TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1.4 Summary of Construction Works
1.5 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements
2.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
2.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
3.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
3.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
4.3 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
4.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
5.3 Monitoring Frequency and Conditions
5.4 Monitoring Methodology and Location
5.6 Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
6 ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE INSPECTION AND AUDIT
6.2 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status
6.3 Environmental Licenses and Permits
6.4 Implementation
Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
6.5 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality
Performance Limit
6.6 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and
Successful Prosecutions
7.1 Construction Programme for the Coming Months
7.2 Key Issues for the Coming Month
7.3 Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Month
8 ConclusionS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Contact
Information of Key Personnel
Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment
Table 2.2 Locations of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations
Table 2.3 Air Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and
Duration
Table 2.4 Summary of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results in the
Reporting Period
Table 2.5 Summary of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results in the
Reporting Period
Table 3.1 Noise Monitoring Equipment
Table 3.2 Locations of Impact Noise Monitoring Stations
Table 3.3 Noise Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
Table 3.4 Summary of Construction Noise Monitoring Results in the
Reporting Period
Table 4.1 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
Table 4.2 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Parameters and
Frequency
Table 4.3 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Table 4.4 Laboratory Analysis for Suspended Solids
Table 5.1 Dolphin Monitoring Equipment
Table 5.2 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates
(Provided by AFCD)
Table 5.3 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Effort Summary
Table 5.4 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Details in March
2013
Table
6.1 Summary
of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status
Figures
Figure
1 General
Project Layout Plan
Figure
2 Impact
Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations and Wind
Station
Figure
3 Impact
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure
4 Impact
Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map
Figure 5 Impact
Dolphin Monitoring Survey Efforts and Sightings in March 2013
Figure
6 Environmental
Complaint Handling Procedure
List of Appendices
Appendix
A Project
Organization for Environmental Works
Appendix B Three Month
Rolling Construction Programmes
Appendix C Implementation
Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS)
Appendix D Summary of Action
and Limit Levels
Appendix E Calibration Certificates of
Monitoring Equipments
Appendix F EM&A
Monitoring Schedules
Appendix
G Impact Air
Quality Monitoring Results and their Graphical Presentation
Appendix H Meteorological Data for Monitoring
Periods on Monitoring Dates in March
2013
Appendix
I Impact
Construction Noise Monitoring Results and their Graphical Presentation
Appendix J Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results and their Graphical Presentation
Appendix
K Impact
Dolphin Monitoring Survey Sighting Summary
Appendix
M Monthly
Summary of Waste Flow Table
Contract No. HY/2010/02 ¡V Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
¡V Reclamation Work (here below, known as ¡§the Project¡¨) mainly comprises
reclamation at the northeast
of the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL). It is a designated project and is governed by the current permits for
the Project, i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 16 Oct 2012
(EP-353/2009/E) and 8 December 2011 (EP-354/2009/A) (for TMCLKL Southern
Landfall Reclamation only).
Ove Arup & Partners
Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and construction
assignment for the Project¡¦s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the
Project).
China Harbour
Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD
as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the Project.
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed
by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC)
and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was
appointed by CHEC to undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for
carrying out the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) works.
The construction phase of the
Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively
completed by early Year 2016. The EM&A programme,
including air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and
environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12 March 2012.
This report documents the findings of EM&A works conducted in the period between 1 and 31 March 2013. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Sand blanket laying trial
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Stone column installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Instrumentation works
-
Ground investigation
-
Connecting arc cell installation
(guide pile)
Land-based Works
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at
Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public
Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Geo-textile fabrication at Works
Area WA2
-
Silt curtain fabrication at Works
Area WA4
-
Erection of site office at Works
Area WA2
A summary of
monitoring and audit activities conducted in the reporting period is listed
below:
24-hour
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring 1-hour
TSP monitoring |
5 sessions 5 sessions |
Noise monitoring |
4 sessions |
Impact
water quality monitoring |
13 sessions |
Impact
dolphin monitoring |
2 surveys |
Joint
Environmental site inspection |
4 sessions |
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
Two (2) 24-hour TSP
results exceeded the Action Level on 4 and
9 March 2013 at monitoring station AMS3A and one (1) 24-hour TSP result
exceeded the Limit Level on 15 March 2013 monitoring station AMS3A in the
reporting month. All 1-hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level
at all monitoring locations in the reporting month.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
Due to one documented complaint is received; one (1) Action Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the reporting month. The investigation results show that the action level exceedance was non-project
related. No Limit Level Exceedance of construction noise
was recorded in the reporting month.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
One (1) Limit and Action (1) Limit Level exceedance were recorded at during mid flood tide at SR5 and mid
ebb tide at IS(Mf)16 respectively in the reporting month. The
investigation results showed
that the action and limit level exceedance were non-project related.
Impact
Dolphin Monitoring
A total
of three dolphin sightings were recorded during the two surveys, one on the 18 March 2013 and two on the 28 March 2013. Of the three sightings, two were ¡§on effort¡¨ (which
are all under favourable condition) and one was ¡§opportunistic¡¨. A total of ten individuals were sighted
from the two impact dolphin surveys in the reporting period. Sighting details
are summarised and plotted in Appendix K and Figure
5c, respectively.
Behaviour: two groups were feeding and one group was associated with multiple behaviour
(feeding and travelling).
Complaint,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution
One (1) complaint was referred by EPD to ET on 4 March 2013
regarding the construction noise impact from cranes operating from the barges
for the Hong Kong ¡VZhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong
Project generating squeak noise in the evening of 1 Mar 2013 causing annoyance
to him/her. The investigation results showed that the complaint was
non-project related.
No notification of summons and successful
prosecution was received in the reporting month.
Reporting
Change
There was no reporting change required in the reporting period.
Future
Key Issues
Key issues to be considered in the coming month included:-
-
Site runoff should be properly
collected and treated prior to discharge;
-
Minimize loss of sediment from
filling works;
-
Regular review and maintenance of
silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting
facilities;
-
Exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles
should be properly treated to avoid generation of silty
surface run-off during rainstorm;
-
Regular review and maintenance of
wheel washing facilities provided at all site entrances/exits;
-
Conduct regular inspection of
various working machineries and vessels within works areas to avoid any dark
smoke emission;
-
Suppress dust generated from work
processes with use of bagged cements, earth movements, excavation activities,
exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles and haul road traffic;
-
Quieter powered mechanical equipment
should be used;
-
Provision of proper and effective
noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery on-site, such as
erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants;
-
Closely check and replace the sound
insulation materials regularly;
-
Better scheduling of construction
works to minimize noise nuisance;
-
Properly store and label oil drums
and chemical containers placed on site;
-
Proper chemicals, chemical wastes
and wastes management;
-
Maintenance works should be carried
out within roofed, paved and confined areas;
-
Collection and segregation of
construction waste and general refuse on land and in the sea should be carried
out properly and regularly; and
-
Proper protection and regular
inspection of existing trees, transplanted/retained trees.
1.1.1 Contract No. HY/2010/02
¡V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation Work (here below, known as ¡§the Project¡¨)
mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL).
1.1.2 The environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports (Hong Kong ¡V
Zhuhai
¡V Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ¡V EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun ¡V Chek
Lap Kok Link ¡V EIA Report (Register No.
AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and their environmental monitoring and audit
(EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A Manuals), for the Project were approved
by Environmental Protection Department (EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3 EPD subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009
(EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D) and October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E). Similarly, EPD issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for TMCLKL in November 2009 (EP-354/2009) and the
Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in December 2010 (EP-354/2009/A).
1.1.4 The Project is a
designated project and is governed by the current permits for the Project, i.e.
the amended EPs issued on 16 October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E) and 8 December 2011
(EP-354/2009/A) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only).
1.1.5 A Project Specific
EM&A Manual, which included all project-relation contents from the original
EM&A Manuals for the Project, was issued in May 2012.
1.1.6 Ove Arup & Partners
Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and construction
assignment for the Project¡¦s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the
Project).
1.1.7 China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of
the Project.
1.1.8 ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd.
was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental
Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
1.1.9 AECOM Asia Co. Ltd.
(AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake the role of Environmental Team for
the Project for carrying out the EM&A works.
1.1.10 The construction phase
of the Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be
tentatively completed by early Year 2016.
1.1.11 According to the Project
Specific EM&A Manual, there is a need of an EM&A programme
including air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and
environmental site inspections. The EM&A programme
of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2.1 This is the thirteenth monthly EM&A Report under the
Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary of the
environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and mitigation
measures proposed by the ET for the Project in March 2013.
