TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.4 Summary of Construction Works
2 Summary of EM&A Programme Requirements
2.2 Environmental Quality Performance (Action/Limit Levels)
2.3 Environmental Mitigation Measures
3.5 Environmental Site Inspection and Audit
4 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status
4.1 Summary of Solid and Liquid Waste Management
5 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
5.1 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
6 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
6.1 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
7 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
7.1 Summary of Environmental Compliants, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
8 Comments, recommendations and Conclusions
8.1 Comments on mitigation measures 44
8.2 Recommendations on EM&A Programme
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Contact Information of Key Personnel
Table 3.1 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Concentration
Table 3.2 Summary of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Table 3.3 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise
Table 3.4 Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
Table 3.5 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in March-May 2013
Table 3.6 Summary of Key Dolphin Survey Findings in Mar 2013- May 2013
Table 3.7 Summary of STG and ANI encounter rates in Mar 2013- May 2013
Figures
Figure 1 General Project Layout Plan
Figure 2 Impact Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations and Wind Station
Figure 3 Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure 4 Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map
Figure 5 Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure
List of Appendices
Appendix A Project Organization for Environmental Works
Appendix B Three Month Rolling Construction Programmes
Appendix C Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS)
Appendix D Summary of Action and Limit Levels
Appendix E Graphical Presentation of Impact Air Quality Monitoring Results
Appendix F Graphical Presentation of Impact Daytime Construction Noise Monitoring Results
Appendix G Graphical Presentation of Impact Water Quality Monitoring Results
Appendix H Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Findings and Analysis
Appendix I Quarterly Summary of Waste Flow Table
This report documents the findings of EM&A works conducted in the period between 1 March 2013 and 31 May 2013. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting quarter were:-
Marine-based Works
- Cellular structure installation
- Connecting arc cell installation
- Laying geo-textile
- Sand blanket laying
- Maintenance of silt curtain
- Stone column installation
- Laying stone blanket
- Band drain installation
- Backfill cellular structure
- Instrumentation works
- Construction of temporary seawall
- Ground investigation
- Installation of silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA
Land-based Works
- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
- Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
- Geo-textile fabrication at Works Area WA2
- Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA4
- Erection of site office for CHEC(GD) at Works Area WA2
- Green roof construction at Works Area WA2
- Construction of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted in the reporting quarter is listed below:
24-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring 1-hour TSP monitoring |
16 sessions 16 sessions |
Noise monitoring |
12 sessions |
Impact water quality monitoring |
39 sessions |
Impact dolphin monitoring |
6 surveys |
Joint Environmental site inspection |
13 sessions |
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
One (1) 24-hour TSP results exceeded the Action Level at monitoring station AMS7, three (3) 24-hour TSP results exceeded the Action Level at monitoring station AMS3A and two (2) 24-hour TSP result exceeded the Limit Level at monitoring station AMS3A. The investigation results showed that the action and limit level exceedances were non-project related. All 1-hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level at all monitoring locations in the reporting quarter.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
Due to one documented complaint is received; one (1) Action Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the reporting quarter. The investigation results show that the action level exceedance was non-project related. No Limit Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the reporting quarter.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Ten (10) Action Level exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter, one (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter and 1 Action Level exceedance was recorded at turbidity (NTU) in the reporting quarter. Investigation result show that the exceedances were not due to the Project works.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Impact Dolphin Monitoring
One (1) Limit level exceedance was recorded in the reporting quarter. The investigation results showed that there is no evidence that exceedances are related to Project works are annexed in Appendix L.
Triggering of Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring
No Triggering of Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring.
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
Four (4) environmental complaints and one (1) summons was received were received in the reporting quarter.
No successful prosecution was received were received in the reporting quarter.
