Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities – 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 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 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 June 2012 and 31 August 2012. As informed by the Contractor, major activities
in the reporting period were:-
Marine-based
Works
-
Geotextile
laying and fabrication;
-
Stone
column installation trial;
-
Stone
column installation
-
Construction
of cellular walls;
-
Silt
curtain fabrication and deployment; and
-
Stone
blankets laying
Land-based
Works
-
Site office erection and construction at Works Area WA2;
-
Silt
curtain fabrication at Works area WA2&WA4;
-
Constructing site access at Works Area WA2 to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung;
-
Public Works Regional Laboratory erection and construction
at Works Area WA3;
-
Geotextile fabrication at Works Area WA2 & WA4; and
-
Stone
column and cellular wall installation barges setup and their maintenance works
at Works Area WA4.
-
Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at
Works Area WA3;
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
|
16 sessions
16 sessions
|
|
Noise monitoring
|
13 sessions
|
|
Impact water quality monitoring
|
40 sessions
|
|
Impact dolphin monitoring
|
8 surveys
|
|
Joint Environmental site inspection
|
13 sessions
|
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
No exceedance of Action and
Limit Level was recorded for 1-hour TSP and 24-hour
TSP
monitoring in the reporting quarter.
Nevertheless,
the Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust
mitigation measures.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
One (1) Limit Level exceedance
of impact noise monitoring
was recorded in the reporting quarter.
Investigation results
show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works. The Contractor was recommended
to continue implementing existing noise mitigation measures.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Two (2) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solid (SS) in the
reporting quarter.
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 inability of setting up and carrying out
impact air quality monitoring at AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building) were
noted. 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.
Supplementary dolphin surveys have been conducted during June and
July 2012 to
supplement insufficient dolphin survey efforts in the previous reporting
quarter and to ensure that adequate survey efforts will
be maintained.
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 – Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation
Work (here below, known as “the Project”) 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 –
Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun –
Chek Lap Kok Link – 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 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
Scope of Report
1.2.1
This is the second quarterly EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities –
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 1 June 2012 and 31 August 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
|
|
Engineer’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
|
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
|
1.4.1
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 the reporting quarter are
listed below:-
Marine-based Works
- Geotextile laying and fabrication;
- Stone column installation trial;
- Stone column installation
- Construction of cellular walls;
- Silt curtain fabrication and
deployment; and
- Stone blankets laying
Land-based Works
- Site office erection and construction
at Works Area WA2;
- Silt curtain fabrication at Works area
WA2 & WA4;
- Constructing site access at Works
Area WA2 to Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung;
- Public Works Regional Laboratory
erection and construction at Works Area WA3;
- Geotextile fabrication at Works Area
WA2 & WA4; and
-
Stone
column and cellular wall installation barges setup and their maintenance works
at Works Area
WA4.
- Maintenance works of Public Works
Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3;
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. 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 and occasional rainy 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
|
|
Jun 12
|
Jul 12
|
Aug 12
|
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
15
|
15
|
18
|
|
AMS3A
|
15
|
15
|
18
|
|
AMS7
|
15
|
15
|
18
|
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
|
AMS3A
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
|
AMS7
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
Table 3.2 Summary of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
|
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Level of Exceedance
|
|
Jun 12
|
Jul 12
|
Aug 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
|
0
|
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
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
All impact 24-hour TSP monitoring results at all monitoring locations were below the
Action and Limit Levels in the reporting quarter.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was
recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.7
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 – 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
|
|
Jun 12
|
Jul 12
|
Aug 12
|
|
NMS2
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
|
NMS3A
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
Table 3.4 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
|
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Level of Exceedance
|
|
Jun 12
|
Jul 12
|
Aug 12
|
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
NMS3A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
1 (27 Jun 12)
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
3.2.5
One (1) Limit Level exceedance of impact noise
monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter at NMS3A: Site Boundary of
Site Office (WA2) on the 27th June 2012.
