Contract
No. HY/2010/02 ¡V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ¡V Reclamation Work (here below, known as ¡§the Project¡¨) mainly
comprises reclamation at the northeast
of the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL). It is a
designated project and is governed by the current permits for the Project, i.e.
the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 16 Oct 2012 (EP-353/2009/E)
and 8 December 2011 (EP-354/2009/A) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation
only).
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was
appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and
construction assignment for the Project¡¦s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer
for the Project).
China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was
awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the
Project.
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to
undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the
environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) works.
The construction
phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be
tentatively completed by early Year 2016. The EM&A programme, including air
quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site
inspections, was commenced on 12 March 2012.
This report documents the findings of EM&A works
conducted in the period between 1 Dec 2012 and 28 February 2013. As informed by the
Contractor, major activities in the reporting quarter were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Maintenance of Silt
curtain
-
Stone column
installation
-
Band drain installation
trial
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Cellular structure installation
Land-based Works
-
Maintenance works of
Site Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works
of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Sign board erection
at Works Area WA2
-
Geo-textile fabrication
at Works Area WA2
-
Stone column installation
barges setup and their maintenance works at Works Area WA4
-
Silt curtain fabrication
at Works Area WA4
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted in the reporting quarter 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
|
37 sessions
|
Impact dolphin
monitoring
|
6 surveys
|
Joint
Environmental site inspection
|
13 sessions
|
Breaches of Action
and Limit Levels for Air Quality
No Action/Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP results was recorded in the
reporting
quarter. However, one (1)
Action Level and two (2) Limit Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP results
were recorded at monitoring location AMS3A in the reporting quarter. Investigation results show that both the
Action and Limit Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP results were not
project-related.
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
Sixteen (16) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS)
values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter. Investigation result show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works.
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. Reference is made to ET¡¦s proposal of the
omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on 1 November 2012
and EPD¡¦s letter dated on 19 November 2012 regarding the conditional approval
of the proposed omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for Contract No.
HY/2010/02. The aforesaid omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 was
effective since 19 November 2012.
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
Two (2) environmental complaints were 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 ¡V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ¡V 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 ¡V
Zhuhai ¡V Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ¡V EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun ¡V
Chek Lap Kok Link ¡V EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and
their environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A
Manuals), for the Project were approved by Environmental Protection Department
(EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3
EPD
subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009 (EP-353/2009)
and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D) and October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E). Similarly, EPD issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for TMCLKL in November 2009 (EP-354/2009) and the
Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in December 2010 (EP-354/2009/A).
1.1.4
The Project is a designated project and is governed by the
current permits for the Project, i.e. the amended EPs issued on 16 October 2012
(EP-353/2009/E) and 8 December 2011 (EP-354/2009/A) (for TMCLKL Southern
Landfall Reclamation only).
1.1.5
A Project Specific EM&A Manual, which included all
project-relation contents from the original EM&A Manuals for the Project,
was issued in May 2012.
1.1.6
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was
appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and
construction assignment for the Project¡¦s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer
for the Project).
1.1.7
China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was
awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the
Project.
1.1.8
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO)
for the Project.
1.1.9
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to
undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the
EM&A works.
1.1.10
The construction phase of the Project under the EPs was
commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year
2016.
1.1.11
According to the Project Specific EM&A Manual, there is
a need of an EM&A programme including air quality, noise, water quality and
dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections. The EM&A programme
of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2 Scope of Report
1.2.1
This is the
Forth quarterly EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong
Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation Works. This report presents a
summary of the environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and
mitigation measures proposed by the ET for the Project from 1 December 2012 and 28 February
2013.
1.3.1
The project organization structure is shown in Appendix A.
The key personnel contact names and numbers are summarized in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Contact
Information of Key Personnel
Party
|
Position
|
Name
|
Telephone
|
Fax
|
Engineer¡¦s Representative (ER)
(Ove Arup
& Partners Hong Kong Limited)
|
Chief Resident Engineer
|
Roger Marechal
|
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
-
Maintenance of Silt
curtain
-
Stone column
installation
-
Band drain installation
trial
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Cellular structure
installation
Land-based Works
-
Maintenance works of Site
Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works
of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Sign board erection
at Works Area WA2
-
Geo-textile fabrication
at Works Area WA2
-
Stone column
installation barges setup and their maintenance works at Works Area WA4
-
Silt curtain fabrication
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. The conditional omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 was
effective since 19 November 2012. 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 quarter
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/E 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 quarter 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
|
Dec 12
|
Jan 13
|
Feb 13
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
AMS3A
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
AMS7
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
AMS3A
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
AMS7
|
6
|
5
|
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
|
Dec 12
|
Jan 13
|
Feb 13
|
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
|
1
|
Limit
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
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) Action Level and Two (2) Limit Level exceedance
of 24-hour TSP results were recorded at monitoring location AMS3A in the
reporting quarter. Investigation results show that both the Action and Limit
Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP results were not project-related.
3.1.7
One (1) 24-hour TSP result
exceeded the Limit Level on 13 Dec 2012 at monitoring station AMS3A in the
reporting quarter.