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 |
Marine-based Works
- Cellular structure installation
- Connecting arc cell installation
- Laying geo-textile
- Sand blanket laying
- Maintenance of silt curtain
- Stone column installation
- Laying stone blanket
- Band drain installation
- Backfill cellular structure
- Instrumentation works
- Construction of temporary seawall
- Ground investigation
- Installation of silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA
Land-based Works
- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
- Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
- Geo-textile fabrication at Works Area WA2
- Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA4
- Erection of site office for CHEC(GD) at Works Area WA2
- Green roof construction at Works Area WA2
- Construction of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
Table 3.1 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Concentration
Monitoring Parameter |
Location |
No. of monitoring events |
||
March 13 |
April 13 |
May 13 |
||
1-hr TSP |
AMS2 |
15 |
18 |
15 |
AMS3A |
15 |
18 |
15 |
|
AMS7 |
15 |
18 |
15 |
|
24-hr TSP |
AMS2 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
AMS3A |
5 |
6 |
5 |
|
AMS7 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
Table 3.2 Summary of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Monitoring Parameter |
Location |
Level of Exceedance |
Level of Exceedance |
||
March 13 |
April 13 |
May 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 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
Limit |
1 |
1 |
0 |
||
AMS7 |
Action |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
Total |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3.1.7.1 Functional checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.7.2 Construction activities, like sheet piling and percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private development project during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. Trucks were observed passing exposed soil surfaces at those construction sites of nearby private development project.
3.1.7.3 Please see layout map attached for reference of site conditions
3.1.7.4 Please see photos attached for reference of site conditions:
View of Works Area WA2 : Hard paved ground next to monitoring station AMS3A (View A)
View on Site B: Beyond the site boundary of WA2 (View B)
3.1.7.5 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 4 and 5 March 13 (please see attached) south-southeast wind was prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out at construction sites of nearby private development project may contribute to the measured dust levels at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.7.6 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 4 March 2013, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 85 g/m3, 83 g/m3 and 84 g/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
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 99 g/m3 and 124 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.7.8 The following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
l Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
l Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle exit points,
l Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
3.1.7.9 The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.
3.1.7.10 The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.8.1 Functional checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.8.2 As informed by the Contractor, construction activities like sheet piling and percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private development project during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. Traffics were observed passing exposed soil surfaces at those construction sites of nearby private development project.
3.1.8.3 Please see layout map attached for reference of site conditions
3.1.8.4 Please see photos attached for reference of site conditions:
View of Works Area WA2 : the hard paved ground next to monitoring station AMS3A (View A)
View on Site B: Beyond the site boundary of WA2 (View B)
3.1.8.5 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 8 and 9 March 13 (as attached) south wind was prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out at construction sites of nearby private development project may contribute to the measured dust levels at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.8.6 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 09 March 2013, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 96 g/m3, 97 g/m3 and 98 g/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
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 89 g/m3 and 124 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.8.8 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.
3.1.8.9 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.
3.1.9.1 Functional checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.9.2 As informed by the Contractor, construction activities like sheet piling and percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private development project during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. Traffics were observed passing exposed soil surfaces at those construction sites of nearby private development project.
3.1.9.3 Please see layout map attached for reference of site conditions:
3.1.9.4
Please see photos attached for reference of site conditions:
View of Works Area WA2
: the hard paved ground next to monitoring station AMS3A (View A)
View on Site B: Beyond the site boundary of WA2 (View B)
3.1.9.5 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 14 and 15 March 13 (as attached) southeast winds was prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out at construction sites of nearby private development project may contribute to the measured dust levels at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.9.6 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 15 March 2013, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 85 g/m3, 85 g/m3 and 83 g/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
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 99 g/m3 and 127 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.
3.1.9.10 The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.10.1 Functional checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.10.2 As informed by the Contractor, construction activities like sheet piling and percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private development project during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. Traffics were observed passing exposed soil surfaces at those construction sites of nearby private development project. Please also see photo and layout map attached for reference of site conditions.
