Assessment Methodology and Uncertainties
3.31
In accordance with the EIAO-TM, the methodology outlined in
the GW-TM was used for the construction noise assessment. The general approach is
summarized below:
§
Locate the NSRs which would most likely be affected by noise
from the construction work
§
Determine the items of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME)
for each discrete construction activity, based on available information or
agreed plant inventories
§
Assign sound power levels (SWLs) to the proposed PME
according to the GW-TM or other sources
§
Calculate distance attenuation and screening effects to NSRs
from notional noise source
§
Predict construction noise levels at NSRs in the absence of
any mitigation measures
§
Include a 3 dB(A) façade correction to the predicted noise
levels in order to account for the façade effect at each NSR.
3.32
Sound power levels (SWLs) of the equipment were taken from
Table 3 of GW-TM. Where no sound power
level (SWL) was given in the GW-TM, reference was made to British Standard
5228:Part 1:1997 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites and
previous similar studies or from measurements taken at other sites in
Operational
Phase – Project-induced Traffic Noise
3.33
Works proposed under this
Project are due for completion in 4th quarter of 2011. It is expected that
the number of visitors to the Park would increase and hence the traffic arising
from these visitors would also increase.
To assess the likely project-induced road traffic impact due to the
proposed Redevelopment, the following were considered to ensure that the worst-case traffic scenarios would be
captured for the assessment.
Design Year
3.34
The project-induced traffic noise impacts were predicted based on the maximum traffic forecast within 15
years upon the completion
year of the Project. As discussed in Section 2.41, traffic forecasts for year 2026 are considered to present the peak traffic flow for the
proposed project, and were adopted for the traffic noise assessment. Projected peak hourly traffic flows and vehicle composition for 2026 are provided in Appendix 2.3.
Design Day
3.35
The assessment was based on peak traffic attracted / generated by the proposed
redevelopment on a normal weekday as well as at weekends / on public holiday, taking account of the possible variance between the
attendance of the Park on weekdays and public holidays.
Peak Hour
3.36
It is expected that additional traffic would be attracted
and generated as a result of the proposed redevelopment. Based on the Feasibility Study for Repositioning Ocean Park – Hong Kong, Phase 2
draft report (2004), the estimation of the arrival and departure pattern
was based on four main factors: (a) the average length of stay is extended to
nearly six hourly; (b) entertainment will be provided in the afternoons and
early evening to encourage people to stay longer; (c) many tour groups may
arrive late (after lunch); (d) twilight admission becomes available at 1600 on
peak days. The
Traffic Consultant predicted that the time period during which maximum traffic would arise
from the proposed redevelopment would be 1800-1900, having taken into account the operation hours of
Traffic Scenarios
Assessed in the EIA Study
3.37
Traffic scenarios assessed in the EIA study are summarised
in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Traffic Scenarios Assessed
|
Scenario |
Design Year |
Design Day |
|
|
|
1 |
With Redevelopment |
2026 |
Weekday |
PM Peak |
|
2 |
Without Redevelopment |
2026 |
Weekday |
PM Peak |
|
3 |
With Redevelopment |
2026 |
Weekend/ Public |
PM Peak |
|
4 |
Without Redevelopment |
2026 |
Weekend/ Public |
PM Peak |
3.38
All four scenarios assumed that there would be no South Island Line (SIL) as the SIL
proposal was still under review by the Government at the time of
reporting. While the SIL would reduce the background traffic, and transport many of the
Park’s visitors, it was understood that the SIL would unlikely be in place by 2011.
Since the SIL is not a committed project, the assessment would focus on the traffic situations without the SIL, which would be the worst-case
scenario in terms of project-induced traffic noise impact.
3.39
The likely project-induced off-site traffic noise impact was predicted using the methodology provided in the UK
Department of Transport Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN)
1988. All major roads within
3.40
The road network, building layout and all other features
that could have noise screening or reflective effects, were taken into account
in the road traffic noise model. The
roads were divided into segments. Each
segment has a defined road width, road surface type and traffic mix, flow and
road design speed. The segmentation and
calculation process were carried out using a model based on the CRTN, which is
agreed by the EPD. Noise levels were
calculated at each receiver point at each floor up to the top floor.
3.41
Impervious road surfacing was modelled for all road sections. The operation speed for all road sections
within the Study
Area was assumed to be
3.42
Practical mitigation proposals such as traffic management
measures would
be considered to alleviate
the traffic noise impacts if:
§
The noise level differences predicted between Scenarios 1
and 2 or between Scenarios 3 and 4 (refer to Table 3.5) would
be more than 1.0(A); and
§
The noise levels predicted for Scenario 1 or Scenario 3 (refer to Table 3.5) would
exceed the traffic noise criteria specified in the EIAO-TM.
Operational
Phase – Fixed Noise Sources
Assumed Fixed Plant Noise Source Terms
3.43
According to the preliminary design information provided by
the Engineer and the Project Proponent Ocean Park Corporation, the major
fixed plant noise sources to be operated within the park have been identified
including rides, other attractions, PA system, air conditioning units,
ventilation fans and chillers.
3.44
As there is no specification and noise data for the
identified fixed plant noise sources in this preliminary design stage, the
sound power levels of the identified noise sources of the planned rides/ attractions
and PA system were determined with reference to on-site noise measurement of
existing rides and facilities at
3.45
Noise emanating from the rides at the Whisker’s Harbour was
predicted based on the noise levels measured at the currently operating Kid’s
World at the Lowland. The existing Kid’s World was selected for noise
measurement as the Whisker’s Harbour would be similar in area, scale,
facilities and other settings. Having considered the number of rides/ attractions,
the noise strength of the Whisker’s Harbour is expected to be less than double that
of the Kid’s World. Therefore, the sound power level due to rides at the
proposed Whisker's Harbour was assumed, as a worst case scenario, to be double
that from noise due to rides at the existing Kid World, and so 3 dB(A) was
added to the sound power level (equivalent to doubling of the noise).
