7. Noise Impact

7.2 Noise Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

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 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.

(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)	60	65	70
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 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
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

(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.

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

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 No 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 No 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.

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 No MCL/P132/EIA/7-3-002. The above-mentioned regions/areas are also included in Table 7.3.1 and in Drawing No 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	Residential	1-3	1,300
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
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	Residential	1-3	4,000
32	Village Houses/Licensed Structures in Luk Keng Tsuen	Residential	1-2	9,500
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 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;

(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 No 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, 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 No 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.

7.3.3 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 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 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.

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

7.3.3.12 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, 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 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
Year	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.

7.3.3.23 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
Year 2030 and 2032	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 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 No 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

7.3.3.32 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.

7.3.3.36 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
2300–2359	Arrival	Departure	Standby

Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

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

Pattern B
Time Period	07L-25R (North)	07C-25C (Centre)	07R-25L (South)
0000–0059	Arrival	Departure	Standby
0100–0659	Maintenance	Mixed Mode	Standby
0700–0759	Maintenance	Departure	Arrival
0800–2259	Arrival	Departure	Mixed Mode
2300–2359	Arrival	Departure	Standby

Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

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

Pattern C
Time Period	07L-25R (North)	07C-25C (Centre)	07R-25L (South)
0000–0059	Arrival	Departure	Standby
0100–0659	Standby	Mixed Mode	Maintenance
0700–0759	Arrival	Departure	Maintenance
0800–2259	Arrival	Departure	Mixed Mode
2300–2359	Arrival	Departure	Standby

Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

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%	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)
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)

Time Period	East Flow ^#	West Flow ^#	Operational Pattern
Day 1 – 0700-0759	60%	40%	A: 50% of yearly total B: 50% of yearly total
Day 2 – 0800-2159			Arrivals (A): North Runway 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			A: 50% of yearly total B: 50% of yearly total

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

Table 7.3.13: Runway Utilisation Mode under Pattern A in Year 2021

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

Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

Centre Runway: closed for modification

Table 7.3.14: Runway Utilisation Mode under Pattern B in Year 2021

Pattern B
Time Period	07L-25R (North)	07C-25C (Centre)	07R-25L (South)
0000–0129	Arrival	Under Modification	Departure
0130–0659	Maintenance	Under Modification	Mixed Mode
0700–0759	Maintenance	Under Modification	Mixed Mode
0800–2259	Arrival	Under Modification	Departure
2300–2359	Arrival	Under Modification	Departure

Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

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

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%	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)
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.

Table 7.3.16: Runway Utilisation Mode under Pattern A in Year 2032

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
2300–2359	Arrival	Departure	Standby

Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

Table 7.3.17: Runway Utilisation Mode under Pattern B in Year 2032

Pattern B
Time Period	07L-25R (North)	07C-25C (Centre)	07R-25L (South)
0000–0059	Arrival	Departure	Standby
0100–0659	Maintenance	Mixed Mode	Standby
0700–0759	Maintenance	Departure	Arrival
0800–2259	Arrival	Departure	Mixed Mode
2300–2359	Arrival	Departure	Standby

Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

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

Pattern C
Time Period	07L-25R (North)	07C-25C (Centre)	07R-25L (South)
0000–0059	Arrival	Departure	Standby
0100–0659	Standby	Mixed Mode	Maintenance
0700–0759	Arrival	Departure	Maintenance
0800–2259	Arrival	Departure	Mixed Mode
2300–2359	Arrival	Departure	Standby

Remark: Bold stands for peak runway utilisation period.

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.

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 No 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 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 Track 6 instead of the straight-in Tracks 4 and 5 at night would minimise the aircraft noise impacts on the inland populated areas.

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

7.3.4.10 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 No 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 No 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 No 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 No 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 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
	Concerned Areas named in the EIA Study Brief	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.

