3.                   noise impact

Introduction

3.1               Potential noise impacts likely to arise from the proposed Project during both the construction and operation phases have been evaluated and the results are presented in this section. 

3.2               The following potential noise impacts were assessed and the predicted noise levels and necessary noise mitigation measures, are presented in this section:

§         Construction noise

§         Operational phase project-induced traffic noise

§         Operational phase fixed plant noise

§         Operational phase entertainment noise

Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

3.3               The Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) provide the statutory framework for noise control.  Assessment procedures and standards are set out in the five Technical Memoranda (TMs) listed below:

§         TM on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM)

§         TM on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling (GW-TM)

§         TM on Noise from Percussive Piling (PP-TM)

§         TM on Noise form Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM)

§         TM on Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM)

3.4               Potential construction noise, project-induced traffic noise, fixed plant and entertainment noise impacts arising from the Project have been assessed in accordance with the criteria and methodology given in the TMs made under the NCO and the EIAO.

Construction Noise

3.5               Daytime construction noise (excluding percussive piling) between the hours 0700 – 1900 on weekdays, is controlled under the EIAO.  Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM sets out the construction noise limits, which are Leq(30 min) 75dB(A) for domestic premises and Leq(30 min) 70dB(A) for schools during normal hours (65dB(A) during examination periods) and all other places where unaided voice communication is required. 

3.6               Construction activities other than percussive piling using powered mechanical equipment (PME) undertaken at other times (i.e. during restricted hours) are under the control of the NCO. 

3.7               According to the construction programme, all the proposed construction works except for tunnelling would be carried out during non-restricted hours. In case of any construction activities during restricted hours, it is 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 one be issued. There are some factors affecting the assessment results of a CNP application, such as the assigning of Area Sensitivity Rating. As the situations/conditions around the sites may change from time to time, the Noise Control Authority would decide these at the time assessment of such an application based on the contemporary situations/conditions. Nothing in the EIA study shall bind the Noise Control Authority in the context of CNP application.

3.8               Percussive piling would not be adopted for the proposed Project.  Therefore, criteria as set out in the PP-TM would not be applicable to this Project. 

Project-induced Traffic Noise

3.9               The proposed redevelopment would generate additional traffic on nearby roads such as Ocean Park Road and Wong Chuk Hang Road.  Traffic noise impacts generated from additional traffic induced by the Project have been assessed as per the requirements of the Study Brief.

3.10            The criteria for assessment of road traffic noise at various NSRs (in terms of L10 (1 hour)) are defined in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM: Criteria for Evaluating Noise Impact:

§                      70 dB(A) at the façades of dwellings, hotels, and offices.

§                      65 dB(A) at the façades of schools, places of public worship, courts of law, and places where unaided voice communication is required.

§                      55 dB(A) at the façades of a hospital.

3.11            According to the EIA Study Brief, where the predicted traffic noise levels exceed the criteria set in Table 1A of Annex 5 in the EIAO-TM by 1dB(A) resulting from the Project, noise mitigation measures would need to be proposed by the Project Proponent.  This implies that proposals for noise mitigation measures would be required if:

§                      The predicted overall noise level from the Project (i.e. the proposed redevelopment), together with other traffic noise in the vicinity exceed the noise level specified in the EIAO-TM (for example, 70 dB(A) for domestic premises and 65 dB(A) for educational institutions, all in L10 (1 hour)) by 1dB(A); and

§                      The contribution to the increase in the predicted overall noise level from the Project must be at least 1.0 dB(A).

Fixed Noise Sources

3.12            The NCO and IND-TM control noise from fixed noise sources. For this Project, key fixed noise sources associated with the operational phase of the Project include the following:

§                      Fixed plant noise - noise from equipment/installations such as ventilation fan, rides, chiller, air conditioning unit (A/C) and parkwide public address (PA) system. 

§                      Entertainment noise - noise from loudspeakers for nightly shows at the lagoon area at Aqua City (hereinafter referred to as “Lagoon Night Show”).

