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 March 2014 and 31 May 2014. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting quarter were:-

Marine-based Works

- Connecting arc cell installation

- Laying geo-textile

- Optimizing rubble mound seawalls

- Conforming sloping seawalls

- Sand filling

- Rock 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

- Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A

- Surcharge laying

- Construction of temporary pier at Portion A

- Precast Yard setup

- Seawall blocks for temporary construction

- Vibro-compaction on surcharge

- Construction of conveyors for public fill

- Temporary bridge at Portion D

Land-based Works

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

- Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3

- Geo-textile fabrication at Works Area WA2

- Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA4

- Installed sand bag at Works Area WA2

- 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	16 sessions 16 sessions
Noise monitoring	13 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. One (1) 24-hour TSP results recorded at AMS3B exceeded the Action Level. Investigation results show that the Action level exceedance was 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 period.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality

Eight (8) Action Level Exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter. One (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter. One (1) Action level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity values (in NTU) in the reporting quarter. Investigation results shows that all the Action and Limit Level Exceedance recorded were non-project related.

Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Impact Dolphin Monitoring

One (1) Limit 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 detail of investigation, please refer to appendix L.

Implementation Status and Review of Environmental Mitigation Measures

Most of the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the reporting quarter.

The recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project. The EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.

Moreover, regular review and checking on the construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.

Complaint, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

EPD referred a complaint on 17 March 2014 from complainant who advised that there was sea water colored in blue observed in vicinity of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Facilities (HKBCF) where stone column installation was taking place. The locations of stone column and impact water quality monitoring data recorded between 12 – 17 March14 were reviewed. In accordance with the monitoring records, no discoloration of sea water or silty plume appearance outside the seawall was observed during the water quality monitoring between 12 – 17 March14. Therefore the complaint is considered to be non-project related.

EPD referred a complaint from a complainant who advised that muddy water was found being discharged from the construction site of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) – Reclamation Works on 22 March 2014. With refer to the monitoring records on 21 March 2014 and the follow-up site inspection audit conducted with the representatives of the Contractor and Residential Engineer on 27 March 2014, since no discoloration of sea water or silty plume appearance outside the perimeter silt curtain was observed, the complaint is considered to be non-project related.

As informed by the Contractor, a complaint was received by the Contractor on 25 March 14 concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. However, base on the available information, it cannot indicate that the air quality impact was 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, further to the notification of summons received March 2014 due to works carried out on 6 October 13 contrary to conditions of NCO, Cap.400. The Contractor pledged guilty to the charge during the court appearance on 28 April 2014. The Contractor has established noise control management system on restricted hour works, to prevent future violation of conditions of NCOs, Cap. 400.

As informed by the Contractor on 7 May 14, a complaint was received by the Contractor on 17 April 14 concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. However, because no extra information was received for this complaint after the release of the latest investigation report, it is unable to conclude whether the complaint is related to this Contract.

As informed by the Contractor on 30 May 2014, an environmental complaint had been received on 28 May 2014. The complainant mentioned that waste such as earth and concrete were being felled into the sea everyday at the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge at location where construction works are being conducted, causing pollution to the marine environment. The construction programme and waste flow record provided by the Contractor has been reviewed. With refer to the available information provided, it is concluded that the complaint is unlikely to be related to this Contract.

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 May 2014 to 31 May 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
IEC / ENPO (ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited)	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

- Connecting arc cell installation

- Laying geo-textile

- Optimizing rubble mound seawalls

- Conforming sloping seawalls

- Sand filling

- Rock 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

- Portion D Construction of Access to Portion A

- Surcharge laying

- Construction of temporary pier at Portion A

- Precast Yard setup

- Seawall blocks for temporary construction

- Vibro-compaction on surcharge

- Construction of conveyors for public fill

- Temporary bridge at Portion D

Land-based Works

- Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2

- Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3

- Geo-textile fabrication at Works Area WA2

- Silt curtain fabrication at Works Area WA4

- Installed sand bag at Works Area WA2

- 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 (AMS3B) 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 (NMS3B) 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, AMS3B, 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
Monitoring Parameter	Location	March 14	April 14	May 14
1-hr TSP	AMS2	15	18	18
	AMS3B	15	18	18
	AMS7	15	18	18
24-hr TSP	AMS2	5	6	6
	AMS3B	5	6	6
	AMS7	5	6	6

