2032 would be most representative in terms of noise

emission and has been selected to represent the design capacity scenario.

Primary Mode of Operation Assumptions

7.3.3.10 The “Arrivals only, Departures only, Mixed” (ADM) for the third (new north), centre and south

runways, respectively recommended by NATS and described in Section 5.18 of the HKIA Master

Plan 2030 Technical Report will be adopted as the primary mode of operation for the three-

runway system.

7.3.3.11 Developed from the preliminary aircraft noise analysis undertaken in the preparation of the

MP2030, a number of aircraft noise mitigation measures have been identified and these will be

implemented as standard HKIA operating procedures in the operation of the 3RS under the

primary operating mode. These design measures include:

� Putting the existing south runway on standby where possible at night between 2300 and 0659.

The runway mode of operation is further described under Sections 7.3.3.22 to 7.3.3.23;

� Requiring departures to take the southbound route via West Lamma Channel during east flow

at night from 2300 to 0659, subject to acceptable operational and safety consideration. This is

an arrangement that is consistent with the existing requirement in the operation of the two-

runway system at night;

� A new arrival Required Navigation Performance (RNP2) Track 6 has been designed for

preferential use in the west flow direction (i.e., runway 25 direction) between 2300 and 0659

and it is assumed that up to 95% of flights may preferentially use this new Track 6 instead of

the existing straight-in tracks by year 2030; and

� Implementing a preferential runway use programme when wind conditions allow such that

west flow is used when departures dominate while east flow is used when arrivals dominate

during night-time.

7.3.3.12 Taking into account the commitment to put the existing south runway on standby where possible

at night between 2300 and 0659 and the runway maintenance schedules, the runway modes

involved for non-peak hour operations were developed and these are as summarised in Table

7.3.6. Validity of the above measures, and other relevant input data, including operation modes,

which are described below has been confirmed with CAD. It shall be noted that, however, actual

operations, exact runway modes of the HKIA could be subject to the need of tactical situation,

and to operate the runways in different modes under contingency situations.

INM Input Data and Output Data

7.3.3.13 INM input data is based on the conditions of a typical operational 24-hour day. Section 2.1.3 (a)

of the EIA Study Brief requires the 24-hour input data to be based on an annual average daily

condition. Results from TAAM simulations, considered as simulated radar data for future scenario,

_________________________

2 RNP is a method of navigation which permits aircraft operations on any desired flight path within the coverage of station-referenced

navigation aids or within the limits of the capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these, with the addition of an on-board performance monitoring and alerting capability.


7-14


are fed into INM. This approach is in accordance with ICAO Doc 9911 and provides a more

robust and sophisticated assessment method, which would allow more accurate accounting for

the spatial dispersion of flight paths.

7.3.3.14 Adequate input data is a key element necessary and was adopted to obtain representative results

with INM, and it includes the following categories:

� ANP Database;

� Aircraft fleet mix;

� Airport layout;

� Aircraft flight tracks; and

� Aircraft operational data (including time of day information).

7.3.3.15 The following data and assumptions were used to develop the aircraft noise assessment

scenarios. Detailed data and assumptions are provided in the Appendix 7.3.5.

7.3.3.16 Airport Layout: the runway coordinates (in terms of different systems), elevations and other

relevant information of the two- and three-runway system were utilised in the analysis as shown

in Table 7.3.3. The source of existing airport layout parameters was the most current information

published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). For the third runway, which has not

been constructed yet, relevant design information has been obtained from the Project’s

Engineering Design Consultants.

Table 7.3.3: Runway Information

Runway WGS1984 Hong Kong 1980 Grid INM

Elevation (feet)

Displaced Threshold (feet)

Approach Glideslope Longitude Latitude Easting Northing X Y

Existing Two-Runway Information

07R 113.897975 22.296202 807528.2927 817501.7048 -0.9252 -0.7604 27 525 3.0

25L 113. 932819 22.307431 811120.9735 818738.8805 1.0135 -0.0890 27 0 3.0

07L* 113.896377 22.310405 807366.6340 819074.8091 -1.0140 0.0889 22 568 3.0

25R* 113.931232 22.321636 810959.9687 820312.2199 0.9251 0.7604 22 571 3.0

Future Three-Runway Information

07L 113.880699 22.321073 805753.4610 820259.2030 -1.8861 0.7269 26.3 571 3.0

25R 113.915551 22.332305 809346.4320 821496.3610 0.0527 1.3982 26.3 571 3.1

07C 113.897498 22.310767 807482.1700 819114.6590 -0.9516 0.1105 26.3 561 3.0

25C 113.928451 22.320740 810673.2960 820213.4510 0.7704 0.7068 26.6 561 3.0

07R 113.897975 22.296202 807528.2927 817501.7048 -0.9252 -0.7604 27.0 525 3.0

25L 113.932819 22.307431 811120.9735 818738.8805 1.0135 -0.0890 27.0 0 3.0

*The existing 07L and 25R to be 07C and 25C of the Future Three-Runway Source: Existing: VHHH Table AD2.12 Runway Physical Characteristics Note: Existing 07L/25R will be modified during interim phase to form 07C/25C under 3RS.

7.3.3.17 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix: for the prevailing scenario in Year 2011, the primary source

for operations and fleet mix was the radar data provided by CAD. For the future assessment


7-15


scenarios, the results of the TAAM simulation undertaken by NATS based on the IATA’s air traffic

forecast provided the detailed information on aircraft operations and fleet mix required for the

noise modelling. The input data were summarised as follows: the number of aircraft movements

categorised by country of origin/destination, IATA aircraft type, IATA aircraft sub-type, aircraft

type description, aircraft group, time of day, and profile stage number. The overall annual aircraft

movements are summarised in Table 7.3.4.

Table 7.3.4: Overall Aircraft Movements

Year Total Annual Average Movements

Arrival Departure Total

2021 209,792 210,208 420,000

2030 303,675 303,805 607,480

2032 309,701 310,299 620,000

7.3.3.18 Day / Night Distribution: before aircraft movements can be distributed by runway and flight

track, the day/night split must be determined (day is defined as between 0700 and 2159, and

night is defined as 2200 to 0659). This is necessary because the NEF noise metric includes a

penalty for aircraft movements occurring in the night-time period. The periods are delineated by

airport operation and the said night penalty and include: Day 1 (0700 to 0759), Day 2 (0800 to

2159), Night 1 (2200 to 2259), Night 2 (2300 to 2359), Night 3 (0000 to 0059), Night 4 (0100 to

0459), and Night 5 (0500 to 0659). For 2021, Night 3 would end until 0129 with Night 4 starting at

0130 in line with the existing 2-runway operation.

7.3.3.19 The temporal distribution of air traffic movements (ATM) throughout the day under the worst

operation mode and at design capacity was forecast to be at approximately 81-82% during the

NEF daytime period of 0700 to 2159 and 18-19% for the night-time period of 2200 to 0659 in

years 2030 and 2032. For year 2021, taking into account the scheduling requirement to be

introduced in the operation of the existing two-runway system before the future operation of the

three-runway system, it was assumed that 80% of ATM would occur during the NEF daytime

period, based on the past trend.

7.3.3.20 Runway Maintenance Closure Period: relevant information regarding the runway maintenance

closure period that may be adopted during night-time from 0100 to 0759 in the future 3RS

operation was obtained from the Project’s Engineering Design Consultants and agreed with CAD

and AAHK for use in the study.

7.3.3.21 South Runway in Standby Mode at Night: as discussed earlier, AAHK has made a commitment

to put the existing south runway on standby at night from 2300 to 0659 where possible in the

future 3RS operation, which is a measure intended to minimise aircraft noise impact along the

North Lantau shoreline. Taking into account operational requirements such as recovering from

an incident or other major operational disruption (e.g. typhoon), it was assumed that the south

runway would only be used for 1% of total yearly night period in the noise modelling run for the

years 2030 and 2032 scenarios.

7.3.3.22 Runway Mode of Operation: the primary source for runway mode of operation was the radar

data provided by CAD for the prevailing scenario in Year 2011, and the results of the NATS

TAAM simulation for future scenarios.


7-16


7.3.3.23 Runway mode is mainly classified as arrival, departure, mixed (i.e. both arrival and departure),

maintenance, standby and closed, as summarised in Table 7.3.5 and Table 7.3.6. As already

pointed out in Section 7.3.3.12, it shall be noted that the runway operating modes of the HKIA

would be subject to the need of tactical situation, and to operate the runways in different modes

under contingency situations. It shall also be noted that during the transitional hours (i.e., 2300 to

0059 and 0700 to 0759) when two out of three runways are in use, they will be operated primarily

in a segregated mode, with one runway dedicated to departures and the other to arrivals, but

there could be variations from this general pattern for operational reasons as in the existing 2RS

operation.

Table 7.3.5: Runway Operation Mode in Year 2021

Year 2021 0700 to 0759 0800 to 0129 0130 to 0659

Day 1 Day 2, Night 1, 2 and 3 Night 4 and 5

Pattern A Pattern B ----- Pattern A Pattern B

North Mix Maintenance Arrival Mix Maintenance

Centre Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed

South Maintenance Mix Departure Maintenance Mix

Table 7.3.6: Runway Operation Mode in Years 2030 and 2032

Year 2030

and 2032

0700 to 0759 0800 to 2259 2300 to 0059 0100 to 0659

Day 1 Day 2 and Night

1 Night 2 and 3 Night 4 and 5

Pattern A Pattern B Pattern C ----- ----- Pattern A Pattern B and C

North Arrival Maintenance Arrival Arrival Arrival Mix Standby/Maintenance

Centre Maintenance Departure Departure Departure Departure Maintenance Mix

South Departure Arrival Maintenance Mix Standby Standby Standby/Maintenance

7.3.3.24 Runway Utilisation: same as the above runway mode of operation, the primary source for

runway utilisation was the radar data provided by CAD for the prevailing scenario in Year 2011,

and the results of the NATS TAAM simulation for future scenarios.

7.3.3.25 East / West Distribution: taking into account the available historical wind data at HKIA and the

existing runway operational data obtained from CAD and AAHK, and the ability of aircraft to

operate at slight tail wind conditions, a runway utilisation of 60% for left / centre / right runways in

the east flow direction (i.e., runways 07L/C/R) and 40% for left / centre / right runways in the west

flow direction (i.e., runways 25L/C/R) has been adopted between the hours of 0700 and 2259 in

the noise modelling run for the years 2021, 2030 and 2032 scenarios. During the night-time

period from 2300 to 0659, with consideration of the existing requirement on preferential use of the

07 runways as specified in Clause 2.3.1 in AD2.21 of the Hong Kong Aeronautical Information

Publication (AIP) published by the CAD and existing runway operational data, a runway utilisation

of 90% for runways 07L/C/R and 10% for runways 25L/C/R has been considered in the modelling

run for the year 2021 scenario. For years 2030 and 2032, with the proposed preferential runway

use programme as described in Section 7.3.3.11, and the ability of aircraft to operate at slight tail

wind conditions and hence the extent of west flow that is practicable (and that would allow

departing flight to fly over water during the hours when departures dominate), a runway utilisation

of 55% for runways 07L/C/R and 45% for runways 25L/C/R has been adopted between 2300 and

0459 (i.e., the hours when departures dominate). Between 0500 and 0659 when arrivals are


7-17


expected to dominate, 90% utilisation for runways 07L/C/R and 10% utilisation for runways

25L/C/R has been assumed in the modelling run for years 2030 and 2032.

7.3.3.26 Flight Tracks and Flight Track Utilisation: the primary source for flight tracks and flight track

utilisation was the radar data provided by CAD for the 2011 prevailing scenario, and the results of

the TAAM simulation undertaken by NATS with respect to digital flight tracks for the future

scenarios. Flight track dispersion is inherent in the radar data and the TAAM simulation,

therefore, no further analysis is required. Aircraft flight path or trajectory is a full description of the

three-dimensional motion of an aircraft in the airspace. Time is the fourth dimension which is

accounted for by using the aircraft’s speed. The flight path of an aircraft is typically referenced to

an origin at the start of the take-off roll or at the landing threshold. Aircraft flight paths have two

components: a vertical projection of the flight path on the ground usually known as flight track or

ground track representing the aircraft’s motion in a horizontal plane; and a flight track profile

representing the aircraft’s motion in a vertical plane above the ground.

7.3.3.27 ICAO Doc 9911 provides recommendations associated with the modelling of flight track profiles.

A flight track profile is a description of the aircraft’s motion in the vertical plane above the ground,

in terms of position, speed, bank angle, and engine power setting. The FAA INM 7.0dsu1

database includes ICAO and FAA standard profiles consistent with the most recent update

(December 28th, 2012) of the international ANP database (www.aircraftnoisemodel.org).

7.3.3.28 A summary of the flight tracks alignment considered under different operation modes are shown

in Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-004 to 006. Further details with respect to the flight tracks used

at different time periods during night-time and details on flight track utilisation rates can be found

in Attachment 4 of Appendix 7.3.5.

7.3.3.29 Other Parameters: additional data which was collected included model parameters, which are

factors not directly related to aircraft operation but define other factors that affect noise levels.

Model parameters include, but are not limited to, the following: change in headwind, average

meteorological conditions, resolution of the calculation grid, terrain, and attenuation factors.

7.3.3.30 All the data and assumptions were reviewed and processed as necessary to develop noise

contour projections using the FAA’s INM Version 7.0dsu1. In accordance with the requirement

set out in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief, validity of the above assumptions, input data, and

operation modes have been confirmed with CAD. Details of the input data and assumptions used

in the INM modelling are presented in Appendix 7.3.5. Careful consideration was taken when

modelling aircraft operations, particularly when modelling existing and proposed aircraft noise

mitigation measures that included specific RNP departure and arrival procedures, as well as

preferential runway use practices.

Night-time Penalty

7.3.3.31 The NEF noise metric includes a night-time penalty of 16.67 (approximately 12 dB) for flights

operating between 2200 to 0659 hours (a 9-hour time period).

INM Calculation Grid


7-18


7.3.3.32 INM performs noise calculations on a mathematical grid. The grid points define locations where

noise levels are calculated, and it can be defined by a single point or as many points as can be

supported by the computer’s capacity. Generally, ten thousand grid points produce acceptable

noise contours. In addition, smaller grids with a higher point density can be defined in areas that

required a more detailed analysis of noise levels. Recommendations described in ICAO Doc

9911 Chapter 6: Calculation of Noise Contours have been used to define the considerations for

noise grid calculation and refinement. Generally, a grid with points spaced 700 to 1,000 feet (i.e.

approx. 210 to 305 meters) has provided good resolution of NEF contours.

Meteorological Data

7.3.3.33 Monthly meteorological data sets for Year 2011 were obtained from the Hong Kong Observatory

for the station located at the HKIA.

7.3.3.34 The primary sources of meteorological information were datasets published by the Hong Kong

Observatory (www.weather.gov.hk). Table 7.3.7 provides preliminary Hong Kong specific

meteorological information required by SAE-ARP-866A, which is the standard for describing

methodologies for estimating parameters such as the absorption of sound in air based on a wide

range of temperature and humidity conditions. An appropriate INM scenario/case structure was

defined to take into account the meteorological factors shown in Table 7.3.7.

Table 7.3.7: Monthly Means of Key Meteorological Elements at HKIA Year 2011

Month

Average Air Temperature (

oC)

Average Relative Humidity (%)

Average Atmospheric Pressure (hPa)

Prevailing Wind Direction and Speed (km/h)

Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Direction Min Max

January 10.6 13.0 15.9 48 61 75 1,017.5 1,022.0 1017.5 360 10.5 31.7

February 14.1 16.5 19.7 55 71 86 1,009.1 1,017.1 1022.9 090 8.5 23.6

March 15.7 18.2 21.5 49 65 82 1,011.3 1,018.9 1023.5 080 8.6 24.8

April 20.7 23.7 27.5 49 68 85 1,008.0 1,014.0 1019.2 100 9.7 28.6

May 24.2 26.6 29.9 59 74 87 1,005.8 1,009.2 1013.7 100 7.6 25.7

June 26.9 29.4 32.5 59 75 88 997.6 1,005.2 1009.5 160 10.0 38.7

July 27.2 29.7 33.0 59 74 88 999.6 1,004.4 1009.1 230 9.1 29.1

August 27.9 30.5 34.0 53 70 84 999.7 1,006.2 1011.0 160 8.4 16.2

September 26.5 29.1 325 53 69 84 1,000.8 1,007.7 1011.9 110 8.8 49.4

October 23.3 25.6 28.6 56 70 83 1,009.4 1,014.0 1017.8 050 9.3 30.1

November 21.8 23.9 26.8 54 69 81 1,009.3 1,015.5 1021.6 100 8.5 24.5

December 14.5 17.3 20.3 41 54 69 1,017.2 1,021.3 1025.5 050 10.7 29.3

Year 21.1 23.6 26.9 52.9 68.3 82.7 1,007.1 1,013.0 1016.9 --- 9.1 29.3

Evaluation and Assessment of Aircraft Noise Impact

7.3.3.35 Using the airport operational data and assumptions, INM computer modelling was used to

develop aircraft noise contours to satisfy the requirements of the EIAO-TM and the EIA Study

Brief. The FAA’s INM Version 7.0dsu1 was used to generate cumulative noise contours for

average-annual daily conditions assuming the NEF metric. NEF was adopted as the noise

descriptor for aircraft noise in Hong Kong, including previous relevant noise studies at HKIA.