3.2.6
According to information provided by the
Contractor and on-site observations, trench excavation (near access road) and
general site clearance were the major land-based construction activity being
undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period.
3.2.7
As informed by the Contractor, stone blanket laying
at Portion B and Portion E1 was the major marine-based construction activities
being undertaken during the monitoring period.
3.2.8
Construction activities, like sheet piling,
percussive piling and excavation, were carrying out in other private developments
(which are located at eastern and southern side of the Works Area WA2) during
the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station NMS3A and
contribute to the measured noise level.
3.2.9
The noise exceedance was therefore considered
not to be due to the Project works.
3.2.10
The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing noise
mitigation measures.
3.2.11
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
Two (2) exceedances were recorded for measured suspended solid (SS) 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 Jun-Aug 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
|
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
|
1
(18 June 12)
|
0
|
1
(18 June 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
|
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
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR4
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(4 June 12)
|
0
|
1
(4 June 12)
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
(4&18 June 12)
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Note: S:
Surface;
M:
Mid-depth;
3.3.4
Two (2) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solid (SS) in the reporting month. The Action Level exceedances were recorded on 4 June 2012 during mid-ebb tide at Sensitive Receiver
Station SR6 and 18 June 2012 during mid-flood tide at Impact Station IS7, where 34.0mg/L and 30.0 mg/L of SS was recorded for SR6 and IS7 respectively.
3.3.5
For exceedance recorded at SR6, 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 during the monitoring period at
mid-ebb tide. Location plan showing the locations of the mentioned works is
shown below:
3.3.5.1 Monitoring
Station at SR6 was considered as an upstream station during mid-ebb tide.
Turbidity and SS levels recorded at CS(Mf)3 and CS4 on the monitoring sate were
well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.3.5.2 Turbidity and
SS values recorded at Impact Stations closer to the works area (e.g. IS10,
IS(Mf)11 and IS17) were all below the Action and Limit Level during the mid-ebb
tide on the same day.
3.3.5.3 The exceedance
was then considered as non-Project related.
3.3.6
For exceedance recorded at IS7, it was found that only preparation
works, like stone blanket laying, which is not likely to cause water quality
impact, was carried out between 08:00 to 16:00 on the monitoring day. No stone
column installation trial was conducted on the monitoring day. No major marine
based construction activity was carried out during the monitoring period of
mid-flood tide. A location plan showing the locations of the mentioned works is
shown below:
3.3.6.1
Turbidity and SS values recorded at Impact
Stations closer to the works area (e.g. IS(Mf)9 and IS10) were all below the
Action and Limit Level during the mid-flood tide on the same day.
3.3.6.2
Based on the on-site observation, strong rough
current was noted during the monitoring period. Also, Tropical Cyclone Warning
Signal No.1 was hoisted by HKO during the monitoring period.
3.3.6.3
It is considered that the Action Level
exceedance as non-Project related.
3.3.7
Generally, water quality impact sources during
the water quality monitoring were potentially activities of the Project and
nearby operating vessels by other parties.
3.3.8
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
3.3.9
Please refer to the monthly EM&A report
(June 2012 Version 0) for the details of the captioned exceedances.
3.3.10
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 same 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 Jun-Aug 2012
|
Number of Impact Surveys
Completed^
|
8#
|
|
Planned Distance Travelled under
Favourable On-Effort Condition
|
678km
|
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable
On- Effort Condition
|
916.2km
|
|
Number of Sightings
|
62 sightings (47 sightings are
”on effort” (which are all under favourable condition), 15 “sightings are
opportunistic”)
|
|
Number of dolphin individual
sighted
|
182 individuals (the best
estimated group size)
|
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate
|
NEL: 6.0%
NWL: 5.3%
|
|
Dolphin Group Size
(for both NEL and NWL)
|
Average of 3.2±2.4(SD)
Varied from 1-11 individuals
|
|
Most Often frequent dolphin
sighting area
|
NWL: Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau
Marine Park NEL: area adjacent to the northeast adge of the airport platform
and to the north of HKBCF.
|
Remarks:
^ Completion of line transect survey of NEL and NWL survey area once
was counted as one complete survey.
