11.1.1 Since Kau Sai Chau has
been used as an artillery range in between 1930’s and mid-1970’s, there may be
potential land contamination problem arising from the former artillery range. This
section presents the assessment of the potential environmental issues related
to land contamination and the potential for the occurrence of ground
contamination within the project boundary.
Operation phase impacts
due to the use of turfgrass chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) are also addressed
in this section.
11.2
Environmental Legislation, Policies, Plans,
Standards and Criteria
11.2.1 Two publications
issued by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), Professional Persons Environmental Consultative Committee Practice Note
3/94 - Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation (ProPECC PN 3/94) and Guidance Notes for Investigation and
Remediation of Contaminated Sites of Petrol Filling Stations, Boatyards, and
Car Repair/Dismantling Workshops (EPD’s Guidance Notes), provide the
guidance on land contamination assessment.
In the absence of any formal legislation for the cleanup of soil and
groundwater contamination in
11.2.2 Land contamination assessments
and the potential impacts are guided in Section 3 “Potential Contaminated Land
Issues” of Annex 19: Guidelines for
Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage and Other Impacts of the
Technical Memorandum on Environmental
Impact Assessment Process (EIA-TM). Considerations shall be given to a
number of potentially contaminating historical land uses, including petrol
filling stations, oil installations, shipyards/boatyards, car repairing and
dismantling, power plants and gas works. If these land uses are identified,
then the applicant is required to generate a Contamination Assessment Plan
(CAP).
11.2.3 The following
legislation, documents and guidelines are also relevant to the land
contamination issues due to the handling, treatment and disposal of
contaminated waste in
·
Water Pollution
Control Ordinance (Cap 358);
·
Waste Disposal
Ordinance (Cap 354);
·
Waste Disposal
(Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap 354); and
·
Code of Practice on
the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes, EPD (1992).
11.2.4 According to Lands
Department Technical Circular No. 735A, the proposed golf course is regarded as
a contaminated usage.
11.3.1 The objectives of the
current land contamination study are listed as follows:
·
to identify any potential land contamination problem
arising from the former artillery range;
·
to predict and evaluate the potential risks or impacts
generated by the land contaminated by the former artillery range; and
·
to recommend the possible remediation options.
11.3.2 In order to accomplish
the objectives, the following methodology has been adopted in this land
contamination study:
·
a desktop study to review the current and historical land
uses of Kau Sai Chau in order to identify any potential contamination areas
based on a clear and detailed account of the relevant past and present records;
·
a description of the likely nature of any potential
contamination;
·
a review of relevant literature or information related to
the former artillery range on Kau Sai Chau; and
·
a site reconnaissance to identify the existing land uses.
11.3.3 In addition, the
following sources of information have been collated and reviewed:
·
aerial photographs of Kau Sai Chau between 1991 and 2000;
·
·
records and photographs from site visits.
11.4
Identification of Sensitive Receivers
11.4.1 Construction workers
are more likely to be exposed to any potential contaminated material than the
future land users within the Study Area. It is because the construction workers
could be exposed to potential contamination during excavation and preparation
of foundation works. Depending on
the nature of the contaminants, hazard during preparation of foundations and
subsurface services may be significant.
The principal exposure routes for workers include:
·
direct ingestion of contaminated soils through eating,
drinking or smoking on site;
·
dermal contact with contaminated spoil; and
·
inhalation of contaminations if they are volatile.
11.4.2 If there is severe groundwater
contamination, it can also be regarded as a source of water pollution in
coastal areas or near natural streams as a result of percolation and
infiltration.
11.5
Description of Existing Environment
11.5.1 The Study Area of the
land contamination assessment includes the area within the project boundary.
11.5.2 Based on the site
reconnaissance conducted in July 2005, majority of the proposed works has been
visited. Most areas were grassland, shrubland and woodland, where plants were
grown prosperously, except for some eroded areas. There were few streams
flowing towards the coast. As the artillery range has been closed for twenty
years, no obvious land contamination was observed during the site visit.
11.6
Review of Historic and Current Land Uses
11.6.1 According to the
report written by William Meacham published at the website http://www.hku.hk/hkprehis/earliest.htm, most of the land on
Kau Sai Chau was used as an artillery range from 1936 to the mid-1970’s, except
for the period of Japanese occupation in between 1941 and 1945. However, the
exact location of the artillery range cannot be located.
11.6.2 The site history
information of the Study Area was also obtained by reviewing the relevant aerial
photographs. Table 11.1 summaries the aerial photographs which have been reviewed.
Table 11.1 Aerial
Photographs Reviewed
|
Year |
Photograph Reference No. |
Altitude (Feet) |
Notes |
|
1991 |
CN17350 |
- |
Before construction of public
golf course |
|
2000 |
CN26878 |
4,000 |
Public golf course in place |
|
CN26876 |
Outlook of the project area |
11.6.3 A review of selected
historical aerial photographs indicates that the appearance of Kau Sai Chau in
different years. The historical changes in land uses within the Study Area are
described below:
·
In 1991, the rural area with small villages in both
northern and southern parts of the island.
main land uses of the Study Area were village and farmland. It can be observed
that there were some eroded slopes running from the northwest direction to the
centre of the island. Perhaps they were caused by the wind erosion or the ordnance.
Besides, there was no deep scare on Kau Sai Chau. At the time, the construction
of the public golf course has not been planned.
·
In 2000, the public golf course was in place in the
northern part of Kau Sai Chau. A reservoir was built in the north of the island.
Some eroded slopes were recovered but some still existed in the centre of the
island. The village in the north were removed while that in the south still
existed.
11.6.4 Except for the use of
artillery range in between 1930’s and 1970’s, no other land use having
potential land contamination is envisaged.
11.7
Impact Evaluation
Potential Sources of
Land Contamination
11.7.1 The expected contaminants
that may be found on Kau Sai Chau are mainly bullets, gun powder, residues of
exploded ordnance or even some buried ordnance. The potential contaminants
associated with the artillery range are listed in Table 11.2
Table 11.2 Potential
Contaminants associated with the Artillery Range
|
Land Use |
Potential Contaminant |
|
|
Heavy Metals and |
Prediction and
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
11.7.2 A preliminary site investigation
was conducted on
11.7.3 During the site
investigation, eight sampling areas were selected at the proposed work areas of
the third golf course and their locations are shown in Figure 11.1. These sampling points were chosen
randomly within the work areas but the eroded areas are the primitive. The sampling size is considered adequate
for the purpose of assessing the level of contamination caused
by the artillery range.
11.7.4 Nevertheless, soil sampling at location 2
could not be performed during the EIA stage due to access problem. It is therefore proposed to carry out
the assessment at this point during the construction stage.
Sampling
Depth
11.7.5 Surface contamination
is considered to be the major area of contamination due to the artillery range
at Kau Sai Chau unless there were aircraft and artillery ordnance which could
be embedded up to five metres beneath the surface and of course there would
also be a deep scare to the victim area. Samples at the surface (5cm to 10cm)
were collected at each sampling location to confirm any contamination.
Sampling
Method
11.7.6 The sampling
procedures were carried out according to the requirements in the EPD’s Guidance
Notes. The site investigation for the land contamination was supervised by an
experienced environmental scientist.
11.7.7 Sampling was undertaken by means of trail
pits dug by a shovel or hoe. A total of 7 soil samples were taken, and all the
samples were uniquely labelled and described on-site prior to sending to a
HOKLAS accredited laboratory for analysis.
11.7.8
The
samples were put in an insulated box below ice immediately after being placed
in an appropriate pre-washed container (provided by the laboratory) without
being agitated. Headspace was also minimized. It was ensured that samples containers
and the box were tightly closed and that sufficient ice packs were provided to
maintain refrigerated conditions at about 4°C.
11.7.9 All equipments in contact with the ground
were thoroughly decontaminated prior to use at each sampling location by
scrubbing with a lab-grade detergent.
The following was the standard procedure for cleaning drilling equipment
and sampling equipment on site:
i)
Clean
with tap water and lab-grade detergent (using brush if necessary) to remove
particulate matter and surface films.
ii)
Rinse
thoroughly with tap water (for drilling equipment) or distilled water (for
sampling equipment).
iii) After field cleaning, the equipment was
handled by personnel wearing clean gloves to avoid re-contamination. If the equipment was not to be used
immediately it was covered with clean plastic sheeting or wrapped in aluminium
foil to avoid re-contamination.
iv) The drilling equipment and sampling
equipment were cleaned according to the above procedures between sampling
holes.
11.7.10
The
samples were scooped directly from the sampling tool into the sample
containers. A plastic scoop was employed. If a gloved hand came into contact with
the sample, then new gloves were used for each sample.
Laboratory
Analysis
11.7.11
As
described in Table 11.2, the expected contaminants that may be found are mainly heavy metals and
sulphur. The collected soil samples were therefore dispatched
to a HOKLAS accredited laboratory for analysis of the contaminants described in
Table 11.3.
Table 11.3 Contaminants
Analyzed
|
Samples |
Contaminants Analyzed |
|
All |
Heavy Metals and |
11.7.12
The
detection limits for the soil samples are provided in Appendix A11.1.
Assessment Criteria for Soil
11.7.13 In principle, the
Dutch ‘ABC’ criteria are considered by the EPD as the remediation standards. The Dutch ‘ABC’ criteria consist of 3
levels of standards, namely A, B, and C, which generally indicate the follows:
Ÿ ‘A’ level implies unpolluted;
Ÿ ‘B’ level implies potential pollution
present and requires further investigation or remediation; and
Ÿ ‘C’ level implies pollution, which requires
remediation.
11.7.14 In general, the
Analytical
Results
11.7.15 The laboratory analytical
results are summarized in Appendix 11.2 and the details of the laboratory
results are presented in the Soil Testing Report as given in Appendix A11.3.
11.7.16 Results indicate that
all soil samples are below the Dutch B levels except 1 soil sample collected
from sampling location 3, of which the lead concentration exceeded the Dutch B
level but within the Dutch C level (Table 11-1) and 3 samples collection from
locations 6, 7 and 8, of which the total sulphur concentrations also exceeded
the Dutch B level but within the Dutch C level. Table 11.4 summarizes the
details of the soil samples exceeding Dutch B levels.
Table 11.4 Summary
of Soil Samples Exceeding Dutch B Level
|
Sampling Location |
Contaminant |
Concentration (mg/kg
dry soil) |
Dutch Limit (mg/kg dry soil) |
Exceedance |
|
|
B |
C |
||||
|
3 |
Lead |
240 |
150 |
600 |
≥ B and < C |
|
6 |
|
48 |
20 |
200 |
≥ B and < C |
|
7 |
|
20 |
20 |
200 |
≥ B and < C |
|
8 |
|
21 |
20 |
200 |
≥ B and < C |
11.7.17
The nature and distribution of the contaminated soil
samples indicate that contamination of lead is present at a discrete hotspot. The contamination of sulphur at locations
6-8 suggested that the area might have been the use for artillery range. The analytical results also suggest that
contamination of sulphur is not spatially continuous and is confined with the
area near sampling locations 6-8.
11.7.18
Based
on the results of the preliminary site investigation, the site is considered as
a potentially land
contaminated site as hotspots of contamination were identified. Further
investigation for land contamination at this site is required and is detailed
in the Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) in the following section.
11.8
Preliminary Contamination Assessment Plan (
This is a preliminary
Sampling Locations and Parameters
11.8.1 Land contamination site investigation has
to be undertaken prior to commencement of excavation works. Soil samples should be taken at 5
sampling points, which are the sampling locations 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 as shown in
Figure 11.1 to determine the distribution of the contaminants. These locations are the hotspots found
based on the results of the preliminary site investigation (sampling locations
3, 6, 7 and 8) and the location (location 2) that could not be accessed during
the preliminary site investigation.
11.8.2 Table 11.5 presents the proposed sampling
locations and summarizes the justification for proposing these sampling
locations.
Table 11.5 Proposed Sampling Locations and their Justifications
|
ID
of Sampling Location |
Justification |
|
2 |
Preliminary site investigation could not be carried out at this point
due to access problem. |
|
3 |
A discrete hotspot of contamination of lead was identified based on
the results from the preliminary site investigation. |
|
6 |
The surrounding area is potentially
contaminated with sulphur as identified in the preliminary site investigation. |
|
7 |
|
|
8 |
11.8.3 Based on the results from the preliminary
site investigation, the parameters chosen for analysis should include lead and
total sulphur.
11.8.4
Sampling
should be undertaken by means of borehole or trial pits for the above-mentioned
4 sampling points.
11.8.5
Drilling
of boreholes should be accomplished using standard rotary core drilling
method. All equipments in contact
with the ground should be thoroughly decontaminated prior to use by scrubbing
with a lab-grade detergent. After
sampling, all boreholes should be refilled immediately for safety reason. The refilling also avoids accumulation
of stagnant water in the boreholes.
11.8.6
Three
samples per sampling location should be taken to ascertain the vertical
distribution of contaminations. The
depths of sampling are:
i)
at 0.5
m below ground;
ii)
at 1.5
m below ground;
iii)
at 3.0
m below ground.