3.1.10.3 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 08 and 09 April 13 (as attached) East winds was prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out at construction sites of nearby private development project may contribute to the measured dust levels at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.10.4 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 08 April 13, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 84 g/m3, 87 g/m3 and 81g/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.10.5 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same monitoring date were 104 g/m3 and 127 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.10.6 The following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
l Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
l Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle exit points,
l Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
3.1.10.7
|
|
|
|
3.1.10.8 Please see photos attached for reference of site conditions:
View of Works Area WA2 : Hard paved ground next to monitoring station AMS3A (View A)
View on Site B: Beyond the site boundary of WA2 (View B)
3.1.10.9 The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.
3.1.10.10 The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.11.1 Stone column was being installed at the seabed therefore it is considered that stone column installation is unlikely to contribute to the recorded 24hr-TSP exceedance.
3.1.11.2 Functional checking on HVS at AMS7 was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.11.3 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS7 on 13 April 13, which are within the monitoring days of the 24-hr TSP, were 83 g/m3, 81 g/m3 and 80g/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.11.4 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 and AMS3A on the same monitoring date were 64 g/m3 and 53 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.11.5 On the other hand, according to observation made at the monitoring station AMS7, there was no non-project potential cause/activity at the surrounding of monitoring station AMS7 which might potentially contribute to the dust action level exceedance.
3.1.11.6 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 13 and 14 April 13 (as attached) southwest winds was prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out by this Contract is unlikely to cause dust exceedance at AMS7 under southwest prevailing wind direction.
3.1.11.7 The following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
l Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
l Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle exit points,
l Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
3.1.11.8 The following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at throughout the construction site:
l Excavators and generators were operated by ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) to minimize the possibility of air pollution.
3.1.11.9 Please see layout map attached for reference of site conditions
3.1.11.10 Please see photos of the conditions of the surrounding near the monitoring station AMS7:
3.1.11.11 The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.
3.1.11.12 The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.12.1 Functional checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.12.2 As informed by the Contractor, construction activities like sheet piling and percussive piling, were carrying out by nearby private development project during the course of monitoring, which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. Traffics were observed passing exposed soil surfaces at those construction sites of nearby private development project. Please also see photo and layout map attached for reference of site conditions.
3.1.12.3 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 29 and 30 April 13 (as attached) South-southeast winds was prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out at construction sites of nearby private development project may contribute to the measured dust levels at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.12.4 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 29 April 13, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 82 g/m3, 82 g/m3 and 79g/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.12.5 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same monitoring date were 38 g/m3 and 54 g/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.12.6 The following dust mitigation measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
¡P Works Area WA2¡¦s surface was hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
¡P Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle exit points,
¡P Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission are provided, e.g. tarpaulin covers.
3.1.12.7 Conditions of the construction sites near Works Area WA2:
3.1.12.8 Please see layout map attached for reference of site conditions
3.1.12.9 Please see photos attached for reference of site conditions:
View of Works Area WA2 : the hard paved ground next to monitoring station AMS3A (View A)
Vew on Site B: Beyond the site boundary of WA2 (View B)
|
3.1.12.10 The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.
3.1.12.11 The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
Table 3.3 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise
Monitoring Parameter |
Location |
No. of monitoring events |
||
March 12 |
April 13 |
May 13 |
||
NMS2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
NMS3A |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Table 3.4 Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
Monitoring Parameter |
Location |
Level of Exceedance |
Level of Exceedance |
||
March 12 |
April 13 |
May 13 |
|||
NMS2 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
NMS3A |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
Total |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 3.5 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in March-May 2013
Exceedance Level |
DO (S&M) |
DO (Bottom) |
Turbidity |
SS |
Total |
||||||
Ebb |
Flood |
Ebb |
Flood |
Ebb |
Flood |
Ebb |
Flood |
Ebb |
Flood |
||
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS(Mf)6 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (8 May 13) |
0 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS7 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (8 May 13) |
0 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS8 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 (10 Apr & 8 May, 13) |
0 |
2 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (8 May 13) |
1 (8 May 13) |
1 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS10 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS(Mf)11 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS(Mf)16 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (29 Mar 13) |
1 (22 Apr 13) |
1 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
IS17 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (29 Apr 13) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR3 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR4(N) |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (10 Apr 13) |
0 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR5 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (26 April, 13 |
0 |
1 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (29 Mar 13) |
0 |
1 |
|
SR6 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR7 |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR10A |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR10B (N) |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
Action |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 (29 Mar 2013; 10, 22 26 & 29 Apr 2013; 8 May 2013) |
|
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1(29 Mar 13) |
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.4.1 As informed by the Contractor, stone column installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D by FTB 16, AP1 and AP2; at Portion A by FTB19, FTB 20, AP3 and AP4; at Portion C2c by FTB 18 and at Portion E1 by FTB 17. Cellular structure installation works was conducted at Portion E2 by ES668¡BSHB 401, WK, ES18, FY3228 and ES1 and at Portion B by SHB190, 208, 305 and 402..