3.13            For the assessment of impacts from fixed noise sources, the area sensitivity rating (ASR) of the noise sensitive receivers must be determined in accordance with the IND-TM, and based on the ASR, the appropriate acceptable noise levels (ANL) can be determined.  ANL is shown in Table 3.1. For this assessment, the ASRs assumed for each NSR and the associated ANL are shown in Appendix 3.1.


Table 3.1          Acceptable Noise Level for Fixed Plant Noise

 

Time Period

NCO criteria

TM-EIA

ASR ‘A

ASR ‘B’

ASR ‘C’

ASR ‘A

ASR ‘B’

ASR ‘C’

Daytime and Evening (0700-2300 hours)

60

65

70

55

60

65

Night-time (2300-0700 hours)

50

55

60

45

50

55

                Source: IND-TM

 

3.14            In any event, the Area Sensitivity Rating assumed in the EIA Report is only indicative and it is used for assessment only.  It should be noted that the fixed noise sources are controlled under section 13 of the NCO.  Therefore, the Noise Control Authority shall determine noise impact from concerned fixed noise sources on the basis of prevailing legislation and practices being in force, and taking account of contemporary conditions/ situations of adjoining land uses.  Nothing in the EIA study shall bind the Noise Control Authority in the context of law enforcement against any of the fixed noise sources being assessed.

3.15            More stringent criteria for assessing noise impacts of fixed plant are recommended in the EIAO-TM for planning purposes.  The recommended assessment criteria are as follows:

§                  5dB(A) below the appropriate Acceptable Noise Levels (ANL) set out in the IND-TM, or

§                  The prevailing background noise level where the prevailing background noise level is 5dB(A) below the appropriate ANL.

3.16            The noise assessment criteria as described in EIAO-TM have been adopted for the assessment of fixed noise source impact in relation to the Park operation.

Noise Sensitive Receivers

3.17            Representative NSRs within 300m of the Project boundary were identified for noise assessments.

3.18            According to Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM, NSRs include the following:

§         Residential uses – all domestic premises including temporary housing

§         Institutional uses – including educational institutions

§         Other uses such as hostels and country parks

3.19            In order to evaluate the construction and operational noise impacts likely to arise from the Project, representative NSRs (both existing and planned NSRs) were selected within the study area (i.e. those at the most critical locations) according to the criteria set out in the EIAO-TM, through site visits and a review of relevant land use plans including the Outline Zoning Plan (Plan No. S/H15/21 and S/H17/9).  

3.20            In general, NSRs located closest to the subject noise sources, i.e. the first layer of NSR, would be considered as the most critical locations and thus selected for noise assessment.  In some cases however, in addition to the first layer of NSRs, noise assessment at the second layer or layers of NSRs further away from the subject noise sources would be necessary as these NSRs would be subject to more stringent noise control requirements.  Note that the assessment criteria for fixed noise source impact could be determined by the prevailing background noise level where the prevailing background noise level at the NSRs is 5dB(A) below the appropriate the ANL. 

 

3.21            Noise monitoring results (refer to Table 3.4) revealed that the prevailing traffic noise at the second layer or layers of NSRs further back would be lower than the first layer of NSRs located in the immediate vicinity of Wong Chuk Hang Road.  Hence, to ensure the assessment has covered all potentially worst impacted NSRs, NSRs OR and HY representing the second and third layer of NSRs at the Shouson Hill area were selected for operational fixed noise source impact assessment.

3.22            The NSRs located closest to the Summit would be the planned school which is now under construction at Shum Wan Road, and the existing residential development Broadview Court. As these NSRs are at a great distance from the boundary of the Summit (respectively 680m and 720m away), noise impact from the construction and operation of the Summit would be considered to be minor. 

3.23            At the time of reporting, the Project Proponent had no plan to use the Coral Building (formerly known as Ocean Park Quarters) as staff quarters during construction phase and upon completion of various phases of Project. 

3.24            Table 3.2 presents a summary of representative NSRs included in the assessment.  Locations of representative NSRs are shown in Figures 3.1-3.3.  Photographs of the existing NSRs are provided in Appendix 3.2.

