_v0_files/image002.jpg)
_v0_files/image004.jpg)
_v0_files/image006.jpg)
executive
Summary
1 introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Report
1.2 Structure of the Report
2 Project
Information
2.1 Background
2.2 Marine Construction Works Undertaken during Reporting
Week
2.3 Status of Environmental Approval Documents
3 Impact
Water Quality Monitoring Requirements
3.1 Monitoring Locations
3.2 Monitoring Parameters
3.3 Monitoring Equipment and Methodology
4 Impact
Monitoring Results
4.1 Data Collected During Reporting Period
4.2 Exceedances During Reporting Period
5 Environmental
Non-CONFORMANCES
5.1 Summary of Environmental Exceedance
5.2 Summary of Environmental Non-compliance
5.3 Summary of Environmental Complaint
5.4 Summary of Environmental Summons and Prosecution
6 Future
Key Issues
6.1 Key Issues For The Coming Reporting Period
6.2 Impact Monitoring Schedule For The Coming Reporting
Period
7 Conclusions
Table
2.1 Summary of Environmental Licensing,
Notification, Permit and Reporting Status
Table 3.1 Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Table 3.2 Equipment Used during Impact Water
Quality Monitoring
Table 3.3 Monitoring Frequency and Parameters
for Impact Monitoring in Zone A
Table 3.4 Action and Limit Levels of Water
Quality for Zone A
Table 3.5 Event Action Plan for Water Quality
Table 4.1 Summary of Exceedances Occurring
during the Reporting Week
Table 4.2 Exceedances of Action Level in
Turbidity on 5 February 2014
Table 4.3 Exceedances of Action Level in SS on 5
February 2014
Table 4.4 Site Works Undertaken on 5 February
2014
Table 4.5 Comparison of SS and Turbidity Levels
at Gradient Stations and Impact Stations with Exceedances
Executive
Summary
The submarine cable installation works for
the Asia Submarine-cable Express (ASE) cable system commenced on 12 January 2014. This is the 2014 Fourth Weekly Impact Water Quality Monitoring Report presenting results and findings of the impact water
quality monitoring conducted during the period from 2 to 8 February 2014 in
accordance with the Updated Environmental
Monitoring and Audit
Manual (Updated
EM&A Manual).
Summary of Construction Works Undertaken
during the Reporting Period
During
the reporting period, submarine cable installation works were conducted in Zone
A (See Figure 2.2), which included diver inspections,
equipment stowage (neither of which involved water jetting) and cable burial
works (using water jetting).
Note
no works were conducted on 2 February 2014, due to the Chinese New Year
Holiday; nor from 6 to 8 February 2014, due to the completion of initial cable
installation works on 5 February 2014.
Water
Quality Monitoring
Three
monitoring events were scheduled in the reporting period from 2 to 8 February 2014. Monitoring events at designated
monitoring stations in Zone A were performed on schedule on 3-5 February
inclusive.
Note
no monitoring works were conducted on 2 February 2014 inclusive due to the
Chinese New Year Holiday; nor from 6 to 8 February 2014, due to the completion
of initial cable installation works on 5 February 2014.
Environmental Non-conformance
Exeedances
of Action Levels were recorded on 5 February 2014. These exceedances
are not considered to be caused by the cable installation works but are a
reflection of natural background condition for the day as explained further in Section 4.2.
No
exceedances of Limit Levels were recorded during the
impact water quality monitoring period.
No complaints or summons/prosecutions were received either
during the reporting period.
Future Key Issues
The initial cable installation works were
completed on 5 February 2014 and the vessel is on standby in HK while testing
and monitoring of the repaired cable is conducted. Should there be a need for further work,
the vessel will be mobilised again, subject to MDN issuance, and monitoring
work will resume at that time.
1
introduction
ERM-Hong
Kong, Limited (ERM) was appointed by NTT Com Asia (NTTCA) as the Environmental Team (ET) to
implement the Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme for the re-installation
of a damaged section of the telecommunication cable Asia-Submarine-cable
Express (ASE). The ASE
cable is approximately 7,200 km in length, connecting Japan and Singapore with
branches to the Philippines, Hong Kong SAR (HKSAR) and Malaysia (thereinafter called the Project).
This
2014 Fourth Weekly Impact Water Quality Monitoring Report, summarises the results of impact water
quality monitoring as part of the EM&A programme during the reporting
period from 2 to 8 February 2014.