3.46
For the
3.47
In addition, the sound power levels of the ventilation fans/
chillers were determined with reference to the data stipulated in “Good Practices on Ventilation System Noise
Control" issued by EPD.
Assumed Fixed Plant Inventory
3.48
Based on the master layout plan and preliminary design
information, the main fixed plant were identified and presented in Appendix
3.4.
3.49
Note that since a complete list
of fixed plant for the Project is not available at this stage, the EIA study made
reference to the best available information based on the master plan and the
current situation of the Park as appropriate.
3.50
The following assumptions in the proposed setting of the
Park during operation phase of the Project were be used in the noise
assessment:
§
A funicular system would be provided as one of the new
attractions. The E&M equipment
serving the system would be a source of fixed plant noise, but it is expected
to be enclosed, similar to the arrangement for the existing cable car system.
§
PA system similar to the system serving the existing Park
would be used.
§
Split-type air-conditioning units and chillers serving the
existing back of house and Administration Buildings would be retained or
replaced by similar systems.
§
The assumed Sound Power Levels of the main fixed plant were
determined with reference to the
specifications of similar items of equipment provided by the Project Proponent
/plant supplier, the data derived from the Good
Practices on Ventilation System Noise Control (GP-VS).or the noise
measurement data for the existing rides.
§
It is assumed that all the fixed plant would be operated at
the same time as worst case scenario.
Directivity was not taken into account in the assessment. Screening
correction offered by buildings or other structures such as office and cable
car terminus were taken into account in calculating the predicted noise levels.
According to the GW-TM, noise reduction of 5-10dB(A) for the fixed plant can be
achieved depending on the line of sight of the representative NSRs.
§
A positive 3 dB(A) was added to predicted noise levels at
the NSRs due to the façade effect.
§
Based on the noise measurement data at the boundary of the existing
park, it is considered that the overall noise output of the future ocean park
operation should not be characterised as being tonal, impulsive nor
intermittent as defined in the IND-TM. Tonality correction was not applied in
this assessment.
§
The key fixed noise sources at the
§
The ventilation fans and chillers
assumed at the Back of House of the Waterfront would be equipped with silencer
and enclosures respectively.
§
During the lagoon night show, the
PA clusters serving the show venue at
3.51
The last assumption presented as above would give rise to
two different scenarios, namely Scenario I – “Not During Lagoon Night Show” and
Scenario II – “ During Lagoon Night Show”.
For Scenario I, the PA clusters serving the show venue would be turned
on, similar to other clusters serving the remaining part of the Park, mainly
for soft background music and occasional announcement broadcast. When there is a lagoon night show (i.e.
Scenario II), the PA clusters serving the show venue were assumed to be turned
off and the loudspeakers would be used instead.
Note that noise from loudspeakers for the show has
been assessed under the “Entertainment
Noise” section below. Assumptions
made for the above two scenarios are presented in Appendix 3.4..
3.52
The assumed sound power levels of
the main fixed plant at the Waterfront and
3.53
For the assessment of noise from the fixed plant, the sound
pressure levels at the NSRs were estimated using the standard formula:
SPL = SWL –DC + FC –BC
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 in metres]
Façade Correction, FC in dB(A) = 3 dB(A)
Barrier Correction, BC in dB(A)
Assumed Entertainment Noise Sources
3.54
Shows are essential elements of
modern theme parks and they are popular with guests. In the existing
3.55
Noise issues would generally not
arise if shows are to be held in an indoor environment. Most of the shows at
3.56
Under the proposed master
plan for the Waterfront, the lagoon area in the
3.57
The lagoon night show intends
to capture as many spectators as possible.
Hence, the preliminary design concept assumes the audience would be standing
around the lagoon, sitting at the lagoon restaurant and standing in front of
the lagoon restaurant. It would not be
cost-effective to build a cover to enclose the whole venue for the lagoon night
show as the area involved would be substantial, and indeed would compromise the
open-air experience of the show setting.
3.58
The lagoon night show would
target a broad cross-section of guests, in particular
family groups, and would be designed to appeal to all ages. The show would be primarily a visual experience
and would focus on activities on the surface of the water, for instance objects
would rise gently out of the lagoon. Apart
from the visual elements the show would be backed by relaxing music providing
continuity from one scene to the next. The
music would likely be of the modern classical genre. The show would aim to remind guests of their
day at
“The Lagoon Night Show would draw crowds of up
to 3,000 at night to the terraced viewing spots for the night time spectacle
over the water. Beautiful music would begin,
and the waterfall at the Aquarium would begin to glow with luminous
colour. Light would cascade down the
waterfall and into the centre of the lagoon – where fountains would spring to
life. Coloured lights would bathe the
front of the Aquarium; and projected letters would fade into view, revealing
the show’s title: Waterdance. A group of huge, inflatable sea creatures would
appear on the lagoon – a seahorse, a tropical fish, a jellyfish, and a
starfish. They would glow with soft
internal light. Beautiful water ripples would
appear, projected on the Aquarium. Fish would
glide around the lagoon’s surface, then, as the music rises, the sea creatures,
rise, too. They would be filled with
helium, allowing them to float up on tethered lines.”
3.59
The lagoon night show would
be open-air. The musical score would be
broadcast to guests using sound amplification (loudspeaker) systems. The loudspeaker system would be designed in
such a way that potential noise impact on neighbouring NSRs could be
minimized. For instance, the loudspeaker
system would comprise clusters of small power loudspeakers instead of a few
large-power loudspeakers. Speakers would
be distributed throughout the spectator area rather than being clustered at one
end of the show venue or directly pointing to NSRs. The speakers would be placed close to the audience
so as to limit the need for high power output speakers. Directional speakers would be used and
oriented as far as possible to point towards the audience and away from the
nearby NSRs.
