TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1
introduction 5
1.1 Background 5
1.2 Scope of Report 6
1.3 Contract Organization 7
1.4 Summary of Construction Works 8
2
Summary of EM&A Programme
Requirements 9
2.1 Monitoring Parameters 9
2.2 Environmental Quality Performance (Action/Limit
Levels) 11
2.3 Environmental Mitigation Measures 11
3
MONITORING Results 12
3.1 Air Quality Monitoring 12
3.2 Noise Monitoring 14
3.3 Water Quality Monitoring
15
3.4 Dolphin Monitoring 24
3.5 Environmental Site Inspection and Audit 25
4
Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste
Management Status 27
4.1 Summary of Solid and Liquid Waste Management 27
5
Implementation Status of Environmental
Mitigation Measures 28
5.1 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation
Measures 28
6
Summary of Exceedances of the
Environmental Quality Performance Limit 30
6.1 Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality
Performance Limit 30
7
Summary of Complaints, Notification of
Summons and Successful Prosecutions 32
7.1 Summary of Environmental Complaints, Notification of
Summons and Successful Prosecutions 32
8
Comments, recommendations and Conclusions 34
8.1 Comments on mitigation measures 34
8.2 Recommendations on EM&A Programme 35
8.3 Conclusions 36
List of Tables
Table 1.1
Contact Information of Key Personnel
Table 3.1
Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP
Concentration
Table 3.2
Summary of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Table 3.3
Summary of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact Noise
Table 3.4
Summary of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
Table 3.5
Summary of Water Quality Exceedances in December 2016 ¡V February 2017
Table 3.6
Summary of Key Dolphin Survey Findings in December 2016 ¡V February 2017
Table 3.7
Summary of STG and ANI encounter rates in
December 2016 ¡V February 2017
Figures
Figure
1 General
Contract Layout Plan
Figure
2 Impact Air
Quality and Noise Monitoring Stations and Wind Station
Figure
3 Impact
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure
4 Impact
Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map
Figure
5
Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure
List of Appendices
Appendix
A Contract Organization for Environmental
Works
Appendix
B Three Month Rolling Construction Programmes
Appendix
C Implementation Schedule of Environmental
Mitigation Measures (EMIS)
Appendix
D Summary of Action and Limit Levels
Appendix
E Graphical Presentation of Impact Air
Quality Monitoring Results
Appendix
F Graphical Presentation of Impact Daytime
Construction Noise Monitoring Results
Appendix
G Graphical Presentation of Impact Water Quality
Monitoring Results
Appendix
H Impact Dolphin Monitoring Survey Findings
and Analysis
Appendix
I Quarterly Summary of Waste Flow
Table
Appendix
J Cumulative Statistics on Exceedances,
Complaints, Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
Appendix
K Event Action Plan
Appendix
L Incident Report on Action Level or
Limit Level Non-compliance for Impact Dolphin Monitoring
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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. 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 2016 and 28 February 2017. 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
-
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
|
17 sessions
17 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 December 2016, 1 action level
exceedance of suspended solids at IS(Mf)9 at
Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2016 was recorded in the reporting
month. This exceedance was considered not likely to be caused by this
Contract¡¦s activities after investigation.
In February 2017, For impact water
quality monitoring, there was a SS action level exceedance on 6 Feb 17 at
monitoring station IS8 during flood tide; SS action level exceedance on 10 Feb
17 at monitoring station SR6 during ebb tide and SS action level
exceedance on 15 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR7 during flood tide. After investigation,
it was concluded that those exceedances were unlikely to be contract
related. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in
the reporting month.
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
IEC/ENPO
received an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1 December 2016.
The complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as follows. The Complainant complained
that there is a large quantity of slurry at East Coast Road, and suspected that
the source of the slurry is a construction site of CHEC next to a hotel. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is
related to this Contract.
