| Appointment
as Justice of the Peace
Members
congratulated the Chairman for being appointed as Justice
of the Peace with effect from 1 July 2002.
Agenda
Item 1 : Confirmation of Minutes of the 70th and 71st Meetings
held on 27 May and 3 June 2002
2.
The minutes were confirmed without amendments.
Note
of the Informal Dialogue
3. Members
had no comments on the draft note of the informal dialogue
conducted on 3 June 2002 except that the question mark in
item 8 after the word Deep Bay should be removed.
Agenda
Item 2 : Matters Arising
4. There
were no matters arising from the last two meetings.
Agenda
Item 3 : Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal
Stage 1 - Packages 1A-1T - Kam Tin Trunk Sewerage
(ACE-EIA Paper 11/2002)
5. Mr.
Chairman said that since five Members had indicated that
the EIA report could be endorsed, presentation of the EIA
report by the project proponent was not required. Members
would discuss whether the report should be endorsed without
conditions or with conditions.
6. In
response to a Member's question, another Member said
that 90% of the abuse in land use and fly-tipping at Kam Tin
area were project related and before the implementation of
the EIA Ordinance.
7. A
Member pointed out that the project proponent did not
provide any compensation for the loss of partially filled
fishponds and cultivated land due to the low impact and low
quality of the habitats. He expressed concern about the lack
of compensation and its effect on the no net loss principle
though he had no objection to endorsing the EIA report in
question.
8. After
further discussion, the meeting agreed to endorse the EIA
report subject to the conditions proposed by a Member.
Agenda
Item 4 : Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility
(ACE Paper 12/2002)
9. A
Member pointed out that the selected routing of the submarine
pipeline would intrude into a marine park in the region and
strictly speaking did not comply with the precautionary principle
of environmental impact assessment that avoidance should come
before mitigation. However, since the selected option would
cause less environmental impact compared with other alternative
options, it was accepted on its own merits. The project should
not be taken as a precedent and other projects should still
follow the principle of avoidance first, to be followed by
mitigation and compensation.
10. In
response to the Chairman's enquiry, Mr. C C Lay confirmed
that the project had been submitted to the Country and Marine
Parks Board and had obtained the latter's endorsement.
11. In
response to a Member's comments on the effectiveness and reliability
of visual monitoring of dolphin, Mr. C C Lay said that
according to experience, visual monitoring was a very effective
method to ensure that no dolphin would appear within the dolphin
exclusion zone. There would be trials on using spot acoustic
monitoring for three days in the first week of piling so as
to confirm the effectiveness of visual monitoring.
12. A
Member said that he had no specific comments on the project
which in his view was a result of compromise and as such would
never be totally satisfactory. The area where the tank farm
was located was an area devoted to industrial development.
As far as risk was concerned, he views was that if the existing
facilities worked satisfactorily, it would give some indication
about the operation of the future facility.
13. In
response to a Member's comments on protecting dolphins, Mr.
C C Lay said that according to long term monitoring, there
was no indication that the number of dolphins were decreasing
nor were there signs that the dolphin population was moving
westbound. The number of dolphin at the Pearl River estuary
was estimated to be more than 1,000. The dolphins had clearly
adapted to the operation of the existing facilities.
14. In
reply to a Member's enquiry, Mr. C C Lay informed the
meeting that according to information available, the Mainland
authority had designated the core area of the dolphin sanctuary
at East Sha Chau area as a nature reserve/dolphin sanctuary
at a provincial level and was in the process of upgrading
it to a national level. (The project proponent joined the
meeting at this juncture.)
15. The
Chairman welcomed the project proponent team and invited
Mr. Chow to brief the meeting on the EIA report.
The
operation of the existing facilities
16. In
response to the Chairman's enquiry, Mr. Amin Ebrahim
said that the existing facilities operated smoothly. There
had been no leakage at all during the operation of the facility
in the past five years. As for impact on marine ecology, Mr.
Martin Putnam said that the dolphin-monitoring programme
undertaken before, during and after the construction phase
of the Aviation Fuel Receiving Facilities (AFRF) showed that
dolphin abundance had returned to pre-construction levels.
It indicated that any impacts on the dolphins were short-term.
17. A
Member enquired about the possibility of minor dripping
of fuel during discharge of aviation fuel from vessels. Mr.