3.3.4.2 Exceedances were not due to marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.4.3 For exceedance recorded at SR5 during mid flood tide, since monitoring stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 are considered downstream and closer to the active works than monitoring station SR5 and the Suspended Solids values recorded at IS10 and IS(Mf)11 are all below the Action and Limit Level during same tide on the same day. The water quality noted at downstream of and closer to active works were not adversely affected by active works.Hence it is considered that the exceedance recorded at SR5 are not related to the Project.
3.3.4.4 For action level exceedance of suspended solid recorded at IS(Mf)16 during mid ebb tide, stone column installations were carried out at almost the same locations on 27, 29 Mar 13 and 1 April 13, but all Suspended Solids results recorded at all monitoring location on 27 Mar 13 and 1 Apr 13 are all below the Action and Limit Level. Which indicates that stone column installation is unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)16.
3.3.4.5 When impact water quality monitoring was carried out during mid ebb and mid flood tide at monitoring location IS(Mf)16 on 29 Mar 13, yellow brown color of sea water was noted but no silty plume was observed to flow from the inside to the outside of the site boundary.
3.3.4.6 Cellular structure installation work was conducted at Portion E2 by ES668¡BSHB 401, WK, ES18, FY3228 and ES1 and at Portion B by SHB190, 208, 305 and 402 during mid ebb tide on 29 Mar 13 but cellular structure installation was considered unlikely to contribute to elevation of suspended solid.
3.3.4.7 The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR5 and IS(Mf)16.
3.3.4.8 Floating type silt curtains were provided around the whole works area. In addition, it was noted that the Contractor swiftly rectified the perimeter silt curtain in particular the portions which defects were observed on 28 March 13 to ensure the sediment plume generated by construction activities could be prevented from discharging to areas outside the site boundary.
3.3.4.9 The Contractor was reminded to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.4.10 As informed by the Contractor, maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.5.1 For the two (2) Action Level exceedance were recorded at during mid flood tide at IS8 and SR4(N) respectively on 10 April 13. The investigation results show that the action exceedances were non-project related.
3.3.5.2 As informed by the Contractor, stone column installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D by FTB 16, AP1 and AP2; at Portion A by FTB 19, FTB 20, AP3 and AP4; at Portion C2c by FTB 18 and at Portion E1 by FTB 17. Cellular structure installation works were conducted at Portion E2 by ES668¡BSHB 401, WK, ES18, Sanhang floating crane 16 and Sanhang floating crane 7 and at Portion B by SHB190, 208, 305, 402, 205, 209, 189 and FY3228.
3.3.5.3 Exceedances were not due to marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.5.4 IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)16 are located closer to the active works than monitoring station IS8 and SR4(N). Depth Averrage Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded during the flood tide on the same day at IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)16 were below the Action and Limit Level.
3.3.5.5 The monitoring location of monitoring station IS8 and SR4(N) are considered upstream to the active works of this project. Therefore it was unlikely that the exceedances recorded at IS8 and SR4(N) were due to active construction activities of this project.