7-19


7.3.3.36 The noise contours were developed according to the technical guidelines described in the INM

User’s Guide, the INM Technical Manual, as well as the most recent release notes associated

with INM Version 7.0dsu1. In addition, the guidelines and recommendations described in ICAO

Doc 9911 were followed.

7.3.3.37 The modelled NEF contours were overlaid on base maps in conjunction with the geographic

location of the NSRs in the vicinity of the airport. Through the use of Geographic Information

System (GIS), potential noise impact would be quantified in terms of number of affected NSRs in

accordance with the EIA Study Brief requirements. The locations of NSRs relative to the NEF

contours were reviewed and their potential for impact with Table 1A contained in EIAO-TM Annex

5, as summarised in Table 7.2.1, were assessed.

7.3.4 Evaluation and Assessment of Aircraft Noise Impact

Summary of Aircraft Noise Study Scenarios

7.3.4.1 Based on the EIA Study Brief requirements, the relevant assessment scenarios that will require

consideration in the aircraft noise impact assessment have been identified and these are

described in this section.

7.3.4.2 Scenario 1 - Worst Operation Mode (i.e., Year 2030): scenario representing the worst operation

mode and maximum noise emission in connection with a combination of number of aircraft

operations, fleet mix, runway utilisation, flight track utilisation, and time of day. This scenario

represents the worst assessment year that is expected to occur within the period when the

Project commences operation to the year the Project reaches and operates at full capacity. The

specific worst assessment year has been identified through the Sequential INM Analysis as

described earlier. This has been determined to be Year 2030, with operation mode described in

Table 7.3.8 to Table 7.3.10.

Table 7.3.8: Runway Utilisation Mode under Pattern A in Year 2030

Pattern A

Time Period 07L-25R (North) 07C-25C (Centre) 07R-25L (South)

0000–0059 Arrival Departure Standby

0100–0659 Mixed Mode Maintenance Standby

0700–0759 Arrival Maintenance Departure

0800–2259 Arrival Departure Mixed Mode


Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

Table 7.3.9: Runway Utilisation Mode under Pattern B in Year 2030

Pattern B



0100–0659 Maintenance Mixed Mode Standby

0700–0759 Maintenance Departure Arrival





7-20


Table 7.3.10: Runway Utilisation Mode under Pattern C in Year 2030

Pattern C



0100–0659 Standby Mixed Mode Maintenance

0700–0759 Arrival Departure Maintenance




7.3.4.3 As described in Section 7.3.3.11, a number of noise mitigation measures have been incorporated

into the design of the primary operation mode and these measures include putting the existing

south runway on standby where possible at night between 2300 and 0659; requiring departures

to take the southbound route via West Lamma Channel during east flow at night from 2300 to

0659, subject to acceptable operational and safety consideration; relocating arrivals to the 25

runways between 2300 and 0659 from the straight-in tracks to a new arrival RNP Track 6 for

preferential use; and implementing a preferential runway use programme when wind conditions

allow such that west flow is used when departures dominate while east flow is used when arrivals

dominate during night-time, as illustrated in Table 7.3.11. Attachments 3 and 4 of Appendix 7.3.5

summarises the associated runway and flight track utilisations.

Table 7.3.11: Approximate East/West Distribution adopted in Refined Primary Operation Mode in

2030 Scenario

Time Period East Flow # West Flow # Operational Pattern

Day 1 – 0700-0759

60%

40%

A: 2 of 7 days (or approx. 29% of yearly total)

B: 3 of 7 days (or approx. 43% of yearly total)

C: 2 of 7 days (or approx. 29% of yearly total)

Day 2 – 0800-2159 Arrivals (A): North Runway

Departures (D): Centre Runway

Mixed Mode (M): South Runway Night 1 – 2200-2259

Night 2 – 2300-2359 * 55%

45%




Night 3 – 0000-0059 *

Night 4 – 0100-0459 *

Night 5 – 0500-0659 90% 10%

Remarks: * Implementing a preferential runway use programme when wind conditions allow such that west flow is used

when departures dominate while east flow is used when arrivals dominate during night-time as discussed in Section

7.3.3.11. # Exact east / west split percentages would be subject to actual wind conditions.

7.3.4.4 Scenario 2 - Interim Phase (i.e. Year 2021): scenario representing the phase during which the

third runway is operational and with closure of the existing north runway, as per Section 2.3.1(b)

of Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief. This has been determined to be Year 2021, with operation

mode described in Table 7.3.12 to Table 7.3.14. The associated runway and flight track

utilisations are summarised in Attachments 3 and 4 of Appendix 7.3.5.

Table 7.3.12: Operation Mode for Scenario 2 – Interim Phase (Year 2021)


Day 1 – 0700-0759 60% 40% A: 50% of yearly total


7-21



B: 50% of yearly total


Closed: Centre Runway

Departures (D): South Runway

Night 1 – 2200-2259

Night 2 – 2300-2359 90%

10%

Night 3 – 0000-0129

Night 4 – 0130-0459 A: 50% of yearly total

B: 50% of yearly total Night 5 – 0500-0659

Remark: # Exact east / west split percentages would be subject to actual wind conditions.


Pattern A


0000–0129 Arrival Under Modification Departure

0130–0659 Mixed Mode Under Modification Maintenance

0700–0759 Mixed Mode Under Modification Maintenance

0800-2259 Arrival Under Modification Departure

2300-2359 Arrival Under Modification Departure


Centre Runway: closed for modification


Pattern B



0130–0659 Maintenance Under Modification Mixed Mode

0700–0759 Maintenance Under Modification Mixed Mode




Centre Runway: closed for modification

7.3.4.5 Scenario 3 - Design Capacity (i.e. Year 2032): scenario representing full operation at the design

capacity of the Three-Runway system, as per Section 2.3.1(c) of Appendix C of the EIA Study

Brief. This has been represented by the air traffic forecast including fleet mix produced by IATA

for Year 2032, with the implementation of the same refined primary operation mode as that for

Year 2030 and are reproduced in Table 7.3.15 to Table 7.3.18.

Table 7.3.15: Approximate East/West Distribution adopted in Refined Primary Operation Mode in

2032 Scenario


Day 1 – 0700-0759

60% 40%





Departures (D): Centre Runway

Mixed Mode (M): South Runway Night 1 – 2200-2259


7-22



Night 2 – 2300-2359 *

55% 45% A: 2 of 7 days (or approx. 29% of yearly total)



Night 3 – 0000-0059 *

Night 4 – 0100-0459 *

Night 5 – 0500-0659 90% 10%

Remarks: * Implementing a preferential runway use programme when wind conditions allow such that west flow is used

when departures dominate while east flow is used when arrivals dominate during night-time as discussed in Section

7.3.3.11. # Exact east / west split percentages would be subject to actual wind conditions.


Pattern A



0100–0659 Mixed Mode Maintenance Standby

0700–0759 Arrival Maintenance Departure





Pattern B



0100–0659 Maintenance Mixed Mode Standby

0700–0759 Maintenance Departure Arrival




Table 7.3.18: Runway Utilisation Mode under Pattern C in Year 2032

Pattern C



0100–0659 Standby Mixed Mode Maintenance

0700–0759 Arrival Departure Maintenance




7.3.4.6 Similar to discussion as above, primary operation will be adopted for design capacity scenario,

taking into account airport design and planned operational procedure. Attachments 3 and 4 of

Appendix 7.3.5 summarises the associated runway and flight track utilisations.


7-23


Assessment Findings of Various Study Scenarios

7.3.4.7 Scenario 1 - Worst Operation Mode (Year 2030): NEF 25 and 30 contours were generated

using INM 7.0dsu1 based on the input data representing the refined primary mode of operation

during the worst – assessment year i.e. the maximum aircraft noise emission associated with a

combination of number of aircraft, type of aircraft, runway utilisation, and flight tracks utilisation

during a 24-hour time period. The results are shown in Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-007.

7.3.4.8 The NEF 25 contour is predicted to encroach onto the Lok On Pai area, which has been zoned

for a planned Comprehensive Development Area (CDA). Since relevant at-source noise

mitigation measures have already been incorporated into the design of the primary operating

mode for the future operation of the three-runway system, as an additional direct mitigation

measure, it is recommended that in developing the Master Layout Plan (MLP) for the CDA site,

the alignment of the NEF 25 contour line should be taken into account. The Planning Department

(PlanD) has been informed of the requirement on the non-noise sensitive uses within the NEF 25

contour line for its preparation of the planning brief to control the future development in the CDA

site in Lok On Pai through the established planning mechanism and also in the lease

7.3.4.9 In view of its close proximity to the Airport Island, a slight overlap of the NEF 25 contour remains

over Sha Lo Wan and certain villages along Lantau shorelines as already indicated in NAMP-EIA

Supplement and 1998 NAMP-EIA Update. However, the impact has been reduced by shifting the

contour northward with use of the new runway and placing the south runway into standby mode

during night-time period to the extent practical. Potential noise impacts on surrounding

communities were considered along with the overriding goals of meeting the purpose and need

for the project and the need to maintain safe and efficient airport operations. It is considered that

all practicable direct mitigation measures (such as control of night flight movement over

residential area, restriction of aircraft type in night-time period, use of RNP, etc.) have been

evaluated, adopted and exhausted (as elaborated below), considering practicability,

effectiveness, orientation of the airport (important to avoid intersecting flight tracks), runway

separation (need to allow simultaneous operations while limiting taxi distances), new runway

stagger (need to provide for missed approach procedures and need to avoid air-draft conflict with

shipping lane west of the airport) and maintenance of safe aviation operations (including

consideration of local topography, separation between arrival and departure flights, approach

procedures, etc.). The said slight overlap of the NEF 25 contour would affect about 74 village

houses/licensed structures and all of these, which are situated within the villages named in Table

7.3.2, will be offered the provision of indirect noise mitigation measures in the form of window

insulation and air-conditioning before the operation of the third runway as discussed in Section

7.3.2.10. Therefore, no further mitigation measure is required.

� Control of night flight movement over residential area: one of the noise mitigation

measures that has been recommended for implementation in the future operation of 3RS is to

require departures to take the southbound route via West Lamma Channel during east flow at

night from 2300 to 0659, subject to acceptable operational and safety consideration. This

measure is consistent with the existing requirement in the operation of the two-runway system

and would continue to effectively reduce the number of departing aircraft overflying populated

residential areas. For arrivals to HKIA, together with the new arrival Required Navigation

Performance Track 6 designed for preferential use in the runway 25 direction that will allow

suitably equipped aircraft to reduce the portion of their approach path over populated areas,

the implementation of the proposed preferential runway use programme (such that west flow is


7-24


used when departures dominate while east flow is used when arrivals dominate during night-

time when wind conditions allow) will also reduce the number of arriving aircraft overflying

populated residential areas. For Sha Lo Wan and other village houses along Lantau

shorelines that would inevitably be situated within the NEF 25 contour given their proximity,

the extent of aircraft noise impact has already been minimised by the effective measure of

putting the existing south runway on standby where possible at night. It is considered not

practicable to further control night flight movements to address the residual impact at these

affected village houses given their proximity to the runways where aircraft departures and

arrivals cannot be avoided. It shall also be noted that, as described above, these village

houses will be offered the provision of indirect noise mitigation measures in the form of

window insulation and air-conditioning before the operation of the third runway.

� Restriction of aircraft type in night-time period: as described in Section 7.3.2.8, a number

of short-term noise mitigation measures would be implemented prior to the 3RS operation and

these already include the new measure of banning the scheduling of MCC3 from landing and

take-off during night-time between 2300 to 0659 (the MCC3-Prohibited Period) starting from

end of March 2014. Chapter 3 aircrafts are still currently the dominant aircraft family operating

worldwide. Therefore, any further step of banning of all Chapter 3 aircrafts (instead of MCC3)

from operation during night-time can have significant economic implications for some of the

airlines operating in HKIA and so its feasibility is yet to be established depending on future

development of the aviation industry;

� Use of Required Navigation Performance system: RNP procedures are a set of flight

procedures whereby aircraft with the appropriate navigation equipment and qualified flight

crew can fly complex flight paths with a certain degree of accuracy. In addition to the standard

Track to Fix (TF) path terminator, RNP procedures also support Radius to Fix (RF) path

terminator, which allows aircraft with appropriate capability to operate on flight paths curved to

a specified radius. These general characteristics of the RNP procedure i.e., a curved,

consistent and precise flight path could help to reduce noise impact at locations near the flight

path, in addition to other benefits such as improving operational efficiency and increasing

airspace safety. For the existing 2RS operation, CAD has already introduced the use of a

Basic-RNP 13

requirement for Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard

Instrument Arrivals (STARs) since January 20134 and it is expected that similar requirements

will be applicable to all departure and arrival tracks in the future operation of 3RS. It is

reckoned that the reduction of aircraft noise impact from the application of RNP system on

certain departure and arrival flight tracks will be comparable to that from the use of

conventional navigation aids, and it is considered that the use of RNP system on Tracks 2 and

6 will be beneficial in mitigating the noise impact on the residential areas, especially at night.

For departures to the northeast from HKIA during night-time, the use of RNP-based departure

procedures using Track 2 will allow aircraft to adhere closely to the nominal flight track when

making the turn to the West Lamma Channel, thereby confining the aircraft noise footprint over

water and reducing the aircraft noise impact on areas in the vicinity of the flight track. These

existing noise mitigation departure procedures established by CAD will continue to be

applicable in the future operation of the 3RS. Similarly, preferential use of the arrival RNP

_________________________

3 Basic-RNP 1 is one specific navigation specification of RNP

4 See the relevant Aeronautical Information Circulars (AIC) issued by CAD, such as AIC 12/ 13 dated 07 June 2013 at:

http://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/aic/AIC12-13.pdf


7-25


Track 6 instead of the straight-in Tracks 4 and 5 at night would minimise the aircraft noise

impacts on the inland populated areas.

7.3.4.10 As discussed in Section 7.3.1, the aircraft noise impact assessment covers the entire Hong Kong

territory. With reference to the noise contour presented in Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-007,

Table 7.3.19 summarises the NEF ranges predicted for the areas of interest listed in Table 7.3.1.

It is observed that most of the areas would have aircraft noise levels that are substantially below

the standard for aircraft noise in EIAO-TM of NEF 25, which are annotated as <25 or << 25 as

shown in Table 7.3.19.

7.3.4.11 Scenario 2 - Interim Phase (Year 2021): NEF 25 and 30 contours were generated using INM

7.0dsu1 based on the input data in 2021 representing the maximum noise emission scenario

during the interim phase period. The results are shown in Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-008.

7.3.4.12 The centre runway will be under modification and closed to all aircraft operations. During that

time the new north and the existing south runways will be handling all the aircraft operations. As

shown in Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-008, during the interim phase period, the 2021 NEF 25

contour would still be causing impact to Sha Lo Wan and certain village houses/licensed

structures along North Lantau shorelines due to the close proximity of these areas to the airport.

It shall also be noted that taking into account projected increase in ATM in the coming years, the

2021 NEF 25 contour does not encroach on any existing noise sensitive receivers in the Tung

Chung area and will not affect any noise sensitive land uses planned on the existing vacant land.

Table 7.3.19 also presents the NEF values under this scenario at the areas of key interested.

During the interim phase when there are only two operating runways, it was also noted that it

would not be possible to introduce measures such as putting the south runway on standby as in

the future operation of the 3RS. It is therefore considered that all practicable direct mitigation

measures (such as control of night flight movement over residential area, restriction of aircraft

type in night-time period, use of Required Navigation Performance system etc.) have been

evaluated and exhausted, considering practicability and effectiveness. There are about 373

village houses/licensed structures that would be affected (i.e., within NEF 25 contour) during the

interim phase of 2021 which is slightly above the number of 346 estimated for 2011 as shown in

Table 7.3.2. However, all 373 village houses/ licensed structures will be offered the provision of

indirect noise mitigation measures in the form of window insulation and air-conditioning before the

operation of the third runway because, as described in Section 7.3.2.10, the proposed indirect

noise mitigation measures cover the whole affected villages.

7.3.4.13 Scenario 3 – Design Capacity (Year 2032): Similar to Scenarios 2 above, NEF 25 and 30

contours were generated using INM 7.0dsu1 for Year 2032 based on the input data representing

the future operation including anticipated change in the fleet mix as forecast by IATA when the

3RS starts to reach design capacity from Year 2032. The fleet mixes in years following 2032

show improvement in terms of noise emission and therefore 2032 is selected to represent the

scenario. The results are shown in Drawing MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-009.

7.3.4.14 The total ATM in 2032 is only about 2% higher than that in 2030 (Table 7.3.4 refers).With

improved aircraft technology, engine noise would be reduced with time and therefore it is

expected that overall aircraft noise emission would decrease, though at individual sites it is

expected that the extent of encroachment may slightly vary when compared with that of the 2030

NEF noise contours. Table 7.3.19 also presents the NEF values under this scenario at the areas

of key interested. As discussed above in Section 7.3.4.8, when developing the MLP for the


7-26


future development at the CDA site in Lok On Pai, aircraft noise should be a consideration to

ensure that no noise sensitive uses are situated within the NEF 25 contour line. The PlanD has

been informed of the requirement on the non-noise sensitive uses within the NEF 25 contour line

for its preparation of the planning brief to control the future development in the CDA site in Lok

On Pai through the established planning mechanism and also in the lease. Besides, based on the

assessment findings for both the worst operation mode (i.e., 2030 scenario) and the design

capacity mode (i.e., 2032 scenario) of the 3RS, the predicted NEF 25 contours of the 3RS would

be away from the proposed Tung Chung New Town Extension from commencement of operation

of the 3RS.

7.3.4.15 Regarding Sha Lo Wan area and certain villages along North Lantau shorelines, in view of its

close proximity to the airport island, it is considered that all practicable direct noise mitigation

measures (as listed in Section 7.3.4.9 above.) have been evaluated and exhausted, considering

practicability and effectiveness, similar to the situation of 2030 and the slight overlap of the 25

NEF contour would be unavoidable. There are about 79 village houses/licensed structures to be

affected under this scenario. All of these are covered within the NEF 25 contour in the prevailing

scenario and therefore, as described in Section 7.3.2.10, will be offered the provision of indirect

noise mitigation measures in the form of window insulation and air-conditioning before the

operation of the third runway. Hence, further mitigation measure is not considered necessary.

7.3.4.16 The approximate NEF range at concerned areas under future scenarios are tabulated below.

Table 7.3.19: Approximate NEF Range at Concerned Areas under Future Scenarios

Ref. Concerned Areas named in the EIA Study Brief

Approx. NEF Range based on INM Modelling Results

Scenario 1 – Worst Operation Mode (Year 2030)

Scenario 2 – Interim Phase (Year 2021)

Scenario 3 – Design Capacity (Year 2032)

1 Ma Wan < 25 < 25 < 25

2 Tuen Mun << 25 << 25 << 25

3 Tsing Lung Tau << 25 << 25 << 25

4 Shatin << 25 << 25 << 25

5 Ma On Shan << 25 << 25 << 25

6 Tsuen Wan << 25 << 25 << 25

7 Sham Tseng << 25 << 25 << 25

8 Tsing Yi << 25 << 25 << 25

9 Tung Chung < 25 < 25 < 25

10 Tai Kok Tsui << 25 << 25 << 25

11 Siu Lam < 25 (except a portion in Lok On Pai)

< 25 < 25 (except a portion in Lok On Pai)

12 Yuen Long << 25 << 25 << 25

13 Kwai Chung << 25 << 25 << 25

14 Sha Lo Wan 25 to 30 25 to 30 25 to 30

15 North Lantau Villages

25 to 30 25 to 30 25 to 30

Remark: <25 generally close to but outside NEF 25, whilst <<25 substantially below the EIAO-TM criterion of NEF 25

7.3.4.17 Further to the NEF values presented above, the aforesaid estimated numbers of village

houses/licensed structures being affected by aircraft noise under future scenarios are

summarised in Table 7.3.20.


7-27


Table 7.3.20: Estimated Number of Village Houses/Licensed Structures to be Affected under Future

Scenarios

Villages along North Lantau Shoreline

Estimated No. of Village Houses/Licensed Structures affected under

Scenario 1 – Worst Operation Mode (Year 2030)

Scenario 2 – Interim Phase (Year 2021)

Scenario 3 – Design Capacity (Year 2032)

Sha Lo Wan 20 170 20

Luk Keng (incl. Ta Pang Po)

6 20 6

San Po Tsui 5 5 5

Yi Chuen 3 3 3

Tso Wan 40 70 45

Fa Peng --- 10 ---

San Shek Wan --- 80 ---

San Tau (incl. Tin Sum and Kau Liu)

--- 15 ---

Total 74* 373* 79*

* This includes an estimated number of about 35, 200 and 40 obsolete village houses/licensed structures in years 2030, 2021 and 2032 respectively based on site observations.

7.3.4.18 Among all the country parks, aircraft noise will be more perceptible at some areas of the North

Lantau (Extension) Country Park. When the Third Runway comes into operation and with the

implementation of the aircraft noise mitigation measures, the NEF 25 contour will slightly move

towards the north, away from the North Lantau (Extension) Country Park. Hence, comparing the

NEF 25 contours of the prevailing situation and that of the worst case scenario under the

operation of the 3RS project, less area of the North Lantau (Extension) Country Park will fall

within the NEF 25 contour, resulting in an overall improvement in the aircraft noise situation at

this country park. All other country parks are much further away from the NEF 25 contour and the

aircraft noise will be much less perceptible. Besides, given the transient nature of the visitors to

the country parks, adverse aircraft noise impact to the visitors is not envisaged.

7.3.5 Aircraft Noise Mitigation Measures

7.3.5.1 The analysis of mitigation measures included identifying and evaluating measures to avoid,

reduce, or alleviate aircraft noise impacts; assessing the effectiveness of those mitigation

measures; and defining the residual environmental impacts, which are defined as the net impacts

remaining with the mitigation measures in place. Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM defines direct and

indirect mitigation measures for locations where the predicted noise impact exceeds the

applicable noise criteria.

7.3.5.2 As described in Section 7.3.4 above, aircraft noise levels are predicted to exceed the criteria

within a CDA site planned in Lok On Pai and/or a number of villages along North Lantau

shorelines under the worst operation mode scenario of 2030, also for the design capacity

scenario in 2032 and interim scenario in 2021.

7.3.5.3 Relevant at-source noise mitigation measures have already been incorporated into the design of

the primary operating mode for the future operation of the three-runway system including (as

listed in Section 7.3.3.11): (i) putting the existing south runway on standby where possible at

night between 2300 and 0659; (ii) requiring departures to take the southbound route via West


7-28


Lamma Channel during east flow at night from 2300 to 0659, subject to acceptable operational

and safety consideration; (iii) assigning a new arrival Required Navigation Performance Track 6

for preferential use in the runway 25 direction between 2300 and 0659; and (iv) implementing a

preferential runway use programme when wind conditions allow such that west flow is used when

departures dominate while east flow is used when arrivals dominate during night-time. As an

additional direct mitigation measure, it is recommended that in developing the MLP for the CDA

site in Lok On Pai, the alignment of the NEF 25 contour line should be taken into account to

ensure that no noise sensitive uses are situated within the NEF 25 contour in the planned

development.

7.3.5.4 In addition to the above direct noise mitigation measures that have been recommended for the

future operation of the 3RS, it is expected that the noise abatement good practices including the

use of noise abatement take-off procedures and Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) currently

implemented in the 2RS operation as described in (iv) and (v) of Section 7.3.2.5 will continue to

be applicable in the 3RS operation.

7.3.5.5 On the other hand, it is noted that after exhausting all practicable direct noise mitigation

measures, it is unavoidable that village houses/licensed structures in and around Sha Lo Wan

and certain village houses/licensed structures along North Lantau shorelines would still be

situated within the NEF 25 contours and the extent of encroachment would be reduced once the

3RS becomes operational when the existing south runway could be put on standby at night.

7.3.5.6 However, it shall also be noted that these only involve village houses/licensed structures in and

around Sha Lo Wan and along the North Lantau shorelines which as described in Section

7.3.2.10, will be offered the provision of indirect noise mitigation measures in the form of window

insulation and air-conditioning before the operation of the third runway. For future village houses,

they should be planned in accordance with the prevailing government policy and guidelines.

7.3.6 Evaluation of Residual Aircraft Noise Impact

7.3.6.1 After implementation of the direct noise mitigation measures recommended above, no residual

noise impact is identified.

7.4 Fixed Noise Sources Impact Assessment

7.4.1 Identification of Noise Sensitive Receivers

7.4.1.1 In accordance with Annexes 5 and 13 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact

Assessment Process issued under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO-TM),

the NSRs in the vicinity of the project site boundary, including existing and planned/ committed

NSRs, have been identified by review of the relevant Outline Zoning Plans (i.e., S/I-TCTC/18 -

Tung Chung Town Centre Area and S/I-CLK/12 - Chek Lap Kok), Development Permission Area

Plans, Outline Development Plans, Layout Plans and other relevant published land use plans,

including plans and drawings published by Lands Department.

7.4.1.2 The existing hotels located on the airport island will be closest NSRs to the noise sources in this

study. However, as these hotels have been installed with sealed glazing and provided with central

air-conditioning all the time. Therefore, the guestrooms of the hotels do not rely on opened

windows for ventilation and adverse noise impact is not expected. Besides, offices on the airport


7-29


island have also been installed with sealed glazing and provided with central air-conditioning. The

use does not rely on opened windows for ventilation and adverse noise impact is not expected.

As a result, no assessment point is proposed for the hotels and offices under the airborne noise

impact assessment. Nevertheless, underground APM is involved in the project and whether the

operation of APM may have the potential to cause ground-borne noise impact to the hotels have

been evaluated as part of the assessment.

7.4.1.3 The existing and planned NSRs which may be affected by project are identified in Table 7.4.1.

The locations of the NSRs are shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-4-001 to 7-4-004.

Table 7.4.1: Existing / Planned NSRs

NSR ID Description Existing / Planned

Use No. of Storeys (Sensitive use only)

AI-1 Hong Kong Skycity Marriott Hotel Existing Hotel 12

AI-2 Regal Airport Hotel Existing Hotel 14

TC-1 Seaview Crescent Block 1 Existing Residential 49

TC-2 Tung Chung Crescent Block 7 Existing Residential 40


TC-4 House No.2, Ma Wan Chung Existing Residential 2

TC-5 Tung Chung West Development Planned Residential --


TC-7 Tung Chung East Development Planned Residential --




TC-11 Tung Chung Area 54 Planned Residential --





TC-16 Le Bleu Deux Block 1 Existing Residential 15

TC-17 Le Bleu Deux Block 7 Existing Residential 15

TC-18 Le Bleu House 89 Existing Residential 3

TC-19 Coastal Skyline Block 1 Existing Residential 50

TC-20 Coastal Skyline Block 5 Existing Residential 50

TC-21 La Rossa Tower B Existing Residential 50

TC-22 Caribbean Coast Tower 1 Existing Residential 50





TC-27 La Mer Block 1 Existing Residential 3

TC-28 La Mer Block 28 Existing Residential 3

TC-29 Ho Yu Primary School Existing Educational 6

TC-30 Ho Yu College Existing Educational 6



7-30





TC-33 Fu Tung Estate Tung Shing House Existing Residential 33

TC-34 Fu Tung Estate Tung Ma House Existing Residential 33

TC-35 Yu Tung Estate Hei Tung House Existing Residential 33

TC-36 Yu Tung Estate Heung Tung House

Existing Residential 33

TC-37 Ching Chung Hau Po Won Primary School

Existing Educational 6

TC-38 Yat Tung Estate Block 12 Existing Residential 40






TC-44 Yat Tung Estate Block D Existing Residential 40

TC-45 Yat Tung Estate Heung Yat House Existing Residential 40


TC-47 Hau Wong Temple Existing Public Worship 1



TC-50 Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School


TC-51 Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School


TC-52 Wong Cho Bau Secondary School Existing Educational 6

TC-53 Po On Commercial Assn Wan Ho Kan Primary School


TC-54 PLK Mrs Ma Kam Ming – Cheng Fook Sien College






TS-1 House, Tin Sum Existing Residential 1

TS-2 House No. 25B, Kau Liu Existing Residential 3

TS-3 House No. 23, Kau Liu Existing Residential 2

TS-4 House 1, San Tau Existing Residential 2

TS-5 House 2, San Tau Existing Residential 2

TS-6 House No. 29, San Tau Existing Residential 2



SLW-1 House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan Existing Residential 1

SLW-2 Temple, Sha Lo Wan Existing Public Worship 1

SLW-3 House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen



7-31
















Notes: 1). Since the offices located within the assessment area have been installed with sealed glazing and provided with

central air-conditioning, the use does not rely on opened windows for ventilation and adverse noise impact is not

expected. As a result, no assessment point is proposed for the offices under the airborne noise impact

assessment.

2). The North Lantau (Extension) Country Park is within the assessment area. It is not itself considered to be an

NSR under the IND-TM of the NCO. However, it is classified as NSR under Item 3.1(c) of Annex 13 in EIAO-TM.

Reference to the findings of the noise impact assessment from fixed noise sources at the NSRs in the vicinity of

the North Lantau (Extension) Country Park would be made to address the potential noise impact to the Park.

7.4.2 Prevailing Background Noise Conditions

7.4.2.1 Noise surveys were carried out during May, June and July of 2013 to investigate the background

noise condition of the surrounding environment. The baseline noise measurement locations are

shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-4-005.

Seven noise measurements were conducted in the vicinity of the project site. The noise

measurements were undertaken using Type 1 sound level meters, namely Rion NL-18. The

sound level meters were set at 1.2 m above ground at free-field area. During each measurement,

the sound level meter was checked using an acoustic calibrator generating a sound pressure

level of 94.0 dB(A) at 1 kHz immediately before and after the noise measurement. The

measurements were accepted as valid only if the calibration levels before and after the noise

measurement were agreed to within 1.0 dB(A). Moreover, the sound level meters and acoustic

calibrators are calibrated by accredited laboratories annually to ensure reliable performance. The

measurement results are shown in Table 7.4.2.

Table 7.4.2: Measured Background Noise Levels

Location ID

Location Description

Time Period Start Time

*Measured Noise Level in Leq (30 min), dB(A)

Corrected Facade Noise Level, dB(A)

P1 Playground next to Seaview Crescent Block 1

Day-time & Evening (0700 – 2300) 10:55 62.2 65.2

Night-time (2300 – 0700) 00:30 51.6 54.6

P2 Podium of Tung Chung Crescent Block 7

Day-time & Evening (0700 – 2300) 17:55 62.6 65.6

Night-time (2300 – 0700) 23:45 59.1 62.1


7-32


Location ID

Location Description

Time Period Start Time

*Measured Noise Level in Leq (30 min), dB(A)

Corrected Facade Noise Level, dB(A)

P3 Next to House No. 2, Ma Wan Chung

Day-time & Evening (0700 – 2300) 17:15 61.1 64.1

Night-time (2300 – 0700) 23:05 52.0 55.0

P4 Next to House No.25A, Kau Liu

Day-time & Evening (0700 – 2300) 17:10 60.8 63.8

Night-time (2300 – 0700) 23:05 52.0# 55.0

P5 Next to House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan

Day-time & Evening (0700 – 2300) 11:50 64.2 67.2

Night-time (2300 – 0700) 23:05 52.0# 55.0

P6 Next to House No.9, Sha Lo Wan

Day-time & Evening (0700 – 2300) 13:00 65.0 68.0

Night-time (2300 – 0700) 23:05 52.0# 55.0

P7 Next to House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen

Day-time & Evening (0700 – 2300) 13:40 59.6 62.6

Night-time (2300 – 0700) 23:05 52.0# 55.0

Note (*): All background noise measurements were free-field measurement.

(#): Locations P4-P7 are not accessible at night-time period. The night-time background noise level at Location P3 has

been used to represent those at Locations P4-P7 since these locations have similar night-time noise environment.

(1) Background noise level at Seaview Crescent (Location P1) has been used to represent the prevailing noise at Tung

Chung East Development and nearby since these locations have similar noise environment as descripted in

Appendix 7.4.2.


7.4.3.1 As per the requirement sets out in Clause 3.2.1 of Part I in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief, the

assessment area for the fixed noise sources impact assessment shall be proposed for agreement

of the Director before commencing the assessment. Accordingly, the assessment area boundary

has been proposed based on an evaluation against the criteria of 70 dB(A) (for day & evening

time period) and 60 dB(A) (for night-time period) by adopting some conservative assumptions

(such as assuming the use of the noisiest aircraft type of Boeing 747-400, adopting the worst

noise source location within the aircraft taxiing area for 07L-25R (North) / 07C-25C (Centre) /

07R-25L (South) and assuming maximum number of concurrent aircraft taxiing events in a 30-

minute period). Details for determination of the assessment area boundary are presented in

Appendix 7.4.1.

7.4.4 Identification of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

7.4.4.1 Among the various clusters of identified NSRs in Section 7.4.1, representative NSRs (i.e. the first

layer of NSRs) with the shortest distances from the project site boundary and largest angles of

view to the fixed noise sources have been identified and selected as the assessment points for

predicting the worst-case noise impact levels. Table 7.4.3 summarises details of these

representative NSRs. Under the worst assumptions adopted for the fixed noise source impact

assessment, the proposed assessment area (i.e. for night-time period) covers some 2,700 m from

the aircraft taxiing area boundary for 07L-25R (North) and 07C-25C (Centre) as shown in

Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-4-006. Photos of existing representative noise sensitive receivers

are shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-002.


7-33


Table 7.4.3: Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers Identified for the Assessment of Fixed

Noise Impact

NSR ID

Description Existing / Planned


Noise Impact Assessment

Fixed Source (Air-borne)

APM (Ground-borne)

AI-1 Hong Kong Skycity Marriott Hotel

Existing Hotel 12 � �

AI-2 Regal Airport Hotel Existing Hotel 14 � �

TC-1 Seaview Crescent Block1 Existing Residential 49 � �

TC-2 Tung Chung Crescent Block 5

Existing Residential 34 � �

TC-3 Tung Chung Crescent Block 7


TC-4 House No.2, Ma Wan Chung Existing Residential 2 � �

TC-5 Tung Chung West Development

Planned Residential -- � �

TC-6 Tung Chung West Development


TC-7 Tung Chung East Development


TC-11 Tung Chung Area 54 Planned Residential -- � �

TC-16 Le Bleu Deux Block 1 Existing Residential 15 � �

TC-46 House No.16, Ma Wan Chung


TS-1 House, Tin Sum Existing Residential 1 � �

TS-2 House No. 25B, Kau Liu Existing Residential 3 � �

SLW-1 House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan Existing Residential 1 � �

SLW-2 Temple, Sha Lo Wan

Existing Public Worship

1 � �



7.4.5 Area Sensitivity Rating and Fixed Noise Sources Criteria

7.4.5.1 Section 2.3.2 of the IND-TM requires that the Authority shall have regard to an area of adequate

size when determining the type of area within which the NSR is located in accordance with the

descriptions in Table 7.2.2. Typically, in urban areas an area of 100 m radius around the NSR

should be adequate, whereas in sparsely developed areas, such as rural districts, an area of

500 m radius or even more should be considered, depending upon the circumstances.

