Contract No. HY/2010/02 ¡V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation Work (here below, known as
¡§the Project¡¨) mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the southern
landfall of the Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link (TMCLKL). It is
a designated project and is governed by the current permits for the Project,
i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 19
January 2015 (EP-353/2009/H) and 13 March 2015
(EP-354/2009/D) (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.
Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited (formerly ENVIRON Hong
Kong Limited) 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 2015 and 31 May 2015. As informed by the Contractor,
major activities in the reporting quarter were:-
Marine-base
-
Cellular structure installation and backfilling
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Conforming sloping seawalls
-
Surcharge remove & laying
-
Earthwork fill
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Jet grout columns works
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Removal of Temporary Seawall
-
Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water
intake of HKIA
Land-base
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory
at Works Area WA3
-
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 and 24-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the
reporting month.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
For construction
noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting
month.
Breaches of Action and Limit
Levels for Water Quality
For water quality, two (2) Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS10
and SR5 during Flood tide were recorded on 23 March 2015. No Action and Limit
Level exceedances were recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting
month. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring
One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was
recorded in the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that
the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It
was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole
(or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor
separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix
L. Event 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
As
informed by the Contractor on 09 March 2015, there is an air quality complaint
received on 06 March 2015. The complainant Mr. Fung requested for
follow-up actions to be taken by relevant departments in response to his
Complaint about sand and dust emission from 4-5 uncovered sand barges parking
near the coastline of Tuen Mun,
the complainant concerns about the health problems to residents as the sand is
blown to their apartments. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the observed impact is related to this Contract.
Environmental Protection Department (EPD) referred a noise complaint to
this project on 10 April 2015 and ENPO forwarded the noise complaint to
Environmental Team on 15 April 2015. The complaint involves a complainant, who
is resident of Caribbean Coast, Tung Chung and he was disturbed by noise from
construction activities of the HZMB Project during weekends and holidays. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed noise
nuisance is related to this Contract.
A
complainant contacted EPD through EPD¡¦s hotline on 21 May 2015 and complained
that noise was generated from construction works when construction of
artificial island at Lantau Island area was carried out overnight and dark
smoke was emitted by construction plant. EPD¡¦s staff has contacted complainant
and came to know that the dark smoke referring to could also be construction
dust emitting from the filling work at the HKBCF. This complaint was
subsequently referred by EPD to HZMB project team on 22 May 2015 to follow-up. With
referred to the available information, it is unable to determine whether the
night time noise and dark smoke complaint is related to this Contract.
No notification of summons or
prosecution was received in the reporting period
1.1.1 Contract No. HY/2010/02 ¡V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation Work (here below, known as ¡§the Project¡¨)
mainly comprises seawall construction and reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL).
1.1.2 The environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports (Hong Kong ¡V
Zhuhai ¡V Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ¡V EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun ¡V Chek
Lap Kok Link ¡V EIA Report (Register No.
AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and their environmental monitoring and audit
(EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A Manuals), for the Project were approved
by Environmental Protection Department (EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3 EPD subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009
(EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F),
August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G) and January 2015 (EP-353/2009/H). 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), January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B), December 2014 (EP-354/2009/C)
and March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D).
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 19 January 2015
(EP-353/2009/H) and 13 March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D) (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 Ramboll Environ
Hong Kong Limited (formerly ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited) 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 thirteen quarterly EM&A Report under the Contract
No. HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong
Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V Reclamation Works. This report presents a
summary of the environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and
mitigation measures proposed by the ET for the Project from 1 March 2015 to 31
May 2015.
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
(Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited (formerly ENVIRON Hong
Kong Limited))
|
Independent
Environmental Checker
|
Raymond
Dai
|
3465
2888
|
3548
6988
|
Environmental
Project Office Leader
|
Y.H. Hui
|
3547
2133
|
3465
2899
|
Contractor
(China
Harbour Engineering Company Limited)
|
General
Manager (S&E)
|
Daniel
Leung
|
3157
1086
|
2578
0413
|
Environmental
Officer
|
Richard Ng
|
36932253
|
2578
0413
|
24-hour
Hotline
|
Alan C.C. Yeung
|
9448
0325
|
--
|
ET
(AECOM
Asia Company Limited)
|
ET
Leader
|
Echo
Leong
|
3922
9280
|
2317
7609
|
1.4.1 The construction phase of the Project under the EP
commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.4.2 As informed by the Contractor, details of the major works carried
out in the reporting quarter are listed below:-
Marine-base
-
Cellular structure installation and backfilling
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Conforming sloping seawalls
-
Surcharge remove & laying
-
Earthwork fill
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Jet grout columns works
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Removal of Temporary Seawall
-
Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water
intake of HKIA
Land-base
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory
at Works Area WA3
-
Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
1.4.3 The 3-month rolling construction programme
of the Project is shown in Appendix B.