3.1.7.1
According to information provided by the
Contractor and on-site observations, installing sand bags and stitching
geotextile were the major land-based construction activity being undertaken at
Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period.
3.1.7.2
Similar construction activities were carried
out on 12 &13 Dec 2012 and 18 & 19 Dec 12 but no exceedance was
recorded on 18 & 19 Dec 12.
3.1.7.3
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.
3.1.7.4
Construction activities, like sheet piling and
percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private development project
during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station
AMS3A. Meanwhile, exposed soil surfaces were observed at those construction
sites of nearby private development project (Please refer to the attached maps
and photos for illustration).
3.1.7.5
As refer to the wind data collected at wind
station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 12 Dec 2012 and 13
Dec 2012 (as attached), east-southeast wind was prevailing during the
monitoring period. Construction works carried out at construction sites of
nearby private development project may contribute to the measured dust levels
at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.7.6
The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 13 Dec
2012, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 76 g/m3,
78 g/m3 and 80 g/m3 respectively. All measured values are
well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.7.7
The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2
and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same
monitoring date were 57 g/m3 and 57 g/m3 respectively,
which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.7.8
The following dust mitigation measures have
been implemented by the Contractor:
l Main haul road in Works Area WA2 were
concrete paved.
l Vehicle washing facility was provided at
vehicle exit points, and vehicle was washed to remove any dusty materials from
its body and wheels before leaving.
l Measures for preventing fugitive dust
emission are provided, e.g. watering and tarpaulin covers.
3.1.7.9
The dust exceedance was therefore considered
not to be due to the Project works. Nevertheless, the Contractor was
recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.8
One (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded the Limit
Level on 8 Feb 2013 at monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.8.1
According to information provided by the
Contractor, land-based construction activity installation of sand bags and band
drain material sampling were being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period.
3.1.8.2
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.
3.1.8.3
1hr-TSP and 24 hr-TSP monitoring was conducted
at AMS3A on 02 and 14 Feb 13, but all measured values recorded on 02 and 14 Feb
13 are well below the Action and
Limit Levels.
3.1.8.4
Construction activities, like sheet piling and
percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private development project
during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station
AMS3A. Meanwhile, exposed soil surfaces were observed at those construction
sites of nearby private development project (Please refer to the attached maps
and photos for illustration).
3.1.8.5
As refer to the wind data collected at wind
station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 7 and 8 Feb 13 (as
attached) southeast winds was prevailing during the monitoring period.
Construction works carried out at construction sites of nearby private
development project may contribute to the measured dust levels at the
monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.8.6
The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 26 Feb
2013, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 84 /m3, 84
/m3 and 83 /m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and
Limit Levels.
3.1.8.7
The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2
and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same
monitoring date were 37 g/m3 and 49 /m3 respectively, which are below the
Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.8.8
As informed by the Contractor, the following
dust mitigation measures have been implemented at WA2:
l Main haul road in Works Area WA2 were concrete paved.
l Vehicle washing facility was provided at
vehicle exit points, and vehicle was washed to remove any dusty materials from
its body and wheels before leaving.
l Measures for preventing fugitive dust
emission are provided, e.g. watering and tarpaulin covers.
3.1.8.9
The dust exceedance was therefore considered
not to be due to the Project works.
3.1.8.10
The Contractor was recommended to continue
implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.9
One (1) 24-hour TSP result exceeded the action
Level on 26 Feb 2013 at monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.9.1
According to information provided by the
Contractor, land-based construction activity installation of sand bags and band
drain material sampling were being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period.
3.1.9.2
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.
3.1.9.3
1hr-TSP and 24hr-TSP monitoring was conducted
at AMS3A on 2, 14 and 20 Feb 13,
but all measured values recorded on 2, 14 and 20 Feb 13 are well below the
Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.9.4
Construction activities, like sheet piling and
percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private development project
during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station
AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. Exposed soil surfaces
were observed at those construction sites of nearby private development project
(Please refer to the attached maps and photos for illustration).
3.1.9.5
As refer to the wind data collected at wind
station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 25 and 26 Feb 13 (as
attached) east south east wind was prevailing during the monitoring period.
Construction works carried out at construction sites of nearby private
development project may contribute to the measured dust levels at the
monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.9.6
The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 26 Feb
2013, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 92 g/m3, 92
g/m3 and 90 g/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action
and Limit Levels.
3.1.9.7
The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2
and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same
monitoring date were 64 g/m3 and 90 g/m3 respectively, which are below the
Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.9.8
The following dust mitigation measures have
been implemented at Works Area WA2:
l Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was hard-paved,
compacted or hydro-seeded
l Vehicle washing facility was provided at
vehicle exit points,
l Measures for preventing fugitive dust
emission are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
3.1.9.9
The dust exceedance was therefore considered
not to be due to the Project works.
3.1.9.10The Contractor was
recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.10
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 ¡V 19:00 in the
reporting quarter.
3.2.2
The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter 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
|
Dec 12
|
Jan 13
|
Feb 13
|
NMS2
|
4
|
5
|
4
|
NMS3A
|
4
|
5
|
4
|
Table 3.4 Summary of
Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Dec 12
|
Jan 13
|
Feb 13
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
NMS3A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.2.5
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
quarter are depicted in Figure 3.