Accordingly, the types of areas containing and influencing factors of the representative NSRs

have been reviewed as descripted in Appendix 7.4.2.

7.4.5.2 Based on the results in Appendix 7.4.2, the ASR of the representative NSRs SLW-1 to 3, TS-1

and TC-3 is classified as “C” while the ASR of the rest representative NSRs is classified as “B”.

7.4.5.3 As stipulated in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM, the noise standards for planned fixed noise sources are

5 dB(A) below the appropriate ANL as stipulated in the IND-TM or the prevailing background

noise levels (for quiet areas with level 5 dB(A) below the ANL). Therefore, taking into account the


7-34


results of the background noise measurement, the proposed criteria for fixed noise source impact

assessment at different representative NSRs are presented in Table 7.4.4.

Table 7.4.4: Noise Criteria of Planned Fixed Noise Sources

Representative NSR.

ASR Time Period ANL – 5, dB(A)

Background Noise Level dB(A)*

Fixed Noise Criteria, dB(A)

TC-1, TC-7, TC-11 & TC-16

B Day-time & Evening 60 65 60

Night-time 50 55 50

TC-2 B Day-time & Evening 60 66 60

Night-time 50 62 50

TC-3 C Day-time & Evening 65 66 65

Night-time 55 62 55

TC-5^ B Day-time & Evening 60 64 60

Night-time 50 55 50

TC-4^ & TC-6^ B Day-time & Evening 60 64 60

Night-time 50 55 50

TC-46^ B Day-time & Evening 60 64 60

Night-time 50 55 50

TS-1 C Day-time & Evening 65 64 64

Night-time 55 55 55

TS-2^ B Day-time & Evening 60 64 60

Night-time 50 55 50

SLW-1 C Day-time & Evening 65 67 65

Night-time 55 55 55


Night-time 55 55 55


Night-time 55 55 55

Notes: (*) Refer to Table 7.4.2 for the prevailing background noise levels.

(^) Based on the latest TIA report of HZMB, the estimated Annual Average Daily Traffics (AADTs) of the HKLR

in Year 2021, 2030 and 2032 (by Arup) are 20,300, 33,300 and 36,500, respectively. Since the AADT in

Year 2021 is less than 30,000, HKLR has not been adopted as IF for conservative approach.

7.4.5.4 The cumulative noise impact of the project planned / existing fixed noise sources as well as the

planned fixed noise sources of concurrent projects has been assessed against the limits of IND-

TM issued under the NCO as shown in Table 7.4.5.

Table 7.4.5: Noise Criteria for Cumulative Fixed Noise Sources (Planned/Existing)

Representative NSR. ASR Time Period ANL, dB(A) Fixed Noise Criteria, dB(A)

TC-1 to 2, TC-4^, TC-5^, TC-6^, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46^, TS-2^

B Day-time & Evening 65 65

Night-time 55 55


7-35


Representative NSR. ASR Time Period ANL, dB(A) Fixed Noise Criteria, dB(A)

TC-3, TS-1, SLW-1 to 3 C Day-time & Evening 70 70

Night-time 60 60

Notes: (^) Based on the latest TIA report of HZMB, the estimated Annual Average Daily Traffics (AADTs) of the HKLR

in Year 2021, 2030 and 2032 (by Arup) are 20,300, 33,300 and 36,500, respectively. Since the AADT in

Year 2021 is less than 30,000, HKLR has not been adopted as IF for conservative approach.

7.4.6 Identification of Noise Sources

7.4.6.1 In accordance with the requirement sets out in Clause 3.2.6 of the EIA Study Brief, sources of

ground noise for aircraft noise-generating activities on HKIA such as taxiing, engine testing,

maintenance activities and use of APUs etc. have been considered in the fixed noise impact

assessment. The major ground noise sources for aircraft noise-generating activities on HKIA are

identified to include:

� Aircraft taxiing with main engines operating at idling / taxiing power thrust setting between the

aircraft parking stands and the runways;

� Operation of APUs (i.e. on-board generators) located at the tail of aircraft for providing

electrical power when the main engines are shut down; and

� Operation of aircraft engine run-up facilities for routine maintenance or pre-departure check.

7.4.6.2 In addition to the above-mentioned aircraft noise-generating activities on HKIA, openings of the

ventilation systems of buildings, ventilation shafts and SkyPier marine vessels moored to the

piers would be the major sources of fixed plant noise during operation. Operation of airside

vehicles within aircraft taxiing area (as illustrated in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/EIA/7-4-006)

represents another non-aircraft noise source; however, even the nearest NSR SLW-1 is situated

at more than 350 m from the aircraft taxiing area. Thus, it is not anticipated that noise from airside

vehicle operation on nearby NSRs would be significant. Other underground facilities such as

automated people mover, baggage handling system and grey water recycle system which will be

fully enclosed thus airborne noise impact is not anticipated.

7.4.6.3 Fixed noise sources from concurrent projects mentioned in Section 7.5.3.27 located within

assessment area have been included for the cumulative fixed noise impact assessment where

appropriate. The cumulative fixed noise impact has also covered fixed noise impacts from the

project and HKIA in accordance with the requirement sets out in Clause 3.3.4 in Appendix C of

the EIA Study Brief (ESB-250/2012).

7.4.7 Fixed Noise Sources Assessment Methodology

Scenarios

7.4.7.1 Clause 3.3.1 in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief specifies that, as for the aircraft noise impact

assessment, the fixed noise impact assessment shall cover assessment years of various

operation modes, including the worst operation mode, the interim phase operation mode, and the

scenario associated with the full operation of the three-runway system. Since the levels of

ground noise would depend on levels of aircraft noise-generating activities at HKIA, it is


7-36


considered that the assessment years of interest adopted should be the same as that identified

for the aircraft noise impact assessment for both the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios as

described below:

� The worst operation mode which represents the maximum noise emission in connection with

aircraft noise generating noise sources of the project at HKIA (i.e. Year 2030 - the specific

worst assessment year determined through a Sequential INM analysis as described in

Section 7.3.3.8 of the aircraft noise impact assessment);

� The interim phase operation mode which represents the operation of the third runway with the

temporary closure of the existing North Runway at HKIA (i.e. Year 2021 as described in

Section 7.3.3.9 of the aircraft noise impact assessment); and

� Full operation mode of the three-runway system which represents the operation of proposed

third runway together with two existing runways at design capacity (i.e. Year 2032 as also set

out in Section 7.3.3.9).

Ground Noise Source (Aircraft Taxiing / Operation of Aircraft Engine Run-up Facilities)

7.4.7.2 The ground noise impact associated with the aircraft taxiing and operation of aircraft engine run-

up facilities have been assessed using the same latest INM Version 7.0dsu1 released by the US

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)5, which has also been adopted in the aircraft noise impact

assessment presented in Section 7.3. Details of INM are presented in Appendix 7.3.3.

Computational Model of Ground Noise Source (Aircraft Taxiing / Operation of Aircraft Engine

Run-up Facilities)

7.4.7.3 By inputting the physical and operational characteristics / data of HKIA three-runway system, the

INM model has calculated the noise levels (in terms of equivalent continuous A-weighted sound

pressure level (LAeq,30 mins)) at the NSRs due to the aircraft engine run-up tests / aircraft taxiing in

HKIA three-runway system based on the NPD curves for different engine operating thrust levels,

engine run-up facility mix / aircraft taxiing routes, operation schedule and terrain of the airport.

The prediction procedures are briefly described in Appendix 7.4.3.

7.4.7.4 The ANP database for the current version of INM includes 115 NPD curves for representing the

noise footprint of 428 civil and 115 military aircraft types. Also, it has inbuilt information with

various latest new generation aircrafts such as the Airbus A380, Boeing 777 and Boeing 787,

which are aircraft commonly operating at HKIA. INM has the capability of creating custom aircraft

types by combining percentages of the available NPD curves and includes a standard aircraft

substitution database relating aircraft with similar noise footprints. This standard substitution

database has been used with care if an aircraft is not listed in the INM’s ANP. The substitution

list is shown in Appendix 7.3.2.

7.4.7.5 The aircraft taxi track / speed is an important factor in determining the noise levels at the NSRs.

The taxi tracks (for arrival / departure) of HKIA three-runway system under various scenarios are

_________________________

5 Integrated Noise Model (INM), Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 30 May 2013


7-37


derived based on the air traffic forecast developed by the IATA and TAAM simulations

undertaken by NATS.

Ground Noise Source (Operation of APUs)

7.4.7.6 Unlike other noise sources such as road traffic or aircraft take-offs and landings, there is no

standard or agreed methodology for the assessment of ground noise associated with the

operation of APUs. Moreover, INM model does not include noise database for APUs which is not

capable of assessing noise from APU operation. Therefore, it has been necessary to develop a

specific methodology for assessing APU noise. The methodology adopted in present study is

based on the prediction method set out in ISO-9613 “Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during

propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation” 6

which takes into account the

sound power level (SWL) of each operating APU, and then applies appropriate corrections for the

effects of geometrical divergence, air absorption, ground absorption and intervening obstructions

/ ground & façade reflections. The complete computation model is based on geographical

location of the stands, aprons and taxiways where APUs are operating in relation to the NSRs.

During APU operating, the aircraft taxiway is divided into a series of short segments (6 seconds

running time per each segment, following TAAM simulation results definition). The noise levels at

NSRs generated by APU operation through each taxiway segment in turn are calculated

sequentially by assuming that the aircraft sits on the centre of each taxiway segment. The overall

noise levels at NSRs associated with all segments within 30 mins. are calculated accordingly.

This achieves exactly the same results as assuming aircraft continuous progression through each

segment. The prediction procedures are briefly described in Appendix 7.4.3.

Assessment Assumptions and Data

7.4.7.7 The following data and assumptions are used to develop the ground noise assessment scenarios

for aircraft taxiing and operation of aircraft engine run-up facilities by adopting FAA’s INM Version

7.0dsu1 calculation algorithm / operation of APUs.

7.4.7.8 INM input data are normally based on the conditions of a typical 24-hour operational day. The

busiest day, which represents the worst day scenario, has been scaled (based on the busiest

dates profile in Year 2011) for peak ground noise assessment. Details can be referred to the

Appendix 7.4.4.

Airport Layout: Runway use includes the number, location, and orientation of the runways, as

well as the directions and types of operations that occur on each runway. The source of existing

airport layout parameters was the most current information published in the Aeronautical

Information Publication (AIP). For the proposed third runway and location of Engine Run-Up

Facility (ERUF), the primary source of information was from the Project’s Engineering Design

Consultants.

Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix: The primary source for operations and fleet mix was the

results of the NATS TAAM simulation under the three operation modes. The TAAM simulation

results contain details of the forecasted airport operational data and assumptions that were used

in the INM model. The validity of the forecast including number of aircraft and aircraft fleet mix

_________________________

6 ISO-9613 “Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation”, 1996


7-38


established by IATA and used in the TAAM simulation has been confirmed with CAD. The input

data have been summarised as follows: the number of aircraft taxiing movements categorised by

country of origin/destination, IATA aircraft type, IATA aircraft sub-type, aircraft type description,

aircraft group, time of day, aircraft taxiing thrust and average engine-installation height of each

aircraft type.

Direct export of TAAM results (using the TAAM to INM functionality) was used, a conversion file

relating the TAAM codes with the selected INM substitutions was developed. This file is a

technical requirement associated with using the TAAM to INM functionality.

Runway Mode of Operation: The primary source for runway mode of operation is the results of

the NATS TAAM simulation under the three operation modes.

Runway Utilisation: Same as the above runway mode of operation, the primary source for

runway utilisation is the results of the NATS TAAM simulation under the three operation modes.

Runway Maintenance Closure Period: Relevant information regarding the adoption of the

runway maintenance closure period was considered.

South Runway in Standby Mode at Night: Relevant information regarding the South Runway

standby mode assignment, where possible during the night-time penalty period from 23:00 to

06:59, which is intended to minimise aircraft noise impact along the North Lantau shoreline, was

considered.

Taxi Tracks and Taxi Track Utilisation: Taxi track information is an important input to the INM.

The primary source for taxi tracks and taxi track utilisation was obtained from the results of the

TAAM simulation undertaken by NATS based on relevant design and airport operational data

confirmed with the Project’s Engineering Design Consultants. Taxi track is a two-dimension

motion description of an aircraft on ground. Time is the third dimension which is accounted by via

the aircraft’s speed. The taxi track of an aircraft includes the path after the landing threshold and

before the take-off ground roll.

Engine Run-up Test Schedule: Engine testing is at present performed inside HKIA by Hong

Kong Aircraft Engineering Company Limited (HAECO). The noise level associated with engine

run-up test depends on the type and number of engine to be tested, power setting of the test

engine, location and duration of testing, over an operational 24-hour day in assessment year.

This information has been established for the three operation modes. Regarding the new ERUF

which has been planned to be located in the southern end of the western supporting area

according to design information provided by the Project’s Engineering Design Consultants, the

assumptions on operational details including worst engine power setting were made based on

information and data obtained at the existing ERUF which has been confirmed with HAECO. On

the other hand, noise data required in the assessment were based on the NPD curves database

of INM Version 7.0dsu1 model.

APU Operation: Ground noise impact associated with operation of APUs upon the

representative NSRs are depending on the operation schedule of APUs. According to AAHK

policy, from 2014, all aircraft parking at frontal stand will be required to connect to the fixed

ground power and the use of APU will be prohibited. Nevertheless, the APU will still be operated

before the aircraft reaching the gate, and after the aircraft leaving the gate when the main


7-39


engines have not been started yet. Relevant design information including taxi track alignment

and hence locations of aircraft and associated APU required for the assessment are as contained

in the TAAM simulation results and these are all based on relevant design details established by

the Project’s Engineering Design Consultants.The APU operation time is listed as follows:

� APU Operation time before reaching the gate (communication with pilot): around 1 min.

� APU Operation time after the aircraft leaving the stand but with the main engine not yet

started: around 5 mins.

7.4.7.9 The above figures are in line with the international practice. According to the study from IATA, in

total the APU will be running 3-4 mins. for a two-engine aircraft and 5-6 mins. for a four-engine

aircraft. These data have been used in conjunction with the TAAM simulation results of taxiing

path & time and incorporated into the ground noise impact assessment associated with operation

of APUs.

Terrain and Meteorological Data: Hong Kong terrain elevation data for the assessment areas of

HKIA three-runway system and the representative NSRs was incorporated in the INM model

using INM compatible format. Monthly meteorological data sets for Year 2011 were obtained

from the Hong Kong Observatory for the monitoring station located at HKIA.

7.4.7.10 The primary sources of meteorological information were datasets published by the Hong Kong

Observatory (www.weather.gov.hk). Table 7.3.7 as described in Section 7.3.3.34 shown below

provides preliminary Hong Kong specific meteorological information required by SAE-ARP-866A,

which is the standard for describing methodologies for estimating parameters such as the

absorption of sound in air based on a wide range of temperature and humidity conditions. An

appropriate INM scenario/case structure was defined to take into account the meteorological

factors shown in Table 7.3.7.

7.4.7.11 All the data and assumptions were reviewed, and processed as necessary for developing noise

exposure levels by adopting the above assessment methodologies. The operational modes as

mentioned in Section 7.4.7.1 have been confirmed by CAD and documented in this EIA report.

Fixed Plant Noise Sources

7.4.7.12 In the absence of any detailed information and noise specification for the proposed fixed plant,

the maximum allowable noise emission levels at the ventilation openings and fixed plant would be

determined as design criteria for the development proposed in the current layout plan.

7.4.7.13 For the assessment of noise from the fixed plant, the maximum allowable sound power levels

(Max SWLs) of the identified fixed noise sources were determined by adopting standard acoustics

principles. The following formula is used for calculating the Max SWLs of the fixed plant:

SPL = Max SWL – DC + FC Equation 3-2

where

SPL: Sound Pressure Level in dB(A)

Max SWL: Maximum Allowable Sound Power Level in dB(A)

DC: Distance Attenuation in dB(A) = 20 log D + 8 [where D is the distance in m]


7-40


FC: Façade Correction in dB(A) = +3 dB(A)

7.4.7.14 If those fixed plant is directly adjacent to the NSR building but with no direct line of sight to the

noise source/opening, a 5 dB(A) attenuation would be applied. If the fixed plant is not directly

adjacent to the NSR and with no direct line of sight to the noise source/opening which is located

on the other side of the NSR building or completely blocked by substantial barrier including

building(s) or topographical feature(s), a 10 dB(A) attenuation would be applied.

7.4.7.15 If exceedance to the noise criteria is found for one NSR, the initial SWL of the dominant sources

to that NSR would be gradually lowered until the corrected SPL at that NSR meets the acceptable

level. The process would be repeated for other representative NSRs with exceedance in the

noise criteria until all corrected SPLs at the representative NSRs meet the noise criteria. The

maximum allowable SWLs of the fixed plant will then be predicted.

7.4.7.16 For those existing fixed plant noise sources, the design information is made reference to the

relevant approved EIA Reports or obtained from the relevant authorities. Should information of

certain existing fixed plant sources which is not available during the course of preparing this

assessment, site visits and noise measurements have been carried out to determine the locations

of the fixed sources and regarding sound power levels. The noise impact from these sources has

been assessed with the use of the same methodology as stated above for the planned sources.

7.4.7.17 Corrections of tonality, intermittency or impulsiveness have not been considered in proposed

fixed plant noise source as there are no detailed information and noise specification for these

future noise sources. However, if the noise exhibits any of these characteristics during the

operation of the plant, the maximum allowable SWLs should be reduced in accordance with the

recommendation given in Section 3.3 of the IND-TM. In addition, noise measurements for the

existing airport normal operation at representative NSRs SLW-1 and TS-1 have been conducted

on 5 November 2013 for checking of any correction for tonality, intermittency or impulsiveness (in

accordance with the Sections 3.3.2 to 3.3.4 of the IND-TM) required for the fixed noise impact

assessment (planned / cumulative). No corrections of tonality, impulsiveness and intermittency

have been identified necessary in the measurements. Details of the assessment have been

shown in Appendix 7.4.13.

Ground-borne Noise from APM and other Underground Facilities

7.4.7.18 Underground APM is involved in the project. The operation of APM may have potential ground-

borne noise impact to the ground-borne noise sensitive receivers within the airport island.

7.4.7.19 According to the approved Hong Kong – Zhuhai - Macao Bridge (HZMB) Hong Kong Boundary

Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) EIA report (Register No.: AEIAR-145/2009), the ASR of the NSR AI-

1 / AI-2 is classified as “C” and the predicted ground-borne noise impact is 43 dB(A) for horizontal

distance between the APM to the NSR AI-1 with 5 m. For this study, the nearest NSRs to the

planned APM are identified to be NSR AI-1 and AI-2 with horizontal separation distance of at

least 400 m and 200 m, respectively. Since the horizontal separation distance of the planned

APM is much larger than that of the APM for HKBCF project (200 m compared to 5 m), the

predicted ground-borne noise impact from the planned APM will be less than 43 dB(A) which

complies with the planned day & evening and night-time noise criteria of 55 dB(A) and 45 dB(A).


7-41


7.4.7.20 The cumulative vibration energy of the planned APM and the APM for HKBCF project should be

less than double energy of the APM for HKBCF project. Therefore, the cumulative predicted

ground-borne noise impact will be less than 43dB(A) + 3 dB(A) (double energy) = 46 dB(A) which

complies with the cumulative day & evening and night-time noise criteria of 60 dB(A) and 50

dB(A).

7.4.7.21 In addition, other underground facilities such as baggage handling system and grey water recycle

system which should be fully enclosed thus airborne noise impact is not anticipated. The vibrating

energy from those facilities is much smaller that the APM so that no adverse ground-borne noise

impact to ground-borne NSRs is expected.

7.4.8 Evaluation and Assessment of Fixed Noise Sources

Ground Noise Source (Operation of Aircraft Engine Run-up Facilities)

7.4.8.1 Aircraft engine run-up test is performed inside HKIA by Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company

Limited (HAECO). The annual engine run-up test operational information on the type of engine,

power setting, test duration, number of tested engine for Year 2011 is obtained from HAECO via

AAHK. Currently, there is an engine run-up pen in service which is located at maintenance area

close to the China Aircraft Services Limited (CASL) and HAECO buildings at HKIA. According to

the engine run-up test record, the existing ERUF at HKIA was in operation for 24 hours per day.

Approximately 2-4 and 1-2 run-up tests were conducted during day & evening time period (0700

to 2300 hours) and night-time period (2300 to 0700 hours), respectively. Total of 29 aircraft types

and only 15 aircraft types were involved in the engine run-up test record for Year 2011 during day

& evening and night-time periods, respectively. In order to cater for the growth of the air traffic

movement as well as potential increase in numbers of engine run-up test required, an additional

ERUF will be constructed for the three-runway system. The new ERUF will be located in around

the southern end of the western supporting area. According to the information from AAHK, the

operation of the new ERUF will be assumed to be the same as the current one (i.e. the engine

run-up test record for Year 2011) for the ground noise impact assessment.

7.4.8.2 Based on the engine static thrusts for different aircraft types of the INM database, 8 types of

aircraft possess of highest static thrust are identified and shown in Table 7.4.6. These aircraft

types are considered to be the most noisiest and critical ground noise sources during the engine

run-up test. Table 7.4.7 and Table 7.4.8 show the representative worst durations of operation for

the existing / new ERUF during day & evening and night-time periods, respectively, with those

identified highest static engine thrust’s aircraft operated under the worst engine power setting (i.e.

80% and 90% engine power runs for 13 mins. and 3 mins., respectively) over 30 mins. period as

per “Contract M812 Engine Run-up Facility Noise Assessment - Final Noise Monitoring Report”

by Mouchel Asia Limited dated 22 May, 2002. The worst engine power setting has been re-

confirmed by HAECO and documented in this EIA report.

Table 7.4.6: Aircraft Possess of Highest Static Thrust from INM Database

Aircraft Model Static Thrust (lb)

7773ER 115000

777-200 90000

A330-343 71100

A380-841 70000


7-42


Aircraft Model Static Thrust (lb)

787-8R 70000

7478 68000

MD11 61500

747-400 56800

Table 7.4.7: Representative Worst Duration of Operation for the Existing / New ERUF during Day

& Evening Time Period (0700-2300 hours)

Aircraft Model

Start Date Start Time End Time Duration (mins)

Reg. Worst Engine Power Setting

7773ER* - - - - - 80% for 13 mins. and 90% for 3 mins. over 30 mins. period

777-200 22-02-2011 1152 1526 214 BKPM 80% for 13 mins. and 90% for 3 mins. over 30 mins. period

A330-343

04-04-2011 1100 1215 75 BLNZ 80% for 13 mins. and 90% for 3 mins. over 30 mins. period

MD11 01-10-2011 0920 1000 40 B2177 80% for 13 mins. and 90% for 3 mins. over 30 mins. period

747-400 24-01-2011 1640 1845 125 DACGC 80% for 13 mins. and 90% for 3 mins. over 30 mins. period

Note: (*) Refer to the aircraft (future type) identified with the highest static engine thrust which was not involved in the engine run-up test record for Year 2011.

Table 7.4.8: Representative Worst Duration of Operation of the Existing / New ERUF during Night-

time Period (2300-0700 hours)

Aircraft Model

Start Date Start Time End Time Duration (mins)

Reg. Worst Engine Power Setting

7773ER* - - - - - 80% for 13 mins. and 90% for 3 mins. over 30 mins. period

MD11 30-01-2011 0121 0240 79 N260UP 80% for 13 mins. and 90% for 3 mins. over 30 mins. period

747-400 29-04-2011 0203 0414 131 BHUG 80% for 13 mins. and 90% for 3 mins. over 30 mins. period

Note: (*) Refer to the aircraft (future type) identified with the highest static engine thrust which was not involved in the engine run-up test record for Year 2011.

7.4.8.3 Table 7.4.9 and Table 7.4.10 show the summary results of unmitigated ground noise levels

associated with the operation of aircraft engine run-up facilities (in LAeq, 30 mins) under the worst 30

mins. period during day & evening and night-time periods, respectively, for each identified

noisiest aircraft type at the representative NSRs. Details please refer to Appendix 7.4.5.

Table 7.4.9: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Operation of ERUFs

during Day & Evening Time Period (0700-2300 hours)

Aircraft Model NSR

ID.

Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)

Noise Criteria, dB(A)

Exceedance of Noise Criteria?

Mitigation Measure required?

7773ER TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3

(47 – 58) (60 – 65) No No

51 – 65 65 – 70

A330-343 (39 – 51) (60 – 65)

No No 42 – 57 65 – 70

747-400 (46 – 57) (60 – 65) No No


7-43


Aircraft Model NSR

ID.





50 – 63 65 – 70

777-200 (41 – 51) (60 – 65)

No No 44 – 58 65 – 70

MD11 (45 – 56) (60 – 65)

No No 48 – 63 65 – 70

Remark: 1). ( ) figure denotes the planned fixed noise criteria or the predicted ground noise levels associated with the operation of the New ERUF only.

Table 7.4.10: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Operation of ERUFs

during Night-time Period (2300-0700 hours)

Aircraft Model NSR

ID.





7773ER

TC-1 to 2, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16

(47 – 50) (50) No No

51 – 52 55

TC-3, TS-1 (48 – 55) (55)

No No 52 – 60 60

TC-4 to 6, TC-46, TS-2 (51 – 55) (50)

Yes Yes 54 – 57 55

SLW- 1 to 3 (55 – 58) (55)

Yes Yes 62 – 65 60

747-400

TC-1 to 2, TC-4, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46

(46 – 50) (50) No No

50 – 53 55

TC-3, TS-1 (47 – 54) (55)

No No 51 – 58 60

TC-5 to 6, TS-2 (51 – 54) (50)

Yes Yes 55 – 56 55

SLW- 1 to 3 (54 – 57) (55)

Yes Yes 61 – 63 60

MD11

TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46

(45 – 50) (50) No No

48 – 54 55

TC-3, TS-1, SLW-3 (46 – 53) (55)

No No 50 – 60 60

TS-2 (53) (50)

Yes Yes 55 55

SLW- 1 to 2 (55 – 56) (55)

Yes Yes 63 60

Remarks: 1). ( ) figure denotes the planned fixed noise criteria or the predicted ground noise levels associated with the operation of the New ERUF only. 2). Bold figure denotes exceedance of relevant noise criteria.

7.4.8.4 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the operation of

aircraft engine run-up facilities (unmitigated) would cause exceedance of the relevant night-time

planned / cumulative fixed noise criterion for NSRs TC-4 to 6, TC-46, TS-2 and SLW-1 to 3. As


7-44


such, mitigation measures (e.g. provision of noise enclosure with a noise reduction effect of at

least 15 dBA at the ERUFs, or re-scheduling / control of the aircraft engine run-up tests (Direct

Type) are required for these NSRs so as to alleviate the excessive ground noise impacts

generated by the operation of aircraft engine run-up facilities.

Ground Noise Source (Aircraft Taxiing)

The Worst Operation Mode (Year 2030)

7.4.8.5 The future runway utilisation and aircraft ground operation forecasts provided by TAAM

simulations are adopted for the ground noise assessment associated with aircraft taxiing. Based

on the taxi-in and taxi-out time predicted by the TAAM model for Year 2030 (i.e. the specific worst

assessment year determined through “Sequential INM Analysis” for aircraft noise impact

assessment), the runway utilisation mode under different patterns (i.e. Patterns A, B & C) are

summarised in Table 7.3.8 to Table 7.3.10 as described in Section 7.3.4.2. The peak runway

utilisation period occurs between 0800 to 2300 hours for Pattern A (i.e. Worst Pattern with

Maximum Total Numbers of Aircraft Taxiing Event over 30 mins. period during Day & Evening

Time Period), 0800 to 2300 hours for Pattern B (i.e. Worst Pattern with Maximum Total Numbers

of Aircraft Taxiing Event over 30 mins. period during Night-time Period) and 0800 to 2300 hours

for Pattern C.

7.4.8.6 The aircraft taxiing operational data for Year 2030 is based on an analysis of the taxiing data

derived from the TAAM simulations. Aircraft taxiing at HKIA involves different type of aircraft

which are expected to be operated in the future scenario (including Airbus A350). As some

aircraft types are not included in the INM Version 7.0dsu1, therefore aircraft substitution is

required (e.g. Airbus A350-800/A350-900/A350F/A350-1000 is substituted by Boeing 777-200 as

per the aircraft substitution list).

7.4.8.7 The total numbers of aircraft taxiing event and the corresponding aircraft type under various 30

mins. period for Pattern A (i.e. Worst Pattern for Day & Evening Time Period) and Pattern B (i.e.

Worst Pattern for Night-time Period) of Year 2030 are summarised in Appendix 7.4.6. Also, the

aircraft taxiing movements are found to be predominantly with Airbus A330 and Boeing

777/Airbus 350 family aircraft types. For the time period between 1700 and 1730 hours (Pattern

A), the total numbers of aircraft taxiing event is found to be 79 (at max.), which is the worst (or

busiest) 30 mins. period during the day & evening time period (0700 to 2300 hours). For the time

period between 2330 and 2400 hours (Pattern B), the total numbers of aircraft taxiing event is

found to be 50 (at max.), which is the worst (or busiest) 30 mins. period during the night-time

period (2300 to 0700 hours).

7.4.8.8 Based on the operational data / assumptions described above, the INM model was used to

compute the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq,30 mins (dBA)) for the worst 30 mins.

periods during day & evening and night-time periods at NSRs for Year 2030 due to the aircraft

taxiing operations. The monthly averaged meteorological data for Year 2011 is adopted and the

ground topography has been incorporated in the INM model.

7.4.8.9 Table 7.4.11 show the summary results of unmitigated ground noise levels associated with the

aircraft taxiing operations (in LAeq, 30 mins) under the worst 30 mins. period during day & evening

and night-time periods at the representative NSRs. Details please refer to Appendix 7.4.7.


7-45


Table 7.4.11: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Aircraft Taxiing in Year 2030

NSR

ID. Time Period Predicted Noise

Levels, dB(A) Noise Criteria, dB(A)



TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3

Day & Evening (32 – 43) (60 – 65) No No

1700-1730 43 – 62 65 – 70

Night (36 – 47) (50 – 55) No No

2330-2400 42 – 52 55 – 60

Remark: 1). ( ) figure denotes the planned fixed noise criteria or the predicted ground noise levels associated with the

aircraft taxiing operations for 07L-25R (North) only.

7.4.8.10 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the aircraft taxiing

operations (unmitigated) for Year 2030 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day &

evening and night-time planned / cumulative fixed noise criteria.

The Interim Phase Operation Mode (Year 2021)

7.4.8.11 Based on the taxi-in and taxi-out time predicted by the TAAM model for Year 2021 (i.e. the interim

phase operation mode), the runway utilisation mode under different patterns (i.e. Patterns A & B)

are summarised in Table 7.3.13 to Table 7.3.14 as described in Section 7.3.4.4. The peak

runway utilisation period occurs between 0800 to 0130 hours for Pattern A (i.e. Worst Pattern with

Maximum Total Numbers of Aircraft Taxiing Event over 30 mins. period during Day & Evening

Time / Night-time Period) and 0800 to 0130 hours for Pattern B.

7.4.8.12 The aircraft taxiing operational data for Year 2021 is based on the analyses of the 12 consecutive

month’s taxiing data derived by TAAM simulations. Aircraft taxiing at HKIA involves different type

of aircraft which are expected to be operated in the future scenario (including Airbus A350). As

some aircraft types are not included in the INM Version 7.0dsu1, therefore aircraft substitution is




mins. period for Pattern A (i.e. Worst Pattern) of Year 2021 are summarised in Appendix 7.4.6.

Also, the aircraft taxiing movements are found to be predominantly with Airbus A330 and Boeing

777/Airbus 350 family aircraft types. For the time period between 1400 and 1430 hours, the total

numbers of aircraft taxiing event is found to be 53 (at max.), which is the worst (or busiest) 30

mins. period during the day & evening time period (0700 to 2300 hours). For the time period

between 2300 and 2330 hours, the total numbers of aircraft taxiing event is found to be 39 (at

max.), which is the worst (or busiest) 30 mins. period during the night-time period (2300 to 0700

hours).


compute the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq,30 mins (dBA)) for the worst 30 mins.

periods during day & evening and night-time periods at NSRs for Year 2021 due to the aircraft

taxiing operations. The monthly averaged meteorological data for Year 2011 is adopted and the

ground topography has been incorporated in the INM model. Table 7.4.12 show the summary

results of unmitigated ground noise levels associated with the aircraft taxiing operations (in LAeq, 30


7-46


mins) under the worst 30 mins. period during day & evening and night-time periods at the

representative NSRs. Details please refer to Appendix 7.4.7.

Table 7.4.12: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Aircraft Taxiing in

Year 2021

NSR

ID. Time Period






Day & Evening (38 – 49) (60 – 65) No No

1400-1430 44 – 60 65 – 70

TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2

Night (34 – 42) (50) No No

2300-2330 42 – 51 55

TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3 Night (34 – 44) (55)

No No 2300-2330 41 – 59 60





evening and night-time planned / cumulative fixed noise criteria.

Full Operation Mode (Year 2032)

7.4.8.16 Based on the taxi-in and taxi-out time predicted by the TAAM model for Year 2032 (i.e. full

operation mode), the runway utilisation mode under different patterns (i.e. Patterns A, B & C) are

summarised in Table 7.3.16 to Table 7.3.18 as described in Section 7.3.4.5. The peak runway

utilisation period occurs between 0800 to 2300 hours for Patterns A & B and 0800 to 2300 hours

for Pattern C (i.e. Worst Pattern with Maximum Total Numbers of Aircraft Taxiing Event over 30

mins. period during Day & Evening Time / Night-time Period).

