11.1.1
Roads D1, D8, D10 and the extended
Road P2 in Tseung Kwan O New Town are necessary to provide an efficient means
of district transport network, to connect the east Tseung Kwan O area via the
town centre south to Tseung Kwan O Area 72. These roads are proposed in order
to meet the targeted population intake for the medium term and to enable road
link to Area 86 to be in operation for population intake.
11.1.2
Each of these roads is a Designated
Project (DP) under Schedule 2 Part 1, A.1 of the EIAO. Under the EIAO, an EIA
is a statutory requirement for Schedule 2 DP and an Environmental Permit (EP)
must be obtained before any construction works may commence.
11.1.3
The proposed construction period for
Roads D1, D8 and D10 and the extended Road P2 is outlined as follows:
§
Road D1 (Phase 1: September 2003-
December 2004, Phase 2: December 2003 –
December 2006)
§
Road D8 (December 2003 – November
2006)
§
Road D10 (Phase 1: October 2003 –
November 2005, Phase 2: May 2004 – May 2007)
§
Minor road junction improvement works
at road junction of Road D10/Wan Po Road, and road junctions along Roads D1 and
D8 (2002 – 2009)
§
Extended Road P2 (December 2003 –
December 2010)
11.1.4
The nearby concurrent construction
activities in between the construction period of Roads D1, D8, D10 and the
extended Road P2 include site development of Areas 65, 67 and 86, and possible
future development to the south of Road D1.
Details of the concurrent construction activities have been taken into
consideration in the construction phase impact assessment to assess the
cumulative impacts.
11.1.5
In view of the speedy developments in
Tseung Kwan O, this study has adopted a worst case scenario where possible
future development to the south of Road D1 and at Area 78 is assumed. On such
basis, a total population intake of 520,000 in the whole Tseung Kwan O area is
assumed for the assessment purpose of this EIA and year 2030 is used as the
planning horizon.
11.1.6
Considering that there is possible
future development to the south of Road D1, two assessments have been done to
evaluate the noise, air quality, and landscape and visual impacts. For
Assessment 1, it is assumed that there will be further development to the south
of Road D1, whereas Assessment 2 assumes that there will be no further
development to the south of Road D1 based on the approved OZP. Assessment 1 and thus the proposed measures
are for worst case assessment purposed, the package of the proposed measures
will need to be reviewed if further reclamation is put forward in the future.
11.1.7
Construction of Roads D1, D8, D10 and
the extended Road P2 needs to take into account the engineering feasibility and
the environmental acceptability. Based on the development works packages and
programmes, the potential environmental impacts arising from the development
proposals have been assessed and the major conclusions and recommended
mitigation measures are summarized in the following sections.
Construction Dust
11.2.1
Cumulative construction dust impacts
have been assessed taking into the concurrent construction activities in close
proximity to the present project for the worst-case scenario. Model calculations have shown that dust
concentrations at the nearby existing receivers are expected to exceed the
EIAO-TM Dust Criteria and the Air Quality Objectives with respect to TSP. Watering the construction site twice a day
together with strict implementation of other dust suppression measures as
stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation are
recommended to reduce the dust nuisance.
Good site practices and a comprehensive dust monitoring and audit are
also recommended. It is anticipated
that the Dust Guidelines and Air Quality Objectives can be achieved by the
implementation of these dust suppression measures and no adverse residual
impact is expected.
OPERATIONAL
PHASE
11.2.2
During operation phase, since the
proposed noise mitigation measures under the assumptions of the two assessments
are different, the air quality impact for the two assessments was studied
accordingly.
11.2.3
In both Assessments 1 and 2, model
results indicated that exceedance of 1-hour average NO2, 24-hour
average NO2 and 24-hour average RSP concentrations as specified in
the Air Quality Objectives is not expected at any representative air sensitive
receivers. Thus, mitigation measures
are not considered necessary.
11.2.4
For the air quality inside the
proposed two sections of the deckover for Assessment 1, results of the air
quality modelling show full compliance of relevant air quality standards hence
adverse air quality impact is not expected.
Construction Phase
11.3.1
Noise assessment was carried out with
respect to all construction works of Extended Road P2, Roads D1 and D8. No assessment for construction of Road D10
was undertaken as there was no existing NSR identified near Road D10 during the
construction phase. In total, 7
representative NSRs located in close proximity to the proposed works were
identified, taking into account the construction period of the work packages of
the project and other concurrent construction activities nearby the NSRs.
