![](TOC%20(Rev.%200)_files/image002.jpg)
![](TOC%20(Rev.%200)_files/image004.jpg)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY 3
1
introduction 6
1.1 Background 6
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 21
3.5 Environmental
Site Inspection and Audit 22
4
Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status 24
4.1 Summary
of Solid and Liquid Waste Management 24
5
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures 25
5.1 Implementation
Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures 25
6
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit 27
6.1 Summary
of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit 27
7
Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions 28
7.1 Summary
of Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful
Prosecutions 28
8
Comments, recommendations and Conclusions 29
8.1 Comments
on mitigation measures 29
8.2 Recommendations
on EM&A Programme 30
8.3 Conclusions 31
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 3.6
Summary of Key Dolphin Survey Findings in Mar 2017 ¡V May 2017
Table 3.7
Summary of STG and ANI encounter rates in
March 2017 ¡V May 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 4A
Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map
Figure 4B
Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map (Effective after 12 May
2017)
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 March 2017 and 31 May 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
|
18 sessions
18 sessions
|
Noise monitoring
|
14 sessions
|
Impact water quality monitoring
|
39 sessions
|
Impact dolphin monitoring
|
6 surveys
|
Joint Environmental site inspection
|
13 sessions
|
Breaches of Action and Limit
Levels for Air Quality
All 1-Hour TSP and 24-Hour TSP results were below the
Action and Limit Level in the reporting quarter.
Breaches of Action and Limit
Levels for Noise
For construction noise, no
exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting quarter.
Breaches of Action and Limit
Levels for Water Quality
In March 2017, 1 action level exceedance of turbidity
were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8 during flood tide
on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance and 1 limit level exceedance of
suspended solids were recorded at SR4(N) and IS8 respectively during flood tide
on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded
at both SR4(N) and IS8 during ebb tide on 24 March 2017. The exceedances were
considered unrelated to this Contract¡¦s activities after investigation. No
other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the March 2017.
In April 2017, 1 action level exceedance of suspended
solids was recorded at IS(Mf)11 during flood tide on
28 April 2017. The exceedance was considered unrelated to this Contract¡¦s
activities after investigation; No other exceedance was recorded at all
monitoring stations in the April 2017.
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
environmental complaint was received on 27 March 2017, and the complainant
complained that a very loud sound was intermittently heard by the Complainant
since 10pm on 26 March and such loud sound was heard by the complainant until
midnight. It was suspected that the sound came from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao
Bridge (HZMB) construction works near the artificial island. In addition, a
large area of pollution was observed on sea in the morning of the day the
complainant made the complaint. It was suspected that was caused by the HZMB
construction works. After investigation, there is no adequate information
to conclude the
No
notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting period complaint is related to this Contract. Nevertheless, the
Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all noise and water
quality mitigation measures.
One
environmental complaint was received on 17 April 2017, the organization which
made the complaint, Green Sense, complained that ¡§muddy water was observed at
area surrounding the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) artificial island, it
is suspected that there were overflow muddy water from the artificial island.
Tam Hoi-pong of Green Sense stated that there should not be too much muddy
water if reclamation was conducted according to the EIA report. He suspected
that there are problems of reclamation works, silt curtain have not effectively
screen out the mud and sand, the construction works is not ideal and unable to
ensure water quality. After investigation, there is no adequate information to
conclude the complaint is related to this Contract. Nevertheless, the
Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all water quality
mitigation measures.
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 twenty first 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 March 2017 to 31 May 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, 4A & 4B respectively.
2.1.8
With respect to the commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong
Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), large
portion works site boundary are established at the northern part of the
existing airport Island. The works area of 3RS project
affected several water quality monitoring stations and dolphin
monitoring transect lines which are being
used for conducting monitoring under Contract No.
HY/2010/02 and therefore, the EM&A Programme for
this Contract is affected. As a result, the ¡§Proposal for Alteration of
Transect Line of Dolphin Monitoring and Alternative Monitoring Location for
Impact Water Quality Monitoring (IWQM) Stations¡¨ 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. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to
IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the
revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal has been sent to
authority by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017. The
authority subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017. Relocation of
water quality monitoring stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3 to SR5(N), IS10(N),
CS(Mf)3(N) and alternation of transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 and 24 are adopted starting from 15 May 2017 and 17 May 2017 respectively.
