The expansion of Shek Wu Hui Sewage
Treatment Works (SWHSTW) aims to increase the treatment capacity of the
existing SWHSTW to cope with the increasing wastewater flows and loads as a
result of the population growth in the catchment area of Fanling/Sheung Shui
and the committed extension of sewerage system to unsewered areas. It is considered as a project
constituting a material change to an exempted designated project under Schedule
2 of EIAO. Thus, the procedures under the EIAO have been followed and an
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Programme has to be carried
out. The present report documents the outcomes of the EM&A Works
undertaken between December 2006 and February 2007.
Breaches of
Action and Limit Levels
Noise
No
non-compliance of action/limit level was recorded at all monitoring stations
for noise during the reporting period.
1-hr and 24-hr
TSP
An Action
Level exceedance for 24-hr TSP was recorded on 25 January 2007 at the
monitoring station CAM1a. The result of
the 24-hr TSP (224.1 µg/m3) slightly exceeded the Action Level (203.3 µg/m3). Hence the exceedance incidence was not
considered to be serious. The Event and
Action Plans were followed.
Investigation for the exceedance was undertaken. The construction activity undertaken by the
Contractor between 25 and 26 January 2007 included substructure construction,
waling and struts cutting at Portion 2, superstructure construction at Portion
3 and pile cap construction and backfilling works at Portion 1. As advised by the Contractor, pile cap
construction and backfilling at Portion 1 were undertaken at the construction
area close to CAM1a. However, these
construction activities are of small scale in nature and unlikely to generate
fugitive dust.
It is noted
that another DSD’s contractor commenced the paving works of granite blocks
adjacent to CAM1a at the end of January.
However, as the DSD’s contractor was informed of the dates of air
quality monitoring, no dust generating activities were undertaken during the
monitoring.
Comparing the
monitoring result of 24-hr TSP undertaken on 25 January 2007 with other results
undertaken during the reporting month, it is found that the monitoring results
obtained on 25 January 2007 at both monitoring locations, CAM1a and CAM2a, are
high. The incidence of the Action Level
exceedance for 24-hr TSP monitoring is likely a natural variation. In addition, our monitoring team observed
that there were lots of heavy vehicles traveling in and out of the warehouses
nearby which are the potential emission sources of particulates causing the
Action Level exceedance. As such, the
Action Level exceedance for the 24-hr TSP monitoring on 25 January 2007 was
unlikely to be Project related.
Results of the
subsequent 1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring conducted on 31 January 2007 showed
full compliance of Action and Limit Levels.
An Action
Level exceedance and two Limit Level exceedances for 1-hr TSP were recorded on
6 February 2007 at the monitoring station CAM1a. Two of three 1-hr TSP results, (532.2 µg/m3 and 594.9 µg/m3) respectively,
exceeded the Limit Level (500 µg/m3) while the other one (495.2 µg/m3) was close to
it. A Limit Level exceedance for 24-hr
TSP was recorded on the same day at the same location. The result of the 24-hr TSP (357.0 µg/m3) exceeded the Limit
Level (260 µg/m3). The Event and
Action Plans were followed.
Investigation for the exceedance was undertaken.
The
Contractor has already informed DSD's contractor of the paving works to stop
construction activities during the course of the 1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring,
hence the contractor stopped the works on 6 February 2007 in the morning for
the TSP monitoring conducted in the afternoon.
However, construction activities of metal cutting from the E&M
installation of the San Po Street Pumping Station next to it were operating in
the afternoon. Besides, some vehicles
were observed moving in and out of the pumping station. A Blower was placed outside the pumping
station for enhancing ventilation inside the pumping station. Some sand accumulated outside the pumping
station was also another source of construction dust. The above activities were suspected to be the cause for the TSP
exceedances.
Besides, when
compared with the TSP results at CAM2a, it was observed that the results for
1-hr TSP at CAM2a was about 10 times smaller than that at CAM1a and about 5
times lower for 24-hr TSP. Hence it is
possible that the exceedances were related to any dust generating activities
near CAM1a.
As advised by the
Contractor, the construction activities undertaken on 6 and 7 February 2007
included welding at Portion 1, concrete breaking at one manhole at Portion 1,
substructure at Portion 2, superstructure at Portion 3. The concrete breaking activity at manhole at
Portion 1 was of very small scale and watering was provided at nearby areas,
fugitive dust generation was not anticipated to be large. While the other construction activities are
not considered to be dust generating.