7.4.8.17 The aircraft taxiing operational data for Year 2032 is based on the analyses of the 12 consecutive

month’s taxiing data derived by TAAM simulations. Aircraft taxiing at HKIA involves different type

of aircraft which are expected to be operated in the future scenario (including Airbus A350). As

some aircraft types are not included in the INM Version 7.0dsu1, therefore aircraft substitution is




mins. period for Pattern C (i.e. Worst Pattern) of Year 2032 are summarised in Appendix 7.4.6.

Also, the aircraft taxiing movements are found to be predominantly with Boeing 777/Airbus 350

family aircraft types. For the time period between 1700 and 1730 hours, the total numbers of

aircraft taxiing event is found to be 84 (at max.), which is the worst (or busiest) 30 mins. period

during the day & evening time period (0700 to 2300 hours) for Year 2032. For the time period

between 2330 and 2400 hours, the total numbers of aircraft taxiing event is found to be 51 (at

max.), which is the worst (or busiest) 30 mins. period during the night-time period (2300 to 0700

hours) for Year 2032.


compute the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq,30 mins (dBA)) for the worst 30


7-47


mins. periods during day & evening and night-time periods at NSRs for Year 2032 due to the

aircraft taxiing operations. The monthly averaged meteorological data for Year 2011 is adopted

and the ground topography has been incorporated in the INM model. Table 7.4.13 show the

summary results of unmitigated ground noise levels associated with the aircraft taxiing operations

(in LAeq, 30 mins) under the worst 30 mins. period during day & evening and night-time periods at the

representative NSRs. Details please refer to Appendix 7.4.7.

Table 7.4.13: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Aircraft Taxiing in

Year 2032

NSR

ID. Time Period






Day & Evening (37 – 42) (60) No No

1700-1730 44 – 51 65

TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3 Day & Evening (37 – 44) (63-65)

No No 1700-1730 45 – 69 70


Night (36 – 47) (50 – 55) No No

2330-2400 42 – 52 55 – 60





evening / night-time fixed noise criteria.


The Worst Operation Mode (Year 2030)

7.4.8.21 The prediction method set out in ISO-9613 was used to calculate the A-weighted equivalent

continuous noise level (LAeq,30 mins (dBA)) for the worst 30 mins. periods during day & evening and

night-time periods (same as the ones for the aircraft taxiing operations) at NSRs for Year 2030

due to the operation of APUs. Table 7.4.14 show the summary results of unmitigated ground

noise levels associated with the operation of APUs (in LAeq, 30 mins) under the worst 30 mins. period

during day & evening and night-time periods at the representative NSRs, which are detailed in the

Appendix 7.4.8 and Appendix 7.4.9.

Table 7.4.14: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Operation of APUs in

Year 2030

NSR

ID. Time Period






Day & Evening (28 – 32) (60 – 65) No No

1700-1730 39 – 49 65 – 70

Night (29 – 38) (50 – 55) No No

2330-2400 39 – 49 55 – 60

Remarks: 1). ( ) figure denotes the planned fixed noise criteria or the predicted ground noise levels associated with the

operation of APUs for 07L-25R (North) only.


7-48


7.4.8.22 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the operation of APUs

(unmitigated) for Year 2030 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day & evening and

night-time noise criteria.

The Interim Phase Operation Mode (Year 2021)









Year 2021

NSR

ID. Time Period






Day & Evening (29 – 37) (60 – 65) No No

1400-1430 40 – 50 65 – 70

Night (30 – 39) (50 – 55) No No

2300-2330 38 – 49 55 – 60






Full Operation Mode (Year 2032)









Year 2032

NSR

ID. Time Period






Day & Evening (26 – 34) (60 – 65) No No

1700-1730 37 – 43 65 – 70

Night (30 – 40) (50 – 55) No No

2330-2400 39 – 46 55 – 60


7-49








7.4.8.27 According to the preliminary design information, noise from project fixed plant of the project would

mainly be associated with the above ground ventilation openings. The identified major project

fixed plant noise sources (including the planned fixed plant noise source for the concurrent

project of HZMB Hong Kong Link Road) are summarised in Table 7.4.17 and the corresponding

locations are shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-4-006.

Table 7.4.17: Summary of Fixed Plant Noise Sources

Fixed Noise Source Existing/ Planned

Number of Source Facade

Opening ID

Ventilation Opening of Terminal 2 Building Planned 10 FS1 to FS10

Ventilation Building of Automated People Mover / Baggage Handling System

Planned 2 FS11 and FS12

Ventilation Opening of Airside Tunnel Planned 4 FS13 to FS16

Ventilation Opening of Third Runway Passenger Concourse (TRC)

Planned 2 FS17 and FS18

Seawater Pump House Planned 2 FS19 and FS20

Ventilation Opening of APM Depot Planned 2 FS21 and FS22

Ventilation Building of Hong Kong Link Road (i.e. Concurrent Project)

Planned 1 FS23

Emergency Generator Building Existing 1 EFS1

Switching Station Existing 2 EFS2 and EFS4

Seawater Pump House Existing 1 EFS3

CLP Primary Substation Existing 1 EFS5

Ventilation Opening of Airport Freight Forwarding Centre

Existing 2 EFS6 and EFS7

Ventilation Opening of CX Stores Existing 1 EFS8

Sewage Pump Station Existing 3 EFS9, EFS15 and EFS16

Ventilation Opening of Airline Headquarters Building

Existing 2 EFS10 and EFS11

Ventilation Opening of Terminal 1 Building Existing 3 EFS12, EFS13 and EFS14

Skypier Marine Vessels Idling Existing 1 EFS17

7.4.8.28 Details of the noise measurements and calculation of sound power levels for existing fixed noise

sources has been shown in Appendix 7.4.10.

7.4.8.29 Based on the methodology mentioned in Section 7.4.7, the maximum allowable SWLs of the

project fixed plants during daytime and night-time are predicted as summarised in Table 7.4.18

below.


7-50


Table 7.4.18: Maximum Allowable SWLs of the Project Fixed Plant

Fixed Noise Source Source ID Maximum allowable SWL, dB(A) [1] [2]

Daytime Night-time

Ventilation Opening of Terminal 2 Building FS1 to FS10 103 92

Ventilation Building of APM / BHS FS11 to FS12 103 92

Ventilation Building of Airside Tunnel FS13 to FS16 103 92

Ventilation Opening of TRC FS17 to FS18 103 92

Seawater Pump House FS19 to FS20 103 92

Ventilation Opening of APM Depot FS21 to FS 22 103 92

Ventilation Building of Hong Kong Link Road (i.e. Concurrent Project)

FS23 110* 104*

Remarks: [1] The maximum sound power level of equipment would be specified in the tender specification to ensure the operational noise impact complying with relevant noise criteria. The supplier of equipment should guarantee the specified SWLs including the characteristics of tonality, impulsiveness and intermittency, if any.

[2] The lowest maximum allowable SWL should be adopted as the design criteria. * The maximum allowable SWL of ventilation building of Hong Kong Link Road are taken reference to the

approved HZMB HKLR and HKBCF EIA reports (Register No.: AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009)

7.4.8.30 With the adoption of the proposed maximum allowable SWLs of the planned fixed plant, the

project fixed plant noise impact to the surrounding NSRs are presented in Appendix 7.4.11. The

results of noise impact from project fixed plant are shown in Table 7.4.22. The impact noise

levels from project fixed plant noise source at all selected NSRs complied with the relevant noise

criteria for the daytime, evening time and night-time periods.

7.4.8.31 For those existing fixed plant noise sources, the design information were made reference to the

relevant approved EIA Reports or obtained from the relevant authorities. Since information of

some existing fixed plant sources is not available during the course of preparing this assessment,

site visits and noise measurements have been carried out in July of 2013 to determine the

locations of the fixed sources and the corresponding sound power levels. The noise impact

associated with these existing fixed plant sources and project fixed plant has been summarised in

Table 7.4.22. According to the assessment results, significant fixed plant noise impact to the

existing NSRs is not anticipated.

Summary of Fixed Noise Impact including Ground Noise Impact (Unmitigated)

7.4.8.32 The unmitigated planned / cumulative noise impact at NSRs from fixed noise sources including

ground noise sources associated with the aircraft taxiing as well as the operations of aircraft

engine run-up facilities and APUs are summarised in following Table 7.4.19. Details please refer

to Appendix 7.4.12.

Table 7.4.19: Summary of Planned / Cumulative Unmitigated Fixed Noise Impact including Ground

Noise Impact

NSR

ID. Time Period


Noise Criteria*, dB(A)




Day & Evening (49 – 56) (60) No No

53 – 59 65

TC-3, TS-1, SLW 2 to 3 Day & Evening (49 – 56) (65)

No No 54 – 67 70


7-51


NSR

ID. Time Period





SLW-1 Day & Evening (58) (65)

Yes Yes 71 70

TC-2 to 3, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16

Night (48 – 50) (50 – 55) No No

52 – 53 55 – 60

TC-1, TC-4 to 6, TC-46, TS-2 Night (51 – 55) (50)

Yes Yes 53 – 59 55

TS-1, SLW- 1 to 3 Night (55 – 58) (55)

Yes Yes 61 – 66 60

Notes: [1] Based on the fixed noise source measurement results at NSRs SLW-1 and TS-1 dated November 2013, no

correction of tonality, impulsiveness and intermittency have been identified / included.

[2] Bold figure denotes exceedance of relevant noise criteria.

( ) Figure denotes the planned fixed noise criteria or the predicted ground noise levels associated with the

operation of aircraft taxiing or APUs for 07L-25R (North) / New ERUF only.

* Refer to Table 7.4.4 and Table 7.4.5 for the fixed noise sources criteria.

7.4.8.33 Exceedances of planned / cumulative noise criteria from fixed noise sources including ground

noise sources associated with the aircraft taxiing as well as the operations of aircraft engine run-

up facilities and APUs have been identified at some NSRs. Direct mitigation measures are

therefore required for these NSRs in order to alleviate the corresponding excessive noise impacts.

7.4.9 Fixed Noise Sources Mitigation Measures

Ground Noise Source (Operation of Aircraft Engine Run-up Facilities)

7.4.9.1 With the incorporation of noise enclosure with required noise reduction of at least 15 dBA at the

ERUFs, the results indicated that the mitigated noise impact would comply with the relevant day

& evening and night-time planned / cumulative fixed noise criteria which can be summarised in

Table 7.4.20 and Table 7.4.21. Details please refer to Appendix 7.4.5.

Table 7.4.20: Summary of Mitigated Ground Noise Levels during Day & Evening Time Period (0700-

2300 hours)

Aircraft Model NSR

ID.





7773ER


(32 – 43) (60 – 65) No No

36 – 50 65 – 70

A330-343 (24 – 36) (60 – 65)

No No 27 – 42 65 – 70

747-400 (31 – 42) (60 – 65)

No No 35 – 48 65 – 70

777-200 (26 – 36) (60 – 65)

No No 29 – 43 65 – 70

MD11 (30 – 41) (60 – 65)

No No 33 – 48 65 – 70

Remark:


7-52


1). ( ) figure denotes the planned fixed noise criteria or the predicted ground noise levels associated with the operation of the New ERUF only.

Table 7.4.21: Mitigated Ground Noise Levels during Night-time Period (2300-0700 hours)

Aircraft Model NSR

ID.





7773ER


(32 – 43) (50 – 55) No No

36 – 50 55 – 60

747-400 (31 – 42) (50 – 55)

No No 35 – 48 55 – 60

MD11 (30 – 41) (50 – 55)

No No 33 – 48 55 – 60

Remark: 1). ( ) figure denotes the planned fixed noise criteria or the predicted ground noise levels associated with the operation of the New ERUF only.

Ground Noise Source (Aircraft Taxiing)

7.4.9.2 No mitigation measure is proposed for ground noise source associated with the aircraft taxiing

operations since no adverse impact is anticipated.


7.4.9.3 No mitigation measure is proposed for ground noise source associated with the operation of

APUs since no adverse impact is anticipated.


7.4.9.4 No mitigation measure is proposed for project and existing fixed plant noise sources since no

adverse impact is anticipated.

Summary of Fixed Noise Impact including Ground Noise Impact (Mitigated)

7.4.9.5 The mitigated planned / cumulative noise impact at NSRs from fixed noise sources including

ground noise sources associated with the aircraft taxiing as well as the operations of aircraft

engine run-up facilities and APUs are summarised in following Table 7.4.22. Details please refer

to Appendix 7.4.12.

Table 7.4.22: Summary of Planned / Cumulative Mitigated Fixed Noise Impact including Ground

Noise Impact

NSR

ID. Time Period






Day & Evening (43 – 50) (60)

No No 49 – 56 65

TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3 Day & Evening (43 – 50) (65)

No No 50 – 69 70


Night (40 – 46) (50)

No No 46 – 53 55


7-53


NSR

ID. Time Period





TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3 Night (39 – 47) (55)

No No 47 – 60 60

Notes: [1] Based on the fixed noise source measurement results at NSRs SLW-1 and TS-1 dated November 2013, no

correction of tonality, impulsiveness and intermittency have been identified / included.

( ) Figure denotes the planned fixed noise criteria or the predicted ground noise levels associated with the

operation of aircraft taxiing or APUs for 07L-25R (North) / New ERUF only.

* Refer to Table 7.4.4 and Table 7.4.5 for the fixed noise sources criteria.

7.4.9.6 The predicted noise levels from fixed noise sources of the 3RS project at village houses in Sha

Lo Wan and San Tau all meet the fixed noise source criteria. As these village houses are either

within or in close vicinity of the North Lantau (Extension) Country Park, the noise environment

would be very similar. Besides, as the visitors to the country park would be of transient nature,

adverse noise impact from the fixed noise sources to the North Lantau (Extension) Country Park

and its visitors is not envisaged.

7.4.10 Evaluation of Fixed Noise Sources Residual Impact

7.4.10.1 With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no adverse planned / cumulative

noise impact during operation phase was found at the representative NSRs. As such, no residual

impact is anticipated. Since none of the planned noise sensitive uses have adverse noise impact

with practicable direct technical remedies in place, no constraints will be imposed on these

planned noise sensitive development/land uses in this study.

7.5 Construction Noise Impact Assessment


7.5.1.1 Clause 4.2.1 in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-250/2012) specifies that the assessment

area for the construction noise impact assessment shall generally include areas within 300

metres from the boundary of the project and the works of the project. This has been identified

accordingly and is shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-001.


7.5.2.1 The existing hotels and offices located on the airport island will be closest NSRs to the noise

sources. Since the hotels located on the airport island has been installed with certain sealed

glazing and central air-conditioning, impact due to airborne construction noise is not anticipated.

Besides, offices on the airport island have also been installed with sealed glazing and provided

with central air-conditioning. The use does not rely on opened windows for ventilation and

adverse airborne construction noise impact is not expected. The first layer of noise sensitive

premises (i.e., those that are nearest to the noise sources in various directions except for the

existing hotels and offices) which would be most affected by construction noise impact has been

selected as representative NSRs. Descriptions for the (existing/planned) representative NSRs

selected are tabulated in Table 7.5.1. The representative NSRs (as well as cluster of NSRs) are

shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-001. Photos of existing representative noise sensitive


7-54


receivers are shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-002. As other NSRs including country

parks fall outside assessment area, adverse noise impact is not anticipated.

Table 7.5.1: Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers Identified for the Assessment of

Construction Phase Noise Impact



TC-1 Seaview Crescent Block1 Existing Residential 49


TC-30 Ho Yu College Existing Educational 6

TC-37 Ching Chung Hau Po Won Primary School





Overview

7.5.3.1 Major construction activities involved in the project include land formation, construction of the

third runway, apron, passenger concourses and grey water recycling system, expansion of part of

the midfield freighter apron and the passenger Terminal 2; extension of the automated people

mover (APM) and baggage handling system (BHS); improvement of road network and

modification of marine facilities in the subject site. The key construction activities that would

potentially result in noise impact from use of PME during construction phase of the project have

been identified to include:

� Land formation works

� Construction works on the newly formed land

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

� Operation of concrete batching plants, asphalt batching plants, haul roads, barging points and

crushing plants

� Diversion of submarine fuel pipeline

� Diversion of submarine 11 kV cable

7.5.3.2 The potential noise impact associated with the above key construction activities are described

below.

Land Formation Works

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

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

the land formation) would be completed by 2020 for closure of the existing North Runway and


7-55


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

works has been primarily divided into three main stages. The tentative programme for the three-

stage land formation works are shown in Appendix 7.5.1 and their respective locations are

shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-003. The works for each stage are described below:

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

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

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

supported by facilities within the east support area.

7.5.3.6 Stage 3 is the land formation area at both ends of the existing North Runway associated with the

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

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

7.5.3.7 For each stage of the land formation, the nearby NSRs are located at least 1.8 km away from the

relevant construction works area. With standard pollution control measures for construction site,

no adverse construction noise impact from the land formation works to NSRs is therefore

expected. Nevertheless, the quantitative assessment has been carried out to demonstrate this as

part of the construction noise impact assessment.

7.5.3.8 In addition, construction phase marine vessels will be operating predominantly to the north of the

existing airport island. The nearby NSRs are located at least 2 km away from the working area of

marine vessels. Potential routings for barge operations for reclamation construction activities are

shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-004. Therefore, with standard pollution control

measures for construction site, no adverse noise impact from construction phase marine traffic to

NSRs is anticipated. Nevertheless, quantitative assessment has been carried out as part of the

construction noise impact assessment.

7.5.3.9 The land formation works are assumed to be carried out 24 hours per day and 7 days per week

throughout the relevant construction years. The Contractor will be required to submit CNP

application to the Noise Control Authority and abide by any conditions stated in the CNP. The

quantity of PME during restricted hours (1900 to 0700 hrs) would be adjusted accordingly by the

Contractor so as to comply with the conditions in CNP. Therefore, all such construction activities

are expected to be in full compliance with the NCO and the relevant TMs as well. Adverse

construction noise impact during restricted hours is not anticipated. Nevertheless, quantitative

assessment has been carried out as a demonstration of construction work feasible scheme

during restricted hour.

Construction Works on the Newly Formed Land

7.5.3.10 Upon formation of different parcels of land in the proposed sequence, the newly formed land will

be handed over for subsequent construction of the necessary infrastructure and superstructure

facilities. During such construction works, the major activities that would generate construction

noise include the following:

� Excavation works for constructing basements, tunnels for APM and baggage handling system,

airside tunnels, etc.


7-56


� Foundation works for the superstructure

7.5.3.11 The above construction works areas are located at least 1.8 km away from the nearby NSRs.

With standard pollution control measures for construction site, adverse construction noise impact

during restricted hours is not anticipated. Nevertheless, quantitative assessment has been carried

out as a demonstration of construction work feasible scheme during restricted hour.

Construction Works on the Existing Airport Island

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

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

� Expanding the existing passenger T2 on the existing airport island and the associated

improvement of elevated road network;

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

proposed third runway;

� Constructing a new APM depot on the existing airport island;

� Extending the BHS from the existing airport island to the aprons of the proposed third runway;

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

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

third runway;

� Extending the South Perimeter Road; and,

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

7.5.3.13 The indicative locations of the above works are given in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-001.

During such construction works, the major activities that would generate potential noise impact

include the following:

� Excavation works

� Foundation works

7.5.3.14 The above construction works areas are located at about 400 m to over 2 km away from the

nearby NSRs. Quantitative assessment has been carried out to assess the construction noise

impact due to such construction activities.

7.5.3.15 Underground construction works for APM extension, new APM depot and BHS extension are

required for the project. It is currently envisaged that these underground construction works will

be carried out by cut and cover method (instead of drill and blast / bored tunnelling method).

Therefore, no ground-borne noise impact is anticipated for these construction works.


7-57


Concrete Batching Plants, Asphalt Batching Plants, Haul Roads, Barging Points and Crushing

Plants

Concrete and Asphalt Batching Plants, Floating Concrete Batching Plant and Haul Roads

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

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

the project. The batching plants together with the associated haul roads will be located near the

west and/or east of the proposed land formation area in order to maintain the airport operations.

In addition, one floating concrete batching plant will be deployed to support construction of box

culverts. A summary of the indicative locations of these plants at different phases of works are

given in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-005 and Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-006. Details

are also summarised as follows:

7.5.3.17 The locations of the aforementioned batching plants and haul roads at various phases are located

at least 1.8 km away from the nearby NSRs. With standard pollution control measures for

construction site, adverse construction noise impact during restricted hours is not anticipated.

Nevertheless, quantitative assessment would be carried out as a demonstration of construction

work feasible scheme during restricted hour (if applicable).

Barging Points

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

loading or unloading of materials at the barging points would generate potential noise impact. The

locations of the barging points are anticipated to be at least 2.4 km away from the nearby NSRs.

Indicative locations of temporary barging points are given in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-007.

Therefore, no adverse noise impact from construction works of barging points to NSRs is

anticipated. Nevertheless, quantitative assessment has been carried out to demonstrate this as


Crushing Plants

7.5.3.19 Crushing plant is needed for breaking down existing rock armours into material grade suitable for

the proposed seawall structures. Due to the early demand of rockfill material, the crushing plant

will be served by a barge outside the Scheduled Runway Closure Zone from 2016 to 2017. After

that, the plant will be located on land close to the first temporary barging point until the handover

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

small. The location of crushing plant both on barge and on land as well as the anticipated

durations are indicated in the Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-007.

7.5.3.20 The locations of the crushing plants are anticipated to be at least 3 km away from the nearby

NSRs. Therefore, no adverse noise impact from construction works of crushing plants to NSRs is

anticipated. Nevertheless, quantitative assessment has been carried out to demonstrate this as


Diversion of Submarine Fuel Pipeline

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

submarine fuel pipelines is by Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) method (see Drawing No.


7-58


MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-001). The HDD method will be deployed to install the pipeline directly from

west side of the existing airport island to the small Sha Chau Island by underground drilling,

which will take place mostly at sub-seabed rock level without any disturbance to the seabed.

7.5.3.22 The horizontal distance between the proposed diversion works of the submarine fuel pipeline and

the nearest NSR (existing / planned) is at least 1.8 km. Though work will be carried out using

HDD method, the distance of 1.8 km will screen out the drilling vibration. Therefore, no

construction ground-borne noise impact from the diversion of submarine fuel pipeline is

anticipated.

7.5.3.23 The location of diversion of submarine fuel pipeline is located at least 1.8 km away from the

nearby NSRs. Therefore, no adverse noise impact from construction works of diversion of

submarine fuel pipeline to NSRs is anticipated. Nevertheless, quantitative assessment has been

carried out to demonstrate this as part of the construction noise impact assessment. The

indicative locations of which are given in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-001. With reference to

the tentative programme in Appendix 7.5.1, the pipeline diversion works would commence in

2015 and complete by 2016.

Diversion of Submarine 11 kV Cable

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

submarine 11 kV cable has been identified, as illustrated in (see Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-

5-001). Under the preferred option, the proposed cable will be laid below the seabed by water

jetting method from west side of the existing airport island to the south of Sha Chau and Lung

Kwu Chau (SCLKC) Marine Park where the proposed cable will be connected to the existing

cable via a field joint. Excavation of the seabed at the proposed field joint area will need to be

carried out to expose the existing cable, which will then be lifted up to a barge for forming the field

joint.

7.5.3.25 The horizontal distance between the proposed diversion works of the submarine 11 kV cable and

the nearest NSR (existing/planned) is at least 1 km. As works will be carried out using water

jetting method, the distance of 1 km will sufficiently screen out the jetting vibration. Therefore, no

construction ground-borne noise impact from the diversion of submarine 11 kV cable is

anticipated.

7.5.3.26 The location of diversion of submarine 11 kV cable is located at least 1 km away from the nearby

NSRs. Therefore, no adverse noise impact from construction works of diversion of submarine

11 kV cable to NSRs is anticipated. Nevertheless, quantitative assessment has been carried out

to demonstrate this as part of the construction noise impact assessment. The indicative location

of the seawall modification (i.e., the cable landing location) is given in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-001. As illustrated in the tentative programme in Appendix 7.5.1, the cable

diversion work would commence in 2015 and complete by 2016.

Cumulative Impact

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

Appendix 7.5.1). Due to the large scale of the project, a number of concurrent projects have

been identified for potential cumulative construction noise impact. These include the following:


7-59


� HZMB Hong Kong Link Road (HKLR) (Construction Period: 2011 - 2015);

� HZMB Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) (Construction Period: 3rd quarter of

2010 - end 2016);

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

(Construction Period: 2007 - 2015);

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

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

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

and the development of additional airport car parks, coach station, vehicular staging and T1

check-in facilities (Construction Period: 2016 - 2019); and

� Tung Chung New Town Extension Study (Proposed commencement of construction in 2018

for first population intake in 2023/24).

7.5.3.28 Construction of New Contaminated Mud Marine Disposal Facility project will not be taken into

account for the cumulative construction noise impact assessment as this is located outside the

300 m assessment area. The Tung Chung New Town Extension Study has neither been

considered for evaluation of potential cumulative construction noise impact, as there is no

available detailed construction programme (except the proposed commencement year of

construction) / plant inventory.

7.5.3.29 For concurrent work associated with construction of HZMB HKLR and HKBCF projects in the

vicinity, potential cumulative construction noise impact will be assessed with reference to the

approved HZMB Hong Kong Link Road and Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities EIA reports

(Register No.: AEIAR-144/2009 and AEIAR-145/2009). The North Commercial District,

Intermodal Transfer Terminus and other airport facilities related works will also be considered as

concurrent projects in the cumulative construction noise impact assessment.

Ground-borne Construction Noise

7.5.3.30 Two aspects of construction may have the potential to create ground-borne construction noise

impact. They are construction of the APM and BHS and construction of submarine fuel pipeline.

7.5.3.31 Underground construction works for the new APM and BHS are required for the project. However,

it is currently envisaged that these underground construction works will be carried out by cut and

cover method (instead of drill and blast / bored tunnelling method) and no rock breaking or tunnel

mining works will be involved in the underground construction. Therefore, no ground-borne noise

impact is anticipated.

7.5.3.32 A replacement pipeline is needed to connect the fuel pipeline between the airport island and Sha

Chau Island. The horizontal distance between the proposed diversion works of the submarine fuel

pipeline and the nearest NSR (existing / planned) is at least 1.8 km. Though work will be carried

out using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) method, the distance of 1.8 km will screen out the

drilling vibration. Therefore, no ground-borne noise impact during the construction phase of the


7-60


project is anticipated. Details for the diversion of submarine fuel pipeline can be referred to

Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-001.

7.5.4 Construction Phase Noise Assessment Methodology

Airborne Noise (including Construction Phase Marine Vessels)

7.5.4.1 The adopted approach to assess the noise impact is in line with the Guidance Note titled

“Preparation of Construction Noise Impact Assessment under the Environmental Impact

Assessment Ordinance” (GN 9/2010).

7.5.4.2 In addition, the assessment of construction noise impact is based on standard acoustic principles,

and the guidelines given in GW-TM issued under the NCO where appropriate. Where no sound

power level (SWL) can be found in the relevant TM, reference has been made to BS 5228 Part

1:2009 or noise emission levels measured for PME used in previous projects in Hong Kong. The

general approach is summarised below:

i. Obtain the construction schedules/ programmes together with typical project-specific equipment inventory for each work stage together with the numbers of such equipment from the relevant Engineering Design Consultants;

ii. Obtain from GW-TM, the Sound Power Level (SWL) for each PME assumed in the equipment inventory;

iii. Select representative NSRs for the construction noise impact assessment;

iv. Calculate the unmitigated Predicted Noise Level (PNL) and correct it for facade reflection to obtain the Corrected Noise Level (CNL) at any NSRs;

v. If necessary, re-select typical project-specific silenced equipment and calculate the mitigated noise impact;

vi. Compare the mitigated CNL with the noise standards to determine acceptability and the need for further mitigation.

7.5.4.3 The calculation methodology is estimated with the following standard Equation 3-1:

SPL = SWL – DC + FC Equation 3-1

where

Sound Pressure Levels, SPL in dB(A)

Sound Power Levels, SWL in dB(A)

Distance Attenuation, DC in dB(A) = 20 log(D)+8 (where D is the distance between NSRs and noise source in metres)

Façade Correction, FC in dB(A) = 3 dB(A)

7.5.4.4 Day-time / night-time construction programme & plant inventory were provided / confirmed by the

Project’s Engineering Design Consultants for the construction noise impact assessment

respectively.


7-61


7.5.5 Evaluation and Assessment of Construction Phase Noise Impact

Airborne Noise

7.5.5.1 The type and quantity of PME likely to be used for the land formation works, construction of road

and construction of superstructure and their SWLs are shown in Appendix 7.5.1. According to

the tentative construction programme, it is likely that there will be an overlap of this project with

some other potentially concurrent projects including HZMB HKLR and HZMB HKBCF. These

projects are described in Section 4.5.2.

7.5.5.2 The unmitigated noise levels from this project as well as the other concurrent projects are

predicted and presented in Table 7.5.2 below. Details of the cumulative construction noise impact

at the representative NSRs are shown in Appendix 7.5.3.

Table 7.5.2: Cumulative Unmitigated Construction Airborne Noise Impact

NSR ID Use Predicted Noise Level dB(A)

Noise Criteria dB(A)



TC-1 Residential 44 – 73 75 No No


TC-30 Educational 44 – 73 65 Yes Yes

TC-37 Educational 43 – 72 65 Yes Yes

TS-1 Residential 45 – 74 75 No No

SLW-1 Residential 48 – 73 75 No No

Remarks: Bold figure denotes exceedance of relevant noise criteria.

7.5.5.3 The prediction results under the worst case scenario indicate that the noise impact of unmitigated

construction activities from this project and concurrent projects would cause exceedance of the

relevant daytime construction noise criterion. Mitigation measures are therefore required in order

to alleviate the noise impact generated during the construction phase.

Ground-borne Noise

7.5.5.4 No ground-borne noise impact is anticipated as mentioned in Sections 7.5.3.30 to 7.5.3.32.

7.5.6 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

Airborne Noise

7.5.6.1 Mitigation measures for construction activities are detailed below. The following forms of

mitigation measures are recommended and should be incorporated into the Contract

Specifications:

� good site practice to limit noise emissions at source;

� selection of quieter plant;

� use of movable noise barrier; and

� use of noise enclosure/ acoustic shed.


7-62


7.5.6.2 While it is recognised that the Contractor may develop a different package of mitigation measures

to meet the required noise standards, the following suite of practical and implementable

measures demonstrate an approach that would be feasible to reduce noise to acceptable levels.

Good Site Practice

7.5.6.3 Good site practice and noise management can significantly reduce the impact of construction site

activities on nearby NSRs. The following package of measures should be followed during each

phase of construction:

� only well-maintained plant to be operated on-site and plant should be serviced regularly during

the construction works;

� machines and plant that may be in intermittent use to be shut down between work periods or

should be throttled down to a minimum;

� plant known to emit noise strongly in one direction, should, where possible, be orientated to

direct noise away from the NSRs;

� mobile plant should be sited as far away from NSRs as possible; and

� material stockpiles and other structures to be effectively utilised, where practicable, to screen

noise from on-site construction activities.

Selection of Quieter Plant

7.5.6.4 The Contractor may be able to obtain particular models of plant that are quieter than the

standards given in the GW-TM. This is one of the most effective measures and is increasingly

practicable because of the availability of quiet equipment.

7.5.6.5 Quiet plant is defined as Quality Powered Mechanical Equipment (QPME) whose actual SWL is

less than the value specified in GW-TM for the same piece of equipment. Examples of SWLs for

specific silenced PME taken from EPD’s QPME Inventory and “Sound Power Levels of Other

Commonly Used PME” are presented in Table 7.5.3. It should be noted that various types of

silenced equipment can be found in Hong Kong.

Table 7.5.3: Quieter PME Recommended for Adoption during Construction Phase

PME Power rating/size, weight

Reference SWL, dB(A)

Asphalt paver 92 kW EPD-00075 106

Bulldozer 200 kW EPD Plant Inventory 110

Compactor, vibratory 2.2 kW EPD-00054 102

Excavator, wheeled/tracked 112.5 kW EPD-01230 99

Mobile crane 10.5 t EPD-01516 101

Road roller 62 kW EPD-00223 99

Roller, vibratory 1600 kg EPD-00591 105

Poker, vibratory, handheld (electric)

0.75 kW each EPD document “Sound Power Levels of Other Commonly Used PME”

102

7.5.6.6 Whilst quieter PME are listed, the Contractor may be able to obtain particular models of plant that

are quieter than the PMEs given in GW-TM.


7-63


Use of Movable Noise Barriers

7.5.6.7 Movable noise barriers can be very effective in screening noise from particular items of plant

when constructing the project. Noise barriers located along the active works area close to the

noise generating component of a PME could produce at least 10 dB(A) screening for stationary

plant and 5 dB(A) for mobile plant provided the direct line of sight between the PME and the

NSRs is blocked. A schematic configuration of a single movable noise barrier for PME is shown in

Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-008.

Use of Noise Enclosure/ Acoustic Shed

7.5.6.8 The use of noise enclosure or acoustic shed is to cover stationary PME such as air compressor

and generator. With the adoption of the noise enclosure, the PME could be completely screened,

and noise reduction of 15 dB(A) can be achieved according to the EIAO Guidance Note

No.9/2010. A schematic configuration of full noise enclosure for PME is shown in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-009.

7.5.6.9 The noise screening benefit for each item of plant considered in this assessment is listed in Table

7.5.4.

