Implementation Status of Environmental
Mitigation Measures
3.1
ET conducted weekly site inspections to monitor the
Contractor’s implementation of environmental mitigation measures. After each
site inspection, the Contractor was notified of the ET’s observations and
recommendations. The Contractor rectified most of the problems and no major
environmental impact was induced.
3.2
The Contractor was reminded to
remove water poundings
3.3
The
Contractor was reminded to provide adequate water spraying to haul roads,
during loading and unloading of material and for rock crushing plant.
3.4
The
Contractor was reminded to provide cover for stockpile of dusty materials and
exposed slope.
3.5
The
Contractor was reminded to remove silty material and
oil inside the drainage channel and desilting
facilities.
3.6
The
Contractor was reminded to properly store the chemical containers.
3.7
The
Contractor was reminded to proper maintain the equipment to prevent dark smoke
emission.
3.8
The
updated implementation schedule of environmental mitigation measures (EMIS) is
given in Appendix B.
Status of Environmental Licensing and
Permitting
3.9
An amended Environmental Permit (EP-210/2005) was granted to
the Project on 25 February 2005. Moreover, a effluent
discharge licence for the site was obtained on 15 May 2006.
Advice on Solid and Liquid Waste
Management Status
3.10
The actual amounts of different types of waste generated by
the activities of the Project in the quarter are shown in Table 3.1.
Table
3.1 Actual
Amounts of Waste Generated in the Reporting Quarter
|
Waste Type |
Actual Amount |
|||
|
Apr 06 |
May 06 |
Jun 06 |
Total |
|
|
Public fill collected |
1,749.31 tonne |
182,816 tonne |
162,760.21 tonne |
347,325.52 tonne |
|
C&D waste |
2.43 tonne |
3.39 tonne |
55.03 tonne |
60.85 tonne |
|
Chemical waste |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
3.11
Landscape and visual site audit was carried out on a monthly basis to
monitor environmental issues on the construction sites to ensure that all
mitigation measures were implemented timely and properly. The findings in the
reporting quarter are.
·
The maximum stockpiling height at the Fill Bank was limited to a maximum
of +40 mPD;
·
The Contractor hydroseeded the outer slopes of
the Fill Bank as far as practicable;
·
The Contractor removed the stockpile of public fill in a sequence to
allow the outer hydroseeded to be removed later than
other portions as far as practicable;
·
Casuarina equisetifolia were planted as buffer tree
along the northern perimeter of the Site. The height of Casuarina
equisetifolia was maintained at least 3000mm
above soil level; and
·
Lighting was set to minimise nighttime glare.