EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below, known as
“the Project”) mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL). It is a
designated project and is governed by the current permits for the Project, i.e.
the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 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 Project’s reclamation works (i.e. the
Engineer for the Project).
China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC)
was awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the
Project.
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the Project.
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC
to undertake the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out
the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) works.
The
construction phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012
and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2016. The EM&A programme,
including air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and
environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12 March 2012.
This report documents the findings of EM&A works
conducted in the period between 1 December 2013 and 28 February 2014. 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
-
Band drain installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Ground investigation
-
Surcharge laying
-
Precast Yard setup
-
Seawall blocks for temporary construction
-
Construction of temporary assess from Portion D to Portion A
-
Construction of temporary pier at Portion A
-
Sand Drain
-
Vibro-compaction on surcharge
-
Rubble mound seawall construction
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
-
Installed sand bag 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 results were below the Action and Limit Level
in the reporting quarter. Six (6) 24-hour TSP results recorded among AMS2,
AMS3A and AMS7 exceeded the Action Level and two (2) 24-hour TSP results
recorded at AMS3A exceeded the Limit Level at in the reporting quarter.
Investigation results show that the exceedances were not related to Project.
Breaches of Action
and Limit Levels for
Noise
For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations 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. Three (3) Limit Level Exceedances were recorded at measured
suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter.
Investigation result shows that the Action Level Exceedance recorded at
SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance recorded at
IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were related to Project. Investigation result shows that other
water quality exceedances were unlikely to be project-related.
Breaches of Action
and Limit Levels for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring
Two (2) Action Level exceedances were recorded for Chinese White Dolphin monitoring in the reporting quarter.
Triggering of Event and Action Plan for Impact
Dolphin Monitoring
Event and Action Plan for Impact
Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For the detail of investigation, please refer
to appendix L.
Implementation Status and
Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures
Most
recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were
implemented properly in the reporting quarter.
The
recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively minimized the
potential environmental impacts from the Project. The EM&A programme
effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction
activities and ensured 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 environmental impacts were kept
minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented
effectively.
Complaint,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution
As informed by the
Contractor on 5 Dec 13, there was one (1) noise complain related to a barge
moving through the southern channel of HyD’s construction site after 23:00 on
8.11.2013. Site daily for barges was requested from the Contractor. Referring
to the site daily provided by the Contractor, there was no barge operated after
18:25 on 08 Nov 13. The complaint is therefore considered unlikely to be
related to the construction works.
As
informed by the Contractor on 12 Dec 13. A complaint involves the leakage of
sand from barges causing water discoloration at sea near Tuen Mun Pierhead
Garden and sand material without properly covered was blown to the inside of
the residential area which caused disturbance to residence. With refer to
available information provided and monitoring data recorded on 09 Dec 13, it
cannot indicate that the water quality impact and air quality impact were caused
by the vessel of this Contract and therefore the complaint could not be
concluded as related to this Contract
As
informed by the Contractor on 6 Jan 14. A complaint involves barges loaded with
sand material without properly covered was blown to the inside of the
residential area of Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden which caused disturbance to
residence. With refer to available information provided, it cannot indicate
that the water quality impact and air quality impact were caused by the vessel
of this Contract and therefore the complaint could not be concluded as related
to this Contract.
EPD
referred a complaint from complainant who advised that blackish mud was found
along the edge of the construction site of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong
Kong Project near the airport in the morning of 18 January 2014. Therefore in
accordance with the investigation results, the complaint is therefore
considered as not related to contract HY/2010/02.
No notification of summons and
successful prosecution was received in the reporting period.
1
introduction
1.1
Background
1.1.1
Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below, known as “the Project”) mainly
comprises seawall construction
and reclamation
at the northeast of the
Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL).
1.1.2
The
environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports (Hong Kong –
Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun –
Chek Lap Kok Link – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and
their environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A
Manuals), for the Project were approved by Environmental Protection Department
(EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3
EPD
subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009
(EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), 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 Project’s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer
for the Project).
1.1.7
China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was
awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of the
Project.
1.1.8
ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO)
for the Project.
1.1.9
AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake
the role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the EM&A
works.
1.1.10
The construction phase of the Project under the EPs was
commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year
2016.
1.1.11
According to the Project Specific EM&A Manual, there is
a need of an EM&A programme including air quality, noise, water quality and
dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections. The EM&A programme
of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2
Scope
of Report
1.2.1
This is the
eighth quarterly EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong
Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. This report presents a
summary of the environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and
mitigation measures proposed by the ET for the Project from 1 December 2013 and 28 February 2014.
1.3
Project Organization
1.3.1
The project organization structure is shown in Appendix A.
The key personnel contact names and numbers are summarized in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Contact
Information of Key Personnel
|
Party
|
Position
|
Name
|
Telephone
|
Fax
|
|
Engineer’s Representative (ER)
(Ove Arup
& Partners Hong Kong Limited)
|
Chief Resident Engineer
|
Roger Marechal
|
2528 3031
|
2668 3970
|
|
IEC / ENPO
(ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited)
|
Independent Environmental Checker
|
Raymond Dai
|
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
Summary of Construction Works
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
-
Band drain installation
-
Backfill cellular structure
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Construction of temporary seawall
-
Ground investigation
-
Surcharge laying
-
Precast Yard setup
-
Seawall blocks for temporary construction
-
Construction of temporary assess from Portion D to Portion A
-
Construction of temporary pier at Portion A
-
Sand Drain
-
Vibro-compaction on surcharge
-
Rubble mound seawall construction
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
-
Installed sand bag 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
Summary
of EM&A Programme Requirements
2.1
Monitoring Parameters
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
Environmental Quality Performance (Action/Limit Levels)
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
Environmental Mitigation Measures
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
MONITORING
Results
3.1
Air Quality Monitoring
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
|
|
December 13
|
January 14
|
February 14
|
|
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
|
|
December 13
|
January 14
|
February 14
|
|
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
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
|
AMS7
|
Action
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
2
|
6
|
0
|
3.1.5
All 1-Hour TSP results were
below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting quarter. Six (6) 24-hour TSP
results recorded among AMS2, AMS3A and AMS7 exceeded the Action Level and two
(2) 24-hour TSP results recorded at AMS3A exceeded the Limit Level at in the
reporting quarter. Investigation results show that the exceedances were not
related to Project.
3.1.6
For the 24Hr TSP Action Level
exceedance recorded at AMS3A, a result of 212mg/m3 was recorded on 11 Dec 13 (24-hr TSP).
3.1.6.1
According to information provided by the
Contractor, land-based construction activity such as installation of sand bags,
delivery of band drain material and stitching of Type 2 geotextile were being
undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period.
3.1.6.2
Functional checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air
flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP
sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS
laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.6.3
Photo records shows vehicle parking activities were
observed inside an area at construction sites of nearby private development
project which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site
boundary of Works Area WA2. (Please also see photo and layout map attached for
reference of site conditions (View A.))
3.1.6.4
As refer to the wind data collected at wind station
at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 10 and 11 Dec 13 (as
attached) east winds was prevailing during the monitoring period. Traffic
activities at construction sites of nearby private development project which
are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works
Area WA 2 may contribute to the measured dust levels at the monitoring station
AMS3A.
Conditions of the
construction sites near Works Area WA2:
View A: (Parking lot observed at
nearby construction site which do not belongs to this Contract):
View B (Hard paved surface observed at Works Area WA2)
3.1.6.5
The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 11 Dec 13,
which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 84μg/m3, 88μg/m3
and 86μg/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and
Limit Levels.