Table 3.2 Summary of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring

Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	Level of Exceedance
Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	March 14	April 14	May 14
1-hr TSP	AMS2	Action	0	0	0
	AMS2	Limit	0	0	0
	AMS3B	Action	0	0	0
	AMS3B	Limit	0	0	0
	AMS7	Action	0	0	0
	AMS7	Limit	0	0	0
		*Total*	0	0	0
24-hr TSP	AMS2	Action	0	0	0
	AMS2	Limit	0	0	0
	AMS3B	Action	1	0	0
	AMS3B	Limit	0	0	0
	AMS7	Action	0	0	0
	AMS7	Limit	0	0	0
		*Total*	1	0	0

3.1.5 All 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting quarter. One (1) 24-hour TSP results recorded at AMS3B exceeded the Action Level in the reporting quarter. Investigation results show that the Action level exceedance was not related to Project.

3.1.6 For the 24Hr TSP Action Level exceedance recorded at AMS3B, a result of 178μg/m³ was recorded on 11 March 14 (24-hr TSP).

3.1.6.1 According to information provided by the Contractor, land-based construction activity such transloading stitched geo-textile and transloading sand bags to barges was being undertaken at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period.

3.1.6.2 Functional checking on HVS at AMS3B was done. Air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS3B. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.

3.1.6.3 As refer to the wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 10 and 11 March 14, Southeast to South-southeast winds was prevailing during the monitoring period. As such, the 24hr-TSP exceedance is unlikely to be contributed by active works at the HKBCF – reclamations works which is located North to the monitoring location.

3.1.6.4 The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3B on 11 March14, which are within the monitoring period of the 24-hr TSP, were 83μg/ m³, 80μg/ m³ and 81μg/ m³ respectively. All measured values are well below the Action and Limit Levels.

3.1.6.5 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 and AMS7 (which are closer to the marine-based works areas) on the same monitoring date were 111μg/m³ and 90μg/m³, which are below the Action and Limit Levels.

3.1.6.6 The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS3B on next monitoring date were 106μg/m³, which did not exceed the Action or Limit Level.

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.

View B (Hard paved surface observed at Works Area WA2)

CIMG2672

3.1.6.8 The dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to the Project works.

3.1.7 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.

3.1.7.1 Meteorological information collected from the wind station during the monitoring periods on the monitoring dates, as shown in Figure 2, including wind speed and wind direction, is annexed in Appendix H of monthly EM&A report March 2014.

3.2 Noise Monitoring

3.2.1 Impact noise monitoring was conducted at the 2 monitoring stations (NMS2 and NMS3B) 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
	Location	March 14	April 14	May 14
	NMS2	4	5	4
	NMS3B	4	5	4

Table 3.4 Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise

Monitoring Parameter	Location	Level of Exceedance	Level of Exceedance
	Location	Level of Exceedance	March 14	April 14	May 14
	NMS2	Action	0	0	0
	NMS2	Limit	0	0	0
	NMS3B	Action	0	0	0
	NMS3B	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 Eight (8) Action Level Exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting Quarter. One (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter. One (1) Action level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity values (in NTU) in the reporting quarter.

Table 3.5 Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in March 14 – May 14

Station	Exceedance Level	DO (S&M)		DO (Bottom)		Turbidity		SS		Total
Station	Exceedance Level	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood	Ebb	Flood
IS5	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 19 March 14	0	1	0
IS5	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
IS(Mf)6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 31 March 14	0	1
IS7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS8	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS8	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)9	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 24 March 14	(2) 24 and 31 March 14	1	2
IS(Mf)9	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS10	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 19 March 14	1	0
IS10	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)11	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)11	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)16	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS(Mf)16	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
IS17	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 19 March 14	0	1	0
SR3	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 19 March 14	0	1	0
SR3	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR4(N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR4(N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR5	Action	0	0	0	0	(1) 19 March 14	0	0	0	1	0
SR5	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR6	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	(1) 31 March 14	0	1
SR6	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR7	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR7	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10A	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10B (N)	Action	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SR10B (N)	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	Action	0	0	0	0	1	0	4	4	9
	Limit	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1

Note: S: Surface;

M: Mid-depth;

3.3.3 One (1) Limit level exceedance of SS was recorded at IS17 at ebb tide; three (3) Action Level exceedances of SS were recorded at IS5, SR3 at ebb tide and IS10 at flood tide; one (1) Action Level Exceedance on Turbidity was recorded at SR5 at ebb tide on 19 March 14.