3.3.3
Sixteen (16) Action Level exceedances were recorded
at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter.
Investigation result show that the exceedances were not due to the Project
works. Investigation results show that the exceedances were not due to the
Project works. Number of exceedances recorded in the reporting quarter at each
impact station is summarized in Table 3.5
Table 3.5 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances in Sep-Nov 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
|
2
(5 and10 Dec, 12)
|
2
(5 and 14 Dec, 12)
|
2
|
2
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(10 Dec, 12)
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(2
Jan, 13)
|
0
|
1
|
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
|
2
(3 Dec 12 &4 Jan13)
|
0
|
2
|
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
|
1
(10 Dec, 12)
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(3 Dec, 12)
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4
(5 & 10 Dec, 12 and 11 & 30 Jan, 13)
|
0
|
4
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
(2 and 14 Jan, 13)
|
0
|
2
|
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
|
16
(3, 5, 10 & 14 Dec 2012; 2, 4, 11, 14 & 30 Jan 2013)
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Note: S:
Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.4 Two
(2) Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) where recorded
on 3 Dec 2012 during mid-flood tide at monitoring station IS(Mf)16 and SR4 (N).
For Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 26.1 mg/L and
26.7 mg/L were recorded at Monitoring Station
IS(Mf)16 and SR4 (N) respectively.
3.3.4.1 For
the exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)16 and SR4 (N), it was found that Stone
column installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D by FTB 16,
AP1 and AP2, at Portion A by FTB20, at Portion C2A by FTB17 and Portion C2C by
FTB19 on 3 Dec 2012. Location plan showing the locations of the mentioned works
is shown below:
3.3.4.2 Suspended
solids values recorded at Impact Stations closer to the works are (e.g.
IS(Mf)9, IS7 and IS8) all below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide
on the same day.
3.3.4.3 The
exceedances were recorded during flood tide in which the direction of the flow
was flowing from east to west and monitoring stations IS(Mf)16 and SR4(N) is
located at the east side of the Project boundary, therefore it is unlikely that
the exceedances recorded were contributed by Project works.
3.3.4.4 The
monitoring sites IS(Mf)16 and SR4 were upstream of and far away from Portion D, C2A and C2C where works were carried out
during flood tide.
3.3.4.5 The
exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)16 &
SR4(N).
3.3.4.6 The
exceedances were considered as non-Project related.
3.3.5
Three (3) where recorded on 05 Dec 2012 during
mid-ebb tide at Impact Station IS(Mf)6 and during mid-flood tide at monitoring
station IS(Mf)6 and SR5. For Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended
Solids (mg/L), 26.6 mg/L, 25.4 mg/L and 24.3 mg/L were recorded at Impact
Station IS(Mf)6 during mid-ebb tide, IS(Mf)6 during mid-flood tide and SR5
during mid-flood respectively.
![](TOC_files/image028.jpg)
3.3.5.1 For
Action Level Exceedances recorded at Impact Station IS(Mf)6 during mid-ebb
tide, IS(Mf)6 during mid-flood tide and SR5 during mid-flood on 5 Dec 2012,
stone column installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D by
FTB 16, AP1 and AP2, at Portion A by FTB20, at Portion C2A by FTB17 and Portion
C2C by FTB19.
3.3.5.2 Suspended
Solids values recorded at Impact Station IS(Mf)9 and IS7 which are closer to
the works than monitoring station IS(Mf)6 are all below the Action and Limit
Level during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.5.3 Suspended
Solids value recorded at Impact Station IS10 which is closer to the works than
monitoring station SR5 is below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide
on the same day.
3.3.5.4 Same
type of works was carried out at the same location on 3 and 7 Dec 12 but
Suspended Solids values recorded at IS(Mf)6 & SR5 on 3 and 7 Dec 12 are all
below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.5.5 The
exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)6 &
SR5.
3.3.5.6 The
exceedances were considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.6
Four (4) where recorded on 10th Dec 2012 during
mid-ebb tide at Impact Station IS(Mf)6 and IS7 and during mid-flood tide at
monitoring station SR3 and SR5. For Action Level exceedances at measured
Suspended Solids (mg/L), 31mg/L, 31.8mg/L, 27.3mg/L and 32.2 mg/L were recorded
during mid-ebb tide at Impact Station IS(Mf)6 and IS7 and during mid-flood tide
at monitoring station SR3 and SR5.
![](TOC_files/image029.jpg)
3.3.6.1 For
Action Level Exceedances of SS at during mid-ebb tide at Impact Station IS(Mf)6
and IS7 and during mid-flood tide at monitoring station SR3 and SR5 recorded on
10 Dec 2012, Stone column installation was carried out throughout the day at
Portion D by FTB 16, AP1 and AP2, at Portion A by FTB20, at Portion C2A by
FTB17 and Portion C2C by FTB19 .
3.3.6.2 Suspended
solids values recorded at Impact Station IS(Mf) 9 and IS 8 located downstream
of IS7 and IS(Mf)6 during Mid-Ebb tide were below the Action and Limit Level
during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.6.3 Same
type of works was carried out at the same locations on 7 and 12 Dec 12 but
Suspended Solids values recorded at IS(Mf)6, IS7, SR3 and SR5 on 7 and 12 Dec
12 are all below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the these
days.