# 2 supplementary dolphin surveys have been conducted during June and July
2012 to supplement insufficient dolphin survey efforts in the previous
reporting quarter and to ensure that adequate survey efforts will be
maintained.
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, 13 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 check the
operating plants on barge regularly and carry out maintenance /repair (if
necessary), to avoid any dark smoke emission.
Noise
3.5.4
No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting month.
Water Quality
3.5.5
Parts of the curtains were found distorted. Distorted silt curtains
were noted at boundaries of the works areas, at Portion C2a and Portion A and parts of the silt curtain system at Portion B, D and E2. The
Contractor was informed to rectify the situation swiftly.
3.5.6
Debris and wastes were found inside the
drainage channel at Works Area WA4. The Contractor was reminded to clear the
debris and wastes regularly and maintain the drainage channels properly.
3.5.7
Silty plume was noted around the stone column
installation areas of FTP19 at Portion C2c. The Contractor was advised to check
the condition of the silt curtain systems installed regularly and review the
arrangement of localized primary silt curtains to minimize any leakage from works.
(Under follow-up status)
Chemical and Waste
Management
3.5.8
Chemical container was found improperly stored on the barge FTP23 at
Portion A and on barge FTB 16 at Portion D. The
Contractor was reminded to properly store chemical container in works area with
provision of drip tray.
3.5.9
Oil drums were found improperly stored on barge San Hang Bo 601 at
Portion C2a, San Hang Bo 208 (at Portion E2), San Hang Bo
402 (at Portion B) and FTB 17 (at Portion C2a) and Works Area WA4., and used oil
drums on barge San Hang Bo 208 at Portion C2a were found improperly treated.
Oil drums were also found improperly stored on barge Ever Shine 668 at Portion
C2a and FTB 20 at Portion A. Drip trays should be provided to oil drums stored
within works areas to retain any leaked oil if there is such case. On the other
hand, used oil drums should be properly cleaned and labeled.
3.5.10
Oil drums, chemical containers and batteries were found improperly
stored on barge San Hang Bo 401 at Portion C2a. Drip trays should be provided
to oil drums, chemical containers and batteries stored within works areas to
retain any leaked chemicals/oil if there is such case.
3.5.11
Moreover, oil stains were noted on the barge San Hang Bo 208 (where
power pack where vibratory clamp placed), on the barge Ever Shine 668 at
Portion C2a (where power pack and vibratory clamp placed) and on the barge deck of barge FTB 17 at Portion C2a. Also, similar
case was noted near the wire bundle at the barge FTB19. Proper measures like drip
trays/tarpaulin sheets should be provided to retain any leaked oil and oil
stains should be cleared and disposed of as chemical wastes.
3.5.12
Power packs, generators and vibratory clamp
were found improperly stored on barge San Hang Bo 208 (at Portion E2) and 402
(at Portion B). The Contractor should provide proper measures, like drip trays
and tarpaulin sheet coverage, to retain any leaked oil from the plants. Oil
stains on barge decks should be cleared and the absorbents should be treated as
chemical wastes.
3.5.13
Waste skip placed at Works Area WA4 was full and stockpile of C&D
wastes was also noted. The Contractor was reminded to sort the C&D wastes
properly and dispose of the C&D wastes timely.
3.5.14
General refuse was stockpiled on barge San Hang Bo 208, 601 at Portion
C2a and on barge FTB 16 at Portion D. The Contractor
was reminded to remove the general refuse in a timely manner, designate areas
and provide proper containers to store general refuse generated in works areas.
The Contractor was reminded to clear and sort the general
refuse within works areas regularly and properly.
