


|
|
Table 3-1 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment
Table 3-2 Air Quality Monitoring Locations
Table 3-3 Action & Limit Levels for Air Quality
Table 3-4 Event/Action Plan for Air Quality
Table 3-5 Noise Monitoring Equipment
Table 3-6 Noise Monitoring Locations
Table 3-7 Action & Limit Levels for Noise
Table 3-8 Event/Action Plan for Noise
Table 3-9 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
Table 3-10 Water Quality Monitoring Locations
Table 3-11 Action/Limit Levels for Water Quality
Table 3-12 Event/Action Plan for
Water Quality
Table 4-1 Air Quality Monitoring Results
Table 4-2 Noise Monitoring Results
Table 4-3 Summary of Exceedances for I-1
Table 4-4 Summary of Exceedances for I-2
Table 4-5 Summary of Exceedances for I-3
Table 4-6 Water Quality Monitoring Results
Table 4-7 Summary of Project-Related Exceedances
Table 5-1 Waste Generated in September 2009
Table 6-1 Site Inspection by ET
Table 7-1 Cumulative Statistic of Environmental Complaint
Table 8-1 Cumulative Statistics of Notification of Summons and Successful
Prosecutions
|
Appendixes |
|
|
Appendix A Site Map and Works Area
Appendix C Construction Programme
Appendix D Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
Appendix E Status of License and Permit
Appendix F Calibration Certificates
Appendix G Monitoring Locations
Appendix J Interim Notifications of Environmental Quality Limits Exceedances
2.
According to the EM&A
Manual, there are four designated air quality monitoring locations, five
designated noise monitoring locations and four water quality monitoring
locations during the construction phase: (i) Sik Sik Yuen Ho Fung College (ASR
1, NSR 1 and Intake I-1); (ii) Hong Hoi Chee Hong Temple (ASR 3, NSR 3 and
Intake I-2); (iii) Squatters (NSR 6 and Intake I-3); (iv) Beach Tower (Long
Beach Gardens) (ASR 8, NSR 8 and Outfall O-1); and (v) Greenview Terrace (Block
1) (ASR 9, NSR 9 and Outfall O-1).
3.
During the non restricted hours, major construction
activities undertaken by the Contractor at TWDT included site cleaning and
tidying, tree transplanting and breaking up exiting boulder at I-1, I-2, I-3
and Outfall; drilling rig at I-3 and Outfall; soil nailing at I-1, I-3 and
Outfall; formation of access road at I-3 and
Outfall; erosion control mat and green wire mesh at Outfall; Excavation and
Lateral Support (ELS) at I-1; construction of skin wall at I-2; and formation
of steel platform at I-2. No construction activities were
carried out during restricted hours.
4.
No exceedance has been
recorded for air quality during the reporting month. For noise monitoring, no
exceedance of Limit level was recorded, however, one environmental complaint on
noise trigger the excceedance of Action Level.
5.
Exceedances for water quality
monitoring are summarized in the following table:
|
Parameter |
Action Level Exceedance |
Limit Level Exceedance |
|
DO |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Turbidity |
Nil |
Nil |
|
SS |
One recorded at I-1 on 16 September 2009 |
Two recorded at I-1 and I-3
on 11 and 14 September 2009 |
6.
The exceedances were
considered not to be project-related as no direct disturbance was observed
contributed by the project construction activities. Detail interpretation could
be referred to Section 4.3 of this report.
7.
The status of waste
generation in the reporting month are:
·
A total of 3,774.2 m3
C&D material was disposed of to public fill at Tuen Mun and 1, 970.0 m3
inert C&D materials were reused in other Contracts. Detail information
could be referred to Section 5.1.1 of this report.
·
About 22.6 m3
general waste was disposed of to NENT Landfill;
·
300 kg paper/cardboard
packaging was recycled;
·
Metals was not generated in
the reporting month; and
·
No plastic waste anf chemical
waste were disposed of in the reporting month
8.
In this reporting month, two
site inspections and one monthly site audit were carried out by ET and
Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) respectively, to ensure proper
implementation of environmental mitigation measures specified in the EM&A
Manual and compliance with environmental legislation. All observations, which were recorded on the inspection
checklists, were passed to the Contractor together with the ET’s
recommendations.
9.
As advised by the Contractor
and verified by ET:
·
No non-compliance regarding
the site inspection was received in the reporting month;
·
One environmental complaint
was received during the reporting month; and
·
No summons and prosecution
was received in this reporting month.
10.
The major construction works
for the upcoming three months will be:
·
Site cleaning and tidying at
I-1, I-2, I-3 and Outfall;
·
Tree transplanting at I-1,
I-2, I-3 and Outfall;
·
Drilling rig at I-3 and
Outfall;
·
Soil nailing at I-1, I-3 and
Outfall;
·
Breaking up exiting boulder
at I-1, I-2, I-3, and Outfall;
·
Formation of access road at
I-3 and Outfall;
·
Erosion control mat and green
wire mesh at Outfall;
·
Excavation and Lateral
Support (ELS) at I-1;
·
Construction of skin wall at
I-2 and I-3;
·
Formation of steel platform
at I-2
·
Formation of shaft at I-2;
and
·
Launching chamber at Outfall.
1.1.1
The Drainage Services
Department (DSD) proposed to construct a tunnel with an internal diameter of
6.5m and a length of 5.13km, with the purpose to alleviate the flooding risk in
Tsuen Wan and Kwai Chung.
1.1.2
This project is a Designated
Project under Schedule 2 Part I Category Q, of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)
as part of the proposed Tsuen Wan Drainage Tunnel (TWDT) passes underneath the
existing Tai Mo Shan Country Park. An Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Study has therefore been undertaken to provide information on
the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising from the construction
and operation of the proposed designed project and related activities taking
place concurrently. From the EIA the
recommendations for monitoring contained herein, are made.
1.1.3
The Maeda-CREC-SELI Joint
Venture (MCSJV) was awarded by DSD with the Contract – Design and
Construction of Tsuen Wan Drainage Tunnel.
1.1.4
Hyder was commissioned by the
MCSJV as the Environmental Team (ET) to implement an EM&A program in
accordance with the EM&A Manual.
The proposed tunnel section flows from the junction of Shing Mun Road
and Wo Yi Hop Road and discharges to south of Yau Kom Tau underneath Castle
Peak Road as shown in Appendix A.
1.1.5
The construction works of the
Project was commenced in January 2008. This is the
eighteenth monthly EM&A report summarising the impact monitoring results
and audit findings of the EM&A program in September 2009.
2.1 Project Organization and Management Structure
2.1.1
The organization chart and
lines of communication with respect to the on-site environmental management are
shown in Appendix B.
2.2.1
The overall project programme
from the detail design to completion of all civil works shall take
approximately 54 months. The
construction programme is presented in Appendix C.