3.60
The loudspeaker system
design is not yet available. To demonstrate
the feasibility of the proposal, the Project Proponent developed a conceptual loudspeaker
system design based on the principles described above. The conceptual design and other assumptions
made in this EIA study would be used as a reference for future detailed design
of the show. The conceptual design was developed by
the Project Proponent along the lines adopted on similar musical shows. A detailed design would be undertaken at a later
stage of the Project once the music content of the lagoon night show is available. The location of the
lagoon night show and the conceptual loudspeaker design are provided in Appendix 3.5.
3.61
Although details of the
lagoon night shows were not available at the time of reporting, the Project
Proponent has committed the design developed in the later stage shall comply
with all mandatory noise control requirements.
In this connection, entertainment noise impact was predicted based on two
test scenarios, namely Scenarios A and B.
Assumptions made for the two test scenarios are as
below:
|
Assumptions |
Scenario A |
Scenario B |
|
Number of loudspeaker clusters |
15 nos. (Noise source A-O as shown in Appendix
3.5) |
5 nos. (Noise sources F, H, K, M and O as shown
in Appendix 3.5) |
|
Sound power level (SWL) of each loudspeaker cluster |
96dBdB(A) |
102dB(A) |
|
Total Sound power level (SWL) of all loudspeaker clusters |
108dB(A) |
109dB(A) |
3.62
The SWLs specified for each
loudspeaker cluster for Scenarios A and B would correspond to equivalent
continuous sound level (Leq) of about 75dB(A) measured at about 4
3.63
Note that the loudspeaker system
assumed for Scenario B would serve a smaller audience area than Scenario A. Each cluster of speakers was modelled as a point
source.
3.64
The proposed lagoon show has been
designed to work with the opportunities and constraints of the site location
and topography. The show is not a noisy
show and is designed in conjunction with the layout of the lagoon and surroundings,
the anticipated spectator viewing areas, as well as the surrounding and nearby
existing structures and new buildings. Accounting
for the available screening effects so provided, as well as type of music to be
played, the Project Proponent has revealed that the audio levels assumed in
this assessment would be practical and adequate for audience enjoyment of the
show.
3.65
The Project Proponent attended an
on-site demonstration for music of similar type to the proposed lagoon night
show. The music played during on-site
demonstration falls into the “contemporary classic” category, which would be
generally not an intense type, similar to that proposed for the lagoon night
show. In the demonstration, the
loudspeaker system was set to emanate Leq(15mins) of 75dB(A) at
3.66
Noise measurement was conducted on March 17, 2006 at the
3.67
The assessment presented below
has shown the proposed open-air lagoon night show to be feasible. Additional screening over and above that
provided in the proposed layout would be considered not necessary.
Prediction of Entertainment Noise
3.68
Entertainment noise levels at
selected NSRs were predicted by adopting standard acoustics principles[1]. Noise levels at NSRs contributed by the noise
sources were predicted by taking account of various factors of attenuation from
the source to the receiver point.
Distance attenuation, barrier effect and façade effect were factors
considered in the noise prediction. Cross-sections
from indicative loudspeaker clusters (noise sources) to NSRs are provided in Appendix 3.5. Given the effect of surface directivity and
source directivity would be considered minor, they were not considered in the
calculation. Details of noise calculation for
the lagoon night show are provided in Appendix
3.5.
Cumulative Fixed Noise Source Impact
3.69
Cumulative noise from all fixed
noise sources within the park was predicted by summing the level of noise from
both fixed plant and entertainment. Presented
below is a flowchart summarising the scenarios that have been assessed.
3.70
Cumulative noise impacts at
selected NSRs were assessed against the determined criteria as shown in Table 3.4.
Level of Uncertainty in the
Assessment
3.71
The predictions of construction and road traffic noise
impacts were based on the methodologies described in the GW-TM under the NCO
and the United Kingdom Department of Transport’s “Calculation of Road Traffic
Noise” (1988) respectively. The
methodology had previously been applied in similar situations in other EIA
studies (e.g. Penny’s Bay EIA), is generally accepted for use in assessing
construction and traffic noise impacts and comparison of prediction results
with EIAO-TM noise criteria.
3.72
There would be some limitations such as the accuracy of the
predictive base data for future conditions e.g. traffic flow forecasts, plant
inventory for the proposed construction works and fixed plant for future
operation. Uncertainties in the
assessment of impacts should be considered when drawing conclusions from the
assessment.
3.73
In carrying out the assessment, realistic worst case
assumptions have been made in order to provide a conservative assessment of
noise impacts. The construction noise
impact was assessed based on conservative estimates for the types of plant and
methods of working. As for the
assessment of road traffic noise impact, peak hourly traffic flows representing
the worst case scenario were adopted.
3.74
For fixed plant noise assessment, all items of fixed plant
have been assumed to operate concurrently and directivity has not been included
in the calculation as the worst case scenario. For determining the distance
correction factors, the horizontal distances between the noise source positions
and the NSRs were used for representing the worst level of the representative
NSRs. Since a complete list of fixed
plant for the Project is not available at this stage, the EIA study makes
reference to the best available information based on the master plan and the
current situation of the Park as appropriate.
3.75
The assessment of entertainment
noise has been based on the conceptual loudspeaker design developed by
Identification
of Environmental Impact
Construction
Phase
3.76
The potential source of noise impact during the construction
phase of the Project would be the use of PME for various construction
activities. As indicated in the
construction program (Appendix 2.2 refers), the Project would last from June 2006 to July 2011.
3.77
Works at Lowland for the formation of the new Waterfront
would mainly include the construction of five major zones both themed and
non-themed as shown in Appendix 3.3. Major construction activities involved would
be site clearance, demolition of existing structures, site formation and
excavation, drainage and sewerage diversion, piling works and superstructure
construction. The construction of the
new attraction funicular railway would include tunnel excavation, portal
formation, piling for station and station construction. The tunnel section of
funicular will be excavated by drill and blast method. The use of PME for the
above-mentioned construction activities would be the prime source of
construction noise impact. As NSRs were
identified at distance of about 40
3.78
Site formation for the majority part of the
3.79
Apart from rock blasting, piling
for the funicular station would be required for the funicular railway. The remaining construction activities for the
3.80
Drill and blast would be adopted for rock breaking at the Headland.