The
structure of the Report is as follows:
Section
1 : Introduction
Provides details of the background,
purpose and report structure.
Section
2 : Project
Information
Summarises background and scope of the project, the construction works
undertaken and the status of Environmental Permits/Licenses during the
reporting period.
Section
3 : Water
Quality Monitoring Requirements
Summarises the
monitoring parameters, monitoring programmes, monitoring methodologies,
monitoring frequency, monitoring locations, Action and Limit Levels, and Event Action
Plan.
Section
4 : Monitoring
Results
Summarises the water quality
monitoring results obtained in the reporting period.
Section
5 : Environmental
Non-conformance
Summarises any monitoring exceedance,
environmental complaints and environmental summons within the reporting period.
Section
6 : Future
Key Issues
Summarises the
monitoring schedule for the next reporting period.
Section
7 : Conclusions
Presents the key findings
of the impact monitoring results.
2
Project
Information
NTT
Com Asia (NTTCA) installed a telecommunication cable (Asia Submarine-cable
Express (ASE) cable) of approximately 7,200 km in length, connecting Japan and
Singapore with branches to the Philippines, Hong Kong SAR (HKSAR) and Malaysia
and was responsible for securing the approval to land the ASE cable in Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong SAR (HKSAR). The landing site is at a Beach Manhole
(BMH) and ultimately the cable connects with a Data Centre in Tseung Kwan O (TKO) Industrial Estate which was completed
in 2012. It should be noted that Tseung Kwan O is currently the landing site for a number of
submarine cables. From Tseung Kwan O, the cable extends westward approaching the Tathong Channel.
Near to Cape Collinson, the cable is
approximately parallel to the Tathong Channel until
north of Waglan Island where the cable travels
eastward to the boundary of HKSAR waters and enters the South China Sea. The total length of cable in Hong Kong
SAR waters is approximately 33.5 km.
A map of the cable route is presented in Figure 2.1.
A
Project Profile (PP-452/2011) which includes an assessment of the potential
environmental impacts associated with the installation of the submarine
telecommunications cable system was prepared and submitted to the Environmental
Protection Department (EPD) under section 5.(1) (b)
and 5.(11) of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) for the application for Permission to apply
directly for Environmental Permit (EP).
EPD subsequently issued an Environmental Permit (EP- 433/2011).
Pursuant
to Condition 2.4 of EP- 433/2011, an environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme, as set out in the Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual (EM&A Manual) is
required for this Project. Baseline
data were collected prior to the start of cable installation works in 2012 and
EM&A was conducted throughout the cable installation and after its
completion in early 2013 as required in the EM&A
Manual.
Upon
inspection in October 2013 the ASE cable was found to be damaged and a section
within Zone A (see Figure 2.2) required re-installation. The EM&A
programme are therefore required to resume for the cable installation works in
Hong Kong Waters (the “Project”) in accordance with Updated EM&A
Manual.
Baseline water quality update monitoring
was conducted prior to the re-installation works and results summarise in the ‘Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Update Report
(Zone A)’of December 2013.
Impact monitoring started on 12
January 2014, when the cable installation works commenced in Zone A. Impact monitoring is being conducted on
a daily basis as the cable installation works proceed
in Zone A, including three days within the reporting period. The first week of impact monitoring was
reported in the 2014 First Weekly Impact Water Quality Monitoring Report issued for the reporting
period 12-18 January 2014 inclusive.
The second week of impact monitoring was reported in the 2014 Second Weekly Impact Water Quality
Monitoring Report issued for the reporting period 19-25 January 2014 inclusive. The third week of impact monitoring was
reported in the 2014 Third Weekly Impact
Water Quality Monitoring Report issued for the reporting period 26 January-1
February 2014 inclusive. This
Report presents the results and findings from the fourth week of impact monitoring,
conducted for the reporting period 2-8 February 2014 ,
at the monitoring stations in Zone A. No impact monitoring or cable
installation works were conducted on 2 February 2014 due to the Chinese New
Year Holiday; nor from 6 to 8 February 2014 due the completion of initial cable
installation works on 5 February 2014.
During the reporting period, submarine
cable installation works were conducted in Zone A (See Figure
2.2),
which included diver inspections, equipment stowage (neither of which involved
water jetting work); and cable burial works using water jetting.
Note
no works were carried out on 2 February 2014 due to the Chinese New Year
Holiday and initial cable installation works were completed on 5 February
2014.