2.2.2
The major construction activities undertaken in the
reporting month were:
·
Site cleaning and tidying at
I-1, I-2, I-3 and Outfall;
·
Tree transplanting at I-1,
I-2, I-3 and Outfall;
·
Drilling rig at I-3 and
Outfall;
·
Soil nailing at I-1, I-3 and
Outfall;
·
Breaking up exiting boulder
at I-1, I-2, I-3 and Outfall;
·
Formation of access road at
I-3 and Outfall;
·
Erosion control mat and green
wire mesh at Outfall;
·
Excavation and Lateral
Support (ELS) at I-1;
·
Construction of skin wall at
I-2; and
·
Formation of steel platform
at I-2.
2.2.3
No construction activities
were undertaken for TWDT during the restricted hours.
2.3.1
The implemented environmental
mitigation measures and their statuses are given in Appendix D.
2.4 Status of License and Permit
2.4.1 A summary of relevant permits and licences for the Project is given in Appendix E.
3.1.1
1-hour Total Suspended
Particulates (TSP) levels are measured at the designated air monitoring locations
in accordance with the EM&A Manual. Information such as date of monitoring,
duration, weather condition, equipment used and monitoring results were
recorded on the field data sheet developed for the Project. The monitoring
results are presented in Section 4.
3.1.2
1-hour TSP monitoring is
carried out under typical weather conditions (with no adverse weather such as
typhoon signal or rain storm warning) three times every six days using High
Volume Air Samplers (HVASs). Monitoring
should be conducted in accordance with the standard sampling method as set out
in High Volume Method for Total Suspended Particulates, Part 50 Chapter 1
Appendix B, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations of the USEPA.
3.1.3
After each sampling, the
filter paper loaded with dust is kept in a clean and tightly sealed plastic
bag. The filter paper is then re-conditioned in desiccators for 24 hours before
obtaining the weight under laboratory conditions.
3.1.4
The average concentrations of
the TSP are calculated based on the following information obtained from
monitoring:
·
Flow rate;
·
Weight of the filter paper
before and after sampling; and
·
Sampling period indicated by
the elapsed-time meter.
3.1.5
All samples should be kept in
good condition (i.e. stored in sealed plastic bags, with brief description of
the monitoring dates and locations) for a period of 6 months before disposal. Sample analysis is carried out by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Limited (HOKLAS Registration Number
066).
Monitoring Equipment and Calibration
3.1.6
High Volume Air Samplers
(HVASs) are used for 1-hour TSP monitoring to comply with the USEPA
specifications in Appendix B Part 5 - Reference Method for the Determination of
Suspended Particulate matter in the Atmosphere (High-Volume Method) of the Code
of Federal Regulation dated June 1, 1991.
3.1.7
All HVASs are calibrated
before commencement of monitoring using standard orifice 5-points calibration
method with orifice calibrator to determine the actual flow rate of each
HVAS. This shall be used for the calculation
of the TSP level. Calibration Kit Model
- TE5025A is used for calibration of the HVAS. Recalibration of the HVAS shall be carried
out after motor maintenance, at least once every six months, which is about the
expected life of carbon brush. The air quality monitoring equipment used during
the reporting month is shown in Table 3-1 below. The calibration certificates are included in Appendix F.
|
Equipment Type |
Model |
Serial Number |
Calibration Orifice Number |
Location |
|
HVAS |
BM2000HX |
4994 |
1559 |
ASR 1 |
|
HVAS |
BM2000HX |
5875 |
1559 |
ASR 3 |
|
HVAS |
TE5005X |
0390 |
1559 |
ASR 8 |
|
HVAS |
TE5005X |
0646 |
1559 |
ASR 9 |
Table 3-1 Air Quality
Monitoring Equipment
3.1.8
Four designated air
quality-monitoring locations were identified in the contract specific EM&A
manual. They are listed in Table
3-2 below and shown in Appendix G.
|
Monitoring Station
ID |
Name of Premises |
Floor Level |
|
ASR1 |
Sik Sik Yuen Ho Fung College |
G/F |
|
ASR3 |
Hong Hoi Chee Hong Temple |
Podium |
|
ASR8 |
Beach Tower (Long Beach Gardens) |
G/F |
|
ASR9 |
Greenview Terrace (Block 1) |
G/F |
Table 3-2 Air Quality
Monitoring Locations
3.1.9
The Action and Limit Levels
for the 1-hour TSP monitoring is shown in Table
3-3. In case
exceedances of Action and/or Limit levels for air quality occur, Event
Contingency Plans (ECPs) would be implemented.
The ECPs for Action and Limit levels exceedances are shown in Table
3-4.
|
Station |
1-hr TSP Level in μg/m3 |
|
|
Action Level |
Limit Level |
|
|
ASR 1 |
307 |
500 |
|
ASR 3 |
327 |
500 |
|
ASR 8 |
337 |
500 |
|
ASR 9 |
329 |
500 |
|
EVENT |
ACTION |
|||||||
|
ET |
IEC |
SOR |
CONTRACTOR |
|||||
|
ACTION LEVEL |
||||||||
|
Exceedance for one
sample |
· Identify source, investigate the causes of exceedance and propose remedial measures; · Inform IEC and SOR; · Repeat measurement to confirm finding; · Increase monitoring frequency to daily. |
· Check monitoring data submitted by ET; · Check Contractor’s working method. |
· Notify Contractor. |
· Rectify any unacceptable practice; · Amend working methods if appropriate. |
||||
|
Exceedance for two or
more consecutive samples |
· Identify source; · Inform IEC and SOR; · Advise SOR on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures; · Repeat measurements to confirm findings; · Increase monitoring frequency to daily; · Discuss with IEC and Contractor on remedial actions required; · If exceedance continues, arrange meeting with IEC and SOR; · If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring. |
· Check monitoring data submitted by ET; · Check Contractor’s working method; · Discuss with ET and Contractor on possible remedial measures; · Advise the ET on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures; · Supervise Implementation of remedial measures. |
· Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing; · Notify Contractor; · Ensure remedial measures properly implemented.
|
· Submit proposals for remedial to SOR within 3 working days of notification; · Implement the agreed proposals; · Amend proposal if appropriate. |
||||
|
LIMIT LEVEL |
||||||||
|
Exceedance for one
sample |
· Identify source, investigate the causes of exceedance and propose remedial measures; · Inform IEC, SOR, Contractor and EPD; · Repeat measurement to confirm finding; · Increase monitoring frequency to daily; · Assess effectiveness of Contractor’s remedial actions and keep IEC, EPD and SOR informed of the results. |
· Check monitoring data submitted by ET; · Check Contractor’s working method; · Discuss with ET and Contractor on possible remedial measures; · Advise SOR on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures; · Supervise implementation of remedial measures. |
· Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing; · Notify Contractor; · Ensure remedial measures properly implemented. |
· Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance; · Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of notification; · Implement the agreed proposals; · Amend proposal if appropriate. |
||||
|
Exceedance for two or
more consecutive samples |
· Notify IEC, SOR, Contractor and EPD; · Identify source; · Repeat measurement to confirm findings; · Increase monitoring frequency to daily; · Carry out analysis of Contractor’s working procedures to determine possible mitigation to be implemented; · Arrange meeting with IEC and SOR to discuss the remedial actions to be taken; · Assess effectiveness of Contractor’s remedial actions and keep IEC, EPD and SOR informed of the results; · If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring. |
· Discuss amongst SOR, ET, and Contractor on the potential remedial actions; · Review Contractor’s remedial actions whenever necessary to assure their effectiveness and advise SOR accordingly; · Supervise the implementation of remedial measures. |
· Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing; · Notify Contractor; · In consultation with the IEC, agree with the Contractor on the remedial measures to be implemented; · Ensure remedial measures properly implemented; · If exceedance continues, consider what portion of the work is responsible and instruct the Contractor to stop that portion of work until the exceedance is abated. |
· Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance; · Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of notification; · Implement the agreed proposals; · Resubmit proposals if problem still not under control; · Stop the relevant portion of works as determined by SOR until the exceedance is abated. |
||||
Table 3-4 Event/Action
Plan for Air Quality
3.2.1
The construction noise level is measured in terms of
equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level (Leq) measured in
decibels (dB(A)). Monitoring of Leq(30
min) is carried out at the noise monitoring locations on a weekly basis
during normal construction working hours (0700-1900 hours from Monday to
Saturday except public holidays). For
all other time periods (i.e. restricted hours), Leq(5 min) would be
employed for comparison with the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) criteria if necessary.
3.2.2
The two statistical sound levels L10 and L90:
the level exceeded for 10 and 90 percent of the time respectively, are also
recorded during monitoring. Major noise
sources observed, both on-site and off-site, are recorded on the field data
sheet. All measurements are recorded to
the nearest 0.1 dB(A) and presented in round numbers in this report. Results are presented in Section 4.
3.2.3
Sound level meters, which comply with the International
Electrotechnical Commission Publication 651: 1979 (Type 1) and 804: 1985 (Type
1) specifications as referred to the Technical Memorandum (TM) issued under the
Noise Control Ordinance, are used.
Noise levels for the A-weighted levels Leq(30min), L10
and L90 are measured throughout the impact monitoring. Average, by sound power, of six consecutive
5 minutes readings is used to provide Leq(30 min) for non-restricted
hours (07:00-19:00 hours from Monday to Saturday except public holidays). A facade correction of 3dB(A) is applied to
the measurements that are carried out under free field conditions.
3.2.4
During the impact monitoring, parameters such as dates,
weather condition, equipment used, measurement results and major noise sources
are recorded on the field data record sheet.
Monitoring would not be carried out in the presence of fog, rain or
strong wind with a steady speed exceeding 5 m/s. In relation to the monitored noise levels, other noise sources
such as road traffic might make a significant contribution to the overall noise
environment. Therefore, noise
monitoring activities would take into account such influencing factors, which
were not present during the baseline monitoring period.
Monitoring Equipment and Calibration
3.2.5
Rion Precision Sound Level Meters of Type NA-27 and
Type NL-18 in compliance with the International Electrotechnical Commission
Publication 651: 1979 (Type 1) and 804: 1985 (Type 1) Specifications, stated in
the Technical Memorandum (TM) issued under the NCO, are used for noise
monitoring in this reporting month.
3.2.6
Prior to and following each noise measurement, the
accuracy of the sound level meters is checked using an acoustic calibrators
(Rion Type NC-73) generating a known sound pressure level at a known
frequency. Measurements are considered
as valid only if the calibration levels from before and after the noise
measurement agrees to within 1.0 dB(A).
The sound level meters and the calibrator are calibrated annually to
ensure they perform to the same level of accuracy as stated in the
manufacturer’s specifications. The
noise monitoring equipment used during the reporting month is shown in Table 3-5 below. The calibration certificates are included in
Appendix F.
|
Equipment Type |
Manufacturer |
Type Number |
Serial Number |
Location |
|
Sound Level Meter |
Rion |
NA-27 |
00201194 |
NSR1, NSR3, NSR6,
NSR8 and NSR9 |
|
Sound Level Meter |
Rion |
NL-18 |
00360030 |
|
|
Sound Level Calibrator |
Rion |
NC-73 |
10786708 |
|
|
Sound Level
Calibrator |
Rion |
NC-73 |
10997142 |
Table 3-5 Noise
Monitoring Equipment
3.2.7
Five designated noise monitoring locations were
identified in the contract specific EM&A manual. They are listed in Table 3-6 below and
shown in Appendix G. All the locations
below are in façade
measurement.
|
Monitoring Station ID |
Name of Premises |
Floor Level |
|
NSR1 |
Sik Sik Yuen Ho Fung College |
G/F |
|
NSR3 |
Hong Hoi Chee Hong Temple |
Podium |
|
NSR6 |
Squatters |
G/F |
|
NSR8 |
Beach Tower (Long Beach Gardens) |
G/F |
|
NSR9 |
Greenview Terrace (Block 1) |
Podium (up to 6 July2009) Roof* (from 16 July 2009) |
* The noise monitoring location of NSR9 had
been adjusted at rooftop from 16 July 2009.
Table 3-6 Noise Monitoring Locations
Construction Groundborne Noise
3.2.8
Prediction of construction groundborne noise indicates
the criteria will be achieved at most NSRs except exceedances are predicted at
Hong Hoi Chee Hong Temple (NSR3) and Squatters (NSR6). It is recommended to restrict the TBM
operation in non-restricted period (i.e. 0700 - 1900) at these NSRs. In order
to ensure proper control of groundborne noise is executed by the contractor, a
monitoring requirement is recommended at the Hong Hoi Chee Hong Temple at
Intake 2 and Squatters at Intake 3 for compliance checking. According to the monitoring schedule, TBM
operation will be carried out for about 3 months in the vicinity of Hong Hoi Chee
Hong Temple at Intake 2 and Squatters at Intake 3. If groundborne noise criterion is exceeded, the monitoring shall
continue daily until acceptance has been restored against the criterion. Otherwise the monitoring can be
discontinued.
3.2.9
The criteria including Technical Memorandum for the Assessment
of Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or
Construction Sites (TM-Places) under the NCO stipulates that noise transmitted
primarily through the structural elements of building, or buildings, shall be
10 dB(A) less than the relevant ANLs.
Daytime groundborne construction noise criterion of 60 dB(A) therefore
applies with reference to TM-EIAO 70 dB(A) criterion for schools and taking
account of the minus 10 dB(A) requirement under the NCO TM-Places. Following the same principle for groundborne
noise criteria, groundborne construction noise levels inside domestic premises
relying on opened window for ventilation will be limited to 65 dB(A), with
reference to the daytime airborne noise criterion of 75 dB(A) in accordance with
TM-EIAO.
3.2.10
The Action and Limit levels for construction noise are
defined in Table 3-7. If
non-compliance of the criteria occurs, actions in accordance with the Action
Plan in Table 3-8 would be
carried out.
|
Time Period |
Action |
Limit |
|
0700 – 1900 hrs on normal weekdays |
When one documented complaint is received |
75 dB(A)* |
Table 3-7 Action & Limit Levels for Noise
|
Event |
Action |
|||
|
ET
Leader |
IEC |
SOR |
Contractor |
|
|
Action
Level |
· Notify IEC and the Contractor. · Carry out investigation. · Report the results of investigation to IEC and the Contractor. · Discuss with the Contractor and formulate remedial measures. · Increase monitoring frequency to check mitigation measures. |
· Review with analysed results submitted by ET. · Review the proposed remedial measures by the Contractor and advise SOR accordingly. · Supervise the implement of remedial measures. |
· Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing. · Notify the Contractor. · Require the Contractor to propose remedial measures for the analysed noise problem. · Ensure remedial measures are properly implemented. |
· Submit noise mitigation proposals to IEC. · Implement noise mitigation proposals. |
|
Limit
Level |
· Identify the source. · Notify IEC, SOR, EPD and the Contractor. · Repeat measurement to confirm findings. · Increase monitoring frequency. · Carry out analysis of Contractor’s working procedures to determine possible mitigation to be implemented. · Inform IEC, SOR, and EPD the causes & actions taken for the exceedances. · Assess effectiveness of the Contractor’s remedial actions and keep IEC, EPD and SOR informed of the results. · If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring. |
· Discuss amongst SOR, ET Leader and the Contractor on the potential remedial actions. · Review the Contractor’s remedial actions whenever necessary to assure their effectiveness and advise SOR accordingly. · Supervise the implementation of remedial measures. |
· Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing. · Notify the Contractor. · Require the Contractor to propose remedial measures for the analysed noise problem. · Ensure remedial measures are properly implemented. · If exceedance continues, consider what activity of the work is responsible and instruct the Contractor to stop that activity of work until the exceedance is abated. |
· Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance. · Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of notification. · Implement the agreed proposals. · Resubmit proposals if problem still not under control. · Stop the relevant activity of works as determined by the SOR until the exceedance is abated. |
Table 3-8 Event/Action
Plan for Noise
3.3.1
The water quality impact
would be insignificant with the protection measures recommended in Section 5.6
of the EIA report. However in view of
the sensitive nature of the rivers/streams and bathing beaches in the Study Area, it is suggested that a programme of
monitoring should be established to confirm the mitigation measures are
protecting these water bodies.
3.3.2
Monitoring for Dissolved Oxygen (DO), temperature, turbidity, pH and
suspended solids (SS) should be undertaken at designated monitoring locations. It should be noted that DO,
temperature, turbidity and pH should be measured in-situ whereas SS is assayed
in a laboratory.
3.3.3
In association with the water quality parameters, other relevant data
should also be measured, such as monitoring location/position, time, weather
conditions, and any special phenomena and description of work
underway at the construction site etc.
3.3.4
In
accordance with the EM&A Manual, the water quality monitoring for all specified
parameters shall be measured at all designated monitoring locations including
control points at an interval of 3 days per week. DO, temperature, turbidity, pH
and SS shall be undertaken at designated monitoring locations.
3.3.5
It should be noted that water samples for all
monitoring parameters should be collected, stored, preserved and analysis
according to Standard Methods, APHA 17 ed. and/or methods agreed by the
Director of Environmental Protection.
3.3.6
Each sample shall be analysed
in accordance with the APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 18th edition, or an equivalent method approved by the EPD. If an in-house or non-standard method is
proposed, details of the method verification may require to be submitted to the
EPD. In any circumstance, the sample
testing should comply with a comprehensive quality assurance and quality
control programme. The laboratory
should be prepared to demonstrate the quality programmes to the EPD when
requested.
Monitoring Equipment and Calibration
3.3.7
All the water samples collected should be transferred to clearly labelled and pre-cleaned sample containers with necessary
preservatives immediately after collection.
The sample containers should be provided by a HOKLAS accredited
laboratory. Sufficient quantity of
samples should be collected for all laboratory analyses. Following sampling, samples should be
stored in a cool box at temperature of between 0 and 4oC, and
transported to the laboratory within the sample retention time as advised by
the laboratory under proper chain-of-custody system. The water quality
monitoring equipment used during the reporting month is shown in Table
3-9 below.
|
Equipment Type |
Manufacturer |
Model |
Quantity |
|
pH Meter / DO / Temperature Meter |
WTW |
PH/Oxi 340i |
1 |
|
Tuibidimeter |
EUTECH |
TN-100 |
1 |
Table 3-9 Water
Quality Monitoring Equipment
3.3.8
All pH meters, DO meters and
turbidimeters shall be checked and calibrated prior to use. DO meters and turbidimeters shall be
calibrated by a laboratory accredited under HOKLAS or any other international
accreditation scheme, and subsequently re-calibrated at 3 monthly intervals
throughout all stages of the water quality monitoring. Responses of sensors and electrodes shall be
checked with certified standard solutions before each use. Wet bulb calibrations for all DO meters shall
be carried out before measurement at each monitoring location. For the on site calibration of field
equipment, BS 127:1993, "Guide to field and on-site test methods for the
analysis of waters" should be observed. The
calibration certificates are included in Appendix F.
3.3.9
Four
designated monitoring locations were identified in the contract specific EM&A Manual for water quality monitoring. While the construction of the
outfall basin at the seashore has not been started, monitoring of marine water
quality is only required during which the stilling basin is placed at the
seashore area. These four monitoring stations are listed in Table 3-10 below and shown in
Appendix G.
|
Monitoring Station ID |
Name of Premises |
|
I-1 |
Intake I-1 |
|
I-1-C |
Control of Intake I-1 |
|
I-2 |
Intake I-2 |
|
I-2-C |
Control of Intake I-2 |
|
I-3 |
Intake I-3 |
|
I-3-C* |
Control of Intake I-3 |
|
O-1 (FT) |
Outfall 1During Flood Tide |
|
O-1 (ET) |
Outfall 1During Ebb Tide |
|
O-1-C (FT) |
Control of Outfall O-1 During Flood Tide |
|
O-1-C (ET) |
Control of Outfall O-1 During Ebb Tide |
*The upper stream location
(I-3-C*) had been relocated from end of February 2009 due to coarse stone
blockage.
Table 3-10 Water Quality
Monitoring Locations
3.3.10
Note
that there are two control stations for Outfall O-1, one for sampling during
flood tide and one for sampling during ebb tide. Only one of those control stations for Outfall O-1 shall be
sampled during each sampling. Control
station to be sampled will be determined based on the tidal information
provided by the Hong Kong Observatory.
3.3.11
The Action and Limit levels for water quality
monitoring parameters are defined in Table 3-11. In case of any exceedance, appropriate actions will be undertaken in accordance
with the Event and Action Plan as described in Table 3-12.
|
Parameters |
Action |
Limit |
|
DO in mg/l (Surface, Middle
& Bottom) |
Surface &
Middle 5%-ile of
baseline data for surface and middle layer. Bottom 5%-ile of
baseline data for bottom layer. |
Surface &
Middle 4mg/l except
5mg/l for FCZ or 1%-ile of
baseline data for surface and middle layer Bottom 2mg/l or 1%-ile
of baseline data for bottom layer |
|
SS in mg/l (depth-averaged) |
95%-ile of
baseline data or 120% of upstream control station’s SS at the same tide of
the same day |
99%-ile of
baseline or 130% of upstream control station’s SS at the same tide of the
same day and specific sensitive receiver water quality requirements (e.g.
required suspended solids levels for concerned sea water intakes) |
|
Turbidity (Tby)
in NTU (depth-averaged) |
95%-ile of
baseline data or 120% of upstream control station’s Tby at the same tide of
the same day |
99%-ile of
baseline or 130% of upstream control station’s Tby at the same tide of the
same day |
Notes:
·
For DO, non-compliance of the
water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is lower than the limits.
·
For SS and Tby,
non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when monitoring result is
higher than the limits.
·
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.
|
Event |
ET Leader |
IEC |
SOR |
Contractor |
|
Action Level being exceeded by one sampling day |
· Repeat in-situ measurement to confirm finding; · Identify source(s) of impact; · Inform IEC and Contractor; · Check monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor’s working methods; · Discuss mitigation measures with IEC and Contractor; and · Repeat measurement on next day of exceedance. |
· Discuss with ET and Contractor on the mitigation measures; · Review proposals on mitigation measures submitted by Contractor and advise the SOR accordingly; and · Assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures.
|
· Discuss with IEC on the proposed mitigation measures; and · Make agreement on the mitigation measures to be implemented.
|
· Inform the SOR and confirm notification of the non-compliance in writing; · Rectify unacceptable practice; · Check all plant and equipment; · Consider changes of working methods; · Discuss with ET and IEC and propose mitigation measures to IEC and SOR; and · Implement the agreed mitigation measures. |
|
Action Level being exceeded by more than one consecutive sampling day |
· Repeat in-situ measurement to confirm finding; · Identify source(s) of impact; · Inform IEC and Contractor; · Check monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor’s working methods; · Discuss mitigation measures with IEC and Contractor; · Ensure mitigation measures are implemented; · Prepare to increase the monitoring frequency to daily; and · Repeat measurement on next day of exceedance. |
· Discuss with ET and Contractor on the mitigation measures; · Review proposals on mitigation measures submitted by Contractor and advise the SOR accordingly; and · Assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures.
|
· Discuss with IEC on the proposed mitigation measures; · Make agreement on the mitigation measures to be implemented; and · Assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. |
· Inform the Engineer and confirm notification of the non-compliance in writing; · Rectify unacceptable practice; · Check all plant and equipment; · Consider changes of working methods; · Discuss with ET and IEC and propose mitigation measures to IEC and SOR within 3 working days; and · Implement the agreed mitigation measures. |
|
Limit Level being exceeded by one sampling day |
· Repeat in-situ measurement to confirm finding; · Identify source(s) of impact; · Inform IEC, Contractor and EPD; · Check monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor’s working methods; · Discuss mitigation measures with IEC, SOR and Contractor; · Ensure mitigation measures are implemented; and · Increase the monitoring frequency to daily until no exceedance of Limit level. |
· Discuss with ET and Contractor on the mitigation measures; · Review proposals on mitigation measures submitted by Contractor and advise the SOR accordingly; and · Assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures.
|
· Discuss with IEC, ET and Contractor on the proposed mitigation measures; and · Request Contractor to critically review the working methods; · Make agreement on the mitigation measures to be implemented; and · Assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures. |
· Inform the Engineer and confirm notification of the non-compliance in writing; · Rectify unacceptable practice; · Check all plant and equipment; · Consider changes of working methods; · Discuss with ET and IEC and SOR and propose mitigation measures to IEC and SOR within 3 working days; and · Implement the agreed mitigation measures. |
|
Limit Level being exceeded by more than one consecutive sampling day |
· Repeat in-situ measurement to confirm finding; · Identify source(s) of impact; · Inform IEC, Contractor and EPD; · Check monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor’s working methods; · Discuss mitigation measures with IEC, SOR and Contractor; · Ensure mitigation measures are implemented; and · 7. Increase the monitoring frequency to daily until no exceedance of Limit level for two consecutive days. |
· Discuss with ET and Contractor on the mitigation measures; · Review proposals on mitigation measures submitted by Contractor and advise the SOR accordingly; and · Assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures.
|
· Discuss with IEC, ET and Contractor on the proposed mitigation measures; and · Request Contractor to critically review the working methods; · Make agreement on the mitigation measures to be implemented; · Assess the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation measures; and · Consider and instruct, if necessary, the Contractor to slow down or to stop all or part of the marine work until no exceedance of Limit Level. |
· Inform the SOR and confirm notification of the non-compliance in writing; · Rectify unacceptable practice; · Check all plant and equipment; · Consider changes of working methods; · Discuss with ET and IEC and SOR and propose mitigation measures to IEC and SOR within 3 working days; · Implement the agreed mitigation measures; and · As directed by the Engineer, to slow down or to stop all or part of the marine work or construction activities. |
Table 3-12Event/Action Plan for Water Quality
4.1.1
The air quality monitoring
schedule of the reporting period is given in Appendix H.
4.1.2
Results of 1-hours TSP level are shown in Table 4-1. All
measurements were recorded to the nearest 0.1mg/m3
and presented in round numbers in this report.
Detail results including weather conditions, and graphical presentations
are presented in Appendix I.
|
Station |
Monitoring Date |
Monitoring Result (mg/m3) |
Action/Limit Levels (mg/m3) |
|
ASR 1 |
04-Sep-09 |
95.7 |
307/500 |
|
85.9 |
|||
|
95.7 |
|||
|
10-Sep-09 |
85.9 |
||
|
103.1 |
|||
|
87.1 |
|||
|
16-Sep-09 |
125.2 |
||
|
85.9 |
|||
|
49.1 |
|||
|
22-Sep-09 |
97.0 |
||
|
81.0 |
|||
|
71.2 |
|||
|
28-Sep-09 |
98.2 |
||
|
152.2 |
|||
|
71.2 |
|||
|
ASR 3 |
04-Sep-09 |
83.8 |
327/500 |
|
71.7 |
|||
|
62.8 |
|||
|
10-Sep-09 |
108.0 |
||
|
86.0 |
|||
|
89.3 |
|||
|
16-Sep-09 |
58.4 |
||
|
110.2 |
|||
|
69.5 |
|||
|
22-Sep-09 |
114.6 |
||
|
81.6 |
|||
|
40.8 |
|||
|
28-Sep-09 |
119.1 |
||
|
118.0 |
|||
|
80.5 |
|||
|
ASR 8 |
04-Sep-09 |
205.0 |
337/500 |
|
125.4 |
|||
|
124.1 |
|||
|
10-Sep-09 |
175.3 |
||
|
137.6 |
|||
|
133.5 |
|||
|
16-Sep-09 |
136.2 |
||
|
112.0 |
|||
|
117.3 |
|||
|
22-Sep-09 |
103.9 |
||
|
141.6 |
|||
|
21.6 |
|||
|
28-Sep-09 |
126.8 |
||
|
126.8 |
|||
|
152.4 |
|||
|
ASR 9 |
04-Sep-09 |
119.2 |
329/500 |
|
120.3 |
|||
|
129.6 |
|||
|
10-Sep-09 |
159.6 |
||
|
79.0 |
|||
|
87.9 |
|||
|
16-Sep-09 |
146.9 |
||
|
144.6 |
|||
|
91.4 |
|||
|
22-Sep-09 |
94.9 |
||
|
82.1 |
|||
|
42.8 |
|||
|
28-Sep-09 |
166.6 |
||
|
90.2 |
|||
|
101.8 |
Note: Italic indicates the occurrence of exceedance of Action level
Bold indicates the occurrence of exceedance of Limit Level
Table 4-1 Air Quality Monitoring
Results
4.1.3
No project related exceedance was recorded in the
reporting month.
4.2.1
The noise monitoring schedule of the reporting period
is given in Appendix H. Results of
measured noise level, in terms of Leq (30min), during the construction are
shown in Table 4-2. All measurements including L10 and L90 are recorded
to the nearest 0.1 dB(A) and presented in round numbers in this report. Detail results including weather conditions
and graphical presentation are presented in Appendix I.
|
Station |
Monitoring Date |
Leq (30 min) dB(A) |
Limit Levels dB(A) |
|
NSR 1 |
10-Sep-09 |
63.7 |
70 |
|
16-Sep-09 |
68.8 |
||
|
22-Sep-09 |
68.5 |
||
|
28-Sep-09 |
67.6 |
||
|
NSR 3 |
10-Sep-09 |
68.4 |
75 |
|
16-Sep-09 |
71.8 |
||
|
22-Sep-09 |
72.4 |
||
|
28-Sep-09 |
67.6 |
||
|
NSR 6 |
10-Sep-09 |
55.8 |
|
|
16-Sep-09 |
55.7 |
||
|
22-Sep-09 |
56.2 |
||
|
28-Sep-09 |
55.1 |
||
|
NSR 8 |
4-Sep-09* |
67.9 |
|
|
10-Sep-09 |
66.9 |
||
|
11-Sep-09* |
66.9 |
||
|
16-Sep-09 |
67.1 |
||
|
18-Sep-09* |
64.0 |
||
|
22-Sep-09 |
67.6 |
||
|
25-Sep-09* |
66.6 |
||
|
28-Sep-09 |
67.8 |
||
|
NSR 9 |
4-Sep-09* |
72.8 |
|
|
10-Sep-09 |
69.9 |
||
|
11-Sep-09* |
71.9 |
||
|
16-Sep-09 |
71.2 |
||
|
18-Sep-09* |
71.9 |
||
|
22-Sep-09 |
73.2 |
||
|
25-Sep-08* |
74.8 |
||
|
28-Sep-09 |
72.4 |
* Additional noise monitoring due to the documented complaints.
Table 4-2 Noise Monitoring Results
4.2.2
No exceedances of Limit Level were recorded during the
reporting month. However, one complaint was received on 7 September 2009
regarding the daytime construction noise at NSR 9. Hence, it would be an Action
Level exceedance. Details of the complaints are presented in Section 7 and the
notification of exceedances is enclosed in Appendix J.
4.3.1
The water quality monitoring schedule of the reporting
period is given in Appendix H.
Summaries of exceedances for water quality monitoring are provided in Table 4-3 to Table 4-5.
|
Parameter |
Action Level Exceedance |
Limit Level
Exceedance |
|
DO |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Turbidity |
Nil |
Nil |
|
SS |
One recorded on 16
September2009 |
One recorded on 11
September 2009 |
|
Total |
One |
One |
Table 4-3 Summary of Exceedances for I-1
|
Parameter |
Action Level
Exceedance |
Limit Level
Exceedance |
|
DO |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Turbidity |
Nil |
Nil |
|
SS |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Total |
Nil |
Nil |
Table 4-4 Summary of
Exceedances for I-2
|
Parameter |
Action Level
Exceedance |
Limit Level
Exceedance |
|
DO |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Turbidity |
Nil |
Nil |
|
SS |
Nil |
One recorded on 14
September 2009 |
|
Total |
Nil |
One |
Table 4-5 Summary of
Exceedances for I-3
4.3.2
Results of
measured water quality parameters during the reporting month are shown in Table 4-6 Water Quality Monitoring Results and detailed results including weather conditions and
graphical presentations are enclosed in Appendix I.
4.3.3
The exceedance of
Control Limit Level of SS (130% higher than I-1-C) recorded at I-1 on 11
September 2009 was
below baseline Action / Limit Level and was within the range of baseline SS
concentration. Only water pumping work was carried
out during the measurements. No direct disturbance was observed from the site.
The exceedance was considered to be contributed by natural variation and no
action was therefore required.
4.3.4
The exceedance
of Control Action Level of SS (120%
higher than I-1-C) recorded at I-1 on 16 September 2009 was below baseline Action / Limit
Level and was within the range of baseline SS concentration. Site cleaning
& tidying as well as preparation and formation of working platform were
undertaken during the measurement. The exceedance was considered to be
contributed by natural variation and no action was therefore required.
4.3.5
The exceedance of Control Limit Level of SS (130%
higher than I-3-C) recorded at I-3 on 14 September 2009 was below baseline Action / Limit Level and was
within the range of baseline SS concentration. Site cleaning and
tidying, soil nailing, formation of access road and disposal of C&D
materials were undertaken during the measurements. No direct disturbance was
observed from the site. The exceedance was considered
to be contributed by natural variation and no action was therefore required.
4.3.6
The above
mentioned exceedances were considered as non project related, however, proper
mitigation measures had been implemented during measurements. Details of the
above mentioned investigations could be referred to the notifications of
exceedances as enclosed in Appendix J, which have been provided to the IEC for
review.