1.3.1
The project organization structure is shown in Appendix A. The key
personnel contact names and numbers are summarized in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Fax |
Engineer¡¦s Representative (ER) (Ove Arup
& Partners Hong Kong Limited) |
Chief
Resident Engineer |
Roger Marechal |
3698 5700 |
2698 5999 |
IEC / ENPO (ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited) |
Independent
Environmental Checker |
Raymond
Dai |
3743
0788 |
3548
6988 |
Environmental
Project Office Leader |
Y. H.
Hui |
3743
0788 |
3548
6988 |
|
Contractor (China Harbour Engineering Company Limited) |
General
Manager (S&E) |
Daniel
Leung |
3157
1086 |
2578
0413 |
Environmental
Officer |
C. M.
Wong |
3157
1086 |
2578
0413 |
|
24-hour
Hotline |
Alan
C.C. Yeung |
9448
0325 |
-- |
|
ET (AECOM Asia Company Limited) |
ET
Leader |
Echo
Leong |
3922
9280 |
2317 7609 |
1.4
Summary of Construction Works
1.4.1 The construction phase of the Project under the EP commenced on 12 March
2012.
1.4.2 As informed by the Contractor, details of the major works carried out in
this reporting period are listed below:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Sand blanket laying trial
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Stone column installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Instrumentation works
-
Ground investigation
-
Connecting arc cell installation
(guide pile)
-
Land-based Works
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at
Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public
Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Geo-textile fabrication at Works
Area WA2
-
Silt curtain fabrication at Works
Area WA4
-
Erection of site office at Works
Area WA2
1.4.3 The 3-month rolling construction programme of
the Project is shown in Appendix B.
1.4.4 The general layout plan of the Project site showing the detailed works
areas is shown in Figure 1.
1.4.5 The environmental mitigation measures implementation schedule are
presented in Appendix C.
1.5
Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements
1.5.1
The EM&A programme
required environmental monitoring for air quality, noise, water quality, marine
ecology and environmental site inspections for air quality, noise, water
quality, waste management, marine ecology, and landscape and visual impact. The
EM&A requirements for each parameter described in the following sections
include:-
- All monitoring parameters;
- Monitoring schedules for the
reporting month and forthcoming month;
- Action and Limit levels for all
environmental parameters;
- Event / Action Plan;
- Environmental mitigation measures,
as recommended in the Project EIA reports; and
- Environmental requirement in
contract documents.
2.1.1
In accordance with the Project Specific
EM&A Manual, baseline 1-hour and 24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)
levels at 4 air quality monitoring stations were established. Impact 1-hour TSP
monitoring was conducted for at least three times every 6 days, while impact
24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out for at least once every 6 days. The
Action and Limit level of the air quality monitoring is provided in Appendix D.
2.2.1
24-hour TSP air quality monitoring was
performed using High Volume Sampler (HVS) located at each designated monitoring
station. The HVS meets all the requirements of the Project Specific EM&A
Manual. Portable direct reading
dust meters were used to carry out the 1-hour TSP monitoring. Brand and model of the equipment is
given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
Portable direct reading dust meter (1-hour TSP) |
Sibata Digital Dust Monitor (Model No. LD-3 and LD-3B) |
High Volume Sampler |
Tisch Environmental Mass Flow Controlled Total
Suspended Particulate (TSP) High Volume Air Sampler (Model No. TE-5170) |
2.3.1
Monitoring locations AMS2 and AMS7 were set
up at the proposed locations in accordance with Project Specific EM&A
Manual. For AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building),
permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works was sought,
however, access to the premise has not been granted yet on this report issuing
date. For monitoring location AMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the Project
Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring could not
be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting up and
carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like
Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out
impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact air
quality monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in
Works Area WA2 (AMS3A) respectively. Same baseline and Action Level for air
quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College,
was adopted for this alternative air quality location.
2.3.2
Reference is made to ET¡¦s proposal of the omission
of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on
1 November 2012 and EPD¡¦s letter dated on 19
November 2012 regarding the conditional approval of the proposed omission
of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for Contract No. HY/2010/02. The aforesaid omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 will be effective since 19 November 2012.
2.3.3
Figure 2 shows the locations of monitoring
stations. Table 2.2 describes the details of the monitoring stations.
Table 2.2 Locations
of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station |
Location |
Description |
AMS2 |
Tung Chung Development Pier |
Rooftop of the premise |
AMS3A |
Site Boundary of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2 |
On ground at
the area boundary |
AMS6* |
Dragonair/CNAC (Group)
Building |
On ground at
boundary of the premise |
AMS7 |
Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel |
On ground at
boundary of the premise |
#Remarks: Reference
is made to EPD conditional approval of the omission of air monitoring station
(AMS 6) for the project. The omission will be effective on 19 November 2012.
2.4
Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
2.4.1
Table 2.3 summarizes the monitoring parameters,
frequency and duration of impact TSP monitoring.
Table
2.3 Air
Quality Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
Parameter |
Frequency
and Duration |
1-hour TSP |
Three times every 6 days while the highest dust impact was expected |
24-hour TSP |
Once every 6 days |
2.5.1
24-hour TSP Monitoring
(a)
The HVS
was installed in the vicinity of the air sensitive receivers. The following criteria were considered
in the installation of the HVS.
(i)
A
horizontal platform with appropriate support to secure the sampler against
gusty wind was provided.
(ii)
No two samplers should be placed less than 2 meters apart.
(iii)
The
distance between the HVS and any obstacles, such as buildings, was at least
twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the HVS.
(iv)
A minimum
of 2 meters separation from walls, parapets and penthouse for rooftop sampler.
(v)
A minimum of 2 meters separation from any supporting structure,
measured horizontally is required.
(vi)
No
furnace or incinerator flues nearby.
(vii)
Airflow
around the sampler was unrestricted.
(viii)
Permission
was obtained to set up the samplers and access to the monitoring stations.
(ix)
A secured
supply of electricity was obtained to operate the samplers.
(x)
The
sampler was located more than 20 meters from any dripline.
(xi)
Any wire
fence and gate, required to protect the sampler, did not obstruct the
monitoring process.
(xii)
Flow
control accuracy was kept within ¡Ó2.5% deviation over 24-hour sampling period.
(b)
Preparation
of Filter Papers
(i)
Glass fibre filters, G810 were labelled
and sufficient filters that were clean and without pinholes were selected.
(ii)
All
filters were equilibrated in the conditioning environment for 24 hours before
weighing. The conditioning environment temperature was around
(iii)
All
filter papers were prepared and analysed by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd., which is a HOKLAS accredited
laboratory and has comprehensive quality assurance and quality control programmes.
(c)
Field
Monitoring
(i)
The power
supply was checked to ensure the HVS works properly.
(ii)
The
filter holder and the area surrounding the filter were cleaned.
(iii)
The
filter holder was removed by loosening the four bolts and a new filter, with
stamped number upward, on a supporting screen was aligned carefully.
(iv)
The
filter was properly aligned on the screen so that the gasket formed an airtight
seal on the outer edges of the filter.
(v)
The swing
bolts were fastened to hold the filter holder down to the frame. The pressure applied was sufficient to
avoid air leakage at the edges.
(vi)
Then the
shelter lid was closed and was secured with the aluminum strip.
(vii)
The HVS
was warmed-up for about 5 minutes to establish run-temperature conditions.
(viii)
A new
flow rate record sheet was set into the flow recorder.
(ix)
On site
temperature and atmospheric pressure readings were taken and the flow rate of
the HVS was checked and adjusted at around 1.1 m3/min,
and complied with the range specified in the updated EM&A Manual (i.e.
0.6-1.7 m3/min).
(x)
The
programmable digital timer was set for a sampling period of 24 hrs, and the
starting time, weather condition and the filter number were recorded.
(xi)
The
initial elapsed time was recorded.
(xii)
At the
end of sampling, on site temperature and atmospheric pressure readings were
taken and the final flow rate of the HVS was checked and recorded.
(xiii)
The final
elapsed time was recorded.
(xiv)
The
sampled filter was removed carefully and folded in half length so that only
surfaces with collected particulate matter were in contact.
(xv)
It was
then placed in a clean plastic envelope and sealed.
(xvi)
All
monitoring information was recorded on a standard data sheet.
(xvii) Filters were then sent to ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. for analysis.
(d)
Maintenance
and Calibration
(i)
The HVS
and its accessories were maintained in good working condition, such as
replacing motor brushes routinely and checking electrical wiring to ensure a
continuous power supply.
(ii)
5-point
calibration of the HVS was conducted using TE
(iii)
Calibration
certificate of the HVSs are provided in Appendix E.
2.5.2
1-hour TSP Monitoring
(a)
Measuring
Procedures
The
measuring procedures of the 1-hour dust meter were in accordance with the
Manufacturer¡¦s Instruction Manual as follows:-
(i)
Turn the
power on.
(ii)
Close the
air collecting opening cover.
(iii)
Push the
¡§TIME SETTING¡¨ switch to [BG].
(iv)
Push
¡§START/STOP¡¨ switch to perform background measurement for 6 seconds.
