Certified by Environmental Team Leader
Verified by Independent Environmental Checker
Contract No. HY/2013/04 HZMB HKBCF –
Infrastructure Works Stage II (Southern Portion)
Quarterly EM&A Report
for October 2017 to December 2017
January
2018
China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited
Mott
MacDonald
20/F
AIA Kowloon Tower
Landmark
East
100
How Ming Street
Kwun
Tong
Kowloon
Hong
Kong
T
+852 2828 5757
F
+852 2827 1823
mottmac.hk
Contents
This Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Report is prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/04 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Infrastructure Works Stage II (Southern Portion)” (hereafter referred to as “the Contract”) for the Highways Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The Contract was awarded to China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited (hereafter referred to as “the Contractor”) and Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited (MMHK) was appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) by the Contractor.
The Contract is part of the “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities” (HZMB HKBCF) Project which is a “Designated Project” under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Cap. 499) and for which an EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) was prepared and approved. The current Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF, namely No. EP-353/2009/K, was issued on 11 April 2016. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. Commencement of the Contract took place on 13 March 2015 and the construction works commenced on 13 July 2015.
Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited has been appointed by the Contractor to implement the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM&A) programme for the Contract in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version 1.0) and will be providing environmental team services for the Contract. This is the 10th Quarterly EM&A Report for the Contract which summaries findings of the EM&A works during the reporting period from 1 October 2017 to 31 December 2017 (the “reporting period”).
Environmental Monitoring and Audit Progress
The EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version 1.0). It should be noted that, for this Contract:
● The air quality monitoring works are covered by Contract No. HY/2011/03 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road – Section between Scenic Hill and HKBCF” and Contract No. HY/2013/01 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Passenger Clearance Building”; and
● The noise, water quality and marine ecology monitoring works are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01.
The ET of the Contract or another ET of the HZMB project is required to conduct impact air quality monitoring at AMS6 and AMS7, noise monitoring at NMS2 and NMS3B, water quality monitoring at the twenty-one stations and dolphin monitoring at the twenty-four transects as part of EM&A programme if these monitoring stations are no longer covered under Contract Nos. HY/2011/03 and HY/2013/01 (as the case may be). However, this is subject to ENPO’s final decision on which ET should carry out the monitoring work at these stations.
The dates of site inspection during the reporting period are listed below:
● 6, 11, 18, 23 and 31 October, 8, 15, 20 and 29 November and 6, 13, 18 and 29 December 2017
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels
Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 is reported in the monthly EM&A report prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.
There was no Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level recorded at station AMS7 by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period.
There was no Action and Limit Level exceedance for noise recorded at station NMS2 and station NMS3B by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period.
During October 2017, a total of 12 Action Level exceedances and 8 Limit Level exceedances (comprising 7 Action Level exceedances and 8 Limit Level exceedances of DO, and 5 Action Level exceedances of SS) were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract. It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Contract.
During November 2017, a total of 16 Action Level exceedances, consisting of 15 Action Level exceedances and 4 Limit Level exceedances of SS for water quality and one Action Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP for air quality, were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract. It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Contract.
During December 2017, a total of 17 Action Level exceedances, consisting of 16 Action Level exceedances of SS for water quality and one Action Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP for air quality, were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract. It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Contract.
Furthermore, Limit Level exceedances of impact dolphin monitoring were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the period of September 2017 to November 2017 and investigated by the ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Impact dolphin monitoring results at all transects during the reporting period are reported in the monthly EM&A Reports for Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Complaint Log
There were three complaints received in relation to the environmental impact during the reporting period.
Log No. |
Environmental Complaint Ref. No. |
Date of Complaint Receipt |
Description |
005 |
ENPO-C0127 |
27 October 2017 |
Water Quality |
006 |
ENPO-C0128 |
23 November 2017 |
Air Quality |
007 |
ENPO-C0129 |
29 December 2017 |
Air Quality and Water Quality |
The complaints received on 27 October 2017 and 23 November 2017 were investigated by the ET of the Contract and the findings are presented in this report.
The investigation of the complaint received on 29 December 2017 by the ET of the Contract is ongoing and the findings will be presented in the next Quarterly EM&A report.
Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
There were no notifications of summons or prosecutions received during this reporting period.
Reporting Changes
On 27 December 2017, IEC/ENPO notified ET of changes to the EM&A Programme regarding some water quality monitoring stations being conducted by Contract No. HY/2013/01. These changes were justified by the ETL of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by the IEC on 13 November 2017 and approved by EPD on 22 December 2017 for implementation with effect from the same date. The changes are summarised in Table ES.1 below.
Table ES.1: Changes to Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations (with effect from 22 December 2017)
Station |
Description |
East |
North |
SR3* |
Sensitive receivers (San Tau SSSI) |
810525 |
816456 |
SR3(N)# |
Sensitive
receivers (San Tau SSSI)c |
810689 |
816591 |
SR10A* |
Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 1 |
823741 |
823495 |
SR10A(N)
# |
Sensitive
receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 1 |
823644 |
823484 |
SR10B(N)* |
Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 2 |
823683 |
823187 |
SR10B(N2)# |
Sensitive
receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 2 |
823689 |
823159 |
Remark: Three monitoring stations, namely SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) (marked *), were replaced by SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) respectively (marked #, shown in bold red font).
This Quarterly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Report is prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/04 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Infrastructure Works Stage II (Southern Portion)” (hereafter referred to as “the Contract”) for the Highways Department of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The Contract was awarded to China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited (hereafter referred to as “the Contractor”) and Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Limited (MMHK) was appointed as the Environmental Team (ET) by the Contractor.
The Contract is part of the “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities” (HZMB HKBCF) Project which is a “Designated Project” under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Cap. 499) and for which an EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) was prepared and approved. The current Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF, namely No. EP-353/2009/K, was issued on 11 April 2016. These documents are available through the EIA Ordinance Register. Commencement of the Contract took place on 13 March 2015 and the construction works commenced on 13 July 2015. The works areas of the contract are shown in Appendix A.
This is the 10th Quarterly EM&A Report summarising the findings of EM&A activities conducted under the Contract from 1 October 2017 to 31 December 2017 (the “reporting period”).
The organisation chart and lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management structure together with the contact information of the key personnel are shown in Appendix B. The key personnel contact names and numbers are summarized in Table 1.1.
Table 1.2: Contact Information of Key Personnel
Party |
Position |
Name |
Telephone |
Fax |
Engineer or Engineer’s Representative (AECOM Asia
Co. Ltd.) |
Chief Resident
Engineer |
Alfred Cheng |
3958 7471 |
3468 2076 |
Environmental
Project Office / Independent Environmental Checker (Ramboll Hong Kong Limited) |
Environmental
Project Office Leader |
Y H Hui |
3465 2888 |
3465 2899 |
Independent
Environmental Checker |
Raymond Dai |
3465 2888 |
3465 2899 |
|
|
Environmental
Site Supervisor |
Ray Yan |
5181 8165 |
3465 2899 |
Contractor (China State
Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited) |
Site Agent |
Jason Chung |
9127 8369 |
2459 4336 |
Environmental
Officer |
Xavier Lam |
9493 2944 |
2459 4336 |
|
|
Billy Lao |
6679 1950 |
2459 4336 |
|
Environmental Team (Mott
MacDonald Hong Kong Limited) |
Environmental
Team Leader |
Gary
Chow |
2828 5874 |
2827 1823 |
24-hour
Complaint Hotline |
- |
- |
5236 7111 |
- |
The Construction Works Programme of the Project is provided in Appendix C.
