EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contract No. HY/2010/02 ˇV Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
ˇV Reclamation Work (here below, known as ˇ§the Projectˇ¨) mainly comprises
reclamation at the northeast
of the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL). It is a designated project and is governed by the current permits for
the Project, i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 06 August
2013 (EP-353/2009/G) and 28 January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B) (for TMCLKL Southern
Landfall Reclamation only).
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was
appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the
consultants for the design and construction assignment for the Projectˇ¦s
reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the Project).
China Harbour
Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD
as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the Project.
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and
Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for
the Project.
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC
to undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out
the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) works.
The
construction phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012
and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2016. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and
dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12
March 2012.
This report documents the findings of EM&A works
conducted in the period between 1 June 2013 and 31 August 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
-
Sand filling
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of
HKIA
-
Stone column installation
-
Laying stone blanket
-
Band drain installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Instrumentation works
-
Rubble mound seawall construction
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Ground investigation
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
-
Maintenance 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
|
15 sessions
15 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
All
1-Hour TSP and 24-hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the
reporting quarter.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels
for Noise
For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the
reporting period.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Fourteen (14) Action Level exceedances and two (2) limit level exceedance were recorded in the reporting quarter. Six (6) Action Level Exceedances
of DO (Bottom), one (1) Limit Level Exceedance
of DO (Surface & Middle) and one
(1) Limit Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in
June 13. Three (3) Action Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in the July 13. Five (5) Action Level
Exceedances of SS were recorded in
August 13. Investigation
results show that the exceedances were not due to the
Project works.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Impact Dolphin Monitoring
Two (2) Action level exceedances of Chinese White Dolphin monitoring were
recorded in the reporting. After investigation, it was noted although no
unacceptable changes in environmental parameters of this project have been
measured, at this time it is not possible to make a conclusive assessment of
the Project impact on dolphins. Investigation details are annexed in Appendix
L.
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.
The recommended
environmental mitigation measures effectively minimize the potential
environmental impacts from the Project. The EM&A programme effectively
monitored the environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure
the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation
was advised for the improvement of the programme.
Moreover, regular review
and checking on the construction methodologies, working processes and plants
were carried out to ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and
recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.
Complaint,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution
No complaint, notification
of summons and successful prosecution was received were received
in the reporting quarter.
1.1.1
Contract No. HY/2010/02 ˇV Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ˇV Reclamation Work (here below, known as ˇ§the Projectˇ¨) mainly
comprises seawall
construction and reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL).
1.1.2
The
environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports (Hong Kong ˇV
Zhuhai
ˇV Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ˇV EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun ˇV Chek
Lap Kok Link ˇV EIA Report (Register No.
AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and their environmental monitoring and audit
(EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A Manuals), for the Project were approved
by Environmental Protection Department (EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3
EPD subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009
(EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F) and
August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G). 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) and January 2014
(EP-354/2009/B).
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 6 August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G) and 28
January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only).
1.1.5
A Project Specific EM&A Manual, which included all
project-relation contents from the original EM&A Manuals for the Project,
was issued in May 2012.
1.1.6
Ove Arup
& Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and construction
assignment for the Projectˇ¦s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the
Project).
1.1.7
China Harbour Engineering Company
Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor
to undertake the construction work of the Project.
1.1.8
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD
as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office
(ENPO) for the Project.
1.1.9
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to
undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the
EM&A works.
1.1.10
The construction phase of the Project under the EPs was
commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year
2016.
1.1.11
According to the Project Specific EM&A Manual, there is
a need of an EM&A programme including air
quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site
inspections. The EM&A programme of the Project
commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2
Scope of Report
1.2.1
This is the
sixth quarterly EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities
ˇV Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary of the environmental
monitoring and audit works, list of activities and mitigation measures proposed
by the ET for the Project
from 1 June
2013 and 31
August 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
|
|
Engineerˇ¦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
|
3465 2888
|
3548 6988
|
|
Environmental Project Office Leader
|
Y.H. Hui
|
3465 2868
|
3465 2899
|
|
Contractor
(China Harbour
Engineering Company Limited)
|
General Manager (S&E)
|
Daniel Leung
|
3157 1086
|
2578 0413
|
|
Environmental Officer
|
Richard Ng
|
36932253
|
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
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Connecting arc cell installation
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Sand blanket laying
-
Sand filling
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of
HKIA
-
Stone column installation
-
Laying stone blanket
-
Band drain installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Instrumentation works
-
Rubble mound seawall construction
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Ground investigation
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
-
Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
1.4.3 The 3-month rolling construction programme
of the Project is shown in Appendix B.
1.4.4 The general layout plan of the Project site showing the detailed
works areas is shown in Figure 1.
1.4.5 The environmental mitigation measures implementation
schedule are presented in Appendix C.
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/G and EP-354/2009/B) (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
|
|
June 13
|
July 13
|
August13
|
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
|
AMS3A
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
|
AMS7
|
15
|
15
|
15
|
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
|
AMS3A
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
|
AMS7
|
5
|
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
|
|
June 13
|
July 13
|
August 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
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.1.5
All impact 1-hour TSP and 24-hour TSP monitoring results at
all monitoring locations were below the Action and Limit Levels in the
reporting quarter.
3.1.6
The graphical plots of the trends of the monitoring results
are provided in Appendix E. No specific trend of the monitoring results or
existence of persistent pollution source was noted.
3.1.7
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.
3.2.1
Impact noise monitoring was conducted at the 2 monitoring
stations (NMS2 and NMS3A) for at least once per week during 07:00 ˇV 19:00 in the
reporting quarter.
3.2.2
The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are
depicted in Figure 2.
3.2.3 Due to
one documented complaint is received; one (1) Action Level Exceedance
of construction noise was recorded in the reporting quarter. The investigation
results showed that the action level exceedance was
non-project related. No Limit Level
Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the
reporting quarter.
3.2.4
Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included
construction activities of the Project and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.5
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
|
|
June 13
|
July 13
|
August 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
|
|
June 13
|
July 13
|
August 13
|
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
NMS3A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.2.6
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.
3.2.7
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.
3.3.1
The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter
are depicted in Figure 3.
3.3.2 Fourteen (14) Action Level
exceedances and two (2) limit level exceedance were recorded in the reporting quarter. Six (6) Action Level Exceedances
of DO (Bottom), one (1) Limit Level Exceedance
of DO (Surface & Middle) and one
(1) Limit Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in
June 13. Three (3) Action Level Exceedances of SS were
recorded in the July 13. Five (5)
Action Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in
August 13. Investigation results show that the exceedances
were not due to the Project works.
3.3.3
Table 3.5 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances in Jun
13-Aug
13
|
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
|
1 (10 June
13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(7 Aug 2013)
|
0
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(7 Aug 2013)
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(7 Aug 2013)
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1 (10 June
13)
|
1 (10 June
13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1 (26 July
13)
|
1
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1 (10 June
13)
|
1 (10 June
13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(23 Aug 2013)
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
(7 Aug 2013)
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1 (24 June
13)
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2 (26 and 31
July 13)
|
0
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1 (10 June
13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
1 (10 June
13)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
14
|
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.4
For
the one (1) Limit Level Exceedance record at SR10(B)N
during flood tide, two (2) Action Level Exceedances of
DO recorded IS10 and IS(Mf)11 during ebb tide, (4) Action Level Exceedance of DO recorded at IS5, IS10, SR10B(N) and
IS(Mf)11 during mid flood tide on 10 Jun 13.
3.3.3.1 For type, location and duration of works carried
out on 10 June 2013 please refer to the above layout map.
3.3.3.2 Exceedances were not due to marine based construction works of
the Project because:
3.3.3.3 During ebb tide, monitoring station IS(Mf)11 and IS10 are considered upstream to active works
which the water quality are unlikely to be affected by active works. In
addition, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)16 and
IS17 which are considered downstream to active works suggesting active works
were unlikely to be the source of impact.