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
Villages along North Lantau Shoreline	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 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 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-3	Tung Chung Crescent Block 5	Existing	Residential	34
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	Planned	Residential	--
TC-7	Tung Chung East Development	Planned	Residential	--
TC-8	Seaview Crescent Block 5	Existing	Residential	49
TC-9	Tung Chung East Development	Planned	Residential	--
TC-10	Tung Chung East Development	Planned	Residential	--
TC-11	Tung Chung Area 54	Planned	Residential	--
TC-12	Tung Chung Area 54	Planned	Residential	--
TC-13	Tung Chung Area 54	Planned	Residential	--
TC-14	Seaview Crescent Block 2	Existing	Residential	49
TC-15	Seaview Crescent Block 3	Existing	Residential	49
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-23	Caribbean Coast Tower 5	Existing	Residential	50
TC-24	Caribbean Coast Tower 6	Existing	Residential	50
TC-25	Caribbean Coast Tower 10	Existing	Residential	50
TC-26	Caribbean Coast Tower 16	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
TC-31	Tung Chung Crescent Block 3	Existing	Residential	34
TC-32	Tung Chung Crescent Block 9	Existing	Residential	40
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-39	Yat Tung Estate Block 13	Existing	Residential	40
TC-40	Yat Tung Estate Block 14	Existing	Residential	40
TC-41	Yat Tung Estate Block 16	Existing	Residential	40
TC-42	Yat Tung Estate Block 17	Existing	Residential	40
TC-43	Yat Tung Estate Block 19	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-46	House No.16, Ma Wan Chung	Existing	Residential	2
TC-47	Hau Wong Temple	Existing	Public Worship	1
TC-48	Tung Chung Area 55	Planned	Residential	--
TC-49	Tung Chung Area 56	Planned	Residential	--
TC-50	Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School	Existing	Educational	6
TC-51	Ling Liang Church Sau Tak Primary School	Existing	Educational	6
TC-52	Wong Cho Bau Secondary School	Existing	Educational	6
TC-53	Po On Commercial Assn Wan Ho Kan Primary School	Existing	Educational	6
TC-54	PLK Mrs Ma Kam Ming – Cheng Fook Sien College	Existing	Educational	6
TC-55	House No.28, Ma Wan Chung	Existing	Residential	3
TC-56	House No.123, Ma Wan Chung	Existing	Residential	2
TC-57	House No.83, Ma Wan Chung	Existing	Residential	2
TC-58	House No.50, Ma Wan Chung	Existing	Residential	2
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
TS-7	House No. 6, San Tau	Existing	Residential	2
TS-8	House No. 18, 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	Existing	Residential	3
SLW-4	House No. 2, Sha Lo Wan	Existing	Residential	2
SLW-5	House No. 6, Sha Lo Wan	Existing	Residential	2
SLW-6	House No. 9, Sha Lo Wan	Existing	Residential	2
SLW-7	House No. 12, Sha Lo Wan	Existing	Residential	2
SLW-8	House No. 8, Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen	Existing	Residential	2
SLW-9	House No. 16, Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen	Existing	Residential	3
SLW-10	House No. 19, Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen	Existing	Residential	2
SLW-11	House No. 21, Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen	Existing	Residential	2

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
P1	Playground next to Seaview Crescent Block 1	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
P2	Podium of Tung Chung Crescent Block 7	Night-time (2300 – 0700)	23:45	59.1	62.1
P3	Next to House No. 2, Ma Wan Chung	Day-time & Evening (0700 – 2300)	17:15	61.1	64.1
P3	Next to House No. 2, Ma Wan Chung	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
P4	Next to House No.25A, Kau Liu	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
P5	Next to House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan	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
P6	Next to House No.9, Sha Lo Wan	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
P7	Next to House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen	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 Assessment Area

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.