 


Table 3.2          Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

NSR

Description

Land Use

Existing / Planned NSR

No of storey

Construction Noise Assessment

Project-induced Traffic Noise Assessment

Fixed Plant and Entertainment Noise Assessment

PTS1

Old Teaching Block, Police Training School

Government/ Institution / Community

Existing

4

Ö

Ö

Ö

PTS2

Block J, Recruit Constable Quarters

Government/ Institution / Community

Existing

4

 

Ö

 

WCHC(1)

Wong Chuk Hang Complex for the Elderly

Government/ Institution / Community

Existing

6

 

 

 

GH(1)

Grantham Hospital

Government/ Institution / Community

Existing

7

 

 

 

SW1

Wong Chuk Hang San Wai

Residential

Existing

1

 

Ö

 

SW2

Wong Chuk Hang San Wai

Residential

Existing

1

Ö

Ö

Ö

CV1

Country Villa, 4 Shouson Hill Road

Residential

Existing

3

 

Ö

 

CV2

Country Villa, 28 Shouson Hill Road

Residential

Existing

3

Ö

Ö

Ö

HA

The Hazelton

Residential

Existing

3

Ö

Ö

Ö

XC

Xanadu Courts

Residential

Existing

3

Ö

Ö

Ö

IV1

Island View

Residential

Existing

2

Ö

 

Ö

IV2

Island View

Residential

Existing

2

 

Ö

 

MV

Manly Villa

Residential

Existing

3

Ö

 

Ö

OR

Orchid Valley

Residential

Existing

3

 

 

Ö

HY

Hau Yuen

Residential

Existing

3

 

 

Ö

PS1/

PS2(2)

 

Planned school at Shum Wan Road

Educational institute

Planned

7

Ö

Ö

 

BC1/

BC2(2)

Broadview Court

Residential

Existing

39

Ö

Ö

Ö

Note:      (1) NSR is centrally air-conditioned.

(2) NSR located outside the Study Area (i.e. more than 300m from the project site boundary)


Description of the Environment

3.25            Ocean Park is located at Aberdeen, on the southern side of Hong Kong Island.  It is built on the northern and southern sides of Nam Long Shan, and currently comprises of three parts – Lowland, Headland and Tai Shue Wan.  Except the Lowland, both Headland and Tai Shue Wan are situated at the southern side of Nam Long Shan. 

3.26            Site visits conducted from April to November 2005 revealed that NSRs identified within the Study Area were exposed to noise from the existing Ocean Park, traffic along existing road networks including Ocean Park Road as well as the bus terminus at Ocean Park Road.  Key sources of noise impact to the existing NSRs are summarised in the Table 3.3.

Table 3.3          Key Noise Sources to the existing NSRs

 

NSR

Description

Existing Noise Sources affecting NSR

PTS1

Old Teaching Block (Police Training School)

Traffic noise from Ocean Park Road and Wong Chuk Hang Road

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

PTS2

Block J, Recruit Constable Quarters

Traffic noise from Ocean Park Road and Wong Chuk Hang Road

WCHC

Wong Chuk Hang Complex for the Elderly

Traffic noise from Wong Chuk Hang Road and Aberdeen Tunnel

GH

Grantham Hospital

Traffic noise from Wong Chuk Hang Road and Aberdeen Tunnel

SW1

Wong Chuk Hang San Wai

Traffic noise from Wong Chuk Hang Road and Aberdeen Tunnel

SW2

Wong Chuk Hang San Wai

Traffic noise from Wong Chuk Hang Road

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

CV1

HA

CV2

XC

Country Villa

The Hazelton

Country Villa

Xanadu Court

Traffic noise from Wong Chuk Hang Road

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

IV1

Island View

Operational noise from the existing Country Club  and Ocean Park

IV2

Island View

Traffic noise from Wong Chuk Hang Road

Operational noise from the existing Country Club

MV

Manly Villa

Minor traffic noise from the private access road to Manly Villa

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

OR

HY

Orchid Valley

Hau Yuen

Traffic along Wong Chuk Hang Road,

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

*BC1

BC2

Broadview Court

Traffic along Shum Wan Road

Note: * NSR located outside the Study Area (i.e. more than 300m from the project site boundary)

 

Prevailing Noise Levels at NSRs

3.27            As discussed in Section 3.16, the recommended EIAO-TM assessment criteria for fixed noise sources is 5dB(A) below the appropriate ANL set out in the IND-TM or the prevailing background noise level where the prevailing noise level is 5dB(A) below the appropriate ANL.  Hence, it is necessary to determine typical prevailing background noise levels at the NSRs identified for operational phase fixed plant and entertainment noise assessment. 

