Contract No.
HY/2010/02 ˇV Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong
Boundary Crossing Facilities ˇV Reclamation Work (here below, known as ˇ§the Projectˇ¨)
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 7 March
2012 (EP-353/2009/D) 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 Projectˇ¦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 12 March 2012 and 31 May 2012. As informed by the Contractor,
major activities in the reporting period were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cone
penetration test;
-
Geotextile laying
and fabrication;
-
Stone
column installation trial;
-
Silt
curtain fabrication and deployment; and
-
Stone
blankets laying.
Land-based Works
-
Site office erection and construction at Works
Area WA2;
-
Public Works Regional Laboratory erection and
construction at Works Area WA3;
-
Constructing site access at Works Area WA2
to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung;
-
Drainage works at Works Area WA2 and WA3;
-
Geotextile and
silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA4; and
-
Stone
column installation barges setup and their maintenance works at Works Area WA4.
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
|
14sessions
14sessions
|
|
Noise
monitoring
|
12sessions
|
|
Impact water
quality monitoring
|
35sessions
|
|
Impact
dolphin monitoring
|
4sessions
|
|
Joint
Environmental site inspection
|
12 sessions
|
Breaches of Action
and Limit Levels for Air Quality
No exceedance of Action and Limit Level was
recorded for 1-hour TSP monitoring in the reporting quarter.
However,
one (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded for
24-hour TSP results in May 2012. Investigation results show that the exceedance was not due to the Project works.
Nevertheless,
the Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust
mitigation measures.
Breaches of Action
and Limit Levels for Noise
No
Action/Limit Level exceedance of impact
noise monitoring was
recorded in the reporting quarter.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Seven (7) Action/Limit level exceedances
of water quality in total were recorded
in the reporting quarter. One
(1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured
suspended solids (SS) level in March
2012. Five (5) Action Level exceedances, where two (2) were recorded at measured
turbidity level and three (3) were recorded at measured SS level, were recorded in April
2012. One (1) Action Level exceedance was recorded at measured dissolved oxygen at
bottom layer in May 2012.
Investigation
results show that the exceedances were
not due to the Project works. Nevertheless,
the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the
silt curtains.
Triggering of Event
and Action Plan for Impact
Dolphin Monitoring
No
triggering of Event and Action Plan for impact dolphin monitoring was noted in the reporting quarter.
Implementation Status and
Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures
Most of the recommended mitigation
measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in
the reporting quarter, except insufficient dolphin survey efforts
due to inclement weather conditions in March and April 2012 and inability of
setting up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring at AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building) were noted. Supplementary dolphin surveys have been
conducted during June and July 2012 to ensure that adequate survey efforts will
be maintained. Liaison with relevant parties for permission on access to the
premise for setting up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring works at
AMS6 will be continued.
The recommended environmental
mitigation measures effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts
from the Project. The EM&A programme effectively monitored the
environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper
implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised
for the improvement of the programme.
Moreover, regular review and checking
on the construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried
out to ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended
environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.
Complaint,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution
No Project related environmental
complaint was received in the reporting quarter.
No notification of summons and successful
prosecution was received in the reporting quarter.
1.1.1
Contract No. HY/2010/02 ˇV Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ˇV Reclamation Work (here below, known as ˇ§the Projectˇ¨) mainly
comprises seawall construction
and 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 ˇV
Zhuhai
ˇV Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ˇV EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun ˇV Chek
Lap Kok Link ˇV 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) and March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D). 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 1.1.5 EPs issued on 7 March 2012 (EP-353/2009/D) 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 Projectˇ¦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
Scope
of Report
1.2.1
This is the first
quarterly
EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
ˇV 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 from 12 March 2012 to 31 May
2012
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
|
|
Engineerˇ¦s Representative (ER)
(Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited)
|
Chief Resident Engineer
|
Michael Lo
|
2528 3031
|
2668 3970
|
|
IEC / ENPO
(ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited)
|
Independent Environmental Checker
|
Raymond Dai
|
3743 0788
|
3548 6988
|
|
Environmental Project Office Leader
|
Marcus Ip/
David Yeung
|
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
|
C.C. Yeung
|
9448 0325
|
--
|
|
ET
(AECOM Asia
Company Limited)
|
ET Leader
|
Echo Leong
|
3922 9280
|
2317 7609
|
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
-
Cone
penetration test;
-
Geotextile laying and fabrication;
-
Stone
column installation trial;
-
Silt
curtain fabrication and deployment; and
-
Stone
blankets laying.