3.3.3.1 Please see above layout map for work activities carried out on 19 March 14.

3.3.3.2 Exceedance recorded at IS10 during mid-flood tide is unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

3.3.3.3 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at IS10.

3.3.3.4 With reference to monitoring record and photo record taken on 19 and 20 March 2014, no silt plume was observed on sea near the northwest part of the site which is close to IS10. (Please see attached photo record)

3.3.3.5 Photo of sea condition taken near the northwest part of the site (Near IS10) on 19 March 14

3.3.3.6 Photo of sea condition taken near the northwest part of the site ( Near IS 10) on 20 March 14

3.3.3.7 In accordance with the silt curtain integrity checking record, no disconnection was observed at the northwest part of site which is near IS10.

3.3.3.8 Turbidity level recorded at IS10, SR5 and IS(Mf)11 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS10 was not adversely affected.

3.3.3.9 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS10.

3.3.3.10 As such, the exceedance recorded at IS10 is unlikely to be project related.

3.3.3.11 For the action Level Exceedance on Turbidity recorded at SR5 on 19 March 14.

3.3.3.12 in situ measurement was repeated to confirm findings;

3.3.3.13 The monitoring location of monitoring station SR5 is considered upstream to the active works of this project during ebb tide. Therefore it appears that it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at SR5 was due to active construction activities of this project;

3.3.3.14 IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;

3.3.3.15 Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods were checked;

3.3.3.16 Since it is considered that the exceedance at SR5 is unlikely to be project related, as such, actions 5 - 7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.

3.3.3.17 Exceedance recorded at SR5 during mid-ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

3.3.3.18 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at SR5.

3.3.3.19 The monitoring location of monitoring station SR5 is considered upstream to the active works of this project during ebb tide. Therefore it appears that it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at SR5 was due to active construction activities of this project.

3.3.3.20 With reference to the silt curtain checking record no defects was observed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the SR5.

3.3.3.21 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR5.

3.3.3.22 As such, the exceedance recorded at SR5 is unlikely to be project related.

3.3.3.23 Exceedance recorded at SR3 during mid-ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

3.3.3.24 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at SR3.

3.3.3.25 The monitoring location of monitoring station SR3 is considered upstream to the active works of this project during ebb tide. Therefore it appears that it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at SR3 was due to active construction activities of this project.

3.3.3.26 With reference to the silt curtain checking record no defects was observed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the SR3.

3.3.3.27 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR3.

3.3.3.28 As such, the exceedance recorded at SR3 is unlikely to be project related.

3.3.3.29 Exceedance recorded at IS5 during mid-ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

3.3.3.30 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at IS5.

3.3.3.31 The monitoring location of monitoring station IS5 is considered upstream to the active works of this project during ebb tide. Therefore it appears that it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at IS5 were due to active construction activities of this project.

3.3.3.32 With reference to the silt curtain checking record no defects was observed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the IS5.

3.3.3.33 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS5.

3.3.3.34 As such, the exceedance recorded at IS5 is unlikely to be project related.

3.3.3.35 Exceedance recorded at IS17 during mid-ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

3.3.3.36 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 17, 19 and 21 March 14, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 17 and 21 March 14 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works were unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at SR5, IS5, SR3 and IS17.

3.3.3.37 With reference to monitoring record and photo record taken on 19 and 20 March 2014, no silt plume was observed on sea near the northeast part of the site which is close to IS17. (Please see attached photo record)

3.3.3.38 Photo of sea condition taken near the northeast part of the site (Near IS17) on 19 March 14.

3.3.3.39 Photo of sea condition taken near the northeast part of the site (Near IS17) on 20 March 14.

3.3.3.40 With reference to the silt curtain checking record no defects was observed at parts of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the locations where the exceedance was recorded during mid-ebb tide.

3.3.3.41 Turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS17 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS17 was not adversely affected.

3.3.3.42 The exceedance is likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS17.

3.3.3.43 As such, the exceedance recorded at IS17 is unlikely to be project related.

3.3.3.44 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.