(v)
Turn the
knob at SENSI ADJ position to insert the light scattering plate.
(vi)
Leave the
equipment for 1 minute upon ¡§SPAN CHECK¡¨ is indicated in the display.
(vii)
Push
¡§START/STOP¡¨ switch to perform automatic sensitivity adjustment. This
measurement takes 1 minute.
(viii)
Pull out
the knob and return it to MEASURE position.
(ix)
Push the
¡§TIME SETTING¡¨ switch the time set in the display to 3 hours.
(x)
Lower
down the air collection opening cover.
(xi)
Push
¡§START/STOP¡¨ switch to start measurement.
(b)
Maintenance
and Calibration
(i)
The
1-hour TSP meter was calibrated at 1-year intervals against a continuous
particulate TEOM Monitor, Series 1400ab. Calibration certificates of the Laser
Dust Monitors are provided in Appendix E.
(ii)
1-hour
validation checking of the TSP meter against HVS is carried out on half-year basis at the air
quality monitoring locations.
2.6
Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
2.6.1
The schedule for air quality monitoring in March 2013 is provided in Appendix F.
2.7.1
The monitoring results for 1-hour TSP and
24-hour TSP are summarized in Table 2.4 and 2.5 respectively. Detailed impact
air quality monitoring results are presented in Appendix G.
Table 2.4 Summary
of 1-hour TSP Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period
|
Average (mg/m3) |
Range (mg/m3) |
Action Level (mg/m3) |
Limit Level (mg/m3) |
AMS2 |
87 |
82 ¡V 96 |
374 |
500 |
AMS3A |
89 |
83 ¡V 98 |
368 |
500 |
AMS7 |
85 |
80 ¡V 94 |
370 |
500 |
Table 2.5 Summary
of 24-hour TSP Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period
|
Average (mg/m3) |
Range (mg/m3) |
Action Level (mg/m3) |
Limit Level (mg/m3) |
AMS2 |
82 |
48 - 99 |
176 |
260 |
AMS3A |
221 |
115 -
377 |
167 |
260 |
AMS7 |
105 |
53 -
127 |
183 |
260 |
2.7.2
The major dust source in the reporting period
included construction activities from the Project, construction activities by
other contacts, as well as nearby traffic emissions.
2.7.3
All 1-hour TSP results were below the
Action and Limit Level at all monitoring locations in the reporting month.
2.7.4
However, two (2) 24-hour TSP result exceeded the Action Level on 4 and 9 March 2013 at monitoring station AMS3A and one (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded the Limit Level on 15 March 2013 monitoring station AMS3A in the reporting month.
2.7.5
For the one (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded
the Limit Level on 04 March 13 at monitoring station AMS3A, according
to information provided by the Contractor, land-based construction activity
such as transloading and delivery of geotextile and installing sand bags were undertaken at
Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period which is unlikely to cause fugitive
dust emission.
2.7.5.1
Functional
checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow
was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was
re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
2.7.5.2
Construction
activities, like sheet piling and percussive piling, were carrying out by
nearby private development project during the course of monitoring, which are
close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works
Area WA2. Trucks were observed passing exposed soil surfaces at those
construction sites of nearby private development project.
2.7.5.3
Please see layout map attached for reference
of site conditions
2.7.5.4
Please see
photos attached for reference of site conditions:
View of Works
Area WA2 : Hard paved ground next to monitoring
station AMS3A (View A)
View on Site B:
Beyond the site boundary of WA2 (View B)
2.7.5.5
As refer
to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period on 4 and 5 March 13 (please see attached)
south-southeast wind was prevailing during the monitoring period.
Construction works carried out at construction sites of nearby private
development project may contribute to the measured dust levels at the
monitoring station AMS3A.
2.7.5.6
The 1-hr
TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 4 March 2013, which are within the monitoring
period of the 24-hr TSP, were 85 g/m3, 83 g/m3 and 84 g/m3
respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
2.7.5.7
The
measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 (which are closer to the
marine-based works areas) on the same monitoring date were 99 g/m3
and 124 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit
Levels.
2.7.5.8
The
following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
l
Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was
hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
l
Vehicle washing facility was
provided at vehicle exit points,
l
Measures for preventing fugitive
dust emission are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
2.7.5.9
The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the
Project works.
2.7.5.10The Contractor was recommended to continue
implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
2.7.6
For the one (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded
the action Level on 09 March 13 at monitoring station AMS3A, according to information
provided by the Contractor, land-based construction activity such as transloading and delivery of geotextile
and installing sand bags to vessels was being undertaken at Works Area WA2
during the monitoring period.
2.7.6.1
Functional
checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow
was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted
by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
2.7.6.2
As
informed by the Contractor, construction activities like sheet piling and
percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private
development project during the course of monitoring, which are close to the
monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2.
Traffics were observed passing exposed soil surfaces at those construction
sites of nearby private development project.
2.7.6.3
Please see layout map attached for reference
of site conditions
2.7.6.4
Please see
photos attached for reference of site conditions:
View of Works
Area WA2 : the hard paved ground next to monitoring
station AMS3A (View A)
View on Site B:
Beyond the site boundary of WA2 (View B)
2.7.6.5
As refer
to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period on 8 and 9 March 13 (as attached) south wind
was prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out at
construction sites of nearby private development project may contribute to the
measured dust levels at the monitoring station AMS3A.
2.7.6.6
The 1-hr
TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 09 March 2013, which are within the monitoring
period of the 24-hr TSP, were 96 g/m3, 97 g/m3 and 98 g/m3
respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
2.7.6.7
The
measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 (which are closer to the
marine-based works areas) on the same monitoring date were 89 g/m3
and 124 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit
Levels.
2.7.6.8
The
following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
l
Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was
hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
l
Vehicle washing facility was
provided at vehicle exit points,
l
Measures for preventing fugitive
dust emission are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
2.7.6.9
The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the
Project works.
2.7.6.10
The
Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation
measures.
2.7.7
For the one (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded
the Limit Level on 15 March 13 at monitoring station AMS3A, according to information provided by the Contractor,
land-based construction activity such as using canvas to cover sand material
and stitching geotextile were being undertaken at
Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period.
2.7.7.1
Functional
checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow
was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was
re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
2.7.7.2
As
informed by the Contractor, construction activities like sheet piling and
percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private
development project during the course of monitoring, which are close to the
monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2.
Traffics were observed passing exposed soil surfaces at those construction
sites of nearby private development project.
2.7.7.3
Please see
layout map attached for reference of site conditions:
2.7.7.4 Please see photos attached for reference of
site conditions:
View of Works Area WA2 :
the hard paved ground next to monitoring station AMS3A (View A)
View on Site B:
Beyond the site boundary of WA2 (View B)
2.7.7.5
As refer
to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period on 14 and 15 March 13 (as attached) southeast winds was
prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out at
construction sites of nearby private development project may contribute to the
measured dust levels at the monitoring station AMS3A.
2.7.7.6
The 1-hr
TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 15 March 2013, which are within the monitoring
period of the 24-hr TSP, were 85 g/m3, 85 g/m3 and 83 g/m3
respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
2.7.7.7
The
measured 24-hr TSP values
recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on
the same monitoring date were 99 g/m3 and 127 g/m3
respectively, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
2.7.7.8
The
following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
l
Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was
hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
l
Vehicle washing facility was
provided at vehicle exit points,
l
Measures for preventing fugitive
dust emission are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
2.7.7.9
The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the
Project works.
2.7.7.10
The
Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation
measures.
2.7.8
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix
L.
2.7.9
Meteorological information collected from the
wind station during the monitoring periods on the monitoring dates, as shown in
Figure 2, including wind speed and wind direction, is annexed in Appendix
H.
3.1.1
In accordance with the Project Specific
EM&A Manual, impact noise monitoring was conducted for at least once per
week during the construction phase of the Project. The Action and Limit level
of the noise monitoring is provided in Appendix D.
3.2.1
Noise monitoring was performed using sound
level meter at each designated monitoring station. The sound level meters deployed comply
with the International Electrotechnical Commission
Publications (IEC) 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1) specifications. Acoustic calibrator was deployed to
check the sound level meters at a known sound pressure level. Brand and model of the equipment is
given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Noise
Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Brand
and Model |
Integrated
Sound Level Meter |
Rion NL-31 |
Acoustic
Calibrator |
Rion NC-73 |
3.3.1
Monitoring locations NMS2 was set up at the proposed
locations in accordance with Project Specific EM&A Manual. However, for
monitoring location NMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the Project Specific
EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring could not be
obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting up and
carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like
Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out impact
monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact noise
monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in Works Area
WA2 (NMS3A) respectively. Same baseline noise level (as derived from the
baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College) and Limit Level were
adopted for this alternative noise monitoring location.
Remarks:
Monitoring
3.3.2
Figure 2 shows the locations of the
monitoring stations. Table 3.2 describes the details of the monitoring
stations.