3.28            Noise surveys were undertaken in October and November 2005 to determine the prevailing background noise levels.  Prevailing background noise levels were obtained through measurement of existing noise levels at six representative locations (refer to Figure 3.1A) within the Study Area.

 

 

Table 3.3a        Noise Measurement Locations

 

Noise Measurement Point

Description

Floor level of noise measurement

Measurement Date

 

Measurement Time Period

MPS

Old Teaching Block (Police Training School)

Roof Floor

5/11/05, 10/11/05, 12/11/05

1000-1100

1700-1800 &

2100-2200

MOR

Orchid Valley

Roof Floor

5/11/05, 10/11/05, 12/11/05

1000-1100

1700-1800 &

2100-2200

MCV

Country Villa

 

Ground Floor

5/11/05, 10/11/05, 12/11/05

1000-1100

1700-1800 &

2100-2200

MMV

Local Road within Ocean Park

Ground Floor

26/10/05, 28/10/05, 5/11/05

1000-1100

1700-1800 &

2100-2200

MO

Existing Ocean Park Quarters

Roof Floor

26/10/05, 28/10/05, 5/11/05

1000-1100

1700-1800 &

2100-2200

MBC

Broadview Court

Roof Floor

5/11/05, 10/11/05, 12/11/05

1000-1100

1700-1800 &

2100-2200

 

Table 3.3b        Measured Noise Levels

Noise Measurement Point

Represented NSR

Measured Noise Levels, Leq(15min) on Weekday*

Measured Noise Levels, Leq(15min) on Sunday*

Morning        (0700-1900)

Evening       (1900-2300)

Morning        (0700-1900)

Evening       (1900-2300)

MPS

PTS1

63.7

63.5

62.7

62.6-64.7

MOR

OR

HY

55.6

55.1

56.2

55.5-56.1

MCV

SW2

HA

CV2

XC

75.1

77.5

75.4

72.5-76.6

MMV

MV

55.5

55.7

56.0

55.5-56.6

MO

IV1

63.2

62.9

61.9

63.1-63.8

MBC

BC1

71.3

69.9

62.0

61.8-61.6

Note:* All noise measurements were conducted when the Park was in operation.

3.29            All the noise measurements were conducted in accordance with the Technical Memoranda (TMs) issued under the NCO.  Sound level meters in compliance with the International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651: 1979 (Type 1) and 804: 1985 (Type 1) specifications were used for carrying out the noise measurement.  Immediately prior to and following each noise measurement the accuracy of the sound level meter was checked using an acoustic calibrator generating a known sound pressure level at a known frequency.  Measurements was accepted as valid only if the calibration level from before and after the noise measurement agree to within 1.0 dB. 

3.30            Noise measurements, each for 15 minutes, were conducted at each of the selected monitoring locations during both the morning (1000-1100) and evening periods of time (1700-1800 & 2100-2200) on weekday and weekend/public holiday.  Prevailing noise levels at NSRs consist of noise from existing traffic and other background noise (e.g. operational noise from the existing Ocean Park).  Table 3.4 presents the typical prevailing noise levels at representative NSRs.  The determined assessment criteria are also presented in the same table.


Table 3.4          Prevailing Background Noise Levels at Representative NSRs

NSR

Description

Existing Major Noise Sources

Background Noise Levels (Weekday and Weekend / Sunday), dB(A)

Minimum Background Noise Level

[1]

IND-TM ANL-5, dB(A)

[2]

Fixed Plant Noise Assessment Criteria

i.e. Minimum of [1] & [2]

Background Noise Monitoring Location as shown on Figure 3.1A

PTS1

Old Teaching Block (Police Training School)

Road traffic along Ocean Park

 

Operational noise from the existing bus terminus at Ocean Park

 

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

62.6-64.7

62.6

60

60

MPS

SW2

 

 

HA

CV2

XC

 