RSS
received a complaint received an environmental complaint referred Government¡¦s
hotline (1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that, ¡§the whole
stretch of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting. The stone
debris big and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the road every
day. When dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the road washing
trucks are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are covered in
dust or mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of construction
vehicles is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto the roads.
Oversight of road conditions is not carried out by the Airport Authority. An
alternative route should be created for the large number of construction
vehicles as they drive fast.¡¨ After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
A
noise complaint was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December 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 hammering noise
was generated from manual construction activities at unidentified source near
the HZMB construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the
noise nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by
the complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction
activity conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of
filling material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor
manual construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted
in the past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related
to this Contract.
A
complaint was received on 28 December 2016, and the complainant complained that
construction site of artificial island of Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has
severer mosquito infestation and furthermore, the complainant complained the
poor hygiene and insufficient washing facility on works are of CHEC, and
requested follow-up actions. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
With
referred to the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017, EPD has
received and referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the Hong Kong
International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed their
concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area
resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the
construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers
and lorries. The complainant complained that the
road cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road
Interchange and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning
of this year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously
stained by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto
the public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been
increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company
image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction
contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after
pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed
onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The
Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this
matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. not to affect the
pedestrians and road users as soon as possible. After investigation, there is
no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
A
complaint forwarded to us by RSS on 17 January 2017; the complainant complained
that sewage was pumped to the sea causing pollution at dusk (approximately 5pm
to 8pm) at east side of Tung Chung Artificial Island at Dragages¡¦s construction site. 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
introduction
1.1
Background
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.
1.1.11 According
to the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, there is a need of an EM&A programme including air quality, noise, water quality and
dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections. The EM&A programme of the Contract commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.2
Scope of Report
1.2.1
This is the twentieth 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 2016 to 28 February 2017.
1.3
Contract Organization
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
Summary of Construction Works
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
-
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
Summary
of EM&A Programme Requirements
2.1
Monitoring Parameters
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. The recent arrangement of works boundary
of 3RS Project which delineates the boundary of the designated 3RS Project (for
the indicative 3RS boundary, please refer to Figure 5). The works area of
3RS project 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, a proposal
was prepared by ET in September 2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of
EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality
monitoring stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect
lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Comment was subsequently
received from IEC/ENPO. The comments were under ET¡¦s review in the 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
Environmental Quality Performance (Action/Limit Levels)
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
Environmental Mitigation Measures
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
MONITORING Results
3.1
Air Quality Monitoring
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
|
Dec 16
|
Jan 17
|
Feb 17
|
1-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
AMS3B
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
AMS7
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
24-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
AMS3B
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
AMS7
|
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
|
Dec 16
|
Jan 17
|
Feb 17
|
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 December 2016, January 2017 and February 2017 respectively.
3.2
Noise Monitoring
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
The measured noise level on 13 Jan 2017 at NMS3B exceeded the noise
level of 65dB(A) during examination period but it
is higher than the baseline level. Therefore, baseline correction was carried
out and the corrected noise level which solely represent the noise level of
Construction works is 58dB(A) which is lower than the exceedance level of
65dB(A) . As such the EAP was not triggered. The measured noise level on 19 Jan
2017 exceeded the noise level of 65dB(A) during
examination period but it is below the baseline level. Therefore, it is not
considered as an exceedance. As such the EAP was not triggered. Other major
noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction activities of
the Contract, construction activities by other contracts and nearby
traffic noise. Nonetheless, the Contractor of Contract No.HY/2010/02 was reminded to continue to properly
implement all noise mitigation measures.
3.2.4
No Action or Limit Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded
in the reporting quarter.
3.2.5
Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction
activities of the Project and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.6
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
|
Dec 16
|
Jan 17
|
Feb 17
|
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
|
Dec 16
|
Jan 17
|
Feb 17
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
NMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.2.7
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.
3.2.8
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 2016 ¡V February 2017
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)
6 Feb 17
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
14 Dec 2016
|
0
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
10 Feb 17
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
15
Feb 17
|
0
|
1
|
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
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.2
Action Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9
was recorded at Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2016.
3.3.2.1
Below layout map shows that no marine based construction works were
carried out at HKBCF Reclamation Works:
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image002.jpg)
3.3.2.2
Exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)9 during
mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the
Contract because:
3.3.2.3
Exceedance was recorded at 07:51 on 14 December 2016, with referred to
the layout map attached, no marine based construction works were conducted
during flood tide, between 03:51 to 07:51, on14 December 2016, as such, it is
unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)9 on 14 December 2016. In
addition, with referred to silt curtain checking record of 14 December 2016, no
defects of the silt curtain was observed.
3.3.2.4
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 14 December 2016.
3.3.2.5
With referred photo record taken near IS(Mf)9
on 14 December 2016, no adverse water quality impact was indirectly caused by
vessel traffic. For sea condition and surrounding of IS(Mf)9,
also see below photo record.
3.3.2.6
Photo record which shows the sea condition and surrounding of monitoring
location (IS(Mf)9.
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image003.jpg)
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image004.jpg)
3.3.2.7
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)9.
3.3.2.8
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.2.9
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 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.
3.3.2.10 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.
3.3.2.11 The
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.
3.3.2.12 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
3.3.3
One SS action level exceedance on 6 Feb 2017 at monitoring station IS8
during flood tide.
3.3.3.1
Below layout map shows active works conducted
on 6 February 2017. Construction of sloping seawall was conducted at Portion
C2a as part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during flood tide.
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image005.jpg)
3.3.3.2
Investigation Results:
¡P
With referred to the layout map above, construction of sloping seawall
was conducted at Portion C2a during flood tide when water quality monitoring
was conducted at monitoring station IS8 on 6 February 2017, the active work was
located relatively far away from IS8, as such, it is unlikely to cause the
exceedance of SS at 6 February 2017.
¡P
In addition, with referred to silt curtain checking record of 6 February
2017, no defects of the silt curtain was observed.
¡P
With referred to the 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 6 February 2017.
¡P
Photo record taken near IS8 on 6 February 2017, no adverse water quality
impact was indirectly caused by vessel traffic. For sea condition and
surrounding of IS8, also see below photo record.
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image006.jpg)
¡P
There were no water quality exceedance at monitoring stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are located closer to active works than
monitoring station IS8.
¡P
The exceedance was likely due to local effects
in the vicinity of IS8
¡P
As such, the exceedance recorded at IS8 recorded during flood tide on 6
February 2017 was unlikely to be contract related.
3.3.3.3
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.
3.3.3.4
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.
3.3.3.5
Maintenance work of the silt curtain will be provided by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday, when defects were found.
3.3.4
One SS action level exceedance on 10 Feb 2017 at monitoring station SR6
during ebb tide.
3.3.4.1
Below layout map shows active works conducted
on 10 February 2017. Construction of sloping seawall was conducted at Portion
C2a as part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during ebb tide.
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image007.jpg)
3.3.4.2
Exceedance recorded at SR6 during ebb tide is unlikely due to marine
based construction activities of the Contract because:
3.3.4.3
With referred to the layout map above, construction of sloping seawall
was conducted at Portion C2a when water quality monitoring was conducted at
monitoring station SR6 on 10 February 2017, the works is located relatively far
away from SR6 during ebb tide, as such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance
of SS at 6 February 2017.
3.3.4.4
In addition, with referred to silt curtain checking record of 10
February 2017, 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 ebb tide on 10 February 2017. With referred photo
record taken near SR6 on 10 February 2017, no adverse water quality impact was
indirectly caused by vessel traffic. For sea condition and surrounding of SR6,
also see below photo record.
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image008.jpg)
3.3.4.6
There were no water quality exceedance at monitoring stations IS10 and IS(Mf)11 which are located closer to active works than
monitoring station SR6.
