TABLE OF CONTENTS
5 WAter QualitY Impact. 1
5.1 Introduction. 1
5.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria. 1
5.3 Description of the Environment 14
5.4 Concurrent Projects, Assessment Boundary and Water
Sensitive Receivers. 17
5.5 Identification of Potential Impacts for Construction
Phase. 21
5.6 Identification of Potential Impacts for Operation
Phase. 26
5.7 Assessment Methodology. 33
5.8 Evaluation of Potential Impacts – Marine Construction. 50
5.9 Evaluation of Potential Impacts – Land-based
Construction. 56
5.10 Evaluation of Potential Impacts - Operation Phase. 57
5.11 Mitigation Measures – Marine Construction. 66
5.12 Mitigation Measures – Land-based Construction. 69
5.13 Mitigation Measures – Operation Phase. 72
5.14 Evaluation of Cumulative Impact 80
5.15 Residual Impact 81
5.16 Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A)
Requirements. 81
5.17 Environmental Acceptability of Schedule 2 Designated
Projects. 81
5.18 Conclusions. 82
List
of Tables
Table 5.1
Water
Quality Objectives for Junk Bay Water Control Zone
Table 5.2
Water
Quality Objectives for Eastern Buffer Water Control Zone
Table 5.3 Water
Quality Objectives for Victoria Harbour (Phases One,
Phase Two and Phase Three) Water Control Zone
Table 5.4
Water
Quality Objectives for Port Shelter Water Control Zone
Table 5.5
Water
Quality Objectives for Mirs Bay Water Control Zone
Table 5.6
Water
Quality Objectives for Southern Water Control Zone
Table 5.7
WSD’s Target Seawater Quality Objectives at Flushing Water Intakes
Table 5.8
Water Quality Standards for Treated Grey Water and Rainwater Effluent
Table 5.9
Water Quality Criteria for Seawater Intake Desalination Plant
Table 5.10
Seawater Qualtiy Design Basis Value
Table 5.11
Criteria for Heavy Metals and Micro-pollutants
Table 5.12 Water
Quality Criteria for Fish Culture Zones
Table 5.13 Marine Water Quality
Monitoring Data Collected by EPD at Victoria Habour
East, Chai Wan and Tathong Channel in 2023
Table 5.14 Marine Water Quality
Monitoring Data Collected by EPD at Junk Bay and Ninepin Group in 2023
Table 5.15
Water Sensitive Receivers and Indicator Points
Table 5.16
Potential Water Quality Impact for Construction Phase
Table 5.17
Inland Watercourses to be Removed or Diverted under the Project
Table 5.18
Potential Water Quality Impact for Operation Phase
Table 5.19
Design Capacity and Effluent Standards of EPP at TKO 137
Table 5.20
Key Assessment Criteria for Construction Phase
Table 5.21 Tentative Programme
of Key Sediment Generation Activities and Sediment Release Rates
Table 5.22 Key
Assessment Criteria for Operation Phase
Table 5.23 Brine
Discharge from TKO Desalination Plant
Table
5.24
Effluent Discharge from EPP
Table 5.25 Other
Planned Projects Included under Scenarios B1, B2 and B3
Table 5.26 Predicted SS Elevations and
Sedimentation Rates at Representative WSRs – Unmitigated Scenarios
Table 5.27 Predicted SS Elevations and
Sedimentation Rates at Representative WSRs – Mitigated Scenarios
List
of Figures
Figure 5.1
Water Sensitive
Receivers
List of Appendices
Appendix 5.1
Indicative Reclamation Sequences at
TKO 137
Appendix 5.2
Indicative Reclamation Sequences at TKO 132
Appendix 5.3
Typical Arrangement of Submerged Outfall
Appendix 5.4
Refined Model Grid Layout, Properties and Performance Verifications
Appendix 5.5
Refined Model Spin-up Test Results
Appendix 5.6
Modelling Scenarios for Construction Phase
Appendix 5.7
Locations of Cross Sections
Appendix 5.8
Non-point Source Surface Runoff
Appendix 5.9
Typical Pier Arrangement
Appendix 5.10a Construction Phase
Model Results at WSRs – Unmitigated Scenarios
Appendix 5.10b Construction Phase Contour
Plots for SS Elevation and Sedimentation – Unmitigated Scenarios
Appendix 5.10c Construction Phase
Model Results at WSRs – Mitigated Scenarios
Appendix 5.10d Construction Phase Contour
Plots for SS Elevation and Sedimentation – Mitigated Scenarios
Appendix 5.10e Sediment Quality
Results for Nutrients and Sediment Oxygen Demand at TKO 137
Appendix 5.10f Sediment Quality
Results for Nutrients and Sediment Oxygen Demand at TKO 132
Appendix 5.10g Elutriate Test Results for
TKO 137
Appendix 5.10h Elutriate Test Results
for TKO 132
Appendix 5.10i Construction
Phase Nutrient and Contaminant Concentrations at WSRs
Appendix 5.10j Indicative
Arrangement of Double Floating Type Silt Curtains
Appendix 5.11a Operation Phase Flow
Vectors and Contour Plots for Flow Speeds
Appendix 5.11b Operation Phase Timeseries
Plots for Momentary and Accumulated Flow and Relative Changes of Flow Rates and
Flow Speeds
Appendix 5.11c Operation Phase Water
Quality Model Results at WSRs
Appendix 5.11d Operation Phase Water Quality
Contour Plots
Appendix 5.11e Emergency Discharge
Timing
Appendix 5.11f Operation Phase Water
Quality Timeseries Plots - Dissolved Oxygen
Appendix 5.11g Operation Phase Water Quality
Timeseries Plots - Total Inorganic Nitrogen
Appendix 5.11h Operation Phase Water
Quality Timeseries Plots - Suspended Solids
Appendix 5.11i Operation Phase
Water Quality Timeseries Plots and Table of Maximum Levels - E. coli
Appendix 5.11j Operation Phase
Water Quality Timeseries Plots - Unionized Ammonia
Appendix 5.11k Operation Phase Water
Quality Timeseries Plots - Salinity
5
WAter QualitY Impact
5.1
Introduction
5.1.1.1 This section presents an assessment of
the potential water quality impacts associated with the construction and
operation of the Project. Suitable measures have been recommended, where
necessary, to avoid, minimize and mitigate the potential impacts.
5.2
Legislation,
Standards, Guidelines and Criteria
5.2.1 Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance
5.2.1.1 The Technical Memorandum on
Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) specifies the assessment
method and criteria that need to be followed in the EIA. The reference sections
in EIAO-TM that are relevant to the water quality impact assessment include:
§ Annex 6 Criteria for Evaluating Water Pollution.
§ Annex 14 Guidelines for Assessment of Water Pollution.
5.2.2
Water Pollution Control Ordinance
5.2.2.1 The Water Pollution Control Ordinance
(WPCO) provides the major statutory framework for the protection and control of
water quality in Hong Kong. According to the WPCO and its subsidiary
legislation, Hong Kong waters are divided into ten Water Control Zones
(WCZ). Corresponding statements of Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) are
stipulated for different water regimes (marine waters, inland waters, bathing
beaches subzones, secondary contact recreation subzones and fish culture
subzones) in the WCZ based on their beneficial uses. The assessment area covers
Junk Bay WCZ, Eastern Buffer WCZ and other potentially affected area including
part of Victoria Harbour WCZ, Port Shelter WCZ, Mirs Bay WCZ and Southern WCZ.
The corresponding WQOs are presented in Table 5.1 to Table 5.6.
Table 5.1
Water Quality Objectives for Junk Bay Water Control Zone
Parameters
|
Water Quality Objective
|
Part or Parts of Zone
|
A.
Aesthetic Appearance
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall cause no objectionable odours or discolouration of the
water.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Tarry
residues, floating wood, articles made of glass, plastic, rubber or of any
other substances should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(c) Mineral oil should not be visible on the surface.
Surfactants should not give rise to a lasting foam.
|
Whole
zone
|
(d) There
should be no recognisable sewage-derived debris.
|
Whole
zone
|
(e) Floating, submerged and semi-submerged objects of a
size likely to interfere with the free movement of vessels, or cause damage
to vessels, should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(f) Waste discharges shall not cause the water to
contain substances which settle to form objectionable deposits.
|
Whole
zone
|
B.
Bacteria
|
(a) The level of Escherichia coli (E. coli)
should not exceed 610 per 100 millilitre (mL), calculated as the geometric
mean of all samples collected in one calendar year.
|
Secondary Contact Recreation
Subzones and Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The
level of E. coli should not exceed 1 000 per 100 mL, calculated as the
running median of the most recent 5 consecutive samples taken at intervals of
between 7 and 21 days.
|
Inland
waters
|
C.
Colour
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the colour of water to exceed 50 Hazen units.
|
Inland
waters
|
D.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
|
(a) Waste discharges shall not cause the level of DO to fall
below 4 milligram per litre (mg/L) for 90% of the sampling occasions during
the year; values should be calculated as water column average (arithmetic
mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 metre (m) below surface, mid-depth and 1
m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be less than
2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions during the
year.
|
Marine
waters excepting Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The
DO level should not be less than 5 mg/L for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year; values should be calculated as water column average
(arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth
and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be
less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year.
|
Fish
Culture Subzones
|
(c) Waste
discharges shall not cause the level of DO to be less than 4 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters
|
E.
pH
|
(a) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.5–8.5 units. In addition, waste discharges shall not cause the natural pH
range to be extended by more than 0.2 units.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) The
pH of the water should be within the range of 6.0–9.0 units.
|
Inland
waters
|
F. Temperature
|
Waste discharges
shall not cause the natural daily temperature range to change by more than
2.0 degree Celsius (℃).
|
Whole
zone
|
G. Salinity
|
Waste
discharges shall not cause the natural ambient salinity level to change by
more than 10%.
|
Whole
zone
|
H. Suspended Solids (SS)
|
(a) Waste discharges shall neither cause the natural ambient
level to be raised by 30% nor give rise to accumulation of SS which may
adversely affect aquatic communities.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Waste
discharges shall not cause the annual median of SS to exceed 25 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters
|
I. Ammonia
|
The
ammoniacal nitrogen level should not be more than 0.021 mg/L, calculated as
the annual average (arithmetic mean), as unionized form.
|
Whole
zone
|
J. Nutrients
|
(a)
Nutrients shall not be present in
quantities sufficient to cause excessive growth of algae or other aquatic
plants.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b)
Without limiting the generality
of objective (a) above, the level of inorganic nitrogen should not exceed 0.3
mg/L, expressed as annual water column average (arithmetic mean of at least 3
measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth and 1 m above seabed).
|
Marine
waters
|
K. 5-Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the BOD5
to exceed 5 mg/L
|
Inland
waters
|
L. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the COD to
exceed 30 mg/L
|
Inland
waters
|
M. Dangerous
substances
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall not cause the concentrations of dangerous substances in the
water to attain such levels as to produce significant toxic effects in
humans, fish or any other aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically
cumulative effects in food chains and to toxicant interactions with each
other.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Waste
discharges of dangerous substances shall not put a risk to any beneficial
uses of the aquatic environment.
|
Whole
Zone
|
Source: Junk Bay Water
Control Zone Statement of Water Quality Objectives
Table
5.2 Water Quality Objectives for Eastern Buffer Water Control
Zone
Parameters
|
Water Quality Objective
|
Part or Parts of Zone
|
A.
Aesthetic Appearance
|
(a) There
should be no objectionable odours or discolouration of the water.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Tarry
residues, floating wood, articles made of glass, plastic, rubber or of any
other substances should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(c) Mineral oil should not be visible on the surface.
Surfactants should not give rise to a lasting foam.
|
Whole
zone
|
(d) There
should be no recognisable sewage-derived debris.
|
Whole
zone
|
(e) Floating, submerged and semi-submerged objects of a
size likely to interfere with the free movement of vessels, or cause damage
to vessels, should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(f) The water should not contain substances which settle
to form objectionable deposits.
|
Whole
zone
|
B.
Bacteria
|
(a) The level of Escherichia coli (E. coli)
should not exceed 610 per 100 millilitre (mL), calculated as the geometric
mean of all samples collected in a calendar year.
|
Fish
Culture Subzones
|
(b) The
level of E. coli should be less than 1 per 100 mL, calculated as the
geometric mean of the most recent 5 consecutive samples taken at intervals of
between 7 and 21 days.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(c) The level of E. coli should not exceed 1 000 per
100 mL, calculated as the geometric mean of the most recent 5 consecutive
samples taken at intervals of between 7 and 21 days.
|
Other
inland waters
|
C.
Colour
|
(a) Human activity should not cause the colour of water
to exceed 30 Hazen units.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(b) Human
activity should not cause the colour of water to exceed 50 Hazen units.
|
Other
inland waters
|
D.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
|
(a) The
level of DO should not fall below 4 milligrams per litre (mg/L) for 90% of
the sampling occasions during the whole year; values should be calculated as water column average
(arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 metre (m) below surface,
mid-depth and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be
less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the whole year.
|
Marine
waters excepting Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The
level of DO should not be less than 5 mg/L for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year; values should be calculated as water column average
(arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth
and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be
less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the whole year.
|
Fish
Culture Subzones
|
(c) The level of DO should not be less than 4 mg/L
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones and other inland waters
|
E.
pH
|
(a) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.5-8.5 units. In addition, human activity should not cause the natural pH
range to be extended by more than 0.2 units.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Human
activity should not cause the pH of the water to exceed the range of 6.5-8.5
units.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(c) Human activity should not cause the pH of the water
to exceed the range of 6.0-9.0 units.
|
Other
inland waters
|
F.
Temperature
|
Human activity should not cause the natural
daily temperature range to
change by more than 2.0°C.
|
Whole
zone
|
G.
Salinity
|
Human activity
should not cause the natural ambient salinity level to change by more than
10%.
|
Whole
zone
|
H.
Suspended Solids (SS)
|
(a) Human
activity should neither cause the natural ambient level to be raised by more
than 30% nor give rise to accumulation of SS which may adversely affect
aquatic communities.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Human
activity should not cause the annual median of SS to exceed 20 mg/L.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(c) Human
activity should not cause the annual median of SS to exceed 25 mg/L.
|
Other
inland waters
|
I.
Ammonia
|
The un-ionized
ammoniacal nitrogen level should not be more than 0.021 mg/L, calculated as
the annual average (arithmetic mean).
|
Whole
zone
|
J.
Nutrients
|
(a)
Nutrients shall not be present in
quantities sufficient to cause excessive or nuisance growth of algae or other
aquatic plants.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b)
Without limiting the generality
of objective (a) above, the level of inorganic nitrogen should not exceed 0.4
mg/L, expressed as annual water column average (arithmetic mean of at least 3
measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth and 1 m above seabed).
|
Marine
waters
|
K.
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5)
|
(a) The BOD5 should not exceed 3 mg/L.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(b) The
BOD5 should not exceed 5 mg/L
|
Other
inland waters
|
L.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
|
(a) The
COD should not exceed 15 mg/L.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(b) The
COD should not exceed 30 mg/L.
|
Other
inland waters
|
M.
Toxic Substances
|
(a) Toxic
substances in the water should not attain such levels as to produce
significant toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects in humans,
fish or any other aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically
cumulative effects in food chains and to interactions of toxic substances
with each other.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Human
activity should not cause a risk to any beneficial use of the aquatic
environment.
|
Whole
zone
|
Source: Statement of
Water Quality Objectives (Eastern Buffer Water Control Zone)
Table 5.3 Water Quality
Objectives for Victoria Harbour (Phases One, Phase
Two and Phase Three) Water Control Zone
Parameters
|
Water Quality Objective
|
Part or Parts of Zone
|
A.
Aesthetic Appearance
|
(a) There
should be no objectionable odours or discolouration of the water.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Tarry
residues, floating wood, articles made of glass, plastic, rubber or of any
other substances should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(c) Mineral oil should not be visible on the surface.
Surfactants should not give rise to a lasting foam.
|
Whole
zone
|
(d) There
should be no recognisable sewage-derived debris.
|
Whole
zone
|
(e) Floating, submerged and semi-submerged objects of a
size likely to interfere with the free movement of vessels, or cause damage
to vessels, should be absent.
|
Whole
Zone
|
(f) The water should not contain substances which settle
to form objectionable deposits.
|
Whole
zone
|
B.
Bacteria
|
The level of Escherichia coli (E.
coli) should not exceed 1 000 per 100 millilitre
(mL), calculated as the geometric mean of the most recent 5 consecutive
samples taken at intervals of between 7 and 21 days.
|
Inland
waters
|
C.
Colour
|
Human activity should not cause the colour of water to exceed 50 Hazen units.
|
Inland
waters
|
D.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
|
(a) The
level of DO should not fall below 4 milligrams per litre (mg/L) for 90% of
the sampling occasions during the whole year; values should be calculated as water column average
(see Note). In
addition, the concentration of DO should not be less than 2 mg/L within 2
metre (m) of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions during the whole
year.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) The
level of DO should not be less than 4 mg/L
|
Inland
waters
|
E.
pH
|
(a) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.5-8.5 units. In addition, human activity should not cause the natural pH
range to be extended by more than 0.2 units.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Human
activity should not cause the pH of the water to exceed the range of 6.0-9.0
units.
|
Inland
waters
|
F.
Temperature
|
Human activity should not cause the natural
daily temperature range to change by more than 2.0°C.
|
Whole
zone
|
G.
Salinity
|
Human activity
should not cause the salinity level to change by more than 10%.
|
Whole
zone
|
H.
Suspended Solids (SS)
|
(a) Human
activity should neither cause the SS concentration to be raised more than 30%
nor give rise to accumulation of SS which may adversely affect aquatic
communities.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Human
activity should not cause the annual median of SS to exceed 25 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters
|
I.
Ammonia
|
The un-ionized
ammoniacal nitrogen level should not be more than 0.021 mg/L, calculated as the annual average (arithmetic
mean).
|
Whole
zone
|
J.
Nutrients
|
(a)
Nutrients shall not be present in
quantities sufficient to cause excessive or nuisance growth of algae or other
aquatic plants.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b)
Without limiting the generality
of objective (a) above, the level of inorganic nitrogen should not exceed 0.4
mg/L, expressed as annual water column average (see Note).
|
Marine
waters
|
K.
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5)
|
The BOD5 should
not exceed 5 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters
|
L.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
|
The COD should not exceed 30
mg/L.
|
Inland
waters
|
M.
Toxic Substances
|
(a) Toxic
substances in the water should not attain such levels as to produce
significant toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects in humans,
fish or any other aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically
cumulative effects in food chains and to interactions of toxic substances
with each other.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Human
activity should not cause a risk to any beneficial use of the aquatic
environment.
|
Whole
zone
|
Note:
Expressed normally as the arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 m
below surface, mid depth and 1 m above the seabed. However, in water of a depth
of 5 m or less the mean shall be that of 2 measurements (1 m below surface and
1 m above seabed), and in water of less than 3 m the 1 m below surface sample
only shall apply.
Source: Statement of
Water Quality Objectives (Victoria Harbour (Phase
One, Phase Two and Phase Three) Water Control Zone)
Table 5.4
Water Quality Objectives for Port Shelter Water
Control Zone
Parameters
|
Water Quality Objective
|
Part or Parts of Zone
|
A.
Aesthetic Appearance
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall cause no objectionable odours or discolouration of the
water.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Tarry
residues, floating wood, articles made of glass, plastic, rubber or of any
other substances should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(c) Mineral oil should not be visible on the surface.
Surfactants should not give rise to a lasting foam.
|
Whole
zone
|
(d) There
should be no recognisable sewage-derived debris.
|
Whole
zone
|
(e) Floating, submerged and semi-submerged objects of a
size likely to interfere with the free movement of vessels, or cause damage
to vessels, should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(f) Waste discharges shall not cause the water to
contain substances which settle to form objectionable deposits.
|
Whole
zone
|
B.
Bacteria
|
(a) The level of Escherichia coli (E. coli)
should not exceed 610 per 100 millilitre (mL), calculated as the geometric
mean of all samples collected in a calendar year.
|
Secondary
Contact Recreation Subzones and Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The
level of E. coli should be less than 180 per 100 mL, calculated as the
geometric mean of all samples collected from March to October inclusive in
one calendar year. Samples should be taken at least 3 times in a calendar
month at intervals of between 3 and 14 days.
|
Bathing
Beach Subzones
|
C.
Colour
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the colour of water to exceed 50 Hazen units.
|
Inland
waters
|
D.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall not cause the level of DO to fall below 4 milligrams per
litre (mg/L) for 90% of the sampling occasions during the year; values should be calculated as water column average
(arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 metre (m) below surface,
mid-depth and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be
less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year.
|
Marine
waters excepting Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The
level of DO should not be less than 5 mg/L for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year; values should be calculated as water column average
(arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth
and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be
less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year.
|
Fish
Culture Subzones
|
(c) Waste discharges shall not cause the level of DO to
be less than 4 mg/L
|
Inland
waters
|
E.
pH
|
(a) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.5–8.5 units. In addition, waste discharges shall not cause the natural pH
range to be extended by more than 0.2 units.
|
Marine
waters excepting Bathing Beach Subzones
|
(b) The
pH of the water should be within the range of 6.0–9.0 units for 95% of
samples. In addition, waste discharges shall not cause the natural pH range
to be extended by more than 0.5 units.
|
Bathing
Beach Subzones
|
(c) Waste discharges shall not cause the pH of the water
to exceed the range of 6.5–8.5 units.
|
Ho
Chung (A) Subzone
|
(d) The
pH of the water should be within the range of 6.0–9.0 units.
|
Other
inland waters
|
F.
Temperature
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the natural
daily temperature range to change by more than 2.0°C.
|
Whole
zone
|
G.
Salinity
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the natural ambient salinity level
to change by more than 10%.
|
Whole
zone
|
H.
Suspended Solids (SS)
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall neither cause the natural ambient level to be raised by 30%
nor give rise to accumulation of SS which may adversely affect aquatic
communities.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Waste
discharges shall not cause the annual median of SS to exceed 25 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters
|
I.
Ammonia
|
The ammonia
nitrogen level should not be more than 0.021 mg per litre, calculated as the annual average (arithmetic
mean), as unionised form.
|
Whole
zone
|
J.
Nutrients
|
(a)
Nutrients shall not be present in
quantities sufficient to cause excessive or nuisance growth of algae or other
aquatic plants.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b)
Without limiting the generality
of objective (a) above, the level of inorganic nitrogen should not exceed 0.1
mg/L, expressed as annual water column average (arithmetic mean of at least 3
measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth and 1 m above seabed).
|
Marine
waters
|
K.
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5)
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the BOD5
to exceed 5 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters
|
L.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the COD to
exceed 30 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters
|
M.
Dangerous substances
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall not cause the concentrations of dangerous substances in the
water to attain such levels as to produce significant toxic effects in
humans, fish or any other aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically
cumulative effects in food chains and to toxicant interactions with each
other.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Waste
discharges of dangerous substances shall not put a risk to any designated
beneficial uses of the aquatic environment.
|
Whole
zone
|
N.
Phenol
|
Phenols shall not be present in such
quantities as to produce a specific odour, or in
concentrations greater than 0.05 mg/L as
C6H5OH.
|
Bathing
Beach Subzones
|
O.
Turbidity
|
No changes in turbidity or other factors arising
from waste discharges shall reduce light transmission substantially from the
normal level.
|
Bathing
Beach Subzones
|
Source: Port Shelter
Water Control Zone Statement of Water Quality Objectives
Table 5.5
Water Quality Objectives for Mirs Bay Water Control
Zone
Parameters
|
Water Quality Objective
|
Part or
Parts of Zone
|
A. Aesthetic
Appearance
|
(a) Waste discharges
shall cause no objectionable odours or discolouration of the water.
|
Whole zone
|
(b) Tarry
residues, floating wood, articles made of glass, plastic, rubber or of any
other substances should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(c) Mineral oil should not be visible on the surface.
Surfactants should not give rise to a lasting foam.
|
Whole
zone
|
(d) There
should be no recognisable sewage-derived debris.
|
Whole
zone
|
(e) Floating, submerged and semi-submerged objects of a
size likely to interfere with the free movement of vessels, or cause damage
to vessels, should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(f) Waste discharges shall not cause the water to
contain substances which settle to form objectionable deposits.
|
Whole
zone
|
B.
Bacteria
|
(a) The level of Escherichia coli (E. coli)
should not exceed 610 per 100 millilitre (mL), calculated as the geometric
mean of all samples collected in a calendar year.
|
Secondary
Contact Recreation Subzones and Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The
level of E. coli should be zero per 100 mL, calculated as the running
median of the most recent 5 consecutive samples taken at intervals of between
7 and 21 days.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(c) The level of E. coli should not exceed 1 000
per 100 mL, calculated as the running median of the most recent 5 consecutive
samples taken at intervals of between 7 and 21 days.
|
Other inland
waters of the Zone
|
C.
Colour
|
(a) Waste discharges shall not cause the colour of water
to exceed 30 Hazen units.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(b) Waste
discharges shall not cause the colour of water to exceed 50 Hazen units.
|
Other
inland waters of the Zone
|
D.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall not cause the level of DO to fall below 4 milligrams per litre
(mg/L) for 90% of the sampling occasions during the year; values should be calculated as water column average
(arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 metre (m) below surface,
mid-depth and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be
less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year.
|
Marine
waters excepting Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The
DO level should not be less than 5 mg/L for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year; values should be calculated as water column average
(arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth
and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be
less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year.
|
Fish
Culture Subzones
|
(c) Waste discharges shall not cause the level of DO to
be less than 4 mg/L
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones and Other inland waters
|
E.
pH
|
(a) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.5–8.5 units. In addition, waste discharges shall not cause the natural pH
range to be extended by more than 0.2 units.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Waste
discharges shall not cause the pH of the water to exceed the range of 6.5–8.5
units.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(c) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.0–9.0 units.
|
Other
inland waters of the Zone
|
F.
Temperature
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the natural
daily temperature range to change by more than 2.0 °C.
|
Whole
zone
|
G.
Salinity
|
Waste discharges
shall not cause the natural ambient salinity level to change by more than
10%.
|
Whole
zone
|
H.
Suspended Solids (SS)
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall neither cause the natural ambient level to be raised by 30%
nor give rise to accumulation of SS which may adversely affect aquatic
communities.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Waste
discharges shall not cause the annual median of SS to exceed 20 mg/L.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones and Other inland waters of the Zone
|
I.
Ammonia
|
The un-ionized
ammoniacal nitrogen level should not be more than 0.021 milligram per litre, calculated as the annual
average (arithmetic mean).
|
Whole
zone
|
J.
Nutrients
|
(a)
Nutrients shall not be present in
quantities sufficient to cause excessive or nuisance growth of algae or other
aquatic plants.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b)
Without limiting the generality
of objective (a) above, the level of inorganic nitrogen should not exceed 0.3
mg/L, expressed as annual water column average (arithmetic mean of at least 3
measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth and 1 m above seabed).
|
Marine
waters
|
K.
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5)
|
(a)
Waste discharges shall not cause
the BOD5 to exceed 3 mg/L.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause
the BOD5 to exceed 5 mg/L.
|
Other
inland waters of the Zone
|
L.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
|
(a)
Waste discharges shall not cause
the COD to exceed 15 mg/L.
|
Water
Gathering Ground Subzones
|
(b)
Waste discharges shall not cause
the COD to exceed 30 mg/L.
|
Other
inland waters of the Zone
|
M.
Toxins
|
(a) Waste
discharges shall not cause the toxins in water to attain such levels as to
produce significant toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects in
humans or fish or any other aquatic organisms, with due regard to
biologically cumulative effects in food chains and to toxicant interactions
with each other.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Waste
discharges shall not cause a risk to any beneficial uses of the aquatic
environment.
|
Whole
zone
|
Source: Statement of
Water Quality Objectives (Mirs Bay Water Control Zone)
Table 5.6
Water Quality Objectives for Southern Water Control
Zone
Parameters
|
Water Quality Objective
|
Part or Parts of Zone
|
A.
Aesthetic Appearance
|
(a) Waste discharges shall cause no objectionable odours
or discolouration of the water.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Tarry residues, floating wood, articles made of
glass, plastic, rubber or of any other substances should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(c) Mineral oil should not be visible on the surface.
Surfactants should not give rise to a lasting foam.
|
Whole
zone
|
(d) There should be no recognisable sewage-derived
debris.
|
Whole
zone
|
(e) Floating, submerged and semi-submerged objects of a
size likely to interfere with the free movement of vessels, or cause damage
to vessels, should be absent.
|
Whole
zone
|
(f)
Waste discharges shall not cause
the water to contain substances which settle to form objectionable deposits.
|
Whole
zone
|
B.
Bacteria
|
(a) The level of Escherichia coli (E. coli)
should not exceed 610 per 100 millilitre (mL), calculated as the geometric
mean of all samples collected in a calendar year.
|
Secondary
Contact Recreation Subzones and Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The level of E. coli should be less than 180 per
100 mL, calculated as the geometric mean of all samples collected from March
to October inclusive in one calendar year. Samples should be taken at least 3
times in a calendar month at intervals of between 3 and 14 days.
|
Bathing
Beach Subzones
|
C.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
|
(a) Waste discharges shall not cause the level of DO to
fall below 4 milligrams per litre (mg/L) for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year; values
should be calculated as water column average (arithmetic mean of at least 3
measurements at 1 metre (m) below surface, mid-depth and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of DO should not be
less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the sampling occasions
during the year.
|
Marine
waters excepting Fish Culture Subzones
|
(b) The DO level should not be less than 5 mg/L for 90%
of the sampling occasions during the year; values should be calculated as
water column average (arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 m below
surface, mid-depth and 1 m above seabed). In addition, the concentration of
DO should not be less than 2 mg/L within 2 m of the seabed for 90% of the
sampling occasions during the year.
|
Fish
Culture Subzones
|
(c) Waste discharges shall not cause the level of DO to
be less than 4 mg/L
|
Inland
waters of the Zone
|
D.
pH
|
(a) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.5–8.5 units. In addition, waste discharges shall not cause the natural pH
range to be extended by more than 0.2 units.
|
Marine
waters excepting Bathing Beach Subzones; Mui Wo (A), Mui Wo (B), Miu Wo (C),
Mui Wo (E) and Mui Wo (F) Subzones.
|
(b) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.0–9.0 units.
|
Mui
Wo (D) Subzone and other inland waters.
|
(c) The pH of the water should be within the range of
6.0–9.0 units for 95% of samples. In addition, waste discharges shall not
cause the natural pH range to be extended by more than 0.5 units.
|
Bathing
Beach Subzones
|
E.
Temperature
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the natural
daily temperature range to change by more than 2.0 °C.
|
Whole
zone
|
F.
Salinity
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the natural ambient salinity level
to change by more than 10%.
|
Whole
zone
|
G.
Suspended Solids (SS)
|
(a) Waste discharges shall neither cause the natural
ambient level to be raised by 30% nor give rise to accumulation of SS which
may adversely affect aquatic communities.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Waste discharges shall not cause the annual median
of SS to exceed 20 mg/L.
|
Mui Wo (A), Mui Wo
(B), Mui Wo (C), Mui Wo (E) and Mui Wo (F) Subzones.
|
(c) Waste discharges shall not cause the annual median
of SS to exceed 25 mg/L
|
Mui
Wo (D) Subzone and other inland waters.
|
H.
Ammonia
|
The ammonia
nitrogen level should not be more than 0.021 mg/L, calculated as the annual
average (arithmetic mean), as unionised form.
|
Whole
zone
|
I.
Nutrients
|
(a) Nutrients
shall not be present in quantities sufficient to cause excessive or nuisance
growth of algae or other aquatic plants.
|
Marine
waters
|
(b) Without
limiting the generality of objective (a) above, the level of inorganic
nitrogen should not exceed 0.1 mg/L, expressed as annual water column average
(arithmetic mean of at least 3 measurements at 1 m below surface, mid-depth
and 1 m above seabed).
|
Marine
waters
|
J.
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5)
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the BOD5
to exceed 5 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters of the Zone
|
K.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
|
Waste discharges shall not cause the COD to
exceed 30 mg/L.
|
Inland
waters of the Zone
|
L.
