18.1
The Project covers
four designated projects defined in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499) as listed below.
· DP1 - A railway and its associated stations (Exhibition Station (EXH) and Admiralty Station (ADM)) under A.2 in Schedule 2 Part 1;
· DP2 - A railway tunnel more than 800m in length between portals under A.7 in Schedule 2 Part 1;
· DP3 - Reclamation works (including associated dredging works) of more than 1 ha in size with a boundary of which is less than 100m from a seawater intake point under C.2 (b) and resulting in 5% decrease in cross sectional area calculated on the basis of 0.0mPD in a sea channel under C.3 (a) in Schedule 2 Part 1; and
· DP4 - A dredging operation exceeding 500,000 m3 or a dredging operation which is less than 100m from a seawater intake point under C.12 in Schedule 2 Part 1.
18.2
This EIA Report
has provided an assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated
with the construction and operation of the Project based on the preliminary
engineering design information available at this stage, and taken into
consideration of the potential cumulative impacts from other concurrent
projects. The assessment has been conducted, in accordance with the Study Brief
No. ESB-193/2008 under the EIAO for the Project, covering the following
environmental issues:
· Impact on Cultural Heritage
· Ecological Impact
· Fisheries Impact
· Landscape and Visual Impacts
· Construction Dust Impact
· Airborne Noise Impact
· Ground-borne Noise Impact
· Water Quality Impact
· Waste Management Implications
· Land Contamination
· Hazard to Life
18.3
The findings of
this EIA Study have determined the likely nature and extent of environmental
impacts predicted to arise from the construction and operation of the
Project. During the EIA process,
specific environmental control and mitigation measures have been identified and
incorporated into the planning and design of the Project in order to achieve
compliance with environmental legislation and standards during both the
construction and operation phases. An
environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme has also been
developed. The key assessment assumptions, limitation of assessment
methodologies and all relevant prior agreements with the EPD on assessment of
different environmental aspects are given in Appendix 18.1.
The Implementation Schedules listing the recommended mitigation measures are
presented in the Section 17. A
summary of the environmental impacts are presented in the sections below.
18.4
Cultural heritage resources
within the Study Area have been identified and reviewed through site visits and
literature review.
18.5
There would be sufficient
setback distance between Kellett Island Site of Archaeological Interest and the
Project works areas. With lack of
archaeological potential site identified within works areas, impact on
terrestrial archaeological remains is therefore not envisaged during
construction phase.
18.6
The seabed within proposed marine works area has already been disturbed
by past reclamation and regular dredging works, according to the findings of
literature review and previous Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) studies. With no marine archaeological potential
within proposed marine works area, impact on marine archaeology is not
anticipated.
18.7
With sufficient buffer distances between built heritages and works area,
together with appropriate mitigation measures, there would be insignificant
visual and vibration impacts during construction and operation phases. Mitigation measures including erection of decorative screen
hoardings at work areas and adoption
of sympathetic design in aboveground structures are recommended to avoid and
minimise the potential visual impacts.
18.8
The construction
and operation of the Project would not cause unacceptable impacts on cultural
heritage resources, with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Construction Phase
18.9
The key marine-based works
proposed under the Project include the construction of cross harbour tunnel
across
18.10 Intertidal habitat of approximately 300 m
long artificial seawall and subtidal habitat of 17 ha seabed within the
footprint of the proposed works areas in
18.11 Potential short term disturbance on marine
habitat and associated marine life due to deterioration of water quality (i.e.
suspended solids elevation) would be resulted from the proposed marine
works. The indirect
impacts would be temporary, and minimised with implementation of proper
mitigation measures (i.e. slit curtain, close grab dredger and reduction of dredging rate, etc.).
Overall, no unacceptable impact on marine ecological resources is
anticipated.
Operation Phase
18.12
During the operation phase, no maintenance
dredging would be expected and no cooling water would be discharged from the
operation of the Project to the marine environment directly. Besides, the change in tidal flow pattern due
to change in hydrographic regime in
18.13 No fish culture zones and important spawning or nursery
grounds were identified within or in the vicinity of the proposed
marine works area.