Wong Chuk Hang San Wai

 

The Hazelton

Country Villa

Xanadu Court

 

Road traffic along Wong Chuk Hang Road,

 

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

72.5-77.5

72.5

60

60

MCV

 

IV1

Island View

Recreational facilities (e.g. ball courts) at Country Club

 

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

61.9-63.8

61.9

60

60

MO

 

MV

Manly Villa

Minor road traffic along the access road to Manly Villa

 

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

55.5-56.6

55.5

60

55.5

MMV

OR

HY

Orchid Valley

Hau Yuen

Road traffic along Wong Chuk Hang Road,

 

Operational noise from the existing Ocean Park

55.1-56.2

55.1

60

55.1

 

MOR

*BC1

Broadview Court

Road traffic along Shum Wan Road

61.6-71.3

61.6

65

61.6

MBC

Note:       * NSR located outside the Study Area (i.e. more than 300m from the project site boundary)

 

 

 


Assessment Methodology and Uncertainties

Construction Noise

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 Hong Kong.  Groups of PME were assigned for various construction activities of the proposed Project. The proposed plant inventory for the construction of the Project is presented in Appendix 3.3.  The Engineer as well as the Project Proponent have confirmed the proposed plant inventory as being practical and adequate for completing the works within the scheduled timeframe. 

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 Ocean Park would be between 1000-2200 and the arrival and departure pattern of visitors.

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

Design Peak Hour

1

With Redevelopment

2026

Weekday

PM Peak

2

Without Redevelopment

2026

Weekday

PM Peak

3

With Redevelopment

2026

Weekend/

Public Holiday

PM Peak

4

Without Redevelopment

2026

Weekend/

Public Holiday

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 300 m from the boundary of the study area were included in the noise prediction model. 

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 50km/hour except for the local road to the Public Transport Interchange underneath the Entry Plaza where speed was assumed to be 30km/hour.  Traffic data adopted in the assessment have been agreed by Transport Department.


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 Ocean Park, or information provided by the Project Proponent.

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 Summit, the total number of the future rides/ attractions would be about double that of the existing Headland. It is anticipated that the noise strength of the Summit would be double that of the existing Headland, so 3 dB(A) was added to the sound power levels at the existing Headland to represent the future sound power levels of the Summit.

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 Summit would be rides and attractions such as rocking ship, abyss, octopus, flume ride etc.

§                      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 Aqua City would not be turned on simultaneously with the loudspeakers used for the show.  Such assumption is made with reference to the current practices of Ocean Park.

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 Summit are presented in Appendix 3.4.  Noise levels at NSRs were predicted by adopting standard acoustics principles.

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 Ocean Park, shows are held at various locations including Ocean Theatre at the Headland, Whisker’s Theatre at the Lowland, Bird Theatre at the Lowland and Dolphin University at the Lowland.  The rationale for shows being located throughout the Ocean Park is to spread the guests across the whole Park, and this is considered to be vital for the effective operation of a theme park.  In light of the above, shows would be proposed at the Waterfront as well as the Summit. 

3.55            Noise issues would generally not arise if shows are to be held in an indoor environment.  Most of the shows at Ocean Park would be held indoors, for instance in the purpose-designed ‘event halls’ at the Entry Plaza.  However, open-air shows involving the use of loudspeaker systems for amplification of voice and instrumental music could be a source of noise impact, which is classified as “entertainment noise” in this EIA. 

3.56            Under the proposed master plan for the Waterfront, the lagoon area in the Aqua City would provide a venue for the open-air lagoon night show, which would be held nightly as a ‘farewell feature’ for the guests.  Without a show at the Waterfront, the attractiveness of the park would be considerably diminished.  Indeed, without such a show the viability of the park would suffer as guests may depart earlier.  The lagoon night show has been purposely located as far as possible from nearby sensitive receivers, immediately to the south of the Entry Plaza. 

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 Ocean Park and would be of a short duration of around (say) 20 minutes and not longer than 30 minutes.  Below is one of the preliminary design concepts being considered for the show:

 “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 4-5m and 9m away from the loudspeaker cluster respectively.