3.1.6.6
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 155μg/m3 and 165μg/m3 respectively, which are below the Action and
Limit Levels.
3.1.6.7
The following dust mitigation measures have been
implemented at Works Area WA2:
1. Works Area WA2’s surface was hard-paved,
compacted or hydro-seeded (Please refer to attached layout map and photo record
(View B))
2. Vehicle washing facility was provided at
vehicle exit points,
3. Measures for preventing fugitive dust
emission are provided, e.g. canvas/tarpaulin covers.
3.1.6.8
The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to
be due to the Project works.
3.1.6.9
The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing
existing dust mitigation measures.
3.1.7
For the 24Hr TSP
Action Level exceedance recorded at AMS7, a result of 186mg/m3
was recorded on 27 Dec 13 (24-hr TSP).
3.1.7.1 According to information provided by the
Contractor during the monitoring period. Marine-based construction activity
such as band drain, stone column installation and cellular structure
installation was being undertaken at C2a, portion D and portion A.
3.1.7.2 Stone column was being installed at the
seabed therefore it is considered that stone column installation at Portion D
and Portion A is unlikely to contribute to the recorded 24hr-TSP exceedance.
3.1.7.3 Both band drain and cellular structure
installation conducted at C2a, portion D and portion A are unlikely to
contribute to the recorded 24hr-TSP exceedance due to no significant fugitive
dust was expected to be generated in the process.
3.1.7.4 Excavators and generators were operated by
ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) to minimize the possibility of air pollution
have been implemented at throughout the construction site.
3.1.7.5
Photo record below shows that the
Contractor implemented dust control measures on works area of Portion A:
3.1.7.6 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 AMS7. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and
the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.7.7 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS7 on 27
Dec 13, which are within the monitoring days of the 24-hr TSP, were 89μg/m3,
89μg/m3 and 88μg/m3 respectively. All measured values are
well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.7.8 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at
AMS2 and AMS3A on the same monitoring date were 93μg/m3 and 160 μg/m3
respectively, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.7.9 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.
3.1.7.10 As refer to the wind data collected at wind
station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 27 and 28 Dec 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 South-southwest prevailing wind direction.
The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project
works.
3.1.7.11 The Contractor was recommended to continue
implementing existing dust mitigation measures and the Contractor was reminded
ensure to undertake watering at least 8 times per day on all exposed soil
within the Project site and associated work areas throughout the construction
phase.
3.1.8
For the 24Hr TSP Limit Level
exceedance recorded at AMS3A, a result of 502mg/m3 was recorded on 07 Jan 14 (24-hr TSP).
3.1.8.1 According to information provided by the Contractor,
land-based construction activity such as stitching and transloading of Type 2
geotextile were being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period.
3.1.8.2 Functional checking on HVS at AMS3A was done. Air flow
of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at
AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and
the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.8.3 Photo records shows fugitive dust were generated by
vehicle activities observed inside an area at construction sites of nearby
private development project which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but
beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. (Please also see photo and layout
map attached for reference of site conditions (View A.))
View A (fugitive dust were observed at the parking
lot of the nearby construction site which do not belongs to this Contract)
3.1.8.4 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at
Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 06 and 07 Jan 14 (as attached)
Southeast wind was prevailing during the monitoring period. Traffic activities
at construction sites of nearby private development project which are close to
the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA 2
may contribute to the measured dust levels at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.8.5 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on 7 Jan 14,
which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 84μg/m3, 83μg/m3
and 83μg/m3 respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and
Limit Levels.
3.1.8.6 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS7 (which
are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same monitoring date
was133μg/m3, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.8.7 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3A on
next monitoring date were 154μg/m3, which was below the Action and Limit Level.
3.1.8.8 The following dust mitigation measures have been
implemented at Works Area WA2:
1. Works Area WA2’s surface was
hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded (Please refer to attached layout map and
photo record (View B))
2. Vehicle washing facility was
provided at vehicle exit points,
3. Measures for preventing fugitive
dust emission are provided, e.g. canvas/tarpaulin covers.
3.1.8.9 The Contractor was recommended
to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures.
View B (Hard paved surface observed
at Works Area WA2)
The following figure is the General
Layout of Works Area WA2
3.1.9
For the 24Hr TSP
Action Level exceedance recorded at AMS2, a result of 185mg/m3
was recorded on 08 Jan 14 (24-hr TSP).
3.1.9.1 According to information provided by the Contractor
during the monitoring period. Marine-based construction activity such as band
drain, stone column installation and cellular structure installation was being
undertaken at C2a, C2c, C1a, C1b, D, E1, E2, A and B.
3.1.9.2 Stone column was being installed at the seabed
therefore it is considered that stone column installation at Portion E1, E2 and
Portion B is unlikely to contribute to the recorded 24hr-TSP exceedance.
3.1.9.3 Both band drain or cellular structure installation
conducted at C2a, C2b, C2c, C1a, C1b, E1, E2, A and B are unlikely to contribute
to the recorded 24hr-TSP exceedance due to no significant fugitive dust was
expected to be generated in the process.
3.1.9.4 Checking record of Jan 14 shows that plant engine is
operated by ULSD.
3.1.9.5 With reference to the weekly joint site inspection
records of 2, 9, 16, 22 and 29 of Jan 14, no dark smoke of was observed and
this indicates that plant engines are properly maintained.
3.1.9.6 Excavators and generators were operated by ultra low
sulphur diesel (ULSD) to minimize the possibility of air pollution have been
implemented at throughout the construction site.
3.1.9.7 Functional checking on HVS at AMS2 was done. Air flow
of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at
AMS2. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and
the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.9.8 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 on 7 Jan 14, were
84μg/m3, 83μg/m3 and 85μg/m3 respectively. All
measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.9.9 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS7 (which
is located closer to active works than AMS2) on 7 Jan 14 was 133μg/m3,
which was below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.9.10 On the other hand, according to observation made at
the monitoring station AMS2, there was no non-project potential cause/activity
at the surrounding of monitoring station AMS2 which might potentially
contribute to the dust action level exceedance.
3.1.9.11 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at
Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 7 and 8 Jan 14 (as
attached), East-southeast winds
were prevailing during the monitoring period. Construction works carried out by
this Contract are unlikely to cause dust exceedance at AMS2 under the abovementioned
prevailing wind directions.
3.1.9.12 The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be
due to the Project works.
3.1.9.13
The Contractor
was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation measures and
the Contractor was reminded ensure to undertake watering at least 8 times per
day on all exposed soil within the Project site and associated work areas
throughout the construction phase.
3.1.10
For the 24Hr TSP
Action Level exceedance recorded at AMS3A, a result of 175mg/m3
was recorded on 18 Jan 14 (24-hr TSP).
3.1.10.1 According to information provided
by the Contractor, land-based construction activities such as transloading land
band equipment, accessories and installed sand bags were being undertaken at
Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period.
3.1.10.2 Functional checking on HVS at
AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during
the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the
assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.10.3 Photo records shows vehicle
parking activities were observed inside an area at construction sites of nearby
private development project which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but
beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. (Please also see photo and layout
map attached for reference of site conditions (View A.))