3.3.5.6 Cellular structure installation works were conducted at Portion E2 and at Portion B by construction vessels during mid flood tide on 10 Apr 13 but cellular structure installation was considered unlikely to contribute to elevation of Suspended Solids.
3.3.5.7 The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS8 and SR4(N).
3.3.5.8 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
3.3.5.9 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.5.10 The investigation results show that the action and limit level exceedance were non-project related.
3.3.6.1 Stone column installation was carried out throughout the day at Portion D by AP2 and AP4; at Portion A by FTB 20; at Portion C2c by FTB 17 and at Portion E1 by FTB 18. Cellular structure installation works was conducted at Portion E2 by SHB 402; at Portion B by SH Floating Crane 7 and 16; Geotextile laying at Portion C1b by Tung Shun 329.
3.3.6.2 For action level exceedance of depth averaged turbidity (in NTU) recorded at IS17 during mid ebb tide, stone column installations were carried out at almost the same locations on 26, 29 Apr 13 and 1 May 13, but all depth averaged turbidity (in NTU) results recorded at all monitoring location on 26 Apr 13 and 1 May 13 were all below the Action and Limit Level. Which indicates that stone column installation is unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedance recorded at IS17?
3.3.6.3 When impact water quality monitoring was carried out during mid ebb at monitoring location IS17 on 29 April 13, no discoloration of sea water was observed and no silty plume were observed to flow from the inside to the outside of the site boundary.
3.3.6.4 Cellular structure installation works was conducted at Portion E2 by SHB 402; at Portion B by SH Floating Crane 7 and 16 but cellular structure installation was considered unlikely to contribute to elevation of depth averaged turbidity (in NTU).
3.3.6.5 The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS17.
3.3.6.6 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
3.3.6.7 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.7.1 Exceedances were not due to marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.7.2 For action level exceedance of depth averaged SS (in mg/L) recorded at IS(Mf)16 during mid flood tide, stone column installations were carried out at almost the same locations on 19, 22 and 24 Apr 13, but all depth averaged SS (in mg/L) results recorded at all monitoring location on 19 and 24 Apr 13 13 were all below the Action and Limit Level. Which indicates that stone column installation is unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)16.
3.3.7.3 When impact water quality monitoring was carried out during mid flood tide at monitoring location IS(Mf)16 on 22 April 13, no discoloration of sea water was observed and no silty plume were observed to flow from the inside to the outside of the site boundary.
3.3.7.4 Cellular structure installation works was conducted at Portion B by SHB402, SHB205, SHB208 and SHB209 but cellular structure installation was considered unlikely to contribute to elevation of depth averaged SS (in mg/L).
3.3.7.5 Location of monitoring station IS(Mf)16 is considered upstream to active works during mid flood tide and therefore it is unlikely that the elevation of suspended solid is caused by active works.
3.3.7.6 The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)16.
3.3.7.7 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains. The Contractor was reminded to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.7.8 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.8.1 Exceedance was not due to marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.8.2 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.
3.3.8.3 Same type of works was carried out at almost the same location on 24 April13 and 29 April13 but Suspended Solids values recorded at SR5 on 24 April13 and 29 April13 are all below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the same day.
3.3.8.4 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR5.
3.3.8.5 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
3.3.8.6 The Contractor was reminded to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.8.7 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.9.1 The investigation results show that the action exceedances were non-project related.
3.3.9.2 For type, location and duration of works carried out on 8 May 2013, please refer to the above layout map.
3.3.9.3 Exceedances were not due to marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.9.4 Same work at same portion was carried out on 6 and 10 May 13 while no exceedance was recorded on these two days at the same tide.
3.3.9.5 The water depth of IS(Mf)9 was 3.3m and 3.4m during mid ebb tide and mid flood tide respectively. The water depth of IS(Mf)6, IS7 and IS8 were 3.3m, 3.4m and 3.6m respectively during mid flood tide.
3.3.9.6 Strong wind and rough sea condition were experienced during the monitoring period, which is likely to affect the ambient water quality in such shallow water condition.