Land-based Works
-
Site
office erection and construction at Works Area WA2;
-
Public
Works Regional Laboratory erection and construction at Works Area WA3;
-
Constructing
site access at Works Area WA2 to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung;
-
Drainage
works at Works Area WA2 and WA3;
-
Geotextile and silt curtain fabrication at Works Area
WA4; and
-
Stone
column installation barges setup and their maintenance works at Works Area WA4.
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.
2.1.1
The Project Specific EM&A Manual designated 4 air
quality monitoring stations, 2 noise monitoring stations, 21 water monitoring
stations (9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far
Field Stations) to monitor environmental impacts on air quality, noise and
water quality respectively. Pre-set and fixed transect line vessel based
dolphin survey was required in two AFCD designated areas (Northeast and
Northwest Lantau survey areas). The impact dolphin
monitoring at each survey area should be conducted twice per month.
2.1.2
For impact air quality monitoring, monitoring locations
AMS2 (Tung Chung Development Pier) and AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity
Marriott Hotel) 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. Liaison with relevant parties for
permission on access to the premise for setting up and carrying out impact air
quality monitoring works at AMS6 will be continued. 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.
2.1.3
For impact noise monitoring, monitoring locations NMS2 (Seaview Crescent Tower 1) 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, was adopted for this
alternative noise monitoring location.
2.1.4
In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual,
twenty-one 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.
2.1.5
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. Alternative
impact water quality monitoring station SR5(N) was
adopted, which is in vicinity of SR5 and could be reachable, for the period
from 12 to 28 March 2012 due to safety concern and permitting requirement of
Airport Approach Restricted Areas. 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.
2.1.6
The monitoring locations used during the reporting period
are depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
2.1.7
The Project Specific EM&A Manual also required environmental
site inspections for air quality, noise, water quality, chemical, waste
management, marine ecology and landscape and visual impact.
2.2.1
The environmental quality performance limits (i.e. Action and/or
Limit Levels) of air and water quality monitoring were derived from the baseline air and
water quality monitoring
results at the respective monitoring stations, while the environmental quality
performance limits of noise monitoring were defined in the EM&A Manual.
2.2.2
The environmental quality performance limits of air
quality, noise and water monitoring are given in Appendix D.
2.3.1
Relevant environmental mitigation measures were stipulated
in the Particular Specification and EPs (EP-353/2009/D and EP-354/2009/A) (for
TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only) for the Contractor to adopt. A list
of environmental mitigation measures and their implementation statuses are
given in Appendix C.
3.1.1
In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual,
impact 1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (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 at the 4 monitoring stations (AMS2,
AMS3A, AMS6 and AMS7).
3.1.2
The
monitoring locations for impact air quality monitoring are depicted in Figure
2. However, 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.
3.1.3
The weather was mostly sunny, with occasional cloudy days
in the reporting quarter. The major dust source in the reporting period
included construction activities from the Project, as well as nearby traffic
emissions.
3.1.4
The number of monitoring events and exceedances
recorded in each month of the reporting quarter are presented in Table 3.1 and
Table 3.2 respectively.
Table
3.1 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr &
24-hr TSP Concentration
|
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
No. of monitoring events
|
|
Mar 12
|
Apr 12
|
May 12
|
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
9
|
18
|
15
|
|
AMS3A
|
9
|
18
|
15
|
|
AMS7
|
9
|
18
|
15
|
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
3
|
6
|
5
|
|
AMS3A
|
3
|
6
|
5
|
|
AMS7
|
3
|
6
|
5
|
Table 3.2 Summary of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
|
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Level of Exceedance
|
|
Mar 12
|
Apr 12
|
May 12
|
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS3A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS3A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
1 (28 May 12)
|
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
1 (28 May 12)
|
3.1.5
All impact 1-hour TSP monitoring results at all monitoring locations
were below the Action and Limit Levels in the reporting quarter.
