|
Client |
Territory Development Department, Hong Kong |
||||
|
Project |
Supplementary Agreement No. 3 to Agreement No. CE 15/94 Design and Construction for the Minimum Option |
||||
|
Report
No. |
3128-REP-153-00 |
||||
|
Date of Issue |
5 November 2003 |
File
Ref. L:\S-proj\CR3\CR3.NEW\3128\ Reports\0151.doc |
|||
|
Report Title |
Central
Reclamation, Phase III Environmental
Monitoring & Audit Monthly
Report No.3 - October2003 |
||||
|
|
Name |
Sign |
Date |
||
|
Prepared
by : |
Albert
Chan, ACL - Environmental Consultant |
|
5
Nov 2003 |
||
|
Reviewed by : |
Susana
Bezy, ACL – ET Leader |
|
5
Nov 2003 |
||
|
Authorised by : |
Jon
Varndell, ACL – Project Mgr |
|
5
Nov 2003 |
||
|
|
|||||
|
Distribution |
|
||||
|
Copy No |
Issue to |
Attention |
Corr. Ref. |
||
|
1 |
TDD |
Mr
H H Yeung |
3128/124/OC5458/al |
||
|
2 |
EPD |
Mr
Thomas To |
3128/124/OC5458/al |
||
|
3 |
EPD
(LCO) |
Mr
Allan Hung |
3128/124/OC5458/al |
||
|
4 |
Leighton-China
State-Van Oord JV |
Mr
Malcolm Plummer |
3128/124/OC5458/al |
||
|
5 |
CRIII
Sites/PRE |
Mr
Douglas Miller |
3128/124/OC5458/al |
||
|
6 |
Independent
Checker (Environment) |
Mr
Bill Douglas |
3128/124/OC5458/al |
||
|
7 |
Environmental
Team Leader |
Ms
Susana Bezy |
3128/124/OC5458/al |
||
|
8 |
Office
Copy |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
List of Annexes
Annex A Project Organisation / Contact Information
Annex B Contractor’s Work Programme
Annex C Location of Monitoring Stations & Outfalls
Annex D Environmental Quality Performance Limits for Air, Noise and Water Quality
Annex E Event and Action Plan for Air, Noise and Water Quality
Annex F Noise Monitoring Results
Annex G Graphical Representation of Noise Monitoring Results
Annex H Water Quality Monitoring Results
Annex I Graphical Representation of Water Quality Monitoring Results
Annex J Water Quality Exceedance Review
Annex K EPD Water Quality Monitoring Data
Annex L IEC Site Inspection Reports
List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Summary of the Environmental License / Permit Status................................................ 3
Table 2.2 - Summary of the Contractor's Environmental Related Document
Submissions to the Engineer’s
Representatives (ER)..................................................................................................... 5
Table 2.3 - Summary of Environmental Certification Sheet Submissions to
the Environmental Protection Department (EPD).................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3.1 -
Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements................................................................... 9
Table 3.2 -
Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements................................................................. 11
Table
4.1 - Water Quality Monitoring Programme (Seawater Intakes Stations)............................ 13
Table
4.2 - Equipment for Air Quality
Monitoring...................................................................... 14
Table
4.3 - Noise Monitoring Equipment.................................................................................... 16
Table
4.4 - Equipment Used for Marine Water Quality Monitoring............................................. 17
Table
4.5 - Summary of Mid-Ebb Results for Marine-Based Stations............................................ 18
Table
4.6 - Summary of Mid-Flood Results for Marine-Based Stations......................................... 19
Table
4.7 - Summary of Mid-Ebb Results for Seawater Intake Stations......................................... 20
Table
4.8 - Summary of Mid-Flood Results for Seawater Intake Stations...................................... 22
Table
6.1 - Water Quality Monitoring Programme...................................................................... 25
|
ACL |
Atkins China Limited |
|
CRIII |
Central Reclamation Phase III |
|
EIA |
Environmental Impact Assessment |
|
EM&A |
Environmental Monitoring and Audit |
|
EPD |
Environmental Protection Department |
|
ER |
Engineer’s Representatives |
|
ET |
Environmental Team |
|
IEC |
Independent Environmental Checker |
|
LCSD |
Leisure and Cultural Services Department |
|
LCSVO-JV |
Leighton China State Van Oord Joint Venture |
|
TDD |
Territory Development Department |
|
TSP |
Total Suspended Particulates |
Executive
Summary
The Central Reclamation Phase III Works,
Contract No. HK 12/02, was awarded to Leighton China State Van Oord Joint
Venture (LCSVO-JV) by the Territory Development Department (TDD), Hong Kong
Islands and Islands Development Office.
The works under the Contract HK 12/02 commenced on 28 February 2003.
Atkins China Limited (ACL) has been appointed by TDD to implement the
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme that was identified in
the EIA Report for the CRIII Project and is providing Environmental Team (ET)
services during the duration of the construction works.
This is the third Monthly
EM&A Report under the EIAO for the
works specified in Section 1.3 of the CRIII EIA Report. This report summarises the monitoring
results and audit findings of the EM&A programme during the reporting
period from 1 October to 31 October 2003.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit Progress
The monthly EM&A programme was undertaken in accordance with the
EM&A Manual. A summary of the
monitoring activities performed in this reporting month is listed below:
·
Environmental site inspections were
undertaken on 2, 9, 16, 23 and 30 October 2003.
·
Noise monitoring was performed continuously for 24 hours.