3.3.6.4 Suspended
Solids values recorded at Impact Station IS10 located closer to the Project
site boundary than SR5 was below the Action and Limit Level during the same
tide and on the same day.
3.3.6.5 Suspended
Solids values recorded at IS7, IS(Mf)6 and IS5 located closer to the Project
site boundary than SR3 were below the Action and Limit Level during the same
tide and on the same day.
3.3.6.6 The
exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)6, IS7, SR3 and SR5.
3.3.6.7 The
exceedances were considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.7
One (1) where recorded on 14 Dec 2012 during mid-ebb
tide at Impact Station IS(Mf) 6. For Action Level exceedances at measured
Suspended Solids (mg/L), 27.7mg/L was recorded at Impact Station IS(Mf)6.
![](TOC_files/image030.jpg)
3.3.7.1 For Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)6
at Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2012 Stone column installation was carried
out throughout the day at Portion D by AP1 and AP2, at Portion A by FTB20, at
Portion C2A by FTB17 and Portion C2C by FTB19 and FTB18.
3.3.7.2 Suspended
Solids values recorded at Impact Station IS(Mf)9 and IS7 which are closer to the
works than monitoring station IS(Mf)6 are all below the Action and Limit Level
during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.7.3 Same type of works were carried out at the
same location on 12 and 17 Dec 12 but Suspended Solids values recorded at
IS(Mf)6 on 12 and 17 Dec 12 are all below the Action and Limit Level during the
same tide on the same day.
3.3.7.4 The exceedance was likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)6.
3.3.7.5 The exceedance was considered as Non-Project
Related.
3.3.8 Two (2) Acton Level exceedances at
measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) were recorded on 02 Jan 2013 during mid-flood tide at monitoring
station IS10 and SR6. For Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids
(mg/L), 28.2 mg/L and 25.7 mg/L were recorded at Monitoring Station IS10 and
SR6 respectively.
![](TOC_files/image031.jpg)
3.3.8.1 For
the exceedances recorded at IS10 and SR6, it was found that Stone column
installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D by AP1 and AP2, at
Portion A by FTB20, at Portion A by AP3 and Portion C2C by FTB18.
3.3.8.2 Same
type of works were carried out at the same location on 31 Dec 12 and 4 Jan 13
but Suspended Solids values recorded at IS10 and SR6 on 31 Dec 12 and 4 Jan 13
are all below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.8.3 Suspended
solids values recorded at Impact Stations IS(Mf)11 which is closer to the works
area than Impact Station IS10 were below the action and limit level.
3.3.8.4 Suspended
solids values recorded at Impact Stations SR5 and CS(Mf)3 located downstream of
monitoring station IS10 during mid-flood tide was below the action and limit
level.
3.3.8.5 Suspended
Suspended solids values recorded at Impact Stations SR5 and CS(Mf)3 which are
closer to the works area than SR 6 were below the action and limit level.
3.3.8.6 The
exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS10 and SR6.
3.3.8.7 The exceedances were considered as
non-Project related.
3.3.9
One (1) Acton Level exceedance at measured Suspended
Solids (mg/L) was recorded on 04 Jan 2013 during mid-flood tide at Impact
Station IS(Mf)16. For the Action Level exceedance of measured Suspended Solids
(mg/L), 23.9 mg/L was recorded at Impact Station IS(Mf)16 during mid-flood
tide.
![](TOC_files/image032.jpg)
3.3.9.1 For
Action Level Exceedance recorded at Impact Station IS(Mf)16 during mid-flood
tide, stone column installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D
by FTB 16, AP1 and AP2, at Portion A by FTB20, at Portion A by AP3 and Portion
C2C by FTB18.
3.3.9.2 Suspended
Solids values recorded at Impact Station IS(Mf)9 and IS7 which are closer to
the works than monitoring station IS(Mf)6 are all below the Action and Limit
Level during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.9.3 Impact
Stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are considered downstream and closer to the
works than Impact Station IS(Mf)16. Since the Suspended Solids values recorded
at IS10 and IS(Mf)11 are all below
the Action and Limit Level during same tide on the same day. The water quality
noted at downstream of active works were not adversely affected by active
works. Hence it is considered that the exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)16 located
upstream of active works are not related to the Project.
3.3.9.4 IS(Mf)16
is considered upstream of Partion D, A and C2C where work was carried out during mid
flood tide.
3.3.9.5 The
exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)16.
3.3.9.6 The
exceedance was considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.10 One
(1) Acton Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded on
11 Jan 2013 at monitoring station SR5 during mid-flood tide. For Action Level
exceedance of measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 30.1 mg/L were recorded at
monitoring station SR5 during mid-flood tide.
![](TOC_files/image033.jpg)
3.3.10.1 For
Action Level Exceedance of SS recorded at monitoring station SR5 during mid-flood tide at monitoring
station SR5 recorded on 11 Jan 2013, stone column installation was carried out
throughout the day at Portion D by FTB16, FTB20, AP1 and AP2, at Portion A by
FTB19 and AP3, at Portion C2A by FTB17 and Portion C2c by FTB18.
