2 project Description

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This section gives a detailed description of the Project as well as provides details of the alternative options considered, and the constraints and considerations assessed in adopting the Project details as described.

2.4 Scope of the Project

2.4.1 Under this project, the Project Boundary comprises cavern, access tunnel, ancillary building, tunnel portal area, stockpiling areas and water mains laying works. The Project Boundary is defined as the works limits required for the proposed works.

2.4.2 The relocated DHSRs will be constructed in a series of caverns linked by access tunnels and adits. The relocated DHFWSR and DHSWSR will be compartmented while the existing DHPS will be split into two (2) pump houses for fresh and salt water supply when relocated.

2.4.3 Ancillary facilities to be constructed near the tunnel portal may include transformer room, switch room, emergency generator room, control room, ventilation building, and pumping station control room, which will be constructed in an above-ground building outside the tunnel.

2.4.4 Subject to review, minor valve installation and some ancillary water mains laying works may be required.

2.4.5 The scope of the Project comprises the following:

a) Construction of the relocated DHSRs and associated pumping stations and water main laying works;

b) Construction of tunnels, adits, ventilation system and caverns for accommodating the relocated DHSRs and the associated facilities;

c) Terminating the operation of the existing DHSRs and the associated facilities; and

d) All other associated works that are incidental to and necessary for the completion of the Project.

2.4.6 The major construction activities of the Project include earthworks, drilling and blasting, construction of concrete structures, handling and transportation of excavated materials, water mains laying, installation of electrical and mechanical equipment and material transportation. The operation of the existing DHSRs and the associated facilities will be terminated after the completion of the testing and commissioning of the relocated DHSRs. Under the Project, the existing DHSRs and associated facilities will be retained after termination of the operation.

2.4.7 Demolition of existing facilities, and construction of infrastructures at the released site are not included in the Project and will be carried out by other parties.

2.4.8 There is no explosive magazine to be constructed for this Project.

2.5 Proposed Relocation Site

2.5.1 With reference to the geological maps by the Hong Kong Geological Survey, the geology of the receiving site of the DHSRs is dominated by granitic rock. Granitic rock mass is generally strong and homogeneous. The high material strength of granitic rock mass makes a good “natural” construction material for underground spaces. Most underground spaces in Hong Kong are built in granitic rock mass, which include the various tunnels and stations of the Mass Transit Railway.

2.5.2 A review of the relocation site was conducted under the Feasibility Study (FS) of this Project. It was identified that there was a private slope located to the south of the Study Area of FS. To the east of the Study Area of FS, there were the CLP Tsz Wan Shan 400kV Station, CLP pylons and overhead cables and Fat Jong Temple. There was also the WSD’s Ma Chai Hang Fresh Water Service Reservoir (FWSR) to the west of the Study Area of FS. The Lion Rock Country Park (LRCP) was located to the north of the Study Area of FS. The location of the cavern, alignment of the tunnel will need to be carefully planned in order to avoid land resumption, impacts to these facilities and encroachment into the LRCP.

2.5.3 Several relocation sites have been considered since the FS of this Project, taking into account the technical, environmental and other considerations, and are summarised below:

· Cavern Option 1 – hillsides north to Chuk Yuen North Estate;

· Cavern Option 2 – hillside north of Ma Chai Hang FWSR;

· Cavern Option 3 – hillside north of Ma Chai Hang FWSR, similar to Cavern Option 2 but shifted slightly westwards;

· Cavern Option 4 – hillside north of Lion Rock Park.

2.5.4 The locations of these proposed cavern options are shown in Figure 2.1, and a comparison of these cavern options is summarised in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Proposed Cavern Options

Cavern Option	Land Matter	Environmental Considerations	Other Considerations
Cavern Option 1 - hillsides north of Chuk Yuen North Estate	In government land (“Green Belt” zone between the Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill & San Po Kong Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K11/29 and the Wang Tau Hom & Tung Tau Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K8/23)	· Noise and dust impacts during open excavation but controllable when inside cavern · Relatively further away from the Lion Rock Country Park (LRCP) compared to Options 2 and 3	· The site is in close proximity to the existing DHSRs, which allows the relocated DHSRs to be housed and positioned at similar level as the invert levels of the existing DHFWSR and DHSWSR · The geology of the proposed relocation site, belonging to hard granite with no obvious weak zones and faults, is most suitable for construction of large caverns · Great public concern on the blasting impact on their private slopes due to its close proximity from the proposed caverns
Cavern Option 2 - hillside north of Ma Chai Hang FWSR	In government land (“Green Belt” zone of the Wang Tau Hom & Tung Tau Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K8/23)	· Noise and dust impacts during open excavation but controllable when inside cavern · Closer to LRCP than Option 1	· Relevant WTSDC members and local public requested to further revise the cavern location in order to maximise the distance between the proposed caverns and nearby housing estates
Cavern Option 3 - hillside northwest of Ma Chai Hang FWSR	Same as Cavern Option 2	· Noise and dust impacts during open excavation but controllable when inside cavern, and less impact to nearby residents is anticipated compared with Option 2 · Closer to LRCP than Option 2 but no encroachment	· Watermains laying works at Chui Chuk Street will no longer be required
Cavern Option 4 – hillside north of Lion Rock Park	Same as Cavern Option 2	· Greatest distance from nearby residential areas amongst all the four options · Closer to LRCP than Option 2 but no encroachment	· Potential impact to the structural integrity of MTRC Shatin-Central Link (SCL) Tunnel due to proximity · Poor ground condition as revealed by results from ground investigation

2.5.5 Cavern Option 1 is located at the hillsides north of Chuk Yuen North Estate, as shown in Figure 2.1, where is considered to be suitable for the relocation of the DHSRs with the following favourable conditions:

· The site is in close proximity to the existing DHSRs, which allows the relocated DHSRs to be housed and positioned at similar level as the invert levels of the existing DHFWSR and DHSWSR.

· The geology of the proposed relocation site, belonging to hard granite with no obvious weak zones and faults, is most suitable for construction of large caverns.

· The whole area belongs to government land.