·
Water quality monitoring was
undertaken on the following days:
-
1 October 2003
-
3 October 2003
-
6 October 2003
-
8 October 2003
-
10 October 2003
-
13 October 2003
-
15 October 2003
-
17 October 2003
-
20 October 2003
-
22 October 2003
-
24 October 2003
-
27 October 2003
-
29 October 2003
-
31 October 2003
Exceedance of Action and Limit Levels
There were no environmental exceedances of air quality during the
reporting period.
The noise monitoring carried out during the reporting did not find any
exceedances that were attributable to the project works. Although the continuous monitoring data
indicated several instances where the Leq (30 minutes) exceeded 75 dB(A), investigations
into these levels found that they were due to local noise conditions at the
City Hall monitoring location and were not due to the project. An off-site inspection carried out by the
IEC on 21 October 2003 confirmed these findings (Annex L). The IEC's observations noted that the main sources
of noise near City Hall were from helicopter and vehicle traffic in the area.
From the analysis of water quality monitoring results collected during
the reporting period, no exceedances were found to be attributable to the
project marine works. Although the
monitoring data indicated that levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) and suspended
solids (SS) beyond the water quality criteria were found, investigations into
these exceedances determined that they were due to natural variation in ambient
conditions and/or local influencing factors in proximity of the affected
monitoring stations, and they were not due to the project. The investigations considered the conditions
from baseline monitoring, which was conducted during February to April 2003,
and results from the control stations located outside the project's
influence. A review of the monitoring
results showed that control stations located outside the project's influence
had similar values as marine impact stations.
Seawater intake monitoring data showed variable results and exceedances
were found to be localised near existing stormwater outfalls. These findings were similar to the
conditions observed during baseline monitoring. Further, silty discharges from outfalls within the project area
were documented during the reporting month.
Based on the investigations and analyses of the water quality data, it
was confirmed that the project marine works did not cause any of the breaches
of the water quality criteria.
Complaint Log
There were no environmental complaints
received during this reporting period.
Notifications of Summons and Prosecutions
There were no notifications of summons or
prosecutions received with regard to the environment during this reporting
period.
Site Inspection and
Audit
Site inspections
for the CRIII project works area were undertaken on 2,
9, 16, 23 and 30 October 2003. During the site inspections no environmental
non-compliances were found. However,
one deficiency was recorded during a site inspection in the reporting period
and the Contractor subsequently rectified the deficiency after being notified.
Future Key Issues
Future Key Issues are as follows:
·
The Contractor submitted a
proposal for variation of FEP Condition 3.2(a) dated 22 October 2003 and was
received on 27 October 2003. The
Contractor is requesting to perform concurrent dredging at IRAW and IRAE to
avoid delays to the overall programme.
The ER will provide comments on the proposal after review.
·
Marine works are currently
limited to marine site investigations at the Eastern Seawall, dredging and
reclamation (up to the original seabed only) in area IRAW. Other marine works including marine piling
and reclamation above the original seabed level have been suspended until 16
December 2003.
·
Large quantities of silty
discharge, from outfalls within the project area, which were unrelated to
project works, have been observed and documented during October 2003. The
situation has been reported to EPD and they are currently investigating the
issue. It is expected that these discharges will continue and may adversely
impact water quality in the area.
·
Dredging at IRAE is
scheduled to commence in early November 2003.
The dredging work for IRAE will be limited to an area 100 m outside the
heliport as the restriction applies until its relocation. Marine site investigation within this
"Heliport Exclusion Zone" has not commenced and will begin after the
heliport is relocated.
The Main Works Contract HK 12/02 for CRIII commenced on 28th February
2003. Leighton-China State-Van Oord Joint Venture (LCSVO-JV) was awarded the
Contract No. HK 12/02 for the construction of the CRIII Engineering Works. Selected construction works recommenced on 8
October 2003 following a temporary suspension beginning on 28 September 2003. The works that were allowed to resume were
marine site investigations at the Eastern Seawall, dredging works and
reclamation works at IRAW, which were limited to filling to the original seabed
level only.
Atkins China Limited (ACL) has been commissioned by TDD to undertake the
environmental monitoring and audit work for the project in accordance with the
Environmental Permit (EP No. EP-122/2002) issued to TDD on 7 March 2002. The CRIII Project Organisation is shown in Annex
A.
This is the third monthly
EM&A Report under the EIAO, which presents the results of EM&A
work conducted during the period from 1 October to 31 October 2003, inclusive.
Selected construction works for the project recommenced on 8 October 2003. The works undertaken during the reporting month were limited to dredging at IRAW, marine site investigation at the Eastern Seawall, demolition of Pier No. 7, temporary traffic and pedestrian diversion arrangements near Pier No. 7, site investigation works for the Man Yiu Street Footbridge and rock filling at IRAW. Additionally, traffic diversions, trial pits and detection of underground services for cooling water mains have commenced at Lung Wui Road.