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
|
Mar 17
|
Apr 17
|
May 17
|
1-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
AMS3B
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
AMS7
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
24-hr
TSP
|
AMS2
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
AMS3B
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
AMS7
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
Table 3.2
Summary of Number of
Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Numbers of Exceedance
|
Mar 17
|
Apr 17
|
May 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 March 2017, April 2017 and May 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 30 Mar 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 53 dB(A) which is lower than the exceedance level of
65dB(A). Therefore, it is not considered as an exceedance. As such the EAP was
not triggered. Other 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
The measured noise level on 5 May 2017 at NMS3B exceeded the noise level
of 65 dB(A) during examination period but it was 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.
3.2.5
No Action or Limit Level Exceedance of construction noise was recorded
in the reporting quarter.
3.2.6
Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included construction
activities of the Project and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.7
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
|
Mar 17
|
Apr 17
|
May 17
|
NMS2
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
NMS3B
|
5
|
4
|
5
|
Table
3.4
Summary of Number
of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact Noise
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Mar 17
|
Apr 17
|
May 17
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
NMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.2.8
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.
3.2.9
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.
3.3
Water Quality Monitoring
3.3.1
The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are depicted
in Figure 3.
3.3.2
Due to marine work of the Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport
into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), original locations of water quality
monitoring stations SR5, IS10 and CS(Mf)3 are enclosed
by works boundary of 3RS Project. Alternative impact water quality monitoring
stations, naming as SR5(N), IS10(N) and CS(Mf)3(N) are
adopted starting from 15 May 2017 to replace the original locations of water
quality monitoring. For details and status of the proposed changes, please
refer to section 5.1.9.
Table 3.5 Summary of
Water Quality Exceedances in Mar 2017 ¡V May 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
|
(1)
24
Mar
2017
|
(1)
24
Mar
2017
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
24
Mar
2017
|
0
|
1
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
28
Apr
2017
|
0
|
1
|
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
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
(1)
24
Mar 2017
|
(1)
24
Mar
2017
|
1
|
2
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
6
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.3
Two turbidity action level exceedances on 24
March 2017 at monitoring stations IS8 and SR4(N) during flood tide; One
suspended solids action level and one
suspended solids limit level exceedance were recorded at monitoring station
SR4(N) and IS8 respectively during flood tide. During ebb tide on 24 March
2017, two suspended solids action level were recorded at monitoring station SR4(N) and IS8.
3.3.3.1 Below layout map shows active works conducted on 24 March
2017. Construction of sloping seawall was conducted at Portion C2a as part of
the HKBCF Reclamation Works during flood tide.
![](TOC%20(Rev.%200)_files/image002.jpg)
3.3.3.2 Investigation
Results:
3.3.3.3 With
refer to the layout map attached and as informed by the Contractor, no active
works was conducted along the southern seawall on 24 March 2017 which is the
part of the reclamation located closest to monitoring stations IS8 and SR4(N). Only construction of sloping seawall was conducted
at Portion C2a on 24 March 2017, the works is located relatively far away from
IS8 and SR4(N), in addition, there were no water
quality exceedance at monitoring stations IS10, IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)6 and IS(Mf)9
on 24 March 2017, which are located closer to active work than monitoring
stations IS8 and SR4(N). It is unlikely that the turbidity and suspended solids
exceedancesrecorded at IS8 and SR4(N)
are caused by this Contract..
3.3.3.4 With
referred to photo records taken in the vicinity of IS8 and SR4(N)
on 24 March 2017, relatively turbid water was observed within the vicinity of
monitoring station IS8 and SR4(N) but no siltplume
was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the
outside of the perimeter silt curtain during flood tide on 24 March 2017.
3.3.3.5 Photo
record taken in the vicinity of SR4(N) on 24 March
2017 shows that vessels were observed in the vicinity monitoring station SR4(N).
After checking with the Contractor, vessels shown in photo record were not
working for this Contract.
3.3.3.6 Photo
record of the sea condition near IS8 on 24 March 2017. The photo shows that no
turbid water was observe at the side near HKBCF Reclamation works.