Dangerous substances
|
(a) Waste discharges shall not cause the concentrations
of dangerous substances in the water to attain such levels as to produce
significant toxic effects in humans, fish or any other aquatic organisms,
with due regard to biologically cumulative effects in food chains and to
toxicant interactions with each other.
|
Whole
zone
|
(b) Waste discharges of dangerous substances shall not
put a risk to any designated beneficial uses of the aquatic environment.
|
Whole
zone
|
Source: Southern Water
Control Zone Statement of Water Quality Objectives
5.2.3
Technical Memorandum on Effluent Discharge Standard
5.2.3.1 Besides setting the WQOs, the WPCO
controls effluent discharging into the WCZs through a licensing system.
Guidance on the permissible effluent discharges based on the type of receiving
waters (foul sewers, stormwater drains, inland and coastal waters) is provided
in the Technical Memorandum on Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage
and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters (TM-DSS). The limits
given in the TM-DSS cover the physical, chemical and microbial quality of
effluents. Any effluent discharge during the construction and
operation stages should comply with the relevant standards as stipulated in the
TM-DSS.
5.2.4
Professional Persons Environmental Consultative Committee Practice
Notes
5.2.4.1 The Professional Persons
Environmental Consultative Committee Practice Note on Drainage Plans subject to
Comments by Environmental Protection Department (ProPECC
PN 1/23) provides guidelines and practices for handling, treatment and disposal
of various effluent discharges to stormwater drains and foul sewers during the
operation phase.
5.2.4.2 The Professional Persons
Environmental Consultative Committee Practice Note on Construction Site
Drainage (ProPECC PN 2/23) provides good practice
guidelines for dealing with various types of discharge from a construction
site. These include surface runoff, groundwater, boring and drilling
water, bentonite slurry, water for testing and sterilisation of water retaining
structures and water pipes, wastewater from building construction, acid
cleaning, etching and pickling wastewater, and wastewater from site
facilities. Practices outlined in the ProPECC PN
2/23 should be followed where applicable during the construction phase to
minimize the water quality impact due to construction site drainage.
5.2.4.3 The relevant practices outlined in ProPECC PN 1/23 and ProPECC PN
2/23 should be implemented for the Project as far as practicable to ensure
proper handling, treatment and disposal of various discharges from the Project.
5.2.5
Technical Circular
5.2.5.1 Environment, Transport and Works
Bureau Technical Circular (ETWB TC) (Works) No. 5/2005 provides an
administrative framework to better protect all natural streams/rivers from the
impacts of construction works. The procedures promulgated under this Circular
aim to clarify and strengthen existing measures for protection of natural
streams/rivers from government projects and private developments. The
guidelines and precautionary mitigation measures given in the ETWB TC (Works)
No. 5/2005 should be followed as far as possible to protect the inland
watercourses at or near the Project area during the construction phase.
5.2.6 Water Quality
Criteria for Flushing Water Intakes
5.2.6.1 The Water Supplies Department (WSD)
has specified a set of target seawater quality objectives for their flushing
water intakes. The list is shown in Table 5.7
below. These target objectives will be adopted for the flushing
intakes (namely FW1 to FW6) in Figure 5.1. There is no seawater
outfall, spent cooling water outfall nor sewage effluent outfall located within
100 m from these flushing water intakes under both the existing scenario and
the “with Project” scenarios.
Table
5.7 WSD’s Target Seawater Quality Objectives at
Flushing Water Intakes
Parameter (in mg/L unless otherwise stated)
|
WSD’s Target Water Quality Limit
at Flushing Water Intake
|
Colour (Hazen Unit)
|
< 20
|
Turbidity (NTU)
|
<
10
|
Threshold Odour Number (odour unit)
|
<
100
|
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N)
|
<
1
|
Suspended Solids (SS)
|
<
10
|
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
|
>
2
|
5-Day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
|
<
10
|
Synthetic Detergents
|
<
5
|
E. coli (no./100mL)
|
<
20,000
|
5.2.7
Water Quality Standards for Rainwater Effluent
Table 5.8
Water Quality Standards for Treated Grey Water and Rainwater Effluent
Parameters
|
Unit
|
Recommended Water Quality
Standards
|
E. coli
|
cfu /100 ml
|
Non detectable
|
Total residual
chlorine
|
mg/l
|
≥ 1 exiting treatment system;
≥ 0.2 at user end
|
DO in reclaimed
water
|
mg/l
|
≥ 2
|
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
|
mg/l
|
≤ 5
|
Colour
|
Hazen unit
|
≤ 20
|
Turbidity
|
NTU
|
≤ 5
|
pH
|
|
6 - 9
|
Threshold Odour Number (TON)
|
|
≤ 100
|
BOD5
|
mg/l
|
≤ 10
|
NH3-N
|
mg/l as N
|
≤ 1
|
Synthetic
detergents
|
mg/l
|
≤ 5
|
Notes:
1. Apart from total residual chlorine which has been specified, the water
quality standards for all parameters shall be applied at the point-of-use
of the system.
2. Where recycled water is treated for immediate usage, the level of total
residual chlorine may be lower than the one specified in this table.
3. Immediate usage means the collected grey water/ rainwater is drawn into
the treatment process immediate before a particular round of usage and the
treated water will be depleted after that round of usage is completed.
5.2.8 Water Quality
Criteria for Seawater Intake of Desalination Plant
5.2.8.1 There are no available legislative water
quality requirements specific to the seawater intake of desalination plant. The
statutory WQOs stipulated under the WPCO are used to assess the potential water
quality impact on the seawater intake of Tseung Kwan O (TKO) desalination plant
(namely SW1 in Figure
5.1). The WQOs are summarized in Table 5.9. There is no seawater
outfall, spent cooling water outfall nor sewage effluent outfall located within
100 m from this seawater intake (SW1) under both the existing scenario and the
“with Project” scenarios.
Table 5.9 Water
Quality Criteria for Seawater Intake Desalination Plant
Parameter
|
WQOs for Eastern Buffer WCZ
|
Bottom DO
|
≥
2 mg/L for 90% of samples
|
Depth-averaged DO
|
≥
4 mg/L for 90% of samples
|
SS
|
≤
30% increase
|
Unionized Ammonia
(UIA)
|
≤
0.021 mg/L
|
Total Inorganic
Nitrogen (TIN)
|
≤
0.4 mg/L
|
Remark: Full
descriptions of the WQOs are provided in Table
5.2.
5.2.8.2 The design basis values
for seawater quality (see table below) developed for the first stage of the TKO
desalination plant provided by WSD are also referenced to assess the potential
water quality impact during construction and operation phases.
Table 5.10
Seawater Qualtiy Design Basis Value
Parameter
|
Design Basis Value
|
Temperature
|
15
to 30.1oC
|
TSS
|
≤ 40 mg/L
|
Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS)
|
≤
39,000 mg/L
|
Bromide
|
≤
80 mg/L
|
Boron
|
≤
5.3 mg/L
|
5.2.9
Sewerage Manual (Part 2)
5.2.9.1
Part 2 of the Sewerage Manual issued by Drainage Services Department
(DSD) offers guidance on the planning, design, construction, operation and
maintenance of the sewage pumping stations and rising mains in Hong Kong, which
shall be observed and followed under this Project where applicable.
5.2.10 Environmental
Guidance Note for Sewage Pumping Stations which is not a Designated Project
5.2.10.1 This guidance note
(GN) is intended to provide environmental advice about sewage pumping stations
which are not classified as a Designated Project (DP) under the Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO). It provides guidelines for the works departments
or agents (usually DSD) to site, plan, design, construct and operate sewage
pumping stations that are not DPs.
5.2.11
Water Quality Criteria for Cooling Water Intakes
5.2.11.1 Based on the information provided by the individual
cooling water intake operators under other relevant EIA studies such as the
approved EIAs for “Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel and Associated Works
(AEIAR-173/2013)”, “Upgrading of Tai Po Sewage Treatment Works
(AEIAR-244/2022)” and “Sha Tin to Central Link - Hung Hom to Admiralty Section
(AEIAR-166/2012)”, etc., no specific seawater quality requirement is available
for the cooling water intakes identified in the assessment area including the
cooling water intakes of Kai Tak District Cooling System (DCS), Yau Tong
Bay Ice Plant, North Point Government Office, Taikoo Place and Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital.
5.2.12 Criteria for Heavy Metals and
Micro-pollutants
5.2.12.1 There are no legislative standards in Hong Kong for
assessment of acceptable concentrations of heavy metals and micro-pollutants
such as total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and tributyltin (TBT) in marine water. Heavy metals and micro-pollutants
are potential sediment-bound contaminants which may be released into the marine
water due to dredging. It is proposed to adopt the relevant overseas standards
as summarized in Table 5.11 below. The most stringent
criteria amongst the four overseas references identified in Table 5.11 are adopted in
this assessment.
Table 5.11
Criteria for Heavy Metals and Micro-pollutants
Parameters
|
Assessment Criteria (µg/L)
|
Overseas Reference 1
|
Overseas Reference 2
|
Overseas Reference 3
|
Overseas Reference 4
|
Proposed Value
|
Overseas Reference
|
Arsenic (As)
|
13
|
1
|
13 (a)
|
25 (b)
|
36
|
-
|
Chromium (Cr)
|
4.4
|
1
|
4.4 (a)
|
15 (b)
|
50
|
-
|
Copper (Cu)
|
1.3
|
1
|
1.3 (a)
|
5 (b)
|
3.1
|
-
|
Lead (Pb)
|
4.4
|
1
|
4.4 (a)
|
25 (b)
|
8.1
|
-
|
Silver (Ag)
|
1.4
|
1
|
1.4 (a)
|
2.3 (b)
|
-
|
-
|
Zinc (Zn)
|
8
|
1
|
8 (a)
|
40 (b)
|
81
|
-
|
Mercury (Hg)
|
0.3
|
2
|
0.4 (a)
|
0.3 (b)
|
0.94
|
-
|
Cadmium (Cd)
|
2.5
|
2
|
5.5 (a)
|
2.5 (b)
|
7.9
|
-
|
Nickel (Ni)
|
8.2
|
3
|
70 (a)
|
30 (b)
|
8.2
|
-
|
PCBs
|
0.03
|
3
|
-
|
-
|
0.03 (a), (b)
|
-
|
PAHs
|
0.2
|
3
|
3 (b)
|
-
|
0.2 (a)
|
-
|
TBT
|
0.006
|
3
|
-
|
-
|
0.006 (a)
|
0.1 (b)
|
Shaded Cell – Proposed
criteria for this EIA
Overseas
References:
1. Australian & New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh & Marine Water
Quality.
2. European Union Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) Values to Protect
Marine Life.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria. Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC).
4. Michael H. Salazar and Sandra M. Salazar (1996). “Mussels as Bioindicators: Effects of
TBT on Survival, Bioaccumulation, and Growth under Natural Conditions” in
Organotin, edited by M. A. Champ and P. F. Seligman. Chapman &
Hall, London.
Recent EIA
References:
(a) Criteria adopted under the EIA for New Contaminated Sediment Disposal
Facility to the West of Lamma Island (AEIAR-241/2022)
(b) Criteria adopted under the EIA for Lei Yue Mun Waterfront Enhancement
Project (AEIAR-219/2018).
5.2.13 Water Quality Criteria for Marine
Ecological Sensitive Receivers
5.2.13.1 Potential impacts
on benthic organisms may arise through excessive sediment deposition. The
magnitude of the potential impacts on benthic communities is assessed with
reference to the predicted SS and sedimentation rate.
5.2.13.2 The statutory WQO
for SS of no more than 30% increase from the ambient level is utilized for
determining the acceptability of sediment impacts on important benthic
communities (e.g. corals).
5.2.13.3 There is no
existing legislative standard on sedimentation rate available. The reference
sedimentation rate of no more than 100 g/m2/day is adopted in this assessment for
protecting the benthic ecology, following the approach used in other EIA
projects in the central and eastern waters of Hong Kong such as the EIAs for
“Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel and Associated Works (AEIAR-173/2013)”, “Tseung
Kwan O Desalination Plant (AEIAR-192/2015)” and “Sha Tin to Central Link - Hung
Hom to Admiralty Section (AEIAR-166/2012)”, etc.
5.2.13.4 The statutory WQOs
for SS, DO, TIN and UIA as well as the reference criteria for heavy metals and
micro-pollutants are also used to assess the potential impact on marine
ecological sensitive receivers.
5.2.14 Water Quality Criteria for Fish
Culture Zones
5.2.14.1 The statuary WQOs stipulated under the WPCO are
adopted as the assessment criteria for Fish Culture Zones (FCZs) as shown in Table 5.12.
Table 5.12 Water Quality
Criteria for Fish Culture Zones
Parameter
|
Eastern Buffer WCZ
|
Port Shelter WCZ
|
Tung Lung Chau FCZ
|
Po Toi O FCZ
|
Bottom DO
|
≥
2 mg/L for 90% of samples
|
≥
2 mg/L for 90% of samples
|
Depth-averaged DO
|
≥
5 mg/L for 90% of samples
|
≥
5 mg/L for 90% of samples
|
SS
|
≤
30% increase
|
≤
30% increase
|
Annual Geometric Mean E.
coli
|
≤
610 per 100 mL
|
≤
610 per 100 mL
|
UIA
|
≤
0.021 mg/L
|
≤
0.021 mg/L
|
TIN
|
≤
0.4 mg/L
|
≤
0.1 mg/L
|
Remark: The
water quality criteria for FCZs are in accordance with the statutory WQOs. Full
descriptions of the WQOs are provided in Table
5.2 and Table 5.4.
5.3
Description of the Environment
5.3.1 Marine Water
5.3.1.1 The EPD water quality monitoring stations
in Victoria Harbour East (VM1 and VM2), Eastern Buffer (EM1, EM2 and EM3), Junk
Bay (JM3 and JM4) and Mirs Bay (MM19) are the nearest monitoring stations to
the Project sites (see Figure
5.1). A summary of the relevant monitoring
data extracted from the EPD’s publication “Marine Water Quality in Hong
Kong in 2023" is presented in Table 5.13 and Table 5.14. Full WQO
compliances were recorded at all selected stations in 2023.
Table 5.13 Marine Water
Quality Monitoring Data Collected by EPD at Victoria Habour
East, Chai Wan and Tathong Channel in 2023
Parameter
|
Victoria Harbour WCZ
|
Eastern Buffer WCZ
|
Summary of WPCO WQOs
|
Victoria Harbour East
|
Chai Wan
|
Tathong Channel
|
VM1
|
VM2
|
EM1
|
EM2
|
EM3
|
Temperature (oC)
|
23.8
(18.2 - 29.2)
|
24.1
(18.2 - 29.1)
|
23.6
(17.9 - 29.4)
|
23.6
(17.9 - 29.4)
|
23.6
(18.1 - 29.4)
|
≤ 2 oC change from natural
daily range
|
Salinity
|
32.7
(31.8 - 33.6)
|
32.4
(31.2 - 33.5)
|
32.7
(31.8 - 33.6)
|
32.8
(31.9 - 33.7)
|
33.0
(32.3 - 33.7)
|
±10% change
from natural ambient level
|
DO
(mg/L)
|
Depth average
|
5.8
(4.0 – 6.9)
|
6.5
(4.0 - 8.0)
|
6.4
(4.7 - 7.9)
|
6.2
(4.6 - 7.5)
|
6.3
(5.2 - 7.6)
|
≥4 mg/L for 90% of the samples during the year
|
Bottom
|
5.9
(3.5 - 7.4)
|
5.5
(3.7 – 7.2)
|
5.6
(3.5 - 7.9)
|
6.0
(3.7 – 8.0)
|
5.8
(3.8 - 7.7)
|
≥2 mg/L for 90% of the samples during the year
|
DO (%
Saturation)
|
Depth average
|
82
(60 - 91)
|
92
(61 - 118)
|
91
(69 - 115)
|
88
(66 - 106)
|
89
(76 - 99)
|
N/A
|
Bottom
|
83
(51 - 97)
|
78
(55 - 94)
|
79
(50 - 102)
|
84
(53 - 103)
|
82
(55 - 100)
|
N/A
|
pH
|
7.7
(7.3 - 8.0)
|
7.7
(7.1 - 8.1)
|
7.7
(7.1 - 8.2)
|
7.7
(7.1 - 8.2)
|
7.7
(7.2 - 8.2)
|
6.5 - 8.5
(± 0.2 change from natural range)
|
Secchi disc
Depth (m)
|
2.9
(2.1 – 3.8)
|
2.8
(2.2 – 4.3)
|
2.8
(2.0 – 3.6)
|
2.7
(2.1 – 3.5)
|
3.2
(2.1 – 5.1)
|
N/A
|
Turbidity (NTU)
|
8.4
(1.6 - 54.7)
|
10.5
(1.9 - 78.2)
|
4.4
(1.1 - 13.7)
|
3.9
(1.2 – 12.1)
|
3.5
(0.9 – 12.6)
|
N/A
|
SS (mg/L)
|
6.0
(1.4 – 11.7)
|
5.5
(2.3 – 8.7)
|
5.0
(1.9 – 9.7)
|
4.7
(1.4 – 7.8)
|
4.3
(1.5 – 11.0)
|
≤ 30% increase from natural ambient level
|
BOD5
(mg/L)
|
0.3
(0.1 – 0.7)
|
0.4
(<0.1 – 0.7)
|
0.5
(<0.1 – 1.1)
|
0.5
(<0.1 - 1.2)
|
0.4
(0.1 – 0.8)
|
N/A
|
NH3-N (mg/L)
|
0.060
(0.032 - 0.092)
|
0.097
(0.041 - 0.180)
|
0.057
(0.034 - 0.120)
|
0.049
(0.023 - 0.110)
|
0.029
(0.008 - 0.067)
|
N/A
|
UIA (mg/L)
|
0.002
(<0.001 - 0.005)
|
0.003
(<0.001 - 0.007)
|
0.001
(<0.001 - 0.002)
|
0.001
(<0.001 - 0.002)
|
<0.001
(<0.001 - 0.002)
|
≤0.021 mg/L (annual mean)
|
Nitrite Nitrogen
(NO2-N) (mg/L)
|
0.017
(0.004 - 0.032)
|
0.023
(0.009 - 0.038)
|
0.018
(0.004 - 0.044)
|
0.017
(0.004 - 0.043)
|
0.013
(<0.002 - 0.043)
|
N/A
|
Nitrate
Nitrogen (NO3-N) (mg/L)
|
0.067
(0.029 - 0.127)
|
0.098
(0.051 - 0.150)
|
0.087
(0.035 - 0.203)
|
0.077
(0.021 - 0.193)
|
0.065
(<0.002 - 0.190)
|
N/A
|
TIN (mg/L)
|
0.14
(0.08 - 0.20)
|
0.22
(0.13 - 0.34)
|
0.16
(0.09 - 0.34)
|
0.14
(0.06 - 0.33)
|
0.11
(0.03 – 0.26)
|
≤0.4 mg/L (annual mean)
|
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L)
|
0.44
(0.18 - 0.92)
|
0.45
(0.21 - 0.75)
|
0.37
(0.13 - 0.75)
|
0.39
(0.12 - 0.83)
|
0.40
(0.12 - 0.86)
|
N/A
|
Total Nitrogen
(TN) (mg/L)
|
0.53
(0.25 - 1.05)
|
0.57
(0.27 - 0.90)
|
0.48
( 0.20 - 0.99)
|
0.48
(0.16 – 1.03)
|
0.47
(0.16 - 1.07)
|
N/A
|
Orthophosphate
Phosphorus (PO4-P) (mg/L)
|
0.009
(<0.002 - 0.018)
|
0.015
(0.007 - 0.025)
|
0.012
(<0.002 -
0.020)
|
0.013
(<0.002 - 0.035)
|
0.007
(<0.002 -
0.014)
|
N/A
|
Total
Phosphorus (TP) (mg/L)
|
0.06
(0.04 - 0.09)
|
0.06
(0.05 - 0.10)
|
0.06
(0.03 - 0.08)
|
0.06
(0.03 - 0.08)
|
0.06
(0.04 - 0.08)
|
N/A
|
Silica (as SiO2)
(mg/L)
|
0.72
(0.21 - 1.27)
|
0.77
(0.20 - 1.53)
|
0.65
(0.19 - 1.43)
|
0.61
(0.18 - 1.37)
|
0.59
(0.17 - 1.60)
|
N/A
|
Chlorophyll-a
(µg/L)
|
1.7
(0.3 - 5.2)
|
1.8
(0.3 - 5.3)
|
2.7
(0.3 – 6.9)
|
2.6
(0.2 – 7.6)
|
2.2
(0.3 – 7.5)
|
N/A
|
E.
coli
(cfu/100 mL)
|
150
(40 - 1100)
|
180
(52 - 1000)
|
110
(9 - 600)
|
63
(10 - 320)
|
7
(<1 - 110)
|
N/A
|
Faecal
Coliforms
(cfu/100 mL)
|
320
(100 - 3000)
|
430
(96 - 3500)
|
240
(10 - 1600)
|
130
(15 - 1100)
|
17
(1 - 640)
|
N/A
|
Notes:
1. Data
source: Marine Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2023
2. Except
as specified, data presented are depth-averaged values calculated by taking the
means of three depths: Surface, mid-depth, bottom.
3. Data
presented are annual arithmetic means of depth-averaged results except
for E. coli and faecal coliforms that are annual geometric
means.
4. Data
in brackets indicate the ranges.
5. N/A:
Not available.
Table 5.14
Marine Water Quality Monitoring Data Collected by EPD at Junk Bay and Ninepin
Group in 2023
Parameter
|
Junk Bay
WCZ
|
Mirs Bay
WCZ
|
Summary
of WPCO WQOs
|
Junk Bay
|
Ninepin
Group
|
JM3
|
JM4
|
MM19
|
Temperature (oC)
|
23.9
(17.7
- 29.8)
|
23.6
(17.8
- 29.4)
|
23.5
(17.2 – 27.4)
|
≤ 2 oC
change from natural daily range
|
Salinity
|
32.4
(30.6 - 33.5)
|
32.8
(32.1 - 33.6)
|
33.3
(32.1 - 34.1)
|
±10% change from
natural ambient level
|
DO
(mg/L)
|
Depth average
|
6.8
(4.9 – 9.8)
|
6.2
(5.0 - 7.5)
|
6.3
(4.5 – 7.7)
|
≥4 mg/L for 90% of the samples during the year
|
Bottom
|
6.3
(4.0 - 11.6)
|
5.8
(3.5 - 7.9)
|
6.0
(3.6 - 7.7)
|
≥2 mg/L for 90% of the samples during the year
|
DO (%
Saturation)
|
Depth average
|
97
(78 - 148)
|
88
(74 - 100)
|
90
(66 - 99)
|
N/A
|
Bottom
|
90
(63 - 176)
|
81
(50 - 101)
|
83
(50 - 99)
|
N/A
|
pH
|
7.7
(7.1 - 8.1)
|
7.7
(7.1 - 8.1)
|
7.7
(7.1 - 8.2)
|
6.5 - 8.5
(± 0.2 change from natural range)
|
Secchi disc
Depth (m)
|
2.7
(2.0 - 3.9)
|
2.8
(1.8 – 3.6)
|
3.4
(1.8 – 5.4)
|
N/A
|
Turbidity (NTU)
|
6.5
(1.0 - 35.8)
|
4.1
(1.6 - 13.3)
|
3.0
(0.9 – 5.7)
|
N/A
|
SS (mg/L)
|
5.0
(1.6 – 9.2)
|
5.3
(1.9 - 11.3)
|
4.4
(2.0 - 7.2)
|
≤ 30% increase from natural ambient level
|
BOD5
(mg/L)
|
0.5
(0.3 - 1.2)
|
0.4
(0.3 - 0.7)
|
0.5
(<0.1 – 1.1)
|
N/A
|
NH3-N
(mg/L)
|
0.059
(0.033 - 0.098)
|
0.056
(0.026 - 0.107)
|
0.010
(<0.005 - 0.020)
|
N/A
|
UIA (mg/L)
|
0.001
(<0.001 - 0.003)
|
0.001
(<0.001 - 0.003)
|
<0.001
(<0.001 – <0.001)
|
≤0.021 mg/L (annual mean)
|
NO2-N
(mg/L)
|
0.018
(0.006 - 0.043)
|
0.019
(0.003 - 0.046)
|
0.007
(<0.002 - 0.019)
|
N/A
|
NO3-N
(mg/L)
|
0.083
(0.030 - 0.177)
|
0.080
(0.013 - 0.210)
|
0.023
(<0.002 - 0.124)
|
N/A
|
TIN (mg/L)
|
0.16
(0.10 - 0.28)
|
0.15
(0.06 - 0.35)
|
0.04
(0.01 - 0.15)
|
≤0.3 mg/L (annual mean)
|
TKN (mg/L)
|
0.45
(0.16 - 0.79)
|
0.45
(0.15 - 0.74)
|
0.41
(0.09 - 1.03)
|
N/A
|
TN (mg/L)
|
0.55
(0.24 - 0.88)
|
0.55
(0.21 - 0.93)
|
0.44
(0.10 - 1.07)
|
N/A
|
PO4-P (mg/L)
|
0.010
(<0.002 - 0.019)
|
0.013
(0.006 - 0.023)
|
0.008
(<0.002 - 0.042)
|
N/A
|
TP (mg/L)
|
0.06
(0.05 - 0.12)
|
0.06
(0.04 - 0.08)
|
0.05
(0.03 - 0.07)
|
N/A
|
Silica (as SiO2)
(mg/L)
|
0.60
(0.19 - 1.23)
|
0.63
(0.17 - 1.23)
|
0.40
(0.12 - 0.95)
|
N/A
|
Chlorophyll-a
(µg/L)
|
3.3
(0.3 - 10.4)
|
2.7
(0.3 - 9.5)
|
2.4
(0.6 - 5.1)
|
N/A
|
E.
coli
(cfu/100 mL)
|
67
(5 - 360)
|
84
(5 - 360)
|
1
(<1 - 1)
|
N/A
|
Faecal
Coliforms
(cfu/100 mL)
|
170
(8 – 850)
|
190
(10 - 1000)
|
1
(<1 - 9)
|
N/A
|
Notes:
1. Data
source: Marine Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2023
2. Except
as specified, data presented are depth-averaged values calculated by taking the
means of three depths: Surface, mid-depth, bottom.
3. Data
presented are annual arithmetic means of depth-averaged results except
for E. coli and faecal coliforms that are annual geometric
means.
4. Data
in brackets indicate the ranges.
5. N/A:
Not available.
5.3.1.2
The E. coli level in the eastern side of Victoria Harbour has
decreased markedly since the implementation of HATS Stage 1 in 2001. The annual
Cross Harbour Race, suspended since 1979 because of poor water quality, was
resumed on the eastern side of the harbour in 2011 after implementation of the
Advance Disinfection Facilities (ADF) of HATS. With full commissioning of the
HATS Stage 2A, the E. coli level of the central harbour area has been further
reduced. Since 2017, the race route of the event has returned to the traditional
route in the central harbour.
5.3.1.3 Both the Eastern
Buffer WCZ and the Junk Bay WCZ have fully achieved the marine WQOs for the
past 24 years. Since the implementation of the HATS Stage 1 in 2001, the water
quality of these two WCZs has improved noticeably with significant increase in
DO level and decrease in nutrient and bacteria levels.
5.3.1.4 The water quality at
Ninepin Group in Mirs Bay WCZ has maintained to be very good in the past decade
with high DO, and low nutrient and E. coli levels, fitting for various
recreational and mariculture uses.
5.3.2 Inland Water
5.3.2.1 The catchment areas
of minor watercourses in Fat Tong Chau and Clear Water Bay Country Park (CWBCP)
near Tseung Kwan O Area 137 (TKO 137) comprise natural terrains with no
significant pollution sources.
5.3.2.2 The catchment areas
of minor watercourses at Tseung Kwan O Area 132 (TKO 132) comprises natural
topography with some developed areas (cemetery and village houses). Since the
catchment areas are rural in nature and sparsely populated and the village
houses only occupy a very minor portion of the catchment areas, significant
water pollution at these minor stream courses is not expected.
5.4
Concurrent
Projects, Assessment Boundary and Water Sensitive Receivers
5.4.1 Concurrent Projects
5.4.1.1 This sub-section describes
the concurrent projects in the vicinity of the Project site as presented in Figure
2.13. The description and layout of these concurrent
projects will be subject to changes and further updates by the respective
project proponents.
5.4.1.2 The primary objective of the
works is to facilitate the development of TKO 137, and the works involves
construction of berthing facilities and associated structures within TKO 137
Fill Bank as a replacement for the existing berthing facilities at the barging
basin in TKO 137. The concerned berthing facilities (with berthing length of
around 500m) will be located near the southern end of TKO 137 Fill Bank (Figure 2.13). The berthing facilities will
be in use from Q4 2026 to Q4 2031, subject to the availability of the
re-provisioned PFTF in TKO 132. Construction of the berthing facilities would
involve modification of the existing sloping seawall as follows.
a)
Remove
the existing tetrapod (with no fines content) along the existing sloping
seawall to form a rock armour platform.
b)
Construct
the new vertical seawall by placement of precast concrete blocks on the toe
block and rock armour platform of the existing
seawall.
c)
Filling
behind the vertical seawall.
5.4.1.3 The seawall modification works
are minor in scale. All the filling works would be enclosed by the new vertical
seawall. No dredging is proposed under this concurrent project.
Proposed Water
Sports Centre in Tseung Kwan O
5.4.1.4 A new water sports centre
will be provided along the seafront of Tseung Kwan O (TKO) Area 77 (i.e., TKO
Stage 1 Restored Landfill). It would offer water sports activities including
sailing, windsurfing, canoeing and dragon boating. The proposed facilities of
the water sports centre are as follows:
a) A main service building.
b) Covered storage areas for rescue boats and coaching boats.
c) Boatsheds with racks for dinghies, windsurfing boards,
kayaks, dragon boats.
d) Various water sports accessories, buoyancy aids
and wetsuits.
e) A workshop for maintenance and repairs.
f) Boat parks for double-handed dinghies.
g) Open space for rigging, derigging, tuning and repairing of
water sports accessories.
h) A resting place, covered lecture areas, outdoor showers and a
spectator terrace for 200 spectators adjacent to the seawall.
i)
Launching facilities/slipways
for all boats/crafts (including sailing boats, windsurfing boards, kayaks and
dragon boats) as well as rescue boats and coaching boats, with installation of
winch system.
j) Coastal facilities (including steps or levels on
the seawall to serve as spectator stand for competitions) and a pier with
landing steps and mooring points for rescue boats.
k) other ancillary facilities.
5.4.1.5 The water sports centre would mainly involve land-based construction works.
Minor marine works including the construction of landing steps are proposed. No
implementation programme for the water sports centre is available.
TKO Desalination Plant
5.4.1.6
The desalination plant is
proposed for public water supply and is located at TKO 137. It involves 2
stages. Stage 1 of the desalination plant would involve a water production
capacity of 135,000 m3 per day. Stage 2 of the Project involves an
additional water production capacity of 135,000 m3 per day. The
ultimate capacity of the plant will be 270,000 m3 per day. The
desalination plant would involve seawater intake and brine discharge in the
marine water of Joss House Bay within the Eastern Buffer WCZ.
5.4.1.7
Stage 1 of the desalination
plant is currently under the commissioning stage. Majority of land-based
construction works for Stage 1 of the desalination plant and all the proposed
marine construction works (for laying the seawater intake and submarine brine
discharge outfall) are completed. Construction of Stage 2 of the desalination
plant is scheduled to commence in 2027 for commissioning in 2030, which would
involve land-based construction works only.
South East New Territories Landfill Extension
5.4.1.8 The South East New
Territories Landfill Extension (SENTX) is a land-based concurrent project
located within 500 m from the Project boundary. The SENTX forms an integral
part in the Strategic Plan in maintaining the continuity of landfill capacity
in the Hong Kong for disposal of waste. The SENTX has a net void capacity of
about 6.5 Mm3 and receives construction waste only.
5.4.1.9 The construction
works and operation of the SENTX commenced in 2019 and 2021, respectively. SENTX is expected to be closed with
its restoration works completed prior to the population intake at TKO 137, and
the 30-year aftercare period follows afterwards.