18.14 The Project would temporarily occupy a maximum of about 5 ha of
fishing area at mid
18.15 Indirect impacts due to change of water quality resulting from dredging
and reclamation works would be temporary and localized. Mitigation measures recommended for
controlling water quality impact, such as installation of silt curtain, use of
closed grab dredger and reduction of dredging rate, would
serve also to protect fisheries from indirect impacts and ensure no
unacceptable impact on fisheries resources and operations.
Operation
Phase
18.16 No major operation phase impacts are expected. The protective armour rock layer covering the
surface of the finished IMT would protrude above the natural seabed but it
would largely be kept at a level below the existing Cross Harbour Tunnel to
minimise impact on any potential trawling activities in
18.18 The Project will not exceed the building height restriction of the
respective planning zones. It is
considered that the Project would fit in well with the current and future
planning settings and would not conflict with statutory town plans of the
areas.
18.19 Approximately 930 existing trees will be affected by the proposed works,
of which approximately 240 trees will be transplanted and approximately 690
trees will be felled. Many of the
affected trees are of semi-mature to mature size. None of these are Registered Old and Valuable
Trees. There are no rare species or
endangered species but only common species.
Under the proposed scheme for the Project, opportunities for tree
compensation within the Project boundary has been fully explored and
incorporated in the proposed mitigation measures as much as practicable. Due to limited available space for tree
planting within the project boundary, compensatory tree planting of a ratio of
1:1 in terms of quantity are proposed.
Detailed tree removal application will be submitted in accordance with
ETWB TC(W) No. 3/2006.
There will be no permanently alienation of landscape areas. All landscape areas which will be temporarily
alienated will be reinstated on a like to like basis after completion of
temporary works. Meanwhile, in addition
to the compensated trees, new landscape resources such as horizontal greening including green roof and landscaped mound and
vertical greening including vertical panel and climbers are proposed as
alternative compensatory planting for the aboveground structures including NOV, SOV and EXH
to optimise greening opportunities within the Project boundary. It is considered that with the proposed compensated
trees and the proposed new landscape resources, the overall residual impact on
existing trees and greenery would be reduced to an acceptable level.
18.20 Under the Project, there would not be any open space and amenity area to
be permanently or partly lost. Some of
the open space and amenity areas such as Fenwick Pier Street Public Open Space,
Wan Chai Sports Ground,
18.21 The majority of the proposed permanent works are located in the Wan Chai Civic Urban Waterfront
landscape character area (LCA). During
construction phase, due to the extensive works areas proposed in these LCA,
there would still be moderate residual impact with the implementation of
mitigation measures. However, during the
operation phase, the residual landscape impact would be reduced to slight in
Day 1 and further reduced to insubstantial in Year 10 when the compensatory
planting and landscape reinstatement works become mature.
18.22 During the construction stage, there would still be moderate to slight
residual visual impact on some VSRs on high rise development and VSRs at ground
level who can oversee the construction sites.
These impacts are temporary in nature and would be significantly reduced
in operation phase of the Project.
18.23 On Day 1 of operation, there would still be moderate residual visual
impact on VSRs overseeing the EXH at high level and at pedestrian level. These VSRs include commercial VSRs in Great
Eagle Centre, Harbour Centre,
18.24 Residual Impacts on other VSRs due to the Project are considered as
slight to insubstantial during Day 1 of operation and would be reduced to
insubstantial in Year 10 when the proposed landscape mitigations mature.
18.25 Cumulative landscape and visual impacts during the construction and
operation phases from other concurrent projects which include the Shatin to
Central Link – Mong Kok East to Hung Hom Section (SCL (MKK-HUH)), South Island
Line (East) (SIL(E)), Wan Chai Development Phase II (WDII) and Central Wanchai
Bypass (CWB) are assessed. No
insurmountable cumulative landscape and visual impact is anticipated.
18.26 As a whole, it is considered that the residual landscape and visual
impacts of the proposed project is considered acceptable with mitigation
measures summarised as follows:
Construction
Phase
Ÿ
Transplanting
affected trees in accordance with ETWB TCW 3/2006;
Ÿ
Compensatory planting
for the affected trees as far as practicable;
Ÿ
Control of
night-time lighting glare;
Ÿ
Decoration of
hoarding;
Ÿ
Control on the
height and disposition/arrangement of all temporary facilities during
construction; and
Ÿ
Reinstatement of
temporary works areas.