Hence the above exceedances are unlikely to be caused by the
construction activities of the Project.
The exceedances for
both 1-hr and 24-hr TSP were likely to be caused by the construction activities
from the metal cutting and E&M installation works nearby and not caused by
the Project works. Hence, the exceedances
are regarded as invalid.
Results of the
subsequent 1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring conducted on 12 February 2007 showed
full compliance of Action and Limit Levels.
No non-compliance of Action Level was recorded for 24-hr TSP
monitoring.
Complaints
Log
During this
reporting period, no environmental complaint was received.
Notifications
of Any Summons and Successful Prosecutions
During the reporting period, no notification of summons or successful prosecution was recorded.
Reporting
Changes
There was no
reporting change during the reporting period.
Future Key
Issues
The
construction activities for the coming three months will include excavation and backfilling, temporary
work including sheet piling work, extraction of sheet piles, removal /
installation of waling and strut, sub-structure and superstructure
construction, pipe
works, finishing work, steelwork and Fiber Glass Reinforced Plastic
installation.
2.1
Basic
Information
Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Works (SWHSTW)
provides treatment to the wastewater generated from Fanling/Sheung Shui areas
before discharge it into Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site through River Indus
and Shenzhen River, thus helps protecting the water quality of River Indus,
Shenzhen River and Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. The expansion of SWHSTW aims to expand the treatment capacity of
the existing SWHSTW to cope with the increasing wastewater flows and loads as a
result of the population growth in the catchment area of Fanling/Sheung Shui
and the committed extension of sewerage system to unsewered areas.
In accordance with Section 9(2)(g) of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO), the SWHSTW is an exempted designated project as
the existing SWHSTW has been in operation before the EIAO came into effect on 1
April 1998. However, since the proposed works involve physical expansion and
alternation to the existing SWHSTW (hereafter called “the Project”) and may cause adverse
environmental impacts if mitigation measures are not in place, it shall be
considered as a project constituting a material change to an exempted
designated project under Schedule 2 of EIAO.
Hence the procedures under the
EIAO have been followed. A Project Profile (PP) for direct
application of the EP (Application No.DIR-121/2005) was approved by
Environmental Protection Department (EPD) in May 2005 and an environmental permit (EP-218/2005)
was obtained prior to the commencement of the expansion works.
Drainage Services Department (DSD) awarded the civil contract
of the expansion of SWHSTW to Maeda Corporation (Maeda) in September 2005. Maeda appointed Hyder Consulting Limited
(HCL) as the Contractor’s Environmental Team (ET) during
the construction period. CH2M HILL Hong
Kong Limited (formerly known as CH2M-IDC Hong Kong Limited) is the independent
environmental checker (IEC). The
construction contract commenced in September 2005 and the total construction
period is approximately 36
months. The notified commencement date
of work to the Director of EPD is 14 December 2005.
2.2
Management Structure
and Project Organisation
The
Engineer (DSD) is responsible for overseeing the construction works and
ensuring that they are undertaken by the Contractor (Maeda) in accordance with
the specification and contractual requirements. The Contractor shall report to the Engineer. The ET is employed by the Contractor and is
responsible for conducting the EM&A programme. The IEC shall advise the Engineer on the environmental issues
related to the Project.
The
key personnel contact names and telephone number are summarised in Table
2-1. The project organisation is shown
in Appendix 1.
|
Party
|
Position
|
Name
|
Telephone number
|
|
Project Proponent - DSD
|
Project Manager
|
Raymond Lee
|
2594 7457
|
|
Engineer’s Representative
|
Tim Tsoi
|
2594 7460
|
|
Contractor - Maeda
|
Site Agent
|
George Cheung
|
9268 1918
|
|
ET - Hyder
|
ET Leader
|
Sharifah Or
|
2911 2730
|
|
IEC – CH2M HILL
|
IEC
|
David Yeung
|
2872 2934
|
Table 2-1 Key Personnel Contact Names and Telephone Number for the
Project
2.3
Construction Programme
Construction
programme of the Project is attached in Appendix 2.
