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

Information class:

Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This report has been prepared solely for use by the party which commissioned it (the ‘Client’) in connection with the captioned project. It should not be used for any other purpose. No person other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed terms of reliance with us (the ‘Recipient(s)’) may rely on the content, information or any views expressed in the report. We accept no duty of care, responsibility or liability to any other recipient of this document. This report is confidential and contains proprietary intellectual property.

No representation, warranty or undertaking, express or implied, is made and no responsibility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Client or any Recipient(s), as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report. For the avoidance of doubt this report does not in any way purport to include any legal, insurance or financial advice or opinion.

We disclaim all and any liability whether arising in tort or contract or otherwise which it might otherwise have to any party other than the Client or the Recipient(s), in respect of this report, or any information attributed to it.

We accept no responsibility for any error or omission in the report which is due to an error or omission in data, information or statements supplied to us by other parties including the client (‘Data’). We have not independently verified such Data and have assumed it to be accurate, complete, reliable and current as of the date of such information.

Forecasts presented in this document were prepared using Data and the report is dependent or based on Data. Inevitably, some of the assumptions used to develop the forecasts will not be realised and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Consequently Mott MacDonald does not guarantee or warrant the conclusions contained in the report as there are likely to be differences between the forecasts and the actual results and those differences may be material. While we consider that the information and opinions given in this report are sound all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it.

Under no circumstances may this report or any extract or summary thereof be used in connection with any public or private securities offering including any related memorandum or prospectus for any securities offering or stock exchange listing or announcement.

Contents

Executive summary 2

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Basic Project Information 5

1.2 Project Organisation 5

1.3 Construction Programme 6

1.4 Construction Works undertaken during the Reporting Period 6

2 EM&A Requirements 7

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements 7

2.2 Monitoring Requirements 10

2.3 Action and Limit Levels 10

2.4 Event and Action Plans 12

2.5 Mitigation Measures 12

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit 13

3.1 Air Quality Monitoring Results 13

3.2 Noise Monitoring Results 14

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring Results 15

3.4 Dolphin Monitoring Results 26

3.5 Implementation of Environmental Measures 26

3.6 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status 27

3.6.1 Disposal of Marine Sediment Extracted from Bored Piling Works 27

3.7 Environmental Licences and Permits 29

4 Summary of Exceedances, Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution 30

4.1 Summary of Exceedance of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit 30

4.2 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution 30

5 Comments, Recommendations and Conclusions 33

5.1 Comments 33

5.2 Recommendations 34

5.3 Conclusions 34

Figures

Figure 2.1: Location of Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Figure 2.2: Location of Noise Monitoring Stations

Figure 2.3: Location of Water Quality Monitoring Stations

Figure 2.4: Impact Dolphins Monitoring Line Transect Layout Map

Appendices

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 Licences and Permits

Appendix I. Statistics on Environmental Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

Tables

Table ES.1: Changes to Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations (with effect from 22 December 2017) 4

Table 1.2: Contact Information of Key Personnel 5

Table 2.1: Construction Dust and Noise Monitoring Locations 7

Table 2.2: Impact Water Quality Monitoring Stations 8

Table 2.3: Impact Dolphin Monitoring Line Transect Co-ordinates (Provided by AFCD) 8

Table 2.4: Action and Limit Levels for 1-hour TSP 10

Table 2.5: Action and Limit Levels for 24-hour TSP 10

Table 2.6: Action and Limit Level for Construction Noise 10

Table 2.7: Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality 11

Table 2.8: Action and Limit Levels for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring - Approach to Define Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) 11

Table 2.9: Derived Value of Action Level (AL) and Limit Level (LL) for Chinese White Dolphin Monitoring 11

Table 3.1: Action and Limit Level Exceedance for Air Quality 13

Table 3.2: Summary of Water Quality Exceedances during Reporting Period 15

Table 3.3: Action and Limit Level Exceedance for Dolphin Monitoring 26

Table 3.4: Summary of Marine Sediment disposed to Dumping Site via Contract No. HY/2013/03 29

Table 4.1: Summary of Environmental Complaints for the Reporting Month 31

Executive summary

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 10^th 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).

1 Introduction

1.1 Basic Project Information

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 10^th 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”).

1.2 Project Organisation

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	-

1.3 Construction Programme

The Construction Works Programme of the Project is provided in Appendix C.

1.4 Construction Works undertaken during the Reporting Period

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.

2 EM&A Requirements

2.1 Summary of EM&A Requirements

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.

2.2 Monitoring Requirements

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.

2.3 Action and Limit Levels

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/m^3	Limit Level, mg/m^3
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/m^3	Limit Level, mg/m^3
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 5.0 Bottom 4.7	Surface and Middle 4.2 (except 5 mg/L for FCZ) Bottom 3.6
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*
Turbidity in NTU (depth-averaged)	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
	NEL	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.

2.4 Event and Action Plans

The event and action plans for air quality, noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring are provided in Appendix D.

2.5 Mitigation Measures

Environmental mitigation measures for the contract were recommended in the approved EIA Report. Appendix E lists the recommended mitigation measures and the implementation status.

3 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

3.1 Air Quality Monitoring Results

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.

The wind data collected at the wind station at Works Area WA2 during the monitoring period on 23 and 24 December 2017 shows that winds were still (averaged wind speed 0 m/s) 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 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.

3.2 Noise Monitoring Results

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.

3.3 Water Quality Monitoring Results

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.

3.4 Dolphin Monitoring Results

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.

3.5 Implementation of Environmental Measures

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.

3.6 Advice on the Solid and Liquid Waste Management Status

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.

3.6.1 Disposal of Marine Sediment Extracted from Bored Piling Works

3.6.1.1 Background

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.

3.6.1.2 Dumping Arrangements

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.

3.6.1.3 Reporting

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 (m^3)
	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.

3.7 Environmental Licences and Permits

The valid environmental licences and permits during the reporting period are summarized in Appendix H.

4 Summary of Exceedances, Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

4.1 Summary of Exceedance of the Environmental Quality Performance Limit

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 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 prepared for Contract No. HY/2013/01.

4.2 Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution

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.

5 Comments, Recommendations and Conclusions

5.1 Comments

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.

5.2 Recommendations

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.

5.3 Conclusions

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 10^th 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.

Figures

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