A summary of the status of all environmental
permits, license, and/or notification to EPD for this project during the
reporting period are presented in Table 2.1.
|
Item |
Item
Description |
Date of
Application |
Permit Status |
|
1 |
LCSVO-JV submitted an Application for a Permit to Dump Material (Contaminated
Sediment) at Sea under the Dumping at Sea Ordinance (Ref. H2189/U2c/3761/AT/
CST/EY/ST/cm) |
24
October 2003 |
Pending |
|
2 |
LCSVO-JV submitted a Renewal of Construction Noise Permit GW-TS0372-03
(Ref. H2189/U2c/3675/AT/CST/EY/ ST/ec) |
20
October 2003 |
Pending |
|
3 |
LCSVO-JV submitted an Application for Construction Noise Permit for the
use of power mechanical equipment (PME) for the purpose of carrying out
construction work other than percussive piling at Initial Reclamation Area
East (Ref. H2189/U2c/3538/MP/CST/EY/ST/cm) |
14
October 2003 |
Pending |
|
4 |
LCSVO-JV submitted an Application for Construction Noise Permit for the
use of power mechanical equipment (PME) for the purpose of carrying out the
demolition of Link Bridge of General Post Office (Ref. H2189/U2c/3512/MP/
ATA/CKA/ST/cm) |
13
October 2003 |
Pending |
|
Item |
Document
Title |
Version |
Date of
Submission to ER |
|
1 |
Test
Report for Marine Sediment (Ref. H2189/ C1/3721/AT/CST/EY/ST/cm) |
0 |
22 October 2003 |
|
2 |
Proposal
for Variation of FEP Condition 3.2(a) (Ref. H2189/C1/3725/AT/CST/EY/ST/cm) |
0 |
22 October 2003 |
|
3 |
IRAE
- Commencement of Dredging Work (Ref. H2189/ C1/3631/MP/CST/EY/atm) |
0 |
17 October 2003 |
|
4 |
Disposal
Programme for C&D Material to be Generated from Demolition of GPO Walkway
(Ref. H2189/C1/3599/ MP/ATA/CKA/ST/cm) |
0 |
16 October 2003 |
|
5 |
Disposal
of Chemical Waste (Trip Ticket for the disposal of chemical waste) |
0 |
7 October 2003 |
|
6 |
Review
of the Efficiency and Installation of HSBC Silt Screen (Ref.
H2189/C1/3366/MP/CST/EY/atm) |
0 |
7 October 2003 |
A summary of the Environmental Certification Sheet submissions to EPD
for the Month of October 2003 is presented in Table 2.3.
|
No |
Certification
Subject |
Letter Ref. |
Date of
Submission to EPD |
Approved
Status |
|
1 |
Certification of Monthly Environmental Report
No. 2 - September 2003 |
3128/M45/200/OC5329/AC/al |
15
October 2003 |
- |
During the reporting period the following
environmental meetings were held:
·
17 October 2003 – a
presentation on Water Quality Monitoring Results for August & September
2003 was provided by ACL to EPD's Local Control Office (Territory South) and
site staff involved with environmental aspects of the CRIII project.
The environmental monitoring locations are
provided in Annex C.
The EM&A programme requires environmental monitoring for air
quality, noise, water quality, waste management and landscape and visual
aspects as specified in the CRIII Project EIA.
The EM&A requirements for each issue area are described in
subsequent sections including:
·
All required monitoring parameters;
·
Action and Limit Levels; and
·
Event-Action Plans.
A summary of impact EM&A requirements is presented in Table
3-1.
|
Descriptions |
Locations |
Frequencies |
Duration |
|||
|
TSP |
24-Hour
TSP |
2
Locations |
Once
every 6 days |
During
dust generating construction works |
||
|
1-Hour
TSP |
2
Locations |
Three
times in every 6 days |
During
dust generating construction works |
|||
|
Noise |
Leq (30
mins), L10, L90, |
1
Location |
Continuous
measurements |
Two
weeks before Construction and During Construction |
||
|
Water
Quality |
Dissolved
Oxygen; Salinity; Temp; Suspended
Solids; Turbidity. |
14
Locations |
3 times
a week, Mid-ebb/flood tides |
During
Marine Works |
||
|
Waste |
On-Site
Waste Audit |
Active
Work Sites |
Periodically |
During
Construction |
||
|
On-Site
Waste Inspection |
||||||
|
Landscape
and Visual |
Audits
to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures |
During
Construction |
||||
|
General
Site Conditions |
Environmental
Site Inspection |
Works
areas and areas affected by works |
Periodically |
During
Construction |
||
Environmental Quality Performance Limits for air, noise and water
quality as provided in the Baseline Monitoring Report (Final) are shown in the
following table.
Parameter
|
Station
|
Action Level
|
Limit Level
|
||
|
Air
Quality |
|
|
|
||
|
1-Hour TSP Level in mg/m3 |
City Hall |
460 mg/m3 |
500 mg/m3 |
||
|
1-Hour TSP Level in mg/m3 |
PLA |
432 mg/m3 |
500 mg/m3 |
||
|
24-Hour TSP Level in mg/m3 |
City Hall |
163 mg/m3 |
260 mg/m3 |
||
|
24-Hour TSP Level in mg/m3 |
PLA |
154 mg/m3 |
260 mg/m3 |
||
|
Noise Quality |
|||||
|
07:00-19:00 hrs on normal weekdays |
City Hall |
When one documented complaint is received |
75 dB(A) |
||
|
07:00-23:00 hrs on holidays; and 1900-2300 hrs on
all other days |
City Hall |
When one documented complaint is received |
60/65/70* dB(A) |
||
|
23:00-07:00 hrs of next day |
City Hall |
When one documented complaint is received |
45/50/55* dB(A) |
||
|
Marine
Water Quality - Marine Based Stations A |
|||||
|
DO (mg/L) |
Surface & Middle |
4.7 mg/L |
4.0 mg/L |
||
|
Bottom |
Wet |
Dry |
Wet |
Dry |
|
|
3.2 |
4.9 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
||
|
SS (mg/L) |
Depth-avg |
Wet |
Dry |
Wet |
Dry |
|
10 |
11 |
12 |
14 |
||
|
Turbidity (NTU) |
Depth-avg |
Wet |
Dry |
Wet |
Dry |
|
11 |
14 |
13 |
18 |
||
|
Marine
Water Quality - Seawater Intakes B |
|||||
|
DO (mg/L) |
All |
4.6 mg/L |
3 mg/L |
||
|
SS (mg/L) |
M1 |
11 mg/L |
14 mg/L |
||
|
M2 |
23 mg/L |
27 mg/L |
|||
|
M3 |
13 mg/L |
16 mg/L |
|||
|
M4 |
10 mg/L |
12 mg/L |
|||
|
M5 |
12 mg/L |
17 mg/L |
|||
|
M6 |
11 mg/L |
14 mg/L |
|||
|
M11 |
11 mg/L |
13 mg/L |
|||
|
M12 |
11 mg/L |
12 mg/L |
|||
Notes: A
- Only for Stations M8 & M10
B - Although the majority
of the intake stations are located within close proximity of each other, separate
Action and Limit Levels have been established due to the number of influencing factors affecting the stations
(i.e. outfalls and storm drains).