View A (parking lot observed at
nearby construction site which do not belongs to this Contract)
3.1.10.4 As refer to the wind data
collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 17
and 18 Jan 14 (as attached) South-southeast winds was prevailing during the
monitoring period. Traffic activities at construction sites of nearby private
development project which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond
the site boundary of Works Area WA 2 may contribute to the measured dust levels
at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.10.5 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at
AMS3A on 18 Jan 14, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP,
were 84μg/m3, 83μg/m3 and 85μg/m3
respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.10.6 The measured 24-hr TSP values
recorded at AMS2 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same
monitoring date were 124μg/m3, which were below the Action and Limit
Levels.
3.1.10.7 The following dust mitigation
measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
1.
Works Area WA2’s surface was hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
(Please refer to attached layout map and photo record (View B))
2.
Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle exit points,
3.
Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission are provided, e.g.
canvas/tarpaulin covers.
View B (Hard paved surface observed at
Works Area WA2)
3.1.10.8 The dust exceedance was
therefore considered not to be related to the Project works.
3.1.11
For the 24Hr TSP Action Level
exceedance recorded at AMS7, a result of 207mg/m3 was recorded on 18 Jan 14 (24-hr TSP).
3.1.11.1 According to information provided by the Contractor
during the monitoring period. Marine-based construction activity such as band
drain, stone column installation and cellular structure installation was being
undertaken at all area except Portion D.
3.1.11.2
Stone column was being installed at the seabed
therefore it is considered that stone column installation at Portion C2a,
Portion E2 and Portion B are unlikely to contribute to the recorded 24hr-TSP
exceedance. For active works carried out on 18 Jan 14, please refer to the
below layout map.
3.1.11.3 Both band drain or cellular structure
installation which was conducted during the monitoring period are considered
unlikely to contribute to the recorded 24hr-TSP exceedance due to no
significant fugitive dust was expected to be generated in the process.
3.1.11.4 Excavators and generators were operated by
ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) to minimize the possibility of air pollution
have been implemented at throughout the construction site.
3.1.11.5 Checking record of Jan 14 shows that plant
engine was operated by ULSD.
3.1.11.6 With reference to the weekly joint site
inspection records of 2, 9, 16, 22 and 29 of Jan 14, no dark smoke of was
observed and this indicates that plant engines are properly maintained.
3.1.11.7 As refer to the wind data collected at wind
station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 23 and 24 Jan 14,
South-southeast winds was prevailing during the monitoring period. However,
photo record attached shows that dust control measures was implemented by the
Contractor.
Photo record showed
that the Contractor implemented dust control measures on pelican barge loaded
with rock/sand. The Contractor was reminded to continue to provide dust control
measures on pelican barge loaded with rock/sand.
Photo record showed
that the Contractor implemented dust control measures such as wind-board installed
on pelican barge. The Contractor was reminded to continue to provide such dust
control measure.
3.1.11.8 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.
3.1.11.9 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS7 on 18
Jan 14, which are within the monitoring days of the 24-hr TSP, were 84μg/m3, 83μg/m3
and 83μg/m3 respectively. All measured
values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.11.10 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at
AMS2 and AMS3A on the same monitoring date were 93μg/m3
and 160μg/m3 respectively, which
are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.11.11 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.
Photo shows the conditions of the surrounding near the monitoring
station AMS7:
3.1.11.12 The dust exceedance was therefore considered
not to be due to the Project works.
3.1.12
For the 24Hr TSP limit Level
exceedance recorded at AMS3A, a result of 374mg/m3 was recorded on 24 Jan 14 (24-hr TSP).
3.1.12.1 According to information provided by the Contractor,
land-based construction activities such as transloading band drain material,
sand bags and tidy up and clearance of site area were being undertaken at Works
Area WA2 during the monitoring period.
3.1.12.2 Functional checking on HVS at
AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during
the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the
assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.12.3 Photo records shows vehicle
parking activities were observed inside an area at construction sites of nearby
private development project which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but
beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. (Please also see photo and layout
map attached for reference of site conditions (View A.))
View A
(parking lot observed at nearby construction site which do not belongs to this
Contract)
3.1.12.4 As refer to the wind data
collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 23
and 24 Jan 14 (as attached) Southeast winds was prevailing during the
monitoring period. Traffic activities at construction sites of nearby private development
project which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond the site
boundary of Works Area WA 2 may contribute to the measured dust levels at the
monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.12.5 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at
AMS3A on 24 Jan 14, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP,
were 84μg/m3, 82μg/m3 and 81μg/m3
respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.12.6 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 66μg/m3 and109μg/m3, which are below the Action
and Limit Levels.
3.1.12.7 The measured 24-hr TSP value
recorded at AMS3A on next monitoring date was 183μg/m3, which exceeded the
Action Level (The dust exceedance was considered not to be due to the Project
works after investigation).
3.1.12.8 The following dust mitigation
measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
1.
Works Area WA2’s surface was hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
(Please refer to attached layout map and photo record (View B))
2.
Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle exit points,
3.
Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission are provided, e.g.
canvas/tarpaulin covers.
View B (Hard paved surface observed
at Works Area WA2)
3.1.12.9 The dust exceedance was
therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.
3.1.13
For the 24Hr TSP Action Level
exceedance recorded at AMS3A, a result of 183mg/m3 was recorded on 28 Jan 14 (24-hr TSP). And the 24hr-TSP results received on 4 Feb 14.
3.1.13.1 According to information provided
by the Contractor, land-based construction activity such removing batch/rolls
of materials off site area was being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period.
3.1.13.2 Functional checking on HVS at
AMS3A was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during
the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3A. The filter paper was re-weighted by the
assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.13.3 Photo records shows vehicle
parking activities were observed inside an area at construction sites of nearby
private development project which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but
beyond the site boundary of Works Area WA2. (Please also see photo and layout
map attached for reference of site conditions (View A.))
View A (parking lot observed at
nearby construction site which do not belongs to this Contract)
3.1.13.4 As refer to the wind data
collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 28
and 29 Jan 14 (as attached) South-southeast winds was prevailing during the
monitoring period. Traffic activities at construction sites of nearby private
development project which are close to the monitoring station AMS3A but beyond
the site boundary of Works Area WA 2 may contribute to the measured dust levels
at the monitoring station AMS3A.
3.1.13.5 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at
AMS3A on 29 Jan 14, which are within the monitoring period of the 1-hr TSP,
were 83μg/m3, 84μg/m3 and 82μg/m3
respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.13.6 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 106μg/m3 and129μg/m3, which
are below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.13.7 The measured 24-hr TSP values
recorded at AMS3A on next monitoring date were 79μg/m3, which did not exceed
the Action or Limit Level.
3.1.13.8 The following dust mitigation
measures have been implemented at Works Area WA2:
1.
Works Area WA2’s surface was hard-paved, compacted or hydro-seeded
(Please refer to attached layout map and photo record (View B))
2.
Vehicle washing facility was provided at vehicle exit points,
3.
Measures for preventing fugitive dust emission are provided, e.g.
canvas/tarpaulin covers.
View B (Hard paved surface observed
at Works Area WA2)
3.1.13.9
The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the
Project works.
3.1.14
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.
3.1.15
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.
3.2
Noise Monitoring
3.2.1
Impact noise monitoring was conducted at the 2 monitoring stations
(NMS2 and NMS3A) for at least once per week during 07:00 – 19:00 in the
reporting quarter.
3.2.2
The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are depicted in
Figure 2.