11.3.2
Predicted unmitigated noise levels at
most NSRs would exceed the construction noise standard stipulated in
EIAO-TM. However, with the
implementation of using quieter plants, installation of movable noise barriers
and limiting the number of some PMEs, the mitigated noise levels at all NSRs
would be in compliance with statutory criteria. No residual impacts would be expected.
Operational Phase
11.3.3
Traffic noise from Roads D1, D8, D10
and Extended Road P2 would give rise to adverse traffic noise impacts to the
nearby NSRs. Deckovers (for Assessment
1) / semi-enclosures (for Assessment 2), cantilevered barriers and vertical
barriers were proposed to alleviate noise impacts on the affected NSRs. Low noise surfacing was assumed at the
elevated section of Road P2 where the speed limit is 70 km/hr. With the implementation of the proposed
noise barriers, the noise levels at most of the NSRs would comply with the
traffic noise criteria. For those NSRs
which overall exceedance of 70dB(A) is predicted, noise contributions from the
proposed new roads are less than 1.0dB hence no further noise mitigation
measures are recommended. Indirect
technical remedies in the form of acoustic insulation and air conditioning have
been recommended to some NSRs at planned schools which full compliance of noise
standard cannot be achieved even when all practicable at-source noise
mitigation measures is exhausted.
Residual impacts in future development to the south of Road D1 should be
reviewed based on the planned use of that area and the layout available then.
Construction Phase
11.4.1
The identified potential sources of
water quality impact include construction runoff and drainage; debris, refuse
and liquid spillages from general construction activities; and sewage effluent
from the construction workforce. Minimisation of water quality deterioration can
be achieved through implementing adequate mitigation measures, such as
control measures to minimise construction
run-off and drainage from the site.
With the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures, the construction works are not expected
to result in any unacceptable impacts on marine water quality.
11.4.2
During construction of Road D10
adjacent to the TKO Stage 1 landfill at Area 77, groundwater pumped out during
foundation works will not be permitted to be directly discharged into the
nearby drainage channel or coastal waters.
It is recommended that the groundwater be stored temporarily on site as
the volume is anticipated to be small. An identified option for the treatment
and disposal of the collected groundwater is tankering of the groundwater to
the TKO Preliminary Treatment Works (PTW) at Area 85. Pre-treatment of the collected groundwater may be required to
meet the Technical Memorandum on Effluent Discharge Standards prior to the
groundwater being discharged to the TKO PTW.
On-site pre-treatment of the collected groundwater, if required, should
be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Protection
prior to its discharge to the TKO PTW.
The pile supports for the elevated section of Road D10 would not form a
barrier to leachate seepage and thus it is expected that there would not be any
significant change to the leachate migration profile at the landfill.
Operational Phase
11.4.3
The only source of potential water
quality impact during the operation phase will be runoff from the road
surfaces. A surface water drainage
system with adequate grit interceptors will be provided to collect the road
runoff.
11.4.4
Assessments
have shown that the placement of Road D10 bridge piers in the Eastern Drainage channel
is likely to result in insignificant reduction in flushing capacity of the
channel.
11.5.1
Wastes generated by the construction works
are likely to include construction and demolition material, workforce wastes
and chemical waste. Provided that the
identified waste arisings are handled, transported and disposed of using
approved methods and that the recommended mitigation measures are adhered to,
adverse environmental impacts would not be expected during the construction
phase. The recommended reuse and
disposal arrangements shall form the basis of the site Waste Management Plan to
be developed by the Contractor at the commencement of the construction phase.
11.5.2
The operation of the proposed Roads
D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road P2 will generate wastes associated with
littering and road maintenance activities. The potential environmental impacts
arising from the handling and disposal of these wastes is anticipated to be
insignificant.
11.6.1
A qualitative landfill gas (LFG)
hazard assessment has been undertaken to assess the potential hazard posed by
Tseung Kwan O Stage I Landfill (TKO Stage I) to Road D10 and a section of Road
D1 which will located within the Consultation Zone of TKO Stage I.
11.6.2
Previous calculations indicated that
the LFG generation rate at TKO Stage I peaked in 1988, producing a collectable
volume of some 120 million m3yr-1. The annual production rate by 1999 was
predicted to be less than a third of the peak rate, at less than 40 million m3yr-1.
11.6.3
Comprehensive restoration works for
TKO Stage I have been completed. These
include active extraction of LFG for flaring and electricity generation,
passive venting of LFG across landfill site, leachate collection and treatment,
and surface and subsurface drainage systems.
As part of the Restoration Contract for TKO Stage I, a comprehensive
monitoring programme also commenced in late 1997 on a monthly basis.
11.6.4
Although the methane levels recorded
from July 2000 to July 2001 at the monitoring wells located near the boundary
of TKO Stage I Landfill are very low, significant levels (> 5%) of carbon
dioxide were recorded in some wells. As
such, the source of LFG at TKO Stage I Landfill is considered ‘major’.
11.6.5
There are no known lateral fault lines
between TKO Stage I and Road D10. There
are no existing utilities directly linking the landfill and Road D10. Therefore, the LFG migration pathways to
Road D10 are considered to be moderately short/direct.
11.6.6
Road D1 will be on reclaimed land, the
upper underlying material is likely to be rock fill and sand fill. The Eastern Drainage Channel situated
between Road D1 and landfill will act as a barrier of LFG migration to this
road. There are no existing utilities
directly linking the landfill and Road D1.
Therefore, the natural and manmade LFG migration pathways to Road D1 are
considered to be moderately short/direct and long/indirect respectively.
11.6.7
The common targets of LFG migration at
both Road D1 and Road D10 are the confined space (e.g. utility manholes,
inspection chambers or ducts) and the temporary excavations created during the
construction phase. Since these areas
are not accessible to public and restricted to trained personnel, the risk
level of these targets are considered to be medium.
11.6.8
The overall LFG risk posed by TKO
Stage I Landfill to both the concerned section of Road D1 and to the whole of
Road D10 is assessed to be ‘high’. As
suggested in the EPD’s Landfill Gas Hazard Assessment Guidance Note, some
engineering and detection measures
should be provided to safeguard the concerned section of Road D1 and the
whole of Road D10.
11.6.9
The following mitigation measures are
recommended:
§
Prior to and during development or
construction, utility companies would be advised of the possible presence of
LFG in the subsurface for them to take into account in the design, construction
and maintenance of their works.
·
Void around any service ducts, pipes
or cables etc. within conduits would be filled with gas resistant mastic. All ducts, manholes, and chambers, either
specific to the proposed developments or to utility services shall be sealed
off from the ground to prevent gas entry and provided with vented covers to
allow any gas that enters to dissipate harmlessly to atmosphere.
§
During site formation and construction
works, portable gas detectors should be used to regularly check the gas levels
in depressions, trenches, and other excavations. The monitoring shall be undertaken at the beginning of each half
working day (i.e. morning and afternoon) and for the entire period the
excavation remains open. If high LFG
level is measured, ventilation of such excavations should take place and
sources of ignition should be kept away from areas where build-up of gas is
possible.
11.6.10
The following monitoring requirements
are recommended: (i) Atmosphere within utility manholes or chambers should be
checked for methane, carbon dioxide, and oxygen prior to entry. It is recommended that the pre-entry
monitoring shall be undertaken, where applicable, in accordance with the
requirements of the Factories and Industrial Undertaking (Confined Spaces)
Regulation; (ii) Routine monitoring should also be conducted at the manholes
and chambers on a regular basis. The
frequency of the routine monitoring is recommended to be biweekly during the
initial stage (the first 3 months of the operational phase). The frequency shall be subsequently reviewed
on a quarterly basis through discussion with EPD, based on all the available
monitoring data for methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen (including that of
pre-entry monitoring).
11.7
Landscape and Visual Impact
Proposed Landscape and Visual Mitigation measures
11.7.1
The following landscape and visual
mitigation measures are proposed in the construction phase:
·
Regular checks shall be carried out to
ensure that the work site boundaries are not transgressed, hoardings are
properly maintained and that no damage is being caused to the surrounding areas
(CM1). Any
irregularities shall be brought to the attention of the appropriate adjacent
management and maintenance agencies (e.g. private land owner, or HyD, LCSD, or
HKHA etc.). Remedial measures shall be
designed and implemented as appropriate.
·
Erection of decorative screen hoarding
particularly in areas adjacent to existing developments (CM2). (Hoardings next
to undeveloped areas / construction sites need not be decorative).
