8.0..... LAND CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
8.1
Introduction
8.2
Environmental Legislation, Standards and
Guidelines
8.3
Description of the Environment
8.4
Assessment Methodology
8.5
Site Appraisal
8.6
Identification of Exposure Pathways
8.7
Prediction and Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts
8.8
Recommendations and Mitigation Measures
8.9
Conclusion
FIGURES
Figure 8.1 Location
of Potential Contaminated Site
APPENDICES
Appendix 8.1 Letters of Confirmation of Petrol
Filling Station from FSD
Appendix 8.2 Letters of Confirmation of Chemical
Producer from EPD
Appendix 8.3 Assigned Site IDs and Locations of
Contaminated Sites
Appendix 8.4 Contamination Assessment Plan
This
section presents the land contamination assessment for the
Project. Contaminated land refers to the land which has been
polluted by toxic chemicals as a result of industrial operations carried out on
site. These contaminants, if present, may pose hazardous risks or cause adverse
effects to the land users and the nearby environment.
Land contamination assessment
shall be conducted in accordance with Section 3.4.8.2 of ESB No. ESB-310/2018
and 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 (EIAO-TM).
Based on the EIAO-TM, the
following land uses may have the potential to cause or have caused land
contamination:
·
Oil
installations including oil depots and petrol filling stations;
·
Gas works;
·
Power
plants;
·
Shipyards/boatyards;
·
Chemical
manufacturing/processing plants;
·
Steel
mills/metal workshops;
·
Car
repairing and dismantling workshops; and
·
Dumping
ground and landfill.
The land contamination potential
of the whole Project area is assessed according to relevant site information
(e.g. current and historical landuse, potential sources of contamination, etc.)
in accordance with “Practice Guide for Investigation and Remediation of
Contaminated Land” (PG). If any potential contaminated landuses are identified,
land contamination assessment shall be conducted with reference to the
“Guidance Note for Contaminated Land Assessment Remediation” (Guidance Note)
and PG issued by Environmental Protection Department (EPD). In addition, the
Risk-based Remediation Goals (RBRGs) stipulated in the “Guidance Manual for Use
of Risk-based Remediation Goals for Contamination Management” (Guidance Manual)
issued by EPD shall be adopted as the criteria for assessing soil and
groundwater contamination. The Guidance Manual presents the risk based approach
for contamination assessment and instructions for comparison of soil and
groundwater data with RBRGs for 54 chemicals of concern commonly found in Hong
Kong. The RBRGs were derived to
suit Hong Kong conditions and were designed to protect the health of people who
could potentially be exposed to land impacted by chemicals under four broad
post-restoration land use categories.
RBRGs also serve as the remediation targets if remediation is necessary.
The RBRGs for soil and groundwater are given in Tables 8.1 and 8.2.
Table 8.1 Risk-Based
Remediation Goals (RBRGs) for Soil & Soil Saturation Limit
|
Chemical |
Risk-Based Remediation Goals
(RBRGs) for Soil |
Soil Saturation Limit (Csat) |
|||
|
Urban Residential |
Rural Residential |
Industrial |
Public Parks |
||
|
(mg/kg) |
(mg/kg) |
(mg/kg) |
(mg/kg) |
(mg/kg) |
|
|
VOCs |
|||||
|
Acetone |
9,590 |
4,260 |
10,000* |
10,000* |
*** |
|
Benzene |
0.704 |
0.279 |
9.21 |
42.2 |
336 |
|
Bromodichloromethane |
0.317 |
0.129 |
2.85 |
13.4 |
1,030 |
|
2-Butanone |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
*** |
|
Chloroform |