3.2.3 No Action or 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
|
|
December 13
|
January 14
|
February 14
|
|
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
|
|
December 13
|
January 14
|
February 14
|
|
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
Water
Quality Monitoring
3.3.1
The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter
are depicted in Figure 3.
3.3.2
Ten (10) Action Level Exceedances were recorded at measured
suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting Quarter. Three (3) Limit Level exceedances were recorded at
measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter.
Table 3.5 Summary of Water
Quality Exceedances in Dec 13- Feb 14
|
Station
|
Exceedance Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total
|
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
|
IS5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
10 Jan14
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
6 Jan14
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
20 Dec13
|
0
|
1
|
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
18 Dec13,
(2)
6, 15 Jan14
|
0
|
3
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
17 Jan14
|
0
|
1
|
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
18 Dec13
|
0
|
1
|
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
21 Feb14
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
10 Jan14
|
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
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
18 Dec 13
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
3 Jan14
|
0
|
1
|
|
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
|
(1)
6 Dec13
|
0
|
1
|
|
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
|
10
|
10
|
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
Note: S:
Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.3
One
(1) Action Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded on 06 Dec 2013 at monitoring station
SR10A at Mid-flood tide. For Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended
Solids (mg/L), 28.2 mg/L was recorded at Monitoring Station SR10A.
3.3.3.1 For locations and type of active
works carried out on 6 Dec 13, please refer to the above layout map.
3.3.3.2 IS(Mf)11 and IS10 are located
downstream and closer to the active works than monitoring station SR10A during
flood tide. Depth Averaged Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded
during flood tide on the same day
at IS(Mf)11 and IS10 were below the Action and Limit Level which indicates
project work is unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedance recorded
at SR10A.
3.3.3.3 The monitoring location of
monitoring station SR10A are considered upstream and remote to the active works
of this project during flood tide. Therefore it was unlikely that the exceedance
recorded at SR10A during flood tide was due to active construction activities
of this project.
3.3.3.4 The depth averaged SS (in mg/L)
and depth averaged turbidity (in NTU) at CS(Mf)5 is 12mg/L and 18.7NTU
respectively which is below the action and limit levels. This indicates that
water quality at area closer to active works was not adversely affected.
3.3.3.5 The exceedance was likely due to
local effects in the vicinity of SR10A.
3.3.3.6 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.
3.3.3.7
Maintenance work of the silt
curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except on Sunday and
public holiday.
3.3.4
One
(1) action level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded
on 18 Dec 2013 at monitoring station SR5 at Mid-flood tide and one (1) limit
level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded on 18 Dec
2013 at monitoring station IS10 at Mid-flood tide. For Action Level exceedance
at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 33.2mg/L were recorded at Monitoring
Station SR5. For limit level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L),
34.9 mg/L was recorded at Monitoring Station IS10.
3.3.4.1
For locations and type of active works carried out on 18
Dec 13, please refer to the above layout map.
3.3.4.2
Exceedances recorded at SR5 and IS10 are likely due to
marine based construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.4.3
With refer to monitoring record, appearance of water was
not clear at IS10 and SR5 when compared with the appearance of water at
IS(Mf)11 and IS17 during monitoring during Mid-flood tide on 18 Dec 13. This
indicates the source of exceedance may not due to works activities at portion
E1and E2 which is directly upstream of IS(Mf)11 and IS17. The relatively turbid
water observed at IS10 and SR5 may due to activities at Portion C2a during
flood tide.
3.3.4.4
As informed by the Contractor, active works like stone
column and cellular structure installation were carried out at Portion C2a, E1,
E2 and B on18 and 20 Dec 13. With review of the information provided by the
Contactor, active works like stone column and cellular structure installation
were both carried out at Portion C2a, E1, E2 and B on 16, 18 and 20 Dec 13 at
almost the same location but no exceedance was recorded at monitoring station
SR5, IS10 and IS(Mf)9 on 16 and 20 Dec 13 during mid flood tide. This indicates
stone column and cellular structure installation were unlikely to cause the
exceedance at monitoring station SR5, IS10 and IS(Mf)9 on 18 Dec 13.
3.3.4.5
With refer to the silt curtain condition on 18 Dec 13,
defects of the perimeter silt curtain was observed at northwest of the
construction site.
3.3.4.6 As such, the
exceedances recorded at IS10 and SR5 were considered as project related.
3.3.4.7
For action required under the action plan, please refer to
Appendix L - Event Action Plan
3.3.4.8
Action taken under the action plan
1
Water sample was taken
on site and was delivered to the laboratory and the SS was not measured
in-situ, as a result it is not applicable to “Repeat in situ measurement to
confirm findings”
2
With refer to the joint
site inspection audit conducted on 19 Dec 13, sources of impact is likely due
to the turbine activities and/or movement of vessel at shallow water (at near
the entrance at southwestern of the Construction site and/or when vessel’s
propeller was turn on at shallow water). The dispersion of turbid water from
the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt
curtain is potentially due to defects of perimeter silt curtain at certain
sections.
3
IEC, contractor, ER and
EPD were informed on 3 January 13 through notification of exceedance via email;
4
Monitoring data was
reviewed, plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods was checked during
joint site inspection audit conducted on 19 Dec 13;
5
The Contractor was
reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to
carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
6
As informed by the Contractor
maintenance work for the defects of the northwest part of the perimeter silt
curtain was conducted on 4 January 13.
7
Monitoring results show
no recurrence of exceedance of SS at IS10 and SR5 on 20, 23 and 25 of Dec 2013.
3.3.4.9
The exceedances note at IS10 and SR5 on 18 Dec 13 were
considered as project related. Although the silt curtain integrity checking
record on 4 January 13 shows that the disconnected silt curtain observed on 18
Dec 13 at northwest of HKBCF were rectified, the effectiveness of such rectification
will be closely monitored through impact water quality monitoring and inspected
through regular site inspection audit. The Contractor was further reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out
maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.5
One
(1) action level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded
on 18 Dec 2013 at monitoring station IS(Mf)9 at Mid-flood tide. For the Action
Level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 23.9 mg/L was recorded
at Monitoring Station IS(Mf)9.
3.3.5.1
For locations and type of active works carried out on 18
Dec 13, please refer to the above layout map.
3.3.5.2
Exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)9 is unlikely due to marine
based construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.5.3
With refer to the silt curtain condition on 18 Dec 13, no
defects of the perimeter silt curtain was observed at south and southeast of
the construction site.
3.3.5.4
The Depth averaged turbidity (in NTU) and depth averaged SS
(in mg/L) of nearby monitoring station, such as IS7, IS8 and IS(Mf)16 were
below the action and limit level, indicating the water quality at area nearby
IS(Mf)9 was not adverse affected.
3.3.5.5
With referred to monitoring record, no turbid water or silt
plume was observed when monitoring was conducted IS(Mf)9. (Please refer to the
attached photo record for reference of sea condition)
3.3.5.6
As such, the exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)9 is considered
to be non-project related.
3.3.5.7
The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.5.8
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the
Contractor on a daily basis except on Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.6
One
(1) Limit Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded on
20 Dec 2013 at monitoring station IS8 at Mid-flood tide. For limit exceedance
at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 44.1 mg/L was recorded at Monitoring
Station IS8.
3.3.6.1
For locations
and type of active works carried out on 20 Dec 13, please refer to the above
layout map.
3.3.6.2
IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)16 are located closer to the active works
than monitoring station IS8. Depth Average 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 which shows that the water quality closer
to active works were not adversely affected.