3.3.4.7
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR6
3.3.4.8
As such, the exceedance recorded at SR6 recorded during ebb tide on 10
February 2017 was 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 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.
3.3.4.10
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.
3.3.4.11
Maintenance 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
One SS action level exceedance on 15 Feb 2017 at monitoring station SR7
during flood tide.
3.3.5.1
Below layout map shows no construction
activities was conducted as part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during flood
tide on 15 February 2017.
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image009.jpg)
3.3.5.2
Exceedance recorded at
SR7 during flood tide is unlikely due to marine based construction activities
of the Contract because:
3.3.5.3
With referred to the
layout map attached, no construction activities was conducted as part of the
HKBCF Reclamation Works on 15 February 2017 during flood tide, as such, it is
unlikely that the exceedance of SS recorded at monitoring station SR7 on 15
February 2017 during flood tide was due to construction activities. In addition,
with referred to silt curtain checking record of 15 February 2017, no defects
of the silt curtain was observed.
3.3.5.4
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 15 February 2017.
3.3.5.5
With referred photo
record taken near SR7 on 15 February 2017, no adverse water quality impact was
indirectly caused by vessel traffic. For sea condition and surrounding of SR7,
also see below photo record.
![](TOC%20Rev_0_files/image010.jpg)
3.3.5.6
The exceedance was
likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR7.
3.3.5.7
As such, the exceedance
recorded at SR7 recorded during flood tide on 15 February 2017 was unlikely to
be contract related.
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 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.
3.3.5.9
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.
3.3.5.10
Maintenance 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
No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the
reporting quarter.
3.3.7
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.
3.4
Dolphin Monitoring
3.4.1
In accordance with the Contract Specific EM&A Manual, pre-set and
fixed transect line vessel based dolphin survey was required in two AFCD
designated areas (Northeast Lantau (NEL) and Northwest Lantau (NWL) survey
areas). The impact dolphin monitoring at each survey area should be conducted
twice per month.
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 2016 ¡V February 2017
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable
On- Effort Condition
|
648.2km
|
Number of Sightings
|
12 sightings (7 sightings are ¡¨on effort¡¨ (which are all
under favourable condition), 5 sightings are
¡§opportunistic¡¨)
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
60 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate#
|
NEL: 0
NWL: 1.2
|
Dolphin Group Size
|
Average of NEL: 0
Average of NWL: 5.0
Varied from 2-8 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.
Table 3.7
Summary of STG and ANI
encounter rates in December 2016 ¡V February 2017
|
|
NEL
|
NWL
|
Level Exceeded
|
|
STG*
|
0
|
1.9
|
Limit
|
|
ANI**
|
0
|
8.3
|
|
*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
Environmental Site Inspection and Audit
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
Dust was observed during handling of rock material, the contractor was
reminded to provide dust suppression measure. This item was subsequently
rectified by the Contractor (Closed)
3.5.4
Dark smoke emission from plant/equipment was observed, the Contractor
was reminded that dark smoke emission from plant/equipment shall be avoided.
This item was subsequently rectified by the Contractor (Closed)
Noise
3.5.5
No relevant adverse impact was observed in the reporting month.