A summary of the relevant permits, licences
and reports on marine water quality for this Project is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Summary
of Environmental Licensing, Notification, Permit and Reporting Status
|
Permit / Licence / Notification / Report
|
Reference
|
Validity Period
|
Remarks
|
|
Environmental Permit
|
EP 433/2011
|
Throughout the construction and
operation stages
|
Granted on 20 December 2011
|
|
EM&A Manual
|
-
|
Throughout the construction stage
|
Submitted on 18 September 2012
|
|
Updated
EM&A Manual
|
-
|
Throughout the construction stage
|
Submitted December 2013
|
|
Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Update
Report (Zone A)
|
-
|
Throughout the construction period
for Zone A
|
Submitted on 5 December 2013
|
3
Impact Water Quality Monitoring
Requirements
In accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual,
water quality monitoring samples were collected at the eleven (11) stations
situated around the cable installation works in
Zone A, as soon as the Project marine
installation works started. The
locations of the sampling stations within Zone A are shown in Figure 2.2.
· E7
is the Impact Station located at Fat Tong Chau to monitor the impacts of cable
installation works on the coral communities in the proximity;
· E8
is an Impact Station to monitor the impacts of cable installation works on the
coral communities along Junk Bay – South West;
· E9
is an Impact Station to monitor the impacts of cable installation works on the
coral communities at Cape Collison (the Gradient
Station is not set due to the short distance of this Impact Station to nearby
proposed cable works which may affect the Project marine
installation
works);
· F1
is an Impact Station to monitor the impacts of cable installation works on the
Tung Lung Chau Fish Culture Zone;
· S1
is an Impact Station situated at the WSD Seawater Intake Point in Junk
Bay. It is located within 500 m
north of the cable alignment at Junk Bay and set up to monitor the effect of Project
marine installation
works in the area;
· S2
is an Impact Station to monitor the impacts of cable installation works on the
WSD Seawater Intake at Siu Sai Wan;
· S3
is an Impact Station to monitor the impacts of cable installation works on the
Pamela Youde Nethersole
Eastern Hospital Cooling Water Intake at Heng Fa Chuen;
· G1
is a Gradient Station between S1 and the cable alignment;
· G2
is a Gradient Station between S2 and the cable alignment;
· G3
is a Gradient Station between F1 and the cable alignment; and
· C1
is a Control Station (approximately 3 km from the proposed cable alignment) for
Zone A. It is not supposed to be
influenced by the Project marine installation works due to its remoteness from the works.
The co-ordinates of the above
monitoring stations in Zone A are listed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Water
Quality Monitoring Stations
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Nature
|
Easting
|
Northing
|
|
E7
|
Impact
Station (Coral Community)
|
843779
|
814520
|
|
E8
|
Impact
Station (Coral Community)
|
843111
|
815126
|
|
E9
|
Impact
Station (Coral Community)
|
843557
|
811853
|
|
F1
|
Impact Station (Fish Culture Zone)
|
847196
|
811056
|
|
S1
|
Impact Station
(Seawater Intakes)
|
847639
|
805900
|
|
S2
|
Impact Station
(Seawater Intakes)
|
849587
|
805696
|
|
S3
|
Impact Station
(Seawater Intakes)
|
845474
|
810605
|
|
G1
|
Gradient
Station
|
845297
|
816282
|
|
G2
|
Gradient
Station
|
844071
|
814784
|
|
G3
|
Gradient
Station
|
846099
|
812826
|
|
C1
|
Control
Station
|
842022
|
816547
|
The impact water quality monitoring
was conducted in accordance with the requirements stated in the Updated EM&A Manual. Monitoring
parameters are presented below.
Parameters measured in situ were:
·
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (%
saturation and mg L-1);
·
Temperature (°C);
·
Turbidity (NTU); and
·
Salinity (‰).
The only parameter measured in the laboratory was:
·
Suspended Solids (SS) (mgL-1).
In addition to the water quality parameters, other
relevant data were measured and recorded in field logs, including the location
of the sampling stations, water depth, time, weather conditions, sea
conditions, special phenomena and work activities undertaken around the
monitoring and works area that may influence the monitoring results.
3.3.1
Monitoring
Equipment
Table
3.2 summaries the
equipment used for the impact water quality monitoring.