2.5.6 The proposed cavern location under Cavern Option 1 lies between the Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond Hill & San Po Kong Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K11/29 and the Wang Tau Hom and Tung Tau Outline Zoning No. S/K8/23. The proposed caverns for accommodation of relocated DHSRs mainly falls within the Green Belt (GB) zone. During the public engagement (PE) in FS and the subsequent WTSDC consultations in 2018, residents of Chuk Yuen North Estate and relevant WTSDC member expressed their great concern on the blasting impact on their private slopes due to its close proximity from the proposed caverns.

2.5.7 Under Cavern Option 2, the cavern location is shifted to the hillside north of Ma Chai Hang FWSR to address the public concerns on the blasting impact due to close proximity from the proposed cavern location as well as minimise the potential impact arising from the construction works (with the latter re-iterated by relevant WTSDC member in the WTSDC meeting on 2 July 2019). For this cavern option, the relocated DHSRs could be housed at levels similar to the existing DHSRs but further away from the existing DHSRs compared to Cavern Option 1. Also, the relocation site is suitable for construction of large caverns and falls within government land, similar to Cavern Option 1. PE was conducted from February to May 2020 to collect public view and comments on the proposed relocation site/cavern location under this cavern option. During the PE, the relevant WTSDC members and local public requested to further revise the cavern location in order to maximise the distance between the proposed caverns and nearby housing estates.

2.5.8 Cavern Option 3 further refined the cavern location by shifting it westwards, as shown in Figure 2.1, to further address the comments received from the WTSDC members and locals. The relocated DHSRs, under this cavern option, could be housed at levels similar to the existing DHSRs but further away from the existing DHSRs compared to Cavern Option 1. Also, the relocation site is suitable for construction of large caverns and falls within government land, similar to Cavern Options 1 and 2. In order to increase the distance between the proposed caverns and nearby housing estates, the proposed cavern under this option will inevitably be closer to the LRCP comparing to Options 1 and 2. Nevertheless, the proposed caverns, access tunnel and any associated works (including slope works, ancillary buildings and watermains laying works) will not encroach onto the LRCP. By maximizing the distance from residents in Wong Tai Sin District (without encroaching into area with poor ground conditions as the case of Cavern Option 4), the vibration impact to the adjacent slopes due to blasting can therefore be minimised. Also, the potential environmental impact, including noise and dust impact to the nearby residents, are expected to be the least among the three cavern options, due to the largest clearance from these sensitive receivers. This cavern option also addresses stakeholders’ concern on the construction works along Chui Chuk Street, as watermains laying works at Chui Chuk Street will no longer be required and the associated potential traffic impact could be eliminated. With less impact to the nearby residents in the Wong Tai Sin District, this cavern option appears to be more acceptable to the public.

2.5.9 Cavern Option 4 was considered to shift the cavern further westwards to fully address the concerns of WTSDC members and locals on the potential blasting effect and environmental impacts during construction. The proposed cavern would be located at hillside north of Lion Rock Park. The distance from nearby residential area is the greatest among the four options. The relocation site under this cavern option is the farthest from the existing DHSRs among the four cavern options although the relocated DHSRs could still be housed at similar level to the existing DHSRs. However, as shown in Figure 2.1, the cavern is located in proximity to the MTRC Shatin-Central Link (SCL) tunnel, with a vertical separation of 60m. Although the cavern is located outside the railway protection zone, excavation by blasting is not preferred given the close proximity. There may be potential impact to the structural integrity of the SCL tunnel. Besides, ground investigation works has been carried out at this location. Ground investigation results show that the underground condition is poor, which is not suitable for cavern development. The relocation site under this cavern option falls within government land, similar to Options 1 to 3.

2.5.10 Based on Table 2.1 and the discussion mentioned above, Cavern Option 3 is the preferred relocation site for the DHSRs.

2.6 Proposed Location of Access Tunnel and Tunnel Portal

2.6.1 A total of nine (9) access tunnel options for the relocation of the DHSRs have been considered and evaluated since the FS of the Project, including:

· Tunnel Option 1 – tunnel portal located at Shatin Pass Road near Fat Jong Temple;

· Tunnel Option 2 – tunnel portal located at Shatin Pass Road near Ying Fuk Court;

· Tunnel Option 3 – tunnel portal located at Wing Chuk Street;

· Tunnel Option 4 – tunnel portal located at Junction between Wing Chuk Street and Chui Chuk Street;

· Tunnel Option 5 – tunnel portal located at Chui Chuk Street;

· Tunnel Option 6a & 6b – tunnel portal located at Ma Chai Hang Fresh Water Service Reservoir;

· Tunnel Option 7 – tunnel portal located near the entrance of Lion Rock Park; and

· Tunnel Option 8 – tunnel portal located adjacent to the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery Landscape Section.

2.6.2 The layouts of these proposed tunnel options are shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3.

2.6.3 A comparison of the proposed tunnel options is summarised in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Proposed Tunnel Options