3.1.6
However, one (1) Limit Level exceedance
for the impact 24-hours TSP monitoring results was recorded at AMS3A in May
2012
According to
information provided by the Contractor and on-site observations, construction
of site offices (mainly interior works) was the major land-based construction
activity being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period. As
informed by the Contractor, geotextile laying, silt
curtain deployment, stone column installation trial and stone blanket laying, were the major marine-based construction activities
being undertaken during the monitoring period.
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.
Construction
activities, like sheet piling and percussive piling, were carrying out in other
Contracts during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring
station AMS3A. Meanwhile, exposed soil surfaces were observed at those
construction sites nearby. As refer to the wind data collected at wind station
at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 28 May 2012, eastern wind was
prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out at
nearby construction sites may contribute to the measured dust levels at the
monitoring station AMS3A.
The impact 1-hr TSP values
recorded at AMS3A on 29 May 2012, which are within the monitoring period of the
impact 24-hr TSP, were
85.8µg/m3, 87.7µg/m3 and 84.9µg/m3 respectively.
All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
The measured impact 24-hr TSP values recorded
at AMS2 and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same
monitoring date were 40.5µg/m3 and 45.3µg/m3 respectively,
which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
Moreover, the main
haul roads in Works Area WA2 were concrete paved. Vehicle washing facility was
also provided at vehicle exit points, and vehicle was washed to remove any
dusty materials from its body and wheels before leaving.
It is therefore
considered that the Limit Level exceedance as
non-Project related.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was recommended to continue implementing
existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.7
Please refer to the monthly EM&A report (May 2012
Version 0) accordingly for the details of the captioned exceedances.
3.1.8
The graphical plots of
the impact air quality monitoring results are provided in Appendix E. No
specific trend of the monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution
source was noted.
3.2.1
Impact noise monitoring was conducted at the 2 monitoring stations
(NMS2 and NMS3A) for at least once per week during 07:00 ˇV 19:00 in the
reporting quarter.
3.2.2
The monitoring locations used during the reporting period
are depicted in Figure 2.
3.2.3
Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included
construction activities of the Project and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.4
The number of impact noise monitoring
events and exceedances are summarized in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 respectively
Table 3.3 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise
|
Monitoring
Parameter
|
Location
|
No.
of monitoring events
|
|
Mar12
|
Apr 12
|
May12
|
|
NMS2
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
|
NMS3A
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Table 3.4 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
|
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Level of Exceedance
|
|
Mar 12
|
Apr 12
|
May 12
|
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
NMS3A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.2.1
All measured impact noise levels were
below the Limit level. According to the information provided by the Contractor, no
Action Level exceedance was recorded for impact noise since no
noise related complaint was received in the reporting quarter.
3.2.2
The graphical plots
of the trends of the monitoring results are provided in Appendix F. No specific trend of the
monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.
3.3
WATER
QUALITY MONITORING
3.3.1
Impact water quality
monitoring was conducted 3 times
per week during mid-ebb and mid-flood tides at 21 water monitoring stations (9 Impact
Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field Stations).
3.3.2
The
monitoring locations used during the reporting period are depicted in Figure 3.
3.3.3
Exceedances were recorded for at the measured suspended solids
(SS), turbidity and dissolved oxygen at bottom layer in the reporting quarter.
