|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maeda - CRGL - SELI Joint Venture |
||
|
Contract No. DC/2007/12 - Design and Construction of Tsuen Wan Drainage Tunnel |
||
|
Monthly EM&A Report (June 2013) |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Hyder Consulting Limited Company
Number 126012 47th Floor, Hopewell Centre Tel: +852 2911 2233 Fax: +852 2805
5028 hyder.hk@hyderconsulting.com |
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Maeda - CRGL -
SELI Joint Venture |
|||
|
Contract No. DC/2007/12 - Design and Construction of Tsuen Wan Drainage Tunnel |
|||
|
Monthly EM&A Report (June 2013) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Report No |
EB000364R0971 |
||
|
Certified By |
F.C. Tsang ET Leader |
|
|
|
Verified By |
David Yeung Independent Environmental Checker |
|
|
|
Company Number 126012 47th Floor,
Hopewell Centre Tel: +852 2911 2233 Fax: +852 2805 5028 hyder.hk@hyderconsulting.com |
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Maeda - CRGL - SELI Joint Venture |
|||
|
Contract No. DC/2007/12 - Design and Construction of Tsuen Wan Drainage Tunnel |
|||
|
Monthly EM&A Report (June 2013) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Author |
Ray Tam |
|
|
|
Checker |
F.C. Tsang |
|
|
|
Approver |
Robert Gordon |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Report No |
EB000364R0971 |
||
|
Date |
15 July 2013 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
This Monthly EM&A Report (June 2013) is prepared for Maeda - CRGL - SELI Joint Venture in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment dated 18 December 2007. Hyder Consulting Limited (Company Number 126012) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. |
|
||
|
|
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 Air Borne Noise
Table 3‑8 Event/Action
Plan for Airborne 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 Air Borne 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 June 2013
Table 6-1 Site Inspections
by ET
Table 7-1 Cumulative
Statistics of Environmental Complaints
|
APPENDICES |
|
|
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
Appendix K Complaint
Log
l
According
to the EM&A Manual, there are four designated air quality monitoring locations,
five designated noise monitoring locations and five 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).
l During the non-restricted
hours, major construction activities undertaken by the Contractor at Tsuen Wan
Drainage Tunnel included site cleaning and tidying at Outfall, I-1, I-2 and
I-3; construction
of reinforced concrete (RC) structure of Outfall “W” at Outfall; construction of surface drainage at Outfall; backfilling
on top of box culvert at Outfall; slope reinstatement works at Outfall; landscape works at Outfall; installation of miscellaneous
steel works at trellis beam and tapered channel at Outfall; installation of additional irrigation system at Outfall; excavation and construction
of permanent access road and surface drainage at I-3; landscape
works at I-3; excavation and construction
of associated drainage
of access platform next to man access shaft at I-2; water proofing works for vortex shaft and
approach channel at I-2; tiling works at equipment room and man access shaft at I-2; landscape works at I-2; installation of security fencing at I-1; landscape
works at I-1; and reinstatement of site entrance at I-1.
l No exceedance was recorded
for air quality monitoring during the reporting month.
l No exceedance was recorded for noise monitoring during the reporting
month.
l
Exceedances for river water
quality monitoring are summarised in the following table:
|
Parameter |
Action Level Exceedance |
Limit Level Exceedance |
|
DO |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Turbidity |
Nil |
Two records at I-1 on 15 June 2013 and 24 June
2013 Two records at I-2 on 15 June 2013 and 24 June
2013 Three records at I-3 on 15 June 2013, 24 June
2013 and 26 June 2013 |
|
SS |
Two record at I-1 on 7 June 2013 and 28 June 2013 |
Two records at I-1
on 15 June 2013 and 24 June 2013 Three records at
I-2 on 15 June 2013, 19 June 2013 and 24 June 2013 Two records at I-3
on 15 June 2013 and 24 June 2013 |
l
Marine
water quality monitoring for dredging and marine works has been terminated
since 1 May 2012. As such, there was no marine water quality monitoring in this
reporting month.
l The status of waste generation in the
reporting month is:
·
A total of 718.0 m3
C&D material was disposed to public fill at Tuen Mun. No inert
C&D material was reused in this Contract and no
inert C&D material was
reused in other Contracts. Detail information could be referred to Section
5.1.1 of this report;
·
About 35.1 m3
general waste was disposed of to NENT Landfill;
·
No paper/cardboard
was recycled in the reporting
month;
·
No metal was
generated in the reporting month;
·
No plastic waste was disposed of in the reporting month; and
·
No chemical waste was disposed of in the reporting month.
l In this reporting month, two site inspections and one monthly site audit were carried out by the 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 site inspection checklists, were passed to the Contractor together with the ET’s recommendations.
l As advised by the Contractor and verified by ET:
· No non-compliance regarding the site inspection was received in the reporting month;
· No environmental complaint was received in the reporting month; and
· No summons and prosecution was received in the reporting month.