Bill Roberts explained that although dripping at the discharge
connection could occur, there were catch-trays put underneath
the connection between the vessel and the jetty to collect
dripping and prevent fuel from falling into the sea. Mr.
B S Chow added that the smaller number of vessel movements
involved in the operation of the new facility would minimize
the frequency of such incidents.
Methods
used for selecting and evaluating the alignment of pipelines
18. A
Member asked about the weighting given to risk, fishery
assessment, cumulative impacts, etc. apart from seabed configuration
in selecting and evaluating the routing of the pipelines.
19. Mr.
Steve Jones explained that they had to avoid routing the
pipelines through areas which were not feasible, i.e. a route
through the contaminated mud pits at East Sha Chau (northern
corridor) and a route around the north-east of the airport
where there were a number of cables in the seabed (eastern
corridor). Placing a pipeline in those locations was undesirable
in environmental and engineering terms. Furthermore, in areas
where there were already submarine electric cables, the co-existence
of fuel pipelines and electrical cables would induce natural
corrosion of pipelines thus posing environmental risk. After
eliminating eastern and northern corridors, the western corridor
was the only area found to be feasible for locating the pipelines.
Two pipeline options in the western corridor were assessed
in terms of risk and operational effects. The present option
was selected because of, inter alia, the smaller quantity
of dredging required and a lesser impact on dolphins.
20. Ms.
Helen Crochrane supplemented that weighting had been adopted
for evaluating potential PAFF sites but not for assessing
the routing of the pipelines. The assessment of the latter
was a strict comparison between the perceived impacts of the
two pipeline options on dolphins using, for example, Tom Jefferson's
index system. Mr. Amin Ebrahim added that the initial
selection of the pipeline corridors was qualitative but the
two options for the pipelines in the western corridor were
assessed by means of a quantitative approach.
Efficacy
of the bubble jacket
21. A
Member remained to be convinced that the bubble jacket
which was subject to test would adequately protect dolphins
that frequented the project site
22. Dr.
Shaun Nicholson explained that the proposed bubble jacket
was based on the bubble curtain used during construction of
the AFRF but had been modified to overcome problems posed
by deep water and stronger currents present near Tuen Mun
Area 38. The commitment in the EIA was that the bubble jacket
would provide the same, if not better, noise attenuation to
that provided by the AFRF bubble curtain. It would aim to
achieve at least a 3-5 dB reduction in noise. The design of
the bubble jacket would be undertaken at the detailed design
stage.
23. In
reply to the Chairman's enquiry, Mr. Amin Ebrahim said
that bubble jacket or bubble curtain had not been used elsewhere
in reducing under water noise. But the experts they had contacted,
including dolphin acoustic experts, were optimistic that the
bubble jacket would achieve the specified noise attenuation.
24. A
Member was concerned about the impact of underwater noise
on dolphin behaviour and asked whether there had been long
term monitoring on the behaviour of dolphins after the construction
period of the AFRF project. Mr. Steve Jones said that
the consultants had conducted two six months monitoring for
the AFRF project but there was no long term monitoring by
AA after the facilities had started operation. However, AFCD,
with Tom Jefferson's involvement had continued the long-term
dolphin research effort since the construction of the AFRF.
Effect
of piling noise on dolphin food source
25. A
Member pointed out that underwater noise affected not
only dolphins but also the food source for dolphins.
26. On
the effect of piling noise on dolphin food sources (e.g. fish),
Mr. Steve Jones explained that the consultants had
taken that into account in the AFRF project as well as the
present EIA. Dr. Nicholson pointed out that dolphins
also fed on other kinds of marine life such as squid, and
neither squid nor fish were as adversely affected by noise
impacts as dolphins. The fact that there was no long-term
impact on dolphin abundance arising from the AFRF project
showed that the effect of piling noise on dolphin food sources
had been negligible and short term. Otherwise the dolphins
would not have returned.
27. Mr.
Steve Jones said that the bubble jacket was likely to
achieve substantial improvement over the bubble curtain. When
the bubble jacket under development, was confirmed to be successful,
it could become a standard in Hong Kong in underwater noise
attenuation.
Alternative
piling methods
28. On
alternative piling methods, Mr. Bill Roberts pointed
out that bored piling was a feasible alternative but using
it for the construction of the jetty would take a much longer
time from an engineering point of view and might not be preferable
over percussive piling in terms of overall environmental impact.