3.3.9.7 When impact water quality monitoring was carried out at IS(Mf)6, IS(Mf)9, IS7 and IS8 at Mid-Flood tide and IS(Mf)9 at Mid-Ebb tide on 8 May 2013, no silty plume was observed to flow from the inside to the outside of the site boundary.
3.3.9.8 No exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)16 and IS17 which are considered downstream of active works during ebb tide and no exceedance was recorded at IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are considered downstream of active works during flood tide.
3.3.9.9 The exceedances recorded were likely due to local effects in the vicinity at IS(Mf)6, IS(Mf)9, IS7 and IS8.
3.3.9.10 The exceedances were considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.9.11 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
3.3.9.12 The Contractor was reminded to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.9.13 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
Table 3.6 Summary of Key Dolphin Survey Findings in Mar 2013- May 2013
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^ |
6 |
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable On- Effort Condition |
668.6km |
Number of Sightings |
22 sightings (13 sightings are ¡¨on effort¡¨ (which are all under favourable condition), 9 ¡§sightings are opportunistic¡¨) |
Number of dolphin individual sighted |
72 individuals (the best estimated group size) |
Dolphin Encounter Rate# |
NEL: 0.0 NWL:3.1 |
Dolphin Group Size |
Average of 3.3 Varied from 1-12 individuals |
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area |
Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park area |
# Dolphin Encounter Rate = (Sum of 1st 2nd, 3rd month¡¦s total sighting/ Sum of 1st 2nd, 3rd month¡¦s total effort)*100km (encounter rates are calculated using on effort sightings made under favourable conditions only.)
Table 3.7 Summary of STG and ANI encounter rates in Mar 2013- May 2013 |
||||
|
NEL |
NWL |
Level Exceeded |
|
STG* |
0.00 |
3.00 |
Limit Level |
|
ANI** |
0.00 |
8.60 |
|
*Quarterly Average Encounter Rate of Number of Dolphin Sightings (STG) presents averaged encounter rates of the three monitored months in terms of groups per 100km per survey event.
STG Encounter rate = (Average of (total number sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 1st month+ Average of (total number sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 2nd month + Average of (total number sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 3rd month)/3*100km
**Quarterly Average Encounter Rate of Total Number of Dolphins (ANI) presents averaged encounter rates of the three monitored months in terms of individuals per 100km per survey event.
ANI Encounter rate = (Average of (total number of Individual/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 1st month+ Average of (total number of Individual/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 2nd month + Average of (total number of Individual/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 3rd month +)/3*100km
Air Quality
Water Quality
Chemical and Waste Management
Landscape and Visual Impact
Others
- Training record shows that related toolbox talk training such as handling and storage of chemical waste for workers and frontline staff are conducted regularly.
- In addition, all chemical waste arising from Contractor¡¦s construction activities are packed, labeled and stored properly by the Contractor and collected by licensed waste collectors.
- Emergency drill for oil spillage was conducted on 8 August 2012 which allowed workers and frontline staff to familiar with the spill response procedures.
- As informed by the Contractor, all response action and incident reporting procedure would be carried out in compliance with the spill response plan if there is any accidental spillage of oil or chemical from construction activities of this contract.
- As informed by the Contractor, sufficient standard spill control materials are available on site for the removal of any oil leakage and refilling of the material will be provided when necessary.
-
- Training record shows that related toolbox talk training such as handling and storage of chemical waste for workers and frontline staff are conducted regularly.
- In addition, all chemical waste arising from Contractor¡¦s construction activities are packed, labeled and stored properly by the Contractor and collected by licensed waste collectors.
- Emergency drill for oil spillage was conducted on 8 August 2012 which allowed workers and frontline staff to familiar with the spill response procedures.
- As informed by the Contractor, all response action and incident reporting procedure would be carried out in compliance with the spill response plan if there is any accidental spillage of oil or chemical from construction activities of this contract.
-
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.