3.3.6.3
The monitoring location of monitoring station IS8 are
considered located upstream to the active works of this project during flood
tide. Therefore it was unlikely that the exceedances recorded at IS8 was due to
active construction activities of this project.
3.3.6.4
When impact water quality monitoring was carried out during
mid flood tide at monitoring location IS8 on 20 Dec 13, no defects of the
perimeter silt curtain was observed and no silty plume were observed to flow
from the inside to the outside of the site boundary. (For reference, please see attached
photo):
3.3.6.5
Turbidity level (NTU) result recorded on 20 Dec 13 at IS8
during flood tide is 22.3 NTU which is below the Action and Limit Level, this
indicates turbidity level was not adversely affected.
3.3.6.6
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.
3.3.6.7
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the
Contractor on a daily basis except on Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.6.8
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the
vicinity of IS8.
3.3.7
One
(1) Action Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded
on 03 Jan 2014 at monitoring station SR6 at Mid-flood tide. For Action Level
exceedances at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 23.9 mg/L was recorded at
Monitoring Station SR6.
3.3.7.1
For locations and type of active works carried out on 03
Jan 14, please refer to the above layout map.
3.3.7.2
When impact water quality monitoring was carried out
during mid flood tide at monitoring location IS10, SR5 and SR6 on 3 Jan 14,
no silty plume were observed to flow from the inside to the outside of the nortwestern part of the perimeter
silt curtain.
3.3.7.3
IS10, SR5 (located outside northwest part of the
perimeter silt curtain) and IS(Mf)11 (located outside north part of the
perimeter silt curtain) which are closer to the active works than monitoring
station SR6. Depth Averaged Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded
during the flood tide on the same day at IS10, SR5 and IS(Mf)11 were below
the Action and Limit Level which shows that the water quality closer to
active works was not adversely affected.
|
|
3.3.7.4
Turbidity level (NTU) results recorded on 03 Jan 14 at SR6, SR5, IS10 and
IS(Mf)11 during flood tide are 20.8 NTU, 18.6 NTU, 17.8 NTU and 17.3 NTU which
are below the Action and Limit Level, this indicates turbidity level of the
area nearby was not adversely affected.
3.3.7.5
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the
vicinity of SR6.
|
3.3.8
Two
(2) action level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) were recorded
on 06 Jan 2014 at monitoring station IS(Mf)9 and at monitoring station IS8 at
Mid-flood tide. For Action Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids
(mg/L), 24.4mg/L were recorded at Monitoring Station IS(Mf)9 and 25.4mg/L were
recorded at Monitoring Station IS8.
3.3.8.1
For
works activities carried out on 06 Jan 14, please refer to the attached layout
map.
3.3.8.2
The
Depth averaged turbidity (in NTU) and depth averaged SS (in mg/L) of nearby
monitoring station, such as IS7 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit
level, indicating the water quality at area nearby IS(Mf)9 and IS8 was not
adverse affected.
3.3.8.3
The
turbidity level (in NTU) at IS(Mf)9, IS8, IS7 and IS(Mf)16 were below the
action and limit level and no silt plume was observed when monitoring was
conducted IS(Mf)9 and IS8, this indicates that the turbidity level (in NTU) at
IS(Mf)9, IS8, IS7 and IS(Mf)16 were not adversely affected.
3.3.8.4
Also,
with refer to the silt curtain condition on 06 Jan 14, no defects of the
perimeter silt curtain was observed at south and southeast of the construction
site.
3.3.8.5
The
exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)9 and
IS8.
3.3.8.6
As
such, the exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9 and IS8 are considered non-project
related.
3.3.8.7
The
Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt
curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.8.8
Maintenance
work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis
except on Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.9
Two
(2) action level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) were recorded
on 10 Jan 2014 at monitoring station IS5 and at monitoring station SR3 at
Mid-flood tide. For Action Level exceedances at measured Suspended Solids
(mg/L), 25.1 mg/L was recorded at Monitoring Station IS5 and 24.8 mg/L was
recorded at Monitoring Station SR3.
3.3.9.1 For site activities carried out
on 10 Jan 14, please refer to the below layout map.
3.3.9.2 Suspended solids values recorded
at Impact Station IS(Mf) 6, IS(Mf)9 and IS7 located downstream and closer to
active wor k than SR3 and IS5 were below the Action and Limit Level during the
same tide on the same day. As such, active works is unlikely to cause
exceedance to IS5 and SR3.
3.3.9.3 Same type of works was carried
out at the same locations on 8, 10 and 13 Jan 14 but Suspended Solids values
recorded at SR3 and IS5 on 8 and 13 Jan 14 are all below the Action and Limit
Level during the same tide on the these days. As such, active works conducted
on 10 Jan 14 are unlikely to cause exceedance to IS5 and SR3.
3.3.9.4 Turbidity level recorded at IS7,
IS(Mf)6 and IS(Mf)9 were below the action and limit level. This indicated that
area closer to active works was not adversely affected.
3.3.9.5 The exceedances were likely due
to local effects in the vicinity of IS5 and SR3.
3.3.9.6 The Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out
maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.9.7 Maintenance work of the silt
curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except on Sunday and
public holiday.
3.3.10
One
(1) Action Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded on
15 Jan 2014 at monitoring station IS(Mf)9 at Mid-flood tide. For the Action
Exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 26.6 mg/L was recorded at
Monitoring Station IS(Mf)9.
3.3.10.1 The Depth averaged
turbidity (in NTU) and depth averaged SS (in mg/L) of nearby monitoring
station, such as IS8, IS7 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level,
indicating the water quality at area nearby IS(Mf)9 was not adverse affected.
3.3.10.2 Since the turbidity
level (in NTU) at IS(Mf)9, IS8, IS7 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and
limit level and no silt plume was observed when monitoring was conducted IS(Mf)9,
this indicates that the turbidity level (in NTU) at IS(Mf)9, IS8, IS7 and
IS(Mf)16 were not adversely affected. Please refer to the photo record attached
for sea condition recorded on 15 Jan 14 at southeast vessel entrance of the
perimeter silt curtain (near monitoring station IS(Mf)9).
3.3.10.3 Also, with refer to
the silt curtain condition on 15 Jan 14, no defects of the perimeter silt
curtain was observed at south and southeast of the construction site.
3.3.10.4 The exceedance was
likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)9.
3.3.10.5 As such, the action
level exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)9 is considered non-project related.
3.3.10.6 The Contractor was
reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to
carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.10.7 The Contractor was
reminded that, with reference to EM&A manual Clause 9.1.1, the vessel access opening of the
perimeter silt curtain would be formed by two piece of silt-curtain with
overlapping length of 150m minimum and a separation distance of about 50m.
3.3.11
One
(1) Limit Level exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L) was recorded on
17 Jan 2014 at monitoring station IS(Mf)9 at Mid-flood tide. For action
exceedance at measured Suspended Solids (mg/L), 36.8 mg/L was recorded at
Monitoring Station IS(Mf)9.
3.3.11.1 The Depth averaged
turbidity (in NTU) and depth averaged SS (in mg/L) of nearby monitoring
station, such as IS8, IS7 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level,
indicating the water quality at area nearby IS(Mf)9 was not adverse affected.
3.3.11.2 Since the turbidity
level (in NTU) at IS(Mf)9, IS8, IS7 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and
limit level and no silt plume was observed when monitoring was conducted at
IS(Mf)9. Please refer to the photo record below for sea condition near IS(Mf)9
on 17 Jan 14.