3.3.10.2 Impact
Stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are considered downstream and closer to the
works than Impact Station SR5. Since the Suspended Solids values recorded at
IS10 and IS(Mf)11 are all below the Action and Limit Level during same tide on
the same day. The water quality noted at downstream of and closer to active
works were not adversely affected by active works.Hence it is considered that
the exceedance recorded at SR5 are not related to the Project.
3.3.10.3 Same
type of works was carried out at almost the same location on 9 and 14 January13
but Suspended Solids values recorded at SR5 on 9 and 14 January 13 are all
below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.10.4 The
exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR5.
3.3.10.5 The
exceedance was considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.11 One
(1) action Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded on
14 Jan 2013 at monitoring station SR6 during mid-flood tide. For Action Level
exceedance of measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 33.8 mg/L were recorded at
monitoring station SR5 during mid-flood tide.
![](TOC_files/image034.jpg)
3.3.11.1 For Action
Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)6 at Mid-Flood tide recorded on 14 Jan 2013 at
monitoring station SR6 during mid-flood tide, s tone column installation was
carried out throughout the day at Portion D by FTB 16, FTB20, AP1 and AP2, at
Portion A by FTB19 and AP3, at Portion C2A by FTB17 and Portion C2c by FTB18.
3.3.11.2 Impact
Stations IS10, IS(Mf)11, SR5 and CS(Mf)3 which are considered downstream and
closer to active works than Monitoring Station SR6. Since the Suspended Solids
values recorded at IS10, IS(Mf)11, SR5 and CS(Mf)3 are all below the Action and
Limit Level during same tide on the same day. The water quality noted at
downstream of and closer to active works were not adversely affected by active
works. Hence it is considered that the exceedance recorded at SR6 is not
related to the Project.
3.3.11.3 Same type
of works was carried out at almost the same location on 11 and 16 January13 but
Suspended Solids values recorded at SR6 on 11 and 16 January 13 are all below
the Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.11.4 The
exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR6.
3.3.11.5 The
exceedance was considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.12 One (1) action Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was
recorded on 30 Jan 2013 at monitoring station SR5 during mid-flood tide. For
Action Level exceedance of measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 30.1 mg/L were
recorded at monitoring station SR5 during mid-flood tide.
![](TOC_files/image035.jpg)
3.3.12.1 For Action
Level Exceedance of SS recorded at Mid-Flood tide on 30 Jan 2013 at monitoring
station SR5, Stone column installation was carried out throughout the day at
Portion D by FTB 16, AP1 and AP2, at Portion A by FTB 18, FTB19, FTB20, AP3 and
AP4, at Portion C2A by FTB17.
3.3.12.2 Impact
Stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are considered downstream and closer to the
works than Impact Station SR5. Since the Suspended Solids values recorded at
IS10 and IS(Mf)11 are all below the Action and Limit Level during same tide on
the same day. The water quality noted at downstream of and closer to active
works were not adversely affected by active works. Hence it is considered that
the exceedance recorded at SR5 is not related to the Project.
3.3.12.3 Same type
of works was carried out at almost the same location on 28 Jan13 and 01 Feb13
but Suspended Solids values recorded at SR5 on 28 Jan13 and 01 Feb13 are all
below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.12.4 The
exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR5.
3.3.12.5 The
exceedance was considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.12.6 The
floating type silt curtains were provided around the whole works area. However,
integrity checking record of 30 Jan 13 shows that defects were found at parts
of the floating type silt curtains. The Contractor was reminded to swiftly
rectify the perimeter silt curtain in particular the portions which defects
were observed to ensure the sediment plume generated by construction activities
could be prevented from discharging to areas outside the site boundary.
3.3.12.7 As informed
by the Contractor, maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out on a
daily basis except Sunday.
3.3.13
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 quarter 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 Dec 2012- Feb 2013
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable On-
Effort Condition
|
657.0km
|
Number of Sightings
|
50 sightings (34 sightings are ¡¨on effort¡¨ (which
are all under favourable condition), 16 ¡§sightings are opportunistic¡¨)
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
161 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate
|
NEL: 5.7%
NWL: 9.5%
|
Dolphin Group Size
(for both NEL and NWL)
|
Average of 3.2¡Ó2.8(SD)
Varied from 1-17 individuals
|
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area
|
NWL: Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park area
and adjacent, eastern waters and northeast of the airport platform.
NEL: Area to the east of the Brothers Islands.
|
Remarks:
^ Completion of
line transect survey of NEL and NWL survey area once was counted as one
complete survey.
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
It
is noted that preparation works for other projects started in January 2013 and
as such, there is increased boat traffic and underwater works in the southern
sector of NWL.
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 No adverse
observation was identified in the in the reporting Quarter.
