Contract No. HY/2010/02 ¡V
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities ¡V
Reclamation Work (here below, known as ¡§the Contract¡¨) 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 Contract,
i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 17 July 2015 (EP-353/2009/I)
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 Contract¡¦s reclamation works (i.e.
the Engineer for the Contract).
China Harbour Engineering Company Limited
(CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work
of the Contract.
Ramboll 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 Contract for
carrying out the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) works.
The construction phase of the Contract
under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed
by early Year 2016. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water
quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was
commenced on 12 March 2012.
This report documents the
findings of EM&A works conducted in the period between 1 June 2015 and 31
August 2015. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting
quarter were:-
Marine-base
-
Cellular
structure ¡V Connecting Arcs
-
Cellular
structure ¡V Capping Beams
-
Cellular
structure ¡V Backfill
-
Conforming
sloping seawalls ¡V Geo-textile
-
Maintenance
of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA
-
Rubble
Mound Seawall
-
Rock
fill
Land-base
-
Earthwork
fill
-
Jet
grout columns works
-
Surcharge
removal & laying
-
Deep
Cement Mixing
-
Removal
of Temporary Seawall
-
Vertical
Band Drains
-
Installations
of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
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
|
16 sessions
|
1-hour TSP monitoring
|
16
sessions
|
Noise monitoring
|
13
sessions
|
Impact water quality monitoring
|
40 sessions
|
Impact dolphin monitoring
|
6 surveys
|
Joint
Environmental site inspection
|
13 sessions
|
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Air
Quality
One (1) Limit Level Exceedance of 24hr-TSP
was recorded at AMS2 on 10 August 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract. No 1hr-TSP was recorded in
the reporting period.
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
Two (2) Action Level Exceedances of suspend
solids were recorded at IS5 and IS(Mf)6 during flood tide on 17 July 2015, the
exceedances were 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. 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, 3 July 2015,
an air quality complaint has been received on 11 June 2015 by HyD via complaint
hotline 1823. The complainant complained that sand and dust pollution near
Richland Garden, 138 Wu Chui Road, Tuen Mun, caused by sand
delivery barges. After investigation, there is no adequate information to
conclude the observed impact is related to this Contract.
As informed by ER of this Contract on 13
July 2015, EPD referred a noise related complaint to this Contract on 13 July
2015. The complainant complained noise came from BCF site near HK Skycity
Marriott Hotel during nighttime period of the past 10 days which involves
excavation with a grab dredger, transfer of excavated material using a derrick
barge and a tug boat, and backfilling with a pelican barge. Based on EPD¡¦s
record, the above activities are covered by CNP no. GW-RS0503-15. After
investigation, the construction activities carried out during restricted hour
between 1- 13 July 2015 were considered complied with CNP conditions (no.
GW-RS0503-15).
As
informed by the Contractor on 30 July, Home Affairs Department referred a
complaint to Project team of this Contract on 29 July 2015. The complaint
involved Mr. Chan and Mr. Tang, Resident Representatives of Tong Fuk
Village who complained significant sand loss of Tong Fuk Beach, particularly
after typhoon when the beach was hit by strong waves; this exposed the rocks at
the beach. The complainant enquired whether the sand loss is related to sand
extraction for construction of airport and reclamation works of HZMB artificial
island. After investigation, the complaint is considered as non-Contract
related.
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 Contract¡¨) 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).
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 Contract 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), January 2015 (EP-353/2009/H) and July 2015
(EP-353/2009/I). 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 17 July 2015 (EP-353/2009/I) and 13
March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall Reclamation only).
1.1.5 A
Contract Specific EM&A Manual, which included all Contract-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 Contract¡¦s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the Contract).
1.1.7 China
Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor
to undertake the construction work of the Contract.
1.1.8 Ramboll
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 Contract for carrying out the EM&A works.
1.1.10 The
construction phase of the Contract under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012
and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2016.
1.1.11 According
to the Contract 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 Contract
commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2
Scope
of Report
1.2.1 This
is the fourteenth 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 Contract from 1 June 2015 to 31 August 2015.
1.3.1 The
Contract 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
|
Paul Appleton
|
3698 5889
|
2698 5999
|
IEC / ENPO
(Ramboll 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
|
Louie Chan
|
36932254
|
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 ¡V Connecting Arcs
-
Cellular
structure ¡V Capping Beams
-
Cellular
structure ¡V Backfill
-
Conforming
sloping seawalls ¡V Geo-textile
-
Maintenance
of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of HKIA
-
Rubble
Mound Seawall
-
Rock
fill
Land-base
-
Earthwork
fill
-
Jet
grout columns works
-
Surcharge
removal & laying
-
Deep
Cement Mixing
-
Removal
of Temporary Seawall
-
Vertical
Band Drains
-
Installations
of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
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 Contract is shown in Appendix B.
1.4.4 The
general layout plan of the Contract 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
Contract 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 Contract 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
Contract 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 Contract Specific
EM&A Manual. However, for monitoring location NMS3 (Ho Yu College), as
proposed in the Contract 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 Contract 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 Contract/
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
Contract 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/I 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 Contract 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 (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.
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 Contract, 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.
3.1.6 Due
to malfunction of High Volume Sampler equipment located at monitoring station
AMS3B, the 24hr TSP monitoring need to be rescheduled from 1 June 2015 16:00pm
¡V 2 June 2015 16:00pm to 2 June 2015 13:30 pm ¡V 3 June 2015 13:30
pm.
Table
3.1 Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr
& 24-hr TSP Concentration
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
No. of monitoring events
|
June 15
|
July 15
|
August 15
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
AMS3B
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
AMS7A
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
AMS3B
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
AMS7A
|
6
|
5
|
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
|
June 15
|
July 15
|
August 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
|
1
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
AMS7A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3.1.7 One
(1) Limit Level Exceedance of 24hr-TSP with a reading of 270mg/m3
was recorded at AMS2 on 10 August 2015.
3.1.7.1
According to information provided by the
Contractor during the monitoring period, no changes of major works in the
construction site of this Contract since box-culvert installation had been
commenced in July 2015.
3.1.7.2
Functional checking on HVS at AMS2 was done. Air
flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during the 24-hr TSP
sampling at AMS2. The filter paper was re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS
laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.7.3
The 1-hr TSP values recorded at AMS2 on 10
August 15, were 81£gg/m3, 80£gg/m3 and 81£gg/m3 respectively. All measured values
are well below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.7.4
The measured 24-hr TSP values recorded at AMS7A
(which is located closer to active works than AMS2) on 10 August 15 was
29£gg/m3, which was below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.7.5
Site inspection for box-culvert installation at
Portion D was jointly conducted by ET, Contractor and RSS on 6 August 2015, no
fugitive dust was observed at Portion D during the joint site inspection on 6
August 2015.
3.1.7.6
Box-culvert being installed at Portion D which
is relatively far away from monitoring station AMS2 where the limit exceedance
of 24-hr TSP was recorded. As refer to the wind direction data collected at
Chek Lap Kok by Hong Kong Observatory during the monitoring period on 10 and 11
August 2015 (also see attached), Southwestern winds were prevailing during the
monitoring period. Construction works carried out by this Contract are unlikely
to cause dust exceedance at AMS2 under the abovementioned prevailing wind
directions. (Also see below layout map for reference.)
3.1.7.7 In
addition, no fugitive dust was expected to be generated in the process of
box-culvert installation, as such, works activities from this Contract is
unlikely to contribute to the recorded 24hr-TSP limit level exceedance.
3.1.7.8 The
latest available checking record shows that plant engine is operated by ULSD.
3.1.7.9 With
reference to the watering record, watering was provided 8 times per day on site
from 8 to 14 August 2015.
3.1.7.10 As
such, the dust exceedance was therefore considered not to be due to works of
this Contract
3.1.7.11 The
Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing dust mitigation
measures and the Contractor was reminded ensure to undertake watering at least
8 times per day on all exposed soil within the Contract site and associated
work areas throughout the construction phase.
3.1.7.12 The
event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.
3.1.7.13 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 June, July and
August 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 Contract and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.5 The
number of impact noise monitoring events and exceedances are summarized in
Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 respectively.
Table 3.3 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise
Monitoring
Parameter
|
Location
|
No.
of monitoring events
|
June 15
|
July 15
|
August 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
|
June 15
|
July 15
|
August 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.
3.3.2 The
scheduled water quality monitoring at mid ebb on 10 July 2015 was
cancelled due to Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal no. 3
or above was hoisted 3 hours before the commencement of scheduled water quality
monitoring.
Table 3.5 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances
in June 2015 ¡V August 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
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
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
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
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
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
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 the two (2) Action Level Exceedances of
suspended solids were recorded at IS5 and IS(Mf)6 during flood tide on 17 July
2015, the exceedances were 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.
