As one of the authors of the EVS Environment Consultants' report cited in your March 24 article headlined, 'Mud pits 'dangerous for white dolphins' ', I would like to express appreciation to Fiona Holland, for accurately quoting our conclusions.
However, I take exception to the comments by Friends of the Earth branding the conclusions a 'whitewash'. For the record, our report was reviewed by senior technical staff of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, the new Airport Projects Co-ordination Office, and the Civil Engineering Department, all of whom agreed that all the available data and information available consistently supported the conclusions.
This report together with a large number of other technical studies undertaken for the Hong Kong Government by EVS and others, represents a very substantial effort to determine if disposal operations at East Sha Chau have been environmentally acceptable and whether the area is a suitable site for such operations.
The short answer to these questions is in the affirmative. The reports have been presented to and accepted by the Advisory Council on the Environment, as well as being provided to interested parties. This is no 'whitewash'.
The EPD has set very conservative levels for classifying dredged material. The seven metals which are used for sediment classification and regularly monitored in the dredged spoil, occur naturally in the marine environment as part of the chemistry of sediment, soil and water.
If even one metal is elevated a small amount above background the mud is considered 'contaminated', and is designated for disposal at the contained facility at East Sha Chau. Consequently, much of this mud is not toxic, which is confirmed by toxicity tests on the sediments so far.