3.3.11.3 Also, with refer to
the silt curtain condition on 17 Jan 14, no defects of the perimeter silt
curtain was observed at south and southeast of the construction site.
3.3.11.4 The exceedance was
likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)9.
3.3.11.5 As such, the limit
level exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)9 is considered non-project related.
3.3.11.6 The Contractor was
reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to
carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.11.7 Maintenance work of
the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except on
Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.12
One (1) Action Level Exceedance
of measured Suspended Solids at 28.5 mg/L for Water Quality was recorded at
IS(Mf)16 during Mid-flood tide on 21 Feb 14.
3.3.12.1
For active works carried out on 21 Feb 14, please
refer to the above layout map.
3.3.12.2
Same type of works was carried out at the same
location on 19, 21 and 24 Feb 14 but Suspended Solids values recorded at
IS(Mf)16 on 19 and 24 Feb 14 were all below the Action and Limit Level during
the same tide on the same day.
3.3.12.3
Location of IS(Mf)16 is located upstream to active
works during mid flood tide, therefore it is unlikely that the exceedance was
caused by active works which is located downstream to IS(Mf)16.
3.3.12.4
Suspended Solids values recorded at Impact Station
nearest to monitoring station IS(Mf)16 such as IS17 and IS(Mf)9 were all below
the Action and Limit Level during the same tide on the same day. This indicates
that the SS level near IS(Mf)16 was not adversely affected.
3.3.12.5
Turbidity (in NTU) recorded at Impact Station
IS(Mf)16, IS17 and IS(Mf)9 were all below the Action and Limit Level during the
same tide on the same day. This indicates that the turbidity (in NTU) at the
area close to IS(Mf)16 was not adversely affected.
3.3.12.6
Mitigation measures such as localised silt curtain
for stone column installation was implemented on 21 Feb 14.
3.3.12.7
With refer to the daily silt curtain integrity
checking record of 21 Feb 14, no defects was observed along the part of the
perimeter silt curtain located east of HKBCF-reclamation site which is next to
IS(Mf)16. For the condition of the perimeter silt curtain condition near
monitoring station IS(Mf)16, please refer to the photo record below:
3.3.12.8
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in
the vicinity of IS(Mf)16.
3.3.12.9
The exceedance is considered as non-project
related.
3.3.12.10Nevertheless, the
Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt
curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.12.11Maintenance work
of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except
on Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.13
The graphical plots of the trends of the monitoring results
are provided in Appendix G. No specific trend of the monitoring results or
existence of persistent pollution source was noted.
3.4
Dolphin Monitoring
3.4.1
In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual,
pre-set and fixed transect line vessel based dolphin survey was required in two
AFCD designated areas (Northeast Lantau (NEL) and Northwest Lantau (NWL) survey
areas). The impact dolphin monitoring at each survey area should be conducted
twice per month.
3.4.2
The impact dolphin monitoring conducted is vessel-based and
combines line-transect and photo-ID methodology, which have adopted similar survey
methodologies as that adopted during baseline monitoring to facilitate
comparisons between datasets.
3.4.3
The layout map of impact dolphin monitoring have been
provided by AFCD and is shown in Figure 4.
3.4.4
The effort summary and sighting details during the
reporting quarter are shown in the
Appendix H. A summary of key
findings of the dolphin surveys completed during the reporting quarter is shown
below:
Table 3.6 Summary
of Key Dolphin Survey Findings in Dec 2013- Feb 2014
|
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable On-
Effort Condition
|
626.8km
|
|
Number of Sightings
|
26 sightings (21 sightings are ”on effort” (which
are all under favourable condition), 5 “sightings are opportunistic”)
|
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
107 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate#
|
NEL: 0.5
NWL: 4.8
|
|
Dolphin Group Size
|
Average of NEL: 1
Average of NWL: 4.2
Varied from 1-13 individuals
|
|
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area
|
Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, the
western limit of NWL and one area to the north of the Hong Kong International
Airport platform.
|
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
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.)
3.4.5
Two
(2) Action Level exceedances were 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.
Actions were taken according to the Event and Action Plan for impact dolphin
monitoring. Please refer to Appendix L for details of action taken.
*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
Environmental Site Inspection and Audit
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
Dark smoke was observed generating from an excavator at works
area of Portion A. The Contractor should provided maintenance to the
machineries used on-site. (Closed)
3.5.4
Fugitive dust was observed when moisten rock material is
being transferred by a barge installed with conveyor belt. The Contractor was
reminded to enhanced dust control measures to prevent generation of fugitive
dust. (Reminder)
3.5.5 Dry sand surface
was observed on works area of Portion A. The Contractor was reminded to provide
sufficient dust control measures. The Contractor provided dust control measures.
The Contractor was reminded to continued to provide dust control measures on
works area of Portion A. (Reminder)
3.5.6
An idle air compressor was observed without drip tray on
steel cell. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as
drip tray to air compressor prior to operation. An idle air compressor was
observed without drip tray on steel cell. The Contractor should provide
mitigation measures such as drip tray to air compressor prior to operation.
(Closed)
3.5.7
Dark smoke was observed generating from an excavator and a
loader at works area of Portion A. The machine was turned off. The Contractor
is reminded to provide maintenance to the machineries used on-site so that
emission of dark smoke could be effectively prevented. (Reminder)
Noise
3.5.8
Noise decoupling measure was observed to be missing from
the generators on Hong Fai and SHB205 and on barge SHB210. Noise decoupling
measures should be provided to the concerned generators. (Closed)
3.5.9 Insufficient
acoustically decoupling measure of generator and water pumps was observed on
barge FTB19, two generators on SHB 210 and 2 generators on FTB 21. The
Contractor was advised to provide sufficient acoustic decoupling measure(s)
such as acoustic mat to noisy equipments. The Contractor was reminded that
insufficient/inadequate mitigation measures must be swiftly rectified. (Closed)
Chinese White Dolphin
3.5.10
No adverse observation was identified in the reporting
month.
Water Quality
3.5.11
Turbid water was observed at the southwestern silt curtain
entrance area. Refer to the photo taken and site observations, sources of
impact likely due to the turbine activities and/or movement of vessel at
shallow water (at near the entrance at southwestern of the Construction site
and/or when vessel’s propeller was turn on at shallow water). The dispersion of
turbid water from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of
the perimeter silt curtain is potentially due to defects of perimeter silt
curtain at certain sections and/or insufficient overlapping at entrance/exit of
the perimeter silt curtain. (Closed)
3.5.12
The Contractor was advised to regularly evaluate the
integrity of the perimeter silt curtain by reviewing the results obtained from
daily checking or/and monthly diver inspections specified by the Silt Curtain Deployment
Plan. The Contractor was advised to provide sufficient mitigation measures and
swiftly carry out maintenance once defects of the perimeter silt curtain are
found during the above mentioned daily checking and/or monthly diver
inspection. (Closed)
3.5.13
Oil drums, chemical containers and generator were observed
without the provision of drip trays at Portion, on barge天駿3, on barge SHB205,
on temporary rock bund and on Portion A. The Contractor provided drip trays to
oil drums, chemical container and generator to retain leakage, if any. (Closed)
3.5.14
An oil drum was observed to be not properly plugged at
works area of Portion A. The Contractor provided measures to seal the opening
of oil drums to avoid leakage. (Closed)
3.5.15
Containers of chemical to be used and chemical waste were
misplaced together in Hong Fai. The Contractor should store the chemical and
chemical waste separately. (Closed)
3.5.16
Movable lighting machineries were observed to be placed on
bare ground of Portion D, on SHB205 and at works area at Portion A without the
provision of drip trays. It was observed that drip trays were provided to
movable lighting machineries at temporary rock bund and at works area at
portion A and on SHB205. The contractor was advised to continue to provide drip
tray or equivalent measures to retain potential oil leakage to movable lighting
machineries. (Closed)
3.5.17
Trays of oil drums were found to be placed near to the
shore. The Contractor should secure the oil drums with drip tray away from the
shore to ensure no washing off of oil occurs. (Closed)
3.5.18
Oil stain was observed on barge FTB19 and SHB205. The
Contractor was advised to clear the oil stain using absorbent material.
