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 December 2015 and 29 February 2016. As informed by the
Contractor, major activities in the reporting quarter were:-
Marine-base
-
Rock fill
-
Conforming Sloping Seawalls
-
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
|
17 sessions
17 sessions
|
Noise monitoring
|
14 sessions
|
Impact water quality monitoring
|
38 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
monitoring, one (1) action level impact water quality monitoring exceedance at
monitoring station IS(Mf)11 has been recorded on 28
December 2015 during flood tide. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded exceedance is related to this Contract; 2
limit level exceedances of turbidity level were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and IS8 respectively on 5 February 2016; 2 action
level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at monitoring station
SR4(N) and IS8 respectively on 5 February 2016. No exceedance at other
monitoring stations in the reporting quarter. 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.
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
water quality complaint was referred to the ENPO at 10:22 am on the 4 December
2015 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the same day.
With referred to the information provided by ENPO, EPD has contacted the
complainant, and obtained the additional information from the complainant
and it is suspected that the incident happened in the afternoon on 28
November 2015. A video was provided by the complainant who shows that turbid
water behind a barge, the incident is suspected to be happened in the
afternoon on 28 November 2015. After investigation, it is considered not
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 sixteenth 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
December 2015 to 29 February 2016.
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
|
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
-
Conforming Sloping Seawalls
-
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 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
As informed
by the premises owner of (AMS7A) - Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co.
LTD would not grant us the permission to install air quality monitoring
equipment (High volume sampler) and conduct 1-hour TSP/24 hour TSP monitoring
at the premises of Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD after December
2015. In order to fulfil the EM&A requirement of this Contract, as
permission to conduct impact air quality monitoring at the premise of Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel has been granted in December 2015, ET proposed
relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with
no further comment received from IEC on 15 December 2015 and no particular
comment received from EPD on 21 December 2015, the impact air quality
monitoring station AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Company
Limited) has been relocated to AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) on 30
December 2015. The impact air quality monitoring for December 2015 was
conducted before the relocation of AQM Station from AMS7A to AMS7. The impact
air quality monitoring for January and February 2016 were conducted at AMS7
(Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel), Action Level for air quality, as derived
from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel
will be adopted for this air quality monitoring location.
2.1.5
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.
2.1.6
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.
2.1.7
The
monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are depicted in Figures 2,
3 and 4 respectively.
2.1.8
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/AMS7).
3.1.2 The monitoring locations for impact air quality
monitoring are depicted in Figure 2. However, for AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC
(Group) Building), permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring
works was sought, however, access to the premise has not been granted yet on
this report issuing date.
3.1.3 As informed by the premises owner of (AMS7A) -
Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation Co. LTD would not grant us the permission
to install air quality monitoring equipment (High volume sampler) and conduct
1-hour TSP/24 hour TSP monitoring at the premises of Chu Kong Air-Sea Union
Transportation Co. LTD after December 2015. In order to fulfil the EM&A
requirement of this Contract, as permission to conduct impact air quality
monitoring at the premise of Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel has been granted
in December 2015, ET proposed relocation of air quality monitoring station
(AMS7A) on 15 December 2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 15
December 2015 and no particular comment received from EPD on 21 December 2015,
the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union
Transportation Company Limited) has been relocated to AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity
Marriott Hotel) on 30 December 2015. The impact air quality monitoring for
December 2015 was conducted before the relocation of AQM Station from AMS7A to
AMS7. The impact air quality monitoring for January and February 2016 were
conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel), Action Level for air
quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriott Hotel will be adopted for this air quality monitoring
location.
3.1.4 The weather was mostly fine and sunny, with
occasional cloudy in the reporting quarter. The major dust source in the
reporting quarter included construction activities from the Project, as well as
nearby traffic emissions.
3.1.5 The number of monitoring events and exceedances
recorded in each month of the reporting quarter are presented in Table 3.1 and
Table 3.2 respectively.
Table 3.1 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Concentration
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
No. of monitoring events
|
December 15
|
January 16
|
February 16
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
AMS3B
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
AMS7A/7
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
AMS3B
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
AMS7A/7
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
Table 3.2 Summary
of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Numbers of Exceedance
|
December 15
|
January 16
|
February 16
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
AMS7A/7
|
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/7
|
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 December 2015, January 2016 and February 2016
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
|
December
15
|
January 16
|
February
16
|
NMS2
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
NMS3B
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
Table 3.4 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact
Noise
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Level of Exceedance
|
December
15
|
January 16
|
February
16
|
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 December 2015 ¡V February 2016
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
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
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
|
(1)
28 Dec 15
|
0
|
(1)
28 Dec 15
|
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
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Feb 16
|
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
|
3
|
3
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.2 One action level impact water quality monitoring
exceedance has been recorded on 28 December 2015.