3.3.3.4
During ebb
tide, low DO (Bottom) - 4.8mg/L was noted at control station CS(Mf)3 which is
considered upstream to monitoring station IS(Mf)11 and IS10, indicating DO
(Bottom) at location upstream to active construction works was adversed affected by local effects in the vicinity. As
such, the exceedances recorded were likely due to
local effects in the vicinity at IS(Mf)11 and IS10 .
3.3.3.5
Low DO (Bottom)
- 4.4mg/L, 4.2mg/L, 4.0mg/L and 4.0mg/L were noted at monitoring station SR10B(N), CS6, CSA and CS(Mf)5 respectively which are
considered upstream to monitoring stations IS(Mf)11 and IS10 during mid flood
tide indicating DO (Bottom) at locations upstream to active construction works
were adversed affected by local effects in the
vicinity. As such, the exceedances recorded were
likely due to local effects in the vicinity at IS(Mf)11,
IS10 and IS5 during mid flood tide.
3.3.3.6
No DO (Bottom) exceedance was recorded during flood tide at monitoring
locations IS7, IS(Mf)6 and IS(Mf)9 which are closer to active works than
monitoring location IS5, indicating exceedance of DO
(Bottom) recorded at monitoring location IS5 during flood tide was unlikely to
be contributed by active works.
3.3.3.7 The exceedances were
considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.3.8 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure
provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains.
3.3.3.9 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried
out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.5
For
the one (1) Limit Level Exceedance of SS was recorded
at SR4(N) during mid ebb tide on 24 June 2013.
3.3.4.1 For
type, location and duration of works carried out on 10 June 2013 please refer
to the above layout map.
3.3.4.2 Exceedance was not
due to marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.4.3
Red rain storm signal was hoisted between
10:20am - 11:35am by Hong Kong Observatory during flood tide and adverse weather
condition e.g. heavy rainfall in the monitoring area was noted before the limit
level exceedance recorded at SR4(N) at 12:53pm on 24
June 2013. As such, the water quality at SR4(N) was
likely to be affected.
3.3.4.4
The monitoring sites SR4 far away from
where active works were carried out during ebb tide. 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.
3.3.4.5
For limit level exceedance
of depth averaged SS (in mg/L) recorded at SR4(N)
during mid ebb tide, same works were carried out at almost the same locations
on 21, 24 and 26 June 13, but all
depth averaged SS (in mg/L) results recorded at all monitoring location on 21
and 26 June 13 were all below the Action and Limit Level. Which indicates
project works is unlikely to contribute to the limit level exceedance
recorded at SR4(N).
3.3.4.6 The
exceedance was likely due to local effects in the
vicinity SR4(N).
3.3.4.7 The
exceedance was considered as Non-Project Related.
3.3.4.8
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded
to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry
out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.4.9
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday.
3.3.6
Two
(2) Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended
Solids (mg/L) were recorded on 26 Jul 2013 during mid-flood tide at monitoring station IS10 and SR5.
For Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended
Solids (mg/L), 23.9 mg/L and 23.8 mg/L were recorded
at Monitoring Station IS10 and SR5
respectively.
3.3.5.1 For works activities carried out on 26 July 2013,
please refer to above layout map which shows the locations active works.
3.3.5.2 Exceedances were not
due to marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.5.3
Same type of
works were carried out at the same location on 24 and 29 July 13 but Suspended
Solids values recorded at IS10 and SR5 on 24 and 29 July 13 are all below the
Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the same day which indicates
project works are unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedance recorded at IS10 and SR5.
3.3.5.4
Suspended
solids values recorded at Monitoring Stations CS(Mf)3
located downstream of monitoring station IS10 and SR5 during mid-flood tide
were below the action and limit level.
3.3.5.5
No silt plume
was observed flowing from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the
outside of the perimeter silt curtain when monitoring works were conducted IS10
on 26 July 13 during mid flood tide.
3.3.5.6
Turbidity
measurements results at IS10 and SR5 were 14.8(NTU) and 13.7(NTU) respectively
during flood tide and are all below the Action and Limit Level. It is
considered that the turbidity recorded at IS10 and IS(Mf)11
were not adversely affected by active works.
3.3.5.7 The exceedances were
likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS10 and SR5.
3.3.5.8 The exceedances were
considered as non-Project related.
