Table of Content
1.3 Construction Works undertaken during the Reporting Month
1.4 Summary of EM&A Requirements
2.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
2.5 Monitoring Procedures and Calibration Details
3.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
3.5 Monitoring Procedures and Calibration Details
4.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
4.5 Monitoring Procedures and Calibration Details
5.1 Review of Environmental Monitoring Procedures
5.2 Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Results
5.4 Status of Environmental Licensing and Permitting
5.5 Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
5.6 Implementation Status of Action/Limit Plans
5.7 Implementation Status of Environmental Complaint Handling Procedures
6.1 Status of Natural Gas supply
6.2 Key Issues for the Coming Month
6.3 Monitoring Schedules for the Next 3 Months
6.4 Construction Program for the Next 3 Months
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Construction
Activities and Their Corresponding Environmental Mitigation
Measures
Table 2.1 Air Quality Monitoring Locations
Table 2.2 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment
Table 2.3 Air Quality Monitoring Parameter, Duration and
Frequency
Table 3.1 Noise
Monitoring Locations
Table 3.2 Noise
Monitoring Equipment
Table 3.3 Noise Monitoring
Duration and Parameter
Table 4.1 Water Quality Monitoring Locations
Table 4.2 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
Table 4.3 Water Quality Monitoring Parameters and Frequency
Table 4.4 Laboratory
Analysis Methodologies of Marine Water Samples
Table 5.1 Summary of
AL Level Exceedances on Monitoring Parameters
Table 5.2 Estimated
Amounts of Waste Generated in October 2001
Table 5.3 Summary of
Environmental Licensing and Permit Status
Table 5.4 Environmental Complaints / Enquiries Received in October 2001
Table 5.5 Outstanding Environmental Complaints / Enquiries Received Before
List of figures
Figure
1.1 Layout
of Work Site
Figure
1.2 Location
of Dumping Area (from 10th
September 2001)
Figure
1.3 Location
of Dumping Area (from 29th October 2001)
Figure
2.1 Location
of Air Quality Monitoring Stations
Figure
3.1 Location
of Noise Monitoring Stations
Figure
4.1 Location
of Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Appendices
Appendix B Amount of Dredged and Dumped Marine
Sediment
Appendix C Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality, Noise, Water quality Monitoring
Appendix D Environmental
Monitoring Schedule
Appendix E Air
Quality Monitoring Results for October 2001
Appendix F Noise
Monitoring Results for October 2001
Appendix G Water
Quality Monitoring Results for October 2001
This is the seventh monthly Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) report for the Project “Construction of Lamma Power Station Extension” prepared by the Environmental Team (ET). This report presents the results of impact monitoring on air quality, noise and marine water quality for the said project in October 2001.
Air, noise and water quality
monitoring were performed. The results were checked
against the established
Action/Limit (AL) levels.
An on-site audit was conducted once per week. The implementation status of the environmental
mitigation measures, Event/Action
Plan and environmental complaint handling procedures were also checked.
Construction
Activities Undertaken
Construction activities
undertaken during the reporting month were dredging and dumping of dredged mud.
302,226m3 of marine mud was dredged from site and dumped at the
allocated dumping area in Cheung Chau during the month. No filling activities were undertaken
in the reporting month.
Environmental
Monitoring Works
All monitoring work at designated stations was performed
as scheduled in the reporting period.
Air Quality
No exceedance
of Action and Limit levels for air
quality was recorded in the
month.
Noise
Construction work was carried out during the restricted hours including
evening-time, holidays and night-time under valid Construction Noise Permits. No exceedance of Action and
Limit levels for noise was
recorded in the month.
Water Quality
A significant number of
exceedances in three monitoring parameters (viz. DO, TIN and NH3-N)
were recorded in the reporting months from April to September 2001. For these
exceedances, comprehensive investigations had been carried out. It was found that similar measurement
results were also obtained at the control stations during the monitoring
period, suggesting that the background DO levels were also low and TIN & NH3-N
levels high. Furthermore, when
compared with EPD’s published monitoring data at the monitoring locations
adjacent to Lamma Island, all the measurement results that had exceeded
Action/Limit Levels actually lie within the range of EPD’s data. This showed that the Action/Limit level
as established by the baseline monitoring work which was carried out during
cooler season, was not appropriate for the current water body condition.
Hence, all of these
exceedances were considered not related to site activities and have been
explained to the satisfaction of EPD.
No further action was required.
HEC has submitted a report to EPD proposing new checking criteria for
water quality for EPD’s consideration on 11th September 2001. The following proposals accepted by EPD
have been implemented since 1st October 2001.
- No
change to the existing monitoring frequency and monitoring locations;
- No
action/limit level is applicable to TIN and NH3-N.
However, both NH3-N and TIN will be monitored throughout the
dredging phase and for at least one month upon completion of dredging. The monitored results will then be
compared with the EPD's routine monitoring data in the vicinity during the last
5 years to demonstrate that the two parameters are indeed of no concern in the
area and particularly at the ecological sensitive receivers. In case the monitoring results show
that the reclamation works is a significant source of TIN and NH3-N
and worse than the EIA predications, the impacts should be addressed. Suitable
remedial actions should be devised and the monitoring protocol should be
reviewed accordingly;
- Two
new sets of DO Action/Limit levels for dry and wet seasons are derived based on
EPD's monitoring data collected from 1996 to 2000 and the WQO for DO.
