Contract No. HY/2010/02 –
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities –
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. 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 2016 and
30 November 2016. As informed by the Contractor, major activities in the
reporting quarter were:-
Marine-base
- Sloping Seawalls
- Rubble Mound Seawall
- Maintenance of silt curtain
Land-base
- Surcharge removal & laying
- Deep Cement Mixing
- Construction of Permanent Seawall
- 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
|
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
In
September 2016, 1 action level
exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS5 during ebb tide on 2
September 2016 and 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded
at SR5 and SR7 during flood tide on 19 September 2016. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this
Contract.
In
October 2016, 5 action level
exceedances of suspended solids were recorded in the reporting month. 3 action
level exceedances of SS at IS(Mf)11, SR6 and SR7 of flood tide on 3 October
2016 were recorded, 1 action level exceedance of SS at SR6 was recorded during
flood tide on 17 October 2016 and 1 action exceedance of SS at SR6 was recorded
during flood tide on 19 October 2016. These exceedances were considered not
likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation.
In
November 2016, 11 action level exceedances and 1 limit level exceedance of
suspended solids were recorded in the reporting month. Action Level Exceedances
of SS at IS8 and SR4(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 14 November 2016; Action Level
Exceedance of SS at IS10 and SR5 & Limit Level Exceedance of SS at SR6 at
Mid-Flood tide on 16 November 2016; Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11,
IS10, SR5, SR6, SR7 at Mid-Flood tide on 18 November 2016. Action Level
Exceedance of SS at SR10A and SR10B(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 30 November 2016.
These exceedances were considered not likely to be caused by this Contract’s
activities after investigation.
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
One (1) water quality complaint was referred to the
ENPO at 10:50 am on the 22 September 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint
to this Contract on the same day. With referred to a complaint lodged by a
member of the public about whitish effluent discharged from two flattop barges
which departs from Tuen Mun on a daily basis. The complainant stated that the
whitish effluent was discharged from these barges at sea area outside cellular
structure cell no. C054 – C055 between 18:00 to 04:00, causing pollution, after
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related
to this Contract.
One (1) environmental complaint was referred
to the ENPO at 14:49 on the 9 November 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this
complaint to this Contract on 10 November 2016. With referred to the
information provided. With referred to description provided by the complainant,
with reference to a photo taken at 09:26 am on 7 November 2016 on a footbridge
near Tung Chung Pier, muddy water was observed when a construction vessel『長盛308』travelled
from inside the works area of HZMB project - Scenic Hill section to Tung Chung
Pier. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
complaint is related to this Contract.
No notification of summons or prosecution was
received in the reporting period
1.1.1
Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – 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 –
Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun –
Chek Lap Kok Link – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and
their environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A
Manuals), for the Project were approved by Environmental Protection Department
(EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3
EPD
subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009
(EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F),
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.
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 nineteenth quarterly EM&A Report under the Contract No. HY/2010/02
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities –
Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary of the environmental
monitoring and audit works, list of activities and mitigation measures proposed
by the ET for the Contract from 1 September 2016 to 30 November 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
|
3456 2850
|
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
-
Sloping
Seawalls
-
Rubble
Mound Seawall
-
Maintenance
of silt curtain
Land-base
-
Surcharge
removal & laying
-
Deep
Cement Mixing
-
Construction
of Permanent Seawall
-
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 has been conducted at AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott
Hotel) since 1 January 2016, 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 Due
to the commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International
Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), a large portion of works site
boundary will be established at the northern part of the existing airport
Island. A joint meeting on 22 July 2016 among the various environmental teams
of the HZMB contracts [Contract no.HY/2011/03, Contract no.HY/2010/02, Contract
no.HY/2012/07, Contract no.HY/2012/08], Highways Department (HyD) and the
Environmental Project Office (ENPO) of HZMB project noted the recent
arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which delineates the boundary of
the designated 3RS Project. The boundary, as detailed on the information
provided to us by ENPO via email by 4 August 2016, will affect several water
quality monitoring stations and the dolphin monitoring transect lines which are
being used for conducting monitoring under Contract No. HY/2010/02. The
EM&A Programme for the HZMB HKBCF Project will therefore be affected. As a
result, ET proposed to IEC/ENPO via email on 20 September 2016 the following
changes - relocation of water quality stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3 and
Alteration of the transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
IEC/ENPO commented the proposal on 30 September 2016. In addition, the details
of proposal were further discussed on 14 October 2016 among ET of various
contracts (HY/2010/02, HY/2011/03, HY/2012/07 and HY/2012/08) and ENPO. It was
agreed that a revised proposal should be submitted again for IEC/ENPO’s review.