Water
Quality
3.5.6
The Contractor was reminded to clear spilled oil on ground to
prevent mixing with general site runoff. (Reminder)
Chemical
and Waste Management
3.5.7
Size of the drip tray was observed insufficient. The Contractor was
reminded to properly provide drip tray with sufficient size to PME. The
Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)
3.5.8
Oil drum was observed without drip tray, the Contractor was reminded to
provide drip tray to oil drums. The Contractor subsequently rectified the
situation. (Closed)
3.5.9
The Contractor was reminded to provide spill kit in the vicinity of
drilling rig machine on scaffolding platform. (Reminder)
3.5.10
Chemical containers were placed on bare ground, the Contractor was
reminded to provide drip tray to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor
subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)
3.5.11
Chemical containers were placed on bare ground or on the edge of drip
tray, the Contractor was reminded to place all chemical containers on drip tray
properly to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor subsequently remove the
chemical containers from the location. The Contractor was reminded chemical
containers should be put inside drip trays as a preventive measure. (Closed)
3.5.12
General refuse was observed on access near Portion D, the Contractor was
reminded to keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor subsequently tidied up
and cleaned the works area. (Closed)
3.5.13
The Contractor was reminded to dispose of the general refuse properly
at Portion D and keep the site clean and tidy. The general refuse was
subsequently cleaned up by the Contractor. (Reminder)
3.5.14
The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray for chemical container
at Portion D. As informed by the Contractor the chemical container was
temporarily taken out and will be placed inside drip tray again. (Reminder)
3.5.15
The Contractor was reminded to clear spilled oil or chemical retained on
drip tray to prevent chemical leakage. (Reminder)
3.5.16
Chemical containers were placed on bare ground after use, the Contractor
was reminded to place all chemical containers on drip tray properly to retain
leakage, if any. The Contractor subsequently remove the chemical containers
from the location and provide drip tray to those in use. (Closed)
3.5.17
The Contractor was reminded to provide chemical label to chemical
containers. (Reminder)
Landscape
and Visual Impact
3.5.18
No relevant adverse impact was observed in the reporting quarter.
Others
3.5.19
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
Advice
on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status
4.1
Summary of Solid and Liquid Waste Management
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, 84,705m3 of inert C&D
Materials generated and reused in other Projects; 455,605 m3 of
surplus surcharge exported to Macau; 48,171.4m3 of Imported fill;
1260kg paper/cardboard packaging, 156 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
Implementation
Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
5.1
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
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, the perimeter silt curtain near Portion B
of HKBCF has been arranged on 3 February 2016. A notification on the concerned
site arrangement of the perimeter silt curtain of Contract HY/2010/02 was sent
to IEC/ENPO by the ET for their review on 8 March 2016, IEC/ENPO issued
comments on 10 March 2016 and the notification of realignment of perimeter silt
curtain is under ET¡¦s further review in the reporting quarter. The concerned
notification on the concerned site arrangement of the perimeter silt curtain of
Contract HY/2010/02 will be sent to the Authority once the review is completed.
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. The recent arrangement of works boundary
of 3RS Project which delineates the boundary of the designated 3RS Project (for
the indicative 3RS boundary, please refer to Figure 5). The works area of
3RS project 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, a proposal
was prepared by ET in September 2016 in accordance with condition 5.1 of
EP-353/2009/K and condition 4.1 of EP-354/2009/D, to relocate water quality
monitoring stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3 and alternate the transect
lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Comment was subsequently
received from IEC/ENPO. The comments were under ET¡¦s review in the reporting
quarter.
5.1.10
After review, no 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
Summary
of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
6.1
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit
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, 1 action level exceedance of suspended
solids at IS(Mf)9 at Mid-Flood tide on 14
December 2016 was recorded in the reporting month. This exceedance
was considered not likely to be caused by this Contract¡¦s activities after
investigation. For impact water quality monitoring, there was a SS action level
exceedance on 6 Feb 17 at monitoring station IS8 during flood tide; SS action
level exceedance on 10 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR6 during ebb tide
and SS action level exceedance on 15 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR7
during flood tide. After investigation, it was concluded that those exceedances
were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance was
recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting month.
6.1.4
For 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.
6.1.5
IEC/ENPO received an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1
December 2016. The complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as
follows. The Complainant complained that there is a large quantity of slurry at
East Coast Road, and suspected that the source of the slurry is a construction
site of CHEC next to a hotel. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
6.1.6
RSS received a complaint received an environmental complaint referred
Government¡¦s hotline (1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that,
¡§the whole stretch of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting.