A summary of the construction activities undertaken during this reporting period is shown below:
● Box Culvert D: Bay 17 & Bay 18 wall + roof completed; Bay 1, Bay 2 & Outfall structure finished
● Box Culvert C: no works
● Pier Column: 1 no. completed
● Segment Erection: 185 no. competed
● Segment Delivery: 337 pcs
● Depressed Road: all structures of Depressed Road were completed in November 2017
● No generation of excavated marine sediment.
The EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual for HKBCF (Version 1.0). It should be noted that, for this Contract:
● The air quality monitoring works are covered by Contract No. HY/2011/03 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road – Section between Scenic Hill and HKBCF” and Contract No. HY/2013/01 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Passenger Clearance Building”; and
● The noise monitoring works are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Passenger Clearance Building”.
The ET of the Contract or another ET of the HZMB project is required to conduct impact air quality monitoring at AMS6 and AMS7 and noise monitoring at NMS2 and NMS3B as part of EM&A programme if these monitoring stations are no longer covered under Contract Nos. HY/2011/03 and HY/2013/01 (as the case may be). However, this is subject to ENPO’s final decision on which ET should carry out the monitoring work at these stations.
A summary of air and noise monitoring locations are presented in Table 2.1. The location of air quality and noise monitoring stations are shown as in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, respectively.
Table 2.1: Construction Dust and Noise Monitoring Locations
Environmental Monitoring |
Identification No. |
Location Description |
Air Quality |
AMS6(1) |
Dragonair/CNAC
(Group) Building |
|
AMS7 (1) |
Hong Kong
SkyCity Marriot Hotel |
Noise |
NMS2(2) |
Seaview
Crescent |
|
NMS3B(2)
(3) |
AECOM PRE’s
Office |
Remarks: (1) The ET of this Contract should conduct impact air quality monitoring at the AMS listed in the table as part of EM&A programme according to latest notification from ENPO when the monitoring station(s) is/are no longer covered by another ET of the HZMB project.
(2) The ET of this Contract should conduct impact noise monitoring at the NMS listed in the table as part of EM&A programme according to the latest notification from ENPO when the monitoring station(s) is/are no longer covered by another ET of the HZMB project.
(3) The Action and Limit Levels for schools will be applied for this alternative monitoring location.
The water quality monitoring works for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Passenger Clearance Building”. A total of twenty-one stations (nine Impact Stations, seven Sensitive Receiver Stations and five Control/Far Field Stations) are covered by the current EM&A programme. The ET of the Contract or another ET of the HZMB project is required to conduct water quality at these stations as part of EM&A programme if these monitoring stations are no longer covered under Contract No. HY/2013/01. However, this is subject to ENPO’s final decision on which ET should carry out the monitoring work at these stations.
Table 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show the locations of water quality monitoring stations.
Table 2.2: Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Station |
Description |
East |
North |
IS5 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
811579 |
817106 |
IS(Mf)6 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
812101 |
817873 |
IS7 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
812244 |
818777 |
IS8 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
814251 |
818412 |
IS(Mf)9 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
813273 |
818850 |
IS(Mf)11 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
813562 |
820716 |
IS(Mf)16 |
Impact Station
(Close to HKBCF construction site) |
814328 |
819497 |
IS17 |
Impact
Station (Close to HKBCF construction site) |
814539 |
820391 |
SR3 |
Sensitive
receivers (San Tau SSSI) |
810525 |
816456 |
SR3(N)# |
Sensitive receivers (San Tau SSSI) |
810689 |
816591 |
SR4(N) |
Sensitive
receivers (Tai Ho) |
814705 |
817859 |
SR5(N) |
Sensitive
receivers (Artificial Reef in NE Airport) |
812569 |
821475 |
SR6 |
Sensitive
receivers (Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park) |
805837 |
821818 |
SR7 |
Sensitive
receivers (Tai Mo Do) |
814293 |
821431 |
SR10A |
Sensitive receivers
(Ma Wan FCZ) 1 |
823741 |
823495 |
SR10A(N) # |
Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 1 |
823644 |
823484 |
SR10B(N) |
Sensitive
receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 2 |
823683 |
823187 |
SR10B(N2)# |
Sensitive receivers (Ma Wan FCZ) 2 |
823689 |
823159 |
CS(Mf)3(N) |
Control
Station |
808814 |
822355 |
CS(Mf)5 |
Control
Station |
817990 |
821129 |
CS4 |
Control
Station |
810025 |
824004 |
CS6 |
Control
Station |
817028 |
823992 |
Remark: On 27 December 2017, IEC/ENPO notified ET of changes to the EM&A Programme regarding some water quality monitoring stations being conducted by Contract No. HY/2013/01. These changes were justified by the ETL of Contract No. HY/2013/01 on 8 November 2017, verified by the IEC on 13 November 2017 and approved by EPD on 22 December 2017 for implementation with effect from the same date. Three monitoring stations, namely SR3, SR10A and SR10B(N) (marked *), were replaced by SR3(N), SR10A(N) and SR10B(N2) respectively (marked #, shown in bold red font).
The dolphin monitoring works for the Contract are covered by Contract No. HY/2013/01 “Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge HKBCF – Passenger Clearance Building”. The ET of the Contract or another ET of the HZMB project is required to conduct dolphin monitoring at the twenty-four transects as part of EM&A programme if these transects are no longer covered under Contract No. HY/2013/01. The dolphin monitoring should adopt line-transect vessel survey method. The survey follows pre-set and fixed transect lines in the two areas defined by AFCD as: Northeast Lantau survey area; and Northwest Lantau survey area.
Table 2.3 shows the co-ordinates for the transect lines and layout map.
The revised layout map showing the transect lines have been provided by AFCD and are shown in Figure 2.4.