3.3.2.1
Layout map below shows the construction activities conducted during flood
tide on 28 December 2015, no marine work or barge was working at north of HKBCF
reclamation works near the sea area or area where IS(Mf)11
is located, therefore the construction activities was considered unlikely to
cause the SS exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)11 during mid-flood tide on 28
December 2015.
![](TOC_files/image026.jpg)
3.3.2.2
Exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)11 during
mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the
Project because:
3.3.2.3
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defects such as
disconnection of the silt curtain was not observed at north part of the
perimeter silt curtain which are close to the IS(Mf)11.
3.3.2.4
Furthermore, no filling activities was observed in progress at the sea
area north 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)11. Also refer to the below photo record
taken at sea area located north of HKBCF reclamation works on 28 December 2015
for reference of sea condition on 28 December 2015, which shows that no silt
plume was observed.
3.3.2.5
Photo record which shows the sea condition at southern part of the HKBCF
reclamation works on 28 December 2015. No silt plume was observed.
3.3.2.6
The turbidity data obtained on 28 December 2015 from monitoring station
IS10 and IS(Mf)11, SR7 and IS17 which located at/near
the vicinity of sea area at north of HKBCF reclamation works, did not exceed
the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at/near IS(Mf)11 was not adversely affected.
3.3.2.7
As such, the exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity
of IS(Mf)11.
3.3.2.8
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.
3.3.2.9
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.
3.3.2.10
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 monitoring, 2 limit level exceedances of turbidity
level were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and
IS8 respectively on 5 February 2016; 2 action level exceedances of suspended
solids were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and IS8 respectively on 5
February 2016. No exceedance at other monitoring stations in the reporting
quarter.
3.3.3.1
Exceedances recorded at SR4(N) and IS8 during
mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the
Contract because:
3.3.3.2
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, no defect was
observed at southern and southeastern parts of the perimeter silt curtain which
are facing SR4(N) and IS8.
3.3.3.3
With referred to the layout
map below, marine based construction works such box culverts and seawall
construction were conducted at Portion D and Portion A respectively, however 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. (Also see below Photo record for sea condition observed on 5
February 2016 during flood tide.)
![](TOC_files/image042.jpg)
3.3.3.4
Photo record below which shows
the sea condition at southern and southeastern part of the HKBCF reclamation
works during flood tide on 5 February 2016.
3.3.3.5
Also, turbidity and suspended solids levels recorded at IS7, IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level.
This indicates that the turbidity and suspended solids levels recorded at
monitoring stations closer to the active works, were not adversely affected. As
such, the exceedances recorded at SR4(N) and IS8 were
unlikely attribute to the active works of this Contract.
3.3.3.6
With referred to the photo record taken at monitoring station IS8 on 5
February 2016 (also see below photo record) turbid water was observed at this
area. However, with referred to the below photo record taken at southern and southeastern part
of the HKBCF reclamation works during flood tide on 5 February 2016, turbid
water was not noted. The photo
record below shows that vessel activities was observed when monitoring was
conducted at monitoring location IS8, as confirmed with the Contractor of
HY/2010/02, this Contract did not have any construction vessels working outside
the site boundary of Contract HY/2010/02 on 5 February 2016 (also refer to the
below layout map).
3.3.3.7
Photo record below shows the sea condition taken on 5 February 2016 at
monitoring location IS8 and facing monitoring station SR4(N),
turbid water was observed at this area.
![](TOC_files/image045.jpg)
3.3.3.8
As shown below by the photo record taken on the 16 February 2016, the
latest silt curtain position is within the area of the complete seawall and no
more reclamation filling will be conducted by this Contract at the concerned
area.
![](TOC_files/image046.jpg)
3.3.3.9
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR4(N) and IS8.
3.3.3.10 After investigation,
there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are
related to this Contract.
3.3.3.11 Action taken under
the action plan:
1. In situ measurement was
repeated to confirm findings of the exceedance of turbidity.
2. After
considering the above mentioned investigation results, it appears that it is
unlikely that the turbidity and suspended solids 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;
5-7. Since it
is considered that the turbidity and suspended solid exceedances are unlikely to
be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered
applicable.
3.3.3.12 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.