2.4
Works Undertaken during the Reporting Quarter
Works
undertaken during the reporting period included:
§
Excavation
and backfilling
§
Pile
cap construction
§
Substructure
and superstructure construction
§
Pipe
laying and
§
Demolishing
of existing structure
2.5
Status of Environmental Permit/ Licence
The status of the Environmental
Permit/Licence for the Project is shown below.
|
Permit/Licence
|
Application Date
|
Date of issue
|
Ref. No.
|
Valid Until
|
|
Environmental
Permit
|
21
May 2005
|
16
June 2005
|
EP-218/2005
|
N/A
|
|
Notification was made to EPD pursuant to Section 3(1) of the
Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation (Form NA was submitted)
|
22
Sep 2005
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
Registration
as a chemical waste producer
|
26
Sep 2005
|
4
Nov 2005
|
WPN:
5213-624-M2446-06
|
N/A
|
|
Effluent
Discharge Licence
|
11
Nov 2005
|
20
Dec 2005
|
Licence
No.: W5/1I287/1
|
19
Dec 2010
|
|
Application
for Exemption Account for Disposal of Construction Waste
|
12
Dec 2005
|
Approved
by EPD on 31 Dec 2005
|
Application
No.: RN/00134
|
25
Sep 2008
|
Table 2-2 Status of Permit/Licence for the
Project
3.1
Project and Work Area, Environmental Sensitive Receivers and
Monitoring Locations
The
site is located at the existing Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Plant, next to
Chuk Wan Street. It has been subdivided into different Works
Areas/Portions as illustrated in Appendix 3. Project
area, environmental sensitive receivers and monitoring locations are shown in
Appendix 4.
4.1
Monitoring Parameters
4.1.1
Air Quality
During
the construction phase impact monitoring, 1-hour and 24-hour Total Suspended
Particulates (TSP) levels should be measured at the selected air
monitoring locations in accordance with the EM&A Manual. These two parameters are aimed to indicate the impacts of
construction dust on air quality.
4.1.2
Noise
The
construction noise level should be measured in terms of the
A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level (Leq) for 30
minutes. Leq(30 min) is used as the monitoring parameter for the
period between 0700 and 1900 hours on normal weekdays. For all other time periods, three
consecutive Leq(5min) are employed for comparison with the Noise
Control Ordinance (NCO) criteria.
Other noise parameters such as L10 and L90
should
also be
obtained for reference.
4.2
Action and Limit Levels
4.2.1
Air Quality
The
baseline monitoring results documented in the Baseline Monitoring Report for
the Project (our report ref.: EA01284R0012) form the basis for derivation of
the Action and Limit Levels for air quality impact monitoring. Appendix 5 shows the derived Action and
Limit Levels for the Project. If the
air quality criteria are exceeded due to the Project, the Event/Action Plan
summarised in Table 4-3 should be triggered immediately.
4.2.2
Noise
The
Action and Limit Levels for construction noise are defined in Appendix 5. If valid non-compliance of the criteria
occurs, actions in accordance with the Event and Action Plan in Table 4-4
should be implemented. If construction
works are undertaken during the restricted hours, a construction noise permit
under NCO shall be obtained by the Contractor.
4.3
Event and Action Plans
The Event and Action Plans for air quality and noise
monitoring are shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4, respectively.
EVENT
|
ACTION
|
|
ET
|
IEC
|
ER
|
CONTRACTOR
|
|
ACTION LEVEL
|
|
Exceedance for
one sample
|
·
Identify source, investigate the causes of exceedance and propose
remedial measures;
·
Inform IEC and ER;
·
Repeat measurement to confirm finding.
|
·
Check monitoring data submitted by ET;
·
Check Contractor’s working method.
|
·
Notify Contractor.
|
·
Rectify any unacceptable practice;
·
Amend working methods if appropriate.
|
|
Exceedance for two
or more consecutive samples
|
·
Identify source, investigate the cause of exceedance and propose
remedial measures;
·
Inform IEC and ER;
·
Advise ER on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures;
·
Repeat measurements to confirm findings;
·
Increase monitoring frequency to daily;
·
Discuss with IEC and Contractor on remedial actions required;
·
If exceedance continues, arrange meeting with IEC and ER;
·
If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring.