1.4.4 The general layout plan of the Project site showing the detailed
works areas is shown in Figure 1.
1.4.5 The environmental mitigation measures implementation schedule are
presented in Appendix C.
2.1.1 The Project Specific EM&A Manual designated 4 air quality
monitoring stations, 2 noise monitoring stations, 21 water monitoring stations
(9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field
Stations) to monitor environmental impacts on air quality, noise and water
quality respectively. Pre-set and fixed transect line vessel based dolphin
survey was required in two AFCD designated areas (Northeast and Northwest
Lantau survey areas). The impact dolphin monitoring at each survey area should
be conducted twice per month.
2.1.2 For impact air quality monitoring, monitoring locations AMS2 (Tung
Chung Development Pier) and AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) were set up
at the proposed locations in accordance with Project Specific EM&A Manual.
The conditional omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 was effective since 19
November 2012. For monitoring location AMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the
Project Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring
could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting
up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like
Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out
impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact air
quality monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in
Works Area WA2 (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. Reference is made to ET¡¦s proposal
of relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 2 February
2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and no
objection received from EPD on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel)
has been relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea
Union Transportation Company Limited) on 3 February 2015. Action Level for air quality, as derived from the
baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong
Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for
this alternative air quality location.
2.1.4 In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual, twenty-one
stations were designated for impact water quality monitoring. The nine Impact
Stations (IS) were chosen on the basis of their proximity to the reclamation
and thus the greatest potential for water quality impacts, the seven Sensitive
Receiver Stations (SR) were chosen as they are close to the key sensitive
receives and the five Control/ Far Field Stations (CS) were chosen to
facilitate comparison of the water quality of the IS stations with less
influence by the Project/ ambient water quality conditions.
2.1.5 Due to safety concern and topographical condition of the original
locations of SR4 and SR10B, alternative impact water quality monitoring
stations, naming as SR4(N) and SR10B(N), were adopted,
which are situated in vicinity of the original impact water quality monitoring
stations (SR4 and SR10B) and could be reachable. Same baseline and Action Level
for water quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded, were
adopted for these alternative impact water quality monitoring stations.
2.1.6 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are
depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4
respectively.
2.1.7 The Project Specific EM&A Manual also required environmental
site inspections for air quality, noise, water quality, chemical, waste
management, marine ecology and landscape and visual impact.
2.2.1 The environmental quality performance limits (i.e. Action and/or
Limit Levels) of air and water quality monitoring were derived from the
baseline air and water quality monitoring results at the respective monitoring
stations, while the environmental quality performance limits of noise
monitoring were defined in the EM&A Manual.
2.2.2 The environmental quality performance limits of air quality, noise
and water monitoring are given in Appendix D.
2.3.1 Relevant environmental mitigation measures were stipulated in the Particular
Specification and EPs (EP-353/2009/H and EP-354/2009/D) (for TMCLKL Southern
Landfall Reclamation only) for the Contractor to adopt. A list of environmental
mitigation measures and their implementation statuses are given in Appendix C.
3.1.1 In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual, impact
1-hour Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring was conducted for at least
three times every 6 days, while impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out
for at least once every 6 days at the 4 monitoring stations (AMS2, AMS3B, AMS6
and AMS7A).
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 Reference is made to ET¡¦s proposal of relocation of air quality
monitoring station (AMS7A) dated on 2 February 2015, with no further
comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and no objection received from EPD
on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality monitoring
station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) has been relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation
Company Limited) on 3 February 2015. Action Level for air quality, as
derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this
alternative air quality location.
3.1.4 The weather was mostly fine and sunny, with occasional cloudy in the
reporting quarter. The major dust source in the reporting quarter included
construction activities from the Project, as well as nearby traffic emissions.