Table 7.4.3: Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers Identified for the Assessment of Fixed Noise Impact

NSR ID	Description	Existing / Planned	Use	No. of Storeys (Sensitive use only)	Noise Impact Assessment
NSR ID	Description	Existing / Planned	Use	No. of Storeys (Sensitive use only)	Fixed Source (Air-borne)	APM (Ground-borne)
AI-1	Hong Kong Skycity Marriott Hotel	Existing	Hotel	12	O	P
AI-2	Regal Airport Hotel	Existing	Hotel	14	O	P
TC-1	Seaview Crescent Block1	Existing	Residential	49	P	O
TC-2	Tung Chung Crescent Block 5	Existing	Residential	34	P	O
TC-3	Tung Chung Crescent Block 7	Existing	Residential	40	P	O
TC-4	House No.2, Ma Wan Chung	Existing	Residential	2	P	O
TC-5	Tung Chung West Development	Planned	Residential	--	P	O
TC-6	Tung Chung West Development	Planned	Residential	--	P	O
TC-7	Tung Chung East Development	Planned	Residential	--	P	O
TC-11	Tung Chung Area 54	Planned	Residential	--	P	O
TC-16	Le Bleu Deux Block 1	Existing	Residential	15	P	O
TC-46	House No.16, Ma Wan Chung	Existing	Residential	2	P	O
TS-1	House, Tin Sum	Existing	Residential	1	P	O
TS-2	House No. 25B, Kau Liu	Existing	Residential	3	P	O
SLW-1	House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan	Existing	Residential	1	P	O
SLW-2	Temple, Sha Lo Wan	Existing	Public Worship	1	P	O
SLW-3	House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan San Tsuen	Existing	Residential	3	P	O

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 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
TC-1, TC-7, TC-11 & TC-16	B	Night-time	50	55	50
TC-2	B	Day-time & Evening	60	66	60
TC-2	B	Night-time	50	62	50
TC-3	C	Day-time & Evening	65	66	65
TC-3	C	Night-time	55	62	55
TC-5^	B	Day-time & Evening	60	64	60
TC-5^	B	Night-time	50	55	50
TC-4^ & TC-6^	B	Day-time & Evening	60	64	60
TC-4^ & TC-6^	B	Night-time	50	55	50
TC-46^	B	Day-time & Evening	60	64	60
TC-46^	B	Night-time	50	55	50
TS-1	C	Day-time & Evening	65	64	64
TS-1	C	Night-time	55	55	55
TS-2^	B	Day-time & Evening	60	64	60
TS-2^	B	Night-time	50	55	50
SLW-1	C	Day-time & Evening	65	67	65
SLW-1	C	Night-time	55	55	55
SLW-2	C	Day-time & Evening	65	68	65
SLW-2	C	Night-time	55	55	55
SLW-3	C	Day-time & Evening	65	63	63
SLW-3	C	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
	B	Night-time	55	55
TC-3, TS-1, SLW-1 to 3	C	Day-time & Evening	70	70
TC-3, TS-1, SLW-1 to 3	C	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 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.

5 Integrated Noise Model (INM), Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 30 May 2013

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 (L_Aeq,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 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.

6 ISO-9613 “Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation”, 1996

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 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 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]

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).

7.4.7.20 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
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 L_{Aeq,
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
7773ER		51 – 65	65 – 70	No	No
A330-343		(39 – 51)	(60 – 65)	No	No
A330-343		42 – 57	65 – 70	No	No
747-400		(46 – 57)	(60 – 65)	No	No
747-400		50 – 63	65 – 70	No	No
777-200		(41 – 51)	(60 – 65)	No	No
777-200		44 – 58	65 – 70	No	No
MD11		(45 – 56)	(60 – 65)	No	No
MD11		48 – 63	65 – 70	No	No

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.	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)	Noise Criteria, dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
7773ER	TC-1 to 2, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16	(47 – 50)	(50)	No	No
	TC-1 to 2, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16	51 – 52	55	No	No
	TC-3, TS-1	(48 – 55)	(55)	No	No
	TC-3, TS-1	52 – 60	60	No	No
	TC-4 to 6, TC-46, TS-2	(51 – 55)	(50)	Yes	Yes
	TC-4 to 6, TC-46, TS-2	54 – 57	55	Yes	Yes
	SLW- 1 to 3	(55 – 58)	(55)	Yes	Yes
	SLW- 1 to 3	62 – 65	60	Yes	Yes
747-400	TC-1 to 2, TC-4, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46	(46 – 50)	(50)	No	No
	TC-1 to 2, TC-4, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46	50 – 53	55	No	No
	TC-3, TS-1	(47 – 54)	(55)	No	No
	TC-3, TS-1	51 – 58	60	No	No
	TC-5 to 6, TS-2	(51 – 54)	(50)	Yes	Yes
	TC-5 to 6, TS-2	55 – 56	55	Yes	Yes
	SLW- 1 to 3	(54 – 57)	(55)	Yes	Yes
	SLW- 1 to 3	61 – 63	60	Yes	Yes
MD11	TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46	(45 – 50)	(50)	No	No
	TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46	48 – 54	55	No	No
	TC-3, TS-1, SLW-3	(46 – 53)	(55)	No	No
	TC-3, TS-1, SLW-3	50 – 60	60	No	No
	TS-2	(53)	(50)	Yes	Yes
	TS-2	55	55	Yes	Yes
	SLW- 1 to 2	(55 – 56)	(55)	Yes	Yes
	SLW- 1 to 2	63	60	Yes	Yes

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 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 (L_{Aeq,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 L_{Aeq, 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 7.4.11: 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)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
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	No	No
	Night	(36 – 47)	(50 – 55)	No	No
	2330-2400	42 – 52	55 – 60	No	No

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 required (e.g. Airbus A350-800/A350-900/A350F/A350-1000 is substituted by Boeing 777-200 as per the aircraft substitution list).

7.4.8.13 The total numbers of aircraft taxiing event and the corresponding aircraft type under various 30 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).

7.4.8.14 Based on the operational data / assumptions described above, the INM model was used to compute the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (L_{Aeq,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 L_{Aeq,
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 7.4.12: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Aircraft Taxiing in Year 2021

NSR ID.	Time Period	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)	Noise Criteria, dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3	Day & Evening	(38 – 49)	(60 – 65)	No	No
TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3	1400-1430	44 – 60	65 – 70	No	No
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	Night	(34 – 42)	(50)	No	No
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	2300-2330	42 – 51	55	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3	Night	(34 – 44)	(55)	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3	2300-2330	41 – 59	60	No	No

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.

7.4.8.15 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the aircraft taxiing operations (unmitigated) for Year 2021 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day & 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 required (e.g. Airbus A350-800/A350-900/A350F/A350-1000 is substituted by Boeing 777-200 as per the aircraft substitution list).

7.4.8.18 The total numbers of aircraft taxiing event and the corresponding aircraft type under various 30 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.

7.4.8.19 Based on the operational data / assumptions described above, the INM model was used to compute the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (L_A_{eq,30 mins} (dBA)) for the worst 30 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 L_{Aeq,
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	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)	Noise Criteria, dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	Day & Evening	(37 – 42)	(60)	No	No
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	1700-1730	44 – 51	65	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3	Day & Evening	(37 – 44)	(63-65)	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3	1700-1730	45 – 69	70	No	No
TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3	Night	(36 – 47)	(50 – 55)	No	No
TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3	2330-2400	42 – 52	55 – 60	No	No

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.

7.4.8.20 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the aircraft taxiing operations (unmitigated) for Year 2032 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day & evening / night-time fixed noise criteria.

Ground Noise Source (Operation of APUs)

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 (L_A_{eq,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 L_{Aeq, 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	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)	Noise Criteria, dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3	Day & Evening	(28 – 32)	(60 – 65)	No	No
	1700-1730	39 – 49	65 – 70	No	No
	Night	(29 – 38)	(50 – 55)	No	No
	2330-2400	39 – 49	55 – 60	No	No

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.

7.4.8.22 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)

7.4.8.23 The prediction method set out in ISO-9613 was used to calculate the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (L_{Aeq,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 2021 due to the operation of APUs. Table 7.4.15 show the summary results of unmitigated ground noise levels associated with the operation of APUs (in L_{Aeq, 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 7.4.15: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Operation of APUs in Year 2021

NSR ID.	Time Period	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)	Noise Criteria, dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3	Day & Evening	(29 – 37)	(60 – 65)	No	No
	1400-1430	40 – 50	65 – 70	No	No
	Night	(30 – 39)	(50 – 55)	No	No
	2300-2330	38 – 49	55 – 60	No	No

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.

