Contract
No. HY/2010/02 ¡V Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities ¡V Reclamation Works (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 Project, i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 11
April 2016 (EP-353/2009/K) 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
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 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 Contract 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 2017. 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 September 2015 and 30 November
2015. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the reporting quarter
were:-
Marine-base
-
Rock fill
-
Marine fill
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of
HKIA
-
Rubble Mound Seawall
Land-base
-
Earthwork fill
-
Surcharge removal & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Removal of Temporary Seawall
-
Vertical Band Drains
-
Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation Works
-
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
quarter.
Breaches of Action and
Limit Levels for Noise
For construction noise, no
exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting quarter.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
For water quality, one (1) Action
Level Exceedance of SS at SR7 during flood tide was recorded on 30 September
2015. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedance is related to this Contract. No Action and Limit Level
exceedance was recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting month
September 2015; one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR6 during flood tide
was recorded on 2 October 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded exceedance is related to this Contract. No
Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded on other monitoring date in the
reporting month October 2015; one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9
during flood tide was recorded on 6 Nov 2015. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedance is related to this
Contract. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded on other monitoring
date in the reporting month November 2015.
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.
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
A complainant who lives at 1 Sky
City Road East, Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, Hong Kong International
Airport, Lantau, Hong Kong complained to EPD¡¦s hotline on 23 October
2015 that loud noise were generated by HZMB artificial island construction site
of China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd adjacent to
the premises approximately between 10pm to 12am, during recent weekdays and
Saturday. In addition, loud noise and dark smoke were noted on the construction
site of HZMB artificial island during Sunday and public holiday. The
complainant questioned whether the Contractor was allowed to conduct
construction work during Sunday and public holiday. The complaint was referred
by EPD to the project team of Contract No. HY/2010/02 to
follow up on 23 October 2015. After investigation, with referred to the
available information, it is unable to determine whether the night time noise
complaint and the concerned dark smoke are 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 Works (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 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), January 2015 (EP-353/2009/H), July 2015
(EP-353/2009/I), February 2016
(EP-353/2009/J) and April 2016 (EP-353/2009/K). 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 11 April 2016
(EP-353/2009/K) 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 Contract, 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 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 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 Contract 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 2017.
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.
1.2.1 This is the fifteen 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 September 2015 to 30
November 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
|
Roger Marechal
(Effective
between 1 ¡V 15 September 2015)
|
3698 5700
|
2698 5999
|
Engineer¡¦s Representative (ER)
(Ove Arup & Partners Hong
Kong Limited)
|
Chief Resident Engineer
|
Paul Appleton
(Effective 16 September
2015 onward)
|
3698 5889
|
2698 5999
|
IEC / ENPO
(Ramboll
Environ Hong Kong Limited)
|
Independent Environmental Checker
|
Raymond Dai
|
3465 2888
|
3465 2899
|
Environmental Project Office Leader
|
Y. H. Hui
|
3547 2133
|
3465 2899
|
Contractor
(China Harbour Engineering Company Limited)
|
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
-
Rock fill
-
Marine fill
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of
HKIA
-
Rubble Mound Seawall
Land-base
-
Earthwork fill
-
Surcharge removal & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Removal of Temporary Seawall
-
Vertical Band Drains
-
Installations of Precast Culverts except sloping outfalls
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation Works
-
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 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 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 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/K 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 (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 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.
Table
3.1 Summary of
Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Concentration
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
No. of monitoring events
|
September 15
|
October 15
|
November 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
|
September 15
|
October 15
|
November 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 quarter.
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 September 2015, October 2015 and November 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
|
September 15
|
October 15
|
November 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
|
September 15
|
October 15
|
November 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.
Table 3.5 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances in September 2015 ¡V November 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
|
(1)
6
Nov 15
|
0
|
(1)
6
Nov 15
|
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
|
(1
)
2
Oct 2015
|
0
|
(1
)
2
Oct 2015
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1
)
30
Sept 2015
|
0
|
(1
)
30
Sept 2015
|
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
|
3
|
3
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.2 For water quality,
one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR7 during flood tide was recorded on
30 September 2015.
3.3.2.1
Layout map below shows that vessel activities were carried out at
Portion D by vessels during flood tide but no marine based construction work
was conducted at north part of the HKBCF reclamation works on 30 September
2015:
![](TOC_files/image006.jpg)
3.3.2.2
Exceedance recorded at SR7 during mid-flood tide is unlikely due to
marine based construction activities of the Project:
3.3.2.3
With reference to the silt curtain checking record of 30 September 2015,
defects such as missing segment or disconnection of the perimeter silt curtain
were not observed at north part of the perimeter silt curtain.