The required changes of impact water quality monitoring station and alternation
of dolphin monitoring transect lines is under ET’s review in November 2016 and
revised proposal will tentatively be submitted in next reporting quarter.
2.1.9 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 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 this report quarter 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
|
|
Sept 16
|
Oct 16
|
Nov 16
|
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
|
AMS3B
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
|
AMS7
|
18
|
15
|
15
|
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
|
AMS3B
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
|
AMS7
|
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
|
|
Sept 16
|
Oct 16
|
Nov 16
|
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS7
|
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
|
|
AMS7
|
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 2016,
October 2016 and November 2016 respectively.
3.1.9 Due
to electricity failure, the air quality monitoring at AMS3B (site office)
originally scheduled from 12 - 13 September 2016 has been rescheduled to 13 -14
September 2016.
3.2.1 Impact
noise monitoring was conducted at the 2 monitoring stations (NMS2 and NMS3B)
for at least once per week during 07:00 – 19:00 in the reporting quarter.
3.2.2 The
monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are depicted in Figure
2.
3.2.3 No
Action or Limit Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded in the
reporting quarter.
3.2.4 Major
noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of
the Project and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.5 The
number of impact noise monitoring events and exceedances are summarized in
Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 respectively.
Table 3.3 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise
|
Monitoring
Parameter
|
Location
|
No.
of monitoring events
|
|
Sept 16
|
Oct 16
|
Nov 16
|
|
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
|
|
Sept 16
|
Oct 16
|
Nov 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 September 2016 – November 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
|
1 (2 Sept
16)
|
0
|
1
|
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)
14 Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2)
16 Nov 2016; 18 Nov 2016,
|
0
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2)
3 Oct 16,
18 Nov 2016
|
0
|
2
|
|
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)
14 Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(3)
16 Nov 2016; 18 Nov 2016,
19 Sept 16
|
0
|
3
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(4)
18 Nov 2016; 3, 17 and 19
Oct 16
|
0
|
4
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
16 Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(3)
18 Nov 16; 19 Sept 16, 3
Oct 16
|
0
|
3
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
30 Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
30 Nov 2016
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
18
|
19
|
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Note: S:
Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.2
1 (One)
action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS5 during ebb tide
on 2 September 2016.
3.3.2.1 Below layout map shows that marine based
construction works such as seawall construction was carried out at Portion A
and Portion B of HKBCF Reclamation Works:
_files/image028.jpg)
3.3.2.2 Exceedances recorded at IS5 during ebb tide
are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Contract
because:
3.3.2.3 With reference to the silt curtain checking
record, no defect was observed at southern part of the perimeter silt curtain
which is facing IS5.
3.3.2.4 With referred to the above layout map,
marine based construction work such as seawall construction were conducted at
Portion A and Portion B. 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 ebb tide. (Also see blow Photo
record 1 for sea condition observed on 2 September 2016 during ebb tide)
_files/image029.jpg)
3.3.2.5 Also, turbidity and suspended solids levels
recorded at IS7, IS(Mf)9 and IS(Mf)6 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.
3.3.2.6 After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.2.7 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 suspended solids exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of
this Contract;
3. IEC, Contractor, ER and EPD were informed via email;
4. Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and
Contractor's working methods were checked;
5. Since it is considered that the suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.2.8 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.
3.3.2.9 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday.
3.3.3
2 (Two)
action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR5 and SR7
during flood tide on 19 September 2016.
3.3.3.1 Below layout map shows that marine based
construction works such as seawall construction was carried out at Portion B
and Portion D of HKBCF Reclamation Works:
_files/image030.jpg)
3.3.3.2 Exceedances recorded at SR5 and SR7 during
flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the
Contract because:
3.3.3.3 With reference to the silt curtain checking
record, no defect was observed at northern part of the perimeter silt curtain
which are facing SR5 and SR7
3.3.3.4 With referred to the above layout map, no
marine based construction work of this Contract was conducted at the north side
of HKBCF reclamation work. In addition, 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 1 for sea condition observed on 19 September 2016 during flood tide.)
_files/image031.jpg)
3.3.3.5 Also, turbidity and suspended solids levels
recorded at IS10 and IS(Mf)11 were below the action and limit level.
3.3.3.6 This indicates that the turbidity and
suspended solids levels recorded at monitoring stations closer to the active
works, were not adversely affected.
3.3.3.7 As such, the exceedances recorded at SR5 and
SR7 was unlikely attribute to the active works of this Contract. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.3.8 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 suspended solids exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of
this Contract;
3. IEC, Contractor, ER and EPD were informed via email;
4. Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and
Contractor's working methods were checked;
5. Since it is considered that the suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.3.9 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.