3.5.15
Oily mixtures accumulated in the bunding area and drip tray were
observed at barge Ever Shine 668 at Portion A, barge San Hang Bo 401 at Portion
C2a, barge FTB20 at Portion D, inside the drip trays provided at ring-type
sheetpile installation frame (type B) at Portion B and the bunded areas and bin
on barge FTP19 at Portion C2c. The Contractor was reminded to clear the oily mixture within works
area regularly and disposal of as chemical waste. Regular review should be
conducted for working barges to ensure sufficient measures and spill control
kits were provided on working barges to avoid any spreading of leaked
oil/chemicals. Tarpaulin sheet coverage was recommended to minimize the chance of water accumulation inside drip
trays during rainstorm. Regular checking of the drip tray conditions should be
carried out.
3.5.16
As a reminder, the Contractor should maintain patrol boats with Spill
Kits, for control of any spills and collection of any floating waste, within
marine works area.
3.5.17
It was noted that provision of drip tray to the power
pack at barge San Hang Bo 209 at Portion E2 was undergoing, the Contractor was
reminded to complete the drip tray construction work swiftly in order to retain
any leaked oil if there is such case.
Landscape and Visual
Impact
3.5.18
No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting quarter.
Others
3.5.19
No adverse observation was identified in the
reporting month.
3.5.20
The Contractor has rectified most of the observations as identified during environmental site inspection in
the reporting quarter. 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.
4
Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management
Status
4.1.1
The Contractor registered as a
chemical waste producer for this project. Sufficient
numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and
sorting.
4.1.2
As advised by the Contractor, 13.49 tonnes of general refuse were generated and
disposed of in the reporting period. 272,809.2 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 recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme,
were implemented properly in the reporting quarter, except inability of setting
up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring at AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC
(Group) Building) were noted. 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
Supplementary dolphin surveys have been
conducted during June and July 2012 to supplement insufficient dolphin survey
efforts in the previous reporting quarter and to ensure that adequate survey
efforts will be maintained.
5.1.4
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.
5.1.5
Regular marine travel route for marine vessels
were implemented properly in accordance to the submitted plan and relevant
records were kept properly.
5.1.6
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.
5.1.7
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
6.1.1
All 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level at all monitoring
locations in the reporting quarter.
6.1.2
One (1) Limit Level exceedance of impact noise
monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter at NMS3A: Site Boundary of
Site Office (WA2) on the 27th June 2012.
6.1.3
Construction activities carried out was obtained and analyzed. Investigation results show that the exceedances were not due to the
Project works.
6.1.4
Two (2) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solid (SS) in the reporting quarter.
The Action Level exceedances were recorded on 4 June 2012 during mid-ebb tide at Sensitive Receiver
Station SR6 and 18 June 2012 during mid-flood tide at Impact Station IS7.
6.1.5
Construction activities carried out, monitoring results recorded from
other monitoring stations and on-site observations during the monitoring
periods were obtained and analyzed. Based on the investigation findings, it was
found that these exceedances were not due to the Project works.
6.1.6
Please refer to Section 3.1-3.3
and/or monthly EM&A report (June 2012 Version 0) for the details of the captioned exceedances.
6.1.7
Cumulative statistics on exceedances is
provided in Appendix J.
7
Summary of Complaints, 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.
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.
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 Project’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 and 24-hour TSP monitoring results complied with the Action and Limit Levels in the reporting period.
8.3.4
One (1) Limit Level exceedance of impact noise
monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter. The Contractor was
recommended to continue implementing existing noise mitigation measures
8.3.5
Two (2) Action Level exceedances were recorded
at measured suspended solid (SS) in the reporting quarter. 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.
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 above mentioned monitoring, most of the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A
programme, were implemented properly in the reporting quarter, except inability
of setting up and carrying out impact air quality monitoring at AMS6
(Dragonair/CNAC (Group) Building) were noted. 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
Supplementary dolphin surveys have been conducted during June and July
2012 to supplement insufficient dolphin survey efforts in the previous
reporting quarter and to ensure that adequate survey efforts will be
maintained.
8.3.12
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.
8.3.13
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.