To allow the boring equipment to operate, a casing must first
be percussively driven into the seabed. In addition, to socket
the pile into bed rock would require the use of a chisel which
also produced percussive noise impacts. The longer construction
period would extend the duration of potential ecological impacts
and make it very difficult to avoid the peak calving season.
29. Mr.
Martin Putnam reminded the Subcommittee that the AFRF
project had also utilised percussive piling and, before deciding
on it, a panel of dolphin experts had been consulted, including
an expert on underwater acoustics. They agreed that the benefits
of a shorter construction period making use of percussive
piling outweighed the disbenefits of additional noise impacts,
which could be reduced by mitigation measures.
30. A
Member asked whether a more stringent standard in noise
attenuation could be set since the bubble jacket would provide
the same, if not better, noise attenuation to that provided
by the AFRF bubble curtain.
31. Mr.
Steve Jones said that they had considered the issue but
eventually could not decide what targets they should aim for.
Since the detailed design of the bubble jacket would be subject
to test, it would not be appropriate to set a more stringent
noise target than that specified in the EIA report.
32 Mr.
Amin Ebrahim undertook to try to achieve a better level
of noise attenuation than 3-5 dB and would submit the results
of the noise attenuation test to the Subcommittee for information
before piling started.
33. In
reply to a Member's enquiry, Mr. Steve Jones said that
the target of 3-5 dB must be achievable.
Acoustic
decoupling
34. A
Member pointed out that the barge on which the piling
equipment was installed might act as an amplifier for the
piling noise. Mr. Steve Jones explained that to address
the problem, the contractor would insulate the steel frames,
generators and all other noisy equipment on the barge so that
they were acoustically decoupled. Specific decoupling measures
would be worked out in the detailed design stage. Mr. Bill
Roberts added that the contractor had already started to consider
ways of decoupling by introducing an acoustic barrier on the
lifting equipment for the piling hammer.
Sediment
plume modeling
35. A
Member expressed concern about the accuracy of the sediment
plume modeling of the project having regard to the fish kill
in Ma Wan in connection with the Penny's Bay project.
36. Mr.
Steve Jones explained that they have reviewed the water
quality modeling for the Penny's Bay project and considered
that the results were reasonably accurate. The accuracy of
modeling depended largely on the grid size. With the advance
in computing power, a finer grid size had been used for modeling
or the PAFF EIA. The present modeling would be more accurate
than that for the Penny's Bay project. Furthermore, the current
movements at Sha Chau area were much less complex than in
the Ma Wan area and hence the uncertainty would be less.
Water
quality monitoring points
37. A
Member expressed concern about the adequacy and the distribution
of water quality monitoring points for environmental monitoring
and auditing purposes. In response, Ms Helen Crochrane
explained that based on the result of the sediment plume modeling
which showed that the water quality would be within the water
quality objectives, no monitoring was in fact required. However,
since the project was within a marine park, the proposed monitoring
points would target the dredging in the marine park but not
along the entire alignment of the pipelines. Also bearing
in mind that the dredging work within the marine park would
last for only a few days, the proposed number of monitoring
points would be sufficient.
38. A
Member commented that the proposition of monitoring the
dredging along the section of the pipeline within the marine
park but not the rest of the pipeline was unscientific. As
far as the protection of dolphin was concerned, one would
accept that either the dredging would not have impact on the
dolphin and therefore no monitoring was required or that dredging
along the whole section of the pipeline should be monitored.
Thus, to allay Members' concerns, Mr. Amin Ebrahim
made a commitment that the project proponent would put in
more water quality monitoring points along the pipeline route.
Operational
safety during typhoon
39. In
response to a Member's enquiry about the operational safety
of the facility during a typhoon, Mr. Bill Roberts
explained that at or before typhoon signal no. 3 was hoisted,
tankers would go offshore and would not stay at berth. Hence,
there would be no question of a tanker incident during a typhoon.
Environment
Management System
40. A
Member suggested the project proponent adopting an environmental
management system to ensure that the mitigation measures were
implemented. Mr. Steve Jones informed the meeting that
contractual obligations required the contractor as well as
the operator of the facility to put in place an environmental
management system to ensure that the proposed measures in
the EIA report, including the testing of the bubble jacket,
would be implemented.
41. Mr.
Martin Putnam added that the construction contractor of
the project had been certified under ISO 14001. The project
would fall under that certification.