3.3.4.1 Below layout map shows no marine work was
conducted at south and southwestern part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during
flood tide on 17 July 2015:
3.3.4.2 Exceedances recorded at IS5 and IS(Mf)6
during flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of
the Contract because:
3.3.4.3 Attached layout map shows no marine work was
conducted at south and southwestern part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during
flood tide on 17 July 2015, therefore it is unlikely that the SS exceedances
recorded at IS5 and IS(Mf)6 during flood tide are caused by HKBCF Reclamation
Works.
3.3.4.4
Monitoring
stations IS7 and IS(Mf)9 are located relatively closer to HKBCF Reclamation
Works than monitoring station IS(Mf)6 and IS5. However, all suspended solid
results recorded at IS7 and IS(Mf)9 were lower than the action and limit level,
as such, the action level exceedances of SS recorded at IS(Mf)6 and IS5 are
unlikely attributed to HKBCF Reclamation Works.
3.3.4.5
In
addition, turbidity level recorded at IS5, IS(Mf)6, IS7 and IS(Mf)9 were below
the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area
near IS5 and IS(Mf)6 was not
adversely affected.
3.3.4.6
With
reference to the silt curtain checking record of 17 July 2015, defects such as
disconnection of the silt curtain was not observed at south and southwestern
part of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the IS5 and IS(Mf)6.
3.3.4.7
The
exceedances are likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS5 and IS(Mf)6.
3.3.4.8
After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.4.9
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 Contract related, as
such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.4.10Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.4.11Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.5 The graphical plots of the trends of the
monitoring results are provided in Appendix G. No specific trend of the
monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution source was noted.
3.3.6 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 June 2015 ¡V August 2015
Number
of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
Survey
Distance Travelled under Favourable On- Effort Condition
|
644.6km
|
Number
of Sightings
|
13
sightings (7 sightings are ¡¨on effort¡¨ (which are all under favourable
condition), 6 ¡§sightings are opportunistic¡¨)
|
Number
of dolphin individual sighted
|
43
individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
Dolphin
Encounter Rate#
|
NEL:
0
NWL:
1.7
|
Dolphin
Group Size
|
Average
of NEL: 0
Average
of NWL: 3.3
Varied
from 1-9 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. re
3.4.7
Coordinates
for transect lines 1,
2, 7, 8,
9 and 11
have been proposed by ET on 19 July 2015 ,
verified by IEC on 4 August 2015 and approved by
EPD on 19 August. For this Contract HY/2010/02,
the approved lines were travelled since 24 and 25 August 2015.
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
Contract. 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 Dust
was observed when vehicle passes through access roads at portion C2c and E2 and when vehicle passed through
road at Portion C1a and Portion D; fugitive dust was observed when vehicle was
drove pass portion C2c and road at Portion B, E2 and during rock filling;
fugitive dust was observed at northeastern part of the site and at northeastern
part of the site. the Contractor
was reminded to
provide sufficient dust control measures to
prevent generation of fugitive dust. The Contractor
provided watering or other preventative measures to prevent generation of fugitive
dust. (Closed)
3.5.4 Exposed soil was
observed at Portion D,
the Contractor was reminded to
provide sufficient measures
to prevent site runoff of turbid water to the sea
or to area which is
outside the site boundary. (Reminder)
3.5.5 Dark
smoke emission from plant/equipment was observed at Portion D and C1a; from
pelican barge was observed at Portion C2b and emitted from excavator was
observed at Portion D, the Contractor was reminded to ensure dark smoke
emission from plant/equipment should be avoided. The Contractor prevented dark
smoke emission of plant/equipment. (Closed)
3.5.6 Watering
was observed during site walk, the Contractor was reminded to continue to
provide sufficient dust control measures and ensure generation of fugitive dust
is prevented. (Reminder)
3.5.7 Rock
material was observed dry; the Contractor was reminded to moisten to prevent
generation of fugitive dust during operation. The Contractor provided dust
control measure on barge. (Closed)
Noise
3.5.8 The
panel of the air compressor at Portion C2c was observed open during operation.