3.3.3.45 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

3.3.4 Two (2) Action Level exceedances of SS were recorded at IS(Mf)9 were recorded during mid flood tide and mid ebb tide respectively on 24 March 14.

3.3.4.1 Please see above layout map for work activities carried out on 24 March 14.

3.3.4.2 In accordance with the silt curtain integrity checking record, deficiency such as missing segments at one end of the perimeter silt curtain at the southern marine access was noted. This part of the perimeter silt curtain is close to IS(Mf)9. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found and maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

3.3.4.3 However, exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9 recorded during mid-Ebb tide and mid-Flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:

3.3.4.4 With reference to the information provided by the Contractor, same types of work were carried out at almost the same locations on 21, 24 and 26 March 2014, impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 21 and 26 March 2014 are all below the Action and Limit Level which indicates active works as shown on the layout map attached is unlikely to adversely affect the water quality at IS(Mf)9.

3.3.4.5 Mitigation measures such as localised silt curtain was implemented for stone column installation. (Please refer to the photo record)

3.3.4.6 Also, in accordance with the monitoring record, no silt plume was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during impact water quality monitoring on 24 March 2014. (Please refer to the photo attached which shows the sea condition near IS(Mf)9 on 24 March 2014.)

3.3.4.7 Photo of silt curtain near south part of the site IS(Mf)9 on 24 March 2014.

3.3.4.8 With referred to the monitoring data, turbidity level recorded at IS7, IS(Mf)9, IS8 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS(Mf)9 was not adversely affected.

3.3.4.9 In addition, with referred to the monitoring data, the Suspended Solids recorded at IS7, IS8 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the Suspended Solids at areas next to IS(Mf)9 was not adversely affected.

3.3.4.10 The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)9.

3.3.4.11 As such, the exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)9 is unlikely to be project related.

3.3.4.12 Nonetheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.

3.3.4.13 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday

3.3.5 Three (3) Action Level exceedances of SS were recorded at IS(Mf)9, IS7 and SR6 during mid flood tide on 31 March 2014.

3.3.5.1 Please see above layout map for work activities carried out on 31 March 14.

3.3.5.2 IS10 and SR5 which are located downstream and closer to active works than SR6. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded at IS10 and SR5 during mid flood tide on 31 March 2014 and this indicates that the water quality noted at downstream and closer to active works were not adversely affected, hence it is considered that the exceedance recorded at SR6 are not related to the Project.

3.3.5.3 Same type of works was carried out at almost the same locations on 28 and 31 March 2014 but Suspended Solids values recorded at 28 March 2014 are all below the Action and Limit Level during mid-flood tide, this indicates active works as shown on the layout map attached is unlikely to contribute to the exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9, IS7 and SR6.

3.3.5.4 With reference to layout map attached, construction activity close to IS(Mf)9 and IS7 such as band drain installation was conducted at southeast part of portion B, since band drain is considered unlikely to cause silt plume. Therefore, the exceedances are unlikely attributed to construction activity close to IS(Mf)9 and IS7.

3.3.5.5 In accordance with the silt curtain integrity checking record, defects such as missing segments at southern marine access at one end of the perimeter silt curtain was noted. This part of the perimeter silt curtain is close to IS(Mf)9. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found and maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

3.3.5.6 However, in accordance with the monitoring record, no silt plume was observed outside the perimeter silt curtain near IS(Mf)9 and IS7 on 31 March 2014. (Please refer to the photo below which shows the sea condition near IS(Mf)9 on 31 March 2014.)

Southeast Entrance 2.JPG

3.3.5.7 With referred to the monitoring data, turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)6, IS7, IS(Mf)9, IS8 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS(Mf)9 and IS7 were not adversely affected.

3.3.5.8 The exceedances are likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)9, IS7 and SR6.

3.3.5.9 As such, the exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9, IS7 and SR6 were unlikely to be project related.

3.3.5.10 Nonetheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.

3.3.5.11 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.

3.3.5.12 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix L.

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 March – May 2014

Number of Impact Surveys Completed^	6
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable On- Effort Condition	662.7km
Number of Sightings	15 sightings (11 sightings are ”on effort” (which are all under favourable condition), 4 “sightings are opportunistic”)
Number of dolphin individual sighted	46 individuals (the best estimated group size)
Dolphin Encounter Rate#	NEL: 0.0 NWL: 2.5
Dolphin Group Size	Average of NEL: 0.0 Average of NWL: 3.1 Varied from 1-12 individuals
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area	Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, the western limit of NWL.