3.3.2.4
With referred to the attached layout map, no marine based construction
work was conducted at north part of the HKBCF reclamation works on 30 September
2015 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 during flood tide.
3.3.2.5
Photo record which shows the sea condition at north part of the HKBCF
reclamation works during flood tide on 30 September 2015.
![CIMG7227.JPG](TOC_files/image008.jpg)
3.3.2.6
Also, turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS10, IS17 and SR7 were 10.6(NTU),
14.5(NTU), 15.8(NTU) and 9.9(NTU) respectively; Suspended solids level recorded
at IS(Mf)11, IS10 and IS17 were 14.2 mg/L, 16 mg/L and 8.3 mg/L respectively,
which were all below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity
level at or near SR7 and Suspended Solids level near SR7 was not adversely
affected.
3.3.2.7
Impact water quality monitoring stataions IS(Mf)11, IS10 and IS17 are located relatively closer to the
construction site of HKBCF reclamation works but no IWQM exceedance was recorded
on 30 September 2015 during flood tide. This indicates that the SS exceedance
recorded at SR7 on 30 September 2015 during flood tide was unlikely due to
activities of HKBCF reclamation works.
3.3.2.8
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR7.
3.3.2.9
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedance is related to this Contract.
3.3.2.10
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.
3.3.2.11
The exceedences noted were of a localised nature and in the north of HKBCF (on 30 September
2015), the north of the Brothers Island, at NEL. Short duration local increased
sedimentation is not anticipated to affect the dolphins which may have occurred
in the western reached of NWL.
3.3.2.12
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.
3.3.2.13
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday
3.3.3
For water quality, one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR6 during
flood tide was recorded on 02 October 2015.
3.3.3.1
Layout map below shows that vessel activities were carried out out on 2 October 2015. One derrick/dredger was at Portion D
and one derrick/dredger was outside Portion E2 during flood tide on 2 October
2015.
![](TOC_files/image010.jpg)
3.3.3.2
Exceedance recorded at SR6 during mid-flood tide is unlikely due to
marine based construction activities of the Project:
3.3.3.3
With reference to the silt curtain checking record of 02 October 2015,
defects such as missing segment or disconnection of the perimeter silt curtain
were not observed at north part of the perimeter silt curtain.
3.3.3.4
With referred to the above layout map, no marine based construction work
was conducted at north part of the HKBCF reclamation works on 02 October 2015
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 during flood tide.
3.3.3.5
Photo record which shows the sea condition at north part of the HKBCF
reclamation works during flood tide on 02 October 2015
3.3.3.6
Monitoring Stations IS10, IS(Mf)16, IS(Mf)11, IS17 & SR5 and controal station CS(Mf)3 which are considered downstream
and/or closer to active works than Monitoring Station SR6. Since the Suspended
Solids values recorded at IS10, IS(Mf)11, SR5 and
CS(Mf)3 are all below the Action and Limit Level during same tide on the same
day. This indicates that the water quality at downstream of and/or closer to
active works were not adversely affected by active works. As such, it is
considered that the exceedance recorded at SR6 is not related to the Project.
3.3.3.7
The monitoring site SR6 is relatively far away from Portion D and E2
where works were carried out.
3.3.3.8
Turbidity level and suspended solids level recorded at CS(Mf)3 were 20.1
(NTU) and 29.4 mg/L respectively which were slightly higher than the turbidity
level (19.2 NTU) and suspended solids (24mg/L) level recorded at SR6. However,
turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS10, IS17, SR5 and IS(Mf)16 were
15.8(NTU), 16.2(NTU), 11.4(NTU), 19.5(NTU) and 15.7(NTU) respectively;
Suspended solids level recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS10, IS17, SR5 and IS(Mf)16 were
8.7 mg/L, 23.1 mg/L, 5.9 mg/L, 12.2 mg/L and 5.5 mg/L respectively, which were
all below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity and
suspended solids level at monitoring stations relatively closer to active works
than sensitive receiver station SR6 and control station CS(Mf)3
were not adversely affected.
3.3.3.9
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR6.
3.3.3.10 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.
3.3.3.11 Nevertheless, the Contractor was
reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to
carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.3.12 Maintenance work of the silt
curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and
public holiday.
3.3.4
For water quality, one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9 during flood tide was recorded on 6 November 2015.
3.3.4.1
Layout map below shows that
the construction activities conducted during flood tide on 6 November
2015, derrick lighter or dredger was working at north of HKBCF reclamation
works which was far away from where IS(Mf)9 is located, therefore the
construction activities was considered unlikely to cause the SS exceedances
recorded at IS(Mf)9 during mid-flood tide.