3.3.3.10Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday.
3.3.4 3 (Three) action level exceedances of SS at
IS(Mf)11, SR6 and SR7 of flood tide on 3 October 2016 were recorded.
3.3.4.1 Below layout map shows that no marine based
construction works were carried out at HKBCF Reclamation Works:
_files/image032.jpg)
3.3.4.2 Exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)11, SR6 and
SR7 during flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities
of the Contract because:
3.3.4.3 With refer to the layout map above, no
marine based construction works were conducted during flood tide on 3 October
2016, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11, SR6
and SR7.
3.3.4.4 In addition, with referred to silt curtain
checking record of 3 October 2016, no defects of the silt curtain was observed.
3.3.4.5 With referred to monitoring record, no
sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt
curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during flood tide on 3
October 2016.
3.3.4.6 No exceedance were recorded at the impact
water quality monitoring stations near the open silt curtain accesses at the
north and north-east of the HKBCF island such as IS10 and IS17.
3.3.4.7 The exceedances were likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)11, SR6 and SR7 respectively.
3.3.4.8 As such, the exceedances recorded at
IS(Mf)11, SR6 and SR7 recorded during flood tide on 3 October 2016 were
unlikely to be Contract related.
3.3.4.9 Action taken under the action plan:
1. Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;
2. After considering the above mentioned investigation
results, it appears that it was unlikely that the suspended solids exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of
this Contract;
3. IEC, Contractor, ER and EPD were informed via email;
4. Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and
Contractor's working methods were checked;
5. Since it is considered that the suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.4.10Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out
maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.4.11Maintenance work of the silt curtain will be
provided by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday,
when defects were found.
3.3.5
1
action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at SR6 during flood
tide on 17 October 2016.
3.3.5.1 With refer to the layout map below, no
marine based construction works were conducted during flood tide on 17 October
2016, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at SR6.
_files/image033.jpg)
3.3.5.2 Exceedance recorded at SR6 during flood tide
is unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Contract
because:
3.3.5.3 With refer to the layout map above, no
marine based construction works were conducted during flood tide on 17 October
2016, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at SR6.
3.3.5.4 In addition, with referred to silt curtain
checking record of 17 October 2016, no defects of the silt curtain was
observed.
3.3.5.5 With referred to monitoring record, no
sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt
curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during flood tide on 17
October 2016.
3.3.5.6 No exceedance was recorded at the impact
water quality monitoring station(s) at the upstream of SR6 and closest to site
boundary, such as IS10, IS(Mf)11 and IS17 on 17 October 2016. Therefore, this
indicates that the exceedance recorded at SR6 during flood tide on 17 October
2016 was unlikely to be Project related.
3.3.5.7 The exceedance was likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of SR6.
3.3.5.8 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 suspended solids exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of
this Contract;
3. IEC, Contractor, ER and EPD were informed via email;
4. Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and
Contractor's working methods were checked;
5. Since it is considered that the suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.5.9 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.
3.3.5.10Maintenance work of the silt curtain will be
provided by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday,
when defects were found.
3.3.6
1
action level exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at SR6 during flood
tide on 19 October 2016.
3.3.6.1 With refer to the layout map below, no
marine based construction works were conducted during flood tide on 19 October
2016, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at SR6.
_files/image034.jpg)
3.3.6.2 Exceedance recorded at SR6 during flood tide
is unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Contract
because:
3.3.6.3 With referred to the layout map attached, no
marine based construction works were conducted during flood tide on 19 October
2016, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at SR6.
3.3.6.4 In addition, with referred to silt curtain
checking record of 19 October 2016, no defects of the silt curtain was
observed.
3.3.6.5 With referred to monitoring record, no
sediment plume has been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt
curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain during flood tide on 19
October 2016.
3.3.6.6 No exceedance was recorded at the impact
water quality monitoring station(s) at the upstream of SR6 and closest to site
boundary, such as IS10, IS(Mf)11 and IS17 during flood tide on 19 October 2016.
Therefore, this indicates that the exceedance recorded at SR6 during flood tide
on 19 October 2016 was unlikely to be Project related.
3.3.6.7 The exceedance was likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of SR6.
3.3.6.8 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 suspended solids exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of
this Contract;
3. IEC, Contractor, ER and EPD were informed via email;
4. Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and
Contractor's working methods were checked;
5. Since it is considered that the suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.6.9 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.
3.3.6.10Maintenance work of the silt curtain will be
provided by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday,
when defects were found.
3.3.7
Action
Level Exceedances of SS at IS8 and SR4(N) were recorded at Mid-Flood tide on 14
November 2016;
3.3.7.1 Below layout map shows that no marine based
construction works were carried out at HKBCF Reclamation Works:
_files/image035.jpg)
3.3.7.2 Exceedances recorded at SR4(N) and IS8
during mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities
of the Contract because:
3.3.7.3 With reference to the silt curtain checking
record, no defect was observed at southern and southeastern parts of the
perimeter silt curtain which are close to monitoring station SR4(N) and IS8.
3.3.7.4 With reference to the attached layout map,
marine based construction work such as construction of sloping seawall was
conducted at Portion C2a, according to the water flow direction during flood
tide, such active work is unlikely to affect water quality at monitoring
station SR4(N) and IS8.
3.3.7.5 With referred to monitoring record, no silt
plume was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the
outside of the perimeter silt curtain when monitoring was conducted during
flood tide.
3.3.7.6 Also, turbidity and suspended solids levels
recorded at IS10, SR5, IS(Mf)11, 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.
3.3.7.7 As confirmed with Contractor of HY/2010/02,
this Contract did not have any construction vessels working outside the site
boundary of Contract HY/2010/02 on 14 November 2016 (also refer to the attached
layout map).
3.3.7.8 The exceedances were likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of SR4(N) and IS8.
3.3.7.9 After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.7.10Action 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 suspended solids exceedance was 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 suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.7.11Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to
ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out
maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.7.12The Contractor was reminded that maintenance
work of the silt curtain should be carried out on a daily basis except Sunday
and public holiday, as necessary.
3.3.7.13The Contractor was reminded to adhere to the
environmental permit requirement and undertake the necessary mitigation
measures after the realignment of the perimeter silt curtain of HKBCF
Reclamation Works, as necessary.
3.3.8
Action
Level Exceedance of SS at IS10 and SR5 & Limit Level Exceedance of SS at
SR6 were recorded at Mid-Flood tide on 16 November 2016;
3.3.8.1 Below layout map shows active works
conducted on 16 Nov 2016. Construction works such as rock filling was conducted
near portion C2a of the HKBCF Reclamation Works on 16 November 2016.
_files/image036.jpg)
3.3.8.2 Exceedances recorded at IS10, SR5 and SR6
during mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities
of the Project because:
3.3.8.3 With reference to the silt curtain checking
record, defects were not observed at northwest part of the perimeter silt
curtain which are close to the IS10 and SR5.
3.3.8.4 With referred to the layout map attached, no
marine construction activities was conducted during flood tide on 16 November
2016. In addition, 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.
3.3.8.5 Also, turbidity level recorded at IS10, SR5,
SR6 and CS(Mf)3 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the
turbidity level at area near IS10, SR5, SR6 and CS(Mf)3 were not adversely
affected.
3.3.8.6 The exceedances were likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of IS10, SR5 and SR6.
3.3.8.7 After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.8.8 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 suspended solids exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of
this Contract;
3. IEC, Contractor, ER and EPD were informed via email;
4. Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and
Contractor's working methods were checked;
5. Since it is considered that the suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.8.9 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.
3.3.8.10The Contractor was reminded that maintenance
work of the silt curtain should be carried out on a daily basis except Sunday
and public holiday, as necessary.
3.3.8.11The Contractor was reminded to adhere to the
environmental permit requirement and undertake the necessary mitigation
measures after the realignment of the perimeter silt curtain of HKBCF
Reclamation Works, as necessary.
3.3.9
Action
Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11, IS10, SR5, SR6 and SR7 were recorded at
Mid-Flood tide on 18 November 2016;
3.3.9.1 Below layout map shows active works
conducted on 18 Nov 2016. Construction of seawall was conducted at Portion C2a
and Portion B the HKBCF Reclamation Works.
_files/image037.jpg)
3.3.9.2 Exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS10, SR5,
SR6 and SR7 during mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction
activities of the Project because:
3.3.9.3 With reference to the silt curtain checking
record, a minor disconnection of floating pipe at northeast corner of the
perimeter silt curtain was noted, the location is near the northeast marine
access of HKBCF Reclamation Works. However, this was subsequently rectified by
the Contractor. Defect was not observed at the rest northern part of the
perimeter silt curtain, in particular, no defects was observed at section of
perimeter silt curtain close to active works.
3.3.9.4 Construction of seawall was conducted at Portion
C2a and Portion B the HKBCF Reclamation Works during flood tide on 18 November
2016 but 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, IS10 and SR5; no silt plume was observed when monitoring
was conducted at monitoring station SR6 and SR7.
3.3.9.5 Also, turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11,
IS10, SR5, SR6 and SR7 were below the action and limit level. This indicates
the turbidity level at area near IS(Mf)11, IS10, SR5, SR6 and SR7 was not
adversely affected. In addition, no turbidity and suspended solids exceeddance
was recorded at water quality monitoring stations IS7, IS(Mf)6 and IS(Mf)9
which is located near Portion B where seawall construction was undertaken, this
indicates that the turbidity and suspended solids near IS7, IS(Mf)6 and
IS(Mf)9, were not adversely affected.
3.3.9.6 The exceedances were likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)11, IS10, SR5, SR6 and SR7 during flood tide.
3.3.9.7 After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.9.8 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 suspended solids exceedance was 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 suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.9.9 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.
3.3.9.10Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday.
3.3.9.11The Contractor was reminded to adhere to the
environmental permit requirement and undertake the necessary mitigation
measures after the realignment of the perimeter silt curtain of HKBCF
Reclamation Works, as necessary.
3.3.10
Action
Level Exceedance of SS at SR10A and SR10B(N) were recorded at Mid-Flood tide on
30 November 2016;
3.3.10.1Below layout map shows that there had no
marine based construction works conducted on 30 Nov 2016 during flood tide.
_files/image038.jpg)
3.3.10.2Exceedance was not due to marine based
construction works of the Project because:
3.3.10.3IS(Mf)11, SR5 and IS10 are located
downstream and closer to the active works than monitoring station SR10B(N) and SR10A
during flood tide. Depth Averaged Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L)
recorded during flood tide on the
same day at IS(Mf)11, SR5 and IS10 were below the Action and Limit Level which
indicates this Contract is unlikely to contribute to the action level
exceedance recorded at SR10B(N).
3.3.10.4The monitoring location of monitoring
station SR10B(N) and SR10A are considered upstream and remote to HKBCF
Reclamation Works during flood tide. Therefore it was unlikely that the
exceedance recorded at SR10B(N) and SR10A during flood tide was due to
activities of HKBCF Reclamation Works
3.3.10.5With reference to the silt curtain checking
record, no defects of the perimeter
silt curtain was observed on 30 November 2016.
3.3.10.6With referred to the layout map attached no
marine based constructio work was conducted during flood tide on 30 November
2016, it was unlikely that the exceedance recorded at SR10B(N) and SR10A during
flood tide was due to activities of this Contract
3.3.10.7The exceedance was likely due to local
effects in the vicinity of SR10B(N) and SR10A
3.3.10.8After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.10.9Action 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 suspended solids exceedance was 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 suspended solids
exceedance is unlikely to be contract related, as such, actions 5-7 under the
EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.10.10 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.
3.3.10.11 Maintenance work of the silt curtain was
carried out by the Contractor on a daily basis except Sunday and public
holiday, as necessary.
3.3.10.12 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 of HKBCF
Reclamation Works, as necessary.
3.3.11 No other exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the reporting quarter.
3.3.12
The
scheduled impact water quality monitoring event for flood tide of 9 September
2016 was cancelled due thunderstorm Signal was hoisted and lightning
event was recorded at the water quality monitoring area.
3.3.13
The
scheduled impact water quality monitoring on 17 October 2016 at CS6, CSA, SR10A
and SR10B(N) during mid-ebb tide was cancelled due to Strong Wind Signal No. 3
was hoisted was hoisted at 3 hours before the scheduled monitoring time.
3.3.14 The scheduled impact water quality
monitoring (ebb tide and flood tide) on 21 October 2016 were cancelled due the
tropical cyclone warning signal no.3
3.3.15 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 2016 – November 2016
|
Number
of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
|
Survey
Distance Travelled under Favourable On- Effort Condition
|
647.1km
|
|
Number
of Sightings
|
16
sightings (10 sightings are ”on effort” (which are all under favourable
condition), 6 sightings are “opportunistic”)
|
|
Number
of dolphin individual sighted
|
44
individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
|
Dolphin
Encounter Rate#
|
NEL:
0
NWL:
2.3
|
|
Dolphin
Group Size
|
Average
of NEL: 0
Average
of NWL: 2.8
Varied
from 1-7 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
Road was observed dry, the Contractor was
reminded to provide dust suppression measure such as watering to the area. As
informed by the Contactor the area has been backfilled and compacted. (Closed)
3.5.4
Fugitive dust was generated from rock works at
Portion C2b, the Contractor was reminded to provide watering on the works in
order to suppress fugitive dust emission. The Contractor subsequently provided
watering to the rock works at Potion C2b. (Closed)
3.5.5
Fugitive dust was observed during handling of
rock. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measures such as
watering to during the handling of rock. The Contractor subsequently provided
dust suppression measures to handling of rock material. (Closed)
3.5.6
Fugitive dust was observed while dump trucks
were passing by on the dry road at Portion E2. The Contractor was reminded to
provide dust suppression measure, such as watering on road. The Contractor
subsequently provided watering on dry road. (Closed)
3.5.7
Dust was observed when rock was handled by
derrick barge. The Contractor was reminded to provide dust suppression measures
during such operation. The Contractor subsequently provided watering on rock.