l The major construction works for the upcoming three months will be:
· Site cleaning and tidying at Outfall, I-1, I-2 and I-3;
·
Construction of RC structures of pump room at Outfall;
·
Slope reinstatement works at Outfall;
·
Finishing works for spiral ramp at Outfall;
·
Construction of surface drainage at Outfall;
·
Installation of GRP panels of spiral ramp at Outfall;
·
Landscape works at Outfall;
·
Footpath reinstatement work at Outfall;
·
Installation of additional irrigation system at Outfall;
·
Construction of permanent access road and
associated drainage at I-3;
·
Installation of stone facing for vortex shaft at I-3;
·
Landscape works at I-3;
·
Construction of access platform and associated drainage
next to man access shaft at I-2; and
·
Installation of vortex shaft opening steel cover and security fencing at I-2.
1.1.1
The
Drainage Services Department (DSD) proposed to construct a tunnel with an
internal diameter of 6.5 m and a length of 5.13 km, 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 designated project and
related activities taking place concurrently.
From the EIA, the recommendations for monitoring contained herein are
made.
1.1.3
The
Maeda-CRGL-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 programme 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 sixty-third monthly EM&A report summarising the impact monitoring
results and audit findings of the EM&A programme in June 2013.
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 70 months. The construction programme is presented in
Appendix C.
2.2.2
The major construction activities
undertaken in the reporting month were:
l Site cleaning and tidying at Outfall, I-1, I-2 and I-3;
l Construction of reinforced concrete (RC) structure of Outfall “W” at Outfall;
l Construction of surface drainage at Outfall;
l Backfilling on top of box culvert at Outfall;
l Slope reinstatement works at Outfall;
l Landscape works at Outfall;
l Installation of miscellaneous steel works at trellis beam and tapered channel at Outfall;
l Installation of additional irrigation system at Outfall;
l Excavation and construction of permanent access road and surface drainage at I-3;
l Landscape works at I-3;
l Excavation and construction of associated drainage of access platform next to man access shaft at I-2;
l Water proofing works for vortex shaft and approach channel at I-2;
l Tiling works at equipment room and man access shaft at I-2;
l Landscape works at I-2;
l Installation of security fencing at I-1;
l Landscape works at I-1; and
l Reinstatement of site entrance at I-1.
2.2.3
No marine mud
dredging works for basin scheme at portion E was conducted in the reporting
month, as all marine works were completed on 30 March 2012.
2.2.4
Planting
trees at intake I-3
was undertaken during the restricted hours in the
reporting period.
2.3.1
The
implemented environmental mitigation measures and their statuses are given in
Appendix D.
2.4 Statuses of Licences and Permits
2.4.1
A summary
of relevant permits and licences for the Project is given in Appendix E.
3.1.1
One-hour total
suspended particulates (TSP) levels were measured at the designated air quality
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
One-hour
TSP monitoring was 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 was 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 was kept in a clean and tightly
sealed plastic bag. The filter paper was then re-conditioned in desiccators for
24 hours before obtaining the weight under laboratory conditions.
3.1.4
The average
concentrations of the TSP were 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
were 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 was carried out by ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Limited (HOKLAS Registration Number
066).
Monitoring Equipment and Calibration
3.1.6
High Volume
Air Samplers (HVASs) were 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 were
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 was used for the
calculation of the TSP level.
Calibration Kit Model - TE5025A
was used for calibration of the HVAS.
Recalibration of the HVAS was carried out after motor maintenance, at
least once every six months, which was 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 |
1785 |
ASR 1 |
|
HVAS |
BM2000HX |
5875 |
1785 |
ASR 3 |
|
HVAS |
TE5005X |
1059 |
1785 |
ASR 8 |
|
HVAS |
TE5005X |
1713 |
1785 |
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 Garden) |
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 are 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-hour 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 |
Table 3‑3 Action & Limit Levels for Air
Quality
|
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 actions 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 was
measured in terms of equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level (Leq)
measured in decibels (dB(A)). Monitoring of Leq(30
min) was 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, were also recorded during monitoring. Major noise sources observed, both on-site and off-site, were recorded on the field data
sheet. All measurements were recorded and
presented to the nearest 0.1 dB(A) 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, were used. Noise levels for the A-weighted levels Leq(30 min), L10 and L90
were measured throughout the impact monitoring.
An average, by sound power, of six consecutive 5-minute readings was
used to provide Leq(30 min) for
non-restricted hours (0700-1900 hours from Monday to Saturday except public
holidays). A facade correction of 3 dB(A) was applied to the measurements that were 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 were 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 NL-31 and B&K Integrating Sound Level Meter of Type 2238 in compliance
with the International Electrotechnical Commission Publication specifications
(Paragraph 3.2.3) were 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 was checked using an
acoustic calibrator generating a known sound pressure level at a known
frequency. Measurements were considered
as valid only if the calibration levels from before and after the noise
measurement agreed to within 1.0 dB(A). Sound
level meters and calibrators were calibrated annually to ensure they performed
to the same level of accuracy as stated in the manufacturer’s
specifications. The noise monitoring
equipment used during the reporting month are 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 |
NL-31 |
00410224 |
NSR1,
NSR3, NSR6, NSR8 and NSR9 |
|
Sound
Level Meter |
B&K |
2238 |
2448529 |
|
|
Sound
Level Calibrator |
Rion |
NC-73 |
10486660 |
|
|
Sound
Level Calibrator |
B&K |
4231 |
2699361 |
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 facade
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 Garden) |
G/F |
|
NSR9 |
Greenview Terrace (Block 1) |
Podium (up to 6 July 2009) Roof* (since 16 July 2009) |
* The noise
monitoring location of NSR9 had been adjusted to rooftop since 16 July 2009.
