|
 |

 |
Confirmed
Minutes of the 74th Meeting of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on the Environment held on
30 September 2002 at 4:00pm
Present: |
| Professor
LAM Kin-che, JP (Chairman) |
|
| Mr.
Otto POON (Deputy Chairman) |
|
| Professor
Anthony HEDLEY, BBS, JP |
|
| Dr.
HO Kin-chung |
|
| Mr.
Peter Y C LEE, SBSt.J |
|
| Mrs.
Mei NG |
|
| Dr.
NG Cho-nam |
|
| Miss
Alex YAU |
|
| Miss
Petula POON (Secretary) |
|
|
Absent with Apology:
| Mr.
Barrie COOK |
|
| Mr.
LIN Chaan-ming |
|
|
In Attendance: |
| Ms.
Iris TAM, JP |
Member
of ACE Prof. WONG Yuk-shan, JP Member of ACE |
| Mr.
Elvis AU |
Assistant
Director (Environmental Assessment & Noise), Environmental Protection
Department (EPD) |
| Mr.
C W LAI |
Acting
Assistant Director (Conservation), Agricultural, Fisheries and
Conservation Department (AFCD)
|
| Ms.
Cora SO |
Executive
Officer (E), Environment, Transport and Works Bureau |
|
In Attendance for Agenda Item 1:
| Mr.
CHEUNG Yee-tin, David |
Chief Engineer,
Drainage Services Department (DSD) |
| Mr.
MAK Ka-wai |
Senior
Engineer, DSD |
| Mr.
FONG Hok-shing, Michael |
Engineer,
DSD |
| Mr.
YU Wang-pong |
Environmental
Protection Officer, EPD |
| Mr.
YEUNG Yiu-wing |
Project
Manager, Ove Arup & Partners |
| Mr.
CHAN Yun-fat, Louis |
Senior
Engineer, Ove Arup & Partners |
| Mr.
LEE Wing-leung, Eric |
Senior
Engineer, Ove Arup & Partners |
| Mr.
Doug McLEARIE |
Director,
Environmental Management Ltd (EML) |
| Mr.
Peter C T LEE |
Principal
Environmental Consultant, EML |
| Mr.
Lawrence TSUI |
Senior
Environmental Consultant, EML |
| Ms.
Amy CHEUNG |
Environmental
Consultant, EML |
| Mr.
Tom DAHMER |
Managing
Director, Ecosystem Ltd. |
| Mr.
KWOK Hon-kai |
Senior
Ecologist, Ecosystem Ltd. |
| Mr.
Simon HUI |
Principal
Environmental Protection Officer (Assessment & Audit), EPD |
| Mr.
Collin KEUNG |
Acting
Senior Environmental Protection Officer (AA), EPD |
|
In Attendance for Agenda Item 4:
| Mr.
Paul TANG |
Deputy
Secretary (Transport)1, Environment, Transport and Works Bureau
(ETWB) |
| Mr.
Adrian K K NG |
Deputy
Project Manager (Major Works)3, Highways Department (HyD) |
| Mr.
T K LEE |
Chief Engineer
(Major Works)3-3, HyD |
| Mr.
K T CHEUNG |
Senior
Engineer (SWC), HyD |
| Mr.
Tony SO |
Chief Engineer,
Transport Department |
| Mr.
Alex KONG |
Deputy
Project Director, Ove Arup & Partners HK Ltd. |
| Mr.
S Y CHAN |
Project
Manager, Ove Arup & Partners HK Ltd. |
| Mr.
Eric CHAN |
Deep Bay
Link Interface Manager, Ove Arup & Partners HK Ltd. |
| Mr.
Doug McLEARIE |
Director,
(EML) |
| Mr.
Peter CT LEE |
Principal
Environmental Consultant, EML |
| Dr.
K L PUN |
Senior
Environmental Consultant, EML |
| Mr.
Lawrence TSUI |
Senior
Environmental Consultant, EML |
| Mr.
Tom DAHMER |
Managing
Director, Ecosystem Ltd. |
| Dr.
H K KWOK |
Senior
Ecologist, Ecosystem Ltd. |
| Mr.
Vincent LAI |
Senior
Ecologist, Ecosystem Ltd. |
| Mr.
Craig DOUBLEDAY |
Director/Landscape
Designer, Urbis Ltd. |
| Mrs.
Shirley LEE |
Principal
Environmental Protection Officer (Urban Assessment), EPD |
| Mr.
Ken WONG |
Senior
Environmental Protection Officer (Urban Assessment)5, EPD |
| Mr.
Y K CHAN |
Senior
Nature Conservation Officer (North), AFCD |
| Mr.