Table 2.3: Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates (Provided by AFCD)
Transect |
HK Grid System |
Long Lat in WGS84 |
||
|
X |
Y |
Long |
Lat |
1# |
804671 |
815456 |
113.870287 |
22.277678 |
|
804671 |
831404 |
113.869975 |
22.421696 |
2#^ |
805476 |
820800 |
113.877995 |
22.325951 |
|
805476 |
826654 |
113.877882 |
22.378815 |
3^ |
806464 |
821150 |
114.030267 |
22.196697 |
|
806464 |
822911 |
114.047344 |
22.196712 |
4^ |
807518 |
821500 |
114.033651 |
22.206219 |
|
807518 |
829230 |
114.108618 |
22.206267 |
5^ |
808504 |
821850 |
114.037037 |
22.215126 |
|
808504 |
828602 |
114.102523 |
22.215169 |
6^ |
809490 |
822150 |
114.039938 |
22.224033 |
|
809490 |
825352 |
114.070995 |
22.224056 |
7#^ |
810499 |
822000 |
114.038474 |
22.233143 |
|
810499 |
824613 |
114.063820 |
22.233163 |
8# |
811508 |
821123 |
113.936539 |
22.328966 |
|
811508 |
824254 |
113.936486 |
22.357241 |
9# |
812516 |
821303 |
113.946320 |
22.330606 |
|
812516 |
824254 |
113.946279 |
22.357255 |
10* |
813525 |
820827 |
113.956112 |
22.326321 |
|
813525 |
824657 |
113.956066 |
22.360908 |
11# |
814556 |
818853 |
113.966155 |
22.304858 |
|
814556 |
820992 |
113.966125 |
22.327820 |
12 |
815542 |
818807 |
113.975726 |
22.308109 |
|
815542 |
824882 |
113.975647 |
22.362962 |
13 |
816506 |
819480 |
113.985072 |
22.314192 |
|
816506 |
824859 |
113.985005 |
22.362771 |
14 |
817537 |
820220 |
113.995070 |
22.320883 |
|
817537 |
824613 |
113.995018 |
22.360556 |
15 |
818568 |
820735 |
114.005071 |
22.325550 |
|
818568 |
824433 |
114.005030 |
22.358947 |
16 |
819532 |
821420 |
114.014420 |
22.331747 |
|
819532 |
824209 |
114.014390 |
22.356933 |
17 |
820451 |
822125 |
114.023333 |
22.338117 |
|
820451 |
823671 |
114.023317 |
22.352084 |
18 |
821504 |
822371 |
114.033556 |
22.340353 |
|
821504 |
823761 |
114.033544 |
22.352903 |
19 |
822513 |
823268 |
114.043340 |
22.348458 |
|
822513 |
824321 |
114.043331 |
22.357971 |
20 |
823477 |
823402 |
114.052695 |
22.349680 |
|
823477 |
824613 |
114.052686 |
22.360610 |
21 |
805476 |
827081 |
113.877878 |
22.382668 |
|
805476 |
830562 |
113.877811 |
22.414103 |
22 |
806464 |
824033 |
113.887520 |
22.355164 |
|
806464 |
829598 |
113.887416 |
22.405423 |
23 |
814559 |
821739 |
113.966142 |
22.334574 |
|
814559 |
824768 |
113.966101 |
22.361920 |
24^ |
805476 |
815900 |
113.979368 |
22.187721 |
|
805476 |
819100 |
114.010398 |
22.187756 |
Remarks:
(a) * Due to the presence of deployed silt curtain systems at the site boundaries of the Contract, some of the transect lines shown in Figure 2.4 could not be fully surveyed during the regular survey. Transect 10 is reduced from 6.4km to approximately 3.6km in length due to the HKBCF construction site. Therefore the total transect length for both NEL and NWL combined is reduced to approximately 108km.
(b) # Coordinates for transect lines 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 have been updated in respect to the Proposal for Alteration of Transect Line for Dolphin Monitoring approved by EPD on 19 August 2015.
(c) ^ The change of transect lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and new transect line 24 were justified and verified by the ET Leader for Contract No. HY/2010/02 and the IEC respectively on 24 March 2017 and it was approved by EPD on 12 May 2017.
The monitoring requirements, monitoring equipment, monitoring parameters, frequency and duration, monitoring methodology, monitoring schedule, meteorological information are detailed in the quarterly EM&A reports prepared for Contract Nos. HY/2013/01 and HY/2011/03.
The Action and Limit Levels for 1-hr TSP and 24-hr TSP are provided in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5 respectively.
Table 2.4: Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP
Monitoring Station |
Action Level, mg/m3 |
Limit Level, mg/m3 |
AMS6 –
Dragonair / SNAC (Group) Building (HKIA) |
360 |
500 |
AMS7 – Hong
Kong SkyCity Marriot Hotel |
370 |
500 |
Table 2.5: Action and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP
Monitoring Station |
Action Level, mg/m3 |
Limit Level, mg/m3 |
AMS6 –
Dragonair / SNAC (Group) Building (HKIA) |
173 |
260 |
AMS7 – Hong
Kong SkyCity Marriot Hotel |
183 |
260 |
If exceedance(s) at these stations is/are recorded by the ET of the Contract or referred by the other ET under the HZMB project to the Contract, the ET of the Contract will carry out an investigation and findings will be reported in the quarterly EM&A report.
The Action and Limit Levels for construction noise are defined in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Action and Limit Level for Construction Noise
Parameter |
Action Level |
Limit Level |
07:00 – 19:00
hours on normal weekdays |
When one documented
complaint is received |
75 dB(A)* |
Notes: If works are to be carried out during
restricted hours, the conditions stipulated in the construction noise permit
issued by the Noise Control Authority have to be followed.
* Reduce to 70 dB(A) for schools and 65 dB(A) during school examination period.
If exceedance(s) at these stations is/are recorded by the ET of the Contract or referred by the other ET under the HZMB project to the Contract, the ET of the Contract will carry out an investigation and findings will be reported in the quarterly EM&A Report.
The Action and Limit Levels for water quality are provided in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7: Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
Parameters |
Action |
Limit |
DO in mg L-1 (Surface,
Middle & Bottom) |
Surface and
Middle |
|
SS in mg L-1 (depth-averaged) at all monitoring stations
and control stations |
23.5 and 120%
of upstream control station's SS at the same tide of the same day* |
34.4 and 130%
of upstream control station's SS at the same tide of the same day and 10mg/L
for WSD Seawater intakes* |
27.5 and 120%
of upstream control station's turbidity at the same tide of the same day* |
47.0 and 130%
of upstream control station's |
Remarks:
* Reference is made to EPD approval of adjustment of water quality assessment criteria issued and became effective on 18 February 2013.
Notes:
1. “depth-averaged” is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all three depths.
2. For DO, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is lower than the limits.
3.
For turbidity, SS,
non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is
higher than the limits.
4.
All the figures
given in the table are used for reference only and the EPD may amend the
figures whenever it is considered as necessary.
5.
The 1%-ile of
baseline data for dissolved oxygen (surface and middle) and dissolved oxygen
(bottom) are 4.2 mg/L and 3.6 mg/L respectively.
If exceedance(s) at these stations is/are recorded by the ET of the Contract or referred by the other ET under the HZMB project to the Contract, the ET of the Contract will carry out an investigation and findings will be reported in the monthly EM&A Report.
The Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring are provided in Table 2.8 and Table 2.9, respectively.
Table 2.8: Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring - Approach to Define Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL)
|
North Lantau Social Cluster |
|
|
NWL |
|
Action Level |
(STG < 70% of baseline) & (ANI < 70% of baseline) |
(STG < 70% of baseline) & (ANI < 70% of baseline) |
Limit Level |
[(STG < 40% of baseline) & (ANI < 40%
of baseline)] AND [(STG < 40% of baseline) & (ANI < 40%
of baseline)] |
Table 2.9: Derived Value of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring
|
North Lantau Social Cluster |
|
|
NEL |
NWL |
Action Level |
(STG < 4.2) & (ANI < 15.5) |
(STG < 6.9) & (ANI < 31.3) |
Limit Level |
[(STG < 2.4) & (ANI <8.9)] AND [ (STG
< 3.9) & (ANI < 17.9)] |
If exceedance(s) at these survey transect(s) is/are recorded by the ET of the Contract or referred by the other ET under the HZMB project to the Contract, the ET of the Contract will carry out an investigation and findings will be reported in the monthly EM&A Report.
The event and action plans for air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring are provided in Appendix D.
Environmental mitigation measures for the contract were recommended in the approved EIA Report. Appendix E lists the recommended mitigation measures and the implementation status.
The monitoring results for AMS6 and AMS7 are reported in the monthly EM&A Reports (for October, November and December 2017) prepared for Contract Nos. HY/2011/03 and HY/2013/01 respectively.
Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 is reported in the monthly EM&A Reports (for October, November and December 2017) prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.
There was no Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level recorded at station AMS7 by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period.
Also, two Action Level exceedances of 24-hour TSP level were recorded at station AMS3B by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract.
Air quality exceedances recorded during the reporting period are summarised in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Action and Limit Level Exceedance for Air Quality
Date |
Parameter |
Station |
Exceedance Recorded |
28 Nov 2017 |
24-hour TSP |
AMS3B |
Action Level |
23 Dec 2017 |
24-hour TSP |
AMS3B |
Action Level |
The details of the air quality exceedances can be referred to in the Monthly EM&A reports under Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Investigations into the exceedances were conducted and the findings are summarised below.