The Event Action Plans for air, noise and water quality as provided in
the Baseline Monitoring Report (Final) are shown in Annex E.
The Contractor is expected to implement mitigation measures listed in
the EIA Report, EM&A Manual and Further Environmental Permit. During routine site inspections, the
Contractor's implementation of mitigation measures is reviewed. With regard to mitigation measures for water
quality, the Contractor carried out daily visual inspection of the silt screens
for seawater intakes. Bi-weekly diving
inspections for the silt screens were also carried out in October 2003. During the month of October, there were no
records of the Contractor not implementing relevant mitigation measures.
Regular site inspections were carried out
to assess whether the project's environmental protection and pollution control
measures are in compliance with the contract specifications. Inspections were conducted on 2, 9, 16, 23 and 30 October 2003.
Air quality monitoring has not commenced
yet as no work areas or construction activities with the potential to impact
air quality are within range of the closest air quality sensitive receivers.
Continuous 24-hour noise monitoring was conducted during this report
period.
Impact water quality monitoring at all
monitoring stations was undertaken during this reporting month. The water quality monitoring schedule for
October 2003 is presented in Table 4-1.
|
Date of Sampling |
Tidal State |
Timing of Sampling |
|
1 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
14:15 - 17:19 |
|
Mid Flood |
09:16 - 12:03 |
|
|
3 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
07:43 - 11:07 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:32 - 18:23 |
|
|
6 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
08:46 - 11:40 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:18 - 17:55 |
|
|
8 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
10:00 - 12:49 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:18 - 17:51 |
|
|
10 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
10:52 - 13:37 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:43 - 18:23 |
|
|
13 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
12:55 - 16:22 |
|
Mid Flood |
07:43 - 10:40 |
|
|
15 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
13:25 - 16:14 |
|
Mid Flood |
07:42 - 10:52 |
|
|
17 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
07:14 - 10:23 |
|
Mid Flood |
14:50 - 17:34 |
|
|
20 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
07:27 - 10:08 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:55 - 18:45 |
|
|
22 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
08:25 - 11:38 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:25 - 18:09 |
|
|
24 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
09:45 - 12:10 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:38 - 18:35 |
|
|
27 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
12:24 - 14:58 |
|
Mid Flood |
07:03 - 10:52 |
|
|
29 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
13:53 - 16:34 |
|
Mid Flood |
08:41 - 12:23 |
|
|
31 October 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
06:57 - 10:52 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:03 - 17:48 |
Air quality monitoring will be performed in
accordance with the methodology described in the EM&A Manual once
construction activities requiring air quality monitoring commence. The locations of the monitoring stations at
City Hall and PLA Headquarters are shown in Annex C.
Continuous 24-hour noise monitoring was performed
in accordance with the methodology described in the EM&A Manual in October
2003. The location of the noise monitoring station at City Hall is shown in Annex
C.
Water quality monitoring was performed in
accordance with the methodology described in the EM&A Manual. Monitoring for the month of September was
conducted at all stations, which comprises of 6 marine-based stations and 8 seawater
intake stations. The locations of the monitoring
stations are shown in Annex C.
The equipment that is used
for air quality monitoring is listed in Table 4-2.
|
Parameter Measured |
Equipment |
|
24-Hour Sampling |
High Volume Sampler Model
GS2310 by Anderson Instruments to be used for both monitoring stations. |
|
1-Hour Sampling |
MicroDust pro Aerosol
Monitoring System to be used for both monitoring locations. |
The equipment used for
continuous noise quality monitoring is listed in Table 4-3.
|
Equipment |
Model |
|
Integrated Sound Level Meter |
B&K 2238 |
|
Calibrator |
B&K 4231, Class 1 |
The equipment that was used
for water quality monitoring is listed in Table 4-4.
|
Parameter Measured |
Equipment |
|
Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Measuring Equipment |
A Dissolved Oxygen meter YSI model 58 was used. ·
This
instrument was portable and weatherproof and used a DC power source. The equipment was capable of measuring: ·
DO levels
in the range of 0-20 mg/l and 0-200% saturation; and ·
Temperature
of between 0 - 45 degree Celsius. ·
The
equipment had a membrane electrode with an automatic temperature compensation
complete with a cable. In addition, a Wirling Psychrometer was used as a
reference thermometer during the sampling. |
|
Turbidity Measurement Instrument |
|
|
PH |
A MP125 pH Meter from Mettler Toledo was used to measure pH. |
|
Salinity / Conductivity Meter |
A Salinity / Conductivity meter YSI model 63 and model 30 was used for determining salinity concentrations. |
|
Sample Containers and Storage |
Water samples for SS analysis were stored in high density polythene bottles with no preservative added, packed in ice and delivered to the laboratory, and analysed as soon as possible after collection. |
No air quality monitoring work was undertaken
during the reporting period as no
work areas or construction activities with the potential to impact air quality
are within range of the closest air quality sensitive receivers.