Dick CHOI |
Senior
Marine Conservation Officer (West), AFCD |
|
|
|
*************************
| The
Chairman informed Members that after studying the EIA
report on the Construction of Lung Kwu Chau Jetty, six Members
had indicated that a presentation by the project proponent
at the meeting would not be necessary. The Subcommittee agreed
that Members would consider later at the meeting or by correspondence
afterwards whether they would propose any conditions for endorsing
the report.
(Post-meeting
note : Members agreed after the meeting that they would recommend
the EIA report to the Council for endorsement subject to the
condition that the project proponent would implement all mitigation
measures stated in Tables 11.1 to 11.4 of the report and that
future maintenance dredging during the operation of the jetty
would avoid the peak season that the Chinese White Dolphins
would visit the area (May-August inclusive).
Agenda
Item 1 : Confirmation of Minutes of the 72nd and 73rd Meetings
held on 8 July and 5 August 2002
2. Members
confirmed the draft minutes without amendments.
3. Members
also had no comments on the notes of the informal dialogue
conducted on 8 July 2002.
Agenda
Item 2 : Matters Arising
Para.
3 : Update on the status of mitigation measures of abandoned
meanders of Kam Tin River
4. The
Chairman reported that the updates provided by the Territory
Development Department were circulated to Members on 19 August
2002 and no further enquiries were raised. |
|
Para.
45: Guidelines on meeting with major stakeholders of designated
projects
5. In
the light of the substantial agenda of the meeting, the
Chairman proposed and Members agreed to postpone
the discussion to the next meeting.
Agenda
Item 3 : Ngong Ping Sewage Treatment Works and Sewerage
(ACE-EIA Paper 16/2002)
6. The
Chairman welcomed Mr. David Cheung and the project proponent
team to the meeting. Mr. Peter CT Lee briefed Members
on the findings of the EIA and the proposed mitigation measures.
Discharge
options
7. In
response to a Member's enquiry, Mr. Cheung said that
the estimated quantities of construction and demolition (C&D)
materials to be generated by the Tai O and Tung Wan options
were 48,500 m3 and 47,000 m3 respectively. They were liaising
closely with the Civil Engineering Department (CED) to identify
suitable disposal sites for the C&D materials and would submit
a detailed C&D materials disposal plan to the authority for
approval.
8. In
response to a Member's question on the human health risk of
the Tung Wan option, Mr. Cheung said that they were
working with the Water Supplies Department on mitigation measures
for the Tung Wan option such as the laying of twin pipes and
putting in place a full monitoring system. They had commissioned
a consultant to carry out risk assessment to see if the risks
of pipeline leakage or bursting could be controlled to within
acceptable level. If the risks were found acceptable, they
would not rule out the possibility of adopting the Tung Wan
option. The risk assessment was expected to be completed by
November 2002. |
Subcommittee |
9. In
response to a Member's request, Mr. Cheung agreed to
submit the risk assessment report to the Subcommittee upon
completion.
10. In
response to a Member's enquiry, Mr. Simon Hui said
that the construction of the pipeline would be a designated
project because it cut through a country park. Since the risk
assessment of the Tung Wan option was still underway, the
Member suggested the Subcommittee consider endorsing the
sewage treatment plant and the sewerage system while reserving
the recommendation on the discharge option until the results
of the risk assessment were available.
11. A
Member said that the Tai O residents objected to the project
mainly because of the close proximity of the discharge outfall
to the residential area. He asked if it was possible to build
a longer submarine outfall away from the residential area
which in the long run would also avoid siltation problem arising
from the suspended solids in the discharge effluent. In response,
Mr. Cheung explained that there was about 30 m thick
of mud layer at the mouth of the Tai O Creek which contained
contaminated mud. The building of a longer submarine outfall
would involve dredging of the contaminated mud and would cause
adverse impacts on the environment.
Impact
on water sensitive receivers
12. A
Member asked whether the impacts on all water sensitive
receivers including the seashore restaurants at Tai O had
been assessed and whether other developments had been taken
into account in the assessment. In response, Mr. Peter
CT Lee reassured Members that impacts on all sensitive
receivers and known planned developments at Tai O had been
included in the assessment and the results showed that they
were acceptable. Mr. Cheung added that the Director
of Drainage Services had given assurance to the local residents
that in case of typhoon and high tide, the discharge of effluent
would be temporarily suspended.