Operation
Phase
Ÿ
Design aesthetics
for aboveground structures;
Ÿ
Buffer planting to
provide screening;
Ÿ
Roof greening;
Ÿ
Climbers to soften
the building structure;
Ÿ
Landscape mound to
provide screening; and
Ÿ
Vertical greening.
18.27 The Study
Areas of this Project include Hung Hom,
18.28 Potential dust impact associated with the construction of the Project
has been assessed in the EIA Report. A
total of 18 representative air sensitive receivers (ASRs) are identified for
this assessment within 500m from the boundaries of all associated works areas
under the Project in accordance with the criteria set out in the EIAO-TM. Under the Project, potential sources of dust
impact would include excavation, materials handling, spoil removal and wind
erosion.
18.29 Under the unmitigated scenario, the predicted cumulative maximum hourly,
daily and annual average TSP levels at most of the representative ASRs would
exceed the criteria of Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment
Process (EIAO-TM) and Air Quality Objectives (AQO). Proper dust mitigation measures, including
watering on the active construction areas/haul roads, enclosing the unloading
process at barging point, and the
implementation of good site practices, were thus proposed.
18.30 With the implementation of the recommended dust mitigation measures, the
predicted cumulative maximum hourly, daily and annual levels of total suspended
particulates (TSP) at all representative ASRs would comply with the criteria of
EIAO-TM and AQO.
18.31 The operation of the concrete batching plant at Shek O is classified as Specified Process (SP), and the
Contractor should apply for a license under Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) before
operation. Suitable mitigation measures
stipulated in the Guidance Note on the Best Practicable Means for Cement Works
(Concrete Batching Plant) BPM 3/2(93) should be followed and implemented.
Construction Phase
18.33
Mitigation
measures including good site practices, quieter plant, movable noise barriers
and noise insulating fabric are recommended to reduce the noise levels to
within the EIAO-TM noise criterion. With
the recommended mitigation measures in place, noise levels from the Project
itself at all representative NSRs are predicted to fully comply with the
EIAO-TM daytime construction noise criterion.
18.34
Several
concurrent projects would be conducted in the vicinity of the Project,
including SCL (MKK-HUH), SCL (TAW-HUH), WDII and CWB projects. Mitigated cumulative construction noise
levels at the representative NSRs are predicted and residual cumulative noise
impact of 1 dB(A) for a short duration of non-persistent two months would be
found at NSR EX 1 (Causeway Centre, Block A).
All practical mitigation measures have been exhausted to minimise the
construction noise impact from the Project at EX 1. The residual cumulative noise impact would
not be significant and considered as minor and acceptable.
Operation Phase
18.35 Maximum allowable sound power level emitted from louvers of
fixed plants were predicted. With the
proper selection of plant and adoption of acoustic treatment to meet the
maximum allowable sound power level, noise levels arising from the fixed plant
of the Project at NSRs would comply with the EIAO-TM criteria.
18.36
Construction ground-borne noise impacts
arising from rock breaking/drilling associated with the operation of tunnel
boring machine (TBM) and Powered
Mechanical Equipment (PME) (such as hydraulic breaker, drill rig, pile rig,
etc) were found to comply with noise criteria. No adverse cumulative
construction ground-borne noise impacts are predicted. Therefore, in terms of
ground-borne noise impacts, both TBM and Cut & Cover tunnel construction
methods are considered to be environmentally feasible and acceptable.
18.37 During operation phase, predictions of ground-borne noise levels at the
representative NSRs are performed using the methodology recommended by the US
Department of Transportation. With suitable trackform, the predicted ground-borne noise criteria at all
representative NSRs would comply with the adopted noise criteria. Potential
cumulative impact from existing/future rail lines has been considered. No
adverse cumulative impact is anticipated.
18.38
The assessment has evaluated the potential
impacts caused by marine construction works on water quality due to the
elevation of suspended sediments concentrations, depletion of dissolved oxygen
and increases in contaminants concentration. The worst-case scenarios during
the marine construction period, taking into account the cumulative effects from
other concurrent marine works in
18.39
The key issue from the land-based construction
activities would be the potential water quality impact due to the release of
sediment-laden water from surface works areas, open cut excavation, tunnelling
works and discharge of construction site effluent. Minimisation
of water quality deterioration could be achieved through implementing adequate
mitigation measures. Regular site
inspections would be undertaken routinely to inspect the construction
activities and works areas in order to ensure the recommended mitigation
measures are properly implemented. No
unacceptable water quality impact would be expected from the land-based
construction works with proper implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures.