The Contractor was reminded to keep all flaps and/or panels closed during
operation. The Contractor subsequently closed the panels. (Closed)
Water Quality
3.5.9 Defect
on part of the pipe for transferring DCM material was observed on barge (¤ÑÂ@3). The
Contractor was reminded to ensure all pipes in a good condition and provide
sandbags along the edge of the barge in order to prevent such materials from
entering nearby water (Closed)
3.5.10 Tipping
of rock material to the sea was observed at Portion D, the Contractor was
reminded to keep the tipping point as low as possible. (Reminder)
3.5.11 Insufficient
sand bags was observed on idle grout production facilities, the Contractor was
reminded to provide enough sand bags before operation of the grout production
facilities to prevent potential runoff. (Reminder)
Chemical and Waste Management
3.5.12 A
generator was placed on ground without provision of drip tray on barge (¤ÑÂ@ 3), chemical
containers were placed on bare ground without provision of drip tray at Portion
C2C.. The Contractor was reminded
to provide the generator with drip tray to retain oil leakage, if any. The
Contractor removed the generator on barge on barge (¤ÑÂ@3). (Closed)
3.5.13 Oil
drum was observed outside drip tray at Portion C1 and on barge Wing Hop Lee,
were observed without drip tray at workshop area; oil drums were observed
without drip tray on barge. The
Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measure such as drip tray to oil
drum. The Contractor provided drip tray to oil drums. (Closed)
3.5.14 Idle
air compressors were observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to
provide trip tray to air compressor before use of air compressor. (Reminder)
3.5.15 General
refuse and bags of general refuse were observed on land area of Portion D and
C1a; was observed at entrance area of workshop at portion C1a and C2c.. The
Contractor was reminded to
regularly clear the general refuse and
provide rubbish bin
with cover/lid. The Contractor cleared the general refuse on land area
of Portion D and C1a. (Closed)
3.5.16 Water
was observed inside drip tray at workshop area, the Contractor was reminded to
clear the water accumulated inside drip tray to prevent runoff. The Contractor
subsequently cleared the water accumulated in the drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.17 Oil
stain was observed on ground at workshop area; the Contractor was reminded to
clean the oil stain and disposed them of as chemical waste, subsequently, the
Contractor cleared the oil stain and disposed them of as chemical waste.
(Closed)
3.5.18 Floating
debris on water surface at Portion D was observed. The Contractor was reminded
to remove the debris on sea regularly. The Contractor removed the debris on
sea. (Closed)
3.5.19 Temporary
waste storage or rubbish bin was not provided on land area of Portion B beside
Portion E2. To keep the site clean and tidy, the Contractor was reminded to
provide rubbish bin with cover/lid to works area. (Reminder)
3.5.20 It
was observed that liquid was accumulated inside drip tray, the Contractor was
reminded to regularly clear the water accumulated inside drip tray to prevent
potential runoff. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation and
cleared the water accumulated inside drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.21 It
was observed that sand was loaded inside drip tray. The Contractor was reminded
to clear the sand inside drip tray. (Pending for Contractor¡¦s rectification)
3.5.22 A
deformed drip tray was observed on site. The Contractor was reminded to provide
drip tray which can effectively contain potential leakage of oil. (Pending for
Contractor¡¦s rectification)
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.5.23
No relevant adverse impact was observed in the
reporting month.
Others
3.5.24 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 Contract.
Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection
and sorting.
4.1.2
As
advised by the Contractor, 522,025.4m3 of fill were imported for the
Contract use in the reporting period. 15kg of metal, 979kg of paper/cardboard
packaging, 5,122kg plastics, and 169m3 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. As informed by the Contractor, a precast box culvert segment
was delivered to Portion D on 10 Aug 2015, 22 Aug 2015 and 25 Aug 2015, the
northwestern part of the perimeter silt curtain was temporarily opened for the
delivery. Dolphin Exclusion Zone was implemented accordingly.
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 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 Contract site and associated works
areas throughout the construction phase.
5.1.7 As
informed by the Contractor, an area of Portion B has been handed over to other
Contract and the perimeter silt curtain near this area of Portion B has been
rearranged on 31 July 2015 for berthing another Contractor¡¦s vessels (which do
not belong to this Contract). IEC/ENPO was informed on 5 Aug 2015 immediately
after ET¡¦s review. IEC/ENPO provided further comments on 1 September 2015, ET
responded 2 September 2015 with notification letter ref.:60249820/rmky15090201.
IEC/ENPO expressed no further comment via letter ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_03351L.15
on 8 September 2015 for the removal of section of perimeter silt curtain near
Portion B of HKBCF.
5.1.8 IEC/ENPO
notified ET via email on 22 June 2015 that silt plume was observed being
dispersed from Portion E1 to the open waters outside the silt curtain for
the HZMB HKBCF Contract maintained by Contract No. HY/2010/02 at about
3:00 pm on 20 June 2015. For location of sea area near Portion E1 of the
construction site, also see layout map below:
5.1.8.1 Investigation
actions taken:
- Tide level, construction activities and implementation
of mitigation measures were reviewed.
- Site inspection was conducted on 22 and 25
June 2015 to inspect sea area Portion E1 of HKBCF Reclamation Works.