3.3.5.9 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure
provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out
maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.5.10 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried
out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.7
One
(1) Action Level Exceedance at measured Suspended
Solids (mg/L) was recorded on 31 July 2013 during mid-flood tide at monitoring station SR5. For
Action Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids
(mg/L), 23.6 mg/L was recorded.
3.3.6.1
Exceedance was not due to
marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.6.2
For works
activities carried out on 31 July 2013, please refer to above layout map which
shows the locations active works.
3.3.6.3
Same type of
works were carried out at the same location on 29 July 13 but Suspended Solids
values recorded at SR5 on 29 July 13 is below the Action and Limit Level during
the same tide which indicates project works is unlikely to contribute to the
limit level exceedance recorded at SR5.
3.3.6.4
Monitoring
Stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are considered
downstream and closer to the active works than monitoring 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 which
shows that the water quality noted at
IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are downstream of and closer to active works
during flood tide than SR5 were not adversely affected by active works. Hence
it is considered that the exceedance recorded at SR5
is not related to the Project.
3.3.6.5
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity
of SR5.
3.3.6.6
The exceedance was considered as non-Project related.
3.3.6.7
Nevertheless,
the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the
silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.6.8
Maintenance
work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis
except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.8
Four
(4) Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended
Solids (mg/L) were recorded on 07 August 2013 during mid-flood tide at monitoring station IS(Mf)6, IS5,
IS7 and SR3. For Action Level exceedances at measured
Suspended Solids (mg/L), 24.7 mg/L, 29.8mg/L, 24.9 and 28.1 were recorded
at Monitoring Station IS(Mf)6, IS5, IS7 and
SR3 respectively.
3.3.7.1
For locations
and type of active works carried out on 7 Aug 13, please refer to the above
layout map.
3.3.7.2
Exceedances were not due
to marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.7.3
Same type of
works were carried out at the same locations on 5 and 9 Aug 13 but Suspended
Solids values recorded at IS(Mf)6, IS5, IS7 and SR3
on 5 and 9 Aug 13 are below the
Action and Limit Level during the same tide which indicates project works is
unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedances
recorded at IS(Mf)6, IS5, IS7 and
SR3.
3.3.7.4
Monitoring
Stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are considered
downstream to the active works of
during mid flood tide. 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 which shows that the water quality noted downstream of active works during
flood tide were not adversely affected by active works. Hence it is considered
that the action level exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)6, IS5, IS7 and SR3 are unlikely contributed by
project works.
3.3.7.5
Amongst the 4 exceedance stations, relatively higher SS value were
recorded at IS5 and SR3 which are further away from HKBCF's active works than
it is for IS(Mf)6 and IS7, indicating that the localized non-project source is
likely to be located at upstream to the BCF site during flood tide.
3.3.7.6
Turbidity
measurements results at IS(Mf)6, IS5, IS7 and SR3
during flood tide are all below the Action and Limit Level. It is considered
that the turbidity recorded at IS(Mf)6, IS5, IS7 and
SR3 were not adversely affected by active works.
3.3.7.7
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the
vicinity of IS(Mf)6, IS5, IS7 and SR3.
3.3.7.8
The exceedances were considered as non-Project related.
3.3.7.9
Nevertheless,
the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the
silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.7.10 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried
out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.9
One
(1) Action Level exceedance at measured Suspended
Solids (mg/L) were recorded on 23 August 2013 during mid-Ebb tide at monitoring station IS(Mf)16. For Action Level exceedance
at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 24.1 mg/L was recorded.
3.3.8.1
For locations
and type of active works carried out on 23 Aug 13, please refer to the above layout
map.
3.3.8.2
Exceedance was not due to
marine based construction works of the Project because:
3.3.8.3
Same type of
works were carried out at the same locations on 21 and 26 Aug 13 but Suspended
Solids values recorded at IS(Mf)16 on 21 and 26 Aug 13
are below the Action and Limit Level during the same tide which indicates
project works is unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedances
recorded at IS(Mf)16.