Operation
Phase
18.40 Due to the change in seabed levels along the tunnel section within
18.41 Other key operational impacts from the Project would arise from
tunnel/station run-off and effluent discharges from the stations and
maintenance activities, which could be minimized through implementing adequate
mitigation measures.
Construction Phase
18.42
Implementation
of the proposed waste minimization, reuse, control and mitigation measures are
anticipated to minimise potential water quality, dust, odour, and noise impacts
associated with handling, transportation and disposal of the identified wastes
arising from the construction phase of the Project.
18.43
During
construction, it is estimated that approximately 1,097,000m3 of
inert C&D materials
would be generated which is proposed to be reused offsite by
other projects (e.g. Hong Kong – Zhuhai –
18.44 The total volume of dredged/ excavated sediment generated from the
Project is estimated to be approximately 841,800m3. Based on the results of the chemical and biological
screening, approximately 315,000m3 of sediment is suitable for Type 1 –
Open Sea Disposal, 14,000m3
of sediment is suitable for Type 1 – Open Sea Disposal (Dedicated Sites), 496,300m3 of sediment requires Type 2 – Confined Marine Disposal and 16,500m3 of sediment requires Type 3 – Special Treatment/Disposal
in accordance with Environment,
Transport and Works Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 34/2002 - Management
of Dredged/Excavated Sediment (ETWB TC(W) No.
34/2002).
18.45
It is
proposed that the excavated Type 3 sediments are sealed in geosynthetic
containers and, at the disposal site, the containers would be dropped into the
designated contaminated mud pit where they would be covered by further mud
disposal and later by the mud pit capping, thereby meeting the requirements for
fully confined mud disposal. A proposal on the use of geosynthetic containers
on Type 3 sediment should be submitted to TCO/EPD for agreement at a later
stage of the Project and prior to the dredging and excavation works.
18.46
With
the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in accordance with
the requirements of the ETWB TC(W) No. 34/2002, no adverse environmental impacts would thus arise.
Operation Phase
18.47 The types and quantities of waste that would be generated during the operation
phase have been assessed. It is expected that large quantities of waste would
not be generated from the operation of the Project. The handling, collection, transportation and disposal
practices of the identified waste generated during operation should follow the
current practices of other operating railway lines. Adverse environmental impacts are hence not anticipated with the
implementation of mitigation measures.
18.48
The
land contamination assessment examined the potential contaminating land uses
within the Project area and investigated the potential impacts of the
contamination on future use.
Construction workers were identified as the main sensitive receptor and
the assessment involved site appraisal, site investigation, and assessment of
contamination extent.
18.49
Along
the alignment and at the proposed facilities, intrusive site investigations
were conducted at three accessible Stage 1 sites. A total of 19 soil samples and one
groundwater sample were collected from four borehole/trial pits and were
analyzed as proposed in the Contamination Assessment Plan for Stage 1.
18.50
Based
on the findings from the Stage 1 site investigation (SI), no adverse impacts
have been identified within the Project area.
Precautionary measures are proposed for the excavation of soil,
treatment of soil and general environmental measures, together with health and
safety considerations on site during the construction stage.
18.51 Due to current land use and site constraints, site
investigation was not conducted for one site within the Project works area
during Stage 1 SI. This site would be investigated in conjunction with the
Stage 2 SI, which will be undertaken after decommissioning of existing
buildings and access has been granted.
The potential contamination (if any found) at the sites to be
investigated during the Stage 2 SI are expected to be surmountable, with the
proposed mitigation measures.
18.52 As there is no overnight storage of explosives, a Quantitative Risk
Assessment (QRA) of the storage and transport of explosives is not required as
per Section 3.4.9.2 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-193/2008 (EIA SB). However,
underwater blasting works may be required when bedrock or large boulders are
encountered during the IMT tunnel construction in
18.53 Following a consultation with China Gas Company Limited (HKCG) and a
review of the relevant Ordinance, Code of Practice and other HKCG requirements,
as required in Section 3.4.9.3 of the EIA Study Brief, a number of protective
measures have been described to avoid and minimise the hazard to life issues in
relation to fuel gas safety during the construction phase.
