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 April
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 April 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 April
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 24 Apr 2013 (EP-353/2009/F) 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 30 April 2013. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting period were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Sand blanket laying
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Stone column installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Instrumentation works
-
Ground investigation
-
Band drain installation
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 for CHEC(GD)
at Works Area WA2
-
Green roof construction at Works
Area WA2
-
Construction of Temporary Marine
Access 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 |
6 sessions 6 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 13 and 29 April
13 at monitoring station AMS7 and AMS3A respectively. One (1) 24-hour TSP
result exceeded the Limit Level on 08 April 2013 monitoring station AMS3A in
the reporting month. After investigation,
the exceeedances were considered not related to the project.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting period.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
One (1) Action Level exceedance of turbidity (NTU) was recorded at
during mid flood tide at IS17 on 29 April 13. Four (4) Action Level exceedances
of SS were recorded during the reporting period. Where two (2) Action Level
exceedance were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS8 and SR4(N)
respectively on 10 April 13, one (1) were recorded at during mid flood tide at
IS(Mf)16 on 22 April 13; one (1) was recorded during mid flood tide at SR5 on
26 April 13. After investigation, the exceeedances were considered not related
to the project.
Impact Dolphin Monitoring
A total
of six dolphin
sightings were recorded during the two surveys, all sightings were recorded on 1 April 2013. Of the six sightings, five were ¡§on effort¡¨
(which are all under favourable condition) and one was ¡§opportunistic¡¨. A total of nineteen 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: three groups were feeding; two groups were associated with multiple behaviour (feeding and travelling) and one group was recorded as travelling.
Complaint,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution
One (1) complaint
referred by EPD to the ET on 8 April 13 regarding oil dumping observed from
various vessels operating for HZMB HK projects near Tung Chung Development Pier
over the past few months. The investigation results showed that the complaint
was non-project related.
As informed by
the Contractor on 9 May 13, one summons was received on 29 April 13 regarding
the suspected violation case of Noise Control Ordinance (Cap.400) at Works Area
WA4 on 31 Oct 2012. The details of the non-compliance, investigation actions
taken including follow-up site inspection conducted out by the ET and
rectification actions and preventive actions provided by the Contractor was
summarized at section 7 of the Quarterly EM&A summary report for September
2012 ¡V November 2012.
No prosecution was received in the reporting period.
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 fourteenth
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 April 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
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Sand blanket laying
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Stone column installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Instrumentation works
-
Ground investigation
-
Band drain installation
-
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 for CHEC(GD)
at Works Area WA2
-
Green roof construction at Works
Area WA2
-
Construction of Temporary Marine
Access 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 is 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 April 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 |
83 |
81 ¡V 86 |
374 |
500 |
AMS3A |
84 |
81 ¡V 88 |
368 |
500 |
AMS7 |
81 |
79 ¡V 84 |
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 |
57 |
38 -
104 |
176 |
260 |
AMS3A |
130 |
46 -
310 |
167 |
260 |
AMS7 |
92 |
40 -
188 |
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 results exceeded the Action Level on 13 and 29 April 13 at monitoring station AMS7 and AMS3A respectively. One (1)
24-hour TSP result exceeded the Limit Level on 08 April
2013 monitoring station AMS3A in the reporting month.
2.7.5
For the one (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded
the Limit Level on 8 April 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.
2.7.5.1
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
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. Please also see photo and layout map attached for
reference of site conditions.
2.7.5.3
As refer
to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period on 08 and 09 April 13 (as attached) East 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.
2.7.5.4
The 1-hr
TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 08 April 13, which are within the monitoring
period of the 24-hr TSP, were 84 g/m3, 87 g/m3 and 81g/m3
respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
2.7.5.5
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 104 g/m3
and 127 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit
Levels.
2.7.5.6
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.
2.7.5.7
Please see layout map attached for reference
of site conditions
2.7.5.8
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)
2.7.5.9
The dust
exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.
2.7.5.10
The
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 13 April 13 at monitoring station AMS7, According to
information provided by the Contractor, land-based construction activity such
as delivering geotextile material was being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during
the monitoring period. Marine-based construction activity such as stone column
installation was being undertaken at portion D and portion A.
2.7.6.1
Stone
column was being installed at the seabed therefore it is considered that stone
column installation is unlikely to contribute to the recorded 24hr-TSP
exceedance.
2.7.6.2
Functional
checking on HVS at AMS7 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.
2.7.6.3
The 1-hr
TSP values recorded at AMS7 on 13 April 13, which are within the monitoring
days of the 24-hr TSP, were 83 g/m3, 81 g/m3 and 80g/m3 respectively. All
measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
2.7.6.4
The
measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 and AMS3A on the same monitoring
date were 64 g/m3 and 53 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and
Limit Levels.
2.7.6.5
On the
other hand, according to observation made at the monitoring station AMS7, there
was no non-project potential cause/activity at the surrounding of monitoring
station AMS7 which might potentially contribute to the dust action level
exceedance.
2.7.6.6
As refer
to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period on 13 and 14 April 13 (as attached) southwest winds was
prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out by this
Contract is unlikely to cause dust exceedance at AMS7 under southwest
prevailing wind direction.
2.7.6.7
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.
2.7.6.8
The
following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at throughout the
construction site:
l
Excavators
and generators were operated by ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) to minimize the
possibility of air pollution.
2.7.6.9
Please see
layout map attached for reference of site conditions
Pease see
photos of the conditions of the surrounding near the monitoring station AMS7
2.7.6.10
The dust
exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.
2.7.6.11
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 29 April 13 at monitoring station AMS3A, according to
information provided by the Contractor, land-based construction activity such
as using installation of sandbags 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. Please also see photo and layout
map attached for reference of site conditions.
2.7.7.3 As refer
to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period on 29 and 30 April 13 (as attached) South-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.
2.7.7.4 The 1-hr
TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 29 April 13, which are within the monitoring
period of the 24-hr TSP, were 82 g/m3, 82 g/m3 and 79g/m3
respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
2.7.7.5 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 38 g/m3
and 54 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit
Levels.
2.7.7.6 The
following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
¡P
Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was hard-paved,
compacted or hydro-seeded
¡P
Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle
exit points,
¡P
Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission
are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
2.7.7.7 Conditions
of the construction sites near Works Area WA2:
2.7.7.8 Please
see layout map attached for reference of site conditions
2.7.7.9 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)
|
2.7.7.10 The dust
exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.
2.7.7.11 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 April 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 |
62 ¡V 68* |
75 |
NMS3A |
62 |
58 ¡V 63 |
70^ |
*+3dB(A) Façade
correction included
^
Daytime noise Limit Level of 70 dB(A) applies to
education institutions
3.7.2
No Action or 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 April 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)
Action Level exceedance of turbidity (NTU) was recorded at during mid flood
tide at IS17 on 29 April 13. Four (4) Action Level exceedances of SS were
recorded during the reporting period. Where two (2) Action Level exceedance
were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS8 and SR4(N) respectively on 10
April 13, one (1) were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS(Mf)16 on 22
April 13; one (1) was recorded during mid flood tide at SR5 on 26 April 13.
4.7.3
For the
two (2) Action Level exceedance
were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS8 and SR4(N) respectively on 10 April
13. The investigation results show that the action exceedances were non-project related.
4.7.3.1 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 FTB 19, FTB 20, AP3 and AP4; at Portion C2c by FTB 18 and at Portion
E1 by FTB 17. Cellular structure installation works were conducted at Portion
E2 by ES668¡BSHB 401,
WK, ES18, Sanhang floating crane 16 and Sanhang floating crane 7 and at
Portion B by SHB190, 208, 305, 402, 205, 209, 189 and FY3228.
4.7.3.2 Exceedances were not due to marine based
construction works of the Project because:
4.7.3.3 IS(Mf)9 and
IS(Mf)16 are located closer to the active works than monitoring station IS8 and
SR4(N). Depth Averrage Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded during
the flood tide on the same day at IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)16
were below the Action and Limit Level.