Sample Size and Handling Procedures
11.8.7
A
total of 15 soil samples are expected to be taken, and all the samples must be
uniquely labelled and described on-site prior to sending to a HOKLAS accredited
laboratory for analysis.
Description should include, but not be restricted to:
i)
test
site where sample collected;
ii)
sample
identification number;
iii)
soil
sampling depth (with respect to lowest level of concrete slab);
iv)
estimated
physical characteristics (clay, silt, sand, gravel, stone, cobble, colour, odour,
moisture);
v)
colour
photograph; and
vi)
any
other relevant information.
11.8.8
The
samples must be put in an insulated box below ice immediately after being
placed in an appropriate pre-washed container (provided by the laboratory)
without being agitated. Headspace
should also be minimised. It must
be ensured that samples containers and the box are tightly closed and that
sufficient ice packs are provided to maintain refrigerated conditions at about
4ºC.
11.8.9
An
environmental scientist with experience in contaminated land assessment should
be on site to monitor the first few boreholes to confirm the sampling
procedures to be taken at the right locations and in the correct manner. A laboratory analysis schedule is
presented in Table 11.6.
Table 11.6 Laboratory
Analysis Schedule
|
No. of Locations |
No. of samples |
Parameters for each sample |
|
5 |
15 |
Lead and |
Decontamination
11.8.10
All
equipments used for sample handling and storage must be decontaminated before
and after collection of each sample. The following is the standard procedure
for cleaning drilling equipment and sampling equipment on site:
i)
Clean
with tap water and lab-grade detergent (using brush if necessary) to remove
particulate matter and surface films.
ii)
Rinse
thoroughly with tap water (for drilling equipment) or distilled water (for
sampling equipment).
iii)
After
field cleaning, the equipment shall be handled by personnel wearing clean
gloves to avoid re-contamination.
If the equipment is not to be used immediately it should be covered with
clean plastic sheeting or wrapped in aluminium foil to avoid re-contamination.
iv)
The
drilling equipment and sampling equipment shall be cleaned according to the
above procedures between sampling holes.
11.8.11
The
samples should be scooped directly from the sampling tool into the sample
containers. The scoop should be
stainless steel. If a gloved hand
comes into contact with the sample, then new gloves should be used for each sample.
11.8.12
A
chain of custody system should be operated as part of the QA/QC procedure.
11.8.13
ONE
groundwater sample should be collected at EACH of the sampling locations / boreholes
and tested in laboratory where groundwater is encountered.
11.8.14
Purging
of groundwater in the boreholes shall be undertaken prior to sampling to remove
fine-grained materials and to collect freshly refilled representative
samples. The boreholes shall be
purged by removing about five times the volume of groundwater within the
boreholes with a WaTerra Pump.
11.8.15
After
two hours have lapsed since purging, the presence of any free product floating
on the top of the groundwater and the thickness should be recorded. The floating layer should be
removed/recovered and analyzed.
11.8.16
The
depth to water table shall be measured.
ONE groundwater sample shall then be collected at the boreholes using a
WaTerra Pump. All samples should be
uniquely labelled.
11.8.17
Between
samples, all equipments used for sample handling and storage shall be thoroughly
decontaminated with laboratory-grade detergent. Samples shall be stored in appropriate
pre-washed containers (provided by laboratory) and put in an insulated box
below ice immediately. It must be
ensured that the sample containers and the box are tightly closed and that
sufficient ice is provided to maintain refrigerated at 4ºC.
11.8.18
A
chain of custody system should be operated as part of the QA/QC procedure. The laboratory accredited QA/QC
procedures should be followed.
Laboratory
Analysis
11.8.19
Based
on the results in the preliminary site investigation, the expected contaminants
that may be found are mainly lead and sulphur. The soil and groundwater samples should be dispatched
to the HOKLAS accredited laboratory for analysis. The schedule for laboratory analysis is
listed in Table11.6. The detection
limits for the soil samples are provided in Appendix A11.1.
11.8.20
Toxicity
Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test should also be carried out for
all soil samples if exceedance of land contamination standards is confirmed and
“excavation and disposal” is selected as the remediation method.
Assessment
Criteria
11.8.21 The Dutch ‘ABC’
criteria presented in Sections 11.7.12 and 11.7.13 should be adopted as
assessment criteria for soil. The Dutch B Levels should be referred to
for assessing soil contamination.