Overall Summary
18.54 This EIA has been conducted based on the best and latest information
available during the course of the EIA Study. The findings of this EIA have
provided information on the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising
from the construction and operation of the Project. The EIA has, where
appropriate, identified mitigation measures to ensure compliance with
environmental legislation and standards.
18.55 Overall, this EIA has demonstrated general compliance with the
environmental standards and legislation with the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures during the construction and operation phases. This EIA has also demonstrated general acceptability of the residual impacts and thus the population and
environmentally sensitive resources in the vicinity of the Project would be
sufficiently protected. Environmental
monitoring and audit mechanisms have been recommended for the construction and
operation of the Project, where necessary, to verify the effectiveness of the
recommended mitigation measures. A summary of the environmental impacts
associated with the Project is presented in Table 18.1.
Table 18.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts
associated with the Project
|
Sensitive Receivers / Assessment Points |
Impact Prediction Results (Without Mitigation) |
Key Relevant Standards / Criteria |
Extent of Exceedances (Without Mitigation) |
Impact Avoidance Measures / Mitigation
Measures |
Residual Impacts (After Implementation of
Mitigation Measures) |
|
Cultural
Heritage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Built heritage
resources |
With sufficient buffer
distances between built heritages and the proposed works area, no adverse
cultural heritage impact is expected. |
· Guidelines
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment · EIAO-TM
Annex 10 and Annex 19 |
Not applicable |
· No specific
mitigation measure for built heritage would be required. · The use
of sensibly designed screen hoardings for mitigating landscape and visual
impacts to minimise the potential visual impact on identified heritage
buildings. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Terrestrial
Archaeological Resources |
No terrestrial
archaeological resources are identified within Study Area. |
· Guidelines
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment · EIAO-TM
Annex 10 and Annex 19 |
Not applicable |
No mitigation would
be required. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Marine
Archaeological Resources |
No marine
archaeological resources are identified within Study Area. |
· Guidelines
for Marine Archaeological investigation · EIAO-TM Annex
10 and Annex 19 |
Not applicable |
No mitigation would be required. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Ecological
Impacts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction
Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ecological resources
at and near the Project area |
Direct impact · Temporary
loss of approximately 17 ha of soft bottom and subtidal habitat and
approximately 300 m long artificial seawall within · Temporary
loss of
approximately 10 ha of newly
established marine habitat in the marine cove of Shek O Quarry
site after rehabilitation. Indirect
impact · Short
term indirect impact to marine habitat and associated marine life due to
deterioration of water quality as a result of the proposed marine works. |
· EIAO-TM
Annex 8 and Annex 16 · The Protection
of the Harbour Ordinance (Cap. 531) · The Water
Pollution Control Ordinance(Cap. 358) · International
· The PRC
National Protection Lists of Important Wild Animals and Plants |
Not applicable |
· No
specific mitigation measures for ecology is required. · Implementation
of water quality control measures such as installation of silt curtains
around dredger(s), use of closed grab dredger and reduction of dredging rate
to minimise indirect impacts on
marine life due to changes of water
quality. |
Direct Impact · Temporary
loss of the marine habitats · All the
marine habitats and associated marine life that would be temporary loss are of low ecological value and the impact
would be temporary and reversible. Residual impact due to the short-term loss is therefore
considered acceptable. Indirect
impact · With the
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures as recommended in for
water quality impacts, residual impact on marine ecology due to the
deterioration in water quality as a result of the Project works would be
minimised. In considering the low ecological value of marine habitats within
or in the vicinity of the affected area and the temporary nature of the
impact, the residual impact is considered acceptable. |
|