Tunnel Options	EVA ^{(Notes 1 & 2)}	Land Matters	Environmental Considerations	Other Considerations
Tunnel Option 1 – Shatin Pass Road near Fat Jong Temple	Not recommended due to constraint in Shatin Pass Road (i.e. gradient 1:5)	Inside Government land	· Comparatively lesser air / noise sensitive receivers surrounding the proposed tunnel portal, but will affect woodland and stream habitat · Relatively short tunnel length among other options which will produce lesser excavated material for disposal, dust and noise impact. · Low visual and landscape impact generated from construction of tunnel portal	· Close to existing water main network to Fung Wong Fresh and Salt Water Service Reservoir · Could be used as utility gallery for water mains to Fung Wong Fresh and Salt Water Service Reservoir, also serve as emergency exit
Tunnel Option 2 – Shatin Pass Road near Ying Fuk Court	Not recommended due to inside private slope	Inside private slope	· Locating on existing slope and opposite to Wong Tai Sin Hospital mainly which is locating away from residential areas · Potential noise and dust impact, longer tunnel length among Options 1-5, 6a & 6b leading to more excavated materials requiring handling and disposal · Relatively low visual and landscape impact generated from construction of tunnel portal which is locating on existing slope	· Close to Chuk Yuen North Estate, CLP’s pylons
Tunnel Option 3 – Wing Chuk Street	Not recommended due to inside private slope	Inside private slope	· Locating on existing slope and opposite to Chuk Yuen North Estate · Potential noise and dust impacts, generated excavated materials will be similar for Options 3-5, 6a & 6b · Relatively low visual and landscape impact generated from construction of tunnel portal which is locating on existing slope	· Close to Chuk Yuen North Estate
Tunnel Option 4 – Junction between Wing Chuk Street & Chui Chuk Street	Not recommended due to inside private slope	Inside private slope	· Locating on existing slope and opposite to Pang Ching Court · Potential noise and dust impacts, generated excavated materials will be similar for Options 3-5, 6a & 6b · Relatively low visual and landscape impact generated from construction of tunnel portal which is locating on existing slope	· Close to Chuk Yuen North Estate and Pang Ching Court
Tunnel Option 5 – Chui Chuk Street	Feasible, significant traffic impact anticipated during construction stage	Inside Government land	· Locating on existing slope and opposite to Pang Ching Court · Potential noise and dust impact, generated excavated materials will be similar for Options 3-5, 6a & 6b · Relatively low visual and landscape impact generated from construction of tunnel portal which is locating on existing slope	· Close to Chuk Yuen North Estate and Pang Ching Court · Impact on Chui Chuk Street which is the sole access road for Tsui Chuk Garden · There is constraint on laying water mains in Chui Chuk Street due to existing UUs · Could be considered as EVA / watermains laying to existing network
Tunnel Option 6a & 6b – Ma Chai Hang Fresh Water Service Reservoir	Feasible, further liaison with FSD is required to upgrade the existing access road	Inside Government land	· Potential generate larger noise and dust impacts to Tsui Chuk Garden due to close proximity of the work site, direct loss of woodland habitat (Option 6a) for construction of booster pumping station and widening of the existing access road · Relatively short tunnel length which produce lesser excavated material for disposal · Visual and landscape impact generated from construction of tunnel portal owing to the close proximity to nearby housing estates (e.g. Tsui Chuk Garden which is located to the south of the tunnel portal).	· Far away from existing water main network, not suitable for laying water mains · Booster pump is required · The existing substandard access road will need to be widened for use by emergency vehicles, and the slopes along the access road need to be upgraded. · Larger blasting impact to adjacent areas · WTSDC member and the residents of Tsui Chuk Garden raised their great concern on the tunnel portal location · Local public had great concern about temporarily closure of the access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR during the construction
Tunnel Option 7 – Near the entrance of Lion Rock Park	Separate EVA not required as passage length not exceeding 750m	Inside Government land	· Relatively longer tunnel length which produce larger quantity of excavated material for disposal · Potential dust and noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receivers are expected to be longer due to longer construction programme when compare to Tunnel Options 6a & 6b · Direct loss of woodland habitats due to construction · Potential impact on existing flora species of conservation importance · Relatively low visual and landscape impact generated from construction of tunnel portal	· No additional pumping station and widening of existing access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR would be required · Relatively low blasting impact to adjacent areas · Relatively less public concern
Tunnel Option 8 - Adjacent to the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery Landscape Section	Separate EVA not required as passage length not exceeding 750m	Inside Government land	· Direct loss of existing plantation habitats on slope · Relatively longer tunnel length which produce larger quantity of excavated material for disposal · Potential dust and noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receivers are expected longer due to longer construction programme when compare to Tunnel Options 6a & 6b · Relatively low visual and landscape impact generated from construction of tunnel portal	· No additional pumping station and widening of existing access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR would be required · Relatively low blasting impact to adjacent areas · Potential effect to the hikers to the LRCP
Notes: 1. According to the “Guide to Fire Safety Design for Cavern” published by Building Department, an emergency vehicular access (EVA) to caverns shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes, except if the safe passage would not exceed 750m. 2. The gradient of the EVA should not be greater than 1:10 and it should allow for safe operation of a vehicle with gross weight of 30 tons according to the Code of Practice for the Provision of Means of Access for Firefighting and Rescue Purposes (MoA).

Tunnel Options 1- 6

2.6.4 As shown in Table 2.2, Tunnel Option 2, 3 and 4 are considered not suitable due to land issue. Tunnel Option 1 is also not suitable for EVA owing to the steep gradient of the existing Shatin Pass Road and the limitation on the gross weight of vehicles.

2.6.5 Tunnel Options 1 and 5 could be considered suitable to be used as the utility gallery for the proposed water mains connecting to the existing network.

2.6.6 Tunnel Options 5 and 6a & 6b are suitable for EVA. However, the tunnel portal of Tunnel Option 5 would be located in Chui Chuk Street, which may have potential traffic impacts and may attract significant potential objection from the local residents, i.e. Tsui Chuk Garden and Pang Ching Court. Likewise, Tunnel Option 6a & 6b may also attract objection from residents of Tsui Chuk Garden. In addition, the existing access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR will need to be widened for use by emergency vehicles. Based on preliminary evaluations, Tunnel Option 6a & 6b is considered as the more preferred option for EVA to the cavern with Option 5 as a possible alternative.

2.6.7 Temporary closure of the access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR will be required during the widening works of the access road. There have been voices from the relevant WTSDC member that this access road should be maintained during construction, as it is frequently used by the locals for access to Lion Rock Park and hiking. It is envisaged that local public would have a strong view if this access road would be temporarily closed during construction. In addition, the temporary road closure may also affect the use of this access road for normal operation of Ma Chai Hang FWSR. Moreover, temporary closure of the existing staircase accessing to Maclehose Trail will be required for the slope upgrading works under this tunnel option.

2.6.8 The PE for collecting the comments and opinions from the public and stakeholders on the preliminary design of the relocated DHSRs was conducted in 2016. Some nearby residents and stakeholders expressed objection to the proposed access tunnel at Chui Chuk Street since the construction vehicles would aggravate the traffic condition at Chui Chuk Street, Wing Chuk Street and Chuk Yuen Road. They also concerned about the potential environmental impacts, such as noise and dust emission, arising from the caverns and tunnel construction works since the proposed relocation site and tunnel portal are close to the nearby housing estates. In response to strong public objection to the proposed access tunnel at Chui Chuk Street, it was confirmed that Tunnel Option 5 would not be pursued further. WSD then carried out the consultation in Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC) on 9 Jan 2018 and 6 Mar 2018 to present the findings of FS and the preliminary design of proposed caverns and tunnels, with tunnel portal at Ma Chai Hang FWSR (i.e. Tunnel Option 6a). The relevant WTSDC members and other stakeholders raised their great concerns on the construction nuisances, blasting risks and vibration effects due to tunnel excavation as well as the visual impact from the proposed portal during operation phase since the tunnel portal would be very close to the nearby housing estates (e.g. the clearance between the tunnel portal and Block 9, Tsui Chuk Garden is about 70m). WTSDC and the local community requested to review the alternative access tunnel option including the option of tunnel portal near the Lion Rock Park.

2.6.9 In the WTSDC on 2 July 2019, the WTSDC members reiterated their objection to the tunnel portal location next to Ma Chai Hang FWSR under Tunnel Option 6b.

Tunnel Option 7

2.6.10 Under this option, the tunnel portal would be located near the entrance of Lion Rock Park. The ground level of the proposed tunnel portal is about +92 mPD. The length of the access tunnel is about 720 m. The general layout for this access tunnel option is shown in Figure 2.3.

2.6.11 There is no additional booster pumping station required under this Option since the ground level of the proposed tunnel portal is lower than invert level of Lion Rock H/L Primary Service Reservoir (i.e. 103.632 mPD).

2.6.12 The proposed access tunnel will not be connected to the existing access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR. Widening of the existing access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR will therefore not be required under this option.

2.6.13 As the construction of additional booster pumping station and widening of the existing access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR would not be required, no fixed noise will be generated from booster pumping station during operation. However, the tunnel length of this option will be much longer than Tunnel Option 6a & 6b, it will require longer construction period and larger extent of drill and blast during construction. Generation of site runoff, noise and dust would be anticipated and the impact duration will be much longer than Tunnel Option 6a & 6b. However, considering the location of the tunnel portal, it is much further away from the nearby residential area (i.e. Chui Chuk Garden), significant noise and dust impacts during the construction of tunnel portal to the residents nearby would be less, comparing to Tunnel Option 6a & 6b.

2.6.14 Based on the findings of the advance ecological survey conducted, there are an Incense Tree and a Hong Kong Pavetta, which are species of conservation importance, identified within the site area of tunnel portal under Tunnel Option 7. The site layout of tunnel portal under this tunnel option should thus be critically reviewed to ensure the existing flora species of conservation importance would be retained.

2.6.15 It is identified that only Tin Ma Court would likely suffer from the potential visual impact arising from the construction of tunnel portal. However, the existing nearby trees and vegetation could shield the tunnel portal from the view of lower levels of the buildings of Tin Ma Court. It is anticipated that the potential visual impact would be further reduced after implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures.

2.6.16 The existing staircase near the Ma Chai Hang Booster Pumping Station to access Maclehose Trail in LRCP would be affected by the construction of tunnel portal and ancillary facilities. Temporary closure and diversion of this existing staircase would be required during the construction, similar to Tunnel Option 6a & 6b. Potential effect to the hikers to the LRCP during construction is thus anticipated.

Tunnel Option 8

2.6.17 Under this option, the tunnel portal would be located at slope feature no. 11/NW-B/F66 adjacent to the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery Landscape Section. The proposed ground level of the tunnel portal is about +78 mPD. The length of the access tunnel is about 750 m. The general layout for this access tunnel option is shown in Figure 2.3.

2.6.18 Similar to Tunnel Option 7, no additional booster pumping station would be required under this tunnel option since the ground level of the proposed tunnel portal is lower than the invert level of Lion Rock H/L Primary Service Reservoir, and widening of the existing access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR will not be required as the proposed access tunnel will not be connected to the existing access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR. Unlike Option 7, this Tunnel Option can avoid the potential impact to existing floral species of conservation importance (mentioned in para. 2.6.14). As no booster pumping station is required, it is considered that there would be no fixed noise generated during operation. However, the tunnel length will be much longer than Tunnel Option 6a & 6b, it will require longer construction period and larger extent of drill and blast during construction. Generation of site runoff, noise and dust would be anticipated and the impact duration will be much longer than Tunnel Option 6a & 6b. However, considering the location of the tunnel portal, it is much further away from the nearby residential area (i.e. Chui Chuk Garden), significant noise and dust impacts during the construction of tunnel portal to the residents nearby would be less, comparing to Tunnel Option 6a & 6b and Tunnel Option 7.

2.6.19 It is identified that only Tin Ma Court would likely suffer from the potential visual impact arising from the construction of tunnel portal. However, the existing nearby trees and vegetation could shield the tunnel portal from the view of lower levels of the buildings of Tin Ma Court. It was anticipated that the potential visual impact would be further reduced after implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures.

2.7 Proposed Layout for the Project

2.7.1 Based on the discussion and comparison mentioned above, the relocation site as presented in Section 2.5.8 (i.e. Cavern Option 3) and the tunnel portal adjacent to the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursey Landscape Section (i.e. Tunnel Option 8) are most preferred, as the distance of the cavern and tunnel portal from nearby residential area is the greatest among the options, thus, less environmental impact is anticipated and they are considered to be more acceptable to the public.

2.7.2 According to the proposed layout, the access tunnel with the safe passage can be reduced to less than 750m in length. The emergency exit tunnel is not required as the safe passage would not exceed 750m in accordance with Guide to Fire Safety Design for Caverns 1994. The potential environmental impact to Tsz Wan Shan portal area (of emergency exit) and generation of Construction & Demolition (C&D) material can be greatly minimised as the construction of a tunnel portal of the emergency exit near Shatin Pass Road is no longer required. The location plan of the preferred options for cavern and tunnel is shown in Figure 2.4 and the EIA has been conducted based on these preferred options.

2.8 Consideration of Construction Methodologies

Construction of Cavern

2.8.1 There are a number of rock excavation methods that can be used to construct the cavern. These include drill and break, drill and blast, tunnel boring machine (TBM), and use of chemical expansion agent.

Drill and break

2.8.2 This method (also referred as mechanical excavation) uses rock drills to drill holes and hydraulic breakers/splitters to break/split the rock into manageable sizes. This method is suitable for excavation close to the facilities that are sensitive to vibration, e.g. water and gas mains, railway track, communication cables, etc. However, production rate is slower and significantly increases the construction duration. The use of several hydraulic breakers can speed up the construction works but would result in higher construction noise. Therefore, it is proposed to adopt the drill and break method for the excavation of the tunnel section which will be close to these properties to avoid adverse impact on surroundings. Wet control system is recommended for dust suppression. In general, wet drilling system will pump water through the drill stem to prevent dust from released into the air during rock drilling. Dust collection system will be provided to collect, filter and discharge the purified air back to atmosphere from the ventilation shaft at the tunnel portal.

Drill and blast

2.8.3 This method uses explosives to break rock for excavation. It is commonly used in a number of tunnelling projects in Hong Kong. Although this method generates relatively large amount of dust and high noise level, the construction works can be completed within a shorter period of time. Hence, the duration of impact is relatively shorter. In addition, control measures can be implemented at the tunnel portal such as enclosure, dust filtering systems to mitigate the impacts to acceptable levels of Air Quality Objective (AQO) under the air quality standard for Total Suspended Particles (TSP) specified in the EIAO-TM.

Cut and Cover

2.8.4 Cut and Cover excavation is adopted normally for shallow excavation and the initial tunnel section where the rock cover is insufficient for drill and break/blast construction. Pipe piles with grouting will be adopted for the temporary retaining wall for retaining the soil outside the excavation and lateral support (ELS) system. A few layers of strut and shoring will be adopted to control the wall deflection and the adjacent ground settlement. The construction duration will be relatively short (few months) as only a short tunnel section (~40m) will be involved when comparing with tunnel/cavern constructions. Dust will be generated during soil excavation and can be effectively controlled by dust mitigation measures and good site practices. Noise will be generated during the pipe pile installation into the rock layer and rock excavation, which can be controlled by installation of noise barrier adjacent to the ELS system or decking on the ground level.

TBM

2.8.5 This method is adopted normally for small to medium size tunnel and uses boring machine to drill into the rock strata. While it is suitable for the tunnel portion, the cavern site for the DHSRs would still need to be further widen/enlarge by breaking or other means. Although this method generates lesser amount of dust and noise, it requires more open space for the launching site and for retrieving the cutter head. Due to the limited works space in tunnel portal and its high capital cost, it is not recommended to use TBM excavation for this Project.

Use of chemical expansion agent

2.8.6 This method makes use of the expansion force of the injected chemical slurry with very high expansive capability. It is quiet, generates no vibration and dust. This method is suitable for small excavation very close to the facilities that are sensitive to vibration, e.g. water and gas mains, railway track, communication cables, etc.

2.8.7 However, production rate of chemical expansion agent is very slow, which is less than 80 m³/day. Compared with the estimated excavation rate of 3 m/day using drill-and-blast, the use of chemical expansion agent can only achieve an excavation rate of less than 0.5 m/day. The time for excavation will hence be extended for 10 years, which significantly increases the construction duration and hence implies extended periods of environmental impacts associated with the construction.

2.8.8 The consideration of the preferred construction method is shown in Table 2.3 below.

Rock Crushing Plant

2.8.9 In accordance with Para. 5. of WBTC No. 11/2002, the project proponent should advise the Secretary of the Public Fill Committee (PFC) and seek approval in principle from the Director of Civil Engineering (DCE) at the planning stage of a project that includes the establishment of a site crusher. Approval from EPD is also required for installation and operation of a site crusher in respect of the environmental requirements.

2.8.10 For the rock crushing plant, the daily capacity will be about 15% of the daily production inert rate. The purpose of the rock crushing plant is to break down small portions of unexpected large pieces of rocks after blasting. Breakers can be used instead of rock crushing plant. The provision of rock crushing plant is to cater for worse-case scenario for air quality impact assessment. The estimated maximum rock crushing rate is about 93 tonnes per day. Thus, it is not considered as Designated Project under the Item G.5, Part I of the Schedule 2 of the EIAO “A facility for the treatment of construction waste” which requires an environmental permit from EPD for its construction and operation.

Table 2.3 Consideration of Construction Methods for Tunnels and Caverns

Construction Methods Options for Tunnels and Caverns	Engineering Consideration	Environmental Consideration	Construction Duration	Other Considerations	Recommendation
Drill and break (for tunnel)	· Commonly adopted in tunneling project	· Noise and dust impacts during open excavation but controllable when inside cavern	Slower production and longer construction duration	-	Recommended
Drill and blast (for tunnel and caverns construction)	· Commonly adopted in tunneling project	· Noise and dust impacts during open excavation but controllable when inside cavern	Moderate production and construction duration	· Potential hazard from the delivery, storage and handling of explosives · Requires permit for use of explosives	Recommended
Cut and Cover (initial short section connecting to the portal)	· Suitable for the tunnel section where the rock cover is less than half of tunnel span	· Noise and dust impacts but controllable when noise barrier, dust screen and water spraying are implemented	Shorter construction duration	· Require TTA and the ELS is needed to be erected in stages (bay by bay) for the Lion Rock Road section.	Recommended
TBM (including similar methods such as horizontal directional drilling and raised boring machine)	· Suitable for small to medium size tunnel · Requires larger launching area for TBM and to retrieve cutter head · Not suitable for abrupt bend	· Less noise and dust impact	Shorter construction duration	· Limited works space in tunnel portal · High capital cost	Not recommended
Use of chemical expansion agent	· Quiet	· No noise and dust impact	Very slow production and very long construction duration	· Drilling is still required · Not suitable for fractured and weak rock mass	Not recommended

2.9 Tackling Environmental Challenges and Options Considered

2.9.1 Due consideration has been giving in formulating the relocated DHSRs, associated pumping stations and watermains laying works to overcome environmental challenges facing by the Project. The hierarchy of “Avoid, Minimise and Mitigate” has been fully adopted during the process to protect the environment as much as practicable. The key principles adopted to tackle all the environmental challenges are discussed below.

Avoidance of the Encroachment of Lion Rock Country Park

2.9.2 The location of the cavern, the alignment of the access tunnel and all above-ground works has been carefully planned to avoid encroachment into the LRCP.

Avoidance of the Encroachment of Watercourses

2.9.3 Two semi-natural water courses located near Ma Chai Hang FWSR and behind Fat Jong Temple are the proposed location of vehicular access portal under Tunnel Option 6a and the emergency exit portal under original cavern location, respectively. In order to avoid the encroachment of the semi-natural watercourses, the current design of the preferred option has adopted the following approaches:

· To accommodate the relocated DHSRs and DHPS closer to the vehicle access portal and includes a “Mean of Escape” (MOE) separated from the driveway side in the proposed access tunnel, thus, the construction of another emergency exit tunnel and portal of the cavern at Shatin Pass Road could be eliminated; and

· to consider the alternative access tunnel with tunnel portal located adjacent to the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery Landscape Section rather than near Ma Chai Hang FWSR.

2.9.4 By adopting the above approaches, the encroachment of semi-natural watercourses during the construction and operation phases could be totally avoided.

Avoidance of the Encroachment of Woodland

2.9.5 Under Tunnel Option 1, an emergency exit portal is proposed adjacent to Fat Jong Temple near Shatin Pass Road connecting a disused service road. Apart from the loss of stream habitat and developed area, the works will also result in loss of 0.082 ha of woodland, while the ecological value of woodland is considered as moderate to high. With the elimination of emergency exit portal as discussed in Section 2.9.3, the encroachment of woodland could be totally avoided.

2.9.6 In Tunnel Option 7, the location of vehicular access portal could encroach the woodland, which result in loss of approximately 0.026 ha of woodland. In order to prevent the loss of woodland, the location of vehicular access portal is further adjusted to move further away from the woodland in the preferred tunnel options (under Tunnel Option 8).

2.9.7 Under the original design in FS, a ventilation shaft will be constructed to provide ventilation during man-entry to the cavern. The ventilation shaft is proposed to be constructed next to the proposed caverns, which results in loss of approximately 0.002 ha of woodland. In order to avoid the loss of woodland, the need for the ventilation shaft has been further reviewed in the Investigation Stage of the Project. At present, a ventilation system with inlet/exhaust locating within the tunnel portal areas is proposed instead of construction of the ventilation shaft.

Avoidance of the Direct Impacts on Species of Conservation Interest

2.9.8 An incense tree Aquilaria sinensis is recorded in the vicinity of the proposed tunnel portal at the adjacent to the Lion Rock Park (under Tunnel Option 7). Aquilaria sinensis has been listed under Chapter 586 Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance, “Near Threatened” Species of Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong published by Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), and recorded in China Plant Red Data Book. In order to avoid the removal and transplantation of Aquilaria sinensis, the proposed location of tunnel portal and the ancillary facilities is further adjusted to move further away from the incense tree in the preferred tunnel option (under Tunnel Option 8). Therefore, the direct and indirect impacts due to the construction of the tunnel portal and ancillary facilities near the portal could be avoided.

2.9.9 The watercourses near Ma Chai Hang FWSR and behind Fat Jong Temple supports a low floristic diversity with 32 floral species recorded. Herpetofauna species of conservation interest recorded includes Lesser Spiny Frog; and butterfly species of conservation interest recorded include Common Archduke in this habitat.

2.9.10 With the elimination of emergency exit portal at Shatin Pass Road under preferred cavern location and the proposed alternative locations of tunnel portal, the impact on Species of Conservation Interests could also be avoided.

Minimisation of Construction Dust and Noise Impacts to Local Residents

2.9.11 In Tunnel Option 6a & 6b, the vehicular access portal was proposed to construct near Tsui Chuk Garden and thus the improvement of the access road at the western side of Tsui Chuk Garden is required to provide the access to the portal.

2.9.12 In order to minimise the disturbance to the local residents in the vicinity of proposed access portal, the proposed tunnel portal is relocated to the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery Landscape Section (under Tunnel Option 8). In addition, due to the change of layout and design, the improvement of access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR and the watermains laying works at Chui Chuk Street are not required, therefore, the noise impacts arising from the construction and operation of access road to Ma Chai Hang FWSR and the watermains laying works at Chui Chuk Street to the local residents could be minimised. On the other hand, the construction dust impact arising from the construction of access road and watermains laying works could also be minimised.

Minimisation of the Excavation Volume of C&D Materials

2.9.13 In order to minimise the excavation volume of granitic rocks for the construction of vehicle access tunnel while meeting the requirements for pipes, ventilation, fire engineering and traffic, the current design of the access tunnel has adopted the following approaches in the preferred option,

· to integrate the MOE inside the access tunnel (i.e. emergency exit tunnel can be eliminated); and

· to shorten the length of the access tunnel by 250 metre, where the length of tunnel is about 1,000m under original caverns location and about 750m under preferred cavern location.

2.9.14 By adopting the above approaches, it is estimated that the excavation volume of C&D material due to the construction of vehicle access tunnel is reduced by 25% at the most.

2.9.15 Apart from integrating the MOE inside the access tunnel, it is also proposed to utilise the space of roof arch of access tunnel to accommodate the ventilation ducts in order to minimise the excavation volume of access tunnel.

2.9.16 In addition, it is proposed to adopt drained cavern and tunnel lining so as to reduce the thickness of the structural lining. As a result, the excavation volume of cavern and tunnel can also be reduced by adopting this lining design.

Minimisation of Visual Impact

2.9.17 The proposed ground level of the tunnel portal near the entrance of Lion Rock Park (Tunnel Option 7) is about +92mPD; the slope adjacent to the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery Landscape Section (Tunnel Option 8) is about +70 mPD; and the tunnel portal next to the Ma Chai Hang FWSR (Tunnel Option 6b) is about +122 mPD. In consideration to the improvement works of assess road to tunnel portal is required in Tunnel Option 6b, which could also cause the visual impact and disturbance to the nearby sensitive receivers in the vicinity, thus, this option is not considered. In order to minimise the visual impact due to the construction and operation of tunnel portal, the slope adjacent to the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery Landscape Section (Tunnel Option 8) is selected as the proposed ground level of the tunnel portal in Tunnel Option 8 is lower than Tunnel Option 6b, and the nearby trees and vegetation could shield the tunnel portal.

2.9.18 Under the original design in FS, it was proposed to construct ventilation shaft, which would be about 2m tall above-ground structure and might induce potential visual impact. As mentioned in Section 2.9.7, a ventilation system with inlet/exhaust locating within the tunnel portal areas is proposed instead of construction of the ventilation shaft. The potential visual impact due to the construction of ventilation shaft can be eliminated.

Provision of Landscape Area/Compensatory Planting

2.9.19 Upon completion of the Project, compensatory planting and greening works would be provided to compensate the loss of vegetation during the construction of portal and other ancillary facilities or main-laying works, if any.