7.4.8.24 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the operation of APUs (unmitigated) for Year 2021 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day & evening and night-time noise criteria.

Full Operation Mode (Year 2032)

7.4.8.25 The prediction method set out in ISO-9613 was used to calculate the A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (L_A_{eq,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 2032 due to the operation of APUs. Table 7.4.16 show the summary results of unmitigated ground noise levels associated with the operation of APUs (in L_{Aeq, 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 7.4.16: Summary of Unmitigated Ground Noise Levels associated with Operation of APUs in Year 2032

NSR ID.	Time Period	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)	Noise Criteria, dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-1 to 2, SLW- 1 to 3	Day & Evening	(26 – 34)	(60 – 65)	No	No
	1700-1730	37 – 43	65 – 70	No	No
	Night	(30 – 40)	(50 – 55)	No	No
	2330-2400	39 – 46	55 – 60	No	No

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.

7.4.8.26 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the operation of APUs (unmitigated) for Year 2032 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day & evening and night-time noise criteria.

Fixed Plant Noise Sources

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.

Table 7.4.18: Maximum Allowable SWLs of the Project Fixed Plant

Fixed Noise Source	Source ID	Maximum allowable SWL, dB(A) ^{[1] [2]}
Fixed Noise Source	Source ID	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	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)	*Noise Criteria, dB(A)**	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	Day & Evening	(49 – 56)	(60)	No	No
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2		53 – 59	65	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 2 to 3	Day & Evening	(49 – 56)	(65)	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 2 to 3		54 – 67	70	No	No
SLW-1	Day & Evening	(58)	(65)	Yes	Yes
SLW-1		71	70	Yes	Yes
TC-2 to 3, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16	Night	(48 – 50)	(50 – 55)	No	No
TC-2 to 3, TC-7, TC-11, TC-16		52 – 53	55 – 60	No	No
TC-1, TC-4 to 6, TC-46, TS-2	Night	(51 – 55)	(50)	Yes	Yes
TC-1, TC-4 to 6, TC-46, TS-2		53 – 59	55	Yes	Yes
TS-1, SLW- 1 to 3	Night	(55 – 58)	(55)	Yes	Yes
TS-1, SLW- 1 to 3		61 – 66	60	Yes	Yes

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.	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	(32 – 43)	(60 – 65)	No	No
7773ER		36 – 50	65 – 70	No	No
A330-343		(24 – 36)	(60 – 65)	No	No
A330-343		27 – 42	65 – 70	No	No
747-400		(31 – 42)	(60 – 65)	No	No
747-400		35 – 48	65 – 70	No	No
777-200		(26 – 36)	(60 – 65)	No	No
777-200		29 – 43	65 – 70	No	No
MD11		(30 – 41)	(60 – 65)	No	No
MD11		33 – 48	65 – 70	No	No

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 7.4.21: Mitigated Ground Noise Levels during Night-time Period (2300-0700 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	(32 – 43)	(50 – 55)	No	No
7773ER		36 – 50	55 – 60	No	No
747-400		(31 – 42)	(50 – 55)	No	No
747-400		35 – 48	55 – 60	No	No
MD11		(30 – 41)	(50 – 55)	No	No
MD11		33 – 48	55 – 60	No	No

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.

Ground Noise Source (Operation of APUs)

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.

Fixed Plant Noise Sources

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	Predicted Noise Levels, dB(A)	*Noise Criteria, dB(A)**	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	Day & Evening	(43 – 50)	(60)	No	No
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	Day & Evening	49 – 56	65	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3	Day & Evening	(43 – 50)	(65)	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3	Day & Evening	50 – 69	70	No	No
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	Night	(40 – 46)	(50)	No	No
TC-1 to 2, TC-4 to 7, TC-11, TC-16, TC-46, TS-2	Night	46 – 53	55	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3	Night	(39 – 47)	(55)	No	No
TC-3, TS-1, SLW 1 to 3	Night	47 – 60	60	No	No

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 Assessment Area

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 Identification of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

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 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

NSR ID	Description	Existing / Planned	Use	No. of Storeys (Sensitive use only)
NSR ID	Description	Existing / Planned	Use	No. of Storeys (Sensitive use only)
TC-1	Seaview Crescent Block1	Existing	Residential	49
TC-5	Tung Chung West Development	Planned	Residential	--
TC-30	Ho Yu College	Existing	Educational	6
TC-37	Ching Chung Hau Po Won Primary School	Existing	Educational	6
TS-1	House, Tin Sum	Existing	Residential	1
SLW-1	House No. 1, Sha Lo Wan	Existing	Residential	1

7.5.3 Identification of Noise Sources

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 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.

