8 ENVIRONMENTAL NON-COMPLIANCE, COMPLAINTS, NOTIFICATIONS OF SUMMONS AND PROSECUTION

8.1 Summary of Environmental Non-Compliance

8.1.1 No Action / Limit Level exceedances were recorded in this reporting period and they are summarized in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Summary of Non-Compliance for the reporting period

Media/ Nature		No. of Exceedance		Action Taken	Results of Action Taken	Remarks
		Action Level	Limit Level
Air Quality	1-hour TSP	0	0	-	-	-
	24-hour TSP	0	0	-	-	-

Media/ Nature		No. of Exceedance		Action Taken	Results of Action Taken	Remarks
Noise	Day Time	0	0	-	-	-
	Evening Time	0	0	-	-	-
	Night Time	0	0	-	-	-
	Public Holiday	0	0	-	-	-

8.2 Summary of Complaints

8.2.1 One environmental related complaint was received by Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and subsequently referred to R8-ET on 25^th June 2007 (letter ref.: EP3/K05/RW/14433-07). The complainant was concerned with the excessive dust generated by vehicular movement at area P1-SA1 (i.e. G.L. 0 to 8), near Roundabout No. 8 and the complainant also stated that no water spraying vehicle was operating at that particular concerned area for sometime (in the past month).

8.2.2 An independent complaint investigation was carried out by R8-ET on 25^th June 2007, followed by a joint site inspection together with the RSS and CHEC on 26^th June 2007, it was found that the area concerned did not generate any dust nuisance and furthermore, a water bower was observed being deployed by CHEC as a dust suppression measure for P1-SA1 (G.L. 0 to 8).

Site inspection was carried out by R8T-ET and RSS on a daily basis and dust suppression measures for the whole site area was carried out by CHEC. Thus, any dust nuisance were generated, then R8T-ET, RSS and CHEC would have been addressed / rectified in the first instance. A water bower provided by CHEC has been used as a dust suppression measure at a frequency of at least 3 times a day (once in the morning and twice in the afternoon) and obviously if the area was found too dry by any on-site staff, the frequency of water spraying would be increased accordingly.

Furthermore, part of the area P1-SA1 (Grid line 0 to 8) was handed over to another Contractor (MHYHJV) for the construction of Route 8 – Stonecutters Bridge Contract (SCB) on 1^st May 2007. In order to minimize and maintain the same level of dust control for P1-SA1 (Grid line 0 to 8), MHYHJV confirmed and agreed that they would also deploy a water bowser to carry out dust suppression within their site area which has included the haul road to SCB site area / marine control point. The frequency of water spraying would be at least 3 times a day (once in the morning and twice in the afternoon) and the frequency would increase if deemed necessary.

To conclude, the current dust suppression measures provided by CHEC at the area concerned was acceptable and thus no further action was required at this stage.

8.2.1 The summary for all environmental complaints received since the commencement of the Contract is presented in Table 8.2. The details of previous complaints and statistics are attached in Appendices O1 and O2 respectively.

Table 8.2 Summary of Total Complaint Received

Total No. of Complaint Received	No. of complaint received within reporting period	No. of Active Complaint	No. of Inactive/Closed Complaint
11	1	0	11

8.3 Summary of Notifications of Summons and Prosecution

8.3.1 No notifications of summons or prosecution were received regarding the non-compliance of the environmental performance for this Contract since the commencement of construction.