Remarks:
^ Completion of line transect survey of NEL and NWL survey area once was counted as one complete survey.

# Dolphin Encounter Rate = (Sum of 1^st2^nd, 3^rd month’s total sighting/ Sum of 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd month’s total effort)*100km (encounter rates are calculated using on effort sightings made under favourable conditions only.)

3.4.5 One (1) Limit 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.

Table 3.7 Summary of STG and ANI encounter rates in March - May 2014
	NEL	NWL	Level Exceeded
STG*	0.0	2.5	Limit
ANI**	0.0	5.7	Limit

*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 Exposed soil observed fully loaded on barge at near Portion D and C2a. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust control measures and keep the surface of all exposed soil wet and the Contractor was reminded to use suitable barge to store public fill to prevent potential runoff to the surrounding. (Reminder)

3.5.4 Exposed earth was observed at Works Area of Portion A. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust control measures such as to treat the exposed earth by compaction. The Contractor provided dust control measures such as to treat the exposed earth by compaction. (Closed)

3.5.5 Sprinkler system and sprinkler timer were observed properly implemented at TKO Fill Bank Area 137. The Contractor was reminded to continue proper implementation of sprinkler system to prevent potential generation of fugitive dust. (Reminder)

3.5.6 Vehicle equipped with watering system was observed implemented on exposed sand. The Contractor was reminded to continue to implement such dust control measures 8 times per day. (Reminder)

3.5.7 Dark smoke was observed emitted by a vessel. The Contractor was reminded that dark smoke emission from plant/equipment should be avoided. (Reminder)

3.5.8 Fugitive dust was observed generated on site at Portion D. The Contractor provided dust suppression measures such a compaction and watering to exposed soil. The Contractor was reminded to review the effectiveness of the abovementioned mitigation measures and to review the need to provide enhancement on current measures. In addition, high pressure water jet was observed at site entrance at Portion D, Nonetheless, the Contractor was reminded to review the need to enhance the wheel washing facility to effectively prevent potential trail of mud outside site boundary cause by site vehicles. (Reminder)

Noise

3.5.9 Generator was observed without acoustic decoupling measures on barge天駿 3. The Contractor was reminded to install acoustic decoupling measure prior to leaving Portion A. (Reminder)

Chinese White Dolphin

3.5.10 No adverse observation was identified in the reporting month.

Water Quality

3.5.11 Chemical retaining bunding on barge SHB401 was not properly plugged. The Contractor should seal the bunding entirely to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor has sealed the bunding. (Closed)

3.5.12 Oil drum was not properly stored on barge 宏陽宮106, Works Area of Portion A, barge 天駿3 and on temporary rock bund. The Contractor should store oil drum within the chemical retaining bunding. Drip tray was provided for the oil drum at barge 宏陽宮106 to retain potential leakage. However, some oil drums were still observed not properly stored. The Contractor should continue to store oil drum within the bunding (Closed)

3.5.13 Generators at Portion A were placed on bare ground without the provision of drip tray. The Contractor should provide mitigation measures such as drip trays to prevent potential oil leakage. Drip tray was provided for some of the generators to retain potential leakage. However, a generator was still observed place on bare ground without the provision of drip tray. The Contractor should continue to provide mitigation measures such as drip trays to prevent potential oil leakage. (Closed)

3.5.14 Water was observed accumulated inside car tyre on barge AP3 and in side drip tray at C2a near the blue conveyor belts and other areas. The Contractor was reminded to regularly clear water accumulated inside car tire drip tray at C2a near the blue conveyor belts and kept the site clean and tidy. The Contractor removed the car tyre and cleared the water inside drip tray at C2a and kept the site clean and tidy. (Closed)

3.5.15 Tools were observed stored inside drip tray with oil drums on barge AP3. The Contractor was reminded to properly store the equipments other than oil drums at area outside drip tray. The Contractor removed the equipments other than oil drums from area inside drip tray. (Closed)

3.5.16 Oil drum was observed not closed, the Contractor was reminded that every chemical waste containers should be securely closed, correctly placed and kept clean. The Contractor properly closed chemical waste containers. (Closed)