Tseung Kwan O Line Southern Extension
5.4.1.10 The programme and
details of Tseung Kwan O Line Southern Extension (TKLSE) are yet to be
confirmed. The only currently known information is that part of the TKLSE
alignment would be located within the development area of TKO 137, while the
alignment would be generally located underground.
5.4.2 Assessment Boundary
5.4.2.1 The marine-based assessment area
covers Junk Bay WCZ, Eastern Buffer WCZ and other potentially affected area
including part of Victoria Harbour WCZ, Port Shelter WCZ, Mirs Bay WCZ and
Southern WCZ. The land-based assessment area covers areas within 500 m from the
Project boundary. The assessment boundary of cumulative impact is shown in Figure
5.1.
5.4.3 Water Sensitive
Receivers
5.4.3.1 Key Water Sensitive Receivers (WSRs)
that would potentially be affected by the Project are summarized in Table 5.15 and their
locations are shown in Figure
5.1.
Table 5.15 Water Sensitive
Receivers and Indicator Points
Description
|
Name / Location
|
Representative Indicator Point
|
Marine Receivers
|
Flushing Water Intake
|
TKO
|
FW1
|
Cha Kwo Ling
|
FW2
|
Sai Wan Ho
|
FW3
|
Quarry Bay
|
FW4
|
Heng Fa Chuen
|
FW5
|
Siu Sai Wan
|
FW6
|
Seawater
Intake
|
TKO Desalination Plant
|
SW1
|
Cooling Water Intake
|
Kai Tak District Cooling System
|
CW1
|
Yau Tong Bay Ice Plant
|
CW2
|
Tai Koo Place
|
CW3
|
North Point Government Office
|
CW4
|
Pamela Youde Nethersole
Eastern Hospital
|
CW5
|
Gazetted Bathing Beach
|
Big Wave Bay
|
B1
|
Rocky Bay
|
B2
|
Shek O
|
B3
|
Clear Water Bay First
|
B4
|
Clear Water Bay Second
|
B5
|
Secondary Contact Recreation
|
Potential Water Sports Area in Junk Bay
|
WS1
|
Secondary contact recreation subzone at
TKO 132
|
C1a, C1b, C1c, C1d, C1f, C1g, CR1
|
Coral
Communities
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1a, C1d, C1e, C1f, C1g
|
Junk Bay West Note (1)
|
C1b, C1c
|
Junk Bay
|
C2
|
Lohas Park
|
C3
|
Junk Island
|
C4
|
TKO INNOPARK
|
C5a
|
TKO INNOPARK
|
C5b
|
TKO INNOPARK
|
C5c
|
TKO INNOPARK
|
C5d
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
C6a
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
C6b
|
Tit Cham Chau
|
C7
|
Kwun Tsai
|
C8
|
Tin Ha Au
|
C9
|
Tin Ha Shan
|
C10
|
Tai Miu Wan
|
C11
|
Tung Lung Chau West
|
C12
|
Tung Lung Chau North
|
C13
|
Tung Lung Chau North
|
C14
|
Tung Lung Chau North
|
C15
|
Tung Lung Chau East
|
C16
|
Tung Lung Chau East
|
C17
|
Tung Lung Chau South
|
C18
|
Cape Collinson
|
C19
|
Cape Collinson
|
C20
|
Cape Collinson
|
C21
|
Tai Long Pai
|
C22
|
Shek Mei Tau
|
C23
|
So Shi Tau
|
C24
|
Tai Wan Tau
|
C25
|
Tai Hang Tun North
|
C26
|
Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence
|
C27
|
Fat Tong O Note (1)
|
C28
|
Coral
Recipient Site
|
Junk Bay West
|
CR1
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
CR2
|
Amphioxus
|
Tit Cham Chau
|
A1
|
Tathong Channel
|
A2
|
Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
|
Shek O Headland
|
SS1
|
Coastal
Protection Area
|
Coastal water around Hong Kong Island,
Joss House Bay and Clear Water Bay
|
C11, C15, C19, C20, C21, C23, C24, C25,
SS1, B4
|
FCZ
|
Tung Lung Chau
|
F1
|
Po Toi O
|
F2
|
Important
Spawning Ground of Commercial Fisheries Resources
|
Eastern Water
|
SG1, SG2, SG3
|
Important
Nursery Ground of Commercial Fisheries Resources
|
Port Shelter
|
NG1
|
Typhoon
Shelter
|
Sam Ka Tsuen
|
T1
|
Terrestrial
Receivers
|
Country
Park
|
Clear Water Bay
|
Note (2)
|
Key
natural watercourses
|
Clear Water Bay Country Park
|
W1 to W4
|
Existing slope at TKO 132
|
S1 to S5
|
Key
modified watercourse
|
TKO 137
|
M1, M2
|
Note:
(1) Based
on the preliminary Project design information, coral colonies at Junk Bay (C1b
and C1c) and Fat Tong O (C28) are located within the direct footprint of the
proposed Project and will be subject to direct loss.
(2) The
country park area within the assessment area is shown in Figure
5.1. No indicator point is defined.
5.4.3.2 Modified watercourses
(M1 and M2) are located within the Project development area at TKO 137 as indicated in Figure
5.1. All other major works of the Project are located
downstream of CWBCP and identified natural watercourses. All major natural
watercourses are located upstream and would not be affected. In particular, the
alignment of natural watercourse (S3) ends before reaching the rocky shore and
is located outside the proposed Project works areas at TKO 132.
5.4.3.3 Baseline ecological
and fisheries conditions are separately presented in the Ecological Impact
Assessment and Fisheries Impact Assessment of the EIA report.
5.4.3.4 Ecological resources
identified as directly lost within from the proposed reclamation works areas of
this Project would unavoidably be removed and will not be considered as WSRs.
5.5
Identification of Potential Impacts for Construction Phase
5.5.1
Introduction
5.5.1.1 Potential sources
of water quality impacts identified during the construction phase are
summarized in the table below and further elaborated in Sections 5.5.2 and
5.5.3.
Table 5.16
Potential Water Quality Impact for Construction Phase
Potential Sources of Impacts
|
Identification of Impacts
|
TKO 137
|
TKO 132
|
|
Marine
Construction Works
|
Deep Cement Mixing (DCM)
|
Section
5.5.2.2
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Seawall
construction
|
Sections 5.5.2.3 to 5.5.2.5
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Underwater
filling and sand blanket laying
|
Sections 5.5.2.6 and 5.5.2.8
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Dredging
|
Sections 5.5.2.7 to 5.5.2.8
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Construction
of marine viaducts
|
Section 5.5.2.9
|
NA
|
✓
|
|
Construction
of outfall
|
Section 5.5.2.12
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Leakage
and spillage from barges
|
Section 5.5.2.13
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Land-based
Construction Works
|
Construction
site runoff and dust suppression sprays
|
Sections 5.5.3.3 to 5.5.3.6
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Wastewater
from general construction activities
|
Section 5.5.3.7
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
General
refuse
|
Section 5.5.3.8
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Accidental
chemical spillage
|
Section 5.5.3.9
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Sewage effluent
from construction workforce
|
Section 5.5.3.10
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Contaminated
site runoff
|
Section 5.5.3.11
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Construction
near inland watercourses or seafront
|
Section 5.5.3.12
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Removal
or diversion of inland watercourses
|
Section 5.5.3.13
|
✓
|
✓
|
|
Remarks:
✓ denotes that the source of impact would be generated from the
construction of the development
NA – Not applicable
5.5.2
Marine Construction
Works
5.5.2.1 Potential sources of
water quality impact associated with the marine construction works include:
§ DCM.
§ Seawall construction.
§ Underwater filling, dredging and sand blanket laying activities.
§ Construction of marine viaducts.
§ Construction of outfall.
§ Leakage and spillage from barges.
DCM
5.5.2.2 The foundations of the reclamations
and the seawall will be constructed by non-dredged ground treatment method,
i.e. DCM. The DCM involves injecting controlled volumes of cement into the
underlying materials whilst simultaneously mixing the cement with the in-situ
materials to improve their strength. The key water
quality concern would be the potential release of fines and cement slurry from
the DCM operation as well as the possible thermal impact due to heat
dissipation from the exothermic process of DCM.
Seawall
Construction
5.5.2.3 Seawall will be built on top of the DCM
foundation. Sloping seawall is proposed for the TKO 137 reclamation as well as
along the northeast boundary of the TKO 132 reclamation. Rock fill will be used
for construction of the sloping seawall with rock armour protection at the top.
Typical cross section of non-dredged reclamation for sloping seawall is shown
in Exhibit
5-1.
5.5.2.4 Vertical seawall is
proposed at the lower portion near Tit Cham Chau at TKO 137. The remaining
seawalls of TKO 132 reclamation will be in the form of vertical blockwork
seawalls to facilitate vessel berthing. The vertical seawall will be built
typically by placing precast blockwork wall on top of the DCM columns. Typical
cross section of non-dredged reclamation for vertical seawall is shown in Exhibit 5-2.
5.5.2.5 As there is no or negligible fines
content in blockwork wall, rock fill and rock armour, no loss of fines is
expected during the seawall construction. No adverse water quality impact
would arise from the seawall construction. Further assessment
for seawall construction is not required.

Exhibit 5-1 Typical
Cross Section of Non-dredged Reclamation (Sloping Seawall)

Exhibit
5-2
Typical Cross Section of Non-dredged Reclamation (Vertical Seawall)
Underwater Filling,
Dredging and Sand Blanket Laying
5.5.2.6 The proposed reclamation method at TKO
132 and TKO 137 will adopt an approach where seawalls will first be formed
(above the high-water mark) to partially enclose the filling activities. Public
fill will be used to form the reclamation. Filling will be carried out behind
the leading seawall of at least 200m in length. Sand blanket
laying would be carried out prior to the DCM operation.
5.5.2.7 Dredging is proposed at the
southwestern end of TKO 132 reclamation to provide sufficient depth for vessel
berthing. Removal of thin layers of marine deposit involving
dredging is also required at the rock outcrops and rocky shorelines, which
spread within the footprint of TKO 132 reclamation as well as located near the
northern and southern end of TKO 137 reclamation. The vast majority of the
marine clay within the reclamation footprint of TKO 132 and TKO 137 is still
left in place and is treated by the DCM method.
5.5.2.8 The potential water quality impacts
associated with these marine construction works in TKO 132 and TKO 137 include:
§ Potential release of fines and increase in SS level in the water column
due to the sand blanket laying and marine filling works.
§ Potential loss of fines and increase in SS in the water column during
dredging, with possible consequence of reducing DO levels due to organic
pollution of the disturbed sediment.
§ Potential release of sediment-bound constituents such as heavy metals
and nutrients into the water column, either via suspension or by disturbance as
a result of dredging.
Construction of Marine Viaducts
5.5.2.9 Construction of marine viaducts
connecting the TKO 132 development would involve installation of marine piles.
There will not be any open sea dredging nor marine filling for construction of
marine viaducts. It would involve installation of marine piles. Bored piles or
equivalent system would be adopted for the installation works. Precast pile cap
shells would then be erected by marine floating crane. The precast pile cap
shells would serve as a permanent form for the pile cap and rests directly on
the cut-off marine piles. The rest of the pile installation would be conducted
in dry environment within the precast shells. The key water quality issue
is the seabed disturbance due to the marine piling works and potential release
of fines into the water environment.
Construction of Outfall
5.5.2.10 The existing
saltwater pumping system in TKO would be upgraded to cater for the new
development. The existing 4 pump sets at TKO Salt Water Pumping Station would
be replaced by 5 new pump sets with increase total output flow and output head.
Associated electrical works, power supply, Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) system and necessary enlargement / replacement of pipeworks and surge vessels will be implemented. No marine
construction nor modification works at seawater intake and culvert are
proposed. The proposed upgrading works would be land-based and the associated
water quality impacts are identified in Section 5.5.3 below.
5.5.2.11 No DCS is proposed
under this Project. This Project would not involve any outfall or intake
construction for DCS.
5.5.2.12 The proposed
Effluent Polishing Plant (EPP) at TKO 137 would involve seawall outfall only.
The new EPP outfall as well as other storm outfalls of the Project would be
located at the seawall of the proposed reclamation. No submarine intake nor
submarine outfall would be constructed under the Project. The effluent of the
EPP would be diverted to the seawall via the underground pipe / box culvert.
The effluent outfall of the EPP would be submerged at all times under the
surface of marine water (see Appendix
5.3). The pre-cast outfall structure near seawall will be
designed with both ends covered and sealed temporarily, and embedded in
parallel with construction of seawall structure. The remaining pre-cast box
culvert will be packed with air-inflated packer inside in order to prevent
public fill materials being wash out through the box culvert during the
reclamation works. Upon completion of the reclamation works and construction of
the outfall and box culvert, the seals at the outmost outfall including the packers
placed inside will be removed accordingly. Installation of the EPP outfall,
underground pipes, box culverts and storm outfalls at TKO 137 and / or TKO 132
would not disturb the seabed or sediments. Based on the proposed outfall
construction method, the installation of pre-cast outfall structure and box
culvert would not create additional water quality impact. It is not further
considered in the assessment.
Leakage and
Spillage from Barges
5.5.2.13 Spillage and leakage from
construction vessels and marine delivery of construction materials could be the
result of poor handling and overflow from barges. Materials to be used for the
reclamation works and delivered to and from the reclamation sites by barges are
mainly construction and demolition (C&D) materials such as fill materials.
Filling materials would be transported by barge to respective barging point
located adjacent to the reclamation works area. The major consequences of
accidental marine spillage of these materials would be the increase in SS and
turbidity in the marine water. In case of spillage from marine delivery of
dredged sediment, possible release of sediment-bound contaminants such as heavy
metals and nutrients may occur in addition to the loss of fines into the marine
water.
5.5.3
Land-based
Construction Works
5.5.3.1 Potential sources of water quality impact associated with the land-based
construction works include:
§ Construction site runoff and dust suppression sprays;
§ Wastewater from general construction activities;
§ General refuse;
§ Accidental chemical spillage;
§ Sewage effluent from construction workforce;
§ Contaminated site runoff;
§ Construction near inland watercourses or seafront; and
§ Removal or diversion of inland watercourses.
5.5.3.2 Any discharge of
effluent from the Project construction should be pre-treated to comply with the
requirements of the WPCO and those specified in the discharge
license. All effluent discharges from the construction works should
be sited away from any natural watercourses.
Construction Site
Runoff and Dust Suppression Sprays
5.5.3.3 Runoff and erosion from exposed soil
surfaces, earth working areas and stockpiles of the construction site may
contain increased loads of sediments. Water spraying would be an effective
measure for dust suppression but the spent water could be high in SS and
turbidity.
5.5.3.4 Polluted site
runoff may also be generated from the rain washing down of bentonite slurries,
cement and other grouting materials. These wash waters are turbid and alkaline
materials, which may increase the SS levels and raise the pH level in the
nearby water bodies.
5.5.3.5 Accidental spillage
of fuel, oil and lubricants from maintenance of construction vehicles and
equipment may also contaminate the site runoff and increase the hydrocarbon
level in the receiving water.
5.5.3.6 Windblown dust would be generated
from exposed soil surfaces in the works areas. It is possible that
windblown dust would fall directly onto the nearby water bodies when a strong
wind occurs. Dispersion of dust within the works areas may increase
the SS levels in surface run-off causing a potential impact to the nearby
sensitive receivers.
Wastewater from
General Construction Activities
5.5.3.7 Various types of construction
activities may generate wastewater. These may include boring and drilling,
general cleaning and polishing, wheel washing, dust suppression sprays and
utility installation etc. These types of wastewater would contain high concentrations
of SS and could affect the water quality if uncontrolled.
General Refuse
5.5.3.8 Construction works would generate
debris and rubbish such as packaging, and refuse. Improper rubbish and refuse
disposal could lead to degradation of aesthetic appearance and water quality of
the receiving waters.
Accidental Chemical
Spillage
5.5.3.9 Variety of chemicals would be used for carrying out construction
activities. These chemicals may include petroleum products, spent lubrication
oil, grease, mineral oil and solvent. Fuel, oil and lubricants may be used for
maintenance of construction vehicles, machinery and equipment. Accidental
leakage or spillage of these chemicals may infiltrate into the surface soil
layer, or runoff into nearby water bodies, increasing their hydrocarbon levels.
Sewage Effluent
from Construction Workforce
5.5.3.10 Domestic sewage would be generated
from the workforce during the construction phase. Discharge of sewage effluent
may increase the organic pollution, ammonia and bacterial levels in the
receiving waters. Sufficient chemical
toilets should be provided and properly maintained to prevent the water quality
impact. According to the Reference Materials on Construction Site Welfare,
Health and Safety Measures that issued by the Construction Industry Council (Section
5.6.10), the number of toilet facilities provided on site shall be at a ratio
of not less than 1 for every 25 workers. The number of the chemical
toilets required for the construction site should be subject to later detailed
design, the capacity of the chemical toilets, and contractor's site practices.
Contaminated Site
Runoff
5.5.3.11 The presence of any
potential contaminated lands and need of land remediation will be subject to the
land contamination assessment to be carried out under the EIA study. Any
contaminated material disturbed, or material which comes into contact with the
contaminated material, has the potential to be washed with site runoff into the
nearby drainage system and eventually to the marine environment. As
a result, the levels of Chemicals of Concern (CoC) such as petroleum
hydrocarbons and metals in the marine water may increase.
Construction near
Inland Watercourses or Seafront
5.5.3.12 Two major construction works of the
Project would be located close to the natural inland watercourses. These
include the possible slope cutting works in TKO 132 and construction of
reservoirs and access road in Fat Tong Chau. Construction activities in
close proximity of the inland watercourses or seafront may pollute the nearby
water bodies due to the potential release of construction wastes as well as the
discharges of construction wastewater and site runoff which are generally
characterised by high concentration of SS and elevated pH.
Removal or
Diversion of Inland Watercourses
5.5.3.13 Removal or diversion of existing modified watercourses would be required within TKO 137 (due to
construction of the new development area) as summarized in Table
5.17. Water flow in the affected sections of these
watercourses would be diverted from their existing routes to the proposed
covered drainage system of the new development area. The works could increase
the SS levels in the receiving downstream marine water.
Table 5.17
Inland Watercourses to be Removed or Diverted under the Project
ID of Watercourse (Figure
5.1)
|
Location
|
Nature
|
Remarks
|
M1, M2
|
TKO 137 development area
|
Modified watercourse
|
The watercourses would be removed and
diverted
|
5.6
Identification of
Potential Impacts for Operation Phase
5.6.1 Introduction
5.6.1.1
Potential sources of water quality impacts identified during the operation
phase are summarized in the table below and further elaborated in Sections
5.6.2 to 5.13.9.
Table 5.18
Potential Water Quality Impact for Operation Phase
Potential Sources of Impacts
|
Identification of Impacts
|
TKO 137
|
TKO 132
|
Changes of coastline configurations
|
Section
5.6.2
|
✓
|
✓
|
Creation
of embayed water and marine refuse entrapment at TKO 132
|
Section 5.6.3
|
NA
|
✓
|
Operation of new development at TKO 137
· Sewage / wastewater generation, operation
of EPP and advance Sewage Pumping Station (SPS)
·
Non-point source
surface runoff
|
Sections 5.6.4
|
✓
|
NA
|
Operation of new development at TKO 132
· Sewage / wastewater generation and
operation of SPS
· Accidental marine spillage from marine
delivery, unloading and loading of materials from barges
·
Non-point source
surface runoff and accidental spillage
|
Sections 5.6.5
|
NA
|
✓
|
Maintenance
dredging for proposed berthing facility of TKO 132 development
|
Section 5.6.6
|
NA
|
✓
|
Remarks:
✓ denotes that the source of impact would be generated from the Project
development.
NA – Not applicable
5.6.2
Changes of
Coastline Configurations
5.6.2.1 The proposed
development area in TKO 137 would be about 103 hectares (ha), including about
20 ha of land to be created through reclamation. The proposed development area
in TKO 132 would involve about 20 ha of land to be formed from reclamation off
the existing shoreline (about 19 ha) and slope-cutting / site formation (about
1 ha).
5.6.2.2 Changes in
coastline configurations due to the proposed reclamations and marine viaducts
may change the hydrodynamic regime and water quality patterns in the assessment
area and thus, potentially affect the nearby WSRs.
5.6.3
Creation of Embayed
Water and Marine Refuse Entrapment at TKO 132
5.6.3.1 Embayed water would be formed near
the northern corner of TKO 132 reclamation. The tidal flow
velocity or flushing capacity in this new embayment is expected to be reduced.
The embayed water is vulnerable to pollution. Key water quality issues of
marine embayment would be the potential marine refuse entrapment and
accumulation of pollutants. The trapped sediment and pollutants in the embayed
water may also increase oxygen demand in the slack water, and chance of DO
depletion.
5.6.3.2 Floating refuse and
debris may arise from surface runoff, illegal dumping and littering from marine
vessels and waterfront and accidental spillage from daily operation of the
public facilities at TKO 132. Accumulation and trapping of floating refuse and debris
may occur near the TKO 132 development in particular at the northern corner of
the site.
5.6.4
Operation of New
Development at TKO 137
Sewage / Wastewater
Generation, Operation of EPP and Advance SPS
Proposed Sewage
Disposal Scheme
5.6.4.1 The first and final
population intake of TKO 137 development would occur in 2030 and 2041
respectively. Sewage generated in the proposed TKO 137 development would be
mainly domestic in nature. A public sewerage system will be built to collect
all the sewage effluents generated from the Project area for proper disposal.
An EPP will be built at TKO 137 to receive and treat the collected sewage
effluents. The EPP would be developed in 2 phases. Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the
EPP would be commissioned by 2034 and 2041 respectively. The design capacity of
the EPP would be 39,000 m3 / day under Phase 1 and ultimately
increased to 54,000 m3 / day under Phase 2.
5.6.4.2 An advance sewerage
provision will be implemented to temporarily facilitate the first and second
population intake of the TKO 137 development prior to the EPP
commissioning. The advance sewerage provision involves screens, equalization
tank(s) and an advance SPS within the EPP site and rising main to divert the
sewage flow to the existing TKO Preliminary Treatment Works (PTW) and
subsequently to the HATS. The design capacity of the advance SPS would be
22,000 m3 per day.
5.6.4.3 The flow capacity
for the advance SPS and Phase 1 of the EPP would be sufficient to cater for all
interim Project sewage flow generated prior to commissioning of the Phase 2
EPP. Phase 2 of the EPP has been designed to cater for the full development of
TKO 137.
5.6.4.4 The EPP (under both
Phase 1 and Phase 2) will treat the collected sewage to the secondary plus
level (i.e. secondary treatment with 75% nitrogen removal and disinfection).
The design capacity and effluent standards of the proposed EPP are tabulated in Table 5.19. The development
is located close to the marine water. Seawater flushing is the most effective
option and is therefore recommended for the Project. Reuse of treated EPP
effluent / use of reclaimed water are not proposed under the Project.
Table 5.19 Design Capacity and Effluent
Standards of EPP at TKO 137
Description
|
Remarks
|
Treatment Level
(Phase 1 and Phase 2)
|
Secondary Plus
|
See Note (1)
|
Treatment
Capacity in Average Dry Weather
Flow (ADWF)
|
Phase 1 - 39,000 m3/d
(by 2034)
Phase 2 - 54,000 m3/d
(by 2041)
|
See
Note (2)
|
Effluent
Standards (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
|
BOD5
|
20 mg/l
|
95th percentile
|
SS
|
30 mg/l
|
95th percentile
|
NH3-N
|
2 mg/l
|
Annual
average
|
TN
|
10 mg/l
|
Annual
average
|
E. coli
|
1000 no./100ml
|
Monthly
geometric mean
|
Notes:
(1) Biological
treatment process such as moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology or aerobic
granular sludge (AGS) technology would be adopted as the treatment technology
subject to the detailed design of the EPP. The MBBR or AGS technology can treat
the sewage to the secondary plus level and achieve the target remove rate of
75% for TIN. Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection would be adopted to meet the
discharge standards for E. coli.
(2) The
EPP will be developed by phase with an ultimate design flow of 54,000 m3
/day.
Effluent Outfall of
EPP
5.6.4.5 The outfall of EPP would be in the
form of land-based underground box culvert for diverting the treated effluent
from the EPP to the new man-made seawall of the TKO 137 development. The
outfall would discharge the Project effluent into the receiving marine water at
Tathong Channel. The EPP outfall would be
commissioned upon the first population intake of TKO 137 development. It
would also be adopted for diverting any emergency discharge from the advance
SPS prior to the commissioning of the EPP.
Analysis on
Operation Arrangement of EPP
5.6.4.6 The maximum effluent flow rate of the
EPP at the ultimate stage would be, on average, in the order of less than 1 m3/s.
The effluent would be discharged to the open water of Tathong
Channel. The water depth at the proposed outfall and along the Tathong Channel is at least 17 m, which is shown in Exhibit
5-3. The large volume of the receiving
marine water and tidal current in Tathong Channel
would dilute and disperse the effluent. Provision of the secondary plus
treatment level for the EPP would minimize the residual pollutants and further
safeguard the water quality.

Exhibit
5-3
Water Depths in Metre below Chart Datum (mCD)
5.6.4.7 Emergency discharge from the EPP
would be the consequence of pump failure, interruption of the electrical power
supply or failure of treatment units. Normally, sewage generated from the new
development would be diverted to the inlet system of the EPP (e.g. to the inlet
manhole and then to the coarse screen and then to the wet well of the inlet
pumping station). If total power failure occurs, raw sewage bypass would occur
at the entry point or inlet system of the EPP (i.e. inlet manhole or wet well)
and the emergency raw sewage would flow by gravity to the same outfall for
discharge of treated EPP effluent at the new seawall of TKO 137. Preventive
design measures to avoid such occurrence would be provided for the EPP
including dual power supply from CLP, standby facilities for the main treatment
units and standby equipment parts / accessories.
Furthermore, renewable energy sources would be implemented in the EPP.
Renewable energy could be recovered from the biogas generated in anaerobic
digestion process and / or solar panels on the building rooftop.
5.6.4.8 The
proposed dual power supply would involve two independent power supply sources
from CLP to secure electricity supply to the EPP. Based on past records, power
failure had not happened in Sewage Treatment Works (STW) with dual power supply
from CLP in Hong Kong. As an example, power failure at Tai Po STW has never
occurred again after the provision of dual power supply from CLP as recommended
in the approved EIA for Tai Po STW Stage V. Best Management Practices (BMP)
including proactive maintenance, inspection and housekeeping measures would be
adopted in the EPP to prevent operation and maintenance (O&M) problems. The
dual power supply from CLP and BMP will ensure the operation reliability of
EPP. In the extremely remote event of unstable power or accidental failure of
treatment unit, dual power supply from CLP or standby treatment units would
serve the process and the treatment system restarting time will be less than 2
hours according to DSD’s normal practice .
5.6.4.9 Emergency discharge of raw sewage is
assumed in this assessment to occur for a period of 2 hours, which would
represent the worst possible water quality impact of the EPP. With reference to
EPD/TP 1/05 Guidelines for Estimating Sewage Flows for Sewage Infrastructure
Planning (Figure VIII-F3 in Appendix VIII), the highest diurnal sewage flow
rates would occur between 20:00 and 23:00, which are approximately 1.3 times of
the daily average flow rate. Thus, a diurnal peak factor of 1.3 is applied in
calculation of the emergency discharge rate and quantity. The corresponding
discharge volume would be 5,850 m3 under Phase 2 of the EPP at the
ultimate design stage. The emergency discharge rate would be in the order of
about 1 m3/s. The emergency discharge volume during Phase 1 of the
EPP would be smaller and less critical.
5.6.4.10 In case of an
extremely remote emergency situation of complete plant failure, raw sewage would flow by gravity into the effluent
outfall of the EPP at the new seawall of TKO 137. Any emergency discharge may
temporarily degrade the marine water quality.
5.6.4.11 Seawall outfall is assumed in the
modelling exercise for discharge of the EPP effluent. Typical arrangement of
the seawall outfall is illustrated in Appendix
5.3.
Operation of
Advance SPS
5.6.4.12 No sewage and wastewater
would be discharged from the advance SPS prior to the EPP commissioning.
Potential water quality impact may arise from emergency overflow / bypass of
sewage due to pump or power supply failure. Under the emergency situation, raw
sewage bypass from the advance SPS would flow to the same effluent outfall of
the EPP by gravity. Preventive design measures to avoid such occurrence would
be provided for the advance SPS such as the provision of dual power supply,
standby pump and screen. In case one source of power supply is failed or in the
event of pump failure, backup power supply from another source or standby pump
would serve the process and the system restarting time would be typically
within 2 hours. An emergency discharge of raw sewage for 2 hours would
represent a reasonable worst case for the advance SPS. The associated impact
would however be less than that resulted from the 2-hour emergency discharge
event from the EPP considered in Section 5.6.4.9 above, which involves a larger
discharge quantity.
Operation of Refuse
Collection Point
5.6.4.13 The potential sources of water pollution to be
generated from the refuse collection point would be the accidental spillage of
pollutants (rubbish, dirt, debris, etc.) and associated contaminated surface
runoff or washed water from any floor cleansing activities. Wastewater
generated at the refuse collect point may contain a certain amount of SS, BOD5,
and organic loading and may cause an impact on the water quality if it is
uncontrolled. Wastewater generated from the refuse collection point would be
connected to the public sewerage system of the new development area for
disposal at the EPP.
Operation of Public
Transport Interchange, Green Fuel Station and Ambulance Depot
5.6.4.14 The potential sources of water pollution from Public
Transport Interchange (PTI), green fuel station and ambulance depot would be
the potential fuel spillage from the transports and vehicles and associated
contaminated surface runoff or washed water from any floor cleansing
activities. Wastewater generated at these facilities may contain a small amount
of oil and grease, grit and debris, which could have an impact on the water
quality if uncontrolled. Wastewater generated from these facilities would be
connected to the public sewerage system of the new development area for
disposal at the EPP.
5.6.4.15 A Fresh Water Service Reservoir (FWSR) and a Salt
Water Service Reservoir (SWSR) are proposed at Fat Tong Chau for fresh water
supply and toilet flushing respectively. The water stored in the FWSR and SWSR
will be distributed to the users and there will not be any discharge from its
normal operation. Cleansing effluent would be generated from the regular
cleansing and maintenance of the service reservoirs with water. Chlorine
solution would be added as sterilizing agent. The cleansing effluent would
contain SS and residual chlorine. Water quality impact may arise if the
cleansing effluent is not properly treated before being discharged into storm
water drainage system. Treatment and disposal of cleansing water during annual
cleansing and maintenance of the service reservoirs would follow the WSD’s
current practice.
Aging or Damage of
the Sewerage Network
5.6.4.16 Ageing or damage of the proposed sewerage system could
cause leakage or bursting of the untreated sewage to the nearby receiving
waters. Pollutant levels of the receiving watercourses could temporarily
increase in case of damage of sewage pipelines. Precautionary measures
shall be implemented to avoid such occurrence and the associated water quality
impact.
Non-point Source
Surface Run-off in TKO 137 Development
5.6.4.17 Surface run-off to be generated from the Project
development is known as non-point source pollution.
5.6.4.18 More surface runoff would be generated from the paved
area and less from the unpaved area. The existing area in TKO 137 mainly
comprises temporary fill bank and unpaved area. The Project development area in
TKO 137 is about 103 ha, including about 20 ha of land to be formed through
reclamation. The Project would increase the amount of area including paved area
at TKO 137 and thus increase the amount of non-point source surface runoff.
5.6.4.19 It is considered
that only rainfall events of sufficient intensity and volume would give rise to
runoff. The rainfall data obtained from the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) in the
period from 2019 to 2023 were analysed to estimate the runoff percentage and
average daily runoff value (mm / day) in each month over the year. Calculations
of the runoff values are detailed in Appendix
5.8.
5.6.4.20 The new development area is expected to comprise both
paved and landscaped areas. It is conservatively assumed that the entire
development area would be impermeable with a runoff coefficient of 1.0. The
average daily runoff values (mm / day) were then applied to the impermeable
area of the new development to give the average daily runoff volumes. The
highest daily runoff volume generated from the TKO 137 development would occur
in June and September with an average value of approximately 14,000 m3/day.