Table 3.2 Locations
of Impact Noise Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station |
Location |
Description |
NMS2 |
Seaview Crescent Tower 1 |
Free-field on the rooftop of the premise |
NMS3A |
Site Boundary
of Site Office Area at Works Area WA2 |
Free-field on ground at the area boundary. |
3.4
Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
3.4.1
Table 3.3 summarizes the monitoring
parameters, frequency and duration of impact noise monitoring.
Table 3.3 Noise
Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
Parameter |
Frequency and Duration |
30-mins measurement at each
monitoring station between 0700 and 1900 on normal weekdays (Monday to
Saturday). Leq, L10 and L90
would be recorded. |
At
least once per week |
3.5.1
Monitoring Procedure
(a)
The sound
level meter was set on a tripod at a height of
(b)
All measurement at NMS3A were free field measurements in the reporting month at NMS3A. A correction of +3 dB(A)
shall be made to the free field measurements.
(c)
The
battery condition was checked to ensure the correct functioning of the meter.
(d)
Parameters
such as frequency weighting, the time weighting and the measurement time were
set as follows:-
(i)
frequency
weighting: A
(ii)
time
weighting: Fast
(iii)
time measurement: Leq(30-minutes)
during non-restricted hours i.e. 07:00 ¡V 1900 on normal weekdays.
(e)
Prior to
and after each noise measurement, the meter was calibrated using the acoustic
calibrator for 94dB(A) at 1000 Hz. If the difference in the calibration
level before and after measurement was more than 1 dB(A),
the measurement would be considered invalid and repeat of noise measurement
would be required after re-calibration or repair of the equipment.
(f)
During
the monitoring period, the Leq, L10
and L90 were recorded.
In addition, site conditions and noise sources were recorded on a
standard record sheet.
(g)
Noise
measurement was paused during periods of high intrusive noise (e.g. dog
barking, helicopter noise) if possible. Observations were recorded when
intrusive noise was unavoidable.
(h)
Noise
monitoring was cancelled in the presence of fog, rain, wind with a steady speed
exceeding
3.5.2
Maintenance and Calibration
(a)
The
microphone head of the sound level meter was cleaned with soft cloth at regular
intervals.
(b)
The meter
and calibrator were sent to the supplier or HOKLAS laboratory to check and
calibrate at yearly intervals.
(c)
Calibration
certificates of the sound level meters and acoustic calibrators are provided in
Appendix E.
3.6
Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
3.6.1
The schedule for construction noise
monitoring in March 2013 is provided in Appendix F.
3.7.1
The monitoring results for construction noise
are summarized in Table 3.4 and the monitoring data is provided in Appendix I.
Table 3.4 Summary
of Construction Noise Monitoring Results in the Reporting Period
|
Average, dB(A), Leq (30 mins) |
Range, dB(A), Leq (30 mins) |
Limit Level, dB(A), Leq (30 mins) |
NMS2 |
66 |
65 ¡V 67* |
75 |
NMS3A |
64 |
62 ¡V 66 |
70^ |
*+3dB(A) Façade
correction included
^
Daytime noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to education
institutions
3.7.2
Due to one documented complaint is received; one (1) Action Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the
reporting month. The investigation results showed that the action level exceedance was non-project related. No Limit Level Exceedance
of construction noise was recorded in the reporting month.
3.7.3
Major noise sources during the noise
monitoring included construction activities of the Project, construction
activities by other contracts and nearby traffic noise.
3.7.4
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix
L.
4.1.1
Impact water quality monitoring was carried
out to ensure that any deterioration of water quality was detected, and that
timely action was taken to rectify the situation. For impact water quality monitoring,
measurements were taken in accordance with the Project Specific EM&A
Manual. Appendix D shows the established Action/Limit Levels for the
environmental monitoring works.
4.2.1
Table 4.1 summarises
the equipment used in the impact water quality monitoring programme.
Table 4.1 Water
Quality Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Brand and Model |
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Temperature
Meter, Salinity Meter and Turbidimeter |
YSI Model 6820 |
pH Meter |
YSI Model 6820 or Thermo Orion 230A+ |
Positioning Equipment |
JRC DGPS 224 Model JLR-4341 with J-NAV
500 Model NWZ4551 |
Water Depth Detector |
Eagle Cuda-168 |
Water Sampler |
Kahlsio Water Sampler (Vertical) 2.2 L with messenger |
4.3
Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
4.3.1
Table 4.2 summarises
the monitoring parameters, frequency and monitoring depths of impact water
quality monitoring as required in the Project Specific EM&A Manual.
Table 4.2 Impact
Water Quality Monitoring Parameters and Frequency
Monitoring Stations |
Parameter, unit |
Frequency |
No. of depth |
Impact Stations: IS5,
IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS8, IS(Mf)9, IS10, IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16, IS17 Control/Far Field Stations: CS(Mf)3,
CS(Mf)5, CS4, CS6, CSA Sensitive Receiver Stations: SR3-SR7,
SR10A&SR10B |
¡P
Depth, m ¡P
Temperature, oC ¡P
Salinity, ppt ¡P
Dissolved
Oxygen (DO), mg/L ¡P
DO
Saturation, % ¡P
Turbidity,
NTU ¡P
pH ¡P
Suspended
Solids (SS), mg/L |
Three times per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides
(within ¡Ó 1.75 hour of the predicted time) |
3 (1 m below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above
sea bed, except where the water depth is less than 6 m, in which case the
mid-depth station may be omitted. Should the water depth be less than 3
m, only the mid-depth station will be monitored). |
4.4.1
In accordance with the Project Specific
EM&A Manual, twenty-one stations (9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver
Stations and 5 Control/Far Field Stations) were designated for impact water
quality monitoring. The nine Impact Stations (IS) were chosen on the basis of
their proximity to the reclamation and thus the greatest potential for water
quality impacts, the seven Sensitive Receiver Stations (SR) were chosen as they
are close to the key sensitive receives and the five Control/ Far Field
Stations (CS) were chosen to facilitate comparison of the water quality of the
IS stations with less influence by the Project/ ambient water quality
conditions.
4.4.2
Due to safety concern and topographical
condition of the original locations of SR4 and SR10B, alternative impact water
quality monitoring stations, naming as SR4 (N) and SR10B (N), were adopted,
which are situated in vicinity of the original impact water quality monitoring
stations (SR4 and SR10B) and could be reachable.
4.4.3
Same baseline and Action Level for water
quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded, were adopted
for these alternative impact water quality monitoring stations.
4.4.4
The locations of these monitoring stations are
summarized in Table 4.3 and depicted in Figure 3.
Table 4.3 Impact
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Station |
Description |
East |
North |
IS5 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
811579 |
817106 |
IS(Mf)6 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
812101 |
817873 |
IS7 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
812244 |
818777 |
IS8 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
814251 |
818412 |
IS(Mf)9 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
813273 |
818850 |
IS10 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
812577 |
820670 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
813562 |
820716 |
|
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
814328 |
819497 |
|
IS17 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
814539 |
820391 |
SR3 |
Sensitive
receivers (San Tau SSSI) |
810525 |
816456 |
SR4(N) |
Sensitive
receivers (Tai Ho) |
814705 |
817859 |
SR5 |
Sensitive
receivers (Artificial Reef in NE Airport) |
811489 |
820455 |
SR6 |
Sensitive
receivers (Sha Chau and Lung Kwu
Chau Marine Park) |
805837 |
821818 |
SR7 |
Sensitive receivers (Tai Mo Do) |
814293 |
821431 |
SR10A |
Sensitive
receivers (Ma Wan FCZ)1 |
823741 |
823495 |
SR10B(N) |
Sensitive
receivers (Ma Wan FCZ)2 |
823683 |
823187 |
Control
Station |
809989 |
821117 |
|
Control
Station |
817990 |
821129 |
|
CS4 |
Control
Station |
810025 |
824004 |
CS6 |
Control
Station |
817028 |
823992 |
CSA |
Control
Station |
818103 |
823064 |
4.5.1
Instrumentation
(a)
The
in-situ water quality parameters, viz. dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity,
turbidity and pH, were measured by multi-parameter meters (i.e. Model YSI 6820
CE-C-M-Y) and pH meter (i.e. Thermo Orion 230A+) respectively.
4.5.2
Operating/Analytical Procedures
(a)
Digital Differential Global
Positioning Systems (DGPS) were used
to ensure that the correct location was selected prior to sample collection.
(b)
Portable,
battery-operated echo sounders were used for the determination of water depth
at each designated monitoring station.
(c)
All
in-situ measurements were taken at 3 water depths, 1 m
below water surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water
depth was less than 6 m, in which case the mid-depth station was omitted.
Should the water depth be less than 3 m, only the mid-depth station was
monitored.