- Available Impact Water Quality Monitoring
(IWQM) data obtained 19 and 22 June 2015 were reviewed (refer to monitoring
data attached). Available Impact Water Quality Monitoring (IWQM) data obtained
19 and 22 June 2015 were reviewed (refer to monitoring data attached).
5.1.8.2 Review
of Contractor¡¦s silt curtain:
-
Contractor¡¦s
silt curtain checking record of 19 and 22 June 2015 were reviewed. Defects such
as disconnection or missing parts of silt curtain was not observed at the
perimeter silt curtain located northeast of the HKBCF reclamation works.
5.1.8.3 During
the site inspection conducted on 22 and 25 June 2015, Defects such as
disconnection or missing parts of silt curtain was not observed at the
perimeter silt curtain located northeast of the HKBCF reclamation works.
5.1.8.4 Photo
records taken on 22 and 25 June 2015 shows that the sea condition at sea area
near the northeast side of the HKBCF Reclamation Works and no silt plume was
observed spreading out from Portion E1 of the construction site through the
silt curtain.
5.1.8.6 As
show by attached layout map, vessel °_¤Cfor cellular structure
installation was located at near arc-cell nos.079-080 of Portion E1 of
HKBCF reclamation works on 20 June 2015. Site record provided by the Contractor
shows that vessel °_¤Cwas under maintenance between 20-22 June 2015 due to lifting
crane was broken down, therefore both vessel °_¤C & arc
cell installation works was basically idled.
5.1.8.7 Information
obtained from Hong Kong Observatory shows that the tide level was approximately
1.3 meter at 15:00 at Chek Lap Kok on 20 June 2015. However, vessel°_¤Cwas a
non-self-propelled vessel and no tug boat was observed at about 15:00 as shown
by the photo taken on 20 June 2015 (Also refer to attached photo record for
reference). In addition, for the marine working vessels anchored near the left
side of °_¤C, no working activity was found according to Contractor¡¦s
site daily record of 20 June 2015. The two boats located at far left on the
photo, near silt plume, are unlikely belong to this Contract. The vessel in the
middle of the photo, near silt plume, is a flattop barge waiting for or
commencement of the box culvert work at Portion D, therefore it is likely that
the flattop barge was idle at about 15:00 on 20 June 2015. As such, there was
no adequate information to indicate that the observed silt plume was generated
by active works or due to inadequate clearance maintained between vessels of
this Contract and the sea bed during navigation.
5.1.8.8 Furthermore,
no observation of silt plume was reported to this Contract after 1500 on 20
June 2015, it is likely that the silt plume disappeared
shortly after it was observed on 20 June 2015.
5.1.8.9 Site
inspection conducted on 22 and 25 June 2015:
5.1.8.10 No
silt plume around the E1 of HKBCF reclamation works were observed during the
site inspection conducted on 22 and 25 June 2015. (Also refer to attached photo
record for reference.)
5.1.8.11 Review
of Suspended Solids (SS) level and turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS17,
IS(Mf)16 and SR7 on 19 and 22 June 2015:
5.1.8.12 Available
water quality monitoring data shows that data recorded on 19 and 22 June 2015
at monitoring station close the observed silt plume i.e. IS(Mf)11, IS17,
IS(Mf)16 and SR7 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the
water quality at sea area close to portion E1 was not adversely affected on 19
and 22 June 2015.
5.1.8.13 There
were no silt plume observed on 22 and 25 June 2015 during site inspection and
no deterioration of water quality were recorded on 19 and 22 June 2015, as
such, there is no adequate information which indicates that the silt plume
observed on 20 June 2015 was lasting and continuous.
5.1.8.14 Nevertheless,
the Contractor was reminded to regularly check the performance of the silt
curtain and ensure swift provision of maintenance to the perimeter silt
curtains once defects of the perimeter silt curtain were observed.
5.1.8.15 Photo
record taken on 20 June 2015 at about 15:00 shows that silt plume was observed
near the silt curtain for HZMB HKBCF Contract maintained by Contract No.
HY/2010/02.
5.1.8.16 Photo
record taken on 22 June 2015 shows that no silt plume around Portion E1 of
HKBCF reclamation works were observed during the site inspection conducted on
22 June 2015.
5.1.8.17 Photo
record taken on 25 June 2015 shows that no silt plume around Portion E1 of
HKBCF reclamation works were observed during the site inspection conducted on
25 June 2015.
5.1.9 Oil
spillage incident was observed at Sea area near Cell No. 78 on 23 June 2015
(also refer to attached layout map).