3.3.3.13 Maintenance work of
the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except
Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.3.14 The Contractor was
reminded to adhere to the environmental permit requirement and undertake the
necessary mitigation measures after the realignment of the perimeter silt
curtain near southeastern corner of HKBCF Reclamation Works, as necessary.
3.3.4
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 December 2015 ¡V
February 2016
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable On- Effort Condition
|
642.4km
|
Number of Sightings
|
7 sightings (5 sightings are ¡¨on effort¡¨ (which
are all under favourable condition), 2 sightings
are ¡§opportunistic¡¨)
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
23 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate#
|
NEL: 0
NWL: 1.2
|
Dolphin Group Size
|
Average of NEL: 0
Average of NWL: 3.3
Varied from 1-8 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 Dark smoke was observed at portion C2a when a
vessel was in operation. The Contractor was reminded to prevent. (Reminder)
3.5.4 Two idling generators were found at Portion B
without proper NRMM labels.The Contractor was
reminded to label the generator properly. Subsequently, the Contractor properly
labelled one of the generator and the Contractor was reminded to label the another generator properly. As informed by the
Contractor, another idle generator was provided with NRMM label and removed
from site. (Closed)
Noise
3.5.5 No relevant adverse impact was observed in the
reporting quarter.
Water Quality
3.5.6 Insufficient sand bund was observed at Portion
C2b when DCM was conducted. The Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient bunding to prevent potential runoff. The Contractor
subsequently enhanced sand bund at the works area. (Closed)
3.5.7 The Contractor was reminded to continue to carry
out maintenance as necessary and ensure integrity of the perimenter
silt curtain at all time. (Reminder)
Chemical and Waste
Management
3.5.8 Chemical container was observed placing on bare
ground at Portion C2b.The Contractor should provide drip trays as proper
chemical container storage measure. Subsequently, the Contractor provided drip
tray to oil drums. (Closed)
3.5.9 General refuse was observed on site, on ground
at Portion D and on ground at portion C2a, the Contractor was reminded to clear
the general refuse and keep the site clean and tidy. Subsequently, the
Contractor collected and cleared the general refuse and kept the site clean and
tidy. (Closed)
3.5.10 Bags of waste was observed, the Contractor was
reminded to regularly clear bags of waste to keep the site clean and
tidy.(Reminder)
3.5.11 Generator was observed without drip tray on
barge San Han Bo 210, the Contractor was reminded to
provide mitigation measure such as drip tray or bunding
to generator. The Contractor subsequently provided bunding
to the generator. (Closed)
3.5.12 Oil drums was observed without drip tray at Portion
C2b, on barge ®¶©ú93 and on barge´äÀs, the Contractor was reminded to provided drip
tray to oil drums. The Contractor subsequently removed the oil drums from the
concerned area. (Closed)
3.5.13 A moveable lighting was observed without drip
tray, the Contractor was reminded to provide preventive measures such as trip
tray to the machine. The Contractor subsequently removed the machine from the
area. (Closed)
3.5.14 Oil water mixture was observed accumulated
inside bunding. The Contractor was reminded to
regularly clear the oil water mixture accumulated inside drip tray.
Subsequently, the Contractor removed the oil water mixture accumulated inside
drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.15 Chemical container was observed without bunding. The Contractor was reminded to store chemical in bunded area. The Contractor subsequently removed the
chemical container from the area. (Closed)
3.5.16 Wood materials were observed scattered at
Portion C2a. The Contractor was reminded to regualrly
clear the materials and keep the site tidy. The Contractor subsequently
assigned area for temporary storage of wood materials. (Closed)
Landscape and Visual
Impact
3.5.17 No relevant adverse impact was observed in the
reporting quarter.
Others
3.5.18 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, 81646.2m3 of fill were imported
for the project use in the reporting period. 252kg of paper/cardboard
packaging, 6,080kg of plastics, 800kg of chemical waste and 188.5m3
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.
4.1.5 The treated marine sediment and/or treated
excavated filling material specified by Contract no.
HY/2013/01 has been received as public fill
for Contract no. HY/2010/02¡¦s
reclamation filling works since January 2015. As informed by the
Contractor in the reporting quarter, such site arrangement has been discontinued
since 24 February 2016.
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 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 reporting period.
5.1.7 As informed by the Contractor, 1 (one) number of
any combination of floating concrete batching plants and floating grout
production facilities was in operation between 25 Feb 2016 and 29 Feb 2016.
5.1.8 As informed by the Contractor on 23 December
2015, an oil spillage incident was observed near Cell No. 28 on 23 December
2015. For the location of the oil spillage recorded on 23 December 2015, also
refer to the map shown below.