(d)
At each
measurement/sampling depth, two consecutive in-situ monitoring (DO
concentration and saturation, temperature, turbidity, pH, salinity) and water
sample for SS. The probes were retrieved out of the water after the first
measurement and then re-deployed for the second measurement. Where the
difference in the value between the first and second readings of DO or
turbidity parameters was more than 25% of the value of the first reading, the
reading was discarded and further readings were taken.
(e)
Duplicate
samples from each independent sampling event were collected for SS measurement.
Water samples were collected using the water samplers and the samples were
stored in high-density polythene bottles. Water samples collected were
well-mixed in the water sampler prior to pre-rinsing and transferring to sample
bottles. Sample bottles were pre-rinsed with the same water samples. The sample
bottles were then be packed in cool-boxes (cooled at 4oC without
being frozen), and delivered to ALS Technichem (HK)
Pty Ltd. for the analysis of suspended solids concentrations. The laboratory
determination work would be started within 24 hours after collection of the
water samples. ALS Technichem (HK)
Pty Ltd. is a HOKLAS accredited laboratory and has comprehensive quality
assurance and quality control programmes. For QA/QC
procedures, one duplicate samples of every batch of 20 samples was
analyzed.
(f)
The
analysis method and reporting and detection limit for SS is shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Laboratory
Analysis for Suspended Solids
Parameters |
Instrumentation |
Analytical Method |
Reporting Limit |
Detection Limit |
Suspended Solid (SS) |
Weighting |
APHA
2540-D |
0.5mg/L |
0.5mg/L |
(g)
Other
relevant data were recorded, including monitoring location / position, time, water
depth, tidal stages, weather conditions and any special phenomena or work
underway at the construction site in the field log sheet for information.
4.5.3
Maintenance and Calibration
(a)
All in
situ monitoring instruments would be calibrated and calibrated by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. before use and at 3-monthly
intervals throughout all stages of the water quality monitoring programme. Calibration details are provided in Appendix E.
(b)
The
dissolved oxygen probe of YSI 6820 was calibrated by wet bulb method. Before
the calibration routine, the sensor for dissolved oxygen was thermally
equilibrated in water-saturated air. Calibration cup is served as a calibration
chamber and it was loosened from airtight condition before it is used for the
calibration. Calibration at ALS Technichem (HK) Pty
Ltd. was carried out once every three months in a water sample with a known
concentration of dissolved oxygen. The sensor was immersed in the water and
after thermal equilibration, the known mg/L value was keyed in and the calibration
was carried out automatically.
(c)
The
turbidity probe of YSI 6820 is calibrated two times a month. A zero check in
distilled water was performed with the turbidity probe of YSI 6820 once per
monitoring day. The probe will be calibrated with a solution of known NTU at
ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. once every three months.
4.6
Monitoring Schedule for
the Reporting Month
4.6.1
The schedule for impact water quality
monitoring in March 2013 is provided in Appendix F.
4.7.1
Impact water quality monitoring results and
graphical presentations are provided in Appendix J.
4.7.2
One (1) Limit and Action (1) Limit Level exceedance were recorded at during
mid flood tide at SR5 and mid ebb tide at IS(Mf)16 respectively in the reporting
month. The investigation results show that the action and limit level exceedance were non-project related.
4.7.2.1 As informed by the Contractor, stone column
installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D by FTB 16, AP1 and
AP2; at Portion A by
FTB19, FTB 20, AP3 and AP4; at Portion C2c by FTB 18 and at Portion E1 by FTB 17. Cellular
structure installation works was conducted at Portion E2 by ES668¡BSHB 401, WK, ES18,
FY3228 and ES1 and at Portion B by SHB190, 208, 305 and 402..
4.7.2.2 Exceedances were not
due to marine based construction works of the Project because:
4.7.2.3 For exceedance
recorded at SR5 during mid flood tide, since monitoring stations IS10 and
IS(Mf)11 are considered downstream and closer to the active works than
monitoring station SR5 and the Suspended Solids values recorded at IS10 and
IS(Mf)11 are all below the Action and Limit Level during same tide on the same
day. The water quality noted at downstream of and closer to active works were
not adversely affected by active works.Hence it is
considered that the exceedance recorded at SR5 are
not related to the Project.
4.7.2.4 For action level exceedance
of suspended solid recorded at IS(Mf)16 during mid ebb
tide, stone column installations were carried out at almost the same locations
on 27, 29 Mar 13 and 1 April 13, but all Suspended Solids results recorded at
all monitoring location on 27 Mar 13 and 1 Apr 13 are all below the Action and
Limit Level. Which indicates that stone column installation is unlikely to
contribute to the action level exceedance recorded at
IS(Mf)16.
4.7.2.5 When impact water quality monitoring was carried
out during mid ebb and mid flood tide at monitoring location IS(Mf)16 on 29 Mar
13, yellow brown color of sea water was noted but no silty
plume was observed to flow from the inside to the outside of the site boundary.
4.7.2.6 Cellular structure installation work was
conducted at Portion E2 by ES668¡BSHB 401, WK, ES18, FY3228 and
ES1 and at Portion B by SHB190, 208, 305 and 402 during mid ebb tide on 29
Mar 13 but cellular structure installation was considered unlikely to
contribute to elevation of suspended solid.
4.7.2.7
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the
vicinity of SR5 and IS(Mf)16.
4.7.2.8 Floating type silt curtains were provided
around the whole works area. In addition, it was noted that the Contractor
swiftly rectified the perimeter silt curtain in particular the portions which
defects were observed on 28 March 13 to ensure the sediment plume generated by
construction activities could be prevented from discharging to areas outside
the site boundary.
4.7.2.9 The Contractor was reminded to carry out maintenance
work once defects were found.
4.7.2.10 As informed by the Contractor, maintenance
work of the silt curtain was carried out on a daily basis except Sunday and
public holiday.
4.7.2.11 The investigation results show that
the action
and limit level exceedance were non-project related.
Table 4.5 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances
Exceedance Level |
DO (S&M) |
DO (Bottom) |
Turbidity |
SS |
Total |
||||||
Ebb |
Flood |
Ebb |
Flood |
Ebb |
Flood |
Ebb |
Flood |
Ebb |
Flood |
||
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS(Mf)6 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS7 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS8 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS10 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS(Mf)11 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS(Mf)16 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
(1) 29 Mar 13 |
0 |
(1) 29 Mar 13 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS17 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR3 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR4(N) |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR5 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
(1) 29 Mar 13 |
0 |
(1) 29 Mar 13 |
|
SR6 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR7 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR10A |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR10B (N) |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
(1) 29 Mar 13 |
|
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
(1)
29 Mar 13 |
Note: S:
Surface; and
M:
Mid-depth.
4.7.3
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix
L.
5.1.1
Vessel based surveys for the Chinese White Dolphin
(CWD), Sousa chinensis,
are to be conducted by a dedicated team comprising a qualified marine
mammal ecologist and experienced marine mammal observers (MMOs). The purpose of
the surveys are to evaluate the impact of the HKCBF reclamation and, if deemed
detrimental, to take appropriate action as per the EM&A manual.
5.1.2
This ¡¥Impact Monitoring¡¦ follows several
months of ¡¥Baseline Monitoring¡¦ so similar survey methodologies have been
adopted to facilitate comparisons between datasets. Further, the data collected are
compatible with, and are available for, incorporation into the data set managed
by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) as part of
Hong Kong¡¦s long term Marine Mammal Monitoring Programme.
5.2
Monitoring Equipment
5.2.1
Table 5.1 summarises
the equipment used for the impact dolphin monitoring.
Table 5.1 Dolphin
Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Model |
Commercially
licensed motor vessel |
15m in length with a 4.5m viewing
platform |
Global Positioning System (GPS) x2 |
Garmin 18X-PC Geo One Phottix
|
Computers (Corei7) x2 |
Windows /MSO 10 Logger |
AIS receiver |
Logger ¡V GPS linked |
Camera |
Nikon D90 300m
2.8D fixed focus Nikon D90 20-300m zoom lens |
Laser Rangefinder |
Infinitor LRF1000/Visionking 900 |
Marine Binocular x3 |
Nexus 7 x 50
marine binocular with compass and reticules Fujinon 7 x
50 marine binocular with compass and reticules |
5.3
Monitoring Frequency and Conditions
5.3.1
Dolphin monitoring is conducted twice per
month in each survey area.
5.3.2
Dolphin monitoring is conducted only when
visibility is good (e.g., over 1km) and the sea condition is at a Beaufort Sea
State of 4 or better.
5.3.3
When thunder storm, black rain or typhoon
warnings are in force, all survey effort is stopped.
5.4
Monitoring Methodology and Location
5.4.1
The impact dolphin monitoring is vessel-based
and combines line-transect and photo-ID methodology. The survey follows pre-set and fixed
transect lines in the two areas defined by AFCD as:
Northeast Lantau survey
area; and
Northwest Lantau survey area.