4.7.3.4 The monitoring location of monitoring station
IS8 and SR4(N) are considered upstream to the active
works of this project. Therefore it was unlikely that the exceedances recorded
at IS8 and SR4(N) were due to active construction
activities of this project.
4.7.3.5 Cellular structure installation works were
conducted at Portion E2 and at Portion B by construction vessels during mid
flood tide on 10 Apr 13 but cellular structure installation was considered
unlikely to contribute to elevation of Suspended Solids.
4.7.3.6 The exceedances were likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of IS8 and SR4(N).
4.7.3.7 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
4.7.3.8 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday.
4.7.3.9 The investigation results show that
the action
and limit level exceedance were non-project related.
4.7.4
For the
one (1) Action Level exceedance were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS17
on 29 April 13. The investigation results show that the action exceedances were
non-project related.
4.7.4.1 Stone column installation was carried out
throughout the day at Portion D by AP2 and AP4; at Portion A by FTB 20; at Portion C2c by FTB 17
and at Portion E1 by FTB 18.
Cellular structure installation works was conducted at Portion E2 by SHB 402;
at Portion B by SH Floating Crane 7 and 16; Geotextile laying at Portion C1b by
Tung Shun 329.
4.7.4.2 For action level exceedance of depth averaged
turbidity (in NTU) recorded at IS17 during mid ebb tide, stone column
installations were carried out at almost the same locations on 26, 29 Apr 13
and 1 May 13, but all depth averaged turbidity (in NTU) results recorded at all
monitoring location on 26 Apr 13 and 1 May 13 were all below the Action and
Limit Level. Which indicates that stone column installation is unlikely to
contribute to the action level exceedance recorded at IS17?
4.7.4.3 When impact water quality monitoring was
carried out during mid ebb at monitoring location IS17 on 29 April 13, no
discoloration of sea water was observed and no silty plume were observed to
flow from the inside to the outside of the site boundary.
4.7.4.4 Cellular structure installation works was
conducted at Portion E2 by SHB 402; at Portion B by SH Floating Crane 7 and 16
but cellular structure installation was considered unlikely to contribute to
elevation of depth averaged turbidity (in NTU).
4.7.4.5 The exceedances were likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of IS17.
4.7.4.6 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
4.7.4.7 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday.
4.7.5
For the
one (1) Action Level exceedance were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS(Mf)16 on 22 April 13. Stone column
installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D by AP1 and FTB16;
at Portion A by FTB 19, 20 and AP4; at Portion C2a by FTB 17 and geotextile laying was carried out throughout the day by Tung Shun 329
at Portion C2a, at Portion E1 by FTB 18. Cellular structure installation works
was conducted at Portion B by SHB402, SHB205, SHB208 and SHB209.
4.7.5.1 Exceedances were not due to marine based
construction works of the Project because:
4.7.5.2 For action level exceedance of depth averaged
SS (in mg/L) recorded at IS(Mf)16 during mid flood
tide, stone column installations were carried out at almost the same locations
on 19, 22 and 24 Apr 13, but all
depth averaged SS (in mg/L) results recorded at all monitoring location on 19
and 24 Apr 13 13 were 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.
4.7.5.3 When impact water quality monitoring was
carried out during mid flood tide at monitoring location IS(Mf)16
on 22 April 13, no discoloration of sea water was observed and no silty plume
were observed to flow from the inside to the outside of the site boundary.
4.7.5.4 Cellular structure installation works was
conducted at Portion B by SHB402, SHB205, SHB208 and SHB209 but cellular
structure installation was considered unlikely to contribute to elevation of
depth averaged SS (in mg/L).
4.7.5.5 Location of monitoring station IS(Mf)16 is considered
upstream to active works during mid flood tide and therefore it is
unlikely that the elevation of suspended solid is caused by active works.
4.7.5.6 The exceedances were likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)16.
4.7.5.7 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains. The Contractor
was reminded to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
4.7.5.8 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday.