3.1.5 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
|
March 15
|
April 15
|
May 15
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
15
|
18
|
15
|
AMS3B
|
15
|
18
|
15
|
AMS7A
|
15
|
18
|
15
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
AMS3B
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
AMS7A
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
Table 3.2 Summary
of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Numbers of Exceedance
|
March 15
|
April 15
|
May 15
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
AMS7A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
AMS7A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.1.6 All 24-Hour TSP and 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and
Limit Level in the reporting month.
3.1.7 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.
3.1.8 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 2015, April 2015 and May 2015 respectively.
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 ¡V 19:00 in the
reporting quarter.
3.2.2 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are
depicted in Figure 2.
3.2.3 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
|
March 15
|
April 15
|
May 15
|
NMS2
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
NMS3B
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
Table 3.4 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact
Noise
Monitoring
Parameter
|
Location
|
Level
of Exceedance
|
Level
of Exceedance
|
March 15
|
April 15
|
May 15
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
NMS3B
|
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 K.
3.3
Water Quality Monitoring
3.3.1 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are
depicted in Figure 3.
3.3.3 For water quality, two (2) Action Level Exceedances
of SS at IS10 and SR5 were recorded on 23 March 2015 during Flood tide. No
Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded on other monitoring date in
the reporting month. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this
Contract.
Table 3.5 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances in March 2015
¡V May 2015
Station
|
Exceedance Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
IS5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
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
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
23 Mar15
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
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)
23 Mar15
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
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
|
2
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.4 For
water quality, two (2) Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS10 and SR5 during
Flood tide were recorded on 23 March 2015. No Action and Limit Level
exceedances were recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting month.
3.3.4.1
The exceedance was confirmed after checking against relevant control
station(s) during flood tide i.e. CS6, CSA and CS(Mf)5
following the Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality.
3.3.4.2
Layout map below shows active works conducted on 23 March 2015. Transfer
of public fill for surcharge was conducted at north part of HKBCF reclamation
works and marine based construction works such cellular structure was conducted
at northeast part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works.
![](TOC_files/image040.jpg)
3.3.4.3
Photo record which shows the sea condition near IS10 at northwest part
of the HKBCF during flood tide on 23 March 2015
3.3.4.4
Exceedance recorded at IS10 and SR5 during mid-flood tide are unlikely
due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.4.5
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defects such as
disconnection of the silt curtain was not observed at northwest part of the
perimeter silt curtain which are close to the IS10 and SR5.
3.3.4.6
The attached layout map shows transfer of public fill for surcharge was
conducted at north part of HKBCF reclamation works, since it is not marine
based work, therefore it was considered unlikely to cause the SS exceedances
recorded at IS10 and SR5 during mid-flood tide.
3.3.4.7
The attached layout map shows that cellular structure was conducted at
northeast part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works, however, the turbidity data
retrieved from the IS17 and IS(Mf)11 which are in the vicinity of marine-based
works (cellular structure) undertaken on 23 March 2015, did not exceed the
action and limit level. As such, it was considered unlikely to cause the SS
exceedances recorded at IS10 and SR5 during mid-flood tide.
3.3.4.8
Furthermore, no filling activities were observed in progress and no silt
plume was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the
outside of the perimeter silt curtain when monitoring was conducted at IS10 and
SR5. (Also see attached for sea condition observed on 23 March 2015 during
flood tide.)
3.3.4.9
Also, turbidity level recorded at SR5, IS10 and IS(Mf)11
were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at
area near SR5 and IS10 was not adversely affected.
3.3.4.10
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR5
and IS10.
3.3.4.11
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.4.12
Action taken under the action plan:
1.
Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;
2.
After considering the above
mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS
exceedances were attributed to active construction activities of this Contract;
3.
IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;
4.
Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods
were checked;
5.
Since it is considered that the SS exceedance is unlikely to be project
related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.4.13
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.4.14
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis as necessary.
3.3.5
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.
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 2015 ¡V
May 2015
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable
On- Effort Condition
|
658.2km
|
Number of Sightings
|
15 sightings (7 sightings are ¡¨on effort¡¨ (which are all under favourable condition), 3 ¡§sightings are opportunistic¡¨)
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
31 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate#
|
NEL: 0
NWL: 1.6
|
Dolphin Group Size
|
Average of NEL: 0
Average of NWL: 3.1
Varied from 1-5 individuals
|
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area
|
Northern Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine
Park, the western limit of NWL and Tai O area.
|
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 One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in
the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB
works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also
concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or
individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor
separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix
L.
