APPENDIX N ¡V COMPLAINT LOG
|
Log
Ref. |
Location |
Received
Date |
Details
of Complaint |
Investigation/Mitigation
Action |
Status |
|
Com- |
Construction
site at Eastern Portal |
22 May 2008 |
The
complaint was lodged by Ms. Ng on |
According
to the Contractor, only one excavator and one generator were operated for the
excavation works around In
response to the complaint, The Contractor agreed to reschedule their current
works activities, with immediate effect from Base
on the information collected and the monitoring results, the complaint was
considered not justifiable since (1) no exceedance of the noise monitoring
results was recorded in May and (2) no non-compliance or observation on noise
was recorded. |
Closed |
|
Com-2008-05-004 |
Construction
site at Western Portal (Marine Works) |
31 May 2008 |
The
complaint was lodged by one of the local resident on |
According
to the Contractor, only two derrick barges and one tug boat were
operated for the seabed formation works around 18:00 hrs on 31 May 2008 at the
Western Portal. No
other construction activities were conducted. Base
on the information collected and the monitoring results, the complaint was
considered not justifiable since (1) no exceedance of the noise monitoring
results was recorded in May and (2) no non-compliance or observation on noise
was recorded. |
Closed |
|
Com- |
Construction
site at Eastern Portal |
|
The
complaint was lodged by a resident of The Legend on |
According
to the Contractor, only one generator and one drilling rig (Jumbo) were
operated for the preparation works around 7: In
response to the complaint, The Contractor review his forthcoming operations
within the Eastern Portal site as previous they agreed, reschedule their
current works activities, with immediate effect from 23 May 2008, that only
site preparation works without noise nuisance to the nearby residents will be
carried out from 7:00 am to 8:00 am at the Eastern Portal area. Additional
noise monitoring was conducted on 16 and Base
on the information collected and the monitoring results, the complaint was
considered not justifiable since (1) no exceedance of the noise monitoring
results was recorded in June and July 2008 and additional noise monitoring (2)
no non-compliance or observation on noise was recorded. |
Closed |