Noise
3.5.4
Air compressors on barge Sun Moon Kee were observed without
valid noise emission label. The contractor was reminded to fit air compressors with valid noise emission label prior
to operation. (Reminder)
Water Quality
3.5.5
Silt curtain installed for stone column installation works
on barge FTB18 was found damaged. The Contractor was reminded to keep monitor
and well maintain of the silt curtain more frequently to ensure the silt
curtain are fully functional. The damaged silt curtain found on barge FTB18 was
fixed in the reporting quarter. (Closed)
3.5.6
Defects noticed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain at
portions E1, C2a. C2c were observed and under maintenance. The Contractor was
reminded to swiftly rectify the perimeter silt curtain in particular the
portions where defects were observed to ensure the sediment plume generated by
construction activities could be prevented from discharging to areas outside
the site boundary. The adverse situation was rectified by the Contactor in
March 2013. (Closed)
3.5.7
It was noticed that a localised silt curtain was readily
adjacent to Barge AP4 but was not deployed to enclose the active stone column
installation at Portion A. The Contractor rectified the situation by enclosing
the active stone column installation with localised silt curtain in the
reporting quarter. (Closed)
Chemical and Waste Management
3.5.8
Oil drum was found improperly stored at FTB24, FTB18,
FTB16, FTB19, SHB208, Sun Moon Kee. The Contractor rectified the situation by
removing the oil drums from the area without bunding and/or relocating the oil
drum inside the bunded area to prevent oil leakage (Closed).
3.5.9
Oil drums were provided with bundnig n barge Sang Hang Qi
7and the Contractor properly labelled the oil drum on barge Sang Hang Qi 7 and
barge Sang Hang Bo 205 to enclose the oil drums stored within works areas to
retain any leaked oil within the reporting quarter (Closed).
3.5.10
Oil drums were found without proper labelling at barge Ever
Shine. The Contractor was advised to label all oil drums properly and oil drums
were provided with proper labelling at barge Ever Shine within the reporting
quarter (Closed).
3.5.11
Bucket of waste water was found near at a location without
bunding/drip tray on Sang Han Bo 209. The Contractor immediately rectified the
situation by relocated the bucket of waste water inside the bunded area to
prevent potential waste water runoff into nearby water system. The Contractor
was reminded to place buckets of waste water inside bunded area on barge
(reminder).
3.5.12
The oil stain found near the power pack on barge Sang Hang
Qi 7 and Sang Hang Bo 210, underneath a pack of cable and on the floor of barge
Fai Yue 3228 and near a vibration clamp on barge Fai Yue 3228 were cleared and
the absorbents were treated as chemical wastes. Mitigation measure such as
tarpaulin sheet was placed underneath a pack of cable and on the floor of barge
Fai Yue 3228 to retain any potential oil leakage. (Closed).
3.5.13
The Contractor provided mitigation measure such as
tarpaulin sheet and bunding to retain potential leaked oil near the machine on
barge Sun Moon Kee to power pack on Sang Hang Bo 205 to retain leaked oil
respectively within the reporting quarter (Closed).
3.5.14
Gap was observed between barge surface and the bunding on
barge Sun Moon Kee. The Contractor was reminded to seal the gap to prevent oil
leakage. Gaps between barge surface and the bunding on barge Sun Moon Kee were
sealed within the reporting quarter (Closed).
3.5.15
Uncovered open holes in the bundings and drip trays were
found on barge FTB18 and on barge Sun Moon Kee. Oil leakage was found on barge
Sun Moon Kee leaked through a bunding. The leaked oil was immediately cleared
by the Contractor using absorbents and the Contractor was reminded to dispose
the absorbents as chemical waste. The Contractor was reminded to seal/cover the
open holes properly to prevent oil leakage. Open holes in the bundings and drip
trays found on barge FTB18 were covered in the reporting quarter (Closed)
3.5.16
Incident of oil spillage was observed on barge FTB 20. The
spilled oil was immediately cleared by the Contractor using spill kit and the
Contractor was reminded to dispose the absorbents as chemical waste. The
Contractor was reminded to maintain proper oil spill cleanup procedure for oil
spillage (Reminder).
3.5.17
Oil was found accumulated inside the drip tray on barge
FTB20. The Contractor rectified the situation by clearing the waste oil inside
the drip tray, the Contractor is reminded to dispose the waste oil as chemical
waste. (Reminder)
3.5.18
Water was observed dripping from the pipe connected to the
air conditioner. The Contractor provided mitigation measures by placing a bucket
to collect water that dripped from the air conditioner. (Closed)
3.5.19
Stagnant water accumulated inside the car tire on barge
Sang Han Bo 205 and inside the drip tray on barge Sang Han Bo 210 were observed.
The Contractor was reminded to clear the water or open a hole on the tire on
Sang Han Bo 205 to prevent mosquito breeding and to clear the water accumulated
inside the drip tray on barge Sang Han Bo 210 respectively. Stagnant water
accumulated inside the wheel tire on barge Sang Han Bo 205 and inside the drip
tray on barge Sang Han Bo 210 were removed in the reporting quarter. (Closed)
3.5.20
Garbages accumulated on barge Kiu Chi was observed and food
waste was observed left outside of the bin on barge SHB 402. The Contractor was
remineded to clear up the garbages/food waste frequently to keep site clean and
tidy. Garbages accumulated on barge Kiu Chi was cleared in the reporting
quarter. (Closed)
3.5.21
Although the content of the stockpile on barge Fu Tat was
dampened, however, the Contractor was reminded to dampen the stockpile
frequently to suppress fugitive dust generated. (Reminder)
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.5.22
No adverse observation was identified in the reporting quarter.