The stone debris big and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the
road every day. When dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the
road washing trucks are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are
covered in dust or mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of
construction vehicles is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto
the roads. Oversight of road conditions is not carried out by the Airport
Authority. An alternative route should be created for the large number of
construction vehicles as they drive fast.¡¨ After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
6.1.7
A noise complaint was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December
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 hammering
noise was generated from manual construction activities at unidentified source
near the HZMB construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the
noise nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by
the complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction
activity conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of
filling material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor
manual construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted
in the past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related
to this Contract.
6.1.8
A complaint was received on 28 December 2016, and the complainant
complained that construction site of artificial island of Hong Kong-
Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has severer mosquito infestation and furthermore, the
complainant complained the poor hygiene and insufficient washing facility on
works are of CHEC, and requested follow-up actions. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this
Contract.
6.1.9
With referred to the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017,
EPD has received and referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the
Hong Kong International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed
their concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area
resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the
construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers
and lorries. The complainant complained that the
road cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road
Interchange and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning
of this year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously
stained by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto
the public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been
increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company
image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction
contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after
pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed
onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The
Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this
matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. not to affect the
pedestrians and road users as soon as possible. After investigation, there is
no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
6.1.10
A complaint forwarded to us by RSS on 17
January 2017; the complainant complained that sewage was pumped to the sea
causing pollution at dusk (approximately 5pm to 8pm) at east side of Tung Chung
Artificial Island at Dragages¡¦s construction
site. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
complaint is related to this Contract.
6.1.11
No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting
period
6.1.12
Cumulative statistics on exceedances is provided in Appendix J.
7
Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and
Successful Prosecutions
7.1
Summary of Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and
Successful Prosecutions
7.1.1
The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure 5.
7.1.2
IEC/ENPO received an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1
December 2016. The complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as
follows. The Complainant complained that there is a large quantity of slurry at
East Coast Road, and suspected that the source of the slurry is a construction
site of CHEC next to a hotel. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.3
RSS received a complaint received an environmental complaint referred Government¡¦s
hotline (1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that, ¡§the whole
stretch of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting. The stone
debris big and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the road every
day. When dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the road washing
trucks are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are covered in
dust or mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of construction
vehicles is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto the roads.
Oversight of road conditions is not carried out by the Airport Authority. An
alternative route should be created for the large number of construction
vehicles as they drive fast.¡¨ After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.4
A noise complaint was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December
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 hammering
noise was generated from manual construction activities at unidentified source
near the HZMB construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the
noise nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by
the complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction
activity conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of
filling material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor
manual construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted
in the past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related
to this Contract.
7.1.5
A complaint was received on 28 December 2016, and the complainant
complained that construction site of artificial island of Hong Kong-
Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has severer mosquito infestation and furthermore, the
complainant complained the poor hygiene and insufficient washing facility on
works are of CHEC, and requested follow-up actions. After investigation, there
is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this
Contract.
7.1.6
With referred to the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017,
EPD has received and referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the
Hong Kong International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed
their concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area
resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the
construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers
and lorries. The complainant complained that the
road cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road
Interchange and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning
of this year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously
stained by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto
the public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been
increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company
image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction
contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after
pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed
onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The
Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this
matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. not to affect the
pedestrians and road users as soon as possible. After investigation, there is
no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
7.1.7
A complaint forwarded to us by RSS on 17 January 2017; the complainant
complained that sewage was pumped to the sea causing pollution at dusk
(approximately 5pm to 8pm) at east side of Tung Chung Artificial Island
at Dragages¡¦s construction site. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is
related to this Contract.
7.1.8
Notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting
quarter.
7.1.9
Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful
prosecutions are summarized in Appendix N.
8
Comments,
recommendations and Conclusions
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:
8.3.4.1
In December 2016, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids at IS(Mf)9 at Mid-Flood tide on 14 December 2016
was recorded in the reporting month. This exceedance was considered
not likely to be caused by this Contract¡¦s activities after investigation.