(Closed)
Noise
3.5.8
No relevant adverse impact was observed in the
reporting month.
Water Quality
3.5.9
Insufficient overlapping of the perimeter silt
curtain was observed. The Contractor was reminded to provide sufficient overlapping
of perimeter silt curtain at marine access. The Contractor subsequently
rectified the situation and provided sufficient overlapping. (Closed)
3.5.10
Silt curtain at northern part of HKBCF
Reclamation Works was observed disconnected. The Contractor was reminded to
rectify the situation. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation.
(Closed)
Chemical and Waste Management
3.5.11
Oil drums and battery were placed on bare ground
at workshop area, the Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to the oi drums
and properly store waste battery. The Contractor subsequently provided drip
trays to oil drums and removed the waste battery from the location. (Closed)
3.5.12
Oil stains were observed on deck of barge, the
Contractor was reminded to clear the oil stain using spill kit and disposed the
spent spill kit of as chemical waste. The Contractor subsequently cleared the
oil stain on deck of barge. (Closed)
3.5.13
Defect on drip tray was observed at Portion D.
The Contractor was reminded to rectify the defect of the drip tray. (Follow up)
3.5.14
Oil drum was observed without drip tray, the
Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measure such as drip tray to oil
drum. The oil drum was subsequently removed from barge by the Contractor.
(Closed)
3.5.15
Soil and water was observed inside drip tray,
the Contractor was reminded to regularly clear the soil and water inside drip
tray. The Contractor subsequently removed the water and soil inside drip tray.
(Closed)
3.5.16
Drip tray was observed deformed, the Contractor
was reminded to rectify the defect. The Contractor subsequently rectified the
condition. (Closed)
3.5.17
Defect was observed within the frame of a drip
tray. The Contactor was reminded to rectify the defect. The Contractor
subsequently rectified the condition. (Closed)
3.5.18
Defect of drip tray was observed at Portion D.
The Contractor was reminded to rectify the defect of the drip tray. The Contractor rectified the defect of
the drip tray in the reporting month. (Closed)
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.5.19
No relevant adverse impact was observed in the
reporting quarter.
Others
3.5.20
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, 4,101.5m3 Hard Rock and Large Broken
Concrete, 91,660.1m3 of inert C&D Materials generated and reused
in other Projects; 557,606.1m3 of surplus surcharge exported to
Macau; 82,836m3 of Imported fill; 644kg paper/cardboard packaging,
246 m3 other C&D waste such as 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 last reporting quarter, such site arrangement
has been discontinued since 24 February 2016.
4.1.6 After
checking with the Contractor, surcharge material was removed off site to Macau
from 27 April 2016 and it is continued in the reporting quarter. Surplus
surcharge was exported to Macau during the reporting quarter. The Contractor
was reminded to ensure consistency in quantities
in case of any C&D material disposed off-site and/or no
surcharge material removed off site.
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.
5.1.8
Further to our letter (ET’s letter’s ref.:
60249820/rmky16033001) dated 30/3/2016 regarding the notification of silt
curtain removal programme and arrangement, as informed by RSS on 18 May 2016,
the Contractor provided an updated programme on 31 October 2016 to indicate the
current site situation. According to CHEC’s latest removal programme during the
reporting month, stage 2 (east side of the perimeter silt curtain removal work
has been completed and dates for the subsequent stages have also been updated
in the reporting month, while the overall phasing arrangement has not changed.
A notification email has been sent to IEC/ENPO to inform them that the
completion of removal of perimeter silt curtain of Stages 2 and the tentative
date for silt curtain removal work of stage 3, 4 and 5. With referred to
previous IEC/ENPO comment received on 7 June 2016 if update of proposal was
mainly on time schedule and they have no objection in principle. However
prior to IEC/ENPO’s reply to confirm ET’s updated proposal, ET was requested to
provide site photos to show ET’s checking of the current site condition with
respect to the reminders given in their previous letter (Ref.:
HYDHZMBEEM00_0_4102L.16 dated 22 April 2016).
5.1.9
Due to the commencement of marine work of the
Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a
Three-Runway System (3RS Project), a
large portion of
works site boundary will be established at the northern part of
the existing airport Island. A joint meeting on 22 July 2016 among the various
environmental teams of the HZMB contracts [Contract no.HY/2011/03, Contract
no.HY/2010/02, Contract no.HY/2012/07, Contract no.HY/2012/08], Highways
Department (HyD) and the Environmental Project Office (ENPO) of HZMB project
noted the recent arrangement of works boundary of 3RS Project which delineates
the boundary of the designated 3RS Project. The boundary, as detailed on the
information provided to us by ENPO via email by 4 August 2016, will affect
several water quality monitoring stations and the dolphin monitoring transect lines which are
being used for
conducting monitoring under Contract No. HY/2010/02. The EM&A Programme for the HZMB
HKBCF Project will therefore be affected. As a result, ET proposed to IEC/ENPO
via email on 20 September 2016 the following changes - relocation of water
quality stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3
and Alteration
of the transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. IEC/ENPO commented the proposal on 30
September 2016. In addition, the
details of proposal were further discussed on 14 October 2016 among ET of
various contracts (HY/2010/02, HY/2011/03, HY/2012/07 and HY/2012/08) and ENPO.
It was agreed that a revised proposal should be submitted again for IEC/ENPO’s
review. The required changes of impact water quality monitoring station and
alternation of dolphin monitoring transect lines is under ET’s review in
November 2016 and revised proposal will tentatively be submitted in next
reporting period.
5.1.10
After review, 1 floating grout production was in
operation at any time in reporting period for Contract No.HY/2010/02.
Condition 3.26A of EP-353/2009/K for Contract No.HY/2010/02 is complied with
during the reporting month.
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:
- In
September 2016, 1 action level
exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS5 during ebb tide on 2 September
2016 and 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded at SR5
and SR7 during flood tide on 19 September 2016. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this
Contract.
- In October
2016, 5 action level
exceedances of suspended solids were recorded in the reporting month. 3 action
level exceedances of SS at IS(Mf)11, SR6 and SR7 of flood tide on 3 October
2016 were recorded, 1 action level exceedance of SS at SR6 was recorded during
flood tide on 17 October 2016 and 1 action exceedance of SS at SR6 was recorded
during flood tide on 19 October 2016. These exceedances were considered not
likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation.
-
In November 2016, 11 action level exceedances
and 1 limit level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded in the reporting
month. Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS8 and SR4(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 14
November 2016; Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS10 and SR5 & Limit Level
Exceedance of SS at SR6 at Mid-Flood tide on 16 November 2016; Action Level
Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11, IS10, SR5, SR6, SR7 at Mid-Flood tide on 18
November 2016. Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR10A and SR10B(N) at Mid-Flood
tide on 30 November 2016. These exceedances were considered not likely to be
caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation.
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 One
(1) water quality complaint was referred to the ENPO at 10:50 am on the 22
September 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the
same day. With referred to a complaint lodged by a member of the public about
whitish effluent discharged from two flattop barges which departs from Tuen Mun
on a daily basis. The complainant stated that the whitish effluent was
discharged from these barges at sea area outside cellular structure cell no.
C054 – C055 between 18:00 to 04:00, causing pollution, after investigation,
there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this
Contract.
6.1.6 One
(1) environmental complaint was referred to the ENPO at 14:49 on the 9 November
2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on 10 November 2016.
With referred to the information provided. With referred to description
provided by the complainant, with reference to a photo taken at 09:26 am on 7
November 2016 on a footbridge near Tung Chung Pier, muddy water was observed when
a construction vessel『長盛308』travelled
from inside the works area of HZMB project - Scenic Hill section to Tung Chung
Pier. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
complaint is related to this Contract.
6.1.7 Notification
of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting period
6.1.8 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 One
(1) water quality complaint was referred to the ENPO at 10:50 am on the 22
September 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the
same day. With referred to a complaint lodged by a member of the public about
whitish effluent discharged from two flattop barges which departs from Tuen Mun
on a daily basis. The complainant stated that the whitish effluent was
discharged from these barges at sea area outside cellular structure cell no.
C054 – C055 between 18:00 to 04:00, causing pollution, after investigation,
there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this
Contract.
7.1.3 One
(1) environmental complaint was referred to the ENPO at 14:49 on the 9 November
2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on 10 November 2016.
With referred to the information provided. With referred to description
provided by the complainant, with reference to a photo taken at 09:26 am on 7
November 2016 on a footbridge near Tung Chung Pier, muddy water was observed when
a construction vessel『長盛308』travelled
from inside the works area of HZMB project - Scenic Hill section to Tung Chung
Pier. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.4
Notification of summons or prosecution was received in
the reporting quarter.
7.1.5 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
·
All
working plants and vessels on site should be regularly inspected and properly
maintained to avoid dark smoke emission.