13. Another
Member asked if the Tung Wan option was chosen, whether
the water quality of the beaches located at south Lantau,
for example, Cheung Sha and Tong Fuk, would be affected. In
response, Mr. Peter Lee clarified that the beaches
were in fact located away from Tung Wan. A water quality assessment
on the Tung Wan option being conducted would look into that
point to ensure that the problem would not exist. The Chairman
requested and the project proponent agreed to inform the Subcommittee
of the outcome of the water quality assessment in due course.
|
DSD |
13. Another
Member asked if the Tung Wan option was chosen, whether
the water quality of the beaches located at south Lantau,
for example, Cheung Sha and Tong Fuk, would be affected. In
response, Mr. Peter Lee clarified that the beaches
were in fact located away from Tung Wan. A water quality assessment
on the Tung Wan option being conducted would look into that
point to ensure that the problem would not exist. The Chairman
requested and the project proponent agreed to inform the Subcommittee
of the outcome of the water quality assessment in due course.
Water
quality compliance
14. Noting
that the water quality would be of 95 percentile compliance,
the Chairman was concerned about the worst-case scenario
of the remaining 5 percentile. In response, Mr. Louis Chan
said that the sewage treatment plant was designed to comply
with the effluent standards at all times and that the quality
of the discharge would be quite stable.
Ecological
impact
15. Noting
that a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in Ngong
Ping was close to a section of the village sewers, a Member
asked about the proposed mitigation measures. In response,
Mr. Peter CT Lee pointed out that the SSSI was actually
located away from the village sewers. The potential impact
would be from the construction work alone. To deal with that,
the construction work of the project would avoid the breeding
season of the Romer's Tree Frogs in the SSSI. Also, there
would be measures to control site run-offs.
16. In
response to the Chairman's enquiry, Mr. C W Lai confirmed
that there was no plan to establish a marine park off the
coast of Tai O.
17. In
response to the Chairman's question on whether the Tung Wan
option was an acceptable option, two Members replied
in the affirmative subject to the satisfactory outcome of
the risk assessment being conducted. Other Members also agreed.
Re-use
of treated effluent
18. The
Chairman noted that ways to re-use the treated effluent
were not included in the EIA report. He stressed that the
Subcommittee considered it a golden opportunity for the Administration
to demonstrate commitment to environmental protection and
sustainable development by putting treated wastewater to useful
purposes.
19. Mr.
Cheung informed Members that a working group comprised
of relevant bureaux and departments and the Mass Transit Railway
Corporation (MTRC) had been formed to look into different
ways of re-using the treated effluent. At the moment, the
most promising options were flushing and irrigation. Mr.
W P Yu supplemented that the MTRC was interested in using
the treated effluents for the Cable Car project but the feasibility
of the idea and other details had yet to be developed.
20. In
response to a Member's enquiry, Mr. K W Mak said that
flushing would take up about 200m3 to 400m3 per day. Irrigation
was another possible usage but would require further investigation.
21. Noting
that there would be a mangrove re-planting proposal at the
Tai O salt plan, a Member suggested that the treated
effluent, if not re-used as proposed, could be discharged
to the salt pan to facilitate the growth of mangrove. Another
Member echoed the Member's suggestion and said that the
organics in the effluent were beneficial for the growth of
mangrove. In response, Mr. Mak said that the mangrove
re-planting proposal was not confirmed yet but they would
take note of the suggestion. Another Member pointed
out that the mangrove re-planting proposal was a compensation
measure for the Chek Lap Kok airport and hence should be realized
in due course. Nonetheless, the proposal which might trespass
private land and affect the ecology of the Leung Uk should
require further consideration.
22. A
Member reminded the project proponent not to over-design
the capacity of the pipeline if the treated effluent was to
be re-used. In response, Mr. Y W Yeung assured Members
that the proposed size of the pipeline was already the minimum
and there was little scope of further reduction.
Conclusion
23. The
Chairman concluded that both the Tai O and Tung Wan options
were environmentally acceptable but the Tung Wan option was
preferred provided that the results of the assessments on
risk and water quality were acceptable.
24. In
response to the Chairman's question, Mr. Cheung said
that if the Tai O option was to be adopted, the proponent
would have no objection to discharging part of the treated
effluent to the Tai O saltpans on the understanding that it
would not delay the project and subject to no adverse impact
to the ecology of Leung Uk Marsh and the sorting out of the
land issue.
Agenda
Item 4 : Shenzhen Western Corridor
(ACE-EIA Paper 17/2002)
25. A
Member declared interest as World Wide Fund For Nature
(Hong Kong) was the manager of Mai Po Reserve.