The monthly profile of runoff volumes is presented in Appendix
5.8.
5.6.4.21 The possible
sources of non-point source pollution in TKO 137 development would include a
small amount of oil, grease and grit that may be deposited on the surfaces
of the road network as well as a small amount of debris, refuse, dust from the
roof of buildings and cleaning agents used for washing streets and building
façade.
5.6.5
Operation of New
Development at TKO 132
Sewage / Wastewater
Generation and Operation of SPS
5.6.5.1 The TKO 132
development is proposed to accommodate five public facilities including a
public fill transfer facility (PFTF), a concrete batching plant (CBP), an
Electricity Facilities (EFs), a construction waste handling facility (CWHF) and
a refuse transfer station (RTS). Marine frontage is required for daily
operation of most of these public facilities. The wastewater generation from
these facilities is preliminarily estimated to be around 360 m3/day.
Details of the wastewater estimation are presented in Section 6.5. It should be
noted that there will be separate EIA studies to assess the water quality
impacts from the designated projects (i.e. EFs, CWHF and RTS).
5.6.5.2 These five
facilities shall be designed with sufficient water pollution control measures
to minimise any adverse water quality impact during operation. Pollution
sources and operation activities of these facilities are expected to be
properly covered or enclosed within buildings to avoid contaminated runoff.
5.6.5.3 A public sewerage
system including a SPS and twin rising mains would be built to collect and
convey all the sewage and wastewater generated at the proposed TKO 132
development (including those generated at the PFTF, CBP, CWHF, EFs and RTS) to
the existing TKO PTW and subsequently to the HATS for proper treatment and
disposal. The design capacity of the SPS would be about 400 m3 per
day. The existing TKO PTW and HATS system have been assessed to have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the additional sewage / wastewater flow from the new
development at TKO 132.
5.6.5.4 No sewage and wastewater discharges
are proposed at the TKO 132 development. Potential water quality impact may
arise from emergency overflow / bypass of sewage due to pump failure and power
supply failure. Design and precautionary measures such as the provision of
backup power supply, emergency storage, standby pump and screen are recommended
to avoid the occurrence of emergency discharge from the SPS. If power supply is
failed or in case of pump failure, backup power or standby pump would serve the
process to avoid emergency discharge. In addition, an on-site storage of raw
sewage for at least 2 hours will be provided for the SPS. Since the breakdown
of SPS could be recovered typically within 2 hours, the chance of emergency
discharge from the SPS would be highly unlikely. An emergency discharge for 2
hours would represent a reasonable worst case for the SPS. Emergency bypass
culvert will be built to convey any emergency discharge from the SPS to the
sea. With reference to Section 5.6.3 above, the emergency discharge point
should avoid the embayed water to the north of TKO 132 development at the inner
Junk Bay, which has low flushing and effluent dispersion capacity. The
emergency discharge point of the SPS is proposed at the southern seawall of TKO
132 development in the outer Junk Bay, which would be nearer to the Victoria
Harbour, where the current speed is higher than that of the inner Junk Bay, in
order to enhance effluent dispersion. As shown in Figure
5.1, the emergency discharge point is selected at the
nearshore location of the southern seawall, which is within an open space to
allow regular maintenance of the bypass culvert. Marine frontage along the
remaining sections of the southern seawall and eastern seawall is required for
vessel berthing and daily operation of the public facilities and therefore not
suitable for locating the emergency discharge point. Considering the minor
scale of the SPS, the emergency discharge volume is considered minor and insignificant.
Operation of PFTF
5.6.5.5 Operation of the PFTF will involve
handling and transfer of fill material. No material stockpile is proposed at
the PFTF. Public fill material will be imported to the site by trucks and
barges. Accidental dropping of material, non-point source surface runoff, dust
suppression spays, wheel washing facilities etc. would be the possible sources
of water pollution within PFTF. All surface runoff and effluent of the facility
mainly containing SS would be collected, settled and recycled within the
facility. No industrial wastewater discharge is assumed. Sewage generated from
staff and employee would be diverted to the public sewerage system for proper
disposal.
Operation of CBP
5.6.5.6 Within the CBP, wastewater may be
generated from the concrete batching process, truck cleaning, yard washing and
dust suppression spraying etc. The wastewater is typically turbid and contain
high level of SS and pH and would be conveyed to the public sewerage system for
proper disposal.
Operation of EFs
5.6.5.7
The facilities would be enclosed within building structure. Sewage
generated from the workforce at the EFs would be conveyed to the public
sewerage system for proper disposal.
Operation of CWHF
5.6.5.8 As advised by the operators, CWHF
would generate wastewater from machineries and ground washing. This wastewater
is expected to contain SS due to possible contamination by construction waste
and chemicals (e.g. fuel oil) from machineries. All sewage effluent, wastewater
generated from the CWHF would be diverted to the public sewerage system
for proper disposal.
Operation of RTS
5.6.5.9
Leachate would be generated from the RTS, which are typically very high
in organic and ammonia loading. This wastewater stream may contain SS, BOD5,
COD, ammonia and organic contaminants and would be conveyed to the public
sewerage system for proper disposal.
Aging or Damage of
the Sewerage Network
5.6.5.10 Ageing or damage of the proposed sewerage system could
cause leakage or bursting of the untreated sewage to the nearby receiving
waters. Pollutant levels of the receiving watercourses could temporarily
increase in case of damage of sewage pipelines. Precautionary measures
shall be implemented to avoid such occurrence and the associated water quality
impact.
Accidental Marine
Spillage from Marine Delivery, Unloading and Loading of Materials from Barges
at TKO 132
5.6.5.11 Marine delivery,
unloading and loading of fill, aggregate, sand, construction materials and
other materials with fines content as well as municipal solid wastes are
required for daily operation of the facilities at TKO 132. Accidental spillage
of these materials may increase the SS and degrade the aesthetic quality of the
marine water. Design measures are required to avoid accidental spillage.
Non-point Source
Surface Runoff and Accidental Spillage in TKO 132 Development
5.6.5.12 The Project would
involve reclamation at TKO 132 and increase the amount of non-point source
surface runoff. The footprint of the TKO 132 development is approximately 20 ha
(200,000 m2). The monthly profile of runoff volumes generated at the
TKO 132 development and details of the runoff calculations are presented in Appendix
5.8. The highest runoff volumes generated at the TKO 132
development would occur in June and September with an average value of
approximately 3,600 m3/day.
5.6.5.13 All active works areas in the industrial facilities at
TKO 132 would be enclosed to contain accidental spillage of material or
chemicals. For any unavoidable operations in open areas of TKO 132 development,
there would be a potential for generation of contaminated wash-off and the
source of contamination could be the result of accidental spillage. If
uncontrolled, the wash-off of the accidental spillage may increase the SS
content and degrade the aesthetic quality of the receiving marine water. Design
measures are required to prevent and control any accidental spillage.
5.6.6
Maintenance
Dredging for Proposed Berthing Facility of TKO 132 Development
5.6.6.1 Regular maintenance dredging would be required for safe
marine access to the berthing area of TKO 132 development. The potential water
quality impacts arising from the maintenance dredging would be similar to that
arising from dredging during construction phase described in Section 5.5.2.8
above. The key issues would be the possible loss of fines and sediment-bound
contaminants into the marine water.
5.7
Assessment
Methodology
5.7.1
Modelling Tools
Modelling Platforms
5.7.1.1 Mathematical modelling is performed using
the hydrodynamic and water quality modelling platforms, namely the D-Flow Flexible Mesh and D-Water Quality of Delft3D
Flexible Mesh Suite, developed by Deltares.
5.7.1.2 The D-Flow Flexible
Mesh is applied to simulate the hydrodynamics effects of the Project. The
D-Water Quality module is used to simulate the water quality effect based on
the relevant flow fields determined by the D-Flow Flexible Mesh.
Model Selection and
Development
5.7.1.3 The Regional Delft3D
Flexible Mesh Hong Kong Model (HK-DFM Model) version 202210 provided by
Environmental Protection Department (EPD) is employed for this EIA. The HK-DFM
Model was developed and verified under the EPD’s study “Provision of
Consultancy Services for HATS 2A Post Project Monitoring” in 2021. The HK-DFM
Model covers the Pearl River Estuary, Macau, Ma Wan Channel, Cheung Chau, East
Lamma Channel, Victoria Harbour, Tathong Channel,
Nine Pin Islands, Po Toi Island, etc. All major influences on
hydrodynamics (including the Pearl River discharges, spatio-temporal
variations of meteorological forcing and oceanic current in the South China
Sea) are incorporated into the HK-DFM Model.
5.7.1.4 For the purpose of
this EIA study, the grid layout of the HK-DFM Model has been refined in the
assessment to give better representation of the coastline configuration near
the Project sites. Appendix
5.4 shows the grid layout and properties of the refined
HK-DFM Model. The refined model has a grid resolution of no greater than 75 m
by 75 m at or in the vicinity of the proposed Project works.
5.7.1.5 The hydrodynamics performance of the
refined HK-DFM Model has been verified to be consistent with the performance of
the original HK-DFM Model as shown in Plots No. 5 to 22 of Appendix 5.4. The main purpose
of the model performance verification or comparison is to illustrate that the
model settings of the refined model were carried out correctly.
5.7.1.6 The water quality levels predicted by
the refined HK-DFM Model are also compared against the field data collected by
EPD at four stations (JM3, JM4, EM2 and EM3) and the comparison results are
included in Plot No. 23 to 32 of Appendix
5.4. The refined model results are considered reasonable
and further adjustment of the model parameter is not necessary.
Simulation Periods
5.7.1.7 Each hydrodynamics
simulation (using D-Flow Flexible Mesh) and each water quality simulation
(using D-Water Quality) for operation stage is conducted for 1 complete
calendar year.
5.7.1.8 For studying the
construction phase impact and the worst-case impact due to the temporary
emergency discharge of raw sewage from the EPP during the operation phase, the
simulations cover at least one 15-day full spring-neap cycle (excluding the
spin-up period) for each of the dry and wet seasons.
5.7.1.9 A spin-up period of
1 complete calendar year is provided for each hydrodynamic simulation and each
water quality simulation for both construction and operation stages.
5.7.1.10 It is expected that
a spin-up period for 10 months would be sufficient for the refined HK-DFM Model
to produce stable and acceptable results. Spin-up test was conducted by
comparing water levels predicted by the refined HK-DFM Model after 10-month spin-up with that of after
12-month spin-up. The model results for Month 10 and Month 12
are compared in Appendix
5.5 for dry season. The comparison showed that the
results for Month 10 and Month 12 are consistent with each other. Therefore,
the spin-up period of 1 complete calendar year is considered sufficient.
5.7.1.11 The hydrodynamic
results generated from the D-Flow Flexible Mesh simulations are used to drive
the D-Water Quality simulations.
General Model
Settings
5.7.1.12 The general
settings of the refined model such as the approach to the setup of boundary and
initial conditions as well as the model coefficients and parameters follow
those adopted in the original HK-DFM Model provided by EPD.
5.7.2
Construction Phase
Assessment Criteria
Introduction
5.7.2.1 The ambient values and tolerance limits for various parameters relevant
to the construction impact are tabulated for each WSR in Table 5.20. The approach to
deriving these values is elaborated in Sections 5.7.2.2 to
5.7.2.12.
Table 5.20
Key Assessment Criteria for Construction Phase
WSRs
|
ID
|
WCZ
|
Nearest EPD Station
|
Assessment Water
Depth
|
SS (mg/L)
|
DO (mg/L)
|
TIN (mg/L)
|
NH3-N or UIA (mg/L), Note (7)
|
Sediment Deposition
Rate (g/m2/day)
|
Heavy Metals(ug/L)
|
Organics (ug/L)
|
Organo-metallics
(ug TBT/L)
|
|
Ambient
Notes (3) & (9)
|
Allowable Increase,
Note (3)
|
Ambient, Notes (4)
& (9)
|
Assessment Criteria,
Note (6)
|
Allowable Depletion
|
Ambient,
Notes (5) & (9)
|
WQO, Note (8)
|
Allowable Increase
|
Ambient, Notes (5)
& (9)
|
Assessment Criteria,
Note (8)
|
Allowable Increase
|
|
Ag
|
As
|
Cd
|
Cr
|
Cu
|
Ni
|
Pb
|
Zn
|
Hg
|
PCB
|
PAHs
|
TBT
|
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
Upper Limit
|
|
Flushing
Water Intake
|
|
Tseung Kwan O
|
FW1
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Depth
average
|
10.7
|
11.2
|
0.1
|
0.1
|
4.73
|
2
|
2.73
|
0.14
|
-
|
-
|
0.08
|
1
|
0.92
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Cha Kwo Ling
|
FW2
|
VH1
|
VM1
|
Depth
average
|
6.9
|
12.4
|
3.1
|
0.1
|
4.26
|
2
|
2.26
|
0.17
|
-
|
-
|
0.09
|
1
|
0.91
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Sai Wan Ho
|
FW3
|
VH3
|
VM1
|
Depth
average
|
6.9
|
12.4
|
3.1
|
0.1
|
4.26
|
2
|
2.26
|
0.17
|
-
|
-
|
0.09
|
1
|
0.91
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Quarry Bay
|
FW4
|
VH3
|
VM2
|
Depth
average
|
6.6
|
11.0
|
3.4
|
0.1
|
4.50
|
2
|
2.50
|
0.22
|
-
|
-
|
0.12
|
1
|
0.88
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Heng Fa Chuen
|
FW5
|
EB
|
EM1
|
Depth
average
|
8.8
|
11.2
|
1.2
|
0.1
|
4.59
|
2
|
2.59
|
0.15
|
-
|
-
|
0.09
|
1
|
0.91
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Siu Sai
Wan
|
FW6
|
EB
|
EM1
|
Depth
average
|
8.8
|
11.2
|
1.2
|
0.1
|
4.59
|
2
|
2.59
|
0.15
|
-
|
-
|
0.09
|
1
|
0.91
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Seawater
Intake
|
|
TKO Desalination Plant
|
SW1
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Depth
average
|
9.9
|
11.5
|
3.0
|
3.5
|
4.50
|
4
|
0.50
|
0.13
|
0.4
|
0.27
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Cooling
Water Intake
|
|
Kai Tak District Cooling System
|
CW1
|
VH2
|
VM2
|
Depth
average
|
6.6
|
11.0
|
-
|
-
|
4.50
|
-
|
-
|
0.22
|
-
|
-
|
0.003
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Yau Tong Bay Ice Plant
|
CW2
|
VH1
|
VM1
|
Depth
average
|
6.9
|
12.4
|
-
|
-
|
4.26
|
-
|
-
|
0.17
|
-
|
-
|
0.002
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Tai Koo Place
|
CW3
|
VH3
|
VM2
|
Depth
average
|
6.6
|
11.0
|
-
|
-
|
4.50
|
-
|
-
|
0.22
|
-
|
-
|
0.003
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
North Point Government Office
|
CW4
|
VH3
|
VM2
|
Depth
average
|
6.6
|
11.0
|
-
|
-
|
4.50
|
-
|
-
|
0.22
|
-
|
-
|
0.003
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Pamela Youde Nethersole
Eastern Hospital
|
CW5
|
EB
|
EM1
|
Depth
average
|
8.8
|
11.2
|
-
|
-
|
4.59
|
-
|
-
|
0.15
|
-
|
-
|
0.002
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Gazetted Bathing Beach
|
|
Big Wave Bay
|
B1
|
S
|
EM3
|
Depth
average
|
9.9
|
10.8
|
3.0
|
3.2
|
4.59
|
4
|
0.59
|
0.10
|
0.1
|
0.001
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Rocky Bay
|
B2
|
S
|
EM3
|
Depth
average
|
9.9
|
10.8
|
3.0
|
3.2
|
4.59
|
4
|
0.59
|
0.10
|
0.1
|
0.001
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Shek O
|
B3
|
S
|
EM3
|
Depth
average
|
9.9
|
10.8
|
3.0
|
3.2
|
4.59
|
4
|
0.59
|
0.10
|
0.1
|
0.001
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Clear Water Bay First
|
B4
|
PS
|
MM19
|
Depth
average
|
8.8
|
9.1
|
2.6
|
2.7
|
4.68
|
4
|
0.68
|
0.06
|
0.1
|
0.04
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Clear Water Bay Second
|
B5
|
PS
|
MM19
|
Depth
average
|
8.8
|
9.1
|
2.6
|
2.7
|
4.68
|
4
|
0.68
|
0.06
|
0.1
|
0.04
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Potential Water Sports Area
|
|
Junk Bay
|
WS1
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Depth
average
|
10.7
|
11.2
|
3.2
|
3.4
|
4.73
|
4
|
0.73
|
0.14
|
0.3
|
0.16
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Secondary Contact Recreation Subzone
|
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1a, C1g
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Depth
average
|
10.7
|
11.2
|
3.2
|
3.4
|
4.73
|
4
|
0.73
|
0.14
|
0.3
|
0.16
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1d, C1f
|
JB
|
JM4
|
Depth
average
|
9.8
|
11.6
|
2.9
|
3.5
|
4.59
|
4
|
0.59
|
0.14
|
0.3
|
0.16
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Junk Bay West
|
CR1
|
JB
|
JM4
|
Depth
average
|
9.8
|
11.6
|
2.9
|
3.5
|
4.59
|
4
|
0.59
|
0.14
|
0.3
|
0.16
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Coral
Communities
|
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1a, C1g
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Bottom
|
14.0
|
11.8
|
4.2
|
3.5
|
4.33
|
2
|
2.33
|
0.12
|
0.3
|
0.18
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1d – C1f
|
JB
|
JM4
|
Bottom
|
11.0
|
12.6
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.69
|
2
|
1.69
|
0.11
|
0.3
|
0.19
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Junk Bay
|
C2
|
JB
|
JM4
|
Bottom
|
11.0
|
12.6
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.69
|
2
|
1.69
|
0.11
|
0.3
|
0.19
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Lohas Park
|
C3
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Bottom
|
14.0
|
11.8
|
4.2
|
3.5
|
4.33
|
2
|
2.33
|
0.12
|
0.3
|
0.18
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Junk Island
|
C4
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Bottom
|
14.0
|
11.8
|
4.2
|
3.5
|
4.33
|
2
|
2.33
|
0.12
|
0.3
|
0.18
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
TKO INNOPARK
|
C5a
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Bottom
|
14.0
|
11.8
|
4.2
|
3.5
|
4.33
|
2
|
2.33
|
0.12
|
0.3
|
0.18
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
TKO INNOPARK
|
C5b
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Bottom
|
14.0
|
11.8
|
4.2
|
3.5
|
4.33
|
2
|
2.33
|
0.12
|
0.3
|
0.18
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
TKO INNOPARK
|
C5c
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Bottom
|
14.0
|
11.8
|
4.2
|
3.5
|
4.33
|
2
|
2.33
|
0.12
|
0.3
|
0.18
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
TKO INNOPARK
|
C5d
|
JB
|
JM3
|
Bottom
|
14.0
|
11.8
|
4.2
|
3.5
|
4.33
|
2
|
2.33
|
0.12
|
0.3
|
0.18
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
C6a
|
JB
|
JM4
|
Bottom
|
11.0
|
12.6
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.69
|
2
|
1.69
|
0.11
|
0.3
|
0.19
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
C6b
|
JB
|
JM4
|
Bottom
|
11.0
|
12.6
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.69
|
2
|
1.69
|
0.11
|
0.3
|
0.19
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tit Cham Chau
|
C7
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Kwun Tsai
|
C8
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tin Ha Au
|
C9
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tin Ha Shan
|
C10
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tai Miu Wan
|
C11
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tung Lung Chau West
|
C12
|
EB
|
EM3
|
Bottom
|
12.0
|
11.0
|
3.6
|
3.3
|
3.60
|
2
|
1.60
|
0.08
|
0.4
|
0.32
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tung Lung Chau North
|
C13
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tung Lung Chau North
|
C14
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tung Lung Chau North
|
C15
|
MB
|
MM19
|
Bottom
|
9.0
|
12.0
|
2.7
|
3.6
|
3.50
|
2
|
1.50
|
0.07
|
0.3
|
0.23
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tung Lung Chau East
|
C16
|
MB
|
MM19
|
Bottom
|
9.0
|
12.0
|
2.7
|
3.6
|
3.50
|
2
|
1.50
|
0.07
|
0.3
|
0.23
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tung Lung Chau East
|
C17
|
MB
|
MM19
|
Bottom
|
9.0
|
12.0
|
2.7
|
3.6
|
3.50
|
2
|
1.50
|
0.07
|
0.3
|
0.23
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tung Lung Chau South
|
C18
|
EB
|
EM3
|
Bottom
|
12.0
|
11.0
|
3.6
|
3.3
|
3.60
|
2
|
1.60
|
0.08
|
0.4
|
0.32
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Cape Collinson
|
C19
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Cape Collinson
|
C20
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Cape Collinson
|
C21
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tai Long Pai
|
C22
|
EB
|
EM3
|
Bottom
|
12.0
|
11.0
|
3.6
|
3.3
|
3.60
|
2
|
1.60
|
0.08
|
0.4
|
0.32
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Shek Mei Tau
|
C23
|
PS
|
MM19
|
Bottom
|
9.0
|
12.0
|
2.7
|
3.6
|
3.50
|
2
|
1.50
|
0.07
|
0.1
|
0.03
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
So Shi Tau
|
C24
|
PS
|
MM19
|
Bottom
|
9.0
|
12.0
|
2.7
|
3.6
|
3.50
|
2
|
1.50
|
0.07
|
0.1
|
0.03
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tai Wan Tau
|
C25
|
PS
|
MM19
|
Bottom
|
9.0
|
12.0
|
2.7
|
3.6
|
3.50
|
2
|
1.50
|
0.07
|
0.1
|
0.03
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tai Hang Tun North
|
C26
|
PS
|
MM19
|
Bottom
|
9.0
|
12.0
|
2.7
|
3.6
|
3.50
|
2
|
1.50
|
0.07
|
0.1
|
0.03
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence
|
C27
|
EB
|
VM1
|
Bottom
|
10.4
|
12.6
|
3.1
|
3.8
|
3.27
|
2
|
1.27
|
0.13
|
0.4
|
0.27
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Coral
Recipient Site
|
|
Junk Bay West
|
CR1
|
JB
|
JM4
|
Bottom
|
11.0
|
12.6
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.69
|
2
|
1.69
|
0.11
|
0.3
|
0.19
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
CR2
|
JB
|
EM1
|
Bottom
|
11.6
|
13.2
|
3.5
|
4.0
|
3.66
|
2
|
1.66
|
0.12
|
0.3
|
0.18
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Amphioxus
|
|
Tit Cham Chau
|
A1
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Tathong Channel
|
A2
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Bottom
|
12.6
|
13.6
|
3.8
|
4.1
|
3.67
|
2
|
1.67
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.30
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
100
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
|
|
Shek O Headland
|
SS1
|
S
|
EM3
|
Depth
average
|
9.9
|
10.8
|
3.0
|
3.2
|
4.59
|
4
|
0.59
|
0.10
|
0.1
|
0.001
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Fisheries Sensitive
Receiver
|
|
Tung Lung Chau FCZ
|
F1
|
EB
|
EM2
|
Depth
average
|
9.9
|
11.5
|
3.0
|
3.5
|
4.50
|
5
|
0.05
|
0.13
|
0.4
|
0.27
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Po Toi O FCZ
|
F2
|
PS
|
MM19
|
Depth
average
|
8.8
|
9.1
|
2.6
|
2.7
|
4.68
|
5
|
0.05
|
0.06
|
0.1
|
0.04
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Important Spawning Ground of Commercial Fisheries
Resources
|
SG1
|
S
|
EM3
|
Depth
average
|
9.9
|
10.8
|
3.0
|
3.2
|
4.59
|
4
|
0.59
|
0.10
|
0.1
|
0.001
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
SG2
|
EB
|
EM3
|
Depth
average
|
9.9
|
10.8
|
3.0
|
3.2
|
4.59
|
4
|
0.59
|
0.10
|
0.4
|
0.3
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
SG3
|
MB
|
MM19
|
Depth
average
|
8.8
|
9.1
|
2.6
|
2.7
|
4.68
|
4
|
0.68
|
0.06
|
0.3
|
0.24
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Important Nursery Ground of Commercial Fisheries
Resources
|
NG1
|
PS
|
PM8
|
Depth
average
|
9.6
|
6.7
|
2.9
|
2.0
|
4.23
|
4
|
0.23
|
0.06
|
0.1
|
0.04
|
0.001
|
0.021
|
0.020
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Typhoon
Shelter
|
|
Sam Ka Tsuen
|
T1
|
VH1
|
VM1
|
Depth
average
|
6.9
|
12.4
|
2.1
|
3.7
|
4.26
|
4
|
0.26
|
0.17
|
0.4
|
0.23
|
0.002
|
0.021
|
0.019
|
-
|
1.4
|
13
|
2.5
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
8.2
|
4.4
|
8
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
0.2
|
0.006
|
|
Notes:
(1) Details of assessment criteria are also presented in Section 5.2.
(2) Shaded
cells represent the proposed assessment criteria for construction phase.
(3) Ambient level for SS is
defined as 90th percentile of monitoring data collected by EPD from
2018 to 2022. The ambient data were analysed and derived for both dry season
(November to March) and wet season (April to October). Details of the
assessment criteria for SS for different WSRs are presented in Sections 5.7.2.2
to 5.7.2.4.
(4) Ambient
level for DO is defined as 10th percentile of monitoring data
collected by EPD from 2018 to 2022.
(5) Ambient
level for TIN and UIA is defined as average value of monitoring data collected
by EPD from 2018 to 2022.
(6) The
WQO for DO under the WPCO is a 10th percentile value. Details of the
assessment criteria for DO for different WSRs are presented in Sections 5.7.2.5
and 5.7.2.6 below.
(7) The
values shown in these columns are NH3-N
concentrations for flushing water intakes and UIA concentrations for other
WSRs.
(8) The
WQOs for TIN and UIA under the WPCO are annual mean values Details of the
assessment criteria for TIN, UIA and NH3-N for different WSRs are
presented in Sections 5.7.2.7 to 5.7.2.10.
(9) Latest
monitoring data collected by EPD in 2023 (available after completion of the
water quality modelling and impact assessment) have been reviewed to be within
the same range of the data collected from 2018 to 2022. Using the 2018 – 2022
data to establish the ambient levels is considered acceptable.
“ – “ denotes no applicable water quality criteria.
JB – Junk Bay WCZ; EB – Eastern Buffer WCZ; VH1 –Victoria Harbour WCZ (Phase 1); VH2 – Victoria Harbour
WCZ (Phase 2); VH3 – Victoria Harbor WCZ (Phase 3); PS – Port Shelter; MB
– Mirs Bay; S – Southern
5.7.2.2 With
reference to the WQO, any sediment plume generated from the Project shall not
cause the ambient SS concentrations to be elevated by more than 30% at any
time. The allowable SS increase is calculated as 30% of the ambient SS values
for all WSRs except for the flushing water intakes where the target absolute SS
limit of 10 mg/L as specified by WSD is used. As compared to the design basis
values for SS of ≤40 mg/L for the seawater intake of TKO desalination
plant, the statutory WQO of no more than 30% increase from the baseline level
is considered more stringent and is therefore adopted. The SS criteria is not applicable to cooling
water intakes.
5.7.2.3 The ambient SS
levels are derived using the concentrations measured by EPD during the period
from 2018 to 2022 at the stations nearest to the WSRs. It is proposed to
analyse the ambient data for both dry season and wet season and define the
ambient values for each season as 90th percentile (90%ile) of the
measured SS levels following the approach adopted in other relevant EIA
studies.
5.7.2.4
The ambient SS levels at flushing water intakes exceeded the target
level of 10 mg/L. The maximum allowable SS increase is proposed to be 1% of the
target limit, which is 0.1 mg/L. As compared to the relatively high background
SS levels of over 10 mg/L at the flushing water intakes, a transient SS
increase of 0.1 mg/L is considered minimal. No adverse effect on the intake
operation is anticipated due to the transient SS increase of 0.1 mg/L.
Oxygen Depletion
5.7.2.5 According to the
WQOs for DO, the numerical objective value can be exceeded for 10% of samples
collected during the whole year. The ambient levels are presented as 10th
percentile (10%ile) of the DO concentrations measured by EPD at the closest
stations to the WSRs during the period from 2018 to 2022, which is a
conservative approach. The allowable DO depletion is
calculated by subtracting the WQO from the ambient DO level except for the
cooling water intakes and WSD flushing intakes. For cooling water intakes,
criteria on DO is not applicable as the use is not sensitive to DO depletion.
As for WSD flushing water intake, the allowable DO depletion at the flushing
water intakes is calculated by subtracting the target DO level specified by the
WSD from the ambient DO level.
5.7.2.6
The ambient DO levels at the FCZs are already below the WQO value of 5
mg/L. The maximum allowable DO depletion for FCZs is thus set at 1% of the WQO
value, which is 0.05 mg/L. Since the ambient level is based on the 10%ile value
of all data collected over a 5-year period, this would mean that most of the
measured values should be above this ambient level and the mean DO level
measured at FCZs is in fact over 5.8 mg/L. It is considered that the transient
DO decrease of only 0.05 mg/L at FCZs during the construction phase would be
acceptable and insignificant.
Nitrogen Parameters
5.7.2.7 The WQOs for TIN
and UIA are annual mean values. The average of all monitoring data collected by
EPD during the period from 2018 to 2022 is used to represent the ambient level.
The allowable TIN and UIA increases are defined by subtracting the ambient level
from the respective WQO.
5.7.2.8
The ambient TIN levels at Shek O Headland SSSI, 3 gazetted beaches (Big
Wave Bay, Rocky Bay and Shek O) and part of the Important Spawning Ground of
Commercial Fisheries Resources (SG1) already reached the WQO value of 0.1
mg/L. It is thus proposed to set the maximum allowable TIN increase at 1
% of the WQO value, which is 0.001 mg/L. As compared to the background TIN
levels of 0.2 mg/L at these WSRs, the transient TIN increase of only 0.001 mg/L
is considered minimal and would not increase the risk of red tide.
5.7.2.9 The target NH3-N
level of < 1 mg/L as specified by WSD is adopted for the flushing water
intakes. The ambient NH3-N levels for flushing water intakes are
calculated as the 90%ile values of all data measured during the period from
2018 to 2022.
5.7.2.10 The cooling water intakes
are not sensitive to the nitrogen content and the assessment criteria on UIA,
NH3-N and TIN are not applicable to cooling water intakes.
Sedimentation
5.7.2.11 The absolute sediment deposition criterion of 100 g/m2/day
are only applicable to the benthic communities such as coral colonies (see
Section 5.2.13).
5.7.2.12 The upper concentration limits for
heavy metals and micro-pollutants are based on overseas standards and
recommendations of other relevant EIA projects (see Section 5.2.12) and
applicable to all WSRs except for cooling water intakes, which are not
sensitive to these pollutants.
Elevation of
Suspended Solids
5.7.2.13 Water quality
modelling is carried out to simulate the loss of fines and dispersion of
sediment load from the marine construction works. Dredging, sand blanket laying
and marine filling works are identified as the key sources of sediment release.
The indicative sequences and phasing of marine construction are illustrated in Appendix 5.1 and Appendix
5.2 Construction of marine viaducts is also considered in
the modelling. The key sediment generating activities are summarized in Table 5.21.
Table 5.21
Tentative Programme of Key Sediment Generation
Activities and Sediment Release Rates

5.7.2.14 Two scenarios are simulated in the sediment
plume modelling exercise as follows.
§ Scenario A1 assumes that sand blanket laying along the seawall of Phase
1A of TKO 137 reclamation in Month 7 would occur together with dredging and
sand blanket laying along the seawall and within the reclamation area of TKO
132 and construction of marine viaduct in Month 9.
§ Scenario A2 assumes that underwater filling at Phase 1A and sand blanket
laying at Phase 1B of TKO 137 reclamation in Month 12 would be carried out
concurrently with sand blanket laying and underwater filling within the
reclamation area of TKO 132 and construction of marine viaduct in Month 15.