Operation Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ecological resources
at and near the Project area |
· No
adverse operation phase impact on marine ecology |
· EIAO-TM
Annex 8 and Annex 16 · The Protection
of the Harbour Ordinance (Cap. 531) · The Water
Pollution Control Ordinance(Cap. 358) · International
· The PRC
National Protection Lists of Important Wild Animals and Plants |
Not applicable |
· No
mitigation would be required. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Fisheries
Impacts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction
Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fisheries resources
within |
· Temporary
loss of about 1.5-5 ha of fishing area during various phases of marine works
in · Short
term indirect impact on fisheries resources due to deterioration of water
quality as a result of the proposed marine works. |
· EIAO-TM Annex
9 and Annex 17 · Fisheries
Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171) · Marine
Fish Culture Ordinance (Cap. 353) · The Water
Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 358) |
Not applicable |
· No
fisheries-specific mitigation measures would be required. · Water
quality control measures to minimise indirect impact on fisheries due to
changes of water quality. |
· Temporary
loss of the fishing area. In view of
the small size and low fisheries importance of the area being temporarily
occupied, the residual impact is considered acceptable. |
|
Operation Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fisheries resources
within |
· No
adverse operation phase impact on fisheries resources |
· EIAO-TM
Annex 9 and Annex 17 · Fisheries
Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171) · Marine Fish
Culture Ordinance (Cap. 353) · The Water
Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 358) |
Not applicable |
· No
mitigation would be required. |
No adverse
residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Landscape
and Visual Impacts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction
Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Landscape Resources,
Landscape Characters Areas and Visually Sensitive Receivers |
· Based on
a very broad brush estimate, approximately 930 existing trees would be
removed by the Project. · Loss of Fenwick
Pier Street Public Open Space, Wan Chai Sports Ground, Tunnel Approach Rest
Garden, amenity areas at Gloucester Road and Cross Harbour Tunnel Entrance · Substantial
impact on LR14, LR15 and LR16. Impact
on other landscape resources varies from moderate
to insubstantial. · Impact on
landscape characters areas varies from moderate to insubstantial. · Substantial
impact on VSRs O3 and O4 who are close to the source of impact. Impact on other VSRs varies from moderate
to slight. |
· Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499). · EIAO-TM
Annex 10 and Annex 18 · ETWB
TC(W) No. 2/2004 · ETWB
TC(W) No. 3/2006 |
Not Applicable |
· Transplanting
affected; · Compensatory
planting for the affected trees; · Control
of night-time lighting glare; · Decoration
of hoarding; · Control
on the height and disposition/arrangement of all temporary facilities during
construction; and · Reinstatement
of temporary works areas. |
· Temporary
residual substantial impact on LR14, LR15 and LR16; temporary residual
moderate impact on LR06, LR06a, LR12, LR13 and LR18; temporary residual
slight impact on LR01, LR02, LR03 and LR27. · Temporary
residual moderate impact on LCA05 and LCA07; temporary residual slight impact
on LCA03, LCA04, LCA11, LCA14 and LCA17.
· Temporary
residual moderate to insubstantial impact on VSRs adjacent to works areas.. |
|
Operation Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Landscape Resources,
Landscape Characters and Visually Sensitive Receivers |
The unmitigated
impact for Landscape Resources, Landscape Characters and Visually Sensitive
Receivers would remain the same as the impact during construction phase. |
· Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499). · EIAO
Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM) Annex 10 and Annex 18 · ETWB
TC(W) No. 2/2004 · ETWB
TC(W) No. 3/2006 |
Not Applicable |
· Aesthetic
design for above ground structures; · Buffer
planting to provide screening; · Roof
greening; · Climbers
to soften the building structure; · Landscape
mound to provide screening; and · Vertical
greening. |
· Reinstatement of
Fenwick Pier Street Public Open Space, Wan Chai Sports Ground, Tunnel
Approach Rest Garden, amenity areas at Gloucester Road and Cross Harbour Tunnel
Entrance on a like-for-like basis. Residual
impact on open space and amenity areas would be reduced to slight to
insubstantial in Year 10. · Impact on
landscape resources and landscape character areas would become slight to