There were one case (1) of Action Level exceedance and nine (9) cases of
Limit Level exceedance for water quality in the reporting month. 8 out of 10 cases of action/limit level exceedance were contributed by SS
while 2 cases by Turbidity. For
these exceedances, comprehensive investigations have been carried out. It was found that no noticeable
sediment plume migration from the direction of the site to the sampling
location was observed. Hence, all of these exceedances were considered not related to site
activities and have been explained to the satisfaction of EPD. No further action was required.
Site Environmental Audit
EPD
officials inspected the construction site
on 17th October 2001.
They were generally satisfied with the site conditions.
Site audits
were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor environmental issues on the construction site. The site conditions were generally
satisfactory. All required
mitigation measures were implemented.
Environmental Licensing and Permitting
Description |
Permit No. |
Valid Period |
Issued To |
Date of Issuance |
|
From |
To |
||||
Varied Environmental Permit |
EP-071/2000/B |
13/07/01 |
- |
HEC |
13/07/01 |
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-UW0256-01 |
29/06/01 |
07/12/01 |
Contractor |
29/0601 |
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/01-174 EP/MD/02-073 |
07/04/01 07/10/01 |
06/10/01 06/04/02 |
Contractor |
27/03/01 05/10/01 |
Implementation
Status of Environmental Mitigation Measures
Environmental
mitigation measures for the dredging activities as recommended in the EM&A manual were implemented in the
reporting month.
Environmental
Complaints
No
complaint against the construction
activities was received
in the reporting month.
Future Key
Issues
The future key issues to be
considered in the coming month are as follows:
-
to prepare the CNP
application for bored piling works;
-
to continue with the
preventive measures for noise mitigation and keep monitoring the performance;
-
to review the monitoring
results and to take action, if necessary, to ensure acceptable sea water
quality;
-
to provide routine
inspection and necessary maintenance for the silt curtains.
Concluding Remarks
The
environmental performance of the project was generally satisfactory.
The Environmental Team (hereinafter called the “ET”) was formed within the Hongkong Electric Co. Ltd (HEC) to undertake Environmental Monitoring and Audit for “Construction of Lamma Power Station Extension” (hereinafter called the “Project”). Under the requirements of Section 6 of Environmental Permit EP-071/2000/B, an EM&A programme for impact environmental monitoring set out in the EM&A Manual (Construction Phase) is required to be implemented. In accordance with the EM&A Manual, environmental monitoring of air quality, noise and water quality and regular environmental audits are required for the Project.
The Project involves the construction of a gas-fired power station
employing combined cycled gas turbine technology, forming an extension to the
existing Lamma Power Station. The
key elements of the Project including the construction activities associated
with the transmission system and submarine gas pipeline are outlined as
follows.
· dredging and reclamation to form approximately 22 hectares of usable area;
· construction of six 300MW class gas-fired combined cycle units;
· construction of a gas receiving station;
· construction of a new transmission system linking the Lamma Extension to load centres on Hong Kong Island;
· laying of a gas pipeline for the supply of natural gas to the new power station
This report summarizes the environmental monitoring and
audit work for the Project for the month of October 2001
An
Environmental Management Committee (EMC) has been set up in HEC to oversee the
Project. The management structure
includes the following:
· Environmental Protection Department (The Authority);
· Environmental Manager (The Chairman of the Environmental Management Committee);
· Engineer;
· Independent Environmental Checker (IEC);
· Environmental Team (ET);
· Contractor.
The project organisation chart for the construction EM&A programme is shown in Appendix A.
1.3
Construction Works undertaken during the Reporting
Month
Construction activities undertaken during the reporting
month were dredging and dumping of dredged mud. A Layout Plan showing the dredging locations for the
Project is shown in Figure 1.1. The total volume of dredged material from 1st to
31st October 2001 was
302,226m3. No filling
activities were undertaken in the month. Uncontaminated materials were dumped at the assigned location
within the South Cheung Chau Spoil Disposal Area and the total dumped volume in
October 2001 was 302,226m3. The contractor was informed by EPD (via a
letter ref: (121) in EP 60/G1/12-51 XI dated 18th October 2001) of
the relocation of the Spoil Disposal Area with effect from 29th
October 2001.
Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3
show dumping location for this project in October 2001. Daily records of dredged /
dumped volume are presented in Appendix B.
The main construction activities carried out during the reporting month and the corresponding environmental mitigation measures are summarized in Table 1.1. The implementation of major mitigation measures in the month is provided in Appendix K.
Table 1.1 Construction Activities and Their Corresponding Environmental Mitigation Measures
Item |
Construction
Activities |
Environmental Mitigation Measures |
1 |
Dredging |
Water Quality- The number of grab dredgers operating in the site and the total dredging rate are limited; - Silt curtain are installed on the eastern, southern and north western sides of the site; - Fully-enclosed watertight grabs are used and the descent speed are controlled; - All barges for transport of dredged materials are fitted with tight bottom seals. Noise- General noise mitigation measures are employed at all work sites throughout the construction phase. Waste Management- Waste Management Plan is submitted and implemented. Dredging Waste- All vessels for marine transportation of dredged sediment are fitted with tight fitting seals to their bottom openings to prevent leakage; - Dredged waste are disposed of at Licensed site – South Cheung Chau; - Records of the quantities of waste generated and disposed off-site are taken. Marine Ecology- All construction related vessels approach the site from the designated route/channel to avoid disturbance to the finless porpoise. |
1.4 Summary of EM&A Requirements
The EM&A program requires environmental monitoring
for air, noise and water
quality. Regular environmental site audits for air quality, noise, water
quality and waste management were
carried out. The detailed EM&A monitoring
work for air quality, noise
and water quality are described in Sections 2, 3 and 4
respectively.
The following
environmental audits are summarized in Section 5 of this report:
· Environmental monitoring results;
· Waste Management Records;
· Weekly site audit results;
· The status of environmental licensing and permits for the Project;
· The implementation status of environmental protection and pollution control/ mitigation measures.
Future key issues will be reported in Section 6 of this report.
Figure 1.2 Location of Dumping Area (from 10th
September 2001)
Figure 1.3 Location of
Dumping Area (from 29th October 2001)
1-hour and 24-hour TSP monitoring at agreed frequencies were conducted to monitor air
quality. The impact monitoring
data were checked against the Action/Limit Levels as determined in the Baseline Monitoring Report
(Construction Phase). Appendix C
shows the established Action/Limit Levels for Air Quality.
Three
dust monitoring locations were selected for 1-hour TSP sampling (AM1, AM2 &
AM3) while four monitoring locations were selected for 24-hour TSP sampling
(AM1, AM2, AM3 and AM4). Table 2.1 tabulates the monitoring stations. The locations of the monitoring
stations are shown in Figure 2.1.
Table 2.1 Air-Quality Monitoring Locations
Location I.D. |
Description |
AM1 |
Reservoir |
AM2 |
East Gate |
AM3 |
Ash Lagoon |
AM4 |
Tai Yuen Village |
Continuous
24-hour TSP air quality monitoring was performed using the GS2310 High Volume
Air Samplers (HVAS), Partisol Model 2000 Sampler and the MINIVOL Portable
Sampler at AM1&2, AM3 and AM4 respectively. TEOM Model 1400a continuous dust monitors were used to carry
out 1-hour TSP monitoring at AM1, AM2 and AM3. Table 2.2 summarises the equipment used
in dust monitoring.
Table 2.2 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Model and Make |
24-hour
sampling: HVAS
Sampler Partisol
Air Sampler MINIVOL
Portable Sampler 1-hour
sampling: Continuous
TSP Dust Meter |
Model GS2310 Anderson Instruments Inc. Partisol Model 2000 Rupprecht & Patashnick AIRMETRICS TEOM Model 1400a Rupprecht & Patashnick |
2.4
Monitoring
Parameters, Frequency and Duration
Table 2.3 summarises the monitoring parameters, duration and
frequency of air quality monitoring.
The monitoring schedule for the reporting month is shown in Appendix D.
Table 2.3 Air Quality Monitoring Parameter,
Duration and Frequency
Monitoring Stations |
Parameter |
Duration |
Frequency |
AM1 |
1-hour TSP |
1 |
3 hourly samples every 6
days |
24-hour TSP |
24 |
Once every 6 days |
|
AM2 |
1-hour TSP |
1 |
3 hourly samples every 6
days |
24-hour TSP |
24 |
Once every 6 days |
|
AM3 |
1-hour TSP |
1 |
3 hourly samples every 6
days |
24-hour TSP |
24 |
Once every 6 days |
|
AM4 |
24-hour TSP |
24 |
Once every 6 days |
2.5
Monitoring Procedures and Calibration Details
24- hour TSP Monitor:
Preparation of
Filter Papers
· Visual inspection of filter papers was carried out to ensure that there were no pinholes, tears and creases;
· The filter papers were then labelled before sampling.
·
The filter papers were equilibrated at room temperature
and relative humidity < 50% for at least 24 hours before weighing.
Field Monitoring
· During collection of the sampled filter paper, the information on the elapse timer was logged. Site observations around the monitoring stations, which might have affected the monitoring results, were also recorded. Major pollution sources, if any, would be identified and reported. The flow record chart for the previous sampling was checked to see if there was any abnormality.
· The post-sampling filter papers were removed carefully from the filter holder and folded to avoid loss of fibres or dust particles from the filter papers;
· The filter holder and its surrounding were cleaned;
· A pre-weighed blank filter paper for the next sampling was put in place and aligned carefully. The filter holder was then tightened firmly to avoid leakage;
· A new flow record chart was loaded into the flow recorder;
· The programmable timer was set for the next 24 hrs sampling period, ! 1/2 hr;
·
The post-sampling filter papers were equilibrated at
room temperature and relative humidity < 50% for at least 24 hours before
weighing.
1- hour TSP Monitor:
· The following parameters of the TEOM model dust meters are regularly checked to ensure proper functionality:
o Mass concentration;
o Total mass;
o Frequency of the tapered element;
o Electrical noise;
o Main flow;
o Auxiliary flow.
Maintenance
& Calibration
· The monitoring equipment and their accessories are maintained in good working conditions.
· Monitoring equipment is calibrated at monthly intervals. Calibration details are shown in Appendix H.
Dust monitoring was conducted as scheduled in the reporting month. All
monitoring data and graphical presentation of the monitoring results are
provided in Appendix E. Key findings and observations are provided below:
1-hour TSP
No
exceedance of 1-hour TSP Action/Limit Level was recorded in the month.
24-hour TSP
No
exceedance of 24-hour TSP Action/Limit Level was recorded in the month.
Continuous noise alarm monitoring at Ash Lagoon/Ching Lam were carried out to calculate the noise contributed by the construction activities at the two critical NSR’s, viz. Long Tsai Tsuen/Hung Shing Ye and the school within the village of Tai Wan San Tsuen. The impact monitoring data for construction noise other than percussive piling were checked against the limit levels specified in the EM&A Manual. With the availability of the construction noise permits, impact monitoring for the construction work during the restricted hours was also carried out. Section 5 presents the details of the construction noise permits.
As there
were no activities for the construction of the transmission system, no manual
noise measurement at the Pak Kok Tsui residences was carried out in the
reporting month. Appendix C shows the established Action/Limit
Levels for noise.
In accordance with the EM&A manual, the identified noise monitoring locations are listed in Table 3.1 and shown in Figure 3.1.
Table
3.1 Noise Monitoring
Locations
Purpose of noise monitoring |
Monitoring Location |
Lamma Extension |
Ash Lagoon |
Lamma Extension |
Ching Lam |
The sound level meters used for noise monitoring complied with International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1). The noise monitoring equipment used is shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Noise Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Model |
Sound level meter |
Rion NA-27 |
Calibrator (IEC 60942 Class 1) |
Rion NC-74 |
3.4 Monitoring Parameters, Frequency and Duration
Continuous noise alarm monitoring of A-weighted Leq
levels was carried out at Ash Lagoon and Ching Lam. The measurement duration and
parameter of noise monitoring were presented in Table 3.3
as follows:
Table 3.3 Noise Monitoring Duration and
Parameter
Location |
Time Period |
Frequency |
Parameter |
Ash Lagoon Ching Lam |
Daytime: 0700-1900
hrs on normal weekdays Evening-time
& holidays: 0700-2300 hrs on holidays; and 1900-2300 hrs on all other days Night-time: 2300-0700 hrs of next
day |
Daytime: 30 minutes Evening-time
& holidays: 5 minutes Night-time: 5 minutes |
30-min
LAeq 5-min
LAeq 5-min
LAeq |
3.5
Monitoring Procedures and
Calibration Details
Monitoring Procedures
The measured noise
levels (MNL's) were collected at the noise alarm monitoring
stations at Ash Lagoon and Ching Lam. The notional
background noise levels (viz. baseline noise data at
Ash Lagoon and Ching Lam) were applied to correct the
corresponding MNL's in
30-min/5-min LAeq.
A wind speed sensor was installed at Station Building
Rooftop. The wind speed signal was used to determine whether the
data from Ash Lagoon and Ching Lam noise alarm monitoring stations were affected. The instantaneous data was discarded in case the
instantaneous wind speed exceeded
10 m/s. The 30-min/5-min LAeq was
considered valid only if the amount of valid data was equal to or above 70%.
When
calibrating the noise measuring equipment, all
observations around the monitoring stations, which might have affected
the monitoring results, were recorded.
Equipment Calibration
The sound level meters and calibrators were verified by the manufacturer. Monthly calibration of the noise measuring equipment was carried out. Calibration details are shown in Appendix H.
Continuous noise monitoring was conducted at the two
monitoring stations at Ash Lagoon and Ching Lam. All monitoring results and their graphical presentations are
provided in Appendix F.
No
exceedance of noise Action/Limit Level was recorded in the month.
Marine
water quality monitoring at the monitoring locations adjacent to the dredging
and filling operations for Lamma Extension was carried out by a monitoring
consultant, HKPC. The purpose was
to ensure that deterioration of water quality, if any, would be detected and
that timely action could be taken to rectify the situation. The impact monitoring data were checked
against the AL levels set out
in the Baseline Monitoring Report (Construction Phase).
As there were no activities for the laying of the gas pipeline in the
reporting month, no water quality impact monitoring at the relevant stations
was carried out.
A
significant number of exceedances in three monitoring parameters (viz. DO, TIN
and NH3-N) were recorded in the reporting months from April to September
2001. For these exceedances, comprehensive investigations had been carried
out. It was found that similar
measurement results were also obtained at the control stations during the
monitoring period, suggesting that the background DO levels were also low and
TIN & NH3-N levels high.
Furthermore, when compared with EPD’s published monitoring data at the
monitoring locations adjacent to Lamma Island, all the measurement results that
had exceeded Action/Limit Levels actually lie within the range of EPD’s
data. This showed that the
Action/Limit level as established by the baseline monitoring work which was
carried out during cooler season, was not appropriate for the current water
body condition.
Hence,
all of these exceedances were considered not related to site activities and
have been explained to the satisfaction of EPD. No further action was required. HEC has submitted a report to EPD proposing new checking
criteria for water quality for EPD’s consideration on 11th September
2001. The following proposals
accepted by EPD have been implemented since 1st October 2001.
-
No
change to the existing monitoring frequency and monitoring locations;
-
No
action/limit level is applicable to TIN and NH3-N. However, both NH3-N and TIN
will be monitored throughout the dredging phase and for at least one month upon
completion of dredging. The
monitored results will then be compared with the EPD's routine monitoring data
in the vicinity during the last 5 years to demonstrate that the two parameters
are indeed of no concern in the area and particularly at the ecological
sensitive receivers. In case the
monitoring results show that the reclamation works is a significant source of
TIN and NH3-N and worse than the EIA predications, the impacts
should be addressed. Suitable remedial actions should be devised and the
monitoring protocol should be reviewed accordingly;
-
Two
new sets of DO Action/Limit levels for dry and wet seasons are derived based on
EPD's monitoring data collected from 1996 to 2000 and the WQO for DO.
Based
on the above proposals, the Action/Limit levels have been revised as shown in Appendix C.
A total of 12 water quality monitoring locations were selected. 7 Sensitive Receiver
(SR) stations were chosen on the basis of their proximity to the dredging and
filling operations, 5 Marine Control stations (C) as recommended in the EIA were selected to facilitate
comparison of the water quality of the SR stations with ambient water quality conditions. Table 4.1 describes the locations of
these monitoring stations. Their locations are shown in Figure
4.1.
Table 4.1 Water Quality Monitoring Locations
Type |
Monitoring Location |
HK Metric Grid E |
HK Metric Grid N |
Sensitive Receiver
Stations |
SR1 |
830 224 |
811 528 |
SR2 |
829 004 |
810 903 |
|
SR3 |
829 194 (829 166)1 |
808 600 (808 592)1 |
|
SR4 |
830 119 |
808 650 |
|
SR5 |
830 386 |
807 189 |
|
SR6 |
829 977 |
805 758 |
|
SR7 |
829 566 |
804 545 |
|
Marine Control Stations |
C1 |
830 542 |
813 492 |
C2 |
828 608 |
813 492 |
|
C3 |
826 776 |
809 978 |
|
C4 |
826 776 |
806 464 |
|
C5 |
830 440 |
802 186 |
1. Due to the construction programme, the monitoring
location SR3 was slightly shifted since the monitoring on 16th April
2001. EPD has verbally been
informed of the shift of the monitoring location.
Table 4.2 summarizes the equipment used in the water-quality monitoring programme.
Table 4.2 Water Quality Monitoring Equipment
Equipment |
Detection
Limit |
YSI 6820 Water Quality Monitor |
Temperature: -5 to 50 0C; +/- 0.15 0C Salinity: 0 to 70 ppt; +/- 0.2 ppt Dissolved Oxygen: 0 to 200%; +/- 0.5% 0 to 20 mg/L; +/- 0.2 mg/L Turbidity: 0 to 100 and 100 to 1000 NTU; +/- 5%
of the range |
Trimble NT200 GPS |
Accuracy better than 3m |
Leica GS5 |
Accuracy better than 3m |
4.4
Monitoring
Parameters, Frequency and Duration
Table 4.3
summarizes the monitoring parameters, frequencies and total duration of water
quality monitoring. The monitoring schedule for reporting month is shown in Appendix D.
Table 4.3 Water Quality Monitoring Parameters and Frequency
Monitoring Stations |
Parameters |
Frequency |
No. of Depths |
No. of Samples |
Sensitive Receiver Stations SR1, SR2,
SR4, SR5, SR6 & SR7 Marine Control Stations C1, C2,
C3, C4 & C5 |
· Depth, m · Temperature, oC · Salinity, ppt · DO, mg/L · DO Saturation, % · Turbidity, NTU · SS, mg/L · pH · Total inorganic nitrogen, mg/L · Un-ionised ammonia, mg/L |
3 Surface, Mid-Depth
and Bottom |
2 Mid-ebb
and Mid-flood |
For
laboratory analysis of marine water samples collected at SR3, only SS parameter
was measured.
4.5
Monitoring
Procedures and Calibration Details
Monitoring
Procedures
· The monitoring stations were accessed using survey boat to within 3m, guided by Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS).
· The depth of the monitoring location was measured using depth meter in order to determine the sampling depths. Afterwards, the water sampler was lowered into the water to the required depths of sampling. Upon reaching the pre-determined depth, a messenger to activate the sampler was then released to travel down the wire. The water sample was sealed within the sampler before retrieving.
· All in-situ measurements at each monitoring stations were taken at 3 water depths, where appropriate, namely 1m below water surface, mid-depth, and 1 meter from seabed, except where the water depth was less than 6m, the mid-depth measurement was omitted. If the water depth was less than 3m, only the mid-depth position was monitored.
· At each measurement/sampling depth, two consecutive measurements were taken. The probes were retrieved out of the water after the first measurement and then redeployed for the second measurement. Where the difference in the value between the first and the second readings of each set was more than 25% of the value of the first reading, the reading was discarded and further samplings were taken.
· The duplicate water samples for physical and chemical analysis were stored into a pre-labelled high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle pre-rinsed with the same water samples. The sample bottles were than packed in a cool-box (cooled to 4oC without being frozen) and delivered to a HOKLAS Laboratory for analysis upon the completion of each round of sampling.
· In addition, field information such as the general meteorological conditions and any observations regarding any significant activities in the vicinity of each monitoring location were also recorded. Major water pollution sources, if any, were identified and recorded.
Equipment
Calibration
The
equipment deployed for in-situ measurement of marine water quality was
calibrated before use. The
methodologies for the calibration follow the instruction manuals provided by
the corresponding manufacturers.
The calibration records are shown in Appendix H.
Laboratory Analysis & QA/QC
The collected marine water samples were analyzed for Suspended Solids, Total Inorganic Nitrogen and Unionized Ammonia with methodologies as summarized in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Laboratory
Analysis Methodologies of Marine Water Samples
Parameter |
Method |
Limit of Reporting
(mg/L) |
Suspended Solids |
APHA 17 ed 2540 D |
1.0 |
Total Inorganic Nitrogen |
APHA 18 ed 4500 NO2 B & NO3 E + APHA 17ed 4500-NH3B, E |
0.01 |
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (Un-ionized Ammonia) |
APHA 17 ed 4500-NH3 G |
0.01 (Limit of Reporting for Ammoniacal Nitrogen) x degree of ionization |
Note: The determination of unionized ammonia was based on the articles entitled “Aqueous Ammonia Equilibrium Calculation: Effect of pH and Temperature” and “Ionization of Ammonia in Seawater: Effects of Temperature, pH and Salinity” which was accepted by EPD.
In order to ensure that the laboratory analysis works were carried out properly, stringent QA/QC procedures (which includes the sample preparation as well as the subsequent instrumentation analysis) were followed. According to the requirements stipulated in the EM&A Manual, QA/QC requirements for laboratory testing include:
1) "Blind" duplicate samples analysis of 10% collected marine water samples; and
2) in-house QA/QC procedures of the testing laboratory (this includes the use of blank, batch duplicates, quality control samples and matrix spike recovery test).
Blind Duplicate:
In order to cross check the precision of the measurement results obtained from the laboratory analysis, “blind” duplicate samples of 10% of the collected marine water samples were analysed alongside the normal samples. The sample codes for the “blind” duplicates were determined by the sampling team and are not identifiable by the laboratory. The results of the “blind” duplicate samples are summarized in Appendix H.
In accordance with the QA/QC procedures of Environmental Management Laboratory of HKPC, QA/QC procedures were conducted for at least 5% of samples. A total of 924 sets of samples (for Total Inorganic Nitrogen and Unionized Ammonia) and 1008 sets of samples (for Suspended Solids analysis) were received during the marine monitoring period including both ebb and flood tides. Therefore at least 5% laboratory blanks, batch duplicates, quality control samples and recovery tests for each parameter were conducted. The acceptance criteria are outlined in each type of Quality Control data.
Blank:
A laboratory blank is an analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in the standard sample preparation to monitor contamination introduced in laboratory. The acceptance criterion for laboratory blank in Environmental Management Division (EMD) Laboratory of HKPC stipulated in EMD Quality Manual is less than the detection limit. All the laboratory blank values and acceptance criterion of the following testing parameter are summarized in Appendix H.
· Suspended Solids
· Unionized Ammonia
· Total Inorganic Nitrogen
Batch Duplicate:
Batch duplicate is an intra-laboratory split sample randomly selected from the sample batch to monitor the method precision in a given matrix. The acceptance limit of duplicate values of the following testing parameters and their duplicate results are summarized in Appendix H.
· Suspended Solids
· Unionized Ammonia
· Total Inorganic Nitrogen
Quality Control Sample:
The quality control sample is the analysis of a material with a known concentration of contaminants to determine the accuracy of results in a given matrix. The quality control samples are not applicable to all testing parameters due to the constraints of the testing parameters. The quality control samples results for the following testing parameters are shown in Appendix H.
· Unionized Ammonia
· Total Inorganic Nitrogen
Quality control sample testing is not applicable to the testing of Suspended Solids.
Matrix Spike:
Matrix spike is an intra-laboratory split of a digested sample spiked with target known concentration analyte to determine method bias in a given matrix. The matrix spike is applicable to the following tests:
· Unionized Ammonia
· Total Inorganic Nitrogen
Matrix spike testing is not applicable to testing of Suspended Solids. The matrix spike samples results are shown in Appendix H.
The QA/QC results in Appendix H indicated that the laboratory analysis works of the collected marine water samples were properly carried out and the measurement results obtained were valid in accordance with the Hong Kong Laboratory Accreditation Scheme (HOKLAS) requirements. On the other hand, the “blind” duplicate measurement results indicated that the precision of the measurements for Suspended Solids, Total Inorganic Nitrogen and Unionized Ammonia are in compliance with the HOKLAS requirements.
Marine water monitoring was conducted as scheduled in
the reporting month. All
monitoring data and graphical presentation of the monitoring results are
provided in Appendix G. Key findings and observations are provided in the following
tables:
Summary of Exceedances in Dissolved Oxygen
(Surface and Middle) in October 2001
Monitoring Dates |
Number of Exceedances |
Investigation Findings (if any) |
|
Action Level |
Limit Level |
||
1st October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
3rd October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
5th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
8th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
10th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
12th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
15th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
17th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
19th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
22nd October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
24th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
26th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
29th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
31st October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
Summary of Exceedances in Dissolved Oxygen
(Bottom) in October 2001
Monitoring Dates |
Number of Exceedances |
Investigation Findings (if any) |
|
Action Level |
Limit Level |
||
1st October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
3rd October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
5th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
8th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
10th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
12th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
15th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
17th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
19th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
22nd October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
24th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
26th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
29th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
31st October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
Summary of Exceedances in Turbidity (Depth
Average) in October 2001
Monitoring Dates |
No. of Exceedances |
Investigation Findings (if any) |
|
Action Level |
Limit Level |
||
1st October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
3rd October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
5th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
8th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
10th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
12th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
15th October |
0 |
1 (SR1 during flood tide) |
Not related to site
activities. Based on the observation made by the sampling team, no noticeable
sediment plume migration from the direction of the site to the sampling
location was observed. Besides, the measurement result at SR2 (which is
located between the site and SR1) was much lower than the said exceedance
therefore the elevated result at SR1 was considered not relevant to the site
activities. |
17th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
19th October |
0 |
1 (SR1 during flood tide) |
Not related to site activities. Based on the observation made by the sampling team,
no noticeable sediment plume migration from the direction of the site to the
sampling location was observed. Furthermore, the measurement result at the
same location during the following session (PM) of the same sampling day was
below the action level. Therefore the elevated result might be due to
background fluctuation rather than the site activities. |
22nd October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
24th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
26th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
29th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
31st October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
Summary of Exceedances in Suspended Solids
(Depth Average) in October 2001
Monitoring Dates |
Number of Exceedances |
Investigation Findings (if any) |
|
Action Level |
Limit Level |
||
1st October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
3rd October |
0 |
1 (SR2 during ebb tide) |
Not related to site activities. Based on the observation made by the sampling
team, no sediment plume migration from the direction of site to the sampling location
was observed. Besides, SR2 was located at the upstream to the site during the
course of sampling while the marine water flowing from North to South.
Moreover, the measurement result at the same location during the PM session
of the same sampling day was below the action level. Account for above, the
elevated SS result might be due to the occasional background fluctuation
rather the site activities. |
5th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
8th October |
0 |
1 (SR1 during flood tide) |
Not related to site activities.
Based on the observation made by the sampling team, no noticeable sediment
plume migration from the direction of the site to the sampling location was
observed. Besides, the measurement result at SR2 (which is located between
the site and SR1) was lower than the action level therefore the elevated
result at SR1 was considered not relevant to the site activities. |
10th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
12th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
15th October |
0 |
1 (SR1 during flood tide) |
Not related to site activities.
Based on the observation made by the sampling team, no noticeable sediment
plume migration from the direction of the site to the sampling location was
observed. Besides, the measurement result at SR2 (which is located between
the site and SR1) was lower than the action level therefore the elevated
result at SR1 was considered not relevant to the site activities. |
17th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
19th October |
0 |
3 (SR1 & SR4 during flood tide and SR7 during flood tide) |
Not related to site activities.
Based on the observation made by the sampling team, no noticeable sediment
plume migration from the direction of the site to the sampling locations was
observed. On the other hand, it was found that the
measurement result at SR2 (which is located between SR1 and the site) was
lower than the action level therefore it was considered that elevated
measurement at SR1 during flood tide was not related to the site activities. For the exceedance at
SR4 during flood tide, the measurement result at the same location during the
PM session of the same sampling day was much lower than the action level.
Therefore, the elevated SS result might be due
to the occasional background fluctuation rather the site activities. For the marginal limit level
exceedance at SR7 during ebb tide, the measurement results at SR5 and SR6
(which are located between SR7 and the site) were lower than the
corresponding action level. Therefore the said exceedance at SR7
might also be due to background
fluctuation rather than the site activities. |
22nd October |
0 |
1 (SR1 during flood tide) |
Not related to site
activities. Based on the observation made by the sampling team, no noticeable
sediment plume migration from the direction of the site to the sampling location
was observed. Besides, the measurement result at SR2 (which is located
between the site and SR1) was lower than the action level. Therefore the elevated result at SR1
was considered not relevant to the site activities. |
24th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
26th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
29th October |
0 |
0 |
N. A. |
31st October |
1 (SR6 during flood tide) |
0 |
Based on the on-site
observation made by the sampling team, no noticeable sediment plume migration
from the direction of the construction site to the sampling location was
observed. On the other hand, the
sampling was carried out during flood tide and the sampling location was
upstream of the construction site.
In view of this, the elevated SS result might probably be due to the
background fluctuation and was not related to the Project activities. |
Summary of measurements results of Unionized
Ammonia (Depth Average) in October 2001
Monitoring Dates |
Investigation Findings (if any) |
|
1st October |
N. A. |
|
3rd October |
N. A. |
|
5th October |
N. A. |
|
8th October |
Elevated measurement
results were recorded at SR1 during flood tide and SR2 during both ebb and
flood tide. The elevated measurement
result at SR2 during ebb tide was considered not related to site activities
as the measurement results at upstream control stations were higher than that
at SR2 during ebb tide. Besides,
based on the observation made by the sampling team, no particular activities
were observed at the vicinity of the study area which might result in
elevated NH3 result. Moreover, the measurement results on the next sampling
day at SR1 & SR2 were within the range of data collected by EPD in the
last 5 years. Therefore, the elevated measurement results at SR1 & SR2
during flood tide might be due to background fluctuation. |
|
10th October |
N. A. |
|
12th October |
N. A. |
|
15th October |
N. A. |
|
17th October |
N. A. |
|
19th October |
N. A. |
|
22nd October |
N. A. |
|
24th October |
N. A. |
|
26th October |
N. A. |
|
29th October |
N. A. |
|
31st October |
N. A. |
|
Summary of measurements results of Total
Inorganic Nitrogen (Depth Average) in October 2001
Monitoring Dates |
Investigation Findings (if any) |
|
1st October |
N. A. |
|
3rd October |
N. A. |
|
5th October |
N. A. |
|
8th October |
N. A. |
|
10th October |
N. A. |
|
12th October |
N. A. |
|
15th October |
N. A. |
|
17th October |
N. A. |
|
19th October |
N. A. |
|
22nd October |
N. A. |
|
24th October |
N. A. |
|
26th October |
N. A. |
|
29th October |
N. A. |
|
31st October |
N. A. |
|
All of
the above exceedances and elevated measurement results were not related to site
activities, hence no further action can be devised. Nevertheless, EPD, IEC and
the construction contractor have been informed of the exceedances accordingly
as per the requirements of the EM&A Manual.
Figure 4.1 Location of Water Quality Monitoring Stations
5.1
Review of Environmental Monitoring Procedures
The environmental
monitoring procedures were regularly reviewed by the Environmental Team. No modification to the existing monitoring procedures was recommended.
5.2
Assessment
of Environmental Monitoring Results
Monitoring results for Air Quality, Noise and Water Quality
The environmental monitoring results for Air Quality, Noise and Water Quality in October 2001 presented in sections 2,3 and 4 respectively are summarized in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Summary of AL Level Exceedances on Monitoring Parameters
Item |
Parameter
Monitored |
Monitoring
Period |
No. of Exceedances In |
Event/Action
Plan Implementation Status and Results |
||
Action
Level |
Limit Level |
|||||
Air |
||||||
1 |
Ambient TSP (24-hour) |
01/10/01-31/10/01 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
2 |
Ambient TSP (1-hour) |
01/10/01-31/10/01 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Noise |
||||||
1 |
Noise level at the critical NSR’s predicted by the noise alarm monitoring system |
01/10/01-31/10/01 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
2 |
Manual noise monitoring at the Pak Kok Tsui residences |
01/10/01-31/10/01 |
NA |
NA |
Construction of transmission system not yet commenced. |
|
Water |
||||||
1 |
DO (Surface & Middle) |
01/10/01-31/10/01 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
2 |
DO (Bottom) |
01/10/01-31/10/01 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
3 |
SS |
01/10/01-31/10/01 |
1 |
7 |
The exceedances were considered not related to the construction activities. Please refer to section 4 of the report for details. |
|
4 |
Turbidity |
01/10/01-31/10/01 |
0 |
2 |
The exceedances were considered not related to the construction activities. Please refer to section 4 of the report for details. |
|
Waste
Management Records
The estimated amounts of different types of waste
generated in October 2001 are shown in Table 5.2.
Table
5.2 Estimated Amounts of Waste
Generated in October 2001
Waste Type |
Examples |
Estimated
Amount (m3) |
Dredged Materials |
Marine Mud |
|
Construction Waste |
Concrete Waste, Used formwork |
0 |
Excavated Materials |
Rock and soil |
0 |
General Refuse |
Domestic wastes collected on site |
1 |
The total bulk volume of dredged material was 302,226m3. No filling took place.
EPD
officials inspected the construction site on 17th October 2001. They were generally satisfied with the site conditions.
Site audits were
carried out by ET on a weekly basis to monitor environmental issues at the construction sites
to ensure that all mitigation measures were implemented timely and properly. The site conditions
were generally satisfactory. All
required mitigation measures were implemented. The weekly site inspection results are attached in Appendix J.
5.4 Status of Environmental Licensing and Permitting
Dumping permit (EP/MD/01-174) was renewed on 5th
October 2001. All permits/licenses obtained for the project are summarised
in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Summary of Environmental Licensing and Permit Status
Description |
Permit No. |
Valid Period |
highlights |
Status |
|
From |
To |
||||
Varied Environmental Permit |
EP-071/2000/B |
13/07/01 |
- |
The whole construction work site. |
Valid |
Construction Noise Permit |
GW-UW0256-01 |
29/06/01 |
07/12/01 |
4 derrick barges, 5 dredger grabs and 6 tug boats before 2300 5 grab dredgers and 2 tug boats from 2300 to 0700 next day with a condition
restricting the location of the grab dredger (CNP063) |
Valid |
Dumping Permit |
EP/MD/01-174 EP/MD/02-073 |
07/04/01 07/10/01 |
06/10/01 05/10/02 |
Dumping at South Cheung Chau Disposal Area (Relocation of the Spoil Disposal
Area with effective 10th September 2001) Dumping at South Cheung Chau Disposal Area (Relocation of the Spoil Disposal Areas
with effective 10th September 2001 and 29th October
2001) |
Renewed Valid |
5.5
Implementation Status of Environmental Mitigation
Measures
Mitigation measures detailed in the permits and the EM&A Manual (Construction
Phase) are required to be implemented. An updated summary of the Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedule (EMIS) is
presented in Appendix K.
5.6 Implementation Status of Action/Limit Plans
The Action/Event Plans for air quality, noise and water quality extracted from the EM&A Manual (Construction Phase) and the review report on marine water quality monitoring are presented in Appendix I.
As all the action/limit level exceedances were not related to the construction work, no further action can be devised. Nevertheless, EPD, IEC and the construction contractor have been informed of the exceedances accordingly as per the requirements in the EM&A Manual.
5.7 Implementation Status of Environmental Complaint Handling Procedures
No environmental complaint against the construction activities was received in October 2001.
Table 5.4 Environmental
Complaints / Enquiries Received in October 2001
Case
Reference / Date, Time
Received / Date, Time
Concerned |
Descriptions
/Actions Taken |
Conclusion
/ Status |
Nil |
N/A |
N/A |
Table 5.5 Outstanding Environmental
Complaints / Enquiries Received Before
Case
Reference / Date, Time
Received / Date, Time
Concerned |
Descriptions /Actions Taken |
Conclusion
/ Status |
Nil |
N/A |
N/A |
6.1
Status
of Natural Gas supply
Based on current project schedule, HEC anticipates there is no delay in the supply of natural gas.
6.2 Key Issues for the Coming Month
Key issues to be considered in the coming month include:
Construction Noise Impact
· To estimate the noise level induced during the bored piling operation and to prepare the CNP application for the bored piling works in advance;
· To continue the preventive measures for noise exceedance and keep monitoring/ reviewing the performance.
Construction Water Impact
· To keep reviewing the monitoring results in order to take corresponding action to ensure the sea water quality;
· To provide routine inspection and necessary maintenance for the silt curtain.
6.3 Monitoring Schedules for the Next 3 Months
The tentative environmental monitoring schedules for the next 3 months are shown in Appendix D.
6.4 Construction Program for the Next 3 Months
The tentative construction program for the next 3 months is shown in Appendix L.
Environmental monitoring and site inspection were performed as scheduled in the reporting month. All monitoring results were checked and reviewed.
No Action/Limit level exceedance on 1-hour and 24-hour TSP level was recorded in the reporting month.
No
Action/Limit level exceedance on noise was recorded in the reporting
month.
A total of 10 cases of action/limit level exceedance on water quality parameters were recorded in the reporting month. As all the action/limit level exceedances were not related to construction activities, no further action is required.
Environmental
mitigation measures recommended in the EM&A manual for the dredging
activities were implemented in the reporting month. No environmental complaint against the construction activities
was received in the reporting
month. No prosecution was
received for this Project
in the reporting period.
The environmental performance of the Project was generally
satisfactory.