Table
3.2 Equipment
Used during Impact Water Quality Monitoring
|
Equipment
|
Model
|
|
Global Positioning Device
|
Garmin eTrex 10
|
|
Water Depth Gauge
|
Speedtech
Instrument SM-5
|
|
Water Sampling Equipment
|
1520 Kemmerer Water Sampler
|
|
Salinity, DO, Temperature Measuring Meter
|
YSI Pro 2030
|
|
Current Velocity and Direction
|
Flow Probe FP111
|
|
Turbidity Meter
|
HACH Model 2100Q Turbid Meter
|
3.3.2
Monitoring
Methodology
Timing & Frequency
In-situ data and
SS data were collected during Project marine installation works from 7:00 to 23:00 on a
daily basis. The impact monitoring
schedule for the reporting period is presented in Annex A.
Impact monitoring commenced when Project marine
installation works started in Zone A. (The daily sampling works will cease once
no Project marine installation works are being undertaken within Zone A)
Due
to the weather conditions and travelling time between stations, in-situ measurement and SS sampling were
taken at the impact monitoring stations with approximately four-hour intervals
in Zone A. The monitoring frequency
and parameters for impact monitoring are summarised in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Monitoring
Frequency and Parameters for Impact Monitoring in Zone A
|
Zone
|
Station
Type
|
Monitoring
Station
|
Monitoring
Frequency
|
Monitoring
Parameter
|
|
A
|
Control
|
C1
|
Daily
at a 4-hour interval while cable installation works are being undertaken in
Zone A
|
Temperature,
Turbidity, Salinity, DO and SS
|
|
Gradient
|
G1, G2, G3
|
|
Impact
|
E7, E8, E9, F1, S1, S2, S3,
|
For in-situ measurements, duplicate readings were made at each water
depth at each station. Duplicate
water samples were also collected at each water depth at each station for the laboratory analysis.
Depths
Measurements/ water samples
were taken at each sampling station, at three depths, namely, 1 m below water
surface, mid-depth and 1 m above sea bed, except where the water depth was less
than 6 m, when the mid-depth sample may have been omitted. For stations that are less than 3 m in
depth, only the mid-depth sample was taken.
Sampling/ Testing Protocols
All in-situ
monitoring instruments were checked, calibrated and certified by a laboratory
accredited under HOKLAS or any other international accreditation scheme before
use, and subsequently re-calibrated at monthly intervals throughout all stages
of the water quality monitoring (Annex
B). Responses of sensors and electrodes were
checked with certified standard solutions before each use.
For the on-site calibration of field equipment, the BS 1427: 1993, Guide to Field and On-Site
Test Methods for the Analysis of Waters was observed. Sufficient stocks of spare parts were
maintained for replacements when necessary. Backup monitoring equipment was made
available.
Water samples for SS measurements were collected in
high density polythene bottles, packed in ice (cooled to 4 °C without being
frozen), and delivered to a HOKLAS laboratory as soon as possible after
collection.
Two replicate samples were collected from each of the
monitoring events for in situ
measurement and lab analysis.
Laboratory Analysis
All laboratory work was carried out in
a HOKLAS accredited laboratory.
Water samples of about 1,000 mL were collected at the monitoring and
control stations for carrying out the laboratory determinations. The determination work started within
the next working day after collection of the water samples. The SS laboratory measurements were
provided within 2 days of the sampling event (48 hours). The analyses followed the standard
methods as described in APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, unless otherwise specified (APHA 2540D for SS).
The QA/QC details were in accordance
with requirements of HOKLAS or another internationally accredited scheme (Annex C)
3.3.3
Action
and Limit Levels
The
Action and Limit levels for Zones A, which were established based on the results
of Baseline Update Monitoring (Zone A),
are presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Action
and Limit Levels of Water Quality for Zone A
|
Parameter
|
Action
Level
|
Limit
Level
|
|
SS in mgL-1
(Depth-averaged) (a) (c)
|
95%-ile of baseline data
(7.01
mg L-1), or
|
99%-ile of baseline data
(7.15
mg L-1) , and
|
|
20%
exceedance of value at any impact station compared
with corresponding data from control station
|
30%
exceedance of value at any impact station compared
with corresponding data from
control station
|
|
DO in mgL-1 (b)
|
Surface and Middle(d)
5%-ile of baseline data for surface and middle layer
(5.91
mg L-1)
|
Surface and Middle(d)
5mg/L
or 1%-ile of baseline for surface and middle layer
(5.85
mg L-1)
|
|
Bottom
5%-ile
of baseline data for bottom layers
(5.72 mg L-1)
|
Bottom
2mg/L or 1%-ile of baseline data for bottom layer
(5.62 mg L-1)
|
|
Turbidity in NTU (Depth-averaged)
(a) (c)
|
95%-ile of baseline data
(5.09
NTU), or
|
99%-ile of baseline data
(5.25
NTU), and
|
|
20%
exceedance of value at any impact station compared
with corresponding data from control station
|
30%
exceedance of value at any impact station compared
with corresponding data from
control station
|
|
Notes:
a.