26. A
Member said that although the data shown in the EIA report
clearly indicated that the project would bring degradation
to the environment and hence affect health and quality of
living, it still complied with the requirements set out in
the EIA Ordinance. While he understood that the proponent
of a single project should not be held responsible for the
overall deterioration of the environment, he considered it
the duty of the Council, as an advisory body to the government,
to bring the matter, particularly the accumulated impacts
of infrastructural projects on the environment to the Bureau's
attention. Having regard to the public concern on the very
high level air pollution index recorded in the past few weeks,
he was also uncomfortable about the limitation of the existing
EIA mechanism in identifying the adverse impact of designated
road projects on air quality.
27. Another
Member recalled that the Territory Development Strategy
Review (TDSR) in 1998 indicated that the Air Quality Objectives
(AQOs) could not be met with the planned infra-structural
projects in place. The Third Comprehensive Transport Study
(CTS-3) also confirmed that point. She was puzzled why the
EIA report of the Shenzhen Western Corridor (SWC) showed compliance
of AQOs. |
DSD |
28. The
Chairman suggested alerting the Bureau Secretary of the deteriorating
environmental conditions and inviting the parties concerned
to update the Council on CTS-3 and the present transport strategy.
Secretariat
29. A
Member suggested including the project as an item for
discussion if the Council had a chance to visit the Shenzhen
authority.
[The project
proponent team joined the meeting at this juncture.]
30. The
Chairman welcomed the project proponent team led by Mr.
Paul Tang. Mr. Doug McLearie and Mr. Tom Dahmer
then briefed Members on the EIA findings and the proposed
mitigations.
31. In
response to a Member's enquiry, Mr. S Y Chan said that
the width of the navigation channel on the Hong Kong side
was designed for 1,000 ton ferries. As for the Shenzhen side,
it had no plan to build a ferry terminal at the moment.
EIA
Process
32. The
Chairman said that some Members were uncomfortable about
the separate submission of the EIA reports on Deep Bay Link
(DBL) and SWC despite the fact that they were linked projects.
Also, since Shenzhen and Hong Kong shared the same ecosystem
in Deep Bay, it would be reasonable to assess the impacts
arising from the project on both sides under one EIA. There
was previously the precedent of a joint EIA for the Shenzhen
River Regulation Programme.
33. In
response to Members' concerns, Mr. Paul Tang said that
the consultation on the EIA report on DBL had to start first
because this project had a tighter programme due to land resumption
matters. However, the impacts arising from DBL and SWC projects
had been taken into account in both EIAs. As regard the issue
of separate EIAs, the Shenzhen River Regulation Programme
and the present project were different. The current submission
had taken into account the cumulative impact of the whole
SWC project including the Shenzhen portion and other planned
development affecting the study area. Although the two sides
worked independently on the EIA report, they proceeded in
close cooperation and regular liaison with a common objective
to implement an environmentally friendly project. The cooperation
and the interface with the Shenzhen side during the planning
stage would continue during the construction and operation
phases. |
DSD |
Sighting
of the EIA report of the Shenzhen side
34. A
Member asked if Members could have sight of the EIA report
of the Shenzhen side. In response, Mr. Adrian Ng said
that it was not the normal practice of the Shenzhen government
to release EIA reports for public inspection. Nonetheless,
the Shenzhen side had agreed to make available a copy of the
Executive Summary of the EIA report for sighting by interested
parties in Hong Kong. The project proponent would follow up
with the Subcommittee in due course. Clearance of oyster bed
35. In response to a Member's question, Mr. Dahmer said that
the oyster bed would be cleared manually and no adverse impact
was predicted. As to whether activities of oyster farming
and fishing would be restricted in that area, Mr. Alex Kong
indicated that the land in question would be resumed as government
land and the tenancy of oyster farming would terminate at
the end of 2002 and would not be renewed.
Impact
on birds during construction phase
36. A
Member asked whether there was any evidence to support
the tolerance of the birds during the construction phase.
In response, Mr. Dahmer quoted the example of Black-faced
Spoonbills at the Lotus Bridge and Coloane-Taipa reclamation
in Macau and said that about 10 to 13 Black-faced Spoonbills
were recorded annually before the construction of the bridge
and the reclamation. The population number remained steady
throughout the construction period and then shot up to about
39 to 42 in the last two years after the bridge was built.
This example demonstrates that numbers of Black-faced Spoonbills
wintering at Macau did not decline in response to construction
of the Lotus Bridge. In addition, there were a number of human
activities in that area such as the operation of a landfill
adjacent to the foraging site of the birds, yet the birds
did not seem to react to those disturbances.
Traffic
Management
38. A
Member asked about the traffic management measures for
SWC to prevent congestion. In response, Mr. Tang said
that both the Hong Kong and Shenzhen checkpoints would be
on the Shenzhen side where there were sufficient vehicle holding
areas and queuing spaces. The congestion now experienced in
the three boundary crossings would not exist in the foreseeable
future. There would be sufficient capacity to accommodate
traffic flow coming out of SWC in the near term. For example,
the Yuen Long Highway would be widened to meet the increased
traffic demand. In the longer term, other projects such as
Route 10 and Tuen Mun By-pass were under planning to meet
the traffic demand after 2011. The overall traffic demand
would be reviewed annually to determine the pace of the development
of road projects under planning.
Joint
Environmental Monitoring & Audit
40. A
Member was concerned over the difference in the baseline
adopted by both sides for monitoring purpose and whether a
mechanism would be in place to resolve disputes over mitigation
liability. In response, Mr. Adrian Ng said that the
two sides would carry out EM&A work according to their respective
standards and requirements. In the event that joint actions
were required, the two sides would work through the liaison
channel to discuss how to implement those actions. So far,
no arbitration system was in place to resolve disputes. However,
if deemed necessary, they would discuss with the Shenzhen
side on this subject.
[The Chairman
adjourned the meeting at this juncture for an internal discussion.]
Lighting
design of the bridge
41. Noting
that appropriate lighting for the bridge could reduce bird
collision, a Member stressed the need to avoid excessive
lighting. In response, Mr. Kong said that there was
no intention to light up the bridge in a prominent way and
the detailed design had yet to be drawn up. Mr. Dahmer
added that lighting designs would make reference to international
guidelines that were written to reduce potential for avian
motality.
Future
management of the bridge
42. In
response to a Member's query on the future management of the
bridge, Mr. Adrian Ng said that whether the bridge
would be managed by one or two parties would not affect the
consistency and uniformity of management, and both sides would
adopt the higher of the standards. Mr. Paul Tang supplemented
that the bridge would be managed by the two sides within their
own boundary with perhaps the same management company working
for them. There would be close communications between the
two sides to ensure that the bridge would be well managed.
Impact
on water quality
43. In
response to a Member's enquiries, Mr. Kong confirmed
that the water quality assessment had taken into consideration
the accumulative impacts of projects and activities like reclamation
and explosion.
Sedimentation
monitoring 44. In response to a Member's questions, Mr.
K L Pun said that the predicted baseline modeling results
for sedimentation rates were compared with field data from
the Shenzhen River Regulation Programme. Since the modeling
results showed a very small increase in sedimentation level
after the completion of the project, EIA report did not propose
any monitoring.
45. The
Chairman said that there was much concern about sedimentation
at Deep Bay. He asked whether the proponent could carry out
monitoring so as to prove that the project would not cause
sedimentation problem to the Deep Bay area which was ecologically
sensitive. In response, Mr. McLearie said that the
modeling predicted an increase of 0.5 mm/year after completion
of the project as compared with the current sedimentation
rate of 16 to 28mm/year. It would be hard to detect the difference
even if monitoring was in place. Both Mr. Pun and Mrs.
Shirley Lee pointed out that apart from the slight predicted
increase, the changes of the level could be due to factors
other than the project itself. Having regard to Members' concern,
Mr. Tang said that they had no objection to carrying
out monitoring during the construction stage.
46. A
Member said that since the ecosystem at Deep Bay was dynamic
and sensitive to changes, monitoring during the operation
stage was also important. Another Member suggested
the proponent monitor the sedimentation level of the whole
Deep Bay area for a period of time after the completion of
the project and compare the data with that of the previous
year. Mr. Tang agreed on a one-year monitoring of the
sedimentation level after the bridge had been put into operation.
Conclusion
47. The
Chairman concluded that the Subcommittee would recommend
the report to the Council for endorsement with the following
proposed conditions:
- the
project proponent should monitor the sedimentation rate
at Deep Bay during the construction phase of the project
and for one year after the bridge had been put into operation;
- the
project proponent should regularly brief the Subcommittee
on the progress of the environmental management of the project
such as joint EM&A with the Mainland and lighting; and
- before
the project commenced operation the project proponent should
provide to the Subcommittee a detailed emergency response
plan on how to deal with incidents happening on either side
of the bridge.
48. The
Chairman said that the Subcommittee would follow-up separately
with the Policy Bureau on points raised in paragraphs 26-28
above.
Agenda
Item 5 : Any Other Business
49. There
was no other business.
Agenda
Item 6 : Date of Next Meeting
50. The
next meeting was scheduled for 4 November 2002.
EIA Subcommittee
Secretariat
October 2002
|
HyD |
|
|
   |
|
|
|