Table 3‑6 Noise Monitoring Locations
3.2.8
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 hours on normal weekdays |
When one documented complaint is received |
75 dB(A)* |
* For educational establishments the limit
level shall be 70 dB(A) and reduced to 65 dB(A)
during examination periods between 0700 and 1900 hours on normal weekdays.
Table 3‑7 Action & Limit
Levels for Air Borne 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 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. |
· 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 and 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 Airborne 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 near
the Project site, it is suggested that a programme of monitoring should be
established to confirm the effectiveness of these mitigation measures in
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 were measured at all designated monitoring
locations including control points at an interval of 3 days per week. DO,
temperature, turbidity, pH and SS measurements were undertaken at designated
monitoring locations.
3.3.5
It should be noted that water samples for all monitoring
parameters were collected, stored, preserved and analysed according to Standard
Methods, APHA 17 ed. and/or methods agreed by the Director of Environmental
Protection.
3.3.6
Each sample
was 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. 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 were transferred to clearly labelled and pre-cleaned sample containers with necessary preservatives
immediately after collection. The sample
containers were provided by a HOKLAS accredited laboratory. About 1 L of samples was collected for all
laboratory analysis. Following sampling, samples should be stored in a cool box at
temperature between 0 and 4 oC, 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 |
|
DO / Temperature Meter
/ pH |
YSI |
Professional Plus |
1 |
|
pH Meter |
Hanna |
HI-8014 |
1 |
|
Turbidimeter |
Hanna |
HI 98703-02 |
1 |
Table 3‑9 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
3.3.8
All in-situ
monitoring equipment were checked and calibrated prior to use. They were 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 were checked with certified standard solutions before
each use. Wet bulb calibrations for all
DO meters were 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" was observed. The
calibration certificates are included in Appendix F.
3.3.9
Five designated impact
monitoring locations (three river stations and two marine stations) and five
control locations (three river control stations and two marine control stations)
were identified in the contract specific EM&A Manual for river and
marine water quality monitoring. These monitoring stations are listed in Table 3-10 below and shown in Appendix G.
|
Monitoring Station ID |
Name of Premises |
|
River |
|
|
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 |
|
Marine |
|
|
O-1 (FT) and (ET) |
Outfall O-1 during Flood Tide and 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 were two control stations for Outfall O-1, one for
sampling during flood tide and one for sampling during ebb tide. Only one of these control stations for Outfall
O-1 was sampled during each sampling. Control
station to be sampled was determined based on the tidal information provided by
the Hong Kong Observatory.
3.3.11
Referring to Section 4.4 of the approved
Contract Specific EM&A Manual (Report No. EB000364R0273, dated 6 January
2010), while the construction of the Outfall requires minor dredging, water
quality monitoring at the Outfall shall be undertaken during the period of the
dredging works. As advised by the
Contractor, all relevant marine works at Portion E of the site were completed
in April 2012. As such, the ET submitted
a proposal to EPD on 30 April 2012 to terminate the marine water quality
monitoring effective from 1 May 2012. EPD
had no objection to the proposal in their reply on 7 May 2012.
3.3.12
The Action and Limit levels for water
quality monitoring parameters are defined in Table 3-11. In case of any exceedance, appropriate
actions would 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 and Bottom) |
Surface
and Middle 5%-ile
of baseline data for surface and
middle layer. Bottom 5%-ile
of baseline data for bottom layer. |
Surface
and Middle 4 mg/L
except 5 mg/L for Fish Culture Zone or 1%-ile
of baseline data for surface and middle layer Bottom 2 mg/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 limit.
·
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 necessary.