28 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, the major construction activities conducted under the Contract during the monitoring period included bridge segment delivery and erection, and construction of depressed road.
As informed by the Contractor of HY/2013/04, watering of all main haul roads was provided in accordance with the HY/2013/04 site watering plan. This plan schedules water spraying for at least 8 times per day which follows the recommended mitigation measures in the EM&A Manual and Environmental Permit.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 20 November 2017 (between 14:00 and 15:00) and 29 November 2017 (between 14:00 and 15:30), the haul roads were observed to be watered and no fugitive dust generation from HY/2013/04 works was observed. Photos of these mitigation measures are presented in ET’s investigation report. There were no observations referring to air quality mitigation measures associated with watering of site areas.
The wind data collected at the wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 28 and 29 November 2017 shows that winds were still to very light (maximum wind speed 0.4 m/s) and varying between West-northwest and East during the monitoring period. This indicates that it was unlikely that the source of exceedance could be attributed to HY/2013/04.
Information available on EPD’s Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) website shows that the short-term health risk of air pollution between 08:00 a.m. on 28 November 2017 and 08:00 a.m. on 29 November 2017 was low to very high in Tung Chung (with maximum AQHI of 8 at 19:00), indicating that the background air pollution was relatively high during part of the monitoring period and may have contributed to the high level of TSP recorded. The AQHI data is available online at http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/epd/ddata/html/history/2017/201711_Eng.csv.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
23 December 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, the major construction activities conducted under the Contract during the monitoring period included bridge segment delivery and erection, and construction of Box Culvert D.
As informed by the Contractor of HY/2013/04, watering of all main haul roads was provided in accordance with the HY/2013/04 site watering plan. This plan schedules water spraying for at least 8 times per day which follows the recommended mitigation measures in the EM&A Manual and Environmental Permit.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 18 December 2017 (between 14:30 and 15:30), one air quality observation regarding an unwatered haul road next to Bridge D8 was made; subsequently the Contractor provided water spray for this location and the observation was closed. The remaining haul roads were observed to be watered and no fugitive dust generation from HY/2013/04 works was observed during this inspection.
During the next ET regular weekly site inspection on 29 December 2017 (between 09:30 and 10:30 a.m.), there was no air quality observation associated with watering of site areas.
Photos relating to the site inspections on 18 December 2017 and 29 December 2017 are presented in ET’s investigation report.
Information available on EPD’s Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) website shows that the short-term health risk of air pollution between 08:00 a.m. on 23 December 2017 and 08:00 a.m. on 24 December 2017 was low to very high in Tung Chung (with maximum AQHI of 8 at 04:00 & 05:00 a.m. on 24 December 2017). This, combined with the still winds recorded at the wind station, indicate that the background air pollution was relatively high during part of the monitoring period and may have contributed to the high level of TSP recorded. The AQHI data is available online at http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/epd/ddata/html/history/2017/201712_Eng.csv.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
The monitoring results for NMS2 and NMS3B are reported in the monthly EM&A Reports (for October, November and December 2017) prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.
No noise exceedances were recorded at stations NMS2 and NMS3B by the ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period.
The monitoring results for the twenty-one monitoring stations are reported in the monthly EM&A Report (for October, November and December 2017) prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.
During October 2017, a total of 12 Action Level exceedances and 8 Limit Level exceedances (comprising 7 Action Level exceedances and 8 Limit Level exceedances of DO, and 5 Action Level exceedances of SS) were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract.
During November 2017, a total of 15 Action Level exceedances and 4 Limit Level exceedances (all exceedances of SS) were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract.
During December 2017, a total of 16 Action Level exceedances (all exceedances of SS) were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract.
Water quality exceedances recorded during the reporting period are summarised in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Summary of Water Quality Exceedances during Reporting Period
Date |
Parameter
(Units) |
Station |
Depth |
Exceedance
Recorded during Mid-ebb Tide |
Exceedance
Recorded during Mid-flood Tide |
2 Oct 2017 |
DO |
SR10A |
Bottom |
Action Level |
Action Level |
|
|
SR10B(N) |
Surface and Middle |
- |
Limit Level |
|
|
SR10B(N) |
Bottom |
- |
Action Level |
4 Oct 2017 |
DO |
SR10A |
Surface and Middle |
Limit Level |
Limit Level |
|
|
SR10A |
Bottom |
Action Level |
Action Level |
|
|
SR10B(N) |
Surface and Middle |
Limit Level |
Limit Level |
|
|
SR10B(N) |
Bottom |
- |
Action Level |
6 Oct 2017 |
DO |
SR10B(N) |
Surface and Middle |
Limit Level |
Limit Level |
|
|
SR10B(N) |
Bottom |
- |
Action Level |
9 Oct 2017 |
DO |
SR10B(N) |
Surface and Middle |
- |
Limit Level |
18 Oct 2017 |
SS |
SR5(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
20 Oct 2017 |
SS |
IS(Mf)11 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR5(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR7 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
23 Oct 2017 |
SS |
SR5(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
3 Nov 2017 |
SS |
IS(Mf)11 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR5(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Limit Level |
|
|
SR6 |
Depth Average |
Action Level |
- |
|
|
SR7 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
6 Nov 2017 |
SS |
IS(Mf)6 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
IS(Mf)16 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR7 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR10A |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR10B(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
8 Nov 2017 |
SS |
IS(Mf)11 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR4(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Limit Level |
|
|
SR5(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Limit Level |
|
|
SR6 |
Depth Average |
Action Level |
- |
13 Nov 2017 |
SS |
IS8 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
15 Nov 2017 |
SS |
IS(Mf)6 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
20 Nov 2017 |
SS |
SR7 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
22 Nov 2017 |
SS |
SR6 |
Depth Average |
Action Level |
Limit Level |
24 Nov 2017 |
SS |
IS8 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
4 Dec 2017 |
SS |
SR6 |
Depth Average |
Action Level |
- |
|
|
SR7 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR10B(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
6 Dec 2017 |
SS |
IS8 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
IS(Mf)9 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR5(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR6 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
8 Dec 2017 |
SS |
IS8 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR4(N) |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
|
|
SR6 |
Depth Average |
Action Level |
- |
|
|
SR10A |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
11 Dec 2017 |
SS |
IS(Mf)9 |
Depth Average |
Action Level |
- |
13 Dec 2017 |
SS |
IS8 |
Depth Average |
Action Level |
- |
20 Dec 2017 |
SS |
SR6 |
Depth Average |
- |
Action Level |
22 Dec 2017 |
SS |
SR6 |
Depth Average |
Action Level |
Action Level |
The details of water quality exceedances can be made reference to the monthly EM&A reports under Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Investigations into these exceedances were conducted and the findings are summarised below.
2 October 2017
According to the
Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based
transportation were conducted under the contract on 2 October 2017.
Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 2
October 2017 was identified.
During ET’s regular
weekly site inspections on 27 September and 6 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site
shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected and there were no
observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with
that shoreline.
Also, the
exceedance locations, i.e. SR10A and SR10B(N), were located well away from the
HY/2013/04 site.
It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to HY/2013/04.
4 October 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based transportation were conducted under the contract on 4 October 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 4 October 2017 was identified.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspections on 27 September and 6 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected and there were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
Also, the exceedance locations, i.e. SR10A and SR10B(N), were located well away from the HY/2013/04 site.
It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to HY/2013/04.