8.3.4.2
In February 2017, For impact water quality monitoring, there was a SS
action level exceedance on 6 Feb 17 at monitoring station IS8 during flood
tide; SS action level exceedance on 10 Feb 17 at monitoring station SR6 during
ebb tide and SS action level exceedance on 15 Feb 17 at monitoring
station SR7 during flood tide. After investigation, it was concluded that those
exceedances were unlikely to be contract related. No other exceedance
was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting month.
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
IEC/ENPO received an environmental complaint referred by EPD on 1
December 2016. The complaint content provided by EPD is extracted as
follows. The Complainant complained that there is a large quantity of slurry at
East Coast Road, and suspected that the source of the slurry is a construction
site of CHEC next to a hotel. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
8.3.8
RSS received a complaint received an environmental complaint referred
Government¡¦s hotline (1823) on 2 December 2016.The Complainant complained that,
¡§the whole stretch of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road is truly disgusting.
The stone debris big and small and the mud is a nuisance to those who use the
road every day. When dry there is a lot of dust and when it rains or when the
road washing trucks are out it becomes a muddy mess. Cars and pedestrians are
covered in dust or mud, cars are hit by stones is a daily hazard. Washing of
construction vehicles is inadequate as the sand and soil is carried out onto
the roads. Oversight of road conditions is not carried out by the Airport
Authority. An alternative route should be created for the large number of
construction vehicles as they drive fast.¡¨ After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
8.3.9
A noise complaint was referred to the ENPO at 8:56 am on the 14 December
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 hammering
noise was generated from manual construction activities at unidentified source
near the HZMB construction sites at night time. The complainant stated that the
noise nuisance lasted for a month. After reviewing the information provided by
the complainant and checking with the Contractor, the only construction
activity conducted at night time in the past month was transportation of
filling material for this Contact HY/2010/02, neither hammering activities nor
manual construction activities which might cause noise nuisance were conducted in
the past month, as such, it is considered that the complaint is not related to
this Contract
8.3.10
A complaint was received on 28 December 2016,
and the complainant complained that construction site of artificial island of
Hong Kong- Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has severer mosquito infestation and
furthermore, the complainant complained the poor hygiene and insufficient
washing facility on works are of CHEC, and requested follow-up actions. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the complaint is
related to this Contract.
8.3.11
With referred to the information provided by IEC/ENPO on 9 January 2017,
EPD has received and referred a complaint received from a bus operator at the
Hong Kong International Airport to the Project team. The complainant expressed
their concerns on the public health and road cleanliness within Chek Lap Kok area
resulting from the muds, dusts and slurry spills which is brought away from the
construction sites of HK-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) Project by tippers
and lorries. The complainant complained that the
road cleanliness of East Coast Road & Tung Fai Road, Airport Road
Interchange and Sky City Interchange becomes extreme worse since the beginning
of this year. The external bodies of their buses & vehicles are seriously
stained by the heavy dusts and muds produced from the construction sites onto
the public road. Strong complaints from passengers and management have been
increased rapidly as it is affecting the health of passengers and their company
image every day. The complainant said that that had raised complaints to the
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) since March 2016. Although the construction
contractors had used water trucks to flush washing the road surface after
pushing by AAHK, the improvement is minimal and the muddy water is splashed
onto the body of each across vehicle making the situation much worst. The
Complainant would like to request for assistance from the Authority on this
matter to liaise with the China State Construction Ltd. and China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. not to affect the
pedestrians and road users as soon as possible. After investigation, there is
no adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
8.3.12
A complaint forwarded to us by RSS on 17
January 2017; the complainant complained that sewage was pumped to the sea
causing pollution at dusk (approximately 5pm to 8pm) at east side of Tung Chung
Artificial Island at Dragages¡¦s construction
site. After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
complaint is related to this Contract.
8.3.13
No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting
quarter.
8.3.14
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.
8.3.15
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.
8.3.16
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.