4.7.6
For the one (1) Action Level exceedance were
recorded at during mid flood tide at SR5 on 26 April 13. Stone column
installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion A by AP2 and FTB 20;
at Portion B by AP4; at Portion C2c by FTB 17 and at Portion E1 by FTB 18. Cellular
structure installation works was conducted at Portion B by SHB 402, Evershine 8
and 668, SHB 205, 208, 209 and 305, SH Floating Crane 7 and FY3228; Geotextile
laying at Portion C1b by Tung Shun 329.
4.7.6.1 Exceedance was not due to marine based
construction works of the Project because:
4.7.6.2 Impact Stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11
which are considered downstream and closer to the works than Impact Station
SR5. Since 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.
4.7.6.3 Same type of works was carried out at almost
the same location on 24 April13 and 29 April13 but Suspended Solids values
recorded at SR5 on 24 April13 and 29 April13 are all below the Action and Limit
Level during the same tide on the same day.
4.7.6.4 The exceedance was likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of SR5.
4.7.6.5 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
4.7.6.6 The Contractor was reminded to carry out
maintenance work once defects were found.
4.7.6.7 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday.
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 |
1 (10 Apr 13) |
0 |
1 |
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 |
0 |
1 (22 Apr 13) |
0 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS17 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (29 Apr 13) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
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 |
1 (10 Apr 13) |
0 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR5 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (26 Apr 13) |
0 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
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 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Note: S:
Surface; and
M:
Mid-depth.
4.7.7
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 April 2013 is provided in Appendix F.
5.7
Results and Observations
5.7.1 Dolphin surveys were conducted on 1, 2, 22 and 23 April 2013. In summary, a total of 205.3km of ¡§on effort¡§ survey
was conducted while 92% 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 efforts conducted in
April 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 |
01-04-13 |
ON |
1 |
31.7 |
01-04-13 |
ON |
2 |
25.8 |
|
01-04-13 |
ON |
3 |
6.4 |
|
Total |
63.9 |
|||
02-04-13 |
ON |
0 |
4.0 |
|
02-04-13 |
ON |
1 |
40.8 |
|
02-04-13 |
ON |
2 |
3.3 |
|
Total |
48.1 |
|||
2 |
22-04-13 |
ON |
1 |
0.8 |
22-04-13 |
ON |
2 |
19.9 |
|
22-04-13 |
ON |
3 |
32.1 |
|
22-04-13 |
ON |
4 |
17.6 |
|
Total |
70.4 |
|||
23-04-13 |
ON |
1 |
40.1 |
|
23-04-13 |
ON |
2 |
0.4 |
|
Total |
40.5 |
|||
TOTAL
APRIL 2013 |
222.9 |
*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 April 2013
Date |
Location |
No.
Sightings ¡§on effort¡¨ |
No.
Sightings ¡§opportunistic¡¨ |
NW Lantau
(1-6,21,22) |
5 |
1 |
|
02-04-12 |
NW & NE Lantau
(7-20,23) |
0 |
0 |
22-04-12 |
NW Lantau
(1-8,21,22) |
0 |
0 |
23-04-12 |
NW & NE Lantau
(9-20,23) |
0 |
0 |
TOTAL in April 2013 |
5 |
1 |
5.7.3
A total of six dolphin sightings were recorded
during the two surveys, all sightings were recorded on 1 April 2013. Of the six sightings, five were ¡§on
effort¡¨ (which are all under favourable condition) and one was
¡§opportunistic¡¨. A total of
nineteen 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: three groups were feeding; two groups
were associated with multiple behaviour (feeding and
travelling) and one group was recorded as travelling.
5.7.5
Noteworthy Observations: three mother and calf pairs were observed, two of which
were identified as same pair.