![](TOC_files/image014.jpg)
3.3.4.2
Exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)9 during mid-flood
tide is unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project:
3.3.4.3
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defects such as
disconnection of the silt curtain was not observed at south part of the
perimeter silt curtain which are close to the IS(Mf)9.
3.3.4.4
Furthermore, no filling activities was observed in progress at the sea
area south to HKBCF reclamation works 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 IS(Mf)9. Also refer to the attached photo record
taken at sea area located south of HKBCF reclamation works on 6 November 2015
for reference of sea condition on 6 November 2015, which shows that no silt
plume was observed.
3.3.4.5
Photo record which shows the sea condition at southern part of the HKBCF
reclamation works on 06 November 2015. No silt plume was observed.
3.3.4.6
The turbidity data obtained from monitoring station IS7 and IS(Mf)9, IS8 and IS(Mf)6 which located at/near the vicinity
of sea area at south of HKBCF reclamation works, did not exceed the action and
limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at/near IS(Mf)9
was not adversely affected.
3.3.4.7
As such, the exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity
of IS(Mf)9.
3.3.4.8
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.
3.3.4.9
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.4.10 Maintenance work of the silt
curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and
public holiday.
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 September 2015 ¡V November 2015
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable
On- Effort Condition
|
650.7km
|
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
|
36 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate#
|
NEL: 0
NWL: 1.7
|
Dolphin Group Size
|
Average of NEL: 0
Average of NWL: 2.8
Varied from 1-6 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.
3.5.1 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 The Contractor was reminded to continue to provide sufficient dust
control to prevent generation of fugitive dust. (Reminder)
3.5.4 Fugitive dust was observed when vehicle was drove pass the road,
during grout production process and during rock filling process. The Contractor
was reminded to provide sufficient dust control to prevent generation of
fugitive dust. The Contractor subsequently provided dust control measures to
the area. (Closed)
3.5.5 Dark
smoke
emission
was
observed
from plant/equipment of derrick barge and pelican barge and on at
Portion E1, the Contractor was advised to provide measures to avoid emission of
dark smoke. The Contractor subsequently provided measures to avoid emission of
dark smoke. (Closed)
Noise
3.5.6 No relevant adverse impact was observed in the reporting quarter.
Water Quality
3.5.7 A deformed drip tray was observed on site. The Contractor was
reminded to provide drip tray which can effectively contain potential leakage of
oil. The Contractor subsequently provided drip tray without defect. (Closed)
3.5.8 Gaps between vehicle accesses were observed on the landing barge
near Portion E1. The Contractor was reminded to provide measure to prevent
potential runoff on the landing barge. (Reminder)
3.5.9 Material was observed stockpiled on cells at Portion E1 and near
Portion C2a. The Contractor was reminded to provide preventative measures to
the works process to prevent runoff. The Contractor subsequently removed the
material from Portion E1. (Closed)
3.5.10 Delivery pipe of floating grout production facilities was observed
not fully enclosed. The Contractor was reminded to ensure full enclosure and
prevent any potential runoff. The Contractor subsequently provided full
enclosure to delivery pipes of the grout production facilities. (Closed)
3.5.11 Disconnection of secondary protective pipe was observed, the
Contractor was reminded provide effective measures to avoid any wastewater
discharged from the grouting production process or domestic sewage to
the sea. The Contractor subsequently provided maintenance to the disconnected
pipes. (Closed)
3.5.12 Pipes were observed at Portion E1, the Contractor was reminded to
provide preventive measures and avoid potential release of turbid water.