Table 3‑11 Action/Limit Levels for Water Quality
|
Event |
ET Leader |
IEC |
SOR |
Contractor |
|
Action Level being exceeded by one sampling day |
· Repeat in-situ measurement to confirm findings; · 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 findings; · 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 findings; · 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; · 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 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, 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 findings; · 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 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; · 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, 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 SOR, to slow down or to stop all or part of the marine work or construction activities. |
Table 3‑12 Event/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-hour TSP level are shown
in Table 4-1. All measurements were
recorded and presented to the nearest 0.1 mg/m3
in this report. Detailed results
including weather conditions and graphical presentations are presented in
Appendix I.
|
Monitoring Date |
Monitoring Result (mg/m3) |
Action/Limit Levels (mg/m3) |
|
|
ASR 1 |
5-Jun-13 |
93.4 |
307/500 |
|
103.9 |
|||
|
94.7 |
|||
|
11-Jun-13 |
89.4 |
||
|
97.3 |
|||
|
93.4 |
|||
|
17-Jun-13 |
78.9 |
||
|
55.2 |
|||
|
76.3 |
|||
|
21-Jun-13 |
47.3 |
||
|
82.8 |
|||
|
48.6 |
|||
|
27-Jun-13 |
68.4 |
||
|
84.2 |
|||
|
81.5 |
|||
|
ASR 3 |
5-Jun-13 |
37.7 |
327/500 |
|
101.9 |
|||
|
131.2 |
|||
|
11-Jun-13 |
122.8 |
||
|
125.6 |
|||
|
164.7 |
|||
|
17-Jun-13 |
93.5 |
||
|
74.0 |
|||
|
74.0 |
|||
|
|
21-Jun-13 |
55.8 |
|
|
131.2 |
|||
|
62.8 |
|||
|
27-Jun-13 |
108.9 |
||
|
67.0 |
|||
|
48.9 |
|||
|
ASR 8 |
5-Jun-13 |
70.3 |
337/500 |
|
103.3 |
|||
|
107.5 |
|||
|
11-Jun-13 |
125.4 |
||
|
113.0 |
|||
|
53.7 |
|||
|
17-Jun-13 |
66.1 |
||
|
70.3 |
|||
|
95.1 |
|||
|
21-Jun-13 |
106.1 |
||
|
86.8 |
|||
|
106.1 |
|||
|
27-Jun-13 |
40.0 |
||
|
122.6 |
|||
|
150.2 |
|||
|
ASR 9 |
5-Jun-13 |
48.4 |
329/500 |
|
106.5 |
|||
|
112.0 |
|||
|
11-Jun-13 |
114.8 |
||
|
134.1 |
|||
|
78.8 |
|||
|
17-Jun-13 |
77.4 |
||
|
80.2 |
|||
|
84.4 |
|||
|
21-Jun-13 |
125.8 |
||
|
63.6 |
|||
|
77.4 |
|||
|
27-Jun-13 |
135.5 |
||
|
81.6 |
|||
|
102.3 |
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 air quality exceedance was
recorded in the reporting month.
4.2.2
The air borne 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 and presented to the nearest 0.1 dB(A) in
this report. Detailed 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 |
5-Jun-13 |
64.2 |
65* |
|
11-Jun-13 |
62.4 |
||
|
17-Jun-13 |
64.0 |
||
|
27-Jun-13 |
63.3 |
70 |
|
|
NSR 3 |
5-Jun-13 |
62.9 |
75 |
|
11-Jun-13 |
64.1 |
||
|
17-Jun-13 |
59.3 |
||
|
27-Jun-13 |
62.7 |
||
|
NSR 6 |
5-Jun-13 |
56.7 |
|
|
11-Jun-13 |
55.7 |
||
|
17-Jun-13 |
54.4 |
||
|
27-Jun-13 |
56.3 |
||
|
NSR 8 |
5-Jun-13 |
64.4 |
|
|
11-Jun-13 |
63.5 |
||
|
17-Jun-13 |
64.1 |
||
|
27-Jun-13 |
64.0 |
||
|
NSR 9 |
5-Jun-13 |
63.7 |
|
|
11-Jun-13 |
64.0 |
||
|
17-Jun-13 |
64.5 |
||
|
27-Jun-13 |
67.7 |
Note : * The
limit level of NSR 1 is 65 dB(A) during school examination period.
Table
4-2 Air Borne Noise
Monitoring Results
4.2.3
No project related noise exceedance
was recorded in the reporting month.
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 |
Two records at I-1 on 15 June 2013 and 24 June
2013 |
|
SS |
Two records at I-1 on 7 June 2013 and 28 June 2013 |
Two records at I-1
on 15 June 2013 and 24 June 2013 |
|
Total |
2 |
4 |
Table 4-3 Summary of Exceedances for I-1
|
Parameter |
Action Level Exceedance |
Limit Level Exceedance |
|
DO |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Turbidity |
Nil |
Two records at I-2 on 15 June 2013 and 24 June
2013 |
|
SS |
Nil |
Three records at
I-2 on 15 June 2013, 19 June 2013 and 24 June 2013 |
|
Total |
0 |
5 |
Table 4-4 Summary of Exceedances for I-2
Parameter |
Action Level Exceedance |
Limit Level Exceedance |
|
DO |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Turbidity |
Nil |
Three records at I-3 on 15 June 2013, 24 June
2013 and 26 June 2013 |
|
SS |
Nil |
Two records at I-3
on 15 June 2013 and 24 June 2013 |
|
Total |
0 |
5 |
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. Detailed results
including weather conditions and graphical presentations are enclosed in
Appendix I.