6 October 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based transportation were conducted under the contract on 6 October 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 6 October 2017 was identified.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 6 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected and there were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
Also, the exceedance location, i.e. SR10B(N), was located well away from the HY/2013/04 site.
It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to HY/2013/04.
9 October 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 9 October 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 9 October 2017 was identified.
Marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 8 October 2017 to the early morning of 9 October 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:35 (a.m.) on 9 October 2017 (attached vessel tracking record refers). No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 9 October 2017.
Given that the sampling time at SR10B(N) where exceedance was recorded was at least several hours after the abovementioned segment delivery, it is considered unlikely that the exceedance recorded could be attributed to this activity. Also, SR10B(N) was located well away from the segment delivery route.
According to the Contractor, after finishing the unloading operation, the vessel for segment delivery departed from the loading/unloading point at 16:00 on the same day. Since samplings showing exceedances were obtained before this time, it is unlikely that they could be attributed to this activity.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspections on 6 and 11 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected and there were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
18 October 2017
According to the
Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based
transportation were conducted under the contract on 18 October 2017.
Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 18
October 2017 was identified.
During ET’s regular
weekly site inspection on 18 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline
interfacing with open waters was inspected and there were no observations
referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
It was concluded
that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
20 October 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 20 October 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 20 October was identified.
Marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 19 October 2017 to the early morning of 20 October 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:34 (a.m.) on 20 October 2017 (attached vessel tracking record refers). No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 20 October 2017.
Given that the sampling times where exceedances were recorded were at least several hours after the abovementioned segment delivery, it is considered unlikely that the exceedances recorded could be attributed to this activity.
According to the Contractor, after finishing the unloading operation, the vessel for segment delivery departed from the loading/unloading point at 16:00 on the same day. Since samplings showing exceedances were obtained before this time, it is unlikely that they could be attributed to this activity.
While SS exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11, SR5(N) and SR7, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspections on 18 and 23 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected. On 18 October 2017, no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline were made. During the inspection on 23 October 2017 at 14:40, a water quality observation regarding a silt curtain associated with that shoreline was made and the following day the Contractor deployed a diver to inspect the silt curtain and confirm its structural integrity, however it was located well away from SR5(N) and therefore unrelated to the recorded exceedance.
No further exceedance was reported in the next monitoring event on 23 October 2017 at IS(Mf)9, i.e. the WQM station closest to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
23 October 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 23 October 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 23 October 2017 was identified.
Marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 22 October 2017 to the early morning of 23 October 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:33 (a.m.) on 23 October 2017 (attached vessel tracking record refers). No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 23 October 2017.
Given that the sampling time at SR5(N) where exceedance was recorded was at least several hours after the abovementioned segment delivery, it is considered unlikely that the exceedance recorded could be attributed to this activity.
According to the Contractor, after finishing the unloading operation, the vessel for segment delivery departed from the loading/unloading point at 16:00 on the same day. Since samplings showing exceedances were obtained before this time, it is unlikely that they could be attributed to this activity.
While SS exceedance was recorded at SR5(N), no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 23 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected. A water quality observation regarding a silt curtain associated with that shoreline was made at 14:40 during that inspection and the following day the Contractor deployed a diver to inspect the silt curtain and confirm its structural integrity, however it was located well away from SR5(N) and therefore unrelated to the recorded exceedance.
No further exceedance was reported in the next monitoring event on 25 October 2017 at IS(Mf)9, i.e. the WQM station closest to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
3 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based transportation were conducted under the contract on 3 November 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 3 November 2017 was identified.
The SS exceedance locations, i.e. SR5(N), SR6, SR7 and IS(Mf)11, were located well away from the HY/2013/04 site. Also, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 31 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:40 and 15:10. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 8 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 09:30 and 09:50 (a.m.). There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
At the next monitoring event on 6 November 2017, while SS exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)6 and IS(Mf)16, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9, i.e. the WQM station closest to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
6 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based transportation were conducted under the contract on 6 November 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 6 November 2017 was identified.
While SS exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)6 and IS(Mf)16, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters. Also, Also, some exceedance locations, i.e. SR7, SR10A and SR10B(N), were located well away from the HY/2013/04 site.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 8 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 09:30 and 09:50 (a.m.). There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
At the next monitoring event on 8 November 2017, while SS exceedance was recorded at SR4(N), no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9, i.e. the WQM station closest to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
8 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based transportation were conducted under the contract on 8 November 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 8 November 2017 was identified.
While SS exceedance was recorded at SR4(N), no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 8 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 09:30 and 09:50 (a.m.). There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
No further exceedance was reported in the next monitoring event on 10 November 2017.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
13 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 13 November 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 13 November 2017 was identified.
Marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 12 November 2017 to the early morning of 13 November 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:35 (a.m.) on 13 November 2017. No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 13 November 2017.
Given that the sampling time at IS8 where exceedance was recorded was at least several hours after the abovementioned segment delivery, it is considered unlikely that the exceedance recorded could be attributed to this activity.
According to the Contractor, after finishing the unloading operation, the vessel for segment delivery departed from the loading/unloading point at 16:00 on the same day. Since samplings showing exceedances were obtained before this time, it is unlikely that they could be attributed to this activity.
While SS exceedance was recorded at IS8, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 15 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:15 and 14:30. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
At the next monitoring event on 15 November 2017, while SS exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)6, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9, i.e. the WQM station closest to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
15 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based transportation were conducted under the contract on 15 November 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 15 November 2017 was identified.
While SS exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)6, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 15 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:15 and 14:30. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
No further exceedance was reported in the next monitoring event on 17 November 2017.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
20 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based transportation were conducted under the contract on 20 November 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 20 November 2017 was identified.
While SS exceedance was recorded at SR7, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 20 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:00 and 14:15. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
At the next monitoring event on 22 November 2017, while SS exceedance was recorded at SR6, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9, i.e. the WQM station closest to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
22 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works and no marine-based transportation were conducted under the contract on 22 November 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 22 November 2017 was identified.
While SS exceedance was recorded at SR6, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 20 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:00 and 14:15. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
At the next monitoring event on 24 November 2017, while SS exceedance was recorded at IS8, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9, i.e. the WQM station closest to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
24 November 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 24 November 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 24 November 2017 was identified.
Marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 23 November 2017 to the early morning of 24 November 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:33 (a.m.) on 24 November 2017. No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 24 November 2017.
Given that the sampling time at IS8 where exceedance was recorded was at least several hours after the abovementioned segment delivery, it is considered unlikely that the exceedance recorded could be attributed to this activity.
According to the Contractor, after finishing the unloading operation, the vessel for segment delivery departed from the loading/unloading point at 16:00 on the same day. Since samplings showing exceedances were obtained before this time, it is unlikely that they could be attributed to this activity.
While SS exceedance was recorded at IS8, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 20 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:00 and 14:15. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 29 November 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:15 and 15:00. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
No further exceedance was reported in the next monitoring event on 26 November 2017.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
4 December 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 4 December 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 4 December 2017 was identified.
From ET’s review of the Contractor’s vessel tracking records for December 2017, no marine-based transportation was conducted under the contract on 4 December 2017.
The SS exceedance locations, i.e. SR6, SR7 and SR10B(N), were located well away from the HY/2013/04 site. Also, no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
No further exceedance was detected during subsequent monitoring at SR7 and SR10B(N) in the next monitoring tide at 12:45 (p.m.) and 13:22 respectively on 4 December 2017.