·
Storage of materials and plant shall
be limited to areas less visible to receivers (CM3).
·
Control
of night-time lighting to prevent upward glare to visually sensitive
receivers. Lighting should be directed
to where it is required for security purposes only (or night working if
permitted) (CM4).
·
Potential conflicts between landscape
works and other works shall be avoided.
Utilities works in particular shall be checked to ensure that they do
not compromise landscape and visual mitigation measures. Where potential conflicts occur, engineering
and utility layouts shall wherever possible be redesigned to avoid conflicts
(CM5).
·
For construction works associated with
the deckovers proposed in Assessment 1 - Worst Case Scenario, all impacts on
all trees and shrubs shall be minimised (CM6).
11.7.2
The following landscape and visual
mitigation measures are proposed in the operation phase:
·
Aesthetic design of elevated
structures on Roads P2 and D10 with particular regard to form and finishes so
as to create as slender and elegant an appearance as possible. ACABAS approval shall be required (OM1).
·
Sensitive integration of road
embankments with surrounding ground levels (OM2) The engineering and landscape
designs should be prepared to create smooth changes in level at edges of
embankments, with rounded profiles wherever possible;
·
Aesthetic design of all noise
barriers, noise enclosures and deckovers with particular regard to chromatic
treatments. ACABAS approval shall be
required (OM3);
·
Aesthetic design of road lighting with
glare control measures (OM4). Light fittings and columns should be of an
attractive design suitable to the streetscape setting and the overall style in
TKO. The light fittings should be of a
type which efficiently projects light onto the intended areas, and does not
cause any glare to adjacent residents;
·
Sensitive hard and soft landscape
design to edge of Area 77 and landfill beneath viaduct (OM5) so as to provide
an attractive waterfront edge and promenade walk;
·
Sensitive hard landscape design along
roadsides, with particular regard to the creation of an attractive and user
friendly pedestrian environment (OM6). The preferred width of soft landscape
amenity areas should generally be 3m (but can be narrower e.g. at bus bay
ingress / egress);
·
Tree, shrub and climber planting
adjacent to the roads and structures with particular regard to the screening of
noise barriers, provision of shade trees along footpaths, and climbing plants
against abutment walls and viaduct columns (OM7);
·
Tree, planting along central dividers
to provide structure planting for the townscape (OM8);
·
In the Worst Case Scenario, the two
full deckovers over Road D1 adjacent to Areas 65 and 67 shall be designed as
landscape decks. Structural design of
the deck shall allow for adequate soil depth to permit tree planting (1.5m
min). The appropriate maintenance
agencies shall be involved in the approval of the design of the deckover (refer
to table 8.9)
·
Attractive design of pedestrian
subways including murals. ACABAS approval shall be required. (OM10)
11.7.3
All landscape mitigation measures
indicated in this report will be included in the works boundaries and the
landscape and visual mitigation measures implemented within these areas are
therefore considered to be “on-site”.
Predicted Residual Impacts
Construction Phase – Assessment 1 – Worst Case Scenario
(with further development)
11.7.4
Residual landscape impacts would be as
described for Assessment 2 below, except that if the deckovers over Road D1 are
constructed separately, after the completion of the other roadworks and amenity
strips, then this would result in some additional adverse construction impacts,
comprising adverse impacts of moderate significance on the future trees and
shrubs in the planned amenity areas along Road D1 (LR1). However, these
additional impacts would be avoided if the deckovers are constructed at the
same time as the other roadworks.
11.7.5
Residual visual impacts would be as
described for Assessment 2 below, except that if the deckovers over Road D1 are
constructed separately, after the completion of the other roadworks and amenity
strips, then this would result in adverse impacts of substantial significance
being felt by the future pedestrians and cyclists on Road D1 (T6); users of
open space in Area 66 (O5); and residents in the planned developments in Areas
65 (R6) and 67 (R7). However, these
additional impacts would be avoided if the deckovers are constructed at the
same time as the other roadworks.
Construction Phase – Assessment 2 – Committed Development
11.7.6
No physical landscape resources would
be impacted. Residual Construction
Phase landscape impacts would be minor and would be limited to adverse impacts
of moderate significance to the quality of landscape character area LCA8 – Area
77 landfill and slight significance to the quality of landscape character area
LCA12 – Eastern Drainage Channel.
11.7.7
Residual visual impacts during the
construction phase would be relatively minor and would comprise mainly adverse
impacts of moderate significance upon residents in the residential development
in Area 51 (R1) and occupants and users of the commercial/residential
development in Area 72 (C/R1). Other
impacts would be slight or insubstantial.
Operation Phase – Assessment 1 – Worst Case Scenario
(with further development)
11.7.8
The operation phase residual landscape
impacts would be as for Assessment 2 below, except that if the deckovers are
built at a later stage than the other roadworks, then the deckovers on Road D1
would result in adverse impacts of slight significance on the future trees and
shrubs in the planned amenity areas along Road D1 (LR1). This is because the deckovers would preclude
compensatory tree planting beneath them, but would allow compensatory planting
on top of them, which would partially but not completely compensate for the
loss of trees at ground level. However,
these additional impacts would be avoided if the deckovers are constructed at
the same time as the other roadworks.
11.7.9
Operation phase residual visual
impacts would include adverse impacts of substantial significance upon
pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to Road D1 (east-west section) (T6). The substantial significance of these
impacts would be due principally to the nature of the full deckovers over Road
D1 adjacent to Areas 65 and 67, which would be very visually overpowering and
prevent tree planting and soft landscape treatment underneath the decks. On the
other hand, the deckovers would tend to reduce long term visual impacts upon
VSRs looking down from adjacent residential properties in Areas 65 and 67.
11.7.10
Residual adverse impacts of moderate
significance, caused principally by noise barriers and/or elevated road
structures, would be felt by those VSRs located immediately adjacent to the
roads, including pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to extended Road P2 (T5);
pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to Road D1 (north-south section) (T7);
pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to Road D8 (T8); pedestrians and cyclists
adjacent to Road D10 (T9); users of the open space adjacent to Road D8 (O4);
users of the open space adjacent to Road D1 in Areas 66 (O5); and users of the
open space adjacent to Road D1 adjacent to the Eastern Drainage Channel (O6).
11.7.11
The remaining visual impacts would be
of either slight or insubstantial significance.
Operation Phase – Assessment 2 – Committed Development
11.7.12
Residual landscape impacts would be
minor and would comprise adverse impacts of slight significance to the
landscape character of landscape character areas LCA7 – TKO New Reclamation
Area, LCA8 – Area 77 landfill, LCA10 – Area 86 Dream City and LCA12 – Eastern
Drainage Channel.
11.7.13
Residual visual impacts would
essentially be the same as for Assessment 1, with the exception that VSR C/R7
would not exist, and there would be slightly less, although still substantial,
negative impacts on VSR T6 (pedestrians adjacent to Road D1 (east-west section)
next to Areas 65 and 67). The substantial
significance of these impacts would be due principally to the nature of the
semi-enclosures over Road D1 adjacent to Areas 65 and 67, which would be
visually prominent. However, these impacts would be less than those caused by
the deckovers in Assessment 1, as they would be partially mitigated by good
aesthetic design of the structures and attractive tree and shrub planting
(refer to figure 8.7.22).
Overall Assessment of the Acceptability of Impacts
11.7.14
In general terms, the landscape
impacts are relatively minor and can be successfully mitigated. The most significant visual impacts will be
felt by those VSRs located immediately adjacent to the roads (i.e. pedestrians,
cyclists and users of adjacent open spaces) and will result from the visual
prominence of the noise barriers, semi-enclosures (in Assessment 2) and
deckovers (in Assessment 1). Most of
these visual impacts can be largely mitigated by good aesthetic design of the
structures themselves and by attractive and extensive tree and shrub planting
in the roadside amenity areas.
11.7.15
The only substantial adverse residual
impacts that would remain after mitigation are the visual impacts identified on
pedestrians and cyclists in Road D1 as a result of the noise barriers (in
Assessment 2) and deckovers (in Assessment 1), and it is considered that
because these impacts are limited to one group of receivers who are relatively
transient (as they pass along the road), they do not justify a conclusion that
the overall impacts are unacceptable.
11.7.16
Therefore it is considered that, in
the terms of Annex 10 of the EIAO TM, the landscape and visual impacts are acceptable with mitigation measures
for both Assessment 1 and Assessment 2.
11.8.1
Environmental
monitoring and audit (EM&A) requirements have been specified in an EM&A
Manual. The requirements and principles
in preparing the EM&A Manual have been briefly outlined in the EIA
report. The Manual has been prepared
with reference to the EIAO-TM and EPD’s Generic EM&A Manual. The EM&A Manual contains full details of
proposed baseline and compliance monitoring programmes, as well as performance
specifications, audit requirements and procedures for air quality, noise,
landfill gas monitoring, waste management, water quality, landscape and visual.
11.9.1
The
proposed Roads D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road P2 in Tseung Kwan O New Town
will provide an efficient means of district transport network connecting the
east TKO area via the town centre south to TKO Area 72 and also enabling road
link to Area 86. The proposed project
is necessary to facilitate the rapid developments in TKO and the target
population intake.
11.9.2
Two
scenarios have been assessed for the study, namely: Assessment 1 – with
possible further development to the south of Road D1; and Assessment 2 –
committed development without further development to the south of Road D1. The key environmental outcomes and benefits
arising from the study include:
·
Existing
air sensitive receivers in the TKO New Town will be protected from cumulative
construction dust impact by the recommended dust control measures during the
construction phase.
·
No
adverse air quality impacts were predicted during the operation phase at
existing and planned air sensitive receivers in the TKO New Town.
·
Existing
noise sensitive receivers in the TKO New Town will be protected from adverse
noise impact during the construction phase by adopting quiet plant,
installation of movable noise barriers and limiting the number of some PMEs.
·
Adverse
traffic noise impact to existing and planned noise sensitive receivers will be
ameliorated by the proposed mitigation measures including deckovers (for
Assessment 1)/semi-enclosures (for Assessment 2), cantilevered barriers,
vertical barriers and low noise road surface where applicable. Indirect technical remedies have also been
recommended to some NSRs at planned schools which full compliance of noise
standard cannot be achieved even when all practicable at-source noise
mitigation measures are exhausted.
·
Adverse
water quality impact during the construction phase will be prevented by
adopting the recommended mitigation measures such as minimising construction
run-off and drainage from the site, and also on-site pre-treatment of
groundwater prior to disposal.
·
Operation
phase water quality impact would not be significant and it has been recommended
that grit interceptors be provided to collect road runoff.
·
Environmental
impacts due to waste generation during the construction phase would be avoided
by the development of a Waste Management Plan.
The potential impacts arising from operational waste generation is
anticipated to be insignificant.
·
The
hazards of landfill gas at concerned road sections have been assessed and the
common risk would be associated to confined spaces and temporary
excavations. For the construction
phase, engineering and detection measures have been recommended. For the operation phase, regular monitoring
of LFG has been recommended.
·
The
landscape and visual impacts for both Assessments 1 and 2 have been assessed
and are acceptable with the recommended mitigation measures.
11.10
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED
NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
11.10.1
The proposed at-source noise barrier
will provide full protection to approximately 4,367 planned and existing
residential dwelling and 125 classrooms of planned schools. Without the at-source noise barriers, some
11,000 population will be subject to adverse noise impact from road traffic on
the proposed roads, with predicted noise level up to 79 dB(A). Alternatively, a large setback distance will
have to be provided to achieve noise compliance which may sterilise large area
of lands for planning of noise sensitive landuses.
11.10.2
The design of the at-source noise
barriers has been optimised to take into consideration factors such as road
safety, engineering practicality, and potential visual impacts. Landscape and visual measures such as tree,
shrub and climber planting, aesthetic design and chromatic treatment, etc. have
been recommended to the design of the noise barrier.
11.11.1
The
EIA of Roads D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road P2 has identified potential
environmental impacts of various nature including water quality, air quality,
noise, landfill gas hazard, and landscape and visual impacts. The potential environmental impacts are
expected to arise during both construction and operational stages.
11.11.2 The results of the EIA indicate that
the environmental impacts identified are generally within acceptable
environmental standards. Where
environmental exceedances are observed, appropriate mitigation measures have
been recommended to meet the acceptable environmental standards and significant
residual impacts after mitigation are not expected. Monitoring requirements have also been specified in an EM&A manual
to ensure proper implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
11.11.3
Concerning landfill gas hazard, proper
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will protect the sensitive
receptors (e.g. construction workers and maintenance personnel for utility) at
the concerned section of Road D1 and the whole of Road D10.