0.132 |
0.0529 |
1.54 |
253 |
1,100 |
|
Ethylbenzene |
709 |
298 |
8,240 |
10,000* |
138 |
|
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether |
6.88 |
2.80 |
70.1 |
505 |
2,380 |
|
Methylene Chloride |
1.30 |
0.529 |
13.9 |
128 |
921 |
|
Styrene |
3,220 |
1,540 |
10,000* |
10,000* |
497 |
|
Tetrachloroethene |
0.101 |
0.0444 |
0.777 |
1.84 |
97.1 |
|
Toluene |
1,440 |
705 |
10,000* |
10,000* |
235 |
|
Trichloroethene |
0.523 |
0.211 |
5.68 |
69.4 |
488 |
|
Xylenes (Total) |
95.0 |
36.8 |
1,230 |
10,000* |
150 |
|
SVOCs |
|||||
|
Acenaphthene |
3,510 |
3,280 |
10,000* |
10,000* |
60.2 |
|
Acenaphthylene |
2,340 |
1,510 |
10,000* |
10,000* |
19.8 |
|
Anthracene |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
2.56 |
|
Benzo(a)anthracene |
12.0 |
11.4 |
91.8 |
38.3 |
-- |
|
Benzo(a)pyrene |
1.20 |
1.14 |
9.18 |
3.83 |
-- |
|
Benzo(b)fluoranthene |
9.88 |
10.1 |
17.8 |
20.4 |
-- |
|
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene |
1,800 |
1,710 |
10,000* |
5,740 |
-- |
|
Benzo(k)fluoranthene |
120 |
114 |
918 |
383 |
-- |
|
Bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate |
30.0 |
28.0 |
91.8 |
94.2 |
-- |
|
Chrysene |
871 |
919 |
1,140 |
1,540 |
-- |
|
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene |
1.20 |
1.14 |
9.18 |
3.83 |
-- |
|
Fluoranthene |
2,400 |
2,270 |
10,000* |
7,620 |
-- |
|
Fluorene |
2,380 |
2,250 |
10,000* |
7,450 |
54.7 |
|
Hexachlorobenzene |
0.243 |
0.220 |
0.582 |
0.713 |
-- |
|
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene |
12.0 |
11.4 |
91.8 |
38.3 |
-- |
|
Naphthalene |
182 |
85.6 |
453 |
914 |
125 |
|
Phenanthrene |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
28.0 |
|
Phenol |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
7,260 |
|
Pyrene |
1,800 |
1,710 |
10,000* |
5,720 |
-- |
|
Metals |
|||||
|
Antimony |
29.5 |
29.1 |
261 |
97.9 |
-- |
|
Arsenic |
22.1 |
21.8 |
196 |
73.5 |
-- |
|
Barium |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
-- |
|
Cadmium |
73.8 |
72.8 |
653 |
245 |
-- |
|
Chromium III |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
-- |
|
Chromium VI |
221 |
218 |
1,960 |
735 |
-- |
|
Cobalt |
1,480 |
1,460 |
10,000* |
4,900 |
-- |
|
Copper |
2,950 |
2,910 |
10,000* |
9,790 |
-- |
|
Lead |
258 |
255 |
2,290 |
857 |
-- |
|
Manganese |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
-- |
|
Mercury |
11.0 |
6.52 |
38.4 |
45.6 |
-- |
|
Molybdenum |
369 |
364 |
3,260 |
1,220 |
-- |
|
Nickel |
1,480 |
1,460 |
10,000* |
4,900 |
-- |
|
Tin |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
-- |
|
Zinc |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
-- |
|
Dioxins / PCBs |
|||||
|
Dioxins (I-TEQ) |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.005 |
0.001 |
-- |
|
PCBs |
0.236 |
0.226 |
0.748 |
0.756 |
-- |
|
Petroleum Carbon Ranges |
|||||
|
C6 - C8 |
1,410 |
545 |
10,000* |
10,000* |
1,000 |
|
C9 - C16 |
2,240 |
1,330 |
10,000* |
10,000* |
3,000 |
|
C17 - C35 |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
5,000 |
|
Other Inorganic Compounds |
|||||
|
Cyanide, free |
1,480 |
1,460 |
10,000* |
4,900 |
-- |
|
Organometallics |
|||||
|
TBTO |
22.1 |
21.8 |
196 |
73.5 |
-- |
Notes:
(1) For
Dioxins, the cleanup levels in USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Directive of 1998 have been adopted. The OSWER Directive value
of 1 ppb for residential use has been applied to the scenarios of "Urban
Residential", "Rural Residential", and "Public Parks",
while the low end of the range of values for industrial, 5 ppb, has been
applied to the scenario of "industrial".