Noise quality monitoring work was undertaken
during the reporting period. The noise
monitoring results are provided in Annex F. Graphical representation of the noise
monitoring data is provided in Annex G.
Water quality monitoring was undertaken at
all water quality monitoring locations during the reporting period. The water quality monitoring results from
this reporting period are presented in Annex H. Graphical representation of the water quality data is provided in
Annex
I. Summaries of the results are
provided in Tables 4.5 to 4.9.
|
Station |
|
Parameter |
||||
|
DO (S&M) mg/L |
DO (B) mg/L |
DO % Sat. (DA) |
Turbidity (DA) NTU |
SS (DA) mg/L |
||
|
C1 |
min |
4.3 |
4.4 |
66.2 |
3.0 |
4 |
|
max |
5.9 |
5.9 |
84.6 |
12.6 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
5.3 |
5.1 |
76.4 |
6.4 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
0.5 |
6.0 |
2.3 |
2 |
|
|
C2 |
min |
4.0 |
4.2 |
61.5 |
3.4 |
5 |
|
max |
5.8 |
5.8 |
85.3 |
6.4 |
8 |
|
|
avg |
5.1 |
5.0 |
74.3 |
4.9 |
6 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
0.5 |
5.3 |
0.9 |
1 |
|
|
M7 |
min |
4.0 |
3.7 |
59.2 |
4.2 |
5 |
|
max |
5.3 |
5.2 |
79.7 |
9.8 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.7 |
4.5 |
68.4 |
6.4 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.4 |
5.4 |
1.4 |
2 |
|
|
M8 |
min |
3.8 |
3.7 |
58.4 |
4.3 |
5 |
|
max |
5.5 |
5.4 |
80.0 |
7.8 |
9 |
|
|
avg |
4.7 |
4.6 |
69.0 |
5.8 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
0.5 |
6.1 |
1.0 |
1 |
|
|
M9 |
min |
3.8 |
3.9 |
59.5 |
4.5 |
6 |
|
max |
5.3 |
5.4 |
81.3 |
8.2 |
10 |
|
|
avg |
4.8 |
4.7 |
70.1 |
6.4 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.4 |
6.2 |
1.0 |
1 |
|
|
M10 |
min |
3.7 |
3.8 |
57.3 |
4.4 |
5 |
|
max |
5.5 |
5.6 |
81.9 |
8.3 |
10 |
|
|
avg |
4.9 |
4.8 |
70.7 |
6.0 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.5 |
6.0 |
1.0 |
1 |
|
Monitoring stations M8 and M10 were selected as the marine-based impact
stations as they are located outside the predicted influence of the dredging
and reclamation works. The detection of
water quality degradation at these two stations may indicate that project
marine works are adversely affecting water quality in Victoria Harbour. Stations M7 and M9 are within the expected
influence of the reclamation activities and are located along the works area
boundary (or extent of the predicted sediment plume). As such, M7 and M9 are used as indicator stations only. They are used to note any significant elevations
in SS, turbidity or reductions in DO that may affect the marine-based impact
monitoring stations.
As Table 4.5 shows, DO levels at marine-based impact stations (M8 &
M10) in the surface to middle layer during mid-ebb survey ranged between 3.7
and 5.5 mg/L with an average value of 4.8 mg/L and DO measurements in the
bottom layer ranged from 3.7 to 5.6 mg/L with an average level of 4.7
mg/L. Similar DO levels were recorded
at the control stations at which DO levels in the surface to middle layer during
mid-ebb survey ranged from 4.0 to 5.9 mg/L with an average value of around 5.2
mg/L; DO measurements in the bottom layer ranged between 4.2 and 5.9 mg/L with
an average level of 5.1 mg/L.
SS levels during mid-ebb tide ranged from 5 to 10 mg/L with an average
value of 7 mg/L at the marine-based impact stations (M8 & M10), which is
comparable to results from the control stations in which SS content ranged from
4 to 11 mg/L with an average of 7 mg/L.
The results showed no clear gradient effect (high SS and low DO levels
from near-field stations M7 and M9 to far-field stations M8 and M10), which
indicated that dredging works are not adversely affecting marine water quality
outside the work site boundary in Victoria Harbour. Based on these analyses, it was determined that marine water
quality at impact monitoring stations was similar to that at the control
stations. Therefore, the marine-based
water quality results during the reporting period did not indicate that project
marine works were adversely affecting water quality in Victoria Harbour.