(Closed)
3.5.19
Waste water was observed accumulated inside drip trays on FTB21
and the Contractor was reminded to clear the waste water regularly to prevent
runoff or accidental spillage (Reminder)
3.5.20
Defect was observed within a bunding and waste oil water
mixture was observed on the barge surface. The Contractor was reminded to rectify
the defects observed and cleared the oil waste using chemical absorbent
material and dispose the chemical absorbent material as chemical waste.
(Closed)
3.5.21
Oil stain was observed on temporary rock bund. The
Contractor was advised to clear the oil stain using absorbent material.
(Closed)
3.5.22
During site inspection audit, sandfilling seem to be
conducted at one end of the temporary rock bund. The Contractor was reminded to
conduct sandfilling behind at least 200m leading temporary rock bund/seawall.
(Reminder)
3.5.23
Disconnected silt curtain was observed at the western side
of the silt curtain. The Contractor was advised to provide sufficient
mitigation measures and swiftly carry out maintenance once defects of the
perimeter silt curtain are found during the daily checking and/or monthly diver
inspection. (Closed)
3.5.24
Localised silt curtain was not observed when stone column
installation. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such
as localized silt curtain to active stone column installation points. (Closed)
3.5.25
Gap was observed between the bunding and the barge surface.
The Contractor was reminded to properly seal the gap between the bunding and
barge surface to prevent potential oil leakage. (Closed)
3.5.26
Oil stain was observed on temporary rock bund, The Contractor
was reminded to clear the oil stain on temporary rock bund. (Closed)
Chemical and Waste Management
3.5.27
Rubbish bin was observed without being covered; the
Contractor was reminded to properly store general waste and covers all rubbish
bins. The Contractor properly store general waste and covers all rubbish bins.
(Closed).
3.5.28
General refuse was scattered on sea water and along the
shore near Portion D. The Contractor was reminded to clear the refuse in timely
manner and keep site clean and tidy. The Contractor cleared the refuse in
timely manner and keeps site clean and tidy. (Closed)
3.5.29
Movable lighting machineries were observed to be placed on
bare ground of Portion D without the provision of drip trays. Drip trays were
observed to be provided to movable lighting machineries at temporary rock bund
and at works area at portion A. The contractor was advised to continue to
provide drip tray or equivalent measures to retain potential oil leakage to
movable lighting machineries. An ineffective leakage preventive measure for
movable lighting machineries at Portion D was pending for Contractor’s
rectification. (Closed)
3.5.30
Defect was observed within a bunding and waste oil water
mixture was observed on the barge surface. The Contractor was reminded to
rectify the defects observed and cleared the oil waste using chemical absorbent
material and dispose the chemical absorbent material as chemical waste.
(Closed)
3.5.31
Litter and general refuse was observed on sea and land at
works area of Portion D and at the edge of the works area of Portion A and in
the water within and adjacent to the works site between steel cell# 37 and
steel cell# 38. The Contractor was reminded to regularly clear the litter and
general refuse at this area. The Contractor was cleared the litter and general refuse
at these areas. (Closed)
3.5.32
Construction waste such as band drain was observed along
the northern edge of works area at Portion A and on edge of temporary rock
bund. The Contractor was advice to properly store and dispose construction
waste such as band drain. (Closed)
3.5.33
Construction waste such as band drain was observed along
the northern edge of works area at Portion A and on edge of temporary rock
bund. The Contractor was advice to properly store and disposes construction
waste such as band drain. (Closed)
3.5.34
Bags of general refuses were observed stored on barge
surface. The Contractor was reminded to regularly collect and dispose the
general refuse regular. (Reminder)
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.5.35 No relevant works
was carried out in the reporting Quarter.
Others
3.5.36
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
Summary of Solid and Liquid Waste Management
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, 3,437,422.6 m3 of fill were imported for the Project use
in the reporting period. 420 kg of paper/ carboard packaging and 100 kg of
metal were generated, 4 tonnes of chemical waste and 110.5 m3 of
general refuse were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. Monthly
summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix M.
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
Implementation
Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
5.1
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation
Measures
5.1.1
In response to the site audit findings, the Contractors
carried out corrective actions.
5.1.2
A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation
Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of the recommended mitigation
measures 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.
6
Summary of Exceedances
of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
6.1
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality
Performance Limit
6.1.1
All 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level
in the reporting quarter. Six (6) 24-hour TSP results recorded among AMS2,
AMS3A and AMS7 exceeded the Action Level and two (2) 24-hour TSP results
recorded at AMS3A exceeded the Limit Level at in the reporting quarter.
Investigation results show that the exceedances were not related to Project.
6.1.2
For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the reporting period.
6.1.3
Ten (10) Action Level Exceedances were recorded at measured
suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter. Three (3)
Limit Level Exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values
(in mg/L) in the reporting quarter.
6.1.4
Investigation results shows that the Action Level
Exceedance recorded at SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance recorded at IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were related to
project. Investigation results show that other water quality exceedances
unlikely to be non-project related.
6.1.5
Two (2) Action level exceedances of Chinese White Dolphin
monitoring were recorded in the reporting quarter. Investigation results show
that there is no evidence that exceedances are related to Project works. Event and Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix
L.
6.1.6
Cumulative statistics on exceedances is provided in
Appendix J.
7
Summary of Complaints,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
7.1
Summary of Environmental Compliants, Notification of Summons and Successful
Prosecutions
7.1.1
The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed
in Figure 5.
7.1.2
As informed by the Contractor on 5 Dec 13, one (1) noises
related complain of a barge moving through the southern channel of HyD’s
construction site after 23:00 on 8.11.2013. Site daily for barges was requested
from the Contractor and as refer to the site daily provided by the Contractor, there was no barge operated
after 18:25 on 08 Nov 13. The complaint is therefore considered not likely to
be related to the construction works.
7.1.2.1 The Contractor was
remind to continue to properly implement the existing noise mitigation measures
i.e. to well maintain all plant and equipment in good condition to avoid noise
generation and to turn off or throttled down idle equipment. The Contractor was
reminded to inform related parties when environmental complain was received to
ensure future timely reporting of any complaints/ enquiry.
7.1.3
As informed by the Contractor on 12 Dec 13. A complaint
involves the leakage of sand from barges causing water discoloration at sea
near Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden and sand material without properly covered was
blown to the inside of the residential area which caused disturbance to
residence.
7.1.3.1 Regarding the
leakage from work barges causing water pollution near Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden
, it is noted that all project related vessels (including sand barges) are
designated with a regular marine travel route to the site, but the regular
travel route plan of this project does not specify the travel route passing
through the at area at sea near Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden and with refer to
photo record, Contractor would water the sand material to keep the sand
material wet to prevent generation of fugitive dust.
7.1.3.2 With refer to
available information provided and monitoring data recorded on 09 Dec 13, it
cannot indicate that the water quality impact and air quality impact were
caused by the vessel of this Contract and therefore the complaint could not be
concluded as related to this Contract.
7.1.3.3 The Contractor was
advised to ensure the regular travel routes for all project related vessels
(including sand barges) were being strictly followed and all vessels should
have regular maintenance to ensure that all Sand Barge functioning well.
7.1.3.4 The Contractor was
advised to ensure to continue the provision of fugitive dust mitigation
measures to barges loaded with filling material such as watering to sand
filling material on sand barges to keep the surface of stockpile of filling
material wet.
7.1.3.5 Photo record shows
that watering equipment is provided on pelican barge loaded with sand for
watering of sand filling material to keep the sand material wet.
7.1.4 As informed by the
Contractor on 6 Jan 14. A complaint involves barges loaded with sand material
without properly covered was blown to the inside of the residential area of
Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden which caused disturbance to residence. With refer to
available information provided, it cannot indicate that the water quality
impact and air quality impact were caused by the vessel of this Contract and
therefore the complaint could not be concluded as related to this Contract.
7.1.6.1 Site visit was
conducted on 9 Jan 14 and it was observed during the site investigation that
watering equipment was provided on pelican barge loaded with sand for watering
of sand filling material to keep the surface of sand material wet. This is
consistent with HyD’s reply to Oriental Daily Newspaper that the Contractor
would water the sand material to keep the sand material wet to prevent
generation of fugitive dust.
7.1.6.2 Photo record shows
that watering equipment is provided on pelican barge loaded with sand for
watering of sand filling material.
7.1.6.3 During the
follow-up site visit conducted on 9 Jan 14, after interview with the skipper of
the pelican barge, it was noted that pelican barge is designated with a regular
marine travel route to the site, however the regular travel route plan of this
project does not specify the travel route passing through the at area at sea
near Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden.
7.1.6.4 Therefore it is
considered the complaint is unlikely to be related to this project.
7.1.7
EPD referred a complaint from complainant who advised that
blackish mud was found along the edge of the construction site of Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Project near the airport in the morning of
18 January 2014
7.1.6
7.1.7.1 With refer to the
site daily of 16, 17 and 18 Jan 14 provided by the Contractor (China Harbour
Engineering Company Ltd), no excavation and dredging activities were conducted
on site. This indicates that the blackish mud found along the edge of the
construction site of this contract near the airport in the morning of 18
January 2014 was unlikely related to this project.
7.1.7.2 A follow up joint
site inspection with the representatives of the Contractor, Residential
Engineer and IEC/ENPO was conducted on 22 Jan 2014. Excavation and dredging
activities were not observed within the site boundary of HKBCF during the joint
site inspection audit.
7.1.7.3 Therefore in
accordance with the abovementioned observations, the complaint is therefore
considered as not related to contract HY/2010/02.
7.1.8
No notification of summons and successful prosecution was
received in the reporting period.
7.1.9
No environmental notification of Summons and Successful
Prosecutions was received in the reporting quarter.
7.1.10 Statistics on
complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized
in Appendix J.
8
Comments,
recommendations and Conclusions
8.1
Comments on mitigation measures
8.1.6
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
8.2.6
The impact monitoring programme for air quality, noise,
water quality and dolphin ensured that any deterioration in environmental
condition was readily detected and timely actions taken to rectify any
non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of monitoring results collected
demonstrated the environmental impacts of the Project. With implementation of
recommended effective environmental mitigation measures, the Project’s
environmental impacts were considered as environmentally acceptable. The weekly
environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation
measures recommended were effectively implemented.
8.2.7
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 results were below the Action and Limit Level
in the reporting quarter. Six (6) 24-hour TSP results recorded among AMS2,
AMS3A and AMS7 exceeded the Action Level and two (2) 24-hour TSP results
recorded at AMS3A exceeded the Limit Level at in the reporting quarter.
Investigation results show that the exceedances were not related to Project.
8.3.3
For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the reporting period.
8.3.4
Ten (10) Action Level Exceedances were recorded at measured
suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter. Three (3)
Limit Level Exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values
(in mg/L) in the reporting quarter.
8.3.5
Investigation results shows that the Action Level
Exceedance of SS recorded at SR5 and Limit Level Exceedance recorded at IS10 on 18 Dec 13 were related to
project. Investigation results show that other water quality exceedances
unlikely to be non-project related.
8.3.6
Two (2) Action Level exceedances were recorded for Chinese
White Dolphin monitoring in the reporting quarter. Investigation results show
that there is no evidence that exceedances are related to Project works.
8.3.7
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.
8.3.8
As informed by the Contractor on 5 Dec13, one complaint was
noted on 12 Nov regarding a barge moving through the southern channel. After
investigation, the noise complaint was considered as non-project related.
8.3.9
As informed by the Contractor, complaint received from
Penta-Ocean – Gitanes Joint Venture (CV/2012/03) mentioned that the formation
works of the Contaminated Mud Pit CMP1 to the South of the Brothers (CMP1 of
SB) which has been completed in mid-August 2013 and the pit has been
commissioned for receiving contaminated marine mud from other projects starting
from 16 August 2013. However, it was recently observed that some of the project
vessels of HY/2010/02 (photos taken on 20 Nov 2013 are attached) had berthed
within the said pit and those anchorages would likely cause disruption to the
underlying contaminated mud and thus induce unfavourable contamination impact
to the surrounding marine environment. In this regard, they reminded the contractor
to avoid berthing of their vessels within the boundary of CMP1 of SB thereafter
for the sake of environmental concern. After investigation, the complaint was
considered as non-project related
8.3.10
As informed by the Contractor on 12 Dec 13. A complaint involves
the leakage of sand from barges causing water discoloration at sea near Tuen
Mun Pierhead Garden and sand material without properly covered was blown to the
inside of the residential area which caused disturbance to residence. With
refer to available information provided and monitoring data recorded on 09 Dec
13, it cannot indicate that the water quality impact and air quality impact
were caused by the vessel of this Contract and therefore the complaint could
not be concluded as related to this Contract.
8.3.11
As informed by the Contractor on 27 Dec 13. A complaint
involves barges loaded with sand material without properly covered was blown to
the inside of the residential area of Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden which caused
disturbance to residence. With refer to available information provided, it
cannot indicate that the water quality impact and air quality impact were
caused by the vessel of this Contract and therefore the complaint could not be
concluded as related to this Contract.
8.3.12
As informed by the Contractor on 6 Jan 14. A complaint
involves barges loaded with sand material without properly covered was blown to
the inside of the residential area of Tuen Mun Pierhead Garden which caused
disturbance to residence. With refer to available information provided. It is
considered the complaint is unlikely to be related to this project.
8.3.13
EPD referred a complaint from complainant who advised that
blackish mud was found along the edge of the construction site of Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Project near the airport in the morning of
18 January 2014. After receipt of the complaint, site daily was reviewed and
follow-up investigation has been conducted and excavation and dredging
activities were not observed within the site boundary of HKBCF during the joint
site inspection audit. Therefore in accordance with the investigation results,
the complaint is considered as not related to contract HY/2010/02.
8.3.14
No notification of summons and successful prosecution was
received in the reporting period.
8.3.15
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.
8.3.16
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.
8.3.17
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.
