| No. |
Department |
Reference |
Comments |
Consultants'
Response |
| 1 |
Highways
Department/
Mr Patrick K F Lai
|
HYD
T4/1/479
16 July 1999
|
I
have no comment on the Draft Final Report for
the above environmental baseline survey.
|
Thanks.
|
| 2 |
Secretary
for Economic Services/
Ms Heidi Y M Chan |
PMB
TC4/99
19 July 1999 |
The
contents of the Draft Final Report (DFR) for the
subject under caption are generally in order and
I have no further comments on the DFR. |
Thanks. |
| 3 |
Transport
Department/Territory Transport Planning Division/
Ms Winnie Fung |
TTP
171/70/7
29 July 1999 |
I
have no comment on the captioned Draft Final Report.
|
Thanks. |
| 4 |
Planning
Department/
Miss Fiona Lung |
SS
S/POR/29
4 Aug 1999 |
General
Comment
(a) It will be helpful if main report can include
a brief description of the information contained
in Appendix B. |
A
description on Appendix B will be included in the
main report. |
| 5 |
|
|
Specific
Comment
Section 3: Methodology
(b)The Consultants may consider including a section
to describe the limitation of the methodology adopted. |
Exercise
of this nature, while providing useful bird's eye
views, may over-generalize the relevant situations.
This statement will included in the methodology
section. |
| 6 |
|
|
Section
4: Survey Findings
(c)Can the total population affected in different
monitoring locations be included in the respective
tables? |
A
"total" row will be included in the respective
tables. |
| 7 |
|
|
Section
4.6:
(d)The measurement unit in Table 4.6a is missing. |
It
should be dB(A). |
| 8 |
|
|
Section
4.7:
(e)Are the legends of Figures 4.1 to 4.3 referring
to the size of operation of the respective activities? |
Yes,
Figures 4.1 to 4.3 are referring to the size of
operation of the respective activities. |
| 9 |
|
|
Section
4.9:
(f)Other than the separation distance, factors such
as the disposition of building blocks may also affect
the population exposure pattern. Have these factors
been taken into account? |
The
monitoring exercise has taken into account actual
site conditions including orientation of receivers
in relation to the sources. |
| 10 |
|
|
Section
5: Conclusion
(g)The meaning of the 2nd paragraph needs further
elaboration. |
The
sentence will be amended to read "In general,
the larger the size of the noise source of a particular
activity, a larger proportion of the population
will be exposed to higher noise levels." |
| 11 |
EPD/Victor
Yeung |
EP
1/G/161 XXV
5 August 1999 |
General
We recall that the noise indicator developed for
the captioned study is "Percentage of population
exposed to excessive noise". Could the Consulatants
please advise how the baseline monitoring results
could be applied in this indicator. |
Please
see item 14 below. |
| 12 |
|
|
The
survey results provide the relationship between
size of operation (of particular activities), distance
and level of exposure. This would be useful in providing
information to planners and professionals on the
possible noise exposure if a proposal at strategic
level involving the similar activities but detail
assessment cannot be carried out at appropriate
level. For instance, if the proposal involves certain
size of operation of a particular activity, then
a minimum buffer distance is required in order not
to aggravate the existing noise impact situation.
The Consultants may need to explore and develop
the approach before the data could be included and
applied in the CASET System. |
The
consultants agreed that this particular exercise
has provided useful information for planning against
noise at the strategic level. |
| 13 |
|
|
Could
the Consultants clarify how the survey results and
information collected would be included and presented
in the GIS part of the CASET system? We believe
they should be presented in some appropriate ways
to help users to understand the potential noise
issue. This is crucial as users of the CASET/GIS
may not have much background knowledge in noise
issues and may rely on the GIS to 'help' them or
provide them with hints when using CASET. |
Please
see item 24 below. |
| 14 |
|
|
Para.
3.2
Since the selected survey locations would reflect
the representative level of a particular activity,
we trust the total noise exposure to that particular
activity could be estimated based on the survey
data. It should be noted that the indicator developed
for noise in the captioned study is " Percentage
of population exposed to excessive noise".