3.5.17 Idle stone column installation was observed without localised silt curtain at barge AP2. The Contractor was reminded that active stone column installation shall be fullly enclosed by localised silt curtain prior to operation. (Reminder)

3.5.18 Active stone column installation was observed not properly enclosed. The Contractor is reminded that sufficient silt curtain shall be installed to fully enclose the active stone column installation points. The Contractor is provided silt curtain to fully enclose the active stone column installation points. (Closed)

3.5.19 The Contractor was reminded that the chemical waste containers should be kept in good condition and free from damage or any other defects which may impair the performance of the containers (Closed)

3.5.20 Stockpile of soil was observed on barge AP3 at Portion D, the Contractor was reminded to provide measures to prevent potential runoff during rainstorm. (Reminder)

Chemical and Waste Management

3.5.21 General refuse and disconnected silt curtain were observed not properly allocated on 宏陽宮106, Portion A’s waste collection point and on the way from Portion D to C2a. The Contractor should keep the barge clean and tidy and collect the refuse and the disconnected silt curtain presented in the water within and adjacent to the works site. The refuse was cleared. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper storage for general refuse such as rubbish bin with lid. (Closed)

3.5.22 Big bag was observed improperly stored on barge AP3. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper storage for general refuse such as rubbish bin with lid. The Contractor cleared the rubbish bag. The Contractor was reminded to provide proper storage for general refuse such as rubbish bin with lid. (Closed)

3.5.23 Rubbish was observed at the edge of Works Area at Portion A, temporary Rock Bund and on sea next to the temporary rock bund. The Contractor was reminded to regularly clear the rubbish on site and keep the site clean and tidy. Collection and clearing of rubbish was observed conducted by the Contractor at certain areas of Works Area at Portion A. However, rubbish was still observed at various locations on Works Area of Portion A. The Contractor was reminded to continue provide rubbish bin, regularly collect the rubbish on site and keep the site clean and tidy. (Closed)

3.5.24 Stone and gravel were observed inside drip tray containing oil drums. The Contractor was reminded to relocate the drip tray with the oil drums to avoid the situation. The situation has been rectified. (Closed.)

3.5.25 Used band drains were observed stored on site at Portion A. The Contractor was reminded to regularly collect and dispose the used band drain materials. The Contractor cleared unwanted band drains regularly. Band drain material and general refuse were observed at the road side at Portion A. The Contractor cleared general refuse stored on site. Nonetheless, the Contractor was reminded to clear unwanted band drain and other general refuse stored on site regularly. (Reminder)

3.5.26 General refuse and disconnected silt curtain were observed next to cellular structure, at Portion A’s waste collection point and on the way from Portion D to C2a. The Contractor was reminded to collect the refuse and the disconnected silt curtain presented in the water within and adjacent to the works site. The Contractor collected the refuse presented in the water within and adjacent to the works site. The Contractor was reminded to review the need to increase frequency to clear and dispose of the waste at waste collection point to avoid accumulation. (Reminder)

Landscape and Visual Impact

3.5.27 No relevant works was carried out in the reporting Quarter.

Others

3.5.28 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, 3,588,233.0 m³ of fill were imported for the Project use in the reporting period. 24 kg of paper/ carboard packaging and 40 kg of metal were generated, 2.4 tonnes of chemical waste and 344.5 m³ of general refuse were generated and disposed of in the reporting period. Monthly summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix I.

4.1.3 The Contractor is advised to properly maintain on site C&D materials and wastes collection, sorting and recording system, dispose of C&D materials and wastes at designated ground and maximize reuse / recycle of C&D materials and wastes. The Contractor is reminded to properly maintain the site tidiness and dispose of the wastes accumulated on site regularly and properly.

4.1.4 The Contractor is reminded that chemical waste containers should be properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage area on site in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.

5 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. One (1) 24-hour TSP results recorded at AMS3B exceeded the Action Level in the reporting quarter. Investigation results show that the Action level exceedance was 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 Eight (8) Action Level Exceedances were recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting Quarter. One (1) Limit Level exceedance was recorded at measured suspended solids (SS) values (in mg/L) in the reporting quarter. One (1) Action level exceedance was recorded at measured turbidity values (in NTU) in the reporting quarter. Investigation results shows that all the Action and Limit Level Exceedance recorded were non-project related.