![](TOC%20(Rev.%200)_files/image003.jpg)
3.3.3.7 Photo
record of the sea condition near SR4(N) on 24 March
2017
![](TOC%20(Rev.%200)_files/image004.jpg)
3.3.3.8 The
exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS8 and SR4(N).
3.3.3.9 As
such, the exceedances recorded at IS8 and SR4(N) on 24
March 2017 were unlikely to be contract related.
3.3.3.10 Action taken
under the action plan:
1. in situ
measurement was repeated to confirm findings if turbidity exceedances; not
applicable to SS measurement as SS was not measured in situ ;
2. After considering the above
mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the
exceedances were 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 turbidity exceedance is
unlikely to be project related, as such actions 5-7. under
the EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.3.11 Nevertheless,
the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing maintenance to the
silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects were found.
3.3.3.12 Maintenance
work of the silt curtain will be provided by the Contractor on a daily basis
except Sunday and public holiday, when defects were found.
3.3.4
One action level exceedance of SS is recorded
at monitoring station IS(Mf)11 during flood tide on 28
Apr 2017.
3.3.4.1
Below layout map shows no construction
activities was conducted as part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during flood
tide on 28 April 2017.
![](TOC%20(Rev.%200)_files/image005.jpg)
3.3.4.2
Investigation Result:
3.3.4.3
With referred to the layout map above, no construction activities was
conducted when water quality monitoring was conducted at monitoring station
IS(Mf)11 on 28 April 2017 during flood tide, as such, it is unlikely that
exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11 on 28 April 2017 during flood tide was due to
construction activities.
3.3.4.4
In addition, with referred to silt curtain checking record of 28 April
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 inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the
perimeter silt curtain during flood tide on 28 April 2017.
3.3.4.6
With referred to photo record below which shows the sea condition near
monitoring station IS(Mf)11 on 28 April 2017 during
flood tide, no adverse water quality impact indirectly caused by marine traffic
was observed.
![](TOC%20(Rev.%200)_files/image006.jpg)
3.3.4.7
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)11.
3.3.4.8
As such, the exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)11
recorded during flood tide on 28 April 2017 was unlikely to be contract
related.
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.
3.3.4.9
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.4.10
Maintenance work of the silt curtain will be provided by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday, when defects were found.
3.3.5 No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting quarter.
3.3.6 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 Mar 2017 ¡V May 2017
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable
On- Effort Condition
|
610.9km
|
Number of Sightings
|
5 sightings (2 sightings are ¡¨on effort¡¨ (which are all
under favourable condition), 3 sightings are
¡§opportunistic¡¨)
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
16 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate#
|
NEL: 0
NWL: 0.5
|
Dolphin Group Size
|
Average of NEL: 0
Average of NWL: 3.2
Varied from 1-6 individuals
|
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area
|
Northern Sha Chau and Lung Kwu
Chau Marine Park, the western limit of NWL and Tai O area.
|
Remarks:
^ Completion of line transect survey of NEL and
NWL survey area once was counted as one complete survey.
# Dolphin Encounter Rate = (Sum of 1st 2nd,
3rd month¡¦s total sighting/ Sum of 1st ,
2nd, 3rd month¡¦s total effort)*100km (encounter rates are
calculated using on effort sightings made under favourable
conditions only.)
3.4.5
One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the
reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is
one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded
the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual
marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate from the other stress
factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For
detail of investigation, please refer to appendix L.
