3.1
Air quality monitoring, including 24-hr TSP and 1-hr TSP
monitoring, was conducted at 5 monitoring stations in October 2006. The impact
1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring had been ceased from 1 November 2006 due to the
completion of works.
3.2
In October 2006, all the air quality monitoring results
complied with the
3.3
Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 present the baseline monitoring
results and the averaged impact air quality monitoring results of 1-hr TSP and
24-hr TSP in October 2006.
Table 3.1 Comparison
of Baseline and Averaged Impact Monitoring Results of 1-hr TSP Concentration
|
Location |
Baseline (mg/m3) |
Oct 06 (mg/m3) |
|
MA1 |
269.6 |
104.2 |
|
MA2 |
249.2 |
91.8 |
|
MA3 |
268.3 |
104.2 |
|
MA4 |
269.4 |
94.4 |
|
MA5 |
274.4 |
104.7 |
Table 3.2 Comparison
of Baseline and Averaged Impact Monitoring Results of 24-hr TSP Concentration
|
Location |
Baseline (mg/m3) |
Oct 06 (mg/m3) |
|
MA1 |
55.8 |
187.8 |
|
MA2 |
40.6 |
79.6 |
|
MA3 |
36.8 |
88.6 |
|
MA4 |
28.5 |
60.6 |
|
MA5 |
32.1 |
121.6 |
3.4
The 1-hr TSP concentrations were
below the baseline levels whereas the 24-hr TSP levels were generally higher
than the baseline levels but were still well within the
3.5
In October 2006, noise monitoring was conducted during 07:00
– 19:00. Due to the completion of works, the impact noise monitoring had been
ceased from 1 November 2006. There was no operational noise monitoring
conducted in the reporting quarter.
3.6
In October 2006, all the daytime noise monitoring results
complied with the
3.7
Table 3.3 presents the comparison of ranges of baseline
monitoring results and the impact noise monitoring results for daytime
monitoring during the reporting quarter.
Table 3.3 Comparison of Baseline and Impact
Monitoring Results of Noise (Day-time) Monitoring
|
Location |
Baseline (Range, Leq(30 mins),
dB(A)) |
Oct 06 (Range, Leq(30
mins), dB(A)) |
|
MN1 |
53.6 – 71.1 |
61.2 – 64.6 |
|
MN2 |
60.0 – 80.2 |
63.5 – 67.1 |
|
MN3 |
66.1 – 73.7 |
67.1 – 68.2 |
|
MN4 |
63.2 – 72.1 |
63.0 – 64.5 |
|
MN5 |
56.6 – 71.5 |
64.2 – 65.7 |
|
MN6 * |
56.0 – 72.5 |
- |
|
MN7 * |
39.6 – 66.0 |
- |
|
MN8 |
49.0 – 72.3 |
63.5 – 65.7 |
|
MN9 |
58.4 – 74.1 |
64.6 – 66.7 |
|
MN10 |
55.9 – 78.9 |
65.2 – 67.8 |
Remark:
*Noise monitoring programme was not required at MN6 & MN
3.8
The major noise sources were road paving outside
3.9
In accordance with the EM&A Manual, impact water quality
monitoring is required to be conducted during the course of the marine works
and the post-monitoring period. As informed by the Contractor,
there were only a few marine works remaining at the reclamation works area,
which might be conducted shortly. Therefore, though there were no activities at the Sham Tseng
Reclamation Area, marine water quality monitoring continued in the
reporting quarter.
3.10
Impact water quality monitoring was conducted three days per
week. Measurements were taken at both mid-ebb and mid-flood tides at three depths
(i.e.
3.11
A total of 117 water quality exceedances were recorded in the reporting quarter, 31 in October, 57 in November and 29 in December 2006
respectively. As there was no marine works at the reclamation works area, the exceedances were considered not related to the Project and
they might be due to poor ambient water quality, local impacts and natural
fluctuation of water body. The total number of exceedances
for dissolved oxygen, turbidity and suspended solids recorded in the quarter
and percentage difference between the months in the quarter are presented in
Table 3.4. The trend of water quality is depicted in Appendix J.
Table 3.4 Total
Number of Water Quality Exceedances and Percentage Differences of Number of
Water Quality Exceedances in the Quarter
|
Parameter |
Exceedance Level |
Oct 06 |
Nov 06 |
Dec 06 |
% Difference Oct – Nov |
% Difference Nov – Dec |
|
Number
of monitoring days* |
12 |
13 |
12 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
DO (S&M) |
Action |
4 |
17 |
5 |
- |
- |
|
Limit |
1 |
5 |
4 |
|||
|
Total |
5 |
22 |
9 |
|||
|
Total/Monitoring
Day |
0.42 |
1.69 |
0.75 |
302.38 |
-55.62 |
|
|
DO(B) |
Action |
0 |
2 |
3 |
- |
- |
|
Limit |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|||
|
Total |
0 |
2 |
3 |
|||
|
Total/Monitoring
Day |
0.00 |
0.15 |
0.25 |
150.00 |
66.67 |
|
|
Turbidity |
Action |
5 |
0 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
Limit |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|||
|
Total |
7 |
0 |
1 |
|||
|
Total/Monitoring
Day |
0.58 |
0.00 |
0.08 |
-580.00 |
8.00 |
|
|
SS |
Action |
14 |
12 |
5 |
- |
- |
|
Limit |
5 |
21 |
11 |
|||
|
Total |
19 |
33 |
16 |
|||
|
Total/Monitoring
Day |
1.58 |
2.54 |
1.33 |
60.56 |
-47.64 |
|
|
Total number of DO, Turbidity
& SS exceedances |
Action |
23 |
31 |
14 |
- |
- |
|
Limit |
8 |
26 |
15 |
|||
|
Total |
31 |
57 |
29 |
|||
|
Total/Monitoring
Day |
2.58 |
4.38 |
2.42 |
69.77 |
-44.75 |
|
*This refers to the total no. of days when
monitoring was carried out at Sensitive Receiver Stations.
3.12
A comparison between the quarterly mean of SS and 1.3 times
of the baseline mean was made for each monitoring station. Table 3.5 shows the
quarterly mean and 130% of baseline mean during both mid-ebb and mid-flood
tides. It was observed that the water quality in the reporting quarter was better
than 1.3 times of the baseline mean during both tides in the reporting quarter.
The statistical analysis results are given in Appendix L.
Table 3.5 Summary
of Statistical Analysis of SS Results
|
Monitoring Station |
Mid-ebb |
Mid-flood |
|||
|
130% Baseline |
Quarterly Mean |
130% Baseline |
Quarterly Mean |
||
|
Designated Control Stations |
MC1 |
11.9 |
7.3 |
10.3 |
7.5 |
|
MC2 |
11.3 |
7.5 |
10.4 |
7.6 |
|
|
Designated Reference Stations |
MR5 |
12.2 |
7.6 |
10.3 |
7.7 |
|
MR6 |
10.9 |
7.7 |
10.6 |
7.7 |
|
|
Designated Monitoring Stations |
MW1 |
12.3 |
7.2 |
9.7 |
7.3 |
|
MW2 |
11.9 |
7.1 |
9.1 |
7.5 |
|
|
MW3 |
10.3 |
7.7 |
8.9 |
7.9 |
|
|
MW4 |
10.2 |
7.7 |
9.4 |
7.9 |
|
|
MW5 |
11.6 |
7.8 |
10.6 |
7.9 |
|
|
MW6 |
10.8 |
7.8 |
10.3 |
7.4 |
|
|
WFCZF1 |
11.6 |
7.5 |
11.1 |
7.4 |
|