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 4, 11, 18 and 25 April
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
Noise Emission Labels were observed missing
on idle air compressors on barge Sun Moon Kee. The Contractor was reminded to
stick the noise emission labels on the body of all air compressors prior to
operation. (Reminder)
Water Quality
6.1.5
The screw at the outlet of a drip tray on
barge AP4, FTB20, Fai Yu 3228, SHB 208 were observed missing. The Contractor provided mitigation
measures such as to effectively seal the outlet of the drip tray to prevent
potential oil seepage. (Closed)
Chemical and Waste Management
Waste
6.1.6
Oil drums were found without chemical labels
on barge FTB 19 and FTB17. The Contractor provided mitigation measures such as
labeling to all oil drums. (Closed)
6.1.7
One of the existing bunding was found too low
on Barge FTB19 and FTB17. The Contractor was reminded to enhance the height of
the existing bunding to effectively contain potential oil leakage. The
Contractor enhanced the height of the existing bunding on barge FTB 19 to effectively
contain potential oil leakage. (Closed)
6.1.8
The screw at the outlet of a drip tray on
barge AP4 , FTB20, FAI YU 3228, SHB 208 were observed
missing. The Contractor provided mitigation measures such as to effectively
seal the outlet of the drip tray to prevent potential oil seepage. (Closed)
6.1.9
General waste was observed uncovered.
Contractor immediately provided bin bags to cover the waste properly. The
Contractor was reminded to properly store general waste so that the barge
surface could be kept clean and tidy.
(Reminder)
6.1.10
Oil was observed seeping out from a hole of a
bunding on barge SHB402, The hole was sealed by the Contractor using a piece of
wood. and oil was cleared by the Contractor. The
Contractor was reminded to ensure no open holes present on bunding to prevent
potential leakage of oil waste. (Reminder)
6.1.11
Oil stains were observed on the barge surface
of barge SHB 208 and FTB 20. The Contractor was reminded to clear the oil stain
using absorbent material and dispose of as chemical waste. The Contractor was
cleared the oil stain using absorbent material and dispose of as chemical
waste. (Closed)
6.1.12
A battery and chemical container was observed
placed on barge FTB20 without drip tray. The Contractor was relocated that
battery and chemical container inside the drip tray immediately. (Closed)
6.1.13
Oil drums were observed improperly stored on
barge FTB19. The Contractor immediately rectified the situation by relocating
oil drums to area with bunding. (Closed)
Landscape and Visual Impact
6.1.14
No relevant works was carried out in the
reporting month.
Others
6.1.15
No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting month.
6.1.16
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
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, 197,742.8 m3
of fill were imported for the Project use in the reporting period. No chemical waste (liquid)
were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. 26 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 |
6.4
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
6.4.1
In response to the site audit findings, the
Contractors carried out corrective actions.
6.4.2
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.
6.4.3
Training of marine travel route for marine
vessels operator was given to relevant staff and relevant records were kept
properly.
6.4.4
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.
6.4.5
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 results exceeded the
Action Level on 13 and 29 April 13 at monitoring station AMS7 and AMS3A respectively. One (1)
24-hour TSP result exceeded the Limit Level on 08 April 2013 monitoring station
AMS3A in the reporting month. After
investigation, the dust exceedance were
considered not to be due to the Project works.
6.5.2
For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at
all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
6.5.3
One (1)
Action Level exceedance of turbidity (NTU) was recorded at during mid flood
tide at IS17 on the 29 April 13. Four (4) Action Level exceedances of SS were
recorded during the reporting period. Where two (2) Action Level exceedance
were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS8 and SR4(N) respectively on 10
April 13, one (1) were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS(Mf)16 on 22
April 13; one (1) was recorded during mid flood tide at SR5 on 26 April 13. After investigation, the water quality
exceedances were considered not to be due to the Project works.
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 on 8 April 13 regarding
oil dumping observed from various vessels operating for HZMB HK projects near
Tung Chung Development Pier over the past few months. The investigation results
showed that the complaint was non-project related.
6.6.2.1 The concerned area is not the anchoring point for
vessels of this contract. Vessels shown in EPD¡¦s supporting document given via
email on 8 April 13 are unlikely to belong to this contract.