(Reminder)
3.5.13 The Contractor was reminded to provide preventive measures, such as
liner and bunding, for the stockpile of excavated
materials at Portion C2a and C2b. (Reminder)
3.5.14 Runoff was observed onsite and silt plume was observed by at the sea
area by the seawall near Portion C2a. The Contractor was advised to provide
control measures to prevent runoff. The Contractor subsequently provided
measures to prevent runoff. (Closed)
3.5.15 Turbid water was observed at Portion E1, the Contractor was reminded
to prevent runoff of turbid water. The Contractor subsequently provided
measures to prevent runoff of turbid water. (Closed)
3.5.16 Silt curtain was observed temporarily disconnected during
maintenance. The Contractor was reminded the silt curtain should be reinstated
after maintenance is completed. The Contractor subsequently collect
the silt curtain. (Reminder)
Chemical and Waste Management
3.5.17 The Contractor was reminded to remove the water mixture which
accumulated inside the drip trays at Portion C2a and dispose of as chemical
waste properly. The Contractor subsequently removed the water mixture inside
drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.18 It was observed that sand was loaded inside drip trays. The
Contractor was reminded to clear the sand inside drip tray. The Contractor
subsequently cleared the sand inside drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.19 It was observed that water and oil mixture accumulated inside drip
tray at Portion E2. The Contractor was reminded to clear the sand inside drip
tray. The Contractor subsequently cleared the water and oil mixture accumulated
inside drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.20 Bags of inert waste were observed on site, the Contractor was
reminded to collect and dispose them of properly and regularly. (Reminder)
3.5.21 General refuses were observed at Portion D and Portion E. The
Contractor was reminded to regular collect and dispose of the general refuses
on site to keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently collected
and removed the general refuses at Portion D. (Closed)
3.5.22 Oil drum were observed without drip tray on barge GD852, the
Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to oil drums. The oil drums were
subsequently removed by the Contractor. (Closed)
3.5.23 A generator was observed without drip tray, the Contractor was
reminded to provide drip tray to generator. The Contractor subsequently
provided drip tray to generator. (Closed)
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.5.24 No relevant adverse impact was observed in the reporting quarter.
Others
3.5.25 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, 142,892m3 of fill were imported
for the Project use in the reporting period. 672kg of paper/cardboard packaging
and 221m3 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 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. EPD replied on 24 September
2015 via memo (39) in Ax(1) to EP2/G/A/146 pt.8 and
reminded HyD that if grouting trial is undertaken, to
adhere to the VEP requirement and undertake the necessary.
5.1.7 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 quarter.
6.1.2 For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting quarter.
6.1.3 For water quality, one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR7
during flood tide was recorded on 30 September 2015. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedance is related to
this Contract. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded on other
monitoring date in the reporting month September 2015; one (1) Action Level
Exceedance of SS at SR6 during flood tide was recorded on 2 October 2015. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedance is related to this Contract. No Action and Limit Level exceedance
was recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting month October 2015; one
(1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9 during flood tide was recorded on
6 Nov 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude
the recorded exceedance is related to this Contract. No Action and Limit Level
exceedance was recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting month
November 2015.
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 A complainant who lives at 1 Sky City Road East, Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel, Hong Kong International Airport, Lantau, Hong
Kong complained to EPD¡¦s hotline on 23 October 2015 that loud noise were generated
by HZMB artificial island construction site of China Harbour
Engineering Company Ltd adjacent to the premises approximately between 10pm to
12am, during recent weekdays and Saturday. In addition, loud noise and dark
smoke were noted on the construction site of HZMB artificial island during
Sunday and public holiday. The complainant questioned whether the Contractor
was allowed to conduct construction work during Sunday and public holiday. The
complaint was referred by EPD to the project team of Contract No. HY/2010/02 to follow up on 23 October 2015. After
investigation, with referred to the available information, it is unable to
determine whether the night time noise complaint and the concerned dark smoke
are related to this Contract.
6.1.6 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 A complainant who lives at 1 Sky City Road East, Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel, Hong Kong International Airport, Lantau, Hong
Kong complained to EPD¡¦s hotline on 23 October 2015 that loud noise were
generated by HZMB artificial island construction site of China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd adjacent to the premises
approximately between 10pm to 12am, during recent weekdays and Saturday. In
addition, loud noise and dark smoke were noted on the construction site of HZMB
artificial island during Sunday and public holiday. The complainant questioned
whether the Contractor was allowed to conduct construction work during Sunday
and public holiday. The complaint was referred by EPD to the project team of
Contract No. HY/2010/02 to follow up on 23 October 2015.
7.1.2.1
Investigation Actions for part of the
complaint which is related to noise:
-
Relevant CNPs applicable and valid for this
Contract were reviewed.
-
CNP compliance checking record from 1 to 23
October 2015 provided by the Contractor has been reviewed; please see the
following for details of investigation results.
-
Although sufficient details of the noise
problem (such as exact date and location) were not provided by the complainant,
the construction activities conducted from 1- 23 October 2015 were checked.
7.1.2.2
Investigation and Findings for
part of the complaint which is related to noise:
-
For information such as i) CNP No.; ii) works
location specified under the CNP; iii) the numbers and types of PME allowed to
use under the CNP; iv) the working hours stated in the CNP, please refer to
copy of CNP#GW-RS1046-15 and CNP# GW-RS0536-15 which could be accessed online: https://epic.epd.gov.hk/eForm/cnp/download.jsp?lang=eng
-
Construction activities conducted between 1 ¡V 23 October 2015 were reviewed. It is noted that
deep cement mixing, box culvert works, removal of surcharge or installation of
Hydraulic Band drain were all/partially in operation during restricted hours.