|
Station |
|
Parameter |
||||
|
DO (S&M) mg/L |
DO (B) mg/L |
DO % Sat. (DA) |
Turbidity (DA) NTU |
SS (DA) mg/L |
||
|
C1 |
min |
4.0 |
3.8 |
60.4 |
4.1 |
5 |
|
max |
6.2 |
5.9 |
88.2 |
12.6 |
13 |
|
|
avg |
5.3 |
5.1 |
77.1 |
6.4 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.6 |
0.7 |
8.3 |
2.1 |
2 |
|
|
C2 |
min |
3.6 |
3.7 |
54.7 |
3.3 |
5 |
|
max |
5.6 |
5.4 |
83.6 |
7.2 |
9 |
|
|
avg |
4.9 |
4.7 |
71.2 |
5.6 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
0.5 |
7.1 |
1.2 |
2 |
|
|
M7 |
min |
3.5 |
3.7 |
54.5 |
4.2 |
5 |
|
max |
5.3 |
5.2 |
79.7 |
9.8 |
12 |
|
|
avg |
4.5 |
4.4 |
65.6 |
7.0 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.4 |
6.1 |
1.6 |
2 |
|
|
M8 |
min |
3.9 |
3.9 |
58.8 |
3.6 |
6 |
|
max |
5.6 |
5.3 |
80.2 |
10.5 |
13 |
|
|
avg |
4.8 |
4.7 |
69.8 |
6.8 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.4 |
5.5 |
1.6 |
2 |
|
|
M9 |
min |
3.6 |
3.8 |
56.0 |
4.7 |
6 |
|
max |
5.0 |
5.1 |
73.1 |
8.1 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.5 |
4.5 |
66.5 |
6.9 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.3 |
0.4 |
4.9 |
1.0 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M10 |
min |
3.9 |
3.8 |
58.4 |
3.6 |
5 |
|
max |
5.4 |
5.2 |
76.0 |
10.3 |
14 |
|
|
avg |
4.8 |
4.6 |
69.4 |
7.1 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.4 |
4.8 |
1.9 |
3 |
|
During mid-flood tide, DO levels at marine-based impact stations (M8
& M10) in the surface to middle layer ranged from 3.6 to 5.6 mg/L with an
average level of 4.8 mg/L while DO values in the bottom layer ranged between
3.8 and 5.3 mg/L with an average of 4.7 mg/L.
Similar DO concentrations were recorded at the control stations in the
surface to middle layer during mid-flood survey ranged between 3.6 and 6.2 mg/L
with an average value of 5.1 mg/L and DO results in the bottom layer ranged
from 3.7 and 5.9 mg/L with an average of 4.9 mg/L.
SS content ranged between 5 and 14 mg/L (for stations M8 & M10) with
an average of 9 mg/L during mid-flood tide and ranged from 5 to 13 mg/L with an
average value of 7 mg/L at the control stations. Again, the results showed no clear gradient effect and no
significant difference between control stations and marine-based impact
stations. Therefore, the marine-based
results indicated that the dredging works are not adversely affecting water
quality outside the work site boundary.
|
Station |
|
Parameter |
|||
|
DO mg/L |
DO % Sat. |
Turbidity NTU |
SS mg/L |
||
|
M1 |
min |
3.6 |
55.1 |
6.2 |
6 |
|
max |
4.5 |
66.8 |
12.4 |
16 |
|
|
avg |
4.1 |
62.5 |
8.0 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.2 |
3.6 |
1.7 |
3 |
|
|
M2 |
min |
3.5 |
53.5 |
6.5 |
10 |
|
max |
4.4 |
67.8 |
15.7 |
32 |
|
|
avg |
4.0 |
61.1 |
9.1 |
15 |
|
|
sd |
0.3 |
4.5 |
2.4 |
6 |
|
|
M3 |
min |
3.3 |
49.9 |
3.9 |
6 |
|
max |
4.7 |
72.0 |
14.1 |
27 |
|
|
avg |
4.1 |
62.1 |
7.7 |
12 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
6.4 |
2.8 |
6 |
|
|
M4 |
min |
3.5 |
50.8 |
4.0 |
6 |
|
max |
4.8 |
71.1 |
10.4 |
15 |
|
|
avg |
4.2 |
63.4 |
6.5 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
5.8 |
2.0 |
3 |
|
|
M5 |
min |
3.7 |
57.2 |
4.6 |
6 |
|
max |
5.2 |
79.4 |
8.7 |
15 |
|
|
avg |
4.4 |
66.5 |
6.6 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
6.6 |
1.2 |
2 |
|
|
M6 |
min |
3.2 |
48.8 |
4.3 |
6 |
|
max |
4.8 |
73.2 |
8.4 |
14 |
|
|
avg |
4.2 |
62.8 |
6.2 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
6.3 |
1.1 |
3 |
|
|
M11 |
min |
3.6 |
54.8 |
5.2 |
7 |
|
max |
4.6 |
67.8 |
9.7 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.2 |
62.5 |
6.7 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.2 |
3.5 |
1.4 |
1 |
|
|
M12 |
min |
3.0 |
46.1 |
4.1 |
5 |
|
max |
4.4 |
65.0 |
9.7 |
14 |
|
|
avg |
4.0 |
59.8 |
6.1 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.3 |
4.8 |
1.7 |
2 |
|
Seawater intake monitoring stations M1 to M6, M11 and M12 are located within the works area boundary to monitor water quality at the sensitive receivers. These stations are used to detect DO and SS levels at the specific intake locations and do not reflect the general water quality condition within Victoria Harbour. The intake stations are used to monitor any significant elevations in SS or reductions in DO that may adversely affect seawater intake operations.