insubstantial byYear 10. · Impact on
VSRs adjacent to aboveground structures would become slight to insubstantial
in Year 10. |
|
Construction Dust
Impact |
|||||
|
Existing commercial,
residential and recreational developments in Hung Hom, Causeway Bay, Wan Chai, Admiralty and Shek O
areas and a performing art centre in Admiralty. 18 assessment points
(refer to Figure No. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M60/001 – 004) |
1-hour Average TSP Conc.: 160–
5593 µg/m3 24-hour Average TSP Conc.: 96–
1884 µg/m3 Annual
Average TSP Conc.: 73.9 –
97.2µg/m3 |
EIAO-TM (hourly): |
Exceed EIAO-TM (hourly) criterion
by up to 5093 µg/m3 Exceed AQO (daily) by up to 1624
µg/m3 Exceed AQO (annual by up to 17.2
µg/m3 |
· Watering on the active works
areas, exposed areas and paved haul roads to reduce dust emission · Enclosing the unloading process
at barging point to reduce dust emission · Dust suppression measures
stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and
good site practices would be carried out to further minimise construction
dust impact. |
No adverse residual hourly, daily and annual dust impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Airborne Noise Impact |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction
Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing residential
blocks in Hung Hom, 8 assessment points (refer
to Figure Nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M52/001 – 005) |
Predicted
noise levels would range from 52 to 87 dB(A) |
EIAO-TM
assessment criterion for works during non-restricted hours for domestic premises:
75dB(A) |
Exceed
the EIAO-TM noise criterion by up to 12 dB(A) |
Adoption
of good site practices, quieter plant, movable noise barriers and noise
insulating fabric to minimise construction noise impact |
Residual
cumulative impact of 1 dB(A) for 2 months at NSR
EX1, Block A, Causeway Centre (about 120 dwellings), due to construction
induced from the Project and WDII & CWB Project. It is considered that all practicable
measures have been exhausted to minimise the residual impact. |
|
Operation Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing residential
blocks in Hung Hom, 8 assessment points
(refer to Figure Nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M52/101
– 103) |
Maximum sound power
level was predicted to meet the relevant noise criteria. |
· EIAO-TM
Annex 5 · NSRs near
NOV, SOV and EXH: ANL-5dB(A) · NSRs near
ADM: ANL-11 dB(A) (i.e. -5-6 dB(A)) · NSRs near
HKB: ANL- 8 dB(a) (i.e. -5-3 dB(A)) |
No exceedance was
anticipated. |
Proper selection of
plant and adoption of acoustic treatment |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Ground-borne
Noise Impact |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction
Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing residential
blocks, hotels and performing art
centre/educational institutes in Hung Hom, Causeway Bay, Wan Chai and
Admiralty areas. 7 assessment points
(refer to Figure Nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M52/001 – 004) |
Daytime: 32 – 63
dB(A) for residential NSRs and 52 dB(A) for educational NSR |
Construction
ground-borne noise criteria: · Daytime:
65 dB(A) for domestic premises, and for educational institutions 60 dB(A) during
normal teaching periods and 55 dB(A) during examinations |
No exceedance was
predicted. |
No mitigation would
be required. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Operation Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing residential
blocks, hotels and performing art
centre/educational institutes in Hung Hom, Causeway Bay, Wan Chai and
Admiralty areas. 7 assessment points
(refer to Figure Nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M52/101
– 103) |
Predicted operation
ground-borne noise levels would range from <20 to 38 dB(A)
during daytime & evening, and <20 to 37 dB(A) during nighttime. |
Operational
ground-borne noise criterion: 55 dB(A) during daytime & evening, and 45
dB(A) during nighttime |
No exceedance was
predicted. |
No mitigation would
be required. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Water Quality Impact |
|||||
|
Construction
Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coral
communities and seawater intakes along the coastlines of |
The model results
indicate that there would be exceedance in SS criteria at WSD seawater intake
at At the far-field
coral communities, both the predicted SS elevations and sedimentation rates
would comply with the relevant criteria. |
1. WSD
flushing water quality intake criterion for SS: < 10 mg/L 2. Target water quality objectives at coral
sites for SS elevations: < 30 % of the background ambient levels 3. Sedimentation rate at corals: <100g/m2/day 4.