River Water Quality Monitoring
4.3.3 Sixteen exceedances
were recorded for the river water quality monitoring within the reporting
month.
Exceedances of
Turbidity Level
Limit Level at I-1 on 15 June 2013
4.3.4
One
exceedance of turbidity limit level was recorded at I-1 on 15 June 2013. The
measured turbidity level (21.05 NTU) was
higher than the baseline limit level, but lower than the turbidity level (21.25 NTU) of
the upstream control station (I-1-C). Details
of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are given in
Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy rain was
observed and about 69 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the Hong Kong
Observatory between 0:45 and 9:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore, the
exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high
turbidity level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project
related, no further action was required.
Limit Level at I-1 on 24 June 2013
4.3.5
One
exceedance of turbidity limit level was recorded at I-1 on 24 June 2013. The
measured turbidity level (27.45 NTU) was
higher than the baseline limit level, but lower than 120% of the turbidity
level (27.05 NTU) of
the upstream control station (I-1-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy
rain was observed and about 270 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the
Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 11:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high
turbidity level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project
related, no further action was required.
Limit Level at I-2 on 15 June 2013
4.3.6
One
exceedance of turbidity limit level was recorded at I-2 on 15 June 2013. The
measured turbidity level (22.55 NTU) was
higher than the baseline limit level, but lower than 120% of the turbidity
level (22.45 NTU) of
the upstream control station (I-2-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy
rain was observed and about 69 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the
Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 9:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high
turbidity level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project
related, no further action was required.
Limit Level at I-2 on 24 June 2013
4.3.7
One
exceedance of turbidity limit level was recorded at I-2 on 24 June 2013. The
measured turbidity level (22.15 NTU) was
higher than the baseline limit level, but lower than 120% of the turbidity
level (22.05 NTU) of
the upstream control station (I-2-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy
rain was observed and about 270 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the
Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 11:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high
turbidity level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project
related, no further action was required.
Limit Level at I-3 on 15 June 2013
4.3.8
One
exceedance of turbidity limit level was recorded at I-3 on 15 June 2013. The
measured turbidity level (20.65 NTU) was
higher than the baseline limit level, but lower than the turbidity level (20.85 NTU) of
the upstream control station (I-3-C). Details of the construction activities
conducted on the monitoring day are given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance
was observed from the site. Heavy rain was observed and about 58 mm rainfall
was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 8:45 on
the monitoring day. Therefore, the exceedance was considered to be contributed
by heavy rainfall and high turbidity level at upstream location. Since the
exceedance was non-project related, no further action was
required.
Limit Level at I-3 on 24 June 2013
4.3.9
One
exceedance of turbidity limit level was recorded at I-3 on 24 June 2013. The
measured turbidity level (27.55 NTU) was
higher than the baseline limit level, but lower than the turbidity level (27.95 NTU) of
the upstream control station (I-3-C). Details of the construction activities
conducted on the monitoring day are given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance
was observed from the site. Heavy rain was observed and about 270 mm rainfall
was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 11:45
on the monitoring day. Therefore, the exceedance was considered to be
contributed by heavy rainfall and high turbidity level at upstream location.
Since the exceedance was non-project related, no further action was required.
Limit
Level at I-3 on 26 June 2013
4.3.10
One
exceedance of turbidity limit level was recorded at I-3 on 26 June 2013. The
measured turbidity level (4.25 NTU) was
higher than the baseline limit level, but lower than 120% of the turbidity
level (4.14 NTU) of
the upstream control station (I-3-C). Details of the construction activities
conducted on the monitoring day are given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance
was observed from the site. Therefore, the exceedance was considered to be
contributed by natural variation. Since the exceedance was non-project related,
no further action was required.
Exceedances of
Suspended Solids Level
Action Level at I-1 on 7 June 2013
4.3.11 One
exceedance of SS action level
was recorded at I-1 on 7 June 2013. The
measured SS level (9.85 mg/L)
was higher than the
baseline action level, but lower than the
SS level (10.55 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-1-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site.
Therefore, the exceedance was considered to be contributed by natural
variation. Since the exceedance was non-project related, no further action was
required.
Limit Level at I-1 on 15 June 2013
4.3.12
One
exceedance of SS limit level was recorded at I-1 on 15 June 2013. The
measured SS level (10.40 mg/L) was
higher than the baseline limit level, and lower than the
SS level (14.05 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-1-C). Details of the construction activities
conducted on the monitoring day are given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance
was observed from the site. Heavy rain was observed and about 69 mm rainfall
was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 9:45 on
the monitoring day. Therefore, the exceedance was considered to be contributed
by heavy rainfall and high SS level at upstream location. Since the exceedance
was non-project related, no further action was required.
Limit Level at I-1 on 24 June 2013
4.3.13
One
exceedance of SS limit level
was recorded at I-1 on 24 June 2013. The
measured SS level (36.20 mg/L)
was higher than the
baseline
limit level, but lower than 120% of the SS
level (35.35 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-1-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy
rain was observed and about 270 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the
Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 11:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high SS
level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project related, no
further action was required.
Limit Level at I-2 on 15 June 2013
4.3.14
One
exceedance of SS limit level
was recorded at I-2 on 15 June 2013. The
measured SS level (19.20 mg/L)
was higher than the
baseline
limit level, but lower than the
SS level (21.95 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-2-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy
rain was observed and about 69 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the
Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 9:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high SS
level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project related, no
further action was required.
Limit Level at I-2 on 19 June 2013
4.3.15
One
exceedance of SS limit level
was recorded at I-2 on 19 June 2013. The
measured SS level (2.60 mg/L)
was lower than the
baseline
limit level, but higher than 130% of the SS
level (<2.00 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-2-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by natural variation. Since the
exceedance was non-project related, no further action was required.
Limit Level at I-2 on 24 June 2013
4.3.16
One
exceedance of SS limit level
was recorded at I-2 on 24 June 2013. The
measured SS level (18.25 mg/L)
was higher than the
baseline
limit level, but lower than 120% of the SS
level (17.40 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-2-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy
rain was observed and about 270 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the
Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 11:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high SS
level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project related, no
further action was required.
Limit Level at I-3 on 15 June 2013
4.3.17
One
exceedance of SS limit level
was recorded at I-3 on 15 June 2013. The
measured SS level (13.50 mg/L)
was higher than the
baseline
limit level, but lower than 120% of the SS
level (9.85 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-3-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy
rain was observed and about 58 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the
Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 8:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high
turbidity level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project
related, no further action was required.
Limit Level at I-3 on 24 June 2013
4.3.18
One
exceedance of SS limit level
was recorded at I-3 on 24 June 2013. The
measured SS level (32.75 mg/L)
was higher than the
baseline
limit level, but lower than the
SS level (34.55 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-3-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site. Heavy
rain was observed and about 270 mm rainfall was recorded at Tsuen Wan by the
Hong Kong Observatory between 0:45 and 11:45 on the monitoring day. Therefore,
the exceedance was considered to be contributed by heavy rainfall and high SS
level at upstream location. Since the exceedance was non-project related, no
further action was required.
Action Level at I-1 on 28 June 2013
4.3.19
One
exceedance of SS action level
was recorded at I-1 on 28 June 2013. The
measured SS level (2.75 mg/L)
was lower than the
baseline action level, but higher than 120% of the SS
level (2.15 mg/L) of
the upstream control station (I-1-C).
Details of the construction activities conducted on the monitoring day are
given in Appendix J. No direct disturbance was observed from the site.
Therefore, the exceedance was considered to be contributed by natural variation.
Since the exceedance was non-project related, no further action was required.
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature (oC) |
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 |
3-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
8.71 |
3.42 / 3.34 |
7.80 |
4.89 |
9.75 / 12.47 |
4.80 |
8.85 / 10.17 |
|
|
5-Jun-13 |
24.90 |
7.95 |
|
7.95 |
3.81 |
|
2.80 |
|
|
|
7-Jun-13 |
27.50 |
8.44 |
|
7.96 |
7.83 |
|
9.85 |
|
|
|
10-Jun-13 |
26.50 |
8.01 |
|
7.96 |
9.66 |
|
5.55 |
|
|
|
13-Jun-13 |
26.60 |
7.94 |
|
7.85 |
2.64 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
15-Jun-13 |
25.50 |
7.97 |
|
7.95 |
21.05 |
|
10.40 |
|
|
|
17-Jun-13 |
26.80 |
8.68 |
|
7.91 |
2.96 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
19-Jun-13 |
28.00 |
9.05 |
|
7.95 |
2.71 |
|
2.25 |
|
|
|
21-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
9.07 |
|
7.96 |
3.08 |
|
2.30 |
|
|
|
24-Jun-13 |
25.40 |
9.22 |
|
7.82 |
27.45 |
|
36.20 |
|
|
|
26-Jun-13 |
27.20 |
9.02 |
|
7.98 |
6.56 |
|
7.30 |
|
|
28-Jun-13 |
27.90 |
9.16 |
7.85 |
3.04 |
2.75 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Italic indicates the
occurrence of exceedance of Action level.
Bold indicates
the occurrence of exceedance of Limit level.
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature (oC) |
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 |
3-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
8.64 |
- / - |
7.80 |
4.77 |
- / - |
5.10 |
- / - |
|
|
5-Jun-13 |
24.90 |
7.88 |
|
7.95 |
3.82 |
|
2.65 |
|
|
|
7-Jun-13 |
27.50 |
8.52 |
|
7.96 |
7.69 |
|
10.55 |
|
|
|
10-Jun-13 |
26.50 |
7.92 |
|
7.96 |
9.89 |
|
5.20 |
|
|
|
13-Jun-13 |
26.60 |
7.86 |
|
7.85 |
2.68 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
15-Jun-13 |
25.50 |
7.89 |
|
7.95 |
21.25 |
|
14.05 |
|
|
|
17-Jun-13 |
26.80 |
8.61 |
|
7.91 |
2.92 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
19-Jun-13 |
28.00 |
9.14 |
|
7.95 |
2.80 |
|
2.15 |
|
|
|
21-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
9.17 |
|
7.96 |
3.14 |
|
2.30 |
|
|
|
24-Jun-13 |
25.40 |
9.17 |
|
7.82 |
27.05 |
|
35.35 |
|
|
|
26-Jun-13 |
27.20 |
8.92 |
|
7.98 |
6.85 |
|
6.55 |
|
|
28-Jun-13 |
27.90 |
9.08 |
7.85 |
3.07 |
2.15 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Italic indicates the
occurrence of exceedance of Action level.
Bold indicates
the occurrence of exceedance of Limit level.
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature (oC) |
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 |
3-Jun-13 |
27.80 |
8.56 |
3.66
/ 3.63 |
7.82 |
1.33 |
6.63
/ 6.99 |
<2.00 |
7.68
/ 8.34 |
|
|
5-Jun-13 |
24.90 |
7.77 |
|
7.91 |
2.17 |
|
2.25 |
|
|
|
7-Jun-13 |
27.60 |
8.31 |
|
7.95 |
1.38 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
10-Jun-13 |
26.60 |
8.14 |
|
7.95 |
1.32 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
13-Jun-13 |
26.60 |
7.92 |
|
7.86 |
1.20 |
|
2.00 |
|
|
|
15-Jun-13 |
25.40 |
7.79 |
|
7.96 |
22.55 |
|
19.20 |
|
|
|
17-Jun-13 |
26.60 |
8.54 |
|
7.90 |
1.63 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
19-Jun-13 |
28.10 |
8.95 |
|
7.96 |
1.39 |
|
2.60 |
|
|
|
21-Jun-13 |
27.80 |
9.09 |
|
7.95 |
1.44 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
24-Jun-13 |
25.50 |
9.17 |
|
7.80 |
22.15 |
|
18.25 |
|
|
|
26-Jun-13 |
27.30 |
9.08 |
|
7.96 |
2.36 |
|
2.15 |
|
|
28-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
8.95 |
7.80 |
1.43 |
<2.00 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Italic indicates the
occurrence of exceedance of Action level.
Bold indicates
the occurrence of exceedance of Limit level.
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature (oC) |
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 |
3-Jun-13 |
27.80 |
8.59 |
- / - |
7.82 |
1.32 |
- / - |
2.00 |
- / - |
|
|
5-Jun-13 |
24.90 |
7.83 |
|
7.91 |
2.29 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
7-Jun-13 |
27.60 |
8.37 |
|
7.95 |
1.44 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
10-Jun-13 |
26.60 |
8.11 |
|
7.95 |
1.28 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
13-Jun-13 |
26.60 |
7.98 |
|
7.86 |
1.24 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
15-Jun-13 |
25.40 |
7.85 |
|
7.96 |
22.45 |
|
21.95 |
|
|
|
17-Jun-13 |
26.60 |
8.51 |
|
7.90 |
1.70 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
19-Jun-13 |
28.10 |
9.01 |
|
7.96 |
1.45 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
21-Jun-13 |
27.80 |
8.99 |
|
7.95 |
1.52 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
24-Jun-13 |
25.40 |
9.28 |
|
7.80 |
22.05 |
|
17.40 |
|
|
|
26-Jun-13 |
27.20 |
9.10 |
|
7.96 |
2.27 |
|
2.40 |
|
|
28-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
9.04 |
7.80 |
1.51 |
<2.00 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Italic indicates the
occurrence of exceedance of Action level.
Bold indicates
the occurrence of exceedance of Limit level.
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature (oC) |
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 |
3-Jun-13 |
27.90 |
8.46 |
3.65 / 3.51 |
7.82 |
2.06 |
3.99 / 4.18 |
<2.00 |
6.13 / 7.23 |
|
|
5-Jun-13 |
24.80 |
7.98 |
|
7.89 |
3.38 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
7-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
8.50 |
|
7.95 |
2.06 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
10-Jun-13 |
26.70 |
8.00 |
|
7.90 |
3.60 |
|
2.40 |
|
|
|
13-Jun-13 |
26.50 |
8.04 |
|
7.80 |
1.83 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
15-Jun-13 |
25.40 |
7.80 |
|
7.97 |
20.65 |
|
13.50 |
|
|
|
17-Jun-13 |
26.50 |
8.49 |
|
7.88 |
2.23 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
19-Jun-13 |
28.10 |
8.90 |
|
7.90 |
1.73 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
21-Jun-13 |
27.80 |
9.19 |
|
7.91 |
1.74 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
24-Jun-13 |
25.50 |
9.02 |
|
7.86 |
27.55 |
|
32.75 |
|
|
|
26-Jun-13 |
27.40 |
8.94 |
|
7.90 |
4.25 |
|
2.50 |
|
|
28-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
8.85 |
7.81 |
2.42 |
<2.00 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Italic indicates the
occurrence of exceedance of Action level.