“Depth-averaged”
is calculated by taking the arithmetic means of reading of all sampled
depths.
b.
For
DO, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when the monitoring
result is lower than the limits.
c.
For
SS and turbidity, non-compliance of the water quality limits occurs when
monitoring result is higher than the limits.
d.
The
Action and Limit Level for DO for surface and middle layer were calculated
from the combined pool of baseline surface layer data and baseline middle
layer data.
|
3.3.4
Event
and Action Plan
The
Event and Action Plan for water quality monitoring which was stipulated in Updated EM&A Manual is presented in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Event
Action Plan for Water Quality
Event
|
Contractor
|
|
Action
Level Exceedance
|
Step 1
- repeat sampling event.
Step
2 – Inform EPD and AFCD and confirm
notification of the non-compliance in writing;
Step
3 - discuss with cable installation
contractor the most appropriate method of reducing suspended solids during
cable installation (e.g. reduce cable laying speed/volume of water used
during installation.
Step
4 - repeat measurements after
implementation of mitigation for confirmation of compliance.
Step
5 - if non-compliance continues,
increase measures in Step 3 and repeat measurements in Step 3. If non-compliance occurs a third time,
suspend cable laying operations.
|
|
Limit Level Exceedance
|
Undertake Steps 1-4 immediately, if further non-compliance continues at the
Limit Level, suspend cable laying operations until an effective solution is
identified.
|
4
Impact Monitoring Results
A total of three monitoring events were scheduled in the reporting period
from 2 to 8 February 2014 (Annex
A).
Impact monitoring works and cable installation works were not conducted
on 2 February 2014 due to the Chinese New Year Holiday; nor from 6 to 8
February 2014 due to the completion of initial cable installation works on 5
February 2014. Continuous water
sampling was taken at the impact monitoring stations in Zone A at approximately
4-hour intervals (subject to the weather conditions and travelling time between
stations) on a daily basis, so collections were made at least four (4) times
per day. Monitoring events at all
designated monitoring stations within Zone A were performed on schedule. No major activities influencing the
water quality were identified during the reporting period.
The
results of the impact monitoring and their graphical presentations are included
in Annex D.
The monitoring results of Turbidity, SS and DO are discussed together as
follows.
The
levels of depth-averaged Turbidity showed variation throughout the fourth week
impact monitoring (Figure D1 of Annex D). Observable
differences of Turbidity levels among the stations (within the same monitoring
round on the same monitoring day) were recorded on 5 February 2014.
Levels
of depth-averaged SS measured during the fourth week impact monitoring showed fluctuation
with time (Figure D1 of Annex D). SS levels
were recorded to be relative stable on 3 and 4 February 2014. Differences of SS levels among the
stations were detected on 5 February 2014.
The
overall levels of DO at all the water depths (surface, mid-depth and bottom)
during the fourth week impact monitoring were of similar magnitude at all the
stations (Figure D2-D3 of Annex D). Minor
fluctuations of DO levels at all water depths were detected during the
reporting period. Minor differences
of DO levels among the stations were also recorded at all water depths on 5
February 2014.
Despite relatively stable water quality, exceedances of the Action Levels in Turbidity and
SS were recorded on 5 February 2014.
A summary of stations where exceedances were
recorded is presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Summary
of Exceedances Occurring during the Reporting Week
|
|
|
Depth-averaged
Turbidity
|
Depth-averaged
SS
|
|
Date
|
Monitoring
Time
|
Exceedance
|
|
|
|
Action Level (1)
|
Action Level (2)
|
|
5 February
|
7:00- 11:00 (First Round)
|
S1, S3
|
S1
|
|
11:00-15:00 (Second Round)
|
E7, F1, S2
|
F1, S2
|
|
15:00 -19:00 (Third Round)
|
E7, F1, E9, S3
|
N.A.