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 9m away from the loudspeaker cluster.  The Project Proponent has revealed that the audio levels assumed in this assessment would be practical and adequate for audience enjoyment of the show. 

3.66            Noise measurement was conducted on March 17, 2006 at the Golden Bauhinia Square in Wanchai for the “Symphony of Light” show (the SOL show).  The show comprised architectural lighting and laser effects with background music being played along.  The nature of the SOL show would be similar to the proposed lagoon night show except that the background music for the SOL show would be to some extent louder than that for the lagoon night show.  The duration of the show was about 10 minutes.  Noise level of 76dB(A) (in terms of Leq (15min)) was recorded at 9m away from the loudspeaker.  Comparing this audio level with the assumptions for the lagoon night show, the assumed sound power level of loudspeaker would be considered realistic and credible.

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 Ocean Park.  The conceptual design will be used as a reference for future detailed design of the show.  The design was developed by drawing on Ocean Park’s past experience in designing for shows of similarly nature and scale.  The design has also balanced as far as practicable the need to provide adequate protection to the amenity of neighbouring NSRs from entertainment noise with the need to provide the desired effects for the proposed shows to entertain the target audience. Although directional speakers would be considered in the detailed design of the loudspeaker system and be oriented to point towards the audience and away from the nearby NSRs as far as practicable, the correction for directivity has not been included in the calculation to account for the level of uncertainty in the assessment

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 40-100m from the boundary of work areas at Lowland, noise control measures would likely be necessary to ensure that construction noise impact at the identified NSRs would be within acceptable levels.

3.78            Site formation for the majority part of the Summit would involve blasting to remove large volume of rock.  The rock to be disposed off-site would first be crushed to a suitable size (less than 250 mm in diameter) by an on-site crushing plant. To convey the rock debris from the top of the Summit excavation site down to a barging point at Tai Shue Wan, a conveyor belt system would be used.  The rock debris will either be directly loaded onto the conveyor belt system or moved via a vertical shaft (“the glory hole”) down to the conveyor, running within a horizontal tunnel, which would transport the material to the barging point.  For either option, the conveyor belt system, which would be fully enclosed, would transfer the material to the barging point via an enclosed tipping hall.  Figure 3.4 shows an indicative plan for the conveyor belt system and the suggested location of the on-site crushing plant. The typical section of glory hole method for excavation and conveyor belt system is shown in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 respectively.   

3.79            Apart from rock blasting, piling for the funicular station would be required for the funicular railway.  The remaining construction activities for the Summit would largely be similar to those proposed at Lowland.  All the proposed construction activities at the Summit would be undertaken at distances in excess of about 700m from the nearest NSR (i.e. Broadview Court).  Given the large separation distances between the proposed work areas and the NSRs, adverse construction noise impact on this NSR would not be expected.

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 Ocean Park, firing of explosive will be carried out in the morning prior to opening of the Park. The broken rock will be removed by conveyor belt to a barging point at Tai Shue Wan. There are no statutory procedures and criteria under either the NCO or the EIAO for assessing the noise impact from blasting impacts and are therefore beyond the scope of the EIA. However, administrative and procedural control of all blasting operation in Hong Kong is vested in the Mines Division of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). The Dangerous Goods (General) Regulation, Chapter 295 also stipulates that no person shall carry out blasting unless he possesses a valid mine blasting certificate to be issued by the Mines Division of CEDD. The Superintendent of Mines will review the application on a case-by-case basis before issuing the Mine Blasting Certificate. Therefore, the contractor shall obtain a blasting permit from the Mines Division of CEDD before carrying out the blasting.  The contractor shall enclose a method statement including manner of working and protective measures to protect adjacent land and property when blasting is carried out.  The distance between the closest NSR (Broadview Court) and the tunnel section would be greater than 300m.  It is noted that each blast would last for only a few seconds. The park itself is not particularly sensitive to environmental effects of blasting in the early morning prior to opening of the park. 

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 700m away from the work areas at the Headland as shown in Figure 3.1.  It is therefore anticipated that cumulative noise impact from Headland and Lowland would be minor and would be unlikely to cause adverse cumulative construction noise impacts on the NSRs.