Table 3.7 Summary of
STG and ANI encounter rates in March 2017 ¡V May 2017
|
|
NEL
|
NWL
|
Level Exceeded
|
|
STG*
|
0
|
0.5
|
Limit
|
|
ANI**
|
0
|
2.9
|
|
*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 excavation, the Contractor was reminded to
spray water or dust suppression chemical before, during and immediately after
the operation so as to maintain the entire surface wet. (Reminder)
3.5.4
Dark smoke emission from plant/equipment and vessels and from an excavator
were observed, the Contractor was reminded that dark smoke emission from
plant/equipment shall be avoided. Emission of dark smoke was no longer observed
in subsequent site inspection in the reporting quarterly. The Contractor was
reminded to ensure proper implementation of air quality mitigation measures and
smoke emission from plant/equipment shall be avoided. (Closed)
3.5.5
Dust was observed during the operation of excavator for road finishing
works. The Contractor was reminded to provide effective dust suppression
mechanism. No dust was observed near excavator at the concerned area from photo
record provided by the Contractor. (Closed)
3.5.6
Dust was observed on 30 Mar 2017 during the transport of dusty
materials. The Contractor was reminded to spray water or other dust suppression
chemical prior to loading, unloading or transport of dusty materials. The
Contractor subsequently sprayed water to the dusty materials. (Closed)
3.5.7
It was observed that a discolored NRMM labels was affixed on the side of
a drilling rig machines, excavator and boring machines. The Contractor was
reminded to affix appropriate NRMM labels on the machines. The Contractor
subsequently provided NRMM label to the machine. (Closed)
Noise
3.5.8
Acoustic mat was not provided to generator placed on ship deck of Mytilus, the Contractor was reminded to provide appropriate
acoustic decoupling measures. The Contractor subsequently rectified the
situation by providing acoustic decoupling measures to the concerned generator.
(Closed)
Water
Quality
3.5.9
It was observed that silt curtain near Portion E2 was disconnected. The
Contractor was reminded to reinstall silt curtain at the concerned area and
provide maintenance regularly. (Reminder)
Chemical
and Waste Management
3.5.10
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)
3.5.11
Chemical containers were placed on ship deck of Chun Ming 98, 83 and 18,
the Contractor was reminded to place all chemical containers on drip tray
properly to retain leakage, if any. The Contractor subsequently remove the oil
drum from the area. The Contractor was reminded chemical containers should be
put inside drip trays as a preventive measure. (Pending for Contractor¡¦s
rectification)
3.5.12
The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray to equipment that use
petrol or other chemical as fuel to avoid leakage, if any. (Reminder)
3.5.13
The Contractor was reminded to clear leaked water on ground and replace
the flawed drip tray to prevent leakage, if any. (Reminder)
3.5.14
Oil Spillage was observed from derrick lighter along the pathway on ship
deck of Chun Ming 68, the Contractor was reminded to clear all leaked oil as
chemical waste, provide adequate spill kits and repair derrick lighter at once
before using. The Contractor subsequently rectified the situation. (Closed)
3.5.15
Oil Spillage were observed on ship deck of Chun Ming 18 on 27 Apr 2017
and leaking from a generator at Portion E2 on 11 May 2017, the Contractor was
reminded to clear all leaked oil as chemical waste and dispose of as chemical
waste. The Contractor subsequently cleaned the leaked oil with spill kit
provided on barge and removed the generator from concerned area respectively.
(Closed)
3.5.16
The Contractor was reminded to clear spilled oil or chemical retained on
drip tray to prevent chemical leakage. (Reminder)
3.5.17
The Contractor was reminded to clear water retained on drip tray after
rainfall to prevent spillage, if any. (Reminder)
3.5.18
The Contractor was reminded to clear leaked oil on the lid of containers
and water retained on drip tray of drilling rig (Lam D90) to prevent spillage
or mixing with general site runoff. (Reminder)
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
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, 63,124.6m3 of inert C&D Materials
generated and reused in other Projects; 231,560.5m3 of surplus surcharge
exported to Macau; 82,992.7m3 of Imported fill; 448kg paper/cardboard
packaging, 136.5 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
quarter, stage 2 (east side of the perimeter silt curtain removal work has been
completed and dates for the subsequent stages have also been updated, 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
With respect to the commencement of marine work of the Expansion of Hong
Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (3RS Project), large
portion works site boundary are established at the northern part of the
existing airport Island. The works area of 3RS project
affected several water quality monitoring stations and dolphin
monitoring transect lines which are being
used for conducting monitoring under Contract No.
