Skip to content

專家組就高鐵對大角咀舊樓影響 及風險評估的建議

二月 8, 2010

2010年2月8日
新聞稿
 
專家組就高鐵對大角咀舊樓影響
及風險評估的建議
 
鑑於馬頭圍道塌樓慘劇及大角咀橡樹街舊樓裂縫事件發生後,市民大眾對舊樓安全焦慮日增,公共專業聯盟「新高鐵專家組」就高鐵項目對大角咀舊樓的影響進行了初步分析,並特别參考了環評條例技術備忘錄內的條款及终審庭2005年「紹榮鋼鐵」對「環保署及機管局」的判例,結論如下:
 
一、儘管港鐵公司已基本完成了高鐵的詳細設計,但向大角咀居民發放的資料十分有限,未能釋除居民對舊樓安全的憂慮。判定一項工程設計是否達標,不但包括客觀安全標準,更同時包括使用者的主觀「舒適度」。因此,港鐵公司作為項目管理者,對於釋除居民疑慮,責無旁貸。
 
二、事實上,按照正常項目進度,由於港鐵公司已基本完成了高鐵的詳細設計,港鐵已經對受影響的每一棟樓宇,完成了「樓宇現狀測量」(Building conditions survey) 及「建築物影響評估」(Building and Structure Impact Assessment) 。
 
三、根據《 環 境 影 響 評 估 條 例 》內的環 境 影 響 評 估 程 序 的 技 術 備 忘 錄,工程項目的環境影響應該盡可能採用「定量環境影響評價」(4.3.1(c)) 。由於公眾對舊樓安全危害生命的關注,參照技 術 備 忘 錄第12條的規定,制定「定量危險評估」是最切合時宜的安排。附件4圖1的風險指引,可以作為安全風險是否達標的參考。
 
四、根據终審庭2005年「紹榮鋼鐵」對「環保署及機管局」的判例,「定量危險評估」對於一項可能危及生命的環境影響,是必不可少的步驟。正因為項目倡議人當時未有進行「定量危險評估」,終審庭判定「環保署及機管局」敗訴的主因,以致項目環境許可證被法庭徹消。
 
 
 
因此,公共專業聯盟「新高鐵專家組」提出以下建議:
 
一、港鐵公司應向大角咀居民馬上公佈已完成的「樓宇現狀測量」報告 (Building conditions survey) 及「建築物影響評估」報告 (Building and Structure Impact Assessment) 。
 
二、港鐵公司應參照環 境 影 響 評 估 程 序 的 技 術 備 忘 錄第12條的規定或國際最佳守則,馬上開展對大角咀舊樓羣進行「定量危險評估」。
 
三、在未完成「定量危險評估」前,港鐵公司應推延相關隧道段落工程的合同簽約時間,避免因為將來一旦需要修改走線設計時蒙受損失。
 
四、政府應參照「昂坪360」工程項目的做法,由獨立團體主動邀請大角咀居民和持份者代表,與港鐵代表一起組成「聯合監察小組」(Sustainability Advisory Panel) ,讓居民持續監察項目進展及提供意見。
 
*                      *                      *
___________________________________________________________

8 February 2010
Press Release
 
Recommendations from the XRL Expert Group Regarding the Effects on the Old Residential Blocks in Tai Kok Tsui from the XRL and on the Risk Evaluations
 
In view of the disaster over the collapse of the building in Ma Tau Wai Road and on the cracks found in the building in Oak Street in Tai Kok Tsui, the concerns on the safety of the old flats from the general public has increased, the “XRL Expert Group” of The Professional Commons has conducted a preliminary analysis of the effects of the Express Rail link (hereafter the XRL) project to the old buildings in Tai Kok Tsui, and take reference to the Technical Memorandum stipulated in the Environment Impact Assessment Ordinance and the judgement by the Court of Final Appeal of “Shui Wing Steel vs Environmental Protection Department and the Airport Authority” in 2005. The conclusions are as follows:  
 
1)      Although the MTR Corporation has basically completed the detailed design of the XRL, the information it has been distributed to the residents in Tai Kok Tsui is very limited, it failed to address the concerns of the residents towards the safety of old buildings. When judging whether a project design has reached the standards, not only it should include a common safety standard, it should also include the “level of comfort” as assessed by the user. Hence, as the project manager, the MTR Corporation should shoulder responsibilities on relieving the concerns of the general public. 
 
2)      In fact, in accordance with the normal operational speed, as the MTR Corporation has basically completed the detailed design of the XRL. The MTR Corporation has completed the “Building Conditions Survey” and the “Building and Structure Impact Assessment” in each of the affected building. 
 
 
3)      According to the Technical Memorandum regarding the procedures of the environmental impact assessment under the “Environment Impact Assessment Ordinance”, the environmental impact of projects should adopt the “assessment of effects in quantitative terms” (4.3.1 (c)). In view of the concerns over the public safety of old buildings, it would be most appropriate arrangements should an “ Quantitative Risk Assessment" in accordance with Clause 12 of the Technical Memorandum takes place. The risk guidelines at Graph 1 in Attachment 4 could act as a reference on whether the safety risks standards can be reached.   
 
4)      According to the Court of Final Appeal judgement of “Shui Wing Steel vs Environmental Protection Department and the Hong Kong Airport Authority” in 2005, the “assessments of effects in quantitative terms” is an indispensible procedure for an environmental impact assessment affecting lives. The reason in which the “Environment Protection Department and the Airport Authority” lost the judgement and the order for withdrawal of the Environmental Permit from the Court of Final Appeal are due to the fact that the project proponents have not conducted the “Quantitative Risk Assessment" at that moment.
 
Hence, The “XRL Expert group” of The Professional Commons proposed the following recommendations: 
 
1)      The MTR Corporation should immediately publicize the Building Conditions Survey and the Building and Structure Impact Assessment to the residents in Tai Kok Tsui. 
 
2)      The MTR Corporation should take reference to Clause 12 of the Technical Memorandum of the Environmental Impact Assessment procedures and the international best practice, and conduct the “Quantitative Risk Assessment" for the cluster of old buildings in Tai Kok Tsui.
 
3)      Before the completion of the “Quantitative Risk Assessment", the MTR Corporation should postpone the time of the signing of the contracts regarding the tender procedure of the relevant tunneling section works, so as to avoid the monetary loss incurred as a result of the changes in the design of the alignment. 
 
4)      The Government should take reference to the practice conducted from the “Ngong Ping 360” engineering project, in which a “Joint Supervisory Panel” should be set up by an independent organization, and it should proactively invites the residents in Tai Kok Tsui and representatives from other stakeholders. The Panel should allow the residents to continue to supervise the progress of the projects and provide opinions on the projects concerned.   
 
*                      *                      *

附錄

FACV No. 28 of 2005

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2005 (CIVIL)

(On appeal from CACV NO. 350 of 2003)

_____________________

Between :

  Your browser may not support display of this image.SHIU WING Your browser may not support display of this image.STEEL LIMITED Appellant 
(Applicant)
  and  
  DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Respondent 
(Respondent)
  AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF HONG KONG Interested Party 
(Interested Party)

_____________________   

Court: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Mortimer NPJ and Sir Gerard Brennan NPJ

Dates of Hearing: 12 to 16 June 2006

Date of Judgment: 17 July 2006

……………

……………

The requirements of the SB and the TM

31.  SWS submits that the EIA report failed to meet the requirements of the SB and the TM because it did not contain a QRA in respect of all hazardous risk scenarios associated with the tank farm storage of aviation fuel which may cause fatalities and, in particular, the scenario of a catastrophic instantaneous 100% loss of fuel causing a surge of fuel to overtop the bund and flow into SWS mill with resulting loss of life and property.  The scenario was referred to in the EIA report but the QRA contained in that report did not embrace that scenario.  In para.20 of his judgment, Stock JA described a QRA as follows :

“As I understand it, and putting the matter broadly, a QRA involves, after the identification of the hazard, an analysis reduced to mathematical terms, of frequency of an occurrence and a modelling of the consequences of that occurrence.  A qualitative analysis does not differ in its objective but its analysis and expression is more judgmental though it is not purely a judgmental matter."

32.  As the argument on appeal developed, it appeared that there was a significant difference between the parties in their understanding of what was required to complete a QRA.  To resolve that difference, it is necessary to examine a number of the clauses of both the TM and the SB.

33.  Section 4.1.1 of the TM defines the general content to be contained in an EIA report :

“An EIA report shall comprise a document or series of documents providing a detailed assessment in quantitative terms, wherever possible, and in qualitative terms of the likely environmental impacts and environmental benefits of the project.  The requirements for the EIA report shall be set out in accordance with this technical memorandum.  The EIA report shall be produced in accordance with the EIA study brief issued by the Director to the applicant."

It is clear that the objectives and scope of an EIA report are to be specific to the project (s.4.2.1) adequately addressing all the issues set out in the SB (s.4.2.2).  In s.4.3.1 the TM sets out the general principles which the Director must use in evaluating the assessment methodologies adopted in an EIA report.

34.  Annexes 4 to 10 of the TM prescribe the criteria for evaluating the different categories of impact which a project might have on the environment: air quality, noise, water pollution, waste management, the ecology, fisheries, visual and landscape, cultural heritage and, relevant to the present case, hazard to human life.  Section 4.3.1(c) provides :

“(c) Impact Evaluation: an evaluation of the anticipated changes and effects shall be made with respect to the criteria described in Annexes 4 to 10 inclusive, and in quantitative terms as far as possible …"

Annex 4 is the annex dealing with hazard to life.

35.  Section 12.1 of the TM identifies certain factors which are relevant to the need for a Hazard Assessment (“HA") and provides that the Director shall consider the need for a HA and its technical requirements.  (The Director’s duty is “subject to the advice of the authorities stated in Annex 22″ but that annex specifies the Director himself to be the relevant authority.)

36.  Section 12.1 directs that the Risk Guidelines to be applied in relation to hazard to life are set out in Annex 4 and Figure 1.  Clause 2.1 of Annex 4 provides that “[t]he criterion for hazard to human life is to meet the Risk Guidelines, as shown in Figure 1″.  

( 499 16 )

   

1.

2. 介 

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 16(1)(f)

11. 使

12.

4.3 

    4.3.1
  •  
      (a)  :  使 調 附近 調 調 類別 使
  •  
      (b)  :  附件 12 19 類似 使 /國
  •  
    •  
        (i)
  •  
    •  
        (ii)
  •  
    •  
        (iii) /環
  •  
    •  
        (iv)
  •  
    •  
        (v) /或
  •  
    •  
        (vi) 使 附件 4 10
  •  
      (c)  :  附件 4 10
  •  
    •  
        (i)
  •  
    •  
        (ii)
  •  
    •  
        (iii) 使
  •  
    •  
        (iv)
  •  
    •  
        (v) 4.4.3  

12.

12.1 附件 22 附件 4 1

 

廣告
One Comment leave one →
  1. MAN permalink
    五月 14, 2010 5:36 上午

    80後    :430萬新界人用唔着沙中線!絕對是大白象!大白象!大!白!象!
    80后    :沙中線工程勢釀紅磡馬頭圍道一帶大塞車!
    沙中專業聯盟:沙中線沿線掘路工程勢釀馬頭圍舊樓倒塌事件此起彼落。
    沙中線專家組:選址對大部份香港人極為不便!
    鑽石山關注組:轉車太麻煩,搞得成上下層/對面月台轉乘先好起。
    專家甲   :郵輪碼頭步行去沙中線啟德站,要十幾十幾分鐘。
    翔龍灣居民 :我地俾港鐵呃咗,唔起响我家樓下實同你拖到底~~~~
    專家乙   :何文田站唔方便何文田居民。
    內地學者  :香港毋須建沙中線。
    香皂教授  :沙中線要回本,每程起碼要千9幾銀。
    飯民    :客量唔夠幾多幾多即虧本。
    妄民    :就算冇沙中線,市民要過海,始終都過到海。

    誠意邀請專業聯盟提出半價方案

    單線?減車站?起半條搵接駁?……

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s

%d 位部落客按了讚: