EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the first EM & A Report for the project of Footbridge and Improvements to Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road & Ap Lei Chau Drive.

This report mainly presents the EM & A works undertaken for the above project from 1 May 2003 to 30 April 2004 in accordance with the EM & A Manual and the Environmental Permit (EP 130/2002) under the Appendix H of the Particular Specification.

Noise Level

During the reporting year, noise monitoring was performed at four noise monitoring stations M1, M2, M3 and M4.

M1: The Ap Lei Chau Baptist Kindergarten (NSR Ref. No. 10)

M2: The Habour Mission Church and Yan Oi Kindergarten (NSR Ref. No. 12)

M3: The Hong Kong True Light College (NSR Ref. No. 17)

M4: The Shan On House (NSR Ref. No. 20)

Monitoring Stations M1, M2 and M3 are identified for educational uses at which the noise limit level is 70 dB(A) during normal school hours and 65 dB(A) during examination period. M4 is identified as domestic premise which noise limit level is 75 dB(A).

In the baseline noise monitoring, the noise level recorded at M3, the Hong Kong True Light College, exceeded the target limit level of 70 dB(A) prior to the commencement of construction works. It was believed that the exceedance of noise level came from the traffic noise generated from heavy goods vehicles and buses. In accordance with Section 3.7 of the Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual, a new exceedance level which incorporates the baseline noise and the construction noise shall be adopted for accessing the noise impact to this noise monitoring station by the construction works. The proposed new exceedance level for M3 has been submitted to EPD in early May, it will be adopted as the new Limit Level for monitoring station M3 once EPD’s approval is received.

Complaint log

Two verbal complaints and one written complaint were received during the reporting year. Corresponding investigations and follow-up actions were taken in compliance with the environmental standards stipulated in the Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual.

Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions

No notifications of summons, no successful prosecutions were received during the year.

Review and Comments

Noise Impact Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures mentioned in the EIA Report generally help the Contractor reduce the noise level.

Air Impact Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures mentioned in the EIA Report generally help the Contractor keep the air quality to a reasonable level.

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Background

Peako Engineering Co. Ltd was commissioned by the Highways Departments to execute the Project “Footbridge and Improvements to Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road and Ap Lei Chau Drive”.

Babtie Asia Ltd was employed by the Contractor to act as the Environmental Team for this project. The Independent Environmental Checker is BMT Asia Pacific Limited.

The purpose of this report is to document the Environmental Monitoring & Audit (EM & A) works undertaken during the period between 1 May 2003 and 30 April 2004.

1.2 Project Organization & Contact Details of Key Personnel

Titles, names and contact telephone numbers of the key personnel of the captioned project are tabulated below:

Title	Name	Contact Number
Engineer’s Representative (Highways Department)	Mr. W. M. Chan	2231 5722
EPD	Mr. Elvis Au	2835 1964
Project Director (Contractor)	Mr. Ronnie Lo	9144 8398
Project Manager (Contractor)	Mr. Steve C L Liu	9551 1401
Site Agent (Contractor)	Mr. C. P. Lam	8206 8280
Environmental Team Leader (Babtie Asia Limited)	Mr. Mark Cheung	2880 9788
Independent Environmental Checker (BMT Asia Pacific Limited)	Ms. Lyn Ip	2241 9812

The project organization and lines of communication with respect to the environmental monitoring works is shown below.

1.3 Construction Programme

This project involves four following stages;

· Footbridge Construction;

· Retaining Wall Construction;

· Road Construction; and

· Drainage Works

The anticipated construction period lasts 20 months. Night-time works are not expected during the construction phase of the Project.

The latest construction programme is attached in Appendix A.

1.4 Site Management Structure

The site organization chart is shown in Appendix B.

1.5 Synopsis of Works Undertaken During The Year

The works for this project are divided into five major items

Item 1 – Junction improvements to J/O Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road / Ap Lei Chau Drive, Ap Lei Chau Drive / Ap Lei Chau Praya Road, and widening of Ap Lei Chau Drive.

Item 2 – Construction / modification of the footpaths and central reserves at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road, Ap Lei Chau Drive, and Lei Tung Estate Road.

Item 3 – Construction / modification of the retaining walls at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road for the construction of a staircase, a ramp and an elevated footpath.

Item 4 – Construction of a footbridge at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road.

Item 5 – Ancillary works including slope works, landscaping works and drainage works.

Works undertaken during the year are summarized as below:

· Cut Slope and Shotcreting at Ap Lei Chau Drive

· Tree Felling and Transplanting Works

· Erection of Temporary Works and Hoarding

· Demolition of Existing Counterfort Wall

· Demolition of Existing Caisson Wall at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road Eastbound

· Construction of Retaining Wall

· Utility Diversion

· Footway and Carriageway Construction along Ap Lei Chau Drive

· Erection of Temporary Safety Fence along Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road

· Installation of concrete pipe

· Soil Nail Installation on Existing cut slope

· Mini-pile Drilling and Grouting Work

· Pile Cap Construction

· Ramp Construction

1.6 Project Area, Sensitive Receivers & Monitoring Locations

Layout plan showing the project area, noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) and the locations of the monitoring stations are shown in Appendix D.

The construction noise monitoring stations are M1, M2, M3 and M4.

M1 is for the Ap Lei Chau Baptist Kindergarten (NSR Ref. no.10). M2 is for the Harbour Mission Church and Yan Oi Kindergarten (NSR Ref. no. 12). M3 is for the Hong Kong True Light College (NSR Ref. no. 17). M4 is for the Shan On House (NSR Ref. no. 20).

It is noted that the locations of the monitoring stations are the same as those adopted in the Noise Baseline Monitoring.

1.7 Summary of EM&A Requirements

Summary of the EM&A Requirements is shown in Appendix C.

2.0 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

2.1 Construction Phase

Impacts on the nearby sensitive receivers were identified during various construction stages. Good site practice and appropriate mitigation measures such as use of quiet plant, reducing percentage on time, avoidance of simultaneous noisy activities have been recommended to reduce the associated impacts.

According to the EIA report, the following should be implemented during the construction period.

Location

Reference Section

Recommended Environmental Protection Measures

Responsibility

Construction Noise Mitigation Measures

Various Locations and work sites within the project limit

Section 5.2.4 & 5.2.5 of EIA Report

Reduce the nuisance from Construction Noise

· Adopt good site practice and proper site management, e.g. plant shall be well maintained and mobile plant shall be sited away from NSRs;

· Use of quiet plant, such as dump truck, grader, breaker and excavator, and working methods;

· Control the number of equipment operating concurrently;

· Reduce the operating time of particular noisy plant on site, e.g. shutting down machines between work periods;

· Monitor noise levels from particularly noisy activities; and if non-compliance with EIAO-TM standards is observed, Contractor shall reduce the number of operating plant or re-adjust working schedule to reduce the impact.

Highways Department

and

Contractor

Location

Reference Section

Recommended Environmental Protection Measures

Responsibility

Construction Dust Mitigation Measures

Various Locations and work sites within the project limit

Section 6.2.2 of EIA Report

Reduce the nuisance of Construction Dust

· Follow the guidelines and regulatory requirements of Air Pollution Control (Open Burning) Regulation and Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation;

· Adopt appropriate environmental pollution control measures on-site, such as, apply water sprays, use clean impervious sheeting to cover dusty materials and set minimum practical height for dropping materials.

Highways Department

and

Contractor

2.2 Advice on the Implementation Status of Environmental Protection & Pollution

Control / Mitigation Measures

The Contractor should use silencers or mufflers on construction equipment such as pneumatic breaker and have air compressors enclosed to avoid exceeding the noise limit and causing nuisance to the nearby sensitive receivers.

Regular maintenance of the construction plant is strongly encouraged to avoid black smoke and excessive noise production. The machines and plant should be shut down or throttled down to a minimum when they are in intermittent use.

The plant known to emit noise strongly in one direction should be orientated to direct noise away from nearby noise sensitive receivers. The mobile plants should be sited as far away from the noise sensitive receivers as possible.

It is important to control the simultaneous operation of the construction plant on site to avoid the potential noise limit exceedance and nuisance to the nearby sensitive receivers especially for those which are for educational purpose. The rock socket excavation of the piling work shall be carried out after school hour to reduce the nuisance to the nearby educational institutions.

The Contractor shall provide temporary noise-insulating facilities such as hoarding, noise barrier at where mostly affected by the Contractor’s construction activities.

The Contractor shall note that the operation of Powered Mechanical Equipment in the restricted hour without the valid Construction Noise Permit is considered as a violation of current environmental regulations. The Contractor shall exercise a tight control over its labours and its sub-contractor to prevent any breaches of environmental regulations.

2.3 Mitigated Measures Taken by the Contractor During the Year

Mitigation measures exercised by the Contractor are summarized as follow:

Noise Mitigation Measures

· Mufflers and silencers are mounted on construction equipment when construction work is undertaking

· Hoarding which acts as the sound-insulating barrier is erected to surround the working area

· Sound-insulating coverage board is provided at the most affected area during the mini-pile drilling work

· Rock socket excavation of mini-pile construction is shifted to be carried out after school hour to reduce the noise impact to the nearby education institutions

· Simultaneous noisy activities are avoided to be taken place

· Construction plants are in intermittent use shut down or throttled down to a minimum between work periods

· Construction plants are well-maintained on site

Dust Mitigation Measures

· Sand heap is covered with impervious tarpaulin when not used

· Unpaved haul road is watered regularly in the site

· Effective water spraying system is provided on site for dust suppression

· Cover any dusty load on vehicle before leaving the site

· Water is sprayed at where the concrete breaking taking place

Others

· Direct site runoff to desilting facilities such as sedimentation tank prior to the discharge to the stormwater drainage system

· Regularly clear the rubbish bin on site

· Enclose the working area where mini-pile work or shotcreting work taking place

· Accumulated stagnant water is discharged to prevent the breeding of insects

· Disused oil drum is transported out of the site area

3.0 MONITORING RESULTS

3.1 Graphical Plots of the Monitored Parameters

The graphical presentations of the monitored parameters recorded in the past twelve months are shown in Appendix G.

3.2 Major Activities During the Year

Works undertaken during the year are summarized as below:

· Cut Slope and Slope Shotcreting at Ap Lei Chau Drive

· Tree Felling and Transplanting Works

· Erection of Temporary Works and Hoarding

· Demolition of Existing Counterfort Wall

· Demolition of Existing Caisson Wall at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road Eastbound

· Construction of Retaining Wall

· Utility Diversion

· Footway and Carriageway Construction along Ap Lei Chau Drive

· Erection of Temporary Safety Fence along Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road

· Installation of concrete pipe

· Soil Nail Installation on Existing cut slope

· Mini-pile Drilling and Grouting Work

· Pile Cap Construction

· Ramp Construction

3.3 Weather Conditions

The weather conditions were mainly sunny and did not affect the environmental monitoring works during the reporting period. The weather conditions during the year are shown in the Appendix E.

3.4 Influencing Factors

Other noise source included the noise from the piling works at the site of Architectural Services Department inside the monitoring station M3, the True Light College. Heavy traffic noise from Lei Tung Estate Road also contributes noise impact to the monitoring station M3.

4.0 SUMMARY OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ACTION AND LIMIT LEVELS, COMPLAINTS, NOTIFICATIONS OF SUMMONS AND SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS

4.1 Non-compliance of the Action and Limit Levels during the Year

4.1.1 Summary Record & Follow-up Actions

During the reporting year, all measured noise levels were below the noise limit level at the monitoring stations M1 and M4. Three of the measured noise levels at monitoring station M2 exceeded its limit level of 70 dB(A).

Based on the baseline noise monitoring results, heavy traffic along Lei Tung Estate Road mainly contributes to the background noise levels recorded in the vicinity of M3. As the baseline levels already exceed the limit level for monitoring station M3, a new exceedance level which incorporates the baseline noise level and construction noise level shall be determined based on Section 3.7 of the EM&A Manual.

4.1.2 Review of the reasons for and the implications of non-compliance

Reasons leading to the non-compliance of noise limit level are summarized in below:

Date:	Monitoring Station	Measured Noise Level dB(A)	Reasons account for the non-compliance & follow up actions
17 May 2003	M2	74.0 dB(A)	During these days, demolition of the retaining wall CF1 was undertaken outside the monitoring station M2, since there were no other noisy activities carried out by other parties, thus the ET identified this as a non-compliance of noise limit level. Demolition works was stopped immediately and ad hoc meeting was held amongst the principal and the Contractor representative. The Contractor agreed to shift the working hours of demolition works to non-school period.
19 May 2003	M2	72.1 dB(A)
24 May 2003	M2	72.7 dB(A)	When the Contractor undertook the demolition work at outside M2, at the same time, fixing works at the external wall was undertaking by other parties inside the Harbour Mission Church and Yan Oi Kindergarten. The exceedance was believed due to the simultaneous machinery operation of fixing works and demolition work. Demolition works taken in the remaining days was shifted to non-school period under the Engineer’s verbal instruction.