5.1.9.1
Detail of the oil spill and Contractor¡¦s actions
taken in response to the spill incident have been reviewed and summarised as
follow:
-
The oil on sea was observed by the Contractor
and RSS on 23 June 2015.
-
The Contractor organised manpower to identify
the spill source, but the source of oil spill was not identified.
-
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.
-
Pads and Pillow of the Spill Kit were applied to
absorb and remove the spillage.
5.1.9.2 Oil
observed on sea area near Cell No. 78 on 23 June 2015 at 09:45 a.m. on 23 June
2015 by Contractor and RSS. The following actions was taken by the Contractor:
5.1.9.3 The
Contractor organized manpower to identify the spill source, the vessel (¤T¯è°_ 7) located
close to the oil spill was inspected but the source of oil spill was not
identified.
5.1.9.4 The
oil spill was identified during join site inspection conducted by the
Contractor and RSS on 23 June 2015 as discrete, non-continuous source with
approximately 10m2 spread. Also refer to photo below:
5.1.9.5 The
oil spill was identified during join site inspection conducted by the
Contractor and RSS on 23 June 2015 as discrete, non-continuous source with
approximately 10m2 spread. The below photo shows that the Contractor deployed
absorption booms to remove the floating oil from water.
5.1.9.6 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)
5.1.9.7
The oil stain observed was limited at nearby
Northeastern sea area within the silt curtain.
5.1.9.8
Photo record shows that oil on sea was no longer
on sea area near Cell No. 78. (Also refer to photo record below)
5.1.9.9 Monitoring
stations IS10, IS(Mf)11, SR7 and IS17 are the monitoring stations close to
location of observed oil spill (also refer to attached layout map). Available Impact water quality
monitoring data record of IS10, IS(Mf)11, SR7 and IS17 have been reviewed.
There is no water quality exceedance recorded at IS10, IS(Mf)11, SR7 and IS17
on 24 June 2015.
5.1.9.10
The Contractor was reminded to enhance
environmental toolbox talk on chemical waste handling and to continue to follow
the spill response plan when oil is observed on sea.
5.1.9.11
As informed by the Contractor, an area of
Portion B has been handed over to other Contract and the perimeter silt curtain
near this area of Portion B has been rearranged on 31 July 2015 for berthing
another Contractor¡¦s vessels (which do not belong to this Contract). IEC/ENPO
was informed on 5 Aug 2015 immediately after ET¡¦s review. IEC/ENPO provided
further comments on 1 September 2015, ET responded 2 September 2015 with
notification letter ref.:60249820/rmky15090201. IEC/ENPO expressed no further
comment via letter ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_03351L.15 on 8 September 2015 for the
removal of section of perimeter silt curtain near Portion B of HKBCF.
6.1.1 One
(1) Limit Level Exceedance of 24hr-TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 10 August 2015.
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract. All 1-Hour TSP results were below the
Action and Limit Level in the reporting period.
6.1.2 For
construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in
the reporting period.
6.1.3 Two
(2) Action Level Exceedances of suspend solids were recorded at IS5 and IS(Mf)6
during flood tide on 17 July 2015, the exceedances were 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. 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, 3 July 2015, an air quality complaint was received
on 11 June 2015 by HyD via complaint hotline 1823. The complainant complained
that sand and dust pollution near Richland Garden, 138 Wu Chui
Road, Tuen Mun, caused by sand delivery barges. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to this
Contract.
7.1.2.1 Investigation Actions:
-
Reviewed 1-hour TSP and 24-hours TSP monitoring
data within the complaint period 2- 29 June 2015.
-
Site inspections were conducted jointly with RSS,
IEC and the Contractor on 11 June 2015 and jointly with RSS and the Contractor
on 4, 18 and 25 June 2015.
-
Reviewed information provided by the Contractor.
7.1.2.2
Investigation
findings:
-
There
is no sufficient information provided by the complainant to make sure that the
concerned barges are related to this Contract.
-
Date of
the observed impact was not specified by the complainant so the impact air
quality monitoring (IAQM) results between 2- 29 June 2015 for monitoring
stations close to the concerned area ¡V AQMS1, ASR1, ASR5, ASR6 and ASR10 have
been reviewed and there was no action/limit level exceedance of 1-hour TSP or
24-hour TSP of impact air quality monitoring results recorded at AQMS1, ASR1,
ASR5, ASR6 and ASR10 between 2- 29 June 2015.
-
In
addition, site inspections were conducted jointly with RSS, IEC and the
Contractor on 11 June 2015 and jointly with RSS and the Contractor on 4, 18 and
25 June 2015, but no generation of fugitive dust was observed to be caused by
barges loaded with filling material.