Number of exceedances recorded in the reporting
quarter at each impact station are summarised in
Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances in Mar-May 2012
|
Station
|
Exceedance Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total
|
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
|
IS5
|
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
|
1
(23 Apr 12)
|
0
|
1
(23 Apr 12)
|
0
|
2
(23 Apr 12)
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(23 Apr 12)
|
0
|
1
(23 Apr 12)
|
0
|
2
(23 Apr 12)
|
|
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
|
1
(9 Apr 12)
|
0
|
1
(9 Apr 12)
|
|
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
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1
(21 May 12)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(21 May 12)
|
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[1]
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
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
|
1
(12 Mar 12)
|
0
|
1
(12 Mar 12)
|
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
|
1
(21 May 12)
|
0
|
0
|
2
(23 Apr 12)
|
0
|
3
(9, 23 Apr
12)
|
6
(9,23 Apr 12; 21 May12)
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(12 Mar 12)
|
0
|
1
(12 Mar 12)
|
Note: S: Surface;
M:
Mid-depth;
[1]: Due to safety concern and
presence of Airport Approach Restricted Areas, alternative impact water quality
monitoring station SR5(N) was adopted, which is in
vicinity of SR5 and could be reachable, for the period from 12 to 28 March
2012.
3.3.4
One (1) Limit Level exceedance
was recorded at measured SS level
on 12 March 2012. Investigation works show that only preparation works,
like geotextile laying and stone blanket laying, which are not likely to cause water quality impact,
were carried out on the monitoring date. Turbidity levels recorded at SR7 and
all other impact stations (stations closer to the Project site) were below the
Action and Limit Levels. SS levels recorded at all other impact stations
(stations closer to the Project site) were lower than those recorded at SR7,
which suggested that exceedance at SR7 was not due to
the Project works. The exceedance was considered as non-Project related.
3.3.5
Five (5) Action Level exceedances,
where one (1) was recorded at measured SS level on 9 April 2012, another two (2) were recorded at measured SS level on 23 April 2012 and two (2) was recorded at measured
turbidity level on
23
April 2012, were recorded in
April.
It was found that
only preparation works, like geotextile laying and
stone blanket laying, which are not likely to cause
water quality impact, were carried out on 9 April 2012. Non-Project related
trawling activities by fishing vessels were noted near the monitoring location
IS10, which likely cause impact on ambient water quality. Turbidity and
suspended solid levels recorded at IS10 on the next monitoring date (i.e. 11
April 2012), when there are similar preparation works at similar works areas
carrying out, were well below the Action and Limit Levels.
Moreover, only
stone blanket laying, which is not likely to cause
water quality impact, was carrying out during the monitoring period at
mid-flood tide on 23 April 2012. Cone penetration test and stone column trial
were suspended at 17:00 and 14:00 respectively on 23 April 2012. Strong wind
and rough sea condition was experienced during the monitoring period, which is
likely to affect the ambient water quality in such shallow water condition. No silty plume was observed near area between the perimeter of
the silt curtain and the monitoring point during the monitoring. Turbidity and
SS levels recorded at IS(Mf)6 and IS7 on the previous monitoring date (i.e. 18
April 2012) during mid-flood tide, when there are same activities at works
areas being carried out, were well below the Action and Limit Levels. It is considered that
the Action Level exceedances as non-Project related.
One (1) Action
Level exceedance was recorded at the measured DO at
bottom layer in May. The Action Level exceedance
was recorded on 21 May 2012 during mid-ebb tide at Impact Station IS17.
It was found that
only stone blanket laying at Portion A and C2a and
stone column trial (with silt curtain enclosed) at Portion A, which is not
likely to cause water quality impact, were carrying out during the monitoring
period. No silty plume was observed near area between
the perimeter of the silt curtain and the monitoring point during the
monitoring. Moreover, DO values recorded at
bottom level at Impact Stations closer to the works area (i.e. IS7, IS10, IS(Mf)11) were all above the Action and Limit Level during
the mid-ebb on the monitoring day. It is considered that the Action Level exceedance
as non-Project related.
Nevertheless, the
Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt
curtains.
Please refer to the
monthly EM&A report (March,
April
and May 2012 Version 0)
accordingly for the details of the captioned exceedances.
3.3.6
The graphical plots
of the trends of the monitoring results are provided in Appendix G. No specific trend of the monitoring
results or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.