In the next monitoring tide at SR6, on 6 December 2017 at 10:03 (a.m.) in mid-flood tide, SS exceedance was recorded. From the Contractor’s vessel tracking records, marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 4 December 2017 to the early morning of 5 December 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:34 (a.m.) on 5 December 2017. It is unlikely that this subsequent SS exceedance at SR6 could be attributed to the segment delivery given the significant time gap (over 32 hours) between these two events. No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 5 December 2017.
According to the Contractor, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 6 December 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 6 December 2017 was identified. The Contractor’s vessel tracking records indicate that no marine-based transportation was conducted under the contract on 6 December 2017.
The HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected on 29 November 2017 (14:15-15:00) and 6 December 2017 (14:30-15:10) during ET’s regular weekly site inspections. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
6 December 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 6 December 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 6 December 2017 was identified.
From ET’s review of the Contractor’s vessel tracking records for December 2017, no marine-based transportation was conducted under the contract on 6 December 2017.
No further exceedance was detected during subsequent monitoring at IS8, IS(Mf)9, SR5(N) and SR6 in the next monitoring tide (mid-ebb) at 13:55, 13:45, 13:54 and 13:17 respectively on 6 December 2017. No other exceedance was detected during the same mid-ebb tide.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 6 December 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:30 and 15:10. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
8 December 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 8 December 2017 was identified.
Marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 7 December 2017 to the early morning of 8 December 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:36 (a.m.) on 8 December 2017. No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 8 December 2017.
Given that the sampling time at IS8, SR4(N), SR6 and SR10A where exceedance was recorded was at least several hours after the abovementioned segment delivery, it is considered unlikely that the exceedance recorded could be attributed to this activity.
According to the Contractor, after finishing the unloading operation, the vessel for segment delivery departed from the loading/unloading point at 16:00 on the same day. Since samplings showing exceedances were obtained before this time, it is unlikely that they could be attributed to this activity.
While SS exceedance was recorded at IS8, SR4(N), SR6 and SR10A¸ no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
No further exceedance was detected during subsequent monitoring at IS8, SR4(N), SR6 and SR10A in the next monitoring tide, which were as follows:
● IS8 – 15:38 on 8 December 2017 (mid-ebb)
● SR4(N) – 15:46 on 8 December 2017 (mid-ebb)
● SR6 – 07:25 (a.m.) on 11 December 2017 (mid-flood)
● SR10A – 17:02 on 8 December 2017 (mid-ebb)
The HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected on 6 December 2017 (14:30-15:10) and 13 December 2017 (14:00-15:10) during ET’s regular weekly site inspections. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
11 December 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 11 December 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 11 December 2017 was identified.
From ET’s review of the Contractor’s vessel tracking records for December 2017, no marine-based transportation was conducted under the contract on 11 December 2017.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 6 December 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:30 and 15:10. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 13 December 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:00 and 15:10. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
No further exceedance was detected during subsequent monitoring at IS(Mf)9 in the next monitoring tide (mid-flood) at 13:29 on 11 December 2017. No other exceedance was detected during the same mid-flood tide.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
13 December 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 13 December 2017 was identified and all works conducted under HY/2013/04 on that day were land-based.
Marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 12 December 2017 to the early morning of 13 December 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:34 (a.m.) on 13 December 2017. No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 13 December 2017.
Given that the sampling time at IS8 where exceedance was recorded was at least several hours after the abovementioned segment delivery, it is considered unlikely that the exceedance recorded could be attributed to this activity.
According to the Contractor, after finishing the unloading operation, the vessel for segment delivery departed from the loading/unloading point at 16:00 on the same day. Since samplings showing exceedances were obtained before this time, it is unlikely that they could be attributed to this activity.
No further exceedance was detected during subsequent monitoring at IS8 in the next monitoring tide (mid-flood) at 14:46 on 13 December 2017. No other exceedance was detected during the same mid-flood tide and in the next monitoring event on 15 December 2017.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 13 December 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:00 and 15:10. Land-based works at the shoreline for Box Culverts C and D were in progress. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
20 December 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no marine-based works were conducted under the contract on 20 December 2017. Furthermore, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 20 December 2017 was identified.
From ET’s review of the Contractor’s vessel tracking records for December 2017, no marine-based transportation was conducted under the contract on 20 December 2017.
While SS exceedance was recorded at SR6¸ no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 18 December 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected between 14:25 and 15:20. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 29 December 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected at 09:20-09:30 and 10:20-10:25 (a.m.). There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
No further exceedance was detected during subsequent monitoring at SR6 in the next monitoring tide (mid-ebb) at 12:44 (p.m.) on 20 December 2017. No other exceedance was detected during the same mid-ebb tide.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
22 December 2017
According to the Contractor of HY/2013/04, no discharge originating from any HY/2013/04 site works on 22 December 2017 was identified and all works conducted under HY/2013/04 on that day were land-based.
Marine-based segment delivery was conducted on the evening of 21 December 2017 to the early morning of 22 December 2017, with the barge vessel arriving at HY/2013/04 loading/unloading point at 01:36 (a.m.) on 22 December 2017. No other marine transportation was conducted under the contract on 22 December 2017.
Given that the sampling times at SR6 where exceedances were recorded were at least several hours after the abovementioned segment delivery, it is considered unlikely that the exceedances recorded could be attributed to this activity.
According to the Contractor, after finishing the unloading operation, the vessel for segment delivery departed from the loading/unloading point at 16:00 on the same day. Since samplings showing exceedances were obtained before this time, it is unlikely that they could be attributed to this activity.
While SS exceedance was recorded at SR6¸ no exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)9 which is the nearest monitoring location to HY/2013/04 loading and unloading point and the shoreline interfacing with open waters.
No further exceedance was detected during subsequent monitoring at SR6 in the next monitoring tide on 25 December 2017. No other exceedance was detected on that day.
The HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected on 18 December 2017 (14:25-15:20) and 29 December 2017 (09:20-09:30 and 10:20-10:25 a.m.) during ET’s regular weekly site inspections. Land-based works only at the shoreline for Box Culverts C and D were in progress. There were no observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
It was concluded that the exceedance was not due to HY/2013/04.
The monitoring results for dolphin monitoring during the reporting periods are reported in the monthly EM&A Reports (for October, November and December 2017) prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Limit Level exceedance of impact dolphin monitoring was recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the period of September 2017 to November 2017 and investigated by the ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Dolphin monitoring exceedance recorded are summarised in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Action and Limit Level Exceedance for Dolphin Monitoring
Period |
Parameter |
Area |
Exceedance Recorded |
Sep 2017 –
Nov 2017 |
Ecology
(Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring) |
Northeast Lantau (NEL) |
Limit Level |
Sep 2017 –
Nov 2017 |
Ecology
(Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring) |
Northwest
Lantau (NWL) |
Limit Level |
The details of the dolphin monitoring exceedances can be referred to in the Monthly EM&A reports under Contract No. HY/2013/01.
In response to the site audit findings, the Contractor carried out corrective actions. Details of site audit findings and the corrective actions during the reporting period are presented in Appendix F.
A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E. Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.
Implementation status of the Regular Marine Travel Route Plan (RMTRP) was checked by ET. Training of marine travel route for marine vessel operator was given to relevant staff and relevant records were kept properly. Marine traffic records which indicated the number of trips data for crane barge, flat top barge and tug boat on the implementation of RMTRP for September 2017, October 2017 and November 2017 were checked by ET within the reporting period. Marine traffic records of September 2017, October 2017 and November 2017 were provided by Contractor to ER, ETL and IEC/ENPO for checking within the months of October 2017, November 2017 and December 2017 respectively. The checking of marine traffic records of December 2017 will be reported in the next Quarterly EM&A Report. The implementation of marine traffic follows the Regular Marine Travel Route Plan with respect to ET’s checking on the marine traffic records for the reporting period.