5.7.2.15 Scenario A1 represents the case with
largest overall sediment release in open water before formation of any seawall
at TKO 137 and TKO 132 due to dredging and sand blanket laying.
5.7.2.16 Scenario A2
addresses the worst-case impact due to underwater filing behind the leading
seawall at both TKO 137 and TKO 132. The worst-case underwater filling work at
TKO 137 would occur during Phase 1A of the reclamation. The underwater filling
in the remaining phases of TKO 137 reclamation would be fully surrounded by
seawall and therefore would not create water quality impact. At TKO 132, the
reclamation work would proceed from northeast (NE) to southwest (SW). The
seawall construction would take place first to surround the reclamation site as
far as practicable to confine the underfilling work. As shown in Appendix
5.2, by end of Month 18, the seawall surrounding the
reclamation site would be completed except only a 100-m gap for marine access.
Scenario A2 considers the worst-case impact of underwater filling at TKO 132 in
Month 15 before the SW seawall is constructed.
5.7.2.17 Scenario A1 and
Scenario A2 are expected to cover the worst-case water quality impact upon the
WSRs. Dredging would be carried out by closed grab dredgers. Sand blanket can
be placed by a number of methods including but not limited to hopper barge,
pipeline pumping, derrick lighter, flat-top barge with excavators, etc. Sediment release
points assumed under Scenario A1 and Scenario A2 are shown in Appendix
5.6.
5.7.2.18 No dredging will be
required for pier construction along the marine viaducts at TKO 132. Dredging
for pier construction is conservative assumed under both Scenario A1 and
Scenario A2 for worst-case assessment. No marine filling is required for
construction of the marine viaducts. No sediment loss is anticipated from the
DCM works as supported by the recent full-scale DCM monitoring results as
discussed in Sections 5.8.1.4
and 5.8.1.5 below. Sediment release from DCM is therefore not assumed to avoid
significantly overestimating the sediment impact, following the same approach
adopted in the approved EIA for Tung Chung New Town Extension (AEIAR-196/2016).
5.7.2.19 The
EPD’s Contaminated Spoil Management Study concluded that sediment loss from closed
grab would be 11 kg/m3, 14 kg/m3 and 20 kg/m3
of mud removed for large, medium and small grab size respectively. The grab to be used for this Project could range from 8 m3
to 16 m3. A spill rate of 20 kg per m3 is assumed for the
dredging work of this Project. This spill rate is consistent with the value
adopted in other approved EIA projects , , , , .
5.7.2.20 It
is assumed that 5% of the fine content in the sand fill and public fill would
be lost during the sand laying and underwater filling as adopted in all past
relevant EIA studies [7], [10], , . The typical fine content and dry density
of sand fill and public fill is 5% and 25% of the bulk respectively, and 1680
kg/m3 and 1,900 kg/m3 respectively 7. All
quoted past EIA studies involve either bottom dumping of fill materials or by
trailer suction hopper dredger discharging sand at a much higher rate. The sand
laying or filling operation of this Project at each work front would be
undertaken at a much smaller rate of 1,060 m3/day. Thus, the
proposed spill rate for sand laying and underwater filling is considered
appropriate.
5.7.2.21 No
dredging is proposed for construction of marine viaduct. As shown in Appendix
5.9, each set of piers
typically involves 2 precast pile cap shells with 3 piles in each shell. Each
marine pile would have a typical diameter of about 2 m. The approved EIA for
Airport Tung Chung Link Project (AEIAR-254/2023), which involves similar marine
pile size and construction method, concluded that the disturbance of bottom
sediment due to the construction of marine viaduct would be limited. Under this
EIA, it is conservatively assumed that the first 1 m of the surface
sediment would be displaced by the piling work and released to the seabed
surface above. Sediment below 1 m of the seabed level is expected to be
suppressed by the weight of sediment above and would not be brought up to the
surface. The piling work would be conducted within steel casing. The spill rate
of 20 kg per m3 adopted for the open grab dredging method is
conservatively assumed to be the rate of sediment release from the steel
casing. In actuality the degree of sediment disturbance by the piling work
would be much smaller than that caused by grab dredging. Assuming that 6 marine
piles would be installed concurrently and the surface sediment displacement by
the 6 piles would occur in sequence over the working day, the sediment loss
rate would be 0.00872 kg/s = 3.14 m2 (pile area) x 1 m (depth of
surface sediment displaced) x 6 (number of concurrent pile installations) x 20
kg/m3 (spill rate) ÷ 43,200 s (seconds per 12 working hours per
day).
5.7.2.22 Details of the sediment loss rates are presented in Appendix 5.6.
Efficiency of Silt
Curtain and Silt Screen
5.7.2.23 Silt
curtains will be deployed to minimize the potential water quality impacts.
5.7.2.24 A single layer of silt curtain would reduce the dispersion of
SS by a factor of 4 (or about 75%). This efficiency value was developed under
the EPD’s Contaminated Spoil Management Study and has been proven and adopted
in all past relevant EIA projects involving a single layer silt curtain system.
5.7.2.25 Where necessary, installation of silt screen at the seawater
intakes would also be recommended. Silt screen would reduce the SS level at the
intake by a factor of 2.5 (or about 60%), based on the value established under
the Pak Shek Kok Reclamation, Public Dump EIA (1997). This SS reduction factor
(60%) has been adopted in all past relevant EIA projects involving silt screen
deployment at seawater intake.
5.7.2.26 According to a field trial undertaken under the “Central
Reclamation Phase III - Water Quality Assessment on the Use of Type A Fill in
Final Reclamation Area East (VEP-296/2009)”, the efficiency of removing fine
particles by applying double layer of floating type silt curtains was found to
be 86%.
5.7.2.27 Pilot test was undertaken for the Expansion of Hong
Kong Airport into a Three-Runway System Three-Runway System (3RS) to determine the efficiency of a
double layer floating type silt curtain system and concluded that the overall
SS removal efficiency of the system would be 87.4% .
5.7.2.28 The efficiency of floating type silt curtain would be
inversely proportional to the magnitude of current velocity. The current
velocities are mostly less than 0.5 m/s in Junk Bay and less than 1 m/s along
the seafront of TKO 137. Deployment of silt curtain at the proposed marine
construction site is considered practical and effective.
5.7.2.29 Double silt curtains are recommended to be deployed at TKO
132 in Junk Bay. Junk Bay is an embayed water with slow current velocity where
the silt curtain would be effective in reducing SS release. It is proposed to
adopt a SS removal efficiency of 87.4% for the double layer floating type silt
curtain system in Junk Bay with reference to the past pilot test
results available from the 3RS project.
5.7.2.30 The
general parameters adopted for sediment plume modelling are:
§ Settling velocity – 0.5 mm/s
§ Critical shear stress for deposition – 0.2 N/m2
§ Critical shear stress for erosion – 0.3 N/m2
§ Minimum depth where deposition allowed – 0.1 m
§ Resuspension rate – 30 g/m2/d
5.7.2.31 The above parameters including the settling velocity of 0.5
mm/s have been adopted in numerous past studies in Hong Kong , , , , , , involving similar modelling work.
With reference to these past studies, the critical shear stress values for
erosion and deposition were determined by laboratory testing of a large sample
of marine mud from Hong Kong as part of the WAHMO studies associated with the new airport at
Chek Lap Kok.
Release of
Sediment-bound Contaminants
5.7.2.32
The likelihood of releasing sediment-bound contaminants such
as heavy metals, micro-pollutants and nutrients from dredging is reviewed by
using the results of elutriate testing. Details of the sediment and elutriate
testing plan are presented in the Sediment Sampling and Testing Plan (SSTP).
5.7.2.33 Sediment samples collected in the proposed Project site are
mixed with the ambient seawater collected from the same site and then
vigorously agitated during the elutriate tests to simulate the disturbance to
the seabed sediment during dredging. Pollutants absorbed onto the sediment
particles may be released and increasing the pollutant concentrations in the
solution. The laboratory testing is conducted to analyze the contaminants in
the solution (elutriate). If the contaminant levels are higher in the
elutriates in comparison with the blanks (i.e. marine water from the same
site), it can be concluded that the contaminants are likely to be released into
the marine waters from dredging.
5.7.2.34 Based on the measured contaminant concentration in the
elutriates, the required dilutions to meet the assessment criteria are then
calculated. Critical contaminant concentrations that would require significant
dilution to meet the criteria are selected for tracer dispersion modelling.
5.7.2.35 Inert
tracers (with zero decay) are introduced into the refined HK-DFM Model at the
Project site locations to determine the dilution potential achieved at WSRs.
The dilution information is then applied to the elutriate test results to
estimate the decreases in concentrations of the concerned parameters and water
quality compliance at WSRs.
Oxygen Depletion
5.7.2.36 The
20-day sediment oxygen demand (SOD) of the sediment samples collected from
marine SI is used to determine the reductions in DO concentrations, based on
the predicted increases in SS concentrations at the WSRs in accordance with the
following equation:
DODEP = C * SOD * K * 10-6
where
DODEP = DO depletion (mg/L)
C =
Predicted maximum SS concentration (mg/L)
SOD =
SOD (mg/kg) measured in the sediment samples collected from marine SI
K =
Daily oxygen uptake factor (set as 1)
5.7.2.37 The calculation is performed using the highest measured SOD
level for conservative predictions. The daily oxygen uptake factor, K, is set
to be 1, which implies instantaneous oxidation of the SOD. This is a
conservative prediction of DO depletion since oxygen depletion is not
instantaneous. It is worth noting that the above equation does not account for
re-aeration which tends to reduce the SS impacts on the DO concentrations.
5.7.2.38 The
calculated DO depletion is subtracted from the ambient DO level presented in Table 5.20 to determine the resulted DO level in
marine water and WSRs.
5.7.3 Operation Phase
Assessment Criteria
5.7.3.1
The assessment criteria for operation phase are based on the
statutory WQOs, the flushing water intake concentration limits specified by WSD
and the design basis values specified by WSD for the seawater intake of
desalination plant. In addition, sedimentation criterion is applied to the
sensitive benthic communities (e.g., corals). No water quality requirements are
available for the cooling water intakes. The assessment criteria for operation phase are summarized in
Table 5.22.
Table 5.22
Key
Assessment Criteria for Operation Phase
WSRs (Assessment
Depth)
|
ID
|
WCZ
|
Annual Minimum
DO
|
Annual Maximum
SS
|
Annual Maximum
NH3-N
|
Annual Maximum
BOD5
|
Annual Maximum
E. coli
|
Annual
10%ile
Bottom DO,
Note (2)
|
Annual
10%ile Depth Average
DO, Note (2)
|
Allowable SS Increase from Ambient Level
|
Annual
Mean TIN
|
Annual
Mean UIA
|
Geometric Mean
E. coli
|
Change of Salinity from Ambient Level
|
Annual Maximum Sedimentation
Rate
|
mg/L
|
mg/L
|
mg/L
|
mg/L
|
no. / 100 mL
|
mg/L
|
mg/L
|
-
|
mg/L
|
mg/L
|
no. / 100 mL
|
%
|
g/m2/day
|
Flushing Water Intake (Depth average)
|
Tseung
Kwan
|
FW1
|
JB
|
> 2
|
< 10
|
< 1
|
< 10
|
<20,000
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Cha
Kwo Ling
|
FW2
|
VH1
|
> 2
|
< 10
|
< 1
|
< 10
|
<20,000
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Sai
Wan Ho
|
FW3
|
VH3
|
> 2
|
< 10
|
< 1
|
< 10
|
<20,000
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Quarry
Bay
|
FW4
|
VH3
|
> 2
|
< 10
|
< 1
|
< 10
|
<20,000
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Heng
Fa Chuen
|
FW5
|
EB
|
> 2
|
< 10
|
< 1
|
< 10
|
<20,000
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Siu
Sai Wan
|
FW6
|
EB
|
> 2
|
< 10
|
< 1
|
< 10
|
<20,000
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Seawater Intake (Depth average)
|
TKO
Desalination Plant
|
SW1
|
EB
|
-
|
≤
40
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
-
|
Cooling
Water Intake (Depth average)
|
Kai
Tak District Cooling System
|
CW1
|
VH2
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Yau
Tong Bay Ice Plant
|
CW2
|
VH1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Tai
Koo Place
|
CW3
|
VH3
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
North
Point Government Office
|
CW4
|
VH3
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Pamela
Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital
|
CW5
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Gazetted Bathing Beach (Depth average)
|
Big
Wave Bay
|
B1
|
S
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
≤180
(March
to October)
|
±10
|
-
|
Rocky
Bay
|
B2
|
S
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
±10
|
-
|
Shek
O
|
B3
|
S
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
±10
|
-
|
Clear
Water Bay First
|
B4
|
PS
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
±10
|
-
|
Clear
Water Bay Second
|
B5
|
PS
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
±10
|
-
|
Potential Water Sports Area (Depth average)
|
Junk
Bay
|
WS1
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
-
|
Secondary Contact Recreation Subzone (Depth average)
|
Junk
Bay West
|
C1a, C1g
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
≤610
(Annual)
|
±10
|
-
|
Junk
Bay West
|
C1d, C1f
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
±10
|
-
|
Junk
Bay West
|
CR1
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
±10
|
-
|
Coral
Communities (Bottom)
|
Junk
Bay West
|
C1a, C1g
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Junk
Bay West
|
C1d – C1f
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Junk
Bay
|
C2
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Lohas Park
|
C3
|
JB
|
|
|
|
|
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Junk
Island
|
C4
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
TKO
INNOPARK
|
C5a
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
TKO
INNOPARK
|
C5b
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
TKO
INNOPARK
|
C5c
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
TKO
INNOPARK
|
C5d
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Fat
Tong Chau
|
C6a
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Fat
Tong Chau
|
C6b
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tit
Cham Chau
|
C7
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Kwun
Tsai
|
C8
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tin
Ha Au
|
C9
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tin
Ha Shan
|
C10
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tai
Miu Wan
|
C11
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tung
Lung Chau West
|
C12
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tung
Lung Chau North
|
C13
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tung
Lung Chau North
|
C14
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tung
Lung Chau North
|
C15
|
MB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tung
Lung Chau East
|
C16
|
MB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tung
Lung Chau East
|
C17
|
MB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tung
Lung Chau South
|
C18
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Cape
Collinson
|
C19
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Cape
Collinson
|
C20
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Cape
Collinson
|
C21
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tai
Long Pai
|
C22
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Shek
Mei Tau
|
C23
|
PS
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
So
Shi Tau
|
C24
|
PS
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tai
Wan Tau
|
C25
|
PS
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tai
Hang Tun North
|
C26
|
PS
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Hong
Kong Museum of Coastal Defence
|
C27
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Coral
Recipient Site
|
Junk
Bay West
|
CR1
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Fat
Tong Chau
|
CR2
|
JB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Amphioxus
(Bottom)
|
Tit
Cham Chau
|
A1
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Tathong Channel
|
A2
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
≤100
|
Site of
Special Scientific Interest (Depth average)
|
Shek
O Headland
|
SS1
|
S
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
-
|
Fisheries
Sensitive Receiver (Depth average unless otherwise specified)
|
Tung
Lung Chau
|
F1
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
5
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
≤
610
(Annual)
|
±10
|
-
|
Po
Toi O
|
F2
|
PS
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
5
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
±10
|
-
|
Important
Spawning Ground of Commercial Fisheries Resources
|
SG1
|
S
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
-
|
SG2
|
EB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
|
SG3
|
MB
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.3
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
-
|
Important
Nursery Ground of Commercial Fisheries Resources
|
NG1
|
PS
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.1
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
-
|
Typhoon
Shelter (Depth average)
|
Sam
Ka Tsuen
|
T1
|
VH1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
≥
2
|
≥
4
|
≤30%
|
≤0.4
|
≤0.021
|
-
|
±10
|
-
|
Notes:
(1) Details
of assessment criteria are also presented in Section 5.2.
(2) The
WQOs for DO allow exceedance of the objective values for no more than 10% of
the samples.
“– “ denotes no applicable water quality criteria.
JB – Junk Bay WCZ; EB – Eastern Buffer WCZ; VH1 – Victoria Harbour WCZ (Phase 1); VH2 – Victoria Harbour
WCZ (Phase 2); VH3 – Victoria Harbor WCZ (Phase 3); PS – Port Shelter; MB –
Mirs Bay; S – Southern
5.7.3.2
Three modelling scenarios are simulated to
predict the changes of hydrodynamics and water quality as follows.
§ Scenario B1: Baseline scenario without the Project in 2041
§ Scenario B2: Impact scenario with the Project (Normal EPP Operation) in
2041
§ Scenario B3: Impact scenario with the Project (Emergency Discharge from EPP) in 2041
5.7.3.3
All the three modelling scenarios are
assumed to occur at the same time horizon for comparison. Scenario B1
represents the baseline “do-nothing” scenario without the Project. Scenario B2
represents an impact scenario upon completion of the entire Project with full
population intake. The EPP flow is assumed to reach its design capacity under
normal operation. The model results are compared between Scenario B1 and
Scenario B2 to predict the changes of hydrodynamics and water quality due to
the Project.
5.7.3.4
Scenario B3 represents a very remote event of emergency
discharge of raw sewage from the EPP for 2 hours for conservative assessment.
The emergency discharge near slack water of neap tide is simulated as
worst-case scenario in both dry and wet seasons. The rest of the model setting
for Scenario B3 is the same as that of Scenario B2.
5.7.3.5
Changes of flow regime is assessed by
comparing the model results between Scenario B1 and Scenario B2 in terms of the
predicted flow rates across Lei Yue Mun, Joss House Bay and Tung Lung Chau West
in Appendix 5.7. Maps of flow vectors and current
velocities comparing Scenario B1 and Scenario B2 in the assessment area are
prepared.
Pollution Loading
Background
Pollution Loading
5.7.3.6
The background pollution loading inventory for major storm
and sewage effluent outfalls in Hong Kong compiled by the EPD for 2041 is used
for model input under Scenario B1, Scenario B2 and Scenario B3. This background
pollution loading inventory also covers major discharges from Mainland
including the Pearl River. In addition, the pollution loading from the TKO
Desalination Plant, as shown in Table 5.23 is also incorporated into all the three
modelling scenarios.
Table 5.23 Brine
Discharge from TKO Desalination Plant
Description
|
Upper Discharge Limit
|
Discharge Flow Rate
|
464,000 m3
/ day
|
TP
|
1 mg/L
|
TIN
|
2 mg/L
|
Salinity
|
71,347 mg/L
|
SS
|
13 mg/L
|
Source: TKO Desalination
Plant (TKODP) EIA (AEIAR-192/2015) (for discharge flow rate) and existing WPCO
discharge license of TKODP (for TP, TIN, Salinity and SS).
EPP Effluent
5.7.3.7
The effluent flow and quality of the EPP assumed under
Scenarios B2 and B3 are presented in Table 5.24.
Table 5.24 Effluent Discharge from EPP
Description
|
Scenario
B2
(Normal Operation)
|
Scenario
B3
(Emergency
Situation)
|
Treatment Level
|
Secondary plus
|
Raw sewage
|
Effluent
quantity, see Note (1)
|
54,000 m3 per day
|
5,850 m3 per 2-hour event
|
BOD5
|
mg/L
|
20
|
210
|
SS
|
mg/L
|
30
|
320
|
NH3-N
|
mg/L
|
2
|
30
|
TN
|
mg/L
|
10
|
50
|
TP
|
mg/L
|
2.26
|
7
|
E.
coli
|
no./100mL
|
1,000
|
4.0 x 107
|
Salinity
|
ppt
|
11
|
11
|
Note (1): The design flow of EPP is under review and subject to
further updating during the course of this EIA.
5.7.3.8 The TKO 137 development
would use seawater for toilet flushing, which would contribute about 30% of the
total EPP flow. The maximum salinity level recorded in the closest EPD
monitoring station (JM3) to the TKO flushing water intake is 33.7 ppt in 2022.
Assuming that the salinity level of the flushing water is 33.7 ppt and the
freshwater would typically have a salinity level of 0.5 ppt, the overall
salinity level of the EPP effluent would be about 10.1 ppt. The modelling assumption of using an effluent salinity
level of 11 ppt is considered reasonable.
5.7.3.9 The WSD requires an
assessment of potential impact on TDS, boron and bromide levels at the seawater
intake of desalination plant. These parameters are not considered in the HK-DFM
Model. They are also not measured in the sewage effluent of major STW in Hong
Kong. The TDS levels in seawater would mainly comprise salinity but can also
include other organic solutes. The model prediction for salinity and other key
parameters such as BOD5, TIN and DO will be reviewed to provide an
indication of the degree of water quality influence from the EPP discharges at
the seawater intake. If the degree of water quality influence due to this
Project is insignificant, the increase in TDS, boron and bromide at the intake
of TKO desalination plant due to this Project is also expected to be
insignificant.
5.7.3.10 No heated effluent
discharge is proposed under this Project. Discharges from the proposed EPP
would not have any thermal impact. Impact on water temperature is
therefore not considered in the assessment.
Non-point Source
Surface Runoff
5.7.3.11 Pollution loading
due to non-point source surface runoff is also incorporated into the water
quality modelling. The loading was estimated with reference to the urban runoff
pollutant concentrations provided under the EPD Pilot Study of Storm Pollution.
Details of non-point source pollution loading adopted in the modelling are
presented in Appendix
5.8.
5.7.4
Coastline
Configurations for Modelling
5.7.4.1 The existing coastline
configurations, which have incorporated all completed or on-going coastal
projects such as the Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel and Associated Works, Cross
Bay Link, Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway
System and Tung Chung New Town Extension, are adopted under Scenario A1 and
Scenario A2 (Construction Phase Impact Scenarios).
5.7.4.2 In addition to the
completed and on-going coastal projects, other planned projects as summarized in Table 5.25 are also
incorporated under the operation phase scenarios, namely Scenario B1 (Baseline “do-nothing”
Scenario in 2041) and Scenarios B2 and B3 (Operation Phase Impact Scenarios in
2041).
Table
5.25 Other Planned Projects Included under
Scenarios B1, B2 and B3
Planned
Projects Affecting the Coastline
|
Layout Reference
|
Reclamation for Kau
Yi Chau Artificial Islands
|
LC
Paper No. CB(1)930/2022(01)
|
Reclamation for Road P1
|
EIA study brief No.
ESB-337/2020
|
Reclamation for Route 11
|
EIA Study Brief No.
ESB-352/2022
|
Lung Kwu Tan
Reclamation
|
LC Paper No.
CB(1)141/2023(03)
|
Tsing Yi - Lantau Link
|
EIA Study Brief No.
ESB-359/2023
|
5.7.4.3 Scenario A2 also
incorporates part of the permanent / temporary seawalls as indicated in Appendix
5.6, whilst full completion of the Project development is
assumed under Scenarios B2 and B3.
5.7.4.4 Besides, the TKO
132 and TKO 137 reclamations, the piers of the proposed marine viaducts at TKO
132 are also incorporated into Scenarios B2 and B3. The marine viaducts would
typically involve the installation of 1 pair of pile cap (each with a dimension
of 16 m x 4 m) at a spacing of 40 m as indicated in Appendix
5.9.
5.7.4.5 Any reclamation
proposals in Deep Bay are over 40 km away from the Project site and their
effect on the hydrodynamics in the assessment area would be negligible and are
not considered.
5.7.5
Model Bathymetry
5.7.5.1 The model
bathymetry schematization developed by EPD for use in the HK-DFM Model is
adopted for modelling. Scenarios B2 and B3 (Operation Phase Impact
Scenarios in 2041) also incorporate the design depth of 8 m below CD in the
berthing area of TKO 132. The model bathymetry is shown in Plot No. 33 of Appendix
5.4.
5.7.6 Assessment Approach for Other Potential
Impacts
5.7.6.1 The remaining water
quality impacts identified during the construction and operation phases are
assessed using qualitative approach. Potential sources of water quality impact
that may arise are described. All the identified sources of potential water
quality impact are then evaluated, and their impact significance determined.
Mitigation measures to reduce any identified impacts on water quality are also
recommended.
5.8
Evaluation of
Potential Impacts – Marine Construction
5.8.1 DCM
5.8.1.1 The DCM method enables in-situ
stabilisation of the underlaying marine mud within the proposed reclamation and
seawall areas. It is capable to treat sediment in deep layer without
excavation, dredging, shoring or dewatering, and thus there is less exposure of
wastes to the water environment.
5.8.1.2 By deployment of silt curtain and
placing the sand blanket layer on top of the DCM works areas before the DCM treatment,
release of fines and cement slurry from the DCM operation would be negligible.
5.8.1.3 The piling pipe of the DCM equipment
would contact the longitudinal surface of the materials to be treated. Any heat
dissipation from the exothermic process of DCM would largely occur within the
materials immediately surrounding the DCM column, which is beneath the seabed.
Any minor heat dissipation from the top of DCM columns will be absorbed by the
sand blanket laid above the DCM columns. Thermal impact due to DCM would be
negligible.
5.8.1.4 The DCM method has been proven and
adopted in Hong Kong. Recent DCM applications include the foundation of
breakwater and seawall around the artificial island for development of
Integrated Waste Management Facilities Phase 1 (I□PARK1) at Shek Kwu Chau. Marine water quality monitoring was conducted
under the I□PARK1 during the DCM trials held in July, September, October and
December 2018 and the full-scale DCM conducted within the period from February
2019 to October 2020 [20]. Salinity, pH, DO, turbidity,
temperature, SS and total alkalinity were monitored in locations close to the
artificial island, at representative WSRs and control stations further away.
The monitoring has demonstrated that there were no adverse water quality
impacts associated with the DCM. Elevated pollution levels due to the DCM works
were not recorded. Based on the past monitoring results, no adverse water
quality impact is expected from the DCM works of this Project.
5.8.1.5 According to approved EIA for 3RS (AEIAR-185/2014), overseas
application and the local site trial of DCM held in February 2012 has
demonstrated that there is no adverse water quality impact associated with the
DCM installation works. This was further confirmed after the approval of the
EIA for 3RS under both the intensive DCM water quality monitoring and regular
DCM monitoring for full-scale DCM applications in 3RS between 2017 and 2019 . These recent
monitoring results concluded that the DCM works would not result in sediment
loss and no SS elevation was attributable to the DCM installation work.
5.8.2
Underwater Filling, Dredging and Sand Blanket Laying
Elevation of Suspended Solids and Sediment Deposition
Model Results for Unmitigated Scenarios
5.8.2.1
Loss of fines could arise from the proposed
marine construction works and the associated SS elevations and sediment
depositions are predicted by means of mathematical modelling.
5.8.2.2
Two sediment dispersion modelling
scenarios, namely Scenarios A1 and A2, were simulated as defined in Appendix 5.6 and Section 5.7.2.14. The model results for maximum SS
elevations and maximum sedimentation rates under the unmitigated scenarios are
tabulated for each WSR in Appendix 5.10a. Contour plots of mean SS elevations and
mean sedimentation rates under the unmitigated scenarios are given in Appendix 5.10b.
5.8.2.3
As illustrated in Table 5.21, the overall amount of sediment
release from TKO 132 is larger than that from TKO 137. The flushing capacity at
TKO 132 in Junk Bay is also poorer than that at TKO 137 in Tathong
Channel. Furthermore, TKO 132 is located in close proximity to WSRs. The SS
elevations and sedimentation rates are predicted to be above the corresponding
assessment criteria at six coral sites (C1a, C1d, C1e, C1f, C1g, C2) and one
coral recipient site (CR1) in Junk Bay under Scenario A1 and / or Scenario A2
as shown in Table 5.26.
Table 5.26 Predicted
SS Elevations and Sedimentation Rates at Representative WSRs – Unmitigated
Scenarios
WSRs
|
ID
|
Assessment Depth
|
Maximum SS Elevation
(mg/L)
|
Maximum Sediment
Deposition (g/m2/day)
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
Assessment Criteria
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
Assessment Criteria
|
Predicted Level
|
Assessment Criteria
|
Predicted Level
|
Scenario A1
|
Coral Communities
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1a
|
Bottom
|
4.2
|
1.0
|
3.5
|
7.3
|
100
|
48
|
307
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1d
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
3.9
|
3.8
|
4.3
|
100
|
161
|
186
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1e
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
11.9
|
3.8
|
8.8
|
100
|
503
|
374
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1f
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
5.1
|
3.8
|
7.6
|
100
|
201
|
335
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1g
|
Bottom
|
4.2
|
4.8
|
3.5
|
6.9
|
100
|
209
|
283
|
Junk Bay
|
C2
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
11.1
|
3.8
|
8.9
|
100
|
526
|
378
|
Coral
Recipient Site
|
Junk Bay West
|
CR1
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
3.4
|
100
|
135
|
132
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
CR2
|
Bottom
|
3.5
|
0.8
|
4.0
|
0.4
|
100
|
32
|
16
|
Seawater Intake
|
TKO Desalination Plant
|
SW1
|
Depth average
|
3.0
|
<0.1
|
3.5
|
<0.1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Scenario A2
|
Coral Communities
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1a
|
Bottom
|
4.2
|
<0.1
|
3.5
|
0.1
|
100
|
2
|
6
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1d
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
0.5
|
3.8
|
2.2
|
100
|
17
|
41
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1e
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
5.6
|
3.8
|
15.8
|
100
|
267
|
650
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1f
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
4.5
|
3.8
|
6.1
|
100
|
187
|
259
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1g
|
Bottom
|
4.2
|
1.5
|
3.5
|
2.4
|
100
|
61
|
111
|
Junk Bay
|
C2
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
3.9
|
3.8
|
3.9
|
100
|
172
|
149
|
Coral Recipient Site
|
Junk Bay West
|
CR1
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
2.6
|
3.8
|
4.0
|
100
|
116
|
174
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
CR2
|
Bottom
|
3.5
|
1.6
|
4.0
|
1.3
|
100
|
62
|
56
|
Seawater Intake
|
TKO Desalination Plant
|
SW1
|
Depth average
|
3.0
|
<0.1
|
3.5
|
<0.1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Notes:
1. Shaded
and bolded value – Predicted level is above the corresponding assessment
criteria.
2. Model
results for a full list of WSRs are presented in Appendix
5.10a.
5.8.2.4
As shown in Appendix 5.10a, non-compliances with the assessment criteria
for depth-averaged SS elevations are also predicted at the secondary contact
recreation subzone (C1a, C1d, C1f, C1g, CR1) at TKO 132 under the unmitigated
scenarios. Compliances with the corresponding assessment criteria for SS
elevation and sedimentation are predicted at all remaining WSRs including all
the WSD’s flushing water intakes and the seawater intake of TKO desalination
plant.
Model Results for Mitigated Scenarios
5.8.2.5
To mitigate potential impacts on the WSRs,
mitigation measure in form of double silt curtain around the marine
construction works is recommended at the TKO 132 development area. Silt
curtains are highly effective in areas where current speeds are low. Junk Bay
is an embayed water with reduced current velocity. Deployment of the
double silt curtain system in Junk Bay is considered an effective mitigation
measure. A SS removal efficiency of 87.4% is assumed for the double silt
curtain system with reference to the past silt curtain efficiency test results.
The indicative arrangement of the double silt curtain at TKO 132 is provided in
Appendix 5.10j.
5.8.2.6
Under the unmitigated scenarios,
compliances with the assessment criteria are predicted at WSRs close to the TKO
137 development area. Construction of marine viaducts in Junk Bay is minor in
scale as compared to the reclamation works. Potential water quality impact
contributed from the reclamation works at TKO 137 and construction of marine
viaducts in Junk Bay is considered minor. As a precautionary measure and to
minimize the cumulative impact upon the WSRs, a single layer of silt curtain
should be deployed around the marine works at TKO 137 and marine viaducts in
Junk Bay.