-
However, compliance checking record from 1 to
23 October 2015 provided by the Contractor was reviewed and it shows that
construction works were carried out in compliance with the CNP in force.
7.1.2.3
As such, with referred to the
available information, it is unable to determine whether the night time noise
complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.2.4
Investigation Actions for part
of the complaint which is related to air quality:
-
Reviewed 1-hour TSP and 24-hours TSP monitoring
data within the construction period 1 - 23 October 2015.
-
Weekly site inspections jointly conducted by
ET, RSS, the Contractor or IEC between 1 - 23 October 2015 and the observations
made during this weekly site inspection were reviewed. Please see the following
for details of investigation results.
7.1.2.5
Investigation and Findings for
part of the complaint which is related to air quality:
-
No impact air quality monitoring exceedance
was recorded in October 2015 (also refer to attached Appendix G impact air
quality monitoring data for reference.)
-
Weekly site inspection was jointly conducted
by ET, RSS and the Contractor on 2, 8, 22 October 2015 and by ET, RSS, the
Contractor; and with ET, RSS, Contractor and IEC on 15 October 2015. During the
weekly site inspections on 8 and 15 October 2015, dark smoke emission from
barge was observed at North-eastern part of the HKBCF reclamation site which
relatively far away from where the complainant resided. The duration of the
dark smoke emissions were not more than the regulatory limit of emission for
more than 6 minutes in any period of 4 hours or for more than 3 minutes
continuously at any one time. Nonetheless, the Contractor was reminded to
prevent the emission of dark smoke and the Contractor subsequently provided
measures to avoid emission of it.
-
In addition, there is no sufficient
information, such as photos provided by the complainant to make sure that the
concerned dark smoke are related to this Contract.
7.1.2.6
With referred to the available
information, it is unable to determine whether concerned dark smoke are related
to this Contract.
7.1.2.7
Recommendations for the part of
the complaint which is related to noise:
-
The Contractor was reminded to continue to
strictly follow with all terms and conditions of a valid CNP.
7.1.2.8
Recommendation for the part of
the complaint which is related to air quality:
-
The Contractor was reminded that all plant
and equipment should be well maintained and in good condition and ensure dark
smoke emission from plant/equipment is effectively avoided.
7.1.3
No notification of
summons or prosecution was received in the reporting quarter.
7.1.4 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.
8.3
Conclusions
8.3.1 The construction phase and EM&A programme
of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
8.3.2 All 1-Hour TSP and 24-Hour TSP results were below the Action and
Limit Level in the reporting quarter.
8.3.3 For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting quarter.
8.3.4 For water quality, one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR7
during flood tide was recorded on 30 September 2015. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedance is related to
this Contract. No Action and Limit Level exceedance was recorded on other
monitoring date in the reporting month September 2015; one (1) Action Level
Exceedance of SS at SR6 during flood tide was recorded on 2 October 2015. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedance is related to this Contract. No Action and Limit Level exceedance
was recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting month October 2015; one
(1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9 during flood tide was recorded on
6 Nov 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude
the recorded exceedance is related to this Contract. No Action and Limit Level
exceedance was recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting month
November 2015.
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 A complainant who lives at 1 Sky City Road East, Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel, Hong Kong International Airport, Lantau, Hong
Kong complained to EPD¡¦s hotline on 23 October 2015 that loud noise were
generated by HZMB artificial island construction site of China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd adjacent to the premises
approximately between 10pm to 12am, during recent weekdays and Saturday. In
addition, loud noise and dark smoke were noted on the construction site of HZMB
artificial island during Sunday and public holiday. The complainant questioned
whether the Contractor was allowed to conduct construction work during Sunday
and public holiday. The complaint was referred by EPD to the project team of
Contract No. HY/2010/02 to follow up on 23 October 2015.
After investigation, with referred to the available information, it is unable
to determine whether the night time noise complaint and the concerned dark
smoke are related to this Contract.
8.3.8 No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the
reporting quarter.
8.3.9 Apart from the above mentioned monitoring, most of the recommended
mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented
properly in the reporting quarter.
8.3.10 The recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively
minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project. The EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts
from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of
mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the
improvement of the programme.
8.3.11 Moreover, regular review and checking on the construction
methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to ensure the
environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended environmental
mitigation measures were implemented effectively.