|
·
Check monitoring data submitted by ET;
·
Check Contractor’s working method;
·
Discuss with ET and Contractor on possible remedial measures;
·
Advise the ET on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures;
·
Supervise Implementation of remedial measures.
|
·
Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing;
·
Notify Contractor;
·
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented.
|
·
Submit proposals for remedial to ER within 3 working days of
notification;
·
Implement the agreed proposals;
·
Amend proposal if appropriate.
|
|
LIMIT LEVEL
|
|
Exceedance for
one sample
|
·
Identify source, investigate the causes of exceedance and propose
remedial measures;
·
Inform IEC, ER, Contractor and EPD;
·
Repeat measurement to confirm finding;
·
Increase monitoring frequency to daily;
·
Assess effectiveness of Contractor’s remedial actions and keep IEC,
EPD and ER informed of the results.
·
If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring.
|
·
Check monitoring data submitted by ET;
·
Check Contractor’s working method;
·
Discuss with ET and Contractor on possible remedial measures;
·
Advise ER on the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures;
·
Supervise implementation of remedial measures.
|
·
Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing;
·
Notify Contractor;
·
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented.
|
·
Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance;
·
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of
notification;
·
Implement the agreed proposals;
·
Amend proposal if appropriate.
|
|
Exceedance for two
or more consecutive samples
|
·
Notify IEC, ER, Contractor and EPD;
·
Identify source, investigate the cause of exceedance and propose
remedial measures;
·
Repeat measurement to confirm findings;
·
Increase monitoring frequency to daily;
·
Carry out analysis of Contractor’s working procedures to determine
possible mitigation to be implemented;
·
Arrange meeting with IEC and ER to discuss the remedial actions to be
taken;
·
Assess effectiveness of Contractor’s remedial actions and keep IEC,
EPD and ER informed of the results;
·
If exceedance stops, cease additional monitoring.
|
·
Discuss amongst ER, ET, and Contractor on the potential remedial
actions;
·
Review Contractor’s remedial actions whenever necessary to assure
their effectiveness and advise ER accordingly;
·
Supervise the implementation of remedial measures.
|
·
Confirm receipt of notification of exceedance in writing;
·
Notify Contractor;
·
In consultation with the IEC, agree with the Contractor on the
remedial measures to be implemented;
·
Ensure remedial measures properly implemented;
·
If exceedance continues, consider what portion of the work is
responsible and instruct the Contractor to stop that portion of work until
the exceedance is abated.
|
·
Take immediate action to avoid further exceedance;
·
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC within 3 working days of
notification;
·
Implement the agreed proposals;
·
Resubmit proposals if problem still not under control;
·
Stop the relevant portion of works as determined by ER until the
exceedance is abated.
|
Table
4-3 Event/
Action Plan for Air Quality Monitoring
EVENT
|
Action
|
|
ET
|
IEC
|
ER
|
CONTRACTOR
|
|
Action Level
|
·
Notify IEC and ER;
·
Carry out investigation;
·
Report the results of investigation to the
IEC, ER and Contractors;
·
Discuss with the Contractor and formulate
remedial measures;
·
Increase monitoring requrency to check
mitigation effectiveness.
|
·
Review the analysed results submitted by the
ET;
·
Review the proposed remedial measures by the
Contractor and advise the ER accordingly;
·
Supervise the implementation of remedial
measure.
|
·
Confirm receipt of notification of failure in
writing;
·
Notify Contractor;
·
Require Contractor to propose remedial
measures for the analysed noise problem;
·
Ensure remedial measures are properly
implemented.
|
·
Submit noise mitigation proposal to IEC;
·
Implement noise mitigation proposals.
|
|
Limit Level
|
·
Identify source;
·
Inform IEC, ER, EPD and Contractor;
·
Repeat measurements to confirm findings;
·
Increase monitoring frequency to check
mitigation effectiveness;
·
Carry out analysis of Contractor’s working
procedures to determine possible mitigation to be implemented;
·
Inform IEC, ER and EPD the causes and actions
taken for the exceedances;
·
Assess effectiveness of Contractor’s remedial
actions and keep IEC, EPD and ER informed of the results;
·
If exceedance stops, cease additional
monitoring.