5.8.2.7 The predicted SS elevations and sediment
deposition with implementation of the proposed silt curtains are presented in Table 5.27 for representative WSRs. The full
model results tabulated for each WSR under the mitigated scenarios are
presented in Appendix 5.10c. Full compliances with the corresponding
assessment criteria for SS elevation and sedimentation flux are predicted at
all WSRs. The contour plots for SS elevations and sedimentation rates under the
mitigated scenarios are given in Appendix
5.10d, which showed that
the extent of sediment plumes would be significantly reduced and minimized with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Table 5.27 Predicted SS Elevations
and Sedimentation Rates at Representative WSRs – Mitigated Scenarios
WSRs
|
ID
|
Assessment Depth
|
Maximum SS Elevation (mg/L)
|
Maximum Sediment Deposition (g/m2/day)
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
Assessment Criteria
|
Dry Season
|
Wet Season
|
Assessment Criteria
|
Predicted Level
|
Assessment Criteria
|
Predicted Level
|
Scenario A1
|
Coral Communities
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1a
|
Bottom
|
4.2
|
0.1
|
3.5
|
1.0
|
100
|
6
|
40
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1d
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
0.5
|
3.8
|
0.6
|
100
|
21
|
24
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1e
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
1.5
|
3.8
|
1.1
|
100
|
65
|
49
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1f
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
0.6
|
3.8
|
0.9
|
100
|
26
|
38
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1g
|
Bottom
|
4.2
|
0.6
|
3.5
|
0.9
|
100
|
26
|
38
|
Junk Bay
|
C2
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
1.4
|
3.8
|
1.6
|
100
|
68
|
73
|
Coral
Recipient Site
|
Junk Bay West
|
CR1
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
0.4
|
3.8
|
0.4
|
100
|
17
|
17
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
CR2
|
Bottom
|
3.5
|
0.2
|
4.0
|
<0.1
|
100
|
8
|
4
|
Seawater Intake
|
TKO Desalination Plant
|
SW1
|
Depth average
|
3.0
|
<0.1
|
3.5
|
<0.1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Scenario A2
|
Coral Communities
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1a
|
Bottom
|
4.2
|
<0.1
|
3.5
|
<0.1
|
100
|
<1
|
<1
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1d
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
<0.1
|
3.8
|
0.3
|
100
|
2
|
5
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1e
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
0.7
|
3.8
|
2.0
|
100
|
34
|
82
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1f
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
0.6
|
3.8
|
0.8
|
100
|
24
|
33
|
Junk Bay West
|
C1g
|
Bottom
|
4.2
|
0.4
|
3.5
|
0.6
|
100
|
15
|
28
|
Junk Bay
|
C2
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
0.5
|
3.8
|
0.5
|
100
|
22
|
19
|
Coral Recipient Site
|
Junk Bay West
|
CR1
|
Bottom
|
3.3
|
0.3
|
3.8
|
0.5
|
100
|
15
|
22
|
Fat Tong Chau
|
CR2
|
Bottom
|
3.5
|
0.4
|
4.0
|
0.3
|
100
|
16
|
14
|
Seawater Intake
|
TKO Desalination Plant
|
SW1
|
Depth average
|
3.0
|
<0.1
|
3.5
|
<0.1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Notes:
1. Shaded
and bolded value – Predicted level is above the corresponding assessment
criteria.
2. The
model results for a full list of WSRs are presented in Appendix
5.10c.
Consideration of Alternative Modelling Scenarios for
TKO 137
5.8.2.8 The seawater intake of TKO desalination
plant is located in Joss House Bay, which is sheltered from the direct tidal
current from the marine construction works and would unlikely be significantly
affected by the sediment plumes generated from the Project. As shown in Table 5.26 and Table 5.27,
the predicted SS elevations at the seawater intake of TKO desalination plant
are negligible under the two worst-case scenarios (A1 and A2). The unmitigated
and mitigated SS elevations at the seawater intake are no more than 0.1 mg/L
with a great safety margin of at least 97% from the criteria values of 3.7 mg/L
and 4.0 mg/L for dry and wet seasons.
5.8.2.9
As indicated in Table
5.20, the 90%ile ambient SS level at the seawater intake is 12.2 mg/L
and 13.4 mg/L for dry and wet season respectively. The Project would cause a
further SS increase at the seawater intake of no more than 0.1 mg/L, which is
negligible as compared to the ambient levels. The resulted SS level is
significantly (at least 26 mg/L) below the design limit set out by the WSD of ≤
40 mg/L.
5.8.2.10 Removal of a thin layer of marine deposit is
proposed near the southern end of TKO 137 reclamation during Phase 2C of TKO
137 reclamation. As shown in Table 5.22,
Phase 2C of TKO 137 reclamation would contribute relatively small amount of
sediment release. It is not identified as a worst-case scenario in terms of
water quality impact and therefore not included in the modelling. As mentioned
above, the predicted SS levels under the worst-case modelling scenarios would
have minimal impact upon the seawater intake of TKO desalination plant. It is
considered that additional modelling scenarios to address the removal of marine
deposit during Phase 2C of TKO 137 reclamation or further adjusting the
modelling scenario by assuming a closer sediment release point to the seawater
intake would not affect the SS compliance and conclusion of this modelling
exercise. Additional modelling scenario for TKO 137 is not necessary.
Oxygen Depletion
and Contaminant Release
Sediment Quality
5.8.2.11 Sediment sampling and testing was conducted
under this EIA to identify the level of sediment contamination within the
marine construction works area. The sediment sampling and testing programme are presented in the approved SSTP and in Section
7. Detailed evaluation of the sediment quality for metals, metalloid and
organic contaminants including PAHs, PCBs, TBT is provided in Section 7.4 and not
presented in this section
5.8.2.12 Sediment quality data for additional parameters including
nutrients and 20-day SOD collected under this EIA are tabulated in Appendix 5.10e and Appendix
5.10f. Relevant sediment
quality data are also extracted from the Marine Water Quality in Hong Kong
2023 at the closest sampling stations and included in Appendix 5.10e and Appendix 5.10f for comparison. The NH3-N, TKN
and TP contents in sediments recorded under this EIA were <10– 44 mg/kg, 70
– 1730 mg/kg and 71 – 795 mg/kg in TKO 137 and <10 – 27 mg/kg, 70 – 1540
mg/kg and 57 – 3620 mg/kg in TKO 132. The nutrient contents recorded at the
EPD’s monitoring stations are within the ranges of nutrient contents recorded
at TKO 137 and TKO 132 under this EIA.
Oxygen Depletion
5.8.3 The degree of DO
depletion exerted by a sediment plume is a function of the SOD of the sediment,
sediment concentration in the water column and the rate of oxygen
replenishment. The impact of the SOD on DO concentrations has been
calculated based on the methodology described in Sections 5.7.2.36 to 5.7.2.38.
5.8.4 The proposed
methodology assumed that all SOD reaching the WSRs would be instantaneously
oxidated, which would overestimate the DO impact since oxygen depletion is not
instantaneous. The methodology does not consider the effect of re-aeration and
DO replenishment in the tidal water. In actuality, it will take time for the SS
to exert any oxygen demand in the water column and, at the same time, the
sediment will be transported and mixed or dispersed with oxygenated water,
which are not considered in this assessment. Furthermore, the highest SOD level
of 2,470 mg/kg measured amongst all the sediment samples collected at TKO 137
and TKO 132 was adopted in the calculations. The average SOD level recorded at
the Project sites would be much lower (Appendix 5.10e and Appendix
5.10f). Thus, this assessment will provide a highly
conservative prediction of DO depletions.
5.8.5 The resulted
maximum DO depletions at all WSRs are tabulated in Appendix
5.10a and Appendix
5.10c for mitigated and unmitigated scenarios. The
predicted maximum DO depletions at all WSRs are below 0.1 mg/L under the
unmitigated scenarios and below 0.01 mg/L under the mitigated scenarios. The
degree of DO depletion arising from this Project is considered minimal. Full DO
compliances are predicted during the construction phase.
Release of
Nutrients, Metals and Micro-pollutants
5.8.6 Sediment elutriate
test was conducted using sediment samples collected at the Project sites to identify
the potential release of sediment-bound contaminants due to disturbance from
marine works under this Project as described in Sections 5.7.2.32 to 5.7.2.35.
The elutriate samples were analysed for nutrients, heavy metals, trace organic
pollutants and chlorinated pesticides. The elutriate test locations are
presented in Appendix
5.10e and Appendix
5.10f. The elutriate testing results are enclosed in Appendix
5.10g and Appendix
5.10h.
5.8.6.1
The elutriate test results showed that the
contents of nitrogen and phosphorous nutrients, As, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn in the sediment
would tend to be released into the marine water as a result of seabed
disturbances. The concentrations of TIN, UIA, As, Cu and Zn in the elutriate
samples exceeded their respective assessment criteria. The measured NH3-N
in the elutriate samples also exceeded the relevant target objective set out by
the WSD for flushing water intakes. Full compliances with the assessment
criteria are observed for the remaining tested parameters.
5.8.6.2
Based on the elutriate test results, the
initial concentrations of nitrogen nutrients, As, Cu and Zn at source (i.e.,
grab dredger) would potentially exceed the assessment criteria. The
concentrations at WSRs were determined based on the dilution potential derived
from tracer modelling. Continuous releases of inert and non-settling tracer
were introduced in the refined HK-DFM Model to represent contaminant releases
at source. Based on the tentative construction programme,
no more than 1 grab dredger would be working at each of the TKO 137 and TKO 132
sites. No dredging / sediment removal would be carried out for construction of
marine viaducts in Junk Bay. It is assumed in the tracer modelling that two
grab dredgers would be working concurrently at TKO 137 and TKO 132 respectively
and each grab dredger would represent a contaminant release source. Subsequent
comparison between the release rate at the source and the resultant
concentration at the model grid cell representing each WSR enables a dilution
potential to be determined. The dilution potential for each WSR is then applied
to the elutriate data to estimate the contaminant concentration at each WSR.
5.8.6.3 Locations of the two contaminant release sources assumed in
the tracer modelling, predicted dilution potential for each source, initial
contaminant concentrations at source (i.e. elutriate data used in the
estimation) and the cumulative contaminant concentrations predicted at each WSR
due to the two sources are presented in Appendix 5.10i. As the tracer
modelling was performed for calculation of the dilution potential rather than
for simulation of the actual contaminant release, no contour plots of
contaminants are prepared, following the assessment approach adopted in the
approved EIA for Expansion of Hong Kong Airport into a Three-Runway System
(AEIAR-185/2014).
5.8.6.4 Based on the estimated dilution
rates, full compliances with the assessment criteria are predicted at all WSRs.
5.8.7 Construction of
Marine Viaducts
5.8.7.1 Construction of marine viaducts would
involve installation of marine piers or piles. Bored piles or equivalent system
would be adopted for the installation works. There will not be any open sea
dredging for construction of marine viaducts. All marine piers or piles
would be bored inside a steel casing or other equivalent systems that can
effectively contain wastewater and spoil generated from the pilling process.
The steel casing would be inserted into the seabed by vibratory action (e.g.
using vibratory hammer). Such operation is expected to result in limited level
of localized disturbance to bottom sediment. The sediment would
only be laterally displaced during the steel casing insertion process.
5.8.7.2 After the installation of bored
piles, the rest of the pile installation would be conducted in dry environment
within precast pier shell, and thus would not result in any direct water
quality impact.
5.8.7.3
Given the small scale of works (with no open dredging) and together with
the use of silt curtain and other mitigation measures for sediment control as
recommended in Section 5.11.3, the potential release of fines and contaminants
is expected to be limited. The SS release from the construction of marine
viaducts has been assumed in the modelling exercise for conservative
assessment. The associated modelling results are presented in Table 5.27. Full water
quality compliances are predicted under the mitigated modelling scenarios with
deployment of a single layer silt curtains around the construction of marine
viaducts. No adverse water quality impact would arise from construction of the
marine viaducts.
5.8.8 Leakage and
Spillage from Barges
5.8.8.1 The Contractor shall follow the good
practices and mitigation measures as recommended in Section 5.11.5 to prevent marine
spillage from barges. Any proposed barging point would be equipped with
conveyor belt, which would be fully enclosed to prevent marine spillage. No
adverse water quality impact is expected with proper implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures.
5.9
Evaluation of
Potential Impacts – Land-based Construction
5.9.1
Construction Site Runoff and Dust Suppression Sprays
5.9.1.1
Relevant mitigation measures outlined in ProPECC
PN 2/23 would be implemented to control construction site runoff, contaminated
surface runoff and drainage from the works areas, and to prevent runoff and
drainage water with high levels of SS from entering the nearby water bodies.
The construction site runoff and spent dust suppression sprays would be
collected by the temporary drainage system installed by the Contractor and then
treated on-site before discharging into the storm drains via silt removal
facilities. The treated discharges shall meet the respective effluent standards
applicable to the receiving waters as set out in the TM-DSS.
5.9.1.2 With the implementation of
appropriate measures to control run-off and drainage from the construction site
in Sections 5.12.1 and 5.12.4, disturbance of water
bodies would be avoided and impact on water quality would be minimal and
acceptable.
5.9.2 Wastewater from
General Construction Activities
5.9.2.1 Wastewater from general construction
activities are likely to be minimal, provided that good construction practices
and proper site management would be observed and implemented. Effluent
discharged from various construction site facilities would be controlled to
prevent direct discharge to the neighbouring inland waters and storm drains. No adverse water
quality impact would arise from the wastewater generation with proper
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in Sections 5.12.2 and
5.12.4.
5.9.3 General Refuse
5.9.3.1 Good housekeeping measures and
regular refuse collection programme should be adopted to mitigate the potential
water quality impact associated with the refuse generation in construction
site. With proper implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
and good site practices in Section 5.12.3, there would be no adverse water
quality impacts due to refuse generation.
5.9.4
Accidental Chemical Spillage
5.9.4.1
All chemicals should be handled, stored and disposed properly to avoid and
contain spillage. Good construction practices should be implemented to prevent
accidental spillage from maintenance activities. With proper implementation of
all recommended mitigation measures in Section 5.12.5, no adverse water quality
impacts would arise.
5.9.5 Sewage Effluent
from Construction Workforce
5.9.5.1 Provided that sewage is not
discharged directly into storm drains or inland/marine waters adjacent to the
construction site, and sufficient chemical toilets are serviced and properly
maintained by a licensed waste collector, sewage generated from the site would
not cause any adverse water quality impact.
5.9.6 Contaminated Site
Runoff
5.9.6.1 With proper implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures and good site practices to avoid, control
or properly treat any contaminated site runoff in Sections 5.12.4 and 5.12.7,
the potential water quality impacts arising from contaminated site run-off
would be minimized and acceptable.
5.9.7
Construction near Inland Watercourses or Seafront
5.9.7.1 The possible slope cutting works at
TKO 132 would affect the most downstream sections of the watercourses. The
watercourses immediately next to the slope cutting are located upstream and
would unlikely be affected by the Project. The watercourses near the Project
works in Fat Tong Chau are very minor and their immediate downstream is the
man-made drainage system in TKO 137. Water quality impact due to construction
near these inland watercourses would be minor. With proper implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures in Sections 5.12.4 and 5.12.8, no
adverse water quality impact would arise.
5.9.8
Removal or Diversion of Inland Watercourses
5.9.8.1 The removal of inland modified
watercourses at TKO 137 would involve diverting the water flow from their
existing routes to the new routes through the proposed covered drainage system
of the new development area. Flow diversion would be conducted prior to
construction at the existing watercourses. Construction would be undertaken in
a dry condition to avoid contaminated runoff. No blockage nor reduction of the
water flow of the inland watercourses would occur based on the proposed
construction method. Changes of flow regime and hydrodynamics of natural
streams / watercourses outside the construction sites are not expected.
Proper construction site drainage would be implemented to protect the
downstream water quality. No adverse water quality impact upon the downstream
water quality is anticipated with proper implementation of the mitigation
measures recommended in Sections 5.12.4 and 5.12.9.
5.10
Evaluation of
Potential Impacts - Operation Phase
5.10.1
Hydrodynamics Modelling Results
5.10.1.1 The simulated surface flow vectors and depth-averaged
flow speeds in the assessment area are compared between Scenario B1 (baseline
condition without the Project) and Scenario B2 (with the Project under normal
EPP operation) in Appendix
5.11a. These plots show the instantaneous water movements
at mid-ebb and mid-flood tides during both dry and wet seasons. The momentary
flow and accumulated flow predicted at three cross sections (Lei Yue Mun, Joss
House Bay and Tung Lung Chau West) during both dry and wet seasons are compared
between Scenario B1 and Scenario B2 in Appendix 5.11b. Locations of the
cross sections are shown in Appendix
5.7. Momentary flow represents the instantaneous flow
rate at a specific time in m3/s whereas accumulated flow represents
the total flow accumulated at a specific time in m3. Emergency
discharge from the EPP would not have further effect on the flow regime and
therefore the hydrodynamics model results for Scenario B3 are not presented.
5.10.1.2 As shown in the flow vector plots in Appendix
5.11a, some deviations of flow directions are observed near
the proposed reclamation sites at TKO 132 and TKO 137 under the impact “with Project” scenario as compared to the baseline “without
Project” scenario. The tidal waters in the remaining areas in Junk Bay, Joss
House Bay and along Victoria Harbour and Tathong
Channel are generally flowing in the same directions between the “with Project” and “without Project” scenarios. The patterns
and ranges of flow speeds within the assessment area are similar between the “with Project” and “without Project” scenarios.
5.10.1.3 The TKO 132 reclamation would block part of
tidal flow across inner Junk Bay. Without the Project, the baseline flow speeds
at inner Junk Bay are relatively slow (<0.1 m/s). As indicated in Appendix 5.11b, the Project would reduce the
root-mean-square (RMS) averaged flow speeds of inner Junk Bay (JM3) by about
19% and about 15% in dry and wet seasons respectively. The resulted flow speeds
at inner Junk Bay under the “with Project” scenario
would still be within the same order of magnitude as compared to the baseline
without Project” scenario. The changes of RMS averaged flow speeds (caused by
this Project) are small of about 0.3% and about 1% at outer Junk Bay (JM4) in dry
and wet seasons respectively. On the other hand, the Project would cause an
increase in the RMS averaged flow speeds at Tathong
Channel (EM2) by up to about 9% due to the TKO 137 reclamation in both dry and
wet seasons.
5.10.1.4 As shown in the timeseries plots, changes of momentary
flow across the key tidal channels (caused by this Project) are considered
negligible. With this Project, the TKO 137 reclamation would divert some tidal
flow away from Joss House Bay, resulting a reduction of accumulated flow
through Joss House Bay as compared to the baseline “without Project” scenario.
The maximum changes in the accumulated flow rates due to this Project are about
11.6% across Joss House Bay. The maximum changes of accumulated flow across Lei
Yue Mun and Tung Lung Chau West (caused by this Project) are significantly
smaller of less than 1%.
5.10.1.5 No statutory requirements or guidelines available for the
% change of flow speed and tidal flow. The changes of water quality and the
predicted water quality compliances as a result of the Project and the
associated changes of hydrodynamics are evaluated in the sections below.
5.10.2 Water Quality Modelling Results
Predicted Water
Quality Compliances at WSRs
5.10.2.1 The water quality
levels predicted at WSRs under all the three modelling scenarios (B1, B2 and
B3) are tabulated in Appendix
5.11c
for DO, BOD5, NH3-N, TIN, UIA, E.coli, SS,
sedimentation rates and salinity for comparison with the relevant assessment criteria.
All the predicted values are in annual basis, except only for the bathing
beaches where the predicted geometric mean E. coli levels are calculated
over the bathing season. Description of the three modelling scenarios (B1, B2
and B3) are presented in Section 5.7.3.2.
DO
5.10.2.2 The minimum DO levels
predicted at all the flushing water intakes complied with the target DO
objective of > 2 mg/L under all the three modelling scenarios (with and
without this Project).
5.10.2.3 The predicted 10%ile
bottom DO and 10%ile depth-averaged DO at FCZs complied with the WQO of ≥
5 mg/L for depth-averaged value and ≥ 2 mg/L for bottom layer (with and
without this Project) The predicted 10%ile bottom DO and 10%ile depth-averaged
DO at other relevant WSRs (including gazette beaches, water sports area at Junk
Bay, secondary contact recreation subzone, seawater intake of desalination
plant, typhoon shelter, coral communities, coral recipient sites, amphioxus,
SSSI, important spawning ground of commercial fisheries resources and important
nursery ground of commercial fisheries resources) also complied with the WQO of
≥ 4 mg/L for depth-averaged value and ≥ 2 mg/L for bottom layer
(with and without this Project).
5.10.2.4 DO criteria is not
applicable to cooling water intakes.
5.10.2.5 Full DO compliances at
all WSRs are predicted under all the modelling scenarios (with and without this
Project). The Project would not cause any adverse DO impact at all WSRs.
NH3-N
5.10.2.6 The maximum NH3-N
levels predicted at all the flushing water intakes complied with the target
objective of < 1 mg/L under all the modelling scenarios (with and without
this Project).
5.10.2.7 NH3-N
criteria is not applicable to the remaining WSRs.
5.10.2.8 No adverse NH3-N
impact at WSRs is predicted from this Project.
TIN
5.10.2.9 TIN criteria is not
applicable to flushing water intakes and cooling water intakes.
5.10.2.10 Non-compliances with the
WQOs for annual mean TIN are predicted at several WSRs under all the modelling
scenarios (with and without this Project). The annual mean TIN levels predicted
at 10 WSRs in Southern and Port Shelter WCZs are 0.2 mg/L, which exceeded the
respective WQO of ≤ 0.1 mg/L. These 10 WSRs include 3 bathing beaches
(B1, B2 and B3), 4 coral sites (C23, C24, C25 and C26), Shek O Headland SSSI
(SS1), important spawning ground of commercial fisheries resources (SG1) and important nursery ground of commercial
fisheries resources (NG1).
5.10.2.11 There is no noticeable
difference in the levels of TIN at these 10 WSRs between all the modelling
scenarios (i.e., with or without the Project). These non-compliances are not
induced by this Project. They are due to the stringent WQO adopted for the WCZs.
These 10 WSRs are distant from the Project area and no adverse water quality
impact to these WSRs would be resulted.
5.10.2.12 The predicted annual
mean TIN levels at all the remaining WSRs complied with the WQOs under all the
modeling scenarios (with and without the Project).
5.10.2.13 The Project would not
cause any adverse TIN level at WSRs.
UIA
5.10.2.14 UIA criteria is not
applicable to flushing water intakes and cooling water intakes.
5.10.2.15 Full WQO compliances
for UIA are predicted at all the remaining WSRs. The predicted annual mean
depth averaged UIA levels at all WSRs is <0.01 mg/L under all the three
modelling scenarios (with and without this Project) as compared to the WQO of ≤0.021
mg/L.
5.10.2.16 No adverse UIA impact
upon the WSRs is predicted from this Project.
E. coli
5.10.2.17 Full E. coli
compliances with the target limit of 20,000 no./100 mL are predicted at all the
flushing water intakes. The maximum E. coli levels predicted at the
flushing water intakes are within the same order of magnitude between the
modelling scenarios (i.e. with or without this Project).
5.10.2.18 The geometric mean E.coli
levels for bathing season predicted at all gazetted
beaches fully complied with the WQO of ≤180 no. / 100 mL under all the
modelling scenarios (with and without the Project). The annual geometric
mean E.coli levels predicted at the secondary contact recreation subzone
(C1a, C1d, C1f, C1g and CR1) and the Tung Lung Chau FCZ (F1) fully complied
with the WQO of ≤ 610 no. / 100 mL under all the modelling scenarios
(with and without the Project).
5.10.2.19 The annual geometric
mean E.coli levels predicted at a distant WSR, namely Po Toi O FCZ (F2),
exceeded the WQO of ≤ 610 no. / 100 mL under all the modelling scenarios
(with and without the Project). The exceedance was contributed by the
background pollution loading at Po Toi O assumed in the modelling exercise and
not caused by this Project. There is no noticeable
difference in the E.coli levels predicted at F2 between all the
modelling scenarios (with and without this Project). Po Toi O FCZ is distant from the Project area
and no adverse water quality impact to the FCZ would arise from this Project.
5.10.2.20 The predicted E.coli
levels at some WSRs are slightly lower under the “with
Project” scenarios as compared to the baseline “without Project” scenarios,
which could be due to the changes of hydrodynamics as discussed in Section
5.10.1. E. coli criteria is not applicable to cooling water intakes,
seawater intake of desalination plant, potential water sports area at Junk Bay.
typhoon shelter, coral communities, coral recipient sites, amphioxus, SSSI,
important spawning ground of commercial fisheries resources and important
nursery ground of commercial fisheries resources.
5.10.2.21 No adverse E. coli
impact upon the WSRs is predicted from this Project.
SS
5.10.2.22 The maximum SS level predicted
at the flushing water intakes fully complied with the target limit of 10 mg/L
under all the three modelling scenarios (i.e. with or without this Project). No
adverse SS impact upon the flushing water intakes would be caused by this
Project.
5.10.2.23 The maximum SS levels
predicted at the seawater intake of TKO desalination plant under various
modelling scenarios are below 2 mg/L, which complied very well with the raw
water design basis value set out by the WSD of ≤ 40 mg/L.
5.10.2.24 The % increases in the
maximum and mean SS levels caused by this Project are tabulated for all
relevant WSRs on page 5 and page 6 of Appendix 5.11c. All the predicted %
increases (due to this Project) are below the WQO of ≤ 30%.
5.10.2.25 SS criteria is not
applicable to cooling water intakes.
5.10.2.26 No adverse SS impact
upon the WSR is predicted from the Project.
BOD5
5.10.2.27 The maximum BOD5
levels predicted at all the flushing water intakes are well below the target
objective of < 10 mg/L under all the modelling scenarios (with and without
the Project).
5.10.2.28 BOD5
criteria is not applicable to all remaining WSRs.
5.10.2.29 No adverse BOD5
impact upon the WSRs is predicted from the Project.
Sedimentation Rate
5.10.2.30 The maximum
sedimentation rates predicted at all identified important benthic communities
(corals and amphioxus) are < 20 g/m2/day, which fully complied with
the criteria value of 100 g/m2/day under all the modelling scenarios
(with and without the Project). Sedimentation criteria is not applicable to
remaining WSRs. No adverse sedimentation impact would be caused by this
Project.
Salinity
5.10.2.31 There is no absolute
limit for salinity. The annual maximum salinity levels predicted at the WSRs
ranged from 33.8 to 35.6 ppt under all the modelling scenarios (with and
without the Project). The % changes in the maximum and mean salinity levels
caused by this Project are tabulated for all relevant WSRs on page 7 and page 8
of Appendix
5.11c.
The changes in the predicted salinity values caused by the Project are no more
than 0.23%, which complied well with the WQO of ±10%.
Changes of Water
Quality Patterns
5.10.2.32 The water quality
modelling results are presented as contour plots in Appendix 5.11d for bottom DO and
depth-averaged DO, depth-averaged BOD5, depth-averaged TIN,
depth-averaged UIA, depth-averaged E.coli, depth-averaged SS,
sedimentation rates and depth-averaged salinity. Each figure
attached in Appendix
5.11d contains three contour
plots for comparison. The upper plot shows the model output for baseline
scenario without the Project (Scenario B1). The middle plot shows the model
output for impact scenario with the Project under normal EPP operation
(Scenario B2). The lowest plot shows the model output for Project
operation with a 2-hour emergency discharge of raw sewage from the EPP in both
dry and wet seasons (Scenario B3). All contour plots are presented as annual
arithmetic averages except for the E.coli levels which are
annual geometric mean values and the DO levels, which include both annual mean
and annual 10%ile values.
DO
5.10.2.33 As shown in the contour
plots, the mean and 10%ile DO patterns between all the modelling scenarios (with
and without the Project) are similar. The predicted annual mean depth-averaged
DO levels are in general above 6 mg/L. The predicted 10%ile bottom and
depth-averaged DO levels in the assessment area are generally above 2 mg/L and
4 mg/L respectively. The Project would not cause any significant effect on the
DO patterns.
TIN
5.10.2.34 As shown in the model
contour plots, the annual mean TIN patterns between all the modelling scenarios
(with and without the Project) are similar. The annual mean TIN levels are
generally below the WQO of 0.4 mg/L in Victoria Harbour
and Eastern Buffer WCZs and below the WQO of 0.3 mg/L in Junk Bay and Mirs Bay
WCZ. The annual mean TIN levels are between 0.1 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L in Southern
and Port Shelter WCZs, which exceed the WQO of 0.1 mg/L due to the stringent
WQO adopted for the WCZs.
UIA
5.10.2.35 The Project is predicted to cause no UIA exceedance in the
assessment area. The annual mean UIA levels in the assessment area are
generally below 0.01 mg/L, which complied with the WQO of 0.021 mg/L
under all the modelling scenarios (with and without the Project). The predicted
UIA patterns are similar between all the modelling scenarios.
E. coli
5.10.2.36 The predicted
depth-averaged geometric mean E.coli levels are in general
< 180 no. / 100 mL in open waters of the assessment area under all the three
modelling scenarios (with and without the Project). E. coli plumes of
> 180 no. / 100 mL are predicted in embayed waters or near the storm or
river outlets such as Kai Tak Approach Channel (KTAC), Eastern Channel in Junk
Bay, typhoon shelters and Po Toi O under all the modelling scenarios (with and
without the Project). These E. coli plumes were contributed from the
background polluted storm discharges assumed in this modelling exercise and not
related to this Project. The Project including the EPP discharges would not
change the E.coli pattern.
5.10.2.37 The predicted mean SS
levels are generally < 1 mg/L in the eastern Victoria Harbour,
Junk Bay, Eastern Buffer, Mirs Bay and Port Shelter under all the modelling
scenarios (with and without the Project). SS levels of > 1 mg/L are
predicted in central Victoria Harbour as well as in
the embayed waters or near the storm or river outlets such as KTAC, Eastern
Channel in Junk Bay, typhoon shelters and Po Toi O under all the modelling
scenarios (with and without the Project). These SS plumes were contributed from
the background polluted storm discharges assumed in this modelling exercise and
not related to this Project. Changes of the SS pattern in the assessment area
caused by the Project including the EPP effluent discharges are considered
minimal.
BOD5
5.10.2.38
The predicted mean BOD5 levels in
the assessment area are generally below 0.5 mg/L under all the modelling
scenarios (with and without the Project). Higher BOD5 levels are
predicted near the storm or river outlets such as the KTAC and Eastern Channel
under all the modelling scenarios (with and without the Project). No adverse
BOD5 impact due to the Project is predicted The predicted BOD5 patterns are
similar between all the modelling scenarios.
Sedimentation Rate
5.10.2.39 The predicted mean
sedimentation rates range from 1 - 5 g/m2/day in the embayed waters
with reduced current velocity and < 1 g/m2/day in open waters
with better tidal flushing capacity under all the modelling scenarios (with and
without the Project). The predicted maximum sedimentation rates are generally
below 10 g/m2/day in the assessment area except in the embayed
waters or near the storm and river outlets where the sedimentation rates would
be higher under all the modelling scenarios (with and without the Project). The
sedimentation plumes of > 10 g/m2/day were contributed by the
background discharges and not caused by this Project. The Project including the
EPP discharge would not affect the sedimentation patterns in the assessment
area.
Salinity
5.10.2.40 The salinity patterns
are similar under all the modelling scenarios (with and without the Project).
There is an increasing trend of salinity from west to east. The predicted
mean salinity ranged from < 30.5 ppt near the storm outfalls to > 33.5
ppt in the eastern side of the assessment area. The Project including the EPP
discharges would not change the salinity patterns.
Changes of Water
Quality Before, During and After Emergency Discharges from EPP
5.10.2.41 Emergency situations are
the results of loss of power supply or failures of treatment units at the
EPP. It is assumed that emergency discharge of raw sewage from the EPP
would occur for a period of 2 hours via the proposed seawall outfall. The
total emergency discharge volume would be 5,850
m3,
which has taken into consideration of the diurnal peak flow.
5.10.2.42 The time-series model
results showing the changes of water quality levels before, during and after
the emergency discharge in dry season and wet season (Scenario B3) are
presented in Appendix
5.11f to Appendix 5.11k for DO, TIN, SS. E.coli, UIA and
salinity.
5.10.2.43 The time-series plots all parameters are prepared for
selected WSRs including the coral communities at Fat Tong Chau (C6b), coral
recipient site at Fat Tong Chau (CR2), coral communities at Tit Cham Chau (C7),
coral communities at Kwun Tsai (C8), coral communities at Cape Collinson (C19
and C20), Tung Lung Chau FCZ (F1), seawater intake of TKO desalination plant
(SW1), cooling water intake at Pamela Youde Nethersole
Eastern Hospital (CW5), Bathing Beach at Big Wave Bay (B1) and flushing water
intake at Siu Sai Wan (FW6). The timeseries plots for E. coli are
also prepared for one additional WSR, namely flushing water intake at Heng Fa
Chuen (FW5). Each figure attached in Appendix
5.11f to Appendix 5.11k contains a comparison of the model results between normal
operation of EPP (Scenario B2) and emergency situation (Scenario B3).
5.10.2.44 As shown in Appendix 5.11f. the emergency discharge would not cause
any effect on the DO levels in both dry and wet seasons at all selected WSRs.
There is no noticeable difference in the DO levels between the emergency
discharge scenario (Scenario B3) and the normal EPP operation scenario
(Scenario B2).
5.10.2.45 The predicted
changes in TIN levels between Scenarios B2 and B3 during and after the
emergency discharge of this Project are minimal or negligible at all selected
WSRs (Appendix 5.11g). The emergency discharge is predicted to
cause no adverse TIN impacts.
5.10.2.46 Water quality deterioration in terms of SS elevations during
and after the emergency discharge are considered minimal or negligible at all
selected WSRs as shown in Appendix 5.11h. The predicted SS levels in the assessment
area are in general not sensitive to the emergency discharge. No adverse
SS impact is predicted due to the emergency discharge.
E. coli
5.10.2.47 A very high E.coli concentration of 4x107
no./100mL is assumed in the emergency discharges, which would inevitably cause
some increases in the numerical E.coli values at the WSRs. The highest E.coli
elevations caused by the emergency discharge occurred at the closest WSR i.e.,
the coral recipient site at Fat Tong Chau (CR2). The E.coli elevations
at CR2 occurred after the emergency discharge with a peak level of 50,592
no./100 mL. The maximum magnitude of E. coli
elevations are same as those predicted under other approved EIAs such as the
EIA for Yuen Long EPP.
5.10.2.48 The E.coli increases predicted at other selected WSRs
are substantially smaller. The predicted peak E coli levels (caused by
the emergency discharge) are 1,946 no. / 100 mL at coral communities at Fat
Tong Chau (C6b), 3,995 no./100 mL at flushing water intake at Heng Fa Chuen
(FW5), 657 no./100 mL at Tung Lung Chau FCZ (F1), 67 no./100 mL at coral
communities at Tit Cham Chau (C7), 52 no./100mL at coral communities at Cape
Collinson (C20), 39 no./100mL at the seawater intake of TKO Desalination Plant
(SW1), 24 no./100 mL at coral communities at Cape Collinson (C19) and 16 no.
/100 mL at coral communities at Kwun Tsai (C8). The predicted E.coli
elevations are negligible at bathing beach at Big Wave Bay (B1), flushing water
intake at Siu Sai Wan (FW6) and cooling water intake at Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital (CW5).
5.10.2.49 The E. coli increases at all the WSRs are transient.
The normal water quality condition would be restored within 2 days after
termination of the emergency discharge. The maximum E. coli levels
predicted during or after the emergency discharge are also tabulated in Appendix 5.11i for all WSRs in both dry and wet seasons.
5.10.2.50 Deterioration in the
predicted UIA levels during and after the emergency discharge is considered
minimal or negligible at all selected WSRs as shown in Appendix 5.11j. The emergency discharge is predicted to
cause no adverse UIA impact.
Salinity
5.10.2.51 No salinity
elevations are observed during and after the emergency discharge at all
selected WSRs as shown in Appendix 5.11k. The predicted salinity levels are not
sensitive to the emergency discharge at all selected WSRs. No adverse
salinity impact is predicted from the emergency discharge.
5.10.3
Changes of Configurations
5.10.3.1 With reference to
the hydrodynamic modelling results presented in Section 5.10.1, the proposed
reclamations at TKO 137 and TKO 132 would not diminish the tidal flow flushing
through the key marine channels in the assessment areas. Based on the water
quality modelling results presented in Section 5.10.2, the levels of water
quality compliances are the same with or without this Project. No adverse water
quality impact is predicted due to the changes of coastline configurations.
5.10.4
Creation of Embayed Water and Marine Refuse Entrapment at TKO 132
5.10.4.1 As
shown in Appendix 5.11d, the annual 10%ile bottom DO and annual
10%ile depth-averaged DO predicted at the embayed water formed near the
northern corner of TKO 132 reclamation are > 4 mg/L and > 5 mg/L
respectively, which complied well with the WQOs of ≥ 2 mg/L and ≥ 4
mg/L under Scenarios B2 and B3 (with this Project). Although the water
circulation at the northern corner of TKO 132 reclamation would be limited,
there is no major pollution sources in the surrounding area. No effluent /
sewage / wastewater discharge is proposed along the northeastern boundary of
TKO 132 reclamation to minimize accumulation of pollutants. Design and
mitigation measures as presented in Section 5.13.6 are also proposed to prevent accidental
marine spillage. No hypoxia condition and thus no odour
impact would be expected according to the modelling results.
5.10.4.2 The potential impacts from floating refuse
accumulation could be mitigated by regular refuse scavenging. Maintenance and
clean-up should be conducted regularly by the operators to remove floating
refuse along the seafront. Provided with a regular refuse collection programme,
accumulation of pollutant and floating refuse is not anticipated.
5.10.5
Sewage / Wastewater Generation and Operation of EPP and Advance SPS at
TKO 137
Evaluation of
Effluent Outfall Options
5.10.5.1 The model results indicated
that the marine water quality effects caused by the seawall discharges from the
EPP are insignificant. The EPP discharges would not cause any water quality
non-compliances under both normal operation and emergency situation. The levels
of water quality compliances are the same with or without the EPP discharges.
Since the predicted water quality changes induced by the seawall discharges are
already insignificant, use of the alternative submarine effluent outfall option
would not induce substantial differences in the water quality impact.
Additional water quality benefit due to the use of submarine effluent outfall
would be insignificant. The proposed seawall discharge location would be the
most effective option for the EPP in minimizing the water quality impact.
Submarine effluent outfall is not recommended for the EPP.
Implications on
Eutrophication and Risk of Algal Bloom
5.10.5.2 The effluent
discharges from the EPP are mainly domestic in nature, which would contain a
certain amount of nutrients including nitrogen. Nitrogen nutrient (i.e. TIN) is
in theory not harmful to marine life. Nitrogen is however an essential nutrient
for the growth of algae or phytoplankton. The key purpose of setting out the
WQO for TIN under the WPCO is to control or minimize the risk of algal bloom
and eutrophication. With reference to the modelling results, the Project
including the effluent discharges from the EPP under normal operation and
emergency situation would cause no changes to the TIN compliances within the
assessment area. The EPP discharges would not cause any adverse implications on
eutrophication and would not increase the risk of algal bloom.
Water Quality
Impact on Seawater Intake of Desalination Plant
5.10.5.3 Full compliances with the WQOs are predicted at the
intake point of desalination plant for salinity, DO, TIN, UIA and SS under
normal EPP operation and emergency situations.
5.10.5.4 As shown in Appendix 5.11c, the maximum SS
levels predicted at the seawater intake are below 2mg/L under both normal
operation and emergency situations of the EPP, which are well below the raw
water design basis value of ≤ 40 mg/L.
5.10.5.5 A water temperature range is specified
under the design basis values of the desalination plant. Sewage effluent
discharge would not release any heat energy to the marine water and would not
induce any thermal impact upon the seawater intake.
5.10.5.6 Other design parameters of the desalination plant
include TDS, boron and bromide. In pure or clean ocean water, the level of TDS
is approximately equal to the level of salinity. Boron and bromide are also
naturally present in the ambient seawater. In wastewater or polluted areas, TDS
can include organic solutes (such as hydrocarbons and urea) in addition to the
salt ions. The seawater intake location in Joss House Bay is sheltered from the
direct tidal flow passing through Victoria Harbour and the Project site. It is
predicted that the Project including the EPP discharges would not change the
salinity and other parameters such as DO, SS, TIN and UIA at the intake point.
These model results imply that the influences of the EPP discharges on the water
quality at the seawater intake point would be minimal. There are no major
existing and future pollution sources of organic solutes in Joss House Bay.
Majority of the TDS levels at the seawater intake location is therefore
expected to be contributed from the salt ions. As shown in Appendix
5.11c, the predicted maximum salinity level at the seawater
intake of desalination plant is about 34 ppt as compared to the design basis
value for TDS of 39 ppt. Based on the model results and the analysis above, the
TDS level at seawater intake is expected to comply the respective design basis
value. No exceedance of the design basis values for TDS, boron and bromide
would be caused by this Project.
Water Quality
Impact on Other WSRs
5.10.5.7 As discussed in Section 5.10.2.10 and 5.10.2.11, the
TIN levels predicted at 10 WSRs exceeded the WQO. There is no noticeable
difference in the predicted TIN levels at these 10 WSRs
between all the modelling scenarios (with and without this Project). As
discussed in Section 5.10.2.19, the E.coli levels predicted at 1 WSR
exceeded the WQO. There is also no noticeable difference in the predicted E.coli
levels at this WSR between all the modelling scenarios (with and without this
Project). These WQO exceedances were not induced by this Project. Full
compliances with assessment criteria were predicted at other WSRs. The EPP
discharges would not cause any adverse water quality impacts at the WSRs.
Operation of
Advance SPS
5.10.5.8 No discharge would
arise from normal operation of the advance SPS. The quantity of emergency
discharge from the advance SPS would be smaller than that resulted from the EPP
and the location of emergency discharge from the advance SPS and the EPP would
be the same. The water quality impact due to emergency discharge from EPP has
been evaluated to be acceptable. Therefore, any emergency discharge from the
advance SPS would not cause adverse water quality impact.
Operation of Refuse
Collection Point, PTI, Green Fuel Station, Ambulance Depot and Service
Reservoirs
5.10.5.9 Provided the effluent and wastewater generated from
these facilities are proper treated and disposed in accordance with the WPCO
requirements and the design measures as recommended in Section 5.13.3 are
properly implemented, no adverse water quality impact would arise from the
operation of refuse collection point, PTI, green fuel station, ambulance depot
and service reservoirs at TKO 137.
Aging or Damage of
Sewerage Network
5.10.5.10 In order to prevent the uncontrolled discharge of untreated sewage
effluent to water environment, there will be a need to minimise the risk of
failure of the sewerage system. Precautionary measures are recommended in
Sections 5.13.3.14 and 5.13.5.14 to minimise the risk of failure of the
proposed sewerage system. With proper implementation of the recommended
precautionary measures, no adverse water quality impact arising from damage on
sewerage system is anticipated.
5.10.6
Non-point Source Surface Run-off in TKO 137 Development
5.10.6.1 It is expected that with proper implementation of the
stormwater control measures including BMP and blue-green infrastructure as
presented in Section 5.13.4, the water quality impact due to the non-point
source surface runoff would be minimised and insignificant. No adverse
water quality impact would arise from the non-point source surface runoff
generated at TKO 137 Development.
5.10.7 Sewage / Wastewater Generation
and Operation of SPS at TKO 132
5.10.7.1 All wastewater and sewage generated at the PFTF, CBP, CWHF, EFs
and RTS during the operation of the TKO 132 development would be diverted to
the public sewerage system and then conveyed to the existing TKO PTW for
subsequent disposal at the existing HATS. No treated or untreated
wastewater / sewage would be discharged at TKO 132. Thus, sewage and wastewater
generation at TKO 132 would not cause any adverse water quality impact. It
should be noted that there will be separate EIA studies to assess the water
quality impacts from the designated projects (i.e. CWHF, EFs and RTS).
5.10.7.2 A new SPS is proposed at the open space of the TKO 132
development with a design capacity of only 400 m3 per day to convey
the sewage and wastewater to TKO PTW. Potential water quality impact may arise
from emergency overflow / bypass of sewage due to pump failure, power supply
failure and damage to pressure main or flooding. Emergency bypass culverts
will be built to convey any emergency overflow to the southern development
boundary in the outer Junk Bay, which would be more connected the open channel
of Victoria Harbour to enhance dispersion.
5.10.7.3 Backup power supply together with an
additional 2-hour on-site emergency storage capacity as well as standby pump
would be provided for the SPS to prevent emergency
discharge. Breakdown of SPS could be recovered typically within 2 hours. With
the proposed design measures for the SPS, the change of emergency discharge
would be highly unlikely. Since the capacity of the proposed SPS is minor, the
quantity of any emergency discharge would be small with a discharge rate of
< 0.005 m3/s. The discharge would be immediately and continuously
diluted by the marine water. The water quality impact, if any, would be
transient and reversible. Details of the proposed precautionary and design
measures for the SPS are further elaborated in Section 5.13.5. No long-term
insurmountable water quality impact would arise.
5.10.8 Accidental Marine
Spillage from Marine Delivery, Unloading and Loading of Materials from Barges
at TKO 132
5.10.8.1 Enclosed conveyor system or sealed containers
would be implemented to fully enclose the materials (e.g. fill, aggregate,
sand, construction materials and refuse) during the transfer of these material
to and from the barges. Sufficient free board and covering of the materials
would be implemented on the barges to avoid overflow of the materials. Since
there would be no lifting of these materials in open air during the loading and
unloading operations, accidental spillage of these materials would not occur.
With proper implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in Section
5.13.6 and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in Section 5.13.8, accidental
material spillable would be avoided.
5.10.9 Non-point Source
Surface Runoff and Accidental Spillage in TKO 132 Development
5.10.9.1 The pollution sources or
operation activities (e.g. material stockpile) at the TKO 132 development that
may contribute to storm pollution will be either fully enclosed or covered
within buildings to avoid contaminated runoff. For any uncovered areas or open
space within the development area, perimeter drainage and runoff treatment
devices would be provided to intercept and convey the first flush of
potentially contaminated surface runoff as well as any dry weather flow to the
public sewerage system. Containment measures such as stop-logs would be
considered and installed at suitable location(s) in the perimeter drainage
system of the development sites to contain any accidental spillage in open
area.
5.10.9.2 It is anticipated that with proper
implementation of the storm water control measures and BMP for stormwater
management as recommended in Section 5.13.7 and the EMP proposed in Section
5.13.8, there would be no adverse water quality impact arising from the
non-point source surface runoff.
5.10.10
Maintenance Dredging for Proposed Berthing Facility of TKO 132
Development
5.10.10.1 Dredging is proposed during the construction phase to provide
sufficient depth for vessel berthing at the TKO 132 development. A sediment
layer of about 5 m thick would be removed at a rate of 700 m3 per
day during the construction phase (to the deign depth of about 8 m below CD).
5.10.10.2 The average siltation rates in central Victoria Harbour are expected to be in the range of 50 mm to 60 mm
per year . The TKO 132 area is located away from the
old urbanized areas and subject to less influences from polluted urban runoff.
BMP for storm water management is also recommended to minimize non-point source
surface runoff from the Project area. The siltation rate at TKO 132 is not
expected to be significantly greater than that previously recorded in the
central Victoria Harbour. Assuming that up to
500 mm of sediment will need to be dredged every 5 to 10 years, the sediment
volume to be removed under each maintenance dredging event is expected to 10
times smaller than that generated during the construction phase. The
maintenance dredging rate can be capped at the dredging rate of 700 m3/day.
The sediment release rate due to the maintenance dredging of 700 m3/day
under the unmitigated scenario would be smaller than the mitigated sediment
release rate resulted from the reclamation works at TKO 132 under Scenario A2.
The construction phase water quality impacts predicted under Scenarios A1 and
A2 would represent the worst case in terms of the sediment releases at TKO 132.
No further assessment of the maintenance dredging impact is required.
Mitigation measures including the deployment of double silt curtains should be
implemented for the maintenance dredging works, in view of its close proximity
to the coral sites. No adverse water quality impact would be anticipated.
5.11 Mitigation Measures – Marine
Construction
5.11.1
DCM
5.11.1.1 The following
design and mitigation measures should be adopted for the DCM treatment.
§ Place sand blanket of at least 1 m thick on top of the sediments prior
to DCM treatment to avoid seabed sediment disturbance and release of
fines.
§ Carefully control the cement slurry injection pressure to prevent
leaching out of cement slurry during the DCM operation.
§ Single layer silt curtain shall be deployed during the DCM operation.
5.11.2
Underwater Filling, Dredging and Sand Blanket Laying
5.11.2.1 The following design and mitigation
measures should be adopted for the underwater filling, dredging and sand
blanket laying works where appropriate.
§ Underwater filling for the reclamation works should be carried out
behind a leading seawall. The extent and location of underwater filling with
respect to the extent of leading seawall shall be designed with reference to
the construction sequence in Appendix 5.1 and Appendix
5.2. If there are any proposed changes of the marine construction design /
sequence, the associated water quality impact should be reviewed and where
necessary additional mitigation measures should be proposed prior to the
implementation of the proposed changes.
§ A “controlled bottom placement” method should be adopted for the sand
blanket laying work as far as practicable by releasing the sand material at a
point near the seabed and at a controlled sand filling rate to prevent
localized overloading of the seabed and potential instability, and to minimize
loss of fines when placing the sand blanket in marine water.
§ The reclamation sequence and production rates for underwater filling,
dredging and sand blanket laying should follow those presented in Table 5.21. If there are any proposed
changes of the reclamation sequence and production rates of the marine works,
the associated water quality impact should be reviewed and where necessary
additional mitigation measures should be proposed prior to the implementation
of the proposed changes.
§ TKO 132 development is located inside Junk Bay with relatively poor
water circulation. It is also in close vicinity of coral communities. Double
silt curtain should be deployed to surround the underwater filling, dredging
and sand blanket laying works of TKO 132 development to minimize water quality
impact at the coral sites. A silt curtain
deployment plan should be submitted to EPD prior to the commencement of the
corresponding marine construction works. Detailed silt curtain deployment
arrangement should be proposed under the silt curtain deployment plan.
§ TKO 137 is located along Tathong Channel with
high tidal flushing and pollutant dispersion capacity. Full water quality
compliances are predicted at WSRs (including the seawater intake of TKO
Desalination Plant) under the unmitigated scenarios. A single layer silt
curtain should be deployed to surround the underwater filling, dredging and
sand blanket laying works of TKO 137 development as a precautionary measure. A silt curtain deployment plan should
be submitted to EPD prior to the commencement of the corresponding marine
construction works. Detailed silt curtain deployment arrangement should be
proposed under the silt curtain deployment plan.
5.11.3.1 The following
standard measures and good site practices are recommended to be implemented for
construction of marine viaducts:
§ Bored piling and any excavation for construction of the marine viaducts
should be enclosed and carried out within steel casings or cofferdams or other
equivalent systems that can effectively contain the material, debris and
wastewater generated from the process.
§ Single layer silt curtain should be set up to enclose the entire active
work area before commencement of the marine works such as the installation of
steel casing and any piling works for temporary marine facilities and marine
viaduct to control sediment dispersion. A silt curtain deployment plan should
be submitted to EPD prior to the commencement of the corresponding marine
construction works. Detailed silt curtain deployment arrangement should be
proposed under the silt curtain deployment plan.
§ All wastewater generated from the process should be fully contained and
collected by a derrick lighter or other equivalent collection system and be
treated before controlled disposal.
§ Any spoil generated from the construction process should be fully
contained and collected by sealed hopper barges or other equivalent systems for
proper disposal.
5.11.4
Construction of Outfall
5.11.4.1 The proposed
seawall outfall should be constructed using the following method or other
equivalent methods to avoid disturbance of the seabed and prevent the release
of construction or fill materials into the marine water. The pre-cast
outfall structure to be installed at the seawall should be designed with both
ends covered and sealed temporarily, and embedded in parallel with construction
of seawall structure. The remaining pre-cast box culvert should be packed with
air-inflated packer inside to prevent construction or fill materials being wash
out through the box culvert during the reclamation works. Upon completion of
the reclamation works and construction of the outfall and box culvert, the
seals at the outmost outfall including the packers placed inside can be removed
accordingly.
5.11.5 Good Site Practices for Construction
Vessels
5.11.5.1 The following good site practices should be
implemented to minimize water pollution from construction vessels and marine
transportation of construction materials.
§ All barging points to be operated during the construction phase should
be equipped with conveyor belt, which should be fully enclosed to prevent
marine spillage.
§ Barges or hoppers shall not be filled to a level which will cause
overflow of materials or pollution of water during loading or transportation.
§ Excess materials shall be cleaned from the decks and exposed fittings of
barges before the vessels are moved.
§ Plants should not be operated with leaking pipes and any pipe leakages
shall be repaired quickly.
§ Adequate freeboard shall be maintained on barges to reduce the
likelihood of decks being washed by wave action.
§ All vessels should be sized so that adequate clearance is maintained
between vessels and the seabed in all tide conditions, to ensure that undue
turbidity is not generated by turbulence from vessel movement or propeller
wash.
§ The works shall not cause foam, oil, grease, litter or other
objectionable matter to be present in the water within and adjacent to the
works site.
§ Regular maintenance and checking of all construction vessels should be
undertaken to maintain a good operation condition and prevent leakage and
spillage.
§ A Spill Response Plan (SRP) detailing the actions to be taken in the
event of accidental spillage of oil or other hazardous chemicals during
construction of the Project should be prepared by the contractor and submitted
to WSD for approval before the commencement of marine works of the Project. The
content of the SRP should contain but not limited to chemical / material
storage, transfer and transport precautions, a notification system (including a
contact list of relevant parties) in case of accidental spillage, spill
response procedures including necessary actions to protect WSRs, spillage
control equipment and material, health and safety equipment, roles and
responsibilities of relevant parties and inventory of hazardous chemicals /
compounds.
5.12 Mitigation Measures – Land-based
Construction
5.12.1 Construction Site Runoff and Dust
Suppression Sprays
5.12.1.1 The site practices outlined in ProPECC
PN 2/23 “Construction Site Drainage” should be followed where applicable to
minimize surface runoff and the chance of erosion. Surface runoff including the
spent effluent from dust suppression from construction sites should be
discharged into storm drains via adequately designed sand/silt removal
facilities such as sand traps, silt traps and sedimentation basins. Channels or
earth bunds or sandbag barriers should be provided on site to properly direct
stormwater to such silt removal facilities. Perimeter channels at site boundaries
should be provided on site boundaries where necessary to intercept storm runoff
from outside the site so that it will not wash across the site. Catchpits and
perimeter channels should be constructed in advance of construction and
earthworks.
5.12.1.2 Silt removal facilities, channels and manholes should
be maintained and the deposited silt and grit should be removed regularly, at
the onset of and after each rainstorm to prevent local flooding. Before
disposal at the public fill reception facilities, the deposited silt and grit
should be solicited in such a way that it can be contained and delivered by
dump truck instead of tanker truck. Any practical options for the diversion and
re-alignment of drainage should comply with both engineering and environmental
requirements in order to provide adequate hydraulic capacity of all drains.
Minimum distance of 100m should be maintained between the discharge points of
construction site runoff and any seawater intakes. All effluent
discharges from the construction works should be sited away from any natural
watercourses.
5.12.1.3 Construction works should be programmed to minimize
soil excavation works in rainy seasons (April to September). If excavation in
soil cannot be avoided in these months or at any time of year when rainstorms
are likely, for the purpose of preventing soil erosion, temporary exposed slope
surfaces should be covered e.g. by tarpaulin, and temporary access roads should
be protected by crushed stone or gravel, as excavation proceeds. Intercepting
channels should be provided (e.g. along the crest / edge of excavation) to
prevent storm runoff from washing across exposed soil surfaces. Arrangements
should always be in place in such a way that adequate surface protection
measures can be safely carried out well before the arrival of a rainstorm.
5.12.1.4 Earthworks final surfaces should be well compacted and
the subsequent permanent work or surface protection should be carried out
immediately after the final surfaces are formed to prevent erosion caused by
rainstorms. Appropriate drainage like intercepting channels should be provided
where necessary.
5.12.1.5 Measures should be taken to minimize the ingress of
rainwater into trenches. If excavation of trenches in wet seasons is necessary,
they should be dug and backfilled in short sections. Rainwater pumped out from
trenches or foundation excavations should be discharged into storm drains via
silt removal facilities.
5.12.1.6 Construction
materials (e.g. aggregates, sand and fill material) on sites should be covered
with tarpaulin or similar fabric during rainstorms. Measures should be taken to
prevent the washing away of construction materials, soil, silt or debris into
any drainage system or nearby water environment. The excavated materials should
be backfilled as soon as possible, and stockpiles of the excavated materials
shall be covered with tarpaulin or similar fabric during rainstorms.
5.12.1.7 Construction site
drainage should be designed and implemented to segregate general construction
site runoff from the concrete casting areas and other pollutant generating
activities to avoid contamination of site runoff. Surface runoff contaminated
with bentonite slurry and concrete washing should be collected and should be
regarded as wastewater and adequately treated to the respective effluent
standards before disposal into the foul sewers or storm water systems or other
receiving water as set out in the TM-DSS.
5.12.1.8 Manholes (including
newly constructed ones) should always be adequately covered and temporarily
sealed so as to prevent silt, construction materials or debris from getting
into the drainage system.
5.12.2 Wastewater from General Land-based
Construction Activities
5.12.2.1 The mitigation measures as outlined in ProPECC PN 2/23 “Construction Site Drainage” for control of
groundwater, boring and drilling water, wastewater from concrete batching and /
or precast concrete casting, wheel washing water, bentonite slurries, water for
testing and /or sterilization of water retaining structure and water pipes,
wastewater from building construction, acid cleaning, etching and picking
wastewater and wastewater from toilets generated in the construction site
should be observed and adopted where applicable.
5.12.3 General Refuse
5.12.3.1 It is recommended to clean the construction sites on a
regular basis. Good site practices should be adopted to remove rubbish, debris
and litter from construction sites so as to prevent the rubbish and litter from
spreading from the site area. All general refuse generated on-site should be
stored in enclosed bins or compaction units separately from C&D material. A
reputable waste collector should be employed to remove general refuse from the
site, separately from C&D material, on a regular basis to an approved
landfill. An enclosed and covered area should be provided to reduce the
occurrence of “windblown” light material.
5.12.4 Licensing of Construction Site
Discharge
5.12.4.1 There is a need to apply
to EPD for a discharge license for discharge of effluent from the construction
site under the WPCO. The discharge quality must meet the requirements
specified in the discharge license. All the runoff and wastewater
generated from the works areas should be treated so that it satisfies all the
standards listed in the TM-DSS. The beneficial uses of the treated effluent for
other on-site activities such as dust suppression, wheel washing and general
cleaning etc., can minimize water consumption and reduce the effluent discharge
volume. If monitoring of the treated effluent quality from the works areas
is required during the construction phase of the Project, the monitoring should
be carried out in accordance with the relevant WPCO license.
5.12.5 Accidental Chemical Spillage
5.12.5.1 Contractor must
register as a chemical waste producer if chemical wastes would be produced from
the construction activities. The Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354) and
its subsidiary regulations in particular the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste)
(General) Regulation, should be observed and complied with for control of
chemical wastes.
5.12.5.2 Any service shop and maintenance facilities should be
located on hard standings within a bunded area, and sumps and oil interceptors
should be provided. Maintenance of vehicles and equipment involving
activities with potential for leakage and spillage should only be undertaken
within the areas appropriately equipped to control these discharges.
5.12.5.3 Disposal of chemical wastes should be
carried out in compliance with the Waste Disposal Ordinance. The
Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes
published under the Waste Disposal Ordinance details the requirements to deal
with chemical wastes. General requirements are given as follows:
§ Suitable containers should be used to hold the chemical wastes to avoid
leakage or spillage during storage, handling and transport.
§ Chemical waste containers should be suitably labelled, to notify and
warn the personnel who are handling the wastes, to avoid accidents.
§ Storage area should be selected at a safe location on site and adequate
space should be allocated to the storage area.
5.12.6 Sewage Effluent from Construction
Workforce
5.12.6.1 It is recommended to provide sufficient
chemical toilets in the construction works areas. A licensed waste
collector should be deployed to maintain the chemical toilets on a regular
basis.
5.12.6.2 Notices should be posted at conspicuous locations to
remind the workers not to discharge any sewage or wastewater into the
surrounding environment. Regular environmental audit of the construction
site should be undertaken to provide an effective control of any malpractices
and to encourage continual improvement of environmental performance on site.
5.12.7 Contaminated Site Runoff
5.12.7.1 Any excavated contaminated material and exposed
contaminated surface should be properly housed and covered to avoid generation
of contaminated runoff. Open stockpiling of contaminated materials should not
be allowed. Any contaminated run-off should be properly collected and treated
to reduce the pollution level to an acceptable standard and remove any
prohibited substances (such as total petroleum hydrocarbon) to an undetectable
range. All treated effluent from the wastewater treatment units shall meet the
conditions of the discharge license and the requirements as stated in the
TM-DSS.
5.12.8 Construction near Inland Watercourses
or Seafront
5.12.8.1 The mitigation measures specified in the ProPECC PN 2/23 “Construction Site Drainage”
shall be implemented properly to minimise the water quality impacts due
to the construction works in close proximity of inland watercourses. The
practices outlined in ETWB TC(W) No. 5/2005 “Protection of natural
streams/rivers from adverse impacts arising from construction works” shall also
be adopted where applicable to minimise the water quality impacts upon any
natural streams and inland watercourses. Any discharge of effluent
from the Project construction should be pre-treated to comply with the
requirements of the WPCO and those specified in the discharge license. All
effluent discharges from the construction works should be sited away from any
natural watercourses
5.12.8.2 Specific mitigation measures recommended for
construction near inland watercourses or seafront are listed below:
§ The use of less or smaller construction plants may be specified in areas
close to the water bodies to reduce the disturbance to the surface water.
§ Temporary storage of materials (e.g. equipment, chemicals and fuel) and temporary
stockpile of construction debris and spoil should be located well away from any
watercourses or seafront.
§ Stockpiling of construction materials and dusty materials should be
covered and located away from any watercourses or seafront.
§ Construction debris and spoil should be covered up and/or disposed of as
soon as possible to avoid being washed into the nearby water bodies.
§ Adequate lateral support may need to be erected in order to prevent
soil/mud from slipping into the watercourses or the sea.
§ Construction works close to the inland watercourses should be carried
out in dry season as far as practicable where the flow in the surface channel
or stream is low.
5.12.9 Removal / Diversion of Inland
Watercourses
5.12.9.1 The construction works for removal
and diversion of watercourses should be undertaken within a dry
zone. Flow diversion and dewatering should be carried out prior to
the construction to avoid water inflow into the construction sites and avoid polluted
runoff and impact on the downstream water quality.
5.12.9.2 Dewatering of watercourse should be performed by
diverting the water flow using temporary channels, piping, sandbags, steel
arrays in concrete case or similar proven methods to suit the works condition.
Construction of all the proposed permanent and temporary drainage should be
undertaken in a dry zone prior to receiving any water flow.
5.12.9.3 The flow diversion works should be
conducted in dry season, where possible, when the flow in the watercourse is
low. The wastewater and ingress water from the site should be properly
treated to comply with the WPCO and the TM-DSS before discharge.
5.12.9.4 The site practices outlined in the ProPECC PN 2/23 “Construction Site Drainage” and ETWB TC
(Works) No. 5/2005 “Protection of natural streams/rivers from adverse impacts
arising from construction works” should also be adopted where applicable.
5.13
Mitigation Measures
– Operation Phase
5.13.1 Changes of Coastline Configurations
5.13.1.1 No mitigation measures that are specific to the
changes of coastline configurations are proposed.
5.13.2 Creation of Embayed
Water and Marine Refuse Entrapment at TKO 132
5.13.2.1 Collection and removal of floating refuse should be
performed along the waterfront of TKO 132 development at regular intervals e.g.
on a daily basis for proper disposal. The operators of the public facilities in
TKO 132 should be responsible for keeping the water around their sites and in
the neighbouring water free from rubbish.
5.13.3 Sewage / Wastewater Generation,
Operation of EPP and Advance SPS at TKO 137
General
5.13.3.1 Sewage and wastewater generated from the TKO 137
development should be diverted to the new public sewerage system at TKO 137 and
then conveyed to the existing public sewerage system at TKO or to the proposed
EPP for proper treatment and disposal.