Operational Phase

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 Ocean Park for the “With Redevelopment” and “Without Redevelopment” Scenarios.  Traffic figures presented in the table are peak hourly traffic flows associated with the Park operation.


Table 3.6          Peak-hour Traffic at Key Road Links for the “With Redevelopment” and “Without Redevelopment” Scenario

 

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)

Aberdeen Tunnel

4563

5449

886

5072

6037

965

Ocean Park Road

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 Shum Wan Road would be the main access road to the entrance at the Summit, significant increase in traffic volumes would not be envisaged.  Project-induced traffic noise impact at the residences at Shum Wan Road would be considered to be minor.  According to traffic data (Appendix 2.2), there is no additional traffic on Nam Long Shan Road. Thus, no traffic noise level increase at the residences at Nam Long Shan Road would be expected.

Fixed Plant Noise at the Waterfront

3.87            The Waterfront, upon completion of the Project, will be divided into three themed zones: Aqua City, Whisker’s Harbour and Birds of Paradise, and two other zones known as the Entry Plaza and Back of House.  Potential sources of fixed plant noise impact at these zones are described below, and an inventory of potential fixed plant at the Waterfront is presented in Appendix 3.4.

3.88            The Aqua City will be the largest zone in the Waterfront and will house the new Ocean Park Grand Aquarium complex.  Whilst this zone would house the cable car and funicular station, the dominant noise generating machinery room for these two facilities would be located at the stations at the Summit which would both be under cover.  The major fixed plant expected at this zone would be the sea horse carousel.

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 Entry Plaza and the Back of House.  Major fixed noise sources expected at the Entry Plaza would be the public address (PA) system for soft background music and general announcement broadcast.  The Back of House located at the northeast corner of the Waterfront will be used for warehouses and the central production unit.  Fixed plant such as chillers and A/C units will be placed in these areas.

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 Entry Plaza. This show will be held in the evening and will be around (say) 20 minutes and not longer than 30 minutes in duration.  The show will be in essence relaxing when compared with the more thrilling shows available on the Summit.

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 4-5m and 9m away from the loudspeaker cluster respectively.  It is considered that the noise levels due to the lagoon night show would generally be low as the show is not anticipated to be noisy to provide the mysterious setting.  Only background music synchronizing with the wave pool and the water jet display is envisaged. 

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 Ocean Park on shows of similar kinds.  It will be used as a reference for future detailed design of the show.  A detailed design will be undertaken at later stage of the Project when more details on the lagoon night shows are available. 

Fixed Plant Noise and Entertainment Noise at the Summit

3.100        The Headland, which will be renamed the Summit under the project, will be extended to cover part of the hill slope adjacent to Nam Long Shan.  New attractions and facilities such as Whale Stadium, new Panda House, brand new theatres for shows, new rides, and accommodations for new animals will be incorporated (Figure 2.2 refers). A list of rides in the Summit is provided in Appendix 3.4. Some of the existing facilities such as Ocean Theatre and Pacific Pier will be upgraded.  Overall, the number of attractions will be doubled under the project.

3.101        As the Summit is built on the southern sides of Nam Long Shan, most of the proposed facilities and rides would be screened by the surrounding topographical terrain from the view of the identified NSRs at Shum Wan Road. The key fixed plant at the summit have been identified and listed in Appendix 3.4.

3.102        All the identified fixed noise sources at the Summit would be located further than 300m from the nearest NSR.  The nearest NSR would be the planned school site at Shum Wan Road (NSR PS1) which is now under construction.  This planned school site would lie at more than 600m from the Summit, and its line of sight to the Park would be screened by the surrounding topographical terrain (Nam Long Shan) as confirmed by the site visits.  Insurmountable noise impact associated with the fixed noise sources at the Summit is not envisaged having regard to the fact that the separation distance between the noise sources at the Summit and this school NSR would be large and the line of sight of the concerned school to the noise sources at the Summit would be limited. 

3.103        Dwellings at the high-rise development Broadview Court i.e. NSR BC1 could have line of sight to fixed noise sources at the Summit.  However, Broadview Court is located more than 700m away from the Park.  Given the large separation between the fixed noise sources and this NSR, it is considered unlikely that the fixed noise sources at the Summit would result in any adverse noise impact at Broadview Court. 