Seawater intake results during mid-ebb tide, Table 4.7, show that DO levels ranged from 3.3 to 5.2 mg/L with an average of 4.2 mg/L. SS ranged between 5 and 32 mg/L with an average value of 10 mg/L. The above results show that water quality at seawater intake stations, particularly at M2 and M3, was generally poorer than that at marine-based stations. Such an effect is expected as the baseline monitoring results have demonstrated similar conditions. The low DO levels are attributable to adverse influencing factors such as discharges from outfalls in proximity to the monitoring points and poor seawater flushing in the area. Localised high SS levels were also recorded at distant stations M6 and M12, which are outside the influence of project marine works at the current stage, on several occasions. The poor water quality at M6 is also due to adverse impacts from outfalls located adjacent to the station. During the reporting month large quantities of silty discharges from outfalls were observed and documented near stations M5 and M6 on various occasions. Observations noted that the large patches of brown silty water generally dispersed westwards after discharge from the outfall. A figure showing the location of various outfalls along the seawall within the project area is shown in Annex C.
|
Station |
|
Parameter |
|||
|
DO mg/L |
DO % Sat. |
Turbidity NTU |
SS mg/L |
||
|
M1 |
min |
3.6 |
56.4 |
4.8 |
6 |
|
max |
4.9 |
74.1 |
9.9 |
14 |
|
|
avg |
4.3 |
65.3 |
8.1 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
5.2 |
1.4 |
2 |
|
|
M2 |
min |
3.3 |
50.5 |
6.7 |
9 |
|
max |
4.7 |
69.4 |
19.2 |
43 |
|
|
avg |
4.1 |
61.5 |
9.3 |
15 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
5.7 |
2.9 |
9 |
|
|
M3 |
min |
3.3 |
50.0 |
5.1 |
8 |
|
max |
5.0 |
73.6 |
11.4 |
23 |
|
|
avg |
3.9 |
59.2 |
8.3 |
13 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
6.5 |
2.0 |
4 |
|
|
M4 |
min |
3.2 |
49.3 |
4.6 |
6 |
|
max |
4.7 |
70.5 |
11.4 |
14 |
|
|
avg |
4.2 |
64.0 |
7.6 |
10 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
5.9 |
2.1 |
2 |
|
|
M5 |
min |
3.5 |
53.2 |
3.8 |
6 |
|
max |
5.1 |
74.9 |
9.7 |
10 |
|
|
avg |
4.3 |
64.8 |
6.8 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
7.9 |
1.5 |
1 |
|
|
M6 |
min |
2.6 |
39.8 |
4.3 |
7 |
|
max |
5.8 |
85.7 |
13.5 |
17 |
|
|
avg |
4.0 |
59.7 |
8.3 |
11 |
|
|
sd |
0.7 |
10.3 |
2.8 |
3 |
|
|
M11 |
min |
3.5 |
52.6 |
3.8 |
7 |
|
max |
4.7 |
70.4 |
12.9 |
18 |
|
|
avg |
4.3 |
64.1 |
8.0 |
11 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
5.7 |
2.4 |
4 |
|
|
M12 |
min |
3.3 |
50.7 |
4.6 |
6 |
|
max |
4.6 |
67.7 |
15.2 |
17 |
|
|
avg |
4.1 |
61.2 |
7.6 |
10 |
|
|
sd |
0.3 |
4.8 |
2.9 |
3 |
|
During
mid-flood survey, Table 4.8 shows that DO levels at seawater intake stations
ranged from 2.6 to 5.8 mg/L with an average of 4.2 mg/L. SS ranged from 6 to 43 mg/L with an average
SS content of 11 mg/L. The above
results show that water quality at seawater intake stations, particularly at M2
and M3, was generally poorer than that at marine-based stations. Such an effect is expected as the baseline
monitoring results have demonstrated similar conditions. The low DO levels are attributable to
adverse influencing factors such as discharges from outfalls in proximity to
the monitoring points and poor seawater flushing in the area. Station M11 recorded high SS levels on a few
occasions but investigations into the levels determined that they were not due
to project works as other stations near the dredging works recorded
significantly lower levels during the same sampling time. Localised high SS levels were also recorded
at distant stations M6 and M12, which are outside the influence of project
marine works at the current stage, on several occasions. The poor water quality at M6 is due to
adverse impacts from outfalls located adjacent to the station. As mentioned previously, large quantities of
silty discharges from outfalls near stations M5 and M6 have been observed and
documented on various occasions during the reporting month. A figure showing the location of various
outfalls along the seawall within the project area is shown in Annex C.
No waste management audit was scheduled
within this reporting period. The
arrangement of waste management audit will be detailed in the Waste Management
Plan.
As the works undertaken during the reporting
month were related to site investigation works, minor demolition works and
dredging works, the landscape and visual impacts are considered to be minimal.
The total number of exceedances for air,
noise and water quality are presented in following sections.
No exceedances of air quality were observed
as no air quality monitoring work was undertaken during the reporting period.
No exceedances of noise quality attributable
to project works were observed during the reporting period. Although there were 4 instances where the
Leq (30 minutes) was found to be above 75 dB(A), these levels were determined
to be not due to project works The
noise monitoring station situated at City Hall is under the influence of a
variety of noise sources in the area that include helicopter traffic and vehicle
movement at the drop off area in front of City Hall. Pedestrian activity in the area is another contributor of noise
and tour groups are also frequently dropped off in the area. Additionally, it was noted that no
discernible noise above the ambient level from project works could be heard during
site visits. This finding has been
confirmed by the IEC during similar site visits in the reporting period (Annex
L).
Based on investigations and analyses of water
quality monitoring results collected during the reporting month, it was found
that no exceedances of the Action and Limit Levels were attributable to the
project marine works. Although DO
levels below the Action Level were observed, investigations found that they
were due to natural variation or changes in ambient conditions and not caused
the project marine works. The October 2003 monitoring results indicated
occasional elevated concentrations of SS above the Action and/or Limit Level at
localised seawater intake stations. Investigations into these monitoring
results found that the high SS levels may be due to discharge influences from
outfalls located in proximity of seawater intake monitoring stations. All of the high SS concentrations recorded
were shown to be localised conditions as no sediment plumes were detected at marine-based
impact stations and no unusual concentrations were measured at adjacent
monitoring stations during the same time.
For example, there were on occasion high SS levels at station M4 while
considerably lower levels were recorded at stations M1 and M11, which are
closer to the dredging area. Additionally, these high SS levels were often
recorded at locations (stations M1 to M6) with outfalls and stormwater culverts
that discharge into the harbour. Such
occasional localised elevated concentrations have been demonstrated during
baseline monitoring.
It was noted that during the reporting month,
water quality at marine-based impact monitoring stations (M8 and M10) was
similar to the control stations. The DO concentrations of less than 4.7
mg/L commonly recorded during this period was also consistent with EPD's
routine water quality monitoring results during the month of September in
recent years (see Annex K).
As the Contractor's works were not responsible for the elevated levels
of SS, no remedial actions were required.
No non-compliances with regard to waste
management were recorded in the reporting month.
No non-compliance with regard to landscape
and visual aspects were recorded in the reporting month.
No environmental non-compliances were found
during environmental site inspections conducted during the reporting
period. A joint site environmental
inspection with the IEC was conducted on 30 October 2003.
During the inspection carried out on 30
October 2003, a small grease patch was found on the decking of the marine site
investigation barge Wharf. The
Contractor was notified of this deficiency and agreed to clean the grease patch
during the site inspection.
No environmental complaints were
received during the reporting period.
Further, no environmental prosecution notices or summons were received
during the reporting period.
The key issues to be considered in the coming
month include the following:
·
The Contractor has proposed
to commence dredging at IRAE in November before completion of dredging at IRAW
as they are unable to dredge in a small area near the Star Ferry berthing zone
during ferry operation hours. The
Contractor has also proposed to carry out alternate dredging at IRAE and IRAW
to complete the remaining part of IRAW within the Star Ferry operation
zone. Comments on the proposals have
been provided by the ET and the Contractor is in the process of making
amendments to the proposal;
·
The demolition of Pier No. 7
is progressing in-line with the Contractor's work programme. However, the postponement of the
reconstruction work is being considered following discussions between TDD, Atkins
and the Contractor.
The construction works scheduled in November
2003 include dredging at IRAE, demolition of Pier No. 7, marine site
investigation for the Eastern Seawall and site investigation works. Based on the Contractor’s programme, the
Environmental Monitoring Programme for the next three months is planned as
follows:
TSP (24 hr and 1 hr monitoring)
Upon commencement of dust generating activities
within range of the closest air quality sensitive receiver, dependent upon the
Contractor’s programme.
Noise (Continuous Measurements)
The noise monitoring programme throughout the
entire construction period is 24-hour continuous.
Water Quality Monitoring
The water quality monitoring schedule for the next
3 months is provided in the following table.
|
Date of Sampling |
Sampling Time |
|
|
3 November 2003 |
08:30 |
15:48 |
|
5 November 2003 |
09:56 |
16:40 |
|
7 November 2003 |
11:17 |
17:00 |
|
10 November 2003 |
12:00 |
17:30 |
|
12 November 2003 |
08:30 |
14:00 |
|
14 November 2003 |
09:30 |
14:53 |
|
17 November 2003 |
08:30 |
17:00 |
|
19 November 2003 |
08:30 |
15:18 |
|
21 November 2003 |
09:58 |
16:14 |
|
24 November 2003 |
12:00 |
17:30 |
|
26 November 2003 |
08:30 |
14:00 |
|
28 November 2003 |
09:30 |
15:18 |
|
1 December 2003 |
08:30 |
14:10 |
|
3 December 2003 |
08:30 |
15:18 |
|
5 December 2003 |
10:03 |
16:12 |
|
8 December 2003 |
11:30 |
17:00 |
|
10 December 2003 |
12:00 |
17:30 |
|
12 December 2003 |
09:00 |
14:30 |
|
15 December 2003 |
08:00 |
16:01 |
|
17 December 2003 |
12:00 |
17:30 |
|
19 December 2003 |
08:30 |
14:48 |
|
22 December 2003 |
11:23 |
16:38 |
|
24 December 2003 |
08:00 |
13:30 |
|
26 December 2003 |
09:00 |
14:38 |
|
29 December 2003 |
12:00 |
17:30 |
|
31 December 2003 |
08:30 |
14:00 |
The construction programme for the next 3
months is provided in Annex B and will be updated by the
Contractor.
The ET will follow the Contractor’s proposed
programme to ensure the compliance of environmental performance and proper
implementation of all necessary mitigation measures.
During the reporting period,
no exceedances of environmental performance criteria were found to be caused by
the project works. For water quality
monitoring, low DO levels and elevated SS concentrations recorded were
investigated and have been attributed to either ambient conditions or adverse
influencing factors unrelated to project marine works. It was found that discharges from outfalls
and stormwater culverts located near seawater intake monitoring stations are
major influencing factors that adversely impact water quality within the works
site area.
The marine-based impact
monitoring stations established to monitor the overall impact of the
reclamation activities on water quality in Victoria were shown to have similar
results as the control stations which are located outside the influence of project
works. As such, the water quality
monitoring results did not indicate that the marine works were adversely
affecting water quality outside the works boundary in Victoria Harbour.
One deficiency was recorded
on an environmental site inspection during the reporting period. The Contractor subsequently rectified the
deficiency after being notified.
The monitoring work for this
reporting month has been independently verified by the Independent
Environmental Checker (IEC) and has been found to be in compliance with the
requirements of the EM&A programme.