|
·
Discuss amongst ER, ET, and Contractor on the
potential remedial actions;
·
Review Contractors remedial actions whenever
necessary to assure their effectiveness and advise the ER accordingly;
·
Supervise the implementation of remedial
measures.
|
·
Confirm receipt of notification of failure in
writing;
·
Notify Contractor;
·
Require Contractor to propose remedial
measures for the analysed noise problem;
·
Ensure remedial measures properly
implemented;
·
If exceedance continues, consider what
portion of the work is responsible and instruct the Contractor to stop that
portion of work until the exceedance is abated.
|
·
Take immediate action to avoid further
exceedance;
·
Submit proposals for remedial actions to IEC
within 3 working days of notification;
·
Implement the agreed proposals;
·
Resubmit proposals if problem still not under
control;
·
Stop the relevant portion of works as
determined by th ER until the exceedance is abated.
|
Table
4-4 Event/
Action Plan for Noise Monitoring
4.4
Environmental Mitigation Measures and Requirements
The
recommended measures for mitigating air quality, water quality, noise, waste
and all other possible environmental impacts due to the construction works have
been stated clearly in the EM&A Manual.
The details of the measures implemented by the Contractor are shown in
Appendix 6.
The
status of the mitigation measures implemented by the Contractor is listed in
Appendix 6.
6.1
Graphical
Plots of Monitoring Parameters
Graphical plots of the monitoring results are summarized in Appendix 7.
6.2
Factors Which Might Affect the Monitoring Results
Dust from other sources such as roads with the movement of heavy vehicles
in the vicinity of the monitoring stations would affect the air quality
monitoring results. Paving work
undertaken by another DSD’s contractor in January 2007 and some sand
accumulated near the monitoring station CAM1a were also another sources of
fugitive dust what would affect the air quality monitoring results.
7.1
Non-compliance
of Action and Limit Levels
An Action Level exceedance for 24-hr TSP was
recorded on 25 January 2007 at the monitoring station CAM1a. The result of the 24-hr TSP (224.1 µg/m3) slightly exceeded
the Action Level (203.3 µg/m3). Hence the
exceedance incidence was not considered to be serious. The Event and Action Plans were
followed. Investigation for the
exceedance was undertaken. The
construction activities undertaken by the Contractor between 25 and 26 January
2007 included substructure construction, waling and struts cutting at Portion
2, superstructure construction at Portion 3 and pile cap construction and
backfilling works at Portion 1. As
advised by the Contractor, pile cap construction and backfilling at Portion 1
were undertaken at the construction area close to CAM1a. However, these construction activities are
of small scale in nature and unlikely to generate fugitive dust.
It is noted that another DSD’s
contractor commenced the paving works of granite blocks adjacent to CAM1a at
the end of January. However, as the
DSD’s contractor was informed of the dates of air quality monitoring, no dust
generating activities were undertaken during the monitoring.
Comparing the monitoring result of
24-hr TSP undertaken on 25 January 2007 with other results undertaken during
the reporting month, it is found that the monitoring results obtained on 25
January 2007 at both monitoring locations, CAM1a and CAM2a, are high. The incidence of the Action Level exceedance
for 24-hr TSP monitoring is likely a natural variation. In addition, our monitoring team observed
that there were lots of heavy vehicles traveling in and out of the warehouses
nearby which are the potential emission sources of particulates causing the
Action Level exceedance. As such, the
Action Level exceedance for the 24-hr TSP monitoring on 25 January 2007 was
unlikely to be Project related.
Results of the subsequent 1-hr and 24-hr TSP
monitoring conducted on 31 January 2007 showed full compliance of Action and
Limit Levels.
An Action Level exceedance and two
Limit Level exceedances for 1-hr TSP were recorded on 6 February 2007 at the
monitoring station CAM1a. Two of three
1-hr TSP results, (532.2 µg/m3 and 594.9 µg/m3) respectively, exceeded the Limit Level (500 µg/m3) while the other one
(495.2 µg/m3) was close to it.
A Limit Level exceedance for 24-hr TSP was recorded on the same day at
the same location. The result of the
24-hr TSP (357.0 µg/m3) exceeded the Limit Level (260 µg/m3). The Event and Action Plans were
followed. Investigation for the
exceedance was undertaken.