Implementation status of the Dolphin Watching Plan (DWP) was checked by ET. Training of marine mammal observer (MMO) was given to relevant staff and relevant records were kept properly. Silt curtains were provided at each box culvert for marine works areas in accordance with the approved Dolphin Watching Plan. The silt curtains were inspected regularly by ET and Contractor and the implementation was found to be in working order.
The Contractor registered as a chemical waste producer for the Contract. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse collection and sorting. As a practical means, the disposal operation is managed by a single HKBCF contractor who is also responsible for applying dumping permit and its subsequent extension applications from EPD. Contract No. HY/2013/03 has been assigned to coordinate and arrange for disposal of extracted marine sediment from this Contract.
There was no generation of excavated sediment for treatment during this reporting period. Any treatment of excavated marine sediment will be conducted using cement solidification / stabilization (Cement S/S) techniques and the treated sediment will be reused onsite for either backfilling or landscaping (e.g. berm material).
The summary of waste flow table is detailed in Appendix G.
The Contractor was 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 Packing, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Waste.
After the acceptance of the review of the approved Sediment Quality Report (SQR) for this Project under EPD letter dated 19 August 2015, an approval to dispose the marine sediment extracted from bored piling for this Project was then approved under memo from Secretary, Marine Fill Committee of CEDD dated 20 August 2015 for the disposal of marine sediment extracted from bored piling works. The disposal sites allocated to this Project are the Mud Pit CMP2 of the Confined Marine Sediment Disposal Facility to the South of The Brothers (or at the East of Sha Chau). As advised by CEDD in the memo dated 19 February 2016, from 00:00 on 22 March 2016 onward, the disposal space at CMP2 of the South of The Brothers is closed and all disposal of contaminated sediment is to be carried out at CMP Vd to the East of Sha Chau (ESC).
As Contract No. HY/2013/01 has commenced treatment of the extracted marine sediment, treatment will continue and the treated marine sediment will be re-used within the HKBCF Island. On the other hand, Contract Nos. HY/2013/02, HY/2013/03 and HY/2013/04 have not commenced the treatment of extracted marine sediment. Therefore the marine sediment extracted from these three Contracts will be disposed to the allocated disposal sites directly without treatment. As a practical means, the disposal operation is managed by one contractor who is also responsible for applying dumping permit and its subsequent extension applications from EPD. Contract No. HY/2013/03 has been assigned to coordinate and arrange for disposal of extracted marine sediment from all three Contracts.
The SQR was further reviewed in mid-2016. EPD has no comment to extend the validity of the SQR to August 2017 under letter dated 18 August 2016.
Based on the actual piling operation, the estimated quantity of marine sediment to be extracted has been revised from 85,000 m3 to 126,000 m3 (bulk volume). EPD has no comments on the request as in the letter dated 20 October 2016. The Secretary of Marine Fill Committee, CEDD approved the increasing quantity in the memo dated 10 November 2016.
During the course of reviewing the SQR, it was noted that the contamination level of the marine sediment extracted from the inner part of the HKBCF Island was not identified during the previous sampling and testing. As requested by EPD, sampling and testing are required. The Sediment Sampling and Testing Proposal (SSTP) for the inner area of the HKBCF Island was approved by EPD on 2 June 2016.
As in the agreed SSTP for the inner area of the HKBCF Island, samples were taken from the seventeen batches of stockpiled marine sediments and from five boreholes each in one of the five sampling grids. After conducting chemical tests on samples, six batches of stockpiled samples under Contract No. HY/2013/03 and all eight batches of stockpiled samples under Contract No. HY/20013/04 are classified as Category L sediment. The Secretary of Marine Fill Committee of CEDD allocated disposal sites under memo dated 24 October 2016 and dated 22 November 2016 for disposal of a total of 9,500 m3 in-situ volume of Category L sediment (using a bulk factor of 1.3). The Category L sediment was disposed in December 2016.
One sample from the batch of stockpiled marine sediment under Contract No. HY/2013/03 and samples from all five sampling grids had contamination levels exceeding the Lower Chemical Exceedance Levels (LCEL) and biological screenings were carried out. All samples passed the biological screenings and are classified as Category Mp sediment and to be disposed off site using Type II confined marine disposal method the same method used for marine sediment extracted from other part of the HKBCF Island.
The barge for disposal of marine sediment will morn at the temporary loading and unloading at the east shore of the HKBCF Island, which has been being used by reclamation contractor (Contract No. HY/2010/02) for reclamation activities. In terms of safety consideration, each dumping date will be allocated to one Contract. The quantity of marine sediment disposed on the date is from one Contract.
During dumping, each Contractor is responsible for transporting the marine sediment from his site area to the barge. The estimated quantity of marine sediment in each truck is confirmed by Resident Site Staff of each Contract. The trip tickets for transportation and disposal of marine sediment are collected and checked. Contract No. HY/2013/03 as the dumping permit holder is responsible for reporting to EPD the quantity disposed of as the condition stipulated in the dumping permit.
AECOM has confirmed that the disposal of excavated marine sediments to allocated dumping site via Contract No. HY/2013/03 has been completed with the last batch disposal on 30 August 2017. The total quantities disposed are presented in the following table (Table 3.4):
Table 3.4: Summary of Marine Sediment disposed to Dumping Site via Contract No. HY/2013/03
Month/Year |
Type of Sediment and Quantity Disposed (m3) |
|
|
Cat. L (in
Type I) |
Type II |
Total = |
3,570 |
39,814 |
Note: For monthly breakdown of these quantities, please refer to the waste flow table in Appendix G.
The valid environmental licences and permits during the reporting period are summarized in Appendix H.
Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 is reported in the monthly EM&A Reports (for October, November and December 2017) prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.
There was no Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level recorded at station AMS7 by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period.
There was no Action and Limit Level exceedance for noise recorded at station NMS2 and station NMS3B by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period.
During November 2017, a total of 16 Action Level exceedances, consisting of 15 Action Level exceedances and 4 Limit Level exceedances of SS for water quality and one Action Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP for air quality, were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract. It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Contract.
During December 2017, a total of 17 Action Level exceedances, consisting of 16 Action Level exceedances of SS for water quality and one Action Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP for air quality, were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract. It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Contract.
Furthermore, Limit Level exceedances of impact dolphin monitoring were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the period of September 2017 to November 2017 and investigated by the ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Impact dolphin monitoring results at all transects during the reporting period are reported in the monthly EM&A Reports prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.
There were three complaints received in relation to the environmental impact during the reporting period. The summary of environmental complaints is presented in Table 4.1.
The details of cumulative statistics of Environmental Complaints are provided in Appendix H.
Table 4.1: Summary of Environmental Complaints for the Reporting Month
Log No. |
Environmental Complaint Ref. No. |
Date of Complaint Receipt |
Description |
005 |
ENPO-C0127 |
27 October
2017 |
Water Quality |
006 |
ENPO-C0128 |
23 November
2017 |
Air Quality |
007 |
ENPO-C0129 |
29 December
2017 |
Air Quality
and Water Quality |
Environmental Complaint Ref. No. ENPO-C0127
The complaint was about muddy water discharge from HZMB BCF Island works site. According to the complainant, this had continued for one week and occurred at HY/2013/03 site.
The complaint was investigated by the ET of the Contract.
As informed by the Contractor of HY/2013/04, there was no ongoing discharge of wastewater from the HY/2013/04 site during the period described in the complaint.