*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.
3.4.7 A review of survey conditions was conducted. The works at lines 1
and 2 are progressing and permanent in water structures are in place. Given
that these lines are now truncated due to these structures, it is advised that
the start/end points of these lines be revised to reflect the new navigation
required. The proposal was under review and revision by the relevant parties in
the reporting period.
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 Fugitive dust was observed generated when spoil was excavated at east
side of the reclamation works , unloading of rocks and
at Portion E1. The Contractor was reminded to sprayed dusty materials with
water or a dust suppression chemical immediately prior to loading or unloading
or transfer operation and the Contractor was advised to provide dust control
measures when material during excavated of the spoil. The Contractor applied
water on exposed soil during excavation of spoil. (Closed)
3.5.4 Cement was observed on surface of grout production facility; the
Contractor was reminded that to ensure generation of fugitive dust is prevented
and the entire grouting process and materials unloading, loading and
transfer shall be performed within an enclosed system. (Reminder)
3.5.5 Haul road at Portion B was observed dry during site walk, however,
watering was subsequently observed provided by the Contractor. The Contractor
was reminded to provide sufficient watering to haul roads. (Reminder)
3.5.6 Road was observed moistened. The Contractor was reminded to continue
to provide control measures to prevent generation of fugitive dust. (Reminder)
3.5.7 Fugitive dust was observed at Portion E1. The Contractor was
reminded to provide effective dust control measures such as sufficient watering
on road. Photo record shows that watering was provided on site to prevent
generation of fugitive dust. The Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient
measures to prevent generation of fugitive dust. (Reminder)
3.5.8 Dark smoke was observed from an excavator at Portion C2c. The
Contractor was reminded to maintain to equipment in good condition. Photo record shows that dark smoke was
no longer observed from the excavator and barge near Portion C2c. The
Contractor was reminded to check the dark smoke of machineries and ensure
proper implementation of air quality mitigation measures. (Reminder)
Noise
3.5.9 The Contractor was reminded to provide the facilities with acoustic
decoupling measures in accordance with the proposed mitigation measures for
noise stated in the EP-353/2009/H. (Reminder)
Water Quality
3.5.10 Defects were observed on the secondary enclosure of grout delivery
pipes. The Contractor was reminded to provide effective measure to contain any
potential leakage of wastewater/grout and prevent them from releasing to the
sea. The Contractor enhanced the measures to contain any potential leakage of
wastewater/grout and prevent them from releasing to the sea. (Closed)
3.5.11 Soil was observed accumulated one side of the vessel, the Contractor
was reminded to clear them regularly prevent runoff and keep the site clean and
tidy. (Reminder)
3.5.12 Grout mixture was observed on land at the connection point of pipes.
The Contractor was reminded to ensure no grout material is released to the
sea. (Reminder)
3.5.13 Soil was observed at area near water outlet. The Contractor was
reminded to provide measures such as sand bags to prevent silty water at water
outlet. (Reminder)
3.5.14 Silt plume was observed at the northern part of the Portion C2b
inside area enclosed by perimeter silt curtain. The Contractor was reminded to
properly implement water quality mitigation measures. The Contractor provided measures such as
rock bund the edge of Portion C2b. The contractor was reminded to ensure silt
plume is prevented (Reminder)
3.5.15 Oil was observed in water adjacent to Portion C2c. The Contractor
was reminded to clear the oil and take actions in accordance with the Spill
Response Plan. The oil was cleared
by the Contractor using oil spill kit and the used spill kit was disposed of by
the Contractor as chemical waste.
(Closed)
3.5.16 Turbid water was observed to flow from land area to seawall. The
Contractor was advised to provide measures to prevent turbid water from going
to the sea area. The Contractor provided measure to prevent the turbid water
from going into the sea area from the land area. (Closed)
Chemical and Waste
Management
3.5.17 Defective drip tray was observed on barge, the Contractor was
advised to provide drip tray without defects on barges. The Contractor
rectified the defect of the drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.18 Waste water generated from the grout mixing process was stored
within soil bund; the Contractor was advised to provide sufficient enclosure
and ensure the wastewater from the work process is not released to the
sea. The Contractor provided sufficient enclosure to the waste water observed.
(Closed)
3.5.19 General refuse was observed stored on site without proper covers and
at portion at portion C2c and on site. The Contractor was reminded to provide
rubbish bin with over to general refuse. General refuse was cleared by the
Contractor. (Closed)
3.5.20 General refuse was observed on site and at area near the pier of
southern part and south eastern part of the site; the Contractor was reminded
to provide sufficient rubbish bin on site and regular properly collect and
dispose of general refuse. General refuse was removed by the Contractor.
(Closed)
3.5.21 Oil drums without drip trays were observed on deck surface of barge
DL4. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip
tray to oil drums. The Contractor removed the oil drum. (Closed)
3.5.22 Oil drums without drip trays were observed barge§Q¯è8, on deck surface of barge Evershine18 and barge®¶©ú and material
supplying vessel and on deck surface of barge DL4; generator was observed
without drip tray. The Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures
such as drip tray to oil drums. The Contractor removed the oil drums on deck
surface of barge Evershine18 and barge®¶©ú. The
contractor removed the generator or provided drip tray to the oil drum on
ground. The material supplying vessel where the oil drums were observed left
the site. (Closed)
3.5.23 Generator was observed without drip tray. The Contractor was
reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip tray to all generators.
Contractor removed the generator from the area. (Closed)
3.5.24 It was observed that the pipes used for transferring grout between
barge DL4 and ¤ÑÂ@3 were not fully enclosed,
the Contractor was advised to provide measures to ensure potential leakage of
grout from the grouting production process to the sea can be
effective prevented. The Contractor provided measures to prevent potential
leakage of grout from the grouting production process to the sea.
(Closed)
3.5.25 Solidified grout was observed on deck of barge DL4. The Contractor
was reminded to keep the deck surface clean and tidy. The solidified grouts
were cleared by the Contractor. (Closed)
3.5.26 Oil drums without drip trays were observed at portion C2a. The
Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as drip tray to oil
drums. The oil drums were removed by the Contractor. (Closed)
3.5.27 Stagnant water was observed accumulated inside a drip tray on Barge Luen Hing 368; Oil and water mixture was observed on barge ®¶©ú18, s informed by the Contractor, the barge®¶©ú18 had left construction site of HKBCF reclamation works. The Contractor
was reminded to clear the water/oil water mixture regularly to prevent
potential runoff. (Reminder)
3.5.28 Hole was observed within bunding placed on
Barge SHB 209, the Contractor was advised to provide effective mitigation
measures by sealing the hole to prevent leakage and potential runoff. The
Contractor rectified the deficiency by sealing the hole within the bunding on barge SHB 209. (Closed)
3.5.29 It was observed that waste water was generated from the jet grout
process; the Contractor was advised to provide sufficient enclosure and ensure
the wastewater from the work process is not released to the sea.
Contractor enhanced the soil bund and ensures the wastewater from the work
process is not released to the sea. (Closed)
3.5.30 Solidified grout was observed stored on deck of barge¤ÑÂ@3. The Contractor was reminded to sort and dispose them of properly
(Reminder).
Landscape and Visual
Impact
3.5.31 No relevant adverse impact was observed in the reporting month.
Others
3.5.32 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.
4.1.1 The Contractor registered as a chemical waste producer for this
project. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse
collection and sorting.
4.1.2
As advised by the Contractor, 1,421,176m3 of fill were
imported for the Project use in the reporting period. 4kg
of metal, 670kg of paper/cardboard packaging, 2kg plastics and 104m3
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.
5.1.1
In response to the site audit
findings, the Contractors carried out corrective actions.
5.1.2 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation
Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of the recommended mitigation
measures are being upheld. Moreover, regular review and checking on the
construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to
ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended
environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.
5.1.3 Training of marine travel route for marine vessels operator was
given to relevant staff and relevant records were kept properly.
5.1.4 Regarding the implementation of dolphin monitoring and protection
measures (i.e. implementation of Dolphin Watching Plan, Dolphin Exclusion Zone
and Silt Curtain integrity Check), regular checks were conducted by experienced
MMOs within the works area to ensure that no dolphins were trapped by the silt
curtain area. There were no dolphins spotted within the silt curtain during
this quarter. The relevant procedures were followed and all measures were well
implemented. The silt curtains were also inspected in accordance to the
submitted plan.
5.1.5 Acoustic decoupling measures on noisy plants on construction vessels
were checked regularly and the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of
ongoing maintenance to noisy plants and to carry out improvement work once
insufficient acoustic decoupling measures were found.