(2) Soil
saturation limits for petroleum carbon ranges taken from the Canada-Wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil, CCME 2000.
(3) *
indicates a 'ceiling limit' concentration.
(4) ***
indicates that the Csat value exceeds the 'ceiling limit' therefore the RBRG
applies.
Table 8.2 Risk-Based Remediation
Goals (RBRGs) for Groundwater and Solubility Limit
|
Chemical |
Risk-Based Remediation Goals
(RBRGs) for Groundwater |
Groundwater Solubility Limit |
||
|
Urban Residential |
Rural Residential |
Industrial |
||
|
(mg/L) |
(mg/L) |
(mg/L) |
(mg/L) |
|
|
VOCs |
||||
|
Acetone |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
*** |
|
Benzene |
3.86 |
1.49 |
54.0 |
1,750 |
|
Bromodichloromethane |
2.22 |
0.871 |
26.2 |
6,740 |
|
2-Butanone |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
*** |
|
Chloroform |
0.956 |
0.382 |
11.3 |
7,920 |
|
Ethylbenzene |
1,020 |
391 |
10,000* |
169 |
|
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether |
153 |
61.1 |
1,810 |
*** |
|
Methylene Chloride |
19.0 |
7.59 |
224 |
*** |
|
Styrene |
3,020 |
1,160 |
10,000* |
310 |
|
Tetrachloroethene |
0.250 |
0.0996 |
2.95 |
200 |
|
Toluene |
5,110 |
1,970 |
10,000* |
526 |
|
Trichloroethene |
1.21 |
0.481 |
14.2 |
1,100 |
|
Xylenes (Total) |
112 |
43.3 |
1,570 |
175 |
|
SVOCs |
||||
|
Acenaphthene |
10,000* |
7,090 |
10,000* |
4.24 |
|
Acenaphthylene |
1,410 |
542 |
10,000* |
3.93 |
|
Anthracene |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
0.0434 |
|
Benzo(a)anthracene |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Benzo(a)pyrene |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Benzo(b)fluoranthene |
0.539 |
0.203 |
7.53 |
0.0015 |
|
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Benzo(k)fluoranthene |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Chrysene |
58.1 |
21.9 |
812 |
0.0016 |
|
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Fluoranthene |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
0.206 |
|
Fluorene |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
1.98 |
|
Hexachlorobenzene |
0.0589 |
0.0234 |
0.695 |
6.20 |
|
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Naphthalene |
61.7 |
23.7 |
862 |
31.0 |
|
Phenanthrene |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
1.00 |
|
Phenol |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Pyrene |
10,000* |
10,000* |
10,000* |
0.135 |
|
Metals |
||||
|
Antimony |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Arsenic |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Barium |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Cadmium |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Chromium III |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Chromium VI |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Cobalt |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Copper |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Lead |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Manganese |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Mercury |
0.486 |
0.184 |
6.79 |
-- |
|
Molybdenum |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Nickel |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Tin |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Zinc |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
PCBs |
||||
|
Dioxins (I-TEQ) |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
PCBs |
0.433 |
0.171 |
5.11 |
0.031 |
|
Petroleum Carbon Ranges |
||||
|
C6 - C8 |
82.2 |
31.7 |
1,150 |
5.23 |
|
C9 - C16 |
714 |
276 |
9,980 |
2.80 |
|
C17 - C35 |
12.8 |
4.93 |
178 |
2.80 |
|
Other Inorganic Compounds |
||||
|
Cyanide, free |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
Organometallics |
||||
|
TBTO |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Notes:
(1) Blank
indicates that RBRG could not be calculated because the toxicity or
physical/chemical values were unavailable, or the condition of Henry's Law
Constant > 0.00005 was not met for the inhalation pathway.
(2) Water
solubilities for Petroleum Carbon Range aliphatic C9-C16 and greater than C16
generally are considered to be effectively zero and therefore the aromatic
solubility for C9-C16 is used.