The Contractor has obtained a discharge licence under the WPCO for treatment and disposal of wastewater (Licence No. WT00028782-2017). The discharge licence and most recently-received results for monthly sampling under the licence were included in ET’s investigation report.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 23 October 2017, HY/2013/04 site shoreline interfacing with open waters was inspected. Land-based works at the shoreline for Box Culverts C and D were in progress. Bunds were provided near the shoreline to contain potential site runoff. No surface runoff was observed near the shoreline. Wastewater treatment facilities were provided near Box Culverts C and D to treat site runoff before discharge from the contract site. No discharge was observed at the discharge points or along the same shoreline interfacing with open waters. Silt curtain was provided at each box culvert for marine work areas. Photos of these mitigation measures were included in ET’s investigation report. A location plan showing the discharge points was also included in ET’s investigation report.
During the abovementioned site inspection, silty water was observed immediately outside the perimeter of a silt curtain for Box Culvert D, and the Contractor was reminded to inspect the silt curtain to ensure that its structural integrity is intact. Subsequently, the Contractor inspected the silt curtain to confirm its structural integrity and no silty water outside the silt curtain was observed. There were no other observations referring to water quality mitigation measures associated with that shoreline.
The Contractor is reminded to observe all conditions stated in the relevant discharge licence and implement all necessary water quality mitigation measures identified in the EM&A Manual.
The ET’s investigation report for the abovementioned complaint is presented in the Monthly EM&A Report for October 2017.
Environmental Complaint Ref. No. ENPO-C0128
The complaint was about dust dispersion from HZMB BCF Island works site. According to the complainant, a large amount of dust was generated due to water spray not being provided at every part of the site and was most serious near the toll gate.
The complaint was investigated by the ET of the Contract.
As informed by the Contractor of HY/2013/04, watering of all main haul roads was provided in accordance with the HY/2013/04 site watering plan (as presented in Attachment 1). This plan schedules water spraying for 8 times per day which follows the recommended mitigation measures in the EM&A Manual.
During ET’s regular weekly site inspection on 20 November 2017 (between 14:00 and 15:00) and 29 November 2017 (between 14:00 and 15:30), the haul roads were observed to be watered and no fugitive dust generation from HY/2013/04 works was observed. Photos of these mitigation measures are presented in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 respectively of ET’s investigation report. There were no observations referring to air quality mitigation measures associated with watering of site areas.
It is also noted that HY/2013/04 works do not include construction of any toll gates or vehicle clearance plazas.
It was concluded that the complaint was unlikely to be related to HY/2013/04.
Although the complaint was unlikely to be related to HY/2013/04, the Contractor is reminded to properly implement the site watering plan for the Contract and implement all necessary air quality mitigation measures identified in the EM&A Manual.
The ET’s investigation report for the abovementioned complaint is presented in the Monthly EM&A Report for November 2017.
Environmental Complaint Ref. No. ENPO-C0129
The complaint was about effectiveness of mitigation measures for dust and mud on roads related to HZMB BCF Island site works.
The complaint investigation by the ET of the Contract is ongoing and the findings will be presented in the next Quarterly EM&A report.
Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
Statistics on notifications of summons and successful prosecutions are summarized in Appendix I.
According to the environmental site inspections undertaken during the reporting period, the following recommendations were provided:
● The Contractor was reminded to clear the general refuse as soon as possible.
● The Contractor was reminded to improve site housekeeping and clear general refuse as soon as possible.
● The Contractor was reminded to provide site watering for this access road as long as vehicle access if required.
● The Contractor was reminded to replace the NRMM label with a new label which complies with the relevant regulation.
● The Contractor was reminded to clear the stagnant water to prevent mosquito breeding.
● The Contractor was reminded to ensure more frequent water spray is provided to minimise fugitive dust suppression.
● The Contractor was reminded to remove the C&D waste at regular intervals.
● The Contractor was reminded to inspect the silt curtain to ensure that its structural integrity is intact.
● The Contractor was reminded to improve the housekeeping (including sorting and disposal).
● The Contractor was reminded to sort and dispose of the construction waste.
● The Contractor was reminded to provide a proper enclosure sheltered on the top and three sides.
● The Contractor was reminded to provide a new NRMM label.
● The Contractor was reminded to ensure that the NRMM label size complies with the relevant regulation.
● The Contractor was reminded to provide suitable drip trays.
● The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray for the oil drums.
● The Contractor was reminded to display only one NRMM label per applicable plant.
● The Contractor was reminded to provide water spray for the haul road.
● The Contractor was reminded to provide drip tray or remove the generator from site as soon as possible.
● The Contractor was reminded to sort/remove this stockpile and ensure good site housekeeping.
A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix E. Most of the necessary mitigation measures were implemented properly.
With implementation of the recommended environmental mitigation measures, the contract’s environmental impacts were considered environmentally acceptable. The weekly environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental mitigation measures recommended were effectively implemented.
The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the potential environmental impacts from the contract. 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.
Commencement of the Contract took place on 13 March 2015 and the construction works of the Contract commenced on 13 July 2015. This is the 10th Quarterly EM&A Report summarising the findings of EM&A activities conducted under the Contract from 1 October 2017 to 31 December
Summary of Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level at AMS6 shall be referred to the monthly EM&A Reports (for October, November and December 2017) prepared by Contract No. HY/2011/03.
There was no Action and Limit Level exceedance of 1-hr TSP level and 24-hr TSP level recorded at station AMS7 by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period.
There was no Action and Limit Level exceedance for noise recorded at station NMS2 and station NMS3B by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period.
During October 2017, a total of 12 Action Level exceedances and 8 Limit Level exceedances (comprising 7 Action Level exceedances and 8 Limit Level exceedances of DO, and 5 Action Level exceedances of SS) were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract. It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Contract.
During November 2017, a total of 16 Action Level exceedances, consisting of 15 Action Level exceedances and 4 Limit Level exceedances of SS for water quality and one Action Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP for air quality, were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract. It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Contract.
During December 2017, a total of 17 Action Level exceedances, consisting of 16 Action Level exceedances of SS for water quality and one Action Level exceedance of 24-hour TSP for air quality, were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the reporting period and were investigated by the ET of the Contract. It was concluded that the exceedances were not due to the Contract.
Furthermore, Limit Level exceedances of impact dolphin monitoring were recorded by the Environmental Team of Contract No. HY/2013/01 during the period of September 2017 to November 2017 and investigated by the ET of Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Impact dolphin monitoring results at all transects during the reporting period are reported in the monthly EM&A Reports (for October, November and December 2017) prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.
Environmental site inspection was carried out on 6, 11, 18, 23 and 31 October, 8, 15, 20 and 29 November and 6, 13, 18 and 29 December 2017. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site inspections.
There were three complaints received on 27 October 2017, 23 November 2017 and 29 December 2017 in relation to the environmental impact during the reporting period. The complaints received on 27 October 2017 and 23 November 2017 were investigated by the ET of the Contract and the findings are presented in this report. The investigation of the complaint received on 29 December 2017 by the ET of the Contract is ongoing and the findings will be presented in the next Quarterly EM&A report.
There were no notifications of summons or prosecutions received during the reporting period.
Appendix A. Location of Works Areas
Appendix B. Project Organization for Environmental Works
Appendix C. Construction Programme
Appendix D. Event and Action Plan
Appendix E. Implementation Schedule for Environmental Mitigation Measures (EMIS)
Appendix F. Site Audit Findings and Corrective Actions
Appendix G. Waste Flow Table
Appendix H. Environmental Licenses and Permits
Appendix I. Statistics on Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions