|
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-151-01 |
||||
|
Date of Issue |
14 October 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.2 - September 2003 |
||||
|
|
Name |
Sign |
Date |
||
|
Prepared
by : |
Albert
Chan, ACL - Environmental Consultant |
|
14
Oct 2003 |
||
|
Reviewed by : |
Susana
Bezy, ACL – ET Leader |
|
14
Oct 2003 |
||
|
Authorised by : |
Jon
Varndell, ACL – Project Mgr |
|
14
Oct 2003 |
||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Distribution |
|
|
|||
|
Copy No |
Issue to |
Attention |
Corr. Ref. |
||
|
1 |
TDD |
Mr
H H Yeung |
3128/124/OC5329/al |
||
|
2 |
EPD |
Mr
Thomas To |
3128/124/OC5329/al |
||
|
3 |
EPD
(LCO) |
Mr
Allan Hung |
3128/124/OC5329/al |
||
|
4 |
Leighton-China
State-Van Oord JV |
Mr
Malcolm Plummer |
3128/124/OC5329/al |
||
|
5 |
CRIII
Sites/PRE |
Mr
Douglas Miller |
3128/124/OC5329/al |
||
|
6 |
Independent
Checker (Environment) |
Mr
Bill Douglas |
3128/124/OC5329/al |
||
|
7 |
Environmental
Team Leader |
Ms
Susana Bezy |
3128/124/OC5329/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
List of Tables
Table
2.1 - Summary of the Environmental License / Permit Status................................................ 3
Table
2.2 - Summary of Environmental Certification Sheet Submissions to the
Environmental
....... Protection Department (EPD)............................................................................................... 6
Table
3.1 - Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements................................................................... 8
Table
3.2 - Summary of Impact EM&A Requirements................................................................. 10
– Air
Quality Action and Limit Levels for the City Hall Monitoring Sta....................................... 11
Table
4.1 - Water Quality Monitoring Programme (Seawater Intakes Stations)............................ 12
Table
4.2 - Equipment for Air Quality
Monitoring...................................................................... 13
Table
4.3 - Noise Monitoring Equipment.................................................................................... 14
Table
4.4 - Equipment Used for Marine Water Quality Monitoring............................................. 15
Table
4.5 - Summary of Mid-Ebb Results for Marine-Based Stations............................................ 16
Table
4.6 - Summary of Mid-Flood Results for Marine-Based Stations......................................... 17
Table
4.7 - Summary of Mid-Ebb Results for Seawater Intake Stations......................................... 18
Table
4.8 - Summary of Mid-Flood Results for Seawater Intake Stations...................................... 20
Table
6.1 - Water Quality Monitoring Programme...................................................................... 23
|
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 second Monthly
EM&A Report 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 September to 30 September
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 4, 11, 18 and 25 September 2003.
·
Noise monitoring was performed continuously for 24 hours.
·
Water quality monitoring was
undertaken on the following days:
-
1 September 2003
-
3 September 2003
-
5 September 2003
-
8 September 2003
-
10 September 2003
-
12 September 2003
-
15 September 2003
-
17 September 2003
-
19 September 2003
-
22 September 2003
-
24 September 2003
-
26 September 2003
-
29 September 2003
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels
There were no environmental exceedances of air quality and noise during
the reporting period.
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 breaches 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, discoloration of marine water in the area surrounding
outfalls has been documented on various occasions. 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 4, 11, 18 and 25 September
2003. During the site inspections two
deficiencies were found. One deficiency
found on 18 September at Pier No. 7 was regarding an untethered dust screen
flap near the entrance to the demolition works. The other deficiency identified during the site inspection
conducted on 25 September was with regard to several unlabelled containers of
used oil and grease. Upon receipt of
notification, the Contractor mitigated both of the deficiencies.
Future Key Issues
Future Key Issues are as follows:
·
The Contractor was
instructed to temporarily suspend works on Saturday, 27 September 2003 and the
related matters have been arranged.
·
It is expected that the
demolition of Pier No. 7 will be completed by the next reporting period,
depending on the suspension period. The
removal of rubble will continue at the upper deck level after the work suspension
and the ET will ensure that appropriate dust mitigation measures are being
implemented.
·
The effect of increased
dredging quantities on the construction programme remains a concern for the
Contractor.
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. The Contractor performed site investigation
works and demolition work at Pier No. 7 during the reporting period. Construction works however have been suspended
as of 28 September 2003. It is
anticipated that works will start again in October.
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 second monthly
EM&A Report, which presents the results of EM&A
work conducted during the period from 1 September to 30 September 2003,
inclusive.
The works undertaken during the reporting month include the dredging at IRAW, maintenance of silt screens for seawater pumping stations, marine site investigation, demolition of Pier No. 7 and pile splicing and welding of pile shoes at the CR-12 storage yard. Also, rock filling for the seawall mound at IRAW commenced on 13 September 2003. However, all works were suspended as of 28 September 2003.
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/3230/MP/ CST/EY/ST/atm) |
27
September |
Pending |
|
2 |
LCSVO-JV submitted an Application for a Wastewater Discharge Licence
under Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Ref.
H2189/U2c/3102/MP/ATA/CKA/ST/ec) |
23
September 2003 |
Pending |
|
3 |
LCSVO-JV submitted an Application for Construction Noise Permit for the
use of power mechanical equipment (PMEs) for the purpose of carrying out
construction work other than percussive piling near Pier No. 7. |
15
September |
Pending |
|
4 |
LCSVO-JV received a notice of issue of Construction Noise Permits (CNP
No. GW-TS0391-03 and GW-TS0392-03) for carrying out of construction works
during restricted hours at Victoria Harbour near Pier No. 7 and the
construction site opposite of the PLA |
- |
Issued
on |
|
5 |
LCSVO-JV received a notice of issue of Construction Noise Permit (CNP
No. GW-TS0388-03) from EPD for carrying out of night-time construction works
at Man Yiu Street near General Post Office walkway (Ref. H2189/C1/2747/MP/
ATA/CKA/ST/cm) |
12
August 2003 |
Issued
on |
|
6 |
LCSVO-JV submitted an Application for a Permit to Dump Material
(Uncontaminated Sediment) at Sea Under the Dumping at Sea Ordinance. |
4
September |
Pending |
There were no submissions provided during the
month of September 2003.
A summary of the Environmental Certification Sheet submissions to EPD
for the Month of September 2003 is presented in Table 2.2.
|
No |
Certification
Subject |
Letter Ref. |
Date of
Submission to EPD |
Approved
Status |
|
1 |
Certification of Monthly Environmental Report
No. 1 - August 2003 |
3128/M45/050/OC5239/AC/al |
15
September 2003 |
N/A |
|
2 |
Certification of Monthly Environmental Report
No. 1 (Final) - August 2003 |
3128/M45/200/OC5260/AL/al |
19
September 2003 |
N/A |
During the reporting period the following
environmental meetings were held:
·
25 September 2003 – a
Seminar on Environmental Awareness, Management and Legislation for Construction
Sites was held at EPD's Local Control Office (Territory South) for site staff
involved with 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 September 2003. During the month of September, 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 4, 11 and 18
and 27 September 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
September 2003 is presented in Table 4-1.
|
Date of Sampling |
Tidal State |
Timing of Sampling |
|
1 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
14:35 - 17:02 |
|
Mid Flood |
08:20 - 11:28 |
|
|
3 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
15:26 - 18:15 |
|
Mid Flood |
10:33 - 13:05 |
|
|
5 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
07:49 - 10:40 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:20 - 18:47 |
|
|
8 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
09:57 - 12:55 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:26 - 18:10 |
|
|
10 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
11:03 - 13:58 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:49 - 18:25 |
|
|
12 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
12:16 - 15:32 |
|
Mid Flood |
07:36 - 10:52 |
|
|
15 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
13:50 - 16:42 |
|
Mid Flood |
08:08 - 11:20 |
|
|
17 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
14:40 - 17:30 |
|
Mid Flood |
09:28 - 12:23 |
|
|
19 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
07:33 - 11:35 |
|
Mid Flood |
16:09 - 19:02 |
|
|
22 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
08:35 - 11:40 |
|
Mid Flood |
16:43 - 19:50 |
|
|
24 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
09:30 - 12:42 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:35 - 19:00 |
|
|
26 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
10:30 - 13:27 |
|
Mid Flood |
15:50 - 19:00 |
|
|
29 September 2003 |
Mid Ebb |
12:40 - 15:26 |
|
Mid Flood |
07:47 - 11:23 |
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 August
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 |
4.6 |
4.2 |
68 |
2.9 |
5 |
|
max |
6.3 |
6.0 |
93 |
12.0 |
16 |
|
|
avg |
5.1 |
4.7 |
75 |
6.0 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.5 |
7 |
2.5 |
3 |
|
|
C2 |
min |
4.2 |
3.7 |
63 |
3.3 |
4 |
|
max |
5.5 |
5.4 |
83 |
7.8 |
9 |
|
|
avg |
4.8 |
4.3 |
69 |
4.8 |
6 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.5 |
6 |
1.4 |
1 |
|
|
M7 |
min |
4.0 |
3.9 |
60 |
2.6 |
4 |
|
max |
5.3 |
4.9 |
79 |
9.0 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.5 |
4.3 |
67 |
5.6 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.3 |
5 |
2.1 |
2 |
|
|
M8 |
min |
4.2 |
4.1 |
64 |
2.1 |
5 |
|
max |
5.0 |
4.8 |
75 |
9.2 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.6 |
4.4 |
68 |
5.8 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.2 |
0.2 |
3 |
1.9 |
2 |
|
|
M9 |
min |
4.2 |
4.0 |
64 |
2.9 |
5 |
|
max |
5.5 |
5.2 |
82 |
10.4 |
12 |
|
|
avg |
4.7 |
4.3 |
69 |
6.1 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.3 |
0.3 |
5 |
2.3 |
2 |
|
|
M10 |
min |
3.9 |
4.0 |
62 |
1.7 |
4 |
|
max |
5.5 |
5.3 |
83 |
9.7 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.7 |
4.5 |
69 |
5.7 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.3 |
6 |
1.9 |
2 |
|
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 3.9
and 5.5 mg/L with an average value of 4.7 mg/L and DO measurements in the
bottom layer ranged from 4.0 to 5.3 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 4.2 to 6.3 mg/L with an average value of
around 5 mg/L; DO measurements in the bottom layer ranged between 3.7 and 6.0
mg/L with an average level of 4.5 mg/L.
SS levels during mid-ebb tide ranged from 4 to 11 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 16 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 |
4.3 |
4.0 |
63 |
2.4 |
4 |
|
max |
5.6 |
5.3 |
81 |
9.0 |
10 |
|
|
avg |
5.0 |
4.6 |
73 |
5.6 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
0.4 |
5 |
2.2 |
2 |
|
|
C2 |
min |
4.0 |
3.7 |
58 |
1.1 |
3 |
|
max |
5.6 |
5.7 |
84 |
7.2 |
10 |
|
|
Avg |
4.9 |
4.5 |
71 |
4.5 |
6 |
|
|
Sd |
0.6 |
0.7 |
9 |
1.9 |
2 |
|
|
M7 |
Min |
3.9 |
3.2 |
58 |
2.6 |
4 |
|
Max |
4.6 |
4.6 |
70 |
8.3 |
8 |
|
|
Avg |
4.2 |
4.0 |
63 |
5.2 |
6 |
|
|
Sd |
0.3 |
0.3 |
4 |
1.8 |
1 |
|
|
M8 |
Min |
4.2 |
3.8 |
61 |
1.7 |
4 |
|
Max |
5.0 |
4.8 |
73 |
9.2 |
13 |
|
|
Avg |
4.5 |
4.2 |
67 |
5.4 |
6 |
|
|
Sd |
0.3 |
0.3 |
4 |
2.2 |
2 |
|
|
M9 |
Min |
4.0 |
3.4 |
60 |
2.9 |
4 |
|
Max |
5.0 |
5.0 |
74 |
7.3 |
9 |
|
|
Avg |
4.4 |
4.3 |
66 |
5.1 |
7 |
|
|
Sd |
0.3 |
0.4 |
5 |
1.5 |
1 |
|
|
M10 |
Min |
4.0 |
3.9 |
59 |
2.8 |
5 |
|
Max |
5.0 |
4.7 |
73 |
10.1 |
12 |
|
|
Avg |
4.6 |
4.3 |
68 |
6.1 |
7 |
|
|
Sd |
0.3 |
0.3 |
4 |
2.4 |
2 |
|
During mid-flood tide, DO levels at marine-based impact stations (M8
& M10) in the surface to middle layer ranged from 4.0 to 5.0 mg/L with an
average level of 4.5 mg/L while DO values in the bottom layer ranged between
3.8 and 4.8 mg/L with an average of 4.3 mg/L.
Similar DO concentrations were recorded at the control stations in the
surface to middle layer during mid-flood survey ranged between 4.0 and 5.6 mg/L
with an average value of 5.0 mg/L and DO results in the bottom layer ranged
from 3.7 and 5.7 mg/L with an average of 4.6 mg/L.
SS content ranged between 4 and 13 mg/L (for stations M8 & M10) with
an average of 7 mg/L during mid-flood tide and ranged from 3 to 11 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 |
3.0 |
45.8 |
2.4 |
5 |
|
max |
4.7 |
71.6 |
9.7 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.1 |
61.7 |
5.4 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
7.2 |
2.0 |
1 |
|
|
M2 |
min |
3.4 |
52.2 |
3.1 |
8 |
|
max |
4.7 |
70.2 |
12.1 |
18 |
|
|
avg |
3.9 |
59.7 |
7.0 |
10 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
6.4 |
2.5 |
3 |
|
|
M3 |
min |
3.2 |
48.5 |
4.5 |
6 |
|
max |
4.8 |
72.7 |
12.7 |
17 |
|
|
avg |
3.9 |
59.4 |
6.4 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
7.5 |
2.2 |
3 |
|
|
M4 |
min |
3.5 |
52.3 |
3.8 |
5 |
|
max |
4.8 |
71.2 |
7.6 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.0 |
61.0 |
5.4 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
6.6 |
1.2 |
2 |
|
|
M5 |
min |
3.5 |
53.9 |
3.1 |
4 |
|
max |
5.0 |
73.8 |
8.6 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.2 |
63.4 |
5.4 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
6.8 |
1.9 |
2 |
|
|
M6 |
min |
3.3 |
49.4 |
3.2 |
5 |
|
max |
4.7 |
69.4 |
8.2 |
11 |
|
|
avg |
4.1 |
61.4 |
5.4 |
7 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
5.9 |
1.8 |
2 |
|
|
M11 |
min |
3.4 |
50.6 |
2.4 |
5 |
|
max |
4.8 |
71.2 |
7.9 |
10 |
|
|
avg |
4.1 |
61.7 |
5.5 |
8 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
6.1 |
1.5 |
1 |
|
|
M12 |
min |
3.2 |
48.1 |
3.6 |
5 |
|
max |
4.5 |
66.9 |
11.0 |
20 |
|
|
avg |
3.9 |
58.3 |
6.1 |
9 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
5.7 |
2.5 |
4 |
|
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 3.0 to 5.0 mg/L with an average of 4 mg/L. SS ranged between 4 and 20 mg/L with an average value of 8 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. 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 |
3.2 |
48.7 |
4.3 |
5.0 |
|
max |
4.7 |
71.4 |
8.7 |
9.7 |
|
|
avg |
3.8 |
58.7 |
6.1 |
7.0 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
6.3 |
1.2 |
1.4 |
|
|
M2 |
min |
3.3 |
51.4 |
4.4 |
6.4 |
|
max |
4.5 |
68.3 |
13.9 |
16.9 |
|
|
avg |
3.8 |
57.0 |
8.2 |
11.1 |
|
|
sd |
0.3 |
4.8 |
2.4 |
2.9 |
|
|
M3 |
min |
2.8 |
41.9 |
3.1 |
6.8 |
|
max |
4.8 |
72.5 |
9.9 |
17.7 |
|
|
avg |
3.6 |
54.6 |
7.2 |
10.8 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
7.2 |
2.0 |
3.4 |
|
|
M4 |
min |
3.7 |
55.2 |
2.4 |
5.0 |
|
max |
4.5 |
69.0 |
8.8 |
11.0 |
|
|
avg |
4.0 |
60.5 |
5.7 |
8.0 |
|
|
sd |
0.2 |
3.6 |
1.8 |
1.6 |
|
|
M5 |
min |
3.0 |
45.3 |
3.1 |
4.2 |
|
max |
4.8 |
73.5 |
8.3 |
10.1 |
|
|
avg |
4.1 |
61.3 |
5.8 |
6.7 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
7.5 |
1.9 |
1.8 |
|
|
M6 |
min |
3.1 |
46.9 |
2.7 |
4.9 |
|
max |
4.8 |
71.2 |
9.3 |
14.4 |
|
|
avg |
3.6 |
54.8 |
6.4 |
8.4 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
6.1 |
1.9 |
2.7 |
|
|
M11 |
min |
3.4 |
51.1 |
4.1 |
4.1 |
|
max |
4.9 |
73.5 |
9.5 |
13.1 |
|
|
avg |
4.0 |
59.6 |
5.9 |
8.1 |
|
|
sd |
0.5 |
6.5 |
1.4 |
2.4 |
|
|
M12 |
min |
3.2 |
48.9 |
2.2 |
4.6 |
|
max |
4.5 |
69.2 |
8.0 |
11.0 |
|
|
avg |
3.8 |
57.8 |
5.9 |
7.6 |
|
|
sd |
0.4 |
6.6 |
1.7 |
2.0 |
|
During
mid-flood survey, Table 4.8 shows that DO levels at seawater intake stations
ranged from 2.8 to 4.9 mg/L with an average of 3.8 mg/L. SS ranged from 4 to 18 mg/L with an average
SS content of 8 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 due to
adverse impacts from outfalls located adjacent to the station. 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 during
working hours were observed during the reporting period.
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 September 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 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.
Two deficiencies were noted during
environmental site inspections conducted on 18 and 25 September 2003. The first deficiency concerned an untethered
dust screen flap near the entrance to the demolition works at Pier No. 7. As for the second deficiency, it was with
respect to several unlabelled containers of used grease on oil found on the
barge "Wharf." The Contractor
rectified both deficiencies and compliance was confirmed during subsequent site
inspections.
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:
·
All works for the project
have been suspended as of 28 September 2003.
Marine water quality monitoring works has continued to be
undertaken. When works recommence, the
ET will continue to closely monitor water quality monitoring results to ensure
that marine works are not affecting water quality;
·
The demolition of Pier No. 7
is expected to be progressing and the ET will continue to ensure that proper
dust suppression measures are maintained during the regular environmental site inspections.
The construction works scheduled in September
2003 include dredging at IRAW, demolition of Pier No. 7 and existing seawall at
IRAW 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 |
|
|
1 October 2003 |
10:37 |
16:11 |
|
3 October 2003 |
08:30 |
17:00 |
|
6 October 2003 |
09:40 |
17:00 |
|
8 October 2003 |
11:09 |
17:00 |
|
10 October 2003 |
12:00 |
17:30 |
|
13 October 2003 |
08:30 |
14:00 |
|
15 October 2003 |
08:30 |
14:37 |
|
17 October 2003 |
08:00 |
15:55 |
|
20 October 2003 |
08:30 |
17:00 |
|
22 October 2003 |
09:38 |
16:44 |
|
24 October 2003 |
11:16 |
17:00 |
|
27 October 2003 |
08:00 |
13:30 |
|
29 October 2003 |
09:34 |
15:01 |
|
31 October 2003 |
08:00 |
16:53 |
|
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.
Two deficiencies were
recorded during environmental site inspections during the reporting
period. The Contractor subsequently
rectified the deficiencies 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.