6.1.4 One (1) limit 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.

6.1.5 Cumulative statistics on exceedances is provided in Appendix J.

7 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

7.1 Summary of Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

7.1.1 The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.

7.1.2 EPD referred a complaint on 17 March 2014 from complainant who advised that there was sea water colored in blue observed in vicinity of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Facilities (HKBCF) where stone column installation was taking place. The complainant suspected that the filling material was stained and contaminated the sea water after being filled into the sea.

7.1.2.1 Staining material, stained filling material or blue colored sea water was not observed during a follow-up site in section audit conducted with the representatives of the Contractor, Residential Engineer and IEC/ENPO on 20 March 14. The photo record taken during the joint site inspection audit was attached.

7.1.2.2 The locations of stone column installation (please refer to the attached layout map for the locations of stone column installation) and impact water quality monitoring data recorded between 12 – 17 March14 were reviewed. In accordance with the monitoring records, no discoloration of sea water or silty plume appearance outside the seawall was observed during the water quality monitoring between 12 – 17 March14. Also, no Action/ Limit level exceedance of water quality was recorded in the vicinities where stone column installation was carried out.

7.1.2.3 In addition, mitigation measure for active stone column installation such as localised silt curtain was implemented in March 14. Please see below photo record for reference.

7.1.2.4 Therefore, with reference to the available information, it is indicated that the abovementioned sea water colored in blue observed in vicinity of HKBCF is unlikely to be project related.

7.1.3 EPD referred a complaint from a complainant who advised that muddy water was found being discharged from the construction site of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) – Reclamation Works on 22 March 2014.

7.1.3.1 No silt plume or muddy water was observed being discharged from HKBCF – Reclamation Works during a follow-up site inspection audit conducted with the representatives of the Contractor and Residential Engineer 27 March 2014. Please see below photo record for reference.

7.1.3.2 The locations of stone column installation (please refer to the attached layout map for the locations of stone column installation) and impact water quality monitoring data recorded on 21 March 2014 were reviewed. In accordance with the monitoring records, no discoloration of sea water or silty plume appearance outside the perimeter silt curtain was observed during the water quality monitoring conducted on 21 March 2014. Also, no Action/ Limit level exceedance of water quality was recorded in the vicinities where stone column installations were carried out.

7.1.3.3 In addition, with referred to the photo record attached, mitigation measure for active stone column installation such as localised silt curtain was implemented in March 2014. Please see below photo record for reference.

7.1.3.4 Therefore, with reference to the available information, it is indicated that the abovementioned complaint of muddy water which was found being discharged from the construction site of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge HKBCF – Reclamation Works on 22 March 2014 is unlikely to be project related.

7.1.3.5 Nevertheless, the Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing water quality mitigation measures.

7.1.4 As informed by the Contractor, a complaint was received by the Contractor on 25 March 14 concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier.

7.1.4.1 As informed by the Contractor 7-10 trips of sand barges per week would stay at the concerned area.

7.1.4.2 However, base on the available information; it is unable to conclude whether the complaint it is project related, because:

1.There is no sufficient information provided by the complainant to make sure that the concerned barges are related to this project.

2.The sand barges at the construction site of the reclamation works were regularly checked and so far, all sand barges were observed equipped with watering equipment.

3.Photo record below shows that watering equipment was used to keep the sand filling material wet.

7.1.4.3 Photo record shows that watering equipment was provided on pelican barge loaded with sand for watering of sand filling material to keep the sand material wet:

CIMG8211

7.1.4.4 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to properly implement all dust mitigation measures.

7.1.4.5 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.

7.1.4.6 As informed by the Contractor, skipper of all working barges would be reminded to beware and to pay particular attention to the issue concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier.

7.1.5 As informed by the Contractor, further to the notification of summons received March 2014 due to works carried out on 6 October 13 contrary to conditions of NCO, Cap.400. The Contractor pledged guilty to the charge during the court appearance on 28 April 2014.