|
Note:
1
Action
Level for Turbidity: 5.25
NTU, and 30% exceedance of value at any impact
station compared with corresponding data from control station; and
2 Action Level for Turbidity: 7.01 mg/L, or 20% exceedance
of value at any impact station compared with corresponding data from control
station
4.2
Exceedances During Reporting Period
Exceedances of the depth-averaged Turbidity Action
Levels were recorded at Impact Stations E7, E9, F1, S1, S2 and S3 in the 1st,
2nd, and 3rd sampling rounds on 5 February 2014 (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Exceedances of
depth-averaged SS Action Levels were also detected at Impact Stations F1, S1
and S2 in the 1st, and 2nd
sampling rounds on 5 February 2014 (Table
4.1 and 4.3). Looking at Figure 2.2 the monitoring stations where exceedances were recorded are widely spread out within Zone
A.
According to the daily site work
report, all water jetting works were completed on 3 February 2014. On 5 February 2014 only equipment
stowage works were conducted which would not disturb seabed sediments nor cause
any elevation of Turbidity and SS levels.
Detailed site works carried out on 5 February are reported in Table
4.4.
Table 4.2 Exceedances of Action Level in Turbidity on 5 February 2014
|
Date
|
5 February 2014
(Measured)
6 February 2014 (In situ results received by ERM)
7 February 2014 (Laboratory
results received by ERM)
|
|
Monitoring Stations
with Exceedance(s)
|
S1, S2, S3, E7, F1, and
E9
|
|
Parameter(s) with Exceedance(s)
|
Depth-averaged Turbidity
(NTU)
|
|
Action Level
|
5.09 NTU, or 20% exceedance of value at any impact station compared with
corresponding data from control station
|
|
Limit Level
|
5.25 NTU, and 30% exceedance of value at any impact station compared with
corresponding data from control station
|
|
Measured Levels at
Control Station and Impact Stations Where Exceedances
Were Recorded
|
1st
Round
|
C1=3.08 NTU (Control Station);
S1= 4.17 NTU (35.4% exceedance
of C1, but smaller than 5.25 NTU);
S3= 3.78 NTU (22.6% exceedance
of C1).
|
|
2nd
Round
|
C1=2.87 NTU (Control Station);
E7=3.45 NTU (20.3% exceedance
of C1);
F1=3.92 NTU (36.8% exceedance
of C1, but smaller than 5.25 NTU);
S2=3.85 NTU (34.2% exceedance
of C1, but smaller than 5.25 NTU).
|
|
3rd
Round
|
C1=2.92 NTU (Control Station);
E7=3.65 NTU (25.0% exceedance
of C1);
F1=3.61 NTU (23.4% exceedance
of C1);
E9=3.52 NTU (20.4% exceedance
of C1);
S3=3.51 NTU (20.0% exceedance
of C1).
|
|
Exceedances
|
1st
Round
|
Exceedance of Action Level: S1 and S3.
|
|
2nd
Round
|
Exceedance of Action Level: E7, F1, and S2.
|
|
3rd
Round
|
Exceedance of Action Level: E7, F1, E9 and S3.
|
Table 4.3 Exceedances of Action Level in SS on 5 February 2014
|
Date
|
5 February 2014
(Measured)
6 February 2014 (In situ results received by ERM)
7 February 2014 (Laboratory
results received by ERM)
|
|
Monitoring Stations
with Exceedance(s)
|
S1, S2, and F1
|
|
Parameter(s) with Exceedance(s)
|
Depth-averaged SS
(mg/L)
|
|
Action Level
|
7.01 mg/L, or 20% exceedance of value at any impact station compared with
corresponding data from control station
|
|
Limit Level
|
7.15 mg/L, and 30% exceedance of value at any impact station compared with
corresponding data from control station
|
|
Measured Levels at
Control Station and Impact Stations Where Exceedances
Were Recorded
|
1st
Round
|
C1=4.00 mg/L (Control Station);
S1= 5.02 mg/L (25.4% exceedance
of C1).
|
|
2nd
Round
|
C1=3.75 mg/L (Control Station);
F1=4.75 mg/L (26.7% exceedance
of C1);
S2=4.70 mg/L (25.3% exceedance
of C1).
|
|
Exceedances
|
1st
Round
|
Exceedance of Action Level: S1
|
|
2nd
Round
|
Exceedance of Action Level: F1, and S2.
|
Table
4.4 Site
Works Undertaken on 5 February 2014
|
Time
|
Site Works
|
|
00:01
|
Vessel
continues standby to resume operations at 07:00
|
|
07:00
|
Toolbox
talks completed
|
|
09:12
|
Commenced
recovery of anchor 2.