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.

Evaluation of Impacts

Construction Phase

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 Normal Daytime Working Hours

 

NSRs

Predicted Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels During Normal Daytime Working Hour

(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 Summit. Thus, no mitigation measures for works at Summit would be required.

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. 

Operational Phase

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

Predicted Unmitigated Traffic Noise Levels (Peak Hour Traffic L10 (1 hour)),, dB(A)

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 Holiday

NSRs

Floor

Predicted Unmitigated Traffic Noise Levels (Peak Hour Traffic L10 (1 hour)),, dB(A)

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 Ocean Park Road fronting the school. However, the noise levels at 1-2/F of NSR PTS1 and 1-4/F of NSR PTS2 were predicted to comply with the noise limit of 65 dB(A) and 70 dB(A) for school and residential dwelling respectively. Hence, adverse project-induced traffic noise impact on this NSR would not be envisaged and no mitigation measure would be required having regard to the criteria as set out in Section 3.11.

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 Summit

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 Aqua City would not be turned on simultaneously with the loudspeakers used for the show.  It was assumed in the calculation that there would be 30 clusters of PA system serving the future Aqua City during the Lagoon Night Show,

* NSR located outside the Study Area (i.e. more than 300m from the project site boundary)

               

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 Summit, i.e. BC1, would be 53dB(A).  All the predicted fixed plant noise levels would comply with the relevant noise criteria.  Thus, no mitigation measures would be required.  Details of the calculation are presented in Appendix 3.4.

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 Summit

3.120        Three major theatres: Ocean Theatre, Whale Show and Beluga Show will be built at the Summit and the theatres will be largely covered. The Ocean Theatre will be refurbished and the setting in the future would be largely similar to the existing one, i.e. a concrete canopy structure covering most of the audience seating area.  Although the theatre is not fully covered, the theatre faces the sea which is away from any NSRs near the Summit, and so no adverse noise impact would result.  The Whale Show and Beluga Show will be convened in an enclosed indoor environment as control of temperature suitable for the animals housed inside would be required. This setting would result in minimal noise impact from the shows.  In view of the large separation distance and the limited line of sight from the nearest NSR (i.e. Broadview Court), adverse noise impact arising from the shows at the Summit is not expected.  

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 Summit

3.123        As for the Summit, the assessment results showed that the predicted fixed plant noise level at the potentially worst affected NSR i.e. BC1 would be below the EIAO-TM noise criteria.  Additionally, because of the large separation between noise sources and NSRs, as well as the limited line of sight of NSRs to the sources of noise, entertainment noise impact due to shows at the Summit would be expected to be minor.  No adverse cumulative impacts of fixed plant and entertainment noise would thus be envisaged. 

Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts

Construction Phase

Good Site Practice

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.

Adoption of Quieter Plant

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 Hong Kong. 

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 7 kg/m2 is recommended to achieve the predicted screening effect. 

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 Police Training School (NSR PTS1) during the examination periods even with the mitigation measures in place.  In order to further reduce the noise impact during the examination hours, other possible mitigation measures such as rescheduling of noisy construction works are considered in the Section 3.119-3.121.

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 Normal Daytime Working Hour

(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 Police Training School

Construction Zone

Construction Work

Entry Plaza

 

 

Demolition

Realignment of Ocean Park Road

Drainage diversion – box culvert construction

Sewerage diversion

Site formation and excavation

Piling works

Superstructure construction

Aqua City

 

 

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 Ocean Park.

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

Construction Phase

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

Construction Phase

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.

Operational Phase

            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 Aqua City as well as not during the show performance to ensure compliance with the EIAO-TM noise criteria.  Details of EM&A programme are provided in a stand-alone EM&A Manual. 

Conclusion 

Construction Phase

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.

Operation Phase

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 Aqua City.  Additionally, since the assessment was conducted based on conceptual design information, a review of fixed noise source impact based on detailed design available in later stage is recommended to verify the EIA predictions.  



[1] Bies, D. A. and Hansen, C .H.  (1996).  Engineering Noise Control, 2nd Edition.  E&FN Spon.