6.6.2.2 Furthermore, no incident or leakage observation
within HKBCF¡¦s site boundary and its vicinity on 27 Jan, 2,3,17 and 24 Mar; and
7 Apr 13 was reported.
6.6.2.3 Precautionary measures are implemented by the
Contractor to minimize the possibilities of accidental spillage of oil:
l Training record shows that related toolbox talk training such as
handling and storage of chemical waste for workers and frontline staff are
conducted regularly.
l In addition, all chemical waste arising from Contractor¡¦s construction
activities are packed, labeled and stored properly by the Contractor and
collected by licensed waste collectors.
l Emergency drill for oil spillage was conducted on 8 August 2012 which
allowed workers and frontline staff to familiar with the spill response
procedures.
l As informed by the Contractor, all response action and incident
reporting procedure would be carried out in compliance with the spill response
plan if there is any accidental spillage of oil or chemical from construction
activities of this contract.
l As informed by the Contractor, sufficient standard spill control
materials are available on site for the removal of any oil leakage and
refilling of the material will be provided when necessary.
6.6.2.4 After investigating the available information, the
complaint was considered as not project-related.
6.6.2.5 The Contractor was recommended to continue
implementing existing water quality mitigation measures.
6.6.2.6 Observation on a follow up visit made on 11 April
13 showed that there was no oil spillage observed from vessels of this Contract
when carrying out joint site inspection audit.
6.6.2.7 As a result, the noise complaint was considered as
non-project related.
6.6.3
As informed by the Contractor on 9 May 13,
one summons was received on 29 April 13 regarding the suspected violation case of
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap.400) at Works Area WA4 on 31 Oct 2012. The details
of the non-compliance, investigation actions taken including follow-up site
inspection conducted out by the ET and rectification actions and preventive
actions provided by the Contractor was summarized at section 7 of the Quarterly
EM&A summary report for September 2012 ¡V November 2012.
6.6.4
No prosecution was received in the reporting period.
6.6.5
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 May and June 2013 will be:-
Marine-based
Works
-
Marine-base
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Sand blanket laying
-
Maintenance of silt curtain
-
Stone column installation
-
Laying stone blanket
-
Band drain installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Instrumentation works
-
Rubble mound seawall construction
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Ground investigation
-
Installation of silt screen at sea
water intake of HKIA
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
-
Green roof construction at Works
Area WA2
-
Construction of Temporary Marine
Access 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 May 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 results exceeded the Action Level on 13 and 29 April
13 at monitoring station AMS7 and AMS3A respectively. One (1) 24-hour TSP
result exceeded the Limit Level on 08 April 2013 monitoring station AMS3A in
the reporting month. The investigation results showed that the exceedances were
non-project related.
8.1.3
For construction noise, no exceedance was
recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
8.1.4 One (1) Action Level exceedance of turbidity (NTU) was recorded at
during mid flood tide at IS17 on 29 April 13. Four (4) Action Level exceedances
of SS were recorded during the reporting period. Where two (2) Action Level
exceedance were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS8 and SR4(N)
respectively on 10 April 13, one (1) were recorded at during mid flood tide at
IS(Mf)16 on 22 April 13; one (1) was recorded during mid flood tide at SR5 on
26 April 13. The investigation results showed that the exceedances were
non-project related.
8.1.5
A total of six dolphin sightings were
recorded during the two surveys, all sightings were recorded on 1 April
2013. Of the six sightings, five
were ¡§on effort¡¨ (which are all under favourable condition) and one was
¡§opportunistic¡¨. A total of
nineteen 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: three groups were feeding; two
groups were associated with multiple behaviour (feeding and
travelling) and one group was recorded as travelling.
8.1.7
Environmental site inspection was carried out
4 times in April 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 on 8 April 13 regarding oil dumping observed from various vessels operating for HZMB
HK projects near Tung Chung Development Pier over the past few months. The
investigation results showed that the complaint was non-project related.
8.1.9
As informed by the Contractor on 9 May 13,
one summons was received on 29 April 13 regarding the suspected violation case of
Noise Control Ordinance (Cap.400) at Works Area WA4 on 31 Oct 2012. The details
of the non-compliance, investigation actions taken including follow-up site
inspection conducted out by the ET and rectification actions and preventive
actions provided by the Contractor was summarized at section 7 of the Quarterly
EM&A summary report for September 2012 ¡V November 2012.
8.1.10
No 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.