¡ 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.

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 part of the construction noise impact assessment.

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 part of the construction noise impact assessment.

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 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:

¡ 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 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.

7.5.5 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)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1	Residential	44 – 73	75	No	No
TC-5	Residential	44 – 74	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.

7.5.6.2 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.

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
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

NSR ID	Use	Predicted Noise Level dB(A)	Noise Criteria dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
TC-1	Residential	39 – 66	75	No	No
TC-5	Residential	39 – 67	75	No	No
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 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

NSR ID	Use	Predicted Noise Level dB(A)	ASR^	Noise Criteria dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
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

NSR ID	Use	Predicted Noise Level dB(A)	ASR^	Noise Criteria dB(A)	Exceedance of Noise Criteria?	Mitigation Measure required?
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.

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 Assessment Area

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 Identification of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

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.

Table 7.6.1: Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers Identified for the Assessment of Road Traffic Noise Impact

NSR ID	Description	Existing / Planned	Use	No. of Storeys (Sensitive use only)
NSR ID	Description	Existing / Planned	Use	No. of Storeys (Sensitive use only)
TC-5	Tung Chung West Development	Planned	Residential	--
TS-1	House, Tin Sum	Existing	Residential	1
TC-47	Hau Wong Temple	Existing	Public Worship	1
SLW-2	Temple, Sha Lo Wan	Existing	Public Worship	1

7.6.3 Identification of Noise Sources

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 Assessment Area

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

7.7.2 Identification of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

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 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.

8 Engineering Feasibility and Environmental Assessment Study for Airport Master Plan 2030 – Marine Traffic Impact Assessment, BMT Asia Pacific, August 2012

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 Identification of Noise Sources

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 Aircraft Noise

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 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 Construction Noise

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 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 Aircraft Noise

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 Construction Noise

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 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.

7.2 Noise Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

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:

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).

7.2.3 Construction Noise

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.

7.2.4.1 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.

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

7.3 Aircraft Noise Impact Assessment

7.3.1 Assessment Area

(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;

(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;

(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).

7.3.3 Aircraft Noise Assessment Methodology

7.3.4 Evaluation and Assessment of Aircraft Noise Impact

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.

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.

7.3.5 Aircraft Noise Mitigation Measures

7.4.1 Identification of Noise Sensitive Receivers

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.

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.

7.4.3 Assessment Area

7.4.5 Area Sensitivity Rating and Fixed Noise Sources Criteria

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”.

7.4.5.4 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.

7.4.6 Identification of Noise Sources

7.4.7 Fixed Noise Sources Assessment Methodology

5 Integrated Noise Model (INM), Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 30 May 2013

6 ISO-9613 “Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation”, 1996

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

7.4.8 Evaluation and Assessment of Fixed Noise Sources

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.

7.4.8.10 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.

7.4.8.20 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the aircraft taxiing operations (unmitigated) for Year 2032 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day & evening / night-time fixed noise criteria.

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.

7.4.8.24 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the operation of APUs (unmitigated) for Year 2021 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day & evening and night-time noise criteria.

7.4.8.26 The prediction results indicate that the ground noise levels associated with the operation of APUs (unmitigated) for Year 2032 would not cause exceedance of the relevant day & evening and night-time noise criteria.

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.

7.4.9 Fixed Noise Sources Mitigation Measures

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.

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

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

7.4.8.9 Table 7.4.11 show the summary results of unmitigated ground noise levels associated with the aircraft taxiing operations (in L_{Aeq, 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.