2.10 Environmental Initiatives

2.10.1 Environmental considerations have been the key factors in the planning and design stage of the Project. The environmental impacts as well as benefits are both identified and critically considered. The Project offers potential environmental initiatives both to conserve existing environmental resources and, where opportunities exist, to enhance and upgrade the environment on various fronts. The environmental initiatives that the Project offers are summarised below:

· Preservation of watercourse, woodland and other ecological resources and sensitive area;

· Reuse of granitic rocks (i.e. other projects or public fill reception facility) from access tunnel excavation;

· Minimise the footprint of the relocated DHSRs; and

· Providing reliable water supply system in Upper Wong Tai Sin district (Fresh Water) and in Central Kowloon (Salt Water).

2.11 Collating and Addressing Public Views

2.11.1 In order to solicit comments and opinions from the public and stakeholders on the proposed relocation of DHSRs to caverns, two stages of PE were carried out as an integral part of the feasibility study. The Stage 1 PE was carried out from October 2015 to January 2016 and consists of questionnaires, newsletter, roving exhibitions and meetings with local community group and resident representatives. Pre-lobbying meetings with Wong Tai Sin District Councillors were conducted prior to the Stage 1 PE. A website was developed to provide public with more information on the Project (http://www.dhsrstocaverns.hk/).

2.11.2 The main environmental related concern received during the Stage 1 PE was on the potential environmental impacts, such as noise and dust emission, arising from the construction works.

2.11.3 The Stage 2 PE was carried out from November 2016 to December 2016, which included roving exhibition and a public forum (held on 23 December 2016).

2.11.4 During the PE activities, some residents and stakeholders raised concerns on the potential environmental impacts, such as noise, dust emission, etc., arising from the cavern construction works since the proposed relocation site is closed to the nearby housing estates. Some residents and stakeholders requested to provide sufficient mitigation measures to minimise the potential environmental impacts during construction.

2.11.5 In response to the concerns and requests of the WTSDC and the local community, a review on the alternative options of the vehicular access tunnel portal location including the locations near the Lion Rock Park and the Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery which were not studied under the FS, are carried out in the investigation stage. After completion of the review which includes assessing the technical feasibility of the alternative tunnel portal options, as well as comparison of options for a recommended option on the proposed relocation site, the final scheme of the preferred option and latest design has incorporated the comments from the public and stakeholders, as far as possible.

2.11.6 During the Investigation Stage of Project, the Stage 3 PE was conducted from February to May 2020, which included meetings with nearby resident representatives, pre-lobbying meetings with the relevant WTSDC members and two community liaison group meetings.

2.11.7 The final scheme of the recommended relocation option has been presented in the Stage 3 PE activities and WTSDC meeting on 12 May 2020.

2.11.8 A consultation meeting with green groups was conducted on 22 June 2020 to present the proposed works under this Project including selection of cavern and tunnel site options and the latest layout covering the proposed cavern, tunnel portal, ancillary building and mains laying works, and the outcomes of environmental impact assessments, with a view to clearing their concerns on the Project. The consideration of the selection of tunnel portal locations, the design of the cavern and the potential environmental issues (i.e. any aboveground ventilation facilities, mitigation measures on groundwater infiltration, generation of the C&D materials, etc.) arising from the Project have also been discussed in the meeting. Views collected are being consolidated and would be considered in the detailed design where appropriate.

2.11.9 The public view collected from PE activities is summarised in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Summary of Public Views

Stakeholders	Major Concern	Responses
FS Stage
Residents of Housing Estates nearby	Potential environment impact during construction, such as dust and noise	· Generally, dust suppression measures, including watering once per hour, will be incorporated in accordance with the requirements of the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation in the construction site. (See Section 3.8.1) · For the construction of cavern and tunnel, blast nets / canvas covers will be installed inside the tunnel and portal door will also be installed and closed before and during blasting (See Section 3.8.6). A dust filter will also be installed at the ventilation shaft of the tunnel portal to filter all emissions emitted inside cavern. (See Table 3.11) · To mitigate the noise impact from the construction of tunnel & cavern, noise enclosure lined with absorptive materials shall be provided at the tunnel portal. The acoustic doors shall remain closed throughout the construction period. (See Section 4.8.3) · With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, adverse dust and noise impact are not anticipated. (See Sections 3.8. & 4.8)
WTSDC Members	Tunnel portal at Ma Chai Hang Fresh Water Service Reservoir is located in close proximity to nearby housing estates	· Alternative tunnel portal locations (Options 7-8) are reviewed in investigation stage. (See Table 2.2) · Tunnel portal next to Lion Rock Park Transit Nursery is recommended (Tunnel Option 8) to minimise impact of construction. (See Section 2.7)
Investigation Stage
Residents of nearby Housing Estates and DC Members	Cavern is located near nearby housing estates	· Cavern locations (Options 2-4) reviewed in investigation stage. (See Table 2.1) · Cavern located hillside north to Ma Chai Hang Fresh Water Service Reservoir (Cavern Option 3) is recommended to maximise clearance from nearby housing estate. (See Section 2.7)
Green Group	· Cavern and tunnel excavation may result in groundwater infiltration, which will cause the potential groundwater table drawdown. · The construction of cavern and tunnel will generate large quantity of the C&D materials. · Aboveground ventilation facilities may impose environmental impacts such as air quality and visual impacts.	· Groundwater control measures will be implemented during the construction of cavern and tunnel. The mitigation measures include: undertake rigorous probing of the ground ahead of excavation works to identify zones of significant water inflow. Pre-grouting will be applied to reduce the water inflow, waterproof lining will be installed after formation of the tunnels and cavern, etc. (Section 5.8) · C&D materials will be reuse on site as far as practical, Rest of the inert C&D materials will be disposed of at TKO Area 137 Fill Bank for reuse in other construction projects. (Section 6.5) · Aboveground ventilation facilities are not required under the latest design of cavern and tunnel to avoid any adverse impacts to the environment. (Sections 2.9.7 & 2.9.18)

2.12 Project Programme

2.12.1 Construction of the Project is tentatively scheduled to commence in mid of 2022 for completion by 2027. The tentative programme for proposed fresh water and salt water mains will commence in end of 2022 and complete in Q3 of 2026. The tentative of completion date of the construction of relocated DHSRs is in Q3 of 2026. Tentative programme for commissioning of the relocated DHSRs and terminating the operation of the existing DHSRs will be undertaken in Q4 of 2026. The remaining associated works e.g. landscaping/slope works and reinstatement for access tunnel portal will be undertaken in 2027. The tentative construction programme is shown in Appendix 2A.