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature |
DO (mg/L) |
Action/Limit
Level for DO (mg/L) |
pH |
Turbidity (NTU) |
Action/Limit
Level for Turbidity (NTU) |
SS (mg/L) |
Action/Limit
Level for SS (mg/L) |
|
I-1 |
02-Sep-09 |
27.30 |
5.61 |
3.42 / 3.34 |
6.74 |
2.24 |
9.75 / 12.47 |
2.0 |
8.85 / 10.17 |
|
|
04-Sep-09 |
27.70 |
5.35 |
|
6.81 |
2.56 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
07-Sep-09 |
27.90 |
5.92 |
|
5.83 |
2.92 |
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
09-Sep-09 |
27.90 |
5.35 |
|
7.30 |
5.32 |
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
11-Sep-09 |
27.10 |
5.26 |
|
7.00 |
3.89 |
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
14-Sep-09 |
26.55 |
5.06 |
|
7.06 |
3.88 |
|
8.3 |
|
|
|
16-Sep-09 |
26.00 |
4.47 |
|
7.26 |
6.61 |
|
3.3 |
|
|
|
18-Sep-09 |
27.30 |
3.43 |
|
7.52 |
2.49 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
21-Sep-09 |
28.60 |
3.57 |
|
7.66 |
2.09 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
23-Sep-09 |
27.40 |
3.85 |
|
7.65 |
5.42 |
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
25-Sep-09 |
27.50 |
5.33 |
|
7.71 |
4.18 |
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
28-Sep-09 |
27.40 |
5.48 |
|
7.22 |
4.19 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
30-Sep-09 |
27.25 |
7.32 |
|
7.52 |
2.44 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature |
DO (mg/L) |
Action/Limit
Level for DO (mg/L) |
pH |
Turbidity (NTU) |
Action/Limit
Level for Turbidity (NTU) |
SS (mg/L) |
Action/Limit
Level for SS (mg/L) |
|
I-1-C |
02-Sep-09 |
27.40 |
5.29 |
- / - |
6.78 |
2.49 |
- / - |
2.0 |
- / - |
|
|
04-Sep-09 |
28.05 |
4.15 |
|
6.85 |
2.81 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
07-Sep-09 |
27.65 |
5.78 |
|
5.84 |
3.73 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
09-Sep-09 |
28.15 |
5.63 |
|
7.41 |
5.54 |
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
11-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
5.07 |
|
6.86 |
4.06 |
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
14-Sep-09 |
26.95 |
5.10 |
|
7.11 |
4.01 |
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
16-Sep-09 |
25.70 |
4.55 |
|
7.30 |
7.10 |
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
18-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
3.15 |
|
7.50 |
2.67 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
21-Sep-09 |
28.30 |
3.46 |
|
7.70 |
2.21 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
23-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
4.04 |
|
7.67 |
5.92 |
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
25-Sep-09 |
27.45 |
5.40 |
|
7.76 |
4.35 |
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
28-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
5.56 |
|
7.22 |
4.35 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
30-Sep-09 |
27.35 |
7.59 |
|
7.44 |
2.60 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature |
DO (mg/L) |
Action/Limit
Level for DO (mg/L) |
pH |
Turbidity (NTU) |
Action/Limit
Level for Turbidity (NTU) |
SS (mg/L) |
Action/Limit
Level for SS (mg/L) |
|
I-2 |
02-Sep-09 |
27.60 |
4.76 |
3.66 / 3.63 |
6.82 |
1.05 |
6.63 / 6.99 |
2.0 |
7.68 / 8.34 |
|
|
04-Sep-09 |
27.95 |
4.45 |
|
6.90 |
1.03 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
07-Sep-09 |
27.80 |
5.15 |
|
5.98 |
2.41 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
09-Sep-09 |
28.20 |
5.04 |
|
7.20 |
3.11 |
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
11-Sep-09 |
26.80 |
5.46 |
|
7.16 |
1.46 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
14-Sep-09 |
26.55 |
4.67 |
|
7.19 |
2.08 |
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
16-Sep-09 |
25.25 |
4.32 |
|
7.69 |
3.31 |
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
18-Sep-09 |
27.70 |
4.02 |
|
7.45 |
2.45 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
21-Sep-09 |
28.80 |
3.71 |
|
7.56 |
1.32 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
23-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
4.01 |
|
7.64 |
1.41 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
25-Sep-09 |
27.70 |
5.38 |
|
7.61 |
1.07 |
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
28-Sep-09 |
27.40 |
5.29 |
|
7.61 |
3.46 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
30-Sep-09 |
27.35 |
7.40 |
|
7.52 |
2.39 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature |
DO (mg/L) |
Action/Limit Level
for DO (mg/L) |
pH |
Turbidity (NTU) |
Action/Limit Level
for Turbidity (NTU) |
SS (mg/L) |
Action/Limit Level
for SS (mg/L) |
|
I-2-C |
02-Sep-09 |
27.80 |
4.60 |
- / - |
6.81 |
1.15 |
- / - |
2.0 |
- / - |
|
|
04-Sep-09 |
27.70 |
4.60 |
|
6.92 |
1.09 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
07-Sep-09 |
28.00 |
5.45 |
|
6.00 |
2.57 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
09-Sep-09 |
28.05 |
5.00 |
|
7.26 |
3.27 |
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
11-Sep-09 |
26.95 |
5.24 |
|
7.12 |
1.61 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
14-Sep-09 |
26.70 |
4.91 |
|
7.16 |
2.19 |
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
16-Sep-09 |
25.50 |
4.39 |
|
7.65 |
3.49 |
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
18-Sep-09 |
27.00 |
3.16 |
|
7.41 |
2.54 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
21-Sep-09 |
28.90 |
3.58 |
|
7.60 |
1.41 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
23-Sep-09 |
27.00 |
4.13 |
|
7.65 |
1.60 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
25-Sep-09 |
27.40 |
5.29 |
|
7.61 |
1.14 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
28-Sep-09 |
27.40 |
5.50 |
|
7.66 |
4.30 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
30-Sep-09 |
27.10 |
7.55 |
|
7.52 |
2.55 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature |
DO (mg/L) |
Action/Limit Level
for DO (mg/L) |
pH |
Turbidity (NTU) |
Action/Limit Level
for Turbidity (NTU) |
SS (mg/L) |
Action/Limit Level
for SS (mg/L) |
|
I-3 |
02-Sep-09 |
27.90 |
5.00 |
3.65 / 3.51 |
6.98 |
1.17 |
3.99 / 4.18 |
2.0 |
6.13 / 7.23 |
|
|
04-Sep-09 |
28.05 |
4.61 |
|
7.40 |
1.33 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
07-Sep-09 |
27.70 |
5.44 |
|
6.00 |
2.13 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
09-Sep-09 |
27.85 |
4.24 |
|
7.13 |
2.07 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
11-Sep-09 |
27.15 |
5.38 |
|
7.38 |
2.21 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
14-Sep-09 |
26.20 |
4.86 |
|
6.91 |
2.38 |
|
2.8 |
|
|
|
16-Sep-09 |
25.30 |
4.62 |
|
7.48 |
3.97 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
18-Sep-09 |
27.50 |
3.74 |
|
7.28 |
2.63 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
21-Sep-09 |
28.60 |
3.75 |
|
7.46 |
1.44 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
23-Sep-09 |
26.35 |
3.91 |
|
7.69 |
1.41 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
25-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
5.58 |
|
7.58 |
1.63 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
28-Sep-09 |
27.50 |
5.31 |
|
7.71 |
3.20 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
30-Sep-09 |
27.45 |
7.50 |
|
7.41 |
2.28 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature |
DO (mg/L) |
Action/Limit Level
for DO (mg/L) |
pH |
Turbidity (NTU) |
Action/Limit Level
for Turbidity (NTU) |
SS (mg/L) |
Action/Limit Level
for SS (mg/L) |
|
I-3-C |
02-Sep-09 |
27.90 |
5.37 |
- / - |
6.98 |
1.47 |
- / - |
2.0 |
- / - |
|
|
04-Sep-09 |
28.10 |
4.81 |
|
7.37 |
1.44 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
07-Sep-09 |
27.60 |
5.60 |
|
6.01 |
2.51 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
09-Sep-09 |
27.95 |
4.44 |
|
7.16 |
2.15 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
11-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
5.38 |
|
7.40 |
2.29 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
14-Sep-09 |
26.25 |
4.81 |
|
6.95 |
2.48 |
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
16-Sep-09 |
25.35 |
4.32 |
|
7.50 |
4.08 |
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
18-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
3.49 |
|
7.26 |
2.68 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
21-Sep-09 |
28.50 |
3.81 |
|
7.44 |
1.55 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
23-Sep-09 |
26.05 |
3.90 |
|
7.72 |
1.48 |
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
25-Sep-09 |
27.20 |
5.47 |
|
7.61 |
1.74 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
28-Sep-09 |
27.40 |
5.44 |
|
7.15 |
3.40 |
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
30-Sep-09 |
27.50 |
7.19 |
|
7.42 |
2.56 |
|
2.0 |
|
Note: Italic indicates the
occurrence of exceedance of Action level.
4.4 Summary of Project-Related Exceedances
4.4.1
Table 4-7 summarises the project-related exceedance results recorded in
September 2009. Note that exceedances that are considered not related to the
construction activities are not included in this table.
|
Environmental Monitoring |
Total No. of Measurement |
Action Level Exceedance |
% of Action Level Exceedance |
Limit Level Exceedance |
% of Limit Level Exceedance |
|
Air Quality |
60 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Noise |
28 |
1 (Complaint) |
3.6 |
0 |
0 |
|
Water |
78 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 4-7 Summary
of Project-Related Exceedances
5.1.1
The status of waste management is summarized in Table
5-1 below.
|
Status of waste management |
Quantity |
|
Inert C&D Material Disposed of to Public Fill at Tuen Mun (m3) |
3,774.2 |
|
Inert C&D Material Reused in other Contracts* (m3) |
1,970.0 |
|
Metals Generated (kg) |
Nil |
|
Paper / Cardboard Packaging (kg) |
300 |
|
Plastics (kg) |
Nil |
|
Chemical Waste (kg) |
Nil |
|
General Waste Disposed of to NENT Landfill (m3) |
22.6 |
* Other Contracts include CV/2006/01, DC/2007/08, DC/2007/17, Ocean Park, DC/2008/12 and HY/2007/09.
Table 5-1 Waste
Generated in September 2009
6 NON-COMPLIANCE AND DEFICIENCY
6.1.1
ET has carried out two site inspections in the
reporting month. All observations
together with the appropriate recommended mitigation measures where necessary
were recorded in the audit checklists that were passed to the Contractor. Major environmental deficiencies observed
during site inspection/audits and recommendation, which were made by the ET,
are summarised in Table 6-1 below. No
non-compliance was observed.
|
Inspection Date |
Observation |
Recommendation |
Status |
|
6 August 2009 Follow-up |
1.
Movable noise barrier was observed not close to the
rock breaker at Outfall. |
1. The Contractor was reminded to place the movable noise barrier as closer as to the rock breaker. |
1. During
the site inspection on 24 September 09, the movable noise barrier was placed
closed to the rock breaker. (Closed)
|
|
3 September 2009 |
1. Open
slope areas at I-3 were observed not covering with tarpaulin. 2. Haul
road area at I-3 was observed dusty and dry. |
1. The Contractor was reminded to cover the
open slope areas at I-3 with tarpaulin. 2. The
Contractor was reminded to spray water regularly on haul road area. |
1. During
site inspection on 24 September 2009, the open slope areas at I-3 were
covered with tarpaulin. (Closed) 2. During
site inspection on 24 September 2009, water spraying was provided on haul
road area. (Closed) |
|
24 September 2009 |
1. The
site was observed to be dirty and untidy at I-1. 2. Debris and general refuse were observed at the
drains at I-3. |
1. The
Contractor was reminded to maintain site cleanliness and tidiness regularly. 2. The Contractor was reminded to prevent the
debris and general refuse from entering the drains. |
1. During
the site inspection on 8 October 2009, the site cleanliness and tidiness was
maintained 2. During
the site inspection on 8 October 2009, the debris and general refuse the
drains were removed. |
Table 6-1 Site Inspection
by ET
7.1.1
A complaint hotline at 9850 3241 of the Contractor has been
established for the Project.
7.1.2
One complaint was received during the reporting month.
7.1.3
The environmental complaint
was received by SOR on 7 September 2009 regarding daytime construction noise
exceedance recorded at Greenview Terrace (NSR9) on 22 August 2009 at the
outfall construction site. According to the regular noise monitoring
from July to August 2009, all measured noise levels were below the Limit
Levels. Additional noise measurements taken on 4, 11, 18 and 25 September 2009 (refers to Table 4-2) also reviewed the measured noise levels were
complied with the limit level in accordance with the EIAO-TM. However, the
documented complaints for noise were considered to trigger the action level and
the Contractor was reminded to enhance the on-site noise mitigation measures,
such as tools box talk for Contractor’s Team would be carried out for reminding
that the movable barrier should be placed to the breaking activities as much as
possible, three movable noise barriers had been placed on site and the movable
noise barriers were modified, a joint filler wall was installed at the vertical
face of westbound to mitigate the noise rebound from the vertical face to high
level of Greenview Terrace and noise monitoring frequency would be maintained
twice per week until no further complaint from Greenview Terrace. Detail of the complaint investigation can be
referred to Appendix K.
7.1.4
Cumulative statistics of environmental complaints are
shown in Table 7-1.
|
Complaints Received in the Reporting Month |
Cumulative Number of Complaints |
|
1 |
10 |
Table 7-1 Cumulative Statistic of Environmental Complaint
8 SUMMARY OF NOTIFICATION OF SUMMONS, SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
8.1.1
No summons and
successful prosecution was received during the reporting month.
8.1.2
Cumulative statistics of
Notification of Summons, Successful Prosecutions and Convictions are shown in Table 8-1.
|
Notification of Summons |
Successful
Prosecution |
||
|
September 09 |
Cumulative |
September
09 |
Cumulative |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 8-1 Cumulative
Statistics of Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
9.1.1
The forecast of construction works for the upcoming
three months are:
·
Site cleaning and tidying at
I-1, I-2, I-3 and Outfall;
·
Tree transplanting at I-1,
I-2, I-3 and Outfall;
·
Drilling rig at I-3 and
Outfall;
·
Soil nailing at I-1, I-3 and
Outfall;
·
Breaking up exiting boulder
at I-1, I-2, I-3, and Outfall;
·
Formation of access road at
I-3 and Outfall;
·
Erosion control mat and green
wire mesh at Outfall;
·
Excavation and lateral
support (ELS) at I-1;
·
Construction of skin wall at
I-2 and I-3;
·
Formation of steel platform
at I-2;
· Formation of shaft at I-2; and
· Launching chamber at Outfall.
|
|
|
|
|
Site Map and Works Area |
|
|
|
|
|
Organization Chart |
|
|
|
|
|
Construction Programme |
|
|
|
|
|
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures |
|
|
|
|
|
Status of License and Permit |
|
|
|
|
|
Calibration Certificates |
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring Locations |
|
|
|
|
|
EM&A Schedule |
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring Results |
|
|
|
|
|
Interim Notifications of Environmental Quality Limits Exceedances |
|
|
|
|
|
Complaint Log |