4.2 Written Complaints and Verbal Complaints

4.2.1 Summary Record of Complaints Received

During the reporting year, there was one written complaint and two verbal complaints received in this project. Complaints’ details are shown as below:

Case 1

Received date:	19 May 2003
Complainant:	The principal of the Harbour Mission Church and Yan Oi Kindergarten
Complaint Mode:	Direct Contact with the ER of the project
Description of complaint:	Noise Pollution due to the Demolition Works at site
Investigation:	The ET found out the Contractor was undertaking the demolition works of the existing retaining wall outside the noise sensitive receiver M2 and it was believed the complaint was solely due to noise generation by the Contractor’s construction activities. The Contractor stopped their works immediately once complaint was received. An ad hoc meeting was held in the kindergarten amongst the principal and all relevant parties including the ER and the Contractor representatives.
Follow-up Actions:	The Contractor shifted the working hour for the demolition works to non-school period to reduce the noise impact to the kindergarten. Further meeting was held amongst relevant parties on 27 May 2003, it was agreed the demolition works for the lower 1.2m portion of the existing retaining wall could proceed within the normal working hours, excluding between the period of 12:00am to 15:30pm which is the sleeping time for the kindergarten children under the condition that the equivalent noise level shall be below the contractual requirement of 70 dB(A).
Recommended Mitigation Measures:	Silencers or mufflers on construction equipment shall be utilized and properly maintained during the construction works. Material stockpiles and other structures shall be effectively utilised, where practicable, to screen noise from on-site construction activities. Simultaneous operation of noisy plant and equipment at places close to schools shall be avoided. The plant that is known to emit noise strongly in one direction shall, where possible, be orientated to direct noise away from nearby noise sensitive receivers. The working hours of the noisy plant may be shifted to non-school hours to protect the sensitive receivers for educational purposes.
Status/ Remarks	Closed.

Case 2

Received date:	8 March 2004
Complainant:	The principal of the Harbour Mission Church and Yan Oi Kindergarten
Complaint Mode:	Written Complaint
Description of complaint:	Noise Pollution due to mini-pile drilling works at the Site
Investigation:	The ET believed that noise experienced by the complainant came from the mini pile drilling work of the footbridge construction at the Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road outside the HKHMC Yan Oi Kindergarten. The ET instructed the Contractor to undertake the additional noise monitoring on 11^th March 2004, an acceptable noise level of 69.3 dB(A) was recorded at noise monitoring station at HKHMC Yan Oi Kindergarten (M2).
Follow-up Actions: Follow-up Actions:	An adhoc meeting was held between the kindergarten Principal and the Contractor on mitigation measures of reducing the noise nuisance to the kindergarten during the drilling works. Several mitigation measures were taken by the Contractor including: Ø Close all openings in the existing hoarding to barricade the noise generated by the piling works. Ø External coverage boards serving as noise barriers will be provided in the most affected area in the kindergarten. Ø The last 5m of rock socket excavation of piling work was only carried out after the school hours. Noise measurements were carried out on 15^th and 16^th March 2004 to assess the effectiveness of the aforementioned mitigated measures and noise levels of 67.3 dB(A) and 65.6 dB(A) were recorded, respectively at M2, the HKHMC Yan Oi Kindergarten, which satisfied the limit level of 70 dB(A) stipulated in the Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual.
Recommended Mitigation Measures:	Material stockpiles and other structures shall be effectively utilised, where practicable, to screen noise from on-site construction activities. The working hours of the noisy plant may be shifted to non-school hours to protect the sensitive receivers for educational purposes.
Status/ Remarks	Closed.

Case 3

Received date:	12 April 2004
Complainant:	A Pedestrian
Complaint Mode:	Verbal Complaint
Description of complaint:	Noise Pollution due to the removal of mini-pile loading test set up during the Easter Holiday
Investigation:	The ET found that a Powered Mechanical Equipment was illegally operated by the Sub-Contractor for the removal of the pile loading test set-up in restricted hours without a valid Construction Noise Permit.
Follow-up Actions:	The Contractor was reminded that the use of PME in the restricted hour without the Construction Noise Permit is unacceptable.
Recommended Mitigation Measures:	The Contractor shall exercise the tight control over all construction works to prevent the reoccurrence of any similar incident.
Status/ Remarks	Closed.

The following table shows the summary for all the complaints received since the commencement of the Contract.

TOTAL NO. OF COMPLAINT	NO. OF COMPLAINT RECEIVED WITHIN REPORTING PERIOD	NO. OF COMPLAINT THAT IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION	NO. OF CLOSED COMPLAINT
3	0	0	3

The statistics for environmental complaint and complaint log during the reporting year are shown in Appendix G.

4.3 Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions for breaches

During the year, there were no notifications of summons and successful prosecutions for breaches of any environmental laws.