2.13 Project Interface

2.13.1 The Project would have potential interface with the following project as shown in Table 2.5, while the location of the concurrent project is shown in Figure 2.5. Close liaison will be maintained with the respective project proponents/teams. Any interfacing issues and cumulative impacts from these concurrent projects during construction and operation phases have been identified and assessed.

Table 2.5 Potential Concurrent Project

Project Name	Target Work Commencement Date	Target Work Completion Date
CE 28/2017 (HY) - Pedestrian Link near Chuk Yuen North Estate – Design and Construction	Mid 2023	Mid 2029
CE 48/2018 (HY) - Improvement of Lion Rock Tunnel	Mid 2024	[1]
[1] Project details is not available for consideration at time of reporting.

2.14 Potential Environmental Impacts Arising from Construction and Operation of the Project

Health Impact on Radon

2.14.1 Although the assessment of health risk of radon (Rn) emissions from the construction and operation of the Project is not required in the EIA Study Brief as it is more related to occupational health and safety, the issue is also discussed here for completeness.

2.14.2 The existing DHSRs are located in the Wong Tai Sin district of Kowloon and are accessible from the Shatin Pass Road. The proposed relocated DHSRs is located on and underneath a south-facing hillslope at Lion Rock, which is north to Chui Chuk Street, Wing Chuk Street and Chuk Yuen Road, and west to Shatin Pass Road. Regionally, the medium-grained biotite granite of the early Cretaceous Kowloon Granite Pluton intruded the coarse ash crystal tuff of the early Cretaceous Mount Davis Formation. Northeast-trending and east-northeast-trending intrusions of fine-grained granite, and mafic to intermediate dykes were mapped in the vicinity of the Study Area.

2.14.3 Relocated DHSRs tunnel and cavern site are located within granite that contains uranium. As uranium in the granite decays radioactively, gaseous Rn (and its associated ionizing radiation “daughter products”) will be continuously formed and released in the caverns.

2.14.4 The use of granite in concrete walls and floors and other construction materials in the relocated DHSRs facilities may also contribute to elevated indoor Rn levels. The release of Rn from appropriately cured or sealed concrete is however expected to be minimal in view of its lower porosity, which inhibits the diffusion of Rn. Also, the uranium content in concrete or other construction material is generally lower when compared with granite. Based on the above, the release of Rn from concrete and other construction materials is not considered a concern compared with unlined granite walls or ceilings. In all cases adequately designed ventilation and filtration systems can be utilised to control Rn to acceptable levels.

Indoor Air Quality Objectives for Office and Public Places

2.14.5 As given in Table 2.6, the Indoor Air Quality Objectives for Office and Public Places also recommended the Rn level for indoor air quality. The Rn level for “Excellent Class” offices and public spaces shall be below 150 Bq/m³, while that for “Good Class” shall be under 200 Bq/m³.

Table 2.6 Indoor Air Quality Objectives for Office and Public Places

Parameter	Unit	8-hour average
		Excellent Class	Good Class
Radon (Rn)	Bq/m³	< 150	< 200

ProPECC PN 1/99 Control of Radon Concentration in New Buildings

2.14.6 A PN for Professional Persons was issued by the EPD to provide guidance for the control and mitigation of indoor Rn level in new buildings. A number of measures to minimise potential impacts from accumulation of Rn in new buildings are outlined in the PN. These measures should be followed as far as possible during operation.

WHO Recommendation

2.14.7 WHO recommends that countries implement national programmes to reduce the population’s risk from exposure to the national average Rn concentration, as well as reducing the risk for individuals exposed to high Rn levels. Building codes should be implemented to reduce Rn levels in homes under construction. A national reference level of 100 Bq/m³ is recommended. However, if this level cannot be reached under the prevailing country-specific conditions, the reference level should not exceed 300 Bq/m³.

2.14.8 Adequate ventilation would be maintained at the relocated DHSRs to remove excessive Rn from inside the caverns. Sufficient air change would help to ensure the removal of Rn and reduce the health risk (associated with Rn) to the exposed personnel (mainly workers in the relocated DHSRs).

2.14.9 Since the risk posed to workers from Rn and Rn progeny exposure is not significant when a proper ventilation system is available to adequately dilute the Rn and Rn progeny concentration, the risk on off-site human receptors will also be insignificant. The Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (Cap 509) and the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap 59) provide the statutory authority for controlling the occupational health risks of Rn and Rn progeny exposure to workers. Relevant provisions of the said Ordinances and their subsidiary legislation especially the requirements on provision of ventilation at workplace shall be fully observed. Guidance Notes on Ventilation and Maintenance of Ventilation Systems, published by the Labour Department, should also be followed.

Cultural Heritage

2.14.10 There is no heritage site, i.e. declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic sites/buildings, sites of archaeological interest and Government historic sites identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), in the vicinity of the Project site. The nearest cultural resource identified is Wong Tai Sin Temple (Grade 1) which is about 180 m from the proposed watermains laying area of the Project area and about 560m away from the proposed cavern. No adverse impact is expected to arise from the Project on these installations. No adverse impact to cultural heritage resource is anticipated during operation phase.

2.14.11 It is noted that some buildings with potential heritage value, such as Our Lady’s Primary School, Evangel Children's Home, Diamond Hill Kwong Yum Home for the Aged and Wong Tai Sin Hospital are in close vicinity of the project boundary. If necessary, appropriate protective and mitigation measures should be implemented to safeguard against any adverse impact in the course of the proposed works.

2.14.12 If there are any buildings/structures both at grade level and underground which were built on or before 1969 that may be affected by the proposed works during construction, project proponent shall alert Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) in an early stage or once identified.

2.14.13 The project proponent shall inform AMO immediately in case of discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of the proposed works, appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, shall be timely formulated and implemented in agreement with AMO.

2.14.14 Other environmental impacts (i.e. air quality, noise, water quality, waste management implications, land contamination, ecology, landscape and visual and hazard to life) arising from construction and operation of the Projects are detailed in Section 3 to Section 10 of the EIA report.

END OF TEXT