5.4.2
The co-ordinates for the transect lines and
layout map have been provided by AFCD and are shown in Table 5.2 and Figure 4.
Table 5.2 Impact
Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates (Provided by AFCD)
|
HK Grid System |
Long Lat in WGS84 |
||
ID |
X |
Y |
Long |
Lat |
1 |
804671 |
814577 |
113.870308 |
22.269741 |
1 |
804671 |
831404 |
113.869975 |
22.421696 |
2 |
805475 |
815457 |
113.878087 |
22.277704 |
2 |
805477 |
826654 |
113.877896 |
22.378814 |
3 |
806464 |
819435 |
113.887615 |
22.313643 |
3 |
806464 |
822911 |
113.887550 |
22.345030 |
4 |
807518 |
819771 |
113.897833 |
22.316697 |
4 |
807518 |
829230 |
113.897663 |
22.402113 |
5 |
808504 |
820220 |
113.907397 |
22.320761 |
5 |
808504 |
828602 |
113.907252 |
22.396462 |
6 |
809490 |
820466 |
113.916965 |
22.323003 |
6 |
809490 |
825352 |
113.916884 |
22.367128 |
7 |
810499 |
820690 |
113.926752 |
22.325043 |
7 |
810499 |
824613 |
113.926688 |
22.360464 |
8 |
811508 |
820847 |
113.936539 |
22.326475 |
8 |
811508 |
824254 |
113.936486 |
22.357241 |
9 |
812516 |
820892 |
113.946329 |
22.326894 |
9 |
812516 |
824254 |
113.946279 |
22.357255 |
10* |
813525 |
818270 |
113.956156 |
22.303225 |
10* |
813525 |
824657 |
113.956065 |
22.360912 |
11 |
814556 |
818449 |
113.966160 |
22.304858 |
11 |
814556 |
820992 |
113.966125 |
22.327820 |
12 |
815542 |
818807 |
113.975726 |
22.308109 |
12 |
815542 |
824882 |
113.975647 |
22.362962 |
13 |
816506 |
819480 |
113.985072 |
22.314192 |
13 |
816506 |
824859 |
113.985005 |
22.362771 |
14 |
817537 |
820220 |
113.995070 |
22.320883 |
14 |
817537 |
824613 |
113.995018 |
22.360556 |
15 |
818568 |
820735 |
114.005071 |
22.325550 |
15 |
818568 |
824433 |
114.005030 |
22.358947 |
16 |
819532 |
821420 |
114.014420 |
22.331747 |
16 |
819532 |
824209 |
114.014390 |
22.356933 |
17 |
820451 |
822125 |
114.023333 |
22.338117 |
17 |
820451 |
823671 |
114.023317 |
22.352084 |
18 |
821504 |
822371 |
114.033556 |
22.340353 |
18 |
821504 |
823761 |
114.033544 |
22.352903 |
19 |
822513 |
823268 |
114.043340 |
22.348458 |
19 |
822513 |
824321 |
114.043331 |
22.357971 |
20 |
823477 |
823402 |
114.052695 |
22.349680 |
20 |
823477 |
824613 |
114.052686 |
22.360610 |
21 |
805476 |
827081 |
113.877878 |
22.382668 |
21 |
805476 |
830562 |
113.877811 |
22.414103 |
22 |
806464 |
824033 |
113.887520 |
22.355164 |
22 |
806464 |
829598 |
113.887416 |
22.405423 |
23 |
814559 |
821739 |
113.966142 |
22.334574 |
23 |
814559 |
824768 |
113.966101 |
22.361920 |
*Remark: Due to the presence of deployed silt curtain systems at the site
boundaries of the Project, some of the transect lines shown in Figure 5 could
not be fully surveyed during the regular survey. Transect 10 is reduced from
6.4km to approximately 3.6km in length due to the HKBCF construction site.
Therefore the total transect length for both NEL and
NWL combined is reduced to approximately 111km.
5.5.1
The study area incorporates 23 transects
which are to be surveyed twice per month.
Each survey day lasts approximately 9 hours.
5.5.2
The survey vessel departs from Tung Chung
Development Pier, Tsing Yi Public Pier or the nearest
safe and convenient pier.
5.5.3
When the vessel reaches the start of a
transect line, ¡§on effort¡¨ survey begins. Areas between transect lines and
traveling to and from the study area are defined as ¡§off effort¡¨.
5.5.4
The transect line is surveyed at a speed of
6-8 knots (11-14 km/hr). For the sake of safety, the speed was sometimes a bit
slower to avoid collision with other vessels. During some periods, tide and current
flow in the survey areas exceeds 7 knots which can affect survey speed. There
are a minimum of four marine mammal observers (MMOs) present on each survey,
rotating through four positions, observers (2), data recorder (1) and ¡¥rest¡¦
(1). Rotations occur every 30 minutes or at the end of dolphin encounters. The data recorder records effort,
weather and sightings data directly onto the programme
Logger and is not part of the
observer team. The
observers search with naked eye and binoculars between 90¢X and 270¢X abeam (bow
being 0¢X).
5.5.5
When a group of dolphins is sighted,
position, bearing and distance data are recorded immediately onto the computer
and, after a short observation, an estimate made of group size. These parameters are linked to the
time-GPS-ships data which are automatically stored in the programme
Logger throughout the survey period.
In this manner, information on heading, position, speed, weather, effort
and sightings are stored in a format suitable for use with
DISTANCE software for subsequent line transect analyses.
5.5.6
Once the vessel leaves the transect line, it
is deemed to be ¡§off effort¡¨. The dolphins are approached with the purpose of
taking high resolution pictures for proper photo-identification of individual
CWD. Attempts to photograph all
dolphins in the group are made.
Both the left and right hand sides of the dorsal fin area of each
dolphin in the group are photographed, if possible. On finishing photographing, the vessel
will return to the transect line at the point of departure and ¡§on effort¡¨
survey is resumed.
5.5.7
Sightings which are made while on the
transect line are referred to as "on effort sightings", while not on
the actual transect line are referred to as an ¡§opportunistic sightings¡¨ (e.g.
another group of dolphins is sighted while travelling back to the transect
line). Only ¡§on effort sightings¡¨
can be used in analyses which require effort or rate quantification, e.g.,
encounter rate per 100km searched.
This is also how ¡§on effort sightings¡¨ are treated in the baseline
report. ¡§Opportunistic sightings¡¨
provide additional information on individual habitat use and population
distribution and they are noted accordingly.
5.5.8
As time and GPS data are automatically logged
throughout the survey and are linked to sightings data input, start and end
times of encounters and deviation from the transect lines are recorded and can
be subsequently reviewed.
5.6
Monitoring Schedule for the Reporting Month
5.6.1
The schedule for dolphin monitoring in March 2013 is provided in Appendix F.
5.7
Results and Observations
5.7.1 Dolphin surveys were conducted on 18, 19, 27 and 28 March 2013. In summary, a total of 222.6km of ¡§on effort¡§ survey was conducted while 95% of ¡§on effort¡¨ survey was
conducted under favourable conditions (Beaufort Sea
State 3 or better). The details are
shown below:-
5.7.2
The effort summary and sightings data are
shown in Tables 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. The survey effort
conducted in March 2013 are plotted in Figure 5a-c. For Table 5.3, only on-effort
information is included. Transects conducted in all Beaufort Sea State are
included. Compared to previous monthly reports, the whole number Beaufort Sea
State scale is used so as to ease comparison with other dolphin monitoring
reports.
Table
5.3 Impact
Dolphin Monitoring Survey Effort Summary
Survey |
Date |
Status |
Sea State (on effort only) |
Distance (km) |
1 |
18-03-13 |
ON |
1 |
77.8 |
Total |
77.8 |
|||
19-03-13 |
ON |
1 |
29.9 |
|
19-03-13 |
ON |
2 |
3.6 |
|
Total |
33.5 |
|||
2 |
27-03-13 |
ON |
1 |
6.8 |
27-03-13 |
ON |
2 |
28.4 |
|
Total |
35.2 |
|||
28-03-13 |
ON |
1 |
37 |
|
28-03-13 |
ON |
2 |
18.1 |
|
28-03-12 |
ON |
3 |
9.2 |
|
28-03-13 |
ON |
4 |
11.8 |
|
Total |
76.1 |
|||
Total in March 2013 |
222.6 |
*Remark: Surveys conduct under
Beaufort Sea State 3 or below are considered as under favourable
condition.