11.8.22 If exceedance of Dutch B levels is found,
additional sampling is required to determine the extent of the contamination at
sites where contaminants have been detected. A 5 m diameter will be assumed around each
borehole at which Dutch B levels have been exceeded and this area will be
excavated. A minimum of 5 samples,
comprising 4 from around the boundary and 1 from the centre of the base of
excavation will be taken. Excavated
material should be stockpiled and bunded using appropriate measures while the 5
samples are tested. If Dutch B
levels are still exceeded excavation will be extended outwards in 0.5 m
increments and further samples tested until levels below Dutch B standards are
reached.
11.8.23 Samples will be tested for limited
parameters dependent on previous exceedances of Dutch B at the original
location. Testing for TCLP will
also be carried out in order to determine the potential for disposal to
landfill. Disposal of contaminated
soil at landfill should only be regarded as the last resort. Approval should be sought from
11.8.24 If the exceedance is recorded for soil
sample at 4.5 m below ground, at where necessary construction works will be
conducted, soil sampling with greater depth will also be required in order to
determine the depth of contamination.
11.8.25
For
the evaluation of groundwater results, some kind of risk assessment is
essential although groundwater is seldom used for drinking purpose in
11.8.26
A
Contamination Assessment Report (
11.8.27
The
following measures should be implemented to minimise risks to workers during
remediation works such as excavation of soil. These measures will also mitigate
against transferring contamination to groundwater, to surface water courses or
to the air.
Ÿ Site workers should wear gloves, masks, and
other protective clothing where exposure to vapours or contaminated soil may be
encountered.
Ÿ Contaminated materials should be moved with
bulk earthmovers to prevent human contact.
Ÿ Adequate washing facilities should be
provided and smoking/eating should be prohibited in the area.
Ÿ Contaminated soils, which have been
stockpiled or are being transported, should be covered with tarpaulin.
11.9
Mitigation Measures for Land Contamination during
Construction Stage
11.9.1 Based on the
preliminary site investigation results, the site area contains hotspots of
contamination of lead and sulphur. The contamination levels of these hotspots
should be further assessed during the construction stage with a proper
implementation of the CAP and RAP.
11.9.2 In addition, since the
exact cut areas on site during construction by the Contractor have not been
determined at this stage, the Contractor should implement the suitable
precautions and preventive measures for the discovery of buried or abandoned
ordnance during the construction. Moreover, it is recommended that standard
good practice should be implemented during the construction phase in order to minimize
any potential exposure to contaminated soils or groundwater. These measures
include:
·
The Contractor should sweep the area of intended
excavation with a metal detector to check any ordnance underneath the ground prior
to any excavation.
·
For any detection of metals under the ground, the
Contractor should cease work immediately before confirming the identity of the
cause. For any suspect of artillery ordnance, Hong Kong Police Force should be
informed.
·
The use of bulk earth-moving excavator equipment would
minimise construction workers’ potential contact with the contaminated
materials;
·
Exposure to any contaminated materials can be minimised
by the wearing of appropriate clothing and personal protective equipment such
as gloves (when interacting directly with suspected contaminated material),
providing adequate hygiene and washing facilities and preventing smoking and
eating during such activities;
·
Stockpiling of contaminated soil should be avoided as far
as possible. If this cannot be avoided, the stockpile of contaminated materials
should be segregated from the uncontaminated ones. Moreover, the contaminated
materials should be properly covered with waterproof material (e.g. tarpaulin
sheet) to avoid leaching of contaminants, especially during rainy season.
·
Vehicles containing any excavated materials should be
suitably covered to limit potential dust emissions or contaminated wastewater
run-off, and truck bodies and tailgates should be sealed to prevent any leakage
during transport or during wet conditions;
·
Only licensed waste haulers should be used to collect and
transport any contaminated material to an appropriate disposal site and
procedures should be developed to ensure that illegal disposal of waste does
not occur;
·
Necessary waste disposal permits should be obtained, as
required, from the appropriate authorities, in accordance with the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354), Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulation (Cap 35), as required;
·
Records of the quantities of wastes generated and
disposed of should be maintained;
·
Adequate washing facilities should be provided on site; and
·
In accordance with good construction practice, silt traps
should be used to reduce the impact to drainage caused by suspended solids
arising from disturbed ground, or any construction materials such as cement and
gravel. Groundwater should be disposed of in accordance with the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap 358).