5.1.6 Oil spillage was observed on 14 May 2015 on sea area near
Northeastern of Portion C2c (also refer to layout map below). There oil
spillage incident including size, location, time of the spillage and
Contractor¡¦s actions taken in response to the spill incident have been reviewed
and summarised as follow.
![](TOC_files/image042.jpg)
5.1.6.1 Investigation actions includes review of Contractor¡¦s actions taken
in response to the spill incident and review of impact water quality monitoring
records of 15 May 2015. Contractor¡¦s actions taken in response to the spill
incident:
¡P
The oil on sea was observed during inspection
jointly conducted by Contractor, ET, ESS and the RSS on 14 March 2015.
¡P
The Contractor organised
manpower to identify the spill source, but the source of oil spill was not
identified.
¡P
The Contractor equipped people involved in the
cleanup works with personal protective equipment such as gloves prior to the
removal of any leaked chemical or chemical waste.
5.1.6.2 Investigation observations and results:
¡P
Oil was observed on sea next to Northeastern of
Portion C2c within silt curtain at 10:45 a.m. on 14 May 2015 during joint
inspection conducted by Contractor, ET, ESS and the RSS. The following actions was taken by the Contractor:
¡P
The Contractor organised
manpower to identify the spill source, the vessel (Evershin
no.8) located close to the oil spill was inspected but the source of oil spill
was not identified.
¡P
The oil spill was identified during join site
inspection conducted by the Contractor, ET, ESS and RSS on 14 May 2015 as
discrete, non-continuous source with approximately 10m2 spread. Also
refer to photo below:
![20150514_104530](TOC_files/image044.jpg)
¡P
The Contractor deployed absorption booms to
remove the floating oil from water and the used absorption booms were collected
using disposal bags as part of the spill kits item. The used absorption booms
were disposed of as chemical waste by the Contractor. (Also refer to photo
record below).
![](TOC_files/image046.jpg)
¡P
The oil stain observed was limited at nearby
Northeastern sea area within the silt curtain.
¡P
Photo record shows that oil on sea was no longer
observed at sea area near Northeastern of Portion C2c. (Also refer to photo record below)
![](TOC_files/image047.jpg)
![](TOC_files/image048.jpg)
¡P
Monitoring stations IS10, IS(Mf)11
and IS17 are the monitoring stations close to location of observed oil spill
(also refer to above layout map).
Impact water quality monitoring data record of IS10, IS(Mf)11
and IS17 have been reviewed. There is no water quality exceedance recorded at
IS10, IS(Mf)11 and IS17 on 15 May 2015.
5.1.6.3 The contractor was reminded to continue to follow the spill response
plan when oil is observed on sea.
5.1.6.4 Frequency of watering per day on exposed soil was checked; with
reference to the record provided by the Contract, watering was conducted at
least 8 times per day on reclaimed land. The frequency of watering is the
mainly refer to water truck. Sprinklers are only served to strengthen dust
control measure for busy traffic at the entrance of Portion D. As informed by
the Contractor, during the mal-function period of sprinkler, water truck will
enhance watering at such area. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision
of watering of at least 8 times per day on all exposed soil within the
6.1.1 All 1-Hour TSP and 24-Hour TSP results were below the Action and
Limit Level in the reporting month.
6.1.2 For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting month.
6.1.3 For water quality, two (2) Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS10
and SR5 during Flood tide were recorded on 23 March 2015. No Action and Limit
Level exceedances were recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting
month. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
6.1.4 One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in
the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB
works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also
concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or
individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor
separate from the other stress factors. Event 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
7.1.1 The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure
5.
7.1.2 As informed by the Contractor on 09 March 2015, there is an air
quality complaint received on 06 March 2015. The complainant Mr. Fung
requested for follow-up actions to be taken by relevant departments in response
to his Complaint about sand and dust emission from 4-5 uncovered sand barges
parking near the coastline of Tuen Mun, the complainant concerns about the health problems to
residents as the sand is blown to their apartments. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this
Contract.
7.1.3 EPD referred a noise complaint to this project on 10 April 2015 and
ENPO forwarded the noise complaint to Environmental Team on 15 April 2015. The
complaint involves a complainant, who is resident of Caribbean Coast, Tung
Chung and he was disturbed by noise from construction activities of the HZMB
Project during weekends and holidays. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the observed noise nuisance is related to this
Contract.