Table 7.5.4: Noise Mitigation Measures for Certain PME during Construction Phase

PME Mitigation Measures Proposed

Noise Reduction, dB(A)

Air compressor Noise enclosure 15

Generator Noise enclosure 15

Drill rig Movable noise barrier 10

Piling, diaphragm wall, bentonite filtering plant Movable noise barrier 10

Piling, diaphragm wall, hydraulic extractor Movable noise barrier 10

Piling, large diameter bored, grab and chisel Movable noise barrier 10

Piling, large diameter bored, reverse circulation drill Movable noise barrier 10

Piling, vibrating hammer Movable noise barrier 10

Piling rig Movable noise barrier 10

Bar bender and cutter Movable noise barrier 10

Crushing Plant Movable noise barrier 10

Hand-held breaker Movable noise barrier 10

Hydraulic breaker Movable noise barrier 10

Pneumatic breaker Movable noise barrier 10

Hydraulic rock drill Movable noise barrier 10

Hand-held chipper Movable noise barrier 10

Concrete pump, lorry mounted Movable noise barrier 10

Generator, portable Movable noise barrier 10

Grout pump Movable noise barrier 10

Saw, circular, wool Movable noise barrier 10

Saw/ groover, concrete (petrol) Movable noise barrier 10

Ventilation fan Movable noise barrier 10

Water pump Movable noise barrier 10

Asphalt paver Movable noise barrier 5


7-64


PME Mitigation Measures Proposed

Noise Reduction, dB(A)

Bulldozer Movable noise barrier 5

Backhoe Movable noise barrier 5

Compactor, vibratory Movable noise barrier 5

Concrete lorry mixer Movable noise barrier 5

Mobile crane Movable noise barrier 5

Dump truck Movable noise barrier 5

Dump truck, with grab Movable noise barrier 5

Excavator, wheeled/tracked Movable noise barrier 5

Grader Movable noise barrier 5

Poker, vibratory, hand-held Movable noise barrier 5

Light goods vehicle Movable noise barrier 5

Lorry Movable noise barrier 5

Lorry, with crane/grab Movable noise barrier 5

Road roller Movable noise barrier 5

Roller, vibratory Movable noise barrier 5

7.5.6.10 These noise barriers should be free of gaps and made of materials having a surface mass density

in excess of 10 kg/m2. To improve the effectiveness of noise reduction, non-flammable absorptive

lining can be adhered on the inner surface of the noise barriers. The barrier can be in the form of

vertical or bend top barrier with an effective height to block the line of sight to NSRs.

7.5.6.11 Use of quieter plants, movable barriers and enclosures are common noise mitigation measures in

construction sites. Therefore, negative side effects or constraints associated with the proposed

measures are not anticipated.

7.5.6.12 The effect of the use of quieter plant, movable barriers and enclosures has been investigated for

practicable construction activity. The predicted noise levels from this project as well as the other

concurrent projects are presented in Table 7.5.5. Mitigated Construction Plant Inventory and

details of the mitigated construction noise impact are shown in Appendix 7.5.4 and Appendix

7.5.5 respectively.

Table 7.5.5: Cumulative Mitigated Construction Airborne Noise Impact


Noise Criteria dB(A)





TC-30 Educational 39 – 65 65 No No

TC-37 Educational 38 – 64 65 No No

TS-1 Residential 40 – 66 75 No No

SLW-1 Residential 43 – 66 75 No No

Remarks: Bold figure denotes exceedance of relevant noise criteria.

7.5.6.13 With the incorporation of quieter plant, movable barriers and enclosures, the results indicate that

the mitigated noise impact associated with the construction of the project and other concurrent


7-65


projects would comply with the day-time construction noise criterion at all representative NSRs.

Therefore, adverse construction noise impact is not anticipated.

Construction Works during Restricted Hours

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

formed land, the existing airport island and the small Sha Chau Island will be carried out 24 hours

per day and 7 days per week throughout the relevant construction years. For the barging points,

concrete and asphalt paving plants and crushing plant, the working hours and days confirmed by

the Project’s Engineering Design Consultants would be taken as respectively 12 hours per day

(7am to 7pm) and 6 days per week (Monday to Saturday), i.e., no operation of these facilities is

expected on Sundays and public holidays. Quantitative assessment has been carried out as a

demonstration of construction work feasible scheme during restricted hour and shown in

Appendix 7.5.6 to 7.5.10. Actual construction plant and noise levels are subject to further

detailed design stage to work out the exact scheme for CNP applications.

7.5.6.15 The unmitigated noise levels from this project as well as the other concurrent projects during

evening period (1900 – 2300 hours) / night-time period (2300 – 0700 hours) (worst-case scenario)

are predicted and presented in Table 7.5.6 below. Details of the cumulative construction noise

impact at the representative NSRs are shown in Appendix 7.5.8.

Table 7.5.6: Cumulative Unmitigated Construction Airborne Noise Impact during Night-time

Period


ASR^ Noise Criteria dB(A)



TC-1 Residential 44 – 62 B 50 Yes Yes

TC-5 Residential 44 – 62 B 50 Yes Yes

TS-1 Residential 46 – 63 C 55 Yes Yes

SLW-1 Residential 47 – 64 C 55 Yes Yes

Remarks: (^) Refer to Table 7.4.5 for Area Sensitivity Rating (ASR) of NSRs.

Bold figure denotes exceedance of relevant noise criteria.

No operation of educational use (i.e. TC-30 and TC-37) will be anticipated during night-time period

7.5.6.16 By exhausting all practicable noise mitigation measures including the use of quieter plant,

movable barriers and enclosures, the predicted noise levels from this project as well as the other

concurrent projects are presented in Table 7.5.7. Mitigated Construction Plant Inventory and

details of the mitigated construction noise impact are shown in Appendix 7.5.9 and Appendix

7.5.10 respectively.

Table 7.5.7: Cumulative Mitigated Construction Airborne Noise Impact during Night-time Period


ASR^ Noise Criteria dB(A)



TC-1 Residential 31 – 50 B 50 No No

TC-5 Residential 31 – 50 B 50 No No

TS-1 Residential 33 – 52 C 55 No No

SLW-1 Residential 34 – 54 C 55 No No

Remarks: (^) Refer to Table 7.4.5 for Area Sensitivity Rating (ASR) of NSRs.


7-66


No operation of educational use (i.e. TC-30 and TC-37) will be anticipated during night-time period

7.5.6.17 The results of the feasible scheme indicate that the mitigated noise impact associated with the

construction of the project and other concurrent projects would comply with the night-time

construction noise criteria at all representative NSRs. However, regardless of the assessment

results, in assessing a filed application for a CNP the Authority will be guided by the relevant

Technical Memoranda. The Authority will consider all the factors affecting their decision taking

contemporary situations/ conditions into account. Nothing in this EIA report shall pre-empt the

Authority in making their decisions, and there is no guarantee that a CNP will be issued.

7.5.7 Evaluation of Construction Phase Residual Impact

7.5.7.1 With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no exceedance of cumulative

noise impact during construction phase was predicted at the representative NSRs. Hence, no

residual impact is anticipated.

7.5.7.2 Visitors to the Lantau North (Extension) Country Park would potentially be impacted by the

construction noise generated from the 3RS project. However, taking into account the transient

nature of visitors to the country park, insurmountable construction noise impact on the country

park would not be envisaged.

7.6 Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment


7.6.1.1 Clause 5.2.1 in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-250/2012) specifies that the assessment

area for the road traffic noise impact assessment shall generally include areas within 300 m from

the boundary of the project and the works of the project. The assessment area of the road works

of the project is shown in Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-6-001.


7.6.2.1 The existing hotels located on the airport island will be closest NSRs to the noise sources.

However, as these hotels have been installed with certain sealed glazing and provided with

central air-conditioning all the time. Therefore, the guestrooms of the hotels do not rely on opened

windows for ventilation and adverse noise impact is not expected. Besides, offices on the airport

island have also been installed with sealed glazing and provided with central air-conditioning. The

use does not rely on opened windows for ventilation and adverse noise impact is not expected.

As a result, no assessment point is proposed for the hotels and offices under the road traffic

noise impact assessment. The first layer of noise sensitive receivers excluded the hotels and

offices which are most likely affected by road noise impact has been selected as representative

NSRs. Descriptions for the selected representative NSRs (existing/ planned) are tabulated in

Table 7.6.1. The representative NSRs (as well as cluster of NSRs) are shown in Drawing No.

MCL/P132/EIA/7-6-001. Photos of existing representative noise sensitive receivers are shown in

Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-5-002. As other NSRs including country parks fall outside

assessment area, adverse noise impact is not anticipated.


7-67


Table 7.6.1: Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers Identified for the Assessment of Road

Traffic Noise Impact





TC-47 Hau Wong Temple Existing Public Worship 1

SLW-2 Temple, Sha Lo Wan Existing Public Worship 1


7.6.3.1 During the operation phase, the locations of the proposed road alignments, existing road network,

as well as the road network of concurrent projects mentioned in Section 7.5.3.27 are shown in

Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-6-001. The assessment area for the road traffic noise impact

includes areas within 300 m from the boundary of the project roads. As the representative NSRs

are all found to be located beyond the 300 m assessment area, adverse road traffic noise impact

from the proposed road alignments is not anticipated and hence not included in the road traffic

noise assessment.

7.6.4 Road Traffic Noise Mitigation Measures

7.6.4.1 Since no adverse impact due to the project roads was identified, no specific road traffic noise

mitigation measure is required.

7.6.5 Evaluation of Road Traffic Noise Residual Impact

7.6.5.1 No residual impact is anticipated.

7.7 Marine Traffic Noise Impact Assessment


7.7.1.1 According to Clause 6.2.1 under Part I of Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief, the marine traffic

noise impact assessment area shall be proposed for agreement of the Director before

commencing the assessment. As described in BS-4142:19977, if the rating noise level of the new

source is more than 10 dB(A) below the measured background noise level then it is a positive

indication that no adverse noise impact is anticipated. As such, it is proposed to establish the

marine traffic noise impact assessment area which the predicted marine traffic noise at the

boundary of area is below 10 dB(A) of prevailing background noise level at the nearest NSR.


7.7.2.1 The criterion of 10 dB(A) below the measured prevailing background noise level at location P1

(55.2 dB(A)) would be used to determine the assessment area for day & evening time period,

(07:00 to 23:00 hrs). In addition, according to “Engineering Feasibility and Environmental

_________________________

7 BS-4142: 1997 “Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas”


7-68


Assessment Study for Airport Master Plan 2030 – Marine Traffic Impact Assessment”8, a

conservative average growth rate of about 3.0% between the Years 2016 to 2035 has been

identified from the HZMB project and forecasts of SkyPier passenger volumes from the Airport

Authority. The cumulative growth of vessel pass by of 91.6% (around double) at Year 2038 has

been taken into account for the determination of marine traffic noise assessment area boundary.

As no night-time operation of marine traffic is currently being provided / planned by the SkyPier,

night-time marine traffic in future scenario will not be considered as well for the determination of

marine traffic noise assessment area boundary.

7.7.2.2 Based on the calculation results as detailed in Appendix 7.7.1, the proposed assessment area

for marine traffic noise impact covers 1,350 m from the manoeuvring of vessels as shown in

Drawing No. MCL/P132/EIA/7-7-001. The existing hotels and offices located on the airport island

will be closest NSRs to the noise sources. Since the hotels located on the airport island has been

installed with certain sealed glazing and central air-conditioning, impact due to marine traffic

noise is not anticipated. Besides, offices on the airport island have also been installed with sealed

glazing and provided with central air-conditioning. The use does not rely on opened windows for

ventilation and adverse marine traffic noise impact is not expected. The first layer of noise

sensitive receivers excluded the hotels and offices which are most likely affected by marine traffic

noise impact has been selected as representative NSRs. As other NSRs including country parks

fall outside assessment area, adverse noise impact is not anticipated.


7.7.3.1 During the operation phase, there will be an increased number of marine vessels using the

existing SkyPier. The anticipated route of SkyPier including fast ferry services will be north and

west bound of the airport (e.g. towards Macao). As the nearest NSR TC-9 is more than 1,700 m

from the manoeuvring route (beyond the 1,350 m assessment area), adverse marine traffic noise

impact is not anticipated and hence not included in the marine traffic noise assessment.

7.7.4 Marine Traffic Noise Mitigation Measures

7.7.4.1 Since no adverse impact due to the marine traffic was identified, no specific marine traffic noise

mitigation measure is required.

7.7.5 Evaluation of Marine Traffic Noise Residual Impact

7.7.5.1 No residual impact is anticipated.

7.8 Environmental Monitoring and Audit


7.8.1.1 On aircraft noise, Section 7 in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief requires an aircraft noise

monitoring and audit plan to be designed and recommended by the project proponent for

verification of predictions on the effectiveness of measures to mitigation noise impact of the

_________________________

8 Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment Study for Airport Master Plan 2030 – Marine Traffic Impact Assessment, BMT Asia Pacific, August 2012


7-69


Project. CAD has been closely monitoring compliance by aircraft with mitigation measures

implemented in the existing operation of the two-runway system by means of the radar flight track

data. In particular, as described in Section 7.3.3.11, a number of aircraft noise mitigation

measures have been identified for implementation in the future operation of the three-runway

system and compliance with these measures can be checked via the available radar flight track

data.

7.8.1.2 On the other hand, it shall be noted that while NEF contours produced by the project proponent

from INM modelling have been used as a tool to assess and reflect the extent of aircraft noise

impact on an annual average daily basis, the NEF contour projection is compiled on the basis of a

wide spectrum of assumptions and parameters, including but not limited to the annual ATM

forecast, estimated fleet mix, flight schedules and procedures, as well as runway and flight track

utilisation. The setting of these assumptions and parameters in turn relies on complicated

mathematical and forecast modelling. Hence, while the overall noise impact, as reflected by the

noise contours produced based on conservative assumptions, may remain more or less

unchanged in respect of a particular timeframe, it is inevitable that some or all of those

assumptions/ parameters would change from time to time, subject to the actual market conditions,

weather conditions and actual flight mix involved.

7.8.1.3 Hence, it would not be reasonable to assume that all of such assumptions/ parameters made

under this EIA report would be followed rigidly, and it would be incumbent on project proponent to

review periodically the actual noise impact as part of the proposed aircraft noise monitoring and

audit programme during the operational phase to ensure that in the eventuality of some of the key

assumptions/ parameters adopted in the EIA report not being followed, the overall noise impact

would still not exceed the level as assessed.

7.8.1.4 In particular, it should be noted that the maximum practical annual ATM capacity for both the

interim and full phases of the three-runway system operation has been set on the basis of the

best knowledge available as at the assessment. As and when there is opportunity to increase the

handling capacity of the airport beyond such levels due possibly to technological advancement

and/or other circumstantial changes, the environmental impact of such level of operation will be

carefully assessed by the project proponent to confirm that there is no adverse environmental

impact under the requirements of the EIAO-TM.

7.8.2 Fixed Noise Sources

7.8.2.1 Prior to the operation phase of the project, as part of the design process, commissioning tests

should be conducted to ensure the operation noise from the fixed plant would comply with the

relevant EIAO-TM noise criteria.

7.8.2.2 Noise commissioning tests are also required for noise enclosure of aircraft engine run-up facilities.

Details of the requirement of tests are presented in the separate EM&A Manual.


7.8.3.1 Although no residual airborne noise impact is predicted during the construction phase, to ensure

that the nearby NSRs will not be subjected to unacceptable construction noise impact, an

Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme is recommended. Details on the noise


7-70


monitoring requirements, methodology and action plans would be described in the separate

EM&A Manual.

7.8.4 Traffic Noise

7.8.4.1 No adverse road or marine traffic noise impacts are anticipated from operation of the project,

hence no environmental monitoring and audit is proposed.

7.9 Conclusion


7.9.1.1 Aircraft noise from the Project was evaluated by using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM)

and taking into account airport operational data, assumptions and design measures in the

modelling for three scenarios, namely Worst Operation Mode, Interim Phase and Design Capacity,

as well as for the Prevailing Aircraft Noise Environment.

7.9.1.2 By introducing the use of a number of aircraft noise mitigation measures as part of the future

standard operational procedures for the 3RS, which include putting the existing south Runway on

standby where possible at night; requiring departures to take the southbound route via West

Lamma Channel during east flow at night, subject to acceptable operational and safety

consideration; relocating arrivals to the 25 runways at night from the straight-in tracks to the new

arrival RNP Track 6 for preferential use; and implementing a preferential runway use programme

when wind conditions allow such that west flow is used when departures dominate while east flow

is used when arrivals dominate during night-time, it is expected that aircraft noise impact would

be improved in general, especially along North Lantau shorelines. However, in view of

geographical location with the airport, it is unavoidable that certain NSRs would still be situated

within the NEF 25 contour line. Nevertheless, with the introduction of additional direct mitigation

measures through consideration of aircraft noise in the design of the Master Layout Plan for the

planned Comprehensive Development Area site in Lok On Pai, and given that village houses in

and around Sha Lo Wan and along the North Lantau shorelines will be offered the provision of

noise insulation and air-conditioning before the operation of the third runway, no residual aircraft

noise impact is identified to be associated with the operation of the project.

7.9.2 Fixed Noise Sources

7.9.2.1 Noise impact from planned fixed plant could be effectively mitigated by implementing noise

control measure at source during the detailed design stage. With the adoption of the proposed

maximum permissible SWLs for the proposed fixed plant as well as the proposed mitigation

measures for the operation of aircraft engine run-up facilities, the impact noise levels at all

representative NSRs complies with the relevant noise criteria for the daytime/evening and night-

time periods. Therefore, adverse fixed noise sources impact to the existing / planned NSRs is not

anticipated.


7.9.3.1 Assessments have been based on the latest information obtained, with the implementation of the

mitigation measures in form of quiet plant, movable noise barrier and enclosure, the construction


7-71


noise levels at all NSRs are predicted to comply with the noise standards stipulated in the EIAO-

TM. Adverse residual construction noise impacts are therefore not anticipated in this project.

7.9.4 Road Traffic Noise

7.9.4.1 As the NSRs are all found to be located beyond the 300 m assessment area, adverse road traffic

noise impact from the proposed road alignments is not anticipated.

7.9.5 Marine Traffic Noise

7.9.5.1 As the NSR is found to be located beyond the 1350 m assessment area and more than 1,700 m

from the manoeuvring route, adverse marine traffic noise impact is not anticipated.

Documents

Three-Runway System Environmental Impact Assessment Report