7.1.5.1 The Contractor has established noise control management system on restricted hour works, to prevent future violation of conditions of NCOs, Cap. 400, actions taken include:

- Nominate CNP Supervisors to daily check CNP compliance

- Setup a white board system to present the works, with locations & no. of machineries, needed to be carried out during restricted hours

- Erect CNP markers for demarcation on site

- Provide relevant training to staff

7.1.5.2 Regular site audit and inspection and monitoring records show no information of recurrence of non-compliance in the reporting month.

7.1.5.3 No notification of summons was received in April.

7.1.6 As informed by the Contractor on 7 May 14, a complaint was received by the Contractor on 17 April 14 concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier.

7.1.6.1 As informed by the Contractor 7-10 trips of sand barges per week would stay at the concerned Area.

7.1.6.2 However, because no extra information was received for this complaint after the release of last investigation report, with referred to the available information; it is unable to conclude whether the complaint is related to this Contract because:

1. There is no sufficient information provided by the complainant to make sure that the concerned barges are related to this project.

2. The sand barges at the construction site of the reclamation works were regularly checked and so far, all sand barges were observed equipped with watering equipments.

3. Photo record below shows that watering equipment was used to keep the sand filling material wet.

7.1.6.3 Photo record shows that watering equipment was provided on pelican barge loaded with sand for watering of sand filling material to keep the sand material wet:

CIMG8212

7.1.6.4 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to properly implement all dust mitigation measures.

7.1.6.5 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.

7.1.6.6 As informed by the Contractor, skipper of all working barges would further be reminded to beware and to pay particular attention to the issue concerning sand and dust emission from uncovered barges parking at the sea area off the Tuen Mun Ferry Pier.

7.1.7 As informed by the Contractor on 30 May 2014, an environmental complaint had been received on 28 May 2014. The complainant mentioned that waste such as earth and concrete were being felled into the sea everyday at the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge at location where construction works are being conducted, causing pollution to the marine environment.

7.1.7.1 Site inspections were conducted and project documents were reviewed, please see the following for details of investigation actions and results:

7.1.7.2 Regular site inspection was conducted on 29 May 2014 and a follow up site inspection was conducted on 5 June 2014 at HKBCF Reclamation Works, waste such as concrete and earth were not observed being felled into the sea.

7.1.7.3 The waste flow record provided by the Contractor has been reviewed (please see attached), the waste flow record shows that waste described by the complainant (i.e. concrete or earth) were not generated by this Contract.

7.1.7.4 In addition, the construction programme provided by the Contractor (Please see construction program attached) has been reviewed and it is noted that concrete and earth were not used as marine fill for any on-going construction activities of this Contract in May 2014. Also, all filling works were conducted inside the designated work zone inside the site boundary of HKBCF Reclamation Works. Furthermore, impact water quality monitoring result of May 2014 has been reviewed and no impact water quality exceedance was recorded in May 2014, this indicates that the works carried by this Contract is unlikely to cause pollution to the marine environment.

7.1.7.5 As such, with referred to the available information, it is concluded that the complaint is unlikely to be related to this Contract.

7.1.7.6 Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to properly implement all water quality mitigation measures and strictly follow the waste handling procedure according of this Contract.

7.1.7.7 No notification of summons and successful prosecutions was received in May.

7.1.8 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix N.

8 Comments, recommendations and Conclusions

8.1 Comments on mitigation measures

8.1.1 According to the environmental site inspections performed in the reporting quarter, the following recommendations were provided:

Air Quality Impact

l All working plants and vessels on site should be regularly inspected and properly maintained to avoid dark smoke emission.

l All vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before leaving the site.

l Haul roads should be sufficiently dampened to minimize fugitive dust generation.

l Wheel washing facilities should be properly maintained and reviewed to ensure properly functioning.

l Temporary exposed slopes and open stockpiles should be properly covered.

l Enclosure should be erected for cement debagging, batching and mixing operations.

l Water spraying should be provided to suppress fugitive dust for any dusty construction activity.

Construction Noise Impact

l Quieter powered mechanical equipment should be used as far as possible.

l Noisy operations should be oriented to a direction away from sensitive receivers as far as possible.

l Proper and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and machinery on-site should be provided, such as erection of movable noise barriers or enclosure for noisy plants. Closely check and replace the sound insulation materials regularly

l Vessels and equipment operating should be checked regularly and properly maintained.

l Noise Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed to the air compressor and hand-held breaker operating within works area.

l Better scheduling of construction works to minimize noise nuisance.

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.