![](TOC_files/image047.jpg)
5.1.8.1
Details of
the oil spillage incident (23 December 2015) including size, location, time of the
spillage and Contractor¡¦s actions taken in response to the spill incident have
been reviewed and summarised as follow:
-
Oil on sea
was observed on sea area near Cell No. 28 within perimeter silt curtain at
09:30 a.m. on 23 December 2015 by the Contractor and RSS (also refer to below layout
map).
-
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.
5.1.8.2
Impact water quality monitoring records of 23
December 2015 have been reviewed.
5.1.8.3
Observations and Results:
-
Oil on sea
was observed on sea area near Cell No. 28 within perimeter silt curtain at
09:30 a.m. on 23 December 2015 by the Contractor and RSS (also refer to above
layout map).
-
The
following photo record shows the sea condition when the oil spillage on sea was
observed.
![](TOC_files/image048.jpg)
5.1.8.4
The following actions were taken by the
Contractor:
-
The
Contractor organized manpower to identify the spill source. During inspection,
no construction vessel was observed around the concerned area and the source of
oil spill was not identified.
-
The oil
spill was identified during inspection conducted by the Contractor and RSS on
23 December 2015 as discrete, non-continuous source with approximately 50m2
spread. The below photo shows that the Contractor deployed absorption booms to
remove the floating oil from water.
![](TOC_files/image049.jpg)
5.1.8.5
The below photos
shows that 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.
![](TOC_files/image050.jpg)
5.1.8.6
The oil stain observed was limited at nearby
southern sea area within the silt curtain.
5.1.8.7
No more sign of oil spillage was found on the
nearby water after the clean-up.
5.1.8.8
Review of impact water quality monitoring data
of 23 December 2015:
5.1.8.9
Monitoring stations IS7, IS(Mf)9,
IS8, IS(Mf)6 and SR4(N) are the monitoring stations close to location of
observed oil spill (also refer to above layout map). Impact water quality monitoring data
recorded at monitoring station, IS7, IS(Mf)9, IS8,
IS(Mf)6 and SR4 on 23 December 2015 were reviewed. There was no water quality
exceedance recorded at IS7, IS(Mf)9, IS8, IS(Mf)6 and
SR4(N) on 23 December 2015.
5.1.8.10
The Contractor was reminded to continue to
follow the spill response plan when oil is observed on sea.
5.1.9 As informed by the Contractor, the perimeter
silt curtain near Portion B of HKBCF has been arranged on 3 February 2016,
IEC/ENPO was informed by ET on 3 February 2016. IEC/ENPO reminded the Project
team on 18 Feb 2016 that notification to EPD should be made prior to each further
removal of the perimeter silt curtain. On 22 February 2016, IEC/ENPO commented
that water quality impact as a result of the concerned shifting of the
perimeter silt curtain should be reviewed. ET reviewed the IWQM data and site
condition at the concerned area.
5.1.9.1
The impact water quality monitoring data
obtained after 3 February 2016 was reviewed and no Project related exceedance
was observed.
5.1.9.2
As shown below by the photo record taken on the
16 February 2016 and it shows that the latest silt curtain position is within
the area of the complete seawall. As informed by the Contractor, no more
reclamation filling will be conducted by this Contract at the concerned area.
![](TOC_files/image051.jpg)
5.1.9.3
The situation is under ET¡¦s further review in
the reporting period and a notification on the concerned site arrangement of
the perimeter silt curtain of Contract HY/2010/02 will be given to the
authority when the review is completed.
5.1.10 Oil spillage observed on 17 February 2016 at Sea
surface near cell no.109
5.1.10.1 Details
of the oil spillage incident (17 Feb 2016) including size, location, time of
the spillage and Contractor¡¦s actions taken in response to the spill incident
have been reviewed and summarised as follow:
-
The oil on
sea was observed on 17 Feb
2016 by RSS and the Contractor. The incident was reported to ET, IEC and RSS.
-
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.
5.1.10.2 Impact
water quality monitoring records of 17 February 2016 have been reviewed.
5.1.10.3 Oil
was observed on sea surface near steel cell no.109 within silt curtain at 11:00
a.m. on 17 Feb 2016 by the Contractor and the RSS. The following actions were
taken by the Contractor:
5.1.10.4 The
Contractor organised manpower to identify the spill
source, the vessel (Luen Hing 638) located close to
the oil spill was inspected but the source of oil spill was not identified.