·
All
vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before leaving the
site.
·
Haul
roads should be sufficiently dampened to minimize fugitive dust generation.
·
Wheel
washing facilities should be properly maintained and reviewed to ensure
properly functioning.
·
Temporary
exposed slopes and open stockpiles should be properly covered.
·
Enclosure
should be erected for cement debagging, batching and mixing operations.
·
Water
spraying should be provided to suppress fugitive dust for any dusty
construction activity.
·
Regular
review and provide maintenance to dust control measures such as sprinkler
system.
Construction Noise Impact
·
Quieter
powered mechanical equipment should be used as far as possible.
·
Noisy
operations should be oriented to a direction away from sensitive receivers as
far as possible.
·
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
·
Vessels
and equipment operating should be checked regularly and properly maintained.
·
Noise
Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed to the air compressor and hand-held
breaker operating within works area.
·
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
·
Regular
review and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems and desilting
facilities in order to make sure they are functioning effectively.
·
Construction
of seawall should be completed as early as possible.
·
Regular
inspect and review the loading process from barges to avoid splashing of
material.
·
Silt,
debris and leaves accumulated at public drains, wheel washing bays and
perimeter u-channels and desilting facilities should be cleaned up regularly.
·
Silty
effluent should be treated/ desilted before discharged. Untreated effluent
should be prevented from entering public drain channel.
·
Proper
drainage channels/bunds should be provided at the site boundaries to
collect/intercept the surface run-off from works areas.
·
Exposed
slopes and stockpiles should be covered up properly during rainstorm.
Chemical and Waste Management
·
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.
·
All
chemical containers and oil drums should be properly stored and labelled.
·
All
plants and vehicles on site should be properly maintained to prevent oil
leakage.
·
All
kinds of maintenance works should be carried out within roofed, paved and
confined areas.
·
All
drain holes of the drip trays utilized within works areas should be properly
plugged to avoid any oil and chemical waste leakage.
·
Oil
stains on soil surface and empty chemical containers should be cleared and
disposed of as chemical waste.
·
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
·
All
existing, retained/transplanted trees at the works areas should be properly
fenced off and regularly inspected.
·
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:
- In
September 2016, 1 action level
exceedance of suspended solids was recorded at IS5 during ebb tide on 2
September 2016 and 2 action level exceedances of suspended solids were recorded
at SR5 and SR7 during flood tide on 19 September 2016. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this
Contract.
- In
October 2016, 5 action level
exceedances of suspended solids were recorded in the reporting month. 3 action
level exceedances of SS at IS(Mf)11, SR6 and SR7 of flood tide on 3 October
2016 were recorded, 1 action level exceedance of SS at SR6 was recorded during
flood tide on 17 October 2016 and 1 action exceedance of SS at SR6 was recorded
during flood tide on 19 October 2016. These exceedances were considered not
likely to be caused by this Contract’s activities after investigation.
-
In November 2016, 11 action level exceedances
and 1 limit level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded in the reporting
month. Action Level Exceedances of SS at IS8 and SR4(N) at Mid-Flood tide on 14
November 2016; Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS10 and SR5 & Limit Level
Exceedance of SS at SR6 at Mid-Flood tide on 16 November 2016; Action Level
Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11, IS10, SR5, SR6, SR7 at Mid-Flood tide on 18
November 2016. Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR10A and SR10B(N) at Mid-Flood
tide on 30 November 2016. These exceedances were considered not likely to be caused
by this Contract’s activities after investigation.
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 One
(1) water quality complaint was referred to the ENPO at 10:50 am on the 22
September 2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on the
same day. With referred to a complaint lodged by a member of the public about
whitish effluent discharged from two flattop barges which departs from Tuen Mun
on a daily basis. The complainant stated that the whitish effluent was
discharged from these barges at sea area outside cellular structure cell no.
C054 – C055 between 18:00 to 04:00, causing pollution, after investigation,
there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this
Contract.
8.3.8 One
(1) environmental complaint was referred to the ENPO at 14:49 on the 9 November
2016 by EPD; ENPO referred this complaint to this Contract on 10 November 2016.
With referred to the information provided. With referred to description
provided by the complainant, with reference to a photo taken at 09:26 am on 7
November 2016 on a footbridge near Tung Chung Pier, muddy water was observed when
a construction vessel『長盛308』travelled
from inside the works area of HZMB project - Scenic Hill section to Tung Chung
Pier. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
complaint is related to this Contract.
8.3.9 No
notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting quarter.
8.3.10 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.
8.3.11 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.
8.3.12 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.
_files/image025.jpg)
_files/image027.jpg)