Operation of EPP
5.13.3.2 The location of discharge point of emergency overflow
or bypass of EPP shall be planned as per the Sewerage Manual (Part 2) to avoid
overflow or bypass of untreated sewage into beneficial uses (i.e. WSRs) and
shall preferably maintain a buffer distance of at least 150 metres from the
nearest WSRs. The tentative location of emergency discharge point of EPP is
proposed at the future seawall of TKO 137 development, which has a buffer
distance of over 150 m from nearby WSRs (Figure 5.1). To avoid the
occurrence for emergency discharge, the design and operation of the EPP should
incorporate the following provisions:
§ Peaking factors should be applied for all major treatment units and
electrical and mechanical equipment to avoid equipment failure.
§ By-pass mechanism should be provided for both coarse screens and fine
screens in the inlet to avoid/minimize failure in coarse/fine screens.
§ Interim by-pass should be provided after the primary treatment and
settlement of the sewage to avoid raw sewage by-pass as much as possible.
§ Regular maintenance and checking of all plant equipment / facilities,
treatment units, penstocks should be undertaken to maintain a good operation
condition in the EPP and prevent equipment failure.
§ Standby unit for all major equipment should be provided in case of
unexpected breakdown of pumping and treatment facilities such that the standby
pumps and treatment facilities could take over and function to replace the
broken units.
§ Dual power supply from CLP plus additional backup power supply should be
provided in case of power failure.
5.13.3.3 To provide a mechanism to minimize the impact of
emergency discharges of raw sewage or partially treated sewage and facilitate
subsequent management of any emergency, an Emergency Contingency Plan (ECP)
should be formulated prior to commissioning of the EPP. The ECP shall clearly
state the emergency response procedures and actions to be followed in case of
equipment or sewage treatment failure. The plant operators should carry
out necessary follow-up actions according to the procedures of the ECP to
minimize any water quality impact. Details of the ECP should be developed at
the detailed design stage of the EPP.
5.13.3.4 The ECP shall be circulated to relevant parties
including the operators of the TKO desalination plant and WSD to solicit their
comments prior to commissioning of the EPP. The plant operators of the EPP
should closely communicate with the operators of TKO desalination plant in
order to minimize any impact on the seawater intake due to emergency
discharge. In the extremely remote event of emergency discharge, the
operators of the desalination plant and WSD shall be informed for site
inspection and agreement on the follow up and remedial action if required.
Operation of
Advance SPS
5.13.3.5 Prior to the EPP
commissioning, an advance SPS should be provided to divert the sewage and
wastewater generated from the TKO 137 development to the existing TKO PTW and
HATS for proper treatment and disposal.
5.13.3.6 Precautionary and design measures as
listed below should be incorporated into the advance SPS design to prevent the
emergency situation.
§ A standby pump and screen should be provided to cater for breakdown and
maintenance of the duty pump in order to avoid emergency discharge.
§ Dual power supply should be provided to secure electricity supply.
§ Temporary equalization tank(s) should be provided for the proposed
advance SPS to cater for peak flow.
§ An alarm should be installed to signal emergency high water level in the
equalization tank / wet well.
§ Regular maintenance and checking of plant equipment should be undertaken
to prevent equipment failure.
§ A telemetry system to the nearest regional control center
should be provided so that swift action can be undertaken in case of
malfunction of the unmanned facilities.
§ Automatic screen (with clear spacing of no less than 25 mm) should be
provided to prevent clogging of the downstream pumping system.
5.13.3.7 The relevant conditions in DSD's “Sewerage Manual
(Part 2) Pumping Stations and Rising Mains” should be adopted and followed
during the design and operation of the advance SPS where applicable. In
particular, an overflow or emergency bypass arrangement should be provided at
or near the SPS as a good practice. The bypass arrangements should allow sewage
to flow to the proposed EPP outfall when the sewage level inside the
equalization tank / wet well rises to a predetermined level beyond which pollution
may result from the occurrence of sewage overflow at manholes of the upstream
sewers or flooding of the pumping station. The opening of the overflow should
not be obstructed by any form of screens with bar spacing less than 25 mm as
the screen will be easily blocked by screenings, thus resulting in flooding of
the pumping station and the upstream catchment. The location of discharge point
of emergency overflow or bypass of advance SPS shall be planned as per the
Sewerage Manual (Part 2) to avoid overflow or bypass of untreated sewage into
beneficial uses (i.e. WSRs) and shall preferably maintain a buffer distance of
at least 150 metres from the nearest WSRs. The tentative location of emergency
discharge point of advance SPS is proposed at the future seawall of TKO 137
development, which has a buffer distance of over 150 m from nearby WSRs (Figure
5.1).
5.13.3.8 An ECP to deal with the emergency raw sewage
discharges should be developed in the detailed design stage.
Operation of Refuse
Collection Point
5.13.3.9 Refuse collection
facilities should be housed and covered to prevent generation of contaminated
rainwater runoff. Refuse should be stored in covered containers, which should
be securely placed within the refuse collection point. All surface runoff or
washed water should be contained inside the refuse collection point for proper
disposal and shall not be discharged to the storm system or to the marine
water. Wastewater generated from the refuse collection point shall be connected
to the public sewerage system of the new development area for disposal at the
EPP. No wastewater discharge into the environment should be allowed.
Operation of Public
Transport Interchange, Green Fuel Station and Ambulance Depot
5.13.3.10 The PTI, green fuel station and ambulance depot should be covered to
prevent generation of contaminated rainwater runoff. All contaminated surface
runoff or washed water generated at these facilities should be collected and
diverted to oil interceptor or other appropriate treatment facilities with
sufficient design capacities for proper treatment before discharge to the foul
sewers of the new development area.
5.13.3.11 Fuel spillages should be collected and handled in compliance with the Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation and the Waste Disposal
Ordinance. Site drainage should be well maintained and good management
practices should be observed to ensure that oils and chemicals are managed,
stored and handled properly and do not enter the nearby storm or marine water.
Operation of
Service Reservoirs at TKO 137
5.13.3.12 Treatment and
disposal of cleansing water during annual cleaning and maintenance of the
service reservoirs shall follow the WSD’s current normal practice with
reference to Sections 23.24 – 23.25 of the General Specification for Civil
Engineering Works. Portable water incorporated with a mixture of sterilizing
chemicals shall be used for washing water retaining structures. The cleansing
effluent shall be settled out through the sedimentation tank and dechlorinated
by a dechlorination unit before being discharged to
drainage system. Discharge license from EPD shall be obtained before commencing
any discharges during operation phase. Agreement with DSD shall also be
sought before commencing any discharges into the drainage system.
Control of
Operation Site Effluents
5.13.3.13 The practices outlined in ProPECC PN 1/23 should be adopted where applicable for
handling, treatment and disposal of operation stage effluent. In particular,
drainage serving any covered PTI, covered green fuel station, covered ambulance
depot and covered refuse collection point in TKO 137 should be connected to
public sewers. Sedimentation facilities, petrol interceptors or other
appropriate wastewater treatment system should be provided to treat the
wastewater or surface run-off generated in these facilities as necessary to
meet the discharge standards as stipulated in the TM-DSS prior to the discharge
to the public sewers.
Aging or Damage of
the Sewerage Network
5.13.3.14 The following precautionary measures
are recommended to minimise the risk of failure of the proposed sewerage
system:
§ Regular inspection, checking and maintenance of the sewerage system.
§ Provisions of leakage collection systems linking to the nearest chamber
at its downstream to the rising main for collection of sewage leakage from the
damaged sewage pipeline.
§ Use tankers to store emergency discharge and transport to the STW for
disposal in case of both twin rising mains failure.
5.13.4 Non-point Source Surface Run-off
BMP for Storm Water
Management
5.13.4.1 The following BMP should
be implemented in the new development areas of this Project to reduce
stormwater pollution are as follows.
Design Measures to
Control Erosion and Run-off Quantity
5.13.4.2 Exposed surface shall be avoided within the
development site to minimise soil erosion. The development site shall be
either hard paved or covered by landscaping area and plantation where
appropriate.
5.13.4.3 The drainage system should be designed to avoid
flooding.
5.13.4.4 Green areas / tree / shrub planting etc. should be
introduced within the development site as far as possible including open space
and along roadside amenity strips and central dividers, which can help to
reduce soil erosion.
Devices and Facilities to Control
Sedimentation and Run-off Quality
5.13.4.5 Screening
facilities such as standard gully grating and trash grille, with spacing which
is capable of screening large substances such as fallen leaves and rubbish
should be provided at the inlet of drainage system.
5.13.4.6 Road gullies with standard design and silt traps and
oil interceptors should be incorporated during the detailed design to remove
particles present in stormwater run-off, where appropriate.
5.13.4.7 Evergreen tree species, which in general generate
relatively smaller amount of fallen leaves, should be selected where possible.
Administrative
Measures to Control Sedimentation and Run-off Quality
5.13.4.8 Good management measures such as regular cleaning and
sweeping of road surface / open areas are suggested. The road surface / open
area cleaning should also be carried out prior to occurrence of rainstorm.
5.13.4.9 Manholes, as well as stormwater gullies, ditches
provided at the development sites should be regularly inspected and cleaned
(e.g. monthly). Additional inspection and cleansing should be carried out
before forecast heavy rainfall.
Blue-green
Infrastructure to Control Sedimentation and Run-off Quantity
5.13.4.10 Blue-green infrastructure should be implemented under this Project where
practicable to reduce the storm loading to the drainage system as follows.
5.13.4.11 Provision of bioswales, where practicable at roadside, to convey stormwater
and provide removal of coarse and medium sediments. As the water is transported
along the bioswales, it is treated to remove pollutants and the cleaned water
can then be discharged into the receiving water bodies or retained for
non-potable reuse, e.g. irrigation.
5.13.4.12 Rainwater harvesting should be implemented within the development site,
where possible, to collect rainwater from uncontaminated areas such as building
roofs, podiums, walkway canopies and other built structures for reuse as an
alternative water source e.g. irrigation. The system should meet the
prevailing WSD guidelines. Treatment of harvested rainwater should consist of pre-treatment,
filtration and disinfection system. Treatment process shall be in compliance
with the requirements in “Technical Specifications on Grey Water Reuse and
Rainwater Harvesting” issued by WSD.
5.13.4.13 Porous paving material should be used, where practicable, to increase
stormwater infiltration and improve groundwater recharge and reducing flooding
from surface run-off.
Locations of Storm Outfalls at TKO 137
5.13.4.14 The storm outfalls
for the future development at TKO 137 shall be located away from the seawater
intake location of TKO desalination plant as far as practicable to minimize any
potential water quality impact upon the intake. The recommended location of the
stormwater outfalls at TKO 137 are presented in Appendix 5.8 (subject to detailed
design).
5.13.5 Sewage / Wastewater Generation and
Operation of SPS at TKO 132
5.13.5.1 Sewage and wastewater generated from
the TKO 132 development should be diverted to the new public sewerage system at
TKO 132 and subsequently to the existing TKO PTW and HATS for proper treatment
and disposal. The practices outlined in ProPECC PN
1/23 should be adopted where applicable for handling, treatment and disposal of
operation stage effluent.
5.13.5.2 Precautionary and design measures as listed below
should be incorporated into the SPS design to prevent the emergency situation.
§ A standby pump and screen should be provided to cater for breakdown and
maintenance of the duty pump in order to avoid emergency discharge.
§ Backup power supply should be provided.
§ An alarm should be installed to signal emergency high water level in the
wet well.
§ An on-site emergency storage tank with capacity to store 2 hours of peak
sewage flows should be provided for the proposed SPS to cater for breakdown and
maintenance of duty pump.
§ Regular maintenance and checking of plant equipment should be undertaken
to prevent equipment failure.
§ Twin rising mains system should be provided to facilitate maintenance
works and to avoid emergency discharge of sewage.
§ A telemetry system to the nearest manned station / plant should be
provided so that swift action can be undertaken in case of malfunction of the
unmanned facilities.
§ A bar screen (with clear spacing of no less than 25 mm) should be
provided to cover the opening of any emergency sewage bypass which can
prevent the discharge of floating solids into receiving waters as far as
practicable while ensuring flooding at the facilities would not occur.
5.13.5.3 The relevant conditions in DSD's “Sewerage Manual
(Part 2) Pumping Stations and Rising Mains” should be adopted and followed
during the design and operation of the SPS where applicable. In particular, an
overflow or emergency bypass arrangement should be provided at or near the SPS
as a good practice. The bypass arrangements should allow sewage to flow to the
most suitable discharge points when the sewage level inside the wet well rises
to a predetermined level beyond which pollution may result from the occurrence
of sewage overflow at manholes of the upstream sewers or flooding of the
pumping station. The acceptability and the location of discharge should be
carefully assessed in the detailed design stage. The opening of the overflow
should not be obstructed by any form of screens with bar spacing less than 25
mm as the screen will be easily blocked by screenings, thus resulting in
flooding of the pumping station and the upstream catchment. As per the Sewerage Manual (Part 2),
the location of discharge point of emergency overflow or bypass of SPS shall be
planned to avoid overflow or bypass of untreated sewage into beneficial uses
(i.e. WSRs) and shall preferably maintain a buffer distance of at least 150
metres from the nearest WSRs. The emergency discharge point of SPS is proposed
at the nearshore region of the southern seawall of TKO 132 development as
indicatively shown in Figure
5.1. Locating the emergency discharge point more offshore
(further away from the WSRs) is not feasible due to the Project constraints as
presented in Section 5.6.5.4. Nevertheless, the precautionary design measures
recommended above would prevent the occurrence of emergency discharge from the
SPS into the WSRs. The chance of emergency discharge from the SPS would be
extremely remote. In case of emergency situation, the emergency discharge
volume would be small and the associated water quality impact (if any) would be
highly transient and reversible as discussed in Section 5.10.7.3.
5.13.5.4 An ECP to deal with the emergency raw sewage
discharges should be developed in the detailed design stage.
Operation of PFTF
5.13.5.5 Material stockpiles should be enclosed within building
structure or properly covered with impermeable sheeting as soon as possible and
surrounded by silt fence and runoff intercepting channels or protected by other
methods approved by CEDD and EPD to prevent wind and water erosion. Final slope
surfaces shall be treated by compaction, followed by hydroseeding, vegetation
planting or sealing with shotconcrete, latex, vinyl,
bitumen, or other suitable surface stabiliser approved by CEDD to prevent the
washing away of stockpiled material. Any material sorting activities shall be
enclosed in building structure to avoid contaminated runoff.
5.13.5.6 Appropriate drainage system shall be provided to
intercept surface runoff generated in works areas of the facility from direct
discharge to the sea. All surface runoff and wastewater (e.g. from wheel
washing) generated from the facility should be diverted to silt removal /
sedimentation facilities for recycling or reuse within the facility after
proper settlement. The BMP to reduce stormwater and non-point source pollution recommended
under ProPECC PN 1/23 should be properly
followed.
5.13.5.7 Sufficient buffer distance shall be given between the
public fill stockpiling area and the seafront. No fill material shall be
stockpiled at or near the seafront / berthing area.
5.13.5.8 Sewage generated at PFTF should be properly diverted
and conveyed to the public sewerage system.
Operation of CBP
5.13.5.9 All the works areas including wastewater generating
processes and dusty operations of the concrete batching plants should be
enclosed to avoid loss of dusty materials and generation of contaminated
rainwater runoff.
5.13.5.10 All wastewater generated from the concrete batching plants should be
collected, treated, stored and recycled to reduce resource consumption. This
includes water used in the concrete batching process, yard washing etc.
All spent effluents from the works processes should be collected and diverted
to the sedimentation basins with sufficient treatment capacity. The
overlying water from the sedimentation basin should be recycled for reuse
within the plants. All residual wastewater discharge, if any, should be
conveyed to the public sewerage system. No wastewater should be discharged from
the plant into the water environment.
Operation of EFs
5.13.5.11 All sewage
generated from the EFs should be conveyed to the public sewerage system for
proper disposal.
Operation of CWHF
5.13.5.12 Handling of construction waste materials in CWHF should be enclosed
within building to avoid contaminated rainwater runoff. All sewage effluent,
wastewater from machineries and washed water generated from the facility should
be properly collected and conveyed to the public sewerage system. Wastewater
discharge into the environment from the facility should not be allowed.
Operation of RTS
5.13.5.13 All active works
areas and facilities of the Refuse Transfer Station (RTS) should be enclosed
within building structure to avoid contaminated runoff. Leachate generated from
the station shall be collected and pre-treated to meet the requirements of the
TM-DSS and the WPCO discharge license prior to the discharge into the public
sewerage system. No wastewater discharge from the RTS into the environment
should be allowed.
Aging or Damage of
the Sewerage Network
5.13.5.14 The following precautionary measures
are recommended to minimise the risk of failure of the proposed sewerage
system:
§ Regular inspection, checking and maintenance of the sewerage system.
§ Provisions of leakage collection systems linking to the nearest chamber
at its downstream to the rising main for collection of sewage leakage from the
damaged sewage pipeline.
§ Use tankers to store emergency discharge and transport to the STW for
disposal in case of both twin rising mains failure.
5.13.6 Accidental Marine Spillage from
Marine Delivery, Unloading and Loading of Materials from Barges at TKO 132
5.13.6.1 The use of conveyor
barge is proposed instead of derrick barge for storage and transfer of fill,
aggregate, sand, construction materials and other materials with fines
content. Transfer of these materials from barge to site should be through
a conveyor system (with no lifting of material involved) and the conveyors
should be fully enclosed to prevent any loss of material and refuse to sea.
5.13.6.2 Municipal solid wastes and marine refuse shall be
placed in containers that are sealed to prevent spillage of the contents during
transportation and unloading operation.
5.13.6.3 Regular inspection and maintenance on
the conveyor systems and refuse containers should be carried out by the
operators to ensure that they are in good condition and free from damage or any
other defects.
5.13.6.4 Should other alternative material transfer and
containment methods to prevent marine spillage be proposed by the future
operators, these methods shall be subject to approval of
EPD. Besides, barges should not be filled to a level which may cause
the overflow of material during loading or transportation. Barge effluents
(e.g. muddy water) should be properly collected and treated prior to
disposal.
5.13.7 Non-point Source Surface Runoff and Accidental
Spillage in TKO 132 Development
5.13.7.1 It is recommended that all active
works areas in the industrial facilities at TKO 132 should be enclosed to
contain accidental spillage of material or chemicals. The stormwater control
measures including BMP and blue-green infrastructure recommended in Section 5.13.4 should be
implemented for the TKO 132 Development where appropriate.
5.13.7.2 Perimeter drainage systems should be provided in the
open areas of these industrial facilities to collect stormwater runoff. Under
normal operation, rainwater runoff collected in the perimeter drainage system
should be diverted to suitable pollutant removal devices (i.e. sedimentation
basins and oil interceptors) for treatment. The treated effluent from the
pollutant removal devices should be discharged into the public sewerage system.
The pollutant removal devices of the perimeter drainage system should be
designed with sufficient capacity for the “first flush” flow, which would carry
most of the pollutants. The subsequent overland flow generated from rainstorms
after the “first flush” flow should be bypassing the pollutant removal
facilities for discharge to the stormwater system. Prevention of “first flush”
pollution in stormwater runoff should be incorporated into the drainage design
of the facilities to control pollution at source and to abate pollutants under
normal situations. This first-flush diversion system would also divert any dry
weather flow to the sewerage system and therefore can also act as a dry weather
interception system.
5.13.7.3 To address the potential water quality concerns under
emergency situations, stop-logs should be considered and installed at suitable
location(s) in the perimeter drainage system of the industrial facilities so
that contaminants can be contained in the event of accidental spillage. In the
emergency case, stop-logs should be closed to isolate the lot with accidental
spillage to facilitate the cleaning up of the spill. Contaminated surface
water, if any, generated in the lot should be contained by the stop-logs under
the emergency situation. The collected contaminated surface water should be
pre-treated as necessary to meet the requirements of the TM-DSS prior to the
disposal at the public sewerage system. To ensure that there is no chance of
contaminated runoff leaving the site untreated during rainfall, the perimeter
drainage system should have sufficient capacity (within the channels or at a
designated sump) to store any contaminated runoff (spillage plus collected
rainwater) from the area isolated by the stop-logs. If there is any chemical
waste collected, the handling and disposal should comply with the Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation and Waste Disposal
Ordinance.
5.13.7.4 An Emergency Response Plan (ERP)
should be developed by the future operators of the industrial facilities where
necessary to provide contingency procedures to ensure containment and safe
disposal of any accidental spillage or contaminants leaking from the industrial
processes. Suitable spill control materials and equipment shall be kept on site
to deal with accidental spillages. An outline of the ERP is provided in Section
5.13.8.3.
5.13.8.1 Prior to the
commissioning of each industrial facility proposed at TKO 132, an EMP shall be
prepared for the facility to detail the site-specific measures and procedures
(including the specific operation plan, wastewater recycling facilities, Storm
Pollution Control Plan (SPCP), ERP, pollution and erosion control measures and
devices, good site practices, housekeeping measures, implementation frequency,
environmental monitoring and audit procedures, maintenance schedules, etc.
where appropriate) to prevent environmental nuisance, marine spillage,
accidental dropping of materials and water pollution. The EMP shall be prepared
by the future operators of the relevant public facilities on a good management
practice basis.
5.13.8.2 The SPCP shall be prepared for potential polluting
facilities in open areas (if any) and shall incorporate details such as
locations, sizes and types of measures / installations and the BMP to control
erosion, minimize runoff quantity and to prevent or minimise the potential of
pollutants coming into contact with rainwater or runoff. The SPCP shall also
provide details, locations and design of the site drainage systems including
perimeter drainage systems, storm pollutant removal devices (e.g. sedimentation
basins and oil interceptors) and stop-logs etc. where appropriate to prevent
“first flush” pollution and release of accidental spillage.
5.13.8.3 The EMP shall also include an ERP
where appropriate to deal with emergency situations of accidental spillage
on-site or in marine water. The ERP should cover the following:
§ Contact personnel and the means to contact.
§ Procedures to contain contaminants, prevent their escape and/or
dispersion and cleanup the spillage.
§ Procedures to divert / transport the contaminated materials to a designated
temporary storage area or appropriate treatment facility.
§ Procedures to clear up the lot and/or perimeter drainage system prior to
opening the stop-logs.
5.13.8.4 Regular and independent environmental audits and
inspections should be conducted to check the environmental performance of the
operations in TKO 132. These audits and inspections shall aim to ensure proper
installation, implementation and maintenance of measures and BMP specified in
the EMP.
5.13.9 Maintenance Dredging for Proposed
Berthing Facility at TKO 132 Development
5.13.9.1 The following
mitigation measures are recommended for the maintenance dredging works for the
proposed berthing facility at TKO 132 Development.
§ Maintenance dredging should be carried out by closed grab dredger.
§ The maximum dredging rate should be controlled at or below 700 m3
per day.
§ Double silt curtains should be deployed around dredging works in view of
their close proximity to the coral sites.
5.13.9.2 Details of any future maintenance dredging would be
subject to the actual siltation rate and operational need. The future party
responsible for carrying out the maintenance dredging works should implement
the recommended mitigation measures and propose details of the associated water
quality monitoring programme prior to the commencement of the maintenance
dredging work.
5.14
Evaluation of
Cumulative Impact
5.14.1 Construction Phase
Land-based
Construction
5.14.1.1 It is expected that water quality impacts
due to the land-based works for SENTX, TKSLE, Stage 2 of TKO desalination plant
and construction of relocated berthing facilities and associated structures
within TKO 137 Fill Bank as well as those proposed under this Project would be
minimized by proper implementation of suitable mitigation measures and good
site practices. The associated water quality impacts are expected to be
localized. Therefore, no adverse cumulative water quality impact is anticipated
due to this Project and other concurrent works.
5.14.1.2 Land-based
construction of the proposed water sports centre at TKO Area 77 is located over
500 m from the Project boundary and would not contribute any cumulative water
quality impact with this Project.
Marine Construction
5.14.1.3 Construction
programme and details of the proposed water sports centre at TKO Area 77 and
TKLSE are not available. The possible marine works (such as the construction of
landing steps) for the proposed water sports centre at TKO Area 77 would be
minimal in scale. The water quality impacts due to marine construction of TKLSE
(if any) will be assessed under a separate EIA study, which will take into
account other relevant concurrent projects and, where necessary, recommend
mitigation measures to minimize its potential water quality impacts.
Construction of relocated berthing facilities and associated structures within
TKO Area 137 Fill Bank is minor in scale with no dredging nor underwater
filling activities. Appropriate mitigation measures will also be implemented
under this Project to minimize the water quality impact. As a result, no
adverse cumulative marine water quality impact would be expected.
5.14.2
Operation Phase
5.14.2.1 The SENTX, TKO desalination plant, etc. would operate
concurrently with this Project in TKO 137 and TKO 132. All sewage and
wastewater generated from these concurrent projects would be properly collected
and treated prior to discharging to the existing public sewerage system. No
discharge of wastewater into the water environment would arise from these
concurrent projects. Thus, these concurrent projects would not contribute any
cumulative water quality impact.
5.14.2.2 The brine discharge
from TKO desalination plant has also been included in the modelling exercise
for cumulative assessment. Since the model results indicated that the water
quality influences of this Project during the operation phase would be minor,
this Project would not cause any adverse cumulative water quality impact with
the operation of TKO desalination plant.
5.14.2.3 The programme and details of TKLSE are currently not
available. The water quality impacts due to operation of the TKLSE will be
assessed under a separate EIA study, which will take into account other
relevant concurrent projects and, where necessary, recommend mitigation
measures to minimize its potential water quality impacts. Operation of this
Project is predicted to cause no significant changes to the hydrodynamics and
water quality conditions in the assessment area and therefore would not contribute
adverse cumulative water quality impact with TKLSE.
5.15 Residual Impact
5.15.1.1 With proper implementation of all the
recommended mitigation measures, no residual water quality impact is expected
to be resulted from the Project during the construction and operation phases.
5.16
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Requirements
5.16.1 Construction
Phase
5.16.1.1 Marine water quality monitoring at selected WSRs and
control stations is recommended for the marine construction of the Project.
Site audit would be conducted throughout the marine and land-based construction
under this Project to ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are properly
implemented. Discharge license(s) should be obtained under the WPCO for any
construction site discharges. Monitoring of the construction site
effluent shall be carried out in accordance with requirements stipulated in the
WPCO discharge licenses.
5.16.1.2 Details of the construction phase monitoring and audit
requirements are provided in the standalone EM&A Manual.
5.16.2 Operation Phase
5.16.2.1 Marine water
quality monitoring at selected WSRs and control stations should be carried out
during the first year operation of the EPP. Marine water quality monitoring
should also be conducted in case of emergency discharge from the EPP.
5.16.2.2 Marine water quality monitoring at selected WSRs and
control stations should also be carried out during the first year operation of
the non-designated projects at TKO 132 (i.e. PFTF and CBP) and in case of
accidental spillage from these facilities. Water quality monitoring
requirements for operation of the proposed designated projects at TKO 132 (i.e.
CWHF, EFs and RTS) will be reviewed under separate EIA studies to be conducted
by their respective project proponents.
5.16.2.3 Details of the operation phase monitoring and audit
requirements for EPP, PFTF and CBP are provided in the standalone EM&A
Manual.
5.17 Environmental Acceptability of
Schedule 2 Designated Projects
5.17.1.1 An application for
EP would be submitted under this EIA for DP1, DP2, and DP3.
5.17.2 Construction of Carriageway
Bridge at TKO 132 (DP1)
5.17.2.1 With the proper implementation of water quality
mitigation measures for construction activities (as detailed in Section 5.11),
no adverse impact would be resulted from the proposed roads during the
constructional stage. There is no adverse operation water quality impact due to
DP1 with proper implementation of the BMP for storm water management in Section
5.13.
5.17.3 Reclamation Works
at TKO 137 and off TKO 132 (DP2)
5.17.3.1 With the proper implementation of water quality
mitigation measures for construction activities, reclamation and maintenance
dredging works (as detailed in Sections 5.11 and 5.13.9), no adverse water
quality impact would be resulted from reclamation works at TKO 137 and TKO132
during the constructional stage. No adverse hydrodynamics and water
quality impact due to the reclamation works is predicted during the operation
phase
5.17.4
Construction and Operation of Effluent Polishing Plant (EPP) (DP3)
5.17.4.1 With the proper
implementation of water quality mitigation measures for construction activities
(as detailed in Section 5.12), no adverse water quality impact would arise from
the construction of the EPP. Design measures and ECP are recommended in Section
5.13 to deal with any emergency discharge from the EPP. No adverse water
quality impact is predicted during the operation stage of the EPP.
5.17.5
Other DPs
5.17.5.1 There will be
separate EIA studies to assess the following Schedule 2 DPs. The water
quality impact of these Schedule 2 DPs during construction and operation phases
will be further investigated in their own EIA studies under the EIAO. The
relevant EM&A requirements for these Schedule 2 DPs will also be provided
under their own EIA studies.
§ Construction and Operation of Refuse Transfer Station (RTS) (DP4);
§ Construction and Operation of Construction Waste Handling Facility
(DP5);
§ Construction and Operation of Electricity Facilities (DP6).
5.18 Conclusions
5.18.1 Construction Phase
5.18.1.1 The key sources of
water quality impact arising during the land-based construction of the Project include
the construction site runoff, wastewater generated from general construction
activities, accidental spillage, general refuse and sewerage from the
workforce. The impacts could be mitigated and controlled by implementing the
recommended mitigation measures. No adverse water quality impact is expected.
Regular site inspections should be undertaken to inspect the construction
activities and works area to ensure the recommended mitigation measures are
proper implemented.
5.18.1.2 Marine-based water quality impact would arise from the
reclamation works at TKO 137 and TKO 132. Non-dredged DCM treatment method is
proposed for construction of the foundation of the reclamation. The DCM method
enables in-situ stabilisation of the underlaying sediments without
excavation, dredging, shoring or dewatering, and thus there is less exposure of
wastes to the water environment. By placing the sand blanket layer on top of
the DCM works areas before the DCM treatment, release of fines and cement
slurry from the DCM operation is expected to be negligible.
5.18.1.3 The water quality impacts due to the underwater
filling, dredging and sand blanket laying work have been quantitatively
assessed by mathematical modelling. Suspended solids and sediment depositions
are identified as the key parameters of concern. Specific mitigation measures
including the provision of leading seawall to confine underwater filling,
deployment of silt curtains and control of production rates for relevant marine
construction activities are proposed to mitigate the potential water quality
impacts. Under the mitigated scenarios, full compliances with the assessment
criteria for SS elevations and sedimentation are predicted at all identified
WSRs. A water quality monitoring and audit programme will be implemented for
the marine construction work.
5.18.2
Operation Phase
5.18.2.1 During operation
phase, no significant changes in the hydrodynamics regime would be caused by
the proposed reclamations at TKO 137 and TKO 132 with reference the
mathematical modelling results.
5.18.2.2 Wastewater and
sewage generated from the TKO 137 development would be diverted to an advance
SPS for discharge to the existing public sewerage system in TKO during the
early commissioning stage. After commissioning of the proposed EPP by 2034, the
wastewater and sewage generated from TKO 137 development would be conveyed to
the proposed EPP for proper treatment and disposal. Wastewater and sewage
generated from the proposed public facilities at the TKO 132 development would
be conveyed to the existing public sewerage system in TKO. The proposed
reclamations at TKO 137 and TKO 132 together with the EPP discharges at TKO 137
are predicted to cause no significant change in the water quality regime in the
assessment area.
5.18.2.3 Emergency
discharges from the EPP are predicted to cause no significant water quality
effect except only for the E.coli levels at the closest WSR, which would
be temporarily elevated. The E.coli elevations are however predicted to
be transient and reversible. Various design measures and an ECP as well as a
water quality and audit programme would be implemented to avoid / deal with the
emergency discharge from the EPP and accidental marine spillage from operation
of the public facilities at TKO 132 development. Storm pollution control
measures and BMP for storm water management should be implemented and followed
to minimize the water quality impact due to non-point source surface
runoff.
5.18.2.4 With proper implementation
of all the recommended water quality mitigation measures, no adverse water
quality impact would arise from the Project operation.