|
|
09:40
|
Anchor
2 secured.
|
|
10:00
|
Hong
Kong United 20 tug (HK20) connected tow. Barge on transit to China Merchant
Wharf.
|
|
12:10
|
Thrusters
online.
|
|
12:29
|
Tow
line released.
|
|
12:36
|
First
line ashore.
|
|
12:41
|
HK
Captain reported barge alongside to HK Marine Department.
|
|
12:50
|
HK20
alongside to return tow bridle. HK Captain departs barge on HK20.
|
|
12:55
|
HK20
away.
|
|
13:00
|
Barge
all fast alongside. Commenced in port de-mobilisation.
|
|
23:59
|
Vessel
continued in port de-mobilisation.
|
Recorded depth-averaged SS and Turbidity levels at
Gradient Stations G2 and G3 were lower than those at many of the Impact
Stations with exceedances of Action Levels (S1, S2,
S3 and F1) during the same monitoring round on the same day, despite being
located closer to the cable installation work site (Table
4.5
and Figure 2.2). Given this information, the exceedances
of the Action Levels at these Impact Stations (S1,
S2, S3 and F1) are
not considered to be caused by the Project.
Table 4.5
Comparison
of SS and Turbidity Levels at Gradient Stations and Impact Stations with Exceedances
|
Date
|
Monitoring Time
|
Depth-averaged Turbidity
(NTU)
|
Depth-averaged SS
(mg/L)
|
|
5 February
|
7:00- 11:00 (First Round)
|
S1 (4.17 NTU) vs G2 (3.63 NTU)
S3 (3.78 NTU) vs. G2 (3.63 NTU)
|
S1 (5.02 mg/L) vs. G2 (4.53 mg/L)
|
|
11:00-15:00
(Second Round)
|
F1 (3.92 NTU) vs. G3 (3.18 NTU)
S2 (3.85 NTU) vs. G2 (3.50 NTU)
|
F1 (4.75 mg/L) vs. G3 (4.07 mg/L)
S2 (4.70 mg/L) vs. G2 (4.28 mg/L)
|
|
15:00
-19:00 (Third Round)
|
S3 (3.51 NTU) vs. G2 (3.59 NTU)
|
N.A.
|
After
consideration of all the information above in Section 4.2, the exceedances of the
Action Levels at the Impact Stations are unlikely to be caused by the
Project. Rather the exceedances are considered to reflect natural background
conditions for the day.
5
Environmental Non-CONFORMANCES
Exceedances of depth-averaged Turbidity and SS Action
Levels were recorded on 5 February 2014.
After consideration of all the facts, the exceedances
were not considered to be caused by the cable installation works but rather reflect
the natural background condition for the day.
No
exceedances of the Limit Levels were recorded during
the reporting period.
5.2
Summary of
Environmental Non-compliance
No
non-compliance events were recorded during the reporting period.
No
complaints were received during the reporting period.
No
summons or prosecution on environmental matters were received during the
reporting period.
6
Future Key Issues
The
initial cable installation works were completed on 5 February 2014 and the
vessel is on standby in HK while testing and monitoring of the repaired cable is
conducted. Should there be a need
for further work, the vessel will be mobilised again, subject to MDN issuance, and
monitoring work will resume at that time.
No further impact
monitoring works will be conducted in accordance with current working plans
assuming the cable testing and monitoring indicate that no further repair works
(cable installation works) are required.
7
Conclusions
This
2014 Fourth Weekly Impact Monitoring
Report presents the results and findings of impact water quality monitoring
undertaken in Zone A during the reporting period from 2 to 8
February 2014 in
accordance with the Updated EM&A Manual and the requirements
under Environmental Permit (EP - 433/2011)
for the Project.
Water
quality in Zone A was generally stable throughout the reporting period. Levels of Turbidity, SS and DO levels
showed fluctuation over time during the reporting period.
Exceedances of the depth-averaged Turbidity and
SS Action Levels were recorded on 5 February 2014, however,
these exceedances were not considered to be caused by
the cable installation works but rather are a reflection of the natural
background condition for the day.
No
exceedances of Limit Levels were recorded during the monitoring
period. No complaints or
summons/prosecutions were received either during the reporting period.
It
is concluded the effect of the Project cable installation works on water quality around the Project site is negligible.