Having consideration for the site safety and the operation period of
3.81
To minimise the noise impacts arising from blasting,
mitigation measures are recommended to be implemented and these are listed in Section 3.129-3.131.
3.82
As indicated in construction programme, the construction
works at the Lowland would likely coincide with the construction works at the Headland. Nevertheless, work areas at the Lowland are located more than
Project-induced Traffic Noise
3.83
Visitors accessing the Park would contribute to additional
traffic to road networks in the vicinity of the Park. It is envisaged that upon completion of works
under the Master Plan positive growth in visitor numbers would be envisaged, and hence traffic arising from these visitors would also
increase.
3.84
Table 3.6 presents the peak-hour traffic volumes at key road links in
the vicinity of
Table 3.6 Peak-hour Traffic at
|
Road Link |
Traffic Flow on Weekday |
Traffic Flow on Sunday |
||||
|
Without Redevelopment (1) |
With Redevelopment (2) |
Increased in Traffic
Flow (2)-(1) |
Without Redevelopment (3) |
With Redevelopment (4) |
Increased in Traffic
Flow (4)-(3) |
|
|
|
4563 |
5449 |
886 |
5072 |
6037 |
965 |
|
|
537 |
1702 |
1165 |
915 |
2185 |
1270 |
|
Shum Wan Road |
570 |
580 |
10 |
509 |
556 |
47 |
Note:
(1) traffic flow (in vehicle /hour)
3.85
As shown in Table 3.6, the Park would contribute to about 965-1270 vehicles (approx.) to key road links in the vicinity of the Waterfront. Traffic induced by the Project would likely have
noise implications for sensitive receivers identified in the area around the
Waterfront.
3.86
While
Fixed Plant Noise at
the Waterfront
3.87
The Waterfront, upon completion of the Project, will be
divided into three themed zones:
3.88
The
3.89
The existing Kid’s World will be modified to a new zone
known as the Whisker’s Harbour providing rides and attractions targeted for
families. New rides proposed
under the Master Plan would include bumper cars, Tivoli
Coaster, Huff and
Puff will be introduced to this zone. Some of the existing rides (e.g. Double sided
Frog Hopper) will be refurbished or replaced.
3.90
Key attractions at the Birds of Paradise will be the aviary
and animal enclosures. Being the homes
for the birds and animals, this zone is expected to be a quiet area containing
no major fixed noise sources
except the PA system.
3.91
The remaining two “non-themed”
zones will be the
3.92
Other mechanical equipment includes pumps and emergency
generator for holding tanks. Such
equipment is expected to be located within enclosed structures and so, noise
impact associated with their operation is considered to be minor.
3.93
All public areas at the
Waterfront would be serviced by PA systems for announcement and soft background
music broadcast.
Entertainment
Noise at the Waterfront
3.94
Under the proposed master plan, the Mystery Lagoon Show
is the only large scale venue in the Waterfront. Entertainment noise would
mainly arise from the use of loudspeaker systems for shows and performances. To
minimise the noise impact on the neighbouring NSRs, the noise reduction
measures have been fully considered in the current design. These measures
are described in the following paragraphs.
3.95
The lagoon night show has been purposely located as far as
possible from nearby sensitive receivers and is immediately to the south of the
3.96
Special events (e.g. Halloween) would be held either at the Summit,
which is far from any NSRs or in the Event Hall at the entry plaza, which is
enclosed and therefore not expected to give rise to noise impact.
3.97
For the lagoon
night show, it is expected that loudspeaker systems would be used. For the two test scenarios, the SWLs of each cluster of loudspeakers
would be 96dB(A) and 102dB(A) respectively.
The SWLs specified for each loudspeaker
cluster for Scenarios A and B would correspond to equivalent continuous sound
level (Leq) of about 75dB(A) measured at about 4
3.98
Based on the available design
information of the lagoon night shows, it is envisaged that there would be only
one or two shows held every night, and each show would last for around 20 minutes
and not longer than 30 minutes. The
nightly lagoon shows will end before 2200 hours, i.e. before the close of the
park.
3.99
The conceptual design for the
loudspeaker system has been developed based on the past experience of
Fixed
Plant Noise and Entertainment Noise at the
3.100
The Headland, which will be renamed the
3.101
As the
3.102
All the identified fixed noise sources at the
3.103
Dwellings at the high-rise
development
Noise
from the Funicular system
3.104
As shown in Figure 2.2, the whole alignment of
the funicular system would be in tunnel. Thus, no train noise impact would be
expected.
3.105
As broadly illustrated in the construction programme,
various construction activities may be carried out concurrently during a
particular period. The unmitigated
cumulative noise levels arising from each construction activity at
representative NSRs were predicted. A
summary of the unmitigated construction noise levels predicted at
representative NSRs is given in the Table
3.7.
Table 3.7 Unmitigated Construction
Noise Levels During
|
NSRs |
Predicted Unmitigated
Construction Noise Levels During (0700-1900 on
weekdays), dB(A) |
EIAO-TM Noise Criteria,
dB(A) |
|
PTS1 |
64-82 |
70 for normal teaching 65 for examination period |
|
SW2 |
65-82 |
75 |
|
HA |
68-84 |
75 |
|
CV2 |
72-88 |
75 |
|
XC |
72-80 |
75 |
|
IV1 |
72-82 |
75 |
|
MV |
71-81 |
75 |
|
PS1 |
54-65 |
70 for normal teaching 65 for examination period |
|
BC1 |
63-74 |
75 |
3.106
The assessment results showed that predicted cumulative
noise levels at the representative NSRs would range from 54 to 88dB(A) and
exceedance of relevant noise criteria is expected.
3.107
As shown in Table 3.7, the unmitigated noise levels at NSR
BC1 and PS1 would comply with the noise criteria because of the large distance
from the works
areas at the
3.108
Exceedance in the range of 1-13dB(A) was predicted at NSRs
near the
Waterfront for daytime
(i.e. 0700-1900) if no noise control measure is in place. Mitigation measures are considered to be
necessary in order to abate the construction noise impacts at the Waterfront. Appendix 3.3 shows the detailed construction noise calculations for the
unmitigated scenario.
Project-induced Traffic Noise
3.109
Unmitigated traffic noise levels at the representative NSRs
for the four scenarios were predicted, and the assessment results are
given in Table 3.8-3.9 below.
Table 3.8 Predicted Traffic Noise
Levels for the “With Redevelopment” and “Without Redevelopment” Scenarios - Weekday
|
NSRs |
Floor |
EIAO-TM Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
|||
|
|
|
Scenario 1- With Redevelopment [1] |
Scenario 2- Without Redevelopment [2] |
Difference [1]-[2] |
|
|
PTS1 |
1/F |
61.6 |
59.8 |
1.8 |
65 |
|
|
2/F |
63.9 |
62.8 |
1.1 |
65 |
|
|
3/F |
65.0 |
64.2 |
0.8 |
65 |
|
|
4/F |
65.6 |
64.7 |
0.9 |
65 |
|
PTS2 |
1/F |
64.8 |
62.0 |
2.8 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
65.7 |
62.9 |
2.8 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
66.2 |
63.5 |
2.7 |
70 |
|
|
4/F |
66.5 |
63.8 |
2.7 |
70 |
|
WCHC |
1/F |
73.1 |
72.6 |
0.5 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
74.1 |
73.6 |
0.5 |
70 |
|
|
6/F |
74.5 |
73.9 |
0.6 |
70 |
|
SW1 |
1/F |
74.1 |
73.7 |
0.4 |
70 |
|
SW2 |
1/F |
73.9 |
73.7 |
0.2 |
70 |
|
CV1 |
1/F |
73.4 |
73.3 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
73.5 |
73.3 |
0.2 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
73.4 |
73.2 |
0.2 |
70 |
|
HA |
1/F |
71.7 |
71.8 |
-0.1 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
72.8 |
72.8 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
72.7 |
72.7 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
CV2 |
1/F |
64.7 |
64.8 |
-0.1 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
70.7 |
70.8 |
-0.1 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
74.5 |
74.5 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
XC |
1/F |
65.2 |
65.2 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
71.2 |
71.2 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
74.2 |
74.2 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
IV2 |
1/F |
72.8 |
72.8 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
73.9 |
73.9 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
BC2 |
1/F |
71.0 |
70.9 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
5/F |
69.9 |
69.8 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
10/F |
68.7 |
68.6 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
15/F |
67.7 |
67.6 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
20/F |
67.0 |
66.9 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
25/F |
66.3 |
66.2 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
30/F |
65.8 |
65.7 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
35/F |
65.3 |
65.2 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
39/F |
65.0 |
64.9 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
PS2 |
G/F |
73.5 |
73.4 |
0.1 |
65 |
|
|
2/F |
73.1 |
73.0 |
0.1 |
65 |
|
|
4/F |
72.3 |
72.2 |
0.1 |
65 |
|
|
6/F |
71.5 |
71.4 |
0.1 |
65 |
Table 3.9 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels for the
“With Redevelopment” and “Without Redevelopment” Scenarios – Weekend / Public
|
NSRs |
Floor |
EIAO-TM Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
|||
|
|
|
Scenario 3- With Redevelopment [1] |
Scenario 4- Without Redevelopment [2] |
Difference [1]-[2] |
|
|
PTS1 |
G/F-6/F |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
PTS2 |
1/F |
66.5 |
64.2 |
2.3 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
67.3 |
65.0 |
2.3 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
67.9 |
65.6 |
2.3 |
70 |
|
|
4/F |
68.2 |
66.0 |
2.2 |
70 |
|
WCHC |
1/F |
73.4 |
72.7 |
0.7 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
74.4 |
73.7 |
0.7 |
70 |
|
|
6/F |
74.7 |
74.1 |
0.6 |
70 |
|
SW1 |
1/F |
74.3 |
73.8 |
0.5 |
70 |
|
SW2 |
1/F |
76.2 |
76.1 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
CV1 |
1/F |
75.4 |
75.3 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
75.3 |
75.2 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
75.2 |
75.1 |
0.1 |
70 |
|
HA |
1/F |
74.7 |
74.7 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
75.8 |
75.9 |
-0.1 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
75.7 |
75.8 |
-0.1 |
70 |
|
CV2 |
1/F |
67.9 |
67.9 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
73.9 |
73.9 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
77.7 |
77.7 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
XC |
1/F |
68.4 |
68.4 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
74.4 |
74.4 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
3/F |
77.5 |
77.5 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
IV2 |
1/F |
76.2 |
76.2 |
0.0 |
70 |
|
|
2/F |
77.3 |
77.4 |
-0.1 |
70 |
|
BC2 |
1/F |
71.1 |
70.2 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
|
5/F |
70.0 |
69.1 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
|
10/F |
68.8 |
67.9 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
|
15/F |
67.8 |
66.9 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
|
20/F |
67.0 |
66.1 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
|
25/F |
66.4 |
65.5 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
|
30/F |
65.9 |
65.0 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
|
35/F |
65.4 |
64.5 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
|
39/F |
65.0 |
64.1 |
0.9 |
70 |
|
PS2 |
G/F-6/F |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Note: N/A – Not applicable as no
school during PM peak hour (i.e. 1800-1900) at weekends / public holidays would
be expected.
3.110
The modelling results
show that the unmitigated traffic noise levels (L10 (1 hour)) at the
NSRs are predicted to range from 61.6 to 74.5dB(A) for Scenario 1 and 59.8 to 74.5dB(A)
for Scenario 2. However, the assessment
results indicate that the overall
increase in traffic noise levels on a weekday due to the proposed redevelopment
would be less than 1dB(A) at all NSRs except 1-2/F of NSR PTS1 and 1-4/F of NSR
PTS2 (the Police Training
School).
3.111
The noise level increase at the Police Training School
(1-2/F of NSR PTS1 and 1-4/F of NSR PTS2) for the scenarios “With Redevelopment” would be more than 1.0 dB(A). The increase in noise would mainly be due to the increase in traffic flow in the section of
3.112
Table
3.9
shows the predicted overall
increases in the traffic noise level due to the proposed redevelopment at the
NSRs on a Sunday. As shown in Table 3.9, the overall increase in traffic noise levels due to
the proposed redevelopment would range from 0 to 0.9 dB(A) which is less than 1dB(A)
at all NSRs except NSR PTS2. Since the
predicted traffic noise levels at NSR PTS2 would be 64.2-66dB(A) which would
satisfy the EIAO-TM noise criterion for dwellings (i.e. 70dB(A)), no adverse
project-induced traffic noise impact would be expected at this NSR (N.B. the
educational activities do not take place on Sundays).
3.113
In general, the additional
traffic flows attracted/generated by the proposed redevelopment would not
constitute significant increase in traffic noise, and would not incur any
additional adverse noise impact at any NSR. No mitigation measure would therefore be required for all NSRs.
Fixed Plant Noise
The Waterfront and the
3.114
According to the plant inventory of the major fixed plant
noise sources as shown in Appendix 3.4, the noise levels at the NSRs
were predicted,
and are presented in the Table
3.10.
Table 3.10 Predicted Fixed Plant Noise Levels
|
NSRs |
Predicted Noise Levels,
dB(A) |
Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
|
|
Scenario I (Not During Lagoon Night Show) |
Scenario II (During Lagoon Night Show) (1) |
||
|
PTS1 |
53 |
51 |
60 |
|
SW2 |
51 |
49 |
60 |
|
HA |
54 |
52 |
60 |
|
CV2 |
55 |
53 |
60 |
|
XC |
53 |
51 |
60 |
|
IV1 |
54 |
53 |
60 |
|
OR |
53 |
51 |
55 |
|
HY |
53 |
51 |
55 |
|
MV |
54 |
53 |
56 |
|
BC1* |
53 |
53 |
62 |
Note:
(1) During the lagoon night show, the PA clusters
serving the show venue at
* NSR located outside the Study Area (i.e. more than
3.115
As shown in Table 3.5,
the predicted noise levels at all representative NSRs ranged from 51 dB(A) to
55 dB(A) for Scenario I and 49 to 53dB(A) for Scenario II. Noise level
predicted at the NSR located closest to the
Entertainment Noise
The Waterfront
3.116
Entertainment noise would be expected from the use of loudspeaker systems for the lagoon night show, which is
the only large scale venue in the Waterfront.
3.117
Based on the conceptual design
information developed for the lagoon night show, noise levels at selected NSRs
were predicted for the two test scenarios – Scenario A and Scenario B, and are
presented in Table 3.11. Detailed calculation for entertainment noise
at representative NSRs is provided in Appendix
3.5.
Table 3.11 Predicted Entertainment Noise Levels –
Scenarios A and B
|
NSRs |
Predicted Noise Levels,
dB(A) |
Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
|
|
Scenario A |
Scenario B |
||
|
PTS1 |
52 |
54 |
60 |
|
SW2 |
42 |
42 |
60 |
|
HA |
52 |
52 |
60 |
|
CV2 |
49 |
43 |
60 |
|
XC |
50 |
50 |
60 |
|
IV1 |
49 |
50 |
60 |
|
OR |
49 |
51 |
55 |
|
HY |
50 |
47 |
55 |
|
MV |
51 |
51 |
56 |
3.118
As shown in Table 3.11, noise
levels predicted for the two test scenarios at all representative NSRs would
comply with the EIAO-TM noise criterion for fixed noise sources. No specific mitigation measure would be
required provided that the loudspeaker design in the future would generally
follow the assumptions made for the two test scenarios.
3.119
When detailed design of the
lagoon night show is available at later stage, a review of entertainment noise
impact is considered necessary to verify the EIA predictions.
The
3.120
Three major theatres: Ocean Theatre, Whale Show and Beluga
Show will be built at the
Cumulative Impact of Fixed Noise Sources
The Waterfront
3.121
Cumulative impacts of fixed plant
and entertainment noise were predicted.
Results predicted for the two scenarios are summarised in Tables 3.12 and 3.13 as below.
Table 3.12 Cumulative Impact of Fixed Noise Sources
– Scenario IIA
|
NSR |
Fixed Plant Noise Level, dB(A) |
Entertainment Noise Level, dB(A) |
Cumulative Level of Fixed Plant & Entertainment Noise, dB(A) |
Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
|
PTS1 |
51 |
52 |
55 |
60 |
|
SW2 |
49 |
42 |
50 |
60 |
|
HA |
52 |
52 |
55 |
60 |
|
CV2 |
53 |
49 |
55 |
60 |
|
XC |
51 |
50 |
54 |
60 |
|
IV1 |
53 |
49 |
55 |
60 |
|
OR |
51 |
49 |
53 |
55 |
|
HY |
51 |
50 |
54 |
55 |
|
MV |
53 |
51 |
55 |
56 |
Table 3.13 Cumulative Impact of Fixed Noise Sources
– Scenario IIB
|
NSR |
Fixed Plant Noise Level, dB(A) |
Entertainment Noise Level, dB(A) |
Cumulative Level of Fixed Plant & Entertainment Noise, dB(A) |
Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
|
PTS1 |
51 |
54 |
56 |
60 |
|
SW2 |
49 |
42 |
50 |
60 |
|
HA |
52 |
52 |
55 |
60 |
|
CV2 |
53 |
43 |
53 |
60 |
|
XC |
51 |
50 |
53 |
60 |
|
IV1 |
53 |
50 |
55 |
60 |
|
OR |
51 |
51 |
54 |
55 |
|
HY |
51 |
47 |
52 |
55 |
|
MV |
53 |
51 |
55 |
56 |
3.122
Predicted cumulative level of
fixed plant and entertainment noise at representative NSRs would range from 50-56dB(A),
which would comply with the noise criteria as set out in the EIAO-TM. No mitigation measure is required.
The
3.123
As for the
Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts
3.124
Although the noise mitigation effects are easily
quantifiable and the benefits may vary with site conditions and operating
conditions, good site practices are easy to implement and do not impact upon
the works schedule. The site practices
listed below should be followed during each phase of construction:
§
Only
well-maintained plant should be operated on-site and plant should be serviced
regularly during the construction program
§
Silencers
or mufflers on construction equipment should be utilized and should be properly
maintained during the construction program
§
Mobile
plant, if any, should be sited as far from NSRs as possible
§
Machines
and plant (such as trucks) that may be in intermittent use should be shut down
between work periods or should be throttled down to a minimum
§
Plant
known to emit noise strongly in one direction should, wherever possible, be
orientated so that the noise is directed away from the nearby NSRs
§
Material
stockpiles and other structures should be effectively utilized, wherever
practicable, in screening noise from on-site construction activities.
3.125
In order to reduce the excessive noise impacts at the
affected NSRs at the Waterfront during normal daytime working hours, quieter
plants are recommended. The Contractors do
not have to use specific items of quiet plant adopted in this assessment. The Contractors may use other type of quiet
plant, which have the same total SWL, to meet their needs. The quiet PME adopted in the assessment were
taken from the BS5228: Part 1:1997 (Appendix 3.6). It should be noted that the silenced PME selected for
assessment can be found in
Use
of Movable Noise Barrier
3.126
The use of movable barrier for certain PME could further
alleviate the construction noise impacts.
In general, 5dB(A) reduction for movable PME and 10dB(A) for stationary
PME can be achieved depending on the actual design of movable noise barrier.
3.127
Appendix 3.6 shows the assumed noise reduction effects achieved by the
movable noise barrier for certain items of PME.
The Contractor should be responsible for design of the movable noise
barrier with due consideration given to the size of the PME and the requirement
of intercepting the line of sight between the NSRs and PME. Barrier material of surface mass in excess of
3.128
The construction noise levels predicted at representative
NSRs with the use of quiet plant and movable noise barrier are summarised in Table 3.12. As shown from the results, the adoption of
quieter plant and movable noise barrier would reduce the predicted noise levels
at all residential NSRs to be within the noise limit as stipulated in the
EIAO-TM. Appendix 3.6 shows the details of construction noise
calculation for the mitigated scenario.
3.129
Exceedance of up to 5 dB(A) would be predicted at the
3.130
To ensure that
the construction noise impacts would be well controlled, good site practices
and noise management measures should be strictly implemented within all
construction sites.
Table 3.14 Summary of Mitigated Construction Noise Levels During
Non-restricted Hours
|
NSRs |
Predicted Mitigated Construction Noise Levels During (0700-1900 on weekdays), dB(A) |
EIAO-TM Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
|
PTS1 |
54-70 |
70 for normal teaching 65 for examination period |
|
SW2 |
53-70 |
75 |
|
HA |
56-72 |
75 |
|
CV2 |
59-75 |
75 |
|
XC |
58-68 |
75 |
|
IV1 |
59-70 |
75 |
|
MV |
61-68 |
75 |
Rescheduling of Noisy Construction Work
during Examination Hours
3.131
To further reduce noise impact during the examination hours,
early liaison with the principal of this impacted school is recommended to plan
for the construction programme. Construction
works to be undertaken close to the school NSRs should be scheduled for
implementation during school holidays wherever possible.
3.132
The following noisy construction activities should be
avoided during the examination period as far as practicable so as to reduce the
potential noise impact at the affected school.
Table 3.15 Construction Works to be avoided during
the Examination Hour of the
|
Construction Zone |
Construction Work |
|
|
Demolition Realignment of Drainage diversion – box culvert construction Sewerage diversion Site formation and excavation Piling works Superstructure construction |
|
|
Demolition Slopework Piling works Superstructure construction |
3.133
After rescheduling of noisy construction work, the predicted
noise levels at PTS1 would comply with the noise criteria of 65dB(A).
Therefore, noise exceedance would be mitigated by rescheduling of noisy
construction work. Detail calculation is provided in the Appendix 3.6.
Blasting
3.134
Although of short duration of blast, the following
mitigation measures are recommended to be implemented to minimise the nuisance
from blasting noise:
Ÿ
The Contractor shall establish a communication channel with
the nearest NSRs to liaise on the blasting schedule and inform them of any
scheduled blasting in advance.
Ÿ
Sufficient time shall be allowed for alerting all the
potential sensitive receivers through established channel of communication
prior to each and every blasting activity.
Ÿ
Proper procedures shall be put in place to alert and
minimise any startling effect on the staff working in
Ÿ
Subject to detailed design to be conducted by the
Contractor, trial tests could be conducted to evaluate the optimal amount of
charge to be used for each blasting.
3.135
As the noise impact from blast would last for a very short
time periods (a few seconds only), construction noise monitoring for each underground
blasting of the drill-&-blast tunnel is not necessary.
Operation Phase
Fixed Plant
3.136
Detailed design of fixed plant was
not available at the time of reporting.
However, it is recommended that the following noise reduction measures
should be considered as far as practicable during detailed design:
§
Choose quieter plant such as those which have been effectively silenced.
§
Include noise levels specification when ordering new plant (including
rides, E/M equipment and PA system).
§
Locate fixed plant away from any NSRs as far as practicable.
§
Locate fixed plant in walled plant rooms or in specially designed
enclosures.
§
Locate noisy machines in a basement or a completely separate building.
§
Develop and implement a regularly scheduled plant maintenance programme
so that equipment is properly operated and serviced in order to maintain
controlled level of noise. The programme
should be implemented by properly trained personnel.
3.137
Since the assessment was
conducted based on conceptual design information, a review of noise impact due
to fixed plant (together with that due to the open-air lagoon night show) based
on detailed design available at a later stage is recommended to verify the EIA
predictions.
Entertainment Noise
Loudspeaker System Design
3.138
The following factors should be
taken into account in the detailed design of the loudspeaker system as far as
practicable:
§
The system should comprise a cluster of small power loudspeakers instead
of a few large-power loudspeakers.
§
Speakers should be distributed throughout the spectator area rather than
being clustered at one end of the venue or directly pointing to NSRs, and
should be placed closer to the audience.
§
Directional speakers should be used as far as practicable and oriented
to point towards the audience and away from the nearby NSRs.
§
The sound system should comply with criteria set out in the EIAO-TM,
whilst also providing sufficient direct sound when considering the intelligibility
of a sound system.
3.139
Upon completion of system
installation, sound tests to be witnessed by qualified professionals of Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) should be performed to demonstrate
that the loudspeaker system will satisfy the above-mentioned acoustic design
requirements.
Noise Review Study
3.140
When detailed design information
is available, it is considered necessary to conduct a Noise Review Study to verity
the EIA predictions.
Good Management Practices
3.141
Good management practices should
be in place, including noise monitoring, setting up a complaint hotline, and distributing
advance notice to nearby NSRs. It is
recommended that good management practices be implemented during both rehearsals
and shows.
Fall Back Option
3.142
As a fall back option, should
non-compliance of EIAO-TM noise limit at NSRs be identified for the lagoon
night show, interim measures such as turning down/off music volume would be
implemented before long-term measures such as redesigning show with no music/lower
music volume are in place.
Evaluation of Residual Impacts
3.143
With the adoption of quieter plant and movable noise barriers,
cumulative construction noise levels would comply with all relevant EIAO-TM
noise criteria at all the NSRs. No
adverse residual impact is envisaged.
Operation Phase
Projected-induced Traffic
Noise
3.144
The assessment results concluded that the increase in
traffic noise levels (L10 (1 hour)) predicted at all NSRs expect the
Police Training School (1-2/F of NSR PTS1 and 1-4/F of NSR PTS2) would be less
than 1.0 dB(A). According to the
assessment results, the predicted noise levels at 1-2/F of NSR PTS1 and 1-4/F
of NSRPTS2 would comply with the noise
criteria of 65dB(A) and 70dB(A) for school and residential dwelling
respectively. Thus, no residual project-induced traffic noise impact would be
expected for all NSRs within the Study Area.
Fixed
Noise Sources
3.145
The assessment results indicated that residual fixed plant
impacts arising from the Project would not be expected.
3.146
Based on the results predicted
for the two test scenarios, it is envisaged that relevant noise control
requirements associated with the entertainment noise from the lagoon night show
would be satisfied.
3.147
No adverse cumulative impact of
fixed noise sources is envisaged.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
3.148
An Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme
is recommended to be established according the predicted occurrence of noisy
activities. All the recommended
mitigation measures should be incorporated into the EM&A programme for
implementation during construction.
Details of the programme are provided in a stand-alone EM&A Manual.
Projected-induced
Traffic Noise
3.149
The noise assessment concluded that the Project would not
incur insurmountable increase in traffic noise impact at any NSRs, and so no
mitigation measure would be required.
Hence, there would be no EM&A requirement for the operational phase
of the Project.
Fixed Noise Sources
3.150
It is recommended that operational
phase noise monitoring be undertaken
during the nighttime show performance at
3.151
Noise arising from the construction activities of the project
would have potential impact on the NSRs located in the vicinity of the works areas. Unmitigated
cumulative construction noise levels at the representative NSRs were predicted,
which were found to be in the range of 54 to 88 dB(A), exceeding the EIAO-TM
daytime construction noise limit by about 1-13 dB(A).
3.152
Mitigation measures are considered necessary to reduce the
noise levels to be within the EIAO-TM noise criterion. Mitigation measures including good site practices, the use of quieter plant and movable noise barrier were recommended. With the
recommended mitigation measures in place, the construction noise levels at all
NSRs would be reduced to acceptable levels.
Project-induced Traffic Noise
3.153
Potential road traffic noise impact associated with the
Project was assessed for the maximum traffic flows in 2026 for the “with
development” and “without development” scenarios on weekday and weekend /
public holiday. The modelling results indicated that the increase
in traffic noise levels (L10 (1 hour)) predicted at all NSRs except
the Police Training School (1-2/Fof NSR PTS1 and 1-4/F of NSR PTS2) would be less
than 1.0 dB(A). However, the predicted
noise levels at 1-2/F of NSR PTS1 and 1-4/F of NSR PTS2 for all scenarios would
comply with the EIAO-TM
noise criteria. Thus, mitigation
measures are considered not necessary and no adverse traffic noise impact from
the traffic induced from the Project would be expected.
Fixed Noise Sources
3.154
The assessment results indicated that predicted noise levels
at all NSRs arising from the fixed plant of the Project would comply with the
EIAO-TM criteria. No adverse fixed plant noise impacts would be expected.
3.155
The assessment results predicted
for two test scenarios indicated that noise impact due to the lagoon night show
would comply with the noise criteria as set out in the EIAO-TM. No mitigation measures to alleviate the potential
entertainment noise impacts would be required.
3.156
No adverse cumulative
impact of fixed noise source would be envisaged. To ensure compliance with the EIAO-TM
noise
criteria, it is recommended that noise monitoring should be undertaken during
the nighttime show performance at