3.3.8.4
Turbidity
measurements results at IS(Mf)16 during Ebb tide is
13.5 NTU which is well below the Action and Limit Level. It is considered that
the turbidity recorded at IS(Mf)16 were not adversely
affected by active works.
3.3.8.5
No silt plume
was observed flowing from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the
outside of the perimeter silt curtain when water quality monitoring was
conducted at IS(Mf)16.
3.3.8.6
In view of
there is no damage can be observed from the perimeter silt curtain which
deployed in the works area at Portion D and E2.
3.3.8.7
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity
of IS(Mf)16 and considered non-project related.
3.3.8.8
Nevertheless,
the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the
silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.8.9
Maintenance
work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis
except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.8.10 The graphical plots of the trends of the monitoring
results are provided in Appendix G. No specific trend of the monitoring results
or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.
3.4.2
The impact dolphin monitoring conducted is vessel-based and
combines line-transect and photo-ID methodology, which have adopted 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 Jun 2013- Aug 2013
|
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable On- Effort Condition
|
663.8km
|
|
Number of Sightings
|
45 sightings (29 sightings are ˇ¨on
effortˇ¨ (which are all under favourable condition),
16 ˇ§sightings are opportunisticˇ¨)
|
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
125 individuals (the best estimated
group size)
|
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate#
|
NEL: 1.8
NWL:5.7
|
|
Dolphin Group Size
|
Average of 2.8
Varied from 1-12 individuals
|
|
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting
area
|
Sha
Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, Tai O, and
areas 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.
# Dolphin Encounter Rate = (Sum of 1st 2nd, 3rd monthˇ¦s
total sighting/ Sum of 1st 2nd, 3rd monthˇ¦s
total effort)*100km (encounter rates
are calculated using on effort sightings made under favourable
conditions only.)
3.4.5
Two (2) Action level exceedances
of Chinese White Dolphin monitoring were recorded in the reporting. After
investigation, it was noted although no unacceptable changes in environmental
parameters of this project have been measured, at this time it is not possible
to make a conclusive assessment of the Project impact on dolphins. Actions were
taken according to the Event and Action Plan for impact dolphin monitoring.
Please refer to Appendix L for details of action taken. Table 3.7 shows the summary of STG and
ANI encounter rates in Jun 2013 ˇV Aug 2013.
*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
3.4.6
Details of the comparison and analysis methodology and
their findings and discussions are annexed in Appendix H.
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 No
adverse observation was identified in the reporting quarter.
Water Quality
3.5.5 Litter and
silty plumes were observed when filling material was
being used for filling cellular structure number C057. The Contractor stopped
the activity to prevent litter and silty plumes from
dispersing. The Contractor was advised to provide mitigation measures such as
silt curtain to enclose active filling activities at cellular structures to
prevent litter and silty plumes from dispersing.
(Reminder)
3.5.6 While inspection
was conducted on FTB 23, silty plume was observed to
flow from the inside to the outside of a cellular structure. The Contractor
stopped prevented the silty plumes from dispersing.
The Contractor was advised to provide mitigation measures such as silt curtain
to enclose active filling activities at cellular structures to prevent litter
and silty plumes from dispersing. (Reminder)
3.5.7 Hole was
observed within the frame of the drip tray on barge Evershine
No.1, barge 401 and FTB17. The Contractor was advised to rectify the situation
by sealing the open hole properly to prevent potential waste oil leakage. The
Contractor provided mitigation measures and sealed the hole of the drip tray to
prevent potential oil leakage. (Closed)
3.5.8 It was
observed that the frame of bunding on barge SHB 401
was deformed. The Contractor was reminded to fix the deformed part of frame so
that the bunding may have appropriate height to
confine potential oil leakage. (Reminder)
3.5.9 Generator
was observed without drip tray or bunding on barge Evershine No.1, barge 401 and FTB17. The
Contractor was advised to provide mitigation measures such as bunding/drip tray to confine potential oil leakage or to
relocate the generator to an area with bunding.The
Contractor provided bunding to generator to contain
any potential oil leakage. (Closed)
3.5.10 Defect
was observed within the side of the enclosing silt curtain on barge AP4. The
contractor was rectified the defected silt curtain in order to prevent silt
plumes from dispersing out from the vicinity of active stone column works. The
contractor rectified the defected silt curtain in order to prevent silt plumes
from dispersing out from the vicinity of active stone column works.