(3) *
indicates a 'ceiling limit' concentration.
(4) ***
indicates that the solubility limit exceeds the 'ceiling limit' therefore the
RBRG applies.
The
location of the Project is shown in Figure 1.1. The land use
in the assessment area, i.e. the Project Boundary, is mainly rural and
residential with low-rise developments. Potential contamination sources include
industrial activities such as petrol filling stations and vehicle repair
workshops along roadside. The location of the assessment
area is shown in Figure 8.1.
In order to identify and evaluate
the potential land contamination impacts associated with the Project, the
following tasks have been undertaken:
·
Desktop study to review the current and historical land uses; and
·
Site inspection to identify potential contaminated areas activities on
site as necessary.
The following sources of
information have been collated and reviewed for the desktop study:
·
Selected aerial photographs from Lands Department;
·
Information of dangerous goods for the area within the Project Boundary
from Fire Services Department;
·
Information of chemical waste producer and chemical waste spillage record
from EPD; and
·
Records and photographs obtained from site visits.
To confirm the potential of land
contamination aroused within or adjacent to the Project Boundary, Fire Services
Department (FSD) has been consulted in September 2018 for the dangerous good
licences and incident record. According to the reply of FSD as attached in Appendix 8.1, the 5 petrol filling stations
(PFS) within the assessment area are with underground tanks of capacity from
6,820 to 25,500 Liters, and there was no spillage record identified.
In addition to the concern of
potential contaminated land uses within the assessment area, the general
environment around the works areas have also been reviewed. Based on the review
of street maps, PFS within 200m from the Project area are summarized in Table 8.3 and shown in Figure 8.1.
Table 8.3 Dangerous Good Licences Information
Obtained from FSD Near the Study
Area
|
No. |
Location |
Approx. Distance from Works Area |
Drawing Reference |
Record of Spillage/Leakage* |
|
PF1 |
Kam Tin Road |
Next to Project Boundary |
- |
|
|
PF2 |
Kam Tin Road |
Next to Project Boundary |
- |
|
|
PF3 |
Kam Tin Road |
Encroached Project Boundary |
- |
|
|
PF4 |
Kam Tin Road |
Next to Project Boundary |
- |
|
|
PF5 |
Junction of Kam Tin Road and
Lam Kam Road |
Next to Project Boundary |
- |
* Information provided by Fire Service Department (FSD)
On the other hand, EPD has been
consulted in March 2019 to identify any chemical waste producers and chemical
spillage records near the Project. According to the reply of EPD as attached in
Appendix 8.2, there was no chemical spillage record identified.
Based on EPD’s information, there
are 11 concerned chemical waste producers located within or next to Project
Boundary, whose site ID are C7, C13, C17, C25, C30, SY1, PF1 to 5. The
locations of these sites can be referred to Figure 8.1.
A
review of historical maps of Hong Kong and aerial photographs has been
undertaken. The aim of this review is to evaluate the likelihood of
contamination associated with any apparent land use changes at the subject
locations. The review result is summarized below and a list of aerial
photographs reviewed has been provided in Table 8.4.
Selected aerial photos are provided in
Appendix A
of Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) attached in Appendix 8.4
for
reference.
Table 8.4 Summary of Historical Aerial Photograph
Review
|
Year |
Reference Number |
Observations |
|
1963 |
Y09496,
Y09498, Y09543, Y09545, Y09547 |
Kam Tin Road was
constructed and the surrounding areas were mainly occupied by farmland and
village housing. Lam Kam Road was constructed and mainly surrounded by
undeveloped land. |
|
1986 |
A07412,
A07413, A07415 |
|
|
1988 |
A15643 |
|
|
1995 |
CN10315,
CN10313, CN10281, CN10244, CN10285 |
There
was no apparent change in the road alignment noted in 1995. Village houses,
clinic, open storage areas, parks and barracks were developed around the
Project boundary |
|
2004 |
CW57522,
CW57519, CW57619, CW57676, CW57704, CW57708 |
No
further change in road alignment / layout within the Project boundary was
evident by 2004, some open storage area was constructed to be vehicle
repairing workshops |
|
2007/2008 |
CS16626
to 16628, CS16761 to 16766, CS20869 to 20871, CS21114 to 21118 |
|
|
2013/2014 |
CS43644
to 43649, CS43745 to 43746, CS43825 to 43826, CS51447 to 51451 |
|
|
2017/2018 |
E032431
to 32438, E035221 to E035234, E035410 to 35421, E035732 to 35749 |
Source of historical aerial
photographs: Survey and Mapping Office, Lands Department.
Site Inspection for Kam Tin Road
and Lam Kam Road was conducted in December 2018 and January 2019. As observed,
most of the areas were green area and scattered village houses. Some industrial
activities such as petrol filling stations and vehicle repair workshops were
found along roadside. During site inspections, none of the potential contaminated
areas were feasible for inspection on site and further site access to these
areas were either locked or inaccessible and only periphery inspections outside
the sites were conducted. A CAP has been prepared and attached as Appendix 8.4.
It is stated in the CAP that site re-appraisal is required as soon as the sites
become accessible and a supplementary CAP should be submitted and endorsed by
EPD before site investigation. A Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) which
includes the site investigation sampling and testing results will be prepared
for EPD's agreement upon completion of the site investigation. If contamination
was identified, Remediation Action Plan (RAP) shall be also prepared and
submitted to EPD for agreement prior to the commencement of the remediation
works. Upon completion of the remediation, a Remediation Report (RR) shall be
submitted to EPD for agreement. No construction works of site should be carried
out prior to the agreement of the RR. Nevertheless, initial site appraisals have
been conducted.
Based on the preliminary site
appraisal, a total of 44 sites with contamination potential have been
identified. As all the potential contaminated sites are occupied by third
parties and not accessible, site inspection and site investigation are not
feasible to be conducted. Based on observation during site inspection, site
activities have been summarized based on the best available information as
detailed in Table 8.5.
Site walkover checklists of the potential
contaminated sites are attached in Appendix
B of the attached CAP. The assigned site ID and locations of
the potential contaminated sites are summarized in Appendix 8.3 and shown in Figure 8.1.
Table 8.5 Summary of Areas with Contamination Potential
which are Infeasible for On-Site Inspection and Investigation
|
Site ID of Inaccessible Site |
Review of the available information |
Initial contamination evaluation of those
inaccessible sites and potential remediation methods |
Confirmation of whether the contamination
problem at this/these site(s) would be surmountable |
||
|
Past Land Use |
Current Land Use(a) |
Relevant Government Record |
|||
|
C1 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and vehicle repairing / dismantling workshop. |
Site Appraisal Inspection inside the sites was
not possible. The sites are suspected as vehicle repair /dismantling workshop
based on observation from surrounding. |
N/A |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related to
current and past operation with vehicle repair/maintenance activities *1Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons, metals
and organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Cement stabilization /solidification for heavy metals. ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (221.8m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C2 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, open storage area and vehicle repairing /
dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related to
current operation with vehicle repair/maintenance activities, and past
loading, unloading and storage activities at open storage area. *2Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons, metals
and organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Cement stabilization /solidification for heavy metals. ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (54.3m2) and would have only been
used for storage activities and vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C3 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and vehicle repairing / dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related to
current and past operation with vehicle repair/maintenance activities *1Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons, metals
and organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Cement stabilization /solidification for heavy metals. ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (142.8m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C4 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (57.5m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C5 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (523.7m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C6 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (205.1m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C7 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
Registered chemical waste
producer |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (43.7m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C8 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (72.5m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C9 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, vacant land, village house and vehicle repairing /
dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (253.6m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C10 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (317m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C11 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and vehicle repairing / dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (109.2m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C12 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (1274.7m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C13 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house, car park and vehicle repairing /
dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
Registered chemical waste
producer |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (238.2m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C14 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (76.3m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C15 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (43.3m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C16 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (36.4m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C17 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, car park and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
Registered chemical waste
producer |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (65.5m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C18 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (10.5m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C19 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (12.0m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C20 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (25.6m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C21 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be car park, open storage area and vehicle repairing /
dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related to
current operation with vehicle repair/maintenance activities, and past
loading, unloading and storage activities at open storage area. *2Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons, metals
and organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Cement stabilization /solidification for heavy metals. ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (17.3m2) and would have only been
used for storage activities and vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C22 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related to
current and past operation with vehicle repair/maintenance activities *1Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons, metals
and organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Cement stabilization /solidification for heavy metals. ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (13.4m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C23 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (15.0m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C24 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be car park, vacant land and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area encroaching
the Project Boundary (7.5m2) and would have only been used for
vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C25 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and vehicle repairing / dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
Registered chemical waste
producer |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (131.7m2) and would have only
been used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C26 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and vehicle repairing / dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (110m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C27 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (9.2m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C28 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (19.8m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C29 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and vehicle repairing / dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (20.8m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C30 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
Registered chemical waste
producer |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (26.0m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C31 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, vacant land, village house and vehicle repairing /
dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (63.5m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C32 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (40.9m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C33 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, vacant land, village house and vehicle repairing /
dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (76.6m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C34 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, vacant land, village house and vehicle repairing /
dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (11.2m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C35 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, vacant land and vehicle repairing / dismantling
workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area encroaching
the Project Boundary (51.7m2) and would have only been used for
vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
C36 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and vehicle repairing / dismantling workshop. |
Ditto |
N/A |
Ditto |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (29.8m2) and would have only been
used for vehicle maintenance /dismantling. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
M1 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house, open storage area and metal workshop. |
Site Appraisal Inspection inside the site was
not possible. The site is suspected as metal workshop based on observation from
surrounding. |
N/A |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related to
current and past operation with use of metals and chemicals for
manufacturing, equipment maintenance and cleaning, and past loading,
unloading and storage activities at open storage area. *3Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons, metals
and organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Cement stabilization /solidification for heavy metals. ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (21.8m2) and would have only been
used for storage activities and metal manufacturing. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
SY1 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland, village house and scrap yard. |
Site Appraisal Inspection inside the site was
not possible. The site is suspected as scrap yard based on observation from
surrounding. |
Registered chemical waste
producer |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related to
current operation with waste oils and fuels and lubricants from scrap
vehicles, transformers, scrap metals, vehicle and equipment maintenance and
refueling. *4Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons,
Polychlorinated Biphenyl, metals and organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Cement stabilization /solidification for heavy metals. ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (61.2m2) and would have only been
used for scrap yard. Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
CP1 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and concrete producing plant. |
Site Appraisal Inspection inside the site was
not possible. The site is suspected as concrete manufacturing plant based on
observation from surrounding. |
N/A |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related to
current operation with storage and transfer of residues from physical
conversion of earthen materials by sorting, mixing, and grinding. *5Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons and
organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (166.6m2). Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
|
PF3 |
Review of Historical Aerial
Photos Past land uses of the site were
observed to be farmland and petrol filling station. |
Site Appraisal Inspection inside the site was
not possible. The site is petrol filling station in operation based on
observation from surrounding. |
Registered chemical waste
producer, Dangerous Good License |
Initial Contamination
Evaluation Potential concern related leaks
from pipework, tanks and offset fill pipes. Spills during customer refueling,
filling underground storage tanks and over filling of portable containers. *6Potential Contaminants Petroleum hydrocarbons, metal
and organic solvents. Potential Remediation Methods Depending on the contaminated
soil quantity and quality, possibly: ·
Cement stabilization /solidification for heavy metals. ·
Bioremediation such as bio-pile. |
The site has a small area
encroaching the Project Boundary (90.8m2). Land contamination causing
insurmountable impacts would not be likely. Moreover, there are available and
commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential contaminants. |
*1: Key COCs include Metals (e.g. CrIII, CrVI, Cu,
Pb, Mg, Ni, Zn), PCRs (C6 - C8, C9-C16, C17-C35), VOCs (e.g. acetone, BTEX,
MTBE, and trichloroethene) and PAHs.