Table
5.4 Impact
Dolphin Monitoring Survey Details in March 2013
Date |
Location (transect
line) |
No. Sightings ¡§ON EFFORT¡¨ |
No. Sightings ¡§OPPORTUNISTIC¡¨ |
18-03-13 |
NW
& NE Lantau (1-10,21,22) |
0 |
1 |
19-03-13 |
NE Lantau (11-20,23) |
0 |
0 |
27-03-13 |
NW Lantau (1-3,21) |
0 |
0 |
28-03-13 |
NW
& NE Lantau (4-20,22,23) |
2 |
0 |
Total in March 2013 |
2 |
1 |
5.7.3
A total of three dolphin sightings were
recorded during the two surveys, one on the 18 March 2013 and two on the 28 March
2013. Of the three sightings, two were ¡§on effort¡¨ (which
are all under favourable condition) and one was ¡§opportunistic¡¨. A total of ten individuals were sighted
from the two impact dolphin surveys in the reporting period. Sighting details
are summarised and plotted in Appendix K and Figure
5c, respectively.
5.7.4
Behaviour: two groups were feeding and one group was associated with multiple behaviour (feeding and travelling).
5.7.5
Noteworthy Observations: other non-project
related marine works were observed in both NWL and NEL areas, respectively; in
particular in the vicinity of transect line 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 23.
5.7.6
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix
L.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INSPECTION AND AUDIT
6.1.1
Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly
basis to monitor the implementation of proper environmental pollution control
and mitigation measures for the Project. In the reporting month, 4 site inspections were
carried out on 7, 14, 21, and 28
March 2013.
6.1.2
Particular observations during the site inspections
are described below:
Air Quality
6.1.3
No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting month.
Noise
6.1.4
An idle air compressor was found without a
valid noise emission label on FTB19. The Contractor was reminded to stick a
valid noise emission label onto the compressor prior to operation of the
compressor. (Reminder)
Water Quality
6.1.5
Defects at parts of the perimeter silt
curtain at portions E1, C2a and C2c were rectified. The Contractor was reminded
to keep monitor and well maintain of the silt curtain more frequently to ensure
the silt curtain are fully functional. (Closed)
6.1.6
One of the existing bunding
was found too low on barge FTB19. The Contractor was reminded to enhance the
height of the existing bunding to effectively contain
potential oil leakage. (Follow up)
6.1.7
The screw at the outlet of a drip tray on
barge AP4 was observed missing. The Contractor provided effective mitigation
measures to effectively seal the outlet of the drip tray to prevent potential
oil seepage in April 2013. The Contractor was advised to provide effective
mitigation measures to effectively seal the outlet of the all drip tray to
prevent potential oil seepage. (Follow up)
Chemical and Waste Management
Waste
6.1.8
Oil drums were found improperly stored on barge
SHB 209, Fai Yui 3228, FTB19 and SHB 205, Sun Moon Kee. The Contractor immediately provided mitigation
measures and put the oil drum inside bunding or remove the oil drum. The Contractor was reminded to provide
mitigation measures such as drip tray or bunding to
all oil drums. (Reminder)
6.1.9
Vibratory clamps were found improperly stored
on barge SHB305. The Contractor should provide proper measures, like drip trays
and tarpaulin sheet coverage, to retain any leaked oil from the plants. Vibratory clamps found improperly stored
on barge SHB305 were removed in the reporting month. (Closed)
6.1.10
Oil drums were found without proper labels on
barge FTB 19. The Contractor provided mitigation measures and labeled the oil
drums. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as
labeling to all oil drums. (Reminder)
6.1.11
General waste was observed uncovered on barge
Fai Yui 3228 and SHB305. The Contractor rectified the
condition upon notification by providing bin bags to waste and relocated them
to a waste collection point. The Contractor was reminded to keep the barge
surface clean and tidy. (Reminder)
Landscape
and Visual Impact
6.1.12
No relevant works was carried out in the
reporting month.
Others
6.1.13
No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting month.
6.1.14
The Contractor had rectified most of the
observations as identified during environmental site inspection in the
reporting month. Rectifications of remaining identified items are undergoing by
the Contractor. Follow-up inspections on the status on provision of mitigation
measures will be conducted to ensure all identified items are mitigated
properly.
6.2
Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status (To be updated)
6.2.1
The Contractor had registered as a chemical
waste producer for this Project. Receptacles were available for general refuse
collection and sorting.
6.2.2
As advised by the Contractor, 121,154.5 m3
of fill were imported for the Project use in the reporting period. 2000.0 L of chemical
waste (liquid) were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. 13 tonnes of general refuse were generated and
disposed of in the reporting period. Monthly summary of waste flow table is
detailed in Appendix M.
6.2.3
The Contractor is advised to properly
maintain on site C&D materials and wastes storage, collection, sorting and
recording system, dispose of C&D materials and wastes at designated ground
and maximize reuse / recycle of C&D materials and wastes. The Contractor is
reminded to properly maintain the site tidiness and dispose of the wastes
accumulated on site regularly and properly.
6.2.4
The Contractor is reminded that chemical
waste should be properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical
waste storage area on site in accordance with the Code of Practice on the
Packaging, Labeling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.
6.3
Environmental Licenses and Permits
6.3.1
The environmental licenses and permits for
the Project and valid in the reporting month is summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Summary of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status
Statutory
Reference |
License/
Permit |
License
or Permit No. |
Valid
Period |
License/
Permit Holder |
Remarks |
|
From |
To |
|||||
EIAO |
Environmental Permit |
EP-353/2009/E |
16/10/2012 |
N/A |
HyD |
Hong Kong ¡V Zhuhai ¡V Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities |
EP-354/2009/A |
08/12/2010 |
N/A |
Tuen Mun ¡V Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only) |
|||
APCO |
NA notification |
-- |
30/12/2011 |
-- |
CHEC |
Works Area WA2 and WA3 |
APCO |
NA notification |
-- |
17/01/2012 |
-- |
CHEC |
Works Area WA4 |
WDO |
Chemical Waste Producer Registration |
5213-951-C1186-21 |
30/3/2012 |
N/A |
CHEC |
Chemical waste produced in Contract HY/2010/02 |
WDO |
Chemical Waste Producer Registration |
5213-974-C3750-01 |
31/10/2012 |
-- |
CHEC |
Registration as Chemical Waste Producer at To Kau Wan(WA4) |
WDO |
Chemical Waste Producer Registration |
5213-839-C3750-02 |
13/09/2012 |
-- |
CHEC |
Registration as Chemical Waste Producer at TKO
137(FB) |
WDO |
Billing Account for Disposal of Construction Waste |
7014181 |
05/12/2011 |
N/A |
CHEC |
Waste disposal in Contract HY/2010/02 |
NCO |
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RS1111-12 |
01/11/2012 |
30/04/2013 |
CHEC |
Works
Area WA3 in Siu Ho Wan |
NCO |
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-RS0122-13 |
08/02/2013 |
04/08/2013 |
CHEC |
Marine-based areas in Contract HY/2010/02 |
NCO |
Construction Noise Permit |
N/A |
Application in process |
N/A |
CHEC |
Works Area WA 4 in Contract HY/2010/02 |
6.4
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
6.4.1
As
mentioned in section 6.1.5 above, defects were noticed
at parts of the perimeter silt curtain at portions E1, C2a. C2c and those defective parts are yet to be rectified. Although
maintenance works were noted during site inspections and on the records
provided by the Contractor. However, there is still parts of the silt curtain
were found defective in the reporting month therefore the
Contractor was reminded again to swiftly complete the rectification works
of the perimeter silt curtain in particular the
portions where defects were observed to ensure the sediment plume generated by
construction activities could be prevented from discharging to areas outside
the site boundary. Meanwhile, ET
shall follow up the situation and continue to closely monitor progress of the
maintenance work and report the progress accordingly.
6.4.2
In response to the site audit findings, the
Contractors carried out corrective actions.
6.4.3
A summary of the Implementation Schedule of
Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of
the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.
6.4.4
Training of marine travel route for marine
vessels operator was given to relevant staff and relevant records were kept
properly.
6.4.5
Regarding the implementation of dolphin
monitoring and protection measures (i.e. implementation of Dolphin Watching
Plan, Dolphin Exclusion Zone and Silt Curtain integrity Check), regular
checking were conducted by the experienced MMOs within the works area to ensure
no dolphin was trapped by the enclosed silt curtain systems. Any dolphin
spotted within the enclosed silt curtain systems was reported and recorded.
Relevant procedures were followed and measures were well implemented. Silt
curtain systems were also inspected timely in accordance to the submitted plan.
All inspection records were kept properly.
6.4.6
Acoustic decoupling measures on noisy plants
on construction vessels were checked regularly and these measures were well
implemented.
6.5
Summary of Exceedances of
the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
6.5.1
Two (2) 24-hour TSP result
exceeded the Action Level on 4 and 9 March 2013 at monitoring station AMS3A and
one (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded the Limit Level on 15 March 2013 monitoring
station AMS3A in the reporting month. All 1-hour TSP results were below the
Action and Limit Level at all monitoring locations in the reporting month.