Bold indicates
the occurrence of exceedance of Limit level.
|
Station |
Date |
Temperature (oC) |
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 |
3-Jun-13 |
27.90 |
8.51 |
- / - |
7.82 |
2.12 |
- / - |
<2.00 |
- / - |
|
|
5-Jun-13 |
24.80 |
7.91 |
|
7.89 |
3.45 |
|
2.05 |
|
|
|
7-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
8.39 |
|
7.95 |
2.15 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
10-Jun-13 |
26.70 |
8.05 |
|
7.90 |
3.66 |
|
2.90 |
|
|
|
13-Jun-13 |
26.50 |
7.98 |
|
7.80 |
1.88 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
15-Jun-13 |
25.40 |
7.74 |
|
7.97 |
20.85 |
|
9.85 |
|
|
|
17-Jun-13 |
26.50 |
8.43 |
|
7.88 |
2.17 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
19-Jun-13 |
28.10 |
8.99 |
|
7.90 |
1.78 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
21-Jun-13 |
27.80 |
9.22 |
|
7.91 |
1.78 |
|
<2.00 |
|
|
|
24-Jun-13 |
25.50 |
9.08 |
|
7.86 |
27.95 |
|
34.55 |
|
|
|
26-Jun-13 |
27.40 |
8.85 |
|
7.91 |
4.14 |
|
2.35 |
|
|
28-Jun-13 |
27.70 |
8.92 |
7.81 |
2.57 |
<2.00 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Italic indicates the
occurrence of exceedance of Action level. Bold indicates the occurrence of exceedance of Limit
level
Table
4-6 Water
Quality Monitoring Result
4.4 Summary of Project-Related Exceedances
4.4.1
Table 4-7 summarises the project-related exceedance
results recorded in June 2013. 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 |
|
Air Borne Noise |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Water |
72 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 4-7 Summary of Project-Related Exceedances
5.1.1
The status of waste management is summarised in Table 5-1.
|
Status of waste management |
Quantity |
|
Inert C&D Material Disposed to Public Fill
at Tuen Mun (m3) |
718.0 |
|
Inert C&D Material Reused in this Contract
(m3) |
0 |
|
Inert C&D Material Reused in other
Contract(s) (m3) |
0 |
|
Metals Generated (kg) |
0 |
|
Paper / Cardboard Packaging (kg) |
0 |
|
Plastics (kg) |
0 |
|
Chemical Waste (kg) |
0 |
|
General Waste Disposed of to NENT Landfill (m3) |
35.1 |
Table
5-1 Waste
Generated in June 2013
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 inspections /
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 June 2013 |
1) Discharge water of
wastewater treatment plant was not in good condition at Intake-3. 2) Chemical should be
placed on drip tray to prevent leakage at I-2. 3) Stagnant water was
found at the pit for fencing footing at intake I-1. |
1) The contractor was
reminded to improve the condition of wastewater discharged from the treatment
plant at I-3. 2) Chemical drums or
containers should be placed on drip tray(s). 3) The contractor was
reminded to clean up the stagnant water regularly. |
1) The wastewater
from the treatment plant at Intake-3 was improved to good condition on 7 June
2013. 2) Chemical drums or
containers at Intake-2 were placed on a drip tray on 7 June 2013. 3) The stagnant water
at Intake-1 was cleaned up on 8 June 2013. |
|
20 June 2013 |
Breaker tip was
not wrapped with acoustic material at Outfall. |
Breaker tip should
be properly wrapped with acoustic material. |
Breaker tip was wrapped with acoustic material
properly on 20 June 2013. |
Table
6-1 Site
Inspections by ET
7.1.1
A complaint hotline
at 9850 3241 of the Contractor has been established for the
Project.
7.1.2
No environmental complaint
was received during the reporting month.
7.1.3
Details of the past
complaint investigation and observations can also 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 |
|
0 |
27 |
Table 7-1 Cumulative Statistics of Environmental Complaints
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
and Conviction |
||
|
June 2013 |
Cumulative |
June 2013 |
Cumulative |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 8-1 Cumulative Statistics of Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecutions and Convictions
9.1.1
The forecast of construction works for the
upcoming three months are:
· Site cleaning and tidying at Outfall, I-1, I-2 and I-3;
·
Construction of RC structures of pump room at Outfall;
·
Slope reinstatement works at Outfall;
·
Finishing works for spiral ramp at Outfall;
·
Construction of surface drainage at Outfall;
·
Installation of GRP panels of spiral ramp at Outfall;
·
Landscape works at Outfall;
·
Footpath reinstatement work at Outfall;
·
Installation of additional irrigation system at Outfall;
·
Construction of permanent access road and associated drainage at I-3;
·
Installation of stone facing for vortex shaft at I-3;
·
Landscape works at I-3;
·
Construction of access platform and associated drainage next to man access shaft at I-2; and
·
Installation of vortex shaft opening steel cover and security fencing at I-2.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Appendix K |
|
|
|
Complaint Log |