Therefore, such estimation is necessary. |
The
total noise exposure to each type of surveyed activites
would be estimated based on the survey data and
the number of such locations in Hong Kong. The percentage
of population so exposed could then be estimated. |
| 15 |
|
|
Para.
4.1
When reading with Fig.4.4, it is noted that large
scale Public Cargo Handling Area (PCHA) was not
surveyed. Are these large scale PCHA located next
to major roads which survey cannot be done due to
high traffic noise, or are these PCHA located far
away from NSRs? If that are the cases, it would
set a good example for planning any future similar
size PCHA. When read with the Table 4.1, it seems
that the exposure does not have any direct relationship
with the size of operation or distance separation.
Perhaps, optimum distance separation for different
size of PCHA needs to be in place for planning future
PCHA at strategic level. |
Many
PCHAs are located next to major roads and survey
on those are difficult. The consultants agreed that
adequate separation needs to be in place for planning
PCHAs at strategic level. |
| 16 |
|
|
Para.
4.2 From the survey data and Table 4.1, it seems
that the high-rise nature of NSRs at Tin Shui Wai
and its close distance are the concern. Again, optimum
distance separation for different types of NSR next
to the Open Storage needs to be in place for planning
future Open Storage at strategic level. |
The
consultants agreed that adequate separation needs
to be in place for planning future open storages
at strategic level. |
| 17 |
|
|
Para.
4.3
The high level of noise exposure suggests that this
kind of 1/R interface should be avoided in any future
planning at strategic level. Nevertheless, optimum
distant separation may also be required as well. |
The
consultants agreed that this kind of 1/R interface
is not a very desirable situation. |
| 18 |
|
|
Para.
4.4
The data suggests that the manufacturing plants
etc in Industrial Estate are well planned and hence
the noise problem is avoided at the outset |
The
consultants agreed that, in terms of locations,
the industrial estates are well planned. |
| 19 |
|
|
Para.
4.5
When reading with Fig.4.4, it is noted that large
scale Container Trucks Parking was not surveyed.
Are these large scale Container Trucks parking located
next to major roads which survey cannot be done
due to high traffic noise, or are these Parking
located far away from NSRs. |
Many
container trucks parking areas are close to major
roads. |
| 20 |
|
|
Para.
4.6
While complaints on CT 1 to 7 are received, noise
investigation cannot be easily carried out as road
traffic noise from Kwai Chung Road and Rt 3 (Viaduct
section) dominates. Nevertheless, the survey data
from CT 8 provide indication of how far should the
minimum size CT be located in order not to cause
noise impact. This is useful for strategic level
evaluation. |
EPD
rightly pointed out that traffic noise has hindered
the noise investigation on the container terminals.
The consultants agreed that the survey data form
CT 8 would provide useful indication to facilitate
siting considerations. |
| 21 |
|
|
Para.
4.7 to 4.9
Fig.4.4 is useful but cannot be used as planning
tool. Instead of showing the distant separation
of the existing activities with NSRs, the Consultants
should develop optimum distant separation for each
size of activities for future strategic level planning
and assessment. |
A
table showing the relevant optimum separation distance
will be included. |
| 22 |
|
|
Para.
5
The baseline monitoring has been carried out. However,
the "Percentage of population exposed to excessive
noise" would need to be developed based on
the data collected. Could the Consultants clarify
how this would be done and incorporated into the
CASET and its GIS? |
Please
see item 24 below. |
| 23 |
|
|
Para.
5.1.1
We support the concept and spirit of the last sentence.
'A better planning outcome would be a situation
with the size of population affected by the noise
source smaller than the current condition.' Could
the Consultants indicate how this concept could
possibly be included in the CASET system? |
Please
see item 24 below. |
| 24 |
|
|
Para.
5.1.2
Could the Consultants please advise specifically
how the data would be applied in the CASET System? |
The
will be applied on two fronts:
(a) On a territory wide map showing the surveyed
activities, their respective locations and relevant
data; and
(b) On the indicators "HELP" screen showing
the computational steps to arrive at the total exposure
population. |
|