Others
3.5.23
No adverse observation was identified in the reporting
quarter.
3.5.24
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, 190,414.9 m3 of
imported fill were imported for the Project use in the reporting quarter.
4,000kg of chemical waste were generated and disposed of in the reporting
quarter. 71.5 tonnes of general refuse were generated and disposed of in the
reporting quarter. 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
Practice on the Packaging,
Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.
5.1.1
Defects were noticed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain
at portions E1, C2a. C2c and those defective parts are yet to be rectified.
Although maintenance works were noted during site inspections and on the
records provided by the Contractor. However, there is still parts of the silt
curtain were found defective in the reporting quarter therefore the Contractor
was reminded again to swiftly complete the rectification works of the perimeter
silt curtain in particular the portions where defects were observed to ensure
the sediment plume generated by construction activities could be prevented from
discharging to areas outside the site boundary. Meanwhile, ET followed up the situation and closely monitored the
progress
of the maintenance work and reported the progress
accordingly during the reporting
quarter.
5.1.2
In response to the site audit findings, the Contractors
carried out corrective actions.
5.1.3
A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental
Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of the recommended
mitigation measures. 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
Training of marine travel route for marine vessels operator
was given to relevant staff 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.
5.1.7
As informed by the Contractor, insufficient mitigation
measures were noted during a joint site inspection with the representative of
the Contractor and the Resident Engineer in the after from 14:30 to 16:00 of 28
Jan 2013.
5.1.8 It was noticed that
part of the demarcation for Zone F was missing; being contrary to the other
condition 3.d.16 of the above CNP. In addition , Some generators and air
compressors on barge FTB-16 in Zone S4 were not completely screened by the
acoustic baffles and parts of those powered mechanical equipment (PME) were
visible from Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel (noise sensitive receiver); being
contrary to other condition of the CNP. It is understood that the set up of
acoustic baffles for FTB-20 in Zone S5 was identical to FTB-16 in Zone S4.
Therefore the Contractor was advised to inspect and rectify (if necessary) the
acoustic baffles so as to comply with other condition 3.d.13 of the CNP.
5.1.9
The Contractor was reminded to carry out necessary actions
to rectify the above deficiencies
and the
Contractor was reminded not to
operate those PME during restricted hours without compliance with the CNP
conditions.
5.1.10
As informed by the Contractor on 9 February 2013, the
deficiencies were rectified. 7 nos. of demarcation (were no more visible) for
Zone F have been re-deployed.
5.1.11 Extra noise barriers were installed onto
barge FTB-16 in Zone S4 and FTB-20 in S5. generators and air compressors on
barge FTB-16 in Zone S4 and FTB-20 in S5 were completely screened by the
acoustic baffles and parts of those powered mechanical equipment (PME) were no
more visible from Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel (noise sensitive receiver).
5.1.12
The Contractor was reminded to strictly comply with the
condition of the CNP.
6
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental
Quality Performance Limit
6.1.1
No Action/Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP results was
recorded in the reporting quarter. However, one (1) Action Level and Two (2)
Limit Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP results were recorded at monitoring
location AMS3A in the reporting quarter. Investigation results show that both
the Action and Limit Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP results were not
project-related.
6.1.2
For impact noise monitoring, No Action/Limit Level
exceedance of impact noise monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter.
6.1.3
For impact water monitoring, sixteen (16) Action Level
exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in
the reporting quarter. Investigation result show that the exceedances were not
due to the Project works.
6.1.4
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
EPD referred a complaint from a complainant on 18 Jan 2013
who advised that turbid water and concrete/cement was arising from the Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Projects to marine water. The source of
turbid water and concrete/cement was not specified by the complainant.
7.1.2.1 As informed by the
Contractor (China Harbour
Engineering Company Ltd.), stone column construction was being
carried out on 14 -18 Jan 13 at the Portions B, D, C2a, C2c and E2 of the Hong Kong
Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) reclamation works (the location of each
Portion is shown in Figure 1 ¡V layout map of the HKBCF reclamation works). Silt
curtain integrity checking records of 14-18 Jan 13 show that defects were found
at parts of the perimeter silt curtain.
7.1.2.2 As informed by the
Contractor, rectification measures such as maintenance work of the silt curtain
was carried out on a daily basis from 14 to 31 Jan 13 (except 16, 20 and 27 Jan
13) and the tentative date for completion of the maintenance of the silt
curtain will be on or before 21 Feb13.
7.1.2.3 As informed by the
Contractor, preventive actions such as daily inspection of silt curtain were
carried out to review the adequacy and effectiveness of the silt curtain and
there were no incidents of onsite leakage of turbid water and/or
concrete/cement arising from project from 14 to18 Jan 13.
7.1.2.4 With reference to
the available monitoring records no silt plumes or turbid water were observed
during impact water quality monitoring on 14 ¡V 31 Jan 13. Moreover there were
no exceedances of turbidity level recorded in Jan 13. Although 5 results of
depth averaged measured Suspended Solids (SS) levels exceeded the action level,
these exceedances were not considered being caused by the project after investigation.