3.5.11 Defects
were observed at portion B (southwest part of the perimeter silt curtain), E2
(northeast part of the perimeter silt curtain) and around portion C2a
(northwest part of the perimeter silt curtain). The Contractor rectified the
defects of the silt curtain at portion B (southwest part of the perimeter silt
curtain), E2 (northeast part of the perimeter silt curtain) and around portion
C2a (northwest part of the perimeter silt curtain) so the silt can be
effectively prevented from dispersing from the inside to the outside of the
site boundary. (Closed)
3.5.12 Oil
stain was observed on barge Fai Yu 3228 and Evershine
No.1. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such adsorbents
to clean the oil stain. The Contractor immediately provided mitigation measures
such as adsorbents to clean the oil stain and treated the used absorbents as
chemical waste. (Closed)
3.5.13 Oil
stain was discovered over the sea on 25 July 2013 at 11:20 near the cell K038
at Portion B. The Contractor was advised to follow the actions stated on the
Spill Response Plan and clear the oil waste on sea. The Contractor rectified
the situation and clear the oil waste on sea using
absorption boom according to the Spill Response Plan. The used absorption boom
was disposed of as chemical waste. (Closed)
Chinese White
Dolphin
3.5.14 No
adverse observation was identified in the reporting quarter.
Chemical and Waste Management
Waste
3.5.15 Oil drum
was observed improperly stored on barge Chi Full, Kiu
Chi (AP1), FTB20 and FTB17. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation
measures such as bunding/ drip tray to all oil drums.
The Contractor relocated the oil drum to area enclosed by bunding.
(Closed)
3.5.16 Oil
drums were found without chemical label on barge SHB 209 and Evershine No.1. The Contractor was reminded to provide
chemical label to all oil drum. The Contractor immediately provided chemical
labels to oil drums. (Closed)
3.5.17 Oil
drums were improperly covered on barge FTB 17. The Contractor was reminded to
provide mitigation measures such as lid to oil drums to prevent potential
spillage The Contractor immediately provided mitigation measures such a
relocate the waste oil to another oil drum with lid to prevent potential
spillage. (Closed)
3.5.18 Waste
oil was observed accumulated inside bunding. The Contractor
was reminded to clear the waste oil with water and disposed of as chemical
waste. The Contractor cleared the waste oil with water and disposed of as
chemical waste. (Closed)
3.5.19 General
waste was observed improperly covered. The Contractor immediately provided
mitigation measures such as to remove the general waste via a waste collector.
The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such bin bag(s) or
container to properly cover all general waste. (Reminder)
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.5.20 No
relevant works was carried out in the reporting month.
Others
3.5.21 No other
adverse observation was identified in the reporting month.
3.5.22 The
Contractor had rectified most of the observations as identified during
environmental site inspection in the reporting month. Rectifications of
remaining identified items are undergoing by the Contractor. Follow-up
inspections on the status on provision of mitigation measures will be conducted
to ensure all identified items are mitigated properly.
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, 1,261,392.3 m3
of imported fill were imported for the Project use in the reporting quarter. 4 tonnes
of Paper/ cardboard packaging was generated, 5,600 L 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
In response to the site audit findings, the Contractors
carried out corrective actions.
5.1.2 A
summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures
(EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of the recommended mitigation measures
are being upheld. 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.
5.1.3 Training
of marine travel route for marine vessels operator was given to relevant staff
and relevant records were kept properly.
5.1.4 Regarding
the implementation of dolphin monitoring and protection measures (i.e.
implementation of Dolphin Watching Plan, Dolphin Exclusion Zone and Silt
Curtain integrity Check), regular checks were conducted by experienced MMOs
within the works area to ensure that no dolphins were trapped by the silt
curtain area. There were no dolphins spotted within the silt curtain during
this quarter. The relevant procedures were followed and all measures were well
implemented. The silt curtains were also inspected in accordance to the
submitted plan.
