5.1
The EM&A data was compared
with the predictions in EIA Report (Year 2009) and Environmental Review Report
(ERR) for Stage 2 Works (Year 2015) as summarized in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Comparison of Noise Monitoring Data with
Predictions in EIA Report and ERR
|
Stations |
Predicted Mitigated Construction Noise Levels in EIA (2009), dB(A) |
Predicted Mitigated Worst Case Construction Noise Levels in ERR for
Stage 2 (2015), dB(A) |
Reporting Month (January
20), |
|
N1 - HKMLC
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
55-62 |
62(1) |
57.2 - 60.5 |
|
N2 –
Bethel High School |
57-64 |
64(1) |
46.1
- 54.3 |
|
N3 –
No. 159 Mai Po San Tsuen |
70-73 |
74(2) |
58.6
- 71.4 |
|
N5 –
Block 2, Dills Corner Garden |
73-75 |
75(2) |
57.4
- 71.6 |
|
N6 –
Home of Loving Faithfulness |
64-73 |
74(1) |
66.8
- 71.4 |
|
N7 –
Village House in Shek Wu Wai |
N/A(3) |
70(2) |
54.4
- 62.4 |
Remark:
(1) With
adoptions of quiet PMEs, temporary noise barrier and enclosure
(2) With
sub-grouping of construction activities
(3) No
construction noise level was predicted in EIA Report (2009)
5.2
When comparing the noise monitoring results to the predicted mitigated
construction noise levels in the EIA Report, the results at N3 was slightly
lower than the range of the predicted mitigated construction noise levels in
the EIA Report. The results at N2, N5 was lower than the range of the predicted
mitigated construction noise levels, while the results at N1, N6 was within the
range of the predicted mitigated construction noise levels in the EIA Report.
5.3
When comparing the noise monitoring results to the predicted mitigated
worst case construction noise levels in the ERR for Stage 2 Works, the results
at monitoring stations N1, N2, N3, N5, N6 and N7 were lower than the predicted
mitigated worst case construction noise levels in the ERR for Stage 2 Works.