3.4.2
The impact dolphin monitoring conducted is vessel-based and
combines line-transect and photo-ID methodology, which have adopted similar
survey methodologies as that adopted during baseline monitoring to facilitate
comparisons between datasets.
3.4.3
The layout map of impact dolphin monitoring have been
provided by AFCD and is shown in Figure 4.
3.4.4
The effort summary and sighting details during the
reporting period are shown in the Appendix H. A summary of key findings of the dolphin
surveys completed during the reporting quarter is shown below:
Table
3.6 Summary
of Key Dolphin Survey Findings in Mar-May 2012
|
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
4 *
|
|
Planned Distance to Travel under On- Effort
Condition
|
597.8km
|
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable On- Effort Condition
|
368.4km *
|
|
Number of Sightings
|
20 sightings (12 sightings are ˇ¨on effortˇ¨ (which
are all under favourable condition), 8 ˇ§sightings
are opportunisticˇ¨)
|
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
64 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate
|
NEL: 0%
NWL: 5.7%
|
|
Dolphin Group Size
(for both NEL and NWL)
|
Average of 3.2ˇÓ2.9(SD)
Varied from 1-12 individuals
|
|
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area
|
Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau Marine Park eastern area and west of the airport
platform #
|
Remarks:
^ Completion of
line transect survey of NEL and NWL survey area once
was counted as one complete survey.
* Due to inclement
weather conditions in March and April 2012, which resulted in extended periods
of rough weather in the surveyed waters, survey efforts conducted under this is
condition had been less than original planned. Supplementary surveys have been
conducted during June and July 2012 to ensure that adequate survey efforts will
be maintained.
# The most often
frequent dolphin sighting area in NEL is not defined as there is only one
sighting from NEL.
3.4.5
No triggering of Event and Action Plan for impact dolphin
monitoring was noted in the reporting quarter.
3.4.6
Details of the comparison and analysis methodology and
their findings and discussions are annexed in Appendix H.
3.4.7
Also, the recommended mitigation measures, such as implementation of
dolphin exclusion zone during deployment of perimeter silt curtain system,
implementation of dolphin watching plan for enclosed areas after deployment of
perimeter silt curtain system, controlling of vessel speed and travelling
routes and provision of decoupling measures to compressors and other equipment
on working vessels, which are in place to lessen direct impact from
construction activities to individual dolphins, are currently being implemented
consistently. (Please refer to Appendix C
-EMIS for more mitigation measures).
3.5.1 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 quarter, 12 site inspections
were carried out. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the
Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
3.5.2
Particular observations during the site inspections are
described below:
Air Quality
3.5.3
The Contractor was reminded to
provide vehicle washing facility at Works Area WA3.
3.5.4
The Contractor was reminded to implement dust suppression
measures, especially on water spraying on haul road, at Works Area WA3.
3.5.5
Bags of cement were found debagged at open area. The
Contractor was reminded that de-bagging, batching and mixing process of cement
should be carried out in an area sheltered on top and the 3 sides.
3.5.6
Soil
stockpiles placed at Work Area WA4 were covered with tarpaulin sheet
incompletely. The Contractor was reminded to cover up the soil stockpiles
completely with tarpaulin sheet if no works was carrying out temporarily.
Noise
3.5.7
Noise Emission Labels (NELs) were found missing from the
air compressors employed on barge FTP19 at Portion A. The Contractor was
reminded to affix the NELs to the air compressor employed.
Water Quality
3.5.8
The Contractor was recommended to review the drainage
system regularly and provide wastewater treatment facilities, especially for silty surface run-off during rainfall, if necessary, at
Works Area WA3. Although concrete u-channels and sand bag bundings
were provided at part of the site boundaries and provision of temporary
drainage system was undergoing, The Contractor was recommended to provide sand
bag bundings at the site boundaries temporarily prior
to completion of u-channels.
3.5.9
Rubbish and accumulated rainwater was found inside the
u-channel at Works Area WA4. The Contractor should clear up the rubbish and
accumulated rainwater, especially after rainstorm.
3.5.10
Broken sand bags were observed at site boundary at Works
Area WA4. The Contractor should remove and replace the broken sand bags.
3.5.11
Although
it was rainy during the inspection, the Contractor was reminded to enhance the
pumping system provided at U-channels at Work Area WA4 in order to avoid
accumulation of run-off inside the channels.
Chemical and Waste Management
3.5.12
Floating wastes were observed within the silt curtain confined
areas of the stone blanket installation works area in Portion A of the Site.
The Contractor was reminded to clear the floating wastes within works areas
regularly.
3.5.13
Oil
drums were found stored improperly at FTP19 in Portion E1. The Contractor was reminded
to provide drip trays to oil drum stored on site to retain any leaked oil if
there is such case.
3.5.14
Accumulation of oily water and materials were observed
inside the drip trays employed on barge FTP19 at Portion A. The Contractor was
reminded to clear the materials and oily water. The oily mixture should be
treated and disposed of as chemical waste.
3.5.15
It is noted that few trucks of construction wastes were not
transferred to designated disposal ground. The Contractor was reminded to
provide measures to ensure construction wastes were sorted, transferred and
disposed of properly. Toolbox talks and trainings should be provided to workers
and dump truck drivers on waste management issues.
3.5.16
Battery packs were found improperly placed on the barge
Ever Shine 18 at Portion C2c, the Contractor was reminded to provide drip trays
to the battery packs used on site to retain any leaked chemical, if there is
such case.
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.5.17
No adverse observation was identified in the reporting quarter.
Others
3.5.18
No adverse observation was identified in the reporting quarter.
3.5.19
The Contractor has rectified all the observations as
identified during environmental site inspection in the reporting quarter.
4
Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management
Status
4.1.1
The Contractor had submitted application form for
registration as a chemical waste producer for the Project. Sufficient numbers
of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting.
4.1.2
As advised by the Contract, 382.66 tonnes
of general refuse were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. 530 m3
of rock fill was imported for the Project use in the reporting period. Summary
of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix I.
4.1.3
The Contractor is advised to properly maintain on site
C&D materials and wastes 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.
4.1.4
The Contractor is reminded that chemical waste containers
should be properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste
storage area on site in accordance with the Code of Practise
on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical
Wastes.
5.1
Implementation Status of Environmental
Mitigation Measures
5.1.1
In response to the site audit findings, the Contractors
carried out corrective actions.
5.1.2
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. Insufficient dolphin survey
efforts due to inclement weather conditions in March and April 2012 and
inability of setting up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring at AMS6
(Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building) were noted in the
reporting period. Supplementary
dolphin surveys have been conducted during June and July 2012 to ensure that
adequate survey efforts will be maintained. Liaison with relevant parties for
permission on access to the premise for setting up and carrying out impact air quality
monitoring works at AMS6 will be continued.
5.1.3
Moreover,
regular review and checking on the construction methodologies, working
processes and plants were carried out to ensure the environmental impacts were
kept minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented
effectively.
5.1.4
Regular marine travel route for marine vessels were
implemented properly in accordance to the submitted plan and relevant records
were kept properly.
5.1.5
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.
5.1.6
Acoustic decoupling measures on noisy plants on
construction vessels were checked regularly and these measures were well
implemented.
6
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental
Quality Performance Limit
6.1
Summary of Exceedances of the
Environmental Quality Performance Limit
6.1.1
All impact
1-hour
TSP monitoring results
complied with the Action and Limit Levels in
the reporting period. However, one (1) Limit Level exceedance
was recorded for 24-hour TSP results recorded in May 2012. Investigation
results show that the exceedance was not due to the
Project works. Nevertheless, the Contractor was recommended to continue
implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
6.1.2
For impact noise monitoring, no Action and Limit
Level exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting period.