*2: Key COCs include Metals (Sb, As, Ba, Cd, CrIII,
CrVI, Co, Cu, Pb, Mg, Hg, Mo, Ni, Sn, Zn), PCRs (C6 - C8, C9-C16, C17-C35),
VOCs (Acetone, Benzene, Bromodichloromethane, 2-Butanone, Chloroform,
Ethylbenzene, Methyl tert-Butyl Ether, Methylene Chloride, Styrene,
Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Trichloroethene, Xylenes(total)) and SVOCs
(Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene,
Fluorene, Hexachlorobenzene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene,
Phenol, Pyrene).
*3: Key COCs include Metals (Sb, As, Ba, Cd, CrIII, CrVI, Co, Cu, Pb, Mg,
Hg, Mo, Ni, Sn, Zn), PCRs (C6 - C8, C9-C16, C17-C35), VOCs (Acetone, Benzene,
Bromodichloromethane, 2-Butanone, Chloroform, Ethylbenzene, Methyl tert-Butyl
Ether, Methylene Chloride, Styrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene,
Trichloroethene, Xylenes(total)), and SVOCs (Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene,
Anthracene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate,
Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Hexachlorobenzene,
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene).
*4: Key COCs include Metals (Sb, As, Ba, Cd, CrIII, CrVI, Co, Cu, Pb, Mg,
Hg, Mo, Ni, Sn, Zn), VOCs (e.g. acetone, BTEX, MTBE and trichloroethene), SVOCs
(e.g. PAHs), PCBs and PCRs (C6 - C8, C9-C16, C17-C35).
*5: Key COCs include VOCs (e.g. BTEX), SVOCs (Acenaphthene,
Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene,
Fluorene, Hexachlorobenzene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene,
Phenol, Pyrene) and PCRs (C6 - C8, C9-C16, C17-C35).
*6: Key COCs include Metals (e.g. Pb), PCRs (C6 - C8, C9-C16, C17-C35),
VOCs (e.g. BTEX and MTBE), and PAHs.
(a) Detailed information of the potentially
contaminated sites (e.g. name of the sites, site observations and site visit
photos etc.) can be referred to Appendix 8.3.
(i) the sampling plan is proposed in accordance with
the requirements of PG and;
(ii) the proposed sampling plan in the table is
tentative and subject to revision after site reappraisal after land resumption
During
the Project construction, construction workers might be exposed to potential
contaminated materials when they carry out the excavation and foundation
works. The principal exposure pathway
for workers include:
·
Direct ingestion of
contaminated soils through eating or drinking/ smoking on site;
·
Dermal contact with
contaminated soils; and
·
Inhalation of contamination
if the contaminants are volatile.
All contaminated
soil / groundwater (if any) would be remediated before the construction of the
project and hence there should be no land contamination issue during operation
phase of the project.
Potential contaminants such as Metals, Petroleum
Carbon Ranges (PCRs), Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are expected. The
contamination problem in the land uses that are identified as potentially
contaminated would not be considered insurmountable in the supportive view that
any contaminated soil should be remediated by the Project Proponent based on
the following factors:
·
Size of contaminated site;
·
Scale of contamination;
·
Potential contaminants; and
·
Availability of remediation technology with local
experience.
Based on the site survey and desktop review, the
potentially contaminated sites have been identified as small-scale vehicle
repairing/dismantling workshops, open storage area, metal workshop, scrap yard,
concrete producing plant and petrol filling station. As discussed previously,
due to site access issues, only peripheral site inspections were undertaken. As
such, the site inspections were unable to determine what type of goods are
stored within these sites. Land contamination causing insurmountable impacts
would not be likely due to the fact that potential contaminated area
encroaching Project Boundary is small. Majority of the potential contaminated area
are with size below 1000m2, the size of potential contaminated area is
provided in Appendix
8.3. Moreover, there are
available and commonly adopted remediation methods for the potential
contaminants such as stabilization/solidification for heavy metals and
bioremediation such as bio-pile. It
is expected that potential contaminants can be properly treated with proposed
remediation technology with local experience.