11.10
Potential for
11.10.1
As presented in Section 11.2.4, the proposed golf course
is regarded as a contaminated usage according to Lands Department Technical
Circular No. 735A – Identification
of Possible Contamination Sources During Operation Phase.
11.10.2
The most potentially significant future sources of
contamination are:
·
The
use of turfgrass chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides)
·
Accidental spillage of chemicals to be used
Prevention
of Contamination Impact
11.10.3
In order to prevent the chemicals from contaminating the
land, a Turfgrass Management Plan (
11.10.4
As
present in the water quality assessment section, four main chemicals are used
for existing golf courses, they are nitrogenous fertilizers, herbicides,
fungicides and insecticides. The approach should be to minimize application of
fertilizers as far as possible and this is also driven by economic requirements
to minimize recurrent costs (A case where environmental protection and economic
expediency work together). Healthy growth rates are achieved when the grass is
not over fertilized or over watered. A balanced programme allows the grass to
stand up to wear and develop disease resistance. In line with existing practice,
the following mitigation measures will be implemented:
·
Nutrient
status will be monitored every 6 months of the year through the aid of soil and
leaf tissue tests. Tests help determine the optimum nutrient provisions for
turf grass.
·
A slow
release fertilizer will be used to help minimize the amount of nitrate leached
from the soil.
·
Applying
low quantity of fertilizer is recommended to minimize the leaching due to the
active uptake.
·
Applications
will not be made if heavy rain is forecast to minimize the significant nitrogen
runoff.
11.10.5
All
pesticides used on the proposed third golf course must be registered under the
Pesticide Ordinance. The following
pesticide inventory has been identified for more regular use on the proposed
third golf course and will be stored at the golf course maintenance workshop:
a)
Fungicides, including Iprodione (Rovral), Chlorothalonil
(Daconil), Manocozeb and Fosetyl AL (Alliete).
b)
Herbicides, including Oxadiazon (Ronstar), Imazaquin (Image),
Glyphosate (Roundup) and 2,4-D/Mecoprop (MCPP).
c)
Insecticides, including Chlorpyrifos, Fipronil (Chiplo
Choice) and Imadiachloprid (Merit).
d)
Biopesticides products include (spinosad and Bacillus
thuringiensis).
11.10.6
Details
of Turfgrass management guidelines for the proposed third golf course are shown
in Appendix A6.4 of the EIA report.
The performance of the
Monitoring
during Operation Stage
11.10.7
The land contamination impact can be monitored via the
TMP in terms of the quality of turf produced in time with the stated objectives
of water and nutrient conservation and chemical minimization.
11.10.8
In addition, routine soil testing for nutrients as
described in the
11.10.9
All
fertilizers and pesticides will be well-documented including following details:
·
Location
of applications;
·
Type
of fertilizer applied;
·
Amount
applied in kg per hectare;
·
Date
of applications; and
·
Product
applied.
Recommendations
11.10.10
Provided
the above measures are implemented properly, the likelihood of uncontrolled
leakage of fertilizers and pesticides giving rise to land contamination is
low. If in the future the proposed golf course is decommissioned,
contamination testing will be required in order to identify and delineate any
contamination that may have occurred. No additional land contamination
impacts are envisaged during the transitional stage of the project.
Actions
to be taken if Contamination found
11.10.11
In the
event that any contamination / spillages occur on the golf courses, the
following actions should be taken:
·
Make
every effort to contain the spillage responsibly and safely;
·
Block
drainage downstream flows and divert upstream flows where practicable;
·
Notify
Environmental Protection Department;
·
Collect
samples of downstream water for analysis;
·
Continue
sampling until the impact of the contamination / spillage can no longer be
detected.
11.10.12 The extent of the contamination (e.g. volume of the
contaminated soil) should be identified and confirmed by taken samples of
contaminated soil for testing. Remediation action should also be carried out
and completed within 3 to 6 months.
11.11.1 Based on preliminary
site investigation, the site is considered as a potentially land
contaminated site as hotspots of contamination of lead and sulphur were
identified. Further investigation
for land contamination at this site is therefore required and is detailed in
the Contamination Assessment Plan (
11.11.2 The proposed golf
course is regarded as a contaminated usage. The most potentially significant future
sources of contamination are identified and monitoring programme and mitigation
measures (Turf Management Plan) have been proposed of the measures are implemented properly, the
likelihood of uncontrolled leakage of fertilizers and pesticides giving rise to
land contamination is low, based on the proven records of the existing two golf
courses.