The Contractor has already informed
DSD's contractor of the paving works to stop construction activities during the
course of the 1-hr and 24-hr TSP monitoring, hence the contractor stopped the
works on 6 February 2007 in the morning for the TSP monitoring conducted in the
afternoon. However, construction
activities of metal cutting from the E&M installation of the San Po Street
Pumping Station next to it were operating in the afternoon. Besides, some vehicles were observed moving
in and out of the pumping station. A
Blower was placed outside the pumping station for enhancing ventilation inside
the pumping station. Some sand
accumulated outside the pumping station was also another source of construction
dust. The above activities were
suspected to be the cause for the TSP exceedances.
Besides, when compared with the TSP results
at CAM2a, it was observed that the results for 1-hr TSP at CAM2a was about 10
times smaller than that at CAM1a and about 5 times lower for 24-hr TSP. Hence it is possible that the exceedances
were related to any dust generating activities near CAM1a.
As advised by the Contractor, the
construction activities undertaken on 6 and 7 February 2007 included welding at
Portion 1, concrete breaking at one manhole at Portion 1, substructure at
Portion 2, superstructure at Portion 3.
The concrete breaking activity at manhole at Portion 1 was of very small
scale and watering was provided at nearby areas, fugitive dust generation was
not anticipated to be large. While the
other construction activities are not considered to be dust generating. Hence the above exceedances are unlikely to
be caused by the construction activities of the Project.
The above exceedances for both 1-hr and
24-hr TSP were likely to be caused by the construction activities from the
metal cutting and E&M installation
works nearby and not caused by the Project works. Hence, the exceedances are regarded as invalid.
Results of the subsequent 1-hr and 24-hr TSP
monitoring conducted on 12 February 2007 showed full compliance of Action and
Limit Levels.
No non-compliance
of Action Level was recorded for 24-hr TSP monitoring.
No non-compliance of Action or Limit
Level was recorded noise monitoring.
7.2
Complaints Received
In
case of an environmental complaint received, all related parties should follow
the complaints response procedures specified in the EM&A Manual.
During
this reporting quarter, no environmental complaint was received. Cumulative number of environmental complaint
is shown in Appendix 8.
7.3
Notifications of Summons and Successful Prosecutions
No notification of summons or
successful prosecution was recorded during the
reporting period. The cumulative
number of notifications of
summons and successful prosecutions are shown in Appendix 8.
7.4
Review of the Reasons and Implications of Non-compliance,
Complaints, Summons and Prosecutions
7.4.1
Non-compliance
of Acton/Limit Level
An Action Level exceedance for the
24-hr TSP monitoring was recorded on 25 January 2007 at the monitoring station
CAM1a. The exceedance was likely to be
caused by the paving works by another DSD’s contractor and unlikely to be
Project related. An Action Level
exceedance and two Limit Level exceedances for 1-hr TSP were recorded on 6
February 2007 at the monitoring station CAM1a.
The exceedances were
likely to be caused by the construction activities from the metal cutting and
E&M installation works nearby and not caused by the Project
works.
No valid exceedance of Action/Limit Level was recorded during the reporting period.
7.4.2
Complaints, Summons and Prosecutions
No complaints, summons and prosecutions were recorded during the reporting period.
7.5
Site Inspections
Weekly site inspections have been carried out during the
reporting period. The findings
of the site inspections and appropriate mitigation measures were recorded in
the site inspection checklists. The
observations raised during the site inspections, corresponding recommendations
and rectification status are summarised in Table 7-5.
Inspection Date
|
Deficiencies
|
Recommendation
|
Status
|
Note / Reminder
|
|
6 December 2006
|
1.
No deficiency was
observed.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
1.
Dry haul road was
observed at Portion 1. The Contractor
indicated that water spraying head was installing to prevent wind erosion
during dry season. ET will closely inspect
the situation.
|
|
13 December 2006
|
1. No deficiency was observed.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
|
21 December 2006
|
1.
The cap of the
water barrier was missing.
|
1. The Contractor was reminded to provide the
cap to prevent mosquito breeding.
|
1. Cap of water barrier was provided as
observed on 27 December 2006.
|
1. Accumulation of water was observed at an
idle sedimentation tank. The
Contractor indicated that the tank will be removed from the site.
|
|
27 December 2006
|
1.
Soil and mud deposited
on DSD road was observed at Portion 3.
|
1.
The Contactor was
reminded to remove the soil and mud and clean up the road after excavation
works completed.
|
1.
Soil and mud
deposited on DSD road at Portion 3 was removed as observed 3 January 2007.
|
1.
Water sprayer was
provided at Portion 2 near final sedimentation tank. However, there is still some area that the
sprayer cannot cover. The Contractor
was reminded to provide water spraying to those areas regularly.
|
|
3 January 2007
|
1.
No deficiency was
observed.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
1.
Silt removal
facility should be cleaned up regularly and maintained to ensure discharge
water quality is in good condition.
|
|
10 January 2007
|
1.
General
refuse accumulated on site was observed.
|
1.
The Contractor was
reminded to dispose the general refuse regularly.
|
1.
General refuse
accumulated on site was removed as observed on 17 January 2007.
|
1.
The Contractor was
reminded to remove the sludge pumped out from the sedimentation tank.
|
|
17 January 2007
|
1.
No
deficiency was observed.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
1. A small quantity of stagnant water on
unpaved area near the site office was observed. The Contractor was reminded to remove the stagnant water.
|
|
26 January 2007
|
1.
No deficiency was
observed.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
|
31 January 2007
|
1.
Water quality at
the discharge point at Portion 2 was observed slightly silty.
|
1.
The Contractor was
reminded to clean up the sedimentation tank regularly and review the design
and capacity of the sedimentation system to enhance its treatment efficiency.
|
1.
The water quality
at the discharge point at Portion 2 was closely inspected in February 2007
and the water quality was improved as observed on 27 February 2007.
|
N.A.
|
|
9 February 2007
|
1.
One of the oil
drums was placed outside the drip tray.
|
1.
The Contractor was
reminded to place all oil drums inside drip tray.
|
1.
The oil drums were
placed inside drip tray as observed on 14 February 2007.
|
1.
The Contractor was
recommended to provide close monitoring for the wastewater treatment facility
to ensure that the effluents meet the discharge standard.
|
|
14 February 2007
|
1. No deficiency was observed.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
1.
The Contractor was
reminded to further improve the discharge water quality of the sedimentation
tank at Portion 2.
|
|
23 February 2007
|
1.
No deficiency was
observed.
|
N.A.
|
N.A.
|
1. The Contractor was reminded to further
improve the discharge water quality of the sedimentation tank at Portion
2.
|
|
27 February 2007
|
1.
Standing water
with debris was observed near the wheel washing facilities and Portion
3.
|
1. The Contractor was reminded to drain away
the standing water and remove the debris.
|
1. To be followed up in March 2007.
|
N.A.
|
Table 7-5 Summaries of Site Inspections and Recommendations
EPD
inspection was undertaken on 26 January 2007 in the
reporting period. EPD checked the
effluent discharge, vehicle washing, dust suppression measures and chemical
waste store during the site inspection.
No adverse comment was given.
8
Waste Management Status
According to the information provided by the
Contractor, Table 8-5 shows waste materials were generated during the reporting
period.
|
Type of Waste
|
Dec 06
|
Jan 07
|
Feb 07
|
|
Inert C&D material
(m3)
|
55.7
|
431.5
|
50.4
|
|
General Refuse (m3)
|
58.5
|
84.5
|
78.0
|
|
Chemical waste (L)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Table 8-6 The Quantity of Waste Generation
Inert
C&D materials were disposed of at Tuen Mun Area 38 Public Fill. General refuse was collected and disposed of
at NENT Landfill. No chemical waste was
produced during the reporting period.
Trip ticket system was implemented and disposal records were in order on
site. The Waste Management Plan was
followed.
EM&A
works have been undertaken between December 2006 and February 2007 for
the Project based on the requirements set in the EM&A Manual.
All
monitoring equipments have been calibrated and all monitoring protocols have
been carried out properly according to the EM&A Manual.
No
valid exceedance of Action/Limit Level on air quality and noise was recorded
during the reporting period.
No
compliant, notification of summons or successful prosecution was recorded
during the reporting period.
The overall
EM&A programme is considered efficient during the reporting period and no
material and technical changes are considered necessary.