6.1.3
Seven
(7) Action/Limit level exceedances of water quality
in total were recorded in the reporting quarter. One (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured suspended solids (SS)
level in March 2012. Five (5) Action Level exceedances,
where two (2) were recorded at measured turbidity level and three (3) were
recorded at measured SS level, were recorded in April 2012. One (1) Action
Level exceedance was recorded at measured dissolved
oxygen at bottom layer in May 2012.
6.1.4
Investigation
results show that the exceedances were not due to the
Project works. Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of
ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
6.1.5
Please refer to Section
3.1-3.3 and/or monthly EM&A report (March,
April
and May 2012 Version 0)
accordingly for the details of the captioned exceedances.
6.1.6
Cumulative statistics on exceedances
is provided in Appendix J.
7
Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons
and Successful Prosecutions
7.1
Summary of Environmental Compliants, Notification of Summons and Successful
Prosecutions
7.1.1
The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed
in Figure 5.
7.1.2
There was no Project
related environmental
complaint received in the reporting
period.
7.1.3
No notification of summons and prosecution was received in
the reporting period.
7.1.4
Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and
successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix J.
8
Comments, recommendations
and Conclusions
8.1
Comments on mitigation measures
8.1.1
According
to the environmental site inspections performed in the reporting quarter, 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 and oil drums should
be properly stored and labelled.
l All plants and vehicles on site should be
properly maintained to prevent oil leakage.
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 and empty
chemical containers should be cleared and disposed of as chemical waste.
Landscape and Visual
Impact
l All existing, retained/transplanted trees at
the works areas should be properly fenced off and regularly inspected.
8.2
Recommendations
on EM&A Programme
8.2.1
The
impact monitoring programme for air quality, noise,
water quality and dolphin ensured that any deterioration in environmental
condition was readily detected and timely actions taken to rectify any
non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of monitoring results collected
demonstrated the environmental impacts of the Project. With implementation of
recommended effective environmental mitigation measures, the Projectˇ¦s
environmental impacts were considered as environmentally acceptable. The weekly
environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation
measures recommended were effectively implemented.
8.2.2
The
recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the potential environmental
impacts from the Project. Also, the EM&A programme
effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction
activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No
particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.
8.3
Conclusions
8.3.1
The construction phase and EM&A programme
of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
8.3.2
Impact
1-hour
TSP, 24-hour TSP, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring were carried out
in the reporting period.
8.3.3
All impact
1-hour
TSP monitoring results
complied with the Action and Limit Levels in
the reporting period. However, one (1) Limit Level exceedance
was recorded for 24-hour TSP results recorded in the reporting period.
Investigation results show that the exceedance was
not due to the Project works. Nevertheless, the Contractor was recommended to
continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
8.3.4
For impact noise monitoring, no Action and
Limit Level exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting period.
8.3.5
Seven
(7) Action or Limit Level exceedances were recorded
at measured turbidity level, SS level and dissolved oxygen at bottom layer in
the in the reporting quarter. Investigation works show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains.
8.3.6
No
triggering of Event and Action Plan for impact dolphin monitoring was noted in
the reporting quarter.
8.3.7
Environmental
site inspection was carried out twelve times in the reporting quarter.
Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the
deficiencies identified during the site audits.
8.3.8
No
Project related environmental complaint was received in the reporting
period.
8.3.9
No
notification of summons and successful prosecution was received in the
reporting period.
8.3.10
Apart
from the abovementioned monitoring, most of the recommended mitigation
measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were
implemented properly in the reporting quarter, except insufficient dolphin
survey efforts due to inclement weather conditions in March and April 2012 and
inability of setting up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring at AMS6
(Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building) were noted. Supplementary dolphin surveys have been
conducted during June and July 2012 to ensure that adequate survey efforts will
be maintained. Liaison with relevant parties for permission on access to the
premise for setting up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring works at
AMS6 will be continued.
8.3.11
The
recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively minimize the
potential environmental impacts from the Project. The EM&A programme
effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction activities
and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular
recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.
8.3.12
Moreover,
regular review and checking on the construction methodologies, working
processes and plants were carried out to ensure the environmental impacts were
kept minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented
effectively.