-
As
informed by the Contract, no sand barge of this Contract was berthed near Tuen
Mun area in June 2015.
7.1.2.3
After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact
is related to this Contract.
7.1.2.4
The
Contractor was advised to ensure to continue the provision of fugitive dust
mitigation measures to barges loaded with filling material such as watering to
sand filling material on sand barges, as necessary.
7.1.3 As
informed by ER of this Contract on 13 July 2015, EPD referred a noise related
complaint to this Contract on 13 July 2015, details as follows:
-
A
complainant complained that serious noise nuisance was caused by loading and
unloading of construction material of barges at construction site of HZMB
artificial island near Tung Chung development pier during late night period.
The complainant requested follow-up and reply.
-
A
complainant left message at EPD¡¦s complaint hotline on 11 July 2015 and
complained that construction noise was generated even after 23:00 at night from
the artificial island outside Seaview Crescent, this situation has last over 10
days and requested follow-up.
7.1.3.1
As
further informed by ENPO which further checked with EPD regarding the captioned
complaint, with respect to the further information provided by EPD, two
complaints could be referred as the same incident. Further complaint detail was
given by EPD to Project team of this Contract on 15 July 2015 as follows:
-
The
complainant complained noise came from BCF site near HK Skycity Marriott Hotel
during nighttime period of the past 10 days which involves excavation with a
grab dredger, transfer of excavated material using a derrick barge and a tug
boat, and backfilling with a pelican barge. Based on EPD¡¦s record, the above
activities are covered by CNP no. GW-RS0503-15.
7.1.3.2 Investigation Actions:
-
Review
of valid CNP no. GW-RS0503-15.
-
Review
of Contractor¡¦s construction activities conducted at BCF site near HK Skycity
Marriott Hotel, Zone D of CNP No.GW-RS0503-15, between 23:00 till 07:00 of next
day on 1 - 13 July 2015
-
Review
of Contractor compliance checking record.
7.1.3.3 Investigation and Findings:
-
After
review of the valid CNP no. GW-RS0503-15 for this Contract, operation of a grab
dredger, a derrick barge, a tug boat, and pelican barge during nighttime period
is covered by CNP no. GW-RS0503-15 between 1- 13 July 2015.
-
With
referred to the site dairy summary records provided by the Contractor, no more
than 1 vessel (dredger or derrick) operated at the same time between 23:00 till
07:00 of next day on 1 - 13 July 2015 at Zone D of CNP No.GW-RS0503-15 (please see
attached Plan no.1 for respective zones). This shows that the construction
activities carried out after 23:00 from 01 July to 13 July 2015 at Zone D
complied with the conditions of a valid CNP No.GW-RS0503-15. Construction
activities conducted between 23:00 till 07:00 of next day on 1 - 13 July 2015
at Zone D of CNP No.GW-RS0503-15 were summarised on layout maps attached.
-
Compliance
checking records of 1- 13 July 2015 provided by the Contractor were reviewed
and record shows that construction works were carried out in compliance with
the CNP no. GW-RS0503-15 in effect.
-
Further
informed by the Contractor on 15 July 2015 EPD spot-checked the construction
site of this Contract in the afternoon of 15 July 2015 and on 16 July 2015, EPD
spot-checked the construction site of this Contract from 23:35 15 July 2015 to
01:55 16 July 2015. No adverse comments or non-conformance was observed by the
EPD on both visits. The Contractor was reminded by EPD to strictly follow with
all terms and conditions of the CNP no. GW-RS0503-15.
-
As a
result, the construction activities carried out during restricted hour between
1- 13 July 2015 were considered complied with conditions CNP no. GW-RS0503-15.
7.1.3.4 The Contractor was reminded to continue to
strictly follow with all terms and conditions of a valid CNP
7.1.4 As informed by the Contractor on 30 July
2015, Home Affairs Department referred a complaint to Project team of this
Contract on 29 July 2015. The complaint involved Mr. Chan and Mr. Tang,
Resident Representatives of Tong Fuk Village who complained significant
sand loss of Tong Fuk Beach, particularly after typhoon when the beach was hit
by strong waves; this exposed the rocks at the beach. The complainant enquired
whether the sand loss is related to sand extraction for construction of airport
and reclamation works of HZMB artificial island.
7.1.4.1 Investigation action:
-
Review
Contractor¡¦s source of sand filling material.