7.1.2.5 Therefore in
accordance with the abovementioned observations, it could not be concluded
whether the complaint was considered as project related or not. However the
Contractor was reminded to implement necessary mitigation measures.
7.1.2.6 Follow up site
inspections were conducted on 24 and 31 Jan 13, please refer to ¡§Follow Up Site
Visit¡¨ for details of findings.
l Defect of localised silt curtain was
observed during the Site Inspection Audit conducted on barge FTB-18 on 10 Jan
13. According to the photo record provided by the Contractor, these defect was
rectified by the Contractor before the Site Inspection Audit conducted on 24
Jan 13.
l During the joint site inspection with the
representatives of the Contractor and Residential Engineer on 31 Jan 13, it was
noticed that a localised silt curtain was readily adjacent to Barge AP4 but was
not deployed to enclose the active stone column installation at Portion A.
However the Contractor rectified the situation by providing the localised silt
curtain to the active stone column installation on the same day.
l Defects were noticed at parts of the
perimeter silt curtain at portions E1 and C2c. The Contractor was reminded to
swiftly rectify the perimeter silt curtain in particular the portions where
defects were observed to ensure the sediment plume generated by construction
activities could be prevented from discharging to areas outside the site
boundary.
7.1.2.7 The Contractor was reminded to implement mitigation measures as stated
below:
l The Contractor was reminded to carry out
regular inspection of the deployed silt curtains to review the integrity and
effectiveness of the perimeter silt curtains deployed at the boundary of HKBCF
and the localised silt curtain deployed during active stone column
installation.
l The Contractor was reminded to swiftly
rectify the perimeter silt curtain in particular the portions which defects
were observed to ensure the sediment plume generated by construction activities
could be prevented from discharging to areas outside the site boundary.
l The Contractor was reminded to reinforce the
provision of localised silt curtain to all stone column vessels to ensure the
sediment plume generated by construction activities could be prevented from
discharging to areas outside the site boundary.
7.1.3
One (1) complaint was referred
to the HyD by the Islands District Council (IDC) on the 6 February 2013
regarding a resident from Phase 1 Caribbean Coast who complained the nuisance
brought by construction along Ying Hei Road, Tung Chung. Complaint investigation
was conducted by the HyD and written reply were subsequently given to IDC by
HyD on 4 March 13. The
investigation results show that the complaint was non-project related.
7.1.3.1
In summary, the follow
environmental issues were noted by the complainant:
- Insects
(including cockroaches) were found inside the flats which are facing the
construction sites.
- Leisure
area next the Ying Hei Road was adversely affected.
- Workers
coming from the construction sites made area nearby the bus stops at Caribbean
Coast very dirty by throwing debris and cigarette or cigarette ash.
- Pilling was
carried out outside the permitted hours.
7.1.3.2
Complaint investigation was
conducted by the HyD and written reply were subsequently given to IDC by HyD on
4 March 13.
7.1.3.3
Investigation result shows that
the site under Contract No. HY/2010/02 was used for accommodating site offices
of the Contract and therefore there have been neither piling works carried out
within the site, nor deployment of dump trucks to it.
7.1.3.4
Majority of the construction works
under the Contract are being carried out far away at the water off northeast of
the HKIA.
7.1.3.5
Moreover, investigation result
indicates that the site and the access road (paved with concrete) to the site
have been maintained in a clean and tidy condition.
7.1.3.6
Furthermore, the contractor has
arranged shuttle buses for workers of this Contract to travel to and from the
site offices to reduce their interference with the local community.
7.1.3.7
Nevertheless, the Contractor was
reminded by HyD to continue to keep the site and its nearby area clean and
tidy.
7.1.3.8
The investigation results show
that the complaint was non-project related.
7.1.4
No notification of summons and prosecution was received in
the reporting quarter.
7.1.5
Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful
prosecutions are summarized in Appendix J.
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
For
air quality monitoring, no Action/Limit
Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP results was recorded in the reporting quarter.
However, one (1) Action Level and Two (2) Limit Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP
results were recorded at monitoring location AMS3A in the reporting quarter.
Investigation results show that both the Action and Limit Level exceedance of
24-hour TSP results were not project-related.
8.3.3
For impact noise monitoring, no Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the reporting period.
8.3.4
For
impact water quality monitoring, sixteen (16) Action Level exceedances were
recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting
quarter. Investigation result show that the exceedances were not due to the
Project works.
8.3.5
No
triggering of Event and Action Plan for impact dolphin monitoring was noted in
the reporting quarter.
8.3.6
Environmental site inspection was carried out thirteen
times in the reporting quarter. Recommendations on remedial actions were given
to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
8.3.7
Two (2) environmental complaints were received in the
reporting quarter.
8.3.8
No
notification of summons and successful prosecution was received in the
reporting quarter.
8.3.9
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 was
continued until 19 November 2012. Reference is made to ET¡¦s proposal of the
omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) dated on 1 November 2012 and EPD¡¦s
letter dated on 19 November 2012 regarding the conditional approval of the
proposed omission of air monitoring station (AMS 6) for Contract No.
HY/2010/02. The aforesaid omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 will be effective
since 19 November 2012.
8.3.10
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.
8.3.11
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.