7.1.4 A complainant contacted EPD through EPD¡¦s hotline on 21 May 2015 and
complained that noise was generated from construction works when construction
of artificial island at Lantau Island area was carried out overnight and dark
smoke was emitted by construction plant. EPD¡¦s staff has contacted complainant
and came to know that the dark smoke referring to could also be construction
dust emitting from the filling work at the HKBCF. This complaint was subsequently
referred by EPD to HZMB project team on 22 May 2015 to follow-up. With referred
to the available information, it is unable to determine whether the night time
noise and dark smoke complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.5
No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting quarter.
7.1.6 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful
prosecutions are summarized in Appendix N.
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
¡P
All working plants and vessels on site should be regularly inspected and
properly maintained to avoid dark smoke emission.
¡P
All vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before
leaving the site.
¡P
Haul roads should be sufficiently dampened to minimize fugitive dust
generation.
¡P
Wheel washing facilities should be properly maintained and reviewed to
ensure properly functioning.
¡P
Temporary exposed slopes and open stockpiles should be properly covered.
¡P
Enclosure should be erected for cement debagging, batching and mixing
operations.
¡P
Water spraying should be provided to suppress fugitive dust for any
dusty construction activity.
¡P
Regular review and provide maintenance to dust control measures such as
sprinkler system.
Construction Noise Impact
¡P
Quieter powered mechanical equipment should be used as far as possible.
¡P
Noisy operations should be oriented to a direction away from sensitive
receivers as far as possible.
¡P
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
¡P
Vessels and equipment operating should be checked regularly and properly
maintained.
¡P
Noise Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed to the air compressor and
hand-held breaker operating within works area.
¡P
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
¡P
Regular review and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems
and desilting facilities in order to make sure they are functioning
effectively.
¡P
Construction of seawall should be completed as early as possible.
¡P
Regular inspect and review the loading process from barges to avoid
splashing of material.
¡P
Silt, debris and leaves accumulated at public drains, wheel washing bays
and perimeter u-channels and desilting facilities should be cleaned up regularly.
¡P
Silty effluent should be treated/ desilted before discharged. Untreated
effluent should be prevented from entering public drain channel.
¡P
Proper drainage channels/bunds should be provided at the site boundaries
to collect/intercept the surface run-off from works areas.
¡P
Exposed slopes and stockpiles should be covered up properly during
rainstorm.
Chemical and Waste
Management
¡P
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.
¡P
All chemical containers and oil drums should be properly stored and
labelled.
¡P
All plants and vehicles on site should be properly maintained to prevent
oil leakage.
¡P
All kinds of maintenance works should be carried out within roofed,
paved and confined areas.
¡P
All drain holes of the drip trays utilized within works areas should be
properly plugged to avoid any oil and chemical waste leakage.
¡P
Oil stains on soil surface and empty chemical containers should be
cleared and disposed of as chemical waste.
¡P
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
¡P
All existing, retained/transplanted trees at the works areas should be
properly fenced off and regularly inspected.
¡P
Control night-time lighting and glare by hooding all lights.
8.2
Recommendations on EM&A Programme
8.2.1 The impact monitoring programme for air
quality, noise, water quality and dolphin ensured that any deterioration in
environmental condition was readily detected and timely actions taken to
rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of monitoring results
collected demonstrated the environmental impacts of the Project. With
implementation of recommended effective environmental mitigation measures, the
Project¡¦s environmental impacts were considered as environmentally acceptable.
The weekly environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental
mitigation measures recommended were effectively implemented.
8.2.2 The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in
the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the
potential environmental impacts from the Project. Also, the EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts
from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of
mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the
improvement of the programme.
8.2.3 There is a report of silt plume observed near the silt curtain for
HZMB HKBCF Project maintained by Contract No. HY/2010/02
during site visit conducted by HyD on 15 April 2015.
Silt plume was observed Near the eastern part of HKBCF
reclamation works (portion B and E), near the silt curtain for HZMB HKBCF
Project maintained by Contract No. HY/2010/02.
8.2.3.1
Photo record taken on 15 April
2015 shows that silt plume was observed near the silt curtain for HZMB HKBCF
Project maintained by Contract No. HY/2010/02 during a site visit conducted by HyD on 15 April 2015:
![ATT5OSVB](TOC_files/image049.jpg)
![ATT6BGII](TOC_files/image050.jpg)
![ATTUNPTF](TOC_files/image051.jpg)
![ATTZO189](TOC_files/image052.jpg)
8.2.3.2
Investigation actions:
¡P
Site inspection was conducted jointly with the
Contractor, RSS and ESS on 16 April 2015.