HY/2010/02 and therefore, the EM&A Programme for
this Contract is affected. As a result, the ¡§Proposal for Alteration of
Transect Line of Dolphin Monitoring and Alternative Monitoring Location for
Impact Water Quality Monitoring (IWQM) Stations¡¨ 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. A revised proposal has been updated and sent to
IEC/ENPO for their further review on 24 March 2017 and IEC/ENPO verified the
revised proposal on the same date. The revised proposal has been sent to authority
by project team for review and approval on 3 April 2017. The authority
subsequently approved the proposal on 12 May 2017. Relocation of water quality
monitoring stations from SR5, IS10, CS(Mf)3 to SR5(N), IS10(N), CS(Mf)3(N) and
alternation of transect lines of dolphin monitoring 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 24 are
adopted starting from 15 May 2017 and 17 May 2017 respectively.
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, In March 2017, 1 action level exceedance
of turbidity were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8
during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance and 1 limit level
exceedance of suspended solids were recorded at SR4(N) and IS8 respectively
during flood tide on 24 March 2017; 1 action level exceedance of suspended
solids were recorded at both SR4(N) and IS8 during ebb tide on 24 March 2017.
The exceedances were considered unrelated to this Contract¡¦s activities after
investigation. No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in
the March 2017; In April 2017, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids
was recorded at IS(Mf)11 during flood tide on 28 April
2017. The exceedance was considered unrelated to this Contract¡¦s activities
after investigation; No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the April 2017.
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
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
One environmental complaint was received on 27 March 2017, and the
complainant complained that a very loud sound was intermittently heard by the
Complainant since 10pm on 26 March and such loud sound was heard by the
complainant until midnight. It was suspected that the sound came from the Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) construction works near the artificial island.
In addition, a large area of pollution was observed on sea in the morning of
the day the complainant made the complaint. It was suspected that was caused by
the HZMB construction works. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract. Nevertheless,
the Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all noise and water
quality mitigation measures.
7.1.3
One environmental complaint was received on 17 April 2017, the
organization which made the complaint, Green Sense, complained that ¡§muddy
water was observed at area surrounding the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB)
artificial island, it is suspected that there were overflow muddy water from
the artificial island. Tam Hoi-pong of Green Sense stated that there should not
be too much muddy water if reclamation was conducted according to the EIA
report. He suspected that there are problems of reclamation works, silt curtain
have not effectively screen out the mud and sand, the construction works is not
ideal and unable to ensure water quality. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all
water quality mitigation measures.
7.1.4
No notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting
period
7.1.5
Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful
prosecutions are summarized in Appendix J.
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 March 2017, 1 action level exceedance of turbidity were recorded at
both SR4(N) and IS8 during flood tide on 24 March
2017; 1 action level exceedance and 1 limit level exceedance of suspended
solids were recorded at SR4(N) and IS8 respectively during flood tide on 24
March 2017; 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids were recorded at both
SR4(N) and IS8 during ebb tide on 24 March 2017. The exceedances were
considered unrelated to this Contract¡¦s activities after investigation. No
other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring stations in the March 2017.
8.3.4.2
In April 2017, 1 action level exceedance of suspended solids was
recorded at IS(Mf)11 during flood tide on 28 April
2017. The exceedance was considered unrelated to this Contract¡¦s activities
after investigation; No other exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the April 2017.
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 environmental complaint was received on 27 March 2017, and the
complainant complained that a very loud sound was intermittently heard by the
Complainant since 10pm on 26 March and such loud sound was heard by the
complainant until midnight. It was suspected that the sound came from the Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) construction works near the artificial island.
In addition, a large area of pollution was observed on sea in the morning of
the day the complainant made the complaint. It was suspected that was caused by
the HZMB construction works. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract. Nevertheless,
the Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all noise and water
quality mitigation measures.
8.3.8
One environmental complaint was received on 17 April 2017, the
organization which made the complaint, Green Sense, complained that ¡§muddy
water was observed at area surrounding the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB)
artificial island, it is suspected that there were overflow muddy water from
the artificial island. Tam Hoi-pong of Green Sense stated that there should not
be too much muddy water if reclamation was conducted according to the EIA
report. He suspected that there are problems of reclamation works, silt curtain
have not effectively screen out the mud and sand, the construction works is not
ideal and unable to ensure water quality. After investigation, there is no
adequate information to conclude the complaint is related to this Contract.
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to continue to fully maintain all
water quality mitigation measures.
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.