EIAO-TM Annex 6 and Annex 14 |
Maximum exceedance of
SS would be about 10 mg/L above the assessment criteria predicted at seawater
intake at Kowloon Station. |
· Use of
closed grab dredger during dredging and filling operations. · Deployment
of silt curtains around dredging areas, and installation of silt screens at
selected seawater intakes during marine construction. · Control
of dredging and filling rates for marine construction |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Operation Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coral
communities and seawater intakes along the coastlines of Harbour
(refer to Figures Nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M59/001–
003) |
Operation
of SCL would not cause unacceptable impacts upon the water quality in |
1. Relevant WQO for marine water stipulated
under the WPCO 2. EIAO-TM Annex
6 and Annex 14 |
No
WQO exceedance would be induced by the Project. |
Tunnel Run-off and
Drainage Oil/grit interceptors / chambers should be provided. Sewage Effluents Connection
of domestic sewage generated from the Project should be diverted to the foul
sewer. The practices outlined in ProPECC PN 5/93
should be adopted where applicable. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Waste Management
Implications |
|||||
|
Construction
Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
quality, air and noise sensitive receivers at or near the Project Site, the waste
transportation routes and the waste disposal site. |
Main waste: · Dredged
marine sediment with a total volume of approximately 841,800m3 Other wastes: · C&D
Materials from demolition and excavation works with a total volume of
approximately 1,097,000m3
· 30,000 m3
of non-inert C&D material · General
refuse with a daily volume of 1,853 kg from workforce · Chemical
waste from plant and equipment maintenance |
· EIAO-TM
Annex 7 and Annex 15 · Waste
Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354); · Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap. · Land
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28); · Public
Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) - Public Cleansing and
Prevention of Nuisances Regulation; · Waste
Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation (Cap. 354N);
and · Dumping
at Sea Ordinance (Cap. 466). |
Not
applicable. |
· C&D
wastes would be reused (i.e. other concurrent projects) as far as practicable
before off-site disposal · Contaminated
dredged sediment (Category M and H) would require either Type 1 – Open Sea
Disposal (Dedicated Sites) or Type 2 – Confined Marine Disposal at
contaminated mud pit allocated by MFC. Category L sediment is suitable for
Type 1 – Open Sea Disposal at gazetted marine disposal ground allocated by
MFC. · The
handling method of dredged Type 3 sediments should adhere to the CWB project
under which geosynthetic containment would be employed as disposal method.
The sediment should be sealed in geosynthetic containers and disposed of at
the designated contaminated mud pit.
The pit would be subsequently capped thereby meeting the requirements
for fully confined mud disposal. · Other
waste reduction measures and good site practices to achieve avoidance and
minimization of waste generation from the Project. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Operation Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water
quality, air and noise sensitive receivers at or near the Project Site, the
waste transportation routes and the waste disposal site. |
· Insignificant
amount of chemical wastes, general refuse and industrial waste to be
generated from the operation and maintenance activities of the Project. |
· Waste
Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354); and · Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap. |
Not
applicable. |
· Follow
Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Waste in
handling of chemical waste. · Disposal
of non-recyclable chemical waste at appropriate facilities like Chemical
Waste Treatment Centre (CWTC) at Tsing Yi.
· Employ
licensed waste collectors for the
collection of
general refuse and industrial waste. |
No adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |
|
Land Contamination |
|||||
|
Potential land
contamination sites within the Project Area |
Based on the findings
from the Stage 1 Site Investigation (SI), no adverse impacts have been
identified within the assessment areas. Remaining sites requiring SI would be
investigated during Stage 2. |
· Section 3
(Potential Contaminated Land Issues) of Annex 19 “Guidelines for Assessment
of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage and Other Impacts” of the EIAO-TM. · Guidance
Note for Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation” · Guidance
Notes for Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Sites of Petrol Filling
Stations, Boatyards and Car Repair /Dismantling Workshop” · Guidance
Manual for Use of Risk-based Remediation Goals for Contaminated Land
Management |
No exccedance
identified under the Stage 1 Site Investigation |
· Based on
the Stage 1 SI results, no exceedance has been found; therefore no
remediation actions are needed. · Precautionary
measures such as visual inspection of excavated soils for discolouration and
the presence of oils and odours are proposed for the construction stage for
both Stage 1 and 2 SI sites. · Excavated
soil materials suspected to be contaminated should be temporarily stockpiled,
and testing should be undertaken to verify the presence of contamination. |
· No
contaminants were detected in Stage 1 SI. Therefore, no adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. · For sites
under Stage 2 SI, options of remediation methods will be reviewed and
implemented so that contaminants will be removed to achieve the remediation
targets. After completion of soil remediation for contaminated areas (if identified),
no adverse residual impacts would be anticipated. |