¡P
Construction activities and implementation of
mitigation measures were reviewed.
¡P
Review of available impact water quality
monitoring data of monitoring station IS17, IS(Mf)16
and IS(Mf)9 recorded on 15 April 2015.
8.2.3.3
Investigation results:
¡P
No silt plume around the Portion B and Portion
E2 of HKBCF reclamation works were observed during the joint site inspection
conducted jointly with the Contractor, RSS and ESS on 16 April 2015. Photos
were taken and please see attached photo record for reference
8.2.3.4
Photo record taken on 16 April
2015 shows that no silt plume around the Portion B and Portion E2 of HKBCF
reclamation works were observed during the joint site inspection conducted
jointly with the Contractor, RSS and ESS on 16 April 2015.
![20150416_101247](TOC_files/image054.jpg)
![20150416_102913](TOC_files/image056.jpg)
![20150416_110707](TOC_files/image058.jpg)
![20150416_111203](TOC_files/image060.jpg)
¡P
No disconnection of silt curtain was observed
during the joint site inspection conducted jointly with the Contractor, RSS and
ESS on 16 April 2015.
¡P
Works activity such as deep cement mixing on
land was observed at the Portion B and Portion E2 of HKBCF reclamation works
and relocating rock material of cellular structure was observed at the Portion
B of HKBCF reclamation works during the joint site inspection conducted jointly
with the Contractor, RSS and ESS on 16 April 2015, however, silt plume or
discharge of silt plume was not observed.
¡P
In addition, available impact water quality
monitoring data of monitoring station IS17, IS(Mf)16 and IS(Mf)9 obtained on 15
April 2015 was reviewed and the turbidity and suspended solids levels of all
monitoring stations were well below the action and limit level. Also refer to
the attached water quality monitoring data of 15 April 2015 for reference.
8.2.3.5
Nevertheless, the Contractor
was reminded to continue to properly and implement all water quality mitigation
measures.
8.3
Conclusions
8.3.1 The construction phase and EM&A programme
of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
8.3.2 All 1-Hour TSP and 24-Hour TSP results were below the Action and
Limit Level in the reporting month.
8.3.3 For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting period.
8.3.4 For water quality, two (2) Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS10
and SR5 during Flood tide were recorded on 23 March 2015. No Action and Limit
Level exceedances were recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting
month. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
8.3.5
One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the
reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is
one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded
the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual
marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate
from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring
was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix L.
8.3.6 Environmental site inspection was carried out 13 times in the
reporting quarter. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the
Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
8.3.7 As informed by the Contractor on 09 March 2015, there is an air
quality complaint received on 06 March 2015. The complainant Mr. Fung
requested for follow-up actions to be taken by relevant departments in response
to his Complaint about sand and dust emission from 4-5 uncovered sand barges
parking near the coastline of Tuen Mun, the complainant concerns about the health problems to
residents as the sand is blown to their apartments. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this
Contract.
8.3.8 EPD referred a noise complaint to this project on 10 April 2015 and
ENPO forwarded the noise complaint to Environmental Team on 15 April 2015. The
complaint involves a complainant, who is resident of Caribbean Coast, Tung
Chung and he was disturbed by noise from construction activities of the HZMB
Project during weekends and holidays. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the observed noise nuisance is related to this
Contract.
8.3.9 A complainant contacted EPD through EPD¡¦s hotline on 21 May 2015 and
complained that noise was generated from construction works when construction
of artificial island at Lantau Island area was carried out overnight and dark
smoke was emitted by construction plant. EPD¡¦s staff has contacted complainant
and came to know that the dark smoke referring to could also be construction
dust emitting from the filling work at the HKBCF. This complaint was
subsequently referred by EPD to HZMB project team on 22 May 2015 to follow-up.
With referred to the available information, it is unable to determine whether
the night time noise and dark smoke complaint is related to this Contract.
8.3.10 No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the
reporting quarter.
8.3.11 As informed by the Contractor, oil spillage was observed on 14 May
2015 on sea area near Northeastern of Portion C2c. Following the spill response
plan ET, IEC and the RSS were informed of the incident by the Contractor.
8.3.12 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.
8.3.13 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.
8.3.14 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.