5.1.10.5 The
oil spill was identified during join site inspection conducted by the
Contractor and RSS on 17 Feb 2016 as discrete, non-continuous source with
approximately 20m2 spread. Also refer to photo below:
5.1.10.6 The
Contractor deployed absorption booms to remove the floating oil from water and
the used absorption booms were collected using disposal bags as part of the
spill kits item. The used absorption booms were disposed of as chemical waste
by the Contractor. (Also refer to photo record below).
![](TOC_files/image052.jpg)
![](TOC_files/image053.jpg)
5.1.10.7 Photo
record shows that oil on sea was no longer observed at sea area near Cell
109. (Also refer to photo record below)
![](TOC_files/image054.jpg)
5.1.10.8 Monitoring
stations IS10, SR5 and IS(Mf)11 are the monitoring
stations close to location of observed oil spill. Impact water quality monitoring data
record of IS10, SR5 and IS(Mf)11 during flood tide
have been reviewed. There is no water quality exceedance recorded at IS10, SR5
and IS(Mf)11 on 17 February 2016 during flood tide.
5.1.10.9 The
contractor was reminded to continue to follow the spill response plan when oil
is observed on sea.
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 monitoring, one (1) action
level impact water quality monitoring exceedance at monitoring station IS(Mf)11 has been recorded on 28 December 2015 during flood tide.
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedance is related to this Contract; 2 limit level exceedances of turbidity
level were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and
IS8 respectively on 5 February 2016; 2 action level exceedances of suspended
solids were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and IS8 respectively on 5
February 2016. No exceedance at other monitoring stations in the reporting
quarter. 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 A water quality complaint was referred to the
ENPO at 10:22 am on the 4 December 2015 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to
this Contract on the same day. With referred to the information provided by
ENPO, EPD has contacted the complainant, and obtained the additional
information from the complainant and it is suspected that the
incident happened in the afternoon on 28 November 2015. A video was
provided by the complainant who shows that turbid water behind a barge, the
incident is suspected to be happened in the afternoon on 28 November 2015.
After investigation, it is considered not 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 water quality complaint was referred to the
ENPO at 10:22 am on the 4 December 2015 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to
this Contract on the same day. With referred to the information provided by
ENPO, EPD has contacted the complainant, and obtained the additional
information from the complainant and it is suspected that the
incident happened in the afternoon on 28 November 2015.
7.1.2.1
A video was provided by the complainant, the following photo is captured
from the video which shows that turbid water was seem behind a barge, the
incident is suspected to be happened in the afternoon on 28 November 2015.
![20151128_130102](TOC_files/image055.jpg)
7.1.2.2
Investigation actions:
¡P
Review of the information (video
and photo) provided by the complainant
¡P
Checking whether there barge
which is required to work at the concerned area for Contract HY/2010/02 HKBCF
Reclamation Works in the afternoon on 28 November 2015.
7.1.2.3
Investigation results:
¡P
By tracing the turbid water
showed on the above photo, the source of turbid seawater is not from the inside
or the near the site boundary Contract HY/2010/02 HKBCF Reclamation Works.
¡P
In addition, after checking with
the Contractor, there are no derrick/flat top barges travelled to or from the
sea area adjacent to the north of Tung Chung Waterfront Road in the
afternoon of 28 Nov 2015, as such, it is considered not related to this
Contract.
7.1.2.4
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain
all water quality mitigation measures.
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 monitoring, one (1) action
level impact water quality monitoring exceedance at monitoring station IS(Mf)11 has been recorded on 28 December 2015 during flood tide.
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedance is related to this Contract; 2 limit level exceedances of turbidity
level were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and
IS8 respectively on 5 February 2016; 2 action level exceedances of suspended
solids were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and IS8 respectively on 5
February 2016. No exceedance at other monitoring stations in the reporting
quarter. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
8.3.5 One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin
monitoring was recorded in the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was
concluded that the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the
dolphins. It was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB
works as a whole (or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress factors. Event Action
Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation,
please refer to appendix L.
8.3.6 Environmental site inspection was carried out 13
times in the reporting quarter. Recommendations on remedial actions were given
to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
8.3.7 A water quality complaint was referred to the
ENPO at 10:22 am on the 4 December 2015 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to
this Contract on the same day. With referred to the information provided by
ENPO, EPD has contacted the complainant, and obtained the additional
information from the complainant and it is suspected that the
incident happened in the afternoon on 28 November 2015. A video was
provided by the complainant who shows that turbid water behind a barge, the
incident is suspected to be happened in the afternoon on 28 November 2015.
After investigation, it is considered not 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
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.
8.3.11 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.