5.1.5 Inadequacy
of acoustic decoupling measures on noisy plants on construction vessels were
identified by EPD during the site visit on 22 August 2013. The Contractor was
reminded to provide acoustic decoupling measures to noisy plants on
construction vessels and acoustic decoupling measures should be properly implemented
for all existing and incoming construction vessels with continuous and regularly
checking to ensure effective implementation of acoustic decoupling measures.
6
Summary of Exceedances of the
Environmental Quality Performance Limit
6.1
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental
Quality Performance Limit
6.1.1
For air quality monitoring, no Action/Limit Level exceedance of 1-hour TSP or 24-hour TSP results were below
the Action and Limit Level in the reporting quarter.
6.1.2
For construction noise, no exceedance
was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
6.1.3
Fourteen (14) Action Level exceedances
and two (2) limit level exceedance were recorded in
the reporting quarter. Six (6)
Action Level Exceedances of DO (Bottom), one (1)
Limit Level Exceedance of DO (Surface & Middle) and one (1)
Limit Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in June
13. Three (3) Action Level Exceedances of SS were
recorded in the July 13. Five (5)
Action Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in
August 13. Investigation results show that the exceedances
were not due to the Project works.
6.1.4
Two (2) Action level exceedances
of Chinese White Dolphin monitoring were recorded in the reporting. After
investigation, it was noted although no unacceptable changes in environmental
parameters of this project have been measured, at this time it is not possible
to make a conclusive assessment of the Project impact on dolphins.
6.1.5
Cumulative statistics on exceedances
is provided in Appendix J.
7
Summary of Complaints,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
7.1
Summary of Environmental Compliants, Notification of Summons
and Successful Prosecutions
7.1.1
The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed
in Figure 5.
7.1.3
As informed by the Contractor on
9 May 13, one summons was received on 29 April 13 regarding the suspected
violation case of Noise Control Ordinance (Cap.400) at Works Area WA4 on 31 Oct
2012. As informed by the Contractor in August 13, the Contractor was
subsequently prosecuted on 21 May 2013 for breaching Cap.400 Noise Control
Ordinance.
7.1.4
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.
l Acoustic decoupling measures should
be properly implemented for all existing and incoming construction vessels with
continuous and regularly checking to ensure effective implementation of acoustic
decoupling measures.
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 Projectˇ¦s environmental impacts were considered as
environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site inspections ensured
that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended were effectively
implemented.
8.2.2
The recommended environmental
mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme,
effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project.
Also, the EM&A programme effectively monitored
the environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the
proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was
advised for the improvement of the programme.
8.3
Conclusions
8.3.1
The construction phase and EM&A programme
of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
8.3.2
All 1-Hour TSP and 24-hour TSP results were below the
Action and Limit Level in the reporting quarter.
8.3.3
For construction noise, no exceedance
was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
8.3.4
Fourteen (14) Action Level exceedances
and two (2) limit level exceedance were recorded in
the reporting quarter. Six (6)
Action Level Exceedances of DO (Bottom), one (1)
Limit Level Exceedance of DO (Surface & Middle) and one (1)
Limit Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in June
13. Three (3) Action Level Exceedances of SS were
recorded in the July 13. Five (5)
Action Level Exceedances of SS were recorded in
August 13. Investigation results show that the exceedances
were not due to the Project works.
8.3.5
Two (2) Action level exceedances of
Chinese White Dolphin monitoring were recorded in the reporting. After
investigation, it was noted although no unacceptable changes in environmental
parameters of this project have been measured, at this time it is not possible
to make a conclusive assessment of the Project impact on dolphins.
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
No
environmental complaints, notification of summons or prosecution were received
in the reporting quarter.
8.3.8
As informed by the Contractor on
9 May 13, one summons was received on 29 April 13 regarding the suspected
violation case of Noise Control Ordinance (Cap.400) at Works Area WA4 on 31 Oct
2012. As informed by the Contractor in August 13, the Contractor was
subsequently prosecuted on 21 May 2013 for breaching Cap.400 Noise Control
Ordinance.
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.
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.