7.1.4.2 Investigation result:
-
The
Contractor of HKBCF Reclamation Works confirmed that this Contract did not have
any sand filling material that was sourced from the captioned area. As such, it
is unlikely that the reported sand loss is attributed to construction
activities of this Contract.
7.1.4.3 The complaint is considered as non-Contract
related.
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
Contract. With implementation of recommended effective environmental mitigation
measures, the Contract¡¦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
Contract. Also, the EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental
impacts from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation
of mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the
improvement of the programme.
8.3
Conclusions
8.3.1 The
construction phase and EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 12 March
2012.
8.3.2 One
(1) Limit Level Exceedance of 24hr-TSP was recorded at AMS2 on 10 August 2015.
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract. All 1-Hour TSP results were below the
Action and Limit Level in the reporting period.
8.3.3 For
construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in
the reporting period.
8.3.4 Two
(2) Action Level Exceedances of suspend solids were recorded at IS5 and IS(Mf)6
during flood tide on 17 July 2015, the exceedances were 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. 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 Due
to malfunction of High Volume Sampler equipment located at monitoring station
AMS3B, the 24hr TSP monitoring need to be rescheduled from 1 June 2015 16:00pm
¡V 2 June 2015 16:00pm to 2 June 2015 13:30 pm ¡V 3 June 2015 13:30
pm.
8.3.7 The
scheduled water quality monitoring at mid ebb on 10 July 2015 was
cancelled due to Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal no. 3
or above was hoisted 3 hours before the commencement of scheduled water quality
monitoring.
8.3.8 As
informed by the Contractor, an area of Portion B has been handed over to other
Contract and the perimeter silt curtain near this area of Portion B has been
rearranged on 31 July 2015 for berthing another Contractor¡¦s vessels (which do
not belong to this Contract). IEC/ENPO was informed on 5 Aug 2015 immediately
after ET¡¦s review. IEC/ENPO provided further comments on 1 September 2015, ET
responded 2 September 2015 with notification letter ref.:60249820/rmky15090201.
IEC/ENPO expressed no further comment via letter ref.: HYDHZMBEEM00_0_03351L.15
on 8 September 2015 for the removal of section of perimeter silt curtain near
Portion B of HKBCF.
8.3.9 Environmental
site inspection was carried out thirteen times in the reporting quarter.
Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the
deficiencies identified during the site audits.
8.3.10 As
informed by the Contractor, 3 July 2015, an air quality complaint has been
received on 11 June 2015 by HyD via complaint hotline 1823. The complainant
complained that sand and dust pollution near Richland Garden, 138 Wu
Chui Road, Tuen Mun, caused by sand delivery barges. After investigation,
there is no adequate information to conclude the observed impact is related to
this Contract.
8.3.11 As
informed by ER of this Contract on 13 July 2015, EPD referred a noise related
complaint to this Contract on 13 July 2015. The complainant complained noise
came from BCF site near HK Skycity Marriott Hotel during nighttime period of
the past 10 days which involves excavation with a grab dredger, transfer of
excavated material using a derrick barge and a tug boat, and backfilling with a
pelican barge. Based on EPD¡¦s record, the above activities are covered by CNP
no. GW-RS0503-15. After investigation, the construction activities carried out
during restricted hour between 1- 13 July 2015 were considered complied with
CNP conditions (no. GW-RS0503-15).
8.3.12 As
informed by the Contractor on 30 July, Home Affairs Department referred a
complaint to Project team of this Contract on 29 July 2015. The complaint
involved Mr. Chan and Mr. Tang, Resident Representatives of Tong Fuk
Village who complained significant sand loss of Tong Fuk Beach, particularly
after typhoon when the beach was hit by strong waves; this exposed the rocks at
the beach. The complainant enquired whether the sand loss is related to sand
extraction for construction of airport and reclamation works of HZMB artificial
island. After investigation, the complaint is considered as non-Contract
related.
8.3.13 Notification
of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting quarter.
8.3.14 IEC/ENPO
notified ET via email on 22 June 2015 that silt plume was observed being
dispersed from Portion E1 to the open waters outside the silt curtain for
the HZMB HKBCF Contract maintained by Contract No. HY/2010/02 at about
3:00 pm on 20 June 2015. After investigation, no adequate information which
indicates that the silt plume observed on 20 June 2015 was lasting and
continuous.
8.3.15 Oil
spillage incident was observed at Sea area near Cell No. 78 on 23 June 2015.
Following the spill response plan ET, IEC and the RSS were informed of the
incident by the Contractor.
8.3.16 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.
8.3.17 The
recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively minimize the
potential environmental impacts from the Contract. 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.
8.3.18 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.