42. A
Member expressed concern about the impact of mud dredging
and possible contamination on fishery resources. He also asked
whether there would be compensation for affected fishermen.
Mr. Amin Ebrahim clarified that the project consultant
had worked on a number of project in the same area and were
highly familiar with the level of sediments contamination
in the area that would be affected by the pipelines. The sediments
to be disturbed by the project were not contaminated. As for
the contaminated mud pits at East Sha Chau, a risk assessment
on the contaminated mud pits on dolphins and fishery resources
had already been undertaken under a different project and
the result was that there was no significant risk on fishery
resources. The PAFF EIA fisheries assessment had made the
same conclusion.
43. Mr.
Steve Jones added that the fish culture zone at Ma Wan
was quite far away from the project. It was unlikely that
the project would have any impact on the Ma Wan fish culture
zone.
44. Mr.
Amin Ebrahim informed the meeting that the project would
be gazetted under the Foreshore and Seabed Ordinance around
October 2002. Affected fishermen could lodge objections within
two months after the gazette. According to the Ordinance,
the project proponent, not the Government, would be required
to compensate the affected fishermen if necessary. The compensation
would be arranged through AFCD. Mr. Bill Roberts added
that the fishermen would be notified through the Marine Department
when dredging took place.
Cumulative
impacts
45. The
Chairman referred to public comments on cumulative impacts
of the project and sought clarification from the project proponent.
Mr. Amin Ebrahim informed the meeting that the Submarine
Cable Landing installation project between Tuen Mun and the
airport had already been completed. Ms Helen Crochrane
added that the three reclamation projects in conjunction with
the widening of Castle Peak Road would be completed before
2003 whilst the dredging of the present project would not
start until 2004. Also, the New Contaminated Mud Marine Disposal
Facility at Airport East/East Sha Chau Area would not start
until 2006. The conclusion was that an issue of cumulative
impacts did not exist.
Fuel
spillage from the tank farm
46. In
response to public concern about the risk of fuel spillage
from the tank farm, Mr. Steve Jones indicated that
the tank farm would be bunded so that any fuel spillage would
not go outside the tank farm boundary on land.
Site
for the PAFF
47. In
response to the question about the siting of the PAFF at the
airport, Mr. Bill Roberts explained that vessels carrying
aviation fuel to the jetty would require certain depth of
the seawater. The airport was not suitable for locating the
jetty because of the shallow water there. Height restriction
at the Airport also made it impossible to accommodate vessels
at the jetty.
Extension
of the period to avoid full calving season 48. A Member
enquired about the possibility of extending the non-piling
period to avoid a longer calving season (April to August)
than just the peak calving season (April to June). In response,
Mr. Amin Ebrahim pointed out that though actual piling
lasted for only 60 days, a lot of preparation work was required
before piling. Extension of the period to August would reduce
the working time to only seven months and would affect the
piling work. Nonetheless, he agreed to consider the proposal
when the works programme was better defined.
Conclusion
49. After
further discussion, the Subcommittee concluded that it would
recommend the EIA report to the Council for endorsement with
the following proposed conditions- (a) measures should be
taken to reduce the underwater piling noise as much as possible
and in any case noise should be reduced by 3 to 5dB
- In
addition, the results of the bubble jacket noise attenuation
trial and test should be reported to the EIA Subcommittee
before piling commences; and
- the
piling and related equipment installed on the piling barge
should be acoustically decoupled such that the underwater
noise emitted from the hull of the barge would not be higher
than that from the percussive piling itself; and
- there
should be additional water quality monitoring points during
the dredging phase.
Fisheries
resource assessment
50. As
a separate issue outside the purview of the project, a
Member requested the Airport Authority to consider conducting
a fisheries resource assessment on areas near the project
site. In response, Mr. Amin Ebrahim said that the matter
had not been raised previously and therefore he could not
provide an immediate response. Nonetheless, he agreed to consider
the request and provide a response later.
Agenda
Item 5 : Any Other Business
Tentative
items for discussion at the 73rd meeting
51. Members
noted that the EIA on Deep Bay Link was scheduled for discussion
at the next meeting.
Agenda
Item 6 : Date of Next Meeting
52. The
next meeting is scheduled for 5 August 2002 (Monday) at 4:00pm.
EIA
Subcommittee Secretariat
July 2002
|
|