Site re-appraisal is
required for the identified potentially contaminated sites as well as other
areas within the Project area to address any change in land use that may give
rise to potential land contamination issues as soon as the sites become
accessible and a supplementary CAP should be submitted and endorsed by EPD before
site investigation. A CAR which includes the site investigation
sampling and testing results will be prepared for EPD's agreement upon
completion of the site investigation. If contamination is identified, RAP shall
be also prepared and submitted to EPD for agreement prior
to the commencement of the remediation works. Upon completion of the
remediation, a RR shall be submitted to EPD for agreement. No
construction works of site should be carried out prior to the agreement of
the RR.
Recommendations
The Project Proponent shall engage a competent and
experienced professional to prepare a supplementary CAP for EPD's approval when
the sites become accessible.
Site re-appraisal is required for the identified
potentially contaminated sites as well as other areas within the Project
Boundary to address any change in land use that may give rise to potential land
contamination issues as soon as the sites become accessible and a supplementary
CAP should be submitted and endorsed by EPD before site investigation. A CAR
which includes the site investigation sampling and testing results will be
prepared for EPD's agreement upon completion of the site investigation. If
contamination is identified, RAP shall be also prepared and submitted to EPD
for agreement prior to the commencement of the remediation works. Upon
completion of the remediation, a RR shall be submitted to EPD for agreement. No
construction works of site should be carried out prior to the agreement of the
RR.
Mitigation
Measures
As general measures, the
following environmental and safety precautionary measures should be implemented
during construction works, in order to minimize the potential impact on health
and contamination exposure to the site workers:
·
Exposure to any
contaminated materials can be minimised by the wearing of appropriate clothing
and personal protective equipment;
·
Adequate training and
instructions of the potential hazards associated with the contaminated
materials shall be provided to site staff and workers;
·
Measures shall be
implemented to prevent non-workers from approaching the identified potential
contamination areas in order to avoid exposure to contaminants;
·
Where appropriate, the use of bulk handling
equipment should be maximised to reduce the potential contacts between
excavated contaminated materials and associated workers;
·
All temporary stockpiles of the materials shall be
completely covered with waterproof material to avoid leaching of contaminants,
especially during rainy season; and
·
Surface water shall be diverted around any
contaminated areas or stockpiles to minimise potential runoff into excavations.
This land contamination assessment examined the
potential contaminative land use within the Project Boundary. The assessment
involved desktop review, site surveys, the proposed environmental site
investigation and their potential impacts to future land use.
All potentially contaminated sites could not be
accessed to inspect the site conditions during site walkover at the time of
preparing the EIA report and site investigation works could not be carried out.
As such, this land contamination assessment on the potential land contamination
was conducted based on desktop review, review of historical aerial photos and a
number of peripheral site surveys.
A total of 44 potentially contaminated sites were
identified, of which over 90% of the potentially contaminated sites are
currently used as vehicle repairing/dismantling workshops and open storage
area.
Since the potentially contaminated sites are located
in private land lots, site investigation could not be carried out at this
stage. In addition, as the sites are still in operation, it is considered not
suitable to carry out the site investigation at this stage as there may be
change in land use prior to construction for both potentially contaminated
sites and other areas within the Project Boundary. In view of this, site
re-appraisal in these potentially contaminated sites is proposed once site
access is available in order to assess the site condition and to identify the
need for site investigation for any additional hot spots as a result of the
on-going land contaminating activities. In addition, site re-appraisal would be
required for other areas within the Project Boundary to address any change in
land use that may give rise to potential land contamination issues.
Findings from the site re-appraisal will be
presented in a supplementary CAP. Upon approval of the supplementary CAP and
completion of the site investigation works, a CAR would be prepared to present
findings of the site investigation works. If contamination has been identified,
a RAP would be prepared to recommend specific remediation measures and
submitted to EPD for agreement prior to the commencement of remediation works.
Upon completion of the remediation works, if any, a RR would also be prepared
to demonstrate that the clean-up works are adequate. The RR would be submitted
to EPD for approval prior to commencement of any construction / development
works.
Upon remediation of the contaminated land, if any,
the Project will have converted previously potentially contaminated soil and
groundwater into safe, usable land fit for development, thus bringing benefits
to the community at large.