6.5.2
For construction noise, one (1) Action Level exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the
reporting period. No Limit Level exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the reporting period. The investigation results
show that the action level exceedance was non-project
related.
6.5.3
One (1) Limit and Action (1) Limit Level exceedance were recorded at during mid flood tide at SR5
and mid ebb tide at IS(Mf)16 respectively in the reporting month. The
investigation results showed that the action and limit level exceedance were non-project related.
6.5.4
Cumulative statistics on exceedance
is provided in Appendix N.
6.6
Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and
Successful Prosecutions
6.6.1
The Environmental Complaint Handling
Procedure is annexed in Figure 6.
6.6.2
One (1) complaint was referred by EPD to ET on 4 March 13
regarding the construction noise impact from cranes operating from the barges
for the Hong Kong ¡VZhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong
Project generating squeak noise in the evening of 1 Mar 2013 causing annoyance
to him/her. The investigation results show that the complaint was non-project
related.
6.6.2.1 With refer to the site daily of 1 Mar 13 provided
by the Contractor, 1 cranes operated at Zone S3 and S4 respectively and 4
cranes operated in Zone C of CNP No.RS0122-13 (please see attached Plan no.1
for respective zones). Squeak noise or other abnormal noise was unlikely to be
generated by their operation on 1 Mar 13. Moreover, considering the distance
between reclamation area and Tung Chung residential area is around 1.8 km, the
noise to the residential area should be low.
6.6.2.2 As informed by the Contractor, the tug boats,
derrick barges, pelican barges working at the site of HKBCF have been
maintained in good working condition and no squeak nor other abnormal noise
emitted will cause annoyance to any person at any noise sensitive receiver
which in compliance with the CNP no. RS0122-13.
6.6.2.3 As a result, the noise complaint was considered as
non-project related.
6.6.2.4 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded
to maintain tug boats, derricks
barges and pelican barges in
good working conditions from
which neither squeak nor other abnormal noise emitted was a source of
annoyance to any person at any noise sensitive receiver.
6.6.3
No notification of summons and prosecution was received in the reporting
period.
6.6.4
Statistics on complaints, notifications of
summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix N.
7.1
Construction Programme for the Coming Months
7.1.1
As informed by the Contractor, the major
works for the Project in April and May 2013 will be:-
Marine-based
Works
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Sand blanket laying
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Stone column installation
-
Laying stone blanket
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Band drain installation
-
Instrumentation works
-
Rubble mound seawall construction
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Ground investigation
Land-based
Works
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at
Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public
Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Geo-textile fabrication at Works
Area WA2
-
Silt curtain fabrication at Works
Area WA4
-
Erection of site office at Works
Area WA2
7.2
Key Issues for the Coming Month
7.2.1
Key issues to be considered in the coming
months:-
-
Site runoff
should be properly collected and treated prior to discharge;
-
Minimize loss
of sediment from filling works;
-
Regular review
and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting facilities;
-
Exposed
surfaces/soil stockpiles should be properly treated to avoid generation of silty surface run-off during rainstorm;
-
Regular review
and maintenance of wheel washing facilities provided at all site
entrances/exits;
-
Conduct regular
inspection of various working machineries and vessels within works areas to
avoid any dark smoke emission;
-
Suppress dust
generated from work processes with use of bagged cements, earth movements,
excavation activities, exposed surfaces/soil stockpiles and haul
road traffic;
-
Quieter powered
mechanical equipment should be used;
-
Provision of
proper and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and
machinery on-site, such as erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for
noisy plants;
-
Closely check
and replace the sound insulation materials regularly;
-
Better scheduling
of construction works to minimize noise nuisance;
-
Properly store
and label oil drums and chemical containers placed on site;
-
Proper
chemicals, chemical wastes and wastes management;
-
Maintenance
works should be carried out within roofed, paved and confined areas;
-
Collection and
segregation of construction waste and general refuse on land and in the sea
should be carried out properly and regularly; and
-
Proper
protection and regular inspection of existing trees, transplanted/retained
trees.
7.3
Monitoring Schedule for the Coming Month
7.3.1 The tentative schedule
for environmental monitoring in April 2013 is provided in Appendix
F.
8
ConclusionS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1.1
The construction phase and EM&A programme of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
8.1.2
Two (2) 24-hour TSP result
exceeded the Action Level on 4 and 9 March 2013 at monitoring station AMS3A and
one (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded the Limit Level on 15 March 2013 monitoring
station AMS3A in the reporting month. All 1-hour TSP results were below the
Action and Limit Level at all monitoring locations in the reporting month.
8.1.3
Due to one
documented complaint is received, one (1) Action Level
Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the
reporting month. The investigation results show that the action level exceedance was non-project related. No Limit Level Exceedance
of construction noise was recorded in the reporting month.
8.1.4 One (1) Limit and Action (1) Limit Level exceedance
were recorded at during mid flood tide at SR5 and mid ebb tide at IS(Mf)16
respectively in the reporting month. The investigation results showed that the
action and limit level exceedance were non-project
related.
8.1.5 A total of three dolphin sightings were recorded during the two surveys,
one on the 18 March 2013 and two on the 28 March 2013. Of the three sightings, two were ¡§on
effort¡¨ (which are all under favourable condition)
and one was ¡§opportunistic¡¨. A
total of ten individuals were sighted from the two impact dolphin surveys in
the reporting period. Sighting details are summarised
and plotted in Appendix K and Figure 5c, respectively.
8.1.6 Behaviour: two groups were feeding and one group was associated with multiple behaviour (feeding and travelling).
8.1.7
Environmental site inspection was carried out
4 times
in March 2013. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for
the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
8.1.8 One (1) complaint was referred by EPD to ET on 4 March 13 regarding the
construction noise impact from cranes operating from the barges for the Hong
Kong ¡VZhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Project generating squeak noise in the evening
of 1 Mar 2013 causing annoyance to him/her. The investigation results show that
the complaint was non-project related.
8.1.9 No notification of summons
and prosecution was received in the reporting period.
8.2
Recommendations
8.2.1
According to the environmental site
inspections performed in the reporting month, the following recommendations
were provided:
Air Quality Impact
l All working plants and vessels on site should
be regularly inspected and properly maintained to avoid dark smoke emission.
l All vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before
leaving the site.
l Haul roads should be sufficiently dampened to minimize fugitive dust
generation.
l Wheel washing facilities should be properly maintained and reviewed to
ensure properly functioning.
l Temporary exposed slopes and open stockpiles should be properly covered.
l Enclosure should be erected for cement debagging, batching and mixing
operations.
l Water spraying should be
provided to suppress fugitive dust for any dusty construction activity.
Construction Noise Impact
l Quieter powered mechanical equipment should
be used as far as possible.
l Noisy operations should be oriented to a
direction away from sensitive receivers as far as possible.
l Proper and effective noise control measures
for operating equipment and machinery on-site should be provided, such as
erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants. Closely check
and replace the sound insulation materials regularly
l Vessels and equipment operating should be
checked regularly and properly maintained.
l Noise Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed
to the air compressor and hand-held breaker operating within works area.
l Better scheduling of construction works to
minimize noise nuisance.
Water Quality Impact
l Regular review and maintenance of silt
curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting
facilities in order to make sure they are functioning effectively.
l Construction of seawall should be completed
as early as possible.
l Regular inspect and review the loading
process from barges to avoid splashing of material.
l Silt, debris and leaves accumulated at public
drains, wheel washing bays and perimeter u-channels and desilting
facilities should be cleaned up regularly.
l Silty effluent should be treated/ desilted before discharged. Untreated effluent should be
prevented from entering public drain channel.
l Proper drainage channels/bunds should be
provided at the site boundaries to collect/intercept the surface run-off from
works areas.
l Exposed slopes and stockpiles should be
covered up properly during rainstorm.
Chemical and Waste Management
l All types of wastes, both on land and
floating in the sea, should be collected and sorted properly and disposed of
timely and properly. They should be properly stored in designated areas within
works areas temporarily.
l All chemical containers, batteries and oil
drums should be properly stored and labelled.
l All plants and vehicles on site should be
properly maintained to prevent oil leakage. Proper measures, like drip trays
and/or bundings, should be provided for retaining
leaked oil/chemical from plants.
l All kinds of maintenance works should be
carried out within roofed, paved and confined areas.
l All drain holes of the drip trays utilized
within works areas should be properly plugged to avoid any oil and chemical
waste leakage.
l Oil stains on soil surface, accumulated oil
mixture and empty chemical containers should be cleared and disposed of as chemical
waste.
l Regular review
should be conducted for working barges and patrol boats to ensure sufficient
measures and spill control kits were provided on working barges and patrol
boats to avoid any spreading of leaked oil/chemicals.
Landscape and Visual Impact
l All existing, retained/transplanted trees at
the works areas should be properly fenced off and regularly inspected.