5          Comparison of em&a Results with eia predictions

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 (December 18),  
Leq (30min) dB(A)

N1 - HKMLC Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School

55-62

62(1)

48.9 – 61.8

N2 – Bethel High School

57-64

64(1)

46.1 – 54.0

N3 – No. 159 Mai Po San Tsuen

70-73

74(2)

67.9 – 71.6

N5 – Block 2, Dills Corner Garden

73-75

75(2)

63.2 – 69.8

N6 – Home of Loving Faithfulness

64-73

74(1)

64.0 – 71.4

N7 – Village House in Shek Wu Wai

N/A(3)

70(2)

62.4 – 69.6

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 N2 and N5 were lower than the range of the predicted mitigated construction noise levels in the EIA Report. The results at N1, N3 and N6 were 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.